Are you pro-choice or pro-life?

[Comrade Jacob]

a simple question


lol look at that score

[Taters]

Really now, you're on a commie forum asking this; exactly what kind of reaction are you hoping to get?

Personally, I'm pro-life. There must be no death on this planet. Lock arms and block cemeteries.

[tachosomoza]

It's called "anti-choice", "pro life" is a reactionary sugarcoating.

I'm vehemently against making reactionary laws inspired by bourgeois religion to impact a person's right to do whatever they damn well please with their body, and everybody here probably believes the same.

[Fourth Internationalist]

I'm "pro life" because a fetus isn't really alive. Yeah its cells are alive, bacteria is alive, plants are alive, but killing them isn't "anti-life". Those are unlike humans and other animals which are all sentient. So I'm strongly pro-choice.

Edit: Also, of course, the communist system will save many people's lives as well from the effects of class society. Of course, removing the effects of class society will also greatly decrease the number of abortions even needed. As communists, we are the most "pro life", more so than any crazy religious person.

[Zealot]

this will be interesting

Not really. I don't think you'll find many "pro-lifers" on this forum, if they haven't already been banned or restricted.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

Pro-choice all the way. No ifs, ands or buts.

[Brutus]

I think one of Semendyaev's blog posts dealt with this. Communists will always be pro-choice, because we vehemently oppose bourgeois morality. Who is anybody to say what a woman can and can't do with her body?

[Popular Front of Judea]

Yes if you're Fox News. "Pro-life"? Really? Cut the crap and call it what it what it is: "anti-abortion". How the hell can you be "pro-life" when you oppose abortion but accept the death penalty?


a simple questian

[Brutus]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=18855

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Please make this poll public admins.

[Le Socialiste]

There's absolutely no question to be asked here: communists must be unwaveringly committed to the struggle for women's liberation, a fight that necessarily entails the right to choose (i.e. abortion). We oppose any and all attempts to limit or infringe on these rights, not merely because they arise out of some bourgeois sense of morality, but because the struggle for free and open access to abortion (and women's ability to control their own bodies) confronts - oftentimes subtly, sometimes openly - the built-in sexism that's been perpetuated throughout the whole of the capitalist system. Anyone who questions a woman's right to control her own body should be told why and how they're wrong - and if they persist in giving voice to these questions, be dealt with accordingly.

Edit - I see someone voted for "life - always." If they're so committed to such a stance, perhaps they'd be willing to defend it openly?

[Don't Swallow The Cap]

Pro choice.
To be quite honest I am not too sure what reaction you are expecting to get out of this.
Damn near everyone will respond as pro choice, or rightly so risk restriction.

[Brutus]

What 'communist' would vote for anything other than 'choice- always'?

[Polaris]

I voted pro-choice. Is it really even necessary to defend this position here?
Anyone who voted for anything other than 'choice - always' should probably be warned that they will be facing a restriction or ban for sexist views if they type so.

The terms pro-life and pro-choice are both framed to seem positive, but the difference is someone who is pro-life can certainly be considered anti-choice, but someone pro-choice cannot be considered to be anti-life because for at least a good part of pregnancy, the fetus is not 'alive' in the sense that other humans are alive. Pro-choice supporters can only be considered to be against what the term "pro-life" represents.

[Le Socialiste]

Two people have voted for "life - always." This is inexcusable.

[Popular Front of Judea]

I did -- for shits and giggles. These "polls" are bullshit.

BTW does the British press also insist on calling anti-abortion zealots "pro-life"?


Two people have voted for "life - always." This is simply inexcusable.

[tachosomoza]

It may have been for a joke, perhaps?

[Polaris]

I'm a bit more curious who voted 'choice- if the woman's life is at risk.' That position has always seemed like a cop-out, or a way to seem to be the rational middle ground.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I'm a committed pro-lifer ...



... no just trolling I'm pro-choice. Even if I thought abortion was really terrible, it's a woman's body. She has as much right to abort a pregnancy as workers have to withhold their labor. A woman also has a right to not have an abortion because her moral views dictate to her that she should not. I don't think the community should use legal means to dictate that choice for women.

Everyone who says that Communists are essentially pro-choice are being dense, or being just historically ignorant. The USSR, Hoxha's Albania, and PRC banned abortion while today the PRC forces women to have only one child. Both are equally an affront to a woman's right to chose. To say something to the effect that Communists are necessarily pro-choice is much too strong of a statement. Now, "Communists should be pro-choice" would be fair, but that's a very different argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Russia#1936-1955
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_child_policyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_China
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Albania

I guess a Marxist or Anarchist who is critical of Stalin or Mao might just deny that these leaders were authentic Communists, but I think that misses the issue, and seems to be a true scotsman fallacy. Someone could be a thoughtless, idiotic, foolish Communist who lacks a sense of self criticism but they are still a Communist.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Well this is obviously a foregone conclusion. Out of interest, why are you pro choice; which agument would you use against anti choicers? Arguments in virtue of marxist doctrine would obviously fall flat. What do people think about the 'unwanted intimacy' position?

Many people who argue against abortion think they do so from a rational position. I mean the non-religious objectors. How do you show them that their position is wrong, and not just sexist, or reactionary. They are good enough reasons for us, but objectors may feel that sexism is the lesser of two 'evils'.

Again there are many good arguments, but I feel many on the left rely on the self evidence (it is there of course) rather than arguments that persuade others.

[Polaris]

Everyone who says that Communists are essentially pro-choice are being dense, or being just historically ignorant. The USSR, Hoxha's Albania, and PRC banned abortion while today the PRC forces women to have only one child.

[...]

I guess a Marxist or Anarchist who is critical of Stalin or Mao might just deny that these leaders were authentic Communists, but I think that misses the issue, and seems to be a true scotsman fallacy.

Today, not all Chinese woman are not forced to only have one child. Those affected are women in urban regions in mainland China. And many have more children anyway and are just subjected to fines (although I'm sure many women are still forced to give up their child/abort, this just isn't as widespread anymore.) I am not defending this policy at all, just clearing that up for you.

Mao had already been dead for 3 years before the One Child Policy was implemented. He wasn't even alive when it was planned. I'm not saying he did not delve inappropriately into women's reproductive rights; during the early years women in the PRC were basically forced to have children, and when this backfired the PRC started to "encourage," woman to only have two children. But I find it ironic that you moan about others being historically ignorant, yet you perpetrate this yourself.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Well this is obviously a foregone conclusion. Out of interest, why are you pro choice; which agument would you use against anti choicers? Arguments in virtue of marxist doctrine would obviously fall flat. What do people think about the 'unwanted intimacy' position?

Many people who argue against abortion think they do so from a rational position. I mean the non-religious objectors. How do you show them that their position is wrong, and not just sexist, or reactionary. They are good enough reasons for us, but objectors may feel that sexism is the lesser of two 'evils'.

Again there are many good arguments, but I feel many on the left rely on the self evidence (it is there of course) rather than arguments that persuade others.

What's persuasive about letting what is for all intents and purposes a slime get in the way of a woman's right to control her own body?

The only reason anti-choicers even exist is because of fucking modern Christianity. Abortion wasn't even restricted by Christians in ancient times (life is anything that breathes, according to the bible - something that obviously wouldn't apply to a fetus). This 'pro-life' crap is nothing more than sexist and moralist bullshit and treats women like incubators and leaves them at the mercy of men and uncle toms alike.

If someone doesn't accept reasoning like this and continues to defend something anatomically identical to a fish embryo over a woman's reproductive rights, then they're better off being persuaded with bricks and bats than conversation.

[Hegemonicretribution]

What's persuasive about letting what is for all intents and purposes a slime get in the way of a woman's right to control her own body?

The only reason anti-choicers even exist is because of fucking modern Christianity. Abortion wasn't even restricted by Christians in ancient times (life is anything that breathes, according to the bible

On the contrary; in tge uk at least there are numerous atheists (or at least agnostics) who view the whole situation as messy, but make a decision against choice on the basis of their own wonky reasoning. Although they may parrot religious sentiments, they do not ahere strictly to a religious doctrine and are therefore possible to reason with.

In this group are teenagers (for example). Anyone who has sat through a mostly secular social ed class will know what I mean. I am sure you could hit them in a face with a brick, but you might try talking to them first. They have likely not come across pro choice arguments. I am sure they have heard assertions; you have made those, but when they consist of anger and beatings they appear less reasonable.

I am not talking about the religious right. They may well be beyond hope. I am talking exclusively about how to talk to people who are for the most part rational, but consider abortion worse than sexism. People affected by religious morality, but those who do not accept it wholesale.

I offered a clasic argument, that of 'unwanted intinacy' as an example, but there are others.

Just because you are right, it doesn't mean that simply shouting that you are loudly is enough. You are facing an opponent who can create worlds and impregnate virgins.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Today, not all Chinese woman are not forced to only have one child. Those affected are women in urban regions in mainland China. And many have more children anyway and are just subjected to fines (although I'm sure many women are still forced to give up their child/abort, this just isn't as widespread anymore.) I am not defending this policy at all, just clearing that up for you.

Mao had already been dead for 3 years before the One Child Policy was implemented. He wasn't even alive when it was planned. I'm not saying he did not delve inappropriately into women's reproductive rights; during the early years women in the PRC were basically forced to have children, and when this backfired the PRC started to "encourage," woman to only have two children. But I find it ironic that you moan about others being historically ignorant, yet you perpetrate this yourself.

Perhaps you didn't read what I said carefully?


The USSR, Hoxha's Albania, and PRC banned abortion while today the PRC forces women to have only one child

I'm also well aware that ethnic minorities are allowed to have multiple children, and that rural women can have two. That has no impact on the fact, however, that many women in China really ARE denied the right to have more than one kid. Note how I never said "all" women. Forced abortions and sterilization still happen by bureaucrats who are pressured to keep birth rates in their districts low, and were once commonplace even if they are much rarer and not official policy today.

Nor did I say that it was Mao who implemented the one child policy. I said the PRC banned abortion (which happened under Mao) and that they denied women the right to have more than one child (which happened after Mao).

Nothing I said was factually inaccurate, and the fact still remains that fairly significant "communist" institutions were by no means "pro-choice". You are just misconstruing what I was saying for whatever reason. Aside from being off-topic, it's hardly a fair characterization of what I was arguing.

[MarxSchmarx]

Comrade Jacob:
Next time start polls like this in OI. Doing something like this in politics is something that many will regard as trolling.

[Polaris]

Perhaps you didn't read what I said carefully?



I'm also well aware that ethnic minorities are allowed to have multiple children, and that rural women can have two. That has no impact on the fact, however, that many women in China really ARE denied the right to have more than one kid. Note how I never said "all" women. Forced abortions and sterilization still happen by bureaucrats who are pressured to keep birth rates in their districts low, and were once commonplace even if they are much rarer and not official policy today.

Nor did I say that it was Mao who implemented the one child policy. I said the PRC banned abortion (which happened under Mao) and that they denied women the right to have more than one child (which happened after Mao).

Nothing I said was factually inaccurate, and the fact still remains that fairly significant "communist" institutions were by no means "pro-choice". You are just misconstruing what I was saying for whatever reason. Aside from being off-topic, it's hardly a fair characterization of what I was arguing.
No, you didn't say that it happened under Mao or that all women are forced to have only one child, it just seemed to be implied. I admit that I jumped the gun a bit on the Mao thing.
If you read my post carefully, I also said that many are still forced to abort and that Mao was no saint to women.
Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that the content of my post discredited your entire argument; I just felt that those details needed to be added. You are correct in saying that so-called 'communist' nations have set a precedent contrary to the views on abortion and women's reproductive rights posted here.

[The Feral Underclass]

This is like RevLeft entrapment.

[The Feral Underclass]

To me the "pro-life" and "pro-choice" question frames this debate incorrectly by putting emphasis on the foetus/embryo. The debate for me should be framed as "pro-autonomy" or "anti-autonomy" with emphasis on the woman.

There are no degrees when it comes to the autonomy of someone's body and you are either for a woman to have control over what happens to her body and whatever is inside it, or you are against it, and don't think that a woman should have control over her body.

This isn't about choosing life or choosing death, it is about choosing how you want society to treat women's bodies.

[Hegemonicretribution]

TAT is definitely more on the money, and this is how the left should view the debate, but when we deal with those who do not we need to alter our approach. Also as a matter of course can we make all our arguments a fortiori? If the argument doesn't work at 9 months and beyond the point of viability then it is no good.

As lefties we don't argue for women's rights only when a few cells is at stake. We argue for female autonomy at week 36 and beyond.

[Invader Zim]

As others have noted, the issue here is about bodily autonomy. The issue of if and whether a fetus is alive is a secondary irrelevance. No other group or individual in society can force another person to share their bodily resources for nine months, without express and continuing consent. For instance, if I were dying and required a live individual and their kidneys to clean my blood, to whom I had to be hooked up to permanently, they would, of course, have every right to say no. They would also have the right to say yes, do it for a few weeks or months, and then change their mind. Nobody is forced to give blood or to donate organs. It is their choice, regardless of the lives it may save. Yet anti-choice, anti-autonomy individuals would preserve that right for all elements of society and promote others interests, including those whom arguably have yet to enter society and merely exist as potential, at the expense of this basic right when it comes to women.

