Alternative to abortion

[MaximMK]

I apologize if i insulted anyone or made sexist comments. I just wanted to debate this issue and see your opinions. I didn't know that just asking this would get me restricted. I think the women should have a right to choose. I admit i didn't pay atention to the period of pregnancy and that no woman should be forced to go trough it against her will. Still i consider that abortion can be done only until a certain period of a fetus's development. Even in the states where abortion is allowed there is a certain period after an abortion cannot be preformed like 24 weeks - 8 months. After 8 months the baby is formed and has the ability to feel and it is not humane to kill it. Any woman will know of her pregnancy and will be able to do an abortion before that if she wills. This is my opinion and the opinion of many other pro-choice/pro-abortion people and im glad it is how its done where abortion is legal.

Sumup: Abortion is ok and any woman should be able to do it if she wishes but only before the fetus is 8 months old, after that its a human being and murder of a human being is not ok. Its not ok for a parent to kill its child because he doesn't want it.

I consider this stance to be not sexist and fair towards women who are given a choice and time of 8 months to decide. If the mother doesn't make up her mind in that time and the fetus becomes a formed human being it should be born and taken care of by the state.

[Eleutheromaniac]

...most of the atheists are like pro abortion etc.

I wouldn't say pro-abortion. Pro-choice is more appropriate.

[Ostrinski]

Voted abortion to be provocative.

But seriously, even if we were able to achieve maximum quality childcare for all conceived children, there are still simply going to be women who get pregnant and do not want to give birth. Sorry, but guess what? You still have no right to say whether someone can or can't give birth and every human being that respects the concept of bodily autonomy will stand ready to apprehend you if you are thinking otherwise.

[Sasha]

OP restricted, thread moved to OI

[Red Enemy]

You not only belittle the situation of abortion, but you think you should be able to decide for them.

You: Women are "selfish" for deciding to have an abortion, woman don't understand and therefore I, man, should decide!

Am I the only one catching a whiff of fucking misogyny from OP?

Edit: I see OP has been restricted. Very good.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

Im sick of females saying like " Its ma body ill do what ever i want ".
Um, have women actually said this to you? Or are you just paraphrasing conservative strawmen of women who may need or desire an abortion?

[Fourth Internationalist]

Every single egg a woman ovulates has the potentional to become a child via fertilization. Should we impregnate women every 9 months by that logic?
EDIT: There's really no need to restrict someone for being pro-life.

[Sasha]

Yes there is, being anti-choice is sexism, they should be happy they don't get banned like racists and homophobes.

[Sea]

After a while, talking to pro-lifers is just cycling through the same tired arguments over and over. So I chose "fail".
http://www.sigcis.org/files/images/abort,%2520retry.jpg

[MaximMK]

I support women having the same rights as men in all aspects. Its just men don't get pregnant and we have to talk about woman only on this issue. I was trying to see ur opinion if we theoretically had proper institutions would u consider it better to abort a child or give it to live there. I see you are fast to restrict a user only because of asking for an opinion that i do not see how it is sexist. You are quick to restrict me and declare me enemy to leftist ideas. You consider restricting me on the whole forum only because of this regardless of my high anti-nationalism and anti-capitalism. I wonder why fascist forums have more users visiting.

[Igor]

i bet you literally think some women use abortion only as a method of contraception, right?

enjoy OI it's a fun cool place to be at

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I don't believe in a god but i still even after trying cannot think of abortion as a good thing. Its just wrong.

Root canals ain't exactly a barrel of laughs either, but like abortions they are a necessary medical procedure.


Im sick of females saying like " Its ma body ill do what ever i want ". It is NOT their body it is a body of a separate organism growing that maybe at the moment cannot survive on its own but it is a separate think that can live on its own later.

So can sperm cells. Want to start charging males who masturbate with mass murder?

[MaximMK]

I may have used language that made me appear sexist it was just a theoretical question to check ur opinion so i can build up mine. The only think i got was hate. That only builds up hate towards u people and makes me question my views,

[Igor]

its just men don't get pregnant and we have to talk about woman only on this issue.

http://www.miserableretailslave.com/JuniorSchwarzenegger1.jpg

[MaximMK]

xD i immediately thought about this movie when i wrote that

[MaximMK]

Its just im deeply hurt by what u did. Every day i fight right wingers all kinds of them: Nationalists, racists, capitalists, sexists etc, And you restrict me without blinking like any random nationalist or right wing scum. I feel betrayed i didn expect that atleast here i can get banned only for asking an opinion which is not sexist. What is sexist in sending children u dont want to child care institutions where theyd have a chance to live. And im certainly not trying to force any woman to take care of a child she doesn't want im just prpopsing another way of getting rid of it without killing it.

[Sea]

she doesn't want im just prpopsing another way of getting rid of it without killing it.You say you support women having the same rights as men, but you obviously don't support equality of opportunity. And even abortion itself isn't exactly a panacea.

And do you seriously think this is a matter of getting rid of children, referring to children as "it"? That's just cruel.
i bet you literally think some women use abortion only as a method of contraception, right?

enjoy OI it's a fun cool place to be atTrashcan's more fun. And more sanitary.

also.. Danny DeVito as a doctor? I have to fucking watch that.

[MaximMK]

I do not refer to children as it because i consider them things its people like you that do that think of them as not formed humans yet so it makes it easier for you to kill them instead of making the state or the community take care of them.

[MaximMK]

You not only belittle the situation of abortion, but you think you should be able to decide for them.

You: Women are "selfish" for deciding to have an abortion, woman don't understand and therefore I, man, should decide!

Edit: I see OP has been restricted. Very good.

Not true i never claimed women are unable to decide and that i as a man am superior at it. You are just putting words im my mouth because u are unable to understand what im asking. IM JUST ASKING DO U THINK IF A MOTHER IS TOO POOR TO TAKE CARE OF A CHILD ITS BETTER TO ABORT IT OR TO GIVE IT TO AN INSTITUTION WHERE HE MIGHT HAVE A CHANCE LATER FOR A NORMAL LIFE! WHAT IS SEXIST ABOUT THAT ??? Im getting these stupid comments about it being sexist because it refers to woman only. Well who should it refer to else ?? duh

[Landsharks eat metal]

Not true i never claimed women are unable to decide and that i as a man am superior at it. You are just putting words im my mouth because u are unable to understand what im asking. IM JUST ASKING DO U THINK IF A MOTHER IS TOO POOR TO TAKE CARE OF A CHILD ITS BETTER TO ABORT IT OR TO GIVE IT TO AN INSTITUTION WHERE HE MIGHT HAVE A CHANCE LATER FOR A NORMAL LIFE! WHAT IS SEXIST ABOUT THAT ??? Im getting these stupid comments about it being sexist because it refers to woman only. Well who should it refer to else ?? duh
My issue is with your attitude towards this debate. It should not matter what anybody here thinks is better; what matters is the person who will actually be pregnant and end up bearing the child. If someone does not want to go through pregnancy, they should be allowed to have an abortion, whether or not they can afford a child. It seems as though you are saying that women should not have control of their own bodies (even if you argue that the fetus is not part of her body, the pregnancy certainly affects her body.)

[Fourth Internationalist]

Yes there is, being anti-choice is sexism, they should be happy they don't get banned like racists and homophobes.

While I agree it is sexist, the OP clearly does not look at it from that point of view, rather the idea that abortion is the murder of children; he's a well-meaning communist. Could you just give him a warning first and tell him to keep pro-life stuff in OI before restricting him? :crying:

[Sea]

I do not refer to children as it because i consider them things its people like you that do that think of them as not formed humans yet so it makes it easier for you to kill them instead of making the state or the community take care of them.You seem to confuse fetuses with children. Anywho, the abortion debate (not really, but for the purposes of this thread) comes down to balancing out your ethics. You seem to be caught up on the "abortion = murder" thing, so I assume you believe that life itself has an inherent worth or sacredness. The concept of sacredness itself is religious in origin and doesn't hold water as it's based on emotional appeal and emotions and religions are fabrications formed from human society. But you put this sacredness of life above all else, above the welfare of the child should the child come into the world, above the welfare of the mother, above the welfare of society and above the concept of equality. Such refusal of critical consideration is all too common with religious topics. Then again I'm not a big fan of ethical living so I might be talking out of my ass.
While I agree it is sexist, the OP clearly does not look at it from that point of view, rather the idea that abortion is the murder of children; he's a well-meaning communist. Could you just give him a warning first and tell him to keep pro-life stuff in OI before restricting him? :crying:I think this is a case of taking bourgeois ideas for granted and not bothering to re-examine your entire worldview. I'd expect the stuff OP is saying from someone raised as a conservative rather than from a hard-set reactionary. Heck, I've made an ass out of myself for the same reason more than once.

[MaximMK]

In the end we can sum up that there is nothing wrong to the question:

What do you consider better to do when the mother cannot take care of the child?
-Abortion
-Take it to a proper child care institution and give it a chance to live.

I see no sexism in it. Never is the mother forced to do anything. I never said women should be forced to do anything i just said it would be better if they did the second. That is my opinion. The problem lies in that you cannot think of another way to deal with that problem but abortion and cannot tolerate any other opinion but your own. I believe the topic left you an impression where i hate women who don't want to raise certain children. I do not i just want to find an alternative to abortion in which the mother doesn't care for but the child lives. I understand the comments where the woman shouldn't go trough pregnancy if she doesn't want to and i understand them and i agree. I see no reason to restrict me just because i emotionally feel different on the topic of abortion than you because i never intended to force anyone to do anything i just tried to offer a different solution.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

In the end we can sum up that there is nothing wrong to the question:

What do you consider better to do when the mother cannot take care of the child?
-Abortion
-Take it to a proper child care institution and give it a chance to live.

I see no sexism in it. Never is the mother forced to do anything. I never said women should be forced to do anything i just said it would be better if they did the second. That is my opinion. The problem lies in that you cannot think of another way to deal with that problem but abortion and cannot tolerate any other opinion but your own.
There isn't any sexism in this question? We'll see about that.

For you, the "problem" lies in the woman's inability to "think of another way to deal with that problem". This sounds rather reasonable--that is, until you give it a moment's thought. You are essentially placing society's failures on the shoulders of the woman, and judging her accordingly when she fails to fulfill your criteria. You say the woman isn't "forced" to do anything, but your judgment of those who select the former choice instead of the latter certainly implies some kind of coercion to one side or another. Not to mention you have characterized such women who choose abortion as whiny prima donnas ("it's ma body i'll do what i want") or some such nonsense.

With such a blatantly uneven playing field in this moral court of yours, how can you possibly deny that your position has sexist implications?

[MaximMK]

I certainly do not hate all woman or think them under people im enraged we are even having this discussion. Im talking about abortion as a process and an alternative to get rid of the kid without killing it. Its not meant to insult someone its not my fault the topic is only related to woman or them being woman. If men somehow were able to give birth it would be about both. Im not saying anyone is a lesser being because of the gender. Im not sexist. No woman should be forced to go trough pregnancy ok i get it now after thinking awhile. I just needed to talk to others and see their opinion so i can build up mine you dont have to restrict me instantly. When i joined this forum i had much less knowledge than now but ive built that up by debate and talking which made me change my views more than once. But never have i proposed forcing someone to do something

[Althusser]

This is a difficult issue. I'm pro-choice and no woman in any circumstance should be forced to birth a child, but why restrict after one post that was basically an opinion question/emotions high because of difficult issue? Let him speak, and then give a counter-argument. A few years ago that argument might have been swaying to me.

Anyway my counterargument. Any Marxist should pretty much grasp that one is shaped by material conditions, and a fetus is still in the womb. Pretty obvious.

[Weezer]

I support the right to abortion.

Do I like abortion? Well, no. Not really. I think it's a sad thing, but the legal right to abortion needs to exist.

However, if those against abortion really were sincere about the sanctity of human life, here's an alternate: free birth control. The production and distribution of birth control pills, condoms, etc. should be publicly funded by taxes, and readily available at any local pharmacy. There is nothing wrong about this, as I see it. I think it's a fair alternate to abortion and I think most people from each spectrum would at least prefer that to abortion.

[Einkarl]

OP needs to understand that abortion, although sad, is often the most merciful option in some situations. Children are not material possessions you can just throw in some state ran institution to be taken care of until adulthood. It doesn't matter how nice of a place it is, these children always face hardships, a lack of self esteem and are prone to depression.
Which is why the best option is the ability for the mother to choose, mothers that abort their children don't do it out of joy, an abortion is a horrible thing to go through. Abortion isn't selfish, what you are proposing is selfish.

However, as mentioned by User Name, I believe the OP isn't trying to be sexist. I do not doubt that OP supports (at least in words) the emancipation of women but I do believe that he doesn't realize that the ability to choose is required to achieve it.

[dodger]

Which is why the best option is the ability for the mother to choose, mothers that abort their children don't do it out of joy, an abortion is a horrible thing to go through. Abortion isn't selfish, what you are proposing is selfish.

Abortion an ex's Ma told me was a walk in the park. She had over a score and was fitter than a butchers dog. The only negative I have come across is my niece who had an illegal abortion, in her teens, she died. Abortions here are illegal. The rich can of course avail themselves by simply travelling abroad or paying a doctor here. The Church continues to do what the church does best. Surely by now the human race must have a rich fund of wisdom on these matters. Yes they do. Women I have found, especially. Why else would an aboriginal male drill a hole in the base of his penis? Or a Roman Gentlewoman be found at Pompei with half a lemon in her Vagina. So you and your betrothed have plenty of practical options and if all else fails............the D R E A D E D A word, Maxim.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I wouldn't say pro-abortion. Pro-choice is more appropriate.

I disagree. I think "pro-abortion" is much better. "Pro life" and "pro choice", those terms really get on my tits.

[Sea]

Abortion an ex's Ma told me was a walk in the park. She had over a score and was fitter than a butchers dog.Are you sure that's not just the type of people you hang out with?

[Ostrinski]

I like pro-abortion because, as I said in my other post, it's provocative and really gets on right wingers' tits. :D

[Sea]

I like pro-abortion because, as I said in my other post, it's provocative and really gets on right wingers' tits. :DI like anti-child better. Believe it or not 99% of the time the fact that you're just fucking with em goes way over their heads anyway. Might as well go all-out.

[RedAtheist]

First of all im an atheist and i know why religious people are against abortion they consider that life to be given from god and its bad to kill it.

That's their stated reason for opposing abortion. Look a little deeper and you'll realise that pretty much all prominent anti-abortion leaders (though not everyone who identifies as pro-life) are opposed to birth control (which of course would prevent abortion) and want women to shut up, submit to their husbands and make as many babies as possible. Abortion provides women with an opportunity to have sex regularly without becoming codependent baby machines for their husbands. Hence conservatives oppose it.

I don't think you should have been restricted, but be wary of admitting that you take reactionaries at their word, especially when you are dealing with an issue that is used to draw the dividing line between left wingers and right wingers.


It is NOT their body it is a body of a separate organism growing that maybe at the moment cannot survive on its own but it is a separate think that can live on its own later.

An egg which has not met with a sperm also has the potential to be life. Nobody has a problem with women ejecting those from their body (not that they have a choice of course)


People debate at what stage the fetus is not conscious yet and cannot be considered human so its ok to abort it.

I think the fact that a fetus is not sentient is a compelling argument for why abortion is not immoral. By definition you cannot hurt a thing that has no feelings. Abortion is not morally different to smashing rocks, but the right wing has somehow branded it as something morally icky and dirty.


That kid is not something evil it is not its fault it was made during a rape.

That 'kid' does not exist. The word 'kid' implies something with feelings that can think. A fetus is non-sentient organic matter.


The woman cannot be selfish. But i understand that she cannot be asked to take care of it too.

Yet you're asking women to keep the fetus in their uteruses where it will, at certain periods in the pregnancy, cause them to vomit every morning, cause them to be insulted for being 'fat' or 'sluts' (especially if they are young and unmarried), make them feel stressed and tired (so that they cannot go to work/school and some big, strong man needs to take care of them, as if they were children) and causes severe physical pain for them when it finally comes out. Let's not forget that complications in pregnancy can result in all kinds of health issues and sometimes even death.


What i think should be done is that woman that do not want their children out of any reason: rape, cannot take care of it, too poor, too young should still give birth to them and send them to child care institutions.

You forget 'simply does not believe she needs a child in order for her life to be complete' in your list of reasons for why women want abortions. I'm annoyed that even some pro-choice people think having a child is the default option for women and think that the only reason women don't want children is because of extreme circumstances such as rape or poverty.


Why not give it a chance to live his life and pursue his goals.

Non-sentient fetuses don't have goals. They also can't be 'he's.


It wont be the mothers burden

Except for the being pregnant with it for nine months part.


Im not here to debate when the baby becomes conscious

Even though a being's sentience, or lack thereof, is essential in determining whether or not it should have rights.

So in summary, when choosing between;

A: a medical procedure which does no direct harm to anything sentient and removes a relatively small thing from a woman's body for a relatively low cost (this is true of the most common type of abortions which take place during the early stages of pregnancy.)

or

B: vomitting, tiredness and intense pain followed by the cost of raising a child (which is way more than the cost of an early abortion and will be placed on society as a whole, via taxes, if it isn't placed on the mother.)

I pick A. The only time when A isn't the better option for a women (I also don't think a woman should be forced into either option) is if she really wants a child, has the resources to take care of it and there no orphan children for her to adopt.

[Rugged Collectivist]

I may have used language that made me appear sexist it was just a theoretical question to check ur opinion so i can build up mine. The only think i got was hate. That only builds up hate towards u people and makes me question my views,

Question which views? If it's your views on abortion than that's good. If it's your views toward leftism than I have to say, if getting restricted on an internet forum made you rethink your commitment to proletarian emancipation, it leads me to believe that it wasn't very strong to begin with.


While I agree it is sexist, the OP clearly does not look at it from that point of view, rather the idea that abortion is the murder of children; he's a well-meaning communist. Could you just give him a warning first and tell him to keep pro-life stuff in OI before restricting him? :crying:

I might agree with you if he only thought that abortion was wrong while acknowledging it as a necessary evil. He seems to want it banned and that is unforgivable.

Anyway, the OP claims to be an atheist and a materialist but his position implies otherwise. If an organism isn't conscious it can't suffer. It's as simple as that. A mind is what makes a person a person.

It's understandable that you would hold these views, as they're the views of our society. People don't shake off all of their reactionary views overnight. While it's certainly understandable it is not acceptable. I hope you'll change your mind.

[hetz]

i bet you literally think some women use abortion only as a method of contraception, right?Actually that's how it still is in Russia and some other Eastern countries, a legacy of Soviet times. Back then abortion really was used as contraception in many cases. Russia has the highest number of abortions in the world relative to the population size.

[dodger]

Are you sure that's not just the type of people you hang out with?

Well the woman from Pompei had been dead for a number of years--though the Curator assured me she was certainly of good family. The aborigine was equally of high status. Sea.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Im sick of females saying like "Its ma body ill do what ever i want ".
Then you're a sexist prick who justly deserves being restricted if you reject the bodily autonomy of women.

[Rugged Collectivist]

i bet you literally think some women use abortion only as a method of contraception, right?

Some women do. I know at least one woman that does.

[Fire]

I support women having the same rights as men in all aspects. Its just men don't get pregnant and we have to talk about woman only on this issue. I was trying to see ur opinion if we theoretically had proper institutions would u consider it better to abort a child or give it to live there. I see you are fast to restrict a user only because of asking for an opinion that i do not see how it is sexist. You are quick to restrict me and declare me enemy to leftist ideas. You consider restricting me on the whole forum only because of this regardless of my high anti-nationalism and anti-capitalism. I wonder why fascist forums have more users visiting.

You still support the patriarchy whether you "mean" to or not. I can relate to the idea that "I don't want to kill babies" in the sense that it is a position over which reasonable people can disagree. But the effect of that idea is sexism, is women being baby factories. Seeing posts like that could be triggering to women who have had abortions or people who are against sexism in general.

[Sasha]

Its just im deeply hurt by what u did. Every day i fight right wingers all kinds of them: Nationalists, racists, capitalists, sexists etc, And you restrict me without blinking like any random nationalist or right wing scum. I feel betrayed i didn expect that atleast here i can get banned only for asking an opinion which is not sexist. What is sexist in sending children u dont want to child care institutions where theyd have a chance to live. And im certainly not trying to force any woman to take care of a child she doesn't want im just prpopsing another way of getting rid of it without killing it.

Good, maybe you will understand sooner or later why your positions are deeply sexist, although as long as your throwing this fit I don't have much hope.
In the mean time the only thing I can say is that maybe you should have read the FAQ before you opened your mouth on this subject:

Do you restrict pro-life/anti-choice members?
Yes.

This forum is explicitly Pro-Choice. Any member that holds a Pro-Life position of any kind (a position we hold to be a form of sexism), or who opposes unrestricted access to abortions at any point, will be Restricted.

[Fourth Internationalist]

^ I think abortion should be allowed but not at any point during the pregnancy; only before the fetus is sentient and can feel pain (which most pro-choicers would agree with me on).

[Sasha]

^ I think abortion should be allowed but not at any point during the pregnancy; only before the fetus is sentient and can feel pain (which most pro-choicers would agree with me on).

you sure? our restriction policy is not open to discussion nor interpretation... i advice you to back away slowly from the topic unless you want yourself restricted too...

[Fourth Internationalist]

^ Okay :D

[Quail]

I didn't vote for either option. It isn't my place to tell a hypothetical woman whether she should have an abortion or give her baby up to someone who can give it the care it needs.

[soso17]

"I wish I was a girl so I could get an abortion!"--John Waters

"If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament."--Anonymous, often (mistakenly) attributed to Gloria Steinem

[Myrdin]

I feel that when one discusses abortion one must be sure to respect a woman's right to decide what is best for herself and the child. If men were at risk of getting pregnant, abortions would not only be legal, they would be universally available as well and no politician would ever dare debate the issue again.

We, the men, will never, ever understand the physical and psychological burden that a pregnancy or an abortion places upon our female comrades. Thus we cannot make an entirely educated decision on the matter as we will never, ever understand this matter in full. I feel, therefore, that we should leave the decision up to the woman and that we have no right to judge. I would like to stress, once more on the repeat, that we, being only men, can only respect the opinions and views of the strong women who must go through all this.

And yes, comrade Maxim, I would say that your attitude in this is terrible. To force, or to even consider criticizing, a woman who would so rightfully refuse to see through a pregnancy that started by a cruel, misogynistic act such as a rape is, if you would ask me, a highly misogynistic view in itself. A woman's womb is no collective property and does not belong to society, or anyone but the woman herself for that matter.

By way of this post I would also like to wish all on Revleft a comradely new year.

[MaximMK]

I apologize if i insulted anyone or made sexist comments. I just wanted to debate this issue and see your opinions. I didn't know that just asking this would get me restricted. I think the women should have a right to choose. I admit i didn't pay atention to the period of pregnancy and that no woman should be forced to go trough it against her will. Still i consider that abortion can be done only until a certain period of a fetus's development. Even in the states where abortion is allowed there is a certain period after an abortion cannot be preformed like 24 weeks - 8 months. After 8 months the baby is formed and has the ability to feel and it is not humane to kill it. Any woman will know of her pregnancy and will be able to do an abortion before that if she wills. This is my opinion and the opinion of many other pro-choice/pro-abortion people and im glad it is how its done where abortion is legal.

Sumup: Abortion is ok and any woman should be able to do it if she wishes but only before the fetus is 8 months old, after that its a human being and murder of a human being is not ok. Its not ok for a parent to kill its child because he doesn't want it.

I consider this stance to be not sexist and fair towards women who are given a choice and time of 8 months to decide.

[Sasha]

and thus you will remain restricted, happy new year and a sexism free 2013 everybody!


in a slightly more helpful answer, the arguments given in the blog in the OP of this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/former-anti-abortion-t177126/index.html) are absolutely not the reason we are 100% pro-choice but at least should be appealing to you, read it and maybe participate in a calm mature way in that thread will benefit you more than this clusterfuck you keep digging yourself deeper in over here.

[MaximMK]

I know women that agree with this and it is in no way sexist. The fetus becomes a child after 8 months. Some children were even born at 8 months. It is no longer a part of the woman's body but a separate human being just residing inside. Yes no woman should be forced to give birth and i do not intent to force it on anyone i am a peaceful person and i rarely almost never resort to force. I just wanted to state my opinion that people told me after 8 months it is a baby and i witness laws that prohibit abortion after 8 months. I just wanted to state that i agree with that opinion if you are too scared to talk about real issues and maybe give me some arguments and maybe make me change my mind. Instead of that you resort to restriction and threats of ban because of having a different opinion than you on this topic. By restricting me and denying any discussion on this topic you actually don't give me a chance to hear other peoples opinion and change my mind. I did change my mind and i agree that no woman should go trough pregnancy against her will. And yes no woman should be allowed to give birth against her will. Let her abort the kid after 8 months. I just said i don't consider it humane thats all. Not forcing anyone just talking. You are the one that forces me out of this forum and denies talking to me on this issue.

[brigadista]

its simple the woman makes the decision - her body - her choice

you all forgot the labour - v traumatic if you dont want the child

women are not incubators

[Comrade #138672]

Isn't it physically impossible to abort a 'fetus' after 8 months? So are we still talking about abortion? Ethically speaking, is there ever a line to be drawn? Or can you, for instance, dispose of a baby 1 month after it has been born? Should this be a mother's right as well? Are we still talking about a woman's right to her body?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Increase accessibility to birth control and sexual education as well as helping to teach people to make mature sexual decisions. Most men and women who are in these situations don't want to be and could make different choices. That way everyone wins - less abortions, less pregnancy, no need to pass moral laws regarding people's behavior

[Luc]

Isn't it physically impossible to abort a 'fetus' after 8 months? So are we still talking about abortion? Ethically speaking, is there ever a line to be drawn? Or can you, for instance, dispose of a baby 1 month after it has been born? Should this be a mother's right as well? Are we still talking about a woman's right to her body?

its not attached to the mother thefore it has nothing to do with her anymore how could it be a right to her body when it no longer involves her body?

abortion is not the same as infanticide

i cant answer the first thing cause im not familiar with the procedure

[PigmerikanMao]

While I was restricted years ago due to this very similar view and have since taken a strong "pro-choice/anti-natalist" and my restriction was never lifted following no fewer than five appeals to the moderators, I suppose I can lower myself enough to the role of "devil's advocate"- pardon the pun.

The issue here lies in the assumptions of the FAQ. While it can be stated that a considerable number of the "pro-life" camp -if not the overwhelming majority of them- are sexist, it doesn't exactly hold true that all members who are morally opposed to the practice are inherently sexist. When taking into account the level of maturation of the fetus, at eight months there exists clear and well-practiced medical procedures that allow a woman to remove a fetus from her body without killing it. While in fact, they are most often utilized in life threatening circumstances whose byproducts are usually classified under premature births, the operations aren't exclusive to these circumstances. The simple fact of the matter is this:

1. Anatomy:
By eight months, the entirety of the female anatomy has already been altered by the process of bringing a fetus to term in its entirety. It is a useless argument to claim that aborting a fetus at eight months would stem any further biological changes in a prospective mother's body, and insomuch as a fetus at eight months can survive independently from the womb following proper medical procedures, it is also a void argument to make that a fetus at eight months consists of a parasite that is dependent off of its host (the mother) to survive.

2. Carrying to Term:
Abortion as a means to avoid carrying a fetus to term and undergoing the pains of childbirth is also an argument that loses its traction when hitting the OP's hypothesized eight month period- performing abortions at this stage will cause just as much damage to a woman's body in normal circumstances as a natural birth would insomuch as the fetus in question still has to pass through the vagina (and during a post-8 month abortion period would receive no help from the fetus in question, possibly making the process MORE difficult depending on the circumstances). A C-section operation which would allow the fetus to live actually is a more safe operation for the mother anyways, and while producing external scars which can be healed with proper treatment, does not lead to vaginal tearing or damage to the uterus.

3. Labels:
While these arguments are based off of moral grounds personally (i.e. I would never abort a child [I think] if I were in this position, but I would also never force my views on other women), the OP seems to have only made the mistake of propositioning a restriction on access to abortion. While this may be the case, from reading his arguments, it should be apparent that he (along with many pro-natalists in the "restricted" camp) by no means constitutes a sexist.

Sexism in actuality is something completely different from what the moderators who enforce the "no compromise rule" take it to mean. Enforcing a hypothetical law to protect the life of one being at the expense of the liberty of another isn't a sexist concept- it is one which stems from the social contract. Should people be allowed to kill one another over vapid or meaningless arguments? Perhaps saying "no" is a limit on the freedoms of one person, but it also protects the lives and inherent rights of others in exchange. When one posts on the choice/life debate with an obviously anti-woman and misogynistic form of argument, he(/she) may well be a sexist, but presenting well thought out arguments about the rights of a being who (at 8 months) can hardly be classified as a dependent parasite is not a sexist act. It may not be in lock step with the ideology professed by a series of core moderators, but that's it.

If you're going to ban him, don't call it sexism, call it what it really is- You're just avoiding the debate.

~PMao :)

[Skyhilist]

Abortion doesn't contribute to world overpopulation, while adoption does. As long as the organ systems systems aren't fully developed, they aren't that sentient anyways so I see no problem with it. Even in abortions later in pregnancies where they are more sentient (although not completely), it's my understanding that when done correctly there's still no significant pain felt. By organ systems fully developed by the way, I'm not saying that they are prior to birth. Babies don't even have full vision until they're about 4 months old. So please don't misinterpret what I'm saying and restrict me.

[Skyhilist]

Also, one more thing I actually thought of and wanted to add. Looking at things realistically, if a woman is 8 or 9 months pregnant, she probably knew that she was pregnant long before then... so it seems as though she would've had plenty of time to get an abortion if she really wanted one (not that I really care when she gets one). But I mean you've gotta have somewhere to draw the line. Is it on her predicted due date, when she actually goes into labor, when the head is crowning, or what (for the cutoff of when abortion makes sense)? I mean obviously it can't be AFTER the baby is already out (because that'd be infanticide not abortion), so there's gotta be some fine line before that. Honestly though, I question that a baby who has a super indecisive mother and has been in the womb for 9 months is really that much less sentient than a newborn baby. It's the woman's body, but to be fair at that point the baby really also has a body of its own. I'm wholeheartedly pro-choice myself, but I think we at least need to look at these things rationally. The ideology that it's a woman's choice makes sense, but at the point where she's 9 months pregnant that sort of implies I think that she in fact has ownership over another being which can be viewed as a disposable item should she be so indecisive as to wait that long. I mean ownership of another being is also put into law where we can legally "own" cats and dogs currently. Should we be able to kill off perfectly healthy puppies and kittens in our own home because it's the owner's choice and they belong to us? At a certain point the two would seem almost analogous... I'm probably just over thinking things though.

