Pantagraph.com | News | Officials: High school girls made pact to get pregnant

Note: All views and opinions expressed in reader comments are solely those of the individual submitting the comment, and not those of the Pantagraph or its staff.

The Cat wrote on Jul 3, 2008 9:28 PM:

" Isabelle: Climate change is called winter, spring, summer, and fall when temperatures change naturally due to the Earth’s position to the sun. Climate change also occurs when the sun has physical changes like sunspots that modify the heat output. This garbage put out by the likes of Gore and assorted nutcases has no validity. Some of these nuts were predicting global cooling in the 1970s; their algorithms for their graphs can’t predict the past or current results when actual data is plugged into their formulas; they can’t even predict next week’s weather when any accuracy. The oceans are cooler than they expected and they’re surprised. The past two hurricane seasons were not what they predicted plus we have had natural heating and cooling periods on earth in the past. So we’re to change our lifestyles and shell out big bucks for taxes and alternative energy fantasies on their word? On diversity, when you give more weight to cultures other than the US and stress values other than the values on which this country was built that tends to be indoctrination not education. "

Isabelle wrote on Jul 3, 2008 2:28 PM:

" If you disagree with teaching diversity, what do you agree with teaching? Would you like our children to grow up thinking that all of their peers celebrate the same holidays, live with the same family structures, practice the same religion, and eat the same foods as they do? Wouldn't this be doing them a disservice, since that is not true?

Also, please tell me which school are teaching global warming as a religion, because I definitely don't want to send my kids there. I don't think that is actually happening anywhere. Climate change is a fact and if you can't acknowledge it that's your issue. I'm happy that the future generations are already brainstorming on ways to address it.

I would like to congratulate you for making a couple posts in which you do not address "O'Bummer" at all. I'm impressed. "

Isabelle wrote on Jul 3, 2008 2:28 PM:

" The Cat,

As I was raised Catholic, I had both sex ed (at CCD) and abstinence ed (in school). My sex ed class was a success as it emphasized safe sex but also presented abstinence as the safest form of birth control. It scared me to death to think of having a baby at 16, so I didn't have sex. My abstinence education taught me that sex was sinful unless for procreation and that I would be incomplete to my husband if I had sex before marriage. These things had no impact on me as a teenager at all so I ignored it. This is what I'm referring to as abstinence education; in my experience, it is a waste of time.
CONTINUED "

The Cat wrote on Jul 3, 2008 1:19 PM:

" Isabelle: Why is abstinence morality but birth control and abortion is “health. Since birth control devices do not protect against STDs and abortions have healthcare risks, abstinence avoids the hazards of both plus unwanted pregnancies so it certainly has a place in “health education”. Teaching how to be a muslim for a week and pointedly avoiding any reference to Judeo-Christian concepts is teaching morality but limiting the scope to a specific set of beliefs that is counter to the current US culture and history. Teaching “diversity” is also teaching a form of morality if that is directed to “alternate lifestyles” or accepting practices like female circumcision or Sharia law that are counter to the US culture without presenting alternative arguments. Global warming has also been presented as a “religious” exercise to save the planet from us evil US consumers in order to preserve “pristine” nature from extinction from man (as long as that is restricted to the US and the West and doesn’t include China, India, Africa). Certainly making kids “custodians” to the Earth has a moral tone. "

Isabelle wrote on Jul 3, 2008 10:58 AM:

" The Cat,
none of the examples you posted on Jul 2, 2008 10:13 PM are examples of schools teaching "morality". Teaching kids to acknowledge and be aware of diverse lifestyles is not teaching morality, it is teaching them how to function in society. Although some of us would choose to shelter our children from anyone who is different from us, that's not very practical in today's society. Sex ed is not teaching morality, it is teaching reproductive responsibility. Now ABSTINENCE ed, that would be teaching "morality", but only the morality of one group, of course...this is where the problem arises. "

Sweetcheeks wrote on Jul 3, 2008 8:17 AM:

" You are hopeless. What planet do you live on? I said it wasn't their responsibility and you come up with babbling involving global warming and muslims? Your post is a great example of why no one likes you on here. "

Sweetcheeks wrote on Jul 3, 2008 7:59 AM:

The Cat wrote on Jul 2, 2008 10:13 PM:

" sweetcheeks: If it is the parents job to insure these girls get training in morals and responsibility (and it should be solely the parent’s responsibility) then the school need to get out of the sex education (such as it was) and day care/mom’s day celebration business because they sure are sending mixed signals with their actions. If you haven’t realized by now that schools have been in the “morals and responsibility” indoctrination business for some time now then you missed the likes of “global warming”, spend a week as a muslim, Heather Has Two Mommies, sex ed content, “diversity” initiatives, the recent CA decision to remove sex connotations from texts (Mother, Father, Grandmother, etc), and a host of other “education” that plants a “progressive” set of “morals and responsibilities” in receptive little minds. That is a political decision made by politicians that run PUBLIC (GOVERNMENT RUN) education. "

Sweetcheeks wrote on Jul 2, 2008 7:49 AM:

" The Cat:
Every thing to you is political affiliation. It is still a morals and personal responsibilty issue. It is NOT the school boards responsibilty to teach kids morals or how to behave, it is the PARENTS job. Once again it has nothing to do with political affliation. Evidently they have a high drop out rate to match the high pregnancy rate or they would not have intalled the day care. Did you even stop to think that maybe they do this to keep them in school? No you didn't, you too busy blaming the democrats for an issue that has not been resolved by EITHER party. "

The Cat wrote on Jul 1, 2008 4:54 PM:

" Sweetcheeks: Once again, if the school is involved and sending mixed moral messages to the students then it is a political issue because it is a government generated problem. If the parents aren’t giving the girls a proper moral foundation at least the schools can do is not encourage improper behavior by celebrating pregnant teens like they do in this school. Even worse, if the parents are trying to give their girls the proper moral message then the school is actually negating that training. There is a tendency today for bureaucracies to act in ways that increase dependency on government to increase the reach and budgets of these bureaucracies. "

Sweetcheeks wrote on Jun 30, 2008 3:46 PM:

" Ok, all the babbling and name calling out of the way I ask again,
What does it have to do with this? This is personal choice not political affiliation. It is more of a morals and personal responsibility issue. News Flash..McLame won't make it any better. These kids need a stiff lesson in morals. "

Sweetcheeks wrote on Jun 30, 2008 2:45 PM:

jipsi wrote on Jun 30, 2008 8:41 AM:

" (3, cont. from 2)
I wound up becoming a "single mom" myself, but I was in my THIRTIES, had a professional (and well paying) job, and was better prepared, emotionally and financially, to COMMIT to the HUGE responsibility of raising children -by myself.
If I'd had my 'druthers, it's that the father had stuck around.
Single motherhood, when DONE RIGHT, is a HARD, unforgiving and relentless life.
Only the EXCEPTIONS can tackle it, and even the best of us have moments where we wish we would have made other choices in our lives!
This is NOT the "norm", honey. NOT AT ALL.
The MAJORITY of teen girls, these days, NEED those formative years to grow into a young woman in more ways than the physical.
ANYONE that can say "I can do anything I want!", is flat-out NOT READY.
Maturity will teach you that, although we can strive to shape our lives into our ideals, we will ALWAYS have to give as well as take.
It's SACRIFICE and COMPROMISE, plain and simple, not just a decision to "be a mommy".
Most teen girls are not ready for that amount of selflessness.

Stepping down off my soapbox now.... ;-) "

jipsi wrote on Jun 30, 2008 8:40 AM:

" (2, cont from 1)
Also... the times of 13, 14 and 15 year old BRIDES, as you must surely be thinking of, was more common before the 1800's, when the mortality rate was around 38-40!
It made MORE SENSE then to have the children EARLY, before mom and pop passed on from the multitude of "natural causes' no longer in existence (or as virulent) today (smallpox, polio, influenza, etc.)!
These BRIDES were PROVIDED for, almost unilaterally, by their HUSBANDS.
And a girl getting pregnant out-of-wedlock was considered a terrible thing: in some places they were STONED!
A widowed woman with children, with no provider, frequently were split up, put to work in factories or on "poor farms".
Your argument was ludicrous and uninformed, to say the least.
Finally, we're talking about RAISING CHILDREN. This is far different than HAVING BABIES which is only a SMALL part of the lifelong committment.
No amount of teen-mommy-love is going to make up for the loss of a secure, financially and emotionally stable environment, hopefully with both parents available for their lifetime.
(2, cont. to 3) "

jipsi wrote on Jun 30, 2008 8:34 AM:

" to bngurl:

You have it BACKWARDS!
It was NOT the "norm", back then (talking pre-1970 or so).
16 year old girls (or 13, 14, etc. to 18, 19) are commended for being responsible, but should be in SCHOOL, not WORKING instead. Even "just" getting your HS diploma these days is not enough to keep a single or family out of the poverty zone!
The MAJORITY of teen girls are not emotionally or financially capable of supporting themselves, let alone a family, no matter how 'physically' ready, or even responsible, they may seem.
There are EXCEPTIONS: those exceptions are NOT the 'norm', although to be commended!
See, "back then" (as recently as the 70's), a single (ie: UNWED) mother bore a HUGE STIGMA, all the more difficult to bear if she was still in school.
In MOST CASES, the unwed mother-to-be was "sent away" (unwed mothers' homes) to discreetly have and then give up the baby. This was nearly 100% when it came to jr. or hgih school girls! It WAS NOT ACCEPTED!
It was MORE TABOO "back then" than it is now... You'll be better informed if you research this topic a little more.
(1, cont. to 2) "

bngurl wrote on Jun 29, 2008 4:39 AM:

" I agree they should not have gotten pregnant b/c they did not have jobs or insurance. However, I feel if a 16 year old wants to have a baby and has a job and is responsible,who are we to judge. Years ago, 14 year olds got married and had kids. Loretta Lynn was 14. Why, as a society, are we so judgemental now? Back then it was the norm, but now the subject is taboo. "

Citizen#9 wrote on Jun 28, 2008 9:13 AM:

" Turns out that the "pact" didn't really exist. This shouldn't divert attention from the real issue: Does anyone really believe that these kids should be having babies? "

The Cat wrote on Jun 27, 2008 9:48 PM:

" Sweetcheeks: This story has political aspects because the girls are going to a public (government run) school that is controlled by a political entity called a school board elected to make decisions on what goes on in the schools. It appears from the information presented that the board and the school didn’t do a very good job in relation to pregnant students. Surprise, providing daycare and special recognition for unwed teenage coeds seems to have encouraged more of that type behavior. The political aspect was strengthened by the mayor’s somewhat incoherent response to the story that sure looks like a political CYA maneuver. Meh: Actually, I think we would have a better nation if the “progressive” (Obummer) ideology that stresses permissiveness and lack of accountability in some matters (mostly sexual but also anything that stresses helplessness in taking care of oneself) was replaced with a little more self control and personal accountability. Religion really doesn’t have anything to do with it directly because you can be self reliant and self-possessed by exercising your freedoms in a mature manner without it. "

MRS. wrote on Jun 27, 2008 11:27 AM:

" ditto Sweetcheeks. Mike Huckabee, Bush, Reagan,Kennedy and brother, Obama claims to be a christian doesn't he? Clinton's claimed to be christians right? All polititions lie if they think it will help their cause. "

Sweetcheeks wrote on Jun 27, 2008 10:58 AM:

" I have a religous background but I do not believe that there are any good Christain politicians, they all lie and Bush is the perfect example of a politicain that sought out the backing of the religous leaders and he is acting more greedy than any liberal or conservative that has ever been in office.

but all the political bs does not belong here. "

Meh wrote on Jun 27, 2008 10:10 AM:

" Sweetcheeks, people like The Cat honestly believe that we'd have a perfect nation with no crime, no sex, and nothing to offend Christian sensibilities if only we'd elect a 100% Republican Government and immediately worked to change our legal code to match the Dobson interpretation of the Bible. Thus, anything and everything that goes wrong in a society is a result of failing to implement this Republican Christian Government and is the fault of liberals and Obama. "

Isabelle wrote on Jun 27, 2008 9:11 AM:

" Sing it, Sweetcheeks! "

Sweetcheeks wrote on Jun 27, 2008 8:14 AM:

" the cat:
Why is everything a political battle with you? what does this pact have to do with politics besides nothing? "

The Cat wrote on Jun 25, 2008 10:08 PM:

" isabelle: READ MY OBUMMER COMMENTS! They were related to his approach of “taking care” of us “lesser beings” if we fail; unless we are holding on to religion, guns, SUVs, or trying to live a middle class or higher lifestyle without the government’s permission. In this case his approach is actually abortions for all. The immaturity of these girls, the actions of the school and the town political establishment, and comments by most of the “progressive” Obummer supporter posters here reflects a mindset that is do whatever feels good to you and the government will take care of you if something negative happens because it really isn’t your fault. Then, when the government can’t solve the problems or compounds the problem (as it frequently does), either cover it up or find someone else to blame. The high gas prices, mortgage mess, and the ethanol/food price debacles are all examples of this on the Federal level and all have their root in Donkey party initiatives even if some stupid RINOs or farm state Republicans have gone along with bad policies. "

The Cat wrote on Jun 25, 2008 9:38 PM:

