Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting > Pregnancy
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-18-2010, 11:15 AM
 
Location: maryland
3,966 posts, read 6,864,119 times
Reputation: 1740

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Momma_bear View Post
So-let me get this straight. On one hand you think teens are young adults but on the other hand they should have absolutely no say in something that will affect them for the rest of their life. That is totally inconsistent thinking.

i think they are young adults meaning on the path to becoming an adult. Which means from year to year they mature enough to start gaining a little more responsibility until they become a full one. This however is a full adult decision...not one for a overhormnal teenager to make. I mean many states say they aren't mature enough to chose abortion...but they are mature enough to chose to keep the child? And i said they should have a say....if a girl can get a job and a place and prove she can do it then fine. But if all she wants to do is sit around her parents house and have the child then no i don't think she should be privy to the choice.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-18-2010, 11:18 AM
 
13,423 posts, read 9,955,563 times
Reputation: 14357
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
Seriously, after reading some of the posts here that suggest that "insurance companies ought to be forced to pay for the pregnancy expenses" I just shake my head.

Its amazing how culture has changed in this country. I think we have gone from believing teenage pregnancy is a problem to thinking instead that the problem is an inability of a teen mother to get certain benefits. What a messed up country we have become. We've taken away virtually every disincentive that used to exist to becoming pregnant as a teenager and we wonder why we have so many teenage mothers.

No, private insurance shouldn't be forced to cover a pregnancy in this situation. The girl's family should be forced to pay--if she is determined to keep this baby. If they can't pay than get a civil judgment against them and let it sit on their credit forever. But, don't make the taxpayers suffer over something like this. Honestly, I am tired of all the excuses we make. I am tired of the fact that we let 15 and 16 year old girls call all the shots in this situation. Why should any of them place a baby for adoption or get an abortion? If some of you had your way, there'd be no end of benefits involved if teen mothers choose to keep their babies. Its just plain dumb.
Actually, the teenage birthrate has declined significantly since the 50's, when it was at it's highest. The difference is that shotgun marriages are nowhere near as prevalent as they were then, so we have more unwed teenage mothers. We have far less actual teenage mothers.

In terms of teenagers having babies, the idea of "what a messed up country we have become" is a popular notion but incorrect nonetheless.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2010, 11:28 AM
 
Location: maryland
3,966 posts, read 6,864,119 times
Reputation: 1740
Quote:
Originally Posted by FinsterRufus View Post
Actually, the teenage birthrate has declined significantly since the 50's, when it was at it's highest. The difference is that shotgun marriages are nowhere near as prevalent as they were then, so we have more unwed teenage mothers. We have far less actual teenage mothers.

In terms of teenagers having babies, the idea of "what a messed up country we have become" is a popular notion but incorrect nonetheless.

Very true....the number of abortions has also decreased since the 70's but try telling a pro lifer that lol. But the fact is we still have a much higher rate then the rest of the western world.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2010, 11:32 AM
 
10,624 posts, read 26,739,553 times
Reputation: 6776
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
Seriously, after reading some of the posts here that suggest that "insurance companies ought to be forced to pay for the pregnancy expenses" I just shake my head.

Its amazing how culture has changed in this country. I think we have gone from believing teenage pregnancy is a problem to thinking instead that the problem is an inability of a teen mother to get certain benefits. What a messed up country we have become. We've taken away virtually every disincentive that used to exist to becoming pregnant as a teenager and we wonder why we have so many teenage mothers.

No, private insurance shouldn't be forced to cover a pregnancy in this situation. The girl's family should be forced to pay--if she is determined to keep this baby. If they can't pay than get a civil judgment against them and let it sit on their credit forever. But, don't make the taxpayers suffer over something like this. Honestly, I am tired of all the excuses we make. I am tired of the fact that we let 15 and 16 year old girls call all the shots in this situation. Why should any of them place a baby for adoption or get an abortion? If some of you had your way, there'd be no end of benefits involved if teen mothers choose to keep their babies. Its just plain dumb.
Pregnacy IS a health issue! If you are covered by insurance, then health issues should be covered, period. That doesn't mean that teen pregancy is good or should be encouraged, just that some of us think that teens should have access to the same sort of health care that the rest of us enjoy. Most pregnanices are healthy (and teens are not generally high-risk), but they DO need to have someone keeping an eye on things. That can be a midwife, doesn't have to be an OB, but it's ridiculous to suggest that pregancy isn't going to impact the physical health of the woman who is carrying the child. And health insurance isn't picked up by the taxpayer; it's the people who pay premiums. And while I wouldn't be thrilled about paying higher premiums for a pregnant teen, that should just be part of the territory. There are plenty of other things that people do that cost more, and we pay to cover those, too. And we're talking about PRENATAL and BIRTH coverage here; even if she puts the baby up for adoption she's still going to need some health care here. The parents have insurance; insurance is there to cover people's health issues; pregnancy should be covered. That doesn't mean that every single proceedure needs or should be covered, but basic prenatal care and birth is pretty reasonable.

