It is un-economical to let large corporations go bankrupt even if its because of gross incompetance.
The cost of social welfare for all the suddenly unemployed people and the decrease in national GDP make it too expensive in comparison to government bailouts. This is true for GM; it not only paid the debt back but it also got interest and continues to contributes to the national economy.
Well if their is, then it is every Christians position to assume that all people who think seperatley to their ideoligies are inherentley evil which is what they think, and why they are mad.
Why is it that I believe that abortion is ok while someone else thinks that it is wrong. Why do I believe that euthenasia is moral and someone else thinks otherwise.
I'm not evil, and I'm not blocking out any moral judgement. So their cannot be any universal moral law.
My problem with your reasoning is that you make the assumption that Judeo-Christian God exists in the knowledge of the people that invented it. He "must" exist in the way you perceive him.
What you have to realize is that God is an invention of man. If you are so smart, then tell me, how did the One God come into being? Did he show himself? Did he provide historical evidence?
The God you believe in was an invention of Abraham who was just a man.
Kinda, I just remember running into you on an abortion debate and remember why I made you an enemy; you force your conservative view on other people with out making an in depth analysis; you have black and white opinions; and your opinions are nothing more than ridiculous dogma regurgitated over 2 thousand years of irrational thought.
You seem to lack the vital understanding that has made your rebuttel incorrect; this is about sapience not heartbeats.
What he is saying is completley correct; your reasoning is irrational.
Oh, and it has a heartbeat at 5 weeks. So there are millions of babies killed with a heartbeat every year. how sad
You completley ignored his point and used a quick-fix spurious statement to rebut his intelligent, phylosophical answer.
Lastly, how can you retort his argument with such a petty argument of your own; you wrote 6 lines of opinionated reasoning.
"It is not what is physically there in the womb which is at issue. Rather, it is the fact that this living thing inside the mother has input within it the POTENTIAL to grow"
You forget that denying its life is not a precursor for murder. The whole concept is weather its ethical to deny someones potential to exist before that unborn being has a choice of its own.
However the belief resides in the fact that if that unborn being never comes into existence in the first place, it cant make a choice nonetheless hence it is fallacious to ask weather its ethical to steal the right of a non-existing, un-spiritual and inamite being as rights are exclusivly to the living, not the living of the future.
" It is this instinct to develop, this fight to survive, to perpetuate itself which is beautiful and precious"
That is emotional and poetic reasoning
This is by the far the most bias, slanted, prejudice troll of a post I have ever seen.
Firstly, I am not defending Christians but Islam has just as many flaws in their religion as they do; you are not one to preach peace.
Lets looks at 1300 years of Islamic conquest of people who think differently. Think of the hundreds of thousands slaughtered in wars simply because Islam needed more 'holy land'. This is pathetic.
Lets look at what your fundamentalist laws preach. Your teachings have been taken to the extent that people think killing non-muslims (and alot of the time your own people) is performing Allahs will. I am so sick of hearing of innocent people being slaughtered on the news because some intollerant people believe these people are 'Rayah' and deserve to die. This is what your Qur'an teaches; intollerance.
If you represent Allah, then your 'Allah' does not promote peace and national sovereinty.
Im not saying all Muslims are like this but this is what they would be like if they took their 'religion' to the next level by following the word of Allah with the upmost zeal like most Muslims are doing all ready.
Lastly lets look at the way you treat woman.
"...Women shall with justice have rights similar to those exercised against them, although men have a status above women. God is mighty and wise." Sura 2:228
Nothing further....
If you were not taught how to put a condom on, in any years of high schooling, then one of your teachers are applicable to be the victim of a law-suit. If you performed sexual activity with your spouse and got her pregnant, you could make allot of money from one of teachers.
Learning how to put a condom is the entire essence of reducing teen pregnancy and STD's. If safe-sex is performed by teenagers, then it is a non-contributing factor to pregnancy.
" But being TAUGHT isn't enough, because as clear as daylight - it doesn't help. Young teenagers are having underage sex; they are catching diseases, getting pregnant at an increased rate. I don't know about you... but to me it's wrong."
Well... yes, it does help. You make the basis of this argument with the fact that teenagers are still engrossed in having sex, but what you fail to realize is that education has taught them how to enact safe-sexual procedures decreasing there chance of becoming pregnant. No one argues about teen sexual activity as it is irrelevant if they are doing under the influence of protection.
"they are catching diseases, getting pregnant at an increased rate."
How about you show me data, telling me, kids who have been taught about sex-ed, are still not performing safe-sex at an un-desirable rate. Also take into account private schools only have optional sexual-education and the majority of private schools are religious schools who only teach of abstinence. Even if the figure shows that only 40% of kids are using condoms due to sex-ed classes, then that is still an incredible result.
"Sex was literally brought into our lives earlier than it would have been. The message was have sex - but make it safe."
You do not understand the principles of our society. You think that if kids grew up without sex-ed in their earlier years, they would be having less sex? Sex is cultural and kids are going to do it anyway, so we have to teach them how to have sex-properly with the use of a condom to make sure they do not contribute to the rise of pregnancy.
Also I distinctly remember never being encouraged to have sex in the first place, I don’t know what you are talking about.
"Not don't have sex (until you're old/mature enough) and make it safe."
You ignored my question in my previous post asking when you think the appropriate age is. This proves you don’t know much about sex. Why does maturity have anything to do with sex? What does age have anything to do with sex when a 12 year old male can already ejaculate. Especially when this is all under the influence of safe-sex, you have no basis to say that sex is wrong outside these variables of yours.
"P.S. The rest of your bullshit was ignored. =D"
Funny that, it sounds as if you read all of it and didn't have anything easy to rebut so you ignored it in your next dispute. Also if you read it properly without such a bias opinion you would be less inclined to be falsely prophesizing your point of view in a spurious fashion. Here are some examples of spurious comments:
-"I had no thoughts on sex until we started learning about it. At the age of 11 at that"
-"Why should sex education be taught to pupils who are too young to have sex?"
-"Children are getting pregnant from the age of 10 nowadays” ROFL WTF?!
And now,
-"P.S. The rest of your bullshit was ignored. =D"
Ok firstly, I can find about 50 things wrong with your essay. You have spurious reasoning, invalid statistics, and a clearly bias and ethno-centric view. However I have arthritis and the clock is ticking for me to tell you as much as I can as to why this essay, is poorly executed, and appallingly deceptive.
"When a pregnant women feels a kick in her belly, she doesn't say "Oh, the fetus kicked" or "Oh, the mass of cells that hasn't become a person kicked", she says "The baby kicked.""
This statement is full of a personal opinion and doesn’t contain one bit of evidence that proves your point. When she says “baby” she uses it as a euphemism. However it doesn’t matter how she uses, this statement is completely irrelevant to the argument of an un-born child’s self-awareness. Self awareness is what defines a human spirit (or soul if it helps). Hence this is a totally stupefied argument that does not prove your thesis. If you don’t know how or what self-awareness has to do with the topic of abortion, you shouldn’t even be allowed to make a post at all.
”Yes, after conception you have a real human being waiting to enter the world. Why should taking someone's life when they're in the womb be any different than taking their life when they're a baby in the crib?”
You again back up your statements, not with relevant statistics and data, but with personalized opinion. The question of the debate was Abortion; for or against. With this, you should build an argument based on valid points, not perspective.
” have a real human being waiting to enter the world”
It weird how you make use of the word “real” as a twig is “real”; a rock is “real”; even dirt. Everything in the physical universe is “real”. So of course an unborn baby is “real”, what does that prove?
” Why should taking someone's life when they're in the womb be any different than taking their life when they're a baby in the crib?”
Again, your purely prejudice statement is not backed up by any kind of fact. This is what debating is, you give fact in exchange for credibility. Also when you use a statement that implies taking life is wrong, you lay completely oblivious to the fact that as an omnivore you are involved in the deaths of hundreds of animals, hundreds of plant material and every time you wash your hands you are killing germs! You have to be clear how you direct these statements because they are meaningless in this kind of topic.
” Pro-choice advocates claim this isn't a real baby only to justify their wrong acts in their own minds.”
They use arguments to justify there opinion, which is exactly what you are doing now. They never bluntly say an unborn child is not a sapient being without having reason to believe so. If they do say so, then ask them why and they will give you an erudite answer.
Again you use the phrase, “wrong acts in their own minds”, partly reflecting an un-backed opinion and a naïve statement reflecting your mis-interpretation the pro-choice cause.
“Women can so callously stomp out a living being simply because they're inconvenienced.”
This quote only proves you have little and a very subtracted view of why a woman would have abortion. “Inconvenient”, in the way you are implying suggests that all woman, despite rape, teen pregnancy, financial instability and risk of life to mother are inadequate reasons to have an abortion. In fact you put them in a light that makes them look greedy and unwilling. When you use the word “callous”, you unreasonably sensationalize your argument implying you have reason to change people’s opinion for personal gain rather than stating relevant statistics and articulately explaining as to why your view is more feasible.
” abortion shouldn't be a form of birth control.”
This statement implies that you have no understanding of what birth control is as the word explains it itself. It is to regulate the chance of contraception. Abortion is used after contraception and isn’t used to prevent it.
” 100 percent effective one: abstinence. Maybe if abortion wasn't available, people wouldn't be so careless in the first place.”
Abstinence being taught in schools is the reason why children are deprived of sexual education. Sex-ed, was implemented to combat the failure of abstinence teachings as unplanned pregnancy skyrocketed from the 1950 to this day and is still going up.
“If abortion wasn't available, people wouldn't be so careless in the first place”
I have a suggestion, why don’t you conduct a study proving your thesis? You’re saying that abortion availability determines the amount of unplanned pregnancies? Firstly, ruling out abortion all together won’t stop abortion it will just be conducted in an illegal fashion and will be incredibly unsafe. “Every year, about 19-20 million are done by individuals without the requisite skills… 68,000 woman die as a result…Many woman travel to third world countries where abortions are legal” - World Health Organization.
” What would you do if you knew the child would have an intelligence level lower than that required to enter public school? ... Would you still have the child or would you want an abortion? ”
This is the kind of backwards-thinking you’re suggesting we make. We cut back on vital scientific research with the intention of leaving us in the dark about our children’s future complications. With no in depth analysis as to why abortion is wrong on a philosophical and scientific scale, you have no structure to base your ‘banning of genetic research’ on.
“Legalized abortion could turn babies into science experiments.”
If your making assonance to anti-stem cell research, you obviously have no clue about prosthetic stem-cells that are not derived from a fetus. If not then I apologize as this sentence was totally random and had a hardly visible connection to your argument. Also who cares if babies, sapient or not become science experiments. Babies are tested all the time. Firstly they are tested for blood levels and all that sought. They are analyzed for the sake of statistics and data. They won’t be dissected if that’s what you’re suggesting. An unborn baby, assumedly an aborted fetus, is ripe for scientific discovery on the other hand. Again with no analysis as to why abortion is wrong, you have no right to say why experimenting on an aborted fetus is wrong.
“Abortion eliminates legal rights of the unborn child.”
If an unborn being never comes into existence in the first place, it cant make a choices nonetheless hence it is fallacious to ask weather its ethical to steal the right of a non-existing, un-spiritual and imamate being as rights are exclusively to the human beings, not the fetus’.
” The documents of our founding fathers state that we are all entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
What makes you think that when he said “we”, he was referring to humans and fetuses? A fetus is a tangible object with potential for sapience but with no current consciousness. So how can it be that an object without any mind of its own be able to possess rights that overcome it in depth?
” By legalizing abortion, we take those rights away from a future American citizen.”
By that logic it means if I was choosing to become an American citizen in the near future, I am already entitled to American rights. I live in Australia and I am now able to possess guns, not use the metric system and pay tax to America rather than Australia. How can that possibly make sense to you?
“Abortion is against doctors' Hippocratic Oath.”
Just so you know the term Hippocratic Oath wasn’t named that way because it was hypocrisy, it was because it was named after the Greek Philosopher Hippocrates.
” Every American doctor must take this fundamental oath, which says "First, do no harm".”
Almost all schools in America have abandoned that oath since 1970. It’s meaningless.
” It threatens the very fabric of the entire medical field if doctors start using their own personal philosophies on life to decide who should or shouldn't be harmed.”
An abortion is a patient’s choice, not a doctor’s choice…
” Whether or not you think abortion should be allowed, it cannot be disputed that a doctor is harming a living organism.”
Again living organism is a wrong word to use. As I said before, living organism encompasses all life forms including bacteria, animals and plant life. Yes it is harming it but not harming a sapient, free-thinking being.
I hope you have the audacity to read and digest this information. I suggest you should read the rest of my material on this debate as you will soon find out that abortion is not a black and white topic but it truly relative. I hope you will also see that you have to use relevant data to back up your information rather than basing it on solid opinions.
That statistic is purely falsified and slanted to fit your point. Yes sex has been on the rise and you blame sex ed? Sex ed was a response to the teen sex rising! You fail to introduce the hundreds of factors that have increase teen sexual behavior.
Allow me to demonstrate a few:
-Increased alcohol abuse
-Christian faith declines, abstinence declines
-Woman gain more rights
-Television idealizes sex
-Society evolves to accept the sex taboo
-Increased drug abuse
-Corporations exploit sexual images
Just to name a few. And you blame SEXUAL EDUCATION?!
The very concept enforced to reduce the outbreak of HIV, teen pregnancy and COUNTLESS STI's and STD's?????
"Why should sex education be taught to pupils who are too young to have sex?"
People I know had sex when they were 13, if they had it any later it would have been too late. Guess what? They used a condom! Now I can guarantee you, the neighborhood I grew up in, they would have had sex at such a young age nonetheless of sexual education. But this example proves that sexual education benefited people in the community. This is the entire point of sex-ed, to educate.
"You're wrong. They do it again all the time."
Gratz, you have nothing to prove that statement.
"Children are getting pregnant from the age of 10 nowadays" "...that's not including rape)."
There have been 13 cases of ten-year-olds and under giving birth. All of them were rape victims.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
"attitude that it's ok to have sex aslong as you 'love' them... In the end the messege leads to - have sex with the person you're with, not the person you 'love'"
Again, I said this before; emotions and sex are purely left for parents. This statement proves no thesis of yours. Sex is not based on emotions on any scale. It is purely hormone based. When you’re in love you still need your hormones for libido. You think animals need love when they have sex? If it is purely natural, you can’t defy the laws of nature.
So tell me, when it is ok to have sex??
"Look what happened when kids were kept in the dark. They didn't have tons of underage sex."
Firstly, my explanation will serve you better knowing how old you are. I can only assume your maybe under 16 because you have a very repressed view on sex.
So if you’re just a teenager (presumptuously), you would feel perfectly comfortable knowing nothing about sex? It would feel right to understand nothing about what is happening to your body? Then you think about a girl in a naughty way then - oops, what was that? You try and hide your dirty thoughts, thinking that your mind is impure. You carry on this way for the rest of your life. These symptoms have a diagnosis. It’s known as sexual repression. Let me tell you, it is far from uncommon and is a horrible affliction to ones life.
Can I tell you about a group of people who suffered from sexual repression? They grew up with celibacy as their answer. They only thought pure thoughts and repressed all urges. As a result, confused as they were, this group sodomized and indecently assaulted 100 thousand + underage children. These were the priests, the bishops and the pastors. This has been going on long before sexual freedom.
“But at least if you're going to teach them about it - teach them that it's wrong to have sex until after you're 16/18/21 or w/e.”
Maybe ‘you’ (the mystical and know-everything teacher) can explain to these kids as to why sex before that age is ‘wrong’ when it clearly is not and especially when it is exercised under the influence of sexual-education and with the help of condoms.
Perhaps you would like to argue why condoms are ‘wrong’ to solidify your statement ;)
Yes, stop the problem at the root. Un-born children have no rights because at this stage they have no self-awareness in the slightest. No spiritual existence. Remember, if it has no sapience we can't classify it as a regular, normal human being so it cannot qualify for the default human rights.
If 90% of abortions are made before brain tissue is even created, no need to worry about the ethics of it at all. This stage is merely miniscule life-forms.
This argument proves it is even reasonable to abort your unborn (1-6 week) child if you plainly don’t want superficial scarring (previously an un-heard of reason).
"So are you making an argument that it is better to not live then live a certain kind of life?"
I am saying that a fetus which is alive by definition will die by choice of another human being and be morally sound all the same because it has no sapience attached to it.
So the whole, 'never having a chance to live' is not a feasible argument simply because we don’t talk in future predicted scenarios. We talk about right-here, right-now. Never what could have been.
"This "flexible morality and willingness to do outrageous things" is protecting the freedom of all Americans. You sit in your comfortable home and you frown upon their actions, but you fail to realize that without them, you're sitting ducks against a world full of those who will not hesitate to rob you of your freedoms."
These soldiers are the victims but nonetheless, the war was faught overseas in a totally, uncalled for attack against a country who posed absolutley no threat to America or its NATO allies. Yes a country is in need of its soldiers to protect them but you have to understand the difference between defence and offence. This wasn't eaven a pre-emptive strike!
"If you're looking for someone to blame, take a long hard look in the mirror! You (the people) can pull those soldiers out of Iraq... Don't just sit there and point your fingers in the general direction... "
"Nearly three-quarters of Americans say the number of casualties in Iraq is unacceptable, while two-thirds say the U.S. military there is bogged down and nearly six in 10 say the war was not worth fighting -- in all three cases matching or exceeding the highest levels of pessimism yet recorded. More than four in 10 believe the U.S. presence in Iraq is becoming analogous to the experience in Vietnam." - Washington Post.
It is quite obvious this is one of the most unpopular war in history, only second to Vietnam. Now I am not sure if you are suggesting that Americans should personally send for each soldier enlisted in Iraq. You think people can suddenly vote off the war in Iraq? Perhaps if they all wrote a petition? Maybe if they sent a letter to Bush himself, what difference would it make?
Bush, wanted that war, Cheyney wanted that war, Rumsfeld wanted that war and Obama hasn't even started pulling out troops. There isn't a damn thing regular people can do about it besides march in protest which is what people have been doing since day 1.
"Having said that, those who break the rules of ethics and honor in their lives should be individually chastized."
I'm not sure to who or what you are reffering to but if you seriosuly believe that people who think that the war was unreasonable should be critisized sevearly, then you have no sence of democracy which you so proclaim.
I think the use of the word shamefull is a very indignified word for any indivivual. Least of all soldiers who ment well in trying to protect the country.
I would rather say, 'not heros'.
It was not their choice to go to war and I dont want to see another generation of Vietnam veterans whose efforts went totally unoticed and are occasional spat on every now and then. Before I continue on with this argument I must clarify it was not their choice to go to war it was the poor choice of people like Bush, Cheyney, Rumfseld, they commited shamefull acts.
Statement: They are not heros.
They are not heros, because a hero is a righteous defender not a greedy oppressor. The Iraq war was totally uncalled for, we were lied to again and again, Iraq posed no threat to America and 9/11 had NOTHING TO DO WITH IT!
There is no clear reason as to why we were there and why we are still there, but people have a reason to believe that the war was created to pump revenue into Americas major oil industries (Bush happens to be the son of a major oil tycoon), a secret agreement with Israel to decimate middle-eastern enemies posing a threat to Israeli security and increase buisness among the many war related industries.
All reasons are for greedy cooperate controll, how can that be an honourable thing to fight for?
"So cruelty to animals is purely situational? Like seeing what kind of growth hormone will make a bigger chicken for instance."
I am a soft being, if an animal is in pain, I will never assist or turn a blind eye to it despite its ethics. You skipped passed the context of situational. What i ment was having a pig involved in medical research for the cure to AIDs (weather it was harmed or not) is completly different to testing the latest machine gun out on a bunch of monkeys. You cant be black and white its all about relativity. I speak from a humanistic perspective and will do anything to see the progess of man. However if testing on animals for greeds causes it harm, then thats different and I angrily object.
"Who are you to say that animals are soulless? Would you say that your dog doesn't have a soul? Something that is breathing, has a heart beat, and feels pain has a soul."
Yes I know they are souless creatures. They have no greater self-awareness. Breathing, heart beat and pain arent characteristics of a sapient being.
Plato says that a soul is a combination of various aspects. Mind, reason, emotion, appetite and desire. These characteristics define a soul. According to Platoan philosophy, if you were void of one of these aspects you are without soul.
-An animal has a mind which allows it to make functional processes in its body but is not capable of any individual thought. Thought encompasses things such as imagination, ideas and reflection.
-Animals have no sense of reason; it has no choices to create over itself. No study has shown that an animal has ever been able to conduct its own decisions rather than its own instinctive actions.
-It has no emotion, no joy, sadness or pity. (Pain is not an emotion by the way)
-Appetite is only created through its instinct to survive, I suppose it counts.
-Animals have no desire. They do not want anything but their instinct to, live and. There is no aspiration or defining motive in their lives.
I hope that solves your question :D
“It moves and has to be provided with nourishment and protection from the mothers womb. So it is not human? How is it not living?”
Anyone who bluntly says an unborn child is a living thing is missing the concept. People need a wider understanding of this topic as it is of huge philosophical importance. Does an unborn baby have self-awareness/sapience/soul/spirit/
If not, abortion is no crime
“I think every woman and anyone that's for abortions, that has a voluntary abortion should have every reproduction organ removed from their body . My Aunt cannot have children and she wants one more than anything and some women are throwing them away like they were the fetus's are trash.”
Quite a harsh statement. Seeing as the main people who need abortions are teen mothers. These people are far-worse off than any person not capable of mothering children. I am guessing your auntie is aged 30-40, middle-class. These teens are pregnant; they get ostracized, have to fight for economic dependence and may soon be forced to limit the growth of their education to take care of a child. This will ultimately lead to very poor living standards for both of them in the future. If she doesn’t get an abortion, two lives are ruined and we have another generation of dysfunctional youths consisting of crack fiends, prostitutes, pimps, gang members and robbers. Low level income will force them to poor strata’s of society.
Don’t give me some inspirational story about how some mum got out of a life of hardship and she and her son are doing fine. That’s not reality for the vast majority. I grew up in a shitty neighborhood and I would like to see the last of these dysfunctional youths off the street, back in school and focusing on their career. However we can’t just make it happen, first we have to make sure there is not going to be more of them in the future.
“Why won't they just have the baby and give it to someone like my aunt.”
I agree.
I'm not sure this statment proves an unborn childs sapience. Its not all that refreshing either. Yes a fetus is alive. But 'alive' means nothing, it has no greater self-awareness.
Also just because it doesn't need "anything added to it", it doesn't mean it proves your point.
You forget that denying its life is not a precurser for murder. The whole concept is weather its ethical to deny someones potential to exist before that unborn being has a choice of its own.
However the belief resides in the fact that if that unborn being never comes into existance in the first place, it cant make a choice nonetheless hence it is fallacious to ask weather its ethical to steal the right of a non-existing, un-spiritual and inamite being as rights are exclusivly to the living, not the living of the future.
""Life" please specify what you mean by the word "life".
Sorry what I was referring to was sapience
"Souls as supernatural things do not exist, or if you would prefer the less strong statement are not falsifiable or observable."
What I am trying to get across is that soul is a concept. It’s symbolic of sapience. The concept of soul is key to the philosophical and religious debate about unborn children.
"Free will does not exist, it is non-sensical and thus to say a unborn child has never conducted its own decisions only instinctive actions is to say it has done only what any of us can do."
I was not talking about free will; I am talking about free thought. Free will is the decision to create your own perspective. Free thought defines ones ability to influence its own mindset, create decisions that are not based on instinctual behaviour.
That argument just goes out the window because I did not once mention free-will which is a different concept. The exact phrase I used was “free thinking”.
I feel as if you’re dancing around the concept a bit. I said an unborn baby can’t make any decisions at all, it is completely imamate. Just like a rock, a twig, a leaf, they make no decisions and are only influenced by nature. Yet you’re carrying on about our own free-will.
Yes free-will in the form we know it is an illusion. Our world is only moving in one direction and there is hardly any relativity. However you defeat yourself by saying that statement at all, you deny your own spiritual existence. If you had no free will you would not have wrote that sentence in the first place.
Free-will has no black and white definition. Because if free-will existed I would to be able to do whatever I wanted when I wanted with no consequences but I am restricted to living the life I was giving because of the circumstances of this world. However what you must understand is that free-will is the foundation of our sapience. Without it we are inanimate beings. A mere shell with no occupant.
Most people against abortion are religious fanatics which is why this kind of discussion is appropriate. But you clearly are not. What are you? Are you pro-choice or pro-life or what. It feels like you are dancing between the two.
You made a discussion about sapience and then made a double standard about me not having proof of the existence of a soul?
Also you should debunk my other statements before falsifying my entire arguments in a few short paragraphs.
Lets make this quick.
"Educating teens about sex only enhances their sex drive"
Worlds most spurious argument? You have absolutely zero evidence to support that statement. You can’t honestly believe a bunch of diagrams on penises and how babies are made can incite sexual fantasies! Teens are naturally sexual, it’s called puberty which answers my next point.
"At the age of 11 at that"
You hadn't even hit puberty so no wonder you weren’t thinking about sex. I’m just glad sex-ed kicked in before the hormones. Think about this, do you think it benefits society to keep kids totally in the dark about sex till there an adult or to educate them about the right and wrong way to have sex.
"We learn in school that its ok to have sex - as long as you love them. "
Yes what the teachers are told you are purely opinion based and I believe should be left for the parents.
"Which is wrong because it will always lead to promiscuity."
That’s foolish, again no evidence for this proclamation. Promiscuity is a much sensationalized word and it always used in a bad light. However it is just a word to describe a human’s need for sexual gratification. What they are saying totally makes sense, if you love someone and sleep with them, you aren’t as likely to go out and cheat on them.
Promiscuous: characterized by or involving indiscriminate mingling or association, esp. having sexual relations with a number of partners on a casual basis.
If your teachers say you should love the person you’re sleeping with then they are discouraging promiscuity...........
"People should learn from their mistakes."
Mate I totally agree with you on that one but what I was saying before was that society won’t help our teen parents with that kind of attitude. They should be supporting them instead.
"Doesn’t actually deter me from crime and would surely ruin my life in the long run as getting a job"
Obviously you can’t deter someone from a crime they have already committed... It is clear that a teenager finding out she is pregnant is the most devastating news; it is life changing. I highly doubt she would go off and do it again, not till she is ready.
I do agree with you on most points, I believe we do share a similar opinions.
However I don’t know if you were raised in the Amish Province in Pennsylvania or Vatican City but this society we will on now, IS sex crazed even if you aren’t. A society raised by bikini models and skimpy clothing isn't a factor of a non-sex crazed society. It’s getting more and more as sexual repression becomes less and less.
Think about it this way, guys think about sex every 3 seconds, that a fact! Girls go out wearing barely anything for sexual is now days.
"A teen mother is dependent on her own mother. She is in no economic situation to even raise her. She is burdening her network of support, but given proper support can indeed get an education and a wonderful life. "
This is true for most middle to upper class societies. However I talk mostly on behalf on people on the more downtrodden communities because I used to come from one. Teen mums, who are left with a baby to take care of and rely on their mums for support, don’t always have a reliable income themselves. We can’t assume every household is economically stable enough fit to take another child into their family.
"Many of my friends came from backgrounds which should of lead them into being crack-fiends according to you; they are not.”
Yes I grew up in one of these neighborhoods and it looks like your friends were lucky. However we have to look at the community as a whole not a small sample. The social problems with teens start can start with the fatherless household, or the mum always working or the poor living standards. Worst of all these affects are only exacerbated by the poor kind of environment the child will grow up in. There will be crime, alcohol abuse and many others. It may not have affected your friends but you have to realize this is where teen disfunctionality starts and fuels the next generation of crime, prostitution, drug pushers and gang members. I always tend to look at the worst case scenarios rather than the best.
I am happy for you friend for breaking that cycle, however again we cant rely on people to eventually just straighten their lives out, you must realize how lucky your friends are. Not everyone will have the same support they did.
If we want to help the community we have to give them all the education they deserve. If they slip-up then abortion should be their next choice after adoption.
"Sure, it's been around forever...but so has war"
By that I would assume you would give me a plausible reason as to why eating meet is as bad a shooting someone on the battlefield.
Care to elaborate? Also I don’t understand why your using a COMPLETLEY separate point to justify your statement. War and eating meat are to vividly separate things so don’t try and sensationalize your argument.
Also other forms of protein from plant material are no way near as neutrituoius as meat. There are so many vegetarians I know who have iron deficiencies and as a result have to take capsules to keep up there fanatisized fad.
Look here my friend, I alread gave you an erudite explanation as to why every word of that sentence is pure processed crap.
I am a Christian. However the difference between me and you is that I do not force my point of view upon others.
Faith is not conceptual or literary but its a mindset which cannot be spread by word of mouth. If you want people to become Christian you cannot scare them into doing so by fear of "going to hell", as that is contrary to the ideaology of faith.
Please read the other dispute I wrote because I dont think you understand.
A teenagers brain (especially in this 'politically correct society'), is crazy. Its crazy for sex 24 hours a day. When I was a kid I used to beat my poor thing to death three a day. Without correct sexual education, a teenager will go into the world blind about the dangers of sex (you can thank your friendly neighbourhood church and its opal ring "abstinence" crusade for that slip-up). So I do agree on what you say, "society be responsible for a females irresponsibility".
But when it happens, you cant look retrospectivly, you have to look forward. As a teen mother, you cant be given advice such as, "you should have been more carefull", when its already happend. So family planning and all that crap can go out the window.
As for financial planning goes, 16-24 years of age for a young woman is the prime age for develpment in educational areas which will one day solidify that persons job stability and stable income. I dont think that their first option should be to suddenly drop everything and take up the cash register at burger king, thats a sure-fire way to ruin two peoples lives! A woman should asspire to greater things in life rather than paying the rest of her life for a mistake which chould have been fixed with one easy pill, injection, baby-killing device or whatever.
I would not liek to see our kind of society (sex crazed maniacs) without abortion. Young teenagers lives in ruins and the detromental affects it will have to the next generation of disfunctional youths. You have to realize what a young child growing up in a fatherless household is like. His/her mother working 12 hour shifts at a fast food outlet just to keep the shanty roof over their heads. He will grow up in a bum neighbour-hood full of gangs and crack-fiends and eventually become one himself.
You forget that denying its life is not a precurser for murder. The whole concept is weather its ethical to deny someones potential to exist before that unborn being has a choice of its own.
However the belief resides in the fact that if that unborn being never comes into existance in the first place, it cant make a choice nonetheless hence it is fallacious to ask weather its ethical to steal the right of a non-existing, un-spiritual and inamite being as rights are exclusivly to the living, not the living of the future.
