Maternity Leave for High School Moms

[faintember]

Link (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_7899096)

I saw this on the local news and it grabbed my interest. The article suggests a four week maternity leave be granted for new moms as it helps the mother and baby bond, rather than giving unexcused absences as is commonly done.

I understand the need for mother and child to bond after pregnancy, for them to heal/rest, and for the mother to take some time (if not previously done) to learn how to take care of their child. However the article does not state how the mothers will make up the four weeks of absences, although it does point to other school districts that offer class credits for nutrition, and others that offer a school that starts at 4:30pm in order to help the mother stay active in school while having time with her child.

Now, I am all for mothers bonding with their children (especially newborns) as I am for mothers staying in high school to obtain their diplomas, however I do see an issue when teachers, school districts and taxpayers have to pay (literally and figuratively) to cater to these new mothers. And with a high rate of teenage pregnancy (5.45% in Denver amongst girls ages 15 to 17) this poses a large burden both financially and morally.

So I was just wondering what other MR readers thought about this issue. I agree with credits towards nutrition (provided the mother do some form of paper work indicating proper nutrition in regards to newborns), but other than that I think mothers should have to either wait until the next semester to attend classes (as four weeks of absences would more than fail any student) or make plans to work with tutors and do their classwork from home.

[imac/cheese]

I think 54.5% might be a little bit high.

[Queso]

I think 54.5% might be a little bit high.
A mile high perhaps?

[gauchogolfer]

I think 54.5% might be a little bit high.

Yeah, that one jumped out at me also. According to the Denver Post, 54.5 out of 1000 will become pregnant, for a rate of 5.45%.

[faintember]

I think 54.5% might be a little bit high.It is quoted from the article in case you are wondering.

Denver has one of the highest teen-pregnancy rates in the state. Of every 1,000 girls ages 15 to 17, 54.5 will become pregnant in the city, compared with 24.3 throughout Colorado, according to state health statistics. Bold/Italics emphasis is mine.

A mile high perhaps?Soooo bad.:p

[Swarmlord]

<snip>And with a high rate of teenage pregnancy (54.5% in Denver amongst girls ages 15 to 17) this poses a large burden both financially and morally.<snip>

More than half of ALL 15 to 17 year old girls in Denver are pregnant?

[gauchogolfer]

It is quoted from the article in case you are wondering.


More than half of ALL 15 to 17 year old girls in Denver are pregnant?

Check out my correction. It's only 5.45%.

[Jasonbot]

More than half of ALL 15 to 17 year old girls in Denver are pregnant?

Maybe it's 54.5% of all married girls aged 15 to 17 or something ridiculous :p

[Jaffa Cake]

I think he's saying that 54.5% of teenage mothers in Denver are aged 15-17, the other 45.5% are under-15 or over-17.

I might be wrong though, and if so that's a rate of teenage pregnancy that puts even Hull to shame. :o

EDIT: Ah well, maybe not.

[faintember]

Check out my correction. It's only 5.45%.Yeah yeah yeah, thats what I get for reading a % sign after a number; my bad.

[mariahlullaby]

The statistic in the article is 54.4 of every 1000 girls aged 15 to 17. So that means 5.44% Edit: oops, posted slowly :P

Still, interesting concept -- I don't believe the mothers should be forced to go back to school the next day (that is ridiculous), but I do think it may be difficult for them to make up the work/classes in 4 weeks. On the other hand, if a student had gotten into a car wreck and was in the hospital for 4 weeks, the school would undoubtedly have no problem letting them make up the work.

[dukebound85]

yea a little high, and being from around the denver area, i have no idea where all these kids are lol. maybe a typo?

but anyways i agree. i dont want tax dollars going to irresponsible kids (who doesnt agree to this) that are 15-17 that have children. why further their education on my money when they are irresponsible and will probably end up dropping out from hs and never going to college.

if they want the education bad enough, they will have to deal with the consequences of their actionas and not let the schools/society cater to their needs.

[calculus]

"Of every 1,000 girls ages 15 to 17, 54.5 will become pregnant in the city"

er, I make that 5.45%

It's not the pregnant girls that need the schooling :rolleyes:

[dukebound85]

The statistic in the article is 54.4 of every 1000 girls aged 15 to 17. So that means 5.44%

Still, interesting concept -- I don't believe the mothers should be forced to go back to school the next day (that is ridiculous), but I do think it may be difficult for them to make up the work/classes in 4 weeks. On the other hand, if a student had gotten into a car wreck and was in the hospital for 4 weeks, the school would undoubtedly have no problem letting them make up the work.

the car wreck you cant control. Choosing to get knocked up you can. big difference

[faintember]

"Of every 1,000 girls ages 15 to 17, 54.5 will become pregnant in the city"

er, I make that 5.45%

It's not the pregnant girls that need the schooling :rolleyes:I made a mistake, I corrected it and apologized for it. So, in other words, politely toss off.;)

[Ugg]

So, you're saying that new mothers, if they're still in high school, should be exempt from laws that regulate post high-school mothers?

That's just stupid. Maternity leave in the workplace is firmly entrenched in the law. I'll even bet that most universities allow for some sort of leeway.

Keeping kids in school is hard enough and forcing new mothers to attend school immediately after the birth of their child seems incredibly stupid and guaranteed to discourage them from finishing.

Teenage pregnancy, however regrettable, is a reality and has been for centuries. Why not deal with it the best way possible?

[calculus]

So, in other words, politely toss off.;)

Well I suppose that might help keep the numbers down ...

[miloblithe]

yea a little high, and being from around the denver area, i have no idea where all these kids are lol. maybe a typo?

but anyways i agree. i dont want tax dollars going to irresponsible kids (who doesnt agree to this) that are 15-17 that have children. why further their education on my money when they are irresponsible and will probably end up dropping out from hs and never going to college.

if they want the education bad enough, they will have to deal with the consequences of their actionas and not let the schools/society cater to their needs.

Let me raise my hand as not agreeing with you. I don't think we want to aspire to be a society that writes off 15 year olds as a waste of time and resources, as you seem perfectly willing to do.

Let me ask a question, do you believe that this teenager has a right to an abortion?

[dukebound85]

as long as MY tax dollars arent being used to cater to their needs in a public school system due to them getting pregnant I dont care what they do

why should more resources be spent on them because they dont have self control rather than good kids? how about taxes need to be based on a per student basis so all kids receive same benefit

Let me raise my hand as not agreeing with you. I don't think we want to aspire to be a society that writes off 15 year olds as a waste of time and resources, as you seem perfectly willing to do.

Let me ask a question, do you believe that this teenager has a right to an abortion?

im not saying right them off. im saying deal with the consequences and not just hand out free resources with my tax money

why should society bend over backwards to accomoddate students who mess up? there is a big enough issue with the quality of education in alot of areas in the country. why waste resources on those that deliberately choose to engage in adult behavior and refuse to accept consequences

in other words, why hold back the students who are there seriously at the sake of those who are 15 and pregnant . Im willing to bet the kids that are out getting pregnant at this age are far far far more likely to not go to college and probably not finish hs.

however those that do but value an education will make it work out. im just saying that the majority dont value it most likley

the initiative HAS TO BE ON THE STUDENTS PART, not the school

and no I dont believe in abortion. i do believe in accepting responsibilty for what you do

[Iscariot]

Those of you who are opposed to this on the basis of it costing you tax dollars: it will cost more money to hold her back and force another year of education, no?

Anyhow, I agree with getting four weeks off for maternity leave, it makes sense for the mother and child. I'd like to see some stipulation such as "must pass final exam with XX%" or, towards the end of the year, produce a make-up assignment that demonstrates applied knowledge of the subject. The point is to ensure a timely education, right?

[mariahlullaby]

the car wreck you cant control. Choosing to get knocked up you can. big difference

So if they were drunk driving and are in a car accident, they shouldn't be able to make up the work? Or if they were really tired the night before because they were up late partying or something and fell asleep at the wheel, they shouldn't be able to make up the work?

[faintember]

So, you're saying that new mothers, if they're still in high school, should be exempt from laws that regulate post high-school mothers?No, I just think that the taxpayers and the educational system should not have to plan and expend money in order to cater to teen mothers when, realistically the mother could take the semester off from school and then continue her schooling as per normal.

Teenage pregnancy, however regrettable, is a reality and has been for centuries. Why not deal with it the best way possible?My issue is with the teen mothers forcing tax dollars to be spent for alternative programs in order for them to complete their education while their pregnancy could have been avoided. $5 for condoms is a lot cheaper than funding alternative programs.

I am actually more in favor of funding school-based childcare to both benefit teen parents and teachers who are also parents.

Well I suppose that might help keep the numbers down ...Ah, that was my point all along?:p

[MacNut]

The bigger issue is why are these girls getting knocked up at 15 in the first place. Solve that problem and everything else will fall into place.

[imac/cheese]

I am all for providing new teen mothers with some time off. I really don't think 4 weeks is enough, but it is better than nothing. The purpose of high school is an education (as Iscariot stated) and the life lessons that a girl receives in the first 4 weeks of her infants life will be far more valuable to her than the 4 weeks spent in English, math, and PE. I think schools should allow for essential work to be made up and let the rest go. Giving a new mom some stress relief.

This quote from the article is rather disturbing:

Students at one high school in southern Colorado wanted to set up a child-care center, but the principal forbade it, saying it would encourage teen pregnancy, she said.

What teen says to herself, "Well, since my school has a child-care center, I guess I should get pregnant."

[Queso]

What teen says to herself, "Well, since my school has a child-care center, I guess I should get pregnant."
You'd be surprised. Over here the teenage pregnancies go in clumps, almost as if once one or two girls in a group have a baby it becomes a desired item for others.

[faintember]

What teen says to herself, "Well, since my school has a child-care center, I guess I should get pregnant."I wondered to myself if that principal had an issue with contraceptive devices being taught in sex ed as well. Somehow it wouldn't surprise me.

I agree that schools are for providing an education, and I would be much more comfortable if there were some stipulations included with the maternity leave such as those listed my Iscariot. However, without any stipulations included I get a bit worried.

[MacNut]

If the school gives these weeks off wont that just tell more girls that its ok to get pregnant. How is that dealing with the problem.

[imac/cheese]

No, I just think that the taxpayers and the educational system should not have to plan and expend money in order to cater to teen mothers when, realistically the mother could take the semester off from school and then continue her schooling as per normal.

My issue is with the teen mothers forcing tax dollars to be spent for alternative programs in order for them to complete their education while their pregnancy could have been avoided. $5 for condoms is a lot cheaper than funding alternative programs.

I am actually more in favor of funding school-based childcare to both benefit teen parents and teachers who are also parents.

Ah, that was my point all along?:p

What is the difference between taxpayers paying for childcare for teachers with small children and taxpayers paying for programs to help teen mothers graduate on time and well educated? Both services directly help a small portion of the community. The teacher could have spent $5 on condoms and then the school wouldn't have to fund child-care.

Our schools and communities are supposed to support their members. That support is even more critical when mistakes are made and problems arise.

[MacNut]

If a kid makes a mistake where do you draw the line. If they go out drinking and miss a few days do we excuse them. What excuse is ok and what one isn't

[imac/cheese]

If the school gives these weeks off wont that just tell more girls that its ok to get pregnant. How is that dealing with the problem.

Giving support does not condone making mistakes. It simply shows that even when mistakes are made, there are options for moving on and people who still care.

[MacNut]

Giving support does not condone making mistakes. It simply shows that even when mistakes are made, there are options for moving on and people who still care.But at some point the kid as to take responsibility, not live on handouts. Keep giving a kid more chances they will still make the same mistakes.

[faintember]

What is the difference between taxpayers paying for childcare for teachers with small children and taxpayers paying for programs to help teen mothers graduate on time and well educated? Both services directly help a small portion of the community. The teacher could have spent $5 on condoms and then the school wouldn't have to fund child-care.

Our schools and communities are supposed to support their members. That support is even more critical when mistakes are made and problems arise.The difference is that late-night schools, class credits for nutrition, etc. only benefit the teen mother (and her child), while school-based child care would benefit the teen mother and teachers with children. The teens could attend classes in traditional hours, and more importantly, the teen parents will receive the same type of education (i.e. same level of instruction, access to computers and research material, etc.) as their non-parent peers. Having teachers with children benefit from the child care is just a plus. Teen parents, and other interested teens could even possibly take classes in the child care area for elective credits, allowing them to continue with their core classwork, spend time with their children and learn valuable parenting skills.

[.JahJahwarrior.]

Personally, I think government should not require students to attend school at all.... :) If a student wants to take four weeks off, let them.

I think there is something to be said for laws that apply to post high school mothers also applying to in high school mothers, but I also think perhaps in high school fathers should be forced to pay child support, like post high school fathers are.

It takes two to tango. A guy and a girl decided to have sex. There are consequences. They need to feel the effects of their decisions. Parents also need to control their children better--before they are 18, they are not adults, and do not have the same set of constitutional rights that adults have. Adults need to keep these children from doing stupid things, like drinking and driving, licking electrical sockets, drinking out of the toilet, or having sex at age 15.


A 15 year old is not mature enough to raise a child, in my opinion. A 15 year old is also not mature enough to make a decision about abortion or not. I wouldn't trust a 15 year old to make a smart or wise decision about darn near anything important. A 15 year old should not be allowed to have sex. A 15 year old should not be allowed to choose an abortion. A 15 year old should be be allowed to drink alcohol, or use other drugs. A 15 year old is a child, for crying out loud!!!

[wordmunger]

It takes two to tango. A guy and a girl decided to have sex. There are consequences. They need to feel the effects of their decisions. Parents also need to control their children better--before they are 18, they are not adults, and do not have the same set of constitutional rights that adults have. Adults need to keep these children from doing stupid things, like drinking and driving, licking electrical sockets, drinking out of the toilet, or having sex at age 15.

I see... all we have to do is tell parents to monitor their teenagers better and *poof* problem solved! I'm surprised no one has thought of that before.

Seriously though, I can understand the idea of asking kids to take responsibility for their actions. IMHO, deciding to keep a baby when you got pregnant at 15 is taking quite a bit of responsibility.

The point of the proposal isn't so much the welfare of the 15-year-old, it's the welfare of the baby. If the baby builds a better bond with her mother, maybe she won't repeat her mother's mistakes when she's 15.

I haven't read the research about bonding closely enough to know if this is true, but if four weeks off school for the mother means that the baby is less likely to become an unwed parent 15 years later, that sounds like a pretty reasonable trade-off to me.

[imac/cheese]

If a kid makes a mistake where do you draw the line. If they go out drinking and miss a few days do we excuse them. What excuse is ok and what one isn't

Drinking is against the law. The law should punish those children. The school should not excuse students for breaking the law. Teen pregnancy is not against the law. No crimes have ben committed and the teens should be supported not treated like criminals.

[letsgorangers]

and no I dont believe in abortion. i do believe in accepting responsibilty for what you do

Right. So a 15 year old who is raped, by your own admission, should not have an abortion and should not get time off school. Excellent. Yeah, I'm sure you'll remark about how that's different. But teenage girls don't always have sex because they want to -- pressures from peers & partners, not feeling loved at home, etc. I think having a kid even if the pregnancy wasn't planned shows some semblance of responsibility.

Guess what -- making a mistake doesn't make you a bad person. Who didn't make mistakes (monumental or not) when they were 15? I agree with wordmunger; making the decision to keep a child from an unwanted pregnancy at any age is taking responsibility.

Maybe if schools taught safe sex practices over abstinence, this wouldn't be such a large issue. I personally think that teaching students about safe sex should be required in public school.

[skunk]

as long as MY tax dollars arent being used to cater to their needs in a public school system due to them getting pregnant I dont care what they do

why should more resources be spent on them because they dont have self control rather than good kids? how about taxes need to be based on a per student basis so all kids receive same benefitThis is such a predictable mantra. MY tax dollars, MY back yard, MY country. Yadda effing yadda.

Why should more resources be spent on sick kids, law-breaking kids, hungry kids, educationally subnormal kids, pregnant kids, disadvantaged kids? How about because they're KIDS? Because they are the ones who NEED resources? Because a little help now will help them to be productive members of society later? Because if you were one of them you'd be grateful and you'd be more likely to invest in a country that supported you? Or simply because you'd be less likely to end up as human detritus littering the streets of your wealthier and more fortunate brethren?

[imac/cheese]

This is such a predictable mantra. MY tax dollars, MY back yard, MY country. Yadda effing yadda.

Why should more resources be spent on sick kids, law-breaking kids, hungry kids, educationally subnormal kids, pregnant kids, disadvantaged kids? How about because they're KIDS? Because they are the ones who NEED resources? Because a little help now will help them to be productive members of society later? Because if you were one of them you'd be grateful and you'd be more likely to invest in a country that supported you? Or simply because you'd be less likely to end up as human detritus littering the streets of your wealthier and more fortunate brethren?

Well said, skunk.

[letsgorangers]

This is such a predictable mantra. MY tax dollars, MY back yard, MY country. Yadda effing yadda.

Why should more resources be spent on sick kids, law-breaking kids, hungry kids, educationally subnormal kids, pregnant kids, disadvantaged kids? How about because they're KIDS? Because they are the ones who NEED resources? Because a little help now will help them to be productive members of society later? Because if you were one of them you'd be grateful and you'd be more likely to invest in a country that supported you? Or simply because you'd be less likely to end up as human detritus littering the streets of your wealthier and more fortunate brethren?

Hear, Hear

[themadchemist]

The high teenage pregnancy rate is a problem, but here are my thoughts.

1) This program does not incentive pregnancy. I don't think anyone is going out and trying to get pregnant to get an excused absence from school. If people are doing this, then we have much larger societal issues to tackle.

2) This program probably does solve a problem in a less-than-optimal situation past the point of intervention that would prevent the problem. When you're talking about maternity leave, it's too late to have prevented the pregnancy, anyway.

3) Costs and logistics are the challenges, obviously. But considering how high these rates are, some investment is probably important to try to get things off to as good a start as you can, for the sake of both child and mother.

4) We've got to, got to get away from this madness of abstinence only and implement realistic and effective sex education.

[dukebound85]

Right. So a 15 year old who is raped, by your own admission, should not have an abortion and should not get time off school. Excellent. Yeah, I'm sure you'll remark about how that's different. But teenage girls don't always have sex because they want to -- pressures from peers & partners, not feeling loved at home, etc. I think having a kid even if the pregnancy wasn't planned shows some semblance of responsibility.

Guess what -- making a mistake doesn't make you a bad person. Who didn't make mistakes (monumental or not) when they were 15? I agree with wordmunger; making the decision to keep a child from an unwanted pregnancy at any age is taking responsibility.

Maybe if schools taught safe sex practices over abstinence, this wouldn't be such a large issue. I personally think that teaching students about safe sex should be required in public school.

i dont believe in abortion even if the girl was raped. you honestly think that all these pregnancies are a result of rape ooookkkk. if they need time off take the semester off. no way should the school set up night courses that would cost more than her going an extra year if needed. i mean youd have to hire more people and fees to use facilities, both of which i would bet cost more than having one additional student in a class during normal times.



This is such a predictable mantra. MY tax dollars, MY back yard, MY country. Yadda effing yadda.

Why should more resources be spent on sick kids, law-breaking kids, hungry kids, educationally subnormal kids, pregnant kids, disadvantaged kids? How about because they're KIDS? Because they are the ones who NEED resources? Because a little help now will help them to be productive members of society later? Because if you were one of them you'd be grateful and you'd be more likely to invest in a country that supported you? Or simply because you'd be less likely to end up as human detritus littering the streets of your wealthier and more fortunate brethren?

how about everyone has an equal chance to be in school (which they do) and if they see the upside of it they will work to further themselves

why reward the trouble makers/ wrong decision makers when those who ARE TRYING TO BE RESPONSIBLE CITIZENS have RESOURCES TAKEN FROM THEM to succeed to help those that more often than not dont give a damn about education. Those that do will realize that they have to work within the system rather than the system try to accomodate them



If I get a dui, do i expect to have society lend me a hand. no i would have to PAY for classes, DO jail time, DO community service. What you are saying is that because of one mistake, society should accomodate me when i clearly messed up. you have to owe up to what you did

The girls that get pregnant SHOULD have the right to have an education. but if it means that because they had a kid that that goal is delayed, well then that is their fault. Nothing is preventing you from going back later to finish school. I just dont think why we as a society should reward those who mess up by setting up costly programs at societies expense when there is a system in place that has the opportunity for them to succeed. but no, some believe we should make it easier on them just because they made a bad decision. well such is life.

but who am i kidding, you probably advocate holding back the entire class for those that dont care/want to be there. why not support the ones that want to be there

that said, i think that public schools should have the right to deny kids past the age of 16 (or whatever age it is no longer req to go to school) who show they dont want to be there by grades or ambition. This would save quite a bit of money which could then be used to help fund public universities

edit: i have no hard feeling towards anyone in this thread. just different opinions

[themadchemist]

If I get a dui, do i expect to have society lend me a hand. no i would have to PAY for classes, DO jail time, DO community service. What you are saying is that because of one mistake, society should accomodate me when i clearly messed up. you have to owe up to what you did


While I wouldn't throw your whole argument out, this part doesn't really work. You see, the DUI would have been illegal.

[nbs2]

Guess what -- making a mistake doesn't make you a bad person. Who didn't make mistakes (monumental or not) when they were 15? I agree with wordmunger; making the decision to keep a child from an unwanted pregnancy at any age is taking responsibility.

Does that mean that getting an abortion is irresponsible?

Just asking.

I hadn't really thought about it, but the in school child care program would be beneficial on many levels. Not only would it give teachers a place to take their kids, but it would also provide a form of vocational training to students who were interested in entering the child care arena. Additionally, can you imagine the opportunities for the psych classes to observe the kids interacting with each other? As an added bonus, if the program required some sort of, even if it were minimal, financial contribution (which I believe it should), the cost of bringing in instructors and insurance and stuff for the kids and such might not throw off precarious school budgets so much.

[letsgorangers]

Does that mean that getting an abortion is irresponsible?

I don't think so, but I also don't oppose abortion.


i dont believe in abortion even if the girl was raped. you honestly think that all these pregnancies are a result of rape ooookkkk.
Yes I believe all pregnancies are a result of rape -- Oh see how dumb that sounds? Exactly. If I had thought that, I would have said it.


why reward the trouble makers/ wrong decision makers when those who ARE TRYING TO BE RESPONSIBLE CITIZENS have RESOURCES TAKEN FROM THEM to succeed to help those that more often than not dont give a damn about education.
You act as if just because someone gets pregnant at this age, they have no desire to do anything else with their life. They made a mistake. Maybe they want to get their life back on track so they can do whatever it takes to raise their kid.

[themadchemist]

You know, if anyone's interested, I have a modest proposal...;)

[dukebound85]

I don't think so, but I also don't oppose abortion.



Yes I believe all pregnancies are a result of rape -- Oh see how dumb that sounds? Exactly. If I had thought that, I would have said it.



You act as if just because someone gets pregnant at this age, they have no desire to do anything else with their life. They made a mistake. Maybe they want to get their life back on track so they can do whatever it takes to raise their kid.

id be willing to bet there is a very strong correlation to getting pregnant at 15 and not doing well in school prior to being pregant

if you had read my post, i said that those who did become pregant should continue edu even if it means sitting out a semester or a year. i believe that adding to the class size during normal times is far less costtly than setting up night school for a few pregnant girls

[Swarmlord]

<snip>Because they are the ones who NEED resources? <snip>

God forbid their parents who are legally responsible for them would provide those resources.

What's this fixation with further traumatizing the kid by suggesting abortion? Isn't adopting out a kid an option any more. Geez.

[hulugu]

You know, if anyone's interested, I have a modest proposal...;)

Fried or stewed?

God forbid their parents who are legally responsible for them would provide those resources.

What's this fixation with further traumatizing the kid by suggesting abortion? Isn't adopting out a kid an option any more. Geez.

I don't have the statistics, but it would seem that many of the girls may not have parents either capable or event present in order to provide these resources. Yes, parents should be part of the solution, but we shouldn't organize a system designed the punish those who need the most help.

If the girl is going to keep the child this requires significantly more resources than an abortion, so pick your poison. Either pay for the girl to stay in school, prenatal care, and medical care to have the child or pay for an abortion. Either way, we need to offer something.

We could also spend some money on sex education programs rather than wasting it on abstinence programs that don't work.

[solvs]

When I was in school I lived in a small town and we had a few girls get pregnant. No matter the reason, there were programs in place to help them if they wanted to further their education. We had a school they could go to a few hours a day, or a home study program where they come in for an hour or so once a week, or night classes. You didn't have to be pregnant, trouble makers and those with other issues also made use of these. The idea was that it benefited society as a whole to have them try to get a better education than having to drop out or repeat an entire year while also trying to care for their child, which they wouldn't be likely to do. Sometimes parents helped, sometimes Dad helped. Sometimes they didn't, or couldn't.

Yeah, personal responsibility is great and all. Wouldn't wanting to continue their education while still taking care of their child be taking responsibility? Shouldn't we be encouraging that? I know, I know, you don't want to pay for it. No welfare either. Let the child suffer for the parents mistake, and helping the girl try to further her education is only encouraging her behavior. See, I always thought we as a society should care for one another, but since you have yours and don't want to pay for it, I guess we shouldn't. After all, you didn't get pregnant, so no one else should.

[Swarmlord]

I don't have the statistics...<snip>
We could also spend some money on sex education programs rather than wasting it on abstinence programs that don't work.

I have some statistics. At the parochial schools I attended we were taught abstinence and from K-12 there wasn't a single pregnancy in the either school. I'm sure that other schools don't have the exact same results, but that doesn't fall into the category of "don't work" to me.

[Swarmlord]

When I was in school I lived in a small town and we had a few girls get pregnant. No matter the reason, there were programs in place to help them if they wanted to further their education. We had a school they could go to a few hours a day, or a home study program where they come in for an hour or so once a week, or night classes. You didn't have to be pregnant, trouble makers and those with other issues also made use of these. The idea was that it benefited society as a whole to have them try to get a better education than having to drop out or repeat an entire year while also trying to care for their child, which they wouldn't be likely to do. Sometimes parents helped, sometimes Dad helped. Sometimes they didn't, or couldn't.

Yeah, personal responsibility is great and all. Wouldn't wanting to continue their education while still taking care of their child be taking responsibility? Shouldn't we be encouraging that? I know, I know, you don't want to pay for it. No welfare either. Let the child suffer for the parents mistake, and helping the girl try to further her education is only encouraging her behavior. See, I always thought we as a society should care for one another, but since you have yours and don't want to pay for it, I guess we shouldn't. After all, you didn't get pregnant, so no one else should.

If she gives up the child for adoption, society does end up caring for the child and the girl can continue with her education, etc. Making mistakes of this nature aren't supposed to be facilitated and made easier. Are you saying that adoptive parents can't offer a better life for the child than an undereducated, unemployed teenager?

[.Andy]

If she gives up the child for adoption, society does end up caring for the child and the girl can continue with her education, etc. Making mistakes of this nature aren't supposed to be facilitated and made easier. Are you saying that adoptive parents can't offer a better life for the child than an undereducated, unemployed teenager?
The world is black and white.

[Swarmlord]

The world is black and white.

Sometimes simple common sense > act of Congress.

[Iscariot]

If she gives up the child for adoption, society does end up caring for the child and the girl can continue with her education, etc. Making mistakes of this nature aren't supposed to be facilitated and made easier. Are you saying that adoptive parents can't offer a better life for the child than an undereducated, unemployed teenager?

This, of course, assumes that the child will get adopted, which many do not. The vast majority of children in foster care get returned to their birth parents, which is really not unlike the mother deferring all responsibility to the State until she's prepared, instead of just asking for a smaller amount of help.

[Swarmlord]

This, of course, assumes that the child will get adopted, which many do not. The vast majority of children in foster care get returned to their birth parents, which is really not unlike the mother deferring all responsibility to the State until she's prepared, instead of just asking for a smaller amount of help.

I've never heard of newborns not being adopted unless they have a disability or some type. Sure, kids that are older aren't adopted as much, but then that just supports my position that they should be adopted out at birth rather than allowing a dysfunctional teen to try and raise it herself. People have been going overseas for years to adopt babies because of the shortage of them here.

[themadchemist]

I've never heard of newborns not being adopted unless they have a disability or some type. Sure, kids that are older aren't adopted as much, but then that just supports my position that they should be adopted out at birth rather than allowing a dysfunctional teen to try and raise it herself. People have been going overseas for years to adopt babies because of the shortage of them here.

Is it because of the shortage here or the sexiness of getting a child from abroad? I feel like at least some of these adoptions from abroad have more to do with the Orientalist perception of Westerners "saving" the hapless developing world than they do with the practical need to find a child.

[Naimfan]

Is it because of the shortage here or the sexiness of getting a child from abroad?

According to the folks I've talked to and worked with here (people in social services and many adoption lawyers), it is overwhelmingly due to a "shortage" in the US. While there is some variance from state to state, they also said that national statistics are similar--most overseas adoptions are due to the "shortage" of native-born babies being placed for adoption.

[themadchemist]

According to the folks I've talked to and worked with here (people in social services and many adoption lawyers), it is overwhelmingly due to a "shortage" in the US. While there is some variance from state to state, they also said that national statistics are similar--most overseas adoptions are due to the "shortage" of native-born babies being placed for adoption.

Oh, really? Well, with two people asserting it, I'm inclined to believe, and am glad to stand corrected! That makes me feel better.

[imac/cheese]

Is it because of the shortage here or the sexiness of getting a child from abroad? I feel like at least some of these adoptions from abroad have more to do with the Orientalist perception of Westerners "saving" the hapless developing world than they do with the practical need to find a child.

There really is a shortage of healthy infants available for adoption in the U.S. There are lots of potential adoptive parents signed up at most adoption agencies. The bio-parent/s normally select the adoptive parents so you have to compete against a lot of other families to try to get a baby, many of which present a picture perfect family environment. To get an infant through Child Protective Services (or whatever your state calls it) you normally have to be a foster parent first, which means you have to face the possibility of sending a child "home" after they have lived with you for sometimes up to 2 years. The majority of infants removed from their parents by the state are returned after the parents complete the required services to prove to the judge that they are fit to be parents. The majority of infants that are removed permanently are due to drug issues and the children are often drug exposed during pregnancy. Even these removals take at least a year to finalize. Even trying to adopt a young healthy child (say 5 and under) is difficult. There are lots of sibling groups available and lots of disabled children available through the state, but taking on children in those situations requires people who truly have a heart ot help.

Here is the adopt us kids (http://www.adoptuskids.org/) website that shows what is available. Many states also have their own websites and of course there are tons of adoption agencies that charge the adoptive parents a placement fee.

Going overseas to adopt is fashonable right now, but there are a lot of benefits that make it appealing. First, once the child is back in the US, you do not ever have to worry about birth parents trying to claim the child. You don't have to deal with the state bending over backwards to try to reunite the child with their bio-parents. You don't have to compete with dozens/hundreds of other familes wanting to adopt a small number of available infants. You do not have to maintain any type of relationship with the bio-parents. You get to experience the joys of discovering a new country. Of course it is also about 2-3 times more expensive and the foreign governments can really jerk you around.

[hulugu]

I have some statistics. At the parochial schools I attended we were taught abstinence and from K-12 there wasn't a single pregnancy in the either school. I'm sure that other schools don't have the exact same results, but that doesn't fall into the category of "don't work" to me.

Ok, my Catholic High School had a sex-education program and there were 0 teenage pregnancies in 4 years. Hmmm....I wonder how that could be.

Oh right, both of our examples are anecdotal evidence subject to a myriad of biases and unknown variables and that's why we don't use anecdotal evidence to create national policy.

[Naimfan]

Oh right, both of our examples are anecdotal evidence subject to a myriad of biases and unknown variables and that's why we don't use anecdotal evidence to create national policy.

Really? Somebody please tell our current President!

[miloblithe]

I have some statistics. At the parochial schools I attended we were taught abstinence and from K-12 there wasn't a single pregnancy in the either school. I'm sure that other schools don't have the exact same results, but that doesn't fall into the category of "don't work" to me.

I'm especially impressed that there weren't any pregnancies in kindergarten.

OK, so you are proposing that if we scale up the approach that was used at your schools, we would achieve the same results nationally? If we teach abstinence in all US schools, we will achieve 0 or close to 0 high school pregnancies? Because if that's not what you're saying, what are you saying?

[Swarmlord]

Ok, my Catholic High School had a sex-education program and there were 0 teenage pregnancies in 4 years. Hmmm....I wonder how that could be.

Oh right, both of our examples are anecdotal evidence subject to a myriad of biases and unknown variables and that's why we don't use anecdotal evidence to create national policy.

We had a sex ed session every year, so it wasn't that the subject wasn't covered. Birth control was even discussed, but the teaching was that using it was wrong as was sex outside marriage. It was also stressed that it was pretty darned difficult to catch an STD if the only person that you and your spouse had sex with is each other.

[skunk]

So, to sum up, the available, reliable evidence seems to establish that there is no connection whatever between abstinence education, sex education, pregnancy, marriage or contraception.

[killerrobot]

More than half of ALL 15 to 17 year old girls in Denver are pregnant?

Those are either the most potent teens in the world or a huge shipment of flawed contraceptives was sent to Denver. :eek:

And despite Sex Ed classes since the 7th grade - two girls had a baby in my graduating class way back when, and I'm sure those numbers have increased with each class afterwards.
Teens are horny, and parents seem to turn a blind eye more often than not to who they are dating, when they are with their significant others, and how easy it is to mess around once and get pregnant (especially if your kid is the male).

[atszyman]

no way should the school set up night courses that would cost more than her going an extra year if needed. i mean youd have to hire more people and fees to use facilities, both of which i would bet cost more than having one additional student in a class during normal times.

Why not make the class open to anyone without a HS diploma and make the adults pay for their education to offset the course. If you can keep the girl on track to graduate with all hear classmates she's more likely to complete school. A full half year off might be more of an incentive for some girls to get pregnant, not to mention that holding them back, even a half a year, will make them less likely to complete their degree increasing the likelihood that because you didn't want to pay a little bit for 4-6 weeks of night classes, you're now paying her welfare for years...

Where would you rather have your money go?

Can you also explain how trying to keep up with your classwork with the new baby so that you can graduate at the same time is somehow easier on these mothers than letting them take 6 or more months off of school and having them there longer? I guarantee that the mother who works her ass off to get done at the same time she would have without getting pregnant is going to be a stronger incentive for other girls to do what they need to to avoid getting pregnant due to the "hard work" the mothers will have to do to get their diploma.

Sure adoption is always an (the most preferred) option in these situations but are we going force them by law to put their kids up for adoption? Is the state going to start determining who can and who cannot be parents?

[letsgorangers]

We had a sex ed session every year, so it wasn't that the subject wasn't covered. Birth control was even discussed, but the teaching was that using it was wrong as was sex outside marriage. It was also stressed that it was pretty darned difficult to catch an STD if the only person that you and your spouse had sex with is each other.
Just because no one got pregnant doesn't mean they weren't having sex ;)

[dukebound85]

Is the state going to start determining who can and who cannot be parents?

sometimes i wonder if that wouldnt be a bad idea.....as unfeasible as it would be

[imac/cheese]

...Sure adoption is always an (the most preferred) option in these situations but are we going force them by law to put their kids up for adoption? Is the state going to start determining who can and who cannot be parents?

I disagree that adoption is the most preferred option. I think children do best with their birth parents if they are cared for and loved by those birth parents. I know numerous teen mothers who kept their children and after quite a bit of hard work they became successful and were good mothers to their children. One of the best kids I know was born and raised by her teen mother. Adoption is often the best option when the teen mother is not willing or able to care for her child, but adoption itself places quite a burden on an infant and can create a variety of problems later in life.

[atszyman]

sometimes i wonder if that wouldnt be a bad idea.....as unfeasible as it would be

I have to admit, after seeing some of the people who have been allowed to reproduce it sometimes doesn't seem like a bad idea...

you need a license to drive, you need background checks and training to own and operate firearms and heavy machinery, but you can have a kid without any sort of training/experience whatsoever...

Let's just put contraceptives in with the fluoride in tap water and require adults to get licenses to get the drugs to take out the contraceptives....:D

I disagree that adoption is the most preferred option. I think children do best with their birth parents if they are cared for and loved by those birth parents. I know numerous teen mothers who kept their children and after quite a bit of hard work they became successful and were good mothers to their children. One of the best kids I know was born and raised by her teen mother. Adoption is often the best option when the teen mother is not willing or able to care for her child, but adoption itself places quite a burden on an infant and can create a variety of problems later in life.

I didn't mean to say that adoption was always the best answer, just that in most cases it would be the best. I'm willing to bet that more than half of the teen pregnancies are to girls who are not ready mentally, physically, or emotionally to be parents, and if there is truly such a shortage of babies up for adoption in this country surely a loving family that can provide for the child, even if not the biological parents, is better than the alternative of leaving them with a biological parent who isn't ready to be a parent.

[hulugu]

We had a sex ed session every year, so it wasn't that the subject wasn't covered. Birth control was even discussed, but the teaching was that using it was wrong as was sex outside marriage. It was also stressed that it was pretty darned difficult to catch an STD if the only person that you and your spouse had sex with is each other.

Right, this is the curriculum of any good sex education program; abstinence (or more accurately, abstinence-only programs) however fail in this regard. You had a sex-education program and thus were armed with information and the knowledge of the consequences of having sex. But, again, your case doesn't prove or disprove the validity of either program. Neither does mine. But, nationally there is data that show abstinence-only programs have resulted in higher-rates of teenage pregnancies, STDs, and abortions when compared to comprehensive sex education programs.

Just because no one got pregnant doesn't mean they weren't having sex ;)

Right. And this is just the reality of having hormone-addled teenagers in close proximity to each other. So, if we can't stop them from having sex, we can at least make sure we don't end up with a bunch of teenage parents and STD epidemics.

[themadchemist]

Fact is, these kids are hitting puberty at younger and younger ages, and abstinence-only programs encourage them to avoid sex until older and older ages...Somehow, that doesn't seem like it's a tenable proposition.

[Iscariot]

I've never heard of newborns not being adopted unless they have a disability or some type. Sure, kids that are older aren't adopted as much, but then that just supports my position that they should be adopted out at birth rather than allowing a dysfunctional teen to try and raise it herself. People have been going overseas for years to adopt babies because of the shortage of them here.

And yet a very small portion of mothers are willing to give up children immediately.

[maestro55]

Here is my take on this, first off High School girls probably shouldn't be having children, I don't mean to be an ass but logically it isn't the best idea for high school girls to be having sex if they aren't on birth control and if they guy isn't choosing to use a condom. Now you can point out situations of date rape and rape in general but those numbers are likely to be much lower than the number of girls who willingly have sex and get pregnant.

With that said, it happens, has anyone seen the movie Juno? It is going to happen and the percentage points will rise or drop only if the girls actually care. So in the end I think that the school should make an effort to help to girls finish their diploma. My suggestion would be for the girls to stay in contact with the teachers and get all their work and to attempt to do all they can over the period that they are gone. If they need extra help, it probably isn't a bad idea for the school to offer tutoring after school hours and the fact is that most schools already have tutors after 4:30 for students. Now obviously there are situations where the girl wouldn't be able to make it up to the school and then maybe in rare cases the school could pay a tutor to visit the girls home (they do this often with students too ill to attend school).

Yes it is a tax burden, and we shouldn't have the problem (and yes girls getting pregnant while still in high school is a problem but that doesn't mean the girl shouldn't get the help she needs) we do and the funds should be there to help those girls.

[MikeTheC]

This is so wrong on multiple levels.

The way this comes across, it's as though if such a program wasn't in place, society would be unfairly denying access to education, or somehow that our society was trying to be discriminatory as to who gets how much education.

In truth, we're making up as a society for a person's indescriminatory promiscuity and utter lack of personal responsibility.

Until we start teaching ethics, morality and discipline in this country again, all we're going to continue to see is such social welfare programs as this.

It's an utter load of crap.

[.Andy]

This is so wrong on multiple levels.

The way this comes across, it's as though if such a program wasn't in place, society would be unfairly denying access to education, or somehow that our society was trying to be discriminatory as to who gets how much education.

In truth, we're making up as a society for a person's indescriminatory promiscuity and utter lack of personal responsibility.

Until we start teaching ethics, morality and discipline in this country again, all we're going to continue to see is such social welfare programs as this.

It's an utter load of crap.
I'm with you MikeTheC. If only we could forcibly instill the fear of god into children these days none of this would ever happen. If ever there was a beacon as to why Christianity needs to be mandatory teaching in schools this is it. Without it the continual slide of the atheist, liberal agenda of promiscuity, lack of personal responsibility, moral bankruptcy, and warped ethics is going to end up costing us all in the hip pocket.

[letsgorangers]

Until we start teaching ethics, morality and discipline in this country again, all we're going to continue to see is such social welfare programs as this.

Blah blah blah, kids are going to have sex. Stop assuming everyone has the same "morals" as you. We need to teach kids how to protect themselves if they choose to have sex. If we don't teach them, it becomes a taboo subject that they are afraid to ask questions about.

[dukebound85]

um i think upbringing is very important dealing with this

for instance, alot of my friends here are Mormon. They are brought up to not watch R rated movies, not drink caffeine, no sex before marriage...

And you know what, these friends are the most well mannered people I've personally met and when we go see movies, they make sure it isn't R or contains nudity etc. I don't want to stereotype, but I have not found one person that is a Mormon that proves this otherwise (I'm sure some are out there). This is just my observance and the same can't be appllied to those who don't follow a religion deligently I have seen

This is one example I can think of very clearly. So to say that kids are going to have sex at 13-16 regardless and upbringing has no effect at all is utter BS

[hulugu]

um i think upbringing is very important dealing with this

for instance, alot of my friends here are Mormon. They are brought up to not watch R rated movies, not drink caffeine, no sex before marriage...

And you know what, these friends are the most well mannered people I've personally met and when we go see movies, they make sure it isn't R or contains nudity etc. I don't want to stereotype, but I have not found one person that is a Mormon that proves this otherwise (I'm sure some are out there). This is just my observance and the same can't be appllied to those who don't follow a religion deligently I have seen

This is one example I can think of very clearly. So to say that kids are going to have sex at 13-16 regardless and upbringing has no effect at all is utter BS


Well, I can think of some Mormons who would dispute this, but I'm more interested in the your connection between R-rated movies (with nudity) and promescuity.

Now, I wouldn't say that upbringing doesn't matter, but since there's no way to control how parents raise their kids (if anything should come with a EULA, it's a kid), the best thing schools can do is teach kids how to deal with sex in an adult way. And, I can see where some movies that are R-rated and do contain nudity could actually help in this manner.

[.Andy]

um i think upbringing is very important dealing with this

for instance, alot of my friends here are Mormon. They are brought up to not watch R rated movies, not drink caffeine, no sex before marriage...

And you know what, these friends are the most well mannered people I've personally met and when we go see movies, they make sure it isn't R or contains nudity etc. I don't want to stereotype, but I have not found one person that is a Mormon that proves this otherwise (I'm sure some are out there). This is just my observance and the same can't be appllied to those who don't follow a religion deligently I have seen

This is one example I can think of very clearly. So to say that kids are going to have sex at 13-16 regardless and upbringing has no effect at all is utter BS
I don't want to stereotype either dukebound but you're onto something here. My atheist friends that saw Predator at school and drank coffee all ended up being pregnant.

[MacNut]

What was in that coffee.

I do think there is a problem with kids respecting anything even themselves these days. People in general have no respect for anything anymore. No manners or any sense of judgement.

Not to be politically incorrect but most kids need a good kick in the ass now a days. I would never act how kids are acting now without my parents really beating my ass afterwards. Ever go to a shopping mall and see kids running around and no parents in site.

[letsgorangers]

I don't want to stereotype either dukebound but you're onto something here. My atheist friends that saw Predator at school and drank coffee all ended up being pregnant.
:eek: I hope you don't talk to them anymore because who wants to talk to people who have SEX before they're MARRIED (as I'm sure you're aware, pre-marital sex always leads to pregnancy, drug use, and DEATH)?

[MacNut]

:eek: I hope you don't talk to them anymore because who wants to talk to people who have SEX before they're MARRIED (as I'm sure you're aware, pre-marital sex always leads to pregnancy, drug use, and DEATH)?Maybe not death but STD's.

[faintember]

Not to be politically incorrect but most kids need a good kick in the ass now a days.I agree. Maybe moving some educational emphasis away from standardized test preparation and replacing it with logic classes may help.

[MacNut]

Common sense goes a long way.

[MikeTheC]

I'm with you MikeTheC. If only we could forcibly instill the fear of god into children these days none of this would ever happen.
Well, I don't know about "ever", but you're absolutely correct.
If ever there was a beacon as to why Christianity needs to be mandatory teaching in schools this is it.
Stop assuming everyone has the same "morals" as you.
Actually, truth be told, Christianity isn't the only religion which teaches this basic value. In fact, anyone who's a parent who as any intelligence or sense at all should be teaching this to their kids. There is no excuse not to.

Oh, and letsgorangers, what you're really trying to say is "don't push your morals on me". It's so obvious a knee-jerk reactionary defensive tactic you're using it's sad you'd resort to it. This isn't merely about teaching kids how to protect themselves -- of which abstinence by the way is the single most effective method -- it's about teaching kids to be responsible. Teaching kids how to avoid getting diseases or getting pregnant is no substitute for teaching them to be responsible. The fact that you can't see the difference suggests you either don't have much of an upbringing yourself, or you're too young to understand what's really going on here, lack the maturity, etc.

um i think upbringing is very important dealing with this ... <snip> ... So to say that kids are going to have sex at 13-16 regardless and upbringing has no effect at all is utter BS
Couldn't have said it better -- or more succinctly -- myself.

if anything should come with a EULA, it's a kid
If that ain't the best quote of the year, I don't know what is.

[letsgorangers]

The fact that you can't see the difference suggests you either don't have much of an upbringing yourself, or you're too young to understand what's really going on here, lack the maturity, etc.

Arguing opinions is one thing, but the criticize the way my parents raised me is just in poor taste.

[.Andy]

Ever go to a shopping mall and see kids running around and no parents in site. Yeah it's unbelievable isn't it! A shopping mall should be a place of peace and tranquility and only for adults. Another thing that pisses me off is kids struggling with homonyms. They're going to reach adulthood and still struggle with spelling. It's something we would have got a thrashing for in our day.

[MacNut]

Yeah it's unbelievable isn't it! A shopping mall should be a place of peace and tranquility and only for adults.It actually is a problem around here, the malls are requiring any child under 16 to be with an adult. People don't feel like baby sitting other peoples kids.

[.Andy]

It actually is a problem around here, the malls are requiring any child under 16 to be with an adult. People don't feel like baby sitting other peoples kids.
It's a problem around here too. Some shops even cater for kids even though the kids don't have jobs. Most of them just scam money off their parents to buy stuff. The minimum working age needs to be scrapped so these delinquents can learn some responsibility and work ethic. Otherwise they're going to grow up expecting handouts from the government.

[MacNut]

Nice to know we can have adult conversations around here.:rolleyes:

[solvs]

but I have not found one person that is a Mormon that proves this otherwise
Then you must not know that many. Sure, a lot of them are like what you describe. But some of them can also be the most wild and irresponsible in my experience. Repression is a funny thing, as is rebellion. Especially when they started to realize that some of the scare tactics used were just that, and were completely unprepared for what to do when confronted with situations their parents never expected. Sex, drugs, one of the wildest girls I knew was from a super religious family. Another got pregnant right out of high school. I remember when her parents opted her out of sex ed, someone made a joke awhile later, and she was the only one who didn't get it. I was kinda sad for her. I think she wound up marrying that guy, and at least it was after HS, but not everyone was that lucky. Just my experience, if that's all we're going for here, ignoring the evidence that says abstinence only doesn't work and that those who aren't given access to education when they need it most are more likely to be that drain on society you guys don't want to pay for.

I had a super religious upbringing in my early years, but still had my wild rebellious years later on with the drinking and the naughty movies, though I was smart enough not to get pregnant. :p

[dukebound85]

Well, I can think of some Mormons who would dispute this, but I'm more interested in the your connection between R-rated movies (with nudity) and promescuity.

Now, I wouldn't say that upbringing doesn't matter, but since there's no way to control how parents raise their kids (if anything should come with a EULA, it's a kid), the best thing schools can do is teach kids how to deal with sex in an adult way. And, I can see where some movies that are R-rated and do contain nudity could actually help in this manner.

i never made a connection with R rated movies and promescuity. just illustrating how family values can and do shape how we as individuals indulge in what's availiable. aka self control mainly

alos, its the PARENTS JOB to teach these values to our children, not the schools. but thats another debate

I don't want to stereotype either dukebound but you're onto something here. My atheist friends that saw Predator at school and drank coffee all ended up being pregnant.


ugh both of you are missing my point by sooo much it's not even funny. just saying good family values and upbringing DOES curb this type of behavior.

who wants to make a wager? I say children raised in homes where strong family values are endorsed and where parents play a active and positive role will CERTAINLY have less pregnancy rates than those who live in households where parents have no control and could care less what their kid does in school/life/ etc

[solvs]

alos, its the PARENTS JOB to teach these values to our children, not the schools.
If the parents want to, they can opt their child out of sex ed. The problem is that they don't teach it, some even expecting the schools to do it, and they aren't doing a very good job of it right now. Other places can, so we assume we should just try to improve our programs so they do work. In the past, they have. Well at least, better than they are now. But some people think we should just throw the whole system out, expecting the parents to do it, then get mad when they don't and the consequences are less than ideal. It's supposed to be up to a society, by way of a school, to teach. For the betterment of that society. This should be an extension of that. The small investment up front is worth it for us as a whole in the long run. We can't force parents to do it, but this we can do.

And as said, if the parents want to, they can, but if they don't, we can't be surprised by the outcome.

[atszyman]

Common sense goes a long way.

Unfortunately every day I start to realize that Common Sense is becoming less and less common in this world.

[MacNut]

Unfortunately every day I start to realize that Common Sense is becoming less and less common in this world.I have noticed that too, it is almost like schools don't teach that anymore in an attempt to raise test scores they forget about the life lessons part. Who needs to know how to protect yourself or stay alive when we need to worry about math scores.:rolleyes:

[jimN]

I have noticed that too, it is almost like schools don't teach that anymore in an attempt to raise test scores they forget about the life lessons part. Who needs to know how to protect yourself or stay alive when we need to worry about math scores.:rolleyes:

This isn't about schools it's about parenting. A school can't teach a child common sense, it should have been instilled in them at home through the example of their parents.

And my god, what a moral bunch of do-gooders the Christians around here make themselves out to be. Atheists are perfectly capable of exercising a moral code and not getting people pregnant whilst similarly not starting wars, persecuting people, burning 'witches', shunning contraception, preventing aid from going to 'non-believers' and all the other crap that happens when religion gets in the way of decency.

Should this girl be educated? You have to ask yourself who gets punished if she isn't educated? The sad answer is her unborn child. Since you can compel her to have an abortion you have a moral obligation to ensure that she has the ability to look after and provide for that child and hopefully to ensure that it doesn't make the same mistakes she has. It's very easy to talk of punishing her but she won't be the one who suffers for it.

As for the people who complain about tax-payers money being spent - it's called society, and I'm generally proud to be part of it.

[dukebound85]

And my god, what a moral bunch of do-gooders the Christians around here make themselves out to be. Atheists are perfectly capable of exercising a moral code and not getting people pregnant whilst similarly not starting wars, persecuting people, burning 'witches', shunning contraception, preventing aid from going to 'non-believers' and all the other crap that happens when religion gets in the way of decency.



sometimes i wonder if people can read my posts...........
i was just merely giving an example of what I have observed with my Mormon friends which happen to be brought up in a strong family value setting

nowhere did i say atheists can't have strong morals. i just gave an example that happened to be associated with a religion

and by the way, i like how you portray atheists as model citizens and Christians aren't. Talk about hypocrisy

[Ugg]

i was just merely giving an example of what I have observed with my Mormon friends which happen to be brought up in a strong family value setting


Ask your mormon friends what happens to gay kids born to mormon parents. Talk about a lack of family values....

[yg17]

Ask your mormon friends what happens to gay kids born to mormon parents. Talk about a lack of family values....

For those of us who have no idea, please enlighten us ;)

[themadchemist]

um i think upbringing is very important dealing with this

for instance, alot of my friends here are Mormon. They are brought up to not watch R rated movies, not drink caffeine, no sex before marriage...

And you know what, these friends are the most well mannered people I've personally met and when we go see movies, they make sure it isn't R or contains nudity etc. I don't want to stereotype, but I have not found one person that is a Mormon that proves this otherwise (I'm sure some are out there). This is just my observance and the same can't be appllied to those who don't follow a religion deligently I have seen

This is one example I can think of very clearly. So to say that kids are going to have sex at 13-16 regardless and upbringing has no effect at all is utter BS

That said:

Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony. You can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you. If I went 'round sayin' I was Emperor, just because some moistened bint lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away.
--
Upbringing is exceptionally important and it sounds like your friends benefitted enormously from good upbringing. But we can't use religion and upbringing as a basis for developing large-scale policy solutions; it doesn't work.

As to the poster who wanted to attack Mormonism for Mormon families' treatment of gay kids, I think it's not far to single out that religious sect. There are so many religious sects inside and outside of Christianity that handle homosexuality in an unhealthy and unfortunate way. It's sad, but it's not exclusive to Mormonism and so I think we shouldn't level attacks in that manner, lest we fall into the same sorts of bigoted behavior that we look down upon in others.

[hulugu]

i never made a connection with R rated movies and promescuity. just illustrating how family values can and do shape how we as individuals indulge in what's availiable. aka self control mainly

They are brought up to not watch R rated movies, not drink caffeine, no sex before marriage...

And you know what, these friends are the most well mannered people I've personally met and when we go see movies, they make sure it isn't R or contains nudity etc.

Re-read your previous post and I think you can see why I thought you were making such a connection. I thought it was a little facile, which is why I made my comment such as I did.

[hulugu]

That said:

Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony. You can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you. If I went 'round sayin' I was Emperor, just because some moistened bint lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away.

Oh wow, do I love that movie.

[MikeTheC]

Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony. You can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you. If I went 'round sayin' I was Emperor, just because some moistened bint lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away.

Shut Up! Will you SHUT UP?!?!?!?!?

[killerrobot]

As to the poster who wanted to attack Mormonism for Mormon families' treatment of gay kids, I think it's not far to single out that religious sect. There are so many religious sects inside and outside of Christianity that handle homosexuality in an unhealthy and unfortunate way. It's sad, but it's not exclusive to Mormonism and so I think we shouldn't level attacks in that manner, lest we fall into the same sorts of bigoted behavior that we look down upon in others.

Not to mention that that's the largest slippery slope ever - if one Mormon family shunned a gay child I'm sure every one does it then. Did a Catholic/Jewish/Islamic/Buddhist/non-religious/etc. etc., family shun a gay child ever? I guess no one has family values any more.:rolleyes:

[solvs]

I believe he only said Mormon because that was the example given for the morality argument.

[Ugg]

As to the poster who wanted to attack Mormonism for Mormon families' treatment of gay kids, I think it's not far to single out that religious sect. There are so many religious sects inside and outside of Christianity that handle homosexuality in an unhealthy and unfortunate way. It's sad, but it's not exclusive to Mormonism and so I think we shouldn't level attacks in that manner, lest we fall into the same sorts of bigoted behavior that we look down upon in others.

I simply responded to the example that he gave. To assume that I was picking on them and excluding all other religions is going a bit far.

I'm working on my family history right now and the mormon church has been an invaluable source for me. I actually spent a week in Salt Lake City last fall. What they've done for genealogy is amazing and there's no proselytizing whatsoever. I have all the respect in the world for what they've achieved and offer freely. However, the software the mormons have created has no provision for same sex relationships. They've also made it perfectly clear that they have no intention of doing so nor will they provide records of legal same sex relationships.

Genealogy by nature is a tangled web of illegitimate children, bigamy, incest, etc. All of those relationships are recognized by their software and included in their database. To exclude legally sanctioned relationships seems extremely hypocritical to me. It'll be interesting to see how they deal with it.

Family values are not a product of religion, rather a product of innate human behaviour. Religion has codified family values all too often at the expense of minorities.

[dukebound85]

Re-read your previous post and I think you can see why I thought you were making such a connection. I thought it was a little facile, which is why I made my comment such as I did.

i know what i had written. just gave examples of what they practice through what my friends tell me. i mean based on your logic caffeine and promiscuity are related which they are not...

I believe he only said Mormon because that was the example given for the morality argument.

thank you. how come EVERY OTHER person cant see that it was an example. i even stated it was once or twice..

[dukebound85]

Ask your mormon friends what happens to gay kids born to mormon parents. Talk about a lack of family values....

do you purposely try not to see my point? i mean it sure sounds like it

of course there isn't the same environment for all Mormon families in this example or whatever so no family is identical.

I am just stating my observations which I will state again: Mormon families seem to have a higher regard to family values than most other people i know. and yes there will be exceptions but on the whole i believe this to be true.

[solvs]

thank you. how come EVERY OTHER person cant see that it was an example. i even stated it was once or twice..
I was actually talking about Ugg's comment, but it works for you too.

For the record, one of the sluttiest, screwed up girls I knew was a Mormon, but then, so was the nicest, most well adjusted person I've ever known.

[hulugu]

i know what i had written. just gave examples of what they practice through what my friends tell me. i mean based on your logic caffeine and promiscuity are related which they are not...

Now, now just take your foot off the accelerator for a minute. :D

I questioned what sounded from your post like a link between R-rated movies and promiscuity; I was mistaken, however I merely wanted to show why I thought that.

I don't think that these things are related, however I thought you did because you were being unclear. Accept that your sentence was not the finely wrought statement you hoped it would be, especially considering it's been widely misunderstood.

Mea culpa. ;)

[themadchemist]

I simply responded to the example that he gave. To assume that I was picking on them and excluding all other religions is going a bit far.

I'm working on my family history right now and the mormon church has been an invaluable source for me. I actually spent a week in Salt Lake City last fall. What they've done for genealogy is amazing and there's no proselytizing whatsoever. I have all the respect in the world for what they've achieved and offer freely. However, the software the mormons have created has no provision for same sex relationships. They've also made it perfectly clear that they have no intention of doing so nor will they provide records of legal same sex relationships.

Genealogy by nature is a tangled web of illegitimate children, bigamy, incest, etc. All of those relationships are recognized by their software and included in their database. To exclude legally sanctioned relationships seems extremely hypocritical to me. It'll be interesting to see how they deal with it.

Family values are not a product of religion, rather a product of innate human behaviour. Religion has codified family values all too often at the expense of minorities.

OK, it's a fair point that you were responding to his claim, and I apologize for a critique too harshly worded. I guess my sense is that the opposition to gay marriage and really, homosexuality in general, in the Mormon church is more symptomatic of a general position in this country's religious orthodoxy than it is of that church in particular. And while I agree that they've got a checkered past when it comes to dealing with minority groups, whether racial or sexual-orientation-based, that's also true of a number of larger and more influential religious groups in America.

We deal with a very complicated balance when it comes to religious zeal. Sometimes, religion has been a great force of progressive change, but frequently at those same moments, other aspects of the religious community have worked actively for ideas of bigotry and disparity. It cuts across every religion, every sect, and it is a great tragedy.

I just feel like the Mormons get picked on a lot, when it's a larger, more subversive problem that we face.

[dukebound85]

Now, now just take your foot off the accelerator for a minute. :D

I questioned what sounded from your post like a link between R-rated movies and promiscuity; I was mistaken, however I merely wanted to show why I thought that.

I don't think that these things are related, however I thought you did because you were being unclear. Accept that your sentence was not the finely wrought statement you hoped it would be, especially considering it's been widely misunderstood.

Mea culpa. ;)

haha fair enough. its hard to take an unbiased eye at stuff you wrote since it all makes sense, at least in my mind lol

[Ugg]

I just feel like the Mormons get picked on a lot, when it's a larger, more subversive problem that we face.

Since mormonism is an American creation and a relatively new one at that, we have a lot more information about its origins than we do about other religions. There's also no question that Smith was looking for a way to make money. Given that and the secrecy that surrounds so much of mormon ritual, it's not surprising that they get picked on.

Martin and Zwingli in the 1500s had a pretty rough time of it too.

[killerrobot]

Since mormonism is an American creation and a relatively new one at that, we have a lot more information about its origins than we do about other religions. There's also no question that Smith was looking for a way to make money. Given that and the secrecy that surrounds so much of mormon ritual, it's not surprising that they get picked on.

Martin and Zwingli in the 1500s had a pretty rough time of it too.

Um, once again Ugg, I've got to say WTF!?
Care to explain how you know that as a fact?
It's bigoted opinions like that that give all religions a bad name.

[Ugg]

Um, once again Ugg, I've got to say WTF!?
Care to explain how you know that as a fact?
It's bigoted opinions like that that give all religions a bad name.

It's not an opinion but well established fact.

This wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith) article is a good place to start.

Joseph Smith was a fraudster from the very beginning. There has been a great deal of scholarly research that backs this up. He was adept at conning people out of their money. Smith's death is probably the only reason the church survived. Too many people had become disenchanted with this snake oil salesman. Had he lived, the church would have died a slow death like so many other christian sects started in the US in the 1800s.

[killerrobot]

It's not an opinion but well established fact.

This wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith) article is a good place to start.

...Had he lived, the church would have died a slow death like so many other christian sects started in the US in the 1800s.


Wikipedia =well established fact. :eek:

I'm glad you can also predict hypothetical past futures.:rolleyes:

[dukebound85]

Since mormonism is an American creation and a relatively new one at that, we have a lot more information about its origins than we do about other religions. There's also no question that Smith was looking for a way to make money. Given that and the secrecy that surrounds so much of mormon ritual, it's not surprising that they get picked on.

Martin and Zwingli in the 1500s had a pretty rough time of it too.

Um, once again Ugg, I've got to say WTF!?
Care to explain how you know that as a fact?
It's bigoted opinions like that that give all religions a bad name.

It's not an opinion but well established fact.

This wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith) article is a good place to start.

Joseph Smith was a fraudster from the very beginning. There has been a great deal of scholarly research that backs this up. He was adept at conning people out of their money. Smith's death is probably the only reason the church survived. Too many people had become disenchanted with this snake oil salesman. Had he lived, the church would have died a slow death like so many other christian sects started in the US in the 1800s.

Wikipedia =well established fact. :eek:

I'm glad you can also predict hypothetical past futures.:rolleyes:

we should stay on track as opposed to talking about religions

[mactastic]

the car wreck you cant control. Choosing to get knocked up you can. big difference
Oh yes. Because teenagers often CHOOSE to become pregnant. :rolleyes:

as long as MY tax dollars arent being used to cater to their needs in a public school system due to them getting pregnant I dont care what they do

why should more resources be spent on them because they dont have self control rather than good kids? how about taxes need to be based on a per student basis so all kids receive same benefit
How about we make it so there are no winners and no losers at sports too? That way all kids receive the same benefit?

Why should your money be spent on them? Quite simply because it is cheaper to spend a little of your tax money on them now than it is to do so later.

The girls that get pregnant SHOULD have the right to have an education. but if it means that because they had a kid that that goal is delayed, well then that is their fault. Nothing is preventing you from going back later to finish school. I just dont think why we as a society should reward those who mess up by setting up costly programs at societies expense when there is a system in place that has the opportunity for them to succeed. but no, some believe we should make it easier on them just because they made a bad decision. well such is life.
What do you advocate doing with the guys who got the girls pregnant? Certainly some of the blame for the girl getting pregnant belongs to the sperm donor too, doesn't it? Why should we reward these guys by simply allowing them back into school? They'll just learn they can knock up any girl they want and nothing will happen to them.

but who am i kidding, you probably advocate holding back the entire class for those that dont care/want to be there. why not support the ones that want to be there
Because we're not supposed to leave any child behind. But that's another discussion.

I've never heard of newborns not being adopted unless they have a disability or some type. Sure, kids that are older aren't adopted as much, but then that just supports my position that they should be adopted out at birth rather than allowing a dysfunctional teen to try and raise it herself. People have been going overseas for years to adopt babies because of the shortage of them here.
Also the idea that if you get a child from overseas, the birth parents will essentially be out of the picture. Adopt a kid from the states, and you may find an attorney on your doorstep with an order to return the kid to the birth parents.

sometimes i wonder if that wouldnt be a bad idea.....as unfeasible as it would be
An authoritarian conservative? One that wonders if it wouldn't be better for the government to be involved in the most intimate details of your life? I'm so shocked...

It actually is a problem around here, the malls are requiring any child under 16 to be with an adult. People don't feel like baby sitting other peoples kids.
Sign on the wall at my local coffeeshop: "All unattended children will be given a double latte and a puppy". :D

[dukebound85]

Oh yes. Because teenagers often CHOOSE to become pregnant. :rolleyes:




they choose to have sex do they not?

[.Andy]

they choose to have sex do they not?
Yes but you can have sex without choosing to conceive. It's actually pretty awesome and I recommend it to you.

[dukebound85]

Yes but you can have sex without choosing to conceive. It's actually pretty awesome and I recommend it to you.

why thanks i had no idea :rolleyes:

but as with any activity you HAVE to be prepared to deal with consequences.

[hulugu]

why thanks i had no idea :rolleyes:

but as with any activity you HAVE to be prepared to deal with consequences.

Of course, you do, but to use your car analogy (such as it was), we also institute certain safety measures (airbags, seatbelts, bumpers, brakes) to protect people. Thus, we can offer some measure of a safety net for people when they screw up, there are still consequences, we just can mitigate them in order to further a greater society.

To use my own analogy, I don't climb without rope, protection, and a belayer and yet the attempt is to never need those to recover from a fall. You would insist that since I choose to climb, I should accept the consequences. But, mitigation and protection is how we can move through life.

[.Andy]

but as with any activity you HAVE to be prepared to deal with consequences.
I think I'm getting your gist now. Is this a good summary?

Family values and personal responsibility for child/education that doesn't cost tax dollars = good, virtuous.
Family values and personal responsibility for child/education that costs tax dollars = abhorrent.

[wongulous]

Really, all of these arguments and statements about the moral or controversial nature of teenage pregnancy are pointless except in a conversation about prevention; this conversation is about salvaging the situation of a young mother's life.

It's too late for these young women, whether they keep their baby, give their baby for adoption, or, heaven forbid, they lose the baby or abort the baby (I may be pro-choice as a man with no uterus experience but I still think it is a harrowing and sad decision for anyone). It is too late to talk about prevention or ask why, but not too late to make sure that their entire lives aren't set down the wrong path. Teenage pregnancy may not be ideal, and it may affect them and their lives very negatively, but there is no compassion in throwing them out of the system and guaranteeing them a life of hardship.

[solvs]

they choose to have sex do they not?
Most of the time, but not always.

but there is no compassion in throwing them out of the system and guaranteeing them a life of hardship.
This isn't about compassion. They don't want to pay for it, simple as that. Of course, we'd pay for them to be in school anyway if they weren't pregnant, and a as I mentioned earlier, continuation school is an option in many places. It can even be cheaper in the long run, as the person and their child are more likely to be better off if given the opportunity to finish school, something they're more likely to do if not held back an entire year. But you're talking to people who only see their tax dollars, in the here and now, and the fact that someone made a mistake makes them not want to spend those dollars to help them, regardless of the consequences or the fact that we would be spending money on them anyway.

[j26]

Cool,

Save a few dollars on education for the mother, force her into poverty, probably on welfare, give her child less chance in life (growing up in poverty generally doesn't help, despite the highly advertised success stories), so he gets less education, earns less and pays less tax, or possibly even ends up as a criminal, in prison all at huge cost to you.


FFS give people a chance. By all means discourage teenage sex, but once the deed is done, treat people humanely. The baby is a member of your society, and deserves a fighting chance. By making the continuation of education more difficult for the mother, you are condemning an innocent person (the baby). How Christian is that?

[themadchemist]

Really, all of these arguments and statements about the moral or controversial nature of teenage pregnancy are pointless except in a conversation about prevention; this conversation is about salvaging the situation of a young mother's life.

It's too late for these young women, whether they keep their baby, give their baby for adoption, or, heaven forbid, they lose the baby or abort the baby (I may be pro-choice as a man with no uterus experience but I still think it is a harrowing and sad decision for anyone). It is too late to talk about prevention or ask why, but not too late to make sure that their entire lives aren't set down the wrong path. Teenage pregnancy may not be ideal, and it may affect them and their lives very negatively, but there is no compassion in throwing them out of the system and guaranteeing them a life of hardship.

Aaaaamen.

[mactastic]

they choose to have sex do they not?
Changing the argument now, are we? May I remind you what you said?
the car wreck you cant control. Choosing to get knocked up you can. big difference
Choosing to have sex is not choosing to get knocked up. Big difference. Capish?

[imac/cheese]

Changing the argument now, are we? May I remind you what you said?

Choosing to have sex is not choosing to get knocked up. Big difference. Capish?

I agree.

The person in the car wreck chose to drive, just as the pregnant teen chose to have sex. Both people can take precautions to protect themselves such as driving the speed limit, having enough sleep, wearing a seat belt, using contraceptives, being monogomous, and not drinking before either. If a girl wasn't wearing her seat belt, speeding down the road at twice the speed limit after not having slept at all the night before and she gets into a car wreck, the school would go the extra effort to make sure she could still graduate on time with the rest of her class. So why should she not be supported if she gets pregnant.

[nbs2]

Maybe my heart is in the wrong place, but I agree with j26. The mother has has made her bed and must sleep in it. Having her take the semester off and graduate a semester later is going to be a sacrifice that she will have to make, and should be one that she should have the opportunity to make. I would have no problem requiring her to complete her coursework while she is out, and return to school after 2 weeks (that's standard industry practice), but I worry about the chance it would give the kid. The free market succeeds when there is equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. The kid is going to have a hard enough time growing up in a home with a young mother, it shouldn't be penalized by the system by being stuck in a home where the mother was in a situation where she could complete a basic education.

Genealogy by nature is a tangled web of illegitimate children, bigamy, incest, etc. All of those relationships are recognized by their software and included in their database. To exclude legally sanctioned relationships seems extremely hypocritical to me. It'll be interesting to see how they deal with it.

Why is it hypocritical?

Ask your mormon friends what happens to gay kids born to mormon parents. Talk about a lack of family values....

I can tell you. They go to church, socialize with other members, and believe all the same. The only limitation that is imposed in their relationship with other members is their personality type. A shy gay guy is going to have about as many friends as a shy straight guy. An outgoing gay guy will probably have as many friends as an outgoing straight guy.

At least, over the last 20 years and about 38 congregations (most of which have been populated by the 18-35 yo crowd), that's what I've seen.

[dukebound85]

i just hate being forced to pay for someone elses mistakes or actions legal or not. now granted i like to give on my own accord and own choosing.


same reason i am against illegal immigrants
same reason i dislike government handling social security
same reason i dislike welfare

if i smoke, do i expect society to pay for me to get treated if i develop lung cancer.....no. AND smoking is legal

if i get lung cancer as a result of smoking, that is the consequence i must deal with. and this is how society handles it now.

maybe the question should be to the mom is to whether sacrifice some of her life to benefit child....aka prolong schooling, or give child up for adoption if she cant handle having a kid

let me repeat my stance

girls who get pregnant need to deal with the consequences. if that means graduating a year later then so be it. however, to have additional facilities and teachers so they can go to class at unconventional hrs at no cost to them is uncalled for

they should either go to a community college that does this type of thing and work it out with their school but have to pay for it like everyone else if they get scholarships great. they should have to apply for aid like all students who need help. but in NO way do i believe it should be entitled to them just because they have a kid.

[mactastic]

i just hate being forced to pay for someone elses mistakes or actions legal or not. now granted i like to give on my own accord and own choosing.
I feel that way too, but mostly about misadventures in the Middle East that I'm being forced to pay for someone else's mistakes or actions, legal or not. Why are there no consequences for such mistakes?

I also just hate being forced to pay for someone else's mistakes or actions, legal or not when they run an airline or a bank into the ground. And again, there are no consequences. Why not? Why aren't these guys held back a year, or fired, or put in jail? Yet they continue to receive hefty paychecks and bonuses on my dime.

I like to give on my own accord and my own choosing.

[Ugg]

Let me paraphrase you



let me repeat my stance

BOYS who get GIRLS pregnant need to deal with the consequences. if that means graduating a year later then so be it. however, to have additional facilities and teachers so they can go to class at unconventional hrs at no cost to them is uncalled for


Boys who get girls pregnant should be immediately pulled from school and be forced to pay out of pocket, not with mommy and daddy's insurance for half of all pregnancy related costs. If they choose to attend school, they need to do it on their own time and expense. They should be forced to be temporarilly chemically castrated until they can not only support the child they've spawned but prove to the world that they can responsibly support others.

They will be denied access to sports, the library, any extracurricular activities.

I'm sure you'll agree that immaculate conception is a fairy tale and that all boys who have sex without a condom are not only aware of the risks, but responsible for them as well.

[.Andy]

Boys who get girls pregnant should be immediately pulled from school and be forced to pay out of pocket, not with mommy and daddy's insurance for half of all pregnancy related costs. If they choose to attend school, they need to do it on their own time and expense. They should be forced to be temporarilly chemically castrated until they can not only support the child they've spawned but prove to the world that they can responsibly support others.
Hang on. To clarify. None of this is this going to cost me MY TAX DOLLARS is it?

[Ugg]

Hang on. To clarify. None of this is this going to cost me MY TAX DOLLARS is it?


Tsk, tsk, in dukey and nbsy's little fantasy world, Nobody but Nobody pays for anything for anyone else.

Their petty little arguments remind me of my 6 and 8 year old nephews shouting, "That's not fair!!!!"

[nbs2]

Tsk, tsk, in dukey and nbsy's little fantasy world, Nobody but Nobody pays for anything for anyone else.

Their petty little arguments remind me of my 6 and 8 year old nephews shouting, "That's not fair!!!!"

WTF?

I can't answer for duke, but when did I say that nothing should be paid for by tax dollars? My points have been that the protection needs to be focused on ensuring that the child will have a chance to escape the teenage pregnancy cycle; that it is better for both the mother and the child to graduate one semester later than try and make up work and get back to school the same semester; and that a child care program in schools would be a good thing, but limited resources suggest that some contribution from the parent will be necessary to offset the cost, but that contribution can be spread even further since the program can be made available to the teachers as well.

Would I prefer to see a society where nothing needs to be paid for by anybody else? Of course. Can you imagine a society where everybody has sufficient for their needs, where nobody is in want, and where we only need to tax for general needs and not to assist any specific individual? Or does your philosophy demand that we have poverty?

[dukebound85]

I feel that way too, but mostly about misadventures in the Middle East that I'm being forced to pay for someone else's mistakes or actions, legal or not. Why are there no consequences for such mistakes?

I also just hate being forced to pay for someone else's mistakes or actions, legal or not when they run an airline or a bank into the ground. And again, there are no consequences. Why not? Why aren't these guys held back a year, or fired, or put in jail? Yet they continue to receive hefty paychecks and bonuses on my dime.

I like to give on my own accord and my own choosing.

you're right, there should be consequences for those examples

[dukebound85]

Tsk, tsk, in dukey and nbsy's little fantasy world, Nobody but Nobody pays for anything for anyone else.

Their petty little arguments remind me of my 6 and 8 year old nephews shouting, "That's not fair!!!!"

i have nothing against taxes. i support taxes for schools, roads, whatever. however i hate seeing those abuse the system.

if you read my posts, im not saying they should not go to school but rather we shouldnt encourage kids getting pregnant by spending additional resources to accomodate them. that should be their responsibility. i mean what message do we send to kids if they get pregnant but KNOW that society will support that decsion and help them hand and foot

how is it unreasonable to expect these kids to have to pay or obtain scholarships if they want night classes to graduate on time. or what is wrong with them having to sit out a year and then come back?

why soley help these girls when their are others who arent as stupid in many cases to have unprotetcted sex but still struggle with finances.

it should be an opportunity for all or none. no discriminating on who gets the additional resources. see my view?

im not against taxes. i am against a select group receiving more than others. i believe all taxes should be distributed evenly

[letsgorangers]

if you read my posts, im not saying they should not go to school but rather we shouldnt encourage kids getting pregnant by spending additional resources to accomodate them. that should be their responsibility. i mean what message do we send to kids if they get pregnant but KNOW that society will support that decsion and help them hand and foot
While I'm sure there are a number of teenagers who desire to get pregnant at that age, there are many more who DON'T. So I don't think aiding them is going to encourage other girls to get pregnant.


why soley help these girls when their are others who arent as stupid in many cases to have unprotetcted sex but still struggle with finances.

Yeah, we get it. Sex is a horrible, sinful, stupid thing to do. :rolleyes: You can take the necessary precautions and STILL get pregnant. It happens.

[atszyman]

My points have been that the protection needs to be focused on ensuring that the child will have a chance to escape the teenage pregnancy cycle; that it is better for both the mother and the child to graduate one semester later than try and make up work and get back to school the same semester;

But don't you think that by delaying their graduation by a semester so that they are no longer going to graduate with their friends will greatly affect the number of young mothers who drop out of school and never get their degree.

Or maybe the lure of a semester off with no homework might cause some girls to try and get pregnant?

Four weeks off with work that has to be made up/kept up with is going to force a lot more hard work out of those who accidentally get pregnant and might actually serve as a deterrent.

[nbs2]

But don't you think that by delaying their graduation by a semester so that they are no longer going to graduate with their friends will greatly affect the number of young mothers who drop out of school and never get their degree.

Or maybe the lure of a semester off with no homework might cause some girls to try and get pregnant?

Four weeks off with work that has to be made up/kept up with is going to force a lot more hard work out of those who accidentally get pregnant and might actually serve as a deterrent.

To the first point, the sacrifice of taking a semester will probably be the lease of the sacrifices that they will have to make as a parent.

To the second, I would hope that getting a semester off wouldn't be an incentive to get pregnant. For those that would find it to be, I imagine that the four weeks off may be just as attractive.

To the third, yes it would be more work to take the time off after the birth, but there will be nine months to plan for it. My concern is how much time will the mother have with the child if she is trying to make up/keep up with all that work while trying to get through the first hellish weeks. I remember the first couple weeks after our daughter was born, and I appreciated more than ever having both of us at home to take care of her.

[dukebound85]

Yeah, we get it. Sex is a horrible, sinful, stupid thing to do. :rolleyes: You can take the necessary precautions and STILL get pregnant. It happens.

wtf. where did you get that from me that it is horrible, sinful etc.

how about you stay on topic ok? rather than try to make an argument im not really addressing. to refresh, the argument is 1) should society assist those entirely who get pregnant to graduate on time via additional classes at night etc which would indeed be costly or 2) as opposed to the individuals having to sacrifice time (be it delaying graduation) or obtaining financial aid to attend night school at say a community college if they work it out with their hs

#2 is where I believe the solution should be

[Don't panic]

This is such a predictable mantra. MY tax dollars, MY back yard, MY country. Yadda effing yadda.

Why should more resources be spent on sick kids, law-breaking kids, hungry kids, educationally subnormal kids, pregnant kids, disadvantaged kids? How about because they're KIDS? Because they are the ones who NEED resources? Because a little help now will help them to be productive members of society later? Because if you were one of them you'd be grateful and you'd be more likely to invest in a country that supported you? Or simply because you'd be less likely to end up as human detritus littering the streets of your wealthier and more fortunate brethren?

+1

[aquajet]

how is it unreasonable to expect these kids to have to pay or obtain scholarships if they want night classes to graduate on time. or what is wrong with them having to sit out a year and then come back?

Because they're children? Children without a high school education? Children without any skills? Children who may be prevented from working due to labor laws?

It's in everybody's best interest to ensure children are set up for success, and this starts with an education. This is especially true for teens who've made really bad decisions -- those who need extra encouragement. I don't know what world you have to live in to expect that telling a teenage mother without an education or any skills that she needs to pay for school on her own or sit it out, is a good idea. Have you ever considered the possibility that a teenager who is put into this situation may never go back to school? Your views on this matter sound like a disasterous path to take -- which is usually what occurs when people take the "me, me, me...how does this directly impact me, right now?" point of view.

[atszyman]

To the first point, the sacrifice of taking a semester will probably be the lease of the sacrifices that they will have to make as a parent.

They're kids, many will not see the semester off as much of a sacrifice. We do, but we're already paying our rent, bills, mortgages and working for the stuff we have. Some of us are even trying to raise our own kids.


To the second, I would hope that getting a semester off wouldn't be an incentive to get pregnant. For those that would find it to be, I imagine that the four weeks off may be just as attractive.


But for many students in HS a semester off might sound like fun... Dump the kid with the parents and go party with no homework or responsibility. Unfortunately more often than not, the kids that would do this are also the ones most likely to get pregnant.

To the third, yes it would be more work to take the time off after the birth, but there will be nine months to plan for it. My concern is how much time will the mother have with the child if she is trying to make up/keep up with all that work while trying to get through the first hellish weeks. I remember the first couple weeks after our daughter was born, and I appreciated more than ever having both of us at home to take care of her.

I took time off work when both of our kids were born, the second seemed to triple the workload. They also have 9 months to plan on how they might try to keep up with their class and maybe do some advance work so they don't necessarily have 4 weeks of classwork to keep up with.

The way I see it, and I might be completely off base here, most of the girls who end up pregnant are not going to be the top of their classes (some will but it will be a smaller fraction). Most of them probably don't enjoy school or class work, and many probably couldn't care less about whether or not they get a diploma or not. If we have programs that keep them on track to graduate with their friends they are more likely to get their diploma than if they are held back. I also wouldn't put it past some, albeit a tiny fraction, who see having a baby as a way to get some time off school if they get the semester off. A month that they will have to catch up on will be a disincentive for everyone.

[.Andy]

how about you stay on topic ok? rather than try to make an argument im not really addressing.
In the interest of helping people staying on topic and only addressing what you've posted, I've taken the liberty of quoting a selection of you arguments.

i dont want tax dollars going to irresponsible kids (who doesnt agree to this) that are 15-17 that have children. why further their education on my money when they are irresponsible and will probably end up dropping out from hs and never going to college.

i dont believe in abortion even if the girl was raped.

as long as MY tax dollars arent being used to cater to their needs in a public school system due to them getting pregnant I dont care what they do

why reward the trouble makers/ wrong decision makers when those who ARE TRYING TO BE RESPONSIBLE CITIZENS have RESOURCES TAKEN FROM THEM to succeed to help those that more often than not dont give a damn about education.

but who am i kidding, you probably advocate holding back the entire class for those that dont care/want to be there. why not support the ones that want to be there

i just hate being forced to pay for someone elses mistakes or actions legal or not. now granted i like to give on my own accord and own choosing.

same reason i am against illegal immigrants
same reason i dislike government handling social security
same reason i dislike welfare

We've covered some ground!

[dukebound85]

In the interest of helping people staying on topic and only addressing what you've posted, I've taken the liberty of quoting a selection of you arguments.













We've covered some ground!

haha so we have. but realize alot of those are in response to responses to my posts lol

[mactastic]

wtf. where did you get that from me that it is horrible, sinful etc.

how about you stay on topic ok? rather than try to make an argument im not really addressing. to refresh, the argument is 1) should society assist those entirely who get pregnant to graduate on time via additional classes at night etc which would indeed be costly or 2) as opposed to the individuals having to sacrifice time (be it delaying graduation) or obtaining financial aid to attend night school at say a community college if they work it out with their hs

#2 is where I believe the solution should be
The cost of providing what you would consider to be an unfair benefit at the beginning point of the life of the child will be much less than what you will pay later when the child and the mother enter the poverty cycle and/or the justice system.

None of your arguments have countered this point that I raised long ago.

I am curious why you would advocate spending more money to address this problem. Some money will be spent at some point. Shouldn't we work to ensure that the least money possible is spent?

[macmama]

girls who get pregnant need to deal with the consequences.

Since you have yet to respond to Ugg's post above (#134), I'd like to ask you to clarify exactly how the males who "get" the females pregnant in the first place share in these consequences. Really Duke, your tone has been pretty misogynist throughout. As the responsibility of primary care-giving most often falls upon women, while their male counterparts (equally as "guilty" in the act that leads to conception) get to go on with no change in their high school careers, I think the least schools can do is offer programs to help these young women complete their degrees.

People with more education in this country = a good thing. Perhaps more educated people would secure better-paying jobs and stay off the welfare rolls I'm sure you just LOVE to fund, Duke. Whaddayathink?

[atszyman]

Since you have yet to respond to Ugg's post above (#134), I'd like to ask you to clarify exactly how the males who "get" the females pregnant in the first place share in these consequences. Really Duke, your tone has been pretty misogynist throughout. As the responsibility of primary care-giving most often falls upon women, while their male counterparts (equally as "guilty" in the act that leads to conception) get to go on with no change in their high school careers, I think the least schools can do is offer programs to help these young women complete their degrees.

People with more education in this country = a good thing. Perhaps more educated people would secure better-paying jobs and stay off the welfare rolls I'm sure you just LOVE to fund, Duke. Whaddayathink?

There's the solution....

The mother's get their 4-6 weeks off of school, the fathers will be responsible for all of the mother's schoolwork and be in charge of tutoring her, and bringing her up to speed when she gets back to school. If she fails any class in the semester then he also fails and will be delayed in graduation as long as she is delayed...

There you go low cost, and punishes both...:D and might actually help geeks since if you're gonna risk getting pregnant and the father is going to be your key to finishing school, you might as well have sex with the smart kids...:D

[nbs2]

<snip>

So, in the end, we both want to find a solution that doesn't prove an incentive to pregnancy, still gives the mother a chance to graduate without rushing her back into school and away from her child, etc. We are looking for the same thing - just differ on what might be most effective.

As for the father that Ugg asked about. Most of the time, unfortunately, these cases are the cases where the father disappears from the mother's life right about the time that she starts to show. In the event that the father does stick around, I'd propose that the father not get more than a couple of weeks off and that he be required to make up the school work. The stress to his body is not nearly what the mother goes through, but it would be nice to have some bonding time with the child. However, to qualify for the two weeks off, he would be required to have been an active participant in the preparation for the birth. No help, no time off.