Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#156 - seizure (04/08/2014) [-]
I'm not religious, but I'm pro life and think that abortion should be limited to rape, incest and in cases when the pregnancy threatens the mother's life.

If you are a 17 year-old who decided to have unprotected sex, I'm ******* sorry, but you're just gonna have to live with the "consequences" (I'd prefer to call it "end results", because after all, by observing life, we can say that the point of life is to produce offspring, so therefore having a kid isn't the worst thing that can happen to someone). Same goes if you kill someone. For every action there's a reaction, so if you just wanna kill an unborn human being with unique DNA and get away with it, I sure as hell will take the Creationists' point of view and not support you.
User avatar #178 to #156 - nigeltheoutlaw (04/08/2014) [-]
"I think my opinion should be forced upon all other people."

User avatar #164 to #156 - fizzor (04/08/2014) [-]
I disagree with you, especially with your opinion about how teenage mothers, who in most cases can't take care of themselves, let alone a child, should live with the consequences. Sometimes they do stupid **** , which they shouldn't, but like the idiots they are, they still do. But unless they are mentally AND financially prepared to take care of the kid, they should either get an abortion or give him/her to adoption. Let's face it. Only a small fraction of a huge group, which are teenage mothers, can provide a good life for the child during the first 15-20 years of his/her life. They simply are not prepared for such a burden, not when they have just touched the adult life themselves. Abortion is not the best choice, adoption is, but I think it is incredibly selfish and cruel to keep a child and have him/her live an awful life for most of his/her early years. If giving him/her to adoption is not possible, then they should abort the child.
#166 to #164 - seizure (04/08/2014) [-]
Well, I disagree. Just because we live in a "modern" society, doesn't mean that adolescent parents can't take care of children. Old enough to bleed, old enough breed lol Hell, just a couple centuries ago in most of the world people would have kids at like 16-18 and it got us where we are now, didn't it? To prove your argument is ******** , I have two dear friends whose moms got pregnant at 15 and 17 and their dads weren't much older anyway, but they turned out pretty damn fine. I'd say that MOST of the kids would turn out just fine even if their parents had them when they were young. Hell, even I had a ******* awful life (Only my dad was employed, and we barely had any money and our two-room, rented house was leaking from everywhere. Have you tried wiping your ass with newspapers? ****** not nice.), but I grew the **** up, worked hard and am doing better than 95% of my generation (I'm 20 and have my own business, **** you I can brag). To say that a child should be aborted just because a few rough years await them is what's really ****** up. When the **** did evolution get to the point when we no longer have survival instincts?
User avatar #218 to #166 - benjaminbutton (04/08/2014) [-]
I agree and disagree. You cannot bring up the past in this argument. Think about how far we have come in the past century. The longer we wait to have children (Of course not waiting too long), the better off they are in the future. People in the past had poorer conditions, lived shorter lives, and needed to have children at an earlier age and more of them (as children died more frequently--which is interesting in its own right, because the idea of it dying on its own is considered natural--God's Will). Now we are getting to a point in society where that pressure to rush children is lifted. I'm not saying that it is foolish to have children at a young age, but I'm not really saying it is smart either. Teenagers are raging hormonal retards. Part of the reason their kids do so well is because of the flood of support they receive from family members trying to make sure the baby does ok. If they were on their own, it certainly wouldn't be so easy.

So then what about adoption? This is fine, if you are willing to give away a child you just had, to possibly risk not seeing him again or it getting into an unstable environment. That would weigh heavy on my conscious.

Then their is abortion. I can recognize where people are coming from, with different religious and moral backgrounds. I, however, don't value human life as much as others. To me, life is just life, nonsensical and a joke. Obviously, I'm not some mass murderer who goes around shooting life, because I can, at the very core of my being, respect an individuals ability to subscribe to their own ideals. Unless they are threatening my own systems of thought or others, I could give a rats ass about what they do are think, so long as they show me that same right.

I hope that helps a little bit. This is a very tricky debate.

TL;DR: Some people do not hold the idea of life to such a moral and religious ideal. Some people see it as just life--and why should they be considered any more right or wrong.
User avatar #185 to #166 - wersand (04/08/2014) [-]
I'm gonna save myself a long response and just say I disagree.
#162 to #156 - oniiking (04/08/2014) [-]
Why would you let that poor child grow up in a ****** up home just because it had incompetent parents? I'm down for punishing dumb sluts anytime but to punish an innocent child is going too far.
#163 to #162 - seizure (04/08/2014) [-]
Getting pregnant young doesn't necessarily mean that the home is going to be ****** up, nor does growing up in a ****** up home mean that you can't make a decent person of yourself. Who are we to say what an unborn who wasn't even given a shot at life could or could not accomplish?
User avatar #165 to #163 - oniiking (04/08/2014) [-]
Getting pregnant young means you weren't even responsible enough to take care of yourself. (provided it was an unexpected pregnancy, I really don't understand any 17 year old intentionally trying to get pregnant but more power to them.) If they can't even manage themselves how are they supposed to manage a child. Let's leave out the fact that a child has minimal knowledge of the world and cannot properly educate another child. But yes, theoretically a rose could bloom through the concrete but the odds of that happening and the child not just ending up like the parents are very low.
#168 to #165 - seizure (04/08/2014) [-]
So, so what? What if it does end up like the parents, would that be really so bad? Also, I don't know where you get your statistics from, but the chances of said child doing good for themselves are way better than those of rose blooming through a concrete. By your logic, all the African kids today and their parents should never have been born. Hell, why don't we just get rid of all the poor people as well?
 Friends (0)