Housing for pregnant 17 year old

bubblesmoney

NUF!!!!ter wrote: »

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!

the difference between u and the others is that u did contribute to the system. and ur case seems to be more deserving that the other example.

the reason i dare to make judgements on people who i dont even know is because just like all tax payers even i am entitled to question the use of govt funds on some scroungers who milk the system. i am not and was not questioning the use of govt funds on those who really need benefits to better themsleves. benefits must be intended for people to help themselves and do better and must be time limited, otherwise we just get scroungers who think they will always be better off living on benefits for ever. my comments were not meant to be a slur on those using benefits and are actively trying to improve their situation and trying to contribute like urself. far from that i admire people who make it out of dificult situations like yourself and make something better out of their lives

bubblesmoney

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.

now that i am more prepared to accept. one good reason why i didnt go down the maths dependent careers was that i couldnt be bothered racking my brains too much on statistics. but do feel the way lillyj put it and u put it are vastly different.

whats ur analysis on the 0.05% risk of pregnancy rate of some implants that work over many years? what do u think is their risk of pregnancy over the same 20y period

NUFCnutter

bubblesmoney wrote: »

the difference between u and the others is that u did contribute to the system. and ur case seems to be more deserving that the other example.

the reason i dare to make judgements on people who i dont even know is because just like all tax payers even i am entitled to question the use of govt funds on some scroungers who milk the system. i am not and was not questioning the use of govt funds on those who really need benefits to better themsleves. benefits must be intended for people to help themselves and do better and must be time limited, otherwise we just get scroungers who think they will always be better off living on benefits for ever. my comments were not meant to be a slur on those using benefits and are actively trying to improve their situation and trying to contribute like urself. far from that i admire people who make it out of dificult situations like yourself and make something better out of their lives

The problem is though, that you have assumed that these two individuals fall into the category of career benefit claimers, when you don't know that this is the case. I have as much contempt and disgust as the next person when I see fit, abled bodied people who make no attempt to find a job, but not all unemployed young people fall into that catagory and it is far to easy to tar them all with the same brush. I am sure that the two young people involved would agree that it would have been preferable if they had been older, with careers already established before this baby was conceived, but it is unfair to write them off before they have had a chance.

Badger_Lady

bubblesmoney wrote: »

whats ur analysis on the 0.05% risk of pregnancy rate of some implants that work over many years? what do u think is their risk of pregnancy over the same 20y period

Is that what the Implanon is? They wouldn't quote me a figure at the Family Planning Clinic, just told me it was "basically 100% - the same as being sterilised".

I personally worry about it a bit - when female relatives come to visit, I sync up with them... so if my Mum's on her period, I'll get a random period (even though I haven't had my own for 2 years). So doesn't that suggest that if she comes to stay and is ovulating, that I might ovulate too??? (Total layman's interpretation in case you can't guess).

I recommend Implanon wherever I go, if people ask, but would be intrigued to know just how reliable it is. Cos I don't EVER wanna be pregnant.

NUFCnutter

Well I got pregnant while using contraception twice. Child 2 was conceived through a condom and pill, and Child 3 when I had a coil. No contraception is fool proof, though I have found celibicy to be quite reliable. :rotfl:

bubblesmoney

NUF!!!!ter wrote: »

The problem is though, that you have assumed that these two individuals fall into the category of career benefit claimers, when you don't know that this is the case. I have as much contempt and disgust as the next person when I see fit, abled bodied people who make no attempt to find a job, but not all unemployed young people fall into that catagory and it is far to easy to tar them all with the same brush. I am sure that the two young people involved would agree that it would have been preferable if they had been older, with careers already established before this baby was conceived, but it is unfair to write them off before they have had a chance.

people are responsible for what they do. they should face the consequences of their actions. without facing consequences of their actions they have no incentive to not make the same mistakes again. as long as society encourages people to reap the profits (benefits) but the losses get socialised we will keep seeing more and more scroungers until the whole system fails and the only people left in the lurch will be the people who the benefits were 'really' intended for and also the tax payers. the only people who make merry at other peoples cost is the scroungers. society needs to find ways to penalise the scroungers who misuse the system

sooz

Badger_Lady wrote: »

.. when female relatives come to visit, I sync up with them... so if my Mum's on her period, I'll get a random period (even though I haven't had my own for 2 years).

Good grief...that would freak me out! I think you should tell anyone coming to stay with you to not visit when they are having a period - you don't want to catch it

Spendless

OP- are you absolutely sure that he will have to pay full rent on a min wage job. Is it not possible he'd be entitled to a bit of housing benefit. I would check into this at somewhere like CAB

bubblesmoney

NUF!!!!ter wrote: »

Well I got pregnant while using contraception twice. Child 2 was conceived through a condom and pill, and Child 3 when I had a coil. No contraception is fool proof, though I have found celibicy to be quite reliable. :rotfl:

maybe u were not taking the OCs properly. maybe u were taking other medicines that affected their efficacy. twice !!! now thats fishy. did u discuss that with ur gynaecologist. see http://www.nhsdirect.nhs.uk/articles/article.aspx?articleId=826

apart from having no sex, another sure fire way not to get pregnant is a surgical procedure either for the male or female. but that would be drastic for someone like badgerlady who i assume doesnt have children yet. i feel one shouldnt use any permanent methods especially early on on life and when not having children of their own already. knowing badgerlady from other threads i feel any child would be lucky to have a parent who is kind and has a level head on their shoulders. something which the badgerlady obviously has in abundance i feel. maybe if things work out with BF1 in the longterm badgerlady u might change ur mind on having children!!

u can see the claimed failure rates for various methods in a link which i posted on this thread earlier. but dont bank on such info on the internet, best to discuss these issues with ur gynaecologist. i was just mentioning my views here on the topic of failure rates as people seem to be unfairly drumming up the failure rates to cover up improper use of the drug or falsely blaming failure of the drug when the reasons why people got pregnant might have been voluntary or carelessness. usually it is ether of these but gets blamed of 'other' reasons on failure of the drug which increases the public perception of their failure rates when in fact these drugs are pretty effective at what they do. no drug is perfect. all have their adverse effects. so best to discuss these issues with ur gp/gynaecologist who have the benefit of knowing ur medical history and advice accordingly rather than go by advice on forums. also regarding bleeding when on OCs or injectable, it is not uncommon but that doesnt mean that one ovulated. having bleeding and ovulation dont go together necessarily. u can discuss these concerns with ur GP as well http://www.nhsdirect.nhs.uk/articles/article.aspx?articleId=839

see this link http://www.nhsdirect.nhs.uk/articles/article.aspx?articleId=825

and this http://www.nhsdirect.nhs.uk/questions/category/index.aspx?categoryId=117#114

ps: remember all types might not be available free on the nhs as some newer methods might be costlier but more effective. so sometimes nhs might not be advicing on some drugs available for various illnesses / preventive methods even though they are known to be better for reasons of costs.

some people might find the FREE advice available on the phone useful on some of these issues or find a nearby clinic for advice. see http://www.fpa.org.uk/information/detail.cfm?contentid=179

NUFCnutter

I don't happen to see them as failures though, I have two beautiful, happy, healthy children from these "failures".