In short it is impossible to be anti-choice and be logically consistent. Either you think shadowy groups should be able to abduct people from the streets and harvest their bodily resources, or you are pro-autonomy. There is no middle ground. That is the necessary logical extension of the 'pro-life' anti-woman argument.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Thank you invader zim for making a logical argument that works within the often assumed distinction of pro life/pro choice. I have never heard a decent response to this argument and it is so much more powerful than telling someone they are wrong (or just hitting them :rolleyes:)

[Desy]

Wait this is serious?

Let's see what other liberal politics we can discuss...

[bcbm]

i am anti-life

[The Feral Underclass]

i am anti-life

Reactionary!

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

You're never going to believe this.....

But the best argument for abortion rights I ever read was written by one of my least favorite human beings on this planet.

And yet, it's still the most eloquent and most forceful argument for woman's reproductive rights I've ever seen.


"Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a “right to life.” A piece of protoplasm has no rights—and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable. . . . Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives. The task of raising a child is a tremendous, lifelong responsibility, which no one should undertake unwittingly or unwillingly. Procreation is not a duty: human beings are not stock-farm animals. For conscientious persons, an unwanted pregnancy is a disaster; to oppose its termination is to advocate sacrifice, not for the sake of anyone’s benefit, but for the sake of misery qua misery, for the sake of forbidding happiness and fulfillment to living human beings." -Ayn Rand

[NGNM85]

The poll is problematic because the OP is, clearly, unfamiliar with the terminology they are using. For example; someone who only supports abortion when continuing the pregnancy constitutes a grave risk to the parent is not Pro-choice, but; Pro-life. In fact; one can support abortion to save the life of the parent, and in instances of rape, (As plenty of Pro-lifers' do.) and still be Pro-life. Furthermore; this does not make one any less; 'Pro-life' than the hardliners, who unequivocally oppose abortion, in all instances. Being Pro-life (Or; Pro-choice, for that matter.) is like being the Duke of Wellington, or a marmoset; you are, or you aren't.

[The Feral Underclass]

How to use a semi-colon (http://theoatmeal.com/comics/semicolon)

[NGNM85]

Wait this is serious?

Let's see what other liberal politics we can discuss...

Are you seriously suggesting that Radicals don't have a dog in that fight? (?!!) Are you truly so blind as to not see how a lack of reproductive freedom weakens workers? I think there's plenty of fodder for debate, here, in the realm of philosophy, and tactics, and such, here, but I would hope that the aforementioned truism is so obvious as to just be universally understood.

[NGNM85]

To me the "pro-life" and "pro-choice" question frames this debate incorrectly by putting emphasis on the foetus/embryo. The debate for me should be framed as "pro-autonomy" or "anti-autonomy" with emphasis on the woman.

There are no degrees when it comes to the autonomy of someone's body and you are either for a woman to have control over what happens to her body and whatever is inside it, or you are against it, and don't think that a woman should have control over her body.

This isn't about choosing life or choosing death, it is about choosing how you want society to treat women's bodies.

As you allude to, in the beginning; gender is really a red herring, here. You, and Invader Zim, are absolutely correct that it is, rather, an issue of bodily autonomy. That being said; we should stop pretending anybody, here, actually believes bodily autonomy is sacrosanct, and that goes double for the Stalinoids.

[The Feral Underclass]

As you allude to, in the beginning; gender is really a red herring, here. You, and Invader Zim, are absolutely correct that it is, rather, an issue of bodily autonomy. That being said; we should stop pretending anybody, here, actually believes bodily autonomy is sacrosanct, and that goes double for the Stalinoids.

First of all your use of a semi-colon is just incorrect. If you don't care about grammar that's all fine and well, but in that case just stop using it all together. If you are are trying to make some kind of point by constantly using it incorrectly then what is it?

Secondly, telling a person who made an argument that they don't really believe their argument is a really stupid way to try and refute a point. As a matter of fact when I talk about the control that an individual has over their body, I am saying that bodily autonomy is sacrosanct. That is my actual opinion.

[NGNM85]

First of all your use of a semi-colon is just incorrect. If you don't care about grammar that's all fine and well, but in that case just stop using it all together. If you are are trying to make some kind of point by constantly using it incorrectly then what is it?

This is fundamentally disingenuous. If you were actually that upset about grammatical errors on the boards, why on earth would you be harassing me? I'm way above the curve on gammar, punctuation, and spelling. This, in actuality, has nothing to do with grammar.


Secondly, telling a person who made an argument that they don't really believe their argument is a really stupid way to try and refute a point. As a matter of fact when I talk about the control that an individual has over their body, I am saying that bodily autonomy is sacrosanct. That is my actual opinion.

Not true. It happens to be a very prescient point.

Nobody believes bodiuly autonomy is sacrosanct. For one thing; you'd have to be a pacifist. This would also preclude even the most benign forms of incarceration, etc., etc. It's not impossible (Just extremely unlikely.) that you actually believe this nonsense, but I doubt it. If so; you're the only one. It should also be pointed out that, whatever your opinion is, this has nothing, at all, to do with Anarchism. That is, in no way, fundamental to Anarchism.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

i am anti-life

blood for the blood god!!!

[d3crypt]

I'm pro-abortion! Hooray for abortion!

[TheIrrationalist]

I'm pro-abortion! Hooray for abortion!

Abortions to everyone! Let the abortion party begin! Huzzah!

[Sotionov]

Restriction baiting a little, ey?

[Invader Zim]

As you allude to, in the beginning; gender is really a red herring, here. You, and Invader Zim, are absolutely correct that it is, rather, an issue of bodily autonomy. That being said; we should stop pretending anybody, here, actually believes bodily autonomy is sacrosanct, and that goes double for the Stalinoids.

Well, if I might be permitted to do so, I should like to suggest that gender is far from being a red herring when it comes to the abortion issue. Indeed, I think that much of the issue is about control - and in this instance controlling women and their bodily integrity. As I suggested in my previous post, bodily autonomy is a right extended to all people, before and indeed after death, and treated as absolutely sacrosanct. It trumps all other concerns, including other people's right to life itself.

To take return to the case-study of giving blood, it is undeniable that blood transfusions save lives, and that the giving of blood is essential to modern medicine and that if people stopped giving blood many very ill or injured people would die. Yet nobody is forced to give blood. It is entirely their choice, because it is their body and their blood. Therefore, we can safely assume that society, both legally and ethically, places the right to choose above the right of the sick to live. If that was not the case then law could be passed to demand that people give blood. or face legal repercussions. Yet, that has not occurred, despite the fact that it would undeniably save lives if such legislation were passed.

So it appears, I think we can safely assume, that this is both an enshrined a legal and ethical assumption which governs how society operates. Yet the anti-choice argument seeks to subvert this status-quo - but only in one instance: that of pregnant women. It is therefore, I think, safe to assume that, whether consciously or otherwise, those who oppose abortion implicitly oppose this right being extended to women, yet wish to see it maintained in perhaps every other conceivable instance. That strikes me as highly gendered - in fact I would suggest that it is extremely gendered and revolves entirely around perceptions of the role of women in society as maternal figures.

[The Feral Underclass]

This is fundamentally disingenuous. If you were actually that upset about grammatical errors on the boards, why on earth would you be harassing me?

I don't care about grammatical errors on the board necessarily, I care about the fact that you keep using semi-colons incorrectly. That's why I am "harassing" you -- if you can call pointing out someone's misuse of punctuation "harassment."


I'm way above the curve on gammar, punctuation, and spelling.

Which is clearly inaccurate since you have no idea how to correctly use a semi-colon.


his, in actuality, has nothing to do with grammar.

So what is it about? You don't know how to use a semi-colon and you keep using it incorrectly. I have pointed that out to you and even provided an explanation on its correct use, yet you keep insisting on doing it.


Not true. It happens to be a very prescient point.

In your head perhaps. Not in reality.


Nobody believes bodiuly autonomy is sacrosanct.

In regards to people living freely in society, when it comes to making decisions about your body and what is inside it, then yes, bodily autonomy is sacrosanct.


For one thing; you'd have to be a pacifist.

Why have you used a semi-colon? Using a semi-colon here makes absolutely no grammatical sense.

On your actual point: Firstly, society must act in self-defence if it is under attack. As revolutionaries, we accept the need to negate people's freedom and autonomy in order to preserve ourselves from death and protect our own freedom and autonomy by establishing political and economic freedom from oppression and exploitation. We only recognise this negation because we understand that in the course of pursuing our own liberation others will try to keep us subjugated. That is ultimately a choice that an individual makes and therefore we (those who wish to establish freedom and autonomy) are required to employ the negation of other people's freedom and autonomy.

Secondly, the concept of autonomy is predicated on the principle that everyone is free, providing that their freedom does not encroach on the freedom of others. This relates specifically to the point I am making above. Everyone is entitled to freedom and autonomy on the basis that it is a "natural" state of being, as Bakunin would say, until that point in which your freedom and autonomy begins to impinge on my ability to have freedom and autonomy.

To clarify, my freedom and autonomy, i.e. making decisions on what happens to my body and things inside it is held sacrosanct up until that point in which my freedom and autonomy encroaches on your freedom and autonomy. At this point it is therefore necessary for you to preserve your freedom and autonomy by negating mine.


This would also preclude even the most benign forms of incarceration, etc., etc.

But we are not talking about bodily autonomy for people who perpetuate violent and anti-social activities against individuals or communities, we are talking specifically about women and transmen having the right to determine what happens in their bodies.

In other words, we are not talking about situations that require a society to remove an individual's autonomy in order to defend itself, we are talking about situations in which people live freely within a society and have the autonomy to make decisions about their bodies without interference.


It should also be pointed out that, whatever your opinion is, this has nothing, at all, to do with Anarchism. That is, in no way, fundamental to Anarchism.

I think you will be hard pressed to realistically argue that freedom and autonomy have nothing to do with anarchism.

[rylasasin]

I am pro-unlife.

won't someone please think of the poor zombies and vampires?!

[Ele'ill]

It should also be pointed out that, whatever your opinion is, this has nothing, at all, to do with Anarchism. That is, in no way, fundamental to Anarchism

Another abortion thread with ngnm85 who ironically has nothing to do with anarchism either.

[Popular Front of Judea]

The revolution is not finished until everyone -- man, woman and transexual can have an abortion!


Abortions to everyone! Let the abortion party begin! Huzzah!

[Klaatu]

Edit: Also, of course, the communist system will save many people's lives as well from the effects of class society. Of course, removing the effects of class society will also greatly decrease the number of abortions even needed. As communists, we are the most "pro life", more so than any crazy religious person.

I am wondering if there are any statistics on who gets abortions; is it poor people, or is it middle class or the rich? IMHO, it would seem that it would be the poor, and that seems to fit your hypothesis that a Communist society, which grants equal incomes to all, would greatly reduce the number of abortions.

I voted "not sure," as I take a neutral position on this issue.

[NGNM85]

Well, if I might be permitted to do so, I should like to suggest that gender is far from being a red herring when it comes to the abortion issue.

Indeed, I think that much of the issue is about control - and in this instance controlling women and their bodily integrity.

Ok. Well, that's very different from what you were saying, or, rather, seemed to be saying, earlier. In any case, you're mistaken. There's plenty of sexism on the right, but the primary driver of the Pro-life movement, it's foundation, is not sexism, but religion. It's, at least, theoretically, possible to be Pro-life without being remotely sexist, however, it is logically impossible to be Pro-life and be an atheist. The core principle of the Pro-life movement is that the primary constituent of what makes us human is
a magical essence, an immortal soul, which is present at conception.

Second, pregnancy is not exclusively a woman's issue, although, admittedly, it primarily affects women. For one thing, to suggest otherwise is to define women as childbearers, the thing you supposedly oppose. Furthermore, while transmen make up a significantly smaller proportion of the population, they are just as capable of bearing children as women are. Finally; were it somehow to occur, through some mad scientist experiment, that a cisgendered man were to become pregnant
I'm sure you would agree that he would have the same reproductive rights as women, and transmen. So, you see, gender is really a red herring.
The issue here, as I said before, is bodily autonomy.


As I suggested in my previous post, bodily autonomy is a right extended to all people, before and indeed after death, and treated as absolutely sacrosanct. It trumps all other concerns, including other people's right to life itself.

It isn't clear to me if you are saying you believe this right should be sacrosanct, or you believe that our legal system, any legal system, recognizes it as such. As for the latter; it absolutely doesn't. Furthermore; I would argue that it shouldn't be. I would argue, and most people would agree, that society has the right to intrude upon one's bodily autonomy if said individual, intentionally, or unintentionally, poses an immediate,
serious threat to someone's safety.


To take return to the case-study of giving blood, it is undeniable that blood transfusions save lives, and that the giving of blood is essential to modern medicine and that if people stopped giving blood many very ill or injured people would die. Yet nobody is forced to give blood. It is entirely their choice, because it is their body and their blood. Therefore, we can safely assume that society, both legally and ethically, places the right to choose above the right of the sick to live. If that was not the case then law could be passed to demand that people give blood. or face legal repercussions. Yet, that has not occurred, despite the fact that it would undeniably save lives if such legislation were passed.

That's a false equivalency. My not giving blood does not necessarily pose a clear risk to anyone's health, certainly not an immediate one.


So it appears, I think we can safely assume, that this is both an enshrined a legal and ethical assumption which governs how society operates.


No, it doesn't. All governments override the bodily autonomy of some of their citizens, at one time, or another. In many cases, this is done for illegitimate reasons, however, it is also, very often, done for reasons that are completely legitimate.


Yet the anti-choice argument seeks to subvert this status-quo

As I've explained, that isn't the status quo.


- but only in one instance: that of pregnant women. It is therefore, I think, safe to assume that, whether consciously or otherwise, those who oppose abortion implicitly oppose this right being extended to women, yet wish to see it maintained in perhaps every other conceivable instance. That strikes me as highly gendered - in fact I would suggest that it is extremely gendered and revolves entirely around perceptions of the role of women in society as maternal figures.

Again, bodily autonomy is frequently violated in numerous instances that even most people on this forum don't disagree with. Bodily autonomy is also, of course, overridden for illegitimate reasons, but that's beside the point.

Again, the founding principle of the Pro-life movement is not that women should have less bodily autonomy, but that the fundamental component of what makes us human is a magical essence, which is present at conception.

[Tenka]

Pro-human life. A foetus functions as a parasite in the body until it has developed and left the womb. I also think we need a better way of doing this--of reproducing... but that's beyond the scope of this thread.

P.S. I love semicolons and it pains me to see them employed in a stilted manner by NGNM since the beginning of time. Finally someone spoke up!

[Zostrianos]

Choice always. That being said, people should have the common sense of using protection if they don't want to have kids, rather than taking a chance and then aborting as a solution. Those cases might be rare, but they happen. I know a guy who got a girl pregnant because he decided to toss his condom out in the middle of the action (he said it killed the feeling), and he assumed the woman was on the pill. She wasn't. They decided to abort a month later. I think he learned his lesson though, he seemed devastated when it first happened.

I know I've posted this before, but it's especially relevant. George Carlin sums up everything you need to know about the "pro-life" movement:
AvF1Q3UidWM

[X5N]

I fully support abortion rights. And I think that societal attitudes towards foetuses should be changed so that the decision of whether or not to abort an unwanted one isn't a big deal at all.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Pro-human life. A foetus functions as a parasite in the body until it has developed and left the womb.

;Could we drop this aspect of the argument, at least when tackling non lefties (i understand it is not the case here, but i have often seen it);

; In making the debate about the status of the foetus as alive, or merely parasitic, we end up arguing the toss over something unimportant. ;;

Assume all babies are alive, and a week overdue, and would survive independent of the mother, and then argue for abortion; this is what we mean by complete determination.

;I understand that you did specify that the baby had left the womb, but I just know the sort of wiggle room the 'up to a point' liberals find around this. They choose s point of viability, and then women are duty ;bound. I understand that a baby can be considered parasitic, but it csn be an inflammatory term;

As a slight side, what do people feel about the unborn, 9 month down the line 'parasite' of a would; be; mother who died prior to child birth? To birth, or not to birth?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Restricting access to abortion is, of course, a violation of the bodily autonomy of women and transmen - in fact, it is nothing less than violence (usually state violence) against such groups. That said, I am not sure how useful it is to take bodily autonomy as some overriding ethical principle and then try to construct an ethical argument "for" abortion (the notion that abortion needs to be argued for is, I think, in itself conservative). Obviously a comprehensive bodily autonomy is important in a communist society, but ethical arguments tend to be inconclusive, disputable, and unpersuasive.

And, to paraphrase Debs, if scholastic argument could lead people to communism, it could lead them away from communism as well. I think what is important is that it is in the best interest of women (and transmen, but in this case the oppression of transmen is a reflection of the oppression of women) to be able to abort, at will, at any point, free of charge, free of harassment and shaming (and there have been attempts at shaming in this very thread!), and given that more than half of the proletariat is composed of women and transmen, that is what communists should fight for. So we can dispense with moral arguments (which are thoroughly anti-materialist in any case).

[Hegemonicretribution]

And, to paraphrase Debs, if scholastic argument could lead people to communism, it could lead them away from communism as well.

You raise an excellent point. I do, however, have to defend scholastic argument up to a point; scholastic argument can be used to bring people to and from the left, but an absence of scholastic argument on the left would drive away more and attract fewer.

Whilst we all end up holding views which we take as self evident, there are those who will arrive at them through deliberation. As stated earlier, the religious right can be written off, but there are those during formative periods who benefit from discussion and argument over assertion.

Different strokes for different folks. We need an array of approaches to each issue. It is great that we are united in opposition to the 'pro-life' camp, but those who might actually be convinced otherwise need more than this.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

You raise an excellent point. I do, however, have to defend scholastic argument up to a point; scholastic argument can be used to bring people to and from the left, but an absence of scholastic argument on the left would drive away more and attract fewer.

Whilst we all end up holding views which we take as self evident, there are those who will arrive at them through deliberation. As stated earlier, the religious right can be written off, but there are those during formative periods who benefit from discussion and argument over assertion.

Different strokes for different folks. We need an array of approaches to each issue. It is great that we are united in opposition to the 'pro-life' camp, but those who might actually be convinced otherwise need more than this.

I don't think certain basic political commitment such as an opposition to misogyny can be called "self-evident" - in fact I don't think these statements can be evident or not. They do not express facts about the world, but are a reflection of the material circumstances of certain social groups (women and transmen in this case). The compatibility of these commitments with the communist project, and indeed their indispensability, is again not secured by an argument but by the material fact that the oppression of women and the oppression of the proletariat are linked. If per impossibile the oppression of the bourgeoisie and the oppression of women were linked in the same manner, sexism would be indispensable to the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Hence my point about arguments "leading people away from socialism" - my point was that arguments are a very insecure basis for socialism. There is a much stronger basis - class consciousness, the recognition of the material basis of the oppression of the proletariat, and the recognition of the material basis of the special oppression of women, trans people, queer people, national minorities, special colour-castes etc. etc. The only people that can be drawn to socialism only through abstract argument are the middle strata and the bourgeoisie, provided that they're cis* straight men of the dominant race and nationality - a minority of the population, and the most unreliable (because they are not tied by bounds of material interest) part of the communist movement.

And ethical arguments are pretty much pointless. People can talk, and introduce axioms, and make claims about intuitions, and whatnot, as they please. When it comes to claims about the natural world, people that make stupid claims and act on them are rudely corrected. But when it comes to morality, people can act as they please, following whatever morality they want to, and provided they are not caught, nothing will happen to them. Besides, the notion that some aspect of the universe proscribes norms to humans is blatantly un-materialist.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Restricting access to abortion is, of course, a violation of the bodily autonomy of women and transmen - in fact, it is nothing less than violence (usually state violence) against such groups. That said, I am not sure how useful it is to take bodily autonomy as some overriding ethical principle and then try to construct an ethical argument "for" abortion (the notion that abortion needs to be argued for is, I think, in itself conservative). Obviously a comprehensive bodily autonomy is important in a communist society, but ethical arguments tend to be inconclusive, disputable, and unpersuasive.

And, to paraphrase Debs, if scholastic argument could lead people to communism, it could lead them away from communism as well. I think what is important is that it is in the best interest of women (and transmen, but in this case the oppression of transmen is a reflection of the oppression of women) to be able to abort, at will, at any point, free of charge, free of harassment and shaming (and there have been attempts at shaming in this very thread!), and given that more than half of the proletariat is composed of women and transmen, that is what communists should fight for. So we can dispense with moral arguments (which are thoroughly anti-materialist in any case).

Doesn't your argument presuppose certain moral or ethical commitments however? This is evidenced by the fact that you say Communists "should" fight for something. Ethics, defined broadly, includes the philosophy of what people should and should not do, whether or not we attach any intrinsic moral value to that "ought". To say Communists should not stand for shaming people who have abortions is to accept a certain ethical standpoint against shaming. Perhaps its an attempt at a very "materialistic" ethics but it is still ethics.

Also morality =/= ethics

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Doesn't your argument presuppose certain moral or ethical commitments however? This is evidenced by the fact that you say Communists "should" fight for something. Ethics, defined broadly, is the philosophy of what people should and should not do, whether or not we attach any intrinsic moral value to that. To say Communists should not stand for shaming people who have abortions is to accept a certain ethical standpoint against shaming. Perhaps its an attempt at a very "materialistic" ethics but it is still ethics.

"Should" is a peculiar word, as I am sure you are aware. It can be used to invoke certain alleged timeless, supraclass moral norms - or it can be simply used to describe expected behaviour in groups, milieus etc. etc. People should not eat meat with salad forks - this does not mean that there are supernatural strictures against such behaviour, but that it is not expected (in certain regions). Likewise, my statement was not equivalent to a claim that shaming is immoral because of some timeless, suprasocial... something - it's just that this is the sort of behaviour that is not expected from a committed communist, and in fact goes against the main communist goal.

[Rafiq]

Lets be realistic, this isn't simply about bodily autonomy. With regards to abortion, the struggle is not about free choice. It is about the regulation of female sexuality, reactionaries cower at the sight of women being able to freely engage in sexual intercourse without having to deal with one of the greatest "consequences". All those "pro life" liberals who prattle about the fetus and so on are simply idiots.

This is an issue of women's emancipation, not free choice.

If you think I'm wrong, notice how conservatives don't care about thinks like infant mortality rates and combating them. It's not even a case of moralist conservatives who over value life, it's about moralist reactionaries threatened by female sexual emancipation.

[The Feral Underclass]

What is bodily autonomy if not emancipation? I would say they are essentially the same thing.

Also, let's be careful not to reinforce gender binaries. There are men who have wombs too, just as their are women who don't have wombs.

[Rafiq]

Are we reinforcing gender binaries when we speak of patriarchy? Men have strived to control sexual relations because of reproduction, to pass property to an heir, since the beginning of class society. It is delusional to deny this. I can recognize that gender identity is not necessarily biological but to deny biological sex and it's long historical relation to what we call gender (which brings us to patriarchy) is essentially anti feminist.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Rafiq - you accurately describe pro-life groups in the US by saying that they don't care about infant mortality. This is one of the huge ironies about rightwing protestantism in the USA. However, some pro-life groups include factions which are really concerned about infant mortality. Many pro-life priests in Latin America are also liberation theologians and in some places the church is one of the few people providing medical care. What you describe seems to be a consequence of the protestant liberal ideology prevalent in the USA than people who are "pro life" in general.

I did always find it interesting how so many rightwingers in the USA freak out over abortion but are absolutely fine with the baby starving or dying of poor medical care not long after birth.


"Should" is a peculiar word, as I am sure you are aware. It can be used to invoke certain alleged timeless, supraclass moral norms - or it can be simply used to describe expected behaviour in groups, milieus etc. etc. People should not eat meat with salad forks - this does not mean that there are supernatural strictures against such behaviour, but that it is not expected (in certain regions). Likewise, my statement was not equivalent to a claim that shaming is immoral because of some timeless, suprasocial... something - it's just that this is the sort of behaviour that is not expected from a committed communist, and in fact goes against the main communist goal.

OK, that's a fair point. I would argue though that you are avoiding an ethical system based on moral absolutes and are replacing it with a more "socially aware" normative ethical position. In a way, that's what I think people here mean to be arguing for - an ethics which actually empowers people to realize the material interests of each person in the community without reinforcing distinctions of class, race, gender etc. People are just articulating it in different ways (such as "bodily autonomy" and so on)

[The Feral Underclass]

Are we reinforcing gender binaries when we speak of patriarchy? Men have strived to control sexual relations because of reproduction, to pass property to an heir, since the beginning of class society. It is delusional to deny this. I can recognize that gender identity is not necessarily biological but to deny biological sex and it's long historical relation to what we call gender (which brings us to patriarchy) is essentially anti feminist.


Your post implies that there is somehow a choice that has to be made between fighting patriarchy and fighting gender oppression. These things intersect and it is necessary to struggle against both simultaneously.

Recognising that patriarchy is historically oppressive towards cis-women doesn't mean we can't recognise that some men have wombs and some women don't. Patriarchy is also a structure of oppression that is experienced by transwomen, not just cis-women.

[Rafiq]

Your post implies that there is somehow a choice that has to be made between fighting patriarchy and fighting gender oppression. These things intersect and it is necessary to struggle against both simultaneously.

Recognising that patriarchy is historically oppressive towards cis-women doesn't mean we can't recognise that some men have wombs and some women don't. Patriarchy is also a structure of oppression that is experienced by transwomen, not just cis-women.

I never denyed this, however, you claimed to be careful regarding gender because of the fact that some women don't have wombs, and I am simply stating that the origins of patriarchy and the existence of what we call a "women" (as a gender) is a result of the biological capability to reproduce, therefore, recognizing that men strive to control women's sexuality because of their capability to reproduce (let's say, at the dawn of class society) can recognize that some women don't have wombs, it just touches on the origins of said oppression and it's modern impact.

[The Feral Underclass]

I never denyed this, however, you claimed to be careful regarding gender because of the fact that some women don't have wombs, and I am simply stating that the origins of patriarchy and the existence of what we call a "women" (as a gender) is a result of the biological capability to reproduce, therefore, recognizing that men strive to control women's sexuality because of their capability to reproduce (let's say, at the dawn of class society) can recognize that some women don't have wombs, it just touches on the origins of said oppression and it's modern impact.

Okay.

[Desy]

Are you seriously suggesting that Radicals don't have a dog in that fight? (?!!) Are you truly so blind as to not see how a lack of reproductive freedom weakens workers? I think there's plenty of fodder for debate, here, in the realm of philosophy, and tactics, and such, here, but I would hope that the aforementioned truism is so obvious as to just be universally understood.

What? When did I say anything like that? The pro-life pro-choice is a liberal debate of morality for life or human reproductive rights. Brutus, from page one, hit it right on..

How is this at all philosophy and/or tactics for the workers' means of production? Is, not fighting, for a 11 dollar minimum wage weakening the workers? Fuck no, I don't want to compramise with any bourgeios politics; it be pro life, minimum wage or any stupid debate that's on FOX NEWS or any pro cap news station.

[DasFapital]

Back in the early 1970s the Southern Baptist Convention supported abortion rights while Enver Hoxha's atheist Albania shamed and imprisoned women for having abortions. Amazing how shit can change so quickly.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

OK, that's a fair point. I would argue though that you are avoiding an ethical system based on moral absolutes and are replacing it with a more "socially aware" normative ethical position. In a way, that's what I think people here mean to be arguing for - an ethics which actually empowers people to realize the material interests of each person in the community without reinforcing distinctions of class, race, gender etc. People are just articulating it in different ways (such as "bodily autonomy" and so on)

I don't think that's a good paraphrase of my point. As per my previous post, I think any sort of normative ethics (that is, any metaethical claim except noncognitivism) is incompatible with materialism. I do advocate certain behavioural expectations within the communist movement, and the proletarian state, but I don't think these are true in the sense that factual statements are true. And I think distinctions of class, gender, sexuality etc. are rather important! Certainly communists should not care about the material interest of the bourgeoisie.

[Quail]

Second, pregnancy is not exclusively a woman's issue, although, admittedly, it primarily affects women. For one thing, to suggest otherwise is to define women as childbearers, the thing you supposedly oppose. Furthermore, while transmen make up a significantly smaller proportion of the population, they are just as capable of bearing children as women are. Finally; were it somehow to occur, through some mad scientist experiment, that a cisgendered man were to become pregnant
I'm sure you would agree that he would have the same reproductive rights as women, and transmen. So, you see, gender is really a red herring.
The issue here, as I said before, is bodily autonomy.

But this isn't actually a material reality. At present, cis men can't get pregnant and it's extremely unlikely that they will be able to become pregnant, so they will never have to worry about dealing with an unplanned pregnancy when they aren't in a situation to have children (whether by choice or otherwise). When abortion is restricted, bodily autonomy is being denied overwhelmingly to women, who have historically been cast in the role of childbearer and nurturer. To accept that restriction on abortion doesn't affect cis men doesn't define women by their ability to bear children. It reflects reality.

[Ismail]

Back in the early 1970s the Southern Baptist Convention supported abortion rights while Enver Hoxha's atheist Albania shamed and imprisoned women for having abortions. Amazing how shit can change so quickly.When the USSR and the rest of the Eastern Bloc legalized abortions in 1955, Albania stood alone. :D

But you weren't "shamed" for having an abortion, there were committees of doctors who could grant permission for them, and there were also contraceptives, it's just that both were almost never taken into account because the state provided quite generously for mothers, which is what was considered the most important criteria at the time.

Just like during the 30's in the USSR, public debates about abortion had no "moral" arguments to them. It was a question of the mother being able to support families or not. Abortion was legalized when the Bolsheviks took power, as Krupskaya wrote at the time, because Tsarist anti-abortion legislation only succeeded in harming mothers. The Bolshevik decree actually called abortion an "evil" that would cease to exist under socialism.

Of course nowadays we'd consider abortion more of a fundamental right for women to have, but back then it was a bit more utilitarian. And medical consensus in the world when Lenin and Stalin were alive was that abortions had a high chance of being physically harmful. The Webbs, who visited the USSR when abortion was legal, did note how doctors stressed lasting physicals effects to their patients at the time, asking if they were sure they wanted to go through with the procedure, etc. Had nothing to do with "morals."

[Ace High]

EVERYONE. This is a philosophical test which will determine your moral stance on abortion based on your response to these questions. I find it very thorough and helpful, especially because it points out contradictions in beliefs regarding abortion.

http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/whosebody/Default.aspx

[TooManyQuestions]

It is wrong to boil these issues down to a binary either or position. It comes down to "should abortion be legal, and if so, under what circumstances?" If asked, I would never advise a woman to seek an abortion. But that is a far cry from saying that it should be punished by state violence. My beliefs should never be forced on another person. It is her choice to make, not mine.

When does "life" begin? At what point does a fetus become a baby, and therefore have rights as a separate human being? I have no clue. You can't say that the day before a baby is born it has no rights, and the next day it does suddenly, simply because the umbilical cord is no long there. At the same time, there is no way that a clump of cells is a person.

What's this I read about people getting banned for being anti-choice? That's bullshit? Is there a fear of debate on this issue? Any idea that has to be protected by force is a false idea. Surely a person can disagree on one issue without being ostracized?

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

Back in the early 1970s the Southern Baptist Convention supported abortion rights while Enver Hoxha's atheist Albania shamed and imprisoned women for having abortions. Amazing how shit can change so quickly.


You really would be surprised just how much the abortion debate completely upended the traditional political rivalries of the day.


Take for example, the late Barry Goldwater. Goldwater was a Republican from Arizona who was known for his staunchly libertarian views on things like Social Security and the Civil Rights Amendment (even though he wasn't racist). He ran for President on the Republican ticket against Lyndon Johnson (and lost, obviously). This was the man called "Mr. Conservative" in the 1960s.

Now read this:
“Today’s so-called ‘conservatives’ don’t even know what the word means. They think I’ve turned liberal because I believe a woman has a right to an abortion. That’s a decision that’s up to the pregnant woman, not up to the pope or some do-gooders or the Religious Right. It’s not a conservative issue at all.”


Yep, that's the exact same Barry Goldwater in the 90s, basically telling the religious right to kiss his ass.

He was saying the same thing in the 70s, when abortion was finally made legal in all 50 states.



And yes, as you pointed out, the SBC did indeed support the liberalization of abortion laws since at least the 1960s. The SBC was actually a much more moderate organization back then.

Hell, even the Catholic Church weren't that concerned about it until 1975...now there opposition to abortion rights pretty much defines them!

[Quail]

It is wrong to boil these issues down to a binary either or position. It comes down to "should abortion be legal, and if so, under what circumstances?" If asked, I would never advise a woman to seek an abortion. But that is a far cry from saying that it should be punished by state violence. My beliefs should never be forced on another person. It is her choice to make, not mine.

Either you think that pregnant women deserve autonomy over their bodies, or you don't. If you think that pregnant women should only have bodily autonomy in certain situations, then you don't really think that they should have bodily autonomy because you would be forcing your beliefs upon them.


When does "life" begin? At what point does a fetus become a baby, and therefore have rights as a separate human being? I have no clue. You can't say that the day before a baby is born it has no rights, and the next day it does suddenly, simply because the umbilical cord is no long there. At the same time, there is no way that a clump of cells is a person.

You're framing the debate from the perspective of the fetus, when really the person who is living and keeping the fetus alive with their body should be the one who is prioritised. If the fetus doesn't get its nutrients from the woman's body, then it will never become a person; the woman is already a person.


What's this I read about people getting banned for being anti-choice? That's bullshit? Is there a fear of debate on this issue? Any idea that has to be protected by force is a false idea. Surely a person can disagree on one issue without being ostracized?
People are restricted for anti-choice beliefs because they are anti-woman and reactionary. If you don't believe that pregnant women deserve autonomy over their bodies then you don't believe in the emancipation of all human beings.

[TooManyQuestions]

I believe that women have the right to control their own reproduction. However, like any human right, there comes to be a point where it could run contrary to another's rights. A person has the right to own a gun, not use it on someone who "looks suspicious."

I am pro-choice as a matter of law, but in a debate about ethics I can see where there is more than a simply this or that statement. If it is murder to kill a day old baby outside the womb, then is it murder to kill a baby the day before the due date? Is there a magic 24 hours that suddenly the fetus becomes a human being? An absolutist position on this debate is insane, just as it is insane to call a fertilized egg a person. I do not know when a person becomes a person, its not at conception and its not at birth. Both positions are doctrine and unthinking.

At the end of the day, people should be able to think and say what they want, regardless of what label someone else places on it. Any other policy is thought-police bullshit. If someone is certain of the strength of a position, then that person should not fear debate. Debate is feared by people who are unsure of their position.

And really, if there is a revolution, won't debates over abortion be irrelevant? Universal access to healthcare and education would make it possible for almost every woman to control her reproductive life without any need for the procedure. No birth control is perfect, and abortion would still exist, but it might become medically outmoded as a means of birth control.

[Quail]

I believe that women have the right to control their own reproduction. However, like any human right, there comes to be a point where it could run contrary to another's rights. A person has the right to own a gun, not use it on someone who "looks suspicious."

In that case, you're no longer discussing "the right to own a gun" but the right to fucking murder someone.


I am pro-choice as a matter of law, but in a debate about ethics I can see where there is more than a simply this or that statement. If it is murder to kill a day old baby outside the womb, then is it murder to kill a baby the day before the due date? Is there a magic 24 hours that suddenly the fetus becomes a human being? An absolutist position on this debate is insane, just as it is insane to call a fertilized egg a person. I do not know when a person becomes a person, its not at conception and its not at birth. Both positions are doctrine and unthinking.

To be honest, this is pretty much irrelevant given the number of late term abortions that actually happen and the reasons that those happen. In practice, if women had good access to contraception, education and abortion then late term abortions would very rarely happen, especially not a day before someone gave birth.

However, to argue that at some point a woman has to carry the fetus to term is to argue that at that point, the rights of the fetus outweigh the rights of the woman whose body is keeping it alive.


At the end of the day, people should be able to think and say what they want, regardless of what label someone else places on it. Any other policy is thought-police bullshit. If someone is certain of the strength of a position, then that person should not fear debate. Debate is feared by people who are unsure of their position.

We don't fear debate. It should be obvious why we want to restrict threads about things that communists universally accept (such as the need for free access to abortion) to OI.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I believe that women have the right to control their own reproduction. However, like any human right, there comes to be a point where it could run contrary to another's rights. A person has the right to own a gun, not use it on someone who "looks suspicious."

Again, focusing on "rights" obscures the central issue of restrictions on abortion as part of the systematic violence against women.


I am pro-choice as a matter of law, but in a debate about ethics I can see where there is more than a simply this or that statement. If it is murder to kill a day old baby outside the womb, then is it murder to kill a baby the day before the due date? Is there a magic 24 hours that suddenly the fetus becomes a human being?

Human being or not, as long as the fetus is inside the woman, or the transman, it's theirs to dispose of as they see fit.


And really, if there is a revolution, won't debates over abortion be irrelevant? Universal access to healthcare and education would make it possible for almost every woman to control her reproductive life without any need for the procedure. No birth control is perfect, and abortion would still exist, but it might become medically outmoded as a means of birth control.

But you're still treating abortion as some sort of horrible sin or mistake. Why should that be so? I imagine that, in the communist society, people might react to changed circumstances with abortion - and I expect other people will have learned to not make a drama out of it. What business of yours is it anyway, if women and transmen abort or not?

[The Feral Underclass]

There are no such things as "rights."

[danyboy27]

I am pro choice, a woman should have the right to decide what to do with her own body.

I always find it amusing that the folks who talk about the free market all of the time want to go to great lenght to legislate on the lives of folks who arnt even born yet.

[Klaatu]

I always find it amusing that the folks who talk about the free market all of the time want to go to great lenght to legislate on the lives of folks who arnt even born yet.

That's an interesting point: one would think that conservatives and libertarians advocating for freedom and a free-market would advocate for freedom of choice (pro-choice) as well. But they don't. Go figure :confused:

[Popular Front of Judea]

Wasn't always so. Blame Murray Rothbard with his embrace of "right-wing populism" starting in the late 80s.

