CF, at 13, that girl won't be raising the child. She will either give it away for adoption or the parents will be raising it. Or, even worse.

13 you can't work legally.

Let's be real. If a 12/13/14 year old girl gets pregnant, sure, the parents can discuss it with her, but this isn't the kind of decision a 13 year old is capable of making on her own.

It has been documented that teenagers just don't have the reasoning, physically, for adult type decisions. And, living with 3 of them, I heartily concur.

Possibly, but **I** would never recommend a 13 year old have a baby.

There are inherent risks to both her and the baby. Lower birth weight, premature labor, and other things. A 13 year old girl's body isn't ready to bear children, despite the fact that it can.

Most responsible dog breeders wouldn't breed a bitch on her first couple heats. Why? Because the dog's body isn't ready yet. And neither is a girl's.

Most girls, if they are pregnant at 13, have no idea what raising a baby is. They think that they get to play dress up with a real live doll, and it will be fun and games. They have no concept of 2am feedings, colic, diaper changes, breast feeding vs bottle feeding, etc. Or how much it costs to raise a baby.

And I would never recommend that a 13-year-old engage in sexual activity and thus risk the possibility of pregnancy. But this is a different question than what I would recommend for a 13-year-old who was already pregnant.

And the most important words you wrote are "most girls."

That is one reason why each case should be considered individually.

Remember, we have distinct sides to our debates here. You guys can't debate against each other. WE just don't have that around here.

I do agree with you here. I am aware that a 13 year olds body is not ready to bear children, but at the same time - should I have the right to force her to abort? Even if I just tell her abortion is the better option, she does have the right to choose.
I mean, I myself would hate it if someone told me what I could and could not do with my body, so I don't think it is right for me to tell someone what they could and could not do. It just wouldn't feel right.

fxashun:
We are mammals first and mammalian individuals start developing at the time that the sperm and egg meet.

no, the foetus starts developing. the individual comes later.

there is "development" within an unfertilised egg and within a free living sperm. neither is identical to the parent, each is as separate from the parent as a fertilised egg. each is unique genetically and each has potential, under the right circumstances, to grow into something more. why does life not then begin before conception?

It's pretty much hard to refute without all that relativistic BS you had in that link.

it is not relativistic BS, it is simply an opinion different to yours. perhaps you could actually challenge the points made.....

The fact remains, without sperm and egg coming together, there would be no reproduction. That is an absolute in nature for complex life forms.

sperm and egg meeting is neccesary* for life, true. but it is not sufficient for life. life is more than that. as you would know after reading any of that link.

you could take your argument further and say that life begins from the moment viable sperm enters a fertile womans body as this is also neccesary* for life.

it is not sufficient for life, but then again, neither is conception sufficient.

(* under normal, "natural" circumstances. it is possible to clone a mammal without the need for sperm, or do IVF. this unarguably creates life although it is somewhat unnatural.)

What else is the human sperm and egg created foetus but a developing human? It's just a stage of human/mammalian development.

What else is the sperm going to be under the conditions in the human body? That stain on the Lewinsky's blue dress was just a stain. And an unfertilized egg is a stain on a maxi-pad.
Seems to me you are going on a HUGE leap with this. No human is gonna come from an unfertilized egg. And all humans are the result of them. We are talking about abortion. Which is the termination of a pregnancy. Which was initiated by sex between two humans. Which resulted in conception. Which created a foetus. Which the woman assumes is gonna become a baby. I doubt a woman has ever considered that she might ought to get an abortion before she has sex to remove the developing egg.

I just challenged those you just made. Here's my link that gives a pretty thorough overview of many different viewpoints.
I realize an egg and a sperm are alive. But we aren't talking about a woman removing her eggs or the use of spermicide. We are talking about a woman who once she finds out she has voluntarily performed the act that creates life for humans/mammals deciding that she didn't know that that might happen and wants to remove the developing human being from the place where all developing humans live before they can survive in the outside environment. Termination of that process for convenience is killing/murder/homicide.

But in the context of our discussion here, that isn't necessary. No one really considers the existential-ness of pregnancy when the pee-stick gets a line in it. It's pretty much assumed it's a human baby growing there.

No I couldn't. The act of placing the sperm in the body does not result in anything but sperm in the body. When you eat food, you receive no nutrients until the chemical reactions take place. You might spit it out, you might vomit it, just eating doesn't mean you are providing nutrients.
Just ejaculating into a woman doesn't mean you are going to get pregnant any more than ovulation. There is an entire process necessary for actual conception. And "placing sperm in the female body" is analogous to putting a fig newton in your mouth.

But that is the point where it starts. If the mother dies, conditions change, etc, there may be a miscarriage or whatever. But that doesn't mean that the process of the individual living thing doesn't start at conception. Your results after that may vary. But that's a constant even after a human is born. A newborn might not make it to adolescence and beyond.

Well obviously that's not what we are talking about here in a discussion about abortion then is it. Because "science" has mice making pig sperm and creating 3 parent children. So now maybe we should start rationalizing what a human being is in the first place huh?

Why isn't the female body ready for children at 13. The study didn't list any increase in maternal mortality or injury. And the increase in risk was questionable. It seems that making that assertion is grasping at straws.

At 13, a girl may be as much as 4 years past puberty, or not at all. We are making generalizations on a hypothetical, but just saying "a 13 year old can't be physically ready for children" doesn't really pan out in real life.
Most Often, "Early" Puberty Still Normal