What's wrong with teenage pregnancy?

[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. 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. 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. 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.