Rape has a multitude of meanings. It can be forced sex with an assailant unknown, which is probably what you're talking about, and I don't know if it is a very frequent cause of pregnancies. In the USA, an 18-year-old having sex with a 17-year-old (or younger) is considered statutory rape, whether the two are in love or not. I can think of other circumstances, too. It's up to the woman, in my book, to decide under any circumstances (in the first three months) to continue the pregnancy or not.
Only if there is less than a four year difference in age. Otherwise it's 18. Also, if there is a teacher, doctor, counselor or boss involved it's always 18. Parents, guardians and family members over 18 (blood related or not) are charged with rape if sex with anyone under 18 occurs regardless of age differential.
I don't know anyone that was a "planned" pregnancy, before their mother found out they were pregnant, in or out of wedlock.
Meet one, sort of. I was 21 and my wife was 17 when we got married. She was pregnant, and we planned it. We both wanted kids and right away. We were engaged already, and didn't really want to wait another year to get married. She finished her senior year of HS pregnant and got straight A's. We've been married for near 30 years now. Looking back, her folks could have had me thrown in prison. I'm a lucky guy in that respect, but I consider myself luckier that they're my in-laws.
I doesn't--or shouldn't--matter any more than whether you have a gay or lesbian child. Nor should it matter if you have a child that has broken the law, in my view. Unfortunately, it does matter to some people. The religious right were at the forefront of bringing the private lives of candidates and their families into the light. I find it disgusting. Who do we want our politicians to be? Do we want to eliminate some of the best-suited, most thoughtful and caring candidates because of something that happened in their personal lives, or because of some buried family fact? Why should that matter? It's one of the reasons why I despise politics, the mean-spiritedness, the attempts to ruin someone's lives because you disagree with their point of view. The issue with Palin, for me, has to do with whether she could possibly fill ANY role in national office other than shaking hands--and I have yet to see any evidence that she can.
I don't think that I stated my personal opinion anywhere in that post. Don't try to paint the picture that people are naive and don't understand the reality of teenagers getting pregnant just because you disagree with my point. Besides that was wasn't even my point. My point was simply that if she had chosen a controversial route (abortion) that the media would not be treating this as a family issue. Since it came up, my personal opinion is pro-life. I don't think that pregnancy ruining someone's life is an argument for abortion for many reasons. 1. Why should teen sex be any different than any other teen decision that could potentially ruin someone's life? There isn't an undo button for any other aspect of life. 2. I do agree that abortion should exist as an option in cases of rape and incest. 3. Who is to say that it is guaranteed that abortion will ruin someone's life? Who are we to define what "ruined" means? I find that opinion to be self-righteous as there are many people in foreign countries who have multiple unplanned children due to lack of birth control. Are there lives ruined? Not by their standards, and really that is what matters. In fact many of those who lead simple lives may be more "happy" than we are as Americans. Really it comes down to the fact that we do not have the right to impose the "American dream" on others, even those within our country. The thing that makes the least sense about your post is that you state that your own wife was pregnant at 17 and got straight A's her senior year. So obviously it is possible to be a success as a pregnant teen, yet you argue that abortion should be an option because of the potential to ruin a teen's life?
I argue simply that the woman has a right to her body, and for any reason she sees fit, she has the right to rule over what her body is used for.
yes, you have identified the single area that she has some experience--and knowledge--in. However, this just happens to be one area where McCain has a pretty strident viewpoint, and he is unlikely to accept any cousel from her on it. It is also not something she can go off and work on by herself. Thus, I find it irrelevant.
Not to be overly cliche but it takes two to tango correct? I once knew a guy who got a girl pregnant and wanted to keep the kid, she chose to have an abortion. Is that her right simply because its her body? By your logic is it right for a woman to trap a wealthy man into paying child support for 18 years by choosing not to abort when he wants her to? As Obama said in his speech at the DNC it is important to make efforts to strengthen the family and prevent unwanted pregnancies. Left or right we can all agree on that. But to say that its a womans body and she can use it for whatever she sees fit undermines the role of a father in pregnancy in my opinion.
The baby is growing inside of the mother, the father's role hasn't begun yet. Pretty tough subject of course...
I disagree with that 100%. If a pregnant mother and the father were not on the best terms and it ended up an issue in court, 99% of judges would require the "father who's role hasn't begun yet" to help with the medical bills, correct?
Yes, it's her right to her body under any circumstance. The courts decide what the courts decide when it comes to child support, and the law is well established. Not saying I agree with it. When abortions were illegal in most places, women took coat hangers to themselves. That says a lot about the lengths they were willing to go to maintain control over their own bodies. If you don't understand why they did those things, then maybe you should consider the reasons. I'd prefer there were zero abortions, but I'm also a realist. If the guy wants to carry a baby to term in his body, that'd be his choice.
I don't really care what the legal ruling is to be honest. And what if you pay some money for medical bills? The being is not inside you, that's the ultimate point for me.
Financial responsibility is quite different than suffering physical trauma. The male experiences no standard physical hardships to his body as the result of a pregnancy.
I don't think that the motivation was to "maintain control over their bodies", you said you are a realist. Why is it that anytime someone disagrees with you it's because "they don't understand" lol? This isn't a personally close subject to me as I don't plan on having kids until I am married and am waiting until marriage to have sex, and obviously have never gotten a woman pregnant. The reason I bring up the legalities is because they completely contradict the moral logic behind abortion. To say that its a woman's right to choose does not make sense when God gave procreative power to man and woman. It doesn't make sense that the man basically stands outside while the woman makes a decision, and then he either ends up paying for the child or losing it regardless of how he feels. Until women are asexual I will always feel this way. I feel that too many use it as a cop out, an excuse to avoid the irresponsibility of something that they have gotten themselves into. I would too, abortion is murder.
