SURPRISE BABY AT 13

[katzg]

\link{http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=16778285%26method=full%26siteid=94762%26headline=exclusive%2d%2dmy%2dsurprise%2dbaby%2dat%2d13-name_page.html\13 didn't know she was PG}

i still don't know how anyone can not know they're pregnant

I find your posting extremelt offensive, dominiconnor

A woman I work with didn't realise that she was pregnant until she was 29 weeks gone. It's unusual but it does happen.

gosh dominiconnor you have serious issues. and a terrible argument

do better next time love

Those parents have got a blooming cheek!! suing ..they should sue them bloody selves there is no CARE when you put your child into care anyone with half a brain knows that!!
That poor child was damaged long before she became a ward of the state

instead of trying to make a buck or prove a point why don't they try becoming better parents!! ffs

Maybe they need to sue the council to get some money to raise the baby as she is too young for child support!

I didn't realise you could be too young to claim child support and have to admit that that seems very unfair. Even if the girl can't claim it for her baby, the girl's parent should be able to on her behalf (in addition to the child support fotr the girl). Age shouldn't come into it.

i read this in amazement and i've got to say ,the girls comment that'one minute i was worrying about homework,the next i was a mum' made me laugh.Who is she kidding? She's 13,having sex and in care because of bad behaviour. I hardly think her homework is a priority.
Her parents make me so angry.Your children don't get taken into care just like that.There must have been serious problems at home for her to be taken into care and yet her father doesn't think it's his responsibility.If they had done a proper job she wouldn't be thinking about having sex at 13 ,she'd be thinking about Westlife( or whatever the current teeny band is)and going out with her friends on saturday, and how she can get her parents to let her stay out later than 9.00pm.
They need to be looking at themselves very closely.

Agree that the parents are hypocritical. On the one hand they are saying that they always knew where she was etc when in their care, on the other hand they weren't at home when she went into labour, presumably having been left in charge of the 8, 6, 5 and 3 yos.

Personally I don't think you can really watch a 13 yo every second of the day. Or you end up like Sally Webster on Corrie.

Having read the article, the impression I get is that this was not the first time she'd had sex, and that she didn't even really like the boy much. (Men have a term for this common pattern).

So what would people around here do ?
If your 13yo daughter was hell bent on having sex, would you give some heavy duty contraception advice ?

Try confining her activities ? which as Bozza says, is not very reliable anyway ?

Get professionals involved ?

Is there some 4th option I can't think of ?

yes DC, men have a term for that common pattern. Some women would disagree however, and see a young girl/child's willingness to have sex to be more about having an emotional need for attention and love which is obviously lacking elsewhere.

Whoops, I may have given the wrong impression here.
I was referring to the bloke, not the girl.

Here's an experiment to try. Over the next couple of weeks ask a few blokes what sort of man women prefer. In my experience more than 80% will reply with "bastards". I suspect you will find that even men you regard as nice will say this.

This girl's choice of bloke to sleep with fits that model rather nicely.

Dear god, DominiConnor - where in hell do you dredge up your opinions??

"...[Catholic] Church whose senior members arranged the widespread rape of children."

Arranged?? Are you suggesting that it was timetabled for priests, between leading mass and taking their robes to the dry cleaners?? I find this suggestion deeply offensive.

I may not agree with the Catholic Church's stance on AIDS and condoms, but at least I appreciate the finer nuances of the argument against.

As for Victoria Gillick - I don't support the woman, but I don't think she can be said to 'support rapists'.

As someone says, better luck next time...

glad i was mistaken about that DC.
However, thankyou for letting us know what the Christian position on Aids is - that it is
God's vengeance. I am grateful to be told what i believe. I think the vast majority of christians would disagree with that statement profoundly. If there are many Roman Catholic priests dying of AIDS in the USA, isn't it possible that the majority of them were gay, but not paedophiles? I agree that there have been many shocking incidents of paedophilia covered up in the RC church, and that the RC's stance on condoms and AIDS in Africa is tantamount to murder, but can't agree with much else that you say.

i think also that asking men what women like in men is like asking you DC what Christians believe.

" (Men have a term for this common pattern). " i dont know what this means please explain

"So what would people around here do ?
If your 13yo daughter was hell bent on having sex, would you give some heavy duty contraception advice ? " YES

"Try confining her activities ? which as Bozza says, is not very reliable anyway ? " YES

Get professionals involved ? YES

"Is there some 4th option I can't think of ?"

diversionary activities, finding something shes good at and giving her hope and praise. being the kind of parent who would give praise is deserved. if the child thinks you care more often than not they will try to please you with your help. Its more about the parent than it is about the child.

there is probably other options - i dont proport to have the answer or indeed change history ( catholic comments)

Arranged?? Are you suggesting that it was timetabled for priests, between leading mass and taking their robes to the dry cleaners??

Senior Catholics knew of children being raped. They covered it up. When they risked being exposed, rapists were moved to safer positions. They paid money to the parents of raped children to keep them quiet, the settlements included severe terms to stop the parents warning others.
And no, I don't think the parents acted well, but they were Catholics...
Catholics have lobbied successfully against formal investigation of the organisation labelling it a "witch hunt". Yes, really the church used that term with no apparent sense of irony.

What was Cardinal Ratzinger's last job ?
He was basically in charge of discipline during much of this period. How many Cardinals were sacked for helping paedophiles ?
Hint, it's a big round number less than 1.

What caused the church to act ?
Huge lawsuits in America, not any sense of justice. The numbers of children involved are so large that the catholic church is exploiting legal loopholes not to pay up.

The problem is smaller in Britain, but hardly trivial, and although Catholics are the worst the other Christian sects don't look too good either.
Globally we're tlaking anywhere between 8-10 thousand children raped by Catholic priests.

These are all not only known facts, they are accepted by the Catholic church.

Imagine if (say) McDonalds employees had raped 100 kids. Imagine further than directors of the firm had known of this and moved the rapists around to strike again. Would McD's exist any more ?
What if the guy in charge of stopping it was made CEO ?
Wouldn't everyone assume he was promoted for running a good cover up ?

Imagine alternatively that it had been Moslems.
We'd have Mosques on fire.

But the political strength of the Catholic church has ensured that altough some "bad apples" are doing time, not one of their accomplices in the hierachy is in jail, or as far as I am aware even been personally sued.
Thus "ordniary" Catholics are complict in these crimes. The church responds very rapidly to changes in cash flow, yet Catholics happily render up money in order to pay the legal bills of rapists, and the hush money paid to parents.

I'm fascinated by the way some are "offended" by coverage of the crimes committed by Catholics.

They seem a lot less offended when people that have admitted helping the rape of children ask for money, and we observe that many Catholics are not so "offended" by paedophiles that they stop giving them omney.

Bottom line, you help an organisation that you know for a fact organises the rape of children, you share part of the blame.

I find this suggestion deeply offensive.

can you site your sources please.

fist ofr all i am not even going to attempt to condome the rape of children. what i am going to do is arguie for the many and varied good works carried out byt the catholic church. whils the crimes of a few should rightly be highlighted, they should not overshadow the good deeds of the many and the hundreds and thousands of people alive today through the good works of the catholic church.

when i give my money at collection i do not give my money to the church infrastructure, i give money to the care for the sick in africa , education for the poor in asia, the homeless of great britain.

whilst i personally agree with what i percieve to be an argument against the structures of the catholic church and its interference and influence in politics. i also agree with your argument about the heinous history of the catholic church and the cover ups and pay outs.

however i cannot agree that this tarnishes every catholic. and the inference that every catholic is condoning either by financial help or otherwise - not speaking out for instance - these attrocious acts.

i personally have a problem with a hierachical structure withing religeon - it kinda defeats the object.

christ didn't want churches. and the bible was compiled by a roman emporer for his own political gain.

but i cannot let go the intonation that every catholic by virtue of being a catholic - a practising one giving a couple of quid in the collection tin is condoning the rape of children.

to me this argument is about greater good. and whilst anyone with half a brain would indeed be terribly fuckwitted to try and argue the innocence of the catholic church throughout history it is also remiss and neglectfull not to mention the good things.

DominiConnor, many of your posts are very odd. I am guessing your solution for this girl's behaviour (the behaviour that resulted in her being taken into care) would have been to get some burly 'bouncer' type strange men around to stand over her menacingly while you trashed her treasured possessions (a suggestion you made to another poster having difficulties with her dd's behaviour)?

so DC, if you are shocked and appalled by what the church has done [and i am shocked and appalled by both the RC and Anglican church] does that mean then you should promptly abandon all faith in God as a moral necessity? People do terrible things, both in the church and out, unfortunately. this doesn't mean it is what Christ wanted. people can still have a Faith and not be a paedophile , and actually be quite intelligent people too.

Never though of that option for that problem. Wouldn't work, The point was to regain authority, not the issue here. Hitting your mother is unambiguously bad, wherer sex is more a matter of appropriatre choices. Brute force would fail miserably.
Also in the case of the girl, my reading is that she's told so many lies, and responded to aggressive adults the way she thinks they want her to respond I doubt if she knows herself what her mental process was, so trying to fix it is pointless.

Actually it's quite interesting how kids judge you. At nearly 5, 2.0 has a clear sense of right and wrong which he expects to hold us to. Thus he sees a raised voice as a morally bad thing, not just unpleasant.
Partly because of picking up values from us, he doesn't believe in age having a moral monopoloy.
Is a real pain, but on the other hand is what we had hoped, just later on...

I rather think this idea is a thread that runs clean through at least until teens.

We've never said "that's only for grownups". We've aimed firmly for "you can't do that because you haven't shown yourself able to deal with it".
So far that's mostly applied to safety issues like electrical plugs and sharp knives, but the idea of course applies to sex.
Kids observe that adult behaviour on sex bears almost no relation to what they tell them is appropriate. Since adults don't stick to the rules, kids both devise their own, and regard any attempt to impose views as simply illegitimate.

"Legitimacy of power" in normally a concept applied to large scale political structures, but I think it works for kids. It's partly a personal discipline thing. I wouldn't try to impose a morality on kids that I felt above, and I recall being a teenager, even though at 13 no one wanted to sleep with me.
This is distinct from practical issues. Whatever the law, and your personal morality, it just isn't a biologically good idea for most 13 year olds to get pregnant, and that apples to cultures where this is seen as acceptable.

so DC, if you are shocked and appalled by what the church has done does that mean then you should promptly abandon all faith in God as a moral necessity?
Didn't say that. I said that if you give money to an organisation that you know facilitates the rape of children (amongst many other bad things), then you are as bad as they are.
Maybe there's a God, I don't know. Never heard a religion that worked for me.

People do terrible things, both in the church and out, unfortunately. this doesn't mean it is what Christ wanted.
If Christ existed, it's quite possible that he didn't condone paedophiles. Though of course in that period of time, it wasn't seen as particuarly bad. The notion of an age of consent is quite modern. Consent for sex was a sometimes thing then, so it's not clear what any given person at 30 AD might have thought about it.

people can still have a Faith and not be a paedophile , and actually be quite intelligent people too.
I was quite clear, several times, to hold the church and its supporters culpable, not those who happen to belieive in God. Most modern Catholics are actually quite shocked when they learn that their Church supported the Nazis and Fascists. Just because they share the same belief as paedophiles doesn't of course make them accomplices.
What makes them accomplices is knowingly helping them, and given the cash flows into the Catholic church, that's a lot of people. If Catholics withheld money until the guilty were removed from the church, and a proper investigation conducted, it would happen so quick, scientist would be forced to accpet the reality of miracles.
Instead, when the man ultimately responsible was elected Pope by the Cardinals who were directly complicit in these vile acts, there was a pretty unaminous cheer, and lots of money.

fair enough DC. Not too keen on the Pope myself. This one or the last. not a big fan of the church either.

self evident for me that Christ would not condone paedophilia, based on everything else he said...

my sis was pregnant at 14 and didnt confess til 8.5 months she reckons she only just found out

i think denial can conceal alot