In a society where sex sells everything from food to cars, we should not be surprised by hearing that pregnancy seems to be the new trend for teenagers. Who or what is to blame for this? The media, one of the largest influences for teenagers, continues to glorify sex and ignore responsibility and therefore should be held partially responsible. The world’s view of teen pregnancy is constantly transforming, along with media’s representation of teen sex and pregnancy.
Teen pregnancy hasn’t always been as popular as it is today. In the 1970s and 1980s, teenage pregnancy rates in the United States reached all time lows due to the availability of contraceptives. But, between 2005 and 2006, teenage pregnancy rates began to increase again. This rise in sexual content on television is diluting teens’ morals and common sense. While teenagers having sex is realistic, they way it is portrayed on television is not. With well-known role models such as Bristol Palin and Jamie Lynn Spears getting pregnant at such young ages, teenagers see pregnancy as being more acceptable.
The biggest problem with media is the glamorization of teen sex and teen pregnancy. One popular television show among teens, Sixteen and Pregnant, shows documentaries of young pregnant girls’ lives. Some may argue that this show is sending a message attempting to prevent pregnancy, but how can that be true when MTV is paying these girls to be on their television show? If this program is sending any message to teenage girls, it’s more of a “Hey! Get pregnant, call us, and we’ll pay you to be on our television show!” kind of message.
Television shows are downplaying the effects of pregnancy by showing it as a “rainbows and butterflies” situation. These teens on television have children, and their lives somehow seem peaceful and perfect. They have a precious little angel to love and to hold whenever they desire. But why aren’t teens being shown that having a child is not easy? Is it fair to give them a fake idea? Are we at fault for the majority of millions of teen pregnancies each year for allowing media to continue with this mess?
Teen pregnancy is clearly an important issue today. We need to move past the moral panic and denial that often alter ideas of the issue and see that it is realistic for teens to be sexually active. We must quit showing teen pregnancy as fun and easy, and give an honest example for teens to learn from.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Sunday, November 28, 2010
thINK Assignment # 2
In the United States, drunk driving is the leading criminal cause of death. What are the consequences of drunk driving? Depending on the state in which the driver was caught, punishment ranges from a fine and license suspension to a short jail sentence of 2-4 days and probation for perhaps 3 years. While the punishments may seem to be somewhat severe, they certainly do not prevent drunk drivers from becoming repeat offenders.
One increasingly common device used to attempt to prevent repeat offending drunk drivers is the ignition interlock device (IID), which is installed into the driver's vehicle and requires a breath sample before the car will start. If alcohol is detected on the driver's breath, the car will not start. The IID may be effective in preventing the driver from driving his/her vehicle while drunk, but does that stop the driver from driving another vehicle while drunk? Absolutely not.
Does suspending a drunk driver's license prevent him/her from driving drunk again? NO. It was recently found that 50-75% of drunk drivers with suspended licenses continue to drive. So, how do we stop drunk drivers and how should punishment be intensified? Authorities have found that sobriety checkpoints and zero tolerance laws have decreased the number of alcohol-related fatalities. But, when a drunk driver is caught, serious action is not being distributed. More often than not, serious action against drunk drivers is not being taken until a life has been ended.
The punishment for driving drunk should be more harsh than it is now. Jail time for six moths, probation for 2-3 years, admission to a rehabilitation center, and license suspension for a year should all be included in the sentencing of a drunk driver. Some may say that these consequences are too harsh, but there is no excuse for driving drunk.
According to the Mothers Against Drunk Driving Organization, in 2008, an estimated 11,773 people died in drunk driving crashes involving a driver with an illegal BAC (.08 or greater). The worst part about this statistic? Every one of these accidents could have been prevented. If a person is planning on drinking alcohol, he could simply stay the night where he is or have a sober friend drive him home. Both of which could save his life and maybe someone else's.
