Pregnancy At a Young Age

Remove all ads!

Seems now a-days many females are getting pregnant at a young age (12-17), whether by choice or accident. I myself have seen over 30 12-16 year old females get pregnant, almost allways by accident for not using protection during intercourse. Including a friend who became pregnant 4 times (from ages 12-13), the 4th time she decided to have the child.

IMO I believe pregnancy (or even sex for that matter) at a young age is wrong, it causes many problems for the family and the individual. Sometimes even results in serious health problems, or even death.

 

I agree that pregnancy at that young age is an issue, but I disagree with the 'nowadays' part.

This has been an issue for years and is not any comment on the morals of modern society. Anybody who tries to tell you that teen pregnancy rates is increasing is ignoring the fact that the recordkeeping has improved markedly and that many teen pregnancies in previous years probably went unrecorded.

 

I suppose much depends on the climate if we are going to nail down the optimal age for pregnancy. It used to be pretty normal for mothers of first children to be in late teens and it still is in some regions. I suppose where people mature faster, the problem of pregnancy occuring at such a young age diminishes or even disappears.

If we stick to the standard Western country, then yes, it doesn't seem too convenient. Sometimes it even seems wrong. Still, I believe that if someone is too young to be pregnant, she is too young to have sex in the very first place. It has been a mistake to bring sexual liberation to schools and start throwing pills and condoms around with detailed instruction on how to make use of them and stop listening to bigots who say it's only for marriage. Also, if pregnancy is dangerous to health, typically sex is so, as well, especially if the reason is related to unfinished puberty.

What's next, if abortion so often brings a traumatic experience to the woman who obtains it (as it should), the experience can only be more damaging and more defining if it occurs at a young age.

The conclusion is that it's not pregnancy which is the real enemy. The real enemy is lack of responsibility in sexual matters, whether this is the underaged couple's own irresponsibility or the responsibility that makes an older male make a teenager pregnant. Not to mention the epitome of irresponsibility which is sex crimes.

 

Once again I agree, but I disagree that this is a modern phenomenon or is in any way related to sex education in schools or the distribution of condoms. Teenagers have been having sex for centuries. It was just a bit more secretive and covered up in prior years.

 

Correct on that, HB. There's less hypocrisy around than before, but being so overt in such matters can also have bad results of its own, such as removing the idea that certain things are wrong. However, who is supposed to arrive at the conclusion, arrives there on his own, I guess. So you probably can't have a golden way...

I still blame the distribution of condoms and pills, as they create the illusion of support and comraderie between the children who want sex and the authority that stands behind those who distribute the contraceptives. With that kind of support, youngsters feel stronger and perhaps strong enough to face traditional moral authorities such as parents or priests. And here starts the polka.

 

Yes, in some countries or cultures it is seen right to have sex and pregnancy at a young age, but that is because they are more mature about how to handle the situation IMO. However, like chev has stated, in western life pregnancy at a young age is seen as wrong, because it is IMO. And like he also said, sex before marriage is the cause of such problems. Would you rather risk having certain complications for simple sexual pleasure, when you can just have self-discipline and wait till you find the right person?

For example, many times males tend to use females for sex by acting as if they were in love (and vice versa too). The female then allows the condition, resulting in unnecessary emotional pain, which can be quite traumatic sometimes. An other example would be those who have "one night stands." Even if you are not under the influence of alcohol or drugs, you are still not invincible. Eventually you will have an accident, or meet the wrong person, and possibly wake up the next day to find out that chances are you are pregnant. There are many negative results that can come from sex before marriage IMO, one of these being accidental pregnancy at a young age.

The modern day sexual liberation views are also a problem. If society makes having sex at an early age seem like a "normal" thing to do, then what is expected from those who grow up with such views? Once again, an other thing to point the finger at would be parents. Many do not converse with their children about sex, even if they might not think sex before marriage is wrong, at least educate your child about the proper protection and correct age the human body and mind is ready for such a thing as sexual intercourse.

 

I think the key is really in teaching that it's okay to wait for the right moment. I don't have much faith in teaching the "no sex before marriage" line. It's good if it works for you but I would not teach it in school as sexual education. The important thing to teach is to wait for the moment that feels right, be it marriage or whatever. I don't believe in any set dates for sex, one is ready for sex when one fully acknowledges the responsibility and the risks.

Teaching the proper usage of condom however in my opinion is very important. Most teenage pregnancies are caused by condoms not being used or used incorrectly.

 

Pregnancies in women under the age of 18 tend to be higher risk than those which occur in the 18 - 32 age group. The younger the woman, the higher the risk, with a swing up towards riskier pregnancies after about 32. More than four pregnancies in one woman (carried sufficiently far) also gets risky.

 

@Morgoroth: I agree, teaching to wait until marriage in school isn't a smart thing, since so many people have different views. However, what I believe SHOULD be taught is the negative consequences of having sex at an early age, to show that a child should wait until their mind and body are ready. Teaching more about condoms and such will enforce the 'sexual liberation' that exists these days. I believe that should be left to the parents to teach, if only they did.

 

Is there actually anything contentious to discuss here? The main points seem to be:

1) In modern, first-world society, teenage pregnancy is bad for myriad reasons. Check. I don't think anyone will argue with you there.

2) Preventing unwanted pregnancy is better than terminating it. Again, that strikes me as pretty much a given.

3) Participants in a sexual relationship should be aware of the potential consequences and prepared to address them responsibly. Another basic assumption, IMO.

Eld, are you trying to spur a discussion of how to accomplish #2 and 3, thereby (one would hope) minimizing the number of unplanned pregnancies that must be addressed? The who and how of THAT topic is ripe for much debate, indeed.

 

@Rally: I simply started the topic to see others opinions on the matter, which exact point of discussion it lead to wasn't specified. But yes, I guess you could say it's mainly about "how to accomplish #2 and 3". And IMO, the way to do that would be to teach children abstinence.

@BTA: That IS very interesting indeed.

 

A quick web search will tell you the problem with the virginity pledges. Basically it boils down to confused kids agreeing not to have vaginal sex, but they instead have higher cases of anal and oral sex. Now that they feel there is no chance of pregnancy they are even more likely to not use protection and therefore they increase the risk of STDs.

 

But really, is teaching the Law of Chastity that bad a thing? At least mention it while talking about birth control and safe sex. If you aren't having sex, then you are not going to contract any STD or (for the women involved) get pregnant. Perhaps the dangers of sex may enable an intelligent discussion on the blessings of Chastity...

 

Jesus Mary mother of Joseph, where were these Virginity Pledges when I was just a sprouting lad? To think of all the convincing I had to do! Morality is a beautiful thing indeed!

 

I agree that chastity should be talked about but strictly in the non religious sense. Preaching religious dogma in a public school is like enlightening the young ones about the beauty of communism. But yeah chastity is an option and should be mentioned and talked about.

 

Is this really all that different from what adults do when they find they make an agreement they would rather not maintain? They look for ways to bend the rules more to their liking? Technically, they are keeping with the letter of the agreement, but not the spirit of the agreement. They're expoiting a loophole here to - well to put it as bluntly as possible - exploit other holes.

 

People have always made pledges and failed to keep them - directly or indirectly. Or have found ways around those. You could even ask what's better and more in line with the oath: trying and failing directly or keeping in accordance with the letter while going around it on principle? Something the Catholic Church teaches, apart from chastity and other rules, is that there is always a second chance if you fail. There are as many chances as you need if your heart is true. So, yes, BTA, I believe in another chance.

As for "other holes"... what really counts? What you have done, in what way and how many times? Or what your heart and your spirit is right now at this moment... and what truly is there? The most optimistic part of Catholicism (or similar systems), but sometimes the most difficult one to grasp and come to terms with, for other reasons. It's as simple and as difficult as this.

 

I honestly can't speak for these teenagers chev. I don't know what they were thinking at the time they made the pledges, or bent them to their liking. It is plausible (though not probable) that they really felt they were maintaining their pledges if they didn't actually engage in intercourse. There may not have been much more to their actions than teenage naivety. The more probable though is they were looking a way to maintain the letter of the pledge while still seeking some physical satisfaction.

Of course, as a guy who was once a teenager, I can say that I definitely would have signed a chasity vow if that meant that it would increase my chances for oral sex even if it decreased the chances of vaginal sex.

 

Perhaps someone pushed them into taking it. Maybe it was a part of a campaign they had no say in but served as mascots. I've done my share of going around the direct meaning of some tenets and don't want that anymore, it seems pointless now. But everything comes with age and those kids are still on their way to learning things. The hard way, most probably.