The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
What do you think about schools helping young girls to have abortions?
Is this a good thing? A bad thing? Morally wrong?
What are the girls point of view on this and what are the boys? It would be interesting to see if there is much difference in opinions.
Also this week, the government are launching a new campaign to show girls that they have a right to confidentiality. Coincidence?
When giving your opinions, can you say your age, would be nice to see if that varies the opinions.
I'm new round here so what is the average age..16-22??
Is this a good thing? A bad thing? Morally wrong?
What are the girls point of view on this and what are the boys? It would be interesting to see if there is much difference in opinions.
Also this week, the government are launching a new campaign to show girls that they have a right to confidentiality. Coincidence?
When giving your opinions, can you say your age, would be nice to see if that varies the opinions.
I'm new round here so what is the average age..16-22??
Page:
Well, I have to say it's nice to have a decent intelligent conversation without it degenerating into screams about jesus/gays for once.
And even if this is a low-level straw poll of feelings of "the youth" for some report/publication/focus group - welcome to the forums Umpalumpa, nice to speak to somebody with opposable thumbs
And even if this is a low-level straw poll of feelings of "the youth" for some report/publication/focus group - welcome to the forums Umpalumpa, nice to speak to somebody with opposable thumbs
cookie monster wrote:
> I dont think its really about the child having a secret abortion and
> more about why the child fell pregnant in the first place.
-------
Yep.
The rest is just smokescreen to avoid having to deal with the uncomfortable truth that parents/the system is failing to impart any kind of real sense to kids.
Take a look around these forums (the general chat mainly) to see where the future is headed - a semi-illiterate nation that has the attention of a horny goldfish being bombarded with messages to "BUY!!!BUY!!!BUY!!!"
Of course this is just my opinion, I could be wrong
> I dont think its really about the child having a secret abortion and
> more about why the child fell pregnant in the first place.
-------
Yep.
The rest is just smokescreen to avoid having to deal with the uncomfortable truth that parents/the system is failing to impart any kind of real sense to kids.
Take a look around these forums (the general chat mainly) to see where the future is headed - a semi-illiterate nation that has the attention of a horny goldfish being bombarded with messages to "BUY!!!BUY!!!BUY!!!"
Of course this is just my opinion, I could be wrong
Umpalumpa wrote:
> Goatboy wrote:
> I think it's a case of school's taking the blame for lacksadasical
> parenting skills. It's a handy scapegoat to blame an institution
> that
> is, primarily, there to provide an education
>
> Ok if you think this, what if a family friend had helped a child to
> have an abortion behind their parents back-would you still blame the
> parents then?
I dont think its really about the child having a secret abortion and more about why the child fell pregnant in the first place.
> Goatboy wrote:
> I think it's a case of school's taking the blame for lacksadasical
> parenting skills. It's a handy scapegoat to blame an institution
> that
> is, primarily, there to provide an education
>
> Ok if you think this, what if a family friend had helped a child to
> have an abortion behind their parents back-would you still blame the
> parents then?
I dont think its really about the child having a secret abortion and more about why the child fell pregnant in the first place.
Umpalumpa wrote:
> Ok if you think this, what if a family friend had helped a child to
> have an abortion behind their parents back-would you still blame the
> parents then?
No, I'd place the blame solely on the child for getting pregant in the first place. Nobody forced her to do this, so the responsibility lays with her.
I tend to see things in black and white but I'm sure that'll change if and when I'm unfortunate to reproduce
Tell me, did your parents sit
> you down and discuss this with you?
Yep. They gave me a book when I was probably about 9 or 10 and asked if I had any questions. I remember getting a load of porno mags when I was about 13 and their attitude was "Knock yourself out", and it removed the illicit thrill from it - I soon lost interest and was bored when everybody else huddled around sticky pages from Hustler at lunchtime.
> Do you remember when you was 14? Did you think your old enough to
> have sex? There is so much sex in the media, and with 14 year olds
> wanting to be older than they actually are this is what pushes them
> into having sex. Do you feel that if a 14 year old and a 15 year old,
> with the maturity of someone much much older, should not be having
> sex?
I feel that a 14yr and 15yr old should be intelligent enough to wear a condom if they think they're mature enough. I was interested in sex when I was 14, but I would've run a bloody mile from a real live woman. That's why boys snigger and steal porno mags from dad's wardrobe, I personally don't think you should be having sex at that age. Neither does the law.
> Because it's where children grow up, they have their friends there.
> They also feel that they can talk to their teacher about things they
> cannot talk about with their parents. Thats why sex education is
> supposed to work better, since they can ask questions with out
> feeling embarassed though sometimes that isnt always the case!
On paper that works, but the reality is somewhat different. You would no more ask a teacher, in front of your mates, than you would your parents. That's why magazines do play a part, you can start to get info about sex and relationships from these mags - but all too often these publications veer into the sensationalist and "hur hur hur", they refuse to discuss sex in an adult fashion.
> Are you a teacher?
Nope. Just somebody that sees more and more parents refuse to accept responsiblity for their kids and leave them to a cathode-ray wetnurse and hope that teacher will instill in them some sort of moral sense.
When it's all they can do to get these feral youngsters to turn up and not stab each other.
> Ok if you think this, what if a family friend had helped a child to
> have an abortion behind their parents back-would you still blame the
> parents then?
No, I'd place the blame solely on the child for getting pregant in the first place. Nobody forced her to do this, so the responsibility lays with her.
I tend to see things in black and white but I'm sure that'll change if and when I'm unfortunate to reproduce
Tell me, did your parents sit
> you down and discuss this with you?
Yep. They gave me a book when I was probably about 9 or 10 and asked if I had any questions. I remember getting a load of porno mags when I was about 13 and their attitude was "Knock yourself out", and it removed the illicit thrill from it - I soon lost interest and was bored when everybody else huddled around sticky pages from Hustler at lunchtime.
> Do you remember when you was 14? Did you think your old enough to
> have sex? There is so much sex in the media, and with 14 year olds
> wanting to be older than they actually are this is what pushes them
> into having sex. Do you feel that if a 14 year old and a 15 year old,
> with the maturity of someone much much older, should not be having
> sex?
I feel that a 14yr and 15yr old should be intelligent enough to wear a condom if they think they're mature enough. I was interested in sex when I was 14, but I would've run a bloody mile from a real live woman. That's why boys snigger and steal porno mags from dad's wardrobe, I personally don't think you should be having sex at that age. Neither does the law.
> Because it's where children grow up, they have their friends there.
> They also feel that they can talk to their teacher about things they
> cannot talk about with their parents. Thats why sex education is
> supposed to work better, since they can ask questions with out
> feeling embarassed though sometimes that isnt always the case!
On paper that works, but the reality is somewhat different. You would no more ask a teacher, in front of your mates, than you would your parents. That's why magazines do play a part, you can start to get info about sex and relationships from these mags - but all too often these publications veer into the sensationalist and "hur hur hur", they refuse to discuss sex in an adult fashion.
> Are you a teacher?
Nope. Just somebody that sees more and more parents refuse to accept responsiblity for their kids and leave them to a cathode-ray wetnurse and hope that teacher will instill in them some sort of moral sense.
When it's all they can do to get these feral youngsters to turn up and not stab each other.
It depends on whether youve raised your kid to believe they can trust you, i dont like it, but should be down to the child to decide whether their parents know, and yes ofcourse i would want to know as a parent and i would hope they would trust me enought to come to me, but not everyone has such faith in their parents.
Goatboy wrote:
> I think it's a case of school's taking the blame for lacksadasical
> parenting skills. It's a handy scapegoat to blame an institution that
> is, primarily, there to provide an education
Ok if you think this, what if a family friend had helped a child to have an abortion behind their parents back-would you still blame the parents then?
