regarding abortion, whose definition of fetus do we use, and who defines it "born" or

[Adi Shankara]

unborn? Since there isn't complete academic consensus and all, and almost universal disagreement...

So I'm just curious about this policy, as it's vague. Malte? Does he define these terms?

[Bud Struggle]

Malte? Does he define these terms?

Malte--the Lord of the Unliving.

:D




Actually, RevLeft has its belief system. Once can argue with it (I do) but it is consistant with Communist policy. A bit parochial, but isn't all Communist thought?

[AK]

Malte? Does he define these terms?
*clicks heels*
Heil Malte!

We were allowed to have our own beliefs, last time I checked.

[Dean]

Actually, RevLeft has its belief system.


Once can argue with it (I do) but it is consistant with Communist policy. A bit parochial, but isn't all Communist thought?
What Communist policy?

[Sasha]

as far as i know we in general restrict people who oppose abortions of an fetus, i.e. not capable of independent survival outside of the womb.
very late term abortions we admit can be controversial and restriction goes on a case by case basis.

[Devrim]

Don't start this again. The whole point is that it doesn't matter how you define a foetus, but that it is not for you to tell anybody else what to do with their body.

Devrim

[Che a chara]

very late term abortions we admit can be controversial and restriction goes on a case by case basis.

Which is what I was undecided on. I think more out of morality and compassion for the 'fetus'. But even then, how does anyone have a right to force someone to give birth against their will ?

[Jolly Red Giant]

Don't start this again. The whole point is that it doesn't matter how you define a foetus, but that it is not for you to tell anybody else what to do with their body.
Devrim
As Devrim said - this is a totally irrelevent discussion. Abortion is a fact of life. It exists - has done since humanoids started to walk and will continue until we stop walking. Defining a foetus is irrelevent to any woman having an abortion.

[Blackscare]

I support abortion rights up to the second grade.

[Bud Struggle]

What Communist policy? You are right. There is nothing in RevLeft's abortion policy that is consistant with Communist policy. :)

[Bud Struggle]

Don't start this again. The whole point is that it doesn't matter how you define a foetus, but that it is not for you to tell anybody else what to do with their body.

Devrim

Everything is relevent. Life is important. Rights are important--just shutting off discussion as a point of solidarity is the beginning of what Totalitarianism is all about.

When this discussion ends and we all agree--we will know that we are in hell.

[Adi Shankara]

as far as i know we in general restrict people who oppose abortions of an fetus, i.e. not capable of independent survival outside of the womb.
very late term abortions we admit can be controversial and restriction goes on a case by case basis.

Who set that policy, out of general interest? was that Malte? or some other admin? Because as I stated in another thread, I know that consensus about abortion amongst marxists and leftists isn't universal, as both Sinn Fein and the Romanian Communist Party were opposed to abortion.

[Dean]

You are right. There is nothing in RevLeft's abortion policy that is consistant with Communist policy. :)
I didn't make an argument. I was only asking - what Communist policy model are you referring to?

[Bud Struggle]

I didn't make an argument. I was only asking - what Communist policy model are you referring to?

Nothing. RevLeft has one policy and of course Communists believe whatever they want. Abortion was never a cornerstone of anything Marxist. For RevLeft to make abortion a "matter of belief" is their right (as property owners of this place.)

But the further you get into it--it is all about property rights. The more RevLeft presses for a particular belief in abortion policy among its members--the more they insist on the value of property right.

And as a property owner--I have no problem with that.

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

Who set that policy, out of general interest? was that Malte? or some other admin? Because as I stated in another thread, I know that consensus about abortion amongst marxists and leftists isn't universal, as both Sinn Fein and the Romanian Communist Party were opposed to abortion.

Ah, the Romanian Communist Party. Nobody's opinion counts like Nicolae Ceausescu's. He's still amazingly legendary.

So... yeah. What were Pol Pot's views on the subject?

[Dean]

But the further you get into it--it is all about property rights. The more RevLeft presses for a particular belief in abortion policy among its members--the more they insist on the value of property right.

And as a property owner--I have no problem with that.
The concept of private property that communists seek to redistribute is the means of production. Anything else described as property - be it personal effects or the human body itself - is not a significant factor in this model.

We don't consider the human body property since we don't believe it should enter into the economic world as a use-value, merely an end. Property should serve mankind.

[anticap]

For RevLeft to make abortion a "matter of belief" is their right (as property owners of this place.)

The administrator of a website is not a "property owner," but a sublessee.

[RGacky3]

Life is important. Rights are important

Not to you, I thought it was all about winning and power? In your mind people should get abortions if they can get away with it, and people with morals should just suck it up and deal with it because thats the way of the world.

Right?

[Bud Struggle]

Not to you, I thought it was all about winning and power? In your mind people should get abortions if they can get away with it, and people with morals should just suck it up and deal with it because thats the way of the world. Right?



Well, it should be a kinder sweeter wonderful place where Anarchists could play happily under cloudless skys--but unfortunately the world is populated by less than perfect people--and they make the rules of the game. :(

[Bud Struggle]

The concept of private property that communists seek to redistribute is the means of production. Anything else described as property - be it personal effects or the human body itself - is not a significant factor in this model.

We don't consider the human body property since we don't believe it should enter into the economic world as a use-value, merely an end. Property should serve mankind.

That's one way of thinking about it. But it doesn't seem to be the one inplay at the present time. You could also say that you "own" you body--and that you rent it out at times to people for money. Neither way is correct--it is just a matter of how you want to picture these things.

[RGacky3]

but unfortunately the world is populated by less than perfect people--and they make the rules of the game. :(

Which I guess includes abortions :)

[Bud Struggle]

Which I guess includes abortions :)

You might have noticed that abortion go on in most countries of the world and we have to deal with them as best we can.

[RGacky3]

And your ok with that?

[Bud Struggle]

And your ok with that? Not in the least. But I'm not denying that it is the way it is.

[Quail]

You might also notice that even if abortions are illegal, women will still try to abort a pregnancy using unsafe means. Wouldn't you rather these women could do it safely?

[RGacky3]

Not in the least. But I'm not denying that it is the way it is.

Because Fetuses are lambs.

[Bud Struggle]

Because Fetuses are lambs.

Not if they are Bourgeois. My children were never lambs.

[RGacky3]

If they are aborted they are, as for your children? I'd hope not, they have a wealthy father.

But people born into poor families are nessesarily lambs.

[this is an invasion]

anti-choicers are only down for abortion when the person is over 18.

[Adi Shankara]

Ah, the Romanian Communist Party. Nobody's opinion counts like Nicolae Ceausescu's. He's still amazingly legendary.

So... yeah. What were Pol Pot's views on the subject?

I don't get what Pol Pot's opinion has to do with anything, I was just trying to make the point that some who are considered Marxist or some political organs considered Marxist were against the concept of abortion, whether (in the case of Romania) for purposes of building the population, or some other reason.

[Adi Shankara]

So, I basically noticed that no one is going to tell us why abortion is a taboo topic to disagree with, seeing as there is no universal consensus on it (kind've like Marxism and religion, or Marxism and the role of the state).

I guess it's just a personal affect of the admins who run the site. I guess if I was anti-abortion I'd be pissed. but no need to start trouble where there is none, so I'm fine :)

[Bud Struggle]

So, I basically noticed that no one is going to tell us why abortion is a taboo topic to disagree with, seeing as there is no universal consensus on it (kind've like Marxism and religion, or Marxism and the role of the state).

I think that is exactly it. If is "their" site and they can have the rules for the site they want to have. There is nothing wrong with that in the least. Though it might be nice if they grant an occasional exception to their arbitrary rule for someone like RGacky--who is an exceptional Communist/Anarchist if he would promise never to engage the discussion of Abortion on the main board.

[NGNM85]

unborn? Since there isn't complete academic consensus and all, and almost universal disagreement...

So I'm just curious about this policy, as it's vague. Malte? Does he define these terms?

I don't think it's that complicated. Up until 11 weeks should just be accepted without any question because the brain isn't formed until 10/11 weeks, therefore totally negating any notions of personhood. It should be noted over 75% of abortions are performed during this period. If it were readily availible and women were given correct information it would be even higher. I would say that the option should be availible until the third trimester, then it should only be performed if the mothers' life is in danger, the fetus is dead, or if a severe birth defect is discovered. (Ex; fetus is missing vital organs, etc.)

[Raúl Duke]

As Devrim said - this is a totally irrelevent discussion. Abortion is a fact of life. It exists - has done since humanoids started to walk and will continue until we stop walking. Defining a foetus is irrelevent to any woman having an abortion.

This this and this.

Also,


You might also notice that even if abortions are illegal, women will still try to abort a pregnancy using unsafe means. Wouldn't you rather these women could do it safely? This.

It's really foolish not to see why inherently a position for women's ready access to safe abortion methods would be the most humanitarian.

People will still have abortions whether you make it illegal or not (just like people do hard drugs even if they're illegal), making abortions illegal based on some "pro-life" definition of the fetus resolves nothing and helps not a bit those who choose to undergo abortions.

If you all get worked up about abortions than it's really simple that advocating free access to contraceptives will perhaps lower the rate of abortions significantly; but making it illegal only makes the situation worse.

Also, assuming we accept an anti-choice definition of fetus, do women who commit abortions go to jail, get fined, or what? I don't see how this helps anyone.

I find the fact that this is being discussed to be absurd in the sense that some want to entertain these anti-choice definitions as being valid (or a valid position for a communist) but their definitions come from very dubious sources, framework(s), etc and are detrimental for women.

[RGacky3]

Abortion is a fact of life. It exists - has done since humanoids started to walk and will continue until we stop walking. Defining a foetus is irrelevent to any woman having an abortion.

Thats Buds argument for Capitalism.

[Bud Struggle]

Thats Buds argument for Capitalism.

But I also say--if you want to change things, feel free to do so. Hell, I might even join you. :)

[Raúl Duke]

Thats Buds argument for Capitalism.

So, your point? Capitalism is "a fact of life" as long as it exist and you live in it, etc.

You can't "destroy" or "abolish" [the need for] abortion (unless you do something crazy, odd, crackpot-ish like)

Theoretically, you can "destroy" or "abolish" capitalism. After all, feudalism and slavery were destroyed and replaced.

[Bud Struggle]

So, your point? Capitalism is "a fact of life" as long as it exist and you live in it, etc.

You can't "destroy" or "abolish" [the need for] abortion (unless you do something crazy, odd, crackpot-ish like)

Theoretically, you can "destroy" or "abolish" capitalism. After all, feudalism and slavery were destroyed and replaced.

Gack just likes to post some random "Bud Facts" every now and then.:lol:

[9]

Agree with Raul Duke.

I don't know how relevant it will be to the people in OI, but Trotsky had some interesting things to say about abortion in the context of the Stalinist counterrevolution:


On this subject even the optimistic Pravda is sometimes compelled to make a bitter confession: “The birth of a child is for many women a serious menace to their position.” It is just for this reason that the revolutionary power gave women the right to abortion, which in conditions of want and family distress, whatever may be said upon this subject by the eunuchs and old maids of both sexes, is one of her most important civil, political and cultural rights.

[...]

One of the members of the highest Soviet court, Soltz, a specialist on matrimonial questions, bases the forthcoming prohibition of abortion on the fact that in a socialist society where there are no unemployed, etc., etc., a woman has no right to decline “the joys of motherhood.” The philosophy of a priest endowed also with the powers of a gendarme. We just heard from the central organ of the ruling party that the birth of a child is for many women, and it would be truer to say for the overwhelming majority, “a menace to their position.” We just heard from the highest Soviet institution that “the liquidation of homeless and uncared-for children is being weakly carried out,” which undoubtedly means a new increase of homelessness. But here the highest Soviet judge informs us that in a country where “life is happy” abortion should be punished with imprisonment – just exactly as in capitalist countries where life is grievous. It is clear in advance that in the Soviet Union as in the West those who will fall into the claws of the jailer will be chiefly working women, servants, peasant wives, who find it hard to conceal their troubles.

[...]

“We have need of people,” concludes Soltz, closing his eyes to the homeless. “Then have the kindness to bear them yourselves,” might be the answer to the high judge of millions of toiling women, if the bureaucracy had not sealed their lips with the seal of silence. These gentlemen have, it seems, completely forgotten that socialism was to remove the cause which impels woman to abortion, and not force her into the “joys of motherhood” with the help of a foul police interference in what is to every woman the most intimate sphere of life.

The draft of the law forbidding abortion was submitted to so-called universal popular discussion, and even through the fine sieve of the Soviet press many bitter complaints and stifled protests broke out. The discussion was cut off as suddenly as it had been announced, and on June 27th the Central Executive Committee converted the shameful draft into a thrice shameful law. Even some of the official apologists of the bureaucracy were embarrassed. Louis Fischer declared this piece of legislation something in the nature of a deplorable misunderstanding. In reality the new law against women – with an exception in favor of ladies – is the natural and logical fruit of a Thermidorian reaction.

The triumphal rehabilitation of the family, taking place simultaneously – what a providential coincidence! – with the rehabilitation of the ruble, is caused by the material and cultural bankruptcy of the state. Instead of openly saying, “We have proven still too poor and ignorant for the creation of socialist relations among men, our children and grandchildren will realize this aim”, the leaders are forcing people to glue together again the shell of the broken family, and not only that, but to consider it, under threat of extreme penalties, the sacred nucleus of triumphant socialism. It is hard to measure with the eye the scope of this retreat.

Everybody and everything is dragged into the new course: lawgiver and litterateur, court and militia, newspaper and schoolroom. When a naive and honest communist youth makes bold to write in his paper: “You would do better to occupy yourself with solving the problem how woman can get out of the clutches of the family,” he receives in answer a couple of good smacks and – is silent.http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/ch07.htm

[fredflintstone]

A fetus is a live human being. A fetus is sometimes incapable of living outside of his or her mother's womb, but this does not preclude it's humanity. This is an undeniable fact, and those who choose to terminate a fetus's life thus terminate a human life, which is called murder.

There are many here who may disagree with even my right to post those dissenting words, but this is, after all, the "Dissenting" area of the forum.

There is a second group of people, who being intellectually more mature than the first, would take my argument to task. Unable to dispute the truth, and too proud to retract previous statements of theirs, which seem cold in light of the truth, they will turn to a relativistic view of morality. They will argue that this moral framework purports the idea that simply because someone, such as myself, believes abortion to be murder, that does not give me the right ask for said murder to be outlawed. But then, they would not say that we ought not prevent a person from murdering another man who is in his 60th trimester? Well, some would, but for reasons of a certain political persuasion.

[Red Poplar]

Who set that policy, out of general interest? was that Malte? or some other admin? Because as I stated in another thread, I know that consensus about abortion amongst marxists and leftists isn't universal, as both Sinn Fein and the Romanian Communist Party were opposed to abortion.

Yugoslav League of Communists also opposed abortion, until 1978, two years before Tito's death. During Joseph Stalin's reign, abortion was illegal in the USSR. So, legal abortion can't be considered a universal Communist policy.

[Bud Struggle]

^^What he said.

[Quail]

Since this board is anti-sexism, I don't think it's unfair to expect members to be against forcing pregnancy on women that don't want it.

[Sentinel]

So, I basically noticed that no one is going to tell us why abortion is a taboo topic to disagree with, seeing as there is no universal consensus on it (kind've like Marxism and religion, or Marxism and the role of the state).

I guess it's just a personal affect of the admins who run the site. I guess if I was anti-abortion I'd be pissed. but no need to start trouble where there is none, so I'm fine


Actually it was confirmed several times by vote of the CC, a rather large voting organ that consisted of the majority of the most committed members of the board back then, and nothing indicates this sentiment has changed since.

[Red Poplar]

Since this board is anti-sexism, I don't think it's unfair to expect members to be against forcing pregnancy on women that don't want it.

Those women should have kept their pants up (or skirts, whatever they wear :)) before having unprotected sex, and the same goes with their male partners. Specific health situations, rape, incest, or fetal defects are another story, but instead of just saying "I favor abortion, because women are not forced incubators", instead we should educate them to use appropriate birth control. If everyone used it, the abortion rate would be much lower, because birth control fails very rarely nowadays.

Statistics in my country have shown that most of abortions performed over here are done by women in their 30s and 40s (not teens, as we may think), who still use the "pull-it-out-before-you-c*m" method with their husbands, and have two or three children already. But they don't start thinking about recession and having children already before they conceive again. A gynecologist said that he often advised women to use b/c pills, but those women were largely uninterested, saying "No need for that, my husband 'looks after it'". Months later, they'd come moaning, "OMG I can't feed another child, I wanna abort." Would I let such women terminate pregnancy? No, I would not. And they are the majority.

[Bud Struggle]

Since this board is anti-sexism, I don't think it's unfair to expect members to be against forcing pregnancy on women that don't want it.

Hmmm. We are all anti-sexism. But not at the cost of human life. It seems the great leaders and innovators of Communism have weighed those issues out and have come to a fair conclusion.

If you want to CHANGE Communist principals to fit your particular beliefs, that's all well and good. Maybe we should ALL change Communist ideas every time the whim hits us, but if you want to stay true to the roots of Communism--maybe you should rethink you wayward beliefs.

[Quail]

Those women should have kept their pants up (or skirts, whatever they wear :)) before having unprotected sex, and the same goes with their male partners. Specific health situations, rape, incest, or fetal defects are another story, but instead of just saying "I favor abortion, because women are not forced incubators", instead we should educate them to use appropriate birth control. If everyone used it, the abortion rate would be much lower, because birth control fails very rarely nowadays.

Statistics in my country have shown that most of abortions performed over here are done by women in their 30s and 40s (not teens, as we may think), who still use the "pull-it-out-before-you-c*m" method with their husbands, and have two or three children already. But they don't start thinking about recession and having children already before they conceive again. A gynecologist said that he often advised women to use b/c pills, but those women were largely uninterested, saying "No need for that, my husband 'looks after it'". Months later, they'd come moaning, "OMG I can't feed another child, I wanna abort." Would I let such women terminate pregnancy? No, I would not. And they are the majority.

The first commented I bolded is somewhat sexist because obviously accidents do happen, and I don't think that telling women to "keep their pants up" is an effective way of dealing with the situation. Birth control also does fail. There are various factors that make it less effective, for example if you're on the pill and you vomit/have diarrhea it can stop it from being absorbed properly. I don't think that failure of birth control should mean that women automatically are forced to carry and give birth to a child they don't want.

I don't know about the statistics on abortions, but obviously education to help reduce the need for them and also free access to all forms of contraception for everyone would be more desirable. However, I don't think that the reason behind the abortion should stop people from having access to it. You could say that of any medical procedure: "You can't have cancer drugs, you smoked/drank/ate loads of shit food/etc" or "You can't have help for your drug problem, you should have come to the doctor before you turned to drugs."

Lastly, a fetus may have human DNA but it is NOT a fully-formed human being. It can't feel pain, it isn't self aware, and it's not a baby. It's not cruel to terminate it, because it doesn't have any idea of what's happening. You're not taking away its life, because it doesn't have one. You're taking away its potential life, which I can understand is a reason women might find having an abortion a difficult decision, but a potential life is not the same thing as an actual life.

Plus, I don't think anyone is as blase about aborting a fetus as you seem to think. It's a difficult decision that people agonise over.

[Bud Struggle]

Lastly, a fetus may have human DNA but it is NOT a fully-formed human being. It can't feel pain, it isn't self aware, and it's not a baby. It's not cruel to terminate it, because it doesn't have any idea of what's happening. You're not taking away its life, because it doesn't have one. You're taking away its potential life, which I can understand is a reason women might find having an abortion a difficult decision, but a potential life is not the same thing as an actual life.

Plus, I don't think anyone is as blase about aborting a fetus as you seem to think. It's a difficult decision that people agonise over.

If your first paragraph is true--why should there be any problem with aborting a fetus? If the Fetus isn't a human being why should it be a difficuly decision to abort?

You contradict yourself.

[Red Poplar]

The first commented I bolded is somewhat sexist because obviously accidents do happen, and I don't think that telling women to "keep their pants up" is an effective way of dealing with the situation. Birth control also does fail. There are various factors that make it less effective, for example if you're on the pill and you vomit/have diarrhea it can stop it from being absorbed properly. I don't think that failure of birth control should mean that women automatically are forced to carry and give birth to a child they don't want.


Those women should have kept their pants up (or skirts, whatever they wear :)) before having unprotected sex, and the same goes with their male partners.

You forgot to bold the second part of my comment. :D

B/C fails, so I've admitted, but if people regularly used b/c and if abortions were performed only if b/c failed, it would happen much rarer than it does. There are many types of b/c pills, most of women could find one that doesn't cause side effects. If they don't, there are other methods, for instance, if you combine condoms and period monitoring, it's also very safe. Or if you already have children and you're sure you don't want more, vasectomy is a 100%-safe method.


Lastly, a fetus may have human DNA but it is NOT a fully-formed human being. It can't feel pain, it isn't self aware, and it's not a baby. It's not cruel to terminate it, because it doesn't have any idea of what's happening. You're not taking away its life, because it doesn't have one. You're taking away its potential life, which I can understand is a reason women might find having an abortion a difficult decision, but a potential life is not the same thing as an actual life.

Plus, I don't think anyone is as blase about aborting a fetus as you seem to think. It's a difficult decision that people agonise over.

It's not a difficult decision for no reason, why would people agonize if it weren't cruel. A 1-year-old child also isn't self aware and doesn't know what's happening - the human brain doesn't produce memories until the age of 2 to 3. As for the potential life, a sperm cell or an ovum is a potential life, when they connect, they produce a unique person which takes time to develop, just as every living being. We can owe the fact that we're currently alive to our mothers, who didn't decide to terminate us because we were inconvenient.

[9]

Hmmm. We are all anti-sexism. But not at the cost of human life. It seems the great leaders and innovators of Communism have weighed those issues out and have come to a fair conclusion.

If you want to CHANGE Communist principals to fit your particular beliefs, that's all well and good. Maybe we should ALL change Communist ideas every time the whim hits us, but if you want to stay true to the roots of Communism--maybe you should rethink you wayward beliefs.

You are so full of shit, it's hard to believe. I just posted this, in this same thread, less than a page ago:



Originally Posted by Leon Trotsky, Bolshevik revolutionary and commander of the Red army
On this subject even the optimistic Pravda is sometimes compelled to make a bitter confession: “The birth of a child is for many women a serious menace to their position.” It is just for this reason that the revolutionary power gave women the right to abortion, which in conditions of want and family distress, whatever may be said upon this subject by the eunuchs and old maids of both sexes, is one of her most important civil, political and cultural rights.

[...]

One of the members of the highest Soviet court, Soltz, a specialist on matrimonial questions, bases the forthcoming prohibition of abortion on the fact that in a socialist society where there are no unemployed, etc., etc., a woman has no right to decline “the joys of motherhood.” The philosophy of a priest endowed also with the powers of a gendarme. We just heard from the central organ of the ruling party that the birth of a child is for many women, and it would be truer to say for the overwhelming majority, “a menace to their position.” We just heard from the highest Soviet institution that “the liquidation of homeless and uncared-for children is being weakly carried out,” which undoubtedly means a new increase of homelessness. But here the highest Soviet judge informs us that in a country where “life is happy” abortion should be punished with imprisonment – just exactly as in capitalist countries where life is grievous. It is clear in advance that in the Soviet Union as in the West those who will fall into the claws of the jailer will be chiefly working women, servants, peasant wives, who find it hard to conceal their troubles.

[...]

“We have need of people,” concludes Soltz, closing his eyes to the homeless. “Then have the kindness to bear them yourselves,” might be the answer to the high judge of millions of toiling women, if the bureaucracy had not sealed their lips with the seal of silence. These gentlemen have, it seems, completely forgotten that socialism was to remove the cause which impels woman to abortion, and not force her into the “joys of motherhood” with the help of a foul police interference in what is to every woman the most intimate sphere of life.

The draft of the law forbidding abortion was submitted to so-called universal popular discussion, and even through the fine sieve of the Soviet press many bitter complaints and stifled protests broke out. The discussion was cut off as suddenly as it had been announced, and on June 27th the Central Executive Committee converted the shameful draft into a thrice shameful law. Even some of the official apologists of the bureaucracy were embarrassed. Louis Fischer declared this piece of legislation something in the nature of a deplorable misunderstanding. In reality the new law against women – with an exception in favor of ladies – is the natural and logical fruit of a Thermidorian reaction.

The triumphal rehabilitation of the family, taking place simultaneously – what a providential coincidence! – with the rehabilitation of the ruble, is caused by the material and cultural bankruptcy of the state. Instead of openly saying, “We have proven still too poor and ignorant for the creation of socialist relations among men, our children and grandchildren will realize this aim”, the leaders are forcing people to glue together again the shell of the broken family, and not only that, but to consider it, under threat of extreme penalties, the sacred nucleus of triumphant socialism. It is hard to measure with the eye the scope of this retreat.

Everybody and everything is dragged into the new course: lawgiver and litterateur, court and militia, newspaper and schoolroom. When a naive and honest communist youth makes bold to write in his paper: “You would do better to occupy yourself with solving the problem how woman can get out of the clutches of the family,” he receives in answer a couple of good smacks and – is silent.

[Bud Struggle]

That's fine in theory. How is it playing/did it actually play out in Communism?

As for me being "full of shit" believe it or not--that's been mentioned before. :D

[brigadista]

all these abortion threads are really tedious - its a womans right to choose simple as

[Quail]

If your first paragraph is true--why should there be any problem with aborting a fetus? If the Fetus isn't a human being why should it be a difficuly decision to abort?

You contradict yourself.
No, I don't. I said that I can understand why people might find it difficult to stop the fetus inside them from becoming a baby, even if they know that they don't want a baby or can't look after it.


You forgot to bold the second part of my comment. :D

B/C fails, so I've admitted, but if people regularly used b/c and if abortions were performed only if b/c failed, it would happen much rarer than it does. There are many types of b/c pills, most of women could find one that doesn't cause side effects. If they don't, there are other methods, for instance, if you combine condoms and period monitoring, it's also very safe. Or if you already have children and you're sure you don't want more, vasectomy is a 100%-safe method.

Actually vasectomy isn't 100% safe, as it can reverse itself. A coil is safer than a vasectomy.


It's not a difficult decision for no reason, why would people agonize if it weren't cruel. A 1-year-old child also isn't self aware and doesn't know what's happening - the human brain doesn't produce memories until the age of 2 to 3. As for the potential life, a sperm cell or an ovum is a potential life, when they connect, they produce a unique person which takes time to develop, just as every living being. We can owe the fact that we're currently alive to our mothers, who didn't decide to terminate us because we were inconvenient.
A sperm cell or an ovum on it's own isn't a potential life because it doesn't have a complete set of DNA. It isn't cruel to terminate a fetus that can't feel pain. How on earth could that possibly be cruel? A one year old child, on the other hand, can definitely feel pain and can definitely suffer, and it would be cruel to kill an actual baby.

Anyway, as a man who has never been pregnant, I don't think you can really appreciate just how awful it would be to be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. People always go on about the fetus, but what about the woman? If she's forced to carry a child she doesn't want, she is likely to be traumatised by the experience, and don't you think it's kinder to the unborn fetus to stop it from becoming an unloved, unwanted baby?

[Kuppo Shakur]

I'm anti-choice, but pro-killing poor innocent unborn babies.
Where does that put me?

[Lt. Ferret]

puts you near me. everyones first born should be killed. if you want to go through a second pregnancy then we know youre honest.

[Red Poplar]

A sperm cell or an ovum on it's own isn't a potential life because it doesn't have a complete set of DNA. It isn't cruel to terminate a fetus that can't feel pain. How on earth could that possibly be cruel? A one year old child, on the other hand, can definitely feel pain and can definitely suffer, and it would be cruel to kill an actual baby.

Anyway, as a man who has never been pregnant, I don't think you can really appreciate just how awful it would be to be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. People always go on about the fetus, but what about the woman? If she's forced to carry a child she doesn't want, she is likely to be traumatised by the experience, and don't you think it's kinder to the unborn fetus to stop it from becoming an unloved, unwanted baby?

The fetus not feeling pain isn't a valid argument - people in coma also don't feel pain, or you can load someone with morphine and then kill him, would that be cruel? A baby does feel pain, but it isn't self-aware - none of us remember pains we suffered when we were babies.

What about the woman? A traumatised adult is a better outcome than a dead baby. Besides, that woman could get even more traumatised when she one day realizes that she killed her own child. Hey, not any fetus, she killed her own genes, and her own blood. People subconsciously know that there's something wrong with abortion on request, otherwise why would they have trouble making the decision and need counseling after that?

As for Trotsky's quote in 9's post, I'd like to ask what kind of a family kills its own children? The most tragic situation is when there are already two children in a family, and they decide to kill the third because they allegedly couldn't support it. That's the ultimate irony of the fate - the first two children were lucky because they were first, because their parents thought it would be "alright" for them to be born, while the third was never born. I don't know about you, but if I found that my parents aborted my potential brother or sister, I'd probably leave them and never contact them again. Because the dead fetus could have easily been me - fortunately they are pro-life, just as I am. So, keep in mind that we were all fetuses at one point of the time, and tragically, according to the laws, the only reason why we're now alive and writing this, is our parents' mercy.

[#FF0000]

people in comas are people though and not fetuses.

[Red Poplar]

people in comas are people though and not fetuses.

The argument was that fetuses don't feel pain, my observation was that people in coma also don't feel pain. If you look at the following sylogism:

Humans feel pain.
Fetuses don't feel pain.
-----------------------
Fetuses aren't humans.

Humans feel pain.
People in coma don't feel pain.
-----------------------------
People in coma aren't humans.

The conclusion is wrong, of course, and it means that we can't estimate whether someone is a human by his ability to feel pain.

[Thirsty Crow]

Those women should have kept their pants up (or skirts, whatever they wear :)) before having unprotected sex, and the same goes with their male partners. It's not that simple. However, as you stated in the last thread, you are not in favour of outlawing abortion, so I don't really see what are you arguing about. Yeah, I too think that abortion should be avoided if possible (since it could, I repeat, it could lead to traumatic consequences), but I wouldn't hold my opinion superior to that of my partner (if I were in a situation like this) and I would give full support for whatever decision she made. The same goes for other women,as far as I'm concerned.
What I'm actually in favour for is a complete freedom of a woman to choose what kind of life she wants to have, simultaneously abolishing the destructive social relations arising from the capitalist relations of production which are an important factor in this matter.

I really have no idea why should you discuss the definition of "fetus" when you are not opposed to legal abortion.

[Quail]

The argument was that fetuses don't feel pain, my observation was that people in coma also don't feel pain.

The argument was that abortion isn't cruel because fetuses can't feel pain, so they feel no pain and are never aware of their own existence.


What about the woman? A traumatised adult is a better outcome than a dead baby. Besides, that woman could get even more traumatised when she one day realizes that she killed her own child. Hey, not any fetus, she killed her own genes, and her own blood. People subconsciously know that there's something wrong with abortion on request, otherwise why would they have trouble making the decision and need counseling after that?

Why does the woman's wellbeing not mean anything to you? The woman's wellbeing is far more important than the potential life growing inside her. Maybe the woman will regret her decision to have a termination, or maybe she'd regret being forced to have a baby that she didn't want, and be unable to give it the proper attention that babies deserve.

Using emotional arguments like, "BUT IT'S HER OWN FLESH AND BLOOD!!!" doesn't really give an actual reason why abortion should not be legal. It's just emotional blackmail, like most anti-abortion propaganda.

Just because something is a difficult decision, it doesn't make it wrong or right. Lots of things are difficult decisions to make. Having an unplanned baby or terminating the fetus is one such decision, and people might need counselling to stop them from feeling guilty. I personally would feel bad about having to make the decision whether or not to continue a pregnancy. Anyone would, but that doesn't make either decision "right" or "wrong" - the only thing that matters is whether it is right or wrong for the woman who is pregnant.

[Red Poplar]

It's not that simple. However, as you stated in the last thread, you are not in favour of outlawing abortion, so I don't really see what are you arguing about. Yeah, I too think that abortion should be avoided if possible (since it could, I repeat, it could lead to traumatic consequences), but I wouldn't hold my opinion superior to that of my partner (if I were in a situation like this) and I would give full support for whatever decision she made. The same goes for other women,as far as I'm concerned.
What I'm actually in favour for is a complete freedom of a woman to choose what kind of life she wants to have, simultaneously abolishing the destructive social relations arising from the capitalist relations of production which are an important factor in this matter.

I really have no idea why should you discuss the definition of "fetus" when you are not opposed to legal abortion.

Correct, I'm not in favour of outlawing abortion because:
1) It's been proven that the ban doesn't lead to a decline in that practice, it can even cause negative effect, because illegal abortions can cause severe health problems with the women in question.
2) In case of a ban, due to bureaucracy and subjective views of particular commisions, it may happen that a woman who has a good reason to perform abortion gets refused, and her physical and/or mental health gets ruined.

However, the reason why I argue is simply that there are too many abortions performed, and although I'm aware that we can't eliminate that practice (since it's been performed since the earliest civilisations), I think that not enough is done to reduce it. I believe capitalism is partially to blame for that, because socioeconomic factors are among the most often reasons for abortion. I would adjust labour laws in favour of pregnant women, raise maternity leave, make kindergartens free, provide children benefits, distribute free birth control, in other words do anything necessary to reduce the number of performed abortions to the lowest possible. Because I think abortion is something that needs to be fought, it should be considered only as the last resort, because I believe fetuses are humans. They may not be as much humans as we are, but they are humans as well, and will develop into adults without interference from the outside.

[NGNM85]

The fetus not feeling pain isn't a valid argument - people in coma also don't feel pain, or you can load someone with morphine and then kill him, would that be cruel? A baby does feel pain, but it isn't self-aware - none of us remember pains we suffered when we were babies.

The degree of suffering resulting from an action is not the only criteria, but it is an important one.


What about the woman? A traumatised adult is a better outcome than a dead baby.

I tend to be more concerned with real people than hypothetical people.


People subconsciously know that there's something wrong with abortion on request, otherwise why would they have trouble making the decision and need counseling after that?

This claim, which you state so authoritatively, is completely without merit. It is not self evident, and it is not substantiated by facts.


…Besides, that woman could get even more traumatised when she one day realizes that she killed her own child. Hey, not any fetus, she killed her own genes, and her own blood.

As for Trotsky's quote in 9's post, I'd like to ask what kind of a family kills its own children? The most tragic situation is when there are already two children in a family, and they decide to kill the third because they allegedly couldn't support it. That's the ultimate irony of the fate - the first two children were lucky because they were first, because their parents thought it would be "alright" for them to be born, while the third was never born. I don't know about you, but if I found that my parents aborted my potential brother or sister, I'd probably leave them and never contact them again. Because the dead fetus could have easily been me - fortunately they are pro-life, just as I am. So, keep in mind that we were all fetuses at one point of the time, and tragically, according to the laws, the only reason why we're now alive and writing this, is our parents' mercy.

I’ll try and dissect this tangled knot of rhetoric and hyperbole. Where to begin? This whole argument about being ‘lucky’ not to have been aborted is nonsense. The result would’ve been the same if they had used contraceptives, or if one of them had a headache, or was running twenty minutes late, there are trillions upon trillions of scenarios that could have just as easily precluded your existence.

This argument is also logically fallacious. This reminds me of Homer Simpson’s quote; ‘People die all the time. Just like that. Why, you could wake up dead tomorrow.’ Or perhaps a less common but perhaps more apropos quote, which I can only paraphrase, which goes something like; ‘Thank god I don’t like peas. If I liked them, I’d eat them all the time, and I hate them.’ This is fundamentally illogical.

Now, let’s get to the more fundamental issues. First, you’re transparent and deliberate use of the word ‘fetus’, and ‘baby.’ This is either a gross distortion of the facts, or a testament to your ignorance of the reproductive process.

To recap, prenatal development begins with the fertilization of an egg cell, the fertilized cell is known as an Embryo. Then, after a few days it becomes a blastocyst, a cluster of cells, that travels down the Fallopian tubes to the Uterus. The Blastrocyst continues to grow until it is finally classified as a Fetus, at around 10 weeks, around the end of the first Trimester. I trust we all paid attention.

It is important to note that the brain is not fully developed until around the 10th or 11th week. Now, being that I assume we are taking a scientific rational perspective, we need to remember that the brain is the most fundamental determinant of a human being. We are all brains, the rest is just substrate. Now, the majority of abortions are performed in this period. Right now I’m looking at at a 2003 study done by the CDC that 59% of abortions that year were performed before 8 weeks, and 87% by 13 weeks. That’s not even including later abortions where the fetus has died in the womb, or where there is a fatal or extremely severe birth defect, etc. So, for at least 75% of abortions there is absolutely no ethical issue whatsoever, because the Blastocyst/Fetus has not acquired the most basic fundamental determinant for classification as a human being. The only argument you can make in these cases is to invoke religion. Like John Adams said; ‘facts are stubborn things.’ So, when you consider that we’re only arguing about a paltry 25 percent really brings the issue into focus.

Now, let’s look at the other arguments. Would you say that if I need an organ transplant, nothing vital, a kidney, or something, that I can forcibly compel you to give it to me? That is exactly what you are saying. You are saying that at the moment of conception a woman ceases to be a person with rights, etc., and becomes a receptacle, a talking incubator.

Then there’s the personal responsibility argument. Well, I’m all for that. However, it would be a lot easier for people to take responsibility if they have decent education on reproduction, as well as access to contraceptives. Disregarding the sexism that usually lurks behind this argument, what good does it do? Even in the worst cases, women who are totally and completely irresponsible, fine, you’ve condemned them to nine months of pregnancy, that’ll show them. You’re really just hurting the child, who is either going to be raised by a supremely unqualified parent, or dropped off at an orphanage to perhaps be adopted at some point by god only knows who. Neither of these outcomes can be accurately described as a victory for anybody.

Lastly, there’s the fact that like drugs and prostitution, prohibiting abortion does not work. You just end up with more dead women. Again, hardly a ‘win.’

I hope this clears things up.

[Red Poplar]

This claim, which you state so authoritatively, is completely without merit. It is not self evident, and it is not substantiated by facts.

I tend to be more concerned with real people than hypothetical people.

You've just denied yourself. Your statement that fetuses are hypothetical people is also not substantiated by facts. :)




I’ll try and dissect this tangled knot of rhetoric and hyperbole. Where to begin? This whole argument about being ‘lucky’ not to have been aborted is nonsense. The result would’ve been the same if they had used contraceptives, or if one of them had a headache, or was running twenty minutes late, there are trillions upon trillions of scenarios that could have just as easily precluded your existence.

Interesting, pro-lifers' arguments are often dismissed as 'hyperbolic'.

Your conclusion is wrong. There is a lot difference between never been conceived, and terminated. In the latter situation, our personal DNA, therefore our unique personality has been created, which can't have happened if our parents used contraceptives, or didn't have sex at all.


This is fundamentally illogical.

I've already noticed two illogical statements of yours. Read on, there's more.


Now, let’s get to the more fundamental issues. First, you’re transparent and deliberate use of the word ‘fetus’, and ‘baby.’ This is either a gross distortion of the facts, or a testament to your ignorance of the reproductive process.

I try using scientific terms for human beings according to their phase of development, however I admit that I could have switched 'fetus' for 'baby' once or twice. It doesn't matter that much actually, the name we give to that being doesn't affect or change it.


It is important to note that the brain is not fully developed until around the 10th or 11th week. Now, being that I assume we are taking a scientific rational perspective, we need to remember that the brain is the most fundamental determinant of a human being. We are all brains, the rest is just substrate. Now, the majority of abortions are performed in this period.


The first single cell contains the entire genetic blueprint in all its complexity. Since you suggest taking a scientific rational perspective, then let's observe some scientifically proven, rational facts:


- The heart starts beating between 18 and 25 days.
- Electrical brainwaves have been recorded at 43 days on an EEG. If the absence of a brainwave indicates death, why will pro-abortionists not accept that the presence of a brainwave is a confirmation of life?
- The brain and all body systems are present by 8 weeks and functioning a month later.
- At 8 weeks, the baby will wake and sleep, make a fist, suck his thumb, and get hiccups.
- At the end of 9 weeks, the baby has his own unique finger prints.
- At 11-12 weeks, the baby is sensative to heat, touch, light and noise. All body systems are working. He weighs about 28g and is 6-7.5 cm long.

He is fully developed before his mother's pregnancy is even noticeable. The majority of abortions are performed in this period, just as you said. Now I'll quote you again:



So, for at least 75% of abortions there is absolutely no ethical issue whatsoever, because the Blastocyst/Fetus has not acquired the most basic fundamental determinant for classification as a human being...‘facts are stubborn things.’

Are you quite sure about that? :D


Now, let’s look at the other arguments. Would you say that if I need an organ transplant, nothing vital, a kidney, or something, that I can forcibly compel you to give it to me? That is exactly what you are saying. You are saying that at the moment of conception a woman ceases to be a person with rights, etc., and becomes a receptacle, a talking incubator.

This has nothing to do with common sense. Oh... not sexism again. Please, it's becoming lame.



Then there’s the personal responsibility argument. Well, I’m all for that. However, it would be a lot easier for people to take responsibility if they have decent education on reproduction, as well as access to contraceptives. Disregarding the sexism that usually lurks behind this argument, what good does it do? Even in the worst cases, women who are totally and completely irresponsible, fine, you’ve condemned them to nine months of pregnancy, that’ll show them. You’re really just hurting the child, who is either going to be raised by a supremely unqualified parent, or dropped off at an orphanage to perhaps be adopted at some point by god only knows who. Neither of these outcomes can be accurately described as a victory for anybody.

This is just another excuse to justify abortions. Allegedly, you are concerned about the children you didn't care if they were killed while they were in the womb. Now why don't I believe you? :rolleyes:


Lastly, there’s the fact that like drugs and prostitution, prohibiting abortion does not work. You just end up with more dead women. Again, hardly a ‘win.’

This is the only thing I agree with you on, I've stated in a post above why I'm not in favour of banning abortion, only restricting it to a point, to prevent some women from turning their uteruses into slaughterhouses. I do believe that, educating the people to use contraceptives and using abortion only as the last resort, it's possible to cut the abortion rate.

I'll mention the example of my country, where 40,000 abortions per year were performed in the 1980s, while until today that number fell to 4,000, and it's possible to lower it even to three figures, since many people are still not educated enough.

[NGNM85]

You've just denied yourself. Your statement that fetuses are hypothetical people is also not substantiated by facts.

I said Fetuses, AND Blastocysts, (Like most Pro-Lifers you downplay or disregard the first 10 weeks or so of gestation.) at least before the brain is fully formed are hypothetical people, in that they can’t yet meet the most basic determinant of a person, yet.


Interesting, pro-lifers' arguments are often dismissed as 'hyperbolic'.

That’s because they usually are.


Your conclusion is wrong. There is a lot difference between never been conceived, and terminated.

Both circumstances preclude your existence. Not to mention, this statement is fundamentally irrational. You’re saying, in effect; ‘Thank god I wasn’t aborted because then I’d be dead and it would suck to be dead.’ If you had been aborted you would be unable to make this determination, therefore it has no meaning.


In the latter situation, our personal DNA, therefore our unique personality has been created, which can't have happened if our parents used contraceptives, or didn't have sex at all.

This is complete nonsense. Very little in personality is genetically determined. True, you’re slightly more likely to be a sociopath if you are conceived by a sociopath, but that’s by no means conclusive. Experiences in early childhood are the most significant factors. There’s no coincidence that many of the most notorious serial killers were subject to regular, often, horrific, abuse as children. This statement that personality is entirely genetically determined is totally unsubstantiated.


I've already noticed two illogical statements of yours. Read on, there's more.

No, you haven’t.


I try using scientific terms for human beings according to their phase of development, however I admit that I could have switched 'fetus' for 'baby' once or twice. It doesn't matter that much actually, the name we give to that being doesn't affect or change it.

Again, you just conveniently skip past the Zygote and Blastocyst stage, because they are much more difficult to describe as a ‘baby.’ You’re deliberately eschewing the technical terminology as a tactical decision, to play on people’s emotions. There is absolutely a difference between a Zygote, a Blastocyst, etc., and a full-term baby. You are deliberately blurring the lines.


The first single cell contains the entire genetic blueprint in all its complexity.

That is absolutely true. So does my fingernail, or my tonsils, etc.


Since you suggest taking a scientific rational perspective, then let's observe some scientifically proven, rational facts:

- The heart starts beating between 18 and 25 days.
- Electrical brainwaves have been recorded at 43 days on an EEG. If the absence of a brainwave indicates death, why will pro-abortionists not accept that the presence of a brainwave is a confirmation of life?
- The brain and all body systems are present by 8 weeks and functioning a month later.

This is where you go completely off the rails. Yes, the brain exists, to varying extent, before 10/11 weeks, but you admit yourself, that it is not fully formed until this period, a fact you deliberately overlook.


- At 8 weeks, the baby will wake and sleep, make a fist, suck his thumb, and get hiccups.
- At the end of 9 weeks, the baby has his own unique finger prints.
- At 11-12 weeks, the baby is sensative to heat, touch, light and noise. All body systems are working. He weighs about 28g and is 6-7.5 cm long.

I actually concede virtually all of that. However, you’re being totally unscientific in that you are choosing the facts, and the presentation of those facts which coincide with your beliefs. This is just like the ‘science’ one gets from the ‘Intelligent Design’ crowd. Again, you use the emotive, and incorrect term ‘baby’ as opposed to Fetus or Blastocyst. You are using behaviors and traits like having fingerprints (Which is completely irrelevant.) or other physical traits to stimulate an emotional response. You also completely ignore the central issue; what defines personhood? If you’re taking a rational and scientific perspective than the most fundamental prerequisite for personhood is not met until the 10th or 11th week, when the brain is fully developed.


He is fully developed before his mother's pregnancy is even noticeable.

That depends how heavy the mother is. By 11 weeks there should be outwardly visible signs, not that this actually matters. Whether or not the mother has the appearance of pregnancy is in not a biological determinant of personhood.


The majority of abortions are performed in this period, just as you said. Now I'll quote you again:

Are you quite sure about that?


Yes, absolutely. We can say very confidently that around 75% of abortions occur before the brain has completely developed. That’s a fact. Would you like the statistics? I chose the Center for Disease Control numbers because I figured they would be the least contentious. However, there are statistics published by highly reputable organizations which all come out to about the same measurement. This is the elephant in the room.

Also, again, this isn’t even including those procedures performed because the fetus is dead, because of a fatal or severe birth defect, and to save the life of the mother.


This has nothing to do with common sense.

You didn’t answer the question. Again, being pro-life, there is absolutely no argument against compulsory organ donation that does not conflict with your beliefs.


Oh... not sexism again. Please, it's becoming lame.

Well, the argument sort of implies that the women who get abortions are sluts who can’t keep their legs shut.


This is just another excuse to justify abortions. Allegedly, you are concerned about the children you didn't care if they were killed while they were in the womb. Now why don't I believe you?

That’s because they weren’t ‘children’ when they were ‘killed.’ Again, three-quarters, do not possess the most basic determinant of personhood. Once a person exists, then I care. However, if it’s hypothetical people versus actual people, I have a clear preference for actual people.

This also completely ignores what I said. Taking for granted that the mother is completely irresponsible, how do you then justify entrusting her with a child? How is that a ‘win’?


This is the only thing I agree with you on, I've stated in a post above why I'm not in favour of banning abortion, only restricting it to a point, to prevent some women from turning their uteruses into slaughterhouses.

Emotive nonsense.


I do believe that, educating the people to use contraceptives and using abortion only as the last resort, it's possible to cut the abortion rate.

I'll mention the example of my country, where 40,000 abortions per year were performed in the 1980s, while until today that number fell to 4,000, and it's possible to lower it even to three figures, since many people are still not educated enough.


There should be comprehensive education and access to contraceptives.

[Red Poplar]

I'll use this opportunity to send a big "fuck you" to the wanker who gave me a negative reputation "for no reason", literally, it was stated so. Well, next time at least be a man enough to sign yourself. Anti-democratic idiot, whoever you are.

[Bud Struggle]

I'll use this opportunity to send a big "fuck you" to the wanker who gave me a negative reputation "for no reason", literally, it was stated so. Well, next time at least be a man enough to sign yourself. Anti-democratic idiot, whoever you are.


It's complicated--in OI, because of the software you never know who gives you a bad rep, or really why. You just have to take it like a man. Pay no notice--in general the RevLefters salivate to be the first to respond to your posts.

Good job, Comrade!

[NGNM85]

I'll use this opportunity to send a big "fuck you" to the wanker who gave me a negative reputation "for no reason", literally, it was stated so. Well, next time at least be a man enough to sign yourself. Anti-democratic idiot, whoever you are.

It wasn't me.

[Summerspeaker]

The way to reduce abortions would be to abolish heterosexuality and male sexual entitlement. These things are, of course, worthwhile in themselves. The whole goal of reducing abortion on moral grounds is dangerous in that it codes what a person does with their own body as negative. Can people have real bodily freedom under those circumstances?

[NGNM85]

The way to reduce abortions would be to abolish heterosexuality and male sexual entitlement. These things are, of course, worthwhile in themselves. The whole goal of reducing abortion on moral grounds is dangerous in that it codes what a person does with their own body as negative. Can people have real bodily freedom under those circumstances?

Abolishing heterosexuality is a laudable goal?

[Hiero]

Have any of you guys ever met a fetous? There not that friendly, I say abort them all!

[Summerspeaker]

Abolishing heterosexuality is a laudable goal?

Yes. It's an oppressive institution. I don't mean that men and women should stop engaging in sex acts, but rather that people should stop being coded as men and women. That's the long-term objective.