Benefits...following on from unfit parents thread...

[anais]

Well, who wants to start?

Oakmaiden, I do agree to a point that it is hard for parents to be responsibly for the actions of their teenage children. That said, it would be nice if some tried harder. I work at a local comprehensive school. There are girls there who are sexually active at the age of 13 and the parents know all about it and don't event try to stop it. Some of these girls are with men in their 20, and to my mind this is child abuse and paedophilia. We are not talking about an equal relationship between teens who are exploring their sexuallity. The parents of these girls don't seem to understand that teenagers may want to do all sorts of things but that as adults we have to make every effort to protect them from their ill advised desires. We are adults and they are children. And these girls may by physically mature at 13 but mentaly they are somewhere around 10. I'm fairly sure that lots of them almost want their parents to step in and stop things. That way they have an 'out' of the situation that allows them to save face. A 'Sorry I can't because my bag of a mother doesn't lest me', situation

The birth rate in Britain is already far too low (and dropping)to support our ageing population. Everyone needs to have more children, not less.

ps I have been shocked by some of the fascistic and I'm-all-right-Jack views on this thread

We may need to have more children (although I think the greens would disagree with that idea) but I don't think that it should be the children of 13 and 14 who should have them. I know that anais is an excellent mother who cares deeply for her children and that she chose to have her children early on in life. Some young mothers are excellent, jsut like her. However having chidren very early on can be detrimental to the health and wellbeing of the child and the mother. Anais was obviously ready to have the demands of motherhood at an ealy age. But I don't think that many girls have enough maturity at the age of 13/14/15. Some will, but most will not.

I do just think a bit more responsibility for us and ours would really be a step forward. I would class my daughter getting pregnant at a young age as a huge disappointment (although would do everything to help her). My evil stepmum is a senior school teacher and she sees teens going out with men and to me this also is abuse, not only on the part of the man but of the girls parents.

Everyone has human rights but they also have responsibilities and I do not think quoting human rights absolves you of these responsibilities.

I agree that anais is probably an excellent mother but I think that it is not responsible to bring children into the world if you are unable to finacialy and emotionally (this not applying to anais) support them, and I do think that the reason given of not wanting child to be only child a bit lame.

Where are the fathers in all of this????

Cam, me too.

judetheobscure, are you really advocating removing a baby from its mother at birth based on whether she has any money or not?

I got pg at 16. By the time I was 18 I had 2 dd's. Looking back now
Yes I was irresponsible.
Yes I was far too young.
Yes I wish I had them later in life.
Yes I did miss out on my teenage years.
BUT
No I do not regret having them
and I made my own bed so I bloody well laid in it.
When they were 14 and 15 I took them to the docs to go on the pill. They both protested as they were tomboys back then but I did not want them making the same mistakes that I did.They have learnt from my mistakes and both career minded young ladies.I am so proud of them.

hmb I am sure the parents will kick up a stink if they got pg though. That really is disgusting.

God Oakmaiden - had not even kissed a boy when I was that age!!

I'd better not tell you that I had my first boyfriend when I was 9 then, Boe, and he was 13.

Doormat, good on you, and good on your girls. And as you say the parents will be upset if they get pg, but are doing nothing to stop/limit the damage of the situation. I sickens me.

I know, Boe. It was too young, really, but to be honest I don't see what my parents could have done to prevent it, short of allowing me no freedom at all. He was a nice boy, a year or 2 older than me, a very talented musician and at Grammer School - I went to an all girls public school (as a boarder) so it was a summer holiday thing, really. I was probably only a month or so short of 16....

sigh feeling all wistful now....

Lunchtime thought:

I read in the Guardian today that the bottom 10% of households give 3% of their income to charity; the top 10% give 1%.

Having read on here about the level of tax avoidance that goes on, could it be that the poor have a higher sense of social responsibility than the rich?

Just musing. Certainly the majority of very rich people I have met have been incredibly mean.

That's why they're rich JimJams

That is what my old Mum used to say Tinker

When I have gone collecting for charity door to door I have generally found that the people most keen to put money in the envelope have been the ones in the most run down estates and houses. Not statistically significant I grant you, but my experience.

But surely the 1% would be more than the 3% because they earn so much more. Probably employ some poor people too!! (Sorry have been to Pizza Express and consumed 1 glass of wine - so have lost ability to be politically correct - have to try hard to be most of the time anyway - cam type real fast now though!!)

boe just because they earn more doesnt mean they will part with more money.

Just thought that 1% of a rich persons income would be more than 3% of a poor persons???

But agree that 3% of whatever is a bigger show of generosity than 1%.

And although they may give more in terms of the absolute amount they donate, it will have 'cost them' less in real terms. For example to give 3% of a minimum wage will mean far more in terms of self denial that it would for someone who earns £100,000. To give 3% a low income earner may well have to do without themselves. The widows mite and all that.....

Oakmaiden you are a shameful hussy and I wish to god I was a bit more like you!!

Oakmaiden - you are quite right - my adoption idea probably is unworkable in practice, both for the reasons you give also because yes contraception does fail and people shouldn't be blamed for this. I still think if you are unable to support children yourself, you shouldn't be having more than two. Highly irresponsible and frequently damaging to the child.

Much more needs to be done on addressing the problems which arise from poor parenting (due to lack of money/education/whatever). I'm thinking now of perhaps a "meals on wheels" for children to ensure they get a nutritious meal once a day. Again, paying parents to stay at home. Making it a condition of some sort that they attend baby/toddler groups.

Incidentally, newborn babies do not end up in care for life - adoptive parents are very quickly
found for them - often on the same day.

... oh .... and "I'm alright Jack" people are not allowed to express opinions ???? In a democracy, everyone can express an opinion.

I have just tried to read this whole thread but given up due to too much wine.

All I can say is that I am very happy to pay my taxes in order that those less fortunate than myself can benefit. I do not judge those people -if you have so little that you have to claim benefits it doesn't matter whether you are doing it "deliberately" or not - you still have bugger all (financially) so you deserve all the help you can get. So what if you are a 15 year old mother, a wino, a divorced person happened upon hard times or any other circumstance.

I hope that if I ever need the system it will be there for me.

Goodness. Good post pie, I stopped reading after that.

Like to just say that this thread has also reminded me why I didn't make my career in the City