And...these girls got pregnant all by themselves? And...offering contraception is akin to forcing it down their throats? And...I stand amazed.

The statement about sex-ed in the quote is completely ambiguous:

The high school has done perhaps too good a job of embracing young mothers. Sex-ed classes end freshman year at Gloucester...

I'm not sure if we're supposed to read that statement as blaming sex-ed for huge numbers of pregnancies. I think (although this could be completely wrong) that what Time is saying is that one reason for the pregnancies is that sex-ed classes don't continue after freshman year; that is to say, they're advocating MORE sex-ed, not less (at least I hope they are).

I heard a report this morning that one of the girls paid a homeless man to impregnate her. I don't even know what to say about that.

There is a comment in the article that goes "They're so excited to finally have someone to love them unconditionally" which really struck me. I feel so sad that there are girls who feel this way, that they want to have babies just to feel loved.

I suspect that there are deep systemic issues in this community, where boys aren't taught to honor women, and where women aren't taught to feel pride in their own right. The girls' only option to feel validated as human beings is to step into the role of motherhood, at a stunningly early age. Do they realize that there is an alternative, that there are other ways to become a full human being?

As for the the school's assistance to new mothers, I don't really have a problem with that. Now that the girls *do* have kids, of course the school should do everything they can to help support them and make sure that they get their proper education. However, they should also have a sensible sex-ed policy, teaching safe sex and contraception. I have my doubts that that will do much difference though, as I said, I fear that there are issues here that run much deeper than that.

How would contraception help when the teens actually decided to get pregnant together unless they were forced to take pills or something.

This quote from an MSNBC article really bothers me:

"But even if we had contraceptives, that pact shows that if they wanted to get pregnant, they will get pregnant. Whether we distribute contraceptives is irrelevant," said Verga.

In this case it might be accurate, but these girls pact doesn't prove that no one in that school will ever need contraceptives.

I'm curious about the sex ed class - it's easy to say that "sex ed" is to blame, and if it's abstinence-only sex ed, it probably is. But the truth is, comprehensive sex ed is intended to reduce pregnancies caused by ignorance or accident. There is nothing sex education of any kind could do to prevent a girl who wants to get pregnant from getting pregnant. What's sad is that this is what these girls wanted. What kind of self-esteem issues do they have that they see this as a good life plan?

I'm going to agree with Farhat and Ashlyn. On the one hand, these particular girls wanted to get pregnant and they went out of their way to make sure that happened. In that case handing out condoms wasn't going to deter them, they need (ed) counseling because from the "unconditional" love quote there is something that they're not getting at home. For them I'm going to guess that when they picture babies, they picture the quite, curious newborn and the emerging toddler instead of the crying, sick, or fussy baby that comes along with that (as the Senior in the story pointed out). We hardly ever hear about the stressful/non-joyous side of parenting because a lot of women (and men) feel the need to make it look effortless and I'm afraid these girls might find out the hard way that raising kids is a huge responsibility. I hope they can make it through but something tells me for a lot of them once the babies are there the fantasy bubble is going to burst and not for the better. (but it does seem like they will have support by the school so at least they can finish their education).

On the second hand, the school should be offering contraceptives and education for the other students. I think these girls are probably a special case but there are others who'd appreciate and need the information to keep themselves safe.

I have to agree that these girls decided to get pregnant on their own and having birth control available to them wouldn't have made a difference. They consciously decided to get pregnant together. What we should be looking at is their reasoning behind it. As someone pointed out, they did it to finally feel loved and needed. We need to be looking into what's going on in their community and in their homes that's making them feel as if they're unloved and the only way they could attain the attention and affection they seek is by becoming mothers.

I do agree that birth control should be easily available to the kids at schools should they be seeking it, but I don't think it would have made a difference in this case.

I think this high school should start a program where young people, especially those who seem to need some unconditional love to the point they make pregnancy pacts, can get class credit for volunteering at an animal rescue center.

It's just my personal opinion, but: Want unconditional love? Adopt a pet.

If you want to give unconditional love (along with money, time, hard HARD work, and the last of your selfishness), then have a baby.

I saw this report on the Today Show this morning and their focus was on all the wrong things, IMO. The overall reaction seemed to be, "How dare these girls NOT feel shame & fear at having a child out of wedlock!", instead of what I thought it should be: "How can we help these girls make responsible decisions about their futures & offer them choices & support in doing so?"

I'm not sure these girls are making smart choices for their lives, but saying that lack of fear is the problem here is messed up reasoning in my opinion.

Why are we letting teenage parents stay parents? We don't let them vote or drink or make other big decisions (i.e. contracts) but choosing to be a parent at 16 is deemed okay (and even encouraged). Who are we protecting exactly? The mother or father is more likely to end up in poverty (not them). The child is more likely to be a teenage parent (definitely not them). Why can't we, for everyone sake, leave parenting to adults and put every child born from another child into adoption. If this just encourages these teens to wait a few years then so be it. By then they will be more mature and better able to look after their child.

This reminds me of a book that was popular a few years ago called "Growing Up Fast" by Joanna Lipper. It chronicled the life of several teenage girls in Pittsfield, MA, a depressed, post GE city with little opportunity.

I dont't think it's as much a fad as changing social expectations and needs. KT makes this point in the "someone to love them unconditionally" line. What kind of self esteem are we offering these young women if they think they need a baby to love them because they think no one else will? It's an entire societal shift away from supporting teen girls in succeeding in life.

Think about it. No one pays attention to them until they get pregnant. Then someone finally pays attention to them. They get a party thrown for them (a shower), extra attention at school (day care and special classes), and a baby to love them.

Sex ed isn't just about teaching girls to protect themselves or say no and birth control doesn't offer life skills or self worth. It must be about self esteem and life skills so that they see more options in life (and better ones) than just teen pregnancy. I think that's where society misses the mark big time.

gordon.gekko -- are you seriously advocating forced adoption for every pregnant teen?? Seriously?

Granted, for most teens pregnancy leads to even worse situations, but isn't feminism supposed to be about choice? Who are you to decide what is best for these girls and the children they have? That's so offensive.

Feminism can be about choice, but I prefer to think of it in the broadest possible terms, which is simple sex egalitarianism. Getting any more specific quickly leads to "No True Scotsman" fallacies. In any case, the entire point of classifying some people as minors is that other people make decisions for them because they can't be trusted to do it right on their own.

In this case, I think that teenage mothers should only be forced out of their parental rights if they are judged unfit. I happen to also think that the mere act of deliberately creating a child before one's completion of highschool is itself cause to judge a parent unfit. It's a Catch-22, but a justified one IMO.

Granted, for most teens pregnancy leads to even worse situations, but isn't feminism supposed to be about choice?"--theladylinguist

I am not for forced adoption, but I hate how "pro-choice" comes down to permissiveness in discussions like this. First the piece at Alternet which so conveniently and ENTIRELY left out condoms (there may be an infuriating war on birth control pills and IUDS, but it's STILL dishonest to say that women have total lack of access to contraceptives, especially considering IUDS and the Pill don't prevent STI transmission/contraction as condoms do. Irresponsible), and then this.

These girls say they feel they have nothing else to look forward to and probably come from less-than-satisfying homes an neighborhoods. What makes them think they'll have more stable, happy families then their on parents and relatives, that the cycle of dysfunction and hardship won't continue?

