Britney Spears sister pregnant - Age 16

[grondramb]

I enjoy Britney's f'ups... but this actually made me sad...

http://www.reuters.com/article/televisionNews/idUSN1853587420071219


The cable channel confirmed a report in the forthcoming edition of celebrity gossip magazine OK! that Jamie Lynn Spears is expecting a child.

"We respect Jamie Lynn's decision to take responsibility in this sensitive and personal situation. We know this is a very difficult time for her and her family, and our primary concern right now is for Jamie Lynn's well being," Nickelodeon said in a statement e-mailed to Reuters.

A high school student who lives in Louisiana, Jamie Lynn Spears reportedly met the father, Casey Aldridge, the son of a Tennessee papermill worker, at church. Jamie Lynn Spears' personal publicist was not available for comment.

So her defacto spokeman is a children's TV channel and her publicist is absent and she met him at church....

[dimented]

I heard about this this morning. Sad. I guess she really did want to follow in her big sisters footsteps.

[Otto]

I don't get it, why is that sad? Lots of 16 year old girls get pregnant. There's usually one or two in every high school class.

[dimented]

I don't get it, why is that sad? Lots of 16 year old girls get pregnant. There's usually one or two in every high school class.

And I think those cases are sad as well.

[Otto]

So, what's the non-sad age at which you can have a kid? 18? 25? 30? At what point does it cease to be "sad" and become "okay"?

I would base whether or not it's "sad" on specific circumstances, not wholly arbitrary age limitations. Saying it's sad just because she's 16 is somewhat ridiculous. I mean, for the vast majority of human history, the average age of first pregnancy has been much less than 16.

[busyba]

At least this 16-year-old can probably support the kid.

Not that she'll necessarily be a responsible parent, but at least money isn't as much of an issue as it is with most knocked up 16-year-olds.

[grondramb]

I don't get it, why is that sad? Lots of 16 year old girls get pregnant. There's usually one or two in every high school class.

It struck me as sad because she has talent, money and all the opportunity in performance she might want. Plus she has the perfect example from her sister of how to screw all that up and it loks like she is doing it any way.

[Otto]

It struck me as sad because she has talent, money and all the opportunity in performance she might want. Plus she has the perfect example from her sister of how to screw all that up and it loks like she is doing it any way.
How is she going to "screw all that up"? Maybe she wants to have a family.

I find it very odd that the instant somebody young decides to have a kid (or decides to keep the kid after getting pregnant) that instantly it's a bad decision, it's "sad", she's screwing up her life, etc...

This seems to me to be a very invalid judgment call that a lot of people seem to make on other people, and I've never understood why they do it. Isn't it up to her how she wants to live her life? I mean, I don't want a family, but my brother just had a son the day before yesterday and my younger sister has a kid and they're both younger than me. Okay, not 16 young, but my sister was 19 or 20 or so. They're not the types of people who want to travel or do things. They want to have a family. Not my style, but more power to 'em if it makes them happy. But I certainly would not call it "sad", and if I did, they'd find it extremely insulting that I said so.

I just find this specific sort of prejudiced judgment to be offensive. I wouldn't have a kid that young, but I'm also not so arrogant as to think that the way I live is the only way to live.

[busyba]

Well, in general, having a child at 16 is significantly different than 19. And I'm sure there are studies that show that these days, bearing children while under 18 more often than not have less deaireable results for all concerned than having the child while over 18.

Also, your assertion that "for the vast majority of human history, the average age of first pregnancy has been much less than 16" ignores both the fact that during that period, the life expectancy for humans was much much less than it is now, and that culturally people 16 and under have completely different roles today than they did then.


Now none of this is to say that this particular situation will turn out badly, but it's understandable how some people might think that way.

[grondramb]

How is she going to "screw all that up"? Maybe she wants to have a family.

I find it very odd that the instant somebody young decides to have a kid (or decides to keep the kid after getting pregnant) that instantly it's a bad decision, it's "sad", she's screwing up her life, etc...

This seems to me to be a very invalid judgment call that a lot of people seem to make on other people, and I've never understood why they do it. Isn't it up to her how she wants to live her life? I mean, I don't want a family, but my brother just had a son the day before yesterday and my younger sister has a kid and they're both younger than me. Okay, not 16 young, but my sister was 19 or 20 or so. They're not the types of people who want to travel or do things. They want to have a family. Not my style, but more power to 'em if it makes them happy. But I certainly would not call it "sad", and if I did, they'd find it extremely insulting that I said so.

I just find this specific sort of prejudiced judgment to be offensive. I wouldn't have a kid that young, but I'm also not so arrogant as to think that the way I live is the only way to live.


Well my reaction clearly reflects my biases.

And once she is pregnant - i am certainly not judging her for keeping the child - that is the right thing to do.

But I still feel sad for her for all the reasons listed above.

[busyba]

The baby daddy just released a song (http://youtube.com/watch?v=LzyXOYVOipY) about his thoughts on the matter. ;)

[Otto]

Well, in general, having a child at 16 is significantly different than 19. And I'm sure there are studies that show that these days, bearing children while under 18 more often than not have less deaireable results for all concerned than having the child while over 18.
Is 19 significantly different than 22? At what point does it become significantly different? 18? So, is it also significantly different at 18 years old vs. 17 years and 364 days old?

