Age Of Pregnancy A Problem?

Who agrees that the age of Pregnancy is not a problem?
I hear that if you are 12 and have a child it is wrong, why is it wrong?
Also if you are in your 50s and 60s and are still able to have a baby that is wrong as well, why?

 

if youre 12 and you have a baby, its wrong because youre too young for the responsibility.
if youre 60 and you have a baby, youre almost too old to be raising a child.

 

I don't know. I think these are things society places on itself. Back in the day, it wasn't uncommon for girls to be married and having children around 14, and that wasn't looked as a crime.

It's obvious that this 'correct age of pregnancy' has simply been adapted to the change in social norms due to an expanded education system, the battle for women's rights, etc.

In the end, it really depends what kind of life you want to live. While it'd probably be uncommon for girls to having babies around 14 these days, it's certainly nothing that couldn't be achieved if said lady had her financial needs taken cared of until she dies.

 

There are reasons why having a kid at 12 years old is considered faux pas. One is that the lifeway of today is different and who is going to support someone having a baby at 12 years old? Men do not marry girls at 12 years old. Also, a 12 year old has commitments to school and life around her. Why would someone want this girl to get pregnant and destroy her chances to do things she would want to? That's cutting her life short with responsibility that is hard to deal with. 12 year olds simply also aren't that mature. They also are not raised as females were in the past with no education so they had time to just sit around and learn only how to take care of a man's house, children and him. Should girls revert back to knowing nothing again? It doesn't work in this time and age. Of course, if a 12 year old has a child and wants it, that's her choice and her family's and I wouldn't hold it against the girl in any way. It just is an awful inconvenience and some men do take advantage of young girls, which is wrong.

As for the age 50 person that has a baby...I would assume that some people feel that the person cannot take care of the child then. However, at least the person is older and possibly would have saved up for such a deed and has her life more in order than someone who is 12. The worst outcome of this I can see is that the person may be too old to keep up with the rambunctious children and then will need aid. However, if they are set up for it, who cares? It's a woman's decision and if that's what she wants, it's not for others to really give a crap but possibly the direct family who might need to step in if something happens. As said though for the 12 year old, support nowadays from family isn't like it used to be.

 

I think the answer is mostly what's in the best interest of the child. If the mother was twelve, then she would be too young to accept the responsibility of the child, let alone the emotional maturity levels to cope with the stress.

For a sixty-year-old mother, the answer is almost the other way around. Our society believes that parents should be around for as long as possible, and an older parent might not even be able to see their child through college.

 

Its wrong if you are younger than Seventeen because

1.You're UnderAge

2.You're Body Isn't Fully developed

If you're too old

1.Its dangerous

2. You might die, before the child is a adult

3.You're body is weaker(No Offense)

 

Things like that are mostly for health reasons.
A page on the risks of teen pregnancy here:
http://www.hec.ohio-state.edu/famlife/bulletin/volume.3/bull34f.htm

Quote from the article:

A page on the risks of advanced age pregnancy:
http://www.thirdage.com/ebsco/files/14711.html

Quote from article:

Adding to all this, A woman over 60 is getting to the age where she may need someone to care for her. Not to mention the risk of leaving the child an orphan if both parents are elderly, or the mother is single.

I have a great uncle on my mothers side who was born with Down's syndrome his mother was 46 when she had him. He is in his 60's and now as he is getting older along with his siblings, and cousins there are less and less people willing and able to care for him. Women should be able to have children when they want but there comes a time when one has to consider the consequences of their actions, and think more of what may happen to the child than their own desires.

 

>I can't believe you don't see what's wrong with this...!<

When you're twelve, you can't fully take the responsibilities of a kid. You would have to take care of yourself and the kid.(I'm thinking the man who helped you get pregnant would probably leave you, not wanting the stress of a kid) Not to mention the medical bills to have the kid, give it all the proper shots, check-ups, ect. I highly doubt your parents would help you pay off all of the bills, so you would have to get a job somewhere...and I don't think anyone would want to hire a twelve year old, for God's sake...You would also have to skip out of school; since you have to take care of the baby. If you have a kid at twelve, you would miss a great amount of school, which makes your chances of graduating at high school pretty slim.

Having a kid at twelve is very sick, if you ask me.

First off, the chances of you having a baby when you're in your 50's-60's is already down the tube, since you've already expierenced menopause, meaning you're unable to get pregnant. If you do, by chance, happen to be pregnant when you're in your fifties...well, that's great, but someone around that age is already halfway done with life, so taking care of a baby would be the least of their problems. They're at the point at life where THEY'LL need to be looked after. When the baby's in their twenties, the parents will be 70...it's not right either.

Good grief!

 

I believe that it is not wrong to have a child so young because if your body allows you to have a baby it is natural.
About responsibilities, at an age of 1-4 years old, you are at the peak of being able to take in alot of information and process it so you can understand things better, if at a young age you are taught on how to take care of a child, then their would be no problem about having a baby at that age, just nowadays people aren't taught responsibilities as well as we should.
For older people they have much experience in life and can give that to a child more effectivellley than some others, it might be better for the child.
Their are health risks for all ages, it is not a debatable argument.

 

Ok, let's ignore the health risk thing for now, let's look at it with the ethical perspective.

The old folks can do what they want, they are responsible enough and they are full-fledged adults. Now, the young pre-teen girls shouldn't have babies or commit sexual acts at all, it's just wrong! We don't support pedophiles here.

 

I never meant anything like that!
I did not say anything about pedophilia, you are only thinking about it!
I did mean that they would be around a similar age group, I never mentioned older men or women having sexual experiences with children, do not try to twist my words!

 

By today's ethics, pregnancy at that age is considered wrong. It wasn't in the past, however I'm not saying it should be changed.

Thank you.

Technology today was not as advanced as it was in the 80s, or the 70s, or the 60s, hell even the 1800s, but people were having kids around 14-15 without too much problem, if you ask me. Thus, like Peace-and-War already said, there are risks with pregnancy despite whatever age you are, so posting articles about the risks of having children at such a young age is completely irrelevant considering it worked just fine in the past, even without current technology in medicine.

This debate can really only be held from an ethical perspective, but as I've said before, that ethic has changed because it's becoming more expensive to sustain human life. There wasn't much for women to do back then except bear children, look after them, do chores around the house, etc, while the man would bring home the money to sustain their way of life. But now that the price to live has increased, and women now being well involved in today's working society and have many of the freedoms men do, it's obvious that the age when 'women should be bearing children' has changed. No mother would be screaming "But my child hasn't even finished high school yet!" back in the 1800s. Instead they'd be trying to marry their daughters off to the most successful men out there to assure their child's future and survival. So those of you who are trying to argue the ethics of young girls bearing children, keep in mind that your opinion has been shaped by the kind of society you live in today, and that you'd probably be one of those mothers looking for a successful man to marry off your daughter to if you lived way back when.

As well, many of you are assuming that a man who wishes to impregnate minors will abandon them and as such minors being pregnant is wrong. Yes, by today's law it's called statutory rape and is thus illegal to do, but you shouldn't automatically assume that their intention is to get some quick sex then run out on said minor. Yes, it's uncommon in today's society and frowned upon by many protective and opinionated parents, but I wouldn't be so quick to judge a man's feelings for an underage girl as something 'wrong'. Many men with sincere intentions solve this problem by simply waiting until the girl is at the right age before they can have a 'legal'/'socially acceptable' relationship. I'm pretty certain that if both the law and society allowed them to marry and have kids when the girl was 14-15, they'd probably do so.

As for seniors, it's really a choice they have to make. Like Zexion said, they are full-fledged adults and the law isn't against them to have children; the law can make you too young to have sex, but you can't be too old to have sex--that is simply something we, the population have made into our own social norm. I personally think they can do whatever they want. It *would* be nice if they could at least be able to provide for their kids until they can stand on their own two feet, but I wouldn't deny anyone at their age to have a child if they wanted one.

 

Soushirei, I thank you, you are probably one of the only people I know who actually understands where I am coming from on these threads.

For older-people, when their body does not allow them to have children, than that is a natural cause, if they are still able to have children then it is natural to have childre.
Natural Occurrences ares something that controls many things in life, and is an important variable.

 

Yes it is. You wanted to know why pregnancy at certain ages is considered taboo, we are providing reasons for it. You can not start a debate then ban parts of the opposing sides argument.

A 12 year old is still a child them selves and not fully physically, or mentally to take on the responsibility of motherhood. She is not fully educated, to young to get a job, or a drivers license. Having a child that young will in most cases lead to a poor quality of life for the mother and child.

A 50, or 60 year old is past menopause unless she's taking something, which is a huge risk in it's self. Most people at this age are retired, and living off social security. Which sometimes can barely be enough to take care of ones self.
Not to mention the whole question of whether the person, or persons involved are still physically, and mentally capable of taking care of a young child.

 

Removing health from the issue is not as hard as you think. Many people have been, though it is a part of it. There are still plenty of reasons why.

Actually pregnancy at 12 in MOST older cultures and even in tribal cultures today is considered bad. Where do you get that 12 years old was a normal 'approved' pregnancy age? Normally the age was 14 to 16; not 12. There are exceptions but those were extremely rare. Even when girls were married or affianced at 12, they would often stay home until 14 because getting them pregnant was not a positive thing. So why are you saying 12, and not 13 or 14? Kind of weird.

Today, in developing countries, some girls are still forcibly married off at 14 to 16. Why? Because that is what females must do in those cultures, and they do NOT have opportunity for anything really better. They are picked up by a man, there's a change of dowry or some money in some manner and the girl goes off to live with the man, married and expected to pop children and do house chores and that is their life.

You make it sound like today this happens in cases of teenage pregnancy that are outside of these developing countries, but most teenage pregnancies have 'fatherless' children, or men who run away from responsibility. They aren't marrying these girls. They are having sex with them and that's all there is to it. If a guy loved a younger girl, the way to show it is to keep his pants zipped up and let that girl do what she needs to in order to be productive in life herself and not always be dependent on others to survive. Some are well older and out of school but like young tight girls to de-virgin. Others are peers who aren't ready for the responsibility and are exploring sex themselves. Let's say the man did actually decide to marry the girl. Who's taking care of the kid? This teenager still has school, or should she just stay at home and raise a child in a time where she'll never get a job because she's a dropout?

Next, how many 12 year olds do you know that are mature enough to have kids? In this day and age, 12 is the age where many girls may be let to start 'babysitting' but usually that is also at age 13 or older. They are not raised right off the bat to care for children. They have a ton of other things to learn to be productive in a modern world and motherly instincts aren't as natural as some people think. New mothers in their 20s consult all sorts of people for advice and you think a 12 year old is capable? How many girls on this forum can say they are ready to have a kid before they are married and have some kind of comfort zone to raise a kid effectively? So if a 12 year old gets knocked up by accident should we force shotgun weddings? If not, who's taking care of this kid? A teenage boy that is also in school? Some guy popping virgins because he can't get laid in his own age bracket?

Let's face the facts here. Most girls who get pregnant at 12-16 or even in High School, are not going to have productive lives. Now imagine what happens if no one steps in to help this teenage girl, which does happen. The girl has to go on welfare and has to enlist in government programs. If no one wants to take care of this baby, the child may be put up for adoption. If this girl didn't get a diploma...or is a frightening 12 years old with no family backing, she's going to have to learn a lot quickly, isn't she?

Mind you, I'm not saying kids won't explore sex. But to say it's not a hardship in the modern day for a 12 year old to have a child is ludicrous. The burden always will fall to the family. In the old days when someone did an act of getting a girl pregnant and not being wed to her, it was either a forced wedding and the girl was nearly "always" held in contempt for her actions and seen as unchaste. Occasionally to save the girl's dignity, a family member who was older would say the child was hers. Sometimes women who were unmarried and had sex were stoned to death. In some places to this day there are women who are harmed or killed for having a child and not being married and these practices have been going on for hundreds of years. The woman who had a kid as a teenager in those communities often does not find a man to marry her and if she does it's considered a mercy thing and that man can do whatever he wants to her.

So, now, what's the benefit for a 12 year old to have a child? That's what I want to know. What 12 year old really comes out in all seriousness and wants to have a baby and had sex with that intent? Not many.

 

A reason that isn't entirely valid when it worked just fine many decades ago. It's not a question of banning opposing arguments, but the fact that said opposition is for the most part, irrelevant in sight of more predominant facets that deal with the issue.

Which quite frankly, you'll never know and thus don't have the right to pass judgment about their desire to want/have children.

You cannot deny these seniors the right to procreate because that will suddenly put an age limit to how long you can bear children. Once you start creating constitutional laws as to why a person is not fit to bear a child, a million more will come tomorrow, and will only get worse like the slippery slope argument that it is.

 

We have news about a nine-year old who gave birth becasue she wanted to try out what is it like to have sex. But yes,I think it matters because

If you are under 16:

YOu have'nt completed puberty yet!How will you do the breastfeed?And then,there's school,examinations blah blah.

If you are old like my aunt:

You might die during labour
You might die when your child is a kid now that the human lifespan is shortened.

 

Off Topic: repliku needs to quit making such long posts, lol.... ^.^



On Topic:

I think you shouldnt have baby until you get a career going, and you are positive that you will be able to afford taking care of it...

If you want to 'do it', be responsible about it......

 

Well, they only say it's a problem to help protect you. If you have a baby at 12 years old you can possibly die. Either from the birth or from blood loss. If you have it too late you can die from pain, because if your older your probably not as energetic and tolerant to pain.

So it's a lot smarter to have a child at a young age, but not TOO young. I'd say 19+ at least. That's my opinion, however. Some girls can have children at 16-18 because they are probably impregnated during unprotected sex, and then they survive because they have a C-Section and/or are physically fit to give birth at that age (which most women are not, no offense).

Society is merely giving you a suggestion, and they are somewhat right in that--seeing as no one wants to have a baby at 60+ (Unless your fit to do so), or at 12 or lower.

 

Um, a woman's breasts begin lactating as a result of becoming pregnant. This has nothing to do with puberty other than the fact that a girl needs to have hit puberty before she's able to get pregnant.

Case and point: If you can get pregnant, you sure as hell can breastfeed.