antichoice post [Archive]

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

17th March 2013, 17:33

I readily admit that the claim that a zygote should enjoy all of the rights of a human being to be totally absurd, on it's face. Even at, say; 13 weeks, a fetus falls substantially short of what can honestly, scientifically, (Of course; this is largely irrelevant to Pro-lifers, who define human life through the spectrum of religion, not science.) be described as a; 'human being.' However; by the 26th, or the 28th week; this argument loses all credibility. At that late stage of gestation; a fetus possesses all of the sufficient biological conditions of a human being, which, of course, if you take the scientific view, the materialist view; are the only relevant conditions.

There is nothing materialist about ignoring the social context and acting as if rights are somehow bestowed by DNA.

I would argue that every person (Note; gender neutral.)

Fuck gender neutrality. Are men, as men, oppressed in the present social order? No. Clamoring for "gender neutrality" in unequal conditions is at best bad politics; at worst, conscious apologia for the continued unequal treatment of women.

has the right to bodily autonomy. However; while, as an Anarchist, I tend to defend civil rights pretty zealously, I must admit that this right, like all rights, has it's limits.

All authority is illegitimate, except when it is used to shackle a woman to her bed and force her to give birth. Consistent libertarianism, ladies and gentlemen.

I'm inclined to agree, although; it should be pointed out that you are moving the goalposts. Rather than confront the uncomfortable question of what is, or is not, a human being, you shift focus onto; 'personhood', where you stand on much firmer ground. Again; I grant that a fetus is not, at any point, a 'person', in the sense of having consciousness, or an identity. However; neither does a two-year-old. At best; they could be considered; 'partial persons', or; 'proto-persons.'

Correct. The relevant difference, of course, is that two-year-olds are not physically inside someone else's body. As for the charge of moving the goalposts, you seem to be confusing me with someone else; I have never claimed that fetuses are not human and livign.

Cancer cells are not organisms, neither are blood cells, skin cells, liver cells, etc.

They are, however, human life. Anacephalic newborns are, however, organisms, as are those newborns that suffer from harlequin ichtyosis etc. Do they all have a right to life as well? That is beyond ridiculous.

AConfusedSocialDemocrat

17th March 2013, 17:34

In any case, why do we need to invent new language?

Because it's annoying and stops meaningful debte, since we are for abortion, are we 'anti-life'?

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

17th March 2013, 17:35

Because it's annoying and stops meaningful debte, since we are for abortion, are we 'anti-life'?

So why should we change the term "pro-choice"? In any case, I doubt there can be much meaningful debate on the subject.

Sasha

17th March 2013, 17:50

Because it's annoying and stops meaningful debte, since we are for abortion, are we 'anti-life'?

you got confused to who started what, the anti-abortion lobby started using the term pro-life intentionally to frame people who are pro-abortion rights as "anti-life" (and as proven by your posts it works), pro-abortion rights activists then came up with their own positive frame to counter balance that, "pro-choice".
because thats exactly what in our opinion this "debate" is about, not about the sanctity of life, not even pro-abortion vs anti-abortion (i'm, like most pro-choice people, also very much for making abortion as much as possible a thing of the past, just not by outlawing abortion and interfering with female bodily autonomy but by education, sexual and feminist liberation and free and universally available contraception), but about the right to choose.

NGNM85

17th March 2013, 17:50

neither is a fetus, they are part of a organism until they become an independent organism.
until they exist (!, not potentially but factual) independently from the mother they are no ore a living organism than a teratoma.

In that case; conjoined twins are not organisms. Look; this is absurd; and you know it. This has absolutely nothing to do with science. Clearly; you don't care about that.

why do fetusses get special status?

If you knew anything about biology; you would know that you simply cannot honestly talk about fetuses, (foeti?) as if they were all the same. The fetal stage encompasses all of the gestation from, roughly, the 11th week, until birth, usually around the 40th week. That's about three-quarters of the pregnancy. So; there is a world of difference, biologically, between a 13-week old fetus, and a 39-week-old fetus.

'Special', compared to what?

because they can become potentially human life? so can sperm, unfertialised eggs, any stemmcell etc etc

This is ridiculous. Look, like I said; you should just be honest and drop the pretense of science, altogether. The facts are not on your side.

that is unless the fact on how this specific clump of cells came to be, fertilisation, makes somehow a difference, but thats not scientific, thats just religion.

You are correct in that the only way to claim that a zygote is morally, etc., equivalent to a mature human being is by endowing it with a magical essence. That is the Pro-life argument; in a nutshell, which, as you say, is a religious argument. However; that has absolutely no relationship, whatsoever, to what I'm saying.

Dear Leader

17th March 2013, 18:27

I am anti-abortion. It's not just because of my religious views or anything. I simply believe that if I create a human being, it is up to me, as a human being, to keep it alive and let it live. Rape happens, and it is terrible and is misconceived way too often by the right wing as the victim's fault, but killing a human being who has the potential to live I think is wrong.
This is a really inconsiderate, and anti-sceince view. What makes a fetus a human being? What makes it up to you what a women does with a PARASITIC organism?

NGNM85

17th March 2013, 18:49

There is nothing materialist about ignoring the social context and acting as if rights are somehow bestowed by DNA.

Agreed. However; I haven't done either.

Fuck gender neutrality. Are men, as men, oppressed in the present social order? No. Clamoring for "gender neutrality" in unequal conditions is at best bad politics; at worst, conscious apologia for the continued unequal treatment of women.

Human rights should never be contingent on arbitrary characteristics like gender, race, sexual orientation, etc. To suggest otherwise is not only irrational, it's bigoted. As such; I would never suggest that women, or; homosexuals, latinos, etc., should have fewer rights than anyone else, certainly not on that basis. However; that also means that none of these groups should have any more rights than any of the others.

On the question of what does, or does not constitute a human being, which happens to be the subject I am talking about, gender is irrelevant.

However we decide to define human life; this decision will, inevitably have social consequences which go far beyond abortion. However; even in this particular instance, it is not strictly a woman's issue. Transmen are equally affected. However; I am not so blind as to not acknowledge the fact that as a result of the realities of human biology; any abortion policy, out there, in the real world, will overwhelmingly, and primarily affect women.

All authority is illegitimate, except when it is used to shackle a woman to her bed and force her to give birth. Consistent libertarianism, ladies and gentlemen.

This has absolutely no relationship, whatsoever, to the preceding statement. Clearly; this is a gross misunderstanding. For the record, in case you didn't know; I'm Pro-choice.

First of all; no intelligent Anarchist would honestly claim that authority is inherently illegitimate. That's ridiculous. Anarchism, as a philosophy, is not categorically opposed to authority, in the abstract. Anarchism only asserts that authority is never to be accepted as self-evidently legitimate, that authority must always be able to meet a burden of proof regarding it's legitimacy, and, if it fails to meet that burden; it must be dismantled.

I've never suggested that anyone should be forced to give birth, for any reason. (Which you can feel free to confirm.)

Correct. The relevant difference, of course, is that two-year-olds are not physically inside someone else's body.

You're just moving the goalposts, again. Again; the question is: what constitutes a human being? Putting aside the obvious answer, if you take the scientific view, the materialist view; it all boils down to biology. Geography is irrelevant. To have all of the biological characteristics of a human being is to be a human being, whether you are in Beijing or Des Moines, or Alpha Centauri.

As for the charge of moving the goalposts, you seem to be confusing me with someone else; I have never claimed that fetuses are not human and livign.

Then you're just ignoring the question, in which case, for one thing; it's impossible to take any position. In order to have an argument; you have to be willing to take a position among other things. In any case, regardless of whether or not you have explicitly stated it, you, clearly, support the view that geography, not biology, is the most important determinant of what is, or is not, a human being, that the parents' body cavity is like some kind of a magical gateway. Ok. That leaves you with the unenviable task of defending this absurd declaration. You're in, or; you're out, you can't have it both ways.

For the second time; you cannot simply make blanket statements like this, about the fetus. A 12-week-old fetus is drastically biologically different from a 38-week-old fetus. They are worlds apart.

Of course, all living human fetuses are human, and living. That is also irrelevant.

They are, however, human life.

While they are living, certainly. However; that's totally irrelevant, not in the least because I've never suggested otherwise.

Anacephalic newborns are, however, organisms, as are those newborns that suffer from harlequin ichtyosis etc. Do they all have a right to life as well? That is beyond ridiculous.

Embryos, or fetuses (Presuming they live that long.) with anacephaly cannot be considered human beings. The brain, the seat of consciousness, and about the most important prerequisite for being considered a human being, along with human DNA; is essentially missing. Virtually all of the brain is simply not there.

Harlequin icthyosis is a very tragic, and serious condition. However; as far as I can see, it has no effect on brain development. Apparently there is a British woman, who was born with this disease, who teaches sports coaching at some college. It's an excellent reason for prenatal testing, and I can see why a parent would be motivated to terminate the pregnancy, upon receiving such a diagnosis, it would probably be for the best, but that's really neither here, nor there.

BIXX

17th March 2013, 19:03

I can't remember which of you said this, but "I'm not pro-choice, I'm simply anti child:laugh:"

That being said, as long as the child/fetus/baby/tumor or whatever the fuck you wanna call it is inside the woman's body, then she has the right to abort. However, after a certain point, there is little to no reason for he to abort (from my perspective) as it would cause the same amount of damage to her body. So, she has the right, I just can't see why after a certain point.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

17th March 2013, 19:24

Human rights should never be contingent on arbitrary characteristics like gender, race, sexual orientation, etc. To suggest otherwise is not only irrational, it's bigoted. As such; I would never suggest that women, or; homosexuals, latinos, etc., should have fewer rights than anyone else, certainly not on that basis. However; that also means that none of these groups should have any more rights than any of the others.

You seem to be the only participant in this discussion that finds human rights, as they figure in bourgeois ideology, relevant. And your use of "gender neutral" language is simply an attempt to drag this discussion into the empyrean heavens of bourgeois morality, and to make us forget the actual women and transmen that your moralising affects.

On the question of what does, or does not constitute a human being, which happens to be the subject I am talking about, gender is irrelevant.

Again, whether something is a human being is irrelevant even to the left wing of the bourgeoisie.

However we decide to define human life; this decision will, inevitably have social consequences which go far beyond abortion. However; even in this particular instance, it is not strictly a woman's issue. Transmen are equally affected. However; I am not so blind as to not acknowledge the fact that as a result of the realities of human biology; any abortion policy, out there, in the real world, will overwhelmingly, and primarily affect women.

And yet you suggest that we simply forget about these social realities and instead talk about some semi-theological rights! This has nothing to do with revolutionary socialism.

Even so, I apologise for forgetting about transmen; their struggles in this area, however, are much the same as the struggles of cis women.

This has absolutely no relationship, whatsoever, to the preceding statement. Clearly; this is a gross misunderstanding. For the record, in case you didn't know; I'm Pro-choice.

My chekist intuition tells me that you are against "late term" abortions, so you would either force women to give birth, or you are plainly inconsistent - not to mention the shaming implicit in a "rights of the fetus" position.

You're just moving the goalposts, again. Again; the question is: what constitutes a human being? Putting aside the obvious answer, if you take the scientific view, the materialist view; it all boils down to biology. Geography is irrelevant. To have all of the biological characteristics of a
human being is to be a human being, whether you are in Beijing or Des Moines, or Alpha Centauri.

I am not saying that a fetus is not a human being. I am saying that restricting abortion is oppressive to the mothers. The rest of your post is largely irrelevant.

Embryos, or fetuses (Presuming they live that long.) with anacephaly cannot be considered human beings. The brain, the seat of consciousness, and about the most important prerequisite for being considered a human being, along with human DNA; is essentially missing. Virtually all of the brain is simply not there.

And yet, they are considered human beings, rendering your entire argument specious.

Yuppie Grinder

17th March 2013, 21:18

The point should not be deciding at what arbitrarily decided moment the fetus becomes human, it should be defending the principle of bodily autonomy. Denying a person control over their own bodily processes, especially ones as central to the human experience as sex and reproduction, is an infringement upon their bodily autonomy and therefore systematic rape. Merely allowing abortion and the use of contraception is the same oppression with a different face. Men aren't allowed certain degrees of control over their own body, nobody ever talks about men that way. The fact that people think allowing abortion or banning it are the only two options signifies that the masses have yet to begin even thinking about sexual equality in a meaningful way.

LOLseph Stalin

18th March 2013, 03:20

I'll just say this: I have no issues with people being personally opposed to abortion thus not wanting abortions themselves(oh the beauty of personal choice). However, that gives them no right to ban it for other women who may not have a problem with it, and actually need abortions. Legal access to abortions has saved lives.

NGNM85

18th March 2013, 04:13

You seem to be the only participant in this discussion that finds human rights, as they figure in bourgeois ideology, relevant.

There's nothing inherently bourgeois about human rights. This is also untrue. Human rights are at the very heart of the matter.

And your use of "gender neutral" language is simply an attempt to drag this discussion into the empyrean heavens of bourgeois morality, and to make us forget the actual women and transmen that your moralising affects.

No; I'm using gender neutral language because gender is really irrelevant, and because, as you yourself acknowledge; these statements apply equally to women, as transmen, and I'm pretty sure most transmen would take offense to being referred to as such. Furthermore; to do so would be considered transphobic, and would merit an infraction.

Again, whether something is a human being is irrelevant even to the left wing of the bourgeoisie.

Nonsense. However we decide to answer the question, that answer will have sweeping implications which will, inevitably, cut across all levels of society.

And yet you suggest that we simply forget about these social realities and instead talk about some semi-theological rights! This has nothing to do with revolutionary socialism.

There's nothing inherently religious about human rights.

Incidentally; you're the one making absolute moral claims, which, by necessity, require one to presuppose the existence of god. Of course; I don't think you seriously believe this, I just think this is an oversight, on your part.

I really don't think there can be said to be a 'non-revolutionary' Socialism, but that's besides the point. I think what you mean to say is that what I was saying is philosophically incompatible with Socialism, in which case; you'd be wrong.

Even so, I apologise for forgetting about transmen; their struggles in this area, however, are much the same as the struggles of cis women.

You don't owe me an apology. (It's appreciated, nonetheless.) I just don't want that fact to get lost in the course of the debate.

My chekist intuition tells me that you are against "late term" abortions,

Yes, except in the event of a medical emergency. (Incidentally, according to recent, nationwide polls; so do 80% of Pro-choice women.) More specifically; from 26-28 weeks, afterwards, which is, basically, the framework established in Roe.

so you would either force women to give birth, or you are plainly inconsistent

You mean; 'women, and transmen.'

