2008 June 19 Thursday
High School Girls In Pact To Get Pregnant?

This begs the question: Should parents have the legal right to implant Norplant contraceptives in their under 18 daughters?

BOSTON — At least 17 girls at the public high school in the seaside town of Gloucester, Mass., are expecting babies, and a Time magazine report says nearly half became pregnant after making a pact to do so and raise the children together.

Local officials reached Thursday would not confirm the existence of such a pact but acknowledged that many of the 17 pregnancies — a total four times as many as last school year at the 1,200-student school — had been intentional.

In an earlier age these girls would have feared the shame of unwed pregnancy. In an earlier age adults would have condemned them from a position of confidence in their moral authority.

Maybe by getting pregnant as a group these Massachusetts girls can compete with Jamie Lynn Spears for fame.

Jamie Lynn Spears, the TV actress and sister of the singer Britney Spears, sent the celebrity gossip machinery into a lather last December when, at the age of 16, she confirmed to the world that “I’m pregnant.” Today, she’s rocketing to the top of Google’s search charts with the arrival, reported initially by People magazine, of Maddie Briann, weighing in at 7 pounds, 11 ounces. (The child presumably has a surname, but it isn’t mentioned in the report.)

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2008 June 19 10:48 PM  Civilizations Decay


Comments
Stephen said at June 20, 2008 5:26 AM:

...Unless its all a media beat up. It just sounds like one of those stories that makes such good copy that a 'journalist' instinctively knows to file first and verify afterward.

What is it that Churchill said - a lie is half-way around the world before the truth has put on its pants?

Gannon said at June 20, 2008 6:31 AM:

I respectfuly but strongly disagree with your assesment. Parents do not have the right to force unnecesary and potentialy harmful medical treatment onto their children. I in fact even oppose male circumcision. You say that teen pregnancy shows decline of civilization. But here you are ignoring a lot of facts. For all of history, girls married between the ages of 13-20 and had babies early on. Teen girls aged 14-15 are not children anymore, but highly fertile and nature tells them to get pregnant. 15 year old women who wanted to get pregnant only a few decades ago could get married and start a family, counting with social aprroval. Now a 16 year old woman who wants to get married is send to a psychologist. Also, marrying of teen girls means to give them to man in their twenties who can finance a family, something a lot of society nowadays disapproves of. It is natural and part of her biological cycle for a fifteen year old femlae to marry and have a family, it is us, society, that doesn't give her the opportunity.
What is unnatural is to delay childbirth in women until their thirties when they are perimenopausal. A lot of girls just don't want to go through another ten years of nonsense education, marry, have a family and get on with their lifes. She doesn't need five years of women studies to become a secretary. And a good three years tarining program could turn her into an excellent nurse.

Dave said at June 20, 2008 10:05 AM:

Yes in an earlier age such as 50's and 60's having a child young was condemned but before that it was perfectly normal for 17-16-15 year olds to have children and in many cases younger.
I agree with Gannon, it is not those girls who are the strange ones, its the people who wait until their most fertile years are behind them that are historically the odd ones out.

In here's how the age of consent in England has changed.
1275: 12
1875: 13
1885: 16

I couldn't quickly find the US stats complicated by differences in state law but if I remember correctly it follows a similar trend and it was only raised from 11 in around 1900 in some places?

-

I see what the girls have done as a good thing tbh because it shows that despite all the anti family spiteful leftist social engineering they can't buck nature.

Another thing, apparently these girls had seen other pregnant teens slightly older doing well and wanted to copy them, is it not true that girls/women pick up hormones from pregnant women (or women who have recently given birth) and become broody as a result? so the schools policy of day-care centres in school might be causing the problem/situation?

Dragon Horse said at June 20, 2008 6:10 PM:

Its that damn Scotch-Irish white trash culture...I don't know what is wrong with white people, must be low IQ. You don't see East Asians doing this. Horrible. LOL

This site is kind of funny in that there is so much class envy...complaining about "elite whites" and taking positions that are mainly held by low IQ white trash in Appalachia and some Southern swamp areas, then putting down minorities for having lower average IQ's than whites. LOL

See any hypocrisy in that?

tommy said at June 20, 2008 6:39 PM:
In an earlier age these girls would have feared the shame of unwed pregnancy. In an earlier age adults would have condemned them from a position of confidence in their moral authority.

You've got it. But we live in more "progressive" times now.

Randall Parker said at June 20, 2008 6:52 PM:

Dragon Horse,

Hypocrisy: the practice of claiming to have standards or beliefs that are contrary to one's real character or actual behaviour

Am I knocking up high school girls? Or do I have a low IQ and live in a shack in Appalachia or a swamp?

Also, anecdotes are not statistical averages for a group.

Randall Parker said at June 20, 2008 6:58 PM:

Gannon,

If a birth control injection had no side effects would you still object to parents getting it done to their 15 and 16 year old daughters?

I see these girls as creating external costs for the rest of us. There was no welfare state in 1275. People who reproduced when they couldn't afford to saw their children die of starvation and of diseases brought on by malnutrition. Today when people have babies they can't fully care for we pay. I am opposed to this.

Dragon Horse said at June 20, 2008 7:52 PM:

Lets simplify this.

Reality is that you do not see people in East Asia doing this? Part of the reason must be that they have higher IQs than these white girls (and they are white) is that not true? This is not an issue of impulsive behavior, inability to delay gratification. Nope, this was planned. So it is an issue of limited ability to cognitively reason.

Still...if we extrapolate from some of the base assumptions on this site.

1) Wealthy people are primarily wealthy due to genes.
2) On average wealthy people are also more educated due to genes (innate intelligence).
3) Randall constantly complains about the "white elites" of the Western world.
4) Randall is not an elite.
5) Randall is complaining about the actions of his genetic betters.
6) The people who tend to agree with Randall's ideology about immigration/minorities/race, etc at the highest rate in North American society (and they are many although a minority in North America) tend to be the least educated, have high out of wedlock birth rates, have higher than average substance abuse rates, have high divorce rates, have high incarceration rates, etc. All of these traits correlate strongly with low IQ.

When I say high, I mean higher than the white norm in the Western world in general and American specifically.

So the people who agree with Randall (on average) are of lower IQ, or the bottom end of the white population.

I would say these are correct statements based on the logic that Randall commonly uses on this site.

This means that Randall spends a lot of time talking about people who are genetically deficient in a cognitive sense who are not phenotypically similar to him, but stands up for and holds many of the same views as the people who ARE phenotypically similar to him but fall to the far left end of "his groups" Bell Curve.

Hmmm...

I think there is a problem here.

My Randall's logic, just as he knows better than the average black who is his cognitive inferior, maybe the white elite who he constantly disagrees with also know far better than him as they tend to be far more educated and wealthy than him, all traits that correlate strongly with higher reasoning ability...according to Randall.

It seems quite odd that Randall shares the views of the dregs of white America and scorns his cognitive superiors, that seems to violate some basic tenants of his philosophy.

Uncle Cracker said at June 21, 2008 4:32 AM:

'Violate some basic tenants of his philosophy'
- Perhaps it's time to evict those tenants.

Scrutineer said at June 21, 2008 10:00 AM:

Randall Parker: This begs the question: Should parents have the legal right to implant Norplant contraceptives in their under 18 daughters?

No, it doesn't "beg the question." I think you mean something like "it suggests the question."

Randall Parker said at June 21, 2008 1:10 PM:

Uncle Cracker,

These tenants aren't even paying rent.

Scrutineer,

No, I like "begs" better than "suggests". The "suggests" phrasing seems too mild.

Dragon Horse,

I am disagreeing with wealthy cognitive elites who are arguing for a position for their short term benefit at our long term cost. This is caused socializing costs and privatizing profits. I'm against having my rights violated. Who agrees or disagrees with me is really besides the point.

Randall Parker said at June 21, 2008 1:25 PM:

Uncle Cracker,

These tenants aren't even paying rent.

Scrutineer,

No, I like "begs" better than "suggests". The "suggests" phrasing seems too mild.

Dragon Horse,

I am disagreeing with wealthy cognitive elites who are arguing for a position for their short term benefit at our long term cost. This is caused socializing costs and privatizing profits. I'm against having my rights violated. Who agrees or disagrees with me is really besides the point.

Scrutineer said at June 21, 2008 3:52 PM:

No, I like "begs" better than "suggests". The "suggests" phrasing seems too mild.

Randall, did you read the link? The phrase "begs the question" doesn't mean anything remotely like what you think it does.

/pedantry

Randall Parker said at June 21, 2008 4:11 PM:

Scrutineer,

But what about those laissez faire linguists who are content to see the meaning of the phrase get redefined?

I understand the technical meaning of "begs the question". But I also find the technical meaning highly unintuitive. How does "begs the question" imply that a statement assumes what it seems to show? They say "The sentence has begged the question."

The word beg most commonly means to ask for charity ask earnestly or to entreat. One has to accept a less common (but still in the dictionary) usage of beg to get the technical meaning "evade the question" or "dodge the question". Well, why can't I use beg in a more common way? And why can't philosophers say "evade" or "dodge" or "assumes the answer"?

Engineer-Poet said at June 22, 2008 7:16 PM:

Quoth Gannon:

15 year old women who wanted to get pregnant only a few decades ago could get married and start a family, counting with social aprroval. Now a 16 year old woman who wants to get married is send to a psychologist.
A few decades ago a 15-yr-old could be part of an economically viable family unit.  Today, a 16-yr-old parent is almost always a huge liability to others.

You're assuming that 18th to early 20th century US history is the norm, when it is actually an artifact of high demand for unskilled labor and the open frontier.  We no longer have these things.  Delayed parenthood is quite common in European history; I recall reading that Ireland used to have marriages delayed until the mid to late 20's, because otherwise the families would have more children than they could feed.  This didn't mean welfare dependency, this meant starvation.

We are already overextended, with our expenses much greater than our incomes.  We are going to have to retrench, and get rid of unnecessary expenses.  Tolerance of childbearing by the uneducated and otherwise unready is a luxury, and will not continue.

Public schools have vaccination requirements for students, to guarantee some level of "herd immunity" and prevent large outbreaks of communicable diseases.  I can see a similar justification for both Gardasil and Norplant.


Post a comment
Comments:
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
URL:
Remember info?

      
 
Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright ©