Not Having Babies Takes Intelligence, Planning And Prudence
3 03 2008This is a very interesting article, particularly from a childfree viewpoint. The subjects of the Daily Mail article are most definitely not childfree.
Why We should Sterilise teenage girls - temporarily at least
It would be interesting to know if Britney Spears’ mother would welcome this proposal or throw up her hands in horror. I suspect that it might be the latter even though her daughter is going to be adding to the Spears offspring - at the tender age of 16.
Popping out a kid or bredding like rabbits takes no thought whatsoever, and, with many teenage girls is often the result of a teenage fling. What’s worse is, as this article points out, getting pregnant as a teenager is no longer something the girls worry about. There really isn’t a stigma any longer. They get benefits, such as a “free” home the unconditional love of a baby and most of all – a status symbol. So why bother to prevent pregnancy? For many it’s a way out. Lest we forget, we all pay to look after these teenage mothers with our taxes.
“Currently, our [UK] teenage pregnancy rate is twice as high as in Germany, three times as high as in France and six times as high as in the Netherlands. Is this because, in this country, getting pregnant while still at school has become a status symbol for the girls, as ASBOs have for the boys?
In spite of all the efforts of the Government’s Teenage Pregnancy Unit, and millions of pounds spent on initiatives to persuade girls that having babies young is a bad, bad thing, the rates stay sky-high”
There are government plans to get young mothers into work… except they can’t get a decent job because (they’re under-age), have no education (as they’ve dropped out of school) and anyway it’s cheaper to live on benefits (since you get them for every child up to a certain age, what’s the point of getting a job?). Far easier to have a baby, especially as all the celebrities are sporting babies as the “must-have” accessory. For examples look at the latest pages of the mags by the checkouts… it’s like a breeding frenzy. Message: baby = you’re someone!
And it’s not as though the morning-after pill isn’t available in England… it is. The problem is the girls aren’t interested in not being pregnant, they want a baby.
Which is not the same as wanting to rear a child – an entirely different matter that isn’t even considered, while the kids grow up to be delinquents that terrorize the life out of anyone unfortunate to live anywhere near them.
Now, it takes two to tango, so we shouldn’t leave the boys out of this equation (even though the suggestion only looks at the girls in this instance). And there are of course many sensible teenagers who don’t get pregnant, don’t want or need a badge of honour in the form of a baby. It’s not that they’re necessarily not having sex, it’s that if they are they are taking precautions.
Society in the form of childed and wanna-be childed never fails to go on about how “unselfish” it is to have children, how wonderful it is to have your own child, how it’s all worth it, how, as a woman, you’re “missing out” if you don’t give have children… and the rest of the blather we’re so familiar with. I wonder if any thought is given to the effect that the double standards are now having on the teenagers.
The teenagers who are conveniently not listening to the other half of the equation where children should be planned – and have both parents and stability.
But why should they? If they want a baby to love (and love them back) why not simply have one? And why stop at one? After all they never hear of any other option – childfree or otherwise. They look around and everyone is exalting motherhood…that’s enough for them.
So, yes temporary sterilisation may be a step in the right direction -if indeed it can be temporary – but it can’t be just for girls.
There’s a wider issue I believe – that of a baby (and breeding) being touted as the crowning glory of women. If you’re childfree you can probably quote all the elements chapter and verse.
It’s useless the government saying “having babies is a bad, bad thing” when everything around them say’s the very opposite. Who’s fooling who here?
Read the article – share your thoughts.
Thanks Mercurior for this link.
Technorati Tags: childfree, childfree, childfree
As I’ve said on other boards, my choice to not breed affects only me. Your choice to breed affects EVERYONE.
In the Netherlands, our teenage pregnancy rate is extremely low, because sex isn’t treated like a such a ridiculous taboo. We don’t have to listen to abstinence-only crap (wich, sadly, is taught in many countries, not just England) and then get the ‘facts’ from friends who are just as clueless. Parents don’t talk to their kids because they’re uncomfortable about sex and/or trust schools to teach their offspring. There are actually people there (and in the states, I heard it’s pretty bad there) that believe you can’t get STD-s if both parties haven’t engaged in sexual activities. Uh… what? So, there’s a special breastmilk/blood transfusion/dirty needle/birth HIV virus that can’t be passed on through sex?
People are idiots…
Interesting post. For some it seems like becomming pregnant, is a way to “contribute” and being accepted, without actually performing anything else in life.
Young people are maybe more influenced from movie-stars and commercials than ever. Wonder how many pregnant teenagers, the “Brangelina-effect” has induced.
If today`s young people are used to getting what they want, without the same trouble their parents needed to go through for the same benefit, then its not so strange some youngsters look for an “easy way out”. But probably its like pissing in your pants…warm at first…
When i was a lad, there was a scandal, this was before having a child was seen as a way out, well it was just about accepted.
one of my school friends, who was failing all her studies, decided to have a child she was 15, because she got everything given to her, this was scandalous in 88, then in 95 i was working with this girl who was studying, but she too was failing, and she got pregnant, and no one batted an eyelid.
the idea that having a child was a way out of poverty, out of trouble, became the vogue round the 90’s. At least where i live. And the government pandered to them. it became the norm to have a child to go out find a man for a one night until they got pregnant, then they got the csa to get money, and they got government assistance.. so where was the down side. today, they have child care private places take children upto 1 week old, so there is no negative issues anymore. in fact its looked upon as being a good thing.
And i agree boys should have temp snips, theres some never male b/c its an open close device inserted into the tubes. but there are issues with male birth control.. we have 3 options (condom, vasectomy and abstinence). women have more. until there is a greater choice for men, it would be easier for girls to be sorted out. but there should be more male forms.
I don’t live in England, so I may be guessing wrong. From this post and the referenced article, I get the impression that young single mothers get free housing and public subsidy (i.e. medical care, some form of food stamps, money…)?
Free housing???
Well, there are no consequences to pregnancy. None. The baby is a free meal ticket. Like has been mentioned - it’s a “way out.” Although, from my CF perspective, I don’t understand how it can be a free out. There’s no freedom. And many here know the freedom I am talking about: not being saddled with the care and responsibility of a totally dependent human being.
As for birth control, there really needs to be a pill for men. That way they can insist on their own terms on birth control without undergoing surgery.
mercurior: I graduated high school in 1986. There was a girl who was pregnant and fought to stay in school. During graduation ceremonies everyone got up and clapped. I knew at that point that it was downhill all the way from there. What i mean is, not so much that she should have dropped out of school. I think that’s great. But the clapping and aplauding her is what I mean: there was beginning an acceptance of teen age pregnancy and that it was the beginning of it being ok.
This will sound barbaric, but I kind of wish it would go back to the days of “sending her to live with her aunt,” regarding the pregnant teen. There’s no shame now. And back then there was.
you are right they get free housing, because they have a child, the conveniently get kicked out of their parents house , and we cant have women with children on the streets, so they get to the top of the housing (like section 8), when people who want a house apply and now the waiting list is about 2 years..
Its a free out, because the woman gwet child care places, so she doesnt have to be with that child, she can go and get a job, because there is special help for single mothers to get jobs. even if they are at home, they get council tax (tax on every house) paid, and they get rent paid and more
The problem with the good old days is the woman’s life was ruined; missed out on schooling, friends, family… pretty much ended her ability to lead a successful life. The father’s of the children might get a beating by their Dad’s but otherwise went on with their lives. Admittedly the pendulum has swung too far to the side of acceptance but there has to be some in between where all parties involved have their lives ruined equally.
But the girls could have kept their legs closed, i know its a crude thing, but its true.
(and boys could have kept it in their pants), NOW girls choose this lifestyle, and boys are punished as well, what with child support, etc.
I am not saying accidents never happened, but today, there is no down side, Back then teen pregnancy rates were much lower, today the uk has one of the highest. Its giving handouts to these people who CHOOSE that lifestyle because they get everything given to them.
in todays world of education, or birthcontrol, why arent girls protecting themselves, why arent boys. Are they stupid or is it a sign that having a child is a WAY OUT. A chance not to work, to have kid after kid, and government pays for them.
Everyone has a price. I’m CF all the way, but if someone was to dangle 20 milion euros in front of my nose… well…….