" Meh: We don’t know the content of the school’s sex ed program but we do know they have no problem supporting (actually celebrating) teen pregnancies since they are providing day care and special recognition for teen moms. Implicitly that is condoning that type behavior if not encouraging it, and that is providing a negative moral guidance even if you don’t recognize it as such. You can teach your children whatever you wish since you are their parent, but the school sure appears to be teaching the values of some of the teaching and/or administrative staff with negative consequences. One of the TV cable channel shows had on the director of the clinic at the school and her statements indicated the staff didn’t have any problem with teen moms. Since this story seems to be changing and the mayor is trying to downplay the entire incident, there may well be more here than has come out in these news stories. "

Probly_Not wrote on Jun 25, 2008 12:56 PM:

" I'm glad that this story is so highly publicized... Now we can look forward to teenage girls all over the country making the same pacts! "

Townie here... wrote on Jun 25, 2008 12:16 PM:

" Where are the pro-lifers and anti Planned Parenthood people? This is what you want....lots and lots of babies! Yay! "

jipsi wrote on Jun 25, 2008 10:57 AM:

" Isabelle: You're right... I forgot about the friggin' 'confidentiality' thing...
So we have the GOVERNMENT (and all those freedom-to-do-anything groups) to blame for this, as well...
It's apparent a whole LOT of cooks were stirring the broth on this one...
Girls acting on immature emotions, with rights to protect their 'privacy' from their parents, poring over magazines and reality shows that feature their favorite pop star ("pregnant! what will she do NOW? stay tuned!"), consulting with nurses (and teachers) whose hands are tied (and the girls' 'secrets' assured), giggling with friends over their plans (and agreeing on clever stories for after-the-fact), and all the while, most Moms and Pops are home thinking of graduation days and hauling college dorm furniture...
Well, I've got the boy end of the next generation (teen sons) and I only HOPE I'm raising them 'right' and trust they're not sniggling behind my back all the while...
It ultimately boils down to what's between the ears of today's young girls (and boys), and I hope this story, if nothing else, gets a lot of parents sitting down with their daughters and having some serious accord... "

isabelle wrote on Jun 25, 2008 8:51 AM:

" jipsi- I agree with you, I don't think 100% of the blame can be placed on the parents. While 15 is not very old, it's old enough to choose to lay down and have unprotected sex. Parents can't do a darn thing if their daughter/son has made up their mind to do that!

However, the clinic could not have done much unless the minor had listed on their confidentiality records that their information could be released, and specified their parents' names and phone numbers. This is often hard to do; when I was 15 I had to have emergency gynecological treatment and even though I ASKED for my information to be shared with my parents, the doctors wouldn't do it. So it's almost completely out of the realm of possibility for these healthcare providers to have told the parents what what happening without losing their licenses/jobs. They couldn't have called the parents if the girls tested positive for any STDs, and they couldn't tell the parents that the girls were coming in for pregnancy tests like this! "

jipsi wrote on Jun 25, 2008 2:29 AM:

" (2, cont from 1):
If ANY of you are parents of TEENAGERS, then you must surely know how difficult it is to learn anything about their day at school let alone the tumultuous workings of their minds under full hormonal assault. I've almost had to become a certified therapist in order to just understand and communicate with my teen boys, and I STILL know there is much they don't (and won't) tell me. One cannot empirically lay 100% of the blame at the feet of parents, because even the best of us can be outfoxed by our good but "boundary-seeking" teen...
It truly does take a village to raise a child.
Adults, when seeing someone else's teenager doing something suspicious, should NOT automatically, every time, decide "where are the parents??" but, instead, "I wonder if this kid's poor parents know what he/she is doing?", then CALL THEM (if you know them, have their number), intervene if you can (as in, "Do your parents know you're xxxx'ing?").
Maybe I'm wrong, but that's what *I* feel about this... "

jipsi wrote on Jun 25, 2008 2:27 AM:

" I will say this in defense of The Cat's recent comment:
The school neglected to notify parents when several faculty "noticed" the disappointment of many of the girls when they found themselves to NOT be pregnant.
At this point it would be obvious the girls were TRYING or HOPING to get/be pregnant!
If I were a babysitter, summer camp counselor or teacher/school nurse, I would have felt it was MY duty to alert the parents that their daughter, while in my care and guidance, had exhibited signs of concern.
THAT is where I feel the school failed some of these girls. (1, cont. to 2) "

isabelle wrote on Jun 24, 2008 2:44 PM:

" Thank you, Meh!

The Cat, do you really think Obama has anything to do with these girls and their pregnancies? Get a grip! It's just as likely that McCain personally inseminated each child as it is that these girls looked to Obama for encouragement to sleep with a 24-year-old homeless man. This is not the hope and change Obama strives for! "

Meh wrote on Jun 24, 2008 12:42 PM:

" The Cat, where do you get the idea that its the school's job to teach morality or "conducting yourself as a mature person not a rutting animal"? The school's job is to teach science, literature, math, history, etc. When teaching sex ed, their job is to teach facts about sex, birth, birth control, STDs, etc. WITHOUT morality judgement. Its not their place. Morality and other value judgements are a matter for the parents because we all have different opinions on things, especially where sex is concerned.

For example, you might teach your children that sex is bad except when you're married, mastur-bation is evil, gay sex is a ticket to Satan, etc. These are all value judgements based on personal values. My values are different than yours and I will instruct my children differently on such matters.

If you want your kids taught morality in school, find a private school. Otherwise, the parent needs to take responsibility for their kid. "

Mikki wrote on Jun 24, 2008 11:27 AM:

" I doubt that most teens are in a position to fully understand the ramifications of becoming a mother at that age. Obviously they are responsible for the decisions they make. Given the current social environment, any discussion on sex with minors should include a realistic look at what pregnancy or STDs does to your life. I'm willing to bet these young mothers thought they'd have a living doll to love and cuddle and that mom and dad or the government would take care of all the hard parts. Very few 15 year olds have a fully developed concept of what it takes to make a healthy, safe home. (assuming they've even experienced one)

On a political note, we should consider limiting the number of additional children that welfare will pay for that are conceived after a parent starts receiving benefits. I know some will think that it invades religious/family rights but the system only has a finite amount of money. I'd rather see it used as intended - for those who cannot work or those who need some help to get them through a rough spot in life. "

The Cat wrote on Jun 24, 2008 10:26 AM:

" Meh and (un)reasonable: Being “progressives” the idea of personal responsibility for negative acts like this is foreign to you but ultimately a society falls if it ignores or excuses people not being held responsible for bad conduct. Meh’s comment of “well meaning” says it all. Actually you “progressives” preach “responsibility” but it only applies to your phony issues like “global warming” or “diversity” or “evil capitalism” or “tolerance”. In this case, the girls are being rewarded by the school for getting pregnant and the school has taken the responsibility of instructing the students in all aspects of sex education that should include the responsibility of conducting yourself as a mature person not a rutting animal. The girls have shown themselves to be immature and the school irresponsible. From the recent comments by the mayor of Gloucester it appears that the local administration is now trying to spin their way out of the whole embarrassing issue. Why do you think the parents are responsible for this situation when the school is preempting parental responsibilities and the girls are nitwits? "

Sweetcheeks wrote on Jun 24, 2008 10:22 AM:

" the cat:
save your breath-political slams do NOT belong here.

jsnhbe1:
how about we use you instead "

Meh wrote on Jun 24, 2008 9:08 AM:

" The Cat, the onsite daycare centers and things like that are the results of a rising teen pregnancy rate, not the cause of. What, do you think they opened up the daycare center in the hopes that it would be extensively used??? The daycare centers are a well meaning attempt to help teenage parents finish school so that they don't end up on welfare and a further burden.

And again with "responsibility". This isn't about responsibility - at least on the part of the girls. These girls **wanted** to get pregnant and I doubt they had any treacherous, devious plan to make the taxpayer pay for it. They just wanted babies. The responsibility, again, lies with the parent(s) of the girls, not with the school, Obama, liberals, or the sex ed teacher, to raise them as emotionally stable people with their priorities straight. Why are you attempting to scapegoat instead of placing the responsiblity where it belongs? "

jipsi wrote on Jun 24, 2008 7:11 AM:

" to let's be reasonable:

Yet you did NOT heckle jsnhbe1's drivel (babies, pinatas...). "

let's be reasonable wrote on Jun 24, 2008 12:48 AM:

" Cat give us a break from the drivel: "What is actually being taught is do whatever makes you feel good as a person and let others take care of you if a problem occurs. That is exactly what the Obummers are preaching in their campaign speeches."

What a ridiculous statement. Another Twilight Zone moment for the Cat. "

The Cat wrote on Jun 23, 2008 4:19 PM:

" Meh: Perhaps you missed the school’s involvement in this problem with their day care center for girls who already had babies and the special day touting these mothers. That certainly looks like encouragement of this type behavior. That doesn’t mean that the parents didn’t have some responsibility for the problem, but the school has accepted responsibility for sex ed as part of their subject matter. As to the 50s and 60s, I graduated in 1960 and had two sisters who graduated in the mid and late 60s. This wasn’t going on then. Sex ed at that time was limited to the biological nature of human reproduction, cautions as to the threat of STDs, and reinforcement of your responsibilities as a moral person in this as well as all matters regarding mature judgment. The latter is what is not being stressed today. What is actually being taught is do whatever makes you feel good as a person and let others take care of you if a problem occurs. That is exactly what the Obummers are preaching in their campaign speeches. "

jsnhbe1 wrote on Jun 23, 2008 2:21 PM:

" We should hang these babies from trees and hit them like a pinata! "

isabelle wrote on Jun 23, 2008 2:02 PM:

" I bet the parents wish they had just given in and gotten all the girls puppies when they asked. "

Yada Yada wrote on Jun 23, 2008 12:34 PM:

" I bet they were popular at PROM this year....LOL "

Meh wrote on Jun 23, 2008 10:03 AM:

" The Cat, I don't know why you're trying to blame the Government, Obama, liberals, lack of religion, sex ed, the schools, society, etc. This is obviously a problem with how these girls were raised. Their parent probably treated them horribly and as a result, these girls are affection starved and otherwise completely lost.

In any case, what makes you think these sort of things didn't happen in the 1950s and 1960s? I doubt we, in BN, would have gotten this kind of news from Massachusetts back then nor would this kind of story have been deemed "appropriate" to publish. "

ShirlyYouCantBeSerious wrote on Jun 23, 2008 9:47 AM:

" I don't recall jm2's new law having any exceptions to it. Just that a minor should have to give up their child. And yes, you are right to say that I am an exception. I have never denied how lucky I was. I do not sugar coat teen pregnancy in any way. I think, instead of forcing the girls to give up their children, they should be required to take extencive parenting classes. For the nine months or however long they have, day to day care of a child, lecture after lecture. They may as well get used to having no social life inside the normal class rooms. And instead of leaving sex education up to the high school, parents need to be the main educators on this subject. Start early and keep repeating. Don't wait until your child is in their teens and they develope their attidudes when they think they know everything. By then it will be too late. "

Sweetcheeks wrote on Jun 23, 2008 9:29 AM:

" JM2:
That ignorant post does not apply to everyone. No the state should NOT automatically get custody of a child born to a minor. My daughter got pregnant at 17 because she wanted to..the result? She is married to the father, has a job, a new car and is in college and oh GASP! she DOESNT get welfare!! "

JimmyChooGirl wrote on Jun 23, 2008 8:58 AM:

" T - You have some issues. *L* I have 3 friends that had children at the ages of 16 & and weren't married. 2 of them are now married (to the father of their children) have good jobs, went to college and are now making more babies. The other one is still a single mom living in her own home making more money than you could probably ever dream of. You nor anyone else has ever paid once cent for these people so get over it.

I agree this is a horrible situation but it's not about teenagers accidentally getting pregnant, it's about these very young girls wanting to get pregnant. They needed and still need help.

Everyone - Rivers was being sarcastic in his posts, duh! "

jipsi wrote on Jun 23, 2008 8:40 AM:

" to jm2 and ShirlyYouCan'tBeSerious:

I support jm2's mention of somehow preventing tragedy by not 'allowing' children to have and raise babies, to an extent. BECAUSE not all teens are at the same level of maturity, as I stated, earlier, it should be something reviewed on a case by case basis:

My earlier statement: "...evaluations should be made on case by case basis', with the worst case scenarios having their babies removed to a FAMILY that can better care for and NURTURE that new life..."

So if the mother is homeless, has a drinking/drug problem, is frequently incarcerated (shoplifting, prostitution, etc.), or not in school, remove the child to foster care. Give the teen several opportunities to make things right before making it permanent.
Again, I applaud the mothers here who made it despite the odds. BUT, innocent children should not have to die just because the few that are mother material stump for rights despite the MAJORITY of teen mothers who CAN'T COPE and don't deserve those 'rights'. "

jipsi wrote on Jun 23, 2008 8:20 AM:

" to ShirlyYouCantBeSerious:

AGAIN, you're an EXCEPTION, NOT the norm.
Time and time again, we've witnessed tiny and helpless babies' lives barbarically snuffed out, via dumpster, pillowcase, wooded thickets and even toilets, by teen mothers who absolutely are NOT ready for motherhood... ;-(
...no one said INCAPABLE; we're stressing the 'not ready', the overwhelmed, the unprepared and the fickle majority of teen girls who have enough on their plate dealing with hormones, first cruches and school work without adding parenthood to the tempest.
When people have to speak of the MAJORITY, you're welcome to interject there are a few exceptions, but you can't posit yourself as evidence the 'norm' is incorrect!
THINK before you make your 'stand'.
Good job to you, as a single young mother who beat the odds (I'm one, myself), but remember that when the thunderstorm hits the area, the sirens warn everyone to seek shelter; just because there is a clear sky above YOU does NOT mean the storm is not real, or happening, around you.
Because there may be MORE out there affected by the damaging winds than a few experiencing 'pockets' of calm. "

ShirlyYouCan'tBeSerious wrote on Jun 23, 2008 12:36 AM:

" To jm2: Why would you say that such a law should be in place? Do you honestly feel that because a mother is a minor that she is not capable of being a very good mother? I was a "minor mother" and I was and still am a better mother than ALOT of non minor mothers. So to say that any female under the age of 18 should have their child taken from them because of their age is completely not appriciated. My husband and I have worked our butts off to care for our children. Yes, the baby born to the "minor mother" has a father who was by the way over 18 and was just as responcible for the pregnancy as I was. And who the heck do you think pays for State Wards? Surely you don't think that good ol' Rod does!!!??? WE DO! All state tax payers do. So wether the child is in state custody or if they are on welfare, the tax payer still foots the bill. "

jipsi wrote on Jun 22, 2008 11:57 PM:

" to The Cat: BRAVO!
GREAT post. I agree 100%.
The best line, IMHO, and I quote you in part: "It is not a matter of religion or ignorance or abstinence education but self-control and an ethical foundation..." says VOLUMES.
I will be paraphrasing this concise and profound snippet for years to come. Thanks... "

The Cat wrote on Jun 22, 2008 3:19 PM:

" Meh: Without some stupid ideas being put in their head from somewhere they wouldn’t have been trying repeatedly to become pregnant and looking for any male no matter who (including a homeless dreg) to oblige regardless of consequences. Something has changed in the last 50 years (when 15-16 year olds were not getting pregnant in large numbers contrary to your earlier post), and it appears that the lack of standards in society fostered by “progressive ideals” (an oxymoron if there ever was one) has produced large numbers of stupid and self-centered people incapable of looking beyond the gratification and obsession of the moment. It is not a matter of religion or ignorance or abstinence education but self-control and an ethical foundation lacking in products of the modern “progressive” movement including the content of the “sex education” being put forth today. Not too surprising those that follow this brainwashing are Obummer supporters living on “hope” and “change” and the “audacity” of the government taking care of them using someone else’s money when they screw themselves up as in this situation. "

let's be reasonable wrote on Jun 21, 2008 10:33 PM:

" It is rather idiotic to blame this situation on:

"More of the “progressive brave new world”. "

It has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative and everything to do with the individuals involved and their families. "

Meh wrote on Jun 21, 2008 10:29 PM:

" The Cat, are you broken? Are you one of those people who needed a pamphlet from your pastor prior to your wedding night and without which, you wouldn't have had a clue what to do?

Do you honestly believe that, without sex ed, these girls would not have known how to have sex, how to make a baby, and would have remained virginal and pure?

Newflash: The human species, and all other spieces that reproduce sexually, have been figuring it out for millions of years without the aid of evil librul sex ed teachers. If these girls had gotten your Jebus abstinence course, they still would have gotten knocked up because **gasp** they wanted to.

Grow up. "

mostly curious wrote on Jun 21, 2008 9:20 PM:

" I suppose it would have been too much to ask that when the teens filed in for pregnancy tests and acted so disappointed when they were negative, that the school might have placed a call to the parents/guardians, perhaps alerting them to some type of problem? Violating their privacy, I suppose. "

The Cat wrote on Jun 21, 2008 8:11 PM:

" Meh: Now where would they get the idea to get pregnant? It appears your sex ed is more a "how to" course rather than a "why not to do it" instruction. Sure worked well again didn't it? Nothing on the consequences of promiscuous sex only the mechanics and the “birth control" cautions that are frequently ignored and do not prevent most STDS. By the way, the out of wedlock birth rate (with associated poverty and higher crime rates) is much higher today than when “15 and 16 year olds were getting pregnant” (and married) much more than “50 years ago” you cited. More of the “progressive brave new world”. "

poster wrote on Jun 21, 2008 6:32 PM:

" To keep sarcasm alive: lets not forget that those girls also"jiimped" into bed with those boys or men. Im sure they lied about their age. Is the guy supposed to ask for picture Id now? "

poster wrote on Jun 21, 2008 6:25 PM:

" To Rivers: ARE YOU KIDDING ME????? Unless the men were in fact over the age of 18 why should they be held any more responsible than these girls. 15 year olds do know what they are doing. They should be in trouble anyway because they probably lied and said they were protected in order to get pregnant. Yes I am a female also "

The Original JD wrote on Jun 21, 2008 6:21 PM:

" All these socialist programs which raise up being a single mother into a money making oppertunity. The problem is that politicians pander to the ignorant with these social programs for one election, but the social programs stay on the books forever because to kill a social program means 'you are against the poor'. It is something both sides do. Right now, being a single mother seems to grant the woman some type of higher social status than they would have otherwise. People seem to sympathize/empathize/pity the woman in such a way as she get treated special, all the while making money without having to work. "

jm2 wrote on Jun 21, 2008 2:12 PM:

" Reply to: Meh . . . who defines "good moral character?" That's a tough one, but a start would be the absence of: committing certain crimes, being involved with illegal drugs, having sex if you are a child (such as these girls) . . . . Something needs to be done to stop this country from all the reproduction by people who cannot provide for what they're reproducing! "

branhan wrote on Jun 21, 2008 1:45 PM:

" What, JD, you mean the people who "voted" Bush into office? LOL "

branhan wrote on Jun 21, 2008 1:42 PM:

" jud--ha! So true.

I'm of he mindset that anyone has the potential to be a good parent, even when they make poor choices. What's done is done at this point. The girls that carry to term (because I'm pretty sure teenagers have higher rates of miscarriage) need to be educated and forced to take on the responsibilities of parenting so they can not only provide a better life for the kids, but grow up themselves. (I'll tell ya, that was the reason why I practiced safe sex in high school and beyond. Mom always said if I got pregnant, she wasn't taking care of the kid and that it would be my job to do that, work, and graduate. Scared the crap out of me. ) "

MRS. wrote on Jun 21, 2008 12:59 PM:

" One thing I have learned here is words get twisted and misunderstood a lot here jipsij Just say what you want and if anyone can't read it for what it is to bad, so sad. Has anyone ever thought about the young single sister of a " singer" that just gave birth. She thinks it is cool to have a baby, kids for some reason think they will be like their idol if they do what they do. I also believe a kid that has a baby thay young thinks there is something they are missing. "

The Original JD wrote on Jun 21, 2008 12:23 PM:

