BS: 13 year old dad-15 year old mum

Subject: RE: BS: 13 year old dad-15 year old mum
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Feb 09 - 08:37 PM

I do however believe that their parents have been self seeking and irresponsible to talk to the media.

Possibly so - I haven't and won't read the tabloids on this one.

But the thing about those kind of papers (and not just those kind) is that they can put a powerful squeeze on when they scent a story. "If you don't talk to us, that won't stop us printing the story. But you might not like it very much, it won't have your side..."

And then when they talk, the words can be edited and selected in a way that can make them seem to say things that weren't said, and can present a picture that doesn't represent the truth of a situation, but matches the angle that has been decided already.

Subject: RE: BS: 13 year old dad-15 year old mum
From: paula t
Date: 13 Feb 09 - 08:17 PM

Festie,
Thanks for that.There's nothing like the cut and thrust of an intelligent and reasoned argument to brighten up an evening.Why the personal attack?

I think if you read my post again You'll find that my sympathies were with the girl.Of course it is wrong!What right minded person could think otherwise? Having had to deal with a number of young girls in this situation (more so in the early 80s) I have seen the terrible heartache it causes . What doesn't help is that this is bandied all over the press.

My main argument was that that this is not a new situation.The papers are focussing on it because teenage immorality is a pet theme at the moment.I don't believe that today's teenagers are any more immoral than in the past.I do however believe that their parents have been self seeking and irresponsible to talk to the media.It is the children who will in the end have to deal with the fallout.

Where did I say that the newspapers lied? I merely think that some consideration should be given to the harm this type of story does.

I would thank you not to resort to personal insult in future. This is a public forum ,you don't know me and I don't remember insulting you in my post.

Subject: RE: BS: 13 year old dad-15 year old mum
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Feb 09 - 08:11 PM

There's no need to sound off about everything that happens in the world as if it was a personal affront.

Subject: RE: BS: 13 year old dad-15 year old mum
From: GUEST,Festie
Date: 13 Feb 09 - 07:42 PM

"When I started teaching, I remember a 14 year old boy who had fathered 3 children - 2 of them with 6th form girls (17) and one with a 12 year old. I never saw that in the national papers.The gutter press is full of the vilification of young people"

Right, NO mention that this is wrong ????? Gutter press ? why did this paper print lies ?

I never read such a post on this site in my life that lacked so much.

Well a teacher by profession, it says it all !

Subject: RE: BS: 13 year old dad-15 year old mum
From: Barry Finn
Date: 13 Feb 09 - 07:21 PM

My cousin had her 1st at 15 she now has 5 after better than 30 happy yrs married to the same father of them all. They were as poor as a church mouse & they still are, always scrapping by but they are as happy as clams & always have been & they both love their kids as well as each other, as much now as on the day they had their 1st. Her kids have all grown into adults that any one would be proud of. Her youngerst is as old as my oldest, they are both attending the same college together.

Would anyone want to throw a criminal charge at them?
I can't think of anyone I've ever known who would've done better

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: 13 year old dad-15 year old mum
From: Nickhere
Date: 13 Feb 09 - 07:06 PM

It's not that long ago - maybe half a dozen generations, when people got married and had kids very young - 15 was not at all unusual, unless they were 'high society' and marriages were as much about inheritance, joining family estates and so on. We're talking even mid-19th century here. Some of your great-grandparents might even have got married at 15 or 16 - my great great grandmother was already married at 17.

People's life spans were shorter, so they had to get started earlier. People were poorer so they couldn't hang around at home until they decided to get married, they had to get out and start a nest of their own. They didn't spend quarter of a century or more - almost a third of their lives - in education, or expect to put off having children until into their late thirties / early forties. People also had kids young so there would be someone to look after the parents when the parents got too old - no social security net back then. The family was less nuclear - poorer people especially often lived several crowded into a single room. While this may have been uncomfortable and crowded it also meant there was large extended family to help with the rearing of the kids. Grandparents had their role to play - babysitting while parents worked, and not shoved into a home or a 'granny flat' of their own to while away their last years. There was hiher infant and maternal mortality mainly due to poor medical care and hygiene awareness, though midwives were usually very good at their jobs.

In short there's nothing impossible about teenagers having healthy babies, and raising them perfectly well in a loving family with grandparents helping out as they have done for generations. We've done it for most of our evolution up to the last 100 years when changes in fashion and society have made it frowned upon. As for paying social welfare to support such people - while I would hope they'd be honest and look for a job as soon as they can, I have no problem with my taxes going to them so they can finish school, try and get a job etc.,

With our very low birthrates in the West we should be applauding anyone who manages to bring new kids into the world. In France the government actually gives parents a bonus for every extra child. Kids who are born into wealthy families don't necessarily get any more love than those born into poor families - wealthy parents might also feel able to 'compensate' for lack of attention with money, cars clothes etc., hardly ideal parenting either.

I've had to simplify and generalize a bit here to cover such broad sociological issues but in short the kind of society we have today when people stay at school until they're 23 or more and get married in late 20s early 30s and have kids same time is an aberration in the sense that's not been the way it has been for most of history. maybe our bodies and instincts haven't caught up with the 21st century western lifestyle.

Subject: RE: BS: 13 year old dad-15 year old mum
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 13 Feb 09 - 06:53 PM

Precisely, Insane Beard. The biological imperative is powerful, and we have got badly out of step with it.

Festie seems to be short of a brain cell or two. Care proceedings for the baby will cost a huge amount more than supporting the family, or even the mother and baby, and probably cause far more damage to the child. We KNOW that putting a child in care is damaging. The critical question is whether leaving the child with a parent (or two parents) is likely to cause more or less damage, and if more, how much.

Subject: RE: BS: 13 year old dad-15 year old mum
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 13 Feb 09 - 06:40 PM

Do under age sex laws apply if both parties are under age? If so, they'd have to be convicting most kids over 13 - and not just the ones unlucky enough to get pregnant.

Subject: RE: BS: 13 year old dad-15 year old mum
From: paula t
Date: 13 Feb 09 - 06:38 PM

When I started teaching, I remember a 14 year old boy who had fathered 3 children - 2 of them with 6th form girls (17) and one with a 12 year old. I never saw that in the national papers.The gutter press is full of the vilification of young people. The majority of teenagers I have met are mature, law abiding and incredibly good to know. This is more than I can say about many teenagers I knew in my own youth.
I think it is incredibly sad that a young girl should miss out on her late childhood.It is also going to be difficult for her family and possibly the baby. That's bad enough without papers scandalising about it.Poor lass!

Subject: RE: BS: 13 year old dad-15 year old mum
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 13 Feb 09 - 06:28 PM

Am I the only one who is wondering whether these two will be charged with having under age sex? He was 12 when he slept with his 14yr old girlfriend and they got pregnant... what the hell sort of sex education lessons did these children have?

I'm all for toy boys, but preferably one that isn't still playing with toys!

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: 13 year old dad-15 year old mum
From: GUEST,Festie
Date: 13 Feb 09 - 06:27 PM

Firstly both should face charges for breaking the law. Secondly the families should be interviewed by police and social services and some action must be taken. Thirdly the child should be taken into care for it's own good. Lastly, the British taxpayer should not have to carry the can for yet another benefits child. Watch and see, they will get the normal package, a free house and £300.00 a week.

Subject: RE: BS: 13 year old dad-15 year old mum
From: LilyFestre
Date: 13 Feb 09 - 06:20 PM

A very good childhood friend of mine had a younger sister who gave birth to twins when she was 14. Just yesterday I learned that the one is studying to be a teacher at the local university and another is an LPN working on her RN. They were the first of 7 children that this young mother had without a snowballs chance in hell...yet look at them now. They had very little money but lots of love and family support. It's amazing what love can do, isn't it?

Michelle

Subject: RE: BS: 13 year old dad-15 year old mum
From: Ebbie
Date: 13 Feb 09 - 04:53 PM

Since the baby is already born, Dave O, there remains not much to be done but to "wash one's hands'. What is, is.

One point: at the boy's age of 13 his parents (the "caregiving grandparents) are probably under age 45! Hardly too old for anything.

Subject: RE: BS: 13 year old dad-15 year old mum
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 13 Feb 09 - 04:44 PM

Sinsull, you said,

"If the baby is safe and loved, it is no one's business but there own."

There's some assumptions there which may foul up your statement.

"IF the baby is safe and loved". . .

With parents that age, the support, care, and safety of the baby is highly in question. At that age of childbearing--11, 13, 15--the mother is hardly competent to take care of her own welfare, let alone that of a baby, and later on for another say eighteen years.

As to the father at that age, his ability to provide a living for a baby and its mother financially is nearly nil. And his likelihood of standing up to the other responsibilities of parenthood besides financial is highly in doubt. The disappearing teenage dad is classical.

And even if the family(s) say they will take care of the kidlet, it is certainly something other than the insular "business" of the child parents. The parents are too young to be parents, and the caregiving grandparents are probably too old to be parenting a new chick from babyhood till adulthood.

And if those sources of personal and financial support falter, it becomes the business of the community, both to provide support and to deal with the wrecked human that may well be the product.

To say "If the baby is safe and loved, it is no one's business but there own" is to wash one's hands of what is at best a messy, dangerous situation.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: 13 year old dad-15 year old mum
From: wysiwyg
Date: 13 Feb 09 - 04:15 PM

Life happens, then people decide for themselves how to deal. Bless 'em. They'll need all the support that can be.

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: 13 year old dad-15 year old mum
From: Ebbie
Date: 13 Feb 09 - 03:57 PM

Slightly older kids but some friends of mine got married when they were both 15. They lived on neighboring farms with their families.

They had been sweethearts since Grade 3 and always said they would eventually marry.

When the girl was 12 her mother died. When she was 15 her father learned he had terminal cancer.

The first the two kids learned about it was when they were called in to a joint meeting between the two families and told that if they truly did want to get married the families would help them.

When I first met the couple they were 52, they had four children and the oldest one was 37 years old.

Georgia and Leo told everyone they had always been each other's best friend.

Subject: RE: BS: 13 year old dad-15 year old mum
From: SINSULL
Date: 13 Feb 09 - 03:38 PM

If the baby is safe and loved, it is no one's business but there own. I would never recommend babies to teenagers nor marriage to legitimize a birth. But if they and their families decide to go ahead with the pregnancy and keep the child, so be it.

Subject: BS: 13 year old dad-15 year old mum
From: Wolfhound person
Date: 13 Feb 09 - 03:21 PM

Anybody else see/hear this story being held up as an example of deteriorating teenage standards of behaviour in the UK?

Apparently the two of them have kept the child, and are being helped by family members.

I was at school with a lass (in the 60s) who had her first child at 11, and by the time she was 16 had had 3 (or so we were told in shocked whispers about what happened to BAD girls)

To me there's nothing biologically impossible about it, nor anything any more reprehensible these days than 40 years ago. Some kids hit puberty early......

It's undesirable in social terms, possibly, but as an example of the collapsing of society's care for "children"? I don't think so.

Paws