to think all teenage girls should be given a financial incentive to use LARC

[twentypoundsover]

as the cost to the taxpayer of say £500 for every year they didn't get pregnant would be dwarfed by the social and economic cost for paying for the consequences of teenage pregnancy.

thats long-acting reversible contraception btw in case it's not obvious.

no make it less attractive to have a baby

Yabu. What about the responsibility of teenage boys in teenage pregnancy?

And iuis can cause some women real problems.

bad idea, which would just bring about a return to back street abortions :(

At what point does the payment stop? When is the government-approved age to have a baby? 18? 19? 20?

also, the vast majority of teenage girls do NOT get pregnant, so I think it would be no saving at all for government resouces.

This is a bad idea on so many levels.

Once again, the onus is on the girl - but what about the boys, the teenage lads who get them pregnant? Or are they simply 'studs' whilst the girls are nowt but 'slappers'?

Next you'll be reintroducing the Magdelene laundries...

huh? why would it result in more abortions? nothing about banning abortions, just paying teenagers to be given long-lasting contraception.

And about when the payment stops - do the research and look at the stats on age of mother at birth versus social outcomes to calculate it.

Lol never heard such rubbish! They already get paid to stay on at school/college

Er, there was a very long thread recently on this very topic. Every single person thought it was a bad idea.

yabu
they can get condoms for free, the pill for free, you can't force them to use them

If a girl would get an abortion in return for £500 (but without the financial incentive would have the baby) then she's probably better off not having the child.

better education, more sex education from a younger age, get parents better educated too at talking to their kids about sex. Much less likely to increase the amount of STDs about,

Presumably STDs are free and teenage pregnancies are expensive OP?

Maybe we should be teaching girls that they are valuable without sex, that their bodies belong to them, what their sisters before them fought and died for, that they don't have to have a boyf to be cool, that the porn industry and Hollywood don't define them...

Bollocks, just dose them up and we can all sleep soundly in our beds.

Totally unreasonable, those forms of contraception can be dangerous for still developing young girls and can take years to wear off. What about those who are not even sexually active? Would they be encouraged to us LARC methods to get the money and put their bodies at risk using something that has no benefit?

I'm all for it only if I can have mine backdated. I had ds at 29, I I'm owed a few grand.

Otherwise it's a terrible plan.

I'm all for it only if I can have mine backdated. I had ds at 29, I I'm owed a few grand.

Otherwise it's a terrible plan.

There are no answers are there?
I was a teenager (late teen) when HIV/AIDS was first in the news.
Fast forward several years ( about 26 years to be exact) and I still see young girls, usually in pairs for 'moral support' giggling and asking for the MAP.

What about the night -before condom. It's not a fecking joke ,girls

Yes lets pump girls full of artificial hormones, shooting up the STI rate including that of chlamydia which untreated can cause infertility.

YABU - not all teenagers are sexually active, and not all are irresponsible about contraception. Non-barrier methods do nothing to prevent STIs either. I think it is ethically and morally dubious to endorse the taking of hormones with cold hard cash.

And although I would agree that pregnancy will always be an issue which inherently bears down more on the female (as the one actually having the baby), I think this would send the wrong messages to young men about their responsibilities in this.

Perhaps we should be looking more at why girls and young women, boys and young men who choose to defer starting a pregnancy make that choice, and find ways to foster those attitudes more widely.

There is too much social engineering using rewards IMO. For balance in life we need to balance rights and responsibilities and need to use a combination of "carrots and sticks"

I think a lot of current social problems are down to the attitude engendered in some people by this constant rewarding them for reasonable behaviour leading to an attitude of entitlement.

I think having such low expectations of people that we think only money will stop them from "accidentally" getting pregnant is unlikely to raise any standards for any of us

HERE is the other thread.

Not true any more ILoveTiffany.

EMA scrapped as of September. Bonuses scrapped ages ago.

Good lord. Are there really people who believe that this would be a good idea?

all contraceptives are free, what more incentive is there? changes are being made, but you dont want to warp back to a time where unmarried mothers were locked in looney bins to have their babies and then their babies snatched away from them. Equally if you take away financial support etc you just end up with even more young children C/O the state which costs even more money and more screwed up kids. IMO