Karl`s PC Help Forums

Jamie Lynn's pregnancy
scholar - 22-12-2007 at 01:38

Britney Spear's 16-years-old sister announced Tuesday that she is pregnant.

Britney off balance

She stars in a popular sit-com in which she plays a girl about 13 years old, for whom the target audience is girls who are younger still. The parents of girls who are eight or ten years old and who love the character would rather not have to explain how "Zoey" made a poor choice.

Britney and Jamie Lynn's mother was working on a parenting book. I've heard the book has been "put on hold," but I don't know if the radio host was joking.

The network is the most popular cable network for children, Nickelodeon.


giron - 22-12-2007 at 01:42

Quote:
Originally posted by scholar
Britney Spear's 16-years-old sister announced Tuesday that she is pregnant.



Have you got any idea who it was that impregnated her?

More to the point, does she know? shocked_yellow


scholar - 22-12-2007 at 01:55

The father's name is Casey Aldridge. He has been JL's boyfriend for some time. He is 18 or 19 years old, according to People.

Casey link here


giron - 22-12-2007 at 01:58

Quote:
Originally posted by scholar
The father's name is Casey Aldridge.


Chop his willy off, that's what I say!


Redwolf5150 - 22-12-2007 at 03:27

I think they aught to bring the child molester up on Statutory Rape charges.

kewl_glasses


the bear - 22-12-2007 at 07:32

Quote:
Originally posted by Redwolf5150
I think they aught to bring the child molester up on Statutory Rape charges.

kewl_glasses



He certainly won't be bringing the child up, and she's just achild herself, poor mite.


Regards the Bear


scholar - 22-12-2007 at 08:00

Quote:
Originally posted by the bear
He certainly won't be bringing the child up, and she's just achild herself, poor mite.

Regards the Bear
Jamie Lynn's parents, who are themselves divorced IIRC, think Casey is great, and Jamie loves him. I would not be surprised if they marry.

There have been times in history that teenage mothers have already had most of their education, and a close, responsible extended family was available to help. That is not the case here.:(


marymary100 - 22-12-2007 at 09:34

Would you rather she had aborted it scholar?



Afterall, the parents of her fans wouldn't have to have had any awkward discussions if she'd decided to go for a quick termination before her pregnancy became common knowledge.


janet - 22-12-2007 at 10:09

My grandmother was 15 when my mother was conceived - she'd been married a year at that point, quite legally.

Surely what is most important is that all those bringing children into the world receive support, rather than vilification?


marymary100 - 22-12-2007 at 10:39

Mary, mother of Jesus, seemed to manage all right as a single mother because she received support.


LSemmens - 22-12-2007 at 13:39

Quote:
Originally posted by marymary100
Mary, mother of Jesus, seemed to manage all right as a single mother because she received support.

But she was never a single mother, time she had Jesus, she was already married.

As for this young girl, she deserves compassion and support. Just because she has had some pretty poor role models in her immediate family does not mean that she should be vilified. Yes, she does have a responsibility to her target audience, and how she handles that will show what sort of person she really is.


janet - 22-12-2007 at 13:52

Leigh, do the scriptures actually *say* that?


LSemmens - 22-12-2007 at 14:02

It is implied as:
Joseph was told to take Mary as his wife after he found that she was pregnant.
They returned to Bethlehem, Joseph's "home", to be counted in the Census, were she still unmarried, she would have been counted with her parents.


janet - 22-12-2007 at 14:06

I don't mean to be pedantic here, but:


So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. 5He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. (Luke 2)

The reason I'm pointing this out is what I've said before - we need to deal with what the texts *say*....


marymary100 - 22-12-2007 at 15:34

Hence - my assertion that she was a single parent, as uncomfortable a notion as that might be....................


scholar - 22-12-2007 at 15:50

Quote:
Originally posted by marymary100
Would you rather she had aborted it scholar?
Of course not. She should have refrained from unlawful sex.

And I use the word "unlawful" carefully and deliberately here. According to California statutes, it was and is unlawful.

And I would not call the baby "it."


janet - 22-12-2007 at 16:23

Quote:
Originally posted by marymary100
Hence - my assertion that she was a single parent, as uncomfortable a notion as that might be....................


Well, tbh I'm not sure about that - because there was another adult around who, I think it is safe to assume, took on the parental role....


marymary100 - 22-12-2007 at 16:24

Well scholar as I'm sure you know some branches of Christianity believe that there is no soul until just before the moment of birth.


marymary100 - 22-12-2007 at 16:26

Quote:
Originally posted by janet
Quote:
Originally posted by marymary100
Hence - my assertion that she was a single parent, as uncomfortable a notion as that might be....................


Well, tbh I'm not sure about that - because there was another adult around who, I think it is safe to assume, took on the parental role....


I said she did it "with support". The local Catholic school here talks about Joseph being the "step-father".


scholar - 22-12-2007 at 16:38

I reviewed the Greek, to be sure I wouldn't make some careless mistake. Both Matthew and Luke describe Mary as Joseph's wife, using the specific Greek word for wife, before Jesus was born.

Young's Literal Translation
Matthew 1:24 And Joseph, having risen from the sleep, did as the messenger of the Lord directed him, and received his wife,

"His wife" in Greek is actually "the wife of him."
The Greek text I am using in another window doesn't stay Greek if I copy-and-paste it into my KF window, so I can't picture the Greek word for you.

Young's Literal Translation
Luke 2:5 to enroll himself with Mary his betrothed wife, being with child.

Some explanation of the phrase "betrothed wife" is in order. It means a wife with whom the wedding vows have been exchanged, so that they are indeed legally husband and wife, even if the marriage has not been physically consumated yet, and a divorce would be required to end the relationship. (Remember, when Mary was pregnant and Joseph knew the baby could not be his, he had in mind to divorce her quietly, until he learned that the baby was God's doing.)


janet - 22-12-2007 at 16:39

Nodding - I know, but I'm still not sure we'd talk about someone today as a "single mother" if there were another person in the household who had parental responsiblity?


scholar - 22-12-2007 at 17:01

Quote:
Originally posted by marymary100
Well scholar as I'm sure you know some branches of Christianity believe that there is no soul until just before the moment of birth.
Then they have the problem of reconciling their position with the events recounted in Luke 1, when John the Baptist, not yet born, reacts to Mary.

Luke 1:41And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, 42and she exclaimed with a loud cry, "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! 43And why is this granted to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44For behold, when the sound of your greeting came to my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. 45And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her from the Lord."[English Standard Version]

It would be strange indeed to think of John, without a soul, reacting to Mary.

I like to avoid referring to an unborn baby as "it" because the baby, male or female, is not an impersonal thing or object. I think those who promote abortion have a small victory in language when the baby is referred to with the pronoun we would use for a wart or cyst.:)


marymary100 - 22-12-2007 at 17:07

I can't imagine that the girl who is "underage" will have less support than Mary received. Support comes in all guises these days.

Many always-single parents have full time support from their own parents whereas once-marrieds are divorced from their children's real father but are still bringing up their children alone to all intents and purposes.
The issue for me is that being "single" does not have to mean being unsupported. Many a man does take on another person's child as his responsibility.

If JL's bf takes on his own child as his responsibility, so much the better, but if she has been earning her own money as a tv star the fact is she can probably afford her own child more than most could.


Let's not assume that the tabloid press's judgement of JL is correct and be so quick to judge. Judge not ......etc etc. Let he who is without................


Badgergirl - 22-12-2007 at 17:24

Er,...She's 16.

If we don't want kids getting pregnant at that age, we should ether teach them more about responsibilities...or ...perhaps....

Raise the age of consent?

She had sex at an age where many states allow it at that age. I Don't see the problem.


janet - 22-12-2007 at 17:26

I don't, either, BG - she's having a baby.

She's choosing to keep the child.

What in heaven's name is the furore all about?

And I agree with MM - I've got waaay too many logs over here to be looking at the motes other people possess.


scholar - 22-12-2007 at 17:27

Quote:
Originally posted by marymary100
Judge not ......etc etc. Let he who is without................
I'm not suggesting Jamie Lynn be stoned!:D

Do remember, the "Judge not" passage was spoken in warning against those who would judge others by a harsher standard than they would use for themselves. Jesus warns that they would be subject to the same standard. For example, when I observe that someone else is not following God's ideal, I must remember that I did not find a way to get my marriage to conform to God's ideal either, and lost my wife to another man.:(

Jesus said, "Judge with righteous judgement."

I often hear the command not to judge (but without the context), and rarely hear Jesus' command to judge quoted.

I think it is unfortunate, for the baby's sake, that Jamie Lynn did not wait until she, herself, was married, and that it would have been wise for her to wait until she had more experience in life. In our present society, the personal changes people experience from their teen years into their twenties pull more at a marriage, than if one waits a while longer.


scholar - 22-12-2007 at 17:31

Quote:
Originally posted by Badgergirl
If we don't want kids getting pregnant at that age, we should ether teach them more about responsibilities...or ...perhaps....

Raise the age of consent?
The age of consent in California is 18. The sex was unlawful.


janet - 22-12-2007 at 17:31

Do you remember also the "let he who is without sin" quote?

The point is, this young person is having a baby, and because of who she is, there is a media fiasco going on, and it got posted here.

If the child is loved, wanted and well taken care of, more power to them.

Wouldn't our time be better spent helping those who need it rather than wagging fingers at those in the news?


Badgergirl - 22-12-2007 at 17:44

I've never really seen the need to wait for marriage before sex.

If anything, it's a rather daft thing to do in an age of decent contraception. Marriage does not automatically make you financially capable as well as emotionally capable of bringing up a child together!

Hey, Being together for ages does not make you able to pay for a decent wedding!

I'll wait until I'm married and well settled before I think of Children, but I took the liberty of finding out how compatable my beloved and I are first!

It's unhealthy to be together for so many years and not follow your mind and body under the sheets. The words "To make love" are waaay underused if you ask me!

A Piece of paper and some vows do not make you any MORE in love than before the wedding! (Though the vows would certainly encourage me to work hard at it!)

Part of my final year at Bangor was taken up learning about Medieval Marriage, and all the Hoo Har about Consent, Betrothal, Consumation, Witnesses, locations and Annullements!

About the only bit of Common Sense that came out of it was that Both parties marry with their own consent, in front of decent witnesses. Nowadays in Britain you can marry almost anyway you wish, religious or not.

*Sigh* I think where I was going with this was to say, No sex before marriage is about as useful as saying "Go to the post office before the bank" It just depends what you have to do!


scholar - 22-12-2007 at 18:55

Badgergirl, I don't have time just now for a thorough discussion today of reasons why sex only in a durable, committed marriage would be best.

For Christians, the main thing is a trust that the Lord who made all creation knows best. It's like when the people who designed a car put out an owner's manual that tells what kind of oil to use, what fuel, what antifreeze, what transmission fluid. If you use cooking oil to lubricate the engine, water in the radiator, and burn pure alcohol in the engine, it may appear to run fine--but the one who designed it might know better that the oil will break down, or the water-cooled engine block will rust, or the alcohol will not ignite well in cold weather.


marymary100 - 22-12-2007 at 19:31

Moved from Discussion.


Badgergirl - 22-12-2007 at 20:27

Yet again, the thread drifts to Christianity!

It's not the be-all and end all of how people make ethical decisions, as all of us here know.

*sigh* I make a comment on discussion and it gets posted in RSE becuause of the response to it!

Scholar does have a point, and he used his beliefs to answer my post,
but perhaps it would have been interesting to see if the thread carried on in that way before moving it? I think it could have had a bit further to go in plain old "Discussion"


scholar - 22-12-2007 at 20:33

Badgergirl, I think the topic was in "danger" of being moved from the time Mary and her status as Joseph's wife was brought into the discussion.


marymary100 - 22-12-2007 at 21:53

Indeed. It doesn't make the discussion any less interesting just because it has been moved.


Redwolf5150 - 23-12-2007 at 04:07

Quote:
Originally posted by Badgergirl
Yet again, the thread drifts to Christianity!

It's not the be-all and end all of how people make ethical decisions, as all of us here know.

*sigh* I make a comment on discussion and it gets posted in RSE becuause of the response to it!

Scholar does have a point, and he used his beliefs to answer my post,
but perhaps it would have been interesting to see if the thread carried on in that way before moving it? I think it could have had a bit further to go in plain old "Discussion"


Yup, once again Scholar stands on his Bully Pulpit and preaches how all of us living with their partners are living in sin.

It isn't anybody who doesn't wear a black robe's job to judge me. That is the one thing I hate about Christianity, the quickness to judge.

Especially when the something being judged is not illegal or immoral by "society's" standards.

Not everyone is a Christian. Stop trying to make us live by its tenents!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

angrymad2


scholar - 23-12-2007 at 05:20

Quote:
Originally posted by Redwolf5150
Scholar

Not everyone is a Christian. Stop trying to make us live by its tenents!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

angrymad2
In what way does anything in this thread indicate that I am trying to "make" anyone live according to the Christian faith?


marymary100 - 23-12-2007 at 09:50

Your comment that "sex only in a durable, committed marriage would be best" certainly implies that you feel to live otherwise is wrong or worse. The thread has been moved from Discussion to RSE where religion can be brought into it if you wish. You can now expand the point you didn't have time for, or not.


janet - 23-12-2007 at 10:53

Quote:
Originally posted by Redwolf5150
Quote:
Originally posted by Badgergirl
Yet again, the thread drifts to Christianity!

It's not the be-all and end all of how people make ethical decisions, as all of us here know.

*sigh* I make a comment on discussion and it gets posted in RSE becuause of the response to it!

Scholar does have a point, and he used his beliefs to answer my post,
but perhaps it would have been interesting to see if the thread carried on in that way before moving it? I think it could have had a bit further to go in plain old "Discussion"


Yup, once again Scholar stands on his Bully Pulpit and preaches how all of us living with their partners are living in sin.

It isn't anybody who doesn't wear a black robe's job to judge me. That is the one thing I hate about Christianity, the quickness to judge.



Isn't that a bit of a sweeping statement, though?

There are a lot of Christians on this board, and your issue is with *one* of them - not all of us?

I agree, believe me, I agree, that some Christians can be like this.

But for what it's worth, I've experienced it from members of every religion/faith I've known with the exception of Romuva (and that's because I've only ever known one practitioners of Romuva!). Druids, Asatru, Heathens, Christians.... we're all human.


scholar - 23-12-2007 at 11:27

Quote:
Originally posted by marymary100
Your comment that "sex only in a durable, committed marriage would be best" certainly implies that you feel to live otherwise is wrong or worse.
Not at all! If I tell a friend in need of a car that his best choice is a Ford, it doesn't mean that it is wrong to buy a General Motors car. It means only that, among all choices, I'm recommending the Ford. Redwolf is the one who introduced the idea of sin, not I. And I never tried to make anyone do anything, as Redwolf said I did.

I find my own experience of the Christian faith to be deeply satisfying and rewarding, and I commend it to everyone. But I don't make anyone follow it on any point except where appropriate in my personal life (e.g. I enforce "Do not steal" by removing the keys from my car;))

I would expect any person of good will to share ideas with which they are happy or which they find useful in their lives. Redwolf has done the same with some things he has posted. In that respect, we have common ground. greengrin

waveysmiley


Badgergirl - 23-12-2007 at 17:26

Quote:
Originally posted by scholar
Quote:
Originally posted by marymary100
Your comment that "sex only in a durable, committed marriage would be best" certainly implies that you feel to live otherwise is wrong or worse.
Not at all! If I tell a friend in need of a car that his best choice is a Ford, it doesn't mean that it is wrong to buy a General Motors car. It means only that, among all choices, I'm recommending the Ford. Redwolf is the one who introduced the idea of sin, not I. And I never tried to make anyone do anything, as Redwolf said I did.

I find my own experience of the Christian faith to be deeply satisfying and rewarding, and I commend it to everyone. But I don't make anyone follow it on any point except where appropriate in my personal life (e.g. I enforce "Do not steal" by removing the keys from my car;))

I would expect any person of good will to share ideas with which they are happy or which they find useful in their lives. Redwolf has done the same with some things he has posted. In that respect, we have common ground. greengrin

waveysmiley


Thanks for that Scholar, this post makes your stance a bit clearer. I personally didn't feel you were telling me "what was best for me"

I'm going to apply a bit of Janet Logic to this situation, I think it applies to both Young Miss Spear's family situation and also to the sex and marriage question.

"Raise your children by the book, but it's a different book for each child"

There are heaps of situations where a clear cut "No sex before marriage" would sound daft.

F'r example, a Catholic Couple may have been granted a divorce by law, but in the eyes of the church, the marriage is still a marriage.
If one or both then find "the love of their life", and re-marry in a Civil Ceremony,(Or whatever, they could have changed denomination or religion!) well, can you see where I'm going?

I'll eventually start a thread asking "what makes a marriage?" ie At what point are you married?

It'll give me a chance to use some of my University smarts. Medieval Scholars didn't come to a conclusion, and now there the added question of a Gay Marriage and Civil Partnerships.


scholar - 23-12-2007 at 21:57

Casey's uncle is a Baptist pastor (link)

I notice in the article that the two have been seeing each other since she was 14 and he was 16.


marymary100 - 23-12-2007 at 22:18

Does the length of the relationship matter?


janet - 23-12-2007 at 22:52

And is it anyone else's business?

Just for a couple of days, could we leave off all the finger wagging over stuff we don't approve of, that other people - whom none of us know, or are ever likely to meet - are doing?


scholar - 23-12-2007 at 23:04

There isn't any finger wagging in my post about Casey's uncle.confused2


janet - 23-12-2007 at 23:13

How can there not be, when you've made the point about underage sex, and then go on to point out how long they've been seeing each other?

If the point of this thread was, "Rejoice, because a child will be born!", it's been a very strange way to go about it.


scholar - 23-12-2007 at 23:38

Quote:
Originally posted by janet
How can there not be, when you've made the point about underage sex, and then go on to point out how long they've been seeing each other?
Easily. There just isn't any.:)

I linked to an article about Casey's uncle, who is a Baptist pastor. From my viewpoint, it's good that there is some family contact or influence from a committed Christian. And people who have known each other well and gotten along for a couple of years have a greater likelihood of a long-term relationship than people who only encounter one another briefly in a sex-oriented relationship. A mother and father on good terms are better for the baby.


LSemmens - 24-12-2007 at 12:00

Casey's uncle is irrelevant in this context. We all make mistakes and must live with them. As Janet has said, is it really any of our business?


marymary100 - 24-12-2007 at 12:07

Romans 1:28 “Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.
1:29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, and malice. They are gossips,
1:30 Slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant, and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents;
1:31 they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
1:32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these things but also approve of those who practice them.”
waggyfinger


Redwolf5150 - 26-12-2007 at 01:17

Quote:
Originally posted by janet
How can there not be, when you've made the point about underage sex, and then go on to point out how long they've been seeing each other?

If the point of this thread was, "Rejoice, because a child will be born!", it's been a very strange way to go about it.


roffle