CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Birthcontrol???
Should your parents be able to put you on Birthcontrol if you don't want to? I cannot side because there are always the chance that rape could happen and I'd be very thankful that I was on Birthcontrol.
It is not their decision if you keep a pregnancy or not, it is their responsibility to not only provide for you but for your child if you do keep it. It may be your body, but its their money, their house, their work, their time and ultimately their body as well and as guardians they can take steps to not only insure their own prosperity, but yours.
I agree. Parents are the ones raising their grandchildren when their teenage kids "accidentally" get knocked up and they don't have a say so in it. If they have confirmed their child is sexually active, yeah I think they should press forward with birth control. This would prevent a lot. It's not going to kill the kid to pop a pill once a day. They have no say so until their 18. If they are playing grown up games they need to be responsible. If not, they should keep it in their pants or their legs closed. Just that simple.
Its highly doubtful she pays for much else, as what you omitted suggests. Also, daycare is expensive, she may pay for daycare while she is in school, but does she when she works?
I imagine her work hours are long then, her social life nil, the time with her child sparse, etc. Or does the child care she pays for come at a discounted rate...?
Are you to have me believe she houses the child as well?
It is nearly impossible for a young mother to make it well on her own, and if that is the case when it comes towards your friend then she is a statistical anomaly.
There are many paths open to a pregnant teenager whose parents don't want to raise the baby - morning after pills, abortion, adoption, or move out and live on her own with the baby.
Parents should be more concerned about their daughters catching a life-threatening STD and drum in them the importance of condoms, than be concerned about pregnancy and make them go on the pill. The latter is only a nuisance, the former a matter of life and death.
Forcing a teenager to go on the pill when she doesn't want to should be an absolute last resort that is taken only if pregnancy would pose a serious risk to the teenager's life.
In many areas Parents have no legal say in if a abortion, or adoption happens. Morning after pills require the teenager to take them within a allotted time period, and depending on the age of the teenager parents may be not be legally able to kick them out of the house.
Most stds/pregnancies are not life threatening, many are curable and if not then livable but life changing. Both can affect the entire family in medical bills, treatment afterwords etc. In the majority of cases a pregnancy is more likely then a std to cause the greater emotional and financial burden on the family, and the more likely to happen from unprotected sex. Yes teenagers should use condoms, but other forms of birth control may be used as well. Also why assume that parents are more concerned about one or another?
I'm not assuming that parents are more concerned about one than the other; I'm saying that they ought to be more concerned about one than the other. A parent who is more worried about the costs of raising an extra baby than worried about their child's life is unfit to be a parent.
I'd expect that in many, if not most, cases, the questions of whether or not to have the baby, and who will pay for and look after it, will be decided through discussion between the teen couple and their parents. That's the time when the teen should be encouraged to explore alternate options, if the parents don't want the responsibility of an extra child. Reasoned and respectful discussion is the key to solving such issues and preventing further ones, not forcing your child to do this or that.
If despite the appropriate discussions, the teen stubbornly refuses to use any form of protection in sex, and just as stubbornly refuses to give up the baby or take financial responsibility for it, then it could be that the parents have to pay up. It's unfortunate for them, but it's only one of many unexpected bills that come up during the course of raising a child. Forcing an unwilling teen to go on the pill may seem like an easy way around it, but that does nothing to nurture a loving relationship or teach her responsibility, and does the opposite of teaching her to respect and care for her body.
And remember we're talking about giving a growing adolescent girl artificial hormones to take on a daily basis over an extended period of time. While many women take the pill day after day for years and have come across no problems, many others report having side effects, and the long-term consequences of the pill are still under debate. If someone makes a free and informed decision to go on the pill, that's their choice and I respect it. But to force an unwilling and healthy person of sound mind to take unnecessary drugs is incredibly unethical, especially when the drugs may be harmful.
The bottom line is, yes, the parents may well have to bear some costs - the financial and emotional costs of looking after a pregnant daughter, or of her getting an abortion, or raising the baby. The fact is that parenthood is an expensive enterprise. If they weren't prepared to put in money, time, and energy, why have they chosen to become parents in the first place?
I suppose walking down dark allies is a dangerous enterprise, if a women wasn't prepared then why would she choose to walk down the ally in the first place? I suppose she should just accept what ever comes her way, never mind the pepper spray(it doesn't really hurt most people, but it might); after all if talking doesn't work then the black eye is just an unfortunate cost...
Your analogy doesn't match parenthood very well. We believe that everyone should be able to walk around in public areas without fear of personal harm. But we do not believe that everyone should be able to raise children without fear of having to devote time and money on the children.
The reason parenthood is described as a huge responsibility is that we have many expectations of parents which we do not have of, say, walkers of dark alleys. Parents are to devote significant time and money to their children's upbringing. They are to expect additional bills and worries to crop up now and then. They are to educate their children on responsibility and decision-making. They are to consider their children's physical and mental health to be paramount concerns. They are to respect their children's bodily integrity. And much more.
Your analogy doesn't match walkers of dark alleys very well. We believe that everyone should be able to walk around in public areas without fear of personal harm and we do believe that everyone should be able to not devote time and money on children they themselves did not birth...
Your analogy doesn't match walkers of dark alleys very well.
The analogy between parenthood and walking in dark alleys was brought up by you, not me. Are you that your analogy is not a very good one? If that is the case, I agree with you.
category replacement is a test of logic, I used it seriously two posts ago, only to use it sarcastically/mockingly last post.
Points were made in both of them.
Two posts ago I used it to show how Your argument could be used to justify anything,
I then used it to express that you got off subject, what bearings does our expectations have on the rights of people in various situations? If reproductive autonomy(including how many children you are taking care of, biological or otherwise) is a fundamental right, then both the parents and the teen has it. The parents are legally obligated to provide for their teen, and the teen for her child. For the teen to provide for her child she will likly have to sacrifice her needs, the parents are legally obligated to not allow that, thus they must care for the child(a violation of their fundamental right).
In our society minors can not vote, can not drink, can not smoke, etc. why? because they are not as developed as adults.
if a minor is not developed to the point where they can take care of a child and themselves, and that their possible decision to keep the child will force others to take care of the child against their will, then why are they developed enough to have the right to not take birth-control if their guardians(the ones who would take the role of parent to her potential child, and who as guardians has an obligation to ensure her health) want them to?
I know that you replicated my expression in an attempt to mock me. Your attempt backfired because you misused the expression, and ended up criticising your argument instead of mine.
And I've never heard of the term "category replacement", in logic or in anything else. Unless you can provide evidence as to what it is and how you have used it correctly, I'll assume you made it up.
I don't normally pick on people for their writing errors, as writing skill is irrelevant to most debates, and doing so is bound to create unnecessary antagonism. But when you mess around with words to ridicule me, you'd better know what you're doing, or I may throw it back in your face.
I haven't gone off subject. You used an analogy to argue that my argument could be used to justify anything. I responded by arguing that your analogy is flawed, and hence it does not defeat my argument.
Onto the content of the debate -
You're right in saying that children are under the protection and guardianship of their parents, and should not be allowed to do whatever they please. That point isn't in dispute. The question is how much authority the parents have over a child, and specifically, whether that authority extends to forcing their child to go on the pill. For reasons I gave in earlier posts, I would regard this to be an unacceptable violation of their child's bodily integrity, as well as more generally a sign of poor parenting.
Unlike what you say, it is not necessarily the case that parents must care for their teenage children's children. There are places where they do not have such an obligation. So an alternative to arguing for forced pills is to argue that parents should be absolved of this legal obligation in places where they do have such a obligation.
But even assuming that parents must take care of their teenagers' children, I don't see what is fundamentally unjust about it. As I said earlier, parents should be prepared for unexpected circumstances. If their daughter breaks her arm, they have to pay for her medical care and pay especial attention to her health while it is healing. If their daughter gets pregnant, they have to pay for whatever costs are involved in that and look after her during and after pregnancy.
Sure, there are some measures they can take to reduce the chances of these unexpected situations coming up, for their daughter's health and for their own peace of mind, but there's a limit to what they can do. They can have their daughter wear proper protective gear when playing dangerous sports so she's less likely to break her arm. They can have their daughter refuse unprotected sex so she's less likely to get pregnant. But it would be going overboard to, say, chain their daughter to her bed day and night to prevent her breaking her arm. Similarly I argued that it would be going overboard to force their daughter to go on the pill to prevent pregnancy. (Not that I'm saying chaining her to her bed and making her go on the pill are entirely analogous situations - I'm only using the former as an illustration.)
Parents have the right and responsibility to educate their children on sexual safety and to monitor their children's activities including sexual activities, and children have the obligation to follow their parents' directions where reasonable. Hence I wouldn't be opposed to parents telling their children that they can't have sex unless they use a condom, or even parents telling their children that they can't have sex at all until they reach majority age.
But medication is something that pushes the boundaries of reasonableness. I believe that everyone who is of sound mind, which means adults and minors who have reached the age of reason, should have the right to reject taking medication that is unnecessary to their health and possibly harmful. That's exactly what the pill is.
f C and A are similar enough, they will both cause B and are logically the same in the above statements. A.PropertiesInQuestion==B.PropertiesInQuestion.
You stated that A is different then C because of a property of D, our expectations is not a property of parents, and the relationship between properties of parents and their children were what was under discussion. The rights and duty of parents to their children and children to their teens derives from the same rights that a walker in a dark alley way has. To say that the two do not share common enough properties is to say that each sets of rights are not related such that one is a subset/derived from the other or in other words, that a violation of the rights and duties between parents and their children is not a violation of human rights.
Condoms can be dangerous, and to not only her but her partner. Many people do not know if they are allergic to latex, oils etc until they use them. The body's response to the pill can be better monitored. Your argument was that something carries with it a risk that a person's basic rights might be violated, and that they should accept such a violation should it occur because they choose to risk it. It is true they should be prepared for such things, but they don't have to accept it. Fact is, everything carries risk. Also a teen's guardians are legally obligated to be protective, and in most cases morally so as well. It is unlikely that a parent will knowingly put their child on unnecessary medication that will harm them.
Condom use is unenforceable and less effective, the pill is enforceable and more effective. Everything carries with it risk, and guardians are in a position where risk is generally managed by them efficiently, so that the child benefits. Also, having a baby is a risky thing; bleeding, stress, depression, hormone changes etc resulting from the changes in chemicals of the body can be serious as can the affects resulting from social relations. A pregnancy for a young women dramatically changes social relations and opportunities in a short time. A pregnancy may be considered unhealthy for a young women, and for the family. So rather then considering birth control unnecessary, it may be considered preventive health care(like a vitamin or supplement, some of which have the potential to be toxic). Or medication that is only needed in certain environments, like Ritalin(most adhd kids just have problems in school and can function perfectly fine outside of it.)
There are many options when it comes to the pill, if one doesn't work because of a increase in acne, cramping, allergies, cysts, etc. Another one may be found, the same as for any almost any sort of food,drink, supplement or medication. Many such things have secondary purposes as well, many women use the pill for regularity(which affects mood, acne, behavior etc) more so then birth control. Parents and guardians have every right to insure the health and prosperity of their child, having their child take the pill is no different than insuring that they drink enough milk; to make sure they have the substances they need to be healthy, of sound mind, with opportunities for growth and to preform activities as safely as possible(rather it be sports or sex) , but after all they could be lactose intolerant...
I'm rather surprised to see that you know what an analogy is and are able to roughly describe it, and yet did not know the term, it being a relatively common word. Call it "category replacement" if you will, or simply "analogy" as most people do, but what you wrote two posts back was not it, as I have explained.
I take it you're arguing that it is an absolutely unrestricted right of every person to decide which children they take care of. Like I have been saying, I don't share this view. I don't see human rights as a set of absolute dicta that every person should have unrestricted freedom to do this or that; I hold the more pragmatic view that rights are a matter of balancing one person's or group's interests against another's. People have the right to decide which children they take care of, but people also have the right to refuse unnecessary medical treatment. When the rights of two parties clash, I find it necessary that either one trumps the other, or the two make a compromise and both sacrifice something. Hence my argument cannot be represented as saying "that a violation of the rights and duties between parents and their children is not a violation of human rights".
To make my meaning more clear, I will represent the essence of your argument in rough logical form:
----------------------------
P = the rights of parents
W = the rights of walkers of dark alleys
H = human rights
S = some property that makes P and W analogous for the purposes of this debate
P is a subset of H
W is a subset of H
Therefore, P and W share S
----------------------------
This argument can be made valid only if S is said to be a property that is shared by all H. You implied that it is, and dismissed my argument to the contrary as an irrelevancy.
I was arguing earlier, as I continue to argue now, that S is by no means shared by all H. The properties of parents, or, to be more colloquial and specific, the responsibilities of parents are precisely what I listed and meant when I said "expectations of parents". I was arguing that parents have very different responsibilities - both in nature and in extent - from walkers of dark alleys, and that the responsibilities peculiar to parenthood are such that they need to be prepared to sacrifice more of their rights than walkers of dark alleys.
I won't call your argument a straw man, since it may be that you had genuinely misinterpreted my paragraph about the expectations of parents. But in any case, you were attributing to me something that I didn't believe.
You have also attributed to me a stronger stance than the one I'm taking in saying: "Your argument was that something carries with it a risk that a person's basic rights might be violated, and that they should accept such a violation should it occur because they choose to risk it." I don't hold the universal belief that if someone chooses to do something, they must accept whatever dangers come with it. To hold this belief would be to agree with your first analogy of parenthood to walking in dark alleys, and as I'm sure you know, I do not agree with it.
As I have said, I do not find it unreasonable to expect parents to bear the costs - both in terms of money and time - of their children's activities, including pregnancy and its consequences. I see it as one of those responsibilities peculiar to parenthood.
I'll also remind you of what I said in my last post, that parents are not necessarily obligated to look after their minor children's children.
As to alternatives to the pill: Yes, condoms can be dangerous as well. But the crucial difference is that I'm not saying parents should have the right to force children to use condoms. I'm saying that they should have the right to disallow children from having sex unless they use condoms. It is a conditional. Similarly, I wouldn't be opposed to parents who tell their daughters they're not allowed to have sex unless they go on the pill, as that would not be forcing them go to on the pill.
Your analogy of taking pills to drinking milk, again, does not illustrate the crucial point of difference. I'm not saying that parents cannot force their children to do anything that has a chance of causing a bad effect. If this were the case, parents would have no authority at all over their children, since pretty much everything has a chance of causing a bad effect.
Rather, I was saying more specifically: "everyone who is of sound mind, which means adults and minors who have reached the age of reason, should have the right to reject taking medication that is unnecessary to their health and possibly harmful".
Milk is not medication, and drinking milk or some nutritionally similar product is necessary to promote health. Taking pills is unnecessary (I'm speaking here of taking pills for birth control, and not for medical reasons like menorrhagia). Not taking pills does not leave you medically deficient. It only comes into use if the teen engages in unsafe sex practices, and this is something that is very avoidable if the parents had inculcated safe sex practice in them.
I do see some merit in your comparison of pills to medication for ADHD. They're not so different. But ADHD, epilepsy, bipolar disorder, and various other conditions that may not require medication, or only require it for specific situations, still differ from the pill in one important aspect: there isn't all that much that parents can do about such conditions except give them medication. With the pill, there is everything the parents can do. I see it as the responsibility of parents to train their children to look after their own bodies, and specifically to properly inculcate safe sex practices in them. If they are resorting to a brute force method like making them go on the pill whether or not they want to, they're already failing in their parenting duties.
I've decided I like you peekaboo, I like to push people's buttons to try to expedite acquiring things I can use against them but you responded wonderfully.
I consider an analogy to be a bit broader, more a tool of conceptualization then testing logic. For example an analogy can be made between patterns in music theory and a picture, playing the pattern might be analogous to following a line on a paper but the properties' of the paper, it's lines, and the properties' of the music and its pattern are quite different and the analogy making sense depends a lot on interpretation.
Your correct, it is a balancing act among rights; I consider taking at most 4 or 5 years and likely 2 to 1 of a medication you may not want to take, less of a violation then a insurance against other violations which would cause a longer lasting and worse affect.
The logical structure among P,W, and S I would suggest is the following:
H,W,S,and P are categories of rights.
If P and W are both subsets of H, then S is at least what defines them as a subset of H.
W and P as subsets of H must them have an S.
As subsets of H, W and P must include all properties of H.
Thus S is H.
Properties of S and W which are not merely properties of H restated to the circumstances of P or W are not valid rights/properties, for all those are included in H. Rights apply to all humans and are universal, but are applied individually due to each individual's unique circumstances.
Thus all Properties of S and W are properties of H, but stated in a more specific manner. To deny the specific, is to either deny it as a specific rendering of the general H or to deny the general itself. So S and W are different ways H is applied, and replacing S with W or vice versa is a way of testing the logic against H, but in a manner which changes possible biases.
I know the stance was stronger then what you believe, which means there is something tempering your stance so that you do not agree with the general argument but do with the specific.Parents allowing for the possibility of a large financial, emotional, social etc burden when it can be easily be avoided seems counter to the responsibility of parents to me. Parents tend to understand risks, yes often times being overly protective; but that is because of the value to them of what is being protected. If they believe that their daughter is prone to be caught in the moment, to rebel, to be swayed by peer pressure, etc then I see them having her take the pill as them fulfilling their parental obligation to her. Children are forced to do many things by parents, go to sleep at a decent time, do homework, eat vegetables etc. many times it is for the betterment of the child. My guess of what is causing your stance is a deep respect for a right derived from more basic ones, to the point where it is considered as nearly a basic one itself. People have the right to control over what goes into their bodies, granted certain conditions are meet. If they are unconscious and are in a emergency situation it could be said that that right to decide is being violated, but it is so one of a more basic and essential one may be preserved, the right to life(and liberty, pursuit of happiness etc since you must be alive to pursue happiness and have liberty.). I view parents as in a similar situation to a paramedic, more subtle but similar.
I also believe that children have a certain level of responsibility to their parents. A minor shouldn't have a problem with taking a pill, so long as it's one selected properly(under guidance of a health care professional) such that there are no serious side affects, if it brings their parents a better state of mind. It may be insulting as a minor if your parents think you would have unprotected sex, or sex at all but it should be recognize that their paranoia if not their guidance has useful applications and that denying it without good cause has bad consequences which should be avoided, even if its something simple like not worrying them as much if your out with a boyfriend or such(there is less to worry about). Unless they are just terrible parents and shouldn't have custody to begin with that is.
If in order to take care of her own child, a teen in the majority of cases must sacrifice her own needs, but her parents are obligated to not allow such a sacrifice. It may be necessary for them to look after their grandchild, and in the majority teen pregnancies which are carried to term, this is the case for at least a while.
It is preferable for teens to be inoculated with safe sex practices, but every year many teens become impregnate despite health classes, perhaps friends becoming pregnant before them or their own mother having been a teen mom, etc. Safe sex practices are not only a function of the quality of parenting, but other variables are involved which a parent may not feel able to over ride by means other then the pill. I do believe the pill shouldn't be the first thing a parent does, but it should be an option when other methods have failed. For example, if a parent catches their daughter having unprotected sex despite condoms being available and being educated on their use, it seems reasonable to me to have her go on the pill; even if she doesn't want to. Its like catching a young child just off of training wheels riding his bike without a helmet, you may put the training wheels back on since he isn't the most skilled in not falling down yet. It may make him feel like a baby and he may protest, but it insures he won't be severely wounded.
My apologies about the spelling and grammar errors, Rereading it some words are missing but I believe you can deduce what they are. I have some business to attend to or else I would fix it. Take care, good night.
Eh, I enjoy debating in general, which is why I'm on CD :) But yes, it is fun to argue with you - you're more challenging than most people I've come across so far.
I don't know what you define to be category replacement, but "analogy" accurately covers what has been used so far. The physical properties of music and paper are different, but there is arguably still some point of similarity between patterns of music and lines on a paper, perhaps on a conceptual level. If that point of similarity is what your argument uses, then it is appropriate to use this analogy.
I see now where our disagreement lies. Our arguments don't match up because we're thinking along different lines - you're thinking of rights only, I'm thinking of something else as well.
This, I think, is the gist of your argument:
---------------------------
Every person has the right to choose which children they take care of. Parents are a subset of persons. Therefore, parents have the right to choose which children they take care of.
Every person has the right to walk down dark alleys without obstruction. Walkers of dark alleys are a subset of persons. Therefore, walkers of dark alleys have the right to walk down dark alleys without obstruction.
These two situations are analogous because they involve general human rights applied to specific situations.
---------------------------
The problem I have with this argument is that it concerns only rights, which does not reflect the opinion that human rights is a matter of balancing the interests of one group against another. An argument that reflects this opinion would also involve the concept of responsibilities - which I'll define here as the recognition and observance of other people's rights.
I agree that if P (rights of parents) is a subset of H (rights of humans), then properties of P are properties of H. The same goes for W as a subset of H. But parents have more than rights - they also have responsibilities. All humans have responsibilities, but the nature and extent of them depend on their circumstances and on the circumstances of people around them.
I'm not saying "people in general have the right to decide which children they raise, but parents in particular don't". I'm saying "people in general have the right to decide which children they raise, and this applies to everyone including parents, but when another person's right clashes with this right, there may need to be a compromise". The rights of a minor to bodily integrity, I argue, is something that may clash with parents' right to decide which children they raise.
This concept of rights and responsibilities applies to walkers of dark alleys as well. You have the right to walk in a dark alley without obstruction. But if there has been a murder in this alley, and the police have cordoned it off so they can take evidence, then your right to walk in the dark alley clashes with their right to analyse a crime scene, and their rights may trump yours.
.
In most circumstances I agree that parents have the authority to make their children do or not do something, and that children are obligated to obey their parents when their parents' orders are reasonable. But I see medicine being a very borderline subject.
I'm wary of medicine in general - while medicine can be helpful or necessary in some circumstances, they can also cause dangerous side-effects, some of which are not discovered by the medical community until years or decades after a medicine has been in general circulation. Hence I believe that any adult of sound mind should have the final say as to whether or not they take any kind of medical treatment. In the matter of children, their right of consent is to a certain degree delegated to their parents, but children still maintain some rights. If the medicine is something that is necessary to their health and safety, I'd see it as the parents' right (and duty) to ensure their children take it. But in the case of unnecessary medicine, children should retain the choice.
I can accept requiring a teen to go on the pill under specific circumstances - for example, if the teen has such a mental handicap that they don't grasp the concept of safe sex. I can possibly fit your example into this category, when parents catch their teen having unsafe sex. But in such circumstances I think parents should have to obtain medical permission to do so, so that a third party medical or psychiatric professional will have looked into the situation and judged that it is reasonable to require the teen to go on the pill. I see it similar to admitting someone into a mental ward against their will - sometimes you can do that, but you shouldn't be able to randomly decide they need to be admitted. You have to get approval from the appropriate authorities.
If parents are allowed to make their children go on the pill regardless of the circumstances, this not only violates the children's right to bodily integrity; it also creates a dangerous loophole for irresponsible parents to force pills down their children's throats as a cheap substitute for proper sex education. Some parents may even start using the pill as a method of discipline, especially if their child reacts to a particular brand ("if you don't do your homework I'll make you go on the pill for a month so you get a headache every night!").
I must admit, my heart lies on the other side of the argument. If the first sentence started with "should they" instead of "should they be able to", you'd see me on the other side.
But as long as our society differentiates between minors and adults and expects minors to be the legal responsibility of a caretaker, then yes, that caretaker should have the legal right to do this. Particularly since they would likely have to deal with (and pay for) the repercussions of unwanted pregnancy.
besides killing your kid why not have birthcontrol? its dumb to kill your kid, so just taking a pill and going on is just fine. but waiting on your kid to have a heartbeat and then killing it is bull. its taking a soul. "you take a soul you lose your soul".
I'm not so sure. Considering no one even knows where human life came from, I don't believe we even realize what true consciouness is. Hm. Point to argue.
We have a pretty good idea of where we came from as a species, but even if our origins were completely unknown, it wouldn't change the fact that the word 'consciousness' was coined to describe our ability to be meaningfully aware of ourselves and our surroundings. If there exists organisms with an awareness that greatly transcends our own, we would not have our awareness revoked. We would still be conscious beings.
Also, this is becoming rapidly irrelevant to the debate at hand. What point do you believe you are making by trying to argue that humans are not conscious?
I'm trying to say that just because what we beleive we understand why and how we're are here, doesn't give us the choice of ending life. We have the GIFT (not the power) of being able to produce life. I don't think we should be in the position to decide who lives and who dies though.
You are free to exercise whatever restrictions you feel come along with this 'gift', but you should realize that when it comes to decisions regarding the bodily autonomy of someone else, your philosophy doesn't matter very much.
It think if you ask aound my so-called "philosophy" is so much of a philosophy. It is a gift.
This does not even make sense. You assert that life is a gift, which requires explanation and evidence in and of itself, and is not a belief I subscribe to. This statement is not itself a gift, as you seem to be implying, whether or not you intended to.
Do you ever wonder why your here?
I do not believe life is a gift from a higher being, granted for a particular purpose, if that is what you are asking. So, no, I do not really wonder "why" because I do not believe there is an intrinsic "why" behind the existence of humans. Each individual's purpose in life is theirs to discern.
I assume from your responses that you do consider life to be a gift. As I said, you are free to treat your living body as a gift or however you wish. You are not free to impose restrictions on how others treat their own body.
Okay, how about abortion is murder. I don't care when a baby is technically alive, the baby would have been alive had you not killed it. Future murder is murder.
But the sperm won't become living human beings except under special circumstances. A fertilized egg will become a living, thinking human the majority of the time. So the two are not the same at all.
"A fertilized egg will become a living, thinking human the majority of the time."
Same basic principle. Alot of women will unintentionally miscarry these underdeveloped spawn so by your definition, every woman who's ever passed a fertilized egg is a serial-killer. XD
No, that's also a different story. Miscarriages are a horrible fact of life, and there's nothing we can do to stop it. But people wouldn't even have abortions if they thought the fetus would miscarry, would they? So they're getting the abortion on the basis that it would turn into a living, thinking human being. And that is at the very least intent of murder.
"So they're getting the abortion on the basis that it would turn into a living, thinking human being. And that is at the very least intent of murder."
It isn't technically murder or intended murder if it isn't considered a human being. Below is a video that I am sure you'll enjoy. Watch it (all of it) and get back to me later ;)
I have lots of problems with this video. I know he's being a comedian, but he's still setting up a straw man.
Once again, people should take responsibility. Women shouldn't be 'brood mares'. They shouldn't, however, be whores, either. They should take just as much responsibility for their actions and sexual flings as anybody does in anything.
And grocery eggs aren't fertilized. They're just eggs. It's like eating the chicken's menstrual period. You're not killing a chicken by eating an omelet.
As for carbon ... carbon will never become a human. It may help make up a human, but never become human. And burning coal actually releases carbon into the atmosphere, enabling it to become a part of animals. (But I'm against fossil fuels, anyway)
Once again, it's not the woman's fault her body rejected a fetus. It is her fault if she got pregnant or chose to have an abortion. Yes, it's her fault if she got pregnant. She could choose not to have sex. That would stop her from getting pregnant. She could even have sex and take every precaution against pregnancy.
And the Bible condemns homosexual acts.
And God never told anybody to kill Muslims, Buddists, Christians, or anybody like that. In fact, after Israel's conquering of Caanan, I don't think He told anybody to kill any race of people (or religion, or anything). That's caused by people deciding that others deserve to die. Not God.
Of course dead people don't speak. They're dead. If they could speak in death, we'd have no idea what they'd say. So using the whole 'only living people talk about life' is weak.
Religious difference is different than God telling people to do it. That was people telling people to kill. Big difference.
And the comedian was making fun of Christians not liking homosexuals because they don't have abortions, but it's not about who has abortions. That's what I was getting at.
"The crusades were human actions, not God-sanctioned."
Try telling them that. They were absolutely sure that their god wanted them to kill all those that didn't believe. What? Your god can do no wrong? I don't think so. Sounds like a self-serving bullshit story and an escape-goat to justify your actions and/or lack of understanding. Not to mention an piss-poor excuse for a universal answer to anything you can't comprehend. The Crusades were nothing more than children fighting over imaginary friends. Much like religious difference today. Children and their imaginary friends. That's all.
They were absolutely sure that their god wanted them to kill all those that didn't believe
No, they thought God wanted them to liberate the Holy Lands from the Muslims. But nowhere in the Bible does it say that. God never advocated the mass-slaughtering of Muslims or Jews, or any other religion.
And, once again, if you don't believe in God, don't blame Him for human actions.
Good for you. Not everyone shares your priorities, and when it comes to what is inside someone else's body, what you care about becomes a lot less important.
the baby would have been alive had you not killed it. Future murder is murder.
I do not think anyone is arguing that fetuses are not living tissue, just that they should not be legally classified as 'a life' until they are independent. Organs are living tissue, animals are living tissue, but they do not deserve the same rights as a conscious human. The law does not and should not protect future/potential citizens at the expense of existing citizens.
To stay somewhat on topic, I notice you have come out in support of a teenager being forced to use birth control. Validly or not, some people consider abortion to be birth control and there is little preventing them from using it as such. Should parents have the right to subject their pregnant teenager to an abortion? Disregarding your stance on abortion, why not? Where is the line drawn?
I do not study law so I could be wrong but because there is a specific name for the act of unlawfully killing a fetus (fetucide instead of homicide) I think that fetuses may already be afforded their own legal standing.
they should not be legally classified as 'a life' until they are independent
Then a child isn't a live until they're 18 years old or legally emancipated?
Organs are living tissue, animals are living tissue, but they do not deserve the same rights as a conscious human.
Organs are not sentient, and they never will be. And I'm sure if we could prove certain animals (I'm banking on Dolphins, Gorillas, and African Gray Parrots) are sentient it would quickly become a crime to kill them. You could probably even argue that human babies under a certain age (say, 13 months) aren't sentient, as they can't speak (Parrots, Dolphins, [and whales], and Gorillas have them beat, there), and are totally dependent on other life forms to live (same as a virus or parasite).
Should parents have the right to subject their pregnant teenager to an abortion?
In a word, yes. Parents are parents. They are the legal guardians of their children. Until their children are either 18 or legally emancipated, their parents have the right to decide for their kids what's best. If the parent chooses not to have to take care of a baby (as it will most likely will be the grandparents of the baby who will take care of it), that's their choice. A good parent would take into consideration their child's wishes, too, but the ultimate decision rests with the parent.
Then a child isn't a live until they're 18 years old or legally emancipated?
Do you not understand the difference between a fetus being physically dependent on its mother and no one else, as a host to parasite, and a child requiring someone (anyone, really) to provide it with resources? Or are you deliberately constructing a strawman?
Organs are not sentient, and they never will be.
Fetuses are not sentient either, and aborted fetuses never will be.
There is potentially some gray area as to consciousness in the third trimester, but abortions beyond this point are exceedingly rare and many times are performed for the mother's health or because the fetus is inviable.
never will be. And I'm sure if we could prove certain animals (I'm banking on Dolphins, Gorillas, and African Gray Parrots) are sentient it would quickly become a crime to kill them.
Great apes are self-aware and very intelligent. However, they are not physically dependent on another sentient being for survival. If they were, then their host should be able to make the call on whether or not they continue to be.
You could probably even argue that human babies under a certain age (say, 13 months) aren't sentient, as they can't speak (Parrots, Dolphins, [and whales], and Gorillas have them beat, there), and are totally dependent on other life forms to live (same as a virus or parasite).
After birth, an infant is no longer dependent solely on its mother. Someone else can provide care for it, if she does not want to, so it is now possible to protect the interests of the baby and the mother. Prenatally, this is not possible.
I am still curious about your response to my final paragraph.
Do you not understand the difference between a fetus being physically dependent on its mother and no one else, as a host to parasite, and a child requiring someone (anyone, really) to provide it with resources? Or are you deliberately constructing a strawman?
You said 'independent' so I used 'independent'. I do understand the difference, but you didn't specify. And if you get pregnant through stupid choices, it's your duty to your child to keep it alive until you do have the choice to give it away. It's criminal for parents to not care care of their born children, but why isn't it criminal for parents to not take care of their unborn children?
Fetuses are not sentient either, and aborted fetuses never will be.
I have actually been thinking about this for a while (ever since I read it), and I cannot come up with an equally ridiculous argument. I keep trying, but I can't. I'm sorry. This just doesn't work that way.
their host should be able to make the call on whether or not they continue to be.
Not if their hosts aren't mature enough to vote.
After birth, an infant is no longer dependent solely on its mother. Someone else can provide care for it, if she does not want to, so it is now possible to protect the interests of the baby and the mother. Prenatally, this is not possible.
Yes, it is. The fetus deserves to have a chance at life. Why should we kill just because it's inconvenient to the mother? By that argument, I could just refuse to go to jail for theft because it would be inconvenient to me. If I steal and get caught, I'd have to take responsibility for that and go to jail. If you foolishly get pregnant, you need to take responsibility for your actions and carry the child.
I am still curious about your response to my final paragraph.
I actually did answer your question. You assumed I would say something else, but I didn't. Thus, your final question ("where would you draw the line?") become irrelevant.
---
But I fail to see how any of this matters. It could be solved thusly: unprotected sex produces unwanted pregnancies. Solution: take birth control. That gets rid of the cause. If minors take BC regularly, there would be less teen pregnancies, and less life-changing decisions so early in life. If you don't want to get pregnant, take birth control. It's that simple. Does it matter if your parents force you? You get to the same result!
It's like if my parents 'forced' me to climb Mount Saint Helens. I love climbing! It would be a blast. I wouldn't care if my parents were 'forcing' me, as I'd do it anyway!
And if you get pregnant through stupid choices, it's your duty to your child to keep it alive until you do have the choice to give it away.
Or, one could abort it. I do not think the motivation behind an abortion influences its acceptability, one way or the other.
It's criminal for parents to not care care of their born children, but why isn't it criminal for parents to not take care of their unborn children?
Children are conscious, biologically independent, and also citizens in the eyes of the law. Fetuses are none of these things. If a parent no long wants the responsibility of a child, there are systems in place to ensure the child does not have to suffer. Again, prenatally, this is not possible.
I have actually been thinking about this for a while (ever since I read it), and I cannot come up with an equally ridiculous argument. I keep trying, but I can't. I'm sorry. This just doesn't work that way.
You kind of have to supply a better rebuttal than this, if you cannot answer an argument. Aborting a fetus destroys its potential before it has any awareness of that potential, or anything else for that matter.
Not if their hosts aren't mature enough to vote.
Why should a minor not be allowed to opt for or a refuse an abortion?
Yes, it is. The fetus deserves to have a chance at life. Why should we kill just because it's inconvenient to the mother?
For one, no, it is not currently possible to transplant a fetus from one womb to another.
Secondly, even if a woman wants a pregnancy and the resulting childbirth, it is silly to say the whole process is just an 'inconvenience'. Having a flat tire is an inconvenience. Having your autonomy removed and placed in the hands of someone else, so that your body is no longer your own property, just a vehicle for incubation, is a nightmare.
By that argument, I could just refuse to go to jail for theft because it would be inconvenient to me. If I steal and get caught, I'd have to take responsibility for that and go to jail. If you foolishly get pregnant, you need to take responsibility for your actions and carry the child.
Stealing is violating the rights of another citizen. A fetus is not a citizen.
Abortion is a way to take responsibility for a pregnancy. It's not like someone is pawning their pregnancy off on someone else and saying, 'here, you carry this thing.'
If someone catches a disease from sex, they are going to seek treatment and get it cured if they can. Leaving aside issues of fetal consciousness, there is no difference between this and getting an abortion. Implying that carrying a pregnancy to term is the only way to responsibly deal with it is to say that to only way to responsibly deal with an STD is to let it go untreated.
But I fail to see how any of this matters. It could be solved thusly: unprotected sex produces unwanted pregnancies.
No contraceptive is 100% effective. Not all pregnancies are the result of stupid choices.
Does it matter if your parents force you? You get to the same result!
Yes, it absolutely matters if someone's bodily autonomy is steamrolled because of what someone else wants or thinks is appropriate.
If we mandated sterilization for every person in the United States, that would also get the same result of fewer unwanted pregnancies.
It's like if my parents 'forced' me to climb Mount Saint Helens. I love climbing! It would be a blast. I wouldn't care if my parents were 'forcing' me, as I'd do it anyway!
I can't believe I'm having to explain this, but if you would do something anyway, then you are not being forced to do anything, by anyone.
You kind of have to supply a better rebuttal than this, if you cannot answer an argument. Aborting a fetus destroys its potential before it has any awareness of that potential, or anything else for that matter.
Okay, I'll try:
"It's easy to be right if you shoot anybody who has a different opinion"
"If we kill all the poor people now, we wouldn't have to worry about taking care of them"
"If we kill all the rich people, we could stop arguing about tax breaks for the rich"
"If we kill all the baby whales, their kind would eventually die out, and then we wouldn't have whale huggers"
These don't pertain to abortion, but I hope they sound as ridiculous to you as your argument did to me.
Having your autonomy removed and placed in the hands of someone else, so that your body is no longer your own property, just a vehicle for incubation, is a nightmare.
But that's what comes with sex. But that's supposed to me with marriage (or some other relationship) where the husband can support the wife in all ways. I'm not saying it's pleasant, it just is that way. Nothing we can do can make childbearing any easier on anyone. But if you don't want that to happen, then don't have sex. It's just that easy. If you have sex, even with contraception, you run the risk. If you don't want the risk, don't have sex. It's that easy.
If someone catches a disease from sex, they are going to seek treatment and get it cured if they can.
Pregnancy isn't a disease. It goes away after 9 months (plus 18 years, or 13, if teens can suddenly become independent). Comparing pregnancy to an STD is like comparing a tipped gas can to the Gulf Oil Spill.
No contraceptive is 100% effective. Not all pregnancies are the result of stupid choices.
I understand this. And that's why I'm not advocating shutting down abortion. But when you have unprotected sex, the odds are much, much, much higher, and you should be prepared to deal with this.
Yes, it absolutely matters if someone's bodily autonomy is steamrolled because of what someone else wants or thinks is appropriate.
It's not your autonomy at risk. It's a pill a day. I take pills for my acne, my dad for vitamins, my mom for arthritis. It's not what someone else 'wants or thinks', it's what the general population 'knows'. People under 18 years shouldn't be getting pregnant and raising families! If the general populace thought otherwise, the census would start at 13, not 18.
I can't believe I'm having to explain this, but if you would do something anyway, then you are not being forced to do anything, by anyone.
And yet, we're arguing. Teens don't want babies. Thus, they get abortions. Instead of that, paying oodles of money and weakening your body, you could take BC pills and use contraceptives and greatly reduce the chance of pregnancy. Kids don't want to be pregnant. BC reduces pregnancies. What is there to argue about? I want to get to the top of Mt. St. Helens, I don't care how I get up there! I'd prefer the cheaper way, personally, and that would seem to be BC and contraceptives in this argument.
"It's easy to be right if you shoot anybody who has a different opinion"
"If we kill all the poor people now, we wouldn't have to worry about taking care of them"
"If we kill all the rich people, we could stop arguing about tax breaks for the rich"
"If we kill all the baby whales, their kind would eventually die out, and then we wouldn't have whale huggers"
These don't pertain to abortion, but I hope they sound as ridiculous to you as your argument did to me.
None of the things you mentioned are physically dependent on a person who does not want them to be, thus there is a massive difference.
But that's what comes with sex. But that's supposed to me with marriage (or some other relationship) where the husband can support the wife in all ways.
What? No, that's what comes with not being allowed to have an abortion if one wants one, or being forced to have an abortion, or being forced to take a contraceptive. Someone who chooses to have sex or be supported in a relationship is still exercising bodily autonomy.
If you have sex, even with contraception, you run the risk. If you don't want the risk, don't have sex. It's that easy.
Pregnancy is a relatively rare outcome of even unprotected sex, and sex has other purposes beyond procreation. This is like saying if you don't want to get in a car crash, don't ever drive, and if you do get in a car crash, don't seek treatment because your broken bones are your responsibility.
The comparison of pregnancy to a disease doesn't have anything to do with its length or severity, and some diseases are curable so do not even last that long at all. The metaphor is that they are both consequences of sex, and both can either be erased, or allowed to run their courses.
It's not your autonomy at risk. It's a pill a day. I take pills for my acne, my dad for vitamins, my mom for arthritis.
No one is forcing your family to take these pills. You are all taking them voluntarily. If someone was forcing you to take medication you didn't want to take, then your autonomy would be violated.
And yet, we're arguing. Teens don't want babies. Thus, they get abortions. Instead of that, paying oodles of money and weakening your body, you could take BC pills and use contraceptives and greatly reduce the chance of pregnancy. Kids don't want to be pregnant. BC reduces pregnancies. What is there to argue about? I want to get to the top of Mt. St. Helens, I don't care how I get up there! I'd prefer the cheaper way, personally, and that would seem to be BC and contraceptives in this argument.
The question is not 'Would most teens refuse to take birth control if their parents offered it to them?' and nowhere, ever, did I state that I do not think the vast majority of teenagers would not take advantage of this opportunity. The debate is over the principle. If anyone, a teen included, does not want a certain medication to enter their bodies, they should not be forced to. Maybe they are not having sex and have no intention to, maybe the pill makes them sick, maybe they have a different religion or moral outlook than their parents and think it is wrong to take pills.
Pregnancy is a relatively rare outcome of even unprotected sex, and sex has other purposes beyond procreation. This is like saying if you don't want to get in a car crash, don't ever drive, and if you do get in a car crash, don't seek treatment because your broken bones are your responsibility.
Yes, you could say the first part is true, except most people are required to drive to be able to work or go to school. If you don't want to get in a car crash, don't get in a car. It's simple. Sex is not a requirement for daily living or a job. Having reckless sex and then having an abortion to 'cure' pregnancy would be like driving drunk and, in crashing, killing somebody's dog (but you get away unharmed, along with the other driver), and telling the judge it's your right to not compensate the owner of the dog. Or something like that. I hope you're getting what I mean, and not what I say exactly, because this isn't coming out right.
If anyone, a teen included, does not want a certain medication to enter their bodies, they should not be forced to. Maybe they are not having sex and have no intention to, maybe the pill makes them sick, maybe they have a different religion or moral outlook than their parents and think it is wrong to take pills.
I agree, somewhat. In the end, parents still have the final say, however. But, once again, good parents will take their child's concerns into consideration before forcing a pill on them. Especially if it makes them sick or it's against their religion.
None of the things you mentioned are physically dependent on a person who does not want them to be, thus there is a massive difference.
How about this: "People in comas are taking up valuable life support equipment and room in hospitals. We're not sure if they'll ever wake up, so they could be hogging the equipment and room for a few decades. So why don't we just kill everyone who goes unconscious, thus making their chances of waking up to zero?"
I assume you wouldn't do that. And the odds of a fetus becoming conscious are much higher than somebody waking up from a coma. Yes the unconscious thing is a little tough, but that way we'll never have to worry about people actually entering comatose, because they'll be dead!
How about this: "People in comas are taking up valuable life support equipment and room in hospitals. We're not sure if they'll ever wake up, so they could be hogging the equipment and room for a few decades. So why don't we just kill everyone who goes unconscious, thus making their chances of waking up to zero?"
Still not physically dependent on another person. If there was a way to keep person A alive by hooking them up to person B, then yes, person B should have the right to decide if they continue to function as a life support system for person A. But this not possible, so your scenario puts money and space over a citizen's rights, while abortion puts a citizen's rights over a fetus's interests. I think all human life, fetuses included, is more valuable than money and space, but I think a fetus is less valuable than its mother.
if you dont like what we think is right or not right then dont came back to this site just bc your not getting your way and u have to complain about it doesn't mean your right. if you think people shouldn't have birthcontrol and have the kid good for you. but i think birthcontrol is right if you dont want a kid. but if your not using it and you get prego dont kill it bc your to immature to have it. so im with birthcontrol if you can get it and if you still do get pregent dont go kill it have it. and give it a better life then the one ur parnets gave you.
Your grammatically horrific babble is nearly impossible to decipher but you appear to be telling me that if I do not agree with you, that I should not come back to this website. That is not how things work here. If you have an opinion, you are expected to logically defend it, not get your feelings hurt and tell your opponent to go away when you can't back up your empty statements.
Please take the time to formulate actual coherent sentences next time.
yes our parents should be able to put us on birthcontrol because just in case someone rapes someone else then they would have a 99% chance of not getting prego by the person that raped them.
Parents pay and raise chidlren of pregnant teens. So yeah, they should. Kids are dumb...
Oh I'm sorry. Does this argument not live up to logical standards? Give me an instance where a parent would have the authority to force birthcontrol on a child under 18 in which they were not primarily responsible for the upbringing and I'll bother arguing.
"Give me an instance where a parent would have the authority to force birthcontrol on a child under 18 in which they were not primarily responsible for the upbringing" - that's a rather ambiguous phrase; what do you mean by that? Forcing birth control on a teenaged child they're not raising? Or forcing birth control on a teenaged child whose future baby they don't want to raise?
Parents may choose to pay for and raise the children of their pregnant teens. If they make that choice, good for them. If they don't want to, other options are available, among them abortion and adoption.
So even though parents don't need to raise their teenage children's offspring, they should be able to force them to go on the pill to prevent them getting pregnant? I don't get your argument.
In some areas parents can not force their child to abort or put their child up for adoption(which if your arguing that parents should be able to do such, but not force their child on birth control I have further inquires), and if they are under a certain age the parents may not be able to kick them out of the house.
Well, we've already been through this point in other posts. Here I'm asking iamdavidh for clarification on his stance. His statement "I'm all for adoption and abortion... I'm saying in the meantime" was too vague for me to base further arguments on.
I'm saying that if a teenager is already pregnant, it should be up to them what to do with their body - adoption, raise the child, abort before the third trimester.
However in the meantime, if a child is lucky enough to have parents who are overseeing their rearing, part of the "caring" for an adolescent is making them do some things they may or may not want to do. This I believe should include birth control if the parent chooses. After all, it is far easier to get a kid to take a pill than to not have sex, and it is far easier to take a pill than to raise a child, especially when one still is a child.
I disagree... but I've already written a foot-long post against enforced birth control today. The thought of having to do that again is giving me a headache >.<
Not that I'm ignoring you, I just don't want to write a long response that isn't all that different from what I've already written to casper. My other post is somewhere on this debate page, if you feel like seeing what arguments I made.
I don't believe you're exactly right on that one. Yes, it's their body, but if you were stupid enough to get pregnaut, it's not the baby's fault. I don't think we should have the right to kill it off.
parentss always want that there children would not indulge in such worst conditionss.that thay have to face problems.mostly girl got pregnant in dere seventeen or eighteen ...its not good for them to be a mother at this age..she shuold avoid such condition so that they suffer sevral problemss..regarding her life..or his children.......so people have think.....
The odds of shit like rape happening to you is very small. It's impractical to think that things like that are why birth-control should be FORCED unto minors. Birth-control can make girls uncomfortable, or it can make them more comfortable. Either way, it is a drug that fucks with their reproductive system. If a teenage girl doesn't want to take it, it is her choice. And if she fucks with no method of birth-control, so be it.
"In a federally funded nationwide survey conducted by the National Victims Center in 1992, 14 percent of women reported a completed rape, not counting cases where the victim was unable to consent."
I think teenagers have the right to reproductive autonomy as much as adults. Parents can encourage and provide birth control for their children, but mandating it crosses a line.
Do they really have "reproductive autonomy" if they themselves are dependent on another and the ones they are dependent on are legally required to take care of them? Autonomy suggests independence, which is something many teenagers do not have.
There are different levels of autonomy, and I believe physical autonomy (the right not to be assaulted, the right to accept or deny medical procedures, the right to choose sexual partners and control ones' own reproductive future, etc.) is very basic. I do not think that being financially dependent, or unable to make other decisions regarding things like career or education, should disqualify someone from controlling their own body on this level.
In many cases where a teen has a child, the grandparents of the child/ parents of the teen, act(out of necessity of their obligation to their teen) in many ways as parents to the child; it is as if they have another child. If control over how many children(biological or otherwise) you have is a fundamental right, then it seems the teen and parents both have the same right, but both can not simultaneously apply their rights. It seems that other rights are needed to determine to who gets to decide correct?
There is nothing 'necessary' about the grandparents of the baby caring for it. If the teenager retains custody, they are free to offer or withhold whatever assistance they feel is appropriate, and if they have custody of the baby and do not want it, they can surrender it. Participation in its upbringing is voluntary.
Your legally responsible for your child in till the age of 18 or 17, unless they become emancipated at 16.
The same is true of the teen being legally responsible for her child. If you refuse to care for her child, you force her to provide a roof over her child's head, to feed, cloth etc. In the mean while you must still house, feed, cloth her. it is impossible for most teens to provide for a child (child labor laws, education, etc) and have all their own needs provided for by themselves, as the parent of the teen you are still legally obligated to provide the needs of your teen. since the teen providing for the child means the teen sacrificing their own needs this means providing for their child as well. Its necessary by law.
Do they really have "reproductive autonomy" if they themselves are dependent on another and the ones they are dependent on are legally required to take care of them?
That's an odd view for a professed anarchist. If you don't recognise the moral right to control one's own body, what moral rights do you recognise?
Its small minded to think that i do not accept that people should have control over their own bodies.
I should like to know how one can respect a person's moral right to control their own body and yet consider financial dependence a mitigating factor. If being financially dependent upon somebody annuls that right, then childhood constitutes slavery.
Abortion shouldn't be used as birth control. No matter what people say, it's killing life (or killing potential life, which is generally the same thing). If you're dumb enough to have unprotected sex, you deserve to have a kid.
And why shouldn't parents put their kids on BC? If you're not old enough to drive, smoke, drink (different topic[1]) vote, go to war, or buy pronography, you're not old enough to either have a child or have an abortion.
But, in the end, none of our opinions matter, because it's ultimately up to your PARENTS to decide. That's the point of having parents. It may seem tedious for a while, but, in your early teens, you really shouldn't be taking care of yourself yet.
-----
[1] Judging by other laws, legal drinking age should be dropped down to 18 (you're old enough to poison your lungs and poison your mind, why not poison your liver while you're at it?)
"Each year, almost half of all pregnancies among American women are unintended.1 About half of these unplanned pregnancies, 1.3 million each year, are ended by abortion.
There are many myths and misconceptions about who gets abortions, and why. The fact is that the women who have abortions come from all racial, ethnic, socioeconomic, and religious backgrounds. If current rates continue, it is estimated that 35% of all women of reproductive age in America today will have had an abortion by the time they reach the age of 45."
Also, pregnancy and childbirth should not be a form of punishment.
"Each year, almost half of all pregnancies among American women are unintended.1 About half of these unplanned pregnancies, 1.3 million each year, are ended by abortion."
I'd say a 'stupid slut' getting pregnant would qualify as 'unintended', so that really proves no point.
There are many myths and misconceptions about who gets abortions, and why. The fact is that the women who have abortions come from all racial, ethnic, socioeconomic, and religious backgrounds. If current rates continue, it is estimated that 35% of all women of reproductive age in America today will have had an abortion by the time they reach the age of 45."
I'm not arguing that a specific ethnic group or culture has higher abortion rates. I'm saying it shouldn't be used as birth control.
Also, pregnancy and childbirth should not be a form of punishment.
I totally agree. Dealing with the consequences of your actions isn't punishment, it's responsibility. I'm not advocating banning abortion (nor am I advocating for abortion), but birth control is the WRONG reason. And if you look up, I was disputing these words: I've got a form of birth control way more effective than the pill. It's called: Abortion.
I'd say a 'stupid slut' getting pregnant would qualify as 'unintended', so that really proves no point.
It pretty much takes apart your assertion that people who are 'dumb enough' to find themselves unintentionally pregnant should be punished for some reason.
I'm not arguing that a specific ethnic group or culture has higher abortion rates. I'm saying it shouldn't be used as birth control.
But you are arguing that only dumb people need it, which is false.
As for the rest of your post, I disagree with much of it, but if you don't want to see abortion banned we don't really have much to argue about. I am fine with people not supporting abortion, as long as they realize their opinions should not be legislated.
It pretty much takes apart your assertion that people who are 'dumb enough' to find themselves unintentionally pregnant should be punished for some reason.
I don't think they should be punished. My post came out wrong. They should take responsibility for their actions! That's not punishment, that's adulthood!
But you are arguing that only dumb people need it, which is false.
No, I'm not. I can see plenty of situations where it would be okay, which is why I'm not for shutting down abortion. I'm saying dumb people shouldn't have access to it.
And, ([1]), how could I legislate 'not shutting down' abortion, but not support it either? Seems odd.
Dumb people who do not want their babies should not have them, either.
I was under the impression that you wanted to legislate a ban on abortions, because most people who do not support it want to do that.
Not sure if you were making a joke or genuinely asking the emoticon question but I think they work no matter what you do. CD doesn't turn things into icons.
If your kid wants to be names 'Superman', would you allow that? I'm guessing most people wouldn't. And people who want to have sex to have fun without having to deal with the consequences have the maturity of a six-year-old. Thus, they should be treated as such.
Sorry for giving you the wrong impression on abortion. And the emoticon thing was part joke and part real. That's why I just put , so you knew I was smiling. (:) get's confusing. (So does '(:))')
Considering how many kids the average person has, compared to how much sex the average person has, I would say that no, they don't; most people regard sex as a purely recreational activity for most of their lives.
How much sex and how many kids is not a good comparison. As couples get older, they probably also use protection more to safeguard against pregnancies. (Yes, condoms aren't 100% safe, but they are probably around 95%). It may be recreational, but there are still risks, and people take them into account as they age. If brain-people (either psychologists or psychiatrists--I can never remember which) are right, than this should happen at or around or before 25, when people get mentally mature.
dude, that is terrible. do you know that some of the most active protesters against abortion are people who had one and regreted it. birth control means to prevent the conception of a baby, but abortion is ENDING the newly formed life.
Well then, FUCK TO THE YOU. That is all...................................................................................................................................................................................
First there should be an age limit and secondly i think no one should tell another person how to live their lives or what to do with their personal lives. Whether or not the person chooses to use birth control or give birth has nothing to do with anyone but herself and her parents should not be able to force her if she refuses birth control. I understand that parents can be caring and protective of their children but i also think that a young woman should be able to make her decisions freely and no one should be able to force her to use something on her body she if she refuses to. Its her body and life, not their's
That's not the problem though, usually it's the parents who won't put girls on birth control, because they either want to pretend they don't need it or think the girl is too young.
I personally had to go behind my moms back to protect myself, I asked her before and she just wouldn't do it.
So I think that girls should just have easier access to it if they want it. And it shouldn't be made into something that they should feel ashamed of either.
If they need it they should be comfortable to get it.
