Welfare Letter

[monster]

http://www.ppwp.org/education/progra...inkitover.html

A friend's daughter had one of these from school. They feel it worked...

[DanaC]

Well said Cic!

[xoxoxoBruce]

OK, then we'll stand on principle, just leave it the way it is, and let teenage girls continue to get pregnant and fuck up their lives

[Sundae]

I see where you are coming from Cic, but the truth is a teenage pregnancy has far more impact on the mother and the mother's family than it does on the boy or his family. Of course there are exceptions, but on the whole the boy just goes on with his jolly old life and knocks a few more hapless teens up for good measure.

I knew a lad whose teenage girlfriend became pregnant. As an "older woman" he felt he could talk to me more easily than his friends so I got the whole sad decision making process as it unfolded. They basically talked themselves into the idea of being together and baby makes three despite only having dated for a matter of weeks before the happy event. Last I heard he was away at Uni and "visited" the baby when he was back home for the holidays. So much for facing up to the consequences of his actions. And he was supposed to be one of the good guys!

Anyway, getting a contraceptive implant is not much more complicated or painful than getting a shot. Quick trip to the doctors and you're out in 5 minutes - you can't say the same for having a vasectomy, especially re the bruising.

With many women (myself as an example) it stops menstruation completely, so it is a bonus not a burden.

Anyway I know the policy is unlikely ever to be adopted in a country where teenage pregnancies are high, for many, many reasons from human rights to morality to religion. But I'd be all for it, if it did.

[DanaC]

I see where you are coming from Cic, but the truth is a teenage pregnancy has far more impact on the mother and the mother's family than it does on the boy or his family. Of course there are exceptions, but on the whole the boy just goes on with his jolly old life and knocks a few more hapless teens up for good measure.

But that's precisely the point isn't it Sundae? The main effect tends to be on the girl, where the lad gets to move on if he so chooses. So...given a choice of where to focus our enforced interventions the state/society usually looks to the girl. If you're talking about interventions after the fact (dealing with the consequences) it makes a kind of sense to focus on the girl as she's easily identifiable as a mother to be. If, however, you are talking about enforced intervention pre-conception and targeted on a general demographic then there is no reason for the state/society to continue to focus on the girls.

Enforcing contraception to me is an appalling idea. Do you enforce it with all teenage girls? Or just the poor? Means tested, enforced medical intervention? Really? Or mass medication of half the young population? Quite aside from the complete violation of their human rights, what about the expense? That's a hell of a lot of contraceptives right there.

Education does have an effect. It might not feel like it when you look around and see all those teen mums...but it does. My area of Yorkshire had one of the highest (actually it may even have been the highest) rates of teenage conceptions in England. This means it has become one of our key performance indicators and thus large amounts of time and resources have gone into trying to tackle this, primarily through education programmes, but targeted ones: rates of teenage conception are much higher amongst looked after children and they're significantly higher in certain geographical areas and if parents were also teenage parents.

Last year we had the sharpest reduction in teenage conceptions of almost anywhere in the country. It's a way to go, but these thiungs help. Especially if you attempt to tackle some of the related problems at the same time. Basically a concertd effort by councils, health trusts and local community organisations and neighbourhood management boards.

[HungLikeJesus]

I thought welfare mothers make better lovers.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Quite aside from the complete violation of their human rights, what about the expense? That's a hell of a lot of contraceptives right there.

I'd personally guess that generic pill contraceptives for everyone (about $40 a month per person here) would be no more expensive than all of the unplanned deliveries that would be avoided (base cost for a single c-section with no complications is about $10,000.)

As for human rights, of course the theory is that these are girls who don't want to become pregnant in the first place. If a program like this were really going to be put in place, of course there would have to be ways of opting out, just like there are ways of opting out of vaccinations. Nothing would be "enforced," it would simply be the default medical treatment, which could be altered for individual cases.

[Cicero]

Seeing as how all the impact lands on the girl-like Sundae would offer....furthering my point, again, vasectomies. Yes this is a clear violation of rights. But we are speaking hypothetically still, and I say hypothetical vasectomies.

Implants are more harmful in the long-term (bilogicallly and/chemically) to young girls than vasectomies. Sorry.

@classic Europe was developing a pill for men when I was 15 and somehow that lost it's appeal and fervor, and still not used...not sure why. I'll go look it up.

New info:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3543478

Article on the male pill, according to this, it may lack funding. Wow.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Cicero

@classic Europe was developing a pill for men when I was 15 and somehow that lost it's appeal and fervor, and still not used...not sure why. I'll go look it up.

New info:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3543478

Article on the male pill, according to this, it may lack funding. Wow.

Gee thats shocking - who is usually in charge of that decision? ---Men

[xoxoxoBruce]

Of course teenage girls only fuck teenage boys, right?

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Cicero

Implants are more harmful in the long-term (bilogicallly and/chemically) to young girls than vasectomies. Sorry.

Except reversing vasectomies is actually fairly difficult and frequently unsuccessful. It is intended to be a permanent solution, like tubal ligation, not a temporary birth control.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Except reversing vasectomies is actually fairly difficult and frequently unsuccessful. It is intended to be a permanent solution, like tubal ligation, not a temporary birth control.

Thank you. Just saw this thread, and the talk about vasectomies like they were a switch you can turn on and off was bugging me. Vasectomies should always be considered PERMANENT.

Nobody should be getting a vasectomy if there is even a small chance they will want kids in the future.

[wolf]

I think that there should be a couple conditions on receiving welfare (and the other attendant benefits, including medicaid and foodstamps). No more money for new babies, and regular drug and alcohol screenings. Test postive, lose benefits.

I see too many junkies who have full benefits, and are using the cash-based portions to keep using. My (and your) tax dollars at work!

Over and over and over again.

One of my crack whores is now pregnant with her 10th child.

She has somehow managed to give live birth to 9 babies so far. She does not care for any of her children. They are all in foster placements. At the very least her parental rights should be terminated so the kids can be put up for adoption.

Interesting note ... the medicaid will not pay for birth control, but it will pay to reverse a tubal ligation.

[Cicero]

Hey! I have given hypothetical choices...

[Sundae]

I don't see how preventing pregnancies among girls below the age of consent can be considered a human rights issue. It is not preventing any woman from having children, it is merely allowing otherwise vulnerable young women the chance to complete their schooling at an age when society does not condone them being in sexual relationships, therefore does not consider them fit parents.

In the real world, I agree that the boys concerned should be targeted by education. Of course it should not be socially acceptable that teenage boys can act like rutting stallions, leaving behind girls to face 18+ years of single parenthood. But at present the bottom line is that apart from a financial contribution there is no way to insist that a boy remains with a child, whereas emotional ties and societal pressures mean that the girl will.

I am not positing obligatory contraception as a punishment for those bad, slutty girls. I am putting it forward as a way of protecting them - the reason I don't sugest it for boys is that they don't necessarily need the same protection. Currently it is girls that visit family planning clinics for free contraception, girls that go to the chemist for the free morning after pill. Boys are just as entitled to go (to family planning clinics I mean) and get free condoms. The fact that they don't means a huge change in behaviour and attitude has to occur BEFORE the main onus of contraceptions falls on men.

The response I remember from the first time the male contraceptive pill was mooted was, "Would you believe a man who told you he was on the pill?" and the answer among my friends and I was, "No!" Even in a committed relationship there was the attitude that a sleepy man asked, "Did you take your pill today dear?" might be included to mumble, "Yes" in the same way he would if asked if he'd put the bins out.

Whatever we want to believe re responsibility for contraception, what we would like to make equal, the bottom line is that no man has to face pregnancy and childbirth. Which means that a girl or woman who doesn't plan to have a baby will always have an added incentive to ensure they don't have one.