Girlfriend's pregnant...

qwert_yuiop

marksoton wrote: »

They also don't tend to refer to their child as "it"

Or post on forums asking for advice on what they can claim rather than what THEY can do.

Work it out....It really isn't hard.

Surely a child, baby or foetus is referred to as it until the sex is known? Bit early to say he or she?

JencParker

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

It's not fair for OPs parents to suffer the consequences of this girls decisions (or lack of.....). Her actions would then be knocking back onto THEIR lives too.

Whilst they may well want grandchildren - they are probably thinking of in rather better circumstances than this and certainly not living under their roof. Its rather irrelevant as to whether they would or wouldn't do so anyway - as I seem to recall OP saying they don't have the room for her and her child anyway.

But it's ok for the tax payer to?


Life isn't always fair and there are indeed consequences. As parents you should support your children through their difficulties. If they can't, why did they have children - and not a great example to be setting.

qwert_yuiop

bobbymotors wrote: »

She does indeed have a choice...rather a pity though that the rest of us don't have any choice on whether to pay for it or not.

But apart from that, she is 17...the child will need care throughout the years when all her friends will be out clubbing and enjoying themselves...which she is bound to resent.

It will not end well....

Hey come on. You don't know any of that. They may turn out to be better parents than plenty of others. Lots of people get married under a cloud and turn out fine. Back in the 90s two cabinet ministers were revealed as having been teenage parents.
I suppose it depends on whether you believe his and hers seats in cabinet represents career success. I'd say it does.

SnooksNJ

JencParker wrote: »

But it's ok for the tax payer to?


Life isn't always fair and there are indeed consequences. As parents you should support your children through their difficulties. If they can't, why did they have children - and not a great example to be setting.

The consequences are the girlfriend went from sofa surfing to top of the housing list in one hot minute.

qwert_yuiop

Guest101 wrote: »

Fancy offering an explanation of your blanket statement?


P.S the stats are rather simple.


The average couple would have a condom failure twice a year, the timing of that failure could therefore leads to pregnancy (which is why I said knock off 90% of my stats if you wish to dispute it). The pill is 99% effective, as there is a small chance that it would fail - 1%


if the condom failed and the pill failed (1 in 5000 on any given occasion) there is a chance that the egg would become fertilised (cycle depending).


The chances of it happening to a particular couple are obviously very slim, the chances of it happening across a whole nation, increased significantly.

Correct. Look at the stats for the lottery. A statistician would say a 1 in 14 million chance of anything can be ignored as so unlikely that it's not going to happen. Still, someone wins most weeks.

missbiggles1

Guest101 wrote: »

Fancy offering an explanation of your blanket statement?


P.S the stats are rather simple.


The average couple would have a condom failure twice a year, the timing of that failure could therefore leads to pregnancy (which is why I said knock off 90% of my stats if you wish to dispute it). The pill is 99% effective, as there is a small chance that it would fail - 1%


if the condom failed and the pill failed (1 in 5000 on any given occasion) there is a chance that the egg would become fertilised (cycle depending).


The chances of it happening to a particular couple are obviously very slim, the chances of it happening across a whole nation, increased significantly.

Statistics for contraceptive failure are calculated in the following way,

"For example, when used correctly the male condom is 98% effective, but that's not to say there is a 2% chance of becoming pregnant every time you use one. A 2% failure rate actually means that for every 100 woman using the contraceptive method for an entire year, two will experience an unintended pregnancy."

That's completely different from saying, as another poster did, that there's a 2 in 100 chance of getting pregnant if using a condom.

qwert_yuiop

missbiggles1 wrote: »

Statistics for contraceptive failure are calculated in the following way,

"For example, when used correctly the male condom is 98% effective, but that's not to say there is a 2% chance of becoming pregnant every time you use one. A 2% failure rate actually means that for every 100 woman using the contraceptive method for an entire year, two will experience an unintended pregnancy."

That's completely different from saying, as another poster did, that there's a 2 in 100 chance of getting pregnant if using a condom.

It's only slightly different. He may well have been referring to the above.

marksoton

qwert_yuiop wrote: »

Surely a child, baby or foetus is referred to as it until the sex is known? Bit early to say he or she?

I use the word "it" to describe inanimate objects not a human life. And certainly not that of my own unborn child no matter how far developed.

G_M

marksoton wrote: »

I use the word "it" to describe inanimate objects not a human life. And certainly not that of my own unborn child no matter how far developed.

Whatever moral standpoint you take, in the eyes of the law an unborn child is not a person.

One cannot be convicted of murder of an unborn child for that reason.

So perhaps 'it' is the most appropriate word until birth, when the child becomes (legally) human..........

Discuss.

lulalola

What a shame this thread, on a forum that can be so helpful, has been hijacked by small-minded people smugly hammering away at their keyboards, when all the OP asked for was housing advice. I hope all of you criticising the OP have led perfect lives with no setbacks or difficult decisions.

OP I don't know the answer to your question, but I wish you well.

And before anyone has a go at me, I'm a "hardworking taxpayer" too who has never claimed any benefits.