One increasingly common device used to attempt to prevent repeat offending drunk drivers is the ignition interlock device (IID), which is installed into the driver's vehicle and requires a breath sample before the car will start. If alcohol is detected on the driver's breath, the car will not start. The IID may be effective in preventing the driver from driving his/her vehicle while drunk, but does that stop the driver from driving another vehicle while drunk? Absolutely not.
Does suspending a drunk driver's license prevent him/her from driving drunk again? NO. It was recently found that 50-75% of drunk drivers with suspended licenses continue to drive. So, how do we stop drunk drivers and how should punishment be intensified? Authorities have found that sobriety checkpoints and zero tolerance laws have decreased the number of alcohol-related fatalities. But, when a drunk driver is caught, serious action is not being distributed. More often than not, serious action against drunk drivers is not being taken until a life has been ended.
The punishment for driving drunk should be more harsh than it is now. Jail time for six moths, probation for 2-3 years, admission to a rehabilitation center, and license suspension for a year should all be included in the sentencing of a drunk driver. Some may say that these consequences are too harsh, but there is no excuse for driving drunk.
According to the Mothers Against Drunk Driving Organization, in 2008, an estimated 11,773 people died in drunk driving crashes involving a driver with an illegal BAC (.08 or greater). The worst part about this statistic? Every one of these accidents could have been prevented. If a person is planning on drinking alcohol, he could simply stay the night where he is or have a sober friend drive him home. Both of which could save his life and maybe someone else's.
Friday, November 12, 2010
thINK assignment #1
What would you do if your 11 year old child died from an asthma attack at school because the "zero tolerance" policy adopted by his school didn't allow him to carry an inhaler? Or maybe if your six year old child was suspended from school for 45 days for bringing a Cub Scout camping utensil to school to eat his lunch with?
Zero tolerance policies were created to promote safety by punishing both major and minor offenses severely. This severe punishment is usually suspension for a long period of time or even expulsion. Supporters of the zero tolerance policy believe that by treating minor cases ridiculously, students will frightened into conformity. One example is a honor-roll student who was expelled for possessing fingernail clippers in school.
Some may say that zero tolerance policies are required to create an appropriate environment, but that is certainly not the case. Many schools that have adopted zero tolerance policies are finding that the crime levels in the schools have remained the same for the last thirty years. But, the number of students suspended has nearly doubled, along with the dropout rates. Students often feel trapped, as if in jail, while attending zero tolerance schools. Also, with expulsion being the main punishment, it seems that dropping out school is the only option for a lot of students.
According to usatoday, "Even many supporters say the get-tough effort too often fails to differentiate between good kids who make the typical mistakes of adolescence and the unruly delinquents who can bring learning to a standstill." How can students learn from their mistakes if they are severely punished for something as small as having fingernail clippers at school? Students should be at least given a couple chances before being expelled from school. But, the unforgiving zero tolerance policies do the exact opposite.
Zero tolerance policies were created to promote safety by punishing both major and minor offenses severely. This severe punishment is usually suspension for a long period of time or even expulsion. Supporters of the zero tolerance policy believe that by treating minor cases ridiculously, students will frightened into conformity. One example is a honor-roll student who was expelled for possessing fingernail clippers in school.
Some may say that zero tolerance policies are required to create an appropriate environment, but that is certainly not the case. Many schools that have adopted zero tolerance policies are finding that the crime levels in the schools have remained the same for the last thirty years. But, the number of students suspended has nearly doubled, along with the dropout rates. Students often feel trapped, as if in jail, while attending zero tolerance schools. Also, with expulsion being the main punishment, it seems that dropping out school is the only option for a lot of students.
According to usatoday, "Even many supporters say the get-tough effort too often fails to differentiate between good kids who make the typical mistakes of adolescence and the unruly delinquents who can bring learning to a standstill." How can students learn from their mistakes if they are severely punished for something as small as having fingernail clippers at school? Students should be at least given a couple chances before being expelled from school. But, the unforgiving zero tolerance policies do the exact opposite.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
