What's wrong with teenage pregnancy?

[SleepyWitch]

I've been thinking if teenagers are biologically ready and able to reproduce, why shouldn't they have children? After all, that's only natural, isn't it? If nature had meant teenagers not to get pregnant, they wouldn't be able to get pregnant in the first place.
So, what's wrong with teenage pregnancy? We often hear that teenagers should finish school and maybe study for a degree first...But given the high incidence of teenage pregnancies e.g. in the UK, isn't it time for a more flexible model of education? Wouldn't it make sense to help teenage mothers and fathers complete their education or training by making free child care available? Yeah, I can hear the good law-abiding tax-payers groaning already :) But in the long term, wouldn't it make more sense to support teenage parents in getting qualified and finding a job rather than forcing them to cut short their education and then stigmatizing them for being unskilled or unemployed apart from having children at a young age?

[IJustMadeThatUp]

I read an article once that said young, single mothers were more likely to work hard and become successful because of their child... I can't remember where, or what the statistics were. It might have been hogwash, like a lot of articles.

Not that I support teenagers having babies. People are capable of all sorts of things, it doesn't mean they should do it. And handouts? Now what good does that do, personally I think it makes people lazier. The vast majority (as with all things done with good intentions) would abuse the system.

Yes, I am bitter. I'm jealous that I couldn't get any assistance from the government when I was studying full time and working at least 25 hours a week. Nobody wants to help the proactive, they just want to support those that don't seem to want to help themselves.

P.S. I had a friend that got pregnant at sixteen, she's done well for herself ;)

That's my two cents worth.

[ClaesGefvenberg]

If nature had meant teenagers not to get pregnant, they wouldn't be able to get pregnant in the first place.I'll have to agree (in spite of having a teenage daughter in the house): Homo Sapiens is a stone age design, and it makes perfect sense for a stone age population that teenage girls should get pregnant pronto in order to ensure survival of the race...

...and there is the rub: In a stone age society a girl would be more or less done with her training and education once she is able to reproduce. She would also have a life expectancy of maybe 40 years, not to mention an even shorter reproductive period. The requirements of todays society however, are a bit different, but the basic design remains unchanged.

/Claes

[Hurricane]

If nature had meant teenagers not to get pregnant, they wouldn't be able to get pregnant in the first place.


Just because it's physically possible to have a child at a certain age (hell, females as young as five have given birth) doesn't mean someone is emotionally ready to take care of that child.
I'm 19 years old and I think it's fair to say (though admittedly a little presumptuous) that I'm more mature than most people my age. If I got pregnant now, there is absolutely no way that I would be able to take care of that child the way that it deserves, even if I had the full support of my family, let alone if I had gotten pregnant at 16.
The government and (in the US) states should have more programs to support young mothers in completing their education, but it's more important to prevent these pregnancies in the first place by having proper sex ed. A teenager is essentially still a child, they really have no business raising a child themselves.

[SleepyWitch]

I totally agree about sex ed, Hurricane, but I was wondering about how to deal with teenage parents when it's "too late". There seems no point in discriminating against them or making life more difficult for them once the child is born.

[Hurricane]

I think part of the problem is that even when stuff is available to them (I don't know about in the UK, but in the US night classes to get high school equivalency, etc. are pretty easy to find), it isn't feasible on their end.
This is making sweeping generalizations, but most girls who get pregnant early don't come from the best situations. They can keep the guy with them for a while, but eventually he's going to get tired and frustrated and want to do the things he did before the girl got pregnant and possibly leave her.
The girl's parents are most likely going to help take up the burden, but they just finished raising one child and aren't looking to raise another one, another source of potential tension. If the family qualifies, they can go on welfare, or if the girl gets a job, that's a source of income, but no job available to a high school dropout is going to pay enough to keep a kid in daycare and support a family.

It's a really tough situation, one that really only seems to work if:
A: the father stays with the girl and is supportive.
B: the child's grandparents help out watch it during the day if they aren't working.
C: the girl gets a job while attending night school.

The only way I really see any state intervention helping is if they provide day care either free of charge or very cheaply to children of young mothers, or really anyone living below the poverty line.
At the end of the day though, an ounce of prevention...

[The Comedian]

Many good points made here.

I think that teens who get pregnant bear a stigma of irresponsibility (rightly or wrongly, I do not know) because most people assume that the pregnancy was unwanted. Of course, we should do everything we can to make life easy for the girl, but even more importantly, to the infant who will be a part of her world for the rest of her life.

As Hurricane noted, in the US there are many vehicles for a teenage mother to succeed. But it's just harder to do so than when you don't have to take care of a child. Proper child care takes massive amounts of time, energy, and money. So does school. So does work. As a result, I think most people are wise to advise teens to hold off on starting a family until they have the educations and careers on track. Doing so gives the parents more opportunities to take care of their family.

I have two young children -- my wife and I both have professional careers, and it's still hard to get our acts together, and our lives are much easier when compared to a teenage mother. I also work in a community college where I see many single mothers working on their educations, working full-time jobs, and trying to give their kid or kids they best life they can. And, at least in the US, most colleges and universities have child care available for working parents at a reduced rate (free would be a little too far, I think) to childcare that isn't associated with a college.

As IJustMadeThatUp pointed out, most are the hardest working people that I have ever seen. But they hardly sleep, they worry all the time, and they're often motivated by trying to keep their child from the difficult life choices that they made.

So, in summary: Yes, help the teenage and single mothers -- they're some of the best most diligent people in any community. But I don't think we should encourage the habit of teen pregnancy.

[OrphanPip]

In Quebec we have universal subsidized daycare with a 5 dollar a day user fee. These kinds of public programs provide a great outlet for supporting parents that want to get involved in work and education, but simply don't have the benefit of grandparents or the like helping out. It does no good to simply let teenage mothers fall along the wayside.

I agree with Comedian that we shouldn't be promoting teen pregnancy though. (Even though most of the Western world is desperate for children, the USA is the only country with a replenishing natural growth rate)

[Paulclem]

One of our relatives is in just this position. It would have been better to have delayed pregnancy, with better education etc, but after the fact there's no point in being negative. Supporting the mother - particularly the single mother, supports the child.

In the past there has been a lot of terrible stigmatism of teen mothers in the UK - not fathers I hasten to add - particularly by the more right wing parties, which just hardens attitudes to vulnerable young mothers with vulnerable children. I don't believe that any mother got pregnant for the money, or to get theri own house. It's a poor rate of pay for a huge sacrifice if they did.

I'm glad to see so many supportive viewpoints about a vulnerable and poorly supported section of the community who were really picked on in the past by the holier than thou crowd. I too work in community education, and I have to agree that the young mothers I have seen really do focus to improve their lot for their kids.

[Scheherazade]

I am really torn in this issue:

I do believe that we should offer all the support we can so that teen-mothers are good parents but I also believe that teenage years (especially early teens) should not be spent by worrying about bringing up a baby.

As far as I am aware there is a support system in the UK so that they can carry on with their education while still bringing up their baby. Is it enough? Not sure.

Those teen-mothers who carry on with their education indeed work hard to complete their studies and get a job but I cannot help wondering what percentage of teen-mothers is actually making use of the opportunities available to them.

[stephofthenight]

As an almost teenage mother I will give you my thoughts. but keep this in mind, think about how things use to be it was normal to get married and have kids at 15... some intersting facts.

1. every 2 years after age 17 you wait to have a child it increases the chances of defects.
2. during your teenage years you are more fertile, and Having a child balances hormones and things and reduces the risk of certain female problems
3. Name something that makes you grow up faster than knowing you are responsible for the life of someone else. the sole provider
4. I don't think we should be given handouts, it shouldnt be encouraged, but for those who do it for the fact they want a family they should have help.... Honestly no one is ever ready for a child, but some people want a family at a younger age, the younger you are the younger you will be for the grandkids... :)
5. Just because we are young, does not mean that we are dumb. true some of us have been raised with blinders but why is it that familys want to throw us out, churches disown us, and everyone look down and say slut becuase we decide we want a family rather it was planned or not?

America has lots of programs, government funding, (foodstamps, wellfare, college) most colleges have programs especialy if you go to teaching, or something with children, and many professors will tolerate young children in the room as long as they are quiet. Churches will sometimes offer daycare for younger mothers who routinly attend church...

just my two cents...

[JBI]

Biologically no problem, culturally though, it ends up killing the girl most times, restricting possible employment opportunities and such.

Generally, the way I see it - when teenage pregnancy happens, the bulk of the time the father isn't likely to be around, and the mother not likely to be self-supporting, which makes the children themselves dependent on income outside of their immediate family. It's enough having to bother one's own parents for money, but when it comes to extended family, things can be drastic.

To be honest, I would rather teenage girls just get abortions and avoid the responsibilities - as it is there are enough screwed up kids in the world, there is no point to moralize and suggest some 15 year old girl is capable of raising one who isn't a screw up - perhaps in the very odd case, but in most cases, the mother, I would think, is either naive, in the sense that she became pregnant, or from a rather difficult background herself.

If the whole teenage pregnancy were the norm though, we would have tons of other problems, notably the fact that women, as women, would more likely be restricted more into the role of "mother" which is a particularly Atwoodian diagram that I wish not to delve into too much.

[Butosai]

Is this a serious question, honestly? It doesn't matter when females are naturally ready to have a child, this isn't the stone ages, this is 2010.

[soundofmusic]

As an almost teenage mother I will give you my thoughts. but keep this in mind, think about how things use to be it was normal to get married and have kids at 15... some intersting facts.

1. every 2 years after age 17 you wait to have a child it increases the chances of defects.
2. during your teenage years you are more fertile, and Having a child balances hormones and things and reduces the risk of certain female problems
3. Name something that makes you grow up faster than knowing you are responsible for the life of someone else. the sole provider
4. I don't think we should be given handouts, it shouldnt be encouraged, but for those who do it for the fact they want a family they should have help.... Honestly no one is ever ready for a child, but some people want a family at a younger age, the younger you are the younger you will be for the grandkids... :)
5. Just because we are young, does not mean that we are dumb. true some of us have been raised with blinders but why is it that familys want to throw us out, churches disown us, and everyone look down and say slut becuase we decide we want a family rather it was planned or not?

America has lots of programs, government funding, (foodstamps, wellfare, college) most colleges have programs especialy if you go to teaching, or something with children, and many professors will tolerate young children in the room as long as they are quiet. Churches will sometimes offer daycare for younger mothers who routinly attend church...

just my two cents...

Exactly what is it that the teenager wants:
Do they want to leave their mothers home and can't make it without public assistance?
Do they want a family; if so, isn't it a good idea to find a husband that can support you while you eat your way through 4 big macs the last few months of your pregancy?
Do you want to quit school; but don't want to be considered a loafer?
I married at 18 and had a child at 21, it was very difficult then and it is much more difficult now to "make it" in the world. You need an education, you often need two people working to make rent...and personally, I have raised my children and paid for them...
I'm tired of paying for other peoples....

[Butosai]

Just because it's physically possible to have a child at a certain age (hell, females as young as five have given birth) doesn't mean someone is emotionally ready to take care of that child.
I'm 19 years old and I think it's fair to say (though admittedly a little presumptuous) that I'm more mature than most people my age. If I got pregnant now, there is absolutely no way that I would be able to take care of that child the way that it deserves, even if I had the full support of my family, let alone if I had gotten pregnant at 16.
The government and (in the US) states should have more programs to support young mothers in completing their education, but it's more important to prevent these pregnancies in the first place by having proper sex ed. A teenager is essentially still a child, they really have no business raising a child themselves.

I absolutely disagree with this. The person who gives birth to that child should be fully responsible for taking care of their own child. We already have too many mommies popping out lots of children, not taking care of them, and then receiving checks from the government. If someone has a child, take care of them, not the government. That way, everyone else doesn't have to pay for someones mistake with endless of amounts of taxation.

I do agree on the sex ed however. Abstinence only sex ed is horrible, and most people that receive that type of education end up with more STDs and more pregnancies than those who receive safe sex education.

[Maryd.]

Serious or not serious... I think the young should be exploring the world, meeting new people having fun... Not being tied down into nappies/diapers or feeding and fussing with a child. The young should be young. I was 29 when I had my first child and I have to say, I honestly thought I still wasn't mature enough. So just enjoy your youth...

[OrphanPip]

I absolutely disagree with this. The person who gives birth to that child should be fully responsible for taking care of their own child. We already have too many mommies popping out lots of children, not taking care of them, and then receiving checks from the government. If someone has a child, take care of them, not the government. That way, everyone else doesn't have to pay for someones mistake with endless of amounts of taxation.

I do agree on the sex ed however. Abstinence only sex ed is horrible, and most people that receive that type of education end up with more STDs and more pregnancies than those who receive safe sex education.

Should we stand by and allow an irresponsible mother ruin the life of an innocent child? There is more at stake than the mother receiving a free ride, there is another life involved. I tend to agree with JBI that an abortion is the most sensible decision for a pregnant teenager at that age. However, that is a decision that simply isn't acceptable to many woman for diverse reasons. Once that child exists it has the right to have at least a moderate chance to succeed.

Edit: I'll happily have a small portion of my taxes go to those children.

[Blanket Heist]

There's nothing WRONG with teenage pregnancy.

It's just not the most EFFECTIVE way to provide an ideal home for a child.

[Virgil]

I've been thinking if teenagers are biologically ready and able to reproduce, why shouldn't they have children? After all, that's only natural, isn't it? If nature had meant teenagers not to get pregnant, they wouldn't be able to get pregnant in the first place.
So, what's wrong with teenage pregnancy?
Well, it was probably the norm (of course they were married) until the last 75 years. Nothing wrong with it biologically and as Stephanie mentions there may be biological benefits. I've seen similar. The problem is that the nature of society has changed. If you want to be successful in today's world, you need an education and a career, usually with both parents working. Sure a teen can go to school (and i think in the US they are still required to) and raise a child, but man is it tough. It's hard enough to go to school and it's hard enough to raise a baby, but put them together and wow. I don't think I would have had the maturity and wherewithall to do both as a teen.


We often hear that teenagers should finish school and maybe study for a degree first...But given the high incidence of teenage pregnancies e.g. in the UK, isn't it time for a more flexible model of education?
Sure. They have night classes here and probably even special classes specifically for this, at least in large enough cities. I would think they have it in UK.


Wouldn't it make sense to help teenage mothers and fathers complete their education or training by making free child care available? Yeah, I can hear the good law-abiding tax-payers groaning already :)
You're probably thinking of me. :p But where's the father in all this? Shouldn't he be helping out, after he gets a good smack across the head with a baseball bat? He needs to be identified and he and his family (if he's under age) should be forced to pay for the upbringing, and that means for the rest of the child's life. And what about the girl's family? Why should "the good law abiding tax payers" be forced to pay for their child's mistake? If I as a kid broke someone's window playing ball, my parents would be responsible for paying for a new window. I would imagine that's the same everywhere. That's no different here.


But in the long term, wouldn't it make more sense to support teenage parents in getting qualified and finding a job rather than forcing them to cut short their education and then stigmatizing them for being unskilled or unemployed apart from having children at a young age?
At what point do you remove the stigma and therefore encourage bad behavior? At what point do you encourage further behavior by making life easy and solving the problems they got themselves into?

I have no sympathy for the girl and certainly not for the swinging dick of a boy/man (and I use the word man loosely) who got themselves into this mess. They and their parents need to foot as much of the cost as possible. But i have immense compasasion for the child and I want to give it its best chance in life. Some sociatal costs will be necessary. And there is no question that I would pay for what it takes for the child than support an abortion.

[Hurricane]

I absolutely disagree with this. The person who gives birth to that child should be fully responsible for taking care of their own child. We already have too many mommies popping out lots of children, not taking care of them, and then receiving checks from the government. If someone has a child, take care of them, not the government. That way, everyone else doesn't have to pay for someones mistake with endless of amounts of taxation.

In an ideal world, people would plan their pregnancies properly and be able to take care of the child. Unfortunately, this isn't the case and not everybody is jumping to get abortions when the situation arises. Whatever, that's their choice and you can't force them. Also, once the kid exists, it's not its fault that it's alive. You shouldn't punish the kid because it was born in bad circumstances.
The welfare system sucks. But, it's better than an increase of people in destitute conditions, homelessness or potentially turning towards crime. I'll shuck out a couple more dollars each year if it means possibly saving a few and having a more secure and prosperous society.

[Butosai]

Should we stand by and allow an irresponsible mother ruin the life of an innocent child? There is more at stake than the mother receiving a free ride, there is another life involved. I tend to agree with JBI that an abortion is the most sensible decision for a pregnant teenager at that age. However, that is a decision that simply isn't acceptable to many woman for diverse reasons. Once that child exists it has the right to have at least a moderate chance to succeed.

Edit: I'll happily have a small portion of my taxes go to those children.

Many woman who irresponsibly have children don't take care of them, and don't use their free ride from the government to take care of their children, in many cases, they use it on other means. Not to say that someone who accidentally has a child is the same way, not at all, but at least the latter is more likely to take care of her child regardless of the help received.

But maybe I'm biased. I live in a run down country town with a lot white trash type woman that seem to have 10 kids and don't take care of them. I'm not applying this stereotype to everyone though. Because I see the difference in someone who has an unplanned child and then takes care of it. But does a person like this really need government help? The above can keep on having more and more kids, and get more and more money, and still never take of their/her/his kids.

[SleepyWitch]

You're probably thinking of me. :p But where's the father in all this? Shouldn't he be helping out, after he gets a good smack across the head with a baseball bat? He needs to be identified and he and his family (if he's under age) should be forced to pay for the upbringing, and that means for the rest of the child's life. And what about the girl's family? Why should "the good law abiding tax payers" be forced to pay for their child's mistake? If I as a kid broke someone's window playing ball, my parents would be responsible for paying for a new window. I would imagine that's the same everywhere. That's no different here.

very good point. but what if the father is poor or his family don't earn enough money to support the child? I guess in that case they can wriggle out of it?
by the way, I think in the UK, encouraging (incl. condoning) one's child to participate in sexual acts counts as sexual abuse. So technically, the parents of teenage mothers should be guilty of sexual abuse as long as the girl is under 16 (and so should the teenage father's parents, for that matter). I wonder how many parents ever get sued for that. You'd probably have to sue half the country.


The above can keep on having more and more kids, and get more and more money, and still never take of their/her/his kids.

very good point. so would you be in favour of vouchers for the kids rather than cash hand-outs? i.e. these women could get vouchers for baby clothes, food, text books?

[JBI]

Well, it was probably the norm (of course they were married) until the last 75 years. Nothing wrong with it biologically and as Stephanie mentions there may be biological benefits. I've seen similar. The problem is that the nature of society has changed. If you want to be successful in today's world, you need an education and a career, usually with both parents working. Sure a teen can go to school (and i think in the US they are still required to) and raise a child, but man is it tough. It's hard enough to go to school and it's hard enough to raise a baby, but put them together and wow. I don't think I would have had the maturity and wherewithall to do both as a teen.


Sure. They have night classes here and probably even special classes specifically for this, at least in large enough cities. I would think they have it in UK.


You're probably thinking of me. :p But where's the father in all this? Shouldn't he be helping out, after he gets a good smack across the head with a baseball bat? He needs to be identified and he and his family (if he's under age) should be forced to pay for the upbringing, and that means for the rest of the child's life. And what about the girl's family? Why should "the good law abiding tax payers" be forced to pay for their child's mistake? If I as a kid broke someone's window playing ball, my parents would be responsible for paying for a new window. I would imagine that's the same everywhere. That's no different here.


At what point do you remove the stigma and therefore encourage bad behavior? At what point do you encourage further behavior by making life easy and solving the problems they got themselves into?

I have no sympathy for the girl and certainly not for the swinging dick of a boy/man (and I use the word man loosely) who got themselves into this mess. They and their parents need to foot as much of the cost as possible. But i have immense compasasion for the child and I want to give it its best chance in life. Some sociatal costs will be necessary. And there is no question that I would pay for what it takes for the child than support an abortion.


As for the taxpayer bit and whatnot, I am for public childcare in general, regardless of whether it is a teenage mother or not - generally speaking, I think that would probably balance itself out in tax revenue anyway - think about it, if somebody is taking care of a kid, somebody is not working, and therefore not contributing to GDP and by extension, income tax - the only difference is, public childcare a) allows parents to have more freedom, allows children from different backgrounds to communicate with each other, allows access to perhaps services and items parents themselves couldn't afford, and also allows for a monitoring of healthy development (which can be quite a problem if parents are, as they say, "not suited for parenting").


That to me isn't the problem, and also has nothing to do with teenagers - the whole private-public child care is just as important an issue amongst 40 year old mothers as it is amongst 15-year old ones.


Here's a question for thought - how does the media through movies such as Juno try to recreate the child pregnancy bit as an unrealistic Christian fantasy in support of the anti-abortion lobby. I think it is safe to say that the film itself on one level acts as a pro-life propaganda film by romanticizing the whole teenage pregnancy thing into something that can be "dealt with" with minimal consequences.

[Butosai]

very good point. so would you be in favour of vouchers for the kids rather than cash hand-outs? i.e. these women could get vouchers for baby clothes, food, text books?

Of course! That would certainly be better than getting free money. Although, I'd rather see specific groups doing these things instead of it being supported through taxes.

[Jozanny]

It can be disruptive to entire families as well; my sister not only created serious rifts on the maternal side of our relations as a pregnant teen, she showed up at my university doorstep, having run away. I understand that young woman have to tamp the biology, and that is not always fair, but I am against early pregnancy on the basis of economic morality.

It holds women back, and George Eliot knew this in the 19th century (cf Adam Bede) just as we do today-- some women want to be mothers and nothing but-- then they wind up surprised by the vice of poverty. It is no good, and scores against their babies as well.

[Paulclem]

Against teen pregnancy or not, it is a fact that needs dealing with. The bottom line - whatever the parents are like - is that the child will suffer if you penalise or stigmatise the girl.

As for the quibbles about paying out your money, how much does it actually cost you as an individual? Virtually nothing. So much for that two pence worth.

[Virgil]

very good point. but what if the father is poor or his family don't earn enough money to support the child? I guess in that case they can wriggle out of it?
by the way, I think in the UK, encouraging (incl. condoning) one's child to participate in sexual acts counts as sexual abuse. So technically, the parents of teenage mothers should be guilty of sexual abuse as long as the girl is under 16 (and so should the teenage father's parents, for that matter). I wonder how many parents ever get sued for that. You'd probably have to sue half the country.

Well, like anything else, there will have to be public support if they can't afford it. But the parents of the teens need to be required to help their children before public assistance kicks in.


As for the taxpayer bit and whatnot, I am for public childcare in general, regardless of whether it is a teenage mother or not - generally speaking, I think that would probably balance itself out in tax revenue anyway - think about it, if somebody is taking care of a kid, somebody is not working, and therefore not contributing to GDP and by extension, income tax - the only difference is, public childcare a) allows parents to have more freedom, allows children from different backgrounds to communicate with each other, allows access to perhaps services and items parents themselves couldn't afford, and also allows for a monitoring of healthy development (which can be quite a problem if parents are, as they say, "not suited for parenting").

If you mean by public something run by the government that is a completely different issue. The fact is that daycare exists everywhere, at least here, whether you pay for it or the public pays for it. Your analysis above is flawed. All two career parent families use day care. What makes sense is a cost benefit analysis that deteremines whether it's cheaper to pay for day care or for the mother to stay home. If the mother (and let's not be sexist, I've known some fathers that have dropped work to care for the children) only can generate a salary of 400 dollars a month and it costs 500 dollars a month to keep a child in day care, then it doesn't make economic sense to put the child in day care. The best place to make these decisions are at the family level where they can (a) understand their economic situation and (b) determine the emotional benefits of whether a mother should stay home with the child. Not to mention the benefits to the child by having constant hour attention and a loving parent overseeing them.

[Delta40]

i don't think biology by itself is the only determining factor. lets face it, social skill sets and functioning capacity are things which need to be taken into account.

the average age of women's cycles has lessened over the years - I am inclined to think it is due to the additives, and processing of foods and substantial change in diet. If we rely only on biology, it removes reason and rational from the equation. Since we do not apply the biology only standard in other areas, why do it here?

[Butosai]

Look, I'm just going to put it how I think straightforward, I don't think the government should have any involvement whatsoever in someones personal life.

[Paulclem]

If only it were that simple. Some people clearly need help and support. With the right help and support the teen mothers have the chance to turn into contributors rather than some one who needs more help. More importantly, the child will benefit from this. Of course there are those that don't end up as contributors, and their kids go off the rails. It's cheaper in the long run to try to help early.

[applepie]

Just because it's physically possible to have a child at a certain age (hell, females as young as five have given birth) doesn't mean someone is emotionally ready to take care of that child.
I'm 19 years old and I think it's fair to say (though admittedly a little presumptuous) that I'm more mature than most people my age. If I got pregnant now, there is absolutely no way that I would be able to take care of that child the way that it deserves, even if I had the full support of my family, let alone if I had gotten pregnant at 16.
.

I smiled a bit when I started to read this thread:) While it isn't a funny topic, it is one that is near and dear to me.

I will turn 26 years old this year, and my oldest of my two children will turn 7 just weeks after me. As I'm sure you are doing the math, I turned 19 just a few short weeks before I gave birth.

I chose a very different path for my life than they typical graduate high school, go to college, start a career, and then worry about finding a spouse and having kids. Rather I graduated, married 3 months later, and found myself pregnant just another few months after that. That isn't to say that I have no experience with teenage pregnancy, because I had been pregnant and miscarried at 16.


The government and (in the US) states should have more programs to support young mothers in completing their education

I can say that there are plenty of programs to help mothers in the US. Not just young moms, but all women who find themselves pregnant. There is education assistance available if you seek it. Now, it will not pay for an expensive college in full, but it will help pay for you to attend a smaller college and further your education. There are even programs to help with child care and food. You just have to know who to ask.



it's more important to prevent these pregnancies in the first place by having proper sex ed.

I don't know how much more clear that they can be in sex ed... If you have sex, don't use a contraceptive, you can get pregnant. As a teen you are especially susceptible because people are hardwired to be most fertile between the ages of 16 and around 25 or so. Just because society has changed how young people are viewed does not mean that evolution has changed to keep up with it. I am far more likely to blame parents who would rather turn a blind eye to what their child is doing instead of ensuring that they are getting the proper care.


A teenager is essentially still a child, they really have no business raising a child themselves

The opinion that you voice above is what I think is the biggest problem within society. Teenagers are viewed as children and they are allowed to act as a child for many years beyond what would have been acceptable even a century ago. This, I believe, breeds the same immaturity that makes people incapable of handling such a situation. Even at 16 I was capable of caring for my own child. That isn't to say that life would have been easy, but I had a full time job and the common sense to know where to seek help. As it was, I had many of the same issues when I had my son. There was no family around, and my husband was in the military and around very little. I had the full care of my child with no relief for years. I still managed to attend school full time, online since there was no money for child care, and obtain my degree. There was some financial aid for school, but mostly I paid for school in the same way as the rest of the population, student loans.

We still struggle from time to time, having two kids to support now, but I think having my children young was the best thing I've ever done. I get my kids in a way that older people don't. I'm not always the most patient with them, but I doubt another decade or two would have changed that any. Even better, I'm really able to enjoy them. I don't get as exhausted as many of the other mothers I see who are 15 years my senior. I'm also less likely to be understanding to the point of spoiling my children rotten. All is all, it was the best thing for me. It helped me to be a better and more responsible person and I approach life much differently that others my age who are still behaving the same way I did 10 years ago.

