Turn on thread page Beta

Teenage pregnancies and the benefits system watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    How exactly am I equating sexual education with government benefits?

    The figures I posted are mostly about sexual education but that is because my post is mostly dedicated to the question of how best to reduce teenage pregnancy, not whether cutting government benefits do so.

    I should probably go find the figures that demonstrate the ineffectiveness of low benefits in cutting pregnancy rather than merely relying on rational argument for that one, although I assume the figures are harder to find since most rational people would realise that benefits and the incidence of teenage pregnancy are scarcely related. The fact that 78 percent of teenage pregnancies are unintended kind of cuts the whole government benefits would affect the incidence of it argument dead in its tracks. Particularly when we take into account the fact that planned teenage pregnancies are likely to be done with the knowledge that the couple is able to care for a child (which a significant proportion of older teens can).

    The proportion of planned teenage pregnancies motivated by the knowledge of government subsistence benefits is likely to be too tiny to have relevance in the debate as to how to reduce teenage pregnancy. Furthermore, it is the inevitable and acceptable side effect of a government commitment not to condemn a newborn child to a level of well-being below that acceptable to society.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It is precisely the liberal commitment to individuality that leaves me morally unable to condemn a newborn child to a life of absolute poverty - a child with nothing is free only to suffer and starve.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    As an irrational and unintelligent member of the "New Right" I'd like to point out that Moonbat's use of teen pregnancy statistics in the subject of underaged pregnancy is the equivelant to using immigration statistics in asylum seeker discussions. I'm certain a large number of people on this forum had a teenage mother, my mother was 18 and married.

    If "Recommendations of abstinence and sex-only-within-marriage were dropped" is really an absolute way to reduce underage pregnancy, I wonder why the Victorians never had the problem. If Germany has really had less of the problem since sex education, why has the UK shown an entirely different patern?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tomorrow2Day)
    It is precisely the liberal commitment to individuality that leaves me morally unable to condemn a newborn child to a life of absolute poverty - a child with nothing is free only to suffer and starve.
    Yet you're more than willing to condemn it to a life of dependecy.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Yet you're more than willing to condemn it to a life of dependecy.
    I am? I didn't realise being given adequate provision to have some opportunity in life condemned a child to a life of dependency. Somewhat at odds with the notion that people try to better their lot in life, have you rejected that?

    There is a difference between an adult able to work and a newborn baby. I don't believe babies to be capable of standing on their own two feet literally or metaphorically.

    As an irrational and unintelligent member of the "New Right" I'd like to point out that Moonbat's use of teen pregnancy statistics in the subject of underaged pregnancy is the equivelant to using immigration statistics in asylum seeker discussions. I'm certain a large number of people on this forum had a teenage mother, my mother was 18 and married.

    If "Recommendations of abstinence and sex-only-within-marriage were dropped" is really an absolute way to reduce underage pregnancy, I wonder why the Victorians never had the problem. If Germany has really had less of the problem since sex education, why has the UK shown an entirely different patern?
    It's funny because his name isn't really Moonbat but you totally changed it to Moonbat because that's like a randomly invented animal? Nice. Rational and intelligent. I stand corrected.

    Moving on, I quoted Monbiot's article in a topic called "Teenage pregnancies and the benefits system". I'm sorry if the use of a teenage pregnancy statistic in that context is unacceptable to you.

    I would be incredibly interested to see your statistics on the incidence of underage pregnancy in Victorian society however. Was it a YouGov poll?

    Yours equivalently maturely,
    Tomorrow2Day
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tomorrow2Day)
    I am? I didn't realise being given adequate provision to have some opportunity in life condemned a child to a life of dependency. Somewhat at odds with the notion that people try to better their lot in life, have you rejected that?
    Why would someone bother finding a job or getting an education when they're guaranteed a comfortable lifestyle while doing nothing? Do you think people are stupid?

    There is a difference between an adult able to work and a newborn baby. I don't believe babies to be capable of standing on their own two feet literally or metaphorically.
    That's why the mother should be given government benefits provided she gets an education and finds a job. If she chooses not to take that opportunity, then she should deal with the consequences of her laziness and stupidity. The child should obviously taken away from a person that's not able to care for it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Why would someone bother finding a job or getting an education when they're guaranteed a comfortable lifestyle while doing nothing? Do you think people are stupid?
    Most of them, yes. That's an unrelated subject though. I fail to see how a child whose teenage mother was given government money to enable her to raise them is guaranteed a comfortable lifestyle. Once they are of legal age they're subject to jobseekers' allowance and all the rest - by your logic, we'd all just sit back and relax on our guaranteed comfortable lifestyles courtesy of the government (unless we were stupid).