My point is that sticking an arbitrary age limitation on your judgment is just that: arbitrary. Different people mature at different speeds. I know some people that would have been perfectly capable at 14, and I know others that are still not capable at 28.

My point is that you're making a judgment call without any of the relevant facts, because the age is not actually relevant.

Also, your assertion that "for the vast majority of human history, the average age of first pregnancy has been much less than 16" ignores both the fact that during that period, the life expectancy for humans was much much less than it is now, and that culturally people 16 and under have completely different roles today than they did then.
a) I'm well aware of those facts,
b) my assertion does not ignore your facts, and
c) I fail to see how those facts are particularly relevant.

It's true that life expectancy is longer now, but that does not really make puberty or normal human sexual drives come later, does it? It doesn't really affect the age at which a person is capable (not legally, but physically) of bearing children or making decisions about their life.

Also, cultures change way faster than human beings have changed biologically. It was culturally appropriate in this country for 14 year olds to be married as little as 100 years ago. It's still culturally appropriate in other countries. Arguing culture is basically arguing that you don't like it because that's how you were raised, which is frankly my whole point; your bias is showing.

Now none of this is to say that this particular situation will turn out badly, but it's understandable how some people might think that way.
Yes, I understand that people are often prejudiced and biased. That doesn't make it acceptable for them to be that way. Ageism is no better than sexism or racism.

[busyba]

Is 19 significantly different than 22? At what point does it become significantly different? 18? So, is it also significantly different at 18 years old vs. 17 years and 364 days old?

My point is that sticking an arbitrary age limitation on your judgment is just that: arbitrary. Different people mature at different speeds. I know some people that would have been perfectly capable at 14, and I know others that are still not capable at 28.

My point is that you're making a judgment call without any of the relevant facts, because the age is not actually relevant.
First of all, chill. If you review the thread, I'm not making any judgement calls, I'm merely pointing out the reasoning behind those who are.

Second, of course there are no absolutes and there is no magic day where overnight a person suddenly becomes responsible enough to have children. Statistically, however, I'm fairly certain that there's an inverse correlation between the age of the parents and the probability of the kid and/or the whole family turning out all effed up. (Well, until you get into significantly older ages where the curve will probably start trending back downward.)

The people you are decrying as "prejudiced and biased" are merely playing the odds.

And no one is insulting your sister.

[Old7]

The baby daddy just released a song (http://youtube.com/watch?v=LzyXOYVOipY) about his thoughts on the matter. ;)

I blame you, I just spent the last 2 hours watching every Stephen Lynch video on YouTube. If that wasn't enough I went to amazon and ordered a DVD.

Damn you,





oh and thanks.

[Otto]

First of all, chill. If you review the thread, I'm not making any judgement calls, I'm merely pointing out the reasoning behind those who are.
Hey, if you take the other side, then I'll roll with it. Just consider me to be using the royal "you". ;)

Statistically, however, I'm fairly certain that there's an inverse correlation between the age of the parents and the probability of the kid and/or the whole family turning out all effed up. (Well, until you get into significantly older ages where the curve will probably start trending back downward.)

The people you are decrying as "prejudiced and biased" are merely playing the odds.
This is exactly the argument I have so often heard from ageists. The argument itself is not an explanation, it's merely a restatement of the prejudices and biases of the person saying it.

Think about it: When you say "playing the odds", what exactly do you mean? If you're saying that because somebody is young/old, then they are more likely to be X, then that's the very definition of a bias right there. That is ageism. Get it? You're basing some form of judgment entirely on one factor merely because, in your mind, you think it's a statistically valid thing to think.

Let's try it from another angle: If you see a black man, do you think he's a criminal, merely because the majority of people in prison are actually black men? I mean, statistically speaking, a black man is much more likely to commit a crime than a white man. That doesn't make it okay to assume such things about any particular person though, does it? This is the exactly same argument, only applied to race instead of to age.

If that doesn't make the obvious bias clear, then I don't know what will. Applying statistical behavior of groups to one person is the very definition of being prejudiced.

Statistics are about large groups of people. But the comments above are referring to one specific person, whom they don't know, and are making assumptions about that persons capabilities based on little more than their age. How is that not prejudicial? How is that not ageist?

So when you say that it's a statistical correlation and such, well, that's about as offensive as saying that black men like chicken and watermelons. It's a generalization, you cannot apply it to any specific individual case.

And no one is insulting your sister.
Never thought anybody was.

However, I do find most of what people are saying in this thread to be as offensive as if they were spewing racist hatreds. Ageism is just as unacceptable.

[dslunceford]

[quote=busyba;61251]
However, I do find most of what people are saying in this thread to be as offensive as if they were spewing racist hatreds. Ageism is just as unacceptable.

You wouldn't think like that if you were older....















































:2funny:

[busyba]

This is exactly the argument I have so often heard from ageists.
Can we please have a moratorium on all words that end in "ist" and "ism"? throwing labels around is not particularly constructive.

(that isn't direct at you specifically, it's just a peeve of mine that I just now suddenly decided to say something about :)).


