Posted on 07/27/2006 7:23:24 AM PDT by grundle
With teenage girls now choosing pregnancy as a "career option", according to a leading charity, three young mothers talk about how they dealt with the experience.
Britain has the highest number of teenage pregnancies in Europe and they cost the country about £63m a year.
Many young girls even see having a baby as a better option than a low-paid "dead-end" job, recent research for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation suggests.
But with 40,000 teenagers giving birth in Britain every year what is the reality of having a baby so young? What challenges do such young mothers face and how do they cope?
Housewife
Zoe and Jenny were just 14 when they got pregnant and Olivia 15. The three girls met at Cyfle a special educational unit in Wrexham, north Wales, for young mothers. Cyfle provides support so they can continue with their education, while looking after their babies.
The girls are transferred to the unit in the later stages of pregnancy and usually return two weeks after the birth. An on-site creche is provided so the girls can bring their babies with them. They are usually taught at the unit for a term, before returning to their normal schools.
Georgia, Zoe and Gemma
Zoe, from Wrexham, managed to conceal her pregnancy until just two weeks before giving birth with the help of her identical twin, Gemma. At school her sister stepped into her place when it came to sports lessons and at home the youngsters managed to fool their parents and younger sister.
"I didn't want anyone to force me into an abortion and I felt sorry for my Mum - she always tries so hard and I didn't want to disappoint her by telling her I was pregnant," she says.
"I was scared though - we were both scared. The longer you go on without saying anything the harder it is to tell someone."
Choices
Zoe's mother, Collette, finally realised what was happening during a family holiday in Spain, when it became impossible for Zoe to conceal her pregnancy with baggy clothes. Just two weeks later she gave birth to Georgia and went to Cyfle to study for her GCSEs.
The unit was set up by a former secondary school teacher, Teresa Foster Evans, who was concerned that girls getting pregnant whilst still at school are often forced to leave without finishing their education.
Olivia also attended the unit. She had been at a private girls school in Chester when, on the brink of starting her GCSE year, she told her mother that she needed to pop into a supermarket to take a pregnancy test. She came out of the store in tears and announced that the test, which she'd taken in the shop's lavatory, was positive.
Sara, Holly and Jenny
"In some ways I wasn't surprised," says her mother, Anne Malcolm. "I was shocked of course and a lot of things crossed my mind but there was no question of not keeping the baby. Some people suggested a termination - I wasn't one of them."
Olivia has no regrets about having her daughter Ayeasha at 15. "She's the best thing that ever happened to me," she says. "If I had to do the same again I would. I don't have contact with Ayeasha's Dad but I have help from my parents and there's nothing else I wanted to do with my life.
"I don't want a career - I want to bring my little girl up and I still go out and have fun."
'Better lives'
Teenage pregnancy rates in north Wales are particularly worrying. The most common scenario is for the daughters of teenage mothers to go on and repeat the same pattern as they grow up. This was the case for the third of the girls, Jenny, who set out to get pregnant when she was just 14.
"I wanted a baby, I wanted to be a housewife and I thought it would bring me and my boyfriend, Danny, closer together," she says. "He was 17 at the time and he wasn't saying I had to use contraception. But once I got pregnant he wasn't happy then and told me to get rid of it."
Jenny, however, chose to go ahead with the pregnancy and now lives alone with two-year-old Holly. She's supported by her own mother, Sara, who knows what it's like to bring up a baby young and on your own.
Teresa Foster Evans
"It's not what I would have wanted for her, she knows how hard it was for me and how poor we were but still she went ahead and did it," she says. "She so wanted it to work and she thought she'd be with Danny for the rest of her life, even though I knew it would never work out."
Teresa Foster Evans believes a large part of the work going on at Cyfle has to centre around helping these teenage mothers lead more fulfilling lives so their own children can be given more choices as they grow up.
"Education is the key to it," she says. "If we can get them through their GCSEs and help them finish their schooling we can give them and their children far better lives."
Isn't socialism great?.... Slavery by Giverment...
" those from divorced and/or single-parent homes...these kids litter the social landscape"
Uh, my marriage ended in divorce. My son grew up to be a corporate tax accountant.
Hamblin could learn a lot from Bill Cosby.
Sounds like they've learned the government's lessons rather well (rather than what the government says they are trying to teach)
I can't believe these useless parents. What moron would allow a 14 year old to date a 17 year old?
I didn't know that. What's the limit?
My children are adults.
The Bell Curve proved that, much to the chagrin of pro-lifers.
For instance to 4 its like 15000, and for 4-14.5 its like 25000 or 1/4 your own policy whichever is higher. (At least in my state)...
probably her mother was 16 when she gave birth to her now 16 year old, making her a 30 year old grandmother Stupidity has no age limits
Doogle
Stupidity...as I just proved...16+14....DOH!!
Am I missing something? The state is horrified that girls are opting to be housewives rather than doing their patriotic duty and be workers for the state in minimum-wage jobs.
This might be the start of the collapse of the great fraud.
That being that if a couple both work, they can have twice as much money for themselves; except that then taxes are raised so high that one of them ends up working for nothing.
So the state is how aghast that girls would choose motherhood and welfare over good, honest labor. But if they stop paying them welfare, then they are no longer beholden to the state, and the state has less control over their lives.
This could plunge all of Britain into anarchy!
What about the fathers!
Of course there are exceptions. I was speaking in a statistical sense. Congrats on raising a fine son.
A housewife, by definition, is married. That's where the "wife" part comes from.
You see anyone getting married here? Nope, neither do I. Just sluts and "players" (= sperm donors) producing the next generation of sluts and players.
And destroying civilization in the process.
Funny. But to be a "housewife," don't you have to be a wife, as well? These are simply children having children. There is no "housewife" about it, as much as these kids want to delude themselves. It's like homos wanting to be married, they will never be husband and wife, no matter how much the gay lobby works to normalize their perverse sexual behavior. Won't happen, ever, no matter WHAT laws are passed. Society, as a whole, will never accept it.
So what percentage of Americans are bastards? Though that isn't the optimal life for a kid, a goodly percentage of our population weren't raised in a healthy, whole family, and yet haven't turned out to be drug-crazed serial killing rapists.
Sure, a lot were messed up. But lots of kids from healthy families are messed up, too.
I see it as a balance between two "evils of the state". One is the welfare trap, and the other is trying to coerce labor for the state, for nothing, out of women who just want to raise a family. Which is worse? Keeping people dependent on the government, or worshipping the false god "productivity"?
Work requirements vary state to state. Florida did put a limit on welfare cash assistance increases after a certain number of children who are wholly supported by the state. No limit on foodstamps.
Statistically, there is nothing equivalent about this. It is well documented that children raised in two-parent, intact families grow up to be functional members of society, versus a drain on tax payers and a burden on the social welfare system.
Which is worse? Keeping people dependent on the government, or worshipping the false god "productivity"?
False god? Whatever. Productive citizens are necessary to fund the welfare state, without them, the false god of "welfare" and the nanny state cannot exist. So, which one is more "holy?"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.