I'm going to assume this is a typo. A hilarious typo, but still accidental.

"The 16 year-old Spears is the star of Nickelodeon's shit show "Zoey 101.""

lol. YES, it was a typo. I think i was typing shit to myself in the post and forgot to erase it. amazing.

I was totally shocked when I heard this news... just how many more children are going to be screwed up by the Spears family?

That aside...
I agree with Jessica's comments about "taking responsibility." Being responsible is making the best choice for YOU. But I don't think Jamie Lynn has a choice... the "choice" has already been made for her.

I agree, I don't understand why "responsibility" is even brought up. Or if it is an issue, what about the "responsibility" of the parents, teachers, other adults, etc. to teach a 16 yr-old about sex, contraceptive, diseases, and consequences? I'm not sure if and when Jamie Lynn Spears was in school, nor am I sure what she was taught about sex, but I think this is a bit of proof that (and I know that I'm making a leap)abstinence only education doesn't really work. I don't want to underestimate Jamie Lynn, maybe she really was aware of the consequences of sex, and pregnancy does happen. But I think that when a 16 yr-old gets pregnant the "responsiblity" neither ends with the 16 yr-old, nor should it imply that carrying to term is the only correct option.

...although, after looking at the site for the show, which is full of formulaic characters and tired plot lines, I might agree with that word choice...

"But I don't think Jamie Lynn has a choice... the "choice" has already been made for her."

Why on earth would you assume that this girl didn't choose to keep her baby? Did I miss something? Is there a part in the interview where JLS tells OK! magazine that what she REALLY wanted was to get rid of it... but mom and Nickelodeon made her keep it?

Why is it necessary to disempower her in order to make a larger point?

hahaha i'm such a feministing junkie that i had the exact same reaction as jessica when i read that this morning. who's to say that keeping the baby is more responsible, and why does the network feel the need to pass judgment on her anyway?

the celeb gossip junkie in me also finds it incredibly amusing that lynn spears' forthcoming book on parenting is now "temporarily" on hold.

From the article:

What message does she want to send to other teens about premarital sex? "I definitely don't think it's something you should do; it's better to wait."

No, now I'm sure that this is an example of how "abstinence-only" doesn't work well. I know that I don't know if her and her boyfriend were using contraception, but from this statement: She obviously doesn't understand that she got pregnant, not because she didn't wait to have sex until marriage, but because she and her boyfriend weren't taking the right steps to protect against pregnancy. Of course, if you abstain from sex you won't get pregnant. However, if you choose not to abstain you have to understand how to prevent pregnancy! She's not pregnant JUST because she didn't wait! That's only half of it!

Forget all the talks about abortion and responsibility, in reporting this news, the media and MTV and all of them are only saying one thing, and it has nothing to do with responsibility and choice.

They are reporting it because of this: a "hot" 16-year-old apparently fucks - and you know, that's so ...erotic.

I doubt MTV, Nickelodeon or any of those people give a shit about the abortion issue.

I found mama-Spears' reaction pretty boggling also - she expressed surprise that this had happened to Jamie Lynn because she "never missed curfew" and always "stays in" - with the 19 year old live in boyfriend who mama-Spears allowed to live with Jamie!

It's weird how staying in with a boyfriend can lead to pregnancy. I thought sex could only get you pregnant if you had it in the bathroom of a nightclub.

As for Nickelodeon and pregnancy - I'm sure Nickelodeon would have much preferred a secret abortion to this publicity mess!

Ugh, you'd think the rich & famous could hire someone to shove a pill down their throats once a day. They're apparently the most fertile people in the world and the least likely to use protection.

Is anybody else bugged about the part of this story where the father of this baby is a 19 year old? Why isn't anybody calling out this dude for being with a 16 y o girl? Though maybe a three year gap isn't that big even at that age (and considering he was a live-in bf, apparently her parents were cool with it), it's still illegal...

How is this being responsible? I think a better example of responsible behaviour would be not engaging in unprotected intercourse unless you're trying to get pregnant.

I suppose they could have been using b/c and it failed but for some reason, maybe it's the unfortunate associations I have with the whole Spears family, I'm thinking they didn't.

To me, being 'responsible' about an unwanted pregnancy doesn't amount to a hill of beans when you've contracted HIV or some other sexually transmitted disease for want of the use of a condom.

By the way, I wanted to make sure everyone knew that I was being sarcastic, in pointing out the media and its sexualization of teens and children, and I wasn't really saying I think it's hot that Little Spears is having sex ...:)

Frijolera - I don't think that JennieTheGiraffe is trying to disempower JLS. But, the fact is that she is 16, and while none of us know whether or not she did choose to keep the child, it is hard to believe that she would have any choice, especially because of her age (and her southern christian background) - she isn't an adult, by law, and very likely doesn't have a choice but to comply with what her adult parents want.

SarahMC:
"Ugh, you'd think the rich & famous could hire someone to shove a pill down their throats once a day. They're apparently the most fertile people in the world and the least likely to use protection."

On the other hand, it's getting to the point where the rich and famous are the only people in this country who would be able to afford an unplanned pregnancy.
The rest of us are the ones who would fret and freak out if we accidently became pregnant and did the math regarding income loss, medical bills, the cost of rrelistically raising a child, etc.

Appropriately enough, this post comes right after Ann's about money continuing to flow to abstinence-only indoctrination.

Ah, the Spears family - soon again will be heard the pitter-patter of little bare feet at gas stations all across this fair land.

I think by responsibility they meant that they are going to support her in her choices, including, for example, taking time off from work to have the child or to ensure it's health, or, once she kept the child, raising it herself instead of letting Britney or her mom raise it for her.

I'm guessing this has more to do with "See! WE don't fire our young stars just because they have sex sometimes, unlike SOME networks!"

Yes, it would have been more responsible to use birth control. Maybe it would have been more responsible to abort once she was pregnant, even. But now that she's already pregnant and keeping the child, she's (hopefully) taking up the responsibility that she lacked when she didn't use birth control and plans to do what is best for the kid and for her own health.

I think she's more likely than many teenagers to be able to handle this, especially if she doesn't listen to her sister or her mother. After all, she's employed, presumably from Nickelodeon's comments will not be blacklisted for this, and has enough money that she will not have to deal with the crushing poverty that often accompanies teen motherhood. Hopefully she will hire a good nanny and continue both to work and to go to school, and she will prove that the Spears legacy doesn't continue into her. She seems smarter than the rest of her family, birth control or no birth control. I still have high hopes for her.

I'm absolutely disgusted with how the media is treating this girl.

http://teresacentric.com/2007/12/disgusted-with-the-medias-response-to-pregnancy-announcement-by-jaime-lynn-spears/

All the recrimination and judgment when we should be supporting her for making a choice that works for her and her family. She has the money to raise this kid and we have to assume that raising her baby is what she wants to do.

After all, she did say that she took a couple of weeks all to herself before telling even her mother. If she'd decided on an abortion, she could have had one without anyone knowing.

This country needs to have a serious conversation about teenage sex that does not just amount to "don't do it." We need to talk in matter-of-fact ways about the realities of reproductive functions, birth control, choices and consequences.

Poor Jaime Lynn. This is going to be rough on her.

Wow, the story on cnn.com does NOT say that Jamie Lynn's boyfriend was 19 or that he LIVES WITH HER!

Then why the f*ck did she say she didn't really have a steady boyfriend, but prefers to "keep her options open"?

Who cares what she says about whether or not she has a steady boyfriend? It's nobody else's business but her own.

And regardless of whether or not he's 19 or they're living together or what, it seems awfully judgmental to pick on that.

In many states, 16 is the age of consent, and in some other states where the age of consent is 18, there is an age gap (usually when the older party is younger than 24) where 16 is acceptable. The intent is to reduce incarceration in cases (like this one) where a 16-year-old is dating someone who is 18 or 19, who then gets put away as a child molester and/or made to register as a sex offender when they're not really much older than the ostensible victim, and they're just carrying on a normal romantic relationship that results in sex.

I think the 24 bar that several states set is too high, but where to draw the line is its own discussion.

Well, Mac, when she makes statements to cnn.com and OK magazine, she MAKES it everyone's business. She didn't have to say either of those things.

And yeah, knowing that her 19 year old boyfriend lives with her makes me wonder how on earth her mother is shocked that her "little 16 year old baby" got pregnant.

Forget all the talks about abortion and responsibility, in reporting this news, the media and MTV and all of them are only saying one thing, and it has nothing to do with responsibility and choice.

They are reporting it because of this: a "hot" 16-year-old apparently fucks - and you know, that's so ...erotic.

Come on! Are you saying that they wouldn't have reported that Britney Spears' sister had gotten pregnant if she had been ugly?

You think? I know when I was 19, I couldn't stand to be around 16 year olds, they were immature, and not interested in the same things I was. So a 19 who wants to date a 16 year old seems strange to me.

I don't know if this is one of the states where it's legal, they live in the south though, so it's definitly possible... but still rather gross to me.

I don't think a woman has the choice BUT to take responsibility when she gets pregnant. Having an abortion, choosing adoption, or deciding to raise the baby are all responsible in different ways. Pretty much as long as she doesn't leave the kid in a dumpster somewhere she's taking some kind of responsibility.

BTW, loving the "do as I say not as I do" mentality with her whole anti-pre-marital sex lecture.

I understand where you guys are coming from on this, and if that statement had come from another network (like, say, Fox) I might feel differently, but I think this may just be a case of unfortunate wording. They don't say anything else there that shows a bias. If you take out the words "to take responsibility", it doesn't read as being one way or the other.

However, with that being said, I'm still annoyed by that "take responsibility" thing because in my mind I'm saying "responsibility? how about using affective birth control?" But like others have said, we don't know the whole story (I guess maybe we'll have to buy OK if we want to find out) so we can't say. After all, it does say she was "SHOCKED", which could imply that she was using birth control, but could also imply that she *thought* she was using "birth control" (like 'can't get preggers if the girl's on top, y'all!'). Also a possibility: she's f*in clueless.

I also dislike that you hear from a lot of parents of young female celebrities when they get into sexy troubles (the Spears, the Simpson sisters, Lindsey Lohan, etc), but I sure as heck never heard Shia LaBouf's mom after he got arrested or Zac Efron's dad writing books about his childhood. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) We expect young women to need parenting until they're about 30, but young men are "self-sufficient" at age 18 or 19. That sucks. I'm 25 and people still really don't treat me like an adult.
Did I just go off on a tangent?

"I think by responsibility they meant that they are going to support her in her choices, including, for example, taking time off from work to have the child or to ensure it's health, or, once she kept the child, raising it herself instead of letting Britney or her mom raise it for her."

Letting Britney raise it for her? Britney can't even get custody of her own kids!

Faerylore,
I find your harping on his age kind of disturbing. He's only 3 years older than her. They could have gone to the same high school at the same time; it's not that weird. Why is it that we think teenagers can only date people exactly their own age but adults can date people ten years their senior and no one really bats an eye? I dated someone who was 19 when I was 16, and I got the same reaction for three years, until I turned 20 and he was 23. Then it was suddenly okay. I find that odd.

Sorry, I meant four years.

Seriously, why is it a "hard time" thanks for the judgment call Nickelodeon.

Courtney Stoker "Why is it that we think teenagers can only date people exactly their own age but adults can date people ten years their senior and no one really bats an eye?"

Because there's not a lot of development going on in adults, so there's not a huge difference in ten years. But imagine the difference between a 14 year old and an 18 year old.

That said, an immature 19 year old and a mature 16 year old are fine together. It's really a case-by-case kind of thing.

It doesn't comfort me to know she has the money to raise the child. Money doesn't create mental/emotional stability. Sure, the kid will have all the material possessions s/he needs, but good lord, I'm not optimistic any of these mini Spears' will turn out well-adjusted.

What bothers me most about this whole thing is that girls and women do not (usually) get pregnant on their own. There is barely any mention of the baby's dad, Casey Aldridge, who should take just as much "responsibility" for this child. Neither Casey nor Jamie Lynn should be shamed by the media for this because all it does is speak to the abysmal sex education in our country, however, Jamie Lynn IS being shamed and targeted and Casey is not. Why isn't Casey the focus of news broadcasts and interviews about how "sad this situation is" and "how young they are?"

The other things is that Jamie Lynn Spears is a privileged and rich girl who will probably never face the worries of teenage parenting. She has the resources (specifically financially) to provide this baby anything it needs. This simply is not a generalizable example of the struggles of teen parenting. However, it is one of many other things such as: double standards, lack of adequate sex education, and privilege.

Teen moms are some of the best moms I know. I think we need to have a little more faith and a lot less obstacles for women who choose to parent in their teens.

I wouldn't quite say I'm harping on it... unless mentioning how odd I find it that nobody seems to bat an eye at it when it is illegal in quite a few states. I second the idea that this boy's part in the resulting pregnancy is glossed over in the same way that it is often glossed over in favor of focusing upon the girl.
Besides, just bc it worked out well for you doesn't mean it works out well for everyone.

Frankly when I think of college-aged people dating high schoolers, I think of people who are trolling for easy sex. Obviously not every situation is that... but I would think that probably more than a few qualify.

lol. And who wants to take the bet to say that Jamie Lynn is a well-adjusted, mature 16 year old who's ready to raise a child? That family doesn't exactly have the greatest track record, though I guess she is supposed to be the well-behaved one or something, she is afterall, always in before curfew.

So, I surfed over to YouTube to watch the music video for Love Song, by Sara Bareilles, somebody who as far as I know is pretty unconnected to this whole thing, and found people discussing her pregnancy in the comments thread on the video. (Link goes to video page.)

All I have to say about that is, what the Hell? "This is a great video! By the way, Jamie Lynn Spears is pregnant!"

Faerylore: I feel you. When I was an RA, and I had sophomores (in college), one guy was dating a junior in high school, and everyone was like, ick. It's surely not the same as a 30 year old dating a 16 year old, but it's still a lightweight power differential. I wouldn't try to stop them, but I certainly wouldn't have even considered it when I was 18-20. *shrug*

Question: Does it state in the article or anywhere that she wasn't using protection? Birth control of any sort does fail sometimes.

I was wondering when this was going to be reported as soon as I saw it on Boston.com this morning...

I don't necessarily think Nickelodeon's statement was incorrect or in bad taste... I mean is it not safe to assume that this IS a HARD TIME for her??? Is that not what we feminists argue all the time... that the choice is a hard one thus not one made in haste and shallowness? Just a thought.

And when I read it way earlier this morning hyped up on coffee, I took the whole responsibility thing as more of a recognition that JLS is doing... she is going public with it... she had sex, got pregnant, and it making a decision thus acting responsibly. In my eyes responsiblity does not lie in the actual outcome but in the fact that you made a decision. I could be wrong, but that's how I took it.

Also, I think we should cut her some slack bc as some people have pointed out, it doesn't say she wishes she didn't have to keep it, wants to abort, etc. I think its safe to assume that just like some people do not want to have a baby, some people do. And we should respect the ability to choose, either way.

i see this as a high-profile (for at least 15 minutes) case of these 'no duh' points, much needed to be highlighted at this time in our social history -

- teens have sex

- tell them 'don't do it' with millions of dollars in funding, and they still do it.

joyinrevolt, i agree, some teen moms are amazing moms and we cannot discount them. However, what i am saying is that it is incredibly difficult to be a parent in general, let alone a teen parent. However, Jamie Lynn will probably never get the "teen mom" experience anyway because she is extremely privileged and rich.

nickclick:
But didn't you know? Once you tell them not to do it, they deserve whatever they get! Because, you know, you warned them what would happen if they had sex, and they just went ahead and slutted it up, the shameless hussies.

Assuming they're girls. If they're boys, then, well, boys will be boys, you know?

Is it just me, or is that photo on the magazine cover creeping anyone else the hell out?

I mean, she's

a) Sixteen years old.

b) Pregnant.

c) Talking about how she thinks having sex before marriage is a bad thing.

And so the magazine puts her on the cover doing that pout that photographers tell you to do when they want a "come here and fuck me" look. wtf.

It's so disturbing how many people were calling her a slut/whore in blog comments when she had sex possibly very few times with her boyfriend at the average age people in America do it.
And of course they're not concentrating on her boyfriend. Some things seem to never change.

Man, I have been reading comments on other sites about this and the people here are positively tame comparitively. That said, I don't know, but I would make an educated guess that this girl has not been in "real school" for quite some years so I don't really know that we can assume she was indocrinated into abstience only bullshit. She probably films her tv show fulltime with a private tutor or something. For all we know, she was using birth control and it failed and she looked at her options and chose to keep the baby. Hell, I am 24 and like to think myself pretty on top of reproductive issues and was recently informed by a phyisician I wasn't taking my bc correctly. Not that I think teen motherhood is a positive thing, she did make this decision for herself and as has been pointed out, she probably has the money to raise a child.

Nerdalert, I agree with you, and you said it better than I.

Going back to your previous comment about the mother's speaking out about their adult daughter's behavior, I wonder how much of it stems from a habit started by the part that a lot of these people (Spears, Lohan, etc) started off as underaged stars. I don't know of too many underaged male stars (though I do remember an interview with Lil' Bow Wow's mom, didn't she write a book or something too?).

But hello, didn't you know? Women don't really grow up until they get married to a man who can tell them what to do.

Seriously though, there are young stars that we don't with graced with parent commentaries... Duff, Moore, etc. So I guess if you're willing to be the "good girl" version of celebrity then people are willing to take you seriously? Maybe at least until you screw up, and *then* they start screaming about how your mom should have taught (controlled) you better?

I'm not sure which would be worse...

Faerylore--
You're right that the age thing can be strange, but it does need to be looked at for individual situations. I'm nineteen and my boyfriend is 23; we were seventeen and 21 when we started dating. This seems like a wide age gap, but I'm the oldest child in my family and he's the youngest in his. So while he's at the 'normal' maturity level for someone in his early twenties, I'm probably there too, considering the years of my teens I spent taking care of my siblings when my parents were at their various 'functions' multiple nights a week. Which was why it was weird, dating my first boyfriend, a guy who was only a year older than me and a middle child--he had never had the responsibility I experienced, and when I was sixteen and he was seventeen, it felt sometimes like he was behaving the way I had at fourteen, simply from his immature actions.
So I don't think it's the age differences that need to be focused on here--if he really was live-in, I think that's pretty stupid on Spears' parents' part. If they didn't use birth control, also very dumb. And about half of the responsibility should be the father's, not just hers--she shouldn't be getting all of the blame.

I have to say that I absolutely loathe the term "preggers". It was the Jamie-Lynn headline on yahoo.com last night, but they changed it today.

'Preggers' sounds like some sort of horrible skin condition to me. Where did that term even come from? It just really gets under my skin.

Yeah, this is just a random rant.

"It's so disturbing how many people were calling her a slut/whore in blog comments when she had sex possibly very few times with her boyfriend at the average age people in America do it."

Umm, even if she were out banging every guy in sight, doing it dozens of times, etc. it's her damn choice. "Slut/whore" are used to keep women in their place.

I'm sorry, but I really don't see Nickelodeon's statement as a judgment. They had to write something, and coming from a PR background, I can tell you their PR department is having a nightmare right now. Don't forget, this is a KIDS network-not the WB or NBC, which I wouldn't have expected to make a statement, since, well, I assume most of their audience is already having sex. Is it bad that this will prompt some birds-and-bees talk? No, of course not. But if I were a parent, I wouldn't want to have that talk at 8 or 9, which I'm sure make up some of the audience.

Also, if I were the PR flack who wrote that statement, I'd be thinking "responsible" as code for "will not be partaking in activities such as drinking or drugs that may harm her child, as have some people in her family."

Why is the media not including the boyfriend? Is he famous? If he was, I'd expect some sappy "We're starting a family!1!" pose on the cover.

Miss Mouse, I think "preggers" is a British term that the American press has latched onto recently...?

UneFemme, I agree that the individual situation and the actual people involved trumps in this sort of question... I didn't really mean to off this into a whole, oh nooz! The children! sort of thing... It just seemed odd to me that there wasn't any comment as to the minor age diff btwn these two. Everyone's so willing to accuse her of being a slut (not on this site), but there's no real discussion of him or the part where he's an older, live-in boyfriend. Curious, that's all.

But yeah to my knowledge (and what a questionable source that is), he is a live-in. Which is somewhat neutral to me, as if people are going to have sex, they're going to have sex regardless of where everyone sleeps... As mama Spears apparently found out. Funniest part about this whole thing is where she keeps on going back to the 'but she never broke curfew'...

Yeah, if her boyfriend lives with her and they sleep in the same bed every night, a curfew is not going to a thing to keep her from getting pregnant. So I don't know why Mama Spears is so stuck on that curfew.

"I were a parent, I wouldn't want to have that talk at 8 or 9, which I'm sure make up some of the audience."

Everone's different, but I for one am very glad that my parents were matter of fact with me about sex from the time I was very small. By 8, I could tell you how a woman gets pregnant, what my ovaries were and what a period was.

Today, I'm comfortable with my body and I've never had a reproductive mishap. Especially in our sex-saturated culture 8 or 9 is about the right time to start informing. Otherwise, our kids absorb society's values, not ours.

Gah! Look at the letter Nickelodeon sent to the National Enquirer when they broke the JLS pregnancy story months ago:

http://perezhilton.com/?p=10850

Because apparently if she were having sex, or were pregnant she wouldn't be morally upright anymore.

These child stars often grow up too fast. I think the "hard time" JLS will have may not be immediately, due to her financial privileges, the thrill of a new cute baby, and her (temporarily) elevated celeb status -- but they will come when she's in her 30's with a teenager, wondering why she never got to be a kid.

I suspect Britney was so quick to get married and have babies because she wanted a vacation from work, and she wanted intimacy, and she wanted to seek refuge in that holy sphere of the Idealized Woman. But it backfired, because the airbrushed version of motherhood and domesticity is not the reality, and people lose interest too.

I hope JLS doesn't make the same mistake of thinking that keeping her baby will automatically transform her life into something beautiful and meaningful, not to assume she does. Either way I wish her and her new family the best of luck.

someone needs to tie those spear's girls tubes. its high time they stop pissing in the gene pool.

that being said, i dont ever think having a child at 16 is a responsible thing to do. adoption or abortion is the responsible thing to do, i dont care how much money you have.

she, along with her sister, set a horrendous example for those who look up to them. clearly, their mother has either completely neglected to have the birds and the bees talk with her, or shes just an idiot. at least we know who wont be getting "parent of the year award".

clearly, this happens to thousands of girls every year, but i hardly think this example of keeping the baby and raising it yourself is a good example to set for those other teens who happen to make the same mistake.

also, someone needs to start scrutinizing the father i agree. i dont think the age difference is an issue, i had a boyfriend who was 4 years my senior, but he should be held just as responsible for this mess.

My mom told me about sex when I was 7. Before that I thought that people automatically had a baby when they got married. When I found out my aunt had a baby before she was married, it BLEW MY MIND. So I asked, and she told me.
I didn't grow up being afraid of TEH SEX, and I also knew to use protection religiously (no pun intended) when I became sexually active.

The website teenpregnancy.org released a statement about this (http://www.teenpregnancy.org/JLS.pdf) which has an interesting take on the age difference issue. Namely, that a three year age difference in your teens statistically relates to other issues, like unplanned pregnancy and coercion.

erinelizabeth-- "But if I were a parent, I wouldn't want to have that talk at 8 or 9, which I'm sure make up some of the audience."

Dear lord, really? You wouldn't tell a kid how babies are made when they were EIGHT? I mean, it's one thing to not talk about sex but the questions this will raise are no different than the questions that parents face when Aunt Susie or their best friend's mommy get pregnant. I understood how babies grew when I was five and I understood the concept of menstruation by eight, certainly.

Also, I think the only reason there is no discussion of the father is that he's not famous. If a male actor got a 16-year-old girl pregnant, there would be a lot of discussion about is-he-the-father, then interveiws with the "poor put upon girl," etc; either that or a big coverup. JLS can't really cover this up; she's going to show eventually, and her private life is too public. But the fact that the focus is on her and not on her boyfriend is just because no one would care about a headline that cries out "CASEY ALDRIDGE IMPREGNATES CHILD STAR." They'd think, who the hell is that?

However, if he leaves her or refuses to help her raise the child, you can bet the news will be all over it.

i dont ever think having a child at 16 is a responsible thing to do. adoption or abortion is the responsible thing to do, i dont care how much money you have.

Um...wow. Ethnocentric, much?

someone needs to tie those spear's girls tubes. its high time they stop pissing in the gene pool.

Wait... What?!

That's... I... But...
Christ on a cracker, I don't even know what to say. That's... incredible.

that being said, i dont ever think having a child at 16 is a responsible thing to do. adoption or abortion is the responsible thing to do, i dont care how much money you have.

I'm with Emily- that strikes me kind of judgemental. It may not be the norm in our country, and I'd agree that it's probably very difficult to do here, but to say that it's not responsible? Why? Because it's difficult? Because it can have serious long-term implications? Because... why, exactly? I honestly don't know enough about her to even feel remotely comfortable passing judgement on her, but it's not just money that matters when you're talking about having a child- it's about support of all different types. Financial, emotional, physical... I'm sure that many of us know people who:

1. Became parents as teens.
-or-
2. Were the products of teen pregnancies.

she, along with her sister, set a horrendous example for those who look up to them. clearly, their mother has either completely neglected to have the birds and the bees talk with her, or shes just an idiot.

