Daughter is pregnant - at 15!

Welshdebtor

bagginslover wrote: »

So no one over the age of 13 can be considered to have been raped?! I think you'll find anyone being forced into having intercourse against their will, regardless of their, or the rapists ages, is being raped. the rapist doesn't have to be older than them, you hear horrible things about poor old ladies being raped by burgalers (sp?) who are hardly going to be their senior in years are they?!!

Also, most teenagers take drugs,abuse alcohol and are promiscuous?! I'm not that far out of my teenage years, and my friends and I certainly never took drugs of any kind, we'd drink yes, but not til falling down drunk, and if we were sleeping with anyone,it was in steady relationships, not one night stands!

OP, I wish you and your daughter luck with whatever decision your daughter comes to. Any decision will be life changing, but I have no doubt you will be there to support her what ever she chooses.
(((hugs)))

Think welshbluebird meant it in the case of that the girl consented, in response to some posts on here suggesting that due to the fact the girl is under 16 it automatically means she was raped, which is false.

Also can people stop suggesting she may of been assaulted, when we do not know the facts. It may shock some people to find out but under 16's do have sex with under 16's

pigpen

WelshBluebird wrote: »

But if may not be a older man. It may be someone her age. In which case it certainly is not rape (you have to be under 13 for that).

I know someone of 18 who had sex with someone days before her 16th birthday and he had the book thrown at him and was put on the sex offenders register.. so that isn't wholly accurate. It is reworded to indecent or lewd or just sexual acts with a minor usually.

It is also possible the girl lied about her age and said she was 17, 19, 25 or whatever.. I am sure very few people Id sexual partners before consenting. I know 2 people who were pregnant at 13 and 14 and both had lied to the male counterpart.. one only found out she was 14 when she got pregnant and her dad came round threatening death.. but he wasn't to know how old she was. He worked days while she was at school 8-5 so she was home and changed by the time he got back. They are actually still together 21 years later I will add with another child too.

I had sex way before I was 16 too.

The pill back in ye olden days was different which was why it caused so many side effects.. yes it worked but it cost hundreds of women their health so the doses were lowered. Condoms were like bike inner tubes so weren't popular, the pill caused untold problems, the coil coupled with the undiagnosed cases of STI's which are more often than not asymptomatic caused infertility which was also undiagnosed because they didn't have the knowhow. Also they locked young girls up in convents and asylums if they had sex or an illegitimate child so I guess that kind of put people off too. antibiotics did not come into common use until the mid-50's before that they had much more interesting ways of dealing with unwanted pregnancy and STI's.. :eek:

By the same stroke if the mother of a family died the oldest daughter took her place.. quite literally very often.. and bore her fathers children before her own marriage. Illegal back street abortions also made sure many women were infertile or dead.

I don't think the days when ONW was young were pleasant at all and rose tinted goggles are being worn.

OP.. I hope the trip to docs was productive and helpful for DD and you.

poet123

Person_one wrote: »

For someone who mentions so often that they worked with teenagers and young people you have such an awfully low opinion of them. I know many teenagers, through work, through friends and family and have several friends who teach them, its not that long since I was one! Most of them are the decent citizens of the future who are just developing their impulse control a bit.

I wonder why on earth you chose your career and I sincerely hope you managed to hide your contempt and distaste for teenagers from the ones you were supposed to be helping and supporting.

I don't see it as contempt or distaste, more realism.

If you work with teenagers (as I do) nothing much shocks you, you hear it all. I hear of the drinking, drugs, cyber sex, phone sex, sexual experimentation, etc, etc, you name it, I have probably heard it. It is how it is.

Conversely, I have also heard tales of abuse which would make your hair stand on end:(

Obviously, you cannot generalise and say all teens behave this way, but a good proportion do, and from a young age, and getting younger. Fortunately, most do seem to outgrow these tendencies, but to deny they happen is naive.

WelshBluebird

pigpen wrote: »

I know someone of 18 who had sex with someone days before her 16th birthday and he had the book thrown at him and was put on the sex offenders register.. so that isn't wholly accurate. It is reworded to indecent or lewd or just sexual acts with a minor usually.

I do believe the police and courts make a distinction between two under 16's, and between a case like that where one of them is a few years older. I am not sure if it is actually in law, but certainly you do find the police treat the cases differently. When I said "her age" I probably should have said "someone else under 16".

marywooyeah

vax2002 wrote: »

To be 100% honest I do hope both you and the baby work out fine, however I am deeply concerned that your child will not reveal who this "nasty" man is who has made her pregnant.
I would be making sure that fact was established at the earliest opportunity for three reasons.
Firstly it may be a much older man who has well we are not using the "r" word, so lets say lead her astray so he can break the law and Secondly that it may still be going on and you could have stopped it from happening again and to others and lastly, what will this person do to cover up what has happened, your daughter could be in severe danger without knowing it.
Liberal parenting is all well and good but sometimes when the muck hits the fan you have to re-establish your authority as an adult in charge, before the state steps in and does it for you.

why are you so focused on the "r" word, having a go at OP's parenting and keep talking abou the state and social services? I really dont understand what you think you will achieve by continually doing so!enting she sounds really supportive of her daughter,

harrys_nan

shellsuit wrote: »

I did a couple of weeks ago. I danced the night away, drank far too much, and came home when the sun was coming up!

Me & my husband had a fab time!! :dance::dance:

Well done you, life is for living,:T we are a long time dead

carolan78

Person_one wrote: »

I think adoption would be a bit harder on the child these days than it used to be. A child given up today would know that its birth mother most likely had a choice but still decided they didn't want them. Not so long ago it was more likely the case that the mother didn't have a great many options and adoption wasn't really a choice, which I think is easier to come to terms with.

Its an option, but I don't think its an easy option at all, I know I wouldn't want to put myself through the emotional journey and the physical risks of a pregnancy if I didn't plan to become a parent at the end of it.

My husband can not remember a time he didn't know he was adopted, his parents told him at a very young age. He had no idea why he had been adopted and all he could assume is his birth mother did not want him. After all this was 1978 not the dark ages. He has never felt neglected or scarred because of this. He had two parents that loved him and that is all he needed.

When we got in touch with his birth mum she openly admitted it wasn't a case of not wanting him but she was terrified of what her mother would say and arranged everything before her mum even found out. She was 24 when she gave birth to him so not a young mum by anyones standards. As she said even if her and her mum had admitted to each other they wanted to keep him, she was still far too selfish to be a real mum to him.

Even in this day and age there's hundreds of reasons why people do the things they do and as my Husband told his birth mum, he thanks her for not having an abortion and giving him a shot at life. Neither of us are anti abortion it is right for some people some of the time but adoption can also be right for some people some of the time. It all depends on that persons emotions and thoughts.

Which is why if it was my daughter that came to me in the same situation I would arm her with as much information I possibly could on EVERY option available to her so she can make a decision that she feels is right for her at that time (I'm not a fool and there is nothing to say a 15 year old with such a huge decision to make won't at some point regret that decision but it still has to be their decision at the end of the day).

Welshdebtor

WelshBluebird wrote: »

I do believe the police and courts make a distinction between two under 16's, and between a case like that where one of them is a few years older. I am not sure if it is actually in law, but certainly you do find the police treat the cases differently. When I said "her age" I probably should have said "someone else under 16".

This is the last I am going to say on the topic of Sexual Offences, because as as far as we know (and that includes the OP at present) the father could be any age (under or over 16). But I feel it needs clearing up.

Enough has been said here about the "r" word and how her age and if she consented plays a part,so do not feel i have to repeat/add more to that.

If the father is under 24, he has a better chance of just getting a "slapped wrist" at the most compared to an over 24. This is unless he is in a position of trust (in which case the age of consent for the girl rises to 18), is a repeat offender, knowingly knew she was under 16 or is deemed to have forced the girl into consenting via the means of "grooming".

That is the law on the whole (it is an extremely grey area). There can be times when convictions are made even if the circumstances fall outside the above paragraph, or if the CPS deem it in the public interest to take the case further. So even under 24's can be convicted at times.The CPS will also take into account how it could reflect on the underage girl if she appears in court, and has her reputation shredded to pieces.

Edit - As an example of how complicated the law is as such. I am a photographer and take a topless photo of a 17 year old, this is illegal even though she is over 16. So i can have sex with her legally but not take sexual photos. But if that 17 year old is in a relationship with me, I can take topless or naked photos of her.

Like I said I will not comment on this again, as I do not feel it is of any assistance to the OP or as far as we know even plays a part in this story. If anyone doubts what I have posted or needs clarification then use Google to read up the facts yourself

Oldernotwiser

pigpen wrote: »

I don't think the days when ONW was young were pleasant at all and rose tinted goggles are being worn.

.

I was a teenager in the 60s and a student in the 70s - believe me it was very pleasant!

You're getting your decades in a right muddle!

jackieb

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

I was a teenager in the 60s and a student in the 70s - believe me it was very pleasant!

Cathy Come Home. Glad it's not like that anymore.