Seventeen Girls Pregnant Because of a Pact?

[Aluminum_Butt]

or perhaps not, according to this story.

 

But, if it's not a pact, then (according to school officials) it's the fault of No Child Left Behind, because the school had to move money from health education.

 

I know I'm treading dangerously close to the politics line here, but that's not my intent. No matter how you feel about No Child Left Behind, are we really expected to believe that these young women didn't know that sex might result in a baby?

 

Perhaps some (hopefully all) of these babies will grow up to be happy, healthy, and prosperous. But the odds are stacked against them. If this was really the result of a pact, I can't even wrap my mind around what that means when it comes to the lack of value that our society places on human life.

 

While I'll not be joining Ken H in Canada, suffice it to say I'm very scared.

[smiller]

But whatever you do, don't provide any information about birth control... that might give them ideas...

[Mister Tee]

I think there are some parents that need to be held accountable, and some statutory rape arrests that need to be made.

[David]

The PARENTS of a 17-year old? Please. They're adults (I don't care too much where the law draws that line in this case). The parents will suffer enough when it comes time to take care of the kids, and they might or might not have raised the kids well, but many kids with great parents do really stupid things.

 

This isn't a problem that the legal or enforcement branch needs to get involved in.

[Aluminum_Butt]

But whatever you do, don't provide any information about birth control... that might give them ideas...

 

Oh, puhleeze. While (based on previous threads) you and I fall on different sides of this fence, are we really expected to believe these kids didn't know about birth control? REALLY?

[Aluminum_Butt]

This isn't a problem that the legal or enforcement branch needs to get involved in.

 

Except for paternity tests and child support.

[David]

Yes, I agree.

[smiller]

Oh, puhleeze. While (based on previous threads) you and I fall on different sides of this fence, are we really expected to believe these kids didn't know about birth control? REALLY?

What I was referring to was a well-rounded sex education, and it does appear that might have been lacking. Or maybe they just didn't get enough abstinence training.

 

Or maybe they're just a bunch of immature kids? (assuming that there's any real story here at all.)

[Dave McReynolds]

People will do really bizarre things as a result of a pact.

 

The strangest I can remember is the Heavens Gate Cult who all committed suicide in the expectation that they would be beamed up to a spaceship that was following the Hale Bopp comet.

 

Some gangs require that their prospective members kill someone, eat roadkill, or do other weird things as a rite of initiation.

 

When I was in college, I studied Karate for a while at a school that had a practice of breaking their students' noses at some surprise point in their transition from brown to black belt (I graduated and left town before I got that far).

 

Some societies cut the foreskins off their male babies, or even the labia off their female babies.

 

Some fraternities hold drinking binges that have proved fatal to some of the participants.

 

So whether it is true or not, it wouldn't surprise me to find out that some girls all agreed to get pregnant. Almost seems mild by comparison.

[90%angel]

While I agree that schools' "abstinence only" sex ed classes are a joke (and I'm conservative! but c'mon; we had better sex ed at my private school), I don't think it was a lack of education about sex here that is the problem. I think they did this on purpose and knew enough about how the whole thing works to do it. Allegedly, one of them slept with a 24 year old homeless man...unless this is her boyfriend (doubtful), she knew exactly when to sleep with him to get pregnant, which says they know how the whole thing works.

 

What is that Garbage song..."Stupid Girl..."

[David]

but c'mon; we had better sex at my private school...

 

Wow! That's quite an admission!

[90%angel]

haha...but you missed the ED on the end of that in the next line!

 

(and they may have, I don't know...as long as the administration didn't find out!)

[SageRider]

haha...but you missed the ED on the end of that in the next line!

 

(and they may have, I don't know...as long as the administration didn't find out!)

We just all thought you were talking to Shovel Stroke and forgot a couple of commas...

 

"we had better sex, Ed, at my private school "

[Wooster]

Here on MA's north shore, this story has gotten lots of news print. The Boston Globe attributed a desire for adult status as chief motivator. Evidently, this spike in the number of Gloucester HS girls getting pregnant (when I was a child this was referred to as "having a bun in the oven") wasn't the result of sex ed, a lack of family planning info or equipment but conscious choice on the girls' part.

I valued the dead philosopher, Joseph Campbell's beef that in the 20th century (21st too), our western industrial society has no meangingfull rite of passage for teens to acquire adult status. This point is consistent with the dated sociological explanation for the popularity of youth gangs; that is, the gang's ritual of acceptance came close to the basic need for recognition by others of adult status.

While I've a negative view of teen pregnancy as positive path to adulthood, it has value among this subset of teens in Gloucester.

 

Wooster

 

Gloucester has epidemic of egyptian flu, girls are becomming mummies

[smiller]

The misconception that having a child confers adult status, or being unaware of the impact a child has on one's life, or the difference between romantic vs. sexual feelings, etc. can indeed be a result of a lack of education on these topics.

 

So far I've seen it suggested that that parents or the media be castigated, or the legal system brought in to solve the problem. But health education? Naw, how could that help... much better to spend the time on drills to pass a standardized test.

[ghaverkamp]

So far I've seen it suggested that that parents or the media be castigated, or the legal system brought in to solve the problem. But health education? Naw, how could that help... much better to spend the time on drills to pass a standardized test.

 

While I wouldn't praise the current craze over standardized tests, if the schools don't provide the necessary education, surely parents can and should be castigated. Is there really any reason to expect schools to teach sex ed, other than shifting discomfort from parents to educators, anyway?

[Aluminum_Butt]

Is there really any reason to expect schools to teach sex ed, other than shifting discomfort from parents to educators, anyway?

 

I would go one step further. Shouldn't the parents be the PRIMARY source of this education?

[Joel]

... The Boston Globe attributed a desire for adult status as chief motivator.

 

Fertility = adulthood. Yeah, well, good luck recovering from that quadruple bogey on the first hole of the rest of your adult life.

 

The pace of the handbasket quickens ...

[smiller]

Parents should teach this to their children as parents should teach a lot of things to their children, but it's an imperfect world. As to parents necessarily being the primary source of such information, well, that's probably preferable and if they're good enough teachers then great. Otherwise it would appear obvious that contributions from other sources is sometimes necessary.

[Bheckel169]

Having been a school board president, I can tell you from my limited experience that most of the parents find it much more comfortable to hand off their responsibilities to the schools. That starts when they put them on a bus to after school activities. However, they expect the schools to keep their child out of trouble which means they want the system to provide a net that goes beyond the curriculum and supervision that a school can provide. If the child gets in trouble, smokes dope, gets in a fight or has a sexual encounter including leading up to a pregnancy, then the parent has found the natural scapegoat for all their inadequacies and lack of parental supervision. What a great escape valve for their poor parenting! The more we want the government, ie, the local, state or federal bureaucracy to manage and matriculate (highly questionable) our children, or the more we allow a teacher's union to educate our children without the opportunity to provide optional educational methods, the more we abdicate our responsibilities as parents. It's our fault!!!

Bruce

[Twisties]

I can't even wrap my mind around what that means when it comes to the lack of value that our society places on human life.

 

For once we completely agree.

 

In fact I can't see the relationship at all.

 

Jan

[Twisties]

Is there really any reason to expect schools to teach sex ed, other than shifting discomfort from parents to educators, anyway?

 

I would go one step further. Shouldn't the parents be the PRIMARY source of this education?

 

No.

[VinnyR11]

Many, if not most, of us baby boomers had parents who "warned us" of the "hazards and terrifying results" of sex, so I guess very few of us ever had unprotected sex as young adults? A pact is nothing more than a bunch of individual decisions. In this case, poor ones. We've all made stupid choices, especially at that age.

 

My point is kids do stupid things. We try our best as parents to educate them to do the right thing, but I've seen terrific parents have horribly sad problems with some of their kids.

 

As Dave pointed out, there are tons of really bad news gang initiations. I think this is a one-off and just don't think it's much of a story.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

A pact is nothing more than a bunch of individual decisions. In this case, poor ones. We've all made stupid choices, especially at that age.

 

The disturbing thing is not so much that 17 kids got pregnant; rather, it's the idea that many of them deliberately sought to become pregnant.

 

As you say, kids do stupid things, and it's expected that some of them will stupidly engage in unprotected sex, taking a chance on becoming pregnant; seeking to become pregnant is quite a step farther on the spectrum of stupid decisions.

[Dave McReynolds]

seeking to become pregnant is quite a step farther on the spectrum of stupid decisions.

 

Does it really seem stranger to you than covering exposed areas of your body with tattoos, or piercings? I think I would rather have a baby!

[David]

Apparently you're one of those people who need more sex education!

[SeanC]

My reaction to all this is so what? 17-year olds get pregnant all the time -- and have throughout all time -- all around the world. You all sound like a bunch of hens fretting over who to blame. It's not the end of the world.

 

As Joel pointed out, these young women may be starting the front nine of life with a bogey score, but who's to say they won't find pars and birdies later on? When I think of all the stupid, stupid women in their late-30s and early-40s trying to get pregnant for the first time, I wonder how well they paid attention in school... Idiots! Didn't anyone tell them how dusty their eggs are at that age, that evolution figured they'd be grandmothers by then (or dead)? D'oh!

 

Priorities are really messed up in this society. And so too are the standards. E.g., would you rather have a 17-year old daughter taking Lemaz classes, or a 17-year old son in infantry school on his way to war? (I'd rather visit a maternity ward than Walter Reed, but then maybe I'm the last living human with a sense of perspective.) I wonder if future societies will view us as a twisted culture who worshiped sterility and death, who valued fossils (and toxic ones at that) above all else?

 

To the teen mothers-to-be, I'd tell them that despite the hurdles they'll face now, and all the sacrifices they'll have to make, that I'm proud of them for not taking the easy way out. I'd also tell them how fun it was for me, as a son, to have grown up with a young mom (she had me at 22, which really wasn't out of the ordinary in the 1960s, but a five year difference is nuthin').

 

It's just life. Celebrate it, don't freak out over it.

[90%angel]

That's an odd position from you, Sean, or are you just stirring the pot?

 

I don't think anyone said: Stupid girls...they should be enlisting in the army and going to Iraq if they want to feel more mature! Just that they were stupid for making this monumental life decision (probably) without a clue of what they were getting in to, and (most likely) with a HARD road ahead of them to support it.

 

IMHO, evolution needs to get its rear in gear and keep up with societal changes. MOST 17 year-old girls are not capable of raising a child at that age any more (how do you pay for it with no education, job, spouse, etc?). Back in the good old days, she'd be married off and have a support system. Today, not so much. Now, women in their 30s and 40s are much more suited for the task mentally, financially, etc. Careers established, better job security, etc. Unfortunately for them, you're right; the eggs are dusty, and it's hard to get pregnant. I find that sad.

 

Youth is wasted on the young, you know?

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

My reaction to all this is so what? 17-year olds get pregnant all the time -- and have throughout all time -- all around the world. You all sound like a bunch of hens fretting over who to blame. It's not the end of the world.

 

True, it's not the end of the world, but on the list of things that lock out (or make it difficult to exercise) other choices that might result in a better life, having a baby out of wedlock before you're in a position to be a good parent ranks pretty high.

 

Again, the big thing to me is the idea that they made a decision to get pregnant. Agreed, unintended pregnancies happen with annoying frequency as people let the passion of the moment cloud their judgment; but it really is disturbing to me that someone could not yet have their high school diploma in hand and declare with some certainty that becoming a mother right now is the wisest course of action.

 

As Joel pointed out, these young women may be starting the front nine of life with a bogey score, but who's to say they won't find pars and birdies later on?

 

to continue your metaphor, they'll be too busy taking care of their babies to finish their golf lessons; you're right, nothing is for sure, but (moving to another metaphor) these kids are stacking the decks heavily against their favor.

 

When I think of all the stupid, stupid women in their late-30s and early-40s trying to get pregnant for the first time...

 

Makes you wonder which one was the smart one in Idiocracy.

 

...would you rather have a 17-year old daughter taking Lemaz classes, or a 17-year old son in infantry school on his way to war?

 

D) None of the above, and you're a master baiter for suggesting that these are the only two possible alternatives.

 

[90%angel]

and you're a master baiter for suggesting ...

 

hehehe...he said master baiter hehehe

[TedG]

Ummmmm,

 

Linky

 

Seems the usual suspects may have been a bit premature in decrying the end of western civilization as we know it. The usual suspects in this case being those denizens of various sites on the interwebtubes prone to taking to their respective fainting couches well before fact is separated from fiction (not referring to BMWST, by the way). And, yes, one pregnant teen's doesn't prove or disprove anything, but this is the first article I have seen in which the reporter did a little research rather than just passing on rumor as fact.

[Joel]

Linky

 

Apparently they're emptying the ocean with a teaspoon there, if this tidbit from that article is any indication

 

... Pathways for Children chief executive Sue Todd, whose organization runs the high school's onsite daycare center ...

 

emphasis added

 

Gawd, I guess I'm old and out-of-touch. :frown: My gut reaction to that is "WTF"!?!

[ericfoerster]

All I want to know is where was Wurty when these took place?

[SeanC]

That's an odd position from you, Sean, or are you just stirring the pot?

I'm seriously not pot-stirring. I'm just sick of all the hypocrisy surrounding this topic in our society and the irony it inevitably leads to later. As for it being an odd position for me, I'm not sure what you mean by that.... I am pro-sex. I am pro getting laid (I'm especially pro odd positions whilst getting laid, but I don't think that's what you meant , and while I don't think it's a good idea for teenagers to pursue parenthood, I also don't buy the line of crap our society pushes that it's one of the worst things that can happen to a teenager. There are LOTS more worse fates than having a baby.

 

I don't think anyone said: Stupid girls...they should be enlisting in the army and going to Iraq if they want to feel more mature! Just that they were stupid for making this monumental life decision (probably) without a clue of what they were getting in to, and (most likely) with a HARD road ahead of them to support it.

I realize that. I also never stated (or even implied) that the choices are Infant or Infantry. I merely used the comparison to point out how screwed up our culture is. We not only send 17 and 18 year olds off to die in foreign countries, we SELL them that option as a perfectly acceptable, adult-approved choice. In fact, we promote it from the holiest shrines of our culture: TV ads, internet, video games, etc. And maybe it is a good choice, yet the very same culture tells them they'll WASTE their lives if they become parents. "You're throwing your life away!" What a hypocritical load of crap.

 

And when it comes to sex, we SELL it from every corner of our culture, but what do we teach? "A) Abstain or B) Waste Your Life." Huh? In terms of public discourse, we're more comfortable talking about ED or IEDs than IUDs, although when push comes to shove, either are preferable to the worst fate of all -- the dreaded teen pregnancy, the Alcatraz of teendom.

 

IMHO, evolution needs to get its rear in gear and keep up with societal changes.

I think if evolution steps in, the result will be more like the dystopian scenario presented in "The Children of Men" than a convenient mutation to forgo the use-em-or-lose-em reality of female ovum. Sorry, girls, but you're born with all the eggs you're ever gonna release. In other words, I think evolution will change society (and not for the better) before it changes biology.

 

As regards all the "stuff" we're supposed to have acquired before having kids, that's just another messed-up mixed-up message. Babies as European Sedans, as luxury items waiting for those who can afford them. Bah! Some of my earliest memories are of the student housing we lived in while my dad was a grad student. My parents had no money, no stuff, no entertainment consoles, and yet somehow they managed to raise and feed me. Life was great. The macaroni and cheese always tasted good, and their old Rambler station wagon with the red vinyl seats was the coolest car ever.

[90%angel]

And maybe it is a good choice, yet the very same culture tells them they'll WASTE their lives if they become parents. "You're throwing your life away!" What a hypocritical load of crap

 

Well, there's a chance you could lose your life in a war, and THAT would be a waste. But, there's also a chance the army could pay for your education, fly you around the world, allow you to meet people that you'll get close enough to to die for, and to learn a little bit about responsibility...that to me, is NOT a waste.

 

As for having a baby too young being a "waste", I think what is meant is that it is no longer about YOU. YOUR dreams, hopes, ambitions, goals go out the window...it's now about the child. I think people think that if you go about that too soon, it's kind of a waste of what that person might have been/done. Which isn't to say in some circumstances people go on to fulfill their dreams even if they have a child young, but I wouldn't say that's the easiest or best way to go about it. (Similar to serving in the armed forces though, you do learn a little bit about responsibility! (hopefully - there's no drill sargent to make sure of this...))

 

As for it being an odd position for me, I'm not sure what you mean by that

 

You usually don't strike me as the "make love, not war" type, or the type that wants to line up and give a portion of his paycheck to these kids to help support their offspring (and we all know that's how a lot of these end up)

 

[SeanC]

You usually don't strike me as the "make love, not war" type, or the type that wants to line up and give a portion of his paycheck to these kids to help support their offspring (and we all know that's how a lot of these end up)

I'm not saying "make love, not war." I'm merely pointing out how screwed up our culture is by portraying the former as a slam dunk to failure, by focusing exclusively on the potential negatives, without even the slightest hint that anything positive could result from it, while at the same time selling only the potential positives of the latter (get an education, see the world, etc.).

 

As for what I'd rather give my tax money to, well, since we're talking fantasy here, I'd rather it go to teen moms to help raise their kids than, say, to bail out a bunch of 30-something jag-offs who signed up for mortgages they couldn't afford.... I'd rather it go to daycare or health care programs for young fools who didn't know better than to old farts who did but didn't do anything about it. But since I don't have a say in how it's spent, that's all moot and in any case beside the point.

[Shaman97]

Having been a school board president, I can tell you from my limited experience that most of the parents find it much more comfortable to hand off their responsibilities to the schools. That starts when they put them on a bus to after school activities. However, they expect the schools to keep their child out of trouble which means they want the system to provide a net that goes beyond the curriculum and supervision that a school can provide. If the child gets in trouble, smokes dope, gets in a fight or has a sexual encounter including leading up to a pregnancy, then the parent has found the natural scapegoat for all their inadequacies and lack of parental supervision. What a great escape valve for their poor parenting! The more we want the government, ie, the local, state or federal bureaucracy to manage and matriculate (highly questionable) our children, or the more we allow a teacher's union to educate our children without the opportunity to provide optional educational methods, the more we abdicate our responsibilities as parents. It's our fault!!!

Bruce

 

The decision that the girls made, whether in concert or individually was most likely done exclusive of the wishes and teachings of the parents. Nor were the teachers condoning the behavior; it doesn't make sense. I'm not from Gloucester, but I have been there on a number of occasions. It's not an inner-city environment with all that entails. My guess is the percentage of 17 year old pregnancies in a New York or Boston inner-city public school is roughly the same or higher. It's just not published for that economic strata. I'm just guessing on this - I have no hard facts to back me up - only anecdotal readings in magazines and newspapers. However, when these issues happen in white suburbia, it's news.

We can rail on the teachers and the parents, but at some point, the decisions made were those of the individuals involved. They and their families are the ones that will be responpsible for the raising of the children they are now impregnated with. It's all too soon for these and other teenage pregnancies.

[Stir]

I'm 100% with Sean on this one. Modern Society has polluted what evolution has taken a million years to produce. We are approaching negative population growth in the countries that matter. It has become, "Having children is for stupid and poor people." If that is the case, the next generation will consist solely of the stupid people's spawn.

 

Traditionally, man lived to his 50s and was considered old. Girls married at 14. My mom married at 17 and that was just one generation ago. This marriage at 30 is a recent generational thing. Given today's longevity, it makes sense. But, on the other hand, pregnant at 17 isn't horrible, just not desirable.

 

I've told my kids that if they get someone pregnant, we don't kill family. They should have the kid and the family will do what we need to do to make certain that everyone prospers. I've also told my oldest that sex is awesome...but, "you're not ready for it yet." I told him that when he thought he was ready, we would talk about it and make certain that he has all he needs to prevent an early pregnancy. But if it happens, he'll still go to college and have a life. I've also told him, "Don't do it with a girl you aren't willing to marry."

[Quinn]

The argument I remember is that of "delayed maturity." In an agrarian culture, people are totally productive and making maximum money at a very young age. Therefore it made sense to marry young, get the kids out of the way (help on the farm), and hope they can support you when you wear out at an early age. In a complex, industrial or informational culture, people delay being productive until after extensive schooling or aprenticeships. Instead of being "adults" at 17, they're not out and earning until their mid-twenties. Also they're not up to their earning level for several more years. So, they get married later and have no time or incentive to pump out a bunch of kids.

 

Don't you just love generalizations?

[VinnyR11]

 

Don't you just love generalizations?

 

I hate people that generalize. They're all idiots.

[Matts_12GS]

 

Don't you just love generalizations?

 

I hate people that generalize. They're all idiots.

 

From The Big Chill

 

Michael: I don't know anyone who could get through the day without two or three juicy rationalizations. They're more important than sex.

 

Sam Weber: Ah, come on. Nothing's more important than sex.

 

Michael: Oh yeah? Ever gone a week without a rationalization?

[BadAdam]

Sean, your ideas are very well articulated, thank you for your perspective. As someone who 'waited' to have a kid when my wife and I were 30 and acquired the Euro Wagon I understand what you mean when you say how we've created a marketplace around kids. Now that my little one is a bit older I realize that it's although nice to have all this stuff (house, bank account, volvo) the more important thing is the time we spend with him. A young mom that tries hard is better than an older mom that's checked out of the process.

 

Some of the happiest things I've seen are parents that are young enjoying their kids. Our society is better off for having good youngsters in it.

 

While I can't imagine the thought process of the girls that got pregnant via a stranger (from what I understand at least one father is a homeless dude) I do know that being part of the group at 17 is a big motivator.