If there was no welfare, food stamps, or WIC would the unplanned pregnancy rate go down?

Question

Would these girls be more careful? I see them on Maury all the time, not even knowing who their child's father is. If we didn't have these generous programs would they be more careful or at least have some rich guys baby instead?

Answer 1

Those of us who have children and are not on welfare, do have smaller families these days. It does go to reason, then, that the numbers would go down. They definitely wouldn't go up.

Answer 2

I honesty think that if there were not public aid for unemployed mother's, girls would think twice about having unprotected sex. But STDs should be enough to make them do that.

The truth of the matter is that raging hormones and a disregard (or lack of education) of the well-being of ones own health is the reason for so many unplanned pregnancies. Welfare is just the reason why some women keep the babies. If they took away welfare programs, that wouldn't take away promiscuity and women wouldn't stop getting pregnant. In fact more women would start having abortions.

Answer 3

No.
I don't think that would make them more careful.

Shame is a great motivator to do right, how many unmarried mothers were around in 1960 or even 1970?

That was because children were still raised to believe that sex outside marriage is immoral.

It didn't happen a lot because it was considered immoral.

The woman were considered less than human and were forced to give up their children before they returned to their families.

People have been raised to believe that it is OK to do what you want when you want, being irresponsible is now just merely exhibiting your individuality.

The fact that unprotected sex leads to the possibility of caring for another human being for the rest of your life is obviously not enough of a deterrent to keep people from having sex.



With its very high teen pregnancy rate the United States is seriously out of line with other developed nations. Each year in this country almost one million teenagers become pregnant, and approximately four in ten girls become pregnant at least once before reaching the age of twenty. This is twice the rate found in the next highest nation, Great Britain, and nearly ten times the rates found in Japan and the Netherlands. Although the teen pregnancy rate in the United States has dropped some in the past few years, it is still substantially higher than in the early 1970s and the drop should not deflect us from grappling with this urgent national problem. Indeed, with many so-called baby boom echo children now entering their teenage years, the total number of teen pregnancies is expected to increase significantly over the next decade.

Perhaps the most alarming trend associated with teen pregnancy concerns the decline of marriage. In 1960, a time of marriage at younger ages and more restricted sexuality, the percentage of unmarried teen births was only 15%. Since then, the increase in out-of-wedlock births has been staggering. Today, some 80% of teen pregnancies and 75% of teen births are to unmarried girls. These girls typically lack the maturity, the skills, and the assistance that are necessary for good parenting.

There is a straightforward reason why the unmarried teen pregnancy rate has increased so dramatically—teens are having more sex, at earlier ages, and without the use of contraceptives. In 1970, 35% of girls and 55% of boys reported having had sex by age eighteen. By 1988, the figures were 56% for girls and 73% for boys. Today, if the data were available, the amount of teen sexual activity undoubtedly would be still higher. This is despite a slight decline over the past few years, reported by some studies, in the stated acceptance of casual sex by young people.

The continued acceptance of loose sexual morals in this country is destroying our youth and our future with it.

Answer 4

If infact the pregnancy is "unplanned" then it would stay the same. I might be wrong on this however the people who have "unplanned" pregnancies don't turn around and think gee I don't need protection because if I end up pregnant then I can get welfare, food stamps, or Wic.
People know about STD's and still have unprotected sex.
If the programs disappear there still would be unplanned babies.

Answer 5

Okay, think for a second here.

Bobby and Sue are at the Point, getting hot and heavy. Bobby is in full-on think with your waist mode and Sue is getting there, too. Here are some things that aren't going through their little minds:

Gee, I hope I get pregnant so that I can live off of WIC and welfare just enough to sustain myself.

I'm so glad that I got immunized for HPV. I can be totally promiscuous now!

Sex educaton, in which I was taught the cosequences of my actions and shown how to have safer sex, sure made me want to have unprotected sex! I sure wouldn't be here with abstenance-only education!

So, to answer your question: no. As long as we pretend that if we tell our kids often enough that they can only have sex after they get married then they will wait, we will have a problem. When we get real and take real steps to combat the problem, then the unplanned pregnancy rate will go down.

Answer 6

That's a little ridiculous. Do you think, at the time they're having sex, girls (or guys, for that matter, since they are 50% responsible for pregnancies) are actually thinking, "Gosh, maybe we should sit down and discuss the financial and social ramifications of what we're about to do"?

Do you think a couple decides not to use birth control because "Heck, if something happens, we can always go on welfare!"

Don't be ridiculous. Sex at an early age is nothing more than animal instinct, and those are not overriden at an immature age by practicality.

One thing has nothing to do with the other.

So the answer to your question is no.

Answer 7

I have NO DOUBT but what MANY births are for the sole purpose of milking the welfare program.

In my opinion, there should NEVER be ANY taxpayer money going to ANY individual for ANY reason. Government should be taking care of the WHOLE, rather than of individuals. Welfare only contributes to the decimation of the group! Churches and other private groups should be taking care of those who temporarily or physically fall on hard times. NOONE should take care of those who WILL not take care of themselves.

Thank you.


PS....Abortion and sterilization should be available and even MANDATORY for individuals who can not take care of themselves, let alone a brood!

Answer 8

Probably not, though the "I don't care" pregnancy rate might go down.

Please do not deceive yourself, a large percentage of the young girls going on aid during and after a pregnancy are several generations deep in the welfare system.

Answer 9

I doubt it very much. The "type" of person that would wheedle a "living" out of welfare, food stamps or WIC aren't the sharpest tools in the shed to begin with...that is why they resort to legalized theft to get the above "entitlements".

They would keep on having the babies and the "wonder" why life is so hard...pity the children though...no one deserves parents like that.

Answer 10

Yes it would go down but the amount would be very small and pretty much insignificant. This is because the number of people who get pregnant get so either on purpose (wanting a baby) or by accident (whoops). People don't generally get prgnant to get money. Although having said that a very small minority do so that is why it would decreas but only a very small amount.