[ennison]

What's wrong is that raising a child is a serious business and most teenagers are frivolous and unserious - as they should be.
Most of the children of teenage unmarried mums that I've seen are dysfunctional and the selfish desire of silly little girls to have real live dollies to play with is at the root of that.

[applepie]

What's wrong is that raising a child is a serious business and most teenagers are frivolous and unserious - as they should be.


Not to be entirely argumentative, but why should they be??? I honestly don't understand why society has started trying to lengthen childhood. It's only been in the 20th century that this became such a strong trend, and I really don't get it. I'll not be raising my children that way, and I certainly wasn't raised that way. There's no damage from being expected to act grown up at a younger age than current social standards demand. Even since I was a teen, I see it getting worse. I had someone tell me the other day that some immature behavior was OK because the individual in question was "just a kid". Said individual is the same age as me, and this isn't the first or last time that I'll hear such a thing. Before we know it the government will HAVE to change laws allowing people to vote at 18 and buy alcohol at 21 simply because people will not be adult enough to handle these decisions, and it will have all been encouraged by people trying to keep people kids longer.

[SleepyWitch]

The opinion that you voice above is what I think is the biggest problem within society. Teenagers are viewed as children and they are allowed to act as a child for many years beyond what would have been acceptable even a century ago. This, I believe, breeds the same immaturity that makes people incapable of handling such a situation.
:thumbs_up:thumbs_up:thumbs_up

that's exactly what I mean. I'm not encouraging teenage pregnancy as in saying that every unemployed 16 y/o drop-out should get pregnant. But I do think teenage pregnancy wouldn't be that much of a problem if we didn't allow our youngster to be so immature.

[Paulclem]

Not to be entirely argumentative, but why should they be??? I honestly don't understand why society has started trying to lengthen childhood. It's only been in the 20th century that this became such a strong trend, and I really don't get it. I'll not be raising my children that way, and I certainly wasn't raised that way. There's no damage from being expected to act grown up at a younger age than current social standards demand. Even since I was a teen, I see it getting worse. I had someone tell me the other day that some immature behavior was OK because the individual in question was "just a kid". Said individual is the same age as me, and this isn't the first or last time that I'll hear such a thing. Before we know it the government will HAVE to change laws allowing people to vote at 18 and buy alcohol at 21 simply because people will not be adult enough to handle these decisions, and it will have all been encouraged by people trying to keep people kids longer.

I think you've got a good point. In the past in the UK, school leaving was at 14. It's now going up to 18. I think it has to go up due to the skills necessary to operate in a modern eonomy. The downside is that the peer training given by older colleagues in work has been lost to be replaced with peers of a similar age. Problematic, given the current school system still groups kids in their own age groups.

[applepie]

:thumbs_up:thumbs_up:thumbs_up

that's exactly what I mean. I'm not encouraging teenage pregnancy as in saying that every unemployed 16 y/o drop-out should get pregnant. But I do think teenage pregnancy wouldn't be that much of a problem if we didn't allow our youngster to be so immature.

That's my point as well:) I'm not going to tell my daughter to go have a baby at 16, that would be silly because it does make life more difficult. You have much higher hurdles to overcome when you're a teen mom. I do think that if people expected their kids to behave more mature at a younger age that the 22-27 that seems to be expected now, then it would not be as BIG of a catastrophy. They would be more capable of really caring for a child instead of bemoaning the loss of their childhood.

[ennison]

Would you want to go to sea at 14 and be expected to take part in an adult world. For pity's sake lengthening childhood is progress.

[applepie]

Would you want to go to sea at 14 and be expected to take part in an adult world. For pity's sake lengthening childhood is progress.

It's progress to a point, but eventually it just becomes overcompensation. It is one thing to allow kids to be kids, it is entirely another to give people all the perks of being an adult and expect no responsibility. I don't think that expecting an 18 year old or even a 16 year old to behave like an adult when they are making adult decisions is too much.

In regards to pregnancy, having sex is a very adult thing to be doing, and if you are willing to do that then you should be willing and able to deal with the consequences. If you are not, then you have no real business being sexually active in the first place. I can offer the same wisdom that I grew up hearing, if you want to behave like an adult then you take everything that comes with it not just the fun bits.

[Paulclem]

Would you want to go to sea at 14 and be expected to take part in an adult world. For pity's sake lengthening childhood is progress.

And there lies the tension. The opportunity is offered through education etc. Do kids realise what an opportunity they have before they are then expected to work for most of their lives? No, because they are young. But lots of teens want to be adults and do adult things - which they clearly do. They need support and guidance from their parents etc, which they may or may not heed. Difficult situations arise.

[ennison]

But my idea of "childhood" is probably not the same as most in this forum.. It's simply an avoidance of the horrible exploitation that used to happen to the 14 -24 year age group.
Childhood ends in the 14- 16 age range but there are a number of indefinite years thereafter.

[Paulclem]

But my idea of "childhood" is probably not the same as most in this forum.. It's simply an avoidance of the horrible exploitation that used to happen to the 14 -24 year age group.
Childhood ends in the 14- 16 age range but there are a number of indefinite years thereafter.

Yes - difficult to generalise. It comes down to individuals and their circumstances. I feel sorry for the kids who get pregnant. It's hard enough as an adult. It's easy to complain about them, but after the fact you're then talking about the Mother and a baby. They need support, but of course it would be better if it happened later.

[BienvenuJDC]

To raise a child, the optimal conditions is one mother, one father, married in a happy home. If the teen is in those circumstances, then that is the best circumstances for the child.

