(Prolifer)ations 4-13-10

Thumbnail image for blog buzz.jpg

by Susie Allen, host of the blog, Pro-Life in TN

  • Jenn at the NewsRealBlog asks, "Could Bristol Palin's new PSA unintentionally encourage abortion?"...

  • Parenting Freedom highlights a Daily Mail article on a young bride-to-be's death from deep vein thrombosis, likely as a side effect from her long-term Pill use.

  • Fr. Frank Pavone continues his series on "Why abortion breaks all the commandments," covering commandments 4 through 6.

  • Stand for Life hosts a video interview with former Planned Parenthood director Abby Johnson:


  • Comments:

    Re: the Bristol Palin ad. Of course teen pregnancy is a terrible thing and should be avoided. We already know that the children of teen mothers are disadvantaged from the start, given the statistics on poverty, crime, etc. And the mothers have little chance of getting a college education and thus a decent job. Teen pregnancy IS BAD, and we need to send that message. If you think Bristol Palin should be instead talking about how wonderful it is to have a baby out of wedlock at 18, you're basically advocating for higher teen pregnancy rates.

    Posted by: Ashley Herzog at April 13, 2010 4:10 PM


    I think that the high risk behavior of promiscuous sex for teens is a huge problem. A pregnancy that results and is carried to term can be a huge blessing for a young mother and her family or another family.

    I think the message that if you don't abort you can't go to college, get a good job or make a good living is crap.

    Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at April 13, 2010 4:50 PM


    "I think that the high risk behavior of promiscuous sex for teens is a huge problem. A pregnancy that results and is carried to term can be a huge blessing for a young mother and her family or another family."

    How do you reconcile these two statements? It's like you're practically encouraging young girls to get pregnant because a teen pregnancy can be such a great thing and why would you not want that? In fact, this could be the basis for a new pro-life movement: the right-to-be-conceived movement. People who refrain from having sex are robbing their potential offspring from the opportunity at life and should be ashamed at their murderous ways.

    Posted by: Anne at April 13, 2010 5:42 PM


    I honestly found Bristol's "PSA" classist and condescending. The fact htat the article says it's "honest" and not "classist" shows that the writer herself doesn't see it. It's not like we don't know that rich girls and poor girls will face different circumstances should they find themselves pregnant. The fact that the PSA implies love and support are directly related to wealth and fame IS the issue.


    What if she wasn't rich and famous? Then she would be living in a room with no joy (or furnishings) and no family or social support for her child.

    What if she wasn't rich and famous? Then instead of holding her baby, she would be across the room with no love or intimate contact with him.

    What if she wasn't rich and famous? Then she would be incapable of grooming herself or have any expression of happiness.

    The insinuation that her fame and wealth makes it okay that she had her baby (because that means she also has 'support' and love for her child) but being poor does not (apparently poverty means you can't love children or have family support for your child) is a terrible message to send. I don't doubt that Bristol had good intentions, but she should have known better than to make such a baffling and insulting PSA.

    And "Pause before you play"? What does that even mean? Pause to do what? Put on a condom?

    Posted by: prettyinpink at April 13, 2010 6:14 PM


    A lot of teenage mothers love their children very much, but at the same time they recognize that they've had to make a lot of sacrifices for their child and that it would have been best to wait at least a few more years before having any kids. Thinking, "Wow, I wish I hadn't had to grow up so fast, but I love my baby with all my heart" isn't the same as thinking, "Oooh, yes, ALL GIRLS SHOULD GET PREGNANT" or "I wish to God I'd never conceived this kid."

    Posted by: Marauder at April 13, 2010 7:28 PM


    "How do you reconcile these two statements? It's like you're practically encouraging young girls to get pregnant because a teen pregnancy can be such a great thing and why would you not want that"

    Wow, Anne. I think Gumby would be impressed with your ability to stretch.

    Posted by: Lauren at April 13, 2010 7:43 PM


    "In fact, this could be the basis for a new pro-life movement: the right-to-be-conceived movement. People who refrain from having sex are robbing their potential offspring from the opportunity at life and should be ashamed at their murderous ways."

    We already have that with anti-contraception people. Bring up condoms or the pill to certain pro-lifers, and they'll start ranting about "culture of death" and "killing babies." If you a woman who wants to have sex with your husband but doesn't want to have upwards of 6 kids, you're part of the "culture of death." That's the right-to-be-conceived movement, or as I call it, the "pressuring women to be constantly pregnant so they have no time or interests outside childbearing and raising, not to mention take on health risks and financial burdens they don't want."

    Of course, the people promoting this never actually had to do it themselves. Jill now thinks the pill is "killing babies," but she admitted to using it herself and only has 3 kids. Now that she's over childbearing age, she doesn't mind telling women my age we're baby-killers for not wanting way more kids than she ever raised.

    Posted by: Ashley Herzog at April 13, 2010 8:19 PM


    But she is not 66!

    Posted by: Susie at April 13, 2010 8:24 PM


    Kate is back! :)

    Posted by: Vannah at April 13, 2010 8:54 PM


    Condoms ARE a part of the death culture. Sure, they're good for responsible married couples, but let me tell you a little story.

    I am a very strong advocate of abstinence. Am I a virgin? No. But let met tell you why. I always thought sex was something you did when you wanted a child - married or no, you had to accept THAT consequence - but on a trip out with my boyfriend, I dared him to buy a pack of condoms. It was just for fun, we were going to throw them away as soon as possible.

    Two days later, I was no longer a virgin. And I can trace it down to those innocently bought condoms. He never even bought them with the intention of using them - we had talked about sex, we weren't going to go down that road, we were very, very sure of ourselves - but as soon as we had those condoms, boy, did it hang over us. Suddenly we were playing a whole new ball game. Don't even say we would have taken that route anyway, condoms or no - they implanted the idea that we could sleep together and get away with it. We bought more. In one month we went from holding hands and staying in public to sneaking away for sex.

    Then, like a wake-up slap, one condom broke.
    I took that boy by the ear and made him unwrap, unravel, and burn all the rest of the condoms, and then swear to me he wouldn't buy any more. We've been sex-free and much, much happier since then.

    But fast-forward a couple of months. I'm seeing some symptoms, late almost a week, sore as hell in the chest, too scared to buy a test. I'm 18 years old and going to a Christian college where they throw you out if you have the wrong kind of hair cut - if you have an out-of-wedlock pregnancy, forget it. I have no other college options: all of my scholarships are to this place and I was only accepted to one other community college. If I go there, I could kiss law school goodbye.

    There's one abortion clinic in this state. Will they help me? No. If I am pregnant, they'll just shrug off the broken condom - which embodies their whole broken foundation - and offer to kill my child.

    I have no idea what I'm going to do, but I at least know better than that. Today I figured my life was basically ruined, and it wasn't abstinence that failed me. You aren't abstinent until you have sex. You're abstinent until you buy a condom.

    Posted by: Abel at April 13, 2010 10:23 PM


    Abel:

    Your life is not ruined. God is in control. Trust Him.

    God knew this was going to happen and He is not beside Himself not knowing what to do. Remember that He allowed you to conceive so He has wonderful plans for that child and you.

    Do you believe this? Please don't destroy your baby, please don't. This will be the best decision you have ever made.

    Heavenly Father, bless this child Abel of yours. Hold her in your arms and let her know how much you love and care for her. Send your angels to protect her and that wonderful little child you have given her. Let her know that all will be well and that if she trust and obeys you, this seeming tragedy will work out for the good.

    Protect her from the voices that would urge her to rid herself of the baby. Help her to take courage. Lord, let Her know that you are in control. In Jesus' name, Amen.

    Posted by: Phil Schembri is HisMan at April 13, 2010 10:38 PM


    I'm sorry for you Abel, that your situation has turned out as such. It's unfortunate. I do, however, want to point out that it doesn't seem particularly Christian to turn away a student based on such criteria, though as I am not a Christian, I fully admit I could be wrong. Additionally, many women experience those types of symptoms after having sex for the first time (lateness, sore breasts) without pregnancy; I'd imagine from hormone changes, but I have no clear idea. I'd also suggest, if you don't want an abortion but also don't want to be a parent, looking into deferring your enrollment at college by a semester, perhaps a year if necessary, and looking at adoption. Your life certainly isn't over, and you have options!

    However, just because you've made those choices, and you feel that way about them, doesn't mean that everybody does. Similarly, I was planning on being abstinent as a teen. Did I stick with that? Absolutely not. I've never regretted it. I had a condom break, and would have gotten an abortion if I had been pregnant--and never regretted it. It didn't become necessary, however, and as children are, at best, a distant possibility (though more likely a never and occasionally a heck no), I've gone with more permanent birth control.

    Ultimately, your regret and your situation, unfortunate as it is, should not be the cornerstone for policy setting in the U.S.

    Posted by: Less at April 13, 2010 10:39 PM


    Abel - don't give up! I have a friend that got pregnant before she finished high school. She finished high school and went to college with her baby on her arm.

    She graduated college, and has a wonderful life. She has more children, even before leaving college.

    Her oldest graduated from the same university.

    If you are on a sports scholarship they have to continue the scholarship and not kick you out - new NCAA rules.

    Your child deserves life and you need support and help. You can still finish school - it may be at a different institution, but it can be done, for sure.

    Law school is still in the cards - in fact this daughter of this friend is in her last year of law school here.

    We'll be praying for you! We know that you can do this!

    Posted by: joyfromIllinois at April 13, 2010 10:41 PM


    Abel:

    I am not sorry for you at all. "Children are a gift from the Lord", not a punishment.

    Please only listen to godly counsel.

    Posted by: Phil Schembri is HisMan at April 13, 2010 10:56 PM


    Abel,

    I know you've been posting here for a while and I know you're pro-life. You know the truth, and God is with you. My best friend from college (a conservative Christian university as well) got pregnant while attending there. Her boyfriend was a ministerial student. They ended up getting married and having the baby, and she graduated from college with honors, with her daughter and family there with them. She used to tell me "Our baby isn't a mistake... we just rushed God's timing." 13 years later, they're still happily married with a larger family, actively involved in ministry. They're some of the most wonderful Christian people I've ever known. God is no respecter of persons. He cares for His children. From His perspective, your life is most definitely not ruined. I know those are just words on a message board, but I have seen their truth in action.

    I will be praying for you. Please don't be afraid. The Lord is with you. Let us know if there is any way we can help you. kelli@jillstanek.com

    Posted by: Kelli Author Profile Page at April 13, 2010 10:58 PM


    Abel's story is fake. It reads straight from the anti-choice playbook, about condoms causing a "contraceptive mentality," and right down to the part about condoms being part of Planned Parenthood's "broken foundation."

    But this really tipped me off:

    "I was only accepted to one other community college."

    You don't need to apply and be accepted to community colleges. You only need a high school transcript. Made-up details.

    Also, what college is this? Because expelling pregnant students is basically a thing of the past, even at conservative Christian schools.

    "She graduated college, and has a wonderful life. She has more children, even before leaving college."

    Only 1.5% of teen moms earn a college degree by age 30. If you're going to pressure a teen girl to give birth, at least admit to her that she can kiss her education goodbye, and all the opportunities that come with it.

    Posted by: Ashley Herzog at April 13, 2010 11:08 PM


    I'm afraid Bristol Palin's every move will be highly scrutinized for the rest of her life. I think we all need to give the Palins a break. Maybe the ad was poorly written... She's just a young girl who's trying to help other girls her age make better choices than she did.

    PIP,
    "Pause before you play" means THINK FIRST; look before you leap, because actions have consequences.

    Posted by: Janet at April 13, 2010 11:16 PM


    Ashley, why do you worship at the altar of self.

    An education without a relationship with God is worthless.

    Matthew 7:26
    But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand.


    Job 28:28
    And he said to man, 'The fear of the Lord—that is wisdom, and to shun evil is understanding.' "

    Psalm 111:10
    The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom; all who follow his precepts have good understanding. To him belongs eternal praise.

    Proverbs 1:7
    The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline.

    .Proverbs 9:10
    The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.

    Proverbs 15:33
    The fear of the LORD teaches a man wisdom, and humility comes before honor.

    Isaiah 11:2
    The Spirit of the LORD will rest on him— the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the Spirit of counsel and of power, the Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD -

    Isaiah 33:6
    He will be the sure foundation for your times, a rich store of salvation and wisdom and knowledge; the fear of the LORD is the key to this treasure.

    Micah 6:9
    Listen! The LORD is calling to the city— and to fear your name is wisdom— "Heed the rod and the One who appointed it."

    Posted by: Phil Schembri is HisMan at April 13, 2010 11:22 PM


    I'm not religious, so Bible quotes don't count as an argument with me.

    Posted by: Ashley Herzog at April 13, 2010 11:24 PM


    Only 1.5% of teen moms earn a college degree by age 30. If you're going to pressure a teen girl to give birth, at least admit to her that she can kiss her education goodbye, and all the opportunities that come with it.

    Posted by: Ashley Herzog at April 13, 2010 11:08 PM

    Let's be careful not to pressure women to abort by painting such a doomsday scenario. Why are pro-aborts so grumpy?

    Posted by: Janet at April 13, 2010 11:26 PM


    @ Janet--abortion isn't the only answer in such a scenario. Abel could also avoid teen parenting by placing the child for adoption.

    Posted by: Less at April 13, 2010 11:28 PM


    "Let's be careful not to pressure women to abort by painting such a doomsday scenario. Why are pro-aborts so grumpy?"

    It's not a "scenario." It's fact. Have a baby in your teens, you're not getting educated--unless you're in the miniscule 1.5% who manage to finish college.

    Posted by: Ashley Herzog at April 13, 2010 11:29 PM


    Ashley - just because something is difficult doesn't mean it's impossible.

    yikes - there is just one Oprah, but would you discourage a young woman of color from going into tv work?

    Most college athletes don't go pro in their sport - should they just stop exercising now, since the dream is unlikely?

    I have helped women have their children and have helped them with what they need - and one young lady is in her own place, is working full time and is not on welfare. She has minimal food stamp support, and is studying for her degree.

    She is providing a stable home for her and her son. That is not failure.

    That is the possibility. We are not made to give up - we are made for community - to help each other.

    Just take a look at the poorest of the poor in other countries - if we could truly look at that, we would see how blessed we are and have so much. We could see how to help one another.

    There is hope.

    But we don't see it - because we are more fond of our material possessions than our relationships - more fond of our stuff than of Him.

    People do not know what they are made of until they are stretched - and then they grow.

    My girlfriend is real. Her situation is real, and she went on to finish at a very good university.

    Posted by: joyfromillinois at April 13, 2010 11:34 PM


    @ Janet--abortion isn't the only answer in such a scenario. Abel could also avoid teen parenting by placing the child for adoption.

    Posted by: Less at April 13, 2010 11:28 PM

    You're right. But it's obvious to me that Ashley leans toward abortion, not adoption.

    * * * *
    So Ashley,
    Why are you so grumpy?

    Posted by: Janet at April 13, 2010 11:35 PM


    joyfromillinois,
    Well said.