" With the current status of social mentality and laws, this is no surprise. Teenagers can have kids giving them 'unconditional love', while at the same time nailing welfare for 'free money' and putting the fathers on the line for even more money. It is an easy way to set oneself up with a steady income for at least the next 18 years, while at the same time garnering pity and support from others for being a 'single' mother. Socialism at it's best, and brought to you by the voters who know what is good for everyone! "

jud wrote on Jun 21, 2008 11:18 AM:

" Nobody loves me. My parents just don't understand me. My Mom and Dad don't trust me. It isn't my fault. I didn't do anything wrong, They started it. I hate this house, I hate living here. This and anything else they can come up with. You can give a teenager all the unconditional love they want and it still is not enough. They get it in their head to go do something and all the talking in the world is not going to stop them. So what's a parent to do? Turn them over to a counselor to see if they can do something with them? Stop putting all the blame on the parents. A lot of them have done everything they can for the kids and it still isn't enough. When I asked a sixteen year old what I could possibly do that would make her happy, the answer was "let me do what I want, when I want. Wrong, to me this is just a little brat and nothing more. "

pixie wrote on Jun 21, 2008 10:53 AM:

" Jipsi... If you want to be detailed and clear, do not use generalizations. Nothing can be clear when its generalized... "

jipsi wrote on Jun 21, 2008 9:50 AM:

" to 110100100:

It's not 'ranting'.
It's having SOMETHING TO SAY.
Which you, obviously, do not, except to respond to others' comments with insignificant little jabs. ;-) "

jipsi wrote on Jun 21, 2008 9:48 AM:

" pixie: I AM a single mother (not planned), and WAS a 'young' mother. I absolutely agree with you; it IS hard, hard work to finish school, work several jobs AND be a Mother to your children.
Again, my words are misunderstood (and I try so hard to be detailed and clear! Go figure). There are ALWAYS exceptions (you are obviously one of those), and I applaud those mothers that hang in there and do the right thing.
HOWEVER, I was speaking of the MAJORITY of teens, and using GENERALIZATIONS. A teen, boy OR girl, is USUALLY (as in, MOST) not emotionally mature enough to survive the grueling schedule that is a Mother's lot. Something will be sacrificed (a job? college? high school diploma? military? family relationships? social life? the baby??) because a CHILD (again, MOST) does not yet have the fortitude and skills to take on so much.
No matter WHAT any situation is, there will be those who say "wrong, *I* did it!", but what they/you need to remember is that we (as in, people in general) HAVE to, daily, weigh pro's and con's based on GENERALIZATIONS (ie: the majority of circumstances). "

kgabby714 wrote on Jun 21, 2008 9:23 AM:

" My mother got pregnant with me when she was 16...dropped out of high school got her GED...got married....got divorced... and is now retired with a MBA from Notre Dame....she will tell you life was very hard at 19 divorced with 2 kids (we were dirt poor)....but she had a phenomenal drive to make a good life for herself and her kids. "

110100100 wrote on Jun 21, 2008 8:58 AM:

" Uh oh, jipsi is ranting again. People have no right to do anything she disagrees with. "

pixie wrote on Jun 21, 2008 8:44 AM:

" Jipsi... Your posts have always annoyed me but this time you have just gone too far.

jipsi wrote on Jun 20, 2008 11:55 PM: "SHE IS UNABLE TO BE A REAL MOTHER"

Because you are 16 you are unable to be a real mother? Are you even a MOTHER AT ALL???? Im extremely offended by this because I myself became a mother at 16. Granted this was not something I planned or did on purpose but I went to high school and workd a part time job in the evenings. My daughter is now 8 and I work 2 jobs from home so I can be a stay at home mom. Was I not able to be a real mother? Because I was, and am. Not only is your comment rude and off base, but ignorant as well. Anyone is capable of being a real mother. It takes patients, time, love, and hard hard work. Dont group young mothers like that when you have absolutely NO IDEA what its like to become a mother at that age, and be wonderful at it. "

bushIQis6 wrote on Jun 21, 2008 6:40 AM:

" these girls are so stupid "

jipsi wrote on Jun 20, 2008 11:55 PM:

" (2, from 1, cont.)
Teens today have NO CLUE. Babies are not toys or pets, they are a LIFETIME JOB (and JOY, of course), not an 'escape' from the transient misery of hormonal teendom.
The cop-out that they didn't get enough 'love' at home is hogwash. ALL teens go through these mood swings, some more so than others (those should be treated and counseled)...
My boys are good kids (teens), and we have a great relationship and communication, but even THEY will tell their friends (once out of my earshot, they THINK) that "home SUCKS'.
I'm with the notion that *maybe* evaluations should be made on case by case basis', with the worst case scenarios having their babies removed to a FAMILY that can better care for and NURTURE that new life into a POSITIVE ADULTHOOD through a more capable environment...
These girls are putting a terrible, despondent cycle into motion, and the babies deserve better than that, biological parents or not. "

jipsi wrote on Jun 20, 2008 11:55 PM:

" To those who throw up the old "women had babies when they were 15, 16" way back when... YES< true, but they ALSO got MARRIED at 14 or 15 FIRST.
In the early part of the 20th century (and before) kids as young as 5 were working the fields, farm with their Dad, helping around the house with Mom, and you can BET that a 15 year old boy was a young MAN by then, and expected to be able to take care of a family if he was to get approval from his 'sweetheart's' Father!
Teens today? Not even CLOSE to the maturity of their counterparts of 100 years ago.
Because of this 'longer childhood' of the past five or six decades, a couple should not only be committed to each other and their future famiy, but AT LEAST 18 or older AND competently holding down a J-O-B or two!
A 14, 15 or 16 (even 17) year old girl, living at home with parents and still in high school, has NO BUSINESS getting pregnant, because SHE IS UNABLE TO BE A REAL MOTHER, and the girl's little 'family' is doomed without a PROVIDER/FATHER. (1, cont to 2) "

jipsi wrote on Jun 20, 2008 11:30 PM:

" Birth control and education won't do a thing to help 'prevent' what happened here: these girls WANTED to be pregnant/young mothers.
So sad for the babies to come, that their mothers neither sincerely want them or are (in most cases) able to properly take care of them... ;-(
What is this world coming to? "

snarky wrote on Jun 20, 2008 9:54 PM:

" Booklover: the point is, these girls feel "unloved." If it's by their parents, why would they expect their parents to step up and help with the baby. If it's by the unknown fathers, they can't expect any help from them either. They want to raise their babies together. If you are a true genealogist, you'll know that there may not have been a minister available to preside over a marriage, but there was a social acceptance in the absence of a minister. Many of these social marriages (arrangements) were recorded in church records. "

Meh wrote on Jun 20, 2008 9:22 PM:

" jm2, good moral character? Who decides what's a good moral character? "

leroymom wrote on Jun 20, 2008 8:51 PM:

" This is horrific. These girls will keep the babies and struggle with the crying babies. And let's hope that they do not end up getting frustrated and dropping them off in a dumpster or something like that. These young girls have no business having children. I'd have to say that they should have to give these babies up to a good home. I smell public aid all over this. And who will be paying for these babies? You and I, not the girls that got into this mess. Everyone keeps saying that these girls should suffer the consequences. However, the only one who will suffer will be these infants. And where in the h*** are the girls' parents? It's quite apparent that they are not around to love their children, therfore they seek out for love in such destructive ways. This story just saddens me. "

MonkeySweater wrote on Jun 20, 2008 5:40 PM:

" Honestly, I can't imagine how hard I would have laughed if one of my high school friends would have come up to me in the hallway and said "Psst! Hey, MonkeySweater, want to get in on this pact we have going this year?...." "

tammy wrote on Jun 20, 2008 5:09 PM:

" i knew a girl who got pregnant as a teen and while she was pregnant she was very popular in school then after she had the baby the people who stuck by her where her real friends and all she did when the baby cried was scream at it or yell for her mom to take care of it so she could get drunk or high or go out with her friends then she had another child not long after that do people really think that a bunch of teenagers who made a pact to get pregnant going to grow up and take care of that child/ children not hardly more then likely most of these kids will be raised by the girls parents or like most baby's probably found dead somewhere "

justme wrote on Jun 20, 2008 5:07 PM:

" T...Your comment is not very accurate at all. Who said that a dad needs to be around to make the family "complete"? I am a single mother raising my son the best I know how and we are doing just fine with out his dead beat father in the picture. Sometimes...it is better to not have them around at all. It is much healthier all the way around...now mind you, I don't agree with what this girls did. I don't think it is right either, however what is done is done. They will realize soon enough that it won't be as easy as they thought it would be. "

keep-sarcasm-alive wrote on Jun 20, 2008 5:03 PM:

" To Sweetcheeks: You said: "Why should the father get labeled a sex offender when he perhaps though he was dealing with a girl at least 18?" I say: this is why guys shouldn't hop into bed with a girl so quickly...date her long enough to know something as important as her age before having sex. "

BookLover wrote on Jun 20, 2008 4:58 PM:

" Sigh. I think it is time to stop infantalyzing our teenagers today. It is only in the past century or so that the age of majority rose to 18. For thousands of years teenagers have become pregnant. In fact; for thousands of years few people lived long enough to not be teenagers (20 yr olds). Most of the human population (before 1900) was conceived in a teenage womb.
The biological urge to procreate is one of mankind's most misunderstood traits. The fact that modern society thinks that teenagers are too immature to raise children is a modern fallicy (sp?) that is brought about by peoples whose sole agenda is not the welfare of humanity but the furtherance of their own specific agenda(s). "

isabelle wrote on Jun 20, 2008 4:50 PM:

" "many factors are involved in the surge in pregnancies in her community, a hardscrabble fishing village which has fallen on tough economic times and cut teachers and services, including some health classes."

How sad. What is the world coming to when we have to cut HEALTH classes for crying out loud? I would rather we cut algebra! "

jm2 wrote on Jun 20, 2008 4:48 PM:

" This country should have a law that a minor (age 18) cannot be a legal guardian/parent. Yes, extremely sad, but guardianship should be given to the state on every baby born to a minor. This would cut the working class' taxes in half! We would not be paying for medical bills, housing, education, or feeding the mothers, their children, their children's children, etc. Before an adoption takes place, the adopting parents must be found to be of good moral character, financially able to care for the child, mentally able to raise the child, etc. "

Meh wrote on Jun 20, 2008 4:14 PM:

" The Cat, yeah, I suppose it would have been so much better to have purely abstinence only education and Jebus. That certainly would have prevented the pregnancies!!!

The problem is that the girls WANTED to get pregnant. These were planned. The type of sex education (although I don't consider abstinence only to be sex ed) isn't at question, its why these girls wanted babies so badly. "

who cares wrote on Jun 20, 2008 3:49 PM:

" this country can't take care of the people or barley take care of people on public aid the way it is.so now we have teeny boppers making pregnant pacs those girls are clueless.how starved far attention can you get. "

Brenstalka wrote on Jun 20, 2008 3:37 PM:

" I think this is the first, nay, second time I've laughed at something on the Pantagraph that wasn't a user comment or grammatical mistake. Is this from the sequel to Idiocracy? "

The Cat wrote on Jun 20, 2008 2:22 PM:

" Some observations: First, the school aids and abets this conduct not only by providing day care but also a special recognition day for teenage moms in school apparently encouraging this conduct. Second, some of these girls hooked up with a 24-year-old homeless guy as their babies’ father. Third, as pointed out the school only caught on when the girls kept coming to the school clinic for pregnancy tests and were disappointed when the tests were negative. Then they were encouraging the girls to use birth control, which they refused. No mention of contacting the parents. Last, the much vaunted sex education programs sure worked well again. "

qt196 wrote on Jun 20, 2008 2:20 PM:

" When I first read this story on another site, the article mentioned that several of the fathers were in their mid-twenties, and quite a few others were at least 18. Half of the mothers were under 16. MA law states that it's statutory rape for anyone under the age of 16. Authorities were debating whether they will press charges against these men. "

boyles55 wrote on Jun 20, 2008 1:52 PM:

" To RIVER i hold both of them responsible not just the girls or the guys.your probably a parent who blames everyones else kids for your kids doing something wrong instead of holding them to resposible "

Meh wrote on Jun 20, 2008 1:50 PM:

" Citizen#9, lol!!! Up until 50 years or so, having kids at 15 or 16 was normal and completely expected. I hardly think teen pregnancy will be the downfall of our society.

The problem here is that these girls obviously had very lousy parents and like another poster said, they desperately need help. "

BigBrother wrote on Jun 20, 2008 1:42 PM:

" One alternative would be to kill the babies! After all a choice to get pregnant can't be reversed but it can be terminated! "

isabelle wrote on Jun 20, 2008 1:39 PM:

" An interesting tidbit that this article leaves out...when I saw a video about this case the reporter said that this high school has so many teen moms that they actually have 2 or 3 daycares on site at the school!

These girls probably saw it happen to a lot of other moms who survived it. "

Sweetcheeks wrote on Jun 20, 2008 1:31 PM:

" Actually if any of the fathers who are 18 and over (and there is at least one) were lied to than yes they need to be held accountable. Why should the father get labeled a sex offender when he perhaps though he was dealing with a girl at least 18? "

T wrote on Jun 20, 2008 1:28 PM:

" Well your pretty igno*** crimson if you really think these babies will be well taken care of. Where are the dads? Most likely out of the picture and out of their lives. Thats the problem no dads and no family unity "

clarkbar wrote on Jun 20, 2008 1:11 PM:

" Now, what would Dr. Phil say? Teens brains aren't fully developed and they couldn't possibly have understood the consequences of getting pregnant this young. They obviously have low self-esteem and don't feel loved at home. But, society will pay for their actions no doubt. the Massachusetts taxpayers will for one, and so will the girls in the future, statistics tell us that their is a high dropout rate for teens that have children and many don't attend or get a higher degree if they do graduate from college. "

Sweetcheeks wrote on Jun 20, 2008 1:03 PM:

lotusflower8008 wrote on Jun 20, 2008 12:52 PM:

" These girls need counseling to get to the root of the problem. "

lotusflower8008 wrote on Jun 20, 2008 12:51 PM:

" No one that I've read has even taken into consideration what the underlying problem that drove these girls to this is. You are assuming that they though oh this is a joke etc but how do you know. They need counseling to get to the bottom of this. I have met a lot of teen moms and while I was in high school we had a huge teen pregnancy rate with over 60 out of my less than 200 original graduating class having babies. Some are great others didnt realize what they were in for, cant assume anything about anyone. "

lotusflower8008 wrote on Jun 20, 2008 12:48 PM:

" Has anyone considered the fact that these girls are in serious need of counseling to get to the actual root of the problem that caused them to turn to this. How can any of you say what these girls are thinking. Yes poor judgement, yes its a sad situation all around, but we are ignoring the true problem here. I know some women that became teen single moms and are some of the most fantastic mothers, but others that thought that by having a baby that they'd get the unconditional love that they've always longed for and then have the baby and the reality of it sets in and their parents end up raising the child. We have no idea what these girls are thinking or will do once reality sets in. And no I'm not a teen mom, but a mom none the less "

Citizen#9 wrote on Jun 20, 2008 12:29 PM:

" Prima facie evidence that the deterioration of our culture is accelerating. "

Vinny wrote on Jun 20, 2008 11:46 AM:

" "So Dakota, are you in? Like, totally! Kaitlyn, are you in? OMG, yes! Then it's settled, we're all getting pregnant!" "

lindini wrote on Jun 20, 2008 11:37 AM:

" Something very similar to this happened in my high school in the 90's. The thing to keep in mind is how romantic this all can seem when you don't have anyone to love you and your friends all get into a group think. The best punishment of all is letting these girls raise these babies and see what exactly they have gotten themselves into. Pregnancy isn't illegal anyway, I don't see how you could even suggest some form of punishment. There will be tears and regrets but it will all work its self out. Things happen, mistakes are made. It isn't always for the worst. "

jud wrote on Jun 20, 2008 10:50 AM:

" Hey btown: What do you mean that no one has the right to tell these girls they can't get pregnant. Are you nuts. The parents have a right! Who do you think is going to pay to raise them? These babies will be treated like toys until the mommy gets tired of them and hands them off to mommy and daddy and says "here you do it, I'm tired of it" In my opion this is totally disgusting. These girls are nowhere near old enough to take care, let alone mature. Helpless babies brought into the world just so they can have someone to love because they weren't loved themselves. What a bunch of bull. "

CharlieHustle wrote on Jun 20, 2008 10:49 AM:

" Welcome to America 2008! "

amusing2 wrote on Jun 20, 2008 10:46 AM:

" I do have a question, if these girls have a low self esteem and lack of love at home, how are their grades? If they have low grades, how will they be able to get a job and provide for their children? I say children, because I'm guessing not too far behind the first they will have another. Low self esteem and lack of love, they will go somewhere and find love. Which we all know, that kind of love is really lust, not love.

Just my opinions. "

amusing2 wrote on Jun 20, 2008 10:46 AM:

" To Btown83, do you have teens? or kids for that matter? If they are underaged and still in their parents care, then yes, someone has a right to tell these girls not to get pregnant on purpose. Who do you think will raise these babies? These girls won't. They think it's a joke to go get pregnant, having a baby is not a joke. It is a huge responsibility. I have three teens, and I tell them all the time, I am not ready to be a grandmother. Thankfully, my kids are smart, have no low self esteem issues and are loved deeply by me. "

Woody wrote on Jun 20, 2008 10:30 AM:

" IMO, the babies should not be taken away from the mothers.

Not to "teach them a lesson", but because the mothers-to-be haven't done anything to warrant such an action. Yes, this pact shows extremely poor judgement on their parts. And it seems very likely that they could show equally poor judgement in raising those kids.

But "could" is not the same as "will". None of us can see the future, and we have no business meting out punishment (such as taking a child from its mother) when no offense has been committed. "

Rivers wrote on Jun 20, 2008 10:29 AM:

" boyles55: no need for you to worry about low lying bridges. You'll zoom right under them. (this was more sarcasm, FYI) "

Sweetcheeks wrote on Jun 20, 2008 10:23 AM:

" I think there was sarcasm in River's post lol "

Btown83 wrote on Jun 20, 2008 10:20 AM:

" No one has a right to tell them they can't purposely have a baby. "

Sweetcheeks wrote on Jun 20, 2008 10:17 AM:

" I think there was sarcasm in River's post lol "

Ohmy wrote on Jun 20, 2008 10:02 AM:

" Here is what really upsets me about these teenage girls. They have no jobs, they have no life insurance, they have no education, they have no husbands, so who do you think will be paying for and raising their children? Their parents who are already paying for and raising their own children. For these girls to plan to raise and care for their babies is a joke. The parents will have to pay for the bad choices these teenagers made. The poor babies in the end will pay the price for the teenagers bad choice their whole life. "

boyles55 wrote on Jun 20, 2008 9:19 AM:

" To RIVER WOW you must be some kind of sexist to hold one gender over the other their both at falt those girls were old enough to take care of them selves they new what they were doing "

Rivers wrote on Jun 20, 2008 8:42 AM:

" Are 8 (half under 16) men (or boys) now going to be registered sex offenders for the rest of their life? It would be incomprehensible to hold the girls responsible, only males should know better. "

crimson wrote on Jun 20, 2008 8:42 AM:

" @ T: Why? Who's to say these babies won't be loved and well cared for by these girls? "

Sara wrote on Jun 20, 2008 8:33 AM:

" T: I agree that your suggestion would be best for the babies, but those girls did it to themselves and they need to feel the consequences. Middle of the night feedings, constant crying and screaming, no longer being able to go out with friends... I don't think it teaches them a lesson that what they did was wrong. But you do have to consider the welfare of the childrens' children...... So, wow, strange story... "

T wrote on Jun 20, 2008 8:22 AM:

" Everyone of these babies should be taken away from these girls and given to a good home. What a bunch of sick kids "

Ads by Yahoo!

Online Degrees

Weekly New Car Bargains

See Today's Mortgage Rates