Who do they think is going to pay for the material needs and time raising a child takes? Right...they don't care. And we can't do anything about their stupid self-destructive misguided behavior. Can't, or won't (I'm including the Right here, which makes this problem worse on so many levels).

Is "choice" the same as license? Are rights completely unattached from personal responsibility and culpability for your own life, and the decisions you expect others to pay for?

There's little to be done for the girls who are already knocked up (I don't advocate "sending girls away", isolating them or their children, or forcing adoption unless the mothers are unfit or abusive.) But what about other teens (and young adults...40-something percent of pregnancies in this country are unplanned, and its people in their 20s and 30s too) who follow across the country?

Are people completely blameless until this (deeply, deeply flawed country) evolves into the Netherlands?

A decent comprehensive sex education program would teach them not only how but why to avoid pregnancy.

Granted, for most teens pregnancy leads to even worse situations, but isn't feminism supposed to be about choice?"

...Again....that sounds like "choice" is indistinguishable from "license" or impulsive behavior (great...impulses guiding as great a burden as raising a child) at best. That's a pretty disturbing statement--that their "choices" (uninformed, badly thought out) may lead to troubling consequences for them AND the children they (and the likely absentee dad) brings into the world, but because "feminism is about choice" (STUPID CHOICES, apparently)...then what?

THAT'S supposed to dissuade those who want forced adoption or the elimination of welfare and other measures that are more punitive than constructive?

A more interesting question is whether a parent who believes a daughter is at risk of making a pact like this could force Norplant on her daughter, or the injection you only have to get every few months. My mom has students who have had so called prom babies. Of course, they end up in her GED class. Part of sex ed can certainly be about the daunting challenges of teen parenting. A little reality TV about what it's like to stay home every Friday with a kid would go a long way. In the larger picture, someone indeed needs to figure out where these girls lost their dreams and goals for themselves beyond motherhood. On a final note, in a way it's sad there is actually little support for young parenthood in this country. Forget 16, it's criminally insane for a 20 year old to become a parent if he or she wants to achieve and maintain middle class status (or at least so middle class parents tell me). Yet at 36, such a parent would have a driving-age child who could fend for themselves, during the prime make or break time in most professional careers. My college had no on campus daycare, married housing, or basic cooperative spirt among young parents (there were none) which would make such a thing possible. After graduation you would soon be ready to put that child on the bus and work full time. Just a thought.

In re: Gordon.gekko's comment -- don't feed the troll. Anyone whose handle references 'Wall Street' is up to no good.

More substantively, I see two issues with this story.
1) The girls who decided to have babies would not have been helped by the availability of birth control. They needed counseling and for someone to give them an idea of what having a child actually means. This could have been done during a sex ed class. My 9th grade health class covered all this stuff -- we even got an 18 year old girl who had had a baby while in school as a cautionary guest lecturer. She told us how difficult it was to have a baby as a teenager and how she wished she could have waited to do it. It made a HUGE impression.
2) Although the "baby-pact" pregnancies were not related to the school's no birth control policy, there is no excuse for not supplying the rest of the student body with birth control options.

This community has deeper problems than planned teen pregnancy. How is forced adoption going to stop more teens from making this decision? Forcing adoption is a bandaid for a bullet wound.

Maybe instead of getting all upset about 17 pregnant high schoolers, we should be addressing the reasons they thought pregnancy was a good idea. All over the country, we have towns that cannot economically sustain themselves. We need more comprehensive sex-ed (especially, like a_human said, with lessons on what having a child really means), we need economic classes in high schools so that people understand finances, we need programs creating jobs in areas of the country that aren't self-sustaining, we need affordable higher education... do I need to go on?

ladylinguist,
I am sorry perhaps I wasn't clear. I would never advocate forced abortions or restricting abortions. I simply feel teenagers should never be legal guardians or legal parents. Yes, it should always be acceptable for a women to get pregnant (for whatever reason) and as a women they have the option to bring that child to birth (or not) but once the child is born it goes to an adult.
This is not authoritarian, it simply and extension of our laws that treat teenagers different than adults. Nor would this proposal be excessively draconian. For instance birth parents could give their child to an adult until they come of age (although adoption would probably be the preferable method).

And who am I to decide whats best for these children (the babies not the parents)? Well I feel we as society should have a legal system that protects children and the vulnerable. We don't give a 13 year old the right to use a credit card even if they consent because they are not mature enough to make that decision. So, why do we give them (teen fathers/mothers) the right to ruin not only their lives but their child's?

I'd suggest that those who believe forcing these young women to give up their babies for adoption would do well to read The Girls Who Went Away by Ann Fessler for an intimate look into the physical, emotional and psychological toll that forced adoption had on young women.

And it wouldn't do anything to deter these specific minded women in the future. The only thing it would probably do is reinforce that they were *right* and the only reason they're not being unconditionally loved is because the people who didn't love them unconditionally in the first place took away their opportunity. It would just lead to deeper resentment and depression, not a fix.

adminassistant commented at June 20, 2008 10:48 AM: "And...offering contraception is akin to forcing it down their throats?"

Between the parents' complains and the elitism/eugenics/etc. accusations I've seen against other improvements to contraception access, my guess is that offering contraception is supposedly more akin to oppressing their underprivileged ancestors. o_O

Ashlyn commented at June 20, 2008 11:08 AM: ""But even if we had contraceptives, that pact shows that if they wanted to get pregnant, they will get pregnant. Whether we distribute contraceptives is irrelevant," said Verga.

"In this case it might be accurate, but these girls pact doesn't prove that no one in that school will ever need contraceptives."

Great point! Likewise, what if the same person who wanted to pregnant in 9th grade doesn't want to get pregnant again in 10th grade...?

ladylinguist commented at June 20, 2008 3:19 PM: "Maybe instead of getting all upset about 17 pregnant high schoolers, we should be addressing the reasons they thought pregnancy was a good idea. All over the country, we have towns that cannot economically sustain themselves. We need more comprehensive sex-ed (especially, like a_human said, with lessons on what having a child really means), we need economic classes in high schools so that people understand finances, we need programs creating jobs in areas of the country that aren't self-sustaining, we need affordable higher education... do I need to go on?"

Very good points. I'd add that we need better vocational high school and trade school programs and less stigma against them too. We also need more guts. Some people out there will call us materialist for thinking that economics is relevant, not praising kids for "all you need is love" attitudes, etc. and we shouldn't be afraid of them.

There are some other things too other than the "unconditional love" issue that would seem to 'push' these teens towards wanting to have a baby.

If you look at the economic situation in general, there is a sense of hopelessness. Teens are being told and experiencing that finding a job is very difficult, school is too expensive and are generally seeing the adults around them depressed at the current outlook.

Then they see the adults having children on purpose being happy, ecstatic and nearly unconditionally supported by their friends and family. With other prospects looking so poor, why wouldn't it seem like a happy choice? They know monetary issues are mitigated by government programs (not saying that they cover all expenses, but teens know there is help out there) and while parents of these teens might think adoption or otherwise should be an out, if the teen decides to keep the child, few parents are going to kick their teen out onto the street. They are going to help them stay in school, raise the child, and because of it give them the attention they want.

Unfortunately, I would say that this is a trend that will probably be on the rise. Five years ago at the university I work at, despite the conservative backgrounds of the students, it was very rare to see a student pregnant. Now it is a fairly common thing to see on campus and these aren't accidents. They are planned, with most of the babies being born in May-June-July... ie, planned to be born at the end of the semester. Students I've talked with say they have this 'need' to have a baby, that babies make everyone happy. :(

Not much talk here about the fathers of these children. I think this is further evidence of how young girls are being raised in a society that views fathers as irrelevant. I can't believe someone even suggested that their decision to get pregnant was the result of a community that doesn't honor women. Getting pregnant certainly wouldn't make things better, if that was case. And I also don't understand why some are suggesting that this was the girls way of wanting to feel loved. Maybe they are loved? Maybe their decision had nothing at all to do with feeling loved.

We always look for a deeper meaning when females act irresponsibly.

These poor dumb girls think a baby will love them unconditionally? Oh my. I don't know whether to laugh at them or cry for them.

I hope their parents find a way to help them stay in school.

UltraMagnus commented at June 20, 2008 4:03 PM: "I'd suggest that those who believe forcing these young women to give up their babies for adoption would do well to read The Girls Who Went Away by Ann Fessler for an intimate look into the physical, emotional and psychological toll that forced adoption had on young women."

Good point.

Meanwhile, I vaguely remember a suggestion on another forum that put a whole different spin on forced adoption: don't give custody to the girls, and do give custody to whichever adults already have custody of the girls. That poster's point was more "minors shouldn't have custody of minors" and "if your kid has a kid at 15 then you should be responsible" than sympathy, but a side effect for a young mom in that situation would be getting to stay where she is and live with her child instead of anyone going away. I don't remember whether or not that poster was in favor of the mothers automatically getting custody when they turn 18, though.

Not much talk here about the fathers of these children. I think this is further evidence of how young girls are being raised in a society that views fathers as irrelevant. I can't believe someone even suggested that their decision to get pregnant was the result of a community that doesn't honor women. Getting pregnant certainly wouldn't make things better, if that was case. And I also don't understand why some are suggesting that this was the girls way of wanting to feel loved. Maybe they are loved? Maybe their decision had nothing at all to do with feeling loved.

We always look for a deeper meaning when females act irresponsibly.

There is a deeper meaning whether you feel like looking for it or not. You know, an interesting thing about the patriarchy it that it doesn't go away just because an action is incomprehensible to you. So in many cases, as in this one, it might be helpful to you to look to the patriarchy for context – the patriarchy that historically has told girls that their dearest aspiration should be to get married and make babies and today gets an especially big kick out of deriding women who want careers and/or don't want children. You might also consider that not everybody grows up in an education system or socioeconomic class that puts them in the greatest position to live the American dream and go catapulting miraculously over each and every roadblock they might face, and that to some people it might make more sense to quickly find a niche in the reality they see around them every day than to spend a lot of time and energy pursuing some other future that very easily could never materialize.

You know, instead of throwing out a random red herring about how girls are being raised to view fathers as irrelevant and pretending you just can't imagine that there are any girls in America who might feel that getting pregnant and having babies is the best -- or only -- way they can be valued and supported in their community.

have.at.it: The girls who decided to have babies would not have been helped by the availability of birth control.

Perhaps the girls in question might have turned their noses up at readily available birth control... but perhaps it could have done some good if it had been made available to the boys they were sleeping with. After all the girls didn't become pregnant spontaneously in a vacuum. If their male classmates were receiving solid Sex Ed and had access to and insisted on using condoms it might have helped prevent some of these pregnancies. I wonder whether the fathers are looking forward to the unconditional love of an infant as much as the mothers are.

I heard a bit of this on CBC radio today. One of the girls said that she realizes now that she'd made a big mistake, and warned others: "If someone tells you that they know what it's like because they have a younger sibling, don't believe them. It's not the same at all."

I think that those who are pointing to the lack of other opportunities in the girls' community are most likely right. I recall reading that in some destitute communities, people have children on purpose because that's something they can feel a sense of pride and accomplishment about.

"Not much talk here about the fathers of these children. I think this is further evidence of how young girls are being raised in a society that views fathers as irrelevant."

I suspect a different problem, Matthew: boys aren't encouraged to be nurturing, and while teenagers in general are viewed as irresponsible, teenage boys are viewed as even more irresponsible, and in a way this encourages them to live down to that expectation. Chances are these girls didn't trust their male counterparts to pull their weight in child-rearing. PHMT.

This story makes me think of a girl I knew in HS.

She got pregnant after a weekend with her on-and-off again boyfriend. They had sex five times that weekend, and it would've been six except for her mother coming home unexpectedly early. At no point was a condom or any other BC method involved.

It wasn't that she didn't know these things existed, she'd used them before, in fact.

Whether conciously or unconciously, she decided this was what she wanted.

I know her home life wasn't good, just from the fragments I'd heard. For a little while prior to this, she'd been dating a black guy, which she had to keep a huge secret because her parents were very racist and had already told her they'd disown her if she ever did that. Her bisexuality was under wraps for the same reason. And of course, there's that thing about leaving your 14 or 15 year old alone for an entire weekend (not a rare thing in their house).

Girls who get pregnant on purpose are in a completely different place from girls who get pregnant out of ignorance or the sheer shitty luck.

I'm not advocating disincluding boys, but talking to boys helps more with the unintended babies than the intended ones. For the intended ones, I think, the help needs to come from moms, dads and counselors. Solid older brothers and sisters, cousins, too, to talk to younger people and keep them from thinking it's such a grand idea.

"And we can't do anything about their stupid self-destructive misguided behavior. "

Why are such assumptions made about young women who make the conscious choice to be mothers? Why do people assume young women or young mothers do not know what they are getting into? And why assume they or their children will turn out like the bad cases? Have we so quickly forgotten where Sen. Obama came from? (Hawaii, BTW) Should his mother have used contraception as well?

I think I now have a better idea how third-world feminists feel about western feminists ponitificating about their problems. That's because, while I now live in the high nothing of California, I grew up just down the coast from Gloucester. My family has deep connnections to the town; my first grade teacher sat on the Gloucester school board until quite recently. Emotionally, this might as well have happened just down the street while I was out of town for a bit. And every damned one of you, as well as every media report, is treating it as a screen upon which to project your pre-conceived political beliefs.

This is the latest act in the social and economic tragedy of the collapse of the Gloucester fishing industry. Gloucester has been a fishing town for nearly four hundred years; it has never been anything else, and has no other identity to fall back on. The best current plan is tourism -- mining Captains Courageous and The Perfect Storm for what little they are worth, but what replacement is that for honest work?

Personally, I find it very hard to blame any of the children involved in this for behaving irresponsibility. The industry that has supported their families for generations is effectively gone, and there is nothing replace it.

A male: And why assume they or their children will turn out like the bad cases? Have we so quickly forgotten where Sen. Obama came from? (Hawaii, BTW) Should his mother have used contraception as well?

A question like this can't be asked of a specific case. It is better to look at it as, "Should women in the position Obama's mother was in around the time of his conception, use contraception?" I'm not familiar with Obama's family history so I won't even speculate, but in any case it's not as though she knew how it'd turn out. You can't argue the soundness of a decision from information that wasn't known until after the fact.

[start quote]

[Obama's mother] Dunham has been described by her friends as "a fellow traveler... We were liberals before we knew what liberals were," and as "the original feminist".

Barack was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961. Ann was 18 at the time.

[end quote]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Dunham

A young woman is wooed by an older man of a different ethnicity and culture. Any concerns? The so called "original feminist" was married and pregnant at 18. Any concerns? After the husband leaves her and the baby, another older man appears shortly after. Concerns?

But wait! She not only continued to have children, she earned bachelor's and master's degrees, and a PhD. How many of us have done this even with no other distractions (e.g. single and financed by parents and a scholarship)? Sen. Obama also claims his mother was his role model. His caucasian mother was even the one "rather than his natural father who taught him about his African American heritage." Damn. She kicked ass.

Sorry to leave him out of the picture: should Sen. Obama's absent, alcoholic father have used contraception or avoided sex and marriage, rather than burden his former wife and her parents with his broken promises and a pregnancy at 18?

Why should Sen. Obama's late mother have been afforded the choice which many would deny (or begrudge) these young women? Was she "stupid" or "self-destructive" to become pregnant and get married (in that order) while barely 18 (if that) and a student?

A male: Just because Obama's mother became pregnant when she was young and were able to accomplish so much it doesn't mean that everyone can (this is the Obama family we're talking about, fer chrissakes!). Having children young and being poor are enormously correlated statistically, and the best indicator for future earnings potential for a person is their mother's level of education. Young mothers often drop out of high school and rarely go to college compared to the general population.

That said, of course they should be *permitted* to have kids. No one's stopping them. But that's not really the issue, the issue is that I don't think these girls ever had any choice. Did they ever dream of becoming doctors, or lawyers? Did anyone ever tell them that they could?

I think that in this community, the message was clear, even if it wasn't explicit: women are mothers, and that's the only thing that's important. Nothing exists in a vacuum, there is always a context to these sort extreme decisions.

"Why are such assumptions made about young women who make the conscious choice to be mothers? Why do people assume young women or young mothers do not know what they are getting into?"

Um, because many of the girls who've done this (including at least one in this particular case, the one I heard speaking on the news report) have said so themselves?

"And why assume they or their children will turn out like the bad cases?"

Nobody here has said that. I suspect most of us here know someone who had children younger than was wise, but who managed to salvage the situation. But just because a decision doesn't cause an absolute, unmitigated disaster doesn't mean it's a good decision.

Misspelled

You’ve got me wrong. I know that there are girls who may get pregnant in order to feel valued. My point is that we never grant males that same kind of leniency. I know that some people grow up in unfortunate situations, and teen pregnancy is sometimes the result of that. But I don’t think that 17 girls decided to get pregnant in the year 2008 because of societal expectations. A lot of changes have been made in our society, and as a nation I don’t think that we fully acknowledge those changes. Instead we revert back to the dogma that women are victims of a patriarchal society. You really believe that women today are derided for pursuing careers or not having children?

"We always look for a deeper meaning when females act irresponsibly."

If these had been some teenaged boys who went onto mypspace talking about a murder suicide pact and blowing up the school, the media and everybody else would be sitting around talking about how they were probably bullied, felt unloved at home, etc.

Remember these are children we are talking about. Sometimes kids make poor choices and it is up to us to work it out so that we can nudge other kids into making better decisions.

Furthermore, when addressing teenagers we need to be asking a different question. And that is: WHY DON'T they get pregnant?

Being a pregnant teenager is not some anomalous freak of nature of recent origin, if you recall.

The real issue that society has is with them being single teen Moms with potentially limited resources...

And I would like to know more about the fathers...I heard one was a homeless fella... but I am very curious about the legality of all of this.

Concerning the availability of birth control at this school: Couldn't any of the students there just buy condoms from a Walgreen's? Why do condoms have to be free to be used?

I am unsure as to the accuracy of this information, but I had heard that about 150 free pregnancy tests were given to the students by the school during the time these 17 students were trying to get pregnant. The school never bothered to notify the families of these students of these girls that they were getting tested over and over again at school for pregnancy or even a general statement to the parents something like: "We have been giving your daughters quite a lot of pregnancy tests lately, we aren't going to name names but we are letting you know this much."

When the school leaves the parents out of the loop, then it is more difficult to be involved like parents should.

Wanting to have a baby is a natural urge. Many women want to have babies for many (sometimes questionable) reasons at many points in their lives. What is odd is that these young women don't seem to feel that they should have anything other than mothering in their lives.

Or maybe, they have assumed that in today's world they will be able to get pregnant, love a baby, have it love them while continuing to further their future and education.

That in my opinion is the bubble that will burst: they have no support, unless they get married.

As a woman who was pregnant as a teen, placed the child for adoption, got my education and had babies in my early 30's, I can say that whenever a woman gets pregnant, there isn't much support whether she stays home, pursues further education or continues working.

Especially alone.

I am tired of the frequency with which we drag out the "scary teenage pregnancy" in order to distract us from the real issue: it doesn't matter how old she is when she gets pregnant, a women has damned little to support her.

Although, I would have hoped these girls could have had more fun with the getting pregnant part. But perhaps their sex education didn't get into pleasure, pleasured women being so damned empowered and all...

Why are my comments not being posted? This will be the fifth time (at least) that I have tried to join in this discussion. Here is my comment, once again. And this one is much much shorter than my original comment that was never posted.

Misspelled

You’ve got me wrong. I know that there are girls who may get pregnant in order to feel valued. My point is that we never grant males that same kind of leniency. I know that some people grow up in unfortunate situations, and teen pregnancy is sometimes the result of that. But I don’t think that 17 girls decided to get pregnant in the year 2008 because of societal expectations. A lot of changes have been made in our society, and as a nation I don’t think that we fully acknowledge those changes. Instead we revert back to the dogma that women are victims of a patriarchal society. You really believe that women today are derided for pursuing careers or not having children?

It's stories like this that really reinforce the need for sex-ed and health classes to educate teenagers- male and female- about the consequences of unprotected sex. There have been studies in the UK which highlight a general and disturbing ignorance about STDs. Teaching teenagers about the difficulties of raising children needs to be a fundamental part of their education so that they are less likely to be in a situation in which pregnancy and a child are viewed as some sort of solution to problems they're experiencing.

rhowan, you have a good point. Again, as with so many of these stories about young (or any age, for that matter) women, the critiques--good or bad--seem to center on the behavior of the girls. And yet again, I am left asking, where are the boys? Why aren't we talking about their behavior as well. As you point out, the boys should have had an equally vested interest in safe sex and contraception.
I can't help but see the links here to things like the abstinence movement, that falls back on the "boys will be boys", so let's just focus on the girls (who we can control) perspective.
We need to do better by our boys, and to expect more from them, as well.

I cannot believe how people are acting as if schools should make life for young, teenage mothers difficult. Over at ParentDish they are outright blaming the school's understanding and helpful attitude as being the reason...The town has reportedly been struggling, financially, so I am not suprised that the girls were looking somewhere outside of their home for love and acceptance.

I have a real problem with this whole thing. Teenage parenthood on purpose is idiotic, and few people here seem to want to acknowledge that. Children of teens have a much greater chance of winding up alcoholics, drug addicts, habitual criminals, and a general menace to society. All you have to do is come to my neighborhood to see the ravages of teen pregnancy. And the best part about it is, I get to support social welfare programs for these kids through my hard-earned tax dollars. Awesome! I was never taught in school that I’d have to support someone else’s illegitimate kids. How cool is that? Thanks!

The decisions of these girls to become pregnant at 16 years old are absolutely selfish and irresponsible. Instead of mollycoddling by touchy-feely yahoos, they need to be taught that, like all citizens, they have a responsibility for their actions. In an ideal world, faced with newborns, these girls certainly would learn about responsibility, and really fast. But the system will bail them out, as usual. Way to go. You’ve come a long way, baby!

Funny, come tax season, the state never asks any of us about our ‘feelings’ before we send them checks to support other people’s illegitimate kids. They conveniently forget about that. Oh, but let’s worry about the feelings of these poor, innocent little creatures! Please! When property taxes go up again, let’s see how we feel about the issue..

As for the schools passing out contraception, what the hell is stopping these kids from walking down to the local CVS and picking up a box of condoms? And as for the boys who had unprotected sex – what moron farm did they come from? Do these people live under rocks for Pete’s sake? You know, we have these inventions called newspapers, radio, books, TV, and the Internet. These handy technologies disseminate information all day, every day, seven days a week. Why do we need the schools to hand-hold these kids through every aspect of their lives? I thought it was the job of the school system to teach reading, writing, arithmetic, and science. What the hell is happening here? Has everything become one big social welfare system?

The worst thing you can do about this dilemma is boil it down to simplistic ideological nonsense like “. . . but it’s all about choice.” Choice for whom? Choice for the poor kid who’s going to grow up illegitimate and stand a greater chance of failure? Choice for the community subjected to the menaces of maladjusted citizens? Choice for the taxpayers forced to support kids that are not theirs? BIG WAKE UP CALL! The rest of us don’t have a choice in this matter. We’re forced to deal with the consequences, whether we like it or not. Think about that the next time you read that the HUGE majority of the prison population (both male and female) comes from single parent households. I wonder how many of these people came from teenage mothers . . .

The last line says it all -- no one has offered them a better way out. The culture they live in teaches that the highest expression of their value is to be a mother. Should we be surprised when they want to achieve what they are told is the best they can do?

As a feminist, I tried really, really hard to find a traditional feminist angle to this story. Obviously you ladies did too. But I just can't stretch that far. The best I can do is say that more easily available birth control *might* have helped some of the *boys* avoid this predicament. Because guess who the D.A. will be going after when the girls file for welfare?

No, this is a class issue, and a welfare policy issue. I don't see how *more* validation of young, single mothers will help reduce their motherhood. And, I agree their motherhood is a bad thing society should discourage, notwithstanding one out of a zillion successes like Obama.

It's always chapped me a bit that some people think you can't be a liberal feminist and still get angry about welfare mothers. Bring on the "MRA" accusations, whatever. But I grew up with selfish brats like this, and as a population they tend to disgust me. I just can't get all weepy about how these poor things probably want "unconditional love." I think they want status, attention, and to not work for a living.

"Why are such assumptions made about young women who make the conscious choice to be mothers?"

They are not 'women,' they are GIRLS. They are hardly capable of making a fully informed, conscious choice about becoming mothers. My god, what is wrong with you people?

"I think this is further evidence of how young girls are being raised in a society that views fathers as irrelevant."

Believe me, the fathers won't be seen as irrelevant when it comes time to collect child support.

Misspelled

You’ve got me wrong. I know that there are girls who may get pregnant in order to feel valued. My point is that we never grant males that same kind of leniency. I know that some people grow up in unfortunate situations, and teen pregnancy is sometimes the result of that. But I don’t think that 17 girls decided to get pregnant in the year 2008 because of societal expectations. A lot of changes have been made in our society, and as a nation I don’t think that we fully acknowledge those changes. Instead we revert back to the dogma that women are victims of a patriarchal society. You really believe that women today are derided for pursuing careers or not having children?

You're incredibly ignorant of the situation if you don't think so too.

Fortunately, though, you've come to the right place. Spend a little while looking through the blog archives. It's as simple as that -- or it ought to be.

And I don't know exactly what "kind of leniency" you want "us" to grant males, since as far as I know, no guy will ever be in the position of a pregnant high school student.

jh6120 -- So which is it? Are they selfish, manipulative harlots who just want to play the system, or naive children who somehow managed to blindly stumble into pregnancy and need someone else to take it from here?

And as a side note, could you kindly stop having a stroke about the existence of "illegitimate" children like it's 1465? Thanks a bunch.

melete commented at June 21, 2008 6:17 PM: "And yet again, I am left asking, where are the boys? Why aren't we talking about their behavior as well."

How many of these girls were impregated by boys instead of men in the first place? Not all conceptions involve two people who are the same age...

jh6120 commented at June 21, 2008 9:16 PM: "Funny, come tax season, the state never asks any of us about our ‘feelings’ before we send them checks to support other people’s illegitimate kids."

Why single out the "illegitimate" children? Parents of children they conceived during marriage can go on welfare too.

jh6120 commented at June 21, 2008 9:16 PM: "As for the schools passing out contraception, what the hell is stopping these kids from walking down to the local CVS and picking up a box of condoms?"

I'm not sure about the Glouchester cases, but in some cases what's stopping kids from walking to the "local" store selling condoms is miles of roads with no sidewalks, having to cross a 6-lane highway on the way, and/or whatever. I live in a very dense city, maybe you do too, and we both should remember that some other people don't.

As for Barack Obama, praising teen pregnancy (because without it, he wouldn't have been born) is damning teen pregnancy with very faint praise. It's lumping teen pregnancy together with everything else that ever made someone's birth possible, including the trans-Atlantic slave trade (because without that, Michelle Obama wouldn't have been born).

You really believe that women today are derided for pursuing careers or not having children?

Do you read this blog? I would provide you with a link to every post that's been made on how women are derided for pursuing careers and not having children, but you know what? That's your job. Educate your bad self.

"Why are my comments not being posted? This will be the fifth time (at least) that I have tried to join in this discussion. Here is my comment, once again. And this one is much much shorter than my original comment that was never posted."

Perhaps someone from the technical department could help us, but because I notice the frequency of type 500 errors, long waits, being timed out of the site and whatnot (my community has power outages); personally, I occasionally copy the text of comments I am working on to make sure I do not lose the contents, and save them to the clipboard or a text file. I do this one last time, before I hit the post button. That way, if the comment fails to show (please confirm the comment has not shown before trying again to avoid multiple posts), I do not need to retype from scratch.

I'm still working on trying to keep my comments brief.

Naturally, few people on this website will come out against abortion or access to abortion. But it continues to bother me how often "choice" or "reproductive freedoms" are applauded only when they agree with the poster's own views on relationships, marriage or parenthood.

So the young women of this article are under 18. Are they of age of consent (and the biological fathers of a similar age)? Then it IS legal for them to have sex. Pregnancy is a possibility of having sex, and perhaps these young women were not raped to get that way.

And if they are mature enough to decide what is right for their lives and their bodies (i.e., a safe, legal abortion without disclosure to parents or anyone else), then they can also decide to have babies.

If you are against this, why don't you just admit you are against choice*, because guess what? Some women, no matter how disadvantaged, also CHOOSE to have babies.

* Like founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, with her rants against the "flood" of the "unfit" and her cries for "human conservation" and government sanctioned FORCED STERILIZATION of women (and men), looking to NAZI GERMANY as her model:

"Dean Inge--The Gloomy Dean--in his "Gleanings from a Note Book" has said: "Don't be a pioneer. It is the early Christian that is gotten by the lion. The safest mountain paths are those trodden by mules and asses. Follow them."

"In their anxiety to follow this advice, many nations are throwing away their heritage; discarding the best to take care of the worst elements of society."

http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/webedition/app/documents/show.php?sangerDoc=220126.xml

Cut your racist, classist bullshit.

Alright, I'm calmer now. I'm sorry.

Anyway, please recall or confirm with any of your elders here, that race, culture, poverty and class are indeed feminist issues, and these women and children are already here. Who are we to deny them assistance if they require it? Again, Sen. Obama would not have received his private education beginning at age five, had he not received assistance. I do not believe Obama would be who he was, had he simply been raised by his grandmother and gone to Hawaii public school in poverty. Would you have denied Obama's family assistance because HE "took"* "your" money?

* As an elected official, he continues to "take" "your" tax money, and if elected, shall do so to the tune of millions per year, FOR LIFE. (Has he ever worked in the private sector?) But no complaints there. Again, only support for the "choice" you approve of.

And I'll repeat, since even friendly posters like Mina doubt it: I am pro-choice. In this story, the issue is not that the young women HAD children, it's how do we assist them all NOW?

Hey now, I reserve the right to believe someone should have a choice and still think that some of the options are completely stupid. That's the point of being pro-choice: that you are willing to let people make decisions you oppose! If you think that all the options are equally valid, being pro-choice is as easy as letting people choose the color of their shirt. It's when you think that some of the options are bad that being pro-choice actually requires an ideological commitment to liberty for it's own sake.

Anyway, please recall or confirm with any of your elders here, that race, culture, poverty and class are indeed feminist issues, and these women and children are already here.

The elders can believe whatever they want; I strongly oppose this utter dilution of the word. If you want to argue that those other issues are necessarily entwined with feminism, then that's something I'd even agree with, but don't do it by saying that are the exact same thing.

In this story, the issue is not that the young women HAD children, it's how do we assist them all NOW?

I agree, but this makes me realize how similar this is to a hostage situation. If you don't pay ransom, the hostage/s will be harmed. If you don't pay welfare, the kid/s will be harmed. In both cases, you're giving money to the people whose fault this is to begin with to protect the interests of an innocent third party.

This thread has gone to the dogs. Or, more likely, to the trolls.

Actually relevant to the original post, folks have brought up the very valid point that teen girls' choices should be supported and we should resist the hand-wringing when it comes to preggers teens. Point taken.

However, (with all due respect to teen commenters and readers) the full capacity to plan for the future does not develop until our 20s. This is because our brains do not fully develop until then (particularly the prefrontal cortex; see: http://www.medinstitute.org/content.php?name=teenbraindevelopment ). As a result, teens are vulnerable to certain biases in their decision-making. They tend to be less able than adults to weigh the consequences of their behavior, plan for the future, and delay gratification. I do believe that there it is reasonable for adults to question the wisdom of girls' decisions to deliberately become teen moms.

I do think it is appropriate to consider the social influences that might have surrounded those decisions.

I am seriously annoyed at Matthew's multiple suggestions that people's efforts to do so amount to claiming victim status for women and girls. I am equally annoyed at jh6120's suggestion that it is not reasonable to discuss this in the context of choice. I recognize this as trolling.

Spungen should be banned for the classism of that comment. Go ahead and tell yourself you're a feminist while expressing "disgust" for welfare mothers.

What the hell kind of status do you think they're actually seeking? The status of welfare mother? Do you know anything about welfare? The only status it affords you is a status below poverty. Check your privilege. Seriously, the most offensive comment I've read here in a long time. I can't see how the open hatred for poor people is allowed here...

I apologize once more for allowing my temper to get the best of me, and calling everyone "privileged fucks." I have for months been identified as *behaving* troll-like to say the least, and I have made my own concerns known directly with Ms. Valenti.

But this is the last place I would expect people to bash on underprivileged (or young) women, pregnant women, and mothers. Except when it comes to motherhood, I'd swear there were no Republicans or Christian Fundamentalists here, and you don't sound like my parents' generation (b. 1938).

Why so hot? I work and pay taxes as well, and I am unsure of how to provide properly for my own kids, much less assist others out of my own pocket. But those women have their own lives, and for the foreseeable future, a massive American underclass is here to stay. We need to assist, not judge.

A little reminder on how tax revenue works.

We have taxes, because the vast majority of people in the US cannot afford to support services for themselves. We share the pain. Those with the most, pay the most. In fact, "the top 1% of tax returns paid about the same amount of federal individual income taxes as the bottom 95% of tax returns."

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2007/10/top-1-pay-more-.html

Are you e.g., one of these top 1% of tax payers? NO? Then it most likely isn't "your" money being spent, even if you're paying.

http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6

Hmm. 2005:

Bottom 50%:

Looks like the bottom 50% of US taxpayers effectively pay jack of our nation's taxes. Perhaps you are among them, and really suffering to pay the IRS and your home state. I can understand that pain. Can you understand the pain of those over 50% of people in the US who are simply TOO POOR to pay taxes, and may explicitly be exempt (e.g., unemployed or stay at home parents)?

How about the physically or mentally challenged, and disabled who do not work or pay taxes? Are they taking "your" money, too? What would you like to do about them? Would you like to Sanger them?

"...teen girls' choices should be supported and we should resist the hand-wringing when it comes to preggers teens... However, (with all due respect to teen commenters and readers) the full capacity to plan for the future does not develop until our 20s... I do believe that there it is reasonable for adults to question the wisdom of girls' decisions to deliberately become teen moms."

Thank you, Peepers.

Some commenters here seem to believe that there are only two possible positions on this event: either

1. You think teenagers should be able to make any life decision they please because that's what being an individual with rights means and how dare anyone suggest that these girls haven't considered all the downsides, they are sixteen after all;

or

2. You think that these girls should be punished and controlled for burdening the system and taking tax money out of your very own pocket and how dare anyone suggest that the babies might turn out to be anything other than failures.

It's more complicated than that, people.

ShifterCat commented at June 23, 2008 1:31 AM: "Some commenters here seem to believe that there are only two possible positions on this event: either

"1. You think teenagers should be able to make any life decision they please because that's what being an individual with rights means and how dare anyone suggest that these girls haven't considered all the downsides, they are sixteen after all..."

...either that or how dare anyone suggest that the downsides exist in the first place...

"...or

"2. You think that these girls should be punished and controlled for burdening the system and taking tax money out of your very own pocket and how dare anyone suggest that the babies might turn out to be anything other than failures.

"It's more complicated than that, people."

In addition, underprivileged girls get demonized either way. If one wants to give birth ASAP, she's branded a selfish whore who deprives this generation of tax revenues. If one doesn't want to give birth ASAP, she's branded an uppity sellout who deprives the next generation of leaders.

"It's more complicated than that, people."

Surprise us. I say, if you support choice, put your money where your mouth is, literally, and pay every cent the government says you owe to pay for social programs like welfare and medicaid, no matter what you think of them or who and what they cover. It's what other people do for YOU, and what young, productive, working taxpayers including foreigners, will do for YOU when you hit 65 or 67, or become unable to work, or if YOU become low income, unable to pay for food, housing or health costs, or if a natural disaster or terrorist attack hits your community or entire state, or if one of your loved ones develops a complicated medical condition. You'll be begging for government aid and dedicated programs, as well as the goodwill of strangers then. You'll be begging for their attention and appealing to their humanity. How ironic. Complainers really don't get it, until something strikes them. Then they think their needs are important.

Nursing homes in my community cost $10-14,000 PER MONTH, PER RESIDENT (and the facilities still lose money). This is normal, not exclusive or extravagant. It does not matter if you are elderly with "only" a broken hip, simply in need of supervision so you don't fall down again; or if you need total care, with tubes in you just to breathe and eat, and you spend the next 40 years in a vegetative state. Can you afford that? So what will you and your family do when you can't (or don't want to) care for yourselves, or your aged parents? Oh, you want Uncle Sam and young workers to cover your asses, so you don't need to sell off your houses and be deprived of an inheritance you did not earn? So why are you complaining about poor people taking "your" money today?

Men, the wealthy, and Republicans often hate on people taking "their" money as well.

Paying taxes is not only for what YOU want.

It's more complicated than THAT.

A very young successful educated white Republican man of inherited wealth (who vehemently denied benefitting from any sort of privilege) once told me (not a unique position) that he believed taxes should be replaced by private charity: i.e., people pay no taxes, but donate whatever they wish to whomever they wish. After all (look it up yourself), the IRS was created in 1861-1862 under President Lincoln, to pay for WAR EXPENSES, not all these entitlements like the elderly, the poor, or education.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irs#Bureau_of_Internal_Revenue

Sound good to you? Pay only for what YOU want? Tell me, seriously. If you were completely freed of your federal and state tax burden ("those" people and their kids), as well as all your sales taxes, cigarette and liquor taxes, gasoline taxes, duties, tariffs, etc., would you REALLY - CHOOSE - to hand over the entire equivalent amount (near a third of your entire income on average) to worthy feminist causes, so their (your) funding doesn't DIE?

You'd have to do that and more, cuz I bet most men, most Republicans, and many wealthy people who claim to have earned what they have, could give a rat's ass about funding most women's causes. My long suffering Democrat mother chose to support the local Humane Society - until they participated in a $250,000 effort to rescue a starving dog from a burning Indonesian tanker in 2002.

http://starbulletin.com/2002/04/23/news/story3.html

"Money spent on the rescue of the 2-year-old dog Forgea would purchase more than a month's worth of food for the homeless at the Institute for Human Services in Hawaii, according to Executive Director Lynn Maunakea."

"'Somehow people seem to be more compassionate to this dog than they are to some of our homeless (people),' Maunakea said."

No kidding. Then feminism has actual enemies. I know people who already give 10% of all they make (pretax) to their church regardless of income (tithing) and would pay 50% or more of any windfall (like owing zero taxes forever), because this is what they believe the Bible says about supporting the church. Religious organizations would be *ecstatic* at their newfound wealth. It would be a bad situation for feminist causes.

My own pet causes - Hawaii Food Bank, local homeless, local substance abusers, and the foreign poor or foreign victims of disasters and war. I said foreign, because 97% of the world is not middle class or American. And given a choice, my focus is on children only. The poor might understandably place a priority on their most *immediate* needs like food, utilities, the rent, gasoline (cars serve as shelter, so even homeless may have cars), or medicine. They may not be too keen on funding or even hearing about most of what you are interested in.

The US system of taxation is one way of attempting to cover a number of different bases. You are naturally unsatisfied. So am I, if you don't notice. I wouldn't want my own children to be like these girls and boys. But other than expecting support only for those people and programs you believe in, can you really suggest a better way to be fair to EVERYONE in the US?

There's another possibility, Mina.

It's not our business.

Try this one:

How would you like to be 16, with your life and character being scrutinized or the object of speculation of millions, including yes, being known to be sexually active, or pregnant, or a mother, or to have had an abortion. How many strangers would consider you and your choices "stupid" and "self-destructive"?

Would your life pass muster? How would you want to be treated?

How do you think these young women are being treated in real life? Kind of how you feminists are treating them now?

Are you getting it yet?

Surprise us.
This began a long rant and I really don't read people's long rants. Sorry.

Kind of how you feminists are treating them now?
Are you getting it yet?

This is short but trollish. Note the "you feminists" designation as well as the demanding/superior tone.

"We feminists" are not obligated to respond to the points you raised, particularly if you are going to cop a trolly, 'n' superior 'tude.

Am I getting it yet? Ugh. If I wanted to see some dude patronize and condescend to women, I could go to — oh I don't know — network teevee, 98.9% if the Interwebs, or how about any public space besides a feminist forum.

I will not be reading your posts, A male. They are disrespectful.

A male -

I erased your earlier abusive comment, please refrain from that kind of language. Also, let's get this conversation on track and more productive; and please, let others have the floor to make comments - you're making 5 comments in a row which is just not encouraging discussion at all. If you continue either I'll ban you. Lastly, nix the lumping our commenters together into the "you feminists" language - not okay.

I've also erased jh6210's comment and banned. Sorry for the annoyance, folks.

"...pay every cent the government says you owe to pay for social programs like welfare and medicaid, no matter what you think of them or who and what they cover."

Most feminists advocate doing exactly that. Who are you aiming this rant at? Tax evaders? Neocons?

"It's not our business."

A prominent newsmagazine reports that a large number of high school girls have deliberately gotten themselves pregnant so that they can be loved unconditionally and feel a sense of accomplishment. How is that not a feminist issue?

"How many strangers would consider you and your choices "stupid" and "self-destructive"?... How do you think these young women are being treated in real life? Kind of how you feminists are treating them now?"

Sometimes a person's choices are stupid and self-destructive. They need to be told that, if they haven't realized it already. They should still be offered the life preserver, but they do need to have negative consequences explained to them so that they and others are less likely to make the same mistake.

Some of the choices I made as a teen were stupid and self-destructive, and the people around me wouldn't have been doing me any favours by pretending otherwise.

And how, exactly, do you think "us feminists" are mistreating these girls? We're not the ones blaming the situation on communities being "too supportive" of teen mothers. We're not the ones saying their babies should be taken from them. We're not the ones saying that they shouldn't be eligible for social support. We're not e-mailing them to harass them with our opinions. We're saying, on a public forum that they may or may not go to, that their choices were unwise and unfortunate. Oh noes! How terrible of us!

Vanessa has already addressed your behavioural problems, but here's some advice:

If something is only tangentially related to the subject at hand, keep it to one short paragraph. If you really want to post a long diatribe about taxes or immigration or whatever, write your own blog article and link to it.

You can address multiple points with one comment. In fact, that's best.

Since you seem to have trouble refraining from jumping to conclusions, losing your temper, and running off at the mouth, how about you write your comment as a .txt file, save it, do something else for half an hour, and then go back and re-read it before posting? That would probably help.

Further information has come to light: the facts may not be as originally reported.

BTW, if Hillary Rodham gave birth at 15, then that daughter or son would already be old enough to run for President of the United States in 2008. Anyone mad at her for not letting us vote for this candidate?

Meanwhile, MetaFilter has some interesting comments at http://www.metafilter.com/72650/Blue-Collar-Babies , including these:

infinitewindow commented at 3:48 PM on June 19: "Social stigma of out-of-wedlock births has decreased. This is a Good Thing. However, social stigma of poorly raising your child has decreased as well, which is a Bad Thing.

"I would love to read MeFi comments from teen parents about this post, but I probably won't because they're busy being parents and regretting their poor life choices (not necessarily the big baby choice, either)."

grounded commented at 4:23 PM on June 19: "2006 US birth rate for adolescents ages 15-19 = 41.9 births per 1000 females.

"Gloucester High has 1200 students, assume 600 girls.

"According to US birth rate for 2006, expect 25 births. 17 is unusual for Gloucester, maybe, but still lags behind the national average."

TheOnlyCoolTim commented at 8:11 PM on June 19: "...If it was a bad decision at least they MADE A DECISION rather than just fucked without a rubber and 'Oh hey now I'm pregnant who could have expected that?' That's more consideration of the consequences than a lot of adults exhibit, apparently..."

A male commented at June 23, 2008 7:38 AM: "So am I, if you don't notice. I wouldn't want my own children to be like these girls and boys."

Glad to hear it. In the future, if anyone else from outside your immediate community agrees with you and actually lets your kids get more of a chance to postpone parenthood instead of just paying lip service to the idea, would you accept this agreement or complain (a la complaining about other not-100%-privileged kids getting a chance at http://feministing.com/archives/009043.html )?

A male commented at June 23, 2008 8:15 AM: "How would you like to be 16, with your life and character being scrutinized or the object of speculation of millions, including yes, being known to be sexually active, or pregnant, or a mother, or to have had an abortion..."

Also including being known to not be sexually active. Lots, probably millions, of people out there condemn 16-year-olds for that too, whether it's "she's a total loser because no one wants to do her" or "she's out of control because she has no husband to keep her in line" or whatever.

"...How many strangers would consider you and your choices 'stupid' and 'self-destructive'?

"Would your life pass muster? How would you want to be treated?

"How do you think these young women are being treated in real life?"

Probably like how some (some! not all!) teen moms and their families and friends and fans seem to treat other 16-year-olds in real life, considering those girls' choices to not have give birth or not even have sex "stupid," "taking the easy way out," "oppressing our people," "thinking my life doesn't pass muster because if she didn't think so she'd want to be just like me," etc.

Not everyone grows up in the same circumstances, after all. In some settings the "shame on you for having a baby!!!" pressure is louder and I can see how a pregnant girl might resort to abortion and hiding the fact that she had sex even though she'd rather become a young mother. In some other settings the "shame on you for not having a baby!!!" pressure is louder and I can see how a girl might resort to sex with a stranger to conceive even though she'd rather save sex for when she's more attracted to someone.

Kids, whether they're parents or not, need more support from society, adults recognizing both that your life isn't over if you're childrearing and that your life isn't superficial if you're not childrearing. Also, that support should be comprehensive safety nets instead of just lip service. I'd like to see accessible health care (including prenatal care and birth control), accessible daycare for all families*, quality public education helping people prepare to earn a living (and to do other stuff too) whether they go to college or not, good job opportunities for them to use their education in, real welfare for jobless and underemployed people no matter if they're parents or not, public transportation options to help nondrivers reach all this stuff, etc. This kind of thing is an investment in society, not a drain. In case it's not obvious, while I do think everyone deserves these safety nets it doesn't mean I also think the lives of all people who don't already have these safety nets are worthless.

* This could even be useful for some stay-at-home parents and their children on occasion, right?

"This is short but trollish. Note the 'you feminists' designation as well as the demanding/superior tone."

I believe I was born wrong to call myself feminist, nor would I be accepted if I ever claimed to be one. It is interesting enough trying to work in a female dominated field.

"I will not be reading your posts, A male. They are disrespectful."

They certainly can be.

And I have heard you also, Ms. Valenti. Thank you for erasing that comment in particular.

"A prominent newsmagazine reports that a large number of high school girls have deliberately gotten themselves pregnant so that they can be loved unconditionally and feel a sense of accomplishment. How is that not a feminist issue?"

That certainly is a feminist issue. It's one for me as well, under a number of hats I wear such as father, teacher, nurse.

I refer to the bashing of mothers/young mothers/SAHMs I see here, and on this article in particular, Feministing readers calling young mothers stupid and other things. I don't get it.

I read the articles and comments where we are told that the choice of women and young women to have sex, practice contraception, have abortions, etc., are their own decision, and no business of society's, lawmakers, or even of their own partners and parents.

I believe I get that argument. And as the father of a boy and girl, I hope I'll be able to live up to it, and be as supportive as they deserve in the years ahead.

So why don't people get that [young] pregnancy, [single] motherhood, or [young] marriage are choices as well? Even with education such as comprehensive sex-ed, and reasonable access to contraception and abortion, some women are going to make choices (e.g. 14 year old pregnancy) you may not agree with, and WE (I don't pretend to LIKE stories like these) need to accept them because these choices exist. As a nurse, I see people every day whose lives (and deaths) are the result of questionable choices, e.g., people who refuse all medical advice and literally do engage in self-destructive behavior like continuing a diet that they know (according to their doctor, anyway) will kill them. But I can't stop them. Nor am I allowed to judge them or treat them any differently for their choices.

"The mayor of Gloucester, Mass., said Monday there is no evidence that a group of teenage girls made a pact to get pregnant and raise their babies together, a theory floated by their high school principal."

Excellent. So it's a rumor or theory someone pulled out of their ass, and people bit.

"In the future, if anyone else from outside your immediate community agrees with you and actually lets your kids get more of a chance to postpone parenthood instead of just paying lip service to the idea, would you accept this agreement or complain (a la complaining about other not-100%-privileged kids getting a chance at http://feministing.com/archives/009043.html )?"

I don't understand what you want to say, Mina.

" I'd like to see accessible health care (including prenatal care and birth control), accessible daycare for all families*, quality public education helping people prepare to earn a living (and to do other stuff too) whether they go to college or not, good job opportunities for them to use their education in, real welfare for jobless and underemployed people no matter if they're parents or not, public transportation options to help nondrivers reach all this stuff, etc. This kind of thing is an investment in society, not a drain. In case it's not obvious, while I do think everyone deserves these safety nets it doesn't mean I also think the lives of all people who don't already have these safety nets are worthless."

Precisely. Which is why classist comments like judging the poor and their reproductive choices (when they do exist), as well as decrying how "they" are "taking" "our" money, will never fail to piss me off.

I'd like to see someone demonstrate they are paying in more than they are getting out, next time they complain about "their" money being "taken" by anyone, and how they can trace "their" money going to a poor family not using contraception, as opposed to their city's shiny new public transportation system. And I will ask.

This may be of interest to you, ShifterCat. You are perceptive to note what an MD billing $180 per hour for the past 15 months did not:

"Three aspects of communication patterns are of clinical interest: poor prosody, tangential and circumstantial speech, and marked verbosity. Although inflection and intonation may be less rigid or monotonic than in autism, people with AS often have a limited range of intonation; speech may be unusually fast, jerky or loud. Speech may convey a sense of incoherence; the conversational style often includes monologues about topics that bore the listener, fails to provide context for comments, or fails to suppress internal thoughts. Individuals with AS may fail to monitor whether the listener is interested or engaged in the conversation. The speaker's conclusion or point may never be made, and attempts by the listener to elaborate on the speech's content or logic, or to shift to related topics, are often unsuccessful."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome