Anyone see CNN last night?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Just my take on this, but the girl is not 13, she's 17. It seems to me like not too long ago it was extremely normal to be pregnant and married at 17, yet people are acting like this girl is in grade school. My own mother was pregnant and married with her 2nd child (that'd be me) at 17 so its hard for me to see this as some travesty.

Who exactly is calling it a travesty?

[dalegg 143]

Just my take on this, but the girl is not 13, she's 17. It seems to me like not too long ago it was extremely normal to be pregnant and married at 17, yet people are acting like this girl is in grade school. My own mother was pregnant and married with her 2nd child (that'd be me) at 17 so its hard for me to see this as some travesty.

Who exactly is calling it a travesty?

Okay travesty might not be the right word, but the fact that it is getting all of this attention. It's a big hooplah about nothing. I'm glad Obama had the class to come out and put an immediate stamp on the subject too.

[panamania79 2]

Just wondering if anyone saw this. People are saying that this will hurt her as they will see it as she can't even control her own child...

Good for her.

[IAMX 3,055]

Just my take on this, but the girl is not 13, she's 17. It seems to me like not too long ago it was extremely normal to be pregnant and married at 17, yet people are acting like this girl is in grade school. My own mother was pregnant and married with her 2nd child (that'd be me) at 17 so its hard for me to see this as some travesty.

Who exactly is calling it a travesty?

Okay travesty might not be the right word, but the fact that it is getting all of this attention. It's a big hooplah about nothing. I'm glad Obama had the class to come out and put an immediate stamp on the subject too.

Tell these worthless piles of ####### that call themselves "politicians" to get up and have a face to face debates. Here we are, September, 2 months away now, and how many debates?

Probably because they know the more debates, the worse they both look. If the last elections weren't example enough.

Edited September 3, 2008 by SRVT

[joelunchbox 0]

Well, it does matter when her mother is on record as opposing support for unwed mothers.

It doesn't matter in her particular case because she has financial and psychological support from her family.

However....I don't think that many unwed mothers can claim governors as parents.

Big disconnect between what the governor sees in her family and what the average person sees in their family.

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

Well, it does matter when her mother is on record as opposing support for unwed mothers.

It doesn't matter in her particular case because she has financial and psychological support from her family.

However....I don't think that many unwed mothers can claim governors as parents.

Big disconnect between what the governor sees in her family and what the average person sees in their family.

maybe the overall message is - parents should pick up the tab, not the taxpayers..........

[natty bumppo 297]

Well, it does matter when her mother is on record as opposing support for unwed mothers.

It doesn't matter in her particular case because she has financial and psychological support from her family.

However....I don't think that many unwed mothers can claim governors as parents.

Big disconnect between what the governor sees in her family and what the average person sees in their family.

maybe the overall message is - parents should pick up the tab, not the taxpayers..........

you mean a family should support its members ... and not the taxpayer?

you ... you ... Bolshevik!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Assuming they have families who are able to support - not everyone has that of course (esp. given that there is a tendency for single-parent teen mums to be generational). Without wanting to generalise and paint single mothers as welfare leeches the way many do - I'd say those programs are intended fundamentally to help single parents get out of poverty and look after themselves and their children.

More than that - they're usually aimed at those facing the greatest difficulties.

[HAL 9000 96]

Assuming they have families who are able to support - not everyone has that of course (esp. given that there is a tendency for single-parent teen mums to be generational). Without wanting to generalise and paint single mothers as welfare leeches the way many do - I'd say those programs are intended fundamentally to help single parents get out of poverty and look after themselves and their children.

More than that - they're usually aimed at those facing the greatest difficulties.

And such are travesties. I am sure if these teen mothers HAD viable alternatives to seeking public/private foundation help... they'd get it. You have to be pretty brain dead to 'think' otherwise.

[natty bumppo 297]

Assuming they have families who are able to support - not everyone has that of course (esp. given that there is a tendency for single-parent teen mums to be generational). Without wanting to generalise and paint single mothers as welfare leeches the way many do - I'd say those programs are intended fundamentally to help single parents get out of poverty and look after themselves and their children.

More than that - they're usually aimed at those facing the greatest difficulties.

Affectionately know as ... mother's day cheques?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Assuming they have families who are able to support - not everyone has that of course (esp. given that there is a tendency for single-parent teen mums to be generational). Without wanting to generalise and paint single mothers as welfare leeches the way many do - I'd say those programs are intended fundamentally to help single parents get out of poverty and look after themselves and their children.

More than that - they're usually aimed at those facing the greatest difficulties.

Affectionately know as ... mother's day cheques?

No.

[natty bumppo 297]

Assuming they have families who are able to support - not everyone has that of course (esp. given that there is a tendency for single-parent teen mums to be generational). Without wanting to generalise and paint single mothers as welfare leeches the way many do - I'd say those programs are intended fundamentally to help single parents get out of poverty and look after themselves and their children.

More than that - they're usually aimed at those facing the greatest difficulties.

Affectionately know as ... mother's day cheques?

No.

the more kids ... the bigger the cheque ....

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Assuming they have families who are able to support - not everyone has that of course (esp. given that there is a tendency for single-parent teen mums to be generational). Without wanting to generalise and paint single mothers as welfare leeches the way many do - I'd say those programs are intended fundamentally to help single parents get out of poverty and look after themselves and their children.

More than that - they're usually aimed at those facing the greatest difficulties.

Affectionately know as ... mother's day cheques?

No.

the more kids ... the bigger the cheque ....

Which means what exactly?

That's its fine to cynically write-off a whole group of people as lazy money grubbers because of a few sensationalist newspaper headlines?

I mean - do you accept the possibility that there are single parents out there who don't make enough to do more than subsist on, and don't have family support to draw upon?

Edited September 3, 2008 by Paul Daniels

[natty bumppo 297]

Assuming they have families who are able to support - not everyone has that of course (esp. given that there is a tendency for single-parent teen mums to be generational). Without wanting to generalise and paint single mothers as welfare leeches the way many do - I'd say those programs are intended fundamentally to help single parents get out of poverty and look after themselves and their children.

More than that - they're usually aimed at those facing the greatest difficulties.

Affectionately know as ... mother's day cheques?

No.

the more kids ... the bigger the cheque ....

Which means what exactly?

That's its fine to cynically write-off a whole group of people as lazy money grubbers because of a few sensationalist newspaper headlines?

I mean - do you accept the possibility that there are single parents out there who don't make enough to do more than subsist on, and don't have family support to draw upon?

ever consider that only a few "sensationalist" cases make newspaper headlines?

[Peikko 1,575]

Assuming they have families who are able to support - not everyone has that of course (esp. given that there is a tendency for single-parent teen mums to be generational). Without wanting to generalise and paint single mothers as welfare leeches the way many do - I'd say those programs are intended fundamentally to help single parents get out of poverty and look after themselves and their children.

More than that - they're usually aimed at those facing the greatest difficulties.

Affectionately know as ... mother's day cheques?

No.

the more kids ... the bigger the cheque ....

Which means what exactly?

That's its fine to cynically write-off a whole group of people as lazy money grubbers because of a few sensationalist newspaper headlines?

I mean - do you accept the possibility that there are single parents out there who don't make enough to do more than subsist on, and don't have family support to draw upon?

ever consider that only a few "sensationalist" cases make newspaper headlines?

Not seriously, no. The evidence is all around us and the evidence is that the majority of people are hard working and want to improve their lives, for themselves or for their children. This is equally true of very poor people as it is of middle class people. Having X number of babies in order to draw a fantastic income from the state is a myth. The reality is it is subsistance living. Period. Oh, unless of course you accept that these baby factories are also criminals and/or drug runners? Is that your proposition?

Edited September 3, 2008 by Madame Cleo