HUZZAH! Banned from Rentech.com!
laeshanin:
It's true, but someone needs to get back on the bandwagon again!
How about the censorship of sex in the Sims as being corny, and that young people are less likely to engage in sexual activity if they are well informed? C'mon, surely someone'll bite...?
Inge:
I think there is too much focus on how to stop young people having babies and not enough on how to enable them to have babies while they are young and healthy and their DNA telomeres have not started breaking down, and how to actually enable them to continue to enjoy their youth after having given birth. Ie too much nuclear family going on nowadays. A baby should be a child of society, not just the responsibility of the mum (and/or dad if he's around).
Next time you see a baby whose mother is dependant on state benefit think:
1) where is the rest of that baby's family?
2) this is a small price to pay for the kid who might become the doctor who saves my life.
ZephyrZodiac:
There are more problems with teenage pregnancies than you might think. Late teens, early twenties, are probably the best time, and more should be done, I think, to enable young mothers to cope with babies and college, i.e. creches and pre-school should be available on campus and free. Student accommodation should include mother and baby flatlets where the young mums would have the support of each other instead of being stuck somewhere in a lonely bedsit.
However, in my opinion, the best support most young mums could have would be from the child's own father, and not enough is done to educate young males in their responsibilities. Children are generally happiest when raised by two loving parents (I mean that both parents love the child, even if they no longer love each other) who put the child's needs very high on their list of priorities - and I mean the child's needs, not their own! All too often children become the parents' battleground, which is a sign of immature parents who should have grown up before having kids!
And, at the end of the day, it's really down to that - the maturity of the parents! Some youngsters are mature and sensible at 15, others reach 45 and still haven't grown up!
Inge:
Well it shouldn't depend on the maturity of the biological parents. That only becomes an issue in an isolated nuclear family (mother, father, baby for those who aren't familiar with the term "nuclear family") With a decent extended family, the tiny children can inherit the vigorous genes of their young parents, the energy of the young parents to play with them, yet benefit from the maturity of the elders for discipline and financial stability.
Let's face it, our society has become so complex and demanding that people are often well into their late 30s before they have got themselves sorted out well enough to feel they can be good parents. That's sadly often too late for a healthy and successful procreation. Instead we could have 30-something *grandparents* doing the child-rearing of their grandchildren. The same workload would befall the same people at the same age, but the gene pool would be healthier.
Renatus:
30-something grandparents? That's a little insane! I'm kind of confused as to how this would make the gene pool healthier. I know that a woman's ability to conceive a healthy fetus goes down after she reaches a certain point in her 30s, but I don't see how this would make the healthy fetuses better. I certainly can't see recommending teenagers having children, regardless of who raises them, as they aren't even physically fully grown and a pregnancy can have a negative impact on a teenaged girl's health.
And the mental issues... oi.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page