Girl, 11, will be Britain's youngest mother .

[tommy.irene]

Girl, 11, will be Britain's youngest mother

A girl is to become Britain's youngest mother after becoming pregnant at 11.

The girl smokes 20 cigarettes a day despite being eight months' pregnant. She conceived aged 11 when she lost her virginity to a boy of 15 on a drunken night out with friends.

The 15-year-old has since been charged with **bleep** by police, and is due to appear again at Edinburgh sheriff court on July 10.

Her 34-year-old mother, who gave birth to her youngest child eight months ago, said she was 'proud' of her daughter.

She will be 12 years and 8 months when she has the child next month. Jenny Teague, Britain's youngest mother until now, was a month older when she gave birth in 1997.

How can we best tackle this problem? Tell us in reader comments below

The youngster, who lives near Edinburgh, says looking after her younger brothers has prepared her for motherhood.

But the girl admits she "panics and cries" when babies are unwell and does not feel able to bathe them.

The mother-to-be, who cannot be named for legal reasons, had unprotected sex with the teenage boy, who also cannot be identified, while drunk last August.

'Excited'

She told the Sun: "I didn't think I'd get pregnant because it was my first time. But I'm really excited and looking forward to being a mum.

"I can't wait to take the baby swimming and out for walks in the pram. I think I'll be able to cope as I've had lots of practice looking after my brothers.

"I know how to feed a baby its bottle and I can change nappies. But I panic and cry if they're sick and I don't like giving them a bath because I'm a bit frightened.

"It's good to know I'll have my mum here to help me if I need her."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-385968/Girl-11-Britains-youngest-mother.html#ixzz2lfH2vEsa 

[*.*..lola..*.*]

I was wrong, he was charged:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/real-life-stories/tressa-middleton-youngest-mum-had-baby-1545521

Wow what a truly tragic life she has had..poor girl  

[**forum-decorum**]

The urge to reproduce is huge.

lol,

In most cases, especially where the immoral desire to have sex out of marriage is concerned the urge to reproduce doesn't come into it. It is just a strong desire for sexual gratification. Admittedly the sexual desire has been inbuilt in us with the purpose of reproducing and to enjoy in the right set of circumstances but today's society take it one step further and self gratification has been made the most important, and acceptable.

I do agree though, in the young the desire to have a sexual relationship or encounter etc is very strong and probably find it harder to control their urges, but if they were educated in the correct moral (and I am talking here God's morals) then they would be far better equipped to understand what is going on with their bodies and why and be able to exercise self control. Society gives them mixed messages, in one sense it is ok to have sex and in another you shouldn't be doing that it is wrong. No wonder our youngsters turn out to be confused and promiscuous

And whether we agree with it or not, Parenting and the moral climate has everything to do with (I won't use religion as the word) God's standards, If we do not follow God's standards then we are immoral.

[**caution**opinion_ahead]

The reason sex is plesurable is to ensure the majority partake as often as is practical.  The desire for sex is not immoral, any more than the desire to eat is.  We are driven to do both.

Science is what gives us understanding of how our bodies work, not religion. 

Parenting and the moral climate can, and for many people do, stand completely independent of religion.  Those who wish to add religion into the mix are free to do so, but it is far from essential.

Some children have stronger hormonal drives than others, and this can be hereditary.   A girl who reaches puberty at, say, 9 yrs of age is physically very ready to conceive in her early teens.  Nature has primed her for this end, frankly. 

I agree children get mixed messages, especially from marketing.   There is also a divorce between actions and consequences, partly because it is not right to penalise the child who has been unwittingly conceived.

[**forum-decorum**]

Caution, I did not say the desire for sex is immoral. It was God given, we most certainly were meant to find it very enjoyable,  the immorality is when the desire is acted upon outside the confines of a marriage.

Science is a wonderful thing Caution yes but it cannot always explain individual emotions and feelings, and personal preferences and needs.

I do agree to a point about hormones, those being peculiar to the individual, you can call it nature, of course, I will add nature designed by God the creator and not evolved from a pea soup

We will again have to politely and respectfully agree to disagree on the origins of our lives, the planet we live on and what governs them Caution.

[dr-whos-assistant]

The mothers a disgrace I would be mortied if my daughter got pregnant under the age of 18 never mind 11 and I would tell her so, not tell her how proud of her I was, thankfully shes 12 and I know where she all the time and she has been bought up with morals so its very unlikely to happen.

[upthecreekyetagain]

I'm not convinced that any criticism of these children nor their parents should be based on a matter of morals at all.

I see no reason why an 11 year old having sex and conceiving a child is anymore morally wrong than an 18 year old doing the same.

The real criticism should I believe be based on a matter of practicality and an inherent lack of maturity.  In the modern world it is not practical for a 15 year old boy to support a young girl and a child - a few hundred years ago this was not the case and consequently was a far more common occurence.

[margaret*e]

Apart from an 11yr old being a child, and an 18yr old being an adult and able to look after a child.

[**forum-decorum**]

I'm not convinced that any criticism of these children nor their parents should be based on a matter of morals at all.

I understand what you are saying creeky but I don't agree, of course you will state something like that as you have no desire to accept there are morals set by a God to live by.

I see no reason why an 11 year old having sex and conceiving a child is anymore morally wrong than an 18 year old doing the same.

I agree it is no more morally wrong, the two are both morally wrong according to God's principles (thanks to marge for correcting my gramma there), that is if the relationship is outside of marriage. The 11 year old just being too young for marriage according to the law of the land and maturity.

As I read in a later link though the girl was raped by her brother, or have I misunderstood the article. That then changes things from the 11 year old's point of view.

The real criticism should I believe be based on a matter of practicality and an inherent lack of maturity.  In the modern world it is not practical for a 15 year old boy to support a young girl and a child - a few hundred years ago this was not the case and consequently was a far more common occurrence.

I accept in part your argument there creeky about lack of maturity and the practicalities, but as I do believe God's principles are a safeguard for mankinds benefits as well as requiring obedience then that is of the utmost importance as well. It was no different a few hundred years ago, God's principles are no different today as they were then, marriage however was entered into at a much younger age, as long as it was by both parties consent (and within any laws of the land) then it was a good arrangement.

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@marg*e wrote:

Apart from an 11yr old being a child, and an 18yr old being an adult and able to look after a child.

---

That situation causing a moral problem is a relatively recent attitude - Not that long ago in terms of the human race a 15 year old male would not be considered a boy nor would it be unusual for them to partner an 11 year old girl and be capable of supporting her and a child.  Such a situation would certainly not have been considered immoral.

Morality in general evolves and has its basis in either religion or the practical needs of society.  On that basis I accept that an 11 year old coceiving a child can be considered by some as being morally wrong but the basis of that is because it is not practical nor in the best interest of modern society for a 15 year old boy to be expected to support the girl and her child - either that or because of a religious belief.  Of course the religious morality perspective would not be based on the age of the girl but that she was unmarried - almost the opposite of the society based moral attitude which is more concerned about the age rather than the marital status.

[upthecreekyetagain]

I wrote the above in response to Marg but it also answers Golden nuggets post.

[margaret*e]

I suppose **bleep** and incest have always gone on, it doesn't make either acceptable .

[margaret*e]

PS I wouldn't dream of correcting your grammar , my own leaving a lot to be desired.

You asked me about the spelling .

[**forum-decorum**]

sorry marge, I meant my spelling and was grateful for your help in correcting it.

[bankhaunter]

Religious morality is generally anti sex except for the procreation of children, the idea of indulging purely for pleasure is most definitely frowned upon, in fact I would go as far as saying pleasure itself is not desired, it would not do for life on earth to seem better than any afterlife can offer.

Society's morality is quite different which is why I think it is the mother who has been immoral for a lack of guidance and discipline thus leading the child on to a path which could only be to her detriment.

The fact the story may be old matters not as apart from the very young age, the story of mid teenage girls having babies before they have even tasted life to any degree, is being repeated constantly, seen it myself.

[renomarvinm]

Once I was a photographer for the police department in Las VegasA.    One night, we had an arson call at an abandoned three floor apartment complex in the "West Side" minority ghetto, west of the tracks in the town.  So there we were - it was dark and cold, winterish, and we're running around checking the abandoned apartmentsfor evidence - what a mess. While  pausing for a moment in the courtyard to talk to the detectives in charge, we heard a weird moaning sound coming from the top floor.  Instantly, several young officers charged up the three floors of stairways.  There was a weird pause - and then they brought four minority people down, three men and one woman.

No, they were not arsonists.  No, they really and truly knew anything about who did it (or why).  To me, anyway, it seemed they didn't really no very much at all.  Why were they there?  It was this - they were broke.  They had no money at all - period!  The four of themth were ingaged in sexual activity , and no, she was not expecting to be paid.  They were doing this because it was absolutely the only form of entertainment they had, or could thionk of at the time.  No, there was no welfare, not in Nevada, anyway, except enough to barely keep one alive.  There was no thought about the possible consequences of their actions, be it an unwanted child (whose?) or disases of any kind.  An astronomer would say that they had fallen out of the center of the Hertsprung-Russell Diagram and were no longer in the main sequence.  

The presence or absence of a welfare state has nothing to do with it - at the bottom of the economic heap there will always be people who can no longer function in society.  You deal with them, help them, or what have you - one on one.  There is no one-size-fits-all solution.  In fact, there may be no solution at all, anyway.

[margaret*e]

Why on earth are they bleeping r_a_p_e out when it's part of a discussion,grrr.

[tommy.irene]

---

@marg*e wrote:

Why on earth are they bleeping r_a_p_e out when it's part of a discussion,grrr.

---

Your not to say it or you will get a slap.

[**caution**opinion_ahead]

---

@golden*nugget28 wrote:

I'm not convinced that any criticism of these children nor their parents should be based on a matter of morals at all.

I understand what you are saying creeky but I don't agree, of course you will state something like that as you have no desire to accept there are morals set by a God to live by.

---

And you disagree with Creeky because you do have a desire to be bound by a set of morals you believe a god has "set".  This is your choice, which you have every right to make.

Thus, only if a pregnant teen has independently come to the decision (free of pressure from preaching or coercion) that they wish to live their life according to a particular set of religious beliefs does the discussion of such becomes relevant to their specific situation.   For an atheist teen, what different faith groups hold as "moral" is irrelvant, in that morality is not automatically linked to religious belief.  The two can coexist or can be entirely separate. 

The concept of a "teenage" period is relatively recent in human history.  In earlier times, the onset of fertility meant readiness to conceive, as it does still in the rest of the natural world. 

[**caution**opinion_ahead]

---

@renomarvinm wrote:

The presence or absence of a welfare state has nothing to do with it - at the bottom of the economic heap there will always be people who can no longer function in society.  You deal with them, help them, or what have you - one on one.  There is no one-size-fits-all solution.  In fact, there may be no solution at all, anyway.

---

You make a good point, with a good example.

Those at the bottom of the social scale are far more likely to die young.  They tend to live in dangerous areas, they have less access to medical care, poorer nutrition, etc.  In those circumstances, the drive to reproduce grows even stronger as getting their genes into the next generation is hard-wired in.  Of course, they are not thinking this through logically at the time, but their bodies are pushing them in that direction.

[lost.parrot]

Sooo, it appears to be a story dating back about 7 years ago, not a current one, and concerned a serious sexual assault within the family, not  the result of a 'relationship', however brief

Must have been a slow day at The Wail