Britain's Underage Pregnancy Problems.

[Gryffindorian]

If it's up to the parents (kids are after all minors under the charge of their parents) do you support more resources for parents like movie and TV ratings so they can censor what the children watch? Or does that argument go away when someone posts "think of the children?"

Please elaborate.

In what way?

Is your question multiple choice? Either or? If blocking certain TV shows will prevent the kids from committing something they're not psychologically or emotionally ready for, then so be it. But it's not just an effort by the parents; it's the kids' responsibility, too. Same goes for drug abuse ... Parents can lecture their kids until they're blue in the face, but who has to make the ultimate choice about whether or not to abuse drugs?

 

[Kryton]

Gosh, I've got a whole series of V-Chip options on my tv. I don't anticipate ever using a single one of them, though.

 

[Data Holmes]

Please elaborate.

In what way?

Is your question multiple choice? Either or? If blocking certain TV shows will prevent the kids from committing something they're not psychologically or emotionally ready for, then so be it. But it's not just an effort by the parents; it's the kids' responsibility, too. Same goes for drug abuse ... Parents can lecture their kids until they're blue in the face, but who has to make the ultimate choice about whether or not to abuse drugs?

Indeed.

 

[DBR]

When I was 11 or 12, I had just gotten a Super Nintendo and it was the center of my world. Girls were still icky at that point. McDonald's was gourmet...

 

[Alidar Jarok]

...they were all shagging the slag mother.

Is this kind of language toward essentially a child, necessary?

You know what I love about British slang? I could use it all the time here in the states and nobody would be offended in the slightest

 

[Bob The Skutter]

because of one idioti post that needed to be mocked.

That's part of the problem here. How about a logical discussion or passing it by. The mocking turns into trolling and next thing you know we learn nothing and then have our threads shut off. Mocking serves no one except the sadistic side of the one posting.

I thought it turned in to an interesting side discussion of British politics and education for the most part.

 

[Pingfah]

Shame on you Bob, lowering the tone like that.

Lucky we have posters who would never play childish partisan windup games to keep you in your place.

 

[Starkers]

I'm not sure if any political party or side has the answer because there probably isn't a one size fits all solution.

The trouble is that different kids will respond to differing things. Some will feel shame/guilt/fear of parental response, some will be smart enough to realise being landed with a child at 15 isn't a great idea, others will respond to the silver rings/just wait, argument. But there will always be some for whom none of the above work, and the logic must always be "Look you're going to have sex no matter what we say or do, so here is what you need to know to be safe."

Trouble is trying to get such a dispirate message across risks confusing the children.

People who say there should be no sex education or it should be later are missing the point--kids know. I got told the facts of life by school friends long before I ever got a sex education lesson and long before my parents made any mention (in fact I'm not sure they ever did!)

For me the biggest change these days is a lack of shame attatched to essentially child pregnancy, and we do expose children to sexual imagry at a much younger age these days.

Then again go back a few hundred years and pregnancies at such a young age weren't uncommon at all.

 

[cultcross]

Well, this particular teacher gave at least some of the pupils a practical demonstration, involving herself and another languages teacher and some unfortunate mix-up on classroom booking... but that's another story

You're kidding!

The second language teacher was male or female?

Male, and that's all the detail you're getting! Actually, I heard about 6 different rumours through the grapevine, but I know its basically true as another member of staff was a family friend.

I went to a much more recently founded independent school (19th century IIRC). See, I AM modern & in touch with society....

Mine was founded in the 1500s. But was a state grammar. So I'm either not in touch at all, or way too in touch for going through state schools...

 

[Bob The Skutter]

Shame on you Bob, lowering the tone like that.

Lucky we have posters who would never play childish partisan windup games to keep you in your place.

I know, I know, I should be ashamed, but fuck it.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

I'm not sure if any political party or side has the answer because there probably isn't a one size fits all solution.

The trouble is that different kids will respond to differing things. Some will feel shame/guilt/fear of parental response, some will be smart enough to realise being landed with a child at 15 isn't a great idea, others will respond to the silver rings/just wait, argument. But there will always be some for whom none of the above work, and the logic must always be "Look you're going to have sex no matter what we say or do, so here is what you need to know to be safe."

Trouble is trying to get such a dispirate message across risks confusing the children.

People who say there should be no sex education or it should be later are missing the point--kids know. I got told the facts of life by school friends long before I ever got a sex education lesson and long before my parents made any mention (in fact I'm not sure they ever did!)

For me the biggest change these days is a lack of shame attatched to essentially child pregnancy, and we do expose children to sexual imagry at a much younger age these days.

Then again go back a few hundred years and pregnancies at such a young age weren't uncommon at all.

