Boy, 13, becomes father

Teenage pregnancy isn't that uncommon round here.

In fact, in the 'town' where I live (I actually live in a village just outside and class myself as being from the next town, its a nicer place), its urban legend that they have the highest teenage pregnancy rate anywhere in Europe.. it already has the highest divorce rate in Europe, thats what happens when people get married as soon as they leave school at 16.

But anyways, its not at all uncommon for schoolgirls to be pregnant in this town.
I have to give them credit though, as they are often the ones who work harder for their exams despite the extra burden, and will often have more children (often by a different guy), and although they aren't 'hard working members of society' etc, the kids are almost always happy and loved, which is important right?

A good friend of mine was born when his mum was a teenager. His parents aren't together but he has a good relationship with both, his mum spent her time looking after him and when he went to college so did she. Now she has a good respectable job, and my friend is a music student, and despite heavy grand-parental intervention in the early years, everything has worked out fine and dandy for all involved.
Not necessarily a disaster story.

You let the male dog roam the neighborhood without worry. You lock your female up though unless shes fixed. I think thats pretty much the attitude. Until parents watch the boys like they watch the girls we will have this teen pregnancy problem. The parents arent worried, they dont have to take care of the baby. The girls parents do.

reply to post by Saf85


That is a whole bunch of crap, my children are 22 and 25 I made sure that since they were young they knew what sex was all about and what the repercussions of having sex too young and having children when not ready will bring to their lives.

Both of them have not children and both off them are still single.

So spare me the BS.



[edit on 13-2-2009 by marg6043]

reply to post by marg6043


I must say...I knew, and was thinking about sex well before my first sex education class. So that must have been at about the age of...10 or younger I would say.

I have NO clue how I knew what on earth it was, nobody had really ever said anything, and at that age I certainly hadn't seen anything, yet I still knew roughly what it was. Enough to picture it in my own head if I so chose.

I am 16 now...and not ever been anywhere near to being a dad. So I was thinking about sex before sex-education..and it did nothing to me...if it WAS the sex-ducation, sure ever single child who receives it should be doing the same thing, and yet they arn't.

Originally posted by Saf85
Face it, the only reason 13 year olds (and younger) are haveing sex in the first place,is because they were taught as young as 10, they get fixated on the subject and eventually (with a little help from main stream tv and its fixation on sex) they will have sex as a result! At 13 years (and younger), they are hardely mature enough to realise, that unprotected sex has concequences, so to blame them is hardly fair!

If sex education is held off untill 16 years of age, there would be far, far fewer cases of this happening, at least if it did happen at 16, they are legally old enough and mature enough to take responsibility, also wise enough to see the value in protected sex!

So I guess that makes me and most of the people I went to school with special. I had to sit through a short sex education class for the first time when I was 9, but I somehow was not fixated on sex nor did I have sex or a baby when I was 12.

At 13 years old kids are starting to get curious, if they aren't already. Most of them won't do anything sexual at that age, but some do. If you wait until they are 16 to tell them about condoms, safe sex, stds, etc. all you will end up with is a ton more teenage parents. By the time they are 16 a fairly large chunk have already had sex or have come close to having sex.

What good is it going to do to wait until they are already pregnant or have already caught an std to teach them about sex?

Remember this from October last year:

A 15-year-old Ohio girl faces felony charges and may have to register as a sex offender for allegedly taking nude photos of herself and sending them to her high school classmates.

abcnews.go.com...

So does anyone know what the laws in the UK will do to this girl? I doubt the boy knew anything about sex till he met her.

reply to post by _Phoenix_


No it just looked like a jab at the UK. I'd be willing bet quite a bit that it doesn't go on more over here

Originally posted by ItsallCrazy
reply to post by _Phoenix_

 

No it just looked like a jab at the UK. I'd be willing bet quite a bit that it doesn't go on more over here

Yeah your probably right. I think UK has the highest rate of pregnancy in europe, western europe at least. But now that I think about it, USA probably has a bit more.

[edit on 13-2-2009 by _Phoenix_]

reply to post by _Phoenix_


Yeh we're behind Europe on quite a few things, but we do need to keep our independence! Even if it's not in a classy way..

Sorry 'bout the initial jab dude!

reply to post by WatchNLearn


Knowing how backward our country is regarding this kind of stuff I bet the law won't do anything with the girl. If the boy was 15 and the girl 12/13 however he'd be up for rape and possibly even paedophilia charges.

reply to post by StevenDye


Hon, I was 13 when I found out by a friend where babies came from.

I was married by 21 and no even once my mother ever told me anything about what to expect or anything about sex.

Still I never went beyond the hugs and kisses as a teen experimenting and got marry at age 21 still a virgin.

So it doesn't matter actually if you get educated in sex young or old sometimes is how strong the desire for experimentation is all about.

How far you get is how strong the feelings at the moment are.

Each person is different some may have deeper feelings than others, or like in my case the sheer panic of doing something wrong.

But this life and sex is part of human nature and a way for reproduction and a strong feeling that eventually will win over.

reply to post by doogle


I don't understand why no-one has mentioned this, I think you're bang on with that point. If the girl was 13 there would be absolute UPROAR about this, he'd already be in a young offenders.. Infact, they probably just slap him with an ASBO, they hand those things out for just about anything now.

The article states "deciding against having an abortion" as if abortion is the 'natural course of action'. This is not true. According to nature, having the baby is the natural course of action. Abortion is the human intervention and killing of a life.

Originally posted by RFBurns
Its pretty crazy, but the little baby is in the world now so lets give them our best wishes and hope for a bright future.

I wanted to highlight this incredibly warm and compassionate response as well as give thanks that there are people like RFBurns in the world. You have a right and mature attitude towards the situation which makes it easy to stand with you in this regard.

[edit on 13-2-2009 by saint4God]

reply to post by saint4God


The problem is that a girl at age 13 in many cases will be endangering her life and that of the fetus if she decides to bring the pregnancy to full term.

As a 13 year old body still no mature enough for the task.

But this girl was 15 at this age a girls body is mature enough for a full term pregnancy.

I believe that if she has been 13 it will have been a different story.

Originally posted by marg6043
The problem is that a girl at age 13 in many cases will be endangering her life and that of the fetus if she decides to bring the pregnancy to full term.

It would require a case-by-case review to determine what outcome would allow the most amount of people to live.

Originally posted by marg6043
As a 13 year old body still no mature enough for the task.

This isn't an excuse to crush a baby into oblivion. Sorry.

Originally posted by marg6043
But this girl was 15 at this age a girls body is mature enough for a full term pregnancy.

I believe that if she has been 13 it will have been a different story.

It's hard to say given our limited information however her decision to have the baby says something towards the viability of the outcome. In all of these cases, my hope is that the doctors would fulfill their Hippocratic oath:

If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

www.pbs.org...


[edit on 13-2-2009 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God
This isn't an excuse to crush a baby into oblivion. Sorry.

Hum I forgot that you rather punish the source mother in this case or let say a child for the sins of the flesh even if a pregnancy that early in life can kill her and her fetus.

Interesting, one more win for God.

Originally posted by verylowfrequency

I'm certain it happens in many "less civilized" or poorer societies on our planet, but we just don't hear about it.

I find it interesting that you would use the term 'less civilized' in the same breath as the rest of your post.

The term civilized is popularized to indicate that one culture has more value, is more evolved or advanced than another. The truth is that cultures evolve simultaneously everywhere to meet their own needs.

Being 13 and having children is not the issue. What is the issue is one's ability to care for a child on their own. In this case, because British culture is so 'civilized' a 13 year old is not able to support himself, or others. Some might argue that it is a failing of the Western European and North American culture that men of 13 aren't able to support themselves. I say Western European because some Eastern European cultures allow marriage as young as 14.

In many cultures, the West African !Kung for example, have female brides of 8 or 9 years old, and teenage husbands (ranging from 13-17 or so). In these cases, intercourse does not occur until the woman is biologically ready, but that can occur at 12 or 13.

Originally posted by marg6043
Hum I forgot that you rather punish the source mother in this case or let say a child for the sins of the flesh even if a pregnancy that early in life can kill her and her fetus.

Selective reading oft causes missed information and incorrect assumptions. Here's the part of my post, which is right above yours, that you've either consciously or subconsciously ommitted:

Originally posted by saint4God
It would require a case-by-case review to determine what outcome would allow the most amount of people to live.

reply to post by saint4God


I can understand where you're coming from about abortion but I'm 20 and I don't consider myself responsible enough or in a good enough monetary situation for a kid, and thats with holding down a pretty well paying job for 3 years, I wouldn't trust a lot of my mates (the same age and some older) to look after my dog let alone a kid.

A 13 year old lad CANNOT look after a new-born baby, and thats from any which way you look at it.

You get a lot of your immaturity out of your system at a young age, if they are forced to act responsibly for the next however many years then eventually they will go off the rails craving all the experiences they've missed as an adolescent