Think about it: When you say "playing the odds", what exactly do you mean? If you're saying that because somebody is young/old, then they are more likely to be X, then that's the very definition of a bias right there. That is ageism. Get it? You're basing some form of judgment entirely on one factor merely because, in your mind, you think it's a statistically valid thing to think.

Let's try it from another angle: If you see a black man, do you think he's a criminal, merely because the majority of people in prison are actually black men? I mean, statistically speaking, a black man is much more likely to commit a crime than a white man. That doesn't make it okay to assume such things about any particular person though, does it? This is the exactly same argument, only applied to race instead of to age.

If that doesn't make the obvious bias clear, then I don't know what will. Applying statistical behavior of groups to one person is the very definition of being prejudiced.

Statistics are about large groups of people. But the comments above are referring to one specific person, whom they don't know, and are making assumptions about that persons capabilities based on little more than their age. How is that not prejudicial? How is that not ageist?

So when you say that it's a statistical correlation and such, well, that's about as offensive as saying that black men like chicken and watermelons. It's a generalization, you cannot apply it to any specific individual case.
That's an interesting argument, but I think it's not quite the same because people aren't necessarily saying that a person of a certain age is incapable of being a good parent so much as they are saying that in the world we live in today, a person of a certain age has, due to external factors, far more obstacles to being a good parent than an older person would have.

Here's an example to highlight the difference between that and your black man example: to say that a black man is more likely than not to be a criminal is absolutely wrong and prejudiced... but to say that he is more likely than not to have been arrested at least once in his life is not, because that isn't making a judgement about the person or his character, it's recognizing the reality of the person's situation; plenty of black people, far more than white people, are arrested through no fault of their own.

[busyba]

Statistics are about large groups of people. But the comments above are referring to one specific person, whom they don't know, and are making assumptions about that persons capabilities based on little more than their age. How is that not prejudicial? How is that not ageist?
Oh, and I think it's safe to say that in this particular case, the judgements are less about ageism than they are about genetics. :D

[busyba]

The baby daddy just released a song (http://youtube.com/watch?v=LzyXOYVOipY) about his thoughts on the matter. ;)

I blame you, I just spent the last 2 hours watching every Stephen Lynch video on YouTube. If that wasn't enough I went to amazon and ordered a DVD.

Damn you,





oh and thanks.

You're Welcome! :)


BTW, the DVD is good, but the CD's are much better.

[grondramb]

Jamie-Lynn Spears' pregnancy delays mom's parenting book


http://www.kutv.com/content/news/entertainment/story.aspx?content_id=0cbdc8f4-95f4-4a1b-9a26-dea147322ffd


Kind of hard to put out a book on what a good mother you are under these circumstances...

Jamie Lynn has really had her choices reduced.

[Otto]

Can we please have a moratorium on all words that end in "ist" and "ism"? throwing labels around is not particularly constructive.
Ageist and ageism are well established words, and I'll continue to use them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ageism

That's an interesting argument, but I think it's not quite the same because people aren't necessarily saying that a person of a certain age is incapable of being a good parent so much as they are saying that in the world we live in today, a person of a certain age has, due to external factors, far more obstacles to being a good parent than an older person would have.
No, I don't agree that that is what was said in this thread at all. There's posts saying that it's "sad" when a 16 year old decides to have a child. The posts say that she's "screwing up" her life in some way. They put the blame specifically on her and her age, not on society or circumstances for making it more difficult. So no, I don't agree with your statements here at all.

[busyba]

Jamie Lynn has really had her choices reduced.
I think Otto's point is that if the choices that she ultimately wants to make are included in that reduced set, then it's not really a problem.

[busyba]

Can we please have a moratorium on all words that end in "ist" and "ism"? throwing labels around is not particularly constructive.
Ageist and ageism are well established words, and I'll continue to use them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ageism
I never said that they weren't real words. All I'm saying is while it's certainly easier to label people rather than debate them, overall it's counter-productive.

[grondramb]

A new twist

http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/TV/12/19/spears.statutory.rape/


Jamie Lynn Spears pregnancy raises legal questions

In Louisiana, where Spears lives, it is a misdemeanor for someone age 17 to 19 to have consensual sex with someone age 15 to 17 if the difference between their ages is more than two years.
In California, where she sometimes tapes her television show, it's a misdemeanor to have sex with someone younger than 18 if the offender is less than three years older. Someone more than three years older could be charged with a felony.

[grondramb]

Jamie Lynn has really had her choices reduced.
I think Otto's point is that if the choices that she ultimately wants to make are included in that reduced set, then it's not really a problem.

I can be sad for her reduced choices whether she sees it that way at the moment or not.

[busyba]

A new twist

http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/TV/12/19/spears.statutory.rape/


Jamie Lynn Spears pregnancy raises legal questions

In Louisiana, where Spears lives, it is a misdemeanor for someone age 17 to 19 to have consensual sex with someone age 15 to 17 if the difference between their ages is more than two years.
In California, where she sometimes tapes her television show, it's a misdemeanor to have sex with someone younger than 18 if the offender is less than three years older. Someone more than three years older could be charged with a felony.

The real twist, which is discussed in the article, is that it's more likely than not that regardless of the circumstances, prosecutors will not charge her baby daddy with anything, while less fortunate but similarly consent-receiving defendants get sent to prison and are forced to register as sex offenders.

[TreborPugly]

Throughout the human history where women were regularly having kids starting at 14 or so, it wasn't necessary or useful to spend 20 years or so getting educated. We live in a modern world, where people need more time to learn everything they need to cope with their environment. 16 year olds are still in school, and very few of them have had enough life-lessons to be independent. Furthermore, because of the way we educate our kids, they also frequently don't even think about the possible results of having sex. But they naturally have the drive to have sex at that age, and even with education about birth control out there, some of them get pregnant. When people say it's "sad", they are basing that not only on the age, but on the expectation that the pregnancy is accidental. In this case, the 16 year old is now thrown into all sorts of decisions that she'd probably rather not face until at least she was out of high school, probably out of college. But there are social pressures to not get abortions, to not put the kid up for adoption, not to mention the biological attachment that can occur even if she initially plans to give up the baby for adoption. In most cases, it's a major disruption of her life, changing forever her future. That's the sad part.

I really doubt that Jamie wanted to have a child. It's not ageist to assume that a young starlet was partying and having unprotected sex without any thought of the consequences.

[HeyItsCory]

It's weird how different this thread is than the one on the other forum.

[Philosofy]

In today's day and age, I think unplanned pregnancies are sad.

[aindik]

Throughout the human history where women were regularly having kids starting at 14 or so, it wasn't necessary or useful to spend 20 years or so getting educated. We live in a modern world, where people need more time to learn everything they need to cope with their environment. 16 year olds are still in school, and very few of them have had enough life-lessons to be independent. Furthermore, because of the way we educate our kids, they also frequently don't even think about the possible results of having sex. But they naturally have the drive to have sex at that age, and even with education about birth control out there, some of them get pregnant. When people say it's "sad", they are basing that not only on the age, but on the expectation that the pregnancy is accidental. In this case, the 16 year old is now thrown into all sorts of decisions that she'd probably rather not face until at least she was out of high school, probably out of college. But there are social pressures to not get abortions, to not put the kid up for adoption, not to mention the biological attachment that can occur even if she initially plans to give up the baby for adoption. In most cases, it's a major disruption of her life, changing forever her future. That's the sad part.

I really doubt that Jamie wanted to have a child. It's not ageist to assume that a young starlet was partying and having unprotected sex without any thought of the consequences.

I think the concern about 16 year olds having children before completing their education is less about the inherent value of the education (for coping with the modern environment, etc.) and more about money. Most people with a 10th grade education don't have the skills or knowledge necessary to make enough money to provide adequately for the child. But a 16-year-old like Jamie Lynn Spears doesn't have that problem. She is one of the few 16 year olds who already has enough money to raise the child and doesn't need to complete her education in order to avoid raising the child in poverty. So, I think the normal concerns about 16-year-olds having children are far reduced when you're talking about a 16 year old with a bunch of money and some talent for making more without finishing her education.

[grondramb]

The real twist, which is discussed in the article, is that it's more likely than not that regardless of the circumstances, prosecutors will not charge her baby daddy with anything, while less fortunate but similarly consent-receiving defendants get sent to prison and are forced to register as sex offenders.

That is a real double standard... and down south at least it seems to hit black poor teens more than anyone.

But in a case where its a long time boy friend and either the parents don't want prosecution and/or there is a wedding planned - the government will usually stay out.

[TreborPugly]

I think the concern about 16 year olds having children before completing their education is less about the inherent value of the education (for coping with the modern environment, etc.) and more about money. Most people with a 10th grade education don't have the skills or knowledge necessary to make enough money to provide adequately for the child. But a 16-year-old like Jamie Lynn Spears doesn't have that problem. She is one of the few 16 year olds who already has enough money to raise the child and doesn't need to complete her education in order to avoid raising the child in poverty. So, I think the normal concerns about 16-year-olds having children are far reduced when you're talking about a 16 year old with a bunch of money and some talent for making more without finishing her education.

I'm with you on that. For this case, the "sadness" probably comes from one more young star who is well on her way to a crazy messed up personal life. Whether she can financially handle a baby or not, I'm pretty confident that she wasn't planning to have a child, and the trend suggests that she'll have few decades of poor choices and immature behavior, enabled by her stardom and financial independence. Money or not, how many people think that this child will have a "good" rearing?

[grondramb]

I'm with you on that. For this case, the "sadness" probably comes from one more young star who is well on her way to a crazy messed up personal life. Whether she can financially handle a baby or not, I'm pretty confident that she wasn't planning to have a child, and the trend suggests that she'll have few decades of poor choices and immature behavior, enabled by her stardom and financial independence. Money or not, how many people think that this child will have a "good" rearing?


Well, if money is the standard we should never feel bad for anybody with plenty of it... but having known people with money it turns out that is not sufficient to make up for other things that are lacking.

[pseudonym]

I think the concern about 16 year olds having children before completing their education is less about the inherent value of the education (for coping with the modern environment, etc.) and more about money. Most people with a 10th grade education don't have the skills or knowledge necessary to make enough money to provide adequately for the child. But a 16-year-old like Jamie Lynn Spears doesn't have that problem. She is one of the few 16 year olds who already has enough money to raise the child and doesn't need to complete her education in order to avoid raising the child in poverty. So, I think the normal concerns about 16-year-olds having children are far reduced when you're talking about a 16 year old with a bunch of money and some talent for making more without finishing her education.

I don't think that's entirely the case. I'm not saying that the financial situation isn't a concern, but I don't think most 16 year olds are developmentally or emotional equipped to be the primary caregiver. Admittedly, the two concerns are intertwined to the extent that in this girl's situation, she has enough money, nannies and family support that I doubt she'll actually be the kid's primary caregiver.

But I don't think a poor 16 year old would be as able to raise a child as a poor 30 year old, all other things being equal.

[pseudonym]

It's weird how different this thread is than the one on the other forum.

Why? I haven't even really paid attention to this thread. I'm sure as hell not wading into the one over there. The fascination that anyone named Spears holds over that forum baffles me.

[bsnelson]

Jamie-Lynn Spears' pregnancy delays mom's parenting book


http://www.kutv.com/content/news/entertainment/story.aspx?content_id=0cbdc8f4-95f4-4a1b-9a26-dea147322ffd


Kind of hard to put out a book on what a good mother you are under these circumstances...

Jamie Lynn has really had her choices reduced.That's what I was coming to quote. :)

Definitely the funniest part of this whole thing, IMHO.

(to the extent that there's ANYTHING funny about it, I suppose.)

Brad

[busyba]

how many people think that this child will have a "good" rearing?
"Dude! Keep your kid away from him... he wants to give your child a 'good rearing'!" [/KnockedUpParaphrase] :D

[JYoung]

I'm with you on that. For this case, the "sadness" probably comes from one more young star who is well on her way to a crazy messed up personal life. Whether she can financially handle a baby or not, I'm pretty confident that she wasn't planning to have a child, and the trend suggests that she'll have few decades of poor choices and immature behavior, enabled by her stardom and financial independence. Money or not, how many people think that this child will have a "good" rearing?


Well, if money is the standard we should never feel bad for anybody with plenty of it... but having known people with money it turns out that is not sufficient to make up for other things that are lacking.

But Paris Hilton turned out just fine......


:2funny:

[grondramb]

But Paris Hilton turned out just fine......


:2funny:

Paris at least had a good education and finance experience and examples...

[Adam1115]

So, what's the non-sad age at which you can have a kid? 18? 25? 30? At what point does it cease to be "sad" and become "okay"?

When said couple is married and able to emotionally provide a stable home life for their child.

That could be 16, but likely isn't in this (and most) cases.

[Otto]

When said couple is married...
Why is marriage a prerequisite? I debate that this necessary, or indeed, desirable. Marriage is an outmoded institution that should be abolished from the viewpoint of the state and left up to the religious people.

Also, marriage is not an institution for everybody. I, for one, don't plan on ever getting married. If I do, it would only be for tax purposes.

The idea that marriage is required to have some sort of a commitment is a religious bias. Not everybody is religious.

...and able to emotionally provide a stable home life for their child.

That could be 16, but likely isn't in this (and most) cases.
My point is that you're judging *solely* on the age of the person in question. This is not MOST cases, this is a SPECIFIC case. That's the very definition of prejudicial behavior, you're applying what you think the average case is to one specific example from the set. When you meet a Jewish person, do you instantly think they are tight with money? It's the same sort of behavior, you're applying a stereotype to the individual case.

[Adam1115]

When said couple is married...
Why is marriage a prerequisite? I debate that this necessary, or indeed, desirable. Marriage is an outmoded institution that should be abolished from the viewpoint of the state and left up to the religious people.

Also, marriage is not an institution for everybody. I, for one, don't plan on ever getting married. If I do, it would only be for tax purposes.

The idea that marriage is required to have some sort of a commitment is a religious bias. Not everybody is religious.

I understand that some people share your point of view. I'm just not one of them.

But don't drag religion into it, I know lost of athiests that believe in marriage and that a married couple is the best for a child. I'm pretty sure statistics back this up, but I can't prove that, so I won't argue it.

...and able to emotionally provide a stable home life for their child.

That could be 16, but likely isn't in this (and most) cases.
My point is that you're judging *solely* on the age of the person in question. This is not MOST cases, this is a SPECIFIC case. That's the very definition of prejudicial behavior, you're applying what you think the average case is to one specific example from the set. When you meet a Jewish person, do you instantly think they are tight with money? It's the same sort of behavior, you're applying a stereotype to the individual case.

I'm judging by her lack of a serious committed marriage where both parents are working solely to raise this child properly. And the lack of that same thing from her sister and mother.

But you're right, I think being 16 weighs into it. Why does being concerned that a child lacks the maturity to make life changing decisions make me a racist anyway? Is a 14 year old too young? 12? 9? 5? If there is a cut-off, you must be applying a stereotype.

The fact is, high school sophomores usually don't make the best decisions. I'm sure some do, but I bet they don't decide to get knocked up and raise a baby in high school.

[Otto]

I understand that some people share your point of view. I'm just not one of them.

But don't drag religion into it, I know lost of athiests that believe in marriage and that a married couple is the best for a child. I'm pretty sure statistics back this up, but I can't prove that, so I won't argue it.
I know a lot of religious people who would disagree with you, and claim that marriage is solely a religious institution. Many of them on this forum.

I'm judging by her lack of a serious committed marriage where both parents are working solely to raise this child properly. And the lack of that same thing from her sister and mother.
So you know the family personally? Or are you simply judging based on what you know of them through the media?

But you're right, I think being 16 weighs into it. Why does being concerned that a child lacks the maturity to make life changing decisions make me a racist anyway?
Ageist, not racist. And your description of her as a "child" gives you away. Do you define a child solely by their age, or by their actions? I ask, because I happen to know some mighty tall children and some fairly young adults.

Is a 14 year old too young? 12? 9? 5? If there is a cut-off, you must be applying a stereotype.
That is exactly my point, thank you for agreeing with me. I do not define a cut-off point. Do you?

The fact is, high school sophomores usually don't make the best decisions. I'm sure some do, but I bet they don't decide to get knocked up and raise a baby in high school.
Well, I guess you can't help who it is that you know, but I would suggest that perhaps the people you know are not fully representative of the total population. Several people whom I know that had children at that age turned out to be intelligent caring parents. Several people I know with college educations turned out to be complete and total idiots. I'm just cautioning you against judging based on your own preconceptions or sense of morality.

[supfreak26]

Interesting thread.

I think this is a sad case mainly because it sends out a bad message to young kids out there. She's saying it's ok to go out and have unprotected sex at 16. That's definitely not the message I want my kids to hear.

Thankfully, my 13-year-old heard about it and thinks she's stupid. But there are a lot of kids that may have looked up to this girl. What's the message they are getting from her?

And yeah I know that TV shouldn't raise kids, blah blah blah. I agree with that. Unfortunately, there's a lot of kids that learn more from Paris Hilton than their own parents.

IMO, no 16-year-old should have kids. Nobody under the age of 30 should have kids. Enjoy your life and have fun. Be selfish and single for a while. Once you have kids, your life is (or should be) completely revolved around your kids.

Having a kid at 16? Your life is basically over.

[grondramb]

The Spears family plot thickens as Kevin Federline is seen out with Paris Hilton

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20168641,00.html

[Gus]

I think this is a sad case mainly because it sends out a bad message to young kids out there. She's saying it's ok to go out and have unprotected sex at 16.Yeah, because it turned out so well for her. Maybe this girl will do a lot of good by being an example of what not to do. I don't think kids who hear about this will think, "Unprotected sex is awesome and has no consequences".

[supfreak26]

I think this is a sad case mainly because it sends out a bad message to young kids out there. She's saying it's ok to go out and have unprotected sex at 16.Yeah, because it turned out so well for her. Maybe this girl will do a lot of good by being an example of what not to do. I don't think kids who hear about this will think, "Unprotected sex is awesome and has no consequences".


I hope you are right. I fear it will have the opposite effect. She'll make it look like having a kid at 16 is not so bad after all!

"Look! Jaimie had one and she's doing great!"

It all goes back to the parents and I have very little faith in most parents out there.

[Tracy]

Is a 14 year old too young? 12? 9? 5? If there is a cut-off, you must be applying a stereotype.
That is exactly my point, thank you for agreeing with me. I do not define a cut-off point. Do you?

Otto, am I understanding you? You are unwilling to say, "No 5-year-old in this whole wide world is emotionally and physically mature enough to enter into a sexual relationship."? I mean, I am all for having an open mind and not making judgments on too-little information...but...really?

[Adam1115]

I think this is a sad case mainly because it sends out a bad message to young kids out there. She's saying it's ok to go out and have unprotected sex at 16. That's definitely not the message I want my kids to hear.

How do you know she had 'unprotected sex'?

"Protected sex" has a failure rate, condoms have a pretty high one among inexperienced teenagers.

[supfreak26]

I think this is a sad case mainly because it sends out a bad message to young kids out there. She's saying it's ok to go out and have unprotected sex at 16. That's definitely not the message I want my kids to hear.

How do you know she had 'unprotected sex'?

"Protected sex" has a failure rate, condoms have a pretty high one among inexperienced teenagers.

You don't have to know for sure. Given the result, most would assume they weren't protected at all.

Doesn't really matter because I'll break it down even further. I don't want my kids thinking it's ok to have any kind of sex at 16 years of age. Protected or not.

Still not the message I want my kids to hear.

[busyba]

Is a 14 year old too young? 12? 9? 5? If there is a cut-off, you must be applying a stereotype.
That is exactly my point, thank you for agreeing with me. I do not define a cut-off point. Do you?

Otto, am I understanding you? You are unwilling to say, "No 5-year-old in this whole wide world is emotionally and physically mature enough to enter into a sexual relationship."? I mean, I am all for having an open mind and not making judgments on too-little information...but...really?

Well, at least you don't have to worry about the 5-year-old getting knocked up, so she's got that going for her....

[busyba]

Doesn't really matter because I'll break it down even further. I don't want my kids thinking it's ok to have any kind of sex at 16 years of age. Protected or not.
Then tell them.

If your kids think anything that Ms. Spears does is relevant to them, teen pregnancy is the least of your worries.

[grondramb]

Then tell them.

If your kids think anything that Ms. Spears does is relevant to them, teen pregnancy is the least of your worries.

Has there been a generation in recent times where young girls have not been influenced by teen idols?

[Otto]

Is a 14 year old too young? 12? 9? 5? If there is a cut-off, you must be applying a stereotype.
That is exactly my point, thank you for agreeing with me. I do not define a cut-off point. Do you?
Otto, am I understanding you? You are unwilling to say, "No 5-year-old...
Let me just cut you off right there. I am talking about a 16 year old having a child, not a 5 year old doing anything whatsoever. Please do not make up obviously stupid things for me to say and then put them in my mouth, thanks. I am quite capable of expressing my own opinion without your assistance, and I will not respond to rather obvious straw-man attacks.

What I actually said was this: I do not consider age to be a reliable gauge of maturity. If you want to turn that into some kind of way of supporting pedophiles, then that's your own problem, and I don't want to hear about it.

[Otto]

Doesn't really matter because I'll break it down even further. I don't want my kids thinking it's ok to have any kind of sex at 16 years of age. Protected or not.
I don't know about where you grew up, but the number of 16 year old virgins in my neck of the woods was in the single digit percentages.

[grondramb]

Doesn't really matter because I'll break it down even further. I don't want my kids thinking it's ok to have any kind of sex at 16 years of age. Protected or not.
I don't know about where you grew up, but the number of 16 year old virgins in my neck of the woods was in the single digit percentages.

Of course I can't find the link now that I'm looking for it - but last week I saw a study on the average age of virginity loss.

The U.S. was about 16, most of Europe about 15 and more conservative countries like India about 17.

[aindik]

Doesn't really matter because I'll break it down even further. I don't want my kids thinking it's ok to have any kind of sex at 16 years of age. Protected or not.
I don't know about where you grew up, but the number of 16 year old virgins in my neck of the woods was in the single digit percentages.

Of course I can't find the link now that I'm looking for it - but last week I saw a study on the average age of virginity loss.

The U.S. was about 16, most of Europe about 15 and more conservative countries like India about 17.

How did they define "virginity loss?"

[busyba]

I don't know about where you grew up, but the number of 16 year old virgins in my neck of the woods was in the single digit percentages.

Of course I can't find the link now that I'm looking for it - but last week I saw a study on the average age of virginity loss.

The U.S. was about 16, most of Europe about 15 and more conservative countries like India about 17.

How did they define "virginity loss?"
I'm presuming that anal didn't count. :)

[supfreak26]

Doesn't really matter because I'll break it down even further. I don't want my kids thinking it's ok to have any kind of sex at 16 years of age. Protected or not.
Then tell them.

If your kids think anything that Ms. Spears does is relevant to them, teen pregnancy is the least of your worries.

I'm not concerned about my kids in particular. They don't rely on teen idols to tell them how to live. I'm speaking of kids in general.

It's a bad idea to get pregnant at 16. I don't care how mature you think you are.

Doesn't really matter because I'll break it down even further. I don't want my kids thinking it's ok to have any kind of sex at 16 years of age. Protected or not.
I don't know about where you grew up, but the number of 16 year old virgins in my neck of the woods was in the single digit percentages.

I'm not saying it's realistic for all 16-year-olds. I'm doing everything I can to keep my kids from having sex as long as they live under my roof. At the same time, I'm teaching them how to be safe, how to avoid pregnancy, and to wait until she is older and in a serious relationship to have sex. Sure it's old-fashioned. But it's better than the alternative.

There's no garauntee our methods will work but we do what we can. Thankfully, like I mentioned before, my oldest thinks Jamie is stupid for getting pregnant. I think we've taught her well so far.

[grondramb]

Of course I can't find the link now that I'm looking for it - but last week I saw a study on the average age of virginity loss.

The U.S. was about 16, most of Europe about 15 and more conservative countries like India about 17.

How did they define "virginity loss?"
I'm presuming that anal didn't count. :)

I'm guessing they mean penis into vagina intercourse.

I found the graphics I had seen previously (linked from Digg)
My reccolections were not completely accurate.

http://www.furfy.com/VirginityMap-World2.gif

http://www.furfy.com/virginitymap.html
This appears to be the source study - looks like its condom company sponsored - that doesn't mean its not right but it does mean the sponsor has an interest in the outcome.

http://www.durex.com/cm/gss2005Content.asp?intQid=941&intMenuOpen=

[aindik]

I'm guessing they mean penis into vagina intercourse.

Does that mean homosexuals who have never had intercourse with a member of the opposite sex are virgins for life?

[busyba]

I'm guessing they mean penis into vagina intercourse.

Does that mean homosexuals who have never had intercourse with a member of the opposite sex are virgins for life?
That... and damned.


:p

[grondramb]

I'm guessing they mean penis into vagina intercourse.

Does that mean homosexuals who have never had intercourse with a member of the opposite sex are virgins for life?


Since this is done by a condom company they are not neccesarily anti-gay biased.

But generally "virgin" refers to intercourse.

[aindik]

I'm guessing they mean penis into vagina intercourse.

Does that mean homosexuals who have never had intercourse with a member of the opposite sex are virgins for life?


