Quote:
Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty
Haha yeah, I know. But I didnt know what else to call it. A discentive? Financial (de)motivator?
I don't think you are looking at the chart the right way. You can't compare USA to Canada to Zimbabwe.
You can compare USA (no support) to USA (little support) to USA (a lot of support).
I say that USA (lot of support) gets the highest % of teen pregnancies and USA (no support) lowest. Disagree?
BTW My country ranks 2nd on that list  |
Just to answer your question I'd have to say, I would probably disagree with your statement. I admit I am not an expert and could probably look at the issue far more in depth, as you mentioned you didn't expect to post so much and neither did I. But even the small amount of research I did just now, coupled with what I've known (been taught) from the past seems to suggest I'm on the right path.
I believe it (the rate) would probably be the same to a little bit less as you increase support (to a certain level of course, not to the point where it makes sense to have babies to earn money). I would suggest that where there is support, you are less likely to have a poverty situation that might encourage a repeat in the cycle. Which has been the main part of my thesis the whole time.
It only makes logical sense that if you have children in a poverty situation, they are more likely to make bigger mistakes, including getting pregnant themselves. I don't see how that's a huge stretch.
I'll admit I don't have any more info to support that right now (though I think the chart might be a start) and it's just my feeling on the matter.
I'm not sure why you wouldn't be able to compare Canada to the States. Our culture and laws (in a world sense) are near identical. I would argue it would be the best example without looking entirely within a nation. Zimbabwe may be a stretch yeah, but you'll notice I didn't say anything about them (or even Japan).
