the scope of the term "pro-choice" needs to be expanded

[homegrown terror]

....to include EVERY choice. abortion, birth control, gay sex, gay marriage, nudism, polyamory, bdsm, drugs, religion (or lack thereof) and any other lifestyle choice that really is only up to the consent of the person or people involved. from now on, when i say i'm "pro-choice" i mean any choice in life, and the only expectation that can be leveled against those choices is that the person(s) involved must accept any consequences (good AND bad) of that choice. no one should have to answer to anyone else when the decide how they want to live their life.

who's with me? the "Pro-ANY-Choice" movement starts with you.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

"With you" in what sense? I am absolutely in favour of people choosing their lifestyles freely, without compulsion and without repression and shaming - though note that religion is not a lifestyle and affects other people by promoting repression, shaming etc. etc.

But extending the term "pro-choice" to these matters would simply dilute it; as it is used now, the term is useful as a way to stress that abortion is a choice the woman makes about her body. And saying that one is "pro-choice" is easier than the more clinical term "pro-abortion" because the bourgeoisie, even the alleged liberals, continue to push the view that abortion is bad, evil, tragedy etc. etc.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

No.

I will not be arbitrarily defined as anti-choice just because I don't believe that Socialism is somehow mutually exclusive with ridding ourselves of the ability to decide to limit the distribution of some of the most dangerous and addictive ingestible substances we know.

Sorry but this lifestylism crap is a load of hippy nonsense.

We should support choice on abortion as something that has been well argued and well defined by a large number of people for a long time. We are getting to that stage now with LGBTQ rights, too. This is an emancipatory issue, related to the class struggle in terms of defining the parameters of the debate as oppressors vs oppressed, an oppression that has become institutionalised and political. This goes far beyond the realms of mere 'lifestylism'. Fuck sake.

As for stuff like polyamory, I don't really see why this should be supported. Can someone explain to me why stuff like that is somehow morally better than just being monogamous?

I cannot stand this notion that 'people shouldn't have to answer to anyone'. Yes they should. Humans often make crap choices if left completely without some sort of societal/community framework; that's the nature of individualism. In reality, humans are better as a society and a community - the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

[l'Enfermé]

OK. But without the nudism and drugs stuff. Call me crazy, but I don't think naked drug addicts roaming the streets is a good idea, really. Meth addicts are bad enough as it is, do we really need to take away their clothes too?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

It's a ridiculous notion what the OP is proposing if you think about it, because it is essentially saying, 'we should encourage everything that I like'.

It's not really pro-choice, it's pro the choices the OP likes - the bourgeois side of the feminist/gay rights movement and a few hippy add ons like drugs and polyamory.

Problem is from that perspective is there is no philosophical argument that holds water when un-savoury, non-hippy stuff starts happening if those people also use the 'choice' argument.

This lifestylist crap is about as individualistic and capitalist-orientated as it gets, all they're doing is replacing 'white anglo-saxon protestant xenophobic sexist male' with 'guardian reading, sandal wearing, tofu eating, pot smoking, vegan kind of hippy'.

[Crux]

....to include EVERY choice. abortion, birth control, gay sex, gay marriage, nudism, polyamory, bdsm, drugs, religion (or lack thereof) and any other lifestyle choice that really is only up to the consent of the person or people involved. from now on, when i say i'm "pro-choice" i mean any choice in life, and the only expectation that can be leveled against those choices is that the person(s) involved must accept any consequences (good AND bad) of that choice. no one should have to answer to anyone else when the decide how they want to live their life.

who's with me? the "Pro-ANY-Choice" movement starts with you.
In that case I am Anti-Choice. In fact, given that in sweden "choice" and "freedom" are the favourite euphemisms for quite brutal neoliberalization of things like healthcare, the school system etc I've sort of gravitated towards this label for some time.

