Cadets & Pregnancy

[Ned]

Ned.

If Im not mistaken, in CA isn't it illegal for minors to even have sex, even if they are both minors?  Id have to look that one up.

Let me give you the classic lawyer answer -- "It depends."

While normally even 17 year old Californians enaging in voluntary sex is a crime of some sort (usually a low level misdemeanor that is rarely if ever prosecuted), there is no crime at all if the participants are married or emancipated.  (Both marriage and emancipation require some sort of judicial action and/or parental consent.)

But just remember the practical considerations for a poor squadron commander.

How do you prove that a cadet is or was ever pregnant if she doesn't want you to know?

(Medical records are confidential by law.  "She looked pregnant to me" is probably not very pursuasive until the last trimester.  "I heard she was pregnant and had a baby during that leave of absence she had last summer" similarly is pure gossip and also not very pursuasive.  Ordering DNA testing of the cadet and a child is probably not realistic.   )

Not to mention Nathan's point that a pregnancy termination policy does seem to encourage abortion in young people who value their CAP membership.

I think the whole idea behind terminating the membership of a cadet/parent was that the kid now has other issues to deal with besides getting on encampment staff or going to NCOS or participating in CAP.  I think many will say "well, its not your life"  No, but having 2 kids, I could easily tell a cadet that they will have other things to deal with.    Next thing you know we'll be providing child care at encampment. 

Yeah . . . "It's not your life." 

As a squadron commander you don't get to choose whether the cadet goes to college, gets a good job, or who they select as a life partner.

Why should you get to throw a cadet out of what may be the only positive thing she might have going in her life?

Sure, I agree that most cadets who find themselves pregnant do indeed have better things to do with their Tuesday nights than drill and ceremonies at their squadron.  I'd wager that compartively few will want to actively participate in CAP.

But for the life of me, I cannot figure out why that isn't her choice, made in consultation with her family and loved ones.


As a practical matter, I agree that this is a very rare situation.  Most unit commanders will never have to deal with it. 

(And child care for encampment is not a bad idea.  There are a whole lot of young seniors who would benefit from such a thing.)

[swamprat86]

(And child care for encampment is not a bad idea.  There are a whole lot of young seniors who would benefit from such a thing.)

I thought encampment was child care?   

[jimmydeanno]

Ned,

My personal experience with this situation tells me that this is not a good thing.

I posted this in the "Single Parent - Cadet" thread some time ago...

This situation came up in my "old squadron."  There was a young woman (14) who had 2 children (oldest was 3) and was un-married.  Since the regulation says "pregnant" (the change isn't in the regulation posted) and "married," it made no stipulation to "single" and "already born."  We contacted the national legal office, and were told that, "We can not decide what is moral and immoral in today's society," and were "required" to accept this cadet's membership application.

This leads me to a few points.

1. What is the purpose of the membership board if we are "forced" to accept applications?  One could argue in a "non-discriminatory" way that a 14 year old mother of 2 should be focused on other things than participating in CAP.  Therefore making her a "bad fit" for the organization.

2. In my opinion, this "cadet" had already made some HUGE adult choices.  The limitations put on cadet membership, until recently have all pertained to "adult choices," joining the military, pregnancy, marriage, becoming an adult, etc.

3. As a parent (I'm not one), wouldn't you assume that the place you were sending your child was free of "bad influences?"  A 14 year old with 2 children IMO is not a good example to cadets; both male and female.  Isn't there an expectation that the 'leadership' protect the environment of CAP from such bad influences?

IMO, parents that are cadet aged should not be allowed to participate in the CAP cadet program.  IMO, if they want to be in CAP, they can join at 18 as an adult, since they've already chosen to make adult decisions.

[Un]Fortunately, I can say that my thoughts about this have not changed.  I remember many parents expressing their opinions about this situation and that they would not want their children exposed to that type of behavior or influence. 

Fortunately, these situations are rare and like has been said, most squadron CCs will never have to deal with the situation.

[Eclipse]

Every CC (and parent) who didn't see that posting before just puckered a bit after they read it.  

Frankly, if there's a deterrent to teen sex, a 14 year old with two kids has to be right up there.

[Ned]

A late response to your previous posts.

This situation came up in my "old squadron."  There was a young woman (14) who had 2 children (oldest was 3) and was un-married.

Counting on my fingers, it appears that this child was raped when she was 10 years old.

(You're not seriously saying that 10 year-olds make "adult decisions" to have sex, are you?)

Sadly, this is the kind of case I see far too often in my line of work.

This child is the victim of a horrible crime.  She should be cared for, not feared.

  Since the regulation says "pregnant" (the change isn't in the regulation posted) and "married," it made no stipulation to "single" and "already born."  We contacted the national legal office, and were told that, "We can not decide what is moral and immoral in today's society," and were "required" to accept this cadet's membership application.

This leads me to a few points.

1. What is the purpose of the membership board if we are "forced" to accept applications? 

An excellent question.  Membership boards are not optional, but far too few unit commanders realize this.

Membership boards have wide discretion on whom to recommend for CAP membership, but they are not free to invidiously discriminate.  IOW, if the only reason the membership board declines to recommend an individual is an impermissible reason (like race, religion, crime victim status, etc), then the unit may well be "forced" to accept an othewise acceptible applicant.  That seems reasonable enough.  The alternative (letting units reject qualified applicants for improper reasons) is chaos.

2. In my opinion, this "cadet" had already made some HUGE adult choices.  The limitations put on cadet membership, until recently have all pertained to "adult choices," joining the military, pregnancy, marriage, becoming an adult, etc.

This is normally where I make my "cadethood and childhood are unrelated, so don't talk about 'adult' vs 'child' when discussing cadets" argument.

But I don't think I need to here.  I honestly cannot believe that fifth graders make "adult choices" about sexual activity.  Sadly, they just get molested and raped.

3. As a parent (I'm not one), wouldn't you assume that the place you were sending your child was free of "bad influences?"  A 14 year old with 2 children IMO is not a good example to cadets; both male and female.  Isn't there an expectation that the 'leadership' protect the environment of CAP from such bad influences?

Somehow, I think that young lady has been victimized enough without us calling her a "bad influence" on our cadets. 

Did you seriously think there was some risk that other 14 year olds would engage in dangerous behaviors simply because the applicant had two children?  I would actually have expected quite the opposite.  I knew a CAP member that was disfigured from a burn accident.  While it didn't dominate our relationship, privately it did remind me to take extra care in similar situations.

[ . . .]
[Un]Fortunately, I can say that my thoughts about this have not changed.  I remember many parents expressing their opinions about this situation and that they would not want their children exposed to that type of behavior or influence. 

This is what we call a "teachable moment," both for the parents and CAP members.

Earlier in the thread, we might have assumed that the "rape victim" argument was such a rare occurance as to essentially serve to cloud the discussion rather than illuminate it.

But here it is.

A 10 year old is sexually assaulted and a child results.  This victim, more than the average high school student will benefit from a structured leadership program that will also encourage her to avoid drugs and alcohol while simultaneously giving her the benefit of Moral Leadership (or character development - whatever we are calling it this week.)

Does it make any sense to exclude her from CAP because of an unproven notion that she might somehow infect the other cadets with some sort of bad behaviors?


Thank Goodness, most of us will never have to face this kind of situation.

[jimmydeanno]

(You're not seriously saying that 10 year-olds make "adult decisions" to have sex, are you?)

Ned, please see this article. It is about 5th graders who, when left unsupervised in a classroom, had sex with each other in front of the rest of their classmates - posting other students to look out for the teacher: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17980152/

or...

How about this clip from one of those daytime talk shows: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DE9llClgTqY
That one is a 15 year old girl who is trying everything in her power to get pregnant.

or...

This article from TIME regarding teens, all under 16 that formed a "pregnancy pact.": http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1815845,00.html

While an adult decision would be not to have children at that young of an age - a decision was made in this case, multiple times. 

This child is the victim of a horrible crime.  She should be cared for, not feared.

Then she should get professional help, something that I don't think any CAP squadron is equiped to handle, nor should have to.  I was/am not afraid of this girl - but why do parents force their children not to hang out with gangbangers, drug users, criminals, etc?  Because they are a bad influence on the behaviors of their own children.

An excellent question.  Membership boards are not optional, but far too few unit commanders realize this.

Membership boards have wide discretion on whom to recommend for CAP membership, but they are not free to invidiously discriminate.  IOW, if the only reason the membership board declines to recommend an individual is an impermissible reason (like race, religion, crime victim status, etc), then the unit may well be "forced" to accept an othewise acceptible applicant.  That seems reasonable enough.  The alternative (letting units reject qualified applicants for improper reasons) is chaos.

I would not call denying membership in a youth organization to a child with two children to be ividiously discriminate.  The MB would not be denying membership to an individual based on the items listed in CAPs non-discrimination policy, but would be denying membership to someone who, in many states, has a pattern of criminal activity.

We have policies that enable commanders to kick cadets out for missing three meetings in a row, or doing poorly in school.  Yet we can't deny membership for situations far graver.  We don't allow cadets of opposite sex to be in a room together alone at NCSAs (not sleeping arrangements), etc because of what "may" happen.  Yet we are all for someone who has already exhibited that they are willing to participate in those behaviors EDIT:we don't want to join.joining.

Did you seriously think there was some risk that other 14 year olds would engage in dangerous behaviors simply because the applicant had two children?

Because she had two children, no.  Because of her attitude towards her decisions, the possibility of her actively trying to get one of the other cadets into a comprimising situation, yes.  Of course in this situation everyone reading lacks the personal interaction with this girl.

I would actually have expected quite the opposite.  I knew a CAP member that was disfigured from a burn accident.  While it didn't dominate our relationship, privately it did remind me to take extra care in similar situations.

We aren't talking about someone who lost their fingers in a snowblower, or had a piece of hot metal get in their eye from welding.  People don't actively try to repeat those behaviors.  Many teens do when it comes to sex and pregnancy.

All over the country we can see that bad decision making is contageous; from the continuing crime rates in inner cities, to the continuing trends in teen pregnancy, gang violence, etc.

Thank Goodness, most of us will never have to face this kind of situation.

Amen to that.

[O-Rex]

I think this is one of those things that borrows from the service academies, however they extend it to both genders, i.e., if you have a child, regardless of gender, you're out.

Actually the Academies give a maternity leave to a female cadet to have the baby and make arrangements for an adoption or termination of the pregnancy. The problem is not the preganancy, but the prohibition of cadets having a "dependent" prior to commissioning. The cadet is than readmitted in the following term.

NO KIDDING. . . .

Wow, times have changed.

Reminds me of the movie 'The General's Daughter'  which was also a fantastic book.

[JoeTomasone]

I was 19 when my daughter was born.  Between college classes, raising a child (not to mention being married), and holding three part-time jobs I barely had time to sleep - much less participate in any extra-curricular activities.  It about killed me to just finish school!   

P.S.> If there are any young adults reading this post, I highly recommend that you go to college first, get a carreer and then get married (in that order).  Although everything turned out OK for us, it was nearly impossible to succeed.

It's not that easy when you do it the right way these days...   I can't imagine being a teenage father in this economy.

[Nathan]

Ned, please see this article. It is about 5th graders who, when left unsupervised in a classroom, had sex with each other in front of the rest of their classmates - posting other students to look out for the teacher: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17980152/

or...

How about this clip from one of those daytime talk shows: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DE9llClgTqY
That one is a 15 year old girl who is trying everything in her power to get pregnant.

or...

This article from TIME regarding teens, all under 16 that formed a "pregnancy pact.": http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1815845,00.html

While an adult decision would be not to have children at that young of an age - a decision was made in this case, multiple times.

I'm going to go out on a limb with the psych training I've had so far and state pretty confidently that most prepubescent humans that engage in sexual behavior generally have some sort of abuse or trauma in their background. I don't think I need to go into the specifics.

Regardless, there is a reason that these situations are news. They are RARE. They don't happen enough to be anything other than offshoots of the main idea.

However, if what you were trying to prove is that it is completely natural for children to experience sexual situations, then there really isn't any reason at all for us to worry about having teenaged mother cadets in CAP. After all, it IS normal, right? If it's going on anyway, there isn't much really to worry about "protecting" the cadets from.

Then she should get professional help, something that I don't think any CAP squadron is equiped to handle, nor should have to.  I was/am not afraid of this girl - but why do parents force their children not to hang out with gangbangers, drug users, criminals, etc?  Because they are a bad influence on the behaviors of their own children.

As I've said in the past, it is NOT CAP's job to pander to the intolerant so long as the member in question is within regulations, whether the cadet is a Muslim, African American, gay, or a teenaged mother.

And you're right. It's not CAP's job to provide professional help for this cadet. Nor are we being asked to. Never has it been CAP's mission to provide psychological care to cadets, so I don't understand why we would assume we would "have to" just because we have someone in the squadron who needs it. I'm sure that many squadrons have cadets who need some sort of professional help. But it CAP's missions, AE, ES, and CP, are NOT affected by this one member. We continue doing the missions that we are assigned to do, that people JOIN to do, and we leave the professional help to the professionals.

I would not call denying membership in a youth organization to a child with two children to be ividiously discriminate.  The MB would not be denying membership to an individual based on the items listed in CAPs non-discrimination policy, but would be denying membership to someone who, in many states, has a pattern of criminal activity.

I most certainly would. The criminal activity is not one that CAP recognizes, and there is no regulation prohibiting cadet mothers from joining. If the applicant is otherwise qualified to be a cadet, it would be up to the commander to provide a much better reason than, "The cadet is a mother/gay/black/Muslim/whatever." Otherwise, it's clearly discrimination.

We have policies that enable commanders to kick cadets out for missing three meetings in a row, or doing poorly in school.  Yet we can't deny membership for situations far graver.  We don't allow cadets of opposite sex to be in a room together alone at NCSAs (not sleeping arrangements), etc because of what "may" happen.  Yet we are all for someone who has already exhibited that they are willing to participate in those behaviors EDIT:we don't want to join.joining.

Big difference. These are things that happen while the cadet is a member of CAP, which is where I imagine the original logic for the pregnancy rule came from. We will not be responsible for cadets having sex at a CAP activity, or for failing school while in CAP, or for failing to participate in CAP activities, but we have no responsibility anyway for what the cadet chose to do BEFORE joining CAP. And with the current lack of enforcement for the pregnancy 2b, we're furthering ourselves from MOST of the cadets' personal lives as it is. It's not our business so long as it does not affect CAP's mission.

Because she had two children, no.  Because of her attitude towards her decisions, the possibility of her actively trying to get one of the other cadets into a comprimising situation, yes.  Of course in this situation everyone reading lacks the personal interaction with this girl.

Two far different situations. You cannot simply assume that a cadet is promiscuous by the fact that she has two children. As you said, we don't know the context for the pregnancy. She could have been raped, and applying a blanket ban to all pregnant cadets because they MIGHT be promiscuous is a mistake.

Under that logic, should we ban all senior members who have children? After all, they DID have sex with SOMEONE. They might pass it on to the cadets, right?

Any cadet or senior member, regardless of parental status, can be promiscuous and "morally dangerous" to the cadets. And those situations we handle separately as they come up. But pregnancy is not a good indicator of that. In fact, I would imagine that a 14 year old who already has two kids isn't exactly going to be recommending it to other cadets, or taking any more risks...

[jimmydeanno]

Under that logic, should we ban all senior members who have children? After all, they DID have sex with SOMEONE. They might pass it on to the cadets, right?

That's not even the same comparison.  You are talking about an adult participating in adult things while acting in an adult capacity.

We (CAP) even makes it even stranger with their marriage clauses.  Under 18 you can be a cadet and married.  18+ you must be a senior.  What is the reasoning for that?  Maybe because they've decided to engage in the adult world?  So the married 18+ person with children needs to be a senior, but the unmarried 18+ person with children can stay a cadet.  Nice.

But what I was trying to "prove," is that young children DO participate consentually in things that would make Hugh Hefner blush - they make a concious decision to do these things.  Not all cases of teen pregnancy have to do with someone forcing them to do these things. 

However, I think the better point that has been brought up is the criminal status of the action.  While it may be socially "normal" in other countries or areas of the world, we decided that as a civilized nation it is not acceptable for 15 year olds to have children, have sex, etc.  Just as we have decided that alcohol should not be consumed by those under 21 even though many European nations allow consumption at any age.

With that in mind, if we as an organization are willing to allow cadets to participate in criminal activity and not have it fall under the "be of good moral character" exception in the membership requirements - what other criminal behavior are we willing to accept?  Assault? Armed Robbery?  Murder?  Don't you consider the commitance of criminal behavior to be "morally wrong?"

The court system of the United States seems to think that youth are capable of making adult decisions by their allowance of minors being able to be charged as adults so why can't we?

Again, all of this is so rare that there's probably only a few times a decade that someone thinks of joining as a teen with kids...

Any cadet or senior member, regardless of parental status, can be promiscuous and "morally dangerous" to the cadets.

And once that "morally dangerous" comes out membership is able to be terminated.  So why can't we deny membership to someone who has already proven - prior to joining - that they exhibit those traits?

[Eclipse]

Socially "normal" in some other country is irrelevant here, just as most other countries could care less what we consider "normal" (as long as we sell them our blue jeans and Britney albums).

Teen pregnancy, despite the Maury Povich show, is not "normal", nor is it right (there, I said it).

[LtCol057]

True, teen pregnancy is not "normal", but it does happen. It's currently reaching epidemic proportions.  When I was a paramedic, I had a mother of a young girl (not a cadet) cuss me out because I transported her daughter to L&D at the hospital. The mother said "She's not pregnant, she's only 13. She doesn't know what sex it. Her abdominal pain is something she ate."  Guess what? 30 minutes after I got her to L&D, she had a 8lb baby.

Personally, if a female cadet became pregnant by a male cadet, I'd probably strongly encourage both to resign from CAP. That way, if sometime later, they want to come back in, they'd be able to.

[Major Carrales]

Teens who get pregnant, I mean the mother and the father (should both be cadets), should be released from the CAP CADET OATH...not for morality reasons...but rather due to the situation that (in my opinion)  their pledge "to remain faithful to the Civil Air Patrol Cadet Program" has now been replaced, and rightfully so, with a pledge to maintain, support and be loyal to their new child.

A cadet that brings a child into this world is biologically, legally and morally obligated to care for the child.  CAP becomes secondary to that.

I would suggest a transfer to a patron status, if at all, because all financial, family/cultural and any extra time belongs to their responsibility as a parent.  This makes "participating actively in unit activites" and "attending meeting regularlly" much less significant and "be of service to their Community, State and Nation" now reflects raising a child to be an active and healthy member of the community for the eventual benefit of the State and Nation.

 

[Ned]

Sir, you told us that you were trying to prove that "young people DO participate consensually in things that would make Hugh Hefner blush."

I don't think that really matches up with your real-world example of the 10 year old sexual assault victim, but for the sake of argument let's look at your "proof."

Frankly, it is pretty weak.

In reverse order:

This article from TIME regarding teens, all under 16 that formed a "pregnancy pact.": http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1815845,00.html

You do know that this was a hoax, right?

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/5861523.html

Even Time backed off and later wrote that principal that started the rumor resigned and that none of the girls ever confirmed there was such a pact.

http://www.time.com/time/specials/2008/top10/article/0,30583,1855948_1863946_1863954,00.html

Your second item of "proof" was

How about this clip from one of those daytime talk shows: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DE9llClgTqYThat one is a 15 year old girl who is trying everything in her power to get pregnant.

Dude, you didn't really just rely on a clip from the Maury Show as "proof", did you?

Take a moment a Google "Maury Show" along with any of these words - "scripted", "fake", or "hoax".

Tell us what you find.

This clip is flat out amusing.  The actress playing the "15 year old" looks 20-24 to me.  The actors playing the audience and the mother are not particularly convincing.But if this qualifies as "proof" of your position, you will certainly be well armed to engage in debates about Transvestitie Aliens Who Stole My Husband.

And then there was your first item of "proof";

Ned, please see this article. It is about 5th graders who, when left unsupervised in a classroom, had sex with each other in front of the rest of their classmates - posting other students to look out for the teacher: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17980152/

You have to admit this is a pretty suspicious story.  While it certainly comes from a mainstream media source (AP), there are no follow-up stories to be found more than a week or so after the event.  For such a media-friendly story, it just fell off the face of the earth.  It is unlikely that there was any sort of trial or serious consequences for the alleged participants without some sort of confirmation.

This suggests to me (fairly experienced in high profile criminal cases and juvenile cases) that either it was wildly overblown by whoever first spoke to the press and/or it was quietly dismissed as unfounded.  There are no quotes or follow-ups from the DA or the courts.  Just quotes from the (elected) sheriff.

Plus, the story seems inconsistent internally.  Most reputable medical authorities suggest that it is highly unlikely that fifth-grader males have even begun puberty, let alone able to function sexually.

Of course, the story does say that the males involved were 12 and 13 -- but what would a 13 year-old be doing in the fifth grade in the first place?  It doesn't make sense.

Bottom line on this one is that I simply don't believe it without some sort of confirmation.  Without names or follow-up, it rates a little bit above "gossip" and "rumor" and somewhat below "reliable and confirmed news story."

But I think we have a more fundamental disagreement.

If you honestly think that a 10 year old girl who gets impregnated during a sexual assault is some sort of vixen with loose morals, we are pretty far apart on this issue.

Let me suggest you take a look at the literature surrounding what the experts call Child Sexual Assault Accommodation Syndrome. (CSAAS)  It helps to explain how children appear to go along with monstrous sex crimes committed upon them.  Children react differently to sexual situations than adults, and their helplessness and lack of resistance often make them appear less credible to adults who simply cannot understand why a 10 year old would engage in sexual behavior unless they really "wanted to."

Here's a quick slide show to get you started: http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/slides_archive.pdf

[Ned]

Teens who get pregnant, I mean the mother and the father (should both be cadets), should be released from the CAP CADET OATH...not for morality reasons...but rather due to the situation that (in my opinion)  their pledge "to remain faithful to the Civil Air Patrol Cadet Program" has now been replaced, and rightfully so, with a pledge to maintain, support and be loyal to their new child.

I'm not sure I understand you here.  How is becoming a parent in any way inconsistent with the Cadet Oath?  I'm not seeing it.

A cadet that brings a child into this world is biologically, legally and morally obligated to care for the child.  CAP becomes secondary to that.

Two things.  First, a pregnant cadet may or may not deliver a child.  Even it she does deliver a healthy child, many teen moms surrender the child for adoption or allow their relatives to serve as the primary care-giver for a period of time.

Second, (and far more importantly) CAP is always going to be "secondary" (or lower) to every single member, cadet or senior, including you and me.  For cadets, CAP is already secondary to school and family.  And a new baby is just more family.  Nothing new here.

BTW, how is this any different than a 23 year old senior who has a baby?  Obviously, CAP is "secondary" to the baby for them as well.  And yet, we are fortunate that countless seniors with youngsters at home continue to volunteer their time to train and mentor cadets.

I would suggest a transfer to a patron status, if at all, because all financial, family/cultural and any extra time belongs to their responsibility as a parent.  This makes "participating actively in unit activites" and "attending meeting regularlly" much less significant and "be of service to their Community, State and Nation" now reflects raising a child to be an active and healthy member of the community for the eventual benefit of the State and Nation.

Like Robert, you may well be correct that a cadet who cares for a child may have little or no time for CAP.  I would expect that most will probably drift away, challenged as you suggest by parental responsiblities.

But that is their decision, not yours.  You don't get to choose their college, career, or life partners.  Why do you think you can toss them out just because you might disagree with their priorities?

 

[Rotorhead]

Teens who get pregnant, I mean the mother and the father (should both be cadets), should be released from the CAP CADET OATH...not for morality reasons...but rather due to the situation that (in my opinion)  their pledge "to remain faithful to the Civil Air Patrol Cadet Program" has now been replaced, and rightfully so, with a pledge to maintain, support and be loyal to their new child.

I don't believe it says (or even implies) that "CAP must be your first priority in life."

I think you're stretching here.

[Nathan]

That's not even the same comparison.  You are talking about an adult participating in adult things while acting in an adult capacity.

We should probably kick out of cadethood all cadets that go to college, hold a job, own a car, live on their own, watch a rated R film, or who order Big Macs.

You're talking about an adult as defined by CAP, not necessarily the rest of the world. I'm 20, going to be 21 in two months. As I mentioned, I am certainly adult enough to do pretty much anything I'm legally allowed to do, such as smoke, join the military, or whatever. Because I decide not to have a kid makes me less of an adult? A cadet is not any less a cadet when he or she decides to do something "adult" (once again, assuming that this act was a choice). In fact, we EXPECT our cadets to act like adults. Sexuality is not implied, but you can't simply say that once the little tykes grow up that it's time for them to leave the program.

CAP does not stop me from smoking outside of CAP. I'm an adult. I can go to college. I'm an adult. But I can't have a kid? Where does CAP get THAT logic from? Why is having a kid any more adult than anything else I mentioned? Where is that line drawn, and who has the authority to draw it? Hell, I'm legally allowed to have a kid long before I'm allowed to drink...

We (CAP) even makes it even stranger with their marriage clauses.  Under 18 you can be a cadet and married.  18+ you must be a senior.  What is the reasoning for that?  Maybe because they've decided to engage in the adult world?  So the married 18+ person with children needs to be a senior, but the unmarried 18+ person with children can stay a cadet.  Nice.

I don't buy it, mainly because I don't particularly think that marriage should necessarily be a reason to kick a cadet out either. It's a double standard, any way you go, as I said. So the real question is whether or not we should allow any member who decides to participate in "adult activities" (which is essentially whatever the higher ups at CAP seem to think constitutes an "adult action") to continue as cadets. I personally don't think that it's our business what cadets do outside of CAP that they are legally allowed to do, and I CERTAINLY think we should be trying to find LESS reasons to kick kids out of CAP.

But what I was trying to "prove," is that young children DO participate consentually in things that would make Hugh Hefner blush - they make a concious decision to do these things.  Not all cases of teen pregnancy have to do with someone forcing them to do these things. 

Ned covered this already, so I won't go into what he said.

However, like I said, you saying that young children ALREADY participate in these activities is hurting your argument more than helping it. If children are already capable of making these decisions and are doing it anyway (which I highly doubt they are, based upon what I know of child and abnormal psychology), then that means that this is a "normal and natural" behavior as it is, or at least one we can't control. Which means that if it is something we need to deal with, then booting them out of the program isn't the way to do it. It's going to go on whether we like it or not, and kicking a cadet out of the program for making a decision he or she can apparently naturally make against all biological reasoning seems to be fighting a useless battle. If we have an underaged cadet who's smoking outside of CAP, then that isn't reason to kick them out. We simply do what we can to help them make better choices, but other than that, we continue doing the mission we are trained to do. Since there is no "abstinence only" program in CAP, it's outside of our mission parameters.

Regardless, IF this were happening, and IF it were an issue that needed to be dealt with, we should leave the parenting to the parents. It is not our job to decide the guilt or morality of a teenager's pregnancy, because I WILL guarantee you that there are FAR more teenaged and child pregnancies that were not "consensual."

However, I think the better point that has been brought up is the criminal status of the action.  While it may be socially "normal" in other countries or areas of the world, we decided that as a civilized nation it is not acceptable for 15 year olds to have children, have sex, etc.  Just as we have decided that alcohol should not be consumed by those under 21 even though many European nations allow consumption at any age.

Last time I checked, being pregnant was NOT a criminal offense, regardless of age. Sex, in fact, was the crime. We can logically deduce that a teenager had sex in order to get pregnant, sure, but we CANNOT deduce logically that the sex was criminal in the way you think it was. As Ned points out and is supported by all sociological and psychological evidence I've been taught, MOST cases of teen and child pregnancy is NOT consensual in the way you think it is. It's not usually a case of two loving 15 year olds having sex and the girl getting pregnant; it's usually the case that you have some 21-27 year old guy who is a friend of a friend of a friend that this girl thinks she loves and has sex with simply to try to get him to like her. Next thing you know, she's a victim of statutory rape and pregnant with a child. She was the VICTIM of the crime, and you will hear FAR more of those cases than of the former.

So the criminal activity thing doesn't really work unless you're prepared to suggest that we interview all pregnant teenaged girls who want to become CAP cadets and ask them exactly how their pregnancy happened, because we need to know if they committed a misdemeanor or if they were the victim of rape. I really don't see that as a viable option.

With that in mind, if we as an organization are willing to allow cadets to participate in criminal activity and not have it fall under the "be of good moral character" exception in the membership requirements - what other criminal behavior are we willing to accept?  Assault? Armed Robbery?  Murder?  Don't you consider the commitance of criminal behavior to be "morally wrong?"

I think you're going to have a hard time justifying the comparison of assault, armed robbery, and murder to consensual sex between two minors, and even less so with being a rape victim who MAY have acted like she wanted to have sex. I feel morally pretty stable about the gap between those offenses.

And once that "morally dangerous" comes out membership is able to be terminated.  So why can't we deny membership to someone who has already proven - prior to joining - that they exhibit those traits?

They haven't proven anything by being pregnant, merely the fact that they are, in fact, female. As I stated, until you're willing to interview all 12-17 year old girls who want to join up about their sex lives, then it's far better to assume the best in ALL cadets who are interested in helping their country and community through CAP.

A cadet that brings a child into this world is biologically, legally and morally obligated to care for the child.  CAP becomes secondary to that.

A cadet is not obligated to take care of the child in ANY of those ways. A cadet can give up a child for adoption biologically, legally, AND morally.

And CAP becomes secondary to a LOT of things that ARE legally directed, such as school. But we don't simply assume that because a cadet is in school that they are not capable of doing CAP at the same time. By regulation, we wait until they are actually demonstrating a failure to maintain their school grades before we give them the boot. If we kick cadets out simply for being pregnant or being a mother, that is not giving them the same chance we give them in the things they actually ARE legally required to make secondary to CAP. You want to kick a cadet out for being a mother? Wait until child services ends up at their house or something. Until that point, I wouldn't have a problem giving our cadets the benefit of the doubt that if they are willing to show up every week at CAP that they are managing their time well enough. After all, CAP does tend to teach cadets these types of time-management and character-building skills...

[Major Carrales]

Hold on there, bucko, I'm presenting the most tempered position here.  Any person that has a child is beholden to the upbring of that child...not service to CAP.

My point is that you cannot hold a CAP cadet to several elements of the cadet oath if their greater responsibility lies elsewhere.  Attend meeting regulary...who would watch the child, what if they miss umpteen meetings and fall behind? Participate actively in Unit activities...weekend clean ups versus watching your child?  I'm a parent and I have trouble with it.

I suspect, furthermore, that is why members of the military who join as cadets have to transition to senior membership as well.  They can no longer be held to an oath when they have taken an oath or responsibility that superedes it.

Who said anything about tossing them out, picking their college or any of that other wrought?  We are talking about a cadet program, your talking societial problems that that program is not equiped to directly deal with.  Should we provide day-care for cadets with children?  Should we have a special medical catergory for them?  Do we excuse months of absences and apply stresses and pressures that other cadets would get when we know they have a viable excuse...their child?  Would a parent cadet continue?  Would it be a wise decision to even ask them to continue?  Should their parents raise the child for them?  Answer these questions with solutions, add weight to the lofty ideals your proport.

Then you can take the bold tone with me and anyone else.  I would venture to opine that your response to me is under the impression that I find the idea of a pregnant cadet morally repugnant or some other "social" issue.  As if my might lower myself to the wornout socio-political ideas like "LIBERALs" and "CONSERVATIVEs" on this matter.  That I might think a pregnant cadet is somehow "EVIL."  Should you think that, be advised that such a position is ridiculous in this matter en re me. 

I'm coming from a more real position, one where I see 8th graders with children that hardly have time for school much less atheltics, band, academic competition or CAP.  The reality that holding a teen parent to the ideals of the Cadet Oath is not reasonable for the Unit, the Cadet nor the child they bear.

If they can work it out...if one in 100 can work it out...let them try it.  But I still maintain that their first responsibility it to the raising of their child.

[Major Carrales]

Teens who get pregnant, I mean the mother and the father (should both be cadets), should be released from the CAP CADET OATH...not for morality reasons...but rather due to the situation that (in my opinion)  their pledge "to remain faithful to the Civil Air Patrol Cadet Program" has now been replaced, and rightfully so, with a pledge to maintain, support and be loyal to their new child.

I don't believe it says (or even implies) that "CAP must be your first priority in life."

I think you're stretching here.

An oath is not just "cool words we say together," they expouse a certain since of goal stating and purpose.  Even the Pledge to the Flag is not "just words," it means you are faithful to be a ally to the Flag and all that it stands for.

"I pledge to serve faithfully in the Civil Air Patrol Cadet Program and that I will attend meetings regularly, participate actively in unit activities, obey my officers, wear my uniform properly and advance my education and training rapidly to prepare myself to be of service to my community, state and nation."

Ideally, the above is what cadets are supposed to do as cadets.  They are called in the first line to be "faithful" to CAP.  How can that be done if their new responsibility is to their child?  It would be making them say something they ideally cannot and should not be called to do.

Regular meeting attendance is curtailed.  We have a 3 meets and your out policy (one that few follow, I suspect that it is more for unexcused absences).  Does the assemblege mean to say that one meeting every now and then is regular?  While the circumstance is a great one, can the oath be upheld?

Active unit activity participation is required for promotion...if they can't participate do we just give it to them as a gimme?  Pass a Leadership test and Aerospace Test and earn the Mitchell?

Now, the point I'm making here is not in favor of throwing them out, but rather to point out that the Cadet Oath no longer applies to them as it is written and as you would have them say it.

Make the case for a revision to reflect this or move on.

[Nathan]

But I still maintain that their first responsibility it to the raising of their child.

Since your post generally bakes down to this, then I'll address this.

Absolutely, 100% correct that it should be their first priority to raise the child. IF they choose to keep the child, and not either give it up for adoption or abort it.

But does that mean to the exclusion of all else?

As both Ned and I pointed out, CAP should NEVER be the primary focus of ANYONE'S life, ever. Even at encampment, a family emergency will take precedence. Even on a mission. That's the way it goes.

The cadet oath, under your definition, would not apply to anyone with ANY other responsibilities that might trump those to CAP, and that is a little... out there. EVERYONE has responsibilities outside of CAP, especially cadets. Pregnancy and raising a child is just another responsibility that the cadet would have to weigh against all other options. It is NO different than having to make the decision as to whether or not they should go to CAP or study for their test, or see their grandfather who's in town, or take care of a sick sibling, or volunteer at a hospital.

Raising a child does not automatically forfeit their oath to be faithful to CAP. In fact, I would imagine that if the cadet is trying to raise a child and still trying to go to CAP, that would actually mean the cadet is more faithful to CAP than someone who fades out, and under your logic, they should therefore be held more accountable if they decide to leave due to the pregnancy.

Isn't that right?