If you are pregnant , don't bother with MY school

Ghost Buster

micropig wrote: »

That's discrimination

(1) You claim that posters on here thinks its just great that 16 year old girls are getting pregnant
(2) I point out that this has not been claimed by any one
(3) I point out that your posts are getting thicker and thicker
(4) You respond with an even thicker post which shows that you dont know the meaning of the word 'discrimination'. a word central to the entire thread.


Jesus wept:eek:

micropig

The King of Moo wrote: »

If I were in school, I can guarantee that a pregnant classmate would make me think a hell of a lot about practising safe sex!

I don't see how you equate tolerating unprotected sex with providing a citizen with the education they have a right to.

Who was denied an education?

micropig

Ghost Buster wrote: »

(3) I point out that your posts are getting thicker and thicker

Lot's of other posters post are getting thicker and thicker, yet you single me out because I'm pregnant.

micropig

micropig wrote: »

Who was denied an education?

She was denied an education in the school of her choice owing to a decision made by 1 ignorant bigot.

Cheeky_gal

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Because that's definitely the case with underage drinking and drug use, isn't it?

No, but at least the price of alcohol is increasing, same with cigarettes. At least action is being taken, that's the whole point here. Something has to be done whether you like it or not.

The King of Moo

micropig wrote: »

Who was denied an education?

The sixteen-year old girl twice denied entry to a state-funded school, first for being pregnant, then for being a single mother.

She was mentioned in the OP.

micropig

dvpower wrote: »

And you interpret this as meaning that the school can 'follow whatever policy it likes'?

But surely, you can trust the learned department of education on these matters. Aren't they trained in how to determine if the structure of a school is adequate? You'd think they would ensure these things seen as they are providing funding and it's their job.

Then, maybe I give them too much credit

Ghost Buster

You say that the way to combat lack of education is to deny education.
And i thought micropigs posts were stupid.
Really?
So teenage pregnancy occurs due to a lack of education and the way to prevent this is not to educate?
Wow....Just.....wow:eek:

Cheeky_gal

Cheeky_gal wrote: »

No, but at least the price of alcohol is increasing, same with cigarettes. At least action is being taken, that's the whole point here. Something has to be done whether you like it or not.

Hard to educate kids on these issues if they are prevented from enrolling in the first place

It wasn't me!

Cheeky_gal wrote: »

No, but at least the price of alcohol is increasing, same with cigarettes. At least action is being taken, that's the whole point here. Something has to be done whether you like it or not.

Neither of which are policies to prevent teen subtance use. Hand-wringing kneejerk policies are completely useless and socially damaging. Not an ACTION on this green and blue blob going to stop teenagers mashing their bits together, because that's just what they want to do. Making something prohibited only makes it more interesting. Bring it out in the open. Get rid of stigma. Talk, educate and bring forward. That's how to avoid this being a problem. Repression hasn't worked before. It's not going to start any time soon.

Rubber_Soul

Cheeky_gal wrote: »

Delighted that a controversial decision like this was made. Hopefully it will raise more awareness about the frightening trend of teenage pregnancies in Ireland.

From Nov 2011

Teen pregnancy in Ireland has fallen by 35% in the last decade -- from 3,087 in 2001 to 2,019 last year.
Meanwhile, the age of teen mums is on the rise -- with just seven girls under 15 giving birth in 2005, compared to 10 in 2000 and 13 in 1980.
Today, the majority of teen mums are aged 18-19 according to the CSO.
Ireland's teenage fertility rate has changed little in the last four decades -- teetering at around the 16% mark.

http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/parenting/fall-in-pregnant-teens-in-ireland-2924718.html

micropig

Deleted User wrote: »

She was denied an education in the school of her choice owing to a decision made by 1 ignorant bigot.

She enrolled in a school.
State provided her with home tutor in latter stages of pregnancy.
She applied to another school.
Other school said no.
She returned to the school she had been in previously.


Who was denied an education?

Ghost Buster

micropig wrote: »

Lot's of other posters post are getting thicker and thicker, yet you single me out because I'm pregnant.

Trolling doesnt make your posts any more intelligent.
You have pretty much given up on debating and engaging now eh?
Im still waiting for examples of posts claiming that it is just dandy for teenagers to get pregnant. You claimed this was stated a few times.
Show me.

Dudess

Meh, education or no education, it's unlikely she's anywhere near as stupid as many of the posts here... the latter is starting to concern me more tbh.