Actually; no. First of all; it should be kept in mind that this is an extremely unlikely scenario. In Canada, which is the only country, as far as I know, which has legal abortion that doesn't prohibit such a procedure; it never happens. There's no demand for it, and there's no reason to believe that would ever change. Furthermore; at the 26-28 week mark; a fetus has something like a 99% chance of survival, outside of it's parent. There's no reason why it couldn't simply be removed. Actually; I've been told that aborting a fetus, at such an advanced stage in the pregnancy, is more physically traumatic than simply removing it, however; I cannot say for certain. I'd have to look into that. Perhaps there's someone around who could shed some light on this. (???)

- not to mention the shaming implicit in a "rights of the fetus" position.

You're imagining things.

I am not saying that a fetus is not a human being. I am saying that restricting abortion is oppressive to the mothers. The rest of your post is largely irrelevant.

The relevance depends on how you answer the aforementioned question. Ok; so you agree that a 26-28+-week-old fetus is a human being. That's settled. (?) So; you're arguing that the fetus either has no rights, or; that the parent's right to bodily autonomy trumps whatever rights the fetus has. There are a number of problems with that. You've already acknowledged that a fetus, at such a late stage of gestation, possesses all of the sufficient conditions of being a human being. In that case; it would possess the same inviolable right to bodily autonomy as it's parent. If this right truly is sacrosanct, as you insist; it is impossible to proceed. (Incidentally; while none of my preceding statements are predicated on religion; asserting the existence of absolute morals does rest on the presumption of a supreme being.) Like I said; the other option is to insist that only persons; those with a discrete identity, and consciousness, have rights, in which case; the timing is irrelevant. This is, perhaps, even more problematic. As I was saying before; infants cannot be considered; 'persons', in this sense. A six-month old human is less aware of itself, and its environment than a mature German Shepard. The inevitable conclusion of this reasoning is that it should be perfectly acceptable to arbitrarily euthanize an infant, perhaps, all the way up to nearly 3 years of age. Some people, honestly, take this view, most notably professor Peter Singer. In fact; the young woman (TC) who is responsible for orchestrating my restriction, subscribed to this view. She told me that, in her opinion; it was permissible to arbitrarily euthanize a child, up to one-and-a-half years of age. Interestingly; this didn't seem to elicit any controversy, in stark contrast to my rather banal remarks. However; I happen to think that's fucking insane, more importantly; I don't find it to be a remotely compelling argument, and I don't think most members find it particularly compelling, either. If you, also, find the inevitable logical consequences abhorrent; this should tell you that you're reasoning has gone off track. Furthermore; this line of thought creates all kinds of weird paradoxes, whereby an infant born at 29 weeks is a human being, with rights, and a name, and a 35-week-old fetus is just so much medical waste. It's incoherent. Or; you could take the third option, which is both scientific, and makes sense, and doesn't create weird paradoxes.

And yet, they are considered human beings, rendering your entire argument specious.

By whom? By the Pro-life movement? Certainly. However; not by me. (Or, for that matter; the federal government.) The fact of the matter is that this claim utterly fails when subjected to the harsh light of reason. Without a brain; a fetus with anacephaly is no more a human being than a cluster of cells in a petri dish. It's just tissue.

homegrown terror

18th March 2013, 04:25

think this says it all:

NGNM85

18th March 2013, 04:35

The point should not be deciding at what arbitrarily decided moment the fetus becomes human, it should be defending the principle of bodily autonomy.

You have to decide what constitutes a human being first, because everything else in predicated on that decision. If you believe in the magical gateway theory; a fetus is never a human being, and there is no issue. If you're a Pro-life Christian and you believe that every zygote has an; 'immortal soul'; then you cannot abort. Etc., etc.

It's certainly possible to arbitrarily define human life, from the looks of it, it's a thriving enterprise. However; that definition doesn't have to be arbitrary. If we all take the scientific, materialist view; we should be able to definitively distinguish between what, or, rather; whom, is a human being, and that which is not. I think anybody, here, is capable of doing that. In fact; if this determination is to be considered binding; it must be scientific.

Denying a person control over their own bodily processes, especially ones as central to the human experience as sex and reproduction, is an infringement upon their bodily autonomy and therefore systematic rape.

You've got a couple of problems, there. First of all; in order to assert that the right of bodily autonomy is, literally, inviolable, to take a deontological stance, requires that the existence of god is a given. I don't think I need to go any further. Second; depending on how you answered the first question, this might make abortion impossible, or only possible under certain circumstances. Third; and, perhaps, I should have started with this, but I can virtually guarantee you don't really believe this.

Merely allowing abortion and the use of contraception is the same oppression with a different face. Men aren't allowed certain degrees of control over their own body, nobody ever talks about men that way. The fact that people think allowing abortion or banning it are the only two options signifies that the masses have yet to begin even thinking about sexual equality in a meaningful way.

Men, with the aforementioned exception of transmen, obviously, can't get pregnant. However; this does not mean that they have unlimited bodily autonomy. Nobody does. Nor should they. There are innumerable circumstances where it is perfectly sensible to override an individuals' bodily autonomy that nobody on this forum has any problem with.

Jimmie Higgins

18th March 2013, 09:07

There's nothing inherently bourgeois about human rights. This is also untrue. Human rights are at the very heart of the matter.There's nothing bourgeois about rights for humans in the abstract, but "human rights" as a real ideology today IS inherently bourgoise in assumptions and ultimately in application. The underlying assumption of "human rights" is "induvidual rights" treated as universal on paper but this ignores the real power and systemic imbalances of the system. It doesn't mean the term isn't contested in real struggles and workers may frame their struggles for certain rights as "human rights" but really this is because as workers or oppressed people they don't have the legal equality in practice that is supposedly promised by bourgoise states.

Actually; no. First of all; it should be kept in mind that this is an extremely unlikely scenario. In Canada, which is the only country, as far as I know, which has legal abortion that doesn't prohibit such a procedure; it never happens. There's no demand for it, and there's no reason to believe that would ever change. Furthermore; at the 26-28 week mark; a fetus has something like a 99% chance of survival, outside of it's parent. There's no reason why it couldn't simply be removed. Actually; I've been told that aborting a fetus, at such an advanced stage in the pregnancy, is more physically traumatic than simply removing it, however; I cannot say for certain. I'd have to look into that. Perhaps there's someone around who could shed some light on this. (???)

If this is rare and there is no demand for it, why are US right-wing politicians so keen to ban "late-term abortions"? Could it be the same reason they outlaw "Islamic Law" from US law even though there is no real attempts to change US law to a form of "Islamic Law"? In other words, scare-mongering and using this rare exception to the rule as a stick to beat abortion rights with.

If it's so rare, then I'd imagine when people do want that procedure, they probably have some damn good reasons.

Men, with the aforementioned exception of transmen, obviously, can't get pregnant. However; this does not mean that they have unlimited bodily autonomy. Nobody does. Nor should they. There are innumerable circumstances where it is perfectly sensible to override an individuals' bodily autonomy that nobody on this forum has any problem with. Yeah and in almost every case of this the person is either a dependant (a child or maybe an elderly adult) or incapable of making rational decisions on their own. So do you think pregnat women irrational? Do they need to be told what to do like someone with Alzheimers or a child?

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

18th March 2013, 09:23

There's nothing inherently bourgeois about human rights. This is also untrue. Human rights are at the very heart of the matter.

For you. But the rest of us seem to be talking about something else - about the oppression and the liberation of women (and transmen). And human rights, as the term is usually called, are obviously a product of middle to late bourgeois ideology.

One can probably talk about rights in a Leninist context; but then one needs to abandon this pretense of neutrality, universality etc. and ask the Leninist question - rights for whom? to do what?

No; I'm using gender neutral language because gender is really irrelevant, and because, as you yourself acknowledge; these statements apply equally to women, as transmen, and I'm pretty sure most transmen would take offense to being referred to as such. Furthermore; to do so would be considered transphobic, and would merit an infraction.

My intention was not to exclude transmen but to exclude cismen, as should be obvious. The point is that we can't pretend that there exists an equivalence between cismen and those oppressed by patriarchy - women and transmen in this case.

Nonsense. However we decide to answer the question, that answer will have sweeping implications which will, inevitably, cut across all levels of society.

It doesn't seem to have implication for the position of Singer and others on the left wing of the bourgeoisie - it should have even less implication for us.

There's nothing inherently religious about human rights.

Human rights are supposed to transcend classes, transcend material conditions, and so on, and so on. This notion that social forms posses a supra-social existence is one of the many things that the bourgeois "human rights" ideology owes to theological thought.

Incidentally; you're the one making absolute moral claims, which, by necessity, require one to presuppose the existence of god. Of course; I don't think you seriously believe this, I just think this is an oversight, on your part.

Nonsense; where have I claimed that abortion is "objectively, universally" good? My point was that as revolutionary socialists, we should aim to remove any obstacle to free, universally available abortion without shaming and harassment by religious lunatics.

Yes, except in the event of a medical emergency. (Incidentally, according to recent, nationwide polls; so do 80% of Pro-choice women.) More specifically; from 26-28 weeks, afterwards, which is, basically, the framework established in Roe.

[...]

Actually; no. First of all; it should be kept in mind that this is an extremely unlikely scenario. In Canada, which is the only country, as far as I know, which has legal abortion that doesn't prohibit such a procedure; it never happens. There's no demand for it, and there's no reason to believe that would ever change. Furthermore; at the 26-28 week mark; a fetus has something like a 99% chance of survival, outside of it's parent. There's no reason why it couldn't simply be removed. Actually; I've been told that aborting a fetus, at such an advanced stage in the pregnancy, is more physically traumatic than simply removing it, however; I cannot say for certain. I'd have to look into that. Perhaps there's someone around who could shed some light on this. (???)

All of this is irrelevant. If the mother wanted a late-term abortion, how would you stop her, or him?

You're imagining things.

Alright, so how would you view someone that tried to obtain a late-term abortion? What would you tell them?

The relevance depends on how you answer the aforementioned question. Ok; so you agree that a 26-28+-week-old fetus is a human being. That's settled. (?) So; you're arguing that the fetus either has no rights, or; that the parent's right to bodily autonomy trumps whatever rights the fetus has.

I am saying that this entire framework of rights is an intractable, uninteresting game, and that we should focus on the actual women and transmen instead of dubious abstractions.

But if you must have rights, it seems to me that only persons can have rights. Fetuses are not persons; therefore they have no rights.

Like I said; the other option is to insist that only persons; those with a discrete identity, and consciousness, have rights, in which case; the timing is irrelevant. This is, perhaps, even more problematic. As I was saying before; infants cannot be considered; 'persons', in this sense. A six-month old human is less aware of itself, and its environment than a mature German Shepard. The inevitable conclusion of this reasoning is that it should be perfectly acceptable to arbitrarily euthanize an infant, perhaps, all the way up to nearly 3 years of age. Some people, honestly, take this view, most notably professor Peter Singer. In fact; the young woman (TC) who is responsible for orchestrating my restriction, subscribed to this view. She told me that, in her opinion; it was permissible to arbitrarily euthanize a child, up to one-and-a-half years of age. Interestingly; this didn't seem to elicit any controversy, in stark contrast to my rather banal remarks. However; I happen to think that's fucking insane, more importantly; I don't find it to be a remotely compelling argument, and I don't think most members find it particularly compelling, either. If you, also, find the inevitable logical consequences abhorrent; this should tell you that you're reasoning has gone off track.

You don't like the conclusion, therefore it's "fucking insane", and no one should ever even consider it. And, by the way, the conclusion doesn't follow, since most of us would be comfortable with restrictions on the killing of non-persons that are outside someone's body.

Also, I am not familiar with the circumstances, but I know that this forum takes a hard line position against any advocacy of restrictions on abortion. I highly doubt your restriction was the result of some conspiracy.

Furthermore; this line of thought creates all kinds of weird paradoxes, whereby an infant born at 29 weeks is a human being, with rights, and a name, and a 35-week-old fetus is just so much medical waste. It's incoherent. Or; you could take the third option, which is both scientific, and makes sense, and doesn't create weird paradoxes.

You're equivocating, a "human being" is not the same as a human person, and in fact the former term is horribly vague. It would probably be better to stick to the term "person" and "organism", but then your argument would be obviously false.

By whom? By the Pro-life movement? Certainly. However; not by me. (Or, for that matter; the federal government.) The fact of the matter is that this claim utterly fails when subjected to the harsh light of reason. Without a brain; a fetus with anacephaly is no more a human being than a cluster of cells in a petri dish. It's just tissue.

As far as I am aware, "human being" is a term with no legal standing, but medical texts refer to anacephalic infants as, well, infants, and infants are usually considered a sort of human being.

So let us return to the issue of ichtyosis again - a horrible condition that creates extreme pain and is lethal in most cases. Are you saying that it is impermissible, in such circumstances, to euthanise the infant?

NGNM85

18th March 2013, 19:03

There's nothing bourgeois about rights for humans in the abstract, but "human rights" as a real ideology today IS inherently bourgoise in assumptions and ultimately in application. The underlying assumption of "human rights" is "induvidual rights" treated as universal on paper but this ignores the real power and systemic imbalances of the system. It doesn't mean the term isn't contested in real struggles and workers may frame their struggles for certain rights as "human rights" but really this is because as workers or oppressed
people they don't have the legal equality in practice that is supposedly promised by bourgoise states.

First of all; 'rights for humans' are human rights. Second; there is not one, singular conception of human rights, but a plurality of differing perspectives. This thread is a perfect example. You, and the others are arguing that the right to bodily autonomy is inviolable, (Which I guaruntee nobody actually believes, not in the least because it's logically
impossible.) and I'm arguing that it is not. Furthermore; the Socialist project; the emancipation of the working class, which is the emancipation of mankind, is inextricably grounded in a particular conception of human rights. (Which I happen to find very compelling.)

If this is rare and there is no demand for it, why are US right-wing politicians so keen to ban "late-term abortions"? Could it be the same reason they outlaw "Islamic Law" from US law even though there is no real attempts to change US law to a form of "Islamic Law"? In other words, scare-mongering and using this rare exception to the rule as a stick to beat abortion rights with.

