Teen Pregnancy UK

AuntyMandy
2008-07-01 @ 10:48:02

Stitch up the vagina until they are married! That is what my mother did to me and it worked a treat!

DominicGee
2008-07-01 @ 10:54:06

Hmmm. I dunno. None of this sort of thing seems to have worked so far... if anything there is a correlation between the rise of STDs, teenage pregnancies and abortions and the number of schemes such as these (though I admit I haven't got stats to back that up). I'm not saying one causes the other but...
Well for one, I think that sex education in school should be a supplement for what you are taught at home, not the only thing. How did you regard your teachers at school? Were they cool? Hip? Down with the kids? Were they your friends or people you greatly admired when you were aged 11 - 14? I don't think so. Which means that I wouldn't listen to them. Surrounding someone with cushions only means they're more likely to do something dangerous, if you get my analogy. I'll probably be shot down in a volley of opinion, but all I can say is, nothing like this has worked so far.
The problem is, sex education is more than just "this goes in here, put this on", which is much of what kids are taught nowadays. In fact it's not SEX education at all, but giving an understanding about relationships, coupling and mutual respect, an aspect of which is sexual. In my opinion this should come from people who love and respect you, and who are after your best interests - the National Curriculum is not after the child's best interests, only after figures and stats showing relationships between each other.

- semafu
- 2008-07-01 @ 18:28:35
Surrounding someone with cushions only means they're more likely to do something dangerous

yep
- Reply to comment
- Permalink

SeasideMan ^Pro
2008-07-01 @ 11:46:55

Good. Reliable information is crucial on this issue. The alternative is going back to the "behind the bikesheds" days.

Some people blame sex education for failing to prevent the behaviour being referred to, but I have two points to make on this:

1. This is post hoc ergo prompter hoc reasoning. The one did not necessarily cause the other, and in fact probably didn't. Sex is now everywhere, in newspapers, on the telly and all over the internet. Of course the numbers of kids wanting to try it will go up, and that's exactly why accurate information is crucial.

2. Who am I to tell boys and girls they can't have sex? If they are sexually mature, nature wills them very strongly towards it. For most of human history, hitting puberty meant you were ready for kids. It's only in the last 100 years or so that delaying them is a common choice.

Tom.

- Jeremy Longfish (Visitor)
- 2008-07-01 @ 12:31:02
I have a problem with this answer. What you are essentially advocating is to continue down the same path that we have been going down for the past 40 or so years. What is your evidence that this has been working? Do you consider these issues a 'problem'?

What are you referring to when you say 'behind the bikesheds days'? Are you under the impression that teenagers have stopped having sex behind bikesheds, but now only do it in their bedrooms? I am afraid that you are sorely mistaken if this is your view. You say that "sex is everywhere" and that includes the act itself. The 'problem' if you do not have a problem with that word is that teenagers are having more, not less irresponsible sex. Buy irresponsible I mean sex with many and new partners, without proper precautions to protect against disease and pregnancy.

Accurate information is crucial yes, but what is the information you are referring to? Teenagers in this country are more than aware of condoms and other forms of contraception and disease prevention. They are. The reason that STDs and teenage pregnancies are on the rise are because young people are misinformed about why people have sex, not how. Any idiot can have sex and give birth, but it takes a lot more nuance to choose a partner and wait until the right time in your life before getting pregnant. THIS is what teenagers should be educated about.

The argument that it 'is only nature' that is telling people to have sex is flawed. Nature gives us a great amount of prerogatives, sometimes to kill, to have sex, to conquer and to procreate. Simply because something is natural does not immediately give it impunity.

What are you suggesting when you say that it is only in the past 100 years that our natural urges have been suppressed (a highly dubious claim by itself)? Are you suggesting a return to younger partnerships of children/teens from age 11? Girls start their period anywhere between 11 and 14 - does that mean they are mature enough to indulge their urges? There are many numerous reports of boys getting girls pregnant as young a as 11. Should this be condoned, after all it is only natural?

I understand that you make these statements with the best of intentions, but I do not think they are correctly thought through. What were you like as a child? Would you like your daughter to be following her urges and having sex from age 12?

It may seem unlikely, but I don't think continuing down this path is the answer. Yes, sex is everywhere, all over the media etc, but that is our cue to educate teens on what sex really is, not follow the media and depict is merely a great way to say 'I like you'. The media is rarely trusted on any other issue, so we should certainly not trust it on this one.

Jeremy
- - jenray ^Pro
  - http://www.jenniferhunter.co.uk
  - 2008-07-01 @ 12:40:45
  How do you suggest we change things round?
  - - Jeremy Longfish (Visitor)
    - 2008-07-01 @ 16:45:21
    This is still something that I am debating with myself, and of course others like yourself. In my opinion a good grounding at home should be the priority. I sometimes get the feeling that allowing schools and governmental organisations to take responsibility from the parents on issues such as these undermines the parents. This creates a void in the child's/teen's growth which is filled again by the government. It seems like an incredibly 'Mary Whitehouse' point of view, but to me it is common sense. One cannot expect schools to teach your children everything, least of all the complexities of relationships. I struggled with simultaneous equations, so I'd be screwed (scuse the pun) were I to rely soley on the SE. What the woman in the original post is suggesting is what governments have always done - throw money at the problem; create leaflets, distribute condoms and open free clinics. It is simply not working. It's time to try something else and that may include NOT looking to the schools or LEA for answers.
    - - jenray ^Pro
      - http://www.jenniferhunter.co.uk
      - 2008-07-01 @ 17:30:45
      I agree a good grounding at home would, I'm sure, help a great deal for those fortunate to have intelligent and caring parents...sadly not every child is that fortunate so the schools do have to try to help teach them about the dangers of unprotected sex and what to do if they do get an infectious disease or pregnant...I suppose helping a child to understand the real meaning of self-respect might be a good way to start, and that they're individuals who will come up against all sorts of pressure to conform to the norm of losing your virginity early, but try to impress upon them they don't have to follow the herd, standing outside on occasions is the intelligent thing to do, and impress upon the children that they are intelligent so are not forced to follow what everybody else does...can't think of any other way of helping kids appreciate their personal worth and, hopefully, to include in this sense of worth, their sexuality as well...
      - Jeremy Longfish (Visitor)
        
        2008-07-02 @ 09:08:27
        
        Agreed, though I think that maybe propagating this information to to the parents for them to relay it to the children might help, simply because I believe they will be listened to more than the school. So far the parents have been effectivly by-passed.
        I also think it's an error to think that most people do not have parents capable of this. You say it would help "a great deal for those fortunate to have intelligent and caring parents", but I don't think that's fortunate, I think it's UNfortunate if you don't. It can be argued that we are lead to believe that parents are incompetant when it comes to this - but who (the govt and media) are they kidding?! They're our kids! If someone turned around and told you that you didn't know how to bring up your kids I'm sure you'd be insulted (of course I don;t know whether you have any).
        
        Parents should be supported, not undercut.
        
        J
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
        
        Show this thread
        
        jenray ^Pro
        
        http://www.jenniferhunter.co.uk
        
        2008-07-02 @ 10:06:31
        
        LOL...I was told I didn't know how to bring up my kids on occasions...too lax on discipline etc, but I was as firm as I was capable of being with them...but, admittedly, probably a soft touch too... One only reached eight, but the other one has grown up, after a very tempestuous teens and twenties, to become a very level headed and close to us now man in his mid-thirties...however this is a diversion from the actual subject....I'm not wholly sure that many parents would encourage self-respect otherwise why are so many kids having children very young, getting infectious diseases from unprotected sex and having abortions? This is a nanny state admittedly but, from my own experience, parents aren't very good when it comes to discussing sex...maybe it was because in my day (I'm 62 now) it wasn't discussed at all...I was given a book at fourteen on periods and told not to read the back of it because it was about babies and sex...and that was all I ever had from my mother...today things may be different, but I think a lot of parents just presume their kids know all about sex and don't discuss it either...and I agree parents should be supported not undermined, but with so many marriages breaking up, partners changing quite a lot, there's not that much stability in today's relationships so it's hardly surprising there's some girls in particular out there who think having sex will make their boyfriend stay with them...always a big mistake and one you can't take back...after you've lost your virginity, it's not easy to have platonic relationships with boys, and, probably, most don't...personally I have nothing against the kids of today, but I've heard older people saying publicly that they don't like them, and that's seriously bad...they're our future, and if we don't value them, why the heck should they value themselves...also as older people, we're going to have to rely on them to pay taxes to pay our pensions and our health care, so bitching about them is damned stupid in my books...cherish them and encourage them to make the best of their lives, because it's in our best interests to do so as well...
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
        
        Show this thread
        
        Jeremy Longfish (Visitor)
        
        2008-07-02 @ 15:05:00
        
        I am sorry to here about your tragedy, but congratulations on rearing a young man you can be proud of. You seem to have a great amount or wisdom and practicality about you when it comes to the young, your reply shows this.
        
        Personally, I don't think anyone nowadays is left uninformed about HOW to have sex. Education is needed on WHEN and WHY. I think the people who love and care for you and are after your best interests are those best suited it. If that is not possible today (for the many unfortunates) then it is the job of the government to encourage parents to take control, help and guide them and give them advice. They are not however. What they are doing is actively undermining their position, giving contraception, the pill, morning after pills and abortions all with out the parents knowledge, let alone consent. Whether or not you believe that this should be available to the child, the fact is it is counter-productive. These things do not solve the problem, they are just a facade. We are told that govt campaigns are effective by them telling us how many new clinics there are, how many leaflets they've distributed, how much is spent on advertising... But it has not and is not working.
        
        It seems to me that maybe they are not interested in solving the problem, but infact perpetuating it creating a whole generation who look to the government for help and guidance instead of getting where they are supposed to - the home.
        
        I hadn't put my thoughts on this subject into words before, but talking about these issues has clarified it for me. Hope you're not disappointed.
        
        J
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
        
        Show this thread
        
        jenray ^Pro
        
        http://www.jenniferhunter.co.uk
        
        2008-07-02 @ 15:55:31
        
        Not disappointed at all...this is what this group is all about...clarifying thoughts and debating them...it's why I started it...it's good to discuss issues of the day...you're right about the How being known but not the When and Why unfortunately...I think the government was in a dilemma...if the young were getting pregnant, getting sexually transmitted diseases and having abortions, it must have seemed apparent to it that the correct advice wasn't being given at home. It's clear the young are now far more sexually active than they were in the past and I'm not sure whether enough parents know what their kids are getting up to when they're not around...I certainly didn't with respect to our eldest son...he's told us over the years what he got up to though not sexually but drug wise, and we were a bit shocked, but he never used cocaine or heroin or crack so at least he had enough intelligence to avoid all of those and they were around, but he did use a lot of the other drugs available...what we didn't know was how often and how much...now he doesn't use any regularly, doesn't smoke and doesn't drink much either...we used drugs in the past as hippies but, like him, grew out of them and decided enough was enough and just stopped...we also knew he and his friends smoked dope and allowed it in the house, mainly because we decided it was better to know where he and his friends were rather than out on the streets...sex though was very rarely discussed and, when mentioned, he said he knew all about it and we accepted he did...a lot of the young simply aren't willing to discuss sex with their parents and that's where the problem lies I think...they'll talk about it with their friends and probably during sex education at school, but at home, it still seems to be a taboo subject...as I've never had a daughter, I've no idea how we would have been with her, but probably would have made more of an effort to talk to her about it, and, if she was having sex with her boyfriend, to make sure she used protection at all times...I would be very upset I think if I discovered that she was being given a morning after pill without telling me about it...I don't think I would insist only with my consent, just that she was open with me about taking one...the more you insist on controlling the kids of today, the more they'll rebel, so I've always tried discussion rather than confrontation...
        I don't believe the government is intentionally making the problem worse, but perhaps, they recognize that a lot of kids come from broken homes and not all are able to talk to their parents anymore...the young kids who have babies today seem to want to fill a gap in their lives, namely needing to be wanted and to give their love to somebody...a baby seems to be the answer, though, no doubt, the reality and the dream are very different, and often a rude shock awaits them as to how very hard it is to be a mother, but it's too late then...you can't send a baby back so some make a terrible mess of it, while others seem to do very well...no doubt with help from their relatives and assistance from the government...I'm not sure whether the latter is wise or not...perhaps if there was no outside help, they might think a lot more deeply about having one, but then again there may also be a sharp increase in abortions, so one way or another the situation isn't good...I know there's a lot of ill will towards these young mothers who deliberately get pregnant to get housed etc, but I think that's only a small minority of the population and probably blown out of all proportion to the actual numbers doing this...all I know is, on the whole, our young are lovely, bright and hopeful for the future, but there are many who miss out on a sense of security and happiness or hope for the future, and it's these we really don't know what to do with yet...with so many youngsters getting killed recently, I think it's time to handle this situation very differently from the way we have in the past because whatever we've done has failed, so some new ideas are needed...will stop now...LOL...
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
        
