The Socialistic Shit-Case

[Muskan]

LONDON: In an effort to combat soaring teenage pregnancy in UK, government has ordered local authorities to press girls as young as 13 to have contraceptive jabs, which can make girls infertile for up to three months, a policy that has sparked an outcry in the country.
The Labour government has identified failures by teenage girls to take the daily pill correctly as one reason for soaring under-age pregnancy rates, which was the highest in Europe. Now British health and education ministers have ordered council and health chief executives to increase the uptake of “long-acting” contraception in teen pregnancy “hot spots”.
Times of India
Why is so that British girls are so keen to be pregnant?
Why is preteen sex so normal in Britain?
By providing such injections, UK government may get some success in controlling birth rate, but what about the rise in infections such cases will cause?
British kids are having sex at very young age, who is responsible for this? Who should address this?
Schools? Government?
There is a rise in teenage pregnancy and it is the government which suffers if a lot of teenage girls want to have a baby. Government suffers because it needs to pay for the girl.
Government pays the pregnant girls and families with single mothers.
It is a very socialistic Idea. It is just like the idea of Universal Health care.
The socialistic government want to help the single mothers. But now, every other teenage girl want to be mother because she gets incentives for being a mother and their families gets monetary profits.
So who dig the pit? Socialists did it.
It remained the idea of all socialist schools, be it religious or political.
The religious socialism exclaimed sacrifice of Good Man in favour of the guilty one; Jesus Christ is the epitome for that. Political socialism exclaimed sacrifice of the hard worker for the lazy one. Marx was epitome for that.
And UK government pays the teenage single mothers on behalf of the tax payers' money which is sacrifice a honest worker does.

Socialism never works and it always causes havoc and it is right what is happening in Britain. While trying to help the single mothers, they actually provided incentives for every teenage girl to be a single mother. And now the government is suspicious about the situation.
The government is obviously not worried about the girls anymore, it is more worried about the money it has to give for the single mothers.
The experts say that it will promote promiscuity and those injections and implants will not protect against the rampant spread of sexually transmitted disease. Some health experts also say that the drugs are unsuitable for girls who are still growing.
Also, after being injected, girls will think that ‘Nothing can happen to me because I can’t get pregnant" and that attitude will obviously be dangerous because those injections just cannot provide safety against the sexually transmitted diseases.
Can schools and government address the problem?
They are constantly failing in doing so.
And why should a school or government be responsible for a kid if he/she is promiscuous or irresponsible towards his/her sexual behaviour?
In the case of Britain, the government is responsible. It is a socialist government.
The parents hold minimal rights over their kids.
They even cannot smack them.
A father was arrested by police and locked in a cell overnight after smacking his son's bottom.
Mark Frearson's young son had wandered off alone after dark while they were at a Plymouth shopping centre together.
Mr Frearson, who is separated from the boy's mother, found his son in a park 10 minutes later and smacked him once.
But a passer-by reported it to Plymouth police and four officers arrived at his house, took him away and locked him in a cell awaiting questioning.
BBC News

[Muskan]

The government has tried everything to reject the freedom, parents feel difficult (almost impossible) to control and discipline their own kids and teach them some rational moralities and attitudes regarding life.
Government and schools find it difficult to teach students about the bad effects of teenage sexual escapades and pregnancies.
According to figures from five of England’s 152 primary care trusts, girls as young as 13 have been administered injections and implants.
What will be the definition of molestation when even the girls of age 13 are being given anti-pregnancy injections?
I reiterate, socialism is the cause for all this, and responsible is the government.

[lucy]

How on earth could i have failed to notice the red star and the hammer and sickle on the union jack...
Darn sneaky commies.

[Muskan]

How on earth could i have failed to notice the red star and the hammer and sickle on the union jack...
Darn sneaky commies.

A red star and a sickle doesnot represent a socialist government with mixed economy. It represents communism.

UK is mixed economy socialist government as most of the other governments of the world nations are. Even China is no more communist but a mixed economy communist government now.

And the idea of paying for the single mother on behalf of the tax payers, and hence providing an incentive for every girl to be the mother, is one of the major cause of the problem.
Government is not injecting those girls for the sake of their health, as it is quite clear that these injections are not feasible for pertaining good health.
Government is doing that to curb the burdens of paying the single mothers, as teen girls are commonly opting for that.
Parents are almost helpless to properly give a good assistance and upbringing for their kids and hence avoid the cases of preteen and teen sex in general because of the excessive rules and regulations parenting is suffering from.

