Teen Pregnancy

Board index - The Discussion Forum

Author	Message
dear matthew Joining The Black Parade Age: - Gender: Male Posts: 186	April 18th, 2007 at 09:43pm personally theres nothing wrong for having a child at 16 or 17. IDK why the common preception of if you have a child why you are looked down apon. Thats not true at all. I know someone who is a teen mother and they say that having a child has made them happier than they could ever had been before. Personbally for the negative of getting pregnant it aslo makes you more mature in a way and thats a good thing. but like she said above i agree. if your not ready for childhood then use protection
druscilla. Bleeding on the Floor Age: 36 Gender: Female Posts: 1671	April 18th, 2007 at 11:04pm xsilverbulletx: personally theres nothing wrong for having a child at 16 or 17. IDK why the common preception of if you have a child why you are looked down apon. Thats not true at all. I know someone who is a teen mother and they say that having a child has made them happier than they could ever had been before. Personbally for the negative of getting pregnant it aslo makes you more mature in a way and thats a good thing. but like she said above i agree. if your not ready for childhood then use protection If you have a home, a steady income, and are emotionally capable of caring for a child you are ready. Most sixteen and seventeen year old's don't have that. I'm not saying they're all bad mothers, but most of them certainly are not ready.
Mrs.Frankie.Iero Killjoy Age: - Gender: Female Posts: 82	April 19th, 2007 at 03:30pm disgusting
druscilla. Bleeding on the Floor Age: 36 Gender: Female Posts: 1671	April 19th, 2007 at 03:40pm Mrs.Frankie.Iero: disgusting Fabulous. But this is a discussion board. So discuss.
bloodredruby69 Banned Age: 35 Gender: Female Posts: 8293	April 20th, 2007 at 11:00pm OKinNJ: it's just a huge mistake. teenagers should not be parents. kids can't have kids. i dont care how "mature" any of them think they are, nobody whos a teenager is emotionally or mentally developed enough to take on having a child. Care to back up that statement? I'm not for teenage pregnancy, but it is an unfair statement to say that no teenager is mature enough to raise a child. Physically, people can be fully mature at the age of sixteen, and only grow a couple of inches, if that, in the following years. Some are also unusually mature for their ages; not all are immature.
Cigarettes And Suicide Bleeding on the Floor Age: 37 Gender: Female Posts: 1725	April 21st, 2007 at 02:57am OKinNJ: it's just a huge mistake. teenagers should not be parents. kids can't have kids. i dont care how "mature" any of them think they are, nobody whos a teenager is emotionally or mentally developed enough to take on having a child. Sorry, but I'm going to have to agree with Ruby. Yes, it's very true that a lot, let's even say the majority, of teens don't have the emotional or mental capacity to deal with a child full-time, but then I've come across my fair share of 'adults' (those aged 25+) who also just don't have the capability to be caring for a demanding infant, toddler or child either - and it's becoming more prevalent in this age where the 'me me me' generation is growing up, putting off marriage because they want 'their own lives' and having kids when it's too late for them to adjust to living for another person other than themselves. It's the way they've been raised, to be completely selfish and self-absorbed, and therefore I can't take your statement as valid because it's not just teens. Therefore, on the other hand, there are the few and far between teens who are more than capable of having children and raising them 'properly' at the age of, say, 17, just as there are many adults who are mentally and emotionally equipped to deal with the upheavals.
LaughingToLeave Jazz Hands Age: 34 Gender: Female Posts: 328	April 21st, 2007 at 01:17pm Completely againt that. Teenagers r still sort od kids, they don't need their own kids. Whole life is in front of them and there's no reason to spend it trying to ensure good life to some1 when u can't even ensure it for urself. First make some posibilities for urself and then get marry and share that posibilities with ur kid.
Macabre_girl Killjoy Age: - Gender: Female Posts: 3	April 21st, 2007 at 04:01pm I agree that seventeen year olds should not be having children because it can compleatly wreck their future. They wold not be able to get a propper job because of maturnaty leave and looking after the child once it has been born but it also would make getting an education almost imposible.