[Decolonize The Left]

....to include EVERY choice. abortion, birth control, gay sex, gay marriage, nudism, polyamory, bdsm, drugs, religion (or lack thereof) and any other lifestyle choice that really is only up to the consent of the person or people involved. from now on, when i say i'm "pro-choice" i mean any choice in life, and the only expectation that can be leveled against those choices is that the person(s) involved must accept any consequences (good AND bad) of that choice. no one should have to answer to anyone else when the decide how they want to live their life.

who's with me? the "Pro-ANY-Choice" movement starts with you.

Well to be fair, what you're basically saying here is that you'd like complete individual autonomy and liberty. This is not a new desire or theory...

[Os Cangaceiros]

No.

I will not be arbitrarily defined as anti-choice just because I don't believe that Socialism is somehow mutually exclusive with ridding ourselves of the ability to decide to limit the distribution of some of the most dangerous and addictive ingestible substances we know.

Sorry but this lifestylism crap is a load of hippy nonsense.

We should support choice on abortion as something that has been well argued and well defined by a large number of people for a long time. We are getting to that stage now with LGBTQ rights, too. This is an emancipatory issue, related to the class struggle in terms of defining the parameters of the debate as oppressors vs oppressed, an oppression that has become institutionalised and political. This goes far beyond the realms of mere 'lifestylism'. Fuck sake.

As for stuff like polyamory, I don't really see why this should be supported. Can someone explain to me why stuff like that is somehow morally better than just being monogamous?

I cannot stand this notion that 'people shouldn't have to answer to anyone'. Yes they should. Humans often make crap choices if left completely without some sort of societal/community framework; that's the nature of individualism. In reality, humans are better as a society and a community - the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

This is a topic I've thought a lot about, actually. I've wrestled with the topic of the individual and society, but mostly I'm in agreement with libertarian thought (using the word "libertarian" here in a loose sense). It may not be entirely consistent with some forms of collectivism, in the sense that you're closing off areas to the collective's influence, but I think the alternatives are worse, if we go in the opposite direction...we move from drugs to food to how active one's lifestyle is to everything else, all of which falls under the purvey of some sort of regulatory scheme. "Slippery slope" is definitely a fallacy, but I have to wonder...if the obsessive regulation of other people's personal choices already happens in this society, which still claims to be a society in which the individual is empowered, what's going to happen when everything is openly the business of some facet of the collective.

Like I've said before, certain academics have called for fat people to be penalized in some way for being so fat, because obesity is a drag on the healthcare system. I think that this concept called society, or the collective, or whatever you want to call it, DOES have a role in the choice's individuals make, regarding lifestyle choices, but I think this influence should be felt through a scientific and medical approach to things like substance (ab)use, and try to find a more objective way to treat troubled individuals who seek help.

I just think there has to be some risk in life, that's really all there is to it. I realize that there are problems that arise from what I'm talking about, for sure...people can claim to be as "live and let live" as they want, and then they'll be confronted by an aggressive panhandler or something and demand that the cops do something about it. One of my friends asked his buddy to leave our house one night, because he was smoking crack on our porch (or at least leave if he was going to continue smoking), so people definitely erect their own barriers in regards to the habits of others in their immediate vicinity. But what I'm saying is that the policy of a body of people should always err more on the side of "freedom", for want of a better word, than to err in the other direction. The annoyances in life, the bad choices, the "negative externalities"...yes they all exist, but I'd rather have them than the alternative.

That's just my opinion, though. I don't think that it's "objectively right" or whatever, it's just the conclusion I've come to after years of thought, w/ maybe a dash of self-justification thrown in.

[homegrown terror]

Well to be fair, what you're basically saying here is that you'd like complete individual autonomy and liberty. This is not a new desire or theory...

i know that. all i was saying by it was that, for me at least, when i say i'm "pro-choice" the term does not mean there is only one issue i support individual choice on.

[BIXX]

If their lifestyle choices don't negatively affect (effect?) the quality of life for someone else, then I'd say sure, whatever, do whatever thou want. However, if they get too drugged out or whatever to contribute to society, their lifestyle choices are gonna turn around and slap them in the face, at least, in my opinion.

