I have seen the video clip on Youtube. I thought it was a total waste of time and didn't achieve anything worthwhile that I could see. All little girls know that little boys have willies, all little boys know that little girls don't. When they get older they learn via playground "education" the reason for that. The only reason that video/program was made is because the vast majority of modern parents simply don't see it as their responsibility to teach their children sex education. Therefore the State feels that somehow they have to.

Don't shoot the messenger.

You'd be terrifying surprised by how little teenagers know and how much misinformation they have. There is nothing wrong with starting with simple ideas when they are younger before its too late.

playground "education" is not education.

Seeing as the state (and society at large) pays for insufficient sex education in the long term it simply makes economic sense for the state to take on sex education.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Great, we are on the same side for once :-))

You'd be terrifying surprised by how little teenagers know and how much misinformation they have. There is nothing wrong with starting with simple ideas when they are younger before its too late.

I agree with you and I wouldn't be a bit surprised. But this Swedish attempt is just pathetic ....

playground "education" is not education.

Of course it isn't, never has been, but that is all that most kids get. "If you jump up and down afterwards you won't get pregnant" etc etc. The other biggest problem is doctors. Every savvy 11/12 year old girl knows full well that when she starts menstruation all she has to do is go to the doctor, complain of dysmenorrhoea, whether she has it or not, and she'll get put on a mild birth control pill which is known to help. With of course the obvious side effect, and due to patient confidentiality her parents won't be told about it. STD i.e. Chlamydia is at epidemic proportions in the UK.

Seeing as the state (and society at large) pays for insufficient sex education in the long term it simply makes economic sense for the state to take on sex education.

Yes it does, but only because useless parents can't or won't do the proper job they are supposed to do in the first place. It is all treating the symptoms and not curing the root cause of the problem. But better that than nothing.

I agree. We do need to deal with the root cause, which is the Patriarchy which shames women for having sex.

11 and 12 year old girls going to the doctor for the pill is very rare. So I don't know why you'd even bring that up as an issue.

11 and 12 year olds getting pregnant through ignorance and/or abuse due is more of an issue. If its the father or other person the 11 or 12 year old knows doing it, then I somehow doubt the parents have her best interests at heart any way. Good that she can go to the Dr and maybe report what is happening.

Do we demand that pharmacists report when 11 or 12 year old boys go and obtain contraception? Maybe we should. Why is the focus always on girls and what they should or should not do? They aren't getting pregnant on their own.

---

Reality Internet Personality

I agree with you and I wouldn't be a bit surprised. But this Swedish attempt is just pathetic ....

Hardly more pathetic than having a banana and an orange teach children about stuff. Or cartoon ponies about the magic of friendship.

Furthermore, it normalizes private parts, rather than pushing them into a corner of shame and disgust. Its a body part, everyone has one, its nothing to be ashamed about. And as some Swedish critics point out, they could use it as a jump off point against gender norms and stereotypes, which would be nice.

I agree with you and I wouldn't be a bit surprised. But this Swedish attempt is just pathetic ....

Hardly more pathetic than having a banana and an orange teach children about stuff. Or cartoon ponies about the magic of friendship.

Furthermore, it normalizes private parts, rather than pushing them into a corner of shame and disgust. Its a body part, everyone has one, its nothing to be ashamed about. And as some Swedish critics point out, they could use it as a jump off point against gender norms and stereotypes, which would be nice.

+1

---

Reality Internet Personality

I agree with you and I wouldn't be a bit surprised. But this Swedish attempt is just pathetic ....

Hardly more pathetic than having a banana and an orange teach children about stuff. Or cartoon ponies about the magic of friendship.

Furthermore, it normalizes private parts, rather than pushing them into a corner of shame and disgust. Its a body part, everyone has one, its nothing to be ashamed about. And as some Swedish critics point out, they could use it as a jump off point against gender norms and stereotypes, which would be nice.

+1

+2, and it seems there are people terrified to have the next generation informed.

---

Richard Dawkins says it would be immoral not to abort, others disagree. Downs

Richard Dawkins is a blatant sexist but more importantly, he's not a parent of someone with Down. He is in no position to tell people what to do or judge them afterwards. Really, telling people its immoral not to abort their baby is just as horrible as someone who tells people it is immoral to abort.

