[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Jack_

Interesting, fair points. Thank you for at least being able to counter argue unlike some other members who abstain and simply bypass points...

Regarding the potential causes of cervical cancers - well that's an interesting one. Because as detrimental as that obviously is, I also believe it's an individuals choice as to how much they protect themselves from illness, disease and death. For example...if someone wishes to refrain from going on diets, and doesn't mind if they get fat, accepts the consequences and doesn't mind if perhaps they die young...that's their choice. Whilst other people may not act in the same way, that person is still entitled to value their life in their own particular way. So as such I believe the same applies here - and maybe then this sort of information should also be added to sex education so that it's another consequence children and young adults could take on board.

Not quite sure where I stand on your second point. It's a stress, yes, but again the potential stresses is something that should also be added to sex education lessons - and then as such people can decide whether or not they wish to take on those potential stresses. Of course that doesn't mean they'll understand how stressful it may be, so actually, that's quite a valid point you've made there.



Not really, considering you did a lot of patronising towards me in the other thread anyway, so I guess I could bring up the same point?

I was just pointing out that I'm perfectly capable of counter arguing properly, and if someone makes reasoned, valid points I'm also perfectly capable of stepping back and realising that perhaps my points have some flaws in them, instead of just bypassing points and attempting to quit the argument...some don't have those capabilities.





Or perhaps, just perhaps...you were being your usual pedantic self? As for 'digging myself out of a hole' - well, no, considering I've taken some of Shasown's let's say...more reasoned, coherent points on board and accepted that they do in some ways undermine my points. So once again, you're wrong.



If the parents are willing to take on the child - then that is their decision.

Once again: you move the goalposts: you take one strong stance and when met with valid counter points, as I made to you very early on, you then build in safety nets all over the place.

If the parents are not willing to take on the grandchild..... what then? What if the do not want a pregnant teenager in their house. You know, that same teenager that you said at the start, it was their decision - and that it was their choice. What then.....how do you propose that small matter is dealt with?

BTW: if you are going to attempt to have a mature & serious discussion: you really should reconsdder your use of the crazy smiley ..... all it's doing is highlighting a lack of maturity on your part, in my opinion.