[Jimmie Higgins]

....to include EVERY choice. abortion, birth control, gay sex, gay marriage, nudism, polyamory, bdsm, drugs, religion (or lack thereof) and any other lifestyle choice that really is only up to the consent of the person or people involved. from now on, when i say i'm "pro-choice" i mean any choice in life, and the only expectation that can be leveled against those choices is that the person(s) involved must accept any consequences (good AND bad) of that choice. no one should have to answer to anyone else when the decide how they want to live their life.

who's with me? the "Pro-ANY-Choice" movement starts with you.

Ok, I guess that's fine in an abstract sort of way. But I do think we need to have a special empasis on being pro-abortion. Especially since this is an area where the tides are erroding popular support whereas there is a bit more positive movement around sexuality and recreational drug use in society.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I will not be arbitrarily defined as anti-choice just because I don't believe that Socialism is somehow mutually exclusive with ridding ourselves of the ability to decide to limit the distribution of some of the most dangerous and addictive ingestible substances we know.

Limit in what sense? I agree that it is not a good idea for anyone to be able to buy a kilo of heroin, not until the higher stages of the communist society at least, but I also think a blanket ban is, well, unwarranted.


We should support choice on abortion as something that has been well argued and well defined by a large number of people for a long time. We are getting to that stage now with LGBTQ rights, too. This is an emancipatory issue, related to the class struggle in terms of defining the parameters of the debate as oppressors vs oppressed, an oppression that has become institutionalised and political. This goes far beyond the realms of mere 'lifestylism'. Fuck sake.

Drug users are also abused by governments and by private individuals; I am not saying that their situation is identical to that of LGBTQ individuals, mind you, but they do seem to be oppressed/


As for stuff like polyamory, I don't really see why this should be supported. Can someone explain to me why stuff like that is somehow morally better than just being monogamous?

It isn't; I don't think anyone has claimed that it is. But polyamorous individuals and relationships should be as accepted as monogamous ones.


I cannot stand this notion that 'people shouldn't have to answer to anyone'. Yes they should. Humans often make crap choices if left completely without some sort of societal/community framework; that's the nature of individualism. In reality, humans are better as a society and a community - the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

Certainly, when it comes to the social organisation of labour. But I am not sure people should "answer" to the community when it comes to certain private affairs; it sounds dangerous. Some communities might think that being gay is a "crap choice" and shame and abuse people that make that "crap choice".

I think that a communist society should focus on what is eminently social - the economy, the production and distribution of goods, and that it should not interfere in the personal lives of its members unless they somehow impact other people or the economy.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

[QUOTE=Semendyaev;2586188]Limit in what sense? I agree that it is not a good idea for anyone to be able to buy a kilo of heroin, not until the higher stages of the communist society at least, but I also think a blanket ban is, well, unwarranted.


Nobody has said anything about a blanked ban on heroin. But in what sense are you using the term 'choice'? I mean, if somebody supports abortion up until 20 weeks, then that's not a blanket ban on abortion, but it certainly means they're not pro choice.

So really, I don't know what your point is. That we shouldn't shoot people for being addicted to drugs? Sure! But that doesn't mean we have to just have some sort of anarchy and hope for the best, either.



Drug users are also abused by governments and by private individuals; I am not saying that their situation is identical to that of LGBTQ individuals, mind you, but they do seem to be oppressed/


Not by every government. In the US yes, perhaps. But look at Portugal, or the Netherlands. I'm not sure 'oppression' is the right word, either. Denying somebody access to something that may be harmful can perhaps be a 'denial', but it's not oppression in the sense of not being allowed to actually be who you are, or marry who you love.


It isn't; I don't think anyone has claimed that it is. But polyamorous individuals and relationships should be as accepted as monogamous ones.

I don't think anybody would disagree, but I don't see why this is such a great point, since polyamory doesn't seem to have become some sort of wildly popular social institution. It's like saying, 'HEY, let's give people right to wear rainbow colour watches if they want'. I mean, fine, but almost nobody does, so it's not really an issue..!


Certainly, when it comes to the social organisation of labour. But I am not sure people should "answer" to the community when it comes to certain private affairs; it sounds dangerous. Some communities might think that being gay is a "crap choice" and shame and abuse people that make that "crap choice".

Gender issues tend not to have negative social externalities in the way that say, being a crackhead does, though.


I think that a communist society should focus on what is eminently social - the economy, the production and distribution of goods, and that it should not interfere in the personal lives of its members unless they somehow impact other people or the economy.

Again, nobody disagrees. But I think you're fundamentally mis-understanding that not every personal issue remains personal; it is often also political and social. Drugs being probably the best example.

[Jimmie Higgins]

No.

I will not be arbitrarily defined as anti-choice just because I don't believe that Socialism is somehow mutually exclusive with ridding ourselves of the ability to decide to limit the distribution of some of the most dangerous and addictive ingestible substances we know.On a basic level humans like to get high - not universally, but generally people have always used substances to alter their consiousness. So maybe things that are more difficult to produce could be restricted just by not producing them in theory, but then alcohol can be just as destructive as heroin for an induvidual and there's no way that production of alcohol could be stopped, nor would most people want that.

So esentially trying to control the intake of mind-altering substances means ultimately having to control people's intake because production can not be totally controlled for some more easily made or common substances and I just don't think it would be in the interests of a liberated society to do that kind of monitoring of personal behavior.

More likely, IMO, people would have to deal with such things on a community level. If someone shows up to their shifts loaded, or doesn't show up at all because of substance problems, then the community or the specific workers collective would have an interest and ability to set some conditions: i.e don't show up for work if you can't be sober because it's a danger to yourself and others. Being unable to work may then mean they don't have full access to things beyond basic housing and food etc.

More effective than restriction of behavior would be access to treatment and if substance abuse was treated as a medical issue. Beyond that I believe it would be a matter of collective peer-pressure and a society where people aren't little atomized production units so people would have an interest in the well-being of their neighbors and co-workers (rather than being on some level in competition with them or just too busy with their own daily shit and debts to have time to worry about others).


Sorry but this lifestylism crap is a load of hippy nonsense.IMO lifestylism is a problem in that it is often presented as a "solution" - and induvidualist solution to alienation or capitalist life in general. So unless the argument is that polyamory or drug-use is a liberatory act, I don't think this qualifies as induvidualist lifestylism.

I think that the induvidual and the collective are linked in terms of socialism: only through collective power and liberation can induviduals be liberated from capitalism, and only liberated induviduals can comprise a healthy communist collective society.

Capitalism has to control and temper the masses in order to keep their order of society running and keep people in line. Drug addiction, alcoholism, or even things like bi-polar imbalences are problems, but the way these problems manifest is also specific to capitalism where workers have to be able to perform at a pace set by capital.


We should support choice on abortion as something that has been well argued and well defined by a large number of people for a long time. We are getting to that stage now with LGBTQ rights, too. This is an emancipatory issue, related to the class struggle in terms of defining the parameters of the debate as oppressors vs oppressed, an oppression that has become institutionalised and political. This goes far beyond the realms of mere 'lifestylism'. Fuck sake. True, but I don't know if that was being argued.


As for stuff like polyamory, I don't really see why this should be supported. Can someone explain to me why stuff like that is somehow morally better than just being monogamous?It's not, but bourgois moral attitudes towards it does have to do with re-inforcing the nuclear family and so we shouldn't oppose those who wish to have these sorts of relationships when they are mutual. If there was a movement against any legal restrictions on these forms of relationships I think we should support it on some level (based on the actual circumstances of such a movement if it developed)

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Nobody has said anything about a blanked ban on heroin. But in what sense are you using the term 'choice'? I mean, if somebody supports abortion up until 20 weeks, then that's not a blanket ban on abortion, but it certainly means they're not pro choice.

So really, I don't know what your point is. That we shouldn't shoot people for being addicted to drugs? Sure! But that doesn't mean we have to just have some sort of anarchy and hope for the best, either.

I think drugs should primarily be regulated for economic reasons; as you mention in the rest of your post, these are the negative externalities that are associated with drug use and that a proletarian state should suppress. But I do not think that the state should suppress drug use that does not interfere with economic life.


