In the 1995 movie Dangerous Minds, Michelle Pfeiffer played a teacher in a rough school who fought an administrator for moving one of Pfeiffer’s pregnant students to another school because she was “contagious.”
Do you agree unmarried pregnant teens should be withdrawn from their home high school for fear of copycatting?
Violations will be deleted and you may be banned.
Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.
Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.
Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.
Go to gravatar.com to create your avatar.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Do you agree unmarried pregnant teens should be withdrawn from their home high school for fear of copycatting?
No.
Pregnant women are not a danger to society. However their partners likely are. Remove the father of the baby first. Why do we blame and punish women for getting pregnant? Of all the social problems associated with teen pregnancy how many could be remedied by male sexual restraint and responsibility, and accountability? Where are the ad campaigns urging responsible fatherhood and promoting restraint for young men?
Teen moms often want to be loved and have a family. In some social groups, she may not personally know anyone in a successful marriage. She may have little or no contact with her own father and feel rejected. She may not know any committed, loving fathers. The only person she believes she will be able to have a permanent relationship with may just be her own baby. I have known these people. They maybe misguided but they are not bad people. Sure they have major love deficits in their lives and they don’t know how to fix that.
The last thing they need is to be rejected, again.
Dittos to the essence of hippie’s post.
The Jewish tradition was for pregnant women, married or not, to withdraw and spend most of the time of their pregnancy with family, focusing on developing their relationship with the new baby by singing and talking to the baby, reading the baby the Torah (Yes, they can hear pretty early on, and the earlier one hears most anything repeated, the less likely one is to forget it later) and getting proper rest and nutrition.
I don’t think that’s a bad idea, but treating pregnancy like it’s a disease is itself a deadly disease. Contagious? I never heard of anyone getting pregnant via a sneeze, shared water fountain, etc. Copycatting-now teens do do that, to a frightful degree. Where would they send a young pregnant girl to discourage that? To a home for unwed mothers? Now we’re back to the Hebrew model which may be the best thing, if it’s done right, and in the right spirit.
I’m sure some pro-abort feminazi types will whine about how “antiquated” that is; but the important thing about any idea is not how old/new it is, but how good it is. Jumping off a tall building is never a good idea, and affirming human life is never a bad one.
“Of all the social problems associated with teen pregnancy how many could be remedied by male sexual restraint and responsibility, and accountability? Where are the ad campaigns urging responsible fatherhood and promoting restraint for young men?” Touche; that sounds like a good question for Abercrombie and Fitch, PP, et al.
That behavior only encourages abortion.
Why get kicked out of school in disgrace when you can just take care of it over the weekend and appear normal to the school and your friends?
Again a demonstration on how our country often looks down on pregnancy.
Also, I think she would only be a demonstration of what kids don’t want. I’m sure the pregnant teenager looks just glamorous running out of class to throw up in the morning, going crazy from the hormones, getting huge, gaining stretchmarks, being unable to do certain activities, etc.
Because it is worth it to bring a beautiful child in the world is meaningful to the pregnant teenager, but the school kids will know how much hard work it is and how much they are unready for it. If anything it is a wakeup call. I think the school itself needs to wake up.
Highly informative, Anon.
No, I don’t believe it’s right to kick a girl out of school just because she’s pregnant.
We even had a daycare for students’ kids at my high school.
I don’t really think that their reasoning for making girls leave is because it could be “contagious”. I think its all about how it “looks” to some of the high and mighty parents/administrators. Its all about the illusion of control. If kids are going out and getting pregnant then the school thinks that they are not keeping them “in line” and want to hush it up.
Do you agree unmarried pregnant teens should be withdrawn from their home high school for fear of copycatting?
Absolutely Not.
This is a form of discrimination.
You can not deny a person their education based on race, gender, social class, medical condition or political ideas.
Pregnancy, when it boils down to it, is a medical condition. Not even a hospital can refuse a patient based on their medical history (or even lack of health insurance). They do not turn away patients with HIV/AIDS. Yes, they require that the patient disclose this information for the safety of their staff and for the patient.
I can maybe understand why a private school would ask a student to leave b/c she is pregnant. It’s privately funded, and the students go there instead of a public school. If a public school tried to “sweep the mother” under the carpet, then I feel a lawsuit is deserved.
I went to high school with a couple of pregnant girls. One was a pretty good friend of mine at the time. She went to all her classes, for all nine months of her pregnancy. She’d bring a pillow to class and some teachers would allow her to nap while us (her friends) took notes for her. She actually went into labor during 4th period Geometry, a class I shared with her.
