The problem with your argument is that if this is such a bad sexual health programme, why does it work very well for better-off girls than poor girls?

As to only wanting to get a house and live on benefits – have you any idea how hard it is to get housing in many of our cities…. and they definately DO NOT jump straight to the top of the list. In the illustrious city in which I work, it can take up to 6 months to get priority (without which the chances of a council house are pretty much nil unless you have had your name down for 20 odd years) and then you don’t get to have much of a choice of where you live either – it is what the council believe is suitable for your needs, which could include a top floor maisonette with no lift (you try getting a buggy and a load of shopping up those stairs) or highrise flats. If you turn down a property offered then you lose your priority and don’t stand a chance of getting rehoused. During the 6 months you are waiting to get offered a property you can end up in ‘emergency’ housing – hostels, bed and breakfasts and the foulest collection of flats you can ever imagine – where teenage mums live next to, below, across from and above other individuals who are difficult to rehouse… many of whom are substance and alcohol abusers who end up knocking on the door of the very vulnerable teenage mum begging for money and cigerettes and anything else they can think of.

So if that is the kind of life all these teenage mums are so desperate for then I agree they must be deliberately getting pregnant to live in some of the worst areas of the city (as housing in decent areas do not come up very often) where they can feel intimidated every time they step out of their front door…

To try and reduce our rate of teenage parents in Britain then its about time we start at the basic level….. PARENTS – do not rely on the schools or the peers of your child to get a good standard of sex education – teach it them yourselves!! Yes I know some people may find it embarassing, but what’s a little red face compared to a smaller red face of your screaming grandchild!!

I have a divergent opinion regarding teen pregnancy prevention, but once conception takes place, I argue that adulthood does not automatically follow.

It may depend on how elastic something is and how much religious people are respected. Often people are “religious” on Sundays but generally lacking in empathy. It is no wonder such people have difficulty in relating to others.

Having sex may be inelastic (due to pressure from hormones) but whether protection is used is something that can be influenced.

I think we need research that takes into account all the details before we can draw any firm conclusions and decide the benefits policy.

I don’t think you’ve thought this one through.

Yes, pregnancy rates may fall, but that’s not necessarily desirable in itself. I’m wondering where you’re going to get your retirement income from if there are fewer market entrants at the bottom of the age scale in the future. A reduction in overall population would have serious consequences for our ability to sustain economic longevity.

I pretty much agree with your analysis of the situation, though. Particularly that taking mothers into care is an admission of failure. Ideally, the young women of this country would be mentally capable of raising children.

Of course, many of them are (seeing as I was a Father at 19 and my daughter’s doing fine so far, I have at least some anecdotal evidence of that…) but they’re not really the ones at issue here.

Sorry, DK, I didn’t mean to go without references: ONS data on annual conceptions is here.

In 2007, amongst Under-16s, 8.3 women per thousand fell pregnant; for Under-18s it’s 41.9 women per thousand. So, less than 0.5% at best. Of the Under-16 group, 61% go on to have legal abortions. They only list the abortion rate for under-20s, which is a somewhat different stat – but that’s 43%

Anyway, we are talking about a pretty small number of babies born to mothers under 16, and not a vast amount more born to mothers under 18. It’s not like we’re being overrun by them, even if we have got the highest teenage pregnancy rate in Europe (though still miles short of America, as I recall).

In any case, we should immediately abolish all benefits based on having children. I think that you will see the pregnancy rates fall.

I don’t doubt we would! I’m not convinced it’s an ideal solution to the current problem, but at least that’s just a matter of opinion…

If there is less pressure on individuals to behave responsibly (from teachers and parents), then maybe that is the cause of any rise.

Research seems to show the opposite. For example, teen pregnancy rates in the USA are shown to be highest in conservative christian states where there is abstinence-only sex education and teen sexuality is strongly frowned upon.

http://www.feministing.com/archives/017841.html

Approbation alone is simply not enough.

“The fact that we have a safety net in this country may make young girls less likely to worry about becoming pregnant (and so less likely to use contraception, morning after pill etc).”

Hence my comment about the difference being at the margins. However, Stu, the level and availability of benefits does, in some way, correlate with the levels of teenage pregnancy. I also pointed out that correlation is not causation.

However, I did find and link to research showing such a correlation, the conclusions of which might be read in a number of different ways: you, on the other hand, have linked to absolutely nothing that backs up your assertion (for assertion it is) that “girls getting pregnant to claim benefits are the exception, and are exceptionally rare.”

If the benefits have no affect on the rate of pregnancy, then surely we can use a simple experiment to prove the point one way or another: abolish all benefits for having a child, and monitor the abortion rates, sales of the morning-after pill, etc.

In any case, we should immediately abolish all benefits based on having children. I think that you will see the pregnancy rates fall.

DK

DK