Oh yeah, I'm SURE teen pregnancies are only from girls who want to have babies. Yeah fucking right, every girl that was pregnant in my high school said it was an accident. An unwanted accident.

High educated about contraceptives? I had girls in high school who asked me things such as "Can I get pregnant from swallowing?" or said that they thought they were COMPLETELY safe from pregnancy because whoever they are having sex with is using the pull-out method. Pathetic.

Oh yeah, I'm SURE teen pregnancies are only from girls who want to have babies. Yeah fucking right, every girl that was pregnant in my high school said it was an accident. An unwanted accident.

High educated about contraceptives? I had girls in high school who asked me things such as "Can I get pregnant from swallowing?" or said that they thought they were COMPLETELY safe from pregnancy because whoever they are having sex with is using the pull-out method. Pathetic.

Between this, Sherri Shephard's comment about Christianity coming before all, and the whole Huckabee fiasco, I worry for the future of this country. Who the fuck thought we'd be moving so far backwards in the 21st Century?

Mr. Rector said that most young women who became pregnant were highly educated about contraceptives but wanted to have babies.

How can they be "highly educated" when they're receiving abstinence-only education?

I'm sorry, but the high hilarity for me comes from the finding surprised scholars. Really? It did? "Scholars" were surprised to find out that when the government spends almost $200 million on suppressing the truth about the way the reproductive system works horny teenagers wind up with more babies? I KNOW, IT'S A SHOCKER!

Also, good to see the right-wing rhetoric of only bad girls get pregnant carried through to they wanted to have babies. Yeah, you know how it is with those Welfare Queen Hoes!

"Mr. Rector of the Heritage Foundation said that teenage and unmarried birth rates were driven by the same factors: young women with little education who are devoted to mothering but see no great need to be married."

So wait, are they highly educated about contraceptives or what? It seems rather contradictory to describe teen mothers as both lacking in education AND highly educated about contraceptives. Oh wait, these people are insane.

PS. I'm really excited about feministing expansion

"Mr. Rector of the Heritage Foundation said that teenage and unmarried birth rates were driven by the same factors: young women with little education who are devoted to mothering but see no great need to be married."

So wait, are they highly educated about contraceptives or what? It seems rather contradictory to describe teen mothers as both lacking in education AND highly educated about contraceptives. Oh wait, these people are insane.

PS. I'm really excited about feministing expansion

One has to wonder: assuming that what Mr. Rector says is correct, is the fact that young women with little education are highly educated about birth control a success or a failure of the abstinence only programs?

The other thing is that Ms. Rector is innumerate, as befit a think-tanker. It is irrelevant that the social profile of most of the teen mothers did not change in the last, say, 10 years. We are discussing what did change, not what did not. So was the trend of poor teen girls getting more education and seening bigger need to be married (I presume, since the trend was of decreasing birth rate) at last succesfully reversed?

It is actually statistically possible that only 10% of girls were affected by "abstinence only education" and the birth rate in that group jumped by 30%, explaining only 3% of the total birth -- but the entire change.

(Actually, these guys typically know how to count, but you can figure it out only by the frequency of errors in their favor).

"...most young women who became pregnant were highly educated about contraceptives but wanted to have babies" -- So their primary motivation for having sex is to get pregnant? They're actually quite in line with ultra-conservative thinking: sex is for procreation, not for fun :-)

From the article: "teenage sex rates have risen since 2001 and condom use has dropped since 2003. Abortion rates have held steady for a decade, although numbers from 2005 and 2006 are not available."

The increase was highers among Black girls, which had the largest drop in earlier years, but there was some among Hispanic and White.

One factor sited may be most important: decrease of fear of AIDS, which for a number of years was driving down sexual activity and up the rate of condom use, and down the birth rate The most favorable conjecture one can make about abstinence programs is that they do not help. Boondogle and lying to kids.

"...most young women who became pregnant were highly educated about contraceptives but wanted to have babies" -- So their primary motivation for having sex is to get pregnant? They're actually quite in line with ultra-conservative thinking: sex is for procreation, not for fun :-)

Sorry about the double post, it told me there was an error...

"...most young women who became pregnant were highly educated about contraceptives but wanted to have babies" -- So their primary motivation for having sex is to get pregnant? They're actually quite in line with ultra-conservative thinking: sex is for procreation, not for fun :-)

I would bet money that Mr. Rector knows absolutely nothing about any of the girls involved in the increase or any girls who have had children while they were teenagers, and when he heard the rates were going up, he thought, "Well, all women want babies, and if we tell them how to make babies, they'll go out and make them as soon as possible!" Which, you know, is a totally valid and scientific way of analyzing results. *eyeroll*

"So wait, are they highly educated about contraceptives or what? It seems rather contradictory to describe teen mothers as both lacking in education AND highly educated about contraceptives. Oh wait, these people are insane."

It seems so me that there is really very little connection between the street smarts that would enable contraception education and the kind of academic education that he is talking about when he refers to girls who are "lacking in education"

You are all being very flip about a topic that is more complex than you seem to want to admit. I hate to say it-- because I loathe the Heritage Foundation-- but what they are saying has some basis in reality.

Adolescents become pregnant when they are (1) not doing well in school and (2) are living in poverty and see no reason to wait to become parents.

They are NOT becoming pregnant-for the most part-because sex ed programs have failed them. A lot of them DO become parents because they (or their abusive/manipulative/older-- pick one, they're all good--boyfriends) want to. They are reckless because, for many poor women/girls, becoming a mother at 16 isn't the end of the world. It's normalized in their communities.

You people should be riling yourselves up about poverty and not this 3% increase that you magically link to abstinence only (non)education. Maybe the 3% increase is a result of this economic depression we're sliding into?

Excuse me while I go scream into a pillow.

"Mr. Rector of the Heritage Foundation said that teenage and unmarried birth rates were driven by the same factors: young women with little education who are devoted to mothering but see no great need to be married."

As if the teenage birth rate includes no wives who are 19, 18, or younger?

As if the unmarried birth rate includes no 30somethings and 40somethings with higher education who are devoted to mothering, happen to not have partners whom they can marry and love enough to marry, and see no great need to settle for arranged marriage (or beg for arranged marriage, if their families don't have that tradition)...

"They are NOT becoming pregnant-for the most part-because sex ed programs have failed them. A lot of them DO become parents because they (or their abusive/manipulative/older-- pick one, they're all good--boyfriends) want to. They are reckless because, for many poor women/girls, becoming a mother at 16 isn't the end of the world. It's normalized in their communities."

Good points there too.

I've also heard someone claim "she might as well marry now that she's done with school" *both* about a girl who finished high school with no college plans *and* about a woman who finished grad school with no postdoc plans.

How many parents out there have *that* attitude?

I am always disturbed by these kinds of statistics because they tend to reinforce that becoming pregnant as a teenager is necessarily horrible and shameful.

frijolera, I'm having a hard time holding back my anger and frustration at your comments, which is making it difficult for me to compose a well thought out response. So, I will be brief . . . You seem to be asserting that there is a particular culture of poverty in which teenage pregnancy is more acceptable; where is your proof? Furthermore, contrary to what you might think, poor teenage girls aren't the only one's who get pregnant. Women of all backgrounds, classes, races, etc. sometimes get pregnant. Sometimes smart educated women to do. It certainly makes more sense to me to make the link between pregnancy and poverty not the basis of perceived cultural mores, but rather on education and opportunity.

Lastly, in case you were wondering you don't get to tell me what I should or should not "rile myself up" about.

I am always disturbed by these kinds of statistics because they tend to reinforce that becoming pregnant as a teenager is necessarily horrible and shameful.

frijolera, I'm having a hard time holding back my anger and frustration at your comments, which is making it difficult for me to compose a well thought out response. So, I will be brief . . . You seem to be asserting that there is a particular culture of poverty in which teenage pregnancy is more acceptable; where is your proof? Furthermore, contrary to what you might think, poor teenage girls aren't the only one's who get pregnant. Women of all backgrounds, classes, races, etc. sometimes get pregnant. Sometimes smart educated women to do. It certainly makes more sense to me to make the link between pregnancy and poverty not the basis of perceived cultural mores, but rather on education and opportunity.

Lastly, in case you were wondering you don't get to tell me what I should or should not "rile myself up" about and I don't appreciate being referred to as "you people."

frijolera: Even if your statements were true, if we taught poorer teenagers about safe sex and the economic stress of having children, they would be less likely to have children on the grounds that they know it will cost them a lot of money that they don't have.

Women living in poverty often have more children because of lack of information and inability to afford birth control, and sometimes financial or emotional dependency on partner who wants proof of their fertility (Not universal, but VERY common). However, if they had access to better education programs and BC was cheap/free, many would use BC until they could get a job.

That said-- clearly you do not know many people who had children as teenagers. Most do describe it as an accident, due to techniques like withdrawal or skipping pills or not understanding that you can get pregnant while you have your period/ while standing up/ if you shower right after/ whatever. Go out, talk to some real-life teen moms, and find out for yourself. Then you can start spouting nonsense about how it's because they "see no reason to wait to become parents." Besides, by your logic, that cheerleader with the BMW in my rich white community should NEVER have been pregnant her senior year; what's more, she wouldn't have complained loudly about how you're not supposed to be able to get pregnant if you have sex in a hot tub.

And afishnamedpig, while I agree with you on some points, I have to ask-- under what circumstances would having a child in high school NOT be a bad thing? Most teen moms either have to drop out to take care of the kid, rely on their parents for much longer than they might otherwise, or struggle to juggle school, work, and childcare. Their options are severely limited and they often have to fight for child support from the father of the child, because they haven't the education at that point in their life to get a good job.

We shouldn't blame the girls (blame education), and it shouldn't be shameful, but I would say that for a high schooler, having a baby is pretty damn horrible.

They are NOT becoming pregnant-for the most part-because sex ed programs have failed them. A lot of them DO become parents because they (or their abusive/manipulative/older-- pick one, they're all good--boyfriends) want to. They are reckless because, for many poor women/girls, becoming a mother at 16 isn't the end of the world. It's normalized in their communities."

On some level you are right, but I still resent it. Katherine Edin ("Promises I Can Keep") basically wrote a book that softly tried to show--these women don't give a f*ck. Forgive me for being harsh, but there was nothing in the book that convinced me these uneducated poor mothers were making good decisions--they were ENFORCING generational poverty. The same difficulties THEY experienced as adolescents in shitty, poor neighborhoods would be passed on to THEIR miserable kids.

There was no incentive to plan or take responsibility for the consequences of sex (and boy, don't get me started on the behavior of alot of men in these situations).

These women DID know how to use condoms, but didn't give a shit--stopped using them when they thought they were in a "monogamous" relationship. I have talked to girls who have done as much--one of them used condoms for ORAL sex, in addition to vaginal, then, by 18, didn't care anymore, got an abortion, and when I asked her if she could get an abortion again, she said no...but she is NOT USING CONDOMS. Or birth control. SHE DOESN'T CARE.

It was all I could do not to shake her...I don't have words for the resentment I feel. I'm sorry, I know I might be devils advocate here, but if having a child is an enormous commitment...am I supposed to feel okay about people who don't even TRY to use birth control (and can't support 75% of their kids' emotional/financial needs)? How many women get knocked up b/c their form of birth control fails, or they slip up once?

Education could at least create a culture that promotes birth control and a more responsible view of sex and relationships...but that would scandalize America today. You could include abstinence in the discussion, talks about date rape/rape and self-respect within couples...a whole range of topics.

Not going to happen.

I weep for the present, and I dread the future.

They are NOT becoming pregnant-for the most part-because sex ed programs have failed them. A lot of them DO become parents because they (or their abusive/manipulative/older-- pick one, they're all good--boyfriends) want to. They are reckless because, for many poor women/girls, becoming a mother at 16 isn't the end of the world. It's normalized in their communities."

On some level you are right, but I still resent it. Katherine Edin ("Promises I Can Keep") basically wrote a book that softly tried to show--these women don't give a f*ck. Forgive me for being harsh, but there was nothing in the book that convinced me these uneducated poor mothers were making good decisions--they were ENFORCING generational poverty. The same difficulties THEY experienced as adolescents in shitty, poor neighborhoods would be passed on to THEIR miserable kids.

There was no incentive to plan or take responsibility for the consequences of sex (and boy, don't get me started on the behavior of alot of men in these situations).

These women DID know how to use condoms, but didn't give a shit--stopped using them when they thought they were in a "monogamous" relationship. I have talked to girls who have done as much--one of them used condoms for ORAL sex, in addition to vaginal, then, by 18, didn't care anymore, got an abortion, and when I asked her if she could get an abortion again, she said no...but she is NOT USING CONDOMS. Or birth control. SHE DOESN'T CARE.