No one ever treated her like she was “contagious” to other students. I must admit, I found that odd. I lived in a “high society”, rich and snobby city near Birmingham. I always wondered why no one made a fuss about it, but her parents had money and probably made it known that removing her would be a very “unwise” decision. Once she gave birth to Cole, she came back to school. The administration allowed to her to go into the Alternative school. They got out of school at noon everyday, and it was better for her and Cole that way.
I also went to school with a kid who HIV. He never disclosed how he contracted the disease, but there were rumors. He lived in Shannon, a mainly black neighborhood, and he was bussed into the school system (my school did this so they could receive Federal money, b/c not enough blacks lived in the community). Anyhoo, not many students knew about his disease except for kids who shared a P. E., or Weight training class with him. The only reason I knew is b/c we were in the same Health/Drivers Ed class. The teacher told us who were riding in the car with him, in case we got into an accident or something. After that, no one in the class would talk to this poor kid. I felt extremely sorry for him. I still chatted with him, but I can not remember his name now. It was rumored that he died not long after graduation due to complications of the disease.
————————————–
To make a long story short: No, an administration should not remove a pregnant girl from school. This will be more detrimental to her than pregnancy. Once a child is asked to leave school, it is difficult for them to go back and receive an education. Do we really want teenage mothers in the world that dont have a high school degree?
We should do all that we can to portray pregnancy and motherhood as a good thing, not like it’s a disease. :)
I’ve seen this movie, and thought it to be pretty good on many levels. However, in regards to the question, do schools really kick out preganant girls?
I went to school with a few pregnant teens. It didn’t make me want to run out and get pregnant.
Laura,
Yes they do. Well, plenty of private schools do.
We had a few pregnant teens at our high school, and no one was ever forced to leave school. We had parenting classes, that they were encouraged to take, and a daycare at the school, for both teachers and students.
When anybody got pregnant, there was never any copycat-ers. That really wouldn’t make sense.
PIP,
Thanks for the response. Wow! Does it happen in any public schools these days?
PIP, thanks for the info. Great post!
Absolutely not. I agree with hippie.
Absolutely not. That is not the reactionary viewpoint that we want to be perpetuating in our society.
It should not be allowed for schools to kick out pregnant unwed teens.
We do want teens to get educations. What good does kicking them out of school do?
I’m pretty sure public schools can’t and don’t kick out pregnant teens. I have heard of incidences of private schools doing it- and I don’t really think that legally we can stop them.
However their partners likely are. Remove the father of the baby first. Why do we blame and punish women for getting pregnant? Of all the social problems associated with teen pregnancy how many could be remedied by male sexual restraint and responsibility, and accountability? Where are the ad campaigns urging responsible fatherhood and promoting restraint for young men?
How can you say to not remove the mother but then remove the father. That is reverse discrimination. How are all teenage father’s pregnant? And if I am not mistaken, it takes two people to make a baby, not just one. The female obviously did not restrain herself either.
If you remove one, you must remove the other.
Midnite and PIP,
You both make many excellent points. I’m from the era when pregnant girls went to “visit relatives” though we all knew darn well where she went and why. Or they married and had babies 6 months later. Like people can’t count. These marriages were for the most part doomed. My daughters also attended showers for pregnant high school friends. I have the advantage of having lived both sides of this argument.
I have to agree that these girls need their education first and foremost and from my experience as a mentor, I know this is difficult enough under the best of circumstances and with support of family. Glamorous? Please. Dead end jobs, no social life, a demanding baby, school work, exhaustion. That’s the life of these young women.
The last thing they need is removal from the support of family and friends.
Maybe what we should do is stop glamorizing illegitimacy as a society. Do we really need to see Madame Celebrity gushing on the joys of single motherhood? Perhaps these women should realize that being in the public eye makes them role models, whether they choose to be or not.
Do TV characters need to have children out of wedlock? Sure they’re only acting, but would we want the portrayal of drug abuse as glamorous and acceptable? Then why illegitimacy?
Our society us sex saturated and we can’t understand why our kids are getting the message?
That’s kind of the problem with your arguments, Mary. On one hand, pro-lifers want to try and reverse the stigma against single teenage mothers, in order to discourage abortion and to let the teenage mothers give birth without having to violently disrupt their lives. But then, on the other hand, you continue to dramatically stigmatize premaritial sex, demonizing it, and automatically creating the very stigma that you are trying to avoid. You can’t do both. It’s self-destructive.