I mean... the future of this country is posting to the thread... and we think things are bad now...?!! :eek:

micropig

micropig wrote: »

The department of education inspected this school in 2007 and decided the way it was been run was acceptable.

ah well thats ok so :rolleyes: ....sure they are sooooooooooooooo efficient. So efficient in fact, that this situation was facilitated to begin with.

secretambition

If you're in a position of power (school principal) you can't just make up random punishments for people because what they've done doesn't accord with your personal morals, no many how many other people in the community might share your morals. They shouldn't have excluded her. That's the problem with this country. Too many minorly imortant people get way too much deference because we're too obedient.

laoch na mona

micropig wrote: »

Whatever you do, don't mention that pregnant & post natal teenage girls might have different needs & need extra supports than girls who haven't had a child or the laundry brigade will be back again.

o for the simple days when we ignored the "undesirable" elements of society
Its shocking how many people still seem to think exclusion is the answer

K-9

Cheeky_gal wrote: »

Yes. People's attitudes have to change here. The more it is shown to be not tolerated the less likely it will occur.



Never said it would stop teenagers having sex. I said it would make them more aware to practise safe sex. If this actually became an issue among people then maybe something would get done about it, but no one seems to care about the growing trend of teenage pregnancies. It's terribly sad. Do you honestly think teenagers have the maturity to be responsible, fit mothers? No way. It's just destroying future generations

Teen pregnancy rates have dropped for a few years now actually so we are doing something right.

Ghost Buster

micropig wrote: »

Whatever you do, don't mention that pregnant & post natal teenage girls might have different needs & need extra supports than girls who haven't had a child or the laundry brigade will be back again.

Lots of children have needs and extra support in our schools. My kids school has a Sonas unit for kids with mild autism. Schools have wheel chair access. Schools have induction coils for the hard of hearing. What could a single mother or a pregnant girl need that would be so crippling to a school?

Cheeky_gal

Deleted User wrote: »

Hard to educate kids on these issues if they are prevented from enrolling in the first place

The point is, they're not allowed to enroll because they were thick enough to get themselves pregnant. If this was a new law that was to be brought in it would soon make teenagers/parents more aware and it would occur less often, don't you worry about that.

Do you not realise that it is the parents themselves that play the most vital role in educating their children? It is not entirely the schools responsibilty, by no means.

Cheeky_gal

Cheeky_gal wrote: »

I said it would make them more aware to practise safe sex.

I'm pretty sure you've got it the wrong way round. As another poster has said, seeing a pregnant classmate would make kids far more aware of the importance of safe sex.

All ostracising this girl does is make them scared to make responsible decisions if they do get pregnant. It will make them feel like there will be no support for them, leading them to seek help in unwise places.

dvpower

micropig wrote: »

But surely, you can trust the learned department of education on these matters. Aren't they trained in how to determine if the structure of a school is adequate? You'd think they would ensure these things seen as they are providing funding and it's their job.

Then, maybe I give them too much credit

You haven't addressed the question. The school is NOT entitled to follow 'whatever policy it likes' as you maintain.

micropig

micropig wrote: »

She enrolled in a school.
State provided her with home tutor in latter stages of pregnancy.
She applied to another school.
Other school said no.
She returned to the school she had been in previously.


Who was denied an education?

YOU DONT GET IT DO YOU!! YOU JUST DONT GET IT!! :mad:

She was denied enrolment in a school which she chose to enrol in, which should be her fundamental right as an Irish citizen to join but due to the lunatics who run this country and continue to faciltitate religious ethos to precede over legislation, that we are faced with scenarios like this in the year 2012.

It really is that simple.... Why should you have greater rights than her because she had a teenage pregnancy?

Ghost Buster

Cheeky_gal wrote: »

The point is, they're not allowed to enroll because they were thick enough to get themselves pregnant. If this was a new law that was to be brought in it would soon make teenagers/parents more aware and it would occur less often, don't you worry about that.

Do you not realise that it is the parents themselves that play the most vital role in educating their children? It is not entirely the schools responsibilty, by no means.

