Metal Reviews

No, it's a child's. Read what I said.



Why are the government suddenly the bad guys? You honestly believe that faced with tabloid money, the family in question wouldn't be swayed at all? And, again, how is a child supposed to know what to do?



Christ's sakes they were general issues. You're the one bringing the entire should-abortion-even-happen debate in. And again, how is a child supposed to know what to do, and again, why should under-16s have the right to have children?



Am I wrong? Is she going to make anything of her life except shitting kids out? Why is Jade Goody a celebrity?

I'm not getting personal here, by the by. Hort de fuck does me being a lawyer or not have to do with it?



Again, why do children have the intelligence to make decisions of this sort? Or do you think that, say, there should be no age of consent? You're the one starting to fling 'OMG he's a nutter!' lines around like that's going to help your pathetic argument.



And what's this all about? I don't believe that you don't go out and set tramps on fire each night and that you secretly vote Conservative, nyah nyah. As far as I'm concerned, although kids under 16 shouldn't be fucking, as long as there are no unwanted kids as a result it's not such an awful thing, better than half-baked Xtian nonsense about not doing it.

You fling all this nonsense at me to avoid answering the question: WHY DO UNDER SIXTEEN-YEAR OLDS HAVE A RIGHT TO CHILDREN?

I was prepared to take you seriously until you mentioned abstinence. Like, that's worked so well throughout history.

Yeah you're probably right. I guess I'm just trying to impose what I think on other people even though it's not realistic...ah well. Correction: make contraception readily available. Also make abortions available if they so choose them, but if they want to have kids I don't think it's anything we should restrict...i hardly think that teen pregnancy is so serious an issue that it calls for restriction of rights.

Although it's gut-rapingly obvious to me, it's just occured to me that it might not be so to the rest of you, so let me just state this:

I do not necessarily believe in real life that people should be strapped down and forced to undergo abortions.

Ah, but I'm arguing that way in a thread that has the word 'debate' in the title?! Well, fancy that. I wonder what that possibly could mean.

Thank fuck for that. It isn't actually all that obvious... That's pretty much exactly what the phrase "mandatory abortions" implies.

I've been re-reading your last post to me and half of it is barely comprehensible, to be honest.




If I was spending such a level of energy and vitriol talking about how Tories are "scum", how their lives are pointless and they should be done away with, then yeah; you'd probably be quite justified in suspecting I have some sort of emotional issues clouding my judgement. Maybe I was molested as a child by a Tory, or something.

Anyway, you're getting a little bit too batshit for me, although if it's true that you never actually believed what you were suggesting in the first place then that's something. Anyway, seeing as you seem so eye-twitchingly hung up on one question in particular:



Yes, IMO someone under the age of 16 does have the right to have a baby. They will quite possibly fuck up their own lives by doing so, sure, but no; there is no institution that should be mandated the authority to forcibly prevent them from doing so. Our education and health systems have a duty to discourage it, and make people aware of what being pregnant actually means and requires, but that is entirely as far as it goes.

Now, whether they have a RIGHT to support from the government, i.e. in the form of benefits, is for me more of a legitimate debate to have, that isn't in such realms of sci-fi WTFage. Personally, I believe that it is right that a portion of our money in the form of taxes is spent on supporting these people. But if you don't; well, that is what voting Tory is for. But the whole "make them get rid of it" route just makes you look like a nutter, tbh.

The problem is whether children should be allowed to be born to teenage children. Is it harmful to the child? IMO, as long as we don't impose parenting standards on EVERYONE, we can't impose them only on minors.

Yes, I agree again, FS. The whole idea is on a bit of a slippery slope, because then you have to say; shouldn't we be stopping disabled people from reproducing? They are also likely to be less able to care for a child as well as an able-bodied person. What about a woman whose husband/partner leaves while they are pregnant? They are also going to be less able to care for a child than is ideal. It's not a road that you really want to be going down.

I used 'scum' as a throwaway term... you think that members of Napalm Death were molested by tories and big business? I don't know, it reads fine to me. Suggesting alternate ways of doing things that go against your personal beliefs, and consequently seeing your reaction is calling me batshit or a nutter - that's not an emotional response?

OK, let's look at it another way: would life be better were an institution to exist that made babies only possible for the 16+? I agree that benefits for the poor should be paid, but in this case at least the family were living in a £395000 house, nine kids... you can see the argument for shutting off benefits, especially with all the tabloid money that'll be spent on educational books?

You seem to be defending peoples' rights to fuck their own lives up, which is ok to a point, but where do you stand on, say, smoking in public? Should alcoholics be given liver transplants when other people need them just as badly? Where do you draw the line? Because you're ignoring the rights of the baby not to be born into a life where s/he's a celebrity teen pregnancy baby, and chances are will grow up to parent a child young itself, aren't you?

The focal point is that everyone has the right to choose, but dammit, what if some people aren't able to choose responsibly? And who can define what choosing responsibly is? IMO, a lot of people make a lot of choices every day that I just want to slap them for, but do I have the absolute objective moral knowledge?

I certainly disagree. Your examples are poor; disabled people can still work, as can single parents, and usually the disabled and single are intelligent and capable enough to at least attempt to raise a child. In our case, these children are not adults, legally able to drive, marry or even be convicted of murder - how are they able to raise a child?

Slippery slope arguments are by their very nature daft - there are clear differences between children and single parents.



Some can't choose responsibly... like children? This is my point exactly, if the parents are making the decisions with them (for them, more like) why shouldn't the government help out?

But what if some kids are able to responsibly raise children?

What if? What if some people are capable of driving safely after a bottle of whiskey? What if?

Curtail the exceptions because of the peril of the majority?

Dammit, you're defeating my "free choice" arguments with logic that I find myself agreeing with.

Check this out... http://www.tportal.hr/vijesti/svijet/98 ... ijetu.html

well... it means nothing to you but here is the rough translation:

12yearold girl from village Ostružnja near Doboj in Bosina and Herzegovina will become the youngest mother. She lives in a bastard relationship with a 24yearold Dalibor Marinković. Girls mother has informed the police about the case, but after the informational talk in the police station he was released.

EDIT: here is the translator but it's quite inaccurate...
http://www.rjecnik.net/

Dvanaestogodišnje Girl LJ. S. from the village Ostružnja near Doboj in Bosnia and Herzegovina could become the youngest mother in the world that girl should be born in a few months living in izvanbračnoj connection with dvadesetčetverogodišnjim Dalibor Marinkovic from Karavlaha near Doboj. The police registered the case thirty-year djevojčičina mother, who still has seven children . The police carried out with a pair of information talk, but they claim that they live together with the consent of parents. Emphasized that they are happy and that they do not need no man's help, says Bosnian 24sata.info.

So Zad doesn't understand the material conditions of what causes teenage pregnancy or the production and distribution of food.

My position is that sexual education needs to be taken out of the closet and at least hint to children what sex is and stop all this stork dropping babies off bullshit. To have sex be a fairy tale for thirteen years and then completely bash kids over the head with sex ed. is the wrong way to do it. Teenage pregnancy and abortions have been declining with the advent of sex ed. so providing it at an early age or at least de-mystifying sex will only help the abundance of sex blunders.

The answer if obvious: Sexual education, sexual education & more sexual education. And let abortion be a decision of the (old)parents, not the teens and, of course, not of the state. (But education about pro&cons of abortion is needed too)

Oh ffs just give it up. It really seems to me like you are not even close to an argument here... you pretty much can't back up anything you are saying at all except with more braindead ranting. The fact that you are now referring to your little scheme as the government "helping them out" speaks volumes.

Slippery slope arguments are only daft if you are assuming one small thing is going to lead to something bigger. i.e. if you assume that alcohol consumption is going to lead inexorably to alcohol abuse.

When they aren't daft is when you establish a principle that has immediate and definite relevance to a whole range of other situations. Your basis for preventing teenage pregnancy is that the mother would be less able to care for a child than otherwise. Well, exactly the same could be said for an entire range of people. You claim that "many" disabled people are perfectly capable of working and raising a child, but clearly that implies that at least "some" aren't. So, again, should those people that aren't have their babies forcibly terminated? It sounds to me like you don't really like the consequences of your own logic.



FFS get a spine Frigid. The comparison is utterly ludicrous and making it could well be classified as one of the first signs madness.

a) Driving drunk has very serious potential consequences for other people in society at large. Whereas it's only Goat that seems to think this kid having a baby is putting him in immediate and deadly peril.

b) Having a baby is one of (in fact the) most important things human beings do and is pretty much universally recognised as a source of great happiness. The reason it is not so in this case is purely because the parents have done it too early. The act of having a baby is not inherently destructive per se, as is the case with drunk driving, which has no potential benefits whatsoever.

c) WTF are you on crack?!

d) The more I think about this the more braindead it is. There is no shortage of working adults who are a danger to their children. In some cases, proactively (i.e. child abusers) rather than simply through lack of experience. Should adults be stopped from having kids?




You're always bringing in Napalm Death but I have to say on this occasion they'd probably agree with me that you are, indeed, a nutter. It's not "emotional language"; it's a colloquial expression of incredulity that someone could actually say such things whislt ostensibly being sane. Please don't try and present this like you are the reasonable one. Look at the cover of that album. They are referring to multi-billionaire plutocrats that get wealthy of the suffering of others as "scum". You are referring to a teenager that has had a premature pregnancy as "scum".

Billionaire plutocracts glorying in starvation and misery?

Teenage mother?

Hmm, yes you're finally starting to make sense

Yes indeed were I less concerned over his grip on the real world then I too would have brought up the material conditions, but first things first

The question is whether most kids are capable of raising kids. Now, one argument is that if we're not forcing standards of performance on everyone, we can't do so for only minors, right? And the other argument is that there are clear differences between adults and minors that make it possible to limit teenage parents?

Personally I'd be in favour of imposing standards of performance on everyone, but then of course the dilemma of what those standards should be arises. One side is the "right" of the parent to have children, and the other is the "right" of the child to be brought up in the best environment possible. But what is the best environment possible? Maybe growing up in a shithole builds character, look at Sepultura. I certainly sometimes wish I grew up in a less comfortable area than Switzerland, I'd be less of a lazy-ass marshmallow.