• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A case for teen pregnancy?

So this devolved into an abortion thread.

This is about how teenagers should NEVER be parents.

The kid is born into a problematic situation.

Even the parent usually ends up being a total ****tard as a result.
I don't have any children but I know people that do and they say you're never ready for them. And if people waited till they were ready to have children our species would have gone extinct
 
They were 1,000 years ago?
Dumb statement.
You think our ****ing standards for when it's OK to impregnate women NOW should be judged against what happened in Medieval times??
Or 100 years ago. Biologically has not changed much.
Maybe society has come up with dumb rules? Could be.


Seems that the early twenties is still the peak period, NOT the teenage years.

Human generation times across the past 250,000 years​

Our analyses of whole-genome data reveal an average generation time of 26.9 years across the past 250,000 years, with fathers consistently older (30.7 years) than mothers (23.2 years).​
 
I don't have any children but I know people that do and they say you're never ready for them. And if people waited till they were ready to have children our species would have gone extinct

beautiful argument for kids having kids

:wipes tear:
 
I don't have any children but I know people that do and they say you're never ready for them. And if people waited till they were ready to have children our species would have gone extinct

Yeah I see the truth in that but it's way beside my point.

Teen parents typically have it ingrained in them that they're more entitled or mature than other people and often wind up becoming massive welfare burdens on society - the mothers are typically total parasites who believe they are more deserving of other peoples' money than other people.

Actual children raising children is an incredibly understated problem in society because people become enamored with "new baby" syndrome.
 
Or 100 years ago. Biologically has not changed much.
Maybe society has come up with dumb rules? Could be.

"Dumb rules" aka norms for when a woman is financially, emotionally, and from a maturation standpoint - ready to birth and take care of a child, as opposed to when a bunch of creepy men in charge think when she's physically ready? Even if we granted your position, the ideal age would be in the twenties and not the teens. Why are you weirdos so ****ing obsessed with impregnating teenagers?

What the **** is wrong with y'all???
 
Yeah I see the truth in that but it's way beside my point.
I understand your point these l there is a point of maturity you need to reach
Teen parents typically have it ingrained in them that they're more entitled or mature than other people and often wind up becoming massive welfare burdens on society - the mothers are typically total parasites who believe they are more deserving of other peoples' money than other people.
This is true.
Actual children raising children is an incredibly understated problem in society because people become enamored with "new baby" syndrome.
You're talking about like 16-17 year olds?
 
I understand your point these l there is a point of maturity you need to reach

This is true.

You're talking about like 16-17 year olds?

Yep.

I've known of extremely low-class parasite women who deliberately get pregnant so they can get welfare.

They go through their entire lives like this and make everyone around them miserable and usually **** their children up beyond repair too.
 
Yep.

I've known of extremely low-class parasite women who deliberately get pregnant so they can get welfare.
Yeah my mother was a teenage mom and she told me all about that because when she was in high school she got put in the class with other pregnant girls this was back in the late 60s and she and my dad messed up that's what happened but some of the girls that were in there were on the third baby.

My oldest sister was adopted by my grandparents so things were a little different for her.
They go through their entire lives like this and make everyone around them miserable and usually **** their children up beyond repair too.
Yeah certainly only people who have the potential to be good parents should have kids

I agree with you.
 
Yep.

I've known of extremely low-class parasite women who deliberately get pregnant so they can get welfare.

They go through their entire lives like this and make everyone around them miserable and usually **** their children up beyond repair too.

Haven't seen the "welfare queen" stereotype in awhile, but there it is. 🤷‍♂️
 
Haven't seen the "welfare queen" stereotype in awhile, but there it is. 🤷‍♂️

I haven't really had anything to do with them at all.

They've kind of just evolved into a new kind of putrid creature these days that don't have much to do with their children at all yet go around insisting that their children are their lives despite having nothing to do with them and providing them with nothing. But the mentality is still there.

It's the Family Court system correcting itself.
 
Tomato tomato
Semantics
I'm not the one thinking the thing inside of the womb is not a person that's biologically illiterate
Prove it's a person!
Biologically illiterate person lecturing me about biology
Projection
And it means child that's like saying it's not water it's agua
More semantics
At least you're saying a child in Latin isn't a child I'm glad you changed your language to sound less ridiculous
Says then one confusing biology with linguistics
No it's not legally in many places you're not able to kill a child before they're born because their children legally.
Cite the law that affirms the unborn are legally persons!
So is it okay to kill a nino because nino isn't child he knows a different word means the same thing but different words so makes it okay to kill right?
It's ok because it's neither a child or legal person. What makes it wrong?
 
Semantics

Prove it's a person!
The claim that it's not is way more radical you have to prove that and seeing it's person in a different language doesn't prove anything
Projection

More semantics

Says then one confusing biology with linguistics
Biologically it's a person
Cite the law that affirms the unborn are legally persons!
Pregnant woman is murdered it's considered a double homicide
It's ok because it's neither a child or legal person. What makes it wrong?
 
The claim that it's not is way more radical you have to prove that and seeing it's person in a different language doesn't prove anything
Its not a person. That is established legal fact. And neither the Constitution, federal, or state laws recognize unborn personhood. And you have failed to prove otherwise.
Biologically it's a person
Personhood is a legal term. Biologically, its is a homo sapien.
Pregnant woman is murdered it's considered a double homicide
Depending on the circumstances, relevant laws, on legal charges. Its also based around harm inflicted against a woman. Either way, it does not establish or equate to legal personhood for the unborn.
 
Its not a person.
Prove it.
That is established legal fact.
That's false
And neither the Constitution, federal, or state laws recognize unborn personhood. And you have failed to prove otherwise.
also false
Personhood is a legal term. Biologically, its is a homo sapien.

Depending on the circumstances, relevant laws, on legal charges. Its also based around harm inflicted against a woman. Either way, it does not establish or equate to legal personhood for the unborn.
So pregnant woman is one person how when they're murdered is it considered a double homicide who's the other person being killed?
 
Prove it.
The US constitution, 14th Amendment, Section 1: "All PERSONS BORN or naturalized in the United States...."

Also refer to 1 US Code, is 8.
That's false

also false
Demonstrably true! See. Previous statement.
So pregnant woman is one person how when they're murdered is it considered a double homicide who's the other person being killed?
There is no other person. Thats why such laws are absurd. But a woman can still have an abortion without due process. Clearly homicide laws are not applicable.
 
The US constitution, 14th Amendment, Section 1: "All PERSONS BORN or naturalized in the United States...."

Also refer to 1 US Code, is 8.

Demonstrably true! See. Previous statement.
For the third time if you murder a pregnant woman it's considered a double homicide who's the other person?
There is no other person.
Then how's it a double homicide?
Thats why such laws are absurd.
So you making argument appealing to the law and when I point out that your argument fails you say the law that points that out is stupid what the hell is your argument?
But a woman can still have an abortion without due process. Clearly homicide laws are not applicable.
But if you kill a pregnant woman it's a double homicide why?
 
For the third time if you murder a pregnant woman it's considered a double homicide who's the other person?
Again, there is no other person!
Then how's it a double homicide?
Thats just it, it shouldn't be! Neither do homicide laws establish personhood. You're really grasping with that old and refuted double homicide trope.
So you making argument appealing to the law and when I point out that your argument fails you say the law that points that out is stupid what the hell is your argument?
My argument is based on law, particularly the Constitution and federal law. You've offered nothing to refute that in the slightest. Anything you have to offer would have be at least as valid and applicable as the Constitution and federal law. Your empty assertions and feelings of personhood do not cut it!
But if you kill a pregnant woman it's a double homicide why?
Again, it shouldn't be! What was it before such laws were passed? What is the legal basis for it?
 
Again, there is no other person!
You do understand what double homicide means right? It means you killed two people
Thats just it, it shouldn't be! Neither do homicide laws establish personhood. You're really grasping with that old and refuted double homicide trope.
You mean the law I'm grasping at the law to prove that the law is in his cut and dry as you want it to be.
My argument is based on law,
Well that's the particular straw you desperately grasping at when you got your ass handed to you with biology
particularly the Constitution and federal law. You've offered nothing to refute that in the slightest. Anything you have to offer would have be at least as valid and applicable as the Constitution and federal law. Your empty assertions and feelings of personhood do not cut it!
I think the supreme Court overruled Roe v Wade and now some states forbid abortion at a certain point why is that? Are they just big bad old meanies?
Again, it shouldn't be!
That's not an argument let's pathetically whining because the law isn't as cut and dry as your beliefs.
What was it before such laws were passed? What is the legal basis for it?
Common sense.
 
You do understand what double homicide means right? It means you killed two people
You understand that laws are legal fictions right? The law use to call little black children, property. Try a better argument. That one was too easy.
 
You do understand what double homicide means right? It means you killed two people
And you do not understand why double homicide is erroneous..
You mean the law I'm grasping at the law to prove that the law is in his cut and dry as you want it to be.
Yes, you're grasping. Both in the argument and in understanding only constitutional and federal law!
Well that's the particular straw you desperately grasping at when you got your ass handed to you with biology
Such projection, especially as you utterly failed to refute my points, legally or scientifically. All you're doing is repeating yourself, but with nothing of substance to back it up.
I think the supreme Court overruled Roe v Wade and now some states forbid abortion at a certain point why is that? Are they just big bad old meanies?
Why is it a woman can still have an abortion without due process? The states certainly cannot seem to provide a rational or legal reason to restrict abortion. Neither can you it seems!
That's not an argument let's pathetically whining because the law isn't as cut and dry as your beliefs.
Not at all. Such laws have no legal basis behind them.
Common sense.
Meaningless rhetoric and deflection. Let me know when you can provide an actual and legal argument.
 
And you do not understand why double homicide is erroneous..
That's because you can't explain it. Probably because you have no idea you just want it to be
Yes, you're grasping. Both in the argument and in understanding only constitutional and federal law!
Okay clear it up
Such projection, especially as you utterly failed to refute my points, legally or scientifically. All you're doing is repeating yourself, but with nothing of substance to back it up.
Will your point scientifically was ridiculous when a woman's pregnant she's pregnant with a toaster and it magically pops into a baby on the day of her birth.

I didn't take it seriously because it was the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
Why is it a woman can still have an abortion without due process?
Wickedness selfishness.
The states certainly cannot seem to provide a rational or legal reason to restrict abortion. Neither can you it seems!
You can't provide a rational reason murder is illegal.
Not at all. Such laws have no legal basis behind them.
So you claim yet failed to explain is it because you're incompetent?
Meaningless rhetoric and deflection. Let me know when you can provide an actual and legal argument.
I did, if you murder a pregnant woman that's a double homicide and many states restrict abortion. So you're going to tell me that this is irrational and wrong and fail to explain why. I think it's because they don't agree with you and you can't argue your point.
 
That's because you can't explain it. Probably because you have no idea you just want it to be

Okay clear it up

Will your point scientifically was ridiculous when a woman's pregnant she's pregnant with a toaster and it magically pops into a baby on the day of her birth.
That wasnt anyone's argument. That's the argument frail strawman wrangler like you rather take on. What she's pregnant with is a fertilized human egg going through the embryonic stages of development. After that is the fetal stage.
I didn't take it seriously because it was the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

Wickedness selfishness.

You can't provide a rational reason murder is illegal.

So you claim yet failed to explain is it because you're incompetent?

I did, if you murder a pregnant woman that's a double homicide and many states restrict abortion. So you're going to tell me that this is irrational and wrong and fail to explain why. I think it's because they don't agree with you and you can't argue your point.
I did. Its irrational because your argument is based on legal fictions. There was a time when killing a pregnant black woman wasnt a homicide but a destruction of private property.
 
That's because you can't explain it. Probably because you have no idea you just want it to be
I did explain it. You didn't get it. The unborn are not legal persons nor are they recognized as such.
Okay clear it up
Wthat do you not understand about the Constitution 14th Amendment and 1 US Code ss 8?
Will your point scientifically was ridiculous when a woman's pregnant she's pregnant with a toaster and it magically pops into a baby on the day of her birth.
Who said anything about toasters, except for you of course? Before you can talk embryology, you should familiarize yourself with medical terminology.
I didn't take it seriously because it was the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
In other words, you cannot refute it.
Wickedness selfishness.
Emotionalistic sanctimony!
You can't provide a rational reason murder is illegal.
Violation of one's bodily autonomy under the Constitution.
So you claim yet failed to explain is it because you're incompetent?
More projection based on your lack of understanding.
I did, if you murder a pregnant woman that's a double homicide and many states restrict abortion. So you're going to tell me that this is irrational and wrong and fail to explain why.
I did explain. You still fail to grasp it.
I think it's because they don't agree with you and you can't argue your point.
I argued the point. You failed to refute it. Let me know when you have something better than the Constitution and federal law!
 
I did explain it.
Your explanation was poor.
You didn't get it. The unborn are not legal persons nor are they recognized as such.
That's not an explanation that's just him claim you make.
Wthat do you not understand about the Constitution 14th Amendment and 1 US Code ss 8?
That has to do with citizenship.
Who said anything about toasters, except for you of course?
That's my way of mocking you that's how ridiculous your view is.
Before you can talk embryology, you should familiarize yourself with medical terminology.
No I don't really.
In other words, you cannot refute it.
It's self refuting.
Emotionalistic sanctimony!

Violation of one's bodily autonomy under the Constitution.
It's not their body.
More projection based on your lack of understanding.

I did explain. You still fail to grasp it.
No your explanation wasn't really an explanation it was kind of just you declaring things because you want them to be true
I argued the point.
You did I didn't see any arguments. I saw you make absurd claims that I rejected but no arguments so far.
You failed to refute it.
I don't refute claims you have to prove them.
Let me know when you have something better than the Constitution and federal law!
The amendment your sighting has to do with citizenship.
 
Back
Top Bottom