Originally Posted By jonvn "Do we tell them they may not have access to treatment?" Some doctors have started refusing treatment to lung cancer patients who smoke. I read that someplace, and i need to find the article on it....
Originally Posted By Lisann22 <<<Imagine if these teenagers finally realized that having a baby this early is really a horror for them, and they stopped. And maybe what if while those babies were away, these idiot girls learned a skill, got a job, and was able to finally support their children properly? And after that, maybe they could get their kids back. Maybe that would be better for everyone.>>> Are you serious? Kids also are taught through DARE and other programs that drugs and alcohol are bad for them and dangerous but kids are still driving drunk and OD'ing. They are TEENAGERS and immature. They are not thinking rationally. Lots of kids out there never think it will happen to them and before they know it they are in situations they can't handle. All your rules, regulations and programs aren't going to do squat.
Originally Posted By jonvn DARE is worthless. Teemagers may be immature, but they need to face the consequences of their actions. Right now, there are none. This is not a good message to be sending to them. "All your rules, regulations and programs aren't going to do squat." No, but perhaps taking the baby and the money away, will.
Originally Posted By Lisann22 So much for taking babies away... Foster Care Youth By age 19, nearly half of young women in foster care have been pregnant compared to about one fifth of their peers not in foster care, according to research developed by Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago and released by the National Campaign. Additionally, nearly half of teens girls in foster care who have been pregnant have had a subsequent pregnancy, compared to 29% of their peers outside the system. Teen Birth Rates Continue to Decline The National Center for Health Statistics today released preliminary birth rates for 2005. Overall, For 2005, the preliminary birth rate for girls aged 15-19 is 40.4 per 1,000. This is down from 41.1 in 2004 and 61.8 in 1991. The teen birth rate declined two percent between 2004 and 2005. Overall, the teen birth rate decreased 35% between 1991 and 2005. What Works: Curriculum-Based Programs that Prevent Teen Pregnancy Over the years, the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy has produced a number of detailed reports designed to answer the following question: What curriculum-based programs work to prevent teen pregnancy? What Works, a new pamphlet available from the National Campaign, examines what is known about carefully evaluated interventions that help prevent teen pregnancy. Read What Works: Curriculum-Based Programs that Prevent Teen Pregnancy Order copies of What Works ($1.00 each, $.70 each for orders of 100 or more) <a href="http://www.teenpregnancy.org/" target="_blank">http://www.teenpregnancy.org/</a>
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>DARE is worthless.<< DARE on its own isn't going to do the job. But it can reinforce what kids are told by parents, teachers and others. It's not the end-all, be-all, but it isn't 'worthless'.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<I wonder statistically how often that scenario plays out? I'm really asking not being antagonistic with RT.>> I have no idea how often that particular scenario plays out (getting married after she discovers she is pregnant). But leave that aside... how about young couples who get married before having children but could use some assistance so that the mother could stay home for even the first year after the child is born? I know my wife would have LOVED to have that time off with our kids, but 4-6 months was all we could afford to have my wife out of work, and even that was a stretch. Why should some 17 year old unwed mom get assistance when my wife couldn't? If you want to do something to help children that does not encourage unwed pregnancy, why not make assistance available to ALL new mothers like they do in most European countries? The way we do it in this country, the women who are frequently the lousiest mothers are the ones we pay to stay home and take care of their kids; while more responsible mothers are forced to drop their kids off at daycare while they work. What sense does that make?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Someone has a bad tooth and needs a filling...they might need 5 more more fillings and a root canal. Do we check to see if they are still eating candy before we tell them they may have the treatment?>> No we don't. But the government doesn't pay for it either.
Originally Posted By avromark <<why not make assistance available to ALL new mothers like they do in most European countries?>> Our new minority government is trying to do just that with equal aid for "daycare" regardless of income, here people are opposing this preferring the old system which basically means it only helps those who don't work.
