BonzoEqualsGoodStuff Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 Jamie Lynn Spears Says She's Pregnant 1 hour ago NEW YORK (AP) — Another Spears baby is reportedly on the way — and it's not Britney's. Jamie Lynn Spears, the 16-year-old "Zoey 101" star and sister of Britney, tells OK! magazine that she's pregnant and that the father is her longtime boyfriend, Casey Aldridge. "It was a shock for both of us, so unexpected," she says. "I was in complete and total shock and so was he." Spears is 12 weeks along and initially kept the news to herself when she learned of the pregnancy from an at-home test and subsequent doctor visit, she told the celebrity magazine, which hits stands in New York on Wednesday and the rest of the country by Friday. "As soon as I found out for sure from the doctor, I took two weeks to myself where I didn't tell anybody," she says. "Only one of my friends knew because I needed to work out what I would do for myself before I let anyone's opinion affect my decision. Then I told my parents and my friends. I was scared, but I had to do what was right for me." Spears broke the news to her mother, Lynne, just before Thanksgiving, the magazine says. "She was very upset because it wasn't what she expected at all," Spears says. "A week after, she had time to cope with it and became very supportive." Lynne Spears, already grandmother to Britney's young sons, says: "I didn't believe it because Jamie Lynn's always been so conscientious. She's never late for her curfew. I was in shock. I mean, this is my 16-year-old baby." She says her actress daughter, the telegenic heroine of the popular Nickelodeon series "Zoey 101," has known Aldridge for years and began dating him in high school. Jamie Lynn plans to raise the baby in her home state of Louisiana — "so it can have a normal family life." The third season of "Zoey 101" wraps up Jan. 4. "I haven't spoken to (Nickelodeon) personally, but they have always been so great to me over the past years and have given me so many opportunities." What message does she want to send to other teens about premarital sex? "I definitely don't think it's something you should do; it's better to wait," she says. "But I can't be judgmental because it's a position I put myself in." --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- All I can say is that Kevin Federline really needs to keep his pants on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonham Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 You think that's bad? Teenage pregnancy is rife here in England. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lzfan715 Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 I hope all goes well. I can't imagine having a kid at 16, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3hrsoflunacy Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 Hope she is a better parent than her sister. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 Jesus Christ. That whole family is fucked up. Keep Britney away from that kid, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Klu Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 Clearly the SpearsClan never learned of blowjobs. Its a veritable baby factory o'er there... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the Octagon Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 I think the Spears family is pretty solid evidence that you can take the girls out of the trailer park, but you can't take the trailer park out of the girls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kissandra Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 Oh wow. She is mad young. I know this happens all the time, but not usually with famous people Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FuzzyMerkin Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 I might be wrong but...wouldn't there have been a guy involved who must have thought that bareback was a good idea? Oh well, maybe not. It's christmas time after all... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Blue Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 Who needed sterilised ? Ol' Gramma Spears. 25 years ago. Nice one from Fuzzy though. Whhoooooooooo knnooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwsssssssssss ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonham Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 Maybe this child is simply meant to be. It is now that she's decided to keep the child. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tangerinedream Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 Maybe this child is simply meant to be. Right. Just as a reminder, "eternal light," 40,000 children die each day from malnutrition and disease. That's 40,000. Each day. 280,000 each week. 1,204,000 each month. 12 million a year. If my calculations are correct. 12 MILLION CHILDREN A YEAR, most of them infants, die from malnutrition and disease. Explain that using the "meant to be" argument. You can't. Next subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Scratch Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 Right. Just as a reminder, "eternal light," 40,000 children die each day from malnutrition and disease. That's 40,000. Each day. 280,000 each week. 1,204,000 each month. 12 million a year. If my calculations are correct. 12 MILLION CHILDREN A YEAR, most of them infants, die from malnutrition and disease. Explain that using the "meant to be" argument. You can't. Next subject. I can. It means that 12 million people who only reach the infant stage in life are meant to die each year ... as well as 100% of all other living creatures at various other stages in life. How does your argument follow that just because these people die as infants somehow makes their relatively short life not "meant" to be? ~666 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaztor (slight return) Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 Jesus Christ. That whole family is fucked up. Keep Britney away from that kid, though. Britney's dad should've been steralized years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ladymadcap Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 What a positive influence on the 'tween gals of today! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Debbie Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 It's possible to have a child at the age of 16 and have the child turn out well. I had my first child at 15, and she is doing very well at the age of 26, but we had some really rocky times together. However, I would never advise anyone to have a baby in their teen years because of how hard it is, and how much you have to sacrifice. It is a reallly hard thing to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ladymadcap Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 Shit that child will be passed around from nanny to nanny quicker than a covered dish at a church social! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tangerinedream Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 I can. It means that 12 million people who only reach the infant stage in life are meant to die each year ... as well as 100% of all other living creatures at various other stages in life. How does your argument follow that just because these people die as infants somehow makes their relatively short life not "meant" to be? ~666 Um, that was my point. So god creates infants, who have no understanding of the world, and preordains that these infants are to live short, horrible lives only to die a few months after birth. Oh, and god preordains this to happen disproportionately in third-world countries. Has nothing whatsoever to do with unprotected sex, the gross national product of third-world countries, the education level of people in third-world countries, the medical infrastructure of third-world countries, etc. God did that too. The lord giveth, and the lord taketh away. That's basically your argument. OK, sure, I buy that. That's plausible from an omnipotent god perspective. I mean, how else WOULD you explain it from a religious perspective except to throw up your hands and say, "it's meant to be!" You couldn't. That's my point. And I'm not arguing that infants who die early are not "meant to be," so you'll have to ask someone else about that. I prefer to explain the cycle of birth and death in rational, non-superstitious ways. Yes, I know, it's god's preference that infants starve to death. It's beyond us to explain! Whatever. Next subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Scratch Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 Um, that was my point. So god creates infants, who have no understanding of the world, and preordains that these infants are to live short, horrible lives only to die a few months after birth. How long must a being be incarnate in order to develop enough "understanding" to give life meaning? Are you implying that just because you see tragedy and injustice in babies dying, then their lives were somehow not meant to be ... that their brief and painful experience somehow renders their life meaningless? Since when is all things meaningful only a walk in a rose garden? And since when is the brevity of consciousness a hindrance to understanding ... however basic? And if these dying infant people were incapable of understanding pain and misery, then where is the tragedy? And, likewise, the compassion you feel for their plight would be rendered meaningless as well. Do you somehow think that horrible lives are meaningless lives? That's absurd! God encompasses all things. In fact, God is all things. Oh, and god preordains this to happen disproportionately in third-world countries. Disproportionally? You say that as if there was no reason for it. Let me see ... there is climate, famine, drought, lack of education, war, pestilance, corruption, disease ... you act as though these things are not endemic to the third world. That's like blaming a desert for being dry! God does not "ordain". God manifests as the Natural Order ... the process of creation, preservation as well as decay and dissolution. In every part of the world ... in every part of the Cosmos. Explain to me how an economically distressed nation, that lacks education, government, technology and a fertile, temperate climate has a "disproportionate" amount of disease, famine and infant death? It's not "disproportionate" ... it's natural. These are the very conditions by which these results occur. Has nothing whatsoever to do with unprotected sex, the gross national product of third-world countries, the education level of people in third-world countries, the medical infrastructure of third-world countries, etc. God did that too. The lord giveth, and the lord taketh away. That's basically your argument. That is not my argument. It is my personal belief that God neither takes nor gives ... because God is all things. The Natural order of the Cosmos shifts and moves with Time, Kala, ... but nothing is added or subtracted from the whole. This apparent shift and movement is the result of Karma and Samsara. OK, sure, I buy that. That's plausible from an omnipotent god perspective. I mean, how else WOULD you explain it from a religious perspective except to throw up your hands and say, "it's meant to be!" You couldn't. That's my point. Really, to say that any one thing has no meaning implies, by extension, that all things could possibly have no meaning. Are you telling me that you are treading the nihilist road? Because when you say one thing has meaning and another does not, you are limiting your definition of "meaning" to strictly a subjective view. Which we all know cannot be the end of Truth. You know that scientifically, Ms. Staggs. And I'm not arguing that infants who die early are not "meant to be," so you'll have to ask someone else about that. Good. I'm glad we cleared that up. I prefer to explain the cycle of birth and death in rational, non-superstitious ways. Me too. Yes, I know, it's god's preference that infants starve to death. It's beyond us to explain! You are assuming that God has this preference...that indeed, there is a preference being executed at all. I think that, as God is all things, then God has merely a penchant for experience. Or, probably more accurately, God is the manifestation of all experiences. That, to me, is precisely why I believe that everything has meaning... even 12 million dead infants every year. ~666 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tangerinedream Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 How long must a being be incarnate in order to develop enough "understanding" to give life meaning? Are you implying that just because you see tragedy and injustice in babies dying, then their lives were somehow not meant to be ... that their brief and painful experience somehow renders their life meaningless? Since when is all things meaningful only a walk in a rose garden? And since when is the brevity of consciousness a hindrance to understanding ... however basic? And if these dying infant people were incapable of understanding pain and misery, then where is the tragedy? And, likewise, the compassion you feel for their plight would be rendered meaningless as well. Do you somehow think that horrible lives are meaningless lives? That's absurd! God encompasses all things. In fact, God is all things. Disproportionally? You say that as if there was no reason for it. Let me see ... there is climate, famine, drought, lack of education, war, pestilance, corruption, disease ... you act as though these things are not endemic to the third world. That's like blaming a desert for being dry! God does not "ordain". God manifests as the Natural Order ... the process of creation, preservation as well as decay and dissolution. In every part of the world ... in every part of the Cosmos. Explain to me how an economically distressed nation, that lacks education, government, technology and a fertile, temperate climate has a "disproportionate" amount of disease, famine and infant death? It's not "disproportionate" ... it's natural. These are the very conditions by which these results occur. That is not my argument. It is my personal belief that God neither takes nor gives ... because God is all things. The Natural order of the Cosmos shifts and moves with Time, Kala, ... but nothing is added or subtracted from the whole. This apparent shift and movement is the result of Karma and Samsara. Really, to say that any one thing has no meaning implies, by extension, that all things could possibly have no meaning. Are you telling me that you are treading the nihilist road? Because when you say one thing has meaning and another does not, you are limiting your definition of "meaning" to strictly a subjective view. Which we all know cannot be the end of Truth. You know that scientifically, Ms. Staggs. Good. I'm glad we cleared that up. Me too. You are assuming that God has this preference...that indeed, there is a preference being executed at all. I think that, as God is all things, then God has merely a penchant for experience. Or, probably more accurately, God is the manifestation of all experiences. That, to me, is precisely why I believe that everything has meaning... even 12 million dead infants every year. ~666 Sorry Old Scratch, Devil-face, Devil-head, but it's useless to argue with someone who thinks they know what god does or does not do, what god is or is not, etc. You're basically saying you know the mind of god, which is not surprising as after all that's what religious people believe. It's just that there is no counterargument for that, because that is not an argument. And could you PLEASE use my board name! I'm on here as invisible. I'm trying to maintain at least some semblance of anonymity. Love ya! T.A.N.G.E.R.I.N.E. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BonzoEqualsGoodStuff Posted December 20, 2007 Author Share Posted December 20, 2007 Wow, this thread ended up being far deeper than I had ever imagined. haha Interesting argument, though. Personally I would never get an abortion, but I don't think anyone should be forced one way or the other. It's a choice everyone has to make for themselves and I don't really think there's a right or wrong. (And I AM Christian...) Anyway, nevermind my insignificant contribution. Carry on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.