<strong>I've seen some of these studies lately that the majority of "teen pregnancies" are really where the mother is a young girl, but the father is an older man. If it's a 15-year old girl and a 25-year old man, does that change your view at all?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not really B. There are a lot of promiscuous girls in high school (or of that age), who go around looking for older men (fake ID's at the local bar, whatever)...
...is the man a scumbag for jumping in the sack with a teenage girl? Depends on the circumstance, but most likely - yes. Does that mean the girl somehow bears no responsibility for her actions and by extension her pregnancy?
No freakin way. If you can prove the girl was held down or otherwise held against her will, that's one thing, but if you're just talking about some tramp who wasn't brought up right and is out banging a different guy every two weeks, forget it.
She bears the responsibility as much as the man -- I don't care if she's a teenager or not. We seem to have this view in America that 15 and 16 year old girls are these little naive, helpless creatures that can't think on their feet or make wise decisions. Bullcrap...all of it.
Example: some people seem to imply that 16 year old girls are mature enough to understand and handle the responsibility of operating a motor vehicle at high speeds among other people (i.e. their lives in her hands), but not mature enough to understand and handle her own body in a mature way?
Sorry. Not buyin' it. Maybe I'm a calous bastard for that but I think we put way too little responsibility on our kids (in terms of making them own up to their actions and decisions).
Moogs, that's quite a cop-out. The whole "only in rape or incest cases" argument doesn't make sense.
Now I'm no bleeding heart, but...
[quote]Not really B. There are a lot of promiscuous girls in high school (or of that age), who go around looking for older men (fake ID's at the local bar, whatever)...
...is the man a scumbag for jumping in the sack with a teenage girl? Depends on the circumstance, but most likely - yes. Does that mean the girl somehow bears no responsibility for her actions and by extension her pregnancy?<hr></blockquote>
... this is dripping with sexism. "Depending on the circumstance.." my fat white ass. That guy is shit 10 times out of 10 and is just as responsible for any subsequent child. Even MORESO if that girl is a young/mid-teenager.
Then you say:
[quote]some people seem to imply that 16 year old girls are mature enough to understand ... but not mature enough to understand and handle her own body in a mature way? Sorry. Not buyin' it.<hr></blockquote>
So it's her responsibility 100%?
Not only is it her responsibility, but she can't even make a decision whether to kill the child?
Where's the man in your scenario? No obligations there, eh?
There are 15 year old girls out there who look like they could be in their 20s, easily. So if such a girl gets into a bar/club with a fake id and ends up going home with some older man who has no reason to suspect she's actually underage is the guy at fault? I sure can't see why he would be.
[quote]Originally posted by: groverat
<strong>The whole "only in rape or incest cases" argument doesn't make sense.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree that it isn't fair to take an innocent life even in this situation, but is it any less fair to force a woman or young girl to carry a child to term, give birth to it, and then have to either raise it or go through giving it away after having already been raped? It seems like punishment for the victim! Until a better solution arises I'll continue to think that abortion is less atrocious under these circumstances.
[quote]Originally posted by: Belle
<strong>So true, nonhuman. Many politicians, activists and religious leaders would be out of a job. Sometimes, you seem... well... almost human!</strong><hr></blockquote>
Legally/Politically: Pro-Choice, but only if you can afford to have the precedure done yourself. None of this state-assisted bullcrap. I'm sure as shit not paying for your irresponsibility...
Morally: Pro-Life. Don't want a baby? Don't have sex. Simple choice. Abortion as birth control demonstrates the disturbing lack of responsibility and self control among our society.
And something I've never understood: how can you be pro-choice and anti-death penalty? It's cool to kill them before they've had a chance to prove their worth has human beings, but it's wrong to kill them once they've proved they have no humanity? Bizarre.
Pro-Life. Except for when the mother's life is seriously in danger. I can't even begin to imagine the mental torment those mothers must go through. I haven't even decided if I should form an opinion for that circumstance.
[quote]There are 15 year old girls out there who look like they could be in their 20s, easily. So if such a girl gets into a bar/club with a fake id and ends up going home with some older man who has no reason to suspect she's actually underage is the guy at fault? I sure can't see why he would be.<hr></blockquote>
So if he doesn't know she's underage. . . he's not responsible for the subsequent pregnancy?
I'm not following the "logic". We're talking about abortion, not statutory rape.
[quote]I agree that it isn't fair to take an innocent life even in this situation, but is it any less fair to force a woman or young girl to carry a child to term, give birth to it, and then have to either raise it or go through giving it away after having already been raped?<hr></blockquote>
Say an older teen is manipulated by an older man (happens everywhere everyday) and is cast out by her family as a whore?
Is it ok then since she's been through mental duress and severe emotional trauma.
[quote]It seems like punishment for the victim!<hr></blockquote>
Pregnancy is punishment?
[quote]. . . I'll continue to think that abortion is less atrocious under these circumstances.<hr></blockquote>
There are degrees of atrociousness in regards to a dead baby?
Since it's about morality, wouldn't it be the moral thing for a rape victim to give birth to the child and give it a chance at life?
[quote]And something I've never understood: how can you be pro-choice and anti-death penalty?<hr></blockquote>
I agree. Weird logic involved in that one. (I'm pro-choice and pro-death penalty, personally.)
[quote]Pro-Life. Except for when the mother's life is seriously in danger.<hr></blockquote>
That's valid logic, in my opinion. A fully developed woman is more "important" than a baby.
<strong>And something I've never understood: how can you be pro-choice and anti-death penalty? It's cool to kill them before they've had a chance to prove their worth has human beings, but it's wrong to kill them once they've proved they have no humanity? Bizarre.</strong><hr></blockquote>I would think a true small-government libertarian would also be in this position.
I honestly can't understand the stance people take when they say, "I think it is wrong, and it is killing a baby, but it should still be a choice." I can understand people who say, "A fetus is not a life. It is not a person, therefore there is no problem in removing it," even if I disagree with them, but intentionally giving a woman power to take a defenseless life is an idea that absolutely boggles my mind. Sure you're legislating morality if you were to outlaw abortion, but laws against thievery and murder also legislate morality....</strong><hr></blockquote>
I do support a woman's choice to abort and kill an unborn child. I have no problem with this distinction because my view is based upon social and economic ideas, not moral ones.
But I think those who do abort another's life should admit to the reality of the situation rather than hide behind the denial of euphemisms. It's often an emotionally painful experience. I wonder why! (see first sentence in this paragraph).
I've been close to many women who have decided to have an abortion (my sister being one). I haven't ever judged them as morally deficient. Each woman must decide what suits herself, obviously.
However, I do look down upon an old friend of mine who chose to have a baby under awful circumstances. She didn't know the father except for a one-night stand (didn't know his last name or have his phone number). Never saw him again. So she chose to have a kid as a single-parent, without a job, and LA County picked up a $20,000 tab for her hospital stay. Raising a kid in a single-parent home by choice hinders, statistically, that child's potential for success on many fronts; in addition, that child will likely depend on more taxpayer money in the future. It's simply a poor economical model. I think she made a poor decision. But that is only my opinion, which is always open to criticism
[quote]I do support a woman's choice to abort and kill an unborn child. I have no problem with this distinction because my view is based upon social and economic ideas, not moral ones.
But I think those who do abort another's life should admit to the reality of the situation rather than hide behind the denial of euphemisms. It's often an emotionally painful experience. I wonder why! (see first sentence in this paragraph).<hr></blockquote>So killing "an unborn child" is not a matter of morality to you? I just cannot accept this kind of thinking.... So should people only be allowed to live if it is economically convenient for them to do so? What is it about an *unborn* child that makes it so different from a born child that it's life is at the mercy of its parent's convenience?
I really don't mean to misrepresent your stance on this, zonetuke, I'm just trying to flesh out its implications and foundation. Maybe you'ld like to clarify what makes abortion an a-moral decision, while murder clearly is a moral decision.... (if you believe that)
<strong>That's valid logic, in my opinion. A fully developed woman is more "important" than a baby.</strong><hr></blockquote>
(I'm assuming that by "important" you mean that the mother has friends and family, whereas the baby does not.).