    Posted by: Janet at April 13, 2010 11:39 PM


    As Ashley and Anne said, facts are facts--it's not a matter of being grumpy. Yes, there are exceptions, but they are just that--exceptions. Not the rule, and not something to base a decision on.

    Posted by: Less at April 13, 2010 11:42 PM


    All the comments of how women, especially teens, can't get educated and live a productive life if they have a child just fly all over me.

    My mom was 16 when she had me and my dad split 6 months later but she went to college and became a nurse.

    My best friend had a baby at 17 and is on her way to being a ultrasound technician.
    Another close friend found out she was pregnant right after she started nursing school. I watched her graduate last December.

    I live in a small town where 70% of the population would be considered poor. Most of the girls that I went to school with that got pregnant before age 20 have gone to college on financial aid. We have many support systems in our area to assist women who's circumstances require extra help to meet their dreams.

    I guess I'm also part of the 98.5% that did not get a degree. I got married right out of high school and went to college on a scholarship. After a 1 1/2 of college, I decided I didn't want a career. I wanted to raise a family. I quit college and 6 months later at the age of 19, I was pregnant with our first boy. So by my own CHOICE, I am one of the girls who was a teenage mom but didn't finish my degree.

    Posted by: Heather M at April 13, 2010 11:49 PM


    oh boy Anne - do you see the glass as half empty!

    The point being is that yes - even the impossible is possible.

    People are a lot more resilient than you realize.

    We have programs here - volunteers - to help women gain skills. They are given respite and encouragement. Friendships and help.

    And programs are springing up across the country.

    I hate to point to Oprah - but today she had women on who are giving back to their communities - helping others go on to college.

    impossible, you say - but to these women who care - these kids are not thow-a-way students - they have worth and can have hope.

    Moms are no different.

    It takes courage and help and energy - but it can be done.

    We don't assume that some one will fail. We don't assume that it's ok to kill to solve social problems - we want people to succeed, and we are willing to help out.

    and the Him was referring to God.

    Maybe if you let Him into your life, you'd be a little more positive! ;)

    and, for your info - women pay the price for the STD's especially since they trust their men. If only you could hear the comments of some of the men after they take their women in for their abortions: " I didn't like her anyway... "

    And in poorer countries - we need to do better with help - but we can not change hearts of those who want to hurt others or take advantage.

    And we certainly can not help others have a positive attitude if we are bitter, downcast or upset.

    I see the glass as half full.

    Posted by: joyfromillinois at April 14, 2010 12:01 AM


    Also, when I was at college, there were lots of moms of all ages that had multiple kids that were getting degrees.

    There were young girls who were pregnant. They would miss a couple classes when they had their babies and then they would be back with pictures a few days later. I always marveled at their strength and resolve.

    Maybe all you have is your statistics, but they fall flat for me considering what I have seen and the people I have met. I believe women are stronger than you make them out to be. I think it is ironic to hear pro-aborts say 'trust women', but you don't have any faith in them at all.

    Maybe it is just cause I am from the south and we are a little more 'open-minded' when it comes to what a women is capable of.

    Posted by: Heather M at April 14, 2010 12:02 AM


    I'm going to bed! goodnight!

    Posted by: joyfromillinois at April 14, 2010 12:07 AM


    Ashley:

    You fail to understand the power of God's word. Nor does proclaiming oneself ungodly make oneself immune from its power.

    Isaiah 55:10-11 (New International Version)
    10 As the rain and the snow
    come down from heaven,
    and do not return to it
    without watering the earth
    and making it bud and flourish,
    so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater,

    11 so is my word that goes out from my mouth:
    It will not return to me empty,
    but will accomplish what I desire
    and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.

    Hebrews 4:12-13 (New American Standard Bible)
    12For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

    13And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do.

    Posted by: Phil Schembri is HisMan at April 14, 2010 1:12 AM


    There's obviously 2 ways to look at this.

    A. Poor pregnant girls don't go to college so they might as well just get abortions

    B. Poor pregnant girls can find education and children to be difficult (but not impossible) so we should work to find a way to accommodate them.

    Which one is more healthy? I think there is an obvious answer.

    Posted by: prettyinpink at April 14, 2010 1:22 AM


    Isn't that what crisis pregnancy centers are for? To help people in Abel's situation? They provide shelter, food, clothing, baby items, education and educational resources, job training, counseling, medical, baby sitting, etc. to those who are pregnant and those mothers whose babies have been born but have nowhere else to turn to.

    If worst comes to worst, that's one of the things that the Church is for - a community to help each other out in difficult moments, and to welcome in everyone who needs that community. We are called to charity - to love one another and help out those who need it.

    Posted by: Amy at April 14, 2010 2:30 AM


    Wow, what a string? Abel see how many people are willing to reach out and help you? Don't be so sure your church and college won't help you? Whoever said you were pointed here is no accident is right. We are all willing to help you and I know your parents would as well. Don't hesitate not to contact us offline if you do not believe it. Jill has my email address since I am a contributor and I will help you. We all would. We are on your side and praying for you.

    Posted by: Susie at April 14, 2010 7:00 AM


    Abel, Anne is a bitter, angry person who thinks having a high-paying career is more important than human life. She said elsewhere that she doesn't know anyone who had a baby as a teenager and went on to finish college. That says way more about her than it does about teenage mothers. We all hope that one day she'll let go of her anger and allow herself to be a happy person, but we have yet to see any signs of it.

    I'm not sure I believe that only 1.5% of teenage mothers have a college degree by the age of thirty, but even if that's true, you know what? There's a heck of a lot of life after age thirty. Your life will not be "ruined" or "meaningless" if you don't get a college degree until you're thirty-four or thirty-nine or forty-eight. Also, you have the possibility of having your baby placed for adoption. That's something Anne doesn't want you to think about - she presented another pregnant girl's options as either having an abortion or living in a trailer for the rest of her life. Yes, clearly Anne is a true believer in the power of women to overcome difficulties. *rolls eyes*

    Ashley, Jill isn't a hypocrite because she changed her mind on something. She's not saying "It was okay when I did it, but not when YOU do it" - she found out more information and came to a different conclusion. By your logic, everyone has to have the same opinions for the rest of their lives or else be a hypocrite.

    Posted by: Marauder at April 14, 2010 7:26 AM


    Dear Abel,
    Please contact me or any of the other moderators here if you need help with anything. I will find a pregnancy center near you to help with support, maternity clothes......whatever you need!!!
    carla@jillstanek.com

    Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at April 14, 2010 7:43 AM


    Abel,

    We will do anything we can to help you too. I am currently living in the Upper Valley area of New Hampshire, and in July/August we will be moving to the greater Philadelphia area. If this is around where you are, please contact me and let me know how we can help. I am a mod and my email is on the sidebar. You and your baby will be in my prayers. God love you.

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at April 14, 2010 7:55 AM


    Has Abby Johnson ever publicly repented?

    Posted by: Cranky Catholic at April 14, 2010 8:57 AM


    Anne,
    You are banned. You will not promote abortion to a vulnerable young woman.

    FYI
    Ashley,
    You are walking a very fine line as well. This is a prolife blog! We offer help and support to others NOT abortion.

    Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at April 14, 2010 9:00 AM


    Abel,
    Your life isn't "ruined". Have faith - lean on the strength of the Lord and He will help you. You CAN still achieve the life you want. I know it will be hard, but you can do this.

    Many times as a military spouse, when I'd be in difficult circumstances I'd think "there's NO WAY that I can do this, it's too hard" - and later I'd find that it is amazing what one person can do when they HAVE to. If you feel that adoption is better for you and your child, I'd encourage you to look into that. There is something called "open adoption" where you would be able to have contact with your child and his/her adoptive parents... you needn't worry about having a child "somewhere out there" without knowing anything about his/her welfare.

    If you live anywhere near Ft. Bragg/Pope AFB in North Carolina, I can help out with babysitting or maybe even clothes and things (all my baby clothes are for a boy, but if you have a girl I'll keep my eye peeled for clothes for you). I also know of at least two Crisis Pregnancy Centers in Fayetteville, and I believe there is also a maternity home in the Raleigh area if you'd be interested in any of those.

    I know it's easy to be discouraged and afraid when you find yourself in adverse circumstances. My advice is to surround yourself with positive, supportive people - not people who offer dark, "glass-half-empty", no-choice-but-abortion advice. You do have other options and you can still have the education and career that you want if you still want it.

    You can email me at army.wife2002@yahoo.com if you want to talk or if you need help with resources in this area. I also used to live in Kansas and know a little bit about some of the resources there (particularly the Salina, Manhattan, Clay Center, and Junction City/Fort Riley areas) if you are in that state. There is a great CPC in Salina, KS and there are other CPCs in other areas as well, of course. I have connections in the OKC, Oklahoma area, Northern VA., and the panhandle of West Va. if you need help in any of those areas.

    And I have no judgement on you. We all make mistakes, and even though you might regret the circumstances of your child's conception, it doesn't mean you can't or don't love your child. Children are a blessing, even if you "rush God's timetable" as someone else here phrased it. I was not abstinent when I was a teenager (I wasn't a Christian then, and I learned why abstinence is cool in some very difficult ways myself). Don't beat yourself up over any mistakes or poor choices - you can choose to learn from them and make better choices in the future.

    God love ya, kiddo. :-) Feel free to email me if you like.

    Posted by: army_wife at April 14, 2010 9:07 AM


    The more I think about this hopeless 1.5% statistic, the more examples keep rolling through my mind of why it is flawed.

    I already mentioned that I fall in this statistic by choice. I have a cousin who had a baby at 18, but she dropped out of high school at 16. She has a lot of mental health issues. Her baby has nothing to do with the reasons she is not getting a college degree.

    In fact, her baby is was the catalyst that turned her life around. She has been in and out of mental health hospitals, suicidal, hospitalized for alcohol poisoning, etc. She has bounced from guy to guy for a place to live, slept on the streets, in her car...
    When she found out she was pregnant, a christian couple gave her a place to stay until the baby was born and for months after until she was able to get into a housing shelter. She sends me pics of the baby now, she has had a job consistently for the 1st time in her life, the shelter she is in saves a portion of each check for her to put a deposit on a apartment. She is getting on her feet all because one little baby rescued her from her selfish, self-destructive life-style.

    I realize I've posted a lot about this, but considering I am the child of a teen mom, it is very personal to me. While she was still alive, she was a fantastic nurse who recieved every job she applied for. Success is available to every one who wants it. Sometimes tough circumstances make the success all that much sweeter.

    Posted by: Heather M at April 14, 2010 9:17 AM


    Abel, I live in the Nashville TN area. Maybe I am close to you?? what about the boyfriend??

    Posted by: Susie at April 14, 2010 9:40 AM


    Abel, your life is not ruined.

    Even if you do leave your college, a community college will not doom you to missing out on lawschool.

    If you go to commuinty college for two years you can easily transfer to a 4 year college for the remaining two and go to law school after that. If you do really well, you can get scholarships. Many state schools have programs specifically for students who come from the community college in the area. I know UT works with ACC all the time here in Austin.

    Law schools don't really care where you went to school. They care about your GPA and your LSAT. Don't give up on yourself!

    I also got pregnant my freshman year of college. I had to leave the college I had chosen because I had a lot of complications and it was out of state. I took some classes at the local university, some at community college, and am now back at a traditional university. Yes, it has taken a bit longer, but in the grand scheme of things it doesn't really matter if I had graduated at 20 as has been the original plan, or 23 which is where I am now. I also have two wonderful children and a third on the way. My husband and I did get married right after we learned I was pregnant instead of waiting until that summer which was our original plan. It all turned out fine.

    It isn't what you planned for, but that doesn't mean that it's a bad thing. The best thing to do now is to take responsibility for your actions and make the conscience decision to build your family together with your boyfriend. You both have a much better shot at accomplishing your goals if you do it together. It's really going to be ok. *hugs*

    Posted by: Lauren at April 14, 2010 9:40 AM


    Less says "Yes, there are exceptions, but they are just that--exceptions. Not the rule, and not something to base a decision on."

    You are failing to take into account the fact that we are talking to a real live person, not a statistic. She is not helplessly tied to the decisions of others. She can take the steps necessary to finish school and do whatever she wants. Hearing the successful stories of others helps to give motivation when you're feeling discouraged. Faceless statistics do nothing but reconfirm doubts.

    It's amazing to me how so-called feminists can think so little of pregnant women. We aren't helpless little flowers who are incapable of moving through our lives once a child is conceived! The way you act one would think that a pregnant woman became completely paralyzed for 9 months and then was unable to leave the house for the first 5 years of her child's life. That's certainly not the case. Women are a bit stronger than to be completely thrown off the rails by a universal human event.

    Posted by: Lauren at April 14, 2010 9:48 AM


    So Anne has been sent to the ban-cipal's office. Now we can all have a break from ridiculous accusations of everything from anti-Semitism to being "unconstitutional."

    I just spent about an hour helping people hammer white crosses into the ground to represent babies who died through abortion - Carla, I thought of you and Aubrey, and Anna and Abel, I thought of you and your babies too and prayed that neither of them will be aborted. Oh, Abel: I offered to make Anna (our other "resident" pregnant girl) a baby blanket, regardless of whether she raises the baby or has him/her placed for adoption, and I'm offering the same to you (if it does turn out for sure that you're pregnant).

    Anne, if you're still reading this: We really do hope that you'll find some happiness in your life. You're frustrating and engage in ad hominem attacks to avoid the issues, but we don't hate you. No matter how "fine" you claim your life is, going to pro-life websites and telling pregnant girls to have abortions is not a sign of a healthy, happy person.

    Posted by: Marauder at April 14, 2010 9:49 AM


    In fact Abel, as far as community colleges go, I got an associate's degree at a Community College my first two years out of high school, transferred to a University for a Bachelor's, and I am now about to graduate with a PhD from an Ivy League school. I love community colleges. They are wonderful and you can go anywhere after them if you work hard. I'm living proof of that.

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at April 14, 2010 9:57 AM


    Abel,

    I teach LSAT test prep. Your LSAT is four times as important than your GPA for admissions purposes. Your choice of college has little to do with your admissions. If anything, having a story about finishing college through adversity will HELP your admissions process. But, the bottom line is, smoke your LSAT, get a decent GPA from any school in the nation, and you will go to a good to great law school.

    Posted by: Oliver at April 14, 2010 10:13 AM


    Of course teen pregnancy is a terrible thing and should be avoided. We already know that the children of teen mothers are disadvantaged from the start, given the statistics on poverty, crime, etc. And the mothers have little chance of getting a college education and thus a decent job. Teen pregnancy IS BAD, and we need to send that message. If you think Bristol Palin should be instead talking about how wonderful it is to have a baby out of wedlock at 18, you're basically advocating for higher teen pregnancy rates.

    Posted by: Ashley Herzog at April 13, 2010 4:10 PM


    No teen pregnancy is not bad.

    Unmarried motherhood is bad.

    Nearly every one of my mother's six sisters were teen moms. They were also married before they got pregnant.

    It is the marital status that is the problem not the age.


    Posted by: hippie at April 14, 2010 10:17 AM


    Marauder,
    You made me smile. Thank you!

    I would love to see pictures of the Cemetery of the Innocents that you helped put up.

    God bless.

    Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at April 14, 2010 10:18 AM


    Yeah, I'm with Bobby on community colleges - you can always go to one, get good grades there, and then get a bachelor's degree at a four-year college. My boyfriend went to a state university for a while and ran into a lot of academic problems because he couldn't figure out what he wanted to major in and got really depressed about it. He dropped out, registered at a community college for the next semester, graduated from there with a 4.0 GPA, and now he's finishing his bachelor's degree (computer science) at another university. I'm not sure what his overall GPA is now, but he got another 4.0 for last semester.

    There are some people who purposely go to a community college to fulfill their general ed requirements because it's cheaper there. I went to a Seven Sisters school and there was a girl there who transferred in from the nearby community college. Going to a community college doesn't mean that you can't pursue further education.

    Speaking of law school, I'm a second-year law student. There are two pregnant (one HUGELY pregant) women in my class, and I just finished working on a project with a (married) woman who has a three-year-old and a six-month-old. She's tired a lot and she doesn't have much time to socialize, but she's graduating in another couple of weeks. We also had a presentation in one class a few weeks ago by two graduates of the law school, one of whom mentioned that she went to law school while raising four children who were between the ages of three and fourteen when she started. It is definitely, definitely possible to get a good education while raising a child. It's a lot of work, but it's possible.

    If you think it would be better for both you and your baby if s/he was raised by someone else, you can always place the baby for adoption and have an open adoption if you want, where the adoptive parents send you updates and pictures of the baby and may let you visit. (Different people arrange different degrees of open adoption.) Don't let anyone make you feel like having this baby means throwing away your future.

    Posted by: Marauder at April 14, 2010 10:22 AM


    I am now about to graduate with a PhD from an Ivy League school. I love community colleges. They are wonderful and you can go anywhere after them if you work hard. I'm living proof of that.

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino at April 14, 2010 9:57 AM

    Congratulations. I know you are a math person. What is your particular focus?

    Posted by: hippie at April 14, 2010 10:23 AM


    Hey Hippie. I work in topology. Don't know if you know too much about it, but it's like geometry except that there is a higher level of abstraction going on. Specifically, I work in algebraic topology and more specifically homotopy theory. You can wiki any one of those if you want more details or just ask :) God love you.

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at April 14, 2010 10:30 AM


    Carla - I haven't got a camera, but I know someone else took pictures, so I'll e-mail the group and find out if whoever that was can send them to me. :)

    I'm with Hippie, I don't think teenage pregnancy is bad, exactly, though unmarried teenage pregnancy is difficult. I wouldn't encourage any teenager to get pregnant, but I wouldn't look upon it as a tragedy. To me it's more like, "Okay, get ready to grow up fast and make some sacrifices." (Like spending your college years having parties all night or being able to spend extra money on fun stuff - not like your baby!)

    Posted by: Marauder at April 14, 2010 10:33 AM


    Marauder,
    I just got an email with a video. Since you live near me I am assuming that was the display!! :)

    Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at April 14, 2010 10:40 AM


    Bobby, I have only heard of it in passing. I read a couple of physics blogs fairly regularly but they are aimed at the educated/overly curious lay reader, so they don't spend a ton of time on all the infinite details of everything.

    As for all the people who are hyped on college, I think they need to step back and ask themselves if they are talking about education, that is actually learning to do something that really benefits society, or just the cult of credentialism that they hope will get them a good paying job where they don't have to be overly productive yet can collect a decent salary. Are they really just looking to join the value transference class? If so, I would argue that motherhood is a more of a value creating endeavor than many of the white collar jobs that women seek to be "educated" enough to hold. There is plenty of money in industrial arts vocations like electrician and plumber, but you won't see women clamoring for those jobs.

    Posted by: hippie at April 14, 2010 10:57 AM


    "Ashley,
    You are walking a very fine line as well. This is a prolife blog! We offer help and support to others NOT abortion."

    I was more addressing the 1.5% of teen mothers getting a college education. There's a difference between discouraging teen pregnancy and promoting abortion. Teen pregnancy is bad. Not only is it bad for the mothers, it's bad for the children, who overwhelmingly grow up in poverty and have a whole bunch of other disadvantages from the start.

    Posted by: Ashley Herzog at April 14, 2010 10:59 AM


    Okay we all agree killing the baby by abortion is never the best approach,except for that one girl who lurks to say such things.....but we are missing the obvious ....choosing adoption. She can choose open adoption, semi open adoption or confidential adoption. Growing up in a two parent married home is in the best interest of the child. Hard...yes...courageous and selfless...yes. Putting the interest of the child first is not always easy.

    Posted by: Susie at April 14, 2010 11:05 AM


    Bobby,

    Congratulations on your graduation! God bless!
    I love community colleges too!

    Posted by: Janet at April 14, 2010 11:06 AM


    Ashley,
    It is a little too late to discourage teen pregnancy when talking to someone who just learned she is pregnant.

    Let's deal with it. Abel is pregnant and needs help, not your dismal percentages and predictions.

    Here is another story....

    My sister in law was 19 and pregnant and worked her way through nursing school and beyond. She is an amazing nurse and mother of her now 15 year old son. I tried to convince her to abort my nephew, thank you Lord that she didn't listen to me!

    Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at April 14, 2010 11:12 AM


    Abel, count me as another who did my first two years (actually longer, because I did it part time while caring for my mother) at community college - then transferred to a "real" university. I, too, gave up a full scholarship to a good school in my freshman year - due to my own health struggles and then those of my mother. It felt like the end of the world. I KNOW. I know the feeling. Trust me. It felt as though I had lost everything I'd ever worked for. I grew very depressed and for a while I fell into hopeless despair at the idea of what I had been forced to give up.

    But I loved my community college! As an English major, I enjoyed very small class sizes and intimate discussions with my professors on literary theory and criticism - something I actually missed when I transferred to a larger school and had to seek my professors out in office hours for that kind of attention.

    I have not yet gone into my planned field - library sciences - but I am quite successful in the field I kind of fell into (technical theater). Most people are shocked to learn that I went to community college, and I find that attitude offensive and entitled. I look back on those courses, and the things I learned in them, very fondly.

    Please take care.

    Posted by: Alexandra at April 14, 2010 11:15 AM


    Hippie,
    I thought of you when I read this.

    http://lifenews.com/state4991.html

    I think it was you on a different thread talking about post abortive women suing the abortionist.

    Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at April 14, 2010 11:16 AM


    Alexandra!!!!

    How are you?? Enjoying spring in the city? :)

    Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at April 14, 2010 11:20 AM



    I was more addressing the 1.5% of teen mothers getting a college education. There's a difference between discouraging teen pregnancy and promoting abortion. Teen pregnancy is bad. Not only is it bad for the mothers, it's bad for the children, who overwhelmingly grow up in poverty and have a whole bunch of other disadvantages from the start.

    Posted by: Ashley Herzog at April 14, 2010 10:59 AM

    I think you have the arrow of causality pointing the wrong way. Now that college education is so heavily promoted to women (regardless of ability), smart women choose college before marriage and family because of its prestige and credentials. So, the 1.5% of teen moms who get a college education seems to reflect the fact that fewer smart women are getting pregnant as teens because teens with that level of intelligence generally also have enough self control to abstain or use contraception effectively.

    I have plenty of friends who went to college and got degrees in engineering, medicine, law, etc, worked for a while and quit to be home with their children once they finally stopped trying to please everyone else by conforming to society's new found ideal that women should put their careers ahead of their families. They developed the confidence to admit they never wanted those careers in the first place. Had they got married as teens and had families first, they would no more have become "losers" than their intelligent but less formally educated mothers, grandmothers, great grandmothers had been.

    The high correlation between conscientiousness and intelligence means that there will be few smart teens getting pregnant and by extension few teen moms getting degrees. However the few smart teens who do get pregnant and have their babies will still be able to get degrees if they want them.

    Posted by: hippie at April 14, 2010 11:20 AM


    I am, Carla! Enjoying spring outside the city? ;)

    Drowning in work. But it will quiet down in a month or so. And then get crazy again. So it goes...

    Posted by: Alexandra at April 14, 2010 11:27 AM


    FYI, the Guttmacher Institute also says that 2/3 of teen pregnancies are 18-19 year olds. So many are already in college or married.

    Posted by: Heather M at April 14, 2010 11:32 AM


    "I have plenty of friends who went to college and got degrees in engineering, medicine, law, etc, worked for a while and quit to be home with their children once they finally stopped trying to please everyone else by conforming to society's new found ideal that women should put their careers ahead of their families. They developed the confidence to admit they never wanted those careers in the first place."

    I like being in law school, but I'm not sure if I'll actually like practicing law. I made it very clear to my boyfriend that after we get married, I'm quitting work once we have kids. Pretty much all I want to do with my life is get married, have kids, and write books. Law school does give me a lot of book ideas...

    A lot of women really do like being home with their kids. My mom didn't have me (her only child) until she was thirty-six, and she was glad to quit work (she was an elementary school teacher) and stay home with me. I think I'm closer to my mom than anyone else I know is to their moms. I would MUCH rather live in a tiny house and carefully budget for all new clothes and stay home with my kids than I would live in a huge house and have three cars and loads of stuff and only see my kids for a few hours every weekday.

    It's not that I don't think women shouldn't be able to work if they want to, but I think the expectation that all married women will have jobs causes a lot of problems. It used to be that men didn't get married until they were financially stable enough to support a wife. Now you get these situations where people get married and have kids and the woman wants to stay home with them, but either the family truly needs her income or her husband thinks the family needs her income and she's stuck in a job she now resents. Then women are supposed to be happy about it because having a job is supposed to be more "liberating" than raising children.

    Plus, a lot of women aren't working in satisfying careers. A lot of women have jobs they were never thrilled about in the first place and would LOVE to quit.

    Posted by: Marauder at April 14, 2010 11:37 AM


    For Abel, from Jeremiah 29:11 "For I know the plans I have for you," declares the LORD, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future."

    I heard the story once of a Pastor who'd traveled to India, and on his trip got to see some rug weavers at work. He described how they'd sit around the room, each working on their section of the whole, and there was one Master Weaver in charge of the overseeing the process. If one made a mistake, he'd bring it to the Master's attention right away, and he would incorporate it into the overall pattern. The result was still a beautiful tapestry.

    This blessed me so, because it seemed like I'd screwed my life up too much or too many times, but we take it all to the Master and He is 1st: not surprised by any of it, and 2nd: more than capable of pouring out His abundant blessing and grace into difficult circumstances. If it turns out you are pregnant, rest assured that He knows every detail of your little one's life; He knows our days before there was one of them. If you are faced with any judgmental attitudes or condemnation, draw even closer to God and trust that if you acknowledge Him in all your ways (including after-the-fact ones that went awry), He will direct your paths. I'll be praying for you and also extend an offer of any help you might need. Mod Carla's got my contact info.

    Posted by: klynn73 at April 14, 2010 12:08 PM


    Marauder, I feel like saying things like the above (assuming someone doesn't post a comment before me) demeans those of us who do want jobs, who would hate staying home, and who think of kids as options, not necessities. It also doesn't take into account fathers who would love to stay home with their children, who don't really want to work, etc. I'd say a larger percentage of women ARE happy about having jobs and incomes, and don't want to stay home, than women who want to stay home. Of course, I don't have statistics for that--but neither do you.

    Sure, community college is an option for Abel--but she never indicates she wants that, or has wanted that. Deferment and adoption seems like a much better option to me, assuming she wants to continue the pregnancy, which she indicated she did. I would never, never recommend her visit a CPC, however--http://cpcwatch.org/Women%27s-Stories.php has some HORRIBLE stories of what they do to women. I'd suggest talking with a church, if you're affiliated with one (I assume you are), about local adoption organizations, or research them yourself. That being said, she also hasn't come back here, so I am more and more inclined to think perhaps she won't. Is it necessary to continue to discuss her situation, then?

    Personally, I think teen marriage is a problem all its own--as someone who nearly fell into that trap, I can't say enough how strongly I discourage teens from getting married.

    Posted by: Less at April 14, 2010 12:10 PM


    It doesn't demean anyone, Less, because it's not about you. "A lot of women" does not mean "all women." If you're happy working, fine. Just don't sweep away the problems of women who would much rather quit their jobs and stay home because that's not what YOU would do.

    "Sure, community college is an option for Abel--but she never indicates she wants that, or has wanted that."

    Yes she did - she applied to one and got in.

    I'm sure other people will have lots to say about crisis pregnancy centers.

    "That being said, she also hasn't come back here, so I am more and more inclined to think perhaps she won't. Is it necessary to continue to discuss her situation, then?"

    Um, she was last here yesterday. It's not like six months have gone by. Maybe she's been busy or has limited computer access.

    Posted by: Marauder at April 14, 2010 12:16 PM


    Marauder, your constant use of "a lot" in your post implies that just that--that you feel many women feel as you do. I disagree. I think the implication that women who don't feel as you do are in the minority brushes those women aside.

    Don't sweep away the substantial number of women who are content with their jobs because it's not what YOU would do.

    Abel seems to have applied to the community college as a back up, like I applied to a state university. It's not something you have to do, but the inevitable acceptance gives you confidence. Perhaps she does have limited access, but it seems like she'd have responded by now. Perhaps I'm wrong, maybe she's at work. I'm hoping, however, that she took a test, it came out negative, and she no longer has to worry about this mess.

    Posted by: Less at April 14, 2010 12:30 PM


    I would never, never recommend her visit a CPC, however--http://cpcwatch.org/Women%27s-Stories.php has some HORRIBLE stories of what they do to women.
    ********************

    I used to operate a CPC, and the tactics discussed on that site (which is clearly pro-abortion and even links to RH Reality Check) were never used by our group of centers. There's also no way to even verify those stories, frankly. Just because they're posted online doesn't make them true.

    In my years at the CPC, we had women who actually chose abortion and later referred their friends to us because they felt we gave them reliable and trustworthy information beforehand.

    Have you ever been to a CPC or had a friend who went to one?

    Posted by: Kelli Author Profile Page at April 14, 2010 12:35 PM


    I've been to one, yes. And yes, they gave me factually incorrect information.

    Frankly, if there were Pregnancy Centers that gave secular, factually correct information on ways to finance unexpected pregnancy, or local adoption agencies, that sort of thing, I'd be 110% supportive. Planned Parenthood, as an organization, doesn't do that sort of thing, and though every local PP I've been to has been able to recommend local options, that may be different in larger cities.

    Posted by: Less at April 14, 2010 12:43 PM


    Less,
    I am on the board of our local CPC. Had our board meeting last night. We have helped so many young women and their children and continue to help and support them long after they have had their babies. Their testimonies are amazing.

    I suggest you visit your local CPC immediately and see for yourself.

    Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at April 14, 2010 12:44 PM


    Less, exactly what factually incorrect information did they give you?

    Posted by: Lauren at April 14, 2010 12:53 PM


    Carla, read my above post. That's exactly what I did--they gave me biased, factually-incorrect information, and while they were very nice, it isn't anywhere I'd recommend someone go who: a) wasn't religious, b) wasn't already planning on keeping the pregnancy, c) was at all concerned about the truth of their information.

    Posted by: Less at April 14, 2010 12:54 PM


    Yes. I posted right after you did. My bad. :)

    See Lauren's question.

    Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at April 14, 2010 12:58 PM


    Less said " gave me biased, factually-incorrect information."

    Again, what was factually incorrect about the information they gave you?

    Posted by: Lauren at April 14, 2010 12:59 PM


    They gave me older studies with regards to fetal pain and teenage sexual behavior (specifically with regards to depression after sex and living together), justified their work with Biblical quotes, and implied that they wouldn't mind engaging in shady tactics to keep someone from having an abortion.

    Of course, I'm sure I didn't get the full treatment. I feel no need to hide the fact that I'm living with my partner and am anything but a Christian, which probably impacted how they viewed me. And as I said, they were both very, very nice people, and I do feel as though the conversation was valuable. I just wouldn't advise anyone to go there, as I indicated above.

    Posted by: Less at April 14, 2010 1:09 PM


    Less said "They gave me older studies with regards to fetal pain and teenage sexual behavior"

    That's not factually inaccurate. They presented you with studies from legitimate sources.

    "justified their work with Biblical quotes,"

    Again, not factually inaccurate. They were biblically based, but that does nothing to change medical facts.

    "and implied that they wouldn't mind engaging in shady tactics to keep someone from having an abortion. "

    How so?

    Posted by: Lauren at April 14, 2010 1:14 PM


    I'd say Most (ALL) CPCs give real FACTUAL information about fetal development (based on SCEINCE). Some may be run by Christians, but I think they usually use science and not the bible. The ultrasound is technology and not biblical. And they don't turn the screen away from the women like Planned Parenthood is known to do.

    It was the PP in Wisconsin that gave false information to the young woman, lying about her baby not having a heart or a head or a brain or arms or legs! And this was at 6 weeks along! The heart begins to beat at 21 days and brain waves are detectable at around 40 days.

    Posted by: LizFromNebraska at April 14, 2010 1:18 PM


    Less: Reading comprehension. "A lot" =/= most.

    Posted by: Marauder at April 14, 2010 1:19 PM


    Perhaps I should have been more clear--older studies that have since been found to be wrong. They also implied causation where none have been proven, and did use the Bible instead of science. I didn't check their fetal development facts, as I don't particularly care to. As I specifically indicated I was not a Christian, using Biblical quotes to justify ANYTHING seems unnecessary. Sure, I've read the Bible (multiple times) but I don't care about it, don't care about your justifications if you can't give scientific backing.

    Similar to other CPC stories I've read about, this CPC indicated they would contact parents/partners, send birth cards if the person went to get an abortion, etc.

    Posted by: Less at April 14, 2010 1:25 PM


    Marauder:

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/a+lot

    Tell me 'most' isn't implied. I would agree that SOME women don't want to work, and they have every right not to! But I wouldn't say a lot, or most, or a majority.

    Posted by: Less at April 14, 2010 1:30 PM


    Abel, your life is NOT ruined. Please contact Carla or anyone else who has offered you genuine help. You CAN do this! Your child (if you are indeed pregnant) is a blessing.

    And the college does not have the right to discriminate if you are pregnant. If they do so, they can't call themselves "christian".

    Posted by: LizFromNebraska at April 14, 2010 1:34 PM


    Personally, I think teen marriage is a problem all its own--as someone who nearly fell into that trap, I can't say enough how strongly I discourage teens from getting married.

    Posted by: Less at April 14, 2010 12:10 PM


    I think it is a matter of social context. Back when there was extreme disapproval of female sexual promiscuity, the most desirable young men and women still married each other just like they do now. They also had successful marriages because they had the right temperament. If you just look at the numbers, later marriage has not resulted in better outcomes for men, women or children.

    Child poverty is higher, sexual health is worse due to more partners and delayed childbirth, and more marriages fail.

    So there is no real evidence to support the excessive pressure on women to delay marriage.

    Posted by: hippie at April 14, 2010 1:38 PM


    hippie, I'd like some evidence that when social context encouraged teen marriage that marriage in general was more successful, poverty was lower, sexual health is worse, divorce is higher. I've not seen evidence for ANY of these things.

    I was engaged when I was a teen, and going through with it and getting married would have been, without a doubt, the biggest mistake of my life. I see absolutely no benefit to marriage while still a teen.

    Posted by: Less at April 14, 2010 1:45 PM


    It's not implied, for two reasons. One, "very many; a large number" is still capable of being a minority. Two, I don't imply. If I mean something, I say it right out.

    Do you really think that mothers who are fast-food workers, nursing home assistants, janitors, housekeepers, factory workers, and any other number of low-paying jobs wouldn't rather not work if they could? It's like I said, women with jobs don't always have satisfying careers. A lot of working women with children at home would much rather not work. Women who put a lot of time into training and studying for their jobs probably aren't stuck working when they don't want to be. They went to med school or law school or got a master's in business because they wanted to work. If they're married with kids, their husband probably has a job that could conceivably support the entire family - they're working because they want to be. I don't think too many supermarket cashiers or receptionists with children at home are working because they really love being supermarket cashiers or receptionists.

    Posted by: Marauder at April 14, 2010 1:51 PM


    They might not love their specific job, but perhaps they like getting out of the house and taking a break from their children. If they'd rather work at home, I think it's unfortunate they can't. I don't understand why they'd want to, but if they well and truly want to, it's unfortunate they can't.

    I think where we're at cross purposes is that I don't think there's a large number of women like that. Some, sure, but I don't think it's "a lot."

    Posted by: Less at April 14, 2010 1:58 PM


    Liz, I am sorry to inform you that the college as a private college can choose not to accept you if you are pregnant and unmarried. I know of a young lady who was raped on a mission trip and reported it but became pregnant and the college asked her to leave. She was going to fight it legally but decided not to. She gave birth to a girl and going on with her life. She will continue her education at a public instituion.

    Posted by: Susie at April 14, 2010 2:23 PM


    I think where we're at cross purposes is that I don't think there's a large number of women like that. Some, sure, but I don't think it's "a lot."
    Posted by: Less at April 14, 2010 1:58 PM

    Then you don't spend much time on birth boards.

    Amazingly, there actually are women who view their time with their children as more precious than time outside the home... women who recognize that the time that they will be raising children is just a small part of their lives (well, for most... by the time all is said and done I personally will have spent 35 years raising children assuming that I don't have any more... and I certainly hope I do!)

    While I am grateful for a good job that allows me to be close to my children and raise them well, I would prefer to not have to work.

    And, generally speaking, a lot does NOT equal most. Saying "most", "the majority", things like that, equal most. A lot, just means a significant number.

    I guarantee you after 17 years on birth and family boards... a significant number of those women either are SAHMs or wish they could be. Then there are those who love their jobs or who wish they had one.

    BTW, did you ever finish the research you promised you would do?

    Posted by: Elisabeth at April 14, 2010 3:51 PM



    I was engaged when I was a teen, and going through with it and getting married would have been, without a doubt, the biggest mistake of my life. I see absolutely no benefit to marriage while still a teen.

    Posted by: Less at April 14, 2010 1:45 PM

    Your experience, while valid, is not a trend. My point is simply that people with the temperament for successful marriage were just as happy when they got married younger. This is similar to another point I made earlier about the arrow of causality. While getting married younger doesn't cause a person to be more likely to have a successful marriage, it also doesn't keep them from being successful. Certainly you know that divorce rates are higher now than they were a hundred years ago, and age at first marriage is higher now than it was a hundred years ago. Therefore we know that delaying marriage is not correlated with successful marriage. I think we also know that the reasons people didn't get divorced as often back then is not as simple as saying that it is because women were younger and more likely to marry as virgins. We can't just say they were happier and therefore divorced less often. However, now that people are not pressured to marry or stay married, they have very high rates of marriage failure.

    As for sexual health, one in four teen girls has an STI, far higher than, well, ever. Breast cancer is also higher due to delaying/reducing childbirth. So sexual health is not improved.

    Child poverty is high because so many children are born to unmarried women. Only 4% of children whose parents are married are living in poverty. Whereas about 17% of all children are in poverty.

    The trend is delaying marriage correlates to worse outcomes. The cause is something else.

    My complaint is that women with the ability to go to college do not feel they have to option to choose marriage and family instead. They feel they must go and get a degree first whether they really want it or not. The social pressure is so intense that almost no smart women feel they can choose to say no.

    As for men delaying marriage, I have seen otherwise supportive parents threaten to stop paying for college if their sons chose to marry. The parents insisted they finish college first, which I think is perverse and inappropriately coercive. These same families didn't seem to care that their unmarried sons went on vacations alone with their girlfriends. Basically, the parents of these young people had no problem with them having sex as long as they didn't commit to marriage before they finished their degrees. I don't see that as in the best interests of the young people involved. If they are willing to pay for their kids' college while they have sex unmarried, why are they so against paying for their college if they have sex while they are married. Mind you these parents were churchgoers.

    Posted by: hippie at April 14, 2010 3:54 PM


    Elisabeth, I did, but there weren't any relevant posts at the time I'd finished it (had a houseguest for a week). If you'd like, I can post it here, it just seems so off topic that I hesitate to do so. If there's a way to link back to our initial conversation, that might be best, but I'm honestly not sure how to do so.

    Personally, I think the type of woman who visit mommyblogs and mommyforums are the type of women who put their children before careers. I think blogs/forums on that topic are probably very useful for sharing information/maintaining a social infrastructure, but I have no interest in them, and most of the mothers I know have no interest in them. Again, women should certainly be able to stay at home with their kids--so should men.

    Hippie, I don't think there's anything linking the two causally--any more than the famous example of cancer and oatmeal correlation. Frankly, I'm glad there's not as much pressure to stay married, as it keeps two people who have no interest in each other from wasting their lives together.

    Yes, more people have STIs. However, now more than ever, women's health and frequent STI testing, as well as cancer screenings, are emphasized. I'd love to see some studies linking higher STI and cancer rates with later marriage/childbirth.

    Men feel just as pressured as women to get a degree, and I notice you're not too concerned about that. Should males not also have the option to stay at home with their children, or choose to start a family instead?

    As for your last example, as I'm not too concerned with sex prior to marriage, and don't see any benefit at all to marriage, my primary concern is that the parents were engaging in emotional manipulation without any discussion of scholarly responsibilities with their offspring.

    Posted by: Less at April 14, 2010 4:49 PM


    Less,
    I took a loook at the this page of the CPC Watch website and found it less than convensing of CPCs wrong doings. First of all, their major source for their claim was the Waxman report, which no doubt contains political biases and used underhanded means to obtain their evidence for the report (recording and interviewing the CPC volunteers without their knowledge or consent) and by no means should be considered an objective or sound source. In the meanwhile, I'll tackle each of their accusations:

    •"They claim induced abortion increases one's risk for developing breast cancer. This claim, often backed up by "research" performed by other anti-choice organizations, has been refuted by the National Cancer Institute, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the Lancet Journal of Oncology."

    The data indicates that an increased risk of development abortion is pluasable, but not certain (which is what the CPC material is saying). Based on the current line of research, the line of thinking is that termination of pregnancy (whether induced abortion or miscarriage) interrupts the cellular changes that occur in the breast during pregnancy and estrogen levels. Once the woman has completed pregnancy given birth, the effect of estrogen on the cells is less because the cellular changes have been completed. It believed carrying to term and giving birth provides a protective effect against breast cancer and therefore, in those who have interrupted a pregnancy or delayed childbirth may have higher rates of breast cancer versus those who've given birth, other causes ruled out. Below is some of the supporting research:

    Dr. Lanfranchi declared under oath in a California lawsuit that “Over the past three or four years, I have spoken with many authorities and people in a position to be well-informed. Some have been straightforward and said that they know it is a risk factor but felt it was ‘too political’ to speak about.” She explained that she’d discussed the research with many physicians and encouraged them to get reproductive histories from their patients. Among those who have, they’ve “found as I did that ... cases of breast cancer in young women are associated with an abortion history.” [[Agnes Bernardo, Pamela Colip, and Saundra Duffy-Hawkins v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America and Planned Parenthood of San Diego and Riverside Counties; Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego, August 15, 2001]

    Thomas Stuttaford, M.D., an abortion supporter and a medical columnist for the London Times, authored an article entitled, “Fresh Line of Attack,” on May 17, 2001 in which he wrote that: “Breast cancer is diagnosed in 33,000 women in the U.K. each year; of these, an unusually high proportion had an abortion before eventually starting a family. Such women are up to four times more likely to develop breast cancer.” He added that, “A report by the Royal Statistical Society shows that a termination of pregnancy interrupts the cellular changes that occur in the breast during pregnancy. Once the woman has had children, the effect is less because the cellular changes have been completed....”

    Charles B. Simone, M.D., author of, Breast Health: What You Need to Know, is Clinical Director at the Simone Protective Cancer Institute in Lawrenceville, New Jersey. He is a medical oncologist, radiation oncologist and immunologist. He wrote that:

    "When conception occurs, hormonal changes influence the breast. The milk duct network grows quickly to form other networks that will ultimately produce milk. During this period of tremendous growth and development, breast cells are undergoing great change and are immature or ‘undifferentiated’; hence, they are more susceptible to carcinogens. But when a first full term pregnancy is completed, hormonal changes occur that permanently alter the breast network to greatly reduce the risk of outside carcinogen influence. When a termination occurs in the first trimester, there are no protective effects, and many of the rapidly dividing cells of the breast are left in transitional states....It is in these transitional states of high proliferation and undifferentiation that these cells can undergo transformation to cancer cells.” [Charles B. Simone, M.D., M.M.S., Breast Health: What You Need to Know, Avery Pub. Group, Garden City Park, N.Y. 1995 (p. 147) ISBN 0895296608]

    John R. Lee, M.D., David Zava, Ph.D. and Virginia Hopkins, authored the book, What Your Doctor May Not Tell You About Breast Cancer. They reported that more and more studies are finding that abortion increases breast cancer risk and suggested that this is providing support for elevated risk independent of the effect of postponing a FFTP. He and his co-authors wrote the following statement about abortion as a risk factor for the disease:

    "Only the first full-term pregnancy conveys (breast cancer) protection. Interrupted pregnancy (miscarriages and abortions) do not afford protection, and research is accumulating that they can actually increase the risk of breast cancer. This may be because the tissue begins to differentiate (mature into cancer-resistant cells) and then is stopped part way through the process." [Warner Books (2002) p. 30-31]

    "They claim having an induced abortion causes complications in future pregnancies. While many studies have concluded this is not true, the claim is often supported by research from the early 1970s before abortion was even legal in the United States. A closer look reveals some of these studies were performed in order to investigate the effects of illegal and unsafe abortions."

    The documentation refuting this claim can be found here

    •"The single most commonly purported "side-effect" of abortion is a form of depression called "post abortion stress syndrome" or "post abortion syndrome," a condition not recognized by the American Psychological Association or the American Psychiatric Association."

    While the APA may official conclude there isn't negative emotionaly sequalae after abortion, the APA isn't the best measure of this as the APA has a conflict of interest on this matter, as they are politically involved in pro-choice activism. They have a Division 35 that studies women's issues and Division 35 has collaborated with The Pro-Choice Forum to provide an online outlet for their particular perspective on the emotional aftermath of abortion. However, refuting the previously released report of the APA, a new study shows a direct link between abortion and subsequent mental health problems. The link to this study and more documentation can be found collectively here.

    BTW, I'm providing links to pages where the sources are collective, rather than here, as to keep the post at a reasonable length and to avoid veering away from the topic of whether or not CPCs provide accurate information and are the pro-choice claims reliable?

    CPC Watch has not provided any factual evidence for any of the following claims, which should be considered questionable at best and politically-motivated slander:

    ◦"They give out pamphlets featuring graphic images of aborted fetuses or show disturbing videos. Often these pamphlets and videos are medically inaccurate or overly hyped in order to shock women away from choosing abortion."
    ◦"Many provide little to no assistance for pregnant women planning on becoming single mothers, or women who have revoked consent for adoption. No CPC we have investigated gave out any information about WIC or other programs designed to help single mothers. CPCs have been described to us by community activists as 'adoption rings.' "
    ◦"They use irresponsible rhetoric to augment the emotional after-effects of abortion, often skewing language or fabricating research to make abortion seem more dangerous."

    ◦"They claim emergency contraception (which can prevent pregnancy when taken within 72 hours of unprotected intercourse) causes "early abortions," a scientifically inaccurate claim. They also refer to a fertilized egg as a "life." Emergency contraception, also known as the "morning after pill," prevents pregnancy by either delaying ovulation or by thickening the mucus around the uterus to make implantation less likely."

    While pregnancy is not medically defined as until the zygote implants into the uterine lining, embryologists as well as the majority of the medical community acknowledges that a new human being and human development begins at the moment of fertilization, when a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum), forming a new genetically distinct human organism, called a zygote. Quotes from Embryology Textbooks and other medically-based professional educational materials can be found here. The CPC Watch website admits what is in the prescribing information, that the "morning after pill," prevents pregnancy by either delaying ovulation or by thickening the mucus around the uterus to make implantation of the zygote less likely, which can cause what is medically known as a "chemical pregnancy" or early miscarriage.

    The rest of the claims on this page of the CPC Watch website do not have any supporting evidence, and so the claims should be considered unsubstantiated and false.

    Posted by: Rachael C. at April 14, 2010 4:51 PM


    Rachel, I think it's irresponsible to automatically conclude all anecdotal evidence is false. Read this blog: Carla's abortion and its aftermath is anecdotal, should you also conclude that is false? I've been to a CPC: they told me, definitively, that abortion causes breast cancer; they showed graphic videos and gave out graphic pamphlets.

    As to the rest of your post, I'll give it a more thorough look-over, but I didn't want you to think that I was ignoring it, so I give you my initial impressions here.

    Posted by: Less at April 14, 2010 4:56 PM


    Mods, please delete only the first copy of my double post, the second has corrections.

    Less, also I've noticed that CPC Watch and the pro-choice movement relies on ancedotal evidence for their claims against CPCs, however this is not objective (due to subjective biases), or reliable/accurate source for their claims, ancedotal evidence does not make for factual or sound evidence.

    Posted by: Rachael C. at April 14, 2010 4:57 PM


    Less, it seems pretty clear that there were no factually inaccurate statements. If the best you can come up with was that they used old studies, you don't have much of a leg to stand on.

    Posted by: Lauren at April 14, 2010 4:59 PM


    Sure, people's stories, such as Carla's or your own do count, but I doubt the accuracy or truth of some of the stories on that website and ancedotal evidence is often not accepted in the scientific community, and for a good reason: they don't make for sound evidence, as they are subjective/opinion (versus objective) and prone to biases, which is why we have well-defined and controlled studies.

    Posted by: Rachael C. at April 14, 2010 5:03 PM


    Lauren, they explicitly stated abortion causes breast cancer, living together causes relationships to degrade, and spoke extensively on Post Abortive Syndrome, something Rachael admits is not recognized by the APA. In reality, abortion isn't proven to cause breast cancer and living together is correlated with not getting married.

    Those are factually incorrect statements. Again, I wasn't treated to the whole spiel, as I wasn't pregnant, and when there for information only.

    Also, Rachael, my spellcheck has been autocorrecting your name, very sorry about that. Going through your post now.

    Posted by: Less at April 14, 2010 5:08 PM


    And I never said that ancedotal evidence is false, it's just that, ancedotal and may represent your experience, but it may not be the experiences of others, and as I said above, it's based on one's subjective view/opinion (versus objective/based on fact) and prone to biases and therefore it's misleading and inaccurate to make sweeping claims about CPCs based on ancedotal evidence.

    Posted by: Rachael C. at April 14, 2010 5:10 PM


    Less said, "...and spoke extensively on Post Abortive Syndrome, something Rachael admits is not recognized by the APA."

    And you conviently left out the rest of what I said and the data given, to suit your purpose. While the APA may official conclude there isn't negative emotionaly sequalae after abortion, the APA isn't the best measure of this as the APA has a conflict of interest on this matter, as they are politically involved in pro-choice activism. However, refuting the previously released report of the APA, a new study shows a direct link between abortion and subsequent mental health problems. The link to this study and more documentation can be found collectively here.

    Posted by: Rachael C. at April 14, 2010 5:14 PM


    Actually, Less, many studies show that living together while unmarried leads to marriages that don't last.

    It's hardly controversial to point to these studies. Even the NYT does so here:

    www.nytimes.com/2010/03/03/us/03marry.html

    The abortion breast cancer link has been established, and while not definitive, is definitely something that continues to be studied and examined. Jill posted a study a few months agon that explicitly listed prior abortion as a known risk factor for breast cancer. The study had no pro-life ties whatsoever.

    As for Post Abortive Syndrome, the APA fails to recognize it because of political reasons, but no one questions the fact that surgery can lead to PTSD. Even if the surgery does not include killing another human being, the fact that abortion is a surgical procedure puts one at risk for PTSD.

    Posted by: Lauren at April 14, 2010 5:16 PM


    Alright, Rachael, there are some things in your post I’d like to address.

    “….Waxman report, which no doubt contains political biases and used underhanded means to obtain their evidence for the report (recording and interviewing the CPC volunteers without their knowledge or consent) and by no means should be considered an objective or sound source…”

    But taping and recording ACORN and Planned Parenthood, both topics covered extensively here, are acceptable?

    “…pluasable, but not certain (which is what the CPC material is saying)…” Incorrect. I was given information detailing how abortion CERTAINLY causes cancer. It was not mentioned that miscarriage causes the same affect, or any of the supporting information you described.

    The afterabortion blog you posted is unacceptable as evidence, as it’s wholly biased. With regards to the studies posted on that site, of course if you have an STI and have surgery IN THE PELVIC REGION there will be complications. That’s because of the STI invading a normally protected area.

    As to Post Abortion Syndrome, the blog you posted, again, is wholly biased. The link on the blog itself was out of commission, however, I’m going to stick with the APA on this one.

    Of course human development starts with fertilization. Abortion, however, is the termination of a pregnancy, which does not start until after implantation. A negligible amount of eggs actually implant anyway, naturally, with no uterine lining changes or anything of the sort.

    Posted by: Less at April 14, 2010 5:17 PM


    Also, I'd like to have proof of APA's ties to pro-choice organizations. I've never heard of that, and without proof, I can't credit it. As to marriages breaking up after living together, it's correlated, and there is a subtle but important difference between that and causation.

    Posted by: Less at April 14, 2010 5:24 PM


    I can't see myself hanging out on a mothering-related blog either, but I should hope that ALL women with children would put their children before their careers. Spending long hours at work because you have to in order to support your family is one thing. Having a career is one thing. Giving your career more attention than your children and finding it more important than your children is pure selfishness, and I mean that for both sexes. Kids can tell when their parents see parenting as less important than a promotion or a raise, and that's got to be a horrible feeling.

    Posted by: Marauder at April 14, 2010 5:25 PM


    Marauder, that is why some people should not have children. There's a LOT of pressure on women to have children at all, and I think that's unfair as well.

    Posted by: Less at April 14, 2010 5:28 PM


    Less,
    But taping and recording ACORN and Planned Parenthood, both topics covered extensively here, are acceptable?

    I was simply pointing out the pro-choice side's hypocracy when they scream and fuss and claim pro-lifers are breaking the law when they tape PP employees (actually breaking the law) without their knowledge, but it's ok for them to do it, when it suits their purpose?

    The afterabortion blog you posted is unacceptable as evidence, as it’s wholly biased. With regards to the studies posted on that site, of course if you have an STI and have surgery IN THE PELVIC REGION there will be complications. That’s because of the STI invading a normally protected area.

    Regardless of where the studies are posted after they are published, the fact remains that the studies were conducted and their conclusions obtained independently of and unrelated to the blog, you are presenting a red herring. In fact, anyone can click on the links to the studies abstracts and read the studies and come to their own conclusions.

    As to Post Abortion Syndrome, the blog you posted, again, is wholly biased. The link on the blog itself was out of commission, however, I’m going to stick with the APA on this one.

    Again, regardless of where the studies are posted after they are published, the fact remains that the studies were conducted and their conclusions obtained independently of and unrelated to that blog, you are once again throwing in a red herring. Also, I had no problem accessing the blog and the links, such as to the abstracts of medical journals work just fine. You spent how much time reading the article and viewing the abstracts of the medical journal articles, all of 2 minutes? Hardly enough time to draw conclusions I would think. Also, I checked and the other links in my post work fine just as well.

    Going to take a break to say "Hi" to family who just arrived home from work (I got off work early today), and then I'll be back to respond to the rest of your post.

    Posted by: Rachael C. at April 14, 2010 5:43 PM


    Ok, it appears one or two of the links to the medical journal abstracts doesn't work (it may have not be archived), but that doesn't automatically make it false or fabricated, you can probably find a copy of the journal archived on the web or via a google search if you actually wanted to do the research.

    Posted by: Rachael C. at April 14, 2010 5:50 PM


    Again, the blog with the post-abortion syndrome URL was biased, and the link wasn’t working, so I wasn’t able to read the abstract to the study in its entirety. I was specifically looking for the first one referenced, the one she said was recent and that she posted the abstract for. I’d like to know methodology, as well as group size, before making a decision.

    As to the pro-choice side’s hypocrisy, I never said such actions were unacceptable. However, as the ACORN footage was later shown to be heavily edited, and I haven’t read the entirety of the Planned Parenthood information, I haven’t commented at all.

    As to the complications after abortions studies, of course the studies themselves are acceptable evidence. However, that they were gathered and posted on such a blog does raise suspicions. The links themselves worked fine, but as I said, if you have a UTI or an STI, any sort of invasive procedure is going to increase the likelihood of complications. If I went and got a genital piercing, there could be complications if I’ve got an STI. That doesn’t mean the abortions themselves are to blame.

    Posted by: Less at April 14, 2010 5:54 PM


    Marauder, that is why some people should not have children. There's a LOT of pressure on women to have children at all, and I think that's unfair as well.
    Posted by: Less at April 14, 2010 5:28 PM

    And there is a lot of pressure on us NOT to have children. Many women are told how children will ruin their lives, their educational chances, their job chances, etc., etc. When I had to go back to work as an RN due to family needs, many of my mom's friends told me they were glad I finally "stopped wasting my brains". Um, hello, I loved being a homeschooling SAHM. What could be MORE important than giving my kids a top notch education and childhood?

    Posted by: Elisabeth at April 14, 2010 5:57 PM


    I've not heard of people being pressured to not have children. I feel like there's expectations to have children and raise them certain ways. Often those ways are wholly conflicting. Objectively, having children does impact educational and job chances. The statistics prove that.

    To you, your children are your priority. Children could never be a priority to me: there are too many other thing that are FAR more interesting to me than babies. It's all a matter of personal priorities.

    Posted by: Less at April 14, 2010 6:03 PM


    With regards to the studies posted on that site, of course if you have an STI and have surgery IN THE PELVIC REGION there will be complications. That’s because of the STI invading a normally protected area.

    Right, so you acknowledge what those studies found, that induced abortion can lead increased PID and complications associated with PID.

    Of course human development starts with fertilization. Abortion, however, is the termination of a pregnancy, which does not start until after implantation. A negligible amount of eggs actually implant anyway, naturally, with no uterine lining changes or anything of the sort.

    The CPC Watch website admits what is in the prescribing information, that the "morning after pill," prevents pregnancy by either delaying ovulation or by thickening the mucus around the uterus to make implantation of the zygote less likely, which can cause what is medically known as a "chemical pregnancy" or early miscarriage aka "spontaneous abortion ". And the difference between early miscarriage/spontaneous abortion of a zygote passing naturally and purposely preventing implantation and causing a spontaneous abortion of the zygote artificially with the pill being the word, "purposely"

    Also, I'd like to have proof of APA's ties to pro-choice organizations. I've never heard of that, and without proof, I can't credit it.

    APA has a conflict of interest on this matter, as they are politically involved in pro-choice activism. They have a Division 35 (link to Division 35 in case you're wondering) that studies women's issues and Division 35 has collaborated with The Pro-Choice Forum to provide an online outlet for their particular perspective on the emotional aftermath of abortion. You can see this for yourself by going to the links, which go to the APA website.

    Posted by: Rachael C. at April 14, 2010 6:04 PM


    Again, regardless of where the studies are posted after they are published, the fact remains that the studies were conducted and their conclusions obtained independently of and unrelated to that blog, you are once again throwing in a red herring over and over. But you can probably find a copy of the journal archived on the web or via a google search if you actually wanted to do the research. Don't be so quick to jump to conclusions.

    Posted by: Rachael C. at April 14, 2010 6:07 PM



    As for your last example, as I'm not too concerned with sex prior to marriage, and don't see any benefit at all to marriage, my primary concern is that the parents were engaging in emotional manipulation without any discussion of scholarly responsibilities with their offspring.

    Posted by: Less at April 14, 2010 4:49 PM


    Less, do you know who your father is? Did you grow up in a household where he spent a lot of time with you?

    Don't feel you need to answer. Just think about it.

    Marriage is not just about the partners, it is about the family and society.

    Second, no one has any scholarly obligations unless they are getting paid to fulfill them. You ignored the point I made that the parents don't care that their sons are having sex, they just don't want them to commit. Why would parents pressure adult children not to marry? Weird.

    This comment is just bizzare:

    "I'd love to see some studies linking higher STI and cancer rates with later marriage/childbirth."

    The STI rates are higher because people have more partners. Unmarried people have more partners and therefore higher STI rates. Duh.

    Delaying the birth of the first child is the single biggest risk for breast cancer after genetic risk.

    All of these are common knowledge.

    Posted by: hippie at April 14, 2010 6:08 PM


    I think whether women feel pressured to have children or to not have children varies a lot. It all depends on where you live, what you do, and the people you know.

    There are indeed some people who should never raise children. As long as they don't abort any, it's fine with me if they never want to have them.

    Posted by: Marauder at April 14, 2010 6:15 PM


    No, i said that STIs can compromise the pelvic region in such a way that any sort of invasive procedure can cause complications--which is why when I went for an IUD, I had to be tested for every STI possible. Abortion is likely similar.

    With regards to the morning after pill, I think we're arguing at cross-purposes. I don't see anything wrong with the affect you're describing, while you clearly do.

    I'll explore the links momentarily, however boyfriend returned home and he, at moment, is priority.

    Posted by: Less at April 14, 2010 6:17 PM



    To you, your children are your priority. Children could never be a priority to me: there are too many other thing that are FAR more interesting to me than babies. It's all a matter of personal priorities.

    Posted by: Less at April 14, 2010 6:03 PM

    Nothing against you, Less, so don't take my comment personally.

    However, it reminds me of my mother.

    I used to criticize the way my mother drove because she seemed to think that although the traffic pattern affected her, her driving didn't affect others.

    Your statement reminds me of that.

    For example, the public cares about public education, because children are the future. So are babies. So, while we can handle a few disinterested folks, a growing trend of capable people who don't care for or about babies is a social problem of the first order.

    Posted by: hippie at April 14, 2010 6:18 PM


    As to marriages breaking up after living together, it's correlated, and there is a subtle but important difference between that and causation.

    Posted by: Less at April 14, 2010 5:24 PM

    Obviously there is a cause.

    When there is a high degree of correlation, then that is the place to look first. Also look for a common cause for both effects rather than blithely and incuriously repeating "correlation isn't causation" of which we are all already well aware.

    Posted by: hippie at April 14, 2010 6:36 PM


    Hippie, if you could tell me the specific cause of why living together makes later marriage difficult, or a specific, secular reason as to why marriage is at all useful, I'd be interested to hear it. Right now, the former is limited to theoretical generalities (living together causes marriage difficulties) and the latter, to religious reasons (God said so).

    You're right, however, in saying that, as a whole, I'm not particularly interested in children or babies, and have absolutely zero interest in procreating. Specific babies and children that I know personally are a different story, but I intend to have none of my own. Unless I'm misunderstanding, you're critiquing the latter, and I find it disconcerting that you find it a social problem that some women aren't interested in children.

    Posted by: Less at April 14, 2010 7:08 PM


    Whoa, Hippie, I totally didn't see one of your posts. Let me answer some of the comments there, and I'll post.

    I don’t feel as though my relationships with others should be extrapolated to the rest of society. I’m not responsible for the rest of society. I’m responsible for myself, that’s it.

    Commitment at such a young age can later lead to messy and expensive divorces. I tend to agree with the parent’s choice—minus the emotional manipulation, of course. Well, that and such pressure almost always tends to backfire, making the offspring cling harder.

    Show me something saying people who marry later have more partners. Show me something that that correlates to STI rates. I’m asking for proof—not common knowledge.

    Posted by: Less at April 14, 2010 7:47 PM


    Well, Less, many observers have noted the trend that more educated women have fewer children means that the next generation may not be as educable as the present generation.

    You may think that is swell, but many trend watchers are alarmed with a capital A. Despite doubling and tripling education spending per pupil, SAT scores are flat and falling, with the possibility on the horizon of a precipitous decline in both absolute numbers and percentage of high scorers.

    The point is not that all women need to be moms. They don't and they can't.

    The problem is the trend.

    When capable women are socially punished and derided for choosing marriage and children over a career, then fewer choose it. That is a dangerous trend.

    Posted by: hippie at April 14, 2010 7:49 PM


    Hippie, have you ever considered, with so many more options available, fewer women actually want to be married and have children?

    With regard to your trend, unless you can prove that it's the fault of fewer educated women having children, I'd be more inclined to blame less spending on education.

    Posted by: Less at April 14, 2010 8:00 PM


    "Hippie, if you could tell me the specific cause of why living together makes later marriage difficult, or a specific, secular reason as to why marriage is at all useful, I'd be interested to hear it. Right now, the former is limited to theoretical generalities (living together causes marriage difficulties) and the latter, to religious reasons (God said so)."

    Oh, man, I'm taking Family Law this semester and I think there should be (secular) legal gay marriage, so I could spend forever on "why marriage is at all useful."

    If your spouse dies intestate, you inherit his or her stuff. If your boyfriend/girlfriend/partner dies intestate, you don't. If your b/g/p leaves you everything in the will, a whole lot of it goes to taxes, which doesn't happen if the two of you were married. Unmarried couples have to go through extra legal measures to have things that unmarried couples have just by virtue of being married. If you're married and you a get a divorce, your shared property is divided. If you're not married and you don't specifically own any property together and you break up, you run the risk of walking away without any claim to, say, the house that the two of you lived in for the last ten years but is in your ex's name. It goes on and on.

    Oh, and married couples have better sex.

    http://health.discovery.com/centers/sex/marriage/marriage.html

    http://video.aol.ca/video-detail/better-sex-married-or-single/2116557262/?icid=VIDLRVNWS04

    Posted by: Marauder at April 14, 2010 8:07 PM



    Show me something saying people who marry later have more partners. Show me something that that correlates to STI rates. I’m asking for proof—not common knowledge.
    Posted by: Less at April 14, 2010 7:47 PM

    Um, let me see if I got this straight.

    You think that people who marry at 20 have had, on average, as many sex partners as those who wait till they are 30, and you want to see some kind of study that proves the opposite?

    Sorry, that is asinine.

    Next you will ask for a study proving that people who don't drink eat or drink anything for a month will die from dehydration.

    As for STI rates, all I said was the profoundly obvious, the more partners you have, the higher the risk. Just like rolling dice.

    Do you honestly believe that people who have two partners in their life have, on average, the same risk as those who have ten, 20, or 50? Honestly? Think.

    Posted by: hippie at April 14, 2010 8:26 PM


    "Hippie, if you could tell me the specific cause of why living together makes later marriage difficult, or a specific, secular reason as to why marriage is at all useful, I'd be interested to hear it. Right now, the former is limited to theoretical generalities (living together causes marriage difficulties) and the latter, to religious reasons (God said so)."

    Less,

    Do you mean secular, as it long term, or secular as in not religious?

    FYI, for the purposes of discussion, I don't make religious statements only empirical.

    Posted by: hippie at April 14, 2010 8:33 PM


    Here you go, Less.

    "The findings of this study supported the hypotheses that a high average age at marriage in the population leads to long period of premarital sex and the non-Japanese nationals' high prevalence facilitating the spread of the HIV and AIDS epidemics in Japan."

    www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2705357/

    Posted by: Lauren at April 14, 2010 8:46 PM



    Hippie, have you ever considered, with so many more options available, fewer women actually want to be married and have children?

    With regard to your trend, unless you can prove that it's the fault of fewer educated women having children, I'd be more inclined to blame less spending on education.

    Posted by: Less at April 14, 2010 8:00 PM


    I think I stated loud and clear that I don't think women have much of a choice. Rather, I think they are pushed into careers they don't want. How do I know they don't really want the career? because they quit. Obviously some women want careers not families, but I am not concerned about them. I am concerned about the ones who want families but are coerced into working instead. I also noted that women aren't interested in the many other options, which is why they end up in the value transference class more often than in value creation.

    As for the trend in educational performance, I clearly stated that education spending has at least doubled and in some places tripled, yet you blame the non existent "less spending". There is no "less spending". There is only more spending without a corresponding rise in performance.

    Are you distracted? Because it seems like you aren't reading what I am writing.

    Posted by: hippie at April 14, 2010 9:10 PM



    Commitment at such a young age can later lead to messy and expensive divorces. I tend to agree with the parent’s choice—minus the emotional manipulation, of course. Well, that and such pressure almost always tends to backfire, making the offspring cling harder.

    Posted by: Less at April 14, 2010 7:47 PM

    Less,

    My point is that adults should be making their own decisions. The fact that you don't think they should marry is spurious. Also, I didn't mention any emotional manipulation. I cited parents threatening financial retaliation.

    Posted by: hippie at April 14, 2010 9:24 PM


    Ashley, Jill isn't a hypocrite because she changed her mind on something. She's not saying "It was okay when I did it, but not when YOU do it"

    She just conveniently changed her mind after she stopped needing to use the pill. Does she think of herself as a baby killer for using contraception and having only 3 kids? I doubt it. I will continue using the pill just like she did.

    Posted by: Ashley Herzog at April 14, 2010 9:40 PM


    She's not saying "It was okay when I did it, but not when YOU do it"

    She just conveniently changed her mind after she stopped needing to use the pill. Does she think of herself as a baby killer for using contraception and having only 3 kids? I doubt it. I will continue using the pill just like she did.

    Posted by: Ashley Herzog at April 14, 2010 9:40 PM

    People often make decisions based on incomplete information and then get more information later and change their minds. If you can't change your mind based on new information, then you are, by definition, closed minded.

    Posted by: hippie at April 14, 2010 9:46 PM


    i have to agree with Ashley on most of her stuff.
    whats so wrong with using the pill?

    Posted by: Marauder at April 14, 2010 9:49 AM

    i don't really like being called the "resident" pregnant girl. idk if im even pregnant yet but i just don't like it k but i appreciate all of your support :)

    Posted by: anna at April 14, 2010 11:15 PM


    Not a fake story.
    Met with a seminary teacher today, going to see the bishop tonight. Going back to religion. Atheism might be more logically sound, but logic did not make me happy, and it seems only the religious people have had any mercy or understanding for me. Haven't taken a test yet; too afraid.

    By the way, any retard that says you don't have to apply to community college is on crack. I live in a dirt town thirty minutes from the nearest gas station. "Community" translates to "in-state" where I come from. And actually, just as an aside, from all the people I've approached so far, nobody from the pro-abortion side really made me feel better -- even the ones that grimaced and told me to carry to term if I wanted, "BUT you can kiss that college degree goodbye." They were like little black holes, actually -- depressing black holes...

    Still kind of at a loss. This school I'm talking about is BYU -- they're very, very strict, I was lucky to be admitted. Anyone know their policy?

    Posted by: Abel at April 15, 2010 7:13 AM


    Anna: Okay, will no longer call you that. :) The doctor's appointment is still on, right?

    The issue some pro-lifers have with birth control pills is that the sperm can meet the egg, an embryo can start to develop, and birth control pills sometimes stop it from implanting in the uterus. So sometimes a new life has been created, but birth control pills mean it can't implant and therefore dies. (Sometimes the embryo manages to implant anyway - that's how women get pregnant even if they're on birth control pills.)

    Abel: I can't find an official policy for BYU, but I did find a College Magazine article about pregant college students that mentions BYU.

    "Brittni Bunce, a sophomore at Brigham Young University, is 32 weeks pregnant. Originally, Brittni and her boyfriend had planned on waiting to have a child until after graduation when they would be financially ready. Brigham Young provides substantial support for young families, with professors who allow students to bring children to class, breastfeeding couches in all bathrooms and a myriad of family housing."

    http://www.collegemagazine.com/content/they-dont-come-sparknotes-pregnancy-and-parenting-college

    Posted by: Marauder at April 15, 2010 7:33 AM


    Hey Abel. Glad to hear from you again. I don't know much about BYU... are you a member of the LDS? I will continue to keep your cause in prayer.

    BTW, I know that this is off-topic and probably the last thing on your mind, but if you ever want, I would LOVE to discuss the following statement you made with you

    "Atheism might be more logically sound..."

    You mentioned that you are "going back to religion" and as such, you do NOT have to throw your brain out the window. Faith and reason are two sides of the same coin, and harmonize beautifully. The Christian worldview has stood up to intellectual scrutiny for 2000 years. Please, if you have any questions or concerns, I would be more than happy to discuss them with you Abel, either here or in private (email or facebook). God love you.

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at April 15, 2010 8:07 AM


    Anne, first of all you don't know crap about BYU's policy regarding pregnant students. Instead of blithely saying that Abel is sure to be expelled, you should keep your mouth shut and tell her to contact someone in the student life center to ask about their policy.

    Abel, if you would like I could do that for you.

    Also,Anne, it is quite obvious that you don't really care about her future. The pro-lifers on this board don't see pregnancy as the end of the world. We see it as something that can definitely change plans, but that doesn't mean that Abel can't go on to have a successful life in every measure.

    Abel: Have you taken a pregnancy test yet? I know it's scary, but it's better to know as soon as possible so you can start making plans for what you need to do moving forward.

    The biggest thing you'll need to do is set up your first prenatal apt. They'll take some blood to make sure your hormone levels look good, and might to an ultrasound to make sure that the baby is in the right spot and not ectopic.

    I don't know if you're from Utah or not, but some states have different laws governing students in terms of Medicaid eligibility. You would need to determine if you were eligible through your homestate or Utah if they're different. Luckily, Medicaid will cover back medical bills for 3 months, so if you need to see a doctor before you can get covered, you can backdate those bills.

    While I would definitely find out your college's policy on pregnant students as soon as possible, I don't think you necessarally have to tell them right away. We're so close to the end of a semeseter, I think it would be ok to finish out your exams and everything and then tell them at the start of the summer semester if you're planning on taking summer school. That way you're not dealing with all the added stress of their decision during the exam period. Obviously you shouldn't hide your pregnancy from the school, but waiting until the second trimester to start telling people is fine. That way if, heaven forbid, you had a miscarriage you won't be dealing with the schools reaction to it all at a time when you don't want to have to be worrying about all of that.

    Now, of course, if you find out that your college has a policy of wanting to know ASAP, you will need to tell them when you find out.

    I can help with any practical advice you need, as someone who has been there and done that. :)


    Now, as for your relationship with your boyfriend...I can't tell you what to do there. I can only say that if you do intend to raise your child (as opposed to adoption) it is better that you do so within a married relationship. That said, I don't think it's a good idea to rush into a marriage that you're not sure of just because you're pregnant. You have to really ask yourself if your boyfriend is someone you would want to marry if this whole situation were not happening. If the answer is yes, I personally would get married. Obviously that's something you have to work out for yourself. You know your boyfriend's maturity level as well as your own and are the best judge of if you think that the two of you are ready to succesfully marry and raise a child.

    Age and statistics alone can not tell you this information. I have several friends who married during college who are happy and successful. Some have children, some still don't. I also know of some people who married young and weren't ready for the responsibility and don't have great marriages. No one can tell you where you'll fall, but you get to decide your own outcome. I would definitely recommend getting some good pre-marital counseling and getting on the same page financially as your boyfriend. If you guys can square up those issues, you'll be in great shape moving forward.

    Anyway, I know this was a bit rambling, but if you would like to email me, feel free. If a mod wouldn't mind sending Abel my email, I would greatly appreciate it!

    Hang in there. It really will be ok. Life shifts away from our plans sometimes. The biggest thing you can do is not get discouraged and make any rash decisions that will have negative repercussions. Don't run and flunk all your classes this semester or anything! Just relax, and know that there are lots of people here to help you.

    Posted by: Lauren at April 15, 2010 8:24 AM


    To you, your children are your priority. Children could never be a priority to me: there are too many other thing that are FAR more interesting to me than babies. It's all a matter of personal priorities.
    Posted by: Less at April 14, 2010 6:03 PM

    Okay, that's nice. How does it back up your assertion here that it is wrong to say that A LOT of women DO want to have children and raise them as SAHMs or WAHMs?

    Posted by: Elisabeth at April 15, 2010 8:53 AM


    I have to agree with Bobby that atheism and logic are not somehow inextricably linked. Most of the greatest scientists and mathematicians that have ever lived were religious or very religious. Just because some intelligent skeptics end up atheists, many don't. Right now atheism/agnosticism is a fad/trend in academia, but it seems more of a cultural trend than an intellectual trend. Plenty of thinkers are still so shocked and stunned by the mass murder and genocide precipitated by the atheist regimes of the 20th century that even some convinced atheists fear the rise of atheism and consider it culturally unworkable because it is so at odds with evolutionary psychology and healthy social cohesion.

    Posted by: hippie at April 15, 2010 9:00 AM


    "Right now atheism/agnosticism is a fad/trend in academia..."

    What one also has to realize is that many of the popular atheists in academia are not philosophers. While this is certainly not bad in itself, they make it obvious that they are not only not philosophers, but have a very poor grasp of basic logic and argumentation (the new atheists, not all atheists). In fact, people like hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris can be most accurately described as junk philosophers. Their arguments are a disgrace to thinking atheists.

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at April 15, 2010 9:20 AM


    Abel: I agree that you should take a test and find out if you're really pregnant. If you're not, you can breathe a big sigh of relief, and if you are, it's better that you know sooner so that you can start planning how to balance school and giving birth and so that you can start taking extra-good care of yourself. You're going to get through this.

    Posted by: Marauder at April 15, 2010 10:55 AM


    Hi Bobby,
    Have you read the new book on the subject by Kevin Vost? I just recently heard about it on the radio.

    Posted by: Janet at April 15, 2010 11:22 AM


    Hey Janet.

    No, I haven't read it yet, but I checked it out on google and it looks pretty good. Will definitely try and read it someday, though my "to read" list only continues to increase exponentially...

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at April 15, 2010 11:29 AM


    Hippie, the financial retaliation is exactly what I was talking about when I referenced emotional manipulation. Adults SHOULD be making their own decisions, I agree, and the way their parents went about it was ineffective. A loving conversation would have worked much better.

    I’ve really seen no support for ANY of your assertions. You may think them common sense—but I’d really like to see some scholastic support. Your theory that, as fewer educated women have children, there’s fewer educable children may hold water, I don’t know, but I’d like to see some data and research first.

    Frankly, look at what Texas is doing right now with their history textbooks. How can you see that and blame anything but the school boards and governing organizations for educability?

    Abel, I’m glad your back. However, there’s really no need to be calling names. An in-state school is very different from a community college. Where many of us live, community colleges don’t require any sort of application. It’s a regional difference, I’m sure, but there’s no need to get upset over it.

    As for us pro-choicers, depressing as it may seem, you need to know all the facts. Having indicated that you don’t want an abortion, have you discussed the situation with the father? Is he interested in parenting? These are questions that should be discussed by the two of you, within the context of your relationship. Of course, a first step is a test. See if maybe your boyfriend, or a close girlfriend, can be there while you take it for emotional support.

    You’ll be okay, and everything will work out. You’re right in saying that the BYU code of conduct is pretty strict, but I’m not sure how it works for pregnancies. I know it’s scary, but the best thing to do, if you find out for sure that you’re pregnant, is to talk to an admissions counselor. There’s only so much a bunch of internet strangers can do, unfortunately.

    Elisabeth, how have you at all supported that there are LOTS of women who would rather stay at home and have children?

    Posted by: Less at April 15, 2010 12:04 PM


    Wow. I typed that really fast this morning and I didn't get to read these comments - been, you know, busy trying to salvage my life.
    Boyfriend is buying a couple of tests for me today. Whenever we've spoken about getting into this scinerio, he's always said he wanted to keep it, and I always said I wanted to choose adoption because I figured I would be a bad mother. Recently, though, I wonder if I would. I think being raised in a stable environment -- but I had already decided my current boyfriend was the man I was going to marry quite a while before any of this insanity happened. I want to stay with him... but I don't want to be married at 18.
    My parents are the main thing. I'm worried to death about letting them down. Taking the tests after school -- wish me luck, and thank you, THANK YOU so much for all of this support. It is more appreciated than you could possibly know.
    I live in New Mexico -- does anyone know if there are CPCs here? There seems to be one in Gallup -- I found a donation jar in a restaurant once, gave them $20 -- but I don't know where to find them. Just asking -- might be jumping to conclusions here...

    Posted by: Abel at April 15, 2010 12:29 PM


    Less, I appreciate your support, and I understand you are merely trying to educate me. But I am already quite aware of how much trouble I might be in, aware of the risks and the sacrifices I might have to make, and I can assure you that throwing every worse-case scenario at me is not distributing facts, but playing scare-tactics (I am not saying YOU are doing this, but most pro-abortion people have been). I might not be pregnant. I might be. I might end up working my way through college, marrying my boyfriend and raising a kid, I might go to my other crap college until I follow through an adoption plan, or I might take over the family business.

    My point was that I wouldn't be in this situation if not for the condoms -- if I didn't think I could get away with it. Yes, we can argue that all day, but I'm quite tired of thinking about it and I'd like to leave it behind and focus on the present. The mistake has been made; I blame the moment I dared my boyfriend to buy condoms, which I believe started it all. End of that story.

    Posted by: Abel at April 15, 2010 12:38 PM


    Less: And "the facts" are that Abel can either have an abortion or get a college degree, but not both? Don't think so.

    Abel: Here's a list of crisis pregnancy centers in New Mexico:

    http://ramahinternational.org/new-mexico.html

    It sounds like you have a very supportive boyfriend, which is wonderful. Just out of curiousity, why don't you want to be married at eighteen? Is it financial or emotional or...? I'm not saying you SHOULD get married at eighteen, but if the two of you love each other, wanted to get married anyway, you're pregnant, and you end up raising the baby, it might not be such a bad idea.

    Posted by: Marauder at April 15, 2010 12:42 PM


    Marauder, the statistics are against her. That's all I'm saying. She's right, in saying she has a lot of options, even discounting abortion. It's good she's spoken with her boyfriend about the situation. Making sure both parties are on the same page, or at least similar ones, is a hallmark of a stable, mature, relationship, and that's something to be proud of.

    Abel, it's your life, and you have every right to believe as you do about condoms. Your opinion is the only one that counts, when it comes to reproductive and sexual choices. Again, even discounting abortion, you have myriad choices, and it sounds like you and your boyfriend have been communicating positively about it. Certainly get a test, see what's up, and go from there.

    Posted by: Less at April 15, 2010 1:19 PM


    @Marauder: Thank you so much for that list! And it's mostly because I would be embarrassed about it (I've been saying for years that I'd never get married; took Dave quite a while to convince me it would be a very nice thing) and because I'd want the wedding to be something to celebrate, not some sort of tragedy. Also, there are problems with parental approval. You see, even though *I* might say I'm in love with him and I would like to marry him, both of my parents would beg to differ -- and his mother would, too. They all married young and have been through absolutely horrible divorces because of it. So for as long as I can remember, my parents have been telling me to wait until after I have a career to get hitched. And I'd rather my boyfriend go to his college and get a good career in the long run rather than stay back and struggle with me, you know? At least one of us could make it for sure; I would have a much, much harder time, but I don't want to complicate things for the both of us.

    I'm jumping the gun again, though. Don't even know if I really am pregnant. The suspense is killing me. Keep your fingers crossed.

    Posted by: Abel at April 15, 2010 1:26 PM


    Abel: Where's your boyfriend going to college? Is he your age or a little bit older - how many years of college does he have left? I'm just thinking of if the two of you do want to raise the baby, how often the baby will see his/her dad before you and your boyfriend finish college.

    If you do raise the baby, you and your boyfriend will be raising him/her regardless of whether you're married or not. I don't think it's necessarily going to make things easier if you're not married, but I can see your point about not wanting to get married in your current circumstances.

    When it comes to whether you'll have the baby adopted or not (if there is in fact a baby), I think you and Dave should do your best to make a decision that both of you can be satisfied with. If you have the baby adopted when he wanted to raise him/her, or if you raise the baby against your better judgment because Dave wants to raise the baby, it's going to be extremely stressful and possibly fatal for your relationship. Are you afraid you'd be a bad mother because of your circumstances, or because of your basic personality and temprament? As in, do you think you'd be a bad mother right now, or do you think you're not the sort of person who's really meant to ever raise children? I'd just really hate to see either of you desperately wishing you'd raised the baby, or feeling guilty because you're raising the baby but you still think it would have been a better idea to have the baby adopted.

    Oh, another question, although this will be moot when you find out whether you're pregnant or not - has your period ever been late because of stress before? When I first started college I had my period really late one month because the stress of being halfway across the country going to a new school on my own was tough. Maybe your period's late because of the anxiety of wondering whether you're pregnant.

    Posted by: Marauder at April 15, 2010 2:40 PM


    Abel, if you decide to marry at 18 - it's not the end of the world. Like others, I'm not suggesting you *have* to if you don't want to, but I wanted to tell you my take since I have been there. I married my husband when I was 18. I personally was pretty immature and naieve when we were married. We are getting ready to celebrate our 8th anniversary this month, and I am a SAHM to our three children. It was my choice to give up college to have children young (and stay home with them). We've been through some rough patches and I definitely had a long maturation process going on through the past 8 years. But we're still together, we have 3 kids we love, and we still love each other just as much as we did when we got married. My parents were very angry at first - they hated that I quit college for any reason, and they accused me of going "just to find a husband" (not true, just the way things worked out - my husband wasn't even attending college, he was stationed at a nearby Army post and I met him online). My parents acted pretty crappy about it for a while and bugged me about going back to college but after a few years they finally grew to accept it and now they seem OK with it. Even if your parents react negatively to your marriage (if you choose to marry now, that is) - they'll probably get over it just like mine did. Just remember - whether or not a marriage stays together has less to do with how old you are when you marry and a whole LOT more to do with your decisions - you have to decide to commit to your spouse NO MATTER WHAT (barring abuse or infidelity, that sort of thing). You have to decide to remain committed to working out whatever arguments or irritations you deal with instead of taking the easy way out (divorce). That's what really decides who stays together and who doesn't (except for the aforementioned abuse/infidelity circumstances - and even infidelity can be worked out if both partners do their share). Young marriage does not automatically equal a doomed marriage. The attitudes of both spouses (and their relationship with God, IMO) is what makes or breaks the marriage.

    My parents are the ones that pushed me into college and career plans anyway. I had always just wanted to be a married SAHM. I was one of those women who were pressured to postpone marriage (or at least children) until after I had graduated college and made it in some sort of career path. It's difficult to go against those expectations but I was glad I did. That was for those discussing pressure to have/not to have children.

    Anne, WTHeck is up with you? You're screeching like a cat whose tail has been stepped on. That was pretty hateful, but I guess you meant it to be. I don't believe for a moment that Abel = Carla. Get a grip. I don't think anyone is making up stuff to try and bait you.

    Posted by: army_wife at April 15, 2010 3:32 PM


    Abel, please check out the Nurturing Network.

    http://www.nurturingnetwork.org/needhelp.html

    Posted by: Fed Up at April 15, 2010 3:47 PM


    Less,

    Here is a Pew study that explores issues of working mothers including how many want to quit working.

    Only 66% of mothers work. Of them only 37% want to work full time.

    For the math challenged, that is only about 24% of all mothers who want to work full time.

    61% of those under age 30 say they have old-fashioned values about family and marriage.

    http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1360/working-women-conflicted-but-few-favor-return-to-traditional-roles

    Posted by: hippie at April 15, 2010 3:54 PM


    Your theory that, as fewer educated women have children, there’s fewer educable children may hold water, I don’t know, but I’d like to see some data and research first.

    Frankly, look at what Texas is doing right now with their history textbooks. How can you see that and blame anything but the school boards and governing organizations for educability?

    Less,

    I am not sure what your point is.

    Curriculum and educable students have no relationship.

    Curriculum is what you choose to teach.

    Educable students are students who posses high ability to learn.

    We have to assume that educated women had to have ability to learn or they could not have completed their education. Assuming the heritability of cognitive ability, smart people having few children means fewer smart people in the future both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of the population.

    In the past, the harshness of life meant that natural selection increased human cognitive ability over time.

    Curriculum, that is course content or textbook content, cannot reduce students' ability to learn. It may mean they don't learn enough, or it may be biased, but they still can take another class or read another book etc, and keep learning.

    When educated people have a total fertility rate below replacement level, they reduce the segment of the population that has demonstrated the most cognitive ability.
    Not a smart strategy.

    Posted by: hippie at April 15, 2010 4:57 PM


    lol yea the doc. appointment is still on :)

    able:

    i am pro-choice i believe its your choice on what to do. i think you will be able to live a good life if you are willing to work hard. i hope you don't think all pro-choice people just want you to abort your baby because i sure don't. if you think that you will be able to raise the baby and have a good life then i say do it. do what will make you happy and have a meaningful life. no matter what choice you make: abort(which i highly doubt you will :)), adoption or parent make sure that you are willing to work very very hard goodluck :)

    p.s. i'm the other "resident" pregnant girl lol @m Marauder

    Posted by: anna at April 15, 2010 10:17 PM


    Took a test. Negative!!! *Major* relief!! Taking another in the morning, though, so I know it for an absolute surety.

    Maybe it still happened for a reason, though, because I figured a few things out that I probably wouldn't have learned for a very long time. I was pretty dang certain I was pregnant -- being a pessimist -- so, with permission from my teachers, I got access to the computer lab for the day. I did a ton of research into all of my in-state colleges, contacted a few friends, and used the list Marauder gave me. I got tons of information and phone numbers and by the time I was waiting for the results of the pregnancy test, I'd set up a plan that would've allowed me to keep my baby, go to college an hour away from my boyfriend, attend a good graduate school and still get a job I'd want without a horrendous loss of time. I had the grades, the scholarships, and the right connections to do it.

    I realized that I'm not as totally lost or helpless as I thought I was. It was almost like I grew up in a couple of hours -- by the end of it, even a big hiccup in my plans wouldn't have devastated me. I had it worked over so well that even if my parents kicked me out and refused to help (which I very much doubt they would have), I could have still made it. Don't get me wrong, I will never put myself in this position again, not with this lucky break I've been given, but really, all I needed was to be calmed down and to think. You guys helped with that. The life I had planned was difficult and not ideal, but I could have lived with it, even been happy with it eventually. I guess when you're on the verge of being completely destroyed, you either lose it, or pull it together, and now I see how it can depend on the people you turn to.

    When I first suspected I was pregnant, I had a floating image in my head of going to an abortion clinic JUST to see if I could find a sidewalk councilor. I've been reading your posts for so long that I figured coming here for some advice would have been just as good. My faith is not perfect, but God bless all of you nonetheless.

    Posted by: Abel at April 15, 2010 11:57 PM


    Elisabeth, how have you at all supported that there are LOTS of women who would rather stay at home and have children?
    Posted by: Less at April 15, 2010 12:04 PM

    Try READING.

    I have been on birth boards since 1992. In the birth boards I have participated on because they were in reference to my own due dates (of which I had 7), there were roughly 100-150 women for each. That is anywhere from 700 to 1050 women on those particular one month due date boards alone.

    Of those women most either were SAHMs or wanted to be.

    I think that qualifies as A LOT. Especially as that trend seemed to hold true when I visited other boards for other months (which I was frequently requested to do as I am a certified childbirth educator and breastfeeding educator in addition to being a RN).

    So, for one year alone, those numbers would be roughly 1200 - 1800 women... for the 17 years that I have been parenting, 20400 to 30600.

    If you don't think that's a lot of women, please imagine that you just got in line for the lady's restroom and you are at the end of 30,600 women.

    No one is saying all... just a lot. Why do you have a problem with acknowledging that there are a lot of women out there who feel differently than you do?

    Posted by: Elisabeth at April 16, 2010 12:50 AM


    Abel, I am so proud of you that I have tears in my eyes. You really did grow up in a couple of hours. I have absolutely no doubt that you're going to be able to accomplish whatever you want in your life.

    It's amazing how fast stressful situations can make people mature - I think I grew up so much when my grandparents were having their various health problems and my mom was devoting most of her time to taking care of them. (At the time, I was used to my mom devoting most of her time to taking care of ME.)

    If you really and truly aren't pregnant - and my guess is that you're not - don't be surprised if major relief + late period = enormous gush of blood - that's what happened to me in college the exact second (I kid you not) that I finally got done with my first college assignment. :)

    Posted by: Marauder at April 16, 2010 7:04 AM


    Go, Abel! No matter what, you can do it! :) Just have to be willing to do whatever it takes :)

    Posted by: army_wife at April 16, 2010 7:41 AM


    Elisabeth, didn’t you read Rachel’s posts above? Anecdotal sources are useless, or next to, as they can’t be verified. You have no way of knowing how many women were, like you, on more than one board, and thus repeatedly saying the same thing. Give me a study (like the PEW one above.)

    And no, 30,000-40,000, even if that was accurate, isn’t a lot, not when there are over 150,000,000 women in the U.S. alone. It’s a minority. It’s a few, compared to millions.

    As to the PEW survey posted above, Hippie, you’re taking only the parts that agree with you. The 61 percent of young people who had old-fashioned views on marriage and family was part of 71 percent that was down over ten percentage points from the last similar survey, in 1987. Additionally, only 19 percent of people at all agree that women should return to their traditional gender roles. And the survey says 37 percent, not your 24 percent, of working mothers prefer to work full time. However, 29 percent of people agreed strongly that both spouses should contribute to overall income, and another 28 percent agreed, but not strongly.

    Look more closely at the survey. Yes, some mothers would like to work part time, but there’s nothing about whether or not they want to work at all.

    And also, congrats, Abel, on not being pregnant! That's fantastic!

    Posted by: Less at April 16, 2010 9:37 AM



    "Hippie, the financial retaliation is exactly what I was talking about when I referenced emotional manipulation. Adults SHOULD be making their own decisions, I agree, and the way their parents went about it was ineffective. A loving conversation would have worked much better."

    Less, financial retaliation is not emotional manipulation. Financial retaliation is when you don't get paid because you aren't doing what the person with the money has told you to do. They take away the money, not the relationship. However, your "loving conversation" suggestion is exactly what I would call emotional manipulation. That is where they explain their position and use the emotional connection to coerce and persuade. The implied threat is a loss of esteem not money.

    No offense, Less, but I wonder how well you read. I clearly explained that 24% of all mothers wanted to work full time, because 37% was of the 66% who work, not the 100% of mothers.

    As for whether the 34% of mothers who are not working actually want to work, I think we can safely assume most of them don't want to work even though they weren't asked.

    Look at the numbers.
    Remember to follow what the percentages represent.

    34% of mothers don't work. (66% working moms)

    24% of mothers want to work full time. (37% of working moms)

    42% of mothers want to work part time. (63% of working moms)

    As for the 61% of people under 30 still wanting traditional family roles, remember that is despite non-stop pressure to conform to the new ideal and parents that threaten to cut off college money if you get married, pregnant etc. Young people still resist at a rate of almost 2:1.

    When young people were pressured to conform to traditional roles, they conformed at a far higher rate, because traditional roles are organic. That is they evolved from nature.

    Posted by: hippie at April 16, 2010 10:45 AM


    Just a word about the presentation of statistics/percentages.

    The Pew report shows a neat graph that shows 37% of working moms survey want to work full time. So the casual observer thinks, okay that is about a third of women what to work full time and have kids. The reader needs to stop and think about what is presented.

    According to the census, only about 80% of women now under 50 will ever have kids.

    The text of the Pew survey states that only 66% of mothers of children 17 and younger work.

    So what you really have is more like 37% of 66% of 80%, which of course is nowhere near a third of all women.


    66% of 80% is about 53%, and 37% of that is about 20%.

    So what we can render from this is that the percent of women who have no kids and the percent of women with kids who want to work full time only combined ends up being about 40% leaving the 60% of women who have kids, about half of whom don't work and the other half only want to work part time.

    Incidentally (but probably not coincidently) that number is remarkably similar the 61% of young people who prefer traditional family roles.

    So once again, when looking at numbers, you still have to think and use what is there but not editorialized or formulated for you because there are many conclusions and inferences that you can draw from the numbers.

    Posted by: hippie at April 16, 2010 1:09 PM


    Hippie, you’re drawing some pretty impressive conclusions there. The PEW survey dealt with family VALUES, not family roles, and there is a SIGNIFICANT difference. The former implies, perhaps, waiting until marriage to have children, or having two parents around, perhaps. Unfortunately, ‘family values’ aren’t defined, which makes the survey itself suspect. What I define as family values, I’d assume, are far different than what you would define. Family ROLES, however, deal with gender of parents, etc.

    A loving conversation sharing experience and reasons as to why marriage before graduation is ridiculous (and yes, I do believe early marriage and marriage in general are useless) isn’t emotional manipulation. It’s called good parenting. At that point, the kid can still say: Yeah, I still want to be married. The parents can think it’s a mistake all they want, but after a good parenting type conversation, no loss of esteem results—just respect for differences of opinion.

    As to “natural gender roles,” I think its BS. Then again, I also think that gender in general is a result purely of social conditioning, so perhaps we are an impasse.

    Posted by: Less at April 16, 2010 6:39 PM


    Less,
    I think that it doesn't matter what ANYONE says to you, you will cling to your mantra.

    Why you are too threatened to accept that large numbers of women happen to want to live their life differently than you is beyond me. No one is saying that there aren't plenty of women who want to do things the way you do, just that there are plenty who want to do things differently than you.

    What a narrow-minded, sad existence that must be.

    Posted by: Elisabeth at April 16, 2010 7:52 PM


    Elisabeth, I'm really just asking for some proof. Sure, there are women who want to do things differently. That's great for them. But making unfounded claims is kind of a pet peeve.

    As is making unfounded comments on someone else's existence.

    Posted by: Less at April 16, 2010 8:49 PM


    Less, If unborn children don't exist, what are women paying big bucks to have sucked out of their bodies?

    How do I know you exist?

    Oh, I should use the rational part of my brain?

    Oh, Less you do exist! Rational thinking didn't hurt my head too bad after all!

    rachelsvineyard.com

    Posted by: Praxedes at April 17, 2010 9:00 AM


    Praxedes, what are you talking about? Of course fetuses exist. I was asking for proof about something entirely different. Are you paying attention to the comments at all?

    Posted by: Less at April 17, 2010 9:41 PM



    As to “natural gender roles,” I think its BS. Then again, I also think that gender in general is a result purely of social conditioning, so perhaps we are an impasse.

    Posted by: Less at April 16, 2010 6:39 PM

    Social conditioning? No, it is biology right down to level of chromosomes. Social conditioning is a result of people doing what comes naturally.

    Social conditioning or behavior is based on the natural instincts of whatever the critter is. Human societies are arranged according to human nature. Social conditioning could not have preceded human evolution therefore it must follow from it. If you don't believe in evolution then you can say God created it as he created nature. However it is natural and universal nonetheless. Traditional roles/values arose from natural instincts from natural selection.

    Posted by: hippie at April 18, 2010 1:00 AM


    Consider the obvious. Assertive, ambitious men have more children than submissive men. However for women the opposite is true. Assertive, ambitious women have fewer children than submissive women. Nature is selecting against equality. Birth control magnifies the effect. In 1970, only 10% of women 45 never had a child. In 2000, 20% of women 45 and older never had a child. So while the pop psychology says there is equality, Darwin says there isn't.

    Well, this position should win me no friends on either side, dang it.

    Posted by: hippie at April 18, 2010 1:28 AM


    "Then again, I also think that gender in general is a result purely of social conditioning,.."
    .
    Posted by: Less at April 16, 2010 6:39 PM

    You may believe it, but it is not an original thought. Someone told it to you and you bought it. Not surprising, women are highly conforming. If you told that to a group of men and women, more women than men would buy it because more men than women are skeptics. Experimental psychologists have already demonstrated that women are more likely to follow orders than men are.

    Milgram Experiment:

    "Charles Sheridan and Richard King hypothesized that some of Milgram's subjects may have suspected that the victim was faking, so they repeated the experiment with a real victim: a puppy who was given real electric shocks. They found that 20 out of the 26 participants complied to the end. The six that had refused to comply were all male (54% of males were obedient[); all 13 of the women obeyed to the end, although many were highly disturbed and some openly wept."

    Posted by: hippie at April 18, 2010 1:43 AM


    But making unfounded claims is kind of a pet peeve.

    Posted by: Less at April 16, 2010 8:49 PM

    Really? How about these unfounded claims:

    ...early marriage and marriage in general are useless...

    ...gender in general is a result purely of social conditioning...

    Posted by: Less at April 16, 2010 6:39 PM

    Nothing in evolution, or evolutionary psychology to support those claims.


    Posted by: hippie at April 18, 2010 2:04 AM


    That's an excessively small sample group, hippie: significant differences can't be accurately calculated with less than 20 participants--meaning twenty male and twenty female. It's impossible to responsibly generalize that to the population at large.

    So, instead of providing any sort of proof, you're just going to provide half-hearted experiments without a link or any sort of outside proof, to insult my gender? What style! What tactics! What a load.

    Posted by: Less at April 18, 2010 2:05 AM


    I will agree with the small sample size quibble in general. However, results like that are highly suggestive and definitely prompt people to investigate further. In which case, they find that women are more conforming than men in other situations. That is why more women are now in college than men are, but not in rigorous fields. Men are less likely to want to conform unless there is a more of something to be gained. I am female, too. So it isn't meant as an insult, just an observation. We could also note that virtually everything ever invented was invented by men. Certainly we women shouldn't feel insulted, rather grateful to have all these wonderful technological advances.

    Posted by: hippie at April 18, 2010 2:16 AM


    Less, just for fun sometime, on something that you aren't emotionally attached to, but have an opinion on, challenge yourself to consider a different view. Even go so far as to contemplate the possibility that your opinion may have some weaknesses. Instead of just trying to win an argument, try to find the truth. It can be liberating to get out of the currently most accepted view, and consider some novel ideas. You can do it all by yourself with google search, so you won't be embarrassed to find out you were wrong. No one watching, just explore with an open mind and not have to feel like you have to defend the territory you have laid claim to. Just a suggestion.

    Posted by: hippie at April 18, 2010 3:05 AM


    Less, here is a link. It took ten seconds to find on google.

    http://www.holah.co.uk/files/sheridan_king_1972.pdf

    Posted by: hippie at April 18, 2010 3:20 AM


    Hippie, that study was conducted over forty years ago. Did you ever pause to consider that perhaps the results are no longer valid? That perhaps, as society has changed, so too have the responses of participants?

    As to your point about google, perhaps you aren't aware as to how debate works. If you make a claim, you SUPPORT it. Maybe that's why your posts are line after line of unsupported theory and nothing else.

    Posted by: less at April 18, 2010 9:48 AM


    Not theory, common knowledge.

    Common knowledge is things like evolution. Even people who disagree with it know what it is. Should I supply a link?

    Posted by: hippie at April 18, 2010 9:40 PM


    Evolution is common knowledge, yes, that's true. The theory that assertive women breed less, however, seems to be pulled out of thin air.

    Posted by: Less at April 18, 2010 9:47 PM



    Hippie, that study was conducted over forty years ago. Did you ever pause to consider that perhaps the results are no longer valid? That perhaps, as society has changed, so too have the responses of participants?


    Posted by: less at April 18, 2010 9:48 AM

    Assuming human nature is evolved, it can't change in 40 years. Even when society changes, human nature doesn't until there is selection pressure. Can you identify a selection pressure that would select for less obedient women? Can you think of a society where disobedient women have far more children? Would you say that describes women over the past 40 years?

    I don't demand proof just a plausible explanation. Just a friendly discussion.

    Posted by: hippie at April 18, 2010 9:49 PM


    Personally, hippie, I don't know any males who would want an "obedient" woman. As we established, traditional family roles and traditional family values are two completely different things, and the PEW survey you posted showed a minority of individuals who sought a return to traditional values with regards to a woman's place. It follows, then, that a majority do not wish women to return to obedience, and that these individuals, roughly half of them men (assuming the survey follows population norms), would not want to produce children with an obedient woman.

    Of course, that's assuming we're using the word "obedient" the same way, which I rather doubt. Over the past 40 years, I'd say women have made leaps and bounds in equality, however much more is needed. There's still the wage gap, reproductive rights (including abortion), rape, domestic violence, etc that need to be address, and while I'm not optimistic that any will be solved in my time, I would like to work toward it.

    Posted by: Less at April 18, 2010 10:12 PM


    "Personally, hippie, I don't know any males who would want an "obedient" woman."

    Do those males want many children?

    Maybe men who want many children want obedient women and obedient women want more kids.

    Maybe males who don't want kids also don't value obedience.

    Possible?

    Evolution is the domain of the successful breeders.

    "There's still the wage gap, reproductive rights (including abortion), rape, domestic violence, etc that need to be address, and while I'm not optimistic that any will be solved in my time, I would like to work toward it."

    What more reproductive rights can you have beyond abortion on demand through all nine months?

    Is there a wage gap for the same job with the same experience, competence etc? That is illegal.

    The difference is average earnings is due to the choices of women. The choice not to be plumbers, electricians, engineers etc. is likely a function of ability. Women consistently score significantly lower on Math SAT, so fewer are able to enter more remunerative jobs. At which point stay at home mom starts to look more attractive.

    For example a guy with a 550 math and 450 reading SAT (1000 composite) can be a plumber or electrician but not an engineer.

    A woman with a 450 math and 550 reading (1000 composite) probably can't even be an electrician let alone engineer.

    So while both have 1000 SAT and therefore not really college level ability, the guy's math/reasoning is high enough for him to get a better paying job.

    Based on the data I have seen, the wage gap is due to ability and opportunity cost. So what do you think could change such a gap? I mean right now women are pressured to do better in school and they do their best. On average girls have better grades. Unfortunately they don't actually seem to learn as much. Despite society giving women opportunity and girls compliantly striving, they achievement gap is a significant barrier.

    Posted by: hippie at April 19, 2010 12:00 PM