Underage pregnancy

[Dogs On Acid]

Comrades, what are the factors that lead to this?

I was told that Britain was the country with most teenage pregnancy in Europe.

Is there not enough emphasis on sexual education?

Condoms and other contraceptives are widely available, and information about sex is too, so why do youngsters still make this mistake all the time?

[Desperado]

The correlation with deprivation should answer you question. But why is it necessarily a mistake?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Sometimes it is lack of immediate access to various forms of pregnancy prevention.Other times it is simply people making a "bad" decision.

I do not see why this is necessarily a problem.It is the capitalist system which makes it hard to raise children so why should young people be dissuaded from having babies? People have always had and will continue to have sex.

[Leftsolidarity]

For my friends and my ex's almost pregnancy, it is usually from being fucked up, first time, not being able to afford condoms, trying to pull a quicky somewhere stupid, etc.

That's from my life experiences.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

There's obviously not one sole factor, and we quite clearly cannot just lay blame at Capitalism's general door and be done.

There are complex social and sometimes socio-economic factors at play. In no particular order, I would say that lack of education, lack of youth community activities, ignorance, boredom, moderately generous welfare and lack of skills and jobs are all inter-weaving factors in this unfortunate phenomenon in the UK.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

There's obviously not one sole factor, and we quite clearly cannot just lay blame at Capitalism's general door and be done.

There are complex social and sometimes socio-economic factors at play. In no particular order, I would say that lack of education, lack of youth community activities, ignorance, boredom, moderately generous welfare and lack of skills and jobs are all inter-weaving factors in this unfortunate phenomenon in the UK.

Why do you see young people having sex as a negative influence on society?

I also wouldn't call teenagers having sexual intercourse as a "phenomenon."

[Desperado]

unfortunate phenomenon in the UK.

Again. Why unfortunate? Unwanted pregnancies, sure. But of those I know having a child post (or during) their failed education has given a meaningful purpose to their lives.

[Dogs On Acid]

Why do you see young people having sex as a negative influence on society?

I also wouldn't call teenagers having sexual intercourse as a "phenomenon."


He was referring to teenage pregnancy, not sex.

*Removed due to bullshit bourgeois laws*

The problem with teenage pregnancy isn't the pregnancy itself (I would love to be a Dad :wub:), It's the unfortunate society that we live in, that doesn't give a shit about you or your baby. Of course getting pregnant at 16 is a dumb choice, if you are poor or unemployed, like most people that age.

[Desperado]

Of course getting pregnant at 16 is a dumb choice, if you are poor or unemployed, like most people that age.

So having a child when you are poor or unemployed is wrong?

Workers of the world, abstain!

[TheGodlessUtopian]

He was referring to teenage pregnancy, not sex.

Also, I'm not for these age of consent laws, If you are 15, and you are willing to have sex, then do so.
.

Ah,I see.

But why 15? Why not 13 when puberty starts and young people are starting to have sexual energy?

[Leftsolidarity]

So having a child when you are poor or unemployed is wrong?

Workers of the world, abstain!

No, but it sure as fuck isn't a good idea.

[Dogs On Acid]

So having a child when you are poor or unemployed is wrong?

Workers of the world, abstain!

I didn't say it was wrong, don't put words in my mouth. I said it was a bad idea, Mr. Prolier than thou

[Dogs On Acid]

Ah,I see.

But why 15? Why not 13 when puberty starts and young people are starting to have sexual energy?

Yes any age. 15 was an example. If you are 13 and you want to have sex, then do so. It's nobody's business but your own.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

So having a child when you are poor or unemployed is wrong?

Workers of the world, abstain!

Having a child when you are a most likely rather naïve and foolish kid, is. Although this cannot be judged arbitrarily very easily, it is a reality. Ideally all child raising would be collective and the importance of the biological parents limited and this would render the problem much less serious, since the ability of the actual parents to handle it would be less important. In the future, hopefully, the burden of actual child birth could be abolished in favour of artificial methods and do away with the inequality inherent in natural breeding.

[Desperado]

No, but it sure as fuck isn't a good idea.

"Isn't a good idea" most certainly suggests wrong.

If one cannot afford the basic needs of the child, then sure. But this is not the majority of teenage pregnancies.

[Dogs On Acid]

Having a child when you are a most likely rather naïve and foolish kid, is. Although this cannot be judged arbitrarily very easily, it is a reality. Ideally all child raising would be collective and the importance of the biological parents limited and this would render the problem much less serious, since the ability of the actual parents to handle it would be less important. In the future, hopefully, the burden of actual child birth could be abolished in favour of artificial methods and do away with the inequality inherent in natural breeding.

Before collective upbringings take place, we have to get rid of the idea of Biological Family, a product of maintaining capital in a closed membership.

[Dogs On Acid]

"Isn't a good idea" most certainly suggests wrong.

If one cannot afford the basic needs of the child, then sure. But this is not the majority of teenage pregnancies.

Is it not? Basic needs aren't everything you know, what about getting an education, or having spare time? We are talking about teenagers, they are going to want to go out and party, enjoy life. With the current system of Family, it will take away any time they barely had before.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Before collective upbringings take place, we have to get rid of the idea of Biological Family, a product of maintaining capital in a closed membership.

I was hoping that the dismounting of the nuclear family would be assumed, but yes, naturally.

[Leftsolidarity]

"Isn't a good idea" most certainly suggests wrong.

If one cannot afford the basic needs of the child, then sure. But this is not the majority of teenage pregnancies.

No it suggests "Isn't a good idea"

If you're a young person like me that doesn't have an income and would struggle to provide for a child, it would be a bad idea to have a child. Strangely, I had thought about this before because I personally wouldn't mind having a kid. That is for when I could properly care for one though.

[Desperado]

I didn't say it was wrong, don't put words in my mouth. I said it was a bad idea, Mr. Prolier than thou

Bad is also generally equivalent to wrong, unless you come from upside-down land. I assume you think it would be better if they didn't.


Having a child when you are a most likely rather naïve and foolish kid, is. Although this cannot be judged arbitrarily very easily, it is a reality.

Having a child is part of loosing naivety - It's a learning curve whatever your age. I think paternity is something we have in us by our nature from a young age and "kids" can and have accomplished very well - see youngsters who must care for their siblings or older relatives.


Ideally all child raising would be collective and the importance of the biological parents limited and this would render the problem much less serious, since the ability of the actual parents to handle it would be less important. In the future, hopefully, the burden of actual child birth could be abolished in favour of artificial methods and do away with the inequality inherent in natural breeding.Agreed.

[Leftsolidarity]

Having a child is part of loosing naivety - It's a learning curve whatever your age. I think paternity is something we have in us by our nature from a young age and "kids" can and have accomplished very well - see youngsters who must care for their siblings or older relatives.



Yes, young people CAN take care of children but SHOULD they?

[Desperado]

Is it not? Basic needs aren't everything you know, what about getting an education, or having spare time? We are talking about teenagers, they are going to want to go out and party, enjoy life. With the current system of Family, it will take away any time they barely had before.

In the UK and Europe (your OP) basic education is free. The costlier elements, which I don't deny should be available to all (private tutoring (including music lessons) etc.) are unavailable to a large segment of the population, teenage parents or not. As for spare time, it has already been noted that boredom is often a factor behind the choice to become an early parent.

[Desperado]

Yes, young people CAN take care of children but SHOULD they?

If they want to then obviously yes.

I'd have thought the only issue (and the one you were arguing on) was whether they could or could not sufficiently take care of their children, and whether they do or do not want a child.

Why else shouldn't someone have a child? Overpopulation...?

And now who's making this an issue or right or wrong...

[Dogs On Acid]

Bad is also generally equivalent to wrong, unless you come from upside-down land.

Can't you distinguish rational choices from morality?

[Leftsolidarity]

If they want to then obviously yes.

I'd have thought the only issue (and the one you were arguing on) was whether they could or could not sufficiently take care of their children, and whether they do or do not want a child.



That is the issue. Just because someone wants a child (like I have thought before) doesn't mean the can take proper care of a child though. Most teenagers cannot sufficiently care for a child and themselves at the same time.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Why do you see young people having sex as a negative influence on society?

I also wouldn't call teenagers having sexual intercourse as a "phenomenon."

I was referring to the pregnancy bit, and I was targeting it more at the 12, 13 and 14 year olds having sex. Not that there's anything wrong in that, it's more that they seem to be doing it for the wrong reasons and as a result end up not thinking about the consequences (STDs, babies).

[Desperado]

Can't you distinguish rational choices from morality?

Not that I know of. A choice is an action and is choosing an action, morality is placing a value judgement (good or bad) on an action. "Rational" is a value judgement (a good action).

Whether or not you judge an action on it's consequence, or the intention, or the action per se, is where the big disagreements begin.


That is the issue. Just because someone wants a child (like I have thought before) doesn't mean the can take proper care of a child though.

Of course.


Most teenagers cannot sufficiently care or a child and themselves at the same time.From my experience, teenage parents have made equal parents as would adult proletarians. Indeed, most of the things noted that might make them incapable (poverty, lack of time, foolishness) is hardly exclusive to teenage parents, nor even more highly distributed on their shoulders.

[Agnapostate]

so why do youngsters still make this mistake all the time?

Teenage childbearing isn't a negative phenomenon in every regard, at least not in the United States.

There is empirical research that indicates that teenage childbearing is a beneficial reproductive strategy for lower-income (and often ethnic minority) women in terms of labor market consequences, namely Hotz et al.'s Teenage Childbearing and its Life Cycle Consequences: Exploiting a Natural Experiment (http://www.northwestern.edu/ipr/jcpr/workingpapers/wpfiles/HOTZ_WPoriginal2-7-2000.pdf): "We exploit a 'natural experiment' associated with human reproduction to identify the causal effect of teen childbearing on the socioeconomic attainment of teen mothers. We exploit the fact that some women who become pregnant experience a miscarriage and do not have a live birth. Using miscarriages an instrumental variable, we estimate the effect of teen mothers not delaying their childbearing on their subsequent attainment. We find that many of the negative consequences of teenage childbearing are much smaller than those found in previous studies. For most outcomes, the adverse consequences of early childbearing are short-lived. Finally, for annual hours of work and earnings, we find that a teen mother would have lower levels of each at older ages if they had delayed their childbearing."

This explanation is provided in a discussion of earnings and incidence of living in poverty: "Our evidence, and that of others, documents that women who begin motherhood as teens come from less advantaged backgrounds, are less likely to be successful in school, and, as such, are less likely to end up in occupations that require higher education compared with women who postpone motherhood. Our evidence further suggests that these women are more likely to acquire their skills on the job (rather than in school) and work in jobs where educational credentials are less important than continuity and job-specific experience. For such women, concentrating their childbearing at early ages may prove to be more compatible with their labor market career options than postponing their childbearing to older ages would be. If this characterization is accurate, forcing teen mothers to postpone their childbearing, as miscarriages do, may 'explain' why they both appear to acquire no more formal education and actually end up doing less well in the labor market than if they had been able to follow their preferred life cycle plan."

These results are supported by Geronimus and Korenman's The Socioeconomic Consequences of Teen Childbearing Reconsidered (http://www.jstor.org/pss/2118385) and Grogger and Bronars's The Socioeconomic Consequences of Teenage Childbearing: Findings from a Natural Experiment (http://www.jstor.org/pss/2135923).

However, it cannot necessarily be concluded that teenage childbearing among lower-income women is positive overall based on this research, since there are other adverse consequences that may result, such as physical and mental health reductions, as evidenced in Teen Motherhood and Long-Term Health Consequences (http://www.springerlink.com/content/h106j82n80062753/).