[Niamh]

:thumbs_up:thumbs_up:thumbs_up

that's exactly what I mean. I'm not encouraging teenage pregnancy as in saying that every unemployed 16 y/o drop-out should get pregnant. But I do think teenage pregnancy wouldn't be that much of a problem if we didn't allow our youngster to be so immature.
Thats the point i was going to make.


In regards to pregnancy, having sex is a very adult thing to be doing, and if you are willing to do that then you should be willing and able to deal with the consequences. If you are not, then you have no real business being sexually active in the first place. I can offer the same wisdom that I grew up hearing, if you want to behave like an adult then you take everything that comes with it not just the fun bits.

Here here!!

[The Atheist]

Just for anyone who thought biological development is a good idea to base child-bearing on:

Link (http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/news-by-industry/et-cetera/9-year-old-girl-becomes-worlds-youngest-mom/articleshow/5531500.cms)

[SleepyWitch]

Just for anyone who thought biological development is a good idea to base child-bearing on:

Link (http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/news-by-industry/et-cetera/9-year-old-girl-becomes-worlds-youngest-mom/articleshow/5531500.cms)

Interesting (and shocking) article, Atheist. But I would still imagine that this is an exceptional case. Well, I suppose you are right to point out that kids become fertile at an increasingly younger age. So instead of teenage pregnancy, we'll probably have to worry about child pregnancy soon.

[Paulclem]

Interesting (and shocking) article, Atheist. But I would still imagine that this is an exceptional case. Well, I suppose you are right to point out that kids become fertile at an increasingly younger age. So instead of teenage pregnancy, we'll probably have to worry about child pregnancy soon.

It is shocking, given the possible cause of the pregnancy, but we are in a fortunate time in terms of women, pregnancy and lifespan.

Remember Juliet was thirteen when she was to be betrothed to Paris. Her mother had already had a child by that time. Some cultures syill retain vestiges of child marriage and betrothal.

[Virgil]

Just for anyone who thought biological development is a good idea to base child-bearing on:

Link (http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/news-by-industry/et-cetera/9-year-old-girl-becomes-worlds-youngest-mom/articleshow/5531500.cms)

Good God! That is shocking.


Interesting (and shocking) article, Atheist. But I would still imagine that this is an exceptional case. Well, I suppose you are right to point out that kids become fertile at an increasingly younger age. So instead of teenage pregnancy, we'll probably have to worry about child pregnancy soon.

What makes you think that it's an "increasingly younger age" Sleepy? Better nutrition?

[JuniperWoolf]

What makes you think that it's an "increasingly younger age" Sleepy? Better nutrition?

That's an interesting subject, actually. I went over it in one of my bio classes. Whether or not women today are actually menstruating earlier than women back in Juliette's day is up for debate because they didn't study menstruation (or any aspect of women's sexuality really) four hundred years ago. A lot of scientists think that we're gradually developing earlier these days though, because if you look at paintings and descriptions of girls hundreds of years ago they seem far less developed. This could be for a couple of reasons:

1. Diet. If you don't have the proper nutrients that you need to survive the shedding of your endometrial wall and subsequent bleeding, your body will hold off in order to save you. We eat a lot more meat now, so we have blood to spare.

2. Hormones that are found in food nowadays that weren't prevalent before. For example, estrogen indairy milk can cause early menstruation and development.

3. Endocrine disorders that are able to persist because people with health problems are taken care of better now than ever before.

4. Low levels of physical activity. Young girls used to put a lot more energy into physical strain before the industrial revolution, so they didn't have enough energy to make it through menstruation (it really tends to take a lot out of you). So, like with the poor diet thing, your body holds off.

There's probably more, I'm writing from four-year-old memory. The female menstrual and ovulation cycle is cool, it's always been my second favourite topic after neurology. It's so perfect and clock-like.

[*Classic*Charm*]

There are also contradictions in physiology as to whether or not a female should be reproducing at that age. Yes, she's sexually mature in that she's capable of ovulating and conceiving, but in terms of her actual body structure, she's not full grown to a point that is optimal for the actual birthing process. A 13 year old girl physically does not have a large enough pelvis to allow a baby through comfortably. Birth would be substantially more difficult for her than for an older more physically mature woman. If the girl is small enough and she's carrying a large enough baby, she could break her pelvis. Not only that, but a 13 year old girl is still growing. The food she eats should be going to promote her own growth, but if she's carrying a baby, a significant portion of her energy intake is going to the baby. Between that and the fact that pregnancy suppresses your immune system, you're putting the health of the mother at risk.

While yes, a 13 year old girl is capable of getting pregnant and many did way back in the day, this is likely responsible for the significantly higher numbers of stillborn children and the death of mothers while giving birth.

[BienvenuJDC]

I agree, CC! Not to mention that girls (and boys) typically are not mature enough intellectually, socially, or emotionally to raise a child. Regardless how anyone tries to justify it, a child is easier to raise in a stable family environment with a mother and father who is committed in a marriage relationship. It is monumental for that to be achieved at such a young age. It is difficult to achieve at the older ages of adulthood.

[Scheherazade]

OP:
I've been thinking if teenagers are biologically ready and able to reproduce, why shouldn't they have children? After all, that's only natural, isn't it? If nature had meant teenagers not to get pregnant, they wouldn't be able to get pregnant in the first place.
So, what's wrong with teenage pregnancy? We often hear that teenagers should finish school and maybe study for a degree first...But given the high incidence of teenage pregnancies e.g. in the UK, isn't it time for a more flexible model of education? Wouldn't it make sense to help teenage mothers and fathers complete their education or training by making free child care available? Yeah, I can hear the good law-abiding tax-payers groaning already :) But in the long term, wouldn't it make more sense to support teenage parents in getting qualified and finding a job rather than forcing them to cut short their education and then stigmatizing them for being unskilled or unemployed apart from having children at a young age?What do you think?

[Delta40]

good question. I know in the 21st century girls begin to menstruate much younger than say girls in the 19th century. Is that evolution or a result of the sort of diet and lifestyle that they are exposed to? Is that a basis for pregnancy? I don't think so. We don't live in a productive society any longer which has a significant impact on the social and emotional development of teenagers also, meaning they may be less prepared in this respect to assume parental responsibility, regardless of an increase in teenage pregnancy. Children are sexualized at a much earlier age and therefore engage in sexual activity earlier, following the example of their peers.

The role of parenthood has been individualized and we are witnessing the diminshing support network of the extended family. This cannot be advantageous for teenagers in the 21st century and as child care is a lucrative business, it is a poor replacement.

[cl154576]

I know some girls who started to menstruate when they were seven or eight ... I doubt they were ready for reproduction.

I think in some countries, China for instance, the government encourages people to give birth later in life to control the population.

I guess teenage pregnancy is fine if the people involved in it are happy, but sometimes it's a result of rashness and it ruins some people's lives.

[Vonny]

good question. I know in the 21st century girls begin to menstruate much younger than say girls in the 19th century. Is that evolution or a result of the sort of diet and lifestyle that they are exposed to? Is that a basis for pregnancy? I don't think so. We don't live in a productive society any longer which has a significant impact on the social and emotional development of teenagers also, meaning they may be less prepared in this respect to assume parental responsibility, regardless of an increase in teenage pregnancy. Children are sexualized at a much earlier age and therefore engage in sexual activity earlier, following the example of their peers.

The role of parenthood has been individualized and we are witnessing the diminshing support network of the extended family. This cannot be advantageous for teenagers in the 21st century and as child care is a lucrative business, it is a poor replacement.

(I cancelled my ignore list :) )

Many adults are not prepared for parenthood, and never will be.

Someone told me that in my country, one half of people aged 24 to 34 - (something like that) live below the poverty line - were it not for their parents income. In other words, if you subtract out the financial help they get from their parents, they are in poverty. One half! Today many people who get bachelors degrees can't get the same job that people used to get with a high school education, so after college they return home to their parents. Grandparents end up raising a lot of the children today.

[Alexander III]

The role of parenthood has been individualized and we are witnessing the diminshing support network of the extended family. This cannot be advantageous for teenagers in the 21st century and as child care is a lucrative business, it is a poor replacement.

Really? Growing up I had a maid in my house - but my mother did everything, the maid was just for housework and on occasion looking after me when my mother couldn't - but my mother and father did everything.

My grandfather on the other hand was raised by his maid. Until the age of 14 he would only see his mother and father at dinner time, and not everyday. Except for one hour eveyrday at dinner, he was raised by his nurse. She breastfed him, took care of him when he was sick and was by his side from waking up to going to bed. This was how it was done in most aristocratic and bourgoise families of the day.

I would say that now, most children are raised by their mothers and fathers - very rarely does a maid take the place of a mother now- but that was quite common back in the day among certain classes of people. Heck, I remember my grandfather telling me that when his mother died it was more like an old family friend, a distant aquaintance had passed - but the day his nurse left was one of the most traumatic days of his life.

[Abookinthebath]

I was a teenage dad. And my wife was a teenage mum. And we had some incredible support from family friends and even the government. And I can honestly say it was the best thing that could have happened to me. I am incredibly proud of our life and achievements, and the difficult times that we have come through to be where we are. I can also honestly say that my wife was a better mum at 16 than those I see at twice that age.

I would be devastated if my daughters came to me at 16 and told me they were pregnant, but of course I would offer as much support as humanly possible in that situation.

However....

How many other young mums (and dads) would be in that situation?

We are moving several generations into a society where there is a growing sense of entitlement, despite a reducing sense of responsibility. Everyone wants everything yesterday. But they don't want to think about tomorrow. (Apologies for my gross generalisation here). My wife and I both work in some of the most poverty stricken areas of the UK and being on the 'front line' is alarming. Often a child is just seen as an easy way into a council flat and a lifetime of benefits. Such a waste and saddens me so much.

So, what's wrong with teen pregnancy? I really can't answer - call me indecisive!

It can ruin lives. But it can also make them.

[86.5parker]

Yeah your right parents still need to guide their children but now a days people are change..sex are everywhere and pregnancy is anywhere..life is not really easy..but still some people use to study first before pregnant i think there are still several of them..haha

[breathtest]

I haven't really had time to read any of the comments here, so sorry if I am repeating thoughts already expressed, but I think that from an evolutionary point of view there is nothing wrong with teenage pregnancy. If a girl is physiologically ready to bear a child then in this sense there should be nothing wrong with that. However, in a civilized society like ours, I think that a lot of teenagers lack the mental capacity to be able to raise a child acceptably. Many teens lack the intelligence and survival knowledge needed. I have known people my age, (19), who do not know the definition of a balanced diet. Or who do not realize the importance of everyday things such as brushing teeth, eating regular meals etc. If people do not have these kind of basic functional skills, then the baby will have problems. I have known parents today feeding their children mcdonalds every single day for their dinner.

If we were not a civilized society then I think peoples survival knowledge would be better and would thus enable them to raise children successfully. And if teenagers were more educated in our current society then they would be able to raise a child successfully. I know that there are full grown adults who lack the kind of knowledge I have mentioned, but I think that it is more prevalent in teenagers, because they leave school early and because they are young they don't even have much life experience to stand them in good stead.