Teenage pregnancy

[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.

[SaintKat]

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.

[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.

[Sinestra]

Originally Posted by MissMisa

Ugh what a horrible video!

The thought of it for me is entirely disgusting, but maybe that is because I never want children anyway. My best friend had a baby when she was 17. It's been tough for her, and I don't think it was the best life decision for her, but she's doing fine now. She's at college and she has a job. Those kind of mothers don't bother me.

Ones that do is the ones that sponge off the state and get all the free money, when I have to work damn hard to get my money and I'm scrounging for University and stuff. But that isn't teenage-mother specific, there are loads of chav-mums like that as well.

I know two people, who are frankly idiots, both my age, tried for a baby and she's now pregnant, with no job, no money, no school, no qualifications. What kind of idiots are they? It's safe to say I ain't friends with them anymore. They shouldn't be allowed to have a child they can't provide for, it's pretty evil to say the least. Poor kid.

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.

[YukisUke]

Originally Posted by Sinestra

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.

[Deviruu]

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.

[solemnclockwork]

Originally Posted by Salvanas

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.

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

Originally Posted by Salvanas

When I have the time, I will.

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

Originally Posted by Salvanas

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?

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.

Originally Posted by Salvanas

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Salvanas

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

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

Originally Posted by Salvanas

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

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?

Originally Posted by Salvanas

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.

Don't dodge the paragraph.

Originally Posted by Salvanas

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

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!

Originally Posted by Salvanas

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

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.

Originally Posted by Salvanas

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.

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

Originally Posted by Salvanas

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.

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

Originally Posted by Salvanas

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.

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?

Originally Posted by Salvanas

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.[/color][/size][/font]

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

[JackIsLost]

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.

[ozkai]

Originally Posted by Salvanas

NOTE: If you are faint of heart, do not watch this video.

What are your thoughts on Teenage pregnancy?

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.

[ozkai]

Originally Posted by Salvanas

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


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.

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.