quote: Jamie Lynn Spears, Britney's sister, is pregnant, the 16-year-old told OK! magazine. The father is her longtime boyfriend, Casey Aldridge, she said. "It was a shock for both of us, so unexpected," Jamie Lynn Spears, who is 12 weeks along in her pregnancy, told the magazine for its new issue, which hits stands this week.
What's going on with this family?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Teen pregnancy is not exactly an uncommon occurrence. It was bound to happen to someone famous(ish) eventually.
Posted by Little_Doctor (Member # 6635) on :
True, I'm not trying to bash her decision. It's just that it happened in this particular family, after all the controversy surrounding Britney and her children. They don't have a good track record for parenting so far.
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
I heard about this last night. Then this morning in our newspaper there was an interview with her from the AP, obviously printed before this story broke. She said she has a lot of "guy" friends but no serious boyfriend, and plans to attend LSU, didn't know what she wanted to major in.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
Her mom is supposed to write a parenting book. Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
The Spears' mother was about to put out a book on parenting. It's been postponed, indefinitely.
Heh.
(Edit: or what brojack said.)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
That's silly. It'll sell millions -- they just need to retitle it.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Better: it was supposed to be a book on parenting from a Christian publisher.
So... what are the California laws on statutory rape, anyway? I haven't seen that brought up yet.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:True, I'm not trying to bash her decision.
I'm glad that this announcement evidently means she's not having an abortion, but I hope for her sake, just starting her life out, that she'll let the baby be adopted.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
If he's within three years, he's committed a misdemeanor. If he's under 18, she's committed a misdemeanor. If he's over 18, he's also liable for some civil penalties.
If he's over 3 years older than her, the crime gets worse.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
If Jamie Lynn got pregnant while only 16, in most states that would mean whoever did it to her is automatically guilty of statutory rape. It may not have been wise for her to name the father. He may wind up having to spend the rest of his life in Europe, where the laws are more lenient, and he wouldn't be thrown in jail as a sex offender.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I'm glad that this announcement evidently means she's not having an abortion, but I hope for her sake, just starting her life out, that she'll let the baby be adopted.
I'm not confident enough that giving it up for adoption would be the best thing for her and her child to hope for that. Presumably she and her family are aware of that option and will only do that if they feel like it's the right choice for them.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
He's nineteen. I had a link but it didn't paste.
Posted by Saephon (Member # 9623) on :
Is there a good book out there explaining why role models like these shouldn't be in our media 24/7? I'd much rather read that Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Are we sure it's the California laws he's subject to? She's from Louisiana, which, since she says she's been dating him since high school, I presume means he is to.
Although I suppose she could've gone to high school on the West Coast. I know Britney went to high school in Kentwood (before dropping out and making a pile of money and a truckload of bad decisions).
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh yeah, if he's 19 he's definitely violated the statutory statutes in Louisiana, too.
You'd think someone would have brought that up to them before they went public with the whole thing.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
After looking a little, I'm curious about 4 things:
1) What the exact age difference between the two of them is, 2) Whether or not the guy was 18 when she got pregnant, 3) What state conception took place in, and 4) Whether that state has the rules (law, statute, guideline?) that the family has to press charges in a situation like this?
Dags?
(also, would the thread starter mind changing the thread title to give some indication of what it's about?)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
3) The state in which each sex act occurred will determine which state's law apply. It does not have to be the sex act that led to conception that is prosecuted, although evidence of the other acts will be hard to come by.
4) Technically, a prosecutor can bring a charge without the family pressing charges. Some people have to report suspected child abuse of which they are aware - teachers, doctors, etc.
Here, though, it's not immediately obvious that abuse has occurred based only on the fact of pregnancy if the state does not consider teen-teen sex to be abuse. I don't know if her announcing the father or age of the father would then trigger the duty to report.
I no little about the duty to report except that it exists. Lawyers have reporting obligations of a very different kind. Any teacher or medical professional will know more of the details.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I should state, having brought it up, that I'm not calling for the father to be prosecuted. But in any story like this where the people involved were not famous, the words "underage" and "statutory rape" would be in the first few paragraphs.
Apparently underage girls are allowed to legally consent, given sufficient fame.
Edited to add: I also don't know how old the father was at the time. If he was 18, he'd be within the 2-year spread most states have.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Well, I can tell you that in CA, unless the minor or a parent complains, that law is almost never enforced. I don't know about LA.
