Political Crossfire Forums

[CursedLemon]

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.

My viewpoint does not require the experience of raising a child. It's like saying I have to play golf to know that the wind affects the ball.

And regardless, it shouldn't matter to Lumina whether or not I've raised a child. She should take what I say either way and respond accordingly.

Quote: 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.

Abortion isn't a statistical, concrete debate. It is, very simply, a struggle of morals.

[LostSoul3412]

Also, one of the main problems I have with these hypothetical threads is their childish attempt to get the opposition to "agree" with the desired side.

Anyone can form the desired answer with absolute control of the question, but ultimately, they have no value. Stick to the issue of abortion.

(This goes for both sides.)

[CursedLemon]

LostSoul3412 wrote: Also, one of the main problems I have with these hypothetical threads is their childish attempt to get the opposition to "agree" with the desired side.

Anyone can form the desired answer with absolute control of the question, but ultimately, they have no value. Stick to the issue of abortion.

(This goes for both sides.)

I just gave my view on it. *Shrug* I don't see how that's childish. But instead of getting real discussion, I just have people questioning my sense of logic.

[agentkgb]

CursedLemon wrote: 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.
Why?
Your argument being (again, correct me if I'm wrong) that since parents have control over a kid until he's 18 they should have control before his/her birth also, I don't see why that only applies to one parent.

[Gilbert1908]

CursedLemon wrote: 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.

OK, but children are removed from homes everyday on the "suspicion" of abuse.

And if they can not kill a "birthed" child AND the supreme court has decided that the state can proscribe the restriction on abortion begining in the 25th week of pregnancy why then can't that break point be 22 weeks or 15 weeks or 2 weeks?

[Korimyr the Rat]

Korimyr the Rat wrote: And we are justified to draw this line because children are not solely the concern of their parents.
CursedLemon wrote: I agree, but I just don't think that I, personally, am allowed to draw that line.

Are you less qualified than the selection of men and women in Washington who draw those lines for us?

[Obilisk18]

LostSoul3412 wrote: Also, one of the main problems I have with these hypothetical threads is their childish attempt to get the opposition to "agree" with the desired side.

Anyone can form the desired answer with absolute control of the question, but ultimately, they have no value. Stick to the issue of abortion.

(This goes for both sides.)

I think hypotheticals can be useful. Unfortunately, too often people present a hypothetical that has a substantial number of dis-analogies. Either that or it simply doesn't relate to the point they're trying to make.

[CursedLemon]

Korimyr the Rat wrote: Korimyr the Rat wrote: And we are justified to draw this line because children are not solely the concern of their parents.
CursedLemon wrote: I agree, but I just don't think that I, personally, am allowed to draw that line.

Are you less qualified than the selection of men and women in Washington who draw those lines for us?

I can't answer whether or not somebody is more qualified than me to make that choice.

[superskippy]

Quote: My viewpoint does not require the experience of raising a child. It's like saying I have to play golf to know that the wind affects the ball.

I never said it did thus your example doesnt make a proper connection. What I said was that debating from a hypothetical and or theoretical standpoint is far harder to argue and far weaker than one of substance or evidence.

Quote: And regardless, it shouldn't matter to Lumina whether or not I've raised a child. She should take what I say either way and respond accordingly.

Well if you are arguing from a hypothetical standpoint then it should matter if you have come close to having any experiance with your proposed hypothetical, wouldnt you agree?

Quote: Abortion isn't a statistical, concrete debate. It is, very simply, a struggle of morals.

It can be yes, but there is also a very substansive concrete debate on the biolegical and medical aspect. The focus is whether it is a child or not and thus the debate normally rages about the chromosomal evidence and the displaying of the fact that it has everything it needs to become a child, and then the biological debate that it is part of the mother as it requires it for biological support. There are volumes of evidentiary and substance based arguments. Even a struggle of Morals is based on a concrete beleif where as your argument displays neither and is based off of a philisophical point.

[Lumina]

CursedLemon wrote: Korimyr the Rat wrote: Korimyr the Rat wrote: And we are justified to draw this line because children are not solely the concern of their parents.
CursedLemon wrote: I agree, but I just don't think that I, personally, am allowed to draw that line.

Are you less qualified than the selection of men and women in Washington who draw those lines for us?

I can't answer whether or not somebody is more qualified than me to make that choice.

Well, I can. Nobody in D.C. is any more nor any less qualified than I to draw the line.

[CursedLemon]

superskippy wrote: I never said it did thus your example doesnt make a proper connection. What I said was that debating from a hypothetical and or theoretical standpoint is far harder to argue and far weaker than one of substance or evidence.

That doesn't mean that I'm wrong.

Quote: Well if you are arguing from a hypothetical standpoint then it should matter if you have come close to having any experiance with your proposed hypothetical, wouldnt you agree?

Again, why should it matter if I've had the experience? If I'm right, I'm right, and if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Experience doesn't change that.

Quote: It can be yes, but there is also a very substansive concrete debate on the biolegical and medical aspect. The focus is whether it is a child or not and thus the debate normally rages about the chromosomal evidence and the displaying of the fact that it has everything it needs to become a child, and then the biological debate that it is part of the mother as it requires it for biological support. There are volumes of evidentiary and substance based arguments. Even a struggle of Morals is based on a concrete beleif where as your argument displays neither and is based off of a philisophical point.

I was referring more to the current state of the abortion debate, where the entire argument essentially hangs on the question of when the baby actually becomes aware.

[superskippy]

Quote: That doesn't mean that I'm wrong.

Your missing the point, you claimed your point is just as valid but the fact that is universally accepted is that holding a point based on hypothetical and theoretical without supporting evidence is enormously harder to proof and as of yet you havent made your case.

Quote: Again, why should it matter if I've had the experience? If I'm right, I'm right, and if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Experience doesn't change that.

It matters a great deal if you dont have any experiance in a subject how can you expect people to take you up on your hypothetical? You dont even know if your right all you have said is that you might be right and that just because you dont have experiance doesnt mean your not. Which is a childish argument of semantics, I can say that astronauts are always lonely in space, I dont have any experiance on the matter and it is a purely theoretical point but you cant proove I am wrong. Experiance is everything it gives you credability and a basis in fact to move forward upon.

Quote: I was referring more to the current state of the abortion debate, where the entire argument essentially hangs on the question of when the baby actually becomes aware.

Now you have taken a concrete position, I would say that the debate in fact centers on when we decide to call it a life. Once that happens any talk of abortion is off the table, awareness is more of a philisophical viewpoint in my opinion as it has nothing to do with biology or medical evidence only to define a point that people can say involves being a real life.

[CursedLemon]

superskippy wrote: Quote: That doesn't mean that I'm wrong.

Your missing the point, you claimed your point is just as valid but the fact that is universally accepted is that holding a point based on hypothetical and theoretical without supporting evidence is enormously harder to proof and as of yet you havent made your case.

Quote: Again, why should it matter if I've had the experience? If I'm right, I'm right, and if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Experience doesn't change that.

It matters a great deal if you dont have any experiance in a subject how can you expect people to take you up on your hypothetical? You dont even know if your right all you have said is that you might be right and that just because you dont have experiance doesnt mean your not. Which is a childish argument of semantics, I can say that astronauts are always lonely in space, I dont have any experiance on the matter and it is a purely theoretical point but you cant proove I am wrong. Experiance is everything it gives you credability and a basis in fact to move forward upon.

Quote: I was referring more to the current state of the abortion debate, where the entire argument essentially hangs on the question of when the baby actually becomes aware.

Now you have taken a concrete position, I would say that the debate in fact centers on when we decide to call it a life. Once that happens any talk of abortion is off the table, awareness is more of a philisophical viewpoint in my opinion as it has nothing to do with biology or medical evidence only to define a point that people can say involves being a real life.

I'm trying to say that despite my lack of experience, my points still stand valid as points only. If a physics-illiterate person came up with the theory of relativity...well, he's had absolutely no background in theoretical science, so does that automatically mean that the theory of relativity is wrong? That's what I'm saying.

And my original post was trying to get away from the whole "when does life begin" debate because I don't think that should be the main issue while there's still disagreement.