No one disputes that having sex is a natural urge. It better be if we're to continue our human race. I would say that Dr. Shaw is either pointing out the obvious or perhaps making another statement that we haven't seen, not having the entire context of his remarks. I would say, though, that it's also natural to take what you want when you want it (ever watch toddlers play???), yet we have rules and laws about that natural behavior as well. Just because something is "natural" doesn't make it the best thing for that person or those around him/her. Why is sex outside of marriage any different?

Dr Shaw is right, women (girls) are more fertile at the younger end of their adulthood than the older so it would make sense to have children somtime in this period if they want to maximise the health of both them and their child. However I do not believe this includes teenagers - in today's society being a teenage mum is not only very difficult but looked down upon which puts mum and child at an immediate social disadvantage. I don't believe teeangers have sex because they want to have children, they just want something that they suddenly feel the urge for and that society has made taboo, thus, more desirable. Educating teenagers maturely and openly about sex has to be good way of breaking down these taboos. Education in general might even give them ideas of what they want to do with their lives besides having children. We may have been programmed a couple of million years ago but we have spent the last few hundred of those developing a scociety in which teenage pregnancy is not the done thing - surely we have grown accustomed to that by now.

I don't understand the source of the conflict. Because of the biological predisposition, all the better to empasize abstinence along with education on birth control methods. But let's not single out the young ladies: all you lads running around over there dangling in the breeze under those kilts doesn't help the situation very much either, I reckon. Over here we're only slightly more modest: we owe our youthful randiness to loose fitting underwear under baggy low-slung pants. Here, Darwin might postulate that the more outrageously ill-fitting the clothing, the better the opportunities for bumping uglies, particularly in urban settings.

Hurrah for Dr Shaw! Our common humanity demands we recognise the difference between society and biology. To preserve and have the benefits of society, of course we need to have rules which make us accept our responsibilities and which limit our freedoms. But what kind of arid, cruel society would we be living in if we could not also take to our hearts those who wind up creating children because they could not, perhaps in a moment of weakness, control their powerful biological urges? My only problem with Dr Shaw is the whisper of a suggestion that the female of the species is solely responsible.....

Society needs to change so that women don't have to choose between education/career and childbearing. Future generations would be healthier and society's medical expenses lower. We can't change nature, but we can change society.

Dr. Shaw is neither condoning teenage sexual activity nor encouraging teenage pregnancy. He has simply stated the biological facts, which are, in part, an explanation for the worrying trend that we're seeing. If the trend is to be addressed, it is better to do so in full knowledge of the factors contributing to the trend.

A related and similarly "controversial" statement would be that males are biologically driven to spread their genes among as many partners as they can, while females are biologically driven to restrict their sexual activity to that with partners possessing "desirable" genes. This is a statement of fact, but would be taken by some to mean that I support male promiscuity and infidelity. To which I would say "Poppycock!"

In reply to Mike Ellis's point, Graham Wilson of Liverpool retorts,
How dare we say our "moral code" is superior to that of God's natural order that allows young girls, or young females of any other species, to reproduce? In responce to your above interpratation of Gods Law. Graham I think it might be of interest if you were to read Genesis chapter 1 verses 27-28 and Genesis 2:23-24 as to the first wedding performed by God. Hence Gods law does not include 15-16 year olds or indeed unmarriad mothers. Suffice we only need to look at Revelation chapter 22 and verses 18 onwards to see the consequences of watering down Gods law. As for the nuclear family it is the bedrock of our society, and like it or not to compromise it will be at our detriment and that of our children.

I think the good doctor makes an excellent point. I personally do not see his remarks as endorsing teenage pregnancy, but rather explaining it as a natural occurance. By choosing to look at it in it's biological context rather than simply moralizing about it, he allows the option of making different choices, choices that may include addressing the biological, evolutionary aspects of the behaviour rather than just denying there is one and pretending that social pressure alone can work to resolve it. There have been unwanted pregnancies for thousands of years. In the not so recent past when abortion was not an option the babies were killed or abandoned. Now we have the ability to prevent the unwanted births entirely and thus prevent the suffering and hardship to both parent and child of having an unwanted child.
I feel that is the solution. Rather than trying to prevent humans from acting like humans, teach them to make choices about how to be responsible humans. Rather than attempt to prevent sex, make it less of a moral issue so that the options of reproductive control and safe sex can be more thoroughly addressed and utilized.
Moralizing has not yet worked. It hasn't prevented adolescents from having sex, nor has it prevented the rest of society from judging them for it. Perhaps it is time to try something different.

What complete and utter drivel!!!
It may be true that a girl's fertility is high at a young age, but does that mean she has no control over her urges? That she just can't help it?? How ridiculous can a person be? I managed to get through my fertile teenage years without having sex behind the bike shed - boy I must be some extraordinary person. No, I just decided having sex and getting pregnant when I was 16 wasn't a smart thing to do. Get a grip people!

This is so typical that someone would look the past to justify what is happening in the world today and by doing so lets these girls and boys down even more. The real issue is the abortion rate, which in Scotland and all over the UK is far too high and a tragedy for all concerned. Maybe if we lived in a society that wasn’t so quick to “tut tut” at these young girls mistakes— one that was open and where these young girls felt they had a place to turn and talk before they had sex and ended up pregnant the rates would be much lower. We live longer than 25 years now and we have more to do with our lives than have children when we are children. We cannot blame hormones or the way we lived millions of years ago, the truth is we don’t live as cavemen now! We can blame a society that is too embarrassed to address the issue and support girls, boys and their raging hormones.
I agree with Teresa Smith, girls of that age are not mature enough to have babies, but they are not mature enough to have abortions either, and while we can’t stop them having sex, let’s at least make sure they are safe and open the subject to discussion. Prevention is better than cure.

I think the doctor's remarks are correct. We should change the entire way we look at sex and having children. Women should be encouraged to have children when they are young, and to build up careers in later years. I am not saying that young girls should have lots of sexual partners. It is a well known fact that young folk are better at choosing partners when young.

Yes, it would be lovely to read Dr. Shaw's entire paper on the subject of fertility and teenage pregnancy and older women who seek help from fertility clinics because they paid attention to their educational instruction, and plowed straight into the workforce before they decided they wanted to have children, only to find they'd waited too long.

So, why is it people are only informed of the controversial bits meant to inflame passions on either side of a given issue, without also being given the attached modifiers that would perhaps calm, if not douse, those stirred passions?

Being manipulated by the news media is so wearying.

Bottom line, we are dealing with TEENAGERS here! Do YOU remember when "the future" was FRIDAY.

IMHO, the BEST solution is a two pronged approach, 1) mandatory birth control, and 2) mandatory education. put them on "the pill" until they are 18 and be done with it. and the ones who decide to live a promiscuous lifestyle will only have to deal with the spectre of STDs. btw, I am IN NO WAY advocating they prance around like trollops.

I figure that by the time they are 18 maybe they'll be clear headed enough to be within sight of the end of their education. and have enough grey matter to make a clear headed decision about when, where, or even IF they want to start a family.

I FULLY understand that it takes TWO to tango, and this is ONLY addressing the girls, but the REALITY is that teenage guys arent the most responsible foreward thinking apples in the bin. they tend to have ONE thing on their minds, and sometimes it leads to the back side of bicycle sheds. And sadly you rarely HEAR about the guys who take flight from their responsibilties.

I know, I'll put the bag back over my head & go back to my cave now.

As someone who had her own three children between the ages of 18 and 22, and unknowingly took a major socio-economic plunge in the process, I'd have to agree with Madge. I might not have had the most emotional maturity motherhood requires, but I had the stamina to keep up with three little ones and we had fun together when they were young. I'd be horrified to turn up pregnant now that I'm 43! Let's try not to confuse "maturity" with "material comforts" or "wealth," either. It might make things a little easier to raise babies when the surroundings are comfortable, but it does nothing to change the capacity in a girl's/woman's heart to love her children. When are young girls and women going to be taught once again that they are the most important figures in a healthy society? This will sound old-fashioned, I know, but I'm serious. Motherhood is THE single most important role a woman will EVER hold in her life, and it's so often discounted and degraded these days it is painful to witness. Motherhood wasn't a supported role for women when I was having my babies, either, but I think the importance of motherhood is even less supported these days. If you want to be more liberal, fine, then have dad stay home and look after the kids, but the point is someone needs to be AT HOME looking after the kids and the house. Two parent households with neither parent at home because they think they both have to work to pay the bills is having a detrimental effect on society! Kids are placed in daycare, if they're lucky, and they roam the streets after school, if they are not.

The rift between the teenage girls pushing a pram with a toddler in tow and the thirty-something career women was highlighted for me when I was in Scotland three years ago. Education is part of it, but why is it some girls hear the message to "wait!" about having babies and others don't?

I believe that both we as a society and so-called Professionals like Dr Shaw should be asking the question as to why there is an increase in teenage pregnancy and not make mere supposition based on his unfounded theory that man has been on the earth for two million years as if that alone gives licence for the moral breakdown in society. Suffice to say Home office figfures confirm that each and every day since since Labour came into office some one hundred children have lost contact with their paternal side of the family due to lack of parity in the family law system add to this the over one million grandparents who have no legal presumption to ever see their beloved grandchildren again should an acrimonious parent so decide. Results being that these children have lost input from role models they most desperately need in thier formative years and indeed are entitled to under the Human Rights Act article 6&8. For Dr Shaw to now put the blame on Natures Law inner and responsibility back onto parents, family is to abdicate the present government’s absolute failure re Human Rights in family law for the past 9 years. Suffice to say it’s an insult to the founding fathers of the labour movement, for no longer can it be said “Of the people for the people”. The NSCFC applauds any party who puts the best interest of family life first; sadly this does not include the labour party or indeed the excuses made by Dr Shaw.

Mike Ellis

Chairman: registered charity “National Society for Children and Family Contact”.

96b Pynes Lane

Bideford

Devon

EX39 3EE

Tel: 01237 479336

www.nscfc.com

I had a chuckle when Mr Tim Street went down the "dangers of sex" route. It's not going to be easy to convey the message of dangerous sex to anyone without encouraging even more of our youth to "take the risk".

Clearly, adequate sex education, given earlier, and a mature debate within schools and homes on career choice/life expectations will put this issue into a wider context.

Whether Doctor Shaw is right or not (I suspect he is) there are enough suitable alternatives to prevent pregnancy, STD's and termination in any case.

Dr Shaw makes the typical irresponsible comments of a liberal whose belief in the individual will and following biological instincts is paramount. It is people like him, with their disregard for higher truths and social norms, who have brought society to its current state of breakdown.

Babies born to teenagers have a lower rate of miscarriage, obvious deformity & probably harmful mutations than those born to women in their 30s & over. With a society where both parents are working & housing is getting more expensive in real terms we are buliding a society in which many women are putting off childbearing until it becomes to late. This is tragic both for the women & for society.

In reply to Mike Ellis's point, I would say,

How dare we say our "moral code" is superior to that of God's natural order that allows young girls, or young females of any other species, to reproduce?

Yes, we rise above our programmed responses . As a soft determinist ,I insist on causes of our behavior but also repsonsibility.Girls need not impoverish themselves with pregnancy.I am programmed to be paranoid and utterly shy,but I rise above my situation with therapy and medecine. The doctor is using the is -ought fallacy . Fr. Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism. Bless all1

Whether we like it or not Dr Shaw speaks an absolute truth. 'Society' as a whole (a term which I abhor) should remember it was not that many millenia ago that life expectancy was around twenty five years. Those who lambast the man for having the nerve to point out some uncomfortable truths have lost their way in the world; religion, morality, social norms and so-called 'higher truths' are nothing next to the raw power of nature. We have enforced our artificial laws and rules on nature and we are now finding out that nature fights back - global warming, antibiotic-resistant deseases, species destruction, war - this is deemed less important than girls (and boys!) doing what comes naturally?

In the end who are we to say what is 'right' and what is 'wrong'? Our track record as a species is less than impressive; perhaps we should indeed pay more attention to natures imperatives and less on useless morals. In the end I would rather my daughter became pregnant at 13 years of age (a natural act) because she wanted to have sex than murder somebody at 13 years of age (an unnatural act) because she wanted to take somebody's life.

Nature will still be here long after the human race has wiped itself out; it is about time we recognised this fact and re-evaluated our so-called 'morals'.

Andy Loates
119 Eldon Road
Eastwood
Rotherham
S65 1RB
01709 837824

It would have been nice to see more of his speech as perhaps what Dr Shaw says would make more sense if put more into context. As it is I can't really see the essential point he is trying to make.

I'm sure he isn't trying to endorse teenage pregnancy -- not only is it psychologically damaging for everyone involved, but it is also simply unsustainable.

Taking his advice and using roughly the same perspective -- that of evolution and adaptation to improve the fitness to survive within a given environment -- we see that teenage pregnancy is not the best approach to surviving today. Instead it is simply a vestige of our evolutionary past. Thus I have little doubt that he was simply saying that we should not condemn teenagers on moral grounds.

It is a shame that people are making a fuss of what was presumably a preface to his main point on how to confront and solve this modern problem. Do his critics also condemn his proposed solutions? Maybe we should concentrate on support of a solution that criticism of some minsconstrued minor statement.

Mike Ellis refers us to "Genesis 1 verses 27-28 and Genesis 2:23-24 as to the first wedding performed by God. Hence Gods law does not include 15-16 year olds or indeed unmarriad (sic) mothers."
I don't actually see how he makes either of these deductions from the texts he quotes. The Gen 1 text is Genesis 1:27-28 (ANIV)
So God created man
in his own image,
in the image of God
he created him;
male and female
he created them.

[28] God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
Which says nothing about marriage.
The Genesis 2 story is a different creation story where Eve is made out of the rib of Adam, as opposed to Creation being of both men and women. Gen 2: 20 - 22
Which story is the "True" one?
As far as your girls getting married or not and having babies, what about the Virgin Mary. How old was she do you think when Jesus was born? And I seem to remember that there was a scandal about her as she wasn't married.
Don't try and use silly Biblical reasoning. One of the big problems which we have is that today Girls despite being mature earlier are pushed to contain themselves for longer. No wonder that there are problems.
The simplistic ideas which Mike Ellis gives us only does the Gospel a disservice and fails to meet with the very real problem. That is a society which does not treat sex with the reverence which it requires, and people who are not prepared to understand where people really are.
I was really impressed with the statement that "Gods law does not include 15-16 year olds or indeed unmarriad (sic) mothers." that is real gobblydegook
Edward

I find it fascinating watching the "powers that be" attempt to put the lie to a rather famous lesson in the futility of attempting to invoke "man's law" in the face of greater power.
Here, in the US, there are even states that have made it a prison offence for persons less than eighteen years of age to have children. Both parents are jailed. the sole reason for this draconian law is that it has become too expensive for the states to provide the assistance required of them. Money they have had the luxury of playing about with. but that is another issue.
If it were only necessary to write a law, or rule, then this would be a curious world indeed, there being no need for police, legislators, judges, nor even lawyers. Unfortunately, the world does not march to the drums of those who would have it so. Perhaps it would be a very good idea to examine more thought out, practical, methods ?
For those of you who look to religion, I seem to recall the edict, "Go forth and multiply". I also recall that marrige before fourteen years was considered "normal", and a girl over the age of sixteen a virtual spinster. Society has changed, not nature, and I do not believe that the "accepted" rules of society will ever overcome the forces of nature.
Louis.

Well Dr shaw,had the desired effect! "get news headlines" on the subject!
Firstly,what he said,has an element of truth,whether some of may not like to face the truth, rather live in a "material world" then"when our "plasma tv" is threatened,"jump up in arms"
The fact is we are not,quite robots yet,and sex is the most important part off our lifes,or dont some understand, there will be no future without it.
Next,what age was Dr Shaw referring to 13?19? now thats a big gap,we already got laws,in the middle of this age group! to try to deter teenies from underage sex.
Education,is really the only way forward,but will never stop"that NATURAL instinct" that some will fall to,or would the moralists, get all girls sterilized at birth! "get real" and stop acting like a piece off cherished furniture!

Although Dr Shaws comments are true, nature is nature, however, we live in a society very different from two million years ago.

Many of these young girls are babies themselves, who have no clue how to take care of a baby. The responsibility is then passed on to the other caregivers in the childs family or the government. Who is then going to be responsible financially for the new child, how much emotional support can this young mother give to her new baby?

Many of these young mothers do end up living in poverty and the cycle continues and continues, it has to end somewhere.

Sex education is crucial, if these children are not being educated at home, then society must educate these children.

I personally had the fear of God put into me, I was terrified to have sex at a young age, I'm not necessarily agreeing with the strategy my parents used but I waited until I was married before I had children, I don't think it did me any harm.

Children need examples and if no one is there to teach them, how do they know how to change. We must start to educate our young children. Education is key and we must start now.

What Shaw's critics seem to be forgetting is that nature also intended people to live in close communities, with extended family on hand, so that a 15 year-old with a baby is not left to fend for herself in a competitive and materialistic society, but can depend upon her older relatives to help her nurture the child while she matures emotionally. In her turn, she would then raise her own kin's offspring.

Declining birthrates in "advanced" societies are the result of the isolation of individualism. Instead of having three or four (or more) healthy children - in and out of wedlock - while still young, people are putting off having children until they get everything materialism demands of them beforehand. Abortions are a symptom of the breakdown of traditional family structures - not the "nuclear family", but the *extended family*. THIS was "nature's way", and I fear we are far too gone to ever get back to this healthy, and fully human, state.

Sorry. But I totally fail to see what I am advocating. I am merely pointing out that what you are saying is a comlete misuse of Scripture, and a perversion of the Gospel of Salvation in Christ.
What actually do yo mean by saying "Gods law does not include 15-16 year olds or indeed unmarriad (sic) mothers."

Of course they should not be condemned, they should be encouraged and supported.

Michael from Bidiford.
In your trawl through "Gods Word", you have failed, when challenged, to explain how you justify your use of the Genesis texts.
All you have done is to look up marriage in a concordance and then liberally throw them over the page.
Matt 5: 32 is about Divorce, Matt 19:9 is about Divorce, Matt 15: 19-20 is a commentary on hand washing. We then turn to Galatians, or as you prefer to have it Galations (Sic). Well you nearly get it right there as Paul was writing about the signs that people are not Christians. Why it is that you distort the Gospel when the real issue is to do with the next precipice. Galatians 5:22-26 (NRSV)
"By contrast, the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, [23] gentleness, and self-control. There is no law against such things. [24] And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. [25] If we live by the Spirit, let us also be guided by the Spirit. [26] Let us not become conceited, competing against one another, envying one another."
This is much more to do with the Gospel than your barren legalism.
As you have claimed that what you are saying is based on the Bible you do not actually find any proof texts which backup the statement that "Gods law does not include 15-16 year olds or indeed unmarriad (sic) mothers."
You have proved that the Word of God is against divorce and remarriage. You have proved that it is not keen on fornication. What you have not proved is that "God's law does not include 15 - 16 year olds or indeed unmarriad (sic) mothers."
Your understanding of God's law may not involve them. Isn't it great that God's love and grace does, and that while for you his law may not be for them, the fact is that they are surrounded by his love and grace.
Edward

With respect Edward if you are a parent of a 15 year old daughter then god forbid she should suffer what you advocate as of God for clearly it is not, nore indeed is it responsible to perpetuate such a notion.

Dear Graham from Liverpool you miss the point I fear in your use of the words natural order, order being the operative word, May I humbly suggest you read Gods word in its entirety as to his order and principles in relation to the sanctity of marriage. For gobblegook Gods word most surely is not as can be found at Matthew chapter 5:32; 19:9; 15:19,20; Mark 7:21-23. Endorced also by the Apostle Paul as works of the flesh (Galations 5:19-21) 1 Corinthians.6:18,19. the later being of great concern in this day of deadly venereal diseases. So what can one say other than, to dismiss such sound directive from Gods word as mere gobblegook is a recipe for disaster. Kind regards. Mike

Derar Edward, If I do the gosple a diservice then I suggest you read it in its entirety as to Gods principles in relation to the sanctity of marriage. For gobblegook Gods word most surely is not as can be found at Matthew chapter 5:32; 19:9; 15:19,20; Mark 7:21-23. Endorced also by the Apostle Paul as works of the flesh (Galations 5:19-21) 1 Corinthians.6:18,19. the later being of great concern in this day of deadly venereal diseases. So what can one say other than, to dismiss such sound directive from Gods word as mere gobblegook is a recipe for disaster. Mike

Re: Andy of Rotherham's comments: “Religion, morality, social norms and so-called 'higher truths' are nothing next to the raw power of nature.

Sorry, but I think you've missed the boat on the development of civilizations over many millennia. While we are members of the animal kingdom, our higher order thinking has allowed us to develop oral and written language and to build on the wisdom of the past. Were it not for the development of morals that have set limitations (norms and laws) within our societies, might would make right. Every woman or young girl (man or young boy for some) might be seen as a prize for the taking at any time Anything of material value would be up for grabs. That, of course, is anarchy.

Young females and males will invariably have sex but we are not pre-determined to do so; we can make conscious choices. The most selfish act a young person can make is to conceive a child and then expect their parents to raise it while they continue in their dalliances. It is indeed sad when children have children and perpetuate a cycle of poverty. The saddest part is that the newborn has no choice in the matter.

Interesting that everyone is arguing the pregnancy issue and declaring moral outrage, I would say the Dr's reminder of the natural order might cause us to look at how we raise our children. Our society has reached a point where we apply maximum confusion to our young people and teach minimum common sense.

Our children are sexualized thru the media at an early age. The clothes they wear from age 10 on are designed to mimic they styles of adults. Companies make millions packaging make-up in pink childish containers and selling it to ten year olds. We put our young girls in high heels and generally confuses their own ideas about their age/sexual readiness.

In combination with this societal indoctrination, we moralize and restrict our children’s access to sex education; we allow our children to pass thru the teenage years without 'coming of age' - we have no set point where we expect them to become adults, so they dress like adults and act like adults without actually ever BECOMING adult. Then we react in horrified amazement that anyone would think our children might be confused, or might obey a natural impulse without realizing the consequences.

I was a teenage mother. I became pregnant when 17. I was using birth control. It was only after I became pregnant that I was told 3 of my mother's 5, and 2 of my older sister's children had been conceived while using birth control. It would have been good to know that information before I started having sex.

I did not descend into poverty and despair mainly because I had been taught that my teenage years were my growth into adulthood. I was expected to be fully an adult by the time I was 18, so the pregnancy at 17 only rushed things a little. The first couple of years were hard, and we were poor, but I accepted those challenges as the challenges of adulthood, and I met them head on.

I believe we, as society, should accept two basic facts:

1 - Teenagers will have sex.