Comments on: Jamie Lynn Spears in therapy, and enjoying her pregnancy

By: Jamie D

Jamie D — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 18:34:52 +0000

Well, I just hope that Jamie Lynn doesn’t end up on horse tranquilizer and getting completely smashed because she’s been seperated by her kids like her sis.

I hope she turns out to be a better mother than Britney, because if not, that’s another celebrity down the s***hole.

I just saw an advert on the TV for the new series of zoey101 and I saw that they’ve added a baby to the show. This is clearly going to be replaced with Jamie’s once she gives birth.

To be honest I feel sorry for Jamie, she’s been neglected by her parents, she has no positive rollmodels (god help her if she follows Britney) and is she follows her parents, her child will just get neglected like she has.

To be honest, I’d be happy for her if she had some support

Report this comment as spam or abuse

By: hellcat

hellcat — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 23:11:13 +0000

BUT – I’m a family studies/psych major and I was taught the same thing – we are most fertile at early ages, and a lot of the research in terms of infant/maternal mortality rate has been flawed in that it doesn’t factor in the life situation of many younger mothers. As in, the infant/maternal mortality rate isn’t high because the BODIES are incapable but because many of these women are living in low income families, which means less access to prenatal care; less access to information about appropriate prenatal and infant behaviors, nutrition, etc; and more stress, which can be problematic both developmentally (when the baby is still in utero) and after the child is born (because you might not be able to adequately care for your kid, and stressed parents are statistically more likely to abuse their kids). And a bajillion other fun things that poverty dumps in your lap.

Scott F – Thanks for reminding me; I had forgotten why, but I knew that sounded wrong.

Everybody else: I learned it in college (just graduated), so it has to be right.

Report this comment as spam or abuse

By: skyblue

skyblue — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 15:29:33 +0000

Uh, no Scott F., I don’t believe that’s true at all. You acknowledge the vagaries of statistics, then go on to use them to support the mini-dissertation you wrote. How does that make sense?

Fact is, humans do NOT age as though they’re meant to live to 35 (keep up with archeology if you’re going to make these claims). Around the entire WORLD, young mothers and their infants aren’t as healthy as those who give birth later. That includes societies where drugs aren’t as prevalent and younger mothers are accepted.

Report this comment as spam or abuse

By: Rianna

Rianna — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 11:33:28 +0000

i got pregnant unexpectantly and i know how hard it is. i am glad that she sounds like she has a head on her shoulders.
i could not imaging being pregnant at 16. i was dreaming of travelling the world, not changing dirty diapers and midnight feedings.

Report this comment as spam or abuse

By: Scott F

Scott F — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 11:01:35 +0000

Sky, we’ve learned in the last few decades how skewed our birth statistics have been, and have been slowly retooling them recently. The problem is that there are too many variables to gain an accurate consensus in the medical community.

For a long time we believed younger meant riskier, but that’s coming into question when you take other factors in to account. Teen mothers have historically had higher mortality and complication rates than those in their twenties, but you have to look at the other stats involved.

Mainly, they’re twice as likely to have substance abuse issues, and are demographically far more likely to be located in low income areas/countries. Many younger mothers attempt to hide their pregnancies, which leads to a lack of adequate prenatal care, ect.

To make a long rant short, when you adjust the stats to compensate for those factors it tells a whole different story. The miscarriage and mortality rates become virtually identical. As a society we may have changed our ideas about what makes us an ‘adult’ over the centuries as our lifespans increased, but our bodies still mature like we have a 35 year expectancy.

That being said, physically ready and mentally ready are two entirely different things.

Report this comment as spam or abuse

By: skyblue

skyblue — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 10:07:10 +0000

No, hellcat, I have to disagree. I’ve always heard that under 20 is high risk. It might be that fertility is highest then (not sure), but infant and maternal mortality is high.

Report this comment as spam or abuse

By: hellcat

hellcat — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 05:31:31 +0000

Really, 16 is considered high-risk? Because I was pretty sure that 16, 17, 18 – biologically speaking, mind you – are the ages where your body is MOST prepared to give birth.

Report this comment as spam or abuse

By: Persistent Cat

Persistent Cat — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 00:40:48 +0000

But I can’t cry for her at the thought of her being a “single mother.” That term doesn’t apply to the rich. And her life isn’t over, she’ll have nannies, etc.

Report this comment as spam or abuse

By: Monalicious

Monalicious — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 10:03:50 +0000

That line about her bodie just “snapping back in shape because she’s 16″ is BS. I had my first son at 17. Guess what? My body did not snap back. It has never been the same. And i took the ‘teen mommy” classes at my high school, but it didn’t help much. they prepaired us for a regular birth, so my emergency c-section was a huge shock and I wasn’t prepaired for any of it. The doctor botched my c-section, so I almost died at 17 from fever and infection. I eneded up in the hospital for 2 weeks, seperated from my baby, and scared out of my mind! So, yes, I say, if it can happen to me, it can happen to anyone. Including jamie Lynn. Birthing babies comes with risk. 16 is considered “high risk” for complications. My prayers go out to her. She has NO IDEA the can of worms she has opened for herself.

Report this comment as spam or abuse

By: journey

journey — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 22:54:07 +0000

but how smart is it of her family to be so busy with one child that they leave a sixteen year old to fend for herself? especially since she’s pregnant? it’s wonderful that they’ve stepped in to get britney the help she needs, but that doesn’t mean they should just dump the younger one in kentwood to look after herself. even if she is the more responsible one, she’s still a child.

Report this comment as spam or abuse