Efficacy of infant simulator programmes to prevent teenage pregnancy(thelancet.com)
thelancet.com
Efficacy of infant simulator programmes to prevent teenage pregnancy
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(16)30384-1/fulltext
75 comments
It would be interesting to see the life satisfaction and happiness survey data 5 years and 10 years out as well.
There's a vast number of people that find happiness and purpose in raising a child
There's a vast number of people that find happiness and purpose in raising a child
There's also a vast number of people with issues of all kinds due to shitty parenting and conditions that enable it. I'd say it's common sense that teens are going to be far more likely to be shitty parents than not. Possible exception would be if they are heavily subsidized by their family, in which case any "happiness and purpose" is probably more of an indication of economic stability and more mature people filling in for the role than anything else.
Presumably a random controlled trial would address differences in family support.
Otherwise, I don't necessarily disagree.
Otherwise, I don't necessarily disagree.
The dudes that cause teenage pregnancy are also usually infant simulators.
Checks out in my observations.
Jokes aside, the infant simulators used in the study could not possibly replicate the economic and emotional turmoil of being a working class single mom in 2023 United States. In this respect, the dudes might be even better simulators.
Jokes aside, the infant simulators used in the study could not possibly replicate the economic and emotional turmoil of being a working class single mom in 2023 United States. In this respect, the dudes might be even better simulators.
This study took place in Australia.
Being a working class single mom in Australia is no walk in the park either.
I think that's a little unfair...
Teenage boys want to do "the thing" with girls that has an unfortunate side effect of potential pregnancy.
We can't act like this isn't natural...we can just make sure they have the tools to be safe and make sure accidents don't happen...
Teenage boys want to do "the thing" with girls that has an unfortunate side effect of potential pregnancy.
We can't act like this isn't natural...we can just make sure they have the tools to be safe and make sure accidents don't happen...
Your point is valid for situations with relatively similar ages, but the fathers of pregnant teenage girls are on-average older, and not-uncommonly significantly so. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10227344/
And some teenage girls too. Unless all those pregnancies come from rape.
Don't assume that females are asexual beings of light. The amount of sexual yours for women should tell your something
Don't assume that females are asexual beings of light. The amount of sexual yours for women should tell your something
[deleted]
I think that is a pretty misandrist take.
Sex and sex drive is a part of healthy adolescence for both genders. It has nothing to do with emotional immaturity.
Sex and sex drive is a part of healthy adolescence for both genders. It has nothing to do with emotional immaturity.
I assume they mean the mature ones are responsibly using contraception, being cautious not to impregnate anyone. Anecdotally, my experience is the immature and irresponsible types also carry that over into reproductive/parenting aspects of their life.
Perhaps things are different from when I was an adolescent, but my observation was that teen pregnancy had a lot more to do with family religion and socioeconomic class then safe sex practices.
My experience would say those things might be correlated with reproductive responsibility, but there were some well-off guys and some not so well off guys I knew who where careless/reckless. I don't think I had enough data on the different religions to form much of a comparison.
I'd be interested to hear hypotheses for why this program did not reach its intended effect. I'm also curious what the effect would be if teenage boys were included. It seems like a major missing element.
Theory, the simulation is a poor reflection of reality; Accurately simulating what it would be like to care for a baby is beyond our current technology.
I don’t think it’s beyond our technology, but it would be deeply unethical to lock a bunch of teenagers in a house and subject them to sleep deprivation and screaming for weeks on end.
Would a temporary donation of cranky toddlers in their terrible 2s be unethical?
Sadly, the shock of being in such a weird situation would likely calm the toddlers down.
Sadly, the shock of being in such a weird situation would likely calm the toddlers down.
Interesting idea. I imagine that “spend 2 hours telling a toddler ‘no’” would be a pretty effective deterrent exercise.
Really? I feel like flour babies were pretty effective for as far as you’d want to go with middle schoolers (I.e. no sleep deprivation).
If the point of the simulation was to deter pregnancies, I don't see how it could be successful without the biggest struggles of raising children being included. After all, people are willing to have children even when they are aware of these struggles, so reducing the struggles even a little would make having children seem more appealing, not less.
Hell, it's possible that teenagers naturally have a larger than reality aversion to having children, and these simulations break down the aversion, increasing pregnancies.
Hell, it's possible that teenagers naturally have a larger than reality aversion to having children, and these simulations break down the aversion, increasing pregnancies.
What is the point of infant simulation if the one of the most impactful part would be skipped?
The biggest parts of having a baby, for the mom mostly:
1) physical changes and pains during pregnancy, including lack of sleep
2) physical changes and pains during childbirth, including episiotomy/C section, and dealing with that recovery process
3) while this is all going on, you have to teach this baby to breastfeed. Which then leads to engorgement and other pains for the mom, at least for a few weeks.
And all of this is happening while you are on very broken sleep schedules. And assuming you do not have to worry about income/rent/etc.
The biggest parts of having a baby, for the mom mostly:
1) physical changes and pains during pregnancy, including lack of sleep
2) physical changes and pains during childbirth, including episiotomy/C section, and dealing with that recovery process
3) while this is all going on, you have to teach this baby to breastfeed. Which then leads to engorgement and other pains for the mom, at least for a few weeks.
And all of this is happening while you are on very broken sleep schedules. And assuming you do not have to worry about income/rent/etc.
Many (most?) teenage mothers intend to be teenage mothers and like babies and probably have a history of caring for them. They're thinking about how great it would be to have a baby, and likely fully want one. The problem is not that babies aren't great, it's that a teenage girl has no perspective as to how making such a decision at such a young age is going to affect her life negatively.
Making them take care of a fake baby likely stimulates the exact same part of their brain that makes them want to have a baby. Sort of like how my wife (or myself, if I'm being honest) will see a cute baby and, despite having already had the experience of having children and knowing full well how difficult they can be, will ecstatically exclaim 'Wouldn't it be great to have another baby?'
Except, as adults, we can make a decision to have or not have a child with some perspective and some modicum of self control. Whereas if you induce the same feeling in a teenage girl, she might just go ahead and do it without thinking, as teenagers are apt to do.
Making them take care of a fake baby likely stimulates the exact same part of their brain that makes them want to have a baby. Sort of like how my wife (or myself, if I'm being honest) will see a cute baby and, despite having already had the experience of having children and knowing full well how difficult they can be, will ecstatically exclaim 'Wouldn't it be great to have another baby?'
Except, as adults, we can make a decision to have or not have a child with some perspective and some modicum of self control. Whereas if you induce the same feeling in a teenage girl, she might just go ahead and do it without thinking, as teenagers are apt to do.
> Sort of like how my wife (or myself, if I'm being honest) will see a cute baby and, despite having already had the experience of having children and knowing full well how difficult they can be, will ecstatically exclaim 'Wouldn't it be great to have another baby?'
We think “wouldn’t it be great if a nearby relative/friend had a baby”.
We think “wouldn’t it be great if a nearby relative/friend had a baby”.
[deleted]
>Many (most?) teenage mothers intend to be teenage mothers
[citation fucking needed]. I'd be highly surprised if that was indeed the case.
[citation fucking needed]. I'd be highly surprised if that was indeed the case.
WHO: Position paper
on mainstreaming
adolescent pregnancy
in efforts to make
pregnancy safer
> Recent data confirm that a wide variation in planning status exists across developing countries. Results from 37 recent DHS surveys show a median of about 75% of pregnancies to adolescents are planned (the data are not disaggregated by marital status). However, the percentage of pregnancies to adolescents that are planned varies widely, from a low of 42% in Colombia to a high of 93% in Egypt (Figure 23). Important regional variation also occurs (Figure 24), with a median of only about half of pregnancies planned in Latin America and the Caribbean versus 69% in sub-Saharan Africa, and between 80% and 90% in North Africa/West Asia/Europe and South and Southeast Asia.
> No clear pattern emerges when comparing planning status of pregnancy in adolescents versus older women. In about half of countries of 37 countries with a recent DHS, adolescents under 20 have higher rates of planned pregnancies compared with women 20-24 years old (Figure 25).
> Data from recent studies bolster findings from previous reviews that adolescents in developed countries have relatively high rates of unplanned pregnancies compared to their counterparts in developing countries. In the U.S. a 2002 national survey found that only 21.6% of births to women under 20 years older were planned, compared to 55.8% of births to women ages 20-24 (Chandra et al. 2005).
> Recent data confirm that a wide variation in planning status exists across developing countries. Results from 37 recent DHS surveys show a median of about 75% of pregnancies to adolescents are planned (the data are not disaggregated by marital status). However, the percentage of pregnancies to adolescents that are planned varies widely, from a low of 42% in Colombia to a high of 93% in Egypt (Figure 23). Important regional variation also occurs (Figure 24), with a median of only about half of pregnancies planned in Latin America and the Caribbean versus 69% in sub-Saharan Africa, and between 80% and 90% in North Africa/West Asia/Europe and South and Southeast Asia.
> No clear pattern emerges when comparing planning status of pregnancy in adolescents versus older women. In about half of countries of 37 countries with a recent DHS, adolescents under 20 have higher rates of planned pregnancies compared with women 20-24 years old (Figure 25).
> Data from recent studies bolster findings from previous reviews that adolescents in developed countries have relatively high rates of unplanned pregnancies compared to their counterparts in developing countries. In the U.S. a 2002 national survey found that only 21.6% of births to women under 20 years older were planned, compared to 55.8% of births to women ages 20-24 (Chandra et al. 2005).
My take on this is that every population probably gets pregnant at a basically the same baseline rate, but beliefs about child rearing as a teenager cause them to plan / not plan, as well as answer / not answer in certain ways.
tl;dr in context of the top-level comment: 80% of births to women under the age of 20 in the U.S. are unplanned. So nothing even close to “most.”
As others have said, I didn't know if it was most or not. I do think it's a substantial amount (20% is substantial, considering the number should be zero, in my opinion). It's certainly a large enough amount that one would see an appreciable difference if one engaged in behaviors that encouraged child bearing, such as child care classes.
To be fair, "most?" was a question. I would think 20% qualifies as "many", depending on how one wants to define it.
It is grammatically a question, correct. It is also a rhetorical device the author chose to use to make a suggestion for the reader to read.
Most questions are designed to invite discussion. I don't find their use of "most" to be rhetorical as it has in fact resulted in discussion.
[deleted]
My mom was a teacher in a poor neighborhood. The way girls in my neighborhood felt and the way girls in my mom's school felt were completely at odds. The girls at my mom's school often wanted to be mothers and would tell my mom that. Whereas the girls in my neighborhood had their eyes set on careers, later marriage, etc.
I went to school somewhat near my mom's station and I knew several girls in classmate's families who also wanted to be mothers. This is heavily cultural, and some cultures strongly emphasize family life (especially mothers), and these often are the ones in which you'll find a lot of teenage mothers.
In my mom's case, her school was heavily hispanic. Hispanic culture deifies mothers and many teenage / pre-teen girls saw becoming a mother as a way to escape the drudgeries of life and be turned into 'mother'. Of course, they didn't always think about the other sides of it.
Now, I realize this study is in Australia, but Hispanic culture is hardly unique in this area. Many cultures greatly celebrate mothers and motherhood and don't have the same cultural prohibition on teenage parenthood / emphasis on post-high-school education.
And before everyone gets all mad and cries racist, we are also of Latin stock.
EDIT: You seem very surprised that any girl may want a baby as a teenager, but I assure you they exist. Unfortunately, I cannot find direct research on the topic. However, I did find this documentary tracing women who wanted to have babies as teenagers and were happy about it: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/jan/10/were-gl... . Hopefully this at least proves that such people exist.
More sources:
https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/planned-teenage-pregnancy-view...
^ This one in particular substantiates my hypothesis as "Many mothers spoke of their love of babies, often heightened by experience caring for other children."
I went to school somewhat near my mom's station and I knew several girls in classmate's families who also wanted to be mothers. This is heavily cultural, and some cultures strongly emphasize family life (especially mothers), and these often are the ones in which you'll find a lot of teenage mothers.
In my mom's case, her school was heavily hispanic. Hispanic culture deifies mothers and many teenage / pre-teen girls saw becoming a mother as a way to escape the drudgeries of life and be turned into 'mother'. Of course, they didn't always think about the other sides of it.
Now, I realize this study is in Australia, but Hispanic culture is hardly unique in this area. Many cultures greatly celebrate mothers and motherhood and don't have the same cultural prohibition on teenage parenthood / emphasis on post-high-school education.
And before everyone gets all mad and cries racist, we are also of Latin stock.
EDIT: You seem very surprised that any girl may want a baby as a teenager, but I assure you they exist. Unfortunately, I cannot find direct research on the topic. However, I did find this documentary tracing women who wanted to have babies as teenagers and were happy about it: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/jan/10/were-gl... . Hopefully this at least proves that such people exist.
More sources:
https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/planned-teenage-pregnancy-view...
^ This one in particular substantiates my hypothesis as "Many mothers spoke of their love of babies, often heightened by experience caring for other children."
