• 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!

Pregnant Teen Wins Abortion Battle

I fully support this girls right to give birth to her child, and denounce any adult who would be evil enough to try and force an abortion on anyone.

In addition, however, I would hope that when this child is born, society will give them and their mother the type of financial and social support needed to raise it properly.
 
Pregnant Teen Wins Abortion Battle - Yahoo! News




Wow. This is odd. Not the story I thought it was going to be for sure.

Not sure how I feel about this. Who is liable for the other half of the hospital bill?

I imagine the tension in that house must be pretty high.

Who has what rights here?
When a child, a minor, is giving birth who has the ultimate say over this situation?

Exactly what rights do the parents of the pregnant child have here?

They don't have the right to force their child to commit murder. Hell you could call their attempt at forcing their child to have an abortion "child abuse."

What would people say if a parent enslaved their child, molested them, beat them, locked them in a closet?? do you think "what rights do the parents have" would go over well in those instances?

What the mother (16-year-old) should do is emancipate herself.

At any rate the parents here are totally out of line. What type of nutty parent(s) would take this issue this far? Her parents must be some pro-baby killing advocates, that or stubborn to the point of psychosis.
 
We have free will from God, which allows us to either eat the apple or not. We have laws implemented by citizens and government which allow or deny actions.
You do not have the ability to allow or deny free will, this is from God. You do have the ability to allow or deny based on law, in that you have a voice and a vote. You could vote to limit or eliminate the abortion option.

So you have the ability to take away some things, but not the free will God imparted to us all. Your message above is a rational argument for your "pro-choice" stance. You end it with the statement that you would never take away "their right to choose" as imparted by God (free will). You say specifically, "their right to choose." You did not say you would never take away "their free will" as God imparted to us all.
You qualify "Their right to choose" with the free will God imparted to us all.
You do seem to be equating the free will God gave us, with the right to choose abortion.

We currently allow the killing of unborn children by law. We once allowed the owning of other persons by law. Neither one is right. (have you ever noticed we naturally justify these kinds of actions by making a case that the victim is somehow less than a human being?) Although we have the free will to do these things as an individual or as a nation state, we still do evil with our free will choices at times, and this is one of those times.

I'm not going to sit here and argue semantics with you just because you wish to persued me to your side of the abortion debate. I said what I said and I meant it. I respect my daughter's right to choose, to do with her body that which is lawful where the issue of abortion is concerned. Thus, had she choose to have an abortion, I would have supported her decision as long as I was convinced she gave clear and careful thought to her decision. By the same token, I supported her decision to go through with the birth of my grandson as a young teen mother because I was convinced that she understood what was involved. She stepped up to her responsibility and that's all a parent could ask of his/her child. Thus, that's that!

Get off your :soap. The law is clearly on the side of the pro-choice crowd. It's that "pursuit of happiness" that grates on you pro-lifers and I get that. But the Supreme Court has spoken more than once on Rowe v Wade. Therefore, unless you wish to change the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence, I'd say your beating a :beatdeadhorse here.
 
I'm not going to sit here and argue semantics with you just because you wish to persued me to your side of the abortion debate. I said what I said and I meant it. I respect my daughter's right to choose, to do with her body that which is lawful where the issue of abortion is concerned. Thus, had she choose to have an abortion, I would have supported her decision as long as I was convinced she gave clear and careful thought to her decision. By the same token, I supported her decision to go through with the birth of my grandson as a young teen mother because I was convinced that she understood what was involved. She stepped up to her responsibility and that's all a parent could ask of his/her child. Thus, that's that!

Get off your :soap. The law is clearly on the side of the pro-choice crowd. It's that "pursuit of happiness" that grates on you pro-lifers and I get that. But the Supreme Court has spoken more than once on Rowe v Wade. Therefore, unless you wish to change the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence, I'd say your beating a :beatdeadhorse here.

Actually my major point was your twisting of Gods gift of free will to us into some kind of endorsement for choice in abortion. God doesn't mince words as you and I do.
But as for the abortion laws, well, again, I am in good company. Dr King fought the laws, and eventually won, though it cost him everything. He fought for what was right.
I don't get your "pursuit of happiness" point. Are you now saying that if you have to kill off some unborn children to be happy, that's what the founders had in mind?
The great thing about the truth is that it will prevail eventually. That is of God. If only we could learn this lesson early instead of trying what is pleasing to our hides minute by minute, we'd be better People.
 
Actually my major point was your twisting of Gods gift of free will to us into some kind of endorsement for choice in abortion.
I didn't endorse abortion, just my daughter's right to choose if SHE wanted to have one or not. BIG difference.

Dr. King fought for equality among the races. Abortion law had nothing to do with it. Furthermore, I seriously doubt our Founding Fathers knew of abortions let alone if they were practised in their time. So, I don't think "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" was truly referring to abortion rights in the strictest sense. However, I believe they DID view one's desire to do whatever they wanted with little interference from a tyrannical government as essential to both freedom and self-satisfaction - happiness - as long as such conduct was within the law and did not infring on the right's of others. Now, if you wish to have a broader philisophical debate on the morality and/or legality of abortions, I suggest you start your own thread on the matter. Otherwise, let's stay on topic where this thread is concerned, shall we?
 
Last edited:
I'm pro choice and I fully support her being able to make her own decision and believe that her parents are in the wrong. Can you find me a single pro-choice person that has argued that the parents should be able to force her to get an abortion or that she shouldn't have the right to choose?

I agree that she has the right to choose, but she must also accept responsibility and pay her own medical bills. Also, if the car does not belong to her, the court has no business forcing the parents to allow her to use it. Seems to me that, in addition to having the courage to go against her parents, which I applaud, she is also a freeloader.
 
I didn't endorse abortion, just my daughter's right to choose if SHE wanted to have one or not. BIG difference.

Dr. King fought for equality among the races. Abortion law had nothing to do with it. Furthermore, I seriously doubt our Founding Fathers knew of abortions let alone if they were practised in their time. So, I don't think "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" was truly referring to abortion rights in the strictest sense. However, I believe they DID view one's desire to do whatever they wanted with little interference from a tyrannical government as essential to both freedom and self-satisfaction - happiness - as long as such conduct was within the law and did not infring on the right's of others. Now, if you wish to have a broader philisophical debate on the morality and/or legality of abortions, I suggest you start your own thread on the matter. Otherwise, let's stay on topic where this thread is concerned, shall we?

In spite of a disagreement with you, I will say you seem like a reasonable person. I think you've just not grasped what I was trying to say in response to your post. No worries. Perhaps someone saw the point, and the value in my words.

Regarding Dr. King, it wasn't so much about equality among races as it was an argument for basic human rights. Equality among the races must follow basic rights for all of humanity, and Dr King saw this, and knew it in his heart to be true. It is where his power came from: The Truth, God's truth. . This is how the argument applies to abortion as well as emancipation of blacks. A human should always be afforded human rights, and not dehumanized for the sake of convenience and expedience. This is certainly what the founding fathers saw, regardless of the abuses of the time. They were at least able to codify these basic human rights properly, even though current law flouted them for a period, as it does now for the unborn child.

As Dr. King, I also have a dream....
 
Back
Top Bottom