11 year old to be the UKs youngest mother

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=385968&in_page_id=1774 I honestly cant wrap my head around this. At 11 I couldnt say penis or vagina without getting all giggly much less get wasted and wind up with a kid. 11 and her mum is proud:shock:

Well, let's see here: Her mother and father split several years ago, the mom's youngest is 8 months old(they don't say how many kids this proud mother has). This kid has been smoking and drinking since she was 9. WTF?? She doesn't think her pack-a-day habit affects her pregnancy; on the other hand, she also didn't think she'd get pregnant having drunken sex her first time. WTF?
Way to raise your daughter, Mom-if you could call what you do 'raising' at all.
I'm sure the kid will be able to go and play again with other drunken 15 year olds-proud mom will gladly 'help out'.:roll:

"It was really hard but it's brought me and my mum closer, which is good. I knew my mum would stand by me no matter what, but I told her straight away I was going to keep the baby.

"The social worker suggested I got rid of it but I'd never do that."

Click to expand...

Oh yeah, this girl is chock full of morals.:roll:

Now if this had happened in America, the liberals would be like, "Naturally, it's America!" Gosh, it sure is good to know that other countries have problems, too. :roll:

George_Washington said:

Now if this had happened in America, the liberals would be like, "Naturally, it's America!" Gosh, it sure is good to know that other countries have problems, too. :roll:

Click to expand...

Close, but no cigar. It would be more like, "Naturally, it's Alabama!" :mrgreen:

Captain America said:

Close, but no cigar. It would be more like, "Naturally, it's Alabama!" :mrgreen:

Click to expand...

I know, I know! If it happens in a state that's said to be conservative and religious, the liberals would be like, "Well, naturally..."

George_Washington said:

I know, I know! If it happens in a state that's said to be conservative and religious, the liberals would be like, "Well, naturally..."

Click to expand...

No doubt. And if it happened in San Francisco, the rightwing would be like, "Well, naturally......."

Your point sir?

Doesn't surprise me at all. Kids today are getting too hardcore too quick.

well this is England for yah, happens everyday, guess the cracker for me is, her mother is said to be 'proud' of her. Its sad the way the English Youth are goin, it really is sad.

im not sure whether to think the mother or the kid is more messed up.

Apollo said:

well this is England for yah, happens everyday, guess the cracker for me is, her mother is said to be 'proud' of her. Its sad the way the English Youth are goin, it really is sad.

Click to expand...

This isn't just something that's goin on in England, it's happening all over. I think it's been increasingly worse within the last 10 years. In my days, it was common to see one or two high school girls end up pregnant before graduating. Nowadays, you see girls that haven't even left middle school walking around, proud of their pregnant bellies and talking about how they can't wait to be mommies. They can't even wipe their own a butt when they go potty, how could they ever think that they'll be able to care for an infant?! The worse part is that it's the girl's parents that usually end up raising the baby. But this is completely their fault; it's what happens when parents rely on the educational system to teach their kids about se.x. when they should be teaching it at home.

With kids like these, there is no future.

Just wait till you guys hear about how much welfare she'll qualify for. She will never work a day in her life and the state/taxpayer will pick up the tab. And the father? Don't even get me started. Why should we pay for these animals to breed? I can't afford to support a family and thus don't have one, some bastard gets this slut pregnant and doesn't even have to worry about it. Why the hell does he have a right to a state subsidised family? He won't pay a penny for the kid, the Child Support Agency, New Labour's grand idea to get these people taking some responsibilty has collapsed, with barely any money retrieved. It really makes me angry, which generally takes some doing.

You Yanks are talking like this is something new, the UK leads Europe on teenage pregnancies, we see this kind of thing regularly. The ones you want to see are the whores who have been doing this for years. We've seen a few of them, a dozen or so kids, often by several fathers, free house, huge child support benefits, unemployment benefits, etc. The press like to find these people and splash them over the pages to piss off the taxpayers of the working and middle classes. It's why I've had to reappraise my interpretations of Socialism in recent years, you simply can't justify such a lifestyle at other peoples expense.

Escuseme said:

The worst part is that it's the girl's parents that usually end up raising the baby.

Click to expand...

If the girl's parents weren't such sorry specimens themselves-- as is typically the case-- I'd rather say that this is probably the only saving grace.

This idea that children are to be raised by their parents, isolated from their extended family and especially their grandparents, is a distortion of traditional family structures and basic human social behavior caused by industrialization and urbanization. The collapse of the nuclear family isn't a symptom of overall moral decay; it's a symptom of the sheer alienness of the nuclear family in the first place.

Korimyr the Rat said:

If the girl's parents weren't such sorry specimens themselves-- as is typically the case-- I'd rather say that this is probably the only saving grace.

This idea that children are to be raised by their parents, isolated from their extended family and especially their grandparents, is a distortion of traditional family structures and basic human social behavior caused by industrialization and urbanization. The collapse of the nuclear family isn't a symptom of overall moral decay; it's a symptom of the sheer alienness of the nuclear family in the first place.

Click to expand...

I agree you exept for that last sentence. the nuclear family has been around for a few hundred years, but its only in the last 40 or so that it has started to collapse.

Escuseme said:

This isn't just something that's goin on in England, it's happening all over. I think it's been increasingly worse within the last 10 years. In my days, it was common to see one or two high school girls end up pregnant before graduating. Nowadays, you see girls that haven't even left middle school walking around, proud of their pregnant bellies and talking about how they can't wait to be mommies. They can't even wipe their own a butt when they go potty, how could they ever think that they'll be able to care for an infant?! The worse part is that it's the girl's parents that usually end up raising the baby. But this is completely their fault; it's what happens when parents rely on the educational system to teach their kids about se.x. when they should be teaching it at home.

With kids like these, there is no future.

Click to expand...

True its not just going on in England, but compared to other places i've been, its far more widespread and prevelant than in Other countries, and much more, I dont know if the word is "acceptable". So you see ENgland is different in these situations.

Apollo, acceptable isn't the right word, tolerated is probably better. Many of the people living like this come from areas where it's already prevalent, of course there are socio-economic factors influencing these lifestyles. if everyone else is on the take it becomes acceptable to those behaving in this manner. Everyone else simply has to tolerate it, some more willingly than others. Politicians for example, they're pretty tolerant of it. Worse thing is when when certain people try to argue that to take exception to such lifestyles is to be intolerant.

star2589 said:

I agree you exept for that last sentence. the nuclear family has been around for a few hundred years, but its only in the last 40 or so that it has started to collapse.

Click to expand...

Only two hundred or so, and the last forty years are only the acceleration of a trend that was already present.

Compare divorce rates and single parenthood-- since spousal and child abuse statistics wouldn't exist-- between 1906 and 1866, for instance.

Korimyr the Rat said:

Only two hundred or so, and the last forty years are only the acceleration of a trend that was already present.

Compare divorce rates and single parenthood-- since spousal and child abuse statistics wouldn't exist-- between 1906 and 1866, for instance.

Click to expand...

not quite sure what you're getting at. spousal and child abuse are far from unique to the nuclear family.

JamesRichards said:

Why should we pay for these animals to breed?

some bastard gets this slut pregnant



The ones you want to see are the whores who have been doing this for years. .

Click to expand...

Heartwarming to see you taking the non-judgemental approach James poppet.

This is a news story, and we all know how the British gutter press likes to sensationalize. You are judging people you don't know, and doubtless we have neither seen the full, nor the accurate story reported.

Yes, there are cases of parental irresponsibilty. That happens everywhere. It needs addressing. But let's not tar everybody with the same brush.

There are often other factors at play too. Have you ever stopped to think about what life is like for young, working class girls in areas of poverty, high unemployment and little hope? Doesn't matter if it's England, Kentucky, Seine Saint-Denis or Lidsville. I once lived and worked in an area of Lancashire where unemployment was rife. My work brought me into contact with levels of poverty I'd never have imagined in the world's fourth largest economy. And before people scream that everybody can work hard and get qualifications to get out, it isn't always that simple. You're talking about schools where the most respected adult is the drug pusher at the school gate, and kids who are failed by an educational system that often writes them off before they've started because they're "one of that rough lot off the estate". Their prospects of succeeding or finding any kind of job when they leave school in some areas are virtually nil. What future to look forward to? An alcopop and abit of sex behind the library wall on a Saturday night are often the only thrills in life some kids have to look forward to. It's too easy for comfortably off tax payers (oh you're SO hard done by James!) to judge every case as a "slut" without considering the world some of these girls live in. For some, being available for sex is the only way they can feel liked, let alone loved. For others, becoming a mum at least gives their life a sense of purpose. Your name calling says more about you than them.

Another issue is of course education. In repressive societies like the UK, with your "ooh er missus" approach to sex, or the US with the religious nutters, of course you'll end up with confused, ill informed youngsters. Countries with open, progressive sex education programmes (the Netherlands, France, the Scandinavian countries) have the lowest teenage pregnancy rates. It's a fact that informed teenagers often choose to wait, while those having abstinence preached at them often can't wait to taste the forbidden fruit. As long as the UK continues with it's repressed Benny Hill attitude to sex as something furtive and dirty that we laugh at because we're too embarassed to talk about it like adults, you'll always have schoolgirls getting pregnant - sometimes not even knowing how.

Urethra Franklin said:

There are often other factors at play too. Have you ever stopped to think about what life is like for young, working class girls in areas of poverty, high unemployment and little hope?

Their prospects of succeeding or finding any kind of job when they leave school in some areas are virtually nil.

Click to expand...

As someone of a socialist persuasion I think on it a great deal, the failures of successive British governments across so many domestic policy issues ihas resulted in a ghettoization of vaste swathes of our cities. But I'm afraid that I can't be held responsible for inadequate leadership and problem solving until I'm living at 10 Downing Street.

Urethra Franklin said:

You're talking about schools where the most respected adult is the drug pusher at the school gate,

Click to expand...

Again I can't be held responsible for a government that allows this to happen. Under the JamesRichards administration that drug dealer will get what he deserves, namely his entire supply pumped into his bloodstream and an overdose in the gutter.

Urethra Franklin said:

An alcopop and abit of sex behind the library wall on a Saturday night are often the only thrills in life some kids have to look forward to.

Click to expand...

By all means they can drink and f*** as much as they like, it doesn't cost me a thing as long as they are responsible about it. In the greatest liberal tradition your argument seems to be that because they are poor they aren't required to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions. If they want to have sex that's their business, but I shouldn't be subsidising their procreation. You think they have a right to children? I direct you to the key point in my original post:

JamesRichards said:

I can't afford to support a family and thus don't have one

Click to expand...

This eleven year-old can't afford to support a child either and yet you think I and the rest of the country should pay for hers, and your justification is that she's poor? She's bored? She had nothing better to do than get herself knocked up? I need something better than that, explain to me why anyone should have to support her.

I have referred to myself as having socialist politics, let me clarify that. I believe in balanced socialism, that is to say that while there is a social responsibility to help support the impoverished which I accept, there is an intrinsically linked duty on the individual to act responsibly and not simply use the benevolence of socialists to gain a free ride. This is absolutely the paramount issue confronting modern socialists, setting the balance between state provision and personal responsibility, so that those who genuinely need help are provided for while those who are simply stupid, reckless, irresponsible, or lazy are forced to face up to the consequences of their actions. In National Lottery terms it is the identification of 'good causes'. Paying for that girl to have her child is not a good cause, it sets a terrible example to all other girls in her situation.
"Feeling bored? then behave like a slut and have some cheap fun on your back! Feeling lonely? In just nine months time you could have a little baby all of your own, and stupid arrogant middle-class white boy JamesRichards will pay for it all with his taxes. Don't feel sorry for him, its his responsibility to pay for you because his mother wasn't a whore and his father didn't abandone them." That appears to be the Urethra Franklin school of thought on underpriviledged girls. And what kind of men will you be raising? "Go out, get drunk, f*** a girl, father a kid, then f*** off and let JamesRichards and all the other saps pick up the bills." Marvelous, your political acumen is truly boundless. :roll: Your argument really has no logical grounding at all, it's excessively libertarian in the initial instance, then becomes a liberal bleeding-heart, middle-class guilt trip once the consequences become apparent and is completely ignorant of the nature of precedent in it's resolution.

This is not to say that I object to helping people, quite the opposite. If the girl was old enough and displayed some desire to further herself then I would suggest higher educational support to go to college or maybe even university, allowing her to achieve a better standard of living for herself and then she could support a family by herself. That would be a good cause worth paying for. And I'm sure if her life unfolded like that she would then take objection to her taxes being spent on paying for teen mothers and would instead recommend they be more responsible as she had been.

Urethra Franklin said:

In repressive societies like the UK, with your "ooh er missus" approach to sex

the UK continues with it's repressed Benny Hill attitude to sex

Click to expand...

You seem to have been living abroad too long. Or you're a Liberal. Either way, this simply is not relevent, Benny Hill? We're a long way from that nowadays. Sex is absolutely everywhere today, and that's no bad thing. I'm not some ridiculous Bible waving conservative, I don't have a problem with the levels of sexual openess we have, my problem is with the absence of responsibility. The UK does not teach abstinence in any way, shape or form in it's public schools, and sex ed is increasingly available to just about every kid. The problem doesn't stem from the teaching of sex ed, it is directly resultant of an unwillingness to teach and enforce responsible behaviour and an ingrained culture of naive tolerance of the unnacceptable, basically educated middle-class white men like me have been listening to Liberals such as you for too long. We should not be scared of saying what is acceptable and what is not and enforcing those rules.

James you miss several points, and make misassuptions.

Firstly I am not a liberal, far from it, and you as a Brit should be able to tell the difference (unlike our United Statesian friends who indiscriminately label everyboy from Mao to Clinton to Oprah to Jayne MacDonald a liberal).

Nobody holds you responsibe for social injustice, but you are responsible for insulting girls with words like slut and whore when you evidently have no appreciation of their everyday reality. The fact that you say you'd help these girsl go to uni is laughable. Yes, I'd love to see them make it to uni, but you're talking about people who are often barely literate because they were written off as early as primary school for the dole. I don't say if you're bored have a baby, but I do understand just how a young girl in a deprived area with nothing but the dole to look forward to, with or without sex education, could find herself pregnant. Rather than talk about sluts, whores and animals, lets look at why these kids have so little in their lives and address THAT. Let's get kids from Toxteth and Handsworth making it to Oxbridge with the same chances as those in "good" schools in "nice" areas. And let's educate them about mobility - moving to find work not being the end of the world (lets make it affordable for them to do so! Why move to London where the work is plentiful for minimum wage if that won't even get you a shared room?) and make access to training and the like more accessible, even if you did leave school with nothing. And reform an education system that writes them off instantly if they're from a "bad" estate. And why is that estate "bad"? Unemployment? Poverty? Drugs? Crime? Lack of facilities? I could go on for ever, but this issue is not about "sluts" and "whores". I'm afraid James, that's your cop out.
Sex is all around in the UK? Yes, but you're still laughing at it and still telling jokes about birds with massive knockers, waitng to see which "slag" will get given a good one next in the Big Brother house. Benny Hill may be long dead but sex in the UK not discussed in an open and healthy fashion (I'm only five years gone, and only over the channel - not as out of touch as you think). In a country where your church schools can still give parents the option to withdraw their kids from the biology lesson that's going to discuss "it" (and in some schools, this will be a brief description of the mechanics and let's move on to the endocrine system boys and girls), you have a long way to go.

I struggle to see why you and I even need to debate this when I agree with you on all of these points;

Urethra Franklin said:

And let's educate them about mobility - moving to find work not being the end of the world

and make access to training and the like more accessible, even if you did leave school with nothing.

And reform an education system that writes them off instantly if they're from a "bad" estate. And why is that estate "bad"? Unemployment? Poverty? Drugs? Crime? Lack of facilities?

Click to expand...

But these are failings of our system as a whole. If they indict anyone it's the failing political elite and it still cannot justify kids getting pregnant and living off the state. I completely appreciate the hardships many people suffer under but I'm still not going to accept it as any valid excuse for behaviour that is foolish and reckless. the problem is your willingness to defend them on the basis that you feel sorry for them. I share the sentiment but I refuse to see blank cheques written for them on that basis, it simply serves to propagate the problems a thousand fold. Kids from broken homes, without fathers, with no prospects, and with an attitude that the world owes them a living, are compound results of various social policy failures. But getting those policies right is the answer, not blindly accepting the problem and relying on others to pay for them.

Urethra Franklin said:

I could go on for ever, but this issue is not about "sluts" and "whores". I'm afraid James, that's your cop out.

Click to expand...

Its not a cop out, just inflammatory description of an inflammatory issue.
Is it the terminology you have most problem with? In that case allow me to rescind 'slut' and 'whore'. Lets say that these girls and women are irresponsible and have a very low self-esteem. Does that bring you any closer to a consensus? If I'm more polite about it will you recognise that they are a problem and their lifestyles are untenable? Personally I feel that such behavior warrants the insults, but I'll happily take them back if it will stop you defending their unnacceptable exploitation of the welfare state model.

And let me point out I'm not simply critical of irresponsible young girls, the bulk of my anger is targeted at the little bastards (I took back the female insults, I won't be taking back this one, I believe it 100%)who treat them with such contempt as to get them pregnant, and then leave them. Need I remind you of the present Labour governments atrocious failure with the CSA to get absent fathers to take responsibility for their kids? Re-read my original point again:

JamesRichards said:

I can't afford to support a family and thus don't have one

Click to expand...

Can you see the sentiment here? Can you read between the lines? Let me spell it out for you. I envy them. I envy that they have a family and I, because of my responsible attitude and my financial insecurity, am unable to. And their attitude to their kids, that it's not their responsibility (boys), or its a goal/focus for their life (girls), absolutely enrages me. The goal should not be to have a child as something to do! Your goal should be to take responsibility and develop a stable life that allows you to support that child. Why should I, the responsible citizen be the one paying for those whose attitudes are intrinsically exploitative?

Urethra Franklin said:

In a country where your church schools can still give parents the option to withdraw their kids from the biology lesson that's going to discuss "it" (and in some schools, this will be a brief description of the mechanics and let's move on to the endocrine system boys and girls), you have a long way to go.

Click to expand...

The very girls you're defending are the reason for this attitude! Because the governments have failed to address the issue of teenage pregnancy and juvenile delinquancy through social policy and have adopted the attitude that the middle class should just shut up and support these people, as you yourself argue we should, so those middle class conservatives are holding back reforms for a more open attitude because they think, incorrectly, that it will result in more kids falling into such behaviour.

Urethra Franklin said:

I'm only five years gone, and only over the channel - not as out of touch as you think

Click to expand...

Apologies for the assumption, but if your not geographically distant then I fail to see how you can be so politically distant. We really do agree on more than we disagree, but for want of a better word you just seem to be more soft than I am. I'm able to put aside my sympathies for the individuals and view the issue itself. This sort of lifestyle, broken homes teenage mothers, absent fathers, is a very serious and self propagating problem that must be addressed, and sympathising and supporting it is not the answer.

Strike For The South said:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=385968&in_page_id=1774 I honestly cant wrap my head around this. At 11 I couldnt say penis or vagina without getting all giggly much less get wasted and wind up with a kid. 11 and her mum is proud:shock:

Click to expand...

That child's mother must be seriously ****ed up in the head to be letting a child that young run around loose like that.I have a niece about that age,her parents slightly spoil her but she doesn't run loose like a wild animal.

JamesRichards said:

I struggle to see why you and I even need to debate this when I agree with you on all of these points;
But these are failings of our system as a whole. If they indict anyone it's the failing political elite and it still cannot justify kids getting pregnant and living off the state. I completely appreciate the hardships many people suffer under but I'm still not going to accept it as any valid excuse for behaviour that is foolish and reckless. the problem is your willingness to defend them on the basis that you feel sorry for them. I share the sentiment but I refuse to see blank cheques written for them on that basis, it simply serves to propagate the problems a thousand fold. Kids from broken homes, without fathers, with no prospects, and with an attitude that the world owes them a living, are compound results of various social policy failures. But getting those policies right is the answer, not blindly accepting the problem and relying on others to pay for them.

Its not a cop out, just inflammatory description of an inflammatory issue.
Is it the terminology you have most problem with? In that case allow me to rescind 'slut' and 'whore'. Lets say that these girls and women are irresponsible and have a very low self-esteem. Does that bring you any closer to a consensus? If I'm more polite about it will you recognise that they are a problem and their lifestyles are untenable? Personally I feel that such behavior warrants the insults, but I'll happily take them back if it will stop you defending their unnacceptable exploitation of the welfare state model.

And let me point out I'm not simply critical of irresponsible young girls, the bulk of my anger is targeted at the little bastards (I took back the female insults, I won't be taking back this one, I believe it 100%)who treat them with such contempt as to get them pregnant, and then leave them. Need I remind you of the present Labour governments atrocious failure with the CSA to get absent fathers to take responsibility for their kids? Re-read my original point again:Can you see the sentiment here? Can you read between the lines? Let me spell it out for you. I envy them. I envy that they have a family and I, because of my responsible attitude and my financial insecurity, am unable to. And their attitude to their kids, that it's not their responsibility (boys), or its a goal/focus for their life (girls), absolutely enrages me. The goal should not be to have a child as something to do! Your goal should be to take responsibility and develop a stable life that allows you to support that child. Why should I, the responsible citizen be the one paying for those whose attitudes are intrinsically exploitative?

The very girls you're defending are the reason for this attitude! Because the governments have failed to address the issue of teenage pregnancy and juvenile delinquancy through social policy and have adopted the attitude that the middle class should just shut up and support these people, as you yourself argue we should, so those middle class conservatives are holding back reforms for a more open attitude because they think, incorrectly, that it will result in more kids falling into such behaviour.

Apologies for the assumption, but if your not geographically distant then I fail to see how you can be so politically distant. We really do agree on more than we disagree, but for want of a better word you just seem to be more soft than I am. I'm able to put aside my sympathies for the individuals and view the issue itself. This sort of lifestyle, broken homes teenage mothers, absent fathers, is a very serious and self propagating problem that must be addressed, and sympathising and supporting it is not the answer.

Click to expand...

You are right that we essentially agree, but wrong to say that I blindly accept the problem and believe others should pay for it and shut up. We should be asking questions about why we have arrived here (poverty, unemployment, brutal class divisions and inequalities, lack of education) and how we can get out of it (how do we attain the low teenage pregnancy rates of the Dutch?) Many single mums would love to work and support themselves, as many others do, but until we sort out decent, affordable crèche facilities, (and that includes for "respectable" married mums too), mothers will continue to be disadvantaged in the workplace. Doubtless those Cartland family values advocates will be arguing that mums should be at home with their kids, but look, we don't want to pay for that either. An 11 year old who finds herself pregnant has been failed, not only by her parents but by the education system and the broader society around her. If we start to address that then we may start to end tax payers money gouing towards patching up the problem. One thing's for sure, dismissing them with name calling will never stop you forking out your tax money to support them.

I don't know your financial situation, hence I don't dispute your claim that you can't afford to start a family, but in a country with the lowest level of taxation in the EU, it is NOT because you're bled dry on taxes to fund tennage mums. Perhaps you are a low paid worker, like many, screwed by the capitalist system, or perhaps you simply choose to spend your money on something else. Blaming parents on benefit for your own lack of a family is rather like the infertile woman who derides the woman that chooses to have an abortion - it's a very weak, straw man argument, and one which I don't believe is worthy of your obvious intellect.