It was all I could do not to shake her...I don't have words for the resentment I feel. I'm sorry, I know I might be devils advocate here, but if having a child is an enormous commitment...am I supposed to feel okay about people who don't even TRY to use birth control (and can't support 75% of their kids' emotional/financial needs)? How many women get knocked up b/c their form of birth control fails, or they slip up once?

Education could at least create a culture that promotes birth control and a more responsible view of sex and relationships...but that would scandalize America today. You could include abstinence in the discussion, talks about date rape/rape and self-respect within couples...a whole range of topics.

Not going to happen.

I weep for the present, and I dread the future.

So what would it take for them for them to realize "abstinence only" is a lost cause?

So what would it take for them for them to realize "abstinence only" is a lost cause if rising teen pregnancies doesn't?

So what would it take for them for them to realize "abstinence only" is a lost cause if rising teen pregnancies doesn't?

So what would it take for them for them to realize "abstinence only" is a lost cause if rising teen pregnancies doesn't?

"So what would it take for them for them to realize "abstinence only" is a lost cause if rising teen pregnancies doesn't?"

Common sense, common decency, and perhaps a good old fashioned kick in the ass.

Frijolera, one of my friends got pregnant last year because she thought that if she only had sex once a month she wouldn't get pregnant. She comes from a white, upper-middle class family. It's not just poor women that get pregnant. And I can guarantee you that she most certainly DID give a shit that she was pregnant at 17, and was trying to prevent pregnancy in the best way she knew how, and failed because she was given the wrong information about which birth control methods are the most effective. Why do you think America has the highest teen birth rate in the industrialized world?

As for Mr. Rector, if wants to ask my friend, or her boyfriend for that matter, if they knew about birth control but just couldn't wait to be parents at 17, he should give them a call and ask them sometime. I don't think their answer will be quite what he'd hoped for though.

These people should take of survey, see how many teenagers got pregnant by accident because they didn't know about contraception. That should eliminate at least a small number of stupid responses like that.
And if people honestly believe that 16-year olds get pregnant on purpose in such large numbers they really ought to amend sex ed to address that issue. Some psychological counseling might not be out of order.

Meanwhile, I just realized two more things about "unmarried birth rates":

1) I heard that some of these studies count babies whose parents have different surnames as "born out of wedlock," even if the mother did marry the father and kept her maiden name. Is this true?

2) What about women who have wives and give birth (whether they got married in Massachusetts, had weddings in states which don't officially recognize same-sex marriage, or whatever)?

Rector is a STUPID asswipe. Relatively godless Europe has much lower rates of teenage pregnancy.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/peo_tee_bir_rat-people-teenage-birth-rate

Notice that at the time of the survey, France had a rate five times lower than the U.S.

Even so, this year France, with a new "conservative" government, plans to have condom machines in ALL high schools by the end of the year.

Both in high school and junior high school girls can get the morning-after pill for free from the school nurse.

There is a very large consensus on these programs in France.

Rector is a STUPID asswipe. Relatively godless Europe has much lower rates of teenage pregnancy.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/peo_tee_bir_rat-people-teenage-birth-rate

Notice that at the time of the survey, France had a rate five times lower than the U.S.

Even so, this year France, with a new "conservative" government, plans to have condom machines in ALL high schools by the end of the year.

Both in high school and junior high school girls can get the morning-after pill for free from the school nurse.

There is a very large consensus on these programs in France.

Rector is a STUPID asswipe. Relatively godless Europe has much lower rates of teenage pregnancy.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/peo_tee_bir_rat-people-teenage-birth-rate

Notice that at the time of the survey, France had a rate five times lower than the U.S.

Even so, this year France, with a new "conservative" government, plans to have condom machines in ALL high schools by the end of the year.

Both in high school and junior high school girls can get the morning-after pill for free from the school nurse.

There is a very large consensus on these programs in France.

Is abstinence-only education to blame for the rise in teen pregnancy? I think abstinence-only education is nutty and doesn’t do justice to our nation’s youth. And I’m firmly pro-choice, although my own decisions could be interpreted as pro-life. But I think it begs credulity that these teenagers who get pregnant are simply unaware of how reproduction works. You really think this is possible in our sex-saturated society where even early-teen sexualization has become mainstream? I’m a feminist and absolutely *love* your website, but this is where your views of feminism rub me the wrong way. This might be wishful thinking, but I think we might be experiencing a grown-up version of feminism, where more women—or teenagers— forgo adoption of their own will and either accept their unwanted pregnancies and go on with life, or put them up for adoption. After all, it seems that nothing is cooler in Hollywood nowadays than to be pregnant—Knocked Up and Juno, recently, come to mind. No doubt this glorification of pregnancy seeps into the general psyche.
I’d particularly like to get your take on Juno. The script is from very-much feminist Diablo Cody, who recently said in the LAtimes she’s taking it upon herself to stand up to the patriarchy and create strong roles for women in Hollywood. The character of Juno in Juno is very-much the version of feminist that I’d like to see more of. Is feminism not about complete self-actualization, in every sense of the female, which in my opinion also entails refusing to accept the patriarchal notion that accidental pregnancies are shameful and humiliating, and *unwanted*. Without socialization, and aside from rape, is an accidental pregnancy that unwanted in itself? It’s life, and beautiful, and I’d hope that a mature feminist would take it in stride and make the best of it. And maybe I’m putting too much faith in today’s teenagers, but just maybe this is what’s happening.

Is abstinence-only education to blame for the rise in teen pregnancy? I think abstinence-only education is nutty and doesn’t do justice to our nation’s youth. And I’m firmly pro-choice, although my own decisions could be interpreted as pro-life. But I think it begs credulity that these teenagers who get pregnant are simply unaware of how reproduction works. You really think this is possible in our sex-saturated society where even early-teen sexualization has become mainstream? I’m a feminist and absolutely *love* your website, but this is where your views of feminism rub me the wrong way. This might be wishful thinking, but I think we might be experiencing a grown-up version of feminism, where more women—or teenagers— forgo adoption of their own will and either accept their unwanted pregnancies and go on with life, or put them up for adoption. After all, it seems that nothing is cooler in Hollywood nowadays than to be pregnant—Knocked Up and Juno, recently, come to mind. No doubt this glorification of pregnancy seeps into the general psyche.
I’d particularly like to get your take on Juno. The script is from very-much feminist Diablo Cody, who recently said in the LAtimes she’s taking it upon herself to stand up to the patriarchy and create strong roles for women in Hollywood. The character of Juno in Juno is very-much the version of feminist that I’d like to see more of. Is feminism not about complete self-actualization, in every sense of the female, which also entails refusing to accept the patricarchical notion that accidental pregnancies are shameful and humiliating, or *unwanted*. Without socialization, and aside from rape, is an accidental pregnancy that unwanted in itself? It’s life, and beautiful, and I’d hope that a mature feminist would take it in stride and make the best of it. And maybe I’m putting too much faith in today’s teenagers, but just maybe this is what’s happening.

