Apparantly those teen girls in Ohio got pregnant by immaculate conception

[Beaverhausen]

CNN did a story about the high school in Ohio where 65 of the 490 girls at the school have become pregnant in the past year. Not one word was mentioned about the males who made these girls pregnant.

This was the most inane piece of reporting I think I have ever seen.

The reporter didn't even ask the girls if they used birth control. The girls he interviewed seemed surprised that they were pregnant as if they had no clue how it happened.

IMHO we really need to start making the boys/men who are getting these girls pregnant responsible for their actions.

If you want to read the story its at the end of this transcript.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0508/26/lt.02.html

:mad:

[Cronus Protagonist]

1. I sense the hand of an Intelligent Designer

Proof.


/sarcasm

http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13
Buttons for brainy people - educate your local freepers today!

[txaslftist]

2. Impossible.

GWB is the reincarnation of Jaysus. I mean really, look at his mom. Any doubt that was immaculate conception?

[NRaleighLiberal]

3. Inane indeed...in this brave new world, we can only discuss....

abstinence....welcome to the flat earth society! The fundies have taken over. We can't talk about birth control - we close our ears and eyes to the fact that kids have sex...that hormones rage...the question I have is, do those who work in MSM actually believe the BS that they are peddling? Do they go home at night, flagellate themselves for selling out, and ponder a more useful career? Or are they just more of the hypnotized??

[mzteris]

4. it's always

"those girls' fault" doncha know. Buncha hussies.

:sarcasm:

[dmkinsey]

20. Yeah, that's probably

just a bad town populated by bad bad people.:sarcasm:

[One_Life_To_Give]

5. Toilet Seats!

Thats what I hear. They caught it from toilet seats.

[magnetism]

42. Airborne!

I heard that it's airborne as well.

[Kber]

93. No no - necking and dirty dancing. Duh.

[SidDithers]

6. It was obviously the Flying Spaghetti Monster...

they were all touched by his noodly appendage.

<cue rimshot>

Sid

[txaslftist]

7. Seriously, though. What should they have said?

"Sources indicate that all of these females were, in fact, impregnated by males."

"According to our research, teenage boys surprisingly will have sex when it is available."

It's not CNN's job to chase down these boys and put their names on the air, in fact it might not be legal for them to do so. It is the state gummint's job to find them and extract whatever child support can be garnished from their McDonald's paychecks, and that's about the end of it.

Public villification for their lack of moral restraint would hardly accomplish anything, any more than being judgmental of these girls does.

A better question than "why did this happen?" might be "how are we gonna pay for this?".

[Beaverhausen]

11. They should have reported the whole story

not just half of it.

I agree it isn't CNN's job to chase the boys down but the principal of the school also didn't mention one word about the boys, nor did any other the girls or their mothers. So when you watched the story it just seemed like the girls got pregnant out of thin air.

It was shitty reporting but it represents many in society's belief that men don't have to be responsible when they impregnate a woman.

[fiveleafclover]

22. Well, CNN can be lazy in their reporting...

Everybody knows a pregnant girl when they see one. But the guy who knocked her up isn't so easy to spot.

[TahitiNut]

27. Motherhood is a biological fact; fatherhood is a matter of faith...

... or allegation. At least until in-utero genetic testing becomes more commonplace than EPT kits. :shrug:

My motto: "Beware of passive voice!" :dunce:

[txaslftist]

29. Dna testing on putative fathers is more common than a breath test...

in a dui. They'll find the fathers.

[Ms. Clio]

8. Such a good point--why don't they also report that 65 boys or men

are also expectant fathers, and air some of their names on national television?

Instead there's an afterthought about "educating the boys, too."

My god, what a sorry ass excuse for journalism. No wonder I never ever watch CNN.


(typo edit)

[Orrex]

10. Not trying to be funny, but

there's no guarantee that it's 65 boys or men. Heck, it could be just one. And that's the problem.

Absent a smoking gun, so to speak, there's almost no way at this point that CNN can report on the specifics of the fathers in any verifiable way, and I think that a generic report would come across as even shabbier journalism than is CNN's norm.

[Beaverhausen]

13. I thought of that too

maybe the real story is that there is one guy going around screwing all these girls.

[Ms. Clio]

14. Don't worry, I did not detect any humor in your reply

You ask some of the girls, who were almost certainly having sex with young men they believed they were in love with at the time, and get his name, and talk to him, and ask him how he feels about being a father and why didn't he use birth control, etc.?

Or do you think these girls are all just wild sluts who slept with one or a few real hot studs?

[Hobarticus]

16. This sounds like it's turning into a boys v. girls thing...

It take two to tango. These girls made decisions, too. No one's saying that they're 'wild sluts'. I think the point here is that the system has failed these young men and women, by not teaching them the consequences of their actions via real-life sex education. And it's at a frightening rate.

[Ms. Clio]

21. The point was that it DOES take "two to tango," but CNN didn't present it

that way, but just focused on the girls. Their names, their problems in school, how it affects them, with no word about the fathers.

The post to which I was replying argued that maybe it was really just one bee busily pollinating a bunch of willing flowers. Riiiiight.

[Hobarticus]

23. I gotcha. This is sad, in any case.

Our system has failed these kids, and their parents marched right into it singing 'glory, glory, hallelujah' all the way by allowing this to happen in their schools.

[Ms. Clio]

31. Sad, and frustrating, because it seems so preventable

I was just talking with a middle-school teacher who mentioned all the pregnancies in his school--I wish now I had asked about the type of sex education the kids were getting.

[tonkatoy57]

17. Who Were They Having Sex With?

Were the girls having sex with their peers at school or were they, as too often is the case, having sex with men who were significantly older than they are?

I think that's the dirty little secret of teen pregnancy; how many times it's not Bobby and Susie in the back seat of the car, but Susie and a man who should know better and should not just be hounded for child support but should be prosecuted for having sex with a minor.

[Ms. Clio]

24. Yes, I thought of that, too

Could be older men, who should face criminal liability and public exposure.

[Hobarticus]

25. Still, that implies that these young girls can't make decisions

themselves, and that's not right, either.

No matter what the age of the man, any woman can make a decision based on right and wrong. If the data that she's basing that decision on is bogus from the get-go (like, abstinence), then the education system has failed her, terribly.

[tonkatoy57]

38. Oh, There's No Doubt The System Has Failed

It's failed abysmally. Abstinence Only is the sorriest excuse for public health and educational policy I can think of. It makes my head hurt just to contemplate how backwardly asinine a policy it is.

However, my point was that it's not always two teens who suddenly find themselves strolling the aisles at RugratsR'US. In too many instances a young women is impregnated by a man who by dint of life experience alone should know better than to be fucking teenage girls. And who at the very least should be aware of the existence of, oh, I don't know, condoms. This is a pretty strong, and maybe not the best word to use, but these older guys are predators.

There are a lot of reasons why teenage girls become pregnant. Ignorance is only one. Sometimes it's because they are looking for love, or self worth, or something to give a meaningless life meaning. Sometimes they feel that no one loves or cares for them and if they just had a child to love them their life would have so much more value. Unfortunately, teen age girls are no better at risk analysis than teen age boys. They don't see being an unwed teen mother as assigning their children to a life of poverty and deprivation.

[magnetism]

76. How is ignorance even a reason?

If a girl is going to have sex, she should demand a condom or be on the pill. And the guy should have a condom. But to say that a girl who can make a decision to have sex can't also go buy a condom for her guy is crazy. I mean, these girls do not even know that sex leads to pregnancy?

Have you taken into account the fact that some girls are the predators also? Some girls are not as dumb as this article makes them out to be. Some lie about being on the pill.

Personally, my school was not even exposed to the Abstinence Only policy and pregnancy still happened. The real problem with the Abstinence Only policy is that young, horny teenagers cannot fight the urge. If Abstinenece Only was practiced, you could not call it backward. It may be cruel and hard to do, but nobody gets pregnant through abstinence. Nobody gets an STD through abstinence.

[Orrex]

32. That's a good observation

In contrast, cases of older women being unexpectedly impregnated by teenaged boys are vanishingly rare. So rare, in fact, that they garner nationwide media coverage.

Thank God that abstinence-only education works so well...

[TahitiNut]

28. "they believed they were in love"???

Of course. After all, everyone knows that females don't copulate without being in love... and males never do. :eyes:

[Ms. Clio]

33. Sorry, of course you are right! I'm not saying their partners were not

in the grips of romantic infatuation, either. And obviously one can have lots of sex without being "in love." But I think that many teenaged girls who are having sex are probably looking for something they believe is love.

Isn't that really the point of the OP? Why no mention of the fathers--who they are, why they engaged in unprotected sexual activity?

[TahitiNut]

40. The CNN 'story' was typical tabloid journalism.

It's all about sympathetic 'victims' and invisible boogeymen. (Why is it we never hear about boogeywomen?) :silly:

Furthermore, they're dealing with minors ... minors whose privacy is an issue. (I doubt they've been emancipated.) With 65 pregnant females (assumedly mostly minors), it's noteworthy that only 2-3 were presented on-screen. That most likely required the consent of the females and the consent of their parents/guardians. Can we venture a guess at how many males (and their parents) might give such consent?

:shrug: Nothing new here... let's move along.

[Ms. Clio]

43. I don't think it was intended to make the girls "sympathetic"

The boogeymen weren't so much invisible in this tale as nonexistent.

I know it's nothing new--lots of things are posted here that are "nothing new" and I comment on relatively few of them--today this just struck me, for some reason.

[Orrex]

37. They may be wild sluts, they may not be--it's not up to me to say

But it is most certainly not up to the understandably traumatized teenage mom-to-be to name her impregnator. To do so is hearsay and could easily result in a slander lawsuit against CNN and the poor girl herself.

If you can find one of these dads-to-be who steps up and admits to it, then you can ask him any on-air question you want to ask. But lacking that admission or solid evidence, you can't just go around accusing boys of fathering (and, presumably, abandoning) these children. That's tantamount to an accusation of rape.

Or are you just doing a cattle call for an episode of Montel Williams?

[Ms. Clio]

39. Hearsay??? LOL--the girl is nothing if not a direct witness

If she names the boy or man she was sleeping with, another person can certainly ask that person if he wishes to confirm, deny, or discuss it.

That's kind of how reporting works.

[Orrex]

44. You're missing the point,

It seems as though you have no objection to a person being subjected to humiliating media scrutiny, as long as that person is a male. Or am I misreading your woman-as-inherent-victim tone?

I'm clearly not saying that she won't generally remember whose penis she invaginated; I'm saying that it would be irresponsible for a media-source to support accusations without better evidence than she-said/he-said. That's kind of how reporting should work.

But let's say that CNN refers to the accused as "the alleged father" and manages to interview him on-air. If he says "yes, I slept with her, but so did 64 other guys; she's a wild slut," then I suppose that you won't mind it when CNN refers to her as "the alleged wild slut." She's certainly free to confirm, deny, or discuss it.

Or suppose that he says "yes, I had sex with her because she got me drunk and erect and then mounted me against my will." Presumably CNN can refer to her as the "pregnant alleged rapist," and she's again free to confirm, deny, or discuss it.

Barring evidence of coercive male-on-female intercourse, it's offensively sexist to think of the mother-to-be as the only potential victim.

Obviously it's a crime for the actual father to abandon the mother and child. However, absent some means of confirming the identify of the father prior to the birth and beyond the mother's say-so, I'd like to hear the responsible plan by which you propose to hold these fathers accountable.

[Beaverhausen]

46. You are missing the point that they didn't even mention that these girls

got pregnant by someone else.

They didn't mention the fathers of these babies once in the entire story.

why are you arguing about something that didn't happen?

[Orrex]

47. Have you read the thread?

Here's the relevant quote:

Such a good point--why don't they also report that 65 boys or men are also expectant fathers, and air some of their names on national television?

That's the point with which I'm taking issue--the angry cry that 65 boys or men should be subjected to public humiliation on the basis of nothing more than these girls' accusations.

[Ms. Clio]

49. Oh, so now it's an "angry cry for their national humiliation"

No, I was simply pointing out that apparently they did not have to fear such a development at all.

You really are a barrel of funnies.

[Orrex]

54. Were the girls' names given?

What purpose, other than coercive humiliation, would be served by the public air of the alleged fathers' names, as you've suggested?

[Beaverhausen]

57. I put a link to the transcript in the OP. Please read it!!!

they interviewed ON CAMERA two of the girls and gave their names.

[Orrex]

64. Were they named against their will? And without their prior knowledge?

If they stepped up and agreed to be named on air, then I applaud their courage.

However, the rallying cry here is that the potential father's names should be stated publicly, presumably with or without their consent and, I suspect, with no more certainty than the girls' accusations.

That is the point to which I'm objecting. To subject the potential fathers to media scrutiny and public humiliation, on the basis of nothing more than their accusers' claims, strikes me as self-evidently wrong.

Why, in your view, would it be correct to name these potential fathers on-air?

I acknowledge that this isn't part of your original post, but this is where the debate has led.

[Ms. Clio]

65. Yeah, you just presume a lot, none of which has turned out to be

remotely accurate.

[Beaverhausen]

70. no, one poster suggested it - it is not the rallying cry

I started the thread because the CNN reporter didn't even mention the word "father" once. Not once. and the word "boy" was stated only once.

I don't think they should name potential fathers by name unless they agree to it. But it might have been nice to mention that SOMEONE FATHERED THESE CHILDREN.

Get it?????

[Ms. Clio]

74. And I suggested it mostly because it apparently is just so unthinkable

Apparently akin to feminazism.

[Orrex]

83. I'm responding to one poster's rallying cry.

Get it?

This may likewise come as a shock to you, but I suspect that most of CNN's viewership (and many of the readers here) are able to infer that sperm were likely involved at some point of the process.

And, as I've mentioned several times already--no shit that the fathers should be held responsible.

[Beaverhausen]

86. well...you said "The rallying cry here..."

and if you agree that the fathers should be held responsible why didn't the CNN article mention the fathers once in the story? Just in general, not naming names.

Because when you see that story you learn that only these 65 girls lives are now taking a sharp turn due to the fact that they are pregnant. The boys lives? What happens to them?

I started this thread because I was just so appalled at the terrible reporting on this story. I'm not trying to get into a war about who should blame who, etc. But it did seem to be a very sexist viewpoint on the situation at that high school.

I think we can all agree that both boys and girls need to have access to sex education, reproductive healthcare and contraception.

[Orrex]

89. Now we're getting somewhere

"Here" in the part of the thread to which I was responding.

Anyway, that the fathers-in-general should be discussed is an excellent idea; might we submit this suggestion to CNN?

My objection, which Ms. Clio and I are now addressing in a different part of the thread, was that it seemed that the potential fathers were to be named in a gesture of public humiliation. I accept Ms. Clio's clarification of her position--namely, that the potential fathers be named only with their consent.

If CNN had mentioned the fathers, I wonder where the discussion might have gone. I wonder if they were attempting to avoid the automatic males-are-the-victimizers angle that these kinds of stories tend to generate.

Now that I think of it, I'm surprised that the mothers didn't raise the general issue of paternity on their own.

[Beaverhausen]

90. I plan to write to CNN later today

not that I think it will help. I actually started this thread to get some ideas about what to say to them. I have some now. ;-)

I was very surprised that the fathers weren't brought up by the pregnant girl's mothers who were on camera. But you never know...whoever edited the story may have left that part out.

[Beaverhausen]

52. Have I read the thread? I started it!!!

and guess what! 65 girls were impregnated by 65 males! They didn't get pregnant by themselves. They aren't just accusing a guy of having sex with them- they are PREGNANT!!!

someone did it and someone needs to be held at least half responsible.

again...the reason I started this thread is that no where in the CNN story did they mention the fathers of these children. and that is totally ridiculous.

[Orrex]

58. Starting the thread isn't the same as reading it

This may come as a shock to you, but these discussion commonly expand beyond the commentary of the author of the original post.

I've stated clearly, several times over, that the fathers obviously should be held responsible. No one with any sense could dispute this. You're correct that CNN should have mentioned it--shame on them for failing to do so.

Be that as it may, the overall discussion isn't solely about that point. The debate quickly expanded into, among other things, the precise number of people required "to tango" and whether or not a responsible media-source is justified in reporting the accusations of a pregnant girl under duress.

Additionally, you're asserting your suspicions as fact; 65 females are pregnant, but we frankly don't know how many males are involved.

[Ms. Clio]

62. Apparently replying to a thread doesn't mean you read the linked article

I was clearly responding to the fact that several girls were named in the piece, and the focus was all on them and their problems in school and the consequences for THEM.

[Orrex]

68. Is this your first time in an online discussion?

If an independently contestable point is made within a thread, it's hardly necessary to read the original post or the articles linked therein.

Your point can easily be addressed on its own without resorting to any "sauce for the goose" system of propriety.

[Ms. Clio]

71. Ah, you're such a funny fellow

You completely misinterpreted the point, because you never read the article it was based on.

Keep digging.

[Orrex]

80. Oh, please

I can say with confidence that my interpretation of your point was consistent before and after reading the article and transcript.

My mistake was in failing to realize that two of the girls were named, but they were named with their consent, so the bulk of my objection stands.

My point also stands that it isn't necessary to read the original post to identify a glaring error in a subsequent post.

[Sparkman]

56. Then why not INSIST that equal treatment, from an investigation, apply to

the "boys". No real man would let a baby go without a father's name on the bithcertificat.

[jmowreader]

60. Please make that "up to 65"

I don't think that one male impregnated all of these girls. Eventually, the news that this one guy is very good at causing pregnancies is going to get around, and his supply of willing partners will evaporate.

I don't necessarily think it's 65 males, either; certainly one guy is responsible for two or three, perhaps as many as five pregnancies.

I'll go for between 50 and 60 males.

And until they're proven, by valid paternity testing, to have caused these pregnancies, their names need to remain unspoken. Snap judgments which prove to be wrong are things freepers do.

[Ms. Clio]

48. The media reports "she said/he said" all the time

You can turn this into a sexist brawl if you wish, I've got better things to do today.

[Orrex]

51. I'm merely participating in the sexist brawl that you turned it into

Your initial complaint was an invitation to a sexist brawl, and if you'd prefer to vanish in the middle of it, that's up to you.

You explicitly support the public airing of names of the accused fathers, without any stated regard for their ages or circumstance. Do you also support the publicizing of the pregant girls' names, regardless of age or circumstance?

By your calculus, the males' wishes of anonymity are irrelevant, so I presume that you'd equally support the revelation of the females' names, regardless of their wishes.

If you've got better things to do today, by all means do them.

[Ms. Clio]

59. The females names WERE aired, with their consent, or their parents'

The same standards would apply to any male who was interviewed, so I don't know where you are coming up with the notion that it would be pulicized "regardless of their wishes."

Again, I was trying to point out that half of the equation was missing, and you are trying to paint that as if it was an attack on men.

[Orrex]

78. You're changing your stance mid-thread

Hobarticus correctly identified your attempt to frame this as a boys-vs-girls issue here, and you yourself called for asking the girls to name the potential fathers here.

Maybe you didn't read your post, so here's the money quote:

You ask some of the girls, who were almost certainly having sex with young men they believed they were in love with at the time, and get his name, and talk to him, and ask him how he feels about being a father and why didn't he use birth control, etc.?

Help me out--I can't see exactly where you exhort CNN to get the consent of the potential fathers prior to interviewing him.

And while we're at it, that excerpt is an attack on both men and on women. CNN reports that Ms. Hinton knew about birth control, so why the hell didn't she use it?

[Ms. Clio]

82. Yes, of course, I should have included the disclaimer, "CNN must get their

consent prior to interviewing them." LOL.

You didn't read the linked article, so you did not even know the girls were named, so you assumed I was calling for the names of the boys or men to be aired publicly as some sort of vengeful feminist ritual.

You got all your manly sensibilities in a big wicked bunch at the very thought.

Ciao.

[Orrex]

84. You seem unable to communicate without ad hominem

That's your right, but it doesn't help your argument.

Your assertion was faulty whether or not one or two or sixty-five of the girls were named on-air. Your unwillingness to see that the clear consent of two girls is distinct from the omission of any securing of consent from the potential fathers suggests to me that you do, indeed, wish the potential fathers to be treated differently from the confirmed mothers.

Your claims that this isn't a boy-vs-girls issue, all the while accusing me of getting my "manly sensibilities in a big wicked bunch" reveals your decision not to refrain from canned sexist insults which speaks further to the underlying quality of your argument or your ability to articulate it.

However, I would like to offer an honest apology: it was incorrect of me to make snarky speculations about your experience in online debates. I withdraw the insults I levelled against you to that effect, and I apologize for making them in the first place.

[Ms. Clio]

87. Oh, very good, accuse me of ad hominems while you formally withdraw

your own snark. Hey, I was just trying to be funny.

You just won't admit that I was responding to a piece you did not bother to read. Obviously, I would expect that CNN would observe all the journalistic and legal proprieties in regard to the possible fathers. So why not talk to some of them? Why you have such a problem with that is simply baffling to me.

[Orrex]

88. Oops

Yeah, that was pretty shitty of me. If you'd care to reframe your attacks, I'll happily withdraw my complaint about your ad hominems, too.

Anyway, from the snippet that I quoted from your post, I had no basis to conclude that you would require CNN to secure consent prior to the airing of the potential fathers' names. If that is your stance, then I submit that it might have been helpful if you'd stated that explicitly. Without that disclaimer, the call to "get their names" sounds like a vindictive hunt.

If, instead, your stance is that CNN should interview those girls who consent to be interviewed, take the names of potential fathers whom the girls consent to name, and then secure the consent of those potential fathers before airing their names, then I can withdraw most of my argument.

One lingering concern remains: in this equation, I have difficulty believing that the potential fathers won't be painted as victimizers, while the mothers are victims; barring coercive intercourse, that's not necessarily the case. If I were confident that the media-source would treat both as equal participants, then I would have no reason to object.

[Ms. Clio]

92. Okay, now that all the disclaimers are out of the way

Please accept my formal withdrawal of all ad hominems.

From a legal standpoint, I'm sure some of the girls were victimized, if they were minors having sex with older men. But they probably would not view it that way.

It would just be something new, and different, and perhaps useful, to present the impact of these many pregnancies on the lives and futures of the potential fathers, too--certainly after the babies are born, those boys or men will probably become aware of at least some of the consequences.

But then again it's television news, so we are arguing about journalism that will never occur!

And as one poster suggested downthread, probably the most important variable is poverty.

[northzax]

66. and the odds are good

that some of them are much older, early 20's-25.

[Beaverhausen]

94. Right. so many issues here

but CNN missed most of the important ones.

[northzax]

96. that's another story

an interesting one, to be sure. Who's fathering all these babies? But I think it's acceptable to report on the unusual confluence of so many unwed teenage mothers without worrying about the fathers. It'd be great if they went back though, and found the 'men' who can't keep their dicks wrapped up.

[Hobarticus]

9. Where I live, they ARE responsible and accountable...

...and are paying child support for the next eighteen years. I know many young men paying child support.

It's not enough to make them accountable after the fact. They have to know BEFOREHAND that they will be held accountable. Hence, sex education has to include some basic real-life info, such as the state's expectation that you help raise your child. Of course, if they don't get the basic sex ed anyway, it's a lost cause.

[Beaverhausen]

12. so why didn't they mention one word about this in the story?

When abstinence only is taught no one needs to teach these boys that they will be responsible if they do impregnate a girl.

[Hobarticus]

15. Because CNN's bought and paid for!

You know that! ;-)

Abstinence is the only birth control method with a 100% failure rate. Do you think anyone tells these kids that? How can they expect to consider the possible consequences of having sex when they're being brainwashed into believing that sex is not even an option?

It's bogus, all around.

[TahitiNut]

30. "Abstinence is the only birth control method with a 100% failure rate."

I love it. So true! :thumbsup:

[Sparkman]

61. Abstinence "only" is the only b/c method with 100% failure, just a suggest

[hobbit709]

18. The only sex education in Ohio

is "abstinence" No details, no science, no medical facts, nothing. My mother is with the AIDS Task Force there and when they were giving talks at the schools, the school board told them that they couldn't use the word "condom"
My mother asked "Why not?"

"Because it might give them ideas about sex"

Her response "Since Marion County is number one in the state in the teen 14 and under pregnancy rate, I'd say they're already having sex"

[fudge stripe cookays]

19. Hmmm....

The girls he interviewed seemed surprised that they were pregnant as if they had no clue how it happened.

Thanks to the freaking abstinence classes, they probably DIDN'T have a clue. God forbid we actually discover how our bodies work. :eyes:

FSC

[TexasLawyer]

26. responsibility imposed by law

at least the law makes the fathers responsible. Once paternity is established, they'll be paying child support for the next 18 years.

I hope some of these kids consider offering their babies for adoption. My husband and I have 3 beautiful adopted children-- one born to a 14 year old!

We wouldn't be parents today if these young people hadn't cared so much about the needs of their babies-- and took steps to have their babies raised by two adults who could offer a nurturing, stable home.

When children raise children it is usually a big mess.

[Niccolo_Macchiavelli]

34. wow quite a percentage!

whats next? a daycare class for the children of the children?

[patcox2]

35. That would be the "Miraculous Conception."

The conception of jesus, when the Holy Spirit came unto (heh heh) Mary, is known as the "Miraculous Conception."

The Immaculate Conception was the conception of Mary herself, alone among all people, she was conceived without sin, and thus immaculate.

[Prism]

36. I still can't get over the school mascot

The Trojans.

They didn't need more education. They needed a pep rally!

Joking aside, it is a little bizarre the male part of the equation is absent from the story. I hope that absence is only in the media aspect of this, and not in the reality of those women and their future children.

But, somehow, I know better.

[mongo]

41. Here is some relevant info on the school

This school Ohio average
Agency Graduation Rates 51% 86%
Median Household Income $9,455 $41,758
Median Value of Housing Unit $30,300 $103,563
% Owning / % Renting 4% / 96% 67% / 33%
% Vacancy of Housing Units 15% vacancy rate 7% vacancy rate

http://www.publicschoolreview.com/school_ov/school_id/61685

Can you imagine what the pregancy rate would be if the dropout rate was less than 50%? Yes, abstinance only education is a big problem, but everyone in this thread is ignoring the underlying problem poverty.

[Sparkman]

73. Poverty combined with government interference by not easing restrictions

on birth control and not spending more on education, when the family income is too low. Poverty stresses the kids, who can't participate in the clothing games and "stuff" competition,right? So Dems corner the market on compassion for kids. And Dems corner the market on responsible fiscal management, that causes the poverty in the first place. imo

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

45. Sounds like the Village and The Children Of The Damned.

:::twilight zone music time::::

[magnetism]

50. um...doesn't it take two to tango?

Are you claiming that only the boys are to blame?

I mean, I agree that some better reporting could have been done to see what percentage of the 65 actually tried birth control, but the one girl, I mean:

"R. HINTON: I never planned on getting pregnant. I mean, to me, it was something that always happened to that other girl. You know, I never could get pregnant. I'm too good to get pregnant. But here I am."

She is too good to get pregnant? She acts too good? She makes it sound like she was just unlucky. Like sex could be had by good girls with no consequences. The horny boys are definitely part of the issue, but nobody is being held accountable.

And if the girls DID use birth control, obviously it did not work.

[Beaverhausen]

55. that is my point

it takes two. not one. These girls didn't get pregnant alone.

I watched the story hoping to find out if these girls were just so uninformed they didn't know that they should use birth control or if they did that it failed. But they didn't mention BC at all. or the fathers. nothing to tell us why the percentage of pregnant girls was so much higher than the national average.

[magnetism]

72. ok...I can see your point

:hi:

[Beaverhausen]

75. thanks! I seem to have trouble explaining myself to other people

:hi:

[Ripley]

81. No you don't.

I've felt the same way until I realized it wasn't me. It's them. There are people in this thread purposely making it a sexist brawl. They act incensed that some slutty girl would dare to name the boy/man who impregnated her.

The story is offensive and sexist. They are putting the entire burden of sexual behavior and birth control on the girls.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

53. Lot of that going around lately.

[Lilith Velkor]

79. Must be the midichlorions.

[ernstbass]

63. Actually it was alien abduction

[ck4829]

67. Those Lib'ruls must have used some sort of machine to get them pregnant!!!

[smartvoter]

69. Hey, it happened with Vader. nt

[The Doctor.]

77. Or maybe teach, say...

Comprehensive sex education in schools?

Sure, those boys should certainly be held accountable. That would be a great incentive for them to institute birth control or abstinence.

But better access to both birth control and information is still key.

[Catherine Vincent]

85. That's why these young girls shouldn't give it up so easy.

If birth control failed, she goes thru nine months of pregnancy, she goes thru labor, she has to end up supporting the child (with the help of the government) while the young father is free to do whatever he wants to do with no responsibility. No worries for him. He's got his little excitement, he'll just move on to the next one in line willing to have sex with him.

[marshall]

95. Nothing remarkable about this case

I taught at a high school that had a teen pregnancy program, and frankly 65 pregnancies in a school this size seems about average to me, certainly nothing to draw national attention. We had 65 girls in our program which covered middle school through high school. They were provided health care, day care, special buses, help with filling out paperwork for government assistance, and it kept them in school.

But I will echo the points about the fathers being unmentioned in this article. My big gripe about our school's program was that nothing was done to encourage the fathers of these children to participate in the upbringing of their offspring.

[Javaman]

91. "Paging Mr. Chirst to the delivery room"

[dsc]

97. I would be willing to bet that a goodly number of those sirers

are men not boys at that school.

[bloom]

98. " the United States still has the highest rate of teen pregnancy..."

FOREMAN (voice-over): Sarah Brown of the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy points out, although national teen pregnancy rates have been cut by a third in the past decade, the United States still has the highest rate of teen pregnancy in the industrialized world, double that of England, the nearest rival.

BROWN: We have to keep saying that, even when the overall picture is so good as it is now, there are still these very, very serious problems in many parts of America. And this is one.

FOREMAN: Back in Canton, community leaders are also speaking up, pledging renewed efforts to educate not only the girls, but the boys here, too....

FOREMAN: Monica Selby feels it has all come down to a terrible choice, give up her baby or her hopes for a diploma next spring. The adoption has already been arranged.
-----

Part of the problem of the US (over other developed countries) may be how tight it holds on to the patriarchal, boys/men can be irresponsible and it won't be mentioned in the news article attitude, etc. - while the girls shoulder the burden. It sure doesn't help.

Like the "companion" thread about men who want to be shielded from seeing live births because it might interfere with their ability to be aroused. Allowing/making it easy for men to be clueless. Not a good thing.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4456684

Good on you for pointing it out.