abortion (cont)

[Viet Minh]

Continuing from THIS THREAD (http://www.revleft.com/vb/unfair-restriction-v-t140025/index12.html) before we all get b& :scared:



A "distaste for smoking" is not equivalent to being morally opposed to it.

Okay then I'm morally opposed to it, it does a huge amount of damage to your health and others' around you, it costs the taxpayer in terms of healthcare, it wastes a huge amount of valuable resources and energy, and pollutes the environment


"Personally freedoms" are a bourgeois liberal invention. There is no such thing as "rights" or "freedoms."

I don't get it... You're pro-choice, anti human rights? :confused:


School bullying, when enacted and supported, encourages the 'might makes right' moral principle. It also generally revolves around some form of discrimination, be it against 'nerds,' or 'ugly kids,' or whatever...
Kids don't bully other kids 'just because.' They do it for reasons, reasons which are political in nature though the child may not understand the fully context of their actions.

I don't believe that bullying is always political, and therefore cannot be completely eradicated through political means, but there are social and political causes for prejudice and victimisation, most prevalently racial and class divides.


You don't see how this is contradictory?

"I'm morally opposed to it." I.e. I would oppose my girlfriend getting an abortion on moral grounds.
"But it's ok?"

If it's ok, then you're not morally opposed to it.

That scenario is not objective, because if your partner is involved of course you will hold a biased view one way or the other. On a wider scale I believe it is reasonable to object to abortion (for example on religious grounds) without necessarily imposing that view upon others. Moral opposition is not always an either/ or, for example (to use a recent discussion) you may be more morally opposed to a rich guy using a stolen credit card to buy pizza than a poor guy.


I'm not being a douche. I'm trying to explain to you how backwards your logic is and why it's nonsensical.

If I was trying to be a douche I'd just tell you that your reactionary, patronizing, and totally chauvinistic attitude towards women and their reproductive organs is pathetic and infantile and only serves to reinforce the male-dominated power structures which keep women subservient and a second class.
Not very revolutionary of you is it?

- August

He wasn't reinforcing the male dominated power structures, he was voicing an opinion. In fact I'm not even sure it was his opinion, he was just asking generally. This is not a battle of the sexes, some females are pro life, some males are pro choice. Wouldn't it be equally chavanist to discount male opinion altogether? Its a womans choice, I am not debating that in the slightest, all I'm saying is you shouldn't shoot people down for simply having an opinion on an emotive subject.

[T-Paine]

Even if 'morally opposed' isn't the most correct term according to AugustWest, I think you can say "Hey, I wouldn't do this for reason x, but that's up to other people to make their own decisions because I'm not a dictator who enforces all of my beliefs on others, especially when it doesn't involve me." I definitely don't see it as grounds for restriction in my opinion.

[Ocean Seal]

I don't get it... You're pro-choice, anti human rights? :confused:


The right to property is not a human right. The right to hate speech is not a human right. The right to exploit another human being is not another human right. I have never cared for the rights of the ruling class because they infringe on my own, and have been for the past few centuries detrimental to the large majority.

Abortion is about the right of everyday women to have the freedom over choosing to have a child.

[brigadista]

not ANOTHER abortion thread...

[PhoenixAsh]

I have thanked the post in the other thread because I accept that when you have an opinion that does not necessarily mean you would want to enforce that opinion on others...and read over the "morally" part.

I think there is a strong argument to make that morally is counter intuitive to wanting it to remain free.

I also think is not the case necessarilly.....that you have to distinguish between your own moral construct...i.e. things you personally absolutely will not do...and moral as in what you think all people should do.

Neither IMO automatically means you want to infract the basic right of any person to be an autonomous being....though the latter has that tendency.

However....you can also hold more than one moral view.....for example...you can also have the moral believe in the right of autonomy of every individual.

I think abortion should be freely available as well as the post medical care and the right for women who have no partner (m/f) to rely on for asssistance should be able to use funds or assistance which enables her to be an socially and economically independent being instead of a 24/7 mother who needs to raise kids. Just as well as the right for a father to sever al responsibility when a woman choses not to have an abortion when he does not want a child.

But when my girlfirend or wife would want an abortion for any other reason than medical or psychological after the child has a >93% survival chance with minimal medical support. I would argue against it...which is my right...and when she chooses to go through with it...which is her right... I may be angry and may decide to not want to spend the rest of my life with her....its just not compatible with my personal moral code of not infringing on somebodies autonomy.

But it is also not compatible with my own moral code to restrict her rights to have her own moral code.


That said...in the above example...you do have to realise that when such an argument takes place the current social economic system dictates that there can be a forced situation. In many cases the woman is economically dependable on the man...which holds for unequal balance of power in the relationship.

Therefore a woman should also have the right to enjoy state benefits in the form of financial or social aid to help raise her child or after being left for an abortion by her partner.

[Viet Minh]

Even if 'morally opposed' isn't the most correct term according to AugustWest, I think you can say "Hey, I wouldn't do this for reason x, but that's up to other people to make their own decisions because I'm not a dictator who enforces all of my beliefs on others, especially when it doesn't involve me." I definitely don't see it as grounds for restriction in my opinion.

I can understand womens lib is fundamental to leftism, and abortion is a major womens lib issue we should all defend, but yeah nobody should be restricted for simply saying they are morally opposed to abortion, even though they are totally wrong! The distinction should be if they support anti-abortion laws they should be restricted.


The right to property is not a human right. The right to hate speech is not a human right. The right to exploit another human being is not another human right. I have never cared for the rights of the ruling class because they infringe on my own, and have been for the past few centuries detrimental to the large majority.

Agreed. But I wouldn't go so far as to say there are no such things as rights..


Abortion is about the right of everyday women to have the freedom over choosing to have a child.

Again, I agree wholeheartedly. All I'm saying is we shouldn't be restricting people for simply debating the issues. Actually though I don't really care that much, fuck the pro-lifers, they're a bunch of conservative self righteous ignorant reactionaries.

[Decolonize The Left]

Okay then I'm morally opposed to it, it does a huge amount of damage to your health and others' around you, it costs the taxpayer in terms of healthcare, it wastes a huge amount of valuable resources and energy, and pollutes the environment

I know. And if I was trying to be a douche I would say what I said to gacky before:

If I was trying to be a douche I'd just tell you that your reactionary, patronizing, and totally chauvinistic attitude towards women and their reproductive organs is pathetic and infantile and only serves to reinforce the male-dominated power structures which keep women subservient and a second class.
Not very revolutionary of you is it?


I don't get it... You're pro-choice, anti human rights? :confused:

I have a nuanced position on this whole issue. I acknowledge that there is no such 'actual thing' as human rights - i.e. that rights are social inventions that were created to maintain and propagate a specific social order.

That said, we do not live in a society whereby all people understand the fictive nature of human rights. Hence we are forced to act within the socio-political realm of human rights, i.e. I support the right of women to choose.


I don't believe that bullying is always political, and therefore cannot be completely eradicated through political means, but there are social and political causes for prejudice and victimisation, most prevalently racial and class divides.

I didn't say bullying was expressively political. I said everything is political underneath the surface - we just don't talk about it. In fact, I said that the bully probably doesn't really know why s/he bullies.


That scenario is not objective, because if your partner is involved of course you will hold a biased view one way or the other. On a wider scale I believe it is reasonable to object to abortion (for example on religious grounds) without necessarily imposing that view upon others. Moral opposition is not always an either/ or, for example (to use a recent discussion) you may be more morally opposed to a rich guy using a stolen credit card to buy pizza than a poor guy.

You are not clear on morality...

If you say "I'm morally opposed to abortion," what this means is that under no circumstances is an abortion acceptable. Make sense?

So you can't say "I'm morally opposed to abortion, but it's cool if someone else gets one." All this sentence tells the reader is that you have absolutely no idea what you're saying.


He wasn't reinforcing the male dominated power structures, he was voicing an opinion. In fact I'm not even sure it was his opinion, he was just asking generally. This is not a battle of the sexes, some females are pro life, some males are pro choice. Wouldn't it be equally chavanist to discount male opinion altogether? Its a womans choice, I am not debating that in the slightest, all I'm saying is you shouldn't shoot people down for simply having an opinion on an emotive subject.

Alright, I see where we're at here. I'll break it down from the beginning.

Do you have a uterus? Are you capable of hosting another entity for approx. 9 months inside your body, whereby that entity nurtures and feeds itself via leeching off your bloodstream?

No? Then it's quiet time for your "opinion."


Even if 'morally opposed' isn't the most correct term according to AugustWest, I think you can say "Hey, I wouldn't do this for reason x, but that's up to other people to make their own decisions because I'm not a dictator who enforces all of my beliefs on others, especially when it doesn't involve me." I definitely don't see it as grounds for restriction in my opinion.

You wouldn't do "this" because you're a male... who can't have an abortion. So you don't get to talk about who can have one and why.


I have thanked the post in the other thread because I accept that when you have an opinion that does not necessarily mean you would want to enforce that opinion on others...and read over the "morally" part.

There is a difference between "having an opinion" (i.e. I like coffee more than tea) and "being morally opposed" to something (i.e. Tea is wrong).


I think there is a strong argument to make that morally is counter intuitive to wanting it to remain free.

I don't know what that means.


I also think is not the case necessarilly.....that you have to distinguish between your own moral construct...i.e. things you personally absolutely will not do...and moral as in what you think all people should do.

A moral statement is a binding one. "Abortion is wrong" means that in all cases, under all circumstances, it is wrong.


Neither IMO automatically means you want to infract the basic right of any person to be an autonomous being....though the latter has that tendency.

If I said that talking is wrong, that means that anyone who talks is morally reprehensible for their actions - i.e. punishment and/or retribution needs to be enacted. So yes, when you say that something is wrong, you are inevitably telling someone that they can't do something.


However....you can also hold more than one moral view.....for example...you can also have the moral believe in the right of autonomy of every individual.

If you think abortion is morally wrong, but people have the moral right to individual autonomy, then you are basically saying "My moral code is incoherent and meaningless."


I think abortion should be freely available as well as the post medical care and the right for women who have no partner (m/f) to rely on for asssistance should be able to use funds or assistance which enables her to be an socially and economically independent being instead of a 24/7 mother who needs to raise kids. Just as well as the right for a father to sever al responsibility when a woman choses not to have an abortion when he does not want a child.

Awesome.


But when my girlfirend or wife would want an abortion for any other reason than medical or psychological after the child has a >93% survival chance with minimal medical support. I would argue against it...which is my right...and when she chooses to go through with it...which is her right... I may be angry and may decide to not want to spend the rest of my life with her....its just not compatible with my personal moral code of not infringing on somebodies autonomy.

You have no right to do so. You are assuming you have a right to argue with her, but you don't. And if you'd leave your girlfriend because she had an abortion, you need to seriously consider your reasons for being with her and what you call "love."


But it is also not compatible with my own moral code to restrict her rights to have her own moral code.

So basically what you're saying is that she can do what she wants, but you'll be pissed if she doesn't do what you want and you'll leave her?

You don't see a power dynamic here?


That said...in the above example...you do have to realise that when such an argument takes place the current social economic system dictates that there can be a forced situation. In many cases the woman is economically dependable on the man...which holds for unequal balance of power in the relationship.

Therefore a woman should also have the right to enjoy state benefits in the form of financial or social aid to help raise her child or after being left for an abortion by her partner.

So you're saying that you acknowledge the power dynamic which is present yet rather than deal with it, i.e. change your attitude and actions, you want the state to make it all better?

- August

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

August, of course the man has the right to voice his opinion about not getting an abortion if the woman he's with finds out she is pregnant. The only issue is if he tries to force her to have a pregnancy in any way when she would rather not.

Me and my friend are going to the uss ronald reagan, and I'm desperately trying to convince him that it is an incredibly bad idea to get 'reagan' tatooed in him in any way. Do I not have the right, so to speak, to try and convince him in this life changing and permamnent decision?

Is it not correct for the man to say he supports whatver she decides to do? Obviously he has no right to sway her choice one way or the other so the entire phrase indicates a form of control that is wrong.

[Decolonize The Left]

August, of course the man has the right to voice his opinion about not getting an abortion if the woman he's with finds out she is pregnant. The only issue is if he tries to force her to have a pregnancy in any way when she would rather not.

No man has said "right." Men feel entitled to said "rights" as we were the ones who invented them in the first place for our own interests.


Me and my friend are going to the uss ronald reagan, and I'm desperately trying to convince him that it is an incredibly bad idea to get 'reagan' tatooed in him in any way. Do I not have the right, so to speak, to try and convince him in this life changing and permamnent decision?

Anyone can get a tattoo. Men can't have babies. Your analogy is faulty.


Is it not correct for the man to say he supports whatver she decides to do? Obviously he has no right to sway her choice one way or the other so the entire phrase indicates a form of control that is wrong.

Yes, men should support whatever women decide to do with regards to their own bodies.
If a man wants to be a father, he should have talked about that with his female partner before she got pregnant thereby equalizing (as best possible) the power dynamic which comes into play after she's pregnant.

- August

[Dimmu]

I understand why some people can be against abortions for moral reasons.. But i am still of an opinion that its women's choice.

[Viet Minh]

Alright, I see where we're at here. I'll break it down from the beginning.

Do you have a uterus? Are you capable of hosting another entity for approx. 9 months inside your body, whereby that entity nurtures and feeds itself via leeching off your bloodstream?

No? Then it's quiet time for your "opinion."


No man has said "right." Men feel entitled to said "rights" as we were the ones who invented them in the first place for our own interests.

Take your own advice.. ;)

[Lt. Ferret]

being party to two abortions so far, my opinion definitely counts. is it the deciding factor? no. but, it counts. Though I'm about as pro-killing fetuses as you can possibly be.

[RedAnarchist]

being party to two abortions so far, my opinion definitely counts. is it the deciding factor? no. but, it counts. Though I'm about as pro-killing fetuses as you can possibly be.

You can't kill something that isn't alive. A foetus certainly isn't alive for the majority of pregnancy.

[Bud Struggle]

You can't kill something that isn't alive. A foetus certainly isn't alive for the majority of pregnancy.

But then it IS killing when the fetus can be viable outside of the womb but still within the woman.

[PhoenixAsh]

You are not clear on morality...

If you say "I'm morally opposed to abortion," what this means is that under no circumstances is an abortion acceptable. Make sense?

No...because you are making the false equation that "morally" also automatically means that you will force people to follow that morallity and that does NOT follow.

Its the same as hearing a friends tell you he stole from someone. Or if he cheated. I have a moral opinion on that but I will not rat him out on either of those cases.

There you go.


So you can't say "I'm morally opposed to abortion, but it's cool if someone else gets one." All this sentence tells the reader is that you have absolutely no idea what you're saying.


No...in fact you are making an impelling but wrong assumption that morals equate to action.



No? Then it's quiet time for your "opinion."


Nope...everybody is free to expres an opinion. That somebody is free to make their own choices in life does NOT automatically equate to everybody shutting up about that.



You wouldn't do "this" because you're a male... who can't have an abortion. So you don't get to talk about who can have one and why.


No...again...wrong.... you can not enforce or force another to conform to your opinion...but you can freely express your opinion about the choices others make.




There is a difference between "having an opinion" (i.e. I like coffee more than tea) and "being morally opposed" to something (i.e. Tea is wrong).


You are falsely generalising. As I have clearly shown...I am morally opposed to cheating and stealing...yet...I will not rat a friend out.




I don't know what that means.


It means that I follow your argument...but not your conclusion.



A moral statement is a binding one. "Abortion is wrong" means that in all cases, under all circumstances, it is wrong.


No.

And the second is an example of a moral statement which was not used.

Nor does it imply that morally wrong implies you want to enforce those morals.




If I said that talking is wrong, that means that anyone who talks is morally reprehensible for their actions - i.e. punishment and/or retribution needs to be enacted.

Yes...but that dos not automatically imply legislation or force. It can also man leaving somebody or being disappointed in them.

Again...you are making links which can not be automatically linked.



So yes, when you say that something is wrong, you are inevitably telling someone that they can't do something.


Nope...you really aren't. You are saying it is wrong in your opinion and you wouldn't do it if you were in their shoes...the rest of your statement does not automatically follow.



If you think abortion is morally wrong, but people have the moral right to individual autonomy, then you are basically saying "My moral code is incoherent and meaningless."

No...it means there is heirarchy in morality and that smetimes one takles president over the other ....especially in a world which is not black an white and which is not defined by generality.


You have no right to do so. You are assuming you have a right to argue with her, but you don't. And if you'd leave your girlfriend because she had an abortion, you need to seriously consider your reasons for being with her and what you call "love."

O...I definately have a right to do so...because we are in a relationship. Which basically means people get to talk about how they spend their lives. And I definately have an opinion about her having a baby or not since I am going to be repsonsible for the care of that baby.

She is free to choose her actions...but her choices are going to have consequences for the relationship.

And as for the example given....her having an bortion after the seventh month for the reasons I have stated means she has no consideration for what I want in life and that clearly means we should NOT stay together...after all....starting a relationship with somebody who will state he definately wants children and will only stay with somebody who at least has the wish to have children as well...pretty much means you would have to have a very, very good reason to abort pregnancy.




So basically what you're saying is that she can do what she wants, but you'll be pissed if she doesn't do what you want and you'll leave her?


Yes...taht is a good possibility on issues so important as having or not having kids. Actions have consequences.




You don't see a power dynamic here?


As I stated...an if you would have read carefully...yes, yes...I do. I specifically stated so.



So you're saying that you acknowledge the power dynamic which is present yet rather than deal with it, i.e. change your attitude and actions, you want the state to make it all better?

I absolutely want kids. I state that before I get involved. If she does not want kids...all we can have is a fling but it will never get serious and I will leave her for sombody who does. Which I will tell her.

So...if for some reason she decides later...after seven or so months of pregnancy that she wants to have an abortion...thats her freedom. But if she does not have a very, very good reason for doing so (ie. medical / psychological) that will have consequences for the relationship.

There is nothing wrong with my attitude. You do not stay with sombody who does not make you happy and who does not agree to you on the really important things you want to get out of life.

Its a really dumb thing to argue that that is somehow wrong or an attitude problem.

The problem is the fact that in current society the man mostly holds the key to economic stability for a woman who becomes a mother. Single moms usually are not defined as women but as 24/7 mothers. They do not get to work without huge economic and social problems....like paying for childcare or having to stay home without a babysitter.

so yeah...the problem is the way society functions. The right to choose also implies the right to choose to have a baby without the economic consequences it may have.

You can not expect anybody to take care of a child if they do not want it.

Because you are seriously arguing double standards here: A woman should be able to chose to do whatever she pleases without consequences.....but the man has to live with the consequences of the choice that woman makes? Really?