Partially, yeah. The real reason I'm not opposed to it in this specific circumstance is that someone's gonna die either way. So in my mind it's kinda like how you're allowed to kill someone who's pointing a gun at you. Except for there the person's threatening you on purpose, but here they're not. It doesn't quite seem fair to kill the baby for doing something that it didn't even know it was doing, but (using the above meaning) the mother's life is more important than the baby's life. I don't like either idea -- that we kill someone that doesn't intend to cause harm, or that we say that two humans are unequal -- and that's why I'm not sure I'll ever make up my mind on this particular sub-issue of abortion.
Other than the very rare case of that resulting from forced intercourse, pregnancy is a choice. Unfortunately it's often made without the parents being in possession of all the facts. There are countless thousands of people who don't understand that unprotected sex can lead to pregnancy. It's time for the campaigning groups - whether pro or anti - to stop bickering over morality issues and invest the millions of dollars they plough into furthering their moral crusade into educating people.
As for the pro-life or pro-choice debate, I fall into pro-choice by default. I don't presume to tell parents how to deal with the issues in their lives, just as I don't feel it's my place to argue whether someone should have transplant surgery, wear a condom, worship a particular deity, whatever.
[quote] It's time for the campaigning groups - whether pro or anti - to stop bickering over morality issues and invest the millions of dollars they plough into furthering their moral crusade into educating people.<hr></blockquote>I'll buy that. Education *is* key. But I wouldn't be willing to sacrifice the issue of the morality of abortion for it. I don't see the two approaches as mutually exclusive.
An ex-girlfriend had an abortion (before I met her). It seriously messed her up in the head. That's another thing people should consider when "championing" this so-called right.
I'm okay with sexual and moral education to reduce the risk of an unwanted pregnancy but if there are going to be abortions there should also be abortion education.
Talk about abortion without euphemism. I remember listening to a woman describe the abortion she had without even once using the word abortion. Talk about the mental trauma many women feel after having had an abortion.
I also dislike the couched language people use when referring to abortions.
I'm Pro-Choice, here is my view.
Up to the 3rd trimester it's not a "viable" human life. It's a human life, of course, it's a child in development, but it's not quite there yet. Is it killing a developing child, absolutely. But if that baby were to come out it would die very quickly because it's not physically equipped for life. Once again, I'm not one to say "but it's not human", I believe it's human. It just can't feel pain or do necessary life functions like breathe and maintain a proper heartbeat.
At the 3rd trimester it's a human being so killing it is like killing any other human being, in my opinion. It's "viable". It can feel pain, it can breathe on its own, its heart can beat in a regular fashion and its brain is at a later stage in development.
I also believe in "mercy" killings and the death penalty. I guess I'm just a death kinda guy.
the FACTS are we don't really know when "life" is formed. We can however GUESS. That doesn't mean we are RIGHT. Saying otherwise makes you look foolish.
Comments
<strong>I've seen some of these studies lately that the majority of "teen pregnancies" are really where the mother is a young girl, but the father is an older man. If it's a 15-year old girl and a 25-year old man, does that change your view at all?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not really B. There are a lot of promiscuous girls in high school (or of that age), who go around looking for older men (fake ID's at the local bar, whatever)...
...is the man a scumbag for jumping in the sack with a teenage girl? Depends on the circumstance, but most likely - yes. Does that mean the girl somehow bears no responsibility for her actions and by extension her pregnancy?
No freakin way. If you can prove the girl was held down or otherwise held against her will, that's one thing, but if you're just talking about some tramp who wasn't brought up right and is out banging a different guy every two weeks, forget it.
She bears the responsibility as much as the man -- I don't care if she's a teenager or not. We seem to have this view in America that 15 and 16 year old girls are these little naive, helpless creatures that can't think on their feet or make wise decisions. Bullcrap...all of it.
Example: some people seem to imply that 16 year old girls are mature enough to understand and handle the responsibility of operating a motor vehicle at high speeds among other people (i.e. their lives in her hands), but not mature enough to understand and handle her own body in a mature way?
Sorry. Not buyin' it. Maybe I'm a calous bastard for that but I think we put way too little responsibility on our kids (in terms of making them own up to their actions and decisions).
[ 11-15-2001: Message edited by: Moogs ? ]</p>
Now I'm no bleeding heart, but...
[quote]Not really B. There are a lot of promiscuous girls in high school (or of that age), who go around looking for older men (fake ID's at the local bar, whatever)...
...is the man a scumbag for jumping in the sack with a teenage girl? Depends on the circumstance, but most likely - yes. Does that mean the girl somehow bears no responsibility for her actions and by extension her pregnancy?<hr></blockquote>
... this is dripping with sexism. "Depending on the circumstance.." my fat white ass. That guy is shit 10 times out of 10 and is just as responsible for any subsequent child. Even MORESO if that girl is a young/mid-teenager.
Then you say:
[quote]some people seem to imply that 16 year old girls are mature enough to understand ... but not mature enough to understand and handle her own body in a mature way? Sorry. Not buyin' it.<hr></blockquote>
So it's her responsibility 100%?
Not only is it her responsibility, but she can't even make a decision whether to kill the child?
Where's the man in your scenario? No obligations there, eh?
Mandricard
AppleOutsider
[quote]Originally posted by: groverat
<strong>The whole "only in rape or incest cases" argument doesn't make sense.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree that it isn't fair to take an innocent life even in this situation, but is it any less fair to force a woman or young girl to carry a child to term, give birth to it, and then have to either raise it or go through giving it away after having already been raped? It seems like punishment for the victim! Until a better solution arises I'll continue to think that abortion is less atrocious under these circumstances.
[quote]Originally posted by: Belle
<strong>So true, nonhuman. Many politicians, activists and religious leaders would be out of a job. Sometimes, you seem... well... almost human!</strong><hr></blockquote>
Morally: Pro-Life. Don't want a baby? Don't have sex. Simple choice. Abortion as birth control demonstrates the disturbing lack of responsibility and self control among our society.
And something I've never understood: how can you be pro-choice and anti-death penalty? It's cool to kill them before they've had a chance to prove their worth has human beings, but it's wrong to kill them once they've proved they have no humanity? Bizarre.
So if he doesn't know she's underage. . . he's not responsible for the subsequent pregnancy?
I'm not following the "logic". We're talking about abortion, not statutory rape.
[quote]I agree that it isn't fair to take an innocent life even in this situation, but is it any less fair to force a woman or young girl to carry a child to term, give birth to it, and then have to either raise it or go through giving it away after having already been raped?<hr></blockquote>
Say an older teen is manipulated by an older man (happens everywhere everyday) and is cast out by her family as a whore?
Is it ok then since she's been through mental duress and severe emotional trauma.
[quote]It seems like punishment for the victim!<hr></blockquote>
Pregnancy is punishment?
[quote]. . . I'll continue to think that abortion is less atrocious under these circumstances.<hr></blockquote>
There are degrees of atrociousness in regards to a dead baby?
Since it's about morality, wouldn't it be the moral thing for a rape victim to give birth to the child and give it a chance at life?
[quote]And something I've never understood: how can you be pro-choice and anti-death penalty?<hr></blockquote>
I agree. Weird logic involved in that one. (I'm pro-choice and pro-death penalty, personally.)
[quote]Pro-Life. Except for when the mother's life is seriously in danger.<hr></blockquote>
That's valid logic, in my opinion. A fully developed woman is more "important" than a baby.
<strong>And something I've never understood: how can you be pro-choice and anti-death penalty? It's cool to kill them before they've had a chance to prove their worth has human beings, but it's wrong to kill them once they've proved they have no humanity? Bizarre.</strong><hr></blockquote>I would think a true small-government libertarian would also be in this position.
<strong>Pro-life.
I honestly can't understand the stance people take when they say, "I think it is wrong, and it is killing a baby, but it should still be a choice." I can understand people who say, "A fetus is not a life. It is not a person, therefore there is no problem in removing it," even if I disagree with them, but intentionally giving a woman power to take a defenseless life is an idea that absolutely boggles my mind. Sure you're legislating morality if you were to outlaw abortion, but laws against thievery and murder also legislate morality....</strong><hr></blockquote>
I do support a woman's choice to abort and kill an unborn child. I have no problem with this distinction because my view is based upon social and economic ideas, not moral ones.
But I think those who do abort another's life should admit to the reality of the situation rather than hide behind the denial of euphemisms. It's often an emotionally painful experience. I wonder why! (see first sentence in this paragraph).
I've been close to many women who have decided to have an abortion (my sister being one). I haven't ever judged them as morally deficient. Each woman must decide what suits herself, obviously.
However, I do look down upon an old friend of mine who chose to have a baby under awful circumstances. She didn't know the father except for a one-night stand (didn't know his last name or have his phone number). Never saw him again. So she chose to have a kid as a single-parent, without a job, and LA County picked up a $20,000 tab for her hospital stay. Raising a kid in a single-parent home by choice hinders, statistically, that child's potential for success on many fronts; in addition, that child will likely depend on more taxpayer money in the future. It's simply a poor economical model. I think she made a poor decision. But that is only my opinion, which is always open to criticism
matthew
[ 11-15-2001: Message edited by: zonetuke ]</p>
But I think those who do abort another's life should admit to the reality of the situation rather than hide behind the denial of euphemisms. It's often an emotionally painful experience. I wonder why! (see first sentence in this paragraph).<hr></blockquote>So killing "an unborn child" is not a matter of morality to you? I just cannot accept this kind of thinking.... So should people only be allowed to live if it is economically convenient for them to do so? What is it about an *unborn* child that makes it so different from a born child that it's life is at the mercy of its parent's convenience?
I really don't mean to misrepresent your stance on this, zonetuke, I'm just trying to flesh out its implications and foundation. Maybe you'ld like to clarify what makes abortion an a-moral decision, while murder clearly is a moral decision.... (if you believe that)
<strong>That's valid logic, in my opinion. A fully developed woman is more "important" than a baby.</strong><hr></blockquote>
(I'm assuming that by "important" you mean that the mother has friends and family, whereas the baby does not.).
Partially, yeah. The real reason I'm not opposed to it in this specific circumstance is that someone's gonna die either way. So in my mind it's kinda like how you're allowed to kill someone who's pointing a gun at you. Except for there the person's threatening you on purpose, but here they're not. It doesn't quite seem fair to kill the baby for doing something that it didn't even know it was doing, but (using the above meaning) the mother's life is more important than the baby's life. I don't like either idea -- that we kill someone that doesn't intend to cause harm, or that we say that two humans are unequal -- and that's why I'm not sure I'll ever make up my mind on this particular sub-issue of abortion.
As for the pro-life or pro-choice debate, I fall into pro-choice by default. I don't presume to tell parents how to deal with the issues in their lives, just as I don't feel it's my place to argue whether someone should have transplant surgery, wear a condom, worship a particular deity, whatever.
Strider
I'm okay with sexual and moral education to reduce the risk of an unwanted pregnancy but if there are going to be abortions there should also be abortion education.
Talk about abortion without euphemism. I remember listening to a woman describe the abortion she had without even once using the word abortion. Talk about the mental trauma many women feel after having had an abortion.
I'm Pro-Choice, here is my view.
Up to the 3rd trimester it's not a "viable" human life. It's a human life, of course, it's a child in development, but it's not quite there yet. Is it killing a developing child, absolutely. But if that baby were to come out it would die very quickly because it's not physically equipped for life. Once again, I'm not one to say "but it's not human", I believe it's human. It just can't feel pain or do necessary life functions like breathe and maintain a proper heartbeat.
At the 3rd trimester it's a human being so killing it is like killing any other human being, in my opinion. It's "viable". It can feel pain, it can breathe on its own, its heart can beat in a regular fashion and its brain is at a later stage in development.
I also believe in "mercy" killings and the death penalty. I guess I'm just a death kinda guy.