Man becomes Grandad at 29

[SteveHFC]

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3696059/A-dad-becomes-UKs-youngest-grandfather-at-29-after-his-daughter-gives-birth-at-just-14.html

[Ed De Gramo]

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3696059/A-dad-becomes-UKs-youngest-grandfather-at-29-after-his-daughter-gives-birth-at-just-14.html

Where to begin with this....

erm.....erm......hmmmm.....nope, i'm gobsmacked!

surprise surprise...he's jobless! Jeremy Kyle for this lot in about 5 years time

[Beefster]

How depressing.

[Lucius Apuleius]

And they are not from Dunday.:wink:

Reckon someone will try and beat that!!

[ArabHibee]

And they are not from Dunday.:wink:

Reckon someone will try and beat that!!

You beat me to it! :greengrin

[J-C]

Unfortunately this is the broken Britain many refer to, a sad state of affairs, a grandad at 29 and a mother at 14

[Scouse Hibee]

Unfortunately this is the broken Britain many refer to, a sad state of affairs, a grandad at 29 and a mother at 14

He was a father at 15, generations of children brought up by children with little or no parenting skills to speak of hence the cycle!

[gringojoe]

Going by the parents the kid is going to have a huge forehead.

[lapsedhibee]

Genuinely not understanding here why an 18/19 year old who makes lewd and libidinous suggestions to a 14 year old is the worst person in the world, but a 15 year old who impregnates another 14 year old doesn't seem to warrant any more than mild tut-tutting, and jokes about Dundeh. The first of these two situations is worse, I suppose, but the second is still appalling and disgusting. Why is there no proper outrage at it? :confused:

[Twa Cairpets]

Genuinely not understanding here why an 18/19 year old who makes lewd and libidinous suggestions to a 14 year old is the worst person in the world, but a 15 year old who impregnates another 14 year old doesn't seem to warrant any more than mild tut-tutting, and jokes about Dundeh. The first of these two situations is worse, I suppose, but the second is still appalling and disgusting. Why is there no proper outrage at it? :confused:

:fishin:

[easty]

:fishin:

Just beat me to that...

[lapsedhibee]

:fishin:


Just beat me to that...

Nope, I genuinely think this is outrageous. Perhaps you guys are cool with 14 year olds producing children, but I would be wondering, in cases like this, at what point there starts to become a good argument for compulsory state terminations. A suggestion which you in turn will probably think outrageous.

Eugenics has had a bad name since it was so badly mishandled in Germanyland last century, but ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. :wink:

[Twa Cairpets]

Nope, I genuinely think this is outrageous. Perhaps you guys are cool with 14 year olds producing children, but I would be wondering, in cases like this, at what point there starts to become a good argument for compulsory state terminations. A suggestion which you in turn will probably think outrageous.

Eugenics has had a bad name since it was so badly mishandled in Germanyland last century, but ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. :wink:

Honest answer - one is stupid kids with stupid parents not understanding control, responsibility, consequences or I'd suggest the mechanics of reproduction being driven by rampant hormones, the other is a manipulative adult exercising manipulative control and coercion for their own gratification. I posted on the CT thread that when I was 14/15 I fancied 14/15 year old girls. I didnt when I was 19.

As for state terminations, nah. I don't think that is really an option, do you?

I'll ignore the last line courtesy of the smiley...

[Gatecrasher]

Going by the parents the kid is going to have a huge forehead.

:faf: so true

[Lucius Apuleius]

Genuinely not understanding here why an 18/19 year old who makes lewd and libidinous suggestions to a 14 year old is the worst person in the world, but a 15 year old who impregnates another 14 year old doesn't seem to warrant any more than mild tut-tutting, and jokes about Dundeh. The first of these two situations is worse, I suppose, but the second is still appalling and disgusting. Why is there no proper outrage at it? :confused:

You from Dundee or something?


Honest answer - one is stupid kids with stupid parents not understanding control, responsibility, consequences or I'd suggest the mechanics of reproduction being driven by rampant hormones, the other is a manipulative adult exercising manipulative control and coercion for their own gratification. I posted on the CT thread that when I was 14/15 I fancied 14/15 year old girls. I didnt when I was 19.

As for state terminations, nah. I don't think that is really an option, do you?

I'll ignore the last line courtesy of the smiley...

Correct, if this cannot be seen then I think it is Lapsed who has a wee problem rather than anyone else. No one is condoning this, far from it, however there is a huge difference between this and CT case.

[Calvin]

It's not really that big a story. We all know teen pregnancy is out there and teenager make stupid mistakes. All this is is two stupid mistakes consecutively in the family line. Not saying that it's a good situation but I'm not really outraged by this story at all. In some respects it's a good scenario for the newborn - the grandparents will still have tons of energy for babysitting compared to this ridiculous modern trend of having kids when you're in your forties and having grandparents in their seventies when you're a newborn.

[Peevemor]

It's not really that big a story. We all know teen pregnancy is out there and teenager make stupid mistakes. All this is is two stupid mistakes consecutively in the family line. Not saying that it's a good situation but I'm not really outraged by this story at all. In some respects it's a good scenario for the newborn - the grandparents will still have tons of energy for babysitting compared to this ridiculous modern trend of having kids when you're in your forties and having grandparents in their seventies when you're a newborn.

I was almost 42 when my younger daughter was born. I don't consider myself ridiculous or trendy.

[lapsedhibee]

No one is condoning this, far from it, however there is a huge difference between this and CT case.

The very next post after yours is condoning it.

Here's what would happen in a better society:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1247889/Chinese-girl-9-gives-birth-health-baby-boy.html

There, people who impregnate underage girls are pursued and punished. Here they pose proudly, with stupid grinning pusses, for tabloid 'newspapers'.

[Twa Cairpets]

The very next post after yours is condoning it.

Here's what would happen in a better society:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1247889/Chinese-girl-9-gives-birth-health-baby-boy.html

There, people who impregnate underage girls are pursued and punished. Here they pose proudly, with stupid grinning pusses, for tabloid 'newspapers'.

The story says that the defense of consensuality isn't acceptable for girls less than 14, which is good. It doesnt say anything at all about if the boy is underage too. The different nature of the "offence" is recognised in law in many areas - see the "Romeo and Juliet Laws" section in this bit on statutory rape (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_rape)on Wikipedia (which is effectively what the Chinese model is).

The fact that the story is primarily about a nine year old, which is truly unusual, doesnt really lend itself to being used as an template for 14 or 15 year olds.

Taking your position you could argue the girl in the UK has committed a felony as well in having sex with an underage boy. Who are you going to prosecute?

The fact that the family in the OP are, almost certainly, monstrously stupid people doesn't mean that they should be legislated against for being thick as mince. (Equally, they shouldn't have their stupidity pandered to. I've got a liberal outlook but not a bleeding heart).

[lapsedhibee]

The fact that the story is primarily about a nine year old, which is truly unusual, doesnt really lend itself to being used as an template for 14 or 15 year olds.

You're not the first person on this thread to allude to underage motherhood being quite common.
Imo the high frequency of 14-year old mothers is a reason to be more, rather than less, outraged.


Taking your position you could argue the girl in the UK has committed a felony as well in having sex with an underage boy. Who are you going to prosecute?

Criminal prosecution would be expensive and largely pointless, but I understand that summarily neutering both miscreants is currently politically unacceptable, so it's a tough call. I would settle in the first instance for shame, rather than pride, becoming once more the primary response to such situations. Putting them both in the stocks for a few days after a suitable period of recovery from termination (or in this case childbirth) would be a good start. Are stocks still allowed under HR legislation? :dunno:

[Twa Cairpets]

You're not the first person on this thread to allude to underage motherhood being quite common.
Imo the high frequency of 14-year old mothers is a reason to be more, rather than less, outraged.


No, didnt say or allude to that. I said a 9 year old pregnancy was truly uinusual, which it is. I didnt say anything about how unusual a 14 year old's pregnancy is, although I believe this to be unusual too, but less so.

Statistics (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/statbase/product.asp?vlnk=15055) suggest that in England and Wales, around 8000 girls under 16 fall pregant each year. Around 60% of these are terminated, which means a little over 3000 babies are delivered to mothers under 16. I am guessing (as the stats dont say) that the numbers are skewed heavily towards 15year olds. I do not believe it is common, because the figures suggest stongly it isnt.

Stories such as the English rednecks in the OP get coverage precisley because it is unusual.

[lapsedhibee]

No, didnt say or allude to that. I said a 9 year old pregnancy was truly uinusual, which it is. I didnt say anything about how unusual a 14 year old's pregnancy is, although I believe this to be unusual too, but less so.

Statistics (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/statbase/product.asp?vlnk=15055) suggest that in England and Wales, around 8000 girls under 16 fall pregant each year. Around 60% of these are terminated, which means a little over 3000 babies are delivered to mothers under 16. I am guessing (as the stats dont say) that the numbers are skewed heavily towards 15year olds. I do not believe it is common, because the figures suggest stongly it isnt.

Stories such as the English rednecks in the OP get coverage precisley because it is unusual.

Not sure if you're assessing three thousand odd underage births as unusual because that's a relatively small proportion of the total number of births (about seven hundred thousand odd, so a little under half a percent), but if half a percent of the trains that ran in England and Wales every year crashed, that would be equally unusual though nevertheless a cause for concern (/outrage/apoplexy/etc). I would want to argue that underage births and train wrecks have something in common.

[Twa Cairpets]

Not sure if you're assessing three thousand odd underage births as unusual because that's a relatively small proportion of the total number of births (about seven hundred thousand odd, so a little under half a percent), but if half a percent of the trains that ran in England and Wales every year crashed, that would be equally unusual though nevertheless a cause for concern (/outrage/apoplexy/etc). I would want to argue that underage births and train wrecks have something in common.

I'm sure you would because it would help your argument, but its an irrelevant comparison - I like the method of juggling percentages with absolutes to make a point that isnt there.

The numbers of individuals giving birth as underage kids is 3000 odds. That is the only important figure really. It is certainly sad, tragic and unnecessary, but unlike the CT case, is caused primarily by stupidity rather than (for the want of a less emotive word) evil.

[Andy74]

A couple of things.

No big deal for 14/15 year olds, both underage to be having sex. I wouldn't put it down as clever or sound thinking about what might happen should it all go wrong but it's not in the same league as an older guy having sex with a 14/15 year old girl.

Secondly, whilst society in general has put an age limit on what they think is an acceptable age to be having sex it's all a bit arbitrary really.

Certainly the body is ready in most cases and mentally, well, that might be different but people also mature at different ages in that respect.

Looking at it from a nature point of view, whilst we think we are not animals, well we still are really and the age barriers we put up will always involve a bit of fighting against nature.

My seven month old cat went out and got pregnant before we got her done. The talking to she got as a result went mostly unheeded.

[James70]

Reminds me of the time I watched a Liverpool comedian making jokes about his own city.

One line that got loads of laughs was when he was talking about passing a house with a sheet hanging outside proclaiming "Happy 30th birthday Grandma".

Seriously though this story is so depressing and sums up families who think the world owes them a living without any effort on their own part other than to manufacture babies. Sadly I reckon by the time the guy is 43 or 44 he will be a great grandfather.

[lapsedhibee]

I'm sure you would because it would help your argument, but its an irrelevant comparison - I like the method of juggling percentages with absolutes to make a point that isnt there.

The numbers of individuals giving birth as underage kids is 3000 odds. That is the only important figure really. It is certainly sad, tragic and unnecessary, but unlike the CT case, is caused primarily by stupidity rather than (for the want of a less emotive word) evil.

Well if you're not calling an event "unusual" because of percentages, why do you say that something that happens nearly ten times a day every day of every year is "unusual"? Isn't it quite the opposite, common? :confused:

[lapsedhibee]

A couple of things.

No big deal for 14/15 year olds, both underage to be having sex. I wouldn't put it down as clever or sound thinking about what might happen should it all go wrong but it's not in the same league as an older guy having sex with a 14/15 year old girl.

Secondly, whilst society in general has put an age limit on what they think is an acceptable age to be having sex it's all a bit arbitrary really.

Certainly the body is ready in most cases and mentally, well, that might be different but people also mature at different ages in that respect.

Looking at it from a nature point of view, whilst we think we are not animals, well we still are really and the age barriers we put up will always involve a bit of fighting against nature.

My seven month old cat went out and got pregnant before we got her done. The talking to she got as a result went mostly unheeded.

Isn't the point of the Sun article about having children, rather than sex, at a very young age? :confused:

[ArabHibee]

I think a few folk are forgetting that one of the lassie's that Thomson was grooming was 12, not 14, and I think that's a big difference.

[Andy74]

Isn't the point of the Sun article about having children, rather than sex, at a very young age? :confused:

So are most of them having IVF?

[Twa Cairpets]

Well if you're not calling an event "unusual" because of percentages, why do you say that something that happens nearly ten times a day every day of every year is "unusual"? Isn't it quite the opposite, common? :confused:

If it happens ten times a day in my house, or my town, or even my County, then you might argue its common. But its not, its ten times a day in England and Wales, using your stats. For the age group involved - lets say 13-15, there are around 2.1 million people, of whom half it can be assumed are girls. So 3000 instances out of 1,050,000 equates to about 0.2% of that analysis cohort. The percentage of under age births as a measure of the total births is irrelevant.

I'm not saying for a minute that it's not a serious issue - I would suspect that kids born to underage mothers tend to cost the state more than kids born to adults, for example - but it is not, by any sesnible measure, common. There are not hordes of sexually active teens running around trying to have kids. There are a small number of kids who are badly parented, badly educated, or just plain unlucky who give birth to babies before the legal age of consent who make a good headline for the tabloids.

[Scouse Hibee]

Reminds me of the time I watched a Liverpool comedian making jokes about his own city.

One line that got loads of laughs was when he was talking about passing a house with a sheet hanging outside proclaiming "Happy 30th birthday Grandma".

Seriously though this story is so depressing and sums up families who think the world owes them a living without any effort on their own part other than to manufacture babies. Sadly I reckon by the time the guy is 43 or 44 he will be a great grandfather.

:agree: As I said in my previous post the cycle will continue and produce further generations of children brought up by children with no parenting skills and so on and so on.........................

[heretoday]

I blame the grandparents.

[lapsedhibee]

I think a few folk are forgetting that one of the lassie's that Thomson was grooming was 12, not 14, and I think that's a big difference.
There's something dodgy about what you're saying there, and it's not just playing with semantics. You're implying, no doubt unintentionally, that it's not as bad to Beast 14-year olds as it is to Beast 12-year olds.

So are most of them having IVF?
The main social problem here is not that underage people are having sex, it's that they're having children. Though TC says it's only 0.2%, only 3000 odd every year, so it's not that common, I say the numbers involved constitute a scandal, to which the correct moral response is outrage. If underagers can't be trained to have sex responsibly, they can have terminations - organised and paid for by the state.

[Twa Cairpets]

The main social problem here is not that underage people are having sex, it's that they're having children. Though TC says it's only 0.2%, only 3000 odd every year, so it's not that common, I say the numbers involved constitute a scandal, to which the correct moral response is outrage. If underagers can't be trained to have sex responsibly, they can have terminations - organised and paid for by the state.

I still cant work out if youre on the wind up or not to be honest, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Why is the correct response outrage? I'd think that the concept of what you're suggesting - forced terminations - is something one could be genuinely outraged about. What right would you have to force anyone to go under any medical procedure, never mind anything as traumatic as an abortion. I'm totally pro-choice but that includes the choice for 15 year olds not to be wheeled off by the lapsedhibee sponsored abortion police.

Actually, the more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that you are fishing for a reaction. I can't believe that anyone would genuinely advocate as a solution to the problem of underage pregnancy state-mandated terminations. (Incidentally, around 60% of under 16 pregnancies are terminated at the moment).

[marinello59]

There's something dodgy about what you're saying there, and it's not just playing with semantics. You're implying, no doubt unintentionally, that it's not as bad to Beast 14-year olds as it is to Beast 12-year olds.

The main social problem here is not that underage people are having sex, it's that they're having children. Though TC says it's only 0.2%, only 3000 odd every year, so it's not that common, I say the numbers involved constitute a scandal, to which the correct moral response is outrage. If underagers can't be trained to have sex responsibly, they can have terminations - organised and paid for by the state.

How about compassion? Teenage kids will have sex and make mistakes. They are kids.

[Andy74]

How about compassion? Teenage kids will have sex and make mistakes. They are kids.

True and what I now understand LapsedHibee is getting at is that this is to be expected but that the correct reaction is to ensure that none of these pregancies ever turn into births?

I understand the argument from a position of let's minimise social issues by having less if any underage mums, however, does it really make a difference? The same people are likely just to have a kid at 16 anyway with the same lack of parenting skils and resources.

The traumatic nature of terminating a pregnancy is also just shifting one social issue to another.

[ArabHibee]

There's something dodgy about what you're saying there, and it's not just playing with semantics. You're implying, no doubt unintentionally, that it's not as bad to Beast 14-year olds as it is to Beast 12-year olds. Sorry LH, I didn't word my post very well. I was getting the impression from some posters that it wasn't that bad for underage kids to have sex with each other, regardless of their age. What I was trying to point out was that I think there is a whole world of difference between a 15 year old having sex with a 14 year old and a 15 year old having sex with a 12 year old.

[lapsedhibee]

I still cant work out if youre on the wind up or not to be honest, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Why is the correct response outrage? I'd think that the concept of what you're suggesting - forced terminations - is something one could be genuinely outraged about. What right would you have to force anyone to go under any medical procedure, never mind anything as traumatic as an abortion. I'm totally pro-choice but that includes the choice for 15 year olds not to be wheeled off by the lapsedhibee sponsored abortion police.

Actually, the more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that you are fishing for a reaction. I can't believe that anyone would genuinely advocate as a solution to the problem of underage pregnancy state-mandated terminations. (Incidentally, around 60% of under 16 pregnancies are terminated at the moment).


How about compassion? Teenage kids will have sex and make mistakes. They are kids.

Right, try this again from a different angle.

(1) There is an age of consent in this country, under which children are deemed to be vulnerable.

(2) People who are vulnerable require protection, including protection against their own mistakes.

(3) The state already steps in, and takes responsibility, where children are in danger of making sexual mistakes which could severely harm their lives. For example - and it's just an example - where they are being groomed.

Imo the state is getting it right in trying to protect children from their sexual mistakes in one field - by locking up beasts - but getting it wrong in another field, by failing to intervene in protecting them from their mistakes in becoming gymslip mothers. (This is all assuming that the overwhelming majority of the three thousand underage births every year is the result of mistakes, which is perhaps itself a mistake.) I don't agree that a state policy of supporting 14-year old mothers reproducing, however accidental the circumstances, is compassionate. It's barking. With apologies to anyone reading this who's been brought up perfectly well by a 14- or 15-year old mother, as I'm quite certain it can be done, it's stark raving bonkers to arrange a state so that it's not actively discouraged. You could argue about how strongly it should be discouraged, but it's hard to see that it's discouraged at all at present. Getting your picture in the Sun is, I imagine, a kind of reward; just as the Onthankers regard themselves as celebrities. What is the state doing to combat this subculture, beyond giving out advice/free contraception? :dunno:

[lapsedhibee]

I understand the argument from a position of let's minimise social issues by having less if any underage mums, however, does it really make a difference? The same people are likely just to have a kid at 16 anyway with the same lack of parenting skils and resources.

The traumatic nature of terminating a pregnancy is also just shifting one social issue to another.
Yes, reducing the 3000 to 0 wouldn't eradicate immature/unskilled/inadequately resourced parents, but you would normally expect it to help a bit.

As for the trauma of termination, it appears from TC's figures that (if my math is correct) upwards of 4500 underagers make that choice every year, while 3000 don't. It would be very easy, though a tad simplistic, to label the whole 4500 "responsible" and the whole 3000 "irresponsible". Again, the state, if it's to have any role at all in its citizens' behaviour, should imo be 'rewarding' responsible behaviour.


What I was trying to point out was that I think there is a whole world of difference between a 15 year old having sex with a 14 year old and a 15 year old having sex with a 12 year old.

:agree:

[Twa Cairpets]

Right, try this again from a different angle.

(1) There is an age of consent in this country, under which children are deemed to be vulnerable.

(2) People who are vulnerable require protection, including protection against their own mistakes.

(3) The state already steps in, and takes responsibility, where children are in danger of making sexual mistakes which could severely harm their lives. For example - and it's just an example - where they are being groomed.

I realise this is an example, but it's a terrible one. If you're suggesting that kids should be educated about the risks and consequances of unsafe sex too early, then I'm a 100% with you. It is very different from actively seeking to prohibit and limit the activities of paedophiles.


Imo the state is getting it right in trying to protect children from their sexual mistakes in one field - by locking up beasts - but getting it wrong in another field, by failing to intervene in protecting them from their mistakes in becoming gymslip mothers. (This is all assuming that the overwhelming majority of the three thousand underage births every year is the result of mistakes, which is perhaps itself a mistake.) I don't agree that a state policy of supporting 14-year old mothers reproducing, however accidental the circumstances, is compassionate. It's barking. With apologies to anyone reading this who's been brought up perfectly well by a 14- or 15-year old mother, as I'm quite certain it can be done, it's stark raving bonkers to arrange a state so that it's not actively discouraged. You could argue about how strongly it should be discouraged, but it's hard to see that it's discouraged at all at present. Getting your picture in the Sun is, I imagine, a kind of reward; just as the Onthankers regard themselves as celebrities. What is the state doing to combat this subculture, beyond giving out advice/free contraception? :dunno:

If by intervening you mean forcing them to terminate, I think, frankly, that that is pretty sick. If by intervening you give real sex education, free from restrictions imposed by social conventions or religion that confuse, create guilt, or are solely biologically based I'll head up your campaign. I completely agree about the celebrity side of it, but thats a much wider question.

As for the state actively discouraging it, I think it does, doesn't it? What do you suggest they do? Billboards saying "14 and thinking of getting up the duff? Don't - the Government strongly disapproves and we'll stigmatise you like we did back in the good old days as being immoral"?


Yes, reducing the 3000 to 0 wouldn't eradicate immature/unskilled/inadequately resourced parents, but you would normally expect it to help a bit.

As for the trauma of termination, it appears from TC's figures that (if my math is correct) upwards of 4500 underagers make that choice every year, while 3000 don't. It would be very easy, though a tad simplistic, to label the whole 4500 "responsible" and the whole 3000 "irresponsible". Again, the state, if it's to have any role at all in its citizens' behaviour, should imo be 'rewarding' responsible behaviour.

Hang on - kids who get pregant but terminate should be rewarded? How? Bags of sweeties? Money? The "reward" is that they have their lives back, the deterrent is that Im guessing they wouldnt want to go through the physical and emotional trauma again.

I'm in favour of abortion if that is what a women/girl wants to do, but Im also totally in favour of them keeping a kid if thats what they want also. What right does the government have to deny that right? The inference is that if those who terminate are rewarded, those who go to term are punished. That's a kind of warped morality in my view.

[Dashing Bob S]

[/B]:agree: As I said in my previous post the cycle will continue and produce further generations of children brought up by children with no parenting skills and so on and so on.........................

It's a depressing thought that by the time this guy draws his pension, we could have five generations of his progeny being supported by the state.

But it's inevitable that with the kind of winners and losers 'free' society we've constructed, that this will happen.

An alternative is a full-employment socialistic society, where people are given both work to occupy their time and discipline them, and universal education, where they can learn and perhaps see other opportunities that might be possible for them. We've long rejected this as being too expensive.

The other option is a fascist society where certain designates are sterilised/starved/put to work in workhouses, which we've yet to embrace fully, but are probably working slowly towards.