Those brittish girls don’t get that kind of cash, but free housing and other freebies could be enough to sway them. Especially the…ehm… ‘less intelligent’ ones who only have mediocre jobs to look forward to. And clapping when they waddle onto the stage to get their diplomas is just wrong! Just because they too clueless to use birthcontrol and/or have an abortion, does not make them more special than someone who was smart enough to educate herself and handle sex in a responsible way. It’s the non-pregnant girls that deserve a round of applause.
Sanne said:
Completely agree.
There have been many MANY more that have gone on, been responsible enough to be contributing members of society rather than leeches of the system, and yet they go ignored.
exactly sanne, and the chances are they will get the mediocre jobs as well as the benefits. this is from 2002,
Under the working families’ tax credit (WFTC) introduced by the chancellor in 1999, those who work at least 16 hours a week and earn less than £5,000 a year are entitled to receive from the state a weekly lump sum of £62.50, plus £26.45 for each child. Most can claim this on top of other handouts
http://www.ukmm.org.uk/issues/benefits-sm.htm
Our college has a magazine that features students telling about their lives. Last week, a new issue was printed, featuring a 24 year old girl (I refuse to call her a woman) who was ‘brave’ for attending our college while having a 4-year old to take care of. In the interview, she kept whining about how it was ’so hard’ (no shit, Sherlock! That’s why they invented condoms!) and how tired she always was.
She then kept rambling about how her daughter used to go to daycare, but she didn’t like it there and, how rude, the school didn’t allow her to take the kid with her during class. WTF?! Of course they don’t allow that, you idiot! Some of us want to listen to the professor, not your shrieking minime!
She said that her mother now watches the child while she attends class, but that it’s still difficult, because her classmates (that she has to do projects with) complain that she is impossible to work with. They just don’t understand that she has other responsibilities as well…
ARGH!!! Someone please shoot this girl with a cluegun! Unlike the editors of the paper, I don’t think she’s a ’strong and brave woman’. I think she’s a mindless twat who should have kept her legs closed.
Very interesting argument. There are other serious issues and dilemmas happening. Why do governments focus most of their attention towards girls who cant control their activities.
Sanne– A cluegun would be a great idea.the silly misguided people who are reverering these girls as “brave” are more than a little to blame for encouraging the self-serving entitled attitude of girls like this.
Having babies when they should be doing all they can to go to school, get an education (hey they might be able to get a decent job!) is a time bomb waiting to happen.
Soa - good question. I think the governments are more concerned about the health of the babies… As mercurior said they cannot have children on the street so they must ensure they provide for the mothers. The pity is that people exploit it.
The focus on teenage-pregnancy is good. But what about being too old for having children?
Does it look any better when babies have middle-aged parents? I dont think so. At the age of 35, I cannot see how a child would fit into my life. It already feels like my chance has passed and any attempt to reproduce now, would be and desperate last minute act against “nature”. And for what purpose?!
I dont think it as ment for 40 year old`s to see children through primary school or 60 year old`s seeing “kids” through university.
Lurker - I agree - and there is a post on that particular subject in the archives…and perhaps something to revisit later… however older people having kids is a completely different topic from the teenagers having kids. Barely mature people having babies and depending on the tax payer to pay for it is the focus of this post. With many of these kids turning into juvenile delinquents themselves - not to mention the burden on us taxpayers - it’s a huge issue.
Britgirl. Thanks, I will check up the archives.
Maybe todays teenagers, feel its more valid to become early mothers and expect society to pay for it, because of all the focus on the falling birthrates?
Still, I think todays young people expect more than earlier generations, to get things thrown at them. Anybody noticed that so many young people wants to become film-producers, movie stars, Idols? Has it always been like this or has it all become just play? And is it any wonder more people decide to keep the fun for themselves, instead of hand it all over to an ungreatful unproductive kid?
I think much of todays young generation are not contributors, but simply consumers.
I certainly do notice the baby emphasis in women’s magazines, and teens read these and are influenced by them a lot I think.
I find the media really irresponsible for - probably un-purposefully - encouraging teen pregnancy.
When I was a teenager I was scared to death of ever being pinned down with a rug rat! (Then again, I still am!)