There is a debate amongst New Right theorists such as Charles Murray, that young people who  have Sex at a young age and become pregnant are more likely to become single parent mothers.

The bell-curve indicates that many group's in society have a higher percentile chance of committing crimes then others and of this those from single parent families are much more likely to be in the higher percentile of offenders then those who come from nuclear families.

This is hotly contested by those who view underage sex as a social problem and do not wish to pathologise certain groups as more criminal and detached from the norms and values of society.

The liberal left are more for social support and benefit's whereas the hard right would prefer to remove benefits and toughen sentences on those who commit crimes rather than follow a path of legality

the theirs way theorists such as Giddens, Anthony posit a new approach such as work incentives and worked related benefit's.

What are your opinions?

I think that the babies should be taken from the underage parents upon birth and given to a family who is willing to care for the baby so that the baby could have a normal upbringing. Why should the baby have to have irresponsible teen parents just because their parent's were having unprotected sex at an early age when they shouldn't be? And when the parents are adults, if they have a steady job and make enough money to support a child as well as a decent place to live, then they should be able to re-adopt the child. Don't bother reading this post. The opinions expressed in this post are different than my current opinion.

DeltaEdge : I'm going to have to say something about that. Just because the statistics tend to show a correlation between individuals who come from a single parent family and criminal activity in later life, that does not mean that all single parents are unfit to be parents and that all children from such upbringings will turn out to be trouble makers. I know plenty of people from families with two parents that are not fit parents and I know some people who grew up with only one parent that turned out great. A thorough investigation of the single parent should be done before simply taking away the baby.

I think that the more outlawed you make an activity to be, the more that people will want to partake in said activity. Instead, I believe that we should be liberal when it comes to sex. However, services such as free (or at least very affordable) contraceptives should be widely available.

NotJon : I know what you mean. I didn't necessarily mean that all teen parents would be unfit to be parents, but it would also serve as a punishment for having under aged sex. I also understand that when you take rights away from people, they get the urge to do what was taken away. But every time you have sex, you risk the life of a human being coming into existence. It's definitely not something that should be taken lightly. A more liberal acceptance of uncommitted underage sex would definitely lead to more pregnancies. The issue isn't just about the right to have sex, because the potential life of a child is risked every time you have sex. I personally think that anything outside of marital sex is a bad thing. But since that's now how it usually happens, I will give a different opinion. I think that in the case of an accidental pregnancy (excluding rape) they must have the baby. And also, they must commit to marriage when they turn 18. They must also sacrifice after-school activities to make time for the children. It is definitely harsh, but I think that's the price you should pay for having a child when you weren't prepared for one. You risked the kids life to have fun and since they are stuck with you, you need to sacrifice your time and youth to support them fully. Don't bother reading this post. The opinions expressed in this post are different than my current opinion.

DeltaEdge : That's what the purpose of the contraceptives are for. They get to have their fun, but not risk bringing a child into the world that they can't care for. It solves the problem.

Marrying at the age of 18? What if the young man ran away and is nowhere to be found. Then what happens?

NotJon : Contraceptives aren't 100% guaranteed to prevent pregnancies though. There have been plenty of pregnancies where people thought that they had enough protection, but there was still a pregnancy. And a lot of people like to not use certain contraceptives like condoms because they want the full experience. And I think that it should be a legal thing where both parties must sign a contract. And running away from the girl would result in jail time from the time until the baby is born. The girl should at least know the name of the person she is having sex with. And they should do a DNA scan on the child after birth to enable them to find the father even if he runs away. I know this doesn't sound the least bit thought out, but this is just my opinion and I don't ever expect it to happen. I don't think that sex amongst under aged kids should ever be a liberal thing and thus I'm just tossing around random ideas. Don't bother reading this post. The opinions expressed in this post are different than my current opinion.

I think that single teen mothers in bad areas need a lot more help and attention, I know there will not be any incrase in the number of social workers because of obvious spending cuts in our current climate but maybe if some people even volunteer it would help us bring up a new generation of kids that hopefully won't turn out to be criminals, it all sounds lovey dovey but I really think more attention needs to be given to these mothers its not really all their fault.

DeltaEdge : An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Why don't we focus on teaching teens about sex and how the contraceptives work? I know most of them are not 100%, but 98% is still pretty good. Also an IUD or an implant have pregnancy rates of less than 1 woman in 100. The reason contraceptives fail most of the time is not because of the product itself, but because people don't understand how to use it right. Like you should not wear two condoms at the same time, there is a greater risk that it will break. Also antibiotics counteract the effect of birth control pills, so if you're on antibiotics the male should wear a condom for a month. Teens would know this if schools or parents would actually sit down and teach the kids about sex. They need to debunk all the myths and help their teen be ready for when it happens. Schools across the country have been trying to this for a couple years now and the statistics say it is working. Tonight on the news, they said teen pregnancy is down 14.6%(sorry if the number's wrong, but I'm pulling that from memory)so obviously something is being done right. Also as NotJon: said contraceptives need to be more readily available, especially for women. To get the safer contraceptives it is very expensive. The birth control I was on cost around $30 and that was the copay. An implant or shots cost even more. It's sad when I can get a month supply of antibiotics for about $4, but insurance companies refuse to make my birth control cheaper. As for taking the children of teen moms away from them and treating teen parents like crap for making a mistake, I am going to avoid that suggest because I will only get angry.

DeltaEdge : in regards to your first post, doing that would cause a lot of psychological damage to the child. Have you ever seen just how screwed up most foster kids are? You'd basically be putting them through that, not to mention the birth families and adopted families. Also, couples should never ever marry just because they had a kid. The standard divorce rate is 50% in this country, the rate for couples that marry just because of a child is higher than even that. Such marriages often lead to abuse of one of the spouses or the child. It is far better to let a single parent raise them and perhaps share custody than to force a marriage solely on those grounds. This isn't the 19th century.

Honestly, teen sex and pregnancy is a problem that seems to be directly related to just how much people complain about it. It was actually on the decline, and then people started complaining and trying to go back to puritanical methods in dealing with it, and it started to climb. In this case more than ever, ignorance is not bliss, and pretending that sex doesn't exist will not keep your kids from not having it. Parents need to actually talk to their kids... and I don't mean the scare tactics... I mean actually talk to them about risks, concerns, etc. Find out what is going on in their life, if there is someone special, how serious are they, but do it in a way that the kid won't just shut you down. Chances are that unless you have been this way from the get-go it is not going to work because the kid won't trust you enough to  talk to you. If there is respect and trust though, parents can usually get their kids to understand why they want them to wait until they are older to do stuff like having sex. If parents just try the iron fist approach it will backfire because the core trait of teenagers with parents like that is rebellion, specifically in ways that are easy to hide (smoking, drinking, having sex, stealing, etc).

As for the single parent thing. I am honestly sick and tired of the right attacking single parents! They do the absolute best they can, and they often do far better jobs than many two-parent households. I know several wonderful single mothers and single fathers, and it is horrible that they and their children are judged without anyone even bothering to actually look at them.

Also, I would like to see the original survey data to examine their sample. It is wise to never blindly trust statistics on issues such as this without knowing what the target sample and sample size was, as well as where it was obtained.

Elara : Both you and @rlmathias01 are right. And I also knew basically from a few minutes after each of my posts that those solutions are bullet ridden and full of holes. I also just assumed that most people who engage in sex already know how about all necessary forms of contraceptive and how to use them properly. That was a big mistake. I really was just throwing out random un-thought out ideas. I just don't think that sex should ever be a liberal thing. And I know that people are going to have sex if they want to regardless of what people tell them against it if they really want to. And I think your right in that kids should always be required to be properly educated about sex. From the time when they start to hit puberty all throughout schooling so that they have a firm grasp on how sex and contraceptives work to minimize unexpected accidents. And to add onto that I think that kids should have contraceptives with them. Not to encourage sex, but for protection if they decide to engage in sex against the warnings of their superiors. Boys should carry condoms, and I guess I should learn more about female contraceptives before I say much, but girls should probably be on the birth control pill (or what ever it is.) regularly to ensure maximum safety.  Not to encourage sex, but for guaranteed protection no matter when or where. And I'm sorry if I offended people with my remarks about basically punishing teen/single mothers and fathers. And it is definitely true that there are plenty of single parents who take responsibility and do a much better job at raising their child than many married couples do. And forced marriage would more than likely just cause fighting between the parents and that would be an even worse environment for the child than just being with a single parent.