Erin,
I don’t know if its so much stigmatizing premarital sex as it is not glamorizing illegitimacy and promoting sex as our society does. I think you’re talking two opposite extremes here, stigmatizing or glamorizing, and neither is positive.
Actually, it was an article by Ellen Goodman, a columnist not noted for her pro-life sympathies, that brought up the issue of celebrities and society glamorizing illegitimacy, and the message this sent to teenagers It was an excellent article and really got one thinking, especially coming as it did from Ms. Goodman.
“Do you agree unmarried pregnant teens should be withdrawn from their home high school for fear of copycatting?”
Rosie: No.
Co-signed!
Doug
I like movies with lots of ‘splosions in them, but I like me some Michelle Pfeiffer too.
I know 2 people who got pregnant in highschool. Both married the father of their baby and are still married today (that’s about 12 years now) and one just had baby number 6 and the other is pregnant with babies 5 and 6. It can really work out, it doesn’t have to be a horrible situation. Sometime I think the teens parents in these situations make things worse for all involved. Also if not aborting your baby is contagious then so be it.
rosie: On the teens’ parents: I agree! Parents often cause half the problems in their children’s lives.
Rosie – agreed, it certainly can work out, and from a Pro-Choice perspective I wish those young mothers the best.
And – Dang – six kids each? Yee Haw….
In defense of teens parents…I don’t think we can really judge them unless we ourselves have had to deal with a pregnant teen. There ARE parents out there who don’t handle the situation in the best way..but last time I checked there wasn’t a magic parenting manual out there that told parents exactly how to handle every situation they face as parents. I was 19 when I got pregnant and I knew it would be a challenging thing for my parents to deal with in the beginning. For this reason, I didn’t take too personally all the things they said to me that weren’t so good. I think parents should get some slack when it comes to dealing with this situation because parents are only human.
And as far as kicking girls out of school for getting preggers…dumbest idea I have ever heard of. HOWEVER, I do think there are SOME girls out there who get pregnant as a result of seeing another girl pregnant. Mainly because of all the excitement surrounding a baby being born no matter how old the mother is. Girls can be envious of this kind of attention. This still isn’t legitimate enough of a reason to deprive a soon-to-be-mother of her education.
As far as private schools go, there really isn’t anything you can do about it because they’re private. They have to come to the realization on their own that depriving a girl of her education based on being pregnant is wrong. But then again, when you’re kicked out of a private school, you can just go to the public school. It’s probably better to save the money that would have been spent on the private school for the baby anyway.
Sure, Elizabeth. Certainly not all parents of pregnant teens aren’t horrible at dealing. But looking at a lot of the parents I know… unfortunately, it seems like a majority.
We talk in my education class about those parents who say “Oh no, my Johnny/Susie would never cheat on a test” or whatever… and they’d say the same about Johnny/Susie getting their girlfriend pregnant/getting pregnant. But when what Johnny/Susie did is undeniable, their reactions are awful. And they have to always find someone else to blame, because it wasn’t their fault, and certainly Johnny/Susie wouldn’t normally do such a thing. It must have been that slut Susie’s fault! Or… Johnny must have raped Susie because she was waiting for marriage! Or whatever crap they throw out there.
My mom told me that the last thing she wanted was another baby in the house, but if I needed her to, she would help me raise it. She was very calm, which helped me because I was freaking out.
Abortion Is the New US Prohibition – A Plea to Democrats
Abortion is the new prohibition. Anti-abortion zealots hold extremeist positions on “immorality” that rival the fierce determination of US prohibitionists from 1900 to 1920.
Conservative Protestants Jerry Falwell and James Dobson are the new Carry Nations. The Moral Majority Coalition and Focus on the Family are the new Woman’s Christian Temperance Unions.
Moderates, Independents and Democrats, take note…..the abortion issue will not go away. The religious right has flatly declared abortion a “non-negotiable issue.” Abortion will not be negotiated away, and it will not be given a lower priority than any other issue. The line has been drawn in the proverbial sand. And the Republican majority has shown that it’s perfectly content to throw the baby out with the bathwater over this issue.
The horribly, and possibly permanently, crippling trade deficit and runaway non-budget be damned. The disgraceful, deadly Iraq War be damned. The 45 million Americans without healthcare insurance be damned. The underfunded, failing US educational system be damned. The shameless dishonesty and corruptness of this administration be damned. The rampant and willful desecration of the environment for more and greater profits be damned.
