[Salvanas]

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.

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.

The mother COULD be a saint, but seriously, be realistic. Apart from a rape victim, or someone who had taken precautions but a mistake (like condom split) happened, how MANY teenage mothers do you really think are saints, and not just slags?

I'm understanding Solemn, that you don't live in the UK. If you did. You'd understand what I'm talking about.

Read the articles that I posted also.

When I have the time, I will.

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!

It wasn't based in "my" logic. If I had said that an IDEAL environment was based around status, or money, then you could have used that. But at the point, you didn't know what I meant about ideal. so how was it based in my logic?

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?

You can't clearly, ofcourse. But if you sit down, and look at the mother, and the father and their families, you can tell. I've seen pregnant teenagers here in the UK, who's parents are the most disgusting people I've met. This is excluding on how the parents of the baby were like. By looking at the family you can tell a lot.

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.

The child has no say in it, because it is not alive. Simple as. It is up to the parents to judge.

And yes, some younger women HAVE. But that's mainly a minority. Minorities don't count.

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.

Personally, unless we have this crisis that knocks off 50% of our population, I don't see this ever becoming to be again. We need women who are ready, and who are mature to have kids, reproducing. not teenagers.

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.

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.

Problem is. They have no say, until they are old enough to think and speak. Until then, it's the parents choice.

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!

Mate. You don't need to tell me that life is not fair and shit.

But, you fail to understand, that even if life is not fair, that there are some things we can control. And this is one of them.

Again, you're just making stupid assumptions, and taking words from me and warping them. It's not about the money, it's not about the nationality, it's not about the bloody relationships between the parents. It's about their ATTITUDE.

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.

Unlike you. I don't look at it as if it's only one human life. I'm looking at the whole picture. It's not just about the babies life. It's about how it will effect everyone else's life around the baby too.

Although I care for the babies feelings to a point, there are bigger things in the picture. And the baby would be the least of my worrys.