so McCain's choice is interesting

[sparks19]

That's why I hate some of the TV programs !!! I know that we were prudish , but I laugh at how Desi and Lucy couldn't be filmed in bed together as a married couple , and yet today they show teens in bed together .

yeah my mom always told me about how "wake up little susie" was banned from radio play for a while because it suggested that they spent the night together.

 

[Renee750il]

Food for thought ..... we had NO sex education in school --- we did not talk about sex amongst ourselves ....and yet I knew NO ONE under 20 getting pregnant . It was a " No-no " !!

And girls who did get pregnant went to visit Aunts in other cities for several months . . .

I've known people of my GRANDMOTHER's generation who had children out of wedlock . . . It wasn't that uncommon - it wasn't talked about, it was covered up, and the children were adopted out or passed off as "cousins."

 

[bubbatd]

Agree ! But I just never knew any . It was a small town , and believe me it would have laked out ! Same in College ,,,,small and close knit .

 

[release the hounds]

does anyone else find it odd that biologically 17 is a better age to have children than say 27, yet as a society we are set up that the older you are before having children the better off you'll be (most likely) for raising it.

 

[bubbatd]

I believe that 21 is the age .

 

[sparks19]

does anyone else find it odd that biologically 17 is a better age to have children than say 27, yet as a society we are set up that the older you are before having children the better off you'll be (most likely) for raising it.

because we are prolonging childhood and dependance. At 18 you are legally considered an adult but I know A LOT of 18 year olds that are still children. People are treating 16 and 17 year olds like they are 8. If they screw up they are coddled and the excuse "they are just children" is thrown around. they AREN'T just children at that age. they are becoming adults and should be treated as such.

I am only 27 but I remember being 11 and babysitting (my mom ran a little daycare and if they needed a sitter at night I would go to their house and babysit. They knew me and they knew my parents and knew I could be trusted... and their kids knew me). I remember around the age of 11 or 12 my mom went out of town for the night. I could have gone to my dads but there was no reason to. I could be trusted. I was responsible. and a close family friend lived two minutes away and I was to call them if I needed anything. It was no big deal... it was a pretty normal occurance at that time and where I lived.

Now I know kids that are 16 that can't even make Kraft Dinner (mac and cheese) and if you even THOUGHT of having an 11 year old babysit your kids you would be in big trouble. and leaving a 12 year old alone over night? FORGET it.

it seems that the age of responsibility keeps getting pushed back more and more and more. soon we are going to have 27 year olds that still need their moms to lay out their clothes for the next day and who can't be left alone.

Not that I am advocating teens having babies but that's just my take on it.

ETA: LOL that was way longer than I intended

 

[release the hounds]

I didn't mean 17 was optimal by any means, but most 17 year olds are better equiped physically in terms of best genetic potential egg and stuff like that than a 27 year old

I would agree that 18-23 is probably an optimal age range

 

[Renee750il]

Hell, I know 40+ year old men who aren't responsible enough to take care of themselves and can barely make microwave mac and cheese

Truthfully, there are a few women like that too - or at least they fake that kind of dependence.

 

[drmom777]

Above is the graph for age vs risk of having a child with Down Syndrome. You will note that 27 is solidly on the flat part of the curve. In fact, it doesn't seem to rise sharply until the mid to late thirties.

At 27, a woman's fertility is also very high. In tghe absence of PID or other problems, 27 is an excellent age to have a beby, while at seventeen there is a significantly higher risk of having a low birth weight baby, either term or premature.

So I have to disagree, and argue that 27 is a better age for pregnancy than 17. I feel the optimum age from a physical and statistical perspective is from about 21-29.

 

[girlbuffalo1]

Well if it were up to me I would be a coddled baby for ever! There's nothing--absolutly NOTHING good about being grown up--well except for having your own money and spending it as you see fit.

 

[sparks19]

really?

I am rather enjoying my adulthood

I remember being a kid and sitting at the table at christmas and hearing the adults carrying on conversations. I thought it was so cool how they talked. How come my conversations didn't flow like theirs? I would practice conversations with my dolls lol. I thought the way adults interacted was amazing lol

 

[Laurelin]

And girls who did get pregnant went to visit Aunts in other cities for several months . . .

I've known people of my GRANDMOTHER's generation who had children out of wedlock . . . It wasn't that uncommon - it wasn't talked about, it was covered up, and the children were adopted out or passed off as "cousins."

That happened to one of my second or third cousins actually. Yeah, he grew up thinking his grandparents were his parents. The entire town but him knew his father was their son Johnny, but he never did. He was pissed when he found out from what I hear...

 

[bubbatd]

One of my girl's classmate's babies was brought up by the Grandmother . All was great until the girl was 21 or so and wanted to move out and take over , but by then the little girl was about 4 yrs. old , called Grandma " Mommy " and it was a mess ! I've often wondered how it turned out . Dr.... those ( I think ) are stats of T21 born to Moms . According to the DS group , the younger ones choose to abort early on . I'm on the DS link and there were 4 teenagers last year asking advise . None went full term .

 

[drmom777]

No, Grammy, these are the same charts used to determine risk vs benefit ratios for doing amnios based on age, for example. It isn't just trisomy 21, that is the issue. Actually all trisomies are about equally common, the reason the only ones we ever hear about are 21 and, occasionally 18, is because these are the only ones that are compatible with life.

At conception, all trisomies are approximately equally common, but most of them result in first trimester spontaneous abortions. This is a huge part of the reason for the big increase in first trimester miscarriages in older mothers.

Your theory wouldn't work for the simple reason that almost no one gets a chromosomal analysis done (if there is no other reason) unless they are at least 30, so they wouldn't know about the extra chromosome until after birth. In fact, this phenomenon has led to most trisomies occurring to young mothers, since they are the ones who do not find out until after the birth.

I suspect your teenagers may have been scamming you, because it would be odd that there were that many who actually had an amnio or cvs done.

 

[sparks19]

an article about the wolf/pups thing

http://www.adn.com/wildlife/story/491012.html

Biologists initially didn't mention they'd killed wolf pups
PREDATOR CONTROL: Critics cry cover-up in state-approved hunt.

The Associated Press

Published: August 12th, 2008 12:29 AM
Last Modified: August 12th, 2008 12:58 AM

JUNEAU -- State biologists didn't disclose that 14 wolf pups were killed in their dens, and critics are claiming a cover-up to avoid upsetting voters who will decide an initiative curtailing the state's predator control program.


Alaska Department of Fish and Game biologists shot the pups in early June instead of leaving them to likely die, and didn't initially inform the Alaska Board of Game or ever tell the public.

Gordon Haber, a frequent critic of the state's wolf control program, claims the shootings were illegal because a state law prohibits the killing of wolf young in their dens.

The board authorized biologists in March to kill wolves if necessary on the southern Alaska Peninsula to protect a caribou herd considered to be in trouble.

Biologists shot 14 wolves from a helicopter. On the ground, they discovered and killed the pups, which were orphaned by the helicopter shooting.

Officials did not mention wolf pups to the Board of Game before the shooting, and afterward did not publicly disclose that they'd killed pups.

Instead, the department issued a press release stating: "Wolves from three packs were shot from a helicopter by Alaska Department of Fish and Game staff."


The pup shootings came to light after Haber, an independent wildlife researcher, questioned one of the biologists about whether lactating females had been shot, and whether there were pups.

"These guys knew how controversial and inflammatory that would be, and that's why they never said anything about it," Haber said.

Doug Larsen, the wildlife division director, said the Board of Game order allows "all wolves" to be taken from a specific area, including pups.

"We knew going in, as most everyone knows, springtime is a time when you're going to have reproduction. The Board of Game recognized that," Larsen said.

Board member Bob Bell supports the wolf control program but now wishes the biologists had brought up pups.

"We're having enough trouble with this predator control thing in terms of P.R.," he said. "Certainly if we had anticipated they would have had a denning situation, we would have wanted to know that."

Joel Bennett is co-sponsor of an Aug. 26 ballot initiative that would allow the shooting of wolves and bears only in a biological emergency. He has filed a request for all state records relating the June shootings.

Larsen said pulling all the records together would take until Aug. 19.

That's only a week before Alaska voters decide whether to change the state's predator control program so that only Fish and Game biologists would be able to shoot wolves and only in a biological emergency.

Nick Jans, who with Bennett wrote the ballot initiative, criticized the state for the timing, the denning and the state's failure to tell the public, which he called a "cover-up."

"They broke a state regulation, and they set themselves up to do it," he said.

Their organization, Alaskans for Wildlife, did not oppose this year's wolf control. State biologists were doing the killing, and that was what the organization wanted.

But they said this emphasizes the importance of passing the initiative to limit wolf control to state employees, even though they're the ones who killed the pups.

"If this is predator control practiced at its best, what do you think is going on with the private guys?" Jans said.

 

[sparks19]

I must say I really enjoyed listening to her speak.

I wish it was less about Obama... the whole night not just her. I really liked the part when Rudy said about how it was unbelievable that her abilities as a mother and whether or not she would have time to take care of 5 children if she got the VP. NEVER have they EVER or WOULD they ever ask a man that. couldn't that be said about any candidate with children who aren't adults already? Seems a little biased and borderline sexist. She has a husband and I'm sure he's very capable of taking care of the children too. I know my husband can be totally trusted with our daughter and I would feel comfortable if him and I switched "jobs" and he became a stay at home dad and I went to work.

But I think I have TWO favourite parts. One is funny and the other serious. First of all I loved how she talked about how she said "no thank you" to congress when they wanted to fund the bridge building and said that if they wanted that bridge they would build it themselves. I am REALLY on board with "the American people can do it without government" idea. the funny one... I loved the hockey mom joke lol. "What's the difference between a hockey mom and a pitbull? Lipstick" LOL wonderful and very true. I am not a hockey mom... YET. but I am a hockey aunt, a hockey sister, a hockey wife and just an all around hockey fan and THAT is true lol. We are sweet and cuddly most of the time... but mess with one of our own and you are dead meat LOL.

 

[Lilavati]

Unfortunately, the bridge to nowhere thing is an outright lie. She actually supported it at first, then still took the money to use on other things when popular opinion condemned it. I don't blame her for that, really. Her job was to look out for her town, and Alaska. I do hold it against her that she's lying about it now, indeed, boasting about it.

And, actually, although Alaska might be able to build that bridge, it would be the Alaskan GOVERNMENT that would do so, not the Alaskan people. It takes either a government or a HUGE corporation to undertake a program like that, and no corporation ever would (its a waste of money).

Not really knocking the lady, but she's not quite telling the truth here.

Edit: This isn't her fault, but I am absolutely replused by people walking around the RNC with "I suport unwed mothers" buttons. Not that I mind them supporting unwed mothers, but having been told by the Republicans my entire life that unwed mothers are responsible for everything from high taxes to the decline of Western Civiliztion, I am absolutely revolted at the hypocricy when it is suddenly politically expedient to support unwed mothers. I believe their change of heart when they support poor, minority unwed mothers who are not the children of the VP candiate. Right now, I just want to throw things at them.

 

[sparks19]

Well I didn't know that part... but... I do disagree that it would only the Alaskan government that would do so.

If it's anything like PA the Penndot "workers" would never take on a task like that OR get it done if they did. it seems to be all they can manage to fix a road in 6 months. Anything else requires contractors to get it done. AND get it done well and in a timely fashion.

 

[Lilavati]

Well I didn't know that part... but... I do disagree that it would only the Alaskan government that would do so.

If it's anything like PA the Penndot "workers" would never take on a task like that OR get it done if they did. it seems to be all they can manage to fix a road in 6 months. Anything else requires contractors to get it done. AND get it done well and in a timely fashion.

Sparks, who do you think would PAY those contractors? The Alaskan government. Whether it was their workers or someone elses, they would be the ones forking over the money. I didn't mean literally build, I meant pay for . . . the Federal government woudln't have literlaly built it either, except for some support from the Army Corps of Engineers . . . they would ahve hired contractors or given the money to Alaska to build it.

 

[sparks19]

Sparks, who do you think would PAY those contractors? The Alaskan government. Whether it was their workers or someone elses, they would be the ones forking over the money. I didn't mean literally build, I meant pay for . . . the Federal government woudln't have literlaly built it either, except for some support from the Army Corps of Engineers . . . they would ahve hired contractors or given the money to Alaska to build it.

Ahhh I see what you mean. I thought you meant government employees would be the only ones who would build it LOL.

while I don't agree with her boasting about saying no way to their money for that without telling the whole story... I do give her kudos for listening to her people and putting the money where THEY wanted it to go.