Page 13 of 26 FirstFirst ... 3111213141523 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 258

Thread: School policy forces students to take pregnancy tests, bans pregnant teens[W:150]

  1. #121
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: School policy forces students to take pregnancy tests, bans pregnant teens

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    I disagree. They actually are working to make a difference. They are 'special'.
    No. "Working to make a difference" does not give public schools a blank check to violate the civil rights of their students. You have quite an unusual theory of how the law works.

    And you continue to prove this is nothing more than a charade for you...its a pet...a cause.
    Civil rights? I suppose you could call it that.

    You have yet to speak word one about the students, their circumstance, and the positive changes the schools are working to achieve. Thats...sad.
    WTF do you want me to say about them? How the hell would I (or you) know if this school is making a positive change on the community? Why is that even relevant? What I do know is that they're violating their students civil rights if they are mandating pregnancy tests and banning pregnant teenagers.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 08-08-12 at 05:04 PM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  2. #122
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: School policy forces students to take pregnancy tests, bans pregnant teens

    Quote Originally Posted by mertex View Post
    I'm surprised that Republican/conservatives would side with the school, since most conservatives claim to be so conscientious of the Constitution.
    Me too. I'm also surprised that some of the posters who claim to be pro-life would advocate a policy that would almost certainly make abortions more likely (who am I kidding, that doesn't surprise me at all). To be fair, many of the Republicans/conservatives here have voiced their opposition to this policy. And the ones that didn't are mostly the usual suspects of discrimination and misogyny.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  3. #123
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: School policy forces students to take pregnancy tests, bans pregnant teens

    Quote Originally Posted by muciti View Post
    The article doesn't say they can't come back once they finish the pregnancy. Perhaps they feel like a pregnant child is not able to have the attendance needed to ensure their education needs are met.
    It's not the school's responsibility to prejudge a student's attendance record. If the student is unable to attend class on a regular basis, then that's a different matter and arrangements can be made just like any other medical condition. But the school cannot FORCE a student into an alternate program on the basis of pregnancy.

    Preganent students could be a distraction. Other students could be influenced by her and her decisions.
    Like I said earlier, I don't know where you went to high school, but in my school pregnant girls were hardly admired. Some students felt sorry for them, and others were cruel to them.

    I am sure there is more than what I listed. But the bottom line is a student being pregnant could negatively effect her education, and the education and choices of those around her.
    Being kicked out of school could negatively affect her education. And in any case, it's a violation of Title IX.

    Would you have a problem with people not attending the school who were on trial for breaking the law or make other poor life choices that would or could potentially adversely effect their education and those around them? Would you want your teenage son or daughter being influenced by people making these types of decisions if you had the option?
    If they haven't been convicted of anything and they don't pose an imminent threat to anyone else and they didn't violate any legally-valid school rules? Then they should be able to attend too. In any case, pregnancy is specifically protected from discrimination under federal law.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 08-08-12 at 05:19 PM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  4. #124
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,994

    Re: School policy forces students to take pregnancy tests, bans pregnant teens

    Quote Originally Posted by muciti View Post
    The article doesn't say they can't come back once they finish the pregnancy.
    Hadn't suggested it did. Not sure how that relates...

    Perhaps they feel like a pregnant child is not able to have the attendance needed to ensure their education needs are met.
    Can a pregnant child not get on a bus or a parents car and ride to school? If this was the actual worry, why would it not be that there is an OPTION to undertake classes at home instead of at school rather than it being mandatory? Or even perhaps have it be something that occurs IF attendance issues begin to show, not simply assuming they will.

    Preganent students could be a distraction. Other students could be influenced by her and her decisions. I am sure there is more than what I listed.
    So the basis for disallowing an individual to continue to attend in-class room education is because it is automatically assumed they will be a distraction if pregnant...even at points where it would not be known to anyone else if not for a pregnancy test?

    Do they refuse to allow any kid that tells jokes from attending in-class room education because class clowsn are a distraction and we can just assume if one tells jokes that they'll likely fool around during class? What other "distractoins" have this similar reaction from the school PRIOR to the actual distraction occuring? If there's no such things, it's not really a legitimate argument.

    But the bottom line is a student being pregnant could negatively effect her education, and the education and choices of those around her.
    *COULD*. Know what else *COULD*? Not allowing her to participate in actual in-class education. And there are many things that could potentially negative effect the education of those around them...are there other such legal things that an individual is punished for prior to actually causing negative effects at the school? If not, then again...this doesn't seem like it can be the reasoning or if it is, it's still standing out as potential wrongful discrimination due to the extremely unequal application of the standard.

    Would you have a problem with people not attending the school who were on trial for breaking the law or make other poor life choices that would or could potentially adversely effect their education and those around them? Would you want your teenage son or daughter being influenced by people making these types of decisions if you had the option?
    You'd need to present me an analogy where there's similar discrimination occuring in terms of unequal application of the law to a protected class under the EPC for me to be able to ansewr you.

    Now, if say...they had a rule that BOYS involved in breaking the law could not attend school because of hte potential adverse effect on education it has, but girls who broke the law could...then yeah, I'd definitely have an issue.

    But just in a general sense, if getting public funding, unless the violation was actually on school grounds or during school hours, the simple fact that the kid is possibly going to have to go on trial for a crime isn't something I think they should probably get suspended for. But I can't speak to the constitutionality of that becaues it's not nearly as clear cut as an incident in this case where the application of the standard clearly singles out a particular race/sex/religion/etc.

    As to your emotional plea at the end about my "teenage son or daughter", sorry...that's irrelevant to me. We're not talking about if it's understandable that someone wants this rule, we're talking about if it's legal. I reject it when the right plays the Lovejoy "WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN" card and I reject it when the Left plays the "WE SHOULD DO IT BECUASE ITS 'GOOD'" argument. We have a system of government of laws and attempting to contort, ignore, or add to the laws based singularly on a notion of what's "good" or what we'd personally want for our own desires is unwise and has largely contributed to the troubles this country has current imho.

    I have no issue in theory with a policy that attempts to create further tangable, immediete, consequences for something like sex or pregnancy as a teenager due to the limited ability kids and teens tend to have to be able to truly look at and grasp the severity of the long term effects of those things and thus SHORT term consequences could potentially be beneficial. At the same time however, such things need to be lawful and constitutional because if they are not...even if they may be a good idea in and of themselves...it establishes legal precedence for incidents that you may not like so much.

    This is a school taking public funding putting forward a rule in which whatever motivation they have for it, it would appear to be an unequal application of that principle, and one in which an unquestionably disproportionate portion of a protected class (in this case gender) appears to be singled out for action. That's problematic under the law and to the precedence it sets constitutionally.

  5. #125
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,994

    Re: School policy forces students to take pregnancy tests, bans pregnant teens

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    I'm also surprised that some of the posters who claim to be pro-life would advocate a policy that would almost certainly make abortions more likely (who am I kidding, that doesn't surprise me at all).
    That's because for some reason lately since coming back more regularly you've given up being an objective thinker. It's pretty simple to understand that one and not be surprised by it....shocker, not everyone thinks on every issue from the exact same mindset as you. Many such individuals in this case likely believe that the net result would actually be less teenage pregnancies due to further immediete reprucussions to such a thing being a deterrent from taking the action that leads to pregnanc rather than believing that the same amount of girls are still going to get pregnant but instead they'll just abort. You may disagree with their thought process there, but don't play stupid in thinking that your view point of it is the same view point they're coming from it as and then applying your "surprised" view of their stance based on that dishonest foundation.

  6. #126
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    08-14-12 @ 11:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,928

    Re: School policy forces students to take pregnancy tests, bans pregnant teens

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    They arent preventing or ceasing the education of pregnant teenagers. They are ensuring the student body does not see teen pregnancy as an acceptable and has become the case in many places DESIRED state. They are a school working to make a difference. You are...not. You bleat about 'rights' but dont truly give a **** about any of them. You didnt care about them before this became a news story and you wont care about them after its over. You dont care about their living circumstances, their employment and education opportunities or their future. You care about one thing...this ideological concept called a 'right'. Once this is resolved you will never give these people a second thought. meanwhile...the school and its administrators and staff will still be right there working to make a difference and you will move on to the next celeb cause du joir.
    And if we look back in his posting history, will we see him fighting equally for the "right" to keep and bear arms? Me thinks not.

  7. #127
    Sage
    Kreton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Colorado Springs
    Last Seen
    11-13-17 @ 08:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    6,118

    Re: School policy forces students to take pregnancy tests, bans pregnant teens

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Hadn't suggested it did. Not sure how that relates...



    Can a pregnant child not get on a bus or a parents car and ride to school? If this was the actual worry, why would it not be that there is an OPTION to undertake classes at home instead of at school rather than it being mandatory? Or even perhaps have it be something that occurs IF attendance issues begin to show, not simply assuming they will.



    So the basis for disallowing an individual to continue to attend in-class room education is because it is automatically assumed they will be a distraction if pregnant...even at points where it would not be known to anyone else if not for a pregnancy test?

    Do they refuse to allow any kid that tells jokes from attending in-class room education because class clowsn are a distraction and we can just assume if one tells jokes that they'll likely fool around during class? What other "distractoins" have this similar reaction from the school PRIOR to the actual distraction occuring? If there's no such things, it's not really a legitimate argument.



    *COULD*. Know what else *COULD*? Not allowing her to participate in actual in-class education. And there are many things that could potentially negative effect the education of those around them...are there other such legal things that an individual is punished for prior to actually causing negative effects at the school? If not, then again...this doesn't seem like it can be the reasoning or if it is, it's still standing out as potential wrongful discrimination due to the extremely unequal application of the standard.


    You'd need to present me an analogy where there's similar discrimination occuring in terms of unequal application of the law to a protected class under the EPC for me to be able to ansewr you.

    Now, if say...they had a rule that BOYS involved in breaking the law could not attend school because of hte potential adverse effect on education it has, but girls who broke the law could...then yeah, I'd definitely have an issue.

    But just in a general sense, if getting public funding, unless the violation was actually on school grounds or during school hours, the simple fact that the kid is possibly going to have to go on trial for a crime isn't something I think they should probably get suspended for. But I can't speak to the constitutionality of that becaues it's not nearly as clear cut as an incident in this case where the application of the standard clearly singles out a particular race/sex/religion/etc.

    As to your emotional plea at the end about my "teenage son or daughter", sorry...that's irrelevant to me. We're not talking about if it's understandable that someone wants this rule, we're talking about if it's legal. I reject it when the right plays the Lovejoy "WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN" card and I reject it when the Left plays the "WE SHOULD DO IT BECUASE ITS 'GOOD'" argument. We have a system of government of laws and attempting to contort, ignore, or add to the laws based singularly on a notion of what's "good" or what we'd personally want for our own desires is unwise and has largely contributed to the troubles this country has current imho.

    I have no issue in theory with a policy that attempts to create further tangable, immediete, consequences for something like sex or pregnancy as a teenager due to the limited ability kids and teens tend to have to be able to truly look at and grasp the severity of the long term effects of those things and thus SHORT term consequences could potentially be beneficial. At the same time however, such things need to be lawful and constitutional because if they are not...even if they may be a good idea in and of themselves...it establishes legal precedence for incidents that you may not like so much.

    This is a school taking public funding putting forward a rule in which whatever motivation they have for it, it would appear to be an unequal application of that principle, and one in which an unquestionably disproportionate portion of a protected class (in this case gender) appears to be singled out for action. That's problematic under the law and to the precedence it sets constitutionally.
    All of that would be more appliciable if the school were saying that the child was expelled or could never attend. That child made a choice that makes educating them near impossible. The next year the child is likely physically able to meet their standards and seemingly is welcomed back. It makes sense that the school not want to expend additional resources on a child who's choices put them in that position.

    We have a system of government of laws and attempting to contort, ignore, or add to the laws based singularly on a notion of what's "good" or what we'd personally want for our own desires is unwise and has largely contributed to the troubles this country has current imho.
    I am thinking that title IX that people keep referring to does just that. This school has a policy in place and it is known to students. If you do X then Y will happen as a consequence. The student did X. To be upset about the pre established consequence post X seems rediculous.
    “Most people do not listen with the intent to understand; they listen with the intent to reply.”
    Stephen R. Covey


  8. #128
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,994

    Re: School policy forces students to take pregnancy tests, bans pregnant teens

    Quote Originally Posted by mertex View Post
    I'm surprised that Republican/conservatives would side with the school, since most conservatives claim to be so conscientious of the Constitution.
    It's because in reality conservatives are almost as segmented within the over all umbrella of the Republican label as Democrats are. The difference being often Democrats are segmented along "policy/cause" type segments (anti-war, pro-safety net, environmentalism, etc) where as Republicans it's often very much along the various ideological pillars (Social, Fiscal, Government, and Defense).

    What you generally see in terms of most of the Republicans/Conservatives defending the school are typically individuals that fit one of these roles:

    1. Those that favor Social Conservative at a far higher degree than Governmental Conservatism...meaning in instances where governmental principles of the constitution come to class against their social views, they'll typcially side with the social side and find ways to explain away their break from what would normally be their view governmentally.