I think it's easy when you're spending a lot of time on blogs like Feministing to realize how uneducated huge swaths of the public can be. My best friend from college finally buckled down and got her first prescription for birth control pills several months into a long-term relationship-- and then discovered she was pregnant. (The pills sat unopened and were a great source of amusement to her and her husband.) Another friend of mine used the 'pull-out' method for years (turns out she was infertile, so she never got a nasty surprise).

The plural of anecdote is not data, but I've been surprised to find ignorance about birth control and is methods among a lot of people I knew, and who I'd assumed "knew better."

I think teen girls have babies for a lot of reasons, but a culture that prizes abstinence, demonizes birth control, and treats teenage mothers who "choose life" as some kind of heroines is a serious factor.

From the article: Unmarried childbearing reached a record high in 2006, according to the disease control centers, with unmarried mothers now accounting for 38.5 percent of all births. Births among teenagers and unmarried women tend to lead to poor outcomes for their children.

THIS BUGS. I do not get why stats for "teenage mothers" and "unwed mothers" are always talked about in the same context, because THAT is what allows the Rector's of the world to rail against women who choose to have children without a married male partner. THEY ARE DIFFERENT SCENARIOS. It bugs the living HELL out of me that my friend, a lesbian with a life partner, is included in the statistic of "unwed mothers".

I don't understand exactly what part of the results suprised the "scholars": That kids we're having sex [WHO KNEW?!] or that they were getting pregnant [IMAGINE THAT?!] I, personally, would like to know who these alleged scholars are, because in my opinion if you are in any way scholarly this wouldn't come as so much a surprise but a painful prediction come true.

I mean, did they think kids would REALLY abstain from having sex [because ya know... society is totally UNsexualized and everything, and abstinence-only ed. TOTALLY delays sex and stufff.....] or did they think that kids who have unprotected sex [because remember... they're not telling them anything about condoms or contraceptives- it's keep your legs closed or go home!] would NOT become pregnant... I mean it's a scientific fact, sperm + egg = ferilization. Where is the mystery?

Sorry for the rant, but I am an avid comprehensive sex education supporter [the REAL act all the way!!] and this is just totally ridiculous. I mean honestly, how are they surprised? Can anyone tell me?

From CCSwiss: "Without socialization, and aside from rape, is an accidental pregnancy that unwanted in itself? It’s life, and beautiful, and I’d hope that a mature feminist would take it in stride and make the best of it."

This is annoying as all hell. Believe it or not, not every woman wants to be pregnant or wants to have children. For some of us, any pregnancy, no matter the circumstances, is going to be unwanted. It has nothing to do with being mature (as a feminist or in any other sense) and everything to do with that particular person's needs, personality, capabilities and plans.

It's dismissive and ridiculous to behave as if an unplanned pregnancy is something a woman can just shrug off and deal with without it having a major (and hugely disruptive) effect on her life, whether she chooses to put the baby up for adoption or keep it. Being pregnant is a really BIG DEAL, even in a planned pregnancy. Giving birth to a child is a really BIG DEAL. To act as if it isn't is just dumb.

There are women who want to be pregnant and give birth, and there are women who don't. You can't behave as if that distinction doesn't exist. And for those who don't...they aren't immature. They are, in fact, mature women who know themselves and know whether they are capable of dealing (physically, emotionally, psychologically, financially) with pregnancy and birth (and maybe raising a child). I say we give them credit for knowing their capabilities and not just trying to "make the best of it" when doing so could very well ruin their lives and severely shortchange whatever children they might bring into the world.

Robert Rector, a senior research fellow with the Heritage Foundation, said that blaming abstinence-only programs was “stupid.� Mr. Rector said that most young women who became pregnant were highly educated about contraceptives but wanted to have babies.

Wait a minute...so the guy who advocates for abstinence-only sex ed (which means NO mention of contraceptives except for their failure rate) is claiming that young women are actually educated about contraception, and therefore, could avoid an unwanted pregnancy if they wanted to? Besides the fact that this is a completely impossible contradiction (as certain posters already pointed out) he is also, in effect, actually acknowledging that contraceptives and education about contraceptives are effective in preventing unwanted pregnancies - which is a point his organization likes to claim isn't true.

FACE!

Kimmy: I know that not every woman wants to be pregnant and have a baby, but that's life. I agree with you that pregnancy and having a child is a really BIG deal, that's precisely why I think that nipping it in the bud and pretending it never happened is a BIG deal, and could be much more maturely handled through adoption. As to physically handling pregnancy, I think that’s a pretty poor argument.
The last part of your post seems to ignore the possibility of adoption for accidental pregnancies. I believe there's an ugly truth behind this line of reasoning—selfishness and cowardice. It's fine if you don't want it, and I agree *mature* to realize you're not capable of raising it. But I believe cowardice and immaturity comes in when you refuse to confront the reality of having produced another human with the consequences being to raise it to the best of your ability, or to deal with the wrenching reality of giving your baby away. Neither are pretty, but that's life and what I consider to be the most mature and truly feminist responses. Copping out by sweeping it under the rug and ignoring there was ever a human being is not mature or feminist—it’s selfish and cowardly.

I think we might be experiencing a grown-up version of feminism,

Why would you think that carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term is more "grown-up" than having an abortion? A woman who has an abortion is indeed making the best of her situation. She is assessing her capacities and her desires and taking an active role in shaping her life. She is examining the physical consequences of pregnancy and deciding whether or not she is up for them.

the patricarchical notion that accidental pregnancies are shameful and humiliating, or *unwanted*....is an accidental pregnancy that unwanted in itself?

I don't understand this question. Throughout human history, we have sought ways to have sex without getting pregnant. The answer is yes. If it weren't unwanted, it wouldn't be an accident. How on earth is the idea that women don't want to be constantly pregnant, that we don't want to have live in fear of our own sexuality, that we don't necessarily want to have a baby every time we have sex patriarchal? If you take a look at patriarchal rhetoric and history, you'll see exactly the opposite: patriarchal rhetoric insists that all women want to be mothers and patriarchal action denies us the capacity to make that choice.

You seem to think of pregnancy as only a happy, life-affirming event. Are you really so ignorant as to be unaware of the toll it takes on a woman's body? As to the restrictions that are placed on the kinds of medications that we can take when pregnant? Are those of us with asthma, epilepsy, depression, other chronic illnesses supposed to "welcome" the need to go off the medications that keep us alive and able to fully partake of life?

You claim that it's unrealistic to say that any teenagers could be unaware of the relationship between pregnancy and sex, but you yourself seem remarkably unaware of the physical reality of pregnancy and childbirth.

Why on earth would you think that these stats are somehow reflective of teenage "maturity" (read: only selfish and childish women don't want to sacrifice their bodies and health in order to pump out babies) rather than lousy sex ed, restrictions on abortion, and the serious lack of abortion providers in this country?

CCSwiss,

EG has beautifully covered many of the physical realities of pregnancies. I'm glad you think it's a poor argument, but not everyone does.

And that's not counting the financial costs of being pregnant (doctor bills, time off work, the cost to deliver the child, more time off work, the possibility of losing your job if you have a difficult pregnancy, the cost of clothing, proper vitamins, and all the other incidental costs).

Then there's the emotional and psychological costs of being pregnant and giving birth, which you shrug off with a simple "That's life." How...callous of you, actually.

You'll not that I did not ignore adoption. At several points in my post I specified that my argument applied whether or not the woman chose to keep the child, and that keeping the child imposed additional burdens of all kinds (emotional, psychological, physical, and financial). So, yeah, way to pay attention.

You are like so many others who only see the bouncing baby at the end of a pregnancy, and forget what the reality of a pregnancy truly is. Particularly for a woman on her own, who must bear the costs and trials (of all sorts) on her own. It is not trivial thing to say a woman should go through a pregnancy, from any angle, and to say she is selfish and cowardly if she decides she can't or doesn't want to is the height of arrogance.

And you act as if giving away a baby you've given birth to is the same as giving away an unwanted kitten. Again, no empathy or understanding of the psychological costs involved.

Seems to me that the most mature thing a woman can do is take her total situation into account and make the best decision she can. In some cases that's going to be abortion. That doesn't make her selfish, or a coward. Instead, it makes her a mature and intelligent woman who knows what her current life situation is and how she can best keep from going off the rails completely.

Oh, I should also mention the many women who have aboritons in order to maintain quality of life for the children they already have. I guess you think they're being selfish and cowardly as well?

Kimmy is my hero, summed it up beautifully.

Until I am financially prepared to support all women who have unplanned pregnancies and all children born due to unplanned pregnancies- then I plan on keeping my trap shut about the "cost" and "maturity" of a decision like abortion.

And CCSwiss- glad you believe a conglomerate of cells is a baby, not everyone does. Isn't it great to live in America where a person's spiritual beliefs are allowed NOT to interfere with laws? Nifty, huh?

EG: maybe you didn’t read the question completely: “*without socialization*, and aside from rape, is an accidental pregnancy that unwanted in itself?� We’re socialized to think that it’s shameful to have an accidental pregnancy, and to be thought of as inhuman if we give our babies away- assuming it was socially acceptable to give away your baby to loving and capable parents—what exactly would be unwanted about your baby? I’m not saying you should want the baby! But it’s already happened! As you say, throughout history we have sought to find ways to avoid being pregnant all the time-- having one “on us and in us�… . Let’s be clear what we’re talking about-- I believe in contraception!! I’m talking about women who have gotten accidentally pregnant, when that happens-- and it will continue to happen even if we could get rid of poverty and lack of education—what is the best thing to do?
Have you ever been pregnant? Because I have, and while somewhat challenging, I can reassure you that our bodies have been designed for it and are remarkably resilient. And please, if your vanity can’t handle it, then maybe your mother should have had the same attitude! It’s a human being for christ’s sake we’re talking about- get over yourself!! As for meds and health, pardon me for thinking that this is really a miniscule fraction of the population, so just like in the case of rape, my argument should not apply- please don’t be facetious when trying to argue my main point.
And when contemplating abortion, you really think the person “ is examining the physical consequences of pregnancy and deciding whether or not she is up for them�?? I think it’s more like: �shit, what will people think? And how inconvenient…—that I’ve produced another human being—and what’s the quickest, easiest and comparatively painless way to deal with this, so *my* life can resume its course�

To clear things up- I'm an atheist and a social liberal- so sorry I don't fall into the right-wing pigeonhole! And you're right, an embryo is nothing like a baby- let the semantics fight begin. And biologists claim that cocoons are nothing like butterflies. Excuse for thinking I'm just rationally approaching this religisouly loaded debate.

To clear things up-- I'm an atheist and a social liberal-- so sorry I don't fall into the right-wing pigeonhole!
And you're right, an embryo is nothing like a baby. And biologists claim that cocoons are nothing like butterflies! Excuse me for just rationally approaching this religiously-loaded debate.

assuming it was socially acceptable to give away your baby to loving and capable parents—what exactly would be unwanted about your baby?

The pregnancy would be unwanted--you know, the physical toll it takes on women's bodies, the one you want to wave away just because you didn't have a problem with yours. Well, how nice for you. But--and stay with me on this one--you are not the world of women. There are many, many women who find that experience to be completely unacceptable. Who do not find the physical burden of pregnancy to be something that they can just wave away as unimportant.

You began by claiming that not wanting a pregnancy is patriarchal. Kimmy pointed out that plenty of women don't want pregnancies, and you responded with "that's life." That is not actually a "rational approach" to argument. Because you know what? Abortion is part of life too.

I’m talking about women who have gotten accidentally pregnant, when that happens-- and it will continue to happen even if we could get rid of poverty and lack of education—what is the best thing to do?

For some of them, having an abortion. For others, having a baby. You see, I'm not the one claiming that one choice is "selfish and cowardly." You are. And with those words you reveal your true colors. Anti-feminists have called women selfish whenever we have declined to sacrifice our bodies, our sexuality, our emotional and mental health for any reason whatsoever. How is it cowardly to face one's situation head-on, consider one's options, and take action?

And please, if your vanity can’t handle it, then maybe your mother should have had the same attitude!

Ah, well, that's a rational argument if ever I've heard one. I'm impressed.

As for meds and health, pardon me for thinking that this is really a miniscule fraction of the population, so just like in the case of rape, my argument should not apply- please don’t be facetious when trying to argue my main point.

You're mistaken if you think that the entire group of women who require some kind of chronic medication is "miniscule." I wasn't being facetious. I was being dead serious. But thanks--it's nice to know that you consider any mention of my life, my mother's life, my sister's life, my best friend's life, the lives of various other friends of mine mere tangents. But if you can't take our lives seriously, I definitely can't take your pathetic excuse for an argument seriously.

And when contemplating abortion, you really think the person “ is examining the physical consequences of pregnancy and deciding whether or not she is up for them�?? I think it’s more like: �shit, what will people think? And how inconvenient…—that I’ve produced another human being—and what’s the quickest, easiest and comparatively painless way to deal with this, so *my* life can resume its course�

Ah, I see. You believe that anybody who's made a decision different from yours couldn't possibly have thought it through. You really have no respect for anybody else's values and judgments. But yes, I do think, from having talked to actual people I know who have gotten abortions, that they have thought the matter through seriously and made the best decision possible.

And..."I've produced another human being"? That doesn't happen until birth.

an embryo is nothing like a baby- let the semantics fight begin. And biologists claim that cocoons are nothing like butterflies.

That's a nice non sequitur. What is it supposed to mean?

I'm just rationally approaching this religisouly loaded debate.

You haven't advanced a single rational argument yet. When anybody challenged your assertions, you start slinging accusations of selfishness and vanity around. You haven't put forward one iota of argument to justify any of your assumptions.

"It’s a human being for christ’s sake we’re talking about- get over yourself"

*le sigh* This is the only religious argument people ever get into on these boards. I'm free to believe in Santa Claus, and you're free to believe that things inside of women are human beings. Just keep your religion to yourself.

CCSWiss: Are you f*cking kidding me?

F*ck the "toll pregnancy takes on a woman's body"--human life is precious and all, but pregnancy is the LEAST of the woman's problems if she can't support a child (and not to be a bitch, but I really resent that my tax dollars have to subsidize the fact that some people don't give enough of a fuck to even TRY using condoms).

Again--I have talked to women who know how to use condoms, they just don't give a shit about the consequences of their actions and think that they will drop out of school and be able to raise the baby, without the father (whom will likely walk out). THEY DON'T CARE. They don't care about the alternative--WAITING to have a child--and they don't care about the likely fate their children will experience.

If having a child is the biggest commitment you will ever make--and when conservatives simultaneously want to restrict programs for poor children, while banning birth control--then unplanned pregnancies should NOT be taken lightly. I don't believe in ostracizing women or their children, but NO, when I woman who cannot support a child gets knocked up BECAUSE SHE ESCHEWS BIRTH CONTROL, she's not admirable. Period.

If she's manipulated by a BF who sabotages her birth control or abuses her, that's different.

I envy you and the f*cking la-la land you inhabit, one where every UNPLANNED child has a happy fate and where women who 1) have such miserable lives they perceive no opportunity costs to being knocked up or 2) have no problem dropping out of school or finishing their childhood because they find themselves thrust into parenthood.

PEOPLE SHOULD NOT HAVE CHILDREN UNLESS THEY WANT THEM AND CAN FINANCIALLY SUPPORT THEM, and can provide them a functional environment to GROW UP in. I would rather die than raise my child in the sort of toxic neighborhood where adolescents seem to befall into criminality, self-destruction, and violence.

And to think of all the f*cked up parents who ultimately fail on at least one of those counts (money doesn't buy class or a sense of empathy for you kid)...

I'm sorry to rant, but I meant every damn word I said.

Bush wants (unplanned) children back in (underfunded, Dickensian) orphanages and women out of the workplace/academia...back on their hands and knees in the bedroom and scrubbing floors.

To EG: “How is it cowardly to face one's situation head-on, consider one's options, and take action?� Taking *any* action, no matter how decisively, is not being brave- the deceision matters! And why is it selfish? I really think you’re being facetious…Why? Because it’s not just your life! Maybe we’ll have to agree to disagree on when life starts—but my non sequitur was meant to highlight that when a mere passage of time and nutrients separate one thing from being another, the argument lies very much in the field of semantics, rather than in that of life and death. I find it ironic that I’m being said to lack empathy for the mother’s travails, the expenses and all the other life-altering events that come even with pregnancy. I’m not waving them away. They suck. My point is that no matter how much they suck, you can’t just consider your side of the story. I’m doing what I consider to be the mature thing—that is to seriously weigh the mother’s difficulties with the right to live of another human being. I sort of apply the test that the mother’s rights end where the baby’s begin. And I think this should be done by every woman considering an abortion. I’m not even against abortion—I just called it cowardly and selfish. And when the health of the mother is at stake, or when it’s rape, or some other reasonable case, I think abortions are the best thing. But I stand by my point that in the vast majority of abortion cases, the baby’s rights are simply ignored, b/c in acknowledging them, life becomes so much harder, and not many people have the guts or maturity to face it..

And sorry, but while your life, your mother’s life, your sister’s life etc are important, they remain anecdotes—they’re not representative of the population at large, nor are they pertinent to this discussion. And concerning those for whom you think the physical consequences of pregnancy are unacceptable, what are we talking about here? Again, health concerns or vanity? Already covered health. If it’s vanity— how could one live with oneself if that was the justification given for denying an embryo the right to be born? Since what I called it is cowardly and selfish, please explain to me how it is not.

CCSwiss, you are not pro-choice as you say you are. You are anti-choice. Get yourself clear on that.

Most people in the US are on some sort of chronic medication, and most of those cannot be taken during pregnancy. Mr. KMP was a pharmacy technician for 5 years, and when my mother was telling him that she felt ashamed when she goes to pick up her antidepressants, he told her that he couldn't think of a single household in our area that didn't have a least one antidepressant, antianxiety, or antipsychotic going to it once a month. Beyond that, there are heart medications, kidney medications, cholestorol medications, etc., etc. that cannot be taken during pregnancy. You are ignorant.

Mr. KMP also saw many young women (primarily white, upper middle class young women, b/c that was the demographic of the area in which he worked) who absolutely did not understand how to take their birth control or how it worked. There was one young woman who thought she only had to take a pill when she had sex. She came to the pharmacy very upset when she found that she was pregnant b/c she didn't understand how that could happen when she was on the pill. Misinformation abounds when contraceptive methods are not truthfully discussed in schools.

CCSwiss, your sanctimonious posturing is disgusting.