    Why does anyone work in systems where there are subsistence benefits for the unemployed?

    That's why the mother should be given government benefits provided she gets an education and finds a job. If she chooses not to take that opportunity, then she should deal with the consequences of her laziness and stupidity. The child should obviously taken away from a person that's not able to care for it.
    Well, part of being able to care for a child is to be there for it. I agree that single mothers should take employment where possible but if the choice is between employment and caring for the child that falls apart. We are basically in agreement but I think a teenage mother requires and is morally required to be given (not entitled to) sufficient benefits to support her child if she is unable to work - and for someone on a very low income, working and raising a child isn't possible. As such, the ideal solution a government should aim for isn't to make teenage mothers work or deprive their children of their parents but rather make it possible for teenage mothers both to work and raise their child.

    Where insisting a mother work and educate herself prevents her from caring for her child the priority is with caring for the child.

    This is all off-topic though. The question is whether cutting benefit would significantly reduce the incidence of teenage pregnancy. It wouldn't. It would though leave a lot of babies and young parents in morally unacceptable conditions.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tomorrow2Day)
    It's funny because his name isn't really Moonbat but you totally changed it to Moonbat because that's like a randomly invented animal? Nice. Rational and intelligent. I stand corrected.
    Oh, but how easy the beasts are to bait their posturous delusion of superiority!

    Moving on, I quoted Monbiot's article in a topic called "Teenage pregnancies and the benefits system". I'm sorry if the use of a teenage pregnancy statistic in that context is unacceptable to you.
    You're making out it's unacceptable to me because I'm picky, when it's obviously logically flawed because it's comparing two entirely seperate groups. :rolleyes:

    I would be incredibly interested to see your statistics on the incidence of underage pregnancy in Victorian society however. Was it a YouGov poll.
    As such staunch supporters of the whole morality and childhood innocence thing that seems to be so unfashionable now, you'd think someone would have had something to say about it.

    Of course, comparing a single variable in modern Britain to Britain 150 years ago - with its entirely different demographics, politics, institutions and culture - is as ludicrous as comparing a single variable in modern Britain to Germany - with its entirely different demographics, politics, institutions and culture - as if it was some form of universal marker.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JonD)
    Oh, but how easy the beasts are to bait their posturous delusion of superiority!
    That doesn't make sense. But it is easy to bait people who consider themselves superior to you: (in the "just add water!" voice) just act stupid!

    You're making out it's unacceptable to me because I'm picky, when it's obviously logically flawed because it's comparing two entirely seperate groups. :rolleyes:
    Which? Go over the posted excerpt, the author of which you criticised. If you want to transfer that criticism to me, check the topic.

    Of course, comparing a single variable in modern Britain to Britain 150 years ago - with its entirely different demographics, politics, institutions and culture - is as ludicrous as comparing a single variable in modern Britain to Germany - with its entirely different demographics, politics, institutions and culture - as if it was some form of universal marker.
    More baiting my apparently deluded sense of superiority? Or are you just being deliberately self-refuting?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tomorrow2Day)
    That doesn't make sense. But it is easy to bait people who consider themselves superior to you: (in the "just add water!" voice) just act stupid!
    It makes perfect sense, it was a drunken mixup of terms - but appropriate! The Moonbat is a scary breed that spends most of its time flying over the problems of the world, from up high those problems are so easy to see, and so easy to cure if everyone wasn't such a simpleton. Of course - the part I obviously don't expect you to understand - is that their superiority over the non rational and non intelligent is as much a fantasy as their politics.

    Which? Go over the posted excerpt, the author of which you criticised. If you want to transfer that criticism to me, check the topic.
    Well, the thread was spawned from discussions about the stereotypical 14 year old welfare-reliant single mother chavs, I made an assumption. If it's wrong the complaint is dropped.

    More baiting my apparently deluded sense of superiority? Or are you just being deliberately self-refuting?
    If one refute is refuted if the second refute refutes the original claim to refute, does the original claim become unrefuted? No. What we're left with is a question as to whether sexual awarenss in British kids would cure the potential for underage pregnancy the same way it (supposedly) cures German kids, despite them bieng from entirely different societies - lots of extra variables like social awareness and social expectations. Say, if British & American pop culture is more voraciously sexual than than the German.

    While I can't find any now, I think it'd be interesting to see what Canada has to say, bieng anglophone yet much more likely to try a "progressive" solution to this kind of problem.

    Even if welfare is the source of the problem, I don't think cutting it would solve it very elegantly.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think I posted my opinion on this in the thread about the laws on underage sex. Over the age of 16, I think the benefit system is fine as it it, it is still a little young but old enough to be somewhat responsable. However, for those teenage pregnancies that come about under the age of consent the law should act more harshly. Take the children away and put the parents into corrective schooling homes, if this doesn't act as more of a deterrent that the possibility of pregancy should be in the first place this is where they should be. Get the underage parent continued education and attempt to get them back on the right track. Put the children up for adoption so that couples who cannot have children, can, whatever their sexuality.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    If only life was so simple. Families are not cloned thank god. Families are assessed and comprehensive child protection plans enforced on abusive parents. The majority of which are over the age of 16years, There are lots of voluntary organisation that support tyoung parents and work in partnership with others to guide these parents in an empowering way.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    If you're not old enough to have a baby, you shouldn't be having sex anyway. That is the way to solve the problem.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    How is that solving a problem cliche's are boring and irrelevant.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by divine_aphrael)
    I think I posted my opinion on this in the thread about the laws on underage sex. Over the age of 16, I think the benefit system is fine as it it, it is still a little young but old enough to be somewhat responsable. However, for those teenage pregnancies that come about under the age of consent the law should act more harshly. Take the children away and put the parents into corrective schooling homes, if this doesn't act as more of a deterrent that the possibility of pregancy should be in the first place this is where they should be. Get the underage parent continued education and attempt to get them back on the right track. Put the children up for adoption so that couples who cannot have children, can, whatever their sexuality.
    This view is far too extreme even for me. I don't think that the mothers should ever have their children taken away without their consent. That goes completely against my views on individual freedom.
    However, what I was proposing is a less intrusive system. If the teenage mum manages to find employment or a father who will provide for her offspring adequately, that's wonderful, and she can definitely keep it. The only reason for children being forcefully taken away from the parents is if the welfare of the child is in danger - mistreatment or if the parents fail to provide for the child. At the same time, many mothers would voluntarily give their children up for adoption, to save money and hassle.
    You have to agree that adoption by a stable childless couple with a guaranteed income is better for the kid that growing up with a jobless uneducated chav mum, dependent on state welfare for survival.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Unfortunately I think that so many of these girls and boys are so extreamly foolish and undereducated that it needs an extreame remedy.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by soulsussed)
    How is that solving a problem cliche's are boring and irrelevant.
    *disclaimer: just because I am presenting an argument, doesn't mean I agree with it*

    The argument is, if we had a culture where sex under a responsible age (whatever that happened to be) was considered wrong, immoral, whatever, then we wouldn't have teenage pregancies. The fact that there is no condemnation of 12 year olds having sex with anyone, hell even the parents blaming the schools (how dumb can you get!), then it merely encourages it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Thanks for the positive rep, whoever it was!!
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheVlad)
    Do you think that the problem of teenage pregnancies in this country would be as high if teenage mothers could not afford to live and bring up their children on state benefits?
    If so, do you think that a long-term reduction in the rate would justify some mothers' in the short term being forced to give up their babies?

    I come late to this thread so forgive me for not referring to recent posts - I intended to read the whole thread, and will, but I couldn't get past the first post. Daresay I'm echoing but, so what...

    The 'problem' of teenage pregnancies is exacerbated by easy access to welfare, but it's a problem because it encourages dependency on the state, creates a next-generation with low expectations, encourages the absent father trend, and creates unnatural dysgenic conditions wherein the congenitally feckless outbreed the sensible. It's not a 'problem' that the mothers are young.

    The state has deliberately used welfare to create easily controlled dependents with low expectations, but is now worrying about the accompanying social trends of unsocialised, unfathered children and a growing underclass consigned to unemployability and crime by their low IQ.

    The only option for the state and the multinationals who own it is to increase global movement of the most capable worker ants and increase social control of the hapless masses. In the short term expect soft eugenics in the form of welfare reform and social censure of dependency, longer term expect Chinese and Indian hard eugenics to prompt similar measures here.

    The second question - NOTHING in my post would justify taking children from their mothers.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    You need to understand that we have a decreasing birth rate and need these extra birth's so if the adult population is not having children then whats wrong with 16 year olds having children. Benefits are effective in that they are encouraging birth's
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

2,738

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.