[solemnclockwork]

Originally Posted by Salvanas

I'm sorry. Did you miss the place where I said 'Usually'? Because if you had read it, you wouldn't of had to type out something that I already know.

Your writing.

Originally Posted by Salvanas

EDIT: Sorry, allow me to elaborate why I think such surroundings isn't healthy for a child. Such environments are prone to chaos. A lot of stress is abound in them, and problems arise. Some can turn into violent acts. Research shows that babies that grow up in violent or chaoti surroundings, usually become a danger to the society (my words ofcourse.) in the long run.

So, now if you can't give a baby an ideal environment, you're not just endangering the babys life, but many other people that the baby (in his later life) might end up harmin

Second paragraph.

One the topic of you already know, then why state something that depends on the person? The mother could be a saint and the best mother in the world, and that will not change how the person turns out, point is the person decides how to act, not the parent. Here's the headline, its a moot point.

Read the articles that I posted also.

Originally Posted by Salvanas

Your post was invalid, because you tried to state that I thought the "ideal" mother was someone in an upper class society. And you still haven't addressed that.

You don't get why I made that comment. IT WAS a question posed in your logic pointed toward you. There was no reason for me to address it in the first point!

Originally Posted by Salvanas

If the mother is not ready for it, and the baby will grow up in a bad environment, I don't see why it should be brought into the world in order to suffer.

Point here is, how do you define whither someone will suffer if they have not lived at all, how do you define wither that life was well lived or not?

Originally Posted by Salvanas

You see. Whatever you say, a teenage mother will NEVER be an ideal mother. Never. I can understand your point if the mother was at an optimum age, but we're talking about teenage pregnancies.

I would agree with you that they would be not up to the task if you where talking in the form of children, but your using the word teenage. My question is what does the def. of that word mean to you? Besides that I'm not arguing against that, what I"m saying is the child life is just as valuable to live as the mothers, in essence he/she has the right to live.

You cannot say it as fact either, as in the past younger women has had children and raised them good, it's still a subjective topic.

Originally Posted by Salvanas

In the past, we thought Mercury was safe to handle too. In the past the death rate was high, and the age at which people died at, were younger than we have today.

My point, life changes.

I said it was subjective for that very reason. If people where having children when they where younger in the past, can you say that it might be socially viable again in the future? the whole point of that paragraph was not about teenage pregnancies, but the viability of having children being on a definitive answer.

Originally Posted by Salvanas

This doesn't change the fact that they're still unfit to be mothers at such a young age.

Point is, in context of what I said in the paragraph? For every action there is a opposite and equal reaction.

Everyone has a life to make of what they want, some have bad beginnings but, I bet if you ask them they will be glad to tell you that they can live.

Originally Posted by Salvanas

What I get from you, is that even if you know that this baby was going to suffer throughout it's life, you would still encourage it to be born in order for it to be some sort of "lesson" to the mother.

You did not read the point about it being the child choice of how to make it thought its life? The mother having a child is a consequence good or bad of having sex, regardless of that the focus is the child not the mother in that point.

How can I make it any clearer that life is not fair, I could whine and cry that I wasn't born in a rich family, that I wasn't born Japanese, that my family was still together, that I wasn't short, etc!

Originally Posted by Salvanas

I find that wrong. She'll understand her mistake when she has to kill the baby inside her womb. Kill one life, and you can save anothers. If the mother is not ready for it, why would you let her throw her life away, when we have the resources to save her life. She'll learn either way that it was a bad choice.[/color][/size][/font]

what? Wait you seriously consider that the lifestyle is more important then another human life? Its not about wither the mother can still act the way she did before (personally responsibility there is no get out of jail card in life). If I must say, adoption is a option.

How do you find that letting a child live is wrong (do to its possible upbringing) when you don't find that killing one in the womb isn't?

chew a little on this phrase.

It is better to have lived, then to not at all.