pregnant 17 year old

My children are all under 6 right now, and I hope they do not become pg
as teens, but I do know I would help them if they did because I would
want my grandchildren to get a better start than would be possible if I
kicked them out.

If I had a man who didn't see eye to eye with me on this issue, it
could be a deal breaker.

My suggestion to you and your wife is to get time away from your kids
to talk. I am not a huge believer in counselling. I prefer to just
discuss things with my dh. We get along well, but if you guys cannot
talk without fighting, then maybe a counsellor could help. You do need
to resolve this very important issue.

KC


Chris wrote:
My stepdaughter decided to get pregnant again. The first pregnancy did not
come to term. She will be 18 next month. Her mother prefers to have her
continue to live in our home even though I informed both of them the first
time around that I refused to allow a second family to live here. Mother
claims that she will not be able to make it financially if she moves out.
The father claims that he will help out and that they will live together. He
was dead against the first pregnancy, but now agrees to help with this one.
(change of heart?)

Although she carries a part time job, her daughter is basically lazy and has
no concern for personal/financial responsibility. The reason why I will not
allow a second family to live here is because my marriage (first family) is
already hanging on a thread. Another family will only add to our troubles,
not to mention that we cannot afford to support another family.

Any suggestions?

On Fri, 7 Oct 2005 21:34:02 -0700, "Chris" wrote:

You must be posting from Zimbabwe. Afterall, there is an abundance of "tiny,
helpless" babies there for you to be taking care of.

This is a strawman. The discussion was about spouse and child.

My family consists of me and my wife. Her daughter has now left the family
to yoke with another man. The only connection that I have with her is the
fact that she is residing in my home off of my dime.

Uhm, she's "legally" your stepdaughter. It's a sad statement about
you that you have no connection with her.

When push comes to shove, it is "legality" that will prevail.

Mores the pity for your wife.

Sorry, too many women's shelters or other escapes for ANY woman to be
homeless. Not to mention, I have never seen a single homeless woman in my
neck of the woods; and it's a big city. Whether or not her daughter chooses
to be homeless with a baby has what to do with me?

A shelter is not a home.

It wasn't me who initiated the "legality" thing into this discussion. But
let me guess, you believe that legality has no effect in this situation?

No, I'm quite sure you'll go to great lengths to make sure it has an
effect. Whether your marriage survives that is anyone's guess.

We don't have children so that we can boot them out the door at
the magic age of 18. Did you marry your wife thinking you'd be rid of
the daughter when she reached 18?

YES. That's what my wife told me that she and her daughter desired BEFORE we
got married. In fact, her daughter expressed her wishes years ago and has
already left for days at a time.

Uhm, people, situations, things change. I am with my dh, thinking
he's always going to be able to work and support us. I'm not foolish
enough to think that may change tomorrow.

I can appreciate the unable aspect of not borrowing money. I wouldn't
be able to do that either. But good grief, emotional support can go a
long way.

Perhaps, but there is no emotional connection between her child and me. Just
yesterday, she again told me to take a hike.

The emotional connection should be there through your wife. She is
your wife's child, and you are disrespecting that relationship.

I see. So you too have no problem with some man molesting your child and
getting her knocked up not once but TWICE!

No, our marriage would be in peril because of your attitude against my
daughter receiving my help. She would come BEFORE you.

Argh! Here again, emotional support is necessary.

Maybe so, but not my obligation.

To your wife.

Wow, you're some piece of work.

Thank you.

It wasn't a compliment.

Nan

wrote:
agent99 wrote:
wrote:
Chris wrote:
"Nikki" wrote in message
...
Chris wrote:

Not me. My comittment is to my wife FIRST and foremost!

As it should be.

That depends.

Ideally, the parents of the child put everyone in the family's
wellbeing at a premium, and recognise that for parents to care well for
kids, they themselves must be well taken care of.

I agree with the above.

And her commitment to you should be above the
children. The order that should follow is:

1. God or some moral belief. For example, if your spouse told you to
kill another human, you should not do so.

2. Your spouse. You put the needs of your spouse before the needs of
your children. Your children will grow and start their own lives, but
in the end, it's just the two of you.

So, lemme get this straight: if you're short on food, the spouse gets
food, but the kids don't?
What if there's a fire, or a capsized boat,
and only one person can be saved? Kid or parent? I hope my spouse
chooses kid - I certainly would.

It all depends on the age of the children and the parents. You will
have to question the ability of the parents on producing any further
children and/or the ability for the entire family to survive with the
loss of the spouse.

Absolutely.


Oh, and the scenario where it's just the two of you, and your children
have fled the nest and have their own lives? That's the middle, not the
end. In the end, most likely one of you has outlived the other, and has
medical and physical needs which your children are more likely to take
care of than the state is, so you'd better be sure you fostered a good
relationship with them and helped them to be successful as best you
could when you had the chance, because they are going to either be
caring for you, or choosing the facility that does it in their stead.

Hopefully you raised children of high moral value and have taken the
necessary steps during your life to compensate for this.

Right. In my opinion, this means considering the family as a whole, not
placing the needs of parents or children above the needs of the whole
family - basically, not contributing to spoiling or selfishness on
either side. In the case of this guy, I question his commitment to his
wife, because he comments that the marriage is hanging by a thread, and
because his commitment obviously doesn't extend to his stepdaughter,
her daughter. That said, though, it sounds as though the girl doesn't
respect him very much, and I think somewhere he says that she claimed
she wanted nothing to do with him. Obviously, "I don't like you and
want nothing to do with you, but oh, can I still live in your house and
have my mom take care of my and my baby," is a terrible attitude. But
then, I think "I'll marry you and be your spouse and honour and respect
you, but not consider your children my children, or their children my
grandchildren," a bad attitude, too.



3. Your children. Your children's birthdays and/or sporting events or
any other needs surpass those of family and friends.

Ohhhh. Birthday parties and sporting events are the "needs" of which we
speak. I see.

Those were just simplified examples...

Not, you know, the reproductive autonomy of a sexually mature young
woman who lives with her mother and stepfather, and the wellbeing of
her unborn child. My mistake.

She is no longer a child. She is an adult of legal age and has made
life decisions that she needs to take responsibility for.

That's what I just said. "Sexually mature young woman", "reproductive
autonomy", these are terms implying that the girl is not a child.



4. Family and Friends.

So does my wife make the "unilateral pronouncements" on family
decisions, or am I living in a democracy where the votes of my wife
and her child outnumber mine?

It seems that you are the one wanting to make the unilateral
pronouncement.
The person you are not considering is the baby.

That's correct. Depending on which court you choose, legally no baby exists;
and she will be a legal adult before such baby exists.

Also, his step-daughter is not taking the baby into consideration. Why
should he and his wife be burdened by the lack of responsibility of his
step-child?

For someone who believes in a moral code, you got no notion of
compassion, have you?

Apparently, you have no idea on what compassion means. Compassion is
empowering people to make correct decisions in their lives and holding
them responsible for these decisions without depending on other people
for support. You talk like a liberal who rather raise taxes for welfare
programs instead of forcing these people to educate and find jobs and
become independant. You rather see them dependant on the system and
continue their way of life than to stand on their own two feet. You are
the one that lacks compassion.

Well, being burdened by the poor choices our family members make is
part of family. Empowering people and holding them responsible is a
great idea, and absolutely necessary. My own parents made it clear that
after the age of 18, we would have to pay rent to live with them,
unless we were furthering our education. Often, however, shoving people
off the end of the dock and expecting them to learn to swim just
results in them drowning, if you take my meaning. Your assumptions
about me wanting people to be dependent on "the system" are misguided.
I assure you I am a very compassionate person, but I'm not a bleeding
heart and I don't take in strays.

This guy obviously has some pretty big issues at home, and I don't know
what he and his wife can do to solve those issues. In my culture,
however, my parents and my children are part of the same (extended)
family. They are not a second family. My grandmother lives with my
parents, and she is not considered a member of a second family who
lives under their roof. In his frustration, which is clearly justified,
I worry that Chris is trying to say that his wife's daughter isn't
really a part of his family. I would not want to be married to a man
who considered me his family, but not my children. Again, that's an
issue that he and his wife need to work out.



It's like you're channelling Dr. Laura.

I was never a fan of hers. Did she die?

You're not a fan of hers? By some of your posts, I'd have pegged you
for her acolyte. She may not have died, but I don't think a warm heart
beats inside her chest.


99

Cool name by the way, it was one of my favorite shows.

Hey, thanks, mine too.

99

Nan wrote:
On Fri, 7 Oct 2005 21:34:02 -0700, "Chris" wrote:

No, our marriage would be in peril because of your attitude against my
daughter receiving my help. She would come BEFORE you.

I feel sorry for your husband. He married the wrong woman.


Wow, you're some piece of work.

Thank you.

It wasn't a compliment.

You are as naive as you are stupid.

Nan

Regards...

Chris wrote:
"agent99" wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
Chris wrote:
"Nikki" wrote in message
...
Chris wrote:
For starters, thank you very much for your response! Now, I will
respond, with all due respect, to your post below.

"alath" wrote in message
ups.com...

If you ask your wife to choose between her daughter and her
"marriage
hanging by a thread" husband, her daughter will win, and rightly
so.

To understand you correctly, are you saying that a woman's
commitment
to her daughter ought to trump her commitment to her husband?

Can't speak for Alath but I would pick my children over my husband,
who is
their actual bio father. I'm not saying her decision to support her
daughter by giving her a place to live is right or wrong but that
many
parents would pick their children over anyone else. I suspect my
husband
would pick the kids over me if an issue arose where he felt he had
to
pick.
I hope he would.

Not me. My comittment is to my wife FIRST and foremost!

As it should be.

That depends.

Ideally, the parents of the child put everyone in the family's
wellbeing at a premium, and recognise that for parents to care well for
kids, they themselves must be well taken care of.

That's why my wife comes first.

Fair enough.



And her commitment to you should be above the
children. The order that should follow is:

1. God or some moral belief. For example, if your spouse told you to
kill another human, you should not do so.

2. Your spouse. You put the needs of your spouse before the needs of
your children. Your children will grow and start their own lives, but
in the end, it's just the two of you.

So, lemme get this straight: if you're short on food, the spouse gets
food, but the kids don't? What if there's a fire, or a capsized boat,
and only one person can be saved? Kid or parent?

SPOUSE. Last I checked, my marriage covenant was with my wife......... not
her child.

Well, I hope she's okay with that. If it was me, I wouldn't be, but
then if I were in a position where I might marry someone who was not
the biological father of my children, I would not do it if he wasn't
wholly committed to being their de facto father. I wouldn't want to be
married to a man who felt that his commitment only extended to me, and
who didn't consider my children his family. But that's my personal
feeling only, and if you and your wife have a different arrangement,
that's your business.





I hope my spouse
chooses kid - I certainly would. And if you think this argument is
spurious, consider that most families in the world do have to consider
the food issue, and most parents throughout history have gone without
in order that their children might have the best chance at survival.

You're the one with the psych 101 understanding of natural selection,
agsf, surely you recognise that adult animals strive to ensure the
survival of their young, so that they too might procreate?

What do animals have to do with this discussion?

I'm merely remarking on agsf's frequent references to human sexual
preferences from a "survival of the species" perspective. The same sort
of argument would support the notion that parents generally put their
offspring's wellbeing above their own.



Oh, and the scenario where it's just the two of you, and your children
have fled the nest and have their own lives? That's the middle, not the
end. In the end, most likely one of you has outlived the other, and has
medical and physical needs which your children are more likely to take
care of than the state is, so you'd better be sure you fostered a good
relationship with them and helped them to be successful as best you
could when you had the chance, because they are going to either be
caring for you, or choosing the facility that does it in their stead.


3. Your children. Your children's birthdays and/or sporting events or
any other needs surpass those of family and friends.

Ohhhh. Birthday parties and sporting events are the "needs" of which we
speak. I see.

Not, you know, the reproductive autonomy of a sexually mature young
woman who lives with her mother and stepfather, and the wellbeing of
her unborn child. My mistake.

Since when does a grandmother have any commitment to the wellbeing of her
unborn grandchild?

Wow. I can't believe you asked that. Ummm, since always? Regardless of
the circumstances of the pregnancy, most women concern themselves when
their daughters get pregnant. Otherwise, words like "grandmother" and
"grandchild" wouldn't exist. Grandmothers are often present at the
births of grandchildren, and all over the world are traditionally the
ones who help nurse their daughters and daughters-in-law, and
grandchildren, through the later stages of pregnancy and the newborn
phase. In some Asian cultures, the unborn child's grandmother will move
in with the parents to assist both before and after the baby is born.

That's some pretty serious commitment to the "wellbeing of her unborn
grandchild," and it's almost universal.

I understand your disapproval of your stepdaughter's choices - she has
been very irresponsible. What I don't get is your apparent belief that
your wife shouldn't feel any need, borne of love, to care for her child
and grandchild.


Also, his step-daughter is not taking the baby into consideration. Why
should he and his wife be burdened by the lack of responsibility of his
step-child?

For someone who believes in a moral code, you got no notion of
compassion, have you?

"Compassion" and "morality" are not codependent terms.

Indeed they are not. Cruel acts are frequently committed under the
guise of morality.

99

agent99 wrote:
wrote:

Oh, and the scenario where it's just the two of you, and your children
have fled the nest and have their own lives? That's the middle, not the
end. In the end, most likely one of you has outlived the other, and has
medical and physical needs which your children are more likely to take
care of than the state is, so you'd better be sure you fostered a good
relationship with them and helped them to be successful as best you
could when you had the chance, because they are going to either be
caring for you, or choosing the facility that does it in their stead.

Hopefully you raised children of high moral value and have taken the
necessary steps during your life to compensate for this.

Right. In my opinion, this means considering the family as a whole, not
placing the needs of parents or children above the needs of the whole
family - basically, not contributing to spoiling or selfishness on
either side.

I have to somewhat disagree with you. Although the family as a whole
should be taken into consideration, the order that I listed should be
followed.

In the case of this guy, I question his commitment to his
wife, because he comments that the marriage is hanging by a thread, and
because his commitment obviously doesn't extend to his stepdaughter,
her daughter.

I'm sure he supported her when she was younger.

... But
then, I think "I'll marry you and be your spouse and honour and respect
you, but not consider your children my children, or their children my
grandchildren," a bad attitude, too.

It all depends on the situation. In this situation I have to side with
Chris.

This guy obviously has some pretty big issues at home, and I don't know
what he and his wife can do to solve those issues. In my culture,
however, my parents and my children are part of the same (extended)
family. They are not a second family. My grandmother lives with my
parents, and she is not considered a member of a second family who
lives under their roof.

I also suspect that in your culture, young women don't sleep around and
get pregnant either. It's easy to confuse westernized points of views
with your own, but you will have to acknowledge the differences and
understand that these differences is what makes your culture thrive
while the westerners decline.

In his frustration, which is clearly justified,
I worry that Chris is trying to say that his wife's daughter isn't
really a part of his family. I would not want to be married to a man
who considered me his family, but not my children. Again, that's an
issue that he and his wife need to work out.


I'm sure he supported her and accepted her when she was a child.
However, at this point, she is an adult who shares different moral
views than his. He should not be expected to take on the responsibility
and burden that she has created.

You're not a fan of hers? By some of your posts, I'd have pegged you
for her acolyte.

I've been called a lot of insulting things online, but this remark tops
all of them.

99

Regards...

On 8 Oct 2005 12:57:55 -0700, "
wrote:


Nan wrote:
On Fri, 7 Oct 2005 21:34:02 -0700, "Chris" wrote:

No, our marriage would be in peril because of your attitude against my
daughter receiving my help. She would come BEFORE you.

I feel sorry for your husband. He married the wrong woman.

This same sentiment applies to your wife, sweetie.

Nan

Chris wrote:

Since when does a grandmother have any commitment to the wellbeing of her
unborn grandchild?

Well it has been hypothesised that female menopause in humans evolved so
as to 'free up' older women to assist younger women with childrearing
since they were no longer fertile themselves. Apparently no other
species experiences female menopause.

Jacqueline

"Chris" wrote in message
news:7gI1f.695$UF4.55@fed1read02...

What is your source for such morality? You seem to have lost sight of the
fact that I am referring to the "woman" (according to law) that her
daughter
will soon be, not a dependent child.

Possibly, but that does not negate the effect of having a molester on the
prowl. Most likely, the odds would be reduced from slim to none. No great
loss.

Ok, back up a minute here. Your step-daughter consented to sex with this
man, right? (FWIW, the legal age of consent is 16 here in NZ, so where I
live it would not be considered statutory rape).
Legalities aside for a moment, in your mind, is your step-daughter a child
or a woman? If she's a child and the victim of a 'molester on the prowl',
she deserves and needs the full support and protection of your wife and
yourself. If she's a woman, then she's capable of making her own decisions
and you can hardly consider making statutory rape claims against the father.

In my opinion, she's neither, regardless of what the law says. She's a
teenager, capable of making her own life changing decisions, but
ill-equipped to forsee the long term consequences of those choices. If your
wife does not give her any kind of support now, she risks losing her
daughter forever. Your wife is handling a crisis situation the only way she
knows how right now. I'm sure the thought of losing her daughter is a much
scarier prospect than the thought of losing a husband who is not helping the
immediate situation (no offence intended).

If you want to save your marriage, I suspect you're going to have to start
biting your tongue a little more. Your step-daughter is young and naive,
your wife is panicking for the well-being of her daughter and grandchild,
the baby's father is not up to the task, and your family is relying on you
to show some maturity and accept what has happened, even if you don't like
the short term changes it might involve. Saying that it isn't fair, isn't
your responsibility, etc etc may be true to an extent, but with a marriage
hanging by a thread, statements based on selfish thinking such as that are
not going to benefit your situation!

You knew your wife had a daughter when you married her, presumably, and in
marrying your wife you accepted her daughter as your own. She doesn't like
you? Get over it. Plenty of teenagers 'don't like' their parents, and it's
down to the parents to show more maturity and ride it out. I don't think
you're thinking of the long-term outcome any more than your step-daughter
is, to be honest. What is the worst that can happen, by standing by your
step-daughter and helping her to get ahead, albeit reluctantly? Possibly 5-6
years of hardship and a disorganised family environment, which with the
right support your step-daughter will emerge from with greater maturity and
sense of personal responsibility. The child will be in school, she can get
training, get a job, and the spin-off from that is a happy wife, a secure
marriage, and someone who will look after you in the same way when you're
old. Chances are, this girl could be picking out your rest home in 30-40
years, so you might want to make the effort.
I speak from some experience here, because I remember being 17, and I had a
mother who stood by me even though she didn't like the situation.


--
Amy
Mum to Carlos born sleeping 20/11/02,
& Ana born screaming 30/06/04
http://www.freewebs.com/carlos2002/
http://www.babiesonline.com/babies/a/ana%5Fj%5F2004/
My blog: http://spaces.msn.com/members/querer-hijo-querer-hija/

"KC" wrote in message
ps.com...
My children are all under 6 right now, and I hope they do not become pg
as teens, but I do know I would help them if they did because I would
want my grandchildren to get a better start than would be possible if I
kicked them out.

If I had a man who didn't see eye to eye with me on this issue, it
could be a deal breaker.

My suggestion to you and your wife is to get time away from your kids
to talk. I am not a huge believer in counselling. I prefer to just
discuss things with my dh. We get along well, but if you guys cannot
talk without fighting, then maybe a counsellor could help. You do need
to resolve this very important issue.

KC

We are working on it. Thanks for the input!



Chris wrote:
My stepdaughter decided to get pregnant again. The first pregnancy did
not
come to term. She will be 18 next month. Her mother prefers to have her
continue to live in our home even though I informed both of them the
first
time around that I refused to allow a second family to live here. Mother
claims that she will not be able to make it financially if she moves
out.
The father claims that he will help out and that they will live
together. He
was dead against the first pregnancy, but now agrees to help with this
one.
(change of heart?)

Although she carries a part time job, her daughter is basically lazy and
has
no concern for personal/financial responsibility. The reason why I will
not
allow a second family to live here is because my marriage (first family)
is
already hanging on a thread. Another family will only add to our
troubles,
not to mention that we cannot afford to support another family.

Any suggestions?