 Quote:
Originally Posted by OKgrannie  Until the process of gestation is complete, you receive no baby. You have to allow the processes to occur. If a woman chooses to interrupt the process, that's her business. | And I and many others disagree on the "it's her business" part. Quote:
Originally Posted by OKgrannie It is too risky for a 13 year old to bear a child. It is also risky for the potential baby. Teenage Pregnancy - March of Dimes
"A teenage mother is at greater risk than women over age 20 for pregnancy complications, such as premature labor, anemia and high blood pressure (  . These risks are even greater for teens who are under 15 years old ( ." Howstuffworks "Pregnancy Complications in Teenage Mothers" "Risks Compared with mothers in older age groups, teenage mothers are at greater risk of having medical complications. Because the teenage mother is more likely to receive little or no prenatal care, she often becomes anemic and is more likely to develop preeclampsia, a severe condition associated with high blood pressure...... Pelvic bones do not reach their maximum size until about the age of 18; therefore, the pelvis of the teenage mother may not have grown enough to allow vaginal delivery of a normal-size baby. For this reason, the incidence of cesarean section is higher in teenage mothers -- a baby that can be delivered vaginally when the mother is 20 is often too large to have been delivered vaginally when she was 14 years old. Babies born to teenage mothers are more likely to die in the first year of life compared with babies born to mothers older than 20 years of age. Since the teenage mother is less likely to eat correctly during pregnancy, her baby often has a low birth weight (less than 51/2 pounds), making it more likely the baby will become ill."
| There was a study presented earlier in this thread I think that shows that "risk" to the child was negligible and not necessarily due to the age of the mother. A single digit increase in risk is hardly worthy of mentioning. http://www.defendingthetruth.com/abo...tml#post167819 (Let god be thy judge)
Additionally, the reasons gave had more to do with external forces. Not whether the girl is actually able to have the baby. C-sections are given on demand now. When adjusted for the same conditions of diet, and prenatal care, is there a significant difference? I'm not reading that there is. Quote:
Originally Posted by OKgrannie Laws against abusing children are not passed for "moral" purposes, they are passed because abused children become damaged children, who become damaged adults, who become a drain on society. Abusing children damages the whole of society. Abortion is good for society. | Is all sex between adults and children "abuse" though? The evidence is kinda murky there. This nation was built with what we now consider pedophilia-ish marriages being not all that unusual. We seemed to make it as a nation. The abusive polygamist compound in the news today seem to disprove that all child adult sex isn't necessarily abuse, just illegal...now. Society changed, not people.
Saying it is always "abuse" just justifies the laws to people that already have an aversion to it, just like calling black people animals helped white people enslave them. But really black people are human beings too, and even though it is abhorrent, just having sex with a child is just nasty, and sick, but there is proof all over the world that it ain't always as devastating as CNN makes it out to be. 
Last edited by fxashun; 04-18-2008 at 06:43 AM.
| 
04-17-2008, 08:08 PM
![[IMG][/IMG]](http://www.defendingthetruth.com/avatars/garysher.gif?type=sigpic&dateline=1221844744)
Linear Mode