Posted by Tara (Member # 10030) on :
Do I feel bad for laughing? Well, maybe. A bit.
Naaaah.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
You know, if the Virgin Mary, er... immaculately concieved, today, God would be up on charges of statutory rape.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
0Megabyte, that would make a good short story. You should write it. I would read it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
"Immaculate conception" does not refer to the conception of Jesus.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Dag - who cares? You obviously know exactly what I meant.
And yes, White Whale. I should. In fact, I think I'll give that one priority over the naughty stories I'm writing for my friends, and the evolution stuff I'm writing for not-nearly-so-close-or-female friends. xD
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Well, I do. Just because people make a mistake a lot doesn't make it less of a mistake.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag - who cares? You obviously know exactly what I meant.
I bet there are quite a few people interested in that little tidbit of information. And, if you want to write a story on it, you might want to be one of those people.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Noemon: I was just getting a point across. It's not a big deal. Besides, I fairly doubt God cares as much about what I call it as you do.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Dag - It's not like I'm going to write it without doing a bit of research first.
It's just a phrase. That's all.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
What point were you getting across, exactly?
Did it hurt you somehow to have additional information about Catholic terminology?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: Noemon: I was just getting a point across. It's not a big deal.
It's not a big deal, but it was an inaccuracy.
quote:Besides, I fairly doubt God cares as much about what I call it as you do.
Referencing the opinion of a deity neither of us believe in is such a compelling argument.
[Edited to remove some of the snark. Sorry about that--it's been a long day]
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
Dag- I found that very interesing. I learned something new today, which is always a good thing. Of course, I did have to go look it up to see why you objected, which took work...
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
Sad that this is the main story on CNN.com right now.
--j_k
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
j_k,
Britney didn't flash her goodies or run over a pappo today, so they had to cover something.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
I wish someone had just said "Immaculate conception refers to the conception of the Virgin Mary by her parents through normal sexual intercourse, and not Jesus' conception".
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
I thought about saying that, but dangit, if I had to go to wikipedia, so should everyone else. Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
Not any more. I took the bullet for the rest of them.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Good point, Launchywiggin. And note that only Catholics believe in Immaculate Conception. The doctrine arose as an attempt to explain how Jesus could have a sinless human nature, since Catholic theology teaches that Jesus took the human nature of Adam before he sinned, and the question arises how He could have obtained that from Mary. So Catholic theologians had to provide a way for Mary to have a sinless human nature. I am a post-lapsarian myself, which bypasses those difficulties, but it would be too far off topic to go into a discussion of that.
What the Holy Spirit did to Mary, as described in Luke chapter one, would more properly be termed "artificial insemination," or perhaps "genetic engineering." It was done with her consent.
I don't think there are any laws anywhere which address the artificial insemination of an underage girl. And we do not know how old Mary actually was when she became pregnant, though she was old enough to be betrothed (engaged).
[ December 20, 2007, 05:29 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:I don't think there are any laws anywhere which address the artificial insemination of an underage girl.
Yeah there are. Child abuse laws, because it is considered dangerous to get a child pregnant.
But there weren't then. And technically I think "artificial insemination" is the wrong term.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: in most states that would mean whoever did it to her
This wording rubs me the wrong way, as I'm assuming she did have some choice in the matter.
-pH
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
And yet, legally, it WAS done to her. That's why it's statutory rape. She's not old enough to consent.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
In some states, the age of consent is 16.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I didn't think we were talking about one of those states.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I am only aware of my own state's laws, and federal laws. It's unclear to me which state's laws would apply in this case, or exactly what age she was when she got pregnant.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
She turned 16 in April. Dunno yet when the father turned 19.
Posted by adfectio (Member # 11070) on :
In Ohio (my favorite state:D) the age of consent, if I'm reading it right, is 13, as long as the other person is under the age of 18.
Ohio:
quote:Sexual assault for a person age 18 to engage in sexual conduct with a minor if the actor knows that the minor is between ages 13 and 16
But then the states in question for this case
California:
quote:Anyone who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a person under age 18 and the actor is not more than three years older or three years younger, is guilty of a misdemeanor
Anyone who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a person under age 18 who is more than three years younger than the actor is guilty of either a misdemeanor or a felony
Any person 21 years of age or older who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor who is under 16 years of age is guilty of either a misdemeanor or a felony
and then Louisiana:
quote:Felony carnal knowledge of a juvenile is sexual intercourse with consent between (1) someone age 19 or older and someone between age 12 and 17 or (2) someone age 17 or older and someone between age 12 and 15.
Misdemeanor carnal knowledge of a juvenile is sexual intercourse with consent between someone age 17 to 19 and someone age 15 to 17 when the difference in their ages is greater than two years.
and just in case you guys are wondering where I got this. Link. Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by PSI Teleport: And yet, legally, it WAS done to her. That's why it's statutory rape. She's not old enough to consent.
Depending on what state they were in and how old they both were at the time, there's a chance it's not statutory rape. In fact, there's a pretty good chance it's a misdemeanor.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Woody Allen (I think it was him) wouldn't have been avoiding entering the US until the statute of limitations ran out if it were just a misdemeanor.
Anyway, I wonder what we would learn if we compared various states' statutes about unlawful sex with a minor with states that allow people to marry their first cousin.
(Cue the dueling banjos.)
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
Just the thought that we could refer to the conception of Jesus Christ as "artificial insemination" tickles my mind. What if Mary's angel was just a human from the future who travels back in time to artificially inseminate her?
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
A quick Google search reveals that 38 states and DC allow 16 year olds to consent to sex in some circumstances. AL, AK, AR, CT, DC, DE, FL, GA, HI, IN, IA, KA, KY, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, NV, NH, NC, OH, OK, PA, RI, SC, SD, VT, WA, and WV.
Marriage to first cousins is legal in 19 states and another 4 in special circumstances. AL, AK, CA, CO, CT, FL, GA, HI, MD, MA, NJ, NM, NY, RI, SC, TN, TX, VT, VI, and sometimes AZ, IL, ME and WI.
That gives us 12 on both lists, only four of whom are southern, and Florida only about half at that. I know you weren't being serious, Ron, but once you ask a question like that, I just have to satisfy my curiosity.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: Depending on what state they were in and how old they both were at the time, there's a chance it's not statutory rape. In fact, there's a pretty good chance it's a misdemeanor.
pH's response was to a part of this quote by Ron Lambert:
quote: If Jamie Lynn got pregnant while only 16, in most states that would mean whoever did it to her is automatically guilty of statutory rape.
When I responded I wasn't talking so much about Jamie Lynn's specific case but more of the attitude (for lack of a better word) that pH seemed to adopt about whether or not statutory rape is "done" to someone. (pH took some umbrage with the phrase "whoever did it to her.") I was just trying to say that whether or not we personally believe that a 16-year-old or anyone else can consent to sex, the law may have to treat it as if the teenager in question had no choice. Obviously it will depend on the case.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Woody Allen (I think it was him) wouldn't have been avoiding entering the US until the statute of limitations ran out if it were just a misdemeanor.
I might regret asking this, but do you honestly not see the difference between a 19 year old dating a 16 year old and a 50 or 60 year dating a 16 year old?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"I might regret asking this..."
The odds are good.
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: I might regret asking this, but do you honestly not see the difference between a 19 year old dating a 16 year old and a 50 or 60 year dating a 16 year old?
Has "dating" now become a euphemism for "having sex with"? Sigh. (But, yeah, JT, either way: Ick.)
Edited for further clarification: By "either way" above I mean by either use of the word dating, not that it's equally icky whether the adult is 19 or 50.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
The question is how the law views such behaviors.
AvidReader-thanks for the research. I am surprised there are so many states that allow first cousins to marry. I thought it was only three or four. This does not seem like good news for the quality of the gene pool in this country.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"This does not seem like good news for the quality of the gene pool in this country."
I have heard that childbirth complications are markedly lower in cases of first-cousin marriage.
Also, I'm guessing that first-cousin marriage is almost non-existent these days, in most areas. People move long distances a lot more now. Who, these days, would want the stigma of marrying their cousin when other choices are available?
Of course, now somebody is going to angrily denounce me for something I've just said. Go ahead. It's funny. Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
steven, there would probably be fewer cases of Rh negative/Rh positive mother/child complications, where it is necessary to do a complete transfusion. But there would still be a greater likelihood of harmful genes being matched, so the child might have serious defects it would have to live with.
I read one time that all people of Indo-European ancestry are at least 32nd cousins. So we all marry our cousins....
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The question is how the law views such behaviors.
The law draws a distinction, which is why I asked why you don't seem to.
Posted by prolixshore (Member # 4496) on :
I can't help but wonder: what would be considered a special circumstance for marrying your first cousin? The only one I can come up with is pregnancy?
--ApostleRadio
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Every article I've read (I glanced over a couple) has said there is a very unlikely chance of them prosecuting him (or her). Since they are in a relationship and both under 21, it's unlikely, though not impossible, that they'll be prosecuted.
I think, to balance the irresponsibility of getting pregnant to begin with, she's made a good decision in keeping the baby. I just hope she actually does right by the child unlike her older sister. At the very least she has a perfect model of what NOT to do.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
Why is keeping the baby the responsible good decision? Giving the baby up for adoption would be a very good responsible decision, perhaps even better then keeping it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I suppose it depends entirely on how she takes care of it, but I fear this'll open up a much larger discussion on who should give their children up for adoption. If she's going to take care of it, and she certainly has the money to, then she should keep it. If she was a poor homeless street urchin then I'd say giving it up for adoption would probably be the most responsible thing to do.
But she clearly has the means to take care of the kid, and if she decides to be a good parent, probably not like her sister who also had the means and clearly failed, then it's a good responsible decision.
Some would argue, maybe successfully that despite the fact that Britney was wealthy and married, she probably should have given her kids up for adoption given how she ended up treating them. It's impossible to say before they are born, but I think any time a couple or single parent has the means to take care of their natural children and give them a good home, it's a better more responsible decision than giving it up for adoption.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
Deciding to keep the baby in and of itself could be either a good decision or a bad one. We can't know yet which it will be. Deciding to do whatever it takes to be a good mom and give the baby a good life is the responsible decision- which we can't know she has done.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
You're jumping ahead. I think deciding to keep the baby, which I would have to imagine on the surface makes the assumption of good parenting and a good life, is a certain step in the right direction.
Let me put it this way, I'm making the assumption that in her choosing to keep the baby, she's decided to give it a good home and a good life. Not doing so I think assigns some pretty malicious intent on her part, and I see nothing to give cause to do so, so I'll give her the default status of being a decent human being. Now, in her making that decision, I think she's made a good, responsible choice. If it turns out that she can't hack it and it doesn't work out, then in hindsight it'll appear to be a bad one, but for right now? Good and responsible.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I don't know that it assigns some malicious intent-- I think that she may not know how hard this is really going to be. So I don't know that she IS prepared to give the baby a loving home and a good life. She may have vague intentions of doing so but I don't know how she can really be prepared at this point to do so. Hopefully in the next few months, she will come to that understanding, so by the time the baby is born she will truly be able to do it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Right, but for the purposes of what I'm saying, her intentions are more what I'm referring to. I doubt any first time parent knows how hard it's going to be.
She may not fully understand what she's going to be doing, but neither do we, and anything we say now is really just a guesstimate of how things will turn out. So for the moment, she's making a good responsible decision to take responsibility for her actions. It may turn out later that she can't fulfill this decision, but for now that's how I see it.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
That's true.
I do wish there were more options for the girl. She's a celebrity; I doubt she can anonymously give her baby up for adoption, especially without ruining her career. Which is a shame, because I'm not saying that she SHOULD, but that she should have that option if she decides she can't be the mother she wants to be right at this point in her life.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by prolixshore: I can't help but wonder: what would be considered a special circumstance for marrying your first cousin? The only one I can come up with is pregnancy?
Actually, IIRC, at least one of the "special circumstances" states only allows first-cousin marriages when the woman is past childbearing age.
And studies have shown that, except in families with a high occurrence of certain specific recessive genes, children of first cousins do not have a significantly larger risk of genetic defects than the general population.
Also, for any mother who has been receiving prenatal care, Rh-factor complications should be unlikely. Rhogam shots are a marvelous thing.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
That's right, rivka. Three of the four allow it when one partner is past childbearing or sterile. The other allows it when the couple has received genetic counseling.
One instance of marrying a close relative probably isn't very dangerous. It's families that kept the trend up for generations that get themselves in trouble. Look at the Spanish or Austrian royal families in the 1700s. It's a wonder King Juan Carlos isn't seriously messed up.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)