Britney's "virginity" was nothing but a sales-pitch to young girls. A fallacy used to manipulate little girls into following in her footsteps and we all know where that lead (sic). If Britney's virgin image made her a role model then what harm can her sister's pregnancy really do?So, let me save you all the trouble and skip to the conclusion where the author responds to Caitlin Flanagan's much-discussed New York Times op-ed in which she writes that teenage pregnancies have "devastating consequences." The opining Mummy Blogger writes:"
Could it be that "devastating consequences" aren't always so devastating? There are happy endings contrary to what Caitlin Flanagan had to say.Well, for starters, you would have almost certainly had no way to support yourself and your baby. You would have been relying on others, most likely adults. And you would have failed to recognise that the right to choose comes with responsibility. It's one thing for an adult to choose to have a baby -- and even then there can be complications when the adult is unable to support herself and the baby, or when the sperm donor doesn't wish to be a father, or, in the worst case scenario, when he was lied to about birth control.
I didn't make a mistake having my baby. .. The right choice for me may not be the right choice for you and the right choice for you may not be the right choice for me and the right choice for Jamie Lynn Spears may be the wrong choice for you and your family but come on, now. Let's all have some respect for people's procreational choices.
No, I wasn't sixteen when I chose to be a mother but what if I was?
A 16-year-old is not going to look after a baby on her own. Her parents and/or the state are going to have to help so "her choice" is going to involve a lot of other people who might have chosen otherwise.
Personally, I have no moral qualms about first trimester abortion, but I know people who do and respect their point of view. I would never want to talk someone into an abortion or "force" a child to have one -- and, frankly, I'm not even sure if I have the legal right to do so. What I know, however, is that I will almost certainly never have to. But in the highly unlikely event that I were faced with a 16-year-old telling me she was keeping her baby, I would tell her quite clearly that I was not going to be helping out. No financial aid. No babysitting. No nothing. If she made an adult choice, she would be on her own as an adult to deal with the adult consequences. She would be looking look after the baby on her own because it would be her choice not mine -- and I would have done everything withing my power to point out why I believed it was the wrong choice.
That may sound cruel, but it's what I would do. Now, of course, if I did it to Jamie Lynn Spears she would have the financial resources to tell me to stuff it, which is, what separates Jamie Lynn Spears from all the other 16-year-old pregos. As for Juno in the movie, while she was charming and I enjoyed the flick, her character was hardly realistic. And much as it was in keeping with that unrealistic character that she chose to have the baby and give it up for adoption, there were few real life lessons to be learned from the movie other than use birth control. This is doubly, triply, quadruply so if you are a teenager having sex who does not believe in abortion.
4 comments:
Bravo dog lady! If my 17-yr-old came home and said she was pregnant and not getting an abortion, I would say the same as you. Abortion is legal but is never shown as an option in movies or tv shows. For 40 yrs I've been witness to a cousin who had 3, count-em, 3, pregnancies out of wedlock after getting pregnant for the first time at an elite private college. Her parents (born again Christians, of course) helped raise those kids but to this day she scrapes by as a barmaid. Her kids are a mess. And why aren't kids giving up their babies for adoption the way they did when I was in h.s. in the 70s?
You made some good points and I'm glad you expanded on your previous post because calling someone else's argument dumb without explanation is generally more my style.
Southoftheborder, out of wedlock pregnancies don't carry the same amount of stigma that they had in the 70s.
I find the opinions in this post to be harsh, and I disagree with them, pending furthe clarification. What if you had a 20something year old daughter that didn't have a viable way of supporting herself financially? Does that mean that she shouldn't have the right to choose? What if she doesn't have a high school education, further limiting her money earning abilities?
Where do we draw the line on who has the right to choose? It's easy enough to say that 16-year-olds shouldn't have that right, but, going by your reasonings, that would mean that a lot of adults shouldn't be able to make that decision, either. I shudder to think that outside entities should have that sort of power over anybody's reproductive system.
Hex,
Everyone still has the right to choose. What they don't have is the right to demand my support -- emotional and financial for their choices.
So if I had a 20-something daughter with no way to support herself, I"d tell her to think long and hard about what her choice meant for her future.
Post a Comment