Best option for teen parents

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lmariethom
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
DarkLight said:
The fundamental problem isn’t your phrasing, it’s that a thread on a personal and difficult family situation isn’t the place to be making general commentary on women. So long as the child is cared for the mother has not done something wrong in her choice.
Click to expand...
A closed adoption to a devout Catholic couple is what is best for the children.
 
Where did this idea that teenagers can’t raise children come from?

A few decades ago, an 18 year old would probably already be married.

A few centuries ago, a 14 year old would probably already be married. 😛

Anyone over 16 can get a job. Lots of teenage mothers successfully raise children – some by themselves.

I don’t understand why so many people are advising adoption for a baby that will be born to a full-fledged adult who has the support – both financial and emotional – of her family.

What is it with Catholics and this idea that children are a blessing from God, but not if you happen to be a teenager still, and then we’d better get rid of it? I say in complete honesty that I have NEVER seen so many people advocate for adoption in such situations as I have on these forums.
 
It reminds me of a bit from the Chris Rock movie “Head of State,” where he’s talking about child care costs while running for president:

“The working mother has to take her child to a nanny. The nanny has to take her child to a babysitter. The babysitter has to take her child to daycare – On the count of three, I want everyone to take care of their own damn kids!”
 
Wow, an explosion in this thread, and for good reason.
However, although AUNT is the OP and warrants no advice meant for the couple whose parents are lovingly involved and supportive [according to OP], advice keeps pouring in. Would this encourage her to meddle? This thread may no longer be about Aunt; it may be about all of you.
I pray every single one of you has or will put $$$ in the box for our struggling Respect Life program. Bring them Home! Let us NOT be all talk on the subject, let us be about good decisions and following poor choices with loving Catholic LIFE support. PS If you don’t like your local chapter just volunteer and fix it.
Let us pray for this and ALL families in search of Christ and God, broken, married, unmarried, mamed, error and mistake prone, arrogant, that they received their gifts of life as arrow to Christ. Let Catholic Faith show the way. Please use this good energy to Donate : ))
 
QuasiCatholic said:
Where did this idea that teenagers can’t raise children come from?

A few decades ago, an 18 year old would probably already be married.

A few centuries ago, a 14 year old would probably already be married. 😛

Anyone over 16 can get a job. Lots of teenage mothers successfully raise children – some by themselves.

I don’t understand why so many people are advising adoption for a baby that will be born to a full-fledged adult who has the support – both financial and emotional – of her family.

What is it with Catholics and this idea that children are a blessing from God, but not if you happen to be a teenager still, and then we’d better get rid of it? I say in complete honesty that I have NEVER seen so many people advocate for adoption in such situations as I have on these forums.
Click to expand...
In the US since 1890 the median marriage age for women has never dropped below 20.3 so that’s false

In Elizabethan England the median was 23 for women.

In the Early Middle Ages the median marriage age for women was also in their early 20s.

The unemployment rate for young people is rather bad and even on that they are unlikely to be able to support themselves.
 
Joie_de_Vivre said:
In the US since 1890 the median marriage age for women has never dropped below 20.3 so that’s false

In Elizabethan England the median was 23 for women.

In the Early Middle Ages the median marriage age for women was also in their early 20s.

The unemployment rate for young people is rather bad and even on that they are unlikely to be able to support themselves.
Click to expand...
There might be some variation down for very well-off families.

On the other hand, here are the ages of the six wives of Henry VIII upon their first marriages.

Catherine of Aragon (age 15 at first marriage, 24 at second to Henry VIII)

Ann Boleyn (hard to get good dates–somewhere between 24 and 33)

Jane Seymour (27 or 28)

Anne of Cleves (24)

Kathryn Howard (around 19)

Katherine Parr (first marriage at 17, second at 22, third time at around 31 to Henry VIII, a fourth time at 35)
 
Joie_de_Vivre said:
In the US since 1890 the median marriage age for women has never dropped below 20.3 so that’s false

In Elizabethan England the median was 23 for women.

In the Early Middle Ages the median marriage age for women was also in their early 20s.

The unemployment rate for young people is rather bad and even on that they are unlikely to be able to support themselves.
Click to expand...
Saying the Median is 20.3 does not necessarily mean that most 18 year olds were unmarried. That is not what a median is at all. In fact, seeing that the median is as low as that gives more credence to the idea that many 18 year olds would be married at that time. If you were to list out a set of numbers, lowest to highest, the median is the middle number in the set. In other words, back then there were the same number of people younger than twenty getting married as were getting married when older than twenty. And since there are fewer possible ages under 20 for a person to marry at than over 20 more people would have to be getting married at each of those few years (say 17-19) than are getting married at the older years (21 and up). Which means it is likely that more people got married at 17, 18, and 19 than got married between 20-30 years old. Which seems to me to have been the point the previous poster was making. 🤷
 
thewanderer said:
Saying the Median is 20.3 does not necessarily mean that most 18 year olds were unmarried. That is not what a median is at all. In fact, seeing that the median is as low as that gives more credence to the idea that many 18 year olds would be married at that time. If you were to list out a set of numbers, lowest to highest, the median is the middle number in the set. In other words, back then there were the same number of people younger than twenty getting married as were getting married when older than twenty. Which implies that it is likely that more people got married at 17, 18, and 19 than got married between 20-30 years old. Which seems to me to have been the point the previous poster was making. 🤷
Click to expand...
I said median, not mean and it does in fact disprove “A few decades ago, an 18 year old would probably already be married.” In 1890 the median was 22 for women.
 
Joie_de_Vivre said:
I said median, not mean and it does in fact disprove “A few decades ago, an 18 year old would probably already be married.” In 1890 the median was 22 for women.
Click to expand...
I described the median, not the mean. The point being made was that not that long ago it really wasn’t all that uncommon for 18 year olds to get married which was intended as evidence that 18 year olds are not intrinsically incapable of being good parents as some people seem to think. You can pick at the exact way that one sentence was phrased if you want to but it won’t diminish the point being made. 🤷
 
thewanderer said:
I described the median, not the mean. The point being made was that not that long ago it really wasn’t all that uncommon for 18 year olds to get married which was intended as evidence that 18 year olds are not intrinsically incapable of being good parents as some people seem to think. You can pick at the exact way that one sentence was phrased if you want to but it won’t diminish the point being made. 🤷
Click to expand...
Not only this, but the Church’s canon law sets 15 years old as the minimum age for a girl to lawfully marry in the Church. Thus, Holy Mother Church has declared, by her power of binding and loosing, that a 15 year old girl can be both a wife and a mother. Obviously this is going to vary considerably culture to culture, but there are places in the world where it would not be unheard of. My mom was 19 when she conceived me and 27 years later is still very happily married to my dad… not much older than the OP’s niece.
 
twf said:
Not only this, but the Church’s canon law sets 15 years old as the minimum age for a girl to lawfully marry in the Church. Thus, Holy Mother Church has declared, by her power of binding and loosing, that a 15 year old girl can be both a wife and a mother. Obviously this is going to vary considerably culture to culture, but there are places in the world where it would not be unheard of. My mom was 19 when she conceived me and 27 years later is still very happily married to my dad… not much older than the OP’s niece.
Click to expand...
Something to take into account-- when looking at that part of canon law. It leaves the door open for ephebophiles – to chase after teenage girls.
 
Walking_Home said:
Something to take into account-- when looking at that part of canon law. It leaves the door open for ephebophiles – to chase after teenage girls.
Click to expand...
No more so than secular law. Parental permission would be required for minors by any diocese in the Western world. Minors can marry in many jurisdictions with parental permission as well.
 
twf said:
40.png
Walking_Home:
Something to take into account-- when looking at that part of canon law. It leaves the door open for ephebophiles – to chase after teenage girls.
Click to expand...
No more so than secular law. Parental permission would be required for minors by any diocese in the Western world.** Minors can marry in many jurisdictions with parental permission as well.**
Click to expand...
And those parents – could end up- with an ephebophile – for a son-in-law.
 
Walking_Home said:
And those parents – could end up- with an ephebophile – for a son-in-law.
Click to expand...
Again though, not sure why that particularly needs to come up here. I’m not sure it’s any worse than, say, that the law allows a 50 year old man to marry an 18 year old girl. In this case we’re talking about two teenagers.
 
DarkLight said:
Again though, not sure why that particularly needs to come up here. I’m not sure it’s any worse than, say, that the law allows a 50 year old man to marry an 18 year old girl. In this case we’re talking about two teenagers.
Click to expand...
I was just pointing out – the danger that comes with using canon law to promote the marriage of teenage girls.
 
Walking_Home said:
I was just pointing out – the danger that comes with using canon law to promote the marriage of teenage girls.
Click to expand...
And I’m saying that it’s not really that much of a danger, or at the very least the danger cannot reasonably be eliminated in any system that has a hard-and-fast setting for when someone can marry and no age restrictions past that.
 
DarkLight said:
40.png
Walking_Home:
I was just pointing out – the danger that comes with using canon law to promote the marriage of teenage girls.
Click to expand...
And I’m saying that it’s not really that much of a danger, or at the very least the danger cannot reasonably be eliminated in any system that has a hard-and-fast setting for when someone can marry and no age restrictions past that.
Click to expand...
The fact that ephebophiles do exist – the threat they pose to teenage girls-- should Not be taken lightly
 
Walking_Home said:
The fact that ephebophiles do exist – the threat they pose to teenage girls-- should Not be taken lightly
Click to expand...
And that still has nothing to do with my point - which is that essentially we have to draw the line somewhere, and with a system that has a single line the risk of older predators is always there. There’s just no way to really remove or mitigate the risk without setting the minimum age very high. I’ve seen predators go after girls of 18 or even 22 as often as younger.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top