The news about teenage pregnancies just got even more grim. It always does.
Last week the Department for Children, Schools and Families announced that
pregnancies among girls under 16 rose to 7,462 in 2005 – the latest year for
which figures are available.
It follows that more than 20 schoolgirls were – and presumably still are –
getting pregnant every day. As a result, despite the government’s campaigns
to reduce teenage pregnancies (including £150m spent on televi-sion
advertisements) – England and Wales have the highest pregnancy rates for
under16s in western Europe.
Just over half the total number of girls who got pregnant had abortions; so in
the three years from 2003, 13,474 girls aged under 16 had abortions. No
parent would wish that experience for their young daughter – but what might
be even more disturbing is that approximately the same number of girls who
are not yet old enough to vote, drink in pubs or drive a car decided to give
birth to their babies and become mothers.
So another 13,000 or so children will have been added to that alarming horde
of Britain’s young who will almost certainly be brought up on benefits,
knowing nothing of a secure family life or a father’s love and who will soon
be beyond the control of the poor young girl who has chosen to bring them
into the world.
The picture for under18s is equally distressing. The government claims that
the pregnancy rate among under18s has fallen but this is a work of
statistical jiggery-pokery: it is possible to advance that claim only
because the overall number of teenagers in the population as a whole has
risen and so the rate of pregnancy among them can be alleged to have fallen.
However, the true number of such pregnancies has actually risen from 46,655
in 1999 to 47,277 in 2005.
Two conclusions can be drawn from these figures: the government’s policies
plainly are not working and its declared aims self-evidently will not be
achieved. Throughout this decade, Labour’s target has been to halve the
number of pregnancies among 16 and 17-year-olds by 2010.
To that end it has intensified the provision of sex education in schools,
raised spending on propaganda programmes and liberalised the availability of
chemical abortion and of contraceptives. With what result? More teenage
pregnancies. More abortions. More miserable single mothers. More poverty.
Perhaps it is time to look at this issue from another angle and apply a
straightforward cost/benefit analysis to our policies. Supporting single
mothers is a significant expense for the state. The government itself says
that “benefit payments to a teenage mother who does not enter employment in
the three years following birth can total between £19,000 and £25,000 over
three years”.
About 20,000 teenage mothers give birth every year and go on to draw such
benefits.
Overall state expenditure on abortion is not an immense sum compared with,
say, the education budget but, even allowing for the fact that most
abortions are chemically induced by morning-after pills, the cost of 200,000
abortions for all women (including significant numbers of operations in
hospitals) runs into many tens of millions of pounds.
Perhaps we should simply ask ourselves why the state is required to cough up
when a teenage girl gets pregnant. Clearly, a significant financial saving
could be made if the state stopped subsidising pregnant teenagers. Beyond
the mere bookkeeping, however, lies the possibility of social improvement.
Arguments over abortion, for instance, have been polarised for the past 40
years between those, on one side, who are primarily concerned with the
individual rights of the woman/mother and those on the other side who are
more interested in the individual rights of the foetus/baby.
As far as I can remember, in all that time nobody has ever considered the
position of a powerful but abjectly silent third party. I can’t remember
anybody asking how it suits the interest of the state to pay for 200,000
abortions of healthy foetuses a year.
In the same light, we should ask how the interests of the state are served by
extending indefinite subsidy – at an annual cost of many billions – to those
tens of thousands of single young women who decide to give birth to babies
whom they cannot otherwise afford to maintain.
Withdrawing state subsidy would not, in any way, remove the right of a woman
to have an abortion or to keep a child if she so chooses (and abortions for
medical reasons should arguably continue to be provided by the National
Health Service in the same way as any other medical operation). It would
simply mean she would have to find some other source of funding.
That money will probably be hard to find; and if young women knew that they
would face the severe problem of getting money for abortions or for child
maintenance from the father and from his or her own family or, in the last
resort, from charities or adoption agencies, they would surely be less
blithe about getting pregnant.
They might start taking responsibility for their actions. At present, the fact
that a girl or woman can look to the state for automatic, unqualified
provision of funds for abortion or for childcare means that she need feel no
sense of personal responsibility for the act of getting pregnant and the
subsequent decision over what to do with the baby.
Such a shift in personal responsibility might immediately lead to a reduction
in the numbers of abortions and the numbers of single young women having
babies. That, after all, is what everybody wants.
Nobody – not even the most ardent advocate of women’s rights – is cheerful
about that melancholy figure of 200,000 abortions, which rises every year.
Nobody claims that ours would be a more shining civilisation if even more
abortions took place.
Nobody believes we need even more single mothers looking after children –
especially teenage boys – whom they cannot afford to support and cannot
begin to control. In other words, there is general agreement that the
interests of society are not being best served by these unchecked
developments.
Yet still we go on forking out for them. And still the numbers rise every
year. It is obvious and undeniable that many tens of thousands of young
girls get pregnant every year because they actively choose to do so. And one
of the most obvious reasons they make that choice is because the rest of us
– through the state – make it worth their while.
So perhaps we should stop doing that.
I am 17 currently at college and i know of many teenage mums who are coping fine without the help of the goverment.I would like to say that it makes me sick how Sam Kirkwood and Caroline Tunbridge can suggest such a harsh and inmoral way of dealing with babies from teenage mothers.
HELEN, STEVENAGE, UK
I basically agree with the column, but have to bite my tongue now, my grand daughter at college, decided last year to have the impant contraception, she produced a son, no one not even she knew that she was pregnant,Other forms of
contraception were used.Now the family are having to support
ann Murphy, Shoreham-by-Sea, UK
you cant just go on in your ways when you arent looking at the whole picture. It just aint teenage mums on benefits and most of them only are while they are getting educated, like me. I know many mums who are in their 40's and have popped out 9 kids and are sitting at home all day on benefits
Zora Visanji, Bedford, England
i am 17 years of age and expecting my first child in a matter of weeks , i sat my Gcse's in 2007 and came away with 7 a-c grade passes . ever since i left school i have been in full time employment and paying national insurance and tax contributions , i did not purposely get pregnant , but i am mature enough to deal with the consequences of my actions and look after my baby , i do not ask for any money from the government neither did i get pregnant just to claim benefits , i work for a living to provide the best life for my baby , it is unfair that you stereo type teenage mothers we do not all choose to get pregnant just to claim benefits. what about all those people sat at home claiming benefits because they cannot be bothered to work ?. it is made too easy for them just to sit at home and claim benefits . i as a tax payer detest the fact that i pay taxes for those lay abouts to sit at home , i think that is the bigger issue . i work for a living and i provide for my child!
tash, s.yorks,
what a load of old right wing trollop
kris, Saltash, Cornwall
Hi.I'm 16 and I have a baby daughter. I am an exclusively breastfeeding,cloth nappy using mother.I also got 10 A* in my GCSE results. I'm not on any benefit except Child Benefit which everybody gets. I didn't mean to get pregnant on purpose,of course,but I accepted the consequences of my actions.
If anyone dared to consider my baby "high risk" I would kick up such a fuss that they would wish they hadn't. Please,stop stereotyping young mothers as leechers. Do you know who's a leech? The MP David conway. He's stolen more money off the government than I ever have.
Don't talk about what you don't understand-in doing so you only display your own ignorance.Thank you.
Anna, Leeds,
Currently if you want to donate an organ you have to sign up to the scheme, how about something similar for having babies? Males and females are fitted with contraceptive implants at puberty, and must apply to have them removed when they want to procreate, via interview by a board of taxpayers (not a Government agency of any sort).
I occasionally look at children around me and think "Oh well, at least they'll be paying my pension" but if I wasn't subsidising *them* perhaps my own taxes could help me during old age!
Sarah W, Loughton, Essex
A symptom of a clinically depressed, dysfunctional society in terminal meltdown.
Andrew Milner, Yokohama, Japan
Removing benefits totally is too harsh, but when a girl under 18 gives birth, the baby should immediately be considered 'at risk' with all the attendant monitoring and restrictions.
There could, for instance, be rules on where the girl could live, who she allows to look after the baby, even who can come into contact with the baby.
This would disabuse girls of the notion that early motherhood equates to adulthood.
We need more babies, but we need them to have the very best start in life.
J Phillips, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
I'm confused - isn't the age of consent in this country 16? Why aren't people prosecuted for these things happening? And if putting teeneage boys and girls into juvenile detention centres is too harsh (which it probably is) then why aren't the parents prosecuted? The threat of imprisonment might spur these people on to actually take in interest and a role in their children's lives.
Equally, the stopping of benefits is important as this will make the option of having children so young not a cushy one, and we cannot forget that education is such an important part of this whole issue. The more educated the person, the more informed their choices, the more chance the next generation has of being able to break the cycle of dependancy on handouts from other people's hard work.
Annoyed, London,
Its easy to criticise the irresponsible female teenagers especially as you are obviously male. Have you even considered the possibility that some of these pregnancies may be due to rape and/or failed contraception? As well as this simply because they are teenagers doesn't mean their children will grow up fatherless or even that the mothers will always rely on welfare. Women who have children in their twenties while in a stable relationship could end up raising fatherless children after the demise of their relationship,this situation isn't limited to teens. Taking away access to abortion, chemical or otherwise, won't make teens less likely to have sex. It just means there will be 13 000 more babies born to unwed teen mothers. Perhaps you should present your "data" as percentages since this gives a clearer overall view of the current situation. References would also give you more credibility.
Anne, Brisbane, Australia
Hear hear.
The government has provided a wonderful warm failsafe plan for all teenagers who lack the will to work hard and fend for themselves. This attitude of dependancy on the welfare system is so prevalent that even those with a firm belief in working hard for an honest living begin to lose heart.
The over-protective welfare blanket for teenage single mothers needs to go. How can we reduce teenage pregnancies while we are still incentivising teenagers to have children by offering a glittering package of benefits? The prospect of a free council home in these current times of ever-increasing house prices is probably enough to tempt anyone...
Saba, Kent, UK
While it is so easy to moralize and point the finger at these naughty, promiscuous girls, what about the other half of the equation, that being the father of the child? Where does he figure in this? And while so many of the above contributors see it as their moral obligation to punish these unfortunate young women, is any thought being given to the child? Does the child also have to suffer for the supposed "sins" of the parents. Should a child be punished and forced to live in poverty because its mother concieved him/her out of wedlock? Perhaps what needs to be questioned is why these young women become pregnant in the first place? Is it lack of access to contraception, pressure from their male partners to have sex, a way of giving meaning to a perceived meaningless life, a lack of alternatives in life for these girls because they are already caught up in the cycle of poverty? As Jesus said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". Have some compassion.
Clarissa, Melbourne, Australia
i was a mother at the age of 16.
Since having my daughter people have told myself and my partner to lie to the council to get a house and to recieve benefits.
When i found i was pregnant i can tell you now that benefits were the last thing on my mind.
However i do know that we would be alot better if we werent together (benefits wise) but then children would suffer.
My husband works 6 days a week to pay the bills and and rent on our private rented house. When we dont have enough money to eat i just remember that it was our choice to keep our baby. I myself will soon be returning to work and hope that other people are as honest and sensible as us and that i am not paying to keep them in a council house etc.
kitty, Oxford, England
Nobody is ever going to stop teenage girls from wanting babies. Isn't the real problem here that those of past thirty who want to retain the notion that we are still young, do not want to allow the next generation to be adults because that will make us feel old (and emotionally and socially retarded even, given that so many of us give birth so late nowadays)? If the girls are old enough to give birth, then they are old enough to feel sexual desire and also the desire to give birth , but society gives them no legitimate outlet for their desire. They are not allowed to marry. With parental permission. That would be more just and give parents more leverage with their daughters and girls more leverage with boyfriends . All the time these girls are surrounded by sexual imagery and stimulation through th media. Lower the age of marriage first, and then remove support for all unmarried mothers (not just teenagers, why only them?). That would be just.
RW, Istanbul,
Well I am a 'teenager' without a child, just a little dog and in university and I am following all of the rules and not costing the tax payer anything really, I pay for my medical care andschooling and what do young people like us get? Nothing. Yet there is a reward system for people that make mistakes. There is needs to be a system of consequence introduced.
If the leaving age for education was raised to 18 and if you left before 18 then you should have 6 weeks grace to find a job or else enter into unpaid community service, so you really have two options, find a job or go back to school.
Teenage parents and single parents on benefits without qualifications should also be made to attend a course to learn a trade or skills to help better their situation. If they fail to do so then their benefits should be removed.
It should be a system of 'borrowing' not taking unless you are chronically ill, disabled or having other special circumstances.
www.indigomovement.blogspot.com
L, antrim ,
New figures show more than 20 schoolgirls get pregnant every day. Nothing will change until people know the purpose of their existance.
Amr, Cairo, Egypt
Neil Lundon's article does not mention the CSA. Perhaps if it were effective, it would act as a deterrant to any man impregnating young girls willy nilly. It is time men were held responsible, not just single mothers - they can't get pregnant by themselves. Men know very well that it is easy peasy to evade maintenance payments, so don't give a monkey's about whether they father a baby or not. There are still children who reach 16 without ever having received a penny from their biological father - a national scandal.
J P Wallace, Guildford, UK
Hear hear!
And while we're at it, how about confiscating all the resulting babies and redistributing them to infertile middle class couples at the same time. That would mean the taxpayer (ie, me) not subsidising fertility treatment either.
Caroline, Tunbridge Wells,
Hear hear.
Robert, Bristol,
Issue CONDOMS free on the NHS to boys aged 14-25
Jane, Whittlesey, CAMBRIDGESHIRE
Any party who would stop the benefits for pregnant single mums would get my vote immediately.
It really doesn't make sense that we the hardworking ones are to be penalised and pay for those who don't work and elect to have a child whom they can't support. Throwing money at these so called 'socially deprived' does not work. Personal responsiblities have to be learnt the hard way, not cushioning with all the money and incentives.
UF, Birmingham, UK
Another way to reduce the number of under age pregnancies is to take all children born to these youngsters away from the mother immediately after birth and offer them for adoption. This would cost the state consderably less.
Sam Kirkwood, Worcester,
I think we need to change how British society and tv portray sex and teach young people some morals and teach them how to respect each other and be good boyfriends and let sex be something beautiful for after marriage.
This country has gone so far down the wrong way it is unreal and I blame television for most of the decline as the programmes are so awful and downright disgusting most of the time, no family values programmes at all. What do you expect then, tv influences kids more than anything else and I personally stopped watching the soap operas a few years ago as I could not take them anymore as in them anything goes and children from the ages of 4 or 5 follow them.
Children should be brought up with a good moral code and sex should be for within marriage if this happened our number of awful abortions would decline and so would single parent mums who are uanble to control their kids when they become teenagers and then drink and drugs and crime creep into that family.
Puddy, Hampshire, UK
Everyone is crying about our ageing society so I am surprised that Neil Lyndon is making such a fuss. At the end of the day, it is more babies and you should rejoice: They will be funding your retirement....
John, London,
Nice to see you getting back into the sex war after all those bloody car reviews, Neil.
Leave that to Jeremy Thingy, this is more fun.
You will find a lot of men's rights activisits out here who will write in to support you.
There has been a big shift of power since you bravely wrote your book (largely because of the internet). Feminists have lost the ascendancy, and they know it.
THIS IS MORE FUN!
Chris, Wokingham, England
As an American, I am asonished to read that teenage mothers receive so much from the government! Teen mothers receive practically nothing here, and yet teenage pregnancy is still a problem. I, too, am a single mother, but my husband passed away when my son was three and I was 38. It is an entirely difference scenario since I had my education and job to fall back on. The British government should not have to pay for all these girls having babies, especially when it pays for sex education and abortion. If there was little tolerance for teen pregnancies (as in the past), there would be higher levels of abstinence and adoption than there is now in both our countries.
Katherine Murray, Scottsdale, AZ USA
I think that the parents should ensure that their teenage daughters from the age of 15 are put on the pill. Yes I hear you say, this would just "encourage" teenagers to have sex, but hey they are going to do it anyhow, and it is better to be prepared, plus explain to them that although they are on the pill, they are still not covered againgst AIDS.
They should also be encouraged to return to work, no I mean they should have no choice but to earn their own money. Yes, get childrens allowence, the dad should have to pay child support, and he should be involved in the kids life as this is best for the kid, but that doesnt mean support the mother to have a life where she doesnt have to work as he himself should be involved in the kids life too. These young "mothers" are going to have kids who will do the same - so something has to be done, This will also mean that the UK will have to have a better child care system , run by the state and the costs put down.
Anna Hansen, Copenhagen, Denmark
Prosecute, right across the board, all males who impregnate females under the age of 16 regardless of the females compliance. Enforce adoption of all babies born to females under the age of 16 - this trend of 'children raising children' in this day and age has become ridiculous and should no longer be tolerated by society. Single motherhood is one thing but underaged-single motherhood must be completely discouraged, even prohibited, with only the toughest measures possible. They will get the message once the welfare-rug is pulled out from underneath them. Society cannot stop young teens from sleeping around, but laws must be introduced to prevent them reaping the rewards in the form of the resulting babies.
wendy, Maury, France
Why not treat a teenage girl having a baby like just another addition to the family. If her mother gave birth to a baby sister/brother for the same teenage girl the family would simply enlarge by one extra mouth to feed. So any girl under 18 should stay within the family home, not in a council flat and her father should just get an increase of his tax allowance.
It might encourage parents to take more interest in the welfare and sex education of their children.
GJB, Slough, Berkshire
These kids know what they are doing. They don't like living at home so how do they get a subsidized house in a nice village, funds to buy furniture and funds to live off ....... do I need to say more!!!!!! The UK needs to stop this damn stupid welfare state that promotes idleness and screws (no pun intended) the tax payer who works for a living.
Dinoz, Brisbane, Australia