And...these girls got pregnant all by themselves? And...offering contraception is akin to forcing it down their throats? And...I stand amazed.

The statement about sex-ed in the quote is completely ambiguous:

The high school has done perhaps too good a job of embracing young mothers. Sex-ed classes end freshman year at Gloucester...

I'm not sure if we're supposed to read that statement as blaming sex-ed for huge numbers of pregnancies. I think (although this could be completely wrong) that what Time is saying is that one reason for the pregnancies is that sex-ed classes don't continue after freshman year; that is to say, they're advocating MORE sex-ed, not less (at least I hope they are).

I heard a report this morning that one of the girls paid a homeless man to impregnate her. I don't even know what to say about that.

There is a comment in the article that goes "They're so excited to finally have someone to love them unconditionally" which really struck me. I feel so sad that there are girls who feel this way, that they want to have babies just to feel loved.

I suspect that there are deep systemic issues in this community, where boys aren't taught to honor women, and where women aren't taught to feel pride in their own right. The girls' only option to feel validated as human beings is to step into the role of motherhood, at a stunningly early age. Do they realize that there is an alternative, that there are other ways to become a full human being?

As for the the school's assistance to new mothers, I don't really have a problem with that. Now that the girls *do* have kids, of course the school should do everything they can to help support them and make sure that they get their proper education. However, they should also have a sensible sex-ed policy, teaching safe sex and contraception. I have my doubts that that will do much difference though, as I said, I fear that there are issues here that run much deeper than that.

How would contraception help when the teens actually decided to get pregnant together unless they were forced to take pills or something.

This quote from an MSNBC article really bothers me:

"But even if we had contraceptives, that pact shows that if they wanted to get pregnant, they will get pregnant. Whether we distribute contraceptives is irrelevant," said Verga.

In this case it might be accurate, but these girls pact doesn't prove that no one in that school will ever need contraceptives.

I'm curious about the sex ed class - it's easy to say that "sex ed" is to blame, and if it's abstinence-only sex ed, it probably is. But the truth is, comprehensive sex ed is intended to reduce pregnancies caused by ignorance or accident. There is nothing sex education of any kind could do to prevent a girl who wants to get pregnant from getting pregnant. What's sad is that this is what these girls wanted. What kind of self-esteem issues do they have that they see this as a good life plan?

I'm going to agree with Farhat and Ashlyn. On the one hand, these particular girls wanted to get pregnant and they went out of their way to make sure that happened. In that case handing out condoms wasn't going to deter them, they need (ed) counseling because from the "unconditional" love quote there is something that they're not getting at home. For them I'm going to guess that when they picture babies, they picture the quite, curious newborn and the emerging toddler instead of the crying, sick, or fussy baby that comes along with that (as the Senior in the story pointed out). We hardly ever hear about the stressful/non-joyous side of parenting because a lot of women (and men) feel the need to make it look effortless and I'm afraid these girls might find out the hard way that raising kids is a huge responsibility. I hope they can make it through but something tells me for a lot of them once the babies are there the fantasy bubble is going to burst and not for the better. (but it does seem like they will have support by the school so at least they can finish their education).

On the second hand, the school should be offering contraceptives and education for the other students. I think these girls are probably a special case but there are others who'd appreciate and need the information to keep themselves safe.

I have to agree that these girls decided to get pregnant on their own and having birth control available to them wouldn't have made a difference. They consciously decided to get pregnant together. What we should be looking at is their reasoning behind it. As someone pointed out, they did it to finally feel loved and needed. We need to be looking into what's going on in their community and in their homes that's making them feel as if they're unloved and the only way they could attain the attention and affection they seek is by becoming mothers.

I do agree that birth control should be easily available to the kids at schools should they be seeking it, but I don't think it would have made a difference in this case.

I think this high school should start a program where young people, especially those who seem to need some unconditional love to the point they make pregnancy pacts, can get class credit for volunteering at an animal rescue center.

It's just my personal opinion, but: Want unconditional love? Adopt a pet.

If you want to give unconditional love (along with money, time, hard HARD work, and the last of your selfishness), then have a baby.

I saw this report on the Today Show this morning and their focus was on all the wrong things, IMO. The overall reaction seemed to be, "How dare these girls NOT feel shame & fear at having a child out of wedlock!", instead of what I thought it should be: "How can we help these girls make responsible decisions about their futures & offer them choices & support in doing so?"

I'm not sure these girls are making smart choices for their lives, but saying that lack of fear is the problem here is messed up reasoning in my opinion.

Why are we letting teenage parents stay parents? We don't let them vote or drink or make other big decisions (i.e. contracts) but choosing to be a parent at 16 is deemed okay (and even encouraged). Who are we protecting exactly? The mother or father is more likely to end up in poverty (not them). The child is more likely to be a teenage parent (definitely not them). Why can't we, for everyone sake, leave parenting to adults and put every child born from another child into adoption. If this just encourages these teens to wait a few years then so be it. By then they will be more mature and better able to look after their child.

This reminds me of a book that was popular a few years ago called "Growing Up Fast" by Joanna Lipper. It chronicled the life of several teenage girls in Pittsfield, MA, a depressed, post GE city with little opportunity.

I dont't think it's as much a fad as changing social expectations and needs. KT makes this point in the "someone to love them unconditionally" line. What kind of self esteem are we offering these young women if they think they need a baby to love them because they think no one else will? It's an entire societal shift away from supporting teen girls in succeeding in life.

Think about it. No one pays attention to them until they get pregnant. Then someone finally pays attention to them. They get a party thrown for them (a shower), extra attention at school (day care and special classes), and a baby to love them.

Sex ed isn't just about teaching girls to protect themselves or say no and birth control doesn't offer life skills or self worth. It must be about self esteem and life skills so that they see more options in life (and better ones) than just teen pregnancy. I think that's where society misses the mark big time.

gordon.gekko -- are you seriously advocating forced adoption for every pregnant teen?? Seriously?

Granted, for most teens pregnancy leads to even worse situations, but isn't feminism supposed to be about choice? Who are you to decide what is best for these girls and the children they have? That's so offensive.

Feminism can be about choice, but I prefer to think of it in the broadest possible terms, which is simple sex egalitarianism. Getting any more specific quickly leads to "No True Scotsman" fallacies. In any case, the entire point of classifying some people as minors is that other people make decisions for them because they can't be trusted to do it right on their own.

In this case, I think that teenage mothers should only be forced out of their parental rights if they are judged unfit. I happen to also think that the mere act of deliberately creating a child before one's completion of highschool is itself cause to judge a parent unfit. It's a Catch-22, but a justified one IMO.

Granted, for most teens pregnancy leads to even worse situations, but isn't feminism supposed to be about choice?"--theladylinguist

I am not for forced adoption, but I hate how "pro-choice" comes down to permissiveness in discussions like this. First the piece at Alternet which so conveniently and ENTIRELY left out condoms (there may be an infuriating war on birth control pills and IUDS, but it's STILL dishonest to say that women have total lack of access to contraceptives, especially considering IUDS and the Pill don't prevent STI transmission/contraction as condoms do. Irresponsible), and then this.

These girls say they feel they have nothing else to look forward to and probably come from less-than-satisfying homes an neighborhoods. What makes them think they'll have more stable, happy families then their on parents and relatives, that the cycle of dysfunction and hardship won't continue?

Who do they think is going to pay for the material needs and time raising a child takes? Right...they don't care. And we can't do anything about their stupid self-destructive misguided behavior. Can't, or won't (I'm including the Right here, which makes this problem worse on so many levels).

Is "choice" the same as license? Are rights completely unattached from personal responsibility and culpability for your own life, and the decisions you expect others to pay for?

There's little to be done for the girls who are already knocked up (I don't advocate "sending girls away", isolating them or their children, or forcing adoption unless the mothers are unfit or abusive.) But what about other teens (and young adults...40-something percent of pregnancies in this country are unplanned, and its people in their 20s and 30s too) who follow across the country?

Are people completely blameless until this (deeply, deeply flawed country) evolves into the Netherlands?

A decent comprehensive sex education program would teach them not only how but why to avoid pregnancy.

Granted, for most teens pregnancy leads to even worse situations, but isn't feminism supposed to be about choice?"

...Again....that sounds like "choice" is indistinguishable from "license" or impulsive behavior (great...impulses guiding as great a burden as raising a child) at best. That's a pretty disturbing statement--that their "choices" (uninformed, badly thought out) may lead to troubling consequences for them AND the children they (and the likely absentee dad) brings into the world, but because "feminism is about choice" (STUPID CHOICES, apparently)...then what?

THAT'S supposed to dissuade those who want forced adoption or the elimination of welfare and other measures that are more punitive than constructive?

A more interesting question is whether a parent who believes a daughter is at risk of making a pact like this could force Norplant on her daughter, or the injection you only have to get every few months. My mom has students who have had so called prom babies. Of course, they end up in her GED class. Part of sex ed can certainly be about the daunting challenges of teen parenting. A little reality TV about what it's like to stay home every Friday with a kid would go a long way. In the larger picture, someone indeed needs to figure out where these girls lost their dreams and goals for themselves beyond motherhood. On a final note, in a way it's sad there is actually little support for young parenthood in this country. Forget 16, it's criminally insane for a 20 year old to become a parent if he or she wants to achieve and maintain middle class status (or at least so middle class parents tell me). Yet at 36, such a parent would have a driving-age child who could fend for themselves, during the prime make or break time in most professional careers. My college had no on campus daycare, married housing, or basic cooperative spirt among young parents (there were none) which would make such a thing possible. After graduation you would soon be ready to put that child on the bus and work full time. Just a thought.

In re: Gordon.gekko's comment -- don't feed the troll. Anyone whose handle references 'Wall Street' is up to no good.

More substantively, I see two issues with this story.
1) The girls who decided to have babies would not have been helped by the availability of birth control. They needed counseling and for someone to give them an idea of what having a child actually means. This could have been done during a sex ed class. My 9th grade health class covered all this stuff -- we even got an 18 year old girl who had had a baby while in school as a cautionary guest lecturer. She told us how difficult it was to have a baby as a teenager and how she wished she could have waited to do it. It made a HUGE impression.
2) Although the "baby-pact" pregnancies were not related to the school's no birth control policy, there is no excuse for not supplying the rest of the student body with birth control options.

This community has deeper problems than planned teen pregnancy. How is forced adoption going to stop more teens from making this decision? Forcing adoption is a bandaid for a bullet wound.

Maybe instead of getting all upset about 17 pregnant high schoolers, we should be addressing the reasons they thought pregnancy was a good idea. All over the country, we have towns that cannot economically sustain themselves. We need more comprehensive sex-ed (especially, like a_human said, with lessons on what having a child really means), we need economic classes in high schools so that people understand finances, we need programs creating jobs in areas of the country that aren't self-sustaining, we need affordable higher education... do I need to go on?

ladylinguist,
I am sorry perhaps I wasn't clear. I would never advocate forced abortions or restricting abortions. I simply feel teenagers should never be legal guardians or legal parents. Yes, it should always be acceptable for a women to get pregnant (for whatever reason) and as a women they have the option to bring that child to birth (or not) but once the child is born it goes to an adult.
This is not authoritarian, it simply and extension of our laws that treat teenagers different than adults. Nor would this proposal be excessively draconian. For instance birth parents could give their child to an adult until they come of age (although adoption would probably be the preferable method).

And who am I to decide whats best for these children (the babies not the parents)? Well I feel we as society should have a legal system that protects children and the vulnerable. We don't give a 13 year old the right to use a credit card even if they consent because they are not mature enough to make that decision. So, why do we give them (teen fathers/mothers) the right to ruin not only their lives but their child's?

I'd suggest that those who believe forcing these young women to give up their babies for adoption would do well to read The Girls Who Went Away by Ann Fessler for an intimate look into the physical, emotional and psychological toll that forced adoption had on young women.

And it wouldn't do anything to deter these specific minded women in the future. The only thing it would probably do is reinforce that they were *right* and the only reason they're not being unconditionally loved is because the people who didn't love them unconditionally in the first place took away their opportunity. It would just lead to deeper resentment and depression, not a fix.

adminassistant commented at June 20, 2008 10:48 AM: "And...offering contraception is akin to forcing it down their throats?"

Between the parents' complains and the elitism/eugenics/etc. accusations I've seen against other improvements to contraception access, my guess is that offering contraception is supposedly more akin to oppressing their underprivileged ancestors. o_O

Ashlyn commented at June 20, 2008 11:08 AM: ""But even if we had contraceptives, that pact shows that if they wanted to get pregnant, they will get pregnant. Whether we distribute contraceptives is irrelevant," said Verga.

"In this case it might be accurate, but these girls pact doesn't prove that no one in that school will ever need contraceptives."

Great point! Likewise, what if the same person who wanted to pregnant in 9th grade doesn't want to get pregnant again in 10th grade...?

ladylinguist commented at June 20, 2008 3:19 PM: "Maybe instead of getting all upset about 17 pregnant high schoolers, we should be addressing the reasons they thought pregnancy was a good idea. All over the country, we have towns that cannot economically sustain themselves. We need more comprehensive sex-ed (especially, like a_human said, with lessons on what having a child really means), we need economic classes in high schools so that people understand finances, we need programs creating jobs in areas of the country that aren't self-sustaining, we need affordable higher education... do I need to go on?"

Very good points. I'd add that we need better vocational high school and trade school programs and less stigma against them too. We also need more guts. Some people out there will call us materialist for thinking that economics is relevant, not praising kids for "all you need is love" attitudes, etc. and we shouldn't be afraid of them.

There are some other things too other than the "unconditional love" issue that would seem to 'push' these teens towards wanting to have a baby.

If you look at the economic situation in general, there is a sense of hopelessness. Teens are being told and experiencing that finding a job is very difficult, school is too expensive and are generally seeing the adults around them depressed at the current outlook.

Then they see the adults having children on purpose being happy, ecstatic and nearly unconditionally supported by their friends and family. With other prospects looking so poor, why wouldn't it seem like a happy choice? They know monetary issues are mitigated by government programs (not saying that they cover all expenses, but teens know there is help out there) and while parents of these teens might think adoption or otherwise should be an out, if the teen decides to keep the child, few parents are going to kick their teen out onto the street. They are going to help them stay in school, raise the child, and because of it give them the attention they want.

Unfortunately, I would say that this is a trend that will probably be on the rise. Five years ago at the university I work at, despite the conservative backgrounds of the students, it was very rare to see a student pregnant. Now it is a fairly common thing to see on campus and these aren't accidents. They are planned, with most of the babies being born in May-June-July... ie, planned to be born at the end of the semester. Students I've talked with say they have this 'need' to have a baby, that babies make everyone happy. :(

Not much talk here about the fathers of these children. I think this is further evidence of how young girls are being raised in a society that views fathers as irrelevant. I can't believe someone even suggested that their decision to get pregnant was the result of a community that doesn't honor women. Getting pregnant certainly wouldn't make things better, if that was case. And I also don't understand why some are suggesting that this was the girls way of wanting to feel loved. Maybe they are loved? Maybe their decision had nothing at all to do with feeling loved.

We always look for a deeper meaning when females act irresponsibly.

These poor dumb girls think a baby will love them unconditionally? Oh my. I don't know whether to laugh at them or cry for them.

I hope their parents find a way to help them stay in school.

UltraMagnus commented at June 20, 2008 4:03 PM: "I'd suggest that those who believe forcing these young women to give up their babies for adoption would do well to read The Girls Who Went Away by Ann Fessler for an intimate look into the physical, emotional and psychological toll that forced adoption had on young women."

Good point.

Meanwhile, I vaguely remember a suggestion on another forum that put a whole different spin on forced adoption: don't give custody to the girls, and do give custody to whichever adults already have custody of the girls. That poster's point was more "minors shouldn't have custody of minors" and "if your kid has a kid at 15 then you should be responsible" than sympathy, but a side effect for a young mom in that situation would be getting to stay where she is and live with her child instead of anyone going away. I don't remember whether or not that poster was in favor of the mothers automatically getting custody when they turn 18, though.

Not much talk here about the fathers of these children. I think this is further evidence of how young girls are being raised in a society that views fathers as irrelevant. I can't believe someone even suggested that their decision to get pregnant was the result of a community that doesn't honor women. Getting pregnant certainly wouldn't make things better, if that was case. And I also don't understand why some are suggesting that this was the girls way of wanting to feel loved. Maybe they are loved? Maybe their decision had nothing at all to do with feeling loved.

We always look for a deeper meaning when females act irresponsibly.

There is a deeper meaning whether you feel like looking for it or not. You know, an interesting thing about the patriarchy it that it doesn't go away just because an action is incomprehensible to you. So in many cases, as in this one, it might be helpful to you to look to the patriarchy for context – the patriarchy that historically has told girls that their dearest aspiration should be to get married and make babies and today gets an especially big kick out of deriding women who want careers and/or don't want children. You might also consider that not everybody grows up in an education system or socioeconomic class that puts them in the greatest position to live the American dream and go catapulting miraculously over each and every roadblock they might face, and that to some people it might make more sense to quickly find a niche in the reality they see around them every day than to spend a lot of time and energy pursuing some other future that very easily could never materialize.

You know, instead of throwing out a random red herring about how girls are being raised to view fathers as irrelevant and pretending you just can't imagine that there are any girls in America who might feel that getting pregnant and having babies is the best -- or only -- way they can be valued and supported in their community.

have.at.it: The girls who decided to have babies would not have been helped by the availability of birth control.

Perhaps the girls in question might have turned their noses up at readily available birth control... but perhaps it could have done some good if it had been made available to the boys they were sleeping with. After all the girls didn't become pregnant spontaneously in a vacuum. If their male classmates were receiving solid Sex Ed and had access to and insisted on using condoms it might have helped prevent some of these pregnancies. I wonder whether the fathers are looking forward to the unconditional love of an infant as much as the mothers are.

I heard a bit of this on CBC radio today. One of the girls said that she realizes now that she'd made a big mistake, and warned others: "If someone tells you that they know what it's like because they have a younger sibling, don't believe them. It's not the same at all."

I think that those who are pointing to the lack of other opportunities in the girls' community are most likely right. I recall reading that in some destitute communities, people have children on purpose because that's something they can feel a sense of pride and accomplishment about.

"Not much talk here about the fathers of these children. I think this is further evidence of how young girls are being raised in a society that views fathers as irrelevant."

I suspect a different problem, Matthew: boys aren't encouraged to be nurturing, and while teenagers in general are viewed as irresponsible, teenage boys are viewed as even more irresponsible, and in a way this encourages them to live down to that expectation. Chances are these girls didn't trust their male counterparts to pull their weight in child-rearing. PHMT.

This story makes me think of a girl I knew in HS.

She got pregnant after a weekend with her on-and-off again boyfriend. They had sex five times that weekend, and it would've been six except for her mother coming home unexpectedly early. At no point was a condom or any other BC method involved.

It wasn't that she didn't know these things existed, she'd used them before, in fact.

Whether conciously or unconciously, she decided this was what she wanted.

I know her home life wasn't good, just from the fragments I'd heard. For a little while prior to this, she'd been dating a black guy, which she had to keep a huge secret because her parents were very racist and had already told her they'd disown her if she ever did that. Her bisexuality was under wraps for the same reason. And of course, there's that thing about leaving your 14 or 15 year old alone for an entire weekend (not a rare thing in their house).

Girls who get pregnant on purpose are in a completely different place from girls who get pregnant out of ignorance or the sheer shitty luck.

I'm not advocating disincluding boys, but talking to boys helps more with the unintended babies than the intended ones. For the intended ones, I think, the help needs to come from moms, dads and counselors. Solid older brothers and sisters, cousins, too, to talk to younger people and keep them from thinking it's such a grand idea.

"And we can't do anything about their stupid self-destructive misguided behavior. "

Why are such assumptions made about young women who make the conscious choice to be mothers? Why do people assume young women or young mothers do not know what they are getting into? And why assume they or their children will turn out like the bad cases? Have we so quickly forgotten where Sen. Obama came from? (Hawaii, BTW) Should his mother have used contraception as well?

I think I now have a better idea how third-world feminists feel about western feminists ponitificating about their problems. That's because, while I now live in the high nothing of California, I grew up just down the coast from Gloucester. My family has deep connnections to the town; my first grade teacher sat on the Gloucester school board until quite recently. Emotionally, this might as well have happened just down the street while I was out of town for a bit. And every damned one of you, as well as every media report, is treating it as a screen upon which to project your pre-conceived political beliefs.

This is the latest act in the social and economic tragedy of the collapse of the Gloucester fishing industry. Gloucester has been a fishing town for nearly four hundred years; it has never been anything else, and has no other identity to fall back on. The best current plan is tourism -- mining Captains Courageous and The Perfect Storm for what little they are worth, but what replacement is that for honest work?

Personally, I find it very hard to blame any of the children involved in this for behaving irresponsibility. The industry that has supported their families for generations is effectively gone, and there is nothing replace it.

A male: And why assume they or their children will turn out like the bad cases? Have we so quickly forgotten where Sen. Obama came from? (Hawaii, BTW) Should his mother have used contraception as well?

A question like this can't be asked of a specific case. It is better to look at it as, "Should women in the position Obama's mother was in around the time of his conception, use contraception?" I'm not familiar with Obama's family history so I won't even speculate, but in any case it's not as though she knew how it'd turn out. You can't argue the soundness of a decision from information that wasn't known until after the fact.

[start quote]

[Obama's mother] Dunham has been described by her friends as "a fellow traveler... We were liberals before we knew what liberals were," and as "the original feminist".

Barack was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961. Ann was 18 at the time.

[end quote]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Dunham

A young woman is wooed by an older man of a different ethnicity and culture. Any concerns? The so called "original feminist" was married and pregnant at 18. Any concerns? After the husband leaves her and the baby, another older man appears shortly after. Concerns?

But wait! She not only continued to have children, she earned bachelor's and master's degrees, and a PhD. How many of us have done this even with no other distractions (e.g. single and financed by parents a