Your rant sounds completely justified. The idea is to love the sinner and hate the sin (or bad idea etc., not intended to open a discussion of what is a sin etc.). Love and support and fostering a child's self-esteem are all well and good, but there are limits, which seem to have been passed here.

Is any child support forthcoming, at the least?

"I'm not for slut shaming but perhaps a little shaming of the general variety is in order to show the other teens in our family that, you know, having a kid in high school is NOT ACCEPTABLE."

No, that would be a terrible thing to do.

You and your bourgeois aspirationalism. Why is no one allowed to "settle"?

I should mention that I can't do any more commenting, maybe I should have refrained from a drive by comment, sorry.

How does your cousin feel about the situation?

Dead on rant. 16 is a terrible age to have a child to take care of.

This kind of thing happens in my family. But in my family, I'm never sure if they're sincere about the, "Oh, this is SOOO WONDERFUL" or if that's just obligatory Midwestern Enthusiasm being trotted out for the occasion.

As evidence for the enthusiasm not being entirely authentic: at the first ill-advised wedding, my grandfather and cousin were watching the happy couple dance their first dance, taking bets on how long they thought the marriage would last. My grandfather, who had a low number, turned out to be close to the mark.

So I guess my question is, do you think you're dealing with people who are really excited, or people who feel obliged to be excited, and are putting on the show that, golly, Midwestern Americans put on?

2 - I don't know what the child support situation is.

6 - She seems happy, but in a child-like "playing house, doesn't know what she's gotten herself into/done to her future" kind of a way.

8 - Some of the people are being Midwestern Polite but a surprising number are genuinely excited. Most of them are older relatives, like her grandfather, who felt the family tree was lacking in boys.

(And whenever I talk about "the family", I mean my extended Italian family, not my parents, who surely feel the same way I do.)

I totally understand your reaction, however: my sister's best friend did exactly this: had a baby at sixteen, lived with her mom, and went to beauty school. I saw this woman when I was up in Canada; in fact, she cut and dyed my hair so I talked to her for like two hours.

First of all, good hairdressers make good money, and there's no shame in doing that for a living. Her daughter's doing really well in school now and about to go to high school. R seemed pretty happy and seemed to me to have a pretty decent life, plus she owns her house. In that community, where unemployment is high and wages sort of low, she's carved out a pretty good niche for herself.

Of course, the particulars might vary between the two situations, but I don't think it's self-evidently bad for teenagers to have babies.

I imagine the scope for constructive action at this point is really narrow. You could put your hair up in a beehive and go out there to visit, find a minute to sit with her, put your hand on her knee and say, honey, you know, this is a big decision, and let me tell you a story about A Friend of Mine....

Or you could just wait for the next gathering at which there are young female family members present, and utter dart-like anecdotes that will pierce their own awarenesses.

11 - Yeah, I figure there's very little constructive that I can do. Which is why I'm just gonna bitch about it on teh blogs.

10 - I'm glad to hear that everything worked out for her and I hope things work out for my cousin. And, like you say, there's nothing wrong with being a hairdresser. If that had been her dream, I'd be all for it. It just saddens me that it sounds like she's choosing it more out of circumstance.

9- agreed, her seeming childishly happy about the situation is a bad sign. Were she filled with dread and foreboding, I'd think perhaps she at least understood what she was getting herself into.

On the other hand, it is not in any way the soon-to-be kid's fault, of course, and having a beauty-schooled teenage mom he's going to be off to something of a disadvantageous start as it is. Given that, he certainly deserves to have a loving and supportive extended family around, rather than one that resents him as a ruiner of his mother's life.

What do you think she would be doing if not for the baby? Was she on a clear path to something?

re: 10

As someone who was married the first time at 17 (albeit under somewhat different circumstances), I certainly agree with the proposition that getting married and starting a family young is not always and necessarily a horrible idea (my marriage was a bia idea, it turned out, for other reasons). On the other hand, as someone who was married the first time at 17 and who has seen similar marriages, I think it pretty clearly is a bad idea in general. If nothing else, someone should explain the odds to Beck's counsin.

Although the second paragraph of 13 is entirely right, too, of course.

bia idea s/b bad idea

If that had been her dream, I'd be all for it.

I don't know you, Becks, but I'm not sure I believe this. I suspect most people here would take hairdresser-as-life-dream more as a sad commentary on circumscribed small-town ambitions than as a dream fulfilled.

And no, I'm certainly not saying there's anything wrong with being a hairdresser. My cousin is, and she makes a great living, especially considering her hours. And she genuinely enjoys her work, which is more than many people can say. But --even though she's perfectly happy -- I don't think she'd have ever described it as her "life dream."

Most people don't consider cubicle farm work (admin assistants or whatever) for a faceless corporation to be their dream either, but the people I know who do it don't get criticized for their insufficiently grand ambitions.

18- No, they don't, and again, I don't think there's anything wrong with being a hairdresser *at all*. I was just pushing against Becks' statement that if this had been her cousin's life dream, she'd have been "all for it". To answer your question directly, I'd also think it sad, perhaps even sadder, if a cousin told me her life's dream was to do "cubicle farm work for a faceless corporation".

Yes, I'm all for craft and a good income, and there's certainly no shame in hairdressing. But it's much nicer when someone makes this kind of commitment a little bit later in life, a thought that applies to the pregnancy as well.

, I'd also think it sad, perhaps even sadder, if a cousin told me her life's dream was to do "cubicle farm work for a faceless corporation".

Oh, me too. I was just pointing out that most people don't follow their dreams.

But it's much nicer when someone makes this kind of commitment a little bit later in life

Fair enough on the pregnancy, but I don't see why this is obvious with respect to hairdressing. It's not like she has to do that for the rest of her life, and in the meantime she's making good coin.

Maybe her dream is to be a mother.

What are her circumstances? Is that part of the family middle class, and would you expect her to have middle class ambitions? Or are they poorer?

Here in the UK, the govt's Teen Pregnancy Unit has done fascinating research finding that, for girls in poor neighbourhoods, having a child as a teenager has almost no negative effects on life chances. I expect your cousin isn't from such a neighbourhood, though, right?

(The research, by the way, compared girls who gave birth in their teenage years with girls in the same neighbourhood who miscarried in their teenage years, then didn't have a child until their 20s or later. The only negative effect of having the a child early was that, at age 30, the teen mum's partner was less likely to have basic educational qualifications. IIRC the research also found that becoming a mum as a teenager didn't really have any worse an effect than becoming a mum at any age up to 23. Very surprising, that one.)

Beauty school may be a fine thing for her to do. It's the HAVING and KEEPING of the kid at the age of 16 that's problematic. And it seems, Becks, that part of the subtext of the family's reaction might be "Well, at least she didn't get an abortion." Or am I just projecting my own family's attitudes onto the situation?

this scenario also worries me because most women's (girls'?) bodies are not fully developed at 16. it is more dangerous, and difficult, for them to give birth when they are as young as that.

so this is also not the best situation for your cousin's health.

(women's bodies are usually ready for childbirth closer to 19, medically speaking).

23- Maybe. And if the pregnancy was intentional, and she's mature enough to know what she's getting into (which is true for some, but far from all, 16-year-olds), I'd think it wonderful. But I'm willing to bet the pregnancy was accidental and unplanned. In which case it's a little disingenuous to describe it as her "dream."

I'm also curious what Becks' "three better plans" are? Honestly, given the situation, I can't think of that many.

What's with all these fucking dreams?! I'm going to start a class-action lawsuit to have all inspirational posters removed from public schools.

Wait, Becks, you called your grandmother last night? When?

Hang in there, Adam.

There's a fine line between loving and supporting your family member by making the best of unexpected circumstances, and appearing (to younger cousins, etc.) to endorse those circumstances as a to-be-hoped-for outcome.

For your cousin, the thing I'd be most worried about is whether she's going to go through with beauty school. In my state, beauty school requires 1200+ hours of instruction plus a final certificate exam through the state. Beauty school tuition ranges from $6-16K, not including another few hundred dollars for the state exam. A disturbing number of people make it part or all of the way through the classes and then can't pay for more and/or don't pass the exam. Working as an unlicensed hair stylist out of your basement, at least around here, is FAR less desirable than being professionally certified and free to work out of a salon.

The "setting an example" thing is harder, because it's so easy to seem dismissive of Cousin's life path when you're trying to inspire Junior Cousins not to follow in her footsteps. I tend to focus on practicalities -- i.e., starting a conversation about whether their guidance counselor is being helpful about FAFSA guidelines.

Wait, Becks, you called your grandmother last night? When?

Um.

My hairdresser friends make great money, and lord knows they seem to enjoy it more than I enjoy writing system validation reports. The real problem is that a baby is really entirely too much for a sixteen-year-old to handle well. At least she'll be living at home, which should provide lots of help. But yeah, it's sad, because having a kid at any age really does slam shut all kinds of doors and it sucks to have them all slammed shut before you even got to peek through any.

30 - Busted. I wrote this post on Friday but didn't get it up until this morning. So "tonight" was Friday night.

I'm sure the pregancy wasn't intentional. DaveB, I don't think your "Well, at least she didn't get an abortion" is projection. I'm sure that's part of it -- my family is culturally Catholic, after all.

didn't get it up until this morning

Heh.

31: Oh no. Ogged is going to accuse me of being angry. (Must be calm, must be calm....)

Becks, I wish you the best of luck in dealing with this very difficult situation!

Shorter 34: What everyone else said.

All your dreams can come true, Adam.

having a kid at any age really does slam shut all kinds of doors

This is only true for people above the lowest socio-economic levels. For many of the truly poor, those doors are nailed closed years before they have their babies. Many poor, educationally disaffected females report that having a baby actually improves their lives. And UK research indicates that educational failure is more a predictor of teen pregnancy than the other way around.

It's all about opportunity costs. And sex, of course.

Many poor, educationally disaffected females report that having a baby actually improves their lives.

This smells like something that you just pulled out of your ass. Do you have a reference for this?

A sixteen year old having a baby is a horrible thing. I can understand the disgusted feeling about all the happiness. (Who isnt sickened by happy people anyway??!!)

But, the deed is done unless she is going the adoption or abortion route. So if she isnt doing those things, they might as well make the best of it. (with a gloomy, pissed off attitude of course.)

39: I wonder if ol' Walt capitalized abstract nouns nouns when he spoke?

I was referring to more than economics. A young child is just such an enormous time demand that all sorts of social and leisure activities aren't really feasible any longer. Your potential dating pool shrinks significantly. There's lots of rewards to being a parent, but it's a full-time job on top of your full-time job.

So Becks, what class are these relatives? The sense that doors are closed and chances of fulfillment gone with a baby in your teen years is a lot weaker as you go down the class ladder, isn't it? And I'd guess that having or not having that sense (and also whether her family is shaming or supportive) has the greatest effect on how "happy" someone will be with becoming a hairdresser. It sounds like, in this case, your cousin probably doesn't feel bad about the situation, and she's being supported, so the likely outcome isn't embitterment.

But of course, from our perspective, she's throwing away her chances for a "better" life. And, speaking generally, it's probably a good thing to encourage girls not to become pregnant early, to get an education, and evaluate their options when they're more mature. That'll be better for most of them individually, and it seems like a better society when more people are educated and have better access to healthcare and social networks and all the good stuff that you get as you move up in class. So it seems perfectly reasonable that you're a bit chagrined, because you feel like you shouldn't endorse settling, but, when the deed is already done, the thing to do is to be supportive.

I happen to know quite a few young women who have had kids either in their teens (or just after, but without benefit of husband/college education/house/dog/SUV). I think a lot depends on temperment and how you want to play it. Obviously, the fact that the family is at least outwardly and materially supportive is a huge positive factor. 'Cause the alternative is pretty much going to cramp your style no matter how right-on you are. But even if the family is supportive, there's still the question of where you're going to be at 1 year, 2 years, 5 years down the road. One of the things that very young women who have kids often don't seem to grasp (in my experience), is just how hard it is to find a decent partner when you have a kid, should you find yourself single and looking. Not that this can't be done of course, but the kid is almost always going to be a net negative when it comes to dating. There are lots of otherwise decent single people who just reject anyone with a kid out-of-hand. Recent statistical and cultural evidence would seem to suggest that the traditional stigma of unmarried motherhood is falling away, especially factoring in different social strata and political affiliations. So hopefully cousin's kid will be growing up in a world without so much "welfare queens driving Cadillacs" bias.

Anyhow, perhaps a the intervention that is called for here, assuming that she is definitely going to have the kid, is to steer her towards some of the recent young-mother-positive writing and activism, like hipmama.com, Ariel Gore's books, Mama Gatherings, and related stuff. My own experience with this tendency has been very positive, and it would be great to see it opened up to more young women who don't necessarily fit the profile of punks/hippies/activists with middle/upper-middle class backgrounds.

Even if this situation isn't ideal, and I would tend to agree that it isn't, there's no reason it has to be a nightmare for anyone.

41: Let me just reach up in there and see if I can find it. Umm, smells like roses...

Give this Joseph Rowntree report on "planned" (eg accidental but not consciously avoided) teenage pregnancy a read: chapter 5 in particular.

I'd also suggest Promises I Can Keep, which asks why welfare class American females choose to have children so much younger than the middle class think they should.

Since a lot of people are asking, her family is middle class.

41: Sorry, asking you to read a report is a bit much. Here's some text copied and pasted from that report's summary:

Choosing to become pregnant was seen as
an opportunity, one that was within their
own control, to change their life for the
better. Becoming a parent was a route out of
family hardship and unhappiness, a chance
for independence, and an opportunity to
gain a new identity. Chapter 5
•Parenthood provided an opportunity to
create a loving family of one's own and, in a
sense, compensate for their own negative
childhood experiences. Bringing up a baby
was perceived as providing a purpose, one
that provided a sense of capability and
satisfaction, and was better than having a
low-paid, 'dead-end' job. Chapter 5
•Many young women reported reasons for
'planning' their pregnancy that are generic
for most parents. Many spoke of the love of
babies, often heightened by experiences of
caring for babies throughout their early life.
Also, several viewed 'getting it out of the
way' as a motivation, which would enable
them to have a good and 'youthful'
relationship with their child in the future,
while still being young enough to enjoy
their own life. Chapter 5
•The majority of the sample reported the
pleasures of parenthood, which affirmed
their seemingly rational decision. In
reflecting on their life before pregnancy,
most reported how their life had improved,
as they had hoped it would. Many said that
their life would have been far worse if they
had not become a parent - through
continued family disruption and
unhappiness, the growing sense of
worthlessness and lack of direction and, for
some, worsening alcohol and drug use.

THere's something to be said, though, for having children early, and it's this: firstly, the younger you are, the better you are able to take the time without sleep, etc. Considering how most English middle-class children waste their nights at university getting drunk and generally pissing about, why shouldn't they be looking after babies, which at least does good to another human being? I had my first child at 24, and in a purely physical sense it was much easier to cope with than the second at 35 -- OK, I'm a man, but I did a lot of childcare, and lost a lot of sleep.

Secondly, by the time the child is independent-ish, the mother is still only in her mid thirties, and very well equipped to look around and find someone to be properly married to, as it were. Better that than to find youself dumped at fifty, I think.

What ogged and minneapolitan said. And the quoted bit from reuben's 49 sounds totally plausible to me, based on the teenaged moms I've known (who, in some cases, did not get pregnant accidentally but rather set out to get pregnant).

the better you are able to take the time without sleep

OTOH, given that sleeplessness destroys one's cognitive capacity, better to save it till you've already established yourself in a career, and people have already decided you're not an idiot.

Speaking as someone who nearly fell asleep while driving at 80 mph on the M40 through the Chilterns, on account of an infant having kept one awake the night before, and the night before that, and the night....

So it seems perfectly reasonable that you're a bit chagrined, because you feel like you shouldn't endorse settling, but, when the deed is already done, the thing to do is to be supportive.

Agreed, of course. I think what Becks was getting at (not to put words into her mouth) was the difference between supportive and enthusiastic.

Leave aside what class she is and whether she's losing opportunities, let us ask, self-interestedly, what kind of parent a 16 y.o is likely to be as opposed to a 25 y.o. (acknowledging there will be variations within populations). The more mature person is, on average, going to be a wiser parent, isn't s/he? Almost self-evidently more capable of making decisions with greater forethought.

48: For meritocracy to work, there has to be some degree of downward social mobility.

by the time the child is independent-ish, the mother is still only in her mid thirties, and very well equipped to look around and find someone to be properly married to, as it were

This is exactly the life course that the women in (the very very good) Promises I Can Keep said they felt was best - in large part because they felt they could make better decisions about hustands (and get better ones) at 40 than at 20 or so. And as they were more financially independent by 40 (ie had jobs, if only basic ones), they didn't have to take any guff from their men (and guff was very much a characteristic of the relationships they had when they were younger).

by the time the child is independent-ish, the mother is still only in her mid thirties, and very well equipped to look around and find someone to be properly married to, as it were

This is exactly the life course that the women in (the very very good) Promises I Can Keep said they felt was best - in large part because they felt they could make better decisions about hustands (and get better ones) at 40 than at 20 or so. And as they were more financially independent by 40, they didn't have to take any guff from their men (and guff was very much a characteristic of the relationships they had when they were younger).

oops.

54: True, in general a 25 y.o. is probably likely to be a better parent than a 16 y.o. is likely to be. But since we're discussing an individual situation, we need to ask what kind of parent this individual is likely to be.

47/49: okay, that's saying something different than I originally thought you were saying, but now I look back and see that you were originally saying what I originally thought you said anyway, and this does tend to support what you actually said. Although in that sense I'm not sure it gets us very far given the context of the current discussion. *But*, you obviously did have a source, and didn't just pull this out of your ass, and accusing you of doing so on mere suspicion was pretty nasty. So, sorry about that. I'll try to be nicer in the future. I think I'm just cranky today because I find myself having to be here in the office working all day, quite unexpectedly.

60- were s/b weren't

what kind of parent this individual is likely to be

That, and the fact that she's living with her mom, which should help a lot.

Ogged is going to accuse me of being angry

When I read 31, I thought, "So that's the nice way to say 'calm the fuck down.'"

I'd also like to know something about the age/maturity level/commitment to Becks' cousin/commitment to baby/life plans of the expectant father. Is he also moving in with Becks' aunt?

what kind of parent this individual is likely to be

Yes, quite; though with the studies and the citations I thought it would be okay moving away from the specific cause of Becks's pain and family angst. Unless Becks would like us to continue focusing on her family's specificities.

Feel free to generalize. I got what I wanted out of this -- getting it off my chest and some insight into how this might not be the end of the world for her, even though I still don't agree with it and think it's a bad idea.

I get the difference between supportive and enthusiastic, I really do. But a family that errs on the side of enthusiastic is at least going to be supportive, and I'd far prefer that than one were the alternative was be withdrawn from school, have the child, give it up for adoption, and never ever ever speak of it again. (The case of an acquaintance of mine.)

I'm uncertainly bothered a bit by the idea that it would be a tragedy if the hypothetical girl were Yale-Harvard-whatever bound, but that if she's not, it's no big deal because she probably wasn't going anywhere anyway. I can't quite put my finger on why, though; it seems to be reminding me of students demanding higher grades because they're going to medical school.

The beauty school plan does seem like it should come with a poodle skirt. Better, perhaps, to finish high school & do a local college program?

Well, I'm going to come in and say that I disagree with Becks' rant, in principal, anyway (if it were one of my cousins, I think I'd be having a similar freakout). Why do we accept as true that teen pregnancy is the most horrible thing ever? Yes, it's harder, yes you are less wise, yes, you are likely to close off some opportunities, but a big part of the reason for that is that people don't have support structures, teen parents are stigmatized, and the fact of the pregnancy is treated as "well, your life is pretty much forever fucked up now, sorry, dude."

I don't know. This argument isn't that well-formed, I admit, but I think we should just start treating babies as something that just happens, and it's normal, and it requires some shifting in your life, but it's not the end of the world. Because that's one of the many things women do. We menstruate, and we miscarry, and we have sex, and we get pregnant. Academics get pregnant and have to bring their babies to class, sixteeen-year-olds who haven't even graduated high school yet get pregnant, forty-five year old women with health problems do, too. I don't like that we continue to treat pregnancy as this secret, shameful, life-ruining thing. Teen pregnancy doesn't have to be a bad thing, in and of itself. Is there something intrinsically better about a 24-year-old mother than an 18-year-old mother?

I'm not clear on why having the baby translates into beauty school. Taking care of a baby and finishing high school is by no means easy, but people do it. And if the family is so "supportive," maybe they can kick in with some actual, like, support, in the form of child care.

I have to wonder if the baby is being used as an excuse to do something she wanted to do anyway, i.e., escape from school. Was she any good in school? Had she ever expressed an interest in a career that required lots of learnin'?

It's improper to say that I disagree with Becks' rant, on second though. Her rant is totally awesome. I'm just blathering on about some more general shit. Like slol said, generalizing.

I should make clear that I more or less totally agree m.'s sentiment in 68. And with all the other stuff I've written in this thread. I don't think those contradict, although I could understand my earlier comments being read as inherently hostile to m.'s 68. Hence the clarification.

If we lived in a society that was more supportive towards younger parents/families, I wouldn't think there was anything at all to be discouraged about late-teen pregnancy. (Though 16 is pushing against the lower boundry). Most of the objections to teen pregnancy could be applied to someone in her early 20s. Or even late 20s (better finish up that phd before you get pregnant!). Or early 30s (your career is still accelerating -- you don't want to have a child jeopardize your advancement!), or pretty much any other time. The truth is, children at any age require a great deal of sacrifice. They're generally still worth it.

But that doesn't make being a teenage mom in our society, such as it is, any easier.

60: A) I'm working too, sadly. Or was until 45 mintues ago. Now I'm hitting the wine.

B) If you think what you said was confrontational, you should meet my girlfriend. I live for the day when she says anything even remotely approaching "I look back and see that you were originally saying what I originally thought you said anyway, and this does tend to support what you actually said".

But of course she has sex with me, and I certainly don't expect the same from you, so I suppose it's a fair trade-off.

As one of my wife's academic advisors told her, when she was trying to decide whether to finish graduate school before trying to get pregnant: "There will never be a convenient time to have a child." It's really true. There are always a bag full of reasons that now is not the ideal time.

Perhaps this just means that no one should ever have children.

I'm not clear on why having the baby translates into beauty school. Taking care of a baby and finishing high school is by no means easy, but people do it.

The cousin isn't dropping out of high school, is she? I understood that she was going to have the baby, stay in high school, and then go to beauty school rather than college. Did I read this wrong?

Also, I'd be interested to know what Becks's three better plans are.

I think there's probably some very interesting research to be done into what sort of parents middle class teens do turn out to be. Many of the negative behaviours of the typical teen mum (eg smoking, limited verbal interaction) are very positively correlated with poverty. But I'd be interested in seeing how positively if at all they are correlated with being a middle class, well supported teen mum.

Or even late 20s (better finish up that phd before you get pregnant!)

This makes me laugh, as my parents still seem to carry some of the vestigial Catholic worry that "you can't have a boyfriend and be in school" because down that path lies darkness, pregnancy, and leaving with an M.Phil.

I don't have children, but from observing my friends, it seem to be true that a) having children screws up your life plans in ways you never could have fathomed and b) it generally works out for the good.

73 are s/b is, obvs.

For what it's worth, I know several women who had children during graduate school because they though it would be easier that having them during post-doc or tenure track years.

Many of the negative behaviours of the typical teen mum (eg smoking, limited verbal interaction) are very positively correlated with poverty. But I'd be interested in seeing how positively if at all they are correlated with being a middle class, well supported teen mum.

This, too. I get Becks' gut response to the enthusiasm of her family. But her cousin's from a middle class home with a multi-generational, relatively affluent support network. If anyone's going to make it as a teenage mom, she is.

the title of this post is misleading

80: I think The Chronicle or something like that had an article a couple years ago that recommended having your children early in graduate school (so kindergarten and the beginning of tenure-track line up.) as a way of dealing with the academy's inflexibility. Of course, the Chronicle didn't explain what to do if you were 23, in graduate school, and didn't have a sperm donor lined up.

78- oh, me too, definitely. As far as I can tell, all things considered graduate school is probably as close to an ideal time to have a baby as a professional-class woman is likely to find. But that doesn't mean she won't face chastising for not finishing school first.

*chastisement*, dammit.

I do hope you all realize that English is my fourth language, and therefore cut me some slack.

I'm sure I'd react the exact same way as Becks if I heard the same story from someone in my family -- especially the extra enthusiasm for having a boy, wtf is that? That said, I find stories like that of the new D.C. Police Chief to be incredibly inspiring. Obviously this sort of outcome is exceptional, but it seems to me maybe someone should tell your cousin it's still entirely possible for her to get an education while raising her kid, especially if, as you say, her family is being so supportive.

When I was a teenager, I knew a large number of teenaged parents, and those who were older but had kids young. All of them were poor, and they were pretty uniformly bad parents. The best of them were quite capable of providing a good home for a 2 year old, but marginally competent to provide for the needs of an 8 or 10 year old. But this is mostly the way it is for kids growing up in poverty. Fathers were mostly a footnote, unsurprisingly. Thing is, I don't think they would be that much better at 26 than 16. At 16 at least, they had some ambition and energy. Many seem pretty burned out by mid twenties, and bitter in a way the 16 year olds weren't.

The worst of them were horrifically unsuited. For example, addict mother of 15 who had been a ward of the court since 6 or 7 and really had no idea what a family looked like. Both mother and father in and out of juvenile detention system. Father at the time of birth serving 10 years after having been raised to adult court (he was 17).

So when you think about these poor mothers, particularly, there are cases where it would be much, much better if they didn't have children. There are lots of cases though, where it isn't going to make much difference if they have them at 18 or 25. They are always going to be financially unstable. They are always going to be ignorant. They are always going to bring up children that are socialized into poverty. At least, this is true of almost all of them. As Reuben mentions, for some of these young mothers it gives a sense of purpose and independence. Some of the fathers get cleaned up a bit too, feeling responsible. It's all pretty dysfunctional, but having kids later doesn't fix that.

With middle class mothers though, I'd have to guess the effect is often much worse, relatively. If it plays out the wrong way, what you end up with is an impoverished family that doesn't have any real idea how to deal with that. If the larger family is supportive, I suspect it can be just fine, but in general you are often going to end up with kids who are raised by mothers alone with lower education and expectations than they would otherwise have had. I wouldn't be surprised if this statistically has a bad effect on the children.

80: I think The Chronicle or something like that had an article a couple years ago that recommended having your children early in graduate school (so kindergarten and the beginning of tenure-track line up.) as a way of dealing with the academy's inflexibility. Of course, the Chronicle didn't explain what to do if you were 23, in graduate school, and didn't have a sperm donor lined up.

Also, what if you want to have more than one child?

85 - I dunno. I think its much easier to grow and mature when you don't have children, and that often the maturation process grinds to a halt when you're dealing with too much on your plate. Give the people in your first few paragraphs ten years to get to know themselves as adults and I think they'll be wildly improved parents.

87: I'd would have hoped so, but the 10 years older versions of the similar people really weren't much better off. They just had different problems. Maybe the whole thing is too depressing for me to see the better spots in, I don't know.

Bear in mind, I'm not talking about working-class families here, either, I'm talking about people for whom `too much on their plate' is often the norm, anyway. One of the twenty-something mothers I knew around then (2 young kids, but she didn't have them until early twenties) moved four times in less than a year to avoid debts or ex-boyfriends or because of eviction. Some of these people just seem to stumble from crisis to crisis.

87 again; actually, to be clear ... I think you are correct that for the most part they would be slightly better parents 10 years on, but I guess what I'm saying is that difference wouldn't be enough to make much of a dent in the determining factors of their childrens lives. I also think, however, that a lot of them 10 years on are less likely to really try and get out of the economic bind they are in. Not that most of them make it out, regardless.

24 supports what you're saying, soub. So I'll back-pedal. Me personally, I know that I've grown a ton over the last ten years, though, and thank effing god I didn't get saddled with a kid in high school.

Oh, and speaking of back-pedaling, I think I have a conflict on 1/6/7, tx meet-up-wise. What about the 7th?

Let's not forget, either, that the normative middle-class trajectory of h.s.-college-job-marriage-house-kids doesn't work out so well for a lot of people. My parents did all of that stuff just like they were supposed to, and I'm as fucked-up as the next guy. And they certainly could have had happier lives too. (Although they're finally doing pretty well on the happieness meter, and sibs and I are mostly over it all too.) If my parents could have handled having middle-class aspirations and a lower-middle class income just a little bit better, I could have had a much happier and more productive early life.

With regard to education, I'm sure there are more than a couple of people reading this who are less-than-pleased with where sticking with a liberal arts education (at least through a BA) has left them. My opportunity cost, short and intermediate-term, for returning to college after many years away was (very conservatively) about $150,000. Not to mention the actual cost of school itself. I don't think I'd have ever made much of a cosmetologist, but if that's what I'd wanted to do, and I'd enrolled at (famous local high-end beauty school) straight out of high school, I'm sure I could be taking in quite a bit more than I do now. In fact, the partner of someone I used to know is THE top sales rep for (famous local cosmetics firm) with no education beyond high school. Thar's gold in them thar highlights, is what I'm saying.

So yeah, it does strike me as odd when people are really gleeful about a young woman without a stable life-path already laid out getting pregnant, but millions of women have been in the same spot and come out of it with a great life and a great kid.

91: I guess you aren't going to the AMS meeting? I've pretty much decided not to go, not certain till this week. I'll be back in TX on the 2nd, might be at LSU on 3-5th so 7th is probably good as long as I don't go on to NO from there.

As Minneapolitan said, the hipmamas rock, and hanging out with them when I got knocked up and had PK really informed my opinions on this sort of thing.

Having a kid young is, in many ways, advantageous. It's healthier; 16 really isn't biologically too young, mrh notwithstanding. 13 is, but 16 yo girls are usually more or less physically mature. Her body will recover more quickly, she's got some nice insurance against breast cancer now, and assuming she gets good nutrition, her baby's likely to be a lot healthier too. Even if she has another kid or two, by the time they're 18, she'll only be in her mid-30s--the same age as a lot of us who are just starting our careers, so theoretically no reason she couldn't do the same once the kids are out of the house. If the marriage falls apart, she's still young enough to recover economically and/or get married again (hell, twice) if that's a goal for her. Plus, being young means that her parents are a lot more likely to recognize that she (like every parent, especially at first) needs help; the less nonsense in everyone's heads about the autonomous nuclear family, the easier it often is.

The main and only reason why having a kid that age is a bad idea is because society makes it a bad idea. And that's all tied up with slut-shaming and/or shaming girls for having kids young. Why is she dropping out of college? Presumably b/c her college doesn't make it easy for her to be a mother and a student. Beauty school may not make it easy either, but it's short and as DA says, she can earn decent money. The biggest issue is the lack of health care. Which isn't her fault for having a kid, and she could just as easily be sans health care if she were a grad student or underemployed PhD, after all.

OTOH, I get the situation. There is something kinda irksome about "she's having a baby!" being a huge deal in a way that, say, "she's going to college!" isn't. Part of this is probably good--after all, kids should be welcomed into the world--and part of it is probably overcompensation and/or sexism. But all in all, I think she's a lot more likely to overcome the difficuties we've created for young mothers if her family is oversupportive than if they're indifferent or ashamed.

92: I think there is another interesting conversation about the middle-class trajectory, or the aspects you are , but it's a bit different than this one.

I don't think anyone was saying `oh no, she's screwed'. But having a kid at that age is going to make things more difficult for her (and the child).

And you can have all kinds of trajectories that are unusual, but end up fine. I left school after 10th grade, and ended up in a pretty deep mess shortly after. Years later, I've a phd. and any number of blessings to count. It wasn't always easy though ... and quite dependent on the sort of dumb luck I don't like to think about to too much. There were a staggering number of perfect opportunities for things to go much, much worse. So it can be done. But I wouldn't recommend it to anyone, ever.

94: bitchphd, you have a great point. Read almost all of what I said as commentary on the way things actually often are, not the way they could be.

Soubz, I know about the difference between how things are vs. how they could be. But the point then would be to focus one's ire not on young pregnant women, but on the folks who make their lives so fucking hard. And as I said in passing, I think that the policies and conventions that do that are perpetuated in part b/c we find it so easy to fall back on "what is she, crazy?" Accepting the status quo as a given makes it a lot more difficult to challenge it. And hey, for the 16yo mamas, challenging it (even if only by recognizing that it's unfair) helps keep the difficult bullshit external, where it belongs. When things are tough, knowing that it's not your fault and you're doing the best you can helps you keep going a lot better than thinking that you made your own damn bed and might as well lie down in it and give up.

97. I think we're on the same page, b. There are a lot of things conflated in this thread --- I was mostly commenting on where Reubens study is coming from, not really anything to do with Becks cousin. On that particular case, we don't really know much --- I can understand where she is coming from in the rant though.

Most 16 year olds (parents or otherwise) I've met would be terrible parents of a 12 year old. There's no inherent reason to believe that can't change by the time they are 28, though. Most of what you are talking about, I think, is about the constraints put on them that make this a (sometimes very) difficult path.

Ironically, I have a similar problem to Becks': one of my female students, barely 18, has stated her desire to drop out of college and start pumping out babies with her boyfriend/fiance (I'm not sure if it's formal yet) who, as a side note, happens to be almost twice her age. She's smart, she's talented, she's capable of great things and -- to my eye, at least -- she's about to throw it all away. And that's the rub: while I think she's fallen into the kind of mad whirlwind teenage romance (complete with kinky and sometimes outright illegal sexual escapades) which will trainwreck spectacularly in a few years, I don't get to make that decision for her, nor do I really feel that I get to make any input. Pity, because I think she could really make something of herself if she were to hold back from marriage/procreation for just a few more years; OTOH, if it makes her happy am I really one to judge?

[The answer to that rhetorical question is "yes", of course, hence, like Becks, why I'm bitching at teh blogs.]

As an aside:

Presumably b/c her college doesn't make it easy for her to be a mother and a student.

In all honesty, I don't see how any college could make it easy for anyone to be both a mother and a full-time student. IME, and I recognize that this isn't universal, nowadays students working full-time jobs to support themselves through college tend to crash-and-burn before the first semester's up; I can't even imagine what being a mother would do to one's academics.

98: Just to give props where they're due: I can't recall what she was like at 16, but when I was 12, my mother was an absolutely fabulous 28-year-old mom.

Here's to you, mom.

one of my female students, barely 18 ... (complete with kinky and sometimes outright illegal sexual escapades)

How do you know this? You discuss with your students their kinky sexual escapades? What is it that you teach, again?

The main and only reason why having a kid that age is a bad idea is because society makes it a bad idea. And that's all tied up with slut-shaming and/or shaming girls for having kids young

It's not just slut-shaming, though, and if everyone just stopped judging (while dancing about with the fairies and the lollipops in their no judging glee on the frosted lakes of hell), the problem of being a young mother in a society that isn't set up for it. Kids are going to be expensive, eat up your time, and upend your life. There's certain things we can do to make it a little easier, but I don't think that basic equation is going anywhere.

102 - clearly he's implying that he is the 36-year-old boyfriend, and is not ready to settle down just yet.

I am sure this problem has been covered somewhere here in the comments, but I can't find it yet, so I'll say it:

Most Midwestern religious families of the lower-middling class like to believe that they support their young ones to succeed, no matter their gender. My parents used to recite, over and over, how much they wanted me not to sell myself short, how important it was for me to get an education and "go far." They were convinced that I'd be helping them with house payments by the time I was 25. But even as they expressed their confidence in me, they didn't really express joy when I succeeded because it meant that they had failed where their kid didn't.

While apparently supporting the child's desire to learn, grow, and become financially independent, parents often undermine it by saying, "Oh, you think because you're finishing college that you're so much better than us" or "Look at you with your fancy friends. I bet you're ashamed to have your poor old parents around." There's always resentment when a child does "well."

So when a child ends up not being able to become financially or emotionally independent, or drops out of school to have a baby or get married, there's a psycho part of them that's secretly delighted to know that it is, in fact, really hard to become a professional woman in the world, and that there's nothing wrong with themselves for not having done so.

She's smart, she's talented, she's capable of great things . . .

Sounds like she's got a good chance of being a great parent.

Pity, because I think she could really make something of herself . . .

Um, this is really kind of a messed up notion of human worth.

Greetings, author of 106. Please choose a handle.

103: I dunno. If we stopped blaming (young) women for having kids, doing so wouldn't be as expensive or time-consuming. We mmight think of kids as being part of the community, and therefore start providing for their needs instead of expecting their parents to do so entirely without help.

Somewhat. But even if everyone's helpful and schools have dorms where little kids can stay, and parents don't judge, it's not going to become easy to have a kid and aspire to whatever middle class kids aspire to. Just trying to study while being exhausted. Unless we're going to count the low-paying job she's going to start with as 'judgment', but that seems to be a stretch.

I mean, Becks' cousins' family is actively enthusiastic, and isn't slut-shaming, but it's not going to be a cakewalk. Part of its society, but part of it is just that babies are a lot of work.

Jesus people, it's a bad idea to have a kid that young because you haven't pulled your head out of your ass yet.

I for the record, unexpectedly knocked up my girlfriend (now wife) when I was 20. It's ridiculously hard to make a go of it, and I had a decent support system.

unexpectedly

You're not fooling anyone, mister.

Oh, absolutely they're a lot of work. But that's true no matter how old you are, right?

But it's not just about the mom. Think of how screwy judgement is at that age (shooting stuff out of each others hands will be awesome, etc.).

And yeah it's hard work no matter what, but some situations are harder than others.

I never shot shit out of anyone's hands at 16. Anyway, I don't see anyone here saying it isn't going to be hard, so what's the point of 110?

This whole discussion reminds me of this post.

B and her talented anal sphincter shot shit into people's hands.

I hear that her aim was amazing.

The main and only reason why having a kid that age is a bad idea is because society makes it a bad idea. And that's all tied up with slut-shaming and/or shaming girls for having kids young...

N.b. I fully support the kind of policies B was talking about above. Regardless of when people have kids, there is a lot we could do to reconfigure society to acknowledge that we're all benefiting from having a new generation, and provide structural and other support for their parents.

But I don't agree that the "only reason" that having a child at 16 is a bad idea is because society makes it so. From everything I understand about neuroscience, your brain is still developing at 16. Impulse control, empathy, delayed gratification...all of those skills are developmental. And they develop differently in different human beings depending on many factors, but chronological age is a very important one.

Look, we argue that juveniles shouldn't be given the death penalty because they're not fully mature. Part of that argument is based on our understanding of human development. I'm happy to support a 16 y/o who's already pregnant, but I do see a serious difference between, say, being 16 and being 20 or 22. All other things being equal, I *do* think it's a bad idea to be pregnant at 16.

Not to say it's a walk in the park at any age, and not to say it's my job or anyone else's to tell someone how to time their childbearing.

116 was me.

Yeah, and I still do it if you piss me off, Ben.

Finally, Tubgirl's identity is revealed.

I don't see anyone here saying it isn't going to be hard, so what's the point of 110?

Because most of the discussion seems to be focusing on how it affects the mom. But having the parent in an extra difficult situation, and also having a parent with the judgement of a teenager isn't exactly a great situation for the kid.

116 gets it.

116: Yeah, but this idea that somehow you have to be perfect in order to be a half decent parent is nuts. 16yo's immature brains mean they lack impulse control so . . . what? They'll beat their kids? As opposed to fully mature 35yos who are therefore perfect parents? There are a lot of variables that go into good parenting. Maybe the 16yo will be more empathetic when the kid's in grade school and her high school memories are still fresh.

My mom was 20 when I was born--essentially still a teenager. God knows in many ways she drove me nuts, and I think in fact she's a clinical narcissist, but when I was a little kid (the most important part), she did a fabulous job, actually. And yeah, there are stories of my dad's post office co-workers bringing groceries to the house when we couldn't afford 'em, but I have no memory of that sort of shit myself. I don't think my parents' youth or poverty really did me a whole lot of damage.

there's a world of difference between 16 and 20, bitchphd. I think 16 year olds are in general quite competent to handle a baby. I also think they'd be quite hopelessly outlcassed by a 10 year old, in general. So if they do have a kid, it's imperative that they do a lot of growing in the next 10 years along with the child. Sometimes the logistics of raising this child make that more difficult that it would otherwise be.

102: Math. And if my students choose to regale me with their exploits, who am I to disagree?

104: Don't you oppress me with your fascist lifestyle norms. I just gotta be free!

106: Not really; it comes down to making informed choices in a rational manner. [viz 116, which I think is exactly right.] If after getting her degree she says "Screw this academic/career thing, I want to be a housewife and a mother", more power to her. As it is, I'm worried that she's going to jump into something too soon, the upshot being that she's going to limit her potential careers and her future happiness.

124 reads a bit oddly, sorry. I meant, generally I think most 16 year olds are really not up to the task of raising a 10 year old.

I also think they'd be quite hopelessly outlcassed by a 10 year old, in general.

Fortunately, few 16-year-olds have ten-year-old offspring.

122: I agree that nobody can be a perfect parent, and yes, there are lots of variables that go into good parenting. All other things being equal, I still think it's tougher to have a parent or parents who is/are 16.

This isn't my field, so I don't know all the research, but my understanding is yes, shaken baby syndrome et al. are correlated with the age of the parent. Probably the correlations are weaker than, say, poverty or other stressors (preemie babies, etc.). And again, I don't think that makes me qualified to go around telling teenagers not to have babies.

125: heh. we'll catch up to the humanities numbers here yet....

127: no, that was my point. that the 16 year olds development into a 26 year old over the same period needs to be unattenuated. I mean, obviously physically they get there anyway. But I've known mid-twenties mothers that really were emotionally, educationally, and socially essentially stuck in their teens. Not good for their children, that.

I have no idea how likely all this is. It's all anectdotal, of course, but I just at one pretty much all my social circle was kids of dysfunctional families ... and this is one of the characteristic ways that happened. I am *not* saying having a child young will make this happen.

I don't think my parents' youth or poverty really did me a whole lot of damage.

And is this generally the outcome? That children raised by teenagers below the poverty line have the same outcomes as everyone else?

My mom was 20 when I was born--essentially still a teenager.

World of difference between that and 16, if only for the education, maturity and the interregnum proctological extraction. And I think it's completely possible to be a good mother while still very young. I just think it's still more challenging, even if we think of a society that's completely materially and rainbow-no-judgment supportive.

It wouldn't be easy for me to have a baby now, but it's a damn sight easier now that it would have been as a teenager, because I'm not a teenager.

131: not even close.

107: You're not the boss of me!

The main and only reason why having a kid that age is a bad idea is because society makes it a bad idea. And that's all tied up with slut-shaming and/or shaming girls for having kids young.

This is crazy talk. We don't even allow sixteen-year-olds to buy cigarettes, for crying out loud. But then you were also arguing that not being able to hear wasn't a disability, so maybe I should just let this slide.

As it is, I'm worried that she's going to jump into something too soon, the upshot being that she's going to limit her potential careers and her future happiness.

Do you lay awake nights worrying about your students who are going, for no particularly articulate reason, into, say, law school ?

Not to mention that plenty of people further their education/change their careers/etc. after becoming parents.

That is to say, having a kid at sixteen isn't a guarantee that you've fucked up your life permanently, but let's not be myopic. It's a bad idea to have kids at sixteen because you're fucking sixteen. They can barely handle the responsibility of a credit card, much less an infant.

But I've known mid-twenties mothers that really were emotionally, educationally, and socially essentially stuck in their teens. Not good for their children, that.

True. But then I've know plenty of mid-twenties (and older) non-parents who are emotionally, educationally, and socially essentially stuck in their teens. Heavy responsibility can arrest maturity, sure, but so can lack of any real responsibility.

138: With all due respect to your larger point, I can't help reading that as a version of "Giving him a puppy will teach him responsibility!"

"He'll learn not to squeeze the puppy when it bites his face off!"

137 is dead on, except strike "can barely" for "can't."

Can I put in a good word for sixteen-year-olds here? First of all, it's kind of ridiculous to talk about what we "let" them do or not. Buying cigarettes is a decision the government can say they know better than a 16yo about. Driving is another one, as is voting, living alone, etc. These are bad analogies for something your body with only the assistance of one other body by the time you're 11. Are you suggesting we not "let" unwed mothers under 18 come to term with babies? That's sick, right? Aren't these the options we're discussing: forced abortions and lifelong shaming, neither of which do justice to the fact that the girl in question is not merely some failure of an ideal, but a real girl who really wants to keep her baby?

Besides, 16 is a helluva lot better than 10, which is the age at which a 5th-grade classmate of mine got pregnant. She now has a seventeen-year-old kid.

Do you lay awake nights worrying about your students who are going, for no particularly articulate reason, into, say, law school ?

It's never come up: calculus tends not to be the relevant feeder course. I certainly worry about some of my students who, for no particularly articulate reason, go into business school, though, and I've actively advised some of my former students to consider alternate majors. I'm generally not heeded, of course, nor do I take the slightest bit of offense when they disregard me, but I figure it's worth the attempt anyway.

Not to mention that plenty of people further their education/change their careers/etc. after becoming parents.

Well yes, but I have a feeling we're having different conversations here.

We're not talking about illegalizing teen pregnancy, AWB, just whether it's a good idea. Which it self-evidently is not. I find it hard to believe there is any debate about this. Have any of you spent time around 16-year-olds recently?

144: But the context of the conversation has not been, like, that teens need better sex ed, but how a family should respond to a sixteen-year-old who is already pregnant and wants the baby. What option is there other than support and love? I am sure Becks is right to think there's some psychotic "No honey you don't need to succeed" shit going on in their support, but what other option is there?

142: I believe Apo, charitably construed, was using evidence about legal restrictions on, e.g., cigarettes, as evidence that we, collectively, place little confidence in the decisionmaking of 16 year olds. To the degree this sort of paternalism makes sense to us, we think that people of that age are not entirely ready to make Big Life Choices.

This is a conversation with a serious case of thesis drift, I think.

If we're equating reservations about whether a sixteen-year-old is particularly suited to become a good mother, and the ensuing debate about whether the fact that most 16-year-olds are going to struggle is because society is meeeeaaaan or 16-year-olds are immatuuuure, with advocating forced abortion and lifelong shaming, there's no point in having this conversation.

Oh, wait, I missed the post where I forcefully advocated the embroidery of scarlet letters on the girl's hoodie. Come on.

It's a bad idea not so much just because society says so, as the way our society is set up...the whole nuclear-family-and-nuclear-family-only thing, in which one or two people have an overwhelming % of responsibility for providing for a kid both materially and otherwise; and in which having a kid at that age is likely to cast a major shadow over your educational & career prospects.

That said, I don't feel ready now, so God knows I wasn't at 16, on a number of levels . I was a slow developer, but 16 seems way early no matter what.

But while I never would have been ready at 16, part of the reason I don't feel quite ready now is surely is the career stuff, and the fact that only at the age of 28 are my peers even STARTING to have kids, & I've spent less time around little kids in the past 10 years than any point in my life.

What option is there other than support and love?

I don't think anybody has disputed this.

147: I just didn't understand where all the legal restriction stuff was helping us understand what Becks's family was doing wrong by offering love and support.

149: Isn't that the point of the original rant?

Isn't that the point of the original rant?

Like Labs said, there's been some drift. A few posters seem to be of the the opinion that having a kid at 16 ain't much different than having one in your twenties, and some of us think they're on crack.

I think there's a pretty wide space between "woo hoo!!! A male heir!!!" and "God, what a stupid slut." More along the lines of "this is not what we would have chosen for you or in your place, but we're behind you 100% & we know he'll be a great kid and a joy to all of us." Being supportive to the girl also doesn't necessarily imply gushing to the entire extended family when she's not even around.

No, if she's decided to keep the baby, then support and love is the only sane and caring course of action for her family. And I suspect that Becks is right that her family's response is a valiant attempt to put a happy face on a situation not one of them thinks is salutary. But none of this in any way implies that 16-year-olds are even remotely ready to deal with the huge responsibility of a newborn, for which there is no way to prepare (see my 34: at least she'll be living at home). I was just this side of overwhelmed at 27, when I had my first.

148: If our solution to the problem of the challenges of teen pregnancy relies on overthrowing the nuclear family, methinks we should get a side of purple ponies with our social justice project. I personally find it very difficult to conceive of a society in which a) having children was not a life-reorganizing event and b) children were still regarded as important, not just hobbies.

where all the legal restriction stuff was helping us understand

See 146.

Isn't that the point of the original rant?

I think the point of the original rant was just to get some totally understandable frustration off of her chest, and to toss a subject out for dicussion. My personal opinion (and, I presume, Becks' as well) is that this young woman's interests would be best served by terminating the pregnancy, but it's obviously neither her nor my decision to make. You can respect another's right to decide while still believing they are making a poor decision.

I often get confused by the tendency to universalize here. Someone introduces an individual problem, and it's something that reminds us of a very large social problem. While we'd all (presumably) say, in the individual case, the kid needs all the love and support she can get, and in the social case, kids wanting babies is a sign that we've failed young women by not making other possibilities seem real or tempting enough, and so everything must be done to keep their still-stupid asses from doing what we don't want them to (or something; I'm still not clear what the consensus is on what should be done for/to teens who are tempted by parenthood). That drift, though, always leaves behind this particular girl in question and her situation. You may see her pregnancy as a tragedy, but as long as she doesn't, the people around her should do what they can to make sure it doesn't become one. Offer babysitting and say, "Hey, if you ever change your mind about college, we'll help you make it happen," etc.

155: Well, then it's a good thing that I wasn't remotely suggesting either of those things, isn't it?

I doubt any of the participants in this thread (on either side) would have much problem with anything in 157.

Sorry. I took the implication from 'it's only hard to have a kid because our society sets it up that way' to 'we should make it so it's not hard to have a kid.' If nothing's meant to follow from that, fine.

Well yes, but I have a feeling we're having different conversations here.

Maybe. I basically agree with apostropher's take that having a baby at 16 is not a good choice. And were I in your place I would hope to be able to counsel said student into making such a huge decision with as much forethought and knowledge as possible.

But I also think that your language of "she's about to throw it all away" and "she could really make something of herself" and "she's going to limit . . . her future happiness" strays into an obnoxious and judgemental presumptuosness. It's probably counterproductive, too.

Anyway, it's much easier for me to pick on you (who I don't know at all), than on Becks (who I don't really know either, but who I've actually met and whose posts and comments I'm familiar with) for her "This girl is COMPLETELY FUCKING UP HER LIFE" talk.

There really are happy people out in the world who have made something of themselves despite not attending or finishing college by the time they're 22.

All sixteen-year-olds ought to get pregnant at least once in order to see what it's like. Otherwise they're likely to overindulge in pregnancy while in college.

Becks's comments should be granted some emotional immunity here, I feel. She labelled her post a rant, she admitted that she isn't approaching this situation politically or rationally, and she's written about how limited dialogue on this subject already is among her family.

Per 162, I like to get pregnant just to spice up a Friday night.

And now that the thread is going dada, I'd just like to add that it's possible that I might have proved a better single parent at sixteen than I would now, at twenty-(*cough*).

I've had more time to develop neuroses and insecurities and to dissever the traditional support-networks.

Thanks JM for 163. Sorry to do more drive by commenting but that's exactly it -- I labeled it a rant and put it below the fold because this post was more of an emotional dump than a considered analysis of the situation. The decision has been made, she's decided what to do, and I'll be supportive of her. Unlike the rest of my family, however, I can't go directly to supportive without first making a bypass through "WTF? This is a bad idea"-ville and I figured it better to vent these feelings to the internet than to her or to someone in my family, where it might get back to her (yes, a blog isn't the most private place but I still think it's less likely to get back to her by complaining here than to, say, one of my other cousins).

some people say that pregnancy is a gateway into more dangerous habits.

Like childrearing. Bad stuff, that.

product people say that conditioner is a gateway into more luxuriant hair.

It must be like how I felt when my 20 year-old cousin, fresh off his mission, announced his engagement to an 18 year-old woman he'd known for only a few months, after having been rejected by his old sweetheart three weeks earlier. The "bad" family members murmured their shock, the "good" family members rallied 'round, but both the bad and the good wanted to support the young couple and their immediately arriving progeny, as best as they were able. For all the cracks about my cousin's "child bride" that have gone around within the less, ahem, pious circles, they really do have a decent shot of making it work, and I can only wish them the best. I don't understand it, I don't want it, but it could be good for them.

they are correct, the product people.

difference people aren't so sure.

Luxurious hair helps me get pregnant.

Difference isn't defined for hair.

Pregnancy helps some women get luxurious hair.

Difference isn't defined for hair.

Meet the new locks, same as the old locks.

Pregnancy helps Sum women get luxurious hair.

I took the implication from 'it's only hard to have a kid because our society sets it up that way' to 'we should make it so it's not hard to have a kid.'

I think that, in response to what I'm saying (dunno about AWB or anyone else) that's a valid implication. We *should* make it so it's not hard to have a kid. Human beings, being living organisms, have kids. That ought not be difficult, nor something that inhibits one's potential for "success."

As to the "16yos shouldn't have kids" argument, take it up with god. Last I heard he's the only one with the power to prevent 16yos having kids. Note I'm not saying "16yos should have kids, yay!" I'm saying it happens, and arguing about whether it should or not is like arguing about whether or not plants should grow.

conditioner(braid(lock₁, lock₂)) = braid(lock₁,conditioner(lock₂)).

I'm saying it happens, and arguing about whether it should or not is like arguing about whether or not plants should grow.

I hear modern birth control is actually surprisingly effective.

Last I heard he's the only one with the power to prevent 16yos having kids.

Humpty Dumpty can.

181: It is surprisingly effective. It is not, however, 100% so. And there are women who can't or won't tolerate hormonal bc, and 16yos aren't good candidates for IUDs, and most barrier methods have a fairly high failure rate as things go, especially when you're young and inexperienced.

More to the point, pregnancy is what happens if you don't go out of your way to prevent it doing so. We've gotten so used to bc that we think of it the other way round--that getting (or causing) a pregnancy is the anomaly. 'Taint so.

What I worry about in instances like this -- and I'm going from experience in my own extended family, obviously not Becks' (not knowing any) -- is that the decision to keep and raise the baby is driven/ratified by the supportive extended family. Which is all fine and good now, but four years from now, when the weather has gotten rough, and one dream or another hasn't panned out, people just might not be so supportive.

But shouldn't any decision to have a kid be ratified by a supportive extended family? Not driven, no. But the idea that somehow it's better if someone deciding whether to continue a pregnancy would be better off if her family were completely indifferent to the question seems mad to me.

How do you have a kid ratified?

Five yard penalty for mis-parse, h-g; that sentence isn't actually ambiguous.

I think you have to get a 2/3rds vote in the House.

The mother introduces it in either house, then it has to pass both by a two-thirds margin (because it's a big decision, you see). Then the father either signs it (just above the bellybutton) or vetos it, in which case it goes up for adoption.

187, aw, I was just trying to be obnoxious.

I'll be the obnoxious one around here!

shouldn't any decision to have a kid be ratified by a supportive extended family?

There are two different meanings of "support" here: supporting the decision, and supporting the 16 y.o. by providing a place to live, babysitting, assistance in planning for a job/college, etc. That the latter should be provided isn't at all in question, but it doesn't need to (and probably shouldn't) be accompanied by the former.

Ben doesn't like sharing the obnoxiousness, hg.

Crap, pwned by Mr. Obnoxious himself.

Matt, seriously? You don't think a family should support a 16yo's decision to continue a pregnancy? Fuck, man, that's harsh. "We'll help you out, but we just want you to know we disapprove." I can't imagine a more assholish way of being "decent."

There's middle ground in between voicing explicit disapproval of and excitedly welcoming the teen's decision. I just don't think the family should be disingenuously celebratory about the whole thing. If it's sincere, then of course there's no problem with it.

What if the family thinks she shouldn't continue the pregnancy, but she decides to anyway? What should they do then?

196 was addressed to b.

195: Then the issue is "people shouldn't be insincere." Agreed.

196: Then, as one does with anyone one loves who does something that one wouldn't do oneself, they should damn well work on trying to see it from her point of view and coming to actually feel, as well as be, supportive.

Second half of 198 - which is possibly one of the biggest tasks of maturation: maintain your personal beliefs or decisions while honoring other people's differing beliefs/decisions.

Coathanger!

By way of (warning!) analogy, I lived at home for a while after I dropped out of college. My parents were completely supportive, and that I had a place to live was never in doubt. They helped me find a job, and were flexible about rent when I started taking night classes and didn't have as much money. They never expressed any tsk-tsking of my situation, and were loving and happy to have me around as always. However, there wasn't any confusion that this was the preferable course of events. It was clear that they were helping me make the best of a less-than-ideal situation. This is the right way to go about it, I think.

201: Yeah, I agree that that's the right way to do it. It's not as if you were all thrilled to be broke, and I don't see most 16yos as being all thrilled to be pregnant, either. But you know, you love people, and everyone has hard times sometimes. So you help them out. Ideally.

b, I think it is quite possible to be entirely supportive of an individual who happens to be heading down that path, and still believe in general it is a poor way of going about it. Maybe I'm just jaded.

That ought not be difficult, nor something that inhibits one's potential for "success."

Seriously? This isn't a matter of having all state schools provide day care and family housing. This would pretty much require creating Plato's citadel in Republic, raising the children communally (but keeping good birth records.) Because even if the Redistribution Fairy comes along and makes it all fair, the girl is still going to be sixteen, pregnant, and be making life-altering choices at a much younger age, one that she is in all likelihood not ready for. The extended family could and should help but it's not as if children are never going to upend your life. It's tough for white collar professionals with nannies.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't move towards reducing the stigma, mind, but the girl is going to have to live in this world, not the one where society's not stacking the deck against her.

I don't think our disagreement is much, as I don't think a program of disapproval would do anything but make the situation miserable. But it seems strange to say that the only problem with the situation is that American society isn't organized in thus-and-such a way. We're not organized like cavemen, either; she's not a 'mature mother' at 16. So what?

This thread has been weirdly heated, given that everyone seems to agree on most major points. Maybe it's just the subject matter.

201: One big difference is at least with your situation, there was a way to end their tacit disapproval: move in your own place. There's no neat terminus when it's a grandchild.

205. yeah. i don't really get it. it feels like everyone is talking past each other in some hard to define way. kinda a shame; think i'll drop it. That, and I'm heading off to bed.

203: Yeah, I just have a problem with the phrasing of "it is a poor way to go about it." It sounds like you're still saying that having a baby at 16 is a poor decision. But what I'm saying is, 16yos get pregnant sometimes, and that's not something they "decide" to do, since pregnancy is hardly something one controls by conscious will. Then they have to decide whether or not to *keep* the pregnancy. And though y'all know I'm about as radically pro-choice as it gets, I have a real problem with saying that keeping a pregnancy is a "poor way to go about" living one's life.

204: the girl is going to have to live in this world, not the one where society's not stacking the deck against her.

Agreed; which is why I said "ought." I'm not saying this is the way it *is*; I'm saying that given that we mature sexually in our teenage years, it's fucked up that we live in a world where we act like getting pregnant is something that sexually mature women "shouldn't" do.

In the Bitch utopia, we'd all just stop passing judgment on what women should and shouldn't do, reproduction-wise, altogether. Yes, having a child young is going to make a lot of things more difficult, probably. But a statement of fact need not imply judgment, and certainly not judgment of the individual who is going to suffer the consequences of the decision.* It's the undertone of judgment that I'm having problems with.

*And yeah, the kid will suffer consequences too. But unless the mother is abusive or neglectful or willfully careless, those consequences are *not her fault.* And I think it's important to keep that in mind.

Eh, the heatedness is probably my fault. This is one of my many hotbutton issues, and my fucking meds schedule has been fucked up the last few days, so I'm sure I'm expressing objections I'd make anyway in a much more impatient tone than I would if I'd been remembering to take my fucking drugs.

Although it's kinda cool, in a way, to be able to think "why am I feeling so uptight?" and then go, "oh!" and be able to take a pill, knowing that the suboptimal mood will therefore lift within an hour. Better living through chemistry!

206: The terminus is pretty much the same in both, it's when you're independent. It goes back to the main problem with teen pregnancy, that they have a really hard time raising kids without a lot of external support. The tacit disapproval, in both situations, vanishes along with the need for significant support. I grant that becoming independent probably takes a lot longer for teen mothers, though.

I guess it's just feeling to me like the deafness argument. Deafness isn't a really a disability, because it wouldn't be if society weren't oriented towards the hearing. Having a baby at 16 is the decision that maximizes one's income potential, because in a fair world she'd have access to universal day care and college scholarships.

I think it's possible to disapprove of... well, we're not so much arguing for abortion, much less forced abortion here, so it's not the decision to continue the pregnancy... but the decision to laud it like it's the Second Coming of the Continuation of the Family Name, precisely because we don't live in that world. There's room in between the scarlet letters and the feteing, is all I'm saying, and it probably wouldn't be a bad idea of Becks' little cousins got the idea that birth control should be taken really seriously.

I grant that becoming independent probably takes a lot longer for teen mothers, though.

I hear there's a shortcut called stripping.

209: Fitter, happier, more productive. Got a pill that stops a histamine reaction? (You'd think an antihistamine would help, but you'd be wrong.)

Better living through chemistry!

I'm tempted to fake ADD so I can get a scrip for Adderol. Not for daily use or anything, just when I want to gat a lot of shit done.

I'm tempted to fake ADD

Easiest thing in the world. My doc diagnosed me solely by having me answer a photocopied sheet of 15 questions on a 5-point Likert scale (Q: "You frequently feel distracted." A: "5-strongly agree.") The whole appointment took less than 20 minutes.

How's the fact-checking coming?

208: ok, i think you are reading in a more judgement than is there. I'm not going to tell any individual 16 year old she shouldn't have done it ... and I wouldn't even begin to think it with someone I didn't know (if I did, I guess it would depend on the situation). I am, on the other hand, pretty much convinced that on average people would a) be a better parent later on and b) be in a better position for it (this ties in to all the real vs. optimal worlds, but conflates with other issues too). This too can be just a statement of fact.

Am I completely non-judgemental? No. In a utopia where all the artificial barriers had been removed, I'd still think that a 16 year old intending to have a child at that age was probably making a poor decision. Like I said, maybe I've just know too many messed up teenaged parent and children of same, and my view of it is skewed.

How would you feel about adding willfully ignorant, or willfully incompetent to your caveat? Do you think that neglectful or careless is completely decorrelated from age?

just to be clear, by `intending to have a child', I mean intentionally getting pregnant.

216: I'm multitasking. Hours of looking at pages like this gets a bit tiresome.

I'm largely with BPhD on this, particularly 94. I just don't see that having a kid at 16 need be an enormous deal -- depending on the individuals involved. My mum was 18 when she had me, my sister was 17 when she had my nephew. I had girlfriends when I was in my late-teens who'd already had kids. I know a *lot* of people who became parents while in their teens since I grew up on one of those council estates that Reuben's report linked above talks about.

16 might not be ideal, but as people have already mentioned, there's often no ideal age. Having kids at 16 makes it harder to follow a particular high-school/college/grad-school/job program that feeds you in to a white-collar job at some point in your mid/late-twenties. But that's not the be-all and end-all.

211: It is like the deaf thing, come to think of it. I'm really judgmental about our (society's) tendency to be judgmental of other people's reproductive decisions. Maybe this belongs in the thread about things we believe, but I honestly think that the vast majority of people make the best decisions they can about whether to have children (or not), and how to raise them.

That is different from the issue of how people's near and dear react to pregnancy, and sure: a lot of people act as if having a baby were the high point of a woman's life. Though I think that's probably true in a lot of ways, I also think it's not unrelated to the idea that women who don't have kids are somehow impoverished, which is stupid and sexist. In any case, the "yay, a baby!" and "having a baby is a bad idea" reactions are two sides of the same coin, viz. our inability to resist judgment women's reproductive decisions.

217: That said, no: I don't believe in excusing abuse or neglect. But I think it's fucked up to assume that individual x in X subgroup is more likely to be abusive or neglectful, just because X subgroup has a higher incidence of abuse or neglect than the general population. Bad use of statistics, for one thing; and for another, it doesn't really get into *why* X subgroup has that problem. I also idealistically believe that the vast majority of fucked-up behavior by disadvantaged subgroups is traceable to disadvantage, rather than to identity.

On the antihistamine front, can't help you. I like Nyquil, myself, since it puts me right out and then I can't tell if I'm still sneezy or not.

"best decisions they can" != "good decision." But enough of that.

Unfortunately, it's an all over itch, not a sneezy thing. I think I ate something I'm allergic too, but god knows what.

Now that that conversation is winding down, here's a poll for you. When you put a new roll of toilet paper up, do you do it the right way or the wrong way? If you think there is no right way, or if you're unsure as to which way the right way is, then you probably do it the wrong way.

Food allergies suck. But Nyquil will help you stop noticing the itch, too.

I can't let it go! I didn't say having a kid at 16 is a *good* decision. I said it's not a bad one. It's not like the only options in decision making are "good" or "bad."

223: Ben, didn't you ask this whole toilet roll thing before?

Or maybe the itch is dry skin? Isn't it like, that time of year? In those other places?

you know, B., I think we're actually pretty close on this. The only significant difference is that I don't think everything in this case actually can be traced to disadvantage, and I wasn't attempting any sort of statistical argument on that. 16 year olds are sexually mature, but in general they are not emotionally nor intellectually mature. I think this probably has an effect, even if you can fix everything else. Maybe some parenting norm (extended families?) far from what we have now could effectively mitigate that, I don't know.

I am totally indifferent to the orientation of toilet paper, and puzzled by how much some people seem to care about it.

224: Damn, I can't let it go either. I think sometimes it is a bad decision (see intent comment before, particularly). That being said; yes, `good' and `bad' aren't the only options.

Yeah, but they're also younger, more energetic, and more flexible than, say, 35-year olds.

223: Of course.
224: This isn't even making any sense. So you believe people do what's best by their kids, but that might not be good, and it's still immune from criticism? (Not even talking coercion.) My sister's friend has a two-year-old. She puts soda in his bottle because it keeps him quiet while he watches cartoons. I can believe she's doing her best and still think she's probably giving the kid diabetes.

230: yeah, I actually said something along those lines earlier. That, so long as they developed along with the kid, by the time it really mattered they'd be ok. And yes, socially etc. we make this much more difficult than it should be.

Of *course* sometimes having a kid is a bad decision. I never said otherwise; only that the assertion that it's a bad decision (in any sense other than the economic one) solely on account of age is a bad thing to think.

224: My problem is with the passing judgment. If someone is doing their best, then lay off.

233: Ok, we really are pretty close. I do think there are ages at which having a child is suboptimal in the sense that for the vast majority of cases, the same person would make a better parent and/or have an easier go of it when they are a bit older. That doesn't mean that if said person finds themselves pregnant at 16, say, it is a bad decision to have the child. It does mean if they are thinking they want to have a child, it would be best to wait a while. In this particular sense, choosing to have a child then (actively pursuing it) is a poor choice.

Well, sure. I doubt that most 16yos deliberately set out to get pregnant, and (from what I've read), those that do do so because their lives are fucking bleak and they have little prospect of having an easier go of anything with age. In which case it's the bleakness, not the age, that's the real problem--sans bleakness, the "I want a kid because it's the only thing I can do that's worth doing" feeling would go away, since there would be other things worth doing.

223: Doesn't that entirely depend on whether your house contains cats or small children?

236: I knew we were close. I'm not sure about the bleakness thing though. I've know a couple of girls from solidly middle class backgrounds with all kinds of other options who did something like this.

didn't i say something about going to bed ages ago? now I really am gone!

Well, I personally think they're mad. But all that means is that I wouldn't do it; for all I know those girls are better parents than I am.

223: I knew a man who cared passionately which way the toilet roll went. He shared a house with his brother who couldn't care less. Eventually they had a huge fight about this and stopped speaking to each other. Then, before they had a chance to make it up, the one who cared about toilet rolls had an unexpected heart attack and died, still not reconciled to his brother.

Just sayin'.

The thing about Amsterdam is, it's fantastic. No one told me about the Dutch pancakes.

Mmm, Dutch pancakes...

We used to do "dutch pancakes" but it wasn't worth the bruising, in the end.

Re ratification: any 16 year old who's even remotely mature enough to act as a parent should spend at least 10 weeks (8-18) in a state of high uncertainty about whether she's making the right decision. It seems to me that it would make a big difference if the message from responsible adults during that period included "it's going to be hard on you, hard on us, hard on the father, but if you're really sure this is what you want to do, I'm sure we can figure out a way' rather than 'oh, that's just so wonderful -- and you know hairdressers make really good money.'

245 seems reasonable.

My best friend's youngest sister got pregnant (and then married) at 16. I spend a fair amount of time around her kid (now 14 mos.), and on the whole, she seems like a good mom, but, to be fair, her family is abnormally strong and close, and there was a fair bit of shame-support, of the type described in 245, dispensed when they found out.

245, see 13.

13 sucks, Brock. I like 245.

Coming in way late, the way I usually do on weekend threads, I'm with pretty much everyone else on thinking that of course the only thing to do is to be supportive, and there's no certainty that it's going to be a disaster. On the points in controversy, I do think it's an awful, lousy decision. (I'm assuming everyone involved is prochoice; if they're all prolife and the pregnancy was accidental, I suppose it's not so much a lousy decision as an awful position to find yourself in.)

If you're sixteen and have a baby, you're going to be dependent on someone else for a lot of support for a long time, and no one else in this scenario volunteered (I'm assuming from the phrasing of the story that the father doesn't enter into this; either unknown or another kid who doesn't want to be involved. If he's around and helpful that's something, but not much -- two sixteen-year-olds aren't much better off than one). She's got no shot of supporting the kid decently on her own for quite a while, so she's just dumped a huge financial and logistical burden on her parents they they didn't ask for, at right around the time when they could reasonably have been expecting their lives to get easier rather than harder.

That seems like kind of a lousy thing to do. I may be projecting from a similar story in my extended family in which the mother involved remained a burden on her parents, off and on, until her forties (she now seems to be almost launched, although part of what's helping her is that her oldest kid, who started the process, is now off on her own taking care of herself very nicely). But it just seems like a bad thing to do choose to place a serious burden on someone who didn't agree to it, and to enforce their acceptance with a hostage: "Take care of us, or your grandchild suffers." (And of course, if the people you're depending on to take care of you don't pick up the burden, the kid does suffer.)

I'd feel very different about this if we had the kind of social services that made taking care of a child less burdensome -- I'm all for Bjork having had a kid at whatever age. And I strongly support those kinds of social services. But in America, today, having a baby as a teenager seems like a lousy thing to do to your parents, and a potentially lousy thing to do to the kid.

242: do you mean poffertjes (the small ones) or pannekeoken?

249: I had written something similar, but you make the point more clearly. The extended family that's been talked about here in most cases is going to mean the girl's parents, with most caretaking probably done by the girl's mother. So if she had shelved some plans in order to raise her child, she's probably going to have to shelve them again.

249/251- so does that mean you see little to no problem when the girl's extented family (and most especially parents) are saying "whoopee!" (assuming their reaction is genuine and not just a cover)?

I suppose that's the natural consequence of what I said. I guess that I don't believe that (under what I'm guessing are the relevant conditions) the "Whoopee!!" reaction is thoughtfully sincere -- wouldn't that imply that if the girl had brought this up with her parents before getting pregnant, they would have told her to go ahead with it, it sounds like a wonderful plan? And I really don't believe that. So a choice that you would have tried to avoid if given the option is unlikely to be a choice you're actually delighted with.

And she didn't ask, she stuck them with it.

Now, everyone loves each other, the girl's parents' are being supportive, beauty school isn't the nuttiest idea under the circumstances -- the whole thing may work out fine and not make anyone unhappy. But I still think the girl's decision wasn't terribly kind or thoughtful.

This has been helpful. I now understand that there are some things B and I will never agree on and oughtn't discuss, e.g.:

the vast majority of people make the best decisions they can about whether to have children (or not), and how to raise them.

Meta-comity!

But I still think the girl's decision wasn't terribly kind or thoughtful.

This conversation is probably all worn out, but I'd note that characterizing her getting pregnant as a planned "decision" is probably an error. Sure, had she done it intentionally without first consulting her parents (and yet expecting them to help out), that would have been unkind and unthoughtful. But it sounds as if she just ended up pregnant accidently, and her parents are not only willing but excited about the chance to help with the new baby.

So, given 249, I don't see the grounds for your criticism of her. Unless you meant the only kind and thoughtful course of action would have been just having an abortion without letting her parents know?

I'm a little uncomfortable going there with you, because we have such profoundly different beliefs about the moral import of abortion -- you think it's a terribly wrong thing to do, while I think that it does not have significant moral import. I pointed that out in my initial comment -- that I was assuming that everyone was prochoice, and that a kid who was prolife and got pregnant accidentally was in a different position, not one where she was deciding to have a baby. Sure, if she didn't have any decisions to make, than she didn't do anything irresponsible or unkind.

All that said, yes, I think generally the responsible and kind thing for a teenager who finds herself pregnant to do, barring special circumstances in which she isn't placing a significant unaskedfor burden on anyone else (which may obtain here. I just don't think the "Whoopee!" reaction is a reliable indicator of that), is to choose to have an abortion rather than carrying the pregnancy to term.

Okay, got it. Wasn't trying to be controversial, and certainly wasn't wanting to open up an abortion discussion. I thought in 255 you were characterizing the getting pregnant* as her unthoughtful decision, which didn't make sense to me. If you meant instead the decision not to abort, I understand your point.

* Your hypothetical conversation-with-the-parents-before-getting-pregnant lends a lot credibility to this characterization, I should add. Also, the fact that for all we know she did have a non-hypothetical conversation-with-the-parents-before-deciding-not-to-terminate, which would, again, make her rather blameless under 249, assuming we can count on the sincerity of the whoopees.

assuming we can count on the sincerity of the whoopees

I think it was whoopee that got her into this situation.

Well, I don't know to what extent the 'getting pregnant' bit was or was not a decision. If she was using birth control, then, yeah, accidents happen. (Hi!) If she wasn't, or was using it only erratically, than getting pregnant was either a decision, or irresponsibly thoughtless. (God, I sound incredibly evil here. Calling anyone 'irresponsible' just sounds bad. But I don't know what else to call a decision, or failure to take reasonable precautions, that screws up a third persons' life.)

Apo ignores the question of whether it was sincere whoopee.

You can tell if the Great Pumpkin arrives.

255/256: Wow. For once I differ from LB. I look at it as, when you have a kid, you sign up for supporting it no matter what. If that kid gets pregnant and chooses to continue the pregnancy, then you support that (or, you know, you can choose to tell the kid tough shit, I suppose). I can't go along with the idea that it's considerate to have an abortion--I think having an invasive medical procedure like that is beyond what I'd expect anyone to do out of good manners.

261 = "Best euphemism for female orgasm ever".

256: On the other hand, I wonder if most 16 year olds lack the emotional maturity to come to that decision in the right way and without taking on a lot of baggage as a result.

And it just seems to fit so well too! This is making me wonder if that's actually what Charles Schultz had in mind.

This is making me wonder if that's actually what Charles Schultz had in mind.

Intentional fallacy! Clown, you can expect to see me arguing that Peanuts is "all about sex" any minute now.

Clownae, despite what you may have heard, there's no naturally-occurring "giant orange squash" component to a woman's orgasm.

Eh, this may be colored by my view of the situation in my extended family, where the person involved has imposed costs on her parents that go, IMO and I think theirs, far beyond the duty that a parent owes to a child, but they haven't had the choice of leaving her to sink or swim because her children would suffer.

Where a grandparent has to take primary (or significant) financial or practical responsibility for their grandchildren (1) without the option of refusal and (2) because of a voluntary decision of the parents, I think the parents have been unkind and irresponsible. This is a weird case to talk about, because it's not clear to what extent (1) and (2) operate, but I think it comes into play in the case of an actively chosen teenage pregnancy.

Oh hell, I was doing so well at avoiding this. 262 seems both unfair and wrong to me. It's unfair in that it trivializes a decision as "good manners" when it's really (in LB's view at least) motivated by kindness, an awareness of how one's decisions will impact others, and other weighty factors.

It's wrong because it conflates two different things: whether the soon-to-be grandparents support their child and grandchild, and whether it's a serious and unwanted burden to do this. I suspect if I were in that situation, I'd come through with all the support, but I'd be deeply pissed, since having a baby in the house is a pretty big life-rearranging event that I had no choice in making.

I'm remaining agnostic on the LB view, but an implausibly mature 16 year old reasoning about this decision should take into account the fact that her choices have a huge impact on her parents. It's not the only consideration, but it's certainly relevant to her choice.

I can't go along with the idea that it's considerate to have an abortion--I think having an invasive medical procedure like that is beyond what I'd expect anyone to do out of good manners.

It's not really a 'manners' issue, though, is it? It's more of a 'provide many thousands of hours of unpaid labor and deplete your retirement savings' issue.

Or what FL said.

262: Kinda sorta. I mean, if you don't want grandkids, don't have kids, right? Of course anyone who's accidentally pregnant should think about the likely burdens of continuing the pregnancy, if abortion's an option they're considering. And I'll go so far as to say that yes, very young parents are unlikely to realize what a burden they're probably going to impose on their own parents. OTOH, I think that we generally way overestimate the whole "it's going to ruin your life!!" aspect of unplanned pregnancies.

Anyway, I don't think I'm objecting to the substance of what LB's saying. I'm objecting (as I was last night) to the corrolary judgment involved in saying that teenagers who choose to carry pregnancies to term are being "irresponsible or unkind," and the statement that they should choose abortion out of consideration for their parents.

I don't think that saying A should have an abortion for B's sake is any less eyebrow-raising than saying B should support A no matter what. Again, losing your retirement money etc. is a pain in the ass, but I think it's unfair to imply that that's somehow the fault of your child for having a kid, rather than the fault of a completely absent support system for poor parents.

Well, take the abortion out of it, and say we're talking about a kid who intentionally seeks to get pregnant because she wants to, and she's pretty sure her parents will take care of her and the baby, but she doesn't consult them about it beforehand. I'd call that a morally flawed decision -- of course the parents will step up, you're perfectly right that decent parents will support their kids whatever happens. I just think that implies that the kid is reciprocally obliged not deliberately to put themselves in a position where they 'need' more than is reasonable.

Well, sure, I'd call that kid fucking crazy. But I also think that it's more a thought experiment than an actual realistic possibility.

Though obvs. your hints at a couple of situations in your own family imply that I'm wrong there. And come to think of it, I do have a friend who, though dear, did father five (I think) kids by three different women before he was 30. In which case, yeah, he was being irresponsible and dumb, though I'm way more bothered by the effects of his thoughtlessness on the children than I am by the effects on his mom.

So many interesting issues. (As an aside, there's an interesting exchange parallel to this one between Jon Hardwig and Felicia Ackerman on whether or not there can be a duty to die, e.g. to avoid burdening relatives.)

Two points about 272. "Blame the system" seems incomplete to me-- while the system might be unjust, a person who makes choices that are known to have serious burdens on those who don't deserve them is still liable, I think. It's not like we make choices based on what would happen in an ideal world: that would be madness.

Second, I think the crux of the issue is the idea of holding the 16 year old responsible. It seems like the reasons we don't want to blame or find fault with the teenager are just the same reasons why it's a bad thing for her to be a parent: evaluating her decisions as the decisions of an autonomous agent, rather than those of a child, is holding her to too strict a standard. Conversely, holding her actions up to scrutiny is part and parcel of her autonomy.

274 -- Do you mean "...on their moms?" Because otherwise I am confused.

274: I know two situations pretty much hexactly like that. So it isn't really a though experiment. Not that I think it's terribly common, either.

275- Thus, she is blameworthy if she will make a good parent, and not-blameworthy if she will be an irresponsible, immature parent. Awesome.

BTW -- Yesterday an acquaintance of mine was talking about something happening that they didn't like and said "It's like having a child who never gets married." Is it just me or is that an awesomely fucked-up analogy comparison?

276: No, I was thinking about the specific case of my friend.

275: I don't think I agree. For me, the crux of the issue is that living things reproduce, and passing judgement on that fact seems assholish (on feminist grounds) and futile (on realist ones).

Rumsfeldian 275: You get knocked up in the society you have, not the society you wish you had.

the specific case of my friend

But I don't see how your friend is laying much of a burden on his mom. The burden is primarily on the women by whom he fathers children, and on their parents presumably -- and if your friend is paying paternity then on him. But his parents don't pay paternity right?

the crux of the issue is that living things reproduce

Living things also defecate, but we pass judgment on the when and where of said defecation.

280: to see the woman as a rational agent rather than the sum of her drives involves evaluating her reasons for acting. I'm all about respecting women's agency, B.

Hey, Apo's calling babies shit!

281: Yes, but I don't think it's right to pass moral judgement on people for things that are outside their control.

282: His mom maintains a relationship with his first kid, who he's decided not to acknowledge, and works really hard to be a good and supportive grandmother to all the kids. She's a better grandmother than he is a father, and that involves not only money but time and emotional work.

283: When and where you take a shit is a little more under the control of most people over the age of three than when and where you get pregnant. We don't have big national problems about the morality and availability of bowel control.

286 -- Oh I see.

284: But pregnancy isn't a positive action. Using birth control is, and abortion is, but pregnancy and childbearing are things that just happen to you if you *don't* take positive action.

We don't reproduce by budding, B.

289 is the "you shouldn't have sex if you don't want to get pregnant" argument, right? Yeah, well, you shouldn't breathe if you don't want to occasionally inhale germs, either.

286: Both getting pregnant and carrying a pregnancy to term are largely within people's control. I suspect that Becks' cousin got pregnant as a result of failing to use birth control, which is a distressingly common mistake made by sexually active teenagers because (drum roll) teenagers are notoriously poor decision makers.

I'm not condemning anybody—come summertime, I'll have another baby thanks to haphazard birth control usage. I'm simply stating what should be blindingly obvious: sixteen is a roundly crappy time to have a baby.

pregnancy and childbearing are things that just happen to you if you *don't* take positive action

Sex? It would be fantastic if getting action was not itself an action.

290: I was going to point out what an inapt analogy that is, but Ogged says I can't.

B, I get where you're coming from. Pregnancy should be accepted as a normal part of life, and not as an anomaly or lifestyle choice. I get that. But I don't see that happening in a society with legal birth control and abortion.

In fact, I'd probably strengthen that claim by saying that the availability of birth control and legal abortion undermine the inevitability of pregnancy. To the extent that we have the former, it's going to be harder to accept the latter. (And a world without birth control or legal abortion makes pregnancy inevitable, but that's not exactly a happy place.)

When and where you take a shit is a little more under the control of most people over the age of three than when and where you get pregnant

I call an analogy foul on this play. Reproduction and defecation are related in terms of general anatomical region and the fact that some people call kids "little shits," but I think there's no useful point to be made here.

Isn't the blog a better place without analogies? I think the experiment is going wonderfully.

sixteen is a roundly crappy time to have a baby.

Never said it wasn't.

I think 294 is exactly wrong. The availability of birth control has strengthened our awareness of the fact that women are systematically discriminated against. Before birth control, we generally viewed women's inequality as "natural"; now we realize that it's an artefact of a sexist society. Which we can change.

I don't follow 297 at all. I'd say that the availability of birth control has made women less unequal, but I'm not understanding what you're saying about it.

But I don't see how your friend is laying much of a burden on his mom.

Part of what makes all this so thorny is the ways in which people who love each other really do try to help each other. A childhood friend of my sister's got his girlfriend pregnant when he was about 17. His family was less than thrilled, not least because the girlfriend was about 10 years older.

Still, they supported him: Room at their house to live, money for further schooling (he tried several kinds of vo-tech/community-college options), and tons and tons of emotional, practical, and logistical support for the baby. His parents (the baby's grandparents) provided a LOT of caretaking, toys, clothes, food, etc. And the grandmother has MS. And she had just gotten her older daughter married.

I don't think for a second that the grandmother begrudged the child this support. I don't think she begrudged her son this support. The fact remains that it imposed a huge, exhausting burden on the family at a time when the grandmother was just getting to a resting place in life -- with her daughter settled and her own disease diagnosed, she was leaving the workforce and trying to negotiate a new life for herself. Her husband was tasked with working longer and more years at both of his jobs than he had anticipated, due to the double whammy of the MS and the grandchild.

You can love your children tremendously and view every baby as a miracle, and yet there can still be enormous, enormous costs.

I think it's 297 that's exactly wrong. Cala's point is that the "choice" view of pregnancy is fostered by our increasing degree of control over the beginning and termination of pregnancy; we don't regard it as something that "just happens" because, in fact, here and now, it's something people allow to happen or allow to continue. I could build an extended analogy to defecation, but Ogged and good taste prohibits it.

"Defecation" and "good taste" should not appear in the same sentence.

You can love your children tremendously and view every baby as a miracle, and yet there can still be enormous, enormous costs.

Absolutely. But why do we have to place blame on someone for that fact?

298: Hm, lemme see if I can clarify. Pre-Sanger, it was generally accepted that motherhood limited women's autonomy, and that this was inevitable and in fact an argument in favor of discriminating aginst women. Post-Sanger (partly as a result of b.c. and partly as a parallel kind of argument), we're less inclined to accept "nature" as both inevitable and somehow distinct from the human society. If "nature" isn't something we have no control over, then the limiting "nature" of kids on women's equality is something we might be able to do something about.

300: My argument is that the "choice" view of pregnancy isn't the effect of birth control, but the lingering effect of sexism. We don't have any problem with recognizing that one's ability to treat a disease doesn't necessarily mean one can choose not to get it in the first place.

Analogy.

Okay, so if I follow it correctly the thought process is: "Look, through birth control we can change the degree to which pregnancy, before now thought to be an unchangable natural disadvantage, negatively impacts women. Perhaps this means that there is some parallel societal advance we might make which will similarly change the degree to which childcare negatively impacts women!"

Absolutely. But why do we have to place blame on someone for that fact?

Well, as with any other situation, if someone actively made choices that brought it about, it seems reasonable to impute some responsibility, depending on the circumstances, to the person who made those choices. (And like everyone else, I don't buy the action/inaction distinction. Barring rape, someone who takes no action doesn't get pregnant. What makes sex without birth control more inevitable than sex with birth control?)

All I'm saying, B, is that if you want to argue 'but no one has a choice to become pregnant, she only can take measures to try to prevent it', then we're saying that she *doesn't* have control over nature. That brings back a lot of the earlier arguments, especially when it comes to setting policy.

And if she *does* have control and autonomy, then it's a decision she's responsible for.

LB prefers not to consider the conception of our Lord.

Okay, can we at least agree that Lane having a child, on Gilmore Girls, is a terrible idea, even if she's probably 21 by now? She really needs to move to NYC and rock out.

What makes sex without birth control more inevitable than sex with birth control?

The same thing that makes pregnancy a fact of life: that we are living creatures with a drive to reproduce. Getting one's hands on birth control takes conscious action, and I'm all for encouraging people to do that and making it as easy as possible. I'm also all for encouraging people to be conscious and responsible about their sexual activity. But given that sex is a pretty fundamental drive, I think that the "don't fuck unless you're willing to risk pregnancy" thing is more ideal to be aimed for than realistic advice.

304: Indeed. Sometimes it's easier to make people see things they take for granted (e.g., sexism) by defamiliarizing it a little. Read some Shklovsky and get back to me.

The theological implications of our Lord's having been produced by budding have not been sufficiently explored.

306: Unnecessary dualism. One has *some* control over whether or not one gets pregnancy, but not ultimate control.

Analogies are banned. It's for your own good.

310: The H stands for hydra.

I have found "reading Shklovsky" to be damned hard advice to follow. Northwestern's library, to which I have access, carries nothing I could find.

312: Then jump on someone else for it, oppressor.

Or.

311: Well, I've only been judging her (and there's a limit to how harshly I'm going to judge a sixteen-year-old for being irresponsible, because, sixteen) to the extent that she either deliberately or thoughtlessly failed to exercise what control she had in an attempt to avoid pregnancy.

But why do we have to place blame on someone for that fact?

At the risk of repeating myself, I see a lot of middle ground between a kind of "blame" that says "You 'decided' to get pregnant, now live with the consequences," and a rah-rah celebration. Neither of those extremes is desirable, in my opinion, but there are many other options.

Look, we all make decisions that affect others, right? When those decision affect our nearest and dearest, it's pretty accepted for those people to comment on them. Meddling, helpful, whatever -- they weigh in.

I'm with LB. There is something -- call it manners, ethics, kindness, morality, whatever (can you tell I'm not a philosopher?) -- there is a kind of learned considerateness that is about acknowledging that you are not the center of the universe.

Teen parents have no more a duty to learn this than the rest of us, and heaven knows I don't think it should lead them in a particular direction (pregnancy, abortion, etc). But thinking about how your actions are going to help or hurt others is -- well, I guess I'd call it a sign of maturity, but also an an important part of being human.

OK, I'll shut up now.

IDP, here you go. "Art as Technique" is the essay I'm thinking of. Northwestern probably files it under "Shklovskii" or "Shklovski" or something along those lines.

309: Disease transmission and pregnancy aren't even remotely in the same category, B. We're objecting to the analogy because it's a dumb analogy, not because we're too blinded by sexism to see it, we poor banished children of Eve.

306: She has ultimate control over whether to continue the pregnancy. And this is I think the heart of what's in tension. We want the girl to have autonomy over whether to continue the pregnancy, because she can be trusted to make her own decisions. But on the other hand, she isn't autonomous, because she's at the mercy of her hormones/the nuclear family/society/whatever. I'm saying that's very hard to hold together in one's head, and treating pregnancy as inevitable in a society where declining birth rates indicate it largely isn't doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense.

Teen parents have no more a duty to learn this than the rest of us

Agreed 100%. That's my entire point.

She has ultimate control over whether to continue the pregnancy.

Actually not true in some states, you realize. And in others, while she has ultimate control over the decision, there are a lot of obstacles put in her way to make that control very difficult to exercise.

Besides which, saying "it's ultimately her decision" is factually true, but seems to imply an equivalence between not taking action (continuing the pregnancy) and taking an action (abortion) that is at best inconvenient and embarrassing, and at worst difficult as hell.

I'll have another go. I've tried the variant spellings already. The famous article about TS, which is what you and AWB mentioned in comments last February, is what I was chagrined to find was not available. The journal where the translation first appeared, in the early eighties, was not carried, nor was the book the translator later assembled.

And again, to the extent that there are obstacles in her way keeping her from having a free choice to use birth control or terminate the pregnancy, no one decent would judge her for not overcoming those obstacles where they're significant. The only judgment (at least the only judgment coming from me) is to the extent that becoming pregnant and continuing the pregnancy were the result of her active choices.

323: It should be excerpted in a collection of essays about formalism. I'm vaguely recalling a thin collection called "The Formal Imagination," but I'd think it would be in any number of lit crit anthologies.

324: Yeah, I probably agree with you in private life. I don't think I can bring myself to agree with you as a matter of public record, though. I keep wanting to quibble about what we mean by "active choices," given the realities of our attitudes towards 16yo sexuality....

322: No kidding, in our real world. But we're talking about your fantasy utopia, with universal day care, universal health care, and universal access to contraception and reproduction services, where I think it's going to be very hard to convince people that 'babies just happen' when everyone has access to abortion.

To the extent that the sixteen-year-old in the real world doesn't have choices, well, there's no conceivable way to judge her. But this idea that if she makes a decision (significant degrees of freedom, non-coerced, robust alternative possibilities), she's somehow immune from any kind of judgment seems to cut against her autonomy.

LB, I don't think you ever made clear why you think the yahoos and the whoopees are inherently untrustworthy. If she talks things over with her parents and that's their reaction (again, assuming preganancy in the first place was unintentional), has she done anything of which you disapprove?

And I'm sounding harsher than I really want to; erratic birth control usage, unrealism about how difficult rearing a child is, fear or distaste for (as separate from moral concern about) abortion: while these are all irresponsible, again, in a sixteen year old it's hard to judge them terribly harshly.

If we were talking about my fantasy utopia, it would include a recognition that passing judgement on other people's decisions to have kids or not is not only rude, but meaningless.

328: Absolutely. And as in the Clinton thread, I think the reality is that it isn't only teenagers who do those things. I mean, I knew that having a kid would be hard, but I had no idea what it would actually be *like*. I've been less than perfect about condom use, and I don't think I'd be entirely complacent about having an abortion.

327: Because they're her parents, and they're (if they're good, decent parents) emotionally committed to supporting her lovingly whatever happens. So I'd expect some version of a "Whoopee!" reaction from loving parents, regardless of how much of a hardship caring for a grandchild would place on them.

The kid in The Giving Tree wasn't less of a selfish bastard because the tree was saying "Sure, cut me down and build a boat out of me, I love you so much that it's fine with me if you do." I don't want to call her a selfish bastard, because I recognize that there's a questionable extent to which bearing the child was an active choice, but I don't think her parents' expressed reaction when presented with a fetus accompli is a good measure of the burden on them, or of how welcome that burden really is.

331: Aha! Another revelation along the lines of 254. This is part of my anti-passive-aggressive agenda (and doubtless an expression of my own personal set of "issues"): I don't think the kid is a selfish bastard in that story. I dislike the *story* because I think it encourages both selfishness and p-a behavior in the name of "love," but I don't blame the kid for taking the tree at face value.

Now, once he becomes an adult, he's an asshole, and though the tree's done a lot of work in making him that way, ultimately as an adult it's his decision to stop being an asshole or not. But the actual cutting-down I can't really blame him for: if someone kept on at me about "use me, abuse me, I love you" all the time like that, I'd want to cut them down too.

I'm reminded that a discussion of a mime-production of the Giving Tree was my introduction to this web-site.

I was reassured to find another group of people who thought it was a psychopathic obscenity.

331- Hmm. You still seem to be dodging what I thought was an easy question. I'm working under your framework from 256 that everyone invovled is pro-choice. She goes to parents and says, "oops, I'm pregnant, what do I do?" Instead of recommending terminate they say "Yippee! A male heir!" Again, I think under your original formulation in 249 this makes her blameles in her subsequent decision to keep the baby, although you seem to be resisting this conclusion.

(I'm not pressing this to pester, I'm just trying to feel you out on this point. Because I don't think I agree with you that burden on grandparents is the driving moral concern in this situation. But you seemed to, I thought.)

I shouldn't have called him a 'kid', in that I only find his adult behavior objectionable; all he did as a kid was climb on and love the tree, and as a teen take apples from the tree (which also doesn't bother me.) It's the mutilation, which happens when the kid grows up, which I find disturbing. But this is clearly one of those incompatible world-view things.

Yeah, I don't like that part either. My epiphany was more a tongue-in-cheek acknowledgment that I'm a hardass when it comes to people playing the "no, I don't mind, really" game.

some version of a "Whoopee!" reaction from loving parents

I also suspect that the whoopee reaction of the parents toward the kid was decidedly more muted than the one being presenting to the extended family. Y'know, brave public face and all that.

272: Kinda sorta. I mean, if you don't want grandkids, don't have kids, right?

One normally (in this nuclear-family-oriented society, etc) expects to raise kids but not to raise grandkids. Does what you say extend to "If you don't want to raise grandkids, don't have kids?"

Also, can we have a population angle on this? There seems to be a general sense in the discussion that having a kid is generally a good thing, provided it can be raised well, etc. I'm not sure I buy that; having a kid is an impact on the world as well as on one's family. I think even B's maximally-supportive utopia would be finite, and so it wouldn't be true that someone else's decision to have children is entirely none of my business or immune from my criticism.

337: I agree. It seems a very fierce, grimly determined 'whoopie!'

people playing the "no, I don't mind, really" game.

I've only recently begun to realize how good my dad was in seeing through this, and picking up on and encouraging out real reservations. Hard work, though. Had to be a sort of Triple Thinker: "She said this, but I think she probably..."

She goes to parents and says, "oops, I'm pregnant, what do I do?" Instead of recommending terminate they say "Yippee! A male heir!" Again, I think under your original formulation in 249 this makes her blameles in her subsequent decision to keep the baby, although you seem to be resisting this conclusion.

I am resisting it, although I mightn't be if I knew enough details. If she came to them asking for advice rather than stating an intention, and their response is "Yippee!" rather than "What do you want to do?" then they aren't wholeheartedly prochoice, I don't think -- it would be very screwy of them to strongly encourage a wavering sixteen-year-old to go ahead with motherhood, given the practical degree to which it shuts doors for her, because they wanted a grandkid. That's a reaction that sounds like "Abortion is an evil to be avoided, rather than a morally neutral decision about entering into parenthood" to me.

If she came to them saying that she intended to keep the baby and they said "Whoopee!" I think it's likely a reaction driven by reasons of respecting her personal autonomy and respecting the fact that they are unable to make that decision for her and wanting to preserve the relationship if she goes ahead with it against their advice.

To believe that they were sincerely delighted, I'd have to know a lot about their circumstances implying either that it wasn't a significant burden (great wealth or something like that) or that they had a history of assuming significant burdens for other people out of pure goodheartedness (certainly possible, and I've met people like that). Or some other specific factor.

(Burden on grandparents is one moral factor -- burden on the kid is trickier to analyze, because 'Better off if you hadn't been born' is a weird thing to say about anyone. But if she's likely to have the same net number of kids regardless of when in her lifespan they're born, which seems reasonable to me, then the 'never been born' factor nets out, and I think there's some moral factor that says it is better to maximize the chances that your children will be well cared for, and that you do that by having your kids when you can take care of them yourself rather than when you're dependent.)

There seems to be a general sense in the discussion that having a kid is generally a good thing, provided it can be raised well, etc. I'm not sure I buy that; having a kid is an impact on the world as well as on one's family.

You know, I was wondering late last night if this thread would end up in zero population growth territory. (Which may not have been what you meant, but what you said reminded me.) I would argue that any concept we have of the "good" necessarily implies that which promotes/sustains/enhances life; most concepts of god with which I'm familiar emphasize the creator role, for instance. So the only possible argument that having kids isn't good would be one that depended on the belief that having a kid under X circumstances would diminish or inhibit (the quality or quantity of human) life, I should think.

If I've had three kids via two wives (and the first one has had no more), am I still abiding by the ZPG mandate?

"If" s/b "Given that"

I'm pretty close to ZPG, or actually to thinking that population shrinkage would be a good thing. I love my kids, but over their lifespans they're going to use resources equivalent to thousands of people in developing countries who don't now have enough to live decent lives. Coercive tactics toward shrinking the population seem wrong to me, but encouragement to voluntarily choose having fewer children seems like a good thing.

341. Okay, thanks. That makes sense enough.

341: I imagine there are people for whom being highly involved grandparents was taken for granted, and children were seen as an unmitigated good, who would be sincerely delighted, even if they were also pro-choice.

True re. "better off if you hadn't been born." But I think that's b/c it's a meaningless phrase: if you hadn't been born, there'd be no one to be better off. I think that in terms of the burden on kids, my thinking is "better off if you'd been born under different circumstances, or if your parents had been better able/more willing to do their job well."

ZPG is part of what informs my thinking, yeah. An extreme position would be that circumstance X is "world average fertility still above 2.1"; that is, any net population increase diminishes the quality of human life. I'm not quite at that extreme, though some days I'm close, and I think that the relatively high resource consumption of first-world residents means that we have stronger obligations on this front.

345: Right, that's what I mean. Your ZPG feelings are related to your sense that it would be better for human life generally if we in the rich world would have fewer kids. I basically agree with that (and don't worry about it much, since the richer people are the fewer kids they have, statistically speaking). I'd also add that the real solution to the problem lies in consuming fewer resources (very, very hard to do) as well as limiting population growth.

"better off if you'd been born under different circumstances, or if your parents had been better able/more willing to do their job well."

Isn't this true for everybody, though?

348: But don't forget that U.S. population growth statistics depend pretty heavily on immigrants, who take a generation or two for their internalized belief in the value of big families to give way to other internalized ideas about the value of having more resources for personal consumption.

350: No, I don't think so. I think I'm about as well off as can be reasonably expected; that is, I think that despite their fuckups, my parents did a "good enough" job. It's like the diminishing returns theory of parenting, or something: at some point, you have to accept that it's not possible to be perfect.

Yeah, I suppose I'd take a "You know, sweetheart, it'll make your life really hard if you go ahead with the pregnancy, and it will shut off a lot of options for you. For your own sake, it probably makes the most sense to terminate the pregnancy. Of course, we'll help you if you keep the baby, and selfishly I hope you do; you know how much your father and I love having babies around the house." sort of response as sincere.

the "selfishly" in 353 seems insincere after LB's previous posts in this thread.

I totally buy the diminishing returns theory of parenting. There is some theoretical optimum between `doesn't get enough to eat' and `batshit insane trust fund baby', but I don't think that it is something you could actually locate. At some point fiddling around with trade offs in time vs. income or whatever have pretty marginal effect. At the extremes though, it really counts.

This thread makes me want to impregnate a sixteen-year-old. Only to prove a point, of course.

356: sort of a personal test case for child support laws, you mean?

No, just to show that I can.

356: "sixteen-year-old" s/b "Himalaya".

(Disregard 359 -- I thought there was a joke to be had there but now see that I was mistaken.)

It's not clear what good our kids not being born does for people in developing countries. I suppose lack of labor supply might encourage more generous immigration policies but not reliably, and it's far more efficient to directly advocate more generous immigration, aid & development policies.

It does help the environment, but there are other ways...

(LB, the fact that you live in New York City DRASTICALLY reduces your environmental footprint. New Yorkers use about 1/3 of the gasoline and 1/2 of the home heating/cooling energy of the average American. So just don't let your kids move...

obviously that varies based on how much you drive, how big your place is etc.)

(Oh, I know, I talk about it when I want to annoy suburban friends: "In an environmentally ideal world, we'd all live in dense NY type cities, except for the small number of actual farmers and other people who needed to live out in the country. Wilderness can be visited." But even an NY lifestyle is pretty horrendous by the standards of Chad.)

But even an NY lifestyle is pretty horrendous by the standards of Chad.

Yeah, it's like mini-van drivers getting all snooty about wasteful SUVs.

362 -- Yeah watch if I invite you suburbs-haters to the big summer barbecue!

(Hey wait, this is the beauty-school thread, not the suburbia thread!)

I knew a guy named Chad once, and this made headlines about the African nation a lot funnier.

Maybe I'll name the next kid Kurdistan.

Back to Becks' cousin's case. It sounds like Becks might think there's a bit of "soft bigotry of low expectations" going on along with everything. The post made me think of this story, mutatis mutandis.

282, the paternal grandparents are also potentially subject to moral extortion as described in 249 as it is their grandkid also.