Lack of intelligence does not cause pregnancy!!
I asked you a question earlier:
Do you really think that the way to solve pregnancy through lack of education is to not educate?
Please answer.

drunkmonkey

laoch na mona wrote: »

o for the simple days when we ignored the "undesirable" elements of society
Its shocking how many people still seem to think exclusion is the answer

It's not the answer, but this girl moving to a new school and walking in with a baby under the hood on her first day isn't really that good for the welfare of the other students. Call it a distraction. That is a private school an the Owner was putting the welfare and education of his other students first. As his school I believe that is his decision to make.

Just before I get lambasted for that I do think we have kids way too late, we should be halving them around 16 or 17.

secretambition

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Lots of children have needs and extra support in our schools. My kids school has a Sonas unit for kids with mild autism. Schools have wheel chair access. Schools have induction coils for the hard of hearing. What could a single mother or a pregnant girl need that would be so crippling to a school?

Absolutely nothing. There was one in my year and I never even knew she was pregnant until years later.

It wasn't me!

Cheeky_gal wrote: »

If this was a new law that was to be brought in it would soon make teenagers/parents more aware and it would occur less often, don't you worry about that

I would put my house on it that this is not true. You would alienate anyone who did get pregnant, and they're not doing it because they're exposed to the prospect, and cause massive social problems.

laoch na mona

Cheeky_gal wrote: »

The point is, they're not allowed to enroll because they were thick enough to get themselves pregnant. If this was a new law that was to be brought in it would soon make teenagers/parents more aware and it would occur less often, don't you worry about that.

Do you not realise that it is the parents themselves that play the most vital role in educating their children? It is not entirely the schools responsibilty, by no means.

To be fair lack of education isn't the problem every teenagers knows the basics
its probable down to girls thinking they have to have sex to be accepted

Cheeky_gal

Cheeky_gal wrote: »

The point is, they're not allowed to enroll because they were thick enough to get themselves pregnant. .

Getting pregnant at any age not illegal last i checked. Point is Catholic ethos has too much power in ireland and as long as people like you continue to take a simplistic mutton headed view of matters, Ireland will never change.

Cheeky_gal wrote: »

If this was a new law that was to be brought in it would soon make teenagers/parents more aware and it would occur less often, don't you worry about that.
.

Your logic is bonkers

Dimithy

Cheeky_gal wrote: »

The point is, they're not allowed to enroll because they were thick enough to get themselves pregnant. If this was a new law that was to be brought in it would soon make teenagers/parents more aware and it would occur less often, don't you worry about that.

Do you not realise that it is the parents themselves that play the most vital role in educating their children? It is not entirely the schools responsibilty, by no means.

Why not throw them in jail too. That would definitely get the message across.

Ghost Buster

Dimithy wrote: »

Why not throw them in jail too. That would definitely get the message across.

Twas the catholic way not so long ago and sure no one has gotten pregnant since 1983.
I miss the laundries....

Rubber_Soul

drunkmonkey wrote: »

It's not the answer, but this girl moving to a new school and walking in with a baby under the hood on her first day isn't really that good for the welfare of the other students. Call it a distraction. That is a private school an the Owner was putting the welfare and education of his other students first. As his school I believe that is his decision to make.

Just before I get lambasted for that I do think we have kids way too late, we should be halving them around 16 or 17.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say I don't think she was ever intending to bring the kid to school with her.

It's not a private school either, it's State funded.

Cheeky_gal

Cheeky_gal wrote: »

The point is, they're not allowed to enroll because they were thick enough to get themselves pregnant. If this was a new law that was to be brought in it would soon make teenagers/parents more aware and it would occur less often, don't you worry about that.

Firstly, I don't believe that's true at all. When two teenagers get together they don't think "ooh, what if we make a baby and I choose to apply to enroll in a Catholic school sometime in the future and they wont accept me because they're bigoted". Knowing pregnancy affects what school you go to is not going to be a factor.

But, if it was, and your idea for a new law actually worked, we'd still end up with loads of young parents with no access to education and no hope of providing any life for their child other than a difficult welfare funded one.

So it's pretty much a lose-lose situation.

The King of Moo

Cheeky_gal wrote: »

The point is, they're not allowed to enroll because they were thick enough to get themselves pregnant. If this was a new law that was to be brought in it would soon make teenagers/parents more aware and it would occur less often, don't you worry about that.

Do you not realise that it is the parents themselves that play the most vital role in educating their children? It is not entirely the schools responsibilty, by no means.

You assume people who get pregnant at a young age are thick, yet also assume that being denied an education would act as a deterrent for them.

Do you think thick people like school?

But of course that's a great big assumption about all teenage parents, which there aren't many of anyway (funny that you haven't addressed Starship Pooper's post with those tricksy facts and figures).

I also assume that you think the fathers should be refused an education too, correct?

micropig

Deleted User wrote: »

YOU DONT GET IT DO YOU!! YOU JUST DONT GET IT!! :mad:

She was denied enrolment in a school which she chose to enrol in, which should be her fundamental right as an Irish citizen to join but due to the lunatics who run this country and continue to faciltitate religious ethos to precede over legislation, that we are faced with scenarios like this in the year 2012.

It really is that simple.... Why should you have greater rights than her because she had a teenage pregnancy?

She didn't get in to 1 school, she wasn't denied an education.
If the school was full, she wouldn't have got in either.

I want to enrol in a playschool. They told me I was too old. Is this Ageist?

Dudess

Cheeky_gal wrote: »

The point is, they're not allowed to enroll because they were thick enough to get themselves pregnant.

She got herself pregnant? Thanks for the info that she's a hermaphrodite, I didn't know that.

drunkmonkey wrote: »

It's not the answer, but this girl moving to a new school and walking in with a baby under the hood on her first day isn't really that good for the welfare of the other students. Call it a distraction. That is a private school an the Owner was putting the welfare and education of his other students first. As his school I believe that is his decision to make.

Just before I get lambasted for that I do think we have kids way too late, we should be halving them around 16 or 17.

Er... quite. Username apt.

secretambition

drunkmonkey wrote: »

It's not the answer, but this girl moving to a new school and walking in with a baby under the hood on her first day isn't really that good for the welfare of the other students. Call it a distraction. That is a private school an the Owner was putting the welfare and education of his other students first. As his school I believe that is his decision to make.

Just before I get lambasted for that I do think we have kids way too late, we should be halving them around 16 or 17.

You can't just start banning people for being distracting. It's up to the other kids to get over it. This girl is a child herself and imo is only responsible for herself, not the moral well-being of her classmates and setting a good example to them. If you went down that line, you'd start banning every minority because they will cause some giggles (for about an hour) amongst teenagers.

laoch na mona

:P

drunkmonkey wrote: »

It's not the answer, but this girl moving to a new school and walking in with a baby under the hood on her first day isn't really that good for the welfare of the other students. Call it a distraction. That is a private school an the Owner was putting the welfare and education of his other students first. As his school I believe that is his decision to make.

Just before I get lambasted for that I do think we have kids way too late, we should be halving them around 16 or 17.

its not a private school
and no one supports teen pregnancy but if you deny her an education you just make her prospects worse

secretambition

They said on the news yesterday that it was a school set up and ran by one man in Muster. How many of them can there be?

MagicSean

Deleted User wrote: »

Sure if im wrong on that fact, i stand corrected fair enough. Whether she was in the school or not before is totally irrelevant. How many schools she was in is also irrelevant. It is quite frankly none of our business.

She wished to go to that school because her friends attended it and that is a pretty understandable reason considering her friends could probably support her and help her settle

I like the double standards being employed in this thread. The girls history is irrelevent yet somehow the principals and managers is.

Deleted User wrote: »

She was denied an education in the school of her choice owing to a decision made by 1 ignorant bigot.

Deleted User wrote: »

YOU DONT GET IT DO YOU!! YOU JUST DONT GET IT!! :mad:

She was denied enrolment in a school which she chose to enrol in, which should be her fundamental right as an Irish citizen to join but due to the lunatics who run this country and continue to faciltitate religious ethos to precede over legislation, that we are faced with scenarios like this in the year 2012.

It really is that simple.... Why should you have greater rights than her because she had a teenage pregnancy?

There is a fundamental right to education but not to choose whatever school you want. There are limits on all rights. There is a fundamental right for me to travel around the EU but that doesn't mean I can complain if i can only afford to go to france. You are trying to expand the meaning of a fundamental right too much.

micropig

secretambition wrote: »

Absolutely nothing. There was one in my year and I never even knew she was pregnant until years later.

It would have been better if your school had have explained how it happened what to do to prevent it, support lines you can call etc and giving information to students, rather than just pretending it wasn't happening

Dudess

micropig wrote: »

I want to enrol in a playschool. They told me I was too old. Is this Ageist?

Bottom of barrel - worn through (it was close when you were resorting to saying a poster thinks teen pregnancies are brilliant). Come on, do better! That's pathetic.

secretambition

micropig wrote: »

It would have been better if your school had have explained how it happened what to do to prevent it, support lines you can call etc and giving information to students, rather than just pretending it wasn't happening

Really? Because none of the rest of us got pregnant. So it obviously wasn't contagous. We had really good sex ed. from first year. She was a new girl who came late and didn't have any of that. Don't know what she was taught in hers.

micropig

MagicSean wrote: »

I like the double standards being employed in this thread. The girls history is irrelevent yet somehow the principals and managers is.

There is a fundamental right to education but not to choose whatever school you want. There are limits on all rights. There is a fundamental right for me to travel around the EU but that doesn't mean I can complain if i can only afford to go to france. You are trying to expand the meaning of a fundamental right too much.

Well said

hattoncracker

Cheeky_gal wrote: »

The point is, they're not allowed to enroll because they were thick enough to get themselves pregnant. If this was a new law that was to be brought in it would soon make teenagers/parents more aware and it would occur less often, don't you worry about that.

Do you not realise that it is the parents themselves that play the most vital role in educating their children? It is not entirely the schools responsibilty, by no means.

Cheeky_gal, that has to be the stupidest, most flawed logic I have ever read on this site.

She got pregnant, can't have an abortion in this ("Catholic") country; applies to a Catholic school, gets denied entry due to her medical condition; has the baby, which most Catholics would demand of her anyways; tries to go back to the Catholic school and they deny her entry because she's a single mother.

Teenagers f**k, it's a given. Nothing you do, no law you will ever introduce will ever stop that. Her choices about what to do in this country when she gets pregnant are limited enough, and I guarantee the sperm donor in this whole situation has had no problem getting an education.

Parents should educate their children... On contraception, not just abstinence and 'no sex before marriage'. All we have to do to see how spectacularly that failed is look to the States, who invest $1billion in abstinence sex education a year, and their teen pregnancy rates.

Again, all of this is irrelevant. She should not be discriminated against due to her marital or family status. If it doesn't happen in workplaces, it shouldn't happen in schools.

dvpower

micropig wrote: »

.

I want to enrol in a playschool. They told me I was too old.

They might make a special case for you.

micropig

micropig wrote: »

She didn't get in to 1 school, she wasn't denied an education.
If the school was full, she wouldn't have got in either.

I want to enrol in a playschool. They told me I was too old. Is this Ageist?

if they read this thread they know your the perfect mental age for it. What a stupid irrelevant argument. Needless to explain, school is done on a scalar chain. As you get older, you (hopefully) get smarter and the idea is that you wont have to repeat as if you did resources would be wasted teaching someone material which is years behind their mental capacity, though if you do wish to do playschool show them some of your posts. they make a great case for you.

byhookorbycrook

Deleted User wrote: »

YOU DONT GET IT DO YOU!! YOU JUST DONT GET IT!! :mad:

She was denied enrolment in a school which she chose to enrol in, which should be her fundamental right as an Irish citizen to join but due to the lunatics who run this country and continue to faciltitate religious ethos to precede over legislation, that we are faced with scenarios like this in the year 2012.

It really is that simple.... Why should you have greater rights than her because she had a teenage pregnancy?

I want to go to Clongowes. I'm not allowed. Are my fundamental rights being denied?

The King of Moo

I really can't square this thread with the recent one on the single mother in Limerick.

Herp! "The ones who try to get an education or work are fine, the problem is with the ones living off the money I f**kin worked hard to get!! :mad:"

Derp! "The school shouldn't of taken her, she shouldn't be allowed to get an education, she should live off the money I f**kin worked hard to get!! :mad:"

I think there might be one or two posters contradicting themselves across both threads, though I can't be bothered to dig up the other thread to check.
Even if they haven't contradicted themselves, there's one or two posters here who must be trolling, because the idea that the words they've typed are representative of actual thoughts they've had is too scary to contemplate.

Ghost Buster

micropig wrote: »

She didn't get in to 1 school, she wasn't denied an education.The state funded school had no right to deny her. That is the point.

If the school was full, she wouldn't have got in either. Yes. But it wasnt.

I want to enrol in a playschool. They told me I was too old. Is this Ageist?

No it would mean you are a bit thick trying to get into a school for children under 5.

Pathetic/ thick/ illogical posting continues.