Originally Posted By DlandJB No we don't. But the government doesn't pay for it either.>>> Well, the government doesn't pay for anyone's dental, so that was a bit of a stretch. But medicare and medicade do pay for lung cancer treatment regardless of how it was aquired.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Well, the government doesn't pay for anyone's dental, so that was a bit of a stretch. But medicare and medicade do pay for lung cancer treatment regardless of how it was aquired.>> Provided you can find a Doctor that accepts assignment of benefits for Medicare patients. In Minnesota the great majority of Doctors accept assignment. My mother says that where she lives (Plano, TX) it is very difficult to find Doctors that do. So even with Medicare and Medicaid, the level of benefit provided is less than what is provided to a person who can pay themselves or is covered by insurance.
Originally Posted By jonvn "By age 19, nearly half of young women in foster care have been pregnant compared to about one fifth of their peers not in foster care" So what? This has nothing to do with what I have been talking about. "[DARE]'s not the end-all, be-all, but it isn't 'worthless'." I think stats have shown that it does basically nothing.
Originally Posted By Lisann22 It has everything to do with what you are talking about. These would be the next generation of teenagers you pulled and placed in an orphanage from those idiot girls who had kids and couldn't take care of them.
Originally Posted By jonvn "These would be the next generation of teenagers you pulled and placed in an orphanage from those idiot girls who had kids and couldn't take care of them." Then they'd be taken away from them, too. And perhaps they'd stop at one.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 "These would be the next generation of teenagers you pulled and placed in an orphanage from those idiot girls who had kids and couldn't take care of them." <Then they'd be taken away from them, too. And perhaps they'd stop at one.> Perhaps. But that's not a logical inference to be drawn from the current situation, which is that girls who grow up in foster care are more likely to become teen mothers themselves. Perhaps an ultra-tough approach would break that cycle, but it's something of a leap of faith rather than a logical progression to think so. I understand the frustration we all feel seeing people be irresponsible when they ought to know better; I also get frustrated seeing people smoke crack or do meth or ride in the backs of pickup trucks when they ought to know better or do any number of things when they ought to know better. The fact is, we will always have some degree of irresponsible behavior, especially with teenagers, and we can't legislate it away, as much as we'd like to. And while we shouldn't reward bad behavior, in this case there is another person involved who did not indulge in the bad behavior and whose interests may not be best served by being put into foster care. So far, DlandJB's comments make the most sense to me. There's no magic bullet here; we can only attempt to allieviate the problem somewhat and keep the interest of the children themselves in mind also.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<So far, DlandJB's comments make the most sense to me. There's no magic bullet here; we can only attempt to allieviate the problem somewhat and keep the interest of the children themselves in mind also.>> DlandJB stressed education. I'm all for education, but I'm not at all sure that it would work without other dis-incentives. Smoking has been greatly reduced in this country, and in part that is due to education. But a much greater factor (according to what I've read) are things that could be considered punitive; greatly increasing cigarette taxes to make them less affordable and restricting smoking to outdoors. If we are going to change the behavior something besides education will need to be involved.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Sometimes education backfires. In Britain, they've been teaching girls that smoking can retard the growth of a baby in the womb. So girls started smoking when they were pregnant so they wouldn't have to give birth to too big of a baby.
Originally Posted By DlandJB ^^ Sounds like the curriculum might have been written a little clearer. It isn't just about birth weight, but also about development of the babies organs, extremities, etc...
Originally Posted By jonvn "But that's not a logical inference to be drawn from the current situation" Why I said "perhaps." The thing is we need to take away all vestige of reward for doing something that is damaging to society. "girls who grow up in foster care are more likely to become teen mothers themselves" Strong education has to go along with this, too. You don't just take away kids. I mentioned that the mothers needed to be educated to the point they were able to work and take care of their children, but the kids need to learn to not have them as well. When they see other girls having their babies taken away, maybe that will be a strong dose of medicine. Right now, they have zero reason for not having a kid. In fact, they see it gets them rewards. So of course they have a lot of impetus to have a baby. Take that away, and I think change would occur to the mindset. "in this case there is another person involved who did not indulge in the bad behavior and whose interests may not be best served by being put into foster care." But, I think keeping the child with an irresponsible parent does NOT serve the best interest of that child. It seems to me that putting that child in another home or in an institution for a while will teach it a bit more responsibility. It won't do it for everyone. But maybe more than not, and it would hopefully slowly start turning the tide.
