Paying girls not to get pregnant
July 23, 2009 by Carin FordPosted in: Enrollment, In this week's e-newsletter, Student Life
The University of North Carolina’s come up with an unusual incentive in hopes of encouraging teen girls not to get pregnant.
In an attempt to reduce the number of teen pregnancies, UNC at Greensboro is providing classes in abstinence and the use of contraceptives to girls ages 12 to 18 — and paying them a dollar a day not to get pregnant.
Girls who attend the 90-minute weekly meetings – and who don’t get pregnant – collect $7 at the end of each week. The money is put aside and can be collected when the girls enter college.
But is it ethical to pay girls not to have babies? Or is this a case of desperate times calling for desperate measures?
The teen birth rate is on the rise these past two years, with 7.2 pregnancies for every 1,000 teenage girls.
Although a handful of girls enrolled in College Bound Sisters have gotten pregnant since it began more than 10 years ago, there are also success stories. This fall, in fact, four graduates will begin college with the help of the money – in some cases, $3,000 – they’ve earned in the program.
Good idea or bad incentive for staying baby-free? Let us know what you think in the comments section below.
This Week’s Top Stories
- Paying girls not to get pregnant
- ‘War and Peace’ … in a handful of sentences
- Facebook and free speech: One student’s battle
- ‘No frills’ colleges seek to fill void
- Revising FAFSA: Is it enough?
- Take three: Club supporting abortion gets the OK
- Job description: Must be able to ride tricycle
- Black? Hispanic? White? Students foot the bill based on race
Tags: College Bound Sisters, teen pregnancy, University of North Carolina
Loading ...
July 7th, 2009 at 1:11 am
I would say if the girl is smart and has a high IQ then it would be good to pay her to get pregnant. On the other hand, if she is not really smart and has an IQ below average then she has to be paid not to get pregnant. If we do not do this, our society will definitely degrade with time.
This is true because IQ is inherited as is evidenced by twin studies:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1520-iq-is-inherited-suggests-twin-study.html
July 7th, 2009 at 10:11 am
Kelly,
I don’t believe you made that comment. People should think before they make ignorant comments. IQ is not the point. The point is reducing teen pregnancy regardless of their IQ. Society has made sex acceptable with the commercials, music, and movies we expose to our youth. I think those of us who feel that the trend of teen pregnancy and transmission of STDs are a problem should do whatever it takes to reduce teen pregnancy. UNC is not just paying teens they are educating and rewarding them with a positive future. For many teens this may not be just preventing pregnancy it is putting them on a path to college.
July 7th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
Kim, I definitely agree that STDs and random sexual relations are bad, not only for teens but for adults as well. But why not separating these issues of bad behavior and the issue of early pregnancy. A girl can get married and have kinds, without having problems such as STDs, drugs etc.
The main point is that having more pregnancies means having more kids. Take an example: Latina girls have many times more teenage pregnancies than European girls, or Native American girls. The result is that Latina population growth much faster. Thus the future is with Latina people, while European population drops quickly. This is a strong indication that early pregnancy is good if some group of people what to survive and not to get extinct. This is true for any ethnic group.
July 7th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
It would be better to pay a girl for not making an abortion, if she gets pregnant.
Innocent unborn babies must not be killed! By paying girls we could save some of those babies destined for killing through the cruel abortion procedure.
July 7th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
It would be better to pay a girl for not making an abortion, if she gets pregnant.
Innocent unborn babies must not be killed. By paying girls we could save some of those babies destined for killing through the cruel abortion procedure.
July 8th, 2009 at 9:36 am
So for $8 a week they’d be willing to have sex?
I’m noticing a minor flaw in their plan.
July 8th, 2009 at 9:39 am
Alisa and Kelly,
I was debating on whether to respond to you because it is obvious you both are missing the point. First of all Alisa why not be proactive instead of reactive. If we prevent pregnancy we won’t have to consider having an abortion. Abortion is a completely different topic. Kelly I have to say again this is not about population growth it is about preventing teens from becoming pregnant. Teens should not be expected to help populate the earth regardless of their race.
July 8th, 2009 at 9:40 am
To me, it’s all about education. Abstinence is great but there should be more to the class. The higher end of the age group will likely experience sex and if they don’t get pregnant, they still get the money; you have no way of knowing whether or not they are sexually active. I have no problem with paying the girls NOT to get pregnant; it’s like any other research study. But, I hope there is more to the program than just “preaching” abstinence.
July 8th, 2009 at 9:41 am
Since it takes two to tango, this program has left out the boys. Boys also have a responsibility to abstain or use birth control. Boys could benefit from weekly meetings and also get paid.
July 8th, 2009 at 9:44 am
It is absolutely refreshing to hear that there are others who believe that we should reward young girls and boys for not becoming parents before a certain age. Right now we are rewarding young girls and boys for having babies outside of wedlock by providing public assistance to those who qualify. However, those same tax payer dollars should be put towards more preventative measures—-like incentives for those young girls and boys who graduate from college without getting knocked up or having an abortion. They should be rewarded for the hard work and determination that it takes to stay focused and productive in this economically depressed society. It is complicated but I agree 100%!
July 8th, 2009 at 9:46 am
If paying girls not to get pregnant is cheaper than an abortion and way cheaper than welfare payments, then I am all for it. And let some of these so called “churches” cough up the dough. The GOP should be a major contributor also. Since their “Abstinence Only” policy has failed so miserably.
Along with their claims of “moral values”
July 8th, 2009 at 9:47 am
Why not most girls go to at least a community college (which is quite affordable here compared to other states)? The local CC in Guilford County is actually well-rounded, with different programs in logistics, accounting, social work, medical lab work, etc.
July 8th, 2009 at 9:50 am
I think it is great. Our society is already down grading. We put more emphasis on international students than we do our own children.
I have the opporutnity to talk to many young adult males and females, and their thought is that sex is a socially acceptable action. Who gave them this idea? Children learn from their surroundings.
A University stepping outside the box to help, TWO FOLD, an issue that is plaguing America. American teenage girls are getting pregnant because they are not being taught that sex is a sacred act to be shared between one man and one woman. Many of our own children cannot afford to go to college and are not taught that it is important. No, $3000 isn’t a lot of money, but it’s educational. Maybe in some cases this program provides girls with an opportunity to be with people that can help make a change in a future that might not have been possible without the program.
The program is not saying anything about abortion, or killing unborn or unwanted babies. It is educational and about making correct and choices.
July 8th, 2009 at 10:06 am
We’re moving towards an older society. In 2050, the age group with the highest population will be over 60. This just isn’t a problem in the US – the entire world is moving towards this older society. This will cause huge problems that the world has never seen before – as well as work force shortages.
My point is, if more teenagers want to have kids, who cares? Let’s them do it.
July 8th, 2009 at 10:19 am
$1.00 per day is not enough. Girls should be paid at least the minimum wage for each hour they work at not getting naked and spreading their legs. That is hard work in today’s culture. The movies tell girls it’s OK to have sexual intercourse with as many guys as they want, as often as they want, and whenever they want. MTV shows them all the Pop culture queens getting naked on screen trying to visually seduce the teenage boys into wanting to jump into bed with them. Girls have it rough. Let’s round the wage up to $8 per hour, that will be about $192 per day, or $1344 per week. Now that’s more of an incentive. Then once they finish high school, after 4 years of the program, they can take their $279,552.00, pay for college and get naked and spread their legs with all the guys on fraternity row to make up for lost time.
July 8th, 2009 at 10:30 am
I think it is a great idea. Chicago needs a program like this. I am for any program that educates and attempts to stop our children from having babies. Both girls and must be taught to be responsible — use the pill and condoms.
What is being done for the males? Do you or anyone else have a program for them. So many times the burden is placed on the female to be responsible. Males should be also!!!
July 8th, 2009 at 10:32 am
Sounds like a bonanza for young lesbian girls — to be paid not to get pregnant. Easy money.
July 8th, 2009 at 10:47 am
I am trying to adopt. If you pay these girls not to get pregnant then you are reducing my chances of getting a baby. Can I just go to the local hight school and pay a girl to get pregnant for me?
July 8th, 2009 at 10:48 am
HOORAY!!!!!!!!!!!!! I am a social worker and have been since 1970 for the last 21 years I have worked in early intervention with children with disabilities. There is a large percentage of the population that I work with who have teenage mothers because it is often difficult for young girls to carry babies to term successfully. I had this idea 20 years ago and still think it’s great. After all we give money to young girls in lower economic households who do have babies (to take care of the child) why not give the money to girls who don’t have babies. Positive reenforcement has always been successful. Hold on to your hats. Let’s go one step further and pay men to have vasectomies. A one time, significant amount of cash, offered in a corner clinic 24/7. I once had an older man tell me that he had fathered 42 children. Since he had no income of his own I assume the state (you and I) was supporting the children.
July 8th, 2009 at 10:52 am
I cannot believe the sexism and prejudice inherent in such a program! Teen mothers are not all so irresponsible and stupid that they can be bribed not to have babies. Most of them already understand that there are educational and financial costs, and they choose to raise children anyway. A dollar a day is not going to stop them. This idea puts all the blame on the girls, but research shows that most teens who get pregnant are strongly influenced by their partners (who are usually older and hold more power in the relationship) and by a culture which sexualizes young girls and encourages them to measure their self-worth in terms of sexiness. And why is it OK for everyone else to get pregnant – just not unmarried teens? With proper support, a teen mother can finish school and support her family – just like any other mom of any age. We need to stop objectiving these young women as “teen pregnancies” and start treating them as young women, mothers, and whole persons.
July 8th, 2009 at 10:55 am
As a mother of 2 young ladies ages 5 and 6 I am very concerned about the indiscriminate sex that pre-teens and teens are having. Children are exposed to so much sex on TV that it’s a hard job monitoring shows to see which ones are appropriate. But that leads me to my view…the education should be taught early. To keep your legs closed, don’t dress provacatively, act like a lady. We keep our girls in CHURCH and we older ladies talk to our younger ones about life issues. Sex education should be taught in schools age appropriately of course. Our “good touch bad touch” program at our school is great. And it led to more discussion at home. I think what UNC is doing is great. They are encouraging education. And they are encouraging women not to have babies while they are still babies.
July 8th, 2009 at 11:03 am
I’m in the same boat as Julia…looking to adopt. For most agencies it costs around $30,000 for an adoption. Why not take some of that money and educate girls about the option of adoption after getting pregnant? There are thousands of couples waiting years to adopt. Why not help those couples out? More girls choosing to place their babies for adoption = less couples waiting years to raise a family. Girls get to keep having sex and they help others out in the process. Looks like a win/win situation to me
July 8th, 2009 at 11:06 am
Violet, I think the key phrase in your comment is “with proper support”. This program is beneficial to girls who do not have proper support, economic, religious, familial etc.
July 8th, 2009 at 11:22 am
Kay, every girl can and should have proper support. Our school district has a model program that provides child care, parenting education, and emotional support for teen parents – both mothers and fathers are invited. The school district provides the space right in the high school, so parents can bring their babies to school in the morning and pick them up at the end of the day. Most of the funding comes from private foundations thanks to excellent grant writing and lobbying by the program’s director. Many of the participants do not get support from their parents or families; this is their major source of emotional and educational support, as well as free child care. Of this year’s participants, every senior graduated, and 100% of them plan to go to college.
July 8th, 2009 at 11:23 am
Hi, I think that the program is great. But I look at it as paying them for their time to attend classes in abstinence and the use of contraceptives. I believe that all women have a choice, but the choice is before they get pregnant not after. In order to make an informed decission they must be informed of all of their choices. I believe that abstinence is worth knowing about because the sex education that we have been teaching is not working if the rates are going up. I believe that the majority who want to keep teaching sex education as is believe in teen age sex but if you do find that you are pregnant then you failed to learn what you were taught and your pregnancy is just a mistake and you can always correct your mistake. By teaching this they devalue human life because this new human life can be terminated because it was a mistake. Sex is like driving a car, it is perfectly ok and fun but there are certain rules that must be follow. Sex is a very strong emotional tie that binds us together. You can not play around with it, people get killed over this emotion. Long lasting love evolves from it, but only if you follow the rules.
July 8th, 2009 at 11:29 am
This is to Violet B: HOw many of these un-wed teens are you willing to support?
July 8th, 2009 at 11:34 am
I am going to come at this from a completely different perspective: UNCG is encouraging this initiative because it is a major recruiting tool.
It is a generally held belief that females who are pregnant and/or already have children are less likely to attend, let alone graduate from, college. Also, when looking at what college to attend, students tend to choose one in their home state. With those two things in mind, UNCG is merely trying to increase the pool of potential candidates for enrollment. (This can be taken even further when you consider that there tends to be a higher prevalence of teenage pregnancies among certain minority groups…which happen to also be a demographic that most college’s are trying to bolster enrollment from)
Likewise, this is a chance for UNCG to begin having contact at a very early age. It is common practice for colleges to begin recruiting (or at least publicizing to) high school students well before their senior year. And many recruiters would agree that the earlier the first contact, the better. So UNCG is doing just that, creating a program that the students can be active in as early as 12 years old and will allow continued weekly contact with them for, potentially, years to come.
If you really stop and think about it, the amount of money involved is rather negligible. Yes, most students would be ecstatic to receive a $3,000 scholarship, but for the weekly 90 minute time commitment involved, the attendees are making less than minimum wage. And how many of the attendees will be participating for the 8+ years it would take to accumulate $3,000 anyway. In reality, and this is purely conjecture, attendees are more likely to participate for only 3-4 years of high school. As such only $1,000-1,500 will be heading their direction. In my opinion that is a relatively small price to pay for UNCG to ensure that that student enrolls there.
I commend UNCG for coming up with this idea. It seems like a very plausible recruiting tool for them and, despite being self serving, also has very positive societal effects. Kudos!
July 8th, 2009 at 11:35 am
I wish someone had given me a dollar for every day I didn’t have unprotected sex in high school.
July 8th, 2009 at 11:38 am
Would be better to have tubes tide at birth or thereabouts, then should they really want children, they can pay for it themselves. OR, have a limit per person(s) like other countries. The state shouldn’t have to cover for their blunders.
July 8th, 2009 at 11:46 am
I don’t know if nobody here actually read the article or what. The article does mention that they teach abstinence, but you’ll see it also teaches the use of contraceptives. They’re not paying the girls not to have sex. They’re paying them not to get pregnant. Abstinence and contraception do go well together. Teaching them not to have sex until they are ready = abstinence. Teaching them to not get pregnant when they do decide they are ready to have sex = contraception.
July 8th, 2009 at 11:56 am
Using money is simply a way to manipulate. Education is the key. Not only the biological aspects but, more importantly, values must be taught and reinforced in the home. Our children are bombarded daily by radio, music, television, billboards, internet, etc… that it is good to be “sexy” and have sex freely with no consequences. The only way to really keep them from giving in to the lies is to constantly model behavior and tell teach them how to make good moral and ethical decisions.
July 8th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
What about the guys that get them pregnant? There is a lot of time and money spent to get the word out to the girls, but not much to stop the guys from getting them pregnant. Maybe we should be looking at both aspects not just one.
July 8th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
I think it would be more socially beneficial to pony up a thousand clams for any gal with two or more children providing they opt to get a hysterectomy. And given that there are plenty of dumb, poor and prolific guys out there why not cover vasectomies too?
July 8th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
I think it’s a great idea — my only concern is those girls who don’t hope to go to college — are they left with nothing? I would have designed it to give them a choice of real money $x once a year or college money $y put aside, where y > x.
Manipulation with money is actually pretty common — people will do things like (a) show up for work, and (b) show up for work on time — and all because of the promise of money.
And these are kids — individuals whose reasoning and sense of responsibility may well not be well developed. That’s why most states won’t prosecute young teens for crimes the same way they would adults.
And yes, boys should be responsible, but it’s girls that are burdened indefinitely for a careless action.
July 8th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
When unmarried teen/20 something girls with children say ‘I wish I had waited to have sex’ what they really mean is ‘I wish I had not have gotten pregnant’. It isn’t usually the sex they regret.
In fact if they do not get knocked up, I’m sure they would continue to blissfully go right doing it every chance and everywhere they could. This is why the contraceptive teaching is so important. It is realistic and worth the money spent.
July 8th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
Kim,
Kelly’s point may read as “politically incorrect” as such is understood within various Draconian frameworks for social thought/expression: but the ideology under-girding the stated position is both critically, & historically, valid given the context established by those very same social frameworks. You fathom that those who designed this policy did not assess such empirical considerations prior implementation: target group IQ, right along with the target group’s socioeconomic moorings, race, ethnicity, familial support structures, & the prevailing environmental conditions of the counties in which these young ladies originate?
The more salient question, in my mind, is the lasting effectiveness of using currency of varying worth as a moral, behavioral or intellectual teaching tool. I suggest that any such program — be it this UNC pregnancy-payout, or similar programs in various urban U.S. settings offering students capital rewards for good grades (considerably more than the bounty these young ladies received for staving off impregnation, I might add) — should be augmented with a clear and cogent unit on the history, purpose & valuation of hard currency in the Western world. Lest it be proven that the Tar Heels’ (& similar institution functionaries’) ultimate endeavor is to indoctrinate citizens across all divides to function as sanctioned automatons responding to the malleable whim of mysteriously-decorated paper.
Peace.
July 8th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
I have read all of these comments and frankly can’t believe most of them. As a mother, and one who had my eldest son as a teenager, the concept of this program is GREAT!!! As someone mentioned, abstinence is taught IN CONJUNCTION with contraceptives should these girls have sex. As a parent I would love to believe that my children will wait until marriage or at least until they are a bit older then high school. BUT as a realist, I would rather educate regarding abstinence and sexual behavior while still providing the contraception in the event they make the decision to have sex.
Having a child as a teenager has NOTHING to do with IQ (I have my Masters) but rather just unwise, young decisions. I was not a stupid girl or Latina or looking to populate. I was a young girl who of course thought she was in love, still waited over six months after we stared dating, and was not sleeping with everyone. The problem is that there is still this stigma in our society that teenage girls who get pregnant are stupid and promiscuous. I would beg to differ as I have gone on and I now have four children and have obtained three degrees. Yes, it was hard to do and support children and it took longer…….but a program like this could have helped me at least make better choices on a consistent basis. It only takes ONE time with no contraception to conceive. Stop judging these girls. I do agree that a program for the boys is needed as they are responsible as well.
Now, as someone who was adopted, I am stunned with the folks who are trying to adopt and would suggest allowing these girls to get pregnant for your selfish gain. Being pregnant young is not good for the baby or the mother. There is a higher rate of premature births for teenage girls which puts the babies at risk. Also, giving up a child is not this easy thing to do or decision to make. I contemplated it myself. The emotional aspect is not something to take lightly. There are plenty of babies worldwide that need to be adopted….maybe you should reconsider the “type” of baby you want and just love a child in need instead of wishing a young girl to get pregnant, suffer the loss of a child, just so you can get what you want.
July 8th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
To Martha: that is called communism.
July 8th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Wow – what a brilliant idea. I am incredibly impressed. Teens should not be having children, it is not healthy for them pysiologically/medically, socially, economically and academically. Wonderful work!!!!
July 8th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
I think the idea of this program is good. However, I think what would actually make it work would be the education piece. Paying teenagers for a particular goal doesn’t always work (see Cash for Grades http://www.usnews.com/articles/education/2008/11/28/giving-students-cash-for-grades.html). As time unfolds on that project, it has become evident that the minority achievement gap has not really closed, despite throwing tons of money into it. Thus, the education piece on UNCG’s program is probably the most valuable aspect. You would not believe how many myths teenagers hold regarding sex (i.e. the pullout method, the use of plastic wrap as a condom…) and there is no one to dispel these myths because sex education is such a taboo topic in most school systems. With that, I would say it would be just as beneficial to sign boys up for this type of class as well.
One other minor flaw would be what happens to the girls who DO get pregnant. Are they taught good parenting skills? Would they be enrolled in a program such as Violet B. discussed? Are there incentives for not getting pregnant again? Are they still encouraged to go to college? Or is it, once you’ve become pregnant, too bad, you’re branded as an irresponsible teenager, get out of our program. Because inevitably, there will be girls who still end up pregnant, so without a piece of the program to deal with that aspect, it only helps with half of the problem of teenage pregnancy.
Though I agree that teenage pregnancy is a pressing issue, it’s not the end of that girl’s life and she doesn’t have to end up on welfare. Like Suzy, I had my first child at 18, but I read books on parenting, enrolled in parenting classes, and was encouraged by my family to go to college. It was definitely not the easy path, but now I’m done with my MA and easily make double what many of the girls earn who I went to high school with. I eventually was married and we now also have a second child. It’s been rough at times, but we’re a well-adjusted family. I’d love to think this was all my doing, but the fact is that without the support and education I was given AFTER I got pregnant, I know I wouldn’t be where I am now. Providing this type of support would make UNCG’s program more complete in fighting the economic & societal drain that is associated with teenage pregnancy.
One other thing: for those of you encouraging teenage pregnancy in the hope of securing an adoption, that is sick and wrong. Giving up a child is one of the most emotionally wrecking situations – close to the emotions many women feel after an abortion. An image of vultures circling injured lambs comes to mind…
July 8th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
Kay Guenther Says: “After all we give money to young girls in lower economic households who do have babies (to take care of the child) …”
Can you tell more about this? How much money, under what conditions etc.
Very interesting! May be this practice should be stopped?
July 8th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
It really is a logical conclusion.
When you remove one set of boundaries, you have to replace it with something else or the situation will run out of control. we have removed guidelines of moral purity based on right and wrong. And definition of right and wrong based on the Bible. You can teach abstinence and give contraceptives and still miss the basic point. When there is no objective standard of conduct based on a firm foundation that gives the courage to self discipline, subjective emotions become the basis for behavior. Empty external incentives do not address internal problems. It’s a heart issue. The family unit with a loving system of accountability is also vital. And, if the girl messes up and gets pregnant, these very elements will help her to work through consequences, support and love her and help her to make it in life successfully. She may stumble, but she knows how to get up and do the right thing. We don’t applaud what happens. It is wrong. but, we love and support and make sure she succeeds.
Prevention begins with training, not with paying. Do these girls expect to get government help the rest of their lives so they do the ‘right’ thing – whatever it is????? Isn’t it about who makes the best offer? What if they get offered more to get pregnant??? Will they find that more appealing?
UNC’s program has not taught anything about moral responsibility or about self disciplining of the mind and heart because there is a higher standard than themselves. I fear it is a discipline of the body until it is more lucrative elsewhere and with an ulterior motive of self gain. There are other ways to help kids go to college. But, I must say, at least they are doing something in the moral vacuum we now live in.
July 8th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
It is not “we” who removed the boundaries. It is MTV and TV in general, and Hollywood. They are our enemies. I have turned off all my TV channels. They are really dangerous. Their ideology destroys the fabric of our society.
Read the comments, many people say that many problems come from TV. Perhaps it is time to realize that TV is the Enemy of American people. And I don’t really like Christianity (I am pagan), but even going to a church would be a much better option than watching these stupid TV channels, which, unfortunately, everybody considers a must to have at home these days.
Turn the tube off! (Try youtube, it is much better, at least it is fair and balanced.)
July 8th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
Marie states: If paying girls not to get pregnant is cheaper than an abortion and way cheaper than welfare payments, then I am all for it. And let some of these so called “churches” cough up the dough. The GOP should be a major contributor also. Since their “Abstinence Only” policy has failed so miserably.
Along with their claims of “moral values”
Marie you have very harsh words for many churches I know that our doing incredible work and I have seen it first hand. As for the GOP and your comment about failed abstinence policy it is simply untrue and you really must do your research before making untrue remarks. It must go hand in hand with other moral training. At least their making an effort with moral policy. I suppose your solution is throwing more condoms at kids. We need involvment from parents setting an example and a return to faith in Jesus to build a foundation for true morality. People are not animals, but spiritual beings that struggle with a sin nature. It is possible to wait till marrige…my wife and I did.
July 8th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
Ed:
Two words: Bristol Palin.
July 8th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
What about good old fashioned MORALS. What about the parents telling them to do what is right instead of doing their jobs as parents. No upbringing at all
July 8th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
Teen pregnancies are almost always unplanned and unwanted they are also often a medical high risk. The long and short term costs to society are very high and the impact on the lives of the girls involved is often negative. If the simple act of paying a girl to avoid pregnancy works doing it is a nobrainer. There is no reason to think that girls in European countries are less sexually active than American girls. The rate of teen pregnancies in these countries is much lower than in the US
we are obviously doing something wrong.
July 8th, 2009 at 8:39 pm
This is an ugly and racist and anti-white program.
We all know that white girls obtain university education more frequently than black or Latina.
This is why they give money for not having children for girls who might enter the university.
Because they calculate that the girls participating in the project will be predominantly white.
This program would drop the birth rate of white people even further down.
The program must not be supported by anybody who does not want European race to disappear.
WE NEED MORE WHITE BABIES!
July 8th, 2009 at 9:38 pm
I’ve been teaching for 26 years and have said to my husband for years that we should pay girls to not get pregnant. Most of the students can use the money and in the long run it is much cheaper to pay the students now than the cost of all the social services required to help them once they have a baby. It’s money well spent and may be the only way to break the circle of poverty for many of them.
July 9th, 2009 at 9:49 am
Wow…some tangents you all have gone off of….amazing.
My suggestion: these teens need to learn to keep their legs closed and then NO ONE would have to worry about paying ANYONE for not getting pregnant.
I mean really….are they serious?? As if paying these girls will make them be abstinent?? Yea right…I am a realist people…and if a girl wants to have sex, she will. She will also find the funds to abort a baby if she is that desparate to do, and in this situation, that is probably what one would do in order to keep getting “paid”
Our society is truly sinking to a new level when we have to pay our teens to make a RESPONSIBLE decision TO BEGIN WITH – as a person who teaches about sex, drugs and alcohol at the collegiate level – I have a hard time having “pity,” patience or OTHERWISE for kids that want to BE TREATED as adults, yet CAN’T ACT like adults. My motto: You want to be a big girl or boy – then MAN UP and deal with the consequences. I don’t recall anyone in my era getting paid for remaining abstinent or practicing safe sex.
Ridiculous program….its only on the surface as to how many this will actually “help”
July 9th, 2009 at 11:19 am
Perhaps people should look into the program more fully before making their conclusions….there are actually several key points that the article fails to mention. Such as:
1) Only siblings of girls who already gave birth before the age of 18 are eligible for the program. (Statistically, those girls are at a massively higher risk of becoming pregnant before 18)
2) The program is intended as much to help the girls finish HIGH SCHOOL as it is to get them into college.
3) Parents are included in some of the classes in order to help educate both the parents and the girls.
Here is the program’s website: http://nursing.uncg.edu/cbs/index.html
July 9th, 2009 at 11:39 am
Rose, What time does your Klan meeting start?
July 9th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
How about paying people not to engage in other bad behaviors. Paying them not to commit robberies, or battery, or how about a big bonus not to murder anyone. Payment for abstinence from drug abuse, DUI, child molestation, prostiution, kand so on……
Then levy heavy fines and tax penalties to all the violators so it will pay for the rest of us who live decent lives. That would be a real change in our policies.
July 9th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
I want to praise the thoughtfulness of Violet, Suzy, and Sarah’s responses!!!! I also want to chime in to some who have mentioned that men and boys who are doing the impregnating need a program too, on how to be responsible sexual beings, and taking responsibility if they do get a girl pregnant.
I also want to mention that there is a plethora of studies that link sexual, physical, emotional, and economic abuse by older men of young girls who become pregnant. Shouldn’t we be doing more sexual and dating violence prevention programs with a primary prevention (elimination of first time perpetration and first time victimization), universal (everyone) approach?
July 9th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
oops, forgot to mention that in Ohio, Planned Parenthood of Southwest Ohio developed a program called Looking for Love: Exploring Teen Adult Relationships. It is excellent and worth the time and money to get trained in. Instead of blaming young women, get this, the program actually spoke to young women about their reasons for getting involved with older men (who have all the responsibility to not get involved with a young woman!!!)
July 9th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Jule and Richard,
I cannot beleive that you would even write that. That is the most unadult, irresponsible thing I have heard in a long time. It is NOT about you! Pregnancy is a very difficult on a young body. This type of attitude is why young people are having such a hard time finding moral role models.
July 15th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
I say, eliminate social programs which PAY/subsidize underage, unemployed, single people who have children. As well as, paying girls to attend these classes – a fund which earns interest,is a good idea. A fund that could be used to offset tuition at a Jr. college or trade school or even a traditional 4-yr school if they are accepted. It should be available for both girls and boys. As already stated, boys are just as responsible in curtailing teen pregnancy as are girls.
July 15th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
Lara,
The little
means a lot of sarcasm. If you think I would encourage my daughter to go out and have sex so someone can adopt a baby then you are crazy. I don’t think people should be having sex until then can commit their whole lives to someone by getting married first. Obviously there are a lot of people out there that don’t with that our struggle in trying to live that way. To Suzy and Sarah, I have seen the struggle of several unwed mothers trying to decide to parent their child, place it for adoption, or have an abortion. It cannot be an easy decision.
In all honesty what I am trying to say is to teach kids not to have sex. If they do have sex and get pregnant then educate them on their options. There are more options than having an abortion or trying to raise a child when you are still a child.
In regards to Suzy’s comment…have you ever tried adopting one of these “worldwide babies”? If it is as easy as you make it sound, please let me know how you did it. I hope you aren’t insinuating that I am picky on the “type” of child I am willing to love seeing that I already have “worldwide” baby. Do you think it is any easier for these international mothers to place their children for adoption than it is for anyone else?
July 19th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
I think this is a very good and bad idea, as like anything, once you start to pay someone not to do something it erodes our sense of responsibilities as individuals. Leading to a society that will only do what they are told if they are getting paid, resulting on the state and us as tax payers paying more money out to the girls to do what they should be doing morally.
July 21st, 2009 at 4:41 pm
After reading all the 59 comments most of YOU ALL forgot the main point!!!!!!!!!…………these girls are getting paid not to have babies!!!!!!!!!! at a dollar day, I want everyone to do some math; 365 dollars a year OR raising a child for the next 18 years??????? yes, it is a lot cheaper, this DOES not include congential defects, crime to be committed, or just the burden this child will create in 18 years. COST????? more cheaper and the girls get EDUCATED!!! in the end to be able to make EDUCATED choices………..everyone deserves a chance! I believe everyone should be given this opportunity……think of the things we as a society can create and develop? for the future?????
July 21st, 2009 at 10:17 pm
Why don’t the guys get paid too? And it should be a whole lot more than a dollar a day to keep your ….. in your pants. (sarcasm)
July 23rd, 2009 at 2:11 pm
[...] student’s fatal fall 4. Black? Hispanic? White? Students foot the bill based on race. 5. Paying girls not to get pregnant. AKPC_IDS += [...]
July 23rd, 2009 at 3:09 pm
[...] Paying girls not to get pregnant [...]
July 24th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
I think this program should be all-inclusive on a broader scheme. Call it Sisters for Achievement or perhaps Brothers for Achievement for the young men. In exchange for one hour per week of guidance training on their goals for their future, the young men and women receive a payment automatically forwarded to a post-high school account. The fund can be used for college, vo-tech, military, etc. just as long as the teen graduates. Abstinence, contraceptives, and abortion should definitely be discussed as preventable measures. This class should be about planning their individual futures with class lectures, perhaps hands-on-training, computer researching, guest speakers, talking about budgeting, responsibility to community, leadership in their chosen field, post-secondary training, and goal preparation. I think the post-secondary trust fund idea would teach discipline and delayed gratification for those students dedicated enough to attend regularly. The classes definitely have to be interesting though and technology-based, no doubt. Great idea, but may be difficult to fund or achieve on a statewide or national level.
July 24th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
The commitment of one hour per week is a good idea. I really like the idea of setting aside an hour of each week to focus on and listen to big picture issues. A time each week to put problems in perspective and learn life skills. I think if every student and their families did that, it would improve lives. Wow, just an hour a week. I think I could make that a habit and do it religiously.
Oh, wait… Didn’t they use to call that worship? I wonder why we stopped doing it.
July 24th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
Eh?
Sort of like paying Guido not to accidently break into your business and steal your stuff.
…
Seriously, there should be some sort of mandatory contraception implant, for BOTH male and female teens until they become adults.
And after that, they both should pass a parenting class to prove they have an inkling of an idea how to be at least competent parents before they procreate.
July 29th, 2009 at 6:30 pm
my favorite comment:
Karen G Says:
July 8th, 2009 at 10:32 am
“Sounds like a bonanza for young lesbian girls — to be paid not to get pregnant. Easy money.”
July 29th, 2009 at 7:06 pm
Eric Says:
July 24th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
“Oh, wait… Didn’t they use to call that worship? I wonder why we stopped doing it.”
We stopped worshiping because the people leading the worship became corrupt.
July 30th, 2009 at 9:20 am
Is that who you were worshiping? I guess that’s a problem then. It’s not a good idea to judge God by the fallen people who claim to serve him. Even if one takes a non-literal interpretation of scripture, one can still find it holds universal truths about relationships and self-worth. And if more kids understood that they were created with purpose and value, they’d be better equipped to resist the adult messages they’re bombarded with daily. They might just learn that hooking up is just scratching an itch. But in an intimate, committed relationship with long-term goals sex becomes an expression of hope, love, and even faith.
September 25th, 2009 at 9:14 am
What have the results been thus far and I am sure we need a larger and longer study. I think learning about contraception is key, but what about the boys, how about a dollar a day not to become a baby’s daddy. We can’t label birth control a woman’s issue.
I think the classes are great and can build a positive peer group if they are well thought out.
In this day and age, with a variety of contraception, the morning after pill, etc., there are no excuses for “accidents”.
Mother’s also need to know in order to provide for their children, they need a college education.
December 29th, 2009 at 9:44 am
[...] Paying girls not to get pregnantLighter side: It’s not ‘reality’ — it’s ‘real’Who has the hardest time getting into college?Why students may want to spend more time on Facebook [...]