On Abortion

[Richard Nixon]

Do leftists support abortion or not? As a pro-life person I find it contradictory that leftists talk about the equalitly of all human beings yet many of them support abortion who kill hundreds of thousands each year. Your views will be appreciated.

[RedAnarchist]

There's a huge difference between a concious born human being and a clump of cells that will eventually develop into a human if allowed to do so.

[Richard Nixon]

There's a huge difference between a concious born human being and a clump of cells that will eventually develop into a human if allowed to do so.

I don't want to use the traditonal anti-abortion cliches but a fetus does have a beating heart. It will become a human being as you said and is there any true difference with an 8 month old fetus and a few days old newborn?

[fiddlesticks]

I don't want to use the traditonal anti-abortion cliches but a fetus does have a beating heart. It will become a human being as you said and is there any true difference with an 8 month old fetus and a few days old newborn?

It may have a beating heart, but does anyone recall being a fetus? People do not remember anything from before 2 years old.

I can't speak for anyone else, but abortion is only okay to me in certain situations, such as a rape that resulted in a pregnancy, or if you know it is going to be miserable and live with a terminal illness, though that is the decision of the parents.

I'd much rather see a fetus grow and be given the chance to live. Abortions should never do the job of condoms.

[Richard Nixon]

It may have a beating heart, but does anyone recall being a fetus? People do not remember anything from before 2 years old.

I can't speak for anyone else, but abortion is only okay to me in certain situations, such as a rape that resulted in a pregnancy, or if you know it is going to be miserable and live with a terminal illness, though that is the decision of the parents.

I'd much rather see a fetus grow and be given the chance to live. Abortions should never do the job of condoms.

That's more or less my views on abortion except that I find it rather self-contradictory that the rapist is not executed yet the fetus as a result of it is aborted.

[Jack]

Can a fetus live outside of the womb? It is not alive because it is not self sustaining.

[Richard Nixon]

Can a fetus live outside of the womb? It is not alive because it is not self sustaining.

An immediatly born baby will also die if left alone and until 2 or 3 years old they cannot fend for themselves.

[Jack]

An immediatly born baby will also die if left alone and until 2 or 3 years old they cannot fend for themselves.

Right, but that can be cared for outside of the womb. I wasn't talking about dying after a while, we all die some day. I'm talking about not being able to perform basic functions (breathing, moving, eating, drinking etc). So far none have survived before 22 weeks, and most of those born even just a few weeks earlier have mental or physical disabilities.

[LOLseph Stalin]

An immediatly born baby will also die if left alone and until 2 or 3 years old they cannot fend for themselves.

Yes it will, but it's not a parasite surviving solely off the mother's own nutrients. Outside the womb it still needs to be fed by the mother, but it's not being fed with her own nutrients so yes, there's a difference.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

I don't want to use the traditonal anti-abortion cliches but a fetus does have a beating heart. It will become a human being as you said and is there any true difference with an 8 month old fetus and a few days old newborn?
Yeah there is, and if the issue didn't carry such religious and moralistic baggage this would be clear as day to most people. Birth is when you are recognized by society as being a person.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Birth is when you are recognized by society as being a person.

Unless you're religious... Blah,blah, blah... :rolleyes:

[Il Medico]

It may have a beating heart, but does anyone recall being a fetus? People do not remember anything from before 2 years old.

I can't speak for anyone else, but abortion is only okay to me in certain situations, such as a rape that resulted in a pregnancy, or if you know it is going to be miserable and live with a terminal illness, though that is the decision of the parents.

I'd much rather see a fetus grow and be given the chance to live. Abortions should never do the job of condoms.
Well yes. But the debate comes down to do women have the right to have an abortion. I say yes. Whether I personally think abortion is a good idea or would want a women I was involved with to have one is irrelevant. It is her right.

[fiddlesticks]

That's more or less my views on abortion except that I find it rather self-contradictory that the rapist is not executed yet the fetus as a result of it is aborted.

I think anyone that rapes a child should be executed.

[fiddlesticks]

Well yes. But the debate comes down to do women have the right to have an abortion. I say yes. Whether I personally think abortion is a good idea or would want a women I was involved with to have one is irrelevant. It is her right.


Yes, they do... I would rather women not just abandon using prior protection and just have sex, get pregnant, and abort. But its their decision to do whatever they want to their offspring & bodies. so yeah, I concur!

[Module]

Who the fuck has sex thinking they're going to get pregnant and abort it? :confused::rolleyes:
A person isn't defined by a beating heart.
A 8 month old fetus and a baby are different in some very important ways. For examples, the baby can develop memories, opinions, relationships, thoughts and feelings etc.; the baby can interact in human society as a person, and most importantly, the baby is no longer using the woman's body to survive.
Even if the fetus was a 'person' it wouldn't have the right to use the woman's body against her will.
Richard Nixon, yes, the fetus will develop into a human being if allowed to do so. But if it isn't allowed to do so then that is of no consequence. You don't call playing conkers deforestation, so why on earth would terminating a fetus be compared to murder?
The issue of abortion is basically about women having the right to control their own bodies. Obviously the left overwhelmingly supports that, as should you.

[CommunityBeliever]

I think abortion is a small issue used to distract the people from the real cause of millions of murders; I think it does no good illegalizing it anyways because people will still do it just as much so if you want to get something good go to the source of why people actually have abortions.

[RGacky3]

Do leftists support abortion or not?

According to this board no.

I'm against abortion and against capitalism and the state, however the former cancels out the latter on this board.

[eyedrop]

How do folks against abortion feel about the morning-after pill? Isn't that technically an abortion? (If a child was concieved)


Edit; Did some quick searching and found out that the morning after pill doesn't work if the child is concieved. So forget the above.

Does anyone know when a child is concieved after sex?

[RGacky3]

How do folks against abortion feel about the morning-after pill? Isn't that technically an abortion? (If a child was concieved)

To tell you the truth I hav'nt thought about it, considering however that the main purpose is to stop contraception, rather than abort, I don't think I'd have a problem with it.

[eyedrop]

To tell you the truth I hav'nt thought about it, considering however that the main purpose is to stop contraception, rather than abort, I don't think I'd have a problem with it.

You guys should probably welcome it, as it has been the major factor in the slight decrease in abortions here.

Source (http://www.dagensmedisin.no/nyheter/2003/04/25/abortene-gar-ned--angrepill/index.xml) (Norwegian)

Although the tendency of decrease wasn't that much when I checked some tables at the statistics. (http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/03/01/20/abort_en/tab-2006-04-26-01-en.html) (statistics are in english)

On the other hand "the reason why the emergeny pill is controversial is because it in some cases works by stopping a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus" (link (http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%C3%B8dprevensjon#cite_note-mechanism_article-0)).

Couldn't find a better source on the last than wiki, so I don't know what the medical consensus on it is.

[MikeSC]

Just wondering about people being restricted for being anti-abortionists... what counts as being an anti-abortionist? Is being against late-term abortions (abortions after whenever it is that science says a fetus becomes sentient... about 8-12 weeks in I think?) in non-life-threatening situations anti-abortionist?

[Bud Struggle]

Just wondering about people being restricted for being anti-abortionists... what counts as being an anti-abortionist? Is being against late-term abortions (abortions after whenever it is that science says a fetus becomes sentient... about 8-12 weeks in I think?) in non-life-threatening situations anti-abortionist?

That's what sucks. If a baby can live outside the womb--that's ALIVE. Kill that baby--you've killed a human being.

There should be a middle ground here.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Kill that baby--you've killed a human being.


One word: Infanticide

When the fetus is in the womb, you just can't compare that to infanticide. Infanticide is defined as the intentional killing of an infant. There's no such thing as fetuscide.

[Bud Struggle]

One word: Infanticide

When the fetus is in the womb, you just can't compare that to infanticide. Infanticide is defined as the intentional killing of an infant. There's no such thing as fetuscide.

Smooooooth symantics there! You are missing my point. If it can survive on its own--no matter its location--it should be alowed to survive.

Right?

[Sarah Palin]

That's more or less my views on abortion except that I find it rather self-contradictory that the rapist is not executed yet the fetus as a result of it is aborted.

Ah so I see you support the killing of living people, but something that can't think, speak, or survive on its own- no we can't touch that!

Revleft really has no need for hypocritical right wingers to be in their midst.

[MikeSC]

I agree with Bud that there should be middle ground :thumbup1:


Ah so I see you support the killing of living people, but something that can't think, speak, or survive on its own- no we can't touch that!We can't use "speak" or "survive on it's own" as a standard for whether to let something live or not, we're not about to start euthanising the deaf, dumb and blind or people incapacitated through illness or what have you. "Think", maybe- but according to the scientists who know this kind of thing, sentience doesn't happen at either the moment of conception or the moment of birth. It's somewhere between, and I'm of the opinion that that is where we should draw the line.

This would ideally coupled with much better sex education so that people can recognise the early signs of pregnancy easily and have plenty of time to make a decision, and so on.

[Sarah Palin]

I agree with Bud that there should be middle ground :thumbup1:

We can't use "speak" or "survive on it's own" as a standard for whether to let something live or not, we're not about to start euthanising the deaf, dumb and blind or people incapacitated through illness or what have you. "Think", maybe- but according to the scientists who know this kind of thing, sentience doesn't happen at either the moment of conception or the moment of birth. It's somewhere between, and I'm of the opinion that that is where we should draw the line.

This would ideally coupled with much better sex education so that people can recognise the early signs of pregnancy easily and have plenty of time to make a decision, and so on.

Yeah I agree now that I've given it much more thought, but I didn't know how to articulate the difference between a fetus and a baby. Maybe one could take into account how a fetus lives INSIDE of another human being and could not survive without them, while a baby does not need to live inside of someone.

[Manifesto]

How do folks against abortion feel about the morning-after pill? Isn't that technically an abortion? (If a child was concieved)


Edit; Did some quick searching and found out that the morning after pill doesn't work if the child is concieved. So forget the above.

Does anyone know when a child is concieved after sex?
It takes a couple of weeks I think.

[eyedrop]

It takes a couple of weeks I think.

I found an answer for myself. Sperm can survive for a maximum of 5 days, so it has to fertilize the egg before those 5 days are over.

[RGacky3]

Maybe one could take into account how a fetus lives INSIDE of another human being and could not survive without them, while a baby does not need to live inside of someone.
__________________


Why does where you live determine your species?

[Sarah Palin]

Why does where you live determine your species?

If you'd really like to get technical:

Parasitism(as defined by wikipedia): Parasitism is a type of symbiotic relationship between two different organisms where one organism, the parasite, takes favor from the host, sometimes for a prolonged time. In general, parasites are much smaller than their hosts.

A baby can survive on its own! It does not need to receive nutrients from a chord going into its stomach, nor does a live baby need to live in ambiotic fluid.

[Module]

I agree with Bud that there should be middle ground :thumbup1:

We can't use "speak" or "survive on it's own" as a standard for whether to let something live or not, we're not about to start euthanising the deaf, dumb and blind or people incapacitated through illness or what have you. "Think", maybe- but according to the scientists who know this kind of thing, sentience doesn't happen at either the moment of conception or the moment of birth. It's somewhere between, and I'm of the opinion that that is where we should draw the line.

This would ideally coupled with much better sex education so that people can recognise the early signs of pregnancy easily and have plenty of time to make a decision, and so on.
Of course we're not going to euthanise the deaf, dumb and blind - but you're not proposing an alternative standard by which one could judge whether something should be allowed to live or not, are you?
Why is even something being of the human species the standard of whether or not something should be allowed to live? If, hypothetically, aliens came from outer space with the same level of intelligence and awareness as human beings, would you say they shouldn't be considered as our equals? How do you define a human being? Why is that a reason to protect it from death?
Why does it matter if a fetus is sentient? So are dogs and cats and sheep etc.
If instead you mean sapience, why does even that matter? The fetus is in a lightness cavity in the body of a human being. It has no thoughts or opinions or relationships or aspirations or interests, or any appreciation for life whatsoever. So why does it have any kind of a 'right' to it? The only argument for brain power is it's supposed potential for it. The protection of it's life (and the assertion of it's 'sapience') is meaningful only for the people doing the protecting, not the fetus.

But let's just say all of that's irrelevant. Does the fetus, assuming for a moment it's a 'person' who can appreciate any kind of 'social rights', even if their life depends on it, have any right to use the woman's body? No, of course it doesn't.
To use a comparison from an earlier thread, does somebody with kidney disease have the right to force somebody to have his/her kidney taken out for them to use? Of course not. Aren't we entitled to deny somebody the use of our bodies for their own benefit? Of course we are.
The issue of abortion should not be focused upon the fetus. For those who consider the fetus to be deserving of so-called 'human rights', it should be equally focused upon the woman having the abortion.
But people get so caught up with the "personhood" of the fetus that the woman is entirely forgotten (that is assuming that the woman was ever of concern to the pro-life argument) - what isn't up for debate is that the woman is a person, and she is the one for whom the decision of abortion is genuinely meaningful and relevant. There is not a 'middle ground', here. You either agree that a woman deserves control over what happens to her own body, especially when it comes to something as big a deal as a pregnancy (please don't be under the illusion it's just a harmless little bulge that suddenly appears and then one day a baby pops out), or you don't.

[MikeSC]

Of course we're not going to euthanise the deaf, dumb and blind - but you're not proposing an alternative standard by which one could judge whether something should be allowed to live or not, are you?
Why is even something being of the human species the standard of whether or not something should be allowed to live? If, hypothetically, aliens came from outer space with the same level of intelligence and awareness as human beings, would you say they shouldn't be considered as our equals? How do you define a human being? Why is that a reason to protect it from death?
Why does it matter if a fetus is sentient? So are dogs and cats and sheep etc.
If instead you mean sapience, why does even that matter? The fetus is in a lightness cavity in the body of a human being. It has no thoughts or opinions or relationships or aspirations or interests, or any appreciation for life whatsoever. So why does it have any kind of a 'right' to it? The only argument for brain power is it's supposed potential for it. The protection of it's life (and the assertion of it's 'sapience') is meaningful only for the people doing the protecting, not the fetus.

But let's just say all of that's irrelevant. Does the fetus, assuming for a moment it's a 'person' who can appreciate any kind of 'social rights', even if their life depends on it, have any right to use the woman's body? No, of course it doesn't.
To use a comparison from an earlier thread, does somebody with kidney disease have the right to force somebody to have his/her kidney taken out for them to use? Of course not. Aren't we entitled to deny somebody the use of our bodies for their own benefit? Of course we are.
The issue of abortion should not be focused upon the fetus. For those who consider the fetus to be deserving of so-called 'human rights', it should be equally focused upon the woman having the abortion.
But people get so caught up with the "personhood" of the fetus that the woman is entirely forgotten (that is assuming that the woman was ever of concern to the pro-life argument) - what isn't up for debate is that the woman is a person, and she is the one for whom the decision of abortion is genuinely meaningful and relevant. There is not a 'middle ground', here. You either agree that a woman deserves control over what happens to her own body, especially when it comes to something as big a deal as a pregnancy (please don't be under the illusion it's just a harmless little bulge that suddenly appears and then one day a baby pops out), or you don't.

Christ, wall of text- I skimmed it, and it's full of nonsense, to be frank.

I will categorically state that I'm against alien-genocide, and I don't eat meat or condone the killing of animals where it's possible to avoid.

And as for abortions- like I said, there is a point when a thing becomes a living, self-aware, thing. That's the point where removal of something that isn't alive becomes killing something that is alive. This is something science can tell us, so I'm willing to put it in the hands of scientists, rather than get pushed to extremes by opposition from either ideological group.

[RGacky3]

If you'd really like to get technical:

Parasitism(as defined by wikipedia): Parasitism is a type of symbiotic relationship between two different organisms where one organism, the parasite, takes favor from the host, sometimes for a prolonged time. In general, parasites are much smaller than their hosts.

A baby can survive on its own! It does not need to receive nutrients from a chord going into its stomach, nor does a live baby need to live in ambiotic fluid.

You did'nt show that its not the same species, it has a human genetic code.

[Bud Struggle]

Why is even something being of the human species the standard of whether or not something should be allowed to live? If, hypothetically, aliens came from outer space with the same level of intelligence and awareness as human beings, would you say they shouldn't be considered as our equals? How do you define a human being? Why is that a reason to protect it from death?


Here'a a good reason. It's best to protect everything "human" from death because we humans are such bad judges of what is actually human. We judge what is human based on our lifestyles and our timeline so that in 1830 Lily Belle Desrumeaux would have been equally blythe about Blacks not being "human as Communist Desrumeaux is today about a fetus. In 1880 Maude Desrumeaux would have been equally dismissive of Native Americans as humans as would Bertha Desrumeaux been about Jews being humans. And the list goes on.

All these people were products and their times and lifestyles--so what's to say we aren't the products or our times and lifestyles? Maybe a future generation well look back in horror at Communist Desrumeaux's pro-abortion stance as we look back at Lily Belle or Maude or Bertha.

We are just such poor judges and since we can't "know" the best we can do is err on the side of caution.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

We've had this debate, what, ten thousand times by now? Nevertheless, I do want to make a few points:


Can a fetus live outside of the womb? It is not alive because it is not self sustaining.
Asking if a fetus is alive is asking the wrong question. Of course a fetus is alive. Just like a tree is alive. A fish is alive. A bacterium is alive. Your liver is alive. But we do not grant personhood to trees, fish, bacteria, or livers.

Now, if fetuses simply grew on their own (if humans laid eggs, for example), then there would be no problem with granting them personhood. It would still be questionable whether they should count as human persons, but hey, no harm in being extra cautious. Unfortunately, humans don't lay eggs, and fetuses don't grow on their own. They grow within human beings, and this causes severe discomfort to those human beings - as well as an episode of intense pain at the end of 9 months, which has been reliably described as the most painful thing a human can experience.

So the question is: Should you have an obligation to go through 9 months of increasingly severe discomfort and disability, ending with the most painful experience of your life, to ensure the survival of an entity that may or may not count as a person?


I don't want to use the traditonal anti-abortion cliches but a fetus does have a beating heart.
Having a functioning heart does not make one a person. All vertebrates have beating hearts, you know. If you eat meat, then you routinely feast upon the flesh of something that used to have a beating heart (and maybe even cute fuzzy fur).

[Bud Struggle]

But we do not grant personhood to trees, fish, bacteria, or livers.
And some people don't (or didn't) grant personhood to Blacks, Jews or gays.

Everything human deserves our respect--and our caution--as human.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Here'a a good reason. It's best to protect everything "human" from death because we humans are such bad judges of what is actually human. We judge what is human based on our lifestyles and our timeline so that in 1830 Lily Belle Desrumeaux would have been equally blythe about Blacks not being "human as Communist Desrumeaux is today about a fetus. In 1880 Maude Desrumeaux would have been equally dismissive of Native Americans as humans as would Bertha Desrumeaux been about Jews being humans. And the list goes on.

All these people were products and their times and lifestyles--so what's to say we aren't the products or our times and lifestyles? Maybe a future generation well look back in horror at Communist Desrumeaux's pro-abortion stance as we look back at Lily Belle or Maude or Bertha.

We are just such poor judges and since we can't "know" the best we can do is err on the side of caution.
Bad analogy. Blacks, Native Americans and Jews do not live inside other people.

I'm all in favour of erring on the side of caution, but which is the side of caution here? Allowing abortion may indeed harm something that you claim should be considered a human being, but on the other hand, restricting abortion will definitely harm someone that we know for sure is a human being.


And some people don't (or didn't) grant personhood to Blacks, Jews or gays.

Everything human deserves our respect--and our caution--as human.
Including livers? Kidneys? The blood we take out for blood tests? Biologically, all these things are as human as you and me.

[Bud Struggle]

Bad analogy. Blacks, Native Americans and Jews do not live inside other people.

Who cares where they live? If a fetus can live outside the womb shouldn't that baby be given a chance? True fact: I have people that live inside MY HOUSES. I own the house and they live there (for a small stipend.;)) Do I have a right to kill them?


I'm all in favour of erring on the side of caution, but which is the side of caution here? Allowing abortion may indeed harm something that you claim should be considered a human being, but on the other hand, restricting abortion will definitely harm someone that we know for sure is a human being. Well if it will DEFINITLY KILL them maybe. But is a "life" wirth some discomfurture? Maybe it is.



Including livers? Kidneys? The blood we take out for blood tests? Biologically, all these things are as human as you and me.

That, of course wasn't my point.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

We have sufficient information to conclude that a fetus feels pain at a certain point. That is sufficient to give it moral consideration. It's whether that moral consideration is significant enough to justify infringing on the bodily rights of another human being.

If babies drowning in puddles was a regular occurrence, we would have a moral obligation to help any child we saw drowning. If people were refusing to do this based on simple inconvenience, I would think we'd be justified in taking legal action against them, preferably to prevent the death of the children.

The main issue is to what degree is "bodily control" a human right. It certainly isn't our right to control the outside of our body. We can't kill anyone we want. Therefore, if one accepts that feeling pain is sufficient for moral legitimacy, one is in a sticky situation. The vegetarian arguments provided by individuals like Peter Singer are minimizing what criteria allow for moral consideration.

I think laws diminish the ability of individuals to feel satisfaction from acting ethically. Therefore, in the long run, it's better to be pro-choice. Aristotle thinks philosophy lets individuals act as they would under law without law. I think he is right. However, the benefit of this knowledge is diminished by the presence of law itself. An individual cannot truly know they would succeed individually at solving a problem if they received help at receiving that problem. Individualism is essential to personality identity, moral accomplishment, and being human.

That's the best argument I have. My intuition tells me to be pro-choice. I've yet to align my rationality completely with this view. However, the idea of forcing someone to remain pregnant, to me, seems so repugnant I can't begin to think about being pro-life. Furthermore, the death of someone unaware of their future, your actions, and sedated properly, isn't that bad. I'm not even sure preventing a human from enduring this reality is necessarily bad or good.

[Bud Struggle]

We have sufficient information to conclude that a fetus feels pain at a certain point. That is sufficient to give it moral consideration. It's whether that moral consideration is significant enough to justify infringing on the bodily rights of another human being.

If babies drowning in puddles was a regular occurrence, we would have a moral obligation to help any child we saw drowning. If people were refusing to do this based on simple inconvenience, I would think we'd be justified in taking legal action against them, preferably to prevent the death of the children.

The main issue is to what degree is "bodily control" a human right. It certainly isn't our right to control the outside of our body. We can't kill anyone we want. Therefore, if one accepts that feeling pain is sufficient for moral legitimacy, one is in a sticky situation. The vegetarian arguments provided by individuals like Peter Singer are minimizing what criteria allow for moral consideration.

I think laws diminish the ability of individuals to feel satisfaction from acting ethically. Therefore, in the long run, it's better to be pro-choice. Aristotle thinks philosophy lets individuals act as they would under law without law. I think he is right. However, the benefit of this knowledge is diminished by the presence of law itself. An individual cannot truly know they would succeed individually at solving a problem if they received help at receiving that problem. Individualism is essential to personality identity, moral accomplishment, and being human.

That's the best argument I have. Good post up to this point. I can disagree--but you make a good point.



My intuition tells me to be pro-choice. OK------?




I've yet to align my rationality completely with this view. However, the idea of forcing someone to remain pregnant, to me, seems so repugnant I can't begin to think about being pro-life. More personal opinion, which is fine.




Furthermore, the death of someone unaware of their future, your actions, and sedated properly, isn't that bad. I'm not even sure preventing a human from enduring this reality is necessarily bad or good. So "field niggers" in the old South that had no life but to harvest cotton--no training, no education, could barely speak let alone read and write, totally unaware of anything but picking cotton--maybe they could be killed too, if convienient, of course.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

By "intuition," I mean the following. Sometimes a person tells you a completely rational story or a completely rational argument, and you still think it's wrong. However, you have no rational response for them. Of course, it may be illegitimate to trust your intuition. Your intuition could be wrong, and intuition can even change. The problem is it's often difficult to simply reject your intuition because it could be wrong. That's the nature of it.

It would take a more substantial argument, whatever that may be, to convince me to be pro-choice. People have intuitions about belief in God, for instance. They're probably wrong. However, it may take more than 1 legitimate argument to convince them. You may need to alleviate some of their worries they attach to the possibility of "what will happen" if you want to convince them. The fact that someone refuses to believe a rational argument does not mean they are irrational. There is simply some sort of dissonance going on. They have a view, somewhere in their subconscious, that rejects your conclusion. This view is neutral. it could be true or false. It is simply an individuals inclination to trust themselves.

As for the cotton issue, that is exactly what I was saying. The fact that humans are inclined to continue living doesn't mean their life is worth living. We could be mistaken. Negative Utilitarianism is often criticized as possibly causing the extinction of humanity. What I'm saying, then, is that isn't necessarily bad.

Pragmatically, I agree with you, though. I am just saying most of the preconceptions we are simply intuitive rather than logical - hence my worry about rejecting my inclination towards being pro-choice without determining what exactly makes me insistent on remaining pro-choice. I would hope it's a completely valid logical reasoning. Nobody likes having their intuition be proven wrong.

[Bud Struggle]

It would take a more substantial argument, whatever that may be, to convince me to be pro-choice.

Indeed! ;) :rolleyes::lol:

That Freudian slip aside! Good post--again. Friday night the margaretas are setting in so let me get back to you later--I have appreciated your posts for some time.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Indeed! ;) :rolleyes::lol:

That Freudian slip aside! Good post--again. Friday night the margaretas are setting in so let me get back to you later--I have appreciated your posts for some time.

Thanks. Yes, that was a slip there. I meant to say pro-life, as you mentioned.

[Sarah Palin]

You did'nt show that its not the same species, it has a human genetic code.

Um, that doesn't change the fact that it lives inside of a host and takes nutrients from it...

[Module]

Christ, wall of text- I skimmed it, and it's full of nonsense, to be frank.

I will categorically state that I'm against alien-genocide, and I don't eat meat or condone the killing of animals where it's possible to avoid.

And as for abortions- like I said, there is a point when a thing becomes a living, self-aware, thing. That's the point where removal of something that isn't alive becomes killing something that is alive. This is something science can tell us, so I'm willing to put it in the hands of scientists, rather than get pushed to extremes by opposition from either ideological group.
You skimmed it and apparently found nothing you could argue against. Well done for this non-response.



Here'a a good reason. It's best to protect everything "human" from death because we humans are such bad judges of what is actually human. We judge what is human based on our lifestyles and our timeline so that in 1830 Lily Belle Desrumeaux would have been equally blythe about Blacks not being "human as Communist Desrumeaux is today about a fetus. In 1880 Maude Desrumeaux would have been equally dismissive of Native Americans as humans as would Bertha Desrumeaux been about Jews being humans. And the list goes on.

All these people were products and their times and lifestyles--so what's to say we aren't the products or our times and lifestyles? Maybe a future generation well look back in horror at Communist Desrumeaux's pro-abortion stance as we look back at Lily Belle or Maude or Bertha.

We are just such poor judges and since we can't "know" the best we can do is err on the side of caution. This is an absolutely absurd and mindless reply to the arguments I have made. I have already said why a fetus and a baby in terms of 'personhood' are two fundamentally different things. My argument in that regard obviously is applicable to an even greater degree to Jews/blacks/Native Americans, you know, as they're adult human beings.
You're setting up a emotional strawman argument by bringing up social groups as comparable examples. The argument that a fetus is not a human being does not come from faulty social distinctions, but from scientific consideration and, frankly, common sense.
The fact that a fetus does not participate in human society, the fact it cannot comprehend social 'rights', or even the conscious human experience of life, the world around it, and it's relationships to other people is not a matter of opinion, but is fact. It is in a womb. No amount of woudla/coulda is going to change that.
'We humans' are not bad judges of what is human except for when it benefits those in power. Lily Belle, Maude and Bertha Desrumeaux don't exist. But I do. I, unlike a hypothetical Lily Belle, Maude or Bertha, live in the modern era, where the knowledge of science is far greater and far more common than it was in 1880, where everybody who wasn't a white straight male was considered subhuman on a totally fabricated basis, for the purpose of justifying and supporting socio-economic hierarchies. Fetuses aren't a social group that participates in the economic system. In fact, in 'developed' nations the low birthrate and aging population is a cause for great concern for governments, who acknowledge the need for the constant replenishment of the labour force to support a capitalist economy.

Your opposition to a woman's right to choose is based on pure emotion at best, and dishonesty at worst. To suggest I 'could' be wrong because people have been wrong in the past is simply a cheap, transparent way to avoid arguing the point.
And isn't it funny how those who 'err on the side of caution' always 'err' on the side that makes the less amount of sense ...? You might not be able to back up your point (thus feel the need to avoid committing to it), but others aren't with you on that.

[Bud Struggle]

You skimmed it and apparently found nothing you could argue against. Well done for this non-response.


This is an absolutely absurd and mindless reply to the arguments I have made. I have already said why a fetus and a baby in terms of 'personhood' are two fundamentally different things. Typical Revleft CCer introductory bluster!



My argument in that regard obviously is applicable to an even greater degree to Jews/blacks/Native Americans, you know, as they're adult human beings. Only ADULT human beings. Didn't know "Adult" was now the definition of a human being.



You're setting up a emotional strawman argument by bringing up social groups as comparable examples. The argument that a fetus is not a human being does not come from faulty social distinctions, but from scientific consideration and, frankly, common sense. Yea, science and COMMON SENSE. :lol:



The fact that a fetus does not participate in human society, the fact it cannot comprehend social 'rights', or even the conscious human experience of life, the world around it, and it's relationships to other people is not a matter of opinion, but is fact.Lily Belle Desrumeaux would have made those exact arguments about Blacks in 1830.



It is in a womb. No amount of woudla/coulda is going to change that. Lily Belle Desrumeaux would have said the same about a Black's location south of the Maxon Dixon line.




'We humans' are not bad judges of what is human except for when it benefits those in power. When it comes to unborn babies--you are in power.



Lily Belle, Maude and Bertha Desrumeaux don't exist. But I do. Other names--other places--they existed...you are all archtypes.



I, unlike a hypothetical Lily Belle, Maude or Bertha, live in the modern era, They each lived in their own "modern era." What makes your "modern era" anything special?



where the knowledge of science is far greater and far more common than it was in 1880, where everybody who wasn't a white straight male was considered subhuman on a totally fabricated basis, for the purpose of justifying and supporting socio-economic hierarchies. Now a human fetus is considered a subhuman on a totally fabricated basis, for the purpose of supporting a certain Politically Correct mindset.



Fetuses aren't a social group that participates in the economic system. Neither were women for the longest time--so you acknowledge that for a long time women weren't really human?


Your opposition to a woman's right to choose is based on pure emotion at best, and dishonesty at worst. Bluster again.



To suggest I 'could' be wrong because people have been wrong in the past is simply a cheap, transparent way to avoid arguing the point. Well you seem to be pretty wrong in the present thinking that Communism is the way of the future--so I think you have a pretty substiantial track record of being wrong.



And isn't it funny how those who 'err on the side of caution' always 'err' on the side that makes the less amount of sense ...? In YOUR HUMBLE OPINION!


You might not be able to back up your point (thus feel the need to avoid committing to it), but others aren't with you on that. I don't know. Every time I take a swing through Abortion-town I get some new doubters in full term abortion on demand. ;):)

[Kronos]

So "field niggers" in the old South that had no life but to harvest cotton--no training, no education, could barely speak let alone read and write, totally unaware of anything but picking cottonI would like to offer this song to pay tribute to our colored brothers and sisters, for their courage and perseverance during those turbulent decades, following the abolition of slavery not long before, of the 50s and 60s.

(everybody sing along)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y72cWf59Alo


Wo, are we movin' too slow?
Have you seen us,
Uncle Remus . . .
We look pretty sharp in these clothes (yes, we do)
Unless we get sprayed with a hose
It ain't bad in the day
If they squirt it your way
'Cept in the winter, when it's froze
An' it's hard if it hits
On yer nose
On yer nose

Just keep yer nose
To the grindstone, they say
Will that redeem us,
Uncle Remus . . .
I can't wait till my Fro is full-grown
I'll just throw 'way my Doo-Rag at home
I'll take a drive to BEVERLY HILLS
Just before dawn
An' knock the little jockeys
Off the rich people's lawn
An' before they get up
I'll be gone, I'll be gone
Before they get up
I'll be knocking the jockeys off the lawn
Down in the dew

[Module]

Typical Revleft CCer introductory bluster!



Only ADULT human beings. Didn't know "Adult" was now the definition of a human being.It’s not a definition. You’re avoiding the point. Both adults and new born babies are different from fetuses in the ways I have listed previously. All differences are relevant from birth. These differences are more marked in adults, therefore the point is more obvious.
Yea, science and COMMON SENSE.
Yep.


Lily Belle Desrumeaux would have made those exact arguments about Blacks in 1830.She would’ve been blatantly wrong. I’m not. You could use such responses to somebody claiming the same about rocks. You’re still not making an argument.


Lily Belle Desrumeaux would have said the same about a Black's location south of the Maxon Dixon line.Black people aren’t in wombs. See above.


When it comes to unborn babies--you are in power. You’ve avoided my point. ...You’ve even cut it out of my quotes?


Other names--other places--they existed...you are all archtypes. Pointless response, just like your comparisons.


They each lived in their own "modern era." What makes your "modern era" anything special? Same reason why my opinion on whether or not the world is round is ‘special’ compared to the opinions on the same issue of those who lived 2000 years ago. It’s called evidence.


Now a human fetus is considered a subhuman on a totally fabricated basis, for the purpose of supporting a certain Politically Correct mindset. It’s not a fabricated basis. You don’t have a response to this.


Neither were women for the longest time--so you acknowledge that for a long time women weren't really human?
Women most certainly did participate in the economic system. Unpaid work is still work. My statement that fetuses don’t participate in the economic system does not directly support the fact that they shouldn’t be regarded as a part of human society, just that they are not a socio-economic group that the ruling class has an inherent interest in subjugating.


Bluster again.


Well you seem to be pretty wrong in the present thinking that Communism is the way of the future--so I think you have a pretty substiantial track record of being wrong. Then you should have no problem demonstrating why. So, go on.

[Bud Struggle]

It’s not a definition. You’re avoiding the point. Both adults and new born babies are different from fetuses in the ways I have listed previously. All differences are relevant from birth. These differences are more marked in adults, therefore the point is more obvious.[/FONT][/COLOR];/quote] It doesn't matter that there are some differences--differences dont warrent death.

[quote]She would’ve been blatantly wrong. I’m not. No...you are as wrong as she is.


You could use such responses to somebody claiming the same about rocks. You’re still not making an argument. And you are with your appeals to "Common Sense?" :D


Black people aren’t in wombs. See above. You miss the point--Blacks were slaves in respect to their location. A fetus is not a human because of it's location.


You’ve avoided my point. ...You’ve even cut it out of my quotes? This quote:
You're setting up a emotional strawman argument by bringing up social groups as comparable examples. The argument that a fetus is not a human being does not come from faulty social distinctions, but from scientific consideration and, frankly, common sense. There is no scietific consideration--it all comes down to personal opinion as to when human life begins. There's no scientific "life-o-meter" that can tell you when life begins. It's an ethical decision--not a scientific one.



Same reason why my opinion on whether or not the world is round is ‘special’ compared to the opinions on the same issue of those who lived 2000 years ago. It’s called evidence. This is nonsense--as I said above there is no "science" as to when human life begins. It's an ethical not a scientific decision. Either side can bring in science to prove its point. But in the end it's a moral decision and nothing else.


It’s not a fabricated basis. You don’t have a response to this. For any human to decide another human isn't quite up to standards is a fabrication.



Women most certainly did participate in the economic system. Unpaid work is still work. My statement that fetuses don’t participate in the economic system does not directly support the fact that they shouldn’t be regarded as a part of human society, just that they are not a socio-economic group that the ruling class has an inherent interest in subjugating. Well you are wrong there. Fetuses contribute to the economic system just as much as unpaid women in past ages. There are entire medical hospitals and specialties, all sorts of sonogram devices--lots of drugs and plenty of other things that make fetuses as economicly viable in the Capitalist world.


Then you should have no problem demonstrating why. So, go on.You don't ACTUALLY think there's going to be a world wide Revolution and everyone's going to turn to Marx and Stalin and Trotsky, do you?

[Module]

It doesn't matter that there are some differences--differences dont warrent death.

No...you are as wrong as she is.

And you are with your appeals to "Common Sense?"

You miss the point--Blacks were slaves in respect to their location. A fetus is not a human because of it's location.

This quote: There is no scietific consideration--it all comes down to personal opinion as to when human life begins. There's no scientific "life-o-meter" that can tell you when life begins. It's an ethical decision--not a scientific one.

This is nonsense--as I said above there is no "science" as to when human life begins. It's an ethical not a scientific decision. Either side can bring in science to prove its point. But in the end it's a moral decision and nothing else.

For any human to decide another human isn't quite up to standards is a fabrication.

Well you are wrong there. Fetuses contribute to the economic system just as much as unpaid women in past ages. There are entire medical hospitals and specialties, all sorts of sonogram devices--lots of drugs and plenty of other things that make fetuses as economicly viable in the Capitalist world.

You don't ACTUALLY think there's going to be a world wide Revolution and everyone's going to turn to Marx and Stalin and Trotsky, do you?I’m not going to continue this tedious line by line arguing with you.
Ethical decisions can and should be made on the basis of the avaliable scientific evidence, not what we would wish to be true (that’s unethical, really). Like I said above, what we know about fetuses, what isn’t a matter of ethics or opinions, is that they’re in the womb. It doesn’t participate in human society as an individual. From my first post; the fetus is in a lightness cavity in the body of a human being. It has no thoughts or opinions or relationships or aspirations or interests, or any appreciation for life whatsoever. [Opinion and perception can do very little to alter that. What’s relevant is the meaning of it!] So why does it have any kind of a 'right' to it? You still haven’t answered this question.
You also haven’t answered the question of what makes somebody a human being? Is that because you don’t really have an answer to that, either?
You’re right that it’s hard to place a line where an organism becomes a human being on purely scientific grounds, because the implications and relevance is social. But what isn’t hard to do is to give scientific fact social meaning, and thus make social decisions on it’s basis. Fetuses aren’t a part and have no way to be a part of human society. We can prove this through scientific evidence. So fetuses have absolutely no claim to social equality with people.
You say that differences don’t warrant death. Not inherently, no. I’m not making any claims about anything on the basis of there being differences, but on the basis of what these differences are. I wouldn’t, for example, claim that grass isn’t the same colour as the sky because there is ‘a difference’, but because what one of those differences is, is that ‘the sky isn’t green’.
What is with you and faulty comparisons between fetuses and black people? A womb isnt just a ‘location’, a womb means that a fetus inside the womb does not interact with the world around it as an individual. Black people do, and have always done so.
And before you ask, that’s not an ‘ethical distinction’, either.
Life doesn’t mean it should be regarded as a person. So is the aforementioned grass ‘alive’. Like I said, scientific fact has social implictions.
And finally, in reference to fetuses contributing to the economic system just as much as unpaid women, you obviously have no idea what that really means. Fetuses don’t do any work, or produce anything of value. Women do, and have always done so. No drugs or ‘sonograms’ or ‘plenty of other things’ make fetuses participate in the economy. That’s all I can really say to that – that’s just factually incorrect. I’m not sure how you even thought that made sense or was true.

[Bud Struggle]

No need to copy all of the above.

My point is that science tells us nothing about what makes a human beyond some random facts. It really has no explanation of consciousness (though Dennett's Consciousness Explained is a pretty good try.) Your expatiation that "humanness" has something to do with participation in society--is interesting enough, but babies don't exactly participated in society and while they and children (for the most part) don't work and don't produce anything of values are definite participants in the economy in the same way a fetus does. As to the definition of human--it's anything that is or has the potential to be a complete human being. Sperm isn't human because it's only 1/2 half of what it takes to be human. A fertilized egg is human. Now to be honest my definition is as arbitrary as your definition of a human as someone that has societal and economic viability.

The real problem though is that of rights. And rights are totally subjective. If there are God given rights than those rights are determined by the nature of the universe--if there is no God then all rights are arbitrary. A fetus can have rights in some societies, not in others. A woman can have rights in some societies and not in others. There is no right and wrong to slavery because no one has any natural right to be free. All rights come from society.

My position is that since ANYTHING can be ethical we should err on the side of caution and treat all human life as equal. Treat a Black as the same as a white as the same as a woman as the same as a fetus. We should treat everything human with the same moral worth.

That would help us avoid the mistakes we've made in the past.

[Module]

No need to copy all of the above.

My point is that science tells us nothing about what makes a human beyond some random facts. It really has no explanation of consciousness (though Dennett's Consciousness Explained is a pretty good try.) Your expatiation that "humanness" has something to do with participation in society--is interesting enough, but babies don't exactly participated in society and while they and children (for the most part) don't work and don't produce anything of values are definite participants in the economy in the same way a fetus does. As to the definition of human--it's anything that is or has the potential to be a complete human being. Sperm isn't human because it's only 1/2 half of what it takes to be human. A fertilized egg is human. Now to be honest my definition is as arbitrary as your definition of a human as someone that has societal and economic viability.

The real problem though is that of rights. And rights are totally subjective. If there are God given rights than those rights are determined by the nature of the universe--if there is no God then all rights are arbitrary. A fetus can have rights in some societies, not in others. A woman can have rights in some societies and not in others. There is no right and wrong to slavery because no one has any natural right to be free. All rights come from society.

My position is that since ANYTHING can be ethical we should err on the side of caution and treat all human life as equal. Treat a Black as the same as a white as the same as a woman as the same as a fetus. We should treat everything human with the same moral worth.

That would help us avoid the mistakes we've made in the past.Babies do participate in society. They communicate with their parents and with people around them, they acknowledge and react to their surroundings. They do that from birth. Not before.
My point about fetuses not producing anything was, and for some reason this is the third time I’m saying this, in response to you saying that denying fetuses ‘personhood’ is made of the same stuff as was denying ‘personhood’ to black people or women.
How can the definition of human be something that has the potential to be a complete human being? If it has the potential to be one then it simply isn’t one already, is it? Do we call acorns oak trees? No, of course not. They’re not oak trees, they’re acorns.
You’re correct, all rights are subjective, there is no such thing as natural rights. But when you’re arguing about whether or not it’s unjust to end something’s life you’re speaking of your own ethics, what you consider to be good social behaviour. You say that anything can be ethical, but by suggesting we err on the side of caution you have already made an ethical judgment upon which side so-called ‘caution’ is. You have made a judgment about what should be considered enough to grant personhood – being of the human species.
Societies do not produce social rights for the hell of it, they produce them as social laws, informal or formal, for the purpose of making social interaction between individuals within a society ‘easier’. Social rights don’t exist because society sees people as deserving of certain things specifically as human beings, but as persons who interact with one another within a society. If you’re suggesting that it is good social practice not to abort fetuses on the grounds that they are ‘people’, then the burden is upon you to prove why this should be the case, when in a sociological sense people they are not. A person isn’t defined simply by biology, you are right, and I have already agreed with you, there. A person, however, in regards to how they relate to ethics, is a social concept.
You can’t simply state ‘A fetus might be a person therefore we ought to err on the side of caution and presume it is so’.
A dog might be a person. A plant might be a person. A rock might be a person. You have to draw a line somewhere, and that you have. The only thing you have so far failed to do in terms of making an ethical decision in regards to abortion is actually backing up your opinion. Ethics aren’t a free for all because they’re created by humans. The very idea that killing people is wrong is an ethical idea that is not shared by all societies.
When you say that erring on the side of caution is accepting abortion as wrong then you have made an ethical decision. Why is erring on the side of caution accepting abortion is wrong and not, instead, accepting that a woman should be able to control her own body?
You also haven’t responded to one of the main points in my original post;
Even if the fetus was a person, would it have a right to use the body of a woman against her will?
Would it be right for somebody who needed an organ transplant to forcefully take out somebody else’s organs for them to use? Should that person not be able to resist? Why should a woman not resist a fetus’ using of her body against her will in the same way?
You’re perfectly entitled to your own ethical points of view, but you shouldn’t kid yourself that you’re being fair and consistent. You are totally unable to demonstrate the consistency, or justice, in your own point of view. Your only defence is ‘you might be wrong, therefore we shall assume I am right’. It’s a flawed defence! Your argument places the welfare of the fetus above the welfare of the woman herself. That alone contradicts your idea that you oppose abortion on the grounds that all ‘human beings’ should be treated equally.

[Bud Struggle]

Desrumeaux, thanks for the civility of your replies usually in these kinds of discussions I get the usual slew of insults after a post or two.

It seems we agree on quite a few points--but our conclusions are quite different.

Anyway, my point is that "personhood" if not all inclusive of everything human can and is completely arbitrary. You could look further down the Internet dial and find sites like Stormfront deciding "personhood" belongs only to people who lack of melanin in their skin or less than 1/16th part Jewish blood. Women were for the bulk of history as "the weaker sex" and looked on as something not quite fully human. All by societal definition. All though are "ethical" judgments made to produce specific ends. What makes any societies decision of what constitutes a human wrong? As far as I could see--nothing. So if a society decides a certain group of people are not deserving of personhood they can so ordain.

I rather avoid all those decisions about what personhood is and when it begins and consider everything in the chain of human life as having the rights of personhood. And here we come to the real trouble--that of the rights of a woman over her body. Who does that body belong to society or the woman? If the body belongs to society--then there is no real problem because society dictates the ethical and if society says that a baby has the right to live inside a woman's body--then it can. On the other hand if a woman "owns" her own body--she has the right to do with it as she wants, maybe. Under property rights--I certainly can do a lot of what I want with my property--but I can't kill someone that trespasses on my land.

As we live in society--I kind of think that societies preferences take precedence over that of the individual. Sovereign personhood leads to too many real problems with people living together in peace. In the end society has to make the decision on the question of who owns the baby in a woman's body. I because of the abuses of the societal definition of personhood stated above--rather think abortion should be outlawed. Actually here in the United States for the first time (in a long time) the majority of citizens are pro-life. If that trend continues--who know how society will decide?

[Rascolnikova]

There's a lovely Phillip K. Dick story in which the law defines a person as one who can do elementary algebra. I quite approve. :)


One of the unfortunate habits of revleft is that arguments on abortion tend to focus on whether or not it is ethical to have an abortion in a given circumstance. The more relevant discussion is about who should have the right to make that judgment call.

[Bud Struggle]

There's a lovely Phillip K. Dick story in which the law defines a person as one who can do elementary algebra. I quite approve. :) Well that lets me out as a person. Maybe I could find a job as someone's kitten. ;) (Because I'm so cuddley and lovelable. :rolleyes:)



One of the unfortunate habits of revleft is that arguments on abortion tend to focus on whether or not it is ethical to have an abortion in a given circumstance. The more relevant discussion is about who should have the right to make that judgment call. Hopefully, that's where I was going with my argument.

[Rascolnikova]

Well that lets me out as a person. Maybe I could find a job as someone's kitten. ;)

Oh perfect! I've always wanted to shoot you with minimal legal consequence.* :)


(Because I'm so cuddley and lovelable. :rolleyes:) not cuddley. . . terminally nice.



Hopefully, that's where I was going with my argument.I hope so too.

I'd like to point out that under plenty of legal structures, you certainly can harm someone who trespasses on your land, and you certainly can harm someone who trespasses in your body. In fact, the basis for the cases where this is not legal is that bodily integrity should outweigh property rights.

in what manner does your argument hold?



* as much as I sometimes wish I could make you face reality or shut up, I would not actually ever shoot you, or even want to, really. . . especially if you were a kitten.

This is why we need re-education camps. :)

[Bud Struggle]

Oh perfect! I've always wanted to shoot you with minimal legal consequence.* :) You're never going to make a case for Communism if you go around killing fluffy little kittens. :D


not cuddley. . . terminally nice. I'll certainly take that as a compliment!



I'd like to point out that under plenty of legal structures, you certainly can harm someone who trespasses on your land, and you certainly can harm someone who trespasses in your body. In fact, the basis for the cases where this is not legal is that bodily integrity should outweigh property rights.

in what manner does your argument hold? What I can do if someone trespasses on my land is inform the authorities that society uses to enforce its laws (the police.) They are the ones that are responsible for seeing that justice is done. Taking the "law" into my own hands is always a tricky and dangerous thing. As far as someone trespassing in your own body--that depends--if one "invites" a person into one's body (for example a woman that has concentual sex) I don't think the woman has the right to kill the guy after it's done or could society punish the man for having sex. If a woman has concentual sex that produces a baby--she shouldn't have the right to terminate that life. After all sex produces babies, there are plenty of ways of preventing insemination and she "invited" the baby in by have the sex in the first place.

I could see that rape would be quite the opposite.




* as much as I sometimes wish I could make you face reality or shut up, I would not actually ever shoot you, or even want to, really. . . especially if you were a kitten.

This is why we need re-education camps. :) :D

[Nwoye]

I posted this in another thread on abortion but I figure I'll post it here:

suppose a woman's (adult) son develops a serious and rare form of cancer, one which requires an immediate heart/liver/spleen whatever transplant. the problem is, only a direct relative can provide the new organ, and his mother is the only direct relative he has (for whatever reason). Is that mother morally obligated to give up a part of her body for the transplant? And furthermore, can the state force her to do so?

[Richard Nixon]

I posted this in another thread on abortion but I figure I'll post it here:

suppose a woman's (adult) son develops a serious and rare form of cancer, one which requires an immediate heart/liver/spleen whatever transplant. the problem is, only a direct relative can provide the new organ, and his mother is the only direct relative he has (for whatever reason). Is that mother morally obligated to give up a part of her body for the transplant? And furthermore, can the state force her to do so?

Yes because that would save a life. However I'd prefer organ harvesting from healthy prisoners.

[RedRise]

As Sedrox said, what if the transplant had to be from a direct relative?
Well assumedly, any mother who loves her child would give up a part of her body for them to live. There are even tons of stories about mothers who have given their own lives to save their children. So I think that the mother would be morally obliged to help save her son. But I don't think the state should be able to force her to do so because she has the right to make decisions about her own body.

[Module]

Bud Struggle;
I’m afraid to say that defining personhood as being ‘human’, if you consider defining personhood to be so, generally, is abitrary. That’s not any sort of scientific definition of personhood because personhood is a social concept, it is dependent upon social factors. Like I said earlier, we only give biological fact social importance – but society has scientific limits.
For example, a rock cannot, ever, be a member of society. It does not, and can not, socially interact.
If you consider personhood in regards to fetuses to be ‘arbitrary’ then you still have to justify your implied assertion that a fetus participates in human society.
The thing about, as you mentioned, societal definition, is that it is defined by society. So, in that case, the only people who are a member of society are those with the capacity to define social concepts and limits in the first place. Would you say that black people and women were considered subhuman by social definition... by white men? What about black people when they weren’t considered, by white people, to be ‘people’? What about in their own social circles? What about women? Were they subhuman because men said so? What about their own mental capacity to define social concepts? Were they not human because they, too, decided, as members of society that they weren’t members of society? See? Doesn’t work. This is why your comparison is just... wrong. People aren’t people because other people say they’re people. They not people because they’re of the human species, either. They’re people because they participate as members of society. That is not an arbitrary thing. It’s objective fact.
Fetuses, and this is also objective fact, do not participate in human society. So, why are they members of society? Because members of society have the power to define them as members of society?
Who can and cannot participate in human society is not up to whatever social group is in power to decide – but wait, I know now you’re thinking ‘So it’s not up to pregnant woman to decide fetuses aren’t people just because they’re in power, either!’ but that’s just a predictable repetitive brain fart for you – it is up to the question of whether or not something simply participates in society. It either does or it doesn’t. There’s nothing arbitrary about it. A rock doesn’t. You do. A cat doesn’t. I do. A fetus doesn’t.
The reason that you can’t see what makes certain people’s definitions of what constitutes a ‘person’ wrong is because you’ve already made up your mind that somehow a fetus is a person, therefore they fall within comparable possibilities of what other societies can widely consider to be ‘people’. If you can’t back up your opinion then, frankly, it’s totally useless.
Like I said earlier, you can’t avoid decisions about what personhood is by considering “everything in the chain of human life” a person. You’ve already made your decision and it’s not at all a reasonable one. The only reason you want to avoid a decision on it is because you know as well as I do that you have absolutely no justification for it, absolutely no valid argument to support the decision you’ve made therefore don’t even want to attempt to produce one in a discussion.
Nobody owns the baby in the woman’s womb because no individual or society has any claim over anybody else except for themselves.

As far as someone trespassing in your own body--that depends--if one "invites" a person into one's body (for example a woman that has concentual sex) I don't think the woman has the right to kill the guy after it's done or could society punish the man for having sex. If a woman has concentual sex that produces a baby--she shouldn't have the right to terminate that life. After all sex produces babies, there are plenty of ways of preventing insemination and she "invited" the baby in by have the sex in the first place.Of course a woman wouldn’t have the right to kill a man after he’s had consentual sex with her. Afterwards he’s not ‘trespassing on her body’, as you put it. If, during, the man refuses the woman’s requests to stop then he is, and that’s rape, isn’t it? If a woman has consentual sex but doesn’t ‘consent’ to being pregnant (which she doesn’t, if she simply doesn’t want to) then she hasn’t “invited” the fetus (it’s called a fetus. F-e-t-u-s. Not ‘baby’. Babies have been born. No, that’s not arbitrary, either.) at all. But similar to a man refusing the woman’s request to stop being rape, even if the woman did consent to getting pregnant, if she stops consenting then the fetus is ‘trespassing on her body’.

Well assumedly, any mother who loves her child would give up a part of her body for them to live. There are even tons of stories about mothers who have given their own lives to save their children. So I think that the mother would be morally obliged to help save her son. But I don't think the state should be able to force her to do so because she has the right to make decisions about her own body. How is anybody ‘morally obliged’ to give up their organs for other people? Says who? You? And if so, why haven’t you donated a kidney?

[Bud Struggle]

Well I disagree there. EVERY definition of human is arbitrary. Participation in society seem to be the arbitrary definition that is important to you. Skin color is the arbitrary definition that is important to people from Stormfront (for example.) Gender is the definition that was imprortant to people of 200 years ago. People's social and personal consciousness is what defines what is human. If society defines a fetus as a human (as it sometime does in capital murder cases of the mother) then it is so defined and the murderer of the mother is also convicted of murder of the fetus. In abortion the fetus isn't defined as a human by society. If the society in question so decides--that's the rule. There is no "other truth" than what is defined by society.

If in the past women did not have full rights as citizens and that was so decided by society--then they were not full citizens. There is no going back and rewriting history. Those were the facts. It doesn't matter if we like what people did in the past or not--it just was.

There is no "right or wrong" in this (or any other) issue. To imply that treating Blacks as slaves was wrong in Alabama in 1850--means that there is an underlying moral code for humanity. That is pretty difficult to do without imputing that a super human someone wrote that code and impressed it on humanity. No, rather what society did in one era as "correct" does not apply to another time or place. The arbiter of right and wrong for 21's centruy Western civilization--is 21st century Western civilization and no one nor nothing else.

My decision is based on not knowing if a fetus is a person--in reality, because that question can't be answered. There is no "real" answer. Just as the question about Blacks in 1850 Alabama can't be answered with a real answer. We just know that Blacks weren't concidered citizens then and have to leave it at that.

My point is that since we can never "know" the real answer of who or what is a person--we should consider everything human or potentially human as a person. A retarded person should be treated as a person as well as Einstein, a hermit that doesn't participate in society in the least as much as the President of the United States.

If we don't know the answer to what a person is--we should be inclusive as possible as to not make a mistake. So in 1850 Alabama, by this definition I would have considered Blacks as persons--even without society's approval. Same with women 200 years ago. On the other hand your "specific to place and time" definition of personhood would place you in the same category as Lilly Belle and Bertha in their place and time.

[Che a chara]

I am anti-abortion, but only in cases such as rape or if the mother's life or mental health are in danger I would support abortion.

Why should abortion be used as a contreceptive ?

I believe, along with many others that at the time of conception, that that is the beginning of life and why should the 'unborn' child not have a choice of living ? especially as it would seem that the expectant parents had the knowledge that non-usage of contraception would lead to pregnancy ?

Scientists say that fetuses begin brain activity at 7-8 weeks. Surely this and even at the time of impregnation should be seen as a living 'organism' ?

Why are people for abortion ?, freedom of choice sure, but has the 'unborn' child been asked of it's opinion ? surely the responsibility lies in using methods such as the pill and condoms to reduce the likeliness of pregnancy ?

[RGacky3]

I am anti-abortion, but only in cases such as rape or if the mother's life or mental health are in danger I would support abortion.

Why should abortion be used as a contreceptive ?

I believe, along with many others that at the time of conception, that that is the beginning of life and why should the 'unborn' child not have a choice of living ? especially as it would seem that the expectant parents had the knowledge that non-usage of contraception would lead to pregnancy ?

Scientists say that fetuses begin brain activity at 7-8 weeks. Surely this and even at the time of impregnation should be seen as a living 'orgasm' ?

Why are people for abortion ?, freedom of choice sure, but has the 'unborn' child been asked of it's opinion ? surely the responsibility lies in using methods such as the pill and condoms to reduce the likeliness of pregnancy ?

Prepare to be restricted, you are not longer a real leftist :P.

When you say mental health? What do you mean? In other words what situations?

[Chambered Word]

I am anti-abortion, but only in cases such as rape or if the mother's life or mental health are in danger I would support abortion.

In what other situation would a woman have an abortion? Do you think women conceive children and then go to the clinic like it's Adventure World or something?


There is no "right or wrong" in this (or any other) issue. To imply that treating Blacks as slaves was wrong in Alabama in 1850--means that there is an underlying moral code for humanity. That is pretty difficult to do without imputing that a super human someone wrote that code and impressed it on humanity. No, rather what society did in one era as "correct" does not apply to another time or place. The arbiter of right and wrong for 21's centruy Western civilization--is 21st century Western civilization and no one nor nothing else.

No shit, we're currently living in the 21st century, debating a 21st century issue. We think slavery is wrong based on our own morals and we can show you how we justify that. Those times have passed. What's your point?


My point is that since we can never "know" the real answer of who or what is a person--we should consider everything human or potentially human as a person.

So we should treat an embryo - a clump of cells - the same as an ordinary adult man or woman? Yeah we'll never know the definite, 100%, bona fide answer, just like we'll never know if there's really a God or not (it cannot be proved or disproved). We could all be living in a world like The Matrix where someone controls our minds with electrical impulses now couldn't we? :laugh:

You have to draw the line somewhere and this is why we have logic and rational thought. Stop trying to justify your reactionary prejudice/religious crap with silly philosophical arguments. :thumbdown:

There's "your point" handed back to you.

Also, lol at blacks being compared to foetuses just because neither were considered citizens by US law at one point in time and because they happen to contain human DNA. :D

[RGacky3]

In what other situation would a woman have an abortion? Do you think women conceive children and then go to the clinic like it's Adventure World or something?


THey get afraid, they change their mind on a baby, they did'nt want a child to begin with... Its not always healthbased.


So we should treat an embryo - a clump of cells - the same as an ordinary adult man or woman? Yeah we'll never know the definite, 100%, bona fide answer, just like we'll never know if there's really a God or not (it cannot be proved or disproved).

First of all, an ordinary man or woman is also just a clump of cells. Unless you believe in a seperate soul which I do not.

THe difference between the God issue and baby issue, is we know a lot about a fetus, the issue of "Is there a God" is not defining whether or not an entity can be defined as "God".

What we do know, is that all humans have a certain genetic makeup that makes them a human and not something else, and human embreos have that same genetic makeup, if you take their DNA and compare it with another humans, they will both be human. Its the same species, a sperm does not have human dna, it has half if it, if you take a sperm and compare it to human DNA it would not be the same, a embreo would be.

[blank]

Do leftists support abortion or not? As a pro-life person I find it contradictory that leftists talk about the equalitly of all human beings yet many of them support abortion who kill hundreds of thousands each year. Your views will be appreciated.

you only care for the unborn, and at the expense of the already born woman... and when brought to this shit hole for a world you not give a flying fuck about its life. dare you talk of hypocrisy... i wish all christian right were aborted so no one has to hear or deal with this trash

[Decolonize The Left]

you only care for the unborn, and at the expense of the already born woman... and when brought to this shit hole for a world you not give a flying fuck about its life. dare you talk of hypocrisy... i wish all christian right were aborted so no one has to hear or deal with this trash

This is a verbal warning. I understand your sentiments expressed here, but you can reach this point without flaming and personally attacking other members of this forum - even if they be Richard Nixon.

- August

[MarxSchmarx]

I am anti-abortion, but only in cases such as rape... I would support abortion.

Now I can continue a discussion that was, er.... aborted earlier. Why should a child die for the sins of the father?

[Bud Struggle]

Now I can continue a discussion that was, er.... aborted earlier. Why should a child die for the sins of the father?

Excellent question and one that puts a lot of anti-abortion people on the slippery slope. Either one considers a fetus a full and complete human life deserving of rights and respect (even if it can't function outside its mother's womb) or one does not.

Clearly how a person came to exist should have no bearing on his/her status as a human. That goes for a fetus or any other member of society.

[Decolonize The Left]

Excellent question and one that puts a lot of anti-abortion people on the slippery slope. Either one considers a fetus a full and complete human life deserving of rights and respect (even if it can't function outside its mother's womb) or one does not.

Clearly how a person came to exist should have no bearing on his/her status as a human. That goes for a fetus or any other member of society.

1. A human being is not necessarily a person. Nor is a person necessarily a human being.

2. A fetus is neither a complete human being nor a person.

- August

[Bud Struggle]

1. A human being is not necessarily a person. Nor is a person necessarily a human being. That's dangerous. You can cut and splice that definition in ways that aren't always PC. You can make rules on race or national origin. I may be a human being, but an African may not. Who's to say?


2. A fetus is neither a complete human being nor a person. A fetus is a collection of cells. YOU are a collection of cells. The collection of cells that is a fetus isn't the completion of cells of what that creature is in its totality. The cells that you are today isn't the completion of cells of what you will ever be.

What is the distinction between the growth of cells that is a fetus and the growth of cells that is August West?

[Decolonize The Left]

That's dangerous. You can cut and splice that definition in ways that aren't always PC. You can make rules on race or national origin. I may be a human being, but an African may not. Who's to say?

Wtf are you talking about? It's not dangerous - it's simple linguistics.

A human being is an animal. A person is a metaphysical subject. Ex: An alien could be a person, but not a human being. Or, conversely, someone who's brain has been removed is a human being, but not a person.


A fetus is a collection of cells. YOU are a collection of cells. The collection of cells that is a fetus isn't the completion of cells of what that creature is in its totality. The cells that you are today isn't the completion of cells of what you will ever be.

What is the distinction between the growth of cells that is a fetus and the growth of cells that is August West?

So you are saying that a human being and a person both are defined as "a collection of cells?"

- August

[Bud Struggle]

Wtf are you talking about? It's not dangerous - it's simple linguistics.

A human being is an animal. A person is a metaphysical subject. Ex: An alien could be a person, but not a human being. Or, conversely, someone who's brain has been removed is a human being, but not a person. But the lingustics is local. If someone defines a person as "white" than anything other than "white" isn't a person. The question is WHO makes those definitions of what a person is? Cells located here, or cells located there. A collection of cells before birth isn' much different than a collection of cells after birth, is it?



So you are saying that a human being and a person both are defined as "a collection of cells?"

- August It's as good a definition as any other. You may have another opinion--but it's nothing more than that--your opinion. So we are not arguing over anything other than "opinions."

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Bud, by arguing that we should depart from the distinction between human beings and persons you are essentially arguing against hundreds of years of legal, social and moral tradition, and I don't understand why you would want to do that. Considering that your position is the mainstream one in many countries, taking such a radical and extreme position seems unnecessary.

[Bud Struggle]

I got (stole) the idea from RGacky who posted on the same further up the thread.

But it makes sense. If we all are "cells" who can create a distinction between us? Location, color, intelligence, money, same DNA, what's the difference?

[Decolonize The Left]

But the lingustics is local. If someone defines a person as "white" than anything other than "white" isn't a person. The question is WHO makes those definitions of what a person is? Cells located here, or cells located there. A collection of cells before birth isn' much different than a collection of cells after birth, is it?


It's as good a definition as any other. You may have another opinion--but it's nothing more than that--your opinion. So we are not arguing over anything other than "opinions."

No, it isn't. It's a terribly short-sighted definition. Allow a counter-example:
A rabbit is a bunch a cells. Is a rabbit a human being? A person? A tree is a bunch of cells. Is it a human being? A person?

Are you prepared to give rabbits and trees the right to vote? Demand that they pay taxes? Allow them the rights accorded to them by the Constitution?

- August

[Bud Struggle]

No, it isn't. It's a terribly short-sighted definition. Allow a counter-example:
A rabbit is a bunch a cells. Is a rabbit a human being? A person? A tree is a bunch of cells. Is it a human being? A person?

Are you prepared to give rabbits and trees the right to vote? Demand that they pay taxes? Allow them the rights accorded to them by the Constitution?

- August

You kinda missed my point. Everything HUMAN (the DNA cells that make up a human being) is a person--any exceptions are always arbitrary. I would grant you point that trees and rabbits aren't human.

[Decolonize The Left]

You kinda missed my point. Everything HUMAN (the DNA cells that make up a human being) is a person--any exceptions are always arbitrary. I would grant you point that trees and rabbits aren't human.

So if someone cuts off my hand, both my hand and the rest of my body are two distinct people?

- August

[Bud Struggle]

So if someone cuts off my hand, both my hand and the rest of my body are two distinct people?

- August

No but it os still a human hand, not a cat's paw or anything else. But the point is moot because when the hand is severed, it ceases to work as part of a functioning human being. The point remains that deciding what a person is that no matter what you say, it's completly arbitrary. A baby in a womb one hour before birth is just as much a person as a baby one hour after birth. The only difference is location. If you think location is a deciding factor on what constitutes a person--I have no problem with that, but you can't pretend that it is the product of some sort of logical deduction.

It is merely your choice to believe what you believe. Your belief has no more moral authority than any other belief that any other person may have.

[ComradeMan]

Some people here should have paid more attention in biology class.

On the issue itself,

Look, I have issues with abortion too, but then I don't think anyone would suggest that it is a fun thing or a mere triviality, it's not like having a tooth out.

Nevertheless, abortion has always existed. If abortion were illegal all that would happen is poor frightened young women would end up in dodgy backstreet abortion clinics or taking weird and wonderful potions to induce a miscarriage risking even more life and causing suffering- as it was in the past.

That's why I say it should be regulated by women and the medical profession, but it doesn't make me pro-death- as some have said in the past.

Perhaps the anti-abortion lobby should also look into the reasons why women want abortions, social factors and poverty amongst others- if not all.

I don't know, I'm not a woman, so I can never really understand what it means to go through that experience.

But there are moral dilemmas here, for example.

If a woman were raped and became pregnant- would a legal abortion be okay in that case?


However, I don't approve of abortion being used as birth control or as a way to favour the birth of a male child as some have told me is the case in China. Perhaps someone else could verify this for me?

[TheCuriousCommunist]

Pro-Conditional Life. Population should grow. Any teenager who fucked around, has to face the consequences. If they can't care for them, put them up for adoption. If its a rape result, or a risk to the mothers life, abort.

[Belisarius]

However, I don't approve of abortion being used as birth control or as a way to favour the birth of a male child as some have told me is the case in China. Perhaps someone else could verify this for me?
I don't know about abortion in china, but what i do know is that because of the one-child-policy and because chinese culture prefers male children over female (when the male grows up his family stay with his parents to take care of them, a female child will inevitably leave and so these parents won't have anyone to take care of them), many female children aren't reported to the government. they're called "black women" or something similar. they don't have pasports or rights, since they legally don't exist.

[ComradeMan]

Pro-Conditional Life. Population should grow. Any teenager who fucked around, has to face the consequences. If they can't care for them, put them up for adoption. If its a rape result, or a risk to the mothers life, abort.

But who does face the consequences? The unwanted child perhaps? Society?

Look, in an ideal world I suppose abortion wouldn't exist because unwanted pregnancies wouldn't exist, but we don't live in that world.

Here's an anecdote. In Italy contraceptives are sold in autodistributors along with cigarettes and phone cards. A law was passed restricting the use of these to over 18's and you have to use your socialfiscal code card to unlock the system between certain times of day. But this was not done to stop kids from smoking so much as to stop them from buying contraceptives because that would be condoing teenage sex and contraception which the Vatican and "Italy" do not want. The same people who condemn abortion condemn birth control!!! I don't know if that's the case everywhere but it makes you think.

The key is also education.

Anyway, the medical guidelines are there and it is up to women and the medical profession.

In my anarchist commonwealth there would be a council for women's affairs elected by women, run by women and who would make decisions on matters such as these.

[Kayser_Soso]

Pro-Conditional Life. Population should grow. Any teenager who fucked around, has to face the consequences. If they can't care for them, put them up for adoption. If its a rape result, or a risk to the mothers life, abort.

I doubt that abortion would cause a serious population deficit. The ideal of socialism is to create a society where child-rearing does not fall on the shoulders of women, and preferably not even on a single couple. It shouldn't fall on the shoulders of the male as well. Let's face it, there are many unconditionally pro-abortion liberals out there who support a woman's right to control her own body, but at the same time support men "taking responsibility" for any child sired, even at the behest of the court. This is obviously rather hypocritical.

[ComradeMan]

I doubt that abortion would cause a serious population deficit. The ideal of socialism is to create a society where child-rearing does not fall on the shoulders of women, and preferably not even on a single couple. It shouldn't fall on the shoulders of the male as well. Let's face it, there are many unconditionally pro-abortion liberals out there who support a woman's right to control her own body, but at the same time support men "taking responsibility" for any child sired, even at the behest of the court. This is obviously rather hypocritical.

How can childrearing ultimately not fall on women, biologically women breastfeed, men don't. I think men should be responsible for their actions and in a truly free society perhaps a lot of these other "marital" problems would go away anyway.

[Kayser_Soso]

How can childrearing ultimately not fall on women, biologically women breastfeed, men don't. I think men should be responsible for their actions and in a truly free society perhaps a lot of these other "marital" problems would go away anyway.

In a socialist commune, childcare would be largely handled by trained professionals. Children would learn to be independent and more social, and then families of various different structures could exist. For example, a woman could choose to have a child without getting married, or a couple could have children and not get married or even cohabitate if they wished(cohabitation is the number one killed of relationships I think).

As for responsibility- it's not MY body.

[ComradeMan]

In a socialist commune, childcare would be largely handled by trained professionals. Children would learn to be independent and more social, and then families of various different structures could exist. For example, a woman could choose to have a child without getting married, or a couple could have children and not get married or even cohabitate if they wished(cohabitation is the number one killed of relationships I think).

As for responsibility- it's not MY body.


Well, I'm not sure about that to be honest. I think children need a healthy bond and a caring family. Childcare would be handled by trained professionals sounds a bit like State-run Kindergartens.... all a bit cold and unfriendly. As for the other points, well they already exist I know lot's of people who aren't married and have children, single, cohabiting etc. I don't think it's such a big deal but then I suppose it depends on the society and where you are.


Back to the Abortion issue. There is one other thing I failed to mention. Having laws against something does not actually stop if from happening and never has done. There have been laws against murder- people still commit murder, laws against drugs, laws against religions, laws against this and laws against that. By outlawing things they either happen anyway because the people who do them de facto don't care about the law or they criminalised and driven underground. The latter point I think is valid for abortion.

[Kayser_Soso]

Well, I'm not sure about that to be honest. I think children need a healthy bond and a caring family. Childcare would be handled by trained professionals sounds a bit like State-run Kindergartens.... all a bit cold and unfriendly. As for the other points, well they already exist I know lot's of people who aren't married and have children, single, cohabiting etc. I don't think it's such a big deal but then I suppose it depends on the society and where you are.

The idea I suggested was put into practice in Israeli Kibbutzim, with no marked negative effect. In fact as far as I read the only problem, if you could call it that, is that children raised in such environments tended to seek mates outside of their commune- but that can actually be a positive thing. You have to remember that the family as we know it is the product of bourgeois society, retaining some of the aspects of previous societies as well. There was a time when children were seen as belonging to the whole tribe.




Back to the Abortion issue. There is one other thing I failed to mention. Having laws against something does not actually stop if from happening and never has done. There have been laws against murder- people still commit murder, laws against drugs, laws against religions, laws against this and laws against that. By outlawing things they either happen anyway because the people who do them de facto don't care about the law or they criminalised and driven underground. The latter point I think is valid for abortion.


This is a good point. Everywhere abortion has been outlawed, it tends to create a huge number of back-alley, deadly abortions.

[ComradeMan]

Kayser--- I see what you mean about the kibbutzim model. In your original post I had some weird Orwellian vision in my mind....

[Che a chara]

Now I can continue a discussion that was, er.... aborted earlier. Why should a child die for the sins of the father?

The child doesn't need to 'die'. That would be a concern for the mother. If the child was born, what effect could it have on the mother, would she love the child as much....would it cause her and her family great distress and a subconscious feeling of hate towards the child ?

It's a difficult subject. I don't think anyone has the answers that would satisfy all.

[Decolonize The Left]

Sorry for taking so long Bud.


No but it os still a human hand, not a cat's paw or anything else.

Your changing the subject. We were not discussing whether or not the hand was a human hand, we were discussing whether or not it was a person. We were doing this because I was claiming that a fetus is not a person and hence has no rights. To recap:

You first agreed (upon my rephrasing what you wrote) that: "a human being and a person both are defined as "a collection of cells?""
When questioned, you then agreed that that was nonsense, as a tree is a collection of cells, but certainly not a person.
So you then clarified: " Everything HUMAN (the DNA cells that make up a human being) is a person--any exceptions are always arbitrary."

So now you have equated being HUMAN with being PERSON. As I noted earlier: "A human being is an animal. A person is a metaphysical subject." And I responded to your claim that if I chopped off my hand, it is composed of human cells (which you have previously equated with being a person), is a person? Are my hand and I now two people?

You last said that the hand is not a person, but it is a human hand. So then you agree that being human and being a person are two distinct qualities (i.e. what you previously claimed (Human = Person) was false)?

- August

[Che a chara]

Those against abortion i think see it as a choice in morality and ethics rather than a principle of choice on the mother's behalf, which also ironically and undemocratically can mean no option for the father to choose.

[Kayser_Soso]

Those against abortion i think see it as a choice in morality and ethics rather than a principle of choice on the mother's behalf, which also ironically and undemocratically can mean no option for the father to choose.

I totally support a woman's right to choose, but what I don't like is how the man is forced to take care of the kid if the woman decides to have it, even if she doesn't want to stay with him.

[Che a chara]

I totally support a woman's right to choose, but what I don't like is how the man is forced to take care of the kid if the woman decides to have it, even if she doesn't want to stay with him.

when you say "forced to take care of the kid", do you mean financially ? if so then of course the father has more than an obligation to financially support the child. in saying that, fathers rights always go out the window in a lot of cases, and this is a reason why fathers should/might get a say in the choice of an abortion. It seems it's ok for the mother to abort without the fathers permission but not ok for the father to have certain rights if the child is born.

[Kayser_Soso]

when you say "forced to take care of the kid", do you mean financially ? if so then of course the father has more than an obligation to financially support the child.

Like I said, if the woman has the right to choose because it is her body, the man should have the right to choose not to pay for the kid since it certainly isn't his body.

[Che a chara]

Like I said, if the woman has the right to choose because it is her body, the man should have the right to choose not to pay for the kid since it certainly isn't his body.

i totally get where you're coming from and it it's like a contradiction of terms. This is of course a reason why many women choose to have an abortion because of lack of support financially and emotionally from the father. i believe he should have input, but if he doesn't want to then we know that there are legal ways around this.

they say it takes two to tango. that's my kinda stance on it here. all issues i feel are on morals and should be settled by both father and mother.

[Che a chara]

:)


i'm willing to be convinced otherwise here, and if someone can without the "it's the mother's body" line with actual proof or arguments that an abortion is acceptable if used just as a method contraception then i'm ready to listen.

[Kayser_Soso]

i totally get where you're coming from and it it's like a contradiction of terms. This is of course a reason why many women choose to have an abortion because of lack of support financially and emotionally from the father. i believe he should have input, but if he doesn't want to then we know that there are legal ways around this.

they say it takes two to tango. that's my kinda stance on it here. all issues i feel are on morals and should be settled by both father and mother.

My solution is that after a socialist revolution, in the interest of creating true equality and liberating women from unpaid labor, we should establish more creches, and schools with room and board within urban and rural communes(this is based on a system used with great success in the Israeli Kibbutzim). As a result, parents need not spend much, if any time actually raising their children, who would be watched over by paid, trained officials who can be screened for suitability. They will be far more independent and get more peer social interaction.

[Che a chara]

My solution is that after a socialist revolution, in the interest of creating true equality and liberating women from unpaid labor, we should establish more creches, and schools with room and board within urban and rural communes(this is based on a system used with great success in the Israeli Kibbutzim). As a result, parents need not spend much, if any time actually raising their children, who would be watched over by paid, trained officials who can be screened for suitability. They will be far more independent and get more peer social interaction.

for sure capitalism is a major factor in why abortions occur (there's no proper adequate facilities for the care of the baby, and minimal financial support), but i would argue that both mother and father should be allowed to take as much time off from work as they need (with proper financial help and high quality nursing care) so they can take care and bond with their child, even if this is for the first 2 years were development and closeness with a newborn is important.

Do you approve that a baby should be in the care of 'paid carers', and not their parents while growing up ? i see many flaws in that idea.

[Kayser_Soso]

for sure capitalism is a major factor in why abortions occur (there's no proper adequate facilities for the care of the baby, and minimal financial support), but i would argue that both mother and father should be allowed to take as much time off from work as they need (with proper financial help and high quality nursing care) so they can take care and bond with their child, even if this is for the first 2 years were development and closeness with a newborn is important.

Do you approve that a baby should be in the care of 'paid carers', and not their parents while growing up ? i see many flaws in that idea.

The problem is the bourgeois conception of a family. Do not forget that at one time, for a few thousand years, children of a tribe were seen as children of the whole tribe more than they were the children of their parents. We must understand that the current nuclear family is transitional.

[RGacky3]

In some parts of the world yeah, but for most of the time, children were raised my their parents, which, seams to be the natural way of things, the same way with most mammels.

It has nothing to do with a so-called "bourgouis" notion of a family, bourgouis, just to remind you, means capitalist, i.e. owns means of production. So what your essencailyl saying is that the notion of family is a "owners of productoin" notion, you see how stupid that sounds?

[Kayser_Soso]

In some parts of the world yeah, but for most of the time, children were raised my their parents, which, seams to be the natural way of things, the same way with most mammels.

It has nothing to do with a so-called "bourgouis" notion of a family, bourgouis, just to remind you, means capitalist, i.e. owns means of production. So what your essencailyl saying is that the notion of family is a "owners of productoin" notion, you see how stupid that sounds?



You are coming dangerously close to opening the door to pro-capitalists' "human nature" argument. As I said before, for centuries, even in present times, the role of bringing up children has not been exclusively or largely the responsibility of the parents.

Also there are "bourgeois" concepts of various things, including the family.

Let's look at what Marx said about this in the Manifesto:

"On what foundations is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.

The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.

Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty. But, you will say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social."

[FriendorFoe]

A fetus is in fact a human being. So says any biologist that got past the first few weeks of college. Even the word fetus means "unborn child." So even with the mindless word games and platitudes you're all still factually wrong and the bullshit euphemisms you all memorized from whatever bullshit free clinic handbook you read last night doesnt change scientific FACT.

Answer this question (you cant). What are we made of that a fetus is not? EXACTLY. Funny how you child-killers play word games to justify murdering human beings. When a woman is not going to murder her child she says, "the baby is kicking" not "the fetus is kicking." It's "I'm going to have a baby" not...."there's a clump of flesh and cells in me now." But soon as people want to justfy murder the try to throw pseudo-science that is BTW not even science but made up bullshit that's easiely debunked through basic research at a fucking library.

Disagree with me all you want I'm not pro-life at all. If I could push a button and kill all of you I would. Anybody that murders a defenseless human being shouldnt be walking the Earth. So Im not some bleeding heart pro-lifer. BUt dont insult my intelligence with easily debunked bullshit. Thanks.

[9]

I think TC put it best in this post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1050704&postcount=17):






Originally Posted by Marxosarurus Rex
I'll admit that I'm naive about gender politics, and that I had the point of view that abortion should be allowed only when it does not fall under the category of a living 'human being'.

So if something falls under the category of a living 'human being' it's entitled to use another human's body against their wishes. Or, is this not a general philosophy of yours but something you only apply to women's bodies.



Originally Posted by Marxosarurus Rex
I had the assumption that Marxism is an ideology that seeks to liberate every human being, and therefore those fetuses that could be considered living should have the opportunity to live and reach their potential as part of society, etc. etc.

Fetuses, were they persons, would be oppressing any non-consenting hosts. There is no right to live at the expense of another person, thats what capitalists do. An actual born infant doesn't have any rights to use their parents organs even if failing to provide them would result in its death.

This is why all issues concerning the status of a fetus (which i'll assume is a person that feels pain and is every bit as cute as a 2 month old baby for the purpose of this discussion, although this is probably not the case) are besides the point.

You like other reactionaries don't really care about a 'right to life' or you'd follow it to its logical conclusion and demand manditory live organ donations, you're concerned with being able to control women's reproductive capacity. Thats the only logical motivation for forced-pregnancy proponents, they want to ensure that women can't just boycott an imaginary reproductive imparative to produce the next generation of workers, and they/you fundamentally don't see this demand as a problem because they don't recognize the full personhood of women.



Originally Posted by Marxosaurus Rex
However, after being mocked for my position (by TragicClown), I'd like to know why my point of view was wrong, and why abortions could be justified even if the fetus is considered living. Please, enlighten me in the least condescending way possible.

The same way it would be justifiable to kill a living person who was planning to and able to force feed you and inject you with hormones for 9 months and then cut up your vagina or stomach. Its a matter of self defense. If lethal force is the minimum force required to protect yourself from severe bodily injury every common law and socialist law juristiction permits it. The only people whose inherent right to self defense is ever questioned are women.



Originally Posted by Marxosaurus Rex
If I've expressed any other reactionary views on the subject of gender politics, please teach me the correct Marxist stance.

The denial of women's humanity inherent in your position on abortion pretty much amounts to a completely reactionary view of gender. You view one gender as inferior, whether you are willing to admit it or not.




Originally Posted by RedKnight
Actually, both I am the Worker Communist Party of Iran agree that late term abortions should be banned.

There are plenty of reactionary organisations posing as "communist parties", just as you are a reactionary posing as a communist.



Originally Posted by w0lf
Is a growing fetus part of the women's body or a separate organism?

Whether its an organ or a seperate organism (specifically a parasitic organism) is just a semantic difference that has no relevance on the issue. Rapists are separate organisms and women are clearly entitled to do whatever is required to get them out of their bodies!



Originally Posted by bobkindles
Some people think that a fetus should be considered a human being with rights equivalent to those that we accord adults that are not dependent on another organism for survival;

Not really, considering that were fetuses to be accorded all of the rights equivolent to adults that are not dependent on another organism for survival, abortion would still be permissable on self-defense grounds and because adults are not accorded the right to use another's body against their will.



Originally Posted by Bobkindles
the physical discomfort of childbirth

I half think its euphemisms like 'discomfort' that make people think its no big deal to force someone to carry a pregnancy to term. Maybe if pro-choicers countered the forced-pregnancy lobby's use of aborted late term fetus photos on placards with photos of 12 year olds giving birth it would shift the focus of the people's sympathies from fetuses to real people.



Originally Posted by Bobkindles
if support from the state or any other institution is not available, the financial cost of childcare,

Thats a lame argument considering that mothers with unwanted children can always given them up for adoption without pentality.



Originally Posted by Bobkindles
Forcing someone to accept use of their body without express consent bears a striking similarity to another issue within the broad theme of sexual reproduction: Rape. I think this analogy is fully appropriate - in both cases one is concered with denying someone the right to control their own body.

I totally agree and i think pro-choicers should stop shying away from it; the anti-abortion lobby isn't pulling any punches with its language.



Originally Posted by GeneCosta
I am also pro-life because I'm on the mother's side.

Are you a "mother" to an unimplanted fertalized egg in a tampon? Obviously not. Likewise you're not a 'mother' to a clump of tissue in a medical waste bucket!

Mothers are people who typically choose to assume an inferior and self-limiting socials status by having and raise children, its insulting to attach this stigma to anyone who gets pregnant.



Originally Posted by GeneCosta
In fact, such indiscriminate pointing of fingers at an unexpected mother is probably one of the leading causes of abortion. If merely having a fat belly gets you scorn, one reasons having a kid means a life of it.

Thats such bullshit. There is overwhelming cultural pressure to exhault pregnant women and celebrate pregnancies, and theres tremendous pressure to encourage pregnant women to give birth and then go crazy over how 'wonderful' their babies are and how 'magical' the whole creepy experience is. The bourgeois dictated culturally appropriate reaction to hearing that a friend got knocked up is "congradulations!!" "is it a boy of a girl?!" "have you picked out a name yet?!" "when is your baby shower and what type of gifts do you want?!" not "oh i'm so sorry to here that, thats just terrible knews when are you getting it taken care of?"



Originally Posted by FireFry
Even if it is the man's baby, does the woman have a right to cease the development of the fetus?

Of course she does, what are you insane? Do you think if you stick your dick in someone you pretty much own her?



Originally Posted by FireFry
And if abortion is legal, then why is killing a pregnant woman count as double murder in todays society?

It counts as a double murder in some rightwing juristictions because anti-abortionists are trying to make a point that fetuses are people without running afowel of specific legal restrictions on the type of laws that can be passed in the US established by roe vs wade.

Thats the only reason. Historically this has never been the case, its not even the case in biblical law.



Is not the baby simply the "property" of the women and hence should be treated like "the destruction of property" ?

Yes, but like any personal property with significant sentimental value emotional distress should be considered as an aggrevating issue.


If Terri Schiavo had her throat cut, would that have counted as murder?

If Terri Schiavo was hooked up to another person instead of machines, it would count as self defense.


Originally Posted by dark fairy
i don't think of a group of cells clumped together as a living organism...
I DO think that if someone is having sex, they should keep in mind
the results of sex.
If they think they're old enough, mature enough to have sex then they should know that in order NOT to have a child they must wear a condom, (the female) must take pills, injections, or WHATEVER.

Abortion is the only 100% effective form of birth control. Just because involuntary pregnancy is a potential result of sex doesn't mean that involuntary childbirth should be.



Originally Posted by dark fairy
I think that if a woman is raped, ends up pregnant, AND does not want to keep
the child then she should have the choice to destroy it before it counts as a baby.

LOL so wait, if you're *raped* then you can have an abortion, but only *before* it "counts as a baby", so, by implication, if you have consensual sex you can't have an abortion even if its *before* it "counts as a baby."



Originally Posted by dark fairy
If it's too late into the pregnancy, fetus is formed, considered alive, then perhaps she could have it and put the child up for adoption?

Yah...i guess maybe if she didn't mind having her body mutilated over a period of nine months followed by hours of torture leaving her scarred and damaged for the rest of her life...but for everyone who isn't a masochist who doesn't get off on being used and degraded to the status of a human incubator, perhaps not.


Originally Posted by dark fairy
Aside from that, i think letting women destroy, and GET OFF THE HOOK so easily is bad...
THEN AGAIN!

Yah, someone better punish those sluts before they think they can have sex for fun and get away with it!! :rolleyes:



Originally Posted by dark fairy
I don't think it's a black and white topic.
There is a gray area, A BIG gray area...

Its really not. Theres no ambiguity, either your body belongs to you and only you, or it doesn't. Either its okay to alienate someone from their body and physically impose on them, or its not.

Reactionaries want to make you think its a 'big gray area' so you pump out kids to work for them and consume their products. That doesn't mean it is one.

[Kayser_Soso]

A fetus is in fact a human being. So says any biologist that got past the first few weeks of college. Even the word fetus means "unborn child." So even with the mindless word games and platitudes you're all still factually wrong and the bullshit euphemisms you all memorized from whatever bullshit free clinic handbook you read last night doesnt change scientific FACT.

Answer this question (you cant). What are we made of that a fetus is not? EXACTLY. Funny how you child-killers play word games to justify murdering human beings. When a woman is not going to murder her child she says, "the baby is kicking" not "the fetus is kicking." It's "I'm going to have a baby" not...."there's a clump of flesh and cells in me now." But soon as people want to justfy murder the try to throw pseudo-science that is BTW not even science but made up bullshit that's easiely debunked through basic research at a fucking library.

Disagree with me all you want I'm not pro-life at all. If I could push a button and kill all of you I would. Anybody that murders a defenseless human being shouldnt be walking the Earth. So Im not some bleeding heart pro-lifer. BUt dont insult my intelligence with easily debunked bullshit. Thanks.

So you say a fetus is a person? Ok, tell me, can you divide into a separate person? A fetus can. Can you divide into another person, and then merge back into one, thus possessing two separate genetic codes(look up chimerism). So clearly a fetus is not a person.

The rest of your posts is just ridiculous semantics. Oh and we know you pro-lifers aren't bleeding hearts. You see no problem in shooting doctors and bombing innocent women. Why don't you guys man up some time and go take on international sex traffickers or drug lords. Oh that's right, they shoot back.

[Girl A]

'Funny how you child-killers play word games to justify murdering human beings.'

Funny how you justify murdering human beings in your final paragraph.

[RGacky3]

You are coming dangerously close to opening the door to pro-capitalists' "human nature" argument. As I said before, for centuries, even in present times, the role of bringing up children has not been exclusively or largely the responsibility of the parents.


Yeah, but most of the time it has been, and also the pro-capitalist "human nature" even if its true does'nt defend capitalism at all.


Let's look at what Marx said about this in the Manifesto:

"On what foundations is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.

The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.

Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty. But, you will say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social."

First of all, I don't give a shit what Marx said, he was'nt right about everything.

[Kayser_Soso]

Yeah, but most of the time it has been, and also the pro-capitalist "human nature" even if its true does'nt defend capitalism at all.

While parents may have been involved in children's upbringing for centuries, this does not mean the standard nuclear family has always been the norm. And if we insist on that kind of family relation just because it's "been that way for a long time", that also opens the door to arguments against lesbian and gay families.

[Nolan]

First of all, I don't give a shit what Marx said, he was'nt right about everything.

:rolleyes:

[Girl A]

Yeah, but most of the time it has been, and also the pro-capitalist "human nature" even if its true does'nt defend capitalism at all.



First of all, I don't give a shit what Marx said, he was'nt right about everything.

I do agree that it's best not to just agree with everything Marx said just because you are influenced by him, but I would ask what your issue with that quote in particular is...?

[Che a chara]

You are coming dangerously close to opening the door to pro-capitalists' "human nature" argument. As I said before, for centuries, even in present times, the role of bringing up children has not been exclusively or largely the responsibility of the parents.

Also there are "bourgeois" concepts of various things, including the family.

Let's look at what Marx said about this in the Manifesto:

"On what foundations is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.

The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.

Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty. But, you will say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social."

if something like that happens it'll occur because of the conditions not because it was set in stone or set in a policy. something that'll probably be natural, but if it wont progress to that level, i dont see how it would be a detriment to the good of society.