In a nutshell; yeah. You're talking about the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. Let's start at the beginning. In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court legalized abortion, for any reason, up to the third trimester, (Which begins in the 27th week.) and only in the case of medical emergencies, afterwards. In a later case, the trimester format was scrapped
and the line was drawn at 26-28 weeks. That's the law of the land. Incidentally; virtually every country that has legalized abortion has adopted similar policies, with some minor variations. France is surprisingly conservative, by comparison. The only country, to my knowledge, that has legalized abortion which does not have any limitations on late term abortions is Canada, but even there, it never happens. So; it's already illegal to have an abortion, after 26-28 weeks, unless there is a medical emergency. As such; these procedures are exceedingly rare. In fact; something like 86% of abortions are performed within the first 11 weeks. One of the reasons why there is virtually no demand for such a procedure, except, obviously, in the cases of medical emergencies, is that most Americans find the idea morally abhorrent. As I mentioned, earlier, according to recent national polls; 80% of Pro-choice women balk at the idea of terminating a fetus at such a late stage in the pregnancy. That makes for a very potent emotional hot button, which the Pro-life movement, and their proxies in the Republican party have taken every opportunity to exploit. At this point; you should probably have started to
wonder; 'What is the justification for a; 'Partial-Birth Abortion Act' if it's already illegal to arbitrarily abort a fetus after 26-28 weeks?' That's the 64-million-dollar question. The answer is simple; there isn't one. It's just
a smokescreen. That's clear right off in the name; 'Partial-Birth.' That's not a medical term, it's Pro-life jargon. Second; if we study the bill, we find out that it only bans one particular type of procedure, called; 'dilate and extract, or; 'D&X.' Furthermore; the provisions of the acts kick in as early as 15 weeks, very early on in the pregnancy. So, to recap; the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban has virtually nothing to do with late term abortions. It's purpose is simply to make it more difficult to have an abortion; period. In this sense; yes, it is comperable to bans on Sharia law, passed by Republican state legislatures; a phony solution to a nonexistant problem.

If it's so rare, then I'd imagine when people do want that procedure, they probably have some damn good reasons.

Yeah. Like I said; it's only done in the case of medical emergencies. I don't have any problem with that, whatsoever.

Yeah and in almost every case of this the person is either a dependant (a child or maybe an elderly adult) or incapable of making rational decisions on their own. So do you think pregnat women irrational? Do they need to be told what to do like someone with Alzheimers or a child?

That doesn't follow. It's like saying; 'All dogs have four legs and fur, thus; everything with four legs, and fur, is a dog.' Obviously; in the case of those who are of diminished capacity, some other party has to intervene, because, by definition, they are incapable of making these decisions by themselves. However; this does not mean that these are the only cases in which, I would argue, we would be entitled to override bodily autonomy. You begrudgingly acknowledge this, yourself, which contradicts your whole thesis. Furthermore; we override the bodily autonomy of perfectly competent people a lot more than you want to admit. In a large, complex society; one should expect as much. That shouldn't be interpreted as being cavalier about that, as an Anarchist; I take civil rights extremely seriously. However; it is often necessary to override the rights of an individual, or individuals to protect another individual, or individual from an even worse violation of their rights, in fact; this is, I would argue, the only justifiable reason one could have for doing so. That's the deeper principle, and it applies to everyone, equally, irrespective of how competent they may, or may not be.

Jimmie Higgins

18th March 2013, 19:13

Thelonious

18th March 2013, 19:25

I am anti-abortion. It's not just because of my religious views or anything. I simply believe that if I create a human being, it is up to me, as a human being, to keep it alive and let it live. Rape happens, and it is terrible and is misconceived way too often by the right wing as the victim's fault, but killing a human being who has the potential to live I think is wrong.

Then why are many anti-abortion types pro death penalty? Going by your logic, which is followed by most of your ilk, capital punishment is killing a human being that has the potential to keep on living.

NGNM85

18th March 2013, 20:46

Then why are many anti-abortion types pro death penalty? Going by your logic, which is followed by most of your ilk, capital punishment is killing a human being that has the potential to keep on living.

Too late. Dude already got Banned.

You're 100% correct, though, BTW.

NGNM85

18th March 2013, 21:08

So what are these regular procedures where fully competent people are forced or prevented against their will to have a medical procedure... Not including just economic lack of health access? What's some forced procedure that regularly happens that radicals support?

You're moving the goal posts. The issue was; 'When might it be considered permissible to violate bodily autonomy?', which is much more broad. First; it should be noted that just because someone is regarded to have a diminished capacity does not mean that they are crazy, or invalids, they could still be totally competent. For example; someone who is hospitalized after a suicide attempt. Odds are that they are completely sane. They could be a nuclear physicist. It doesn't matter. 'Minors' includes everyone, up to 17 years, and 364 days old. A 17-and-a-half-year-old is hardly an infant. Society recognizes their competency by allowing them to obtain licenses to drive, to own firearms, and to join the military. Still; a minor may be compelled to have invasive medical procedures, even if they violate said individuals religious beliefs. Now; as far as individuals who are in no sense diminished in their capacity, that would include nearly everyone in the custody of the correctional system, it would include also include anyone who has ever been held under quarantine. This is a particularly good example, because said individuals may be subjected to invasive tests, merely on the suspicion that they are carrying a dangerous pathogen. That's just off the top of my head. One would suspect that these issues would persist, even in a fully developed Socialist society.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

19th March 2013, 08:37

For example; someone who is hospitalized after a suicide attempt. Odds are that they are completely sane. They could be a nuclear physicist. It doesn't matter.

I assure you, most nuclear physicists are quite insane. Perhaps you're conflating sanity with intelligence. That, and hospitalisation after suicide attempts seems counterproductive to me - in fact the entire psychiatric system should probably be dismantled in a socialist society.

But that's neither here nor there, as they say. Do you notice one commonality in all of your examples? In each of them, bodily autonomy is violated to protect the interests of a person, of a member of society. And when a woman is shackled to her bed and forced to give birth, because some arbitrary magical number of days has passed since conception, whose interests are being protected? The woman's? It is in the best interest of the woman to abort if she wants to. The fetus's? Not being a person, it has no interests.

Jimmie Higgins

19th March 2013, 10:04

You're moving the goal posts. The issue was; 'When might it be considered permissible to violate bodily autonomy?', which is much more broad.No, I think you are trying to dodge the question of women's rights in regards to this issue through all these abstractions! The issue to me is not "bodily autonomy" in some abstract way - it's an issue of healthcare, the capitalist organization of society through autonomous family units where parents bear the social costs of raising children; and women's rights.

First; it should be noted that just because someone is regarded to have a diminished capacity does not mean that they are crazy, or invalids, they could still be totally competent.So pregnat women have diminished capacity to make decisions about their life?

For example; someone who is hospitalized after a suicide attempt. Odds are that they are completely sane. They could be a nuclear physicist. It doesn't matter. 'Minors' includes everyone, up to 17 years, and 364 days old. A 17-and-a-half-year-old is hardly an infant.Minors are dependants which means that in the legal framework of this society their parents/legal guardians get to make these decisions for them. So pregnant women are dependants of the government?

Now; as far as individuals who are in no sense diminished in their capacity, that would include nearly everyone in the custody of the correctional system, it would include also include anyone who has ever been held under quarantine. This is a particularly good example, because said individuals may be subjected to invasive tests, merely on the suspicion that they are carrying a dangerous pathogen. That's just off the top of my head. One would suspect that these issues would persist, even in a fully developed Socialist society.
Quarentine is the only valid example you listed in favor of your argument. I mean, fuck, correctional system? You think it's ok and not sexism for US society to put pregant women under the same automatic disenfrancizement that they do for prisoners? I mean first that's a bad example because while there are still prisons, we should support efforts to eliminate the draconian treatment of inmates (most of whom are non-violent offenders to begin with). So I'd argue that that example actually backs up the argument that restricting abortion rights is an oppressive and repressive measure!

As for the quarentine example, well this tends to be pretty rare, so in part it's an exception to normal healthcare services and practices. But often the purpose of quarentine is just to find out who is actually infected before they are checked and released. Rarely are people held against their will - there was that guy with TB who was held and resisted the quarentine and it made big news in the US. So people might be restrained, but they are also not "forced" into a certain treatment - they are restrained in order to prevent them from either callouslly or unknowingly spreading infectious disease. So it doesn't fit as a parallel to abortion because the desire of the person seeking the abortion is control over their own reproduction, not accidentially causing other people to miscarage.

NGNM85

19th March 2013, 17:41

No, I think you are trying to dodge the question of women's rights in regards to this issue through all these abstractions!

Women's rights is not the issue. First; because transmen experience pregnancy, at least, mechanically, the same way that women do, therefore; it is not a woman's issue. Second; I don't believe that any gender, race, sexual orientation, etc., is superior, or inferior to any of the others, therefore; none should have any more, or less rights, at least, not on the basis of these arbitrary characteristics.

The issue to me is not "bodily autonomy" in some abstract way - it's an issue of healthcare, the capitalist organization of society through autonomous family units where parents bear the social costs of raising children; and women's rights.

Bodily autonomy is the underlying principle. You can't say it's sacrosanct in only one respect. You can't pick, and choose. There needs to be a coherent underlying logic.

So pregnat women have diminished capacity to make decisions about their life?

Not only did I not say that; I didn't even imply it. For the record; no, I
don't think pregnant women are, categorically, diminished in their capacity to make decisions.

Minors are dependants which means that in the legal framework of this society their parents/legal guardians get to make these decisions for them. So pregnant women are dependants of the government?

Again; that was not said, nor was it even implied.

As I made perfectly clear; I was pointing out that many of the people who are regarded as being incapable of advocating for themselves are actually totally competent. That was what I was responding to, which I was very explicit about.

Quarentine is the only valid example you listed in favor of your argument.

I disagree.

I forgot mandatory vaccinations, that's another one.

I mean, fuck, correctional system? You think it's ok and not sexism for US society to put pregant women under the same automatic disenfrancizement that they do for prisoners?

Again; I never said that, nor did I imply it.

I mean first that's a bad example because while there are still prisons, we should support efforts to eliminate the draconian treatment of inmates (most of whom are non-violent offenders to begin with). So I'd argue that that example actually backs up the argument that restricting abortion rights is an oppressive
and repressive measure!

There will probably always be prisons. We might call them something else, but even in a 'fully developed' Socialist society; there would be prisons. We should expect the crime rate would be lower, but it would still exist.
Imprisonment, even of the most benevolent, an enlightened kind, would, by definition, necessitate overriding bodily autonomy.

I'm not advocating restricting anything, not in the sense you are suggesting. Beyond the fact that, as far as I know, it's actually more harmful to abort the fetus, at that point, than to simply remove it; there is no demand for such a procedure. (Something like 86% of abortions are performed in the first 11 weeks.) The only country, as far as I know, where it is legal is Canada, and it's never done. This never happens. So; no-one is being restricted, in any really meaningful sense.

As for the quarentine example, well this tends to be pretty rare, so in part it's an exception to normal healthcare services and practices. But often the purpose of quarentine is just to find out who is actually infected before they are checked and released. Rarely are people held against their will - there was that guy with TB who was held and resisted the quarentine and it made big news in the US. So people might be restrained, but they are also not "forced" into a certain treatment - they are restrained in order to prevent them from either callouslly or unknowingly spreading infectious disease.

Rarity is irrelevant, especially in this case, where you are making an impassioned, (bordering on hysterical) defense of a hypothetical medical procedure which is never performed, and for which there is no demand.

People who are quarantined are very likely going to be subjected to invasive testing, some of which might be rather painful. From what I've heard; a lumbar puncture really hurts.

So it doesn't fit as a parallel to abortion because the desire of the person seeking the abortion is control over their own reproduction, not accidentially causing other people to miscarage.

In the cases of person who are quarantined, inmates, patients, etc., the bodily autonomy of these individuals is overridden as part of the governments' mandate to protect those individuals, and others, from greater harm. As a Libertarian Socialist; I would argue that this is the only acceptable justification.

After 26-28 weeks a fetus possesses all the biological conditions of a human being, therefore; it has rights. That changes the equation. As such; it cannot be arbitrarily terminated, although; it can be removed. Again; I emphasis that this, literally, never happens, and that there is no demand for it, whatsoever.

NGNM85

19th March 2013, 18:07

I assure you, most nuclear physicists are quite insane.

I haven't done any research, but I doubt that.

Perhaps you're conflating sanity with intelligence.

No; these are separate and unrelated attributes. A person can be brilliant, but crazy, they can be sane, but stupid, etc., etc.

That, and hospitalisation after suicide attempts seems counterproductive to me -

Not if you want the person to live.

in fact the entire psychiatric system should probably be dismantled in a socialist society.

Just as a socialist society would still have rapists, and murderers, it would also have schizophrenics, manic depressives, etc. Mental illnesses can be extremely debilitating, people who suffer from these conditions need access to treatment, just as badly as cancer patients need chemotherapy.

But that's neither here nor there, as they say. Do you notice one commonality in all of your examples? In each of them, bodily autonomy is violated to protect the interests of a person, of a member of society.

Exactly. In fact; I said as much.

And when a woman is shackled to her bed and forced to give birth,

This is utter nonsense. Again; there is no demand for such a procedure, anywhere. In Canada, which is the only country, as far as I know, that has, essentially, no regulation of abortion; it's never done. Never. what you are describing has no relationship to reality. It is science fiction. It's illegal to abort after roughly 26-28 weeks, except for medical emergencies, in every single country, with the notable exception of Canada, that has legal abortion; the United Kingdom, Sweden, Italy, Germany, France, etc., yet none of these countries has an epidemic of pregnant women being shackled to beds. Finally, as I've explained numerous times; at such a late stage in the pregnancy, the fetus can simply be removed, very easily, thus; ending the pregnancy. So; there's absolutely no reason to believe that a scenario such as this would ever occur. It's pure science fiction, and bad science fiction, at that.

because some arbitrary magical number of days has passed since conception, whose interests are being protected? The woman's? It is in the best interest of the woman to abort if she wants to. The fetus's? Not being a person, it has no interests.

The number is not arbitrary. It's based on fetal development. By that time; the fetus has acquired all the biological prerequisites, which are the only ones that matter, to be classified as a human being. At that point; it is a human being.

As you well know; this is not a gender issue.

You don't need to be a person to have interests. A one-year-old has interests, even if it can't articulate them. Second; again, the personhood argument is deeply deficient. As I've pointed out; small infants do not meet your criteria for 'personhood.' Therefore; they have no rights, whatsoever. They are disposable. I don't care how you feel about that, because it's irrelevant, that is the inevitable conclusion of your argument. There's no other way to see it. If you're uncomfortable with that; you need to change your position.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

19th March 2013, 19:02

I haven't done any research, but I doubt that.

I was joking; I am, myself, a nuclear physicist, as are most people I know professionally, and while we're certainly an eccentric bunch, few of us are outright insane.

No; these are separate and unrelated attributes. A person can be brilliant, but crazy, they can be sane, but stupid, etc., etc.

Yet you wrote:

For example; someone who is hospitalized after a suicide attempt. Odds are that they are completely sane. They could be a nuclear physicist. It doesn't matter.

My point was that being a nuclear physicist is not exactly a guarantee of sanity. All of this, however, is at best tangential to the main discussion.

Not if you want the person to live.

Care based on the community is, if I recall correctly, more effective. In any case, it's probably none of our business; why should anyone be forced to stay alive if they don't want to?

Just as a socialist society would still have rapists, and murderers, it would also have schizophrenics, manic depressives, etc. Mental illnesses can be extremely debilitating, people who suffer from these conditions need access to treatment, just as badly as cancer patients need chemotherapy.

And they could still get treatment even if the fascist psychiatric establishment has been destroyed along with other bourgeois ideological apparatus.

This is utter nonsense. Again; there is no demand for such a procedure, anywhere. In Canada, which is the only country, as far as I know, that has, essentially, no regulation of abortion; it's never done. Never. what you are describing has no relationship to reality. It is science fiction. It's illegal to abort after roughly 26-28 weeks, except for medical emergencies, in every single country, with the notable exception of Canada, that has legal abortion; the United Kingdom, Sweden, Italy, Germany, France, etc., yet none of these countries has an epidemic of pregnant women being shackled to beds. Finally, as I've explained numerous times; at such a late stage in the pregnancy, the fetus can simply be removed, very easily, thus; ending the pregnancy. So; there's absolutely no reason to believe that a scenario such as this would ever occur. It's pure science fiction, and bad science fiction, at that.

It doesn't matter whether the demand exists; if it did, your position directly implies that the woman, or transman, should be forced to give birth, or to have the fetus removed without abortion.

The number is not arbitrary. It's based on fetal development. By that time; the fetus has acquired all the biological prerequisites, which are the only ones that matter, to be classified as a human being. At that point; it is a human being.

No one cares. By the way, what are these biological prerequisites for being a, well, human being, and why?

As you well know; this is not a gender issue.

It is; only women and transmen can be pregnant, and in both cases their ability to control their bodies is being restricted by patriarchy. As much as apologists for patriarchy such as your esteemed self would like to pretend that this is a purely academic question about some mystical rights, it isn't.

Revolutionary socialists support the unrestricted right to an abortion, free of charge, free of harassment and shaming, because we aim to smash patriarchy and oppression of women and trasmen. If some bourgeois ethicist "discovers" that fetuses have rights and that we red devils are trampling over them, who cares? To hell with fetuses; this is something that directly concerns our female and trasmale comrades, and we should in all circumstances oppose the cis male sleazebags that want to seize control over their fertility and their viscera.

You don't need to be a person to have interests. A one-year-old has interests, even if it can't articulate them. Second; again, the personhood argument is deeply deficient. As I've pointed out; small infants do not meet your criteria for 'personhood.' Therefore; they have no rights, whatsoever. They are disposable. I don't care how you feel about that, because it's irrelevant, that is the inevitable conclusion of your argument. There's no other way to see it. If you're uncomfortable with that; you need to change your position.

I never denied that conclusion. What of it? By the way, what is in the interest of a one-year-old?

I notice that you still haven't responded to my previous post.

Black_Rose

19th March 2013, 20:06

It doesn't seem to have implication for the position of Singer and others on the left wing of the bourgeoisie - it should have even less implication for us.

I don't see anything "bourgeois" about Singer's arguments concerning the morality of abortion, but he does seem to be a bourgeois moralist at times on other issues. Singer's utilitarianism provides me my preferred framework for assailing conservative pro-life arguments. BTW, what is a "non-bourgeois" ethic that permits abortion? I think Judith Jarvis Thomson's rights-based framework for the permissibility of abortion is even more "bourgeois" than one based on utilitarianism.

NGNM85

20th March 2013, 06:09

Care based on the community is, if I recall correctly, more effective. In any case, it's probably none of our business; why should anyone be forced to stay alive if they don't want to?

First; we can't be at all certain as to what they really want. They could be suffering from a neurotransmitter imbalance. After a few weeks on antidepressants, they might not be suicidal any longer. They might lead, long, happy, productive lives, forever grateful for the care they received. There's no way of knowing. One of the primary obligations of the government is to protect the safety of it's citizens, even from themselves. Second; depending on how, exactly, they plan to do it; a suicide attempt could, also, potentially seriously injure people around them.

And they could still get treatment even if the fascist psychiatric establishment has been destroyed along with other
bourgeois ideological apparatus.

So; you're not categorically opposed to psychiatry, or psychiatric medicine, as a concept. That's good.

All of this, however; is beside the point...

It doesn't matter whether the demand exists; if it did, your position directly implies that the woman, or transman,
should be forced to give birth, or to have the fetus removed without abortion.

Of course it matters. If the facts aren't relevent; nothing is.

Also; if you're going to take that position; you need to stop saying bullshit about; 'purely academic' 'dubious abstractions', because you're the one dealing in far-out hypothetical scenarios. If the fetus is removed; the pregnancy is terminated. Both procedures are about equally invasive. So; if this is a dealbreaker, that means that ending the pregnancy is not the primary concern, at all, but, rather; killing the fetus. This would be a perfect example of those far-out hypotheticals I was talking about.

No one cares.

Clearly, you do. Otherwise you wouldn't bother taking issue with it. You said the benchmark was arbitrary. As I've explained; it isn't,
it's based on fetal development. This kind of thing is juvenile, and counterproductive.

By the way, what are these biological prerequisites for being a, well, human being, and why?

Well, what are; 'sufficient conditions'? They are the most basic, fundamental characteristics of a thing, the bare minimum to define a thing, and differentiate it from other things. If we were to postulate the sufficient conditions of human beings, (Which anyone is free to critique, naturally.) I would suggest the following;

1. Having human DNA, being genetically human.
2.Having a brain capable of manifesting consciousness, or; 'proto-consciousness', as in the case of young infants, etc.
3. Possessing the quality of life; being alive.

I would argue that those are the sufficient conditions of human beings, that not only have all humans posessed these traits, but that everyone who will ever possess these traits is a human being.

It is; only women and transmen can be pregnant, and in both cases their ability to control their bodies is being
restricted by patriarchy. As much as apologists for patriarchy such as your esteemed self would like to pretend that this is a purely academic question about some mystical rights, it isn't.

First of all, again, there is nothing inherently mystical, or bourgois about human rights. Incidentally, again; unlike you, I don't believe in absolute rights.

Second; it absolutely is an academic question because absolutely no-one is being Restricted in their reproductive rights, in the sense of an actual human being being actually unable to exercise their reproductive rights. To be clear; I'm not saying that there aren't obstacles, even substantial obstacles to Americans seeking abortions. Quite the contrary. I think abortion needs to be much more accessible than it is, today. I'm going to say that again; I think abortion needs to be much more accessible than it is, today. In fact; I've long argued that the Radical Left has not been nearly aggressive enough in it's defense of reproductive rights. Getting back to where I started, what I meant was; no-one, in the United States, is being barred from having an abortion because of the time limits imposed by Roe, which were amended in a much lesser known case; Planned Parenthood v. Casey, where it was slightly amended. (They pushed it forward by one week.) That is not an obstacle to anyone seeking an abortion, in the United States. At all. So; it's a restriction, technically, in the sense that it prohibits a thing, but it's a thing literally no-one actually does, or wants to do.

Revolutionary socialists...

You would be advised to exercise extreme caution before making sweeping declarations about what Socialists; 'must' do.

Again; not that it matters, but there really is no such thing as; 'non-revolutionary Socialism.' Socialism implies a sweeping, fundamental transformation of politics, and economics, namely; the destruction of the existing political, and economic institutions, which are, then, replaced with new institutions. Therefore; Socialism is revolutionary, by definition. That's
what the word; 'revolutionary' means. However; this is completely beside the point.

...support the unrestricted...

See above.

...right to an abortion, free of charge, free of harassment and shaming,

That part I can totally agree with. I believe abortion should be freely availible, within the aforementioned perameters, at any local hospital,
at zero cost, as all medical care should be. Again; I want to make abortion more accessible. Much more accessible.

...because we aim to smash patriarchy and oppression of women and trasmen.

That's incredibly vague, but it sounds fine.

If some bourgeois ethicist "discovers"
that fetuses have rights and that we red devils are trampling over them, who cares? To hell with fetuses; this is something that directly concerns our female and trasmale comrades, and we should in all circumstances oppose the cis male sleazebags that want to seize control over their fertility and their viscera.

Again; you have a real problem, here, because, as I've explained; it doesn't 'directly concern' your 'female and trasmale (sic) comrades.' The perameters established in Roe, and ever-so-slightly adjusted in PP v. Casey, aren't preventing any actual women, or transsexuals from having an abortion, and they never have.

Second; this is really bullshit because it implies that this is some kind of tactical maneuver, that your position might change once we live happy, and naked in communist utopia, built upon the charred corpses of the patriarchs. I don't believe that's true, for a second. It's abundantly clear that you're categorically opposed to any limitation on abortion, even if it has absolutely no effect on the actual accessibility of abortion, under any circumstances.

I will, however, give you some props for that last part; 'seize(ing) control over...fertility and...viscera.' That's good. I'll have to remember that.

I never denied that conclusion. What of it?

Ok, so am I to interpret this as a confirmation that you acknowledge that the inevitable conclusion of your position is that young infants have no rights, whatsoever, and are, thus; completely expendable? That's fine. I mean; it's completely insane, but I'd give you credit for having more honesty, and consistency than most of the folks around here. While I completely, and emphatically disagree; I can respect that. What I don't respect is how certain people (*ahem*) pussyfoot around, or play this sort of philosophical shell game, or otherwise totally refuse to participate in honest, intellectual debate. I have absolutely no respect for that.

By the way, what is in the interest of a one-year-old?

It is in the best interest of a one-year-old to recieve as much care, and nurturing as it requires to grow into the most successful,
healthy, happy, adult that it can possibly be.

I notice that you still haven't responded to my previous post.

Actually; I did, but the page reloaded so it got lost. I was so aggravated I gave up, and played Counterstrike. I usually type my posts in a word processor specifically to avoid this kind of thing. I won't be making that mistake, again, for awhile. In any case; I believe everything's been covered, by now.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

20th March 2013, 11:22

I don't see anything "bourgeois" about Singer's arguments concerning the morality of abortion, but he does seem to be a bourgeois moralist at times on other issues. Singer's utilitarianism provides me my preferred framework for assailing conservative pro-life arguments. BTW, what is a "non-bourgeois" ethic that permits abortion? I think Judith Jarvis Thomson's rights-based framework for the permissibility of abortion is even more "bourgeois" than one based on utilitarianism.

Signer's arguments seem bourgeois to me because they presuppose a supra-class morality - I find his practical conclusions in the field of human bioethics very agreeable, and appreciate how he provides a progressive position in a notoriously conservative discipline, but I find his meta-ethics unconvincing.

And I think no ethical system could really be called proletarian; perhaps there is no need for it. But in terms of meta-ethics, I would say that Hare and Gibbard come closest; what they lack is a firm sociological grounding and a recognition or the class nature of ethics. In terms of practical ethics; I suppose we should be taking notice of the actually existing practices of the revolutionary left (and I do mean revolutionary left, not closet NazBols like the Zyuganovites).

First; we can't be at all certain as to what they really want. They could be suffering from a neurotransmitter imbalance. After a few weeks on antidepressants, they might not be suicidal any longer. They might lead, long, happy, productive lives, forever grateful for the care they received. There's no way of knowing. One of the primary obligations of the government is to protect the safety of it's citizens, even from themselves. Second; depending on how, exactly, they plan to do it; a suicide attempt could, also, potentially seriously injure people around them.

That's right; we can't at all be certain what other people really want. Therefore, we should stop acting as if we know what's "really" best for them; if someone wants help, they should receive it. But to shut people in institutions for "their own good"?

And then we Marxists are attacked for being "state" socialists!

Of course it matters. If the facts aren't relevent; nothing is.

This particular fact is irrelevant because any restriction on abortion constitutes patriarchal oppression. If the mother wanted to abort after some arbitrary number of months, she would be stopped. I think this is fairly elementary; defending these laws because they have never been enforced (as far as you know) is like defending Syrian laws against same-sex behaviour because they have never been enforced (as far as I know).

Also; if you're going to take that position; you need to stop saying bullshit about; 'purely academic' 'dubious abstractions', because you're the one dealing in far-out hypothetical scenarios. If the fetus is removed; the pregnancy is terminated. Both procedures are about equally invasive. So; if this is a dealbreaker, that means that ending the pregnancy is not the primary concern, at all, but, rather; killing the fetus. This would be a perfect example of those far-out hypotheticals I was talking about.

"About equally invasive" is just hilariously vague; of course it doesn't make any difference to you, since you're in all probability not a woman or a transman. But late term abortion has a significantly lesser mortality rate than birth.

Clearly, you do. Otherwise you wouldn't bother taking issue with it.

I have never objected to the notion that the fetus is a human being. At most, I have said the term "human being" is horribly vague. But whether the fetus is a human being or not is perfectly irrelevant. This isn't about the fetuses. This is about the persons that carry them.

As for being vague:

2.Having a brain capable of manifesting consciousness, or; 'proto-consciousness', as in the case of young infants, etc.

What on Earth is "proto-consciousness"? When is a brain capable of manifesting it?

First of all, again, there is nothing inherently mystical, or bourgois about human rights. Incidentally, again; unlike you, I don't believe in absolute rights.

Human rights are objective, universal and above classes. Sounds mystical and bourgeois enough. As for the last sentence, demonstrate that I do believe in absolute rights, or stop slandering me.

You would be advised to exercise extreme caution before making sweeping declarations about what Socialists; 'must' do.

Again; not that it matters, but there really is no such thing as; 'non-revolutionary Socialism.' Socialism implies a sweeping, fundamental transformation of politics, and economics, namely; the destruction of the existing political, and economic institutions, which are, then, replaced with new institutions. Therefore; Socialism is revolutionary, by definition. That's
what the word; 'revolutionary' means. However; this is completely beside the point.

Consistent socialism is revolutionary. Unfortunately, people can and usually are less than consistent; there exist numerous examples of non-revolutionary socialism - state socialism, Kathedersozialismus, "yellow" socialism, Bernsteinism, plannisme, etc. etc.

That part I can totally agree with. I believe abortion should be freely availible, within the aforementioned perameters, at any local hospital, at zero cost, as all medical care should be. Again; I want to make abortion more accessible. Much more accessible.

And yet you want to restrict the options the mother has when it comes to abortion; and your maudlin insistence on the "rights" of the fetus as a "human being" is an integral part of the shaming strategy employed by the patriarchy against independent women.

Second; this is really bullshit because it implies that this is some kind of tactical maneuver, that your position might change once we live happy, and naked in communist utopia, built upon the charred corpses of the patriarchs. I don't believe that's true, for a second. It's abundantly clear that you're categorically opposed to any limitation on abortion, even if it has absolutely no effect on the actual accessibility of abortion, under any circumstances.

I am categorically opposed to any limitation on abortion, because any such limitation would constitute either the continuation or the resurrection of the patriarchy. What of it, though? That doesn't mean I care about rights.

Ok, so am I to interpret this as a confirmation that you acknowledge that the inevitable conclusion of your position is that young infants have no rights, whatsoever, and are, thus; completely expendable?

I don't think anyone has rights; young infants seem to be as "expendable", as you put it, as nonparasitic nonhuman animals, though. We can protect both categories, but if it comes to choosing between an infant and an actual person, I know what my choice would be.

It is in the best interest of a one-year-old to recieve as much care, and nurturing as it requires to grow into the most successful, healthy, happy, adult that it can possibly be.

Fair enough; but this is the sort of interest nonhuman animals have as well. What are the social interests of a one-year-old?

Jimmie Higgins

21st March 2013, 21:23

Women's rights is not the issue. First; because transmen experience pregnancy, at least, mechanically, the same way that women do, therefore; it is not a woman's issue.This is a dodge. When I say "women" just assume I mean anyone who is able to give birth.

Second; I don't believe that any gender, race, sexual orientation, etc., is superior, or inferior to any of the others, therefore; none should have any more, or less rights, at least, not on the basis of these arbitrary characteristics. "The ability to give birth" for women and transmen is not an "arbitrary" characteristic when it comes to the rights of giving birth or not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You position is so illogical and based on nothing but your abstract moral designations that it makes you have to resort to absurd arguments! In this case an argument that's an echo of "reverse-racism".

Do you think we should get rid of anti-discrimination laws, get rid of civil rights protections? Skin color is much more arbitrary than the biological potential of giving birth or not.

Bodily autonomy is the underlying principle. You can't say it's sacrosanct in only one respect. You can't pick, and choose. There needs to be a coherent underlying logic.I'm not saying it's sacrosanct, I'm saying this concept of YOURS that you try and frame MY argument around is a dodge. That you have to change reality and the terms of the debate to square that circle of an argument of yours should tell you how flimsy it is.

As I made perfectly clear; I was pointing out that many of the people who are regarded as being incapable of advocating for themselves are actually totally competent. That was what I was responding to, which I was very explicit about. So what makes women and trans-men incapable of advocating for themselves? I'd say a women's liberation movement that fought for and won the right to abortion would qualify as self-"avocation".

NGNM85

22nd March 2013, 07:00

This is a dodge. When I say "women" just assume I mean anyone who is able to give birth.

I would like to believe that you are being sincere about that. However; this is not merely a private conversation, this a public debate, and your continued invocation of gender, intentional, or not, is inflammatory, and misleading.

"The ability to give birth" for women and transmen is not an "arbitrary" characteristic when it comes to the rights of giving birth or not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You're misunderstanding me. What I am saying is that as a non-racist, non-sexist, non-homophobe, etc.; I don't believe that civil rights should ever be dependent on these arbitrary characteristics. I don't expect that to be especially controversial. However; I do think it's important to underline, again, that asserting, as I did before, that if none of these groups has any less rights than any of the others, that also means that none of them has any more rights than the others. It's a package deal.

Giving birth is but one particular example of bodily autonomy, just as an editorial is a particular example of speech.

You position is so illogical and based on nothing but your abstract moral designations that it makes you have to resort to absurd arguments! In this case an argument that's an echo of "reverse-racism".

Wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong. On that last part; the fact that my arguments might superficially resemble other arguments, or components of other arguments made by other people is completely irrelevant. I am only responsible for my own remarks.

Do you think we should get rid of anti-discrimination laws, get rid of civil rights protections? Skin color is much more arbitrary than the biological potential of giving birth or not.

What specifically are you referring to? If you mean hate crime laws, I'd say; yes, absolutely, albeit for totally unrelated reasons. If you mean the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which unfortunately, is in real danger of being demolished by Reactionaries on the Supreme Court, I'd say; absolutely not. However; neither of these elevate any ethnic group, etc., above the others. The Civil Rights Act, for example, simply prohibits the use of bogus literacy tests which were specifically created, and employed, to, literally, disenfranchise African Americans. Etc., etc. The only example I can think of that even comes close is; Affirmative Action (Which, incidentally, I support.) but even that doesn't grant black Americans, or anyone else, unique rights. There's no comparison.

I'm not saying it's sacrosanct, I'm saying this concept of YOURS that you try and frame MY argument around is a dodge. That you have to change reality and the terms of the debate to square that circle of an argument of yours should tell you how flimsy it is.

If bodily autonomy is not sacrosanct; then you are saying that bodily autonomy, and thus; reproductive rights have limits. (Personally; I'd advise you not to publicly confirm, or deny this obvious truism.)

It's a little hypocritical of you to take a hissy about being allegedly misinterpreted when you have been so vague about where you stand.
At any rate; there are only two possible arguments that you can make, here. I mean; you could say you disagree because mercury is in retrograde, or something equally nonsensical, but disregarding that; there's only two options. First; you can argue that a human being is only a human being after successfully, completely exiting the parent's body cavity, that's why I call it the; 'magical gateway' argument. The problem with this is that it is completely at odds with established medical science. It is totally unscientific, and therefore; anti-materialist. It also creates weird paradoxes whereby an infant born at 29 weeks is recognized as a human being, with all that goes with that, and a 38-week-old fetus is simply medical waste. The second option, which you, briefly, alluded to, earlier; is the argument based on; 'personhood.' This argument asserts that only 'persons' (As in; 'personalities'; discrete, conscious minds.) have rights. Fetuses are not conscious, therefore; they have no rights. The problem with this is that a baby cannot be said to be truly conscious of themselves, and their environment, for quite some time after birth, probably, at least two years, if not more. This reduces small infants to the equivalent of livestock, or pets, and it leaves you virtually no recourse to oppose, or condemn infanticide. Maybe you do, honestly believe that killing an infant is no different from killing an animal. However; I very much doubt that. I don't think anybody, here, actually believes that.

So what makes women and trans-men incapable of advocating for themselves? I'd say a women's liberation
movement that fought for and won the right to abortion would qualify as self-"avocation".

You're doing it, again.

Nothing, at least, not categorically. (Obviously; some of them cannot.) Of course; I never said, or even implied, otherwise. I suggest you re-read my post,...slowly.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

25th March 2013, 11:31

You're misunderstanding me. What I am saying is that as a non-racist, non-sexist, non-homophobe, etc.; I don't believe that civil rights should ever be dependent on these arbitrary characteristics. I don't expect that to be especially controversial. However; I do think it's important to underline, again, that asserting, as I did before, that if none of these groups has any less rights than any of the others, that also means that none of them has any more rights than the others. It's a package deal.

More concisely, you want us to treat equally groups that society treats unequally. That attitude has nothing to do with revolutionary socialism; it is, no matter how much you will protest the label, bourgeois-liberal, and despite your best intentions, such an attitude only preserves and deepens oppression.

The proletariat and the bourgeoisie, nonheterosexuals and heterosexuals, women and cismen, trans and cis people, none of these groups should be treated equally if we want to destroy the oppression of the former by the latter. The "rights" of the latter are irrelevant if they contribute to the oppression of the former; not only the rights of fetuses but of men and so on are utterly irrelevant if they are detrimental to the liberation of women and of transmen.

If bodily autonomy is not sacrosanct; then you are saying that bodily autonomy, and thus; reproductive rights have limits.

Or perhaps abortion should never be limited or discouraged for reasons that have nothing to do with idealist "rights".

Jimmie Higgins

25th March 2013, 13:48

First of all, again, there is nothing inherently mystical, or bourgois about human rights. Incidentally, again; unlike you, I don't believe in absolute rights.Then where do rights come from in your view?

Lowtech

26th March 2013, 21:49

Then where do rights come from in your view?

A better question would be, being that rights are inheriently normative and therefore philosphically linked to communism, does ignoring the requirements of absolute rights in a peaceful and economically valid society make one communist?

And the answer is it does not, ignoring this fundinental nicessity is not communist at all

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

26th March 2013, 23:37

A better question would be, being that rights are inheriently normative and therefore philosphically linked to communism, does ignoring the requirements of absolute rights in a peaceful and economically valid society make one communist?

And the answer is it does not, ignoring this fundinental nicessity is not communist at all

What. Rights are "inherently normative" and that links them to communism... somehow? I mean, Catholicism is normative; that does not mean that is is linked to communism in any meaningful sense. Rights are a fundamental necessity, a requirement in a peaceful and economically valid society? How? You seem to have made quite a few assertions, but have provided evidence for none, and just what the assertions are is unclear in itself.

Lowtech

27th March 2013, 15:59

What. Rights are "inherently normative" and that links them to communism... somehow?yes, as I said philosophically. I would suggest researching the term rights.
I mean, Catholicism is normative; that does not mean that is is linked to communism in any meaningful sense. .the degree that catholicism is normative has no relation to my comment
Rights are a fundamental necessity, a requirement in a peaceful and economically valid society? How?you need to ask better questions, where is your point of confusion?
You seem to have made quite a few assertions, but have provided evidence for none, and just what the assertions are is unclear in itself.again, I can't explain anything sufficiently if you don't clairify what you don't understand.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

27th March 2013, 17:49

What is unclear is (1) why you think normativity is somehow linked to communism, and (2) whence this "requirement" of rights, or "fundamental necessity of" rights in the communist society.

Deity

27th March 2013, 17:57

If abortion is wrong then I guess we should outlaw masturbating too. Each of those little sperm could have been a person!

Jimmie Higgins

27th March 2013, 18:21

If bodily autonomy is not sacrosanct; then you are saying that bodily autonomy, and thus; reproductive rights have limits. (Personally; I'd advise you not to publicly confirm, or deny this obvious truism.)no, I'm saying that the "rights" involved here are not about "bodily autonomy" in the general way you frame it, the issue of "rights" is who controls biological reproduction? The woman or transman who is potentially pregnant or not... Or the society at large which in our society means the ruling and governing?

You make an abstraction out of this. But it's not so difficult: women* have and always will want and need to terminate unwanted pregnancies. For whatever reason. Since the government and ruling class are not physically having that baby and also are not having to pay any of the labor or financial cost of that baby, this is capitalist society telling women* where and how to give birth. It is analogous to forced-sterilization s, one-child policies, and so on... It is not analogous to a suicidal patient being restrained. As I have tried to explain, that analogy is frankly insulting to women* because the people who do have their "bodily autonomy" violated in our society are considered incapable of making their own decisions! Your whole framing of the question inadvertently underscores the inherent sexism of controlling abortion.

Lowtech

27th March 2013, 18:28

What is unclear is (1) why you think normativity is somehow linked to communism, and (2) whence this "requirement" of rights, or "fundamental necessity of" rights in the communist society.

Normative means an ideal standard or model. In the context of rights, this normative principle is expressed as " Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory."

One would have to define communism as not having any of the above principles to assert that rights are inessential.

Now, do you have an argument or just more angry questions?

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

28th March 2013, 21:50

My questions seemed "angry" because it was not clear what your point was. Not to mention that you have ignored most of the debate on this thread; as has already been pointed out, rights in the bourgeois sense are incompatible with materialism, and the communist society does not need rules that are expressed in terms of those rights (and the assertion that all rules can be reduced to rights is fairly odd - what are the rights of inmates in a penal institution?).

Lowtech

29th March 2013, 21:16

My questions seemed "angry" because it was not clear what your point was.not understanding something is never an excuse for ignorant behavior.
Not to mention that you have ignored most of the debate on this thread;this is a generic insult, so much so its practically copy pasta.
as has already been pointed out, rights in the bourgeois sense are incompatible with materialism, and the communist society does not need rules that are expressed in terms of those rightshere you are guilty of the same thing that you accuse me of. "rights in a bourgeois sense" is a very unclear statement and has the stink of semantics -is this even a logical observation of rights or is it simply an attack on rights by someone who has an authoritarian bias? it has been made clear that authoritarian systems have no accountability to the people and therefore no protections against corruption, exactly why capitalism is still able to maintain it's heinous economic dominance and subjugation.
(and the assertion that all rules can be reduced to rights is fairly odd - what are the rights of inmates in a penal institution?).i never asserted any such thing so i am content with ignoring this last comment.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

29th March 2013, 21:44

not understanding something is never an excuse for ignorant behavior.this is a generic insult, so much so its practically copy pasta.here you are guilty of the same thing that you accuse me of. "rights in a bourgeois sense" is a very unclear statement and has the stink of semantics -is this even a logical observation of rights or is it simply an attack on rights by someone who has an authoritarian bias? it has been made clear that authoritarian systems have no accountability to the people and therefore no protections against corruption, exactly why capitalism is still able to maintain it's heinous economic dominance and subjugation.i never asserted any such thing so i am content with ignoring this last comment.

This is tiresome. "Rights in the bourgeois sense" refers to rights as they figure in bourgeois juridical ideology, for example the various declarations about the rights of men, as you might have realised if you bothered to read the previous discussion. And do you think that without "corruption" "the people" might vote capitalism out? The present state is the bourgeois state, the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, and to assign its function of preserving the bourgeois order to some sort of deformation is to miss the point of the Marxist theory of the state.

This tiresome invocation of "authoritarianism" really demonstrates how confused the politics of the "human rights" communists, idealist communists, is; yes, we revolutionary socialists are authoritarians because we do not expect liberation to fall from the heavens and because we recognise the necessity of organising the proletariat as the ruling class of society. But in this thread, and in others, the proponents of "human rights" have tried to assert their authority over others far more than we "authoritarians" have - thus we have the amusing spectacle of "libertarians" trying to force women to give birth and so on.

Klaatu

29th March 2013, 23:06

I am anti-abortion. It's not just because of my religious views or anything. I simply believe that if I create a human being, it is up to me, as a human being, to keep it alive and let it live. Rape happens, and it is terrible and is misconceived way too often by the right wing as the victim's fault, but killing a human being who has the potential to live I think is wrong.

If you feel that abortion is wrong, then don't get one. No one is forcing you.

NGNM85

31st March 2013, 03:33

no, I'm saying that the "rights" involved here are not about "bodily autonomy" in the general way you frame it, the issue of "rights" is who controls biological reproduction? The woman or transman who is potentially pregnant or not... Or the society at large which in our society means the ruling and governing?

Again; just as an editorial is one particular example of speech, reproduction is one particular example of bodily autonomy. The two are, inextricably, linked. The government, any government, can, and, almost certainly will, govern reproduction, along with any number of other things. That's what governments do. To suggest that the government is categorically unjustified in exercising authority over certain individuals, or classes of individuals, for any reason, implies a skepticism towards
the concept of government, itself. However; it makes little difference because this is something that women, including Pro-choice women, support by enormous margins. Thus; it, apparently, needs to be reiterated that this; 'control', which you're so outraged about, amounts to prohibiting a procedures which are never performed, and for which there is no demand, whatsoever. I do not have the power to, unilaterally, dictate public policy, moreover, as an Anarchist, I do not seek to have it. My ideal form of government would be something like Professor Stephen Shalom's Parpolity model; a decentralized direct democracy in which every citizen would be a direct participant in the governing process. In that context, as you well know; the level of regulation which I would support would be extremely minimal, and benign. Basically; my position on abortion ius virtually identical to the majority decision in Roe v. Wade. (Albiet; for slightly different reasons.) However; I would go one step further, and insist that not only should every citizen be allowed to access this service, but that it should be provided, at any local hospital, free of charge, as all medical care should be, and would be, in a rational society.

You make an abstraction out of this. But it's not so difficult: women* have and always will want and need to terminate unwanted pregnancies.

It's not entirely unforseeable that some new technology could render it obsolete, but; I take your meaning. Abortion isn't going anywhere anytime soon. I grant that.

For whatever reason. Since the government and ruling class are not physically having that baby and also are not having to pay any of the labor or financial cost of that baby, this is capitalist society telling women* where and how to give birth.

You can correct me if I'm mistaken, but being that this is RevLeft, I just take it as a foregone conclusion that we are all of the opinion that capitalism, and nation-states are illegitimate institutions, which should be demolished, and replaced with something infinitely more democratic, and humane, in a word; Socialism.

You don't technically have to support your child, well; you do if you decide to keep it, but anyone is free to put an unwanted child up for adoption. The problem, well; problems, are A; Most Americans receive very poor sexual education, compared to the rest of the industrialized world. B; Being a capitalist society; contraceptives, like anything else, are rationed in such a way as to generate the greatest profits for the companies that produce them. (Although; there's a bit of good news, on that front, as the Affordable Care Act allows any woman with health insurance to get free contaceptives.) C; Last, but not least; also, because we live in a capitalist society, that necessitates, among other things, that it is incredibly difficult for the majority of parents to even provide for their children's most basic needs. This is, of course, irrational, and inexcusable. Again; that's one of the millions of reasons why capitalism is a fundamentally exploitive, and unjust system, which must be demolished.

The force being brought to bear on expecting parents, etc., has absolutely nothing, at all, to do with what I am talking about.
Again; the extremely benign limits set forth in Roe are not preventing anyone from having abortions. No-one. What is preventing people from being able to control their reproduction comes down to two things; the political machinations of the religious Right, and capitalism.

It is analogous to forced-sterilization s, one-child policies,
and so on...

Nothing that I've suggested is remotely analagous to forced sterilization, at least, not as it has been, historically, practiced.

It is not analogous to a suicidal patient being restrained. As I have tried to explain, that analogy is frankly insulting to women* because the people who do have their "bodily autonomy" violated in our society are considered incapable of making their own decisions! Your whole framing of the question inadvertently underscores the inherent sexism of controlling abortion.

You still don't understand what I was saying. I can't use simpler terms. Again; I suggest you read slowly. I never suggested, or even implied that women were, categorically incapable of making rational decisions. I never said anything of the kind. This all started when I made the painfully obvious, and banal ststement that nobody here actually believes bodily autonomy is sacrosanct. (Which is true.) It's ridiculous. For some baffling reason you took issue with this, so I provided you with a list of various circumstances in which bodily autonomy is overriden that nobody, yourself included, objects to. That was the thing that was being discussed. What I am saying, which everyone, including you, agrees with in every other instance except this one; is that the right of bodily autonomy, like everything else, has limits. As an Anarchist; I would personally argue for the greatest possible latitude, within reason. However; even most Anarchists would admit that that is is justifiable to override civil rights, including bodily autonomy, when not doing so poses a likely, immediate, and serious risk of harm, be it to a single individual, or many individuals.
For example; if there is reason to suspect you are carrying a dangerous pathogen; I would argue, society has every right to insist on holding you in quarantine, and subjecting you to, potentially, very uncomfortable tests, because the right of myself, and anyone else, not to be killed by whatever you may be carrying trumps your bodily autonomy. That should be obvious. To get back to the point; if, by 26-28 weeks, the fetus is a human being, (Which it is, biologically speaking.) with rights, it also enjoys the right not to be arbitrarily killed, which trumps the bodily autonomy of it's parent. However; again, this should not be of any conern because, at this point, the fetus can be removed, very easily, and, more importantly; because there has never been any demand for such a procedure, there is no demand, and there isn't ever likely to be. There's absolutely nothing sexist about that. Gender (Or; race, sexual orientation, etc.) simply isn't a factor in my ethical calculus, nor should it be. Believing that a particular gender should enjoy unique rights is the literal definition of; 'sexism.' That's what; 'sexism' means. So; hopefully, we can, finally, dispense with that bogus accusation.

This brings us back to where we started. You've asserted that only 'persons' (As in; 'personality.') have rights. The major problem with that is that it means infanticide is not a crime, at least; not a serious one. You cannot 'murder' a; 'nonhuman', or; 'subhuman' thing. If you sincerely believe that, and you are willing to testify to that effect; fine. I mean; it's crazy, but it's consistent. However; I really doubt you seriously believe this. I doubt anybody, here, actually believes that, despite what they might say.

NGNM85

31st March 2013, 03:42

This is tiresome. "Rights in the bourgeois sense" refers to rights as they figure in bourgeois juridical ideology, for example the various declarations about the rights of men, as you might have realised if you bothered to read the previous discussion. And do you think that without "corruption" "the people" might vote capitalism out? The present state is the bourgeois state, the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, and to assign its function of preserving the bourgeois order to some sort of deformation is to miss the point of the Marxist theory of the state.

This tiresome invocation of "authoritarianism" really demonstrates how confused the politics of the "human rights" communists, idealist communists, is; yes, we revolutionary socialists are authoritarians because we do not expect liberation to fall from the heavens and because we recognise the necessity of organising the proletariat as the ruling class of society. But in this thread, and in others, the proponents of "human rights" have tried to assert their authority over others far more than we "authoritarians" have - thus we have the amusing spectacle of "libertarians" trying to force women to give birth and so on.

This is almost entirely wrong, but it's the last part I really take issue with. Suggesting that I have stated, or even implied that women should be forced to give birth is total bullshit. That goes beyond exaggeration into the outer reaches of outright fabrication. (Which any careful reading of this thread will confirm.) You know that. It, also, hurts your credibility as an allegedly hard-nosed materialist when you play so fast, and loose with the facts.

chase63

31st March 2013, 03:47

I am anti-abortion. It's not just because of my religious views or anything. I simply believe that if I create a human being, it is up to me, as a human being, to keep it alive and let it live. Rape happens, and it is terrible and is misconceived way too often by the right wing as the victim's fault, but killing a human being who has the potential to live I think is wrong.

You do realize that under a communist/anarchist society, nobody would force you to get an abortion, right? All we ask is that you don't try to keep woman from having the choice to have one if they desire.

Flying Purple People Eater

31st March 2013, 06:09

Why do people make so much fuss over keeping a slime alive?

Fuckers*

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

31st March 2013, 11:04

This is almost entirely wrong, but it's the last part I really take issue with. Suggesting that I have stated, or even implied that women should be forced to give birth is total bullshit. That goes beyond exaggeration into the outer reaches of outright fabrication. (Which any careful reading of this thread will confirm.) You know that. It, also, hurts your credibility as an allegedly hard-nosed materialist when you play so fast, and loose with the facts.

Do you expect us to believe, messr. "anarchist", that you do not know what bans are? What effect they have on people? Your entire "argument" rests on the pious conviction that no women want to have a late-term abortion. But even if this were the case, a ban on such abortions, that you advocate, would restrict the options that are available to them. More importantly, however, this is obviously not the case; late-term abortions have been reported. And your "proof" relies on the lack of late-term abortions in the United States, which restrict late-term abortion. Outstanding. Are you going to cite the number of open homosexuals in Iran next?

Once the layers of misleading rhetoric are stripped away, what remains? A "libertarian" that wants to restrict the liberty of the most vulnerable groups of society in the name of bourgeois morality. For someone whose username references the phrase "no gods, no masters", you have certainly set yourself up as the master over pregnant people.

There's absolutely nothing sexist about that. Gender (Or; race, sexual orientation, etc.) simply isn't a factor in my ethical calculus, nor should it be. Believing that a particular gender should enjoy unique rights is the literal definition of; 'sexism.' That's what; 'sexism' means. So; hopefully, we can, finally, dispense with that bogus accusation.

Unfortunately (for you), no one is going to take your appeals to bourgeois-liberal "neutral", "gender blind" notions seriously. Cis men are not oppressed as cis men. Women and trans men are. To treat the two groups as if they were equal is to willingly perpetuate oppression.

This brings us back to where we started. You've asserted that only 'persons' (As in; 'personality.') have rights. The major problem with that is that it means infanticide is not a crime, at least; not a serious one.

Dogs are also not persons, but there is a good case to be made for the criminalisation of gratuitous killing of dogs. Of course, neither infants nor dogs parasitise on someone else, but you refuse to acknowledge this material difference, lost in the Empyrean heaven of eternal rights and morals as you are.

Of course, this position does imply that ceteris paribus, killing an infant is far less serious than killing a person. I think most socialists accept that.

If you sincerely believe that, and you are willing to testify to that effect; fine. I mean; it's crazy, but it's consistent. However; I really doubt you seriously believe this. I doubt anybody, here, actually believes that, despite what they might say.

You know, you remind me of those fanatical Christians that refuse to believe that someone does not believe in a deity of some description.

NGNM85

31st March 2013, 23:52

Do you expect us to believe, messr. "anarchist",..

First; Don't do that. It's petty, and immature. Second; there's absolutely no reason for this. Nothing that I've said, here, or elsewhere, is philosophically inconsistent with Anarchism.

..that you do not know what bans are? What effect they have on people?

The effect depends on the thing that is being banned, why x is being prohibited, and how that is enforced, presuming it even needs to be enforced.

Your entire "argument" rests on the pious conviction that no women want to have a late-term abortion. But even if this were the case, a ban on such abortions, that you advocate, would restrict the options that are available to them. More importantly, however, this is obviously not the case; late-term abortions have been reported. And your "proof" relies on the lack of late-term abortions in the United States, which restrict late-term abortion. Outstanding. Are you going to cite the number of open homosexuals in Iran next?

That's almost entirely wrong. First of all; the phrase; 'late term abortion' is imprecise, and can refer to any abortion performed after roughly 20
weeks. (There is no official consensus on this.) Virtually all of these are performed between the 20th, and 25th week, which I totally support. All of the minute handful of abortions performed after 26 weeks are performed because of some kind of medial emergency. As I've said; I have absolutely zero objection to that, as well. Again; I support 100% of abortions performed, in the United States. I actually believe it should be much more
accessible than it presently is.

Second; as I've said, similar regulations exist in virtually every single country that has legalized abortion; France, England, Germany, Austria, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Italy, Belgium, Australia, etc., etc. The only countries that don't have such regulations are; Canada, where it never happens, because there is no demand, and the PRC. This is not an American thing.

Once the layers of misleading rhetoric are stripped away, what remains? A "libertarian" that wants to restrict the liberty of the most vulnerable groups of society in the name of bourgeois morality. For someone whose username references the phrase "no gods, no masters", you have certainly set yourself up as the master over pregnant people.

This is, also, almost entirely wrong. Again; I have absolutely no capacity
to, unilaterally, pass, let alone enforce, legislation. Furthermore; as an Anarchist; I do not seek to have such power. My ideal form of governance would be something along the lines of Prof. Stephen Shalom's; 'Parpolity' model; a decentralized Anarchist federation, where every citizen would be a direct participant in the governing process. That said; I do have my own opinions. The policy that I would suggest, regarding abortion, would be very similar to the majority decision reached by the Supreme Court in Roe, with the addition that citizens should not merely be guaranteed the right to obtain an abortion, but that this medical service be provided, free of charge, within the aforementioned parameters, at any hospital. That's what I would suggest. According to very recent polls; 80% of (American) Pro-choice women agree with that. So; as I've said; even if you only polled Pro-choice women; it would win by a landslide.

Furthermore; while I haven't done significant research, I'm fairly certain that polls conducted in other Western nations would display about the same result. It's certain that a greater percentage of women, in these countries, would identify as being Pro-choice, but, I think it's fair to say, among those women, the results would be about the same. This battle isn't being fought anywhere besides RevLeft. These regulations aren't
preventing anyone from having an abortion, in any of these countries. What is preventing women from exercising their reproductive rights, in the US, comes down to two things; capitalism, and the machinations of the religious Right.

Unfortunately (for you), no one is going to take your appeals to bourgeois-liberal "neutral", "gender blind" notions seriously. Cis men are not oppressed as cis men. Women and trans men are. To treat the two groups as if they were equal is to willingly perpetuate oppression.

The opposite of bigotry is not a different kind of bigotry. The opposite of bigotry is recognizing that civil rights should never be contingent on arbitrary characteristics such as race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. Recognizing the humanity of all races, sexes, etc. does not perpetuate inequality, to the contrary; it is the vital prerequisite for ending inequality. If you start from the premise that a particular gender, ethnic group, etc. are less human, or less worthy, etc., it is logistically impossible to end oppression. That is oppression.

Dogs are also not persons, but there is a good case to be made for the criminalisation of gratuitous killing of dogs.

Yeah, it's criminal, but it's a minor crime. That's what you're suggesting.

Of course, neither infants nor dogs parasitise on someone else, but you refuse to acknowledge this material difference, lost in the Empyrean heaven of eternal rights and morals as you are.

Calling a fetus a; 'parasite' is just rhetoric, it's not scientific, it doesn't illuminate anything.

Fundamental rights are timeless, however the exercise of these rights changes over time. The internet, abortion, etc., are just modern, particular examples of the exercise of free speech, and bodily autonomy.

While there are many different types, or schools of morality; morality, itself, is inescapable. All arguments, ultimately, rest on moral foundations, including yours.

Of course, this position does imply that ceteris paribus, killing an infant is far less serious than killing a person. I think most socialists accept that.

There's no trade-off. If an infant is a non-human, or subhuman thing; it doesn't matter. According to you; if I arbitrarily decide to execute my
two-year-old, or yours, for that matter, that's, like, a misdemeanor, at worst. Maybe I should have to pay a fine, or take some classes, but that's it. It's not a 'real' crime. With that; we're basically finished. It's fucking crazy, but it's consistent. As long as you are willing to acknowledge that this is your opinion, and that thatconclusion unavoidably, and inevitably follows from your premise, which, you've, basically, already done. I'm fairly satisfied with that.

You know, you remind me of those fanatical Christians that refuse to believe that someone does not believe in a deity of some description.

For all I know; you really are, every inch, the sociopath you purport to be. It's impossible for me to disprove that. However; I'm, admittedly, skeptical. It's exceptionally easy to pretend like you're Charles Bronson from the security, and anonymity of a webforum. The bloody reality of violence, and cruelty are another matter, entirely. There is no shortage of self-styled cyber-badasses.

AConfusedSocialDemocrat

1st April 2013, 00:03

Is Semendyaev a parody of Rurkel?

NGNM85

1st April 2013, 00:15

Is Semendyaev a parody of Rurkel?

It's the other way around. Actually; I think it would be more accurate to say that Rurkel is a parody of Rafiq.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

1st April 2013, 00:37

Is Semendyaev a parody of Rurkel?

No, for the last time, we're both socks of Rosario, as is everyone on this site. Are you a parody of a pious moralistic liberal masquerading as a socialist?

First; Don't do that. It's petty, and immature.

I can't help myself; the situation is just too hilarious. See, someone had mentioned anarcho-nationalism and anarcho-monarchism recently; it seems that we can now add anarcho-patriarchy to this distinguished company.

The effect depends on the thing that is being banned, why x is being prohibited, and how that is enforced, presuming it even needs to be enforced.

Reduced incidence of the banned behaviour or procedure is a usual effect, assuming that the state is minimally competent.

That's almost entirely wrong. First of all; the phrase; 'late term abortion' is imprecise, and can refer to any abortion performed after roughly 20 weeks. (There is no official consensus on this.) Virtually all of these are performed between the 20th, and 25th week, which I totally support. All of the minute handful of abortions performed after 26 weeks are performed because of some kind of medial emergency.

All of them? In the entire world, or just in the United States, where they are banned? And do these statistics include illegal abortions?

Second; as I've said, similar regulations exist in virtually every single country that has legalized abortion; France, England, Germany, Austria, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Italy, Belgium, Australia, etc., etc. The only countries that don't have such regulations are; Canada, where it never happens, because there is no demand, and the PRC. This is not an American thing.

Abortion is not regulated in Canada, period. This means that the various hospitals are free to set the limits themselves, and it seems that most set them at 20 weeks. Fairly arbitrary, but so are all of these limits. As for People's China... well? What are the statistics there? What are the statistics in Vietnam, come to think of it, where abortion is also allowed at any point in the pregnancy?

This is, also, almost entirely wrong. Again; I have absolutely no capacity to, unilaterally, pass, let alone enforce, legislation. Furthermore; as an Anarchist; I do not seek to have such power. My ideal form of governance would be something along the lines of Prof. Stephen Shalom's; 'Parpolity' model; a decentralized Anarchist federation, where every citizen would be a direct participant in the governing process. That said; I do have my own opinions. The policy that I would suggest, regarding abortion, would be very similar to the majority decision reached by the Supreme Court in Roe, with the addition that citizens should not merely be guaranteed the right to obtain an abortion, but that this medical service be provided, free of charge, within the aforementioned parameters, at any hospital. That's what I would suggest. According to very recent polls; 80% of (American) Pro-choice women agree with that. So; as I've said; even if you only polled Pro-choice women; it would win by a landslide.

How is this any different, o glorious coryphaeus of anarchism, from "suggesting" the policy that same-sex marriage be banned? After all, most people would agree to that too, no? Serious libertarians would balk at using violence in order to force women to give birth - which is precisely what you suggest. But reading the rest of your posts on this thread, you sound more like a paternalistic liberal than a libertarian in any case.

One more thing, if you will. If it is really the case that no woman wants to have an abortion after some magical number of days, dictated by our glorious leader with the somewhat misleading name "NGNM85", why bother enacting a ban? Surely that would make as much sense as prohibiting ghosts invading someone's privacy. Or is there perhaps a small doubt in your mind that, perhaps, if there were no regulation, and no shaming, women might abort even at that point? And so our anarchist, tossing in his bed over the mere possibility, wants to reserve the "right" for the state, or an "anarchist" community, to use violence against the pregnant person.

The opposite of bigotry is not a different kind of bigotry. The opposite of bigotry is recognizing that civil rights should never be contingent on arbitrary characteristics such as race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. Recognizing the humanity of all races, sexes, etc. does not perpetuate inequality, to the contrary; it is the vital prerequisite for ending inequality. If you start from the premise that a particular gender, ethnic group, etc. are less human, or less worthy, etc., it is logistically impossible to end oppression. That is oppression.

How grandiose and inspiring. But the sentiment falls apart as soon as one examines it critically - men and women are not equal in the present society. Treating them as legal equals is the same as treating the rich and the destitute as equals - it perpetuates oppression in the guise of equality.

Yeah, it's criminal, but it's a minor crime. That's what you're suggesting.

That is what I am suggesting; that infanticide be punished, ceteris paribus, as the gratuitous killing of more complex animals.

While there are many different types, or schools of morality; morality, itself, is inescapable. All arguments, ultimately, rest on moral foundations, including yours.

Demonstrate this, or retract the slander.

For all I know; you really are, every inch, the sociopath you purport to be.

Oh, cry me a river. For the last four or so pages, you have tried to "prove" that violence should be used against pregnant people that want to abort after the magical number of days dictated by the Dear Leaderless Leader, and I have been attacking your misogynist position. So, which of us is the sociopath?

AConfusedSocialDemocrat

1st April 2013, 00:39

Are you a parody of a pious moralistic liberal masquerading as a socialist?

I'm Zizek's sock puppet of the quintessential SPD member.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

1st April 2013, 00:40

Noske, you old devil, I thought you were dead. Or are you Ebert?

NGNM85

1st April 2013, 02:10

I can't help myself;

No, you absolutely can, you're just choosing to behave like a puerile adolescent.

...the situation is just too hilarious. See, someone had mentioned anarcho-nationalism and anarcho-monarchism recently;

First; There's no such thing. Second; that has no bearing on this conversation.

it seems that we can now add anarcho-patriarchy to this distinguished company.

If you understood what I was saying, you would know it wasn't at all patriarchial.

Reduced incidence of the banned behaviour or procedure is a usual effect, assuming that the state is minimally competent.

That assumes that said behavior actually exists. Obviously; there tends to be less motivation to ban things that don't exist, but it's not a requirement.

All of them? In the entire world, or just in the United States, where they are banned?

Again; similar regulations exist in England, Germany, Norway, Italy, France, Australia, etc., in short; every single country that has legalized abortion, with the exception of Canada, and the PRC. It's not an American issue. Look up abortion in British law, French law, Swiss law, etc.

And do these statistics include illegal abortions?

By definition; that would extraordinarily difficult to do. However; there's absolutely no evidence to suggest that such procedures are being carried out, illegally. You're pulling this out of your ass.

Abortion is not regulated in Canada, period. This means that the various hospitals are free to set the limits themselves, and it seems that most set them at 20 weeks. Fairly arbitrary, but so are all of these limits. As for People's China... well? What are the statistics there?

Again; I explicitly said that those regulations don't exist in China, or
Canada, at least, not at the federal level. So,...you're, really, only confirming what I said.

Do you know the statistics, or are you just wasting space?

What are the statistics in Vietnam, come to think of it, where abortion is also allowed at any point in the
pregnancy?

'A physician, assistant physician or trained midwife with MOH approval can legally perform abortions. As defined by the current National Abortion Standards and Guidelines (NASGs), abortion services are provided at three administrative levels of the health system: (1) abortion from six to 18 weeks from the last menstrual period (LMP) is available at central and provincial hospitals; (2) abortion from six to 12 weeks of LMP is also available at district health stations; and (3) communal health clinics may only offer (http://www.isiswomen.org/index.php?option=com_content&id=1137&Itemid=200#) abortion to women who are not more than six weeks pregnant.
Private clinics in certain provinces are also allowed to perform abortion on six- week pregnant women. Abortion up to 22 weeks is only permissible in cases of abnormal fetus; when pregnancy is a result of rape; or when there is a risk to the mother’s life. Women who do not have any of these circumstances are usually advised by doctors to bring their pregnancy to term, with the options of staying in places arranged by hospitals and putting up their children for adoption. '

http://www.isiswomen.org/index.php?option=com_content&id=1137&Itemid=200

How is this any different, o glorious coryphaeus of anarchism, from "suggesting" the policy that same-sex marriage be banned? After all, most people would agree to that too, no?

Nonsense. First; a slim majority of Americans support same-sex marriage. Second; same-sex couples don't need to kill a human being in order to be married.

Serious libertarians would balk at using violence in order to force women to give birth - which is precisely what you suggest.

Categorically; yes, certainly. Of course; so do I, in general.

Not only is that not what I suggest, it isn't even implicit. There is no epidemic of state violence being used to force pregnant women to give birth in England, Sweden, France, etc., or, even the United States. I certainly wouldn't suggest anything of the sort.

You still don't seem to understand the fundamentals of Anarchism. Anarchism is philosophically opposed to authoritarianism, it is not categorically opposed to authority. Some authority is legitimate, it just must never be assumed to be inherently legitimate. (Being the definition of; 'authoritarianism.')

But reading the rest of your posts on this thread, you sound more like a paternalistic liberal than a libertarian in any case.

Again; there's absolutely nothing here that, if understood, is philosophically inconsistent with Anarchism.

One more thing, if you will. If it is really the case that no woman wants to have an abortion after some magical number of days,..

That's not what I said. Abortions after 26-28 weeks do happen, in the United States, and elsewhere, they are just extremely rare, probably less
than 1%, and they are only performed for medical reasons. Again; I have no problem with that, quite the contrary, it's absolutely necessary.

Second; you know for a fact the number is not arbitrary, rather it is based on fetal development, which is an observable, physical process. This is what I'm talking about; if you're going to just make shit up, then we can't very well have a serious argument, can we?

dictated by our glorious leader

Again; this is total fabrication. I have no power to draft, or enforce binding legislation, and I don't seek it. It's anathema to me. That doesn't mean I don't have opinions, or that I'm not allowed to have opinions. (For one thing, it would make democracy pointless.) Furthermore, as I've stated, according to very recent national polls; 80% of Pro-choice women agree with that opinion.

with the somewhat misleading name "NGNM85",

As in the slogan; 'No Gods, No Masters', which is, actually, a paraphrase of Blanqui, but it appears often in Anarchist literature, and inconography. I am opposed to; 'masters', as in; capitalists, and state officials, as I consider the state, and capitalism to be, among other things, fundamentally illegitimate institutions, and; 'gods', as I am an atheist, a metaphysical materialist, therefore; I do not believe in religion, furthermore; I philosophically object to many of the tenets of the major
religions because they are, overwhelmingly, backward, and reactionary.

why bother enacting a ban? Surely that would make as much sense as prohibiting ghosts invading someone's privacy.

First; this is already illegal, everywhere but Canada, and the PRC. I'm not suggesting anything new. That doesn't follow. There are plenty of other reasons. For example; even if rape, or murder were to disappear from the face of the earth, it's unlikely society would ever cease to prohibit them. Second; the comparison is false. It may be that elective abortions after 26-28 weeks are nonexistent, but it's not inconsistent with physics, and biology, it's theoretically possible. Ghosts are not theoretically
possible because they are mythological creatures.

Or is there perhaps a small doubt in your mind that, perhaps, if there were no regulation, and no shaming, women might abort even at that point?

There's no; 'shaming.' I'm not a moralist. I have no problem with abortion, categorically speaking, quite the opposite.

Again; as I've said, it doesn't actually matter whether this eventuality is ever likely to occur. I'd also point out that there's no evidence to suggest otherwise. Simply put; if infanticide is murder, then so is arbitrarily terminating a 38-week-old fetus. It's a package deal. You say infanticide isn't murder. Ok. It's nuts, but it's not hypocritical.

And so our anarchist, tossing in his bed over the mere possibility, wants to reserve the "right" for the state, or an "anarchist" community, to use violence against the pregnant person.

This is total fiction. First; I did not say this; nor is it a logical inference from what I did say. Second; such procedures are illegal in virtually all of the industrialized world, yet in none of these countries, even the United States, which is far behind most of these countries, on the matter of reproductive rights, do we see a problem of jackbooted thugs forcing people to give birth. You also continue to ignore the fact that 8 out of 10 Pro-choice women think it's abhorrent.

I don't really waste any time, in my private life, worrying about it, because there's nothing to worry about. I wouldn't talk about it nearly so often except the forum administration has given me ample motivation to discuss it as loudly, and frequently as humanly possible. I still would have
participated in this thread, and said much the same thing, but I probably wouldn't bring it up. Thanks to the administrators; I have a very powerful motivation to do so.

How grandiose and inspiring. But the sentiment falls apart as soon as one examines it critically - men and women are not equal in the present society.

I never said otherwise. However; legal equality is an essential prerequisite for social equality.

Treating them as legal equals is the same as treating the rich and the destitute as equals - it perpetuates oppression in the guise of equality.

Again; either you acknowledge that arbitrary details such as race, gender, sexual orientation, etc., have no bearing on civil rights, that were are all equally human, or you're just another bigot, you might be a different kind of bigot, just as anti-semites, are different from racists, (Although; admittedly, of course, these categories are not mutually exclusive, quite the contrary; they often exist simultaneously.) but that's not an
improvement. If you're arguing against capitalism, or the state; you're preaching to the converted.

That is what I am suggesting; that infanticide be punished, ceteris paribus, as the gratuitous killing of more complex animals.

Most countries don't make this distinction. While I'm no animal rights enthusiast, (I fully support vivisection, and I'd gladly sacrifice a million lab rats to save one human being.) I do agree that there should be greater
legal protections for unusually intelligent animals such as elephants, great apes, and dolphins. You can't treat something that is capable of learning and employing 500 words, something that is, potentially as smart as a 2, or 3-year-old, the same as a squirrel, or a pigeon. That seems obvious.

This still doesn't change very much. You're still saying that infanticide isn't really murder, and should carry a markedly (comparatively speaking) reduced sentence.

Demonstrate this, or retract the slander.

It's funny that you would interpret being characterized as ethical as impugning your character.

It's just a fact. Try to make an argument that doesn't rest on moral foundations. It's impossible, but you're free to try.

Oh, cry me a river. For the last four or so pages, you have tried to "prove" that violence should be used against pregnant people that want to abort

Ok, now you're just lying. I never said that, nor is it a logical extrapolation from what I did say.

after the magical number of days...[

Again; it's not magical, it's a benchmark based on fetal development, based on science.

dictated by the Dear Leaderless Leader,

You're either stupid, or dishonest. (Perhaps both.) I do not have the power to unilaterally draft, or enforce binding proclamations; nor do I seek such power. That does not mean I can't have opinions. It just doesn't
follow. Also, again; a huge majority of Pro-choice women, in the US, and elsewhere, agree with that opinion.

and I have been attacking your misogynist position. So, which of us is the sociopath?

Either you don't know what the word; 'misogynist' means, or you are misusing it.

I didn't say that infants are subhuman objects. I don't get a throbbing erection at the idea of violating other people's civil rights, although; occasionally, regrettably, it is a necessary evil. You seem to delight in it.