[Sasha]

You are, in a situation where abortion (and contraception) is legal, socially accepted and freely available late term abortions out of any reason other than medical necessity will be so mindboggingly rare its silly to spend any time discussing let alone legislating it.
The only reason "arguments" like these are brought forth is to undermine the principle of "her body her choice".

[Skyhilist]

You are, in a situation where abortion (and contraception) is legal, socially accepted and freely available late term abortions out of any reason other than medical necessity will be so mindboggingly rare its silly to spend any time discussing let alone legislating it.
The only reason "arguments" like these are brought forth is to undermine the principle of "her body her choice".

Does original purpose of an argument make it invalid by default though? I don't think so. But I agree, it's hardly relevant most of the time.

[MaximMK]

Sexism in actuality is something completely different from what the moderators who enforce the "no compromise rule" take it to mean. Enforcing a hypothetical law to protect the life of one being at the expense of the liberty of another isn't a sexist concept- it is one which stems from the social contract. Should people be allowed to kill one another over vapid or meaningless arguments? Perhaps saying "no" is a limit on the freedoms of one person, but it also protects the lives and inherent rights of others in exchange. When one posts on the choice/life debate with an obviously anti-woman and misogynistic form of argument, he(/she) may well be a sexist, but presenting well thought out arguments about the rights of a being who (at 8 months) can hardly be classified as a dependent parasite is not a sexist act. It may not be in lock step with the ideology professed by a series of core moderators, but that's it.

If you're going to ban him, don't call it sexism, call it what it really is- You're just avoiding the debate.

~PMao :)


I understand why im restricted the moderators are 100% for abortion in any case. But what annoys me is them calling me sexist. There are lots of woman claiming its not ok to abort a child after a certain period of time like 12 or 24 weeks. I never preached any religion or spoke of man superiority and that man should decide. If some of the woman i know that agree with this said what i said would you call her sexist? Its just because im a man and talking about a topic concerning woman like if its forbidden for me cause im a man to express my opinion on this.

[Sasha]

"I'm not racist, I have black friends (and they don't mind me calling them nigger)" is not a valid argument you know...

[PigmerikanMao]

"I'm not racist, I have black friends (and they don't mind me calling them nigger)" is not a valid argument you know...
Neither is "You disagree with me on an issue regarding race, therefore you're a racist."

[MaximMK]

That is not what i said. Your sentence doesn't match. I didn't say im not sexist because i have woman friends that agree with this. Its just you have a different approach on me cause im a man than you would on a woman if she said this. I never said anywhere that men are superior to woman. I don't wanna forbid women from having abortions its their right im just saying lots of people consider the baby to be human after 12 or 24 weeks of pregnancy. Im not an expert on this and i don't intend to force anything upon anyone just wanted to have a discussion that is all.

[Red Banana]

Being anti-abortion is a sexist position. No matter what gender one is, that fact doesn't change. There were women back in the day who were opposed to the suffragists, just because they were women does not mean that wasn't a sexist position.

That being said, I don't think anyone here thinks you are a sexist or that you hold your views on this particular subject out of a disdain for women. I think you just advocated a position that at the time you didn't know is sexist, which is a very common occurrence in a patriarchal society.

But you need to identify that it is sexist first before you can work to move out of the patriarchal assumptions about women's health we are unfortunately surrounded by from the time we are born. I personally believe these types of misconceptions should be met with understanding and productive discussion to help get rid of them rather than dismissive hostility.

[Comrade #138672]

its not attached to the mother thefore it has nothing to do with her anymore how could it be a right to her body when it no longer involves her body?

abortion is not the same as infanticide

i cant answer the first thing cause im not familiar with the procedureExactly. So when the 'fetus' is 8 months old, whether you decide to 'abort' it or keep it, it must leave the body the same way a baby is born. So one might consider it infanticide at that point. Also, at that point, it seems to have little to do with a woman's right to her body, because the procedure is in both cases (abortion or not) kind of the same.

Everybody should be pro-abortion. However, at some point it stops being abortion.

I'm not making a moralistic argument. This is about definitions. I think we should be honest about where we stand. It is hypocritical to be against infanticide and at the same time have no problem with 'aborting' 8 months old 'fetuses'. How to resolve this contradiction?

[Jimmie Higgins]

That is not what i said. Your sentence doesn't match. I didn't say im not sexist because i have woman friends that agree with this. Its just you have a different approach on me cause im a man than you would on a woman if she said this. I never said anywhere that men are superior to woman. I don't wanna forbid women from having abortions its their right im just saying lots of people consider the baby to be human after 12 or 24 weeks of pregnancy. Im not an expert on this and i don't intend to force anything upon anyone just wanted to have a discussion that is all.Ok, YOU are not sexist, but being against abortion is a sexist position. Many women are against abortions for others (since being against abortion for yourself does not negate the rights of others to have abortion inherenently) but it is still a sexist position to hold. Many black people were against the civil rights movement and thought that Jim-Crow was needed to "keep social peace" and this is a pro-racism position even though the black holders of this position did not hate black people - I assume.

So do not take this as an attack on you personally, and I'm sorry if you felt it was or if some members have responded in a moralizing manner.

But I do not think anti-abortion arguments have a place on this board and in the radical left - if it wants to be principled about anti-sexism. People may be comeing with questions from a sincere place, but it is a discussion only for OI, not for the radical left sections of the board - just as if someone came here and asked, "don't workers need to be controlled". Or just as if someone came here and said, out of sincere lack of experience, that don't we need cops to single out black people because they "cause more crime". That would be a racist argument no matter how common it is in the general population among whites (and other groups including a minority of black people themselves) and no matter how much the argument is not intended to be a racist argument.

Psycho is right, when anti-abortion people make arugments about so-called "partial-birth" abortions or when you present a hypothetical situation about an 8th month abortion, it's a distraction from the unerlying issue of women's control over their own bioligical reporductive process. The logic of these sorts of arguments is that women are irresponcible and would make irrational and flippant decisions about their own health and giving birth. 8-month abortions are pretty much unheard of and so it's like if someone says they are against murder and someone else responds with a hypothetical: "What if you knew this guy was going to kill your mom and you had no other option".

I'm fine with people fighting for alternatives to abortion as long as they are supplemental, not counterposed or presented as a replacement. Most of the time in mainstream politics, alternatives are only presented in the abstract and always counterposed to abortion - again the underlying sexist argument is that women are just too irresponcible to seek out alternatives and abortion is "easy" (despite all evidence to the contrary). Most of the time people who say "abortion is a tragety" don't actually advocate better services for pregnant mothers or care for orphans - and if they do, it's just a limited PR stunt. But anyway I'm all in favor of easier, more pleasant, and safe methods for caring for orphans and helping people who can't have their own kids to adopt - but these need to go along with full available abortion acess.

The fact of the matter is that abortion happens irregardless of legality. The rich just get privite doctors who specialize to do it (or travel to where it is legal) and the rest of us have to find shaddy doctors and whatnot or just have to give birth - or there are the examples of teenage mothers who are so scared of the responce of their parents that they hide their pregancy leading to problems later - or even the rare case of people dumping the baby after birth!

So the abortion political issue does little to prevent abortions, but restrictions on the rights to have abortion have the effect of controling women's lives and forcing them to either have the baby or seek out dangerous alternatives.

[dodger]

Only debate we ever had was whether to have a Chinese or a Curry afterwards. The bloody kids wanted a Curry so I was outvoted. One of them even wrote a school essay about the day. It was put up on the wall of the staff room. Alongside the other daughters account of me falling off the decorators ladder and breaking my collar bone. When I finally managed to get to a PTA meeting--the teachers said we have been dying to meet you. "We couldn't decide which was the funniest episode in your life. "Thanks!" "Even though I did not get my Chinese the Abortion Day WAS a cracker....my late Wifey was somewhat ambivalent. The Curry or the Chinese I mean...

[NGNM85]

You are, in a situation where abortion (and contraception) is legal, socially accepted and freely available..

....which excludes, for starters, much of the southern United States, if not the entire country. As you probably know; unfortunately, as the US lacks a national healthcare system comperable to the rest of the industrialized world, the United States government only guaruntees that Americans have the right to obtain an abortion, up to 28 weeks, with exceptions for medical emergencies, finding a clinic offering this service, and paying for it is the patients' perogative.


...late term abortions out of any reason other than medical necessity will be so mindboggingly rare its silly to spend any time discussing let alone legislating it.

This is bogus, for several reasons. First; one of the reasons why there is so little demand for such procedures is that even the vast majority of Pro-Choice women find it morally abhorrent. Second; the idea that the minimal demand for such procedures makes it pointless to legislate them is ridiculous. For example; nomatter how low the homicide rate gets, there's no reason to believe it would ever get low enough where society wouldn't bother criminalizing it. As far as being; 'silly', it's no sillier a topic than the threads devoted to the theoreretical implications of superhero comics, or any number of threads devoted to equally 'silly' subjects. (Incidentally; I happen to very much enjoy comic books, and graphic novels.) Besides which; you've only yourselves to blame. You're the ones who are perpetuating this; not the other way around.


The only reason "arguments"...

Wow. Are you really that petty? I'll say this; your audacity knows no bounds.


...like these are brought forth is to undermine the principle of "her body her choice".

First of all; whomever coined the phrase; 'Woman's Body = Woman's Business', probably never intended for this phrase to be taken literally, let alone turned into Bible law. The misguided impulse to latch onto any half-baked slogan and turn it into doctrinal law is one of the more destructive diseases of the Radical left. Slogans are, by definition; gross oversimplifications of ideas, arguments are stripped of nuance, in exchange for maximimum accessibility. This is what makes slogans so effective on placards, and at protests. This is also the reason why slogans make extraordinarily bad policy.

Second; this misguided 'principle' is not a tenet of any branch of Socialism. Even Anarchism, which places the greatest emphasis on individual rights, of all of the schools of Socialist thought, (Which is, incidentally, one of the reasons I find it so attractive.) does not assert that bodily autonomy is inviolable, (It isn't, and it shouldn't be.) certainly not that this unique privelege should be the sole province of one gender, which I'll get back to, in a second. There are innumerable instances where we would, justifiably, override bodily autonomy. For example; in the case of minor children, inmates, patients, in many cases, persons under quarantine, etc., etc., etc.

This brings me to my next point, is that what you, and the others appear to have missed is that asserting that one gender be accorded unique rights, on the basis of their gender, is the literal definition of; 'sexism.' It also happens to be Transphobic, as either Transmen, like Thomas Beatie, for example, are excluded from this unique 'right', or are being classified, for your purposes, as; 'women', as in; 'not 'real' men.' Either way; it's Transphobic. This just makes your disingenuous, and increasingly shrill, protestations of; 'sexism', all the more ridiculous. I'd also say there's something rather unseemly about invoking the oppression of women in such a spurious manner.

Finally; your justification for discouraging such conversations, as conceding too much to the other side, is totally false. (As an aside, I actually give you some credit for this, as it implicitly recognizes everything you are saying is nonsense.) The central argument of the Pro-Life movement is radically different from that made by Pro-Choice individuals, like myself, for example. Their position is deontological, and religious, in origin, mine is secular, scientific, and utilitarian. Furthermore; presenting bogus, or bad faith arguments is not a position of strength, it is, inevitably, a position of weakness.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Wtf? If some women want to have abortions, fine. If they want to give it up for adoption, that's fantastic, I can't have children and really want to adopt eventually, so great but ultimately, what business is it of anyone else, what someone chooses to do with their pregnancy and their body?

[Jimmie Higgins]

First of all; whomever coined the phrase; 'Woman's Body = Woman's Business', probably never intended for this phrase to be taken literally, let alone turned into Bible law. The misguided impulse to latch onto any half-baked slogan and turn it into doctrinal law is one of the more destructive diseases of the Radical left. Slogans are, by definition; gross oversimplifications of ideas, arguments are stripped of nuance, in exchange for maximimum accessibility. This is what makes slogans so effective on placards, and at protests. This is also the reason why slogans make extraordinarily bad policy.

...

This brings me to my next point, is that what you, and the others appear to have missed is that asserting that one gender be accorded unique rights, on the basis of their gender, is the literal definition of; 'sexism.' It also happens to be Transphobic, as either Transmen, like Thomas Beatie, for example, are excluded from this unique 'right', or are being classified, for your purposes, as; 'women', as in; 'not 'real' men.' Either way; it's Transphobic. This just makes your disingenuous, and increasingly shrill, protestations of; 'sexism', all the more ridiculous. I'd also say there's something rather unseemly about invoking the oppression of women in such a spurious manner.

Frankly, this is an absurd argument.

psssst.... look in here:
...men can't get pregnant.

So I guess you can add infertile women to the list of those discriminated by this sexist policy of only allowing those who give birth to decide if they give birth.

And of your transphobic claim: If men, trans or by some magical or medical miracle not, got pregnent, then guess what: his body, his choice. Or let's make a neural slogan instead: "their womb, their rules". Happy? No - because it's not about that silly political ploy.


Second; this misguided 'principle' is not a tenet of any branch of Socialism. Even Anarchism, which places the greatest emphasis on individual rights, of all of the schools of Socialist thought, (Which is, incidentally, one of the reasons I find it so attractive.) does not assert that bodily autonomy is inviolable, (It isn't, and it shouldn't be.) certainly not that this unique privelege should be the sole province of one gender, which I'll get back to, in a second. There are innumerable instances where we would, justifiably, override bodily autonomy. For example; in the case of minor children, inmates, patients, in many cases, persons under quarantine, etc., etc., etc. First I think liberation of the individual is at the heart of Marxism and anarchism: it's just that we have to unite and organize collectively in order to free individuals from being exploited and being held under the power of other individuals. But also in a way you are right, I don't think we do or should see individual autonomy as a principle in the abstract sense. We all agree that the oppressed should fight back, but even if revolution was totally "peaceful" we are inherently crossing the individual wishes of the elite to continue to hold their power.

But abortion and "rights" must also be seen not in the abstract, but in the specific social context. In capitalist society it is ultimately the mother who bears the physical, emotional, and economic cost of birth and then potentially raising the child... it's easier with a partner or supportive family/friends but the only one who really has to deal with it is the mother. On top of that is a layer of social pressure and sexism and so on which can cause potential mothers to be pressured by family or partners to carry out unwanted pregnancies. Also expectations and so on about what it is to be a woman and how giving birth is the highest most important thing ever. This is the larger context of abortion and why it is important to fight specifically for it and why it is connected to sexism.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Only debate we ever had was whether to have a Chinese or a Curry afterwards. The bloody kids wanted a Curry so I was outvoted. One of them even wrote a school essay about the day. It was put up on the wall of the staff room. Alongside the other daughters account of me falling off the decorators ladder and breaking my collar bone. When I finally managed to get to a PTA meeting--the teachers said we have been dying to meet you. "We couldn't decide which was the funniest episode in your life. "Thanks!" "Even though I did not get my Chinese the Abortion Day WAS a cracker....my late Wifey was somewhat ambivalent. The Curry or the Chinese I mean...

Do you have anything worthwhile and/or interesting to add to this forum? I'm not talking about the inane anecdotes you constantly spout and other such irrelevant dribble.

Go away.

[NGNM85]

Frankly, this is an absurd argument.

psssst.... look in here:
...men can't get pregnant.

That's actually several interrelated arguments.

I'm perfectly aware that human evolution has granted women a substantial, in fact; nearly exclusive, monopoly on childbirth. That's not news. I just presumed that went without saying. The point is that what I am saying is not sexist because it is not predicated on gender, nor is it exclusive to one gender, which are the fundamental preconditions of sexism.


So I guess you can add infertile women to the list of those discriminated by this sexist policy of only allowing those who give birth to decide if they give birth.

I have a feeling you're being spurious, but, in any case; no, that wouldn't count. First; no-one has proposed, as of yet, tha; 'anyone who can give birth can decide, at any point, to terminate the pregnancy.' In many cases, pregnancy hasn't even been mentioned. Most individuals have asserted, rather that women, exclusively, have the unique right to total, unlimited bodily autonomy, which, obviously, covers pregnancy, and any number of possible contingencies. Of course; I seriously doubt most of these people actually believe this. Without further ado; no, infertile women are not discriminated against because, by definition, they cannot become pregnant. If they somehow manage to become pregnant, they would then enjoy these unique benefits, unless they happen to be transgendered, then they might not.


And of your transphobic claim: If men, trans or by some magical or medical miracle not, got pregnent, then guess what: his body, his choice.

It should first be pointed out that this is significantly different from much of what has been said, before. You are saying that anyone, regardless of gender, has the right to terminate a pregnancy, at any point, which is totally arbitrary, among other things, or; that all human beings have unlimited bodily autonomy, which I'm certain you don't actually believe. Both assertions are preposterous. No-one has the unlimited right to bodily autonomy. The idea is, frankly, daft.


Or let's make a neural slogan instead: "their womb, their rules".

That's better.... It takes care of the sexism, and the transphobia. However; it's still irrational, and unscientific.


Happy? No - because it's not about that silly political ploy.

My emotional state, or anyone else's, for that matter, is irrelevent.

It's not a ploy, it's a point. Consult a dictionary, if you have any doubts. It's remarkable that such fundamental concepts are so poorly understood. In any case; the sexism, and transphobia, are actually the least of my objections. The bigger point is that what you are suggesting, which, again, has no basis in Socialist ideology, (More on that, in a moment.) is wildy irrational, and totally unscientific. This is my concern, dude.


First I think liberation of the individual is at the heart of Marxism and anarchism:

Broadly; yes, certainly in the case of Anarchism. I'd like to think it's fundamental to Marxism, as well, however; many, if not most of the Marxists on the board seem to have a very different interpretation.


...it's just that we have to unite and organize collectively in order to free individuals from being exploited and being held under the power of other individuals.

That's all extremely vague, but it sounds fabulous.


But also in a way you are right, I don't think we do or should see individual autonomy as a principle in the abstract sense. We all agree that the oppressed should fight back, but even if revolution was totally "peaceful" we are inherently crossing the individual wishes of the elite to continue to hold their power.

To have absolute moral rules, you have to be a deontologist, which presupposes, among other thing, the existence of god, etc. Nobody here seriously believes that. I know Psycho doesn't really believe that. If you're a utilitarian; you simply can't have absolute moral laws. That doesn't mean you don't have morals, or moral principles, but they aren't absolute. For example; in the abstract; I'd say homicide is wrong, and furthermore; that, all else being equal, a society that prohibits homicide will be better for human beings, than one which does not. However; there are circumstances where homicide is justifiable, or where we even might be morally obligated to commit homicide. However; these situations are, mercifully, few, and far between, and I would point out that the severity of the consequences obligate us not to make such decisions lightly.


But abortion and "rights" must also be seen not in the abstract, but in the specific social context. In capitalist society it is ultimately the mother who bears the physical, emotional, and economic cost of birth and then potentially raising the child... it's easier with a partner or supportive family/friends but the only one who really has to deal with it is the mother. On top of that is a layer of social pressure and sexism and so on which can cause potential mothers to be pressured by family or partners to carry out unwanted pregnancies. Also expectations and so on about what it is to be a woman and how giving birth is the highest most important thing ever. This is the larger context of abortion and why it is important to fight specifically for it and why it is connected to sexism.

You're arguing with yourself. First; you say we can't talk in the abstract, then you make these sweeping generalizations about mothers bearing the economic costs, etc. It is impossible to cover every possible case, and contingency, in this conversation. What, I think, is the most fruitful avenue of discussion, is; what would be the best way to handle it, and to work backwards from there. What are our base principles? We want whatever we would decide to be humane, it has to be informed by medical science, as this is a medical issue, it has to be fair, and it has to make sense. I can think of only one solution that satisfies all of these criteria.

[Sasha]

My male body my male choice is a given, if I want so I can have ribs, fingerbones, my appendix and my balls surgecially removed even for aesthetic or fetishistic reasons, cancers etc are even paid for by the state. Feminism didn't give status aparte to the female body, patriarchy did.

[hetz]

My male body my male choice is a given, if I want so I can have ribs, fingerbones, my appendix and my balls surgecially removed even for aesthetic or fetishistic reasons, cancers etc are even paid for by the state
Well that's great, I thought Americans have to pay even for basic health-care...

[Sasha]

i'm not american

[hetz]

Fugg x DDD

[dodger]

Do you have anything worthwhile and/or interesting to add to this forum? I'm not talking about the inane anecdotes you constantly spout and other such irrelevant dribble.

Go away.

In a two bed flat and 4 kids....all the arguments I have heard put forward strike me as feckless and trivial. Irrelevant dear Noxion.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

In a two bed flat and 4 kids...

Why do you keep saying shit like this as if it is at all relevant? I guess people with black friends can't be racist then, using the same logic as you.


all the arguments I have heard put forward strike me as feckless and trivial.

You haven't even attempted to address them, so on what basis can you say that?


Irrelevant dear Noxion.

Like most of your posts.

[PigmerikanMao]

My male body my male choice is a given, if I want so I can have ribs, fingerbones, my appendix and my balls surgecially removed even for aesthetic or fetishistic reasons, cancers etc are even paid for by the state. Feminism didn't give status aparte to the female body, patriarchy did.

While its great for you that your state of healthcare is so progressive and forward, I'm assuming that there are things you cannot do with your body that are dictated by common law. The broad majority of nations do not allow for voluntary assisted medical suicide except for certain cases (the Netherlands being most open to my understanding), many hallucinogens or other drugs are strictly regulated and controlled (if not completely criminalized) by most governments, prostitution (by both sexes) is usually illegal in some capacity, and all of these limitations do not stem from any form of patriarchy.

While patriarchy itself is certainly a systemic problem with the world that needs to be addressed, by no means does it constitute the entire pro-natalist camp. Because a man holds reservations against abortion, you go so far as to label him an agent of the patriarchy, sexist, or misogynistic, but if a woman rallies against abortion, then what is she? The issue of abortion isn't always an issue of gender and sex here- it's a matter of free will and bodily self determination in regards to the medical community. For the same reasons that snorting bath salts or drinking vodka at the age of 12 is usually illegal, one can argue against later term abortive practices on the basis of concern for human life- not sexism.


In a two bed flat and 4 kids....all the arguments I have heard put forward strike me as feckless and trivial. Irrelevant dear Noxion.

While I can sympathize- growing up in similar circumstances- I don't think that debating with your children over curry or Chinese and subsequent PTA visits are any more relevant to the topic at hand than NoXion's posts are.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

While patriarchy itself is certainly a systemic problem with the world that needs to be addressed, by no means does it constitute the entire pro-natalist camp. Because a man holds reservations against abortion, you go so far as to label him an agent of the patriarchy, sexist, or misogynistic, but if a woman rallies against abortion, then what is she?

Er, sexist and having internalised patriarchal assumptions? Being female is no barrier to being a misogynist.


The issue of abortion isn't always an issue of gender and sex here- it's a matter of free will and bodily self determination in regards to the medical community. For the same reasons that snorting bath salts or drinking vodka at the age of 12 is usually illegal, one can argue against later term abortive practices on the basis of concern for human life- not sexism.

I don't think those analogies work. Bath salts came about as a response to the illegality of older drugs, and in many societies it is not actually illegal for 12 year olds to drink (but it is usually illegal to sell alcohol to minors).

[PigmerikanMao]

Er, sexist and having internalised patriarchal assumptions? Being female is no barrier to being a misogynist.

Perhaps. I'll give that it's entirely possible for a woman to internalize patriarchy and sexism and act against her own interests, but what I was more getting at here is that if a man posts a pro-natalist argument on this board, he is instantly denounced as a sexist, whereas I've seen known women post these same arguments and mods have been more hesitant to call them out on it.


I don't think those analogies work. Bath salts came about as a response to the illegality of older drugs, and in many societies it is not actually illegal for 12 year olds to drink (but it is usually illegal to sell alcohol to minors).

Granted that they don't entirely apply. But the main issue is that laws can be created with the intention of preserving or enhancing human life by limiting the accessibility of certain commodities or services to an individual and their body. Just because a law litigates an issue faced by only one gender does not instantly mean there is misogynistic intent or sexism involved.

[dodger]

Why do you keep saying shit like this as if it is at all relevant? I guess people with black friends can't be racist then, using the same logic as you.



You haven't even attempted to address them, so on what basis can you say that?



Like most of your posts.

THE ABORTION SERVICES ...i HAVE FOUND --most useful. Stress free service.To us it was a "lifesaver" The bus journey was more problematic.My late Wifey was a dignified intelligent woman. We were overwhelmed with happiness to be rid of our problem. To address one of the situations that brought forth conjecture. Late termination...I was 'host' to a lass from Italy friend of an ex...asked if I could put up a friend and her companion for a few days she required a termination. I found out she was heavily pregnant and even producing milk. She volunteered that she was 'about' 8 months. Nodded and took her to private clinic. After examination We returned following day she spent 24hrs there returned and I took them to a local Iranian restaurant. We had a convivial time. Mild panic(on my part) She started bleeding. A phone call put my mind at rest and they took the plane home.My ex was gushing with praise that the trip went so well. See... even living in Kilburn decades ago 'till now. HAPPY DAYS! PROBLEM SORTED. No grief. Besides more important matters to attend to. So plenty with bad drug experiences but no neggy abortion tales. Natural human reaction was to support a woman in that situation. Parents guiding child terminations got 'back-up'. There only seems so much one can say about a dinky tadpole. Oh just that judging by the accents and accounts from the girl. All the women there at the clinic were from Spain, Portugal, South America, Italy. Surprise, surprise. Wealthy of course. As for addressing what others want and need I am content to listen. Needless to say getting and keeping what we want, requires a collective approach. We sorted our tiny prob out. At least she did. Even the kids understood it.I know they did because they explained it all to me. Got bored with the subject.Went back to their games, Noxion.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Perhaps. I'll give that it's entirely possible for a woman to internalize patriarchy and sexism and act against her own interests, but what I was more getting at here is that if a man posts a pro-natalist argument on this board, he is instantly denounced as a sexist, whereas I've seen known women post these same arguments and mods have been more hesitant to call them out on it.

Some examples would be nice.


Granted that they don't entirely apply. But the main issue is that laws can be created with the intention of preserving or enhancing human life by limiting the accessibility of certain commodities or services to an individual and their body. Just because a law litigates an issue faced by only one gender does not instantly mean there is misogynistic intent or sexism involved.

Maybe not by necessity, although I'd consider the probability to be very high. Another factor is institutional sexism, which is a definite problem in the male-dominated roles and professions involved in lawmaking. It's a matter of contextual awareness.


THE ABORTION SERVICES ...i HAVE FOUND --most useful. Stress free service.To us it was a "lifesaver" The bus journey was more problematic.My late Wifey was a dignified intelligent woman. We were overwhelmed with happiness to be rid of our problem. To address one of the situations that brought forth conjecture. Late termination...I was 'host' to a lass from Italy friend of an ex...asked if I could put up a friend and her companion for a few days she required a termination. I found out she was heavily pregnant and even producing milk. She volunteered that she was 'about' 8 months. Nodded and took her to private clinic. After examination We returned following day she spent 24hrs there returned and I took them to a local Iranian restaurant. We had a convivial time. Mild panic(on my part) She started bleeding. A phone call put my mind at rest and they took the plane home.My ex was gushing with praise that the trip went so well. See... even living in Kilburn decades ago 'till now. HAPPY DAYS! PROBLEM SORTED. No grief. Besides more important matters to attend to. So plenty with bad drug experiences but no neggy abortion tales. Natural human reaction was to support a woman in that situation. Parents guiding child terminations got 'back-up'. There only seems so much one can say about a dinky tadpole. Oh just that judging by the accents and accounts from the girl. All the women there at the clinic were from Spain, Portugal, South America, Italy. Surprise, surprise. Wealthy of course. As for addressing what others want and need I am content to listen. Needless to say getting and keeping what we want, requires a collective approach. We sorted our tiny prob out. At least she did. Even the kids understood it.I know they did because they explained it all to me. Got bored with the subject.Went back to their games, Noxion.

Do you have an actual point to make, or do you just like to ramble on incoherently?

[dodger]

Some examples would be nice.



Maybe not by necessity, although I'd consider the probability to be very high. Another factor is institutional sexism, which is a definite problem in the male-dominated roles and professions involved in lawmaking. It's a matter of contextual awareness.



Do you have an actual point to make, or do you just like to ramble on incoherently?

Probably the latter....keep the smelling salts smelling salts handy, dear Noxion.:laugh::thumbup1:

Evidently some agree fully with you somebody has written "CRAP" AND deducted 50 from what ragged reputation I possessed.:blushing::blushing:

[PigmerikanMao]

Some examples would be nice.

They would be, but I've been on and off these boards since 2007, so I'm hard pressed to drudge up a bunch right now. I'd only suggest taking notice next time you notice a female member here talking about pro-life stances.


Maybe not by necessity, although I'd consider the probability to be very high. Another factor is institutional sexism, which is a definite problem in the male-dominated roles and professions involved in lawmaking. It's a matter of contextual awareness.

The probability is ridiculously high, yes. But what I've been getting at here is the slim possibility of holding a pro-natalist political stance without being inherently sexist, as this is why MaximMK was restricted, no? Judging from the context of his posts, I'd be hard pressed to declare him a sexist- at least on a conscious level. This is really all I'm getting at. Yet our wonderful moderators here have been kind enough to restrict him regardless of these contextual circumstances, providing us with the wonderful blanket statement:


[...]being anti-choice is sexism[...]

Good job, RevLeft. Good job, indeed.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The point is that what I am saying is not sexist because it is not predicated on gender, nor is it exclusive to one gender, which are the fundamental preconditions of sexism.No, that is not "sexism" not in any meaningful sense - otherwise the study of gynecology would be a "sexist" field, women not wanting strange men to hand out in their bathrooms would be sexism, viagra would be sexist since no one is trying to figure out how to give women penile erections.

No, sexism in a meaningful sense is a form of oppression - a systemic form of oppression which is generalized widely. So a choice which impacts a woman's entire life and her ability to go to school or work and provide for herself is undermined without things like birth control and abortion access.


I have a feeling you're being spurious, but, in any case; no, that wouldn't count. First; no-one has proposed, as of yet, tha; 'anyone who can give birth can decide, at any point, to terminate the pregnancy.' In many cases, pregnancy hasn't even been mentioned. Most individuals have asserted, rather that women, exclusively, have the unique right to total, unlimited bodily autonomy, which, obviously, covers pregnancy, and any number of possible contingencies.Really? So when you see people with this slogan associated with the pro-choice movement, you thought it was general? It can be generalized though: men shouldn't feel entitled to sex with any date or entitled to grab or touch women. This isn't because women "are more special" or deserving of rights; it's because the sexism of our society has long suggested that it IS OK to demand sex from "cock-teases" or have sex with overly-drunk women or whatnot. While this still exists (particularlly date-rape) some of the common grabbing and cat-calling has been decreased since the Women's Lib movement, but politicians are still trying to restrict or dilute access to birth control (including abortion obviously) and so this is why abortion is a more obvious place to begin fighting back.


It should first be pointed out that this is significantly different from much of what has been said, before. You are saying that anyone, regardless of gender, has the right to terminate a pregnancy, at any point, which is totally arbitrary, among other things, or; that all human beings have unlimited bodily autonomy, which I'm certain you don't actually believe. Both assertions are preposterous. No-one has the unlimited right to bodily autonomy. The idea is, frankly, daft.I'm saying: anyone, regardless of gender, has the right to terminate THEIR pregnancy, at any point - not ANY pregnancy! And no I don't believe in induvidual rights in the abstract, but in the social context and in this context of our society, no one is trying to control males in reproduction whereas there has long-been an attempt by modern societies to control female reproduction - which also included Eugenics and forced sterilization; so it's not just the right to abort a baby that needs to be "the birther's choice" but also the right to have a baby if they choose as well.


It's not a ploy, it's a point. Consult a dictionary, if you have any doubts. It's remarkable that such fundamental concepts are so poorly understood. In any case; the sexism, and transphobia, are actually the least of my objections. The bigger point is that what you are suggesting, which, again, has no basis in Socialist ideology, (More on that, in a moment.) is wildy irrational, and totally unscientific. This is my concern, dude. Sexual liberation is fundamental to marxism and with that sexual autonomy of women - Marx and Engels didn't talk about abortion as far as I know - but it also probably wasn't a common medical procedure at that time? Either way I know of no political struggles around abortion access in the mid-1800, though I could just not be aware of any. I do know there were fights over right to divorce and Marx and Engels did argue that this was necessary and that women's control over who they have sex with are essential to liberation.


You're arguing with yourself. First; you say we can't talk in the abstract, then you make these sweeping generalizations about mothers bearing the economic costs, etc. It is impossible to cover every possible case, and contingency, in this conversation. What, I think, is the most fruitful avenue of discussion, is; what would be the best way to handle it, and to work backwards from there. What are our base principles? We want whatever we would decide to be humane, it has to be informed by medical science, as this is a medical issue, it has to be fair, and it has to make sense. I can think of only one solution that satisfies all of these criteria.Yes you can make sweeping generalization and still not be talking about abstract concepts because if a phenomena is wide-spread then it is a general circumstance. If you say every 24 hours the sun rises - this would be an abstraction if we are talking about the universe, but it's just a generalization when we are talking about the earth.

So we can't look at individual freedom in an abstract sense, since this would include individual freedom to own slaves and exploit workers etc. So this "freedom" has to be seen in the broader context - is everyone free, is that freedom for one dependent on the exploitation of another etc.

With bodily autonomy, no one is trying to force men to carry out unwanted pregnancies of their own that then they will be ultimately responsible for. Let's think about an adoption - so a male and female couple start an adoption process, the woman unexpectedly looses her job and is now having second thoughts... there would be no grounds for the woman to tell the man that HE should not continue the adoption process if he really wanted to. But in the case of pregnancy, if the mother doesn't want to have the baby, then she should not be FORCED to go through labor and then take care of the kid.

Are you for or against forced labor? It's that simple.

[NGNM85]

No, that is not "sexism" not in any meaningful sense - otherwise the study of gynecology would be a "sexist" field, women not wanting strange men to hand out in their bathrooms would be sexism, viagra would be sexist since no one is trying to figure out how to give women penile erections.

Lord, how tedious... I don't have the time, or the patience to untangle all of this. The pertinent aforementioned statements, by myself, asserting that after, roughly, 28 weeks, abortions should be prohibited, with the exception of medical emergencies, are not sexist because I do not morally differentiate between women, and men, and no part of this argument is predicated on; 'womanhood.' In order to be a bigot, or an agent of bigotry, you have to discriminate against a particular group, on the basis of their membership of that category of humanity, otherwise you cannot be one. I believe that civil rights, especially, should never be contingent upon such arbitrary characteristics as gender, orientation, race, etc., and that any suggestion to the contrary is as irrational, as it is offensive.


No, sexism in a meaningful sense is a form of oppression - a systemic form of oppression which is generalized widely.

That's mostly accurate.


So a choice which impacts a woman's entire life and her ability to go to school or work and provide for herself is undermined without things like birth control and abortion access.

No-one is arguing against contraception. I believe that we should make contraceptives as availible as humanly possible. I'd also recommend that we totally shitcan this; 'abstinence only' crapola, and institutionalize real, comprehensive sex ed.

Also; nobody here is Pro-Life, or, to put it in even simpler terms; nobody here is against abortion. I am solidly Pro-Choice. In fact; I've always been Pro-Choice, ever since I could reasonably comprehend what an; 'abortion' was. In fact; as I happen to believe that healthcare is a basic human right, which should be provided freely, to all who need it, (Abortion falling under the aegis of; 'healthcare.') at least; up to, roughly, 28 weeks, again, barring medical emergencies. So, in truth, if I had my way; abortion would be substantially more accessible than it presently is, in the United States.


Really? So when you see people with this slogan associated with the pro-choice movement, you thought it was general?...

I haven't been able to find any documentation regarding the etymology of this slogan. I imagine it probably cropped up in the late 60's, or early 70's. In any case; while I, obviously, can't provide conclusive, definitive evidence, it's highly unlikely that whomever coined it intended it to be interpreted as doctrinal law. Again; slogans are, by definition, dumbed-down, oversimplifications of arguments. This is borne out by the fact that Pro-Choice groups in America,, as far as I know, don't take any issue, whatsoever, with the time limits imposed by Roe. It's a total non-issue. There also doesn't seem to be any backlash in the rest of the Western, industrialized nations, like France, Austria, the Netherlands, etc., virtually all of which have enacted similar prohibitions. This battle is not being fought anywhere in the real world. The only place where this is contentious is in Radical communities like RevLeft, for some baffling reason. Personally; I suspect it's a combination of the epidemic of what could be called; 'ultra-Leftism' that has spread throughout the Radical Left, and the misguided impulse to latch on to half-baked slogans and turn them into doctrinal law.


I'm saying: anyone, regardless of gender, has the right to terminate THEIR pregnancy, at any point - not ANY pregnancy!

Ok. That's where you stand. I disagree, for a multitude of reasons.


And no I don't believe in induvidual rights in the abstract, but in the social context and in this context of our society, no one is trying to control males in reproduction..

Why is reproduction special? Again; we override the bodily autonomy of men, and women, every day, for reasons that nobody has any problem with. There's absolutely no reason why reproduction should represent a special category, unto itself.


whereas there has long-been an attempt by modern societies to control female reproduction - which also included Eugenics and forced sterilization;


Men were also forcibly sterilized as part of Eugenics programs in the United States, and Europe.


...so it's not just the right to abort a baby that needs to be "the birther's choice" but also the right to have a baby if they choose as well.

....within reason.



Sexual liberation is fundamental to marxism and with that sexual autonomy of women ...

I'd like to think so. However; again; nobody is arguing thart reproductive rights don't exist, or that they aren't worth protecting. I'm simply arguing that they aren't sacrosanct. That absolutely is not a fundamental tenet of Marxism, or any other branch of Socialism.


With bodily autonomy, no one is trying to force men to carry out unwanted pregnancies of their own that then they will be ultimately responsible for.

TransMen,maybe, somewhere. In any case, again; there's no logical reason why we should view bodily autonomy as sacrosanct in this, and only this respect. It makes no sense. It's just totally arbitrary.


Are you for or against forced labor? It's that simple.

No; it isn't.

First of all; the question doesn't even make sense. For utilitarians, and everyone, here, is a utilitarian; you can't have moral absolutes. It's logically impossible. So; you would have to concede that there are at least theoretical circumstances where restricting abortion would be justifiable. Of course; because of the asinine forum policies, even this banal, and obvious truism is grounds for Restriction, so I would strongly advise against it. What I would ask is that you stop pretending to be a deontologist, and that you stop acting so damned incredulous.

Second; the demand for such procedures (Which are, admittedly illegal.) is virtually nonexistent. With the availability of contraceptives, comprehensive sex ed., and free abortion at any local hospital, up to 28 weeks (Again; barring medical emergencies.) there shouldn't really be any demand for this, whatsoever. All one need do is look across the Atlantic, where this is pretty much the status quo, with minor variations, in all of Western Europe.

Third; just because someone may not be able to abort a healthy fetus, after 28 weeks, does not, in any sense, mean that they must conclude the pregnancy. At such an advanced stage of gestation; the fetus has something like a 95% chance of survival, the risk to the mother is even less. I see no reason why, if such an unlikely scenario were to occur, it could not simply be removed, and become a ward of the state, until an appropriate home can be found.

[NGNM85]

Everybody should be pro-abortion. However, at some point it stops being abortion.

I'm not making a moralistic argument. This is about definitions. I think we should be honest about where we stand. It is hypocritical to be against infanticide and at the same time have no problem with 'aborting' 8 months old 'fetuses'. How to resolve this contradiction?

It's logically impossible to oppose infanticide, yet support arbitrarily aborting a healthy fetus, after 28 weeks of gestation, because that is infanticide. There is no significant difference. We're all materialists, here; right? Therefore; what defines us, as human beings comes down to a short list of measurable, biological features. Who is, and is not, a human being is a matter of medical fact. By 28 weeks; a fetus has all of the prerequisites. If removed from it's parent's body; it will immediately begin reacting to stimuli, etc. Furthermore; this false dichotomy creates all sorts of weird paradoxes, wereby a baby born at 33 weeks is considered a human being, with rights, but a 37-week-old fetus is nothing more than medical waste. This is preposterous.

[dodger]

It's logically impossible to oppose infanticide, yet support arbitrarily aborting a healthy fetus, after 28 weeks of gestation, because that is infanticide. There is no significant difference. We're all materialists, here; right? Therefore; what defines us, as human beings comes down to a short list of measurable, biological features. Who is, and is not, a human being is a matter of medical fact. By 28 weeks; a fetus has all of the prerequisites. If removed from it's parent's body; it will immediately begin reacting to stimuli, etc. Furthermore; this false dichotomy creates all sorts of weird paradoxes, wereby a baby born at 33 weeks is considered a human being, with rights, but a 37-week-old fetus is nothing more than medical waste. This is preposterous.

That's an interesting viewpoint. Strikes me as pious and pompous. It is inescapable when lecturing to others. A termination is just that, as you said hospital waste, mission accomplished. Silence is golden. Arbitrarily stopping at the first motel is one thing- going to a clinic and terminating is another. I can only draw on 2 experiences of over the limit abortions. One legal a dead foetus brought to "full" term and an illegal one done in an expensive London Clinic. The former ended up as a photograph in the lounge, yes a dead foetus, with candles out every birthday. With a pair of bouncing twins subsequently ,now that was a weird paradox. They both ended up in a bucket. We must listen to women. Ruminating about these matters is oppressive. What women want is key here. Let them set the agenda and framework for discussion OR not. They may not wish to do anything more than go ahead, down a well trodden path, terminate. Let's make that path as easy as possible. I shan't be lighting any candles.

[Jimmie Higgins]

This argument that "we always override bodily autonomy" and so it doesn't mean it's sexist, undermines itself. When is it that in modern society medical professionals or family make decisions for people: children, the elderly, those so ill they can not make their own decisions. So saying prohibiting abortion is no worse that those isn't a strong argument because it suggests like children or the severely aged or infirmed, women are incapable of making their own medical decisions.

[NGNM85]

This argument that "we always override bodily autonomy" and so it doesn't mean it's sexist, undermines itself. When is it that in modern society medical professionals or family make decisions for people: children, the elderly, those so ill they can not make their own decisions.

So saying prohibiting abortion is no worse that those isn't a strong argument because it suggests like children or the severely aged or infirmed, women are incapable of making their own medical decisions.

That isn't what I said. (Nine-tenths of which you've seemingly ignored, anyhow.) I said I'm not sexist; because I don't differentiate between the rights of men, and women. Again; civil rights should never be denied on the basis of such arbitrary, and in truth; meaningless, distinctions.

Sometimes; yes, but just as often; no. First of all; many individuals who would fall under these categories are by no means incapacitated. For example; it would be customary to physical restrain, and perhaps forcibly medicate a severely depressed patient, if she was thought to be a danger to herself. If she managed to slit her wrists; her wounds would have to be stitched up, even over her strenuous protestations. Being chronically depressed is a long way from being an invalid. 'Children', or, more accurately; 'Minors' includes all people under the age of 18. There was a case not very long ago, where a young boy, around 16, or 17, and his mother, went on the lam together, because he had cancer, and she happened to be a Christian Scientist, to make a long story short; the two were found, the boy received his treatment, and, as far as I know, he is alive, and well, today, no thanks to his dingbat mother. Now, he was hardly an infant. I also suspect he seriously believed this Christian Science horseshit. Even then; I would still argue that it was ethically justifiable to force him to get treatment. We also regularly override the bodily autonomy of adults, who are completely sane. Inmates in the correctional system, are one example. Another is persons who are put under quarantine. These are, in many cases, psychologically healthy, upstanding citizens, who may be subjected to a variety of invasive, and even quite painful medical procedures, such as a lumbar puncture, which, from what I'm told; is fairly excruciating, furthermore; this is done only on the suspicion that they might present a danger to the rest of the community. I could go on, and on.

Also; you are misunderstanding the underlying principle, which is much more fundamental; and that is that we have a moral obligation to protect human life. First; because we are human, and thus; we have a vested interest in the prosperity of the human race. Second; because every human being is a judge of the universe, endowed with the capacity for consciousness, and the near-infinite multitude of possibilities that entails. At 28 weeks; a fetus is a human being. That is a medical fact. Therefore; it has rights.

Finally; you continue to overlook the fact that there is no demand for such a procedure. Such procedures are illegal, as far as I know, in every single country that has legalized abortion. There is absolutely no social backlash against this. The women of Paris, London, Berlin, and Stockholm do not perceive this as a horrific injustice. This controversy only exists on RevLeft.

[choiceone]

I think we have a moral obligation to protect the rights of persons, including their right to life, not human life in the abstract. It is amazing to me that you think the reason very late-term abortion should not be allowed is that we should recognize the fetus as a human being. A fetus is not "a human being" or person. In fact, Canada, which has no restrictions on late term abortion but leaves this up to medical professionals, has a law which clearly states that you have to be born to be legally "a human being."

While a human zygote is the product of spermatic fertilization of an oocyte and grows into a blastocyst, a human being is the product of a human female's gestation of and giving birth to or undergoing a caesarian for an embryo/fetus. The latter is a product of a woman's labor, 24 hours per day seven days per week, for quite a few months.

A zygote/morula/blastocyst has its own short life, I admit. You can grow them in petri dishes, though it is illegal to grow a human one longer than 14 days in the US (and probably elsewhere). When a mammalian ZMB is grown in a petri dish, if it is fed with a scientific supernutrient, it can continue to live for double its normal pre-implantation lifespan, and extrapolating to humans, that would be 16 to 20 days, 8-10 days x 2.

But unless a blastocyst implants into a female's bodily tissue, makes a placenta that incorporates some of her bodily tissue, causes the placenta to shut down part of her immune system and re-channel her blood, and obtains nutrients, antibodies, and oxygen from her blood, it cannot continue growing and living. It becomes, biologically, part of that female's own body because, despite its special growth characteristics, it lives exactly as her legs and organs do, as a part of that body.

Until viability, the fetus does not even have potential to continue living outside of and in biological detachment from her body and, like her legs and organs, will die if she does. After viability, though it has such potential increasingly, a human fetus has not gone through the birth process that finally transforms it into a human being by causing alterations in its circulatory, respiratory, etc., systems, the functional structuring of its heart, etc. That transformation makes it able to live in biological attachment to the woman, so that the cord can be cut as it is no longer necessary.

In that context, the reason why abortions are not performed at eight months is that abortion becomes progressively more dangerous for the woman, the laborer who is making the human being. At eight months, it is in almost all circumstances safer for the woman to use induced labor or perform a caesarian than to perform an abortion. But the question is, who will make the decision regarding safety, qualified medical professionals or a bunch of ignoramuses?

In the Roe v Wade SC decision:
"(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.

"(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life [410 U.S. 113, 165] may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother."

This wording implies that, though the state may choose to regulate and proscribe abortion "to promote its interest in the potentiality of human life," the fetus has no actual human life (since that potentiality refers to what the born child would have) and has no right to life, not even at 8 months. First, because the woman's life and even health take precedence above the state's interest in that potentiality - and above your interpretations and morality. Second, because the state is not required to regulate or proscribe abortion at that point. In fact, several US states have no restrictions on late-term abortion.

No intelligent person would kill or seriously damage an apple tree to save a apple.

I have to say that, in 220CE, the ancient Jews finally redacted their tradition of oral law in the Mishnah, where one court case decision indicated that, even during the birth process, if the woman's life was a risk and there was a chance of saving at the expense of the fetus/child, it was mandatory to save the woman as long as the fetus/child was not more than halfway out of the womb.

Rail against the patriarchy that many religions imposed and supported, but that decision made by a bunch of ancient rabbis shows more respect for women and their rights in at least this one respect than does your post on this leftist website.

[Thelonious]

An unwanted pregnancy is an invasion of a woman's body, and to force a woman to carry a fetus to term is to force her to use her body for purposes she does not want to use it for. So the real issue here is whether women have the right to control their own bodies, whether they have the right to avail themselves of a simple and safe medical procedure to allow themselves to live their lives as they choose. Clearly the answer has to be yes. It's as fundamental a right as I can think of.

Pregnancy is not easy for women. Apart from morning sickness, back pain, the pain of the actual birth, and a host of other discomforts in normal pregnancies, the possibility of unforeseen complications poses a real risk to their physical health and sometimes their lives. To demand that a woman face all that in an unwanted pregnancy is to demand too much. And the unreasonable demands do not even stop there. Unwanted pregnancies carry emotional burdens as well as physical ones. Pregnancy can be a significant interruption in a woman's life, and motherhood can bring serious disruptions of her hopes and plans. Reproductive freedom is not just a slogan. It is a matter of allowing a woman to control her own destiny.

Some pro-lifers say that the fetus counts just as much as or even more than the woman. But this can't be true. A woman is a full-fledged person. She has real desires and fears, real aspirations, and memories. She is connected to the world through her family and friends. She cares about her life and her future. At the very most the fetus has only the potential for all that. I am not saying that the fetus' potential counts for nothing, but I am saying that an actual human life with memories and dreams and friends and obligations has to count more than a potential life still in the womb.

[dodger]

71% Woman didn't recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation
48% Woman found it hard to make arrangements for abortion
33% Woman was afraid to tell her partner or parents
24% Woman took time to decide to have an abortion
8% Woman waited for her relationship to change
8% Someone pressured woman not to have abortion
6% Something changed after woman became pregnant
6% Woman didn't know timing is important
5% Woman didn't know she could get an abortion
2% A fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy
11% Other
In 1987, the Alan Guttmacher Institute collected questionnaires from 1,900 women in the United States who came to clinics to have abortions. Of the 1,900 questioned, 420 had been pregnant for 16 or more weeks. These 420 women were asked to choose among a list of reasons they had not obtained the abortions earlier in their pregnancies.

In China, Vietnam Canada abortion can be carried out at any time. Judging by the number of LATE ABORTION CENTRES advertised, I personally think if not with collusion, then simple lies will get a woman what she needs. Dollars. The stats show over a thousand performed after week 24.

If these figures are accurate and there is little demand as you point out--fine---give women what they want or need. It hardly matters a fig. If on the other hand as I suspect there's not only a demand but also late abortions are already being carried out in larger numbers than stats would suggest. There is real need we should acknowledge that need and face it full on.

We can safely assume that over a quarter of females on the planet already enjoy the freedom. Many of course do not have any such rights at all.

As of 1998, among the 152 most populous countries, 54 either banned abortion entirely or permitted it only to save the life of the pregnant woman.

Living in a tick-box society or where abortion is illegal will not prevent abortions.. Blatant hypocrisy. How else could my friend operate for 30years in Naples with only one police raid. They demanded a list of patients she told them the list was well hidden. But she would be very happy to give some names if matters went to court.Names of the women but also men who had paid. The names of high officials church, police top brass, were enough to get her off the hook. Now of course the law has changed. She, as a doctor operates openly. No woman is turned away--whatever the length of time. Her and the sister are a great team. Great doctor and nurse. Great Communists. Smart. Never doubted for a moment their moral credentials. Nor did the many thousands of Neapolitan women who sought their help.

No unwanted child need ever be born--ever.

[Yazman]

MODERATOR ACTION:


Do you have anything worthwhile and/or interesting to add to this forum? I'm not talking about the inane anecdotes you constantly spout and other such irrelevant dribble.

Go away.

Noxion, you're a good poster but you're not allowed to tell other users to stop posting somewhere - you're not a moderator anymore so you need to remember that. Please don't do this again.


Fugg x DDD

Hetz, please don't make posts like this. They're one-liners and they're spam. Don't do it again.

Let's keep this discussion in the reasonable and civil atmosphere it has. If I see anybody, staff included, coming in here and fucking up the discussion by flaming/taunting the restricted users, I'm going to start handing out infractions.

This is a general warning.

[Jimmie Higgins]

That isn't what I said. (Nine-tenths of which you've seemingly ignored, anyhow.) I said I'm not sexist; because I don't differentiate between the rights of men, and women. Again; civil rights should never be denied on the basis of such arbitrary, and in truth; meaningless, distinctions.If I've had trouble following your arguments it is because they are circular and illogical. You claim that a right that is only restricted by biological ability is "sexist". You claim that resticting women's rights to control biological reproduction is OK on the basis that we violate bodily autonomy when we make medical decisions for those who can not or pose a threat to the larger society, but then you also claim that "rights" of fetuses are inalienable and can not be violated even by the mother though it requires the violation of her wishes and own body.

On my part, I've been lazily generalizing some of the arguments because I don't think the issue is only "late-term" abortions and this is mostly an attempt (in the US) to attack the whole foundation of abortion rights, the right of the birthing person, by trying to characterize the procedure as one of "convinience" for "irresponcible" women. So some of what I've argued should be seen in that way, not strictly point for point arguments against your particular positions. But I am arguing against the logic of some of your arguments directly.


Sometimes; yes, but just as often; no. First of all; many individuals who would fall under these categories are by no means incapacitated. For example; it would be customary to physical restrain, and perhaps forcibly medicate a severely depressed patient, if she was thought to be a danger to herself. If she managed to slit her wrists; her wounds would have to be stitched up, even over her strenuous protestations. Being chronically depressed is a long way from being an invalid. 'Children', or, more accurately; 'Minors' includes all people under the age of 18. There was a case not very long ago, where a young boy, around 16, or 17, and his mother, went on the lam together, because he had cancer, and she happened to be a Christian Scientist, to make a long story short; the two were found, the boy received his treatment, and, as far as I know, he is alive, and well, today, no thanks to his dingbat mother. Now, he was hardly an infant. I also suspect he seriously believed this Christian Science horseshit. Even then; I would still argue that it was ethically justifiable to force him to get treatment. We also regularly override the bodily autonomy of adults, who are completely sane. Inmates in the correctional system, are one example. Another is persons who are put under quarantine. These are, in many cases, psychologically healthy, upstanding citizens, who may be subjected to a variety of invasive, and even quite painful medical procedures, such as a lumbar puncture, which, from what I'm told; is fairly excruciating, furthermore; this is done only on the suspicion that they might present a danger to the rest of the community. I could go on, and on. This does nothing to invalidate my point. You are equating all women with severly depressed and suicidal people! You are saying that disallowing women to choose to give birth or not is the same as a doctor or parent knowing better than a child or someone who refuses necissary treatment! This is an INHERENTLY SEXIST argument that implies that women are incapable of making this decision "properly" and experts are needed to decide this policy.


Also; you are misunderstanding the underlying principle, which is much more fundamental; and that is that we have a moral obligation to protect human life. First; because we are human, and thus; we have a vested interest in the prosperity of the human race. Second; because every human being is a judge of the universe, endowed with the capacity for consciousness, and the near-infinite multitude of possibilities that entails. At 28 weeks; a fetus is a human being. That is a medical fact. Therefore; it has rights.What fetus has organized and petitioned for rights? What fetus has had sit-ins or even told anyone of their desire for life? No, none have. Therefore unlike fully grown and independant women who can make choices. "Fetus-rights" is a non-thing, an abstraction - what it really is are rights derived and fought for by independant adult people ON BEHALF of fetuses. So again, you are arguing that women, who can fully express their desires and will, have less rights than non-pregnant people who can decide for them based on this abstract concept of "feutus rights". When looked at it this way, with moral abstractions aside, then really this battle over rights has nothing to do with "fetus rights" but with the right of women to control their own reproductive process on the one hand, and on the other the right of the current government to control the reproductive process of pregant women.


Finally; you continue to overlook the fact that there is no demand for such a procedure. Such procedures are illegal, as far as I know, in every single country that has legalized abortion. There is absolutely no social backlash against this. The women of Paris, London, Berlin, and Stockholm do not perceive this as a horrific injustice. This controversy only exists on RevLeft.I thought we were talking about abortion in general, but if we are speaking specifically of late-term (or "partial-birth" as it's called in the US media) abortion, then you are correct, there is little demand for it. But the controversy is not a figment of RevLeft, it's a political ploy by the right-wing to demonize all abortion through this staw-man of women aborting late in their terms. Similarly we can say that "Sharia Law" banning is "meaningless" in the US since there is little demand for it - but the point is to demonize Islam and all muslems, not actually prevent Islamic Law from becoming part of the consititution of the US. If there is hardly any call for these kinds of late-abortions, why do the politicians want to ban these kinds of abortions in the first place? If it's so rare, then you'd think that when it does happen, the mother must have a pretty strong reason.

I'm not opposed to having some medically-based protocol or procedures for abortions, but I think we need to be highly suspicious of manuvers by the government in regards to abortion access because they haven't been able to head-on attack it, so they've relied on a strategy of errosion of access.

[NGNM85]

If I've had trouble following your arguments it is because they are circular and illogical.

No; you're just not fully grasping them.


You claim that a right that is only restricted by biological ability is "sexist".

To assert that the bodily autonomy of women, and only women, is totally inviolable, is absolutely sexist, and transphobic, as well as beuing logically impossible, from a utilitarian perspective.


You claim that resticting women's rights..

People's rights.


...to control biological reproduction is OK on the basis that we violate bodily autonomy..

The underlying, fundamental purpose is to protect human life. I was using these examples to demonstrate that nobody seriously believes bodily autonomy is sacrosanct. Bodily autonomy is regularly violated for reasons nobody here has any problem with.


...when we make medical decisions for those who can not or pose a threat to the larger society,

..or to themselves. Also; even the mere possibility of such a threat is considered justification, enough, in some cases.


...but then you also claim that "rights" of fetuses are inalienable and can not be violated even by the mother though it requires the violation of her wishes and own body.

No. While a 28+ week-old fetus, and it's parent are both human beings; I would not assign them equal moral weight. However; there is an equally significant varience in the degree to which the rights of these two individuals is infringed upon. Again; at this stage in the pregnancy; the fetus is completely viable. It has, roughly, a 95%+ chance of survival, on it's own, in fact; as choiceone pointed out; terminating the fetus, at this stage, is even more dangerous than simply removing it. So; the parent's rights are being potentially violated in the sense of dictating how (Not; 'if.') the pregnancy will end. On the other hand; if we do choose to terminate, the cost to the fetus is death. To my mind; killing someone is the greatest possible violation of their rights, imaginable.


On my part, I've been lazily generalizing some of the arguments because I don't think the issue is only "late-term" abortions...

It is; on RevLeft.


...and this is mostly an attempt (in the US) to attack the whole foundation of abortion rights the right of the birthing person, by trying to characterize the procedure as one of "convinience" for "irresponcible" women. So some of what I've argued should be seen in that way, not strictly point for point arguments against your particular positions.

That's not totally inaccurate; but that's not what I am saying, and therefore; I bear no responsibility for those people, or those arguments.

But I am arguing against the logic of some of your arguments directly.


This does nothing to invalidate my point. You are equating all women..

Again; gender is irrelevent, as it should be. I don't differentiate between the rights of men, and women.


...with severly depressed and suicidal people!

This is a logical fallacy. Again; I've never made any distinction between men's rights, and women's rights, because I believe human rights should never be contingent on such arbitrary characteristics. You're also drawing a false equivalency. I gave several non-controversial examples of overriding the bodily autonomy of individuals who were perfectly capable of governing themselves. Even if I had not; it does not follow that I would be conflating the two.


You are saying that disallowing women...

Gender is still irrelevent.


...to choose to give birth or not is the same as a doctor or parent knowing better than a child or someone who refuses necissary treatment!

Only in the sense that the moral imperative to protect human life overrides those individuals' right to bodily autonomy, in certain circumstances.


This is an INHERENTLY SEXIST argument that implies that women..

Again; irrelevent.


are incapable of making this decision "properly"...

That's not what I said.


...and experts are needed to decide this policy.

I would think that we would want social policies to be, if not decided by experts, then, at least, informed by experts. You could say the same thing about engineering, etc.


What fetus has organized and petitioned for rights? What fetus has had sit-ins or even told anyone of their desire for life? No, none have. Therefore unlike fully grown and independant women who can make choices. "Fetus-rights" is a non-thing, an abstraction - what it really is are rights derived and fought for by independant adult people ON BEHALF of fetuses.