It’s no longer about the economy, stupid. It’s about abortion.
However…………….Democrats need to get real about abortion. Abortion is all and only about terminating life, just like drinking is about…well, getting drunk. Carry Nation and her Woman’s Christian Temperance Union were never wrong about alcohol. She was incredibly overzealous, but not wrong.
Democrats, brace yourself for my next statement. Jerry Falwell and James Dobson are also not wrong about abortion….and in our hearts, we all know it. They’re not wrong….just ridiculously overzealous. (Sure, they’re big-time hypocrites about being “pro-life”, but that doesn’t make them wrong about abortion.)
The difference between temperance and abortion prohibitionists is that drinking is not illegal. Drunk driving, of course, is illegal, as it could harm another person. Likewise, reckless sexual behavior is not illegal, but under current US laws, killing of human life is illegal.
That is, except for Roe v. Wade, which made all abortions legal, without question or exception. All pregnancies may legally be terminated at any time prior to birth for no valid reason whatsoever. Period.
Pastors and priests rightfully rage against the US “holocaust of babies” since the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision. Experts estimate that an astounding 40 million abortions have been performed in the US since the Roe v. Wade became law. Most believers of all religions are appalled, and are determined to end the abuse of abortion.
The pendulum for abortion has rested at the extreme permissive end of the spectrum for 30 years. It’s inevitable that the pendulum will, and should, swing back to a more balanced interpretation of a woman’s private right to have an abortion, within the existing framework of our country’s laws regarding termination of God-given life. The danger is that right-wing radicals and the self-appointed morals police have 30 years of pent-up frustration over this volatile issue, and they can be a vindictive bunch.
In 1895, a group of conservative Protestant women founded the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union to combat extreme excesses of alcohol consumption of their times. Alcohol-related deaths were at an all-time high, partly due to the introduction of automobiles. Beer, wine and hard liquor, not human behavior, was blamed by reformers for poverty, health problems, work productivity and even the neglect of family by husbands.
Their movement to control private, personal behavior in a free democracy caught the imagination of the American pulpit and public. The 18th amendment to the Constitution became law in 1920. It was repealed in 1933, the only amendment ever considered to be a grave error.
Democrats, the same will occur with abortion if compromises aren’t soon made to limit abortions permitted under Roe v. Wade. Abortion under all circumstances will be completely banned if compromises are not now…right now… made to greatly modify Roe v. Wade.
Yes, there are rare, legitimate reasons for early stage abortions. Rape, incest, the life of the mother is in peril, very extraordinary disabilities of the unborn baby. But abortion is commonly now used as after-the-fact birth control. Most US abortions are performed to mitigate irresponsible behavior and dispose of inconvenient children.
The Democratic Party presently celebrates abortion as if it’s a life-affirming act. It’s unimaginable political insanity to believe such a negative message will attract middle class, church-going voters.
Reality is that abortion is a grim medical procecure designed to efficiently end the life of a child. Most compassionate, common sense people believe that there are, indeed, limited occasions when abortion is the appropriate course of action….a sad and necessary evil. But routine, freely available abortions are hardly a reason for celebration or form the basis of a successful national political platform.
The next Democratic candidate who is duly elected to the US Presidency will not embrace a wholehearted pro-choice stance. He/she will openly acknowledge that abortion should only be permitted in narrowly proscribed circumstances.
Until such time as the Democratic Party, and its national political candidates, publicly recognize abortion as a tragedy and not as a joyous personal right, Republicans will continue to occupy the White House and to control both Houses of Congress.
Mark my words. And Karl Rove’s word.
posted by Deborah @ 9:00 AM
Uhhh…I know it wasn’t the point of the article, but alcohol isn’t all about getting drunk. I’d just as soon enjoy a single glass of wine or a nice aged scotch as I would going to a crazy kegger and getting trashed.
I would sooner drink a single glass of wine than go to a kegger and get trashed. I don’t like beer. Except once I had some Flemish stuff that wasn’t too bad.
Until such time as the Democratic Party, and its national political candidates, publicly recognize abortion as a tragedy and not as a joyous personal right, Republicans will continue to occupy the White House and to control both Houses of Congress.
Democrats took control of the House and the Senate this year.
I think the proper response is to notify parents that there is a pregnant student at the school and to encourage them to speak to their children, in keeping with their own religious and moral traditions.
It might also be a good time to provide parents with information about how to discourage teen sexual experimentation without frightening kids into keeping their own pregnancies a secret. “If YOU get yourself knocked up, missie, you’re out on your ear!” for example, is a very poor prevention strategy.
Provide materials from a variety of sources so the parents themselves can choose from abstinance based to contraceptives based and let the parents choose which ones to go through with their kids and how.
Leah, within the parents that you know it is a majority..that doesn’t necessarily apply to the rest of the world. I just don’t like people to get on parent’s cases too much about something like this becaus who know’s how YOU would react to your kid in that situation. You can say what you would do/say..but you don’t know til you’re in it and that’s all I’m saying.
That’s fine, Elizabeth. I wasn’t arguing with you. I’m just sayin’.
Sex outside of marriage is bad, but abortion is much worse. We must be very careful in how we deal with young people who behave badly that we do not encourage abortions. Kicking them out of school isn’t the best thing to do.
Absolutely not!
“I’d just as soon enjoy a single glass of wine or a nice aged scotch as I would going to a crazy kegger and getting trashed.”
Amen.
I just realized what movie Jill was talking about…that was an awesome movie.
Laura,
To answer your question, most public schools don’t do that; I think doing so would prompt discrimination suits. At my high school they often went to “alternative” which was shorter and easier, geared towards people in disadvantaged situations like pregnancy.
We talked about this in my Christian Morality in Health Care class. Many people at SLU went to private Catholic high schools, or a non-Christian private school. Our professor asked people to raise their hands if they went to a private school. Those that did, he asked what they did with pregnant teenagers. Most of them said that they would find a way to kick them out. He pointed out that it was a “contagious” argument and asked us for responses. Most of us said the same thing: it is appalling, only encourages abortion (in a Catholic school!), and is probably an issue of image. He added how wonderful it must be for the teenagers to see their friend run to the bathroom every morning, and that its hard to imagine it being “contagious.” Everyone agreed.
I think hippie pointed out that more schools are coming around on the issue though, that is good news.
Good news, indeed!
Thanks, PIP!
CAN CONTRACEPTING PARENTS TEACH THEIR TEENAGERS TO BE CHASTE?
http://www.onemoresoul.com/Can-Contracepting-Parents-Teach-Their-Teenagers-to-Be-Chaste.php
Mike
I went to a private Catholic high school and my senior year a girl got pregnant..she was not kicked out..the school helped her out a lot. When she HAD to go on bed rest, the school worked with her to make sure she graduated with the rest of us.
Argh When I taught my students were very similar to the students on dangerous minds, but on a much lower scale because they were 7th graders. None of them became pregnant because only a fraction of them had gotten their period. However I am sure with the language I heard and some of the things I read from the students that some were indeed having sex. 7th GRADE!!! Other teachers from the school have told me stories of some 7th grade girls becoming pregnant and finding used condoms in the bathroom. As a teacher myself… well more former at the time being… I would never want to kick a girl out because she was pregnant. I would want to help her get through her pregnancy. I can see why some may say it is “contagious” I have seen shows where little girls are wanting to “have a baby” but I think that is rare. I remember when girls in my high school got pregnant. I was like “thank god that isn’t me” Seeing a pregnant classmate did not want me to jump into bed with someone and get pregnant. I think kicking them out would send a bad message.
JM, wow!! Hard to believe that such young people have sex.
I DON’T KNOW, MIKE. CAN PARENTS WHO HAVE SEX TEACH THEIR CHILDREN TO BE CHASE? I FAIL TO SEE THE DIFFERENCE HERE….
Samantha, it’s said that the chase is better than the catch….
No. Too often Pregnancy is being seen as an STD or a disease (for which the only cure is abortion). These young teens need love and support. Sometimes unwed mother’s homes MIGHT be a good place for them to live if their parents kick them out, though.
Whether it’s “too often” or not that pregnancy is seen as a “disease,” even with all the love and support possible, a pregnancy may still be unwanted.
Whether it’s “too often” or not that pregnancy is seen as a “disease,” even with all the love and support possible, a pregnancy may still be unwanted.
So what’s your point?
Not desiring a pregnancy is MUCH different than not desiring a baby.
“Whether it’s “too often” or not that pregnancy is seen as a “disease,” even with all the love and support possible, a pregnancy may still be unwanted.”
So what’s your point?
Not desiring a pregnancy is MUCH different than not desiring a baby.
Maybe, maybe not. Women may not want to be pregnant, but still want a baby enough to continue, so there I’d agree with you. Or, a baby may not be wanted at all, and thus it’s the same thing.
Doug
http://index1.bomiqu.com >phil town