Yes, because those are the only two ways that people get pregnant. I'm glad to know that every teen girl who gets pregnant is either an idiot or has a lousy parent. Thank you.

clearly, this happens to thousands of girls every year, but i hardly think this example of keeping the baby and raising it yourself is a good example to set for those other teens who happen to make the same mistake.

Maybe her top priority in deciding how to deal with her pregnancy isn't "what will other people think?" Which, you know, I think is probably a good thing. Because, quite frankly, what other people think, and what kind of example she might be setting for other people are pretty lousy reasons to make a life decision like this.

I guess I read "take responsibility" as simply a reference to her decision to publicly admit her pregnancy, rather than trying to hide it or dodge the press a la Christina Aguilera and Jennifer Lopez. It's the same kind of thing they say when, for example, a celebrity admits to having a drug problem.

I'm annoyed people jump to the conclusion she was irresponsibly not using birth control, though. Sometimes people forget to take their birth control pills, sometimes there are mishaps with condoms, many people don't know antibiotics interfere with birth control (and doctors rarely tell you this). Mistakes can happen, and part of being responsible enough to handle sexual activity is being prepared to handle that outcome, whether by abortion, adoption, or parenthood.

Why are so many people jumping to the conclusion that she wasn't using birth control? I know plenty of people who have gotten pregnant in spite of taking the appropriate precautions; there is no such thing as 100% effective birth control. Assuming people only get pregnant because they were being irresponsible doesn't do anything to change the negative image we have of unexpected pregnancies in this country.

That being said, it's also entirely possible she wasn't using birth control. But let's not judge her anyway.

Strangely enough, I read it as "responsible" being admitting the situation and moving on with it, rather than hiding it or the like.

*shrug* Perhaps I'm not extreme enough at times.

The harping on the age difference is a little silly. As pointed out before, these two could've gone to school together (and I believe I read that they did). There are millions of perfectly healthy relationships where the two people aren't the exact same age. It's seriously not a big deal. My husband and I have been together for nearly 10 years, starting when I was 16 and he was 20. There was not 'trolling' for easy sex going on (except perhaps on my part) and implying that is all that's going on is insulting to 16 and 17 year old girls (legally able to give consent in many states) who can actually make some decisions for themselves.

I think Jamie-Lynn's real problem is one she shares with her whole family: she's an idiot.

I found it really reassuring to read that she went to a doctor on her own and waited several weeks to tell her mom and other people the news so that she could figure out what SHE wanted to do. It's obviously not an ideal situation, but she seems to actually be making the decision to keep the baby on her own and not because of outside pressure [minus, you know, whatever pressure her upbringing engrained in her]. But her actions after she found out she was pregnant, as she reports them, makes it sound like she was considering abortion and didn't want other people's opinions until she decided what she wanted.

I agree with sara and Liz M in that one should not jump to conclusions about JLS's birth control usage/lack thereof. I was on the pill, had to go on antibiotics, and whoops, now I have a five month old (who I absolutely love by the way.) It happens.

I just hope Jamie Lynn has enough self-possession to have the strength to make decisions that are right for her, and I hope the people that are involved in her life are supportive without being coercive. I don't care how much money she has, emotionally she's going to be going through some rough times. The money is going to help her provide for the material needs of her child, but she is still going to have to learn to cope with being a parent (especially if she wants to avoid ending up like her sister.) I hope the father is involved, too; I wish the media was focusing more on the fact that there was another person involved in this, but I agree with some statements above to the effect that he's probably largely absent from media coverage due to his lack of fame.

jumping in late,

I agree that I don't think Nickelodeon is really being judgmental against JL Spears, seeing as having the child and taking care of it is being "responsible". That's the decision she's made so that's what they have to go with. We can guess that if she'd had an abortion we probably wouldn't be even talking about it now, unless it leaked and then that's private medical information so Nickelodeon would have issued a statement to the effect of "that's her business," or something like it. And then if there had been photos of her coming out of a clinic, unless it says, "Abortion Only" you really wouldn't have proof of why she was there so the network couldn't really remark about it. And if JL Spears would have put it up for adoption then they might have said the same thing about being responsible, but then you'd get people crying and upset that she *does* have the money to take care of it so why is she giving it away?

( note, I'm at home for holiday and on dial up so if anyone responds to me I might not get back until way later, if I use the computer at all.)

i was being facetious about the pissing in the gene pool. however, i think its obvious that like as pull_rank stated above, her whole family is not exactly entirely together upstairs. do i really appreciate people who clearly have zero parenting abilities procreating? no not really. sorry.

do i think its irresponsible to have a child at 16? yes. no amount of arguing is going to change my position on that. i am adopted, and my biological mother was probably a teen mother. i think she made a correct choice, (abortion is also a fine choice in this matter-just so happens she didnt). never under any circumstance do i think its ok.

in regards to the money comment, my point was that there mere fact that you HAVE enough money to raise a child is in no way necessarily a good reason to have it.

if you are a star of a childrens tv show,. you have put yourself in the position of being looked up to, and should act accordingly.

also, to have a tell all "i am pregnant at 16" interview in a gossip rag is not something i consider to be the beginnings of good parenting. she has a contract to have a full photoshoot with ok for 1 million dollars when she has the kid, so do i really think that whoring your child out for money the first chance you get is the hallmark of responsibility? no sorry i dont.

i think its clear that the entire family isnt exactly the epitome of class and good judgement, two aspects i do not appreciate being passed on to the next generation. (she had a live in boyfriend when she was 16-um what?!!!) all that is happening here (or will most likely happen here-i hope not for the kids sake) is another messed up kid with a messed up life. much like her sisters kids will end. there is a precedent here people, and its not a good one, are we completely blind to that fact?

P.S. before I log off:

I think it would have been totally different had Nickelodeon's statment said, "she's doing the responsible thing, which in that case would mean that having the baby is the only "responsible" action to take for her. IMHO.

they say they met at church.

i also agree that we can't assume they were irresponsible with birth control, but it is a tempting assumption to make because the whole spears camp has eagerly gobbled up and passed on ignorant, irresponsible advice, from following the president into war obediently to counting on abstinence-only rhetoric as a form of b.c. they are the poster family for how important it is to think ahead!

they are the poster family for how important it is to think ahead!

No kidding. If the Spears parents had thought ahead to the extent of wondering "Hmm. You know, maybe it's not the best thing for our daughter's emotional health to market her virginity and turn her into an overhyped sex symbol for pervy older men like Bob Dole. Maybe we shouldn't do that," they would all be a bit better off.

I actually think it's pretty ok to "jump to the conclusion" that Jamie Lynn wasn't using birth control--she doesn't mention it once in the interview and she simply says "It's better to wait, but I can't be judgmental because of what I did"--the same abstinence-only message that helps get girls pregnant at 16. Why not even a mention of contraception? Probably because Spears wasn't using any.

I like what the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregancy had to say, and I'm definitely going to use this event to have the first of many sex talks I plan to have with my 9-year-old sister. I'm glad to be going home for break--I don't really trust my parents to handle these things...

just to add--in the interview she says that she took 2 weeks without telling anyone to decide what she wanted to do. If that's the case, I really commend her for weighing all the options on her own before bringing everyone else's interests. I just wish there were better options!

The sad thing is she isn't even old enough to be enjoying sex yet.

Or legally having it...

I am not shocked, and I am not going to criticize her for her age or her lineage. She is obviously an emancipated minor. In Hawaii, she would legally be one, simply by being pregnant. My surprise was reading that this star of "Zoey 101" was the younger sister of Britney that is sometimes mentioned. I now see there is a remarkable resemblance.

I see nothing odd in a 16 year old being pregnant. In my local high schools, which we visited as nursing students, there are pregnant girls as young as 14. The schools have a special program to help them maintain their health and train them to be parents (if they plan on giving birth), and for any father who joins them. I would prefer my own daughter finish school first, though.

"I don't understand why 'responsibility' is even brought up."

I agree that doing anything other than running away (which is obviously impossible for a woman, or such a public figure) is taking responsibility. She is making a very adult decision no matter what she does, including having sex.

I know this is not what Disney meant, particularly in the way they may handle her career prospects or her "upcoming" book, but if she decides to keep the baby after it is born, she is opening herself up to a near 19 year commitment (including caring for herself while pregnant), which may have lasting effects on her career plans. It would also be responsible for the father to share in childcare or providing financially for at least the next 18 years, no matter how well-off the Spears family may be.

[Oh, so the 19 year old boyfriend actually lives with the family. Rather bold, I'd say. "they say they met at church." . . . Gee.]

Is possibly being a SAHM "better" than maybe 19 years as a popular actress or singer with or without the added responsibility of caring for a child? No. But it's not my business.

"Or if it is an issue, what about the 'responsibility' of the parents, teachers, other adults, etc. to teach a 16 yr-old about sex, contraceptive, diseases, and consequences?"

I have no reason to believe Ms. Spears is ignorant in any way, or that the adults in her life were remiss. [Oh, I see the man lives with them, and the mother was "surprised." Well, I don't know, then.]

"Ugh, you'd think the rich & famous could hire someone to shove a pill down their throats once a day."

I thought modern womanhood was about having a choice. I don't judge even a pregnant 14 year old local school girl who did not use protection with her boyfriend. In that school program, as nurses or adults, we're supposed to help girl care for themselves, and encourage the fathers - deadbeat *cough* deadbeat - to join them, IF giving birth is the decision they make. Why is this girl expected or required to take the Pill? Because she is underage with a successful career? There is the possibility (I don't know the story) it was planned.

"The sad thing is she isn't even old enough to be enjoying sex yet."

I am not in any way encouraging pedophilia, but how old is old enough, for the modern woman? In some of those progressive countries I like to mention, where women have greater equality, the age of consent is as low as 12* or 14. It looks like the age in Louisiana is 17.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent#Ages_of_consent_in_various_countries
http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm

Canada* 12/14/18
France: 15
Germany: 14/16
Finland: 16
Iceland: 14 (15?)
Netherlands: 16
Norway: 16
Sweden: 15

*The slashes apparently represent exceptions for age of partner

Speaking of sex at 12: In my public school job in Japan, there was a girl who was involved with a 25 year old man* since the age of 11 (6th grade). She was pregnant by 12 prior to 7th grade, and had an abortion, probably against her will.

Her family, or cultural values (being a pregnant student at any age is scandalous in Japan, and nearly all such girls either drop out or get abortions), shamed her into being absent from junior high school for about two entire years, missing out on an important part of her mental and social development. Please note that when the girl was attending school upon entrance, and again shortly before graduation - 9th grade in Japan - the teachers did not judge her (though her progress was occasionally discussed at staff meetings, and it was a practice for teachers to visit the homes of non-attendees for school lessons and social calls), and outwardly at least, other students related to her like normal. I was encouraged to see her socializing with her old friends, acting like an ordinary 12 or 15 year old.

*Now this man is a freakin' perv, 25 with a girl of 11. I don't know his relationship to the family, but he was not put in jail. The family planned to allow the girl to marry the man (she wanted to) when she reached the Japanese legal age of 16. That was about 12 years ago, so I do not know the outcome.

And it isn't my business.

@ A male:

feminisim *is* about choice, and i don't advocate manditory b.c. for young girls, but we're also talking about children here. 16 is young, i won't say too young to have sex, but young enough that parents should still involve their wider perspective in her health care and lifestyle decisions. it's called parenting.

it's a cop out to say parents would be oppressing young girls by participating in their reproductive activity. what JLS needed, among honest information, b.c. access, and a little credit, is a future to aspire to that is as attractive as being another celebrity MILF.

unfortunately i sense she wasn't enouraged to do much more than showboat and smile. if girls aren't raised to be amitious and original, they usually fill that void with the default ideals: a perfect girlfriend, wife, mother, etc.

i don't mean to use a specific person as an allegory for the whole cultural phenom, bc that's unfair to this family, but they are kind of putting themselves out for dissection by selling their "scandals" to the tabs.

oh male, age of consent has nothing to do with enjoyment!
When Liz said, "The sad thing is she isn't even old enough to be enjoying sex yet." what she means is that most women don't begin to understand their bodies sexually and have orgasm until they are in their twenties.

When a person isn't fully cognitively developed until their mid-twenties, it is hard to be happy about of "respectful" of the decisions they make that will effect their lives and the lives of their children for...well, forever.

It looks like her mother was missing something, and I know nothing of her father, but if the parents had been "responsible," and we could agree that she had "informed," would that make her situation any different to readers?

[I'm deliberately missing a lot of information here, because I have no personal interest in the Spears family, I have no hint it is an exploitative or violent relationship, it sounds like the father is around . . . and it's not my business.]

My own daughter is 7, however, and I will play a role in my kids' (son 9) lives. I won't like it, but if I find my daughter is sexually active at 14, say, I'll talk to her (she'll know the biology already), and get her bc if she is not already on it, and I can't force her to take them or use condoms, any more than I can force someone in the hospital. I'll try to talk to the boy (if male) as well. I'll have a similar talk with my son when he notices girls (or boys - I assume by about 12), which will include "taking responsibility."

At this point when I have nothing to fear, I like to believe I'll be open minded enough to support either of my children as teens with kids (or wanting abortions) or long term partners of their own. I am completely unconcerned with possible "scandal." I just hope I'll be able to afford it. And I'll continue saving for college just the same.

"what she means is that most women don't begin to understand their bodies sexually and have orgasm until they are in their twenties."

No offense, but I thought the average person started masturbating younger, so I cannot assume that someone not of legal age would be ignorant about sex, their sexuality, or orgasm. Should I allow my daughter access to my wife's toys to learn what orgasm "really is?"

Why are we having judgments about sex and age? [Please recall I started at 23 myself, and am not promoting pedophilia.]

I have been reading about the Vagina Monologues recently, and supposedly in the original production is the portrayal of a woman who was molested another woman at 13. The controversial comment was, "If it was rape, it was good rape." For that reason, the comment was removed and the age was changed to 16. Why?

" . . . The 'good rape' line was excised from the script, the girl's age was changed to sixteen, and warnings were issued to individuals putting on the play that using older scripts containing the line constitued a copyright violation and was grounds for legal action." (Wikipedia).

According to the entertainment news show Inside Addition (which I am not normally in the habit of watching, but when you only get two clear channels and the other one is showing Family Guy...) Jamie Lynn's father thinks Jamie Lynn has "ruined her life." I have a problem with this statement.

First, let me make clear that I do not think teen pregnancy/parenting is the greatest thing or even a good thing to happen to a young woman. It can obviously be a very stressful, very life-altering event that disrupts what we might call a normal youth. However, it is not the end of the world! To say that it is going to ruin her life...no, it's not, necessarily. And I mean to apply this to any pregnant teen who chooses to keep and raise her own child. It's going to be a life-altering experience, but not always a life-ruining one. I feel like the "A teen pregnancy will ruin your life!" line is used as a scare tactic for promoting abstinence. Instead of telling teens that their life is over because they've gotten pregnant/gotten someone else pregnant and have decided to keep the baby, we should be helping those teens adjust to their new role as parents while also helping them continue their own process of becoming a productive, happy adult.

Not only that, but how is Jamie Lynn's baby going to feel if he/she ever finds out that granddad considered their very existence to be an utter disaster? Instead of proclaiming that his daughter has ruined her life, he should be supporting her in her decision and helping her to make sure this doesn't ruin her life.

"how is Jamie Lynn's baby going to feel if he/she ever finds out that granddad considered their very existence to be an utter disaster?"

Or a hinderance to her career or chosen lifestyle, which just might be SAHM?

IF Jamie Lynn(?) wants her baby, the father appears to be around, and she has her own damn money from her own damn job, what is the problem? She doesn't know how to "enjoy sex?" Shit.

I guess she can kiss that abstinence campaign goodbye.

And her show contract.

She did want a career like her sister's. Maybe they both can get a contract like Jenny Craig endorsement except for contraception as a career turnaround strategy. When the money's gone, this won't be nearly as fun to cover.

As a new year's resolution, the media ought not to publish any stories with the names Paris or Spears in it.

Snap judgment by feministing on the supposed meaning behind nickolodeon's diction. Instead of focusing on their notion of responsibility (which I took to mean explaining the situation to the media to end speculation and give a proper statement as Im sure her young fans are confused), why not (as many of the commenters have done) focus on the greater issues at large? That said, I don't agree that having a child that yong is an automatic life ruining situation. For some, a baby provides a wakeup call and a new focus to life. I know many women who had children young (and when I was in school they still taught us about contraception, so please don't blame everything on abstitinence only)and it really helped them turn their lives around. They stopped the drugs and the drinking and got good jobs to support the baby.

I should proofread. Apologies.

"Snap judgment by feministing on the supposed meaning behind nickolodeon's diction."

They can say and believe what they want. I do not rule out the possibility that Nickelodeon was being damned patronizing and will one day cut her off entirely. That would be cruel and lame. I hope her fans will then protest a storm.

My disagreement is why I see Ms. Spears and her situation being judged just as surely as Nickelodeon is seen as doing. If she is not being exploited, why should I be concerned even if she doesn't understand her sexuality? Is 16 too young to have sex, get pregnant, be a mother, or even form a long term relationship? If women can get an abortion without being fully informed, what is wrong with having sex, getting pregnant, being a mother, or forming a long term relationship without being fully informed? It's a choice. And if she were in Hawaii, she would be an emancipated minor, with full legal authority under the law. She would be like an adult, able to give consent to medical procedures (or refuse them), and able to enter into contracts. It is not our business.

Christ on a cracker.
Now I've heard everything.

I'm in the party that says it's not the greatest idea to have a child at 16. Not because a teenager would screw up the child's life necessarily (although that's definately a possibility at a young age), but because I believe that it's important to have a period in your life where you live entirely for yourself and not for anyone else. It's easier to do this when you're young, because you have a lot more energy, more health and vitality, and a lot less responsibilities, typically. It's impossible to live this way with a child. If you wanted to go on a vacation for three weeks, or switch careers or move someplace different for awhile, it would not be easy to do this with a child. You would have to consider the child's education, the child's emotional well-being in possibly being seperated from his or her friends, health insurance, money, etc. In essence, it is pretty damned hard to be selfish with children (although some people do it...I can't imagine the results are all that great though.)

As for Nickelodeon's phrasing, it sort of irks me too. When they say "take responsibility", I interpret that to mean that she's taking responsibility in choosing to raise the child. To me it's problemative phrasing because she would have been taking responsibility regardless of what she decided to do.

But what do I know? None of this is any of my business anyway.

"I'm in the party that says it's not the greatest idea to have a child at 16"

Well, at least I understand your reasoning, but she has a few months to consider these things, and make the "informed" choice, if she is not mature enough already. And by the sound of her asshat dad, she won't be allowed to forget it, no? Maybe he's forgotten who really makes the money in that household [your daughters *cough* your daughters]. Ass.

@ dirtbug--I should proof read too!

I think from a historical perspective, teen mothers are more the norm than the exception. The major societal change has not been an increase in teen pregnancy, but rather a decrease in teen marriage. The US reached its highest ever teen birth rate in the 1950's, today's rate is less than 1/2 of the 1950's rate.

Because of the drop in teen marriage rates and other societal shifts, we have come to think that teen mothering is somehow abnormal when in reality, it isn't. Somehow, this society has shifted its perspective that teens, by simple virtue of biological age, are unable to make any choices about lives, which includes mothering.

This disconnect confuses me, I keep trying to pinpoint the moment that "teen" was equated with "emotionally immature, susceptible idiot" no matter the circumstances or subject. That somehow, reaching some arbitrary age suddenly imbues one with wisdom, responsibilty and maturity. I call bullshit. Teen mothers, like any other (insert qualifier here) mothers are no different from each other with the exception of biologial age and the social mores we currently "abide" by. The only exception is that we, as a society, have made things no better for teen mothers (or other mothers) than they were 100 years ago or even in the 1950s when there were incredibly limited options when faced with unplanned pregnancy, which even from the comments here, apparently are dependent on some random individual's judgment of their morality.

I have little to say about Jamie Lynn's comments other than to say that they make complete sense in the same confused, nonsensical framework which frames the way that the US talks, thinks and behaves toward sex and sexuality, especially female sexuality. And even here there are just as many judgmental comments, albeit along a different perspect, as at conservative sites.

I also find it quite ironic that so much attention is paid to a young, white, female, wealthy celebrity who is pregnant and financially capable, at the very minimum, of caring for her child when no one gives a shit about the current population of poor mothers and children of all colors. That so much energy is spent even talking about Jamie Lynn and her pregnancy. Just. Fucking. Amazing.

"when no one gives a shit about the current population of poor mothers and children of all colors."

I see a lot of concern, for example, for the plight of poor women in Africa not permitted sex education or access to birth control because of US policy. This site is no more about the Spears family than it is about panties at Wal-Mart.

"That so much energy is spent even talking about Jamie Lynn and her pregnancy. Just. Fucking. Amazing."

I don't even see it as being about her. I see it being about freedom of choice, teen pregnancy, "responsibility," and patronizing comments about it, maybe from both sides.

"what she means is that most women don't begin to understand their bodies sexually and have orgasm until they are in their twenties."

Really? Maybe I (and my female peers) were informed too early, but I'm pretty sure most of us have been having orgasms (through masturbation) since approximately age twelve and enjoying sex since approximately age fifteen/sixteen. I really dislike all of the judgements that are being made about Jamie Lynn, but saying that she isn't old enough to ENJOY sex really irks me. I mean, everyone seems to be looking at either:

A) She's a sad, uninformed teen who is either a victim of miseducation OR her boyfriend because she was having sex without enjoying it

B) She's a nasty skanky rebel

And though the ideas may not be that blunt, I think those are the two sides (from most of the comments I've read). What if she was having safe sex with her boyfriend, using condoms, enjoying it, and the condom broke or a mistake was made? Why is that so impossible? Is it because of her age?

And yeah, the responsibility thing seems to have some sort of anti-choice (or maybe more accurate anti-abortion) connotation.

16 years old is not an adult. The pregnancy is JLS's and the choices (abortion, adoption or raising the kid) are hers, the situation still sucks.

It's not a mortal prejudice to say it's better for women to be parents than for girls to be parents. Parenthood is a massive responsibility.

If JLS thinks this is the best option for her, good luck with that. But it would be better for herself and her future child if she'd waited another 10 years.

No amount of financial success makes a person an adult.

"After all, she did say that she took a couple of weeks all to herself before telling even her mother. If she'd decided on an abortion, she could have had one without anyone knowing."

Wouldn't the paparazzi find out?

"i dont ever think having a child at 16 is a responsible thing to do. adoption or abortion is the responsible thing to do, i dont care how much money you have.

"Um...wow. Ethnocentric, much?"

What's so ethnocentric about it?

"That somehow, reaching some arbitrary age suddenly imbues one with wisdom, responsibilty and maturity."

You have to admit it beats the menarche-at-womanhood standard, especially now that many more girls (at least in the First World) reach menarche closer to 10 than to 18.

Meanwhile, if the standard isn't going to be a constant age, what would keep it from becoming "you're too immature to make your own decisions until you cave in and agree with the way your elders would make them for you"?

"Teen mothers, like any other (insert qualifier here) mothers are no different from each other with the exception of biologial age and the social mores we currently 'abide' by."

Don't forget economics. In places which have and enforce child labor laws, a 14-year-old mother or father may have fewer options for supporting herself or himself and her or his children than a 24-year-old mother or father may have.

I haven't read all the comments on this thread (I tried to sample along the way), so please forgive me if I'm repeating something someone has said already.

The point of the original post was to call attention to the way Nickelodeon was framing the story, not Spear's decision to have the baby. While I think the discussion about teen pregnancy is a valid one, I don't really think this is the place for lambasting her, her family, her boyfriend, etc., for the decision she has made. We don't KNOW what went into that decision.

I feel like we're just feeding the media frenzy by making denigrating comments about Spears' ability to parent. Shouldn't we instead be challenging the mainstream media to frame the story in a way that doesn't place moral value on one choice over the other?

Re: Liz's comment:

"The sad thing is she isn't even old enough to be enjoying sex yet.

Or legally having it..."

Excuse me? Who are you to decide when someone is capable of enjoying sex? Women can enjoy sex at any age. It's the education about sex and knowledge of their own bodies (and their partners') that matters. If she's physically mature and has a healthy sexuality and sexual relationship, it's very likely that she does enjoy sex.

And in California, at least, the adult must be at least three years older than the minor for it to be illegal. Even then, it's not really age that matters, it's the ability to consent. A person under 18 and a person over 18 having consensual, informed, mutually respecting an non-manipulative sex is not rape. Your implication that arbitrary laws and limitations should restrict a young woman's informed sexual choices is insulting.

Re: Liz's comment:

"The sad thing is she isn't even old enough to be enjoying sex yet.

Or legally having it..."

Excuse me? Who are you to decide when someone is capable of enjoying sex? Women can enjoy sex at any age. It's the education about sex and knowledge of their own bodies (and their partners') that matters. If she's physically mature and has a healthy sexuality and sexual relationship, it's very likely that she does enjoy sex.

And in California, at least, the adult must be at least three years older than the minor for it to be illegal. Even then, it's not really age that matters, it's the ability to consent. A person under 18 and a person over 18 having consensual, informed, mutually respecting an non-manipulative sex is not rape. Your implication that arbitrary laws and limitations should restrict a young woman's informed sexual choices is insulting.

"16 years old is not an adult."

Not by modern standards, no. I suppose you do not want to hear about old age of consent laws for male and female.

