Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

17 Teen Girls Agree to Get Pregnant Together

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 08:39 AM
Original message
17 Teen Girls Agree to Get Pregnant Together

Officials Shocked at Gloucester High School

From MyFoxNational Reports

A pregnancy boom at Gloucester High School in Massachusetts is shocking many, and it's not necessarily because teens didn't have access to birth control.

According to officials at the school, seventeen girls made a pact together to get pregnant at the same time and raise their kids together.

School principal Joseph Sullivan told Time Magazine, who first broke the story, that he started noticing something suspicious when the pregnancy rate had rose more than four times the school's average. He also observed more girls visiting the school clinic to get pregnancy tests.

"Some girls seemed more upset when they weren't pregnant than when they were," Sullivan said.

more

Words fail me. :wow:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
graywarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 08:41 AM
Original message
Why am I not surprised.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gatorboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 09:46 AM
Response to Original message
40. Dupe
Edited on Fri Jun-20-08 09:51 AM by gatorboy
eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msongs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 08:41 AM
Response to Original message
1. wonder if any of the boys r gonna be accountable for this scam nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ulysses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 08:43 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. "We found out one of the fathers is a 24-year-old homeless guy,"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phillycat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 08:45 AM
Response to Reply #1
5. Presumably.
From the article: "Some of the other fathers are reportedly in their mid-20s, leading officials to explore statutory rape charges."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Myrina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 09:19 AM
Response to Reply #5
18. I have a problem with the 'statutory rape' angle ...
... obviously these young ladies knew what they were doing and were doing it for a reason, so if anything they should be charged with 'rape' of some kind.

Especially in the case of the homeless man - how do we know he wasn't mentally challenged, or possibly even paid to have sex w/ whichever girl it was?

These 'women' were on a mission ... it's all on them, IMO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phillycat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 09:21 AM
Response to Reply #18
20. The girls are all under 16.
It doesn't matter what their motivation was. They are still children in the eyes of the law, and a man who takes advantage of their stupidity gets prosecuted in this country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #20
58. It all depends on what the law in the particular state is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jmowreader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 04:18 PM
Response to Reply #20
180. They may have taken advantage of him
A LOT of girls can pass for college age with proper clothes and grooming techniques, no problem. Combine that with a man who doesn't look like he's had sex in quite some time, hence probably doesn't check IDs, make partners fill out notarized release forms or carry condoms, and the "man" part of this little scheme is no problem at all.

I assume the guy asked "are you sure you're 18?" before he took his pants off--most guys who would prefer not to go to jail for statutory rape do.

All that aside, this is Really Fucked Up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kittycat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #180
185. I'll second this. I passed for over 18, easily, when I was 16 (even younger)
I peaked at 5'9" in 8th grade, and was fully matured prior to that. All it took was a little hair and make-up, with the right outfit - and no one would have second guessed it. If they lied about their age, under those circumstances, then sorry - I say the guy is off the hook.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
usaftmo Donating Member (606 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-21-08 07:39 AM
Response to Reply #20
223. I can't stand it that
a person under 18 is considered as not knowing right from wrong, and therefore gets a free pass on anything he/she does until their 18th birthday...then voila...on his/her 18th birthday that person "magically" obtains the knowledge to know right from wrong.

Please.

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DadOf2LittleAngels Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #5
118. Aye, for that they should be put in jail..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 09:07 AM
Response to Reply #1
14. Only if the girls tell their names and they are DNA tested. - Then,
they'll also be paying child support... for 21 years!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orleans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #14
82. 18 years. my daughter's father sent the last check the month she turned 18. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #82
87. Not if they're in college..... and 21 years old!!
Edited on Fri Jun-20-08 11:19 AM by Breeze54
then it can be extended.

Division of Child Support Enforcement

https://newyorkchildsupport.com/teen_parents.html

Teen Parents


Regardless of how old the parents are when their child is born, parents have
the legal responsibility to support their child until the child is 21 years old.


Who will have to pay child support?

The noncustodial parent is responsible for paying child support.

After legal paternity is established, the custodial teen parent can go to court to get an order
for child support. The child support order will establish the amount of money the noncustodial
teen parent will have to pay as child support until the child turns 21 years of age.

-------------

Massachusetts Child Support Laws

12. HOW LONG DOES A CHILD SUPPORT ORDER LAST?


http://www.markiberson.com/faqs/childsupport.htm

A judge may order support for a child who is between the ages of 18 and 21 if the child is dependent on his or her parents for support. If you are the parent seeking child support, you need to present to the judge the ways in which the child is dependent upon you for support. For example, if your child turned 18 but has not finished high school, a judge will generally find that the child is dependent upon you and will order support to continue.

The judge may also order child support for a child between the ages of 21 and 23 if the child is dependent upon a parent for support and the child is enrolled in an educational program. For example, if your child is 21 years old and is in college, a court may order child support. You need to give the court documents showing that the child is enrolled in school.

A court cannot order support for a child over age 23 even if the child is still in school.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrreowwr_kittty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #87
135. WTF?!? 23 years old is NOT a child!!
I swear to god the way they keep extending adolescence it's like people aren't considered adults until they are damn near 30!

This isn't a comment on child support laws, just me grousing because it's becoming increasingly clear that my BF's 19 year old son who lives with us now and doesn't have a job probably won't be going anywhere for another 10 years. :cry: I was fully self-supporting when I was his age and this wasn't unusual.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftyMom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #135
140. The reason it's 23 is until they're 24, parent income is factored into financial aid.
At 24, it's assumed the parents are no longer helping.

Bullshit if you ask me. A lot of parents either can't afford or aren't willing to help at 18, and a lot of young people get fucked out of or have to delay an education because the income of a parent who isn't helping makes them ineligible for most financial aid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrreowwr_kittty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 01:29 PM
Original message
That sucks!
So some young people get shafted by policies that assume everyone has Mommy and Daddy footing the bills (like my BF's lazy-ass kid - a situation I am working on believe you me). Throughout my college career, I could always tell who the coddled brats were. They fucked off during class, didn't pull their weight on projects, but still got passing grades because the profs probably didn't want to deal with their parents after little Ashley or Brett ran screaming to them. OTOH, the kids whose parents weren't helping or who were poor were busting their asses. As were the working adults like me.

I really wish policy-makers would stop ASSuming that everyone is in a cookie-cutter white picket fence life situation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DadOf2LittleAngels Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #140
145. Parents income is factored in only if they claim them
as a dependent..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftyMom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #145
148. No.
My kid sister is 23. My mother hasn't contributed to my sister financially since she was in diapers, she hasn't claimed her as a dependent since Reagan was in office, and her income is still factored into my sister's financial aid, rendering her ineligible. That's with documentation that my mother owes a sufficient amount in back support to purchase a rather nice house. The only way to get around that would be for my sister to get married, or for her to have been emancipated (from a noncustodial parent, no less) as a minor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ldf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 07:06 PM
Response to Reply #145
205. no
there are five questions on the FAFSA that establish "independent" students:

are you 24?
are you married?
do you have dependents that you are financially (meaning at least 50%) responsible for?
are you a veteran, released from active duty, honorably?
are you a graduate/professional student?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #135
160. The cut off is at 23 and the parent has to request to have Child support extended, its NOT automatic
and the 'child' has to be in college full time AND living at home, I believe.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrreowwr_kittty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #160
161. Oh I know. My bf didn't have to pay it past 18 for his kids. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #161
162. Hell; my ex only paid for 6 months until he lost the custody battle he waged and then NADA!
Edited on Fri Jun-20-08 02:35 PM by Breeze54
:grr:

And that was after he had forgotten he even had 2 kids!!

Five years later he tries to get custody and claimed he'd paid child support!

:wtf:

He had NO canceled checks to prove that, as he NEVER paid!! What a tool! :silly:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrreowwr_kittty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #162
163. Jesus! What nerve!
Sorry to hear that. Some people really have no clue what it takes to be a parent (the OP is good evidence of that).

In my case, it's BF's ex who is the asshole. Get this: She collected child support for years, with the agreement that the kids were supposed to be with her 2/3 of the time. The reality was they were with their Dad nearly 100% of the time, with him footing the bill for everything they needed. According to the kids, she used the child support to redecorate her house. Once the younger son was 18, she redid his room as a den so he can never stay there again. She has practically nothing to do with the kids, except for occasionally trotting them out for outings with the extended family so she can play Mother of the Year.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #163
178. My cousin had a lengthy battle with her ex
He left her for another woman and quit his job so his wages couldn't be garnished. He claimed poverty but had his own business. When she finally seized some of his assets, she found out he had paid for nearly $100K in plastic surgery for the girlfriend, including a boob job.

So instead of supporting his kids, he bought his girlfriend new boobs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrreowwr_kittty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #178
181. Some people just truly suck. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #178
194. My ex quit his job BUT was working under the table with his band... he was even in the news!!
Edited on Fri Jun-20-08 05:13 PM by Breeze54
and I was still denied collecting even back child support! :grr:

They "determined" he didn't earn enough...

Yet... he had TWO MORE KIDS!!!! And bought a HOUSE!!!! :grr:

I tried over and over but it became an exercise in futility and I decided not to waste my time in
court anymore. I was getting in trouble at work (for missing days in court) and my kids needed a
stress free Mom. We survived. He's now divorced... again!! :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 05:58 PM
Response to Reply #194
196. My cousin went all the way to the state AG
Then when her ex moved out of state, she involved her congressman.

A couple years after all this, she got a job offer in another state and her ex tried to keep her from moving out of state so he wouldn't be separated from his kids! And he had only seen them once a year since they divorced.

He was a real piece of work.

We started calling him the boob, because of the boob job.

The boob had to forfeit most of his assets and pay for 100% of college for three kids.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
usaftmo Donating Member (606 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-21-08 08:00 AM
Response to Reply #163
225. What gets me is I still have to pay
child support, even when my son is with me. He was with me the entire summer last year, but I still had to pay the full child support...so as far as I'm concerned I was paying double.

Ever since I got stationed 100 miles away from my son and ex-wifey, she tries to toss him to me every weekend. Along with that comes one of the following pleas:
1) he needs some new clothes
2) he needs some new shoes
3) he needs tuition for a private school
4) he needs money to pay for a tutor

Sometimes the begging is more direct:
1) electricity got cut-off
2) can't make car payment
3) no money to fix car
4) no food in the house

To avoid paying triple child support, I had some language regarding college put into the divorce decree. I'll pay child support until he's 23 if: he's attending an accredited college/university/whatever while maintaining an overall 3.5 GPA.

Recently I let ex-wifey know I need a break from having him on the weekends; at least 2 weekends in a row. This is the 2nd weekend not having him, and I miss my son a lot...but I enjoy missing the drama from his mother.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DadOf2LittleAngels Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #1
117. Should they be?
Edited on Fri Jun-20-08 12:54 PM by DadOf2LittleAngels
Its obvious the Girls were just using them as doners, perhaps even lied about being on the Pill...

The boys fit (barely) into the victim category here..

--

On edit: someone pointed out that some were not boys but men in their mid 20's, well for them there should be no quarter..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #117
128. Clue by four for males:If you have sex with a female, you may impregnate her
It doesn't matter if she is on OCs, AND you use a condom, and foam, and pull out, and during her menses, standing up, first time, etc, and all that. IF you have intercourse, or put your penis near her vagina or labia, she could get pregnant. By your sperm. And you are responsible.

Any man who doesn't understand this simple fact is a hormonal ridden fool.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DadOf2LittleAngels Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #128
132. Thats right
Males are the only ones whos reproductive rights end after ejaculation..

A woman can lie, cheat, and be otherwise evil in trying to get pregnant and its all good..

If Birth control fails I'm all with you, but the serious dismissal of Men as having any serious reproductive rights is somewhat funny (in an ironical way)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrreowwr_kittty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #132
139. Ah jeez, not this shit again.
Do tell, Dadof2, what reproductive rights beyond their current ones ought men have? Should they have veto power over abortions? Should they be able to randomly impregnate females across the land and expect the state to pick up the tab for their offspring? Many guys are already doing this. How many more would you like to see?

Oh I know...maybe we could take that parent tax credit you get away to pay for all those kids who are no longer entitled to child support from their fathers! I'm sure you won't mind, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DadOf2LittleAngels Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #139
144. I believe in cases like this..
Where there was perhaps intentional deception that boys of equivalent age should not be held responsible for supporting the product of that deception for the next 21 years. What the woman does with her pregnancy is a whole other issue and clearly outside of the scope of this thread (as I doubt this teenage mom club have abortions in mind..

If there is a case where birth control failed thus a good faith attempt by both parties to not get pregnant occurs ( Or even a case where birth control was not used but there was no deception about it ) then, as you so aptly implied, too bad so sad and the male is responsible..

Its a rather high burden of proof (on the guy) to prove that a woman lied to him about (1) being sterile or (2) being 'on the pill'. But if she admits to it I dont think a person should be put under the burden of support for the next two decades..

And Yes, Im all well and good with raising taxes to help single moms...

--

I do like the way you took my position on this one very specific case and try to paint me as some sort of dead beat dad supporter which is *clearly* not what I was implying... Taking someones position and mangling it into something evil is a great, albeit deceptive, way to win points..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrreowwr_kittty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 01:40 PM
Response to Reply #144
150. How do you know the men were deceived?
I haven't seen any report of that in the news coverage.

As far as the rest of the scenarios you presented, they have no bearing on the right of a child to be supported by her parents. Whatever events transpired that led up to her birth are irrelevant (barring the possible exception of a woman somehow stealing a man's sperm unbeknownst to him and impregnating herself with a turkey baster or something). Once the child is born, she is a separate human being who is entitled to support. That support will either come from her parents or the state. That's all there is to it. Like someone very aptly put upthread, if you ejaculate anywhere near a woman's vagina, there is the possibility of impregnating her and the ensuing obligation to support the offspring. If you don't want to take that chance, get a vasectomy. I know several men who did just that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DadOf2LittleAngels Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #150
151. sigh... did you even read what I put down?
What did I just say:


Its a rather high burden of proof (on the guy) to prove that a woman lied to him about (1) being sterile or (2) being 'on the pill'. But if she admits to it I dont think a person should be put under the burden of support for the next two decades..

--

If the proof does not exist then they guys should be held to account...

---

"As far as the rest of the scenarios you presented, they have no bearing on the right of a child to be supported by her parents."

Umm you don't have a right to be supported 'by your parents' some peoples parents die, some give them up for adoption, you have a right to be supported and if there are no parents the state should step in. Does it really matter if a woman gets say 500$ a month from the baby daddy or from the state? really?

This case is clearly the exception and in cases where there is no *provable* deception I believe the man has a moral and legal obligation to support the kid. If there is deception then I believe there is still a moral obligation but there should not be a legal one.

--

"Whatever events transpired that led up to her birth are irrelevant (barring the possible exception of a woman somehow stealing a man's sperm unbeknownst to him and impregnating herself with a turkey baster or something)."

Why is that any different than 'I'm fixed' so lets have sex?

--

"Once the child is born, she is a separate human being who is entitled to support."

Agreed, you and I differ on weather or not a deceived party should have their reproductive rights abrogated, not weather or not the kid should get support..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrreowwr_kittty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #151
158. Speaking of not reading.
You didn't read my post and haven't convinced me of anything. Sorry but "I'm fixed so let's have sex" does not rise to same level of deception in the unconscious man/turkey baster scenario, and still puts you on the hook for support.

Children still need to be supported, and if that means poor widdle menz get their "reproductive rights abrogated" according to you, so be it. Because it DOES matter whether the child gets supported by the state or the "baby daddy" - in the offensive parlance you used. I'll be goddamned if I'm going to foot the bill, as a taxpayer, so that millions of irresponsible men can claim "the bitch tricked me!" to get out of their responsibility. And no, the burden of proof will not be that high. It would be a he said/she said situation and if rape and sexual harassment cases are any indicator, the woman will be deemed a priori a lying whore. It's pretty obvious from your posts where your feelings lie.

Again, if you don't want to be a father, get a vasectomy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DadOf2LittleAngels Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #158
166. Nice deflection..
Ignore everything I posted and just stick your finger in your ears and yell...

"Children still need to be supported"

Did I say otherwise? No but if you keep emphasizing this you can bask in the illusion youre the only one in this conversation who believes this..

"get their "reproductive rights abrogated" according to you, so be it."

I know, youre not a member of that group why should you care....

"I'll be goddamned if I'm going to foot the bill, as a taxpayer, so that millions of irresponsible men can claim"

LOL you sound like such a neocon... in two ways..

1) As I said the instances of provable deceit have to be exceedingly rare but so long as you ignore what I am actually saying is so much easier to put me down

2) I know taxes are more important than kids right? how dare the govt touch your money to support those who need it..

"Again, if you don't want to be a father, get a vasectomy."

Hate to tell you but those fail as well, but still it fits your over simplistic view of evil men..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrreowwr_kittty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 03:42 PM
Response to Reply #166
168. More projection from you. How tiresome.
You accuse ME of deflection and then call me a neocon. :eyes:

Then you say I have a simplistic view of men being evil after you basically accused women of using deceit to trick men into being fathers. :crazy:

Take the beam out of your eye before pointing out the mote in mine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DadOf2LittleAngels Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #168
174. I did not say you were a neo con I said you were arguing like one
I dont think for a second that you are but when you play the game of (a) distorting my position and (b) talk about how you dont want to pay to take care of others stupidity... YOure using *very* neocon talking points and tactics..

"Then you say I have a simplistic view of men being evil after you basically accused women of using deceit to trick men into being fathers."

This is what I am talking about, I did not say women, I sad some as in a *very* small percent of women (do you deny it ever happens?)... You take tat statement and try to make me say something bad about women as a gender which I was *clearly* not saying..

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrreowwr_kittty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #174
177. Did I claim that men, as a gender, are irresponsible? No I did not. Yet you accused me of it.
And you have still, despite your mewling about neocon-like argumentation, failed to convince me why taxpayers should pick up the tab so that the guys who are irresponsible can get laid without taking responsibility for offspring that may ensue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DadOf2LittleAngels Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #177
182. Your language about men
Edited on Fri Jun-20-08 04:23 PM by DadOf2LittleAngels
has been vitriolic and generalized even if you did it unintentionally

"poor widdle menz "

"millions of irresponsible men" Note: Of 10 million custodial mothers, only 700,000 (7%) do not receive child support because of "deadbeat dads". So 700K to you equals !millions of those irresponsible male bastards!

"Again, if you don't want to be a father, get a vasectomy." Moms option Abortion after the fact, dads option sterilization..

--
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrreowwr_kittty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #182
188. And your MRA talking points are as tired as ever
Face it, the law is not going to change to accomodate guys who want to get laid with no consequences if there is a pregnancy. The law is not going to change to allow vindictive people to "get back" at their ex-spouses by claiming they never wanted the kid in the first place.

There are more than enough poor kids in this country. Why do you want to push more children into poverty?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DadOf2LittleAngels Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 04:58 PM
Response to Reply #188
189. Maybe not..
"Face it, the law is not going to change to accomodate guys who want to get laid with no consequences "

Nope thats reserved for just one gender.. And I never even said anything close to 'I didnt want a kid so I don't have to pay'... I said only if there is a provable lie! In my view (not that you care because you seem to be making it up for me) once yo uget married you lose all claim to deny responsibility, once you engage in sex where there is no lie (provable) you lose all claim to deny responsibility... just keep making up my opinions for me, it saves me the time...

Like this Gem:

"There are more than enough poor kids in this country. Why do you want to push more children into poverty?"

I said Im cool with raising taxes to take care of kids in poverty (broken home or not) *you* complained about taxes.. yet somehow *I* want kids in poverty..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrreowwr_kittty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #189
193. "reserved for one gender.."? WTF?
Uh, just so you know, getting an abortion is not on a par with getting your nails done.

I said Im cool with raising taxes to take care of kids in poverty (broken home or not) *you* complained about taxes.. yet somehow *I* want kids in poverty..

I don't complain about taxes. I complain about middle class parents getting a tax credit they don't need. As I've explained to you numerous times, I'd vastly prefer the taxes go to help the lower income children who really need it. And yes, you DO want kids in poverty if you want to give fathers a way out of paying support.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DadOf2LittleAngels Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #193
201. Again with distortion
Where did I say I dont want 'fathers to pay' I said deceived people which has to be a fraction of a fraction of cases... Still kudos for unjustified rage, its really convincing...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 11:07 PM
Response to Reply #201
211. No, you said women can have sex with no consequences.
""Face it, the law is not going to change to accomodate guys who want to get laid with no consequences"
Nope thats reserved for just one gender."

What the heck do you mean by that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 11:06 PM
Response to Reply #189
210. Only 1 gender? wtf?
Which gender can get laid with no consequences? Seems like you are arguing that it should be men, but is instead women. No consequences? Pregnancy is a consequence. And either having an abortion or a child is a consequence of that.

WTF do you mean "Nope thats reserved for just one gender"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-24-08 07:16 AM
Response to Reply #166
232. Neocon? I think you have some serious projection going on
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stanwyck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #151
172. If you don't know how to use a condom,
don't have sex. These males -- boys/men -- have no excuse. Your ridiculous posturing about whether the female was on the pill, sterile, is inane.
If the male uses a condom, he's covered. Period.
And if he's not smart enough to use a condom, then he shouldn't be having sex.
Your continual sexism regarding females is truly alarming considering you're a father.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrreowwr_kittty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #172
175. Isn't it, though?
I shudder to think what he's teaching his "little angels" about gender relations. :scared:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DadOf2LittleAngels Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 04:26 PM
Response to Reply #175
183. Right because when I say things like
"If there is a case where birth control failed thus a good faith attempt by both parties to not get pregnant occurs ( Or even a case where birth control was not used but there was no deception about it ) then, as you so aptly implied, too bad so sad and the male is responsible.."

"I believe the man has a moral and legal obligation to support the kid. If there is deception then I believe there is still a moral obligation but there should not be a legal one."

"Agreed, you and I differ on weather or not a deceived party should have their reproductive rights abrogated, not weather or not the kid should get support."

"if both parties are having unprotected or even protected sex and the pregnancy results the man is fair game"

--

Ive given such reason to fear for my Girls right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-24-08 07:20 AM
Response to Reply #175
233. I know one thing he's teaching his "little angels"
That it's okay for daddy to hit them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DadOf2LittleAngels Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 04:06 PM
Response to Reply #172
176. So if he uses a condom and it fails (as they sometimes do)
should he not then have to support? your argument is as stupid as 'get a vasectomy'...

My point is: if both parties are having unprotected or even protected sex and the pregnancy results the man is fair game if, however, their is deceit then I think the party who committed the deceipt should be the soley responsible one..

Ill put it to you this way (yes I understand its an awful analogy but realize I dont consider this a 1:1 comparison)

If a man has an STD and lies to his partner thus infecting her is that morally the same as if he was unaware and gave it to her? Obviously its not the man who lied *intentionally* deceived to get what he wanted and in the process harmed the other.

Was the partner stupid for not using protection based on someones word? yes hands down... were they still a victim? yes..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrreowwr_kittty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #176
179. Well, whether or not she's a victim, it's still her STD now, isn't it?
She can choose to treat it, which may be inconvenient and expensive. Or she can stamp her feet and scream "he tricked me!" and refuse to deal with it. The disease festers and worsens, requiring even more expensive treatment. Kinda like what happens to parents who refuse to pay child support when the courts catch up to them.

Hey, it's your analogy... :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DadOf2LittleAngels Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 04:28 PM
Response to Reply #179
184. You still refuse to answer..
Is it morally the same?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrreowwr_kittty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #184
186. To whom? The STD?
Last time I checked viruses didn't care about your morals. Neither do zygotes. Under hospitable circumstances, they take up residence in their host's bodies and grow. In the case of an STD, they produce nasty oozing sores or warts or whatever.

In the case of zygotes they often go on to become live children. The state is not concerned with what personal intrigues took place during their conception. The state is concerned with ensuring the child is cared for by both parents, to the extent that is possible. Morals are irrelevant to the need to support children.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 11:14 PM
Response to Reply #176
214. He should. If he had sex, he needs to be responsible for any potential pregnancy.
The only moral in this situation is is he going to be responsible. A better STD comparison would be if he was unaware of having an STD and gave it to her, and then found out he had one, is he morally obligated to tell her?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stanwyck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-21-08 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #176
228. Your male victimhood defense is so absurd
Take some responsibility here. If pregnancy is not a desired result, the man needs to use protection. Your view that women are deceitful wenches bent on getting pregnant through deception is beyond tragic. You have issues. Get some help. (and let your wife, if you have one, raise the kids.)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 11:10 PM
Response to Reply #172
212. I take it one step further. If you don't want to risk pregnancy, don't have sex.
Accidents and contraceptive failures happen. People deceive each other. It happens. If you don't want to risk pregnancy, don't have sex. Don't put your penis anywhere near labia or a vagina.

If you're not smart enough to realize sex can cause pregnancy, you probably shouldn't be having sex. But you probably are. "You" meaning royal you, not yelling at you, just ranting in general. No offense meant to you. meaning stanwyck you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stanwyck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-21-08 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #212
229. Agreed.
No offense taken, Uppity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 11:11 PM
Response to Reply #132
213. Bullshit. If you don't want to risk pregnancy, don't put it near a female.
It is that simple. Dismissal of men having serious reproductive responsibilities is somewhat funny and really sad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fishwax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 11:29 PM
Response to Reply #117
217. I don't see how the boys fit in the victim category
I don't think there is any real evidence of deception--and even if there was deception, sex (as the males almost certainly were aware) can result in pregnancy, so men shouldn't engage in it unless their willing to face such consequences.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stanwyck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-21-08 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #217
231. The deception is coming from a responder here
not from the story. It's the age-old female as evil temptress. Some people never let the facts get in the way of their prejudices.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
undeterred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 08:43 AM
Response to Original message
2. I once knew 12 high school boys who bought a car together,
stripped it in an industrial area and got arrested. But this tops that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dysfunctional press Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 09:28 AM
Response to Reply #2
25. what were they arrested for?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QueenOfCalifornia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #2
53. And this is somehow
illegal? Except for taking the car apart in an "industrial area" what law did they break?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
undeterred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 12:40 PM
Response to Reply #53
108. When you do this in conservative tree lined suburbia
where the police have no serious crime to deal with- its huge. The police acted like they were breaking up an international ring of car thieves and put a gun to a teenager's head.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #108
110. I hear ya
I can tell suburban cops gone wild stories for days. LOL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gatorboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 08:44 AM
Response to Original message
4. "We found out one of the fathers is a 24-year-old homeless guy,"
Edited on Fri Jun-20-08 09:03 AM by gatorboy
Who wrote this, The Onion? Until I see some more proof on this, I'm saying bull malarky...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QueenOfCalifornia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #4
50. This is all over
the MSM.

Saw it on MSNBC this morning.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mikeytherat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #4
74. Well, since the pregnancy rates "had rose" over the years (not risen),
the depiction of one of the fathers as a "homeless guy" does not surprise me (although I am surprised they did not go with "homeless dude").

mikey_the_rat
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petronius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #4
103. By "homeless guy" they may mean something like "couch-surfing hipster
dude temporarily without a permanent address." Of course, playing off stereotypes of homeless guys is more shocking...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carnea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #103
167. Yeah homeless at 24 is a lot different than homeless at 34 44 or older..nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 08:46 AM
Response to Original message
6. You know what, I'm surprised this doesn't happen more often.
Girls still don't get as much encouragement as they could in those high school years, their hormones are going 24/7, and that old pack mentality/tunnel vision kicks in hard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynneSin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 08:51 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. The TIME article says Teenage pregnancy is on the rise for the first time in 15 years
We are finally seeing the results of our "Abstinence-Only" class.

I know forced adoptions are not allowed in this country but if there was every a prime example it would be these girls. Clearly none of them are in the mental state to raise a child especially if they are using a 24-old homeless men as the father.

The article mentioned some people blame movies like "Juno" and "Knocked Up" which glorified unwed mothers. Well in "Juno", the girl knew right away she wanted to give her child up for adoption. and in "Knocked Up" the parents in questions were well into their mid-20s when facing this decision.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 08:57 AM
Response to Reply #8
11. You're right about the right wing demonization of birth control
and that whole abstinence only scam. This group of girls has been propagandized since they were eight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DadOf2LittleAngels Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #11
122. Umm...
This group of girls were not ignorant about sex, and the consequences... Hell they wanted to consequences..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #122
127. Had there been some rigor in their sex ed, I doubt they'd have decided
that having babies at 16 or younger is a good idea.

But that kind of rigor is exactly what gets lost when we cave into right wing bs around women's health. It's not enough to have the information. Girls at that age need a lot of support.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DadOf2LittleAngels Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #127
130. And how do know there was not
Others have pointed out their HS is not abstinence only..

And movies like Juno (which I did love but if I had watched it with teenage kids there would have been a huge conversation afterwards) The whats her name spears having her kids and the casual attitudes about sex in dozens of forms of media contributed more than any lack of sex ed here..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #130
137. Admittedly only by my own experience in a public school at that age.
We didn't just get one lecture or presentation a semester. The idea that girls shouldn't have babies while they were in high school was re-enforced over and over and over until peer pressure was against getting pregnant, not for it. We also had a LOT of activities to chose from, iirc, that helped especially girls feel like they had something to look forward to besides boys and kids.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stanwyck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #122
173. What did the males want if they weren't using protection?
Think about it. If the men (boys) were having unprotected sex...are the consequences not equally their responsibility?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ismnotwasm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 09:31 AM
Response to Reply #8
31. Good point
These girls are glorifying pregnancy and quite obviously have a lack of good information. If they were prepared to be mothers, they wouldn't be making packs like this.

These kids are not plugged in to reality at all. I remember one of my daughters had to take home one of those computerized babies for a weekend. It was a fair facsimile of how tiring and irritating a baby can be. She hated every minute of it. She's 21 now and says sex education definitely helped with her decisions.

The whole tone of the article is irritating.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gollygee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #8
63. Well if Juno and Knocked Up are the best sex education they're getting
they are obviously not in a good place for making decisions. Which is why we need real sex ed for kids. They'll learn something somewhere, but they might not learn anything that will help them make decisions like this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #63
96. No, there is Sex Ed in that HS! Those movies MAY have influenced them though and
the Jamie Spears of the world. It can't be denied that there is
a lot of sex on the internet and TV and on My Space. I doubt these
girls were immune from that. It's a combination of influences, imho.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 06:02 PM
Response to Reply #96
198. And it can't be denied that teen pregnancy is way down...
and internets and TV and my space way up.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sequoia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #8
76. Not so long ago to be in that position was considered sinful.
The girl would've been shuttled off to an unwed mother's home telling all she'd gone to stay with relatives in another city and then would have to give up the baby for adoption. So many heartbroken girls, forever sad with feelings of guilt and remorse. The news last night said many people in this town never go over the bridge and are into their own little shut-away world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 09:25 AM
Response to Reply #6
23. Huh?? But us guys were told that gals didn't really like sex.
We were told that they only did it as a favor to us. :dunce:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 09:44 AM
Response to Reply #23
38. We throw like girls, too.
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
psychmommy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #23
121. it is true, we don't.
girls stop giving away the secrets. how am i going to get work done around the house if you're giving away the bargaining chip. hahaha
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #121
143. Sorry!
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #121
190. Well, if you did your work around the house ...
Edited on Fri Jun-20-08 05:03 PM by TahitiNut
... dressed in more than just an apron, maybe your SO could keep his mind on the ballgame on TV. :evilgrin:

(I'm a big believer in doing house work in the altogether ... but, as time goes on, the neighbors' complaints get louder. Besides, it's not as 'efficient' without a POOSSLQ.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
psychmommy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 11:24 PM
Response to Reply #190
215. a gal has to do what a gal has to do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #6
120. I think it has always happened
It is just more socially acceptable to keep your baby today.

I consider it a miracle that my boys got to the age of 20 and still hadn't fathered any kids. They are definitely in the minority - most of their friends had kids as teens.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #120
142. Part of this is just biology. I was one of those girls that developed "early"
and had some kind of drive to reproduce from the time I was about 14. :scared:

But the group agreement is something that wasn't present when I was that age or I might have acted on it. I didn't even really understand that I could do more than push out babies until I was in my mid-twenties. It wasn't real to me -- that was more about economics, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Love Bug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 08:51 AM
Response to Original message
7. All of these girls were under 16
All of these girls are under 16, which makes this statutory rape. The fact that they are so incredibly stupid and irresponsible just goes to show they are not ready for the responsibility that goes with sex, and apparently, neither are the boys who fathered these babies.

A 24 year old homeless guy? Well, he just bought himself a whole lot of trouble. Guess he'll now have a place to live (jail).

I feel sorry for the babies born from this because unless they are adopted out, they are going to have a tough time of it.

Unbelieveable...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynneSin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 08:52 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. The fact that they are so incredibly stupid and irresponsible shows that Abstinence-Only fails!
Just another by-product of the Bush regime.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carnea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 10:08 AM
Response to Reply #7
47. And he knew they were under 16 how??????? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Love Bug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #47
107. C'mon, they were high school girls
Sure, they can lie, but if there is even a breath of a chance a girl might be under age, don't most guys just not go there? Some girls look do look older, but not THAT much older. I suspect the homeless guy saw what he wanted to see -- a nublie female waiving money in his face.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boobooday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 08:53 AM
Response to Original message
10. According to officials at the school, seventeen girls made a pact together to get pregnant at the sa
That's radical. An all-female commune. Were they being political about it, or just fantasizing?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 09:00 AM
Response to Original message
12. I blame Romney!!!! but they don't know this "pact" is a fact but seems like it...
Edited on Fri Jun-20-08 09:37 AM by Breeze54
It's a predominantly Catholic community and the school doctor and nurse quit in protest
because they weren't allowed to dispense birth control. The school board is reviewing
that decision. This is pretty sad that Jamie Spears and that movie "JUNO" also seem to
have had an influence on them, some experts agree. Silly teenage girls thinking that
having a baby will fix everything. Very selfish reason to have a baby. I hope the school
board ratchets up the birth control education and availability asap, not that having access
would have changed these immature girls minds from 'group think'. Some of my family lives
in that town, so I also find this shocking, to say the least.

Governor Patrick seeks to forgo grant, end classes on sex abstinence

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/04/24/patrick_seeks_to_forgo_grant_end_classes_on_sex_abstinence/

But leaders in House back funding


By Lisa Wangsness, Globe Staff | April 24, 2007

Governor Deval Patrick wants to end state-sponsored , abstinence-only sex education in Massachusetts, a year after Governor Mitt Romney ordered the Department of Public Health to redirect a long-standing federal abstinence grant to classes that focus exclusively on encouraging teenagers to avoid sexual encounters.

Patrick proposed forgoing the $700,000 grant, which the state has received since 1998, joining at least six other states in rebelling against increasingly restrictive federal mandates about how the money can be used.

The Patrick administration points to the federal government's study of abstinence-education programs, released this month, which found that students in programs focusing solely on abstinence are just as likely to have sex as those not in such programs. At the same time, health officials say, the programs' emphasis on the failure rate of condoms and other birth control, without providing instruction about their benefits, may confuse young people and discourage them from using protection.

"We don't believe that the science of public health is pointing in the direction of very specific and narrowly defined behavioral approaches like the one that is mandated by this funding," said John Auerbach, the state commissioner of public health.

Patrick's policy change, proposed in his budget, has met resistance in the House, where Democratic leaders restored the funding in the budget plan that came to the floor yesterday at the start of a week-long debate.

They included a provision, as they did last year, requiring schools offering the abstinence program to also provide comprehensive sex education classes. Under federal rules, comprehensive sex education must be taught separately because abstinence grant money cannot support programs that also promote the use of birth control.

Defending the change, Jim Eisenberg, a spokesman for the House Ways and Means Committee, said, "It enunciates a policy, and the policy is that federal funds for school-based abstinence education should be accessed, so long as abstinence is always taught as part of a comprehensive sexuality education curriculum."

But even if the House prevails, a spokesman for the Department of Public Health said the state will not apply for the money.

The grant program that funds abstinence education was created by Congress in 1996 as part of welfare law changes, with the aim of discouraging teenagers from having sex outside marriage. Most states took the money and at first were allowed wide flexibility in how they used the funds. Until 2003, Massachusetts used the money for public service announcements encouraging teenagers to wait for marriage before having sex. The state then began spending the money on supplementary educational materials promoting abstinence.

In late 2005, Romney -- then a potential presidential candidate who was trying to establish credentials as a social conservative -- announced that he would channel the money directly into expanding abstinence education programs in schools. During the remainder of his administration, Massachusetts funneled more than $800,000 to Healthy Futures, a group that had been running abstinence education programs in more than three dozen middle schools.

snip-->

Healthy Futures is a subsidiary of a Christian, anti abortion group called A Woman's Concern, but
Ray said the curriculum is not religious and does not tell students what to think about abortion.
:eyes:

More....


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 09:21 AM
Response to Reply #12
19. Thanks for the local info!
I am so glad you guys don't have Romney anymore.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QueenOfCalifornia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #19
52. Why?
Do you want him? I hear he can be bought for the right price. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 10:28 AM
Response to Reply #52
57. He is looking for another wife?
:rofl:

Sorry not interested. That underwear looks really uncomfortable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynneSin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 09:22 AM
Response to Reply #12
21. If Juno had any influence on them they'd be giving these babies up for adoption
which is a shame they aren't because this babies have a sad life ahead of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 09:27 AM
Response to Reply #21
24. Well; the idealism of JUNO, is what I'm referring to....
the "I'm a teen and pregnant but it's no big deal" theme of the movie.
These girls are pregnant. They don't have babies yet... but they all
seem to have supportive families, although I can't say that for sure.
At any rate, MA does take care of single parents better than other states
in the SW that I've lived in... hopefully they'll all go to college anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 08:20 PM
Response to Reply #24
207. But she didn't keep the baby
She arranged and adoption and never wavered from that.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 11:27 PM
Response to Reply #207
216. Tell the girls in this group that.
Edited on Fri Jun-20-08 11:29 PM by Breeze54
The "it's not a big deal to be a pregnant teen" in that movie, is what people seem to be referring to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 09:30 AM
Response to Reply #21
28. Many of the parents of these soon-to-be-mothers will, no doubt, offer their guidance ...
... and assistance. After all, the behavior of their children aptly demonstrates their expertise as parents and their diligent involvement in their children's lives. Yup.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 09:34 AM
Response to Reply #28
32. Wow! RW talking point from you?! This is a working class town.... lost many jobs there
Edited on Fri Jun-20-08 09:35 AM by Breeze54
I'll bet the parents are working out of town (lots of travel from there) or at TWO jobs to support these girls. There are more (out-side-the-home) influences on kids these days, as I'm sure you know, but blame the parents instead. I'm surprised at your comment.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 09:40 AM
Response to Reply #32
35. Newsflash: Good parenting was evident even during the Great Depression.
I'm the LAST person to minimize the impact of our economy on the working poor. At the same time, it's NOT an excuse for poor parenting any more than the appalling parenting of some wealthy people can be blamed on their affluence. If anything, the propensity for people to SHIFT the blame to 'circumstances' or the economy is a component of enabling.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 09:49 AM
Response to Reply #35
41. And Abstinence Only education by Romney (R) didn't have a hand in it?
:eyes:

I'm not talking about poor people, per say. Rich teens get pregnant too.

This issue is the result of MANY influences.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QueenOfCalifornia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #41
55. Maybe the parents
should have been PAYING ATTENTION? That is what TahitiNut is saying perhaps???? A little attention, a little less time commuting? Teenagers need a parent around close to home. And the parents should all know that girls get pregnant when having unprotected sex - and teens are likely to have sex... So, the parents need to drop the religious crap and take these ladies to an OB/GYN and get them the birth control shot and a bag of condoms.

Every class, rich or poor have teen pregnancy but they all get pregnant the same way. It can be prevented. A good relationship with your child and an OB/GYN works way better than a great relationship with a priest or a pastor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #55
60. You are making a LOT of assumptions!!!
How do you know what the parents did or didn't do at all?! :wtf:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phillycat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #55
66. The girls in this story got pregnant on purpose, though.
So getting them BCP and condoms wouldn't help very much. :shrug:

I agree with your larger point, though. I believe if these girls were nurtured and loved at home the way they should have been, they wouldn't have the hole in their souls that led them to desire someone to "love them unconditionally" (the reason they gave for wanting babies). Parents are supposed to fill that role.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #66
94. Far too few people really understand "unconditional love" though.
Edited on Fri Jun-20-08 11:24 AM by TahitiNut
It's far less common in our society than we'd like to believe, I think. Just try to get people in your life to even describe it and you'll discover it's far less commonly comprehended than we'd like.

Too many think it's a "permission slip" to fuck up royally. Too many believe, as demonstrated by their choices, that one cannot love another unconditionally when their behavior is abhorrent. Just look at the emotional stress (and ways of coping with it) that folks undergo in a divorce as an example. The underlying presumption that one must 'hate' (or at least stop loving) an ex-spouse due to their behaivor and the inability to live with them is, to me at least, an indication that unconditional love is poorly understood.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_Tires Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #94
105. true
and people forget that just someone is your flash and blood, there is NEVER a garuntee that they will love you unconditionally...some of these moron girls should have been bought a puppy or something...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #94
147. Forget "unconditional" -- what about "good enough" care?
Young people at that age often seem to get less attention because they can dress and feed themselves, no matter that they're passing through a stage that will largely map out their future. Instead of getting more or even good enough care at that liminal stage, they usually get less care AND more responsibility unless they manage to fuck up big enough to piss off an adult in which case, they get negative attention -- always so helpful to a young adult. :sarcasm:

We suck at being families in this country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skooooo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #147
154. Babies don't "love" anyone anyway...

They are self-centered demanding little creatures that become enraged on a regular basis. Not their faults, but that's the way it is.

Cats on the other hand are heaven-sent!

:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #154
155. Babies don't "love", that's true, but they do try to bond with you
and their very demands can be interpreted as a need for that ego part of "you". They can help you feel competent and they get a lot of attention from adults which you can share vicariously. Not that I'd know anything about all of that. :hide:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skooooo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #155
157. Sure...


...and as a (presumable) adult, you can process that. 16-year-olds can't.



Cats llllluuuuurve tho.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 02:20 PM
Response to Reply #157
159. In hindsight, I should have started having CATS at 19.
lol

]
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #154
165. If these teens want unconditional love, their parents should get
them a puppy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #55
114. Just wait till your kids are teenagers
:)

I will be here with a shoulder :hug:

But really, it is as bad as they say and even worse. There is nothing more frightening than watching your 16 year old walk out the door with car keys in his hand. :scared:

All of a sudden you realize that if you fucked up as a parent you will soon be finding out. And there is NOTHING you can do to change it.

And remember I am only batting 50% at this parenting thing. One doing great and the other I don't talk about. :hide:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #114
149. My mom would argue that being in a car while your 16 year old drives
through the Sierras ranks right up there with all other forms of scarey. lol
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shanti Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #55
125. unfortunately, the PARENTS
will most likely be raising these babies!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seaglass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #41
64. It wasn't abstinence only education in Gloucester. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #64
75. maybe not in the high school but not sure about the middle schools... looking
And you're right. This isn't just about sex ed or BC availability.

It's about a group of silly girls making a huge mistake together.

I see many influences on them, not just the possibility of uninvolved parents.

We don't know each girls background or her family life.

Many kids from all walks of life get pregnant as teenagers. The rich ones get abortions.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carnea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #32
48. Yeah because we all now how poverty automatically causes bad parenting..
Next you will want to blame it on "culture".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #48
62. Did you reply to the wrong poster?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tomg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #28
73. Normally, I agree with you on so
many issues, but not here (at least as stated). We have raised three sons so far, and one to go (15). Of course there is bad parenting (often I've seen it, and sometimes I've done it with some lousy misguided decisions). Often the behaviour of the children does demonstrate the parent's inadequacies. Often, though, the behaviour of the children is just that - the behaviour of the child, particularly at the age of 14, 15, 16, when half of what they do is an act of asserting their autonomy from parents. I am intensely proud of my sons - for the good decisions they've made, and moreso for the way they rectified or came back from bad decisions they made ( and they have made them - sometimes still do but they are now in their late 20s).

Tonight my 15 year-old is going to a party. We know where, with whom, blah blah blah. Think I'm not nervous as hell that once he is out the door, he is a ( pretty) free agent? Any parent who has a teenager and isn't concerned except when the kid is asleep in his or her own bed ( and can look in and wish the kid still had not hit puberty) is either deluded or doesn't care. No one has expertise as a parent - there are only levels of relative incompetency.

Sorry to go on. Guess I'm just nervous as hell about tonight. It's a lousy situation for all involved: the young women, the children, the young men, all the parents. My anger and criticism, though, is reserved for the school board, the abstinence only programs, and all those who could have helped educate those young people ( to reinforce the parents who were doing it, and to substitue for those parents who had not).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #73
91. I've been around enough to know that some kids behave sociopathically DESPITE adequate parenting.
Edited on Fri Jun-20-08 11:17 AM by TahitiNut
I'm also familiar with many people who've overcome abominable parenting ... and extremes of abuse that're nightmarish.

Nonetheless, there's a theme in this story that strongly indicates TWO weaknesses in the parenting:
(1) The apparent failure to nurture the child's OWN "inner compass" and regard for their OWN behavior and how it measures up to their OWN standards and achieves their objectives. Far, far, far too many "good parents" seem to think that merely judging their child's behavior is sufficient ... as long as it's "fair" (and loving). It's NOT sufficient. It's the child's OWN judgment that must be nurtured and developed. There's a BIG (HUGE!) difference. (In my years, I've seen this failure far more common than any other - and the sad thing is that the parents are virtually blind to even comprehending the point.)
(2) The apparent presumption on the part of these girls to regard the biological act of giving birth as some "fast path" to adulthood and status in society. This, imho, betrays some modeled behavior on the part of their parents and influential adult figures. "I'm your mother so I know better!" There's a 'logic' in this oft-repeated claim that is profoundly disturbing in the inferences. Perhaps I'm reading too much between the lines, but it seems almost inescapable that this attitude was a formative influence.


The ascription of blame to "abstinence-only" sex education in the public schools is, imho, too glib and easy. The primary 'educator' in any child's life is his or her parent or guardian ... and adult family members. In MY extended family, most of the kids (including myself and my mother and her brothers, as well as cousins, etc.) received a GREAT DEAL of supplementary education at home ... home work and homemaking and carpentry and gardening and math and spelling and geography. Education - learning about the world and acquiring life skills - was PRIZED. It was as normal a part of family life as cooking and cleaning and sleeping. SCRABBLE was the favored board game and card games included the opportunity to teach the child arithmetic in score-keeping. There's just not enough in the story to indicate that any prevalent blame can be ascribed to sex education.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tomg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #91
99.  While I don't blame the lack of
abstinence only education as the cause ( any more than I blame Juno, the economy, or anyone else), I also don't blame the parents, per se. You are right that to find one cause and hang on to it is "glib and easy." Your family sounds both like the family I was raised in and, for the most part, the family I honestly hope my sons were raised in, including the extended part. We really don't disagree. I was only responding to what I thought was a generalization regarding parents ( as a parent who is right now in a state of perpetual anxiety). Your point that it is the child's own judgement that has to be nurtured is perfect. I think any parent worth anything honestly tries to do that. Given the ages of those young women ( which is pretty close to my youngest son's age), the difficulty, for me, is when the only way to help the child move to the adult is to step back and let them be in a situation where they have to exercise that judgement.

Like you, I honestly don't have the facts. Like you, I think there is something seriously amiss here in what happened and probably in the reporting. For some of those young women, I imagine, it is that parenting was lacking; for others, it might be parental economic pressure causing that; for a few, a good sex ed. program might have done it; for still one or two, they should have missed Juno. More likely, it is probably all the factors and so many others coming together.
Thanks for the points I need to consider further.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_Tires Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 09:06 AM
Response to Original message
13. this is a self-esteem problem, imo
as in their minds, they have nothing to quantify their existence as women on earth unless they give birth...and they are in for a VERY rude and deserved awakening when they realize single teen motherhood isn't all quiet nights and kodak moments (to say nothing of the financial aspect)

I saw the "MyFoxKC" in the URL and just KNEW this was gonna be somewhere in Johnson County...I must admit I was surprised when it wasn't...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
notesdev Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 09:08 AM
Response to Original message
15. Am I the only one...
... who finds the advertisement DUBot-attached to the bottom of this thread to be greatly amusing?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 09:29 AM
Response to Reply #15
27. I donated to DU, so I don't see those ads.
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
notesdev Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 09:38 AM
Response to Reply #27
34. Unintentional comedy
It's kind of funny sometimes... the one at the bottom of this thread is a maternity site.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Brewman_Jax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 09:08 AM
Response to Original message
16. Incredible!
:wtf:

The only time I know that 17 individuals agree on the same thing at the same time are sports team members.

That aside, why would they think that having a baby is a cure to life's unpleasantries? I have to agree with Dr. Phil, a rare occurrence--a baby should not be born with a job.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phred42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 09:16 AM
Response to Original message
17. Republican sex Ed at work
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Xenotime Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-21-08 02:06 AM
Response to Reply #17
220. Ha. Exactly. What program are there for them to use?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 09:22 AM
Response to Original message
22. Where the hell were these girls' PARENTS?
:argh:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 09:31 AM
Response to Reply #22
30. Yes, every teen I've EVER known ALWAYS had SEX in front of their parents!!
:sarcasm:

:silly:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JI7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 09:41 AM
Response to Reply #30
37. it's not about the sex, but the thought they WANTED to get pregnant
at such an age.

while many kids would have sex , most would not want to get pregnant. i really would be interested in hearing from the girls and their parents though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 09:59 AM
Response to Reply #37
45. Yes, kids had sex in my generation but they were extremely careful to avoid pregnancy
What were they thinking, and how did they come to the conclusion that getting pregnant was what they wanted to do?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 10:07 AM
Response to Reply #45
46. You're kidding me, right? You didn't miss all the girls "on vacation" out-of-town, back then?
Give me a break!!! What is your generation?

The Pill wasn't even widely available until the '70's!!

Before that, there were MANY teen pregnancies!!

Teenage Pregnancy

http://www.enotes.com/teenage-pregnancy-article

snip-->

'Although the teenage pregnancy rate in the 1950s and 1960s was higher than today, the teenage marriage rate was also higher;'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 10:17 AM
Response to Reply #46
51. I'm 50 years old and grew up in suburban Southern California
Edited on Fri Jun-20-08 10:23 AM by slackmaster
Graduated from high school in 1975. By that time, Planned Parenthood was well established in my community, and contraception including the pill, diaphragms, contraceptive gels, foams, condoms, and various types of IUDs were easily available to teenagers.

The Pill wasn't even widely available until the '70's!!

Before that, there were MANY teen pregnancies!!


Yes, and a lot of illegal abortions and shotgun weddings.

I repeat - In my high school class NOBODY wanted to get pregnant. I know about one or two who did, and they quietly got abortions. Getting pregnant and carrying the baby to term would have been completely unacceptable in the society I lived in.

Sex education was very strong and effective in public schools back then, at least where I lived. By 8th grade every kid knew exactly how pregnancy happened.

The idea of teenage girls actually wanting to get pregnant is something I do not really understand. I am curious about it, but the idea seems pretty repulsive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #51
71. "In the 1970s and early 1980s, the U.S. teen pregnancy rates rose."
Edited on Fri Jun-20-08 10:45 AM by Breeze54
I was Class of '72 and you just didn't see the pregnant girls...the rate is LOWER now, then 1970!!

Teen Pregnancy: Trends And Lessons Learned

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/05/1/gr050107.html

During the 1990s, teenage pregnancy rates and birthrates declined to record low levels.
Even with this progress, however, the U.S. teen birthrate is one of the highest in the developed world.
Research on what is behind the U.S. declines and why rates nonetheless are lower in other countries may
help in crafting responses to the problem.


Teenage birthrates declined less steeply in the United States than in other developed countries between 1970 and 2000.



Pregnancy.

Recent declines in teen birthrates, then, are attributable to reductions in pregnancy rates.

In the 1970s and early 1980s, the U.S. teen pregnancy rates rose.

They remained steady through the 1980s, even as sexual activity among teens increased,
due to improved contraceptive use among those teenagers who are sexually active.


The rates declined 19% from 117 pregnancies per 1,000 women aged 15-19 in 1990 to 93
per 1,000 in 1997—the lowest rate in 20 years. The recent decline is particularly
encouraging, because—as with the teen birthrate decline—all population groups followed
a similar pattern, regardless of young women's age, marital status, race or ethnicity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #71
95. You're talking about trends and averages - The community I grew up in was far from typical
About 85% of the graduating women went on to a college or university, or at least a JC. Nearly every one of them expressed an aspiration of becoming (or at least marrying) a successful professional before starting a family. We were immersed in a community of university professors, doctors, bankers, lawyers, and other "successful" people. Broken families were rare. Many of my peers' mothers were actually able to stay home and raise their kids.

Statistics aside, the point is that nobody WANTED to get pregnant. As I noted earlier, I know for sure that a very small number did, but it wasn't considered something to be proud of.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #95
97. Yeah, well, just because you didn't see it, doesn't mean it didn't happen.
That's all I'm saying and back then, the rich in your community could afford abortions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #97
111. Jeebus Crisco on a waterbed, that is NOT THE ISSUE!
The issue is that the girls in Gloucester WANTED TO GET PREGNANT.

:argh:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #111
113. I know what the issue is... you brought up pregnancy in the '70's, not me.
:eyes:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #113
116. Yeah, by saying girls in the '70s where I grew up didn't want to get pregnant
Edited on Fri Jun-20-08 12:50 PM by slackmaster
And most of them took great pains to avoid it, at least in my home town.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #116
126. I was just going to say that you don't know if they wanted to get pregnant... really.
Some girls may have wanted to get pregnant ... and married.

We really don't know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #126
131. There were only 500 people in my graduating class and I knew just about everyone
There were a few who got married right after high school and started families early in life. But not a single 15- or 16-year-old who INTENTIONALLY GOT PREGNANT AND WAS PROUD OF IT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shanti Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #71
129. class of 73 here
there were a couple of girls that got pregnant in my hs that kept their babies. that's about it! i knew of NO girls who actually WANTED to get pregnant!

my son just graduated hs and there were so many girls with babies in his school, it was riduculous:( he told me they were dumb!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tomg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #51
90. I see your point, but, and the timing is
crucial, you are just on one side of the great divide: Roe v. Wade and the advent of generally available contraception. I graduated high school in 1967. When I went to college, I had friends who had had backroom abortions, who had had children and gwho ave them up for adoption. One of my closest friends kept her child and raised her in the community, and went through all the social stigma. My (now-deceased) mother-in-law (a public health nurse)I found out helped women get illegal abortions in the 50s. The pill and contraception were not available to unmarried women in all states until 1965.

As far as my sex ed: 8th grade - Catholic school - 1963. High school - none, zero, zilch, zip.
Planned Parenthood? A lot happened between, say, 1965 and 1975. I remember the bad old days.

Nobody wanted to get pregnant in high school, but a lot wanted sex. I don't understand teens wanting to get pregnant either. Not repulsive to me, but terribly sad and, I think, destructive. You were educated in a pretty good time. Abstince only, and all the rest of the RW agenda, is an attempt to deny what you had and to go back to pre-1960s.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #46
123. You are correct
When we were teens abortion wasn't legal but if you had money you could easily find a doctor who would give you an abortion - often at the local Holiday Inn. If you didn't have money, there were 'providers'. The one I knew about here did abortions in the evening in a barber shop.

There were also lots and lots of homes for unwed mothers.

The biggest difference is it is socially acceptable for teens to keep their babies today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #123
133. The kids may think it's socially acceptable for them to keep their babies
Edited on Fri Jun-20-08 01:09 PM by slackmaster
But in reality it is not.

Every one of those girls in Gloucester is in for a rude awakening when they find out what being a poor single mom is really about.

Maybe one or two of their sperm donors will marry them and try to make a decent life, and maybe succeed, but most will not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #133
152. Marriage doesn't make for success and I'll bet many of those girls will go on to college
and have careers. Having a baby so young isn't wise at all and will interrupt the girls teen years and possibly their education and the next year or so will be very difficult but it isn't the end of the world. Life will go on, the babies will grow, the Moms hopefully will graduate and go on to higher education and find good jobs or careers. There's always hope and I hope they get some birth control too! :P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
suffragette Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 09:28 AM
Response to Original message
26. The raising their children together part of the pact stands out to me
I wonder if they were envisioning living together in an enclave and creating their own small community or if they were just referring to living at home but raising them together since they would be born at similar times.

If it's the former, I also wonder what role the father(s) played in this.

The pact part and the raising together part makes me think this has more to do with some group dynamic or even cult-like behavior than with sex education and support for girls who are pregnant.

Some of the articles are doing the typical pointing of fingers at movies. The Time one notes"The high school has done perhaps too good a job of embracing young mothers." http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1815845,00.html
I find that disturbing since I remember the days when young girls had to leave school if they became pregnant.

I'm with you above in thread about about the connection with the rise in teen pregnancies and the absurd abstinence-only programs playing a part in that overall rise in the nation.

But there is another layer here and it almost has more of a FLDS kind of vibe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 09:30 AM
Response to Reply #26
29. Sounds like a half-baked teenage idea to me
Their own family lives must have been pretty miserable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
suffragette Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #29
106. That's quite possible
And the family lives play a large role in this.

From the Time article, it sounds like that community has been devastated economically by outsourcing and ths is having an understandably harsh impact on families:
In Gloucester, perched on scenic Cape Ann, the economy has always depended on a strong fishing industry. But in recent years, such jobs have all but disappeared overseas, and with them much of the community's wherewithal. "Families are broken," says school superintendent Christopher Farmer. "Many of our young people are growing up directionless."

Still, the whole pact part about raising the kids together makes me wonder if this was some attempt by them to form a community, half-baked as that is.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
belpejic Donating Member (431 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #106
199. Gloucester is not a nice place
The places along the coast that wealthy summer dwellers inhabit are certainly nice, but not most inhabitants' places. Drug use is rampant, unemployment is high, and where there is work it's usually in a service industry. I think a lot of people ignore these socioeconomic factors.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 06:26 PM
Response to Reply #199
200. Bull Shit!! It's a beautiful place and you know nothing!! Stop spreading lies!
:grr:

Every place has pockets of poverty except Hollywood type area's.

Even they have issue's ands crime and teen pregnancy and murder!!

Get a fucking clue!!



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
belpejic Donating Member (431 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 06:30 PM
Response to Reply #200
202. Sorry, but I have spent plenty of time there and on Cape Ann n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 06:33 PM
Response to Reply #202
203. So have I and I don't broad brush condemn a whole town for a few miscreants.
Neither should you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
belpejic Donating Member (431 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 08:51 PM
Response to Reply #203
209. Clarification
I actually like Gloucester, and I think that Cape Ann is beautiful. I simply have lived in enough down and out towns in New England to appreciate the fact that it is really hard for them to break out of downward spirals when major industries leave. Gloucester is rightly pursuing tourism now, but the crash of the fishing and fish processing industries left a lot of people hurting. The town I currently live in has suffered a steep decline in shipping and manufacturing industries for over a hundred years; the previous NE town I lived in has been suffering for over 200! I'm not condemning Gloucester, I'm just saying that less-than-ideal socioeconomic conditions might play a role in this whole situation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phillycat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 09:37 AM
Response to Original message
33. Having someone to love them unconditionally.
Edited on Fri Jun-20-08 09:37 AM by janesez
That's why these girls said they wanted babies. Newsflash: children who are properly nurtured and loved at home don't have that hole in their soul that causes them to need someone to love them unconditionally - their parents fill that role.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 09:40 AM
Response to Reply #33
36. Where did you hear that interview? Link?
I watched all the TV news this morning, local and national, and didn't see one interview with "these girls".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JI7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 09:45 AM
Response to Reply #36
39. it was a quote from another girl who got pregnant
from the school. she graduated from there but got pregnant her freshman year. but it's not clear whether she is just speaking from her own experience or that's what the other girls told her.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 09:52 AM
Response to Reply #39
43. She graduated so, I doubt she knows all these girls.... but
I saw the same interview... she also said she'd told some of them she
did know, that it wasn't a good idea. It had taken her childhood away.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JI7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #43
49. i have to wonder
i'm pretty sure i was taught in my school what having a kid at such a young age meant. i don't remember exactly where. i know we had sex ed as in safe sex, but we were also taught other things such as what if you did have a kid. i don't know if this was part of sex ed. maybe it was in some sociology or political type class.

they taught us having a kid would limit the things you could do in life. they gave us statistics. we knew the chances of doing certain things would go down based on certain decisions we made.

(maybe it just came from my own readings since i was interested in politics and other issues back then and read newspapers regularly).

but i think too many times girls only think of the cute baby they will have and how fun it will be to play with the baby and how they will love them. they don't think of the lifetime commitment to it and how that will be the most important thing for the rest of their life.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NashVegas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #36
70. There Was a Study a Couple of Years Ago
Edited on Fri Jun-20-08 10:44 AM by Crisco
That listed (paraphrasing) 'having someone to love' as the #1 cited reason for getting pregnant amont teen girls in bad homes.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5186614.stm

The study, for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation suggested girls as young as 13 choose motherhood to be independent and to create "a loving family".

The researchers said their findings show teenagers are not ignorant about contraception, as is often assumed, and actively plan to have a baby.

...

The study found that many of those who became pregnant as teenagers had wanted to compensate for their own bad experiences as childhood.

They said that if they had not become a parent, their life would become worse because of continued family disruption and unhappiness.


Here's a 1997 Cornell Study that pretty much says the same thing.

http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/97/6.12.97/teen_pregnancy.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Midlodemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #33
81. Exactly what I said in a different thread.
Parents love unconditionally, not babies.

It's beyond sad. I can't imagine my teenaged daughter wanting to be pregnant at 17.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gatorboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 09:50 AM
Response to Original message
42. Two officials at the high school health center resigned of this. Here's why:
http://www.startribune.com/nation/20589989.html

The rash of pregnancies has shaken the seaside city about 30 miles north of Boston. Last month, two officials at the high school health center resigned to protest the resistance from the local hospital to the confidential distribution of contraceptives. The hospital administers the state money that funds the clinic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 09:53 AM
Response to Reply #42
44. Yup... the school nurse and doctor resigned!
Edited on Fri Jun-20-08 09:53 AM by Breeze54
The school board is reviewing their (dumbass) policy, so says the superintendent
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #42
54. Contraceptives ain't going to help, if, as alleged, these
teenagers are getting knocked up on purpose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gatorboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #54
59. You don't think this might not be from a lack of education on the matter?
It certainly doesn't help the rest of the school's population that is probably getting just as frisky.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #59
61. The article says that they apparently decided to get
knocked up on purpose, as a part of the pact.
Not because they didn't have access to contraception.
That school apparently has a child care center on site. Anyone wonders if that encourages these teenage girls to get pregnant?
Seeing cute babies in their own school?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gollygee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #61
67. If they get to see them when they're cute and bubbly at 3 in the afternoon
they should also have to see them when they're screaming and inconsolable at 3 in the morning.

Yes, just seeing them at their best and getting shown off by their parents isn't a good idea.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gatorboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #61
68. Again, it doesn't help the OTHER kids in the school not going along with the baby pact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #59
78. That school had sex ed.... these girls did what a lot of teens do... because it's so coool!
:eyes:

Remember those teen suicide pacts?

Teens do stupid things!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gatorboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #78
79. They may have had sex ed, but they didn't have the contraceptives.
They kinda help.

I will agree with you on one thing. Teens (And Tween!) are brain damaged for the most part. :P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #79
84. They didn't have it at the school but they could've got BC at any Dr's office or clinic....
they didn't want the BC!! :silly:

Teens definitely have brains still in development, that's for sure!!

My youngest is 19 and is still 'figuring' things out and commonsense isn't always prevalent! :P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carnea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 10:27 AM
Response to Original message
56. You know maybe there isn't enough shame....
Yes I'm old enough to remember when a pregnant girl in High School was a shameful thing. Funny thing though at least half the kids were sexually active I only recall one teenage pregnancy taken to term. (If you were pregnant going to public school really wasn't an option)

We weren't saints. Many girls and guys were sexually active by the time they were 13 or 14 and yes it was a liberal town and yes parents were often in denial... (You can see it on this board I often see parents say there daughter is going to college but isn't sexually active yet... uh-huh.)

Still for a girl to get pregnant was a very very bad thing. (And for a guy to knock up his girlfriend was a one way trip to an all boys military school.)

There really doesn't seem to be consequences in this case.


Oh an as an aside charging a guy in his early twenties with statutory rape when the girl tells him she is 18 and on the pill would be a misuse of the law in my humble opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #56
65. Well, that's for sure.
What once considered shameful isn't so anymore.
As for charging the guys, it all depends on what laws the state has regarding the age of consent and statutory rape.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LanternWaste Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #56
72. It's my responsibility as an adult
"Oh an as an aside charging a guy in his early twenties with statutory rape when the girl tells him she is 18 and on the pill would be a misuse of the law in my humble opinion."

It's my responsibility as an adult to make absolutely sure-- beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the young lady (or young man-- as your mileage may vary) is of the legal age of consent. If I'm seriously brain-dead enough to fall for a ruse from someone who is underage, the legal consequences are mine and mine alone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carnea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #72
83. Look I'm not talking about some girl you meet at the mall giggling wearing a High School Sweatshirt.
You meet a girl at a dance club or bar that cards should you really be prosecuted if the girl turned out to be 15... Obviously you are not seeking out younger girls your at a bar for gods sake.

While this is not a problem for me today (I'm to old to be interesting to teenage girls) I do remember some close calls in my late teens early twenties with girls 15 going on 30.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LanternWaste Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #83
92. Nor am I referring to any particular social demographic either
Nor am I referring to any particular social demographic either. Regardless of whether she is a giggling high school girl, or a young lady who looks, acts and dresses with more... maturity, it is still incumbent on me, and me alone to prevent any inappropriate acts with an underage individual.

Whether she's at an adult bar trying to buy me a drink, or simply in the grocery store making eyes at me, the ultimate responsibility (and consequences) lies with me-- all excuses, justifications, and protestations aside.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
raccoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #72
85. Thank you! I notice there is very little said on this thread about the responsibility
of the boys/men involved. In regards to them having sex with underage girls AND in regards to knocking them up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #56
112. Right, what they really need is lower self-esteem.
They aught to be mocked for being to fat too. We need to cut down on childhood obesity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carnea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #112
119. I'm not sure low self esteem is the problem here.
If anything a lot of little darlings nowadays suffer from too much self estimate not to little. Honestly these girls sound like self centered little shits without an ounce of common sense.

Perhaps if previous pregnant teens weren't treated so special with in school daycare. (Try finding that in the real world) these girls would have thought twice. I think the school inadvertently enabled them my making teen pregnancy look to easy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #119
124. I agree. We've got way too much self-estimate little shits.
Edited on Fri Jun-20-08 12:58 PM by Bornaginhooligan
We need to go back to the olden days when self estimate little shits were forced to go to boarding schools and we had much higher teen pregnantistic rates.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #119
146. I also doubt that having a child care in the school is such a good idea.
Hello? Other young teenagers might be observing the cute babies in that child care (is it free?), and decide they want one of their own. Are the school officials thinking it through? Whatever is going on in that school, if a large number of girls under 16 are getting knocked up, I would think something ain't right.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #146
187. I myself am against air bags and seat belts.
I don't think we should be encouraging teenagers to drive their cars into brick walls and trees and other solid objects.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #119
153. In school daycare isn't there to make them "feel" special... it's to keep the Moms in school!!
To many Moms used to drop out of school and still do after having a baby as a teen. You want MORE parents on welfare or do you want them learning, graduating and working and moving on to college?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carnea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #153
156. I agree that is it's purpose but perhaps the way it was implemented
it backfired.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Summer93 Donating Member (439 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 10:39 AM
Response to Original message
69. T.V. harmful to the well-being of everyone these days
A couple other influences on these girls decisions.

Every evening just after the news programs there is a show that is aimed at teenagers and it glorifies the Hollywood stars for their "baby bumps" and they are young and beautiful. They would not talk about any negative side of having a baby. If there is lack of sleep there is probably a nanny to step in to help. This is every evening.

Another news story that got a lot of press. The women were taken into custody the cult/home in the southwest. They were not concerned about the men only the women, the women who were underaged, those were the ones that got the attention in the media.

One of my first thoughts was they made a pact. Now when the babies are born will these girls join together to raise these babies, will there be one of them that will get a job, a car, a home. Like the flower power of way back then. Will they receive welfare because of their age? Is this program still based upon the concept of the more children you have the more money you get?

At a time when jobs are going over seas what an innovative way to use the system.

After all *Bush has demonstrated how to create your own new reality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #69
100. Is this program still based upon the concept of the more children you have the more money you get?
No... not since it was enacted and it never was a way to 'get rich' or even barely survive.

---------------

A Decade of Welfare Reform: Facts and Figures

http://www.urban.org/publications/900980.html

----------------------

Welfare Reform: Four Years Later

by Douglas J. Besharov & Peter Germanis

http://www.welfareacademy.org/pubs/welfare/four_yea.shtml

This article appeared in the Summer 2000 issue of the Public Interest.


snip--->

It has suited the purposes of both the Clinton administration and the Republican Congress to claim that "welfare reform" has caused this dramatic decline--and that over two million former recipients are now working because of the new law. But that's not quite true. The strong economy--and massively increased aid to the working poor--almost certainly have had more impact than welfare reform per se. Moreover, as many as 40 percent of the mothers who left welfare are not working regularly but are instead relying on support from boyfriends, family members or friends, and other government and private programs.

Both liberals and conservatives have found it convenient to ignore this reality--conservatives because it gives the "Clinton economy" and the president's success in expanding aid to the working poor too much credit and Republican welfare reform too little, and liberals because it suggests that many welfare recipients didn't "really need" government benefits. But the failure to be clear about why the rolls have declined so much prevents an accurate accounting of the law's impact--and what needs to be done next.

snip-->

In most places, the welfare application process has a new element: "diversion." Diversion is a straightforward effort to keep families off welfare. It is encapsulated in two simple questions now asked of welfare applicants: Have you looked for a job? Can someone else support you?

snip-->

Many of these new policies bear a close resemblance to the program restrictions in new-style state welfare regimes, such as tougher work requirements, time-limited benefits, family caps, and linking benefits to immunization and school attendance.

snip-->

In Iowa, after families were dropped from welfare, they were about 33 percent more likely to be relying on others for a place to stay (25 percent vs. 33 percent). Similarly, in Florida, where families have begun to lose welfare due to a time limit, one-third of those who hit the time limit either moved or had a different living arrangement, such as adding another household member to help with the expenses. Finally, in Connecticut, 43 percent of the families that left welfare due to the state's 21-month time limit reported living with at least one other adult six months after benefit termination. (There is no comparison data for the period before the time limit was reached.)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrreowwr_kittty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #69
164. I kind of agree with your take on it.
I don't see why people are so shocked by this pact. In a depressed economy with what appear to be dim options for the future, these girls were rational actors. Obviously, they don't know what they're getting into, but from their limited perspective it makes perfect sense to have babies now for a variety of reasons, some of which are not entirely illogical. Single mothers are eligible for numerous social programs that non-parents aren't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 11:00 AM
Response to Original message
77. Any bets on how many baby-daddies stay in the picture? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_Tires Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #77
104. whatever it is, i'll take the 'under'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeposeTheBoyKing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 11:06 AM
Response to Original message
80. It's a coven! Burn them as witches!
(just kidding - it is Massachusetts, after all...)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #80
86. LOL! That's a few miles away in Salem!
:P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeposeTheBoyKing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #86
89. I know - but I gotta work with what I have.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #80
93. lol
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 11:14 AM
Response to Original message
88. I have a bunch of mixed up thoughts.
Edited on Fri Jun-20-08 11:18 AM by Bleachers7
This is a funny country. We do all kinds of funny things depending on where we live. This sort of thing is common in the mountain west, and there isn't much outrage.

I'm surprised this doesn't happen more often.

There's a lot wrong here. At this point, the school should do anything it can to prevent pregnancy's.

The fathers should probably not be prosecuted.

The idea that this has anything to do with Juno or Knocked up is BS. Juno struggles in the movie. Knocked up is between adults.

I blame it on Superman. Superman knocks up Lois Lane. This is the obvious cause. :silly:

I hope these girls get the care they need. Hopefully this will be a positive in the long run.

In the long history of the world, animals are born to procreate. They're doing what they are supposed to do biologically. In the old days (up to the 20th century), marriages and pregnancies to teenage girls was very common. I know we're not in the old days anymore and this is not meant to be an excuse. But I feel like we're reverting to the old days more and more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Scout Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 11:32 AM
Response to Original message
98. stupid, stupid twits n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AllieB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 11:43 AM
Response to Original message
101. School Officials Quit Over Birth Control Dispute
http://wbztv.com/local/gloucester.contraceptives.Doctor.2.733531.html

"Two top officials at Gloucester High School's health center have resigned in a fight over contraceptives distribution.

Medical Director Dr. Brian Orr and chief nurse practitioner Kim Daly support confidentially giving contraceptives to students. They were outraged about resistance from Addison Gilbert Hospital and resigned Friday.

The hospital administers the state public health grant that funds the school clinic.

This year, 17 Gloucester High School students are pregnant. Normally, the school has about four pregnancies per school year."

------------------------------------------------------

While these girls intended to get pregnant, maybe of there was adequate sex education may have helped some of them make informed decisions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Breeze54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #101
115. They had Sex Ed... just not BC at the school.
MA has a very comprehensive Sex Ed program.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigwillq Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 11:45 AM
Response to Original message
102. I saw that story while flipping past Faux News
and I just shook my head. Kinda of sad on the girls part. Kind of sad on Faux's part too. It's not national news, imo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shanti Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 12:41 PM
Response to Original message
109. it's some kind of epidemic
Edited on Fri Jun-20-08 01:08 PM by shanti
imo...my son's hs had at least 15 girls having babies last year - they thought it was a "cool" thing to do :eyes: as an aside, many of these babies were biracial, but our community is multicultural.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
undeterred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 01:08 PM
Response to Original message
134. I've actually heard of young women in their twenties
doing this. Deliberately getting pregnant with no intention of raising the child with a father. And some of them are living at their parents home working low paying jobs. They don't see a connection between marriage and babies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #134
141. The connection between marriage and babies is a very young idea
when you think about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrreowwr_kittty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #134
169. Why would they?
There is a distinct causal correlation between socio-economic class and marriage, in that order. This is where the wingnuts get it wrong. It's not marriage and stable families that lead to economic security, it's the other way around.

For a young working class woman, having a baby out of wedlock is a rational decision. Poverty ages you really fast, so it makes sense to have your babies when you are healthiest and most attractive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
undeterred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #169
192. But these are women raised in two parent middle class homes
who are choosing to raise children on their own. They are opting out of marriage because they don't think that highly of men.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrreowwr_kittty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 05:28 PM
Response to Reply #192
195. The community is rapidly declining. I'd say they are lucky if they're still middle class. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 01:13 PM
Response to Original message
136. Sounds like the school needs some of those computerized baby dolls for a class.
Time to get some of those and have a class and have the kids take them home and see what it is like to be sleep deprived and responsible for a baby.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenanne285 Donating Member (1 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-25-08 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #136
234. Yes! Get the RealCare Babies in that community
I totally agree. Realityworks makes RealCare Babies that can really shed some light on what having an infant is REALLY like. Newborns don't really "unconditionally love" -- they pretty much just eat, sleep, make messes and keep you up at night. It's not pretty, especially for a teenager who is mostly concerned with him or herself all the time. Check out the Babies at www.realityworks.com for more information.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-25-08 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #234
235. That is them. Welcome to DU. This "pact" has been shown to be false.
no pact, just pregnant teens and someone getting news coverage for a non-story ("pact"). Welcome to DU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mojambo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 01:15 PM
Response to Original message
138. Yeah okay. I'd watch that show.
It's like a Brady Bunch for the new millennium.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
galledgoblin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 03:53 PM
Response to Original message
170. kids whose bodies matured before their common sense (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 03:55 PM
Response to Original message
171. If you raise yourself, and live financially depressed , expecting nothing
but more of the same as you age, why not?

Kids with no goals, no love, no respect, no hope..well they do self-destructive things..

Boys can get into "legal difficulties" and end up with records or in jail

Girls often have babies before they can support them.... without the love & support of a husband/father

the price for early/unwise rebellion is a lifetime of what they feared most..poverty and an insignificant life.:cry:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #171
191. You have nailed this. No love, no hope, no future. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 06:01 PM
Response to Reply #191
197. I see these young people all over the place..and the sad thing is that they
mess up their lives permanently, and never even get to know what they are missing.. they grow up overworked, poor ,bitter, unhappy people.. and some of them vote :scared:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrreowwr_kittty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 07:58 PM
Response to Reply #197
206. Is it any wonder the RW opposes abortion and contraception?
More kids means more cannon fodder, cheap labor, and an electorate too exhausted to care what's being done to them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Commie Pinko Dirtbag Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 06:42 PM
Response to Original message
204. I wonder about the girls' ethnicity, and, if they're white, whether they bought the
"us whites are being out-breeded by THEM" kind of loony talk. It's a long shot, I know, but the thought just popped in my mind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Umbram Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-21-08 07:55 AM
Response to Reply #204
224. Too much time on political message boards for you... (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jeffrey_X Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-21-08 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #204
227. Exactly...."now imagine they were black"
eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 08:21 PM
Response to Original message
208. Deciding to raise them together, a great big support group
They've decided that men can't be counted on.

If they were older, this might actually be a sort of good idea.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-21-08 02:23 AM
Response to Reply #208
222. They are totally going to start infighting.
:popcorn:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alfredo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 11:46 PM
Response to Original message
218. One guy got them all pregnant
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bumblebee1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-21-08 02:03 AM
Response to Original message
219. I remember something my older sister told me when I was in high school.
She told me that it's unfair for the baby to have immature parents. Unfortunately, there will be seventeen babies who will have immature parents. When I was in high school, there were a few girls who got pregnant. My niece works in the same high school. She tells me there are usually girls in every grade who are pregnant.

I also remember when my half sister got pregnant at 18. She had told my younger sister that she didn't care if she got pregnant or not. My sister told her that she would have upset if she were pregnant at 18. The half sister's mother, our stepmother, would not have been so kind to myself or either of my sisters if we came home unmarried, pregnant with few prospects of finding a job.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-21-08 02:21 AM
Response to Original message
221. LOL! Idiots.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ldr65 Donating Member (83 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-21-08 08:55 AM
Response to Original message
226. Sounds like the making of a future Maury episode.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anonymous171 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-21-08 01:36 PM
Response to Original message
230. WTF!? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue May 07th 2024, 05:10 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC