Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The bad choice of "KEEPING MY BABY" is a choice almost exclusively relegated to the lower half of the middle class and bellow.
For the reason that I have already stated but I will repeat again Teen Pregnancy will never become a popular choice in the upper middle class and above.
The reason is simple. Education. Solidly upper middle class individuals are expected to go to college. There is no discussion, with the exception of a "Gap Year", the purpose of which is to gain entry into a more selective college. It's not fun and games.
In popular culture, a lower middle class individual who "KEPT HER BABY" was Casey Anthony, daughter of a retired cop, and a nurse, who did not graduate from college.
Her daughter Caylee is dead now.
That would not have happened in an upper middle class family because
1. The parents would have been on top of her while in high school. No, to be more accurate, college plans would have begun to be made in middle school. Parents would have been assessing their daughter for talents and abilities. Tutoring would have been offered if needed.
2. If she did become pregnant there would have been no celebration and no baby shower. She would have been presented with two choices - Adoption and termination.
The only service that I am in favor of, when teenagers become pregnant is the intervention of child protective services. When a high school student, a minor, is involved in underage sexual activity, the parents are guilty of neglect. Simple.
The person who impregnated her should be found out, in the event that a crime was committed. (statutory rape)
Then, an adoption plan should be made for the baby if termination is not chosen.
The child would be placed for adoption.
Counseling and birth control services would be offered to the girl, and to the boy; if he is upset. frequently, this crises only seems to effect young women.
The devastation of an unplanned pregnancy to the impregnated child, the infant, and society is huge.
1. The parents would have been on top of her while in high school. No, to be more accurate, college plans would have begun to be made in middle school. Parents would have been assessing their daughter for talents and abilities. Tutoring would have been offered if needed.
Don't you think that a child who has parents that do these things have an advantage to one whose parents do nothing more than clothe and feed them? Do you think that if the first child goes to college and gets a good career it's simply because he/she is a better person who's making better decisions and the second child didn't go to college and got a good job simply because he decides not to do so? Don't you think there is a cause and effect between good parenting - good outcome, bad parenting - bad outcome? If so, isn't the child who is born to parents who parents lucky to have been raised well? If the one who has never been taught anything by his parents can do just as well as the well parented child if he only chooses to then why spend 18 years preparing your kids for a successful adulthood?
Ann Dunham was 18 when she gave birth to her son. You know him as President Barack Obama. Do you think he should have been aborted or placed with CPS? Because, I think he turned out just fine.
Ann Dunham was 18 when she gave birth to her son. You know him as President Barack Obama. Do you think he should have been aborted or placed with CPS? Because, I think he turned out just fine.
But she was not his sole parent. He lived with his grandparents - a two-parent home - for a good part of his life. So in fact, he wasn't really raised by a single parent. Also, Ms. Dunham and Mr. Obama Sr. were married.
If you knew that the birth family of your child were very wealthy, wealthier than you by far, [and for those who believe wealth in this country doesn't = class, from whatever your definition of "high class" is]; would that change how you thought & spoke about your adoption? your role? your child?
Interesting question
The simple answer is of course it would, for many APs, but not all. This is supported by the research posted in the OP.
The societal idea is commonly that APs "save" their children. If birthmothers have good support systems that would challenge that idea. I believe adoption should occur because the birth parents have decided that they cannot parent for reasons OTHER than lack of money/support.
But she was not his sole parent. He lived with his grandparents - a two-parent home - for a good part of his life. So in fact, he wasn't really raised by a single parent. Also, Ms. Dunham and Mr. Obama Sr. were married.
So teens who are married should be allowed to parent their own children?
And wealthy teens, who have more resources should be allowed to parent their children as well?
In this review of the lit, more than 5 separate research papers found that it is not the AGE of the mother that causes less than idea outcomes for their children.
"The evidence regarding the outcomes for the children of teen mothers similarly finds that observed differences reflflect selection on the part of who becomes a teen mother, not the negative consequences of teen childbearing itself. "
Oh and btw, the notion that teens are overwhelmingly choosing to keep their children in some sort attempt to cash in is belied by the following:
"The two policy changes that do seem to matter some, expanded family planning services through Medicaid and reduced welfare benefifits, can only combine to explain 12 percent of the decline in teen childbearing between 1991 and 2008."
The above statement shows a lack of understanding of what created the middle class in the first place.
The middle class has not always existed and is a relatively new phenomenon. In this country, and indeed in most of the developed world the development of the middle class has exactly coincided with the development of the most successful "social program" of all time, public education.
Originally, public education prepared people for typical "middle class" jobs. Now those same public education programs no longer prepare people to enter the middle class. The ticket to middle class requires more than a high school diploma, either college degree or technical training.
Again, this demonstrates a lack of knowledge about what social programs actually are. Welfare is not unlimited and hasn't been for over 20 years. The typical adult receiving benefits is limited to a lifetime of 5 years. For teen mothers if more specific supports were added this would likely be enough time to provide the educational opportunities necessary for them to support their children above the poverty line AND THUS MOVE OFF SOCIAL PROGRAMS. Again if the goal is to improve the lives for children this is a better choice than having to chose between starving in the streets or adoption. Because when a mother chooses adoption by default, than no one wins except PAPs, and APs.
I suggest you learn a little bit about the history of this nations social programs. For example, your need to present welfare as unlimited source of income is just wrong.
How about I suggest you learn a little bit about the history of socialism vs capitalism. I know how our social programs came into popularity. It's known in history as the New Deal and was a response to the Great Depression. Another program that propelled a lot of Americans into middle class was the GI Bill. It allowed returning soldiers to buy homes with minimal funds and attend college for free. College, to those who chose to attend. Public education is not what created the middle class, especially since it is inherently unequal and was racially segregated for nearly 100 years.
President Clinton shortened welfare to a five-year max when he was in office. Poverty has been around a lot longer than President Clinton. Even with the plethora of social programs introduced into society during the Great Depression, people still remained in poverty and the cycle repeated itself in many families. Social programs by their very nature are a Band-Aid solution to poverty, which is a multi-faceted problem. These programs temporarily help those in need, they don't solve social problems. Anyone with a solid understanding of social economics understands this.
What you are describing is Socialism. A form of government that will never be accepted in the United States. We have forms of social programs, but we have always been and will likely always be a Capitalist society. Just think of all the push back on Universal Healthcare and Social Security? Whether you wish to acknowledge it or not, there is a class divide in this country and social programs will not help those in the lower stratum of society because in our country, these types of programs are not popular. However, better choices by those affected by poverty usually goes a long way to help end the cycle. One choice is to not begin motherhood/parenthood when you are not an adult, and when you cannot afford to take care of yourself, let alone a child.
One of the most frequently cited reasons for young or teenage pregnant girls choosing adoption is that they have a plan or goal for their future. This plan or goal is most often related to education. So, finishing or seeking advanced education is the reason given to not want to be a parent prematurely. IMO, this is a wise decision which should be promoted at all times.
As far as who "wins" in adoption. I'm not even going to go there. It is obvious that I'm not the one who lacks understanding about poverty in America when you are the one who purports that poverty exists so infants can be adopted. Really?
Lastly, it has already been proven that U.S. teens are not having more sex than their counterparts in other developed countries, rather, they do so more irresponsibly. To put it another way, they are making poor decisions when it comes to sexual behavior. Despite the fact that other countries provide more social programs for single parenthood, their teens aren't becoming pregnant or aren't becoming teenage mothers at anywhere near the pace of U.S. teens. So what gives?
So teens who are married should be allowed to parent their own children?
And wealthy teens, who have more resources should be allowed to parent their children as well?
Teenage pregnancy and teenage motherhood should not be promoted. Income or social class have nothing to do with it. I was correcting a common misconception about Obama's mother being a teenage mother. He was essentially raised by his grandparents.
Ann Dunham was 18 when she gave birth to her son. You know him as President Barack Obama. Do you think he should have been aborted or placed with CPS? Because, I think he turned out just fine.
I think that was over a half century ago. I am talking about NOW.
One of my grandmothers was also eighteen. People did things differently 50 to 100 years ago. It's irrelevent.
I don't think that Sasha or Malia Obama will be having babies before college, do you?
Since all fifty states require parental permission to marry before eighteen, there seems to be a general consensus that adolescents are not the same as adults.
If they can't marry before age eighteen, why on earth should they attempt to parent?
I think that teenagers should not be permitted to parent or marry. I would like to see the marital age raised to 21. I think it would be better for children and for society.
Are my ideas socialist? Perhaps. I do tend to lean that way.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