        Show this thread
        
        Jeremy Longfish (Visitor)
        
        2008-07-02 @ 16:09:03
        
        Thanks very much Jenray, it's been an interesting discussion. I agree with what you have to say on the subject, so anything else I think will be redundant. I'll check out your blog from time to time...
        
        Jeremy
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
        
        Show this thread
        
        jenray ^Pro
        
        http://www.jenniferhunter.co.uk
        
        2008-07-02 @ 16:13:19
        
        Thanks for dropping in... You're welcome any time...
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
- - SeasideMan ^Pro
  - 2008-07-01 @ 15:09:37
  I meant that if we don't give kids accurate information in schools they'll learn inaccurate information elsewhere. That includes the physical side but should also include the emotional side, protection pregnancy, the whole shebang. I don't see how not educating can be justified.
  
  And I do think the age of consent is too high.
  
  Tom.
  - - Jeremy Longfish (Visitor)
    - 2008-07-01 @ 16:54:38
    And things come full circle. The age of consent was raised in order to protect young girls and boys from older letches. The age of consent was raised so that children could not be coerced into a relationship that was not in their interest. Now you want to lower it because we are unable to solve certain problems.
    
    I agree with Hebburbdelboy, I do not think that people should be told whether they can or can't have children BUT, unless you can raise your child then it is usually not a great idea to get pregnant. People under the age of 16 cannot support their child. We should therefore not encourage them to get pregnant.
    
    'Of course we are not encouraging them to get pregnant, it just should not be illegal for them to have sex under age.' If only that was the case. However, what that means, and this is at the crux of the problem is that they DO get pregnant. By effectively encouraging teens to have sex the pregnancy rate has rocketed, even with the free contraception campaigns. This problem can of course be solved through abortion, but this is a last measure - doctors and experts (and those who have had abortions) have been stressing over the years that abortion is NOT to be used as a form of contraceptive.
    
    Jeremy
    - - SeasideMan ^Pro
      - 2008-07-01 @ 16:59:54
      The AOC should be lowered because it's the right thing to do.
      
      Sex education doesn't encourage sex, but mass media does. That can't be changed, nor should it be, and that's why accurate information is crucial.
      
      Tom.
      - Jeremy Longfish (Visitor)
        
        2008-07-01 @ 17:09:59
        
        Possibly. I wouldn't like to put all the blame on mass media, as you say we can't change that nor should we. We both clearly have different outlooks on this. All I can say is that increasing what has been happening won't help - what we need is reinforcement of parental guidance.
        
        Out of interest, why do you think the age of consent should be lowered? Why is it the right thing to do and not just a way of getting around certain problems?
        
        J
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
        
        Show this thread
        
        SeasideMan ^Pro
        
        2008-07-01 @ 17:16:47
        
        Because I think criminalizing kids for behaving naturally is wrong. Any AOC higher than a normal puberty age is entirely arbitrary anyway.
        
        You seem to be arguing for less education rather than more, do I have you right on that? That would leave more learning to happen from the media barrage than from teachers. I have difficulty understanding why you think that's preferable.
        
        Tom.
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
        
        Show this thread
        
        Jeremy Longfish (Visitor)
        
        2008-07-02 @ 09:16:33
        
        I am not arguing for less information, I said "increasing what has been happening won't help." As I said to Jenray above, parents should be supported in this issue - they are after all the best people for it, so should not be ignored or even treated as part of the problem.
        
        Would I be right in thinking that you would advocate a complete abolition of the AOC? Instead, you could have a law that deals with age DIFFERENCE rather than and 'arbitary' limit. After all, if it's natural, then a 9 year old having sex with a 10 year old should not be frowned upon.
        
        I think it is inaccurate to call the age of consent 'arbitrary'. This is not an age picked out of this air. Of course, people mature at different times, but I think the AOC in this country was reached through a general consensus - normal people recognize that in most (if not all) cases, people should not be having sex below that age. The NUMBER is of course arbitrary, but in terms of maturity and understanding, 16 is on the money. As I said before, just because it's natural doesn't mean it's OK.
        
        If the age of consent was lowered, how would you go about protecting those who could be taken advantage of by it? Would there be a age difference limit? Is it OK for a 60 year old man to have sex with a 12 year old girl or boy?
        
        Jeremy
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
        
        Show this thread
        
        SeasideMan ^Pro
        
        2008-07-02 @ 10:41:24
        
        'I am not arguing for less information, I said "increasing what has been happening won't help."'
        
        Then you are arguing for no increase of information, and you haven't yet said why.
        
        Morally I do think there should be no AOCm, but practically I think one is needed. And I do say it's arbitrary. See this world table:
        
        http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm
        
        Ages range from 12 to 21.
        
        Also see this about the UK:
        
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_manifestations_to_lower_the_age_of_consent
        
        The Quakers think it should be 14, Jewiosh law states it should be 12 for boys and 13 for girls, and even the Council for Civil Liberties says it should be 14:
        
        "Albeit the report recognized the merits for the abolition of the age of consent, it proposed the retention of a prohibition upon sex below the age of 14 “as a compromise with public attitudes”
        
        That view is in full accord with my own.
        
        Age differences in relationships are no concern of mine, as long as it's fully free on both sides.
        
        Tom.
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
        
        Show this thread
        
        Jeremy Longfish (Visitor)
        
        2008-07-02 @ 14:54:34
        
        I think that more information should be given to parents to propogate to their children, with support from the school. At the moment, I think the parent's role is being neglected.
        There may be many personal reasons for not wanting to give MORE information, but here are two practical ones:
        - it hasn't worked so far, in fact the increase has mirrored the increase in teen pregnancies. Again, I am not showing causation, merely ineffectiveness.
        - making sure that 'proper information' etc is given to teens is basically doing what governments always do when they can't solve a problem - keep throwing money at it. More leaflets, more condoms, extra lessons and campaigns. It's pointless. It hasn't worked to they should try another tactic, and I think that focussing on the parents is a good start.
        
        As for the AOC, I can't disagree with you more. It's a very slippery slope and I think would result in much much more abuse of children and the innocent than ever. Laws such as these exist to protect those who can't protect themselves:
        
        http://www.cnsnews.com/SpecialReports/archive/200607/SPE20060726a.html
        
        I think I've said all I can on the subject.
        
        Jeremy
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
        
        Show this thread
        
        SeasideMan ^Pro
        
        2008-07-02 @ 15:09:41
        
        There's a huge flaw in your logic which is to assume that "it hasn't worked so far". It might in fact have been working brilliantly so far and without it the rates might be 10 times higher.
        
        We'll have to agree to disagree.
        
        Tom.
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
        
        Show this thread
        
        Jeremy Longfish (Visitor)
        
        2008-07-04 @ 14:12:31
        
        Hi, I'm back, but I could't let that parting remark stand I'm afraid ha ha. We can agree to disagree but just in case someone else ends up reading this, allow me to say that my logic is not hugley flawed - what you have presented there is a very very weak argument.
        What I am suggesting is innovative approaches when it comes to tackling teenage pregnancy. What you are advocating is beligerence - symptomatic of many politicians when they have cocked up. Yes, it may be a lot worse Tom had these measures so far not been taken, but if overall the results are getting worse not better and target results are not being achieved, change is called for. To suggest we should continue using exactly the same methods is a case of fatalistic determination.
        I have seen you argue and debate with others over these blogs, and I know you are better than that.
        
        Good debate otherwise.
        
        Farewell
        
        J
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
        
        Show this thread
        
        SeasideMan ^Pro
        
        2008-07-04 @ 15:00:23
        
        That's a rather rude and petulant post and sad to say your logic us still flawed. Go ahead and have another last word if you feel the need.
        
        Tom.
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
        
        semafu
        
        2008-07-07 @ 09:36:04
        
        Hi Jeremy,
        
        Your logic seems spot on to me!!!
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
        
        wunderbra
        
        2008-07-31 @ 17:44:44
        
        " Because I think criminalizing kids for behaving naturally is wrong. Any AOC higher than a normal puberty age is entirely arbitrary anyway. "
        
        Wrong.
        
        In a state of nuture kids might be having sex at 12.
        
        but in a state of nature they would also starve to death along with any offspring they had.
        
        We don't live in a state of nature - In a society where there is a big bucket that we all chip into (tax) - there are curbs on people's behaviour.
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
        
        Show this thread
        
        SeasideMan ^Pro
        
        2008-07-31 @ 18:02:26
        
        That's not wrong, it's my OPINION. I'm entirely happy for you to have a different one.
        
        And maybe it's just me, but I don't see any linkage between sex and tax.
        
        Tom.
        
        Reply to comment
        
        Permalink
  - - Jeremy Longfish (Visitor)
    - 2008-07-01 @ 16:56:08
    Sorry, I said that you wanted to lower the age of consent because we are unable to solve certain problems. You didn't say that, I don't know the reason you would want such a thing.
    
    J
    - Reply to comment
    - Permalink

deleted user (Visitor)
2008-07-01 @ 12:22:25

my eldest son is the product of a teenage pregnancy. I hate all these people banging on telling us where and when we should have kids. if you want children early then its your decision and nobody elses.

Antireptilian
2008-07-04 @ 08:07:08

Today, the family planning eggheads wnt to tech kids of 4 years old sex and relationship education. I wanted to comment on this subject, but my anger just fogs my head.

Find out about B.F. Skinner and the behaviourists in control of the education system. They are destroying the family, and polluting the children.

deleted user (Visitor)
2008-07-22 @ 17:09:07

Ok here's my tuppence worth.
I'm a "gymslip" mother. I had my first child at 15 and by the time I was 22 I had three of them. No, I wasn't in a stable relationship but I can't say I've seen any of my children suffering because of my age.

My eldest is now 23 with a good work ethic. I worked hard to provide for the kids. I didn't "sign on the dole" I worked, went to school and still managed to have three very well adjusted children who have never carried a knife.

They don't drink to excess, they don't smoke [even though I do] and each and every one of them continued on at school. My eldest is now an assistant bank manager, owns his own home, has a stable relationship and has ambition. My second child is studying to be a social worker, and my youngest intends to join the police once he finishes his education.

I think stereotypes are a dangerous thing and feel that sometimes it's the media who forces people into a "knee jerk" reaction. Of course I've seen the young girls in the streets with small children when they're children themselves, I was one myself. The difference is this; it's not teenage pregnancy that is the problem, it's the lack of drive, ambition, respect that is. These young girls mostly get pregnant and then do nothing for the rest of their lives and are content to do so.

That to me is the bigger problem. Not how old you are when you have a child.

And to be honest I'm not sure education is the answer either. I didn't have any sex education at school at all, and yet they have loads of it now, and teenage pregnancy is on the increase.

Children aren't children for very long these days; they all want to be mini adults by the time they're 6 and over indulgent parents are allowing their daughters to be "cute" and wear make up. And boys are allowed to play video games for 18 year olds before they've even reached double digits.

So my point would have to be this; if you're a good parent it doesn't matter how old you are when you have your children, but make sure you ARE going to be a good parent before having children. Remember - there are a fair few "middle-classed older mothers" with children throwing tantrums in the middle of Sainsburys and giving in "for a quiet life".

I wonder how many of these children will grow up believing the world owes them a living?

Sorry.. I went off on a bit of crusade there!

- semafu
- 2008-07-30 @ 16:36:43
congrats on raising your kids well.

my issue isn't so much with the youngness of the single mothers - it's that they are single mothers and CRUCIALLY that the state pays the role of the missing father.

i.e. the Tax Payer (Me) has to pay to help raise kids I had nothing to do with bringing into this world.

If a woman raises 10 kids on her own and pays for it herself, I have no problem.

But please don't ask me to fund someone's immorality.
- Reply to comment
- Permalink

33 Comments to Teen Pregnancy UK

Leave a comment (Login)