Third trimester abortions

[Unclebananahead]

So I have this friend who's telling me that if I support third trimester abortion, that I might as well support infanticide, since the fetus supposedly is not that meaningfully different developmentally right after birth as during the later stage of the third trimester. What should I tell her?

[chegitz guevara]

Ask her where does she think baby back ribs come from.

[chegitz guevara]

Logically, she's correct, except there is no need to kill an already born infant to liberate the mother. She can simply* hand it off to someone else and terminate her parental rights. You can't do that to something inside your body which is completely dependent on taking nutrients from you in order to survive.



*easier said than done, as the process of pregnancy and birth tend to bond the mother to the infant.

[PhoenixAsh]

Everybody who supports third trimester abortions needs to examine their heads.... and before everybody start to jump up and down with pitchforks and torches:

The wording is wrong.

You do not support third trimester abortions.....you support the right to have acces to unrestricted, free and safe abortions which include possible abortions in the third trimester.

Now...as for the comparison. I find that a bit polemic. There are a lot of very good reasons to abort in third trimester mostly revolving around physical and psychological health issues or when a mother did not have acces to earlier abortions or in the case of rape, forcefull withholding of abortion etc. etc.

[Terminator X]

It's an idiotic tactic by anti-choicers to put words in your mouth and try to get you to admit that you are "pro-abortion" - these cretins aren't capable of understanding the complex social and moral factors that go into a woman deciding to have an abortion - they choose instead to fetishize ultrasound "heartbeats" and IMAX-sized photos of D&E'd fetuses.

Don't let her decide for you what you "support."

[chegitz guevara]

I support universal mandatory retroactive abortions.

Seriously though, I do support abortion. I don't think there's a thing wrong with it.

[Decolonize The Left]

So I have this friend who's telling me that if I support third trimester abortion, that I might as well support infanticide, since the fetus supposedly is not that meaningfully different developmentally right after birth as during the later stage of the third trimester. What should I tell her?

You should tell her that it's a woman's choice to choose if she wants an abortion at any stage during her pregnancy because it's her body.

- August

[Unclebananahead]

Now she's asking me if I would support a woman's decision to abort a few days before the birth is expected.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

Now she's asking me if I would support a woman's decision to abort a few days before the birth is expected.
I support the right for the woman to have that decision. She should only be asking these sort of questions if you were about to have a baby and considering. Otherwise, it really doesn't matter. Leave other people's decisions alone and allow freedom to exist :thumbup1:

[Hit The North]

Now she's asking me if I would support a woman's decision to abort a few days before the birth is expected.

Obviously, at some point, the unborn infant can be whipped out, placed in an incubator, nurtured and then sent into adoption or care. Only a psychopath would argue for the killing (if that is what your friend means by "aborting") of a human being this developed.

[Die Rote Fahne]

When the fetus is conscious, aware of it's existence and feels pain, that is when I call it a human.

[PhoenixAsh]

Obviously, at some point, the unborn infant can be whipped out, placed in an incubator, nurtured and then sent into adoption or care. Only a psychopath would argue for the killing (if that is what your friend means by "aborting") of a human being this developed.


Well......unfortunately this is not the case when you speak to some here. They say women should have acces to abortion any time they want to including hours before birth. This is because the fetus is not considered human by them until it is born.

They claim that birth is an invasive situation which can harm and cause death. Therefore no woman can be forced or epected to give birth either natural or induced....and since its the womans body there is no single argument to be made and which is valid (in their eyes) which restricts this complete freedom...to them...the fetus is a thing and assigning it humanity is considered to be an emotional construct.

[PhoenixAsh]

allow freedom to exist :thumbup1:

such an ironic choice of words....
:-)

[Unclebananahead]

I would imagine everyone here to be more or less in accord with regard to first and second trimester abortions, but it seems as though third trimester abortions are a bit of a sticky wicket. One person mentioned a capacity to think and feel being the ideal 'yardstick' to use in addressing this question. Another mentioned child birth as a "dangerous, invasive event" that no woman should feel compelled to undergo, and any obstructions to abortion whatsoever at any stage of pregnancy would thus constitute an infringement of her freedom (it was mentioned as one argument, though not necessarily adhered to by the one doing the mentioning).

I'll have to concede here that the issue is a little confusing to me, and while I am strongly in favor of unobstructed access to safe, legal abortion in the first and second trimester, I don't exactly know what to think for the third.

[Terminator X]

I'll have to concede here that the issue is a little confusing to me, and while I am strongly in favor of unobstructed access to safe, legal abortion in the first and second trimester, I don't exactly know what to think for the third.

It's an interesting topic - thanks for starting the discussion. It's also forced me to take a closer look at my own views on the subject.

[PhoenixAsh]

I would imagine everyone here to be more or less in accord with regard to first and second trimester abortions, but it seems as though third trimester abortions are a bit of a sticky wicket. One person mentioned a capacity to think and feel being the ideal 'yardstick' to use in addressing this question. Another mentioned child birth as a "dangerous, invasive event" that no woman should feel compelled to undergo, and any obstructions to abortion whatsoever at any stage of pregnancy would thus constitute an infringement of her freedom (it was mentioned as one argument, though not necessarily adhered to by the one doing the mentioning).

I'll have to concede here that the issue is a little confusing to me, and while I am strongly in favor of unobstructed access to safe, legal abortion in the first and second trimester, I don't exactly know what to think for the third.

The problem with debating this issue is that the board will restrict you if you do not have the position that abortions up until the exact moment of birth should be allowed without any form of restriction whatsoever.

[Unclebananahead]

The problem with debating this issue is that the board will restrict you if you do not have the position that abortions up until the exact moment of birth should be allowed without any form of restriction whatsoever.

Well, I would certainly prefer to remain unrestricted. Should we just not discuss this topic at all?

[Sensible Socialist]

Obviously, at some point, the unborn infant can be whipped out, placed in an incubator, nurtured and then sent into adoption or care. Only a psychopath would argue for the killing (if that is what your friend means by "aborting") of a human being this developed.
Well then call me a maniac because I see nothing wrong with the abortion of a fetus before it is born.

[Sasha]

When the fetus is conscious, aware of it's existence and feels pain, that is when I call it a human.


funny fact to throw at all the anti-women bible thumpers who oppose abortion because they are "pro-life", the bible clearly defines life as breathing, each and every times someone is dying or coming alive it involves breathing (god gives adam life by breathing into him etc etc etc) offcourse of no relevance what so ever for us scientific based people but a good thing to trow at the christians, let them point out where in that holybook of theirs it says that life begins at conception.

[Sixiang]

When the fetus is conscious, aware of it's existence and feels pain, that is when I call it a human.

I would agree with you. I am not too knowledgeable on the subject and I am genuinely curious. Forgive me for any ignorance. Is there a specific time of development that we can pinpoint as being a moment when it is capable of feeling pain and is aware of its own existence?

[Sasha]

dont know about pain (its an debated iseu wheter or not a fetus can feel pain) but self awareness starts about at 15 months after being born, and yes, there are (mostly african) cultures where there is no stigma on infanticide and who dont see an baby as human/individual yet up to several months after being born (wich is understandable in an society wich has no acces to abortions, no acces on pre-natal screening on malformations and diseases etc etc and high infant mortality) wich again goes to show that "life" as most humans define it is an cultural concept and not thing you can superimpose an universal scientific definition on.

[Sixiang]

dont know about pain (its an debated iseu wheter or not a fetus can feel pain) but self awareness starts about at 15 months after being born, and yes, there are (mostly african) cultures where there is no stigma on infanticide.

Yeah, how is it even possible to prove that it feels pain? Can we somehow check its neurological system to see if it can experience pain? And by what do we mean self aware exactly?

[PhoenixAsh]

Self awareness is a tricky thing to establish individuality or as being human.

That immediately disqualifies people with severe cases of dementia. comatose patients and several other diseases or medical injuries...people under influence of some drugs or people with advanced Korsakof.


Higher brainfunctions is a much more reliable way to test if a brain functions with cognition. And that can be tested by measuring higher brainwaves. These are roughly the same for fetusses in the thrid trimester and just born children.

Besides from that. Third trimester fetusses have a >95% chance of surviving birth.

They interact with their environment. (and yes....this is tested by introducing objects in the uterus)

They react to sensory input. (for example: play loud music will elicit a reaction; changing the chemical nature of taste, light intensity, temperature etc. all elicit reactions)

They react by shielding if confronted with a direct unpleasant sensory input (if you poke it it will try to push away the object or shield itself from the object)

So why self awareness is something which may be a classification for when an induvidual becomes an induvidual....its incredibly restricted and disqualifies large portions of the population.



PAIN

Pain is highly subjective. Measuring pain is mostly done by questionaires. Obviously you can't ask a fetus to fill in a questionaire.

So they do two kinds of tests:

* Poke it with a needle.

* Neurological activity can indicate pain impulses...(but there is no way to objectively qualify the impulses to severity).

Can a fetus feel pain? Very likely. Can it consciously register it? very likely...it can register sensory input to such an extend it can react to it. It can react to unpleasant sensory input and that all makes it a valid assumption it can feel some form of pain.

The instinctive reactions between children and fetusses to pain stimuli (sticking it with pins) are generally the same. The question is...if this is an indication of pain or an indication of pre-cognitive programmes reflex maneuvres.

So yeah...its very likely a fetus feels pain. If it feels pain in the same way we do is a whole different question.

[PhoenixAsh]

Yeah, how is it even possible to prove that it feels pain? Can we somehow check its neurological system to see if it can experience pain? And by what do we mean self aware exactly?

Sticking it with a needle, measure neurological and nerve activity, measuring neurotransmitters, increased brainwave functions. So yes...."we" can check its neurological system.

Self aware means that you can asses that you think thoughts not only thinking the thoughts.

[NGNM85]

So I have this friend who's telling me that if I support third trimester abortion, that I might as well support infanticide, since the fetus supposedly is not that meaningfully different developmentally right after birth as during the later stage of the third trimester. What should I tell her?

You can tell her that, on that one specific point, she is essentially correct. I think it merits discussion, as it seems that too many radical Leftists take a crude and overly simplistic outlook on this subject. Now, the arguments of the Pro-Life crowd, as a whole, can generally be dismissed fairly quickly, as they ultimately reduce to religious beliefs, with no basis in fact. Actually, the only way to characterize a blastocyst as being, or being equivalent to a person, is to imbue it with magical properties. However, we need to realize that at some point, the embryo does, in fact, become a human, in fact, that’s the whole point of the gestational process. You’re friend is quite right in illuminating that the difference between a ‘fetus’ at the 37th week, and a ‘baby’ born in the 40th, is mostly semantic. There are other problems. For example; Embryo A, born prematurely at 32 weeks is seen as a child, whereas Embryo B, still gestating at 38 weeks, is fair game. Incidentally, some, like Peter Singer, for example, actually accept this fact, and even go one step further, to suggest that one is justified in ‘terminating’ (Read; ‘murder.’) a baby, as much as a year after birth. Also, this thinking treats a woman’s orifices like a magical gateway, bestowing personhood only to those who have completely crossed the threshold. This is obviously absurd. In summation, I think we need to have calmer, more rational conversations about an ideal policy vis-à-vis abortion that is both moral, and scientific.

[Sixiang]

You can tell her that, on that one specific point, she is essentially correct. I think it merits discussion, as it seems that too many radical Leftists take a crude and overly simplistic outlook on this subject. Now, the arguments of the Pro-Life crowd, as a whole, can generally be dismissed fairly quickly, as they ultimately reduce to religious beliefs, with no basis in fact. Actually, the only way to characterize a blastocyst as being, or being equivalent to a person, is to imbue it with magical properties. However, we need to realize that at some point, the embryo does, in fact, become a human, in fact, that’s the whole point of the gestational process. You’re friend is quite right in illuminating that the difference between a ‘fetus’ at the 37th week, and a ‘baby’ born in the 40th, is mostly semantic. There are other problems. For example; Embryo A, born prematurely at 32 weeks is seen as a child, whereas Embryo B, still gestating at 38 weeks, is fair game. Incidentally, some, like Peter Singer, for example, actually accept this fact, and even go one step further, to suggest that one is justified in ‘terminating’ (Read; ‘murder.’) a baby, as much as a year after birth. Also, this thinking treats a woman’s orifices like a magical gateway, bestowing personhood only to those who have completely crossed the threshold. This is obviously absurd. In summation, I think we need to have calmer, more rational conversations about an ideal policy vis-à-vis abortion that is both moral, and scientific.
That just seems silly to me. If the baby is already born, I see no point in killing it. Just put it up for adoption if you really don't want it anymore.


Sticking it with a needle, measure neurological and nerve activity, measuring neurotransmitters, increased brainwave functions. So yes...."we" can check its neurological system.

Self aware means that you can asses that you think thoughts not only thinking the thoughts.

I see. How do we know that 15-month-old babies are self aware?

[28350]

In my opinion, life begins at conception. Regardless, Women should have unrestricted access to free and safe abortions.

[kahimikarie]

Even if the fetus is "meaningfully developed" its "life" does not supersede the woman's choice of what to do with her own body. TC posted a good analogy before, something like if a father could donate part of his liver to his 4 year old daughter to save her life, we would consider it good of him to do, but we wouldn't legally force him to, because his own bodily autonomy still outweighs his daughter's "right" to life.

I think that third trimester abortions, like the way people talk about them are strange. They're incredibly rare (like 2% of all abortions in the USA) and very hard to get.

I also don't like the apologetics that no one is "pro abortion." It's like how liberals in the USA apologize for being "pro-choice" by saying the want abortions to be "legal, safe, and rare." I think it just plays into anti-choice beliefs that something is bad about abortion and that women should feel guilty after getting one.

[PhoenixAsh]

I see. How do we know that 15-month-old babies are self aware?



There are several methods to measure the different stages of selfwareness.

The basic one is the mirror test. If a child sees a mirror as an extention of the environment and does not realise what it is actually seeing...its not self aware. You then take the child away from the mirror and draw a dot on its forehead....then you place it in front of the mirror again and observe what it does. If it looks for the dot on itself....its self aware. If it only ignores the dot or touches it in the mirror....its not.

[PhoenixAsh]

Even if the fetus is "meaningfully developed" its "life" does not supercede the woman's choice of what to do with her own body. TC posted a good analogy before, something like like if a father could donate part of his liver to is 4 year old daughter to save her life, we would consider it good of him to do, but we wouldn't legally force him to, because his own bodily autonomy still outweighs his daughther's "right " to life.

I think that third trimester abortions, like the way people talk about them are strange. They're incredibly rare (like 2% of all abortions in the USA) and very hard to get.

No its a ridiculous analogy.

Because the fathers actions did not cause the childs liver disease...while the abortion by the mother most definately is the sole and primary cause for the death of the fetus. Its the causality....one is death unless acted...the other is live unless acted.

Late term abortions are mostly done rarely because of medical reasons and...perhaps... because they are illegal?!

I also do not get the "its extremely rare" argument. What does that even mean? infanticide is extremely rare....so....whats the conclusion? whats the logical analogy here.

[Die Rote Fahne]

dont know about pain (its an debated iseu wheter or not a fetus can feel pain) but self awareness starts about at 15 months after being born, and yes, there are (mostly african) cultures where there is no stigma on infanticide and who dont see an baby as human/individual yet up to several months after being born (wich is understandable in an society wich has no acces to abortions, no acces on pre-natal screening on malformations and diseases etc etc and high infant mortality) wich again goes to show that "life" as most humans define it is an cultural concept and not thing you can superimpose an universal scientific definition on.

I doubt the accuracy of this.

[Hit The North]

Well then call me a maniac because I see nothing wrong with the abortion of a fetus before it is born.

The issue I was responding to was the question of whether an "abortion" should take place a few days before the birth date is due. I responded that if "abortion" was meant to indicate the killing of an infant (no longer just a foetus) then it woud be unnecessary. If you think otherwise, that's up to you. However, I'd like to know what your preferred mode of "disposal" would be for a nine month old baby. Stabbing to death? Poisoning? Smothering? Just wondering, like.

[Sasha]

I doubt the accuracy of this.

cant find the article i read about it online but there are some sourced examples on presentday infanticide on wikipedia:


In spite of the fact that it is illegal, in Benin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benin), West Africa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Africa), parents secretly continue with infanticidal customs.[86] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide#cite_note-85)


In November 2008 it was reported that in Agibu and Amosa villages of Gimi region of Eastern Highlands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Highlands_%28Papua_New_Guinea%29) province of Papua New Guinea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papua_New_Guinea) where tribal fighting in the region of Gimi has been going on since 1986 (many of the clashes arising over claims of sorcery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witchcraft)) women had agreed that if they stopped producing males, allowing only female babies to survive, their tribe's stock of boys would go down and there would be no men in the future to fight. They agreed to have all new-born male babies killed. It is not known how many male babies were killed by being smothered, but it had reportedly happened to all males over a 10 year period and probably was still happening.[81] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide#cite_note-80)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide

[NGNM85]

Even if the fetus is "meaningfully developed" its "life" does not supersede the woman's choice of what to do with her own body. TC posted a good analogy before, something like if a father could donate part of his liver to his 4 year old daughter to save her life, we would consider it good of him to do, but we wouldn't legally force him to, because his own bodily autonomy still outweighs his daughter's "right" to life.

There’s a number of differences, here. First of all, the mother and child are already fundamentally biologically connected. It’s totally conceivable that the daughter could find a match from someone else. Also, an intact D&X abortion procedure works just as well to deliver a live baby, as it does to terminate one. It’s, essentially, the same procedure. She could also have a C-section which is also incredibly safe, (.002% mortality rate.) and has a short recovery time. In either case, the woman would not experience any significantly greater amount of discomfort, and the baby is still removed from her body, without the troubling ethical issues.


I think that third trimester abortions, like the way people talk about them are strange. They're incredibly rare (like 2% of all abortions in the USA) and very hard to get.

Yes. However, this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have a broader conversation about what defines personhood, and the ethical ramifications, thereof. Again, I think we should be working towards a coherent policy that is both ethically sound, and scientific.


I also don't like the apologetics that no one is "pro abortion." It's like how liberals in the USA apologize for being "pro-choice" by saying the want abortions to be "legal, safe, and rare." I think it just plays into anti-choice beliefs that something is bad about abortion and that women should feel guilty after getting one.

I don’t think so. I don’t think anyone sane is excited about abortion. I think it’s an unfortunate necessity. That doesn’t mean it is isn’t a necessity.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

"How late in pregnancy abortions should be permitted and carried out is a matter of great controversy among almost everyone – except the women who need them." - Marge Berer, editor of the journal Reproductive Health Matters

[NGNM85]

"How late in pregnancy abortions should be permitted and carried out is a matter of great controversy among almost everyone – except the women who need them." - Marge Berer, editor of the journal Reproductive Health Matters

That's not an argument.

In the scenario being debated, there is no 'need.'

[chegitz guevara]

When the fetus is conscious, aware of it's existence and feels pain, that is when I call it a human.

That would be never. Humans do not become conscious or aware of their own existence until around eight to nine months after birth. It can, however, feel pain very early on. Obviously, by this point it is no longer a fetus.

In order to walk upright, human evolved (not purposefully mind you) narrower pelvises. This means a narrower birth canal. At the same time, human brain size began increasing. Humans are born, compared to all other mammals, premature, because our big heads can't fit through the birth canal otherwise.

[chegitz guevara]

In my opinion, life begins at conception. Regardless, Women should have unrestricted access to free and safe abortions.

Heretic! Life clearly began before conception. The sperm and the egg aren't dead!

[chegitz guevara]

That's not an argument.

In the scenario being debated, there is no 'need.'

unconscious meat > conscious women

[Decolonize The Left]

That's not an argument.

In the scenario being debated, there is no 'need.'

Says.... you? Maybe the woman carrying the baby thinks there is a need?

- August

[Hit The North]

Humans do not become conscious or aware of their own existence until around eight to nine months after birth.

This is patently untrue as if they had no consciousness or awareness, they would be unable to learn and their crying would only coincide with their feelings of hunger randomly and, therefore, hardly at all.

[chegitz guevara]

This is patently untrue as if they had no consciousness or awareness, they would be unable to learn and their crying would only coincide with their feelings of hunger randomly and, therefore, hardly at all.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=when-does-consciousness-arise

[Terminator X]

I also don't like the apologetics that no one is "pro abortion." It's like how liberals in the USA apologize for being "pro-choice" by saying the want abortions to be "legal, safe, and rare." I think it just plays into anti-choice beliefs that something is bad about abortion and that women should feel guilty after getting one.

I think you're reaching here. Do I think that any woman who wants an abortion should have access to one, regardless of age, economics, or ethnicity? Of course. Doesn't mean I need to go around with a megaphone shouting at anyone who'll listen that I'm "pro-abortion." I am vehemently in favor of universal abortion rights. It's not close to the same thing.

I am also in favor if the legalization of all drugs. Does that mean that I have to be a huge fan of heroin and PCP?

[chegitz guevara]

I think revolutionaries concede too much when they state they are not pro-abortion. It concedes that there is something wrong with it, that we find it morally wrong, that if it weren't for a human's right to bodily autonomy, we'd happily ban it.

[PhoenixAsh]

I think revolutionaries concede too much when they state they are not pro-abortion. It concedes that there is something wrong with it, that we find it morally wrong, that if it weren't for a human's right to bodily autonomy, we'd happily ban it.


problem is...its NOT about bodily autonomy now is it?

[Hit The North]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=when-does-consciousness-arise

The article doesn't prove your point at all :rolleyes:

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

"Not every ejaculation deserves a name." - George Carlin

[Obs]

problem is...its NOT about bodily autonomy now is it?
Yes, it is. That's actually exactly what's it about. To say it isn't, especially as ultimately as you do, is stupendously misguided.

[Sixiang]

"Not every ejaculation deserves a name." - George Carlin

Carlin's the man. And so is Bill Hicks:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4mFHqYr06k

[PhoenixAsh]

Yes, it is. That's actually exactly what's it about. To say it isn't, especially as ultimately as you do, is stupendously misguided.

No...it isn't. Its the choice between autonomies.

To say otherwise is stupendously misguided.

[RATM-Eubie]

I'm Pro Choice to a point but i personally think that Third Trimester abortions are too late for an abortion...

[TC]

Every time I open this thread I feel like throwing up. Revleft has degenerated to the point that it tolerate the same debates as present in the bourgeois media on abortion, starting from a position that its the fetus that matters (something that is not aware of itself, probably aware of nothing up to birth, and yes, there are major neurological differences between a baby and a fetus = breathing a first breath and disconnecting from the umbilical cord lead to immediate neurological changes, as they would sort of have to, since the baby gets energy and oxygen from a completely different source) and that the pregnant woman's desires, autonomy and bodily integrity are irrelevant after a certain point or under certain conditions.

This is sexist, it is dehumanizing, it is degrading, and it makes me feel like shit to read. I shouldn't have to feel this way on a leftist forum, I never encounter these misogynistic attitudes among leftists in real life, in my organizations.

[Demogorgon]

A newborn baby can be taken and given to someone else, a fetus in the womb can't. If you could wave a magic wand and transplant it into the womb of someone who wants a child just like that then abortion would not be justified, but as you cannot, abortion is the only way to end a pregnancy that requires to be ended.

Third term abortions make up a relatively small proportion of abortions anyway, focussing on them is really a rhetorical trick.

[RedAnarchist]

I'm Pro Choice to a point but i personally think that Third Trimester abortions are too late for an abortion...

And why do you think that?

[Obs]

No...it isn't. Its the choice between autonomies.

To say otherwise is stupendously misguided.
Whose autonomies? That of the woman, and that of the... foetus? I'm really not sure where you're going with this.

[chegitz guevara]

No...it isn't. Its the choice between autonomies.

To say otherwise is stupendously misguided.

Unconscious bags of meat have no autonomy.

Anything completely dependent on another being for its entire life has no autonomy.

[chegitz guevara]

This is sexist, it is dehumanizing, it is degrading, and it makes me feel like shit to read. I shouldn't have to feel this way on a leftist forum, I never encounter these misogynistic attitudes among leftists in real life, in my organizations.

I, unfortunately do. The Animal Rights movement is rife with this sort of misogyny. After all, a fetus is an animal.

[chegitz guevara]

The article doesn't prove your point at all :rolleyes:

Yes it does. You're just going to have to use your brain rather than have the answer spoon fed to you.

[Hit The North]

Yes it does. You're just going to have to use your brain rather than have the answer spoon fed to you.

You mean use my brain to imagine that there is data which is not actually there in the article?

I'd suggest you reference your assertions with articles that don't require a leap of imagination in order to establish confirmation.

[PhoenixAsh]

Unconscious bags of meat have no autonomy.

Anything completely dependent on another being for its entire life has no autonomy.

First of all...thet depends on what conscious is. And what it is not. the first part of your position is radical in its logical implication that this means everybody who is not conscious has no autonomy....think about that one. So I will call bullshit on your argument.


The second part of your position is basically untrue. In the third trimester the life of the fetus is in fact independent on the life of the mother. The mother could be dead for several hours and the fetus can still be alive. Unfortunately for you...that completely disqualifies you argument...in the first place.

Secondly. The fetus is viable. If you cut it out of the mother with a kitchen knife....it will live. That means the reminder of its time in the womb is conveniance...not necessity. THis further negates your argument.

So the two points you are making are either too generalistic or factually untrue.



I, unfortunately do. The Animal Rights movement is rife with this sort of misogyny. After all, a fetus is an animal.

What kind of utter nonsence is this?



Yes it does. You're just going to have to use your brain rather than have the answer spoon fed to you.

It is contentually inaccurate.

First of all it equaste sentience with self awareness and consciousness. They are NOT the same thing.

Sentience; the ability to feel or perceive

Consciousness; generalisation which means a hell of alot more than self awareness. for example...being awake. Being able to interact with the world in a meaingful way. Learning etc.

Self-aware; Being able to relate to one self a aseperate being...or being aware of ones awareness.

The article is also factually wrong. And it argues against its own case. Being able to learn is part of consciousness and most definatly scentience. The article argues the fetus is able to learn, discern and interpret in the mothers womb....yet somehow this does not equate consciousness.

The entire argument of the article is in fact boiling down to a redefinition of consciousness instead of providing evidence of its absence. In fact consciousness is redefined to be: visual stimuli and breathing. No cognitive process required.

And lets not forget that he is in fact not answering the question with arguments at all. He is redefining words to suit the answer. The answer (visual stimuli and breathing) is arrived at without ANY form of evidence whatsoever other than stating the process and calling it consciousness.

And that makes the article scientifically useless.

[PhoenixAsh]

A newborn baby can be taken and given to someone else, a fetus in the womb can't. If you could wave a magic wand and transplant it into the womb of someone who wants a child just like that then abortion would not be justified, but as you cannot, abortion is the only way to end a pregnancy that requires to be ended.

Third term abortions make up a relatively small proportion of abortions anyway, focussing on them is really a rhetorical trick.

Its the OPs starting point and therefore the topic of debate. Yes they are rare...but that in itself is not an argument.

One could argue infanticide is rare...and that does not answer the question of is it is wrong or not.

[PhoenixAsh]

Every time I open this thread I feel like throwing up. Revleft has degenerated to the point that it tolerate the same debates as present in the bourgeois media on abortion, starting from a position that its the fetus that matters (something that is not aware of itself, probably aware of nothing up to birth, and yes, there are major neurological differences between a baby and a fetus = breathing a first breath and disconnecting from the umbilical cord lead to immediate neurological changes, as they would sort of have to, since the baby gets energy and oxygen from a completely different source) and that the pregnant woman's desires, autonomy and bodily integrity are irrelevant after a certain point or under certain conditions.

This is sexist, it is dehumanizing, it is degrading, and it makes me feel like shit to read. I shouldn't have to feel this way on a leftist forum, I never encounter these misogynistic attitudes among leftists in real life, in my organizations.


Yes...well...like you said in another thread (to which I will reply in a minute) it makes you not want to participate in a debate anymore. I think this is increadibly wise.

Because there is something inherrently wrong...not with your position about abortion...but about your intolerance of scholastic debate and the debate of when live begins, what constitutes autonomy and what human development is. You want to negate the facts...you want others to conform with a subjective opinion about it and you want them to not have an opinion about this.

You hide behind blanket board policy statements...which people in this thread never violate....because you can not handle the reality of the arguments and the realistic implication of the very situation you, NGM and I are a proponent of....and instead scream for restrictions and hand out accusations of sexism.

Reality of the matter is there is NO debate about wether or not abortions should be restricted. But there are arguments which invalidate the concept of singular autonomy and objectification of human live...

In so doing you are entirely negating any form of expression of facts and opinions that do not suit yours because you are unable to distinguish between the fact that some people advocate unrestricted choice up until birth but DO have an opinion of the moral choice somebody makes without pressing legitimisation.

So yeah...I think its abject on moral grounds to abort a fetus because it may be born to be gay. I find it wrong to abort a fetus which is completely viable in the 7th, 8th or 9th month because its slightly inconveniencing you in your social agenda. Because I do not think that warrants the intrusion on autonomy of a completely viable human being.

If there is no medical necessity or if you hav not previously been withheld the possibility of having an abortion...there is in my eyes preciously little which validate or justify such a late choice to terminate.

That in NO WAY means I will ever argue for restrcition or limitation nor does it mean that I would not fight for unrestricted right to the procedure....but it DOES mean I am going to state my opinion about that.


Nor do I think the so called medical evidence you have offered amount to anything in the light of the massive amount of opposing evidence. The reality of the matter is that late term abortions are in fact stopping the live of a viable human. THAT is the implication of the choice to abort. Now we can argue till we are blue in the face....because we are in fact arguing over technicallities. THAT fact does not automatically imply to restrict abortions....but to stiffle any form of criticis like you always do...also negates the education to that efect because stating scientific facts (disputed or not) is equated by you as arguing against unrestricted abortion instead of giving facts and educating people to make an educated choice.

Now...you can find that reductionist and sexist...we can have a nice debate about that because I think you are completely wrong there and I have a thing or two to say about the inherrent sexism in your own position there.

But when you are going so far in your base abject argumentation to call it dehumanizing you are being a whole lot more offensive and insulting than anybody here has been in this thread. I would suggest you are going to define what you mean by human and define what makes a man a man and a woman a woman.

[southernmissfan]

Every time I open this thread I feel like throwing up. Revleft has degenerated to the point that it tolerate the same debates as present in the bourgeois media on abortion, starting from a position that its the fetus that matters (something that is not aware of itself, probably aware of nothing up to birth, and yes, there are major neurological differences between a baby and a fetus = breathing a first breath and disconnecting from the umbilical cord lead to immediate neurological changes, as they would sort of have to, since the baby gets energy and oxygen from a completely different source) and that the pregnant woman's desires, autonomy and bodily integrity are irrelevant after a certain point or under certain conditions.

This is sexist, it is dehumanizing, it is degrading, and it makes me feel like shit to read. I shouldn't have to feel this way on a leftist forum, I never encounter these misogynistic attitudes among leftists in real life, in my organizations.

I completely agree (and I certainly do not always agree with some of your posts). Some people try to cop out and say that in the third trimester, labor should be induced. As you have pointed out elsewhere, that kind of defeats the purpose. If the woman is desiring an abortion to avoid the pain, trauma and risk of childbirth, forcing them to undergo labor defeats the entire purpose. More importantly, it means that a certain point, the woman loses autonomy of their own body.

This entire debate is ridiculous in my opinion. It allows anti-abortionists and the bourgeois media to frame our debate. We are supposed to be revolutionary leftists! In a society with free and adequate sex education, access to birth control and access to abortion, third trimester abortions would be extremely rare. When they would occur, we can only conclude it would be for a very good reason, such as escaping sexual abuse or health problems. Despite that, I shouldn't even have to take it that far. Having to qualify it gives in. There is nothing wrong with abortion and nobody should have the right to interfere with a woman's body. Period.

The moral wrongs involved with the abortion issue are plenty, such as the sexism in the debate, the reasons forcing women to have abortions (poverty, rape, etc.), the restricted access. But the actual procedure is not one.

[PhoenixAsh]

I completely agree (and I certainly do not always agree with some of your posts). Some people try to cop out and say that in the third trimester, labor should be induced. As you have pointed out elsewhere, that kind of defeats the purpose. If the woman is desiring an abortion to avoid the pain, trauma and risk of childbirth, forcing them to undergo labor defeats the entire purpose. More importantly, it means that a certain point, the woman loses autonomy of their own body.

This entire debate is ridiculous in my opinion. It allows anti-abortionists and the bourgeois media to frame our debate. We are supposed to be revolutionary leftists! In a society with free and adequate sex education, access to birth control and access to abortion, third trimester abortions would be extremely rare. When they would occur, we can only conclude it would be for a very good reason, such as escaping sexual abuse or health problems. Despite that, I shouldn't even have to take it that far. Having to qualify it gives in. There is nothing wrong with abortion and nobody should have the right to interfere with a woman's body. Period.

The moral wrongs involved with the abortion issue are plenty, such as the sexism in the debate, the reasons forcing women to have abortions (poverty, rape, etc.), the restricted access. But the actual procedure is not one.


Has TC also told you that some late term abortions are performed by inducing birth and are in certain situations more risky than induced birth?

Probably not.

[Decolonize The Left]

Yes...well...like you said in another thread (to which I will reply in a minute) it makes you not want to participate in a debate anymore. I think this is increadibly wise.

Because there is something inherrently wrong...not with your position about abortion...but about your intolerance of scholastic debate and the debate of when live begins, what constitutes autonomy and what human development is. You want to negate the facts...you want others to conform with a subjective opinion about it and you want them to not have an opinion about this.

You hide behind blanket board policy statements...which people in this thread never violate....because you can not handle the reality of the arguments and the realistic implication of the very situation you, NGM and I are a proponent of....and instead scream for restrictions and hand out accusations of sexism.

Reality of the matter is there is NO debate about wether or not abortions should be restricted. But there are arguments which invalidate the concept of singular autonomy and objectification of human live...

In so doing you are entirely negating any form of expression of facts and opinions that do not suit yours because you are unable to distinguish between the fact that some people advocate unrestricted choice up until birth but DO have an opinion of the moral choice somebody makes without pressing legitimisation.

So yeah...I think its abject on moral grounds to abort a fetus because it may be born to be gay. I find it wrong to abort a fetus which is completely viable in the 7th, 8th or 9th month because its slightly inconveniencing you in your social agenda. Because I do not think that warrants the intrusion on autonomy of a completely viable human being.

If there is no medical necessity or if you hav not previously been withheld the possibility of having an abortion...there is in my eyes preciously little which validate or justify such a late choice to terminate.

That in NO WAY means I will ever argue for restrcition or limitation nor does it mean that I would not fight for unrestricted right to the procedure....but it DOES mean I am going to state my opinion about that.


Nor do I think the so called medical evidence you have offered amount to anything in the light of the massive amount of opposing evidence. The reality of the matter is that late term abortions are in fact stopping the live of a viable human. THAT is the implication of the choice to abort. Now we can argue till we are blue in the face....because we are in fact arguing over technicallities. THAT fact does not automatically imply to restrict abortions....but to stiffle any form of criticis like you always do...also negates the education to that efect because stating scientific facts (disputed or not) is equated by you as arguing against unrestricted abortion instead of giving facts and educating people to make an educated choice.

Now...you can find that reductionist and sexist...we can have a nice debate about that because I think you are completely wrong there and I have a thing or two to say about the inherrent sexism in your own position there.

But when you are going so far in your base abject argumentation to call it dehumanizing you are being a whole lot more offensive and insulting than anybody here has been in this thread. I would suggest you are going to define what you mean by human and define what makes a man a man and a woman a woman.

I'm gonna break this down for you because your head is thicker than a military bunker:

Do you have a uterus? No? Then shut the fuck up.

- August

[PhoenixAsh]

I'm gonna break this down for you because your head is thicker than a military bunker:

Do you have a uterus? No? Then shut the fuck up.

- August

No...I am not going to shut up. Because I give an opinion which I can give, have full right to give which in no way violates board policy. Maybe you can not fathom that fact...but as I have repeatedly stated...in fact in one of the first posts in this thread:


you (the radleft in general; hs20/20) support the right to have acces to unrestricted, free and safe abortions which include possible abortions in the third trimester.

Now...THAT does not negate the fact that the arguments people bring foreward here to advocate that position are for the most part complete and utter BS. NOR does that negate the fact that you can not objectify human development.

The position I stated above...which completely complies with board pollicy...does in fact implicate that you are killing a viable human being. you may not like it...but that is the case.

Now obviously some people here do feel the need to objectify that or induce moral implications to that. But all the same that is the case. Yet that is NOT, as I argued before, a reason to restrict, ban or not advocate in favor of complete unrestricted abortion. The reason for doing so however is different: prohibiting and limiting human behaviour is a gliding scale which will lead to repression.

That does not mean individuals have to agree with the act or motivation for that act.

I think we can all agree that an abortion because there is a genetic predisposition to homosexuality is an abject motivation. (and yes...there has been a case in Holland where that was exactly the reason given) which is based on biggotry and a lack of infiormation and understanding.

Now stiffling any form of debate and arguments...which you and TC are doing...also declares illegal any form of factual arguments which may posibly be used as arguments not to abort or which may change the minds of people involved....in fact keeping people uninformed.

Now as to your opinion of having a uterus or not grants you the right or not to state an opnion...thats complete BS. You are getting that wrong. What it does do is it grants you the right to make the decission or not.

[Decolonize The Left]

No...I am not going to shut up. Because I give an opinion which I can give, have full right to give which in no way violates board policy. Maybe you can not fathom that fact...but as I have repeatedly stated...in fact in one of the first posts in this thread:



Now...THAT does not negate the fact that the arguments people bring foreward here to advocate that position are for the most part complete and utter BS. NOR does that negate the fact that you can not objectify human development.

The position I stated above...which completely complies with board pollicy...does in fact implicate that you are killing a viable human being. you may not like it...but that is the case.

Now obviously some people here do feel the need to objectify that or induce moral implications to that. But all the same that is the case. Yet that is NOT, as I argued before, a reason to restrict, ban or not advocate in favor of complete unrestricted abortion. The reason for doing so however is different: prohibiting and limiting human behaviour is a gliding scale which will lead to repression.

That does not mean individuals have to agree with the act or motivation for that act.

I think we can all agree that an abortion because there is a genetic predisposition to homosexuality is an abject motivation. (and yes...there has been a case in Holland where that was exactly the reason given) which is based on biggotry and a lack of infiormation and understanding.

Now stiffling any form of debate and arguments...which you and TC are doing...also declares illegal any form of factual arguments which may posibly be used as arguments not to abort or which may change the minds of people involved....in fact keeping people uninformed.

Now as to your opinion of having a uterus or not grants you the right or not to state an opnion...thats complete BS. You are getting that wrong. What it does do is it grants you the right to make the decission or not.

This is me not even reading your post because:

If you don't have a uterus, you don't get to talk about what a woman can or can't do with her body.

Get it?

- August

[Demogorgon]

This is me not even reading your post because:

If you don't have a uterus, you don't get to talk about what a woman can or can't do with her body.

Get it?

- August
Come on, this style of argument is pointless. You don't get to talk about gay rights because you aren't gay, you don't get to talk about racism because you are white.

Do you think you are going to convince anyone that way? I notice TC is allowed to be transphobic even though she isn't transgendered, can't people have the chance to discuss issues so that people who are mistaken have the chance to come around?

[PhoenixAsh]

This is me not even reading your post because:

If you don't have a uterus, you don't get to talk about what a woman can or can't do with her body.

Get it?

- August

Well...its a shame that you aren't because I am in fact not saying what a woman can and can't do with her body.

In fact the only person who is saying that somebody can or can't do something here is...well...you.

[Decolonize The Left]

Come on, this style of argument is pointless. You don't get to talk about gay rights because you are gay, you don't get to talk about racism because you are white.

These are not analogous.


Do you think you are going to convince anyone that way? I notice TC is allowed to be transphobic even though she isn't transgendered, can't people have the chance to discuss issues so that people who are mistaken have the chance to come around?

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything.

I'm making a very simple point: men need to shut the fuck up and stop telling women what they can or can't do with their bodies. Period. There's no gray area - it ain't your body. It ain't your choice.

You don't get to say how much you want X or Y because if you really wanted to have a say in pregnancy you would have discussed this matter in advance so this wouldn't be necessary.

- August

[Decolonize The Left]

Well...its a shame that you aren't because I am in fact not saying what a woman can and can't do with her body.

In fact the only person who is saying that somebody can or can't do something here is...well...you.

Man, you are dense.

Yes you are - you are arguing against certain instances of abortion for whatever reason, but you aren't the woman who's theoretically having the child. So in effect you are legislating your opinion upon this woman - you are telling her that something is 'right' or 'wrong' when it's not your choice.

I'm not telling her to do anything. I'm telling you to stop talking.

- August

[Demogorgon]

These are not analogous.

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything.

I'm making a very simple point: men need to shut the fuck up and stop telling women what they can or can't do with their bodies. Period. There's no gray area - it ain't your body. It ain't your choice.

You don't get to say how much you want X or Y because if you really wanted to have a say in pregnancy you would have discussed this matter in advance so this wouldn't be necessary.

- August
Do women have the right to tell other women what to do with their bodies? I don't think so, but that does seem to be the implication here. I did once see a person here arguing that if there was a women-only referendum that voted to ban abortion, it would be acceptable to ban it, that seems ridiculous to me but perhaps not to others.

I have said this before, and try not to get involved anymore, but this issue is almost unique on Revleft in that people get angry when it is even talked about. Refusing to discuss an issue and telling people they aren't allowed to hold contrary opinions only makes your position look weaker. I certainly hope you don't use that kind of argument in real life because you would do more for the pro-life position than for your own using it.

[PhoenixAsh]

Man, you are dense.

Yes you are - you are arguing against certain instances of abortion for whatever reason, but you aren't the woman who's theoretically having the child. So in effect you are legislating your opinion upon this woman - you are telling her that something is 'right' or 'wrong' when it's not your choice.

I'm not telling her to do anything. I'm telling you to stop talking.

- August


No...I am not arguing against certain instances of abortion. I am giving my opinion on the moral implication of certain instances of abortion the way I see them. Nor am I telling "her" to do or not do anything. I am not making the choice for her nor am I forcing to make a choice....nor am I taking away any freedom or advocate any form of restriction to the freedom of the choice.

You on the other hand want people to "shut the fuck up" expressing the sentiment that you can not have an opinion if you are not part of a certain group...

You are arguing for autonomy and equality and in fact restrict the very same qualities in others.

[Decolonize The Left]

Do women have the right to tell other women what to do with their bodies? I don't think so, but that does seem to be the implication here. I did once see a person here arguing that if there was a women-only referendum that voted to ban abortion, it would be acceptable to ban it, that seems ridiculous to me but perhaps not to others.

I have said this before, and try not to get involved anymore, but this issue is almost unique on Revleft in that people get angry when it is even talked about. Refusing to discuss an issue and telling people they aren't allowed to hold contrary opinions only makes your position look weaker. I certainly hope you don't use that kind of argument in real life because you would do more for the pro-life position than for your own using it.

The point I am trying to make is very simple: the decision to have or not to have an abortion is that of the woman alone, and no one should attempt to sway her decision one way or another.

This includes telling her that something is right or wrong.

- August

[Decolonize The Left]

No...I am not arguing against certain instances of abortion. I am giving my opinion on the moral implication of certain instances of abortion the way I see them. Nor am I telling "her" to do or not do anything. I am not making the choice for her nor am I forcing to make a choice....nor am I taking away any freedom or advocate any form of restriction to the freedom of the choice.

You on the other hand want people to "shut the fuck up" expressing the sentiment that you can not have an opinion if you are not part of a certain group...

You are arguing for autonomy and equality and in fact restrict the very same qualities in others.

So you're just some little innocent bunny in the middle of a field speaking his mind to the passing breeze? Nothing comes from what you say at all? Just the rustle of leaves and the sunshine there to hear your thoughts... you are an isolated instance within a chaotic world and you just want to be heard?

Get real.

Your "opinions" have effects on people. You know when a fundie tells their child that it's wrong to be gay? This is an "opinion" just like yours, and they both have effects. Truth is that when you tell someone something is right or wrong you are telling them what to do.
You're just not strong enough to say it outright so you're hemming and hawing about how it's not what it is.

- August

[PhoenixAsh]

What kind of nonsense argument is that? Withholding information because it may sway somebody? Being able to make a choice requires to have acces to factual information.

[Decolonize The Left]

What kind of nonsense argument is that? Withholding information because it may sway somebody? Being able to make a choice requires to have acces to factual information.

Access is different than imposition. Get your argument straight.

- August

[PhoenixAsh]

So you're just some little innocent bunny in the middle of a field speaking his mind to the passing breeze? Nothing comes from what you say at all? Just the rustle of leaves and the sunshine there to hear your thoughts... you are an isolated instance within a chaotic world and you just want to be heard?

Get real.

Your "opinions" have effects on people. You know when a fundie tells their child that it's wrong to be gay? This is an "opinion" just like yours, and they both have effects. Truth is that when you tell someone something is right or wrong you are telling them what to do.
You're just not strong enough to say it outright so you're hemming and hawing about how it's not what it is.

- August

You have spend the last few posts telling me what is right and what is wrong.

I do not agree with your assesment...but I am certainly not making a case against you having the right to that opinion and expressing it.

You are also expressing that its wrong for a father to argue against homosexuality and label it. Yet you are labeling his behaviour as being right or wrong. which I think is perfectly fine because his behaviour is wrong (moral assesment) and information should be given as to why it is wrong. Forbidding to tell your son/daughter that does not solve the issue nor does it advance a better understanding and tolerance.

The only concusion form this duality in your arguments can perhaps be that there is no objective singular definition of right and wrong...and sometimes by arguing against passing judgement...you need to pass judgement.

Now...as far as developing humans go. Nobody can restrict the free choice or the acces to the free choice. That does not mean that nobody can say `hey...wait a minute. The information you have there is wrong. Its actually like this.` And yes...that may lead to reconsidering a previously held believe or may overturn ones decision....that is the case and its all part of freedom of choice.

My personal opinion and evaluation does not matter in the information unless asked or unless given to clarify a personal believe, idea or concept.

But it is the reason why I do object to restrictions to discourse like you are imposing. I think your motives are wrong righteous in intend but the way you go about it is wrong simply because it is based on the wrong assumption of what I am saying.

[PhoenixAsh]

Access is different than imposition. Get your argument straight.

- August

how can I impose something if I argue in a thread on the internet about the topic which asked for opinions?

[RATM-Eubie]

And why do you think that?

Mainly because the fetus will begin to open its eyes, bones are fully developed, eyes become wide open, the baby begins to breath, can now have a firm grasp. It sounds to me that this baby is a human....

[Demogorgon]

The point I am trying to make is very simple: the decision to have or not to have an abortion is that of the woman alone, and no one should attempt to sway her decision one way or another.

This includes telling her that something is right or wrong.

- AugustI have already gotten involved in a debate I no longer want any part of and will try and leave it shortly, but I just need to point out that you said that as a man, he had no right to an opinion. That is to say that men cannot impose on women as a group. Then you said that nobody should impose on a woman who may wish to have an abortion, that is a claim that people should not impose on an individual basis and also includes women.

I happen to believe that women who have no intention of having an abortion should not have any part in deciding what women who do wish to have an abortion should do, but is that your position? If as I suspect it is, then the claim that he can't give an opinion because he doesn't have a uterus is just silly emotivism.

[Decolonize The Left]

You have spend the last few posts telling me what is right and what is wrong.

No, I'm telling you that when you tell a woman that you think it's wrong to have an abortion in scenario X, you are effectively pressuring her into making a decision which suits your interests.

In short, you're demonstrating an absolute lack of respect in her autonomy.


I do not agree with your assesment...but I am certainly not making a case against you having the right to that opinion and expressing it.

Well that sure is nice of you. Here on an internet forum one man tells another that it's ok to talk about what they feel is right and wrong in regards to a woman's body....:rolleyes:


You are also expressing that its wrong for a father to argue against homosexuality and label it. Yet you are labeling his behaviour as being right or wrong. which I think is perfectly fine because his behaviour is wrong (moral assesment) and information should be given as to why it is wrong. Forbidding to tell your son/daughter that does not solve the issue nor does it advance a better understanding and tolerance.

What are you talking about?


The only concusion form this duality in your arguments can perhaps be that there is no objective singular definition of right and wrong...and sometimes by arguing against passing judgement...you need to pass judgement.

Now...as far as developing humans go. Nobody can restrict the free choice or the acces to the free choice. That does not mean that nobody can say `hey...wait a minute. The information you have there is wrong. Its actually like this.` And yes...that may lead to reconsidering a previously held believe or may overturn ones decision....that is the case and its all part of freedom of choice.

No it isn't. Unless you're the woman's doctor, or the second doctor (who's opinion was sought for coherency) you don't get to tell a woman what's a good and bad idea in regards to her body.


My personal opinion and evaluation does not matter in the information unless asked or unless given to clarify a personal believe, idea or concept.

This isn't English.


But it is the reason why I do object to restrictions to discourse like you are imposing. I think your motives are wrong righteous in intend but the way you go about it is wrong simply because it is based on the wrong assumption of what I am saying.

Why can't you leave a woman's body to herself?

That's my question.

- August

[Decolonize The Left]

I have already gotten involved in a debate I no longer want any part of and will try and leave it shortly, but I just need to point out that you said that as a man, he had no right to an opinion. That is to say that men cannot impose on women as a group. Then you said that nobody should impose on a woman who may wish to have an abortion, that is a claim that people should not impose on an individual basis and also includes women.

No, I never said that men can't have opinions. That would be ridiculous. What I did say is that a man's opinions are of no relevance to a woman's decision in regards to her own body unless she should actively seek them out of her own free will.


I happen to believe that women who have no intention of having an abortion should not have any part in deciding what women who do wish to have an abortion should do, but is that your position? If as I suspect it is, then the claim that he can't give an opinion because he doesn't have a uterus is just silly emotivism.

I'm not talking about women in general, or men in general. I'm talking about an individual who is pregnant and is deciding whether or not to have an abortion.

This individual makes her choice - alone, perhaps with the consult of her doctor should she choose to have medical advice on the issue. It's not the business of other women and it's certainly not the business of men.

Also Demo, I don't want to draw you into a discussion which you have no interest in pursuing. If you want to leave this be here, I'll do that.

- August

[PhoenixAsh]

No, I'm telling you that when you tell a woman that you think it's wrong to have an abortion in scenario X, you are effectively pressuring her into making a decision which suits your interests.

But I am not telling a particular woman what I think of it. I am giving my opinion in a thread which asks for that opinion.



In short, you're demonstrating an absolute lack of respect in her autonomy.
No...see above.



Well that sure is nice of you. Here on an internet forum one man tells another that it's ok to talk about what they feel is right and wrong in regards to a woman's body....:rolleyes:
I am not telling what is right and wrong with regards to the body. I am saying what my opinion is of right and wrong in the choice within the confines of a thread which asked for my opinion. And yes...if a woman says to me she wants to have an abortion because the child has a gentic disposition towards homosexuality I will try and get to the bottom of that idea and concept. Thats a whole different cup of tea.

In effect...if you do not want my opinion about something do not express that something to me. However...that is outside the scope of this debate in which my opinion was asked.



What are you talking about?
I am talking about the fact that its sometimes needed to give a moral opinion about issues. Like you did just there with your argument.



No it isn't. Unless you're the woman's doctor, or the second doctor (who's opinion was sought for coherency) you don't get to tell a woman what's a good and bad idea in regards to her body.I don't. I tell what is good or bad about a choice she is free to make on the basis of the evaluation of factual information...I am also not stating this to a woman....I am stating this in a discussion on a forum about a topic about which my opinion was asked.




This isn't English.
essentially that my opinion is stated in this thread because it is asked and were are debating different aspects of aboriton, diffrent opinions on science and evaluating scientific articles on their merrit. That is the scope of my opinion and my motivation for giving information.

My opinion expressed to women will be factual information and only opinion if asked...opr if she expresses, unasked, her ideas and intentions which I should not and do not want to be a confidant in.



Why can't you leave a woman's body to herself?


That's my question.

- AugustI am. You are arguing the wrong case.


No, I never said that men can't have opinions. That would be ridiculous. What I did say is that a man's opinions are of no relevance to a woman's decision in regards to her own body unless she should actively seek them out of her own free will.

Then we agree.



I'm not talking about women in general, or men in general. I'm talking about an individual who is pregnant and is deciding whether or not to have an abortion.You ascribed this in your quote to me....that was not the case.

[southernmissfan]

Has TC also told you that some late term abortions are performed by inducing birth and are in certain situations more risky than induced birth?

Probably not.

Here's the thing, I am not a scientific or medical expert on the issue. And I have not had any particular motive to look up this or that abortion procedure. So, assuming what you say is true, what exactly are you trying to say? Here's my questions on the matter:


How common is that procedure and why would that be done? As in, what's the purpose of using that technique over another?
How can it be more risky than induced birth? If both situations induce labor, yet one has only one life to worry about where as the other has two to worry about. As I said, I am not a doctor. But this strikes me as rather odd that a procedure that induces labor in order to abort would be riskier than inducing childbirth. They are both trying to get the fetus out, but with the abortion they are free to do this in whatever way is most convenient and safest for the mother. Not saying you are wrong, just saying it doesn't sound right.
If you are right, what is the motivation for having that procedure if it has all the negatives of childbirth plus additional risk? If the woman was faced with the choice of this technique and induced birth, and she chose induced birth, what would happen to the baby? I know that answer varies on location but it's an important factor. After all, if the woman was seeking an abortion there probably were reasons for it. I don't see how induced birth would address any of those reasons.

[PhoenixAsh]

Here's the thing, I am not a scientific or medical expert on the issue. And I have not had any particular motive to look up this or that abortion procedure. So, assuming what you say is true, what exactly are you trying to say? Here's my questions on the matter:

what I am trying to say is that in very late term abortions most (often in the last two months) abortion gets more and more risky because the operation gets more intrusive and needs to disect a larger entity. In certain cases that form of abortion is not the safest option and the fetus is instead chemically killed and extracted through induced birth.

Now this is not always the case...but it does show that the situation is not so black and white. One can ask...why would that procedure not be changed for life birth which is equally risky...and needs to be performed anyway? Why would it require explicitly the killing of the fetus?





How common is that procedure and why would that be done? As in, what's the purpose of using that technique over another?

Its not very common. As has been expressed later term abortions are rare in themselves and very late term abortiosn are rarer still...and the ones NOT based on medical emergency or necessity are rarer still.....and only a portion of those are done through birth induction.

The rest is done by disecting the fetus in the womb. The bigger the entity the more invasive the procedure because of the force needed and the risk of leaving behind stray tissue which have a high chance of causing poisoning of the mother and the risk of cuts and internal bleeding.

I have posted the numbers somewhere in a previous thread several weeks ago...the risk of very late term abortions and natural child birth is actually the same or a fraction higher than child birth.



2 How can it be more risky than induced birth? If both situations induce labor, yet one has only one life to worry about where as the other has two to worry about. As I said, I am not a doctor. But this strikes me as rather odd that a procedure that induces labor in order to abort would be riskier than inducing childbirth. They are both trying to get the fetus out, but with the abortion they are free to do this in whatever way is most convenient and safest for the mother. Not saying you are wrong, just saying it doesn't sound right.No. The one with induced labor is pretty much exactly the same...with the added risk of a non lethal poisoning (but that is not very important as the medical implications are neglectable) but the disection one can in fact be a fraction greater.






If you are right, what is the motivation for having that procedure if it has all the negatives of childbirth plus additional risk? If the woman was faced with the choice of this technique and induced birth, and she chose induced birth, what would happen to the baby? I know that answer varies on location but it's an important factor. After all, if the woman was seeking an abortion there probably were reasons for it. I don't see how induced birth would address any of those reasons.

The first part is the point.

The second part is a good question....I take it it will be given up for adoption if the mother so choses.

[Jose Gracchus]

I think de facto Singerites who think that a woman has a complete discretionary moral right to abort her pregnancy up to the moment it has exited the birth canal should just be honest and say they support some forms of infanticide as well.

[Le Libérer]

I think de facto Singerites who think that a woman has a complete discretionary moral right to abort her pregnancy up to the moment it has exited the birth canal should just be honest and say they support some forms of infanticide as well.

Orly? And what is your position on this?

[Jose Gracchus]

I don't think infants have the moral rights of adults. I support the infant euthanasia principles of The Netherlands. Do you?

I think most "birth canal consciousness" types are hypocrites who cannot commit to the logical outcomes of their politics, so terrified they are of maintaining bourgeois respectability.

BTW, try not to look so eager to hop on a pretext to restrict me. Its kind of obvious in this case.

[BankHeist]

Has TC also told you that some late term abortions are performed by inducing birth and are in certain situations more risky than induced birth?

Probably not.

If I decide to get my appendix removed from a rural doctor in North Dakota, knowing it is 10 times riskier than having it removed from an appendix specialist in Chicago, that is entirely my choice. Some moralists' fear of me dying shouldn't be pitted against my own autonomic decision to have an object ousted from my body.

For an anarchist or communist, the logic for a should really be pretty cut and dry.

[Uncle Hank]

I really, really don't get the point of this. There should be no goddamn question. And the answer to that narrow-minded, ignorant, nonexistent question is that it is a woman's inherent right to to whatever the fuck she pleases with something growing inside of her, regardless of what the possibly sentient thing inside her would ever want. There is no right, or even good comparison to make. There just isn't. Yet that doesn't make it more or less important to eliminate than any other form of forced labor. (pun intended to lighten the mood) Forcing a woman to be a human incubator is as bad as anything I can think of. It reduces a woman's status to sub-human, when you feel you can say what she does or doesn't do with a potential that would not exist if not for her.

[PhoenixAsh]

If I decide to get my appendix removed from a rural doctor in North Dakota, knowing it is 10 times riskier than having it removed from an appendix specialist in Chicago, that is entirely my choice. Some moralists' fear of me dying shouldn't be pitted against my own autonomic decision to have an object ousted from my body.

For an anarchist or communist, the logic for a should really be pretty cut and dry.

Since you have 14 posts I gather that you have not followed the debates as much. So I will calmly explain:

One of the reasons given for abortions is that opposed to giving birth...they are often safer and less painfull, agonizing, horrible and whatnot experiences which have a higher chance of dying.

Now...as far as the choice to have an abortion...this is not disputed. As far as the procedure for abortion goes: that is entirely decided by the performing docter.

And in some cases that means inducing birth of a procedure which is equally risky in very late term abortions. Making the argument that abortions are saver than birth nul and void.

the question becomes....when you decide to have a very late term abortion of pregancy....why should the fetus be killed if the procedure is inducing birth?

Now...thats a hypothetical question...which is actually very reliant on when a fetus becomes a person. And THAT question is a very disputed issue. It is NOT a clear and cut case.

[Jose Gracchus]

I do agree having something growing inside you is a unique and particular form of intrusion, but the "forced labor" argument is kind of lame. I mean couldn't the "you can't force me" argument be used to alleviate women who run afoul of child negligence laws and child abandonment laws? Do you think women should be permitted to abandon their children under certain conditions? How should we as communists deal with children and their interests as a community, and how should we approach the question of extant relations, conditions within existing capitalism, as well as hypothetical post-revolutionary society?

[Obs]

-Do you think women should be permitted to abandon their children under certain conditions?
You mean put them up for adoption? That's already legal.

[Jose Gracchus]

Yeah upon birth. Be honest. Society compels women once their children have begun to age, to keep them and care for them on pain of legal sanction and supervision. Coercion as well as incentives are applied.

[Decolonize The Left]

Since you have 14 posts I gather that you have not followed the debates as much. So I will calmly explain:

Please don't insult people based upon their post count.


One of the reasons given for abortions is that opposed to giving birth...they are often safer and less painfull, agonizing, horrible and whatnot experiences which have a higher chance of dying.

I'm not a woman, but I highly doubt that the reason why most women have abortions is because they don't want the pain of giving birth. It probably has more to do with the aspect of raising a child and what that entails financially and mentally.


Now...as far as the choice to have an abortion...this is not disputed. As far as the procedure for abortion goes: that is entirely decided by the performing docter.

No. This is also decided by the woman in concert with her doctor.


And in some cases that means inducing birth of a procedure which is equally risky in very late term abortions. Making the argument that abortions are saver than birth nul and void.

the question becomes....when you decide to have a very late term abortion of pregancy....why should the fetus be killed if the procedure is inducing birth?

Now...thats a hypothetical question...which is actually very reliant on when a fetus becomes a person. And THAT question is a very disputed issue. It is NOT a clear and cut case.

This "question" has nothing to do with whether or not a fetus is a person.

It has entirely to do with what the woman wants to do with the fetus. There isn't really a question for us, but there is for her.

- August

[Le Libérer]

Be honest. Society compels women once their children have begun to age, to keep them and care for them on pain of legal sanction and supervision. Coercion as well as incentives are applied.

Gee, I dont remember being compelled o r coerced to raise my children even though only one of them was planned. I wanted to raise them. My decision had nothing to do with society or what anyone thought.

It always comes down to choice. And western women now have them with out shame, though those choices arent as available to women as they were when I was a teen. Then you could go to planned parenthood, under the age of 21, without your parents approval and get abortions. Of course they yanked the funding out from under that practice fairly quickly, but most of my friends obtained free, safe abortions.

[Jose Gracchus]

I support fully subsidized no-guilt, no-bullshit contraception and abortion. I'm just saying, you do not have the full free right to raise or not raise your children without suffering sanctions by the state. Is that not true?

I said its not the same as compelling a woman to keep something growing inside her, nor did I say women raise their children because of coercion. I'm just saying, freedom to withdraw from obligation or not is a weak way to frame the argument.

[chegitz guevara]

Gee, I dont remember being compelled or coerced to raise my children

If you want to raise them, you cannot be compelled. Just like, you cannot rape the willing.

[Jose Gracchus]

I guess I am asking, what legal-ethical framework do we support in transition from a state of woman's autonomy to defense of children from neglect or abandonment? If we support the contention that I mentioned earlier, and someone else did a few pages back, that a viable and birthed fetus is not a "conscious" human - does not yet or should not yet possess the status of legal personhood - then how do we structure social policy around that reality?

[PhoenixAsh]

Please don't insult people based upon their post count.

Where exactly did you see an insult?

[Decolonize The Left]

I guess I am asking, what legal-ethical framework do we support in transition from a state of woman's autonomy to defense of children from neglect or abandonment? If we support the contention that I mentioned earlier, and someone else did a few pages back, that a viable and birthed fetus is not a "conscious" human - does not yet or should not yet possess the status of legal personhood - then how do we structure social policy around that reality?

The question of what is a "person" and what determines legal personhood is a question which is deserving of a new thread, perhaps in the Philosophy section.


Where exactly did you see an insult?

You referenced a members post count as a viable way to judge someone's understanding of the situation. I don't need to explain to you why this is insulting and unnecessary.

- August