No jokes can avoid the reality, and you know that.

yet again, there is no Capitalist country whole round the world, even not Hongkong or Singapore, even there, citizens are provided with free/subsidized water and home on behalf of the taxes.
And there is no country in the world which is not socialist to some extent or other.

[gagged_Louise]

China - the Beacon of Hope

1949: Communism is the last hope for China
1979: Capitalism is the last hope for China
1989: China is the last hope for command communism
2009: China is the last hope for jungle capitalism.

[lucy]

I agree that it isn't smart to give teenage girls incentives to get pregnant, was wondering about that too. I disagree when you say Britains government is socialist. It's not even social democrat, imho

But here you are completely utterly totally wrong. Like uber-wrong!

No jokes can avoid the reality, and you know that.

Jokes are in fact the only way to avoid reality. No, not true, going insane is another one.

I prefer joking.

[MMI]

I agree with you, lucy. New Labour owes more to Maggie Thatcher than to Ramsay MacDonald or Clement Atlee. It might not have forsaken young nymphomanics, but it has lost its socialist principles!

[Muskan]

But here you are completely utterly totally wrong.

That is your point of view.

For me, The statist government of UK is extremely socialist. it is far more socialist than Indian Government is.

There is nothing like perfect socialism anywhere.
But the principles on which the laws of helping and incentives for "single mothers" disallowing parents to have freedom to growup and discipline their own children is nothing but crap socialism.

Alduous Huxley or George Orwell may help you in understanding what is "socialism"!

Try to get a copy of "A Brave New World!" and then you may try for 1984 too.

[Muskan]

New Labour owes more to Maggie Thatcher than to Ramsay MacDonald or Clement Atlee.

Ohh wow!

And how much you know about Thacther or Thatcherism?
How much you know about Ronald Reagen or Reagnomics?

It wasn't thatcher who proposed the idea of helping middle class and single mothers and poor by looting the rich!


By the way, this idea comes from keynesian economics which is worst transformation of Socialism. Keynesians always suggests that to reduce the effect of recessions, one should opt for supply side economics.

It is the only keynesaisn who will say that the hardworking and saving ants, who saves food for the future during the good whether to firmly face the upcoming bad whether are wrong and the grasshopper doing nothing and wasting time and money caring nothing about the bad whether is good. ( i hope you do remember the story of Ants and grasshopper).

Just to provide consumer power for the lazies who even don't want to work, keynesians wants government to keep giving allowances and incentives and monetary help for such people on behalf of the tax the government loots from the hard workers.
Why? because if the consumer power of the lazies will increase, the production demand will increase, and that will provide more work for the hardworker who are (keynesians assumes) are genetically made to be looted sacrificed and exploited by the socialist government and altruism demanding lazies.

[Muskan]

1949: Communism is the last hope for China
1979: Capitalism is the last hope for China
1989: China is the last hope for command communism
2009: China is the last hope for jungle capitalism.

Jungle capitalism?

There is not a single place in whole world where Capitalism is being followed.

USA follows mixed economy guided by crooney capitalism loaded with shit of lobbyists, France, UK, Germany follows mixed economy tilted towards socialism guided by keynesianism, China follows mixed economy opening gates for capitalism yet driven by communism. India follows Mixed economy controlled by government trying to liberate certain parts of economy for capitalism.

The Only hope for the whole world including China is Capitalism.
(otherwise, china will also go down in same way as USA is going now). Why? because socialists, communists, croony capitalists and lobbyists cannot calculate the design of profits and loss.

[gagged_Louise]

1949: Communism is the last hope for China
1979: Capitalism is the last hope for China
1989: China is the last hope for command communism
2009: China is the last hope for jungle capitalism.

Jungle capitalism?

There is not a single place in whole world where Capitalism is being followed.

USA follows mixed economy guided by crooney capitalism loaded with shit of lobbyists, France, UK, Germany follows mixed economy tilted towards socialism guided by keynesianism, China follows mixed economy opening gates for capitalism yet driven by communism. India follows Mixed economy controlled by government trying to liberate certain parts of economy for capitalism.

The Only hope for the whole world including China is Capitalism.
(otherwise, china will also go down in same way as USA is going now). Why? because socialists, communists, croony capitalists and lobbyists cannot calculate the design of profits and loss.

It doesn't matter a lot to the corporations that are at work in Mainland China that the government keeps strict control of the media, that there is no freedom to start independent newspapers, tv channels or newsdesks, or that the state can decide where you should put up a factory. It counts a great deal more that the supply of assembly-line workers (already trained to read and understand instructions, and not to voice opposition) is pretty unlimited and that the state and the army more or less guarantee that there will be no unrest - no strikes, no independent unions, no unfavourable lawsuits, no workplace agitation - and that you can have wages and 14-hour shifts that we used to see as history books stuff in the developed world.

Total-free-market liberals often affirm their creed that a free, unhinged market will pull democracy in its wake. Wrong - there is no trouble for an unhinged capitalism to coexist with a very rough and repressive dictatorial state that keeps people on the mat (China executes far more people that any other country on the planet, even set against the size of its population, and rigidly controls the media). So this is what happens under the Red Sun, what happened in Chile in the 1980s. And what is largely happening in South Africa - the victory over apartheid was a glorious thing, but after that the country was soon forced to accept an extreme brand of flinging it open to corporate exploitation that could never have been pushed through in any highly developed country.

[lucy]

But here you are completely utterly totally wrong.

That is your point of view.

For me, The statist government of UK is extremely socialist. it is far more socialist than Indian Government is.

There is nothing like perfect socialism anywhere.
But the principles on which the laws of helping and incentives for "single mothers" disallowing parents to have freedom to growup and discipline their own children is nothing but crap socialism.

Alduous Huxley or George Orwell may help you in understanding what is "socialism"!

Try to get a copy of "A Brave New World!" and then you may try for 1984 too.

When i said you're completely utterly wrong i referred to you saying that joking doesn't help to avoid reality. Of course it does. Hahahaha. See? It worked. Again. Ha!

And yeah, i read Huxley and Orwell. For me both books where more like a description of fascism than socialism, although i admit that the two share some similarities.

[Ladymad]

Oh no, watch out! The reds are under the bed

[Logic1]

I read what you posted Muskan and I honestly cant see anything socialistic about your first post so enlighten me.

[gagged_Louise]

I thought socialism was supposed to be about freedom to jump in bed with whoever you wanted for the moment... *rolls eyes*

[MMI]

New Labour owes more to Maggie Thatcher than to Ramsay MacDonald or Clement Atlee.

Ohh wow!

And how much you know about Thacther or Thatcherism?

I'm a Brit who lived through the Thatcher era and watched her grind the working classes into the mud. She was the sordid inspiration of the subsequent culture of greed, material acquisition and ostentatious display of wealth. She called herself a monetarist, not a keynesian because she considered the Labour Party's attempts to regulate the economy using keynesian principles had failed. She focused on money supply, interest rates and inflation.

She also reduced public spending on education (she was once Education Secretary) and health, she destroyed or severely weakened the trade unions - the miners' union in particular - and she prolonged the Cold War through her hostility to the Soviet Union. She declared war over a few useless islands in the South Atlantic to boost her chances of re-election, and cost Argentina and UK many valuable lives, including the murder of the entire company on board the Belgrano. She was xenophobic and possibly racist. She allowed ten IRA prisoners to starve themselves to death before she agreed to award them the status of policitcal prisoners: our H blocks, your Guantanamo Bay.

She stole mutual companies (belonging to the customers) and sold them off to private purchasers, keeping the money for the Treasury. She sold off many state-owned corporations and assets at below value - such as British Rail, British Telecom and many others - so that private investors - many of them foreign - could get rich as they sold off their investments for their true value and cleared a huge profit at the country's expense. This was "people's capitalism". It was daylight robbery!

Tony Blair a superficial sociatlist - received her approval as he followed in her footsteps.

Is that enough to comment? I must say, reviewing the above, it's no wonder Republicans approve of her.

How much you know about Ronald Reagen or Reagnomics?

I'm a Brit who lived through the Reagan era ...

I do remember a satirical programme on ITV at the time: "Spitting Image" it was called. It had a running series called "The President's Brain is Missing". Hilarious!

It wasn't thatcher who proposed the idea of helping middle class and single mothers and poor by looting the rich!

It sure wasn't New Labour, either. After all, hasn't George Brown just eliminated the lowest tax band - (10%) to pay for tax reductions for the higher rate tax payers. And isn't he allowing the wealthiest of our taxpayers to get away with not declaring their overseas income and paying tax on that? Robbing the poor to give to the rich. Not the sort of thing Labour's founders would have ever dreamt of.

By the way, this idea comes from keynesian economics which is worst transformation of Socialism. Keynesians always suggests that to reduce the effect of recessions, one should opt for supply side economics.

It is the only keynesaisn who will say that the hardworking and saving ants, who saves food for the future during the good whether to firmly face the upcoming bad whether are wrong and the grasshopper doing nothing and wasting time and money caring nothing about the bad whether is good. ( i hope you do remember the story of Ants and grasshopper).

You can't mix Aesop's Fables and economics. Because it's just as easy to demonstrate that the grasshopper was right to live for now, to enjoy life's blessings and to die young, while the poor old ant colony slaved all summer so the queen and all her princesses could thrive. And when the princesses all grew up and left to look for their own husbands, they poor worker ants wandered about aimlessly until they died ... or had boiling water poured on them by a fascist or communist tyrant.

Just to provide consumer power for the lazies who even don't want to work, keynesians wants government to keep giving allowances and incentives and monetary help for such people on behalf of the tax the government loots from the hard workers.
Why? because if the consumer power of the lazies will increase, the production demand will increase, and that will provide more work for the hardworker who are (keynesians assumes) are genetically made to be looted sacrificed and exploited by the socialist government and altruism demanding lazies.

Sounds like prejudiced Republican rhetoric to me ... that is, if Republicans can debate. I think the workers are more likely to be exploited by the capitalist bosses (the real "lazies"), as history richly demonstrates.

[SauvagePouline]

I know this is *slightly* off topic (i'm not going to touch the political part.) But this whole shot to preteens, sounds awful regardless of motivation.

If the "shot" is the one they have over here (depo provera) and it sounds like it (?) It is a bad bad form of birth control. I was on it for a while and it screwed up my whole system, and the gyno i met in the hospital after lots of blood loss b/c of said shot, was blown away that my (now ex) gyno ever recommended it. He mentioned lots of studies I've forgotten now... but yea

Plus, doesn't long term hormonal birth control increase chances of infertility and lots of other stuff??

I hate these kinds of gov't fixes that jump without thought *grumble* of conscequences for the individuals they're talking about.


anyways... back to the politics, have fun.


SP

[MMI]

If the original post had simply questioned whether providing contraception for sexually active pre-teens was a good idea or not, instead of using it to demonstrate the failure of British society and the impotence of socialism, I'm sure the thread would have followed an entirely different (and possibly much more constuctive) path.

In my long life in Britain I've never met or even come close to a preteen mother and only too a very few mothers who became pregnant outside a long-term relationship. The majority of single parents in my experience are divorcees. Just like in USA, I bet.

But you can make the news say whatever you want it to say if you're sufficiently selective, can't you?

As for your remarks about the health implications, I cannot comment apart from saying I would prefer a very young girl didn't get pregnant to having a child she couldn't look after or brings up in wretched conditions.

[Tufty]

It wasn't Thatcher who proposed the idea of helping middle class and single mothers and poor by looting the rich!

Erm...maybe you're thinking of Robin Hood??

[Muskan]

Erm...maybe you're thinking of Robin Hood?

A government working on Compulsory Taxation and forced subsidies is nothing but Robin Hood.

[Muskan]

In my long life in Britain I've never met or even come close to a preteen mother

And how many Britons you know?

Some British teenagers disagrees with you like this one--

I am a teenager. I am 14 years old and although I think it shouldn't be that big of a deal if a 15 to 17 year old has a baby, it really is. I'm not saying I would want to have a baby right now, but it happens a lot now. I wouldn't be surprised if someone I know through High School got pregnant.

http://www.wineintro.com/forum/ubbth...&Number=324213


Anyways, you are free to have your own opinions and love for socialism, I have my freedom to despise socialism in any pattern.

[Muskan]

Plus, doesn't long term hormonal birth control increase chances of infertility and lots of other stuff??


And what a government has to do with that?

Government's incentive to reduce preteen cases is to reduce the amount to be paid for the single mothers.

[Muskan]

Sounds like prejudiced Republican rhetoric to me ... that is, if Republicans can debate. I think the workers are more likely to be exploited by the capitalist bosses (the real "lazies"), as history richly demonstrates.

Irrespective of all that, you can mention no time period where Capitalism was experienced anywhere in whole world

Now don't try to say that you consider there is no difference between Capitalism and Feudalism or Oligarchy, or whatever you were trying to criticize.

Infact your comment shows your ignorance about Capitalism.

[Muskan]

You can't mix Aesop's Fables and economics.

Yes i know I cannot mix them nor i tried to mix them. I just gave a hypothetical example which was not demanding the extension of the story.

Although I can surely give you realitic examples to prove the point, but the problem which you will face is that a socialist economist can even not calculate.

[Muskan]

Tony Blair a superficial sociatlist

And may be someone told you in your dreams that Tony Blair is nor socialist or Reagen was Capitalist? Who said that? Not me. Not even dreams.

Laissez-Faire system has never been applied anywhere by anybody. (you may try to give some example if it was during your long life)

I wonder why some people try to gain some points because they have lived a long life.

[Muskan]

I thought socialism was supposed to be about freedom to jump in bed with whoever you wanted for the moment...

if government is paying for the result of your irresponsible jumping in bed or stock market or whereever, (that is, it is bailing you out) then it is socialism irrespective of your thoughts.
And helping single mothers through taxed collection is just like that.

[Muskan]

I read what you posted Muskan and I honestly cant see anything socialistic about your first post so enlighten me.


You may try to seek out what is NOT SOCIALIST in Taxation, Subsidies, governmental help for poor, single mothers, farm owners, drowning bankers, failing businessmen etc.

And socialism always fails in fulfilling the ends which causes the government to take the nasty steps, and injecting contraceptives to teenagers is just such a nasty step.

[MMI]

Muskan, are you advocating voluntary taxation? Let me know how you get on with that idea!

I know lots of Britons, being resident in Great Britain. That's as daft as me asking you how many Americans you know.

I repeat, there are nowhere near as many preteen mothers in UK as you are trying to make out and blame on socialism. If you don't believe me, you could come over and check, rather than rely on publications that have their own agendas to pursue.

To my mind, the number of people young girls sleep with has nothing to do with socialism, communism or Thatcher's fascism. Kids have been sleeping around, to my certain knowledge, under all forms of government since the 60's, and, so I hear, for a long time before then too.

The number of teenage pregnancies tends to be greatest in the poorer sections of society. It is natural therefore for the socialist movement to be concerned to help these people out of poverty for their own good, the good of the babies, and for the good of the country. It would be futile, obviously, to look for help from the kind of capitalists you seem to revere.

[his_girl_l]

I agree with you, lucy. New Labour owes more to Maggie Thatcher than to Ramsay MacDonald or Clement Atlee. It might not have forsaken young nymphomanics, but it has lost its socialist principles!

There is a current trend among two party democracies for both parties to move towards the centre. Oppositions tend to co opt incumbents policies, eventually bringing both parties full circle with very similar positions on a lot of things.

It happened in Australia last year, with a labour government being elected on a platform almost identical to that that the liberals (who are the conservatives here, i know that is confusing, esp for Americans) had run on four years earlier, the major differences being symbolic gestures rather than hard policy.

From what i observe of British politics, the conservatives are co opting a lot of new labour's social and environmental policies.

And even in America Obama has made a point of matching the republicans on points such as national security. The republicans, on the other hand, are throwing state money at private enterprises.

I'm not saying this is bad - it seems to me to be a case of political parties trying to form the sort of government that people want, which is what democracy is all about. after all. Or maybe just society evolving and learning to work outside rigid political belief systems.

Parties of small government are becoming a thing of the past - because once a party becomes a government it becomes in its own interest to grow.

[MMI]

So ... maybe what you are saying, lgirl (and you might be right for all I know) is that the British Labour and Conservative parties will continue to adopt each other's policies until they become virtually indistinguishable. Maybe totally indistinguishable. I don't believe that would be a good development - a tyranny of centrists, in fact.

I regret that this shift towards the centre has happened: we have a perfectly good "middle of the road" party in the Liberals, but, strangely enough, they now appear to be the most left-wing of the three.

But that's not really the point of this thread. Muskan has suggested that because the British social services spend money in looking after pregnant preteen girls, every British girl is going to contrive to become pregnant in order to get government handouts, which is effectively robbing the honest worker of his hard-earned crust, and this will eventuallt drag Britain down into chaos. I believe I have paraphrased his initial post correctly - no doubt he will correct me if I haven't.

He blames this on socialism, not the centrism you have observed, and so I have tried to express the difficulty I am having in understand his equation, young pregnant girls + social help and assistance = economic breakdown. I find his later replies unhelpful.

When you consider the trillions handed over to bail out capitalist institutions that lost their financial gambles, and the billions being spent on the Afghan war, what difference will a few hundred thousand going to a handful of unfortunate girls make to the economy? Apart, perhaps, from making it easier for a young mother to bring up her child and become a useful member of society.