Selectively Open Minded?

[Rapid Brain Development]

I'm not even going to bother to introduce myself because apparently I'm about to be kicked out, but I will say that I am a female, agnostic, communist college student, just in case anyone is hoping to discredit my argument with an ad hominem fallacy. (Or maybe you won't even read it once you learn the topic... is that how it works?)

I decided to read through all of the FAQs before I posted anything, and this would be the GREATEST place in the world... like, the place I've been looking for... if it wasn't for this:


Do you restrict pro-life/anti-choice members?
Yes.
The only acceptable position on abortion on the forum is support for unrestricted, widespread, and totally free access to abortion at every stage of pregnancy throughout the entire world. The decision of whether to abort should be made only by each individual pregnant woman, and every woman has a right to choose. Any member who disagrees with this position and calls for any kind of barrier to access or suggests that any other party should have any degree of control will be restricted on the grounds that opposition to abortion is a form of sexism.

When I read the first sentence, I kind of thought it was a joke. I have never heard any type of political group place such a blockade on minor debate on any issue, much less a group that supposedly advocates revolution, examination of truth, and democracy. This is not like saying, "Men should be allowed to rape their wives," which is objectively sexist. This is an objective questioning of whether, perhaps, babies should have ethical consideration even if they have not been born yet. (After all, if it's okay to kill a clump of tissue... it's okay to kill me, you, and whoever wrote the manifesto you subscribe to. We're all useless clumps of tissue.) I'm guessing this all has to do with the atheist religious conditioning. You learn that, if you can't physically see something, it doesn't exist. Seeing as you can't see the baby until it comes out, it must not exist, and anyone who suggests that it does must definitely be a theistic quack with a patriarchal agenda. What I will never understand is how you can say that we are "shoving our philosophy down your throat," when you are the ones who refuse to answer to the science. Honestly? Have fun with the Abortion Lobby; they LOVE the pseudo-progressive movement.

"What science?" The fact that these are not "potential" human beings, but they are human beings at an early stage of development, that WILL grow into toddlers, teenagers, and adults, unless something or someone kills them first. The fact that their brains and nervous systems are functional at only a few weeks, enabling a conscious experience of pain. The fact that, no, they are not better off dead before they're born, because the demand for adoptable babies is much larger than the supply, and because Roe vs. Wade had no effect whatsoever on the ever-increasing trend of child abuse. The fact that, by fixating on the rights of the more powerful person, you are completely ignoring the rights of the more vulnerable one. I do not understand how any logical leftist does not understand that connection.

I must be the most empathetic person in the world towards all suffering in the world, which pretty much dictates a leftist revolution, but because that empathy extends to babies that happen to live in someone's uterus, I'm suddenly sexist against my own gender and a right-winger? How can that possibly be true?

I probably won't even come back here now, and I'm really disappointed. In fact, I'm afraid to come back. I'm sure that not only will this post not get through your hard heads, but it will be ridiculed and removed, and I'll be banned from the main forums until I can get all this "sexist-capitalist brainwashing" out of my head. Am I right? And it doesn't matter if everything I said was perfectly logical, because you have already made a decision that you will never listen to any debate whatsoever on the topic.

You really think there can be revolution if you isolate people for dissent and treat them like they need rehabilitation? The same way the capitalists treat you, and me? (I erased "us" because I guess you'd probably hate that.) If that's really how you feel, then I guess good luck with the part I agree with and I'm sorry I was too stupid to be a part of it.

[FreeFocus]

Personally I certainly don't openly go out an encourage everyone to get an abortion, but I support unrestricted access to abortions. I surely don't agree with late-term abortions but frankly, without illegitimate coercion either from other people or the state, how can you deny access? You can't. The best course of action is getting people to be responsible and removing social barriers that may force people to have abortions (e.g., poverty/capitalism, patriarchy, misogyny - a wide array of factors).

It does seem to be a hardline position but people trying to extend the life and reach of patriarchy, misogyny, etc, thereby restricting the rights of women, are far too prominent and numerous. Still, hopefully no one on RevLeft encourages abortions, unless they are due to health concerns or social pressures. I find it hard to respect a woman who goes to have an abortion just for the hell of it, or because she was irresponsible. Yeah, it's her choice, but I don't think I'm bound to respect it, even as I acknowledge it.

I don't think you should leave the forum, and you may have not been restricted because you didn't advocate erecting structural barriers to abortions (e.g. state intervention).

[BobKKKindle$]

This is not like saying, "Men should be allowed to rape their wives," which is objectively sexist.

Actually, it's quite similar to this. Rape is (by definition) sex without consent, and by advocating restrictions on abortion you're saying that there are certain circumstances under which the importance of a woman consenting to a fetus using her body for its own survival (i.e. the value of a woman's bodily autonomy) can be overlooked, to the extent that a woman can be forced to give birth, and accept all of the dangers and consequences that involves, even when she would rather abort her pregnancy. This is why we support free access to abortion - it's because we think that women should be able to exercise control over their bodies and uphold bodily autonomy as a fundamental moral principle. It's fair to say that society at large does not regard forced pregnancies (as a result of abortion being restricted) as the same as rape, but in general sexism is not seen as a form of discrimination on the same level as sexism, and the prevalence of these misplaced attitudes does not mean that revolutionaries should adapt their aims and compromises simply because we want to appeal to as many people as possible - rather we have an obligation to challenge these discourses in order to alter people to the injustice that is sexism.


We're all useless clumps of tissue.)

If you want to put it like that, that's fine, but the issue here isn't biological as such. The reason that fetuses cannot be considered a "right to life" that needs to be protected by the state is that any fetus is using a woman's body for its own growth and survival, with considerable disadvantages for the individual woman, and it's this relationship of use between a woman and a fetus that gives the women the right to abortion, because by doing so she is signaling that she no longer consents to the fetus using her body, in the same way that a woman who is having sex has the right to stop having sex at any point if she withdraws her consent, and if the person she is having sex with refuses to acknowledge her withdrawal of consent, she has the right to do whatever is necessary to regain full control of her body, including the use of violence.

It's also important to remember that this debate can't be isolated from broader issues and struggles. You probably know that most abortions occur either during the first trimester or the first half of the second trimester but there are still a small number of abortions that do take place later on in pregnancy, generally involving vulnerable women, who, because of their vulnerability, deserve unobstructed access - these include women who have been raped and have not been able to come to terms with their pregnancy due to the trauma of that experience until the visible signs of their condition are too obvious to hide, as well as older women who mistake the absence of periods as signs of the menopause. One other major reason that women need access to abortion at a later stage is the discovery of severe fetal abnormality. For example, one important test for impairments such as Down's syndrome is amniocentesis. This cannot be carried out until 16 weeks, the results may take two to three weeks, and then the woman may need counselling and advice. If she decides to have an abortion it may be yet another week or two before this can be arranged. These are all valid reasons (of course, it's not anyone's place to judge whether a reason is valid or not, but it does give the lie to popular myths about women wanting late-term abortions so they can go on ski holidays) and affirm the need to defend access to late-term abortions. In general, abortion is important because women not having to worry about being forced to give birth means that they can plan their lives, and enjoy their sexuality to the full.

You want to take this away, it seems.


You learn that, if you can't physically see something, it doesn't exist.

I don't think this is true at all. Firstly, it's quite possible to see a fetus with the aid of a sonogram. Secondly, anyone who's researched the politics of abortion or been involved in abortion activism in real life will most likely have been exposed to the graphic pictures used by anti-choice activists to shock people into supporting their cause. We all know what a fetus looks like, it's got nothing to do with whether people are religious or not, and everything to do with our support for womens liberation.

[SubcomandanteJames]

I think that when the state, any governing body, or group of people denies a sentient being who has an ambition to live healthfully, and to avoid death, the ability to rid her body, which is being parasitically drawn upon, of another living (not independent nor sentient) being, we risk falling into the romantics of "What is life?" rather than logical idealism of "What can a life feel and understand?"

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

I surely don't agree with late-term abortions but frankly, without illegitimate coercion either from other people or the state, how can you deny access? You can't.

There's a difference between using force to stop someone from having an abortion and simply not supplying the doctors and instruments necessary for "unrestricted, widespread, and totally free access."

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

There's a difference between using force to stop someone from having an abortion and simply not supplying the doctors and instruments necessary for "unrestricted, widespread, and totally free access."

The end result is the same for the women.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

The end result is the same for the women.

Yes, so? He seems to be pro-choice only because he thinks it requires force to prevent someone from receiving unrestricted access to abortion. Maybe in capitalism, sure, but in communism they could simply be denied the necessary resources. No force necessary.


This is why we support free access to abortion - it's because we think that women should be able to exercise control over their bodies and uphold bodily autonomy as a fundamental moral principle.You make it seem as if this person must necessarily not accept the principles of bodily autonomy. If they recognize that a fetus is alive then they're just extending the rights of bodily autonomy to the fetus and can still accept the same moral principles.

I'm not sure how many pro-life leftists there are, but I'm sure this rule has kept away quite a few who were dedicated socialists.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Yes, so?

So therefore by not providing the resources necessary, one is effectively preventing women from getting abortions. It's not exactly a hard concept to grasp.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

So therefore by not providing the resources necessary, one is effectively preventing women from getting abortions. It's not exactly a hard concept to grasp.

Yes, that's the point, that it doesn't necessitate the type of statist force he was seemingly referring to.

[Jazzratt]

Wrong forum.

[Havet]

Secondly, anyone who's researched the politics of abortion or been involved in abortion activism in real life will most likely have been exposed to the graphic pictures used by anti-choice activists to shock people into supporting their cause. We all know what a fetus looks like, it's got nothing to do with whether people are religious or not, and everything to do with our support for womens liberation.

Well said, and i'd like to add this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miQ1vnLInZg

[Robert]

You really think there can be revolution

Revolution? Surely you jest, madam. This particular sub-forum is for people with computers, opinions, and spare time to complain about perceived injustices. That's as far as it goes.

As for your "communism," it cannot be reconciled with the slightest restriction on abortion, and that goes right up to the moment the umbilical cord is completely severed and the baby is breathing independently. Until then, it is nothing but a parasite and may be destroyed at will by its host.

Live with that or find a different ideology.

[trivas7]

[...] And it doesn't matter if everything I said was perfectly logical, because you have already made a decision that you will never listen to any debate whatsoever on the topic.

Not only this topic, unfortunately.

How someone like Kwitsatz Haderach squares this policy w/ his Christianity is beyond me.

[Revy]

To think of fetuses as people is extremely un-scientific.



"Yet the fetus is not a sentient, self-aware organism at this point [week 13]; it is more like a sea slug, a writhing, reflex-bound hunk of sensory-motor processes that does not respond to anything in a directed, purposeful way. Laying down the infrastructure for a mature brain and possessing a mature brain are two very different states of being." - The Ethical Brain, Michael Gazzaniga, page 6

[Bud Struggle]

Revolution? Surely you jest, madam. This particular sub-forum is for people with computers, opinions, and spare time to complain about perceived injustices. That's as far as it goes.

As for your "communism," it cannot be reconciled with the slightest restriction on abortion, and that goes right up to the moment the umbilical cord is completely severed and the baby is breathing independently. Until then, it is nothing but a parasite and may be destroyed at will by its host.

Live with that or find a different ideology.

Dead on post Robert.

OP, RBD--welcome to great Soviet Union posting place we talk about value of Communism in last centuries. Stalin, Trotsky, Kerutchev, all great men for Communism. We have set beliefs that cannot be discussed or argued. Communism (as has been noted by historians) is one set of beliefs that are set in stone.

Hey, but you make Communism come alive for the 21st Century. Welcome and stay!

[Pogue]

Revolution? Surely you jest, madam. This particular sub-forum is for people with computers, opinions, and spare time to complain about perceived injustices. That's as far as it goes.

As for your "communism," it cannot be reconciled with the slightest restriction on abortion, and that goes right up to the moment the umbilical cord is completely severed and the baby is breathing independently. Until then, it is nothing but a parasite and may be destroyed at will by its host.

Live with that or find a different ideology.

u so cleber

[Bud Struggle]

u so cleber

The OP "you know what" slapped you Commies quite nicely in her post. :cool:

[Pogue]

Not really. I value bodily autonomy.

[Bud Struggle]

Not really. I value bodily autonomy.

Nice. A man telling a woman how she should feel about her body. :rolleyes:

[Conquer or Die]

Abortion is, in my opinion, immoral. Abortion will fade away with the death of capitalism. Other immoral things like guns and violence are sometimes necessary, as is political violence. Abortion is one of these things.

[Pogue]

Nice. A man telling a woman how she should feel about her body. :rolleyes:

What are you implying by this?

[Bud Struggle]

Abortion is, in my opinion, immoral. Abortion will fade away with the death of capitalism. Other immoral things like guns and violence are sometimes necessary, as is political violence. Abortion is one of these things.

Now that's fair and decent idea.

[Pogue]

Abortion is, in my opinion, immoral. Abortion will fade away with the death of capitalism. Other immoral things like guns and violence are sometimes necessary, as is political violence. Abortion is one of these things.

Do you support a womans right to get an abortion though?

[Bud Struggle]

What are you implying by this?

I'm saying a woman stated her opinion about abortion--and you 9and those of your ilk) are telling her about her "biology."

[Bud Struggle]

do you support a womans right to get an abortion though?

Danger Will Robinson!!!

http://www.uncrate.com/men/images/robby-the-robot.jpg

[Pogue]

I'm saying a woman stated her opinion about abortion--and you 9and those of your ilk) are telling her about her "biology."

I said I value bodily autonomy.

So again, what were you trying to imply?

[Bud Struggle]

I said I value bodily autonomy.

So again, what were you trying to imply?

Who's body? The baby's or the mother's? You never said, did you?

[Pogue]

Do you not know the meaning of the word bodily autonomy in relation to the abortion debate?

[Conquer or Die]

Do you support a womans right to get an abortion though?

Politically? Unconditional support.

When capitalism is shat out by the majority of the human race then I forsee abortion as an irrelevant thing that is discouraged by society.

[Pogue]

Politically? Unconditional support.

When capitalism is shat out by the majority of the human race then I forsee abortion as an irrelevant thing that is discouraged by society.

So because we no longer have capitalism women will no longer want control over their own bodies and will not mind enduring pregnancy and childbirth? How does that even make sense.

[Bud Struggle]

Do you not know the meaning of the word bodily autonomy in relation to the abortion debate?


No. But I do know that if you have a body--then you own one. Does a fetus have a body? The answer seems to be "yes." Small or big--there's a "body."

Your point?

[Pogue]

No. But I do know that if you have a body--then you own one. Does a fetus have a body? The answer seems to be "yes." Small or big--there's a "body."

Your point?

Wait. Don't try and turn this on me. I said I support bodily autonomy, its clear what that means in an abortion debate, and you implied it was somehow wrong for me as a male to say I support bodily autonomy.

Now stop doing your usual bottle job and actually elaborate.

[Conquer or Die]

So because we no longer have capitalism women will no longer want control over their own bodies and will not mind enduring pregnancy and childbirth? How does that even make sense.

I think it's a bit more complex than you're making it.

Bottomline: Chauvinism and capitalism are the two primary sources for the need of abortion in society.

[Pogue]

I think it's a bit more complex than you're making it.

Bottomline: Chauvinism and capitalism are the two primary sources for the need of abortion in society.

So nothing to do with not wanting to carry through undesired pregancies then? I think your being typically chauvinist yourself.

[Bud Struggle]

Wait. Don't try and turn this on me. I said I support bodily autonomy, its clear what that means in an abortion debate, and you implied it was somehow wrong for me as a male to say I support bodily autonomy. Sorry Brother--but YOU can't define meaning to anything. It takes a bit of a "SOVIET" to define meaning. And God said in the book of Isaiah--"Let us reason together."


Now stop doing your usual bottle job and actually elaborate. Once life starts--there's a BODY.

[Pogue]

Sorry Brother--but YOU can't define meaning to anything. It takes a bit of a "SOVIET" to define meaning. And God said in the book of Isaiah--"Let us reason together."

Once life starts--there's a BODY.

I am not asking you to argue abortion with me. I am asking you to elaborate on your allusion to the fatc it is somehow odd or wrong that I, a male, should declare that I support bodily autonomy, defined as the right for a woman to choose what she does with her own body.

Why is this something you'd give me an eye rolling smiley and an allusion of it being 'typica' or 'wrong' for? Stop being a fucking bottle job and just answer my question.

[StalinFanboy]

I'm saying a woman stated her opinion about abortion--and you 9and those of your ilk) are telling her about her "biology."
Women can have patriarchal views. You know this, right?

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

No. But I do know that if you have a body--then you own one. Does a fetus have a body? The answer seems to be "yes." Small or big--there's a "body."

Your point?

While the fetus does have interests, it's not until it can feel pain that any of these interests matter. Arguably, a plant has an interesting in growing. It's interests don't matter (though some argue they do) because it doesn't have any value attached to them. This value is pleasure and pain.

The fetus wants to achieve its objectives. A child cries early in life because it wants to achieve objectives, but it lacks the ability to do so. It's inability to speak is not sufficient to claim its interests are not being set back. That being said, I'm not sure what phase speech becomes possible.

Really, as soon as the fetus feels pain, it deserves moral consideration. As it develops more faculties, any pain caused towards it becomes heightened in the harm caused towards it.

Now I wouldn't advocate a straight utilitarian stance. There, we could create sense feeling organisms, put them in tubes, and sacrifice humans if it benefited the "pleasure tubes." Logically, the utilitarian might respond that we should do just that, and we are being prejudiced in favor of ourselves.

Clearly, we are biased in favor of our own interests. Therefore, every women should want to protect her freedom over the life of a stranger. Similarly, perhaps men should protect the freedom of women in their life over a strange child. Even killing children can arguably never "harm us," from an egoist perspective (aside from harming us emotionally, as per our nature).

I do think if we are going to adopt a pro-choice position, which I agree, we shouldn't consider us as having an obligation to the elderly when they are unable to care for themselves. I don't think the two positions are morally consistent. Unless, as I do, you think you should maintain the "ability" do to nothing but "choose" to do the "right" thing.

[FreeFocus]

Frankly it's pathetic to consider a fetus a "parasite." Communists can't masquerade as humanists and defenders of human rights and whatnot if we consider babies to be "parasites" up until the severing of the umbilical cord. You know, it is possible to support bodily autonomy without saying ridiculous, off the wall shit like this.

Ugh. :rolleyes:

[Conquer or Die]

So nothing to do with not wanting to carry through undesired pregancies then? I think your being typically chauvinist yourself.

A majority of undesired pregnancies come from lack of education, inequitable resource, and a shit-black society. Communism is cancerous to these ideas found in the Capitalist Commandments.

[Pogue]

A majority of undesired pregnancies come from lack of education, inequitable resource, and a shit-black society. Communism is cancerous to these ideas found in the Capitalist Commandments.

How ridiculous. Condoms can split, and rape will happen, regardless of what the social system is.

[Bud Struggle]

I am not asking you to argue abortion with me. I am asking you to elaborate on your allusion to the fatc it is somehow odd or wrong that I, a male, should declare that I support bodily autonomy, defined as the right for a woman to choose what she does with her own body. Nobody wants to discuss abortion with you less than me. But, you miss the OP's point. She wants an open discussion and you CC RevLefters say NO and make it a POINT of being the end all of "Communism"--and here's my issue, you CCers define YOURSELVES as the embodyment of Communism, with no "if" "ands" or "buts." It's totally a total illusion.


Why is this something you'd give me an eye rolling smiley and an allusion of it being 'typica' or 'wrong' for? Stop being a fucking bottle job and just answer my question.

Yea dude--you are pretending to be a Communist. So am I. Unless either of us are "Subcomandante Marcos"--we are both a couple of phonies.

The only difference between us is that I KNOW that I'm a phoney.

[Conquer or Die]

How ridiculous. Condoms can split, and rape will happen, regardless of what the social system is.

I said I unconditionally supported abortion politically. So I don't need to answer this question.

[Pogue]

Nobody wants to discuss abortion with you less than me. But, you miss the OP's point. She wants an open discussion and you CC RevLefters say NO and make it a POINT of being the end all of "Communism"--and here's my issue, you CCers define YOURSELVES as the embodyment of Communism, with no "if" "ands" or "buts." It's totally a total illusion.



Yea dude--you are pretending to be a Communist. So am I. Unless either of us are "Subcomandante Marcos"--we are both a couple of phonies.

The only difference between us is that I KNOW that I'm a phoney.

What are you talking about? All I want you to do is tell me why you posted that comment in reference to me saying I support bodily autonomy. Why is it so hard for you to do this? I'll add another question. How am I a 'phoney'?

[Bud Struggle]

What are you talking about? All I want you to do is tell me why you posted that comment in reference to me saying I support bodily autonomy. Why is it so hard for you to do this? I'll add another question. How am I a 'phoney'?

You support all this RevLeft nonsense. People can't have opinions with getting restricted? People can't debate points without getting punished? You are better than that.

If you REALLY are an Anarchist you should be in OI.

OI is real Anarchy and you should know that by now. Pogue, the sad fact is that RevLeft has made me more of and Anarchist than you.

And now please write another post in support of the status quo:

[Conquer or Die]

You support all this RevLeft nonsense. People can't have opinions with getting restricted? People can't debate points without getting punished? You are better than that.

If you REALLY are an Anarchist you should be in OI.

OI is real Anarchy and you should know that by now. Pogue, the sad fact is that RevLeft has made me more of and Anarchist than you.

And now please write another post in support of the status quo:

The only defense of restriction is streamlining things. I don't want to talk about the Red Army's operations against Japanese forces during world war 2 where half the posts are about how the LTV is invalid or some shit.

[Pogue]

You support all this RevLeft nonsense. People can't have opinions with getting restricted? People can't debate points without getting punished? You are better than that.

If you REALLY are an Anarchist you should be in OI.

OI is real Anarchy and you should know that by now. Pogue, the sad fact is that RevLeft has made me more of and Anarchist than you.

And now please write another post in support of the status quo:

I'm going to make this really easy and I don't want you to say anything unless your directly answering these 3 questions:

1. Why did you post that comment with the roll eye face when I said I support bodily autonomy?

2. How am I a 'phoney communist?

3. How can you, a supporter of capitalism and the state, a self avowed facotory owner and generally un-anarchistic person who doesn't even beleive class struggle exists be more anarchist than me, someone who subscribes to anarchist ideology and is active to that effect?

[Bud Struggle]

I'm going to make this really easy and I don't want you to say anything unless your directly answering these 3 questions:

1. Why did you post that comment with the roll eye face when I said I support bodily autonomy?[quote]

Because the fetus has a body. Agree of disagree--it has one.

[quote]2. How am I a 'phoney communist? Not really phony Communist--maybe too harsh, but you can't be a REAL Anarchist Communist and support RevLeft. Listen, I have no problem with RevLeft--authoritarian, rigid and dicitorial, I'm a Capitalist. I can live by those rules--I just don't understand how you as an Anarchist can. I can't see how an intelligent Communist woman saying that she has problems with abortion. So what? Let her have her say. No need to be in agreement--but in solidarity. Am I the only one that takes IWW "brotherhood" seriously?


3. How can you, a supporter of capitalism and the state, a self avowed facotory owner and generally un-anarchistic person who doesn't even beleive class struggle exists be more anarchist than me, someone who subscribes to anarchist ideology and is active to that effect?Yea, I own a factory, you don't--big deal. Arguing over that point is NEVER going to get us together. It's that we are brothers--I know you don't believe it--but I certainly do Pogue, I create businesses, I do that and I'm good at that and I NEED workers and they NEED me. That is who I am. All your Communist stuff says that guys like me need not exist--and that's just is not that truth.

You can't defeat us--just like we can't defeat you. You pretending that the bourgeoise will go away is like the bourgeoise pretending that the proletarians will go away. Maybe--but I don't see it.

We need to work together.

[Pogue]

1. Why did you post that comment with the roll eye face when I said I support bodily autonomy?[quote]

Because the fetus has a body. Agree of disagree--it has one.


But all I said was that I support bodily autonomy. That means I think the right to choose lies with the woman. You acted as if it was patronising or sexist for me, a male, to say that.


Not really phony Communist--maybe too harsh, but you can't be a REAL Anarchist Communist and support RevLeft. Listen, I have no problem with RevLeft--authoritarian, rigid and dicitorial, I'm a Capitalist. I can live by those rules--I just don't understand how you as an Anarchist can. I can't see how an intelligent Communist woman saying that she has problems with abortion should be outlawed--without you claiming outlaw status with her. Not in agreement--but in solidarity. Am I the only one that takes IWW brotherhood seriously?


It's a fucking forum.


Yea, I own a factory, you don't--big deal. Arguing over that point is NEVER going to get us together. It's that we are brothers--I know you don't believe it--but I certainly do Pogue, I create businesses, I do that and I'm good at that and I NEED workers and they NEED me. That is who I am. All your Communist stuff says that guys like me need not exist--and that's just is not that truth.

You can't defeat us--just like we can't defeat you. You pretending that the bourgeoise will go away is like the bourgeoise pretending that the proletarians will go away. Maybe--but I don't see it.

We need to work together.

Fuck off with your Christian wankery, thats the same empty shit that makes you a homophobe. We're not brothers, we have nothing in common, I don't even like you and we have no shared interest.

Your workers do not need you. You are a parasite, using them to enrich yourself and reproduce the phenonmenon of a rich suburban upper-middle class family. I am not so fussed though, theres two paths you'll go down, one, you'll lose your business to your workers, which is what i want to happen, as it is rightfully theres and you are practicing theft in making money from it (thats right, you do not deserve anything you own, as far as I am concerned you are like a street robber), or 2, you'll fade into history as another insignificant plank who contributed nothing to society. You will fade into obscurity.

[StalinFanboy]

Frankly it's pathetic to consider a fetus a "parasite." Communists can't masquerade as humanists and defenders of human rights and whatnot if we consider babies to be "parasites" up until the severing of the umbilical cord. You know, it is possible to support bodily autonomy without saying ridiculous, off the wall shit like this.

Ugh. :rolleyes:
We don't consider babies to be parasites. Just fetuses.

Feti?

[#FF0000]

You know, the policy to restrict pro-lifers is something that was voted on. And is voted on. Again. And again. And again.

Sure you can be a communist and be against abortion.

You just can't post here.

And if you really want to post here so badly, why not just suck it up and not talk about abortion, since it's got hardly anything to do with communism in the first place? :confused:

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

You know, the policy to restrict pro-lifers is something that was voted on. And is voted on. Again. And again. And again.

Sure you can be a communist and be against abortion.

You just can't post here.

And if you really want to post here so badly, why not just suck it up and not talk about abortion, since it's got hardly anything to do with communism in the first place? :confused:

Can pro-life individuals really get unrestricted if they simply don't talk about abortion? My understanding was that being pro-life entails a mistaken view on the importance of individual liberty, therefore people don't want pro-life individuals posting at all?

That being said, I'm much less opinionated in my pro-choice views than most individuals here.

[Revy]

Pro-lifers can get unrestricted when they show an honest change in their position.

Why unrestrict pro-lifers just because they say they won't post about it? Sounds ridiculous.

[Lynx]

If it's truly about streamlining then pro-lifers can pledge not to discuss the topic.

For the record I dislike the amount of baggage communist theory has accumulated. Capitalism is not concerned with your personal views on abortion, racism or sexism. What is proscribed by Capitalism is a socio-economic relationship.

[Conquer or Die]

For the record I dislike the amount of baggage communist theory has accumulated. Capitalism is not concerned with your personal views on abortion, racism or sexism. What is proscribed by Capitalism is a socio-economic relationship.

This is true. I merely look upon the features of its socio-economic relationship and derive conclusions from it.

[#FF0000]

Can pro-life individuals really get unrestricted if they simply don't talk about abortion? My understanding was that being pro-life entails a mistaken view on the importance of individual liberty, therefore people don't want pro-life individuals posting at all?

That being said, I'm much less opinionated in my pro-choice views than most individuals here.

No but they won't be restricted in the first place if they don't let anyone know they are pro-life.

Now I'm not saying that this is a good policy for a fair and just and good society. I'm just saying that this is the internet and people should get over themselves and pick up some hobbies so they don't have to get off on being internet martyrs.

[mel]

How ridiculous. Condoms can split, and rape will happen, regardless of what the social system is.

I don't see how you can possibly say that there won't be a massive decrease in the number of unwanted pregnancies. I imagine that in any society where people are mature and educated enough to work together without the interference of a state, with complete freedom, that rape will be anywhere near as common as it is now...and with free, unfettered access to all kinds of birth control and contraception (including new kinds which will be developed in the future) I doubt if there will be very many unwanted pregnancies, though I'm sure a few will exist as will abortion in that ever-diminishing minority of cases.

[Rapid Brain Development]

Hi! A PM intrigued me, so I checked out the response and it amused me. Now for your enjoyment:

1.) My basic point was that you claim to support democracy and oppose fascism. In a democracy (yeah, a real one), you don't cull from the population everyone who is exactly like you and then give everybody else the boot. You work with what you have, pay special attention to dissent, and work with it. What you've done is created a site to hear people agree with you, and when they agree with you very, very strongly, you give them democratic-like privileges so the site can be even more in line with your unexamined values. I respect that, but you should say that up front, like in the mission statement: "We're leftists. Oh, and we don't tolerate dissent."

2.) Oh, please, can't I have back-and-forth discussions about how great communism is and never speak of my prolife agenda? Because Don't Ask, Don't Tell policies are totally in line with democracy. You even seem to be similarly labeling it as a mental illness. If I wanted to come back to the forum, I'd obviously just paraphrase something from Planned Parenthood and act like I came up with it all on my own (or due to your help, washing my brain of my sexism). But don't worry, I won't.

3.) Honestly, I don't care about posting privileges here. If I'd never read that statement, this probably would have just become one of the many forums where I post for 3 days and never come back. I posted it because I wanted to vent, offer semi-constructive criticism, or something like that. But, while we're on the topic, this forum is a metaphor for a society, and you know it. If you don't want dissent penetrating your little bubble here, that's exactly how you'd run things if you were in charge, and that's probably how you operate in life as well. I am not like that, and synthesizing opposing viewpoints is how I figured out communism was the solution in the first place. If you lack that skill, you're not exercising critical thinking; you're just adopting the mindset of whoever sounds best to you and defending it to the death. Pretty much exactly like a capitalist. Or a christian. And for the record, dissent doesn't disappear when you suppress it.

4.) My main political issue with abortion is this: You claim that people have the right to be morally opposed to abortion and not get one themselves. But then you expect me to contribute to a system which pays for these to be done. The government is IN the uterus, not out of it. My defense of it is pretty much the same as any other issue, though. Would you say that an unjust war is acceptable, as long as the soldiers are all voluntary? Would you support it as long as you weren't fighting it? I also think that if women were given adequate information about fetal development and contraceptives, and a real CHOICE, there would be hardly any abortions ever. One thing that bothers me is that so many students feel they have no other option, and honestly, they don't, because of how our society is. So you and I are actually coming from different viewpoints. To you, the fundamental right of a woman is to be a man, because she should not have a female reproductive system. To me, the fundamental right of a woman is to be a woman. She has the ability to carry a baby and that is respected, and not treated like a chronic medical condition. I guess your whole implication with sexism is, "Why should a woman be responsible for sexuality when a man is not?" But I didn't make it up. "Women belong in the house" is a culturally conditioned, sexist idea; "women carry babies" is a scientific fact, and it always will be. Men should be responsible, but they aren't. And I just don't believe that taking away all responsibility is an adequate solution, since there is an adequate ethical argument against it.

As I was hoping, somebody said, "Women can have patriarchal views." I'm going to reveal a little more about myself that will make everybody hate me: I don't alter my appearance based on society's views of what is feminine. I have never been in a romantic relationship, because I don't want one. I have never had sex, because I don't want to. Now, this patriarchal culture tells me everything the opposite of that. I am supposed to look and act a certain way, and I am supposed to love sex and detach it completely from its reproductive uses. Now, apparently, according to you, if I don't do those things which are currently advocated by our male chauvinist society, I am surrendering myself to male domination. You live under this illusion that the only patriarchy that could possibly exist is religious and conservative, but most of the sexism I encounter comes from men (and women) like yourselves who, under the guise of feminism, purport this nonsensical image of what it means to be a woman, and those of us who don't fit it are left out in the cold. And before someone says, "My girlfriend doesn't even shave her legs!" or something, I am talking purely about the female sexuality part. I don't know if you have noticed, but prostitution, pornography, sex jokes, and the like are almost invariably geared toward men, because an obsession with sex is not progressive, but inherently sexist... or at least it would seem that way because it has been thus far.

And it's really pathetic when you bring such a statistically minimal case as rape into it, and you should stop. But for the record, I agree with the person who said that communism would largely eliminate the need for abortions, for the reasons I just said; furthermore, I also think it would largely eliminate rape, if executed correctly. I also don't think abortion should be banned, but I do think it should be restricted to the first trimester, despite the politics of it. I suppose strictly speaking I am not pro-life, but I am against unnecessarily hurting those who can feel pain. And, even though several of you have expressed a need to be scientific and a belief that I ignore science (which I expected), none of you have accounted for the science that says that they can feel pain. (To those who believe that fetuses should be killed at any point in pregnancy, regardless of how much pain they can feel, simply because they are in a uterus, you are excused from that accusation, but I find you extremely callous and somewhat hypocritical in your values. And if you adapted them from someone else, he/she is a hypocrite too.) None of your arguments are based on science at all, but rather social theories and ideals. I have always been annoyed with that, as many social issues require scientific analysis and this is one of them.

5.) To the people who say communism and restrictions on abortion cannot be reconciled, you're subscribing to a particular theory of what communism means. Modern communism, and actually most current political systems, are based on the idea that a human does not have rights or any type of ethical consideration until the air hits their skin. By not subscribing to that idea, I am not subscribing to a different socioeconomic system in any way, but simply questioning one aspect of whether equality should be all-encompassing to anyone who, by our best judgment, has interests (like life; and yes I believe in animal rights). "Person" is mainly a legal term; "human" is mainly a scientific term. Fetuses ARE humans and I am suggesting that they should also be "people." I don't understand how some of you don't understand this distinction. You do not suddenly become a member of a species when you are born.

A parasite has to be a separate species, and is generally not begotten by a specific action on the "host's" part. Like, if you kept sticking your hand in a bowl of parasites because you thought it was fun, nobody would feel bad for you if you got one. But when someone utilizes their reproductive system for fun and it happens to do its job, everyone is shocked and rushes to help them get rid of the "problem." I am suggesting that this makes absolutely no sense. (If you're going to argue that I'm sexist based on this, make sure you argue it in the context of what I previously said about sexism. You guys have mad short term memory.)

6.) I'm really glad I got all that out and made a tiny wrinkle in your sheets, and that several people treated me with civility (and thank you to all who attempted to defend me or my post on any level), but this time I'm really not checking back. After reading all the replies, I now understand how the forum works, and now I can't remember what attracted me to it in the first place. But I couldn't resist posting one of these.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

No but they won't be restricted in the first place if they don't let anyone know they are pro-life.

Now I'm not saying that this is a good policy for a fair and just and good society. I'm just saying that this is the internet and people should get over themselves and pick up some hobbies so they don't have to get off on being internet martyrs.

I'm kind of sympathetic to the private martyrs, though I'm not pro-life. I take the Internet a lot seriously than most because I grew up really engrossed in the Internet. I'm also the type of person who likes to argue everything on principle. I can see why some people would go out of their way to argue trivial matters on an internet forum. I've done that since I was a teenager.

Part of it's just that it's fun to debate. Part of it's that if you think someone's wrong, you want them to concede no matter what. Part of it's just that everyone wants things their own way. It's hard to really put it to words.

Even though I'm pro-choice, I don't mind the idea of pro-life posters being unrestricted - though I think many of them have this position alongside an anti-homosexual one, which would be restricted. I think the issue deals with "when life begins," "what constitutes moral consideration," and "what freedoms should never be restricted upon." I think all three are complicated issues, and it's rather presumptuous to consider the issue "closed" to leftists. The attitude that the issue is "settled," among leftists, is what I think is partly to blame for the increased influence of the pro-life movement.

Refusing to engage with someone who is bringing legitimate points to the table does nothing but make these individuals exist in a private world, eventually increasing their numbers while the pro-choice position does nothing to sway people towards it. Really, if you told people nothing but what an abortion is, I think the pro-life position would win on people's moral sentiments alone, based on what a fetus is, what it looks like, et cetera. The pro-choice individuals need to be more active in a lot of cases.

Take the animal rights movement. Like utilitarianism. Peter Singer. Kantianism. Tom Regan. Nonviolent. Gandhi. Christian. Tolstoy. Virtue ethics? Well, I had a prof who was a virtue ethicist and vegetarian, but I'm sure famous examples exist.

The pro-choice position seems to operate primarily on a virtue ethics or humanist line. Well, most religious people won't buy that. A lot of people are Kantian. Utilitarianism is popular in academia.

In my opinion, throwing out pro-life individuals would require at least a comprehensive "Question and Answer" to all the possible objections. I'd be quite interested in working with someone more knowledgeable to establish such a list. I just think there are 100 questions that need to be addressed before dismissing a pro-life person. Not merely shout the word "parasite" and be done with the discussion.

[#FF0000]

Yeah but I really don't care about discussing abortion, since if you even try to have that rule changed you might get branded a sexist by one or two or three of the Feminist Crusaders (who are pretty much right anyway so it's hard to argue with them without them having to resort to dumb character assassination) in the CC.

Plus I remember a long time ago Desrumeaux pointed out that pro-lifers in OI also happened to be (surprise) dumb sexists. And she's been proven right a few times and so I don't really care anyway since I am just fine with them being restricted or banned.

What I will do is go to the CC and propose that anyone who even mentions abortion, be it from a pro-life or a pro-choice perspective, be banned immediately, just to save everyone the aggravation.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

You know, the policy to restrict pro-lifers is something that was voted on. And is voted on. Again. And again. And again.

Sure you can be a communist and be against abortion.

You just can't post here.

And if you really want to post here so badly, why not just suck it up and not talk about abortion, since it's got hardly anything to do with communism in the first place? :confused:
So if it is disclosed by accident that a poster is against abortion, but that poster says he or she will not post about it, the CC will vote to let him or her stay unrestricted?

[Qwerty Dvorak]

RBD, if I could thank your posts I would but alas we enemies of the people don't have that privilege. Good stuff though. I'm pro-choice myself but even when I was in the CC I opposed the restriction of everyone who didn't follow that same line.

[Robert]

Now for your enjoyment

Well, I DID enjoy your post. Muchly.

You are very perceptive, articulate and intelligent, and you would adorn the forum if you were to stay.

Stick around. Come onnnnnnn, now, you'll have more fun with us in OI
than you will in some old boring, squishy, hand holding, Kumbaya-ish love nest where all are welcome.

You know you want to.

What, not even a little?

[trivas7]

Abortion is, in my opinion, immoral. Abortion will fade away with the death of capitalism. Other immoral things like guns and violence are sometimes necessary, as is political violence. Abortion is one of these things.
Ah -- one more symptom of that universal degeneracy that will whither away w/ capitalism! ;)

[GPDP]

Ah -- one more symptom of that universal degeneracy that will whither away w/ capitalism! ;)

As much as I dislike your snarkiness (and I do - as usual, you don't back up anything you say), you do well in pointing this out here. We need to stop categorizing every instance of supposed "immorality" as being a case of "bourgeois decadence" or what have you. I've seen so-called communists describe homosexuality as a symptom of such, and it's downright pathetic.

[Robert]

Abortion will fade away with the death of capitalism.

I guess you mean that with no economic pressures or sexism, there will be no disincentive to having children. There is a logic to that if you accept the premises (which I don't), but aren't you still missing a couple of other reasons women abort?

According to one reactionary site, economic reasons account for only 23% of American abortions.

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/reasonsabortions.html

[Jazzratt]

I guess you mean that with no economic pressures or sexism, there will be no disincentive to having children. There is a logic to that if you accept the premises (which I don't), but aren't you still missing a couple of other reasons women abort?

According to one reactionary site, economic reasons account for only 23% of American abortions.

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/reasonsabortions.html

If I cared one way or another about how many abortions were being had I'd point out that standards of public education would also be higher, meaning that the number of people who become pregnant in spite of not feeling ready or mature enough (accounting for a further 32% of abortions) would fall. With a different approach taken to children and raising them the state of a relationship would be less important, accounting for another 4%. So if all goes to plan under communism there would be an ~86% drop in abortion rates.

Then again is there isn't and people simply abort for new and unforeseen reasons, well, that's their choice.

[mel]

If I cared one way or another about how many abortions were being had I'd point out that standards of public education would also be higher, meaning that the number of people who become pregnant in spite of not feeling ready or mature enough (accounting for a further 32% of abortions) would fall. With a different approach taken to children and raising them the state of a relationship would be less important, accounting for another 4%. So if all goes to plan under communism there would be an ~86% drop in abortion rates.

Then again is there isn't and people simply abort for new and unforeseen reasons, well, that's their choice.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

[#FF0000]

I'm also pretty sure that the OP is a sockpuppet for that Nulono idiot we banned not long ago. If a global mod would do an IP check it'd be appreciated.

[Jazzratt]

I'm also pretty sure that the OP is a sockpuppet for that Nulono idiot we banned not long ago. If a global mod would do an IP check it'd be appreciated.

IP seemse unique and given that this member has slung their hook anyway it seems a trifle academic.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

I'm also pretty sure that the OP is a sockpuppet for that Nulono idiot we banned not long ago. If a global mod would do an IP check it'd be appreciated.
Wouldn't life be so simple if everyone who disagreed with you was actually the same person?

[mel]

Wouldn't life be so simple if everyone who disagreed with you was actually the same person?

They aren't?

[Plagueround]

In this thread:

Revleft enjoys yet another tired abortion debate, and Robert and Tom derail the thread with one liners and snickering doubt, not unlike anti-communist versions of Beavis and Butthead.

[Plagueround]

Wouldn't life be so simple if everyone who disagreed with you was actually the same person?

On this forum they usually are, although I'm sure there are instances where the IP address of the person who was recently banned has a roommate that shares their computer and happens to have the same political views and typing style.

[SocialPhilosophy]

Abortion is, in my opinion, immoral. Abortion will fade away with the death of capitalism. Other immoral things like guns and violence are sometimes necessary, as is political violence. Abortion is one of these things.

Guns are Immoral? :scared: Explain that one.

[Radical]

Although I am Pro-Choice. I do not encourage abortion and if I was a women, I would find it EXTREMILY hard to even consider an abortion.

[ev]

Yeah but I really don't care about discussing abortion, since if you even try to have that rule changed you might get branded a sexist by one or two or three of the Feminist Crusaders (who are pretty much right anyway so it's hard to argue with them without them having to resort to dumb character assassination) in the CC.

Plus I remember a long time ago Desrumeaux pointed out that pro-lifers in OI also happened to be (surprise) dumb sexists. And she's been proven right a few times and so I don't really care anyway since I am just fine with them being restricted or banned.

What I will do is go to the CC and propose that anyone who even mentions abortion, be it from a pro-life or a pro-choice perspective, be banned immediately, just to save everyone the aggravation.

I disagree with this. Everyone should be entitled to free speech in this forum, regardless of the subject matter. Why can't this be openly discussed in a progressive format?
You're not going to be selfish and protect yourself from "character assasinations" or any other bureaucratic bullshit that takes place within the CC by taking away members rights to discuss such topics.

You seem trigger happy with the banned/restricted function with such remarks:

I don't really care anyway since I am just fine with them being restricted or banned.
If half the effort went into explaining to people the facts - in a non-reactionary manner instead of banning or restricting members then we'd have a lot more progressive discussion..


As for my position on the matter, I support a womans bodily autonomy. Furthermore, to the OP, grow up - cry more..

[LOLseph Stalin]

Although I am Pro-Choice. I do not encourage abortion and if I was a women, I would find it EXTREMILY hard to even consider an abortion.

That's quite similar to how I feel actually. I support women having the choice to abort 100%, however I probably couldn't do it myself. I'm sure many women feel the same way, but have to make this difficult decision due to financial difficulties and such that arise from Capitalist oppression. For a difficult decision like this there should definitely be some kind of emotional support I think.

[Manifesto]

I'm sure many women feel the same way, but have to make this difficult decision due to financial difficulties and such that arise from Capitalist oppression.
I think the reason most women have an abortion is because of an unwanted pregnancy due to reasons like they are too young, or simply do not want a child.

[mel]

I think the reason most women have an abortion is because of an unwanted pregnancy due to reasons like they are too young, or simply do not want a child.

Economic difficulties are near the top of the list...but the statistics that would or would not support your point have already been mentioned earlier in the thread.

[Manifesto]

Economic difficulties are near the top of the list...but the statistics that would or would not support your point have already been mentioned earlier in the thread.
Oh guess I didn't read Robert's post.