Cyclone Posted May 7, 2014 Share Posted May 7, 2014 Take a walk around Sheffield City Centre any day of the week and in particular Saturday, see how many teenage girls you spot pushing prams.....isn't that evidence enough ? Once upon a time, a couple having children was done out of love - teenage girls now see it as ' my mate has one, I want one ' and in having kids know they will escape having to work for a living, and will get an easy ride in obtaining council housing ( help with rent and council tax ) and all other associated benefits. That's evidence that young women, who may or may not be teens, have children. In other news, bears go to the bathroom in woods. Have you any evidence that these women were single? Or claiming benefits? And was there age important to either of these questions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivanava Posted May 7, 2014 Share Posted May 7, 2014 That's evidence that young women, who may or may not be teens, have children. In other news, bears go to the bathroom in woods. Have you any evidence that these women were single? Or claiming benefits? And was there age important to either of these questions? You are just wrong this is all the proof you will need to see that the problem exists. Was deprivation linked to any differences in teenage pregnancy rates? Both media headlines chose to lead with the teenage deliveries figures. Both also reported startling differences between the birth rates of women from the least deprived areas of England and those living in the most deprived areas. The figures showed birth rates were approximately twice as high for women living in the most deprived areas compared with least deprived. The birth rate was 37.2 per 1,000 women in the most deprived areas compared with 18.6 per 1,000 in the least deprived areas. The difference was even larger for teenage mothers: 31.1 per 1,000 teenage girls in the most deprived areas compared with 3.6 per 1,000 teenage girls in the least deprived. On a posative note. The data showed that hospital deliveries for teenage mothers have been falling since 2007 – the earliest year reported in the statistical release. There were 42,671 hospital deliveries to teenage mothers in England in 2007/8, which had reduced steadily to 30,794 by 2012/13, the latest figures. http://www.nhs.uk/news/2013/12December/Pages/Number-of-teen-mothers-falls-by-8-in-a-year.aspx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonzo77 Posted May 7, 2014 Share Posted May 7, 2014 You are just wrong this is all the proof you will need to see that the problem exists. Was deprivation linked to any differences in teenage pregnancy rates? Both media headlines chose to lead with the teenage deliveries figures. Both also reported startling differences between the birth rates of women from the least deprived areas of England and those living in the most deprived areas. The figures showed birth rates were approximately twice as high for women living in the most deprived areas compared with least deprived. The birth rate was 37.2 per 1,000 women in the most deprived areas compared with 18.6 per 1,000 in the least deprived areas. The difference was even larger for teenage mothers: 31.1 per 1,000 teenage girls in the most deprived areas compared with 3.6 per 1,000 teenage girls in the least deprived. On a posative note. The data showed that hospital deliveries for teenage mothers have been falling since 2007 – the earliest year reported in the statistical release. There were 42,671 hospital deliveries to teenage mothers in England in 2007/8, which had reduced steadily to 30,794 by 2012/13, the latest figures. http://www.nhs.uk/news/2013/12December/Pages/Number-of-teen-mothers-falls-by-8-in-a-year.aspx Another link to concentrate evidence, we'll done! Firstly, what makes you think the birth rates in more deprived areas is down to teenage girls having children to be on benefits?! How about young men who hang around in groups, get drunk and have unprotected sex with these girls. It takes 2 to tango and a lot of the blame lies with the men too. The fact is that this kind of thing doesn't happen as much in less deprived areas because there's less kids hanging around on the streets getting drunk. Also there's far less people live in less deprived areas . The population is less dense. Secondly, you point out that the figures are falling. Which is a good thing, which, according to your posts on other subjects is proof that the government's strategy is working, meaning that this really isn't a big issue after all! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivanava Posted May 7, 2014 Share Posted May 7, 2014 Another link to concentrate evidence, we'll done! Firstly, what makes you think the birth rates in more deprived areas is down to teenage girls having children to be on benefits?! How about young men who hang around in groups, get drunk and have unprotected sex with these girls. It takes 2 to tango and a lot of the blame lies with the men too. The fact is that this kind of thing doesn't happen as much in less deprived areas because there's less kids hanging around on the streets getting drunk. Also there's far less people live in less deprived areas . The population is less dense. Secondly, you point out that the figures are falling. Which is a good thing, which, according to your posts on other subjects is proof that the government's strategy is working, meaning that this really isn't a big issue after all! I didn't say it was concrete evidence that supports the idea that kids have kids to get benefits. It does however point to the fact that the people that can least afford kids are the people having the most kids, and just because the numbers are falling doesn't mean there isn't a problem, much like the falling drug use doesn't mean drug use isn't a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonzo77 Posted May 7, 2014 Share Posted May 7, 2014 I didn't say it was concrete evidence that supports the idea that kids have kids to get benefits. It does however point to the fact that the people that can least afford kids are the people having the most kids, and just because the numbers are falling doesn't mean there isn't a problem, much like the falling drug use doesn't mean drug use isn't a problem. It's the same all over the world. Deprived areas have high birth rates. Whether it's a lack of education or a what, I don't know. If your mum is a scientist, you're going to look up to her as a professional working woman. If your mum is a hard working single parent, you're perceptions of life will be a lot different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivanava Posted May 7, 2014 Share Posted May 7, 2014 It's the same all over the world. Deprived areas have high birth rates. Whether it's a lack of education or a what, I don't know. If your mum is a scientist, you're going to look up to her as a professional working woman. If your mum is a hard working single parent, you're perceptions of life will be a lot different. I don't think you can compare the reason poor people have lots of kids in the third world to the poor people that have lots of kids here, our poor people are very wealthy when compared to the third world, they have the education and things to do, the one thing that does happen is more kids equals more money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonzo77 Posted May 7, 2014 Share Posted May 7, 2014 I don't think you can compare the reason poor people have lots of kids in the third world to the poor people that have lots of kids here, our poor people are very wealthy when compared to the third world, they have the education and things to do, the one thing that does happen is more kids equals more money. Who mentioned the third world?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivanava Posted May 7, 2014 Share Posted May 7, 2014 Who mentioned the third world?? I assumed that's what you meant when you said It's the same all over the world and most of the deprived areas are third world countries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonzo77 Posted May 7, 2014 Share Posted May 7, 2014 I assumed that's what you meant when you said It's the same all over the world and most of the deprived areas are third world countries. No. I'd have said that if that's what I meant. There's deprived, high birth rate areas in Sheffield, London, New York, Paris, Madrid......everywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamo Posted May 7, 2014 Share Posted May 7, 2014 OK, let's take a step back. Quantify the problem you believe exists and convince me that there is a real issue. That might persuade me that you haven't worked yourself into a tizzy based on some rubbish in the Daily Mail. No anecdotes. I want hard evidence. Sorry but I work for a living and don't have the time to spend months analysing data for you. Besides, this is a common problem in the public sector. They get hung up on accurately counting the 'as is' when it isn't needed for a business case. Obviously it is incredibly expensive to support families who contribute nothing (housing costs, health care, schooling, living expenses etc) and it is obvious that the idle cost us billions. Couple this with a matter of principle and you have your business case for action. After all, it would probably be cheaper to give criminals £50k a year to not offend but we don't do that do we? You said yourself that there needs to be a safety net. It's bound to be abused from time to time. I don't think the actual number of people who purposely have kids so they don't have to work is anything to worry about. Yes, in an ideal world it wouldn't happen at all, but that's impossible. Whether they do it on 'purpose' or not I do not care. The safety net should be deployed for a limited period and not be deployed time after time. We need to put pressure on people to take responsibility for themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.