Since this is done by a condom company they are not neccesarily anti-gay biased.

But generally "virgin" refers to intercourse.

It's not about pro or anti-gay. It's about having meaningful data. A person who has had anal intercourse 200 times but never vaginal is not a virgin. Oral might be a tougher question. A country where either is common is going to have skewed numbers on when people lost virginity.

[grondramb]

OK, I don't get the significance of what you are saying but I do hear you.

[busyba]

A person who has had anal intercourse 200 times but never vaginal is not a virgin.
Although she might be a dyslexic.

[grondramb]

Yet another reason not to emulate big sister


More Cops, Ambulance Now at Spears' House! (http://www.tmz.com/2008/01/04/more-cops-and-fire-trucks-now-at-spears-house/)


Posted Jan 4th 2008 1:24AM by TMZ Staff (http://www.tmz.com/bloggers/tmz-staff/)
UPDATE: Another ambulance, more fire trucks and several additional police cars have just rolled up to Britney's house. One person on the ground described the situation to us as "scary."

Holy Kramer vs. Kramer!

TMZ is at Britney's house in Beverly Hills as several more police cars, fire trucks, an ambulance and a police chopper have now all descended on the popwreck's humble abode. Don't let 'em git me!!

We've learned Spears has refused to turn her two sons back over to their daddy tonight, as ordered by the court. LAPD tells us they've been called to the home to deal with the family custody dispute.

Sources confirm to TMZ that K-Fed's attorney Mark Vincent Kaplan was at Britney's home earlier, but has since left.

Edit: Looks like quite the frikken circus
Live Video: http://www.myfoxmemphis.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=5389930&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.3.1

[Tracy]

That is exactly my point, thank you for agreeing with me. I do not define a cut-off point. Do you?
Otto, am I understanding you? You are unwilling to say, "No 5-year-old...
Let me just cut you off right there. I am talking about a 16 year old having a child, not a 5 year old doing anything whatsoever. Please do not make up obviously stupid things for me to say and then put them in my mouth, thanks. I am quite capable of expressing my own opinion without your assistance, and I will not respond to rather obvious straw-man attacks.

What I actually said was this: I do not consider age to be a reliable gauge of maturity. If you want to turn that into some kind of way of supporting pedophiles, then that's your own problem, and I don't want to hear about it.

This conversation seems to have turned in another direction since I last looked, but I thought this was a rather overheated response, Otto. You said, as quoted above, that you didn't define a cut-off point when it came to age and maturity--specifically when it came to having sex and bearing a child. I found that hard to believe and asked you about it.

And in fact, I did not make up "obviously stupid things for you to say and then put them in your mouth"....I asked you if you were unwilling to say one thing. And obviously, you are very able to express your opinion without my assistance, however I think that statement you made was unclear..hence my question.

And finally, I would never turn anything into support for pedophiles. Don't even know where you came up with that one.

Oh, and good job not responding to the "obvious straw-man attack".

Otto, jeesh. Chill.

[Adam1115]

That is exactly my point, thank you for agreeing with me. I do not define a cut-off point. Do you?

Otto, am I understanding you? You are unwilling to say, "No 5-year-old in this whole wide world is emotionally and physically mature enough to enter into a sexual relationship."? I mean, I am all for having an open mind and not making judgments on too-little information...but...really?

Well, at least you don't have to worry about the 5-year-old getting knocked up, so she's got that going for her....


Oh yea...?

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

[grondramb]

Jamie Lynn Spears Pregnant Again!

October 8, 2008

http://www.dailystab.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/jamie-lynn-preg.jpg
The National Enquirer (http://www.nationalenquirer.com/enquirer_world_exclusive_jamie_lynn_spears_pregnan t_again/celebrity/65548)is reporting that 17 year old Jamie Lynn Spears is now expecting for the second time just three months after giving birth on June 19 to baby Maddie Briann.
And before you say anything about it being from TNE, just remember, they were right about her being pregnant the first time….
They say that Jamie Lynn is desperate to keep the shock*ing news secret and some people close to her are urging her to consider ending the pregnancy. A source says: “Jamie Lynn is about eight weeks pregnant, and she and her mom Lynne are hysterical,”
“Neither of them knows what to do, but for now they’re trying to keep the news from getting out.”

I wonder if this would hurt her mom's book on parenting...

Here's a before picture

http://images.starpulse.com/Photos/pv/Jamie%20Lynn%20Spears-21.jpg

http://www.dailystab.com/jamie-lynn-spears-pregnant-again/

[latrobe7]

"It's a vagina, not a clown-car!"

[TheIndependent]

good for her, 2 kids are fun :)

[Mysteryman]

good for her, 2 kids are fun :)

Don't you mean 3 kids? Jamie Lynn is just 17.

[TheIndependent]

good for her, 2 kids are fun :)

Don't you mean 3 kids? Jamie Lynn is just 17.

many people have had kids at a young age and turned out fine. she appears to have money and a support system around her, i don't get the hate.

she already was a parent, so the addition of another child isn't exactly 'game changing' for her.

[Mysteryman]

she appears to have money and a support system around her, i don't get the hate.


I look at older sister's "support system" and don't have much faith.

No hate directed towards you.