Perhaps society has all those other things wrong. Given that we can’t legislate biology, it seems like a better solution is to start treating children as mature individuals earlier. Teenagers are not yet adults, but, presented with that expectation, they will grow up much faster. I worked as a babysitter when I was 14. I was alone with and fully in charge of several children for hours at a time. If I was responsible enough for that, why wasn’t I responsible enough to drive a car?
A father is liable for child support no matter how young he is. This even includes boys who were victims of statutory rape by an adult woman.
To add to what alphaboi867 said. A friend of mine, honest not me I swear, managed to get a girl pregnant and since he was a minor his parents were also held responsible for the support.
Eh. Most parents in human history began giving birth in their teenage years. The big problem is not with teenagers, it’s with the fact that it’s tough to be a teen mother in our society because of jobs, school, etc. Instead of disallowing teen pregnancy, we should do what we can to alleviate the bad effects on the child of teen parenthood.
What happened through most of human history really doesn’t matter. Through most of human history, people weren’t literate, they started working at a very early age, had much less stuff then we do, and generally died at an earlier age. I don’t particularly want to bring any of those back, so why would teen-age motherhood be any different.
What he said. Lots of things happened and were really common in the past–historical precedent doesn’t necessarily make something a great idea.
Of the items you list, I only see one which may be an “unqualified good”, and that would be a longer lifespan. I say “may be” because the dramatic rise in average life expectancy is largely due to reduction of infant mortality rates. Having a bunch of 0’s averaged in with the ages of various others at death drags the average down significantly. Could you tell me what’s inarguably better about beginning work later in life, being literate(the majority of the world probably still isn’t), or having more stuff? Remember, these are the reasons you’ll be giving when you go into a labor room and take a newborn infant away from it’s screaming, crying mother, who will be fighting you with every ounce of strength she possesses. They had better be good reasons.
In any event, teen-age motherhood is only a problem if the mother in question is incapable of providing for the child’s needs. Since children have grown up in poverty, poor nutrition, and hazardous conditions, and still turned out a perfectly normal adults for pretty much all of human history, it is clear they’re pretty resilient. I’d argue it takes a pretty high bar to demonstrate there is a clear need to take a child away from a parent, and the age of the parent is by no means sufficient on its own. A young parent can still be a good parent, and even if they’re not a “good” parent, plenty of people grew up with not-good parents and turned out fine. Teenage parents should be given the opportunity, and any support we can give them, to raise healthy, well-educated, and socialized children.
Enjoy,
Steven
Um…I don’t think he was saying anything about forcibly removing infants from their mothers, just that teen pregnancy/parenthood probably isn’t as good as having kids in adulthood, due to the way the world has changed.
Implementing either of these would involve forcibly removing a child from a parent, in the latter case at least part-time.
I’d favor sex education. Teaching children the responsibilities which come along with parenthood(as well as what causes it and how to manage your risks of becoming one unexpectedly). This seems likely to have the natural consequence of reducing the teen birth rate without the state deciding who can and can’t have custody of their children.
Enjoy,
Steven
Oh hell no. If I wanted more babies, I’d have more babies.
I have a seventeen year old daughter, and I’ve told her since she became old enough to understand “You have a baby, that is *your * baby. I love you, and I’ll love my grandchild, and I’ll do everything in my power to help you out, but that is *your * baby. I’ll be here when you need me, but you don’t “need” to go to any keggers.”
Besides, it seems to me that the sort of (grand)parents who are inclined to be supportive and helpful will do it with or without the state’s mandate. And the one’s who aren’t… are the kids better off with them?
Why don’t they? Assuming it’s consensual sex, of course.
eta: I agree with Mtgman. Good post.
Legally speaking, they don’t. I’m not arguing that’s correct, just stating that it’s the case. And I should have added that not all adults have the right to marry who they choose either.
Yes, but in many of the societies where the teens were the mothers, there were networks of people (mothers, mothers-in-law, aunts, other wives, other extended family, clans, and neighbors) at least checking in or if not outright running things to make sure the teenager didn’t screw up childrearing too much. That’s not true in ours.
You also have societies where those girls were more or less raised to be mothers and were constantly around small children and learning how to take care of them, which is also not true in ours.
There were also societies where teenagers were considered full grown and could fully function socially and economically in society, which is also not true with ours.
In our society, the deck is stacked against them doing pretty well. Of course, taking their children away from them is not an acceptable idea.