Despite many Japanese appearing relatively immature because their parents or the system exert so much control over them, you may be interested in knowing that mandatory schooling ends at 9th grade (15 years old), and from that point on, the "child" may go out and learn a trade, or otherwise begin working, if that is what they want to do. Other countries, such as the UK, have similar policies, and at workshop, could not understand the "American" attitude that kids "should" continue school until 18, much less go to college. They made the point a tradesman like a plumber makes more than a college grad white collar worker. A 15 year old choosing not to go to high school and learning to become a stone cutter or get married (at 16), is making a choice just as serious as Spears, whatever it may be.

"The pregnancy is JLS's and the choices (abortion, adoption or raising the kid) are hers, the situation still sucks."

Her life sucks if *she* thinks it sucks, not because her dad publicly says she's "ruined her life" or she may be out of a job on kid's TV. She can also be happy, if she believes she is happy. [Would you believe the medical standard of pain is also, it is pain if the patient says it is pain? "My leg hurts a 6 on a scale of 0 to 10!" Well, they might just get handed some otherwise illegal narcotics and get an entire bottle to take home.] Or is a happy 16/17 year old mother just ignorant or brainwashed because she has not experienced her own life enough?

"It's not a mortal prejudice to say it's better for women to be parents than for girls to be parents. Parenthood is a massive responsibility."

So is being a child celebrity, and the star of a TV show, with books in the works.

Let's try this. If Spears or Nickelodeon had to go public at all, what would have been supportive or neutral, without making value judgments? Can we try that? I've tried. How's this?

Nick: Thank you for coming everyone. Please be seated. And now, the star of "Zoey 101" has asked to make an announcement to the press."
JLS: " . . . And I would like to say that I believe in a woman's freedom of choice, and ask the media to respect the privacy of myself and my family while I make this decision."
Press: [silence, gasps, oohs, aahs, murmurs, applause]

or

Nick: "We would like to announce that JLS, star of the hit show "Zoey 101" has informed us she is pregnant."
Press: [gasps, oohs, aaahs, murmurs]
Nick: [hand up for silence] ". . . She has decided to take a brief hiatus from the show, but says she will resume production as soon as she is able. We at Nick would like to say we stand behind her in whatever decision she makes."
Press: [applause]

How dat? Better? Got better?

I have read almost all of the comments posted and I am shocked and actually offended by some of the things that have been said about teens and sexuality.
I'm 17 years old and sexually active. I can not believe Liz would say 16 years old isnt old enough to enjoy sex.
I have been sexually active since the age of 15 and I enjoy it every time. I've never been coerced into sex or had any other unfavorable sexual experiences.
I truly believe that I am old enough to fully understand and, yes, enjoy sex.
The first time I had sex was over two years ago and I have never regretted it. I knew what i was doing and I knew how serious the consequences could be. That's why we used a condom.
When I was 16 I started taking birth control and now I use BC and a condom every single time.
My parents both know that I am not a virgin, and my mom is actually the one who suggested i started taking birth control.
Even if my parents didnt approve of me being sexually active, I would still find a way to take birth control.
I am definitely old enough to enjoy sex. Actually, I love sex. I dont see a problem with it if I'm using protection every time and only having sex with people who respect me.
It's completely natural for teenagers to explore sex. This is when we become sexually mature, so it would make sense that we're actually having sex.
I'm not sure if Liz made that assumption based on personal experience or just some ridiculous preconceived notion, but it was certainly wrong. I am living proof of that.
My body is mine regardless of whether or not I have turned 18 yet, so I wish I could be trusted to make decisions about it without interference from parents/school/the bush administration/misinformed people on the internet. And btw I live in Georgia where the age of consent is 16, so not only do i enjoy sex, i have LEGAL sex. so back off.
I hope Jamie Lynn's pregnancy will open up more discussion about abstinence-only education vs. comprehensive sex education. It's not her fault she wasnt taught about contraception and safe sex.
BTW she is physically capable of having a child, and judging by the way she has handled things so far (coming to a decision about whether to keep it, informing the world of her pregnancy without shame) she is also emotionally capable.
I think she's very mature and I wish her luck.

I hope my children can be like you, empress.

Maybe this will go through as 2 separate posts:

"'16 years old is not an adult.'

"Not by modern standards, no. I suppose you do not want to hear about old age of consent laws for male and female."

I'm now reminded of these threads:

"Nine child rapists go free in Australia"
http://www.feministing.com/archives/008217.html

"Most upsetting lede ever"
http://feministing.com/archives/008175.html

"Other countries, such as the UK, have similar policies, and at workshop, could not understand the 'American' attitude that kids 'should' continue school until 18, much less go to college."

Speaking of the UK:

"School leaving age to rise to 18"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7077399.stm

"...Under the plans pupils would not have to continue with academic lessons but would be required to receive training..."

Having started having sex at fifteen, it would be a bit hypocritical of me to shame Spears for having sex at sixteen. However, I am sorry that she's had an unplanned pregnancy, and she has my sympathy for having to make these difficult decisions at this point in her life. The one she's made is definitely not one I would have made, for various reasons.

Speaking of which, I've a question for those who are saying there's nothing wrong with having a kid at sixteen, or that modern limits on adulthood are arbitrary. I guess this mostly applies if you are now 25 or older. Do you honestly believe that you were as mature, mentally and emotionally, at sixteen as you are now? Do you believe that you were as well informed, in a realistic way, about life?

My problem is that being a parent is about more than having the money to do so. It also requires a level of maturity to make all the difficult parenting decisions that you have to make. And (and how ridiculous that I'm quoting this movie), it's like the mother says to her daughter in the Jerry Springer movie. A parent should have a world view to pass on to their children. They should have some kind of established philosophy of life, based on real experience, to use as a guide in raising their children and in being an example to them. Now, having worked for so long at this age Spears may be an exception to this (sometimes Hollywood kids grow up fast, we all know). But how many other teenagers are really ready to, not only have sex or financially support a child, but really be a parent in all ways?

I think of myself when I was sixteen, and of pretty much every other sixteen year old I've known (with maybe one exception) and I shudder. No matter if we were mature for our age. Being a parent is a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

I think it was incredibly cruel, and stupid to say publicly, but I can understand why Spears' father would say her life was ruined. I'm sure lots of parents would feel the same way if they found out their teen daughter was having a baby. The economy is so polarized now, and the economic safety net so brittle, that there is a real risk a single false move can knock someone off the middle class track and plunge you into a lifelong struggle just to get by.

My relatives work in public high schools, and are constantly seeing this happen to their students who become pregnant and decide to have children. Many of the women finish high school, but are very limited in their postsecondary options and those who were pursuing vocational education must often discontinue it due to the pregnancy. As a result, they end up working in a string of menial, low-wage jobs, living off their parents or bouncing from living with one sketchy boyfriend to another (when your options are shacking up or living at home, you can become a lot less selective about men) until they become prematurely aged in their early forties. Life for their kids often isn't very good, either.

Now, many of these young women were troubled and not particularly responsible to begin with, so maybe this would have happened anyway. And some of the women who have good parents or boyfriends or just incredible internal wills do manage to make something better. But having a kid at a young age constrains your options and puts a real limit on the second chances, margins for error, opportunities to correct past mistakes you have going forward.

And the fact that Spears has money now doesn't necessarily mean anything--there are tons of washed up child stars out there, and, since she seems to have had little opportunity so far to develop other marketable skills, I can see why her dad would be scared for her future.

The "responsible" thing would have been to Spay the Spears when we had the chance. Otherwise, I would say that the next most "responsible" thing would be to get that girl a hasty abortion.

Someone in my office aptly said that if she was 26 we'd be saying congratulations but since she is 16 Nickelodeon seems to think this is some kind of catastrophe. She’s made the decision to keep the child, so let’s celebrate with her in this life affirming moment, instead of shaming her. Just because the pregnancy is apparently unplanned, does not mean that the decision to keep it needs to be full of shame. Nickelodeon should stop talking about these “difficult times� like she has cancer or something.

Sixteen year-olds having kids is not responsible. I know that is a judgment call, but it's one I'm ok with.

Please forgive me if I'm repeating someone else's point above, but it appears that Nickelodeon's statement presupposes that not aborting the pregnancy is more "responsible" than aborting it, in the sense that such is more deserving of moral praise than the alternative. Regardless of how one feels about whether it is permissible to abort (or whether there exists a fundamental right to abort) in certain circumstances, isn't it true that not having an abortion is morally better than having one? Or is there no moral value to be ascribed to the act at all (i.e., aborting is neither "good" nor "bad")?

For example, if one accepts the proposition that abortion should be "legal but rare" (like, for example, Hillary Clinton), then such a view seems to presuppose that abortion is something to be avoided generally if possible, which is to ascribe to the act a particular moral value. With those presuppositions in place, all Nickelodeon seems to be doing here is expressing (what I think to be the rather "mainstream") view that one is entitled to more respect for one's decision to carry one's pregnancy to term, which it assumes is the morally better (but not absolutely correct) thing to do. Thoughts?

(And by the way, all I'm asking is whether there is any legitimate moral value to be ascribed to the act at all - not trying to stir the pot or pick a fight.)

Thanks!

Can't there be some sort of middle ground between "shaming" someone and "rejoicing" about a very young girl having a baby? I mean, I don't want to shame people for having sex by any means, but neither do I particularly want to say that it's such a great idea to have (or keep) a child when you're still a child yourself.

And looking back at myself 12 years ago, when I was 16, I can see that I VASTLY overestimated my maturity. Vastly.

I don't think its fair to drag statisics from the 1950s into this discussion as a way to normalize teen pregnanct. The 50s were an anamoly in the 20th century--divorce rates had been rising, and suddenly fell in the 50s. The same with average age at first marriage. It's hardly fair to take an isolated number from 60 years ago and use it as justification for modern attitudes.

In addition, the 1950s were just a different line. High school diplomas were often enough to get a good job, and wages were high enough that a single incone could support a family.

I think if other teenage norms from this time period started happening in larger numbers--young women dropping out of school, getting married while still a teenager, and having children shortly thereafter--I'd find it a terrible step backwards for the feminist movement.

"Speaking of the UK:"

"School leaving age to rise to 18"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7077399.stm

"...Under the plans pupils would not have to continue with academic lessons but would be required to receive training..."

Well, I *was* talking about commonwealth people's attitudes in 1993. Please note that training vs academic lessons remains an option. Students should not be made to study until adulthood, if they have another path for themselves (other than laying around the house, of course). Here, union carpenters make over $60/hr. if I recall. Much better than any white collar job category available here, outside of pharmacy $75/hr. or medicine $250-350,000/yr. The average pencil pusher has no hope of out-earning a carpenter who "dropped out" at 16. [The demand here is simply too high, and work is steady.]

That "upsetting lede" is a justifiably horrifying story. I remember it. But being the only female in a room full of males hardly suggests a 12 year old is having consensual sex. Even Canada requires the male partner to be no older than 15 when having sex with a 12 year old, and that it be non-exploitive. Gang bangs and bukkake probably don't count.

"Do you honestly believe that you were as mature, mentally and emotionally, at sixteen as you are now? Do you believe that you were as well informed, in a realistic way, about life?"

No. What does this have to do with anything? A woman or child seeking an abortion does not need to be informed of everything. And she will live with her choice for better or worse, maybe for the rest of her life. Pro-choicers would probably oppose trying to "scare" women seeking abortions by informing them of the uncommon but very real risks or showing them through ultrasound what is happening inside them. Keeping a child is another choice, and to deny or judge her for that is just as bad as denying or judging women who seek/have abortions. I'm not saying keeping a baby is better. It's at least an 18 year commitment with consequences for mother and child. But it's another choice.

"isn't it true that not having an abortion is morally better than having one? "

You have the wrooong audience.

"But how many other teenagers are really ready to, not only have sex or financially support a child, but really be a parent in all ways?"

That's being age-ist. You are talking about "other teenagers," not individuals. Are you not reading the comments of posters who know perfectly fine teen mothers? Are you not reading about the school programs available in my community to support girls (and boys) to be BETTER parents, which do include job skills? Believe me, it is not policy for CPS to collect teens' babies in the delivery room. They better frickin' wait until there is some evidence ANY parent or guardian is unfit.

"I think it was incredibly cruel, and stupid to say publicly, but I can understand why Spears' father would say her life was ruined."

No, that view is perfectly understandable. Just limiting. And cruel of one's own child. What a dick.

"I'm sure lots of parents would feel the same way if they found out their teen daughter was having a baby."

Not me, and I'm not just talking shit. If my daughter gets pregnant, or my son gets his girlfriend pregnant, I'll do my best to stand by them, whether they seek abortions, adoption, or actually go through with it. At any age.

"young women dropping out of school, getting married while still a teenager, and having children shortly thereafter--I'd find it a terrible step backwards for the feminist movement."

Limiting themselves in adulthood is because of the "dropping out of school," not because of the others. What if - revolutionary idea, which is actually practiced in some places, like high schools with on campus child care - we find ways to allow young women who CHOOSE to keep their babies, to continue their education, to minimize detrimental effects on their future career prospects. Is this yet another poorly veiled attack on SAHMs? Choice, choice, choice. WTF is so hard for "feminists" to understand the other side, the apparently unpalatable choice of actually wanting to keep a baby?

"For example, if one accepts the proposition that abortion should be "legal but rare" (like, for example, Hillary Clinton), then such a view seems to presuppose that abortion is something to be avoided generally if possible, which is to ascribe to the act a particular moral value."

That's me. Young pregnancy is also to be avoided. I'd like my daughter to wait till 16 at least. It *could* have detrimental effects on her future. You know, limit her choices*. It doesn't mean I judge young pregnant women, but I will call non-present fathers deadbeats, and dads who say girls have ruined their lives, asshats.

*zomg. Having a baby when one is not ready, is anti-choice! Better to abort! Is this what posters are really trying to say? I see at least one.

Everyone has their own view of what is and isn’t a responsible choice, but it just doesn’t make sense to presume that Jamie Lynn’s decision is more responsible than her alternatives.

Jill Morrison here at the National Women's Law Center has more on this.

"Everyone has their own view of what is and isn’t a responsible choice, but it just doesn’t make sense to presume that Jamie Lynn’s decision is more responsible than her alternatives."

Exactly. Her choice is no better or no worse than adoption or abortion. Which is why attacks on her apparent choice (she has months remaining to change it) is so puzzling. I have actually read the article linked to her story and see she did put some time alone into making a choice. She seems intelligent and informed. I have no reason to question the validity of her choice, because it is hers.

Well, one possible explanation for her decision to carry the pregnancy to term is that this whole thing was a deliberate publicity stunt to upstage her big sister. Thankfully I'm not so cynical to have thought of this myself - according to Fox's Gibson & Nauert, an aunt his saying this is all a publicity stunt.

As for NWLC post by Jill Morrison and follow up by Robin Reed, it appears that the disappointment of the "responsibility" comment presupposes that the act of abortion itself either carries no moral value at all (which appears to be Robin's view), or that, even if it does, a sufficient rationalization (or justification) may exist warranting the fundamentally immoral act (e.g., believing that one would be a bad mother, etc.), which is always ultimately up to the mother (which appears to be Morrison's view).

So what I'm asking - just to clarify - is whether abortion carries a fundamental moral weight but that weight depends on the individual and the circumstances (Morrison) or abortion carries no moral weight at all (Robin). Does that clarify the question?

And again, the reason I ask the question is because Hillary Clinton's view is that abortion should be "legal but rare," but if you say that you acknowledge that there is something fundamentally wrong with abortion in the first instance, and I'm wondering if you all agree with Clinton.

Many thanks!

My apologies to Cedar – I did not realize that s/he was responding to any of my questions. I also apologize for asking whether or not anyone has any feelings about the moral value of the act of abortion. May I assume that your answer regarding my “morally better� query is “no�? I guess I don’t understand what relevance the particular audience has on anyone’s answer (unless the answer is so obvious that it renders my question silly).

Anywhoo, as for the question about whether abortion “ought to be avoided generally, if possible,� I notice that your answer is “Young pregnancy is also to be avoided.� Does that mean you agree that both ought to be avoided, if possible? Or is your point that contraception is the moral equivalent of abortion? Reading your two responses together, it seems that you agree that abortions ought to be avoided generally, which seems to me to suggest that the act of abortion itself does indeed carry with it a moral value (setting aside the particular circumstances, which I am not saying never justify choosing to abort). Just trying to understand the logic, that’s all.

A male, I'd think that my reason for bringing up relative maturity at age sixteen would be fairly obvious. It's also fairly obvious why the question doesn't apply to those who choose abortion or adoption.

My post was about parenting a child. Those who choose abortion or adoption do not have to worry whether they have the appropriate maturity (mental and emotional) or any of the other skills necessary to parent a child. Only those who keep the baby have to be concerned with that. My point was that very few sixteen year olds possess that necessary maturity, and therefore should think very carefully before deciding to keep the baby.

I wasn't talking about anything but parenting, which I think very few young-ish teens are actually well prepared to do. I was a mature sixteen year old, but I can tell you now, looking back, that there's no comparison. I think people ought to wait until actual adulthood to have children for the sake of the children, who deserve parents who are ready for them in all ways, not just financial. Speaking generally (not just of Spears), I don't think one should take on the responsibility of shaping and guiding another life until one has a reasonable grip on one's own. Sixteen is a time when many of us make very stupid mistakes. The parenting choices you make for your child shouldn't be one of them.

Choice, choice, choice. WTF is so hard for "feminists" to understand the other side, the apparently unpalatable choice of actually wanting to keep a baby?

I support all reproductive and childbirth choices. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that there's more 16 year olds strong-armed into having abortions by well-meaning parents than they are 16 year olds strong-armed into carrying the pregnancy to term. I think that's wrong.

But that's not what I was arguing. I'm saying that these 1950s standards that someone brought up shouldn't be normalized in modern society. Dropping out of school and beingmarried at a young age limit your future, and your choices. I'm in my 20s, and my life would be radically different if I was forced by cultural norms into a marriage (regardless of whether or not I had kids) when I was 16, especially a marriage that probably didn't respect me as a woman and as an individual, as the norms of the 50s did.

"I support all reproductive and childbirth choices."

Then my comment was not aimed at you, but at all the snipes about JLS wanting to keep her baby. Judgments about simply being young and pregnant, or comments about having Spears women sterilized are particularly revealing.

"I wasn't talking about anything but parenting, which I think very few young-ish teens are actually well prepared to do. I was a mature sixteen year old, but I can tell you now, looking back, that there's no comparison."

And when you are 40, or 60, or 80, you may well say the same thing about yourself now. I hope we will all be mentally and emotionally more mature, with a more promising career and greater financial security. Should we then judge parents in their 20s or 30s based on standards of parents in their 40s, much less standards of grandparents? Personally I am glad my wife and I were 30 when we started having children. Thirty is obviously a long time to wait, and simply not the reality for someone else, like the Spears women.

Is there some *objective* yardstick (that is, not subject to individual opinion) you would care to use in determining the fitness of a mother or parent? I see none here, and CPS or the police would not step in until she represents an actual threat, like say, leaving her baby in a closed car while going shopping, allowing the baby to be malnourished, or hitting the child in public. The child might have learning or developmental problems in the future due to the lack of parenting skills? Sorry, that is the parents' responsibility. There are irresponsible parents (and grandparents) of all ages. Flat out criminal ones, as well. If Mr. Spears is so concerned for his daughter's well being, perhaps he will take a personal interest in supporting her little family, instead of publicly attacking her.

"Anywhoo, as for the question about whether abortion 'ought to be avoided generally, if possible,' I notice that your answer is 'Young pregnancy is also to be avoided.' Does that mean you agree that both ought to be avoided, if possible?"

Legal, safe, accessible and rare. From the public health viewpoint, teen pregnancy and parenthood are also concerns. But data are not individual people. JLS can live her own life.

"Or is your point that contraception is the moral equivalent of abortion?"

If you are asking if I am Catholic or Fundamentalist, or subscribe to their thinking, no. Sexual and reproductive freedom for me, which would in that sense, make them equivalent. Raise child, give up for adoption, have an abortion, use birth control to prevent pregnancy, it's the same to me, particularly once I put on my uniform. It isn't my business. And if my children are involved and it becomes my business, I'll be behind them, at any age.

"Reading your two responses together, it seems that you agree that abortions ought to be avoided generally, which seems to me to suggest that the act of abortion itself does indeed carry with it a moral value (setting aside the particular circumstances, which I am not saying never justify choosing to abort). Just trying to understand the logic, that’s all."

You may note from my posts my distaste for abortion *as* birth control or for "partial birth abortion." Partial birth abortion is just nasty. It would be nice if those were reduced, *through personal choice*, NOT through any legal or political restrictions. And particularly if I'm the nurse on duty, it's not my business.

I dislike the "rare but legal" approach to abortion as well, which casts a moral judgment on the discussion and smacks of the also distasteful, "I would never ever have an abortion myself, but I think other women should have the choice to do go" pro-choice argument.

I see your response now, A male, which isn't that different from mine re: "rare but legal."

I will say that having an abortion sucked--it was much more painful than I thought it would be, and I was an emotional wreak afterwards (because of the craziness of the hormones). It also screwed up my period/hormone cycles for months afterwards.

So, yes--there is a difference between not getting pregnant in the first place and having an abortion. And I would much rather continue to not get pregnant that have another abortion. I don't think it's entirely fair to women to say that birth control and abortion are more or less interchangeable.

"In fact, I'd be willing to bet that there's more 16 year olds strong-armed into having abortions by well-meaning parents than they are 16 year olds strong-armed into carrying the pregnancy to term. I think that's wrong."

Wouldn't that depend on which 16-year-olds? Globally, I bet the parents and husbands and in-laws forcing pregnant 16-year-olds to give birth outnumber the parents forcing pregnant 16-year-olds to abort:

http://www.endfistula.org/family_planning.htm

"In spite of laws against early marriage, 82 million girls in developing countries will be married before they turn 18. About half of all teenage girls will have their first child by the time they turn 18."

Nationally in the U.S., I wouldn't be surprised if your bet is more accurate.

I don't want to sound like Dr.Phil here, but she owes her fans a better explanation then "don't have sex before marriage". I'm not sure if this will be good thing it will show her fans pregnancies can actually happen, or if it will only encourage girls to get knocked up as a trendy thing to do or a way to get attention. Either way I am sure her being pregnant will have an influence on the girls who watch her show, now and in the future.

"I hope my children can be like you, empress."

well, thank you. i smiled when i read that.

i also wanted to point out to everyone that the mistake jamie lynn spears made was not having sex, it was having unprotected sex.
its really shocking that so many people are judging her based on the fact that she is sexually active. thats really not the problem. she should have been safe, but too late now, i guess.

"I don't want to sound like Dr.Phil here, but she owes her fans a better explanation then 'don't have sex before marriage'. I'm not sure if this will be good thing it will show her fans pregnancies can actually happen, or if it will only encourage girls to get knocked up as a trendy thing to do or a way to get attention."

One more possibility is diehard fans just having teen pregnancies via marital sex instead of premarital sex. How likely or unlikely would that result of the hype be?

Yet another possibility is her fans not being diehard fans in the first place.

I didn't think anything good was going to come from this story. I was proven wrong when I read an article about how Christian conservatives are having a hard time dealing with Ms. Spears and the main character in Juno. Even Leslee Unruh couldn't scream "More babies! We love babies!" at the idea that some girls might follow in Jamie Lynn's footsteps. The article also shows the huge difference between the message sent by the abstinence-only crowd and those who support comprehensive sex-ed. Comprehensive sex-ed teaches kids that waiting is the only way to prevent pregnancy and STDs, but if you're going to have sex, here's how you can be safe. Abstinence-only sex-ed tells kids not to have sex at all, but if they do, don't use birth control because it causes cancer/kills babies, and since you ladies are probably going to get pregnant from having unprotected sex, make sure you give birth and prepare to become a mommy.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gNdFsOZ4_cshfAjHW3WTsQkz3i6AD8TLEN580

This announcement will serve as an opportunity for some families to talk about a variety of issues:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071221/ts_nm/spears_parents_dc;_ylt=AmQ4Z9eVsWbFPXjhvTakGfFZ.3QA

When I went over to Wikipedia to learn about JLS and her show, I was disappointed to see that production on the final season had already been completed. [I guess she really is out of a job.] Considering the show is about girls in a previously all-male boarding school, a show about her actual condition would be most appropriate, if the network and viewers' parents had been able to tolerate it. TV shows have used performers' actual pregnancies before.

Meanwhile, what if Jamie Lynn Spears wants to tone down the limelight aimed at her the way Keisha Castle-Hughes seems to have recently done?

I'm reminded a bit of the way some older non-celebrities "opt out" of their stressful offices: get pregnant, get some more attention around the pregnancy and birth, then get *less* attention (as her ex-coworkers mostly assume she left the job for the baby instead of gossiping about why she thought the job sucked).

Likewise, what if Spears and Castle-Hughes now prefer getting less attention and both figured "once my baby's a toddler I won't get as much obnoxious attention between movies"?

"I dislike the 'rare but legal' approach to abortion as well, which casts a moral judgment on the discussion and smacks of the also distasteful, 'I would never ever have an abortion myself, but I think other women should have the choice to do go" pro-choice argument.'"

What is distasteful about the second statement? It simply sounds like a personal choice, like whether or not to take oral contraceptives. Even if a person never has an abortion, like myself, it is respecting others' right to exercise choice. One woman's choice regarding childbirth/abortion is not threatened by the choice of another. There is not necessarily any moral overtones in such a statement.

"I don't think it's entirely fair to women to say that birth control and abortion are more or less interchangeable."

They are not interchangeable, and I have recognized how abortion is an invasive procedure with uncommon but real risks, including those you describe of yourself, which is why I prefer abortion be "rare." [I have no idea why others wish abortion to be "rare."] It is not like putting on a condom or taking a daily pill.

The "rare" comment does not mean I would ever approve of limiting reproductive choices, or that I look down on women who have abortions Thank you for sharing your experience with us, because physical and psychological effects need to be recognized. I hope you have access to some sort of support if you need it.

The morality of reproductive choices is not mine to judge, was my point. Same as regarding JSL.

What is distasteful about the second statement? It simply sounds like a personal choice, like whether or not to take oral contraceptives. Even if a person never has an abortion, like myself, it is respecting others' right to exercise choice. One woman's choice regarding childbirth/abortion is not threatened by the choice of another. There is not necessarily any moral overtones in such a statement.

I have to say that I agree with this statement. I don't know why it would be distasteful for me to be pro-choice, but not want to have an abortion myself. I've always known that I wanted to be a mother, and when I found out that I was pregnant at 20, the thought of abortion just flitted in and out of my head. I think that had I been a little younger, I would have considered abortion a little more seriously, but probably still would have kept my son. Only a year before I got pregnant, I held my best friend's hand while she went through the torture of RU-486, and fully supported her decision. But even then, I knew that I wouldn't have made the same decision she did. One of my other best friends has had four abortions, and while I tell her she should be a little more careful with her birth control regimen, I certainly don't condemn her decisions by any means. But that doesn't mean that I could make the same decision.

Pro-choice, means pro-choice, and I shouldn't have to be ashamed to say that no matter what the circumstances, I would continue my pregnancy, not because I'm against abortion, but simply because I love being a mother.

And by the way, I'm now a 24 year old single mother with a 3 year old son, and yes, it is hard, and yes, sometimes I feel like I should have had more time to be young. I also have yet to finish my bachelor's degree ( I only have 30 credits left) because it hasn't been easy for me to go to school and pay the rent, and right now I'm going through a really difficult time in my life that is probably more difficult because I have my son to think about, but I wouldn't change any of it, because I love my son more than life itself, and as long as he knows that, I think we'll be okay. And I don't see why a 16 year old girl can't be capable of loving her child and trying to do what's best for her/him, no matter how much it's changed her life. Especially if finances aren't a problem.

And I do take some offense as well as some of the other posters at the idea that she's an idiot because she got pregnant. It happens. My son is a birth-control-baby. I am not an idiot, and while her lineage may suggest otherwise, she is not an idiot merely because she got pregnant.

What is distasteful about the second statement? It simply sounds like a personal choice, like whether or not to take oral contraceptives. Even if a person never has an abortion, like myself, it is respecting others' right to exercise choice. One woman's choice regarding childbirth/abortion is not threatened by the choice of another. There is not necessarily any moral overtones in such a statement.

I have to say that I agree with this statement. I don't know why it would be distasteful for me to be pro-choice, but not want to have an abortion myself. I've always known that I wanted to be a mother, and when I found out that I was pregnant at 20, the thought of abortion just flitted in and out of my head. I think that had I been a little younger, I would have considered abortion a little more seriously, but probably still would have kept my son. Only a year before I got pregnant, I held my best friend's hand while she went through the torture of RU-486, and fully supported her decision. But even then, I knew that I wouldn't have made the same decision she did. One of my other best friends has had four abortions, and while I tell her she should be a little more careful with her birth control regimen, I certainly don't condemn her decisions by any means. But that doesn't mean that I could make the same decision.

Pro-choice, means pro-choice, and I shouldn't have to be ashamed to say that no matter what the circumstances, I would continue my pregnancy, not because I'm against abortion, but simply because I love being a mother.

And by the way, I'm now a 24 year old single mother with a 3 year old son, and yes, it is hard, and yes, sometimes I feel like I should have had more time to be young. I also have yet to finish my bachelor's degree ( I only have 30 credits left) because it hasn't been easy for me to go to school and pay the rent, and right now I'm going through a really difficult time in my life that is probably more difficult because I have my son to think about, but I wouldn't change any of it, because I love my son more than life itself, and as long as he knows that, I think we'll be okay. And I don't see why a 16 year old girl can't be capable of loving her child and trying to do what's best for her/him, no matter how much it's changed her life. Especially if finances aren't a problem.

And I do take some offense as well as some of the other posters at the idea that she's an idiot because she got pregnant. It happens. My son is a birth-control-baby. I am not an idiot, and while her lineage may suggest otherwise, she is not an idiot merely because she got pregnant.

What is distasteful about the second statement? It simply sounds like a personal choice, like whether or not to take oral contraceptives. Even if a person never has an abortion, like myself, it is respecting others' right to exercise choice. One woman's choice regarding childbirth/abortion is not threatened by the choice of another. There is not necessarily any moral overtones in such a statement.

I have to say that I agree with this statement. I don't know why it would be distasteful for me to be pro-choice, but not want to have an abortion myself. I've always known that I wanted to be a mother, and when I found out that I was pregnant at 20, the thought of abortion just flitted in and out of my head. I think that had I been a little younger, I would have considered abortion a little more seriously, but probably still would have kept my son. Only a year before I got pregnant, I held my best friend's hand while she went through the torture of RU-486, and fully supported her decision. But even then, I knew that I wouldn't have made the same decision she did. One of my other best friends has had four abortions, and while I tell her she should be a little more careful with her birth control regimen, I certainly don't condemn her decisions by any means. But that doesn't mean that I could make the same decision.

Pro-choice, means pro-choice, and I shouldn't have to be ashamed to say that no matter what the circumstances, I would continue my pregnancy, not because I'm against abortion, but simply because I love being a mother.

And by the way, I'm now a 24 year old single mother with a 3 year old son, and yes, it is hard, and yes, sometimes I feel like I should have had more time to be young. I also have yet to finish my bachelor's degree ( I only have 30 credits left) because it hasn't been easy for me to go to school and pay the rent, and right now I'm going through a really difficult time in my life that is probably more difficult because I have my son to think about, but I wouldn't change any of it, because I love my son more than life itself, and as long as he knows that, I think we'll be okay. And I don't see why a 16 year old girl can't be capable of loving her child and trying to do what's best for her/him, no matter how much it's changed her life. Especially if finances aren't a problem.

And I do take some offense as well as some of the other posters at the idea that she's an idiot because she got pregnant. It happens. My son is a birth-control-baby. I am not an idiot, and while her lineage may suggest otherwise, she is not an idiot merely because she got pregnant.

I hope I'm not being annoying and multiple posting this, but it's not showing up, so I've tried a few times. Maybe I'm tired and I should go to bed.

"the torture of RU-486"

I don't mean to pry, but what are you referring to by torture?

"I wouldn't change any of it"

I am 39, married with two children. My situation is very precarious, having relocated overseas, gone to school full time, and going unemployed for an extended period, along with having some costly health concerns. I sometimes think how my life could have been easier, but always remember how that path would never have brought me to my wife and children (mostly because they are from Japan). And if my wife had not had her procedures (two), we would never have had these children (our informal limit is two). Nope, wouldn't relive my life.

BTW, here's an interesting article on how the network might address the issue given that the target audience of Zoey 101 is 9-14 years old:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/20/AR2007122001271.html?hpid=entnews

"the torture of RU-486"

I don't mean to pry, but what are you referring to by torture?

Perhaps torture is a strong word, but it was pretty gawdawful to watch. She pretty much spent equal time writhing around on her bed with excruciating abdominal pain, and sitting on the toilet trying to expel the fetus. And identifying one particularly large blood clot as possibly the fetus was pretty traumatic for her (and me, for that matter). Her pain went on all night, and all I can liken it too was my experience of labor. I don't know how it usually is for other women, but she went through an enormous amount of discomfort, and then still had to go in for a D&C, because there was still fetal tissue in her uterus.

Like I said, I don't pass any judgment on anyone for making the decisions they have to make. And I know that making the decision to have an abortion has not set well with my friend, even though she wouldn't change it if she had to go back. But it's certainly a decision that should be thought through, and whatever choice a woman makes when faced with pregnancy is likely to affect her for the rest of her life, whether it be deciding to keep it, putting it up for adoption, or aborting it. I'm glad that I didn't have to make the decision earlier in life, but I'm only 24, and I don't feel like 16 was all that long ago. Maybe I'm the exception (I doubt it) but I was fully aware of all of the ramifications of having sex at that age (although I was closer to 17 when I started), and took precautions accordingly. But I think that even then I would have been able to make an informed decision about what to do. I just think that everyone has a different idea of what they would do in that situation, and I think it's good to think about it and discuss it with your partner.

For example, I've told my partner that if I get pregnant, I plan to keep the baby, and he's okay with that decision, just as he was okay with past partners deciding to have abortions. (Totally off the topic here, but those abortions hurt him badly. I know that it is totally a woman's choice to do what she will with her body, but he certainly feels the repercussions of those decisions today.) I don't know exactly what I'm trying to say, but I don't think that it's hypocritical to support others' decisions while knowing that I probably wouldn't make that same decision. And if I can respect those choices, then my choices should be respected as well.

What is distasteful about the second statement? It simply sounds like a personal choice, like whether or not to take oral contraceptives. Even if a person never has an abortion, like myself, it is respecting others' right to exercise choice. One woman's choice regarding childbirth/abortion is not threatened by the choice of another. There is not necessarily any moral overtones in such a statement.

It is judgemental. When someone says to me, "I would never have an abortion, under any circumstances," implying that it's wrong or bad, or that they'd feel too guilty. It's saying to me that although what I did was legally okay, there's something morally not-okay about it.

It is judgemental. When someone says to me, "I would never have an abortion, under any circumstances," implying that it's wrong or bad, or that they'd feel too guilty. It's saying to me that although what I did was legally okay, there's something morally not-okay about it.

I don't see that me saying that I wouldn't choose to have an abortion necessarily implies a moral judgment on those who do choose that course. But there are physical ramifications to abortion, and while it is rare, it is possible that a viable pregnancy could be difficult or impossible following multiple abortions, or even just one. If motherhood has always been something that I've wanted, and I don't want to risk not being able to have a baby in the future, I don't think that's a moral condemnation of those that choose that route. Just because I want children, doesn't mean that I think that everyone does or even should. It's just a personal choice, and though some may have moral reasons behind not having an abortion, mine were mostly practical.

BTW I wrote a paper for my Ethics class concerning abortion a few years ago, and I posted it on my blog http://myvalleydays.blogspot.com/2007/11/ethics-paper.html. Those views were mostly regurgitated from papers I read, and my opinions have changed some since then, but I still think that I have some valid points.

Alright, what I think I’m learning here is that the Cedar/Mina/A male view is essentially that abortion does carry with it some moral value, but whatever that value is is completely up to the person who must choose to either have it or not, and one ought not render any judgment on the individual’s choice. So, on this view, the act itself carries with it SOME moral worth (whatever it is), but whatever it is, depends not on societal norms but instead whatever the individual having the abortion thinks.

I think Alexandra’s view is somewhat stronger: “It is judgemental. When someone says to me, ‘I would never have an abortion, under any circumstances,’ implying that it's wrong or bad, or that they'd feel too guilty. It's saying to me that although what I did was legally okay, there's something morally not-okay about it.� On this view it seems that abortion does not carry with it any moral value (i.e., it’s not “wrong or bad�) at all.

So there are two fundamental “moralities� at work here. On the first, acts carry moral value, but how the moral value is weighed depends entirely on the person who has committed or is going to commit the act, so an “outsider� (so to speak) ought not render judgment. This seems to me to be basically a rough form of moral relativism.

On the second, acts do not carry any moral value at all, so even talking about what moral weight should be attached to abortion begs the question (because it assumes that some moral weight should be attached). In other words, since acts do not carry any moral value at all, it requires a degree of moral presumptuousness (or arrogance) to render any moral judgment about anything. This seems to me to be basically moral nihilism.

I don’t mean to mischaracterize anyone’s views here, so please correct me if I’ve done so. I’m just trying to get a grip on what camp everyone falls into. It might be useful to note additionally, however, that moral nihilism (like any radical skepticism), is so wildly implausible that finding any serious philosopher who advocates such a view is nearly impossible, so that view can be jettisoned fairly quickly. Moral relativism is far more plausible, yet it is far without its own problems, one of them being the obvious one that it requires a moral judgment to conclude that there is something wrong about judging another’s moral judgments, which its itself an “absolute� moral judgment. In other words, moral relativism appears internally incoherent, but on this topic philosophers can and do disagree.

On my own view, acts obviously carry moral weight, and I think everyone deep down (and if they are really thinking carefully about it) agrees with me. That’s why folks like Hillary Clinton argue that abortion ought to be “legal but rare,� meaning “a constitutional right to choose a fundamentally immoral act in compelling circumstances,� where non-compelling circumstances include late-term abortions just for the heck of it. And if you don’t agree, then just shift the context and try the reasoning, say, to environmentalism.

I have to believe that most of the feministing.com folks are environmentalists, just as I am. And as an environmentalist, I think everyone ought to recycle and refrain from littering. And if I see someone litter, I occasionally tell the littering person that they are committing an act that is immoral and ought not do so. And I feel perfectly comfortable doing so, and no companion of mine ever grabs my arm and says, “But Ben, you really ought not judge that person.� I can and do and am quite sure about my own moral virtue when I do so. And the same goes for people who don’t recycle. When I learn that they don’t, I feel perfectly comfortable telling them that they ought to, and the reason they ought to is because the only why recycling has any positive impact on the environment is if everyone does their part. Nobody ever stops and says, “Well, who are you to judge me, Ben, you pompous jerk,� etc., because the morality of the “choice� to recycle is so obvious to everyone.

You guys see what I mean? I’m not trying to be contentious, but when we veer off into “never judging� people about certain things we can wind up in pretty scary territory. In any event, I appreciate the responses thus far and would be happy to continue this dialogue if anyone wishes to.

Oh, and Cedar is right about RU-486 – it puts the female through some very rough sledding for a couple days.

One more thing, Cedar – I was not asking if you were a Catholic or Christian Fundamentalist with respect to equating contraception with abortion (erasing any difference between pre- and post-conception acts of “birth control�). One can recognize a distinction between the two without being either. (And, moreover, one can be a “moralist� without believing in any religious doctrine whatsoever – just google “moral naturalism� to learn more.)

Sorry, one more thing - I can't seem to bring up the link to your paper, Cedar - would you mind checking the link for me? I'm interested in reading your thoughts. Thanks!

Cedar - I got the link to work (the period on the end is included in the link by accident). No worries, ~B

No, I do not believe the choice of abortion in itself carries a moral value. It is simply a medical risk quite unlike using putting on a condom, as one poster put it.

"It is judgemental. When someone says to me, "I would never have an abortion, under any circumstances," implying that it's wrong or bad, or that they'd feel too guilty. It's saying to me that although what I did was legally okay, there's something morally not-okay about it."

Perhaps it is that person's intention to judge you. Particularly because I am the health care field, I do not. My wife did it, I would participate in abortion if necessary, and my kids can do it with my support, if that is the choice they make - despite my dislike for the procedure or its byproducts. I think the procedure* is "ick," not the people.

*I would think the same of other invasive, messy procedures. Cleaning and draining rank, pus filled cellulitis, for example, can cause the uninitiated to vomit. It doesn't mean I judge the people.

And please excuse my poor analogies. Because of my health care background and the fact I do not make value judgments, is why I appear to speak of abortion so lightly.

A male, I appreciate the post, as well as the medical analogies. A couple of my close friends are MDs, so I know where you're coming from.

I understand and respect your view, but let me ask you a few questions anyway:
(1) Do you believe that stepping on a bug for no good reason carries moral value?
(2) If your answer to (1) is "no," do you believe that shooting an elephant for no good reason carries moral value?
(3) Do you believe that plucking a blade of grass carries moral value?
(4) If your answer to (3) is "no," do you believe that chopping down a 200 year old California Redwood carries moral value?
(5) Do you believe that littering your gum wrapper on the ground carries moral value?
(6) If your answer to (5) is "no," do you believe that littering say, an oil tanker in the Pacific, carries moral value?

By the way, please note that I'm not implying that any of these acts are never justifiable. All I'm asking is if you believe that doing any of them carry any moral value at all.

One more question (sorry): What is it about the abortion "procedure or its byproducts" that you dislike?

Good Lord, he said 'pus filled cellulitis'

Eek!

Ben

1) A little. Not that killing bugs is necessarily bad, it is the meaningless killing you imply. To kill a bug such as a cockroach in my kitchen or an attacking wasp would be practically a given.
2) Killing elephants, even with a license or in self defense is a much more serious matter. They do not reproduce like bugs.
3) No. I feed grass to my animals. I also cut it, and weed the yard.
4) Probably yes, but it depends on the tree and its location. I can tolerate some old growth foresting, but question cutting down a landmark.
5) Yes.
6) Much more, yes. Aside from the scale, it causes actual harm to the biosphere.

What would you like to say? That I am amoral? I do not make value judgments on the health care matters of individuals. Professionals are supposed to serve the patient/client in their best interest*, and in an abortion, the woman is the patient and who we concern ourselves with. If a woman decides she wants an abortion, that is what will be done. If a woman wants us to do everything we can to "save her [premature] baby," that is what we will do. And if a woman with a miscarriage mourns "her baby," that is for her to decide, and our job to help her find support. In my personal life I shall treat a woman who had an abortion or who "lost her baby" the way they need to be treated, to let her move on with her life, or to provide compassionate support. I see no paradox or hypocrisy. Their lives are not my business.

*In the current legal environment, euthanasia is illegal, however. One cannot actively kill a patient despite requests to die, but death can be and has been caused as a result of treatment, eg, increased doses of morphine to reduce pain may eventually cause the patient to stop breathing**. This is treatment of pain, not euthanasia or murder. The American Nursing Association probably has their own policy on euthanasia - I forgot it or never looked it up, but I have no comment on it from a personal, nursing perspective.

**This is how my grandmother died, btw - it was not actually "cancer" which killed her - her prescribed medication killed her. But the doctors, pharmacists and nurses are not killers, and it was not their intent. They were simply trying to reduce her considerable pain - she was crying even while semiconscious - while she was already dying.

I believe, and it is legally accepted at the present based upon scientific evidence, that an embryo or fetus is not the same as a child already born. Also, medically speaking, there is no way to be certain that a fertilized egg, implanted embryo, or a fetus will ever survive birth, so a termination is not a murder at any stage of pregnancy. Babies are also stillborn or require immediate resuscitation upon birth to avoid death, as a natural process. I shall allow others to argue for or against the legality of "causing harm to a fetus." However, any by-product tissue is still human tissue, thus bloodied parts are still human, but not a "baby." Please note in my other posts that this "ick" factor would be true of any other messy medical procedure, and if I learned more about it, or participated in it, I would overcome my unease. "Killing babies" or infantcide is a totally unrelated matter, and recognized as illegal.

Again, this "ick" factor should not be an argument for or against abortion, or an indication of judgment on my part. Childbirth and childcare are also messy.

Stephen

I was going to say, "pussy cellulitis," but decided against it.

Ben - one more thing. This is a personal view, not medical or legal advice. I am not a doctor, or a nurse specialist in women's or children's health. I'd appreciate not getting your MD friends involved in this thread. You can go learn from them as much as you want, if you'd like.

Yet another thing - in addition to wanting to behave like a health care professional, and recognizing other people's lives are not my business, a local specialist claims I have Asperger Syndrome, to a lesser degree than seen in "The Rain Man." You could say that I lack emotion, or the ability to relate to other humans. I disagree with her, despite her expertise on the condition and her PhD. I decide when I feel, about what I choose. Kind of like turning a switch, if you'd believe it. I should not be taken as representative of other health care professionals.

Oh, and Cedar is right about RU-486 – it puts the female through some very rough sledding for a couple days.

One more thing, Cedar – I was not asking if you were a Catholic or Christian Fundamentalist with respect to equating contraception with abortion (erasing any difference between pre- and post-conception acts of “birth control�). One can recognize a distinction between the two without being either. (And, moreover, one can be a “moralist� without believing in any religious doctrine whatsoever – just google “moral naturalism� to learn more.)

Sorry, one more thing - I can't seem to bring up the link to your paper, Cedar - would you mind checking the link for me? I'm interested in reading your thoughts. Thanks!

Ben,

You've mixed up Cedar's and my comments. If you notice, the commenter's name is on the bottom of the post.

Oh, and thanks for the comments on my blog!

"I decide when I feel, about what I choose. Kind of like turning a switch, if you'd believe it."

Of course I believe that some people can turn their emotions on and off at will, even if I can't do that myself.

In fact, my parents have told me several times to just turn off my feeling unhappy when someone or something hurts me. I don't know if they feel emotions the same way you do, or if Mom meant to say something else and got the English wrong when she said that, or whatever, though.

A male,

I appreciate the reply. I think I’m getting closer to understanding your view. To summarize your answers:

(1)(2) is “yes� on a sliding scale;
(3)(4) ranges between “no� and “yes� on a sliding scale;
(5)(6) is “yes� on a sliding scale.

I basically agree with you, although I’d also put grass in there but, like you do with a bug, rate it very low on the scale (incredibly low, in fact). I would not like to say anything. And it doesn’t sound like you are amoral. To the contrary, your view seems to be that (basically) all of the above acts carry with them a certain degree of moral weight, but that in certain circumstances the immoral act can be overridden by the circumstances. That’s basically everyone’s view (I think).

But then you sort of quarantine off “health care matters� of individuals as off-limits for anyone other than the individual to evaluate morally. I get that. And I also understand that many people have taken “health� to include not only physical health (e.g., where an abortion is recommended for a physical reason), but also psychological health (e.g., where an abortion is performed simply because the woman doesn’t want to carry the pregnancy to term). And it appears you agree that mere want is sufficient justification to abort, and that it is none of anyone’s business to morally evaluate that decision. In other words, you see no problem with abortion as a method of birth control essentially because it is not your place to judge (it is “not your business�). Again, that is all fine and dandy with me – I’m just trying to understand the thought process.

Your comments on the legality of things are interesting as well, including your thoughts on euthanasia. I appreciate the story about your grandmother. I agree that neither an embryo nor fetus is identical with a born child. Setting aside the “murder� terminology, I take your view to be that aborting a fetus at any stage of pregnancy should be perfectly legal for any reason, and that your view flows from your personal belief that it isn’t anyone’s place to judge what a woman does with the fetus within. Again, fine and dandy – just trying to understand the rationale.

About the MD friends – I certainly did not mean to get them involved in this thread, so my apologies for being unclear about why I referred to them in the first instance. Such was clearly a misguided effort at empathy.

As for Asperger Syndrome – I appreciate your mentioning that. After reading about what that is, some of your comments make much more sense to me. Ironically enough, the Wikipedia entry on it mentions that those with the syndrome fail to demonstrate empathy with peers – so it might not be a coincidence that my good faith effort at demonstrating it to you went totally unnoticed. For what it’s worth, of course.

Alex,

Thanks for the tip - rookie blunder! ~B

"I basically agree with you, although I’d also put grass in there but, like you do with a bug, rate it very low on the scale (incredibly low, in fact). I would not like to say anything."

What about the morality of plucking grass? I think you do want to say something.

And what are you trying to demonstrate that I am not picking up on? Empathy for what?

A male, "I’d also put grass in there but, like you do with a bug, rate it very low on the scale (incredibly low, in fact)." That means I don't consider not plucking grass and plucking grass as morally identical, which they are not as a matter of fact. But obviously plucking grass every day is of minuscule moral significance. But, on the other hand, if you had only one species of grass, and someone came along and plucked every blade of a particular species, rendering that species extinct, then I'd have no problem saying that such an act would obviously be unfortunate and (on my view) immoral, on the grounds that it is generally morally better to preserve a particular form of life than not. (I say "generally" since killing of all strands of, say, Ebola virus, is probably a good thing.)

As for the empathy, I apologize for the continued confusion. If you note above, I said: "A male, I appreciate the post, as well as the medical analogies. A couple of my close friends are MDs, so I know where you're coming from." What I thought I was doing here was communicating to you that I was aware of the "medical professional" perspective, since you said you had a "health care background," so I was trying to empathize with that perspective, since I'm familiar with it. (And I apologize again for the confusion, since I am obviously continuing to have difficulty communicating with you.) Thanks for the reply.

My friends and I were discussing this the other day and I couldn't believe how eager they were to demonize the younger Spears. She was being "irresponsible" and "screwing around". I asked them when we started defining sex with your own boyfriend as "screwing around"? That seemed to stop the yammering dead, until someone pulled out this little gem:

"But, what if it's not his baby? I bet it isn't!"

because we all know that once a girl has sex with someone she's in a relationship with, she's capable of anything! Ugh.

Ugh, I wish we could have a nice long brain storming session with all these comments, about how to deal with the strong connection between teen pregnancy and poverty. I just don't see how hard it was for Ms. Spears to make this "responsible" decision to keep her baby; she certainly has all the resources available to her to take care of this child.

"Ugh, I wish we could have a nice long brain storming session with all these comments, about how to deal with the strong connection between teen pregnancy and poverty."

Yeah, good idea. Also, isn't there more than one connection?

One pregnant teen might become poor if she tries to raise a child with the little job training she has so far.

One pregnant teen might already be poor and not be able to afford an abortion or have been able to afford contraceptives.

One poor teen might get pregnant because her parents and/or whomever runs her extended family feel their poverty justifies marrying her off ASAP.

One poor teen might have a choice and choose teen pregnancy because she feels it's the best of the limited options she has.

I'm probably forgetting even more connections...