It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Pay teenagers not to get pregnant, Republican says

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 10:51 AM

Pay teenagers not to get pregnant, Republican says

The man who dubbed Vice President Joe Biden a socialist last September for arguing that paying taxes is "patriotic" appears to have some government redistribution ideas of his own.

Newt Gingrich, often cited as a Republican prospect for president in 2012, says the state should consider paying teenager girls not to get pregnant.
(visit the link for the full news article)

Related News Links:

posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 10:51 AM

He also says that states should consider paying teenage girls who become pregnant to take prenatal vitamins to forestall paying additional health expenses for neonatal care down the road

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

So lets pay teenagers not to get pregnant....Wouldn't it be easier and cheaper to abolish abstinence only education! Maybe hand out some condoms!

Gingrich is the founder of the Center for Health Transformation, a not-for-profit group advocating the partnership of private and public interests for health care reform

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Anyway, he goes on in the article to recommend paying people not to smoke, requiring exercise for school children, giving tax breaks to grocery stores who open up in the inner city, giving bonuses to food stamp recipients who buy fruits and vegetables....
It seems to me for once Newt finally is making some sense!!!!

PREVENTION is key in cutting our health care costs.
(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 10:52 AM
Or just pay for free birth control...

You know, that would work too...

posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 10:57 AM
What, is he worried about his girlfriend getting pregnant?

As usual, people are looking at the symptom and not the problem.

Education, prevention, and access to birth control have proven to reduce teen pregnancies.

And therapy especially is needed. Since most teen moms are from broken homes or have been abused as children.

I don't think paying people to not smoke is it either. Though the rest of his stuff makes sense.

That is newt for you, there is a silver coin in his garbage.

[edit on 12-3-2009 by nixie_nox]

posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 11:02 AM
He probably think that's the way everything works in Washington. You pay people to get votes, you pay people to support you in your campaign, you pay people to keep quiet, you pay people to get a certain pork project... so naturally, that's the answer he comes up with... :shk:

I agree. Education and birth control would work a thousand times better!

posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 11:02 AM
Do the teenagers have to pay back any money given to them if they do get pregnant?

Even though I am not fond of many of the ideas he has proposed, it doesn't hurt to have all kind of proposals in order to find a reasonable solution.

posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 11:03 AM
Can you imagine the outrage from conservatives if a democrat had of suggested this?

Perhaps the GOP is reevaluating their stance on social issues as it is one of the causes for their being the minority party once again.

Too little too late IMO!

posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 11:15 AM
All well at the same time that Russia is PAYING people to get pregnant.


You guys may need that million man youth brigade.

posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 11:17 AM
reply to post by awake_awoke

Why not just pay guys to wear condoms?

I guess the women could pay there boyfriends not to have sex with the money or wear protection?

Wait, isnt this some strange round about way of prostitution. Paying for reverse sex?

Personally I think.........utter nonsense.

Nanny state pocket money here we come. Good boy, good girl. Go get your pocket money for it.

My head hurts. LMAO

[edit on 12-3-2009 by XXXN3O]

posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 11:28 AM
The problem is with education and prevention is that it rarely works in the inner-cities becasue of the amount of impoverished people. They get paid TO have babies (METAPHORICALLY SPEAKING). There actually might be at least a decent chance that this could work.

posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 11:53 AM

Originally posted by ravenshadow13
Or just pay for free birth control...

You know, that would work too...

Wouldn't work for the most part.

The act of sex takes 2 people and they both have the ability to use birth control.

If two people are so irresponsible that neither of them will put on a 50 cent condom, then expecting a free one to work is a waste of time as well. Most cities have family planning and birth control is one of those options. They even give out free condoms.

Don't even get started on the pill. It takes even more effort and responsibility.
It also encourages sex without condoms which will contribute to the rate of std's in this country. Outrageously high.

The youth in this country have the self control of alley cats. They get pregnant because they are irresponsible, not because they can't come up with birth control.

We can toss out morals, standards, pride and even economics. Those arguments are all hollow.

The reason that these kids get pregnant is because they believe they are entitled to have their own brand of fun and when the consequences come along, society pats them on the head and says, "There, there, it's not your fault. You're a victim. "
Then they get a check.

posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 11:54 AM
reply to post by whaaa
Can you imagine the outrage? No you cannot imagine the outrage! I am a conservative, and I have almost always supported Newt's proposals. But you cannot legislate morality, nor can you purchase it. To offer women money not to get pregnant is to tell them it's okay to have sex, have all the sex you want, just don't get pregnant, and we'll pay you is teaching young women that prostution is okay, just as long as you don't breed! The way to break this cycle is by rebuilding families, no matter where they are. That's not saying there won't be teen pregnancies, but I can guarantee that if there if both parents are in the home, and if they are teaching their children a moral way of living, then teen pregnancies will drop. (Please note, I did NOT say THE MORAL WAY.) I have a set of morals that I learned as a child, and I choose now, as someone who qualifies for AARP, to continue to follow them. My wife and I chose not to have children, for personal reasons, but if we had chosen to have them, I would have done my best to teach those morals to my children, to the point that they were so ingrained that they would always stop and think before they went against their moral teachings. That is not to say that they wouldn't go against what they were taught, just that they would give it a second, maybe a third thought.
And don't think Newt won't hear from me. He will. He may choose to ignore the phone call, the letter and the email. If he does, that is his choice. I will still remain a conservative, rather than someone who bends to every breeze that comes along.

posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 12:04 PM
How about we move away from an economic system which promotes teen pregnancy, as a means to further the consumerist cycle. There is no better situation for those on the top if an economy is bottom heavy.

posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 12:07 PM
Perhaps simply teaching morals and responsibility, begining in the home at early ages prior to the teen years may curb the problem.

Relying on someone else or something else to take care of one's responsibility in the first place is not exactly being responsible to begin with.


posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 12:09 PM

Originally posted by kettlebellysmith

And don't think Newt won't hear from me. He will. He may choose to ignore the phone call, the letter and the email. If he does, that is his choice. I will still remain a conservative, rather than someone who bends to every breeze that comes along.

You know, you and I probably wouldn't agree on anything, but good for you!

On the question of morality:

I completley agree and have always subscribed to the notion that the socioeconomic factors that lead to violence, poverty, teenage pregnancy,and drug use cannot just have money thrown at them. The damage is done-poverty is a cyclical system of balls and chains and is going to take alot of work to abolish it. However, it will just take one generation and some funding to break it-we'll all be better off as a society.

You cannot tell anyone to not have sex-get over it! Give them the tools to make smart decisions. That is why Newt surprised me-you can't be for abstinence only education while wanting to discourage teen pregnancies around the country, regardless of if they are inner-city or in the suburbs. Sorry, but you can't have your cake and eat it too!

Not to mention, I would be hard pressed to find someone who wouldn't agree with tax breaks for grocery stores opening up in inner-city areas....
The fact it hasn't been done yet baffles me.

posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 12:12 PM
I would never be comfortable with the idea of the politicians dictating whether or not some legal action is moral or immoral. Plus, where's all the money going to come from? Even if it saved a lot with healthcare I don't see how it's going to be ending up in the pockets of ordinary people.

posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 12:13 PM
Would be interesting from a legal point of view what would happen if:

1. A medically infertile teenage girl tried to claim the allowance. Would she be allowed to- considering she cannot get pregnant anyway?

2. Male to female transexuals... also cannot get pregnant obviously.

Either of the two groups outlined above could claim discrimination if they couldn't claim the allowance; yet if they could it would be farcical.

Stupid suggesting by Gingrich. The republicans are going to lose in 2012 if this is one of their forerunners.

posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 12:50 PM
Do I get paid for each girl that I don't knock up?
Because otherwise this is discrimination based on gender.

Lets see, I didn't knock up over a million teenage girls this year... at 500 bucks a piece... wheres my money?

Bad Idea. Very Bad Idea. It's like swapping one welfare state for another.


posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 02:12 PM
I'm not a teenager, or a girl; but if anybody wants to pay me to NOT have sex, then sign me up.

I can see the headlines now: "Teenage girls leave prostitution ring, citing the fact that their pimps couldn't match the governments counter-offer."

posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 03:50 PM
Better idea..

STOP paying them to get pregnant!!.

In U.K it has become a career choice.
Get pregnant-get a house-get benefits,allowances-don't have to work ever again.

How about instead,if you're single/uninvolved then it falls on yourself to provide for your new 'family'..

Sound harsh?
Then maybe they will start PLANNING for families again.

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in