That’s an interesting take on the problem. It’s a question of “worse” consequences, i.e., unintended teen pregnancies vs. infectious diseases.
So, in the long run, which of two bad consequences costs the taxpayer more money and presents society with greater problems. I don’t know about GB but here in the U.S. the Great Society welfare debacle essentially paid women on welfare to gin out as many babies as possible. It’s been a societal disaster.
But it's not a question of simply choose your misery: rash pregnancies or diseased sex. Do young people's lives have to be so fraught?
A pediatrician friend once told me that the adolescent years are historically the healthiest years of a person's life: you're past the childhood infections, not yet into the degenerative diseases and geriatric ills --- there should be little for a pediatrician to attend to except sports injuries, complexion bumps and diet.
Instead we have these young girls and young women stumbling through irreparable life-changing crises, chronic and sometimes fatal infections, long-term hormonal sabotage of their sexual physiology, wildly untimely childbearing, the routine blood-sacrifice of the firstborn child, confusion, cynicism, callousness, depression --- and for what?
The Glorious Sexual Revolution! By no means a bloodless revolution, and by no means a victimless crime.
We (the adult generation) have turned adolescence into a non-stop health crisis. And the sex isn't even about love anymore. Remember sweet love? Now it's practically an expectorant function --- with the girls playing the part of the spittoon.
But these days its no longer uninteded teen pregnancies. A lot of girls in my home town deliberately get pregnant because of all the benefits they receive from the state, including free childcare, free cots, free housing, child allowances etc etc etc ad infinitum.
Free love? Yeah right.