I'm going to give an autistic view because this is one of the many things I'm disconnected from the rest of society on. To be clear, I'm seeking to understand, not be controversial. People get angry at me about my position on this, and this isn't my intention.
Specifically what is wrong with teenage pregnancy? I've never understood the shame that is associated with it the West. The vast majority of arguments that can be made against teenage pregnancy can be made against single mums, yet we seem to celebrate them if anything (at least here in the UK).
Having kids is one of the most selfless and rewarding things someone can do. While I agree economically it would be preferable to encourage people not to have kids and to focus on careers instead I struggle to justify using this as a reason to discourage people from having children.
That said, I suppose the financial situation of the parents could be a factor here depending on the country. Generally teenage parents won't have very high income, but in the UK this wouldn't be an issue. One of the primary reasons women in my family have kids young is for the financial security. Here in the UK having kids is one of the best paths to moving out of your parents home in your 20s if you're from a working class background. But again, this financial argument applies in many other situations. Should single mums not have kids? Should people who can't work because of a disability not have kids? etc...
The only other reason I've heard is that teenage parents are too immature to raise children. I don't accept this. The easy argument to make against this is that there are plenty of immature people among my family and friends who have kids. Many of whom do drugs and are generally not great members of society. These people have never been discourage by the state not to have more kids. There are lots of very mature teenagers who can raise children just fine. But I'll accept this is more subjective and nuanced position which I'll need to defend, and I'm happy to do so if necessary.
I guess could someone just give a good argument against teenage pregnancy? Ideally one argument that doesn't rely on your subjective values about what a fulfilling life involves? I'll note that I'm talking ~15+ here. My understanding is that there could be pregnancy complications younger than this, although I'll add this applies to older individuals too where I believe similar disincentives should be applied (40+).
> I guess could someone just give a good argument against teenage pregnancy? Ideally one argument that doesn't rely on your subjective values about what a fulfilling life involves?
I mean, I don't think there's any arguments that don't involve subjective values in these points, but one could be made that having a child early prevents teenage mothers from attaining the further education and ensuing great chance at financial independence. It's sort of assumed you'll go from high school to university to earn a degree or some sort of post secondary training. It becomes much harder when you have a young child.
> Generally teenage parents won't have very high income, but in the UK this wouldn't be an issue. One of the primary reasons women in my family have kids young is for the financial security. Here in the UK having kids is one of the best paths to moving out of your parents home in your 20s if you're from a working class background.
I'm in the US, where this kind of statement literally baffles my mind, because the opposite is true. In the US, having children is a financial liability and burden. Even for the poorest unemployed single mothers who do qualify for government benefits, it's a net financial loss to have a child. Our food assistance programs are pathetic and the shame of the developed world. Childcare is unaffordable even for entry-level tech workers these days. Students who have a child during high/secondary school graduate at 10% of the rate of those who don't.
> I guess could someone just give a good argument against teenage pregnancy? Ideally one argument that doesn't rely on your subjective values about what a fulfilling life involves?
Any question about the role of government (especially around family planning) ultimately is a question about what it means to have a society that supports living the good life. So for millennia, we have been arguing about what the good life is. A good answer to your question must recognize that in a society, we have to come to a consensus around subjective values about what a fulfilling live involves, in order to make rational decisions about how to further those agreed-upon ends.
If you try using an 'objective' metric to avoid making decisions based on subjective values, then you're just not noticing the subjective values that are correlated with using that metric over others. The school graduation stat I cited earlier has a value built in: it assumes that all other things equal, it is a bad thing for students to not complete secondary school, because it gives the foundation to be a good member of a good society.
> I'm in the US, where this kind of statement literally baffles my mind, because the opposite is true. In the US, having children is a financial liability and burden.
The UK is interesting. Most of my middle class colleagues can't really afford children so if they have them will have them later in life and maybe have one or two. But my working class family and school friends have loads of kids, and this is fairly normal here. The affordability issues of having kids exists here, but only if you're working. If you don't work having a kid fast tracks you to council housing and gives you extra disposable income. Another "hack" most of my family do is then to get their kids diagnosed with behavioural issues and then you'll "make" another ~£1,000/month tax free.
What I'm saying here though is quite controversial. A lot of middle-class people will accuse me of lying and suggest that working class people really want to work. They do not accept people choose to go on benefits because living in a £350,00 home and not having to work is a better lifestyle for the majority of people from my background because a £15,000/year job isn't even going to get you a small flat here.
> Any question about the role of government (especially around family planning) ultimately is a question about what it means to have a society that supports living the good life. So for millennia, we have been arguing about what the good life is. A good answer to your question must recognize that in a society, we have to come to a consensus around subjective values about what a fulfilling live involves, in order to make rational decisions about how to further those agreed-upon ends.
I think my issue with teenage pregnancy is that it's used as a heuristic based on middle-class assumptions about what a good life involves and when a responsible individual should become a parent. Perhaps part of the reason I have a different view here is because for most women in my family being a mum is so important and going to college and pursuing some grand career is largely a waste of time when you couldn't even get decent grades in school.
If I had a child and they had a kid young I'd be a little disappointed I think because I'd like my child to do something more novel with their life which generally requires a good education. But this is my middle class aspirations speaking. A lot of people rightly value family over their career I think. This is perhaps especially true of women.
What is a "mature teenager"? Their brains aren't even fully developed yet.
Your point that some adults aren't responsible parents is valid but it doesn't follow that teenager parents can only be just as irresponsible and not more.
The financial and emotional requirements that come with having a child are very significant and would be a giant weight for someone who has very little life and interpersonal experience.
Teenage pregnancy usually involves a delinquent young man knocking up an immature girl and leaving. It's not an abstract moral question, the lives of the mother and more importantly, an innocent child, will be ruined.
Specifically what is wrong with teenage pregnancy? I've never understood the shame that is associated with it the West. The vast majority of arguments that can be made against teenage pregnancy can be made against single mums, yet we seem to celebrate them if anything (at least here in the UK).
Having kids is one of the most selfless and rewarding things someone can do. While I agree economically it would be preferable to encourage people not to have kids and to focus on careers instead I struggle to justify using this as a reason to discourage people from having children.
That said, I suppose the financial situation of the parents could be a factor here depending on the country. Generally teenage parents won't have very high income, but in the UK this wouldn't be an issue. One of the primary reasons women in my family have kids young is for the financial security. Here in the UK having kids is one of the best paths to moving out of your parents home in your 20s if you're from a working class background. But again, this financial argument applies in many other situations. Should single mums not have kids? Should people who can't work because of a disability not have kids? etc...
The only other reason I've heard is that teenage parents are too immature to raise children. I don't accept this. The easy argument to make against this is that there are plenty of immature people among my family and friends who have kids. Many of whom do drugs and are generally not great members of society. These people have never been discourage by the state not to have more kids. There are lots of very mature teenagers who can raise children just fine. But I'll accept this is more subjective and nuanced position which I'll need to defend, and I'm happy to do so if necessary.
I guess could someone just give a good argument against teenage pregnancy? Ideally one argument that doesn't rely on your subjective values about what a fulfilling life involves? I'll note that I'm talking ~15+ here. My understanding is that there could be pregnancy complications younger than this, although I'll add this applies to older individuals too where I believe similar disincentives should be applied (40+).