Why are teen pregnancies so high?

[gerry]

Yes, I wonder what the children would say if asked........so far, only adults have taken part in this discussion. Are there any children who would like to give their opinion on being raised by teenage mums? Oh, I forgot, they don't have a voice.

[ChavWivaLawDegree]

Gerry - still no facts to back up your assertions then?

[ChavWivaLawDegree]

They have a very loud voice in the Plough if I remember correctly. Oops sorry, those badly behaved kids with no boundaries were the offspring of older parents.

[mockney piers]

"Because you died at 35"

Oooh, I'm in a picky picky mood today.

I do agree with you that that was the factor. Plus childbirth in later teenage years is just downright healthier for mother and baby.

But the past wasn't Logan's Run. People didn't die at 35, life expectancy was 35, which is very different, particularly when you take into account the huge infant mortality rates you mention.

In fact Mesolithic man was thought to be substantially healthier than modern man, thanks to diet and exercise and with luck would happily reach his 80s.

Medieval times weren't nearly as bad as is usually made out, with a protein rich diet of fish, pulses and vegetables. Though I really wouldn't have fancied urban life back in them thar days.

Of course had he had Huguenot's nasty recent botty trouble he'd have been a gonner at 37, keeping those averages nicely down in the thirties. It wasn't until decent sanitation and better medical practices (less bleeding, fewer leeches) that life expectancy began to climb from that in the 20th century.

Of course if those that dislike 'western medicine' get their way....

[Brendan]

Cassius Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Obviously a selfish middle class viewpoint here,

> but isn't it better for young people to have some

> FUN before they settle down and have children. Is

> it not possible that a 16 year old who can't go

> out and have fun with their mates may feel

> resentment rather than love for the reason for

> this?

You are right it is a selfish, perhaps middle class (his skin crawls) idea but I wouldn?t trade the fun I have had in my twenties for anything.

It has been irresponsible, dangerous and sometimes life threatening, expensive, stupid and thoroughly enjoyable. I wouldn?t have done most of it if I had a wife and children relying on me and in the future (when god willing I will) I certainly will not spend money or put myself in danger unnecessarily.

[Brendan]

Yes MP child mortality and illnesses contribute highly to brining the average lifespan down. It is an often misused stat.

Although when asking why we reach sexual maturity at a certain age Mesolithic man is a mere five minutes ago in evolutionary terms.

[mockney piers]

Exacty Brendan.

In fact still a few examples of mesolithic man in this world today (deepst borneo, darkest amazon), and you don't see them dropping like flies the moment their crystals start flashing.

[gerry]

Chav

Organisations like SureStart and Homestart were created by the government to help young mothers and children......why?

[david_carnell]

duplicate

[david_carnell]

Two can play at that game Mockney (although whther this thread is the rihgt place for it etc etc): :)

"In fact Mesolithic man was thought to be substantially healthier than modern man, thanks to diet and exercise and with luck would happily reach his 80s."

Err, not quite. Upper Paleolithic man had a life expectancy of just 33. If you remove infant mortality from this it reaches a stunning 39. Granted, this a era before the Mesolithic but I understand penicillin didn't arrive for a while yet.

"Medieval times weren't nearly as bad as is usually made out, with a protein rich diet of fish, pulses and vegetables. Though I really wouldn't have fancied urban life back in them thar days."

The average life expectancy for a male child born in the UK between 1276 and 1300 was 31.3 years. However, by the time the 13th-Century boy had reached 20 he could hope to live to 45, and if he made it to 30 he had a good chance of making it into his fifties. So you're partially right - but it's hardly a ringing endorsement to delay fathering children is it?!

As for Huguenot...eewwww. Did not want to know that! Oh, and I think you and I are in the same camp on the whole western/alternative medicine thing - I remember you from what became known as the "reiki thread" ;-)

[KalamityKel]

gerry Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Chav

> Organisations like SureStart and Homestart were

> created by the government to help young mothers

> and children......why?

Maybe an attempt by the government to "acknowledge" the "problem"? Even though there have been many other organisations set up before these which are not backed by the government. Sorry I can't name any at present but they are out there

[mockney piers]

Well said DC, and quite right regards time and place too.

It just one of my new bugbears.

I was brought up on a diet of this truism about how we all dropped dead at 35, up to and including university level.

It's not until I finally stopped and thought about the implications that it didn't make sense.

I did some digging around and found quite a bit of writing that were exploring much the same avenues. I like a bit of revisionism me (as an aside, you must read The Origins of the British by Stephen Oppenheimer)

Evidence is not great as our paleolithic-neolithic forbears weren't too hot on their paperwork or headstones, and decent bodies not in royal tombs aren't so easy to come by.

Our medieval ancestors, if serf or in servitude were rather more likely than we to be worked to an early grave, so our medieval records are full of those who had a tough lot and hence where much of this modern misconception that we're the first generations to live over 40.

Naa, we're just the first ones who can reasonably expect to!

[gerry]

Kal

Can you define the "problem" or should we all make believe it isn't a problem?

[Scruffy Mummy]

As someone who has worked in the charity sector for many years and is currently doing some work with an organisation that seeks to provide sexual health advice and support to young people under 25 and who has helped a peer mentoring project for teenage parents/parents to be in SE London fundraise to get going I'd just like to point out the following:

1) Home Start is not a government agency - it is a voluntary organisation set up to provide support to vulnerable families who may be in a range of situations.

2) There are a range of projects and organisations who work with teenage parents. One teenage parents group that an organisation I work with runs exists because the teenage parents have said that they want services and activities targetted at them specifically - reasons include that they don't feel comfortable at post-natal groups with older mums and that they feel that mainstream service providers look down on them and don't understand their needs.

3) There has been sustaintinal resesarch that shows that teenage mums are more likely to drop out of education and experience poverty. I really don't have the time at the moment as I'm working on a funding bid for a legal advice project to dig out the research but anyone googling teenage parents and reseach will come up with the info.

I have a couple of friends who were teenage parents since I grew up in the county which had the highest rate of teenage pregnancy in all of Canada and as a young person, I did some volunteer work with Planned Parenthood as I was quite interested in the issue. They were great parents and their kids are great!! But, they'll be the first to admit that it wasn't ideal - particularly seeing all their friends head off to university and have amazing social lives. For one friend, having a baby did actually save her life as she had been heading down a road of serious drug taking. While the father of her child is now a junkie living off the streets in a major city, for her having a kid gave her purpose and determination to get her s*** together. She went back to university in her mid 20's and is doing great.

But if young people can be encouraged to have safe sex - whcih not only prevents pregnancies but a range of other STI's, it can only be a good thing.

[RosieH]

is the answer to the question "when is the right time for me to have children" not simply "when the time is right for you"?

modern healthier lifestyles mean that some women having children in their 30s and 40s are going to be much healthier than those in their teens and 20s. Equally, with other women, the reverse will be true. Some teenagers have a fantastic support network, others have social services. Some women won't feel emotionally equipped to have a child until they're much older, and although their ovaries may have been in better shape 10 years previously, the child's probably going to be much happier with a mum who can cope.

Horses for courses - like I'm sure many people have said, one size doesn't fit all.

[KalamityKel]

Gerry I wasn't saying there isn't a problem or it doesn't exist rather pointing out that who we as a society define the issue to how the government does can be different. Sorry it sounds better in my head than it does here! :s

[ChavWivaLawDegree]

RosieH - I agree

[Maximay]

I don't think the decision to wait until you are older, settled, have a bit of money behind you and be in a stable relationship before you have children should be scorned either, some people want to live out their teenage lives then build a stable home before the onset of parenthood as opposed to have em young and THEN find somewhere to live, hopefully get a job/child care and hopefully if partner is still around,and hasn't decided he's too young to be a dad now, set up stable home and hopefully not on benefits. A child and then grandchildren are around for an awfully long time, basically the rest of your lives, so nothing wrong with waiting. But as Rosie said, horses for courses.

[Keef]

ChavWivaLawDegree Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Gerry, on what facts do you base your assertions?

>

> My daughter has a lot of friends who are her ages with kids, and they all have support from their extended family.

>

> I think this is just a pile of crap that is rolled out by middleclass busybodies to endorse their selfish lifestyle choices and late parenting that is added on like another purchase after they already have the matching towels, bed linen and Aga.

Oh chav, I really do think you're great, but sometimes you do talk such a load of absolute shite!

You ask Gerry to supply facts to back up his claims, which is fair enough, but most of your posts come from your previous experience, or that of your daughter. Now that is totally understandable, and perfectly valid as an example, yet to use it as an arguement about teenage motherhood in general is a nonsense. She is one person, who has made her decisions, and fortunately, they have been right for her, and she has great support. However, that is not a fair sample on which to draw arguements about teen mums in gebneral.

You bring up class at every given opportunity, and seem to ignore the fact that the class system you describe is obsolete. You said to me face to face once that you'd call me middle class, yet I could argue that within the class structure that you're using, that I probably come from one of the most working / under class backgrounds of anyone on here. It's all just a meaningless propaganda tool!

Finally, "late parenting" has nothing to do with class, there are many reasons someone may be pushing 40, and only just be ready for their first kid, or pushing 40, and keen to have number 5. I also would have thought that being a "lady warrior", you'd encourage a woman who wanted to go out and have a career, or do whatever before having her children.

I am not anti young mums, but some of what you have said on here today has touched a nerve.

[KalamityKel]

Well said keef - I was thinking along a similar line minus the personal direct attack (no I'm not stirring)

[Cassius]

ChavWivaLawDegree Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> I think this is just a pile of crap that is rolled out by middleclass busybodies to endorse their selfish lifestyle choices and late parenting that is added on like another purchase after they already have the matching towels, bed linen and Aga.

I can't see what is selfish about wanting to wait a bit so that you can give a bit more to your child. I am sure that there are enough of us on the forum who can state categorically that even if you are loved as a child, it is NOT NICE having free school meals and know that others are sneering at you for it. It is NOT NICE to not go on holiday because there isn't the money. It is NOT NICE wearing second hand and hand me down clothes when others have things new.

Surely we all want child poverty to be a thing of the past and surely teenage mothers are more likely to be amongst that category. I appreciate that I don't know about this now at first hand, but common sense tells me that people in jobs, in stable relationships are likely to be able to give more, both financially and emotionally.

[gerry]

Cassius

I think you said the magic word...."give" rather than what one can "get". Being able to give to children a life they can be proud of is important, I think.

[LizzygotDizzy]

Sorry, I have to disagree with you Cassius, at most schools now the norm is to be getting free school dinners, trips and free school uniform vouchers, I was in the minority, having to pay through the nose for everything, I could not afford to send my children on the many school trips that those with benefits were getting free, my kids were the ones who had to make do with the second hand clothing and never went to school wearing Nike this or Addidas that whereas it always seemed to be the kids on benefits whose parents were able to afford the nice clothes, and bloomin family holidays to boot, what are they? Unfortunately the system is geared toward people on benefits, even the teachers at my oldest daughter's school felt so irritated at the injustice of it all they all had a whip round so my daughter could attend a weekend trip to France which the majority of her classmates on benefits were getting free! I've worked every day of my life since I was 15 (apart from time off to have my children and then working part-time until they reached school age) and I don't care, its just not fair! There now, all feeling better XX Sorry XX

[KalamityKel]

That would be down to personal circumstance. We all know those in high paid jobs etc are not necessarily financially better off than those claiming benefits though.

[Keef]

KalamityKel Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Well said keef - I was thinking along a similar line minus the personal direct attack (no I'm not stirring)

I believe you're not trying to stir, but I would just like to say that my post is not intended as anything personal about chav, it was just a response to things she said that bugged me, and she is obviously free to disagree with me. Hopefully we can do that without glassing each other at the next forum drinks... :-S