Kissmypineapple: Thanks for clarifying what the argument currently is: Most women, as corroborated by *Mr.
KMP*!, who seek abortions are on meds that are forbidden during pregancy, and would therefore face debilitating effects without abortion. Thanks for the information and great addition to the debate!

CCSwiss: "The last part of your post seems to ignore the possibility of adoption for accidental pregnancies. I believe there's an ugly truth behind this line of reasoning—selfishness and cowardice."

So let's say I have a kid and I have AIDS. NO ONE adopts AIDS babies, even if they're probably negative. Or the baby has a genetic problem. Or I was a drug user. Or I am high-risk and may not survive giving birth. Or I was schizophrenic and by carrying a baby to term I had to go off the meds, thus endangering everyone around me.

Or say I'm healthy but very poor and struggling to get out of poverty. Maybe I don't have health insurance either. Medical bills alone woudl crush me and ensure I was stuck in a bad situation for the rest of my life, and if I kept the child, forcing the baby to remain in that bad situation too.

There are a million and one reasons why adoption may not work for an individual. I would have no problem giving away a healthy baby who grew in my uterus to make another couple happy. I would, however, have a hell of a problem doing so if it meant I would die, or the baby would rot in foster care surviving off the state and never feel loved or wanted.

As for teenagers? Even a healthy teenager will need to take enormous amounts of time off school to deal with delivery and recovery, especially if she has a problematic pregnancy and needs bed rest. That can set her back academically, and high schoolers don't get maternity leave. They sometimes have to repeat a year or drop out and take night classes. Plus they have to pay medical bills and deal with their hormones going crazy.

If you believe that it's a human being, fine. Don't abort. Women who think an embryo is a baby almost universally chose not to abort an accidental pregnancy. But if you define a human being as one who can think and relate and survive on it's own, an embryo is not a human being. That is a question of personal belief.

Is it alive? Yes. So was your steak. So, technically, was the cotton in your clothes. Does a cotton plant deserve rights? A cow? The cow is more emotionally and physically advanced than an embryo. Yes, an embryo is a potential to become a human being-- but then again I have the potential to become a social worker, so do I have the right to take a child away from parents I don't like? A four-year-old has the potential to get a license. Should we let four-year-olds drive cars?

And by the way, women who chose to abort because they don't want to mess up their looks are rare, and I disapprove. But choosing to abort because carrying a child to term would bankrupt you due to lack of health insurance is not vanity. Nor is doing so because you are trying to get out of a bad situation and can't do so if you have to take a month or more to deliver and recover.

In 2003, there were an estimated 19.6 million men and women aged 18 years or older with serious mental illness (SMI).1 Females were disproportionately affected and were more likely than males to report a SMI within the past year. The highest rate of serious mental illness occurred among women in the 18-25 age group, with 17.3 percent of these women reporting an SMI within the past year.

That's almost 20% of women at prime 'birthing age,' CCSwiss. (Those are national HRSA statistics if anyone's wondering.) Doesn't count epilepsy or some of the other medications you can't take during pregnancy, either. Hardly "really a miniscule fraction of the population."

Also, you're incredibly, unpleasantly, anti-choice, and I hope no one around you has to make the hard decision about what to do about a pregnancy. And if they do, I hope like hell they won't talk to you.

CCSwiss, you keep talking about "the baby has rights!" A born child, or even a viable child, has rights. Hate to break it to you, but a clump of cells living in my body only becomes a baby after about a year of exhausting labor on my part. An embryo does not become a baby until I fucking MAKE it a baby.

And that's the crux here--you argue as if from the moment sperm meets egg, there's a wonderful little baby just snuggling up in my belly and oh how adorable is that? You very conveniently forget that the "passage of time and nutrients" is drained from MY BODY, that I give up, for a YEAR, and that's if I'm lucky enough to keep everything I eat down and not require hospitalization. A fetus is a parasite that LEECHES from my BODY and completely changes the way it functions after it's gone. And you want to say that keeping my body running as is, without any draining other parasites, health complications and organs/muscles in the originial place, is COWARDLY? I say that trying to keep the status quo on your organs and bodily functions is the most easily empathized position on the planet.

Also, why are you going of on people using anecdotes? True, the plural of anecdote isn't data, but isn't your argument based solely on YOU generalizing your experience for THE ENTIRE FEMALE HALF OF HUMANITY? That's pretty fucking anecdotal.

BWrites, thanks, that was the one statistic I was having trouble finding.

After a quick search--

49% of people in this country are on prescription medications. An additional 30% are on nonprescription medications. Women are known to be more likely than men to be on medication. Source.

1 in 3 women suffer from depression, anxiety, or somatic complaints which they may or may not be on medications for. 2% are schizophrenic and 2% are bipolar. Source.

Over a period of 42 months, 20% of women were taking more than one kind of medication but less than four. 39% took more than four. 97% took at least one OTC medication. 92% were taking at least one prescription medication. Source.

Surprisingly few medications are actually safe to take while pregnant (some are taken anyway because the risk of not taking them is considered to be greater than the risk to the baby). It's actually easier to list the SAFE ones.

Meanwhile, obesity-- which is a known problem relating to pregnancy and greatly increases risks-- is at about 35% in the US today. Source.

Those are JUST the statistics for obesity and medication use. There are tons of other health problems I could have looked at had I the time to go over to the library and read back issues of Science. Judging by the numbers I would guess that it is more likely a woman WILL have a health problem that impacts her pregnancy one way or another than that she won't. Most are not serious enough that a little meds-juggling and some suffering through it won't solve it, but on top of all of those concerns there's also the risk of having to have a ceasarian-- about 20% of women need one-- and all that that surgery entails; and births with absolutely no complications are rare.

So please don't sit there saying "It's rare to have health problems that would impact pregnancy" unless you have some evidence to back it up.

All you guys have done so well in destructing CCSwiss's "arguments" that I don't know what else I can add...

I wondered about her since she stated that she was pro-choice, but her deicisions for herself were pro-life. Most real pro-choicers wouldn't put it that way.

Anyway, what really bothered me was the adoption argument. So because there *might* be someone willing to take in a baby that I gave birth to, suddenly that's the BEST decision for me to make? Because I AM responsible and mature, I would insist on getting prenatal care if I were going to follow the pregnancy through (which I would never ever do). Because I don't have health care, that would be pretty much impossible. I would have to choose between keeping my apartment, buying food, and staying alive or giving birth to something that I'm going to kiss goodbye the second it comes to fruition. What do you think I'm going to choose? What do you think all the 175 girls employed alongside me are going to do? What about the rest of them across the country?

Oh, it's a "life"? Again, this has already been covered, but that spider that you killed this morning also had a life. The trees that were cut down to build your home had a life--and I can guarantee that it was many many times your age. THOSE lives could stand on their own and didn't need to be draining my organs to survive, either. That tiny clump of cells you can't even see with your naked eye? You bet I'm booting it out of my uterus the second I confirm it's there. Maybe it wasn't the best decision you could've made, but it is absolutely the best decision for me to make, and millions of others feel the same way.

CCSwiss you say you are pro-choice.
Are you saying, that even though it's selfish, of me to get an abortion...
You are pro choice anyway? So you agree it's 100% up to me and you support the laws that protect my right to abortion? Under any conditions, for whatever reason I choose?

I just want to make sure here. Cuz you said you were pro-choice. And that would be what pro choice is. If you support my rights, and those of the other feminists on this board, then you have no reason to keep arguing...

"You really think this is possible in our sex-saturated society where even early-teen sexualization has become mainstream?"

Oh, we're nowhere near the saturation point. Societies in which most early teen girls are married off ASAP, and few even have a chance to postpone or avoid sex, are far closer to saturation.

"Then there's the emotional and psychological costs of being pregnant and giving birth, which you shrug off with a simple 'That's life.' How...callous of you, actually."

Not to mention, in some cases, the emotional and psychological costs of passing on your genes.

For example, my mom gave me the genes for growing a beard and moustache, and I was treated like crap for years for it. Even after I stopped taking her "just bleach it" advice and switched to removing it, my peers still considered me a half-male freak. I couldn't ditch that reputation until I moved away for college, and since the growth gets more stubborn as I grow older I may be stuck with that reputation again. Meanwhile, I haven't found any societies on Earth that do accept girls and women with beards and moustaches (not even the ones like Iran where these genes are really common and where Mom got them). So, signing up another girl for the treatment I suffered by passing on my genes to her is against my conscience (even if I did want to give birth, I'd probably abort and try again for a boy if I found out the fetus was female).

As for the availability of knowledge of contraceptives and safe sex...

I'm 17. I just started college. I am raised christian. I call myself spiritual because of people like huckabee who bring a bad name to christians. I was taught abstinence. I support that my parents taught me that, but now as i'm getting older, I'm making a lot of my own views instead of just following the church.

I personally choose not to have sex because I KNOW I am not ready to accept the responsiblity. Thats just me. And I make this decision because of ME, not my parents, religion, or friends.

I pretty much define myself as pro-choice. If abortions don't happen the reality is that back alley abortions will be, and women's lives will be taken.

That said..

I virtually knew nothing of STDS or STIS when i was 16. Just recently I had to go to the bookstore and read pre-teen books to find out how the hell you get all of them.

I just, JUST learned where the clitoris is located, and I STILL don't know what the hell goes on when I have my period.

I had a 15 y/o friend ask me once if she swallowed could she get pregnant. My little cousin said you can only get pregnant two days a month and if you pull out you wont get pregnant either.

Both of them go to public schools.

I have NO idea how to put a condom on, I don't exactly know what a diaphragm does, and this is EXACTLY why I'm not having sex.

so I realize that my post may have sounded like the non-availability of knowledge of contraceptives is a good thing because it keeps teens from having sex, but um no. it doesn't. all my friends have despite the fact that they know even less than me. I'm just a lucky one. I'm totally pro-sex ed, not abstinence only.

Meanwhile, I recently heard someone claim that teen girls get pregnant because they want to be like Murphy Brown. No, I wasn't listening to a tape recorded back when Quayle was vice president, the woman claiming this said it to my face a few months ago. o_O

Wow. OK, I was going to respond to that silly person, but the rest of you pretty much covered it. So...done and dusted, then.

Though I will point out that in her formulation, the needs of an embryo or fetus trump the needs of the woman every time--anything else is "selfish." The usual crap that's levelled at women who don't automatically and always put the needs of every other being in the world before their own.

I did a massive paper on the subject when I was a senior in HS, and I came across the figure that 1/4 of teen pregnancies are intentional.

IMHO, most the people I've seen who got pregnant on purpose (or took insane risks even knowing what they were doing) had issues with their own parents. Their parents weren't fulfilling the girl's emotional needs, and, basically, she took it upon herself to form her own family to give her that kind of unconditional love and acceptance.

Kmari1222, check out The V Book. It's one of the most important books I've ever read. I recently gave a copy to my best friend, who is 24 (like me) and we both were able to learn things about our bodies that we didn't know. At 24 years old.

Secondly check out ScarletTeen.com, also a great space to find out honest answers to questions you have about your body, sex, whatever.

It's great that you've decided to wait to have sex until you feel like you can handle the responsibility and until you can fully understand how it all works and what choices you have. But, I wanted to let you know where to look (and where your friends can!) so that when you get to a point where you feel like you are ready for sex, or just whenever you decide to reevaluate how you feel about it, you have the tools to make informed decisions for yourself.

Hope it helps!

I realize that the plural of anecdote is not data - all I can give you is the gist of the way things worked when I was in highschool.

I went to school in a small remote town, with a total of 50 kids from yr 7 to 12.

All throughout my schooling we were given comprehensive sex ed. We knew about condoms and the pill since we were 11 or 12 years old. Despite this, our area had the highest teen pregnancy rate in the state.

Why? Because for most of these kids there was no future after high school, they weren't going to go away to university, they weren't going on to further study of any kind. Having a kid was a guaranteed source of income. Having kids was just something you did when you finished school. It was expected of you. Nevermind who the kid was with - you were expected to have a child.

Of the 8 girls in my final year, 6 of them (i was not one) were pregnant or had kids by the time they were 19.

There was no expectation of leaving the town to further oneself. Those who left - like I did - were seen as outcasts, strange somehow, like they didn't belong.

Also, abortion was difficult to access - a woman wanting this would have had to have seen the GP (of course everyone knew who went to the GP and usually guessed what for - very little actual confidentiality). Then you would have needed to travel at least 150km (almost 100miles) to the next town. I'm not sure you could have even accessed abortion in the next town, more likely the regional centre 300km away. What teenager with few material resources could access that????

I'm glad that I got out. I'm glad that I've been able to continue my education.

From what I've seen its a combination of hopelessness and 'lifescript' that encourages teen pregnancy.

My best friend was pregnant at 12. She had 3 kids at 18. At 12 she was selected to go to the national sporting institute as she was naturally gifted. That all changed when she became pregnant.