<p>“it is still ultimately the responsibility of the woman to not get pregnant.”</p>
<p>Right, because men are…? And birth control never fails, even in committed relationships with two adults? So then, is abortion better because then we won’t have teen moms? Should that be a law?</p>
<p>Look, the only way to assure no pregnancy is complete and total lack of sex. In other words, abstinence. Which, I realize, is the goal of many-and is the only “sex ed” offered in some school districts. Except that it doesn’t work that way. Even in school districts that offer ONLY abstinence, there is teen pregnancy. Even in families that teach “wait until marriage” there have been teen pregnancies. Since we do not generally keep our teens under lock and key or fitted with chastity devices, putting the onus on “the woman” ignores the reality that even a PREPARED woman of any age may still get pregnant. And I fail to see how pretending that hasn’t happened by shunning, shipping out or throwing away teen moms will fix that. We tried that back when our parents were young. It didn’t work either. Teen pregnancy has gone DOWN in the years since.</p>
<p>There is no evidence at all that this is happening to the young woman in question. What is at issue is whether having her baby in the photo is appropriate for a high school yearbook photo.</p>
<p>I don’t have a problem with high schools setting parameters around what is or is not appropriate for a yearbook bearing its name. </p>
<p>Would you defend a senior’s decision to pose smoking a joint? (legal in CA with a medical marijuana card), or how about surrounded by six packs of beer and a martini in his hand? (legal in some states with parental supervision), or how about holding a handgun surrounded by paper targets bearing human silhouettes? (nothing illegal about that if he obtained the gun legally). Why should any of these ideas be treated differently?</p>
<p>There have been plenty of posts on this thread about how this pregnant teens should be thrown out of school, some advocate throwing them out of the home, and that “successful” teen moms should be hidden in fear of other girls thinking it’s ok. All of that says shunning to me.</p>
<p>Every year I read about some hunting teen wanting to pose with their rifle, though AFAIK that hasn’t been allowed yet, even areas where hunting is more common. But I don’t equate legal mind-altering substances with a pregnant teen having a baby. Also, it’s not legal in WA to smoke pot on anywhere but in the home-not in school, certainly, nor is drinking on school grounds allowed anywhere. There mere act of HAVING a baby isn’t illegal for teens, so I don’t see the parallel. </p>
<p>I guess I’m glad I come from a place where teens weren’t made to feel like they’d committed a crime for having a child. One of the top students in my HS class gave birth about a week after we graduated. She was allowed on the stage with the rest of the top honors kids. She was allowed to attend school, as were the other two (that I know of). The deed is done, they have their children. What good does it do to either shun them or pretend the pregnancy/child doesn’t exist? There is no evidence that seeing a pregnant girl or a baby makes another go out, have unprotected sex and get pregnant. None.</p>
<p>As far as I can tell, this teen was allowed to attend school. That is not in issue. Her baby would not be allowed to attend with her, however, so why should the baby be allowed in the picture if other props that are not allowed on campus are not allowed in the photo?</p>
<p>I agree that the officials should probably allow the photo this year and draw up guidelines for future events. That being said, I do think there’s a hint of victimization brandished by folks on this thread who are sympathetic to this young woman. I am not convinced it’s correct to put her in such a light, since she’s clearly a significantly self-motivated individual. Unlike people whom languish in a victim mentality, I don’t think this girl’s desire to be photographed with her baby was determined by a desire for approval, or validation or “to be loved” by the crowd. I wouldn’t hang that kind of attitude on her.</p>
<p>Many communities have resources available to moms who need support, whether financial or counseling, … Birthright is one of the organizations, but there are many others often supported by local churches. IMO there should be as much support as is needed for women, of any age, who choose to give birth to their babies. The reason there are fewer teen moms isn’t because there’s fewer pregnant teens. This young woman made some very difficult and responsible decisions.</p>
<p>Actually, SoMuch2Learn, the lower rate of teenage pregnancy is more attributable to the increase in condom and birth control usage. It’s not just because they can get an abortion. Teenage pregnancy is the lowest it’s been since Roe v Wade. So is teenage abortion.</p>
<p>“Her baby would not be allowed to attend with her, however, so why should the baby be allowed in the picture if other props”</p>
<p>First of all, the idea of a baby as a “prop” is just silly-no matter who came up with it. She’s a living, breathing person. Secondly, some schools DO actually have in-house day care centers or preschools, so that the child DOES attend school with the mom. I used to ride the bus with two such moms. </p>
<p>I am so defensive about this because even though I was 40+, had a stable job and stable H, and grew up working in a pharmacy, I STILL got pregnant despite using birth control. I wasn’t shamed because I was “mature”. I am not one who believes that sex before marriage is bad and wrong, but I’m not stupid enough to think that my situation was the same as that of a 16 year old. However, the idea (for the 10th time or so) the public shaming or pretending kids don’t have babies is going to end teen pregnancy is just foolish. </p>
<p>I haven’t looked at my HS yearbook in years. But if I did, and came upon the picture of my classmate who had her baby right after graduation, it’s not like I won’t remember she was pregnant when the photo was taken. Every kind in the school of the girl in the story ALREADY KNOWS about the baby, the mom’s success in graduating, so what the heck is the big deal?? Stunning that it offends people in this day and age.</p>
<p>i jsut think the items, people, puppies, int he senior portrait is silly. but if you are going to have “props” then people should be able to pick want or who they want. Who is to judge what is important. I might want to put in my pillow as sleep is important, someone else mght like hunting, and include a gun, or someone might pick the bible or beer. </p>
<p>my daughter did year book, and pictures had to be in way ahead of time for layuot etc, so how this “slipped through” seems odd, either yearbooks staff let it through at the last minute, or yearbook supervisors had an agenda to do this picture rejection very publically</p>
Oh gosh, that was my bad Sorry if I was unintentionally sexist. Of course, it’s the responsibillity of both the man and the woman.</p>
<p>
Regardless, abstinence is the only way that fully ensures no pregnancy, and if pregnancy results, it is the responsibility of the couple whether they used contraception or not. They chose to take a risk, and they knew what they were doing. I feel like having sex is being treated as a human right. No one is entitled to 100% risk-free sex. How many teens actually choose to go through with abstinence is irrelevant. It is still their responsibility.</p>
<p>
I don’t think that anyone is advocating for treating teen moms in that way. But I do think that portraying teen parenthood in a school photo is inappropriate. If she was being attacked or was being prohibited from doing things such as attending school, there would be a problem. You can’t limit people’s choices. But I don’t see how not bringing a baby to a school photo is limiting her choices or harming her in any horrible way. Obviously, we can’t just lock them in a closet, but the situation in question is completely inappropriate.</p>
<p>
Like I stated before, just because bad things happen, doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t try to minimize your exposure to bad things. No, taking away the photo won’t decrease teen pregnancy. Regardless, the photo was inappropriate.
And like I also stated before, no one is advocating public shaming.</p>
<p>Well, yeah, they are. Telling a girl she can’t have her own child in a photo of “what’s important” is a kind of shaming. Those who would kick a pregnant teen out of their home, or think they should go to schools for criminal youth are shaming. Both have been mentioned on this thread. </p>
<p>And yeah, I DO think sex is a human right. It’s part of our DNA. It’s how we continue the species. It’s only in modern times that it’s become shameful unless in certain circumstances among certain people.</p>
<p>Desiring something does not make it a human right, nor does it make it something people should be entitled to. Whether it is a biological want or not is besides the point.
Human rights should ensure that people can survive in relative comfort without being harmed by others. Things like having enough to eat and not being harassed or bullied is a right. I don’t think that such things can be compared to sex. </p>
<p>Poverty and bullying have very significant levels of harm on an individual. A lack of sex doesn’t have detrimental consequences on someone’s life.</p>
<p>^ I am going to disagree with that last sentence, at least partially. It most certainly can cause a great deal of unhappiness and have detrimental consequences, including divorce, a vulnerability to abuse, the substitution of harmful behaviors, etc. But even if the point is that an unmarried high school student doesn’t need to have sex (not up to me to decide, thank goodness), this one obviously had it, a baby resulted, and she’s managed to keep custody of the baby and fulfill the graduation requirements.</p>
<p>I think the school does have the right to set standards for which pictures are acceptable, according to objective requirements, not for subjective or punitive reasons. If it’s “no other people,” then fine - no babies, no kid sisters, no grandmas, no BFFs. I don’t think it’s a public school’s place to lead the morality charge against teen or unwed motherhood, whichever it is that the school finds troubling (I suspect the latter). A smart school district will anticipate these kinds of kerfluffles and take steps to prevent them by issuing very specific rules for acceptable yearbook pictures. And I’ll bet there’s a committee looking into that for next year in this mom’s district.</p>
<p>And it hurt to see the baby referred to as a “prop” in post 84. I’m sure the mother doesn’t think of her that way.</p>
<p>so does the school have the right to pull pther pictures for “somethings” they don’t feel are appropriate? have they ever? would a certain book be deemed bad, or a weapon or a fancy car?</p>
<p>its just a stupid idea on the outset </p>
<p>my kid might have showed her hair straightener as it got her thru some rough bad hair days</p>
<p>I think the idea of an object is idiotic. Even forgetting about guns and Mein Kampf, there could be car keys and yes, hair straighteners. HS should NOT fall to the level of MTV, it should uphold standards we support.</p>
<p>The problem with the mugshot, was that only the kids who actually did school related activities (sports, newspaper, theatre, Model UN, whatever) got that in the bio under their names. In the spirit of we must reward EVERYONE, no matter what they did, the schools are allowing more. But not at my DD’s HS (AKA, in the land that time forgot), thank god.</p>
<p>We have mugshots…4 across and about 5 deep on a yearbook bag. Alph order, no special call outs for the senior scholars in this section. Name only…no cute sayings or “bio stuff”. Works for me, just like it was forty years ago. They require a head or head and shoulders shot – your choice of photographer. No tchotchkes in the photo or sports memorabilia, etc. Family can do a “tribute” ad if they want but it has to contain a baby picture…of the graduate not the graduate’s offspring. This high school in the original post will definitely be revising their description.</p>
Sorry if I was unintentionally sexist. Of course, it’s the responsibillity of both the man and the woman.</p>