Total Posts:96|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Kids Having Kids

Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 10:16:58 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At Robeson High in Chicago, more than 100 girls (in a school with 800 girls) are pregnant or already have kids. Society seems to think that this is an abomination. I'm not too sure that I agree (though it depends on a case to case basis). Granted the worst thing about this is the idea that many children will grow up with a strained relationship (if having any relationship at all) with their fathers.

Also, I'd be pissed off to know that the tax payers are supporting these children. However, biologically speaking, 14--16 is the prime age to give birth. I took a science sexuality class once in which the teacher went on a whole tirade about society pushing women to wait to have kids, which is detrimental to their health and the baby's health. Also, he didn't like the idea of society dictating when and how people live their lives, i.e. insist that there's a time line for everything (HS --> college -- > work --> marriage -- kids).

Anyway, I guess that really IS a sucky statistic. What I wanna know is WHY THESE KIDS AREN'T USING CONDOMS? Jesus Christ - they're free at clinics! And handed out all over urban areas. Sheesh. It's called herpes, people.
President of DDO
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 10:30:25 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
The reason why there is that societal structure in place for people's lives (HS->College->Work->Marriage->Kids) is because it has grown out of the traditional idea of what generally works and gives people the best option in life, and especially considering children.

Now, I'm fairly progressive on a lot of issues, but even I know when tradition is generally correct in its practices. It isn't something that everyone had to adhere to, but its actually kind of a good idea, even with slight variations (ex., HS->Work->Stable relationship->Kids). These ideas don't come about just for the sake of it - they've proven to work, they've proven to give the best opportunity to all sides, and it is an idea that has lasted quite a while in practice. That has to count for something.

And yeah, 14-16 is, biologically speaking, the best age for women to have children. But there is a lot more to childbirth than biology, because long gone are the days when having a child at that age came with little consequences. Children have always required the constant attention of mothers, which means that the mother will lose out on an education, a social life and many other things that would put them in a tremendously better position to have and care for a child than they would at such a young age. It is, quite frankly, a stupid idea in light of the known consequences.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 10:53:23 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
It was good in an age when people lived in small communities and bearing children was a primary role and contribution. That sort of role is largely irrelevant now though. However if a teen wants a child and is willing and able to support it, or has the implicit or explicit understanding that it will be part of a larger supported family network then *shrugs* their body, their life.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 10:59:22 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Well what about this: A 15 year old has two kids, goes off to college at age 20, completes college at age 25, and then goes out into the workforce without ever having to take maternity leave. I mean, in this case, the only thing that would be 'wrong' are not having their dads around (maybe), or, not having the funding to support these children (maybe). Sure, maturity is a huge factor. However, people had kids at age 15 all the time back in the day. Now, we just frown down upon that behavior because it's not the norm. Also, I was babysitting hardcore from a much younger age than 15. It's different, but we should assume that these teens will have help at least from their parents if not their partners and other relatives (just as these all play a part in "traditional" families). I mean I'm just playing devil's advocate here, because I don't remember the better argument.
President of DDO
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 11:04:21 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Except Lwerd, what is the reasoning for that? Why have children when you're that young, only if you'll basically follow the same path anyways? At least without having kids that young, your ability to get an education isn't hampered and interrupted by a child. Why not wait when you won't have so much on your plate, and the possibility exists for a much more stable environment?
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 11:25:25 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/24/2009 11:04:21 PM, Volkov wrote:
Except Lwerd, what is the reasoning for that? Why have children when you're that young, only if you'll basically follow the same path anyways? At least without having kids that young, your ability to get an education isn't hampered and interrupted by a child. Why not wait when you won't have so much on your plate, and the possibility exists for a much more stable environment?

Biological reasons. And there are benefits to both.

Like I said, just presenting an alternative POV. I think it's a sad reality that this is happening.
President of DDO
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 11:54:12 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Ookay. So. Teenagers give birth well. After the fact them keeping the baby kinda sucks no?

Well then.

Surrogacy. Older people pay teenagers money to carry the child with their great healthy bodies.This takes the place of other menial jobs one might hold leading to little distraction from education (as long as there is a steady supply of pickles and yogurt and it's well enough planned that the birth falls on a slow time in the school year). This way, healthy babies, yet they are nonetheless raised by the financially competent.

Inb4 traditionalist ****storm.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Vi_Veri
Posts: 4,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2009 12:18:56 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Is this your way of telling me your biological clock is ticking?
I could give a f about no haters as long as my ishes love me.
USAPitBull63
Posts: 668
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2009 4:11:50 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
"I believe in making the world safe for our children. But not our children's children, because I don't believe children should be having sex." --- Jack Handey
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2009 8:28:47 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/25/2009 12:18:56 AM, Vi_Veri wrote:
Is this your way of telling me your biological clock is ticking?

No, I plan on showing you that it is tonight.
President of DDO
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2009 8:47:56 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/24/2009 11:25:25 PM, theLwerd wrote:
At 10/24/2009 11:04:21 PM, Volkov wrote:
Except Lwerd, what is the reasoning for that? Why have children when you're that young, only if you'll basically follow the same path anyways? At least without having kids that young, your ability to get an education isn't hampered and interrupted by a child. Why not wait when you won't have so much on your plate, and the possibility exists for a much more stable environment?

Biological reasons. And there are benefits to both.

I'm not sure what those biological reasons are. Cell turnover rate occurs approximately every 10 years after puberty. This is the main conceptual reason why giving birth a few years after puberty is the best, since any damage will be negligible. After mid twenties, the damage done by childbirth will physically remain because the body has already reached adulthood. After 30, some risks to the fetus appear, and after 40, those risks skyrocket.

However, the biological benefits between giving birth in your teens as opposed to your late twenties is negligible if you are a healthy individual.

Practically though, I don't see any reason why early motherhood is acceptable in any way. I don't think that girls of that age really understand the responsibility and I highly doubt that whoever got them pregnant knows much better. The cost of having a child is enormous, both in terms of time and money. The established social norm of having a child after you are employed and married works because it appropriately places the burden of that cost between two people who can afford it. Shifting it onto a teen that cannot bear the burden is the same as shifting that burden onto society, which is unfair.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2009 9:09:31 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Meh, the figure is lower over here (I hope), but a girl in a school 200m from my (Gender segregated schools suck eh?) school was pregnant at 13-14. Every guy in our year was shocked.

I think the combination of Safety Net + Readily Available Abortions (And chickening out) + Mixed Public schools + Lax attitude + Teenage 'romance' = High teenage pregnancy rate.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2009 9:14:09 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/25/2009 9:09:31 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:

I think the combination of Safety Net + Readily Available Abortions (And chickening out) + Mixed Public schools + Lax attitude + Teenage 'romance' = High teenage pregnancy rate.

Yeah, but a lot of them keep the baby >.<
President of DDO
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2009 9:43:57 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/25/2009 9:14:09 AM, theLwerd wrote:
At 10/25/2009 9:09:31 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:

I think the combination of Safety Net + Readily Available Abortions (And chickening out) + Mixed Public schools + Lax attitude + Teenage 'romance' = High teenage pregnancy rate.

Yeah, but a lot of them keep the baby >.<

Yeah, hence chickening out of abortions. They should at least give it to Stem Cell.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
1-2-3
Posts: 42
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2009 10:46:17 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/24/2009 10:16:58 PM, theLwerd wrote:
Also, I'd be pissed off to know that the tax payers are supporting these children.

Why would you be pissed if some of your tax money went to help needy children?
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2009 11:10:50 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/26/2009 10:46:17 AM, 1-2-3 wrote:
At 10/24/2009 10:16:58 PM, theLwerd wrote:
Also, I'd be pissed off to know that the tax payers are supporting these children.


Why would you be pissed if some of your tax money went to help needy children?

Needy children as a result of a bad decision. Welfare for children of under age kids only supports the act. Personally, I think it should be the responsibility of their guardian.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2009 11:13:46 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/26/2009 11:10:50 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 10/26/2009 10:46:17 AM, 1-2-3 wrote:
At 10/24/2009 10:16:58 PM, theLwerd wrote:
Also, I'd be pissed off to know that the tax payers are supporting these children.


Why would you be pissed if some of your tax money went to help needy children?

Needy children as a result of a bad decision. Welfare for children of under age kids only supports the act. Personally, I think it should be the responsibility of their guardian.

...and if they are unable to carry the burden? Governmental support is bound to creep in at some stage.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2009 11:15:59 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/26/2009 11:13:46 AM, Maikuru wrote:
At 10/26/2009 11:10:50 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 10/26/2009 10:46:17 AM, 1-2-3 wrote:
At 10/24/2009 10:16:58 PM, theLwerd wrote:
Also, I'd be pissed off to know that the tax payers are supporting these children.


Why would you be pissed if some of your tax money went to help needy children?

Needy children as a result of a bad decision. Welfare for children of under age kids only supports the act. Personally, I think it should be the responsibility of their guardian.

...and if they are unable to carry the burden? Governmental support is bound to creep in at some stage.

Put it up for adoption. Or something. Obviously adoption would imply more government help, but it at the same time decreases them. Plus, religious institutions handle most of these things.

I would pay for a free abortion though, but that's just me.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2009 1:43:08 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/26/2009 10:46:17 AM, 1-2-3 wrote:
At 10/24/2009 10:16:58 PM, theLwerd wrote:
Also, I'd be pissed off to know that the tax payers are supporting these children.


Why would you be pissed if some of your tax money went to help needy children?

How would you feel if I went to the bank and took some of your money? But don't worry, I assure you I'll be using it for a good cause. Trust me.
President of DDO
crackofdawn_Jr
Posts: 1,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2009 1:46:23 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/26/2009 11:13:46 AM, Maikuru wrote:
At 10/26/2009 11:10:50 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 10/26/2009 10:46:17 AM, 1-2-3 wrote:
At 10/24/2009 10:16:58 PM, theLwerd wrote:
Also, I'd be pissed off to know that the tax payers are supporting these children.


Why would you be pissed if some of your tax money went to help needy children?

Needy children as a result of a bad decision. Welfare for children of under age kids only supports the act. Personally, I think it should be the responsibility of their guardian.

...and if they are unable to carry the burden? Governmental support is bound to creep in at some stage.

Well, either private charity supports it or the baby dies.
There are three types of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics"
-Mark Twain

"If at first you don't succeed, redefine success"

"Therefore love moderately. Long love doth so.
Too swift arrives as tardy as too slow."
- William Shakespeare

"There must be no majority decisions, but only responsible persons, and the word 'council' must be restored to its original meaning. Surely every man will have advisers by his side, but the decision will be made by one man."
- Adolf Hitler
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2009 1:56:57 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/26/2009 1:43:08 PM, theLwerd wrote:
How would you feel if I went to the bank and took some of your money? But don't worry, I assure you I'll be using it for a good cause. Trust me.

Lol, that doesn't make sense. If you took his money, thats stealing; if the bank takes his money, those are his service fees. Do you think people have a say in how the bank uses those fees? Of course not, because it is the bank's revenue.

It is the same situation with the government - you pay taxes, but it doesn't mean you get to decide where those taxes get spent, and discriminate against who receives support. The government spends its money how it sees fit, as per its mandate. Just be glad there are laws making sure it is spent in a way that benefits everyone, instead of the few.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2009 2:03:04 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/26/2009 1:56:57 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 10/26/2009 1:43:08 PM, theLwerd wrote:
How would you feel if I went to the bank and took some of your money? But don't worry, I assure you I'll be using it for a good cause. Trust me.

Lol, that doesn't make sense. If you took his money, thats stealing; if the bank takes his money, those are his service fees. Do you think people have a say in how the bank uses those fees? Of course not, because it is the bank's revenue.

I believe in public banks.

It is the same situation with the government - you pay taxes, but it doesn't mean you get to decide where those taxes get spent, and discriminate against who receives support. The government spends its money how it sees fit, as per its mandate. Just be glad there are laws making sure it is spent in a way that benefits everyone, instead of the few.

No, Volkov. You do get to decide where those taxes are spent. It's just that people are too stupid to realize it! Not only do you elect people into office, but you also have every right to go to town hall meetings, write in to your government officials, watch C-SPAN, attend all open legal proceedings, etc. Just because people are too uneducated, apathetic and lazy to execute those rights doesn't mean that we don't have a say. We should get to discriminate against support. It's called accountability. Sure, the government is responsible for some things, and I'm even for civic responsibility in the form of a progressive tax. However when people are having babies left and right without being able to support them, that's a problem (and a disgrace). Why do you think people hated Octo-mom to begin with?

"The government spends its money how it sees fit, as per its mandate." Get the hell off my ticket, bud. The government is by the people for the people. We are the government. At least we're supposed to be and should be.

"Just be glad there are laws making sure it is spent in a way that benefits everyone, instead of the few." No. The greedy phucks at the top still rape us, and the low-lives at the bottom who feed off the current system like parasites get all the benefits. The middle class is screwed. I dunno what it's like in Canada, but here we have a serious problem in this regard.
President of DDO
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2009 2:06:27 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
You misinterpreted what I was meaning, Lwerd...

Of course you can choose which mandate a government receives - just like you can choose which bank you want to go to. My point was that you cannot follow around taxes or service fees, and then ask the government or bank not to put it towards such and such person or charity on the basis that it was originally your money.

The government's revenue is the government's revenue, not yours - it passes that stage once it becomes taxes. If you have a problem, give people who propose solutions a mandate - but that is different from what I wanted to state.

And if you really want me off your ticket, then I'll oblige.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2009 4:25:12 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/26/2009 2:06:27 PM, Volkov wrote:

And if you really want me off your ticket, then I'll oblige.

No :(
President of DDO
LeafRod
Posts: 1,548
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2009 4:55:24 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/26/2009 1:46:23 PM, crackofdawn_Jr wrote:
Well, either private charity supports it or the baby dies.

Huh? AND you're CON abortion?
1-2-3
Posts: 42
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2009 11:23:08 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/26/2009 1:43:08 PM, theLwerd wrote:
At 10/26/2009 10:46:17 AM, 1-2-3 wrote:
At 10/24/2009 10:16:58 PM, theLwerd wrote:
Also, I'd be pissed off to know that the tax payers are supporting these children.


Why would you be pissed if some of your tax money went to help needy children?

How would you feel if I went to the bank and took some of your money? But don't worry, I assure you I'll be using it for a good cause. Trust me.

Our taxes pay for new highways, police salaries, missles; so why do you get "pissed off" if some of those tax dollars go toward food stamps and other such programs? Or do you oppose all taxes?
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2009 11:39:27 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/26/2009 11:23:08 PM, 1-2-3 wrote:

Our taxes pay for new highways, police salaries, missles; so why do you get "pissed off" if some of those tax dollars go toward food stamps and other such programs? Or do you oppose all taxes?

I know I do. ^^

Police and defence have other revenue options for those willing to benefit. Roads, social programs, schools etc., should be privatised - and no, I should not have to pay for some teen getting knocked up either. :)
1-2-3
Posts: 42
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2009 12:16:13 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/26/2009 11:39:27 PM, Puck wrote:
At 10/26/2009 11:23:08 PM, 1-2-3 wrote:

Our taxes pay for new highways, police salaries, missles; so why do you get "pissed off" if some of those tax dollars go toward food stamps and other such programs? Or do you oppose all taxes?

I know I do. ^^

Police and defence have other revenue options for those willing to benefit. Roads, social programs, schools etc., should be privatised - and no, I should not have to pay for some teen getting knocked up either. :)

You think the public school system should be scrapped?