Kids Having Kids

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.

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.

There's a good argument against your point, but I forgot what it was.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Is this your way of telling me your biological clock is ticking?

"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