It's Too late isn't it.

So the idea behind this post comes from a story on local news tonight.
I'm probably going to ramble like I normally do because I'm not sure what I want to say :-D
So bare with me...

Local news reported a story on several Schools in the area including (and main target of the story) a Catholic School.
What was reported kind of confused me, it's about teenage girls taking explicit photo's of themselves and sending them to male students.
The male students are apparently passing them around to other males in the form of a collectors cards.

Now, while this is "Shocking" news, there's several things I'm not clear on.

1: A mother of one of the girls is talking about sueing the school.
I'm not sure what she is going to sue them for, apparently some of the pictures were taken on school property and the school has admitted to knowing it happens.

So what can the school do about this issue?

Ban phones on school property = Complaints because they parents need the kids to have the phones so they know where they are etc etc.

Chaperone to bathroom visits = Against human rights.

That's all I can think of, I don't see what else the school can do.

2: The boys are passing around personal information.
This makes me laugh, while it's immoral, these are teenage boys we are talking about. The kind of boy who tries to persuade a teen girl to do that is likely to be the kind of boy to brag about it. Fact. Right or wrong, that's what a very high percentage of teenage boys are like.

3: Parents are talking of suing the news station for showing the pictures (obviously heavily blurred out, faces and all).
Not sure what they are going to sue for here either.
They interviewed students and the students did so willingly and to be honest a news story like this will help the situation more than anything else.


4: This activity has been going on for years. Yes I'm still talking about teenagers. Why is it all of a sudden brought to light? Why did it take so long?
I caught my son with material on his PC when he was 14. Instantly deleted it and gave the pretty much the exact message the news put out tonight.
He also lost his webcam and wasn't allowed a phone with a camera until 18.
So this was 5 years ago and they are NOW going to take action?

Now the point to the post so far is to show where the blame is being placed.
What I want to know is why no one is pointing the fingers at the girls and the parents?
Do these parents not monitor their kids internet activity? Oh that's oppression isn't it, BS! , you're doing it to protect them, not oppress them and if you're not a strong enough parent to make a rule stick that is placed specifically to protect your child then you may need parenting lessons.
If your daughter at 13 years old tells you that you have no right to look on her computer then you tell her if she wants internet and electricity for that computer then she will leave it open.
I'm not saying you should check it every day, I used to when I got an inkling something was off and 99.9% of the time I was right, caught the boy in a lie "I'm going to Fred's house" , MSN says he's going to a party to get drunk.
Interception by parent without the aftermath.

Which brings me to the thought that has been generated.
Why does a 14 y/o need a phone with unlimited internet access, a camera and an infinite number of apps and such?
Please to be explaining how that can be a good thing and how it is that only a handful of us saw it comming.

The excuse used to be "I want my kid to have a phone so I know where they are" etc etc.
It still is the excuse.... but.... it has become blatantly obvious that it is now simply nothing more than fashion.
Remember when all your mates had Nike's and you were wearing Hi-Tech?
Remember when all your mates had a VCR and you didn't?
Depending on your age this has always happend and that is what is happening with phones "All the kids have got them, I don't want him/her to feel left out"
Same with a computer in their room.

I realise not all parents understand the technology their kids are using, simple.... Learn about it, you're a parent, it's your job!
You learn about their favourite cartoon or football team, why not the "Adult" technology they "play" with.

So now we have given the current teenage generation and future one's total freedom, in a box no bigger than a cigarette pack.
The freedom to look at whatever they want online, watch any movie they want online, talk to anyone they want online and ultimately opening themselves to a possible world of trouble.

Not to mention the drama, so many kids are depressed these days and in many cases it's not the pressure of exams or school work, it's the drama created by the open online world that is texting and facebook.
It used to be MSN, I remember banning my boy from MSN as punishment, after 2 days his mood lifted and he was cheerful, once he got it back his attitude returned. I've seen it in other kids too, I've also had kids tell me it creates that, hell it does to adults.
I'm not sure why , I think it's because you are conversing so intimately with so many people all at once. Which is precisely why I don't :-D

So to sum up, rambled a bit again but I'm sure you're all used to it lol

The inherent problems that come with use of such services and products are born simply by the ease of abuse.

So what can be done?

Realistically speaking, nothing.... it's too late, it will only get worse, children owning phones are getting younger and younger and the source of information available to them is getting bigger and bigger.

This isn't just about phones, it's the effects I see on society, children are losing their innocents younger and younger and becoming more and more dependent on this kind of technology.

What will the future hold?

 

Iam 25 and i remember not getting a cell till hs. these days parents are giving grade school kids phones. also about the kids taking pics. i think its the parent and student in the end. cus here they change it alot due to pics and getting answers to test

 

This video is said to be viral.

Father reads daughter's private Facebook story then shoots laptop with 45.

 

Well all I can say is that this also points out the state of your news stations these days if this is the first you've heard of it. According to Wikipedia "sexting" has been around since at least 2005.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/2867958...e-teens-face-child-porn-charges/#.TzUu2OThKSo
Here you see in 2009 the teens that actually took the photos, i.e. themselves, are finding themselves in legal hot water for creating and distributing child porn.

Vanessa Hudgens, why do you know her? I bet it's not because she was on the show High Shool Musical. Even if you say "oh yeah it is" then I bet you couldn't name 2 or 3 of her co-actors. Chances are you, being someone over the age of 25, heard about the "nude images" showing up on the web of her. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanessa_Hudgens#Image_and_personal_life

My point is this is nothing new. In fact it is child porn and the person who posseses and distributes it is guilty of that crime, especially the person who took the photos, which are usually self portraits. The news is just trying to sensationalize it and act like it's the first it's happened to gain viewership.

1. Schools are going to have to press charges against students lest they be sued. Since these are minors the parents will pay the price. So that mother suing the school district will likely regret bringing this to light.

2. The boys are passing around child porn and will be charged (or should be).

3. News stations get away with practically inciting violence, why would they even be remotely afraid of this?

4. Yeah, it's been going on for years and charges have been brought before.

 

We just dealt with this with my niece, who is 16, sending pictures taken down her shirt to her boyfriend, who is 17. It does not occur to them that this labels them sex offenders if they are caught, because it is child pornography. The trouble here is ignorant parents breeding ignorant children, and no one understands that their "innocent" sending of a picture is, in fact, against federal law.

Sexting has been around as long as there were phones able to send text messages. Before that, we wrote notes on paper, drew or took pictures, and sent them. It's not new that kids new to hormones are going to experiment and do stupid things. The trouble with it now is that sending a picture of a teenage girls breasts via your cell phone can get you convicted of a felony no matter how innocent it is.

It is no more the school's fault than it is the cell phone manufacturer's or the service provider's. Everyone who never did anything against the rules on school property please raise your hands! Yeah...I thought so.

People are idiots who refuse to take responsibility for their own actions (or inaction, since obviously there has been quite the parenting fail).

 

i think many parents atleast the ones ive met dont know anything bout cells or pcs. my mom still dont know where power button is.i think often we love our kids and wouldnt think our kids would do this. i think parents need to take items away.

 

I realize that's true in many cases...but reality says the majority of parents who have kids in their early teens are under 40. They grew up with technology. I don't think they necessarily need to take the phones, laptops, etc. away from their kids, but they do need to explain how it works. If they don't know, then they have no business providing those things for their children.

I'm sorry, but any parent who just randomly lets their child roam freely about the internet without supervision is asking for trouble.

 

Well, if my kids were abusing their privilege of having a cellphone and breaking moral and legal laws, the first thing that would happen, is that that the cellphones would be permanently confiscated as well as other privileges removed as a punitive measure.
Children having things like cellphones, i-pods, etc. are privileges not rights, and their lives will function just fine without the expensive gadget B.S., especially if their usages are abused. One reason why I refused to let my daughter own a cellphone until after she turned sixteen, (which was only last year). She would never think of doing stupid stuff with it, but I wanted my kids to actually learn how to socialize with people normally, without all the electronic tech B.S. (My son never really cared if he had one or not).

A lot of parents are just bone lazy and won't step up to the plate when it comes to responsible parenting. Instead of learning to socialize, buy the a computer and a cellphone, instead of cooking, visit the local crap-fest take-away; instead of being a responsible parent, sue the schools, (which have had all their disciplinary powers removed, anyway); instead of spending time with their children - give then some a diet of videos, T.V.'s computers, phones and any other "electronic Nanny" devices. ~Truly makes me wonder why they even bother to breed in the first place.rolleyes
I love my tech-toys, myself - but I will not let them stand in the way of family values and sound human relationships.

 

BOOM, that video was funny. As far as the other, it is called personal responsibility. Sadly lacking in my country today.

 

Well the dateline I did make a point of saying I didn't understand why now all of a sudden. But I think the News has done a good thing, this will shock many parent who have little to no idea such a thing exists. I asked a couple of people today if they knew what "Sexting" is, they didn't and barely believed me that is goes on, both of these parents were over 30 years old.

This will provoke many parents to look into what their kids can and are doing with the technology at hand.

The legal implications don't stand too well, my concern would be the fact that many of these PC's, phones, internet contracts are in a parents name, so quite easily a parent could be charged with possessing this material.

The kids themselves I don't think could be charged in many places, for 2 reasons.
1: They took the picture themselves and sent it to someone of similar age with consent.
2: They are the age of 18 and I'm pretty sure again, most places cannot prosecute a minor for that.

Although it's an interesting thought on the "Distribution" side of things, but again, minors.
The parents could be fined or even jailed in some cases, but that wouldn't help the problem.

A friend told me today she took her daughters cell and laptop away because of facebook, deleted her account too.
She uses someone elses PC or phone to access a new "Fake Name" account.

Like I said, it's gone too far. It's too late unless some sort of drastic measure is taken which will just set off the Human Rights guys and then get forgotten about or argued over for the next 30 years.

 

Actually, under existing law, even minors can and have been arrested, prosecuted, and convicted of child pornography. Some states are trying to change that, and the federal law is being evaluated. But right now, yes. Convicted sex offenders, required to register for the rest of their lives, because they took a picture of their boobs and sent it via email or picture message to someone.

The trouble is...once that picture exists, and once it hits the internet, it's there forever. You can't control who sees it. You can't control who does what with it.

Interesting article in the New York Times from last year March:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/us/21sexting.html

 

That's pretty interesting, I'm assuming it isn't like that here since there has been no mention of the picture subject being in any kind of trouble outside the obvious school and parent discipline.
But I think that law should stand, don't really see why it wouldn't except for the minor age restrictions on prosecutions.

 

That's an over-reaction, and it's treating a couple of symptoms rather than the main problem. Or am I very much out of line for saying that if you need to take your kid's cell phone away, you've done it wrong from the start?

I seriously doubt that Laura is a super-human with uber-parenting skills that no one else can replicate (no offense meant, Laura ), and that it's utterly impossible for any other parent to teach their children safe and responsible internet behavior without banning them from the most important information source in the world today. Back to Laura again, taking the time to learn how Facebook works before letting your kids use it, and to insist to be on their friend list, doesn't take that much time and effort.

Glad to hear it's working out for you, by the way.

 

My sisters do the same thing. And we take it a step further, where I specifically am NOT friends with any of my sisters or their children, so that I can check out the kids' profiles without being a friend or a friend-of-a-friend, to make sure their security settings remain tight.

It's simply good parenting, and those who blame the school (or the computer, or whatever else they blame) without realizing it's really their parenting that is at fault are a bigger problem than teenagers experimenting with sex and technology.

 

While this is kind of off topic a little, your statement reminded me of a new article I read yesterday. A mother is suing the police dept. for shooting and killing her son who was fleeing police in a stolen car, who just got out of prison for robbery and rammed police cars that were block his way (it's how they stopped him). According to her, "he was a good boy, who had a good heart and was just trying to provide for his 3 kids". Yes, because good boys always rob and steal. rolleyes

When will parents take responsibility?? It's their jobs to teach their children about responsibility. If little Susie sees mama always passing the buck then naturally she will. Parent need to stand up and be parents again not indifferent or trying to be best friends.

 

Hmmm, aren't most people recently released from prison on parole? So, guy is out of jail for robbery, and he steals a car.

Yeps, good boy, good heart. No brain. Mom evidently has the same mental affliction. I hope the suit is thrown out! Jeez, why can't people be more responsible! I would put that woman on the stand and rip her apart! If'n I was the lawyerly type. :-D

 

Unfortunately, the city has a penchant for just settling cases but imo she deserves nothing more than a slap in the face as a wake up call.

 

Why haven't schools banned mobile phones? The one place they are not needed for safety is in school or on the school bus home.

Let them sext on their own time...

 

You're not out of line, it frustrates me as well, it used to annoy and baffle me but I figured something out.
With reguards to parenting, I like to think I'm a fairly decent bloke with a decent set of morals and beliefs.
My girlfriend is very sensible and also carries a strong moral set.
I'm assuming Laura's partener is equally intelligent and carries a similar belief of how life should work and what makes a good person.

But lets look at reality, many of the kids who do this kind of thing don't have "Matching" parents.
As an example, a friend of mine (same friend in earlier story) tries her hardest to raise her 3 kids right, I think she has a good set of values. But.... her husband is less than caring.
I'm trying to be careful because this can side wind into a whole new conversation lol
He doesn't give her much respect, drinks more than can be considered "Moderate", he has quite the temper and has had several confrontations in bar type situations, never heavy handed with her or kids as far as I know but I wouldn't be surprised.
So here's a man who does what he wants, when he wants, to whom he wants..... and gets away with it.
In a childs eyes this is Hero material, King like even.
So who are they likely to copy?

The mother tries very hard but is also the one who has to discipline them, so she is often the "bad guy"

My boys biological father was the same way, thankfully I have managed to give him a few years of positive male influence, he was a little haywire when I arrived but has calmed down and is set on a good path.

So, when you have 1 parent (mother or father) who is loving and tries to do everything right by the kids, and 1 parent who influences the kids to not give a crap and do whatever they want because it's their right.
Years of this is likely to spawn some issues.

Yes it's the parents fault..... but the finger must be pointed at the right parent.

Unfortunately there are also "Matching" parents who both think the inconsiderate way of life is best.

I find it sad in situations like my friends and my girlfriends before we got together where one tries so hard but is outmatched by the other parent.

Basically guys like that (and females in some cases) promote the moral...

"Bad guys have all the fun"

 

And this is why, when I run for President, it will be on a platform that strongly advocates strict qualifications and entrance exams for parenting. Anyone who wishes to breed needs to prove they are fit to raise children. We would use the standards that are currently applied to anyone who wants to adopt children.

The problem is they do have all the fun. And since karma hardly ever works in a way that teaches the hero-worshiping kids the lessons they need to know, they never catch the flip side of the bad guys coin: That there are consequences for everything, including the fun but stupid things you do when you were convinced you'd get away with them.

It's the same principle as the old, "crime does pay" adage. It does. But someone who is honest only because they want to get rich, is honest for the wrong reasons.

 

I've discussed that too and came to the conclusion it wouldn't work,you either sterilise everyone then unsterilise them when they decide to have children or let everyone have kids then take them away if they fail the exam even if they love their kids,it would be like some weird Orwellian state with people hiding children from the 'parent police' and tens of thousands of children in orphanages receiving state parenting.

Even mandatory training for parenting would cause problems? If they didn't show up for it and you fine them you really punish the children by lowering their quality of life and if you jail the parents you again punish the children.

I'm not even sure what parenting skills are taught in schools now if any?

 

http://www.apple.com/support/iphone/basics/

:-D

 

"Leave me alone honey,just Google emotional support and discipline on your Iphone I'm tryna watch Jerry Springer"

 

Why not just treat the bad parents for what they are. Child abusers. Cant afford to feed one kid, and you have another? Would starving your kid to death not be a crime.


OK, think I am out on this one. Could get HBT fast!

 

So are you saying that bad parents should be locked away like child abusers and the children sent to state orphanages?

Would those children have a better upbringing in such a facility rather than in their homes with their bad parents?

And would that create a better society?Would more productive members of society come from those state facilities or foster homes or would the emotional scarring of been removed from their bad parents cause more harm?

And how much does that encroach on everyone's freedom to bring up children the way they see fit?

Bad parents disgust me as much as everyone else especially people who have way more children than they can afford but in this situation you can't punish the parents without punishing the children also IMO.

 

I thought laws against stuff makes people do the right thing. I could go farther, but I think I have said enough. I am going to go hide from the mods now. :-D

 

While this is a bit OT, here is a question about responsibility. Who in this group is not being responsible?

1) Person who willingly has a child knowing full well they do not have the resources to properly rear the child. (Assuming the baby is healthy, baring any change in the family structure and such. Note use of 'willingly' and 'knowing full well')

2) Baby born to parents who willingly had the child, knowing they did not have the means to rear the child. (This is obviously not the guilty party)

3) Taxpayer who is forced by the government to pay taxes. A part of this taxes are used to feed and provide for the baby in #2.

Now, who is the least responsible of the 3 above? If the taxpayer refused to pay taxes, they will be punished. As they should. While we may not agree on the amount or even the use of taxes, as a civilized nation, we do have to have taxes. But, what about #1? Do they have to pay the money back? Do they have to give back to society? What if they willingly have another child while they can't pay for the first one?

Now, what about #3... What if they had more horses than they could afford to feed. What if the horses were next door to you, and you could see they were desperately in need of food. Would #3 be guilty of animal cruelty, even if he had the best of intentions when he got the horses he could not feed? Of course he would. And unless he had a mental issue such as 'hoarding' then he should be punished.

Or how about #4. Let's say another tax payer. Shall we just tax him a little more so #1 can rear their children, and tax him some so that #3 can get subsidized horse food? Where does responsibility begin in society?

Why are taxpayers told they must be responsible for other people's irresponsible behavior? And if they protest, they are called heartless, or cruel. I think the real cruelty begins when the person who willingly conceives a child they know they can't financially afford.

 

Huh? Talk about answering a question with a question:-D Its your idea to treat them as child abusers,you have to come up with the solution not me

I don't know that's why I haven't proposed a solution,the current status does what's best for the children and what's best for the children is to try to keep families together 'unless the children are actually being abused' and help feed the children, I'm uninterested in punishing bad parents/Cattlemen.

If you say so I don't know the figures

Would the children be better off in care with the parents in jail as child abusers or would the children be better off if state support was completely withdrawn? Do you think that would make the parents get their act together?

Of course it would be unpleasant but your still dodging my questions:-D Would they be better off in care with the parents labelled as child abusers as you proposed?

Nope:-D You could pass a law that executes people for procreating,people will still have sex,people will still have babies.

Right I've answered all your questions will your answer mine?:-D

 

I totally agree,having the right to choose how to bring your children up a is a fundamental freedom and losing it would be much worse than the current state of affairs IMO.

 

Yep, you can't legislate and punish concepts like being a so-called 'bad parent', having more kids than you can afford, or be made always accountable for a child's wrong decisions and actions. If you, (the Govt.), or anyone else, tries to do that, then the laws become infinitely worse than the problems they are trying to solve. Jailing and punishing people and breaking up families is not what a civilized society does. If you think that sort of stupid, push-button philosophy works - then think again. It didn't work for Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and the other Authoritarian Dictatorships, and it won't work with us either.
Unfortunately, a lot of people are irresponsible, ignorant and lazy. Often because their own backgrounds haven't been the greatest either, and they don't even know what "family values" are. This is definitely not good, but you can't legislate 'common sense', (which isn't that common, I've found).
I looked after, not only two kids, one with A.D.H.D, and a disabled mother as well as my own shiz for over 25 years. it didn't make me a bad or neglectful parent, it just meant I had to do far more work and way more stress, personally than the average to get by. The kids have turned out good, but it was not an easy ask.
The kids made plenty of mistakes, as we did as parents, as anyone does in the circumstances. But we all also did plenty that was right, too.
The ethical/moral frameworks are instilled as a product of parenting, school, and social environments as well as fair amount of genetics and randomness, whether we like it or not.
I believe a child is better off with so-called "bad parents" than none at all. That is about as disruptive and destructive to a child, (and parent) as it gets.
It's not up to the State, legislation or punishments that make a child grow up to be a decent person or parent do the right thing.
Being a parent changes you. It not only involves the child growing up, but 'growth' in the parents as well. Some do it well, other do not, most are somewhere in between.
Liberties should not extend to immoralities, but laws should not expend to controlling parenting, either, apart for obvious abuse/neglect issues.

 

I dunno guys, punishment isn't always the best answer, I have always found Education is a better route. Punishment closes the mind and breeds agression. Education makes people understand more.

Unfortunately there is no way to battle this, we can only do as much as we can and help those willing to accept help.
Those that think they know it all.... well we can only hope their kids see the bad side and wish to be the opposite kind of person.

 

Are they abusing the children or not?

"So are you saying that bad parents should be locked away like child abusers and the children sent to state orphanages?

Would those children have a better upbringing in such a facility rather than in their homes with their bad parents?

And would that create a better society?Would more productive members of society come from those state facilities or foster homes or would the emotional scarring of been removed from their bad parents cause more harm?

And how much does that encroach on everyone's freedom to bring up children the way they see fit?

Bad parents disgust me as much as everyone else especially people who have way more children than they can afford but in this situation you can't punish the parents without punishing the children also IMO."


Where does personal responsibility begin? In my mind, before conception. How is society doing now, with almost 50% of the population not paying federal income taxes, but the debt is going up.

Again, I ask: Why am I responsible for raising someone's child, who willingly had the child while being unable to financially rear the child? How is that not abuse?

 

What we're skating around here is abortion. With the constant statement about "willingly" having children...some of them are not "willingly" born into this world, their mothers simply cannot end the pregnancy for moral, religious, or financial reasons.

Which definitely IS a HBT, and I hesitated to mention it. But you know...that's what it comes down to. Society says you're a bad person if you end your pregnancy, yet society is unwilling to help you raise and support that child once you have it. What are you supposed to do?

Anyway, this is all very far afield from sexting teenagers, isn't it?

 

It is a bit OT. I am not skating around abortion. That would be a thread most likely for another forum. I say 'willingly planning a child' and 'knowing you can't afford the child' Is what I mean.

By 'willingly' deciding to have a child, who is responsible, and who pays? That is my question. I am not trying to drag abortion, **** or any of that into this thread, as OT as it may be.

My question is this: How does society deal with an adult who willingly has a child they have no means to rear? And they know they can't rear the child. Personal responsibility. What happened to it?

We seem to treat people who abuse animals a lot harsher than those who abuse children. (child abuse, nothing sexual meant)

Why is the taxpayer liable for what I would call child abuse, yet the parents just get subsidies. Do any of you who are parents discipline your child using that logic?:confused

 

And you've completely ignored all my questions and points even though I did you the courtesy of actually taking in your points and trying to answer them and defer the subject to federal income taxes and the national debt which doesn't really have anything to do with the thread.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-2000s_financial_crisis

Are you really using the 2008 financial crisis to argue the pro's of a conservative agenda in a thread about parenting:confused

Your not responsible and your not trapped in the US,the reason a civilised society works is due functioning welfare state which simply helps the most vulnerable in society,it doesn't make them rich,they don't live in luxury,they get food stamps or over here child benefit which just means no children will die on our watch,other countries don't look after children like ours do,they die in the street,babies drowned in sacks or work 13 hours a day just to eat.

Their children don't get a basic education or even food,have you any idea how many amazing,famous or productive members of society were brought up on welfare or how many parents or members even on our forum who received welfare to help through the bad times?

And no I don't think having sex isn't child abuse,not having adequate planning isn't child abuse,not using contraception isn't child abuse,losing your job in the middle of recession isn't child abuse,being a young horny kid isn't child abuse,having one too many drinks and taking a chance on a girl isn't child abuse,unplanned pregnancies aren't child abuse,being stupid,irresponsible or simply unlucky as to the timing of the pregnancy.

They may be described as irresponsible and in some cases morons but not child abusers.

The term "willingly had a child." Only applies to a small percentage of people,I seriously doubt if a family is struggling they willingly have more babies to rake in the child support and food stamps although I'm know some people think like and as Tibbs said in the US there can be a lot of pressure on parents not to have an abortion and of course it isn't a financial only decision it is a child after all

If it were only a financial decision I'm sure I would have been floated down the river,I don't think my parents didn't had a pot to pee in...:-D

 

My point is why is someone 'willingly' conceiving a child they can't rear. And why is the taxpayer to care for the child when the parent(s) can't? If I don't feed my pet, it is animal abuse.

What question would you like answered? If you have one about parental responsibility, even better.

 

lol Fred, you're bordering on being Spartan here :-D

OK how about this, firstly... poor families have children, if they are doing their best but lets say live in a low wage area and were deprived of proper education and require some help from the gov, then no , of course it's not child abuse, poverty is something that has happend to every country at some time or another. Could you imagine if everyone stopped having kids because they have little money or food?.... The human race would be much smaller if in existence at all.

However , if some junky pops a child and makes no attempt to clean up and raises the child in an extremely unhealthy and dangerous environment then yes, it is child abuse. But laws already exist to try and combat that.
That's what childrens aid is for..

Secondly, the subject matter of what makes a good parent in this thread wasn't anything to do with poverty or feeding children, it has to do with the way you morally raise your child.
Food or no food, I don't think it would make a difference to girls taking pictures of themselves, except for the probability that if they can't afford food then they can't afford an Iphone or some such.
So in this specific issue, those who raise a child with little to no money are less likely to have a blurred erotic image of their child on the 6 o'clock news.

As for taxpayers and welfare etc, there are far too many variables to logically debate that topic. Otherwise you have to just lump all people who claim welfare in the same boat, which they are not.
The few spoil it for the many , springs to mind.

 

So, to make it simple, the parent is not responsible for providing food and clothing for their children? That should be provided for them?

Now you bring up welfare? Alinsky is proud of you, I am sure.

I am talking personal responsibility. And why we don't have more of it.

If a person can't feed themselves, but again, willingly has a child they can't feed, how is that not abuse?

"As for taxpayers and welfare etc, there are far too many variables to logically debate that topic. Otherwise you have to just lump all people who claim welfare in the same boat, which they are not"

psst, the logic starts at conception of people willingly having kids they can't afford. I agree logic is off.

 

Steady on there old boy, you're talking to someone who has zero help from any government at any point.
I take full responsibility for myself and my family, but sometimes times have been hard.

You would have to be pretty down on your luck to not be able to afford any food at all, and if that be the case then likely homeless and probably not planning a family more so out of self preservation.

But you would have to give a clear example of the type of person you are referring to, I don't think there are many people who plan a family that can't afford to feed them.
You seem to be reffering to those who are on welfare and can't be bothered to try to work.
In this case it's not child abuse, it's fraud.
And once again the laws do stand to combat this, if you cannot feed your child or the child is in danger, providing the authorities know, they will take the child to a safe place.

I'm not sure what your argument is, because the black and white point you are making is already in the legal system.
If you cannot feed your child, the child will be removed from your care.

This law is dependant on the authorities being aware of the situation, as does your ideas for laws.

So..... the laws you suggest already exist

Unfortunately there are no laws that say you have to raise your child morally.

 

It's not abuse as much as it is rampant stupidity and carelessness. A condom costs, how much? 50 cents? A dollar?

The way I see it, contraception is so easy and cheap to get your hands on in the modern world that there is absolutely no excuse for "unplanned" pregnancies. If you don't want to get pregnant, take the necessary steps to prevent it. If you're not willing to do that, and if you're not equipped to provide for another human being and raise a child for the next 18 years, then go celibate. A woman who can barely feed herself has no business getting pregnant.

As for the original topic of this thread, there are plenty of people out there who were broadsided by the internet and the possibilities of modern cell phones, and who had no idea how they could be abused until someone showed it to them. These people are now terrified for their children and are likely to over-react by wanting to avoid this internet thing altogether.

The difference between good and bad parenting in that scenario is that good parents learn about the new phenomenon and encourage open two-way communication with their children about it. See them as real people, treat them as such, and teach them good morals, and its shocking how well that works.

And no, I don't have children. I do however have parents, and I remember very vividly what it was like to be a teenager. And I assume, based on my memories, that if parents have a good and healthy relationship with their children, that in and of itself can avoid a lot of problems. Similarly, if the relationship between parent and child is one of separation and distrust, then it doesn't matter what you ban and regulate, it can and will turn to shit in the end.

 

Here just under where I quoted you,you typed it:confused

Where did I say that? Now I know your just tryna win an argument by nit picking instead of addressing the points

It's over as soon as you mention Alinsky I know your have nothing more to add :-D I only mentioned abortion passingly I don't want to talk about abortion,you have changed the subject from parenting, to welfare,to the national debt,to income tax which is pretty hypocritical to say the least.

1.Do you accept then that your using Alinksy tactics more than anyone in this thread?

Any from post 31 and the question labelled 1. above cheers The questions all pertain to the solution to to parental responsibility,your complaining because parents aren't responsible which I agree with but your not offering up any kind of solution other than YOU not paying taxes,the definition of complaining without offering up an alternative or solution is 'whining'.

 

Whoa there! Let's try not to make this personal, shall we? The shut down HBT for a reason, and this is it. Argue against a person's points and arguments, not their personality and/or character, please?

 

Fred attacked my character first by mentioning Alinsky and saying i believe in unicorns:cry momma:cry

"Mom Fred's saying I believe in unicorns and I'm a communist again."

:-D I'm sorry anyway Fred my blood was pumping a bit in that last post,not felt that in a while

Bed time for me too,you do have a knack of keeping up late Fred:-D

 

Momma says, stop being such a baby and come cry to her for every little thing

Yeah, I'm joking. Nothing personal meant against anyone. I just don't want to see this thread locked, that's all.

 

I misread that , but to answer... I didn't bring up welfare.

You did
The type of gov benefit given to someone in the quote above, here is typically called "Welfare" or some version of.

But once again, the subject of the thread is not whether or not you can afford to have a child.
It is how you raise them.
Going on the assumption that if your child has a $300+ camera phone then they are probably relatively well fed.

There has been more info brought to light in this case.
From what I heard on the news.

Boys have been doing the same thing.
It turns out that over 200 girls in the 1 catholic school turned up puffy eyed and without phones on Friday.

This concerns me.
Many of these girls made a very silly mistake that they will live with for the rest of their lives.
Many of them did it as a cry for attention I'm sure, the psychological reasoning for this type of thing often suggests a person has an inferiority complex often brought on by the media and Hollywood. Therefore the attention this kind of thing brings makes them feel "Special" and boys will play on that without even knowing it in a lot of cases.
These girls are probably mortified, the concern comes from the notion that someone my take drastic measures out of sheer desperation.

The plus side is this media attention has almost certainly put a dent in this behaviour in this area at least.
The number of parents now checking phones and facebooks has likely increased by massive amounts.
This is based on the current flow of conversations breaking out, since I work with the public I hear quite a lot.
It seems that a huge number of parents were completely unaware of this type of activity among youngsters.

They are now aware.

The first step has been taken. Public Awareness.
Now it's a matter of time to see if the impact was large enough.

Edit: For the record, I don't get annoyed very easily and absolutely nothing I have said has meant to be in malice or an aggressive manner
I just like debating/conversing

 

Hmm...Well this thread wasn't supposed to be about starving kids and the National Debt - it was about so-called "sexting"rolleyes. No need for anyone in any western nation to go without the basic food, clothing and shelter. Some do, because of their inappropriate decisions and life choices. But enough of that irrelevant B.S.
I know what it is like to not to be able to afford soap powder for the washer or butter for the bread, etc., but this has nothing to do with bad parenting or instilling careless, immoral behaviour in our offspring.
The present generation of what are now parents have been bought up with the concepts that religion, (in an ethical/moral sense), ethics, morals, family values and so forth are unnecessary, disposable concepts. I would say that they are not only a good idea, but necessary for society to function, (and hence the individual), as we know it.
As soon as we start thinking that we don't need to worry about moral guidelines and appropriate behaviour, other than what the laws of the land may punish us for, then we have a world of problems. That should be a no-brainer, but is all too often lost in today's society. A sad state of affairs, i.m.o.

"Electronic Nanny" devices, including cellphones, P.C.'s etc., do not take the place of good parenting. Great tools, but an object cannot instill morals or appropriate use. That's we come into it.