Housing for pregnant 17 year old

JimmyTheWig

~Chameleon~ wrote: »

I used to think this way too, and probably for the majority of people this could certainly be true. However, life has a horrible way of throwing a curve ball and there's no guarantee that one will be physically or mentally able to go and do all the things they perhaps would have done in their 20's had they not been tied to a family.

Life is often too short!

But you could say the same about starting a family.
What if after education, job, career, they are unable to start a family?

As I said before, I'm not particularly advocating starting a family young, just saying that it's not a "one size fits all" question. The important things are will the child be loved and provided for.

bubblesmoney

LillyJ wrote: »

I wish people would understand these statistics before blindly quoting them! It is per woman year rather than per woman.

Therefore if you know 100 women EVERY YEAR 2 will become pregnant. People aren't only sexually active for only one year of their lives (one would hope), and therefore every year, that will increase the number of women you know who have at some point become accidentally pregnant.

Statistically, over 20 years of sexual activity, 40 out of those 100 women would have become pregnant accidentally.

That is pretty signigificant if you ask me.

i think u need to understand statistics and how percentages work.

for a 2% risk of pregnancy annually, u say that over a 20y period according to ur analysis of the statistics u say that 40 of those original sample group out of 100 people can get pregnant.

now using ur own theory of how statistics work, if we consider the 98 people out of the original sample of 100 people who wont get pregnant. using ur theory 98x20=???

ur numbers just dont match up.

percentages dont get added over the years. 2% risk just remains 2% over 1 year or 20y. risk percentages remain the same. ur analysis is just wrongly representing risks of getting pregnant when they are infact low for people who use the prescribed medicines in the correctly prescribed way.

if u try to multiply the negatives over the years then u need to multiply the positives as well. but in either case multiplying the numbers dont just add up.

in any sample if there is a 2% chance of something happening per year and a 98% chance of the opposite happening over the same year, according to ur theory over 20y the 2% chance of something happening is miraculously more likely of happening over the 20y period than the 98% chance of the opposite happening. good thing ur analysis of statistics is wrong otherwise we would have had 50 billion people instead of 5bilion in this world
just my thoughts on this

NUFCnutter

I dont see why its anyone's business why or how this girl got pregnant or whether she and her future husband should keep the baby. The question here is about how can they get the necessary housing that they need. Personally speaking, I would suggest that the young girl gets in touch with her future health visitor asap and explain the situation to her. They will have dealt with this before and should be able to guide her down the right path.

bubblesmoney

NUF!!!!ter wrote: »

I dont see why its anyone's business why or how this girl got pregnant or whether she and her future husband should keep the baby. The question here is about how can they get the necessary housing that they need. Personally speaking, I would suggest that the young girl gets in touch with her future health visitor asap and explain the situation to her. They will have dealt with this before and should be able to guide her down the right path.

it becomes other peoples business when the money to fund their housing comes from other peoples pockets (taxes) or have these people found some trees that grow money while they sit on their !!!! and produce babies while the rest of us imbeciles work and pay taxes and fund other peoples houses and the shirts on their backs and the loo that they use to flush our taxes down the drain when we dont have houses of our own and have to save money to get a house (rent/buy) that these people get for free as a reward for their !!!!lessness

beyond_skint

NUF!!!!ter wrote: »

I dont see why its anyone's business why or how this girl got pregnant or whether she and her future husband should keep the baby. The question here is about how can they get the necessary housing that they need. Personally speaking, I would suggest that the young girl gets in touch with her future health visitor asap and explain the situation to her. They will have dealt with this before and should be able to guide her down the right path.

I agree. people who have never fell on hard times haven't a clue what is involved.
The thing is council houses are on offer, why shouldn't they go to people who are entitled to them, instead of every tom !!!!!! and harry from other countries. :mad:
Or in cornwalls case everyone from up country coming down here making themselves homeless, fiddling the system and getting a brand new house :mad::mad::mad:
I know a woman who did just that and she has a 4 bed house on her own, lives on disability for a bad back and goes surfing at the weekend and clubbing at night :mad::mad::mad:

We can't get anything or any help. We need a 3 bed house and haven't got a cat in hells chance as long as up country riff raff comes down here taking all the houses :mad::mad:

Rant over

beingjdc

bubblesmoney wrote: »

i think u need to understand statistics and how percentages work.

for a 2% risk of pregnancy annually, u say that over a 20y period according to ur analysis of the statistics u say that 40 of those original sample group out of 100 people can get pregnant.

now using ur own theory of how statistics work, if we consider the 98 people out of the original sample of 100 people who wont get pregnant. using ur theory 98x20=???

ur numbers just dont match up.

percentages dont get added over the years. 2% risk just remains 2% over 1 year or 20y. risk percentages remain the same. ur analysis is just wrongly representing risks of getting pregnant when they are infact low for people who use the prescribed medicines in the correctly prescribed way.

if u try to multiply the negatives over the years then u need to multiply the positives as well. but in either case multiplying the numbers dont just add up.

in any sample if there is a 2% chance of something happening per year and a 98% chance of the opposite happening over the same year, according to ur theory over 20y the 2% chance of something happening is miraculously more likely of happening over the 20y period than the 98% chance of the opposite happening. good thing ur analysis of statistics is wrong otherwise we would have had 50 billion people instead of 5bilion in this world
just my thoughts on this

This is just wrong. Of course percentages add up - not in exactly the way described, but they do add up. You have to use the 98, not the 2. Obviously if something is unlikely to happen in a year, it is more likely if you give it two years, or three, or twenty.

Like, my chances of winning a prize on the premium bonds next month with my holding are 1 in 3. Next month, they'll still be one in 3. And the month after. But the chances of winning in the next year aren't 1 in 3, they're a virtual certainty.

That doesn't mean the 2 in 3 adds up that way, then I'd have a 24 in 3 chance of winning nothing all year!

The pure statistical chances of a 2% a year chance NOT happening over 20 years are 0.98^20, which is .668

So if 100 women use something that's 98% (per year) reliable for 20 years, you can expect 23 of them to get pregnant sometime in those 20 years (assuming it doesn't happen to any of them twice).

Think about it. 98% means that in Year 1, 2 of 100 women get pregnant. To stay at 98% over 20 years, that would mean it would have to be 100% effective for the next 19 years. Why might that be?

So we can plug in the effectiveness rates for various things and see how many women we'd expect to get pregnant in 20 years.

Pill (used perfectly) .993 I think, so 6 women in 100
Pill as most people actually use it, or condoms (used perfectly) .97 - so 46 women in 100
Condoms as most people actually use them, .93 - so 76 women in 100.

In practice, it will happen to the same group of careless people more often, therefore to fewer overall, but there's the maths for you.

LillyJ

bubblesmoney wrote: »

i think u need to understand statistics and how percentages work.

for a 2% risk of pregnancy annually, u say that over a 20y period according to ur analysis of the statistics u say that 40 of those original sample group out of 100 people can get pregnant.

now using ur own theory of how statistics work, if we consider the 98 people out of the original sample of 100 people who wont get pregnant. using ur theory 98x20=???

ur numbers just dont match up.

percentages dont get added over the years. 2% risk just remains 2% over 1 year or 20y. risk percentages remain the same. ur analysis is just wrongly representing risks of getting pregnant when they are infact low for people who use the prescribed medicines in the correctly prescribed way.

if u try to multiply the negatives over the years then u need to multiply the positives as well. but in either case multiplying the numbers dont just add up.

in any sample if there is a 2% chance of something happening per year and a 98% chance of the opposite happening over the same year, according to ur theory over 20y the 2% chance of something happening is miraculously more likely of happening over the 20y period than the 98% chance of the opposite happening. good thing ur analysis of statistics is wrong otherwise we would have had 50 billion people instead of 5bilion in this world
just my thoughts on this

To be fair I am not great at stats, I get the clever stats people at work to do my analysis on my research, then they give it to me all worked out.

I was wrong, but it is also wrong that only 2% of people over a life time would become pregnant using contraception with a 98% effectiveness.

bubblesmoney

beyond_skint wrote: »

I know a woman who did just that and she has a 4 bed house on her own, lives on disability for a bad back and goes surfing at the weekend and clubbing at night :mad::mad::mad:

We can't get anything or any help. We need a 3 bed house and haven't got a cat in hells chance as long as up country riff raff comes down here taking all the houses :mad::mad:

Rant over

may be if u bothered to report this person for benefit fraud then they would be caught and have a criminal record and have to repay the benefits and kicked out of council housing and best part may be u would have a higher chance of getting the house you 'NEED'.

on second thought my fat !!!! needs a big fat throne to sit on, so may be i need to apply for thecouncil to provide me with the buckingham palace to rest my fat !!!! on for the rest of my life as i also 'NEED' it. easy solution everyone gets what they NEED rather than what they earn. no wonder the USSR went bust. but there seem to be no want for the number of fans for the thoery they propogated that everyone gets what they need than what they deserve instead

LillyJ

beingjdc wrote: »

This is just wrong. Of course percentages add up - not in exactly the way described, but they do add up. You have to use the 98, not the 2. Obviously if something is unlikely to happen in a year, it is more likely if you give it two years, or three, or twenty.

Like, my chances of winning a prize on the premium bonds next month with my holding are 1 in 3. Next month, they'll still be one in 3. And the month after. But the chances of winning in the next year aren't 1 in 3, they're a virtual certainty.

That doesn't mean the 2 in 3 adds up that way, then I'd have a 24 in 3 chance of winning nothing all year!

The pure statistical chances of a 2% a year chance NOT happening over 20 years are 0.98^20, which is .668

So if 100 women use something that's 98% (per year) reliable for 20 years, you can expect 23 of them to get pregnant sometime in those 20 years (assuming it doesn't happen to any of them twice).

Think about it. 98% means that in Year 1, 2 of 100 women get pregnant. To stay at 98% over 20 years, that would mean it would have to be 100% effective for the next 19 years. Why might that be?

So we can plug in the effectiveness rates for various things and see how many women we'd expect to get pregnant in 20 years.

Pill (used perfectly) .993 I think, so 6 women in 100
Pill as most people actually use it, or condoms (used perfectly) .97 - so 46 women in 100
Condoms as most people actually use them, .93 - so 76 women in 100.

In practice, it will happen to the same group of careless people more often, therefore to fewer overall, but there's the maths for you.

Thanks, that was what I was trying (without much luck) to explain.

NUFCnutter

bubblesmoney wrote: »

it becomes other peoples business when the money to fund their housing comes from other peoples pockets (taxes) or have these people found some trees that grow money while they sit on their !!!! and produce babies while the rest of us imbeciles work and pay taxes and fund other peoples houses and the shirts on their backs and the loo that they use to flush our taxes down the drain when we dont have houses of our own and have to save money to get a house (rent/buy) that these people get for free as a reward for their !!!!lessness

How dare you make such judgements on someone who you don't even know! I bet your judgement of these people would change if he was to find a job next week and then work for the next 44 years contributing to the system continuously. It is far too easy to judge without knowing the full picture, and you should be thankful that you are not in the position to have to claim benefits. Yes, there are those who milk the system, but that does not mean every person on benefits does.

And yes, I am on benefit. I am a single parent to three children, who is severely disabled and who left her husband after 10 years of horrific violence. I work part time, am studying for a degree and hope I can get back into the work force one day, and part of the reason is so that I can stick two fingers up at snobs such as yourself who make such damning judgements of others. Oh and by the way, I did work full time from leaving school to leaving my husband, so I have contributed to the system.

Rant over!