The point Ken is not so much that these teenage mothers are benefit scroungers, although they are, but rather that by supporting them, and in so doing legitimising their actions, the rate of teenage pregnancy, fathering of bastards and breakdown of traditional family bonds increases. As you say yourself the teenage mother (undoubtedly without the support of the child's father), will almost certainly do a poor job of raising the child, as, like as not, her parents did before, thus the whole sorry cycle repeats itself.
The right wing position on the issue is not so much about whingeing because our tax money is supporting scroungers. Rather that our tax money is supporting and legitimating the way of life which gives rise to an underclass that survives off state welfare, with few or no aspirations, and living in a deeply violent and unhappy world characterised by serial bigamy, large groups (family is simply not the word) of bastards nominally presided over but not controlled by a mother, and a complete lack of the social bonds required to hold a community and family together.
The permissiveness of this situation by liberals and intellectuals in the name of non-judgementalism, and refusal to contemplate that the problems amongst this class of people cannot be solved simply by throwing benefit money at them to keep them away from physical poverty, when the real problem is emotional and 'moral' (for want of a better word) poverty allows such problems to be perpuated.
The knowledge that the state will always provide no matter what straits you find yourself in, or how far you transgress accepted boundaries simply encourages the breakdown of traditional support networks (family, community, even church) which also require a certain amount of constraint upon behavour, and respectability. This in turn helps to prevent such a culture arising where girls, such as the one you mention, get themselves into such circumstances. At the very least it prevents such a culture becoming the norm.
James, your response is tremendously well argued and very articulate. However, there's one thing that is totally missing from this. That is any consideration of the child involved.
The problem at hand here is not the physical poverty of the mother - although poverty itself is regrettable. What is at stake is the physical poverty of the child. There's a lot of research that ties educational opportunity and development to the social class of the parents. Where the causality on that lies, I don't know, and I may well find some of the research questionable.
What is unquestionable, though, is that any moral society would not hang a child out to dry purely because of its parents.
There are certain difficulties within the benefits system as regards teenage pregnancies. But there are cultural problems as well that can't simply be solved by stopping benefits. I'd argue that giving children a crappy upbringing by refusing benefits to their parents is only going to store up problems for the future anyway.
Do you really think that there is an effective way of stopping 13-year-olds who want to have sex from doing so? Do you think that "the knowledge the state will always provide no matter what" has a genuine bearing on their decision?
I'd guess not - certainly not in the vast majority of cases. If we want to make kids more aware of the consequences of that sort of action, then the answer is sex education from a younger age, although I somewhat suspect that you would be horrified at that thought too.
In any case, there is no justification for punishing a child because of who the mother is, or more to the point, how old she is. Because ultimately it's not the mother that gets affected, it's the child. And if we're talking about the moral fibre of a country, I'd argue that a country prepared to sacrifice children in that way doesn't have much of a moral fibre to speak of.
Ken, I think you perhaps misunderstand certain points of my position. The welfare of the child is absolutely central to my argument of why we should be doing everything possible to discourage an arrangement which so greatly discriminates against the future prospects of the child. It is my belief that, as stated in my initial post, it is the growth of welfare provisions that have undermined the family unit and community groupings which demonstrably provides the best foundation for children.
I fully accept that the course which I have laid out could be disadvantageous in the short term wherein the adjustment to new found responsibility on behalf of the mother and (even more so) the father, would lead to unsureness of roles. Nevertheless I feel a government has a long term responsibility to children yet unborn as well as those we have today. As a consequence I feel that a government which continues to push a position detrimental to the long term interests of its people for (justified) fear of short term consequences is acting in a short-sighted manner.
As far as your comment;
'Do you really think that there is an effective way of stopping 13-year-olds who want to have sex from doing so? Do you think that "the knowledge the state will always provide no matter what" has a genuine bearing on their decision?'
Is concerned I do not believe that there is an effective way of preventing 13 year olds having sex 'if they want to', I do however feel that there is an effective way of preventing them from wanting to. I.e. that, wherever possible, they should not be brought up in an environment where parental authority is lacking, and where society is unwilling to judge people as responsible for their actions. That is why the "the knowledge the state will always provide no matter what" becomes relevant.
Sex education also becomes relevant here. My problem with the provision of sex education in schools is not the age at which it is given, but the content. Sex education is provided as little more than an instruction manual of how to do it rather than addressing emotional issues, making clear that sex has negative consequences and that it ought to be undertaken in a responsible manner by two adults. Unlike at present where sex is often treated as little more than a passing pleasure, with all the long term relevance as the scratching of an itch. I also question the wisdom of telling children under the age of consent not to have sex and then handing out condoms and abortion advise, which seems to me a very contradictory position (a case again of don't do what you shouldn't but we'll still help you out unquestioningly if you do). If these issues were adressed then I should be more than happy to use sex education as a tool in the argument. Nevertheless the parental, and societal role seems to me, instinctively, to be a greater determinant of behaviour.
I think that there are fundamental differences between our perspectives on thi
Commenting by HaloScan