What surprises me is you’re so bold about painting teenage girls with an extremely broad brush in your top-level comment, then go on to detail all the ethnic, cultural and socioeconomic complexities that make generalization irresponsible. It’s like, you keenly observe the complex tapestry of human existence in this comment, but say “many (most?)” teen moms are planning their pregnancies in your original comment.
Why the disconnect?
Why the disconnect?
Because many teenage mothers are planning their pregnancies. Just because a girl comes from a poor background and is of a particular ethnicity doesn't take them out of the category of 'girls'. Do you think a white girl is more categorically a girl than a hispanic one?
[deleted]
> You seem very surprised that any girl may want a baby as a teenager, but I assure you they exist.
I think there is a big difference between being surprised, and doubtful, that many/most teenage mothers want to be mothers—a position I and andrepd hold—and being surprised or doubtful that any teenage mother wants to be one—a position neither I, nor, I suspect, andrepd holds.
I think there is a big difference between being surprised, and doubtful, that many/most teenage mothers want to be mothers—a position I and andrepd hold—and being surprised or doubtful that any teenage mother wants to be one—a position neither I, nor, I suspect, andrepd holds.
Anecdotal but I personally went to a school that transferred pregnant girls and mothers from other schools and my experience is that it is very common. There is a biological drive to have children, you'd expect that drive to begin when fertility begins in some not insignificant portion of the female population, and where hormones are concerned often reason goes out the window.
I mean, it's pretty much by definition, right? Many of the ones that don't want to be mothers aren't because they had the option of an abortion or used effective contraception (https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1400506). Of course the pregnancy and birth rates have both been almost halved due to many factors including contraception and abstaining (cultural change), but there are still a sizable percentage (20ish%) that would keep the baby even with free options.
This study show one of three themes being ignorance, including some mothers thinking that having a child will strengthen their relationship with the father. So there is a sizable portion that chose to have a child, enough so that they are one of the main 3 themes in the results.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2866436/
This study show one of three themes being ignorance, including some mothers thinking that having a child will strengthen their relationship with the father. So there is a sizable portion that chose to have a child, enough so that they are one of the main 3 themes in the results.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2866436/
> I mean, it's pretty much by definition, right? The ones that don't want to be mothers aren't because they had the option of an abortion or used effective contraception.
I doubt that not wanting to be a mother automatically means that you have the knowledge, and/or a safe way, to prevent or terminate a pregnancy.
I doubt that not wanting to be a mother automatically means that you have the knowledge, and/or a safe way, to prevent or terminate a pregnancy.
Sure, some other data would help the implications like the pregnancy and birthrates halving over the past few decades, the ease of access and options for birth control, etc. Someone else posted a link from WHO that has direct data on the percent that is planned pregnancy. Probably best to go with that.
Citation: The girls I grew up around.
Other commenters are suggesting stories about cultural values and teenagers actively wanting to be mothers. That may or may not be true. The simplest explanation is that the infant simulators just do not have an effect one way or the other.
There's no need to say the infant simulator *increases* desire for pregnancy. I think it's more likely it doesn't effect attitudes much at all, but standard health education actually suppresses teenage pregnancy. So, the study sees the apparent increase in pregnancy with the simulator program, when compared to the somewhat effective health education.
There's no need to say the infant simulator *increases* desire for pregnancy. I think it's more likely it doesn't effect attitudes much at all, but standard health education actually suppresses teenage pregnancy. So, the study sees the apparent increase in pregnancy with the simulator program, when compared to the somewhat effective health education.
Not scientific at all but my view is they're not taking our animal nature into account, it's possible that these simulations make them want to have a baby, "baby fever" and all that.
Or maybe the simulations are easier than raising a baby and so they think "this is no big deal" and start acting irresponsibly.
Do we know why the programs are in these particular schools and not in the control group? It's possible that the schools were initially selected for the programs because they had a higher risk rate already, it's quite possible it is lower than it was before the programs which would mean that they are in fact effective. The methodology of this study isn't airtight.
It's important to note, the study considers abortions to be indicative of failure of the programs and counts abortions before the age of 20 as pregnancies, whereas they could (to put it lightly) be indicative of a desire not to have kids, demonstrating the efficacy of the programs. Not entirely accurate, because you'd expect the same in the schools without the programs, but I'd be interested in seeing the numbers without abortions included in them.
Or maybe the simulations are easier than raising a baby and so they think "this is no big deal" and start acting irresponsibly.
Do we know why the programs are in these particular schools and not in the control group? It's possible that the schools were initially selected for the programs because they had a higher risk rate already, it's quite possible it is lower than it was before the programs which would mean that they are in fact effective. The methodology of this study isn't airtight.
It's important to note, the study considers abortions to be indicative of failure of the programs and counts abortions before the age of 20 as pregnancies, whereas they could (to put it lightly) be indicative of a desire not to have kids, demonstrating the efficacy of the programs. Not entirely accurate, because you'd expect the same in the schools without the programs, but I'd be interested in seeing the numbers without abortions included in them.
Forget a simulator, I wish I'd gotten an honest and thorough education as a teenager on what having children entails before setting off down that life path. I suspect society isn't motivated to do this lest birth rates plummet even further..
The summary is that those with interventions had more pregnancies than the control group without.
Reminds me of the “DARE” anti-drug program many in the USA had growing up. From my memory, I’m a little first grade kid and I’m getting worksheets about injecting heroin. The studies show DARE didn’t work, and it was totally bizarre as well from my recollection.
Reminds me of the “DARE” anti-drug program many in the USA had growing up. From my memory, I’m a little first grade kid and I’m getting worksheets about injecting heroin. The studies show DARE didn’t work, and it was totally bizarre as well from my recollection.
The studies show DARE worked at its actual goal (improving participants view of police) but had zero effect on its notional goal (drug abuse).
Of course, if you called it a police propaganda program, it wouldn’t be as politically viable.
Of course, if you called it a police propaganda program, it wouldn’t be as politically viable.
I can’t read the full article. Does it say if students were permitted to opt into the class and, if so, whether they knew that the infant simulator project would be part of the class at enrollment time?
In my (US) high school, this project was done in home economics, which was an elective. But it sounds like these were standard health classes.
In my (US) high school, this project was done in home economics, which was an elective. But it sounds like these were standard health classes.
Their methodology/protocol paper for the study is open access: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2987778/
tl;dr: Students at schools in both the control and intervention groups took the standard required health class, which includes traditional sex ed. Students at schools in the intervention group had to opt in to the baby simulator. It wasn't a regular class and was independent of the required health class, but it did take place at the school. It was one week, 40 minutes a day to learn about the baby simulator and a few other basics. Students at schools in the intervention group only cared for the baby for 64 hours: 4 days x 16 hours. 'Free childcare' was mandated for the 8 hours they were at school, as they were turned off during the school day.
tl;dr: Students at schools in both the control and intervention groups took the standard required health class, which includes traditional sex ed. Students at schools in the intervention group had to opt in to the baby simulator. It wasn't a regular class and was independent of the required health class, but it did take place at the school. It was one week, 40 minutes a day to learn about the baby simulator and a few other basics. Students at schools in the intervention group only cared for the baby for 64 hours: 4 days x 16 hours. 'Free childcare' was mandated for the 8 hours they were at school, as they were turned off during the school day.
Thank you. I believe this answers my question:
> Individual participants were not blinded to their group assignment and upon giving consent were aware whether they were participating in the VIP intervention or control arm of the Trial.
So my read of the results is that participants who were interested in having a child (and were in an intervention school) selected into the VIP program. Participants in the control schools were a more random group.
> Individual participants were not blinded to their group assignment and upon giving consent were aware whether they were participating in the VIP intervention or control arm of the Trial.
So my read of the results is that participants who were interested in having a child (and were in an intervention school) selected into the VIP program. Participants in the control schools were a more random group.
It's unclear from this summary whether the intervention group's program was in addition to or in lieu of the standard health education curriculum that the control group had. Either option could be problematic - adding an additional assignment on top of all the regular work would presumably lead to worse academic performance and increased stress; whereas dropping the standard curriculum might mean the girls weren't being as well educated about birth control and related topics. At the end of the day shoving stuff into a curriculum is always going to have issues so it can't be isolated from the rest of the study, but it does raise the question of whether this study has shown infant simulator programs to generally be counterproductive, or just this particular program implementation.
Why are we so anxious to prevent pregnancies instead of addressing the economic issues that make so many hard working people unable to afford raising kids?
The current status quo is only poor and rich people have children, but the middle class often cannot afford to, and we try rationalize that by saying the poor children will make up for it, but children raised by poor families are much more likely to be a net cost to society, not to mention the moral failure.
Even if for environmental reasons, the results of not acknowledging the real problem have been disastrous. We know that people struggling to pay rent will never prioritize environmental causes because they simply can't afford to, so addressing the economic issues will need to be part of the formula anyhow.
The current status quo is only poor and rich people have children, but the middle class often cannot afford to, and we try rationalize that by saying the poor children will make up for it, but children raised by poor families are much more likely to be a net cost to society, not to mention the moral failure.
Even if for environmental reasons, the results of not acknowledging the real problem have been disastrous. We know that people struggling to pay rent will never prioritize environmental causes because they simply can't afford to, so addressing the economic issues will need to be part of the formula anyhow.
Your assertion and number of children doesn't match up with the actual statistics.
The middle class has lots of kids and more than the rich. You could probably find some set of the hyper-rich that start having more children, but it is basically irrelevant to the general trend
https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-fam...
The middle class has lots of kids and more than the rich. You could probably find some set of the hyper-rich that start having more children, but it is basically irrelevant to the general trend
https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-fam...
This is a very confusing result. I could understand no effect, but an effect in the wrong direction?
Yes.
>The infant simulator-based VIP programme did not achieve its aim of reducing teenage pregnancy. Girls in the intervention group were more likely to experience a birth or an induced abortion than those in the control group before they reached 20 years of age.
>The infant simulator-based VIP programme did not achieve its aim of reducing teenage pregnancy. Girls in the intervention group were more likely to experience a birth or an induced abortion than those in the control group before they reached 20 years of age.
Is it really confusing? When I was growing up, people got really excited about how well they’d done taking care of their… what was it, I think it was an egg? Anyway, the lesson that a bunch of them got was, I think, “wow that was easy and fun, I guess I would be a great parent.”
one of the problems with the sort of well-off person who staffs health departments who conduct these kinds of studies is that, in my experience, they are completely insulated from the kinds of environments in which these social ills occur. In their mind, teenage pregnancy is unthinkable and their interactions with children make them want less (this is a common sentiment I hear on reddit, for example). However, not everyone thinks that way. And realistically, this unfortunate gulf that has emerged between the scientific class and those they are attempting to help is the root of many terrible policy decisions.
https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/planned-teenage-pregnancy-view...
From the article:
> Many mothers spoke of their love of babies, often heightened by experience caring for other children."
https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/planned-teenage-pregnancy-view...
From the article:
> Many mothers spoke of their love of babies, often heightened by experience caring for other children."
There is a lot of power in suggestion. If you get a bunch of high school students together and really start talking to them about suicide, how they shouldn't commit suicide, how to identify suicidal thoughts, etc. would it be surprising to have a higher risk of suicide in that group than a control group.
I'd assume something like having a baby would have an even stronger tendency to do that.
I'd assume something like having a baby would have an even stronger tendency to do that.
My interpretation is that it gives a false sense of how difficult it actually is to raise a baby.
First, they only had the students care for the simulated baby for five days, and 'childcare' was provided for free during their school day (they had to turn it off during the school day). Five days is not long enough for the novelty to wear off and the day-to-day reality to kick in.
Second, the dolls are not a good simulation of what it is actually like to care for a baby. It's a step up from a tamagotchi. Changing a diaper on a real baby is nothing like changing a diaper on one of these dolls. Real babies scream and cry much louder, and often don't stop even if you do everything right.
First, they only had the students care for the simulated baby for five days, and 'childcare' was provided for free during their school day (they had to turn it off during the school day). Five days is not long enough for the novelty to wear off and the day-to-day reality to kick in.
Second, the dolls are not a good simulation of what it is actually like to care for a baby. It's a step up from a tamagotchi. Changing a diaper on a real baby is nothing like changing a diaper on one of these dolls. Real babies scream and cry much louder, and often don't stop even if you do everything right.
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+).
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.
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. 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.
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.
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.
Historically, the concern was part of a broader concern about students dropping out - becoming “early leavers” in UK-speak.
It then became part of broader family planning infrastructure.
It then became part of broader family planning infrastructure.
The title of the study is very neutral, as you'd expect from the Lancet, but if I were a reporter I'd headline my piece "Baby simulator makes teenage girls have actual babies". If I were running a program like this in a high school I'd immediately terminate it.
How does this compare to offering IUDs to a third group?
Or something less invasive like condoms?
Condoms don't really work at scale so far, compliance isn't great and even when it is they break. Same w/the Pill, it's a bit better but has shitty side effects.
Tldr: After adjustment for potential confounders, the intervention group had a higher overall pregnancy risk than the control group (relative risk 1·36 [95% CI 1·10–1·67], p=0·003).
The program backfired and the girls exposed to the fake infants were more likely to get pregnant in the five years after the intervention."
(Source: https://twitter.com/cremieuxrecueil/status/16893610169188352...)