[Rafiq]

Also, I'm not for these age of consent laws, If you are 15, and you are willing to have sex, then do so.


You are going to be restricted, then.

A user here had similar views, and he was a long term admin. He is now banned.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

You are going to be restricted, then.

A user here had similar views, and he was a long term admin. He is now banned.

What did he say exactly? What was his username?

[Agnapostate]

You are going to be restricted, then.

A user here had similar views, and he was a long term admin. He is now banned.

How is that going to get him restricted? A very significant number of members here hold the same belief; in this poll (http://www.revleft.com/vb/age-sexual-consent-t86397/index.html?t=86397), 65 voting members, or 19.76% of the total, voted that there should be no age of consent, making it the second most popular option.

If you mean TheAnarchistTension, he wasn't exactly banned for his ideological views on the issue. Correlation is not causation in that case.

[Leftsolidarity]

You are going to be restricted, then.

A user here had similar views, and he was a long term admin. He is now banned.

That was a very particular case. He was banned for more than just that.

[crazyirish93]

^^ doesn't mean what those people voted for is acceptable frankly all those people who voted for no age of consent and 12 should be banned or restricted thats not to say 13 14 15 are any better thats my view.

[Rafiq]

I am very sure that I read somewhere that all those advocating the lowering of the age of consent will be restricted or banned. Actually the board team used a specific name for them: "Age of Consenters" or something like that.

[Dogs On Acid]

I am very sure that I read somewhere that all those advocating the lowering of the age of consent will be restricted or banned. Actually the board team used a specific name for them: "Age of Consenters" or something like that.

Instead of restricting me, why don't you teach me the reasons my belief is wrong?

RevLeft has a wonderful tendency of alienating people.

Also, we are biologically ready to have sexual relations once our body allows us to. Making up some "morally proper" age is ridiculous, because morals are man-made and completely relative to culture. Once a girl has her period, and once a boy starts producing sperm, they are ready, or very close to being ready to have sex.

Don't start deforming nature into some Western law as the "right way".

[Rafiq]

Instead of restricting me, why don't you teach me the reasons my belief is wrong?

RevLeft has a wonderful tendency of alienating people.



I love how you embody all of revlefts administration into me, as if I have anything to do with descision making or board policy. Take it up with them, not me.

[Dogs On Acid]

You are going to be restricted, then.

Well you seem to be quite sure of yourself about what they are going to do for someone who isn't a member of administration.


Take it up with them, not me.

Exactly, so don't give me shit.

Now stop derailing this thread.

[Tenka]

Well you seem to be quite sure of yourself about what they are going to do for someone who isn't a member of administration.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/faq.php?faq=general#faq_faqforumrules

Age of Consent

Due to the provisions of current law, both in the United States of America (where RevLeft's servers exist) and internationally, any posts and/or threads that advocate the breaking or abolition of age of consent laws under the current capitalist order, or sexual activity with a minor in violation of those laws, will result in the post or thread in question being deleted and the poster(s) facing administrative action, decided by the admins, up to and including permanent banning. Theorizing about the question of age-of-consent laws in a hypothetical post-capitalist society, or discussion about the theoretical and philosophical basis of those laws, is acceptable as long as it stays within those boundaries.Tread with caution, I guess? Though I have nothing on-topic to add here.

[Dogs On Acid]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/faq.php?faq=general#faq_faqforumrules
Tread with caution, I guess? Though I have nothing on-topic to add here.

Thanks for the info Tenka.


"Theorizing about the question of age-of-consent laws in a hypothetical post-capitalist society, or discussion about the theoretical and philosophical basis of those laws, is acceptable as long as it stays within those boundaries."

I was pointing out the Biological contradiction, so I guess it's ok.

[piet11111]

In pre-historic times we would not live much longer then 25 so you can do the math and figure out what biology has to say about teen pregnancy.