What is wrong? They are too young….immature and not ready for it.

Having to state the bloody obvious is getting dull here.

Hi George,

It’s nice that you did a comment in response to the title of this article, but there is a whole big block of text after the title which might be worth reading too.

With regards to your comment at 2: thanks for making me chuckle Don.

Don, to be clear – does the data relate to conception or births (comparing 1956 to 2010)?
Remember the pill did not arrive until 1961.
We also have to consider the effects of 200,000 abortions each year, and perhaps as an aside, the doubling of sexually transmitted infections (to 1.3 million cases annually) most involving the <20 age group.
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=721

Personally I think the idea of children having children is just a bad idea now as it was in 1956.

The authority you cite claims;
"Studies of teenage mothers showed how they made moral and thoughtful decisions about contraception, proceeding with their pregnancy, and engagement with health and welfare services".

I almost snorted coffee out of my nose after reading that claim – 16 year olds making "thoughtful decisions about contraception, proceeding with their pregnancy, and engagement with health and welfare services".

Why should welfare services have anything to do with it – or, do we take this observation to mean that the broody teens are making careful calculations about their rights to subsequent benefit entitlement once in the club?

I certainly agree that we should do our best to deal with the needs of ALL children (once they are here) but come on, life is for the living, why would any spotty teenager wish to saddle themselves with sleepless nights, financial worries, not mention an endless supply of shitty nappies?

Don,

Useful, but kind of misses point. Teenage pregnancy not bad per se. Teenage pregnancy at rates of 1 in 20 teenagers, in atmosphere of broken families and low aspirations not so good. I presume you agree with that proviso, as I agree having a 16 year-old mother is not the end of the world.

Everything in context.

Did you know that most of our parents and ancestors got married in their teens

It was about 10 years ago, when my sister was working for the office of national statistics, that she told me that teen pregnancies have been declining since the 60′s. Since then everytime I hear the ‘teenage pregnancy epidemic’ stories I weep for mankind.

If you are going to make shit up then at least make it interesting… Wolf attacks have been declining in the UK too for the last few thousand years – why don’t any politicians get voted in on the back of attacks on labour’s failure to stop the 54% of teenagers killed by wolves while visiting their elderly dole-scum grandmas?

The problem is single mothers, not teenage pregnancies. Teenage pregnancies for young married couples medically is the best of both worlds. It is much safer for the mother and child to have their pregnancy in their late teens

“The problem is single mothers, not teenage pregnancies. Teenage pregnancies for young married couples medically is the best of both worlds.”

Dont confuse unmarried mothers with single parents please.

Hi Watchman,

Yes, I think we can find common ground here – the problem is the deprivation which young people grow up in, rather than the pregnancy as such. Therefore the government is largely wasting money with its Teenage Pregnancy Strategy, education campaigns etc., which could be spent more wisely.

I think it’s more than “teenage parent” has certain connotations – chain smoking, lager drinking, trisha watching, benefit dependent – which in most peoples eyes makes them less than ideal parents, rather than their age, per se.

“The problem is single mothers, not teenage pregnancies”

Here’s another fun fact I just found:

“For working-age people, the employment rate for lone parents was 56.7 per cent, up 0.4 percentage points from the previous year. This continues the increasing trend since comparable estimates are available in 1997, when it stood at 44.6 per cent.”

So in the middle of the worst recession in ages, more single mothers are getting jobs, and 12.1% more lone parents are now in work compared to when Labour came to power.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=409

You’re right Dave. The point is that all children need 2 role models, call me old fashioned but I feel that is the way of the world. whether the two of them are married it is immaterial.

@ 7 “It was about 10 years ago, when my sister was working for the office of national statistics, that she told me that teen pregnancies have been declining since the 60’s. Since then everytime I hear the ‘teenage pregnancy epidemic’ stories I weep for mankind”.

Declining in absolute terms maybe, but as birth rates generally have been dropping, they are an increasing percentage of “parents” as a group.

Good stat Don, maybe that is due to the adult education programmes run by Surestart

Don @10,

I do not know the government is wasting money targetting teenage pregnancies. I think they may be wasting it if it is not targetted enough.

Golden Gordon @ 8

“Did you know that most of our parents and ancestors got married in their teens”

Of course, the life expectancy was a bit lower back then, and women were expected to get married and stay at home (and in most families, to bear lots of children), and if you go back far enough unmarried mothers risked various nasty fates – being locked up, ostracised or even executed. So I doubt this is really a valid argument in a progressive sense. And I know my parents got married in their mid-20s (and their parents in their early 20s).

Matt:

Declining in absolute terms maybe, but as birth rates generally have been dropping, they are an increasing percentage of “parents” as a group.

No they’re not – I’m looking at the figures right now and the peak period for teenage parents in England & Wales ran from 1966-1975, during which they accounted for just over 10% of all maternities.

The actual peak year was 1972, when 10.94% of children were born to teenage mother.

For the most recent year that I have a full set of figures for, which is 2004, teenagers accounted for only 7.12% of the total number of maternities.

[12] “…… in the middle of the worst recession in ages, more single mothers are getting jobs”.

So after a “moral and thoughtful decisions about contraception, proceeding with their pregnancy, and engagement with health and welfare services” the mother goes to work and leaves the child where exactly – I’m sure Biddulph would certainly recognise such patterns of behaviour?
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/03/17/1142582520873.html

Let’s try and tease out this important phrase highlighted by the ‘experts’, vis-a-vis: a “moral and thoughtful decision”.
Is it really being suggested that a sixteen year old with virtually no adult life experiences looks into the crystal ball and decides that out of all lifes potential pathways the best is to her to become a Mum, and then, following on from Don’s cohort, go out to work?

I really don’t get it and I honestly wonder who, amongst the LC community, would regard their own child’s pregnancy (at the age of 16) as a desirable life choice?

If the thrust of the argument is that we should not to be too hard on teenage Mums then, yes, that would be fair enough, but in most (emotionally) mature families parenthood is something that is best left until a few more years down the line, surely?

Don

From what I have read of this book, it is not ‘summarising recent research’- it is an unashamed political polemic.

children with teenage mothers are indeed born into families experiencing multiple disadvantages. However, it is not the mother’s age at first birth which is the main driver of these disadvantages — rather it is the prior disadvantages experienced by the young mothers during their own childhoods.

It is accepted that most teenage pregnancies occur in our underclass but the argument is that it may not be the fact of the timing of the pregnancy but the more general circumstances that result in the poor outcomes for the children concerned.

But to state that the problems are self perpetuating is true but not particularly helpful. Before having children most parents are sufficiently responsible to ensure that they can carry the project through in the interests of the potential child. To say that most teenage mothers come from disadvantaged backgrounds and therefore lack the sense of responsibility to make that judgement is at the core of the problem

In fact, to argue that such pregnancies are a ‘good thing’ or should not be seen as problematic is highly irresponsible.

‘*There is little evidence that low levels of knowledge ’cause’ teenage pregnancy, and meta-analysis of preventative strategies focusing on sex education, and improved access to advice and contraceptive services, concluded that this did not reduce unintended pregnancies among young women aged between 11-18.’

So much for sex education then. All those wasted teaching hours and giggling at the back

*Studies of teenage mothers showed how they made moral and thoughtful decisions about contraception, proceeding with their pregnancy, and engagement with health and welfare services. Rather than suffering ‘broken’ family circumstances, teenage parents were often embedded in networks of support, and were optimistic that parenthood would shift them onto a positive life trajectory.

They’re making thoughtful choices – but not making use of any knowledge they may have accidentally picked up during sex education?

*Social research in the USA, found that the social outcome effects of mother’s age at birth were ‘often essentially zero’…’

I’m not sure ‘often’ is a strict mathematical concept and the ‘essentially’ doesn’t inspire confidence.

‘,,,Indeed, by their mid/late twenties teenage mothers in the USA did better than miscarrying teenagers with regard to employment’

Did they consider that miscarrages and lack of employment prospects might becausaly correlated with poverty rather than with each other?

‘*Research using the Milennium Cohort Study found that those children with teenage mothers are indeed born into families experiencing multiple disadvantages. However, it is not the mother’s age at first birth which is the main driver of these disadvantages — rather it is the prior disadvantages experienced by the young mothers during their own childhoods.’

So, the first birth didn’t cause the disadvantages already experienced? No shit. But unless that pregnancy was the result of an accident involving a contraceptive and a time machine – as happened to Xaphod Beeblebrox’s great grandfather, Zaphod Beeblebrox IV – it’s hard to believe anyone could think otherwise.

‘*Qualitative studies find that many mothers express positive attitudes to motherhood, and describe how motherhood has made them feel stronger, more competent, more connected to family and society, and more responsible. Resilience in the face of constraints and stigma, based on a belief in the moral worth of being a mother, is one overriding theme.’

The key word is ‘qualitatative’ – not quantitative. Subjective self-reports about feeling stronger, more reslient, etc. remind me of the ‘scientific’ claims you hear in face-cream ads where users claim it made them feel younger, more confident, etc.

‘Did they consider that miscarrages and lack of employment prospects might becausaly correlated with poverty rather than with each other?’

Sorry, should read:

‘Did they consider that miscarrages and lack of employment prospects might be causally correlated with poverty rather than with each other?’

…though that’s still little clunky.

[19] “Before having children most parents are sufficiently responsible to ensure that they can carry the project through in the interests of the potential child”.

Absolutely, Pagar, and yet irrespective of age, I still think few prospective parents really have much insight into the demands of parenthood until reality kicks in?

It’s one of the hardest job we can ever take on, and even with a fair wind, many well intentioned parents struggle.

We will just have to wait and see if any LC commentators put forward a case for their own children becoming pregnant at such tender age, then couching this life changing event in the kind of glowing terminology evident in the ‘experts’ study.

‘So in the middle of the worst recession in ages, more single mothers are getting jobs, and 12.1% more lone parents are now in work compared to when Labour came to power.’

That must come as a shock to those who post here complaining lone parents shouldn’t be expected to look for work – especially in the middle of the worst recession in ages.

Re: 24

Poor, stupid people are just as likely to misunderstand scientific process, or vote for whoever promises that cutting taxes will make everything better. It’s an axe that swings both ways, usually towards whoever the media likes.

It’s also pretty offensive to equate teen pregancy with intelligence, given that actually thinking about it (for, like, a whole second) reveals that most people (even the brainy ones!) aren’t gifted with knowledge of reproductive biology from birth.

Re: 24

That should read Re: 23, oy what a typo.

Oh, the mods deleted the guy I was replying to. Now I just look drunk. And mad. Sorry.

Good article Don.

You also say: but if you want something a bit more informed than what the Conservative Party has to offer on this subject, this book is a good place to start.

But this should also apply to ignorant Labour MPs such as Tom Harris who favour moralising and faux-disgust on the issue more than facts and evidence.

You can find pieces of work that support all kinds of views on teenage parenting. Lets do selective sources coming from a dissenting view to that put forward by Don.

May I recommend

Jaffee, S.R., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T.E., Belsky, J., Silva, P.A. (2001). Why are children born to teen mothers at risk for adverse outcomes in young adulthood? Results from a 20-year longitudinal study. Development and Psychopathology. 13: 377-397.

This is my somewhat simplified and non technical take on it.

This 20-year longitudinal study showed that the young adult offspring of teen mothers were at risk for a range of adverse outcomes including

* Early school leaving
* Unemployment
* Early parenthood
* Violent offending.

Does any of that sound at all familiar?

They also worked out how much was down to social selection (poor parents make more poor parents, teen mothers tend to have other pre-existing problems before they get pregnant) and how much was down to social outcome (the consequences of being a teen single mother in a society that dosn’t like them bringing harm to the children) and it was about 40:60.

In other words we are all somewhat to blame for the poor outcomes including Mum. I would go further and conjecture that if we all became blameless, supportive and non-judgmental, there are still factors at work that make it a good idea to discourage teenage girls from becoming mothers. These factors do not include drain on benefits but do include the substantially increased chances of raising a repeat generation.

The authors suggest (and I for one agree) that there is consequently a public interest in delaying childbirth and that we should be supporting at risk mothers and their children. Elsewhere in the Dunedin Project, another team found that your best bet for a good life for the child was non negotiable and intensive work on the child before the age of 8. Any later and don’t bother. Well, bother I suppose but its very likely a lost cause.

Selecitve sourcing is a wonderous thing but I am not amazed that someone has written a book suggesting that everything in the garden is rosy whilst apparently excluding inconvenient research from a very reputable longitudanal study.

[28] Yes, an important point, surely there must be some caution before attaching too much weight to a single source, especially when the work of other researchers has led to a less optimistic set of findings?

For example, this group claim;
“Our review adds to a growing body of research identifying factors that may explain the association between social disadvantage and teenage pregnancy. Dislike of school, an unhappy childhood, and a lack of opportunities for jobs and education have all emerged as explanatory factors in large scale national and international epidemiological analyses”
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/339/nov12_1/b4254

Meanwhile NICE report’
“Girls and young women from social class V are at approximately ten times the risk of becoming teenage mothers as girls and young women from social class I”
And;
“It is widely understood that teenage pregnancy and early motherhood can be associated with poor educational achievement, poor physical and mental health, social isolation, poverty and related factors. There is also a growing recognition that socio-economic disadvantage can be both a cause and a consequence of teenage parenthood”.

NICE further claims that;
“There is some evidence that certain groups of young people seem to be particularly vulnerable to becoming teenage parents” – they include:
•Young people in, or leaving care (Biehal, 1995)
•Homeless young people (JRF, 1995)
•School excludees, truants and young people under-performing at school (Kiernan, 1995)
•Children of teenage mothers (Botting et al, 1998)
•Young people involved in crime (Botting et al, 1998)
http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/documents/teenpreg_evidence_briefing_summary.pdf

There is a great deal more research out there, and while I share Don’s concern about the Tory party we can’t really blame Cameron & Co just yet for the public’s perception of this issue over the last 10 years.

Hi guys,

Those are useful contributions, thanks. One question about the research you cite – does it touch on the issue about whether and why it is better to fund initiatives around education/persuading teenagers not to become pregnant vs initiatives to reduce social disadvantage?

The book I mentioned has a very definite view that the problem is social disadvantage, not lack of education, and that addressing this is the key to this issue.

The book I mentioned has a very definite view that the problem is social disadvantage, not lack of education, and that addressing this is the key to this issue.

Improved education is the only demonstrable permanent solution to social disadvantage. Giving people (who’ve never had any) lots of money does not immediately result in poor people being better off in the long term. Money management is a skill you can’t learn if you never had any. This is also one of the things that separate affluent kids from the poor who’ve made good; affluent kids can be taught how to live with money, and poor kids only learn how to live without.

Giving people actual help, providing services, and educating them to a level where they are correctly skilled for their economic environment, are the only things which seem to achieve more than short-term improvements, in some people’s personal circumstances.

So the answer to teenage pregnancy is [1] tackling social disadvantage; but any approach to social disadvantage which will actually work in a generational context is centered on education. I.e. you need to do bothstrong>.

[1] Personally, I think the key is complete destigmatisation, followed by … but then, that’s because I grew up somewhere that ain’t here.

[31] “Improved education is the only demonstrable permanent solution to social disadvantage” – so does this imply that despite more than a decade of free education too many children are still inadequately prepared for the ‘real world’?

Or, are you suggesting that this lack of education is a failure of effective parenting (since parents MUST take some responsibility for their kids) rather than an institutional problem?

Perhaps some students might benefit, or at least have some basis for making different choices, if the focus on ‘citizenship’ was adopted more widely within the national curriculum?
http://www.citizen.org.uk/youngcitizens/Young%20Citizens%27%20Say%20Report%20Final.pdf

i believe that this is an issue that should be viewed compassionately; yes there is nothing fundamentally wrong with teenage pregnancies, although how can a a child of 16 consciously make a decision that will effect its life for longer than it has already lived, also about the rates going down yes they have but this is purely through human intervention (scientific and social) so thinking this issue can be ignored is absolute rubbish! This is an issue that is fundamentally flawed as understanding the magnitude of having a kid for most 16yr olds is completely incomprehensible, although here comes the compassionate side; ultimately the mother has to have the control and this in my view is best managed by ensuring on some level that they understand what it is that they are “getting themselves into” and then if they are still willing, providing them with some level of at least basic support on the follow up