Undecided on Abortion

[The Count]

Abortion seems to be one of the topics that the community of Revleft has unwaveringly declared its opinion on. If someone supports the illegalization of abortion, they are almost always restricted. However, the more I've thought about abortion, the more problems with it I've had. Why is a woman's "right to choose" more important than the fetus's right to live? Couldn't it be said that the woman already made her choice when she decided to have sex? Liberty is about being able to do whatever you wish, aslong as it does not infringe upon the rights of others. Why do Leftists believe that developing life has no rights whatsoever? If we believe in the self-evident truth that, "All [people] are created equal," shouldn't we recognize that we're created nine months before we're born? Let's disregard circumstances such as rape or threat to the mother's life for now; I'm talking about women having consensual sex, getting pregnant and then deciding to get an abortion. I don't see why the stage of an abortion really matters; it's all potential life that would have most likely developed into a human being. If abortion is legal, it should be allowed up until the day of birth; if it's illegal, it shouldn't be allowed at any time except for the extreme circumstances I mentioned earlier.

Also, I understand that if abortions were illegal, desperate women would still get them performed anyway. However, murder is illegal, but still happens; certainly, that isn't an argument for the legalization of murder. In addition, the idea of abortion being better than a child being put into a position where its parents are not able to care for it may be brought up. My response to this is, what about people who are not able to support their child but choose not to have an abortion, resulting in the child being put up for adoption or having a financially/emotionally insecure life? Should you be forced to have an abortion if you cannot provide for your child? I think the answer should be a resounding, "No." Should you be forced to raise your child if you cannot provide for them? No, and you aren't. In conclusion, I would just like to hear from fellow members of RevLeft, people whom are generally like-minded to myself, why abortion should be legal.

Update:
Thanks everyone for the arguments put forward so far. I appreciate the opportunity to ask about this sort of thing, without fearing childish backlash. It seems to me like the most reasonable answer is restricting abortions at a certain point, where the fetus is developed enough to essentially be its own entity.

[¿Que?]

Most women prefer to keep abortion legal, and I think ultimately, this is an issue that women need to decide for themselves, as it affects them much more deeply (even to the possibility of death, although modern technology has improved conditions dramatically) than it does men. So as a man, the way I see it, is just that it's not my right to infringe on these matters one way or the other, it just so happens, though, that women want them legal.

[Widerstand]

You don't see that a woman might not at all want to go through the severe physical and mental changes that come along with pregnancy and the pains of birth, regardless of what happens after?

You don't see that pro-life effectively turns women breeding machines, putting them into a situation they are either being denied the right to have sex (seeing as how there is no 100% failsafe protection), or being the denied the right to not surrender her body for 9 months?

You don't see that pro-life is in fact based on a really arbitrary and random definition of what exactly is life and when it starts being such?

Or are you really chauvinist enough to believe that a "right for the embryo to live" justifies the right of society to control a womans body?

[Kotze]

Fapping seems to be one of the topics that the community of Revleft has unwaveringly declared its opinion on. If someone supports the illegalization of fapping, they are almost always declared insane. However, the more I've thought about fapping, the more problems with it I've had. Why is a man's "right to fap" more important than the sperm's right to live? Couldn't it be said that the man already made his choice when he decided to have an orgasm? Liberty is about being able to do whatever you wish, as long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others. Why do Leftists believe that this crucial ingredient to life has no rights whatsoever? If we believe in the self-evident truth that, "All [people] are created equal," shouldn't we recognize that we're partially created in nutsacks before we're born? Let's disregard circumstances such as wet dreams or being gay for now; I'm talking about men being aroused, getting an orgasm and then discarding the opportunity to impregnate. I don't see why the stage really matters; it's all potential life that would have most likely developed into a human being. If fapping is legal, it should be allowed up to before orgasm; if it's illegal, it shouldn't be allowed at any time except for the extreme circumstances I mentioned earlier.

Also, I understand that if fapping was illegal, desperate men would still perform it anyway. However, murder is illegal, but still happens; certainly, that isn't an argument for the legalization of murder. In addition, the idea of discarding jizz being better than a child being put into a position where its parents are not able to care for it may be brought up. My response to this is, what about people who are not able to support their child but choose not to fap, resulting in the child being put up for adoption or having a financially/emotionally insecure life? Should you be forced to have a fap if you cannot provide for your child? I think the answer should be a resounding, "No." Should you be forced to raise your child if you cannot provide for them? No, and you aren't. In conclusion, I would just like to hear from fellow members of RevLeft, people whom are generally like-minded to myself, why fapping should be legal.

[The Count]

Most women prefer to keep abortion legal, and I think ultimately, this is an issue that women need to decide for themselves, as it affects them much more deeply (even to the possibility of death, although modern technology has improved conditions dramatically) than it does men. So as a man, the way I see it, is just that it's not my right to infringe on these matters one way or the other, it just so happens, though, that women want them legal.
I don't really agree that men should totally ignore the issue of abortion. You'd be totally fine with illegalizing abortion if the majority of women agreed though, correct?


You don't see that a woman might not at all want to go through the severe physical and mental changes that come along with pregnancy and the pains of birth, regardless of what happens after?If a woman doesn't want to get pregnant, wouldn't it make sense for her to wait to have sex until she'd be able to bear that responsibility? Contraceptives can be effective but do fail, as you bring up in your next point.


You don't see that pro-life effectively turns women breeding machines, putting them into a situation they are either being denied the right to have sex (seeing as how there is no 100% failsafe protection), or being the denied the right to not surrender her body for 9 months?Women certainly wouldn't be denied the right to have sex. However, nature doesn't provide them with a right to have sex and not get pregnant.


You don't see that pro-life is in fact based on a really arbitrary and random definition of what exactly is life and when it starts being such?Isn't pro-choice based on arbitrary and random definitions as well? According to most Leftists, you have no rights until you're born, an arbitrary mark.


Or are you really chauvinist enough to believe that a "right for the embryo to live" justifies the right of society to control a womans bodyOh yeah, I'm totally a chauvinist because I'm asking honest questions. Thanks for that.

[Palingenisis]

Isn't pro-choice based on arbitrary and random definitions as well? According to most Leftists, you have no rights until you're born, an arbitrary mark.

Oh yeah, I'm totally a chauvinist because I'm asking honest questions. Thanks for that.

I have never encountered anyone who supports abortion up to the point of birth. Abortion prior to the point of the foetus kicking during most of the middle ages was considered the sin of contraception and not infanticide. An eighth or ninth foetus/unborn child cannot be considered the same as a fertilized egg (despite thats egg's potential).

[Widerstand]

I don't really agree that men should totally ignore the issue of abortion. You'd be totally fine with illegalizing abortion if the majority of women agreed though, correct?

If the majority of women didn't want to have abortions, they wouldn't have them. I don't see why we should force the choices of the majority onto the minority. So long as even one woman wants abortion, it is not to be illegalized.



If a woman doesn't want to get pregnant, wouldn't it make sense for her to wait to have sex until she'd be able to bear that responsibility? Contraceptives can be effective but do fail, as you bring up in your next point.

What if they want to have sex and don't want to be pregnant? What if they don't want to be pregnant and give birth at all? Why MUST they face this responsibility? - Just because they are biologically able to?



Women certainly wouldn't be denied the right to have sex. However, nature doesn't provide them with a right to have sex and not get pregnant.

Nature also doesn't provide you with a right to get infected with AIDS and not die, so should we stop AIDS research?



Isn't pro-choice based on arbitrary and random definitions as well? According to most Leftists, you have no rights until you're born, an arbitrary mark.

Well you can hardly expect to be taken serious if you wish to assert rights to fertilized eggs or stem cells, so where does "life" start?



Oh yeah, I'm totally a chauvinist because I'm asking honest questions. Thanks for that.

Is believing that the right of "life" weighs more than the right of a woman to be in control of her body and not be turned into a breeding machine not chauvinist?

[Widerstand]

I have never encountered anyone who supports abortion up to the point of birth.

Yeah well considering that there's plenty of time to do it before the foetus starts kicking, this makes sense, too.

But oh well, there are of course the ones like Peter Singer that support post-natal abortion because the child only becomes conscious of it's existence some weeks after birth. I do believe they are a vast minority however.

[The Count]

I have never encountered anyone who supports abortion up to the point of birth. Abortion prior to the point of the foetus kicking during most of the middle ages was considered the sin of contraception and not infanticide. An eighth or ninth foetus/unborn child cannot be considered the same as a fertilized egg (despite thats egg's potential).
Thanks for your response, despite our differences. I seem to recall people on this site, or perhaps another, proposing the idea that any time up until birth was acceptable for an abortion. You believe that the right to an abortion should only extend to when the fetus develops to a certain point then, correct? I guess the issue then, is deciding which point is appropriate. I do agree with the idea that an egg is not a chicken, just as a fertilized egg within a womb is not a human.


If the majority of women didn't want to have abortions, they wouldn't have them. I don't see why we should force the choices of the majority onto the minority. So long as even one woman wants abortion, it is not to be illegalized.I do agree with this concept in the case of things such as gay marriage, drugs, etc. However, I believe that abortion is different because it involves the termination of a potential human being. This is why most Leftists would probably agree with Palingenisis with how there should be a point in pregnancy where abortions are not allowed.


What if they want to have sex and don't want to be pregnant? What if they don't want to be pregnant and give birth at all? Why MUST they face this responsibility? - Just because they are biologically able to?I don't really think I can expand upon this any further. Having vaginal sex involves the chance of getting pregnant.


Nature also doesn't provide you with a right to get infected with AIDS and not die, so should we stop AIDS research?No, because we want to eliminate AIDS for the benefit of humanity. Eliminating pregnancy wouldn't be a good thing.


Well you can hardly expect to be taken serious if you wish to assert rights to fertilized eggs or stem cells, so where does "life" start?That's the question. I used to believe that life started once you were born, but I just couldn't justify the idea of abortions being available all the way up to that point.


Is believing that the right of "life" weighs more than the right of a woman to be in control of her body and not be turned into a breeding machine not chauvinist?I think you're extrapolating it way too far. Restricting abortions, even past a certain point as most people would suggest, would not turn women into a breeding machine, nor would it eliminate the rights they have over their body.


Yeah well considering that there's plenty of time to do it before the foetus starts kicking, this makes sense, too.
I do believe that's the most reasonable argument. Maybe I'm not having a problem with abortion all-together. I'll have to mull it over quite a bit more.

[Palingenisis]

But oh well, there are of course the ones like Peter Singer that support post-natal abortion because the child only becomes conscious of it's existence some weeks after birth. I do believe they are a vast minority however.

Well you will find fruit and nut bars who support any view that you can possibly imagine. However the view point now put forward as strict orthodoxy by religious pro-lifers that life begins at conception is relatively recent. When abortion was illegal it wasnt given the same penalities as for actual murder at least in England (and I presume Germany to?).

[Diello]

However, I believe that abortion is different because it involves the termination of a potential human being.

This has probably already occurred to you, but one could be said to be "terminating a potential human being" every time one doesn't choose to impregnate someone/become impregnated. Hell, I'm doing it right now.

[Palingenisis]

Thanks for your response, despite our differences. I seem to recall people on this site, or perhaps another, proposing the idea that any time up until birth was acceptable for an abortion. You believe that the right to an abortion should only extend to when the fetus develops to a certain point then, correct? I guess the issue then, is deciding which point is appropriate. I do agree with the idea that an egg is not a chicken, just as a fertilized egg within a womb is not a human.
.

The point is decided when the foetus becomes viable outside of the mother, when it becomes more than just a part of her body.

[The Count]

This has probably already occurred to you, but one could be said to be "terminating a potential human being" every time one doesn't choose to impregnate someone/become impregnated. Hell, I'm doing it right now.
That's a very good point that I have considered, but obviously overlooked when I wrote that. By the way, what exactly are you doing right now? That could be interpreted a couple different ways.


The point is decided when the foetus becomes viable outside of the mother, when it becomes more than just a part of her body.That seems like a reasonable spot. I can't really argue against that.

[Diello]

The point is decided when the foetus becomes viable outside of the mother, when it becomes more than just a part of her body.

It seems to me that prohibiting abortion once the nervous system has reached a certain point of development would be more reasonable.

(Though, until a practical way to determine whether or not a fetus has become conscious is developed-- if there isn't one already-- I think that the standard you propose would serve as a good stopgap criterion. Really, I doubt I'd actively object to any standard that allowed women a reasonable interval of time in which to have the abortion done.)

[Palingenisis]

It seems to me that prohibiting abortion once the nervous system has reached a certain point of development would be more reasonable.


Yes and no...The right to abort a foetus comes from the fact it is a part of our bodies.

[Widerstand]

I do agree with this concept in the case of things such as gay marriage, drugs, etc. However, I believe that abortion is different because it involves the termination of a potential human being.

So does protection, so should condoms be banned? The former pope actually called for this once. Fapping, too, does this. Let's not mention anal sex (wasn't this used as an anti-homo argument by religious nutjobs once?). Oh and of course women flushing out unfertilized eggs due to lack of insemination also terminates a potential human being, no?

Do you see how problematic this argument is?



This is why most Leftists would probably agree with Palingenisis with how there should be a point in pregnancy where abortions are not allowed.

Well I would say that we should strive to get better incubation methods. Palin talks about the point at which the fetus is viable outside the womb, at which point incubation certainly is possible, I think even with current technology (I may be wrong).



I don't really think I can expand upon this any further. Having vaginal sex involves the chance of getting pregnant.

So we should restrict the woman's sexuality because of her physical ability to get pregnant?



No, because we want to eliminate AIDS for the benefit of humanity. Eliminating pregnancy wouldn't be a good thing.

But isn't it that you said that abortion is wrong because nature doesn't provide you with a right to have one? Well, nature doesn't provide you with a right to survive AIDS either.



That's the question. I used to believe that life started once you were born, but I just couldn't justify the idea of abortions being available all the way up to that point.

Why could you not?



I think you're extrapolating it way too far. Restricting abortions, even past a certain point as most people would suggest, would not turn women into a breeding machine, nor would it eliminate the rights they have over their body.

How are a woman's rights not infringed if she is put to choose between either having no vaginal sex or having to carry a fetus for 9 months?


Well you will find fruit and nut bars who support any view that you can possibly imagine. However the view point now put forward as strict orthodoxy by religious pro-lifers that life begins at conception is relatively recent. When abortion was illegal it wasnt given the same penalities as for actual murder at least in England (and I presume Germany to?).

Yeah, it's not the same penalties.

Though legality of abortion in Germany is rather strange, as women are required to consult doctors about abortion first, and doctors in Germany are required by law to advise against abortion. And even then the women need to bring forward reasons to abort (mental health, physical health, rape, social/economic issues, child may have birth defect, etc.).

Is the "life at conception" argument really that recent? I wasn't aware of it being so. Though the peak of absurdity was long since claimed by the former pope's "protection is holocaust against unborns."


The point is decided when the foetus becomes viable outside of the mother, when it becomes more than just a part of her body.

But even at that point, actually especially at that point, couldn't the fetus be removed and artificially incubated? I'm not sure if current technology allows this yet in any reliable way, but I'm fairly certain that incubators do exist and are used.

[Diello]

Yes and no...The right to abort a foetus comes from the fact it is a part of our bodies.

You'd support prohibiting a woman from getting an abortion if the fetus were capable of surviving independently but had also not yet attained consciousness?

[Nolan]

Come, the firing squad awaits. er, I mean OI.

[NGNM85]

Abortion seems to be one of the topics that the community of Revleft has unwaveringly declared its opinion on. If someone supports the illegalization of abortion, they are almost always restricted. However, the more I've thought about abortion, the more problems with it I've had. Why is a woman's "right to choose" more important than the fetus's right to live?

There are several problems with this. First, we need to revisit 7th grade biology. Pro-life groups always use the word fetus, completely skipping the zygote and blastocyst stages because it’s a hell of a lot more difficult to characterize a microscopic, shapeless cluster of cells as a person, this is a rhetorical trick to try and reframe the discussion, just like establishing themselves as ‘pro-life’ (As if anyone isn’t.) forcing the other side, by elimination, to be ‘pro-death.’

As a principle, it makes sense to put the needs and wants of real persons over hypothetical persons. It also needs to be understood that forcibly requiring women to commit to a pregnancy reduces them from human beings to talking incubators.



Couldn't it be said that the woman already made her choice when she decided to have sex?

Oh, personal responsibility is definitely important. No argument, here.


Liberty is about being able to do whatever you wish, aslong as it does not infringe upon the rights of others.

That’s only half of the picture. There’s ‘negative freedom’, what you’re describing, essentially; ‘freedom from’, as well as positive freedom, or; ‘freedom to.’

Also, as long as society exists we’re going to have to bend and compromise to find some sort of equilibrium.


Why do Leftists believe that developing life has no rights whatsoever?

In order to have rights, one must be a person. What connotes personhood? If we take a rational, scientific perspective, (One that is based on facts.) personhood is determined by the brain; the seat of consciousness. Let’s return to 7th grade biology; the brain is not full formed until around 10 or 11 weeks into pregnancy. Pro-lifers are predictably reticent to mention that more than 75% of abortions are performed during this period. So, you see, in more than three-quarters of the cases, the basic, most fundamental requirement for personhood has not been met.


If we believe in the self-evident truth that, "All [people] are created equal," shouldn't we recognize that we're created nine months before we're born?

That statement, from the Declaration of Independence, is based in deism, as, at that time, people had a very limited understanding of physiology, as well as physics, cosmology, etc. However, the principle stands; the rules of the road should apply to everybody, equally. This is the concept of ‘equality under the law’ that emerged from the Liberal thinkers of the Enlightenment, and it’s a pretty good idea. People are not ‘created’, they are conceived. A cell is fertilized and multiplies, and, in many cases, ultimately, will end up becoming a human being. However, a fertilized cell is not a person.


Let's disregard circumstances such as rape or threat to the mother's life for now; I'm talking about women having consensual sex, getting pregnant and then deciding to get an abortion. I don't see why the stage of an abortion really matters;


Of course it matters. To argue otherwise is to suggest that there is no meaningful difference between a baby, and a single, fertilized cell. The only way that idea can hold water is if you bring in spirits and magic. Ultimately, abortion is a religious issue, there simply aren’t any good secular arguments.


it's all potential life that would have most likely developed into a human being.

Actually, one in four pregnancies results in miscarriage, often for no explicable reason. If the religious right are correct in their belief in a supreme creator, having designed a uterus that fails with such regularity, he must be the most prolific abortionist in the history of the cosmos.


If abortion is legal, it should be allowed up until the day of birth; if it's illegal, it shouldn't be allowed at any time except for the extreme circumstances I mentioned earlier.

There is absolutely no justification for this ‘all or nothing’ approach.


Also, I understand that if abortions were illegal, desperate women would still get them performed anyway. However, murder is illegal, but still happens; certainly, that isn't an argument for the legalization of murder.

This is a false equivalency.


In addition, the idea of abortion being better than a child being put into a position where its parents are not able to care for it may be brought up. My response to this is, what about people who are not able to support their child but choose not to have an abortion, resulting in the child being put up for adoption or having a financially/emotionally insecure life? Should you be forced to have an abortion if you cannot provide for your child? I think the answer should be a resounding, "No."

I don’t think you’ll find anyone here who endorses that proposition.


Should you be forced to raise your child if you cannot provide for them? No, and you aren't. In conclusion, I would just like to hear from fellow members of RevLeft, people whom are generally like-minded to myself, why abortion should be legal.

No, we should have a society where we establish (At the very least.) a minimum standard of living; ‘each according to his ability, each according to his need.’


Update:
Thanks everyone for the arguments put forward so far. I appreciate the opportunity to ask about this sort of thing, without fearing childish backlash. It seems to me like the most reasonable answer is restricting abortions at a certain point, where the fetus is developed enough to essentially be its own entity.

That is the sensible approach. My own recommendation would be that there should be no limitation up until the Second Trimester, then, the procedure should have to meet some burden of legitimacy, increasing as the pregnancy goes on, with exceptions for severe birth defects, fetuses that are already dead, or if the mothers’ health is threatened. That seems perfectly sensible to me.

[The Count]

Excellent response, NGNM85. I recognize a few incorrect premises that I used in my opening post. I never really believed that abortion should be illegal; I was just kind of iffy on justifying how it should be legal. I think you're spot on, so I apologize that I can't really argue against you.

Widerstand, I still have a bit of a problem with your position on how it would infringe upon a woman's sexual rights. It's not like the government would be forcing women to get pregnant, with them not being able to get an abortion done. Women would totally have control over whatever sex they'd like to have, but they would need to accept the consequences of their actions. As NGNM85 said, personal responsibility is important.


But isn't it that you said that abortion is wrong because nature doesn't provide you with a right to have one? Well, nature doesn't provide you with a right to survive AIDS either.I don't believe I said that at all. I just said that women don't have a right to have sex and not get pregnant. I don't think that's really a contested idea.

[Magón]

Excellent response, NGNM85. I recognize a few incorrect premises that I used in my opening post. I never really believed that abortion should be illegal; I was just kind of iffy on justifying how it should be legal. I think you're spot on, so I apologize that I can't really argue against you.

Widerstand, I still have a bit of a problem with your position on how it would infringe upon a woman's sexual rights. It's not like the government would be forcing women to get pregnant, with them not being able to get an abortion done. Women would totally have control over whatever sex they'd like to have, but they would need to accept the consequences of their actions. As NGNM85 said, personal responsibility is important.

I don't believe I said that at all. I just said that women don't have a right to have sex and not get pregnant. I don't think that's really a contested idea.

So men and women, specifically women, can't have sex just for the pleasure of it?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Thanks everyone for the arguments put forward so far. I appreciate the opportunity to ask about this sort of thing, without fearing childish backlash. It seems to me like the most reasonable answer is restricting abortions at a certain point, where the fetus is developed enough to essentially be its own entity.

You might wish to check out this thread. It's a better way to approach abortion while not coming across as knee-jerking to socially "moderate cultural conservative" workers:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/public-orphanages-dangerous-t146796/index.html

[Widerstand]

I don't believe I said that at all. I just said that women don't have a right to have sex and not get pregnant. I don't think that's really a contested idea.

I very much hope it's a contested idea that women can only have sex to reproduce.

[The Count]

So men and women, specifically women, can't have sex just for the pleasure of it?
Of course they can. People should accept responsibility for their actions, that's all I'm saying.


You might wish to check out this thread. It's a better way to approach abortion while not coming across as knee-jerking to socially "moderate cultural conservative" workers:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/public-orp...796/index.html (http://www.revleft.com/vb/public-orphanages-dangerous-t146796/index.html)That's a very intriguing concept. Thanks for the link.


I very much hope it's a contested idea that women can only have sex to reproduce.Haha, that's entirely different from what I'm saying. Let me change the wording a little bit so the statement is more clear. People have the right to have sex for whatever reason they wish; however, it is certainly not guaranteed by anyone (a right) that they won't get pregnant. Do you see what I'm saying now?

[Magón]

Of course they can. People should accept responsibility for their actions, that's all I'm saying.

Sure, but when the condom breaks, the condom breaks and the woman should have the choice to abort if neither her or the man she's sleeping with, are in the right situation to have a child. And that doesn't even have to be financial or anything, that's just a personal choice. If neither are ready to have a kid, then the egg should be aborted.

I do say though, that if the woman's been carrying the being inside of her for more than four months, it's probably not the best to abort since she's had all that time to choose. But still, the choice to abort should still be there. Though I don't see women going to an abortion clinic, and getting abortions when they're 5-9 months pregnant with the child. It's usually pretty early on anyway, so the choice should be theirs and theirs alone, even though it would be common curtesy to maybe ask the father of the kid, embryo, whatever, if they would want the child instead?

[eyedrop]

Why does these kind of discussions always get mired down to silly rights and time of abortions discussions, why must always the right frame the debates?

Time of abortions: Don't give a flying fuck for the fringecases of third trimester abortions, as long as there is plenty of time to discover that one is pregnant and make a decisions.

Abstract rights: I'm way to pragmatical too care.

What matters are the socioeconomic and sociological impact of policies. Banning abortion has an overwhelmingly bad socioeconomic and sociological impact, especially for women, for those of us who wants society to be more equal/egalitarian.



Sure, but when the condom breaks, the condom breaks and the woman should have the choice to abort if neither her or the man she's sleeping with, are in the right situation to have a child. And that doesn't even have to be financial or anything, that's just a personal choice. If neither are ready to have a kid, then the egg should be aborted.


If someone you're arguing is a real jerk I wouldn't use that example as there are emergency contraceptives that can be taken a couple of days after unprotected sex so you don't have to take an abortion. Nevertheless there are plenty of unwanted pregnancies happening with no fault on the prospective parents, and anyone that proposes pregnancy and parenthood as punishment for being a little inconsistent with the pill is an outright sadist



People have the right to have sex for whatever reason they wish; however, it is certainly not guaranteed by anyone (a right) that they won't get pregnant. Do you see what I'm saying now?
Well it is kinda guaranteed, in any "western" society, that you won't get a lasting pregnancy. It's just some people that seem to want to artificially make it not guaranteed that you won't become a parent when engaging in sex. You certainly can't have an egalitarian society, in respect to the sexes, with women participating as fully as men, if women randomly become mothers.

[electro_fan]

nobody wants abortion to happen, it's always a last resort, (apart from a few bastards who "persuade" women to get abortions because they don't want to look after a child) and while i don't think i would want to have an abortion myself i don't think that i could judge another person for doing so,

it's not about "personal responsibility" some people have mental issues which mean that they would not fully realise the consequences of their actions in getting pregnant, some people don't actually know they're pregnant until very late on in the pregnancy, there are any number of reasons why people have to have an abortion and while the term limits could possibly be a bit lower, banning it would be an absolute fucking disaster and a major setback for women's rights

[electro_fan]

Also someone's personal circumstances and feelings can change throughout the pregnancy, if someone was pregnant with a disabled child and discovered that they were to be made homeless shortly before the baby was due to be born i don't think people could necessarily blame them for wanting an abortion

[Jolly Red Giant]

Once again a debate on abortion on this forum occurs primarily on the basis of semantics continuously going around in circles. I have addressed my view on how Socialists should deal with the issue of abortion before and don't intend typing it all out again - so for anyone interested you can find it here -

http://www.revleft.com/vb/abortion-t134814/index.html?p=1745035

[Palingenisis]

Though legality of abortion in Germany is rather strange, as women are required to consult doctors about abortion first, and doctors in Germany are required by law to advise against abortion. And even then the women need to bring forward reasons to abort (mental health, physical health, rape, social/economic issues, child may have birth defect, etc.).


Abortion is illegal in Ireland...Both in the British occupied six counties and in the Free State. However information is now freely available and there are cheap flights to England so most people arent bothered about this.

However the fact is that lower income women have to get the money up for both the flight and the operation condemning them to relatively late abortions which are naturally more traumatic. And usually these our the women who are seeking the operation not from choice but from necesscity. Personally this actually an important class issue here in my opinion.

[Widerstand]

nobody wants abortion to happen, it's always a last resort, (apart from a few bastards who "persuade" women to get abortions because they don't want to look after a child) and while i don't think i would want to have an abortion myself i don't think that i could judge another person for doing so

While I don't think men should have a say in whether or not a woman has an abortion, I find it outright offending to call men bastards who don't want to father a child or at least pay for it for it's whole childhood (which is what law in many countries obliges them to).

[electro_fan]

ok sorry should have made myself clearer - I was talking - in a clumsy way - about men who force their girlfriends to have abortions because they don't want the responsibility or don't want to "share" with another person though (something ive sadly come across), not people who can't afford/can't pay to have one!

[Widerstand]

Abortion is illegal in Ireland...Both in the British occupied six counties and in the Free State. However information is now freely available and there are cheap flights to England so most people arent bothered about this.

However the fact is that lower income women have to get the money up for both the flight and the operation condemning them to relatively late abortions which are naturally more traumatic. And usually these our the women who are seeking the operation not from choice but from necesscity.

Wow, that's pretty bad.



Personally this actually an important class issue here in my opinion.

Many issues regarding pregnancy/parenthood are class issues actually, or rather, issues directly related to financial ability / economic standing.

[Widerstand]

ok sorry should have made myself clearer - I was talking - in a clumsy way - about men who force their girlfriends to have abortions because they don't want the responsibility or don't want to "share" with another person though (something ive sadly come across), not people who can't afford/can't pay to have one!

I don't think we should support the patriarch notion that it's the man's duty to pay for the woman/child under any circumstance. Under capitalism, the state should do it (I'm deeply in favor of pay for reproductive work).

Though obviously forcing people into an abortion is a horrible thing.

[electro_fan]

yeah i'm not supporting that, i'm just talking about some abusive men i've come across who have done that. i agree that expecting the man to pay for everything is totally patronising and sexist as it assumes women cant do this for themselves

[BIG BROTHER]

I don't think we should support the patriarch notion that it's the man's duty to pay for the woman/child under any circumstance. Under capitalism, the state should do it (I'm deeply in favor of pay for reproductive work).

Though obviously forcing people into an abortion is a horrible thing.

I think you are missing the point here my friend although I am open to debate.

I believe Men should provide for the child and not leave the burden to the mother, it is pretty sexist for men to be able to have all the fun of sex and not having to worry about any obligations if a pregnancy happens and the mother decides to keep the baby.

[Widerstand]

I think you are missing the point here my friend although I am open to debate.

I believe Men should provide for the child and not leave the burden to the mother, it is pretty sexist for men to be able to have all the fun of sex and not having to worry about any obligations if a pregnancy happens and the mother decides to keep the baby.

I think we should rather ask why there should be a burden to the mother at all that the man was to take care of. What kind of burden are we speaking about here exactly? Unless you're opposed to child care, I'll assume it's a financial burden, and I've already stated my opinion on this issue.

[BIG BROTHER]

I think we should rather ask why there should be a burden to the mother at all that the man was to take care of. What kind of burden are we speaking about here exactly? Unless you're opposed to child care, I'll assume it's a financial burden, and I've already stated my opinion on this issue.

I'm all for a system were a mother will be able to raise a child on its own if that is what she wishes.

However don't avoid the question, don't you think is a bit sexist at least that men can just walk off free after impregnating a womyn without dealing with the consequences?

[Widerstand]

I'm all for a system were a mother will be able to raise a child on its own if that is what she wishes.

However don't avoid the question, don't you think is a bit sexist at least that men can just walk off free after impregnating a womyn without dealing with the consequences?

I don't think it's sexist, no. And I think that to force a man to stay with a woman just because she wants it is absurd. Sexism isn't about whether or not a womans feelings are hurt or her wishes are met.

I think a mother should be provided with whatever she needs to raise a child on her own, but not by the father. And I don't think a man should be forced to father a child if he doesn't want to (just like a woman shouldn't be forced to mother a child if she doesn't want to).

[BIG BROTHER]

I don't it's sexist, no. And I think that to force a man to stay with a woman just because she wants it is absurd. So yes, I think the woman should be provided with whatever she needs to raise a child on her own, but not by the man.

Don't misinterpret my words. By any means both the womyn and the man are free and should be free to decided if they are together or not.

What I do mean is that the man bears responsibility in the raising of the child.

Unless in your ideal world men can just go on making babies without worrying about the consequences, I'm sure many Revolutionarys and womyn will have a problem with that.

[Widerstand]

What I do mean is that the man bears responsibility in the raising of the child.

But why? Does the woman bear responsibility in raising the child, too? If yes, is adoption wrong? If no, why not?

What if the woman finds another boyfriend (or a girlfriend), for example, does the man cease to bear responsibility then? Does then the man only have responsibility so long as the woman is single?



Unless in your ideal world men can just go on making babies without worrying about the consequences, I'm sure many Revolutionarys and womyn will have a problem with that.

Well of course men should be able to prevent impregnation if they don't wish to have a child (you know like... condoms). But what if for example the condom fails? What if the man very explicitly stated he doesn't want to father a child before intercourse?

If the woman wants to raise a child and the man wants too, that's great. But if the woman wants a child and the man doesn't, then she can well, abort it or give it up for adoption or raise it on her own - but that's her own choice, and I don't think she should be allowed to make that choice for the man.

[28350]

This has probably already occurred to you, but one could be said to be "terminating a potential human being" every time one doesn't choose to impregnate someone/become impregnated. Hell, I'm doing it right now.

I'm not.

C O N C E P T I O N

[BIG BROTHER]

But why? Does the woman bear responsibility in raising the child, too? If yes, is adoption wrong? If no, why not?

What if the woman finds another boyfriend (or a girlfriend), for example, does the man cease to bear responsibility then? Does then the man only have responsibility so long as the woman is single?



Well of course men should be able to prevent impregnation if they don't wish to have a child (you know like... condoms). But what if for example the condom fails? What if the man very explicitly stated he doesn't want to father a child before intercourse?

If the woman wants to raise a child and the man wants too, that's great. But if the woman wants a child and the man doesn't, then she can well, abort it or give it up for adoption or raise it on her own - but that's her own choice, and I don't think she should be allowed to make that choice for the man.

I never argued against a womnyn who may feel that it child parent is undesirable and wishes to raise her or him with someone else.

[Widerstand]

I never argued against a womnyn who may feel that it child parent is undesirable and wishes to raise her or him with someone else.

Admittedly you didn't, but that doesn't really answer my post.

[Sensible Socialist]

Unless in your ideal world men can just go on making babies without worrying about the consequences, I'm sure many Revolutionarys and womyn will have a problem with that.
If a man did not intent on the women getting pregnant, and has made it clear to her from the start that he does not wish for her to have a child, I don't think he is responsible for the child. Legally, that is.

However, it would probably be in the best interests of all parties, especially the child's, if the father was involved in his/her life.

[electro_fan]

womyn lol. is this the 60s ?

[Sarah Palin]

A woman might not want to get married at all in her life, but I know she'd always like the option.
So similarly, a woman might not get pregnant at all, but if she did and didn't want the baby, who is anyone to say she can't terminate

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

I believe that, ultimately, a government that is not controlled by the people has no right to create policy about this. Regardless of stance, I do not think that government has the right to decide this issue.

[Savage]

I'm not sure if this has already been said but there's a fine line between stopping the brutal destruction of life and preserving life (in the very broadest sense of the word) regardless of the consequences. I would definitely rather never to be born than to live a miserable and torturous life (not to mention the strain on the mother and family that can be avoided). The Conservative fetish over abortion is a peculiar one, I don't see how you can support the mass destruction of life in wars, advocate the death penalty, and yet be pro-life, i guess increased women s rights just challenge the conservative concept of the family.

[The Red Next Door]

I support the right to abortion on the basis that, if we illegalize it. Then those poor morgue workers will not have time to themselves, because of the fact. they have a bunch of dead bodies; but in communism there will not be a need for it (unless they need to have one for safety reason, birth can kill) because people live in a system, that provide a perfect standard of living for the child and parent. We live in capitalism, and it would be anti life in my opinion to raise a child in such a horrible system, especially if you are in the fucking gutter. Look, we live in a society where you are consider a piece of shit. If you do not have a 360, a cell phone, a benz, and a million dollar home. Why raise a child in that mess?

PS: revlefters with kids, I am not suggesting you perform a mercy killing on your children, 1. You go to jail, 2. you are a fuck up in the head parent if you do, 3. you will be dubbed a monster and therefore child service will knock on the door of every commie parent and take their kids away. 4. the left will be dubbed pyscho crazy people who shouldn't have kids

[Magón]

Anti-abortion people are definitely the most irresponsible people in the world.

I do have to agree with this statement. For all the people I've met/known who were anti-abortion, they often tend to be in the majority of people around me, that have kids but didn't want them in the first place through irresponsible sex.

[Tablo]

A woman should have the right to abortion up to the point where the child is capable of living out side the womb. A woman always has the right to refuse to have a life form leaching off her body. So if it is beyond the point she may have it birthed prematurely and if it lives then it lives. This is the way I see it.

Personally I would not want an abortion whatever the circumstance, but I can't really understand the situation as I'm incapable of being pregnant and have never had to go through being pregnant.

The debate over abortion is really a debate over whether a woman has the right over her body and I am a staunch supporter of a woman's right to her body!

[9]

Originally Posted by The Count
Why is a woman's "right to choose" more important than the fetus's right to live? Couldn't it be said that the woman already made her choice when she decided to have sex? Liberty is about being able to do whatever you wish, aslong as it does not infringe upon the rights of others. Why do Leftists believe that developing life has no rights whatsoever? If we believe in the self-evident truth that, "All [people] are created equal," shouldn't we recognize that we're created nine months before we're born? Let's disregard circumstances such as rape or threat to the mother's life for now; I'm talking about women having consensual sex, getting pregnant and then deciding to get an abortion.
...women don't have a right to have sex and not get pregnant.Well, first of all, you are totally mired in all of these ideas from classical liberalism - natural rights, "the self-evident truth that all men are created equal" etc. Basically, you're talking entirely in the language of the ruling class.

In reality, rights are the creation of man; there exist no rights beyond those declared and enforced by society - i.e. by the ruling class through its state - and the belief in the existence of natural rights has the same relationship to reality as the belief in the imminent arrival of the anointed king.

I also think that people who say things like this:


Originally Posted by NGNM88

Originally Posted by The Count
It seems to me like the most reasonable answer is restricting abortions at a certain point, where the fetus is developed enough to essentially be its own entity.That is the sensible approach. My own recommendation would be that there should be no limitation up until the Second Trimester, then, the procedure should have to meet some burden of legitimacy, increasing as the pregnancy goes on, with exceptions for severe birth defects, fetuses that are already dead, or if the mothers’ health is threatened. That seems perfectly sensible to me.
really don't get it at all.
Supporting any restrictions on abortion at all simply means supporting higher death tolls and higher rates of mutilation, because that's exactly what the practical consequences of such restrictions will be.

I mean, do you think that restricting abortion after a certain point in the pregnancy will stop the practice from occurring? Because it won't. The total number of abortions after that point may decrease somewhat, but the number of "unsafe abortions" after that point - i.e. abortions performed by persons lacking the necessary skills, or in an environment lacking the minimal medical standards, or both - will skyrocket. Which means, as I already indicated, so too will the number of deaths and mutilations which will occur as a result.

And this is true of abortion restrictions at any point in pregnancy. They don't stop abortion, they merely force pregnant women in desperate situations - and that tends overwhelmingly to be those without the financial means to be temporarily out of work and/or to care for a(nother) child, i.e. poor and working class women - to resort to methods of abortion which involve tremendous risk of mutilation and death, e.g. coat-hangers, beatings (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/01/us/01abortion.html), etc.

Presently, unsafe abortions result in about 70,000 deaths and 5 million disabilities per year. And its sickeningly cynical that measures which would see those numbers skyrocket are presented as being somehow "pro-life".

However, none of this is meant to imply that there is any potential for securing universal access to abortion within the framework of capitalism - there isn't, and imho reformist struggles for abortion rights are a total dead end. But I do think that those who support restrictions on abortion should be aware that they are supporting attacks on working class women and, by extension, attacks on the entire working class.

[ZeroNowhere]

I believe that, ultimately, a government that is not controlled by the people has no right to create policy about this. Regardless of stance, I do not think that government has the right to decide this issue.Does this apply to rape as well?

[S.Artesian]

The issue isn't one of "rights" at all, but of property. Restricting women's access to medical care, safe medical procedures, the ability to terminate and unwanted pregnancy nothing more than declaring that women's bodies are the property of someone else-- god in the case of immaculate conception, the state re abortion, or their male impregnators.

As for women taking responsibility for "their actions.." come on, getting a safe abortion is exactly that.

The social reality is that denying women access to abortion maintains their secondary economic status, their super-exploitation, their role as an unpaid source for the reproduction of labor and vice-versa-- their impoverishment and dependency on a male owner, who may or may not admit his obligation to the child but is supposed to be able to determine if the woman should be forced to continue the pregnancy.

Sex and personal responsibility have nothing to do with this. Men have sex and deny, ignore, evade responsibility all the time. Expecting people to be responsible about sex before the social conditions have been changed, one of which is changing the restrictions on a woman's access to abortion, to make "responsibility" a project instead of burden is simply to condemn women to a repetition of the conditions of oppression.

The issue should be solely between the woman and her medical care provider.

[NGNM85]

Well, first of all, you are totally mired in all of these ideas from classical liberalism - natural rights, "the self-evident truth that all men are created equal" etc. Basically, you're talking entirely in the language of the ruling class.

The Enlightenment was a dramatic leap forward, socially, and philosophically. Ideas like secular government, democracy, the Scientific Method, you mentioned equality, for example, etc. These ideas have endured for a reason. I encourage you to take the Pepsi challenge with these ideas because they have proven themselves time and time again.

Second, there is no such thing as ‘the language of the ruling class’, in the context in which you’re speaking. This is like ‘Jewish physics’, it’s ridiculous.


In reality, rights are the creation of man; there exist no rights beyond those declared and enforced by society - i.e. by the ruling class through its state - and the belief in the existence of natural rights has the same relationship to reality as the belief in the imminent arrival of the anointed king.

Rights are the creation of man, as, so far, humans are the only sentient beings on this planet, thus, the only lifeforms capable of comprehending, let alone implementing, such a concept. However, this does not mean that they are arbitrary or nebulous. I think this is obviously untrue, and, frankly, I don’t even think you believe it. To paraphrase Sam Harris, values are really facts about the well being of human beings. The state (Or any other institution.) cannot create rights, it can merely respect them.


I also think that people who say things like this:

really don't get it at all.
Supporting any restrictions on abortion at all simply means supporting higher death tolls and higher rates of mutilation, because that's exactly what the practical consequences of such restrictions will be.

No, it doesn’t.


I mean, do you think that restricting abortion after a certain point in the pregnancy will stop the practice from occurring? Because it won't. The total number of abortions after that point may decrease somewhat, but the number of "unsafe abortions" after that point - i.e. abortions performed by persons lacking the necessary skills, or in an environment lacking the minimal medical standards, or both - will skyrocket. Which means, as I already indicated, so too will the number of deaths and mutilations which will occur as a result.

And this is true of abortion restrictions at any point in pregnancy. They don't stop abortion, they merely force pregnant women in desperate situations - and that tends overwhelmingly to be those without the financial means to be temporarily out of work and/or to care for a(nother) child, i.e. poor and working class women - to resort to methods of abortion which involve tremendous risk of mutilation and death, e.g. coat-hangers, beatings (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/01/us/01abortion.html), etc.

Presently, unsafe abortions result in about 70,000 deaths and 5 million disabilities per year. And its sickeningly cynical that measures which would see those numbers skyrocket are presented as being somehow "pro-life".

You’ve got some valuable facts in there, but you’re thesis is total bullshit. I have done any comprehensive study of deaths from illegal or ‘back alley’ abortions, but I’ll accept that statistic. It’s pretty horrifying. Of course, essentially none of those are from the United States, but, primarily, from third-world countries, but that doesn’t make it any less horrifying. It’s a humanitarian crisis, that needs to be addressed. However, this fact, alarming as it is, has virtually no relation, whatsoever, to what I was talking about. I was talking in the context of the united States where abortion is legal, for the time being, and where these horrifying cases you mention are virtually unheard of.

Again, as I pointed out earlier, over 75% of abortions are performed within the first 10 or 11 weeks of pregnancy, in the blastocyst stage. Virtually, all of them. Even so, we have room for substantial improvement in accessibility, as well as education, access to contraceptives etc., and I’m totally behind that. Anti-abortion arguments ultimately reduce to beliefs in spirits and magic, (Not that there aren’t other objections, such as the infringement on women’s rights, etc.) I ‘believe’ in reason and science, so I don’t find this position compelling. Scientifically, there is no way to equate a blastocyst and a person, the most basic, biological determinants of personhood are not meant. So, for the overwhelming majority of abortions performed in the United States, there isn’t even anything to discuss. However, as gestation progresses, what started as a single cell becomes a human being, that’s actually the point of the process.

Where should we draw the line? Some, like Peter Singer, for example have gone so far as to argue for infanticide, to say that a baby can be ‘terminated’ up to some period shortly following a successful birth. (Perfect evidence that Singer is a crank.) Most people, myself included, find that horrifying, for fairly obvious reasons. So, where, then? I don’t think I could narrow it down to the second, but I think we can make a pretty clear assessment. In the landmark Supreme Court case, Roe v. Wade, the original assessment was that abortion should be permissible up until 28 weeks, with the exception of medical necessity. (‘Medical necessity’ being defined as likely as the pregnancy seriously endangering the life of the mother, if the fetus is already dead, or if there is a fatal or extremely severe, previously undetected, birth defect.) This was based on viability estimates, which have changed with improved medical technology, but I think it’s still a pretty good benchmark. Once you get to the 35th or 40th week, we’re really talking about a baby, an actual person, not a hypothetical person. Second, disregarding the moral implications, there really is no legitimate reason, barring medical necessity, for a woman to arbitrarily decide to have an abortion in the middle of her third trimester. That isn’t, in any way, unreasonable, that’s utter nonsense. Unfortunately, in 2003, president shit-for-brains signed the ‘Partial-Birth-Abortion Act’, which Clinton had twice vetoed, into law. However, even before this law was created, these procedures, to my recollection, accounted for about 1% of abortions, and most of those were performed for medical reasons. So your fears about scores of women dying from this are factually bogus. This procedure was rarely performed when it was legal, and there has not been an epidemic of deaths or any similar social crisis since it was prohibited. I’m in favor of making abortion more accessible, as well as increasing access to contraceptives, and comprehensive education, I think we need massive improvement in these areas. So, if I had my way, there’s absolutely no reason this would occur, that’s not even an opinion, that’s a fact.


However, none of this is meant to imply that there is any potential for securing universal access to abortion within the framework of capitalism - there isn't, and imho reformist struggles for abortion rights are a total dead end. But I do think that those who support restrictions on abortion should be aware that they are supporting attacks on working class women and, by extension, attacks on the entire working class.



What I said cannot be, in any way, accurately characterized as an attack on women, the working class, or working class women. I’m not going to argue with the rest. Clearly, you’re extremely ideological, and have a very simplistic, reductionist philosophy, and we probably disagree on just about everything, so I’m just going to leave it at that, this thread is supposed to be about abortion.

[Lucretia]

There are many good philosophical works on the ethics of abortion as they relate to whether the practice itself is wrong, and whether it should be regulated by the state. There is not a True Marxist position on the issue, and my position is that abortion is morally acceptable until the fetus is viable, at which point there arises a whole mass of factors which need to be taken into consideration, and which make the case for abortion as ethical far murkier.

[MarxSchmarx]

A bit OT, but we used to have a sticked thread somewhere that outlined why abortion should be legal. The argument outlined was fairly elegant and had to do with violin players on life support or something. Anyway I checked the forums that seemed likely to house it to no avail, but if someone could dig it up I think that would go pretty quickly towards settling a lot of the back and forth.

[NGNM85]

A bit OT, but we used to have a sticked thread somewhere that outlined why abortion should be legal. The argument outlined was fairly elegant and had to do with violin players on life support or something. Anyway I checked the forums that seemed likely to house it to no avail, but if someone could dig it up I think that would go pretty quickly towards settling a lot of the back and forth.

I don't think anyone is arguing that it shouldn't be legal. The guy who started the thread changed his mind. (In part, because of yours truly.) I'm being castigated as sexist, bourgois, and pro-life because I object to women arbitrarily terminating a pregnancy (For non-medical reasons.) after 8 1/2 months.

[ZeroNowhere]

A bit OT, but we used to have a sticked thread somewhere that outlined why abortion should be legal. The argument outlined was fairly elegant and had to do with violin players on life support or something.
That sounds like Thomson's argument.

[9]

I'm being castigated as sexist, bourgois, and pro-life because I object to women arbitrarily terminating a pregnancy (For non-medical reasons.) after 8 1/2 months.

Well, I might be missing it, but I haven't seen anyone call you any of these things. At any rate, the issue isn't that you have a personal objection to it. Its that you believe your personal objection on matters concerning the intimate details of women's reproductive processes warrants state enforcement. And you're making the argument at a time when what reproductive rights women have are coming under attack by 'your own' ruling class as part of attacks on the entire working class.

[MarxSchmarx]

A bit OT, but we used to have a sticked thread somewhere that outlined why abortion should be legal. The argument outlined was fairly elegant and had to do with violin players on life support or something. Anyway I checked the forums that seemed likely to house it to no avail, but if someone could dig it up I think that would go pretty quickly towards settling a lot of the back and forth. I don't think anyone is arguing that it shouldn't be legal. The guy who started the thread changed his mind. (In part, because of yours truly.) I'm being castigated as sexist, bourgois, and pro-life because I object to women arbitrarily terminating a pregnancy (For non-medical reasons.) after 8 1/2 months.

As 9 pointed out, I haven't read anybody accusing you of these things either.

Actually legality was beside the point - the argument was about why one should not object to the personal decision to abort throughout pregnancy. And in any case, the forum's FAQ does consider your view to be sexist by default, so you shouldn't be too surprised if this accusation is heaped on you.



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

[NGNM85]

As 9 pointed out, I haven't read anybody accusing you of these things either.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1982988&postcount=56 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1982988&postcount=56)

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1982805&postcount=54 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1982805&postcount=54)



Actually legality was beside the point

Ahem…

A bit OT, but we used to have a sticked thread somewhere that outlined why abortion should be legal.



- the argument was about why one should not object to the personal decision to abort throughout pregnancy. And in any case, the forum's FAQ does consider your view to be sexist by default, so you shouldn't be too surprised if this accusation is heaped on you.



emphasis added.

First of all, it is a testament to the degree of insanity that passes for normal on this site that what I said could even be implied to be anti-abortion, or sexist.

Also, this statement isn’t an ethical argument, it’s just a categorical statement. Also, if you actually adopt this position, you have no room whatsoever for a rational argument against infanticide. If a woman, who has had completely unrestricted access to abortion for the better part of a year who is in excellent physical health arbitrarily decides to terminate her perfectly healthy fetus at the 40th week, presuming she hasn’t had it, already, that is no different than terminating it as much as a month after birth, maybe as much as a year. Physiologically, scientifically, there is no significant difference. You may argue, as Peter Singer has, that this is perfectly fine. I have real trouble with that, both on an instinctive emotional level, and, more importantly, because it’s philosophically bankrupt.

[NGNM85]

Well, I might be missing it, but I haven't seen anyone call you any of these things.

See above.


At any rate, the issue isn't that you have a personal objection to it. Its that you believe your personal objection on matters concerning the intimate details of women's reproductive processes warrants state enforcement.

That personal objection is based on irrefutable facts, (Which I have outlined, extensively.) that’s sort of important.

You also haven’t really contested anything I said.


And you're making the argument at a time when what reproductive rights women have are coming under attack by 'your own' ruling class as part of attacks on the entire working class.

Again, this is a crude, reductionist, dogmatic version of reality, but I’m not going to argue with that. Yes, women’s reproductive rights, in this country, are under a legitimate threat. If we get another Thomas, another Scalia on the bench it could very possibly disappear. This is one of the reasons why elections matter, of course the broad majority of the people here wouldn’t vote to save their lives, so don’t count on any of them.

[S.Artesian]

I would vote to save my life. But that's not the issue.

I do not think voting however is going to provide women with safe, free, unrestricted access to a medical procedure agreed upon jointly by those women and their medical providers. Thus I do not think voting will save the lives of women who are forced to seek unsafe abortion or continue an unwanted pregnancy. That's an issue-- a question of tactics.

The issues that are issues of program are-- how to guarantee women in the US access for women to safe, free, unrestricted medical procedures that they request and with which their medical provider agrees.

Most importantly given the number of hospitals and medical schools that will no longer teach safe abortion, or even allow those qualified to perform safe abortions on the premises, the issue is how do we maintain the necessary expertise, learning, and improvement in technique to reduce any risk to the woman during such a procedure?

[9]

Originally Posted by NGNM85
You also haven’t really contested anything I said. No, and I don't really see the point, honestly. The abortion issue strikes me as the sort of thing that generally people either 'get' or they don't, and I don't see long abstract arguments on the terms of the ruling class as the factor that's going to win people over. I also find the whole discussion totally dehumanizing, personally.

I have presented my argument, you have presented yours - I don't see much point in making some sort of a drawn-out exchange of it, particularly when we will only be talking past each other anyway.
This is one of the reasons why elections matter, of course the broad majority of the people here wouldn’t vote to save their lives, so don’t count on any of them. Or perhaps the majority of American workers understand something about capitalist democracy that you and the Chomsky's of the world clearly do not.

[NGNM85]

No, and I don't really see the point, honestly.

I’m inclined to agree.


The abortion issue strikes me as the sort of thing that generally people either 'get' or they don't,

Brilliant.


and I don't see long abstract arguments on the terms of the ruling class

Again, you might as well say ‘Jewish physics.’


as the factor that's going to win people over. I also find the whole discussion totally dehumanizing, personally.

To describe what I said as sexist, or ‘dehumanizing’ isn’t just absurd, it’s intellectually dishonest.


I have presented my argument, you have presented yours - I don't see much point in making some sort of a drawn-out exchange of it, particularly when we will only be talking past each other anyway.

Yes, although my argument was comprehensive and centered around established scientific facts. You just listed an, admittedly, disturbing, statistic about global deaths related to ‘back-alley’ abortions and declared yourself to be right. Although, I will concede that there is probably little hope for any meaningful exchange, however, I was not particularly optimistic, to begin with.


Or perhaps the majority of American workers understand something about capitalist democracy that you and the Chomsky's of the world clearly do not.

This is a thread about abortion, so I’m just going to leave that alone. Needless to say, I’m hardly impressed by your rhetoric.

[Fawkes]

I've skimmed through this thread, so I admittedly haven't read every post with intense scrutiny, but I'm curious as to what justifications anyone has for putting a cap on when a woman can and cannot have an abortion, because it seems some have put forward this idea and I haven't really seen any good arguments. If I was a woman, why should I be able to get an abortion 3 weeks after getting pregnant but not 3 minutes before my water breaks? What's the difference?

edit: post-natal abortion is some bonafide bullshit

[Amphictyonis]

Pro abortion for woman's choice 100%. Anti abortion when done for eugenics purposes. Poor people deserve the right to pro create, we shouldn't be 'breed out of existence'. It's hard to spot modern day eugenics programs though, after WW2 they started hiding their programs. That's the only issue I have with abortion (when it's used for eugenics). They (US Government) were even involuntarily sterilizing native American women in the 1970's.

[Rusty Shackleford]

my opinion is, if you dont have a uterus you dont have an opinion.

i dont have a uterus. i prefer for women to decide an issue that is almost completely an issue for women.

like a vasectomy is for men.

[Decolonize The Left]

No uterus = no opinion.

Next question.

- August

[Lucretia]

No uterus = no opinion.

Next question.

- August

Huh? That's like saying you can't have an opinion on the military unless you're an enlisted member, or that you can't have an opinion on alcoholism unless you're an alcoholic. Silly reasoning.

[ZeroNowhere]

No uterus = no opinion.

Next question.

- AugustI am aware that many males think with their penis, but I was not aware that females think with their uterus.

[NGNM85]

I would vote to save my life. But that's not the issue.

Then, you are in the minority, and, we have one thing in common.


I do not think voting however is going to provide women with safe, free, unrestricted access to a medical procedure agreed upon jointly by those women and their medical providers.

If the Republicans retake the White House in 2012, (Very unlikely.)or 2016 (Very possible, unfortunately.) they could put another Thomas, or Scalia on the bench, and then things could get pretty ugly. This is one of the reasons why elections do, in fact, matter. I mean, realistically, in the long view, I don’t think there’s any putting the genie back in the bottle. Even if they were successful in striking down Roe, as Scalia (Unsuccessfully.) tries to do every so often, that would only mean it was up to individual states. In Texas, that could be a serious problem, however, in most states I would not expect a dramatic change, I think, at best it would be a temporary setback. Like gay rights, the opponents are simply ‘on the wrong side of history.’ However, even if it is simply a debate about a timetable, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do everything we can to push progress forward, to protect the rights of women, and homosexuals.


Thus I do not think voting will save the lives of women who are forced to seek unsafe abortion or continue an unwanted pregnancy. That's an issue-- a question of tactics.

These deaths from ‘back alley’ abortions are, essentially, nonexistent in the US.

Tactically, it’s a good idea to make sure another Thomas, Scalia, or Roberts doesn’t end up on the bench.


The issues that are issues of program are-- how to guarantee women in the US access for women to safe, free, unrestricted medical procedures that they request and with which their medical provider agrees.

I really don’t have any argument with that, in principle. I think it’s evidenced that most women, and most doctors would agree with what I’ve said.


Most importantly given the number of hospitals and medical schools that will no longer teach safe abortion, or even allow those qualified to perform safe abortions on the premises, the issue is how do we maintain the necessary expertise, learning, and improvement in technique to reduce any risk to the woman during such a procedure?

I have no medical qualifications; however, I suspect at least a significant percentage of obstetricians would be capable in this respect. However, again, I really can’t argue with that, it sounds like a good idea.

[NGNM85]

my opinion is, if you dont have a uterus you dont have an opinion.


i dont have a uterus. i prefer for women to decide an issue that is almost completely an issue for women.

like a vasectomy is for men.


No uterus = no opinion.


Next question.

- August

These are empty platitudes that don’t stand up to one second of critical analysis, like ‘War on Terror’, or ‘Love it or Leave It’, this is a bumper sticker, not an argument. Although, for what it's worth, there is compelling evidence that women agree with me, thus meeting your requirement, asinine, as it is.

[PhoenixAsh]

So does protection, so should condoms be banned? The former pope actually called for this once. Fapping, too, does this. Let's not mention anal sex (wasn't this used as an anti-homo argument by religious nutjobs once?). Oh and of course women flushing out unfertilized eggs due to lack of insemination also terminates a potential human being, no?

Nothing personal but it seems to me you haven't even thought this through. Using arguments of religious nutjobs to try and push through your own is a simple strawman and phillibustering. but perhaps I misunderstand you.

Sperm and eggs on their own do not constitute possible live forms. Sperm or eggs individualy do NOT develop nor do they have any CHANCE of developing into a live form. You know this...its simple.

As to any logical debate about abortion that makes any sense...as it should be amongst leftist thinkers...this is the starting point of valid arguments.

Now I do find the notion of live beginning at conception a valid argument. I do not personally agree with it...but do not feel the need to ridicule it. There can be a lot said in favour of this argument. However for me it is also a very important factor to allow leeway for women to make a decision.

And as such I think it is a valid argument to bring into the debate that there are two main issues at hand here:

The right te choose
The right to live

Now I am all for the right to choose....IMO its a universal and unrestricted right* and should be treated as such. Women should have the option of terminating pregnancies. There is no debate about that.
(* meaning that if she decides to have an abortion there is no need to justfy that choice and doctors should only warn against medical consequences and psychological implications {many women who have abortions also encounter psychological problems as a result} so that an informed decision can be made...just remember...abortion DOES also hold health risks, just like pregnancy does)

But it is neither reactionary nor sexist to question the fact if this should be unlimited up until birth or should be restricted to some point in time where we can agree that a developing fruit has developed into a living being.

It is also a question when does YOUR right start to infringe on the right of OTHERS. Perhaps this is somewhat anarchist in nature...but leftist non the less.

As said...This is not reactionary, nor is it sexist...it simply a realisation that at some point in time we are no longer talking about a developing fruit but talking about a cognitive (and yes,...this has been scientifically proven) person developing.

And yes...this has a lot to do with the fact that women are biologically "designed" to create new live. THis means that at some point you have to take into account that we are indeed talking about new live. And as unfortunate as it may be...this is something of a fact...and is something you should take responsibility for.

In my opinion this means there should be an unrestricted right to choose freely up until a certain point when the developing fruit turns into a person and should only be an option after that when there are complications for the mother and/or child. If the last is not the case then, sorry, but we are talking about willfully ending a live...and in my opinion that is murder.

I think that satisfies both the right of all women to be autonomous and the right of every person to live...



So we should restrict the woman's sexuality because of her physical ability to get pregnant?

No...but it does mean that when she gets pregnant she needs to think about what she wants and needs to weight the fact that there is at some point an actual female or male person developing....and that if she wants to terminate it ity must be done before that time.

This should not be a decision she needs to make on her own if she doesn't want...there should not only be a right to terminating pregnancy but also unrestricted right to seek advice, help and support outside of her social structure. Both before, during and after....society should provide ample opportunities both in alternatives, psychological and medical assistance and financial aid. Which is something I don't hear anybody about.

Being a woman does not negate the fact that you should also be a responsible person. Now does it? Or are we so politically correct and overzealous in our feminism that we are now turning this in reversed sexism? along the lines of...a man does not have the risk of becomming pregnant so women should have the right to always unrestricted up until birth decide if she wants to or not?

There are differences between the sexes. Simple fact. That does not make any of us inferior but it does mean that both sexes have equal rights but different things they need to keep into account when living their lives. Nothing reactionary about that...

****

Now...that said... In the extend of this debate....

If women have the complete and sole righth to choose...what about men? If I do not want to have a baby I still need to take responsibility for it when the woman decides to keep it. Unfortunately when she and I use protection it can also still go amiss... we also established that.

But a man does not have the right to choose to ignore the fact that he has an unwanted child. Men still need to pay child support.

Isn't this also sexist? Shouldn't the man have the right to decide not to take responsibility for the child simply because he has no choice in the matter if the woman carries the pregnancy or not? And yet it also holds huge repercussions for the live of a man.

Forcing a man to take responsibility for a choice a woman is solely responsible for seems reversed sexist...

So abortion should not stand alone...there should be a complete realisation that giving the sole right to determine to carry a child or not also holds further repercussions for society and for other individuals. It should therefore, if it should truely be unrestricted, also mean there is financial aid to keep into account that the choice a woman makes may well mean that she is solely repsonsible for the upbringing of the child.

Because as we acknowlegde equality between the sexes and the right to determine ones own autonomy should not infringe on the rights of other individuals...like in this case the unwilling father...but should also not be dictated by economic fear.

the result of a womans decision may very well be she is a single mom. And therefore has little economic perspective and possibilities...this may be a reason why women chose abortion when they do not necessarilly want to or the fear of being left by their partner and thus suffering a laps in income may result in chosing to keep a child.

There need to be answers for those issues as well...so its not just the right to have an abortion or not. Its the right to make a decision without fear of the consequences...that is what I support.

[S.Artesian]

As to any logical debate about abortion that makes any sense...as it should be amongst leftist thinkers...this is the starting point of valid arguments.

Now I do find the notion of live beginning at conception a valid argument. I do not personally agree with it...but do not feel the need to ridicule it. There can be a lot said in favour of this argument. However for me it is also a very important factor to allow leeway for women to make a decision.

And as such I think it is a valid argument to bring into the debate that there are two main issues at hand here:

The right te choose
The right to live

No, this is not the starting point of the argument. These are not the main issues. In fact this is a diversion, an abstraction from the real issue that leftists, radicals, Marxists must engage, and that is "How has restricting access to abortion fit in, reinforced, maintained, and exacerbated the discrimination against women? How has it been used to tether, subjugate women to performing uncompensated work domestically? How has it been used to project a status of inferiority on women; to maintain the notion that women cannot make rational decisions; that women need guidance from historically male dominated institutions like church, state, and family in matters both personal and social?

This argument about the "viability of the fetus, the right or sanctity of life" is complete bullshit-- it's a cover, excuse, beard for an attack on women. Those people arguing for the sanctity of life are more than happen to physically prevent women from obtaining a safe medical procedure but would never show up at the Pentagon, or a military base, and physically obstruct the biggest killing machine in the history of the world.

That's the social reality-- and all the nuns and priests who show up at anti-war demonstrations [not that many, really] don't change the social character of the anti-abortion movement.

[S.Artesian]

I have no medical qualifications; however, I suspect at least a significant percentage of obstetricians would be capable in this respect. However, again, I really can’t argue with that, it sounds like a good idea.Many hospitals, teaching hospitals included, will no longer teach abortion procedures and will no longer allow "discretionary" abortion to be conducted on their premises.

This is, in part, a result of insurance concerns as threats from the anti-abortion groups to picket, protest, obstruct the hospital [and the worse threats that are made by some] will drive insurance rates higher.

In part, is a tactic to avoid antagonizing possible wealthy donors who might have a problem with the institution sanctioning abortion.

I think in Nebraska, there is now only a single clinic, medical institution that offers discretionary abortions. The doctor who runs it, an MD who was a former high-ranking officer in the US Air Force, is IMO a true "American Hero" who doesn't let his own politics [I believe he's a Republican, not that it matters] ever interfere with his obligation to provide safe medical procedures to those in need.

The MD, Dr. Leroy Carhart, runs the clinic and maintains the Abortion Access Fund.

The website is here (http://www.abortionclinics.org/) and if there ever was an organization that was worthy of as much financial support as we could offer, this is it. I can't say enough about how brave I think this guy, and the staff at the clinic, are.

[PhoenixAsh]

No, this is not the starting point of the argument. These are not the main issues. In fact this is a diversion, an abstraction from the real issue that leftists, radicals, Marxists must engage, and that is "How has restricting access to abortion fit in, reinforced, maintained, and exacerbated the discrimination against women? How has it been used to tether, subjugate women to performing uncompensated work domestically? How has it been used to project a status of inferiority on women; to maintain the notion that women cannot make rational decisions; that women need guidance from historically male dominated institutions like church, state, and family in matters both personal and social?

1st of all.. [email protected] for trying to tell an Anarchist what he must and mustn't do. :thumbup1:

2nd of all you completely overlook the fact that we are discussing the positions on abortion within the socialist, revolutionary movement and NOT in the capitalist society.

3rd of all...I am sorry...but Marxism clearly states that the inequality between men and women is a direct result of the economic inequality caused by the way society is structured in a capitalist society and is a direct result in the existence of private property.

THAT is the root of the inequality between men and women and all other things are merely symptoms. So you need to get your priotities straight.

Your viewpoint is in essence radical feminism. A stream of thought I do not agree with. I acknowledge its existence and I think everybody has their right to their own opinion...no matter how wrong they are...but as a political platform I do tend to agree with Marxists here, (most notably Clara Zetkin) : Feminism is a bourgeoisie construct opposed to Marxism (edit me: and socialism) and opposed to the working class and opposed to the revolution.

To elaborate on this somewhat further...Radical Feminist groups have in the past rejected any ways to become pregnant by any other means than nautural insemination because it was degrading to women (overlooking the fact that some women can not get pregnant any other way and still want to become mothers). It also rejected the existance of contraceptions because in their opinion it was another way for men to sexually enslave women and use them as risk free lust objects to satisfy their base needs...effectively turning them in to prostitutes.

After these nice gems of resoning and thinking...you can clearly see why I do not take Radical feminism serious as a political platform outside the revolutionary movement towards the destruction of capitalism.

And as such I do not agree with your assessment because abortion has been legal in many capitalist states...in fact abortion is legally accessible for +/- 64% of the world population....and still it does NOTHING to better the position of women in a structural way in society. In fact...in ALL currently as communist/socialist designated states (China, NKorea, Vietnam)...abortion is also MANDATORY in some cases...wow :blink:...that does wonders for womens rights :rolleyes:

Therefore it stands to reason that abortion as a way to subjegate women is, at best, only a minor issue in the womens right debate....and the root cause of ineqaulity which also predominated in the former USSR (eventhough they legalized abortion in 1921) is still the existance of private property and capitalist structuring of society.

Therefore abortion...either within a capitalist society or within a socialist society boils down to two main questions:

1). The right of autonomous decisions
2). The right to live

Now the view of some Marxists (especially the Australian CP) is that a feutus becomes a person when a mother wants it to be one...or as Marxism states...a person of higher wisdom (whatever taht may mean). Personality and human value are imparted by external economic environments....at least accoding to my former party.

This is all nice and welll...and I guess that is where my anarchy gene kickes in but that means that if the economic environment does not need an individual that individual stops to be a person and has no more value as a human. And in line with the reasoning and the impication this has for abortion...no longer has the right to live.

And I for one have huge problems with that reprecussion....simply put...as an anarchist I value life, liberty and freedom. And therefore I find this particular viewpoint in Marxism not only amoral, unethical, repugnat, heartless, cold, calculating and sheer bloody nonsense...I find it bordering on Nazism.


To terminated until birth opens the door to the debate why you cannot terminate after birth. After all...you might decide two months later that it wasn't all that you thought it would be and it is in fact a complete drain on your live and it costs more than you had previously expected.

Hell...why not go for complete equality and allow fathers who did not want to be fathers in the first place to kill the baby just as soon as it is born? I mean...why the hell not?? It is out of the womans body...the man didn't have a say (rightlly) but he is still responsible and it still has profound reprecussions for his live...(get the argument reversal I use here???)

Hell...why not at 18??





This argument about the "viability of the fetus, the right or sanctity of life" is complete bullshit-- it's a cover, excuse, beard for an attack on women. Those people arguing for the sanctity of life are more than happen to physically prevent women from obtaining a safe medical procedure but would never show up at the Pentagon, or a military base, and physically obstruct the biggest killing machine in the history of the world.No..SOME people that argue that are happy the physically prevent women from obtaining safe medical procedures (which aren't ll that safe...but feel free to continue living that dream). This argument in effect is a strawman....and nothing more than a base attempt to shift focus away from the validity of the argument...because you do not seem to have an answer for it.

I am pro choice...but I am also pro live as soon as that live is viable. I do not believe economic environment dictates if someone is human and has value...I believe that science decides that. Live is a right...not because of some higher moral code whispered in my ear by an immaginary entity...but because it is a person, and individual like you and me who has to be protected....like you and me....from oppressive and arbitrary choices that infringe on the right to live.

And I am sorry for you. But men and women are in fact biologically different. A fact you seem to forget in your overzealousness to try to make everything fit in a nice little order.

This means we have different biological functions and that means we have to take responsibility in different ways. That may seem unfair to you...and perhaps it is...but it is a simple fact.

And though we should be able to have legal equality and equal value in live this does not mean...however much you want to...that we are biologically equal. And that there will always be differences between how men and women function in society and that means there will always be differences in how men and women are treated.

Simply put...women can become pregnant. This has reprecussions for society...and society needs to make allowances for that. Allowences it does not need to make for men. Unfair...yes...I find it grossly unfair that I can never experience the wonder my pregnant female friends tell me about of feeling live inside of me develop. I find it perfectly acceptable I do not bleed out of my reproductive system every freaking month and have all the pains and discomfort women seem to sometimes feel...and I am prefectly willing to put up with hormones that go crazy and make my girlfriend throw the dishes at me because she feels I did not mention enough how good she looked that particular day...(o yes...every freaking month!!!)...and then I find it perfectly acceptabel to deal with it and comfort her when she starts to cry because she didn't know why the hell she was mad about it in the first place. Simple things...but simple things that make men and women very different.

Does this mean men and women are inequal as human beings? No absolutely not. I feel the differences that exist should be celebrated...but acknowledged by both sexes. And it should be acknowledged taht we are in fact...dirrerent in some ways. ways that have a function adn ways that should be accepted. Only THEN can true equality between theb sexes be achieved.

And I feel that abortion rights are not the end. There need to be complete social and economic rights to decide to raise a child on your own...society should make that possible
abortion rights are only one side of the coin. Equaly important is the right to chose to have a baby and still have a live, both economic and social, outside of the role of mother. Hardly hear any feminists about that...they all seem heel bend on abortion...you have to look towards Anarchism to really find this argument.




That's the social reality-- and all the nuns and priests who show up at anti-war demonstrations [not that many, really] don't change the social character of the anti-abortion movement.Everything is social. Not everything is socialitst. And if you argue that killing a viable human being is the right of a woman simply because it is her right as a woman to decide if she wants it or not...this opens the door for society deciding if they want and individual to live or not by democratic means. And I do not in any circumstances condone any infringment on the right to live...no matter how many red flags you wave at protest rallies or how much of Das Kapital you can recide when I wake you in the middle of the night.

Killing a viable human being has nothing to do with radical, leftwing, socialist or Marxist thought anymore nor with equality of the sexes...it is sheer bloody murder.

Again...I am pro choice. But live is a right as well. And needs to be just as much protected as the right to be autonomous...now unfortunately for women this means that their right is limited up until the point there is viable live inside of her...because otherwise it infringes upon a more important right we all have: the right to live.

[Magón]

I am aware that many males think with their penis, but I was not aware that females think with their uterus.

I know a few women who do. In fact, I could probably say all the women I know, do. It's just a matter of trust.

[L.A.P.]

If a woman doesn't want to get pregnant, wouldn't it make sense for her to wait to have sex until she'd be able to bear that responsibility? Contraceptives can be effective but do fail, as you bring up in your next point.

So basically, it's the "if you don't want to get pregnant don't have sex argument"? Not to judge you but I once heard that from an annoying Conservative kid and I couldn't help but respond "That's easy for a loser who won't have sex until they're 40 to say." Was it an immature response? Of course, but that's the level of seriousness that argument should be given.


Women certainly wouldn't be denied the right to have sex. However, nature doesn't provide them with a right to have sex and not get pregnant.

FUCK NATURE!


Isn't pro-choice based on arbitrary and random definitions as well? According to most Leftists, you have no rights until you're born, an arbitrary mark.

No, it means that you are not alive yet so technically someone who isn't alive doesn't have rights because there is no living being to be given rights to.


Oh yeah, I'm totally a chauvinist because I'm asking honest questions. Thanks for that.

Honestly chauvinist questions!:D

[9]

Not bothering with all the other ridiculous things in your post, I just want to point out with regard to this...



Your viewpoint is in essence radical feminism. A stream of thought I do not agree with. I acknowledge its existence and I think everybody has their right to their own opinion...no matter how wrong they are...but as a political platform I do tend to agree with Marxists here, (most notably Clara Zetkin) : Feminism is a bourgeoisie construct opposed to Marxism (edit me: and socialism) and opposed to the working class and opposed to the revolution.


You don't have any idea what you're talking about. Nothing S.Artesian has said has anything at all to do with feminism.



Originally Posted by Clara Zetkin
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.

[PhoenixAsh]

I've skimmed through this thread, so I admittedly haven't read every post with intense scrutiny, but I'm curious as to what justifications anyone has for putting a cap on when a woman can and cannot have an abortion, because it seems some have put forward this idea and I haven't really seen any good arguments. If I was a woman, why should I be able to get an abortion 3 weeks after getting pregnant but not 3 minutes before my water breaks? What's the difference?

edit: post-natal abortion is some bonafide bullshit


IMO, as soon as live is viable and clearly cognatively present, the right to decide what happens with your own body is not only about your own body anymore.
And hope we all agree that one can not decide to arbitrarily take away someones right to live without consequences?

And post-natal abortion may be some bonafide bullshit. But can you explain to me the difference between killing a person 3 minutes before she is born or 1 minute after?

To an extend you can argue that as soon as live is sustainable outside of the womb there is no need to kill the feutus...and a woman can still choose to terminate pregnancy.

However the medical procedures are risky...not only to the loving mother who decides this course of action...but also to the child.

And since risk (in the sence of childbirth relate risks) is being used in this debate as an argument why women should be able to chose for abortion I think this argument is pretty much void.

[PhoenixAsh]

Not bothering with all the other ridiculous things in your post, I just want to point out with regard to this...
You don't have any idea what you're talking about. Nothing S.Artesian has said has anything at all to do with feminism.

So basically you are blaming me for your lack of understanding and knowledge of the feminst movements....alright then...let me try to clarify it for you.

The arguments used:


"How has restricting access (...) reinforced, maintained, and exacerbated the discrimination against women? (...) subjugate women to performing uncompensated work domestically?(...)

Are the exact arguments named by feminist groups (in the very least throughout the Netherlands) in the pro choice debate.

Then it continues:



historically male dominated institutions like church, state, and family in matters both personal and social? Which is basically as radical feminist as you can get.

Ergo...the way the subject is approached is feminist in nature.

Fine if you want to follow that line of reasoning...I tend to find it reactionary, counter socialist and destracting from the main root of the problem.

As I paraphrased this is an idea I share with many Marxist women who opposed feminsm as a sole political movement.

I argued this because this is how the post started:



No, this is not the starting point of the argument. These are not the main issues. In fact this is a diversion, an abstraction from the real issue that leftists, radicals, Marxists must engage, and that isAnd that is not true. Simply put...Marxism follows the root of gender ineqality back to economic inequality caused by the way society is constructed in a capitalist environment.

Now you can argue against that till your blue in the face...but that is like arguing that grass is in fact the colour purple speckled with golden stars... It is simply the root of gender inequality as pointed out in the Marxist theory....and abortion has very little to do with the causes of gender inequality nor does it do anything to structurally advance the position of women in a capitalist society.

As I have pointed out 64% of the world population has acces to legal and on demand abortion...and there still is structural gender inequality and subjegation of women.

To declare then that the main point of the debate is that we should look at abortion as a way to subjegate women is in my opinion a logical fallacy that in fact destracts from the bigger picture...as it is a simple fact that allowing the right for abortion in fact does NOT end subjegation of women and therefore seems to play a minor part in the equation.

The abolishment of structural inequality between men and women can IMO, and in that of Marxism, only be ended by the complete abolishment of economic inequality and the destruction of capitalist society.

To retirate my position:

To focus a debate on abortion and how it should work on how abortion rights are used to subjegate women is IMO a stupid notion. Because allowing abortion or not allowing abortion does not advance equality within a capitalist society because:

1). in capitalist countries where abortion is legal on demand have structural inequality
2). abortion alone is not enough to give a woman autonomy over her body there also need to be laws and regulations in place to allow her to decide to carry the child without adverse effects on her live and the quality of her live.
3). the feminist approach to the issue is only usefull if we have a debate amongst people who refuse to accept the right of choice and...since we are all unresticted...this isn't the case.
4). I am an anarchist...and for me the focus point is the right to life, freedom and liberty..and simply put...that does not end with the woman
but also starts with the child. But it does mean that the topic of abortion and the right to choose are not approached by me on the basis of gender inequality but on the basis of individual autonomy. Gender in equality for me is part of the socialist struggle and part of the proletarian revolution. I do not believe in a male dominated conspiracy to subjegate women per se....I believe in it being an expression of capitalism.

Now...perhaps you still want to use ad hominems to mask the fact that you lack any essential arguments to back up your obvious emotional disagreement with my arguments...but you can not deny the fact that I know a little bit about the subject we are discussing.

[S.Artesian]

1st of all.. [email protected] for trying to tell an Anarchist what he must and mustn't do. :thumbup1:

No problem, it's a thankless task, but somebody has to do it. I'm just a giver, that's all.


2nd of all you completely overlook the fact that we are discussing the positions on abortion within the socialist, revolutionary movement and NOT in the capitalist society.

This makes no sense. We never take a position in a movement that does not address a condition in capitalist society. Maybe you do, but we don't. We don't abstract an issue to make a philosophical debate of it. We have positions in response to the social relations that determine the issue.

Before we go any further, let me admit and apologize for my tunnel vision. Everything I mentioned in my previous post is based on my experience in the US. I have no experience with this matter regarding other countries, other than knowing some have very open access to abortion and some do not.


3rd of all...I am sorry...but Marxism clearly states that the inequality between men and women is a direct result of the economic inequality caused by the way society is structured in a capitalist society and is a direct result in the existence of private property.


Yeah, and what? Who's arguing with that. Restricting access to reproductive medical care, as is done in the US, is symptomatic of that inequality; is a manifestation of the need to create, accumulate, and preserve private property.


THAT is the root of the inequality between men and women and all other things are merely symptoms. So you need to get your priotities straight.

Oh, I got my priorities straight. And you know what, doctor? No doctor forgets or refuses to treat the symptoms as well as the underlying pathology, except in those rare instances where the treatment of the symptoms might interfere, inhibit, retard cure of the pathology.


Your viewpoint is in essence radical feminism. A stream of thought I do not agree with. I acknowledge its existence and I think everybody has their right to their own opinion...no matter how wrong they are...but as a political platform I do tend to agree with Marxists here, (most notably Clara Zetkin) : Feminism is a bourgeoisie construct opposed to Marxism (edit me: and socialism) and opposed to the working class and opposed to the revolution.


Oh bullshit, I'm not a feminist. The position "we" take is "free universal access to reproductive medical care, including abortion." Now certainly that applies to all women, even the rich ones, but that's not feminism. Feminism equates the oppression of women regardless of their class and economic position.

I'm not worried about rich women being able to afford an abortion, but I certainly think any and every woman in this society today should be able to seek medical care at a reproductive health care clinic that provides abortion without being threatened, attacked or harassed. That means when the anti-abortion goons show up to harass women, the revolutionary socialist movement you think you are addressing, has an obligation to establish a defense against that attack without first asking the income or net worth of the woman being attacked. If that's feminism, then the revolutionary socialist movement needs just that feminism.


To elaborate on this somewhat further...Radical Feminist groups have in the past rejected any ways to become pregnant by any other means than nautural insemination because it was degrading to women (overlooking the fact that some women can not get pregnant any other way and still want to become mothers). It also rejected the existance of contraceptions because in their opinion it was another way for men to sexually enslave women and use them as risk free lust objects to satisfy their base needs...effectively turning them in to prostitutes.


This is pettifogging and has nothing to do with the issue. Part of free universal access to reproductive healthcare includes access to contraception, in vitro fertilization and transplant, availabilty of willing surrogates.


After these nice gems of resoning and thinking...you can clearly see why I do not take Radical feminism serious as a political platform outside the revolutionary movement towards the destruction of capitalism.



All your lumps of coal of non-reasoning are simply strawwoman arguments to obscure the issue-- and the issue is that the issue of abortion is not an issue of the "right to life" vs. the "right to choice." This has nothing to do with "rights."



And as such I do not agree with your assessment because abortion has been legal in many capitalist states...in fact abortion is legally accessible for +/- 64% of the world population....and still it does NOTHING to better the position of women in a structural way in society. In fact...in ALL currently as communist/socialist designated states (China, NKorea, Vietnam)...abortion is also MANDATORY in some cases...wow :blink:...that does wonders for womens rights :rolleyes:


More pettifogging without any backup. First take mandatory abortion out of the picture. As stated before the issue is the access of women to reproductive healthcare, not the state imposing abortion as in China, or as in the US where states for years did impose abortion de jure and still impose it de facto in certain cases. So provide the list of countries where abortion is not simply legal under certain conditions, but where access to abortion is not driven, determined by economic status, where it is relatively easy, financially and socially for a woman to obtain those procedures.

Then tell me how the vital standards of life expectancy, death in childbirth, infant mortality, mortality in the first five years of a child's life , % of children born into poverty, incidence of under-nourishment in children in those countries compare to those same measures in countries where abortion is prohibited, severely restricted by law or by price.

Then look at the economic indicators-- tell me if there is a correlation between "open access," financially and legally, to abortion, and the average level of education obtained by women; the average wage for women as compared to men; the number of women making above the average wage; etc etc etc.



Therefore it stands to reason that abortion as a way to subjegate women is, at best, only a minor issue in the womens right debate....and the root cause of ineqaulity which also predominated in the former USSR (eventhough they legalized abortion in 1921) is still the existance of private property and capitalist structuring of society.


Therefore it stands to reason that your blind spot is much worse than my tunnel vision, and that all you want to do is argue from and about abstractions.



Therefore abortion...either within a capitalist society or within a socialist society boils down to two main questions:

1). The right of autonomous decisions
2). The right to live


No it doesn't. Your reasoning is not reasoning is such.



Now the view of some Marxists (especially the Australian CP) is that a feutus becomes a person when a mother wants it to be one...or as Marxism states...a person of higher wisdom (whatever taht may mean). Personality and human value are imparted by external economic environments....at least accoding to my former party.

This is all nice and welll...and I guess that is where my anarchy gene kickes in but that means that if the economic environment does not need an individual that individual stops to be a person and has no more value as a human. And in line with the reasoning and the impication this has for abortion...no longer has the right to live.


Again, pettifogging and anti-logic. Has nothing to do with the social restriction placed on women compelling them to continue an unwanted pregnancy.


And I for one have huge problems with that reprecussion....simply put...as an anarchist I value life, liberty and freedom. And therefore I find this particular viewpoint in Marxism not only amoral, unethical, repugnat, heartless, cold, calculating and sheer bloody nonsense...I find it bordering on Nazism.


This is the part where I tell you to take your wonderfully empty repetition of the that slaveholder, Thomas Jefferson's, equally empty abstract credo "life liberty and freedom" and shove it, based in part on the fact that all your posturing about freedom only gets you to where you wanted to be at the start: a place where you can establish a false parallel or correspondence between Marxism and Nazism.



To terminated until birth opens the door to the debate why you cannot terminate after birth. After all...you might decide two months later that it wasn't all that you thought it would be and it is in fact a complete drain on your live and it costs more than you had previously expected.


Not sarcasm, that's infantile obfuscation worthy completely of the right wing anti-abortion goons who accuse women of committing murder when having an abortion. And you draw parallels between Marxists and Nazis? You're the one regressing from mouthing the platitudes of a slaveholder to rolling out the arguments of the religious right. You wearing an armband yet?



Hell...why not go for complete equality and allow fathers who did not want to be fathers in the first place to kill the baby just as soon as it is born? I mean...why the hell not?? It is out of the womans body...the man didn't have a say (rightlly) but he is still responsible and it still has profound reprecussions for his live...(get the argument reversal I use here???)

No, there's no argument reversal here, because there's no argument. You're not making an argument, you're avoiding the real issues. I just might point out that absent genetic testing, which I'm sure you would have no problem compelling a woman to submit to despite your life, liberty and freedom credo in this little scenario you've cooked up, there is no way for a man to know if he is the father of a particular child. Even with genetic testing, it can be complicated.



Hell...why not at 18??

Well in your case, I might make an exception. Get the sarcasm?




No..SOME people that argue that are happy the physically prevent women from obtaining safe medical procedures (which aren't ll that safe...but feel free to continue living that dream). This argument in effect is a strawman....and nothing more than a base attempt to shift focus away from the validity of the argument...because you do not seem to have an answer for it.

Ah.. repeating again the mythology of the "new right" that abortion isn't all that safe for a woman. That too is bullshit. Complications for abortions performed in properly equipped clinics, with properly trained staff, with proper precautions against infection are more than rare, they are very rare.


I am pro choice...but I am also pro live as soon as that live is viable. I do not believe economic environment dictates if someone is human and has value...I believe that science decides that. Live is a right...not because of some higher moral code whispered in my ear by an immaginary entity...but because it is a person, and individual like you and me who has to be protected....like you and me....from oppressive and arbitrary choices that infringe on the right to live.


I know you are not living in the US. And I think you're not really living in this world-- because it's a capitalist world, the one you don't care about. But that above paragraph of yours, that pledge of allegiance to science, is simply a cover for your own willingness to enact and impose oppressive and arbitrary choices on a woman's life.


And I am sorry for you. But men and women are in fact biologically different. A fact you seem to forget in your overzealousness to try to make everything fit in a nice little order.

This means we have different biological functions and that means we have to take responsibility in different ways. That may seem unfair to you...and perhaps it is...but it is a simple fact.


Don't be sorry for me. I know men and women are different, biologically different. I just don't think, as you do, that the biological difference means a woman should not have the same control over reproduction that a man has. And don't say "Oh, but she has. She can choose not to have sex." Choice has very little to do with this. Everybody, or most people, have a need to have sex, which need, as our scientists will tell you, is separate and apart and independent of our need to have children. No problem for the man. He doesn't like the fact that reproduction is part of the package, he walks away. Not that easy for the woman. She walks away, the pregnancy walks with her.

The woman can't choose if the man slips her a roofie, screws her without protection and she wakes up with no memory of the previous night but 6 weeks later it all comes back to her, and in spades.

The woman can't choose if the condom breaks, if the implant fails, if the diaphragm is dislodged during intercourse.

Yes, women and men are different, which is why women must have their access to abortion protected.


And though we should be able to have legal equality and equal value in live this does not mean...however much you want to...that we are biologically equal. And that there will always be differences between how men and women function in society and that means there will always be differences in how men and women are treated.


WTF does that mean? Is this your version of some preacher telling his congregation "the poor will always be with us"? Right, there will always be differences. But right now those differences include that women are subject to many more physical threats and actual assaults. In the US most assaults, physical, are committed against women by men they already know and may have had, have, or rejected a relationship with.

Right, there are differences. Unlike men, a woman can be impregnated. Unlike men, a woman can be impregnated against her will, against her better judgment. Unlike men, women can die in childbirth. Unlike men, women have their access to particular medical procedures regarding their own body subject to pressure from thugs, goons, priests, crazies.


S
imply put...women can become pregnant. This has reprecussions for society...and society needs to make allowances for that. Allowences it does not need to make for men. Unfair...yes...I find it grossly unfair that I can never experience the wonder my pregnant female friends tell me about of feeling live inside of me develop. I find it perfectly acceptable I do not bleed out of my reproductive system every freaking month and have all the pains and discomfort women seem to sometimes feel...and I am prefectly willing to put up with hormones that go crazy and make my girlfriend throw the dishes at me because she feels I did not mention enough how good she looked that particular day...(o yes...every freaking month!!!)...and then I find it perfectly acceptabel to deal with it and comfort her when she starts to cry because she didn't know why the hell she was mad about it in the first place. Simple things...but simple things that make men and women very different.

OK, you're a jerk. You find it unfair that you can't experience life growing within you? WTF does that have to do with anything? And then you slide right into the stereotypical characterization of women completely overwhelmed by their hormones [unlike men] and every month! Yeah, and she's throwing the dishes at you! Yeah every month. Sure. You know what? I'm a lot older than you, I think. I think I've lived with a lot more women than you have. Known men who've lived with a lot more women than you have-- and none of us ever experienced what you claim you experience every month. I've seen the women I've lived with be in discomfort monthly. I've seen them, monthly, take red wine and aspirin in quantities that might cause an overdose in Superman, and not even evidence a buzz from it. But I've never had or heard of a woman throw dishes at a man every month because of her hormones.

It stands to reason then, it's not your girlfriend's hormones that are precipitating these outbursts, it's most probably you-- perhaps your smug ignorance? Your pretense at superiority?


Does this mean men and women are inequal as human beings? No absolutely not. I feel the differences that exist should be celebrated...but acknowledged by both sexes. And it should be acknowledged taht we are in fact...dirrerent in some ways. ways that have a function adn ways that should be accepted. Only THEN can true equality between theb sexes be achieved.


more liberal baloney. "I feel differences should be celebrated." Multicultural ring-around-the-rosy.



And I feel that abortion rights are not the end. There need to be complete social and economic rights to decide to raise a child on your own...society should make that possible
abortion rights are only one side of the coin. Equaly important is the right to chose to have a baby and still have a live, both economic and social, outside of the role of mother. Hardly hear any feminists about that...they all seem heel bend on abortion...you have to look towards Anarchism to really find this argument.


Bullshit. Fact of the matter is that women do act on that, and do raise children as single parents. It's not easy. But women do it, advocate for it, and do want it to be less of a financial burden.


Everything is social. Not everything is socialitst. And if you argue that killing a viable human being is the right of a woman simply because it is her right as a woman to decide if she wants it or not...this opens the door for society deciding if they want and individual to live or not by democratic means. And I do not in any circumstances condone any infringment on the right to live...no matter how many red flags you wave at protest rallies or how much of Das Kapital you can recide when I wake you in the middle of the night.


I don't ever intend to have anyone like you ever in a position where it is remotely possible for my sleep to be disturbed.



Killing a viable human being has nothing to do with radical, leftwing, socialist or Marxist thought anymore nor with equality of the sexes...it is sheer bloody murder.


Are you drunk when you're writing this? Terminating an unwanted pregnancy is not identical with "Killing a viable human being." See, there's the killing part. It's not killing. There's the viable part. It's not viable. And it's not a human being, unless of course you consider the human being to exist from the moment of the initial cell divisions.


Again...I am pro choice. But live is a right as well. And needs to be just as much protected as the right to be autonomous...now unfortunately for women this means that their right is limited up until the point there is viable live inside of her...because otherwise it infringes upon a more important right we all have: the right to live.


That's so compassionate of you, so understanding of you. To understand how unfortunate it is that a woman has to be restricted because you think if she has an abortion it's going to infringe on your right to live. Get the sarcasm?

You know what that really is? Madness. It's madness to think that a woman terminating a pregnancy is going to infringe on anyone's right to live, when she only makes that decision for herself, not for you, not for other women, not for anybody else. Madness. Disavowal of reality. You or anybody feeling that their life is threatened when a woman has an abortion is pathological.

[PhoenixAsh]

No problem, it's a thankless task, but somebody has to do it. I'm just a giver, that's all.

:-D




This makes no sense. We never take a position in a movement that does not address a condition in capitalist society. Maybe you do, but we don't. We don't abstract an issue to make a philosophical debate of it. We have positions in response to the social relations that determine the issue.I was refering to this particular debate.

We are having a debate about the topic started by a member of this forum of which we are all leftwing, revolutionary and socialist. As such we have a debate between members who acknowledge the fact that there is a right of choice and are debating when and if that right ends soewhere in time during the pregnancy. We are not having the debate about wethre or not tehre should or should not be a right to choose...since we al pretty much agree on that fact.



Before we go any further, let me admit and apologize for my tunnel vision. Everything I mentioned in my previous post is based on my experience in the US. I have no experience with this matter regarding other countries, other than knowing some have very open access to abortion and some do not.Ok...then that clarifies a lot for me and I have in turn misinterpreted your post. And as stated above I approached the discussion a bit differently seeing it as a debate with an agreed starting point that there should be a right to choose.



Yeah, and what? Who's arguing with that. Restricting access to reproductive medical care, as is done in the US, is symptomatic of that inequality; is a manifestation of the need to create, accumulate, and preserve private property. Oh, I got my priorities straight. And you know what, doctor? No doctor forgets or refuses to treat the symptoms as well as the underlying pathology, except in those rare instances where the treatment of the symptoms might interfere, inhibit, retard cure of the pathology. Yes. I agree. But it is a symptom and as such irrelevant for the root cause of inequality. I therefore believe that the subject should not be approached from that viewpoint.




Oh bullshit, I'm not a feminist. You had me fooled....using their arguments to approach a topic based solely on the sympthoms of deeper underlying causes



The position "we" take is "free universal access to reproductive medical care, including abortion." Now certainly that applies to all women, even the rich ones, but that's not feminism. Feminism equates the oppression of women regardless of their class and economic position.
And it is also not what you said in your original post. Had you put it like this then I would have agreed with you. However you did not...you focussed the topic solely by an approach through subjegation. A feminst position and as such I approached your arguments.

In this post you change/clarify your position by bringing in a lot of new information and viewpoints and infact approach the topic from a completely new perspective....and not solely based on the subjegation viewpoint.



I'm not worried about rich women being able to afford an abortion, but I certainly think any and every woman in this society today should be able to seek medical care at a reproductive health care clinic that provides abortion without being threatened, attacked or harassed. That means when the anti-abortion goons show up to harass women, the revolutionary socialist movement you think you are addressing, has an obligation to establish a defense against that attack without first asking the income or net worth of the woman being attacked. If that's feminism, then the revolutionary socialist movement needs just that feminism. Has ANYBODY argued here otherwise? If you think I did I suggest you reread my arguments. Perhaps you have misunderstood my paraphrase of the Marxist view on feminism?




This is pettifogging and has nothing to do with the issue. Part of free universal access to reproductive healthcare includes access to contraception, in vitro fertilization and transplant, availabilty of willing surrogates. I wholeheartedly agree...and had you not taken the approach to the topic by focussing solely on the subjegation of women...a position radical feminsts do tend to use...then I would not have pointed out these arguments....which are also made by the very same radical feminists who use your exact arguments you used in your original post.




All your lumps of coal of non-reasoning are simply strawwoman arguments to obscure the issue-- and the issue is that the issue of abortion is not an issue of the "right to life" vs. the "right to choice." This has nothing to do with "rights."O no? It has nothing to do with rights? How would you describe this then?:
"free universal access to reproductive medical care, including abortion."




More pettifogging without any backup. First take mandatory abortion out of the picture. As stated before the issue is the access of women to reproductive healthcare, not the state imposing abortion as in China, or as in the US where states for years did impose abortion de jure and still impose it de facto in certain cases. So provide the list of countries where abortion is not simply legal under certain conditions, but where access to abortion is not driven, determined by economic status, where it is relatively easy, financially and socially for a woman to obtain those procedures.

abortion on demand, sometimes mandatory 21.9% of wp PR China, North Korea, Vietnam
Abortion on demand 18.6% of wp Canada, France, Germany, Italy, South Korea, United States, Russia, South Africa, Turkey, Ukraine
abortion for economic/social
reasons and in hard cases* 22.0% of wp India, Japan, Mexico, United Kingdom

* hard cases include to protect the mother's physical or mental health, in cases of rape or incest, or to eliminate unhealthy babies.




Then tell me how the vital standards of life expectancy, death in childbirth, infant mortality, mortality in the first five years of a child's life , % of children born into poverty, incidence of under-nourishment in children in those countries compare to those same measures in countries where abortion is prohibited, severely restricted by law or by price.How is this relevant?




Then look at the economic indicators-- tell me if there is a correlation between "open access," financially and legally, to abortion, and the average level of education obtained by women; the average wage for women as compared to men; the number of women making above the average wage; etc etc etc. Yet again...how is this relevant?



Therefore it stands to reason that your blind spot is much worse than my tunnel vision, and that all you want to do is argue from and about abstractions.No...you are simply denying the fact that in countries where abortion is accesible, legal and on demand there still is structural inequality between the sexes. And as such abortion does NOT in anyway structurally improve the equality between men and women.



No it doesn't. Your reasoning is not reasoning is such.
Again, pettifogging and anti-logic. Has nothing to do with the social restriction placed on women compelling them to continue an unwanted pregnancy.No? Explain why not.


This is the part where I tell you to take your wonderfully empty repetition of the that slaveholder, Thomas Jefferson's, equally empty abstract credo "life liberty and freedom" and shove it, based in part on the fact that all your posturing about freedom only gets you to where you wanted to be at the start: a place where you can establish a false parallel or correspondence between Marxism and Nazism.Then I suggest you start opening your eyes and read what I said instead of trying to punt words in my mouth. This particular viewpoint.

Perhaps you are well aware of the contents of nazi literature...I do take it that you read up on the oppisition? THe basic core tennent of nazi bleive about human live is that it isn only valuable as long as it is economically productive and that this value as such is dictated by economic environment.

I do not want to be there...but it is why I left the communist party I was a member of for 10 years. The believe within that party was that live was only valuable as long as it had economic purpose. Now...I ask you...what do you honestly think about that?




Not sarcasm, that's infantile obfuscation worthy completely of the right wing anti-abortion goons who accuse women of committing murder when having an abortion. And you draw parallels between Marxists and Nazis? You're the one regressing from mouthing the platitudes of a slaveholder to rolling out the arguments of the religious right. You wearing an armband yet? Bullshit rethorics to try and attack me personally without having to answer the underlying question: when do you think life starts? And is live worthy of protection? And does viable life have a right to live?



No, there's no argument reversal here, because there's no argument. You're not making an argument, you're avoiding the real issues. I just might point out that absent genetic testing, which I'm sure you would have no problem compelling a woman to submit to despite your life, liberty and freedom credo in this little scenario you've cooked up, there is no way for a man to know if he is the father of a particular child. Even with genetic testing, it can be complicated. And if you have read my earlier post you would have seen that I argue that every man should have the right to refuse to take responsibility for a child. And that therefore the womens rights should certainly not be limited by the option to terminate or not terminate a pregnancy but should include a complete guarantee that there are no negative reprecussions to her live and economic status whatever she so choses.




Well in your case, I might make an exception. Get the sarcasm?
:laugh: I do get the humour ;)




Ah.. repeating again the mythology of the "new right" that abortion isn't all that safe for a woman. That too is bullshit. Complications for abortions performed in properly equipped clinics, with properly trained staff, with proper precautions against infection are more than rare, they are very rare.
Late term abortion is not a very safe procedure. And I admit I was refering to that and should have made that more clear.



I know you are not living in the US. And I think you're not really living in this world-- because it's a capitalist world, the one you don't care about. But that above paragraph of yours, that pledge of allegiance to science, is simply a cover for your own willingness to enact and impose oppressive and arbitrary choices on a woman's life. ...and again you try to put words in my mouth to cover up for the fact that you are perfectly willing to kill a viable human being. now...that is assuming that you argue pro abortion untill birth....since that is what you are attacking me for.





Don't be sorry for me. I know men and women are different, biologically different. I just don't think, as you do, that the biological difference means a woman should not have the same control over reproduction that a man has. And don't say "Oh, but she has. She can choose not to have sex." Choice has very little to do with this. Everybody, or most people, have a need to have sex, which need, as our scientists will tell you, is separate and apart and independent of our need to have children. No problem for the man. He doesn't like the fact that reproduction is part of the package, he walks away. Not that easy for the woman. She walks away, the pregnancy walks with her. And again with your assumptions. Did I ever say she doesn't have the right to have sex when and how she want? No...you are trying to put words in my mouth again... Very sneaky of you.

As the situation stands now men do not get to walk away in Holland. If they are the father they are financially responsible if the women decides to have the child. A decision in which he has, rightly (as a stated numerous times) does not hava a say.

And as you have read my arguments clearly...and you haven't that much is obvious, you would have noticed that you overlooked the fact that I am pro abortion and has an unrestricted rigth to terminate in all aspects as to reasons why and financial, social. But how many months does she need to make up her mind?

And if that time period exceed the period needed for viable live to exist then I am sorry...but her right then infringes on the right of another individual.

And yes...that is unfortunate...but it is a simple biological fact which I can not change. I would if I could...but theb fact remains that at some point there is viable human live.



The woman can't choose if the man slips her a roofie, screws her without protection and she wakes up with no memory of the previous night but 6 weeks later it all comes back to her, and in spades. Yes...bring rape and violence into the picture...like that negates anything I said earlier :rolleyes: Like I argued that women should not have the right to choose...(o...and for the record...you might bring it up later...I do think abortion should at all times be legal after viable live started when it endangers the live of the woman and/or if there are serious complications...something I already stated earlier...but given your line of arguing I just think it prudent to mention it again)

But yes...lets expand on this...after six weeks she discovers that she has been raped and is pregnant as a result....and if she doesn't wat the pregnancy she has the right to terminate that. I still do not see a reason why she has to wait and change her mind after viable life exists.



The woman can't choose if the condom breaks, if the implant fails, if the diaphragm is dislodged during intercourse.Again...you continue wityh your arguments like I said women do not have the right to abort...again I do not see any need to wait until viable life has been established with terminating the pregnancy.



Yes, women and men are different, which is why women must have their access to abortion protected.
Yes...and how do we disagree on this?



WTF does that mean? Is this your version of some preacher telling his congregation "the poor will always be with us"? Right, there will always be differences. But right now those differences include that women are subject to many more physical threats and actual assaults. In the US most assaults, physical, are committed against women by men they already know and may have had, have, or rejected a relationship with.
Yes...you are either not getting the point on purpose or you are simply dimwitted. And how is abortion protecting women against threats and assualts? A lot of murders of males in Russia are committed by their wives.
...this is also a useless fact that has nothing to do with the topic of abortion.



Right, there are differences. Unlike men, a woman can be impregnated. Unlike men, a woman can be impregnated against her will, against her better judgment. Unlike men, women can die in childbirth. Unlike men, women have their access to particular medical procedures regarding their own body subject to pressure from thugs, goons, priests, crazies.Yes...and how exactly does this attack my position on abortion or how exactly do we disagree on this?



OK, you're a jerk. You find it unfair that you can't experience life growing within you? WTF does that have to do with anything? And then you slide right into the stereotypical characterization of women completely overwhelmed by their hormones [unlike men] and every month! Yeah, and she's throwing the dishes at you! Yeah every month. Sure. You know what? I'm a lot older than you, I think. I think I've lived with a lot more women than you have.I seriuosly, seriously doubt that. Unfortunately :crying: But nice to know that you have degenerated your argument to a penis measuring contest level :thumbup1:

So how does this make me a jerk exactly?...I am seriously curious...because yes, in fact I do find it unfair. However...I have no choice then to accept the fact that there are somethings my body can and cannot do and that that brings resposibility with how I conduct myself and how I live my life.

However...it may indeed be stereotypical but it is in fact a real life example...sometimes stereotypes are true. I can bring up many more...such as that men in general are not very well equiped in non-verbal communication, do not have the same field of vision...women do not have to deal with stigma's and psychological damage of impotence...and that brainfunctions in men and women are different....

Stereotype or not this underlines the fact that we are different and function different in society.


Known men who've lived with a lot more women than you have-- and none of us ever experienced what you claim you experience every month. I can honestly say that I am very happy for you and them.



I've seen the women I've lived with be in discomfort monthly. I've seen them, monthly, take red wine and aspirin in quantities that might cause an overdose in Superman, and not even evidence a buzz from it. But I've never had or heard of a woman throw dishes at a man every month because of her hormones.O...I was refering to the tantrum...not the dishes. Sometimes its a vase or a book....and sometimes she just yells and screams. She has anger issues....has had them since childhood. Must have been the fact that she was physically abused by her mother.




It stands to reason then, it's not your girlfriend's hormones that are precipitating these outbursts, it's most probably you-- perhaps your smug ignorance? Your pretense at superiority?Ah...yes...the "I-have-never-seen-it-so-it-must-not-exist-approach.. ;-) Clever twist of events.

Perhaps it is me. Who knows...fact remains...only during her period.



more liberal baloney. "I feel differences should be celebrated." Multicultural ring-around-the-rosy. You do not feel that way then?



Bullshit. Fact of the matter is that women do act on that, and do raise children as single parents. It's not easy. But women do it, advocate for it, and do want it to be less of a financial burden.
And if you would have actually read my posts you would have seen that I think it should not be a burden and society should provide for that. But hey...you do not want to read...you want to react and be angry...and want to make it seem like its horrible to be a woman. You can not get more patriarchal than that.



I don't ever intend to have anyone like you ever in a position where it is remotely possible for my sleep to be disturbed.
Nor do I want to be...so what we have here is win-win :thumbup1:





Are you drunk when you're writing this? Terminating an unwanted pregnancy is not identical with "Killing a viable human being." See, there's the killing part. It's not killing. There's the viable part. It's not viable. And it's not a human being, unless of course you consider the human being to exist from the moment of the initial cell divisions.Again...it is so damned obvious that you have not read my posts and are only reacting... Let me clarify this in the most easy to understand words:

I believe a woman can terminate her pregnancy without giving any reason...free of charge...in the best medical circumstances possible...without fear of reprecussion...on her own (or assited free of charges when she so wishes)...until the time comes that the featus has developed so that it could be sustained outside of the womb...(now I am still deciding if I think there is human live when the CNS has fully developed and the feutus starts to interact with its environment)...I believe (out of the top of my head...but don't pin me down on this) that this is somewhere after the 6th month.

Now I believe any woman has had ample of time to decide if she wants the pregnancy or not...no matter how she was impregnated....but from that point on I think we are talking about sustainable human live and therefore terminating would infringe on the rights of the child.

There are some exeptions, which I already stated, and those are threatening circumstances to the live of the matter and/or serious complications including psychological ones.






That's so compassionate of you, so understanding of you. To understand how unfortunate it is that a woman has to be restricted because you think if she has an abortion it's going to infringe on your right to live. Get the sarcasm?Yes...I get it that you think live is only worth protecting (if you even think that at all) after birth. And that a sustainable child si not likve until it has in fact been born...

Horrible...

No sarcasm intended...at all...



You know what that really is? Madness. It's madness to think that a woman terminating a pregnancy is going to infringe on anyone's right to live, when she only makes that decision for herself, not for you, not for other women, not for anybody else. Madness. Disavowal of reality. You or anybody feeling that their life is threatened when a woman has an abortion is pathological.I feel the live of the child is threatened if a women choses to abort when the feutus could be sustained outside the womb. Yes. This is not madness...in fact I think it is madness if you do not think that. PLease explain to me what the difference is between a viable child inside the womb and a child that has been born...say...a month later?

It has nothing to with my life...as again you have completely failed to understand my argument.

[S.Artesian]

^^^^See my previous response.

You are engaging in pseudo intellectual abstraction, as if the issue of abortion in the last trimester is the issue that is of real importance in that real capitalist world, is the issue that motivates the real struggle around access to abortion.

You want to waste everyone's time arguing about viability, establishing your humanitarian creds in opposition to Marxists-- claiming Marxists only acknowledge validity to existence as long as one is economically active so you can identify them with Nazis.

That's such horseshit. I don't know any Marxists, not Stalinists, not Maoists, Trotskyists, council communists, Luxemburgists, who claim the "right" to existence ends when a person ceases to have economic value. Not even those who have defended Stalin's use of slave labor have argued for that, preferring to "cover" their defense with the characterization of the slave laborers as "criminals" and "counterrevolutionaries.

You sound like those tea party goons in the US flipping out over the Obama healthcare legislation, claiming the legislation provides for "death panels" who will weigh the "cost/benefit" of life extending treatments before authorizing payment or treatment.

What's madness is thinking that the social struggle in the US over a woman's access to safe medical care is an issue of when a fetus is viable outside the woman. You think you can make a case by couching your attacks as "concerns" about the viability of life, but you are only obscuring what is the real issue at stake for women-- protection of their ability to terminate an unwanted pregnancy when she and the medical care provider agree that it can be done safely.

Everything else is just blowing smoke. You think viability is limited to somewhere in the 6th month? Guess what. That's an economic, not scientific, determination because right now enough money has been spent to provide the technology that will keep a 6 month fetus alive.

And 5 years from now when technology allows for a 5 month fetus to survive? Then what?

And 5 years after that? Or how about when it's possible to remove a 2 month fetus from one uterus and surgically implant it in another that has been "pre-prepared" for the procedure?

Just cut out all the crap. If you support free universal access to reproductive health care including abortion for women, that's all you need to say. The women themselves and their medical providers are certainly as competent as you are to determine the repercussions of late term abortion.

[PhoenixAsh]

=
^^^^See my previous response.

You are engaging in pseudo intellectual abstraction, as if the issue of abortion in the last trimester is the issue that is of real importance in that real capitalist world, is the issue that motivates the real struggle around access to abortion.

You seem to not be able to grasp the fact that this discussion is perfomred against the background of this thread...now do you?? How hard is it for you to comprehend that this entire debate in this thread exists against the backgroud of the question put foreward in the OP??

...here let me remind you what that was:


Why is a woman's "right to choose" more important than the fetus's right to live?(...) Why do Leftists believe that developing life has no rights whatsoever? If we believe in the self-evident truth that, "All [people] are created equal," shouldn't we recognize that we're created nine months before we're born? Let's disregard circumstances such as rape or threat to the mother's life for now; I'm talking about women having consensual sex, getting pregnant and then deciding to get an abortion. (...) If abortion is legal, it should be allowed up until the day of birth; if it's illegal, it shouldn't be allowed at any time except for the extreme circumstances I mentioned earlier.

As such the question is put towards the left...what they think about the subject of abortion and more precisely...should there be a termination point.

Now the fact that you do not seem to grasp that I debate this topic in the light of the OP and your means you are barking up the wrong tree with your isidous insinuations that I am somehow not getting abortion as it is in the capitalist world. THAT is not the topic of the debate.



You want to waste everyone's time arguing about viability, establishing your humanitarian creds in opposition to Marxists--claiming Marxists only acknowledge validity to existence as long as one is economically active so you can identify them with Nazis. Answering and debating the question put foreward by the OP is a waste of time only if you fail to grasp the perfectly simple fact that we are discussing the question put foreward by the OP.

And I do not oppose Marxism....nowhere have I said I oppose Marxism. I do however oppose the mentioned specific viewpoint of Marxism. But again you try to put words in my mouth because you seem to do not have any valid arguments. Instead you try to circumvent the discussion by personsally attacking me and resorting to slander.

And yes...since Marxism puts foreward that economic environment in the case of abortion is the only force dictating personality and humand value...I think I can safely reverse that argument to show how completely idiotic such a point of view is.



That's such horseshit. I don't know any Marxists, not Stalinists, not Maoists, Trotskyists, council communists, Luxemburgists, who claim the "right" to existence ends when a person ceases to have economic value.However Marxists do state that in the question of abortion only the economic environment dictates personality and human value. Which is the reverse...and logically that means that economic environment can also take away that value. Now you may not think that it does....but in fact it does....its the logical and clinical application of the opinion.



Not even those who have defended Stalin's use of slave labor have argued for that, preferring to "cover" their defense with the characterization of the slave laborers as "criminals" and "counterrevolutionaries. You sound like those tea party goons in the US flipping out over the Obama healthcare legislation, claiming the legislation provides for "death panels" who will weigh the "cost/benefit" of life extending treatments before authorizing payment or treatment.And you argue that it doesn't? I do not know anything about the health legislation in the US...but here in Holland it is run by private coorporations who do exactly that...they hide it...but it is there.

Now...I am not getting into a debate about that topic...we both probably agree that we need public, open, free total healthcare...

But you do seem to have a tendency to insert random deviations from the topic which serve no other purpose than to mask an ad hominem.

Good for you that you want to try...but it is very childish...


What's madness is thinking that the social struggle in the US over a woman's access to safe medical care is an issue of when a fetus is viable outside the woman.No what is madness is you trying again and again to somehow shift this debate towards a point where somehow magically I argued that women do not have that right. And what is madness is you failing to grasp the debate in the light of the OP....

I do not knwo why it is so hard for you to understand...I must assume that this perhaps has something to do with that tunnelvision you mentioned earlier.




You think you can make a case by couching your attacks as "concerns" about the viability of life, but you are only obscuring what is the real issue at stake for women-- protection of their ability to terminate an unwanted pregnancy when she and the medical care provider agree that it can be done safely.

As I see it they do not have that ability...they need the right to that ability because they can not safely do it themselves. Just saying that it in fact is all about rights. ;-)

And since I have ad nauseum stated that I am pro abortion, pro choice etc. etc. I really start to think that there is something wrong with your reading capabilities.



Everything else is just blowing smoke. You think viability is limited to somewhere in the 6th month? Guess what. That's an economic, not scientific, determination because right now enough money has been spent to provide the technology that will keep a 6 month fetus alive. Fine...and how much money would it take to keep a 2 month feutus alive? Or does that perhaps depend on the scientific progress that first needs to be made to discover that technology?

But seriously..the six months (more or less) line is what I pointed out as the possibility for the feutus to survive as a biological autonomous entity...this is somewhwere around the time that the longues can function on their own...and when the baby fully reacts to its environment with a completely developed CNS and cognitive function.

As such a biological entity that can exist on its own. There really is no other way to interpret this....but you seem to be hell bend on trying to do so.




And 5 years after that? Or how about when it's possible to remove a 2 month fetus from one uterus and surgically implant it in another that has been "pre-prepared" for the procedure?Cool! All for it.

But you are making this, as I pointed out, rediculous. As it is very well explained what my opinion is on the matter. So lets take this a step further along the line of reasoning you seem to want to follow...because I feel that you are limiting yourself to much....

Hell...ever thought about the possibility that we might develop a way to make babies grow in cullyflower patches? No need for women to worry then about anything to do with childbirth :rolleyes::laugh:



Just cut out all the crap. If you support free universal access to reproductive health care including abortion for women, that's all you need to say. The women themselves and their medical providers are certainly as competent as you are to determine the repercussions of late term abortion.No...because that was not the question put foreward by the OP. And I have an opinion about that...which I stated. And after more or less six months I think any termination for reasons other than live threatening and or complications is simply put IMO: murder....and as such an infringement on the right of the child.

[S.Artesian]

The thrust of the OP was as misguided as your responses. That is and remain my point. Putting this as a question of "rights" in abstraction-- "right to choose" vs. "right to life"--ignores the social relations at the core of the struggle.

Additionally, apparently it is you who cannot read or understand the OP, since nothing in the OP refers to abortion in the last trimester of pregnancy. The OP tries to establish a "conflict of rights" at any point in a woman's pregnancy. Did you read the part where the OP says "that we are created 9 month before we are born"? and-- "[abortion] shouldn't be allowed at any time" except "under the extreme circumstances I mentioned earlier"?

So it's your failure, not mine to understand the OP which tries to set the terms of this discussion.


Hell...ever thought about the possibility that we might develop a way to make babies grow in cullyflower patches? No need for women to worry then about anything to do with childbirth Here's what I think. As a woman I know told me: "If men had to give birth, abortion would be a sacrament."

[PhoenixAsh]

The thrust of the OP was as misguided as your responses. That is and remain my point. Putting this as a question of "rights" in abstraction-- "right to choose" vs. "right to life"--ignores the social relations at the core of the struggle.

Yes...and your point is completely wrong.

There is nothing abstract about rights....every sentient and cognitive being has the right to life. Calling this an abstract notion is in my opinion reactionary...doing so in a debate about abortion is in my opinion political correct sexism.

You seem to want to redefine `social` towards a narrow definition only encompassing the so called struggle between the sexes. Therefore ignoring theb fact that social encompasses also the mother/child relationship in it broadest terms.

The very words referes in it definition to the characteristics of all living animals and their coexistence.

As argued we all agree about the legality of abortion...you argue to this from a position of gender stuggle and inequality and I argue to this as an inherrent trait of the class struggle.

Neither of us denies the underlying social stuggle...but I interpret the debate from within the revolutionary movement and therefore do not see the necessity to reargue and retirate the point we agree about....and insetad focus on the parts past that point.You on the other hand do not seem to able to see this debate in the light of the fact that we agree about the underlying social struggle...and want to debunk arguments time and time again by insiduous attempts to make it seem I have not already stated this over and over again.

Now...given the fact that we agree on the social struggle...the debate is about when abortion is legal and available...should it be limited?

And that boils down to the simple question if you think there is at some point during the pregnancy viable life, and if you think this life is worth protecting...and if so how does this protection relate to the autonomy of the woman.

From an anarchist position the rights of autonomy of one should not infringe on the rights of autonomy of others.

And as such there is a real problem here since the termination of a pregnancy when there is viable and sustainable life clearly infringes on the autonomy of the child.

The OP raised this debate...stating that in his opinion abortion should be full term or no term because of this very issue. he used the term developing life.

My argument is, as is very clear from my earlier posts, that yes...I agree with the concept of conflict between autonomies but that in my opinion developing live is not enough to infringe on the autonomy of women....but that the existence of viable life however does. That means that abortion should be limited in time up to the point where viable life exists....because from that point on you are terminating viable life. That life is autonomous and therefore should be protected.

And yes...one autonomy trumps the other autonomy.

As such my arguments are very much in line with the OP.





Additionally, apparently it is you who cannot read or understand the OP, since nothing in the OP refers to abortion in the last trimester of pregnancy. The OP tries to establish a "conflict of rights" at any point in a woman's pregnancy. Did you read the part where the OP says "that we are created 9 month before we are born"? and-- "[abortion] shouldn't be allowed at any time" except "under the extreme circumstances I mentioned earlier"?

So it's your failure, not mine to understand the OP which tries to set the terms of this discussion. I understand the OP perfectly. I do however disagree with him. And yes...he did refer late trimester abortion. did you read this part...just a few letters before your citation?:
If abortion is legal, it should be allowed up until the day of birth

"Up until the day of birth"....explain to me how this excludes late trimester abortions? Ergo...you are very, very wrong in your assessment of the OP.

Since I think it is legal....this sentence applies to my arguments directly.




Here's what I think. As a woman I know told me: "If men had to give birth, abortion would be a sacrament."*deep sigh* ...how incredibly sexist. I can not believe that you, after all our nice words and arguments about that social struggle...would bring such a complete and clear case of role reversed sexism into the argument...which you state you believe. Wow...

Here is another one...a woman and feminist I know once told me she found abortion without medical need an insult to her sex.

I find this statement equally abhorrent. Not only because I think it takes away the right to choose but because it infringes upon individual autonomy.

[TC]

I haven't gotten involved in this thread because 1. its on a topic that I write extensively about on revleft and anyone who is interested can look up my posts, which answer Hindsight 20/20s and other misogynists questions 2. it is totally aggreviating to me 3. at five pages long I wouldn't know where to start 4. abortion in the learning forum seems to be dealt with poorly compared to abortion in the discrimination and women's struggle forum...and...

Most importantly, because I have a ton of essays to write and I'm behind on my work so i don't have the time to dismantle all of the crap being spewed here...(in a week or so if its still going on i'll probably be back to do it).

but...


Are we going to restrict this open misogynist or what? Palingenesis was restricted it seemed when she isn't even anti-choice (unless I missed it) she was just being a dogmatic stalin appologist.

[PhoenixAsh]

I haven't gotten involved in this thread because 1. its on a topic that I write extensively about on revleft and anyone who is interested can look up my posts, which answer Hindsight 20/20s and other misogynists questions 2. it is totally aggreviating to me 3. at five pages long I wouldn't know where to start 4. abortion in the learning forum seems to be dealt with poorly compared to abortion in the discrimination and women's struggle forum...and...

Most importantly, because I have a ton of essays to write and I'm behind on my work so i don't have the time to dismantle all of the crap being spewed here...(in a week or so if its still going on i'll probably be back to do it).

but...

Are we going to restrict this open misogynist or what? Palingenesis was restricted it seemed when she isn't even anti-choice (unless I missed it) she was just being a dogmatic stalin appologist.

Mysogenist? Wow...what a nice word. Now please explain how it applies to me?

Because nothing I said here is in any way hateful of women...perhaps it is slightly disdaining towards radical feminism but I argued that from a Marxist point of view...nor does it in any way violate forum rules on the topic of abortion because I repeated over and over again that this is an inalienable right....and in fact go on to argue that there can only be equality when this is also accompanied by the right to have a live without social and economic restrictions provided for by society when there is a choice not to terminate a pregnancy.

[gorillafuck]

Again, you might as well say ‘Jewish physics.’
Yo, what the hell?

Did you actually just equate the term "ruling class politics" to "Jewish physics"?

[NGNM85]

Yo, what the hell?


Did you actually just equate the term "ruling class politics" to "Jewish physics"?

No, I didn't.

I initially responded to a bogus statement by 9 accusing me of using bourgeois language, here;

....you're talking entirely in the language of the ruling class.

and here;

…the terms of the ruling class…

I was simply pointing out that bourgeois language is an entirely fictional entity, akin to ‘Jewish physics.’ It should be obvious language cannot be bourgeois any more than physics can be Jewish.

[S.Artesian]

Mysogenist? Wow...what a nice word. Now please explain how it applies to me?

Because nothing I said here is in any way hateful of women...perhaps it is slightly disdaining towards radical feminism but I argued that from a Marxist point of view...nor does it in any way violate forum rules on the topic of abortion because I repeated over and over again that this is an inalienable right....and in fact go on to argue that there can only be equality when this is also accompanied by the right to have a live without social and economic restrictions provided for by society when there is a choice not to terminate a pregnancy.

One thing you most certainly do NOT do is argue from a Marxist position. No historical materialist, no Marxist, would pose this as a question of conflicting rights-- rights to choice vs. rights to life.

The question would be formulated, examined, and answered on the actual social relations of classes, the actual social struggle going on around this issue.

[PhoenixAsh]

One thing you most certainly do NOT do is argue from a Marxist position. No historical materialist, no Marxist, would pose this as a question of conflicting rights-- rights to choice vs. rights to life.

I said that I argued against radical feminism from a Marxist perspective....and since I have based my agruments of a paraphrase form Marxist texts I think you can not disagree with that.



The question would be formulated, examined, and answered on the actual social relations of classes, the actual social struggle going on around this issue.I have put foreward the Marxist perspective on abortion and as I argued I do not agree with these arguments.

I also have put forward...which you are well aware of...but it seems to be your strategy to categorically deny this...that class struggle is the basic foundation of the problem argued within the debate outside the
boundraries given to this topic by the OP.

[S.Artesian]

Last comment on this: Hindsight has put forward no Marxist analysis of this issue. His contention is that it is a conflict of "rights"-- right to life vs. right of choice, even using the phrasing of the slaveholder philosophers of the emerging bourgeois order-- life, liberty, freedom-- Jefferson; and "right" a la Locke.

Spare us the beneficent wisdom of freedom seeking slaveholders.

[PhoenixAsh]

Last comment on this: Hindsight has put forward no Marxist analysis of this issue. His contention is that it is a conflict of "rights"-- right to life vs. right of choice, even using the phrasing of the slaveholder philosophers of the emerging bourgeois order-- life, liberty, freedom-- Jefferson; and "right" a la Locke.

Spare us the beneficent wisdom of freedom seeking slaveholders.

wow...you just keep on going with the false generalisations don't you? It almost makes me want to ask you if you have seen a documentary of the show trails or about Freischler or Goring when he indicted Dimitrov? I can not help getting the feeling and impression that you seem to keep following their tactics.


perhaps it is slightly disdaining towards radical feminism but I argued that from a Marxist point of view

--->



I do tend to agree with Marxists here, (most notably Clara Zetkin) : Feminism is a bourgeoisie construct opposed to Marxism (edit me: and socialism) and opposed to the working class and opposed to the revolution. To once again prove you are wrong.

And for me not arguing abortion in the light of Marxist theory on the class struggle and the root causes of gender inequality:
3rd of all...I am sorry...but Marxism clearly states that the inequality between men and women is a direct result of the economic inequality caused by the way society is structured in a capitalist society and is a direct result in the existence of private property.

THAT is the root of the inequality between men and women and all other things are merely symptoms. So you need to get your priotities straight.


Neither of us denies the underlying social stuggle...but I interpret the debate from within the revolutionary movement and therefore do not see the necessity to reargue and retirate the point we agree about....and insetad focus on the parts past that point.You on the other hand do not seem to able to see this debate in the light of the fact that we agree about the underlying social struggle...and want to debunk arguments time and time again by insiduous attempts to make it seem I have not already stated this over and over again.



It is simply the root of gender inequality as pointed out in the Marxist theory....and abortion has very little to do with the causes of gender inequality nor does it do anything to structurally advance the position of women in a capitalist society.



The abolishment of structural inequality between men and women can IMO, and in that of Marxism, only be ended by the complete abolishment of economic inequality and the destruction of capitalist society.


Gender in equality for me is part of the socialist struggle and part of the proletarian revolution. I do not believe in a male dominated conspiracy to subjegate women per se....I believe in it being an expression of capitalism.

To quote a few....

O wow...for someone who is supposedly not arguing the case in light of Marxism I do tend to mention it quite a few times. :rolleyes:




The issue in Marxism on abortion that I do not agree with:


Now the view of some Marxists (especially the Australian CP) is that a feutus becomes a person when a mother wants it to be one...or as Marxism states...a person of higher wisdom (whatever taht may mean). Personality and human value are imparted by external economic environments....at least accoding to my former party.


Because I am an Anarchist.




O...and FYI...if you try to brand someone as burgeousie...and not make a mockery of yourself....then at least get your quotes straight: "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"


....which is somehwat different than what I said. Especially given the fact tha I clarified that as meaning individual autonomy.

[the last donut of the night]

Once I saw a feminist pro-choice poster that pretty much summed up this whole discussion in a few phrases. In bold, on the top of the poster, the following was written: "If a fetus is so sacred, then how about:". Underneath, surrounding a picture of a fetus, the following phrases were written:

-Have a fetus cook for you
-Come home and take out your sexual frustration on a fetus
-Rape a fetus
-Make a fetus conscious of its natural image
-Slap a fetus's ass

And so on. I can't find the poster, but the point is: the fact is that restriction on abortion harms and kills women daily. Women should have the right to control their own bodies -- men get to spew semen around unrestricted, but I've never heard anyone call for men's right to be ejaculated in the name of "life". It's sexism, pure and simple. Women aren't men's birthing machines.

[PhoenixAsh]

Once I saw a feminist pro-choice poster that pretty much summed up this whole discussion in a few phrases. In bold, on the top of the poster, the following was written: "If a fetus is so sacred, then how about:". Underneath, surrounding a picture of a fetus, the following phrases were written:

-Have a fetus cook for you
-Come home and take out your sexual frustration on a fetus
-Rape a fetus
-Make a fetus conscious of its natural image
-Slap a fetus's ass

Yes....fundamentalist radical feminism. All men are evil in their core and either unconsciously or consciously subjegate women. All men slap their girlfriends/wives on their ass, rape them and never ever cook or clean... Blame the gender...not the capitalist structure. A gross generalisation and role reversed sexist to its core.

Also overlooking and ignoring a lot of feminsts who are pro choice on demand and also find there need to be time restrictions placed on it.
Now...I a very, very certain that somebody will stand up and argue that these women are in fact misguided, and traitors in some fashion...


And so on. I can't find the poster, but the point is: the fact is that restriction on abortion harms and kills women daily. Women should have the right to control their own bodies .

As they should. free choice on demand should be available. As indeed the right to carry a child to full term with out negative consequences for the live of the mother in all social and economic fashions.

However...and nobody has answered this question...when does a feutus become a person? And what is the difference between a child one week for birth and one week after birth?

And yes...this is very, very important...because there is a simple biological fact that at some point everybody is autonomous...its the basic argument why we want abortion to be legal on demand in the first place. But that autonomy counts for every living being.

And as such the autonomy of the woman and the autonomy of the child infringe on each other. And as such this poses a conundrum for radical movements. Marxists often hold the believe that a person becomes one and get value when a higher entuity states that it does dictated by economic environment. Some anarchists hold, such as me, that when live is viable an self sustainable (somewhere around the sixth month) this live is autonomous and should therefore be protected.

Now...to adress your argument of killing women. Yes this is true....childbirth kills women....and abortions are relatively safe. However...the further you go along the timeline of pregnancy the more a feutus grows and the closer you get to the actual date of birth the closer the complications resemble those of birth simply because the procedures to abort a feutus become more and more invasive and more and more resemble those used in birth. Do not pin me down on the time table...but at a certain point the artificial induced labour becomes safer or just as safe as actual abortion.

Now given that fact...why abort a viable living human being that is just as autonomous as you?

This has nothing to do with a feutus being sacred...but the fact that all individuals are in essence autonomous. The same autonomy that should make us free from oppression from others (e.g. capitalism).

It also has nothing to do with the sexist radicalisation of gender issues as you paraphrased...forget those for one second...because what I argue holds just as true in a complete socialist society after the abolishment of capitalism....and since the abolishment and destruction of capitalism should lead to gender equality as per Marxist theory...these nice gems of role reversed sexism should not exist.

Men and women are biologically different. They are equal in their autonomy and neither is better than the other or should hold any form of dominance over the other. But as each autonomy ends when it infringes on the autonomy of others...it also ends when it infringes on the autonomy of the child.

There is a simple little inconvenient fact that out of both sexes women are the ones designed to create new life. This means that at some point this has consequences. Now...is that unfair? Probably...but it is reality.

That said...when after viable live has been reached and there are complications abortion should be an option.




-- men get to spew semen around unrestricted, but I've never heard anyone call for men's right to be ejaculated in the name of "life".

Yes...because it is stupid.

Zygots do not create live...zygots never hold the possibility of developing live out of them. Only Merged zygots do... and I also never heard of anybody claiming a woman doesn't have the right to have a period... So I do not see your point in even mentioning this.



It's sexism, pure and simple. Women aren't men's birthing machines.

Perfectly acceptable position...but it is role reversed sexist. Funny how sexism only seems to be working one way these days.

[9]

it is role reversed sexist. Funny how sexism only seems to be working one way these days.
Oh, no doubt. And have you heard about the systemic racial discrimination against whites in Israel (http://www.revleft.com/vb/discrimination-against-whites-t148160/index.html)? :ohmy::rolleyes:

[NGNM85]

Once I saw a feminist pro-choice poster that pretty much summed up this whole discussion in a few phrases. In bold, on the top of the poster, the following was written: "If a fetus is so sacred, then how about:". Underneath, surrounding a picture of a fetus, the following phrases were written:

-Have a fetus cook for you
-Come home and take out your sexual frustration on a fetus
-Rape a fetus
-Make a fetus conscious of its natural image
-Slap a fetus's ass

And so on. I can't find the poster, but the point is: the fact is that restriction on abortion harms and kills women daily. Women should have the right to control their own bodies -- men get to spew semen around unrestricted, but I've never heard anyone call for men's right to be ejaculated in the name of "life". It's sexism, pure and simple. Women aren't men's birthing machines.

Melodrama aside, there might be some value in that statement, in some other context. However, if you actually read what the posters in this thread have actually been saying, this contributes virtually nothing to the discussion. Everyone here is, presently, pro-choice. The OP had some misgivings about abortion, but he changed his mind. (Again, in part, due to yours truly.)

[PhoenixAsh]

Oh, no doubt. And have you heard about the systemic racial discrimination against whites in Israel (http://www.revleft.com/vb/discrimination-against-whites-t148160/index.html)? :ohmy::rolleyes:

well...thanks thanks to you know I do.

However...apples and pears...no...not even pears,....boots.


sexism: prejudice against a gender as a whole...

stating that women are not all mens birthing machines implies that all men see women as birthing machines.

Now...unless I somehow misunderstood that sentence...this imo is sexist.

[the last donut of the night]

Melodrama aside, there might be some value in that statement, in some other context. However, if you actually read what the posters in this thread have actually been saying, this contributes virtually nothing to the discussion. Everyone here is, presently, pro-choice. The OP had some misgivings about abortion, but he changed his mind. (Again, in part, due to yours truly.)


The issue is not that some here are vehemently against abortion, and the issue is not that everyone here is pro-choice. The problem is (and it shows up quite often in these types of threads) a lot of posters have misguided ideas that are the fruit of blatant sexism and misogyny. My post was simply an attempt to clarify the underlying natures of this sexism and the debate on abortion (not really a debate, mind you, more an attack on women's rights by sexists). Obviously that attempt failed, seeing that immediately I was attacked with calls of "reverse sexism", whatever that means. So I guess not everybody's on the same side here, am I right?

And please, I know you love your italics, but please stop -- now that doesn't add to the discussion.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

OP: A fetus ain't a life, ese, it's just a parasite. And a woman's body is her property she should be able to evict anyone or anything by any means.

[the last donut of the night]

[/I]
Yes....fundamentalist radical feminism. All men are evil in their core and either unconsciously or consciously subjegate women. All men slap their girlfriends/wives on their ass, rape them and never ever cook or clean... Blame the gender...not the capitalist structure. A gross generalisation and role reversed sexist to its core.

*Sigh*

What the fuck is fundamentalist radical feminism? Fundamental and radical by whose standards? Now, if you're referring to revolutionary feminism (as in a feminism that correctly puts patriarchy as class-based and that in order for women to be free of such patriarchy, class divisions must be abolished and that in the meanwhile --ie. under capitalist society -- women must struggle against oppressive gender norms and vile sexism), then you are either pretty ignorant or are buddies with the right-wing, who interestingly enough say the same thing you just said when confronted by our rightful accusations of sexism. Revolutionary feminism is not some evil conspiracy to take men and cut off their dicks, make them wear dresses, be raped, whatever lunacy you've predicted for your own future, but it is an ideology of struggle and perseverance against all forms of sexist and gender oppression.

That means two things: we wish for the immediate abolition of class society, and we give women the full right to struggle against sexism and oppression in modern capitalist society. That doesn't mean going out and killing men, but it does mean confronting sexism every time it rears its head, in the likes of you, or of a lot of men in today's society. That's it. You wouldn't expect black workers to just ignore white worker racism (or you might, there's a lot of idiots who think that out there), why should working women just ignore sexism from working and bourgeois males?

And finally: every time I've seen them, rants about "reverse" racism or sexism, or whatever are usually the calls of some people who can't deal with the fact that that the oppressed group they're so afraid of is finally calling for radical change.


Also overlooking and ignoring a lot of feminsts who are pro choice on demand and also find there need to be time restrictions placed on it.
Now...I a very, very certain that somebody will stand up and argue that these women are in fact misguided, and traitors in some fashion...1. I'm sorry, what is "pro-choice on demand"?

2. I'm sorry that we don't fit your idea of perfect, liberal feminists.

3. So you want "somebody" to call women who have abortions when they want or see fit or feminists who advocate for such freedoms to be called "traitors"? What's wrong with you? Are you a revolutionary or some half-assed right-wing nutjob?


As they should. free choice on demand should be available. As indeed the right to carry a child to full term with out negative consequences for the live of the mother in all social and economic fashions. Are you implying that the likes of us won't let such a thing happen? Ridiculous.


However...and nobody has answered this question...when does a feutus become a person? And what is the difference between a child one week for birth and one week after birth? Actually, a lot of posters have answered that question. Apologies if it doesn't fit your own deranged vision of what women's freedoms should be like.

As for the rest of your argument, I'm sorry, but I'm tired and someone else can deal with that pseudo-philosophical gibberish.

[PhoenixAsh]

*Sigh*

What the fuck is fundamentalist radical feminism?

Fundamental Radical Feminsim are those feminsts who can not articulate gender struggle and sexism without genertalizing all men to be part of a subjegating, enslaving conspiracy to make women into objects there for their enjoyment and therefore branding in false and vile generalisations all men as being anti-women.

Pretty much all feminists who say what you posted.







then you are either pretty ignorant or are buddies with the right-wing, who interestingly enough say the same thing you just said when confronted by our rightful accusations of sexism.

O...nice tactic...

Confronting sexism is something completely different than saying all men are sexist, rapist, abusing or alleging that they are.

Now point out what sexism is in what I said.





[quote] That doesn't mean going out and killing men,


Yes...you mentioned that earlier...please quote where I said that women want to kill men... O...wait...I didn't...but nice straw man argument.



but it does mean confronting sexism every time it rears its head, in the likes of you, or of a lot of men in today's society. That's it. You wouldn't expect black workers to just ignore white worker racism (or you might, there's a lot of idiots who think that out there), why should working women just ignore sexism from working and bourgeois males?


now point out where I said women should ignore sexism? O...wait...you can't...because I didn't.

nor do I think racism should be overlooked. But I do think however that that racism should not be replaced by the equally racist aproach by branding the entire white population as being slaveholders, racist, biggots....




And finally: every time I've seen them, rants about "reverse" racism or sexism, or whatever are usually the calls of some people who can't deal with the fact that that the oppressed group they're so afraid of is finally calling for radical change.

Yeah? Radical change by employing the very same fallacies they say they fight. Now that is Hypocritical to the max..

Your whole argument is laced by the suggestion that when a man says something to a wwoman that is critical he is a sexist. Byt women saying tht all men want to rape feutusses like they rape women is offcourse just classstrugle for gender equality...and not sexist at all :rolleyes:




1. I'm sorry, what is "pro-choice on demand"?


Abortion on demand...



2. I'm sorry that we don't fit your idea of perfect, liberal feminists.


Now don't be sorry...there are so much of my idea's you perfectly fit into...for example....you do fit my idea of a horrible, horrible hypocritical one though.


3. So you want "somebody" to call women who have abortions when they want or see fit or feminists who advocate for such freedoms to be called "traitors"? What's wrong with you? Are you a revolutionary or some half-assed right-wing nutjob?

No...I am saying that there will probably somebody here saying that feminist who find abortion should be limited in time to be traitors. Learn to read....



Are you implying that the likes of us won't let such a thing happen? Ridiculous.

No...what I am implying is that this is also an issue that should be addressed to make for gender equality.




Actually, a lot of posters have answered that question. Apologies if it doesn't fit your own deranged vision of what women's freedoms should be like.

No..actually they haven't.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

HS20/20:

Who the fuck are you to make a claim on whether a woman should have to carry a parasite around for 9 months? It's not your body and a fetus can not form complex thoughts. But, hey some men find a male dominated society where women are nothing more than baby machines to be appealing.:rolleyes:

Also, your profile says male, which brings me to another point: You as a man have no right to try and force your screwed up views on women. You should never have a say on a woman's right to choose what to do with her body. So kiss my feminist ass.

[PhoenixAsh]

HS20/20:

Who the fuck are you to make a claim on whether a woman should have to carry a parasite around for 9 months?

Please point out where I said that women have to carry a "parasite" around for 9 moths... Ah...wait...I didn't so that would be an impossible request now wouldn't it? But nice straw man... thumbs up for that



It's not your body and a fetus can not form complex thoughts.A fetus of 6-7-8 months old can no more or less form complex thoughts than a child of 1 month old.





But, hey some men find a male dominated society where women are nothing more than baby machines to be appealing.:rolleyes:I guess some do...



Also, your profile says male, which brings me to another point: You as a man have no right to try and force your screwed up views on women. You should never have a say on a woman's right to choose what to do with her body. So kiss my feminist ass.When a fetus is viable and sustainable outside the womb neither should anybody have a say about what they do with their body.

[the last donut of the night]

Fundamental Radical Feminsim are those feminsts who can not articulate gender struggle and sexism without genertalizing all men to be part of a subjegating, enslaving conspiracy to make women into objects there for their enjoyment and therefore branding in false and vile generalisations all men as being anti-women.

Pretty much all feminists who say what you posted.

You seem pretty hard-headed on this issue, so I'm pretty sure whatever I say won't do shit to change your opinion. But let me ask you this: link me, show me, bring up any "fundamental radical feminism" organization that says what you claim they wish for in society?

And let me make this clear: there isn't one. Why? Because revolutionary feminism is not this evil ploy to subjugate men -- we don't see men as evil demons nor do we intend to. That's because that's a highly un-materialistic vision of things. Men's behavior, like women's, is shaped by socio-economic conditions -- not innate conditions. That's how we start out on our plan to change society -- we see that men have benefited from patriarchy in various ways, and thus, they carry sexism in their mindsets. That's not to say all men do; it's to say that that's why men are sexist. However, we also see patriarchy in terms of class, and that gender norms were created by class divisions. Thus class must be abolished. But, like I said before, women must continue to stand against sexism and sexual oppression. Is that hard to understand?




O...nice tactic...

Confronting sexism is something completely different than saying all men are sexist, rapist, abusing or alleging that they are.

Did I say that all men are sexists and rapists? No. So calm the fuck down.


Now point out what sexism is in what I said.

It's in your fucking ridiculous arguments. I really doubt you've ever talked to a revolutionary feminist, because you ideas about us are fucked up. You create a climate of fear where somehow men are now being subjugated by women using this "reverse sexism" you talk of. It's a classic right-wing, bigoted idea. Don't be so naive, please, it makes the both of us look bad.


Yes...you mentioned that earlier...please quote where I said that women want to kill men... O...wait...I didn't...but nice straw man argument.

It's not a straw man argument -- I was using an example to try to picture the delusional ideas you've attributed to revolutionary feminists, such as the idea that we're out to subjugate men.



now point out where I said women should ignore sexism? O...wait...you can't...because I didn't.

Your ideal of the perfect feminists in reality forces women to ignore sexism. That's because the only way to successfully confront sexism as a whole is through a revolutionary perspective.


nor do I think racism should be overlooked. But I do think however that that racism should not be replaced by the equally racist aproach by branding the entire white population as being slaveholders, racist, biggots....

Funny you say so, because ever since the 60s, the right-wing has been saying the same thing. Yet nobody on the left does that.



Yeah? Radical change by employing the very same fallacies they say they fight. Now that is Hypocritical to the max..

You don't get it, do you?


Your whole argument is laced by the suggestion that when a man says something to a wwoman that is critical he is a sexist. Byt women saying tht all men want to rape feutusses like they rape women is offcourse just classstrugle for gender equality...and not sexist at all :rolleyes:

QFT.

What do you mean by "critical"? By your posts, then I assume criticism (to you) is a nice, little coverword for whatever crosses your mind about women. Is your sexist ranting here "critical" too?

This is the bottom line: women have been oppressed, stepped on, denied their sexual, mental, and emotional freedom for the past 6,000 years. They have been made into property, sexual objects, pariahs, enemies, and outcasts. Men have been gods, heroes, liberators, leaders, warriors, and the like. They have never been denied anything. Grow up and recognize the reality of our society today.



Now don't be sorry...there are so much of my idea's you perfectly fit into...for example....you do fit my idea of a horrible, horrible hypocritical one though.

http://www.gogaminggiant.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/facepalm.jpg




No...I am saying that there will probably somebody here saying that feminist who find abortion should be limited in time to be traitors. Learn to read....

"Also overlooking and ignoring a lot of feminsts who are pro choice on demand and also find there need to be time restrictions placed on it.
Now...I a very, very certain that somebody will stand up and argue that these women are in fact misguided, and traitors in some fashion..."

Okie dokie.


PS: The rest I can't reply to because I have to go.

[PhoenixAsh]

You seem pretty hard-headed on this issue, so I'm pretty sure whatever I say won't do shit to change your opinion. But let me ask you this: link me, show me, bring up any "fundamental radical feminism" organization that says what you claim they wish for in society?

And let me make this clear: there isn't one. Why? Because revolutionary feminism is not this evil ploy to subjugate men -- we don't see men as evil demons nor do we intend to. That's because that's a highly un-materialistic vision of things. Men's behavior, like women's, is shaped by socio-economic conditions -- not innate conditions. That's how we start out on our plan to change society -- we see that men have benefited from patriarchy in various ways, and thus, they carry sexism in their mindsets. That's not to say all men do; it's to say that that's why men are sexist. However, we also see patriarchy in terms of class, and that gender norms were created by class divisions. Thus class must be abolished. But, like I said before, women must continue to stand against sexism and sexual oppression. Is that hard to understand?

No it isn't...is it so hard to understand that I reacted to your post:



Once I saw a feminist pro-choice poster that pretty much summed up this whole discussion in a few phrases. In bold, on the top of the poster, the following was written: "If a fetus is so sacred, then how about:". Underneath, surrounding a picture of a fetus, the following phrases were written:

-Have a fetus cook for you
-Come home and take out your sexual frustration on a fetus
-Rape a fetus
-Make a fetus conscious of its natural image
-Slap a fetus's ass




Did I say that all men are sexists and rapists? No. So calm the fuck down.

yes...you did...see above.




It's in your fucking ridiculous arguments. I really doubt you've ever talked to a revolutionary feminist, because you ideas about us are fucked up. You create a climate of fear where somehow men are now being subjugated by women using this "reverse sexism" you talk of. It's a classic right-wing, bigoted idea. Don't be so naive, please, it makes the both of us look bad.

I have talked to lots of radical feminsts. My mother was one, my current girlfriend was one....and they tend to bring home friends...
I have no problem with radical feminists within a marxist movement...but I have a problem with radical feminists who articulate gender equality in terms of generalisations and talk in generalized lingo about all men. That to me is fundamentalism and in opposotion to gender equality because it is sexist. Nowhere did I say you are out to subjegate men...rather I said that fundamentalist in the radical feminst movements use lingo that falsely generalises.

Yes I agree society is sexist...both towards women and also towards men (Something we can discuss because I think...perhaps a better word is assume.... you would probably not agree or understand how I could think that....but I'd rather not do that in this threat)



It's not a straw man argument -- I was using an example to try to picture the delusional ideas you've attributed to revolutionary feminists, such as the idea that we're out to subjugate men.

I have espoused that idea? I am not aware of that.





Your ideal of the perfect feminists in reality forces women to ignore sexism. That's because the only way to successfully confront sexism as a whole is through a revolutionary perspective.

Bull! I have not articulated a perfect idea about the perfect feminst anywhere. What I did say is that the statement that you posted was overlooking the fact that not only men think abortion should be limited to a certain amount of time...but also female feminsts.

With your last statement I agree...and also never claimed otherwise.



Funny you say so, because ever since the 60s, the right-wing has been saying the same thing. Yet nobody on the left does that.

well...you found one. And when you come to Holland I can introduce you to my former CP, the socialist party and a whole lof of Anarchists here who think that racism is universal and is not only limited to poele of different ethnicities. That means a black worker can also be a racist and that that is just as wrong as a white person being a racist.




You don't get it, do you?

try and explain...how does using sexist lingo create gender equality?



QFT.

What do you mean by "critical"? By your posts, then I assume criticism (to you) is a nice, little coverword for whatever crosses your mind about women. Is your sexist ranting here "critical" too?

I do not know what QTF means...

My rant isn't sexist.



This is the bottom line: women have been oppressed, stepped on, denied their sexual, mental, and emotional freedom for the past 6,000 years. They have been made into property, sexual objects, pariahs, enemies, and outcasts.

I suggest you do the same...wake up...

I am not denying all these things done to women. I am not denying society is sexist...and I am not denying that the perpetuated gender inequality is a problem. I do however have a huge problem with this part:



Men have been gods, heroes, liberators, leaders, warriors, and the like. They have never been denied anything. Grow up and recognize the reality of our society today.

Its not like "we" have had such a nice run of it.

Now...I want to discuss this with you...perhaps you would understand a mans perspective on this so called utopia for men...and perhaps then you would begin to understand that although men may have a whole set of different problems that sexism and you may weigh them in a different was...but that sexism is a bit farther reaching in its scope and effect than just subjegating women.


"Also overlooking and ignoring a lot of feminsts who are pro choice on demand and also find there need to be time restrictions placed on it.
Now...I a very, very certain that somebody will stand up and argue that these women are in fact misguided, and traitors in some fashion..."

Okie dokie.


exactly...now read the whole sentence...

[NGNM85]

The issue is not that some here are vehemently against abortion, and the issue is not that everyone here is pro-choice.

Right.


The problem is (and it shows up quite often in these types of threads) a lot of posters have misguided ideas that are the fruit of blatant sexism and misogyny.

That’s very possibly true, but that is, in no way, an accurate characterization of what I was saying.


My post was simply an attempt to clarify the underlying natures of this sexism and the debate on abortion (not really a debate, mind you, more an attack on women's rights by sexists).

The pro-life side of the abortion debate, at it’s core, is based in religion. There aren't any cogent, blanket arguments against abortion that don't incorporate belief in spirits and magic.


Obviously that attempt failed, seeing that immediately I was attacked with calls of "reverse sexism", whatever that means. So I guess not everybody's on the same side here, am I right?

Probably. Honestly, the discussion has totally degenerated in the last page and a half or so from a serious discussion to people exchanging slogans and platitudes.


And please, I know you love your italics, but please stop -- now that doesn't add to the discussion.

I tend to write lengthy posts and I find highlighting the essential points slightly increases the probability that these essential points are conveyed and understood. However, I would be amenable to converting to bold or underline, if that’s preferable.

[TheGeekySocialist]

life begins at birth for all species, including humans

[PhoenixAsh]

@GeekySocialist

Interesting.

After week 27 (end of month six of pregnancy) a fetus has a > 90% survival rate outside the uterus and has complex brainwave functions the same as a child immediately after birth and can register sensory input.

For me this is when a person becomes a person.

[TheGeekySocialist]

@GeekySocialist

Interesting.

After week 27 (end of month six of pregnancy) a fetus has a > 90% survival rate outside the uterus and has complex brainwave functions the same as a child immediately after birth and can register sensory input.

For me this is when a person becomes a person.

do you feel the same way about all species?

[PhoenixAsh]

do you feel the same way about all species?

Yes actually...when a fetus becomes viable outside the uterus/egg and has higher or for that species appropriate brain functions and can register sensory input it becomes imo and individual of that species.

[the last donut of the night]

yes...you did...see above.

1. I said nothing -- the poster I quoted did.

2. Are you denying that it's not a common trend for women to be treated in such manners by men? Are you denying that among all the cases of rape, almost all of the rapists were men? Are you denying the fact that women's bodies are seen as property by not only the ruling powers but also by a lot of men? In fact, are you denying the sexism in society? Because it seems that way.


but I have a problem with radical feminists who articulate gender equality in terms of generalisations and talk in generalized lingo about all men. That to me is fundamentalism and in opposotion to gender equality because it is sexist. Nowhere did I say you are out to subjegate men...rather I said that fundamentalist in the radical feminst movements use lingo that falsely generalises.

"Generalized lingo about all men"? Please care to tell me what that means. Now if you mean that our stance -- which I carefully laid out for you before -- does such things, then you are very wrong. There is no such thing as "reverse sexism" in society. Period. There is sexism, and that's the problem I'm having with you.


Yes I agree society is sexist...both towards women and also towards men (Something we can discuss because I think...perhaps a better word is assume.... you would probably not agree or understand how I could think that....but I'd rather not do that in this threat)

Of course, we can "assume" that society is sexist. You know what, let me lay out some real proof of the world around you:

http://lmaclean.ca/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/remy-martin-ad.jpg

http://www.msmagazine.com/Fall2008/images/wrangler.jpg

http://www.msmagazine.com/winter2008/images/svedka_sm.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_t-EfdceTs60/SIQoiL_dxLI/AAAAAAAAEB0/1lojX8aLl6U/s1600-h/SexistAdsBMWUsedCarsUsedWomen.jpg (The caption reads: "You know you're not the first one.")

Now those are ads featuring women. Here are some ads featuring men:

http://www.piercemattiepublicrelations.com/beautydivision/tom_ford_fragrance_for_men_ad.jpg

http://www.adrants.com/images/bongo_ad1_big.jpg

http://www.euroresidentes.com/Blogs/images/dolce-gabbana.jpg

The women are sex objects, toys, property, things just waiting to pleasure men. The men, on the other hand, are the conquerors, the leaders, the guys who get the girl with no repercussions. Do you still think there's such a thing as "reverse sexism" today?



I have espoused that idea? I am not aware of that.


What you have exposed are delusional ideas about feminists. And women.



Bull! I have not articulated a perfect idea about the perfect feminst anywhere. What I did say is that the statement that you posted was overlooking the fact that not only men think abortion should be limited to a certain amount of time...but also female feminsts.

Now, now. You keep denying a woman's right to control her body through your fallacies, and in rebuttal to my comments, you try to tell me about the feminists that fit your view of what women should behave like. It's patronizing.


well...you found one. And when you come to Holland I can introduce you to my former CP, the socialist party and a whole lof of Anarchists here who think that racism is universal and is not only limited to poele of different ethnicities. That means a black worker can also be a racist and that that is just as wrong as a white person being a racist.

Nobody here's denied that. I've met plenty of racist Latino workers, for example. That doesn't mean that racism in society works both ways -- you seem to take racism idealistically, as if it was based on just peoples' mindsets and not class divisions and the rulers that exploit racism to their own advantage. The trend, overall, is set against the oppressed minorities. And that works the same way with sexism, more or less.



try and explain...how does using sexist lingo create gender equality?

I'm sorry our language upsets your feelings on how society should work.



Now...I want to discuss this with you...perhaps you would understand a mans perspective on this so called utopia for men...and perhaps then you would begin to understand that although men may have a whole set of different problems that sexism and you may weigh them in a different was...but that sexism is a bit farther reaching in its scope and effect than just subjegating women.

No, men have suffered under the yoke of class society. We are workers too. But we have benefitted from patriarchy. Patriarchy can, and does, subject men to oppression too -- men have to act a certain way, or they're deemed "womanly" or God forbid, gay. But it hits women much worse.



exactly...now read the whole sentence...

I did, and if your memory failed you, here it is again:

"Also overlooking and ignoring a lot of feminsts who are pro choice on demand and also find there need to be time restrictions placed on it.
Now...I a very, very certain that somebody will stand up and argue that these women are in fact misguided, and traitors in some fashion..."

:rolleyes:

[NGNM85]

This thread has gone wildly off the rails. I’m not sure which is more amazing, the sheer amount of text that has been exchanged, or the intensity of the emotion expressed in these posts, all the while completely bypassing the subject at hand. I will make one more futile attempt to get things back on track.

Blanket opposition to abortion fundamentally rests in religious ideas about the soul, and about religious guidelines regarding the sanctity of life. This is the only means by which a zygote or a blastocyst can be considered persons. Now, I take it for granted that we are all atheists, and, thus, reject such a proposition. Therefore, our definition of ‘personhood’ must be based in science, in empirical facts. Where does that lead us? Scientifically speaking, there is no significant difference between the 37th and the 40th week (Average time of delivery.) of gestation. There, seemingly, is no argument, without bringing in spirits, or magic, or some other X factor, against terminating a fetus at the 36th week that would preclude terminating it after birth, or substantially later, even, perhaps up to a year afterwards, or more. (Some, like Peter Singer, have endorsed this position.) Such a distinction seems arbitrary, and has more to do with word games (One being a ‘fetus’, the other being a ‘baby.’) that are really just smokescreens. Nobody here is even remotely entertaining the idea of a blanket ban on abortion. The issue at hand is, beyond all the slogans and platitudes and horseshit, (See the last two pages.) what would a moral, rational, scientific policy regarding abortion look like?

[PhoenixAsh]

1. I said nothing -- the poster I quoted did

You asserted agreement. And as you can read in my post I was attacking the quoted statement.



2. Are you denying that it's not a common trend for women to be treated in such manners by men? Are you denying that among all the cases of rape, almost all of the rapists were men? Are you denying the fact that women's bodies are seen as property by not only the ruling powers but also by a lot of men? In fact, are you denying the sexism in society? Because it seems that way.

Straw men and hyperboles. Are you saying all men rape women? Are you saying all men see women as objects? Are you denying that sexism applies to both genders?

Now...none of the arguments you brong forth has anything to do with me attacking the position of some fundamentalist radical feminst who in my opinion are mysandric. You make it appear, wrongly, that I have an issue with feminism in general and this is not the case.

Now...if you do not belong to those who think in a mysandric way than the argument I have brought forth against these people do not apply to you...so do not try and extrapolate my opinions about them to apply on the whole of society.



"Generalized lingo about all men"? Please care to tell me what that means. Now if you mean that our stance -- which I carefully laid out for you before -- does such things, then you are very wrong. There is no such thing as "reverse sexism" in society. Period. There is sexism, and that's the problem I'm having with you.

I think the term is fairly obvious.

Again...see above. However I think there is sexism in society applicable to both men and women. That has and will always be the core of my argument...and argument which you attacked...and therefore you make it appear that sexism can only be committed against women.

Now if that is not your position...than I have been misled by your arguments or I have misinterpreted them just as you have been misled by my arguments or misinterpreted them....in that case we are however solidly in agreement



Of course, we can "assume" that society is sexist. You know what, let me lay out some real proof of the world around you:



I'll porvide you with one picture...


http://x17online.com/satcdgguy.jpg


--> featured a.o. in a Dutch womens magazine run by an all woman staff...which also had articles about the "ideal man" and "how to improve how your man looks" and "money makes a man attractive" (the latter going on about how being able to provide for luxury equates attraction in the opinion of many women and that not being able to is not worth their time.

Now...aside from the fact that immage of how a man should look and how a man should behave according to nine out of ten women magazines (with the notable exeption of some very good feminist ones run by a 50-50 staff) perhaps count for about 2% of the male population society, including women in society, hold the perfect role model you assert against (btw) of how men should be, behave, and feel. This role model is just as enforced and just as restricting and just as sexist as the way women are depicted.

Now I will take a chance...and send you a PM to explain to you how the supposed superior position of men in society translates into reality... I will do this by PM because I do not feel comfortable to articulate them here.



The women are sex objects, toys, property, things just waiting to pleasure men. The men, on the other hand, are the conquerors, the leaders, the guys who get the girl with no repercussions. Do you still think there's such a thing as "reverse sexism" today?

see above...and see my PM...the answer is yes.



What you have exposed are delusional ideas about feminists. And women.

No..as I stated I articulated against misandric feminsts. Not all feminists.



Now, now. You keep denying a woman's right to control her body through your fallacies, and in rebuttal to my comments, you try to tell me about the feminists that fit your view of what women should behave like. It's patronizing.

My view is that a woman can do with her body as she pleases as everybody is autonomous...as long as it does not infringe upon the autonomy of anybody else.

In my opinion when a fetus reaches the 7th month the fetus is a person. Simply because there is a >90% survival rate outside the womb, the fetus registers and responds tom external stimuly and because it has higher brainwave patterns. this means it is imo a person and likewise autonomous.

Not because it has a soul, not because out of some subjegating mysogenic position I hold but because I believe every human being is autonomous and therefore should be protected against infringments on this autonomy.




Nobody here's denied that. I've met plenty of racist Latino workers, for example. That doesn't mean that racism in society works both ways -- you seem to take racism idealistically, as if it was based on just peoples' mindsets and not class divisions and the rulers that exploit racism to their own advantage. The trend, overall, is set against the oppressed minorities. And that works the same way with sexism, more or less

I agree with you taht its root problem is class division and exploitation inherrent in the capitalist system. There is no argument between us here. However that is theoretical...in reality this is expressed in not only the way society works but also in the way people behave to each other....and in that behaviour I find it inexcusable from every position because it perpetuates the enforced behaviour by the system.




I'm sorry our language upsets your feelings on how society should work.

Likewise




No, men have suffered under the yoke of class society. We are workers too. But we have benefitted from patriarchy. Patriarchy can, and does, subject men to oppression too -- men have to act a certain way, or they're deemed "womanly" or God forbid, gay. But it hits women much worse.

This is argumentation in qualification. Suffering is universal and as such inexcusable...the quantity of suffering is IMO irrelevant and subjective.



I did, and if your memory failed you, here it is again:

"Also overlooking and ignoring a lot of feminsts who are pro choice on demand and also find there need to be time restrictions placed on it.
Now...I a very, very certain that somebody will stand up and argue that these women are in fact misguided, and traitors in some fashion..."

:rolleyes:

Yes...as I stated someone will undoubtedly say that tehse women are i fact traitors and misguided...and not as you previously asserted that I thought that...how could I...I agree with them.

[PhoenixAsh]

what would a moral, rational, scientific policy regarding abortion look like?


IMO...

All living beings are autonomous. Autonomy extends so far as it doesn't infringe on the autonomy of others.

Therefore in the case of abortion a woman is autonomous until her autonomy infringes the autonomy of another person. Meaning that when her right to do with her body as she pleases does not only involve her body but also that of another individual there must be some very stringent reasons to do so.

Now as science has shown after the 6th month of pregnancy the fetus has fully developed a CNS including the same higher brain functions as a child of 1 month old after natural birth and is >90% likely to survive outside the womb and can register and react to external sensory input. This means IMO it is a human being. And therefore an autonomous individual.

In the case that the continuation of pregnancy constitutes a threat to the psychological wellbeing and physical wellbeing of the mother then abortion is justified but as long as these threats are absent the autonomy of the fetus/baby is greater than the autonomy of the women.

That said...I do not feel that if the woman does not want to care and provide for the child after birth this should be a possibility provided by society.

Nor do I think that a right to chose should be impedet in anyway by economic or social motivations and restrictions should a pregnant woman decide that she wants to tak care of the child in any way, shape or form and that this should also be provided by society.

****

This means that currently I find the abortion laws in most countries too restrictive in time as well as in scope. currently there is a right to terminate pregnancy but there is not a right to be a single mother without economic and social reprecussions

[NGNM85]

IMO...

All living beings are autonomous. Autonomy extends so far as it doesn't infringe on the autonomy of others.

Therefore in the case of abortion a woman is autonomous until her autonomy infringes the autonomy of another person. Meaning that when her right to do with her body as she pleases does not only involve her body but also that of another individual there must be some very stringent reasons to do so.

Now as science has shown after the 6th month of pregnancy the fetus has fully developed a CNS including the same higher brain functions as a child of 1 month old after natural birth and is >90% likely to survive outside the womb and can register and react to external sensory input. This means IMO it is a human being. And therefore an autonomous individual.

In the case that the continuation of pregnancy constitutes a threat to the psychological wellbeing and physical wellbeing of the mother then abortion is justified but as long as these threats are absent the autonomy of the fetus/baby is greater than the autonomy of the women.

That said...I do not feel that if the woman does not want to care and provide for the child after birth this should be a possibility provided by society.

Nor do I think that a right to chose should be impedet in anyway by economic or social motivations and restrictions should a pregnant woman decide that she wants to tak care of the child in any way, shape or form and that this should also be provided by society.

****

This means that currently I find the abortion laws in most countries too restrictive in time as well as in scope. currently there is a right to terminate pregnancy but there is not a right to be a single mother without economic and social reprecussions

There's essentially no argument between us on this issue, or very little. However, my post was not directed at you, but rather, at the rest of the posters who seem determined not to acknowledge these realities or to engage in any substantive discussion.

[PhoenixAsh]

There's essentially no argument between us on this issue, or very little. However, my post was not directed at you, but rather, at the rest of the posters who seem determined not to acknowledge these realities or to engage in any substantive discussion.

I know. I just wanted to take the opportunity to bring it back on track by filtering out of all the other issues what my position was.