NationStates Jolt Archive

I got an idea: How about you little kids keep your pants on and not get freakin' pregnant at all? Huh? How about that!?

I'm serious. Sex is no place for little kids, or even teenagers. Though I think sex should be saved for marriage, if you really want to, it would probably be best to wait until your atleast in college years.

I think alot of people are forgetting about adoption. Adoption is a viable option for mothers with unwanted children. There is a long list of people wanting to adopt newborn babies. She could have an adoptive family already chosen before she even gives birth. Her inability to care for a child is therefore not a valid argument.

and what exactly wouldnt make her a "..useful and worthwhile contributor to society.."?
Getting prenent in the first place shows her worth as a contributor. YOU FAIL.

For all of you who are saying that the girl shoudn't even have been allowed to get pregnant I say thank you because in this countries society it is always the after effect that people try to get out of not solving the problem from the start

I think alot of people are forgetting about adoption. Adoption is a viable option for mothers with unwanted children. There is a long list of people wanting to adopt newborn babies. She could have an adoptive family already chosen before she even gives birth. Her inability to care for a child is therefore not a valid argument.

And you are forgetting about the serious physical, psychological, and economic costs and risks -- including of permanent harm -- from pregnancy and childbirth.

Especially for a girl of 13.

And your "long list" argument has been responded to several times. People that only wish to adopt a healthy newborn (usually only a healthy newborn of their own race) are not entirely deserving of our sympathy. Especially when there are many, many children needing homes -- like the 13 year old!!!!!

Getting prenent in the first place shows her worth as a contributor. YOU FAIL.


so what? she made a mistake, it happens. does that give her the right to kill someone?

I got an idea: How about you little kids keep your pants on and not get freakin' pregnant at all? Huh? How about that!?

I'm serious. Sex is no place for little kids, or even teenagers. Though I think sex should be saved for marriage, if you really want to, it would probably be best to wait until your atleast in college years.

1. Nonresponsive. A kid is pregnant. Should we force her to keep the pregnancy as some twisted form of punishment.

2. We know not how she got pregnant. It may not have been voluntary.

3. Agreed. Little kids should not get pregnant. Perhaps there should be laws against having sex with little kids.

And you are forgetting about the serious physical, psychological, and economic costs and risks -- including of permanent harm -- from pregnancy and childbirth.

Especially for a girl of 13.

And your "long list" argument has been responded to several times. People that only wish to adopt a healthy newborn (usually only a healthy newborn of their own race) are not entirely deserving of our sympathy. Especially when there are many, many children needing homes -- like the 13 year old!!!!!

No one is asking for sympathy. Im simply stating a fact. If you want your arguments to hold any water, then you have to understand that the decision is not between aborting the child and raising the child but rather between aborting the child and not aborting the child. Not aborting it does not mean she has to raise it.

so what? she made a mistake, it happens. does that give her the right to kill someone?
No it doesn't, that's why she can't have an abortion doy.

1. Nonresponsive. A kid is pregnant. Should we force her to keep the pregnancy as some twisted form of punishment.
How would you propose we teach her a lesson then?

2. We know not how she got pregnant. It may not have been voluntary.
Don't go there. Rape is a crime of violance not sex. It's a tired and over-used excuse. Stop making excuses for losers. You obviously don't think highly of yourself for asscosiating with such scum.

3. Agreed. Little kids should not get pregnant. Perhaps there should be laws against having sex with little kids.
There is.

No it doesn't, that's why she can't have an abortion doy.

sorry i had a misunderstanding :)

Bottom line is that she made a choice to become pregnant. But she can not make the choice to decide who lives and who dies. We were all at the "fetus" stage, and look what we are now. We ARE human beings. So dont act like its some foreign object, or a collection of cells, or a parasite...call it what it really is, a developing human being.

How would you propose we teach her a lesson then?


Don't go there. Rape is a crime of violance not sex. It's a tired and over-used excuse. Stop making excuses for losers. You obviously don't think highly of yourself for asscosiating with such scum.


There is.

So rape is consentual because its about violence?

Hey, first off, thanks for responding in a way, thatwas well organized, easy to reply to, and isn't so much of an assault on the eyes.
Eight articulate points: *Snip*.
1. A dividing cluster of cells is doing something that the organism to be MIGHT find important, assuming the mother wants to host it through its development, and the mother's body decides to tolerate it. If, and only if, the mass of cells grow to fulfill their potential of becoming an honest to goodness human is it doing anything, or if it irreversibly harms the mother, is it doing anything important.

2. In aggregate, the birth of some quantity of children mutually beneficial. But once you start to look out to the fringes it's not the big picture anymore. It's the life of ONE person, and their specific circumstances. She does not necessarily reap any reward from having a child at all, let alone so young. It's a choice she has to live with, either way. And you're inferring causation from a correlation. Notoriously difficult to do. In fact if we looked at people who had children early in life I think we'd find something interesting (which wouldn't be a causal relationship), that would be a sharply decreased life expectancy. Naturally, a whole host of factors would come into play. Now the numbers of prison inmates who are children of single parents, we're on a little bit firmer ground for such inferences. Certainly poverty is a factor, but that's one of the side effects of being a single parent in many circumstances. More over in the book Freakonomics, the authors present an impressive case for Roe v Wade as a major factor in declining crime rates. And in that sense, well considered abortions are mutually beneficial too.

3. Miscarriages happen when the body decides they should happen. It might be based on what the body expects the future condition of the mother to be, or the health of the would-be baby, or just because. And while babies born of younger mothers (even 13 year olds) DO do better, all other things being equal, all other things are decidedly not equal. If the body should feel free to be capricious, I see no problem in using our finely honed talents for planning.

4. At the point we're discussing, it's a mass of cells, not a human. Fetuses go through a lot of development in the womb, and in those changes are proof of our ancestry. And while DNA can be useful for determining what something is, it's certainly not the only tool, and it isn't dominant over the other considerations. In this case, it would reflect on what the cells might have become had circumstances been different.

5. They militant Christians want to live her life, but they don't want to take responsibility for it. Or in fact contribute at all to making it right. To put it bluntly. They have no love for their fellow man (or a frightened little girl) they just want dominion over him, and her. That is a profound lack of charity. (I just want people to live their lives and let me live mine. The outcome of theirs being of no particular importance, in so far as it doesn't effect me. I consider that to be a modest lack of charity. After all I do want them to be free.)

6. High birthrates in areas unable to support the population leads to fierce competition for very limited resources, starvation, the spread of disease, and death on a true gruesome scale. Then add into that mix a policy of promoting the spread of lethal disease through unprotected sex, and a reliance on praying for magic that will never come in place of reason, and they're indirectly contributing to the deaths of millions. Millions. The social policies practiced by the west, including abortion, are a large part of what makes the west wealthy. And these are policies at odds with the philosophy of a venerable, ineffective Catholic church. One can only assume that Catholics making church policy are in favor of grinding poverty, starvation, war, genocide, disease, misery and death in general. Now much of this death is simply unavoidable. If I must choose, I'd choose the death of the few now, so that the many that follow might have a chance for a life less burdened.

7. The date of conception *can* be known. But it generally isn't. It's not of lasting importance. That's not a coincidence. A baby isn't here until it's here, or in some extreme cases, until a community decides not to kill it.

8. Your question is actually similar to other thought experiments involving causality. Such as, should we be grateful for all the wars, and even atrocities that came before, because those in their own way made room for our ancestors to thrive and have the offspring that resulted in we who are here today. But to answer your query directly: We might not be here, but other people would be having this same argument in our stead. Moreover, there might not be fewer people, there might have been more, as wealth might have grown faster, compounding on itself, providing for the comfortable support of more people, perhaps even obviating some wars. Quite the dilemma. Unwillingness to accept abortion as part of family planning could be one of the things that most powerfully reduces the numbers of future Catholics.

Bottom line is that she made a choice to become pregnant. But she can not make the choice to decide who lives and who dies. We were all at the "fetus" stage, and look what we are now. We ARE human beings. So dont act like its some foreign object, or a collection of cells, or a parasite...call it what it really is, a developing human being.
True: All humans were once fetuses.
False: All fetuses became fully functioning humans.

It's a parasitic collectiong of cells that evaded her bodies defenses against foreign organisms (which would kill it QUITE effectively if it failed), seized control of some of her body's systems and holds only the unrealized potential of becoming a human being. It's beaten long odds to get as far as it has, but even without abortion on the table, it's future is far from certain. As is the future of the mother.

