Tuesday, December 18, 2007

Why are they acting like this is shameful? Worse shit has happened (like her sister's parenting, for one thing).



I don't get it. If you're going to keep the damn baby, then be joyful. If you're keeping it, but you're too young and scared to be joyful, then just be private about it and keep your fucking face off the cover of OK magazine. If you're too scared and it's not the right time to have a baby, terminate. But don't put yourself on the cover of a magazine with this bullshit faux-shame but "doing-the-right-thing" posturing. If you're going to act like there is shame in this, then you don't even deserve that child.

I am so tired of celebretards. Thier mother is having one hell of a year. I soooo want to buy her like 6 drinks and tell her that everything's going to be ok.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

Something tells me Mama Spears has no trouble pouring herself six drinks and telling herself everything is going to be ok.

Anonymous said...

PS: The sister's head is enormous, isn't it?

Anonymous said...

from tmz.com:

TMZ has learned that Jamie Lynn Spears was not paid for this week's magazine interview ... yet. We're told the money will change hands down the road -- when the baby is born.

Just how did the deal go down? Rewind. Sources close to Britney's family tell TMZ it all started when Britney melted down on an OK! Magazine photo shoot. Britney's mom, Lynne, read the article (who didn't?!) and called OK! personally to thank them "for handling it so well." She stayed in touch with OK!, and called them this week when she learned that news of Jamie's pregnancy was about to break. Her only requirement? Keep Britney out of it. This is about Jamie Lynn. "She trusted them to do it in a way that would be sympathetic to her daughter," our source says.

We're told Jamie and mom did not want money, but OK! has agreed to pay $1 million to the younger Spears for a photo shoot when the child is born. Why so little when others have commanded several million? We're told it's because Jamie Lynn is not an international star and it's not worth it to the mag to pay big bucks for something they can't sell overseas.

Another interesting note: We hear Jamie is further along than the 12 weeks she says in the mag's article. Expect a spring baby.

fashiongirl said...

It's here "Papa don't preach" moment engineering by her army of publicists.

Forever Chic said...

I have no problem with babies being born outside of marriage, but it is shameful to me that 16-year-olds are getting impregnated by 19-year-olds. It's shameful that Jamie Lynn didn't have the education, common sense or access to condoms to keep herself safe from STDs and pregnancy.

SGM said...

I think Beyonce's sister had a baby at 16 too. Someone get Ali Lohan into therapy pronto.

S. said...

Hear, hear, Decorno! Although, in this particular case, I probably would not have listed the first two options and would have just given the third: "Keep your mouth shut and TERMINATE!" It seems that family already has more than it's fair share of inappropriate parenting; why add to it with yet more helpless spawn?

And, what is the gaping hole in these girls' emotional lives that they hope to plug with motherhood? Gives me the heebie-jeebies...

Anonymous said...

It's how girls without talent or education get power and status as adults. Or that's the theory, anyway.

Jackie Von Tobel said...

How did I miss this? I love the moniker Celebretard - is that in Websters? All of these little spoiled beatches should have their credit cards taken away and be sent to trailer trash rehab camp in a no paparazzi zone where they are housed in broken down airstreams with no indoor plumbing and forced to work together at the local laundromat until they get their shit together. Their children should be given away to media responsible celebs like Brangolina to be raised like rescue dogs. These people are giving true trailer dwellers a bad name.