Your writing.

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.

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!

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?

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

My parents had me when they were 17 and 16 years old. He was an engineer and she stayed at home. It's entirely possible for teenagers to be good and responsible parents, you just have to raise them with good values/firm boundaries/love and support.

Edit: Having read the post above me, this doesn't mean I'm a pro-lifer. Not in the slightest.

MissMisa just summed a lot in one short post. In short you basically need a license to drive own a dog or to a number of things. But a completely unqualified, jobless reckless moron can have a child and responsible for another beings life when they cant even take care of their own. In the end we end up paying for their mistake through the taxes we pay.

Accidents do happen yes we all can be reckless at times. But if you dont want to have an abortion and you KNOW you are not in any type of financial situation to raise the child properly (im going to include mentally prepared as well) The option of adoption is always there. There are plenty of well off stable people who are unable to have children of their own who give a child a loving home and you can chose which family you think is best. There are so many options nowadays people just fail to make the right decisions and think things through carefully.

A child is not an accessory for you to look cute with when going out with your friends its a life treat it as such.

I can agree with the last sentence you said. There are some people out there who have children to look good.

Hm. My mother had her first child when she was 17. Had four more after that.
My mother raised all of us well, loved us all, treated us all well and still does.

That was not the point and not the direction of that saying. I was referring to children growing up and being bad to society. That it did not matter who raised them, and they made that decision.

What about me not living in the UK? How does that relate to what where talking about? If you don't think I "understand" your situation them please tell

Wait, you have time to post you have time to read them. It shouldn't take over 3 minutes.

That is the key word ideal and one you did not elaborate until AFTER I posted. More to the point you said satisfying life. It's a generality that depends on the person point of view what a satisfying life means to them. Hence why I posted such a question.

Contradiction. You first say you can't clearly, then you say you can which one it is? Your guessing at best by looking at the people involved. There cases of people who where "bad" before then having a child they clean up there habits, and vice versa.

That is another subjective answer. Here's some more reading for you.

Memory Forms at 30 Weeks in the Womb: MedlinePlus
ABC Recognizes Survival of 21-Week Baby 'May Change What People Think About Life' | NewsBusters.org

Minorities don't count!? Well I guess blacks, Asians, Latinos don't count as having a voice in your opinion.

Of course minorities count. They are still there are they not?

Don't dodge the paragraph.

It's called being a depended. That said, read that part again. I was not refering to children in terms of them deciding how valuable there current life is, but people (like some on this very thread) valuing there own life!

Apparently I do, it's part of the cornerstone of this argument and one you keep denying. You keep saying that a child who does not have the right environment deserves not to live, to which NOT everyone going to be blessed with that.

by population control? Telling someone you have the right to live and you do not?

? explain how this relates to what I'm saying. Also show where I was warping your words please.

I addressed this. Let for say argument sake, take Obama and say his mother aborted him when he was younger, what effect would you think that would have on America? What about for say Albert Einstien? What about Hilter? I'm not looking at a snapshot of someone life. that said, how much burden are you saying a child brings upon the family?

So Human life is a minor? A child has no value?

JF always brings debates on threads, with debate threads there are people who read in between the lines and turn someones words completely 180 degrees to make their argument stronger. i don't like eggs turn into "you hate chickens?" *sigh*

here's my thought, did cavemen have to worry about teen pregnancy? human race is getting pretty weak.

I think you should have said:

"If you are not mature, do not watch this video"

You appear to have fixations with teenage life stories.

Teenage pregnancy is a healthy thing you would think at such at a young age, but who looks after the baby.

Surely a teenager is not yet responsible enough, also lacking life experience to raise a child.

I have a strong feeling here that you are proud that your parents live in the UK as you have made reference to previously.

I still think you are to immature to have children as it is a HUGE life long responsibility for the functional.