> "Yeah but they should be having sex education lessons to prevent
> this" scream the tabloids. Really? Shouldn't it be the
> responsibility of parents?
I agree with you there. It should be up to parents as they know their child best, and they know when would be the best time in their childs life to educate them on such things. Tell me, did your parents sit you down and discuss this with you?
> What I feel is morally wrong is the fact that 14yr olds are having
> sex, regardless of pregnancy.
> It seems that children are being robbed of their innocence from a
> younger and younger age.
Do you remember when you was 14? Did you think your old enough to have sex? There is so much sex in the media, and with 14 year olds wanting to be older than they actually are this is what pushes them into having sex. Do you feel that if a 14 year old and a 15 year old, with the maturity of someone much much older, should not be having sex?
It's a sad fact today that some children are being forced to grow up when they don't want to or need to
> The obvious answer why is marketing and advertising. The latent
> explosion of the "tweens" market - aimed at 5-9yr olds.
> Excuse me? So you're targetting little kids now to sell your
> products?
It's wrong, but if it sells it sells that is tragic!
> I don't think schools should even be an issue with pregnacy/sex.
Because it's where children grow up, they have their friends there. They also feel that they can talk to their teacher about things they cannot talk about with their parents. Thats why sex education is supposed to work better, since they can ask questions with out feeling embarassed though sometimes that isnt always the case!
> That should be down to the parents, who should behave like grown ups and
> actually take an interest in their kids instead of fobbing them onto
> an overloaded, underpaid, undervalued teaching system.
Are you a teacher?
> I think it's a case of school's taking the blame for lacksadasical
> parenting skills. It's a handy scapegoat to blame an institution that
> is, primarily, there to provide an education
Ok if you think this, what if a family friend had helped a child to have an abortion behind their parents back-would you still blame the parents then?
> "Yeah but they should be having sex education lessons to prevent
> this" scream the tabloids. Really? Shouldn't it be the
> responsibility of parents?
I agree with you there. It should be up to parents as they know their child best, and they know when would be the best time in their childs life to educate them on such things. Tell me, did your parents sit you down and discuss this with you?
> What I feel is morally wrong is the fact that 14yr olds are having
> sex, regardless of pregnancy.
> It seems that children are being robbed of their innocence from a
> younger and younger age.
Do you remember when you was 14? Did you think your old enough to have sex? There is so much sex in the media, and with 14 year olds wanting to be older than they actually are this is what pushes them into having sex. Do you feel that if a 14 year old and a 15 year old, with the maturity of someone much much older, should not be having sex?
It's a sad fact today that some children are being forced to grow up when they don't want to or need to
> The obvious answer why is marketing and advertising. The latent
> explosion of the "tweens" market - aimed at 5-9yr olds.
> Excuse me? So you're targetting little kids now to sell your
> products?
It's wrong, but if it sells it sells that is tragic!
> I don't think schools should even be an issue with pregnacy/sex.
Because it's where children grow up, they have their friends there. They also feel that they can talk to their teacher about things they cannot talk about with their parents. Thats why sex education is supposed to work better, since they can ask questions with out feeling embarassed though sometimes that isnt always the case!
> That should be down to the parents, who should behave like grown ups and
> actually take an interest in their kids instead of fobbing them onto
> an overloaded, underpaid, undervalued teaching system.
Are you a teacher?
I think it's sympomatic of a culture that places more value on appearance and social standing than the worth of a person.
Which is why I agree with the idea of a school uniform - it levels the field and prevents somebody being mocked because their parent either can't afford to pay £90 for the latest sneakers (made by child-labour in the Far East usually), or refuse to give in to the insidious marketing ploys and have instilled their kids with the realisation that having an expensive pair of shoes won't help you run faster/win friends/be successful.
You see under 12's with mobile phones, make-up, designer gear and all sorts of crap they simply don't need.
And again, personally, I think it's because it's easier to buy your child's affection than it is to invest time and effort after you've had a hard day's work.
It's hardly surprising that teens are having sex like rabbits and tabloids are pointing the finger at the schools for stepping in.
Ask yourself this:
Did the school impregnate this kid? Did the school force this kid to go out and have unprotected sex?
If the answer is no, then you need to look closer to home for the reasons.
Blaming schools for anything is ducking the issue, but that's how the world works.
Which is why I agree with the idea of a school uniform - it levels the field and prevents somebody being mocked because their parent either can't afford to pay £90 for the latest sneakers (made by child-labour in the Far East usually), or refuse to give in to the insidious marketing ploys and have instilled their kids with the realisation that having an expensive pair of shoes won't help you run faster/win friends/be successful.
You see under 12's with mobile phones, make-up, designer gear and all sorts of crap they simply don't need.
And again, personally, I think it's because it's easier to buy your child's affection than it is to invest time and effort after you've had a hard day's work.
It's hardly surprising that teens are having sex like rabbits and tabloids are pointing the finger at the schools for stepping in.
Ask yourself this:
Did the school impregnate this kid? Did the school force this kid to go out and have unprotected sex?
If the answer is no, then you need to look closer to home for the reasons.
Blaming schools for anything is ducking the issue, but that's how the world works.
Goatboy wrote:
> It seems that children are being robbed of their innocence from a
> younger and younger age.
So true, i was at the shopping centre the other week when i saw a bunch of youngsters, i doubt they could be older than 12 in fred perry jumpers, jeans and rockport shoes. They were dressed "smarter" than i was for gods sake. Ive seen some of them wearing actual dress jackets too, im 19, i dont even have a dress jacket!
> It seems that children are being robbed of their innocence from a
> younger and younger age.
So true, i was at the shopping centre the other week when i saw a bunch of youngsters, i doubt they could be older than 12 in fred perry jumpers, jeans and rockport shoes. They were dressed "smarter" than i was for gods sake. Ive seen some of them wearing actual dress jackets too, im 19, i dont even have a dress jacket!
Umpalumpa wrote:
> Thank You Flock
>
> Now, if i may can i ask you something, if you had a child (or if you
> have one) and she was 14 and her school aranged for her to have a
> termination behind your back, would you still have the same
> opinion?
-------------
I'd more more angry with my kid for not telling me.
But that dovetails towards what I was saying about disinterested parents that have zero clue what their kids are doing. It should be possible for a kid to go to his/her parent(s) and have an open and honest discussion about sex.
You should be able to say "Look, unprotected sex is bloody dangerous. Regardless of having a kid, you could die. Now you may think that wont happen to you but you never ever know. So if you are going to, and I'd hope that you wouldn't be, then at least wear a condom because I don't want to watch my daugher die drowning in her own fluids because her lungs dont work anymore"
> Thank You Flock
>
> Now, if i may can i ask you something, if you had a child (or if you
> have one) and she was 14 and her school aranged for her to have a
> termination behind your back, would you still have the same
> opinion?
-------------
I'd more more angry with my kid for not telling me.
But that dovetails towards what I was saying about disinterested parents that have zero clue what their kids are doing. It should be possible for a kid to go to his/her parent(s) and have an open and honest discussion about sex.
You should be able to say "Look, unprotected sex is bloody dangerous. Regardless of having a kid, you could die. Now you may think that wont happen to you but you never ever know. So if you are going to, and I'd hope that you wouldn't be, then at least wear a condom because I don't want to watch my daugher die drowning in her own fluids because her lungs dont work anymore"
Umpalumpa wrote:
> What do you think about schools helping young girls to have
> abortions?
> Is this a good thing? A bad thing? Morally wrong?
I think it's a case of school's taking the blame for lacksadasical parenting skills. It's a handy scapegoat to blame an institution that is, primarily, there to provide an education and supposedly equip a child with the necessary skills to go out and become a productive, happy consumer.
"Yeah but they should be having sex education lessons to prevent this" scream the tabloids. Really? Shouldn't it be the responsibility of parents? I mean you think you're ready to bring a child into the world, then you accept responsibility for teaching it.
Schools are there for essentially academic and social learning principles, the major stuff should come from parents.
But it doesn't, because an awful lot of parents are content to drop their progeny at school, collect them at 3pm and then stuff them with junk food and let television raise them because they've had a hard day at work.
What I feel is morally wrong is the fact that 14yr olds are having sex, regardless of pregnancy.
It seems that children are being robbed of their innocence from a younger and younger age.
The obvious answer why is marketing and advertising. The latent explosion of the "tweens" market - aimed at 5-9yr olds.
Excuse me? So you're targetting little kids now to sell your products?
That's inexcusable, these are kids. Let them play and learn and be concerned with homework and catching cooties from kissing somebody and running away.
It feels more and more like a culture where we are not people, not individuals sent to forge a path, to explore and learn, experience and savour this world.
It would appear that we are little more than walking talking product consumers, exploiting kids. But especially exploiting teenagers.
Teenagers are a notoriously insecure group - the onset of puberty, peer-pressure, exams, learning to interract with the opposite sex. It's a prime age for exploitation and companies go full steam ahead for it.
Lynx - aimed at 14-19yr olds boys that are insecure and nervous about sex and the typical male fear of not being King Dong, so the commercials are cliched "Wear this and you'll pull!!!!" crap.
Magazines that are supposedly aimed at "young teens" (More, Sugar etc) are crammed with sex advice, position of the week, how to "pull your dream date" etc etc.
I don't think schools should even be an issue with pregnacy/sex. That should be down to the parents, who should behave like grown ups and actually take an interest in their kids instead of fobbing them onto an overloaded, underpaid, undervalued teaching system.
For what it's worth.
> What do you think about schools helping young girls to have
> abortions?
> Is this a good thing? A bad thing? Morally wrong?
I think it's a case of school's taking the blame for lacksadasical parenting skills. It's a handy scapegoat to blame an institution that is, primarily, there to provide an education and supposedly equip a child with the necessary skills to go out and become a productive, happy consumer.
"Yeah but they should be having sex education lessons to prevent this" scream the tabloids. Really? Shouldn't it be the responsibility of parents? I mean you think you're ready to bring a child into the world, then you accept responsibility for teaching it.
Schools are there for essentially academic and social learning principles, the major stuff should come from parents.
But it doesn't, because an awful lot of parents are content to drop their progeny at school, collect them at 3pm and then stuff them with junk food and let television raise them because they've had a hard day at work.
What I feel is morally wrong is the fact that 14yr olds are having sex, regardless of pregnancy.
It seems that children are being robbed of their innocence from a younger and younger age.
The obvious answer why is marketing and advertising. The latent explosion of the "tweens" market - aimed at 5-9yr olds.
Excuse me? So you're targetting little kids now to sell your products?
That's inexcusable, these are kids. Let them play and learn and be concerned with homework and catching cooties from kissing somebody and running away.
It feels more and more like a culture where we are not people, not individuals sent to forge a path, to explore and learn, experience and savour this world.
It would appear that we are little more than walking talking product consumers, exploiting kids. But especially exploiting teenagers.
Teenagers are a notoriously insecure group - the onset of puberty, peer-pressure, exams, learning to interract with the opposite sex. It's a prime age for exploitation and companies go full steam ahead for it.
Lynx - aimed at 14-19yr olds boys that are insecure and nervous about sex and the typical male fear of not being King Dong, so the commercials are cliched "Wear this and you'll pull!!!!" crap.
Magazines that are supposedly aimed at "young teens" (More, Sugar etc) are crammed with sex advice, position of the week, how to "pull your dream date" etc etc.
I don't think schools should even be an issue with pregnacy/sex. That should be down to the parents, who should behave like grown ups and actually take an interest in their kids instead of fobbing them onto an overloaded, underpaid, undervalued teaching system.
For what it's worth.
Page: