Expose on anti-abortionists lies [Archive]

blake 3:17

8th August 2010, 00:31

This is from today's Toronto Star, Canada's largest newspaper with a centre left bent. The article is quite long so this is just the intro.

Deception used in counselling women against abortion

Frances Keet approaches a young woman outside an abortion clinic and shoves some pamphlets – “Pregnant? Confused? We can help” – into her hands.

“We offer help so you don’t have to go through with it,” Keet says.
When she learns the woman does not have an appointment but is thinking about it, she ushers her up a long narrow staircase and into a soft-lit room.

There is a comfortable couch. There is a coffee table. There are scale
models of fetuses nestled into the womb.

This is the counselling room of Aid to Women (http://www.aidtowomen.ca/), a registered charity set up next door to the Cabbagetown Women’s Clinic (http://www.cabbagetownwomensclinic.com) on Gerrard St. E. and Parliament St. in Toronto. Its website advertises counselling on unplanned pregnancy and information on abortion and its alternatives. The charity also gives away baby clothes, cribs and diapers.
Keet grabs a clipboard, settles into a padded wicker chair and begins the hard sell.

“I can’t make those decisions for you,” Keet says, but she has some troubling information to share. A woman who has an abortion, she says, puts herself at great risk of developing breast cancer. Terminating a pregnancy is far more dangerous than carrying a baby to term. And she might never be able to get pregnant again.

At one point she says the fetal parts, or “pieces of babies” are sold to medical research. “There was a big truck that was out there. I don’t know if you saw it: a big truck?” she asks, describing untruthfully how the parts are collected in a bin and picked up for sale.

She gives a terrifying description of the procedure itself. She shows pictures of an aborted fetus, limbs lying in a bloody mess. She plays with her lip as she watches the woman stare.

The point Keet drives home again and again is that a woman will, without a doubt, suffer severe emotional pain following an abortion because it is always – always —the wrong decision.

“You get hardened, because you know it’s a life and then that life is gone,” she says.

Aid to Women is one of many pro-life agencies across the continent called “crisis pregnancy centres,” which describe themselves as non-judgmental sources of support for women with unplanned pregnancies, but use misleading information to discourage them from choosing abortion.

These charitable organizations offer free pregnancy tests and counselling to women seeking accurate information about “all” of their options – abortion, adoption and parenting – without always readily disclosing their belief that terminating a pregnancy is the wrong choice.

The Star sent a reporter to eight of these centres in the Greater Toronto Area, posing as a woman six weeks pregnant who was leaning toward having an abortion but first wanted to learn more about the procedure and its risks.

Story: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/844997--deception-used-in-counselling-women-against-abortion

Communist Guy

9th August 2010, 18:28

Jimmie Higgins

9th August 2010, 18:38

Communist Guy

9th August 2010, 18:49

Now, that is physically impossible. But if by some freak of nature I manage to get pregnant :D

I would gladly chop off my genitals and give birth to the baby. Well... maybe not gladly :D
But, I'd do it

Broletariat

9th August 2010, 18:54

I personally beleive abortion is wrong and is like murder.

I think it should only be used in cases of underage children or people to weak to have a child where it is a risk for your life.

Otherwise abortion is wrong. You are preventing someone from living.
To substantiate your claims that abortion is wrong because it is taking a life you will have to do at least two things.

1. Prove the difference between removing a parasite from your body and removing a fetus from your body (they're basically the same thing)

2. Argue against the slippery-slope that you have invoked by discussing potential life.

Adi Shankara

9th August 2010, 18:59

To substantiate your claims that abortion is wrong because it is taking a life you will have to do at least two things.

1. Prove the difference between removing a parasite from your body and removing a fetus from your body (they're basically the same thing)

Well I'm not generally anti-abortion, but that's a pretty bad argument, considering the scientific meaning of a parasite is one organism of another species that invades another organism of another species. ( Cheng, General Parasitology, p. 7, 1973.)

also, wiki:

Parasitism is a type of symbiotic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiosis) relationship between organisms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organism) of different species (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species) where one organism, the parasite, benefits at the expense of the host (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Host_%28biology%29).

Quail

9th August 2010, 19:00

This is disgusting. It's almost as bad as forcing the woman to keep the baby. After going through one of those "counselling" sessions, a woman is definitely going to be emotionally scarred by the abortion if she goes through with it, and abortion can't be an easy thing to go through in the first place.

Broletariat

9th August 2010, 19:02

Well I'm not anti-abortion, but that's not a very good argument, considering the scientific meaning of a parasite is one organism of another species that invades another organism. ( Cheng, T.C., General Parasitology, p. 7, 1973.)
In terms of negative effects they are equivilant, you've got the host who is suffering negative consequences as a result of the "parasite." The only real difference is that the actual definition of parasite includes that it must be of a different species.

Communist Guy

9th August 2010, 19:03

To substantiate your claims that abortion is wrong because it is taking a life you will have to do at least two things.

1. Prove the difference between removing a parasite from your body and removing a fetus from your body (they're basically the same thing)

2. Argue against the slippery-slope that you have invoked by discussing potential life.

The difference between a parasite and a baby is simple.

Parasites are greatly inferior to humans.

Parasites only want to use you as a home. Generally, people want to rid the world of parasites. But very few people want to do that with babies :D

A baby is 50% made up of you. It will look like you and be like you, it is part of you. When it is born it will love you.

A baby is made from your blood, you caused it to live. Killing it is murder, it is wrong.

Killing animals is not murder, and parasites are no where near as morally important as animals.

A baby however, is a human, it is something that will grow to be something that thinks and lives and feels.

How can you justify its murder?

Adi Shankara

9th August 2010, 19:08

In terms of negative effects they are equivilant, you've got the host who is suffering negative consequences as a result of the "parasite." The only real difference is that the actual definition of parasite includes that it must be of a different species.

The negative effects are largely subjective. I know some women who rather not get pregnant, and some women who greatly want to get pregnant. you can't use a blanket term like "suffering negative consequences" on something so subjective. Also, many women don't mind the pain in terms of waiting to complete the pregnancy. I know my own girlfriend greatly wants many children, and while she hasn't gotten pregnant yet, she really wants to when she completes school.

but to say pregnancy is all negative consequences...I mean, wouldn't that be like saying working out is harming your body, because when you do it, it hurts and makes you tired?

Quail

9th August 2010, 19:08

A baby might be human, but a fetus isn't. There was a thread in sciences and environment a while ago that you might find interesting: http://www.revleft.com/vb/uk-report-fetus-t137559/index.html (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../uk-report-fetus-t137559/index.html)

Broletariat

9th August 2010, 19:11

The difference between a parasite and a baby is simple.

Parasites are greatly inferior to humans.

Parasites only want to use you as a home. Generally, people want to rid the world of parasites. But very few people want to do that with babies :D

A baby is 50% made up of you. It will look like you and be like you, it is part of you. When it is born it will love you.

A baby is made from your blood, you caused it to live. Killing it is murder, it is wrong.

Killing animals is not murder, and parasites are no where near as morally important as animals.

A baby however, is a human, it is something that will grow to be something that thinks and lives and feels.

How can you justify its murder?
In what way?

That's all a fetus wants to use you as, a home to suck dry nutrients. Who cares what people "want" this isn't a subjective debate.

Bullshit it will love you, you think an abusive mother who beats the shit out of her child every night is going to love her just because it's her baby? What about babies that get sent to orphanages that never know their parents, certainly they don't love their parents, not necessarily dislike them, but they've had no contact with them how could they possibly love something they don't even know.

This seems to be a type of "blaming the victim" What if contraceptives were used and they happened to fail?

Morally important? What kind of idealistic blithe is this?

Again, this is where the slippery-slope gets invoked.

How can you justify wrenching away control of a woman's body from her?

Broletariat

9th August 2010, 19:12

The negative effects are largely subjective. I know some women who rather not get pregnant, and some women who greatly want to get pregnant. you can't use a blanket term like "suffering negative consequences" on something so subjective. Also, many women don't mind the pain in terms of waiting to complete the pregnancy. I know my own girlfriend greatly wants many children, and while she hasn't gotten pregnant yet, she really wants to when she completes school.

but to say pregnancy is all negative consequences...I mean, wouldn't that be like saying working out is harming your body, because when you do it, it hurts and makes you tired?
Yes, but we're assuming a woman that WANTS an abortion, why would we assume a woman who doesn't want an abortion in terms of discussing whether or not abortions should be allowed?

durhamleft

9th August 2010, 19:13

I personally beleive abortion is wrong and is like murder.

I think it should only be used in cases of underage children or people to weak to have a child where it is a risk for your life.

Otherwise abortion is wrong. You are preventing someone from living.

Hey, newsflash, when you get something aborted it is NOT a baby. It is a BUNDLE OF CELLS. It cannot think, feel or have opinions. Your argument may as well extend to saying that condoms are wrong because they stop the "life" in sperm mixing with the "life" in egg and thus they are a baby.

Who are you to say that a bundle of cells is a living being, if you accept that sperm is wasted on a secondly basis?

Adi Shankara

9th August 2010, 19:15

Yes, but we're assuming a woman that WANTS an abortion, why would we assume a woman who doesn't want an abortion in terms of discussing whether or not abortions should be allowed?

well, because they're women too, aren't they?

but irregardless, I support abortion in pretty much most cases, so I guess I'm not one to be debating.

NecroCommie

9th August 2010, 19:16

The difference between a parasite and a baby is simple.

Parasites are greatly inferior to humans.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqyixwqiCag

Parasites only want to use you as a home. Generally, people want to rid the world of parasites. But very few people want to do that with babies :D

You don't need to rid the world of parasites or babies. It is enough to rid them for those who do not wish them. And there are plenty of pregnant women who do not want a baby.

A baby is 50% made up of you. It will look like you and be like you, it is part of you.
Now this is just insane. It is an entirely different organism, it cannot possibly be 50% "you", since it is something completely else than you.
When it is born it will love you. Says who? God?

A baby is made from your blood, you caused it to live. Killing it is murder, it is wrong. And not giving an abortion to a woman who wishes it is similar to forcing her to prostitution. Women have all right to their bodies, even if it includes small non-conscious organisms.

Killing animals is not murder, and parasites are no where near as morally important as animals. Parasites are animals. And some might say that killing an animal is murder.

A baby however, is a human, it is something that will grow to be something that thinks and lives and feels. But the key point that it is nothing like that at the time of the abortion. If we start talking about what might be, then I should be tried for the violations I just might commit upon your body.

How can you justify its murder?
Easily. The victim is a pro-life loon.

Seriously, pro-life is anti-woman.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qtlvr6LLV8

Broletariat

9th August 2010, 19:18

well, because they're women too, aren't they?

but irregardless, I support abortion in pretty much most cases, so I guess I'm not one to be debating.
..Yea but they're completely irrelevant in the discussion of abortions if they wouldn't want one right?

Adi Shankara

9th August 2010, 19:19

And not giving an abortion to a woman who wishes it is similar to forcing her to prostitution.

yqyixwqiCag

Adi Shankara

9th August 2010, 19:21

..Yea but they're completely irrelevant in the discussion of abortions if they wouldn't want one right?

I don't know. I believe if abortion is truly to be a woman's choice, it must be the choice of all women, perhaps decided by referendum in which only women can vote, not just those who are pro-abortion or anti-abortion. (terms like "anti-choice" and "pro-life" are ridiculous)

Communist Guy

9th August 2010, 19:21

Bullshit it will love you,

Well I'm very sorry to hear you dont love your mother, but normal people do.Now, I'm not trying to be offensive here, but children do love their parents.

How can you justify wrenching away control of a woman's body from her?

How can you justify wrenching a baby's life from itself.

Women have the right to their bodies but babies have the right to their lives.

Parasites are not animals in case you didnt know

Dammit, I was a bout to write an amazing wall of text that would (hopefully) shut you up :D

But I've gotta go eat dinner so cya later

Broletariat

9th August 2010, 19:25

I don't know. I believe if abortion is truly to be a woman's choice, it must be the choice of all women, perhaps decided by referendum in which only women can vote, not just those who are pro-abortion or anti-abortion. (terms like "anti-choice" and "pro-life" are ridiculous)
Uhh what? When I read this I get the impression that you're saying I'm trying to force abortion on all women or something?

Adi Shankara

9th August 2010, 19:29

Uhh what? When I read this I get the impression that you're saying I'm trying to force abortion on all women or something?

No, not at all; I don't think that at all, I believe men (considering your name I'll assume you are male) can have opinions on abortion...I just don't think we as men should have any business deciding on abortion.

Thus usually I tend to be silent on it when it comes to anything more than opinions, and why I abstain from voting on propositions relating to abortion. (unless it's something like protecting the life of abortion doctors with enhanced criminal penalties, which I'd vote for)

Broletariat

9th August 2010, 19:30

No, not at all; I don't think that at all, I believe men (considering your name I'll assume you are male) can have opinions on abortion...I just don't think we as men should have any business deciding on abortion.

Thus usually I tend to be silent on it when it comes to anything more than opinions, and why I abstain from voting on propositions relating to abortion. (unless it's something like protecting the life of abortion doctors with enhanced criminal penalties, which I'd vote for)
Do you have no opinions on women's suffrage then?

NecroCommie

9th August 2010, 19:33

durhamleft

9th August 2010, 19:33

Well I'm very sorry to hear you dont love your mother, but normal people do.Now, I'm not trying to be offensive here, but children do love their parents.

How can you justify wrenching a baby's life from itself.

Women have the right to their bodies but babies have the right to their lives.

Parasites are not animals in case you didnt know

Dammit, I was a bout to write an amazing wall of text that would (hopefully) shut you up :D

But I've gotta go eat dinner so cya later

How is a bundle of cells a baby? How?

Adi Shankara

9th August 2010, 19:33

Do you have no opinions on women's suffrage then?

I see your point, although that would've been different, whereas in the past the only way for women to have been liberated would be by men (because only men can vote), now women can legally make the choice for themselves to vote or not.

Broletariat

9th August 2010, 19:34

I see your point, although that would've been different, whereas in the past the only way for women to have been liberated would be by men (because only men can vote), now women can legally make the choice for themselves to vote or not.
So now the only way to make changes is by voting?

Adi Shankara

9th August 2010, 19:35

So now the only way to make changes is by voting?

No, we were talking "suffrage", which by definition, is voting, so I was responding in the context provided. If I was president of a country though, I'd do what I could to pass safe abortion legislation as needed. I just liked how president Thomas Sankara set up councils consisted entirely of women to decide woman's affairs, and had certain referendums where only women could vote on issues relating to them.

durhamleft

9th August 2010, 19:36

A fetus has no rights to anything. It's just a blob of biomatter. Like ants. It has no consciousness, and no own will, therefor it cannot want anything and it simply cannot have freedom of choice. I don't see a lot of you guys defending ant rights.

Fine, if you want to defend an unconcious entity's right to life, I expect that you also defend the rights viruse's. Or where exactly is the line with these pro-life people? What exactly is life? Why fetus and not animals?

How is it that sperm and eggs that are separate (CELLS) are not given 'the right to live' but once they've mixed and are again... CELLS they suddenly should have a right to live?

pro-life nuts are fucking lunatics..

Broletariat

9th August 2010, 19:37

No, we were talking "suffrage", which by definition, is voting, so I was responding in the context provided. If I was president of a country though, I'd do what I could to pass safe abortion legislation as needed.
We were talking about gaining the right to vote, you implied it could only be gained by men voting.

Quail

9th August 2010, 19:40

Women have the right to their bodies but babies have the right to their lives.

Babies have a right to live, but a fetus is not a baby. I suggest you read the thread I linked to in my previous post:

A baby might be human, but a fetus isn't. There was a thread in sciences and environment a while ago that you might find interesting: http://www.revleft.com/vb/uk-report-fetus-t137559/index.html (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../uk-report-fetus-t137559/index.html)

Although when I said a fetus isn't human, I actually meant that a fetus isn't alive in the same way that a baby is.

leftace53

9th August 2010, 19:49

Decent article.

The Mississauga Life Centre (http://www.choosetoknow.ca/), affiliated with CAPSS, is in the basement of a building in the trendy Port Credit area of Mississauga at Lakeshore Rd. E. and Hurontario St. The volunteers and staff are hip-looking, university-aged women who wear stylish casual clothing such as off-the-shoulder tops and chunky jewellery.

rofl, I find it amusing that this has to be stated outright. It shows the high level of religious indoctrination in this "business".

I really really hate pro life groups, especially if they do shit like this, trying to guilt women into having a baby is just ridiculous, I mean come on, wouldn't that just result in a worse household situation for the baby. I swear, the women they see may have cells in their bellies, but these people have no cells in their brains.

Communist Guy

9th August 2010, 20:17

durhamleft

9th August 2010, 20:36

A fetus may not be a human yet (however after 6-7 months it is considered a baby) but it will become one. Therefore by killing it you are taking away the potential life of a human being. I think abortion is acceptable within the first 2-3 months of pregnancy (before it is truly alive) or as soon as the women finds out, but after that is wrong.

Abortion is disgusting, it is murder and it is wrong. However, if women want to kill 'a bundle of cells' as you have put it, well thats up to them.

If you're saying do I agree with aborting foetuses that are at the point in which they can feel emotion, pain etc. then the answer is no... but I dont think anyone supports that... except maybe the Chinese government

Nanatsu Yoru

9th August 2010, 20:39

A fetus may not be a human yet (however after 6-7 months it is considered a baby) but it will become one. Therefore by killing it you are taking away the potential life of a human being. I think abortion is acceptable within the first 2-3 months of pregnancy (before it is truly alive) or as soon as the women finds out, but after that is wrong.

Abortion is disgusting, it is murder and it is wrong. However, if women want to kill 'a bundle of cells' as you have put it, well thats up to them.

There are probably women who agree with you (though I'm not one to talk, I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth), and with choice then people can go either way. That's why it's called choice.

Broletariat

9th August 2010, 21:07

A fetus may not be a human yet (however after 6-7 months it is considered a baby) but it will become one. Therefore by killing it you are taking away the potential life of a human being. I think abortion is acceptable within the first 2-3 months of pregnancy (before it is truly alive) or as soon as the women finds out, but after that is wrong.

Abortion is disgusting, it is murder and it is wrong. However, if women want to kill 'a bundle of cells' as you have put it, well thats up to them.
You're walking down a slippery slope of "potential life" sperm is potential life, hell EVERYTHING is potential life when you factor in the butterfly effect. We can't go based off of "potential."

Abortion should be allowed at ANY time, even 3 seconds before birth if the woman so chooses, why should she be FORCED to carry anything? The principle is that a woman has control over her body and should be allowed to remove anything from it at anytime she so chooses.

Communist Guy

9th August 2010, 21:12

You're walking down a slippery slope of "potential life" sperm is potential life, hell EVERYTHING is potential life when you factor in the butterfly effect. We can't go based off of "potential."

Abortion should be allowed at ANY time, even 3 seconds before birth if the woman so chooses, why should she be FORCED to carry anything? The principle is that a woman has control over her body and should be allowed to remove anything from it at anytime she so chooses.

Sperm is not potential life until it meets an ovum.

She should not be forced to carry anything.

The baby is alive after a few months.

He lives, he thinks, he feels pain, hunger etc. He is alive

Therefore aborting at that point is murder.

And come one, surely you do not defend murder as well.

Think of the pain the child will endure during abortion.

The mother has the right to abort. But killing a living thing should be beyond the 'choice' of a woman. If you want to abort you can, but changing your mind later is evil.

durhamleft

9th August 2010, 21:13

Communist Guy

9th August 2010, 21:15

I disagree on that point. The foetus at that stage feels pain therefore I would suggest its child cruelty.

Exactly.

At any rate, who would abort 3 secs before birth?

Is that even possible????

Broletariat

9th August 2010, 21:20

Sperm is not potential life until it meets an ovum.

She should not be forced to carry anything.

The baby is alive after a few months.

He lives, he thinks, he feels pain, hunger etc. He is alive

Therefore aborting at that point is murder.

And come one, surely you do not defend murder as well.

Think of the pain the child will endure during abortion.

The mother has the right to abort. But killing a living thing should be beyond the 'choice' of a woman. If you want to abort you can, but changing your mind later is evil.
But the sperm itself is alive, besides you're missing the point that sperm has the POTENTIAL to meet ovum.

I don't give a fuck if the baby feels pain or is alive or dies or ANYTHING. The point is that the baby is causing harm to the woman inside HER body, if she wants to take the baby out then she should be allowed to.

I think your use of the word "evil" definitely betrays your idealistic sympathies.

I disagree on that point. The foetus at that stage feels pain therefore I would suggest its child cruelty.

The point is that the fetus is harming the woman and the woman wants it to stop who the hell are you to tell her no?

Your logical form is essentially this

If action causes harm then it should be avoided.

You forget to factor in that the fetus ITSELF is causing harm to the woman. This viewpoint that women are for some reason forced to bear children is fucking sickening and I can't believe I'm seeing support for this shit on a leftist website.

Exactly.

At any rate, who would abort 3 secs before birth?

Is that even possible????
It's the principle of the matter that a woman should be able to control her own body.

Communist Guy

9th August 2010, 21:24

Broletariat

9th August 2010, 21:27

So according to you. The life of a human who has done nothing wrong is inferior to the minor suffering of a woman who had sex (a process which, as she obviously knew, leads to reproduction).

:confused:
Sex education is very poor in some parts of the world, and why are you assuming contraceptives are 100% effective?

I'm not saying RAWR RAWR KILL THE FETUS, I'm saying allow the woman to remove anything from her body that she wants to, the side-effect is just a dead fetus is all.

Communist Guy

9th August 2010, 21:30

Sex education is very poor in some parts of the world, and why are you assuming contraceptives are 100% effective?

I'm not saying RAWR RAWR KILL THE FETUS, I'm saying allow the woman to remove anything from her body that she wants to, the side-effect is just a dead fetus is all.

You are clearly not following the conversation. As I have already said. I am happy for the woman to abort and kill the fetus if she wants to. I just don't want her to kill babies. That is, after a few months of pregnancy.

Broletariat

9th August 2010, 21:31

You are clearly not following the conversation. As I have already said. I am happy for the woman to abort and kill the fetus if she wants to. I just don't want her to kill babies. That is, after a few months of pregnancy.
If the baby is inside the woman, the woman has every right to remove that baby.

Obs

9th August 2010, 21:34

Parasites are not animals in case you didnt know
I know this is from page 1, but... you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

So according to you. The life of a human who has done nothing wrong is inferior to the minor suffering of a woman who had sex (a process which, as she obviously knew, leads to reproduction).
virgin spotted

durhamleft

9th August 2010, 21:43

But the sperm itself is alive, besides you're missing the point that sperm has the POTENTIAL to meet ovum.

I don't give a fuck if the baby feels pain or is alive or dies or ANYTHING. The point is that the baby is causing harm to the woman inside HER body, if she wants to take the baby out then she should be allowed to.

I think your use of the word "evil" definitely betrays your idealistic sympathies.

The point is that the fetus is harming the woman and the woman wants it to stop who the hell are you to tell her no?

Your logical form is essentially this

If action causes harm then it should be avoided.

You forget to factor in that the fetus ITSELF is causing harm to the woman. This viewpoint that women are for some reason forced to bear children is fucking sickening and I can't believe I'm seeing support for this shit on a leftist website.

It's the principle of the matter that a woman should be able to control her own body.

I agree, but you would agree that if a woman finds a child causes her pain (perhaps it bites her?) she doesn't have a right to kill the child.

The question therefore is at what point does a foetus become a child. You would argue at the point that it is born, I would argue at the point the foetus is likely to be able to live outside the womb, therefore I would set the limit at around 20 weeks, or so, as after than it is cruel on the 'abortee' as one would either have to kill it, or allow it to die, or risk it growing up with serious disabilities.

Broletariat

9th August 2010, 21:46

I agree, but you would agree that if a woman finds a child causes her pain (perhaps it bites her?) she doesn't have a right to kill the child.
No, but she has a right to stop the child from biting her, obviously the idea of minimal force is preferable so whatever consequences follow are fine.

Invader Zim

9th August 2010, 21:48

How can you justify wrenching a baby's life from itself.

Quite easily. Firstly because neither an embryo or foetus are a 'baby'.

Secondly, no person has the 'right' to use another individuals biological resources to continue their own life without the express, and continuing permission of the doner. For example, you are under no moral or ethical obligation to give blood and nobody has the right to take your blood, regardless of the fact that it may save a life.

So unless you are suggesting that all people must give up their bodily autonomy at any, regardless of consent, time to save a life, you are proffering an inconsistant position.

(a process which, as she obviously knew, leads to reproduction)

I have had sex many times, including last week, and none of my partners became pregnant. And that is because intercourse does not, contrary to what you claim, result in pregnancy in the vast majority of instances.

Wanted Man

9th August 2010, 21:58

Communist Guy

9th August 2010, 22:02

I did not say sex always leads to reproduction. But she should have known that it could do.

If she doesn't want to have a baby then thats fine. I have already said I am okay for abortion early on.

However, keeping the baby for a bit and then randomly decideing to change and to kill the baby, which at that point will be a human being, is simply wrong.

Obs

9th August 2010, 22:07

However, keeping the baby for a bit and then randomly decideing to change and to kill the baby, which at that point will be a human being, is simply wrong.
Who the hell are you to decide when people are allowed to get an abortion? A woman can have any sort of reason to suddenly not want to give birth, and that's no concern of yours.

durhamleft

9th August 2010, 22:11

Who the hell are you to decide when people are decided to get an abortion? A woman can have any sort of reason to suddenly not want to give birth, and that's no concern of yours.

No, but it a cause of concern to the aborted foetus that was about to be born and is thus in agony.

Broletariat

9th August 2010, 22:12

I did not say sex always leads to reproduction. But she should have known that it could do.
You're saying, because when "action" occurs it is known that "consequence" might happen we should accept that "consequence" when preforming "action"?

Communist Guy

9th August 2010, 22:14

You're saying, because when "action" occurs it is known that "consequence" might happen we should accept that "consequence" when preforming "action"?

Correct.

Of course if you're unhappy, have an abortion. Don t wait a bit just to torture the baby.

Obs

9th August 2010, 22:17

No, but it a cause of concern to the aborted foetus that was about to be born and is thus in agony.
Then again, it's barely conscious and only human by the strictest definitions of the term.

You're saying, because when "action" occurs it is known that "consequence" might happen we should accept that "consequence" when preforming "action"?
Hey guys you can get STDs from having sex, too, so we shouldn't try to cure STDs

Broletariat

9th August 2010, 22:17

Correct.

Of course if you're unhappy, have an abortion. Don t wait a bit just to torture the baby.

You're saying, because when "I go outside" occurs it is known that "I could be raped" might happen we should accept that "I could be raped" when preforming "I go outside"?

yea, that makes perfect sense.

Communist Guy

9th August 2010, 22:20

yea, that makes perfect sense.

You are missing the point.

The question is not abortion or not.

I am arguing whether or not abortion after several months should be allowed which of course it shouldn't.

Invader Zim

9th August 2010, 22:20

However, keeping the baby for a bit and then randomly decideing to change and to kill the baby, which at that point will be a human being, is simply wrong.

Why? The foetus has no moral or ethical claim to her biological resources, any more than any other individual has the right to one of your kidneys without your consent.

Unless you are willing to suggest that it is always murder to withhold biological resources, which may save a life, then your agument is both inconsistant and ridiculous.

Broletariat

9th August 2010, 22:21

You are missing the point.

The question is not abortion or not.

I am arguing whether or not abortion after several months should be allowed which of course it shouldn't.
You agreed that what I posted was your logical form, is it or isn't it? Because if it is we can draw the conclusions that I made based off of your form.

durhamleft

9th August 2010, 22:24

Then again, it's barely conscious and only human by the strictest definitions of the term.

Hey guys you can get STDs from having sex, too, so we shouldn't try to cure STDs

The fact it feels pain suggests it is pretty human.

Communist Guy

9th August 2010, 22:26

The fact it feels pain suggests it is pretty human.

EXACTLY

Ones it is relatively developed, killing it is evil.

Until then abortion is fine.

Broletariat

9th August 2010, 22:27

EXACTLY

Ones it is relatively developed, killing it is evil.

Until then abortion is fine.
Why the fuck is there such idealism in a leftist forum, I thought we were materialists.

mlgb

9th August 2010, 22:27

For example, you are under no moral or ethical obligation to give blood and nobody has the right to take your blood, regardless of the fact that it may save a life.
.

but once somebody has my blood in them and it is keeping them alive i do not have the right to cut them open and take my blood back. especially not if the cuts in question would be fatal.

Communist Guy

9th August 2010, 22:29

but once somebody has my blood in them and it is keeping them alive i do not have the right to cut them open and take my blood back. especially not if the cuts in question would be fatal.

Thats my point.

Abortion is okay with me (although I still find it disgusting) early on.

Once the baby is 'alive'. Abortion becomes Murder.

Obs

9th August 2010, 22:30

The fact it feels pain suggests it is pretty human.
I guess mice are pretty human, too, then.

Communist Guy

9th August 2010, 22:50

I guess mice are pretty human, too, then.
:confused:

Errr...no

Mice are not humans...

I would have thought this a pretty basic fact.

We are not talking about a mouse. We are talking about a baby that is not born yet but can feel pain and is therefore human.

Obs

9th August 2010, 22:54

:confused:

Errr...no

Mice are not humans...

I would have thought this a pretty basic fact.

We are not talking about a mouse. We are talking about a baby that is not born yet but can feel pain and is therefore human.
Fuck, man, do I have to spell out every single point I make to you? If the ability to feel pain is what makes a foetus human, then mice are human, too, since mice can feel pain, too.

I'm not writing Das Kapital here.

Broletariat

9th August 2010, 22:54

but once somebody has my blood in them and it is keeping them alive i do not have the right to cut them open and take my blood back. especially not if the cuts in question would be fatal.
Well of course not, not if you voluntarily donated that blood.

Communist Guy

9th August 2010, 22:56

Fuck, man, do I have to spell out every single point I make to you? If the ability to feel pain is what makes a foetus human, then mice are human, too, since mice can feel pain, too.

I'm not writing Das Kapital here.

Fail. :D

You are missing the point. I t is not the ability to feel pain that makes it human but the combination of the facts that it can feel pain and that it is an unborn human

Obs

9th August 2010, 22:57

fail. :d

you are missing the point. I t is not the ability to feel pain that makes it human but the combination of the facts that it can feel pain and that it is an unborn human
it's human because it's an unborn human

herp derp

DecDoom

9th August 2010, 23:07

Well I'm very sorry to hear you dont love your mother, but normal people do.Now, I'm not trying to be offensive here, but children do love their parents.

I realize this is somewhat off topic, but I like how you say this like it's some obvious truth.

So, if my parents were abusive, and I didn't love them, I'm the one with a problem? I think I'd be hard pressed to love my abusive parents.

mlgb

9th August 2010, 23:17

Well of course not, not if you voluntarily donated that blood.

consensual sex is a voluntary acceptance of the potential consequence.
////

abortion is wrong. however, the social consequences and inevitable inequality created by its absence is even wronger. consequently, until technology for the sustaining of fetuses outside the womb advance to the point that its possible from very early on and likewise technology for the extraction of fetuses intact advances to the point that it is as safe or nearly so as a traditional abortion, abortion should be legal.

in the meantime, society should endeavor to minimize the number of abortions that occur. happily, many of the things that correlate with lower abortion rater are things that are just damn good ideas on their own anyway. early and comprehensive sex education, equal opportunities for women, reduction of poverty. all that good shit.

Muzk

9th August 2010, 23:22

Communist Guy:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3432/4612506030_d5b008fbb9.jpg

PilesOfDeadNazis

9th August 2010, 23:23

:confused:

Errr...no

Mice are not humans...

I would have thought this a pretty basic fact.

We are not talking about a mouse. We are talking about a baby that is not born yet but can feel pain and is therefore human.
If the only thing that makes something human is the fact that it can feel pain then a mouse IS a human. Using your logic, how is that not clear?

And are you saying that if something comes up in mid-pregnancy that would incline the mother to terminate the pregnancy(which is causing harm to her body) she shouldn't do it because YOU consider the oranism to be human?

Anti-abortionists seem to forget that women are humans. Moreso, in fact, than a grouping of cells feeding off of the bodily resources of others.

Abortion is not murder. It is the removing of an organism which is forcing it's self(whether it wants to or not is not the issue) on to a human. It's not about the fetus being human, it is about the harm that is done to the woman's body.

And I know you have probably gotten this plenty o times, but dude, you're a fucking dude! Why are you trying to make a pregnancy into something so light as if you have been through it?

I would also like to point out that a child in the womb has no self-awareness(the thing which most people believes would make it human).

durhamleft

9th August 2010, 23:35

Communist Guy:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3432/4612506030_d5b008fbb9.jpg

I agree, but foetus that is pulled out vagina 3 minutes before birth is in my opinion a human.

NecroCommie

9th August 2010, 23:45

Well, you would be wrong.

durhamleft

9th August 2010, 23:58

Well, you would be wrong.

Why? It can breath on its own. It can feel pain. It cries. It is a baby to all extents and purposes, it is not a bundle of cells.

Muzk

10th August 2010, 00:07

Why? It can breath on its own. It can feel pain. It cries. It is a baby to all extents and purposes, it is not a bundle of cells.

> Implying abortion is legal after 12 weeks of pregnancy

Invader Zim

10th August 2010, 00:13

but once somebody has my blood in them and it is keeping them alive i do not have the right to cut them open and take my blood back. especially not if the cuts in question would be fatal.

Indeed, you do not. By the same token, once the foetus has ceased being biologically dependent upon its mother, i.e. it has been born, then the mother has no right to retrieve her biological resources. However, we aren't discussing that, we are discussing the donation of resources in real time, not after the fact.

durhamleft

10th August 2010, 00:18

> Implying abortion is legal after 12 weeks of pregnancy

I think it should be legal up to around 24 weeks.

NecroCommie

10th August 2010, 00:19

Why? It can breath on its own. It can feel pain. It cries. It is a baby to all extents and purposes, it is not a bundle of cells.
It is.

professorchaos

10th August 2010, 00:28

Why is murder wrong?

durhamleft

10th August 2010, 00:32

It is.

In the same way an adult is, it is.

Muzk

10th August 2010, 00:52

From Clara Zetkin, Organising Working Women (November 1922)

[...]In various countries, the Communist women, under the leadership of their Party, have used every opportunity to awaken the proletarian women and to lead them into the struggle against the capitalist system. Such was the case for instance in Germany in the fight against the so-called Abortion Law, which was used for a far-reaching and successful campaign against bourgeois class rule and the bourgeois State. This campaign secured for us the sympathy and adherence of large masses of women. It was presented, not as a women’s question, but as a political question of the proletariat. [...]To refresh your historical knowledge: The post-war government of Germany in 1918 was preparing to pass a bill which would have banned abortion. Communists and workers all over Germany fought against this bill, and in the course of action this, of course, like any struggle, broadened into a fight against the system itself.
To ban abortion is to ban the right of a woman to self determination. Do we support oppression of women? Why would we not fight against something that would be in the interest of the class enemy?

For me, only capitalism's supportes can be pro-life. And you all should have the same opinion.

This is particularly directed at the people hinting into such directions. Last time I checked pro-lifers were restricted to our gulag.

durhamleft

10th August 2010, 01:00

From Clara Zetkin, Organising Working Women (November 1922)

To refresh your historical knowledge: The post-war government of Germany in 1918 was preparing to pass a bill which would have banned abortion. Communists and workers all over Germany fought against this bill, and in the course of action this, of course, like any struggle, broadened into a fight against the system itself.
To ban abortion is to ban the right of a woman to self determination. Do we support oppression of women? Why would we not fight against something that would be in the interest of the class enemy?

For me, only capitalism's supportes can be pro-life. And you all should have the same opinion.

This is particularly directed at the people hinting into such directions. Last time I checked pro-lifers were restricted to our gulag.

I think one can be pro-abortion during the early stages of pregnancy while saying that there becomes a point where the abortion is no longer acceptable.

Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures

10th August 2010, 01:21

I think one can be pro-abortion during the early stages of pregnancy while saying that there becomes a point where the abortion is no longer acceptable.

I agree, once the Baby can survive outside the Womb, it should not be aborted (and by survive, I mean, survive without life support machines).

mlgb

10th August 2010, 01:33

I agree, once the Baby can survive outside the Womb, it should not be aborted (and by survive, I mean, survive without life support machines).

ideed. at that point appeals to the health of the mother lose credibility because it is large enough that it will have to be surgically removed or birthed anyway.

Broletariat

10th August 2010, 02:27

consensual sex is a voluntary acceptance of the potential consequence.
////

Walking outside is the voluntary acceptance of the potential consequence, we've already been over this.

I agree, once the Baby can survive outside the Womb, it should not be aborted (and by survive, I mean, survive without life support machines).
So it should be no problem to just remove it from the womb if it can survive outside the womb if the woman so chooses.

Communist Guy

10th August 2010, 10:02

I would also like to point out that a child in the womb has no self-awareness(the thing which most people believes would make it human).

Yes it does.

It can feel in pain and it can move around and do things eg. kicks

The fact is, you can come up with no decent argument for why abortion late in pregnancy is acceptable.

durhamleft

10th August 2010, 11:00

I agree, once the Baby can survive outside the Womb, it should not be aborted (and by survive, I mean, survive without life support machines).

Completely agreed

Communist Guy

10th August 2010, 11:19

Completely agreed

Same :).

Abortion after 20 weeks is completely wrong.

durhamleft

10th August 2010, 11:48

Same :).

Abortion after 20 weeks is completely wrong.

Don't be so quick to say 'completely wrong'.

If at 35 weeks it became apparent that the birth could result in the mother's death then I think she should be able to abort it, however I don't think it should be seen as acceptable under normal circumstances.

Adi Shankara

10th August 2010, 11:58

Don't be so quick to say 'completely wrong'.

If at 35 weeks it became apparent that the birth could result in the mother's death then I think she should be able to abort it, however I don't think it should be seen as acceptable under normal circumstances.

hrm...I don't know about this, because at 35 weeks the baby is usually almost developed fully. that is a tricky issue, and I am not going to form an opinion on it. :)

Obs

10th August 2010, 12:48

The fact is, you can come up with no decent argument for why abortion late in pregnancy is acceptable.
You can't come up with a single decent argument for why it isn't except for absurd moralist preaching.

Peace on Earth

10th August 2010, 13:06

I'm suprised at the leftist attitudes toward the issue of abortion. I've always imagined the "far left" as very pro-abortion rights.

durhamleft

10th August 2010, 13:09

I'm suprised at the leftist attitudes toward the issue of abortion. I've always imagined the "far left" as very pro-abortion rights.

I am very pro-abortion rights.

10th August 2010, 13:11

I've always imagined the "far left" as very pro-abortion rights.
It is. Revleft, on the other hand...

So according to you. The life of a human who has done nothing wrong is inferior to the minor suffering of a woman who had sex (a process which, as she obviously knew, leads to reproduction).

:rolleyes: it's probably related to forum demographics.

Invader Zim

10th August 2010, 15:38

The fact is, you can come up with no decent argument for why abortion late in pregnancy is acceptable.

What? You attribute 'personhood' to a foetus. People have no right to the biological resources of another individual without their permission throughout the entire process. So there is a perfectly good argument that a woman can withdraw her permission for the foetus to continue employing her as a biological resource, at any stage of the pregnancy.

That blows your sexist position from the water, and don't confuse that. If you really want to subjegate women to being no more than incubators, while not extending similarly reactionary views across the spectum of society (i.e. arguing that nobody should have bodily autonomy), then you are an out and out sexist.

RedSonRising

10th August 2010, 16:21

What? You attribute 'personhood' to a foetus. People have no right to the biological resources of another individual without their permission throughout the entire process. So there is a perfectly good argument that a woman can withdraw her permission for the foetus to continue employing her as a biological resource, at any stage of the pregnancy.

What about a full grown baby already out of the whom who depends on the resources of the mother, directly biological such as breast milk, and indirect ones such as the effort to attain external necessities? (I find your biological resources argument intriguing.)

Invader Zim

10th August 2010, 19:07

After birth the child is not encroaching on the biological autonomy of its mother, and indeed if she chooses it need not even encroach on her finances. Children are regularly placed into the care of the state or of other individuals prepared to shoulder the burden of parenthood.

And I can assure you that I am not origional enough to have first concieved this argument.

Communist Guy

10th August 2010, 19:20

I personally dislike abortion but I think if a women wants to abort that is her choice and she should be allowed. However, killing baby that is developed is crazy.

Did you hear about that women in France who admitted to have killed 8 of her babies after their births. Surely you do not defend this? But in what way is what she did different to a woman who had a late abortion 8 times. The babies were developed about the same. They would feel the same if not more pain in a late abortion. And yet, what she did was murder, but late abortion is not? :confused:

If a woman does not want to take care of her baby, she can give it for adoption after his birth. Or decide to abort before the baby is too developed.

I am very happy for a woman to have an abortion when shes just found out shes having a baby. But waiting later is pointless and basically mean.

I am not sexist, I am defending the rights of babies. Why would the woman wait later to abort anyway? If it is a danger to her life that you find out later, then the chances are its a danger to the babies life as well (or he'll grow up without a mother), so abortion may be acceptable in that case. Or if a scan reveals that something is wrong with him and that he will probably die not long after born, then okay, abortion is acceptable. But otherwise, why would you abort later? It is simply wrong.

Jimmie Higgins

10th August 2010, 19:21

I'm suprised at the leftist attitudes toward the issue of abortion. I've always imagined the "far left" as very pro-abortion rights.

Well we've lost a lot of ground on the right of women to have abortions in North America (I'm not sure what the situation is like in Europe or other places). In the 1970s, people didn't have the illusions and myths propagated by anti-abortion (and anti-woman bigots) and now even supporters of the right to abortion feel that they have to talk about it in whispers and apologize for their position.

The FACT is, legal or not, women have abortions because, for any number of reasons, it is not always possible for a mother to support an eventual child. So making something that people have done for a long time and feel the need to do, illegal is no different from criminalizing immigration or consensual homosexual acts. Illegality does nothing to stop people from immigrating, loving whoever they want, or terminating an unwanted pregnancy, so anti-abortion laws and the anti-abortion movement are ultimately not pro-child, but anti-women.

In the US where most working class couples now need 2 wage earners but there is no affordable childcare. Men do not get any time off to take care of newborn children, there is little support for working pregnant women. In this kind of situation an unwanted pregnancy (not to mention the baby, if born) is unquestionably a burden and so every woman should have a right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy and shouldn't be moralized into feeling even worse for having to do this. The far-right strategists know that abortion is already a stressful thing for a pregnant woman to consider and potentially go through and so they pounce on this and ramp up the guild and the shame in order to advance their political position - hence they don't really give a shit if what they are telling women (as in the OP's news story) as long as they make women feel like shit and a criminal ("murderer") for even wanting to terminate a pregnancy.

Jimmie Higgins

10th August 2010, 19:27

I personally dislike abortion but I think if a women wants to abort that is her choice and she should be allowed. However, killing baby that is developed is crazy. In that one case of infanticide you talk about, there were obviously other problems not directly connected to the pregnancy and so it's useless to use this as an example.

Instead why not talk about abandoned newborns and infanticide in the US. When abortion is made shameful and nearly impossible to get (especially for minors with religious parents) what happens? Babies in dumpsters.

Now let's turn the tables and see how the anti-abortion crowd likes being shamed and moralized to:lol:: favoring restrictions and limitations on abortion rights is the same as wanting to see babies in dumpsters, you baby-killers. Anti-abortion = pro-infanticide.

Jimmie Higgins

10th August 2010, 19:34

I am not sexist, I am defending the rights of babies.Babies do not have rights separate from their parents. No rights for babies ever came from a movement of babies demanding anything... it came from parents demanding things.

Babies do not choose to be born, so demanding that they are is not defending "their" rights as they have not asked for this. The only thing that has any decision making ability in a pregnancy scenario is the mother.

Therefore, you are not "protecting" any rights because fetuses have not demanded any protection, what you are doing is RESTRICTING the rights of the only being that has an independent decision-making capability: the pregnant woman.

Arguing that babies consciously desire to be born is about as valid as arguing that every fetus that was aborted wanted to be aborted. I have never in my life heard a aborted fetus regret it's termination.

Communist Guy

10th August 2010, 20:09

Babies do not have rights separate from their parents. No rights for babies ever came from a movement of babies demanding anything... it came from parents demanding things.

Babies do not choose to be born, so demanding that they are is not defending "their" rights as they have not asked for this. The only thing that has any decision making ability in a pregnancy scenario is the mother.

Therefore, you are not "protecting" any rights because fetuses have not demanded any protection, what you are doing is RESTRICTING the rights of the only being that has an independent decision-making capability: the pregnant woman.

Arguing that babies consciously desire to be born is about as valid as arguing that every fetus that was aborted wanted to be aborted. I have never in my life heard a aborted fetus regret it's termination.

Nonsense. It is a natural instinct for all creatures to want to be alive. That is rather obvious. Why would a fetus want to die?

Broletariat

10th August 2010, 20:47

Nonsense. It is a natural instinct for all creatures to want to be alive. That is rather obvious. Why would a fetus want to die?
I seriously can't tell if you're trolling or not at this point.

Salmonella

10th August 2010, 20:50

My personal opinion is, that every woman has the right to choose over her own body.

Communist Guy

10th August 2010, 20:52

My personal opinion is, that every woman has the right to choose over her own body.

And I agree. What I don't agree with is that a woman chooses not to abort and then changes later on where the baby is developed which will cause pain to the baby.

I seriously can't tell if you're trolling or not at this point.

So you're saying that the baby wants to die???

All creatures naturally want to stay alive. And saying that babies don't have rights because only their parents fight for them is stupid. With that logic, slavery would never have been abolished because nobody would have defended them, it would be legal to torture animals for pleasure etc.

Salmonella

10th August 2010, 20:53

And I agree. What I don't agree with is that a woman chooses not to abort and then changes later on where the baby is developed which will cause pain to the baby.

But the fetus is from the beginning just a ball of cells.

Communist Guy

10th August 2010, 20:55

But the fetus is from the beginning just a ball of cells.

Yes, and while it just an under-developed ball of cells, I am happy for the woman to abort. But after that, abortion shouldn't be allowed. That is my argument.

Salmonella

10th August 2010, 21:01

Yes, and while it just an under-developed ball of cells, I am happy for the woman to abort. But after that, abortion shouldn't be allowed. That is my argument.

Yes. I do also think so but...
If you are in the young teens, and haven't noticed that you pregnant until you are in the sixth month etc? Shall you give up school and everything and give birth against your willing?

Communist Guy

10th August 2010, 21:09

If you are in the young teens, and haven't noticed that you pregnant until you are in the sixth month etc?

Most people notice if they miss six periods :blushing:

At any rate I have already said that people who underage or whose lives are threatened could be exceptions

Salmonella

10th August 2010, 21:17

Most people notice if they miss six periods :blushing:

At any rate I have already said that people who underage or whose lives are threatened could be exceptions

Not always. Would you like to give birth against your will?

Communist Guy

10th August 2010, 21:26

Not always. Would you like to give birth against your will?

I'm sorry, I don't understand you're point. No I wouldn't want to give birth against my will.

I would simply have an abortion. I have already said many times that I am happy for women to have abortions.

Quail

10th August 2010, 21:27

Salmonella

10th August 2010, 21:29

I'm sorry, I don't understand you're point. No I wouldn't want to give birth against my will.

I would simply have an abortion. I have already said many times that I am happy for women to have abortions.

And then you say you are against it...

Communist Guy

10th August 2010, 21:30

It's interesting that Communist Guy is making judgements on some women and trying to dictate what they can do with their bodies.

I do think that if an unborn baby can reasonably live outside the womb and for whatever reason the woman decides she doesn't want to give birth to it, it should perhaps be removed by c-section and given up for adoption. Having a really late abortion would carry more risks for the woman and may involve something like birth anyway.

I am not dictating anything. I am saying that women have the right to have an abortion. But that late abortions should not be allowed because it is cruel to the baby as well as dangerous, as you have just said, to the mother.

Now abortion means to kill the baby(right?), so if you have c-section to get rid of it early, thats not really what I'm talking about.

Quail

10th August 2010, 21:36

You know what would also be cruel to a baby? Bringing it into a world where it is not wanted. It would also be traumatic to the woman to make her give birth.

Your arguments throughout this thread have been somewhat judgemental, for example when you said that people should be aware that sex can lead to pregnancy. You don't take into account failure of contraception, and you don't take into account other reasons why people might wait to have an abortion. Say that a teenage girl gets pregnant, she's terrified and doesn't know what to do and she doesn't dare tell anyone about being pregnant. A baby could ruin her life and if the baby isn't wanted, it will suffer a lot more from being alive than from being terminated when it wasn't even fully formed.

Communist Guy

10th August 2010, 21:44

Jimmie Higgins

10th August 2010, 21:48

All creatures naturally want to stay alive.So a parasite should be allowed to continue living inside your body? To be crude about it, isn't that what a fetus is? Most of the time this is a wanted "parasite" and so it's a mutual thing. But if the fetus is not wanted, it can not survive on its own and so really only the "carrier" has the right to decide what happens. After a baby is born, it is no longer dependent on that particular birth mother and so - potentially - society or the father or adoptive parents can then take responsibility for it.

But in reality, the anti-abortion movement really isn't as concerned with the welfare of the baby, as it is in forcing women to carry through with a pregnancy against their will.

And saying that babies don't have rights because only their parents fight for them is stupid. With that logic, slavery would never have been abolished because nobody would have defended them, it would be legal to torture animals for pleasure etc.Slaves rebelled and ran away all the time, the experience of escaped slaves fed the abolitionist movement. So the right not to be a slave is derived from the will and demands and struggle of enslaved people. No unwanted fetus ever tried to escape a womb or run away from an abortion; a fetus has no choice in the matter - the only person with a choice is the mother. So really, the anti-abortion movement is not fighting for the "rights of a unborn baby", they are fighting for the restriction of the rights of pregnant women.

As for animals, they do not demand their own rights either and so ultimately these rights are not animal rights, but the rights people have fought for to give to animals. Animal rights are not the same as human rights because they can be given or taken away and the animal has no say one way or another - if the US suddenly reinstated slavery for black people... well it would not just be black people resisting, but all black people would be resisting.

(IMO, it's just unnecessary most of the time to mistreat animals and so it's good that there are restrictions under capitalism since the profit motive does create a "necessity" to mistreat animals. But all else being equal, I think animal cruelty laws would not be necessary if our society was organized around human needs simply because why would anyone but a sociopath want to hurt an animal. People would only hurt animals when it was absolutely necessary like killing them for food. There would be no incentive to work a laboring animal so hard because we'd want them to produce quality eggs or milk or be healthy for a long time in pulling a cart or whatever.)

I am very happy for a woman to have an abortion when shes just found out shes having a baby. But waiting later is pointless and basically mean.At what point is the cut-off?

Why would the woman wait later to abort anyway?I'm kind of troubled that you would even have to ask this.

It's not as though women go into a medical procedure like this lightly. It's always a hard decision and that's why the anti-abortion movement has put a lot of effort into shaming women and creating social stigma against abortion - it basically traumatizes people who are already dealing with a lot of shit.

If you are serious in not wanting to see abortions done later in pregnancy, then you should be fighting for: more open access and information about abortion; free abortions made available with no restrictions, no parent notifications and so on. You should definitely not side with the people who want to demonize the procedure and the women who have to have an abortion because all the anti-abortion movement has done is to make people ashamed and scared to get the help they need earlier - or just plain made it impossible to have the abortion they needed due to the views of their parents or inaccessibility of clinics and so on.

Quail

10th August 2010, 22:14

You seem to be missing my point. I AM FOR ABORTION. If you want to have an abortion, have it!!!

My argument is that late, unnecessary abortions should not be allowed.

I understand that you are FOR ABORTION in most cases, but what exactly is an "unnecessary" abortion? I've given an example of why someone might need an abortion later than usual, and if you are in support of abortion you should support it in all cases with consistency.

PilesOfDeadNazis

10th August 2010, 22:56

Yes it does.

It can feel in pain and it can move around and do things eg. kicks

The fact is, you can come up with no decent argument for why abortion late in pregnancy is acceptable.
A mouse can't feel or kick it's legs? You don't seem to really grasp what self-awareness is. I didn't mean self-awareness as in the fetus knows how to move? I meant, a fetus can't contemplate the concept of being a living organism, like HUMANS can.

The fact is, YOU have yet to prove why it's unacceptable to get a late-term abortion other than ''It's a human!''*insert lac of scientific proof followed by using the idealistic term ''evil''*.

blake 3:17

10th August 2010, 23:23

The reality is that abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy are pretty rare. In places where stats are kept, late term abortions make up about 1% of abortions. In most circumstances they're due to women being prevented from accessing abortions earlier, through lack of availability, law, social stigma and family pressures. The Right has been playing on this and used late term abortions as a bogey man to attack reproductive rights in general. How we counter this needs to be thoughtful and principled and not simply emotionally reactive.

In Canada, abortion rights are primarily being undermined is through lack of availability, making abortion much more expensive and stigmatizing due to travel.

Folks might want to take a look at these two articles. They're much shorter than my OP story.

This week in "chipping away at your constitutional rights," we go to Utah, where there's a new bill before Governor Gary Herbert that could criminalize miscarriage.

The unambiguously named "Criminal homicide and abortion amendment" (http://le.utah.gov/~2010/bills/hbillenr/hb0012.htm) that passed in the state senate last week seeks to "describe the difference between abortion and criminal homicide of an unborn child and to remove prohibitions against prosecution of a woman for killing an unborn child or committing criminal homicide of an unborn child."

Link: http://www.salon.com/life/broadsheet/feature/2010/02/25/utah_abortion_bill

This is an excellent piece on the only doctor in the US performing late term abortions.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/24/warren-hern-america-late-abortion

incogweedo

10th August 2010, 23:31

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

You don't need to rid the world of parasites or babies. It is enough to rid them for those who do not wish them. And there are plenty of pregnant women who do not want a baby.

Now this is just insane. It is an entirely different organism, it cannot possibly be 50% "you", since it is something completely else than you. Says who? God?

And not giving an abortion to a woman who wishes it is similar to forcing her to prostitution. Women have all right to their bodies, even if it includes small non-conscious organisms.

Parasites are animals. And some might say that killing an animal is murder.

But the key point that it is nothing like that at the time of the abortion. If we start talking about what might be, then I should be tried for the violations I just might commit upon your body.

Easily. The victim is a pro-life loon.

Seriously, pro-life is anti-woman.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qtlvr6LLV8

lol, i was about to post the same exact George Carlin vid :D

Communist Guy

10th August 2010, 23:34

So a parasite should be allowed to continue living inside your body? To be crude about it, isn't that what a fetus is? Most of the time this is a wanted "parasite" and so it's a mutual thing. But if the fetus is not wanted, it can not survive on its own and so really only the "carrier" has the right to decide what happens. After a baby is born, it is no longer dependent on that particular birth mother and so - potentially - society or the father or adoptive parents can then take responsibility for it.

But in reality, the anti-abortion movement really isn't as concerned with the welfare of the baby, as it is in forcing women to carry through with a pregnancy against their will.

Slaves rebelled and ran away all the time, the experience of escaped slaves fed the abolitionist movement. So the right not to be a slave is derived from the will and demands and struggle of enslaved people. No unwanted fetus ever tried to escape a womb or run away from an abortion; a fetus has no choice in the matter - the only person with a choice is the mother. So really, the anti-abortion movement is not fighting for the "rights of a unborn baby", they are fighting for the restriction of the rights of pregnant women.

As for animals, they do not demand their own rights either and so ultimately these rights are not animal rights, but the rights people have fought for to give to animals. Animal rights are not the same as human rights because they can be given or taken away and the animal has no say one way or another - if the US suddenly reinstated slavery for black people... well it would not just be black people resisting, but all black people would be resisting.

(IMO, it's just unnecessary most of the time to mistreat animals and so it's good that there are restrictions under capitalism since the profit motive does create a "necessity" to mistreat animals. But all else being equal, I think animal cruelty laws would not be necessary if our society was organized around human needs simply because why would anyone but a sociopath want to hurt an animal. People would only hurt animals when it was absolutely necessary like killing them for food. There would be no incentive to work a laboring animal so hard because we'd want them to produce quality eggs or milk or be healthy for a long time in pulling a cart or whatever.)

At what point is the cut-off?

I'm kind of troubled that you would even have to ask this.

It's not as though women go into a medical procedure like this lightly. It's always a hard decision and that's why the anti-abortion movement has put a lot of effort into shaming women and creating social stigma against abortion - it basically traumatizes people who are already dealing with a lot of shit.

If you are serious in not wanting to see abortions done later in pregnancy, then you should be fighting for: more open access and information about abortion; free abortions made available with no restrictions, no parent notifications and so on. You should definitely not side with the people who want to demonize the procedure and the women who have to have an abortion because all the anti-abortion movement has done is to make people ashamed and scared to get the help they need earlier - or just plain made it impossible to have the abortion they needed due to the views of their parents or inaccessibility of clinics and so on.

I believe you don't understand my position. As I have said before, I am for abortion, I support the right of abortion and the right for women to have an abortion.

We've already gone through the differences between and baby and a parasite.

I just think its unfair on the baby to have an abortion late on.

@ Kayl About what is necessary and what is not. I am saying in cases that significant news later on in pregnancy change the womens choice then she could possibly have an abortion eg. if its dangerous

The fact is, you guys are making it seem like you want these babies to suffer.

And whenever I make an interesting statement or ask a question, you ignore it and instead focus on smaller things I have said and then claim I have no argument. :mad:

Now, I may not be a woman, but neither are most of you, so stop making it seem I am trying to dictate women.

I believe women have the right to abortion, just not the right to torture children. Someone asked me where to put the line. I say around 20-24 weeks. Because at that point, the baby feels and lives. It is no longer a bundle of unimportant cells. If babies can have rights, how can we deny them to babies who are still in wombs of their mothers.

Did you hear about that women in France who admitted to have killed 8 of her babies after their births. Surely you do not defend this? But in what way is what she did different to a woman who had a late abortion 8 times. The babies were developed about the same. They would feel the same if not more pain in a late abortion. And yet, what she did was murder, but late abortion is not? :confused:

Imagine a premature baby is born and then killed. This would of course be considered as murder. But how is it different to an abortion at that stage of pregnancy?

I believe that at the point hat a baby can be born premature and survive is the point where abortion becomes murder and therefore wrong.

Muzk

11th August 2010, 00:50

blablabla

You should stop looking at only "oh god murder" and look at the whole picture.

With capitalism comes, of course, personal economic instability. If I'm a woman, under capitalism, 1 week after you put the line of when abortion is ok, and I wasn't able to visit a doctor for whatever reason (failed health care?) I should still be able to get an abortion, for the simple reason that the child would ruin me economically (if I'm not already ruined) and then the child would suffer alongside me.

This is only one of the cases where I would support a late abortion.

However, with Socialism, the economic reason of abortion would be abolished, and public "child care" would be offered to everyone. Therefore, abortion will only become neccessary in serious cases of illness.

There are probably as many reasons for abortions as there are women who have them. Some pregnancies result from rape or incest, and women who are victims of these assaults often seek abortions. Most women, however, decide to have an abortion because the pregnancy represents a problem in their lives (Bankole et al. 1998, 1999; Alan Guttmacher Institute 1999).
Some women feel emotionally unprepared to enter parenthood and raise a child; they are too young or do not have a reliable partner with whom to raise a child. Many young women in high school or college find themselves pregnant and must choose between continuing the education they need to survive economically and dropping out to have a baby. Young couples who are just starting their lives together and want children might prefer to become financially secure first to provide better care for their future children.

Did you hear about that women in France who admitted to have killed 8 of her babies after their births. Surely you do not defend this? But in what way is what she did different to a woman who had a late abortion 8 times. The babies were developed about the same. They would feel the same if not more pain in a late abortion. And yet, what she did was murder, but late abortion is not? :confused:This is exactly one of capitalism's illnesses. You have the word "communist" in your name, but one might think you are just trying to troll.

(This is in politics so I guess it's not about some philosophic bullshat about morales communists shouldn't have in the first place)

blake 3:17

11th August 2010, 00:52

Imagine a premature baby is born and then killed. This would of course be considered as murder. But how is it different to an abortion at that stage of pregnancy?

I believe that at the point hat a baby can be born premature and survive is the point where abortion becomes murder and therefore wrong.

As I mentioned above, abortions after 20 weeks are rare. How many happen after 30 weeks? Looking into this a bit I've come across stories of a couple of babies born at 22 weeks who survived with oodles of medical care.

Many abortionists won't do late term abortions -- if you look at my link above from The Guardian -- there's one doing it above board in the US. I wish there were more. Abortion is a difficult decision and experience, and there's no point in denying that. Criminalization only makes things worse. Illegal abortion procedures only result in more dangerous abortion procedures.

The other dimension which a few people have spoken to previous in the thread, is the basic lack of social resources for parents. Lack of decent child care, lack of decent health care, education and recreation, lack of decent food, decent employment, lack of gender equity in society, politics, and employment make having a child a burden.

It's great that people choose to adopt, but that's also complicated and not always so positive for everyone involved.

blake 3:17

11th August 2010, 01:06

However, with Socialism, the economic reason of abortion would be abolished, and public "child care" would be offered to everyone. Therefore, abortion will only become neccessary in rious cases of illness.

However, with Socialism, the economic reason of abortion would be abolished, and public "child care" would be offered to everyone. Therefore, abortion will only become neccessary in serious cases of illness.

That seems like a magical impossible date to me. Do we criminalize abortion the day the victory of Socialism is proclaimed? Obviously socialized free accessible child care, free accessible contraception, and access to wages and income supplements for pregnant women and parent would reduce the need for abortion, but they wouldn't abolish it.

And as I said in the post above, criminalized abortion procedures only make it more dangerous.

Jimmie Higgins

11th August 2010, 01:24

That seems like a magical impossible date to me. Do we criminalize abortion the day the victory of Socialism is proclaimed? Obviously socialized free accessible child care, free accessible contraception, and access to wages and income supplements for pregnant women and parent would reduce the need for abortion, but they wouldn't abolish it.

And as I said in the post above, criminalized abortion procedures only make it more dangerous.

I interpreted the comrade as saying the "economic reasons" (i.e. income instability, lack of free-time to devote to a child etc) would be abolished, not abortion itself. If that's the argument, I agree with that - as long as free, abortion is available and considered a non-stigmatized medical procedure.

Qayin

11th August 2010, 02:48

Anti abortion = restricted, you know

Communist Guy

11th August 2010, 09:05

With capitalism comes, of course, personal economic instability. If I'm a woman, under capitalism, 1 week after you put the line of when abortion is ok, and I wasn't able to visit a doctor for whatever reason (failed health care?) I should still be able to get an abortion, for the simple reason that the child would ruin me economically (if I'm not already ruined) and then the child would suffer alongside me.

This is only one of the cases where I would support a late abortion.

If it is failed health care, then I am pretty sure you cant blame the woman and that abortion is acceptable then.

If the woman is economically unstable, under capitalism, then she could give the child up for adoption or foster care. Or, she could do as many people do, especially in developing countries(where some people cannot afford to have children), and give the child to a relative to take care of for her.

And the women would be given maternity leave from her job and she would still be paid without having to work.

Anti abortion = restricted, you know

Which is why I am pro-abortion.

Ztrain

11th August 2010, 09:18

yeah...but the bigger question is do you have any right to regulate another persons behavior?

Communist Guy

11th August 2010, 09:24

yeah...but the bigger question is do you have any right to regulate another persons behavior?

Well, by that logic, we have no right to ban murder, rape etc.

That is all another persons behavior.

I am happy for the woman to abort, but not so late that the baby will feel pain.

Qayin

11th August 2010, 09:28

Which is why I am pro-abortion.
Under what you define though moralist.

Communist Guy

11th August 2010, 09:39

Under what you define though moralist.

I am happy for women to have an abortion, I just want it to be reasonable.

Surely that does not make me anti-abortion?

Qayin

11th August 2010, 09:41

I am happy for women to have an abortion, I just want it to be reasonable.

Define that, I read this whole thread you don't need to tip toe around this shit.

Invader Zim

11th August 2010, 09:43

Under what you define though moralist.

Exactly, and /she has still yet to address the fact their position is entirelly contradictory. Either you support the woman's right to her bodily autonomy, or you think that pregnant women are subordinate to every other person in society.

No other person is expected to give up their right to control their body and biological resources, to another individual regardless of the severity of the ailment they suffer, without providing their express and continuing permission. yet pregnant women suddenly lose this right because "the baby may feel pain". Who gives a shit. Lung cancer sufferers feal pain, that doesn't give them a right to one of my lungs without my permission.

Communist Guy

11th August 2010, 09:58

Define that, I read this whole thread you don't need to tip toe around this shit.

What I mean by that is that it shouldn't be a late abortion that will hurt the baby. However I still womens right for abortion.

Exactly, and /she has still yet to address the fact their position is entirelly contradictory. Either you support the woman's right to her bodily autonomy, or you think that pregnant women are subordinate to every other person in society.

No other person is expected to give up their right to control their body and biological resources, to another individual regardless of the severity of the ailment they suffer, without providing their express and continuing permission. yet pregnant women suddenly lose this right because "the baby may feel pain". Who gives a shit. Lung cancer sufferers feal pain, that doesn't give them a right to one of my lungs without my permission.

First, my username is communist GUY. So, I'm not going to be a girl am I?

I respect the womens right to kill a fetus. But not he decision to kill a baby that lives and feels just like a living baby.

Women, do not have to feel any pain. They can have an abortion as I have already said too many times :)

I would think that any communist would 'give a shit' about the suffering of other humans but clearly, you don't.

And the woman has already given her consent twice.

First, she had sex which, as she knows, can lead to pregnancy. Now lets say it was a contraceptive failure or she was raped or something like that.

She just has an abortion as soon as she finds out, or she waits a bit to decide and then decides before the deadline (which still gives her a lot of time to think about it).

There is no need to make the baby suffer for no reason.

If she is unable to give her decision before the deadline for a reasonable reason, then thats fine she can still abort.

Now, if something significant changes later on. Then okay, I'm happy for the woman to abort.

But there is no need to wait longer for no purpose just for the sake of making the child suffer.

Invader Zim

11th August 2010, 10:18

So, I'm not going to be a girl am I?

How the fuck should I know? People assign themselves all kinds of different persona on this board, especially when it comes to gender. But then again given your backward gender politics, perhaps I was being overly charitable to consider that you would have even a vague grasp of gender construction and identification.

I respect the womens right to kill a fetus. But not he decision to kill a baby that lives and feels just like a living baby.

You are obviously confused, and a sexist soon to be restricted to OI where you clearly belong. Either it is born and is a baby, or it is not. It cannot still be within the womb and be a 'baby'. And whether the foetus 'lives' or not is irrelevent, if it resides within a womans womb, directly relient upon her bodily resources, she has the right to withdraw those resources at any stage.

They can have an abortion as I have already said too many times

Upto an arbitrary arrived at point, when your sexist moralism steps in.

I would think that any communist would 'give a shit' about the suffering of other humans but clearly, you don't.

I give a shit about the suffering of humans, which is why I support the right of people to their own bodily autonomy, as opposed to relegating women to the position of incubators to keep sexist moralists like you happy.

And the woman has already given her consent twice.

Firstly that isn't necessarily true, as you have pointed out. Secondly, I see that your pathetic reactionary moralising extends to female sexuality. Thirsly, as noted several times, while the foetus remains dependent upon her resources the woman has the right to withdraw that permission, which inherently must be continuing to be at all meaningful. Thus your entirely reactionary drivel after this is irrelevent.

So fuck off back under your rock you disgusting sexist.

Comrade Marxist Bro

11th August 2010, 10:25

Yes, and while it just an under-developed ball of cells, I am happy for the woman to abort. But after that, abortion shouldn't be allowed. That is my argument.

At what point, then, does an "under-developed ball of cells" become a human being? Simply at the point when it begins to "feel pain"? Would you therefore still oppose an abortion if it were somehow carried out in a painless manner for the fetus? Or is it the abstract capacity to feel pain itself that somehow qualitatively alters the essence of the fetus, so that even a painless abortion would be a "moral wrong"? If so, what makes the fetus different from the aforementioned mouse?

I kind of get where you're coming from, having had the same outlook earlier in life. The more developed fetus simply looks like a delivered baby and functions like one in many biological respects -- which could be an anti-abortion argument in itself. What that line of reasoning overlooks is the fact that, though technically "alive" in this primitive biological sense, the fetus doesn't possess any cognitive self-awareness, any awareness of the outside world, any human emotions, logical thoughts or intentions. Sure enough, it looks quite human and is capable of kicking its legs -- but it doesn't have much else in common with human beings aside from that ability.

You might ask about, "what about a premature baby?" A premature baby might not be a full-fledged person either, but the instinctual human response and social convention just tend to have it that such a baby is given the status of a human being. In a certain way, the question of determining where a particular combination of cells, nervous tissue, and organs becomes an actual human resembles the famous Sorites Paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox). The question is obviously a problem that falls into the domain of "morality" (a subject shaped by convention and philosophizing) rather than into some kind of realm of pure scientific reasoning. The answer will in any case be an arbitrary one: you say that the point where the fetus becomes human is when it begins to feel pain, yet it is also perfectly possible to draw the line elsewhere. A doctrinaire Roman Catholic will insist with a straight face that human life begins at conception.

Your conclusion as to the "huamnness" of the fetus, premised on the mere capacity of a fetus to experience pain, is highly subjective; though it may feel right to you, it is not going to strike many others as convincing. The typical counterargument given here to the effect that a fetus isn't a "person" in any realistic sense seems pretty solid, and just isn't debunked by the arguments you're offering.

Salmonella

11th August 2010, 10:26

What I mean by that is that it shouldn't be a late abortion that will hurt the baby. However I still womens right for abortion.

So a woman shall give birth, against her will? What if she is going to be really mental hurted after it?

I respect the womens right to kill a fetus. But not he decision to kill a baby that lives and feels just like a living baby.

I am see it in another way than killing. As somebody said, you should see the entirety and not only see the "killing".

Invader Zim

11th August 2010, 10:30

Your reasoning that the mere capacity of a fetus to experience pain feels right to you but won't strike many others as convincing. The typical argument given here to the effect that a fetus isn't a "person" in any realistic sense seems pretty solid, and just isn't debunked by the arguments you're offering.

And even if it were remotely compelling, it doesn't matter one little bit. People don't have the right to another person's biological resources without their continuing permission. Sure they can't change their mind retrospectively, but during the process. Sure as fucking hell.

Adi Shankara

11th August 2010, 11:52

So a woman shall give birth, against her will? What if she is going to be really mental hurted after it?

but if it's for any other reason than the child has a birth defect that could make life impossible or it geniunely threatens the mother's physical health...why didn't she do it earlier in that instance? a foetus over 35 weeks is pretty much a baby. it hasn't left the womb yet, but it's alive at that point.

what if the baby is only two days from delivery? is it acceptable to abort in that instance too? just curious as to your opinion on that.

Salmonella

11th August 2010, 12:20

but if it's for any other reason than the child has a birth defect that could make life impossible or it geniunely threatens the mother's physical health...why didn't she do it earlier in that instance? a foetus over 35 weeks is pretty much a baby. it hasn't left the womb yet, but it's alive at that point.

what if the baby is only two days from delivery? is it acceptable to abort in that instance too? just curious as to your opinion on that.

Because sometimes it is very hard to see if you are pregnant.
I seen a documentary about fat women who didn't know they was pregnant until the fetus was alive. I have also seen a documentary about a obese woman who didn't know she was pregnant, because of her morbidly obesity and was just giving birth.

If the baby is two days from delivery... then I have to say it would be cruel to do an abortion. But that long time doesn't it take to know that you're pregnant.

Communist Guy

11th August 2010, 12:55

Because sometimes it is very hard to see if you are pregnant.
I seen a documentary about fat women who didn't know they was pregnant until the fetus was alive. I have also seen a documentary about a obese woman who didn't know she was pregnant, because of her morbidly obesity and was just giving birth.

If the baby is two days from delivery... then I have to say it would be cruel to do an abortion. But that long time doesn't it take to know that you're pregnant.

Now, first of all, its hard to not realize you've missed 6 periods and that you're growing fatter, and feel kicking in your womb. But okay, it does happen sometimes. In that instance, as I have said earlier, abortions may be acceptable if the mother wants to.

Salmonella

11th August 2010, 14:03

Now, first of all, its hard to not realize you've missed 6 periods and that you're growing fatter, and feel kicking in your womb. But okay, it does happen sometimes. In that instance, as I have said earlier, abortions may be acceptable if the mother wants to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_omdGYbgl0

Communist Guy

11th August 2010, 14:09

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_omdGYbgl0

I cant get the sound to work on the video :(

Anyway, what does it change to my argument?

I am saying that if it is a surprise, then you can abort.

Salmonella

11th August 2010, 14:10

I cant get the sound to work on the video :(

Anyway, what does it change to my argument?

I am saying that if it is a surprise, then you can abort.

Becayse you wrote;

Now, first of all, its hard to not realize you've missed 6 periods and that you're growing fatter, and feel kicking in your womb.

Quail

11th August 2010, 14:12

Why can't you just consistently allow late abortions though? Why should it depend on the specific case? The woman's circumstances or feelings could change. You have to apply your position consistently.

Communist Guy

11th August 2010, 14:15

Becayse you wrote;

Yea, and I am sticking to that sentence. Because it is not that likely that you have surprise pregnancies. You must admit they are rare. You also should take into account that in the next sentence I say how if it does happen I am happy for an abortion.

Instead of a deadline from when the baby was conceived, wouldn't a deadline from when the omen realized she was pregnant be slightly better?

Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures

11th August 2010, 14:18

leftace53

11th August 2010, 14:18

Heres a brand new idea: Communist guy can just not get an abortion if he ever finds himself 24 weeks pregnant, and I'll be free to abort any leeches off my body anytime I want. :cool:

Communist Guy

11th August 2010, 14:21

Heres a brand new idea: Communist guy can just not get an abortion if he ever finds himself 24 weeks pregnant, and I'll be free to abort any leeches off my body anytime I want. :cool:

You quite clearly are not reading my posts. If I agree women have the right to have an abortion if the find themselves 24 weeks pregnant, why don't I have the right? :confused:

leftace53

11th August 2010, 14:25

You quite clearly are not reading my posts. If I agree women have the right to have an abortion if the find themselves 24 weeks pregnant, why don't I have the right? :confused:

Well you're not agreeing now are you? So instead of a whole moralistic debate on what should and should not be allowed/looked down upon in society, you can just not get an abortion if you get pregnant and keep it for over the arbitrary time limit.

Comrade Marxist Bro

11th August 2010, 14:42

CG, if it ain't an awful lot of trouble, would you mind clearing all this up?

Originally it was

I personally beleive abortion is wrong and is like murder.

I think it should only be used in cases of underage children or people to weak to have a child where it is a risk for your life.

Otherwise abortion is wrong. You are preventing someone from living.

Followed by

Killing animals is not murder, and parasites are no where near as morally important as animals.

A baby however, is a human, it is something that will grow to be something that thinks and lives and feels.

How can you justify its murder?

Now it is

Now, first of all, its hard to not realize you've missed 6 periods and that you're growing fatter, and feel kicking in your womb. But okay, it does happen sometimes. In that instance, as I have said earlier, abortions may be acceptable if the mother wants to.

You were previously telling us that aboritons shouldn't be performed at a point where the fetus can feel pain / has a nervous system.

You've maintained that abortion becomes murder at that point.

You're now saying that a woman can have have an abortion six months into pregnancy. I am still not getting how you reconcile that -- your thinking here really seems to be inconsistent.

Adi Shankara

11th August 2010, 16:00

Communist Guy

11th August 2010, 16:19

CG, if it ain't an awful lot of trouble, would you mind clearing all this up?

Originally it was

Followed by

Now it is

You were previously telling us that aboritons shouldn't be performed at a point where the fetus can feel pain / has a nervous system.

You've maintained that abortion becomes murder at that point.

You're now saying that a woman can have have an abortion six months into pregnancy. I am still not getting how you reconcile that -- your thinking here really seems to be inconsistent.

The first quote was my honest opinion on the subject. I am personally against it but I believe women have the right to have an abortion. I did not go into any detail of my views on abortion in the first quote. In the same way, I think homosexuality is wrong but I still strongly believe that everyone has the right to be of whatever sexual orientation they desire.

Now, you've taken two quotes that alone, seem to contradict each other. You have taken this out of context in my opinion and have not quoted my other posts.

What I believe is that it is murder to decide not to have an abortion and then later in pregnancy decide to randomly have one.

If there is any reason to have one, then I understand and accept it. A woman should not be forced to have a child. I personally believe that a woman who finds out she is pregnant late shouldn't have an abortion but if the woman wants to, it is wrong to prevent her.

If you read through all of posts together, you would see my view on the subject more clearly.

Obs

11th August 2010, 16:43

The first quote was my honest opinion on the subject. I am personally against it but I believe women have the right to have an abortion. I did not go into any detail of my views on abortion in the first quote. In the same way, I think homosexuality is wrong but I still strongly believe that everyone has the right to be of whatever sexual orientation they desire.
Fuck you.

Invader Zim

11th August 2010, 16:44

In the same way, I think homosexuality is wrong

Your reactionary nonsense goes from disgusting to mind boggling.

but I still strongly believe that everyone has the right to be of whatever sexual orientation they desire.

Well, I hope that the LGBT community celebrate that small consolation.

Fuck you.

This.

Communist Guy

11th August 2010, 16:51

As you can see, you have once again ignored my post and instead focused in on one small phrase that you disagree with.

I believe everyone has the right to believe and think what they want. The right to have whatever views you want. If you dislike the prospect of giving people the freedom of thought, then that is sad.

Invader Zim

11th August 2010, 16:55

I believe everyone has the right to believe and think what they want. The right to have whatever views you want. If you dislike the prospect of giving people the freedom of thought, then that is sad.

Certainly people can hold whatever reactionary views they like, but this board - which is a progressive one - should not be a platform for you to spout your drivel. There are plenty of hives of reactionary cretins on this internet for you to post this kind of nonsense.

Obs

11th August 2010, 17:03

Comrade Marxist Bro

11th August 2010, 17:17

one can be against abortion on a personal level and still support it, just like one doesn't can dislike atheism or christianity but still believe they have a right to hold their beliefs and support that.

Quite true: one can be against abortion on a personal level and still support it.

However, in that case one is not too likely to construct a whole chain of anti-abortion arguments stemming from the weird premise that the termination of a pregnancy is an act of murder.

Ztrain

11th August 2010, 17:50

I think it so should be legal up unti about 2 years hahaha:laugh:

Ztrain

11th August 2010, 17:51

Is this thread a joke I mean you had to have known this was a huge can of worms to open

Adi Shankara

11th August 2010, 22:25

...I think homosexuality is wrong...

Yeah, you revealed yourself to be an asshole. waytago buddy.

blake 3:17

12th August 2010, 00:45

Is this thread a joke I mean you had to have known this was a huge can of worms to open

I started the thread because of a very interesting and revealing news article on sneaky reactionary attacks on abortion rights. The anti-abortion Right uses lies, misdirection, and tricks to mobilize popular sentiment against people providing and accessing abortion.

This is an important social issue because abortion rights, where and how they exist, have been undermined in the past 20 years through terror and intimidation. I believe 8 late term abortionists have been murdered in the United States. In Canada, the most prominent defender and provider of abortions, Dr. Henry Morgentaler, has been physically attacked more than once.

From Wikipedia:

Death threats against Dr. Morgentaler have been frequent.[10] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-9)

In 1983, a man attacked him with garden shears outside of his Toronto abortion clinic. Judy Rebick (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Judy_Rebick) blocked the attack, and Morgentaler remained unharmed.[11] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-10) Augusto Dantas was charged with assault and with possession of a weapon dangerous to the public good.

In 1992, his Harbord Street clinic in Toronto (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Toronto) was bombed, although Morgentaler was not physically harmed. In 1993, he won another case before the Supreme Court, R. v. Morgentaler (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/R._v._Morgentaler_(1993)), this time challenging provincial abortion regulations.
In response to the stabbing of Dr. Garson Romalis (http://www.revleft.com/w/index.php?title=Dr._Garson_Romalis&action=edit&redlink=1) in 2000, Morgentaler noted that some doctors had stopped doing abortions in Ontario, New Brunswick and Newfoundland. "For years, we have been living in the shadow of the doctors being killed", said Morgentaler. "This violence is a sign of frustration, rage and moral bankruptcy in the anti-abortion movement."[12] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-11)

I'd pay attention to the "doctors had stopped doing abortions in Ontario, New Brunswick and Newfoundland" part. This kind of fascist intimidation (and I do mean fascist) has far reaching effects. Doctors, nurses, and other staff providing a relatively simple and safe medical procedure should not have their lives threatened. Women seeking abortions shouldn't be lied to. Organizations like Planned Parenthood which advocate reproductive choice and provide access to condoms and contraception should not feel terrorized by right wing religious bigots.

leftace53

12th August 2010, 00:51

"doctors had stopped doing abortions in Ontario, New Brunswick and Newfoundland"

Of course the two provinces I've lived in are included in the three. :rolleyes:

Its absolutely ridiculous that people can support something like pro lifers murdering abortionists. I bet if pro choice people lopped off a few of these pro lifers, the media and politicians would have a field day in generalizing against pro choicers.

PilesOfDeadNazis

12th August 2010, 17:50

In the same way, I think homosexuality is wrong but I still strongly believe that everyone has the right to be of whatever sexual orientation they desire.
You're a fucking idiot, as plenty of others have already pointed out.

Stop whining about people only replying to one part of your posts because that is exactly what you did to me earlier in the thread, my good sir.

Keep up the sexism and homophobia and see how long it takes to get banned!

Invader Zim

12th August 2010, 18:05

Well PilesOfDeadNazis, he is already restricted.

Salmonella

12th August 2010, 21:59

I think homosexuality is wrong

Why?

McCroskey

13th August 2010, 01:07

I think abortion is a matter of choice. I don´t support abortion in cases where it´s just plain lazyness or used as a contraceptive, but the option should be open. Women need to be informed about their choices, and, of course, the best anti-abortion measure is sexual education.

The anti-abortion groups are religious groups invariably, that´s why they cannot support sexual education as a means to reduce the number of interrupted pregnancies. They are just trying to impose their morals upon us. They don´t give a shit about abortion (religious leaders are learned people, with great knowledge of science, so they know that until the spine reaches the brain and the nervous system is working, that bunch of cells is not a human being, it´s a potential human being, which lacks conscience, voluntary nervous action, etc), so abortion, as in killing a human being, is just the excuse. What they are against is whatever result of sexual freedom (as in sex for anything that´s not reproduction), like homosexuality, sex before marriage, promiscuity, etc. The explanation for this is that religions were initially organised in ancient culture as a means to guarantee submission to the leaders. That´s why the sins are always biological impulses of the human species, like eating, sex, etc. Because what the leaders need is for people to feel guilty to NEED the clerics´pardon and redemption, so they can have a happy afterlife, thus guaranteeing said submission. They were very careful in selecting their sins: they were all in the nature of human beings and therefore very very hardly unavoidable (like sexual desire), to make sure that people WOULD inevitably sin. If people are not afraid of sinning, or of breaking the rules, they don´t need religion. That´s why religions will always be against any result of sexual freedom. If abortion, or contraceptives, or homosexuality, are an option, people will not be locked in the practice of abstinence and sexual repression, thus not feeling guilt when fulfilling their natural impulses, and therefore, not needing redemption and religion.
Pro-life associations are just that. Extreme religious groups trying to mantain their influence over the minds of people, to lock them in that mindset where they feel afraid and guilty, so they will not stop needing them. Think about it. Everything that religions are against is the expression of sexual freedom, of sex as being a human act, instead of being a sin: contraception, sex ed, homosexuality, adultery, etc.

I have a child. Before having him, my wife had had a natural abortion in a previous pregnancy, when she was three months pregnant. According to the pro-life groups, I have two children, one of them dead, and we should be going every year to our toilet with flowers on the anniversary of the abortion to mourn our dead child.

Also according to their teachings, we shouldn´t have our date of birth on our passports, but our dates of conception.

More cruel than abortion, in my point of view, is their alternative: Throw the newborn into the world of hospices and institutions. Do they really believe the fairytale of the happy child being adopted by a caring family and living happily ever after? Adoption is a cruel world. A small percentage of children in institutions ever get adopted. In many countries these children are sold as slave labour, and there's a high percentage of suicide, psychological problems, drug addiction, crime, etc. I don´t think I would opt for abortion (except for cases of health risks), as I believe I would be able to do whatever it takes to fight for my child, but what I know for sure is that I wouldn´t be able to have my newborn in my arms and throw him or her away to a cruel institutionalisation. With the abortion being legal, society cannot or don´t want to care for institutionalised children, how would they cope with all the millions of extra children being born due to the ban of abortions? A separate class of institutionalised children would be created, living in even more cruelty and inprisonment. They don´t care about them, as long as sexual freedom is repressed. They are against abortion only so we are scared of even trying practising free sex for fear of the consequences: pregnancy. Anything so we keep needing them for forgiveness.