    2. Those who are not founded so much on principle but rather party/idoelogical identification, and as such are taking stances less with a concern with ideological consistency but based on what it would appear to them the parties/movements platform on the issue would currently be within a vacuum

    3. Possibly those who are so extreme in the Governmental Pillar when it comes to limited government that they essentially disavow the notion of the EPC and corresponding law built off it and are primarily focused, to the exclusion of balancing for any other pillars or princpiles, on keeping the government away from choices made on a very localized level.

  9. #129
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,994

    Re: School policy forces students to take pregnancy tests, bans pregnant teens

    Quote Originally Posted by muciti View Post
    All of that would be more appliciable if the school were saying that the child was expelled or could never attend.
    Unless the argument can be made that the education at home is just as good, if not better, than what they'd get at school then they're being punished by having a reduction in educatoin. And frankly, if our education can function just as well, or better, without a school or face to face time with a teacher then why do we even still have that as a model?

    That child made a choice that makes educating them near impossible.
    And potentially another child ALSO made the choice that made educating another student near impossible...yet there is no effort what so ever to determine that fact, thus showing the one sided uneven distribution of the principle.

    Furthermore, you're making an assumption that educating them will be "near impossible" based off.....what? Obviously not what they're ACTUALLY doing because the school is sending them home prior to them even beginning to see if there will be such an issue.

    The next year the child is likely physically able to meet their standards and seemingly is welcomed back.
    What "standards" physically would not be met?

    It makes sense that the school not want to expend additional resources on a child who's choices put them in that position.
    What additional resources would be needed?

    And again, you're ignoring the fact that the "choice" to put the child in such a position was not made singularly by that child but potentially to another student. The school has no issues forcing one child to undergo questionably privacy infringing action to find out the information, but seems to have no effort what so ever to find out about the other person involved in the "choice".

    I am thinking that title IX that people keep referring to does just that.
    Title 9 sets out specifics as to how the law functions in accordance with the constitutional provision of Equal Protectoin under the law.

    This school has a policy in place and it is known to students. If you do X then Y will happen as a consequence. The student did X. To be upset about the pre established consequence post X seems rediculous.
    However, the policy targets only targets X when it's done by a female, not when it's done by a male. Unless there's a good reason why it's somehow incumbant upon an organization taking state money, and thus subject to similar laws as binds other state entities, that either the physical appearance and nature of BEING pregnant is the punishable thing, in which case what is your basis for said punishment....OR....the punishment is for having underage sex and you're looking to discourage that, in which case you're discriminating against a protected class by seeking to punish, or seeking out to a significantly greater degree to punish, females.

    Since no one's answered it when I've asked before...I'll say again...

    Can a woman become pregnant without a man in some fashion?

  10. #130
    Sage
    Kreton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Colorado Springs
    Last Seen
    11-13-17 @ 08:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    6,118

    Re: School policy forces students to take pregnancy tests, bans pregnant teens

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Unless the argument can be made that the education at home is just as good, if not better, than what they'd get at school then they're being punished by having a reduction in educatoin.
    Its not reduction, more of a delay.

    And frankly, if our education can function just as well, or better, without a school or face to face time with a teacher then why do we even still have that as a model?
    I think home and online learning can be just as good and for some people better as far as book smarts and learning. However there is a social aspect of school that is important to development as well.
    And potentially another child ALSO made the choice that made educating another student near impossible...yet there is no effort what so ever to determine that fact, thus showing the one sided uneven distribution of the principle.
    That child isnt going to missing school for sickness, cramps, and other pregnancy related things. Dr appts, giving birth recovery, ect. or not to the same extent.

    What "standards" physically would not be met?
    Physically being there.

    What additional resources would be needed?

    And again, you're ignoring the fact that the "choice" to put the child in such a position was not made singularly by that child but potentially to another student. The school has no issues forcing one child to undergo questionably privacy infringing action to find out the information, but seems to have no effort what so ever to find out about the other person involved in the "choice".
    interupting classes, partnered projects, additional accomodations, heightened risks.

    Title 9 sets out specifics as to how the law functions in accordance with the constitutional provision of Equal Protectoin under the law.
    As I said before, discrimination should be you being treated differently because of something beyond your control. Pregnancy is within a persons control.

    However, the policy targets only targets X when it's done by a female, not when it's done by a male.
    They are not targeting sex. They are targeting pregnancy which is not possible for a man.

    Can a woman become pregnant without a man in some fashion?
    Yes, but I dont believe it to be happening at the high school level.
    “Most people do not listen with the intent to understand; they listen with the intent to reply.”
    Stephen R. Covey


Page 13 of 26 FirstFirst ... 3111213141523 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •