NationStates Jolt Archive

Some damning evidence of where our sexualised culture is leading us.

With teenage girls now choosing pregnancy as a "career option", according to a leading charity, three young mothers talk about how they dealt with the experience.

Britain has the highest number of teenage pregnancies in Europe and they cost the country about £63m a year.

Many young girls even see having a baby as a better option than a low-paid "dead-end" job, recent research for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation suggests.
We put sex everywhere. We tell our children that it's alright to do it and nothing to worry about.

But guess what! Kids know everything, remember, and so you arm them with this immortal attitude and they decide they know how to best use it.

...Jenny, who set out to get pregnant when she was just 14.

"I wanted a baby, I wanted to be a housewife and I thought it would bring me and my boyfriend, Danny, closer together," she says. "He was 17 at the time and he wasn't saying I had to use contraception. But once I got pregnant he wasn't happy then and told me to get rid of it."
When are we going to realise that sex and kids just don't mix?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/5217634.stm

Teen pregnancy rates in the modern Western world are currently lower than they have been throughout pretty much all of human history.

Furthermore, if young girls believe that the best way for them to ensure a good future for themselves is to get knocked up, then I don't think the "sexualization" of our culture is the problem here.

Teen pregnancy rates in the modern Western world are currently lower than they have been throughout pretty much of human history.

Furthermore, if young girls believe that the best way for them to ensure a good future for themselves is to get knocked up, then I don't think the "sexualization" of our culture is the problem here.
You don't believe that us telling children that sex is something that can be had without consequences contributes to children thinking that it's a better option than a crappy job?

I think you're mixing up sex and the idealized image of the family. These kids aren't having children as a byproduct of sex, they're doing it with the intent of becoming pregnant. They think that a baby will give them that family life idealized in sitcoms, where the father work and the mother stays home and they all have a happy life together. They've mixed up the steps you have to take to find a good spouse and the money you need to get that kind of life and went straight for the baby. Hardly the sort of thing that comes from a "sexualised culture", more likely the result of an emphasis on the family and raising children.

We put sex everywhere. We tell our children that it's alright to do it and nothing to worry about.
If they're aiming to become pregnant then they're clearly aware of the consequences of sex.

If they're aiming to become pregnant then they're clearly aware of the consequences of sex.
Exactly; a way out of work.

I think you're mixing up sex and the idealized image of the family. These kids aren't having children as a byproduct of sex, they're doing it with the intent of becoming pregnant. They think that a baby will give them that family life idealized in sitcoms, where the father work and the mother stays home and they all have a happy life together. They've mixed up the steps you have to take to find a good spouse and the money you need to get that kind of life and went straight for the baby. Hardly the sort of thing that comes from a "sexualised culture", more likely the result of an emphasis on the family and raising children.
so are you anti-family?

so are you anti-family?

Hardly. It just seems that girls working towards getting pregnant are looking for a family, not sex. I've known a few local girls that took that approach to life, and they did get a family. Their fathers had to hold a shotgun to the young men during the wedding, but they got their families.

Exactly; a way out of work.
You don't seem to have noticed that I'm pointing out that you've made contradictory arguments: first, that teenagers are having sex with the aim of becoming pregnant, and second, that teenagers are becoming pregnant 'cause we tell them that sex doesn't have consequences.

Hardly. It just seems that girls working towards getting pregnant are looking for a family, not sex. I've known a few local girls that took that approach to life, and they did get a family. Their fathers had to hold a shotgun to the young men during the wedding, but they got their families.
The point is that sex is now such a common and normal thing to them that they are coming up with these 'solutions' to life's problems. They're 14, we're saying 'it's ok to have sex', they're saying 'well thanks very much, we can use that nicely'.

You don't seem to have noticed that I'm pointing out that you've made contradictory arguments: first, that teenagers are having sex with the aim of becoming pregnant, and second, that teenagers are becoming pregnant 'cause we tell them that sex doesn't have consequences.
We are telling children that it is ok to have sex. They are taking that and using it to their own advantage.

There is no contradiction in that.

The point is that sex is now such a common and normal thing to them that they are coming up with these 'solutions' to life's problems. They're 14, we're saying 'it's ok to have sex', they're saying 'well thanks very much, we can use that nicely'.
Why do they get pregnant in the first place? It's not because sex suddenly became more available to teenagers than in the past (unless Britain has had much more restrained teens than here in the U.S.) . For some reason, pregnancy and motherhood is more desirable than a job or career. I'd worry more about why pregnancy is the best choice for these girls than how they're getting pregnant.

Why do they get pregnant in the first place? It's not because sex suddenly became more available to teenagers than in the past (unless Britain has had much more restrained teens than here in the U.S.) . For some reason, pregnancy and motherhood is more desirable than a job or career. I'd worry more about why pregnancy is the best choice for these girls than how they're getting pregnant.
Because we are encouraging them to have sex in the first place through our very culture and society, it is an attractive option before they have the ability to fully understand the consequences. It is no 'more available', but it is more acceptable. They do not think 'I should not have sex because I am not yet ready for it', they think 'how can I use sex to my own advantage'. You always hear about how sex education will 'prevent' these problems; instead, it is encouraging them.

You are right that there are also social issues to do with why it is more attractive than a career, however. Cutting State support to these teenage mothers would be an ideal place to start to stop this problem.

We are telling children that it is ok to have sex. They are taking that and using it to their own advantage.
Like kids care whether adults think something is okay or not. They're getting pregnant 'cause they think the State will then support them until they can find someone else to do so.

Hardly. It just seems that girls working towards getting pregnant are looking for a family, not sex. I've known a few local girls that took that approach to life, and they did get a family. Their fathers had to hold a shotgun to the young men during the wedding, but they got their families.
I see what you are saying. Maybe if they had a fulfilling family life at home they wouldn't be out looking to make their own. Most of the girls I counseled that the crisis pregnancy center when I volunteered there came from terrible situations at home, and the ones that didn't and had what would be considered a "normal family situation" by society standards, came from homes where they felt unloved, unwanted, ect.

I don't think I ever met a teen mom who came from a healthy family.

You don't believe that us telling children that sex is something that can be had without consequences contributes to children thinking that it's a better option than a crappy job?

Given the fact that they wanted those kids, I think you can hardly claim that they thought sex had no consequences.

Teen pregnancy rates in the modern Western world are currently lower than they have been throughout pretty much all of human history.

Furthermore, if young girls believe that the best way for them to ensure a good future for themselves is to get knocked up, then I don't think the "sexualization" of our culture is the problem here.

Precisely. It seems to me that there are some other, more serious issues than sexualization if teenagers are looking to pregancy alone for their future.

Because we are encouraging them to have sex in the first place through our very culture and society, it is an attractive option before they have the ability to fully understand the consequences. It is no 'more available', but it is more acceptable. They do not think 'I should not have sex because I am not yet ready for it', they think 'how can I use sex to my own advantage'. You always hear about how sex education will 'prevent' these problems; instead, it is encouraging them.

You are right that there are also social issues to do with why it is more attractive than a career, however. Cutting State support to these teenage mothers would be an ideal place to start to stop this problem.

They are not having sex because we are encouraging them.
They are having sex because they want children and a family. If we didn't "encourage" sex, they would still want to have children and a family, and they would still get pregnant.

They are not having sex because we are encouraging them.
They are having sex because they want children and a family. If we didn't "encourage" sex, they would still want to have children and a family, and they would still get pregnant.
If we didn't encourage sex, they would not consider it as a 'way out.'

Babies are on one side of a door, these kids on the other. I am suggesting keeping the door locked; you are suggesting throwing it wide open and leaving it up to the kids to decide what to do.

If we didn't encourage sex, they would not consider it as a 'way out.'

Babies are on one side of a door, these kids on the other. I am suggesting keeping the door locked; you are suggesting throwing it wide open and leaving it up to the kids to decide what to do.

Considering that the general numbers of teenage pregnancy has been continuously falling for the last few decades, especially with the rise of sex education and availability of contraceptives, I don't really think you have much of a point here.

You've got children here saying they wanted to have children of their own, and you're making the assumption that if we had a more negative attitude to sex, these kids wouldn't want that. You've nothing to base that assumption on.

If we didn't encourage sex, they would not consider it as a 'way out.'

Babies are on one side of a door, these kids on the other. I am suggesting keeping the door locked; you are suggesting throwing it wide open and leaving it up to the kids to decide what to do.

Christ man get a freaking grip.

And take an english class or two.

There's a fundamental difference between "I rject your theory on WHY they are having sex" and "I think we should let them chose whether or not to have sex themselves."

Many of us are quite capable of keeping those ideas distinct in our heads (though you seem not to). It's quite possible to say "I think your theory on why teens are having sex is wrong" without actually ADVOCATING it.

Get it?

You don't believe that us telling children that sex is something that can be had without consequences contributes to children thinking that it's a better option than a crappy job?
The girls you are talking about are not trying to have "sex without consequences." The specific quotes you posted indicate that they are deliberately seeking one particular possible consequence of sex: pregnancy.

Maybe the problem is not sex being glorified in society, but more of the lack of good sex education in schools.

You don't believe that us telling children that sex is something that can be had without consequences contributes to children thinking that it's a better option than a crappy job?

What the hell are you talking about? Noone teaches that sex has no consequences. Furthermore, teens are taught that even safe sex is not 100% effective, but if they are going ot have sex to have safe sex. Can more be done to make teens aware of the consequences, yes. But noone is saying that sex has no consequences whatsoever.

Because we are encouraging them to have sex in the first place through our very culture and society, it is an attractive option before they have the ability to fully understand the consequences. It is no 'more available', but it is more acceptable. They do not think 'I should not have sex because I am not yet ready for it', they think 'how can I use sex to my own advantage'. You always hear about how sex education will 'prevent' these problems; instead, it is encouraging them.

You are right that there are also social issues to do with why it is more attractive than a career, however. Cutting State support to these teenage mothers would be an ideal place to start to stop this problem.

Encouraging sex and encouraging pregnancies are two different thing. Replace "having sex" with "having a child" in your post, and then you get closer to the heart of the problem. They aren't seeing sex as the way out, they're seeing babies as a way out. Sex is just how they get the babies, and sex education won't do anything if they go into sexual encounters with the intent of getting pregnant.

Christ man get a freaking grip.
I doubt Jesus reads these threads.

And take an english class or two.
Perhaps I should 'rject' your 'english' theory.

There's a fundamental difference between "I rject your theory on WHY they are having sex" and "I think we should let them chose whether or not to have sex themselves."
So you agree that children should not be allowed to choose to have sex?

Many of us are quite capable of keeping those ideas distinct in our heads (though you seem not to). It's quite possible to say "I think your theory on why teens are having sex is wrong" without actually ADVOCATING it.

Get it?
Not really. Try again, speaking slowly and clearly, and make a point next time. Then we'll talk.

The point is that sex is now such a common and normal thing to them that they are coming up with these 'solutions' to life's problems. They're 14, we're saying 'it's ok to have sex', they're saying 'well thanks very much, we can use that nicely'.
It's not that we're saying, "It's okay to have sex." It's that we're telling young women, "Your primary value is as a baby-maker. You will never do anything more valuable than make babies. Your goal in life is to find a man to support you, to bear his children, and to keep house." We tell young girls that women aren't made to be competative or to have careers of their own. We tell girls that being intelligent and capable will make the boys not like you. We tell girls that the best way to find love is to fulfill a very traditional feminine role, which centers on the production of babies.

Girls also see a world where they will be paid less for their work than a man will. They see a world where women still cannot break in to many career paths, or where women face great discrimination and hostility for trying. They see a world where women are routinely told that if they don't get a man before age 30, they will die alone and lonely.

Why, then, should we be surprised when girls view teen pregnancy as a reasonable option? With the messages they get, it is totally reasonable for them to reach that conclusion.

What the hell are you talking about? Noone teaches that sex has no consequences. Furthermore, teens are taught that even safe sex is not 100% effective, but if they are going ot have sex to have safe sex. Can more be done to make teens aware of the consequences, yes. But noone is saying that sex has no consequences whatsoever.
Indeed, if we were really teaching kids that "sex has no consequences," then no young women would be acting in the way he described, because they would have no notion that sex causes pregnancy! Girls who got pregnant would be like, "What the hell? Where did this shit come from?"

It's not that we're saying, "It's okay to have sex." It's that we're telling young women, "Your primary value is as a baby-maker. You will never do anything more valuable than make babies. Your goal in life is to find a man to support you, to bear his children, and to keep house." We tell young girls that women aren't made to be competative or to have careers of their own. We tell girls that being intelligent and capable will make the boys not like you. We tell girls that the best way to find love is to fulfill a very traditional feminine role, which centers on the production of babies.
I have never told the girls this, and I know of no sex education programme that does so. The sex education I know says 'there is no harm in having sex as long as you take precautions'.

Girls also see a world where they will be paid less for their work than a man will. They see a world where women still cannot break in to many career paths, or where women face great discrimination and hostility for trying. They see a world where women are routinely told that if they don't get a man before age 30, they will die alone and lonely.

Why, then, should we be surprised when girls view teen pregnancy as a reasonable option? With the messages they get, it is totally reasonable for them to reach that conclusion.
You're living in a 1970s feminist nightmare. Girls constantly outperform boys today, and are encouraged to do well. If anything, it is boys who see themselves as worthless and unable to achieve anything.

I doubt Jesus reads these threads.

I hope not, half of them would make baby jesus cry.

So you agree that children should not be allowed to choose to have sex?

I am capable of holding simultaniously the views that children having unprotected sex is a bad thing, yet at the same time recognize that girls who have sex for the express purpose of having babies do not believe they can have sex without concequences.

You generate a nice fallacy on these threads "it's wrong for children to be having sex, and this is why they are having sex!"

"um, I don't think that's why they're doing it"

"oh, so you think it's ok for children to be having sex!"

The inability to follow logical construction is the hallmark of the weak mind.


Not really.

Exactly...weak mind.

I know this is based on British interviews but we have the same problem in America. The problem is not sex which is a pretty awesome thing as long as nobody gets sick. The main problem is that a welfare economy and mandatory child support payments allow people to make it a career choice. If we quit encouraging this sort of behavior with the dole we would have a lot less of this. Furthermore, if men were empowered to choose ahead of time whether they would pay for an unwanted child, then women would be truly on their own. I know it makes 2 to make a baby, but the choice to have an abortion is all the woman's. With freedom comes responsibility and I think that if a woman wants a child over the father's objection, then she should be on the hook for the bills.

If this results in women who cannot support the kids, well than all the pro-lifers out there can give to charities to support them. Furthermore, adoption is always available.

I am capable of holding simultaniously the views that children having unprotected sex is a bad thing, yet at the same time recognize that girls who have sex for the express purpose of having babies do not believe they can have sex without concequences.
Then you hold a foolish view. If the children were not encouraged to have sex, and told that it was a perfectly safe and sensible thing to do, then they would not be considering having children so young. You are talking mechanics, 'babies come from sex, therefore this is a consequence!!!!!'; I am talking about the mindset. In their minds, rather than sex equaling a decision that must be taken carefully, it is nothing more than a way out.

You generate a nice fallacy on these threads "it's wrong for children to be having sex, and this is why they are having sex!"

"um, I don't think that's why they're doing it"

"oh, so you think it's ok for children to be having sex!"

The inability to follow logical construction is the hallmark of the weak mind.
The inability to come up with anything other than petty insults is the hallmark of a far weaker one.

sex and "children" have always gone together. always.

we dont need to sexualize our society to bring sex to the notice of teenagers. those feelings and desires are natural in all human beings past puberty.

its a myth that in the past teens have been chaste. when i was a kid, the average age for a woman to get married was 18. think about it. the AVERAGE age was 18. that means that many many girls were getting married at 15, 16, and 17.

why were they getting married? because they were IN LOOOOOOVE. they were already pregnant or simply wanted sex with their boyfriends. the only change from then to now is that teens arent forced to get married in order to have sex or because they had unwise sex and got pregnant.

Then you hold a foolish view. If the children were not encouraged to have sex, and told that it was a perfectly safe and sensible thing to do, then they would not be considering having children so young. You are talking mechanics, 'babies come from sex, therefore this is a consequence!!!!!'; I am talking about the mindset. In their minds, rather than sex equaling a decision that must be taken carefully, it is nothing more than a way out.

Having children is very different than having sex. They're not having sex without thinking, they've thought carefully and decided to have sex with pregnancy in mind. The problem is that they don't think of children as important or as a responsibility. They see babies as the way out, not sex.

It is unequivocally the fault of the incarnation of the welfare state we know see. Given that a young lady can earn considerably more money simply through remaining unemployed, and having a child at sixteen, due to the obligations placed upon the father, and the state, to fund her lifestyle, as opposed to working or entering further education, are we genuinely surpirsed?

Whilst it is necessary to recognise that the welfare state, and, most lamentably, the NHS, can no longer be retracted, and are benefactors to the nation, it is also apparent that the welfare state now constitutes, for some, a reasonably lucrative career, not a safety net.

Having children is very different than having sex. They're not having sex without thinking, they've thought carefully and decided to have sex with pregnancy in mind. The problem is that they don't think of children as important or as a responsibility. They see babies as the way out, not sex.
Babies come from sex.

If underage sex is not acceptable in society, they do not consider that avenue.

If underage sex is accepted, and encouraged, by society, then they do.

Kapish?

Then you hold a foolish view. If the children were not encouraged to have sex, and told that it was a perfectly safe and sensible thing to do, then they would not be considering having children so young. You are talking mechanics, 'babies come from sex, therefore this is a consequence!!!!!'; I am talking about the mindset. In their minds, rather than sex equaling a decision that must be taken carefully, it is nothing more than a way out.

Then clarifiy your word choice first. The "mechanical" definition is a perfectly acceptable one, and it's not my fault you started a conversation without first defining your terms.


The inability to come up with anything other than petty insults is the hallmark of a far weaker one.

Oh I agree entirely. However I actually made my point, and threw the insult in there at the end, just for fun.

I have never told the girls this, and I know of no sex education programme that does so. The sex education I know says 'there is no harm in having sex as long as you take precautions'.

Please explain why young women would decide to intentionally get pregnant because of sex ed that teaches them there is no harm in having sexual intercourse. Please explain how a belief in "sex with no consequences" would lead a young person to deliberately pursue a consequence of sex.


You're living in a 1970s feminist nightmare.

No, it's the year 2006.


Girls constantly outperform boys today, and are encouraged to do well.

That has nothing to do with what I said.


If anything, it is boys who see themselves as worthless and unable to achieve anything.
Again, this has nothing to do with what I said.

Now here's the thing that blows your argument wide open, and you've yet to respond to it.

You claim that we are raising a culture that teaches young people that sex can be had without problems, and even if you do get pregnant, then you're just going to have a happy family life forever.

If that were the case, if this was getting more and more pervasive....

why are teen pregnancy rates falling?

Please explain why young women would decide to intentionally get pregnant because of sex ed that teaches them there is no harm in having sexual intercourse. Please explain how a belief in "sex with no consequences" would lead a young person to deliberately pursue a consequence of sex.
There are no consequences; there is no concern for emotional problems; there is no concern for repucussions. I will concede that 'negative consequences' would have been a clearer way of starting this.

No, it's the year 2006.


That has nothing to do with what I said.


Again, this has nothing to do with what I said.
It has everything to do with what you said. You claimed that girls are so badly treated and expected everyone to go 'boo hoo!' when actually the evidence shows the exact opposite of your claim. The idea that girls are not treated equally in today's society is absurd; the only thing encouraging them to believe they are nothing more than 'boy catchers' is the very sexualised culture you are so fond of defending.

Now here's the thing that blows your argument wide open, and you've yet to respond to it.

You claim that we are raising a culture that teaches young people that sex can be had without problems, and even if you do get pregnant, then you're just going to have a happy family life forever.

If that were the case, if this was getting more and more pervasive....

why are teen pregnancy rates falling?
Why does this 'blow apart' anything? The argument had nothing to do with the rates, it is to do with girls deciding to get pregnant.

If this was about accidental teenage pregnancies you'd have a point. As it is about the rising number of delibarate pregnancies, you do not.

Babies come from sex.

If underage sex is not acceptable in society, they do not consider that avenue.

If underage sex is accepted, and encouraged, by society, then they do.

Kapish?
no.

people have sex with or without the acceptance of society. when its unacceptable they are sneakier about it.

if "jenny" had been living 50 years ago, she would have gotten pregnant by "danny" and they would have gotten married. they would have lived with her parents until danny got a job that paid enough to support jenny and the baby.

It has everything to do with what you said. You claimed that girls are so badly treated and expected everyone to go 'boo hoo!' when actually the evidence shows the exact opposite of your claim. The idea that girls are not treated equally in today's society is absurd; the only thing encouraging them to believe they are nothing more than 'boy catchers' is the very sexualised culture you are so fond of defending.

You've never spent any time in the ghetto have you?

Hint: society is not made up entirely of middle class white people.

Then you hold a foolish view. If the children were not encouraged to have sex, and told that it was a perfectly safe and sensible thing to do, then they would not be considering having children so young. You are talking mechanics, 'babies come from sex, therefore this is a consequence!!!!!'; I am talking about the mindset. In their minds, rather than sex equaling a decision that must be taken carefully, it is nothing more than a way out.


The inability to come up with anything other than petty insults is the hallmark of a far weaker one.

It seems somewhat unfair to condemn an entire generation of people based on the actions of a few. Just because a /few/ kids see it as nothing more than a way out, doesn't necessarily mean that the majority do not make the decision with the weight it "deserves" (read: the weight that you would apparently expect of them).

And by the way, saying that "if we didn't tell kids it was okay, they wouldn't pursue that avenue"... you're joking, right? I mean, you WERE a kid at one point, weren't you?

There are no consequences; there is no concern for emotional problems; there is no concern for repucussions. I will concede that 'negative consequences' would have been a clearer way of starting this.


It has everything to do with what you said. You claimed that girls are so badly treated and expected everyone to go 'boo hoo!' when actually the evidence shows the exact opposite of your claim. The idea that girls are not treated equally in today's society is absurd; the only thing encouraging them to believe they are nothing more than 'boy catchers' is the very sexualised culture you are so fond of defending.

I'm inclined to concur actually. Sexual liberation et al. are all well and good until such a point as females consider themselves primarily a sexual vending machine.

Babies come from sex.

If underage sex is not acceptable in society, they do not consider that avenue.

If underage sex is accepted, and encouraged, by society, then they do.

Kapish?
Between 1990 and 2000, the national teen pregnancy rate fell 27 percent (United States). Current teen pregnancy rates are lower than they were in the 1970s.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/teen_stats.html

Seriously, dude, just give it up. If our "sexualization" of young people has been increasing (or even remaining constant) during recent years, then "sexualization" CANNOT BE THE CAUSE for teen pregnancy. Because teen pregnancy rates have been DECREASING during that time frame.

You've never spent any time in the ghetto have you?

Hint: society is not made up entirely of middle class white people.

BLING!

IS YOU FROM DA GHETTO?

Incidentally, where is this fabled ghetto I hear of so often? Some sort of Narnia arrangement or what?:rolleyes:

Babies come from sex.

If underage sex is not acceptable in society, they do not consider that avenue.

If underage sex is accepted, and encouraged, by society, then they do.

Kapish?

If underage sex is not acceptable in society, and underage pregnancy is, then they will consider that avenue.

If underage sex is acceptable and encouraged, but underage pregnancy is not, by society, then they don't consider that avenue.

If both underage sex and pregnancy are unacceptable in society, then that avenue is not considered.

If underage sex and pregnancy are both acceptable and encouraged in society, then they will consider that avenue.

Societal acceptance of underage sex and underage pregnancy are seperate issues. Got it?

You've never spent any time in the ghetto have you?

Hint: society is not made up entirely of middle class white people.
My young nieve friend, are you aware you have a habit of arguing the opposite of what you're trying to say?

I shall point you to the statistics about ethic minority pregnancies. As you are so determined to have an argument about accidental pregnancy, however, rather than the article linked to in the OP, I would suggest you create your own thread on it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5202532.stm

And by the way, saying that "if we didn't tell kids it was okay, they wouldn't pursue that avenue"... you're joking, right? I mean, you WERE a kid at one point, weren't you?
I was never a child. I emerged from the womb aged 18.

Between 1990 and 2000, the national teen pregnancy rate fell 27 percent (United States). Current teen pregnancy rates are lower than they were in the 1970s.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/teen_stats.html

Seriously, dude, just give it up. If our "sexualization" of young people has been increasing (or even remaining constant) during recent years, then "sexualization" CANNOT BE THE CAUSE for teen pregnancy. Because teen pregnancy rates have been DECREASING during that time frame.

However, teenage preganancy is rewarded at present. It is, amongst the lower classes, no stigma to have a child at 16, indeed, the financial rewards are significant.

Why does this 'blow apart' anything? The argument had nothing to do with the rates, it is to do with girls deciding to get pregnant.

If this was about accidental teenage pregnancies you'd have a point. As it is about the rising number of delibarate pregnancies, you do not.

Please find a source to cite saying it is rising.

Your article says it exists, not that the rate of girls having sex TO PRODUCE children is rising.

Please find one that does say so before making claims that it is.

Years ago, women were supposed to be kept barefoot and pregnant. They were considered sex objects, and domestic help, I.E. "kept". Women rightfully rejected this. Now we have young girls wanting to return to those conditions, calling it a "career option".

Funny how the circle completes itself.

Some damning evidence of where our sexualised culture is leading us.

We put sex everywhere. We tell our children that it's alright to do it and nothing to worry about.

But guess what! Kids know everything, remember, and so you arm them with this immortal attitude and they decide they know how to best use it.
*blink* And what does this have to do with having children as a "career option" (i.e. for adoption)? Are you seriously suggesting that it is immoral to bring children into this world in order to be raised by parents who are well off financially?

Please find a source to cite saying it is rising.

Your article says it exists, not that the rate of girls having sex TO PRODUCE children is rising.

Please find one that does say so before making claims that it is.
You didn't even read the article, did you? Shall I quote it again for you?

With teenage girls now choosing pregnancy as a "career option", according to a leading charity, three young mothers talk about how they dealt with the experience.

Britain has the highest number of teenage pregnancies in Europe and they cost the country about £63m a year.

Many young girls even see having a baby as a better option than a low-paid "dead-end" job, recent research for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation suggests.

Why does this 'blow apart' anything? The argument had nothing to do with the rates, it is to do with girls deciding to get pregnant.

If this was about accidental teenage pregnancies you'd have a point. As it is about the rising number of delibarate pregnancies, you do not.
who said the number of deliberate teen pregnancies was going up or that it is a new phenomenon brought on by welfare?

there has always been a certain number of teen girls for whom motherhood is the highest (and most easliy attainable) goal. the only thing that has changed is that she doesnt have to marry the boy who got her pregnant.

*blink* And what does this have to do with having children as a "career option" (i.e. for adoption)? Are you seriously suggesting that it is immoral to bring children into this world in order to be raised by parents who are well off financially?

Provided that the money is earned or inherited, not the bounty of the welfare state, of course not.

Mandatory abortions for anyone impregnated under the age of eighteen. Problem solved.

There are no consequences; there is no concern for emotional problems; there is no concern for repucussions. I will concede that 'negative consequences' would have been a clearer way of starting this.

You assert that teen pregnancy is a "negative consequence," right? So why would teen girls deliberately seek pregnancy via sex, if they were being taught that there are no "negative consequences" of sex?


It has everything to do with what you said. You claimed that girls are so badly treated and expected everyone to go 'boo hoo!' when actually the evidence shows the exact opposite of your claim.

I did not claim that "girls are treated badly." I said that girls are provided with many reasons why getting pregnant may be the wisest choice for them to make. You have provided no evidence to refute anything I said.


The idea that girls are not treated equally in today's society is absurd

There's just not much one can say to this kind of thing, is there?


the only thing encouraging them to believe they are nothing more than 'boy catchers' is the very sexualised culture you are so fond of defending.
You appear very interested in fighting with StrawFeminist. Unfortunately, I am not she.

You appear very interested in fighting with StrawFeminist. Unfortunately, I am not she.

LOL

Mandatory abortions for anyone impregnated under the age of eighteen. Problem solved.

I concur, however I would be inclined to rasie the age to 21 actually. However,it would offend the moral sensibilities of the "choice for all, omitting the middle and upper classes" brigade.

Mandatory abortions for anyone impregnated under the age of eighteen. Problem solved.
Well, except of course that these kids WANT to raise their own children and be good parents.

who said the number of deliberate teen pregnancies was going up or that it is a new phenomenon brought on by welfare?
This is ridiculous. You start a thread citing research talking about deliberate teenage pregnancies. People spend God knows how long saying 'but accidental pregnancies are going down!' and then, when you point out it's not about that, say 'where's your evidence for this claim?!'

Please people, read at least the OP before commenting. It will make you look a little less foolish.

Well, except of course that these kids WANT to raise their own children and be good parents.

If they are unable to financially support the child, why should the state do so?

My young nieve friend, are you aware you have a habit of arguing the opposite of what you're trying to say?

I shall point you to the statistics about ethic minority pregnancies. As you are so determined to have an argument about accidental pregnancy, however, rather than the article linked to in the OP, I would suggest you create your own thread on it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5202532.stm

OK, I was hoping, HOPING that I wouldn't have to explain every logical connection to you, but I was hoping too much.

Alright, here we go.

You calimed two things, the rates of women having sex for the purpose of having children is rising (to which you offerend no substantiation), and that women in general are seeing an improvement in their role of societies, and see themselves as having more options.

here's the damned problem, in places where this IS true, where women get education, have resources, have support, do well in school, have a future, the rate of pregnancy is MUUUUUUUUCH lower than in other places.

It's in the impovrished areas, where society has a view VERY opposite that you suppose, where pregnancy is higher.

So you can't go claiming that women have it all together great in society, and then say they're still getting pregnant, when the great majority of teenagers who do get pregnant aren't from that perfect society you envision.

With me now?

Years ago, women were supposed to be kept barefoot and pregnant. They were considered sex objects, and domestic help, I.E. "kept". Women rightfully rejected this. Now we have young girls wanting to return to those conditions, calling it a "career option".

Funny how the circle completes itself.
i feel sorry for girls who think that welfare is a good deal.

in a couple years they realize that its a dead end. then they have to climb out of the hole they dug for themselves with their children on their backs.

Many young girls even see having a baby as a better option than a low-paid "dead-end" job, recent research for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation suggests.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/5217634.stm

Paying attention in school is a better option, than a low-paid "Dead-end" job or having to raise a baby at 14.

If they are unable to financially support the child, why should the state do so?
*blink* Are you suggesting mandatory adoptions are a solution for all, even those able to support a child?

You assert that teen pregnancy is a "negative consequence," right? So why would teen girls deliberately seek pregnancy via sex, if they were being taught that there are no "negative consequences" of sex?
Ever heard of the phrase 'moving the goalposts'?

When you don't like one thing, we talk about another thing.

When you don't like that thing, we talk about another thing.

When you don't like that thing, we move back to the first thing.

The point is that the teen pregnancy is not seen as a negative consequence; hence the reason they are doing it. Sex is positive; teenage pregnancy is positive; therefore, at no stage is anything saying 'don't do it' to these girls.

I did not claim that "girls are treated badly." I said that girls are provided with many reasons why getting pregnant may be the wisest choice for them to make. You have provided no evidence to refute anything I said.
Again, we shift. You are more slippery than a snake covered in oil.

I say: they are encouraged to have sex and have babies.
You say: no, it's nothing to do with sex, it's because they're treated so badly.
I say: No, they are not treated badly at all.
You say: but it's because they're encouraged to have sex and think babies are good.

Want someone to grease you up some more?

You appear very interested in fighting with StrawFeminist. Unfortunately, I am not she.
You seem very interested in creating StrawFeminist, and then running away when called on it.

Well, except of course that these kids WANT to raise their own children and be good parents.
The vast majority of teenagers are delusional in their understanding of the world and seem entirely too convinced of their own indestructibility. I don’t trust them to raise children, and those doing so will ultimately harm me through welfare appropriations and crime.

*blink* Are you suggesting mandatory adoptions are a solution for all, even those able to support a child?

Not at all. Only those who cannot.

You didn't even read the article, did you? Shall I quote it again for you?

Gee, let's take a look at what you just posted:

With teenage girls now choosing pregnancy as a "career option", according to a leading charity, three young mothers talk about how they dealt with the experience.

Britain has the highest number of teenage pregnancies in Europe and they cost the country about £63m a year.

Many young girls even see having a baby as a better option than a low-paid "dead-end" job, recent research for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation suggests.


Hrm, I don't see the word "increasing" in there, lemme check again.

With teenage girls now choosing pregnancy as a "career option", according to a leading charity, three young mothers talk about how they dealt with the experience.

Britain has the highest number of teenage pregnancies in Europe and they cost the country about £63m a year.

Many young girls even see having a baby as a better option than a low-paid "dead-end" job, recent research for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation suggests.


Nope, not there. Lemme check again.

With teenage girls now choosing pregnancy as a "career option", according to a leading charity, three young mothers talk about how they dealt with the experience.

Britain has the highest number of teenage pregnancies in Europe and they cost the country about £63m a year.

Many young girls even see having a baby as a better option than a low-paid "dead-end" job, recent research for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation suggests.


Nope, nada. It says they are DOING it, not that they are doing it more than they have been in the last few years. Your article does not say it's MORE common than it was a year ago, 2 years ago, 5 years ago, you have nothing that says it's actually happening more often than it was, as you claim.

Exactly; a way out of work.
Not a "way out of work", but a job in itself. That's why being a full-time was described as a "career" in the article.

This is ridiculous. You start a thread citing research talking about deliberate teenage pregnancies. People spend God knows how long saying 'but accidental pregnancies are going down!' and then, when you point out it's not about that, say 'where's your evidence for this claim?!'

Please people, read at least the OP before commenting. It will make you look a little less foolish.

i did that before i made that post. it would have been silly of me to ask for proof if you had provided it in the OP.

when i read the OP i saw an article with interviews with teen mothers who had deliberatley chosen to have babies. there were no statistics attached.

-snip-
You complain that your 'logic' is not followed when you torture the word so much?

You seem determined to argue what you want to argue, not anything that bares relation to what is being said here. I'm frankly amazed at the number of times you can claim 'no evidence was offered' when the very point of the OP was about...new evidence that shows it to be the case.

What bothers me about this whole argument is that stay at home moms seem to be so trivial to most of you. So these girls want to have children and stay put to raise them.... why? well maybe because they themselves have had little parental contact because mom and dad had to be at work all the time making that almighty dollar. So these little girls are trying to make what they dont have. OK so its not exactly right the state has to pay for it but we really have to look at why these girls are making this decision.
So it is prevelent among the poorer classes, hmmm well I know I am definately working class and until recently I had 2 jobs to try and chase what i keep getting told I have to have to be sucessful instead of being happy with what I can make and have more time to spend with the reason I felt I had to make all that money. Funny, my son is happier with us having less money and more together time, imagine that.......

I say: they are encouraged to have sex and have babies.
You say: no, it's nothing to do with sex, it's because they're treated so badly.
I say: No, they are not treated badly at all.

And you're wrong, as teens who live in impovrished neighborhoods without money, education, or a community that values women as equally as men are FAAAAR more likely to get pregnant than middle class educated teenagers.

15 year old susan whose daddy is a banker and whose mommy volunteers for the local churce and teaches middle school is NOT the one most likely to get pregnant, despite how much you seem to assert she is.

However, teenage preganancy is rewarded at present. It is, amongst the lower classes, no stigma to have a child at 16, indeed, the financial rewards are significant.
That's pretty much what I'm saying.

For instance: a young girl who grows up in a poor or lower class environment will often have very few options in life. Like her brothers, she probably won't get much of a crack at a really top-notch education. However, the lack of education will impact her future earning potential more severely than it will impact her brothers.

See, in our current society, women with college educations make about the same amount (on average) as men who have completed high school. Most of the best paying jobs for high school graduates are jobs that largely exclude women. Meanwhile, women who have not completed high school will much more commonly end up in the lowest paying unskilled jobs (typically some form of domestic labor).

You also have to add in the fact that we still put HUGE amounts of pressure on males to be the breadwinners for their families. A female who chooses to stay home with her children is subjected to far less scrutiny than a male who makes the same choice.

Gee, let's take a look at what you just posted:

Hrm, I don't see the word "increasing" in there, lemme check again.

Nope, not there. Lemme check again.

Nope, nada. It says they are DOING it, not that they are doing it more than they have been in the last few years. Your article does not say it's MORE common than it was a year ago, 2 years ago, 5 years ago, you have nothing that says it's actually happening more often than it was, as you claim.
*Sigh*

Your brain doesn't seem to be connected to anything else in your body. I'll highlight the important word for you.

With teenage girls now choosing pregnancy as a "career option", according to a leading charity, three young mothers talk about how they dealt with the experience.

Britain has the highest number of teenage pregnancies in Europe and they cost the country about £63m a year.

Many young girls even see having a baby as a better option than a low-paid "dead-end" job, recent research for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation suggests.

What bothers me about this whole argument is that stay at home moms seem to be so trivial to most of you. So these girls want to have children and stay put to raise them.... why? well maybe because they themselves have had little parental contact because mom and dad had to be at work all the time making that almighty dollar. So these little girls are trying to make what they dont have. OK so its not exactly right the state has to pay for it but we really have to look at why these girls are making this decision.
So it is prevelent among the poorer classes, hmmm well I know I am definately working class and until recently I had 2 jobs to try and chase what i keep getting told I have to have to be sucessful instead of being happy with what I can make and have more time to spend with the reason I felt I had to make all that money. Funny, my son is happier with us having less money and more together time, imagine that.......

Entirely falsified. Firstly, bereft of your jobs, can you still finacially support you household?

Secondly, and predicated upon a negative answer to the first; why should your happiness necessitate the theft of money from others, thus reducing their happiness?

What bothers me about this whole argument is that stay at home moms seem to be so trivial to most of you. So these girls want to have children and stay put to raise them.... why? well maybe because they themselves have had little parental contact because mom and dad had to be at work all the time making that almighty dollar.

Fallacy. A teenage girl in a well off, two income family is faaaar less likely to get pregnant than one in a more impovrished area where parents may be out of work.

Unless you are talking about two parents making low end jobs, in which case one quitting isn't an option.

I am also bemused that you talk about the benefit of "a parent' at home and go straight to stay at home moms.

*Sigh*

Your brain doesn't seem to be connected to anything else in your body. I'll highlight the important word for you.

With teenage girls now choosing pregnancy as a "career option", according to a leading charity, three young mothers talk about how they dealt with the experience.

Britain has the highest number of teenage pregnancies in Europe and they cost the country about £63m a year.

Many young girls even see having a baby as a better option than a low-paid "dead-end" job, recent research for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation suggests.

Right now I'm drinking a soda.

Does this mean I've never drank a soda before in my life? Of course not. If I am dong something now that in no way indicates I wasn't doing it before.

If girls are now chosing to do something, this does not prove they weren't doing it before, and are....shockingly, still doing it....or even doing it less.

The fact that your article never, not once, EVER said this is happening MORE now than in recent years, and I'm not talking in some back asswards way which involves you bolding a word that doesn't necessarily mean what you think it means, but doesn't actually say this phenominom is becoming MORE common....you got nothing.

Provided that the money is earned or inherited, not the bounty of the welfare state, of course not.
The article says nothing about welfare. Nor does the issue inherently include welfare.

That's pretty much what I'm saying.

For instance: a young girl who grows up in a poor or lower class environment will often have very few options in life. Like her brothers, she probably won't get much of a crack at a really top-notch education. However, the lack of education will impact her future earning potential more severely than it will impact her brothers.

See, in our current society, women with college educations make about the same amount (on average) as men who have completed high school. Most of the best paying jobs for high school graduates are jobs that largely exclude women. Meanwhile, women who have not completed high school will much more commonly end up in the lowest paying unskilled jobs (typically some form of domestic labor).

You also have to add in the fact that we still put HUGE amounts of pressure on males to be the breadwinners for their families. A female who chooses to stay home with her children is subjected to far less scrutiny than a male who makes the same choice.

I believe we may be trying to reconcile the same issue in the context of the UK and USA.

In the UK, sexual equality in regards to salary and perception is reasonably prevalent. The issue may well be the predisposition of lower class women towards children in precedent to a career, and thus the necessity for education, and higher quality secondary level education in less affluent regions.

The article says nothing about welfare. Nor does the issue inherently include welfare.
The issue of teenaged pregnancy doesn’t include welfare?
How ridiculously naïve.

sex and "children" have always gone together. always.

we dont need to sexualize our society to bring sex to the notice of teenagers. those feelings and desires are natural in all human beings past puberty.

its a myth that in the past teens have been chaste. when i was a kid, the average age for a woman to get married was 18. think about it. the AVERAGE age was 18. that means that many many girls were getting married at 15, 16, and 17.

why were they getting married? because they were IN LOOOOOOVE. they were already pregnant or simply wanted sex with their boyfriends. the only change from then to now is that teens arent forced to get married in order to have sex or because they had unwise sex and got pregnant.

I am not very old but I studied interviews from about 1980 of old people who immigrated to the US in the early half of the century. EVen among this crowd of folks it was pretty wunusual for a girl to get married as young as 18.

The article says nothing about welfare. Nor does the issue inherently include welfare.

The issue is suffused by the welfare state.

Were it not financially teneble to raise a child at 16 with no income, necessity would render teenage pregnancy redundant.

The lower orders in the UK have a lamentable perception that the welfare state will be the facilitator of their lifestyles, not a safety net.

We are telling children that it is ok to have sex. They are taking that and using it to their own advantage.

There is no contradiction in that.
"We" are usually telling children to have protected sex to prevent pregnancies.

It's not the fault of a "sexualized culture" that some children have such a bleak view of the future that the only option that seems any good is getting knocked up and becoming a housewife. There are definitely some bigger issues there.

However, teenage preganancy is rewarded at present. It is, amongst the lower classes, no stigma to have a child at 16, indeed, the financial rewards are significant.

The reward is the problem, not the "sexualization" of society. I'm fairly sure sexualization isn't really a word. I know kapish isn't.

What bothers me about this whole argument is that stay at home moms seem to be so trivial to most of you. So these girls want to have children and stay put to raise them.... why? well maybe because they themselves have had little parental contact because mom and dad had to be at work all the time making that almighty dollar. So these little girls are trying to make what they dont have. OK so its not exactly right the state has to pay for it but we really have to look at why these girls are making this decision.
So it is prevelent among the poorer classes, hmmm well I know I am definately working class and until recently I had 2 jobs to try and chase what i keep getting told I have to have to be sucessful instead of being happy with what I can make and have more time to spend with the reason I felt I had to make all that money. Funny, my son is happier with us having less money and more together time, imagine that.......
you quit working and are living on welfare?

that is an unusual decision that not many self-supporting single mothers would make.

The article says nothing about welfare. Nor does the issue inherently include welfare.

Welfare is implied, because someone will have to support the child: Either the Mother, the Father (ideally both) or the state, hence welfare. If the young girls choose a responsible man who is willing to support them and their child, then the whole issue dissappears.

You complain that your 'logic' is not followed when you torture the word so much?

You seem determined to argue what you want to argue, not anything that bares relation to what is being said here. I'm frankly amazed at the number of times you can claim 'no evidence was offered' when the very point of the OP was about...new evidence that shows it to be the case.

Your article never once, not ever, not one god damn time stated that this was occuring more often than in the past.

It only said it is happening NOW, not that it WASN'T happening before. Thus your article never once EVER suggests that the rate is increasing.

The reward is the problem, not the "sexualization" of society. I'm fairly sure sexualization isn't really a word. I know kapish isn't.

I rather believe I may have asserted that the fiscal rewards of teenage pregnancy are complicit to the affair, however no issue is encapsulate dby one factor, nor should one believe so. Were underage sex not glorified, and thus accepted, by the media and society to which teenage mothers adhere, I should imagine the quantity of female mothers would be vastly reduced.

I am not very old but I studied interviews from about 1980 of old people who immigrated to the US in the early half of the century. EVen among this crowd of folks it was pretty wunusual for a girl to get married as young as 18.
feel free to google "average age of marriage". my pathetic connection doesnt really make it worth my while to do it for you.

The issue of teenaged pregnancy doesn’t include welfare?
How ridiculously naïve.
The article is a good example. Read it perhaps.

Some damning evidence of where our sexualised culture is leading us.


We put sex everywhere. We tell our children that it's alright to do it and nothing to worry about.

But guess what! Kids know everything, remember, and so you arm them with this immortal attitude and they decide they know how to best use it.


When are we going to realise that sex and kids just don't mix?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/5217634.stm

This is not really that new. For a very long time, the occasional wacko female has used pregancy to 'hook' the occasional unwilling male.

These are not too common, fortunately. The important thing to remember is that the real enemy isn't the pregnancy, and it isn't that poor baby. The real enemy is the psychological condition that makes young girls think that this is the best or only way to find love/security/purpose and the environment that triggers the condition.

First of all yes i can still support my child, I am paying all my bills just chose to no longer chase the consumerism that is so rampant today. Secondly, yes I chose moms because i am one and not that I havnt seen good fathers, they are just rare enough, oh never mind. How about if I say that children need an avalible Parent, work better for you? And yes I think too many children have little to no real supervision. Society has made it ok to drop off your kids at some large holding facility and expect it to raise them, So what is really worse?

Not getting that new car this year? Or having a kid that already has institutionalized thinking because of all the daycares they have been placed in since they were an infant?

Is it a wonder that many parents dont feel connected to their kids? Or that these kids dont feel connected to their Parents and feel like they have to correct that by having children of their own?

I rather believe I may have asserted that the fiscal rewards of teenage pregnancy are complicit to the affair, however no issue is encapsulate dby one factor, nor should one believe so. Were underage sex not glorified, and thus accepted, by the media and society to which teenage mothers adhere, I should imagine the quantity of female mothers would be vastly reduced.

So what caused teen pregnancy in the 50s? It happened, at a comparable rate to today. I'd hate to inject a little reality into your aura of stupid, but jesus tapdancing christ your entire argument makes no sense and flies in the face of reality and history.

These girls are getting pregnant for the finacial rewards, not because they think it's cool. Did you read the article? Some of them are deluded enough to think it means their boyfriend will marry them, that's hardly a new change. Infact it's a very old idea, for about the last two hundred years.

i feel that there is some thing that i need ot point out.

there is a really good reason that girls used to get married soon after they started menstrating...and boys once they were considdered "of age."
almost all teenagers will have sex no matter what!!! the reson that people used to get married at a young age was to help prevent so called "accident" pregnacies. if you were a girl and got married at 15 to an 18 year old, it would be expected that you would have a child with in the first 12 months of you marrage and that you would have a child every year or so after that.
the point is that if we no longer expect people to get married around the time that they get interested in having sex then we are going to have to deal with babys being born out side of marrage, and young mothers raising kids on their own.

Babies come from sex.

If underage sex is not acceptable in society, they do not consider that avenue.

If underage sex is accepted, and encouraged, by society, then they do.

Kapish?
Where your argument falls apart is that underage pregnancy is not acceptable in society, yet they're considering that avenue. Why do you think that making the rest of the process unacceptable will reduce the pregnancy part?


Also, it's capice.

I was never a child. I emerged from the womb aged 18.

I apologize, I should know better than to imply things during debate. :) My point, good sir, is that, to date, I know of no child whose obedience rate with adult society all the way through to age 18 was 100%. Some in the high 90s, I grant you, but I doubt that anyone can honestly say they never broke a rule before. So your claim that simply having a rule would keep the thought out of their minds is dubious at best.

Frankly, I don't see the problem here. All this tells me is that not only have teen pregnancy rates gown significantly down, but UNWANTED teen pregnancies are apparently down even further! Yay for the lower abortion rates!

Is it a wonder that many parents dont feel connected to their kids? Or that these kids dont feel connected to their Parents and feel like they have to correct that by having children of their own?

But the kids who are getting pregnant are on average NOT from two income middle class families.

There are no consequences; there is no concern for emotional problems; there is no concern for repucussions. I will concede that 'negative consequences' would have been a clearer way of starting this.
What emotional problems does sex cause?
Relationships cause emotional problems, not sex.

It has everything to do with what you said. You claimed that girls are so badly treated and expected everyone to go 'boo hoo!' when actually the evidence shows the exact opposite of your claim. The idea that girls are not treated equally in today's society is absurd; the only thing encouraging them to believe they are nothing more than 'boy catchers' is the very sexualised culture you are so fond of defending.
How very naive of you.

The issue is suffused by the welfare state.

Were it not financially teneble to raise a child at 16 with no income, necessity would render teenage pregnancy redundant.
I have no idea what that means.

The lower orders in the UK have a lamentable perception that the welfare state will be the facilitator of their lifestyles, not a safety net.
That is a separate issue than the one in the OP, demonstrated in the article presented there.

But the kids who are getting pregnant are on average NOT from two income middle class families.
I know that, Single parents in the poverty income brackets work very hard to give these kids new designer shoes and the latest gadgets so they can keep up with their peers.... the thing is though if a parent said "Hey. No new games for a while but I will be here after school so ya better bring your books home..."
It sucks that so many Parents feel that they have to almost abandon their children to make a life for them.
Not saying my choice is right for everyone, but I know my son is much happier now I am around more....

Welfare is implied, because someone will have to support the child: Either the Mother, the Father (ideally both) or the state, hence welfare. If the young girls choose a responsible man who is willing to support them and their child, then the whole issue dissappears.
The mother and the father, are not the state. Living with them is called "family" not "welfare".

The reward is the problem, not the "sexualization" of society. I'm fairly sure sexualization isn't really a word. I know kapish isn't.

I think "capiche" is a word though. At least I think it is an Italian one.

I was going to make a post, but seven pages is past my limit for jumping in on a thread. :)

The mother and the father, are not the state. Living with them is called "family" not "welfare".

um, do read closer:

Welfare is implied, because someone will have to support the child: Either the Mother, the Father (ideally both) or the state

It's the mother, the father, both, OR THE STATE.

And when the state does it, it's welfare.

And when the mother and father are too young to have a job and support that child, where do you think that support comes from.

um, do read closer:
Thank you for demonstrating that being supported by the family is not welfare; hence welfare is not inherent to this issue.

I think "capiche" is a word though. At least I think it is an Italian one.
Yes, "capice" is italian for "understand" it was horribly misspelled though. If one is going to throw in words from other languages because one thinks they sound cool, one could at least learn to spell them correctly.

The mother and the father, are not the state. Living with them is called "family" not "welfare".

I think you may have misunderstood my post: Ideally the young parents (including a responsible father.) will support the child, not the welfare state. As long as the young parents are supporting the child, then the whole issue of underage motherhood dissappears.

Yes, "capice" is italian for "understand" it was horribly misspelled though. If one is going to throw in words from other languages because one thinks they sound cool, one could at least learn to spell them correctly.
And if one is going to try and look smug and intelligent by criticising a spelling, they should at least look it up first.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=kapish&defid=1192217

Thank you for demonstrating that being supported by the family is not welfare; hence welfare is not inherent to this issue.

I did not say it was inherent, I said it was implied.

Yes Urbandictionary, that's a completely valid and reliable source.

Moron.


http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Kapish&db=*

And if one is going to try and look smug and intelligent by criticising a spelling, they should at least look it up first.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=kapish&defid=1192217
Oh good grief, these people don't stop at butchering the english language, they have to butcher other languages now too?!

Thank you for demonstrating that being supported by the family is not welfare; hence welfare is not inherent to this issue.

Where do you think kids are GETTING the money from?

Where do you think kids are GETTING the money from?
The ones in the article are living with parents.

I did not say it was inherent, I said it was implied.
I said it wasn't inherent, and that's what you were arguing with. If you didn't mean to argue the point, then fine.

I think you may have misunderstood my post: Ideally the young parents (including a responsible father.) will support the child, not the welfare state. As long as the young parents are supporting the child, then the whole issue of underage motherhood dissappears.
unfortionatly most(read as 99%ish) teenaged guys who knock a girl up will not be resonsible for the mother and the said child....mostly because there parents never tought them to be responsible for their actioins not matter what those actions are.
there are a few teenguys who do take resposibility and work their asses off in school and at a job so that they can support their family

The ones in the article are living with parents.

Living with parents precludes you from drawing mony from welfare?

Yes Urbandictionary, that's a completely valid and reliable source.

Moron.


http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Kapish&db=*
Some might say the bigger moron is the one who's 'evidence' disproves his point as well.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/capiche

unfortionatly most(read as 99%ish) teenaged guys who knock a girl up will not be resonsible for the mother and the said child....mostly because there parents never tought them to be responsible for their actioins not matter what those actions are.

Sad but true.


there are a few teenguys who do take resposibility and work their asses off in school and at a job so that they can support their family

And these few should be considered real Men, regardless of how old they may be.

Living with parents precludes you from drawing mony from welfare?
Of course not; but there is as much evidence that they are doing that as there is that they are not.

unfortionatly most(read as 99%ish) teenaged guys who knock a girl up will not be resonsible for the mother and the said child....mostly because there parents never tought them to be responsible for their actioins not matter what those actions are.
there are a few teenguys who do take resposibility and work their asses off in school and at a job so that they can support their family

Maybe that is because most teenage boys do not want to be fathers if she wants to be a pro life dumbass well then let her raise it on her own. Single moms are either divorced, widowed, or stupid prolife morons who should not be bringing life into the world and molding it in their stupid image.

Some might say the bigger moron is the one who's 'evidence' disproves his point as well.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/capiche
1. You misspelled it. It's capice, not capiche.
2. Capice is in the urban dictionary too.
3. Capice is an italian word, it wouldn't be in an english dictionary.
4. It wouldn't be in that form in an italian dictionary as it's a verb that has been conjugated to the effect of "You understand?"

i feel that there is some thing that i need ot point out.

there is a really good reason that girls used to get married soon after they started menstrating...and boys once they were considdered "of age."
almost all teenagers will have sex no matter what!!! the reson that people used to get married at a young age was to help prevent so called "accident" pregnacies. if you were a girl and got married at 15 to an 18 year old, it would be expected that you would have a child with in the first 12 months of you marrage and that you would have a child every year or so after that.
the point is that if we no longer expect people to get married around the time that they get interested in having sex then we are going to have to deal with babys being born out side of marrage, and young mothers raising kids on their own.

Thus, presumably, the perceptions of young females have not altered for centuries?

Of course other issues must be contemplated, however you would not assert that the notion of the welfare state, and its financial rewards, do not motivate teenage preganancy at all.

Maybe that is because most teenage boys do not want to be fathers if she wants to be a pro life dumbass well then let her raise it on her own. Single moms are either divorced, widowed, or stupid prolife morons who should not be bringing life into the world and molding it in their stupid image.
if those boys do not want to be fathers they should be keeping their penis in their pants! every time they have sex they need to be ready to deal with the possibility that the girl that they are haveing sex with may pecome pregnant!! if they dont want to deal with it then they should not be having sex. as for the mothers its the same deal. its why be for kids are at the age where they start being interested in sex parrents need to tell/ teach( what ever you want to call it) their kids waht can happen if you have sex and get pregnat or get someone pregnat!! this is not that hard!! parents need to stop ignorring their kids and start being parents!

1. You misspelled it. It's capice, not capiche.
2. Capice is in the urban dictionary too.
3. Capice is an italian word, it wouldn't be in an english dictionary.
4. It wouldn't be in that form in an italian dictionary as it's a verb that has been conjugated to the effect of "You understand?"
1. I copy and pasted the spelling from a post above.
2. Good for it.
3. Excellent!
4. Wonderful. :)

I'm glad that you concede that when dealing with slang, dictionary definitions and rigid spellings are absurd.

I have no idea what that means.

May I then suggest reading the odd classic?

That is a separate issue than the one in the OP, demonstrated in the article presented there.

No. It is complicit to the issue in the article.

if those boys do not want to be fathers they should be keeping their penis in their pants! every time they have sex they need to be ready to deal with the possibility that the girl that they are haveing sex with may pecome pregnant!! if they dont want to deal with it then they should not be having sex. as for the mothers its the same deal. its why be for kids are at the age where they start being interested in sex parrents need to tell/ teach( what ever you want to call it) their kids waht can happen if you have sex and get pregnat or get someone pregnat!! this is not that hard!! parents need to stop ignorring their kids and start being parents!

No they shouldn't. They should act responsibly when having intercourse and use protection.

Thus, presumably, the perceptions of young females have not altered for centuries?

Of course other issues must be contemplated, however you would not assert that the notion of the welfare state, and its financial rewards, do not motivate teenage preganancy at all.
what i was trying to point out was that even though socioty has changed, people have not. there is a cirten age where sex becomes apealing. the there are some perseptions of girls taht have not changed and some that have.

i do agree that if the state did not provide welfair for single motheres then their numbers would be extreamly low. for some gilrs knowing that the state will take care of them seems to make things all better, but if they knew that if they went ahead with the pregnacy and that it was a huge possiblity that the guy would leave they would really think twice about it.

I'm glad that you concede that when dealing with slang, dictionary definitions and rigid spellings are absurd.
Actually, I'm not conceding that. Capice isn't slang, it's a word in another language. If you'd butchered the spelling of déja vu I would still have chewed you out for it. If you missspelled hasta la vista, same thing. Just because a word or phrase from another language has become popular to use in english does not give you an excuse to horribly butcher the spelling.

Furthermore, if I knew what the infinitive of the italian verb in question was, then I would have looked it up in an italian dictionary and rubbed your nose in it. But I only know a few phrases in italian, perhaps another poster would be willing to help.

what i was trying to point out was that even though socioty has changed, people have not. there is a cirten age where sex becomes apealing. the there are some perseptions of girls taht have not changed and some that have.

i do agree that if the state did not provide welfair for single motheres then their numbers would be extreamly low. for some gilrs knowing that the state will take care of them seems to make things all better, but if they knew that if they went ahead with the pregnacy and that it was a huge possiblity that the guy would leave they would really think twice about it.

In a limited number of cases, I should imagine this is so. However, and, I must confess I have no sources, I would also anticipate the majority of teenage mothers being single, and the majority of those by choice.

if those boys do not want to be fathers they should be keeping their penis in their pants! every time they have sex they need to be ready to deal with the possibility that the girl that they are haveing sex with may pecome pregnant!! if they dont want to deal with it then they should not be having sex. as for the mothers its the same deal. its why be for kids are at the age where they start being interested in sex parrents need to tell/ teach( what ever you want to call it) their kids waht can happen if you have sex and get pregnat or get someone pregnat!! this is not that hard!! parents need to stop ignorring their kids and start being parents!

That is such garbage. People can have sex for fun and if the contraception fails then they can abort or adopt. It is diempowering to men to make them the slaves of a woman's decision to have a child. If a woman wants it then she should pay for it. That is the lesson that must be taught. Neither young people nor anybody else should become sexually repressed. No tax dollars should go to unwanted children. I am saving money to have a baby. I get so pissed that any of my tax dollars are going to support other people's children when I cannot afford one myself.

if those boys do not want to be fathers they should be keeping their penis in their pants! every time they have sex they need to be ready to deal with the possibility that the girl that they are haveing sex with may pecome pregnant!!

This leads to an interesting, and totally off topic point. A female does not, ever (with perhaps a few exceptions) have to engage in sex with the fear that her act will result in a child.

pregnancy yes, not a child.

Abortion is a fundamental right in the US, and no woman (well, nearly none) has to carry a pregnancy to term, every mother who does so, does it because they CHOOSE to.

And because of that, a woman never need have a child she doesn't want to have. Men can not say the same. More to point, men are at the mercy of the choice of the woman whether they will even have a chance to be a parent for that future child.

now I'm not arguing against abortion, far from it. But it is interesting that men are required to have a responsibility greater than women are. Men are required to take the risk that 1) woman will get pregnant 2) woman will keep pregnancy

Women only have to worry about the pregnancy, and the risk inherent with abortion, should they chose to. As a male, where's my legal right to seperate myself from my future offspring?

This leads to an interesting, and totally off topic point. A female does not, ever (with perhaps a few exceptions) have to engage in sex with the fear that her act will result in a child.

pregnancy yes, not a child.

Abortion is a fundamental right in the US, and no woman (well, nearly none) has to carry a pregnancy to term, every mother who does so, does it because they CHOOSE to.

And because of that, a woman never need have a child she doesn't want to have. Men can not say the same. More to point, men are at the mercy of the choice of the woman whether they will even have a chance to be a parent for that future child.

now I'm not arguing against abortion, far from it. But it is interesting that men are required to have a responsibility greater than women are. Men are required to take the risk that 1) woman will get pregnant 2) woman will keep pregnancy

Women only have to worry about the pregnancy, and the risk inherent with abortion, should they chose to. As a male, where's my legal right to seperate myself from my future offspring?

Precisely. Testament to the inherent inequality in parental legislation. The mother is empowered to decide whether or not to have an abortion, yet the potential father has no choice regarding his involvement, in all senses, with the child.

No they shouldn't. They should act responsibly when having intercourse and use protection.
yes that is true, i dont disagree. but its a fact that even condoms and the pill or what ever it is that they use is not all ways 100% efective. Smunkee is a good example she got pregnet withat least one of her kids even though she used a condom. iam just saying that guys need to be willing to deal with the possibilty that some thing could go wrong and the girl could get pregnat, thats just part of being resonible. if they dont feel or they dont want to be responsible they should not be having sex, the same goes for girls.

its one of the reasons i don't have sex, yes i probly could get away with it and never get pregnat if the guy and i were resonsible, but i dont want to have to deal with the possiblity that some thing could goe wrong and i could get pregnat, so i don't have sex, its not all that hard to understand.

This leads to an interesting, and totally off topic point. A female does not, ever (with perhaps a few exceptions) have to engage in sex with the fear that her act will result in a child.

pregnancy yes, not a child.

Abortion is a fundamental right in the US, and no woman (well, nearly none) has to carry a pregnancy to term, every mother who does so, does it because they CHOOSE to.

And because of that, a woman never need have a child she doesn't want to have. Men can not say the same. More to point, men are at the mercy of the choice of the woman whether they will even have a chance to be a parent for that future child.

now I'm not arguing against abortion, far from it. But it is interesting that men are required to have a responsibility greater than women are. Men are required to take the risk that 1) woman will get pregnant 2) woman will keep pregnancy

Women only have to worry about the pregnancy, and the risk inherent with abortion, should they chose to. As a male, where's my legal right to seperate myself from my future offspring?


As males, we are just as responsible for the child as the woman. Period.

This leads to an interesting, and totally off topic point. A female does not, ever (with perhaps a few exceptions) have to engage in sex with the fear that her act will result in a child.

pregnancy yes, not a child.

Abortion is a fundamental right in the US, and no woman (well, nearly none) has to carry a pregnancy to term, every mother who does so, does it because they CHOOSE to.

And because of that, a woman never need have a child she doesn't want to have. Men can not say the same. More to point, men are at the mercy of the choice of the woman whether they will even have a chance to be a parent for that future child.

now I'm not arguing against abortion, far from it. But it is interesting that men are required to have a responsibility greater than women are. Men are required to take the risk that 1) woman will get pregnant 2) woman will keep pregnancy

Women only have to worry about the pregnancy, and the risk inherent with abortion, should they chose to. As a male, where's my legal right to seperate myself from my future offspring?
This is where communication is important. If you don't want to be a father, then discuss your partner's stance on abortion with her before getting busy. If she's pro-life and would never have an abortion if her life depended on it, then don't fuck her (let's face it, there are plenty of other things to do) if she would have an abortion if such a situation arose, then promise to help her out in any way she wants you to help (and make sure you actually follow through).

Thus, presumably, the perceptions of young females have not altered for centuries?

Of course other issues must be contemplated, however you would not assert that the notion of the welfare state, and its financial rewards, do not motivate teenage preganancy at all.
if past centuries, the teen girl counted on the baby's father marrying her. a girl caught pregnant with no man willing to marry her was in for a world of hurt.

today, few men are willing to marry a girl just because she is pregnant. for some girls the state takes the place of the husband. i doubt that it is as big a motivator as a real husband used to be. (if you can provide some statistics showing me wrong on that ill be fine with being wrong)

with forced marriage you get a baby, a husband, a home, independance of a sort.

with welfare you get a baby and a bit of money that feels like independance. few mothers under 18 live on their own.

yes that is true, i dont disagree. but its a fact that even condoms and the pill or what ever it is that they use is not all ways 100% efective. Smunkee is a good example she got pregnet withat least one of her kids even though she used a condom. iam just saying that guys need to be willing to deal with the possibilty that some thing could go wrong and the girl could get pregnat, thats just part of being resonible. if they dont feel or they dont want to be responsible they should not be having sex, the same goes for girls.

its one of the reasons i don't have sex, yes i probly could get away with it and never get pregnat if the guy and i were resonsible, but i dont want to have to deal with the possiblity that some thing could goe wrong and i could get pregnat, so i don't have sex, its not all that hard to understand.

Yes it bloody well is.

Every action has a potential risk, however, given that abortions are readily available, and protection all but infallible, sex is a genuinely safe risk.

As males, we are just as responsible for the child as the woman. Period.

Ahh and here we have the problem.

Equal responsibility, unequal options.

If the child is born, I am given equal responsibility for it. However the woman has the option to divest both of us of our legal responsibilities for it, or keep both of us to it.

I have no such choice. A woman can decide she does NOT want to have any responsibility for a child, and abort it.

I can make no such choice.

It is unreasonable in a society to expect two groups to have equal responsibility without giving them equal choice over whether or not to accept that responsibility.

if past centuries, the teen girl counted on the baby's father marrying her. a girl caught pregnant with no man willing to marry her was in for a world of hurt.

today, few men are willing to marry a girl just because she is pregnant. for some girls the state takes the place of the husband. i doubt that it is as big a motivator as a real husband used to be. (if you can provide some statistics showing me wrong on that ill be fine with being wrong)

with forced marriage you get a baby, a husband, a home, independance of a sort.

with welfare you get a baby and a bit of money that feels like independance. few mothers under 18 live on their own.

Precisely. THEY LIVE OFF THE EXPENSE OFF THE STATE. WE PAY FOR THEIR MISDEMEANOURS.

Why should the state do so?

This leads to an interesting, and totally off topic point. A female does not, ever (with perhaps a few exceptions) have to engage in sex with the fear that her act will result in a child.

pregnancy yes, not a child.

Abortion is a fundamental right in the US, and no woman (well, nearly none) has to carry a pregnancy to term, every mother who does so, does it because they CHOOSE to.

And because of that, a woman never need have a child she doesn't want to have. Men can not say the same. More to point, men are at the mercy of the choice of the woman whether they will even have a chance to be a parent for that future child.

now I'm not arguing against abortion, far from it. But it is interesting that men are required to have a responsibility greater than women are. Men are required to take the risk that 1) woman will get pregnant 2) woman will keep pregnancy

Women only have to worry about the pregnancy, and the risk inherent with abortion, should they chose to. As a male, where's my legal right to seperate myself from my future offspring?
dont have sex withat girl who wont have an abortion, its simple. people should talk befor they get it on. if you dont want to be responsible for possible offspring, should the girl choose to carry the pregnacy to term then dont have sex! it is true that loads of women have no problum with abortion, but there are soem who do. if who ever your having sex with may be one of them then done have sex!!! guys need to be a least opent to the idea that if they get a girl pregnat there is a possibility that the girl WILL carry to term!

As a male, where's my legal right to seperate myself from my future offspring?
its a shame to be a slave to biology. sucks to be you?

your only recourse is to never have sex with a woman who you arent sure shares your feelings on potential conception. anything else is a risk you assume when you have sex. it may be a small risk but it would suck to have a casual lover abort a fetus you wanted or keep one you didnt want.

It's not just teens. I recently was working at a summercamp where a 5 year old girl was expelled for fingering another 5 year old. I had thought it might be due to the girl previously being molested, but came to realize that all the girls in that age group were all obscenely sexual.
Really, sex is put in the wrong light in the media and no one, even parents, is trying to protect kids from it.

dont have sex withat girl who wont have an abortion,

A woman who says she will have an abortion will not necessarily have an abortion when the time comes.

its simple. people should talk befor they get it on. if you dont want to be responsible for possible offspring, should the girl choose to carry the pregnacy to term then dont have sex!

You prove my point exactly. For a man to avoid the risk of being forced into a legal obligation of having a child, he has one, and ONLY ONE option for certainty.

Don't have sex.

Women have two. Either don't have sex, OR have sex and if you get pregnant, get an abortion.

Women have two options to divest themselves of legal rights, men have one. That is an unequal situation.

it is true that loads of women have no problum with abortion, but there are soem who do.

Whether they would or not doesn't change the fact that they still have that option, they may not choose to do it, but the option is there.

guys need to be a least opent to the idea that if they get a girl pregnat there is a possibility that the girl WILL carry to term!

Why should I? If the woman NEVER, EVER EVER EVER has to accept responsibility for the child if SHE DOES NOT WANT TO, then why should I?

Yes it bloody well is.

Every action has a potential risk, however, given that abortions are readily available, and protection all but infallible, sex is a genuinely safe risk.
yes, it may be a "safe" risk. but it is a risk that i dont want to take. i dont want to possibly be a mother at 17, and i dont want to possibly have to make the choice between having an abortion or having a child. its a desision that i know i dont want to even think about. at 17 i know that i dont have the money or the skills to be a mother, i know that i dont want to have to put a guy into a situation where he might have to be a father and i dont want to put my self in to a situation where i could be raising a child on my own.
yes, i could have an abortion and mostlikly would should the choice ever arrise, but its something that i DON'T want to have to risk, and its a choice i dont want to maby have to make, so i have chosen to not have sex...

its a shame to be a slave to biology. sucks to be you?

Well under law my biology shouldn't affect my options should it?

your only recourse is to never have sex with a woman who you arent sure shares your feelings on potential conception. anything else is a risk you assume when you have sex. it may be a small risk but it would suck to have a casual lover abort a fetus you wanted or keep one you didnt want.

Actually I can think of another recourse that would work fine. "I hereby wave all legal rights and obligations towards the child fathered by me and birthed by (insert woman's name here). I understand that by signing this document I may not claim, at any time, any rights towards this child, including medical decisions, visitation rights, or any other legal rights of the child's parent. This agreement is irrevocable and may not be altered or changed at any time. Decisions made in the interest of the child shall be made by the mother only."

Voila. Done. Think of it as an adoption, but instead of both parents giving up their legal rights, only one does.

Then the mother can decide, for herself, if she wants to bring the child to term.

Precisely. THEY LIVE OFF THE EXPENSE OFF THE STATE. WE PAY FOR THEIR MISDEMEANOURS.

Why should the state do so?
oh well thats a whole nother question isnt it?

since a baby doesnt stay a baby forever, most people think its best to ease their miserable lives with welfare so they have less of a chance of growing up to be sociopaths.

i dont LIKE the idea of girls having babies knowing that the state will give them money to support those babies. especially those girls who then give the money to their deadbeat boyfriends or for their own drug/alcohol habits. but what is the sense of ensuring that their children grow up in misery, nutritionally deprived, handicapped by their circumstance? doing as much as we can for children is a wise investment for our future.

A woman who says she will have an abortion will not necessarily have an abortion when the time comes.



You prove my point exactly. For a man to avoid the risk of being forced into a legal obligation of having a child, he has one, and ONLY ONE option for certainty.

Don't have sex.

Women have two. Either don't have sex, OR have sex and if you get pregnant, get an abortion.

Women have two options to divest themselves of legal rights, men have one. That is an unequal situation.



Whether they would or not doesn't change the fact that they still have that option, they may not choose to do it, but the option is there.



Why should I? If the woman NEVER, EVER EVER EVER has to accept responsibility for the child if SHE DOES NOT WANT TO, then why should I?

you dont have to, dont have sex is a possible child is some thing you dont want to deal with. men have the choice- eather dont have sex and then you dont have to worry about all the kid issues. or have sex and be willing and able to death with the possibility that the girl your having sex with will become pregnat and even if she said that she would get an abortion.

Actually, I'm not conceding that. Capice isn't slang, it's a word in another language. If you'd butchered the spelling of déja vu I would still have chewed you out for it. If you missspelled hasta la vista, same thing. Just because a word or phrase from another language has become popular to use in english does not give you an excuse to horribly butcher the spelling.

Furthermore, if I knew what the infinitive of the italian verb in question was, then I would have looked it up in an italian dictionary and rubbed your nose in it. But I only know a few phrases in italian, perhaps another poster would be willing to help.
Example: capire, "to understand".
Io capisco or just Capisco. "I understand."
Capisci? "Do you understand?"

http://www.languagehelpers.com/languagefacts/italian.html

Btw, it's pronounced "kapishi" but spelled "capisci." "Capish" is never correct in writing and not technically correct in speech, either. Leaving off the "I" at the end is an American bastardization based on the accent of immigrants from Naples who landed in New York in large numbers at the beginning of the 20th century. Another example would the equally New York "skivose," "skeevy," "skeeve," "to skeeve" or "to be skeeved," all variations on "disgust," "disgusting," "to disgust," etc, from the Italian "scivare" (to disgust"). Italians from other parts of Italy settled in other American cities, and their accents sound different. So, for instance, the Sicilian accent does not drop the end-vowels off words and does not gutteralize C's into G's and T's into D's, and therefore, neither do the descendants of Sicilian immigrants who congregated in Massachusetts during the same period. Also, New York is unusual in that immigrant phrases rapidly percolate out into the general language of all ethnic groups. This is why we get these weird, phonetic mispellings. In Massachusetts, for example, there has been, historically, less acceptance of new immigrant culture and, thus, less bastardization of foreign languages. Therefore, in Gloucester, the sarcastic question would have been written in the proper Italian.

Capisci?

:)

oh well thats a whole nother question isnt it?

since a baby doesnt stay a baby forever, most people think its best to ease their miserable lives with welfare so they have less of a chance of growing up to be sociopaths.

i dont LIKE the idea of girls having babies knowing that the state will give them money to support those babies. especially those girls who then give the money to their deadbeat boyfriends or for their own drug/alcohol habits. but what is the sense of ensuring that their children grow up in misery, nutritionally deprived, handicapped by their circumstance? doing as much as we can for children is a wise investment for our future.

Perhaps, as we have already established in the thread, compulsory abortions could be employed for pregnancies in girls under the age of 18, or single parents unable to support themselves.

you dont have to, dont have sex is a possible child is some thing you dont want to deal with. men have the choice- eather dont have sex and then you dont have to worry about all the kid issues. or have sex and be willing and able to death with the possibility that the girl your having sex with will become pregnat and even if she said that she would get an abortion.

You keep proving my point. Men have one, and ONLY one option, don't have sex.

Women have two, don't have sex, or get an abortion.

Why, if women have the ability to divest themselves of responsibility AFTER conception (IE AFTER they have had sex) why shouldn't men?

Men ONLY have the choice not to have sex.

Women have the choice not to have sex, or, if after having sex, having an abortion.

Where's my second choice? Where's my legal abortion?

Precisely. THEY LIVE OFF THE EXPENSE OFF THE STATE. WE PAY FOR THEIR MISDEMEANOURS.

Why should the state do so?
Shoot them.

Some might say the bigger moron is the one who's 'evidence' disproves his point as well.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/capiche

Which is not the word you used. Infact the "word" you used is not a word, regardless of your cute little urban dictionary entry. My original point was that it was a horrific misspelling, that stands.

Well under law my biology shouldn't affect my options should it?

there are some inherent biological differences that just cant be legislated away. you can't sue for discrimination for not being hired as wet nurse either.


Actually I can think of another recourse that would work fine. "I hereby wave all legal rights and obligations towards the child fathered by me and birthed by (insert woman's name here). I understand that by signing this document I may not claim, at any time, any rights towards this child, including medical decisions, visitation rights, or any other legal rights of the child's parent. This agreement is irrevocable and may not be altered or changed at any time. Decisions made in the interest of the child shall be made by the mother only."

Voila. Done. Think of it as an adoption, but instead of both parents giving up their legal rights, only one does.

Then the mother can decide, for herself, if she wants to bring the child to term.

yeah and make the consequenses of sex fall on the woman's shoulders only. men get "free sex" women have to pay.

in any case, a child is not a thing. it has rights of its own. one of a child's inherent righs is to be supported by its parents. those rights can't be waived by others.

a waiver of parental rights signed before a child is even conceived wouldnt be upheld in US courts anyway (the exceptions being surrogate mothers and sperm donors). thats why a pregnant woman cant sign adoption papers until after the birth of her baby and even then still has some time to change her mind.

Precisely. THEY LIVE OFF THE EXPENSE OFF THE STATE. WE PAY FOR THEIR MISDEMEANOURS.

Why should the state do so?
"Misdemeanor" is a form of crime -- less than a felony, but a crime nonetheless.

Having sex is not a misdemeanor. Getting pregnant is not a misdemeanor. And however much you may wish otherwise, being poor is not a crime, either. Kindly avoid characterizing non-criminal conditions as if they are deliberate criminal acts, thank you.

If you wish to live in a society which is judged by how it treats its weakest members and in which those weakest members are left to starve in the streets, then you are free to advocate for such. But not by labeling the poor as criminals for being poor.

You keep proving my point. Men have one, and ONLY one option, don't have sex.

Women have two, don't have sex, or get an abortion.

Why, if women have the ability to divest themselves of responsibility AFTER conception (IE AFTER they have had sex) why shouldn't men?

Men ONLY have the choice not to have sex.

Women have the choice not to have sex, or, if after having sex, having an abortion.

Where's my second choice? Where's my legal abortion?
you dont have one

a woman has a right to an abortion only because the fetus is inside her body. and even then she only has the right for a limited time. if she decides she is sick of being pregnant after 8 months of pregnancy she can neither demand an abortion nor demand an immediate C-section. when a man gets pregnant, he can decide what happens with his body.

as a further example to illustrate the right... when a couple has tried invitro fertilization and has extra frozen embryos, neither partner has the right to use or destroy those embryos without the consent of the other. if the embryo is not inside the mother, she has no more right over it than the father does.

"Misdemeanor" is a form of crime -- less than a felony, but a crime nonetheless.

Having sex is not a misdemeanor. Getting pregnant is not a misdemeanor. And however much you may wish otherwise, being poor is not a crime, either. Kindly avoid characterizing non-criminal conditions as if they are deliberate criminal acts, thank you.

If you wish to live in a society which is judged by how it treats its weakest members and in which those weakest members are left to starve in the streets, then you are free to advocate for such. But not by labeling the poor as criminals for being poor.

Entirely false. Misdemeanour is no different to transgression. Mor have I asserted any of the above to be a crime. Irresponsible in both a social, and personal sense, but criminal, of course not.

Do not, either, immediatly make the progression from a contravertible semantic assertion to my being a callous bastard.

Shoot them.

Excuse me?:D

No. It is complicit to the issue in the article.
Except that it isn't.

when a man gets pregnant, he can decide what happens with his body.

Wait... what?

Except that it isn't.

My mistake. If you expect to be spoonfed the implications of a text, perhaps not.

Excuse me?:D
Shoot them. If we can't take care of children who didn't do anything, since apparantly it's such a burden on society, we might as well shoot them now before they grow up and have more children (not to mention cause crime, etc). Best to get it over with now.

Teen pregnancy rates in the modern Western world are currently lower than they have been throughout pretty much all of human history.

Furthermore, if young girls believe that the best way for them to ensure a good future for themselves is to get knocked up, then I don't think the "sexualization" of our culture is the problem here.

That depends on whether their future choices for employment are:

a crappy job working for crappy wages for a huge corporation that doesn't give a shit what happens to them

vs.

being a mother and housewife (which to some is not a crappy job)

Example: capire, "to understand".
Io capisco or just Capisco. "I understand."
Capisci? "Do you understand?"

http://www.languagehelpers.com/languagefacts/italian.html

Btw, it's pronounced "kapishi" but spelled "capisci." "Capish" is never correct in writing and not technically correct in speech, either. Leaving off the "I" at the end is an American bastardization based on the accent of immigrants from Naples who landed in New York in large numbers at the beginning of the 20th century. Another example would the equally New York "skivose," "skeevy," "skeeve," "to skeeve" or "to be skeeved," all variations on "disgust," "disgusting," "to disgust," etc, from the Italian "scivare" (to disgust"). Italians from other parts of Italy settled in other American cities, and their accents sound different. So, for instance, the Sicilian accent does not drop the end-vowels off words and does not gutteralize C's into G's and T's into D's, and therefore, neither do the descendants of Sicilian immigrants who congregated in Massachusetts during the same period. Also, New York is unusual in that immigrant phrases rapidly percolate out into the general language of all ethnic groups. This is why we get these weird, phonetic mispellings. In Massachusetts, for example, there has been, historically, less acceptance of new immigrant culture and, thus, less bastardization of foreign languages. Therefore, in Gloucester, the sarcastic question would have been written in the proper Italian.

Capisci?

:)
Oh, so even I was wrong. :( But then I wasn't the one who started using it.

Shoot them. If we can't take care of children who didn't do anything, since apparantly it's such a burden on society, we might as well shoot them now before they grow up and have more children (not to mention cause crime, etc). Best to get it over with now.

Of course.....

Am I being obtuse and missing something?

You keep proving my point. Men have one, and ONLY one option, don't have sex.

Women have two, don't have sex, or get an abortion.

Why, if women have the ability to divest themselves of responsibility AFTER conception (IE AFTER they have had sex) why shouldn't men?

Men ONLY have the choice not to have sex.

Women have the choice not to have sex, or, if after having sex, having an abortion.

Where's my second choice? Where's my legal abortion? as the laws stand right now you dont have one. one possibility is to have sex with some one what does not know you and the leave. or talk with you partner and the two of you agree that you will have no resonisbilty or ties to the child if she choses to carry to term.
if you wanted to even the playing feild you should be pushing for the right to abortion to be taken away. that way men and women have the same options.

there are some states who are trying to pass laws saying that men should have a say in weather or not a woman has an abortion. this reses a new question what happens when the guy wants the kid but the mother does not?

I think you may have misunderstood my post: Ideally the young parents (including a responsible father.) will support the child, not the welfare state. As long as the young parents are supporting the child, then the whole issue of underage motherhood dissappears.
How is it an ideal, though, to expect single or coupled young mothers to support their children while still in high school? I see the more ideal situation as support from the family unit. I do agree that the state should not have to support them, but I also don't think its reasonable to assume that it is supporting them at that age.

May I then suggest reading the odd classic?
It's not the words I have have a problem with.

I think "capiche" is a word though. At least I think it is an Italian one.
yes a bastardised version of capisco meaning 'understand'(eg non capisco=I dont understand)(I think so?)
This debate seems to have gone off topic a bit.
(correct me if im wrong)
The problem is that some poor kids think that having a baby is a viable career option, or a good way of trapping a man.
They are either trying to find some love in a world that has been cruel to them or they want to scrounge off benefits.
I tend to agree with philosophy that we have today a highly 'sexualized'culture,where many women think that their sole worth is a sexual objects and baby makers(some not all)but the fact is that teenagers
will have sex, no matter the society.
It is also true to say that teen pregnancy rates are higher in the areas of society with lower incomes and educational standards.
I also believe that sex for teenagers under 16 should not be encouraged(obviously it is also against the law)THIS IS FOR GOOD REASON!most under 16's(females obviously)bodies are just not ready to carry and give birth to a child, let alone their emotional immaturity.
However, these girls obviously knopw that unsafe sex usually = babies, and they are going to have them is they so choose.What many dont realise is that(in britain) a single teenage mum gets 40£ a week, sounds plenty, but it wont strech far with all the demands of a baby!

That depends on whether their future choices for employment are:

a crappy job working for crappy wages for a huge corporation that doesn't give a shit what happens to them

vs.

being a mother and housewife (which to some is not a crappy job)
That's pretty much what I'm getting at. For many young women, the sad reality is that they really don't feel they lose much by being a teen parent. We may see them as having all the potential in the world, but the odds are stacked so strongly against them that they don't see it as worth gambling on.

They see motherhood as automatic status and security (of a sort), while pursuing an education and career is hard, uncertain, and (in their opinion) likely to result in them being unhappy and alone.

I don't think this has anything to do with "sexualization." I think the key is figuring out how to convince young women that they really can do more! The key is to give them a real, tangible reason to believe that they DO stand to lose from being a teen parent. The key is to convince them that the harder road will really offer them better payoffs. And part of this process is going to have to involve making some real changes in our society.

Of course.....

Am I being obtuse and missing something?
The point, I think.

Wait... what?
it seemed pretty straightforward to me

as the laws stand right now you dont have one.

Quite correct, and I believe that's wrong.

if you wanted to even the playing feild you should be pushing for the right to abortion to be taken away. that way men and women have the same options.

If you have two cookies and I have one, and I think it's the job of the government to ensure we all have the same amount of cookies, I can advocate either they give me one, or they take one away from you.

Why would I want to have a cookie taken from you when I can have two?

More to point, I believe in abortion as fundamental right, I would NEVER advocate that right taken away, EVER. However the right exists, without a comparable legal structure to benefit men, and I think that should be addressed, via legal methods for a man to be able to seperate legal responsibilities.

there are some states who are trying to pass laws saying that men should have a say in weather or not a woman has an abortion. this reses a new question what happens when the guy wants the kid but the mother does not?

I would never, ever EVER advocate this, at all. I think that the choice of whether to have an abortion is STRICTLY the woman's choice.

However the fact is a woman can avoid baring the responsibilities of raising a child through EITHER celabacy OR abortion.

Men have no legal abortion equvilant, and I think that should be changed.

We don't have that problem in San Jose. Here, we have condoms. ;)

Like kids care whether adults think something is okay or not. They're getting pregnant 'cause they think the State will then support them until they can find someone else to do so.

Are they correct in this assumption?

yeah and make the consequenses of sex fall on the woman's shoulders only. men get "free sex" women have to pay.

Women can get an abortion. Therefore they need not suffer the concequences of supporting a child if they do not want to.

Hell, make this paper abortion process difficult. Make it expensive to mirror health care costs of an abortion. Stick a fishhook in my rectum and/or slice my abdomen open to make it as close to the real thing as possible, make it just as unpleasant and expensive and draining as a real abortion is for women.

But give me the OPTION.

in any case, a child is not a thing. it has rights of its own. one of a child's inherent righs is to be supported by its parents. those rights can't be waived by others.

I take it then you don't believe in adoption? I mean, after all, an adoption requres two parents to sign away their legal rights and responsibilities vis a vi their biological child.

And I am talking about before the child is born, at the same time of fetal non viability that would make abortion an option. THe mother could then chose to keep the child, on her own, or abort it.

a waiver of parental rights signed before a child is even conceived wouldnt be upheld in US courts anyway (the exceptions being surrogate mothers and sperm donors). thats why a pregnant woman cant sign adoption papers until after the birth of her baby and even then still has some time to change her mind.

It won't be, because the law isn't there.

Make the law, and the courts will uphold it. And I'm not talking about BEFORE conception, I'm talking AFTER conception, BEFORE viability, at the same timeframe in which an abortion could take place.

if you wanted to even the playing feild you should be pushing for the right to abortion to be taken away. that way men and women have the same options.

Um...no. The only way we will have actual equality is if women are granted the same autonomy and human rights as men.

Every individual, male or female, should have the right to control how their own body participates in reproduction. No other person, male or female, should have the right to decide how YOUR body participates in reproduction...that is your right and your responsibility.

Men currently enjoy this right in America; women do not. I don't want to "create equality" by taking away men's rights. I want to create equality by ensuring that women's rights are rightfully recognized.

Are they correct in this assumption?

More or less, yes. But they won't get a lot of money. It would be better to work, even if they'll have to pay taxes.

in any case, a child is not a thing. it has rights of its own. one of a child's inherent righs is to be supported by its parents. those rights can't be waived by others.


I don't see any difference, ANY difference, from a LEGAL standpoint of a mother pre-emptivly terminating her future financial obligation via an abortion than a man terminating his future obligation via a legal document.

The child, unborn, and unviable, has no rights.

SHOULD it become viable it will, however to argue that a man should have no right to limit the rights that will emerge when the child becomes viable, and you likewise must logically admit that the woman should have no right to limits the rights that will emerge when the child becomes viable.

And what is an abortion other than pre-emptivly violating the fetus' future right to life?

How is a male saying "I refuse to support this child when it comes to term" in any way different than saying "I refuse to let this child come to term?"

Now don't get me wrong, I SUPPORT abortion rights. HOwever lets be clear about something, is terminating a living organisim (and I think it's clear that a fetus is a living THING, just not human) before it reaches the stage of humanity to be afforded full civil protection any different than terminating future obligations to the financial well being of that future child?

Quite correct, and I believe that's wrong.



If you have two cookies and I have one, and I think it's the job of the government to ensure we all have the same amount of cookies, I can advocate either they give me one, or they take one away from you.
Why would I want to have a cookie taken from you when I can have two?

makes sence but what kind of right for men would be equal to a womans right to abortion?

More to point, I believe in abortion as fundamental right, I would NEVER advocate that right taken away, EVER. However the right exists, without a comparable legal structure to benefit men, and I think that should be addressed, via legal methods for a man to be able to seperate legal responsibilities.


a sort of "devorce"?
i thnik that in some cases this could be a good idea. but i think that it is very importent for men to take responsibility for there actions, and the possible repercutions, in this case a child.

I would never, ever EVER advocate this, at all. I think that the choice of whether to have an abortion is STRICTLY the woman's choice.

However the fact is a woman can avoid baring the responsibilities of raising a child through EITHER celabacy OR abortion.

Men have no legal abortion equvilant, and I think that should be changed.

what kind of law, would change this?
i think that inorder for a man to beable to leagaly seporate himself from a woman and a child by him, he must have the womans consent. if she knows her will need his support monitary or other wise, the man should not be able to get out of leagal responsibility, after all he's part of the reason that the woman is pregnat.

More to point, I believe in abortion as fundamental right, I would NEVER advocate that right taken away, EVER. However the right exists, without a comparable legal structure to benefit men, and I think that should be addressed, via legal methods for a man to be able to seperate legal responsibilities.

...

Men have no legal abortion equvilant, and I think that should be changed.
Abortion is about the right to make medical choices for oneself, and the right to dictate how one's body participates in reproduction. Men already have the full legal equivalent of "abortion rights," since men are free to dictate how their own bodies participate in reproduction.

What you are talking about is an issue of child support. That is a separate legal issue. Abortion rights are about the individual's right to choose what happens to/inside their own body. Child support laws are about a CHILD'S right to receive appropriate care.

With that said, I happen to think that men should have the right to get a "paper abortion" of the sort many people talk about, if only because the sort of man who would want such a thing is exactly the sort of man who should NOT be anybody's father.

Um...no. The only way we will have actual equality is if women are granted the same autonomy and human rights as men.

Every individual, male or female, should have the right to control how their own body participates in reproduction. No other person, male or female, should have the right to decide how YOUR body participates in reproduction...that is your right and your responsibility.

Men currently enjoy this right in America; women do not. I don't want to "create equality" by taking away men's rights. I want to create equality by ensuring that women's rights are rightfully recognized.

An abortion, legally, is two things.

One it is an exercise of control in ones own body.

Two it is a pre-emptive termination of legal rights and obligations vis a vi the future child

An abortion both an expression of ones rights, and the pre-emptive termination of anothers (again, not that abortion is WRONG, but it does have the effect of terminating the rights of the child to exist, prior to the child existing).

Men have the right to exercise control over their bodies.

They do NOT have the ability to pre-emptively terminate the legal rights and obligations vis a vi their future child.

If an abortion functions both as the right of exerting control over your body, AND the right to terminate future legal obligations to your future offspring then men should have identical rights.

They have the right to exert control over their body, however they have no ability to terminate future legal obligations over their future offspring.

Which should be changed.

what kind of law, would change this?
i think that inorder for a man to beable to leagaly seporate himself from a woman and a child by him, he must have the womans consent.

Not in the slightest. In an ENTIRELY hypothetical situation, if a woman is able to terminate MY biological offspring without MY consent, I should be able to distance myself from that offspring without HER consent.

Abortion is about the right to make medical choices for oneself, and the right to dictate how one's body participates in reproduction. Men already have the full legal equivalent of "abortion rights," since men are free to dictate how their own bodies participate in reproduction.

What you are talking about is an issue of child support. That is a separate legal issue. Abortion rights are about the individual's right to choose what happens to/inside their own body. Child support laws are about a CHILD'S right to receive appropriate care.

With that said, I happen to think that men should have the right to get a "paper abortion" of the sort many people talk about, if only because the sort of man who would want such a thing is exactly the sort of man who should NOT be anybody's father.

Very well said. Any male can sire a child, but it takes a real man to be a father.

Um...no. The only way we will have actual equality is if women are granted the same autonomy and human rights as men.

Every individual, male or female, should have the right to control how their own body participates in reproduction. No other person, male or female, should have the right to decide how YOUR body participates in reproduction...that is your right and your responsibility.

Men currently enjoy this right in America; women do not. I don't want to "create equality" by taking away men's rights. I want to create equality by ensuring that women's rights are rightfully recognized.

iam not against abortion at all.
what i was trying to point out was that woman have the choice of abortion or no.
men have to pay for a child even when they dont want to.

if the right of abortion were taken away both men and women would be "stuck" with the same inabilty to chose- the man weather or not to support the baby and women- werather or not to have the baby

Abortion is about the right to make medical choices for oneself, and the right to dictate how one's body participates in reproduction. Men already have the full legal equivalent of "abortion rights," since men are free to dictate how their own bodies participate in reproduction.

An abortion, as I said, is two things.

First, it's the right to make medical choices for oneself, and yes we agree that men and women have (in theory) in equal right in that regard.

It is ALSO the ability to pre-emptivly terminate any legal obligation to the conceived.

Men have no such ability. So if both men and women have the right to maintain control over their body, but men have no right to legally seperate themselves from future responsibility, this is not equal.

You could just raise the abortion time-limit to a few months after birth, and give the male a right to an abortion after birth. That way the woman isn't stuck with the spawn, and everyone's home free.

That sounds sarcastic, doesn't it? It's not.

An abortion, legally, is two things.

One it is an exercise of control in ones own body.

Two it is a pre-emptive termination of legal rights and obligations vis a vi the future child

No, it's not. Beings that may or may not exist in the future do not have any recognized legal rights, and therefore (legally) they are irrelevant.


An abortion both an expression of ones rights, and the pre-emptive termination of anothers (again, not that abortion is WRONG, but it does have the effect of terminating the rights of the child to exist, prior to the child existing).

Again, no. There is no "other person" in the equation, legally speaking.

If you want to say that an abortion legally terminates the future rights of a future being, then you must (legally speaking) say the exact same thing about any activity that does not result in childbirth. Contraception. Male masturbation. Choosing to do ANYTHING that might in any way compromise one's reproductive ability. Choosing to do anything other than procreating, as a matter of fact, since by choosing to not have sex right now a man is choosing to pre-emptively terminate the rights of the child who might have been conceived if he had chosen to have sex.


Men have the right to exercise control over their bodies.

They do NOT have the ability to pre-emptively terminate the legal rights and obligations vis a vi their future child.

Right. Because nobody has that "right," because it does not exist.


If an abortion functions both as the right of exerting control over your body, AND the right to terminate future legal obligations to your future offspring then men should have identical rights.

Wrong. One's "future offspring" do not possess legal rights at this time. The children I may one day have will only possess rights when they exist; they do not possess those rights until they do exist.

Really, it's very simple: people who do not exist do not have legal rights. For a person to have legal rights, they must exist.

With that said, I happen to think that men should have the right to get a "paper abortion" of the sort many people talk about, if only because the sort of man who would want such a thing is exactly the sort of man who should NOT be anybody's father.

SO a woman who may at some point, consider aborting a fetus for self motivated reasons (IE doesn't want the child at that point in her life) is the kind of woman who should not be anybody's mother?

I could, were I feeling ornery enough, say that even if I were to seperate my legal obligation to a child, I am at least giving it a chance for life, a woman who aborts a child does not.

Now again, don't think I am in the slightest way against abortion.

They have the right to exert control over their body, however they have no ability to terminate future legal obligations over their future offspring.

Which should be changed.

In which other part of life can you simply terminate future legal obligations which might come about due to your prior actions?

If you want to say that an abortion legally terminates the future rights of a future being, then you must (legally speaking) say the exact same thing about any activity that does not result in childbirth. Contraception. Male masturbation. Choosing to do ANYTHING that might in any way compromise one's reproductive ability. Choosing to do anything other than procreating, as a matter of fact, since by choosing to not have sex right now a man is choosing to pre-emptively terminate the rights of the child who might have been conceived if he had chosen to have sex.

From a technical standpoint yes, I suppose that is true. Chosing not to have sex may in the same framework may be considered to pre-emptively terminate the rights of that which may result from my actions.

And yes...we don't see anything wrong with celebacy, masturbation, or birth control, do we? We can see all those acts as pre emptivly saying "I do not wish to be responsible for the child that may result from my actions if I engage in sex at this time" (given that you could be engaging in sex at that time).

And just as a male can chose to abstain, masturbate, or use birth control, so can a woman.

However women have one more way of going about it, and that's when the fetus has already been conceived. Men do not. Hence an inequality in legal ability.

You could just raise the abortion time-limit to a few months after birth, and give the male a right to an abortion after birth. That way the woman isn't stuck with the spawn, and everyone's home free.

That sounds sarcastic, doesn't it? It's not.
Your problem is one of terminology.

Many people believe that, gramatically, it is correct to say that one aborts a child, or aborts a fetus. This is incorrect. One aborts a pregnancy. That is the correct usage of the term "abortion."

When you realized this, you realize how silly your proposition is. You cannot perform an "abortion" after childbirth has already occured; there is no pregnancy to abort. A woman cannot receive an abortion after she has already given birth, nor can a man.

In which other part of life can you simply terminate future legal obligations which might come about due to your prior actions?

Well you sort of make my point. Men basically have no way of avoiding the ramifications and responsibilities of their actions after those actions have been committed.

Women do, in one aspect, abortion. So women have a way of escaping future legal obligations that result from a prior act, in a way men do not.

That is a legal inequality, which should be addressed, NOT by limiting abortion, but by giving men a legal equivilant.

SO a woman who may at some point, consider aborting a fetus for self motivated reasons (IE doesn't want the child at that point in her life) is the kind of woman who should not be anybody's mother?

A woman who does not wish to have her body participating in a pregnancy should not be forced to donate her body against her wishes.

A large percentage of women who have abortions are already mothers. Many have abortions specifically because they are concerned about the welfare of their children. I think that is a responsible choice in many cases.


I could, were I feeling ornery enough, say that even if I were to seperate my legal obligation to a child, I am at least giving it a chance for life, a woman who aborts a child does not.

Again, you are misusing the term "abort." One does not abort "a child." One aborts a pregnancy. The woman chooses to end her body's participation in reproduction. You have that right yourself; you are free to choose how, when, why, and with whom your body participates in reproduction. I see no reason why women should be denied equal rights.

Not in the slightest. In an ENTIRELY hypothetical situation, if a woman is able to terminate MY biological offspring without MY consent, I should be able to distance myself from that offspring without HER consent.
if you look at it that way. many states are pushing laws that are trying to give men the right to tell a woman must abort a fetus by him..even if that woman wants to carry to term, the law also says that men can tell a woman that she must carry a baby to term ever when she does not want to. its a double edeged sword. eather way someones "rights" get cut.

However women have one more way of going about it, and that's when the fetus has already been conceived. Men do not. Hence an inequality in legal ability.

Imagine that. Law based upon physical reality rather than upon someone's random ideals of fairness between males and females. Apparantly the law is not always an ass.

A woman who does not wish to have her body participating in a pregnancy should not be forced to donate her body against her wishes.

What? I never, ever ever EVER said that women should be forced NOT to have an abortion, PLEASE do not think I will EVER EVER EVER say that.

Again, you are misusing the term "abort." One does not abort "a child." One aborts a pregnancy.

An improper use of terminology, noted.

I see no reason why women should be denied equal rights.

I have never, and WILL NEVER advocate the right to abortion be limited, please do not think I would ever advocate such a thing, under any circumstances (except perhaps devil's advocacy).

What I advocate is allowing a male to terminate future legal responsibility in the same way that an abortion does by effect.

Well you sort of make my point. Men basically have no way of avoiding the ramifications and responsibilities of their actions after those actions have been committed.

Women do, in one aspect, abortion. So women have a way of escaping future legal obligations that result from a prior act, in a way men do not.

That is a legal inequality, which should be addressed, NOT by limiting abortion, but by giving men a legal equivilant.
The problem is that there is inherent biological inequality, which you are choosing to overlook.

If you want legal equality, then men and women should both enjoy the right (and the responsibility) to control their own body's participation in reproduction. Men and women should also have equal legal obligation to any biological child they have.

If you are a man, your body participates in the reproductive process up through the moment of ejaculation. After that point, your body is not participating in that reproductive process. Therefore, your right to control your body does not include a right to control what happens during a pregnancy. This is not because women are getting "special rights," it is simply because your body is not participating in pregnancy.

If you are a man who wishes to exert control over the reproductive process, then you may do so by controlling how your body participates in reproduction; you may not do so by controlling how anybody else's body participates in reproduction.

I don't see any difference, ANY difference, from a LEGAL standpoint of a mother pre-emptivly terminating her future financial obligation via an abortion than a man terminating his future obligation via a legal document.


in an abortion there is no child with no rights, in a paper abortion, a child is deprived of its natural right to support.


The child, unborn, and unviable, has no rights.
very true, the child only has rights once there IS a child


SHOULD it become viable it will, however to argue that a man should have no right to limit the rights that will emerge when the child becomes viable, and you likewise must logically admit that the woman should have no right to limits the rights that will emerge when the child becomes viable.

And what is an abortion other than pre-emptivly violating the fetus' future right to life?

How is a male saying "I refuse to support this child when it comes to term" in any way different than saying "I refuse to let this child come to term?"

Now don't get me wrong, I SUPPORT abortion rights. HOwever lets be clear about something, is terminating a living organisim (and I think it's clear that a fetus is a living THING, just not human) before it reaches the stage of humanity to be afforded full civil protection any different than terminating future obligations to the financial well being of that future child?

in an abortion there are no rights because there is no child. there are no FUTURE rights. the paper abortion by the father decides future rights of a person who doesnt exist yet. no problem unless a child DOES come into being. then the child has rights which can't be terminated by either parent (without legal proceedings that pass those rights onto others)

the rights and responsibilities are not to the mother but to the child. if a child is born and you have to pay child support, the support goes to the child. if the mother leaves the baby with her parents, for example, you would then pay child support to her parents not to her (for the benefit of the child and why didnt you sue for custody you heartless fiend??)

Your problem is one of terminology.

Many people believe that, gramatically, it is correct to say that one aborts a child, or aborts a fetus. This is incorrect. One aborts a pregnancy. That is the correct usage of the term "abortion."

When you realized this, you realize how silly your proposition is. You cannot perform an "abortion" after childbirth has already occured; there is no pregnancy to abort. A woman cannot receive an abortion after she has already given birth, nor can a man.
Fair enough, abort the pregnancy, terminate/kill the child. The sentiment remains the same really, I just didn't want to have to bother with extra words ("Termination" is the more common term in Britain, I think; I was merely using "abortion" as it's more common on the board, and I didn't think about them not being interchangeable).
Don't think it was some silly pro-life argument, either, as I'm most definitely not pro-life (if anything, quite the opposite).
And I know they can't receive one after birth; that was the point. To enable either party to.

if you look at it that way. many states are pushing laws that are trying to give men the right to tell a woman must abort a fetus by him..

I would NEVER advocate such a thing, ever.

the law also says that men can tell a woman that she must carry a baby to term ever when she does not want to.

Again, I do not advocate such a proposition. And since I must, by logic recognize that a woman has the ULTIMITE authority in what happens to the fetus inside her, it gives the man NO choice whether or not the fetus will be carried to term, once conceived.

And since an abortion can be carried through with the father's objection (as it SHOULD BE) then the father should be able to distance himself from the future child, even with the mother's objection.

What? I never, ever ever EVER said that women should be forced NOT to have an abortion, PLEASE do not think I will EVER EVER EVER say that.

I didn't not intend to imply that you had. I was simply trying to clarify my own beliefs, since you appeared to be asking about them.


I have never, and WILL NEVER advocate the right to abortion be limited, please do not think I would ever advocate such a thing, under any circumstances (except perhaps devil's advocacy).

What I advocate is allowing a male to terminate future legal responsibility in the same way that an abortion does by effect.
I do not oppose making such an option available, in theory, though I will only support it once women are allowed full access to reproductive rights. As long as abortion rights are restricted, I do not feel it is appropriate for men to enjoy the right to "paper abortions."

The problem is that there is inherent biological inequality, which you are choosing to overlook.


I recognize the inheret biological inequality. I also recognize that the law should never favor one party over the other due to chance of biology.

THe fact is women retain rights to decide their future obligation vis a vi her pregnancy AFTER conception has taken place.

Men do not. That should be changed.

I do not oppose making such an option available, in theory, though I will only support it once women are allowed full access to reproductive rights. As long as abortion rights are restricted, I do not feel it is appropriate for men to enjoy the right to "paper abortions."

Well, would you support paper abortions should they follow reasonably the same restrictions that an abortion in whatever state would?

IE parental notification, not an option after viability, and to mimic the availability of abortion clinics, say this paper abortion could only take place within a place that handes abortion?

I recognize the inheret biological inequality. I also recognize that the law should never favor one party over the other due to chance of biology.

As I explained, the law would not be "favoring" one party or the other. Both parties enjoy precisely the same right: the right to control their own body's participation in reproduction.

The right to control one's own body is distinct from any legal obligation to a biological child.


THe fact is women retain rights to decide their future obligation vis a vi her pregnancy AFTER conception has taken place.

Men do not. That should be changed.The only way that this situation could be changed--assuming we wish to have legal equality--would be for men's bodies to become able to participate in reproduction after conception has taken place.

Well, would you support paper abortions should they follow reasonably the same restrictions that an abortion in whatever state would?

IE parental notification, not an option after viability, and to mimic the availability of abortion clinics, say this paper abortion could only take place within a place that handes abortion?
I don't believe any restrictions on abortion should exist, save for the restriction that an abortion should only be performed if the woman wants it. I am loathe to create yet another inappropriate set of restrictive laws that mirror the bullshit that has been imposed on abortion.

Instead, I would say that if men want "paper abortions" then they should first ensure that women have the absolute right to choose. Once that is accomplished, I will be more than willing to discuss the topic of legal obligation to a biological child.

Entirely false. Misdemeanour is no different to transgression. Mor have I asserted any of the above to be a crime. Irresponsible in both a social, and personal sense, but criminal, of course not.

Do not, either, immediatly make the progression from a contravertible semantic assertion to my being a callous bastard.
From the dictionary at law.com:
http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?typed=misdemeanor&type=1&submit1.x=78&submit1.y=12&submit1=Look+up

misdemeanor
n. a lesser crime punishable by a fine and/or county jail time for up to one year. Misdemeanors are distinguished from felonies, which can be punished by a state prison term. They are tried in the lowest local court such as municipal, police or justice courts. Typical misdemeanors include: petty theft, disturbing the peace, simple assault and battery, drunk driving without injury to others, drunkenness in public, various traffic violations, public nuisances and some crimes which can be charged either as a felony or misdemeanor depending on the circumstances and the discretion of the District Attorney. "High crimes and misdemeanors" referred to in the U.S. Constitution are felonies.
See also: felony

From Merriam-Webster Online:
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/misdemeanor

misdemeanor
One entry found for misdemeanor.

Main Entry: mis·de·mean·or
Pronunciation: -di-'mE-n&r
Function: noun
1 : a crime less serious than a felony
2 : MISDEED

In this post, you imply that being poor is irresponsible. This implies that you do, in fact, think it is a deliberate decision and that the poor should be left in their condition. I take an opposite attitude towards poverty.

As for teen pregnancy, yes, it is not a mature and responsible decision to choose to have a baby rather than get an education or a job. However, the article, as has been expansively quoted, makes clear that the girls making this decision are poor, and are looking for a way out of the uncertainty of poverty. And considering that they are children, it can hardly be considered their fault that they are poor. Rather, I suspect we could say it is the fault of people who hold your attitude toward poverty.

But whether poor children make bad life decisions is irrelevant. If society maintains a social safety net of some kind for the support of the poor, then the poor get to use it -- for whatever reason. You may decide that there will be no social safety net for anyone, but you don't get to decide that the poor won't be allowed to reproduce like everyone else in the world.

While I am enjoying the discussion we are having (re: men and abortion etc), I would feel better if we weren't hijacking this thread. If you'd like to continue on that topic, perhaps you should create a new thread...I'll come by for a visit, I promise!

Well you sort of make my point. Men basically have no way of avoiding the ramifications and responsibilities of their actions after those actions have been committed.

Being able to avoid responsibility and ramifications for our actions is not in my opinion a good thing. This is probably the greatest divergence in our opinions.

Women do, in one aspect, abortion. So women have a way of escaping future legal obligations that result from a prior act, in a way men do not.

Good on them. They also carry different legal responsabilities during the pregnancy.

That is a legal inequality, which should be addressed, NOT by limiting abortion, but by giving men a legal equivilant.

There are real and actual physical inequalities which are behind the legal inequalities. Do you prefer the law to follow reality or do you prefer that reality become secondary to the law? One path leads to workable laws and upon the other lies madness.

Well you sort of make my point. Men basically have no way of avoiding the ramifications and responsibilities of their actions after those actions have been committed.


why should men be able to avoid the ramifications and responsibilities of their actions once they have been commited?

Fair enough, abort the pregnancy, terminate/kill the child. The sentiment remains the same really, I just didn't want to have to bother with extra words ("Termination" is the more common term in Britain, I think; I was merely using "abortion" as it's more common on the board, and I didn't think about them not being interchangeable).
Don't think it was some silly pro-life argument, either, as I'm most definitely not pro-life (if anything, quite the opposite).
And I know they can't receive one after birth; that was the point. To enable either party to.
Well, since we're not anti-choicers here, let's try and make an effort not to use anti-choice terminology, eh?

Abortion is NOT the killing of a child.

"Child" describes a stage of human development. This stage occurs AFTER birth, not before it. The process goes like this: before birth = conceptus, embryo, fetus; after birth = infant/baby, child/teen, adult. Then you die and stop being anything.

Abortion terminates/aborts a pregnancy, the result of which is the killing of a conceptus or embryo. In rare, usually medically necessary cases, it will result in the killing of a fetus, if it is performed late in the pregnancy. It depends on when the abortion is performed.

I hate that I've become the word cop here, but I'm tired of the way distorted language skews this debate.

Well, since we're not anti-choicers here, let's try and make an effort not to use anti-choice terminology, eh?

Abortion is NOT the killing of a child.

"Child" describes a stage of human development. This stage occurs AFTER birth, not before it. The process goes like this: before birth = conceptus, embryo, fetus; after birth = infant/baby, child/teen, adult. Then you die and stop being anything.

Abortion terminates/aborts a pregnancy, the result of which is the killing of a conceptus or embryo. In rare, usually medically necessary cases, it will result in the killing of a fetus, if it is performed late in the pregnancy. It depends on when the abortion is performed.

I hate that I've become the word cop here, but I'm tired of the way distorted language skews this debate.
I also get sick of the way anti-choice terminology has infected reasonable debate. Use the damn words properly, people! :P

Though you also forget one very important point: a significant number of abortions do NOT result in the death of any conceptus, embryo, fetus, or whathaveyou. Abortion procedures are often used when a fetus is already dead; the horribly distorted "partial birth" abortion method is actually a method that is most commonly used to remove a dead fetus from inside the woman's body.

Imagine the alternative, for a moment. Imagine telling a woman that she must walk around with her dead fetus inside her. Imagine telling her that she must risk life-threatening infections because "partial birth abortion" is a bad thing. Imagine telling her that she must go through childbirth, only to deliver a baby that is already rotting away.

Yeah. So. Ick.

Argh, but seriously...let's move to a new thread! I don't want to hijack!

Well, since we're not anti-choicers here, let's try and make an effort not to use anti-choice terminology, eh?

Abortion is NOT the killing of a child.

"Child" describes a stage of human development. This stage occurs AFTER birth, not before it. The process goes like this: before birth = conceptus, embryo, fetus; after birth = infant/baby, child/teen, adult. Then you die and stop being anything.

Abortion terminates/aborts a pregnancy, the result of which is the killing of a conceptus or embryo. In rare, usually medically necessary cases, it will result in the killing of a fetus, if it is performed late in the pregnancy. It depends on when the abortion is performed.

I hate that I've become the word cop here, but I'm tired of the way distorted language skews this debate.

And the topic goes pro life vs pro choice in 1 post.

I also get sick of the way anti-choice terminology has infected reasonable debate. Use the damn words properly, people! :P

Though you also forget one very important point: a significant number of abortions do NOT result in the death of any conceptus, embryo, fetus, or whathaveyou. Abortion procedures are often used when a fetus is already dead; the horribly distorted "partial birth" abortion method is actually a method that is most commonly used to remove a dead fetus from inside the woman's body.

Imagine the alternative, for a moment. Imagine telling a woman that she must walk around with her dead fetus inside her. Imagine telling her that she must risk life-threatening infections because "partial birth abortion" is a bad thing. Imagine telling her that she must go through childbirth, only to deliver a baby that is already rotting away.

Yeah. So. Ick.

Argh, but seriously...let's move to a new thread! I don't want to hijack!
Ah, thanks. It's entirely true. Since abortion terminates a pregnancy, there do not actually have to be any living cells or structures to be killed by it. The fetus may already be dead, and that will necessitate aborting the pregnancy, if it does not terminate by itself. This is true, I think, for a significant portion of the very small number of later term abortions.

why should men be able to avoid the ramifications and responsibilities of their actions once they have been commited?

Because women can.

EITHER we give BOTH the option, or we give NEITHER the option, and since I would never limit the right to abortion, I say both.

Being able to avoid responsibility and ramifications for our actions is not in my opinion a good thing. This is probably the greatest divergence in our opinions.

Whether it's good or bad it EXISTS.

There are real and actual physical inequalities which are behind the legal inequalities. Do you prefer the law to follow reality or do you prefer that reality become secondary to the law? One path leads to workable laws and upon the other lies madness.

The law should only allow inequality to exist when there is no legal method for fixing it. There is a perfectly easy to create laws that would fix the inequality, to the extent that it can. Legal inequality based on physical difference should only exist if there is NO legal method of addressing them.

For instance, a man can't be a wet nurse, as pointed, it is biologically IMPOSSIBLE and no law will fix that fact. However men can, very easily, be given the ability to remove from themselves legal rights and responsibilities regarding their offspring.

Anyway, hijack off, might make a new thread.

Ah, thanks. It's entirely true. Since abortion terminates a pregnancy, there do not actually have to be any living cells or structures to be killed by it. The fetus may already be dead, and that will necessitate aborting the pregnancy, if it does not terminate by itself. This is true, I think, for a significant portion of the very small number of later term abortions.

*All right since the original debate doesnt suit you today I'll play devil's advocate and even try to argue the other side of your classic derail. next time do start your own thread though. I was enjoying this one.*

Abortions are morally reprehensible and in the majority of cases medically unethical due to the hypocratic oath. Blah blah it's a human life blah.

Some damning evidence of where our sexualised culture is leading us.


We put sex everywhere. We tell our children that it's alright to do it and nothing to worry about.

But guess what! Kids know everything, remember, and so you arm them with this immortal attitude and they decide they know how to best use it.


When are we going to realise that sex and kids just don't mix?


It's not sexuality. It's Gilmore Girls.

Teen pregnancy rates in the modern Western world are currently lower than they have been throughout pretty much all of human history.
Yes, because until recently it was the custom for women to marry around 12-14, mate. Women used to ALWAYS marry in their teens. Slightly diff situation, since we're talking out of wedlock now.

And the topic goes pro life vs pro choice in 1 post.
Only if you decide to take it that way. Let's get back to the original topic by all means.

The OP asserts that teens choosing to have babies rather than get educations and jobs is a result of a "sexualized" society that tells them it's okay to have sex and that no consequences or no negative consequences will result. He seems to think that if teens thought society disapproved of sex, they'd never do it.

Others have already pointed out that if girls have sex for the express purpose of getting pregnant, they are obviously not operating on the assumption there will be no consequences. It has also been questioned whether the original poster really wants to imply that having children is a bad thing in and of itself. It has also been pointed out that there is a difference between encouraging sex and encouraging reproduction. And it has been pointed out that, typically, teenagers do not look for adult approval before they choose to do things. In fact, adult approval is usually a good reason for not doing something, and, in fact, it has been pointed out that teen pregnancy rates in the UK have been declining.

I would also add at this time that there is a fundamental flaw in the idea that sex should or even can be discouraged. Sex is not an unnatural act. On the contrary, it is vital to our existence as living beings, just like the urge to eat and sleep and communicate with others. Teenage is the period of life when the sex organs come on line, as it were, and therefore it is entirely natural and normal for teens to begin seeking sex, beginning on average between the ages of 16 and 18. Therefore, any message that disapproves of teen sex is doomed to fail, because it violates human nature. The message should be about responsible sex, not no sex. But this is just a side note, criticizing the OP's argument.

For me, the core of the issue lies elsewhere. To the extent teen pregnancy is a social problem (and I'm not convinced that it is), the cause seems clearly to be more connected to the poverty of the girls making the decision rather than the prevalence of open sexuality in the society. The article clearly states that girls are making the decision to become mothers and homemakers because they see no options for them in the workplace -- only low-paying, dead-end jobs that will get them nowhere, and in which they see their own mothers languishing.

So what are their options then? On the one hand, the same crap jobs that created a life for them in which their mothers were largely absent, working day and night to make ends meet and barely succeeding (or not succeeding), making their mothers old before their time, destroying relationships, and leaving them to fend largely for themselves with few resources. On the other hand, a social system that will support young women with children, so that at the very least, they can be sure of a place to live, food to eat, maybe even assistance in getting some kind of education, and time to raise their children in a way their own mothers never could.

What would you choose if you were in their place?

The solution is obvious but difficult to achieve. If you don't want to raise a generation of welfare moms, then make sure the available jobs are good enough to support a working class family, and use some of the funds that would go to welfare for non-working parents to support family services -- such as daycare -- for working parents. In other words, make it actually better to work than to be on welfare.

The sheer fact that girls are choosing in this situation implies that they are considering the school-and-job path. Considering and rejecting it. From their point of view maybe it looks like they have the choice of being a ward of the state and eating, or being independent and starving. If they could eat and be independent, maybe some of them choose that.

Because women can.

EITHER we give BOTH the option, or we give NEITHER the option, and since I would never limit the right to abortion, I say both.
Especially since the man is going to bear the financial burden. The women has 9 months, the man gets 18 years, and yet the woman still complains.

*All right since the original debate doesnt suit you today I'll play devil's advocate and even try to argue the other side of your classic derail. next time do start your own thread though. I was enjoying this one.*

Abortions are morally reprehensible and in the majority of cases medically unethical due to the hypocratic oath. Blah blah it's a human life blah.
Thrill to the spectacle of me not taking this fake bait!! :p

Please see my lengthy statement in re the OP, posted previously.

Especially since the man is going to bear the financial burden. The women has 9 months, the man gets 18 years, and yet the woman still complains.

I don't quite see it that way. BOTH parents bare the burden. However if the woman does not WANT the burden, she can chose to have an abortion post conception.

No option exists post conception for a man to decide not to carry the burden.

Anyway, I'm gonna drop it cause I'm hijacking.

Especially since the man is going to bear the financial burden. The women has 9 months, the man gets 18 years, and yet the woman still complains.
Yes, because the majority of single parents are male.

Or wait. Maybe not.

Thrill to the spectacle of me not taking this fake bait!! :p OOOOOOOO...........Ahhhhhhhh!!!!

Please see my lengthy statement in re the OP, posted previously.

Thank you for that. :)

Especially since the man is going to bear the financial burden. The women has 9 months, the man gets 18 years, and yet the woman still complains.
Both parties have the same financial burden after birth. Except of course, when the man runs off and refuses to pay child support.

Some damning evidence of where our sexualised culture is leading us.

We put sex everywhere. We tell our children that it's alright to do it and nothing to worry about.

But guess what! Kids know everything, remember, and so you arm them with this immortal attitude and they decide they know how to best use it.

When are we going to realise that sex and kids just don't mix?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/5217634.stm
Well said. Parents must take more responsibility and educate their children properly about sex, and encourage them to wait until adulthood. Too many teens think they are ready to do it, but are not at all.

I don't believe any restrictions on abortion should exist
So you think abortion should be legal even up to a couple of weeks before birth (yes, I realise that is extremely rare, but still)?

That is hardly any different to axing a newborn baby.

Both parties have the same financial burden after birth. Except of course, when the man runs off and refuses to pay child support.

Because no mother has never, EVER, abandoned her children.....

sexist comments ftw!

Especially since the man is going to bear the financial burden. The women has 9 months, the man gets 18 years, and yet the woman still complains.
You should work to change that. Tell a girl that you'll stay home with the kid while she gets the money for the household. Sounds like a sweet deal since raising children is so incredibly easy.

Especially since the man is going to bear the financial burden. The women has 9 months, the man gets 18 years, and yet the woman still complains.
do you live in some alternate universe where a woman delivers her newborn baby to its father to raise then disappears from the childs life?

The sheer fact that girls are choosing in this situation implies that they are considering the school-and-job path. Considering and rejecting it. From their point of view maybe it looks like they have the choice of being a ward of the state and eating, or being independent and starving. If they could eat and be independent, maybe some of them choose that.

these girls make their decision based on their understanding of the situation they are in. their understanding is faulty and leads them into the trap of quitting school to raise babies on welfare. they are stuck in a self defeating idea that their future is mapped out for them and there is nothing they can do to change it.

i think that the best approach is to let teen girls from areas with a high teen birthrate know that they do have other choices and to have programs that will prepare them for an interesting job that pays well. letting them know that waiting for motherhood can lead them to a much better life can make all the difference.

i live in a small town in the middle of nowhere. there are lots of girls who think that this is IT. they will live and die in socorro new mexico so what is the point of putting of sex and babies? especially if they have a "good man" interested in them right now. what's to say that he will still be interested in 5 years if she waits?

So you think abortion should be legal even up to a couple of weeks before birth (yes, I realise that is extremely rare, but still)?

That is hardly any different to axing a newborn baby.
I believe that a woman has the right to end her body's participation in pregnancy at any time and for any reason. If it is possible to end the pregnancy in a way that keeps the fetus alive, I don't have any objection to doing so (as long as doing so will not cause any additional risk for the woman).

I don't quite see it that way. BOTH parents bare the burden. However if the woman does not WANT the burden, she can chose to have an abortion post conception.

No option exists post conception for a man to decide not to carry the burden.

Look, let me see if I can break this down one last time:

Laws about child support are NOT about somebody's right to choose whether or not they are a biological parent. They are about a CHILD'S RIGHT to adequate care.

The choice about whether or not to be a biological parent is made when the individual chooses how his or her body will participate in reproduction. Child support laws DO NOT COVER this subject. They are a totally different subjects altogether. Indeed, I believe that an American court has just handed down a ruling that makes this very point.

Men should not have to pay for a child if they wanted their woman to have an abortion but she did not do it. It was her choice let her pay for it. Also, no tax dollars for other people's kids. Government is not supposed to work like that. Pro-lifers can give to charities to support those kids. I bet we would have a lot less unplanned kids and we would have a lot less slutty teen mommas listening to rap music yo.

We are telling children that it is ok to have sex. They are taking that and using it to their own advantage.

There is no contradiction in that.

We're telling children that sex is only for producing children and that you're only supposed to do it when you're married.

In the 50's that lead to teenage weddings and pregnancies, as well as abandoned single mothers being thrown out of their homes. The sexual liberation of our society encouraged people to use protection resulting in fewer teen pregnancies, and marriages between more mature people (because teenagers weren't getting married just to institutionalize sex), with women more independent who were able to leave husbands that were abusive or simply assholes.

these girls make their decision based on their understanding of the situation they are in. their understanding is faulty and leads them into the trap of quitting school to raise babies on welfare. they are stuck in a self defeating idea that their future is mapped out for them and there is nothing they can do to change it.

i think that the best approach is to let teen girls from areas with a high teen birthrate know that they do have other choices and to have programs that will prepare them for an interesting job that pays well. letting them know that waiting for motherhood can lead them to a much better life can make all the difference.

i live in a small town in the middle of nowhere. there are lots of girls who think that this is IT. they will live and die in socorro new mexico so what is the point of putting of sex and babies? especially if they have a "good man" interested in them right now. what's to say that he will still be interested in 5 years if she waits?
This is the point I was trying to make, from an inner city point of view.

I think you're mixing up sex and the idealized image of the family. These kids aren't having children as a byproduct of sex, they're doing it with the intent of becoming pregnant. They think that a baby will give them that family life idealized in sitcoms, where the father work and the mother stays home and they all have a happy life together. They've mixed up the steps you have to take to find a good spouse and the money you need to get that kind of life and went straight for the baby. Hardly the sort of thing that comes from a "sexualised culture", more likely the result of an emphasis on the family and raising children.
Oh god, somehow I had a feeling that "the family" would in some way be blamed for the problems caused by our sex obsessive, "free love" delusional culture and society. Which irrationally values sex above and beyond all else, even health and human life! :|

I blame... Christina Aguilera! *points to Christina* :eek:

Most of the underage pregnancies are UNINTENTIONAL actually. So one can only blame the schools for encouraging people to have sex.