Not by every government. In the US yes, perhaps. But look at Portugal, or the Netherlands. I'm not sure 'oppression' is the right word, either. Denying somebody access to something that may be harmful can perhaps be a 'denial', but it's not oppression in the sense of not being allowed to actually be who you are, or marry who you love.

I am not talking about that - I am talking about beatings, forced institutionalisation, abuse in such institutions and so on.


I don't think anybody would disagree, but I don't see why this is such a great point, since polyamory doesn't seem to have become some sort of wildly popular social institution. It's like saying, 'HEY, let's give people right to wear rainbow colour watches if they want'. I mean, fine, but almost nobody does, so it's not really an issue..!

Some people certainly do; as comrade Higgins says, if a movement for greater rights for polyamorous people develops, we should support it. In the meantime, it is our duty to correct bigotry against such people in our own organisations and elsewhere.


Gender issues tend not to have negative social externalities in the way that say, being a crackhead does, though.

I understand; and it seems that I have misread your post, since I thought you were trying to imply that the community should interfere in the personal life of individuals even if their personal lives do not interfere with public order or the economy.

[Quail]

I think that people should be able to choose to live whatever lifestyle they want without judgement (within reason of course - for example people who choose to exploit other people shouldn't be able to do that "because that's their choice").

However the term "pro-choice" has a very specific meaning. Women's reproductive rights have to be fought for and are often under attack, so changing the meaning of "pro-choice" to something more general is damaging to that movement. I do think that being "pro-choice" is more than just being in favour of abortion, though. It means supporting any choice that a woman makes, so if a woman wants to go through with a pregnancy, there should be enough support so that she can afford to raise the child, afford childcare if she wants to work or study, etc. Nobody should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term, but equally nobody should be forced to have an abortion.

[Luís Henrique]

....to include EVERY choice. abortion, birth control, gay sex, gay marriage, nudism, polyamory, bdsm, drugs, religion (or lack thereof) and any other lifestyle choice that really is only up to the consent of the person or people involved. from now on, when i say i'm "pro-choice" i mean any choice in life, and the only expectation that can be leveled against those choices is that the person(s) involved must accept any consequences (good AND bad) of that choice. no one should have to answer to anyone else when the decide how they want to live their life.

who's with me? the "Pro-ANY-Choice" movement starts with you.

I am against any "choice" that implies choosing from some kind of market display. It is not a real choice if your options are limited by unexplained factors beyond your control. I am also against denying any hierarchy among the subjects of choices, as if chosing the colour of your pants had the same importance as chosing your political affiliation - and so I have to be against "choices" on what lines of action and resistance are more important that do not account for such hierarchy, or pretend that such hierarchy doesn't exist.

And so, I chose not to be with you.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

i know that. all i was saying by it was that, for me at least, when i say i'm "pro-choice" the term does not mean there is only one issue i support individual choice on.

I don't like the term "pro-choice", which I find slightly stupid, and really isn't related to the subject (being in favour of abortion rights, not being in favour of abstract "choices").

But I am not the dictator of language, and I have to recognise that the term "pro-choice" is used as a synonim to "pro-abortion rights" in most contexts. And so, when I say that I am pro-choice, I do mean that I am in favour of abortion rights - not that I am in favour of any "choices" taken in abstract. I cannot actually "choose" the meaning of words or terms, as if they were not socially constructed.

As a "pro-choicer", I have no problem with making alliances with any people who are in favour of abortion rights - even if they are against liberalisation of polyamory or cocaine consumption. I don't want these people to break with me on the issue of abortion rights because they disagree with me on the issue of polyamory, or with you in the issue of cocaine consumption.

(Regarding drugs, it is very hard to defend the regular consumption of substances that cause, or can cause, dependence, as a choice - arguably, anyone is "free" to chose taking or not taking their first dose of heroin, but... how about the 7,529th dose? is a heroin addict really "chosing" to take it? From my personal experience, I know that I haven't "chosen" most cigarettes I smoked.)

Luís Henrique