Cigarettes And Suicide Bleeding on the Floor Age: 37 Gender: Female Posts: 1725	April 22nd, 2007 at 12:49am Macabre_girl: I agree that seventeen year olds should not be having children because it can compleatly wreck their future. They wold not be able to get a propper job because of maturnaty leave and looking after the child once it has been born but it also would make getting an education almost imposible. This kind of statement irritates me, but perhaps it's more symptomatic of American society - in Australia, you don't have to go to college to make a decent living for yourself. You don't have to remain childless until the age of 30 to be successful. Education counts for a lot, but graduating high school is enough to get you a decent-paying job until you move up the ranks or go to university (and pay for it later with the HECS scheme) or TAFE and get degrees to get a better job. And having a child in no way prohibits a woman getting out and earning money - maternity leave is only applicable in Australia if you've been in your current job more than 12 months, and even if you haven't, you always have the option of putting your baby in day care or leaving it with a sitter so you can go back to work as soon as the doctor says you're okay to, or as soon as you want to. So, if that is your argument for teens not having kids, then it should apply to adults as well - how many 30-year-olds do you know, who have kids and never work again? A few, granted, but the majority are so career-obsessed that they're back at work before the baby's first birthday - and I was just reading in one of my baby magazines the other day that nearly 87% of women are back in full-time work before their child is twelve months old. Why should teens be any different? In America, perhaps, but in Australia this argument simply doesn't wash with me. It's much easier for a young person to go on to further training or study and then into fulltime work, than an older person, so having a baby doesn't impact on that. A friend of mine who fell pregnant at seventeen (or maybe it was sixteen, either way) is a single mum and has worked fulltime since her daughter was a few months old. At one point, she was working two jobs, one an office job and then evening shifts tending bar at a restaurant, and her daughter spent daytime hours at childcare and the evening hours with her grandmother, and there was never a problem. She may not be a brain surgeon or lawyer, but she makes a very comfortable living, is a single mother, and enjoys every second of her life - not bad for a high-school dropout!
asha shake. Devil's Got Your Number Age: 35 Gender: Female Posts: 36414	April 22nd, 2007 at 04:08am Also, in addition to the university thing, you only have to start paying off your fees once you earn over a certain amount, so you can actually afford to have a child before/during/after you have been to uni. There are plenty of avenues that teenagers who fall pregnant can take so that they can still be 'educated'. One of my friends had a baby when she was 17, and she wanted to continue going to school so that she could graduate. She took a bit of time off when her baby was born, but a few months later she was back at school (doing pathways, which means she only goes to school 2 days a week, but she has to go for an extra year). My sister fell pregnant when she was 16, and she dropped out of school straight away, but she then enrolled in Tafe, in a course that she absolutely loves. She's doing it by correspondance so that she gets to stay home and look after her baby.
Ceiling Gerard Awake and Unafraid Age: 35 Gender: Female Posts: 14232	April 22nd, 2007 at 06:51am Cigarettes And Suicide: Macabre_girl: I agree that seventeen year olds should not be having children because it can compleatly wreck their future. They wold not be able to get a propper job because of maturnaty leave and looking after the child once it has been born but it also would make getting an education almost imposible. This kind of statement irritates me, but perhaps it's more symptomatic of American society - in Australia, you don't have to go to college to make a decent living for yourself. You don't have to remain childless until the age of 30 to be successful. Education counts for a lot, but graduating high school is enough to get you a decent-paying job until you move up the ranks or go to university (and pay for it later with the HECS scheme) or TAFE and get degrees to get a better job. And having a child in no way prohibits a woman getting out and earning money - maternity leave is only applicable in Australia if you've been in your current job more than 12 months, and even if you haven't, you always have the option of putting your baby in day care or leaving it with a sitter so you can go back to work as soon as the doctor says you're okay to, or as soon as you want to. So, if that is your argument for teens not having kids, then it should apply to adults as well - how many 30-year-olds do you know, who have kids and never work again? A few, granted, but the majority are so career-obsessed that they're back at work before the baby's first birthday - and I was just reading in one of my baby magazines the other day that nearly 87% of women are back in full-time work before their child is twelve months old. Why should teens be any different? In America, perhaps, but in Australia this argument simply doesn't wash with me. It's much easier for a young person to go on to further training or study and then into fulltime work, than an older person, so having a baby doesn't impact on that. A friend of mine who fell pregnant at seventeen (or maybe it was sixteen, either way) is a single mum and has worked fulltime since her daughter was a few months old. At one point, she was working two jobs, one an office job and then evening shifts tending bar at a restaurant, and her daughter spent daytime hours at childcare and the evening hours with her grandmother, and there was never a problem. She may not be a brain surgeon or lawyer, but she makes a very comfortable living, is a single mother, and enjoys every second of her life - not bad for a high-school dropout! Yeah in American it's a little different. You need two years of College to pick up garbage off the street. My mom, when she had my older sister, had to drop out of school to be able to balance a job and raising her daughter. You to build up a successful career in some fields you have to be working a while. My sister's assistent at her job wasn't too pleased when she found out she was pregnant because it would screw up her chances to advance in the job (America is fucked up in alot of ways when it comes to maternity leave -_- So I think she was basising her argument on that. Yes, here, getting pregnant at 17 if you don't have a support family could screw up your dreams. Mind you, COULD, if you have enough drive and spirit, your dreams won't be dashed just because you got pregnant. The only thing you can't do is travel alot, which IMO is important before settling down and raising kids.
black dahlia Salute You in Your Grave Age: 35 Gender: Female Posts: 3216	April 29th, 2007 at 06:07pm b There is nothing wrong with having a child at sixteen or seventeen, if you have your own home and a steady income and are able to take good care of yourself and your child should the guy run away with his dick between his legs (and don't tell me it doesn't happen). The fact is, though, very few teenagers have their own homes or a steady income. All of the pregnant girls I know don't. None of them have even made it through high school yet. True, you can go to school, work, and take care of a child at the same time, but why would you put yourself through that kind of stress? You're SIXTEEN. The only thing you should be worried about is what you're going to wear when you go out. Seriously, people. Sex will be there. Boys will be there. I know some people are in a hurry to grow up, but SLOW DOWN. Be a kid, because being an adult sucks.
Cigarettes And Suicide Bleeding on the Floor Age: 37 Gender: Female Posts: 1725	April 29th, 2007 at 06:42pm Jenni Colon Sexy Bac: Yeah in American it's a little different. You need two years of College to pick up garbage off the street. My mom, when she had my older sister, had to drop out of school to be able to balance a job and raising her daughter. You to build up a successful career in some fields you have to be working a while. My sister's assistent at her job wasn't too pleased when she found out she was pregnant because it would screw up her chances to advance in the job (America is fucked up in alot of ways when it comes to maternity leave -_- So I think she was basing her argument on that. Yes, here, getting pregnant at 17 if you don't have a support family could screw up your dreams. Mind you, COULD, if you have enough drive and spirit, your dreams won't be dashed just because you got pregnant. The only thing you can't do is travel alot, which IMO is important before settling down and raising kids. Lol America sucks ass... although I do believe that your first statement may have been a slight exaggeration to illustrate your point, but still, I can understand where you're coming from because I watch a lot of American TV shows and everything involving teens/young adults is 'OMG I have to get into college or I may as well just go out and diiiiieeee!!!' (The OC etc). I personally don't see why travel is such an important thing, really. I've never left the state I was born in (which, by US standards, is pretty huge, though), and I have very little to no desire to spend thousands of hard-earned dollars on going to some filthy foreign country with weird customs, odd food, rude people and a language I can't speak. Even if I went somewhere 'civilized', say Britain or the US, I'd still constantly be afraid of, say, undertipping a waitress and causing offence or some other stupid thing like that, because I don't have to do it in my country. And even if I didn't screw up or manage to get my ass arrested for an innocent mistake, I'd still be pissed as hell that, hey, that $10 thousand dollars I spent on plane tickets and hotel rooms could have bought me a brand new car! Goddamnit! I just don't understand why, with today's technology, people can't be happy with simply switching on the TV or computer and practically touring Europe from the comfort of their living room. And why the need to travel the world should outweigh a person's desire to have babies and raise them to be the future of the planet. Maybe I'm just super old-fashioned like that, but to me, having children is far more important than having a photo album full of pics of my world travels. My day-to-day life travels are far more meaningful than a holiday. Of course, that's not to say that I'm agreeing totally with teen pregnancy. It's just that I get a lot of 'sympathy' from people who are like, 'Ohh, you poor thing, having a baby so young - you'll never get to travel overseas' etc. My reply to them is 'Why in hell would I want to? My life is here, my family is here and the Asians do a fine tourist trade without my custom.'
mcr_4ever Joining The Black Parade Age: 31 Gender: Female Posts: 227	April 29th, 2007 at 07:16pm it's true teen pregnancy is the dumbest thing u could do.........it's their fault for having sex.....and yes i think they should give the babies up for adoption
druscilla. Bleeding on the Floor Age: 36 Gender: Female Posts: 1671	April 29th, 2007 at 08:08pm mcr_4ever: it's true teen pregnancy is the dumbest thing u could do.........it's their fault for having sex.....and yes i think they should give the babies up for adoption Why should anyone be forced to give their child up for adoption. Yes, I think teenagers should practice safe sex, but if they want their child and can give it what it needs they shouldn't be forced to give their child up.
Cigarettes And Suicide Bleeding on the Floor Age: 37 Gender: Female Posts: 1725	April 29th, 2007 at 08:27pm mcr_4ever: it's true teen pregnancy is the dumbest thing u could do.........it's their fault for having sex.....and yes i think they should give the babies up for adoption Sorry. My head reels. How would you feel if you found out that you'd been given up for adoption because your mum was a teenager when she had you? You'd feel betrayed. Disgusted. Unwanted. You'd hate yourself. You'd wonder what you'd done to make your mother not want to keep you. You'd wonder what kind of woman could possibly hand over a baby to a stranger and cut off all ties with it. You'd be devastated. I vehemently disagree with the ideal of forced adoption (ie parents forcing their unwed children to hand over their babies because it 'shames the family' etc). I don't feel that anybody has the right to dictate to a mother what she should do with her own flesh and blood. I also don't believe in giving up babies because the mother isn't in the absolute best position to be raising a child - sure, their life may be hard, but they will at least have a family who is their own blood. Just as I don't agree with governments and churches dictating what women can do with their own bodies as far as abortion goes (yes, I'm totally pro-choice - make your own decisions, nobody has the right to tell you that a foetus is more important than you), I also don't agree with anybody forcing mothers to do something they don't want to do. I don't mean to offend you, because it may be a symptom of your religious beliefs or how your parents raised you, but claiming that teen mothers should be forced to hand over their baby and never see it again is a horrible stance. It's cold, and unsympathetic, and narrow-minded. Teens have just as much right to be in their child's life as a married woman of 30, and nobody should be able to tell them any different. If a teen has a baby, you can guarantee she's got enough problems to worry about without some naive do-gooder telling her she's an idiot for not giving the child away and forgetting she ever got pregnant.
operator sex. Fabulous Killjoy Age: - Gender: Female Posts: 118	April 30th, 2007 at 01:43pm i think it is the funnest way to live. live fast, die young. i have 2 kids and one on the way :S
druscilla. Bleeding on the Floor Age: 36 Gender: Female Posts: 1671	April 30th, 2007 at 03:42pm ^ So the funnest way to live is to have a harder future? The funnest way to live is to probably have difficulty supporting your children? The funnest way to live is to be irresponsible? Call me pathetic, but I want to be financially and emotionally able to have kids. Of course, what do I know?
Meeshell Awake and Unafraid Age: 30 Gender: Female Posts: 10166	April 30th, 2007 at 05:56pm i disagree with those who say the teen needs to take care of the child instead of 'taking the easy way out' with adoption, bc if its best for the kid to be adopted, then thats what they should do. but overall, i dont like sex before marriage(call me oldschool) so teen pregnancy? out of the ? but i dont judge those who do get pregnant, just bc its not for me doesnt mean i, or anyone else, has the right to make that decision for anyone else...
Cigarettes And Suicide Bleeding on the Floor Age: 37 Gender: Female Posts: 1725	April 30th, 2007 at 06:46pm i miss u so far: i disagree with those who say the teen needs to take care of the child instead of 'taking the easy way out' with adoption, bc if its best for the kid to be adopted, then thats what they should do. but overall, i dont like sex before marriage(call me oldschool) so teen pregnancy? out of the ? but i dont judge those who do get pregnant, just bc its not for me doesnt mean i, or anyone else, has the right to make that decision for anyone else... Adoption is by no means 'taking the easy way out'. It's heartwrenching, horrific, and there's a huge grieving process involved. That's why I don't support adoption unless it is the mother's decision, and she has made up her own mind without outside influence apart from qualified counselling. How do you define what is 'best' for a child? Guaranteed financial stability? Or a loving biological mother who, though she may struggle to provide, is determined to make things work for her and her baby? In my opinion, people are far too shallow and base everything around money-money-money. Life is not about money, it's about experience, it's about sharing love, it's about learning an caring and growing and going through hardships to become a better person and know how to avoid mistakes next time around. I'm due to give birth in a few months, and do you know how much money I have in the bank? Just over $500. That's all. I'm putting money away every week, but by no means am I financially 'secure' as far as everyone else concerned. My husband works, but I lost my job when they found out I was pregnant and I haven't been able to contribute to our savings for months now. I just don't think that having hundreds of thousands of dollars to lavish on a child is necessarily the right thing to do. Yes, security is important, but teaching a child the value of a dollar and to earn what they get, rather than just getting given everything, is better for them than to raise them to be spoiled brats. I support teens who decide to do it hard and are determined to stick with their decision - they made the choice to lay down and act like an adult, so they should have to follow through with that and make things work, rather than just hand over a baby to someone who isn't its family and forget they ever had it.

Options
Go back to top