To think all this talk of sex education is patronising to teenage mothers

[roseability]

A lot of teenagers want to start a family and know perfectly well how to use a condom

As a society we have actually created the problem by stigmatising teenage pregnancy. It doesn't conform to socioeconomic norms of educational and economic success thus it is wrong. By making it 'wrong' teenage mothers are marginalised and often receive poor antenatal care and fewer opportunities for themselves and their family.

There were actually more teenage mothers in the 1950s than in the 1990s. Of course in the 1950s it was acceptable to have a baby under the age of 20 (as long as you were married). I am not advocating forced marriage but the fact that society accepted it meant teenage mothers got a better deal (in terms of their image anyway)

Define teenager. There is a big difference between a 13 year old who does fall pregnant accidently through poor knowledge and a 19 year old who chooses to start a family young, but doesn't expect to be judged just because she isn't fulfilling society's expectations.

We are not going to stop teenage pregnancy. There are much wider socioeconomic, psychological and political issues surrounding young motherhood than sex education.

Personally I would be more worried about STDs and the damage to young people's health, this is where sex education should be aimed at.

I am sure teenage motherhood is tough and there are issues about the welfare of young mums and their babies but to conclude my point, it is society that has caused such issues. I am also sure that there are many great young mums doing a better job than older mothers.

So...children who are born to umemployed parents should live in poverty and face all of the problems that come with it.....Whereas children who are born to working parents automatically have the right to a better life?
I would say that that was outrageously unfair....
There are plenty of young, single men who are fit to work and choose not to. Shouldn't we be targetting them rather than parents who need the state to support them?

See, it's all well and good suggesting nurseries and that, but my feeling has always been that until we start addressing the other parent of children, the father, just as much as the mother, then any sort of change made is inherently misogynistic.

I also don't see where childfree people who chose not to work should be targets before parents who chose not to. BOTH should be addressed equally.

My husband paid for my home and family life, thanks but there are PLENTY of older mums that are on benefits and cant afford children, are you really suggesting you should stay motherless?

baby massage classes are open to ALL rebelmum

But, it's not always as simple as thinking they should both be addressed equally...single parents for example might be unable to work due to childcare costs/issues or some parents may be too ill to work...whereas young, fit, single men/women may not be working because they can get away with it.
The state is there for a reason but some people actually need it (many, I am aware, take advantage) but we shoudn't be tarring all benefit claimers with the same brush

the 'I worked until i could afford them' is a red herring aswell. You work until you feel financially stable and then you still have to go back to work because you cant afford not to. You are no more financially stable than someone just starting out. When i had my first we had one car, a low mortgage (33k) and I could afford not to work whilst my husband did. By the time my third came along I had a mortgage over 150k, 2 cars (which we need as i have a disabled child) and we are always robbing peter to pay for paul. My age hasnt made me any more financially secure than I was before, it has made me, if anything, poorer.

the 'I worked until i could afford them' is a red herring aswell. You work until you feel financially stable and then you still have to go back to work because you cant afford not to. You are no more financially stable than someone just starting out. When i had my first we had one car, a low mortgage (33k) and I could afford not to work whilst my husband did. By the time my third came along I had a mortgage over 150k, 2 cars (which we need as i have a disabled child) and we are always robbing peter to pay for paul. My age hasnt made me any more financially secure than I was before, it has made me, if anything, poorer.

are lots of people taking advantage? i dont know of many. The council lists here are HUGE. You are lucky if you can get a hostel or b&b place. hardly a liofe of luxury someone would choose, is it?

Yeah you have to go back to work to pay for everyone elses children, if our tax wasn't so high I could work less!

in fact i could stay at home!

I don't think I should be forced to pay for someone elses mistakes, no wonder no one is learning from it.

As a result my own child suffers, as I am not at home when I need to be.

you will be saying you have to work to pay my daughters DLA in a minute and my Carers allowance

what's a DLA?

If you think it's 'free' then I am paying for it..

disability living allowance. If you are going to champion that you are paying everyones benefits and allowances it may pay you to research what they are

Christ it would take me forever. You are being paid for by taxpayers. Accept it. No one is debating here that you shouldn't be supported.

filz, I am all for state benefit as I've made clear in my posts. And yes, I think many people do take advantage. Just a few miles away from my home is a huge council estate which I grew up in. I didn't attend the local comp but most of the children I played with did. Some of those kids now claim benefits because they can even though they would be seen as fit to work...they might not be the most educated people on the planet but there are plenty of jobs they could do. Instead, when visiting my parents I observe some of them make the once a week journey to the post office, and then they sit on my parents wall messing around, drinking, smoking etc.
I know a life on benefits isn't a luxury one because I've grown up in an area where benefits were relied upon and I never knew anyone who had a holiday, a car etc.

rebelmum, I have been a taxpayer and will be again as soon as I complete my degree. Dh pays higher rate tax. Are you honestly suggesting I dont put enough into the system to take out of it. Do you realise how much it would cost the taxpayer if I chose not to look after my daughter?

Do you want a certificate rebelmum?

I completely agree MadameCasatafiore - you shouldn't have a child you cannot support financially or otherwise - however old you are.

And as for the everyone else paying for it thing - how far are you going to go? What about single people who have no dependants paying tax, which in turn pays your child benefit?

sparkly, my MIL lives on a council estate and the only problem they seem to have is with smackheads. Most 'normal' families, young and old, work to their capacity

filz, that's very different to my experience - but this is going back 15 years. If I thought about those who lived in my street when I was a child.....26 houses and only 2 sets of parents who worked. Most of the unemployed were second generation benefit claimers - my parents included.

upwind - if the Guardian took such a patronising view on teenage mothers I would not agree with it! Hence my original post! I always consider it a more liberal paper.

Expat - absolutely agree that fathers are often overlooked. It is always the mothers who are villianised (sp?). There is definately still a sexist view out there that if a girl gets pregnant, it is her fault. She was responsible for contraception (my father for one believes this but then he is a p*k and I don't get on with him!)

My mother once told me, when I got my first serious boyfriend at 17, that if I got pregnant I would be out on the street. Did this stop me getting pregnant? No, I think it was other factors, but I have a terrible relationship with her. I will never take this attitude with a daughter should I have one. Also, we should be able to discuss sex with our sons?

In England and Wales - pregnancy to 18 and 19 year olds accounted for two thirds of all pregnancies to women under the age of 20

Pregnancy to under 17s accounted for less than a fifth. The 'blanket' term teenage pregnancy is unhelpful. I would have been much more ready for parenthood at 18/19 once I had been living away from home thanat 15/16

The choice of whether to become a young mother (or father), whether by active choice or accident, is a complex one and the influences are multifactoral.

Unplanned pregnancies seldom lead to unwanted births for those who choose to keep their babies

Most behaviour, including childbearing is measured as problematic in terms of how it measures up to the norms of society.

Some research suggest early childbearing can be seen as entirely rational in poor or chronically ill environments.

How far is it ethical to be prescriptive, persuasive or 'pressurising' in order to promote health? It is value driven. How much research has been done into how teeange mothers themselves feel? Some feel it is the best thing that ever happened to them.

Sex education is proving ineffective in a lot of places

In America (where the Bush administration only fund abstinence programmes) it is ineffective I believe

I appreciate the points regarding the Netherlands which has a very loe rate of teenage pregnancies. They have a lot more open attitude to sex education. The legal age of consent is lower?

But again this is value driven. The Netherlands I believe has fewer inequalities in welath and health? Correct me if I am wrong

If you truly want to prevent teenage pregnancy (and I don't believe should or can) it would involve eradicating inequalities.