Political Crossfire Forums

CursedLemon · Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 7:21 pm Post subject: Consider this...

A big staple of the anti-abotion argument is "not playing God". It doesn't have to be so religious, just the sentiment that we're not allowed to make the decision involving the life of an unborn child. It's just simply not our choice to make, apparently.

Well, think about it this way.

When you birth a child...you essentially ARE that child's God. After you give that child life, you raise them in the manner that you see fit. You dictate their interests, you shape their psychology, you are essentially their slave-driving boss. You raise them according to your own values...there is no such thing as "objectively" raising your child, because then you'd leave them to die because you don't want to make decisions for them. It's really rather Hitler-esque if you think about it. You're controlling every aspect of your child's life up until they can function properly in society, without their consent. You're engineering what YOU think is best for your child. Society has given parents the go-ahead to be total dictators of their child's lives.

So, my question is...how exactly do we draw the line at ending the child's life inside the womb? Do we stop a parent's control at that level? And on what grounds?

agentkgb · Joined: 23 Aug 2006 Posts: 2241 Location: US

I don't really have a solid stance either way with the abortion debate, but your argument seems to be that (correct me if I'm wrong) since parents have total legal control over what their children do until they're 18, they have the right to decide if they make it to birth, and to me that seems an unconvincing argument, to say the least.

CursedLemon · Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 1:08 am Post subject:

agentkgb wrote: I don't really have a solid stance either way with the abortion debate, but your argument seems to be that (correct me if I'm wrong) since parents have total legal control over what their children do until they're 18, they have the right to decide if they make it to birth, and to me that seems an unconvincing argument, to say the least.

*Shrug* I think it's a pretty solid point. Especially when you combine it with the women's-right viewpoint.

Gilbert1908 · Joined: 26 Jan 2005 Posts: 4901 Location: Boston, MA

CursedLemon wrote: A big staple of the anti-abotion argument is "not playing God". It doesn't have to be so religious, just the sentiment that we're not allowed to make the decision involving the life of an unborn child. It's just simply not our choice to make, apparently.

Well, think about it this way.

When you birth a child...you essentially ARE that child's God. After you give that child life, you raise them in the manner that you see fit. You dictate their interests, you shape their psychology, you are essentially their slave-driving boss. You raise them according to your own values...there is no such thing as "objectively" raising your child, because then you'd leave them to die because you don't want to make decisions for them. It's really rather Hitler-esque if you think about it. You're controlling every aspect of your child's life up until they can function properly in society, without their consent. You're engineering what YOU think is best for your child. Society has given parents the go-ahead to be total dictators of their child's lives.

So, my question is...how exactly do we draw the line at ending the child's life inside the womb? Do we stop a parent's control at that level? And on what grounds?

According to your premise the parents should have the right to terminate the life of thier child any time until the age of consent.

agentkgb · Joined: 23 Aug 2006 Posts: 2241 Location: US

CursedLemon wrote: agentkgb wrote: I don't really have a solid stance either way with the abortion debate, but your argument seems to be that (correct me if I'm wrong) since parents have total legal control over what their children do until they're 18, they have the right to decide if they make it to birth, and to me that seems an unconvincing argument, to say the least.

*Shrug* I think it's a pretty solid point. Especially when you combine it with the women's-right viewpoint.
But then why couldn't the father demand an abortion also, seeing as he has equal legal rights over the kid unitl they're 18 once they reach birth?

Lumina · Joined: 16 Mar 2006 Posts: 13517

CursedLemon wrote: When you birth a child...you essentially ARE that child's God. After you give that child life, you raise them in the manner that you see fit. You dictate their interests, you shape their psychology, you are essentially their slave-driving boss.

My bet is that you're a theorist rather than a parental practicioner.

CursedLemon wrote: It's really rather Hitler-esque if you think about it. You're controlling every aspect of your child's life up until they can function properly in society, without their consent. You're engineering what YOU think is best for your child. Society has given parents the go-ahead to be total dictators of their child's lives.