Is he not allowed to have an opinion?

The media outlets with an agenda to push immediately went out and found parents (largely mothers it appeared) with Down's babies to say that they loved their child and how dare Dawkins say he should have been aborted. As though Dawkins were proposing euthanising everyone with Down's. (Spoiler: he wasn't.)
None of them were asked how much harder their lives had become having to care for their disabled child. Also whether given the choice beforehand, would they not rather have a healthy child than a disabled one. (Which is what Dawkins was implying when he suggested "abort it and try again" on Twitter.)

I'm not a woman (as you may have noticed) but i think that if i were in that situation, faced with the choice between a long period caring for a disabled child, or an abortion at a time before it becomes a risky proposition, i would go for the abortion. Yes, it might be a bit distressing at the time, but less so than two decades of palliative care. But that's my opinion, i don't have personal experience and never will.

---

Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge.

Richard Dawkins says it would be immoral not to abort, others disagree. Downs

Richard Dawkins is a blatant sexist but more importantly, he's not a parent of someone with Down. He is in no position to tell people what to do or judge them afterwards. Really, telling people its immoral not to abort their baby is just as horrible as someone who tells people it is immoral to abort.

Is he not allowed to have an opinion?

He is allowed to have an opinion, but he needs to realize that since he is not someone who has to face the decision to abort a fetus with Down syndrome, this discussion is not about him. He has no stakes in it, therefor what he thinks about it is purely academic. On top of that, his opinion is extremely judgmental and condescending. Its easy to say that the moral imperative is to abort fetuses with Down when you are a guy and not a parent who actually has to face that choice.

Oops, I hadn't noticed you edited your post. Here is my reply to the rest of it.

The media outlets with an agenda to push immediately went out and found parents (largely mothers it appeared) with Down's babies to say that they loved their child and how dare Dawkins say he should have been aborted. As though Dawkins were proposing euthanising everyone with Down's. (Spoiler: he wasn't.)
None of them were asked how much harder their lives had become having to care for their disabled child. Also whether given the choice beforehand, would they not rather have a healthy child than a disabled one. (Which is what Dawkins was implying when he suggested "abort it and try again" on Twitter.)

No, you are right, Dawkins didn't suggest we should euthanize people with Down and yes, a life with a child that has Down can certainly be harder. Although it should be noted that Down can vary in 'intensity'. Not all people with Down are riddled with secondary health issues, and some of them can even, with proper encouragement, achieve quite a bit of intellectual and personal success. There is the case of a Spanish man with Down who went on to become a movie star in Spain and graduated from University with a degree in Psychology. This particular example makes me wonder how many people with Down could achieve much much more in life but don't because society has zero expectations of them, and would never bother to push or encourage them to do more.

The problem with what Dawkins said is that it is an absolute value judgement. He calls not aborting 'immoral' meaning that parents who do not abort their baby with Down are 'immoral' and therefor wrong. He judges them, and at the same time, he judges every child born with Down as sort of a mistake. This attitude I find to be completely reprehensible. Its not his decision and I think he is a giant dirtbag (I actually want to use a much stronger curse word here, but that would be against the site rules ;) ) for so callously judging other people's decision, and devaluing the lives of those born with Down.

I'm not a woman (as you may have noticed) but i think that if i were in that situation, faced with the choice between a long period caring for a disabled child, or an abortion at a time before it becomes a risky proposition, i would go for the abortion. Yes, it might be a bit distressing at the time, but less so than two decades of palliative care. But that's my opinion, i don't have personal experience and never will.

I dont think anyone here is saying that you can't or shouldn't be allowed to choose to abort a child with Down. Again, the only problem I have here with Dawkins is the fact that he puts it in such an absolute way, basically telling people that according to him, people should always abort a child with down. Its not his decision to make, nor is it his place to judge people who decide to keep their child with Down. Yet he does so, and I think that makes him no better than the people that say that abortion is immoral.

Just a Family Experience.

One of my Wife's Niece's (they are close) had to make that decision, some years ago. The Family was informed of the 'situation'.

Some advised that the child must be aborted, and some advised in the opposite.

Most, including my Wife and I, just gave support to her and her husband, regarding any decision they make. They now have Loving, and Loved, Child.

This is an Intensely Personal decision, and support must be given to any decision made.

Once in a while you say something I can fully agree with. This is one of those times. +1

Just a Family Experience.

One of my Wife's Niece's (they are close) had to make that decision, some years ago. The Family was informed of the 'situation'.

Some advised that the child must be aborted, and some advised in the opposite.

Most, including my Wife and I, just gave support to her and her husband, regarding any decision they make. They now have Loving, and Loved, Child.

This is an Intensely Personal decision, and support must be given to any decision made.

Agreed totally. Only the parents of the child can know the true impact of their decision and they are the ones that have to mange the consequences.

---

Reality Internet Personality

...

Es99 is muddying the waters playing the feminist card

There's a feminist card?

where she suggests that boys are expected to be a bit of a lad, but nice girls are expected not to. That is a separate issue to this one. Yes it takes two to become pregnant, and rightfully both should take equal responsibility for it. But in the real world if an unwanted pregnancy occurs, jack the lad can do a runner, it is the female that is left with the baby and possible birth. Mother nature decided that the woman would be the baby carrier not the man, woman = womb-man i.e. a man with a womb. So don't blame men for natures decision. In a parallel universe it could be the men having the babies.

I'm really not sure what point you are trying to make here.

Cue 99% of women wanting to go and live there !!!

Plenty of women are happy having babies. So 99% seems a little high. Feminism is about women having choices. Not becoming men.

Because of all that there seems this view in the world at large, that the onus on preventing unwanted pregnancies is left more to the woman than the man. I think that is wrong, but it is the way it is. How we change that is for another thread.

Oh and finally, I have replied to Es99 via PM regarding 11/12 year olds on the pill. The information that I have is strictly private and I am not willing to make it public.

No one will hear it from me.

However, your point does not change what I said. I've taught many many teenage girls and often know more about their personal lives than their parents do. I know that the average age that someone loses their virginity is still about 16 or 17 and anyone that tells you otherwise is probably lying...and I can tell you that teenagers lie a lot for various reasons.

I can also tell you that if a 11/12 year old is having sex she is probably being pressured into it by someone. How do we prevent that? By talking openly with our children. By teaching boys to be respectful. By teaching girls to respect themselves and not worry about being disliked because they say no.

I am afraid I've heard too many stories about girls being emotionally blackmailed by their boyfriends into having sex when they weren't ready and didn't really want to. Or being lied to about the risks.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Oh... My... God...

.
.
.

Health and social services officials want the judge to declare: the woman lacks capacity to make decisions under the terms of mental capacity legislation; a "therapeutic" sterilisation is in her best interests – and authorise medics to sterilise her; to authorise her removal from her home to a hospital; to authorise deprivation of her liberty; and to authorise the use of forced entry and "necessary restraint".

.
.
.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/motherofsix-with-learning-disabilities-could-be-sterilised-after-authorities-ask-court-for-permission-to-force-entry-into-her-home-10018414.html

Whiskey... Tango... Foxtrot...

So, in the UK, it has come to THIS??? I am outraged.

No wonder Es99 left the UK for Canada if the UK is doing sh** like this!

This is something, quite frankly, you might have expected to see in NAZI Germany.

To play devil's advocate for a moment.

The story says there are 'grave risks' to the woman's health and life if she become pregnant again.
Would you rather she was left alone, got pregnant again, and died, probably taking the unborn child with her?

People of sound mind should be allowed to make their make decisions, but what of those who are not of sound mind?

---

Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge.

She has had 6 children without issues it seems.
What suddenly changed that another pregnancy will put her in danger? No facts in the story.
Some doctor playing God and deciding he doesn't like her morals?

---

This sounds terrible and I wouldn't want to be the judge presiding on this one.
There is a history of all societies trying to control and enforce women's control over their own fertility. From withholding contraception and access to abortion to forced sterilisation for 'depression' (in many cases the women so sterilised had good reason to be depressed). I am not altogether sure that this belongs in that category as the woman is clearly diagnosed with metal health issues and has shown that she will keep having children regardless of her ability to safely bear them and to care for them afterwards.