None; to my knowledge, as you well know. This is, however; irrelevent. One does not need to assert ones' rights, or to even be capable of asserting ones' rights, in order to have rights.


So again, you are arguing that women, who can fully express their desires and will, have less rights than non-pregnant people who can decide for them based on this abstract concept of "feutus rights".

I don't think you understand what you are saying. Your incredulous tone suggests that you think that the bodily autonomy of; 'pregnant people' (As an aside; I commend you for using gender neutral language, for once.) is inviolable. Not only is this preposterous, but I guaruntee you don't actually believe it. Again; for a utilitarian; this is logically impossible. It would also create all sorts of social complications. Furthermore; as I've said, this distinction is totally arbitrary. You might as well choose left-handed people, or everyone born on a thursday, etc.

Not; 'fetus rights', but; human rights.


When looked at it this way, with moral abstractions aside, then really this battle over rights has nothing to do with "fetus rights" but with the right of women to control their own reproductive process on the one hand, and on the other the right of the current government to control the reproductive process of pregant women.

No, no, no, no. My comments are almost exclusively philosophical, in nature, and are primarily concerned with the imposed boundaries of what constitutes ideologically acceptable thought, on RevLeft. Virtually none of this has anything at all to do with the Republican assault on reproductive rights, etc. Since you mentioned it; I happen to think the perameters established in Roe v. Wade are fairly excellent. My only additional recommendation is that abortion should be available at the nearest hospital, on demand, up to 28 weeks (And afterwards, in the case of medical emergencies.) free of charge, as all essential medical care should be. Again; I would make abortion more accessible, not less.


I thought we were talking about abortion in general, but if we are speaking specifically of late-term (or "partial-birth" as it's called in the US media) abortion, then you are correct, there is little demand for it.

'Partial-Birth Abortion' is a pejorative cooked up by the Religious Right, and their proxies in the Republican party. This phrase has no basis in medical science. This loaded phrase refers exclusively to a procedure called an; 'intact dilate and extract' abortion. There's all sorts of problems with the; "Partial Birth Abortion Ban', and similar pieces of legislation. First; it focuses on the procedure, which is, among other things, totally arbitrary. It has all sorts of weird loopholes. Also; it restricts abortions performed prior to viability, as early as 15 weeks. While I think the importance of viability is somewhat overemphasized, I simply don't see how a 15-week old fetus can rationally be considered in any way equivalent to a human being. While many Americans, myself included, have moral reservations about terminating a healthy fetus, after 28 weeks, this law has nothing to do with that. The; 'Partial-Birth Abortion Act' is a bogus, and arbitrary piece of legislation crafted by Pro-Lifers for no other purpose than to make abortion less accessible. Not to get to far off track, but this also reaffirms what I've been saying, for quite some time, that elections absolutely matter, and that we need to be especially concerned with the ideological composition of the Supreme Court.


But the controversy is not a figment of RevLeft, it's a political ploy by the right-wing to demonize all abortion through this staw-man of women aborting late in their terms.

This is totally unrelated because;

1. The arguments are fundamentally, and qualitatively different from theirs.

2. I am not advocating making abortion less accessible, in the United States, than it already is. Quite the contrary. The perameters set in Roe already prohibit abortions performed after 26 weeks, with exceptions for medical emergencies.

Nobody besides the Pro-Lifers, who, by definition, want to ban all, or most abortions, has any issue with those perameters, which exist, in one form or another, in every country that has legalized abortion. As far as I can tell; nobody on the Pro-Choice side of the equation, which happens to be a majority of the population, has a problem with that. This is why I say this is a battle that only exists on RevLeft, because it's true. There is no large concerted movement, in any of these contries, to strike down these very minimal limitations. This is only controversial on RevLeft.


Similarly we can say that "Sharia Law" banning is "meaningless" in the US since there is little demand for it - but the point is to demonize Islam and all muslems, not actually prevent Islamic Law from becoming part of the consititution of the US. If there is hardly any call for these kinds of late-abortions, why do the politicians want to ban these kinds of abortions in the first place? If it's so rare, then you'd think that when it does happen, the mother must have a pretty strong reason.

Again; the; 'Partial-Birth Abortion Ban' has very little to do with late-term abortions, which are already illegal, after 26 weeks, except in cases of medical emergencies. Also; I am not making a legal argument, but a moral one. However; if asked, I would say that the original perameters set in Roe are nearly ideal. I would simply argue that, as I believe medical care should be freely available to anyone who needs it, that these procedures be availible, for free, within the established limits, at any local hospital.


I'm not opposed to having some medically-based protocol or procedures for abortions, but I think we need to be highly suspicious of manuvers by the government in regards to abortion access because they haven't been able to head-on attack it, so they've relied on a strategy of errosion of access.

That's true, but as I've said, several times, I'm not interested in amending the law. I am interested in amending RevLeft's policy.

[NGNM85]

I think we have a moral obligation to protect the rights of persons, including their right to life, not human life in the abstract.

Well, this causes some problems because, for one thing; babies can't reasonably be described as persons. They have less awareness, and experience than a mature German Shepard. Do you seriously believe that killing such an infant is not murder, or that some guilty of doing so should receive a lesser charge than someone who murders an adult?


It is amazing to me that you think the reason very late-term abortion should not be allowed is that we should recognize the fetus as a human being.

I only said some fetuses should be considered human beings.



A fetus is not "a human being"

That's an opinion, (Which, I think, is fairly obviously wrong.) not a fact.


or person.

A fetus is not a person, that is correct. But, again; neither is a one-year-old.


In fact, Canada, which has no restrictions on late term abortion but leaves this up to medical professionals, has a law which clearly states that you have to be born to be legally "a human being."

Ok. You've found one exception. That's interesting, but largely irrelevent. France, Germany, Austra, Switzerland, Great Britain, etc., all have similar restrictions.


While a human zygote is the product of spermatic fertilization of an oocyte and grows into a blastocyst, a human being is the product of a human female's gestation of and giving birth to or undergoing a caesarian for an embryo/fetus. The latter is a product of a woman's labor, 24 hours per day seven days per week, for quite a few months.

That's totally irrational. No serious materialist could ever make such a claim. What is, and is not a human being is a matter of empirical matter of fact determined by a set of biological characteristics. Physical location is not one of them. If you are a human being; you are a human being in Des Moines, Hong Kong, or on the moon.


A zygote/morula/blastocyst has its own short life, I admit. You can grow them in petri dishes, though it is illegal to grow a human one longer than 14 days in the US (and probably elsewhere). When a mammalian ZMB is grown in a petri dish, if it is fed with a scientific supernutrient, it can continue to live for double its normal pre-implantation lifespan, and extrapolating to humans, that would be 16 to 20 days, 8-10 days x 2.

This is irrelevent, but accurate.


But unless a blastocyst implants into a female's bodily tissue, makes a placenta that incorporates some of her bodily tissue, causes the placenta to shut down part of her immune system and re-channel her blood, and obtains nutrients, antibodies, and oxygen from her blood, it cannot continue growing and living.

Again; this is irrelevate, but I'll concede it is all true.


It becomes, biologically, part of that female's own body because, despite its special growth characteristics, it lives exactly as her legs and organs do, as a part of that body.

Conjoined twins are mutually, biologically dependent, this does not mean they are not human. Furthermore; after 28 weeks, the parent is simply auxiliary life support. The fetus has a 95%+ chance of survival, if removed. It is about as independent as any newborn.


Until viability, the fetus does not even have potential to continue living outside of and in biological detachment from her body and, like her legs and organs, will die if she does.

Hence the word; 'viability.'


After viability, though it has such potential increasingly, a human fetus has not gone through the birth process that finally transforms it into a human being by causing alterations in its circulatory, respiratory, etc., systems, the functional structuring of its heart, etc. That transformation makes it able to live in biological attachment to the woman, so that the cord can be cut as it is no longer necessary.

Again; after 28 weeks; a fetus is perfectly capable of living apart from it's parent.


In that context, the reason why abortions are not performed at eight months is that abortion becomes progressively more dangerous for the woman, the laborer who is making the human being. At eight months, it is in almost all circumstances safer for the woman to use induced labor or perform a caesarian than to perform an abortion. But the question is, who will make the decision regarding safety, qualified medical professionals or a bunch of ignoramuses?

That's one of the reasons. It's also because it's inconvenient, it's illegal, in most countries that have legalized abortion, and finally; because most people find the idea morally abhorrent.

According to the tenets of RevLeftism; no-one save the parent carrying the child can ever make a decision regarding the termination of the pregnancy. This is, of course; irrational, and unscientific.

Policy should absolutely be informed by experts, doctors, in this case. The fact is that there is no significant medical (specifically; neurological) difference between a 28-week-old fetus, and an infant born at 40 weeks. To treat one differently than the other is completely arbitrary, irrational, and unscientific.


In the Roe v Wade SC decision:
"(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.

"(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life [410 U.S. 113, 165] may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother."

This wording implies that, though the state may choose to regulate and proscribe abortion "to promote its interest in the potentiality of human life," the fetus has no actual human life (since that potentiality refers to what the born child would have) and has no right to life, not even at 8 months.

I was making an ethical argument, not a legal one.


First, because the woman's life and even health take precedence above the state's interest in that potentiality - and above your interpretations and morality. Second, because the state is not required to regulate or proscribe abortion at that point. In fact, several US states have no restrictions on late-term abortion.

That might be true, but the federal government is quite clear on the issue. In subsequent cases; the Supreme Court scrapped the trimester guidelines in Roe, and replaced it with the; viability cap, usually interpreted to be 28 weeks, after which an abortion, as I understand it, must be proven to be a medical necessity.


No intelligent person would kill or seriously damage an apple tree to save a apple.

That might be true, but you can't really honestly equate the two. Second, and more importantly; I've never questioned the necessity of aborting a fetus if it represents a threat to it's parent's life. In fact; if you actually read my remarks on the subject, I've been explicitly clear about that, so you can dispense with the fake outrage.


I have to say that, in 220CE, the ancient Jews finally redacted their tradition of oral law in the Mishnah, where one court case decision indicated that, even during the birth process, if the woman's life was a risk and there was a chance of saving at the expense of the fetus/child, it was mandatory to save the woman as long as the fetus/child was not more than halfway out of the womb.

Rail against the patriarchy that many religions imposed and supported, but that decision made by a bunch of ancient rabbis shows more respect for women and their rights in at least this one respect than does your post on this leftist website.

Again; I've been extremely explicit that a pregnancy must be terminated, immediately, at any point in gestation, if continuing the pregnancy represents a threat to it's parents' life. I've never even implied otherwise. If you need to throw a tantrum; go right ahead, but do not ascribe these views to me which I do not agree with, and which are the literal opposite of what I have actually said. You're arguing with yourself. What is at issue, in this conversation, is; whether, or not, it is justifiable to arbitrarily terminate a healthy fetus, after 28 weeks. My answer is; no. Anyone who balks at terminating a six-moth-old infant should say the same; because there's no relevent difference.

Gender is a red herring, in this conversation. It's totally irrelevent.

I know people hate it when I play vocabulary police, but what you really mean to say is; 'this Radical website.' Admittedly, the views which you have, erroneously, ascribed to me, would be quite out of place on a Radical website. What I actually said; which is that it is unjust to arbitrarily terminate a healthy fetus, after 28 weeks, however; is totally compatible with Socialism, including my particular tendency; Anarchism, which places the strongest emphasis on individual rights, out of all the myriad branches of Radical thought, which is, incidentally, why I find it so attractive.

[choiceone]

. . . . babies can't reasonably be described as persons. They have less awareness, and experience than a mature German Shepard. Do you seriously believe that killing such an infant is not murder, or that some guilty of doing so should receive a lesser charge than someone who murders an adult?

To me, once a baby is born, barring anything such as absence of a brain, it is a baby person, but a person nonetheless. It has an individual body biologically separate from anyone else's and is capable of breathing and eating, even if only with help, and thus of living as a biological individual without being inside or touching anyone else's individual body. Killing such an infant is murder because it is the killing of a person.


I only said some fetuses should be considered human beings.

For me, until a fetus is no longer inside the woman, it is simply not a biological individual. I'm willing to admit that the cord could still not be cut. The birth process alters the biological functioning of the fetus and transforms it into a biologically individual human being.


Ok. You've found one exception. That's interesting, but largely irrelevent. France, Germany, Austra, Switzerland, Great Britain, etc., all have similar restrictions.

If even one nation states in a law that you have to be born to be a human being, it's not irrelevant. It's probably just the first.


That's totally irrational. No serious materialist could ever make such a claim. What is, and is not a human being is a matter of empirical matter of fact determined by a set of biological characteristics. Physical location is not one of them. If you are a human being; you are a human being in Des Moines, Hong Kong, or on the moon.

A human zygote, human blastocyst, human embryo, human fetus, and human being are all human adjectivally, but the biological characteristics of the human being include not being part of another human being's body biologically and being able to take in oxygen by breathing (even if on a respirator), not by obtaining it from another's blood. i take the same stand on cell division: until the division is completed, there are not two cells.


Conjoined twins are mutually, biologically dependent, this does not mean they are not human. Furthermore; after 28 weeks, the parent is simply auxiliary life support. The fetus has a 95%+ chance of survival, if removed. It is about as independent as any newborn.

This is inaccurate. Conjoined twins share one body and each takes in his/her own share of oxygen and each eats nutrients. In the more relevant case of the parasitic twin, one twin is wholly contained in the other, attached to that other biologically, and dependent on that other for oxygen, nutrients, and life, but the other is not dependent on it. When a parasitic twin is discovered inside a person's body, soon after birth or years later, it is surgically removed as a health hazard for the other, and it does not continue living.

Until a fetus goes through the birth process, it is not able to be biologically independent. That process changes the functioning of its physiological systems, etc., so that it does not have to be part of the woman's body to survive. A newborn is not biologically attached to anyone, and any person can care for it, so that people can take turns doing so and no one need work at this 24/7 without a break.


Again; after 28 weeks; a fetus is perfectly capable of living apart from it's parent.

Then why not get it out of the woman right away?


That's one of the reasons. It's also because it's inconvenient, it's illegal, in most countries that have legalized abortion, and finally; because most people find the idea morally abhorrent.

The morally abhorrent thing doesn't work on me. I think continuing a rape pregnancy or a pregnancy with a seriously malformed fetus is morally abhorrent, but I'm willing to let individual women make their own decisions to do so.

If the fetus after 28 weeks is threatening the woman's life or seriously threatening her health (e.g., with permanent paralysis from the neck down or permanent psychosis), if it is a case of serious fetal anomaly, or if it is a case of a pregnant rape victim held in captivity to prevent her from having an abortion until, say, 30 weeks, I think it is reasonable to recognize her right to terminate the pregnancy. If she is in a coma and someone else has to decide, it is reasonable to leave it up to next of kin, who are likely to know what her preference would be.


According to the tenets of RevLeftism; no-one save the parent carrying the child can ever make a decision regarding the termination of the pregnancy. This is, of course; irrational, and unscientific.

This is perfectly rational and scientific if the pregnant woman is conscious and of sound mind. In those cases where she isn't, I vote for, say, her husband in conjunction with her doctor, as both of them are more likely to decide what she would want and/or what would be best for her than a stranger with a political axe to grind.


Policy should absolutely be informed by experts, doctors, in this case. The fact is that there is no significant medical (specifically; neurological) difference between a 28-week-old fetus, and an infant born at 40 weeks. To treat one differently than the other is completely arbitrary, irrational, and unscientific.

I do not see a need for a special legal policy. Even in Canada or Oregon, a woman's doctor is involved in a late-term decision because either he/she is going to perform an abortion or not or recommend a doctor to perform one. Women usually select obgyns of the same viewpoint long before that. Anti-choice women look for anti-choice obgyns before or after they get pregnant, and pro-choice women look for pro-choice obgyns. No woman who thinks a fetus should not be considered a human being at 28 weeks wants to have an obgyn who does not agree, and vice versa. And medical professionals vary in their persuasions, so each can find what she seeks.


I was making an ethical argument, not a legal one.

I see. I care about protecting Roe v Wade and a woman's legal right to choose, because that is largely my ethical position. I understand the sentiment behind thinking late-term fetuses should be considered human beings even though I disagree. That's why I don't object to state statutes that restrict it as long as they make exceptions for a woman's life and health. However, I think situations of fetal anomaly and problematic rape cases warrant a right to choose even late-term and the practice of making legal exceptions is problematic because legislators may not think of some warranted cases.


That might be true, but the federal government is quite clear on the issue. In subsequent cases; the Supreme Court scrapped the trimester guidelines in Roe, and replaced it with the; viability cap, usually interpreted to be 28 weeks, after which an abortion, as I understand it, must be proven to be a medical necessity.

Roe v Wade specified 6 months, i.e., nearly 26 weeks, but the earliest viability known today is 21 1/2 weeks. It won't go lower than that if the weeks are properly calculated because of the issue of lung development. The main problem is that a number of serious fetal anomalies are not discovered until 20-22 weeks, and various states want to push the time back to 20 or even 18.


I've never questioned the necessity of aborting a fetus if it represents a threat to it's parent's life. In fact; if you actually read my remarks on the subject, I've been explicitly clear about that, so you can dispense with the fake outrage.

I do not think that life is as important as you do, but I think health is more important than you do.


Again; I've been extremely explicit that a pregnancy must be terminated, immediately, at any point in gestation, if continuing the pregnancy represents a threat to it's parents' life. I've never even implied otherwise. If you need to throw a tantrum; go right ahead, but do not ascribe these views to me which I do not agree with, and which are the literal opposite of what I have actually said. You're arguing with yourself. What is at issue, in this conversation, is; whether, or not, it is justifiable to arbitrarily terminate a healthy fetus, after 28 weeks. My answer is; no. Anyone who balks at terminating a six-moth-old infant should say the same; because there's no relevent difference.

I do not agree. If the woman wants to risk her life to give birth to a particular child, I think she has an absolute right to do so, just as I think she has an absolute right to terminate, even if time limits are placed on that right. I never said it was justifiable to arbitrarily terminate a healthy fetus after 28 weeks, because I have never heard of even one woman who asked to do so or a doctor who agreed to perform an arbitrary abortion that late in pregnancy. I just don't want people legislating about it because they are going to fail to include warranted exceptions or screw it up with their personal morality.

And I do not think that a six-month-old infant and a 28 week old fetus are without relevant differences. Even a preemie is radically different from a fetus: birth makes that much of a difference.


Gender is a red herring, in this conversation. It's totally irrelevent.

I know people hate it when I play vocabulary police, but what you really mean to say is; 'this Radical website.' Admittedly, the views which you have, erroneously, ascribed to me, would be quite out of place on a Radical website. What I actually said; which is that it is unjust to arbitrarily terminate a healthy fetus, after 28 weeks, however; is totally compatible with Socialism, including my particular tendency; Anarchism, which places the strongest emphasis on individual rights, out of all the myriad branches of Radical thought, which is, incidentally, why I find it so attractive.

Gender is always relevant for me. I'm a little old lady who lived through the late 60s and early 70s as a teenager and young adult, so I'm well aware that neither leftism nor radicalism holds guarantees for women, either. I'm just a leftist with a very strong individual human rights leaning.

To me, no one's body belongs to "society" or "the good of the human race," ideas men right and left perennially use to get sex and offspring from ambivalent women and send ambivalent men to war. For me, a person's body - sex organs, immune system, blood, etc. - belong to that person exclusively. Unless the police have reason to suspect that a person's body contains an illegal substance/contagious disease posing community danger, no one born or unborn has a right to access any of that body against the person's consciously stated non-consent. Because, without that, life would be way overrated.

[NGNM85]

To me, once a baby is born, barring anything such as absence of a brain, it is a baby person, but a person nonetheless. It has an individual body biologically separate from anyone else's and is capable of breathing and eating, even if only with help, and thus of living as a biological individual without being inside or touching anyone else's individual body. Killing such an infant is murder because it is the killing of a person.

First; it's important to clarify some of this language, so we can understand what the other is talking about. When I use words like; 'person', or; 'personhood.' I'm referring to a discrete consciousness, an identity. Infants, especially in the first few months, probably have substantially less experience, and awareness of their environment, and themselves, than a mature German Shepard. Therefore; they cannot really be considered; 'persons', in this context. At best; they could be described as posessing, what one might call; 'proto-consciousness.'

Also; all of these criteria; being able to eat by oneself, if only with assistence, or living without physical contact with the body of another are irrelevent. First of all; there are many mature adults incapable of breathing, or eating, by themselves, say; individuals who have suffered a traumatic injury, or are, perhaps suffering from some crippling neurological disorder, etc. Many conjoined twins cannot survive apart from their siblings. I doubt you would ever deny the humanity of any of these individuals.


For me, until a fetus is no longer inside the woman, it is simply not a biological individual. I'm willing to admit that the cord could still not be cut. The birth process alters the biological functioning of the fetus and transforms it into a biologically individual human being.

None of those changes are ethically relevent. What are we, as human beings? Basically; we are brains. The rest is just substrate, and life support. By 28 weeks, as I understand it, the brain of the fetus is sufficiently developed that it must be recognized as a human being. If removed from it's parents' body; it will immediately begin reacting to stimuli, just like any newborn. Also; as I've said, this distinction that you're drawing creates weird paradoxes, whereby a 35-week-old infant is considered a human being, with rights, but a 39-week-old fetus is simply medical waste. That makes no sense.


If even one nation states in a law that you have to be born to be a human being, it's not irrelevant. It's probably just the first.


As I understand it, it has to do with the particular circumstances of the Canadian legal system. They legalized abortion in '68, but only if a doctor approved it was; 'medically necessary.' So, I suspect, whether or not you could get one depended more on the philosophy of the doctor you happened to see. In 1988, for some reason, this law was found unconstitutional, and struck down, and no new legislation has been passed. Again; virtually every country that has legalized abortion has these, admittedly, very benign, limitations. There's no evidence that any significant part of the population, of any of these countries, with the exception of the Pro-Life movement, which basically wants to ban all abortions, has any problem with this. As far as I know; even Pro-Choice groups, like Planned Parenthood, consider this a non-issue.This is not controversial anyplace other than RevLeft.


A human zygote, human blastocyst, human embryo, human fetus, and human being are all human adjectivally,..

True; but so is my pancreas. However; if it was capable of manifesting it's own consciousness, we might think about it somewhat differently. This is whywe need a seperate category, in-between human biomatter, and a; 'person.'


but the biological characteristics of the human being include not being part of another human being's body biologically and being able to take in oxygen by breathing (even if on a respirator), not by obtaining it from another's blood. i take the same stand on cell division: until the division is completed, there are not two cells.


See above.


This is inaccurate. Conjoined twins share one body and each takes in his/her own share of oxygen and each eats nutrients. In the more relevant case of the parasitic twin, one twin is wholly contained in the other, attached to that other biologically, and dependent on that other for oxygen, nutrients, and life, but the other is not dependent on it. When a parasitic twin is discovered inside a person's body, soon after birth or years later, it is surgically removed as a health hazard for the other, and it does not continue living.

Again; (tragically) many mature human beings cannot eat, or breathe on their own. The 28-week-old fetus, is, in a sense, substantially more independent than the conjoined twin, because it can, immediately function entirely on it's own, (Again; to the same extent as any newborn.) once removed.


Until a fetus goes through the birth process,

Until it's removed from it's parents' body.


it is not able to be biologically independent.

See above.


That process changes the functioning of its physiological systems, etc.,

However; the brain, which is the primary thing that we should care about, the seat of consciousness, does not significantly change, in those few minutes.


so that it does not have to be part of the woman's body to survive. A newborn is not biologically attached to anyone, and any person can care for it, so that people can take turns doing so and no one need work at this 24/7 without a break.

See above.


Then why not get it out of the woman right away?

I'm not an OB/GYN. I suspect because it's healthier for the fetus to remain in it's parent's body, until birth, and because doctors tend to shy away from performing surgery when it is not needed. (With the exception of cosmetic surgeons.) In any case; the survival rate for infants delivered at 28 weeks, is around 95%.


The morally abhorrent thing doesn't work on me. I think continuing a rape pregnancy or a pregnancy with a seriously malformed fetus is morally abhorrent,

I explicitly specified that I was talking about a healthy fetus.

Again; I'm not Pro-Life. I have no categorical objection to abortion, (Which is logically impossible, for several reasons.) in fact; I think it should be more accessible than it is, presently, in the United States.

If someone was so emotionally distraught by their pregnancy; it makes no sense that they would wait 28 weeks to terminate. Especially not in a rational society, where this service would be availible for free, at any local hospital. As I've said; there's no demand for such procedures. Furthermore; as the fetus is totally viable, as I've said, I see no reason why it could not simply be removed, and become a ward of the state. No harm, no foul.


but I'm willing to let individual women make their own decisions to do so.


Again; gender is a red herring.

People are free to make their own decisions, unless those decisions infringe upon the rights of others, then we need government, or some kind of third party, to regulate, and find the best mean between the rights of the individual, and the rights of the community.


If the fetus after 28 weeks is threatening the woman's life or seriously threatening her health (e.g., with permanent paralysis from the neck down or permanent psychosis),

Of course.


if it is a case of serious fetal anomaly,

Of course.


or if it is a case of a pregnant rape victim held in captivity to prevent her from having an abortion until, say, 30 weeks, I think it is reasonable to recognize her right to terminate the pregnancy.

A highly unusual, and deeply tragic circumstance. However; I would still argue the best solution is to simply remove the fetus, thus; ending the pregnancy, and making it a ward of the state, until it can be adopted. She's already signed on for invasive surgery, so there's no difference, there, and the pregnancy is still ended.


If she is in a coma and someone else has to decide, it is reasonable to leave it up to next of kin, who are likely to know what her preference would be.

Presumably, we're talking about a pregnant woman who slips into a coma, not a woman in a coma, who's been violated. (Which, I suspect, would get noticed well before the 7th month mark, one would hope.) I'm not even sure if it's even possible for someone in a coma to give birth. (???) In any case; my answer is the same as before. The fetus can be removed, and put up for adoption, the pregnancy is ended, very quickly.


This is perfectly rational and scientific if the pregnant woman is conscious and of sound mind. In those cases where she isn't, I vote for, say, her husband in conjunction with her doctor, as both of them are more likely to decide what she would want and/or what would be best for her than a stranger with a political axe to grind.

It's irrational, and unscientific because it asserts that human rights are dependent on arbitrary criteria. According to this reasoning; the parent's body cavity becomes a magical gateway, bestowing human status to any who pass through it, and because it creates weird paradoxes whereby a premature infant is classified as a human being, with rights, and an older fetus is simply garbage. That makes no sense. There's nothing scientific about it. People are just drawing arbitrary distinctions where it's convenient for them. That's not how reason works, that's not how science works.


I do not see a need for a special legal policy. Even in Canada or Oregon, a woman's doctor is involved in a late-term decision because either he/she is going to perform an abortion or not or recommend a doctor to perform one. Women usually select obgyns of the same viewpoint long before that. Anti-choice women look for anti-choice obgyns before or after they get pregnant, and pro-choice women look for pro-choice obgyns. No woman who thinks a fetus should not be considered a human being at 28 weeks wants to have an obgyn who does not agree, and vice versa. And medical professionals vary in their persuasions, so each can find what she seeks.

Again; there's simply no demand for terminating a healthy fetus, after 28 weeks. It isn't even legal, in the United States, and most of Western Europe.


I see. I care about protecting Roe v Wade and a woman's legal right to choose, because that is largely my ethical position.

That's more or less, exactly, where I'm at, with the exception of the scrapping of the trimester framework in favor of the 26-28 week benchmark, which was decided in a later case. Again; I don't want to make any changes to federal law governing abortion, in the United States.


I understand the sentiment behind thinking late-term fetuses should be considered human beings even though I disagree. That's why I don't object to state statutes that restrict it as long as they make exceptions for a woman's life and health.

...Which is also the position of the Supreme Court, for the time being.


However, I think situations of fetal anomaly and problematic rape cases warrant a right to choose even late-term and the practice of making legal exceptions is problematic because legislators may not think of some warranted cases.

I don't see anything wrong with clearly defined perameters, my suggestion, which is identical to the rulings of the Supreme Court; that abortion should be availible, on demand, up to 28 weeks, and afterwards; only for medical emergencies. If a woman wants to have the fetus removed, after 28 weeks, I see no reason why this should not be allowed, the medical risk is negligible, and greater for the fetus, anyhow.


Roe v Wade specified 6 months, i.e., nearly 26 weeks, but the earliest viability known today is 21 1/2 weeks. It won't go lower than that if the weeks are properly calculated because of the issue of lung development. The main problem is that a number of serious fetal anomalies are not discovered until 20-22 weeks, and various states want to push the time back to 20 or even 18.

This is one of the things I dislike about; 'viability.' I would say brain developmentis a superior measurement. Without getting too technical, and drawing things out, 28 weeks, to me, seems like a fine place to draw the line. I don't see any reason why one should object to an abortion performed, before this red line. I also don't see any reason why this would present problems, especially in a rational society where prenatal care, and abortion were availible, for free.


I do not think that life is as important as you do, but I think health is more important than you do.

This may be a philosophical difference. In any case; I think it's extremely unlikely that such a policy, which is pretty much the standard in much the developed world, would have any negative social fallout. Even things being the way they are, far from ideal, most abortions are performed very early on. I think something like 86%, in the first 11 weeks.


I do not agree. If the woman wants to risk her life to give birth to a particular child, I think she has an absolute right to do so,


Oh, absolutely, if the parent decides to risk their life, to deliver the child, that's their perogative. I assumed that was a given.


just as I think she has an absolute right to terminate, even if time limits are placed on that right.

Clearly; I disagree.


I never said it was justifiable to arbitrarily terminate a healthy fetus after 28 weeks,

Well; that happens to be the bone of contention.

In any case; it is a fundamental tenet of RevLeftism that it is absolutely justifiable.


because I have never heard of even one woman who asked to do so or a doctor who agreed to perform an arbitrary abortion that late in pregnancy.

Niether have I. I'm no law scholar, but as far as I know it's not even legal. This is why it's so ridiculous why this should arouse such controversy on the forum, and why I should be Restricted because of it.


I just don't want people legislating about it because they are going to fail to include warranted exceptions or screw it up with their personal morality.

I don't think there's any law of physics which dictates that must be so. I think a happy mean is fairly simple; availible on demand, up to 28 weeks, but afterwards, only for medical emergencies, but if anyone should choose to have a c-section, or whatever, between 28 and 40 weeks; go right ahead. That seems to cover all the bases.

I think it depends on what the legislators' personal morality is. If they happen to be an Evangelical Christian; that's probably bad news. I happen to be a secular humanist.


And I do not think that a six-month-old infant and a 28 week old fetus are without relevant differences. Even a preemie is radically different from a fetus: birth makes that much of a difference.

See above.


Gender is always relevant for me. I'm a little old lady who lived through the late 60s and early 70s as a teenager and young adult, so I'm well aware that neither leftism nor radicalism holds guarantees for women, either. I'm just a leftist with a very strong individual human rights leaning.

In the abstract; I completely agree. I'm an Anarchist, I want to give people the maximum amount of latitude. However; even with the very narrow mandate of using minimal force purely for the purpose of protecting human life, in such a large, and complex society, the use of force would have to be exercised on a regular basis. I'm just trying to demonstrate that nobody here seriously believes that bodily autonomy is sacrosanct.


To me, no one's body belongs to "society" or "the good of the human race," ideas men right and left perennially use to get sex and offspring from ambivalent women

I don't see how that logically follows. I'm not saying nobody has ever made an argument like that, but I don't see that that makes any sense.


send ambivalent men to war.

I'm of the Radical opinion that humanity should stop having wars. Only the ruling classes benefit from war. The working class virtually always loses. This is, of course, not to undermine the horrific human consequences, which are, by themselves, reason enough to cease engaging in such ritualistic mass murder.


For me, a person's body - sex organs, immune system, blood, etc. - belong to that person exclusively. Unless the police have reason to suspect that a person's body contains an illegal substance/contagious disease posing community danger, no one born or unborn has a right to access any of that body against the person's consciously stated non-consent. Because, without that, life would be way overrated.

This may simply be a philosophical difference. Again; as an Anarchist, I take individual rights very seriously, and would want to maintain the wiidest possible latitude, within reason. However; I would add that the government's perogative to protect human life covers a bit more than that.

[NGNM85]

To me, once a baby is born, barring anything such as absence of a brain, it is a baby person, but a person nonetheless. It has an individual body biologically separate from anyone else's and is capable of breathing and eating, even if only with help, and thus of living as a biological individual without being inside or touching anyone else's individual body. Killing such an infant is murder because it is the killing of a person.

First; it's important to clarify some of this language, so we can understand what the other is talking about. When I use words like; 'person', or; 'personhood.' I'm referring to a discrete consciousness, an identity. Infants, especially in the first few months, probably have substantially less experience, and awareness of their environment, and themselves, than a mature German Shepard. Therefore; they cannot really be considered; 'persons', in this context. At best; they could be described as posessing, what one might call; 'proto-consciousness.'

Also; all of these criteria; being able to eat by oneself, if only with assistence, or living without physical contact with the body of another are irrelevent. First of all; there are many mature adults incapable of breathing, or eating, by themselves, say; individuals who have suffered a traumatic injury, or are, perhaps suffering from some crippling neurological disorder, etc. Many conjoined twins cannot survive apart from their siblings. I doubt you would ever deny the humanity of any of these individuals.


For me, until a fetus is no longer inside the woman, it is simply not a biological individual. I'm willing to admit that the cord could still not be cut. The birth process alters the biological functioning of the fetus and transforms it into a biologically individual human being.

None of those changes are ethically relevent. What are we, as human beings? Basically; we are brains. The rest is just substrate, and life support. By 28 weeks, as I understand it, the brain of the fetus is sufficiently developed that it must be recognized as a human being. If removed from it's parents' body; it will immediately begin reacting to stimuli, just like any newborn. Also; as I've said, this distinction that you're drawing creates weird paradoxes, whereby a 35-week-old infant is considered a human being, with rights, but a 39-week-old fetus is simply medical waste. That makes no sense.


If even one nation states in a law that you have to be born to be a human being, it's not irrelevant. It's probably just the first.


As I understand it, it has to do with the particular circumstances of the Canadian legal system. They legalized abortion in '68, but only if a doctor approved it was; 'medically necessary.' So, I suspect, whether or not you could get one depended more on the philosophy of the doctor you happened to see. In 1988, for some reason, this law was found unconstitutional, and struck down, and no new legislation has been passed. Again; virtually every country that has legalized abortion has these, admittedly, very benign, limitations. There's no evidence that any significant part of the population, of any of these countries, with the exception of the Pro-Life movement, which basically wants to ban all abortions, has any problem with this. As far as I know; even Pro-Choice groups, like Planned Parenthood, consider this a non-issue.This is not controversial anyplace other than RevLeft.


A human zygote, human blastocyst, human embryo, human fetus, and human being are all human adjectivally,..

True; but so is my pancreas. However; if it was capable of manifesting it's own consciousness, we might think about it somewhat differently. This is whywe need a seperate category, in-between human biomatter, and a; 'person.'


but the biological characteristics of the human being include not being part of another human being's body biologically and being able to take in oxygen by breathing (even if on a respirator), not by obtaining it from another's blood. i take the same stand on cell division: until the division is completed, there are not two cells.


See above.


This is inaccurate. Conjoined twins share one body and each takes in his/her own share of oxygen and each eats nutrients. In the more relevant case of the parasitic twin, one twin is wholly contained in the other, attached to that other biologically, and dependent on that other for oxygen, nutrients, and life, but the other is not dependent on it. When a parasitic twin is discovered inside a person's body, soon after birth or years later, it is surgically removed as a health hazard for the other, and it does not continue living.

Again; (tragically) many mature human beings cannot eat, or breathe on their own. The 28-week-old fetus, is, in a sense, substantially more independent than the conjoined twin, because it can, immediately function entirely on it's own, (Again; to the same extent as any newborn.) once removed.


Until a fetus goes through the birth process,

Until it's removed from it's parents' body.


it is not able to be biologically independent.

See above.


That process changes the functioning of its physiological systems, etc.,

However; the brain, which is the primary thing that we should care about, the seat of consciousness, does not significantly change, in those few minutes.


so that it does not have to be part of the woman's body to survive. A newborn is not biologically attached to anyone, and any person can care for it, so that people can take turns doing so and no one need work at this 24/7 without a break.

See above.


Then why not get it out of the woman right away?

I'm not an OB/GYN. I suspect because it's healthier for the fetus to remain in it's parent's body, until birth, and because doctors tend to shy away from performing surgery when it is not needed. (With the exception of cosmetic surgeons.) In any case; the survival rate for infants delivered at 28 weeks, is around 95%.


The morally abhorrent thing doesn't work on me. I think continuing a rape pregnancy or a pregnancy with a seriously malformed fetus is morally abhorrent,

I explicitly specified that I was talking about a healthy fetus.

Again; I'm not Pro-Life. I have no categorical objection to abortion, (Which is logically impossible, for several reasons.) in fact; I think it should be more accessible than it is, presently, in the United States.

If someone was so emotionally distraught by their pregnancy; it makes no sense that they would wait 28 weeks to terminate. Especially not in a rational society, where this service would be availible for free, at any local hospital. As I've said; there's no demand for such procedures. Furthermore; as the fetus is totally viable, as I've said, I see no reason why it could not simply be removed, and become a ward of the state. No harm, no foul.


but I'm willing to let individual women make their own decisions to do so.


Again; gender is a red herring.

People are free to make their own decisions, unless those decisions infringe upon the rights of others, then we need government, or some kind of third party, to regulate, and find the best mean between the rights of the individual, and the rights of the community.


If the fetus after 28 weeks is threatening the woman's life or seriously threatening her health (e.g., with permanent paralysis from the neck down or permanent psychosis),

Of course.


if it is a case of serious fetal anomaly,

Of course.


or if it is a case of a pregnant rape victim held in captivity to prevent her from having an abortion until, say, 30 weeks, I think it is reasonable to recognize her right to terminate the pregnancy.

A highly unusual, and deeply tragic circumstance. However; I would still argue the best solution is to simply remove the fetus, thus; ending the pregnancy, and making it a ward of the state, until it can be adopted. She's already signed on for invasive surgery, so there's no difference, there, and the pregnancy is still ended.


If she is in a coma and someone else has to decide, it is reasonable to leave it up to next of kin, who are likely to know what her preference would be.

Presumably, we're talking about a pregnant woman who slips into a coma, not a woman in a coma, who's been violated. (Which, I suspect, would get noticed well before the 7th month mark, one would hope.) I'm not even sure if it's even possible for someone in a coma to give birth. (???) In any case; my answer is the same as before. The fetus can be removed, and put up for adoption, the pregnancy is ended, very quickly.


This is perfectly rational and scientific if the pregnant woman is conscious and of sound mind. In those cases where she isn't, I vote for, say, her husband in conjunction with her doctor, as both of them are more likely to decide what she would want and/or what would be best for her than a stranger with a political axe to grind.

It's irrational, and unscientific because it asserts that human rights are dependent on arbitrary criteria. According to this reasoning; the parent's body cavity becomes a magical gateway, bestowing human status to any who pass through it, and because it creates weird paradoxes whereby a premature infant is classified as a human being, with rights, and an older fetus is simply garbage. That makes no sense. There's nothing scientific about it. People are just drawing arbitrary distinctions where it's convenient for them. That's not how reason works, that's not how science works.


I do not see a need for a special legal policy. Even in Canada or Oregon, a woman's doctor is involved in a late-term decision because either he/she is going to perform an abortion or not or recommend a doctor to perform one. Women usually select obgyns of the same viewpoint long before that. Anti-choice women look for anti-choice obgyns before or after they get pregnant, and pro-choice women look for pro-choice obgyns. No woman who thinks a fetus should not be considered a human being at 28 weeks wants to have an obgyn who does not agree, and vice versa. And medical professionals vary in their persuasions, so each can find what she seeks.

Again; there's simply no demand for terminating a healthy fetus, after 28 weeks. It isn't even legal, in the United States, and most of Western Europe.


I see. I care about protecting Roe v Wade and a woman's legal right to choose, because that is largely my ethical position.

That's more or less, exactly, where I'm at, with the exception of the scrapping of the trimester framework in favor of the 26-28 week benchmark, which was decided in a later case. Again; I don't want to make any changes to federal law governing abortion, in the United States.


I understand the sentiment behind thinking late-term fetuses should be considered human beings even though I disagree. That's why I don't object to state statutes that restrict it as long as they make exceptions for a woman's life and health.

...Which is also the position of the Supreme Court, for the time being.


However, I think situations of fetal anomaly and problematic rape cases warrant a right to choose even late-term and the practice of making legal exceptions is problematic because legislators may not think of some warranted cases.

I don't see anything wrong with clearly defined perameters, my suggestion, which is identical to the rulings of the Supreme Court; that abortion should be availible, on demand, up to 28 weeks, and afterwards; only for medical emergencies. If a woman wants to have the fetus removed, after 28 weeks, I see no reason why this should not be allowed, the medical risk is negligible, and greater for the fetus, anyhow.


Roe v Wade specified 6 months, i.e., nearly 26 weeks, but the earliest viability known today is 21 1/2 weeks. It won't go lower than that if the weeks are properly calculated because of the issue of lung development. The main problem is that a number of serious fetal anomalies are not discovered until 20-22 weeks, and various states want to push the time back to 20 or even 18.

This is one of the things I dislike about; 'viability.' I would say brain developmentis a superior measurement. Without getting too technical, and drawing things out, 28 weeks, to me, seems like a fine place to draw the line. I don't see any reason why one should object to an abortion performed, before this red line. I also don't see any reason why this would present problems, especially in a rational society where prenatal care, and abortion were availible, for free.


I do not think that life is as important as you do, but I think health is more important than you do.

This may be a philosophical difference. In any case; I think it's extremely unlikely that such a policy, which is pretty much the standard in much the developed world, would have any negative social fallout. Even things being the way they are, far from ideal, most abortions are performed very early on. I think something like 86%, in the first 11 weeks.


I do not agree. If the woman wants to risk her life to give birth to a particular child, I think she has an absolute right to do so,


Oh, absolutely, if the parent decides to risk their life, to deliver the child, that's their perogative. I assumed that was a given.


just as I think she has an absolute right to terminate, even if time limits are placed on that right.

Clearly; I disagree.


I never said it was justifiable to arbitrarily terminate a healthy fetus after 28 weeks,

Well; that happens to be the bone of contention.

In any case; it is a fundamental tenet of RevLeftism that it is absolutely justifiable.


because I have never heard of even one woman who asked to do so or a doctor who agreed to perform an arbitrary abortion that late in pregnancy.

Niether have I. I'm no law scholar, but as far as I know it's not even legal. This is why it's so ridiculous why this should arouse such controversy on the forum, and why I should be Restricted because of it.


I just don't want people legislating about it because they are going to fail to include warranted exceptions or screw it up with their personal morality.

I don't think there's any law of physics which dictates that must be so. I think a happy mean is fairly simple; availible on demand, up to 28 weeks, but afterwards, only for medical emergencies, but if anyone should choose to have a c-section, or whatever, between 28 and 40 weeks; go right ahead. That seems to cover all the bases.

I think it depends on what the legislators' personal morality is. If they happen to be an Evangelical Christian; that's probably bad news. I happen to be a secular humanist.


And I do not think that a six-month-old infant and a 28 week old fetus are without relevant differences. Even a preemie is radically different from a fetus: birth makes that much of a difference.

See above.


Gender is always relevant for me. I'm a little old lady who lived through the late 60s and early 70s as a teenager and young adult, so I'm well aware that neither leftism nor radicalism holds guarantees for women, either. I'm just a leftist with a very strong individual human rights leaning.

In the abstract; I completely agree. I'm an Anarchist, I want to give people the maximum amount of latitude. However; even with the very narrow mandate of using minimal force purely for the purpose of protecting human life, in such a large, and complex society, the use of force would have to be exercised on a regular basis. I'm just trying to demonstrate that nobody here seriously believes that bodily autonomy is sacrosanct.


To me, no one's body belongs to "society" or "the good of the human race," ideas men right and left perennially use to get sex and offspring from ambivalent women

I don't see how that logically follows. I'm not saying nobody has ever made an argument like that, but I don't see that that makes any sense.


send ambivalent men to war.

I'm of the Radical opinion that humanity should stop having wars. Only the ruling classes benefit from war. The working class virtually always loses. This is, of course, not to undermine the horrific human consequences, which are, by themselves, reason enough to cease engaging in such ritualistic mass murder.


For me, a person's body - sex organs, immune system, blood, etc. - belong to that person exclusively. Unless the police have reason to suspect that a person's body contains an illegal substance/contagious disease posing community danger, no one born or unborn has a right to access any of that body against the person's consciously stated non-consent. Because, without that, life would be way overrated.

This may simply be a philosophical difference. Again; as an Anarchist, I take individual rights very seriously, and would want to maintain the wiidest possible latitude, within reason. However; I would add that the government's perogative to protect human life covers a bit more than that.

Finally; I would like to apologize, I feel I was a bit harsh earlier, it was nothing personal.

[NGNM85]

Recent Gallup Poll finds 80% of Pro-Choice Americans oppose aborting a fetus, after 28 weeks, except for medical emergencies.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/148880/Plenty-Common-Ground-Found-Abortion-Debate.aspx

[dodger]

Recent Gallup Poll finds 80% of Pro-Choice Americans oppose aborting a fetus, after 28 weeks, except for medical emergencies.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/148880/Plenty-Common-Ground-Found-Abortion-Debate.aspx

Well the men have had their say. Hooray! Ticked a box. Brain hurts just thinking about it. Next time I have a decision to make that concerns my body I shall consult a Poll. Better still a Mini-Me poll. Then others can make the decision for me. Jeez what a relief.

[NGNM85]

Well the men have had their say. Hooray! Ticked a box. Brain hurts just thinking about it. Next time I have a decision to make that concerns my body I shall consult a Poll. Better still a Mini-Me poll. Then others can make the decision for me. Jeez what a relief.

You picked a strange moment to become almost coherent. Women constituted half of the survey group. If you surveyed purely Pro-Choice women, you'd get about the same result, maybe a point, or two off, but no significant difference.

Such procedures (For which, incidentally, there is no demand.) have always been illegal in the United States. It's illegal in the United Kingdom, as well, for that matter, as well as nearly every country that has legalized abortion.

[dodger]

You picked a strange moment to become almost coherent. Women constituted half of the survey group. If you surveyed purely Pro-Choice women, you'd get about the same result, maybe a point, or two off, but no significant difference.

Such procedures (For which, incidentally, there is no demand.) have always been illegal in the United States. It's illegal in the United Kingdom, as well, for that matter, as well as nearly every country that has legalized abortion.
Indeed NGNM, I made the assumption that half the survey group was male. As you say small demand. Women I find are quite coherent on the subject, know what they want, if there was any drama or tears, I was never privy to it. Not a syllable on any moral dimension. Could have been talking about an irritating wart.Wanted or not. I neglected to say Wifey after working on a childrens ward went over to working in an Abortion Centre. Seemed to suit her well, she enjoyed the work and became a Sister. Legislation can never be perfect when it becomes a political football. Religious dogmas, pieties or those looking for the moral high ground. The rest of humanity have to pick our way through the undergrowth. The doctors who got the cleaner at work to sign a Hysterectomy form whilst being given pre-meds, unaware of what she was signing for, may have had some moral scruples...or may have been fed up to the back teeth with delivering babies(7) that Dot who was cared for by the nuns, could never look after. Perhaps a medical ethics group with a sound philosopher ON BOARD, can illuminate. i CANNOT GET MY THINKING PAST "WANTED or NOT"

oH DEAR..MoRE rAMblIN' in cOHERENCE....SHALL i PRESS SUBMIT??

yOU BETCHA!!!!!!!!

[brigadista]

simple as:


not the church
not the state
women will decide their fate....:D:D

[dodger]

simple as:


not the church
not the state
women will decide their fate....:D:D

Just what I was about to say.......:tt2::laugh:

[choiceone]

First; it's important to clarify some of this language, so we can understand what the other is talking about. When I use words like; 'person', or; 'personhood.' I'm referring to a discrete consciousness, an identity. Infants, especially in the first few months, probably have substantially less experience, and awareness of their environment, and themselves, than a mature German Shepard. Therefore; they cannot really be considered; 'persons', in this context. At best; they could be described as posessing, what one might call; 'proto-consciousness.'

Hi. Sorry to take months to get back to you.

I do understand your view of personhood. I'm sticking to mine anyway, because for me the issue is not the value of the human embryo, fetus, or infant: barring a case of, e.g., anencephaly, the only substantive issue is the relation between the embryo/fetus or infant and the woman.


Also; all of these criteria; being able to eat by oneself, if only with assistence, or living without physical contact with the body of another are irrelevent. First of all; there are many mature adults incapable of breathing, or eating, by themselves, say; individuals who have suffered a traumatic injury, or are, perhaps suffering from some crippling neurological disorder, etc. Many conjoined twins cannot survive apart from their siblings. I doubt you would ever deny the humanity of any of these individuals.

None of those changes are ethically relevent. What are we, as human beings? Basically; we are brains. The rest is just substrate, and life support. By 28 weeks, as I understand it, the brain of the fetus is sufficiently developed that it must be recognized as a human being. If removed from it's parents' body; it will immediately begin reacting to stimuli, just like any newborn. Also; as I've said, this distinction that you're drawing creates weird paradoxes, whereby a 35-week-old infant is considered a human being, with rights, but a 39-week-old fetus is simply medical waste. That makes no sense.

My criterion, being able to breathe and eat, even if medical help is necessary, is related to the embryo/fetus and woman relationship. No person with rights equal to other persons has a right to put/keep any of his/her body parts inside my body without my consent or to use my blood, its contents, or my organs without my consent.

First, no one has a right to rape/sexually assault me. US federal law and many state laws clarify that if I perceive, with cause, that I am threatened with [or being subjected to] rape, sexual assault, kidnapping, or robbery, even if I do not perceive that my life is being threatened, I have the right to use deadly force if necessary to prevent/stop any of those crimes. Third parties also have the right to use it if necessary to help me do that.

Sexual consent is very specific. If I consent to a certain man's putting one of his body parts inside a part of my body for a limited duration, I do not thereby consent to his putting some other body part inside a different part of my body or for a longer duration, or to his adult born son's putting any of his body parts inside a part of my body for any duration. If that adult son does that without my specific consent, that is rape.

Even if a zygote, blastocyst, embryo, or fetus were claimed to be a full person, it could only have equal rights. How could it have the right to put/keep its body inside mine by force [physicochemical force] without my consent [McDonague's "fetal rapist" argument]?

Second, no person has a right to a transfusion of my blood or donation of one of my organs to extend his or her life span without my consent, not even if mine is the only compatible blood type or organ available and that person will die without the transfusion or organ donation. Not even one's own born child has such a right.

Even if a zygote, blastocyst, embryo or fetus were claimed to be a full person, it could only have equal rights. It could not have the right to use the oxygen, nutrients, and antibodies in my blood to extend its life span without my consent [Thomson "violinist" type argument].

My point is that, although I view the embryo/fetus as part of the woman's body because it is attached to and lives as part of her body, even if the law said the embryo or fetus was a full person with equal rights, that embryo or fetus could not have the right to stay inside my body and use my blood contents to extend its life span without my consent because no persons have such rights.

Embryos and fetuses do those things without the consent of the woman as a necessity of continued life, while neonates can continue living without this. If the embryo/fetus were a person with a right to life, that right would absolutely contradict/violate basic rights of the woman, but if a born infant is a person with a right to life, that right does not contradict/violate anyone's basic rights.

This absolute distinction allows us to understand that one cannot logically recognize a right to life for embryos/fetuses that are implanted in women without creating a contradiction in the distribution of basic rights, but one could logically recognize such a right for born infants without creating such a contradiction.

As with the born infant, so with adults incapable of breathing or eating without medical help - they can take in oxygen and nutrients without any violation of any person's basic rights. While conjoined twins are stuck sharing one body, each takes in oxygen and nutrients for it, so each keeps that body alive without violating any other person's basic rights. Every person still has the right to use deadly force in the situations where the law already allows [either conjoined twin can protect the shared body] and can exercise the right to life without contradicting any other person's already given basic rights.

I am preferring a logical argument within existing law to the more problematic choice of making an additional ethical argument.



True; but so is my pancreas. However; if it was capable of manifesting it's own consciousness, we might think about it somewhat differently. This is whywe need a seperate category, in-between human biomatter, and a; 'person.'

Even if an embryo/fetus were fully conscious and capable of doing complex math problems, I would not recognize it as having a right to be inside the sex organs of a woman or use her blood oxygen and nutrients to extend its life without her consent, because the law does not recognize any such right of any born person of any age, no matter how conscious or intelligent, and neither do I. The laws related to basic rights do not vary along with the consciousness or IQ of a rapist or a patient in dire need of a blood transfusion, nor should they.


Again; (tragically) many mature human beings cannot eat, or breathe on their own. The 28-week-old fetus, is, in a sense, substantially more independent than the conjoined twin, because it can, immediately function entirely on it's own, (Again; to the same extent as any newborn.) once removed.

I have addressed this above. The taking in of oxygen and nutrients may require medical aid, but that doesn't require violation of other persons' bodily rights, and the conjoined twins share one body from the beginning, but they equally contribute to its continued living and each does so by obtaining oxygen/nutrients from sources commonly available to all born persons, not by violating others' rights. Until the fetus is removed, it arguably violates the rights of the woman if she does not consent.


However; the brain, which is the primary thing that we should care about, the seat of consciousness, does not significantly change, in those few minutes.

A rapist and a patient in need of a blood transfusion also have brains, and there is no doubt that they are superior to those of a neonate. But their brains are not justification for saying that a person can't use deadly force to stop a rapist from raping or that the law can force a non-consenting person to provide a patient with access to his/her blood to extend the patient's life. My argument is that this is all about relationships.


I'm not an OB/GYN. I suspect because it's healthier for the fetus to remain in it's parent's body, until birth, and because doctors tend to shy away from performing surgery when it is not needed. (With the exception of cosmetic surgeons.) In any case; the survival rate for infants delivered at 28 weeks, is around 95%.

Not only is it healthier for the fetus to stay in the woman's body, but the fetus is likely to have inadequate brain development without this continued stay.


Again; I'm not Pro-Life. I have no categorical objection to abortion, (Which is logically impossible, for several reasons.) in fact; I think it should be more accessible than it is, presently, in the United States.

If someone was so emotionally distraught by their pregnancy; it makes no sense that they would wait 28 weeks to terminate. Especially not in a rational society, where this service would be availible for free, at any local hospital. As I've said; there's no demand for such procedures. Furthermore; as the fetus is totally viable, as I've said, I see no reason why it could not simply be removed, and become a ward of the state. No harm, no foul.

My point is basically that, in the third trimester and even in the late second, abortion, vaginal delivery, and caesarian surgery all pose a danger to the woman. The main issue at that point is, which one is safest for the health and life of the woman, something medical professionals, not politicians, are qualified to decide on a case by case basis. Even the totally viable fetus is not equal to the woman simply because it has never had a right to be inside her sex organs or to exercise a right to life in a way that contradicts/violates her basic rights - which is a logical reason for not recognizing it to have a right to life in the first place.

At the same time, a general law has to apply even in weird rare cases. If a woman was held captive by her rapist and unable to access an abortion until late in pregnancy, or if the fetus was not diagnosed as a serious fetal anomaly until then, I would like abortion to be available in such cases without using the health exception for this. But one can't have everything.


Again; gender is a red herring.

People are free to make their own decisions, unless those decisions infringe upon the rights of others, then we need government, or some kind of third party, to regulate, and find the best mean between the rights of the individual, and the rights of the community.

I would add, persons can behave freely unless their behavior infringes on the rights of others, which is why government couldn't force women to continue pregnancies even if embryos and fetuses were persons.


A highly unusual, and deeply tragic circumstance. However; I would still argue the best solution is to simply remove the fetus, thus; ending the pregnancy, and making it a ward of the state, until it can be adopted. She's already signed on for invasive surgery, so there's no difference, there, and the pregnancy is still ended.


Presumably, we're talking about a pregnant woman who slips into a coma, not a woman in a coma, who's been violated. (Which, I suspect, would get noticed well before the 7th month mark, one would hope.) I'm not even sure if it's even possible for someone in a coma to give birth. (???) In any case; my answer is the same as before. The fetus can be removed, and put up for adoption, the pregnancy is ended, very quickly.

There is a difference: a caesarian can pose a greater danger to the woman than an abortion. The medical professional and the government are obligated to protect the life and health of the woman, but not the fetus, because the fetus cannot be equal to the woman as long as it is inside her.



It's irrational, and unscientific because it asserts that human rights are dependent on arbitrary criteria. According to this reasoning; the parent's body cavity becomes a magical gateway, bestowing human status to any who pass through it, and because it creates weird paradoxes whereby a premature infant is classified as a human being, with rights, and an older fetus is simply garbage. That makes no sense. There's nothing scientific about it. People are just drawing arbitrary distinctions where it's convenient for them. That's not how reason works, that's not how science works.

My reasoning is not irrational or unscientific. It is legal. The human status that birth confers is this. Every embryo/fetus inside a woman without her consent would be violating the rape/sexual assault laws and laws concerning the use of a person's blood or organs if it were a person with equal rights. No born infant is doing so if it is a person with equal rights. Hence, a born infant's exercise of a right to life does not violate any person's basic rights, but all embryos/fetuses do unless the women carrying them consents to their presence and behavior. Law calls for legal solutions, not scientific ones (which are always iffy anyway, e.g., scientists have metabolic, genetic, embryological, neurological, and ecological views of when human life begins and use the one[s] suited to their type of research at any given time).


Again; there's simply no demand for terminating a healthy fetus, after 28 weeks. It isn't even legal, in the United States, and most of Western Europe.

That's more or less, exactly, where I'm at, with the exception of the scrapping of the trimester framework in favor of the 26-28 week benchmark, which was decided in a later case. Again; I don't want to make any changes to federal law governing abortion, in the United States.

...Which is also the position of the Supreme Court, for the time being.

I don't see anything wrong with clearly defined perameters, my suggestion, which is identical to the rulings of the Supreme Court; that abortion should be availible, on demand, up to 28 weeks, and afterwards; only for medical emergencies. If a woman wants to have the fetus removed, after 28 weeks, I see no reason why this should not be allowed, the medical risk is negligible, and greater for the fetus, anyhow.

This is one of the things I dislike about; 'viability.' I would say brain developmentis a superior measurement. Without getting too technical, and drawing things out, 28 weeks, to me, seems like a fine place to draw the line. I don't see any reason why one should object to an abortion performed, before this red line. I also don't see any reason why this would present problems, especially in a rational society where prenatal care, and abortion were availible, for free.


Actually, the point established in Planned Parenthood v Casey is 24 weeks, not 28 as earlier, based on medical technological development and its relation to fetal viability. And I have no problem with 24 weeks, because that is where lung development is sufficient for a 50/50 chance of survival outside the woman. And it goes without saying that it is at least nearing sufficient neurological development, too.

Brain development is inferior to viability in one respect. It is all about the fetus, as if its relationship to the woman were irrelevant. I do not like this "seeing through the woman" to the fetus as if she were invisible. No one, not even the government, has a right to know whether or not a woman is pregnant without her consent because the inside of her body is private.


In the abstract; I completely agree. I'm an Anarchist, I want to give people the maximum amount of latitude. However; even with the very narrow mandate of using minimal force purely for the purpose of protecting human life, in such a large, and complex society, the use of force would have to be exercised on a regular basis. I'm just trying to demonstrate that nobody here seriously believes that bodily autonomy is sacrosanct.

This may simply be a philosophical difference. Again; as an Anarchist, I take individual rights very seriously, and would want to maintain the wiidest possible latitude, within reason. However; I would add that the government's perogative to protect human life covers a bit more than that.

I hope some of my replies above clarify what I mean by bodily autonomy and why I see it as so "sacrosanct."

In the context of war, rape and forced pregnancy are international war crimes, and in the context of domestic law, rape/sexual assault are among the felonies against which deadly force can be used if necessary even if one does not perceive one's life to be threatened.

In the context of domestic law, one's blood and organs are not public property and cannot be commandeered by the government for the public good. (In a different argument, I'd bring in the fact that involuntary servitude is illegal, so forcing the woman's body to continue to labor for the continued life/growth of the fetus would be illegal on those grounds). Indeed, the inside of one's body and medical information about it is private unless there is cause to suspect that it contains illegal substances/diseases that pose a very serious threat to the well-being of the public.

I am a big fan of no unreasonable searches or seizures when it comes to the body, so for me, "bodily autonomy" is much more important than you seem to think it is (probably because you have never had the inside of your body violated against your will and do not understand the intrinsic value of bodily integrity).

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

Fuck sake, could the poll question be any more loaded?

[NGNM85]

Fuck sake, could the poll question be any more loaded?

Maybe a little, but not much. I really wish people would take a lot more care when constructing polls.

[Sea]

Whooaaaaa peee-eww! There's dead thread smell all up in this place!

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Who on earth revived this trainwreck?

Anyone who posits the life of a ball of slime over a woman's choice for what she wants to happen to her body is fucking scum.

[synthesis]

I can't believe I actually read that entire debate about whether gender is relevant to the issue of abortion.

[NGNM85]

I can't believe I actually read that entire debate about whether gender is relevant to the issue of abortion.

It isn't philosophically relevent, regardless of which position one takes.

[dodger]

http://www.irinnews.org/report/84021/philippines-illegal-abortions-the-risks-and-the-misery

An alternative to legal abortion. Link above:

a useful reminder, to me, how things were in Britain before legal abortion became free and easily available. The opponents of abortion having lost ALL the arguments resort to all manner of mealy mouthed stratagem, to turn back the clock. Shameless. So then a glimpse --the "golden age" of living in a country where abortion is illegal. Sober reading.

[zoot_allures]

It largely depends on the woman and what she wants. If she wants to have an abortion, I'd say it's better to have an abortion. If she wants to take it to a child care institution, it's better to do that.

My view of what's better wouldn't always match her desires, though. For example: I believe I should have been aborted. My mum had a terrible pregnancy with me. If I knew my mum during her pregnancy, and she asked me for advice, I'd recommend abortion. The pregnancy nearly killed her and she was crazy to see it through to the end.

I'd also consider the state of the child. If the child has some serious disease and it would have only days or weeks to live, I'd consider abortion better.

[Bardo]

Indeed, this is a personal choice for me, not an ideological one.

Having been through the abortion process with my partner (as a male), I can tell you that for me, it was an extremely painful experience to be involved in making this decision. However, at the time and under those circumstances, it was necessary. With that said, I can't imagine it being any easier on either of us had she gone through with the pregnancy only to then go through the adoption process.

[synthesis]

[Gender] isn't philosophically relevent [in a discussion about abortion], regardless of which position one takes.

That's like saying race isn't relevant to a discussion about racial profiling.

[NGNM85]

That's like saying race isn't relevant to a discussion about racial profiling.

Racial profiling is, obviously, contingent upon race, but the particular race in question is irrelevent. You can't say it's wrong to discriminate against blacks, but it's fine to discriminate against arabs. There may be plenty of sexism in in the pro-life movement, but it isn't based on sexism, rather, it is based on religious notions about morality, and the origins of life. In a similar fashion, it's not as if anyone who is consistently pro-choice would tolerate categorically suppressing the reproductive rights of any arbitrary strata of humanity. For example, I don't doubt everyone here would argue transman Thomas Beatie should not have the same reproductive rights as everyone else. Human rights should never be predicated upon such arbitrary criteria as sex, (or race, sexual orientation, etc.) to argue otherwise is sexist, that's actually the literal definition of sexism.

[synthesis]

Racial profiling is, obviously, contingent upon race, but the particular race in question is irrelevent. You can't say it's wrong to discriminate against blacks, but it's fine to discriminate against arabs. There may be plenty of sexism in in the pro-life movement, but it isn't based on sexism, rather, it is based on religious notions about morality, and the origins of life. In a similar fashion, it's not as if anyone who is consistently pro-choice would tolerate categorically suppressing the reproductive rights of any arbitrary strata of humanity. For example, I don't doubt everyone here would argue transman Thomas Beatie should not have the same reproductive rights as everyone else. Human rights should never be predicated upon such arbitrary criteria as sex, (or race, sexual orientation, etc.) to argue otherwise is sexist, that's actually the literal definition of sexism.

This isn't contingent upon gender either. The Thomas Beatie thing proves that men are also allowed to get abortions. The simple fact that most men can't get pregnant doesn't mean they wouldn't be allowed to do it if they could. What was your point again?

[NGNM85]

This isn't contingent upon gender either. The Thomas Beatie thing proves that men are also allowed to get abortions. The simple fact that most men can't get pregnant doesn't mean they wouldn't be allowed to do it if they could.

Exactly. Gender is philosophically irrelevent. It's a non-factor, whether one is pro-choice, or pro-life.


What was your point again?

I have made several points, over the course of this thread. The point I was trying to make to you is that gender is philosophically irrelevent to the abortion debate, which you seem to have acknowledged.

[Thirsty Crow]

I consider it better to leave reproduction rights to the full discretionary power of women themselves, not to pass judgement on what that sorry beings should actually do.

And how one could actually conclude that gender is irrelevant in the abortion debate, while fully recognizing the extent and effects of diffuse sexism and general patriarchy, is beyond me.

EDIT: the first sentence contains SARCASM.

[synthesis]

Exactly. Gender is philosophically irrelevent. It's a non-factor, whether one is pro-choice, or pro-life.



I have made several points, over the course of this thread. The point I was trying to make to you is that gender is philosophically irrelevent to the abortion debate, which you seem to have acknowledged.

Weren't you arguing that it's discriminatory to allow women to get abortions because men can't get them too, or something?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Racial profiling is, obviously, contingent upon race, but the particular race in question is irrelevent. You can't say it's wrong to discriminate against blacks, but it's fine to discriminate against arabs. There may be plenty of sexism in in the pro-life movement, but it isn't based on sexism, rather, it is based on religious notions about morality, and the origins of life. In a similar fashion, it's not as if anyone who is consistently pro-choice would tolerate categorically suppressing the reproductive rights of any arbitrary strata of humanity. For example, I don't doubt everyone here would argue transman Thomas Beatie should not have the same reproductive rights as everyone else. Human rights should never be predicated upon such arbitrary criteria as sex, (or race, sexual orientation, etc.) to argue otherwise is sexist, that's actually the literal definition of sexism.Yes the particular race - in the concrete social context - is important! Racial oppression doesn't come out of a vaccume or exist in isolation. In fact this is the same argument made by racists against things like hiring quotas for under-represented or impoverished groups... it's "discrimination/unfavorable treatment" for the dominant (or non-systematically excluded) group!

Since feotuses can not decide their own fate, this debate is never "the life of a baby" vs. pregnant persons's choice, it's a debate over who gets to decide - the pregnent person or other people (based on their moral concerns since they have nothing to do with the actual pregnancy or raising of the child if the birth is carried through). In actual practice this means male-dominated society decides for women which is connected to a much larger sexist framework in actual society in which women are moralized against and expected to bear the social responcibilites of reproducing and raising the next generation of laborers. It's the same framework which in the past was used to argue for sterilizations of women deemed "irresponcible" and taking children away from poor single mothers.

Honestly I think your argument - and the absurd lengths to seperate this issue from a larger social contxt - is an attempt to abstract the issue to square your own anti-sexism with a moral rejection of abortion. But these are incompatable views and a contradiction in real practice (aside from an induvidual level, as in: "I wouldn't want to have an abortion if I got pregnent unexpectedly").

[NGNM85]

Weren't you arguing that it's discriminatory to allow women to get abortions because men can't get them too, or something?

...That's not really even close to what I was saying. I would encourage you to re- read the thread.

[NGNM85]

Yes the particular race - in the concrete social context - is important!

It has no bearing on the right-ness, or wrong-ness of discrimination. Again; it is logically impossible to oppose discrimination against african americans, but support discrimination against arabs.


Racial oppression doesn't come out of a vaccume or exist in isolation.

Of course not.


In fact this is the same argument made by racists against things like hiring quotas for under-represented or impoverished groups... it's "discrimination/unfavorable treatment" for the dominant (or non-systematically excluded) group!

That's technically true. However, it is a necessary, and extraordinarily benign, form of discrimination, that I happen to support, because, in this society, it's necessary.


Since feotuses can not decide their own fate, this debate is never "the life of a baby" vs. pregnant persons's choice, it's a debate over who gets to decide - the pregnent person or other people (based on their moral concerns since they have nothing to do with the actual pregnancy or raising of the child if the birth is carried through). In actual practice this means male-dominated society decides for women which is connected to a much larger sexist framework in actual society in which women are moralized against and expected to bear the social responcibilites of reproducing and raising the next generation of laborers.

There are a number of things wrong with this.

For one thing, by this reasoning, I would not be allowed to have an opinion on capital punishment, or the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, etc.

For another, giving up an unwanted child is extraordinarily easy. As far as I know, every state has some form of 'Safe Haven' law, which allows mothers to turn over unwanted children to the state simply by dropping them off at a hospital, or fire station. The thing is that most people actually want to raise their children, once they are born, but, unfortunately, many of them lack the material resources to raise said children.


It's the same framework which in the past was used to argue for sterilizations of women deemed "irresponcible" and taking children away from poor single mothers.

That has absolutely no relationship to what I was saying.


Honestly I think your argument - and the absurd lengths to seperate this issue from a larger social contxt - is an attempt to abstract the issue to square your own anti-sexism with a moral rejection of abortion. But these are incompatable views and a contradiction in real practice (aside from an induvidual level, as in: "I wouldn't want to have an abortion if I got pregnent unexpectedly").

The slanderous claim that I; 'morally reject abortion', in your tortured phraseology, is total bullshit. I am pro-choice, even passionately pro-choice, and I always have been. I've signed tons of petitions for Planned Parenthood, and NARAL. I'm also pretty sure you know this. I've said as much, in dozens, upon dozens of threads, including this one, dozens of times, and to you, personally. Christ, just look at the preceding page, for fucks' sake;

'Again; I'm not Pro-Life. I have no categorical objection to abortion, (Which is logically impossible, for several reasons.) in fact; I think it should be more accessible than it is, presently, in the United States.'

'Again; I don't want to make any changes to federal law governing abortion, in the United States.'

Etc., etc.

Cut the crap.

[Jimmie Higgins]

There are a number of things wrong with this.

For one thing, by this reasoning, I would not be allowed to have an opinion on capital punishment, or the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, etc.yes you could because unlike fetuses, Palestinians and condemned people advocate for and express their wishes!


For another, giving up an unwanted child is extraordinarily easy. As far as I know, every state has some form of 'Safe Haven' law, which allows mothers to turn over unwanted children to the state simply by dropping them off at a hospital, or fire station. The thing is that most people actually want to raise their children, once they are born, but, unfortunately, many of them lack the material resources to raise said children.carrying a baby to term, medical expenses, emotional and physical stress, feeling sick and tired all the time, social pressures, missing work, giving birth... Is not extraordinarily easy according to most mothers ever.


That has absolutely no relationship to what I was saying.well I don't quite understand what the point of your argument is then.

[NGNM85]

yes you could because unlike fetuses, Palestinians and condemned people advocate for and express their wishes!

Some can, some can't. It matters not. For one example; if someone passes out as a party, their unresponsiveness does not constitute permission to sodomize them. For another, nonverbal infants are almost wholly unable to articulate themselves, in any state of consciousness, yet, I would argue, that to arbitrarily kill one would constitute an act of murder. Furthermore; in order to be moved by someone's protestations necessitates we have been ethically primed to do so, otherwise we would not be susceptible to them.


carrying a baby to term, medical expenses, emotional and physical stress, feeling sick and tired all the time, social pressures, missing work, giving birth... Is not extraordinarily easy according to most mothers ever.

As everyone can see; that's not what I said. What I said was that it is extraordinarily easy for parents to give up custody of unwanted children, in this country. However, as I pointed out, before, this is not a major social problem. Most people who have children want to keep them, but, unfortunately, because we live in an unjust, and irrational society, many of them are denied the resources to do so.


well I don't quite understand what the point of your argument is then.

Agreed.

[NGNM85]

And how one could actually conclude that gender is irrelevant in the abortion debate, while fully recognizing the extent and effects of diffuse sexism and general patriarchy, is beyond me.

I don't see why this is so difficult for you to understand. Gender is an ethical non-factor. Not only is there no logical reason to assign moral weight to this arbitrary detail, to do so would be sexist. No intelligent, logical, consistent person either supports, or, for that matter, opposes abortion on the basis of gender.

[Remus Bleys]

]No intelligent, logical, consistent person either supports, or, for that matter, opposes abortion on the basis of gender.:rolleyes:

[NGNM85]

:rolleyes:

Emoticons are poor substitutes for arguments.

[Sic Semper Tyrannis]

You still have no right to say whether someone can or can't give birth and every human being that respects the concept of bodily autonomy will stand ready to apprehend you if you are thinking otherwise.

This is why nobody takes you seriously. You think that you have some kind of divine right to restrict what others can say, and even go as far as harming them for doing so.

Re-evaluate your ego.

[Sic Semper Tyrannis]

Weren't you arguing that it's discriminatory to allow women to get abortions because men can't get them too, or something?

Men should have a right to legally abandon parenthood, including all financial responsibility.

[NGNM85]

This isn't contingent upon gender either. The Thomas Beatie thing proves that men are also allowed to get abortions. The simple fact that most men can't get pregnant doesn't mean they wouldn't be allowed to do it if they could. What was your point again?

Thomas Beatie had the child, and another one, I think. As such, all this demonstrates is that someone with a uterus gave birth, hardly an unprecedented event. Certainly, the pregnancy could have been terminated, legally. However, this is missing the point, I know what the law says, what we're discussing here is something more philosophical, and more fundamental, namely; 'What is the right thing to do?' I was using the example of Thomas Beatie to demonstrate that the central question is not; 'Do women have the right to an abortion?', but; 'What are the limits, if any, that we are willing to impose on bodily autonomy?' If the right to terminate were predicated on gender, Beatie would be ineligible, which is sexist, unless one were to classify him as a; ' woman', which would be considered transphobia. This was my point, that gender is, and must be, irrelevent to the ethics of abortion, which, of course, precedes, and determines our politics, however one answers the question. I really don't get why this is so difficult for people to understand, I don't know how to make it any simpler than that.

[#FF0000]

Men should have a right to legally abandon parenthood, including all financial responsibility.

Women should have access to free, high quality child care. Men being able to "legally abandon parenthood" (ignoring for a minute that it's a pretty stupid idea anyway) without that would necessarily mean steeping even more women and children into crushing poverty

[Sic Semper Tyrannis]

Women should have access to free, high quality child care. Men being able to "legally abandon parenthood" (ignoring for a minute that it's a pretty stupid idea anyway) without that would necessarily mean steeping even more women and children into crushing poverty

If women are able to opt out of parenthood (via abortion), men should have an equivalent right. It's only fair.

[Luís Henrique]

What do you consider better to do when the mother cannot take care of the child?
* Abortion
* Take it to a proper child care institution and give it a chance to live.

If the "mother" wants to have an abortion, then an abortion.
If the "mother" prefers to bear the child and then give it up for adoption, then so.

What's the problem?

Luís Henrique

[PhoenixAsh]

I am wondering how you can abort a child or give a fetus up for adoption.

Either way the poll language is heavilly biased and or distorting from the issue. But i think that was established in the 4 pages and why OP was restricted.

Either way...seriously? We are necroing a 2012 thread? every few months now?

[Ritzy Cat]

I think the pro-choice idea is obvious here. A mother may or may not want to go through pregnancy or not...

Nonetheless, it shouldn't matter at all how she wants to deal with the accumulation of non-sentient flesh in her womb. Give birth to it, or dispose of the homonculus of flesh deposited in her belly.

[TC]

Don't we have more than enough abortion debate threads going on at the same time already?

Also, while I am utterly baffled by Luís Henrique's decision to revive this old thread, I do appreciate him putting the term "mother" in scare quotes when referring to its erroneous applications to pregnant women who may or may not be mothers.

[Redistribute the Rep]

Don't we have more than enough abortion debate threads going on at the same time already?

Women's bodily integrity is confusing even to so called 'leftists'

[Non-Aligned]

Keep abortion to the first trimester.

[Zoroaster]

Keep abortion to the first trimester.

What

[BIXX]

Keep abortion to the first trimester.


^^^
This kind of absolute stupidity is produced by pro-lifers.

[Zoroaster]

^^^
This kind of absolute stupidity is produced by pro-lifers.

Agreed. Restrict the user.

[PhoenixAsh]

Suïcide bij admin.

Anyways I am sure that will happen soon

[Cerdic]

Well, I would choose option two "Take it to a proper child care institution and give it a chance to live." But I would also like a charity / government programme(s) and financial support to help mothers to raise their children themselves.

In our society no woman should be in the situation that they feel they need to kill their child. I am a woman and I hope that no matter what happens in my life, I won't choose abortion. There's always a better option than that.

P.S I used to be pro-choice. Then my uncle's GF got pregnant. At about 10-11 weeks after conception I saw the first scan. I saw a little face, and a hand. The baby is now a healthy 1 1/2 year old who just learned how to walk. ;)

[PhoenixAsh]

Could you clear something up for us? When you say you "used to be" pro-choice...do you mean you now favor legislation which would limit the possibilities to have safe and free access to abortion during any stage of the pregnancy? Or that you personally would not chose an abortion?

[NGNM85]

P.S I used to be pro-choice. Then my uncle's GF got pregnant. At about 10-11 weeks after conception I saw the first scan. I saw a little face, and a hand. The baby is now a healthy 1 1/2 year old who just learned how to walk. ;)

I don't blame you for being moved by those images, that's a very natural, and very human response. However, what I think you're overlooking is that these characteristics that you're responding to are really superficial. An 11 - week - old fetus, is, for all intents and purposes, brain dead. It lacks the neural prerequisites for thought, or awareness. In this sense, it is no different from a body in a persistent vegetative state, it may breathe, it has a heartbeat, and appear to resemble a sleeping person, but if you hook it up to an EEG, or whatever, you'll see that nobody's home, they are only alive in the loosest possible sense. It's natural to look at what appears to be a human being, and feel an emotional connection, but, again, those features that you are responding to are just superficial characteristics.

[Redistribute the Rep]

P.S I used to be pro-choice. Then my uncle's GF got pregnant. At about 10-11 weeks after conception I saw the first scan. I saw a little face, and a hand. The baby is now a healthy 1 1/2 year old who just learned how to walk. ;)

That's funny, because whenever I see a kid I'm more glad that abortion is legal.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

P.S I used to be pro-choice. Then my uncle's GF got pregnant. At about 10-11 weeks after conception I saw the first scan. I saw a little face, and a hand. The baby is now a healthy 1 1/2 year old who just learned how to walk. ;)

This has to be the most bizarre "argument" ever. "Look the fetus has a little face, so women need to be forced to give birth." Yeah, thanks, it's nice to know that the pain and suffering a woman would experience if forced to give birth is nothing compared to how cute the fetus looks.

[TC]

P.S I used to be pro-choice. Then my uncle's GF got pregnant. At about 10-11 weeks after conception I saw the first scan. I saw a little face, and a hand. The baby is now a healthy 1 1/2 year old who just learned how to walk. ;)

Thats cool. Your comrade Paul Ryan explained his pro-forced-childbirth philosophy along similar lines. (http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/10/12/vice_presidential_debate_what_does_paul_ryan_s_bea n_have_to_do_with_abortion.html)

[TC]

This has to be the most bizarre "argument" ever. "Look the fetus has a little face, so women need to be forced to give birth." Yeah, thanks, it's nice to know that the pain and suffering a woman would experience if forced to give birth is nothing compared to how cute the fetus looks.

Well its similar to how the government will use armed police to abduct people to forcibly harvest sections of their livers for transplant if there is a puppy that needs a liver transplant. Leftists are all pretty much okay with that because puppies are so cute and liver sections grow back good as new and not doing it would cause puppies to die. And no one is anti-puppy-life.

Or does it not work that way?

[PhoenixAsh]

b-b-b-but look at the cute puppy:

http://favimages.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/white-sweet-small-puppy-face-dog.jpg


I would once again like to state unequivocally:


It is the political position of this board that everybody who argues for restricting the freedom of women to chose on whether or not to terminate pregnancy during any time of that pregnancy (and yes, this means up until birth itself) or argues the limitation on, or obstruction of, women to have free access to medically safe abortions can and will be restricted. These positions are deeply sexist and patriarchal.


This is not up for debate. It is not a negotiable position.

This is what you agreed to accept when you became a member....and it wasn't a suggestion.


If you don't like an abortion...don't have them.
If you do not want an abortion...you don't have to.
If you are a woman...you can express why you, yourself, personally would or would not or did or did not choose to have an abortion
If you are a man...it is NOT your fucking say so what a woman does with her body.
If you do not understand...use the search function or ask
If you do not agree AND you do not want to get restricted...leave or STFU
IF you find yourself restricted...don't be an asshole and start threads about how unfair it was and how you were merely expressing a hypothetical or personal opinion...but actually use your time to learn.

As soon as you express the opinion that abortion should be regulated and therefore as a consequence you argue for the regulation of women's bodies and what they can and can't do with them...then you are not really wanted here. No matter how long you have been a member.


I hope this clears up the confusion so many people have with this because apparently it is extremely hard to understand.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

http://objectivismforintellectuals.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/abortion-fetal-rights-objectivism-meme-picture.jpg

[Loony Le Fist]

P.S I used to be pro-choice. Then my uncle's GF got pregnant. At about 10-11 weeks after conception I saw the first scan. I saw a little face, and a hand. The baby is now a healthy 1 1/2 year old who just learned how to walk. ;)

Do you know what pro-choice means?

[NGNM85]

Do you know what pro-choice means?

Do you?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Well its similar to how the government will use armed police to abduct people to forcibly harvest sections of their livers for transplant if there is a puppy that needs a liver transplant. Leftists are all pretty much okay with that because puppies are so cute and liver sections grow back good as new and not doing it would cause puppies to die. And no one is anti-puppy-life.

Or does it not work that way?

I would sooner side with the Liver Squad than the Fetal Dreams Brigade. Liver transplants, from what I know of them, are less painful and obtrusive than forced pregnancy/birth, and there's no history of state persecution and oppression of people who have livers.

[Loony Le Fist]

Do you?

I think most here would agree that what is meant when someone claims to be pro-choice is they feel that abortions shouldn't be subject to any legal hinderances or social stigmatization. I acknowlege that its a loose definition since we have some trouble distinguishing abortion from murder; a debate I'm not sure will be resolved in my lifetime.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I think most here would agree that what is meant when someone claims to be pro-choice is they feel that abortions shouldn't be subject to any legal hinderances or social stigmatization. I acknowlege that its a loose definition since we have some trouble distinguishing abortion from murder; a debate I'm not sure will be resolved in my lifetime.

But there is no debate, not on the left. Who has trouble "distinguishing abortion from murder"?

[Prole]

I view abortion as lost human potential. I will grant you that current child-care services are so inefficient that you can make a compelling argument they are actually destructive to the child, however I believe that achieving the reform needed would be ultimately be better for everyone.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I view abortion as lost human potential. I will grant you that current child-care services are so inefficient that you can make a compelling argument they are actually destructive to the child, however I believe that achieving the reform needed would be ultimately be better for everyone.

It certainly wouldn't be better for the woman who is forced to be pregnant and give birth. It always creeps me out slightly how these debates inevitably turn into discussions about the fetus and not, you know, the independent, developed, thinking and feeling women, members of our society. Because apparently as long as you have a uterus you're an incubator for the fetus and your interest is irrelevant.

The "lost human potential" argument is ludicrous. Most women deposit lost human potential every month or so; most men do so with alarming frequency. Should we also ban menstruation, masturbation, and, I don't know, not having unprotected sex? Every minute I spend typing this, after all, is "lost human potential" as I could have spent it impregnating someone.

[Redistribute the Rep]

I view abortion as lost human potential. I will grant you that current child-care services are so inefficient that you can make a compelling argument they are actually destructive to the child, however I believe that achieving the reform needed would be ultimately be better for everyone.

Funny that you mention 'lost human potential' because keeping women in their motherly roles has tremendously hindered them from reaching their full potential for centuries.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

I view abortion as lost human potential. I will grant you that current child-care services are so inefficient that you can make a compelling argument they are actually destructive to the child, however I believe that achieving the reform needed would be ultimately be better for everyone.

How are you defining potential here?

[argeiphontes]

It always creeps me out slightly how these debates inevitably turn into discussions about the fetus and not, you know, the independent, developed, thinking and feeling women, members of our society.

That's interesting, because what creeps *me* out is people who have no scientific basis for why the fetus is not conscious moralizing about how the rights of the women always trump those other rights. The only person in the discussion who's even mentioned anything about those things is NGNM85. The rest of you are just moralizing. Don't project your creepage unto us!

Why don't you just come out and say what you really mean? That the consciousness of the child has no bearing on your decision. You just think that the woman can always abort regardless of the existential status of the fetus/child. Why would you even bother arguing instead of just saying what you think?

[Kill all the fetuses!]

That's interesting, because what creeps *me* out is people who have no scientific basis for why the fetus is not conscious moralizing about how the rights of the women always trump those other rights. The only person in the discussion who's even mentioned anything about those things is NGNM85. The rest of you are just moralizing. Don't project your creepage unto us!

Why don't you just come out and say what you really mean? That the consciousness of the child has no bearing on your decision. You just think that the woman can always abort regardless of the existential status of the fetus/child. Why would you even bother arguing instead of just saying what you think?

That's literally what we have been saying all along. It's in the fucking forum rules, rather explicitly.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

That's interesting, because what creeps *me* out is people who have no scientific basis for why the fetus is not conscious moralizing about how the rights of the women always trump those other rights. The only person in the discussion who's even mentioned anything about those things is NGNM85. The rest of you are just moralizing. Don't project your creepage unto us!

Why don't you just come out and say what you really mean? That the consciousness of the child has no bearing on your decision. You just think that the woman can always abort regardless of the existential status of the fetus/child. Why would you even bother arguing instead of just saying what you think?

See, the problem with your attempts at a tu quoque is that they don't really make sense. I did say that whatever fetal dreams the fetus has do not have any relevance. The point was not to "argue" against forced-birthers but to point out their extremely fucked-up priorities.

I think you're just sort because in the last abortion thread you sort of gave away your reasons for opposing abortion and, surprise surprise, they had nothing to do with tiny fetal dreams of tiny fetal souls.

[argeiphontes]

I did say that whatever fetal dreams the fetus has do not have any relevance.

That's why your point of view is unethical.



in the last abortion thread you sort of gave away your reasons for opposing abortion


Just because your favorite argument is the Straw Man doesn't make it true.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

That's why your point of view is unethical.

Good, given that ethics are a load of bourgeois bollocks, always used to attack the proletariat, communists, women and minorities, if my point of view started conforming to ethics, I would be very worried.


Just because your favorite argument is the Straw Man doesn't make it true.

Oh, so I suppose you didn't use the old canard about how women should be "responsible" and if they're not "responsible" it's their fault and they should be forced to give birth?

[argeiphontes]

Good, given that ethics are a load of bourgeois bollocks


I'm glad you're not leading a revolution, then.



Oh, so I suppose you didn't use the old canard about how women should be "responsible" and if they're not "responsible" it's their fault and they should be forced to give birth?

No, I did not use "the old canard" as your straw-man claim accuses. I made an actual claim about responsibility for one's actions. Since you don't think anybody should have any responsibility for anything ("ethics are a load of bourgeois bollocks"), it's pointless to discuss this with you. I make ethical claims for consideration and argument by individuals who understand themselves as moral agents, not for robots or animals.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I'm glad you're not leading a revolution, then.

And for my part I'm glad moral Orels and family-mongers like you are on the way out. Aren't we all glad.


No, I did not use "the old canard" as your straw-man claim accuses. I made an actual claim about responsibility for one's actions. Since you don't think anybody should have any responsibility for anything ("ethics are a load of bourgeois bollocks"), it's pointless to discuss this with you. I make ethical claims for consideration and argument by individuals who understand themselves as moral agents, not for robots or animals.

"No, guvnor, I didn't do it, except I did."

[PhoenixAsh]

I'm glad you're not leading a revolution, then.

No, I did not use "the old canard" as your straw-man claim accuses. I made an actual claim about responsibility for one's actions. Since you don't think anybody should have any responsibility for anything ("ethics are a load of bourgeois bollocks"), it's pointless to discuss this with you. I make ethical claims for consideration and argument by individuals who understand themselves as moral agents, not for robots or animals.

Bullshit.

Your claims of ethics result in you having an issue with people deciding what happens to their own bodies and judging that "unethical" in order to repair this subjective evaluation of yours...you then follow up with the logic that people should be forced to lose control over their bodies...for the sake of ethics. And you find this an ethical course of action and argument.

See where this leads?

You THEN also decide that there is something like responsibility that is not taken by individuals. You again base this subjective evaluation on the subjective ethical standard and interpretation you hold of responsibility. In other words: because you do not like the decisions of others in situations you will never have to make a decision in...ever...you equate their decisions with "irresponsibility".

This is of course a false analogy because ethics and responsibility have NO intrinsic and objectively quantifiable relationship.

Understand that: At NO point will you ever be able to objectively quantify "ethical"



The end result is however...that you subjectively decide you do not want something happening...and on that grounds alone decide that others should be forced to follow your ethical and moral reasoning. Naturally...you then decide that the ethics and morals of other people...simply doesn't count as long as they do not have the same opinion. Based on this logical line of thinking...beheading random people because they do not believe the same thing as you is an ethical course of action as long as enough people will make it so.

Good luck.

And hence why we do not believe in Ethics...because they will always follow the subjective opinions on ethics of the ruling class...and will change whenever the ruling class changes. Ethics thereby is an opinionated reflection and what you perceive as an objective quantification...is actually a subjective end result of what can be enforced on others.

[Invader Zim]

That's interesting, because what creeps *me* out is people who have no scientific basis for why the fetus is not conscious moralizing about how the rights of the women always trump those other rights. The only person in the discussion who's even mentioned anything about those things is NGNM85. The rest of you are just moralizing. Don't project your creepage unto us!

Why don't you just come out and say what you really mean? That the consciousness of the child has no bearing on your decision. You just think that the woman can always abort regardless of the existential status of the fetus/child. Why would you even bother arguing instead of just saying what you think?

Well, I for one do not care about the existential nature of a fetus. It makes no difference to the debate. The debate revolves around whether or not it is justifiable to asign pregnant women less rights than we asign to all other people.

Nobody can abudct you from the streets, hook you up to another person and employ your bodily resounces without your initial and continuing permission. It doesn't matter whether your bodily resounces are guaranteed to save a life.

Unless you accept that kind of dystopia as either reasonable or desirable, then opposition to the right to choose is logically and morally bankrupt.

[NGNM85]

Well, I for one do not care about the existential nature of a fetus. It makes no difference to the debate.

That's incorrect, and I think you know that. If a fetus is not a human being, if it is just meat (Which, I grant, most fetuses are.) then it has no moral value, and no rights, therefore, there is no conflict to resolve.


The debate revolves around whether or not it is justifiable to asign pregnant women less rights than we asign to all other people.

It really doesn't. However, regardless, I have been painfully explicit that rights such as bodily autonomy (or the right to life, for that matter) should never be contingent on arbitrary characteristics like race, gender, etc. To do so would be irrational, discriminatory, and, therefore, unjust. That is the specific point that I have been making.


Nobody can abudct you from the streets, hook you up to another person and employ your bodily resounces without your initial and continuing permission. It doesn't matter whether your bodily resounces are guaranteed to save a life.

Unless you accept that kind of dystopia as either reasonable or desirable, then opposition to the right to choose is logically and morally bankrupt.

Obviously, someone could, however (thankfully) few people would consider that ethically justifiable, and I happen to agree. This is actually the 'violinist' allegory from Thomson's; A Defense of Abortion, which I highly recommend. I concur with you, and with Thomson, that a human being, any human being, would be entitled to extricate themselves from that situation, even if severing said connection meant that the other would die. However, as Thomson goes on to point out, if that connection can be severed without killing the other party, then it would be impermissible not to. You can cut the cord, even if it means their death, but if you then smother them with a pillow, you've crossed a line. Cutting the cord doesn't violate the other party's right to life, or their bodily autonomy, killing them (obviously) does.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

It really doesn't. However, regardless, I have been painfully explicit that rights such as bodily autonomy (or the right to life, for that matter) should never be contingent on arbitrary characteristics like race, gender, etc. To do so would be irrational, discriminatory, and, therefore, unjust. That is the specific point that I have been making.

Yes, in fact you have been painfully explicit about your refusal to engage real, existing, material oppression, preferring to pontificate about some imaginary situation where everyone is equal and yadda yadda yadda. Painful in the sense that it's painful to read the same dross over and over.

[Invader Zim]

Obviously, someone could, however (thankfully) few people would consider that ethically justifiable, and I happen to agree. This is actually the 'violinist' allegory from Thomson's; A Defense of Abortion, which I highly recommend. I concur with you, and with Thomson, that a human being, any human being, would be entitled to extricate themselves from that situation, even if severing said connection meant that the other would die. However, as Thomson goes on to point out, if that connection can be severed without killing the other party, then it would be impermissible not to.

You're right, it is a paraphrase of Thomson's allegory, and the central thesis of that essay is absolutely right - the 'personhood' of the fetus is irrelevant, because society deems that the right to bodily autonomy is above that of the right of another to live if survival is dependent upon another's bodily resources.

By extension, regardless of its power to save life, nobody can force another individual to donate organs, blood or any other bodily resource. Clearly, therefore, the right for of one person to survive does not reduce to secondary status the right of a second party to their bodily autonomy. Those who argue that the humanity of a fetus means that they should be supplied equal rights to that of a born human are missing the point - even if we extend them the precise same rights and legal status as a born human, a logically and ethically conistent society would still necessary have to permit a woman sole authority regarding the function of her womb.

So, once again, the existencial questions regarding the nature of a fetus does not really play into the debate, aside from as an obfuscating appeal to emotion by the anti-choice brigade.


However, as Thomson goes on to point out, if that connection can be severed without killing the other party, then it would be impermissible not to. You can cut the cord, even if it means their death, but if you then smother them with a pillow, you've crossed a line. Cutting the cord doesn't violate the other party's right to life, or their bodily autonomy, killing them (obviously) does.

And this caveat of Thomson's is clearly fallacious when considered from a practicable perspective. At this time, medical science can realistically only sustain the life of a premature infant provided it has had at least 22-24 weeks of gestation (the most premature known surviving infant was born after 21 weeks of gestation, and that was miraculous to say the least, even infants born around the 25 week mark that survive are rather extraordinary). Prior to this point there is little to be done regardless of the situation. After this point, short of invasive and potentially dangerous surgery, it is impossible to extract the fetus. This then returns us to the question of whether a woman has the right to determine what which is done to her body. We cannot force any other individual to undergo invasive surgery to save the life of a second party, why should the rights of the unborn be deemed any different?

Of course, the issue is also a massive red herring, late term abortions beyond the 24 week mark represent less than 0.1% of all abortions performed in the United States of America each year. Yet the amount of discourse the subject consumes is several orders of magnitude greater than the prevelance of the actual proceedure.

[Dean]

Why on earth didn't the OP add an option "Let the pregnant woman decide"? Abortion is right for a lot of people. So is adoption and raising the child yourself. Choosing one of these as an outside observer is tantamount to giving up on the idea that they have a right to choose themselves.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

In a lot of species of cats, the mother will often kill and or eat her young if she feels that she can not provide for them adequately. Seems pretty legit, let's go with that? Again, cannibalism saves the day.

[Slavic]

In a lot of species of cats, the mother will often kill and or eat her young if she feels that she can not provide for them adequately. Seems pretty legit, let's go with that? Again, cannibalism saves the day.

Seem legit to me. Infants are hardly conscious beings, more like human larvae.

[consuming negativity]

Imagine making a troll thread in 2012 and coming back to find everybody still posting in it over two years later.

[TC]

Why on earth didn't the OP add an option "Let the pregnant woman decide"?

Obviously because the OP was a troll.

The poll as phrased is pretty clearly not a serious question but a push poll (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Push_poll).

[argeiphontes]

because society deems that the right to bodily autonomy is above that of the right of another to live if survival is dependent upon another's bodily resources.

If you want to appeal to popular opinion, you'll have to concede the argument or produce statistics that contradict NGM's, who's shown that the majority of women oppose third-trimester abortion.



existencial questions regarding the nature of a fetus does not really play into the debate


This is only true if your standards of ethics are based only on popular opinion, in which case see above.



This then returns us to the question of whether a woman has the right


What do you mean, "right"? There are no rights, right?

[Invader Zim]

If you want to appeal to popular opinion, you'll have to concede the argument or produce statistics that contradict NGM's, who's shown that the majority of women oppose third-trimester abortion.
I did not employ an appeal to popular opinion, thus your entire post is moot.

Try again.

[argeiphontes]

I did not employ an appeal to popular opinion, thus your entire post is moot.

Try again.

No problem. In a subjectivist ethics, there are no rights. There is no right to an abortion or anything else. If people in Kansas want to outlaw abortion, there is no recourse to an ethical position that would trump their actions. "Justice is the will of the stronger", said the sophist to Socrates.

Yet, everyone wants their cake and to eat it, too. They go on about how abortion is a right, though they don't believe in rights. No women's rights, no gay rights, no right to overthrow your oppressor, no minority rights, no nothing.

[PhoenixAsh]

^ yeah...you are really grasping at straws in order to legitimise your inherent wish to control womens bodies. Why don't you just make it so much easier on yourself and just admit that you simply want women to conform to your idea of how they should behave.

[argeiphontes]

^ yeah...you are really grasping at straws in order to legitimise your inherent wish to control womens bodies. Why don't you just make it so much easier on yourself and just admit that you simply want women to conform to your idea of how they should behave.

Except that I'm the one who agrees with, what, 85% of women about 3rd trimester abortions, aren't I?

You should tell women that they have no right to an abortion at all, shouldn't you?

edit: Following the logic of your argument isn't grasping at straws. If there are no rights, there are no women's rights. Why not proclaim it?

[PhoenixAsh]

Except that I'm the one who agrees with, what, 85% of women about 3rd trimester abortions, aren't I?

Really? Well 90% of the people in the middle ages agreed that the world was flat and the sun revolved around it.


You should tell women that they have no right to an abortion at all, shouldn't you?

edit: Following the logic of your argument isn't grasping at straws. If there are no rights, there are no women's rights. Why not proclaim it?

Actually I am telling you that you have no right telling other people what to do with their own bodies. Thats where the arguments ends and you continue to be an obnoxious little sexist who wants to enforce his opinion on matters he doesn't have to go through on others based on their gender and biological function and tries his level best to legitimize that position.

No matter how you try to shift the argument it will always and invariably come down to this:

If rights exist then abortion is a right.
If rights do not exist then you have no right to restrict abortion.

Either way you are at the sexist end of the equation...and either way your entire line of reasoning is void.

[ashtonh]

There is no bloody alternative if she doesnt choose one. Otherwise if she wants an abortion she can have it, if she wants to give the kid up she can, if not o well its her choice.

[RedWorker]

Except that I'm the one who agrees with, what, 85% of women about 3rd trimester abortions, aren't I?

I guess you really believe that a woman who has an abortion at the 3rd trimester doesn't have a really fucking good reason for it. If there wasn't a real need to do it, then she wouldn't do it. Do you think people just like randomly killing fetuses? Or are just too lazy to have an abortion and end up having it later?

The point is shifting the responsibility from the state to the involved individuals. Neither we nor some politicians behind a desk are connected at all to people's personal situation and needs. It's the person experiencing a pregnancy who has to decide, not us or any politician. The state has no involvement in this. If it isn't really needed, then the woman won't have an abortion. They decide and know what's right for them and their personal situation, not us.

[argeiphontes]

Really? Well 90% of the people in the middle ages agreed that the world was flat and the sun revolved around it.


That's not unethical. But just to play along, those views changed because of scientific reasons, yet you don't allow any nuance into the current debate.



Actually I am telling you that you have no right telling other people what to do with their own bodies.


Why not? Ethics is just subjective in your view, so I have every right. Why can't people in Kansas outlaw abortion? You have no valid reason for it except your opinion, according to your own system of ethics.




obnoxious little sexist


Again, I am the only one in this discussion who believes that women have rights, including the right to an abortion, and that that right is not negotiable.



If rights do not exist then you have no right to restrict abortion.


If people in an area want to restrict abortion, then I am the only thing standing in their way, apparently, because I believe that rights are not subject to popular opinion.

The fact remains that I'm the only one in this discussion that thinks that women have a *right* to an abortion. The only way to argue this is to agree that some rights are not subjective. I applaud your cognitive dissonance because it shows you're not fully committed to claiming that ethics is subjective.

[argeiphontes]

I guess you really believe that a woman who has an abortion at the 3rd trimester doesn't have a really fucking good reason for it.

Nobody here believes that a woman needs a reason, so really, I haven't gotten that far. Reasons would involve balancing rights, but in subjectivist ethics there are no rights. So that side doesn't believe in any reason outweighing any other.

[RedWorker]

I'm not saying anyone needs a reason to abort; they can do it on will. I'm saying they have them; people don't kill fetuses for fun and an anti-choice cliche is implying they do.

[argeiphontes]

I'm saying they have them; people don't kill fetuses for fun and an anti-choice cliche is implying they do.

I'm not trying to disagree with that. There can be reasons, but you have to weight them against other (possible) rights, and actually have a discussion. I would never argue that the life of the mother is less important than the fetus, for example.

But if you have a system of ethics that has no rights, then none of what you or I say applies. Nobody has any right in such a system, at all. Employer exploiting you? Tough shit.

[RedWorker]

The fetus won't give a shit about getting aborted, it'll completely change the mother's life though. I really don't see what the problem is.

[argeiphontes]

The fetus won't give a shit about getting aborted, it'll completely change the mother's life though. I really don't see what the problem is.

Yeah, maybe. But nobody wants to hear arguments about that in this thread or on this board. That's how this whole thing got started. Science was presented that showed that the fetus is a sentient being.

For an interesting read, I would suggest Peter Singer's (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer#Abortion.2C_euthanasia_and_infanticid e) On Abortion and Infancticide. Full disclosure: I'm not a utilitarian, I'm a Kantian deontologist, but this discussion hasn't reached the level where we can (dis)agree about any of that, even. At least it's a reasonable place to start.

[argeiphontes]

Really? Well 90% of the people in the middle ages agreed that the world was flat and the sun revolved around it.


And really, then, since for some reason I missed it, it's you who think that women are wrong, not me. So don't tell me I'm the one who's trying to tell them what to do. Based on your own ethics, you're the one who's trying to make your subjective preferences universal, not me.

To you, women's preferences are similar to flat earth ideas. Even though you think ethics is subjective, which would make the women correct.

[PhoenixAsh]

And really, then, since for some reason I missed it, it's you who think that women are wrong, not me. So don't tell me I'm the one who's trying to tell them what to do. Based on your own ethics, you're the one who's trying to make your subjective preferences universal, not me.

To you, women's preferences are similar to flat earth ideas. Even though you think ethics is subjective, which would make the women correct.

What I am telling you is that an appeal to popular opinion in order to try an prove your argument is incredibly stupid. Using that insanely stupid logic would instantly make the Qu'ran the sole authority on morals, truth and science...as that is the popular opinion in the Islamic world...for starters. You see where I am going with this aren't you?

Your argument basically boils down to: "But others think so too; so it must be true." That I even have to explain this concept to you is beyond absurd.

Besides that.

Sexism isn't about women being right or wrong....or even agreeing or disagreeing with women. Even bringing that line of argument into the debate shows a level of immaturity and failed comprehension that would stand out even in kindergartens. Sexism is about the inherrent inequalities based on gender and sex and patriarchy is a system which socializes this inequality.

You, as a man, wants to bring legislation into the equation to force women to conform to your personal convictions as a man based on their gender, sex and biological function. The opinion of other women, as you have proved previously in the debate, is irrelevant to your position as it only started to feature fairly recently in your arguments. So you merely use that as a convenient way of trying to legitimise your position. Which shows the level of intellectual dishonesty of your position.

That is besides the fact that the opinion of other women does not make the position inherrently correct, non-sexist or not a subject of millenia of socialization. And it quite clearly ignores the fact that nobody, at all, should be able to legislate what somebody does with their own body.

Arguing that the majority opinion negates this has deep repercussions you should really, really, really think long and hard about.

So it boils down to this simple fact: You, as a man, want to force women to do what you think women should do. And you will stoop at nothing to enforce that concept of women being lesser people or even objects.

And that is a deeply sexist and disturbing position.

[ashtonh]

Why is this even being discussed, I mean im all for debate but if its not logical to hell with it. Argue against abortion with your facts and logic not by twisting others words, if your going to be anti-choice at least be a smart one.

[Lord Testicles]

Except that I'm the one who agrees with, what, 85% of women about 3rd trimester abortions, aren't I?


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

[Anarchisteve]

Except that I'm the one who agrees with, what, 85% of women about 3rd trimester abortions, aren't I?

You should tell women that they have no right to an abortion at all, shouldn't you?

edit: Following the logic of your argument isn't grasping at straws. If there are no rights, there are no women's rights. Why not proclaim it?

I support the right of those 85% of women to not have a 3rd trimester abortion. I don't support the right of those 85% of women to control the bodies of the other 15%.

[consuming negativity]

The alternative to abortion is not adoption, it is giving birth. Adoption is the alternative to raising a child.

[Buttscratcher]

Yes there is, being anti-choice is sexism, they should be happy they don't get banned like racists and homophobes.
You might need to clarify that better to back up your statement friend, you don't sound very reasonable to me.

[Buttscratcher]

I think the most popular alternatives to abortion are coat hangers.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

You might need to clarify that better to back up your statement friend, you don't sound very reasonable to me.

Are you saying dictating what women can do with their bodies is not sexist?

[Buttscratcher]

Are you saying dictating what women can do with their bodies is not sexist?
Dismissing someone as sexist because that person doesn't support abortion without even giving that person a chance to back up his/her position sounds like a cheap way to avoid an actual discussion. And I could argue it's not really 'their' bodies.

[PhoenixAsh]

Dismissing someone as sexist because that person doesn't support abortion without even giving that person a chance to back up his/her position sounds like a cheap way to avoid an actual discussion. And I could argue it's not really 'their' bodies.

Listen up asshat...I will put this in easy to understand terms for you:

The position that there should be any restriction on abortion during the entire duration of the pregnancy is a sexist position. They do not need to back it up...because the simple fact that they argue is...is sexist. There is NO unsexist way to argue for abortion restriction. There is no "discussion"...it isn't some gray area...it is not up for debate.

You can argue till you are blue in the face but what it boils down to is that you want to legislate, shame or otherwise force women to conform to a certain standard because they are women and reduce them to incubators by taking away their power over their own bodies.

Now...there is NO way in which you can argue that it is not really their bodies. It may look like it for you, you may think that you can...but you can't. Because...listen to this...it really is THEIR bodies. And what happens in or to their bodies is nobodies bussiness but their own. Get it?

Fucking idiot.

[brigadista]

All the debating and theorising doesn't change the fact that it is the choice of the woman who is pregnant yes it's that simple

[Buttscratcher]

Listen up asshat...I will put this in easy to understand terms for you:

The position that there should be any restriction on abortion during the entire duration of the pregnancy is a sexist position. They do not need to back it up...because the simple fact that they argue is...is sexist. There is NO unsexist way to argue for abortion restriction. There is no "discussion"...it isn't some gray area...it is not up for debate.

You can argue till you are blue in the face but what it boils down to is that you want to legislate, shame or otherwise force women to conform to a certain standard because they are women and reduce them to incubators by taking away their power over their own bodies.

Now...there is NO way in which you can argue that it is not really their bodies. It may look like it for you, you may think that you can...but you can't. Because...listen to this...it really is THEIR bodies. And what happens in or to their bodies is nobodies bussiness but their own. Get it?

Fucking idiot.
Jesus, no need to get your feelings so hurt... fine, you can have an abortion every month because "it's mah body!", but don't get mad when people see you as a degenerate, regardless of being their business or not.

[PhoenixAsh]

This has nothing to do with being hurt.

It has however everything to do with assholes like you coming over here pretending the political position we have here is one that has not been the result of decades of debate just because they feel the need to argue their sexism is not really sexism because of yet another inane reason they have come up with. News flash...telling women what to do and what not to do because they are women...still sexism...no matter how you try to package it.

[Buttscratcher]

It sounds to me like you have a persecution complex. Do you really think people are anti-abortion because they like to tell women what to do? It's merely whether you find it ethical or not. What about the women who oppose abortion? Are they sexist and want to tell women what to do? I'm not saying that "abortion is murder", but you do see why some people would find it morally objectionable, right?

[PhoenixAsh]

It sounds to me like you have a persecution complex. Do you really think people are anti-abortion because they like to tell women what to do? It's merely whether you find it ethical or not. What about the women who oppose abortion? Are they sexist and want to tell women what to do? I'm not saying that "abortion is murder", but you do see why some people would find it morally objectionable, right?

Yes. That is exactly what it is. And no I do not see why it is morally objectionable.

So here are the three main components of your argument:

1). It isn't because of telling women what to do.

Yes. In fact it is telling women what to do because they are women and restricting their own autonomomy because of it. Restrictions on abortion negate the persons decision making capabilities over their own body because of <insert reason here> and reducing them to objects which others can decide over.

2). OMG...the morality of it all

Fuck your morality. Morality does not exist as something objective. Morality is subjective. I have no time for individuals who find it perfectly moral that they want to reduce somebody to objects, incubators and legislate away their autonomy because of some morality spiel about "OMG think of the children".

Now...the other component

3)...bbbbut other women...

Yes. Those other women are idiots too. No because they are women. But because their ideas and concepts of restricting access to abortion is wrong. There is no grey area here. This is not negotiable. There is no middle ground. They are wrong. They are as wrong as people who claim the sun revolves around the earth and they are as wrong as people who claim that christian creation is the start of history.

Lets recap that last point: Just because other people have an opinion...this doesn't mean that this opinion is right, reasonable, legitimate or should be debatable.

[Buttscratcher]

Yes. That is exactly what it is. And no I do not see why it is morally objectionable.

So here are the three main components of your argument:

1). It isn't because of telling women what to do.

Yes. In fact it is telling women what to do because they are women and restricting their own autonomomy because of it. Restrictions on abortion negate the persons decision making capabilities over their own body because of <insert reason here> and reducing them to objects which others can decide over.

2). OMG...the morality of it all

Fuck your morality. Morality does not exist as something objective. Morality is subjective. I have no time for individuals who find it perfectly moral that they want to reduce somebody to objects, incubators and legislate away their autonomy because of some morality spiel about "OMG think of the children".

Now...the other component

3)...bbbbut other women...

Yes. Those other women are idiots too. No because they are women. But because their ideas and concepts of restricting access to abortion is wrong. There is no grey area here. This is not negotiable. There is no middle ground. They are wrong. They are as wrong as people who claim the sun revolves around the earth and they are as wrong as people who claim that christian creation is the start of history.

Lets recap that last point: Just because other people have an opinion...this doesn't mean that this opinion is right, reasonable, legitimate or should be debatable.
You make it seem as if a woman getting pregnant is inevitable when it's more than obvious it isn't.
Yes, morality might be subjective, but would you let a psychopath express his own morality?
Claiming others are wrong and you are right because "you say so" is just arrogant and sounds childish.

[Sinister Intents]

You make it seem as if a woman getting pregnant is inevitable when it's more than obvious it isn't.
Yes, morality might be subjective, but would you let a psychopath express his own morality?
Claiming others are wrong and you are right because "you say so" is just arrogant and sounds childish.

What you say doesn't change the fact you're sexist and think a woman's choice should be restricted

[Buttscratcher]

What you say doesn't change the fact you're sexist and think a woman's choice should be restricted
I guess... so I should just embrace my sexism or something?

[Sinister Intents]

I guess... so I should just embrace my sexism or something?

You could just let yourself go your natural course, you could question and educate yourself, further yourself, you could do nothing. You could also just let yourself grow in various ways. My position is the board's position to a T, and yours is a rather common position influenced by bourgeois politics

[PhoenixAsh]

You make it seem as if a woman getting pregnant is inevitable when it's more than obvious it isn't.
Yes, morality might be subjective, but would you let a psychopath express his own morality?
Claiming others are wrong and you are right because "you say so" is just arrogant and sounds childish.

Not actual arguments. Mere drivel of somebody grasping at straws to actually have a point to validate his inherent sexism.

Here we go again:

1). Bbbbut not all women get pregnant

So? What is your point and how does this even remotely relate to this argument...at all? Just because some women do not get pregnant does NOT mean abortion restriction isn't sexist. Just because some women do not get raped...does not mean rape is not an issue and the result of a sexist society.

2). Bbbbut....psychopaths

Your not so subtile attempt to equate abortion with psychopathic behaviour.
And your complete and utter ignorance on what psychopathy actually is.

So little genius...why don't you actually tell me what you mean with "psychopath". I am sure we will have loads of fun with you trying to tell us exactly how you feel that somebody simply being classified as a psychopath entitles you to restrict them in any way shape or form.

That said. The argument you currently make is; well we should restirct access to abortion because we should restrict other psychological disorders as well.

Nice going.

3). Bbbbut you have to respect opinions of others and you can't dismiss them.

No. See. I do not have to respect opinions. And yes. I can dismiss them. This has nothing to do with arrogance or being childish. There is nothing arrogant about saying that you do not have a point in your attempt to reduce women to incubators and that you are simply plain wrong.

I do not have to actually counter pose an unreasonable and insane position with a reasonable and sane argument just because some idiot like you had a brain fart and feel they are entitled to force others to conform to their own insane hypocritical morality.

I do not have to have a reasonable argument with somebody who argues to bring back slavery, or who argues Hitler was right. Just like I do not need to have an argument with somebody who thinks the Bible is the ultimate truth. Or somebody who argues that humans do not actually need oxygen.

They are wrong. Plain and simple.

[Buttscratcher]

You could just let yourself go your natural course, you could question and educate yourself, further yourself, you could do nothing. You could also just let yourself grow in various ways. My position is the board's position to a T, and yours is a rather common position influenced by bourgeois politics
Maybe my views will change. I don't think they make me less "revolutionary" though.

[PhoenixAsh]

It does however mean you are a sexist.

[Sinister Intents]

Maybe my views will change. I don't think they make me less "revolutionary" though.

It can make you less consistent though. People's views always change with time, but eventually you'll take those views somewhere and it'll make or break you. I'd say just read a ton of literature of varying lengths to get your final position on this ratger than the reactionary one you hold. You could make itvmore sexist. Like: "But she's having my child! She shouldn't vet an abortion because it belongs to me!"

[Buttscratcher]

Not actual arguments. Mere drivel of somebody grasping at straws to actually have a point to validate his inherent sexism.

Here we go again:

1). Bbbbut not all women get pregnant

So? What is your point and how does this even remotely relate to this argument...at all? Just because some women do not get pregnant does NOT mean abortion restriction isn't sexist. Just because some women do not get raped...does not mean rape is not an issue and the result of a sexist society.

2). Bbbbut....psychopaths

Your not so subtile attempt to equate abortion with psychopathic behaviour.
And your complete and utter ignorance on what psychopathy actually is.

So little genius...why don't you actually tell me what you mean with "psychopath". I am sure we will have loads of fun with you trying to tell us exactly how you feel that somebody simply being classified as a psychopath entitles you to restrict them in any way shape or form.

That said. The argument you currently make is; well we should restirct access to abortion because we should restrict other psychological disorders as well.

Nice going.

3). Bbbbut you have to respect opinions of others and you can't dismiss them.

No. See. I do not have to respect opinions. And yes. I can dismiss them. This has nothing to do with arrogance or being childish. There is nothing arrogant about saying that you do not have a point in your attempt to reduce women to incubators and that you are simply plain wrong.

I do not have to actually counter pose an unreasonable and insane position with a reasonable and sane argument just because some idiot like you had a brain fart and feel they are entitled to force others to conform to their own insane hypocritical morality.

I do not have to have a reasonable argument with somebody who argues to bring back slavery, or who argues Hitler was right. Just like I do not need to have an argument with somebody who thinks the Bible is the ultimate truth. Or somebody who argues that humans do not actually need oxygen.

They are wrong. Plain and simple.
"Bbbbut not all women get pregnant"
Not my point at all... let me put it this way: In the developed current world, women pretty much choose to get pregnant or not, it's that simple. If they do want to get pregnant, it is for the purpose of giving birth. If you think women need to get pregnant for any other reason than giving birth, you're more degenerate than I thought.

"Your not so subtile attempt to equate abortion with psychopathic behaviour."
That's not what I did at all genius... it's meant to demonstrate you how bullshit your "morality is subjective" reasoning is.

Treating women as objects!
Again, I believe it's up to women and women alone whether they want to get pregnant or not.

I do not have to have a reasonable argument with somebody who argues to bring back slavery, or who argues Hitler was right.
Sure, you don't need to argue, but if you actually compare people who argue against something as minor as restricting abortions to Hitler or slavery, it just sounds to me that you're extremely close minded. I don't think abortions are as big of a deal as you make them out to be.

[PhoenixAsh]

"Bbbbut not all women get pregnant"
Not my point at all... let me put it this way: In the developed current world, women pretty much choose to get pregnant or not, it's that simple. If they do want to get pregnant, it is for the purpose of giving birth. If you think women need to get pregnant for any other reason than giving birth, you're even more of a degenerate than I thought.

Gosh. Really? You have no fucking clue how reality works do you?

No it is not that simple and no women do not predominantly chose to become pregnant.

In the US according to the CDC 49% of pregnancies were unplanned. So there goes your argument....look...wave at it...as it flies out the window...



"Your not so subtile attempt to equate abortion with psychopathic behaviour."
That's not what I did at all genius... it's meant to demonstrate you how bullshit your "morality is subjective" reasoning is.

But it doesn't actually illustrate that you complete tool.

What it does illustrate is that you have no fucking clue what Psyhopathy actually is and you are just repeating buzz words you picked up for the sake of convenience.




Treating women as objects!
Again, I believe it's up to women and women alone whether they want to get pregnant or not.

Nice try there. No. It is not only up to a woman te chose to become pregnant or not in so far there is a conscious choice (which...more often than not...pregnancy happens unplanned) but it is ALSO a womans choice and a womans choice alone to TERMINATE that pergnancy.

That last part is what you are arguing needs restricting, legalizing and moralizing over. And THAT is how you reduce women to objects.



I do not have to have a reasonable argument with somebody who argues to bring back slavery, or who argues Hitler was right.
Sure, you don't need to argue, but if you actually compare people who argue against something as minor as restricting abortions to Hitler or slavery, it just sounds to me that you're extremely close minded. I don't think abortions are as big of a deal as you make them out to be.

It isn't minor. And again this illustrates you have no fucking clue about what is happening in the world today.

It is only minor from the perspective of somebody whose body isn't regulated, legislated, moralized over.

And btw....if they are not that big of a deal then there is no need to argue for their restriction now is there? But that doesn't seem to phase you.

[Buttscratcher]

"...you have no fucking clue what Psyhopathy actually is..."

Oh please enlighten me, what is psichopathy to you?

"...In the US according to the CDC 49% of pregnancies were unplanned..."

Unplanned isn't necessarily undesired. How many of those had intentions to constitute a family anyway and just accepted? Also how many pregnancies could've been avoided with proper use of contraceptive methods? Not 49%, but pretty much 100%.

"...if they are not that big of a deal then there is no need to argue for their restriction now is there?."

Just like there is no need to whine about someone not agreeing with you.

[consuming negativity]

It is only minor from the perspective of somebody whose body isn't regulated, legislated, moralized over.

Yeah, exactly. Put it in context for him and maybe he'll see what you're trying to get at.

Check out this thought experiment: http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/whosebody/Default.aspx

[Sinister Intents]

Essentially Buttscratcher is blaming the woman for getting pregnant in the first place. "It's her fault, she shouldn't have been having sex if she didn't like the consequences. " you're blaming the victim, she should be able to get an abortion regardless. Would you say maybe she shouldn't have worn that dress if she was raped?

[PhoenixAsh]

"...you have no fucking clue what Psyhopathy actually is..."

Oh please enlighten me, what is psichopathy to you?

"...In the US according to the CDC 49% of pregnancies were unplanned..."

Unplanned isn't necessarily undesired. How many of those had intentions to constitute a family anyway and just accepted? Also how many pregnancies could've been avoided with proper use of contraceptive methods? Not 49%, but pretty much 100%.

"...if they are not that big of a deal then there is no need to argue for their restriction now is there?."

Just like there is no need to whine about someone not agreeing with you.

Sigh. You are as fucking ignorant as it seems aren't you?

Facts:

1). Not everybody has proper access to contraceptives.
2). Not everybody is allowed proper access to contraceptives
3). Not everybody wants children
4). Not everybody wants children at that point in time in their lives
5). Contraceptives are not 100% proof

&

6). Women are predominantly forced to care for children and are made economically responsible for them
7). Childbirth...still a dangerous procedure.


Now to get your facts straight you stupid hypocritical clown. YOU were the one here whining about people not agreeing with them. That is the basis of your whole participation in this thread.


Now answer the question about what you think is psychopathy instead of dodging it and trying to weasel your way out of a highly quetsionable comparison you tried to make in order to legitimize your inherrent sexism.

[Buttscratcher]

Essentially Buttscratcher is blaming the woman for getting pregnant in the first place. "It's her fault, she shouldn't have been having sex if she didn't like the consequences. " you're blaming the victim, she should be able to get an abortion regardless. Would you say maybe she shouldn't have worn that dress if she was raped?
I'm not trying to blame the woman at all, what I'm saying is that I think it should be more encouraged the use of contraceptive methods than abortion.

[Sinister Intents]

I'm not trying to blame the woman at all, what I'm saying is that I think it should be more encouraged the use of contraceptive methods than abortion.

Contraceptives can fail, they're not a save all option. Some contraception can be hazardous and some just doesn't work effectively enough. Free and safe access to abortion for all women at any time!

[Buttscratcher]

"1). Not everybody has proper access to contraceptives.
2). Not everybody is allowed proper access to contraceptives
3). Not everybody wants children
4). Not everybody wants children at that point in time in their lives
5). Contraceptives are not 100% proof

&

6). Women are predominantly forced to care for children and are made economically responsible for them
7). Childbirth...still a dangerous procedure."

I never said there wouldn't be exceptions where abortion might be necessary and that it should be done. But you believe abortion is solely up to the woman to decide because it's her body and she does what she wants, etc., that's what I've been trying to refute. Not abortion itself, but the reasons you gave.

"Now to get your facts straight you stupid hypocritical clown. YOU were the one here whining about people not agreeing with them. That is the basis of your whole participation in this thread."

Give a single example of me insulting you or getting angry at you because you support abortion.

One thing you should pay attention is that I'm not trying to make you see "abortions are bad", the main point of this for me is that you don't think it's worth "educating" someone who doesn't hold your views. Rather than explaining that person why you believe what you do, you behave condescendingly and think that person should be "marginalized". Admit it, weren't your views "stupid" in the past? Who would you prefer to find if you were in my place? Someone who just tells you why you're wrong or someone who says you're wrong and it's not worth wasting time with you?

Also, for me, a psychopath is someone who lacks empathy and is narcisistic, therefore he might neglect things others see immoral as moral. Which is why I used that word. Again, I'm not trying at all to equate women who perform abortions to psychopats at all, the whole point of this is that if morality is subjective, maybe society as a whole must enforce its morality (something like that).

[PhoenixAsh]

I never said there wouldn't be exceptions where abortion might be necessary and that it should be done. But you believe abortion is solely up to the woman to decide because it's her body and she does what she wants, etc., that's what I've been trying to refute. Not abortion itself, but the reasons you gave.

Yes I know you were trying to refute that it is her body and she can decide what she wants to do with it.

So far you have not brought up even one convincing argument. So far you did however base yourself on false analogies, false facts and hypocritical arguments.


Give a single example of me insulting you or getting angry at you because you support abortion.

Why? We were talking how you entire participation in this thread is about you whining people do not agree with a certain position. Now you all of the sudden want me to post you being insulting or angry? That makes no sense unless you do not know what the word whining means.



One thing you should pay attention is that I'm not trying to make you see "abortions are bad", the main point of this for me is that you don't think it's worth "educating" someone who doesn't hold your views.

I am not going to educate some trolling asshat who can't even be bothered to research his own argumenst before he makes them to fact check them or do a common site search in order to read what has already been explained a thousand times before. But instead choses to start participating on a high horse about our policy of restricting sexist little asshats who can't be bothered to read the forum rules they accepted when they signed up on the site.




Rather than explaining that person why you believe what you do, you behave condescendingly and think that person should be "marginalized". Admit it, weren't your views "stupid" in the past? Who would you prefer to find if you were in my place? Someone who just tells you why you're wrong or someone who says you're wrong and it's not worth wasting time with you?

Then maybe you should adjust your attitude.



Also, for me, a psychopath is someone who lacks empathy and is narcisistic, therefore he might neglect things others see immoral as moral. Which is why I used that word. Again, I'm not trying at all to equate women who perform abortions to psychopats at all, the whole point of this is that if morality is subjective, maybe society as a whole must enforce its morality (something like that).

If morality is subjective the logical outcome would be to find objective standards to base its legal system on rather than enforcing a certain morality on others.

[Buttscratcher]

"So far you have not brought up even one convincing argument."

How am I supposed to? You said it yourself, morality is subjective. And it pretty much comes down to morality. Maybe you find it moral to abort a fetus in a late pregnancy, I don't.

"I am not going to educate some trolling asshat who can't even be bothered to research his own argumenst before he makes them to fact check them or do a common site search in order to read what has already been explained a thousand times before. But instead choses to start participating on a high horse about our policy of restricting sexist little asshats who can't be bothered to read the forum rules they accepted when they signed up on the site."

If it's been explained that many times, maybe you could simply redirect me and it'd save you the trouble, it's not like I'm a regular here, I still struggle with the interface.

[PhoenixAsh]

How am I supposed to? You said it yourself, morality is subjective. And it pretty much comes down to morality. Maybe you find it moral to abort a fetus in a late pregnancy, I don't.

But you do find it moral to force others to have their autonomy removed from their own body and forced to go through risky and body altering procedures such as childbirth itself...or cesarean sections.

Check.





From not agreeing to restricting someone for his views goes a long way.

Actually...no. You became a member here and you acknowledged the site rules. Those rules explicitly state that these views will nett you a restriction.


If it's been explained that many times, maybe you could simply redirect me and it'd save you the trouble, it's not like I'm a regular here, I still struggle with the interface.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/faq.php?faq=restrictions#faq__



Do you restrict pro-life/anti-choice members?
Yes.
This forum is explicitly Pro-Choice. Any member that holds a Pro-Life position of any kind (a position we hold to be a form of sexism), or who opposes unrestricted access to abortions at any point, will be Restricted.

[Buttscratcher]

Yeah, maybe I should've noticed that... sorry for the trouble I guess.

[NGNM85]

Yeah, exactly. Put it in context for him and maybe he'll see what you're trying to get at.

Check out this thought experiment: http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/whosebody/Default.aspx

This is yet another version of the 'violinist' argument from Judith Jarvis Thomson's A Defense of Abortion;

http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm

one of the most powerful ethical arguments for abortion, not to mention about the most reprinted essay in contemporary philosophy. I think anyone who hasn't already read it should read it at least once. However, it's worth pointing out that Thomson's view, which I happen to agree with, is ideologically unacceptable on RevLeft. So, let's be clear about that. You can't use Thomson to justify RevLeft's platform.

[NGNM85]

You're right, it is a paraphrase of Thomson's allegory, and the central thesis of that essay is absolutely right - the 'personhood' of the fetus is irrelevant, because society deems that the right to bodily autonomy is above that of the right of another to live if survival is dependent upon another's bodily resources.

Almost. Thomson argues that even if one accepts that a zygote is morally equivalent to you, or I, one can still make (what I find to be) a very compelling argument that abortion is justified in just about every case.


By extension, regardless of its power to save life, nobody can force another individual to donate organs, blood or any other bodily resource. Clearly, therefore, the right for of one person to survive does not reduce to secondary status the right of a second party to their bodily autonomy. Those who argue that the humanity of a fetus means that they should be supplied equal rights to that of a born human are missing the point - even if we extend them the precise same rights and legal status as a born human, a logically and ethically conistent society would still necessary have to permit a woman sole authority regarding the function of her womb.

Almost. First, let's stop pretending anybody, here, believes bodily autonomy is literally sacrosanct. Nobody here is a pacifist, let alone an absolute pacifist. To get back to the matter at hand, as I mentioned earlier, Thomson argues that you can pull the plug, even if it means the violinist will die, but you can't smother them with a pillow, that's crossing the line. I agree.


So, once again, the existencial questions regarding the nature of a fetus does not really play into the debate, aside from as an obfuscating appeal to emotion by the anti-choice brigade.

That's typical of pro-life activists, absolutely. I, however, am pro-choice, and I always have been. The reason why I keep bringing it up is because I was restricted for making the same argument Thomson makes. So, now I bring it up, constantly.


And this caveat of Thomson's is clearly fallacious when considered from a practicable perspective. At this time, medical science can realistically only sustain the life of a premature infant provided it has had at least 22-24 weeks of gestation (the most premature known surviving infant was born after 21 weeks of gestation, and that was miraculous to say the least, even infants born around the 25 week mark that survive are rather extraordinary. Prior to this point there is little to be done regardless of the situation.

Granted. However, from a metaphysically materialist perspective, there's no reason to care, because a fetus is, for all intents and purposes, brain dead until about 26 weeks.


After this point, short of invasive and potentially dangerous surgery, it is impossible to extract the fetus.

Terminating a fetus, after 26 weeks isn't necessarily safer than an elective c-section, in fact, it's probably more dangerous, on average.

According to a 1998 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association; Late Term Abortions, by Dr. Janet Epner, the mortality rate for is third trimester abortions is 16.7 per 100,000, or .0167%. According to a study published in 2013; Consequences of a Primary Elective Cesarean Delivery Across the Reproductive Life, the mortality rate for a patient's first c-section is 8 per 100,000, or .008%, about half of the aforementioned figure. The mortality rate for vaginal delivery for a first delivery is about 6 per 100,000, or .006%.So, A; none of these is particularly dangerous, generally speaking, and, B; termination, in the third trimester (again, generally speaking) appears to be the most dangerous of these.


This then returns us to the question of whether a woman has the right to determine what which is done to her body.

See above.


We cannot force any other individual to undergo invasive surgery to save the life of a second party, why should the rights of the unborn be deemed any different?

I don't think it's different, at all. In fact, I've repeatedly, and consistently argued exactly that. That, however, is ideologically unacceptable on RevLeft.


Of course, the issue is also a massive red herring, late term abortions beyond the 24 week mark represent less than 0.1% of all abortions performed in the United States of America each year. Yet the amount of discourse the subject consumes is several orders of magnitude greater than the prevelance of the actual proceedure.

That's absolutely correct. However, until the administration changes it's policy, or, at the very least, publicly acknowledges, and accepts the implications of their platform, I'm going to keep bringing it up.

[NGNM85]

Are you saying dictating what women can do with their bodies is not sexist?

If someone argued that the bodily autonomy of women (or men, for that matter) should be assigned a lesser value, on the basis of their gender, than that would be sexist. Of course, no-one, here, as far as I know, has said anything of the sort. This is, however, just the tip if the iceberg. The real problem is the question implies that bodily autonomy, or, at the very least, women's bodily autonomy (See above.) is literally sacrosanct. I know for a fact you don't actually believe that. In fact, as far as I can tell, nobody here actually believes that. Therefore, the question really doesn't even make sense, in context.

[PhoenixAsh]

Actually...everybody who is arguing that the bodily autonomy of the fetus has a higher value than that of the woman argues that the woman is worth less than a clump of developing cells. That is the consequence of their argument. Whether they mean to make that argument or not. And that consciousness of the argument is merely the difference between conscious and subconscious sexism.

[NGNM85]

Actually...everybody who is arguing that the bodily autonomy of the fetus has a higher value than that of the woman...

I don't think anyone has actually said that. I know I haven't, nor does that logically follow from anything I've said.


...argues that the woman is worth less than a clump of developing cells.

Nobody is talking about a 'clump of cells.' We're talking about fetuses of 28 weeks gestation, or older, essentially, the third trimester. A normal fetus of 28 or more weeks of age has organized, consistent brainwaves, their brains are alive. They have dreams, they can remember familiar songs, or voices. Once removed from their parents' body, they will immediately wake up. Etc., etc. A 28-week-old fetus is a 'clump of cells' in the way that you are 'a clump of cells. ' This is totally disingenuous.


That is the consequence of their argument. Whether they mean to make that argument or not. And that consciousness of the argument is merely the difference between conscious and subconscious sexism.

I have no idea who 'they' is. I know who I am, and I know what I think, and what I said, and there wasn't an iota of sexism in either of those. My comments were objectively not sexist, actually, they were explicitly anti-sexist.

So, you're saying that the absence of any evidence of sexism, whatsoever, is actually proof of sexism. That is a masterpiece of bullshit.

[PhoenixAsh]

You know. Nobody is arguing anything or means to argue anything. Except they of course are arguing that because it is the direct implication of their words. Which I am sure don't mean what they actually mean. And we all just have to look at it in an entirely different lighting.....

Or some shit like that.

The argument that abortion should be restricted late term for whatever reason... but specifically because of some autonomy argument....directly values the woman as less than a fetus.

You are talking about BRAIN WAVES which supposedly distinguish that clump of cells ...because at that point it is NOT an entirely selfsufficient human being....and grants it HIGHER value than the woman it is in. It is NOT outside the body. It is IN the body.And the entire argument "when taken outside of the body"is a bunch of bullcrap...because that is the entire fucking point.

Your entire line of reasoning hinges on: " Well....if everything was different then...." Except that it is not.

.....if the ball was only ten inches to the left it would have been a goal
.....if only I had one more answer correct
.....if only the Challenger hadn't exploded
.....if only the fetus was outside the body


:glare:



Now...what I am saying is that the perceived absence of something...does not mean that something is actually absent. And self proclaimed disclaimers do not mean something isn't actually true.

[NGNM85]

You know. Nobody is arguing anything or means to argue anything. Except they of course are arguing that because it is the direct implication of their words. Which I am sure don't mean what they actually mean. And we all just have to look at it in an entirely different lighting.....

Or some shit like that.

It would be impossible to be more transparent then I have been. I speak, or, rather, write, in plain English, and I make an effort to express myself in the simplest, and most accessible way that I can.


The argument that abortion should be restricted late term for whatever reason... but specifically because of some autonomy argument....directly values the woman as less than a fetus.

First, 'late term' is not a technical name, and, as such, has no universally accepted definition, which is why I generally avoid using it, and would encourage others to do the same.

Second, I have always explicitly opposed blanket restrictions on abortion, at any point. As a utilitarian, I can't conceive of how two dead patients could be better than one.

Finally, getting to the substance of your statement, again, this is incorrect. Even if we value the lives, and bodily autonomy of both parties, equally, the possible implications for those parties are not necessarily the same. (Even if both of these are identical, we wouldn't necessarily be paralyzed by this fact, but I digress.)
It's logically impossible for a utilitarian to make this moral calculation, in truth, any moral calculation, without factoring in the potential consequences. This is what you're missing. No matter whether we value these conflicting claims equally, or unequally, we're not done until we plug in the damages.


You are talking about BRAIN WAVES which supposedly distinguish that clump of cells..

Yes, brain waves. This isn't a particularly novel metric, quite the contrary. Regular, organized brain waves are indicators of a brain that is alive, a brain that is not dead.


...because at that point it is NOT an entirely selfsufficient human being....

Neither is Stephen Hawking. That's irrelevant.


and grants it HIGHER value than the woman it is in.

No, I actually don't, and I never have.

Out of curiosity, are you suggesting that the bodily autonomy of men, transsexual, or otherwise, is less valuable? That actually would be sexist, and/or transphobic.


It is NOT outside the body. It is IN the body.And the entire argument "when taken outside of the body"is a bunch of bullcrap...because that is the entire fucking point.

Your entire line of reasoning hinges on: " Well....if everything was different then...." Except that it is not.

.....if the ball was only ten inches to the left it would have been a goal
.....if only I had one more answer correct
.....if only the Challenger hadn't exploded
.....if only the fetus was outside the body


:glare:

Wrong, again.

For starters, that phrase was not an argument, but a fact employed to buttress an argument, namely that by 28 weeks a healthy fetus is a human being. As a metaphysical materialist, I'd argue this actually isn't an opinion so much as a medical fact, but let's not get sidetracked.

You are absolutely correct that when we calculate the moral value of a given thing, we must, not 'should', must evaluate. ..whatever we're evaluating, as it is, in that moment. Even if we decide trees should be granted equal rights, that doesn't mean acorns get grandfathered in. An acorn is still only a potential tree, in other words it is not a tree, and, therefore does not necessarily carry the same value. That is a fair point, that I, myself, have made on many occasions, certainly on RevLeft, probably more than once. However, that isn't what I was doing. The point I was making was that, by the third trimester, the fetus has the capacity to respond to stimuli, etc. Those responses are outward manifestations of neural hardware that is contained within their skull, which is sufficiently capable of performing said operations from about the start of the third trimester, onward. There's really no significant change in the fetal brain from the second before being born, or being removed, and the second afterwards. So, going full circle, I only recognize healthy fetuses of roughly 28 or more weeks for what they are, at that specific moment; human beings.


Now...what I am saying is that the perceived absence of something...does not mean that something is actually absent. And self proclaimed disclaimers do not mean something isn't actually true.

Certainly. However, you're incorrect. I never said, or even implied that the bodily autonomy of a fetus of 28 or more weeks' gestation, (or, for that matter, at any point in the pregnancy) has greater value than the bodily autonomy of the parent that is carrying them. Also, I have not said anything in the course of this thread, or any other thread that I am aware of ever posting in, that is literally ('Literally' being the operative word.) sexist. Both of these accusations are false.

[Mississippi]

The dilemma really shouldn't be to determine what constitutes a human being, but rather, it should be do ascertain the value of the beings in question, human or otherwise. The conclusion I'm left with, is that's it's tremendously more beneficial in a huge number of cases to abort the fetus than to introduce another person into the world. An already born baby or significantly developed fetus is an excellent point to draw the line, practically, and prior to this, there is the tremendous advantage that the fetus in question, human or not, has no great sense of self-awareness, and so can be terminated with little consequence. Therefore, I would argue that abortion should be used as a tool to mitigate human birth rates in order to lessen the strain on our resources.

[PhoenixAsh]

I'l be brief.

I understand perfectly.

you do not understand there are no two parties. the fetus is and never will be a party. what we have is the woman and a bunch of people who do not carry the child/fetus and who most certainly face no consequences whatsoever pretending to speak on behalf of the fetus and creating a fictive secundair party.

as long as you do not understand this...This entire discussion is useless and a waste of time.

[PhoenixAsh]

also Hawkins doesn't live in a womb

[Rottenfruit]

i cant make that decision, its up to the woman who is pregnant to choice what she thinks is best either way what option she choices i support.

[TheAntiReactionary]

I find it quite a pity seeing debates like this end up in one side attacking the other. But let's not forget that giving birth requires plenty of pain from the mother. You also have global population growth to consider. Orphanages are pretty damn full, and child care institutions in our society can't help everybody's kid. And if a mother who really does not want to give birth is denied an abortion, they wouldn't be like "Ah well, fine, I'll just have the damn baby." There are unqualified people who offer abortions using unsafe methods they'd probably visit. Even if you do consider a life inside a womb that has not developed any experiences to be meaningful to you, you would at least want to spare it a life with a parent that does not wish to have it and let it be aborted using safe methods that do not harm it, rather than with unsafe, harmful methods that also harm the mother, wouldn't you?

[GLF]

Personally, if I were a woman I would try to choose something other than abortion. I am not a woman, however, and will never be in a position where I am forced to make that choice.

I do not envy the choice these women are faced with, and I realize that taking away safe and legal access to abortion would not work as a deterrent.

Even nature herself has bestowed privilege onto males. To never be in a position where we are saddled for 10 months with a pregnancy, or in a position where our body goes through changes to such an extent as to alter the way we think - only heartless bastards want to perpetuate such privilege rather than work towards making things easier for females.

As a male I realize that as for as abortion goes, never being presented with such a choice is in and of itself a privileged position to be in.

[ChrisK]

For some reason the so-called "pro-life" camp only considers the quantity of life, never the quality of life. Not all children are adopted, and not all children who are adopted are adopted by good families. Not all unplanned pregnancies lead to children being put up for adoption, but are instead kept by the birth mother because they are pressured to by their parents. What chances do those children have in life? What chances do the mothers who keep the children have in life? "Pro-life"; more like anti-life.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

For some reason the so-called "pro-life" camp only considers the quantity of life, never the quality of life. Not all children are adopted, and not all children who are adopted are adopted by good families. Not all unplanned pregnancies lead to children being put up for adoption, but are instead kept by the birth mother because they are pressured to by their parents. What chances do those children have in life? What chances do the mothers who keep the children have in life? "Pro-life"; more like anti-life.

I think this is a very bad argument, to be honest, and if pursued to its logical conclusions it could lead to all sorts of unpalatable conclusions (such as the notion - which some of the racist liberals here actually support! - of sterilising people who live in poverty etc.). Quality of life isn't easy to define or measure, and it's not given that someone who is adopted, even into a "bad" family, will have a low quality of life. And, again this shifts the debate away from women who would be forced to carry the fetus and undergo a very painful and degrading procedure if the forced-birthers had their way, onto the potential kid.

[ChrisK]

I think this is a very bad argument, to be honest, and if pursued to its logical conclusions it could lead to all sorts of unpalatable conclusions (such as the notion - which some of the racist liberals here actually support! - of sterilising people who live in poverty etc.). Quality of life isn't easy to define or measure, and it's not given that someone who is adopted, even into a "bad" family, will have a low quality of life. And, again this shifts the debate away from women who would be forced to carry the fetus and undergo a very painful and degrading procedure if the forced-birthers had their way, onto the potential kid.

Not at all. It would require a great deal of convoluted reasoning to reach forced sterilization.

You should also note that I never said that it is of necessity that children adopted by bad families will have a low quality of life. I used a rhetorical question to indicate that there is a good chance that they won't have a good life.

As to the shift in focus I direct you to this:

Not all unplanned pregnancies lead to children being put up for adoption, but are instead kept by the birth mother because they are pressured to by their parents.... What chances do the mothers who keep the children have in life?

I may not have written that as clearly as I would have liked (beer does that to me), but I am certainly keeping the focus of the debate on them. I know far too many women in that very circumstance to ever change that. I was merely adding another prong to the attack.

[NGNM85]

I'l be brief.

I understand perfectly.

No offense, but it's obvious that you don't. It's equally obvious that whoever is responsible for composing the incoherent mess that is the current abortion policy doesn't, either. For that matter, based on the volume of howlers that come out every time we have this conversation that many members suffer from this condition. It's apparent that abortion is not a subject which the majority feel is worth thinking about very deeply, or even knowing much about. It's really quite striking.

In order to have a serious conversation about this, among other things, we'd all have to have command of a certain pool of essential information; the basics of human reproduction, and gestation, the major arguments, both pro-choice, and pro-life, we'd have to know a little bit about how abortion is practiced, and the cultural, and political conflict surrounding this issue. It sounds like a lot, but it really isn't. Most of this information is easily obtained, just a mouse click away. (I'd say it was 'common knowledge', if I didn't know better.) I'm extremely pessimistic about that. I don't think anyone actually cares about trivialities like facts, or logic, not when it comes to this issue.


you do not understand there are no two parties. the fetus is and never will be a party.

In case it was unclear, (which it wasn't) when I used the word 'party', I meant one of the two aforementioned hypothetical human beings.


what we have is the woman and a bunch of people who do not carry the child/fetus and who most certainly face no consequences whatsoever pretending to speak on behalf of the fetus and creating a fictive secundair party.

as long as you do not understand this...This entire discussion is useless and a waste of time.

This is almost entirely wrong.

For starters, again, by the third trimester, a fetus is a human being. There is absolutely no biological basis for excluding it. That is not an opinion, it's a scientific fact. You are entitled to your opinions, you aren't entitled to your own facts. There is no other way to see it, at least, not from a metaphysically materialist perspective.

You are correct that as I lack a uterus, functional, or otherwise, it's extraordinarily unlikely that I will ever become pregnant. This however is irrelevant. What you are implying is that people only have the right to have opinions about things that immediately affect them, personally, and/or that bodily autonomy, at the very least, the bodily autonomy of women, is literally sacrosanct. Both of those unstated premises are patently ridiculous. What's more, it's obvious that no-one, certainly not yourself, actually believes either one of these things.

Since you mentioned it, as I pointed out, earlier, according to Gallup, about 80% of pro-choice women happen to share that opinion. This isn't just an American thing, we would find similar results in the other countries where abortion is legal, for entirely predictable, and logical reasons. As much as you might not want to acknowledge it, the overwhelming majority of pro-choice women share that opinion.

Finally, you're fundamentally misunderstanding what this is all about. Again,the matter at hand is how to resolve a conflict between two human beings' right to bodily autonomy,etc. So, whatever answer one comes up with has implications far beyond this particular hypothetical.

For example, what if we follow the logic of Michael Tooley, and Peter Singer, and decree that only 'persons'; organisms expressing reasoning, self consciousness, etc., have rights, have moral value, then a third trimester fetus has zero value, irrespective of the obvious fact that it is as much of a human being as you, or I. That's totally consistent. However,babies don't reason, or have a sense of identity either. Therefore, from the 'personalist' view, it cannot be a crime to kill one, at least, not a serious crime, which, in fairness, they both fully acknowledge. So, we aren't just talking about fetuses, here. It's a package deal. Either you believe that human beings have the right to not be killed, or you don't. Either choice is going to have substantial ramifications. Personally, I subscribe to the former, and, as such, balk at the idea of depriving an innocent human being of their life, particularly so, in the case of infanticide.


also Hawkins doesn't live in a womb

As I've explained, it wouldn't matter if he did. Incidentally,the specific location is totally irrelevant.Just as it makes no difference whether we are talking about a healthy, third trimester fetus, Thomson's violinist, or British theoretical physicists, the location of these parties is irrelevant as long as it doesn't change the fundamental parameters of the scenario. Let's say Stephen Hawking was in my gall bladder, it's no different. He wouldn't be any less of a human being. That awareness of his humanity would obligate me to remove him, unharmed, were it possible to do so. I would have every right to sever our connection, he has no standing to compel me to sustain, or house him, as the case may be, however, I can't just smother him with a pillow. I don't have the right to do that. That's crossing the line.


Earlier you accused me of valuing the lives, and bodily autonomy of fetuses more than the people carrying them, you also accused me of sexism. Both of these claims are objectively, obviously false, as the record will reflect. I won't insist on an apology, but I do insist on a retraction, particularly in the latter case. I would also urge you to exercise more caution before making such serious accusations in the future.

[Illegalitarian]

For starters,* again, by about 28 weeks,* a fetus is a human being.* There is absolutely no biological basis for excluding it. That is not an opinion, it's a scientific fact. You are entitled to your opinions,* you aren't entitled to your own facts. There is no other way to see it, at least,* not from a metaphysically materialist perspective.

Sorry, but this is blatantly false. This is not based in science. This is not based in fact. It is based in nothing but your opinion.

There is no scientific consensus on when someone is "human" or when "life beings", outside of the "viable when out of the womb" thing. The fetus should be the peripheral issue here, because it's a matter of abortion, and abortions happen whether or not the vast majority of people believe X about a fetus. Women have been giving themselves abortions for centuries illegally and I'm willing to bet most of them saw their fetuses as living people.

prohibition doesn't work, if you were actually an anarchist you would know that.



You are correct that as I lack a uterus, functional,* or otherwise, it's extraordinarily unlikely that I will ever become pregnant.* This however is irrelevant.* What you are implying is that people only have the right to have opinions about things that immediately affect them, personally,* and/or that bodily autonomy,* at the very least, the bodily autonomy of women,* is literally sacrosanct.* Both of those unstated premises are patently ridiculous.* What's more, it's obvious that no-one, certainly not yourself,* actually believes either one of these things.

Since you mentioned it, as I pointed out, earlier, according to Gallup, about 80% of pro-choice women happen to share that opinion. This isn't just an American thing, we would find similar results in the other countries where abortion is legal, for entirely predictable,* and logical reasons. As much as you might not want to acknowledge it, the overwhelming majority of pro-choice women share that opinion.


No, no one is calming that no one has a right to make decisions about anyone other than themselves, it's a matter of having a right to make decisions about others when the decision has absolutely no baring on anyone else *but* the person in question.


What "gallup" poll and what makes you think this is relevant?


Finally,* you're fundamentally misunderstanding what this is all about. Again,*the matter at hand is how to resolve a conflict between two human beings' right to bodily autonomy,*etc. So, whatever answer one comes up with has implications far beyond this particular hypothetical. *


False. re: first part of this post.



For example,* what if we follow the logic of Michael Tooley, and Peter Singer, and decree that only 'persons'; organisms expressing reasoning, self consciousness, etc., have rights, have moral value, then a third trimester fetus has zero value, irrespective of the obvious fact that it is as much of a human being as you, or I.* That's totally consistent. However,*babies don't reason, or have a sense of identity,* either.* Therefore, from the 'personalist' view, it cannot be a crime to kill one, at least, not a serious crime, which, in fairness, they fully acknowledge. So, we aren't just talking about fetuses,* here. It's a package deal.* Either you believe that human beings have the right to not be killed, or you don't.* Either choice is going to have substantial ramifications. Personally, I subscribe to the former,* and, as such, balk at the idea of depriving an innocent human being of their life, particularly so, in the case of infanticide.



You're attacking an argument no one is making.


As I've explained,* it wouldn't matter if he did. Incidentally,*the specific location is totally irrelevant.*Just as it makes no difference whether we are talking about a healthy,* third trimester fetus, Thomson's violinist,* or British theoretical physicists, the location of these parties is irrelevant as long as it doesn't change the fundamental parameters of the scenario. Let's say Stephen Hawking was in my gall bladder, it's no different.* He wouldn't be any less of a human being. That awareness of his humanity would obligate me to remove him, unharmed, were it possible to do so. I would have every right to sever our connection,* he has no standing to compel me to sustain, or house him, as the case may be, however,* I can't just smother him with a pillow. I don't have the right to do that. That's crossing the line.

Another strawman with a false equivalency of human beings with human fetuses with your false notion of a fetus "objectively" being human.