How would you propose we teach her a lesson then?


Don't go there. Rape is a crime of violance not sex. It's a tired and over-used excuse. Stop making excuses for losers. You obviously don't think highly of yourself for asscosiating with such scum.


There is.
ROFLMAO

This guy's hilarious!
That last exchange with Cat-Tribe just killed me.
I shared this one with my roommates and we're all laughing so hard we're crying. I think Cat may bite off more than he can chew if he actually tries to discuss anything rationally with this dude.

OMG, can this be real? Is anyone really that clueless?

True: All humans were once fetuses.
False: All fetuses became fully functioning humans.

It's a parasitic collectiong of cells that evaded her bodies defenses against foreign organisms (which would kill it QUITE effectively if it failed), seized control of some of her body's systems and holds only the unrealized potential of becoming a human being. It's beaten long odds to get as far as it has, but even without abortion on the table, it's future is far from certain. As is the future of the mother.

Actually, it's not "evading"... The natural response of the mother's own uterine lining is to surround the "collection of cells" and prevent her own immune system from rejecting it. The mother's own body is acting in a protective capacity, against other aspects to facilitate development of the cells into their eventuality as a human baby. The "collection of cells" don't actually do the evading... The mother's body does it for them. The entire process is natural....

1. I do not, and will never consider the "collection of cells" parasitic.
2. The position and liberties of the mother are tantamount to the decision making process..

From these two point, I come to the conclusion that abortion is a valid procedure that should be available to the mother... As well as want to assert the need for pre-procedural, and post-procedural counciling for the patient... The first to ensure she is making a proper and thought-out, informed consent and decision regarding the operation... The later to assist in the event of PND and other post-traumatic disorders that are likely to occur, and in many cases do occur, because of the procedure.

Actually, it's not "evading"... The natural response of the mother's own uterine lining is to surround the "collection of cells" and prevent her own immune system from rejecting it.

And this is because of chemical factors released by the developing embryo. Thus, the embryo is causing the woman's body to not reject it.

The mother's own body is acting in a protective capacity, against other aspects to facilitate development of the cells into their eventuality as a human baby. The "collection of cells" don't actually do the evading... The mother's body does it for them. The entire process is natural....

Of course it is natural, just as bacteria that give off factors which keep the body from attacking them is "natural." It doesn't make it any less clear that the bacteria are, in fact, evading the system, however.

1. I do not, and will never consider the "collection of cells" parasitic.

Only because you attach an unnecessary negative connotation to this word which you are then uncomfortable using.

I seriously think the goverment should consider making abortion only an option in a back ally with a clotheshanger. Then stupid whores at thirteen will keep thier legs closed for a few more years and the older ones will just buy a damn pill and force thier sexual partner to put on a condom.

And don't give me the percentages bullshit because guess what, if a pill has 80% protecton rate and a condom 75% percent that's 155% bucko.

Nice way to classify someone when you don't know their situation.
Oh well, I suppose if someone walking down the street gets mugged they probably deserved it -- how dare they wear sneakers!

Never left the house to learn common sense I see.

Pill+condom=abortion is needless.

Therefor abortion=excuse for murder.

And if you can't afford condoms/pills then perhaps you should be thinking about something else other then sex. Like a second job.

No method of birth control, save abstinence, is 100% effective. I hope sincerely that you do not discover that through experience.

you have a quick wit and a sharp tongue but that doesnt change my point. saying that all 13 year olds are babies is also a GENERALISATION. why are you so defensive?

and for the record,most of the forums i post on respect my opinions,but some moderators are nervous and fear contraversy,so they boot as soon as another poster complains.....

Please, continue. The irony of your position needs no further refutation. I am sure it is of great amusement to all following the thread.

I regret to say that I am not at all surprised.
It's common with the gutter-dwelling vermin under-race Chavs we have over here in Britian. It's seen as a sign of honour that an eighteen year old man can impregnate a thirteen year old girl. In their trashy society, the dude with the most drugs, crime and violence background gets the most respect.
Sigh.

1) This did not take place in Britain.
2) I'm glad to see it demonstrated so clearly that the United States does not have the monopoly on hatred and racism/classism.
3) Where did you get your information about drug use, violence, and that she was impregnanted by an 18 year old man in this case? It's certainly not in the article that I read.

jesus you know I find it funny if she's 13 and she's having a baby I say make her have it...it`ll teach all the other young slutish kids to not do that kind of shit...of cource just my opinion but from the looks of it all everyone is concerned about the baby only no one about the age of the girl...so Im just saying its her fault and I say make her have the fucken kid.

jesus you know I find it funny if she's 13 and she's having a baby I say make her have it...it`ll teach all the other young slutish kids to not do that kind of shit...of cource just my opinion but from the looks of it all everyone is concerned about the baby only no one about the age of the girl...so Im just saying its her fault and I say make her have the fucken kid.

Yes, because you know for a fact that she had sex consentually and because having a baby is the perfect punishment. We should all look at having children as a punishment. Seriously.

We should all look at having children as a punishment. Seriously.

;) It's certainly more likely after reading some of the antics on this site, Dempublicents1.

Yes, because you know for a fact that she had sex consentually and because having a baby is the perfect punishment. We should all look at having children as a punishment. Seriously.
Like I heard someone else say “punishment by baby “ (or the extended version “punishment by baby until mother” )

You liberals dodge a logical question better then fucking Neo from The Matrix..

If forcing her to have the baby is a fruitless punishment, what would you suggest her punishment be?

You liberals dodge a logical question better then fucking Neo from The Matrix..

If forcing her to have the baby is a fruitless punishment, what would you suggest her punishment be?
Why should their be a punishment? (and who says we are all “liberals”)

Why should their be a punishment?
I don't know, cause she did something WRONG?!

The burning of tax money.
The dishonor her family must go through.
The disgustment of any of her moraly upbeat friends.
The extinguishment of a life.

I guess Jack the ripper should've never been put in jail. Those British bastards!
(and who says we are all “liberals”)
Because a bad deed going unpunished would NEVER cross a conservative's mind. The very idea would probably make them commit sepeku or something lol.

I don't know, cause she did something WRONG?!

The burning of tax money.
The dishonor her family must go through.
The disgustment of any of her moraly upbeat friends.
The extinguishment of a life.

I guess Jack the ripper should've never been put in jail. Those British bastards!

Because a bad deed going unpunished would NEVER cross a conservative's mind. The very idea would probably make them commit sepeku or something lol.
They just dont see it as a bad deed ... simple as that
If it is not a bad deed it should not be punished

You just differ in what you find a bad deed

They just dont see it as a bad deed ... simple as that
If it is not a bad deed it should not be punished

You just differ in what you find a bad deed
Opinions mean shit in the face of morality. As mom said "morals are morals, no matter who you are.."

For God's sakes man, even THE CHURCH OF SATAN thinks it's wrong for you to bring harm to a child.

That's pretty bad when even the Satanists are disgusted with you.. : \

You liberals dodge a logical question better then fucking Neo from The Matrix..

If forcing her to have the baby is a fruitless punishment, what would you suggest her punishment be?
She should not be punished at all. Indeed, she should be commended for taking the most mature available action in the face of an amazingly unfair situation; those responsible for her care have completely and utterly failed her, and she is paying the price. From what I have read of this young woman, she handles herself with intelligence and honor, and she is making the best possible choice a girl in her situation could.

Punishment should fall on those who were responsible for this girl, and even more harshly on anyone who seeks to further violate this young child by denying her human rights.

Opinions mean shit in the face of morality. As mom said "morals are morals, no matter who you are.."

Prove it. I completely disagree with at least one part of your morality, so now you must prove that your morality is right and mine is wrong, objectively. You make the assertion, so now you defend it.


For God's sakes man, even THE CHURCH OF SATAN thinks it's wrong for you to bring harm to a child.
An embryo or fetus is not a child, any more than a child is an adult or an adult is a corpse. Just because they may one day become those things does not mean they currently are one.


That's pretty bad when even the Satanists are disgusted with you.. :
I consider it a good sign when pretty much any religion is disgusted with me, because I tend to be utterly disgusted by them.

In that case let me come out and admit it.

I kick puppies.

Gimme a fucking medal.

You liberals dodge a logical question better then fucking Neo from The Matrix..

If forcing her to have the baby is a fruitless punishment, what would you suggest her punishment be?

Im a liberal, and I think she should have it, but not as a punishment.

In that case let me come out and admit it.

I kick puppies.

Gimme a fucking medal.
Okay, you are hereby awarded the Bottle National Medal of Excellence in the Field of Logical Falacies. I salute you.

Opinions mean shit in the face of morality. As mom said "morals are morals, no matter who you are.."

For God's sakes man, even THE CHURCH OF SATAN thinks it's wrong for you to bring harm to a child.

That's pretty bad when even the Satanists are disgusted with you.. : \
Stop turning this ad-hominim you do not know my viewpoint at all so don’t bother trying to make it personal

And morals are relative, ample proof of that what is moral to you is not always so to everyone so in this case your expert witness of "mom" is wrong

No human is perfect. Throughout our lives we all make mistakes. I think everyone can remember something they have done that in retrospect they wish they hadn't. We are not born fully understanding the effects of all our actions. As we grow we learn more about cause and effect.

In this case, we do not know the full circumstances. What I would hope everyone can agree is that this 13 year old girl probably did not intend to get pregnant and become a mother. A person of that age, mental development and upbringing will make different choices than you or I would. She also likely does not fully understand the effects of her choices. (Admittedly we dont know that it was actually her "choice", leaving aside the ability of a 13-year old to make "choices").

We all need to understand that whatever the outcome of this story, there is no true happy ending. A 13 year old girl, who does not have parents that care for her, apparently was living on the street for some period of time, became pregnant under questionable circumstances, wants to have an abortion.

No human is perfect. Throughout our lives we all make mistakes. I think everyone can remember something they have done that in retrospect they wish they hadn't. We are not born fully understanding the effects of all our actions. As we grow we learn more about cause and effect.

The fact that you would compare something trival like breaking Ms.Withergston's window playing baseball to getting knocked up show's your value in this life.

That being none. Die.

The fact that you would compare something trival like breaking Ms.Withergston's window playing baseball to getting knocked up show's your value in this life.

That being none. Die.
You are walking very close to the line...be aware that flaming and direct personal attacks (such as telling somebody to "die") are not particularly welcome on this forum, and Mods may decide to take action if you continue down this road.

Though personally I welcome this sort of behavior from the anti-choice lobby, because it only makes you look worse :).

You are walking very close to the line...be aware that flaming and direct personal attacks (such as telling somebody to "die") are not particularly welcome on this forum, and Mods may decide to take action if you continue down this road.

Though personally I welcome this sort of behavior from the anti-choice lobby, because it only makes you look worse :).
Lol we think so much alike :fluffle: (look in mod forum)

Yes, it makes me look worse, because I'm silenced because I voice a vocal of morality and compassion for things that cannot defend themselves.

Here's an unpersonal attack.

Your evil souls will fall to Hell.
Ever trapped in a burning cell.
Oh where are you destined in the terrible Nine Rings?
Either way Satan is laughing, and speading his wings..

I was in no way equating becoming pregnant with breaking a window. My point was merely that we all have acted without fully understanding the consequences.

This may be as simple as playing ball near a window.
Or as life-changing as having sex at the age of 13.

I apologize if my earlier post was confusing to you.

Yes, it makes me look worse, because I'm silenced because I voice a vocal of morality and compassion for things that cannot defend themselves.

Here's an unpersonal attack.

Your evil souls will fall to Hell.
Ever trapped in a burning cell.
Oh where are you destined in the terrible Nine Rings?
Either way Satan is laughing, and speading his wings..
Are you kidding? That is a DELIGHTFUL attack! You've made my day :).

Yes, it makes me look worse, because I'm silenced because I voice a vocal of morality and compassion for things that cannot defend themselves.

Here's an unpersonal attack.

Your evil souls will fall to Hell.
Ever trapped in a burning cell.
Oh where are you destined in the terrible Nine Rings?
Either way Satan is laughing, and speading his wings..

Yusee when you said unpersonal why did you use personal "a" and other words indicating "your" that are second person?

Hypocrity or trolling?

Now if you rephrased that:
Evil souls will fall to Hell.
Ever trapped in a burning cell.
Oh where are they destined in the terrible Nine Rings?
Either way Satan is laughing, and speading his wings...

See the difference?
One is directed to "you" another is about these people whoever they are.

It's impersonal, "you" can be anyone. Paranoid perhaps?

Yes, it makes me look worse, because I'm silenced because I voice a vocal of morality and compassion for things that cannot defend themselves.

Here's an unpersonal attack.

Your evil souls will fall to Hell.
Ever trapped in a burning cell.
Oh where are you destined in the terrible Nine Rings?
Either way Satan is laughing, and speading his wings..
You are not silenced because your opinion (hell no one has done anything yet I could be WAY off base) but personal attacks are against the rules

I don't know, cause she did something WRONG?!

In your opintion.

The burning of tax money.

Wait...Are you saying she is evil because her parents are deadbeats and she ended up in the state system?

The dishonor her family must go through.

Her family are already dishonored by not properly taking care of their child.

The disgustment of any of her moraly upbeat friends.

What makes you think her moral friends are disgusted? What makes you think she has no morals? (and no, the fact that she may disagree with you is not proof)

Because a bad deed going unpunished would NEVER cross a conservative's mind. The very idea would probably make them commit sepeku or something lol.

Punishment by baby would never cross a moral person's mind. In the end, it is the eventual child who is punished by this, not the mother.

The fact that you would compare something trival like breaking Ms.Withergston's window playing baseball to getting knocked up show's your value in this life.

That being none. Die.
Carbdown, you have received a prior Official Warning for your inability to participate without threatening, flaming or flamebaiting. Obviously, that has not affected your posting style in any significant manner.

As such, you presence on these forums is no longer welcomed. Permanent Forumban instituted.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator
Forum and Game Rules (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416023)

Do you honestly think that this can realistically happen? In an age where evolution cannot be mentioned in religion classes, but creationism must be offered as an alternative theory you expect these people to let their kids learn about condoms? I don't think compulsary 'sex ed' would be allowed by some ranting parents.

When I was at school they taught us 'sex ed' as part of PE. You were only allowed to go if your parents signed a permission slip, even then the classes were optional. If you say to a fifteen year old, "you can go to class or you can have a free period" most will choose the free period IMHO. So on the other hand optional classes do not educate everyone on the dangers of STDs et cetera.In my school, in eighth grade, sex ed was mandatory. I took that course when I was 12, before entering puberty, and to me it was just plain weird.

Carbdown, you have received a prior Official Warning for your inability to participate without threatening, flaming or flamebaiting. Obviously, that has not affected your posting style in any significant manner.

As such, you presence on these forums is no longer welcomed. Permanent Forumban instituted.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator
Forum and Game Rules (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416023)


thank you :)

The fact that you would compare something trival like breaking Ms.Withergston's window playing baseball to getting knocked up show's your value in this life.

That being none. Die.You are walking very close to the line...be aware that flaming and direct personal attacks (such as telling somebody to "die") are not particularly welcome on this forum, and Mods may decide to take action if you continue down this road.

Though personally I welcome this sort of behavior from the anti-choice lobby, because it only makes you look worse :). Exactly. And it's a good thing Fris forumbanned Carbdown; he/she was a Republican. [/sarcasm]

I hate extremists.

Carbdown, you have received a prior Official Warning for your inability to participate without threatening, flaming or flamebaiting. Obviously, that has not affected your posting style in any significant manner.

As such, you presence on these forums is no longer welcomed. Permanent Forumban instituted.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator
Forum and Game Rules (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416023)Thank you. (see post above)

True: All humans were once fetuses.
False: All fetuses became fully functioning humans.

It's a parasitic collectiong of cells that evaded her bodies defenses against foreign organisms (which would kill it QUITE effectively if it failed), seized control of some of her body's systems and holds only the unrealized potential of becoming a human being. It's beaten long odds to get as far as it has, but even without abortion on the table, it's future is far from certain. As is the future of the mother.

I never once stated that ALL fetuses become humans. Envaded her body? She had sex, how is that invading her body? Its not like it crawled in her ear when she was sleeping. Yes, it has beaten long odds to get there, that's why its a miracle. Who are we to take away something like that away. Im 14, and I've known friends that have gotten pregnant, 2 to be exact. Call them whores if you must, but they're not, they made mistakes, it happens to the best of us. My friends carried the pregnancies threw fine. If that little girl wants to take the life of her unborn child due to some "what-ifs", good for her. She is the one that has to live with herself after. But trying to justify the case by using politically correct, medical terms doesnt do anything. Fact is your taking the life force out of what could be a fully functioning human. Murder, by textbook definition, is the deliberate taking of someone's life. This sounds like murder to me.

She had sex, how is that invading her body?

How do you know she consented to the sex?

Im 14, and I've known friends that have gotten pregnant, 2 to be exact. Call them whores if you must, but they're not, they made mistakes, it happens to the best of us. My friends carried the pregnancies threw fine.

Good for them. That was their choice to make, for themselves.

Murder, by textbook definition, is the deliberate taking of someone's life. This sounds like murder to me.

Incorrect. Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being.

I never once stated that ALL fetuses become humans. Envaded her body? She had sex, how is that invading her body? Its not like it crawled in her ear when she was sleeping. Yes, it has beaten long odds to get there, that's why its a miracle. Who are we to take away something like that away.

What you call a "miracle" others call a "parasite." Why is one term "politically correct" and the other not?

One, although admittedly used as a rhetorical tool, is an accurate application of a medical term.

An unwanted pregancy can be a horror.

Im 14, and I've known friends that have gotten pregnant, 2 to be exact. Call them whores if you must, but they're not, they made mistakes, it happens to the best of us. My friends carried the pregnancies threw fine.

I have trouble believing that you have 2 friends that are 14 and have carried pregnancies to term without medical complications. But it is possible. It just does not prove anything.

I would not call them whores. I don't tend to use that word about anyone.

I don't see the pro-choice side of this as the ones seeking to punish young women for sex or calling them names.

If that little girl wants to take the life of her unborn child due to some "what-ifs", good for her. She is the one that has to live with herself after.

Yay! She has the right. And, under the circumstances, she is likely making the best choice.

And, like the vast majority women who have an abortion -- which includes over half of all women in the US at some point in their life -- she should "live with herself" just fine.

But trying to justify the case by using politically correct, medical terms doesnt do anything. Fact is your taking the life force out of what could be a fully functioning human.

Using proper medical terms correctly is correct.

It may not be particularly persuasive. It is primarily an attempt to counter the misleading imagery and terms employed by those that are anti-choice.

Murder, by textbook definition, is the deliberate taking of someone's life. This sounds like murder to me.

Um. If you have a textbook that defines murder that way, you may wish to complain about the poor education you are receiving.

US CODE: Title 18, § 1111. Murder:

(a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. Every murder perpetrated by poison, lying in wait, or any other kind of willful, deliberate, malicious, and premeditated killing; or committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, any arson, escape, murder, kidnapping, treason, espionage, sabotage, aggravated sexual abuse or sexual abuse, burglary, or robbery; or perpetrated from a premeditated design unlawfully and maliciously to effect the death of any human being other than him who is killed, is murder in the first degree.
Any other murder is murder in the second degree.

(b) Within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States,
Whoever is guilty of murder in the first degree shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for life;
Whoever is guilty of murder in the second degree, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life

Abortion is not "unlawful killing" so it is not murder.

Also, an unborn child is not a "human being" under the statute.

Killing an unborn child was not homicide under common law. Courts do not hold unborn children to be a "person" under the law. See, e.g., Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S.Ct. 705 (1973)

You can argue that a zygote-embryo-fetus is a person and abortion should be considered murder. I believe that is what you meant to assert.

But working from the "textbook definition" of murder won't help you much. As a matter of law, abortion is not murder.

Bottom line is that she made a choice to become pregnant. But she can not make the choice to decide who lives and who dies.

Actually, she can, she has, and the courts have supported her right to do so.

If fetuses regularly fail to become humans, then your emotional plea of "we were fetuses too" isn't particularly meaningful is it? We belong here, the ones that failed to arrive didn't.

Evaded, Escaped, Avoided, Eluded. A clever little egg is a little bit like James Bond. When it's not all mommy's DNA any more, the bodies immune system doesn't care what it is, it just wants to kill it. So the little ball of cells sneaks in, and remains inconspicuous while it hacks into the body to have resources delivered.

Well, since you're fourteen, I'm gong to help you out. I'm going to impress upon you the role of anecdotes, which is what your story of two friends is. Anecdotes aren't really anything that is ever going to be confused for reliable evidence. What they are is the first stage, the recon stage of an investigation. Based on anecdotes people then can discuss some issue revolving around them, teenage pregnancy for instance. Then with perhaps a pool of anecdotes, a person or group of people can form a hypothesis to test rigorously. Such as the impact of early childbearing on the health of the mother, or the health of babies born to very young mothers. Then they collect data, and this is very hard to do. There are many pitfalls, selection bias, confirmation bias, clustering, and normalizing the data to control for just the factors one is interested in. For young mothers, one of the most difficult things to factor out would be social and economic factors. There are undoubtedly far more poor young mothers, that there are well off young mothers, just because there are more poor people. But well off people have far better access to medical care which will skew the statistics. Also, it's increadibly rare to find someone who's well educated at the tender age of thirteen, or fourteen for that matter. While that would appear to then be unimportant, education is likely to strongly correlate with the ability of the mother to prepare for a baby, manage her pregnancy and follow medical advice. If this is not done, the hypothesis being tested isn't just the variance in age of the mother, but the variance in wealth and education as well. While these things might quite sensibly vary with age, they are not what we are testing for and could easily skew the data so sevearly that it leads us to believe a trend is the opposite of what it is in reality. Then public policy based on this trend might in fact lead to unecessary preventable deaths. If anyone's read this, they probably forgot I was writing about anecdotal evidence. Which is good, because that's EXACT measure of its importance. That said, you really need a sample of three to even make a decent pool of anecdotes to start guessing from.

As to your "friends" talk to them in four years, or ten, or twenty. It's not something they're likely to forget about.

Here's my justification for my position. It's her life. If I want to live it, I have to take responsability for it. It's grossly unfair that she has to make a decision so important with no one backing her up, without the advantage of an world class education, and without cussion of years of excellent parenting to reflect back on. But that's where she is, unfair or not, and the doors are already closed on her best opportunities. I don't envy her in the least, but I'm not so pitiful a person as to condem her to fate I would hope to escape myself, and then shut the door on her as I return to my far more comfortable life.

The fact is, it's a parasite. I've got parasites that live in my body, they help me out, yours do the same for you. In return for shelter, food, and some love from my surround sound set up, they provide me with a healthy butthole. And I'm happier for it. The little blob of cells, it just that. It's no more a person, or aware of its surroundings, than a flake of skin, or a hair folical. It holds a certain promise, but every egg, every sperm holds that same promise. Just at longer odds. So, in your mind, is it the odds, or the promise that determine whether something is truly human. I'll tell you right now, the odds of the cluster of cells in her womb is hovering at zero.

Abortions are different from murder for the same reason we only celebrate birthdays, they're just not here yet. Losing a pregnancy isn't the same as having a child who's already here die. In a way, it's the difference between a real cost, and an opportunity cost. It's the destruction of invested time more than it's the destruction of someone (which is why the law has so much trouble dealing with it).

But you're fourteen. There's going to be a period of exsplosive development for you, where the connections really start to set in, and the nebulous esoteric ideas will suddenly come into sharp focus. So challenge yourself as much as possible.

Bottom line is that she made a choice to become pregnant. But she can not make the choice to decide who lives and who dies. We were all at the "fetus" stage, and look what we are now. We ARE human beings. So dont act like its some foreign object, or a collection of cells, or a parasite...call it what it really is, a developing human being.

You're really starting to sound like you're not thinking about what you're posting. The facts about her impregnation aren't available to the general public AFAIK. It is entirely likely she DIDN'T make the choice to become pregnant. I'm not even getting into the debate about when cells become people, but I can tell the difference between factual argument and talking out your ass.

I don't know, cause she did something WRONG?!

The burning of tax money.
The dishonor her family must go through.
The disgustment of any of her moraly upbeat friends.
The extinguishment of a life.

I guess Jack the ripper should've never been put in jail. Those British bastards!

Because a bad deed going unpunished would NEVER cross a conservative's mind. The very idea would probably make them commit sepeku or something lol.

I'm just ignoring the first part, but seriously....Jack the Ripper?!?!

You know his identity is unknown....right? Jail, indeed. :rolleyes:

The fact is, it's a parasite. I've got parasites that live in my body, they help me out, yours do the same for you. In return for shelter, food, and some love from my surround sound set up, they provide me with a healthy butthole. And I'm happier for it.

Just to be pedantic, those are symbiotes, not parasites. A parasitic relationship provides nothing to the host. A symbiotic relationship is mutually helpful.

:eek: i think she should be able to have an abortion it s wrong a 13 year old having a baby the rest of her life is thrown away.