Why should shame be attached to what is basically a universal biological urge. It does no good for shame to be attached because then all that will happen is the kid will hide the fact and then probably not end up with proper medical advice putting themselves and/or the baby risk of medical or general health problems.
Really most kids who end up pregnant at a young age need better education, a sense of self worth and a bit of common sense.

 

[JoeZhang]

No, its disturbing and its a growing trend which only makes it more disturbing.

Except for you being completely wrong, you are completely right.

The most recent figures NS figures show that there were 7,826 under 16 births in 2006 - which continues a downward trend and is about 1000 down on the previous decade.

But hey, let's not let hard numbers get in the way of a moral panic.

 

[Hermiod]

I'm not sure if any political party or side has the answer because there probably isn't a one size fits all solution.

That's true, but chastity belts come in all sorts of sizes.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

No, its disturbing and its a growing trend which only makes it more disturbing.

Except for you being completely wrong, you are completely right.

The most recent figures NS figures show that there were 7,826 under 16 births in 2006 - which continues a downward trend and is about 1000 down on the previous decade.

But hey, let's not let hard numbers get in the way of a moral panic.

I believe I read somewhere that last years figures where estimated to be around 6,000 under 16 births, too. So it looks like the downward trend is still going on.

 

[Deckerd]

It is, when you consider the vastly smaller population of the United Kingdom in relation to the United States, that proportionally speaking a far greater percentage of our youth are currently acting this way.

It means that not only is it not a unique problem, and that it is not solely the fault of the United States that children act this way, but that they're society actually manages to have a smaller proportion of its youth being overweight, sexual active or otherwise violent than other parts of the world.

You know, some kind of figures to back that up might be useful. Otherwise it's just opinion.

 

[Data Holmes]

No, its disturbing and its a growing trend which only makes it more disturbing.

Except for you being completely wrong, you are completely right.

The most recent figures NS figures show that there were 7,826 under 16 births in 2006 - which continues a downward trend and is about 1000 down on the previous decade.

But hey, let's not let hard numbers get in the way of a moral panic.

Can I ask a question? I understand from your posts that the numbers of under 16 births is going down, but what about the number of under 16 abortions? Because, if the number of abortions is going up, but the number of births are going down then it's either actually a steady number of under 16 pregnancies or the number of pregnancies is actually rising, just the number of births is going down...

One statistic isn't enough to go on.

 

[cultcross]

Because, if the number of abortions is going up, but the number of births are going down then it's either actually a steady number of under 16 pregnancies or the number of pregnancies is actually rising, just the number of births is going down...

Actually, the conception rate is going down and the percentage abortion rate is rising.

The following statistics are for conceptions under 18/16, which result in at least one live birth, or a legal abortion. Miscarriages and illegal abortions are not listed.

Under 18 conceptions

Column headings: Year - Under 18 conceptions - Under 18 conception rate (per 1000 females 15-17) - Percent leading to legal abortion

1998 | 41,089 | 46.6 | 42.4
1999 | 39,247 | 44.8 | 43.5
2000 | 38,699 | 43.6 | 44.8
2001 | 38,461 | 42.5 | 46.1
2002 | 39,350 | 42.7 | 45.8
2003 | 39,553 | 42.2 | 46.1
2004 | 39,593 | 41.6 | 46.0
2005 | 39,804 | 41.3 | 46.8
2006 | 39,003 | 40.4 | 48.9

Under 16 Conception

Column headings: Year - Under 16 conceptions - Under 16 conception rate (per 1000 females 13-15) - Percent leading to legal abortion

1998 | 7,855 | 8.8 | 52.9
1999 | 7,408 | 8.2 | 53.0
2000 | 7,620 | 8.3 | 54.5
2001 | 7,407 | 8.0 | 56.0
2002 | 7,395 | 7.9 | 55.7
2003 | 7,558 | 7.9 | 57.6
2004 | 7,181 | 7.5 | 57.6
2005 | 7,473 | 7.8 | 57.5
2006 | 7,296 | 7.7 | 60.3


Source

 

[RobertVA]

Why should shame be attached to what is basically a universal biological urge. It does no good for shame to be attached because then all that will happen is the kid will hide the fact and then probably not end up with proper medical advice putting themselves and/or the baby risk of medical or general health problems.
Really most kids who end up pregnant at a young age need better education, a sense of self worth and a bit of common sense.

However:

When somebody has been on Maury Povich half a dozen times for paternity tests and heard him say "... you are not the father!" for the same kid each time, somebody does need to hang her head in shame.

 

[TedShatner10]

Abortion going up is not good, but at the same time it shows the damaging hypocrisy of the Christian Right in America when they want to encourage poor or irresponsible families to make too many children.

And I find it amusing the Leftwing is supposedly entire to blame when Rightwing economic policies are mostly responsible for the exacerbation of a feral, feckless underclass.