'Sorry for injecting pupils with birth control'

Because of proper birth control and family planning their chances are significantly higher than some kid having and unplanned pregnancy.

We are not all the same. People are not all equal. If we were then why do the heads of state have bodyguards and the rest of us have to make do with an overworked police force?

And you trust government officials to be able to inject substances in your kids without your knowledge?

I don't...
 
^^^ Good reference right there. ;)

So you see now, arguing race in a topic like this makes the point moot.

Unwanted teen pregnancies is a big problem and severely hampers the chances pupils have at a good education and obviously a good quality of life. Something needs to be done about this and in the past 100 replies in this thread no one has come up with a viable alternative.

If it must be done, and done without consent being required, then it it must apply equally to everybody, not just some and especially not only poor people. Either sterilize all teenagers or don't sterilize at all.
 
And you trust government officials to be able to inject substances in your kids without your knowledge?

I don't...
Actually I'm all for vaccinations, if that answers your question? Personally I would be upset if any kid of mine has a kid while at school so if they slip in something to help with that, good.
 
The difference is you give consent for the immunisation program - no consent was requested (let alone given) for this.

I don't think they even do this anymore. My son goes to a special needs state school which even has two nurses and a sister on staff and they DON'T issue vaccinations. We have to get it done ourselves and submit the updated vac card.
 
If it must be done, and done without consent being required, then it it must apply equally to everybody, not just some and especially not only poor people. Either sterilize all teenagers or don't sterilize at all.

What if I tell you that those not poor can afford birth control, while the poor can't and need it in this way?
 
Actually I'm all for vaccinations, if that answers your question? Personally I would be upset if any kid of mine has a kid while at school so if they slip in something to help with that, good.

And I'll vaccinate my kids at my GP who knows my kids medical history.

For example, one specific vaccine could have had catastrophic outcomes if I had it.

You just cannot do it without precautions as they did here.
 
While I love the idea of birth control in schools ( especially an injection vs tablet etc that can be forgotten ), it should be done with consent, end of story.
 
If it must be done, and done without consent being required, then it it must apply equally to everybody, not just some and especially not only poor people. Either sterilize all teenagers or don't sterilize at all.

Everything must start somewhere, and it makes sense to start with the demographic that have the most to gain from extra unwanted/needed mouths to feed.
 
What if I tell you that those not poor can afford birth control, while the poor can't and need it in this way?

So then the not-poor can save some money by not needing to buy birth control anymore as they'll be sterilized. Win-win.
Being able to choose birth control is quite different to forced sterilization. It's a human rights issue - all citizens must be given the same rights, you can't have different rights for different people.
 
While I love the idea of birth control in schools ( especially an injection vs tablet etc that can be forgotten ), it should be done with consent, end of story.

Agreed, and yes in this case it was done without consent - which is not right - but let's look at it from a different angle. If you are one of these students and you now know you can't get pregnant, would that not make you more inclined to be sexually active? In which case what about all the STDs doing the rounds?

Just putting that out there, it's something I only thought of now. Could well be why they did this whole thing in such a hush-hush manner.
 
Everything must start somewhere, and it makes sense to start with the demographic that have the most to gain from extra unwanted/needed mouths to feed.

What do they have to gain? It seems more like punishing people for being poor
 
Agreed, and yes in this case it was done without consent - which is not right - but let's look at it from a different angle. If you are one of these students and you now know you can't get pregnant, would that not make you more inclined to be sexually active? In which case what about all the STDs doing the rounds?

Just putting that out there, it's something I only thought of now. Could well be why they did this whole thing in such a hush-hush manner.

Doubt pregnancy is ever the deterrent of teenage sex, so kids are going to or not regardless of birth control. At least this would prevent them from not even being able to start life properly ( I mean with a kid in tow at a young age ). Best thing to stop teen sex, plaster pics of std effects and images, encourage condom use to prevent.
 
What do they have to gain? It seems more like punishing people for being poor
I get that you are all for everyone getting the same equal treatment, and I respect your views around it. However we will not see eye to eye on that matter, if you have seen Idiocracy it is those who can afford it least who populates the most. Mankind has evolved to such a level where natural selection no longer applies to us and for us survival of the fittest does not apply that much anymore.
 
So then the not-poor can save some money by not needing to buy birth control anymore as they'll be sterilized. Win-win.
Being able to choose birth control is quite different to forced sterilization. It's a human rights issue - all citizens must be given the same rights, you can't have different rights for different people.

Where did sterilization creep into this discussion?
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X