Gary asks why she would have health problems after having six children successfully already. Gary needs to learn a bit more about gynaecological issues and the toll of pregnancy on the body. It isn't pretty so it doesn't generally come up in casual conversation, but in this day and age there is no excuse to remain ignorant.

Those outraged Americans might want to wonder why they aren't just, if not more, outraged at the current US government's attempts to take control over women's bodies. Where were your cries of "Nazis" when all over the US there are efforts to restrict women's access to birth control and safe abortion?

---

Reality Internet Personality

Gary asks why she would have health problems after having six children successfully already. Gary needs to learn a bit more about gynaecological issues and the toll of pregnancy on the body. It isn't pretty so it doesn't generally come up in casual conversation, but in this day and age there is no excuse to remain ignorant.

Not all women have the same issues, there is that mother of 69 children, all natural births ....

I am aware that complications (or doctor's butchery) can forever preclude another, but there is no mention of such. If you refer to age, weight, inactivity, those would be factors on the first as well as the seventh. If the women isn't taking care of herself so her general health is bad, that is likely more related to her mental health than the number of pregnancies, although it could be related to attempting to care for so many children.




Oh, that mother of 69, if I read the source correctly it was 27 pregnancies.

Of course we don't know squat about the facts, so it could well be old white male doctor's misogyny as anything.

---

Oh, that mother of 69, if I read the source correctly it was 27 pregnancies.
..

You probably won't want to be sitting next to her when she sneezes, just sayin'.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Those outraged Americans might want to wonder why they aren't just, if not more, outraged at the current US government's attempts to take control over women's bodies. Where were your cries of "Nazis" when all over the US there are efforts to restrict women's access to birth control and safe abortion?

Es99...

Yeeeeesssss?

What American's are you speaking of?

Oh, I don't know Clyde, any who cry Nazi at the drop of the hat...except when they are talking about stuff American's do.

I, as an American, am equally outraged by the attempts to limit Women Rights!

Good for you.

Why, according your 'Thinking', would I, or any other Individual American, be included in the present Anti-Abortion - Anti-Women's Rights Agenda?

Why did you think I was?

Some are for, some are not. Anything different in your country?

...and your point?

This type of 'Thinking' shows a complete misunderstanding of Human Society's and Culture's.

Nope. You lost me here. What type of thinking? Are you saying that you have called American's Nazi's who are against abortion or have you not. I haven't kept track, although I was thinking of starting a game of "Nazi Bingo" and see who calls someone a Nazi first.

Note: I believe you, and other Left Wing Type's, believe I am a Right Winger. Sorry to burst the Silly, Shallow, Unthinking Left's Bubble: But I am also FOR LGBT Marriage's, and Legalization of Marijuana, among many other issue's.

Yeah, I'm really not understanding what you think is going on here. You are going to have be more specific.

---

Reality Internet Personality

What business is it by The Government?

Its their business when there are good reasons to believe she is a danger to herself or to others around her.

Look, its either act now and perhaps save everyone a lot of pain in the long run, or don't act and stand by watching while the pregnancy either kills or injures her, endangers the baby or at some point later in time results in some horrible tragedy (in which case I can assure you there will be people asking questions about why the government, who clearly knew that women was not fit to have children was still allowed to have them and why did noone stop her).

Put it this way, if you watch someone who is about to jump off a building, because he thinks his life sucks, do you not try to talk that person out of it? Or do you let him jump, potentially injuring people below, because its not your place to judge whether that persons life has any worth left?

You really believe The Government should Certify any women who wish's to become pregnant?

No, and that isn't the case here either. The government has established certain guidelines, an absolute minimal requirement for people to safely have children, and its up to the judiciary to test this guideline whenever someone brings a case arguing for sterilization. Simply put, 99.999% of everyone can just have a baby with no questions asked.

The question is how much should personal liberties and freedoms hold sway in a free society. If someone jumps off a building and commits suicide, is that fair to the emergency services that have to retrieve and scrape up what is left of their body. Is it fair to the coroners court for extra work etc. How much moral responsibility does society have to its members, and how much moral responsibility do members have to their society.

Exactly! +1