Being a parent is Hitleresque? Are you talking about your own folks here?

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 7633 Location: Milwaukee, WI

Lumina wrote: Being a parent is Hitleresque? Are you talking about your own folks here?

:rofl:

CursedLemon · Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 10:49 pm Post subject: Re: Consider this...

Gilbert1908 wrote: CursedLemon wrote: A big staple of the anti-abotion argument is "not playing God". It doesn't have to be so religious, just the sentiment that we're not allowed to make the decision involving the life of an unborn child. It's just simply not our choice to make, apparently.

Well, think about it this way.

When you birth a child...you essentially ARE that child's God. After you give that child life, you raise them in the manner that you see fit. You dictate their interests, you shape their psychology, you are essentially their slave-driving boss. You raise them according to your own values...there is no such thing as "objectively" raising your child, because then you'd leave them to die because you don't want to make decisions for them. It's really rather Hitler-esque if you think about it. You're controlling every aspect of your child's life up until they can function properly in society, without their consent. You're engineering what YOU think is best for your child. Society has given parents the go-ahead to be total dictators of their child's lives.

So, my question is...how exactly do we draw the line at ending the child's life inside the womb? Do we stop a parent's control at that level? And on what grounds?

According to your premise the parents should have the right to terminate the life of thier child any time until the age of consent.

I'm only looking at the things that society grants parents...nobody in society is going to give the parents permission to kill a birthed child.

CursedLemon · Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 10:50 pm Post subject:

agentkgb wrote: CursedLemon wrote: agentkgb wrote: I don't really have a solid stance either way with the abortion debate, but your argument seems to be that (correct me if I'm wrong) since parents have total legal control over what their children do until they're 18, they have the right to decide if they make it to birth, and to me that seems an unconvincing argument, to say the least.

*Shrug* I think it's a pretty solid point. Especially when you combine it with the women's-right viewpoint.
But then why couldn't the father demand an abortion also, seeing as he has equal legal rights over the kid unitl they're 18 once they reach birth?

Conflict between the parents is a whole other debate.

CursedLemon · Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 10:52 pm Post subject: Re: Consider this...

Lumina wrote: My bet is that you're a theorist rather than a parental practicioner.

Being a parent is Hitleresque? Are you talking about your own folks here?

Instead of trying to invalidate my points with completely unrelated issues and jokes, why not try taking them head on and having a discussion?

"Or can you not get past your militant God-fearing bias"?

Korimyr the Rat · Joined: 11 Jan 2006 Posts: 983 Location: Wyoming

CursedLemon wrote: So, my question is...how exactly do we draw the line at ending the child's life inside the womb? Do we stop a parent's control at that level? And on what grounds?

We draw it arbitrarily... because we need to draw some line. There must be some point between conception and legal adulthood at which a child is presumed to have either a right to life, or enough State interest to justify legal protection.

And we are justified to draw this line because children are not solely the concern of their parents. Society has a vested interest in its own future-- and the future of every society is its children.

CursedLemon · Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:20 am Post subject: Re: Consider this...

Korimyr the Rat wrote: CursedLemon wrote: So, my question is...how exactly do we draw the line at ending the child's life inside the womb? Do we stop a parent's control at that level? And on what grounds?

We draw it arbitrarily... because we need to draw some line. There must be some point between conception and legal adulthood at which a child is presumed to have either a right to life, or enough State interest to justify legal protection.

And we are justified to draw this line because children are not solely the concern of their parents. Society has a vested interest in its own future-- and the future of every society is its children.

I agree, but I just don't think that I, personally, am allowed to draw that line.

Lumina · Joined: 16 Mar 2006 Posts: 13517

CursedLemon wrote: Lumina wrote: My bet is that you're a theorist rather than a parental practicioner.

Being a parent is Hitleresque? Are you talking about your own folks here?

Instead of trying to invalidate my points with completely unrelated issues and jokes, why not try taking them head on and having a discussion?

"Or can you not get past your militant God-fearing bias"?

My apparently very young friend, there is a world of difference between the parental theories and attitudes of non-parents and those of us who actually are parents.

When you posted "After you give that child life, you raise them in the manner that you see fit. You dictate their interests, you shape their psychology, you are essentially their slave-driving boss," I realized that almost assuredly you are NOT a parent yourself.

I mean, please--parents are "slave-driving bosses"? Maybe to a teenager chafing because of parental restrictions and rules, but not to a parent. "Dictate their interests"? Bwhahahaha! Yes, I soooo wanted my kid to join the school band. I soooo wanted her to listen to "chopped and screwed" over--well, just about any other genre or subgenre of music. And I absolutely sooooo wanted her to be gay. Oh, indeed, I shaped her psychology!

And parents are "Hitleresque"? Come on now--are you 15...or 16? Which is it? Sorry, but you really did tip your hand...even to those among us at PCF more in your age group than mine.

I'm not "trying to invalidate your points with completely unrelated issues," and I'm certainly not joking. Whether you are actually a parent or just someone with parental theories isn't unrelated; it's key. I did, in fact, "take on" your "issues" and "head on"--you just don't like what I said.

And you are unwilling to answer, which, of course, is an answer itself.

If you genuinely want to have a discussion, than be adult enough to admit it if you aren't a parent yourself and your opinions are based on theory. Don't try to deflect. Whether one is actually a parent is critical to the discussion, not "unrelated."

And tossing in a remark about "militant God-fearing bias" is flamebait. Cheap, predictable flamebait at that.

Snake · Joined: 10 Oct 2006 Posts: 20016 Location: e-Thuggin

CursedLemon wrote: It's really rather Hitler-esque if you think about it. You're controlling every aspect of your child's life up until they can function properly in society, without their consent. You're engineering what YOU think is best for your child. Society has given parents the go-ahead to be total dictators of their child's lives. It's been my experience that chidren are a lot smarter than you give them credit for. A human being is capable of conforming and adapting to it's situations, regardless of how it was raised. I'm pro choice, because there are many factors and variables, and I don't think that any one of us (including me) is particularly special. But your argument blows, and is illogical.

Lumina · Joined: 16 Mar 2006 Posts: 13517

Kamel wrote: CursedLemon wrote: It's really rather Hitler-esque if you think about it. You're controlling every aspect of your child's life up until they can function properly in society, without their consent. You're engineering what YOU think is best for your child. Society has given parents the go-ahead to be total dictators of their child's lives. It's been my experience that chidren are a lot smarter than you give them credit for. A human being is capable of conforming and adapting to it's situations, regardless of how it was raised. I'm pro choice, because there are many factors and variables, and I don't think that any one of us (including me) is particularly special. But your argument blows, and is illogical.

I can agree with much of what you've said, Kamel. Children are very much more smart than they're credited with. MUCH more, even when they're little.

CursedLemon · Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 2:49 am Post subject: Re: Consider this...

Kamel wrote: CursedLemon wrote: It's really rather Hitler-esque if you think about it. You're controlling every aspect of your child's life up until they can function properly in society, without their consent. You're engineering what YOU think is best for your child. Society has given parents the go-ahead to be total dictators of their child's lives. It's been my experience that chidren are a lot smarter than you give them credit for. A human being is capable of conforming and adapting to it's situations, regardless of how it was raised. I'm pro choice, because there are many factors and variables, and I don't think that any one of us (including me) is particularly special. But your argument blows, and is illogical.

How...does that relate at all to what I said? :\

CursedLemon · Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 2:57 am Post subject: Re: Consider this...

Lumina wrote: CursedLemon wrote: Lumina wrote: My bet is that you're a theorist rather than a parental practicioner.

Being a parent is Hitleresque? Are you talking about your own folks here?

Instead of trying to invalidate my points with completely unrelated issues and jokes, why not try taking them head on and having a discussion?

"Or can you not get past your militant God-fearing bias"?

My apparently very young friend, there is a world of difference between the parental theories and attitudes of non-parents and those of us who actually are parents.

When you posted "After you give that child life, you raise them in the manner that you see fit. You dictate their interests, you shape their psychology, you are essentially their slave-driving boss," I realized that almost assuredly you are NOT a parent yourself.

I mean, please--parents are "slave-driving bosses"? Maybe to a teenager chafing because of parental restrictions and rules, but not to a parent. "Dictate their interests"? Bwhahahaha! Yes, I soooo wanted my kid to join the school band. I soooo wanted her to listen to "chopped and screwed" over--well, just about any other genre or subgenre of music. And I absolutely sooooo wanted her to be gay. Oh, indeed, I shaped her psychology!

And parents are "Hitleresque"? Come on now--are you 15...or 16? Which is it? Sorry, but you really did tip your hand...even to those among us at PCF more in your age group than mine.

I'm not "trying to invalidate your points with completely unrelated issues," and I'm certainly not joking. Whether you are actually a parent or just someone with parental theories isn't unrelated; it's key. I did, in fact, "take on" your "issues" and "head on"--you just don't like what I said.

And you are unwilling to answer, which, of course, is an answer itself.

If you genuinely want to have a discussion, than be adult enough to admit it if you aren't a parent yourself and your opinions are based on theory. Don't try to deflect. Whether one is actually a parent is critical to the discussion, not "unrelated."

And tossing in a remark about "militant God-fearing bias" is flamebait. Cheap, predictable flamebait at that.

First of all, I'm 19. Secondly, I fully admit that my opinions are that of a "theorist", but that DOESN'T make them any less valid in a debate. Thirdly, it's not flamebait, it's called biting sarcasm. Maybe you shouldn't talk about my parents if you don't want to hear anything. And for the record, my parents are about as permissive as they get. So stop making ignorant assumptions.

You can't seem to grasp two concepts I'm trying to get across; "Hitleresque" does not mean abusive, and I'm MAINLY referring to a child's early life, where their mind is essentially created. Everything you do to a child, regardless of what it is, will change how their mind is formed. It doesn't matter what approach you take, you're still going to have a gigantic impact. But you need to stop assuming I only mean negative things.

superskippy · Joined: 14 Jul 2005 Posts: 7426 Location: Petah Tikva

Quote: First of all, I'm 19. Secondly, I fully admit that my opinions are that of a "theorist", but that DOESN'T make them any less valid in a debate.

Actually and I don't mean to offend you, but yes, yes it does. Arguing from a theoretical standpoint is far less valid and far harder to give weight to and hold up in debate then is a standpoint based on the evidence given before you and arguing from that standpoint.

Secondly you seem to have taken on an attitude that since the parents are the supreme guiding force in the child's life they automatically assume excess powers over the child which is true enough. However how that is linked to abortion I fail to understand. Thus far you have drawn a purely philosophical view that the parents are not that dissimilar from god in their actions relating to the child which you have drawn into a convoluted counterpoint against the view that people shouldn't play god.

Which if I have viewed this right is a purely philosophical point and has no bearing on the actual debate on abortion and is a scholarly point and even then I must say again without meaning offense it is a very convoluted one.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 7633 Location: Milwaukee, WI

superskippy wrote: Actually and I don't mean to offend you, but yes, yes it does. Arguing from a theoretical standpoint is far less valid and far harder to give weight to and hold up in debate then is a standpoint based on the evidence given before you and arguing from that standpoint.

:tu:

Lumina · Joined: 16 Mar 2006 Posts: 13517

LostSoul3412 wrote: superskippy wrote: Actually and I don't mean to offend you, but yes, yes it does. Arguing from a theoretical standpoint is far less valid and far harder to give weight to and hold up in debate then is a standpoint based on the evidence given before you and arguing from that standpoint.

:tu:

:tu: