What would you do if your teenage daughter got pregnant?

[CanYouDigIt]

Murder daughter?

Murder baby's father?

Be understanding?

[JimmyMcAdocious]

Impossible. My sperm only creates men.

[OJ SIMPSON 2.0]

Punch her in the stomach. No baby, no need to pay money for an abortion, everyone's happy.

[Jameerthefear]

i'm too young to be a dad, but if i got a girl pregnant i'd make the boy a pro b-ball player with my extreme ISH knowledge.

[Budadiiii]

i'm too young to be a dad, but if i got a girl pregnant i'd make the boy a pro b-ball player with my extreme ISH knowledge.
Would that even be enough to overcome the extreme genetic disadvantage?

[TheGreatDeraj]

This is thread is one of the many reasons that I'm either having a son or an abortion

[knickballer]

This is thread is one of the many reasons that I'm either having a son or an abortion

Would he be okay with it?

[Fresh Kid]

i would be pissed off of course, her baby dad have to stay far away from me too, but at tha same time i would have to deal with it cuz it would be karma for me for fooling around with all these girs that i had sex with in my life, knowing that most of tha partners i had, i just wanted their tuna and nuttin else. So yea i just have to deal with that cruel punishment from God.

[ace23]

kill her.

not the baby

[Draz]

Ill tell her I drugged her until she was unconscious and got her pregnant not her boyfriend. That way she gets rid of it.

[MavsSuperFan]

I would show her the statistics related to teenage motherhood and convince her to get an abortion. Also I would be surprised that she got pregnant as I would explain to her how to use contraceptives

[tomtucker]

remind myself to pull out next time

[Eric Cartman]

Ill tell her I drugged her until she was unconscious and got her pregnant not her boyfriend. That way she gets rid of it.

That ruins the relationship with your daughter for the rest of your life. Who is the going to live with the fact that her dad drugged and raped her.

[sixerfan82]

Call MTV

Profit

[Im so nba'd out]

a igga getting wasted and i aint talking bout beers

[senelcoolidge]

Well I'm 2/0. Two boys. I seem to only make boys. But if I had a girl she would probably be raised in my wife's country and her family. Just a more conservative place. Of course girls get pregnant anywhere, but the environment would not be filled with the shit that we see here in the U.S. If she got pregnant I would be understanding depending on her..the type of person that she is.

[niko]

I'd find out what happpened (who the guy is, etc.) then very calmly take her to get rid of it. Then I'd go visit the boy without telling him first i got rid of it to see if he lived or not. Then i'd yell at her for 2 days.

What else is there to do?

[senelcoolidge]

I'd find out what happpened (who the guy is, etc.) then very calmly take her to get rid of it. Then I'd go visit the boy without telling him first i got rid of it to see if he lived or not. Then i'd yell at her for 2 days.

What else is there to do?

Put the kid for adoption, don't kill it. Come on.

[ace23]

Then I'd go visit the boy without telling him first i got rid of it to see if he lived or not.
What?

[IamRAMBO24]

I'd find out what happpened (who the guy is, etc.) then very calmly take her to get rid of it. Then I'd go visit the boy without telling him first i got rid of it to see if he lived or not. Then i'd yell at her for 2 days.

What else is there to do?

You're such a loser for trying to kill the baby, but you know what, news flash, thank god idiots like you can't make that decision.

I hope your future teenage daughter keeps her pregnancy and ends up with sextuplets.

[IamRAMBO24]

Then I'd go visit the boy without telling him first i got rid of it to see if he lived or not.


I don't know if you are trying to be discreet with your intentions, but wtf does, "to see if he lived or not?" I bet you're trying to say you're going to kill him. :facepalm Again, another dumba*s opinion by niko. Ok so you're really going to kill some dude just because he knocked up your daughter? I can understand getting angry and beating his a*s, but killing the guy your daughter loves (and your grand child's daddy) is bit, shall we say, PSYCHO! You're f*ckin nuts, not to mention, a loser for thinking that way.

[IamRAMBO24]

Then i'd yell at her for 2 days.


Oops I missed this part. Not only are you a deviant loser (for wanting to kill a baby), a psycho (for wanting to kill her BF), but you're also a horrible father for thinking yelling is the only parenting solution you need to fix the problem. How about education? How about a bit of love and having an open ear to hear her problems and actually try to fix it? Better yet, how about stopping the incestual molestation to control her callous attitude towards sex? Seriously, you're just going to yell at her? That's it. There's nothing you can do. :facepalm Wow niko, if your child ever goes off the handle, the only time you should be yelling is when you look at yourself in the mirror.

[HarryCallahan]

I'd find out what happpened (who the guy is, etc.) then very calmly take her to get rid of it. Then I'd go visit the boy without telling him first i got rid of it to see if he lived or not. Then i'd yell at her for 2 days.

What else is there to do?

"Got rid of it"???

:biggums:


You're a p.o.s you jobless leech.

[IamRAMBO24]

Niko disgusts Pro life people and pro choice people at the same time:oldlol:

Niko is a walking zombie. Adolf Hitler's incarnate. If he ends up in hell, the devil would be his right hand man. Holy sh*t Jeffrey Dahmer probably worships him with one of his shrines.

[niko]

I wouldn't let my teenage daughter ruin her life that early to care for a baby she doesn't want. The world has 8 billion people, it's 2013, why would you have a baby that you don't want?

I love how the same people that post about no god and laugh at all the religious people suddenly are pro-life. Why? The removal of the group of cells offends you?

[niko]

What?
Just being fasicitious. But I'd want to talk to him and I don't promise I'd be nice about it. I want to know what he thinks about possibly ruining a good portion of his and my daughter's life.

[HarryCallahan]

I wouldn't let my teenage daughter ruin her life that early to care for a baby she doesn't want. The world has 8 billion people, it's 2013, why would you have a baby that you don't want?

I love how the same people that post about no god and laugh at all the religious people suddenly are pro-life. Why? The removal of the group of cells offends you?

:facepalm

Because murder is wrong fvcko.

[alenleomessi]

she wouldnt have gotten pregnant if you did your 'dad' job right

[MavsSuperFan]

I wouldn't let my teenage daughter ruin her life that early to care for a baby she doesn't want. The world has 8 billion people, it's 2013, why would you have a baby that you don't want?

I love how the same people that post about no god and laugh at all the religious people suddenly are pro-life. Why? The removal of the group of cells offends you?

7 billion + to be accurate.

But overall :applause: :applause:

the statistics are clear teenage motherhood is a disaster I have forgotten the specifics but, it is statistically unlikely for teenage mothers to finish college/university and get a job as anything other than a wage slave or a sex worker.

also it is extremely rare that the teenage father takes any role the girl or the baby's life. she will also have an extremely hard time dating.

Basically her financial, educational, and romantic prospects are ruined. Unless you hate your daughter you would do everything possible to convince her of getting an abortion.


she wouldnt have gotten pregnant if you did your 'dad' job right

Sex is a perfectly normal human urge. believe it or not girls want to have sex and find companionship too. Its 2013, stop shaming girls for being human.


:facepalm

Because murder is wrong fvcko.

zygotes dont equal humans.

[alenleomessi]

Imma get nikos daughter pregnant. free abortion and a surprise visit from niko:rockon:
something like this?
http://1-ps.googleusercontent.com/x/www.vicoteka.mk/photo.srkaj.com/v/gifs07.gif.pagespeed.ce.pZojFLa6ZX.gif

[HarryCallahan]

zygotes dont equal humans.

Tell me exactly when that becomes murder then? At precisely how long into gestation does something start to become human? Can't? Well then you'd better not kill it.

[MavsSuperFan]

Tell me exactly when that becomes murder then? At precisely how long into gestation does something start to become human? Can't? Well then you'd better not kill it.
when viability outside the womb becomes possible.

i think no abortions past the 20th week is reasonable.

most doctors agree that fetuses dont become viable outside the womb until about the 22nd week.

iirc in america abortions are legal from at the latest the 20th week. in some states they become illegal as soon as the 12th week.

[IamRAMBO24]

I wouldn't let my teenage daughter ruin her life that early to care for a baby she doesn't want. The world has 8 billion people, it's 2013, why would you have a baby that you don't want?

I love how the same people that post about no god and laugh at all the religious people suddenly are pro-life. Why? The removal of the group of cells offends you?

You mean the baby YOU don't want. Tough. Better suck it up grand daddy and start learning how to change diapers because IT IS NOT YOUR DAMN DECISION whether or not she carries on with her pregnancy. She might once be daddy's little girl, but now she's billy's little wh*re once she allowed him to tear that precious family jewel up. This is the reason why your opinion is so idiotic: you can assume you can cover up the problem with brute force but not once can you point your fingers at bad parenting if the situation ever occurs.

Since it is YOUR failure as a father, you should bare some responsibility in HELPING her raise the child if she chooses to keep HER pregnancy at which YOU are at fault for not educating, and THUS preventing HER pregnancy. Remember, you don't want to follow in the footsteps of your dead beat dad; it's immoral to just abandon things when the going gets tough (I know this advice could be hard to swallow - you are jobless afterall).

[HarryCallahan]

Tell me exactly when that becomes murder then? At precisely how long into gestation does something start to become human? Can't? Well then you'd better not kill it.


I'm well aware of the vague timeframe during which a fetus can live outside of the mother.

How did you reach the conclusion that a fetus isn't human until after reaching viability? Is this based upon anything or just an arbitrary line?

If you can't answer these questions then I don't think you should kill the person(?). I've not yet seen these questions answered satisfactorily, so I can't condone it.

[IamRAMBO24]

Why are you talking to yourself?

[MavsSuperFan]

I'm well aware of the vague timeframe during which a fetus can live outside of the mother.

How did you reach the conclusion that a fetus isn't human until after reaching viability? Is this based upon anything or just an arbitrary line?

If you can't answer these questions then I don't think you should kill the person(?). I've not yet seen these questions answered satisfactorily, so I can't condone it.

to me until a fetus can survive on its own it is still a part of the mother and should be her decision whether or not she wishes to carry out the pregnancy.

And its not that vague a timeframe. less than 1% of fetuses can survive outside the womb before the 20th week.

you and our current laws disagree that fetuses are humans.

Furthermore I dont see the benefit to society of preventing a woman who wishes to terminate a pregnancy from doing so. The statistics are clear that woman if she is a teenage, is probably going to ruin her life by having the child. Unless by some miracle fluke the child turns out to be a professional athlete or something, she has probably made a decision that will financially cripple her for the rest of her life and doom her to a life of poverty and poor employment prospects.

If I remember correctly you oppose the government helping people with any form of welfare. You realize though that you are basically dooming these teenage girls to a lifetime of relying on government outlays if you force them to carry their unwanted pregnancies to term. Further its somewhat hypocritical to oppose government intervention in the lives of americans and yet support governments right to decide what a woman should do with her body.

You are probably not doing the unwanted fetus a favor by forcing its birth either.

1. the mother is unprepared and didnt plan to have this child. She is not prepared or responsible enough to take good care of this child. She might not have the resources to put this child in a good school or a good neighborhood
2. the father probably wont be there for them
3. by having the baby the mother has basically insured that she will not complete a post secondary education program. Which guarantees she will be poor, unless she is willing to be a stripper or something.
4. In america if you are born rich you will probably die rich, and if your are born poor you will probably die poor. We live in a country with very little social mobility, statistically speaking at least.

I remember reading a book called freakonomics that showed evidence that correlated the drop in crime in america to the expansion in access to abortion. In any specific area once legislation was passed that expanded access to abortion, about 18-20 years later the crime rates plummeted. These studies were repeated in some eastern european country where legislation was passed to restrict abortion, and 18-20 years later crime skyrocketed.

[PistonsFan#21]

Why are you talking to yourself?

forgot to log on his alternate account

[HarryCallahan]

Why are you talking to yourself?

I wasn't, I was addressing MavSuperFan with that quote because I don't believe he paid enough attention to the words
exactly" and "precisely." You are a very oblivious person if you missed this.

[travelingman]

She might once be daddy's little girl, but now she's billy's little wh*re

Had me rolling

[IamRAMBO24]

I wasn't, I was addressing MavSuperFan with that quote because I don't believe he paid enough attention to the words
exactly" and "precisely." You are a very oblivious person if you missed this.

Or you forgot to log in your alt account. :pimp:

[highwhey]

7 billion + to be accurate.

But overall :applause: :applause:

the statistics are clear teenage motherhood is a disaster I have forgotten the specifics but, it is statistically unlikely for teenage mothers to finish college/university and get a job as anything other than a wage slave or a sex worker.

also it is extremely rare that the teenage father takes any role the girl or the baby's life. she will also have an extremely hard time dating.

Basically her financial, educational, and romantic prospects are ruined. Unless you hate your daughter you would do everything possible to convince her of getting an abortion.



Sex is a perfectly normal human urge. believe it or not girls want to have sex and find companionship too. Its 2013, stop shaming girls for being human.



zygotes dont equal humans.
If ur gonna let ur teenage daughter skank around having sex at an age where she should be focused on getting into college then you're an irresponsible father. At that age, she will have many urges but it's your job to keep her from getting in trouble because she doesn't know any better at that age. She can have sex at a more appropriate age.

[MavsSuperFan]

If ur gonna let ur teenage daughter skank around having sex at an age where she should be focused on getting into college then you're an irresponsible father. At that age, she will have many urges but it's your job to keep her from getting in trouble because she doesn't know any better at that age. She can have sex at a more appropriate age.

did you have sex in high school? You're a hypocrite if you did.

Besides sex happens, no matter how much parents try to stop it. Its why sex ed and access to condoms are so important. You will notice that teenaged pregnancy and teenage contraction of stds are highest in the most conservative states. Its not because their parents encourage them to have sex.

Good luck stopping your daughter from having sex, you will likely fail if she has the option to have sex.l

You know the stereotype about preacher's/reverend's daughters. I doubt their dads are encouraging them to have sex.

I remember being a teen, I did a ton of shit my parents would have disapproved of. Parents cant watch kids 24/7. Girls make mistakes all the time. No reason to burden them for their whole lives for 1 mistake that can be taken care of by an abortion.

[HarryCallahan]

to me until a fetus can survive on its own it is still a part of the mother and should be her decision whether or not she wishes to carry out the pregnancy.

And its not that vague a timeframe. less than 1% of fetuses can survive outside the womb before the 20th week.

you and our current laws disagree that fetuses are humans.

Furthermore I dont see the benefit to society of preventing a woman who wishes to terminate a pregnancy from doing so. The statistics are clear that woman if she is a teenage, is probably going to ruin her life by having the child. Unless by some miracle fluke the child turns out to be a professional athlete or something, she has probably made a decision that will financially cripple her for the rest of her life and doom her to a life of poverty and poor employment prospects.

If I remember correctly you oppose the government helping people with any form of welfare. You realize though that you are basically dooming these teenage girls to a lifetime of relying on government outlays if you force them to carry their unwanted pregnancies to term. Further its somewhat hypocritical to oppose government intervention in the lives of americans and yet support governments right to decide what a woman should do with her body.

You are probably not doing the unwanted fetus a favor by forcing its birth either.

1. the mother is unprepared and didnt plan to have this child. She is not prepared or responsible enough to take good care of this child. She might not have the resources to put this child in a good school or a good neighborhood
2. the father probably wont be there for them
3. by having the baby the mother has basically insured that she will not complete a post secondary education program. Which guarantees she will be poor, unless she is willing to be a stripper or something.
4. In america if you are born rich you will probably die rich, and if your are born poor you will probably die poor. We live in a country with very little social mobility, statistically speaking at least.

I remember reading a book called freakonomics that showed evidence that correlated the drop in crime in america to the expansion in access to abortion. In any specific area once legislation was passed that expanded access to abortion, about 18-20 years later the crime rates plummeted. These studies were repeated in some eastern european country where legislation was passed to restrict abortion, and 18-20 years later crime skyrocketed.

-Whether or not it's a part of the mother, is it a human?

-Laws and morality have little to do with one another.

-We are obviously having a disagreement as to the nature of the issue. You believe it's a matter of practicality, where as I see it as a human rights issue.

-You say that a society where these unwanted babies are born will be a crime-ridden society, I say that killing them is in-and-of-itself a crime.

[niko]

if for some reason my daughter 100% wanted to keep it I would respect her wishes, but you better believe I would do everything possible to change her mind. ****ing up her life to make a point about when life begins doesn't strike me as a good idea.

I like how people like IAmRambo try to make points on this, how exactly would you have an opinion on something that required you not only having a woman touch you, but have sex, and then admit you were the father and let you see the kid. I don't think this is a concern you'll have.

[MavsSuperFan]

If ur gonna let ur teenage daughter skank around having sex at an age where she should be focused on getting into college then you're an irresponsible father. At that age, she will have many urges but it's your job to keep her from getting in trouble because she doesn't know any better at that age. She can have sex at a more appropriate age.

to clarify I would never encourage any teenager to have sex.

but i also dont live in a disney movie where teens need to be encouraged to have sex and it isnt what their natural evolutionary drive leads them to.

Your just being stupid if you think teens dont want to have sex. The statistics show you would be wrong in that assumption. Also you are equally stupid if you think parents can stop their kids from having sex. Look at states like alabama, mississippi, georgia, etc. Conservative christian states all of them. You think their parents are encouraging their daughters to have sex?

And yet they have the highest rates of teenage pregnancy and the highest rates of sexually transmitted diseases.

Its irresponsible to not give teens access to condoms. having sex too early may scar the a little, getting pregnant will scar them a lot, getting aids will ruin their lives.

[HarryCallahan]

Or you forgot to log in your alt account. :pimp:

Just like with Sandy Hook, you've cracked the case wide open again.

[IamRAMBO24]

did you have sex in high school? You're a hypocrite if you did.

Besides sex happens, no matter how much parents try to stop it. Its why sex ed and access to condoms are so important. You will notice that teenaged pregnancy and teenage contraction of stds are highest in the most conservative states. Its not because their parents encourage them to have sex.

Good luck stopping your daughter from having sex, you will likely fail if she has the option to have sex.l

You know the stereotype about preacher's/reverend's daughters. I doubt their dads are encouraging them to have sex.

I remember being a teen, I did a ton of shit my parents would have disapproved of. Parents cant watch kids 24/7. Girls make mistakes all the time. No reason to burden them for their whole lives for 1 mistake that can be taken care of by an abortion.

I think this is a cop out. The idea that kids will be skanks and there is nothing we can do to prevent this other than give out condoms is a cop out. It is bad parenting prevalant in American society. Other countries don't have the same teenage pregnancy problems we have because guess what they don't encourage kids to have sex by giving out condoms and telling them it's ok to do it. If they won't listen to you about NOT having sex, what makes you think they are going to listen to you about having sex with a condom?

It is a bad premise from the outset. Why would you encourage something if you want to prevent it? It's like giving a clean needle to a heroin addict just because you've GIVEN UP and decided he's going to shoot up anyways ... the idea that there's nothing else left for you to do. What a loser. Go join niko on the short bus.

[MavsSuperFan]

-Whether or not it's a part of the mother, is it a human?

No, to me until it is viable it is a zygote. eggs get fertilized by sperm cells and fail to implant in the uterine walls sometimes. are those zygotes humans too? when the woman expels these fertilized eggs during menstruation should we have a funeral? when these eggs fail to implant in the uterine wall do we have funerals?


-We are obviously having a disagreement as to the nature of the issue. You believe it's a matter of practicality, where as I see it as a human rights issue.

have you ever consider the rights of the mother.
further based on your other posts i am going to assume you would oppose any government help/welfare for the child and mother if it was born.


-You say that a society where these unwanted babies are born will be a crime-ridden society, I say that killing them is in-and-of-itself a crime.

Abortion being a crime is your opinion.

Abortions and Crime: Freakonomics Movie
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zk6gOeggViw

http://freakonomics.com/2005/05/15/abortion-and-crime-who-should-you-believe/

these are facts.

[MavsSuperFan]

If they won't listen to you about NOT having sex, what makes you think they are going to listen to you about having sex with a condom?


why else besides condom use would rates of teenage pregnancy and std contraction be much lower in liberal states than conservative ones?

[HarryCallahan]

No, to me until it is viable it is a zygote. eggs get fertilized by sperm cells and fail to implant in the uterine walls sometimes. are those zygotes humans too? when the woman expels these fertilized eggs during menstruation should we have a funeral? when these eggs fail to implant in the uterine wall do we have funerals?



have you ever consider the rights of the mother.
further based on your other posts i am going to assume you would oppose any government help/welfare for the child and mother if it was born.



Abortion being a crime is your opinion.

Abortions and Crime: Freakonomics Movie
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zk6gOeggViw

http://freakonomics.com/2005/05/15/abortion-and-crime-who-should-you-believe/

these are facts.

Stop with your straw-man arguments. That's always you pro-abortioner's go-to example too "Well sumtimes the fertilezed egg getz bled-out," I''m not talking about a fertilized egg, i'm talking about fetuses. For the record I support RU486 (the "morning after pill").
What I want to know is if there is a specific point in time where a fetus becomes a human, and if not how can you be comfortable killing something anywhere in the vicinity of that point in time. Is it a situation like; "Oh, hi I wanna get this thing outta me tomorrow." "Sorry ma'am that becomes a person in 20hrs, we gotta get it out of you now or ever."

Of course i've considered the mothers rights. The mother has the right to have safe, consensual sex. She does not have the right to kill a baby. Being raped does not give her the right to kill babies either.

Have you ever considered adoption?

And I don't care about the economic argument either. Human rights trump not getting an X-Box ffs.

[HarryCallahan]

I still don't get what relevance "viability outside the womb" has to do with anything. The baby would be completely dependant on the mother outside the womb anyway.

[highwhey]

to clarify I would never encourage any teenager to have sex.

but i also dont live in a disney movie where teens need to be encouraged to have sex and it isnt what their natural evolutionary drive leads them to.

Your just being stupid if you think teens dont want to have sex. The statistics show you would be wrong in that assumption. Also you are equally stupid if you think parents can stop their kids from having sex. Look at states like alabama, mississippi, georgia, etc. Conservative christian states all of them. You think their parents are encouraging their daughters to have sex?

And yet they have the highest rates of teenage pregnancy and the highest rates of sexually transmitted diseases.

Its irresponsible to not give teens access to condoms. having sex too early may scar the a little, getting pregnant will scar them a lot, getting aids will ruin their lives.
I never said teens dont want to have sex. Im 21, so I know about the urge. I've met girls who were dirtier minded than me. I know, but I also know having sex at 16 is a lack of good parenting. Fck that shit, girls at that age don't know shit, its your MFING responsibility to keep your kid away from trouble. When they are an adult, they can make their own decisions. There are a lot of scumbags in high school as well, and since you're already showing poor parenting skills, your daughter will most likely be very gullible and that one scumbag will convince her to to bareback, and there you go, a grandchild, all bc you want your daughter to give in to her urges at an age that is not appropriate. If yoy let your daughter give into her urgers, she also has a high probability of becoming a drug addict. GREAT PARENTING, YO.

[senelcoolidge]

I wouldn't let my teenage daughter ruin her life that early to care for a baby she doesn't want. The world has 8 billion people, it's 2013, why would you have a baby that you don't want?

I love how the same people that post about no god and laugh at all the religious people suddenly are pro-life. Why? The removal of the group of cells offends you?

Put the kid for adoption. It's a new life which is a clean board..they can do some really positive things. Why not get rid of the people that have done nothing positive..people in prisons, criminals, miscreants..they are a waste of cells. A baby hasn't done a thing.

[MavsSuperFan]

Stop with your straw-man arguments. That's always you pro-abortioner's go-to example too "Well sumtimes the fertilezed egg getz bled-out,"

first of all its not a straw man argument as it is entirely reasonable. if you think human life begins at conception, why is it that you don't mourn when a fertilized egg fails to implant?


I never said teens dont want to have sex. Im 21, so I know about the urge. I've met girls who were dirtier minded than me. I know, but I also know having sex at 16 is a lack of good parenting. Fck that shit, girls at that age don't know shit, its your MFING responsibility to keep your kid away from trouble. When they are an adult, they can make their own decisions. There are a lot of scumbags in high school as well, and since you're already showing poor parenting skills, your daughter will most likely be very gullible and that one scumbag will convince her to to bareback, and there you go, a grandchild, all bc you want your daughter to give in to her urges at an age that is not appropriate. If yoy let your daughter give into her urgers, she also has a high probability of becoming a drug addict. GREAT PARENTING, YO.

I dont have a daughter and at this point am not planning to be a parent. No parent ever encourages their daughter to have sex. In fact the areas where you would expect the strongest discouragement of sex (the bible belt) paradoxically has the highest rate of teen pregnancy and teen std contraction.

the reason that southern states have higher pregnancy rates isnt because the girls are sluttier, its because they are less sex ed and are stupider about sex. lots of girls have sex as a teen and go on to become productive members of society and successful professionals. the key is that they dont give birth to a child or contract an std.

I think the average american girl loses her virginity at 16 or 17, so by your standards we have a lot of horrible parents in america.

[highwhey]

first of all its not a straw man argument as it is entirely reasonable. if you think human life begins at conception, why is it that you don't mourn when a fertilized egg fails to implant?



I dont have a daughter and at this point am not planning to be a parent. No parent ever encourages their daughter to have sex. In fact the areas where you would expect the strongest discouragement of sex (the bible belt) paradoxically has the highest rate of teen pregnancy and teen std contraction.

the reason that southern states have higher pregnancy rates isnt because the girls are sluttier, its because they are less sex ed and are stupider about sex. lots of girls have sex as a teen and go on to become productive members of society and successful professionals. the key is that they dont give birth to a child or contract an std.

I think the average american girl loses her virginity at 16 or 17, so by your standards we have a lot of horrible parents in america.
We do have a lot of horrible parents. Have you ever been to places like a supermarket or Walmart where moms let their kids roam free? I see this all the time, I dont give a fck that their kids are full of energy and wamt to run around the store and climb things, if that was my kid I would whoop their ass in public. You still don't get the point, it's about DISCIPLINE, a good belt whooping will make you have nightmares of your parents. A good parent who isn't afraid to be a parent, can keep their daughter out of trouble for their teenage years. You also encourage your kids to have fun so you dont deprive them of their best years, but it starts with teaching them how to make good decisions at a young age, that character and level headed attitude will carry on through their live. Plus, sex during high school? Nothing special, especially bc there are way hotter chicks in college and less losers.

At 16 you are still a kid, you don't know any better

[Swaggin916]

I have no idea what I would do if I was actually in that situation, but in theory I would make it clear that she is going to get no help if she decides to keep it. I'm sure it would be difficult for me, but people need to learn responsibility. I'm would not be one of those idiotic parents though who force my beliefs on my children though and make them have babies... in that case you better be ready to be a 2nd parent to that kid.

[HarryCallahan]

first of all its not a straw man argument as it is entirely reasonable. if you think human life begins at conception, why is it that you don't mourn when a fertilized egg fails to implant?



I don't believe that life begins at conception, and have not ever stated that I do. That's a strawman argument. You constructed a belief that I do not hold for the sake of easy destruction.

I have not once said that I know when a human life starts, and you arbitrarily designate me a evangelical "life begins with ***" type.

[IamRAMBO24]

why else besides condom use would rates of teenage pregnancy and std contraction be much lower in liberal states than conservative ones?

You are committing two forms of logical fallacies:

1. You are using a negative to justify another negative. It doesn't matter if you are liberal or conservative, bad parenting is just that, bad parenting.

2. You are using a generalization by saying just because a conservative state has a higher rate of pregnancies, it must mean good parental skills must not work. First you are equating conservative values to good parenting, and second, you are saying conservative states only have a population of conservatives when in fact liberals make up a huge portion of the other half. Both assumptions are wrong.

Look, all I'm saying is telling a kid it's ok to have sex and be a skank just as long as they use a condom is not only bad parenting, but a total cop out of it. It's lazy. Period. You know you've failed as a parent when you encourage your daughter to be a total slut.:rolleyes:

[IamRAMBO24]

*Bumped

To challenge Mavs (one of the most intelligent posters) to a debate.

P.S. Watch how logic can destroy pure intellect.

[Jameerthefear]

*Bumped

To challenge Mavs (one of the most intelligent posters) to a debate.

P.S. Watch how logic can destroy pure intellect.
too bad mavs is actually smart.

[IamRAMBO24]

too bad mavs is actually smart.

My points exactly.

Logic > intelligence

Even smart people can be easily deceived with the manipulation of logic.

I doubt he's going to take the bait.

[HarryCallahan]

You're way too eager. Know that niko is a scumbag and move-on, MSF isn't gonna take bait.

[ace23]

Just being fasicitious. But I'd want to talk to him and I don't promise I'd be nice about it. I want to know what he thinks about possibly ruining a good portion of his and my daughter's life.
Yeah, cool, but wtf does "see if he lived or not" mean?

Did you mean "lives"? That would make more sense.

[IamRAMBO24]

You're way too eager. Know that niko is a scumbag and move-on, MSF isn't gonna take bait.

There are a lot of intelligent liberal thinkers who think like Mavs, so I think it's worth destroying this line of reasoning once and for all.

Personally I find it distasteful to encourage a young girl to have sex just because they've given up on parenting.

And incredibly this is the prevalant thinking in our society today. It's pathetic.

[HarryCallahan]

He won't take the bait though, you're better off trying to get KevinNYC or Niko to "debate" you.

[2LeTTeRS]

I think this is a cop out. The idea that kids will be skanks and there is nothing we can do to prevent this other than give out condoms is a cop out. It is bad parenting prevalant in American society. Other countries don't have the same teenage pregnancy problems we have because guess what they don't encourage kids to have sex by giving out condoms and telling them it's ok to do it. If they won't listen to you about NOT having sex, what makes you think they are going to listen to you about having sex with a condom?

It is a bad premise from the outset. Why would you encourage something if you want to prevent it? It's like giving a clean needle to a heroin addict just because you've GIVEN UP and decided he's going to shoot up anyways ... the idea that there's nothing else left for you to do. What a loser. Go join niko on the short bus.

Couldn't disagree with you more. You seem to be ignoring all other reasons a person wants to have sex (i.e. desire, peer pressure, actual genuine feelings for the person they want) and attributing everything to quality of parenting. That is just not the case; and because of that I for one will prepare my children (male and female) that we don't believe in sex until they are mature enough emotionally and financially to support a child; while also being honest about not personally being able to attain that goal and educate them on how to protect themselves from an undesirable situation if they go that route.

[pauk]

With the type of benevolent & cultivated upbringing i had (which is thankfully normal in this part of the world/culture i live in) and which i will inflict upon my children i think that scenario would be impossible to happen.....

[niko]

Yeah, cool, but wtf does "see if he lived or not" mean?

Did you mean "lives"? That would make more sense.
i make typos all the time, i spell badly. :lol

[johndeeregreen]

I'd deal with it. First off I'd be incredibly disappointed in myself for fathering a teenage whore. Obviously somewhere along the line myself and her mother must have screwed up, so I'd blame myself mostly.

[MavsSuperFan]

You're way too eager. Know that niko is a scumbag and move-on, MSF isn't gonna take bait.

you are wrong :lol
I am bored at work and I was one of those nerds in debate club in high school and university.
One time I made a pro-mao argument :lol (obviously just because it was the position i drew)


You are committing two forms of logical fallacies:

1. You are using a negative to justify another negative. It doesn't matter if you are liberal or conservative, bad parenting is just that, bad parenting.

2. You are using a generalization by saying just because a conservative state has a higher rate of pregnancies, it must mean good parental skills must not work. First you are equating conservative values to good parenting, and second, you are saying conservative states only have a population of conservatives when in fact liberals make up a huge portion of the other half. Both assumptions are wrong.

Look, all I'm saying is telling a kid it's ok to have sex and be a skank just as long as they use a condom is not only bad parenting, but a total cop out of it. It's lazy. Period. You know you've failed as a parent when you encourage your daughter to be a total slut.:rolleyes:


First you are equating conservative values to good parenting,

I have never asserted that conservative parenting is superior. In fact a part of my point was that conservative parenting did not prevent much higher pregnancy rates and rates of std infection.

Merely making the reasonable assumption that conservatives would raise their children in a more prudish environment where they would be more active in encouraging their children (especially daughters) to wait until marriage and abstain from premarital/teenaged sex. The statistics would show that their efforts have failed.


and second, you are saying conservative states only have a population of conservatives when in fact liberals make up a huge portion of the other half.
Conservatives make up the majority of the population in conservative states and liberals make up the majority of the population in liberal states.

Alabama has a harsher stigma on women who have sex outside of marriage than california or portland, i'm not even having that debate.


You are using a generalization by saying just because a conservative state has a higher rate of pregnancies, it must mean good parental skills must not work.

no I am saying an environment where sex is extremely looked down upon and where girls are considered sluts for having sex does not effectively limit rate of teenage pregnancy and std transmission.


Look, all I'm saying is telling a kid it's ok to have sex and be a skank just as long as they use a condom is not only bad parenting, but a total cop out of it. It's lazy. Period. You know you've failed as a parent when you encourage your daughter to be a total slut.:rolleyes:

Advocating for comprehensive sexual education does not equal encouraging kids to have sex. I fully support discouraging teens from having sex. But guess what its not a big deal. the average american teenager loses their virginity at 16 or 17. The country hasnt collapsed. based on the thread on this forum most people here lost it as a teen.

teens are going to have sex. and unless they are having gay sex, teen girls are going to be a part of it. all the parenting in the world isnt going to change that. It hasnt yet. Once again most girls lose their virginity at 16 -17. Its not going to ruin their lives if they dont get pregnant or contract an std.

[HarryCallahan]

One time I made a pro-mao argument

:milton

[HarryCallahan]

And the winner, by count-out is... MavsSupeeeeerFannnn!!!

[Dresta]

I would show her the statistics related to teenage motherhood and convince her to get an abortion. Also I would be surprised that she got pregnant as I would explain to her how to use contraceptives
Statistics mean jack when it comes to individual circumstances. To mindlessly apply generalised statistics to your own life in such a way is moronic and sheep-like.

Only a **** would use them to instruct their daughter to make a decision they may not want to make, and that may (it should, really) plague their conscience for the rest of their lives.

[niko]

People are kind of delusional. You can teach your kids to have safe sex, you can explain to them the problems with being sexually active (young but in general) and the psychological and physical things (pregnancy, disease) that goes along with it. But unless you lock them in a room and don't let them move at some point it may happen. You do your best and if something goes wrong you simultaneously scold, advise and support. That's being a parent.

I'd advise my daughter as a teenager if she was pregnant to have an abortion. I have two kids, doing that at a young age would essentially end a good portion of her hopes and dreams. Keep the baby, have a bad marriage, have a kid you resent, and lose all hope of being a doctor, artist etc. That's not advice i would give. But if she chose to keep it, then i'd advise what to do and help how i could.

Some of you seem to think yelling "DON'T GET PREGNANT" or "NEVER HAVE SEX" is an option that works. For some of you (like IAmRambo24) it will work because no one will every talk to him, much less touch him (except strange old men). But for the far majority of us, it won't. So you do the best to make sure they are smart enough and have the information at the proper time to make decisions.

Liberals are nuts (they want kindergarten kids to have information on having sex) and conservatives are nuts (NO SEX EVER!). Neither works. So any of you expounding either side has a rude awakening coming.

My 2 cents. I'm not responding to anyone calling me names anymore, we are not ten, and in person you wouldn't do it, so I'm not acknowledging you anymore.

[MavsSuperFan]

:milton
It was a position I drew, obviously no one would seriously defend Mao, part of the point was advocating for a position that was difficult.


Statistics mean jack when it comes to individual circumstances. To mindlessly apply generalised statistics to your own life in such a way is moronic and sheep-like.


Statistics show how unlikely it will be for a teen girl who gets pregnant and decides to carry the baby to term to be successful.

:lol what kind of idiot doesn't consider the stats when they make life decisions? Eg. the reason I chose to study accounting in university and pursue a business degree instead of a liberal arts degree was purely because of employment statistics. had I followed my heart like a cousin of mine, I would probably have studied history or psychology in university. I would also probably be a bartender or a server right now.

to ignore the statistics as if they have no relevance is ignorant and stupid. Its like those kids that follow their dreams and decide to shoot hoops all day/work on their swing/play football instead of working hard in school. Sure sometimes it turns out you are a lebron james and it works out. But thats the only case people hear about. What about all the wannabe pro athletes who never make it.

another example is comparing the educational results of different school districts. I know parents who have made decision of where to live primarily because of statistics involving local schools. There are some schools in this country that send less than 50% of their high school students to college/university.

Statistics should be apart of responsible decision making. You are honestly the first person I have ever met that has advocated ignoring the statistics.


Only a **** would use them to instruct their daughter to make a decision they may not want to make, and that may (it should, really) plague their conscience for the rest of their lives

I am not saying I would force my (hypothetical) teen daughter to get an abortion. I am saying you are doing a disservice to your daughter if you dont at least inform her of the stats related to teen pregnancy. Also, statistics apply to everyone. Its why someone like nate silver can so accurately predict elections. The vast majority of people will behave as they are statistically expected to. There are very few exceptions. it is unreasonable to expect your daughter to be one.

also a zygote doesnt equal a human life. If you are one of those people who believe life begins at conception why is it that you dont have funerals for when a sperm fertilizes and egg and that egg fails to implant?


People are kind of delusional. You can teach your kids to have safe sex, you can explain to them the problems with being sexually active (young but in general) and the psychological and physical things (pregnancy, disease) that goes along with it. But unless you lock them in a room and don't let them move at some point it may happen. You do your best and if something goes wrong you simultaneously scold, advise and support. That's being a parent.

I'd advise my daughter as a teenager if she was pregnant to have an abortion. I have two kids, doing that at a young age would essentially end a good portion of her hopes and dreams. Keep the baby, have a bad marriage, have a kid you resent, and lose all hope of being a doctor, artist etc. That's not advice i would give. But if she chose to keep it, then i'd advise what to do and help how i could.

Some of you seem to think yelling "DON'T GET PREGNANT" or "NEVER HAVE SEX" is an option that works. For some of you (like IAmRambo24) it will work because no one will every talk to him, much less touch him (except strange old men). But for the far majority of us, it won't. So you do the best to make sure they are smart enough and have the information at the proper time to make decisions.

Liberals are nuts (they want kindergarten kids to have information on having sex) and conservatives are nuts (NO SEX EVER!). Neither works. So any of you expounding either side has a rude awakening coming.

My 2 cents. I'm not responding to anyone calling me names anymore, we are not ten, and in person you wouldn't do it, so I'm not acknowledging you anymore.

:applause: :applause: :applause: :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:
Your daughter is very lucky to have a reasonable parent like you.


But unless you lock them in a room and don't let them move at some point it may happen. .... Some of you seem to think yelling "DON'T GET PREGNANT" or "NEVER HAVE SEX" is an option that works. ..... But for the far majority of us, it won't. So you do the best to make sure they are smart enough and have the information at the proper time to make decisions.

:applause: :bowdown:
dumbasses here are why we teach abstinence only in so many parts of the country and why teens are contracting stds at record rates and teen pregnancies in conservative states are higher.


Liberals are nuts (they want kindergarten kids to have information on having sex) and conservatives are nuts (NO SEX EVER!).
That is a false equivalency, there are very few liberals that advocate that. Most want comprehensive sex education beginning at around 10, because studies show it takes several years for the info to sink in and starting it at 13 or so maybe too late.

The conservative position on this issue is abstinence only education.

[niko]

It was a position I drew, obviously no one would seriously defend Mao, part of the point was advocating for a position that was difficult.



Statistics show how unlikely it will be for a teen girl who gets pregnant and decides to carry the baby to term to be successful.

:lol what kind of idiot doesn't consider the stats when they make life decisions? Eg. the reason I chose to study accounting in university and pursue a business degree instead of a liberal arts degree was purely because of employment statistics. had I followed my heart like a cousin of mine, I would probably have studied history or psychology in university. I would also probably be a bartender or a server right now.

to ignore the statistics as if they have no relevance is ignorant and stupid. Its like those kids that follow their dreams and decide to shoot hoops all day/work on their swing/play football instead of working hard in school. Sure sometimes it turns out you are a lebron james and it works out. But thats the only case people hear about. What about all the wannabe pro athletes who never make it.

another example is comparing the educational results of different school districts. I know parents who have made decision of where to live primarily because of statistics involving local schools. There are some schools in this country that send less than 50% of their high school students to college/university.

Statistics should be apart of responsible decision making. You are honestly the first person I have ever met that has advocated ignoring the statistics.



I am not saying I would force my (hypothetical) teen daughter to get an abortion. I am saying you are doing a disservice to your daughter if you dont at least inform her of the stats related to teen pregnancy. Also, statistics apply to everyone. Its why someone like nate silver can so accurately predict elections. The vast majority of people will behave as they are statistically expected to. There are very few exceptions. it is unreasonable to expect your daughter to be one.

also a zygote doesnt equal a human life. If you are one of those people who believe life begins at conception why is it that you dont have funerals for when a sperm fertilizes and egg and that egg fails to implant?



:applause: :applause: :applause: :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:
Your daughter is very lucky to have a reasonable parent like you.



:applause: :bowdown:
dumbasses here are why we teach abstinence only in so many parts of the country and why teens are contracting stds at record rates and teen pregnancies in conservative states are higher.


That is a false equivalency, there are very few liberals that advocate that. Most want comprehensive sex education beginning at around 10, because studies show it takes several years for the info to sink in and starting it at 13 or so maybe too late.

The conservative position on this issue is abstinence only education.
I know it's not all (just as not all conservatives are like that) but in NYC their was a real push by the liberal base for STD and pregnancy education starting in kindergarten. My daughter got aids education last year (is this still a huge thing that needs to be taught to 6 year olds?) and part of it was it was contracted via sexual contact. It blew my mind. Really?

[HarryCallahan]

Some of you seem to think yelling "DON'T GET PREGNANT" or "NEVER HAVE SEX" is an option that works. For some of you (like IAmRambo24) it will work because no one will every talk to him, much less touch him (except strange old men). But for the far majority of us, it won't. So you do the best to make sure they are smart enough and have the information at the proper time to make decisions.


My 2 cents. I'm not responding to anyone calling me names anymore, we are not ten, and in person you wouldn't do it, so I'm not acknowledging you anymore.

:facepalm



also a zygote doesnt equal a human life. If you are one of those people who believe life begins at conception why is it that you dont have funerals for when a sperm fertilizes and egg and that egg fails to implant?



That's always you pro-abortioner's go-to example too "Well sumtimes the fertilezed egg getz bled-out,"


:roll:

[HardwoodLegend]

I still don't get what relevance "viability outside the womb" has to do with anything. The baby would be completely dependant on the mother outside the womb anyway.

But, it's not directly physiologically dependent. The option to give the baby to a more willing and enthusiastic caregiver exists. That's the relevance.

The pro-life stance is so trivial. Way too much money and resources pointlessly go into it. Especially when most people who take it don't show much compassion to life outside of the womb in impoverished areas anyway.

[MavsSuperFan]

:facepalm






:roll:
people bring it up because it is a good point. If you believe that life begins at conception, how is it that you dont consider that a loss of life?

[HarryCallahan]

But, it's not directly physiologically dependent. The option to give the baby to a more willing and enthusiastic caregiver exists. That's the relevance.

The pro-life stance is so trivial. Way too much money and resources pointlessly go into it. Especially when most people who take it don't show much compassion to life outside of the womb in impoverished areas anyway.

I'm still utterly befuddled at this, the fact you are considering the babies welfare but also saying it's alright to kill it is strange. I'm also confused about how having the "option to give the baby to a more willing and enthusiastic caregiver" makes it have rights all-of-a-sudden.


Your stance seems to be the trivial one, arbitrarily drawing line over when something does/doesn't have the right to live making pointless points like the one above.

That's a non-sequitur at the end and not a very good one at all. Saying (I assume) conservative people are less compassionate than bleeding cvnt lefties is ridiculous, especially when you're trying to advocate for killing innocent babies.

[HarryCallahan]

people bring it up because it is a good point. If you believe that life begins at conception, how is it that you dont consider that a loss of life?

*sigh*


I don't believe that life begins at conception, and have not ever stated that I do. That's a strawman argument. You constructed a belief that I do not hold for the sake of easy destruction.

I have not once said that I know when a human life starts, and you arbitrarily designate me a evangelical "life begins with ***" type.

[HardwoodLegend]

I'm still utterly befuddled at this, the fact you are considering the babies welfare but also saying it's alright to kill it is strange. I'm also confused about how having the "option to give the baby to a more willing and enthusiastic caregiver" makes it have rights all-of-a-sudden.


Your stance seems to be the trivial one, arbitrarily drawing line over when something does/doesn't have the right to live making pointless points like the one above.

That's a non-sequitur at the end and not a very good one at all. Saying (I assume) conservative people are less compassionate than bleeding cvnt lefties is ridiculous, especially when you're trying to advocate for killing innocent babies.

I'm saying it's alright for a woman to have the right to terminate a pregnancy that demands her body sustain it. It wasn't a pointless point at all. It's a clear distinction and not arbitrary in the least bit. If she no longer wants her body's nutrients to be sapped and re-directed elsewhere it's her prerogative.

And, saying conservative people are less compassionate than bleeding cvnt lefties isn't ridiculous at all. Rather than pour all that passion and resources into your trivial pro-life stance, go out and help babies that are out there living miserably right now and stop concerning yourself with whether a woman wants to carry out a pregnancy to a certain point.

[HarryCallahan]

I'm saying it's alright for a woman to have the right to terminate a pregnancy that demands her body sustain it. It wasn't a pointless point at all. It's a clear distinction and not arbitrary in the least bit. If she no longer wants her body's nutrients to be sapped and re-directed elsewhere it's her prerogative.

And, saying conservative people are less compassionate than bleeding cvnt lefties isn't ridiculous at all. Rather than pour all that passion and resources into your trivial pro-life stance, go out and help babies that are out there living miserably right now and stop concerning yourself with whether a woman wants to carry out a pregnancy to a certain point.


So the baby doesn't have rights and if I take you at your word, a woman can terminate any pregnancy at any time, so long as she no longer wished to sustain it? Please correct me, because THAT is horrible.

I'm not pouring any passion or any resources into anything. Don't lump me in with the Westboro Baptist Church, that's weak.

[HardwoodLegend]

So the baby doesn't have rights and if I take you at your word, a woman can terminate any pregnancy at any time, so long as she no longer wished to sustain it? Please correct me, because THAT is horrible.

I'm not pouring any passion or any resources into anything. Don't lump me in with the Westboro Baptist Church, that's weak.

No, not any pregnancy at any time. I'm all for term restrictions. If the fetus is not capable of sustaining itself outside the womb and directly depends on her supply of nutrients, then she should have the right to terminate the pregnancy.

The trivial pro-life stance has always been more about chastising irresponsibility than showing true concern and compassion for the unborn.

[HarryCallahan]

No, not any pregnancy at any time. I'm all for term restrictions. If the fetus is not capable of sustaining itself outside the womb and directly depends on her supply of nutrients, then she should have the right to terminate the pregnancy.

The trivial pro-life stance has always been more about chastising irresponsibility than showing true concern and compassion for the unborn.

I disagree with that strongly, but you seem to be in the majority.

I agree, people who turn the abortion debate into a pre-marital sex debate are unfortunate.

[Dresta]

Statistics show how unlikely it will be for a teen girl who gets pregnant and decides to carry the baby to term to be successful.

:lol what kind of idiot doesn't consider the stats when they make life decisions? Eg. the reason I chose to study accounting in university and pursue a business degree instead of a liberal arts degree was purely because of employment statistics. had I followed my heart like a cousin of mine, I would probably have studied history or psychology in university. I would also probably be a bartender or a server right now.

to ignore the statistics as if they have no relevance is ignorant and stupid. Its like those kids that follow their dreams and decide to shoot hoops all day/work on their swing/play football instead of working hard in school. Sure sometimes it turns out you are a lebron james and it works out. But thats the only case people hear about. What about all the wannabe pro athletes who never make it.

another example is comparing the educational results of different school districts. I know parents who have made decision of where to live primarily because of statistics involving local schools. There are some schools in this country that send less than 50% of their high school students to college/university.

Statistics should be apart of responsible decision making. You are honestly the first person I have ever met that has advocated ignoring the statistics.

I am not saying I would force my (hypothetical) teen daughter to get an abortion. I am saying you are doing a disservice to your daughter if you dont at least inform her of the stats related to teen pregnancy. Also, statistics apply to everyone. Its why someone like nate silver can so accurately predict elections. The vast majority of people will behave as they are statistically expected to. There are very few exceptions. it is unreasonable to expect your daughter to be one.

also a zygote doesnt equal a human life. If you are one of those people who believe life begins at conception why is it that you dont have funerals for when a sperm fertilizes and egg and that egg fails to implant?
If the statistics say go to University to study accounting, then the statistics are bullcrap and everyone would be better off avoiding them. That kind of vocational study should not even be an option at university as it completely degrades any kind of worthwhile education, and can be easily learned elsewhere. I came across plenty of 'accounting and finance' students when i was at uni, and they were for the most part a bunch of loud-mouthed, uneducated saps who went around thinking they were gonna make a load of money on Wall St. because they had a degree that they share thousands and thousands of other like-minded morons. The statistics don't take into account that people studying that kind of course are going to be aiming to get straight on the employment ladder, and because all they care about is money, they will tend to get employed faster and more successfully because they don't mind drudging away at a job they hate. It doesn't take into account that if you do what you love you have the best chance of actually becoming excellent at it, because you don't mind expending all your time and energy on it. I could go on and on, but i cba. How do you measure with any validity what degree course led to a happier and more fulfilling life? Because the statistics won't show you that.

People don't follow the statistics unless you take people to be one homogenous blob of goo. My whole schooling life i was bombarded with statistics as to 'people who do this... can't do that' etc. and debunked them one after another. The statistics will show you that people who don't go to school will fail exams; but i was never there and did pretty well (very well if compared to the average), and a close friend of mine was close to being kicked out for attendance before he got 100% in his economics AS-level. Then again, if you keep telling people that they will live down to the statistics then they often will, but anyone with a bit fortitude an independence won't.

As for the teen daughter thing: well, if you were wealthy then you could hire carers/ care for the child yourself, and allow your daughter to live her life and be as involved as she wants. I don't see how that would destroy someone's life.

And see this reductionism:

'Statistics show how unlikely it will be for a teen girl who gets pregnant and decides to carry the baby to term to be successful.'

What does that even mean? How has 'success' been defined in these statistics? Does it take into account that the bulk of teen pregnancies tend to occur to those already poorly educated, dysfunctional and 'unsuccessful'? Of course not, how could they? So if you actually manage to accrue some money through your accounting, then your daughter would simply not fit the blueprint for the statistics on teenage pregnancy, and it would therefore be utterly pointless for you to scare her into such a decision by pointing them out.

And no, i am an adherent of the use of the morning after pill, but abortion is quite different. In aborting a child you are in most cases exterminating a child that (if not for your interference) would be a living and conscious being in a small space of time. I am not religious; i do not believe 'life begins at conception'; i just balk at the idea of so callously preventing the life of a human being simply to make your life a little bit easier, and i think it is disgraceful how acceptable it has become.


No, not any pregnancy at any time. I'm all for term restrictions. If the fetus is not capable of sustaining itself outside the womb and directly depends on her supply of nutrients, then she should have the right to terminate the pregnancy.

The trivial pro-life stance has always been more about chastising irresponsibility than showing true concern and compassion for the unborn.
What an idiotic argument. No baby is capable of sustaining itself either, so we may as well chuck them into the sea if the mother gets fed up, considering they are not capable of supplying themselves with nutrients, and are completely dependent on whomever is caring for them (takes far more nutrients to care for a born child than a fetus btw).

[HardwoodLegend]

What an idiotic argument. No baby is capable of sustaining itself either, so we may as well chuck them into the sea if the mother gets fed up, considering they are not capable of supplying themselves with nutrients, and are completely dependent on whomever is caring for them (takes far more nutrients to care for a born child than a fetus btw).

What an idiotic failure to comprehend an argument.

If a mother does not want to take care of a born child, she has the option to offer the child to someone else who is willing. That's the distinction. Terminating the baby's life is unacceptable when that option it exists.

You fail to understand what "viable outside of the womb" entails.

[niko]

Having a baby as a teen, whether keeping it or giving it up for adoption are two options that are going to be hugely stressful on the young girl. I'm glad my daughter will have other options than you'd give your kids.

Also having a baby (the physical toll) is no joke. If the woman doesn't want to carry the baby, thinking she'd be practically forced to is a bit concerning to me. We are valuing the potential of life over the actual person alive.

[HarryCallahan]

Having a baby as a teen, whether keeping it or giving it up for adoption are two options that are going to be hugely stressful on the young girl. I'm glad my daughter will have other options than you'd give your kids.

Also having a baby (the physical toll) is no joke. If the woman doesn't want to carry the baby, thinking she'd be practically forced to is a bit concerning to me. We are valuing the potential of life over the actual person alive.

Two lives. The first; innocent, and there only there through the actions of; the second who now wishes to commit an aggressive act against the first.

Not wanting to tear her cvnt is no excuse to kill someone.

[niko]

Two lives. The first; innocent, and there only there through the actions of; the second who now wishes to commit an aggressive act against the first.

Not wanting to tear her cvnt is no excuse to kill someone.
My wife has a pretty bad problem coming from the 2nd pregnancy and birth that took about a year of treatment to get under control and still may come back. I'm thinking you are not quite sure what you are talking about. A lot of health problems can come during pregnancy, during birth, and post birth. You're very cavalier about it.

Also you talk like every pregnancy results in a birth, we've never have one but we have a few friends who had multiple miscarriages.

It's 9 weeks along, you are pregnant, but you must go through with it no matter what strikes me as a shitty option.

[HarryCallahan]

My wife has a pretty bad problem coming from the 2nd pregnancy and birth that took about a year of treatment to get under control and still may come back. I'm thinking you are not quite sure what you are talking about. A lot of health problems can come during pregnancy, during birth, and post birth. You're very cavalier about it.

Also you talk like every pregnancy results in a birth, we've never have one but we have a few friends who had multiple miscarriages.

It's 9 weeks along, you are pregnant, but you must go through with it no matter what strikes me as a shitty option.

I'm being the cavalier one? "Oh, my daughter got pregnant? Better kill it so she can suck plenty of Phi Delta dick in college."

Right, shitty. That's the crux of it, people just do not want to take responsibility for their actions, and would rather kill their child then assume the responsibility for even a few months. It's sickening, you just view this as an inconvenience. Are you sure you have a Japanese fetish? Because you sure seem like the Chinese with their "throw the baby girls in the dumpster" mentality.

[Rasheed1]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkxqxWgEEz4
:dancin

[niko]

I'm being the cavalier one? "Oh, my daughter got pregnant? Better kill it so she can suck plenty of Phi Delta dick in college."

Right, shitty. That's the crux of it, people just do not want to take responsibility for their actions, and would rather kill their child then assume the responsibility for even a few months. It's sickening, you just view this as an inconvenience. Are you sure you have a Japanese fetish? Because you sure seem like the Chinese with their "throw the baby girls in the dumpster" mentality.
We'd be killing a fetus. not a baby. And it would be her choice, not mine. There is only one of us here who doesn't believe in choices. And I'd assume it's from lack of being part of the process since you basically assumed the only thing that could happen bad to a woman during pregnancy or birth was "her **** ripping" as you so elequently said.

[HarryCallahan]

We'd be killing a fetus. not a baby. And it would be her choice, not mine. There is only one of us here who doesn't believe in choices. And I'd assume it's from lack of being part of the process since you basically assumed the only thing that could happen bad to a woman during pregnancy or birth was "her **** ripping" as you so elequently said.

I go back to my earlier point, prove to me the precise moment it becomes human. Do fetuses not have rights? I do believe in choices, I don't believe murder should be on you condescending morally bankrupt dickhole.

I said that facetiously, not literally you thick headed moron.

I hope your kids turn out nothing like you. You really are a scumbag.

[Dresta]

What an idiotic failure to comprehend an argument.

If a mother does not want to take care of a born child, she has the option to offer the child to someone else who is willing. That's the distinction. Terminating the baby's life is unacceptable when that option it exists.

You fail to understand what "viable outside of the womb" entails.
'If the fetus is not capable of sustaining itself outside the womb and directly depends on her supply of nutrients, then she should have the right to terminate the pregnancy.'

That is what you said.

Don't pretend now that you made a distinction.

It is your argument that makes no sense.

[HardwoodLegend]

'If the fetus is not capable of sustaining itself outside the womb and directly depends on her supply of nutrients, then she should have the right to terminate the pregnancy.'

That is what you said.

Don't pretend now that you made a distinction.

It is your argument that makes no sense.

The distinction is in the statement itself. A born child does not directly depend on the mother's supply of nutrients, because other people besides the mother can nourish it. Thus, it is viable outside of the womb.

:facepalm

How are you not getting this?

[HarryCallahan]

The distinction is in the statement itself. A born child does not directly depend on the mother's supply of nutrients, because other people besides the mother can nourish it. Thus, it is viable outside of the womb.

:facepalm

How are you not getting this?

Might be because it's a silly argument that just because other people can now look after it, it all of a sudden deserves life, has rights, can't be killed for the sake of someone else's convenience.

[HardwoodLegend]

Might be because it's a silly argument that just because other people can now look after it, it all of a sudden deserves life, has rights, can't be killed for the sake of someone else's convenience.

Biologically speaking, it's still a different entity in terms of its functionality.

Why are you "pro-life" personally? That label is so inaccurate for most who look to restrict reproductive rights. It's too noble-sounding for them.

[HarryCallahan]

Biologically speaking, it's still a different entity in terms of its functionality.

Why are you "pro-life" personally? That label is so inaccurate for most who look to restrict reproductive rights. It's too noble-sounding for them.

But whether or not it's independent shouldn't change it's rights. Does the larger/older conjoined twin have dominion over the younger/smaller?

I absolutely loathe the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" fact of the matter is most people are both, it's abortion that divides people. These are just intellectually dishonest terms.

I'm anti-abortion because I believe that murder is a violation of our basic natural rights, and you don't have to exist out-side of the womb to have the right to exist. Also, committing an act of aggression against an innocent for the sake of convenience is appalling.

"Reproductive rights" is another intellectually dishonest term. Nobody is telling women they don't have the right to reproduce, they are saying you don't have the right to kill someone just because they are inside you. I think "pro-choice" is too noble sounding a name for people who encourage bad choices and then murder as a method of rectification.

[HardwoodLegend]

But whether or not it's independent shouldn't change it's rights. Does the larger/older conjoined twin have dominion over the younger/smaller?

I believe it does change its rights, but that's where we differ.

When it comes to conjoined twins, they're in a more dire life-and-death situation and each case is unique. I would say that if one twin were braindead and depleting nutrients in such a way that threatens the other's life, it's my belief the sentient twin would take precedence in rights. However, I'm sure that twin would have emotional attachment and choose not to exercise any termination rights. The choice should be theirs though.



I absolutely loathe the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" fact of the matter is most people are both, it's abortion that divides people. These are just intellectually dishonest terms.

I'm anti-abortion because I believe that murder is a violation of our basic natural rights, and you don't have to exist out-side of the womb to have the right to exist. Also, committing an act of aggression against an innocent for the sake of convenience is appalling.

"Reproductive rights" is another intellectually dishonest term. Nobody is telling women they don't have the right to reproduce, they are saying you don't have the right to kill someone just because they are inside you. I think "pro-choice" is too noble sounding a name for people who encourage bad choices and then murder as a method of rectification.

You accuse lefties of being "bleeding cvnts", but I think it's quite bleeding cvnt of you to make this all a human's rights issue rather than look at societal impacts when the organism in question is biologically different in its functionality.

And, "reproductive rights" is an intellectually honest term, because they are rights surrounding the whole issue of reproduction. The right to either go through with it or end it. And, the pro-choicers that "encourage bad choices and then murder" are in the minority. Those people are simply "pro-death". Most pro-choice individuals don't prefer abortion. They simply believe the option should exist as a last resort.

[HarryCallahan]

You accuse lefties of being "bleeding cvnts", but I think it's quite bleeding cvnt of you to make this all a human's rights issue rather than look at societal impacts when the organism in question is biologically different in its functionality.

And, "reproductive rights" is an intellectually honest term, because they are rights surrounding the whole issue of reproduction. The right to either go through with it or end it. And, the pro-choicers that "encourage bad choices and then murder" are in the minority. Those people are simply "pro-death". Most pro-choice individuals don't prefer abortion. They simply believe the option should exist as a last resort.

Because I believe Human beings have the right to live, that I must respect other people (and they me) in a basic way makes me a bleeding cvnt? The next sentence you're weeping for "society" an I'm the bleeding cvnt? I didn't make it a human rights issue, it's been that way since the beginning unfortunately people don't like asking philosophical questions especially when the answer means they'll have to take personal responsibility for their actions.

It is in no way intellectually honest, people who don't believe in "reproductive rights" (anti-abortion) are in no way challenging the right to reproduce. It is the same dishonest trick like "pro-choice" and "pro-life." You're pro abortion, are you therefore anti-life?
Stop using those terms, it makes you appear thoughtless (even more so).

A last resort? Last resort to what? Resort to killing it because you're too much of a stupid, selfish cvnt to either:
a) Use contraceptive
or
b) Raise the child you created?

[HardwoodLegend]

Because I believe Human beings have the right to live, that I must respect other people (and they me) in a basic way makes me a bleeding cvnt?

There's a biological difference in functionality, so what you're fighting for is not entirely a human being. The word "being" has to be replaced with something else or have something added after it. So, yes, it makes you a bleeding cvnt.



The next sentence your weeping for "society" an I'm the bleeding cvnt.

Yep, you're still the bleeding cvnt while I'm the broad-minded one concerned for civic structure.



I didn't make it a human rights issue, it's been that way since the beginning unfortunately people don't like asking philosophical questions especially when the answer means they'll have to take personal responsibility for their actions.

A last resort? Last resort to what? Resort to killing it because you're too much of a stupid selfish cvnt to either:
a) Use contraceptive
or
b) Raise the child you created?

Not all aversion of responsibility, stupidity or selfishness should be criminalized.

[HarryCallahan]

There's a biological difference in functionality, so what you're fighting for is not entirely a human being. The word "being" has to be replaced with something else or have something added after it. So, yes, it makes you a bleeding cvnt.

Yep, you're still the bleeding cvnt while I'm the broad-minded one concerned for civic structure.

Not all aversion of responsibility, stupidity or selfishness should be criminalized.

For you to make that claim, you need to identify the exact moment when this transition occurs. If you can precisely point out the moment at which something is a human being then you might have an argument.

Come up with your own insult. You're essentially saying "Nuh-uh, YOU are!

You're concerned for civic structure eh? So you like a society that disregards the rights of humans? Okay whatever pal, keep fighting for your dystopia. Your moronic view of life, that it requires material wealth in order to have worth, is despicable.

Right, only when something violates the rights of others should it be a crime. In this case you are violating someone's right to live.

[CanYouDigIt]

I was joking about making this thread.

You guys are turning it into a serious convo. :facepalm

[HarryCallahan]

No one here is talking about your crappy troll post in the op Bess Matthew's younger, retarded step-brother.

Now run along to the playground.

[HardwoodLegend]

For you to make that claim, you need to identify the exact moment when this transition occurs. If you can precisely point out the moment at which something is a human being then you might have an argument.

I already have an argument, because there are medical methods to determine these moments. There's a generally defined time of viability, but of course it will vary from pregnancy to pregnancy and there are medical methods to determine when the moment is.



Come up with your own insult. You're essentially saying "Nuh-uh, YOU are!

Not one for coming up with insults, but the fact that you are the faraway leader in emotionally charged replies for this thread makes it seem that you throwing out that label is nothing more than projection.



You're concerned for civic structure eh? So you like a society that disregards the rights of humans? Okay whatever pal, keep fighting for your dystopia. Your moronic view of life, that it requires material wealth in order to have worth, is despicable.

Dystopia? There's nothing about allowing women to have abortion as a last resort that makes this society a dystopia. Even though I wouldn't condone the policy today as I personally find it cruel and morally offensive, Sparta wasn't even a dystopia for casting off genetically unfit newborns into a chasm.

I'm all for human rights. We simply disagree on what we define a human as. Earlier you've already conceded that I have an argument when it comes to the issue of viability anyway.

It's surprising to me that you aren't able to see how criminalizing abortion could result in some dystopian effects of its own.

[HarryCallahan]

I already have an argument, because there are medical methods to determine these moments. There's a generally defined time of viability, but of course it will vary from pregnancy to pregnancy and there are medical methods to determine when the moment is.

Not one for coming up with insults, but the fact that you are the faraway leader in emotionally charged replies for this thread makes it seem that you throwing out that label is nothing more than projection.

Dystopia? There's nothing about allowing women to have abortion as a last resort that makes this society a dystopia. Even though I wouldn't condone the policy today as I personally find it cruel and morally offensive, Sparta wasn't even a dystopia for casting off genetically unfit newborns into a chasm.

I'm all for human rights. We simply disagree on what we define a human as. Earlier you've already conceded that I have an argument when it comes to the issue of viability anyway.

It's surprising to me that you aren't able to see how criminalizing abortion could result in some dystopian effects of its own.


Does viability make something human? Just because something isn't human, does that mean it's alright to kill it? Is an "unviable fetus" higher or lower on the pecking order than say an orangutan? Is it alright to kill an orangutan?

Projection? Come on buddy "bleeding heart liberal" is a common term of derision. I substitute "lefty" for "liberal" because lefties and progressives aren't actually liberal. I substituted cvnt for heart because it's more derisory. Try harder Siegmund Fraud.

There would of course be a downside to criminalizing abortions, but I don't think there needs to be anti-abortion laws. Murder and manslaughter are already there, reckless endangerment could all be used to prosecute people.
Murder for late, late-term abortions, manslaughter for anything over say 22weeks , reckless endangerment for anything say 8+weeks. This is just a very general outline and should not be taken too literally.

Of course there would be some difficulties if every unwanted child is born, but they are far out-weighed b the situation today.

[niko]

I'd take you more seriously if you didn't say that the worst a pregnant woman could get from carrying a child or birth was a "bleeding ****". You act like the whole act of carrying the child and giving birth is something that isn't any sort of issue for the mother in any case.

[HarryCallahan]

I'd take you more seriously if you didn't say that the worst a pregnant woman could get from carrying a child or birth was a "bleeding ****". You act like the whole act of carrying the child and giving birth is something that isn't any sort of issue for the mother in any case.

Actually I said "torn cvnt," but regardless I was being facetious you lack-wit. I've already told you that was a facetious remark.

I may take you more seriously if you had the ability to read.

[niko]

Actually I said "torn cvnt," but regardless I was being facetious you lack-wit. I've already told you that was a facetious remark.

I may take you more seriously if you had the ability to read.
When you say something stupid and then say "oh no i was joking" to cover it up it doesn't make the initial remark any less stupid nor does it require everyone to accept the lame explanation.

I think a very early abortion is acceptable. I don't think people who don't want the child (at that point) and can't raise it in an acceptable way should be forced to have it. You think that the moment conception occurs it should be impossible to do so. We disagree.

However with your opinion you need to get some compassion for the woman who you talk about like they aren't really part of the process, like the process is not in their body, like it's something they get no discomfort no possible issues from.

If you were being facetious (which i doubt) it was still a very callous and telling remark IMO.

[HarryCallahan]

When you say something stupid and then say "oh no i was joking" to cover it up it doesn't make the initial remark any less stupid nor does it require everyone to accept the lame explanation.

I think a very early abortion is acceptable. I don't think people who don't want the child (at that point) and can't raise it in an acceptable way should be forced to have it. You think that the moment conception occurs it should be impossible to do so. We disagree.

However with your opinion you need to get some compassion for the woman who you talk about like they aren't really part of the process, like the process is not in their body, like it's something they get no discomfort no possible issues from.

If you were being facetious (which i doubt) it was still a very callous and telling remark IMO.

:facepalm

It was obviously an attempt at crude humour, I have put a lot of thought into my stance on abortion, this should be plainly obvious and no one with half a brain would think that a "torn cvnt" is the worst thing to happen during child birth. That this all alludes you is astounding.

Let me be very clear you apparently illiterate idiot; I do not now, nor have I ever believed that life begins at conception, I have said this NUMEROUS times in this thread. I have had to correct someone on this TWICE in three pages.


I don't believe that life begins at conception, and have not ever stated that I do.

But hey, anyone who doesn't like abortion must be from the Westboro Baptist Church right?

If you have sex, you assume all responsibilities emanating from that act. Whether they be; venereal disease, children, emotional entanglements. Any issues they have are their own damn fault.

You can doubt me all you want. I'm being truthful. You calling me "callous" is ridiculous considering the things you have said about your hypothetical grandchildren and your daughter.

[CanYouDigIt]

:blah :blah :blah :blah :blah :blah :blah :blah :blah :blah

[niko]

:facepalm

It was obviously an attempt at crude humour, I have put a lot of thought into my stance on abortion, this should be plainly obvious and no one with half a brain would think that a "torn cvnt" is the worst thing to happen during child birth. That this all alludes you is astounding.

Let me be very clear you apparently illiterate idiot; I do not now, nor have I ever believed that life begins at conception, I have said this NUMEROUS times in this thread. I have had to correct you on this TWICE you fvcking spastic.

If you have sex, you assume all responsibilities emanating from that act. Whether they be; venereal disease, children, emotional entanglements. Any issues they have are their own damn fault.

You can doubt me all you want. I'm being truthful. You calling me "callous" is ridiculous considering the things you have said about your hypothetical grandchildren and your daughter.

You said the worst thing the mom would get from childbirth is a "torn ****". You don't give a **** about the mom at all. I do. I care about my daughter and her future more than the collection of cells at that point. When it's bigger, when it's no longer first trimester, it's too late IMO. But at that early point my daughter, my wife, etc. is more important.

And as much as I love my kids, if you told me 8 months in that if my wife gave birth she'd die, I wouldn't make her have the baby. She is more important than someone who has yet to be born.

To you, the fetus is the be all and end all. It's not. There's a mom too. And making a joke about all she needs to worry about is her torn **** is callous and ridiculous. If you want to recant, recant but stop pretending it was some funny joke.

You have clearly no clue about pregnancy or childbirth, it's just a concept to you, the concept of abortion being evil is what you think about, it has nothing to do with people at all. Unless they are the unborn fetus.

Sorry, you can argue with other people now. I'm not "pro anything", i'm just realistic because life involves real people and not just concepts.

[HarryCallahan]

You said the worst thing the mom would get from childbirth is a "torn ****". You don't give a **** about the mom at all. I do. I care about my daughter and her future more than the collection of cells at that point. When it's bigger, when it's no longer first trimester, it's too late IMO. But at that early point my daughter, my wife, etc. is more important.

And as much as I love my kids, if you told me 8 months in that if my wife gave birth she'd die, I wouldn't make her have the baby. She is more important than someone who has yet to be born.

To you, the fetus is the be all and end all. It's not. There's a mom too. And making a joke about all she needs to worry about is her torn **** is callous and ridiculous. If you want to recant, recant but stop pretending it was some funny joke.

You have clearly no clue about pregnancy or childbirth, it's just a concept to you, the concept of abortion being evil is what you think about, it has nothing to do with people at all. Unless they are the unborn fetus.

Sorry, you can argue with other people now. I'm not "pro anything", i'm just realistic because life involves real people and not just concepts.

Nice straw man argument. If the mother is in danger, I believe aborting the pregnancy should be an option. This is morally the same as killing an intruder in your home. That is the only time when killing is acceptable; when it is in order to save another life.
That really is typical of you isn't it? Attributing false beliefs to someone else, just so you can argue with them.

If you don't find it humorous, well there's nothing I can do about that. It's something called "black humour" that you found it offensive is inconsequential.

You're done with this thread? Just like you were done on page5? You're a scum-bag and not very bright. Like I said earlier, I hope to God your children turn out nothing like you.

[Rick James]

Niko, do you have daughter in real life?

[Brunch@Five]

Having a baby as a teen, whether keeping it or giving it up for adoption are two options that are going to be hugely stressful on the young girl. I'm glad my daughter will have other options than you'd give your kids.

Also having a baby (the physical toll) is no joke. If the woman doesn't want to carry the baby, thinking she'd be practically forced to is a bit concerning to me. We are valuing the potential of life over the actual person alive.

having an abortion is no joke either. Physical health risks are probably lower than actually bearing the child, but there are tons of women who had an abortion who later are torn psychologically. Either way it's am extremely difficult situation and decision to make.
Also, that decision is not a rational one to make. It depends on the girl/the woman. There can be all kinds of rational arguments, but if at some point the mother feels like she has "her baby" in her womb, she will feel about an abortion as murder. That's not a rational process, it's almost purely emotional.
Which is why you can't have anyone decide for a mother, or pressure her into what is "rational" or "socially expected behaviour". It's entirely the mother's decision, depending on her feelings to the fetus/child in her womb.

pro-choice vs pro-life is not a debate anyone is ever going to win. It's a personal decision, and you should tolerate either stance. It's not for society to decide what a mother does with her unborn child/fetus.


What I would do as a father: support her without reservation and have her know that I love and respect her whatever decision she makes. I will help her make the decision, provide information, go to the doctor's with her.
If young parents get decent support from their own parents (and friends), it's not a dire situation and can turn out very well.

[niko]

having an abortion is no joke either. Physical health risks are probably lower than actually bearing the child, but there are tons of women who had an abortion who later are torn psychologically. Either way it's am extremely difficult situation and decision to make.
Also, that decision is not a rational one to make. It depends on the girl/the woman. There can be all kinds of rational arguments, but if at some point the mother feels like she has "her baby" in her womb, she will feel about an abortion as murder. That's not a rational process, it's almost purely emotional.
Which is why you can't have anyone decide for a mother, or pressure her into what is "rational" or "socially expected behaviour". It's entirely the mother's decision, depending on her feelings to the fetus/child in her womb.

pro-choice vs pro-life is not a debate anyone is ever going to win. It's a personal decision, and you should tolerate either stance. It's not for society to decide what a mother does with her unborn child/fetus.


What I would do as a father: support her without reservation and have her know that I love and respect her whatever decision she makes. I will help her make the decision, provide information, go to the doctor's with her.
If young parents get decent support from their own parents (and friends), it's not a dire situation and can turn out very well.
I'd recommend the abortion TBH but I wouldn't push in either direction and support just like you. To me that's logical.

[Dresta]

I already have an argument, because there are medical methods to determine these moments. There's a generally defined time of viability, but of course it will vary from pregnancy to pregnancy and there are medical methods to determine when the moment is.




Not one for coming up with insults, but the fact that you are the faraway leader in emotionally charged replies for this thread makes it seem that you throwing out that label is nothing more than projection.


Dystopia? There's nothing about allowing women to have abortion as a last resort that makes this society a dystopia. Even though I wouldn't condone the policy today as I personally find it cruel and morally offensive, Sparta wasn't even a dystopia for casting off genetically unfit newborns into a chasm.

I'm all for human rights. We simply disagree on what we define a human as. Earlier you've already conceded that I have an argument when it comes to the issue of viability anyway.

It's surprising to me that you aren't able to see how criminalizing abortion could result in some dystopian effects of its own.Except abortion isn't a 'last resort' - it tends to be the first one (as the answers to this thread have generally shown). But the Spartans at lease got rid of children because they were defective and not a random child (who could potentially be a genius) because they wanted less personal hardship.

Sparta wasn't called a dystopia because it was in the past, and a dystopia is an imagined world, not a real one. But i assure you that if someone wrote a book about how our society gradually became like the Spartan one, then it would be a dystopian novel.