Let's make this simple; Again; if only persons have rights, and small infants are not persons, in this sense, that infanticide is not; 'murder.' That follows. There's no other way to see it. The two are, inextricably linked. So; you throw in with infanticide, or you adopt the; 'magic gateway theory', which is totally unscientific, and anti-materialist, and creates weird paradoxes, or admit defeat.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

1st April 2013, 10:35

First; There's no such thing.

Quite so. There is no such thing. Monarchism and nationalism can not be reconciled to anarchism except through the most outrageous eclecticism - neither can patriarchy.

If you understood what I was saying, you would know it wasn't at all patriarchial.

Of course not; you just want to restrict what women and transmen can do with their bodies, in the name of the patriarchal ideology of the "rights of the fetus".

That assumes that said behavior actually exists. Obviously; there tends to be less motivation to ban things that don't exist, but it's not a requirement.

This is ridiculous. Are you also in favour of the prohibition of ghosts floating over the speed limit?

Again; similar regulations exist in England, Germany, Norway, Italy, France, Australia, etc., in short; every single country that has legalized abortion, with the exception of Canada, and the PRC. It's not an American issue. Look up abortion in British law, French law, Swiss law, etc.

Why do you keep mentioning that as if it constituted an argument? Do you really want to tail bourgeois states, of all things?

By definition; that would extraordinarily difficult to do. However; there's absolutely no evidence to suggest that such procedures are being carried out, illegally. You're pulling this out of your ass.

I am not, strictly speaking, saying that they are; I am saying that your argument that they are not, ever, is extraordinarily weak.

Again; I explicitly said that those regulations don't exist in China, or Canada, at least, not at the federal level. So,...you're, really, only confirming what I said.

Do you know the statistics, or are you just wasting space?

Do I know the statistics? I am not obliged to make your argument for you; if you seriously want to claim that no elective abortions are preformed after some arbitrary number of weeks, you have to provide sufficient evidence for that. And that would require discussing the statistics for People's China.

'A physician, assistant physician or trained midwife with MOH approval can legally perform abortions. As defined by the current National Abortion Standards and Guidelines (NASGs), abortion services are provided at three administrative levels of the health system: (1) abortion from six to 18 weeks from the last menstrual period (LMP) is available at central and provincial hospitals; (2) abortion from six to 12 weeks of LMP is also available at district health stations; and (3) communal health clinics may only offer (http://www.isiswomen.org/index.php?option=com_content&id=1137&Itemid=200#) abortion to women who are not more than six weeks pregnant.
Private clinics in certain provinces are also allowed to perform abortion on six- week pregnant women. Abortion up to 22 weeks is only permissible in cases of abnormal fetus; when pregnancy is a result of rape; or when there is a risk to the mother’s life. Women who do not have any of these circumstances are usually advised by doctors to bring their pregnancy to term, with the options of staying in places arranged by hospitals and putting up their children for adoption. '

http://www.isiswomen.org/index.php?option=com_content&id=1137&Itemid=200

The term limits seem to have been introduced after 1997 (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2405698.pdf). Pity.

Nonsense. First; a slim majority of Americans support same-sex marriage. Second; same-sex couples don't need to kill a human being in order to be married.

First, that could change at any point, and obviously the world is somewhat wider than the United States. Second, one could invent all sorts of far-out "moral" argument for why gay marriage is "wrong". The lackeys of the bourgeois-semifeudal alliance already do so.

Not only is that not what I suggest, it isn't even implicit. There is no epidemic of state violence being used to force pregnant women to give birth in England, Sweden, France, etc., or, even the United States. I certainly wouldn't suggest anything of the sort.

Prohibitions are enforced through violence. Even if, through some mystical process not entirely understood by modern science, no woman, ever, wants an abortion after an arbitrary number of weeks, except for one of an arbitrary list of "acceptable" reasons, the threat of violence would remain.

By the way, do you support the Syrian prohibition of homosexuality? Since it has never, as far as I know, been enforced.

Second; you know for a fact the number is not arbitrary, rather it is based on fetal development, which is an observable, physical process. This is what I'm talking about; if you're going to just make shit up, then we can't very well have a serious argument, can we?

Actually, I tried to have a serious argument on this point, but you conveniently "forgot" to specify what on earth "proto-consciousness" is.

Again; this is total fabrication. I have no power to draft, or enforce binding legislation, and I don't seek it. It's anathema to me. That doesn't mean I don't have opinions, or that I'm not allowed to have opinions. (For one thing, it would make democracy pointless.) Furthermore, as I've stated, according to very recent national polls; 80% of Pro-choice women agree with that opinion.

Again, this is not an argument. The really amusing thing is, this still leaves 20% of women that would most likely consider an elective late-term abortion a possibility. So what would the great coryphaeus of anarchism stop them?

First; this is already illegal, everywhere but Canada, and the PRC. I'm not suggesting anything new. That doesn't follow. There are plenty of other reasons. For example; even if rape, or murder were to disappear from the face of the earth, it's unlikely society would ever cease to prohibit them. Second; the comparison is false. It may be that elective abortions after 26-28 weeks are nonexistent, but it's not inconsistent with physics, and biology, it's theoretically possible. Ghosts are not theoretically
possible because they are mythological creatures.

Quite so; it is possible that a pregnant person would try to get an elective abortion after the arbitrary limits you would impose. So, again, how would you stop them?

There's no; 'shaming.' I'm not a moralist. I have no problem with abortion, categorically speaking, quite the opposite.

I might even believe you, if you did not talk about abortion being the "killing of someone" and so on.

This is total fiction. First; I did not say this; nor is it a logical inference from what I did say. Second; such procedures are illegal in virtually all of the industrialized world, yet in none of these countries, even the United States, which is far behind most of these countries, on the matter of reproductive rights, do we see a problem of jackbooted thugs forcing people to give birth.

It's not as if the hired dogs of the bourgeoisie would drag a woman to court and to gaol for violating the sacred limits. Except that happens, doesn't it.

You also continue to ignore the fact that 8 out of 10 Pro-choice women think it's abhorrent.

Abhorrent. So much for not being a moralist. And what of it? We are revolutionaries, not milksop tailists. Well, some of us are.

I don't really waste any time, in my private life, worrying about it, because there's nothing to worry about. I wouldn't talk about it nearly so often except the forum administration has given me ample motivation to discuss it as loudly, and frequently as humanly possible. I still would have participated in this thread, and said much the same thing, but I probably wouldn't bring it up. Thanks to the administrators; I have a very powerful motivation to do so.

The rules of the site are public. Surely you don't mean to complain because the administration is enforcing its hard line on what is acceptable and what is not, contributing to the general quality and positive atmosphere on the forums?

I never said otherwise. However; legal equality is an essential prerequisite for social equality.

Legal equality or better. There is no affirmative action for whites, for example.

Again; either you acknowledge that arbitrary details such as race, gender, sexual orientation, etc., have no bearing on civil rights, that were are all equally human, or you're just another bigot, you might be a different kind of bigot, just as anti-semites, are different from racists, (Although; admittedly, of course, these categories are not mutually exclusive, quite the contrary; they often exist simultaneously.) but that's not an improvement. If you're arguing against capitalism, or the state; you're preaching to the converted.

Good grief; which part of "I do not think anyone has rights" did you not understand? I am saying that the liberation of women is worth disadvantaging men. If you want to cry about misandry like every MRE, be by guest.

This still doesn't change very much. You're still saying that infanticide isn't really murder, and should carry a markedly (comparatively speaking) reduced sentence.

Sic.

It's funny that you would interpret being characterized as ethical as impugning your character.

Morality, in this period of social development, is necessarily bourgeois morality, or perhaps semifeudal morality; the same morality that sanctifies the harassment of women, of homosexuals etc. under the aegis of sacred free speech, while condemning the person that "steals" a loaf of bread to feed themselves.

It's just a fact.

Your impassioned restating of your thesis has really convinced me.

Try to make an argument that doesn't rest on moral foundations. It's impossible, but you're free to try.

Restrictions on abortion are an aspect of patriarchy; as revolutionary socialists we aim to destroy patriarchy, no matter if that is "right" or "wrong"; therefore we aim to smash any restriction on abortion.

I didn't say that infants are subhuman objects. I don't get a throbbing erection at the idea of violating other people's civil rights, although; occasionally, regrettably, it is a necessary evil. You seem to delight in it.

I delight in making liberals squirm; that is true.

Let's make this simple; Again; if only persons have rights, and small infants are not persons, in this sense, that infanticide is not; 'murder.' That follows. There's no other way to see it. The two are, inextricably linked. So; you throw in with infanticide, or you adopt the; 'magic gateway theory', which is totally unscientific, and anti-materialist, and creates weird paradoxes, or admit defeat.

Again, I do not think that anyone has "rights". But I have already said that infanticide is not as serious as the murder of a person. Is there any point to saying the same thing for the seventh or eight time?

Jimmie Higgins

1st April 2013, 10:44

Let's make this simple; Again; if only persons have rights, and small infants are not persons, in this sense, that infanticide is not; 'murder.' That follows. There's no other way to see it. The two are, inextricably linked. So; you throw in with infanticide, or you adopt the; 'magic gateway theory', which is totally unscientific, and anti-materialist, and creates weird paradoxes, or admit defeat.

Right, small infants have no rights themselves. Instead, infants have rights because of the wishes of others not to have infants needlessly killed or young children sent to mills to work. So infants did not rally and fight for rights in society, but enough adults did (when necissary).

Ironically while calling the "magic gateway" idea ideaslist and unscientific, you illogically make a similar argument but just put some scientific data into it to change the timeframe from rights spontaniously being applied at birth to some point before. But this is not where "rights" come from - rights are the result of struggles in society. In the case of Abortion the only rights involved are those of the pregnant person. The rights involved are who controlls biological repoduction? Feotus rights is just a smokescreen by the right-wing - they are speaking on behalf of imagined wishes of the potential child to negate the concerete wishes of the person bearing the financial and physical cost of the pregancy and labor.

NGNM85

1st April 2013, 12:57

Right, small infants have no rights themselves. Instead, infants have rights because of the wishes of others not to have infants needlessly killed or young children sent to mills to work. So infants did not rally and fight for rights in society, but enough adults did (when necissary).

This is backasswards. Governments can only respect rights; they cannot create them. Slavery, for example, was never just, it was merely legal. Were it otherwise; there would have been no reason for opposing it.

Ironically while calling the "magic gateway" idea ideaslist and unscientific, you illogically make a similar argument but just put some scientific data into it to change the timeframe from rights spontaniously being applied at birth to some point before.

It's not ironic. These arguments are qualitatively different. The exiting of the parents' body cavity is an arbitrary benchmark chosen for convenience, there's no coherent, defensible principle. Conversely; my definition of human life is based on biological facts. If you are a materialist, you acknowledge that human beings are biological organisms, therefore; that is the metric you use, not geography, or some other
equally irrelevant piece of trivia.

But this is not where "rights" come from - rights are the result of struggles in society.

See above.

In the case of Abortion the only rights involved are those of the pregnant person.

Ok. In order for that to be true; you have to assert that only 'persons' have rights, which means you can't oppose infanticide, or you choose the magical gateway theory which is unscientific, and creates weird paradoxes, that, or; you can admit the obvious fact that both of these arguments are hopelessly flawed.

The rights involved are who controlls biological repoduction?

Again; reproduction is just one particular example of bodily autonomy. Also; for this to be true, you have to have already accepted one of the two previously mentioned, completely absurd, arguments.

Feotus rights is just a smokescreen by the right-wing - they are speaking on behalf of imagined wishes of the potential child to negate the concerete wishes of the person bearing the financial and physical cost of the pregancy and labor.

No, no, no, no. I cannot be held responsible for opinions I never
expressed, and don't believe in. Arguments made by the religious right about late-term abortions are, indeed, a 'smokescreen.' It's a transparent attempt to exploit people's emotions to advance their real agenda, namely; banning all abortion. Again; look at the 'Partial-Birth' Abortion Ban. If they were seriously concerned about late term abortions, (Which I'm not, really.) it makes absolutely no sense. Why in the hell would you just ban one particular procedure? Also; why would it kick in as early as 15 weeks? That's not; 'late term.' Not to mention the fact that federal law already prohibits arbitrarily aborting fetuses, after 26-28 weeks, and the, also, not insignificant fact that nobody wants to. This brings me back to my original point, which is; that you cannot take me to task for making an argument that shares some superficial features with fundamentally different arguments made by other people, that I have, incidentally, continually, consistently, and publicly denounced, and opposed. That is complete horseshit. Those people are blowing smoke, I'm being entirely serious. They are making a deontological argument, based on the ravings of primitive mystics, I am making a logical, utilitarian argument based on scientific facts. They are Pro-life, I am Pro-choice. Etc., etc.

Jimmie Higgins

1st April 2013, 17:58

This is backasswards. Governments can only respect rights; they cannot create them. Slavery, for example, was never just, it was merely legal. Were it otherwise; there would have been no reason for opposing it.Again, where do rights come from? What magic creates them if it's not the result of struggles?

"Rights" are a social thing, the results of conditions and subjective struggles in society. Are "property rights" just respected by governments? Having slaves was a "right" for some at one time - they paid money for the slaves, they didn't personally create the slave system and if they didn't have slaves, they wouldn't be able to harvest and sell their cash crops at a competitive rate since other plantations did use slave-labor. So the right to not be enslaved outright came not from the slave system being unjust, but from the struggles of slaves themselves, the abolition movement, and eventually (and reluctantly) enough of the northern bourgeois.

It's not ironic. These arguments are qualitatively different. The exiting of the parents' body cavity is an arbitrary benchmark chosen for convenience, there's no coherent, defensible principle. Conversely; my definition of human life is based on biological facts. If you are a materialist, you acknowledge that human beings are biological organisms, therefore; that is the metric you use, not geography, or some other
equally irrelevant piece of trivia.There are no "rights" in biology! There are no "rights" in nature - it's an entirely social phenomena. You are just substituting "nature" for "god-given-rights".

Ok. In order for that to be true; you have to assert that only 'persons' have rights, which means you can't oppose infanticide, or you choose the magical gateway theory which is unscientific, and creates weird paradoxes, that, or; you can admit the obvious fact that both of these arguments are hopelessly flawed.Infants also don't have any ability to secure or argue for their own "rights" and so people project rights onto them. The rights for small children not to be killed or abused is one worth fighting and preserving IMO because infants are not biologically tied to another person's body and therefore their life is not inherently impacting the wishes of another person who's carrying the fetus. If anti-abortionists argued that abortion should be replaced by a system where any pregnant person who did not want the pregnancy couldn't abort, but instead they'd be paid (oh I don't know, let's lowball it at...) 30K and have all their medial expenses and absences from work paid for and would not be put through any sort of lengthy adoption process, then, possibly, it could be argued that being against abortion was not equal to supporting "unpaid forced labor" - it would be paid forced labor. But can you imagine the right-wing arguing for that?