Girl, 11, Gives Birth to Baby Boy

[Ali G. 37]

You do have some say in where your taxes go, you are enfranchised (well, presuming you are a US citizen of course). No one gets to give the IRS detailed instructions as to how their taxes should be spent - that would be prohibitively expensive as well as quite against the letter and spirit of democracy but none the less, when you vote you are effectively making choices as to how your taxes will be raised and spent. You do not pay more than your fair share, unless you are making voluntary contributions, are you?

The whole point of this thread is that the status-quo should changed, I thought that was obvious. Yes, that also means that someone who pays more than their fair share in tax should have a say in where a portion their taxes go versus the status-quo of having an equal say with someone on their fourth child, raised while receiving food stamps.

[Peikko 1,575]

One way or another we will pay, be it financially or be it from the cost of crime.

That's what happens when you are a successful and responsible member of a society that accepts the need to help those who are unable to help themselves. I'd rather my taxes went on welfare than warfare, but that's just me, a sad old hippy

[Ali G. 37]

I am not refusing to acknowledge anything.. but find it interesting that the facts/statistics only count when you post them...

Studies surely carry more weight that stats alone.

[Peikko 1,575]

The whole point of this thread is that the status-quo should changed, I thought that was obvious. Yes, that also means that someone who pays more than their fair share in tax should have a say in where a portion their taxes go versus the status-quo of having an equal say with someone on their fourth child, raised while receiving food stamps.

You don't pay more than your fair share BY, unless you pay voluntary contributions, do you?

What kind of society do you want to live in, one where the rich have 10 votes and the poor 1?

Or perhaps you should get more votes for being childless?

Studies surely carry more weight that stats alone.

Do you understand how statistics are collected and compiled? This statement seems to suggest that you do not.

[Ali G. 37]

That's what happens when you are a successful and responsible member of a society that accepts the need to help those who are unable to help themselves. I'd rather my taxes went on welfare than warfare, but that's just me, a sad old hippy

I have no issue with helping people in genuine need. However, I have a huge problem with people working the system, while I pay into it like a fool.

[Ali G. 37]

Do you understand how statistics are collected and compiled? This statement seems to suggest that you do not.

Marilyn posting that teen pregnancies were higher in the 50's was silly. Why? For a range of reasons. Not only was there no birth control back then but knowledge of such issues was 1/1,000th that of what is available today. People were also married at a much younger age back then. What Marylin's chart also does not cover is the huge increase in single parent and unwed teen mothers. Which, once again, greatly stacks the odds against the mother and cements both her and her child's future into a cycle of poverty.

Edited February 17, 2010 by Booyah

[Peikko 1,575]

I have no issue with helping people in genuine need. However, I have a huge problem with people working the system, while I pay into it like a fool.

I look at it like this, working the system is never going to be better than working in a well paying job, period. The question I have is, is the number of people who 'work the system' as apposed to those in genuine need worth the time and money spent on weeding them out? Most of the time, the answer is no, if you accept that there are people in genuine need, and I do, then you also have to accept that it's not cost effective to try to punish those who diddle the system.

Is that a good thing? No, of course not. Do I admire people like that? No, I do not. Do I wish these people would behave differently? Yes, I do but regardless, if it is cheaper to allow them to be morons than to stop them from being morons, then I'll go with the cheaper in order to allow for the majority who do need the help to benefit without having to undergo inhumane penalties in order to get the help they need.

[Peikko 1,575]

Marilyn posting that teen pregnancies were higher in the 50's was silly. Why? For a range of reasons. Not only was there no birth control back then but knowledge of such issues was 1/1,000th that of what is available today. People were also married at a much younger age back then. What Marylin's chart also does not cover is the huge increase in single parent and unwed teen mothers. Which, once again, greatly stacks the odds against the mother and cements both her and her child's future into a cycle of poverty.

It was not silly simply because you can't get your head around this stuff. Clearly, if you believe there was no birth control in the 50's you are somewhat clueless.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The whole point of this thread is that the status-quo should changed, I thought that was obvious

The point of the thread seems to change depending on what page you read. About the 3rd time you've said that too, and its different everytime.

The real problem here is that you read a headline and get so emotionally invested in it that it overrides any notion of common sense you might haven had.

So we are subjected to these silly rants of yours about how lines need to be drawn in the proverbial sand, and how this must never happen again; and won't if corporal and custodial punishments are meted out.

Authoritarians are ten a penny in this world. And they are all arseholes.

[Ali G. 37]

It was not silly simply because you can't get your head around this stuff. Clearly, if you believe there was no birth control in the 50's you are somewhat clueless.

Nice of you to ignore all of the other points.

It's just strange that I have never read any study where the response was 'we'll it happened in the 50s', therefore, this somehow make is okay or not as bad. Most studies, well all actually, usually discuss strategies or the desire to reduce teenage pregnancies. And I'm referring to girls between 14 to 18 that get pregnant. I am just waiting for the 'it's their right to do so' response. I am sure it's coming from someone.

Authoritarians are ten a penny in this world. And they are all arseholes.

So are dickheads that don't have a clue about life or reality.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I believe the part where you said "I have never read any study"

[Ali G. 37]

I look at it like this, working the system is never going to be better than working in a well paying job, period. The question I have is, is the number of people who 'work the system' as apposed to those in genuine need worth the time and money spent on weeding them out? Most of the time, the answer is no, if you accept that there are people in genuine need, and I do, then you also have to accept that it's not cost effective to try to punish those who diddle the system.

Why yes there are people who are stuck in a rut, but there are also a hell of a lot of communities throughout America where people are clearly more than happy to live off the government and supplement their income using illegal activities, enabling them to chill. After all, it's why these folk are still in the same position after 40 years ago. The first trademark of such folk is having kids at a young age, which almost certainly end up being dependent on the 'guvamint'. Popping out kids has become a pastime. This is something that applies to people of any demographic or color.

Edited February 17, 2010 by Booyah

[Peikko 1,575]

Nice of you to ignore all of the other points.

It's just strange that I have never read any study where the response was 'we'll it happened in the 50s', therefore, this somehow make is okay or not as bad. Most studies, well all actually, usually discuss strategies or the desire to reduce teenage pregnancies. And I'm referring to girls between 14 to 18 that get pregnant. I am just waiting for the 'it's their right to do so' response. I am sure it's coming from someone.

So are dickheads that don't have a clue about life or reality.

What are you talking about? What has been said is that things have empirically in terms of teen pregnancies, there are less of them today than there were in the 50's and for many, many teens life today is immeasurably better than it was in the 50's. The fact that there are still some teens that have issues is not something to be proud of, clearly, but simply berating those families that fail and punishing them for their failures is not a positive move forward. The reality is it would be retrogressive.

[Marilyn. 340]

again I never said that because it happened back then it is ok now.. my point in posting those statistics was to show that teen pregnancy has gone down considerably since then... by at least half and yes it has been climbing a bit in the last few years.. but only by a few percent... and they do say that pregnancy in girls under the age of 15 is still declining..

and yes there are a lot more single mothers now than back then because back them a lot of pregnant teens were forced to get married...

[GabiandVi 34]

Over generalizations and stereotypes.

First of all, the response you responded to was in response to a comment that "some people think that teenage pregnancies increased at the same time abstinence only" began being taught. There were no statistics quoted. I'm sure you could find statistics that seem to support that. I'm sure I could find statistics that would show a correlation between the increase in teenage pregnancies and Calvin Klein ads if I were so inclined. I went to school, too, and I know how statistics work. I'm sure you do too.

Now, as for my "over generalizations and stereotypes," I've taught and had daily contact with literally thousands of students in my state, and part of my job is to know about their circumstances so I always start off the year, as most teachers do, with a student survey asking about their families, etc. I make parental contact as often as I can, and in the rural areas that usually meant contacting the grandmothers, who were the age I am now. Schools keep contact information for students, and I have access to them. Except for a couple of exceptions, my students have no father listed in their contacts, though they have aunts and grandmothers.

During "self-esteem" week, I've always had open conversations with my students. They trust me and feel comfortable around me, sometimes too comfortable for my comfort, and they discuss all sorts of things with me. In addition, I am an English teacher, so I read their daily journals, and they reveal a lot. They also talk very loudly to each other between classes and outside my doorway during lunch time. What I said about what they say was not a stereotype or a generalization. It was anecdotal and it was accurate. Shall I entertain you with the comments I heard just today? Or maybe I can scan the invitations I've received since the beginning of the year for baby showers for my students and former students.

Of the thousands of students I've worked with, I've had hundreds of girls grow large with babies and give birth while they were still my students, and many more who already had babies. I've had many who have had more than one child, and not one of those had more than one baby by the same boy. I've had about half a dozen students name their children after me.

You can think I'm lying. I don't care. Or you can think my experiences are an anomaly and I can think you are in denial.

Now, maybe you have a lot of experience with teenage pregnancies and maybe that experience does not jive with my experiences. Maybe the hundreds of girls you have known who have had babies in their teens did so because they were ignorant about sex or did not have access to birth control. Or maybe they were trying to practice abstinence and failed. Please tell us about it. And maybe you've had the occasion to be privy to the talk of sex among thousands of teenagers, and maybe it doesn't jive with my experiences. I would SINCERELY love to hear about that. I've said it before - I've come to realize that I am exposed to a side of society that most people are completely ignorant about, and it is good news for our society in general that so many people can remain ignorant about it. But it does no good to dismiss my first hand knowledge as insignificant, because it is not. Even if my experiences are an anomaly, which I HIGHLY doubt, there are still whole swaths of this country where I have lived and worked where what I have experienced is the norm, not the exception. We overlook that reality at our own peril.