Triplets born to teenager - Again(!)

[edesignuk]

A 16-year-old Argentine girl has given birth to female triplets - for the second time.

The girl, named only as Pamela, had her first set of female triplets aged 15, having first given birth to a son when she was just 14.BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7258072.stm).

16 years old. 1 son + 2 x sets of triplets = 7 kids at 16!

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

[Markleshark]

Erm, quite simply... Wow.

You buy child? I sell you child. Cost you many pacos...

[Killyp]

They're getting support from the government because the daughter can't stop sleeping around?

[Cromulent]

They're getting support from the government because the daughter can't stop sleeping around?

It is hardly her fault she had 2 lots of triplets though is it?

[arkitect]

It is hardly her fault she had 2 lots of triplets though is it?

OK. So even if she didn't get multiples — that would still leave her with 3 children at age 16…
That is still crazy.

[Consultant]

The government should have provided birth control instead of donate land and house.

By giving out freebies, it won't be surprising if more teenagers in that region will get pregnant in an attempt to get free land and free house.

[Abstract]

They're getting support from the government because the daughter can't stop sleeping around?

She's slutty and gets money for unprotected sex. Sweet deal.

[amanda kathryn]

She's slutty and gets money for unprotected sex.

i think there's a word for that...

[edesignuk]

She's slutty and gets money for unprotected sex. Sweet deal.You forgot stupidly fertile!

[iBlue]

it's sad that being a little slut and getting yourself knocked up is a career move these days. "oh, the government will sort me out" :rolleyes:

(yes I am a judgemental bitch, I'm sick of these little tarts with their big greedy open hands, among other things, looking to make the responsible people of the world pay their way in life. I just love forking over extortionate prices on council tax so little skanks can milk their way into housing and raise a generation of delinquents.)

</grumpy harsh generalization>

[iSaint]

They're getting support from the government because the daughter can't stop sleeping around?

Welcome to America!

No, wait...

It's common for the poor women in the US to be forced to have more children by their husbands/boyfriends so they receive more welfare from the government. There are cases of fathers/grandparents/uncles fathering children for this purpose. In my hometown, you sometimes never know who the father is.

[Osarkon]

What iBlue said.

There was a similar case around here where 2 girls did it, and then demanded the Council put them up. The community responded by telling them where to go in no uncertain terms.

[Abstract]

The community responded by telling them where to go in no uncertain terms.

Ireland?

[Osarkon]

Ireland?

Figure of speech. Why on earth would they tell them to goto Ireland? :confused: I get the feeling I'm missing something...

[Abstract]

Yes, you're right. I'm not sure what I was thinking when I said that.

New Zealand, right?

[Antares]

Yes, you're right. I'm not sure what I was thinking when I said that.

New Zealand, right?

Close...Australia. That's where England used to send prisoners and unwed mothers.

[Prof.]

Does she and her BF not know what a condom is?:confused:

Condom? Anyone?

Okay

[arkitect]

Does she and her BF not know what a condom is?:confused:

Condom? Anyone?

Okay

Argentina = ±93% Catholic = no contraception… Hell Fire and eternal damnation.

Yes… go figure… :rolleyes: :mad:

[Prof.]

Argentina = ±93% Catholic = no contraception… Hell Fire and eternal damnation.

Yes… go figure… :rolleyes: :mad:
Well that's just silly.:rolleyes:

[arkitect]

Well that's just silly.:rolleyes:

I agree.

Mind you, most of the UK isn't religious at all and we still have the highest teenage pregnancy rate in Europe. :rolleyes:

[jimN]

You support the mother to help the children. If you refuse to help them out you're punishing the wrong people. It may not send out the right message but would you honestly subject a child to abject poverty to make a point. Have you got a better idea?

[Prof.]

I agree.

Mind you, most of the UK isn't religious at all and we still have the highest teenage pregnancy rate in Europe. :rolleyes:
I live in a highly religious town and I don't see teens popping out babies left and right.

[CalmEnvy]

Wow, thats all I gotta say. Well, that's what she get's for not using a condom but there mostly Catholic over there right?

[shu82]

I live in a highly religious town and I don't see teens popping out babies left and right.

Teenage pregnancy has more to do with a general decline of the community not religiousness or religion. A tight-nit community/family is always better than father government. Personally, I would take her kids and sterilize her, problem solved. But then everyone would scream Nazi.

[Leareth]

Teenage pregnancy has more to do with a general decline of the community not religiousness or religion. A tight-nit community/family is always better than father government. Personally, I would take her kids and sterilize her, problem solved. But then everyone would scream Nazi.

I agree with all of your points.

and in Eastern Europe during the Cold War is was not that uncommon to do exactly that, if a woman was not a fit parent, after third pregnancy she was sterilized.

I would take the kids away from her, and make sure she could not breed anymore.
or find the biological fathers and make them pay for child support.

[notjustjay]

or find the biological fathers and make them pay for child support.

Ding ding ding.

It's not always the girl's fault.

[Prof.]

Ding ding ding.

It's not always the girl's fault.
So we should castrate the guy too.:p

[Antares]

Ding ding ding.

It's not always the girl's fault.

You can't be "forced" to have sex (legally). She is 100% responsible and should have to pay for her actions. That said, the fathers are 100% responsible as well and should pay too. This whole thing is absurd. If you can't afford to raise a child/don't have the ability to raise a child...you shouldn't have unprotected sex....period. Or if your religion/beliefs prevent you from using contraception, you shouldn't be having sex, then.

I don't live in the UK, so this case doesn't specifically affect me. However, similar things happen here all the time. I hate the fact that I have to pay for someone else's mistakes and foot the bill for them. I'm all for helping people in need. But when their poor decisions (especially repeated) put the burden on people who don't make these kinds of avoidable mistakes, that's what really irritates me.

[AndyK]

The mind boggles....

[mactastic]

You support the mother to help the children. If you refuse to help them out you're punishing the wrong people. It may not send out the right message but would you honestly subject a child to abject poverty to make a point. Have you got a better idea?
Exactly.

While it goes against everything I believe in to help people who have put themselves in a bad position through their own freely-chosen actions, we have to consider the welfare of the children. It's not their fault their mother and father aren't responsible; and if they don't receive some assistance the taxpayers will end up footing the bill for prison or hospitalization or putting the kids up in homeless shelters when they grow up. Ultimately it will cost less to provide public assistance to this mother than it will cost to provide for 7 wards of the state who have no health insurance and little prospect of becoming a producting citizen.

Unfortunately some will view this as their meal ticket, and deliberately get pregnant in order to sponge off society. But it's just not fair to punish a child for their parent's actions, and it's also not right to simply take someone's child because they are poor and have bad judgment.

[.Andy]

She is 100% responsible and should have to pay for her actions. That said, the fathers are 100% responsible as well and should pay too.
That adds up to 200% responsibility.

[PlaceofDis]

wow, this is why teaching abstinence doesn't always work.

i do feel sad for the girl and her family, but at the same time, after the first one, she should know better.

[Antares]

That adds up to 200% responsibility.

It's mutually exclusive.

[.Andy]

It's mutually exclusive.
I thought raising kids would be mutually inclusive.

[iCantwait]

Argentina = ±93% Catholic = no contraception… Hell Fire and eternal damnation.

Yes… go figure… :rolleyes: :mad:

ummmm. So does sex before marraige

[atarin]

You support the mother to help the children. If you refuse to help them out you're punishing the wrong people. It may not send out the right message but would you honestly subject a child to abject poverty to make a point. Have you got a better idea?

Warning: After reading this, you will think I'm a heartless bitch. I don't care.

Sorry. I disagree. I absolutely think the children should be subject to abject poverty to avoid rewarding this stupid slut. She will probably not teach these kids right from wrong (because obviously *she* doesn't know), so they're going to grow up to be poor or in prison, anyway - so might as well let them have that life from the beginning. Really, children need to learn at a young age that if you want to eat, you better get off your lazy, free-loading arse and get a friggin' job! They also need to learn that if you're a stupid slut, abject poverty is all you and your bastard children deserve.

Seriously, if I don't work, I starve to death. Boo hoo. If I don't have a job, I *deserve* to starve to death. *All* lazy people deserve to die. So what? Anyone who pities the lazy or the slutty is a moron! The *only* acceptable solution to all these stupid sluts around the world is to take their children away and sterilize them. There is no other choice that is fair to people who deserve to live (you know, those of us with *jobs* who pay taxes!)! Oh, yeah, her parents should be jailed (for life) and have any other children they have taken away for not teaching her right from wrong and for not keeping her slutty arse in line. I mean really, does no one understand what parenting means, anymore?

I am *so* sick and tired of people on welfare. They all need to die! I work my butt off, and these losers get to stay home all day making bastard babies? They're all a waste of oxygen, and their children will never be any better. Give the bastard babies to people who deserve to have children, and kill the lazy mother f'ers on welfare. That would end a *lot* of the problems in the world. Why should we feel sorry for, or be willing to help people who can't take responsibility for their own actions? It's *their* problem, not ours!

Sorry if that sounds harsh, but life isn't fair, and it *shouldn't* be. What's the point of doing the right thing or being responsible if we're going to allow people to take the easy way out in life? Survival of the fittest. I'm not a communist. I should not be forced to share the fruits of my labor with anyone. For there to be affluent people, there must be poor people, and we have the power to choose which group we're in by how hard we're willing to work. Work or die. If you can't afford babies, keep your slutty legs closed! The end.

Now, who can tell I have PMS right now? :rolleyes: I told you that you would think I'm a heartless bitch, and I still don't care.

And what's up with the references to Catholicism denouncing birth control (leads to hell fire and damnation...)? If you're really Catholic, surely you would remember the nuns pounding it into your heads that being a slut gets you the same punishment, so really, that is no excuse for all the bastard babies!

[Mac OS X Ocelot]

That adds up to 200% responsibility.

Well having kids is a lot of responsibility.

[maxi]

I'm from Argentina and this was discussed a lot on the news lately.

Yes, most of the country here is catholic, but really that has nothing to do with the lack of birth control. The church is not pressuring much in that sense here (there was a bit of a debate last year whether or not sex ed should be taught in schools, but that was that).

Bottom line, ignorance and poverty is what caused this. The girl and her mother have said she tried getting an operation done so she wouldn't have any more babies but was denied because she was underage.... but that seems dubious. Our government is quite possible one of the worst in the whole world (yes, I do hate them with all my heart) but I gotta say that if you have the will, you can get contraceptives for free, specially if you were in her situation.

It saddens me to see young girls like this one living on the street with a couple kids and pregnant. It is really taking us down as a society because in this case poverty and ignorance bring more poverty and ignorance. Where you had 1 poor girl that couldn't even go to school, you now have 8. That's sad, and politicians here take advantage of this by giving out money or clothing in the months previous to elections in exchange of votes (the joys of obligatory voting) and in the end you get what should be an unbelievably rich country reduced to ruins.

Sorry for the overly pessimistic rant. But this really ticks me off.

[iSaint]

I live in a highly religious town and I don't see teens popping out babies left and right.

That's because they (the conservative south) send them off to Aunt Sally's in Kansas for 9 months, the come back home in time for their senior year in high school.

[JohnMC]

...and it's also not right to simply take someone's child because they are poor and have bad judgment.

I completely agree taking children from their parents because the parents are poor is wrong, however the bad judgement thing is an entirely different story. Bad judgement whether it is unprotected sex or driving stupidly is still bad judgement. If I was given a choice of live with my biological parents and risk being killed by my parents bad judgement or live in a foster home, I personally would pick the foster home.

[notjustjay]

You can't be "forced" to have sex (legally). She is 100% responsible and should have to pay for her actions.

Ok, perhaps what I should have said was "it's not entirely the girl's fault."

From a biological point of view, it's not a fair balance. The guy has his few minutes of fun, and always gets off scot free, while the girl has a non-zero chance of getting pregnant. The way to counter the guy's lack of biological consequence is to make sure there are social consequences. Make the fathers responsible. The prospect of having to make child payments for the rest of your life would probably help a horny teenager avoid making a stupid mistake.

[madoka]

I agree with all of your points.

and in Eastern Europe during the Cold War is was not that uncommon to do exactly that, if a woman was not a fit parent, after third pregnancy she was sterilized.

Contrast this with what goes on in the U.S. of A. There were two severely mentally handicapped teens in an institute. Our government would have to pay for their care for the rest of their lives. Once they discovered sex, they started popping out the babies and obviously could not care for any of them. All the doctors agreed that their children would all be severly retarded as well. These kids would also need the government to pay for their institutionalization for their entire lives which would run into the millions of dollars. The court ordered that the male be sterilized, but the ACLU stepped in and made sure that the retarded teens could breed at will on the public teat.

That to me is MUCH worse than the Argentinian case since these kids never had any hope of ever even leaving the institution due to the severity of their retardation.

[Abstract]

If there's a religious reason for not using a condom, and you don't want to get preggers, then don't have sex. That's the only way.

If she chose to have sex, then it's the mother and father's financial problem. Should the kids suffer with her? I don't believe so. The children should receive support. Actually, the mother and father(s) should have this financial burden, not the government. If they don't have enough money to raise the children, then they should be punished by having the children taken from them, and the parents should be operated upon.

I realize that accidents do happen, and I don't mind my tax money going towards people who need help, whether they're in the situation because of poor luck, or poor decision-making. However, you can't have 3 accidents by the age of 16. It's no longer an accident. It's just plain ol' stupidity. :o That's when I become less understanding and generous.

Close...Australia. That's where England used to send prisoners and unwed mothers.

Hmmmmm.....I just figured Wales would either send them to an area that they don't give about (Ireland), or to an area they have a lot in common with (sexy sheep everywhere).

You support the mother to help the children. If you refuse to help them out you're punishing the wrong people. It may not send out the right message but would you honestly subject a child to abject poverty to make a point. Have you got a better idea?

Welfare? Maybe.

Being put up in a shelter? Ok.

Free education for the children? Sure.


A chunk of land and a free house? Whaaazat? :confused:

[RedTomato]

Personally, I would take her kids and sterilize her, problem solved. But then everyone would scream Nazi.

I agree with all of your points.
and in Eastern Europe during the Cold War is was not that uncommon to do exactly that, if a woman was not a fit parent, after third pregnancy she was sterilized.
I would take the kids away from her, and make sure she could not breed anymore.

Hello. Who makes the decisions? On what basis? I'm from a group of people that historically have been frequently sterilised or had their children taken away from them.

I'm deaf. Deaf as in I use sign language, not speech. Somehow that makes us unfit parents to a lot of people. In the US, deaf women were often sterilised without their consent. Alexander Graham Bell campaigned to make it illegal for deaf people to marry each other. (this and many other reasons is why he is seen as a genocidical figure in the deaf community.)

Forced sterilisation of deaf women also occurred famously under the Nazis, but also in some Scandinavian countries AFTER the war.

In the UK, deaf mothers often have their children taken away, either by social workers (less in recent years) or through family pressures, with the children being looked after by grandparents or other relatives.

I often meet deaf mothers who say they cannot communicate with their own children as the children were brought up by relatives and never learned sign language. To me that's just horrific and sick.

I know two lovely deaf teenagers, at university in the UK now, and I interviewed their mother, also deaf, who when she was pregnant, was told by the chief doctor to have an abortion and strongly consider sterilisation as there was a high chance of her babies being deaf. Fortunately she refused.

So please be careful when you start on the slope to forced sterilisation and taking kids away from mothers.

Back to the point of the OP. The answer to teenage pregnancy is of course, as has been shown time and time again, education and valid jobs for women. There's a direct correspondence between female education and number of babies. Local role models, seeing local women in well paid respected careers helps too.

The alternative is teenage girls only seeing adult local women as either babymothers or floor sweepers or prostitutes. Out of all that, the most highly respected role is as mother. So pregnancy it is, as the logical best route.

[::Lisa::]

Aye Curumba!!! :eek: You would of thought she'd have learnt the first, oh and second time but Nooo! So must be a career move. Her boyfriend definitely didn't have the "every hole is a goal" attitude! lol.

[paduck]

Welcome to America!

No, wait...

It's common for the poor women in the US to be forced to have more children by their husbands/boyfriends so they receive more welfare from the government. There are cases of fathers/grandparents/uncles fathering children for this purpose. In my hometown, you sometimes never know who the father is.

this is simply not true it falls into the urban legend category with welfare queens driving Cadillacs while buying their booze and cigarettes with food stamps.

There are caps on welfare in the US, the most appropriate to this post being that there is a lifetime limitation to how long you can be on the dole. Add to that the fact that the limited incremental for more dependents is capped and small, it jus doesn't stand up to reason.

The problem with welfare in the US was never that there were men out there "forcing" their wives and girlfriends to have more kids. The problem was that the men just disappeared and left the women with kids and that the system fostered a culture of dependency. That was removed with welfare reform more than a decade ago. Not necessarily the problem of absent dads, but the lifetime dependency. For some people this created real problems, but for most it was an incentive to make a better life and not rely on a government handout. The welfare system in the US isn't perfect, but it is much more of a system to help people through tough times now than a lifetime commitment of support.

[Cybergypsy]

My uterus hurts just thinking about it!

[BaronvdB]

wow...why do other people always end up paying for someone else's mistakes?

[.Andy]

wow...why do other people always end up paying for someone else's mistakes?
Who's paid for your mistakes?

[mariahlullaby]

She could have just been really unlucky the three times she had sex. :p

[Digital Skunk]

Warning: After reading this, you will think I'm a heartless bitch. I don't care.

Sorry. I disagree. I absolutely think the children should be subject to abject poverty to avoid rewarding this stupid slut.

Very interesting post. I agree with you 99%. The only problem I have is that leaving the children in poverty is only going to breed crime for that area. And as history dictates, crime ridden areas not only bring down the property value for the surrounding area, but also sends the criminals towards the rich and snobbish areas to find crimes to commit.

A thief can't rob from the poor.

[CalBoy]

A thief can't rob from the poor.

On the contrary, the poor are most often the victims of crime (all types of crime).

Back to the article though, I disagree with the government helping the family out at this stage. Clearly this teenager is not of sound mind and judgement to be a mother. Take the kids (all 7) and have them raised by responsible adults (they can be uncles, aunts, etc in her own family).

Also, she needs to be sterilized. 7 kids is more than enough for one lifetime I think.

[Digital Skunk]

On the contrary, the poor are most often the victims of crime (all types of crime).

Back to the article though, I disagree with the government helping the family out at this stage. Clearly this teenager is not of sound mind and judgement to be a mother. Take the kids (all 7) and have them raised by responsible adults (they can be uncles, aunts, etc in her own family).

Also, she needs to be sterilized. 7 kids is more than enough for one lifetime I think.

Touche.... I found the statistics and you are correct.

As for the 7 kids thing, my Great Great Grandmother had 23 children, none of them twins. I am sure that there is someone that knows somebody that has had more.

[CalBoy]

As for the 7 kids thing, my Great Great Grandmother had 23 children, none of them twins. I am sure that there is someone that knows somebody that has had more.

But your great great grandmother raised her children how many years ago? What was the life expectancy?

I hardly think this slut from Argentina had the same concerns as your great great grandmother.

[Digital Skunk]

But your great great grandmother raised her children how many years ago? What was the life expectancy?

I hardly think this slut from Argentina had the same concerns as your great great grandmother.

Oh no, I just wanted to mention that when you said 7 was a lot. I wasn't trying to prove a point.

[CalBoy]

Oh no, I just wanted to mention that when you said 7 was a lot. I wasn't trying to prove a point.

Well I think of 7 as a lot for the modern day (and Argentina is a fairly well developed nation; pretty high HDI and life expectancy) so that's the tilt I'm looking at it from.

A 100 years ago 7 wasn't that large (neither was 12 or 15 for that matter) so that's why I was using that as a gauge.

[sushi]

16 years old. 1 son + 2 x sets of triplets = 7 kids at 16!
Hard to comprehend in this day and age.

It is hardly her fault she had 2 lots of triplets though is it?
OK. So even if she didn't get multiples — that would still leave her with 3 children at age 16…
That is still crazy.
Exactly.

wow, this is why teaching abstinence doesn't always work.
Condoms and other birth control devices don't work all of the time either.

Warning: After reading this, you will think I'm a heartless bitch. I don't care.
<snip>
You make some very good points.

[Mac OS X Ocelot]

Sounds like the solution wasn't sterilization or government welfare, but abortion. Alas, it's too late. I wish her and her kids all the best.

[jimN]

Warning: After reading this, you will think I'm a heartless bitch. I don't care.

Heartless or just plain stupid? We have advanced to a state of civilisation where we are happy to support those less fortunate than ourselves. Your circumstances could change at any time and in that instance you would be very grateful for the support that you would receive. These children don't deserve to suffer or die and they will do better with their mother than they would in care. If you're unable to appreciate this you really need to pay more attention to the world around you.

[mactastic]

Warning: After reading this, you will think I'm a heartless bitch. I don't care.
You're right, I do.

Sorry. I disagree. I absolutely think the children should be subject to abject poverty to avoid rewarding this stupid slut. She will probably not teach these kids right from wrong (because obviously *she* doesn't know), so they're going to grow up to be poor or in prison, anyway - so might as well let them have that life from the beginning. Really, children need to learn at a young age that if you want to eat, you better get off your lazy, free-loading arse and get a friggin' job! They also need to learn that if you're a stupid slut, abject poverty is all you and your bastard children deserve.
Name calling isn't a form of argument.

Seriously, if I don't work, I starve to death.
No you don't. You'd be on welfare. Or would you voluntarily starve yourself to death rather than accept the help?
Boo hoo. If I don't have a job, I *deserve* to starve to death.
Do stay-at-home moms deserve to starve to death? Define "having a job".
*All* lazy people deserve to die. So what? Anyone who pities the lazy or the slutty is a moron! The *only* acceptable solution to all these stupid sluts around the world is to take their children away and sterilize them. There is no other choice that is fair to people who deserve to live (you know, those of us with *jobs* who pay taxes!)! Oh, yeah, her parents should be jailed (for life) and have any other children they have taken away for not teaching her right from wrong and for not keeping her slutty arse in line. I mean really, does no one understand what parenting means, anymore?
Because only stupid sluts get pregnant at a young age, right? Color me a moron then. I've seen girls pressured to have sex before. I've seen people you would call lazy who have crippling disabilities. Yet you think all those people should be killed?

I am *so* sick and tired of people on welfare. They all need to die! I work my butt off, and these losers get to stay home all day making bastard babies? They're all a waste of oxygen, and their children will never be any better. Give the bastard babies to people who deserve to have children, and kill the lazy mother f'ers on welfare. That would end a *lot* of the problems in the world. Why should we feel sorry for, or be willing to help people who can't take responsibility for their own actions? It's *their* problem, not ours!
How would you propose to kill them? Lethal injection? Or would you be willing to use the knife on a pregnant 13 year old yourself? Should we do these executions publicly, the better to spread the word of fear among the potential "stupid sluts" out there? And what punishment, if any, would you advocate for the father? Does he get killed too?

Sorry if that sounds harsh, but life isn't fair, and it *shouldn't* be. What's the point of doing the right thing or being responsible if we're going to allow people to take the easy way out in life? Survival of the fittest. I'm not a communist. I should not be forced to share the fruits of my labor with anyone. For there to be affluent people, there must be poor people, and we have the power to choose which group we're in by how hard we're willing to work. Work or die. If you can't afford babies, keep your slutty legs closed! The end.
The point of doing the right thing or being responsible is to be better off than those who do not. Just because I advocate helping people for the sake of staving off higher future costs doesn't mean I want to provide golden palaces or a lifetime of indolence for anyone. Their life should be harder than yours or mine. But harder doesn't mean dead, and it doesn't mean they should have nothing and live in the streets.

I also note that, in classic Libertarian fashion, you have neglected to include the costs of doing what you propose in your analysis. What does it cost to keep someone on welfare? $1,000 a month? It costs twice that to keep them in prison. It costs the business community untold dollars when the homeless camp out in front of their shops and panhandle. It costs the health care system untold dollars when someone without insurance goes to the emergency room for something that could have been handled easily and cheaply prior to their ER visit.

You advocate an extremely black and white view of the world; yet the world often comes in shades of grey.

Now, who can tell I have PMS right now? :rolleyes: I told you that you would think I'm a heartless bitch, and I still don't care.

And what's up with the references to Catholicism denouncing birth control (leads to hell fire and damnation...)? If you're really Catholic, surely you would remember the nuns pounding it into your heads that being a slut gets you the same punishment, so really, that is no excuse for all the bastard babies!
Yeah, you'd think telling people not to do something would be a guarantee that they wouldn't do it -- in a black-and-white world anyway. Funny though, the real world doesn't work the way Ayn Rand said it would.

I completely agree taking children from their parents because the parents are poor is wrong, however the bad judgement thing is an entirely different story. Bad judgement whether it is unprotected sex or driving stupidly is still bad judgement. If I was given a choice of live with my biological parents and risk being killed by my parents bad judgement or live in a foster home, I personally would pick the foster home.
And what would you pick if you were given that choice at 2 hours of age?

But your great great grandmother raised her children how many years ago? What was the life expectancy?

I hardly think this slut from Argentina had the same concerns as your great great grandmother.
Again, what's with the namecalling? Is a girl a slut if she has sex with three different men? And is there any proof that she has done so? I didn't see any in the referenced article. Perhaps you have some information the BBC doesn't? They mention her "alleged promiscuity". Is that proof?

The level of mysogeny in this thread is disturbing.

[Leareth]

The level of mysogeny in this thread is disturbing.

Only when the women act as stupid at this teen mom.

She has 7 kids at age 16 !
She has very little future prospects.
She expects the state to provide her and her brood with all they need.

This girl is not a slut or whore - they are at least honest about what they do.
she is just a stupid teen mom, who should not spawn anymore dead end children and stop being a parasite to society by leeching from the taxpayers.
I am not against welfare or social programs but this is plain irresponsible and stupid.

Where are the father(s) here?

[Fukui]

Personally, I would take her kids and sterilize her, problem solved. But then everyone would scream Nazi.

Um.............. ya think?

While I think its stupid for people to rewarded for making stupid decisions, sterilizing people against their will is barbaric. There should be a balance between people who deserve welfare (mentally/physically handicapped or people who have suffered trauma), and people who abuse it just to be lazy.

I think a middle of the road solution would be to take the kids away if she has no father to either get a job or take care of the kids. In this case its called child protection. The second part of this is sex education, and social education (nobody gets a free ride for being stupid/lazy).

[vampirealiv0]

Ok, perhaps what I should have said was "it's not entirely the girl's fault."

From a biological point of view, it's not a fair balance. The guy has his few minutes of fun, and always gets off scot free, while the girl has a non-zero chance of getting pregnant. The way to counter the guy's lack of biological consequence is to make sure there are social consequences. Make the fathers responsible. The prospect of having to make child payments for the rest of your life would probably help a horny teenager avoid making a stupid mistake.

all the while.. you sure that slut can even identify the father?

I'm not saying that girls deserve such a disadvantage, just that a person is the only one who can be responsible for him/her self.

Even if you disagree with this point, it is still true that the slut involved in this discussion (getting pregnant just for welfare) may have even told the guy that he doesn't have to take any responsibility. The reason why I say this is that, legally, the biological father does have social responsibility once the child can be identified to be his. If I were the guy, I'd make sure that I preserve my future (education, career and etc.) Therefore, it is definitely a must to make sure that the slut doesn't just ask for sperm and then turn around on the guy to have him share the consequences of her stupidity.

again... people must WATCH OUT FOR THEMSELVES!!!!! Sure it might be very unfair to her, but she deserves for letting it happen to her. Note that she WASN'T raped.

btw... the guy might contract STD and end up pretty miserable too. Maybe the guy already has a few. Generally, though, people of that level of stupidity must be taught a lesson. If they can't see it coming, then let it hit them. Again and again until they figure it out.

This brings me to agree with many people here. STERILIZE her if she gets pregnant again. (kinda hard to find the right guy to sterilize, and even then, sterilizing a guy without causing sever physical side-effects is TOUGH, but its very easy with the girl.)

I apologize if I offended any decent or responsible women out there, but be confident that the guys who get this kind of sluts pregnant will also have consequences, even if its not in the form of child-support. (if that makes you feel better) Nature is fair in its "unfairness".

[Blue Velvet]

I think this thread has reached a point where further discussion is counter-productive and potentially offensive. Thread closed.