Is birth control a form of discrimination?

[Ave Maria]

No, birth control is not a form of discrimination.

 

[Joykins]

The reasons for discrimination may be noble but discrimination itself is ughly. Except it would seem in this case where it is accepted by the vast majority here.

Discrimination is ugly, yes, and the reasons for it are emphatically not noble.

Birth control is not discrimination. However, you're trying to use the disgust people properly have for discrimination to smear something you apparently want them to dislike just as much (birth control) which would be manipulative if it were successful or less obvious.

Birth control has been one of the greatest factors in the improvement of women's life in the past 100 years. I can see why some might dislike it.

 

[Shemjaza]

The reasons for discrimination may be noble but discrimination itself is ughly. Except it would seem in this case where it is accepted by the vast majority here.

You have yet to show how it's possible to discriminate against people who don't exist. You are worrying about discrimination against people who are not alive; who haven't been born; who in fact have not even been conceived... these are not people, they do not exist so they can not be victims of discrimination.

You haven't answered my question as to why you aren't impregnating different women every few hours... there are thousands of children you could be fathering never existing due to you being here on the internet.

 

[cantata]

How many do you really need?

One day I hope to be a father to one or maybe two children. I figure that way I can give them the time and reseouces they need to grow up into happy productive people. If I had 8 kids I'd worry that I couldn't always be there for them.

I meant more that it's likely to be less well-educated and well-off people who end up having more children, and unfortunately those children are the most likely to end up involved in crime.

 

[quatona]

Poor uneducated people don't use it as much and tend to have many children while more affluent people tend to use it and have less children. Isn't it prejudiced to discriminate based on economic status?

If I would see any institution that promotes this state of affairs as desirable, I might understand whom you have in mind as being discriminating.

 

[quatona]

Poor uneducated people don't use it as much and tend to have many children while more affluent people tend to use it and have less children. Isn't it prejudiced to discriminate based on economic status?

I am all for giving everybody an equal chance to get a decent education regardless of their economic situation.

 

[cantata]

I am all for giving everybody an equal chance to get a decent education regardless of their economic situation.

I was talking to one of my old teachers the other day; he expressed the view that to do this would mean compulsory boarding school for many children.

However wonderful the education system is, a lack of support at home can be deeply damaging.

 

[Mling]

You said they were discriminating against non-existing children by denying them birth. That has nothing to do with the birth rate among blacks and hispanics, or caucasians for that matter.

You're not talking about discrimination against racial groups, you're talking about discrimination against non-existent children. How can that be taken seriously?

I have to admit, I would never hire *that kind* of person for work, either. And if I found out that somebody I hired was secretly non-existent, I would fire them immediately. I just don't need that sort of thing around the workplace.

 

[quatona]

I was talking to one of my old teachers the other day; he expressed the view that to do this would mean compulsory boarding school for many children.

I didn´t mean to say that this was an easy task, cantata.
Besides, my main motive for my post was the fact that I didn´t understand the OP: Whom did the OP think of as discrimating against whom in this scenario? The rich against the poor? Those with many children against those with few or no children? The poorly educated against the decently educated? Everybody against Christian morality?

The only possible discrimination I could think of in the context of the question was: there are still people who don´t have a chance to get a decent education. I am not sure that there is an agenda of the well educated and wealthy behind it, but many are not overly concerned with this problem.

Discussing school and education is a very interesting topic, but probably for another thread. However, I personally don´t see a great problem with mandatory school (we have that anyways over here - don´t you?), but more important would be a change of paradigms in the school system. I have looked quite a bit into alternative school concepts and in the Scandinavian models. What we have here in Germany is a mess.

However wonderful the education system is, a lack of support at home can be deeply damaging.

Yes, it´s a long way. It will take generations, I am afraid.

 

[cantata]

I didn´t mean to say that this was an easy task, cantata.

I didn't think so.

Besides, my main motive for my post was the fact that I didn´t understand the OP: Whom did the OP think of as discrimating against whom in this scenario? The rich against the poor? Those with many children against those with few or no children? The poorly educated against the decently educated? Everybody against Christian morality?

The only possible discrimination I could think of in the context of the question was: there are still people who don´t have a chance to get a decent education. I am not sure that there is an agenda of the well educated and wealthy behind it, but many are not overly concerned with this problem.

It's a very odd OP.

Discussing school and education is a very interesting topic, but probably for another thread.

Yes, we should probably take this outside

However, I personally don´t see a great problem with mandatory school (we have that anyways over here - don´t you?), but more important would be a change of paradigms in the school system. I have looked quite a bit into alternative school concepts and in the Scandinavian models. What we have here in Germany is a mess.

Education is mandatory in this country. However, my emphasis was on compulsory boarding.

Yes, it´s a long way. It will take generations, I am afraid.

It's sad.

 

[selfinflikted]

In that case they are not so much being killed as being killed before they have the chance to be alive.

lol. Dumbest thing I've seen all day. Did this make it to FSTDT?

 

[quatona]

Education is mandatory in this country. However, my emphasis was on compulsory boarding.

Oh, sorry. I wasn´t even familiar with this term. To tell from what I have found in the dictionary it would mean that children have to take their meals in school, right?
I see no problem with that, if it´s part of a convincing model.

 

[CCGirl]

Oh, sorry. I wasn´t even familiar with this term. To tell from what I have found in the dictionary it would mean that children have to take their meals in school, right?
I see no problem with that, if it´s part of a convincing model.

Boarding schools board students.......as in the students live in dormatories away from home.

 

[Mling]

Oh, sorry. I wasn´t even familiar with this term. To tell from what I have found in the dictionary it would mean that children have to take their meals in school, right?
I see no problem with that, if it´s part of a convincing model.

A boarding school is a school that offers (I think requires but there may be some exceptions) the students to live on the school campus, in school issued housing. Expensive, usually fancy, or at least sort of fancy. It's the sort of school that America calls private and England calls public (don't know about the rest of Europe)--one that is not supported by the state and parents have to pay for their kids to go.

 

[quatona]

Thanks for the explanations! Much appreciated.
So, Mling, would it be a contradiction in terms to have "school boarding" that is not paid for by the parents?

 

[Mling]

Thanks for the explanations! Much appreciated.
So, Mling, would it be a contradiction in terms to have "school boarding" that is not paid for by the parents?

well...it would have to be paid for by somebody. The parents, a scholarship organization, the kid's church...the point is just that it isn't the standard state run school that most kids go to.

 

[quatona]

well...it would have to be paid for by somebody. The parents, a scholarship organization, the kid's church...the point is just that it isn't the standard state run school that most kids go to.

I am just trying to find the appropriate term. What would we call a school that provides food and home and is paid for by tax money?

 

[cantata]

It's not contradictory to have a state-run boarding school. There just aren't any in existence, at least not in the UK.

The point that my old teacher was making was that the home environment of a lot of children counteracts the positive effects of education. There is not enough support from parents, and their family situation may be stressful and unstable. As a result, children have difficulty with basic literacy and numeracy; they feel left behind and let down by the education system, and leave at 16 or earlier with no qualifications and no life skills.

Of course, nobody would ever seriously sanction state-run boarding schools for children. The Daily Mail readers would be up in arms about paying taxes to feed and lodge poor people's children, and the Guardian would sob its little heart out at the snobbery behind the assumption that poor people can't look after their children properly. However, the fact remains that children from poorer backgrounds - particularly from travelling families - are statistically the most likely to wind up involved with crime. Unfortunately, it would just be too politically incorrect - not to mention prohibitively expensive - to set up state-run boarding schools and send children from disadvantaged backgrounds to them for free.

 

[TheBear]

Am I the only one who has Monty Python going through his head from reading this thread?

You're not alone.

 

[Mling]

I am just trying to find the appropriate term. What would we call a school that provides food and home and is paid for by tax money?

I don't think there is a word that describes something like that exactly. The only thing that I've seen that's comparable are schools that are associated with children's hospitals and children's nursing homes.