Pro-life buffoons in my school

[Comrade B]

I am graduating from high school in a couple days, but that does not prevent me from stopping being disgusted by my shit school.

We have an annual "Health Fair" in one of our gyms, or a better name for it would be the "anti-drug lecture with booths". This year, there was a pro-life group handing out buttons and shit. Just thought people might get a kick out of public schools claiming that it is healthy for high school students to attempt to go through with pregnancies.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

While I'm not 100% sure on dismissing the pro-life position that suggests abortion is less desirable at a certain point, I have an analogy I think has some potential.

Imagine a person who doesn't know about virtual reality is shown images of our culture killing small children. They would condemn our acts as unethical. In reality, there is no causal link between the image presented and the criteria that make something "unethical." You're simply being confused by the fact the fetus looks human and not realizes the criteria for moral consideration have nothing to do with appearance.

After that, they have to come up with a sufficient explanation for consideration. Most of them are just nutters anyway so I'd probably get frustrated and ignore them. Unfortunately, we can't ignore them. People are listening to them.

[Klaatu]

I don't think it is fair to call pro-life people "nuts." They believe in their cause, as we believe in our cause. What if some outsiders called us socialists "nuts?" We would not think that was fair.

While I disagree with the means the pro-lifers wish to impose on pregnant women (forbid the termination of said pregnancy) I do not disagree with the ends. Purposefully ending a pregnancy for no good reason is not good. But to outlaw the practice of artificial abortion is not the best solution to the conundrum.

As an analogy, anti-narcotics laws have failed to stop the dope trade. Laws would not work to prevent abortion either, because no jury would convict a woman who had one. The solution to reducing abortions is to use the art of persuasion. Advertise, persuade, educate, counsel, and offer incentive. That is the way the country's abortion rate can be reduced. Ideally have women "not want" the abortion option. Best not done by laws.

[superiority]

I don't think it is fair to call pro-life people "nuts." They believe in their cause, as we believe in our cause.
The difference is that their cause is nutty.


What if some outsiders called us socialists "nuts?" We would not think that was fair.

I'm pretty sure people do that. Personally, I don't let it get to me.


While I disagree with the means the pro-lifers wish to impose on pregnant women (forbid the termination of said pregnancy) I do not disagree with the ends. Purposefully ending a pregnancy for no good reason is not good.
What constitutes a "good" reason? If a woman gets pregnant and decides she doesn't want to have a baby, that seems to me to be a pretty good reason to get anabortion.


That is the way the country's abortion rate can be reduced. Ideally have women "not want" the abortion option.

Why? I mean, having absolutely no personal experience, I could speculate/guess that it would probably be easier in most cases to simply never have gotten pregnant (at the very least, it's something like a couple hours gone from your life that you could have spent doing something else), but I don't see anything inherently wrong with abortion that makes abortion reduction necessary or desirable.

[Mujer Libre]

Purposefully ending a pregnancy for no good reason is not good.
Women don't have abortions for "no good reason."

They have them because they don't want to be pregnant (they they didn't have access to contraception/the contraception failed etc), or because there is a problem with the pregnancy that jeopardises their health, or the health of the foetus.

Also, people who want/need abortion should NOT be counselled not to. It's a violation of their autonomy, and their freedom to make an independent, informed decision. Of course, things can be done to avoid some terminations- like making contraception freely available and acceptable, but that has more to do with empowering women than "reducing the abortion rate."

[Klaatu]

All points taken. But don't you both agree that it would be better to have
simply fewer abortions than the-sky-is-the-limit? I'll settle for fewer.

I am not really strongly on either side, but just thinking of finding common
ground on the most divisive issue in American politics today. I believe this
abortion issue to be a cause of much animosity in the country. Abortion is
probably the main issue driving a wedge between people. If a compromise
can be achieved, a lot of other things can be resolved too, IMHO.

[TC]

All points taken. But don't you both agree that it would be better to have
simply fewer abortions than the-sky-is-the-limit? I'll settle for fewer.

I would agree that its better to have fewer unwanted pregnancies and fewer unwanted births because I think its better if more people get what they want. How they do it is up to them and they should have all options available.


I am not really strongly on either side, but just thinking of finding common
ground on the most divisive issue in American politics today.

I disagree. There is no common ground I'm willing to stand on with people who demand that, at least some women, are used as human incubators against their will; . The only common ground I can see, would be in wanting to increase the availability of contraceptives, but thats not a common ground available because the ideological drive for pro-lifers is ultimately enslaving women not saving fetuses. Otherwise they'd push birth control pills on teenagers instead of abstinence only education and they wouldn't make a rape-exception part of their program.


I believe this abortion issue to be a cause of much animosity in the country.
Patriarchy is the cause of much animosity in the country and people with an investment in the patriarchy are up in arms when women and not their husbands, fathers or churchs make decisions for their own bodies and sexuality.


If a compromise can be achieved, a lot of other things can be resolved too, IMHO.
Its no compromise for anyone who cares about the emancipation of all people to say that its okay to enslave some women (say those 6 months pregnant) so other women (say those only 3 months pregnant) can be free to decide what happens to them.

[Dr Mindbender]

I am graduating from high school in a couple days, but that does not prevent me from stopping being disgusted by my shit school.

We have an annual "Health Fair" in one of our gyms, or a better name for it would be the "anti-drug lecture with booths". This year, there was a pro-life group handing out buttons and shit. Just thought people might get a kick out of public schools claiming that it is healthy for high school students to attempt to go through with pregnancies.

You shouldve countered this by distributing pro-choice literature.

If it was me, and i was prepared, this is what i would've done.

[counterblast]

Purposefully ending a pregnancy for no good reason is not good. But to outlaw the practice of artificial abortion is not the best solution to the conundrum.


Good reason: "I want this fetus out of my body".





Laws would not work to prevent abortion either, because no jury would convict a woman who had one. The solution to reducing abortions is to use the art of persuasion

Like showing women ultrasounds of their fetuses and reminding them what wonderful lives they could lead as mothers? I believe Operation: Rescue has already discovered that "solution".

If the pro-life movement (or all you other fetus sympathizers) are so concerned with the well-being of fetuses, you should be devoting your efforts/resources on creating actual birthing machines; because most women (myself included) are tired of being expected to fill that role.

[Lynx]

The solution to reducing abortions is to use the art of persuasion. Advertise, persuade, educate, counsel, and offer incentive. That is the way the country's abortion rate can be reduced. Ideally have women "not want" the abortion option. Best not done by laws.
Best done by professionals working in those fields in a non-confrontational, non-judgmental and voluntary basis. The pro-life movement is not renowned for following a higher standard of conduct.

[Klaatu]

Thank you everyone who has commented. Points noted. This is certainly a divisive issue even among socialists.
I hope someday the issue can be resolved by compromise.:cool:

[counterblast]

Thank you everyone who has commented. Points noted. This is certainly a divisive issue even among socialists.
I hope someday the issue can be resolved by compromise.:cool:

This isn't a divisive issue among socialists. This is a divisive issue between you and everyone else on this forum.

[Il Medico]

I don't think it is fair to call pro-life people "nuts." They believe in their cause, as we believe in our cause. What if some outsiders called us socialists "nuts?"
They do!


While I disagree with the means the pro-lifers wish to impose on pregnant women (forbid the termination of said pregnancy) I do not disagree with the ends. Purposefully ending a pregnancy for no good reason is not good. But to outlaw the practice of artificial abortion is not the best solution to the conundrum.

Agreed.

[Klaatu]

"This isn't a divisive issue among socialists. This is a divisive issue between you and everyone else on this forum."

I don't think so. Carefully re-read all of the posts on this thread. I said I am in the middle of this issue.
I am not trying to preach, I am only trying to see what other people's opinions are here in Socialist Territory.
You have your opinion, I have mine. So we agree to disagree. Yes?

Thanks, Captain Jack. I think some folks here think one must be pro-abortion in order to be
a bona-fide socialist. But it boils down to an issue of individual conscience. Just like socialism itself.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

When I say "nuts," I imply that there is a common set of logical foundations. You can argue about the legitimacy of these foundations, certainly, but I behave as if they exist. When these are violated, an argument is simply ridiculous. If I argue with a libertarian about free markets, he usually obeys these foundations. When I argue with some (not all) pro-lifers, they violate these rules.

When I object, they respond with appeals to faith. In theory, you faith could be a super-sense. However, it's utterly ridiculous to tell a blind man he can't see because he isn't trying. Therefore, what's the point? How do we distinguish between hallucinations and reality. If everyone had those hallucinations, we'd call them reality. Generally, we do so by appealing to consequences. However, we couldn't perceive our consequences without our senses. What if we can't perceive the consequences because we lack the super-sense? I don't know how to resolve these kinds of disputes. I have to inherently distrust them because, well, their consequences don't work for me. If they had benign hallucinations, maybe I should believe them. If we figured out a way to convince individuals to reject faith, which I'd like to believe we can, we might have somewhere to start. Until then, the religious debates with some people are unproductive.

I suspect scientific evidence eventually result in an on/off switch for the cause of "faith." Given that it impedes reason, I imagine people given the chance to experience both would choose atheism. However, there might be a few people who are simply poorly suited to rationality. I'm poorly suited to be a bird.

Here is an interesting abortion case I thought about. It's probably impossible, in practicality. It's meant to suggest that there "could" be a case where abortion restrictions "may" be justified. You have a women with fertility issues. She has tried for years to conceive, but individual and medical efforts have failed. For all practical concerns, she is sterile, but there is a theoretically improbable chance she will have a child. Well, she gets pregnant, and she is incredibly happy.

In this case, there seems to be a problem. Are we biologically motivated to have our "own" children? I used to think no. This is a pretty bold violation of Occam's Razor, which I shave with regularly, but I'll throw it out there. "Some" humans are motivated to have biological children. More specifically, they have this motivation if they feel they have a character trait, or character train combination, that should continue. It's essentially genetic arrogance. Similarly, those who don't want children aren't biologically motivated. In fact, they are biologically motivated to avoid having children. Society may have began through the evolution of individuals. Because of the advancement of human culture, humanity is evolving as a cross-individual entity. We're evolving into utilitarians because utilitarianism is an evolutionary ideal strategy.

Even if I'm wrong with the above, the women is happy she's pregnant. We normally don't imply someone is irrational in that case. In fact, if someone loses a pregnancy, we sympathize with them. The chances of her having another biological child are astronomically low to avoid having an relevance to the issue here.

Because of a hormonal imbalance, she develops paranoia. She thinks the child is Satan and wants to have an abortion. Modern science can't correct the imbalance, but doctors hypothesize that she will be alright. After the pregnancy, or an abortion, she will feel fine. They had a similar case with this result. They can give her medication to avoid suicide, and it will essentially sedate her enough to avoid any attempts to perform an abortion herself. She will be somewhat unhappy during the pregnancy, but it will pass.

Here is the problem. She has a history of maniac depression linked to her infertility. Despite various treatments, she was constantly unhappy. Once she became pregnant, her depression was cured. She doesn't want the medication, and she wants an abortion even on the medication. The medication may be involved with some sort of anti-abortion conditioning "A Clockwork Orange" style.

Given that her rationality is impaired, from a medical standpoint, do you force the medication on her? I think you do because it's in "her" best interests. It has nothing to do with the fetus so it's not really the same kind of "anti-abortion" argument. Fair enough.

However, if we "can" infringe upon the bodily rights of individuals, where the patient is irrational, we need to refine our diagnostic criteria for irrationality. It would be a grave error to disallow any forced medical procedures. Given that, sedating a patient who meddles with his surgical wounds could be unethical. Although he doesn't express an objection to the medication, he is clearly trying to do something, and some patients do object to the medications. Can they sign post-surgery to agree? If yes, can a state of nature argument suggest "we would sign if we could have?"

Given that we can, and should, infringe on the bodily rights of patients (unless we can define bodily rights differently to avoid this), we should only do this when it's overwhelmingly viewed in the patients best interests.

1. If a women has an abortion, she may regret it.
2. We can't know with certainty if the women will regret it.
3. We can't know with certainty if the regret is rational.
4. Although I'd suggest it isn't near enough to justify restrictions, there might be some harm (based on probability) that we should attach to an abortion. If you had a 25% chance of death, it might make sense to value the harm of a surgery as 25% of death.

The analysis of risks, though, is up to the patient unless we suspect their irrationality. I'd say it's really difficult or impossible to go against abortion rights.

I will also say that I've never seen a positive argument for unlimited access to abortion (or unlimited with mental health exceptions) that I can see being theoretically "irrefutable." I think we should always vocally object to arguments in favor of restriction - of any kind. However, we should keep our minds open.

If I was doing something horrible to myself or others, and I didn't realize it, I'd want to learn why. I've never been convinced that abortion fits this category, but I'll listen if the person is reasonable.

[Dr Mindbender]

Thank you everyone who has commented. Points noted. This is certainly a divisive issue even among socialists.
I hope someday the issue can be resolved by compromise.:cool:

You cant compromise women's liberty.

The workers will never be free as long as women cant unconditionally control their own bodies.

[Klaatu]

Which is why I do not approve of anti abortion laws.

I am suggesting to pro-life activists that they are wasting their time trying
to make abortion illegal. They should persuade instead. More effective anyway.

BTW I do not mean persuasion "A Clockwork Orange" style. In that story, a convicted
criminal was given the choice of twenty years imprisonment, or "persuasion." It was
not forced, even on a criminal.

[Il Medico]

You cant compromise women's liberty.
I think you are misunderstanding FR's argument (or I am). All he is saying is that we should try to prevent unwanted pregnancy in the first place. I do not see how that compromises women's liberty. Also when it comes to the decision to have an abortion it should be up to the mother, whether she is "persuaded" by friends or family is irrelevant. That is my opinion. Also anyone who says that you have to be pro-abortion rather than just pro-choice to be a leftist is a fool and people like them will doom our cause. Same goes for the "must be atheist" crowd.

[Dr Mindbender]

I think you are misunderstanding FR's argument (or I am). All he is saying is that we should try to prevent unwanted pregnancy in the first place.

How do you 'prevent' unwanted pregnancy?

Aside from the obvious, please elaborate.

Using contraception is down to personal choice. You cant 'force' people to rubber up in a libertarian society.

I don't want the condom police crashing through my window at 2 in the morning.

[Il Medico]

One you posted twice.

How do you 'prevent' unwanted pregnancy?
Aside from the obvious, please elaborate.
There is nothing besides the obvious. Unless your go for that abstinence crap.



Using contraception is down to personal choice. You cant 'force' people to rubber up in a libertarian society.
Agreed. However, you can help people by providing contraception.


I don't want the condom police crashing through my window at 2 in the morning.
Ha Ha. Two in the morning? You cheeky leftist you. Me personally I prefer to be in bed by eight, home by twelve! :lol: Condom police. Ha Ha! :lol::lol::lol::lol:(in British copper voice)"Put ya rubbers on now or we'll hull ya down town, you cheeky bugger!!!":lol::lol::laugh::laugh:

[Pogue]

One you posted twice.

There is nothing besides the obvious. Unless your go for that abstinence crap.


Agreed. However, you can help people by providing contraception.


Ha Ha. Two in the morning? You cheeky leftist you. Me personally I prefer to be in bed by eight, home by twelve! :lol: Condom police. Ha Ha! :lol::lol::lol::lol:(in British copper voice)"Put ya rubbers on now or we'll hull ya down town, you cheeky bugger!!!":lol::lol::laugh::laugh:

I think a copper voice would be more like:

RIGHT YOU FUCKING ****S UP AGAINST THE WALL OR WE'LL FUCKING KILL YOU

[Il Medico]

I think a copper voice would be more like:

RIGHT YOU FUCKING ****S UP AGAINST THE WALL OR WE'LL FUCKING KILL YOU
True that!

[Klaatu]

Then again, there is always the "beat the bishop" option...;)

[JohnnyC]

Right to autonomy of body is necessary part of Socialism.Sexism, hidden behind false care for fetus, should be rejected outright by all socialists.Even if fetus was living human that can sense pain and think woman would STILL have right to kill it.No one can parasite inside someones body without consent no matter how much human he is. :mad:

[Klaatu]

Fetus = parasite?

That's a new one. Your mother must be proud to hear of what
you think of yourself as having been before you were born.:crying:

[JohnnyC]

Fetus = parasite?

Yes, all fetuses are parasites.At least that's what wiki say. ;)

"Parasitism is a type of symbiotic relationship between two different organisms(mother and fetus) where one organism, the parasite(fetus), takes favor from the host(mother), sometimes for a prolonged time.(pregnancy)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitism

Only thing that matters is whether "host" is willing to give "favor" to parasite or not.If host is not willing to let someone inside his body, then he should free to remove him.It doesn't matter who, or how much developed the parasite is, the question is, does he have permission to parasite or not.Simple as that if you ask me...

[Klaatu]

You added the words "fetus/mother/pregnancy." They were not in the original article.
I think it's plain to see that the implicit meaning is that "relationship between two
different organisms" is two different species, not two organisms of the same species.

Anyway, you might not get much support from the pro choice crowd by referring to the
fetus as a "parasite." That carries a negative connotation. Therefore I do not consider
myself to have been a parasite while I was in the fetal stage of life, as I have more
self-respect than that. Label yourself if you wish, but please leave me out of your theory.

[JohnnyC]

Anyway, you might not get much support from the pro choice crowd by referring to the
fetus as a "parasite." That carries a negative connotation. Therefore I do not consider
myself to have been a parasite while I was in the fetal stage of life, as I have more
self-respect than that. Label yourself if you wish, but please leave me out of your theory.

When I used the word "parasite" I only used it to describe specific relationship without any intention to make negative connotation.If you mind the word parasite, you can freely change it, but my point stays the same.


It doesn't matter who, or how much developed the fetus is, the question is, does he have permission to be in someones body or not.Simple as that if you ask me...

[Klaatu]

No, don't change anything. You have a right to express your opinion.:)

[JohnnyC]

No, don't change anything. You have a right to express your opinion.:)
I have not changed my opinions.I just changed the words so you would find it less inappropriate.;) As I said, point stays the same.

[Comrade Anarchist]

haha that sucks. i myself am pro choice. My school has an organization that promotes pro life in a redneck and ignorant way; the organization is every god damn student except for me and about 3 other people

[Verix]

Protesting abortion (while i am pro-choice) is very understandable the fetus would grow up to be a human being, BUT the vast majority of "pro-life" people dont give a damn about the fetus, they just want abortion gone because "the bible say humans are special" and all most all of them support the death penality and are pro-war making them huge hypocryts.

[Klaatu]

Right-wing people are by nature, hypocrites. You are correct: they protest abortion of a fetus, yet once that fetus is born, they turn their backs on the child (scrapping of welfare and other help programs for disadvantaged children, etc.) They also speak of "Constitutional rights" and all of that, while denying rights to gays, minorities, etc. They encourage the proliferation of guns, while also complaining about lack of law and order. I could go on for hours. This much is true: American conservatives and capitalists are the biggest hypocrites there are.