I'd like to see evidence of a SINGLE teenage mother who was encouraged to have a baby because she knew that it would be covered by her parents' health insurance plan. I bet most don't even think of the costs of the actual birth, and even if they did, most would (and most parents, I bet) would assume that if they have health insurance coverage then they'd have at least some basic maternity coverage.

Letting teenage girls go without medical care to prove a point is pointless. It's not going to discourage girls from having babies, and it's not going to save society any money when it comes to health costs. Preventative care simply makes sense. (as does insurance companies paying for birth control, but that's another topic)

As far as teens being high-risk for home births, I think that they're, as a group, probably more likely to be among the healthiest group of women. That's assuming that they're getting adequate prenatal care and taking care of themselves, though, which obviously is not the case with some teens, and that probably skews the statistics. But age-wise, aren't teens the ones built for having babies?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2010, 11:37 AM
 
13,423 posts, read 9,955,563 times
Reputation: 14357
Quote:
Originally Posted by uptown_urbanist View Post
Pregnacy IS a health issue! If you are covered by insurance, then health issues should be covered, period. That doesn't mean that teen pregancy is good or should be encouraged, just that some of us think that teens should have access to the same sort of health care that the rest of us enjoy. Most pregnanices are healthy (and teens are not generally high-risk), but they DO need to have someone keeping an eye on things. That can be a midwife, doesn't have to be an OB, but it's ridiculous to suggest that pregancy isn't going to impact the physical health of the woman who is carrying the child. And health insurance isn't picked up by the taxpayer; it's the people who pay premiums. And while I wouldn't be thrilled about paying higher premiums for a pregnant teen, that should just be part of the territory. There are plenty of other things that people do that cost more, and we pay to cover those, too. And we're talking about PRENATAL and BIRTH coverage here; even if she puts the baby up for adoption she's still going to need some health care here. The parents have insurance; insurance is there to cover people's health issues; pregnancy should be covered. That doesn't mean that every single proceedure needs or should be covered, but basic prenatal care and birth is pretty reasonable.

I'd like to see evidence of a SINGLE teenage mother who was encouraged to have a baby because she knew that it would be covered by her parents' health insurance plan. I bet most don't even think of the costs of the actual birth, and even if they did, most would (and most parents, I bet) would assume that if they have health insurance coverage then they'd have at least some basic maternity coverage.

Letting teenage girls go without medical care to prove a point is pointless. It's not going to discourage girls from having babies, and it's not going to save society any money when it comes to health costs. Preventative care simply makes sense. (as does insurance companies paying for birth control, but that's another topic)

As far as teens being high-risk for home births, I think that they're, as a group, probably more likely to be among the healthiest group of women. That's assuming that they're getting adequate prenatal care and taking care of themselves, though, which obviously is not the case with some teens, and that probably skews the statistics. But age-wise, aren't teens the ones built for having babies?
I agree with everything you're saying, uptown, but as Katiana stated earlier teens are in fact a high risk pregnancy group. They are at much higher risk for certain serious complications, and need to be monitored accordingly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2010, 11:45 AM
 
Location: maryland
3,966 posts, read 6,864,119 times
Reputation: 1740
Quote:
Originally Posted by uptown_urbanist View Post
Pregnacy IS a health issue! If you are covered by insurance, then health issues should be covered, period. That doesn't mean that teen pregancy is good or should be encouraged, just that some of us think that teens should have access to the same sort of health care that the rest of us enjoy. Most pregnanices are healthy (and teens are not generally high-risk), but they DO need to have someone keeping an eye on things. That can be a midwife, doesn't have to be an OB, but it's ridiculous to suggest that pregancy isn't going to impact the physical health of the woman who is carrying the child. And health insurance isn't picked up by the taxpayer; it's the people who pay premiums. And while I wouldn't be thrilled about paying higher premiums for a pregnant teen, that should just be part of the territory. There are plenty of other things that people do that cost more, and we pay to cover those, too. And we're talking about PRENATAL and BIRTH coverage here; even if she puts the baby up for adoption she's still going to need some health care here. The parents have insurance; insurance is there to cover people's health issues; pregnancy should be covered. That doesn't mean that every single proceedure needs or should be covered, but basic prenatal care and birth is pretty reasonable.

I'd like to see evidence of a SINGLE teenage mother who was encouraged to have a baby because she knew that it would be covered by her parents' health insurance plan. I bet most don't even think of the costs of the actual birth, and even if they did, most would (and most parents, I bet) would assume that if they have health insurance coverage then they'd have at least some basic maternity coverage.

Letting teenage girls go without medical care to prove a point is pointless. It's not going to discourage girls from having babies, and it's not going to save society any money when it comes to health costs. Preventative care simply makes sense. (as does insurance companies paying for birth control, but that's another topic)

As far as teens being high-risk for home births, I think that they're, as a group, probably more likely to be among the healthiest group of women. That's assuming that they're getting adequate prenatal care and taking care of themselves, though, which obviously is not the case with some teens, and that probably skews the statistics. But age-wise, aren't teens the ones built for having babies?

I really don't personally care if it decreases it or not to be honest. I just don't really feel it's my responsibility to pay for her when she can't afford it is all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2010, 11:55 AM
 
4,267 posts, read 6,184,279 times
Reputation: 3579
Quote:
Originally Posted by FinsterRufus View Post
I agree with everything you're saying, uptown, but as Katiana stated earlier teens are in fact a high risk pregnancy group. They are at much higher risk for certain serious complications, and need to be monitored accordingly.
And a certified midwife can make the determination if they are too high risk for home birth prenatal care and delivery.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2010, 12:12 PM
 
13,423 posts, read 9,955,563 times
Reputation: 14357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorthy View Post
And a certified midwife can make the determination if they are too high risk for home birth prenatal care and delivery.
Yes, I wasn't disputing that one way or the other. Just trying to correct a misconception that teen births are the lowest risk category.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2010, 12:27 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,297 posts, read 120,779,853 times
Reputation: 35920
Quote:
Originally Posted by FinsterRufus View Post
Yes, I wasn't disputing that one way or the other. Just trying to correct a misconception that teen births are the lowest risk category.
Too true!

Here is what the Colorado Midwife Association says about CNMs doing home deliveries:

Homebirth FAQ - Midwives - Midwifery - Home Birth Frequently Asked Questions

Certified Nurse-Midwife (CNM) is an individual educated in the two disciplines of nursing and midwifery separately, who possesses evidence of certification according to the requirements of the American College of Nurse-Midwives. They primarily work in hospitals and some in birth centers, there are a rare few that offer home-birth.

A CNM has to have physician backup, or risk losing her license.

Certainly a CNM would be a great option for this young lady.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2010, 12:56 PM
 
13,981 posts, read 25,958,820 times
Reputation: 39926
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
Seriously, after reading some of the posts here that suggest that "insurance companies ought to be forced to pay for the pregnancy expenses" I just shake my head.

Its amazing how culture has changed in this country. I think we have gone from believing teenage pregnancy is a problem to thinking instead that the problem is an inability of a teen mother to get certain benefits. What a messed up country we have become. We've taken away virtually every disincentive that used to exist to becoming pregnant as a teenager and we wonder why we have so many teenage mothers.

No, private insurance shouldn't be forced to cover a pregnancy in this situation. The girl's family should be forced to pay--if she is determined to keep this baby. If they can't pay than get a civil judgment against them and let it sit on their credit forever. But, don't make the taxpayers suffer over something like this. Honestly, I am tired of all the excuses we make. I am tired of the fact that we let 15 and 16 year old girls call all the shots in this situation. Why should any of them place a baby for adoption or get an abortion? If some of you had your way, there'd be no end of benefits involved if teen mothers choose to keep their babies. Its just plain dumb.
Why shouldn't the expenses be shared between the girl's and the boy's families?

But, I do think if parents want pregnancy coverage for their teenage girls, they should be paying premiums for the coverage, (not that any parent wants to consider the possibility in advance).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting > Pregnancy
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top