Was Juno right?

A recent article in Slate by Emily Yoffe argues that marriage should be the priority consideration for young people who have unintended pregnancies and choose to keep the baby.

The Centers for Disease Control, teenagers account for only 23 percent of current out-of-wedlock births. That means the vast majority of unwed mothers are old enough to know what they're doing: Unwed births are surging among women ages 25 to 29.

The arguments set forth in the article seem to suggest that young pregnant girls are do not understand the situation in which they put themselves:

"But perhaps in our desire not to make moral judgments about personal choices, young women wholly unprepared to be mothers are not getting the message that there are dire consequences of having (unprotected) sex with guys too lame to be fathers. There is a scene in the teen pregnancy movie Juno in which the title character, a 16-year-old who has decided not to abort her unplanned baby but to give it up for adoption, is having an ultrasound. The technician, thinking she has on the examining table another knocked-up teenager planning to raise her child, makes disparaging remarks about children born into those circumstances. We are supposed to loathe this character and cheer when Juno's stepmother puts her in her place. But I found myself sympathetic to the technician. Why is it verboten to express the truth that growing up with a lonely, overwhelmed mother and a missing father is a recipe for childhood pain?"

But is this assessment fully correct? Do girls really not consider the best option for their babies? Do girls really not have agency in the decision that they make over their children? Juno actually seems to prove otherwise. Though a fictional character and perhaps not representative of many girls, she still displayed overwhelming understanding of her situation and handled it as if she were and adult. See the inspiration behind Juno by screenplay writer Diablo Cody