This will embarrass some 'libertarians' out there:

We further support the repeal of all laws restricting voluntary birth control or voluntary termination of pregnancies during their first hundred days.
(Emphasis added.)

That's from the 1972 Libertarian party platform.


That's an interesting point: one would think that conservatives and libertarians advocating for freedom and a free-market would advocate for freedom of choice (pro-choice) as well. But they don't. Go figure :confused:

[Ismail]

Well the argument conservatives make (conservative libertarians or otherwise) is that abortion is an act of murder, and even the staunchest libertarians will say that preventing murder is one of the few things the state and its institutions should concern themselves with.

[TooManyQuestions]

Dogmatic positions on any subject are stupid. Thought has to enter the equation somewhere.

Never did I say that I am anti-choice. I simply recognize that not every anti-abortion position is held out of religious ideology or an attempt to control women. At some point, a fetus becomes a child, an equal human being. I don't know when this is, and its not my decision to make. The severing of an umbilical cord is not a magical event that somehow creates personhood. Neither is a sperm entering an egg. To say that situational ethics cannot apply is foolish. Whether or not late term abortions actually happen or not is irrelevant to the discussion.

If it is ethical for a woman to abort a baby the day before it is due, then it follows that she is justified having a retro-active abortion 24 hrs later. If a fertilized egg is a person, why not an unfertilized egg? Or a skin cell? Both extremes highlight the ridiculousness of an all or nothing approach to ethics.

A woman has the right to control her own body, just as anyone else does. That does not mean that discussing the situational ethics is somehow bad.

I don't think abortion is my business, nor should it be against the law. Someone asked and I gave an opinion. I believe there are better forms of birth control than a late-tem surgical abortion. Not that it matters what I think, because I can't get pregnant. In any case, my opinion should never be the basis of a law that the state enforces through violence.

I don't think drugs should be illegal, that doesn't mean I think heroin is a great idea. Any surgery has risks, shooting H has risks. Its not my business to stop other people from controlling their bodies.

As for mods banning people for not parroting the party line, that can only lead to stifled debate, which means that all ideas are not present to be evaluated on their own merits. Which means you aren't discussing anything at all.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Never did I say that I am anti-choice. I simply recognize that not every anti-abortion position is held out of religious ideology or an attempt to control women.

Perhaps, but objectively, restrictions on abortion - including "merely" informal restrictions - are part of the violence against women committed by bourgeois society.


At some point, a fetus becomes a child, an equal human being. I don't know when this is, and its not my decision to make. The severing of an umbilical cord is not a magical event that somehow creates personhood. Neither is a sperm entering an egg. To say that situational ethics cannot apply is foolish. Whether or not late term abortions actually happen or not is irrelevant to the discussion.

And what makes you think personality is formed in utero? It seems to me that infants become persons in the first few years outside the womb. It doesn't matter in any case.


If it is ethical for a woman to abort a baby the day before it is due, then it follows that she is justified having a retro-active abortion 24 hrs later.

Except that an infant is not inside the body of a mother, and isn't causing her physical harm and so on and so on.


A woman has the right to control her own body, just as anyone else does. That does not mean that discussing the situational ethics is somehow bad.

It reinforces the notion that abortion is problematic, just like various debates on the "morality" of homosexuality reinforce the notion that homosexuality is problematic. Both notions are the ideological reflections of bourgeois violence against, respectively, women and queer people.

[NeonTrotski]

Is it bigoted to say how awful the Catholic church has been on this matter of women's reproductive rights.
Not only anti choice but they have intervened in the free distribution birth control in Africa probably causing many more abortions.
I don't want to wildly offend but aren't most prominent religions pretty horrific on womens rights?
It would seem that only religious people are anti abortion, anti gay, anti birth control. Even politicians that are anti choice frame it in a religious argument.
I've never heard a non religious opposition to abortion. Are there any
Id like to see a poll that also identified a pollers religious views.
Ive never met an anti choice atheist ever. Or even an agnostic one.
Ive been hearing a lot of Catholic activists on the news lately, trying to reform the church.
Should we support women in Catholicism trying to make the church less oppressive. ?
Seems like a female pope would still be a pope.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Fucking internet deleted my original response to you Semendyaev, so this will be short, not out of irritation at you but at the internet. If it was a person I'd say it acted immorally :rolleyes:


I don't think that's a good paraphrase of my point. As per my previous post, I think any sort of normative ethics (that is, any metaethical claim except noncognitivism) is incompatible with materialism. I do advocate certain behavioural expectations within the communist movement, and the proletarian state, but I don't think these are true in the sense that factual statements are true.

In what sense is it true then? What motivates a person to follow these behavioral expectations? Why would the proletariat not just elect to exploit some smaller minority of people chosen arbitrarily, if not for some general belief in the equality of man etc? Hume saw people's moral sentiments and desire to live in a society with stable norms as useful even if he did not see our ability to prove the metaphysical existence of these categories. He saw them as psychologically compelling even if they are metaphysically dubious. In this sense that position seems reasonable. However that doesn't seem to be what you're arguing either.


And I think distinctions of class, gender, sexuality etc. are rather important! Certainly communists should not care about the material interest of the bourgeoisie.You misunderstood me. I agree that distinctions of class, gender and sexuality are important for organizing in a class based society. However, the main distinction between a Capitalist society and a Communist society is that a Communist society does not consist of distinct, antagonistic classes, meaning that there is no bourgeoisie or proletariat to have particular class interests, but a general community with common interests. That is what I meant.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Ive never met an anti choice atheist ever. Or even an agnostic one.

Unfortunately, such people exist, and were at one point predominant in the communist movement. Stalin and Hoxha have already been mentioned, but to be honest, Trotsky also had an ambiguous attitude to abortion (he condemned the illegalisation of the procedure, but his statements sometimes verge on shaming), and Pablo could get away with spouting nonsense about how abortion "harms women morally" (whatever that means) as late as the seventies. Of course, a lot of these attitudes are informed by bourgeois ideology, of which religious ideology is part, but my point was that atheism is not a safeguard against bigotry.


Ive been hearing a lot of Catholic activists on the news lately, trying to reform the church.
Should we support women in Catholicism trying to make the church less oppressive. ?

Catholic doctrine is a particularly ossified form of bourgeois ideology, drawing on numerous feudal ideological forms - Catholicism can only be pro-woman, pro-queer etc. on the pain of inconsistency, and expecting it to be reformed is like expecting the British Labour Party to become a new Bolshevik revolutionary party. And why would we want that? The development of a mass revolutionary party would draw the proletariat away from religion in any case.


In what sense is it true then?

Alright, so, two statements need to be distinguished here:

(A) "Support abortion rights!", and
(B) "Support for abortion rights is compatible with the communist project and refusing to support abortion rights is not."

(B) is obviously a factual statement, justified by an analysis of the material conditions of the proletariat, particularly the role of patriarchy in maintaining capitalist relations of production, etc. etc. But I don't think (A) is true in any sense. It simply doesn't seem to be the sort of object that can be called true or not. It's a command, a certain expression of social norms in one particular social setting.


What motivates a person to follow these behavioral expectations?

Their material interests, as members of the proletariat and of the specially oppressed groups. A cis* straight male of the dominant race, ethnicity and religion that participates in the ownership of the means of production really has no reason to accept them. This, I think, is the chief difference between moral approaches and the approach I have outlined here - people who think that abortion is moral or immoral think that this is some sort of timeless truth and that all people should be convinced of that truth. But to me it seems that there are no timeless norms, simply two warring classes (and their allied groups), each with norms that express their material interest, and that this conflict will be resolved not by argument, but by one class overthrowing the other.


Why would the proletariat not just elect to exploit some smaller minority of people chosen arbitrarily, if not for some general belief in the equality of man etc?

Well, why would it not? Obviously the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat is a period of the suppression of the bourgeoisie, and given the circumstances, most of the peasant strata might end up exploited by the proletarian state, as in Military Communism.

[Hegemonicretribution]

I don't think certain basic political commitment such as an opposition to misogyny can be called "self-evident" - in fact I don't think these statements can be evident or not. They do not express facts about the world, but are a reflection of the material circumstances of certain social groups (women and transmen in this case). The compatibility of these commitments with the communist project, and indeed their indispensability, is again not secured by an argument but by the material fact that the oppression of women and the oppression of the proletariat are linked. If per impossibile the oppression of the bourgeoisie and the oppression of women were linked in the same manner, sexism would be indispensable to the dictatorship of the proletariat. Okay, I will concede that self evident is a weaker phrase than 'born out of material conditions', however, my attempt was express a similar sentiment to yours; that for the most part arguments are not the basis (certainly in isolation) for stances. I do not accept, however, that they do not play a role. Opposition is created through class antagonisms, but viability has to play a role as well. Viability is there, but it has to be arrived at somehow. Discussion can help present a valid alternative, or at least successfully mitigate some of the less favourable parts of an issue. Yes restriction to abortion oppresses women, but those who still see carrying a baby to term as the lesser of two evils might still be reached.



Hence my point about arguments "leading people away from socialism" - my point was that arguments are a very insecure basis for socialism.
Yes, I agree, it cannot be a purely intellectual exercise. You can change your pet theory much easier than you can overrule the sum of your experiences and resentments, of your desires and aims.

My point was never for pure intellectualism, but that an intellectual aspect can give a degree of validity when an absence of one would be troubling. It is one thing not to need an argument, and another entirely not to have one.



There is a much stronger basis - class consciousness, the recognition of the material basis of the oppression of the proletariat, and the recognition of the material basis of the special oppression of women, trans people, queer people, national minorities, special colour-castes etc. etc.Yes this is a stronger basis. It is not necessarily of much comfort though, to a non-theistic pregnant teen suffering from a Christian moralistic hangover about the 'life' growing inside of her. I will not pretend that clever rephrasing of the debate, or talk about the unreasonability of foetal demands will offer much comfort either, but if it has even limited impact then it is worth while.

Talk is cheap, it doesn't mean that it is a waste of time.


The only people that can be drawn to socialism only through abstract argument are the middle strata and the bourgeoisie, provided that they're cis* straight men of the dominant race and nationality - a minority of the population, and the most unreliable (because they are not tied by bounds of material interest) part of the communist movement.
This bit I do reject. Yes you may have described those with weaker ties, but there are others who are won over with arguments as well. The opposition cannot be born out of argument alone, but the decision that socialist responses are the correct ones can be.

Rallies, speeches, pamphlets, books; all designed to focus the approach of a disenfranchised group. Being pissed off at your boss, harassed by the police, and ostracised for one's sexual preference does not a commie make. The seed is not intellectual, but part of the growth is. Anyone who comes to the left must first overcome certain prejudices against it that have been drilled into them. Again, this involves being able to suggest viability, and mitigate the less favourable.


Besides, the notion that some aspect of the universe proscribes norms to humans is blatantly un-materialist.
Yes you are correct. It is also un-materialistic to deny the grip that moral language, and wider morality has on the populace. There are a large number of people who may have to make a decision on abortion who have had limited access to certain experiences that would shape their class consciousness. With regards to abortion, there are a lot of girls in school that fall pregnant and may have to make that choice. Material reality has a huge impact here, but unfortunately, so does a lot of moral language. They may well of had an 'education' about abortion.

Again I must emphasize that I am making a fairly weak (in the philosophical sense) point. I am not suggesting that the revolution will be brought about by the trading of axioms, and a collection of thought experiments. I am saying that an intellectual aspect should exist, may have a limited impact in itself, can help dispel certain objections, and can prove highly valuable in certain areas. In a classroom where a 'discussion' about abortion is taking place is one of them.

Incidentally where I live abortion is effectively illegal. I know this having paid for a private one in the UK recently enough to have had to wade through the possibilities of payday lenders, skipping rent and food, or facing up to the responsibility of a highly unplanned parenthood. The woman already had a son, and there would have been a lot of social stigma. She could not afford the journey and procedure, and so I had around a month to find more than a months wages.

The point of this little anecdote? Yes material conditions have had a much more profound effect on my pro choice stance than any argument or theory could do. However, if either of us had certain moral hangups this could not have happened. The position both of us held with regards to abortion before hand was in part intellectual (for me as a man likely mostly intellectual). That is right up until the point when it mattered; if it was not for an intellectual foundation, or a rejection of a certain moral position then material circumstances would probably not have changed our minds.

[3OPNCA]

Pro-choice, of course. Even if people have a problem with it - its none of their business. A woman's choice to get an abortion doesn't affect those who are against it in any logical way. And if those idiots who are pro-life so pro-life, would they really be setting bombs off in abortion clinics and thus killing dozens of innocent doctors, nurses, patients and foetuses?

[TooManyQuestions]

"Except that an infant is not inside the body of a mother, and isn't causing her physical harm and so on and so on."

So you buy the notion that an infant is a fully formed person, equal to other people, when 24 hrs earlier it was not? Simply because it is now outside the mother?

There is no logical reasoning behind this position, it is as invalid as the notion that a fertilized egg is a person. The issue of when a person becomes a person cannot be settled on an arbitrary event, fertilization and birth are both invalid as the starting point of when a human becomes human. That is not to say that abortion should be banned, it just means that as a matter of abstract philosophy, there is room to debate.

[danyboy27]

Well the argument conservatives make (conservative libertarians or otherwise) is that abortion is an act of murder, and even the staunchest libertarians will say that preventing murder is one of the few things the state and its institutions should concern themselves with.

Its still a big exercise of intellectual gymnastic if you consider that they dont have any issues with the indirect murder and exploitationj of people trought corporations.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Pro-choice, always.

[Klaatu]

My neice and her boyfriend are rigidly Catholic, and "tow the party line" on abortion. (surprised?)

He announced that ObamaCare is "forcing" them to accept birth control (false. this is only a part of
everyone's health insurance, which is a standard uniform coverage ... it does NOT "force" birth control or abortion)

Seizing the opportunity to expose the raw hypocrisy of the Church and it's minions, I replied:
"You speak of your being "forced..." Well what about your own crusade to force your anti-choice agenda?
And especially your anti-gay agenda?" No answer; just some mumblings about "gays are sinners," etc.

So the shoe is on the other foot. They complain about being "forced," yet do not consider what they are
doing is forcing.

These are not dumb people. They simply let others do their thinking for them. And that's the problem with religion
and religious indoctrination.

[Remus Bleys]

My neice and her boyfriend are rigidly Catholic, and "tow the party line" on abortion. (surprised?)

He announced that ObamaCare is "forcing" them to accept birth control (false. this is only a part of
everyone's health insurance, which is a standard uniform coverage ... it does NOT "force" birth control or abortion)

Seizing the opportunity to expose the raw hypocrisy of the Church and it's minions, I replied:
"You speak of your being "forced..." Well what about your own crusade to force your anti-choice agenda?
And especially your anti-gay agenda?" No answer; just some mumblings about "gays are sinners," etc.

So the shoe is on the other foot. They complain about being "forced," yet do not consider what they are
doing is forcing.

These are not dumb people. They simply let others do their thinking for them. And that's the problem with religion
and religious indoctrination.
Like 85% of Catholics use birth control.
Every Catholic that is against Obamacare on the grounds of birth control was probably already on it.
And the National Association of Catholic Bishops came out in support of Obamacare I think?
Anyway, tell those things to her. See the reaction.

[dodger]

Like 85% of Catholics use birth control.
Every Catholic that is against Obamacare on the grounds of birth control was probably already on it.
And the National Association of Catholic Bishops came out in support of Obamacare I think?
Anyway, tell those things to her. See the reaction.

Klaatu you and Remus make sound comment. My niece on the other hand 17yrs of age died after an illegal abortion. Back street. She died in a hospital, convinced she was heading straight for hell. None could convince her otherwise. The catholic college with their anti abortion horror movies had done their work. Her death only added to smug self satisfaction --"see we told you so." Clear as day the church must be driven from public life, if we are all to enjoy some kind of rational existence.

[Ismail]

Its still a big exercise of intellectual gymnastic if you consider that they dont have any issues with the indirect murder and exploitationj of people trought corporations.Well libertarians live in a strange world where anything bad that corporations do is attributable to the government either assisting/protecting certain unworthy corporations against innovative/non-corrupt ones or imposing regulations which supposedly prevent the market from magically stepping in to offer solutions to pollution and other issues. The historical-materialist view of the state is obviously something not shared by them.

In my experience, when a libertarian is confronted with a monopolistic corporation that obviously stifles competition from fellow capitalists they blame the government for not letting the "free market" come fully into play, and use the argument (often true, of course) that this is because said corporation strongly influences the government and vice-versa to establish a legal basis for the corporation's monopoly on certain sectors, etc.

So in the end the government's still considered the real culprit, not capitalism.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

So you buy the notion that an infant is a fully formed person, equal to other people, when 24 hrs earlier it was not? Simply because it is now outside the mother?

There is no logical reasoning behind this position, it is as invalid as the notion that a fertilized egg is a person. The issue of when a person becomes a person cannot be settled on an arbitrary event, fertilization and birth are both invalid as the starting point of when a human becomes human. That is not to say that abortion should be banned, it just means that as a matter of abstract philosophy, there is room to debate.

I explicitly stated that young infants are not persons in my previous post. But that isn't important. Even if fetuses were persons, it would not change the communist attitude to them. Good grief, it's not as if communists have something against killing persons if the circumstances require it. And without free, universal and unconstrained abortion, there can be no liberation of women. That is all that matters.

Hegemonicretribution, first of all, it seems to me that you are conflating two sorts of "viability" - an analysis of material conditions, the laws of motion of the mode of production etc., that would demonstrate how the socialist programme would be in the interest of the proletariat and the specially oppressed groups, and the sort of moral argument that some people might use to "justify" acting in their class interest. Of course the former is necessary, but the latter, it seems to me, is actively harmful. Bourgeois ideology needs to be addressed, but by exposing it as an instrument of class dictatorship, not accepting its terms. If someone is having moral hangups, the proper response would be to denounce all morality, not to engage in ridiculous verbal contests, contests that are rigged against progressive notions moreover.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Also morality =/= ethics


"Ethics, also known as moral philosophy, is a branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending and recommending concepts of right and wrong. "


"Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are "good" (or right) and those that are "bad" (or wrong)."

I see no difference here.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Hegemonicretribution, first of all, it seems to me that you are conflating two sorts of "viability" - an analysis of material conditions, the laws of motion of the mode of production etc., that would demonstrate how the socialist programme would be in the interest of the proletariat and the specially oppressed groups, and the sort of moral argument that some people might use to "justify" acting in their class interest. Of course the former is necessary, but the latter, it seems to me, is actively harmful. Bourgeois ideology needs to be addressed, but by exposing it as an instrument of class dictatorship, not accepting its terms. If someone is having moral hangups, the proper response would be to denounce all morality, not to engage in ridiculous verbal contests, contests that are rigged against progressive notions moreover.

I am not conflating them, I am accepting them as distinct, but necessary.

I agree that a developed class consciousness is preferable, I agree that morality is a limb of a decaying bourgeois ideology, and I agree that we need to move away from moralism. I disagree with the assertion that we can simply just reject it, if we are serious about moving away from it.

By not engaging with moral language to an extent then we truly do stack the odds against us, and I will explain what I mean:

1) An amoralistic class analysis and a moralistic bourgeois ideology are incommensurable.

2) The bourgeois ideology is far more rooted in present society, and far more widely accepted, no matter how much we lament this.

3) To expect people to reject wholesale a bourgeois ideology, its morality, and the supporting language in favour of a radically different position; one which is much maligned within the existing position, is optimistic. To demand this of them with no intermediary steps, is borderline delusional. I will not say that it is impossible, but I cannot conceive of it becoming a common occurrence as things stand.

What am I suggesting? Well simply a middle way (of sorts). Almost analogous to the seizing of the means of production....actually that may be a little misleading, but I feel it is an analogy I may develop (or reject) at a later time.

As I was saying before the ideologies are incommensurable, and this does necessitate replacing one with the other. The problem is finding a means by which this can be achieved. Fortunately bourgeois ideology does (if you will excuse me) contain the seeds of its own destruction. The moralistic arguments tend towards inconsistency. There is hypocrisy in application, and very little consensus. It is not hard, once you get going, to become disillusioned with morality and reject it as outmoded and ineffective. The problem is that it must be demonstrated to be inconsistent and ineffective before there would be any inclination to reject it.

I will not say that we all underwent a process of critical moral thinking before rejecting morality, but I bet most of us did. Think back to what attracted you to the left in the first place. I was disillusioned with the fact that people were starving, whilst others lived extravagant lives doing fuck all. I hated the amount of waste that we generate to keep prices artificially high. I resented the fact that access to dental care was dependent upon a parent's wealth. I hated how boys were strong and girls were weak. I didn't like the justification for bringing advertising into schools, I despised a different reality depending upon rank. As I started working I hated the unpaid overtime, the minimum wage, an inability to secure even a modest standard of living on the proceeds of a full time job.

The fact is that I believed all of these to be wrong first and foremost, and I could demonstrate this through existing moral language. Yes a better analysis was available, but it was the ineffectiveness of morality that meant I was receptive enough to consider other perspectives.

My initial exposure to elements that caused me to reject bourgeois morality were themselves considered morally first. I do not think that this is a self indulgent rant, for I bet that almost all of us follow this pattern. We don't just reject right and wrong, until we have discovered what is 'wrong' with these terms. If you stripped the left of all of those who have taken moral stances, or discovered opposition politics through injustices that they thought wrong, then it would be a very sparse group indeed.

Whilst morality has such a strangle hold, we need opposition to certain issues within this framework. At the risk of being attacked here; if dressing up my opposition to restriction of autonomy in moral language proves effective, I will do it every time. No it is not as 'good' as a class analysis, yes it may drag out the existence of morality a little while longer (although this I doubt), but if it gets results I don't care.

I am not denying stronger arguments or explanations, but there are people out there making decisions on abortion that will not be won over by a class analysis, but may just be by a moral argument.

A 16 year old school girl who has fallen pregnant might be convinced of the need to reject antiquated notions of morality in favour of a class analysis, but in the limited time available to make a decision I would settle for them determining what they actually consider to be 'best' for them where one of the options is not viewed as 'bad,' deviant,' or 'evil'. The rejection of this language can come later.

In summary:

1) Moral arguments may play a role in tackling certain issues, and in fostering an opposition to a moral framework.

2) We usually arrive at a rejection of morality via a process of moralising, or at least in the aftermath of this process.

3) Whilst morality is still the prevailing consideration of many, we would be ignorant to simply refuse to engage with it to an extent.

4) Even if dalliances with morality prolong its existence, it would be warranted if it secured results for the oppressed of the world today.

I almost forgot; I see this interaction with morality to be temporary. Once wholesale rejection of morality becomes mainstream enough to be arrived at through a more direct process, the proper response to moral arguing will be to reject it outright. At the moment the stranglehold of morality is just too strong for us not to tackle its elements as well as its structure.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Pro-choice, of course. Even if people have a problem with it - its none of their business. A woman's choice to get an abortion doesn't affect those who are against it in any logical way. And if those idiots who are pro-life so pro-life, would they really be setting bombs off in abortion clinics and thus killing dozens of innocent doctors, nurses, patients and foetuses?

Just to play devil's advocate; they would say that abortion clinics 'kill' far more people than an explosion. They would also claim that the deaths of the unborn are deaths of innocents, and those at the clinics are all complicit in murder.

Yes it is still outrageous and ridiculous, but we may as well know our enemy.

Also Semendyaev, I am enjoying this discussion tremendously, but I feel we really are veering more towards a general discussion of morality and the approach of the left, than towards a discussion just about abortion. Perhaps we should continue this in philosophy, or theory, or via PM?

[Detroz]

Well, the fetus doesn't even have a nervous system until the 4th week,it also doesn't have memory,sentiments,conscience of his own life until the 10th week;and it also only develops pain sensations on the 24th week.So, what i think is,i am Pro-choice, but people should try to abort as soon as possible, so they wont bring suffering to the being.

[Invader Zim]

There are no such things as "rights."

Certainly there is no such thing as a biological, God-given or natural 'right'. However, rights do exist as arbitrary social constructions, dictated by the gradual evolution of a society, and protected and enforced by those societies- typically through legal channels. In other words, rights exist because human societies have developed to dictate that they do.

[Crux]

Ok. Well, that's very different from what you were saying, or, rather, seemed to be saying, earlier. In any case, you're mistaken. There's plenty of sexism on the right, but the primary driver of the Pro-life movement, it's foundation, is not sexism, but religion. It's, at least, theoretically, possible to be Pro-life without being remotely sexist, however, it is logically impossible to be Pro-life and be an atheist. The core principle of the Pro-life movement is that the primary constituent of what makes us human is
a magical essence, an immortal soul, which is present at conception.
Don't you mean "at least theoretically"? In any case it you are wrong, the dressing might be religious but the underlying driving force is undoubtedly sexism. That is, the desire to control women's bodies. And you might think it is "logically impossible" for an atheist to oppose women's reproductive rights which I suppose shows what you know about logic.


Second, pregnancy is not exclusively a woman's issue, although, admittedly, it primarily affects women. For one thing, to suggest otherwise is to define women as childbearers, the thing you supposedly oppose.Clever yet not really.


Furthermore, while transmen make up a significantly smaller proportion of the population, they are just as capable of bearing children as women are.
You keep returning to this, yet it seems you do so not so much because you are passionate about transmen's right to abortion but because you seem to be uncomfortable with the abortion debate being connected with women's rights.


Finally; were it somehow to occur, through some mad scientist experiment, that a cisgendered man were to become pregnant
I'm sure you would agree that he would have the same reproductive rights as women, and transmen. So, you see, gender is really a red herring.
The issue here, as I said before, is bodily autonomy.
Ah. No it's not, at least not until your mad scientist experiment occurs with a significant portion of the male population. And we both agree this is rather doubtful. So why is it that you want to regard gender as a "red herring"?




It isn't clear to me if you are saying you believe this right should be sacrosanct, or you believe that our legal system, any legal system, recognizes it as such. As for the latter; it absolutely doesn't.
So..?
So bodily autonomy is defined through legality, atheists can't oppose abortion and sexism and gender has nothing to do with the abortion debate? And you wonder why some consider you a liberal...

[NGNM85]

Don't you mean "at least theoretically"? In any case it you are wrong, the dressing might be religious but the underlying driving force is undoubtedly sexism. That is, the desire to control women's bodies.

This is completely false. Again; the unifying belief of the Pro-life movement is that the most fundamental component of what makes us human is a magical essence, an 'immortal soul', which is present at conception. That is the core belief that unites the Pro-life movement. You don't have to take my word for it, even a cursory study will confirm that this is correct. Pro-life legislation, certainly, has the effect of dividing the working class, and disempowering workers, particularly women, and
transmen, but that's not the reason why dickheads hold signs in front of
abortion clinics, they do that because they have a religious objection to abortion. Also, incidentally, women make up about half of the Pro-life movement, in the United states. It's not exactly 50-50, but it's pretty close.


And you might think it is "logically impossible" for an atheist to oppose women's reproductive rights which I suppose shows what you know about logic.

It's logically impossible for an atheist to assign equal moral weight to a single fertilized cell, and a human being, such as you, or I. That's logically impossible because biology does not support that contention. The only way that you can argue that a fertilized cell is equivalent to a human being, that, in every way that matters, it is a human being, is to go outside biology, which is where the magical essences come in.


Clever yet not really.

I wasn't trying to be clever, I was just pointing out the incongruity between castigating people for defining women as child-bearers, and then ...defining women as child-bearers.


You keep returning to this, yet it seems you do so not so much because you are passionate about transmen's right to
abortion but because you seem to be uncomfortable with the abortion debate being connected with women's rights.

Because of the biological reality of human reproduction, obviously, this issue affects women in a more direct, and fundamental way than it affects me. Also, reproductive freedom is, certainly, an undeniable component of womens' liberation, which is a component of the broader Socialist project, which is the emancipation of the working class. All of this is true,
and I've never suggested otherwise, frankly, I think it's so painfully obvious as to go without saying. However, we're not talking about revolutionary praxis, here, we're talking about something much more fundamental. You can't logically assert, although many have, that bodily autonomy is, literally, sacrosanct, in only one particular instance,
and no other. That makes no sense. It is, or it isn't. Second; in order to make this about gender, as opposed to bodily autonomy, beyond being inconsistent, implies that we should recognize the humanity of men, and women, or transpeople differently, which isn't merely inconsistent, and bogus, but sexist and/or transphobic, as well. Human rights should
never be predicated on such arbitrary characteristics as gender, or race, etc., etc. These arbitrary factors have no place in our ethical calculus.


Ah. No it's not, at least not until your mad scientist experiment occurs with a significant portion of the male
population.

Incorrect. Numbers are irrelevent, be it one, or one thousand. If it's wrong to murder a person, it's wrong to murder a hundred people.


And we both agree this is rather doubtful.

Agreed.


So why is it that you want to regard gender as a "red herring"?

My feelings are immaterial. The point is that it is irrelevent because it is contingent upon our preexisting ideas about bodily autonomy, which, incidentally, nobody believes is literally sacrosanct, and because to assert that bodly autonomy should be contingent upon gender is not only arbitrary, but also sexist, and transphobic.


So..?So bodily autonomy is defined through legality,...

That's not what I said. 'What is?', and; 'What should be?' are two seperate, and very different, questions. The fact of the matter is that I am not aware of any government, past, or present, that recognizes, or has recognized bodily autonomy as literally sacrosanct. I don't think that's ever existed. As for my perspective, which everybody here agrees with,
is that, the government, whatever that may be, (I, personally, favor a
kind of Anarchist federation along the lines of Shalom's Parpolity model.), or, perhaps, more specifically, public health, and law enforcement administrations, have the right to override the bodily autonomy of an individual, or individuals, when not doing so poses a clear, serious, and immediate threat of harm to another individual, or individuals. Everybody, here, already believes that.


...atheists can't oppose abortion...

That's almost what I said. I said atheists can't be Pro-life. Again; this is because the most fundamental unifying belief of the Pro-life movement is that what makes us human is our immortal soul, which is present at conception. Obviously, no atheist can believe that.


...and sexism and gender has nothing to do with the abortion debate?

That's not what I said. What I said was that the ethical question, of whether it is right, or wrong, to abort, and under what circumstances, at least, from a materialist perspective, is, really, about our beliefs concerning bodily autonomy, because wherever we come down on that determines the answer to that question, and because making gender fundamental necessitates that we recognize individuals' humanity differently on the basis of gender, which is not only arbitrary, but prejudiced.


And you wonder why some consider you a liberal...

First; only one of those statements came close to reflecting opinions I actually expressed. Second; none of these three statements, (Two of which, again, I did not make.) can be described as fundamentally; 'liberal', either in the classical sense, or the modern usage, nor can any of the thosands of things I actually have said. This is meaningless, really, it's just an in-group pejorative, the RevLeft equivalent of; 'buttface', and displays about as much intelligence. This is, of course, totally beside the point. Back to the matter at hand...

[Goblin]

Pro choice here. Im not really comfortable with the idea of abortions to be honest. But i would never want someone who has gotten pregnant from rape to get reminded of their rapist everytime they look at their child. The thought of that just breaks my heart.

As people have pointed out, abortion can also save the life of a woman, which is another reason to support it.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Pro choice here. Im not really comfortable with the idea of abortions to be honest. But i would never want someone who has gotten pregnant from rape to get reminded of their rapist everytime they look at their child. The thought of that just breaks my heart.

As people have pointed out, abortion can also save the life of a woman, which is another reason to support it.

Just to clarify...pro choice is not about rape, or assumed complications. Nor is choice about the comfort of any man, or woman other than the person in question. Choice is about any person being able to determine what happens to their body, regardless of external demands placed upon them.

As in a woman gets intentionally pregnant, is nearly in labour, and then decides other wise. That some people are more comfortable with rape or complications does not make this discussion more palatable? Wait, irony? If so, in poor taste.

[Zukunftsmusik]

But i would never want someone who has gotten pregnant from rape to get reminded of their rapist everytime they look at their child. The thought of that just breaks my heart.

Though there are people who can and have lived with, and still love their child, choose to have the baby even though the possibility to abort is there etc. Not saying you didn't meant that, just pointing out that this doesn't have to be everybody's reaction.

Voted pro-choice, of course.

[papito]

I know this is the argument you hate, and I promise I am not baiting. To be clear I believe the current UK law has it about right. Aborting a 30 week foetus is not about a women controlling her body it is about her killing another body. The logical extension of some arguments here is that babies up to a certain age should be permitted to be aborted, they have an effect on the mother's body for a while after leaving it.

On a personal level I am against abortions where the conception was a consentingone. This isn't informed by a religious belief but I think people are responsible for their actions and should face the consequences.

[danyboy27]

I know this is the argument you hate, and I promise I am not baiting. To be clear I believe the current UK law has it about right. Aborting a 30 week foetus is not about a women controlling her body it is about her killing another body. The logical extension of some arguments here is that babies up to a certain age should be permitted to be aborted, they have an effect on the mother's body for a while after leaving it.

On a personal level I am against abortions where the conception was a consentingone. This isn't informed by a religious belief but I think people are responsible for their actions and should face the consequences.

Babies are persons, Foetus are not.

[NGNM85]

Babies are persons, Foetus are not.

Granted. However, niether are two-year-olds.

Also, incidentally, it really bugs me when people use the word; 'fetus' as if a fetus was a static thing, like a chair, or a microwave. The fetal stage comprises the majority of human gestation,from the 11th week, to the 40th, during which time it undergoes a dramatic transformation.

[Quail]

On a personal level I am against abortions where the conception was a consentingone. This isn't informed by a religious belief but I think people are responsible for their actions and should face the consequences.
Are you unable to get pregnant yourself, by any chance? Even if you take the greatest precautions not to get pregnant, accidents can and do happen. Medications, sickness can affect how well the pill works, condoms can split or slip off, etc. Unless you think that people should only ever have sex when they're in a perfect position to have children.

[Hegemonicretribution]

What if a partner dies? What if it was a surrogate, and the eventual parents die? What if job losses mean that a child is no longer practical?

Or in reality what if the woman changes her mind?

Yes most abortions follow mistakes, yes most are relatively early, but that does not mean we give up any ground (certainly amongst ourselves) to liberals or conservatives seeking restrictions. Abortions should be up to as point; that is the point the pregnant individual decides.

Trust me, the process of considering, deciding upon, and following through with an abortion is difficult enough. It is invasive, there is often a degree of judgement, and it can be financially very costly.

Any decisions made are tempered far more by the above, and felt far more keenly by those in question, than the unease and discomfort of those looking in.

Should someone make the decision to abort we should make things as comfortable and safe as possible. It is not the role of the left to heap more misery on women at what is likely a traumatic time.

[The Feral Underclass]

Aborting a 30 week foetus is not about a women controlling her body it is about her killing another body

But that is precisely what it is about.

I mean, to start with, it is still a foetus at 30 weeks and right up until the point it comes out of the person's vagina. The only reason you call it a "baby" is to create an emotive response.

But you agree that this foetus is inside the person, right? You accept that the foetus (or baby, whatever you want to call it) is no where else other than inside the persons body? Yes? No?

So what happens when that person decides they no longer want this thing inside their body any more? You are saying that an outside force has the right to determine that is stays inside them. That is what you are saying.

How then is this argument not about a person's ability to control their body? Either a person can control their body or they can't.

[papito]

Are you unable to get pregnant yourself, by any chance?

As it happens I am unable to get pregnant due to a chromosome problem and having a vasectomy after my third child - second with my wife. My eldest was the result of a one night stand when I was 18 - at the time I felt we should have considered a termination (at 5 week's) so I'm not whiter than white and I understand people have difficult choices to make.

However what I find abhorrent is the notion that a woman would elect to have an abortion after about 16 week's. That's 4 cycles, she should have worked out she was pregnant and made her mind up what to do. I'm not advocating restricting abortions more because it's not my place to do so.

[The Feral Underclass]

But ultimately who cares what you find abhorrent? What your personal morals are have nothing to do with the debate.

[Quail]

However what I find abhorrent is the notion that a woman would elect to have an abortion after about 16 week's. That's 4 cycles, she should have worked out she was pregnant and made her mind up what to do. I'm not advocating restricting abortions more because it's not my place to do so.
There are a variety of reasons. Some women have difficulty accessing information about abortion or have to travel to another country to access abortion because it's illegal where they live. The results of a scan may show that the fetus isn't viable. The woman may develop a condition which makes carrying the pregnancy to term too risky for comfort. The woman might feel ashamed about seeking help and put it off due to negative attitudes from society. Those are just a few off the top of my head, but I'm sure there are many more.

Edit: Also, you might not be of the view that abortion should be restricted further, but your moralising attitude is harmful to women who do seek abortion. Really, it's none of your business and not your call to make whether she should have made her mind up what to do within a given time frame.

[danyboy27]

Granted. However, niether are two-year-olds.

Also, incidentally, it really bugs me when people use the word; 'fetus' as if a fetus was a static thing, like a chair, or a microwave. The fetal stage comprises the majority of human gestation,from the 11th week, to the 40th, during which time it undergoes a dramatic transformation.

2 years old can usually breathe on their own and dosnt need to be in a woman womb to stay alive.

and from the 11th to the 40th, it still need the womb to develop itself.

[Hegemonicretribution]

However what I find abhorrent is the notion that a woman would elect to have an abortion after about 16 week's. That's 4 cycles, she should have worked out she was pregnant and made her mind up what to do. I'm not advocating restricting abortions more because it's not my place to do so.

I found myself in a position not long ago. It was over a month before the woman found out. It was more than another month before she told me. It took some time to decide what to do; there was a large degree of stigma, and people like yourself claiming that it is 'abhorrent; are part of that reason. Then I had to find the money to send her away (abortion will not be done here), and pay for a private procedure. All in all this cost over £1000. Pretty much a months wages at the time, and with no credit facility, rented accommodation, and an inability to turn to those around for support, it again took me a while to scrape together money from nothing.

16 weeks might seem like a nice goal in a perfect world. As it has been stated autonomy over one's own body extends well beyond this. Even practical time frames extend beyond this for many of us.

Every obstacle placed in the way of an abortion means that it will occur later. Obstacles include legality, cost, and social perception. You are part of that perception.

[papito]

Are you in the UK? I didn't realise that it cost money here. I wouldn't put up barriers, you're right, on the whole it just delays things.

Abhorrent was a poor choice of words - regrettable, unfortunate (dare I say) irresponsible, these would have been better.

I get the impression some people think that it's ok for someone to deliberately get pregnant and them just prior to going in to Labour 'change their mind' and abort. I'm not sure if this is a joke or I've misunderstood it.

[boiler]

I'm not sure if I'm pro life or pro choice. I think if a womans life is in danger from being pregnant the woman should be able to have an abortion . And I believe a woman should be able to have an abortion if she got pregnant as a result of being raped. But I also believe that everyone that gets an abortion would put a lot of thought into get an abortion done. I dont think it's a spur of moment thing. But I also believe it is wrong for a woman to get an abortion just because she doesnt want a baby.

[The Feral Underclass]

A foetus is essentially a parasite.

[Comrade Alex]

Because of a Mormon background I really don't like abortions I think its a horrible thing but on the other hand its none of my business what a woman does with her body
I honestly don't know where I stand with regards to abortion

[papito]

A foetus is essentially a parasite.

I think it fails in the definition of a parasite as it has been created by its 'host'

Leaving that aside does it matter? This is the process of reproduction there's not an awful lot of alternatives.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

One of my favorite images of all time is this piece by Eric Drooker...

(possibly nsfw)http://www.tikkun.org/tikkundaily/wp-content/gallery/eric-drooker/colossus.jpg


That about sums up the entire argument right there. The bourgeoisie are terrified of female sexuality. They will do everything they can to contain, control, commodify, and condemn a woman's sexual impulse.

And the abortion debate in America is a big part of this. Because it's not just about abortion, it's about the idea of sex without consequences. It would mean that people (and women especially) would be allowed to experience sexual pleasure without the fear of STDs and pregnancy. Women could actually be more sexually aggressive then before, and could actively go out and seek a sexual partner without the fear of VD or unwanted pregnancy.

But so much of the bourgeoisie's power structure is built on the control of the sexual impulse, and female sexual impulse in particular. If sex no longer had consequences, it would deal a devastating blow to the powers that be.

Men and women would be able to meet sexually, not as one conquering another, but as equals.

[The Feral Underclass]

I think it fails in the definition of a parasite as it has been created by its 'host'

A parasite is defined as: "An organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense." (Source (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/parasite))

The term becomes even more pertinent according to wikipedia when you consider the nature of this debate: "A non-mutual relationship between organisms where one organism, the parasite, benefits at the expense of the other" (source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitism))


Leaving that aside does it matter? This is the process of reproduction there's not an awful lot of alternatives.

Well yes, it does matter. Whether it's the process of reproduction or not, the point is that we should be clear what a foetus essentially is and how it anatomically relates to the person it's inside.

[papito]

Great pic, utter nonsense what the dude says though.

[papito]

A parasite is defined as: "An organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense." e[/URL])



Deriving nutrients at the hosts expense - seriously? We can get as many damn nutrients as we want, heard of the phrase 'eating for two'? I just don't think that an organism created by another, carrying its DNA can for any intents and purposes by termed a parasite.

And again, why would it matter? Does it assist your argument to use emotive language? It's a foetus, when describing a foetus one of the best terms to use would be foetus. Dysphamisms and euphemisms aren't required.

[The Feral Underclass]

Deriving nutrients at the hosts expense - seriously? We can get as many damn nutrients as we want, heard of the phrase 'eating for two'?

Well yes precisely. A person cannot get all the nutrients they want without fulfilling extra tasks of eating, otherwise they become ill or potentially die.

You seem to be missing my point here. What I'm trying to get at is the fact that a person who is pregnant is forced by that fact to undergo various physiological occurrences and take responsibility to placate something that is inside them.

If a person doesn't actually want that to happen and doesn't want to have those occurrences forced on them or want to be made to take responsibility for something that is inside them, then a person should not be forced to take responsibility for maintaining the continued survival of something that is essentially a parasite inside of them.


I just don't think that an organism created by another, carrying its DNA can for any intents and purposes by termed a parasite.

What you "think" is neither here nor there.


And again, why would it matter?

Why was my original answer to this question not satisfactory?


Does it assist your argument to use emotive language? It's a foetus, when describing a foetus one of the best terms to use would be foetus. Dysphamisms and euphemisms aren't required.

The word "parasite" isn't emotive language, nor is it a euphemism, it is a word that accurately describes what a foetus is. If a person no longer wishes to have a parasite/foetus inside their body, then they should have it removed.

It's not the responsibility of a person to do something they don't want to do just to placate your morals.

[MaximMK]

The woman who is pregnant should decide what to do because her body and life depend on the decision and letting anyone else decide about her welfare or body is immoral.

[Mark the Leninist]

Women should have the right to choose what happens to their bodies! No one should take that right away.

[Vireya]

I'm pro-life all the way. Abortion is horrible.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

I'm pro-life all the way. Abortion is horrible.

Do you really mean that?

[Vireya]

Do you really mean that?

Abortion is anti-human, that's what I mean. It is anti-natalist and capitalist.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Abortion is anti-human, that's what I mean. It is anti-natalist and capitalist.

A foetus is not yet a human.

How is it capitalist?

[Taters]

I'm pro-life all the way. Abortion is horrible.

A fellow pro-lifer! Together we shall STOP DEATH! No more shall the bourgeois Grim Reaper oppress us!
FOR AN IMMORTAL PROLETARIAT!

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Abortion is anti-human, that's what I mean. It is anti-natalist and capitalist.

I was unaware that liquidating fetuses is an expression of private ownership over the means of production.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Also 'anti-natalist' please jump off a cliff Pope Benedict.

[papito]

A foetus is not yet a human.



Yes it is, it is a human foetus, not a slime, collection of random cells it is a human in the foetal stage.

Really, at what point did you think it turned in to a human?

[Consistent.Surprise]

Ok. Abortion is a choice. I can speak for the states that it is a 24hr wait period. I can also speak from experience.

TAT has the idea with fetuses being a parasite; they feed off of their host.

I understand how those of you who find yourself Anti-Abortion (I am FOR life but I am also FOR choice) feel this is a human. In order to kill something it must be alive. Technically a baby isn't a baby until it is born. So, is a fetus really alive if it hasn't been born? It cannot sustain life outside of the womb until delivered (which can be 20 plus weeks if put on monitors and other crazy contraptions)

[Vireya]

I was unaware that liquidating fetuses is an expression of private ownership over the means of production.

It is if abortion doctors are making a profit at the cost of human lives.

[Polaris]

Yes it is, it is a human foetus, not a slime, collection of random cells it is a human in the foetal stage.
It is a slime/collection of cells that happens to have DNA ~99% similar to other members of the Homo sapiens species.
You are delusional if you think possessing a certain sequence of chemical bases automatically makes the "life," of what amounts to a collection of cells more important than bodily autonomy.

[papito]

Just to clarify, do you believe that humanity begins upon exiting the womb, and prior to that the entity is something other than human?

[The Feral Underclass]

Yes it is, it is a human foetus, not a slime, collection of random cells it is a human in the foetal stage.

But a human foetus is fundamentally different from a human being.


Really, at what point did you think it turned in to a human?

Whether it is a human or not is beside the point.


Just to clarify, do you believe that humanity begins upon exiting the womb, and prior to that the entity is something other than human?

What is humanity? Is it to be dependent on the survival of a host, in which you feed of it, requiring its nutrients and oxygen and so and so forth, or is it existing in the world, independent from the survival of a living human being?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Just to clarify, do you believe that humanity begins upon exiting the womb, and prior to that the entity is something other than human?

I believe that is an abstrat question. What makes a person a person? Really I don't think that would be at least for month and months after birth when babies begin to develop a sense of themselves and the rudimentary ability to express their own desires beyond immediate needs (but this is just speculation). But there's a difference between terminating a pregnancy and killing a baby - society or other people can take the responcibility for raising a baby so there is no reason for killing a baby whereas only the pregnant person can go through labor and give birth. Even for people who believe in a soul, Christianity long believed that babies don't have souls until 7 years after birth.

A feotus has no will of its own in any meaningful sense so what is being discussed when it comes to abortion? It's really either the ability of someone to carry through a pergancy or not and what their stated will and desire is verses the ability of "society" (in this case ruling government officials) ability to tell someone to carry through a pregnancy or not. Why should people who do not have to carry out the pregancy, assume the costs and pain and possible ramifications on the personal life or ability to work or go to school and then more than likely not have to pay to raise the resulting child decide if people should give birth or not? I'm against forced labor - even forced reproductive labor.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

I don't give a fuck whether you consider a fetus to be a slime or a person. What is important is that a woman having the choice to be able to kill it off via an abortion at any point she wants. Does that hurt you? I don't care; what hurts me is the fact that you want to restrict a woman's freedom because of some shitty modern-christian influenced fetishism over a pre-human sack.

To hell with you and your grotesque, twisted moralism if you think a fucking fetus takes precedence over the life and decisions of a woman over what she can do with her own body.

[papito]

Abortion doesn't offend me and I'm not asking you to 'give a fuck' about my morality, I have no concern for the lack of yours. I am mainly talking about late stage (after 26 weeks) abortion. As previously said I wouldn't advocate changing the laws of the UK.

However you tend to dodge the question, when does humanity begin? I think your problem is that your definitions are all completely arbitrary, I also suspect that you can not avoid the conclusion that it begins before labor.

Leftists claim to want to improve humanity's lot and prevent the oppression of people, yet here you support a woman's right to oppress and kill an unborn comrade, one which she played a significant role in creating.

We have laws against many things and it isn't in the name of oppression. Society has agreed a set of rules for the greater benefit of its members. You don't have the freedom to commit murder, rape or theft - not because 'the man' is oppressing you, but because your peers agree it's wrong. So talk of it being oppressive to prevent a woman from ending the life of an otherwise viable human (one which could live independent of its host) is nonesense.

[papito]

I believe that is an abstrat question. bor.

I agree Jimmie. In fairness though it was in response to someone who posted a rather sweeping, and in my humble opinion totally ridiculous, statement that humans weren't really human until they were born .

[Le Communiste]

Why is there no Anti-Life choice? Aka all babies need to be aborted?

Just kidding, Pro-Choice, although there is a certain point, where it just becomes stupid, compare 1 month to 8 months. It's not the same animal

[The Feral Underclass]

However you tend to dodge the question, when does humanity begin? I think your problem is that your definitions are all completely arbitrary, I also suspect that you can not avoid the conclusion that it begins before labor.

Actually no one has dodged it. In fact, I specifically confronted it. You are the one who is avoiding engaging with my comments. If you have such a refined, comprehensive and coherent definition of humanity then please share it with us...Explain to use how your definition is any less arbitrary...


Leftists claim to want to improve humanity's lot and prevent the oppression of people, yet here you support a woman's right to oppress and kill an unborn comrade, one which she played a significant role in creating.

A foetus isn't a person, it is an entity that exists inside a person and is dependent on that person's body to survive.


We have laws against many things and it isn't in the name of oppression. Society has agreed a set of rules for the greater benefit of its members. You don't have the freedom to commit murder, rape or theft - not because 'the man' is oppressing you, but because your peers agree it's wrong. So talk of it being oppressive to prevent a woman from ending the life of an otherwise viable human (one which could live independent of its host) is nonesense.

Quite amazing that you can criticise us for being arbitrary when you say completely random shit like "because your peers agree it's wrong."

Perhaps you could stop pre-supposing that your moral compass is the basis for all human dynamics. You don't have a monopoly on what is right and wrong, you just have your own opinions.

[The Feral Underclass]

Why is there no Anti-Life choice? Aka all babies need to be aborted?

That is actually a popular position amongst some sections of the left. There are people who argue that having babies is morally wrong.

[The Feral Underclass]

I agree Jimmie. In fairness though it was in response to someone who posted a rather sweeping, and in my humble opinion totally ridiculous, statement that humans weren't really human until they were born .

Then what is a human? Based upon what set, pre-assumed definition is a human a human...Explain this to us.

[LovingEmbrace]

Babylon's prison matrix. the definition of death. the slow poison murder of the minds of children. grow up! don't wear that! don't love!

i am always for life. unconditionally for life. we need more life, because we are supposedly living beings. yet everyone are like robots, because we have all been mind-raped by Babylon. we are not dead enough for life, or for what Babylon calls "life". we need to love. we need to make love. we need to breathe and we want to live!

if you aren't pro-life, you are for the machine.

[The Feral Underclass]

Babylon's prison matrix. the definition of death. the slow poison murder of the minds of children. grow up! don't wear that! don't love!

i am always for life. unconditionally for life. we need more life, because we are supposedly living beings. yet everyone are like robots, because we have all been mind-raped by Babylon. we are not dead enough for life, or for what Babylon calls "life". we need to love. we need to make love. we need to breathe and we want to live!

if you aren't pro-life, you are for the machine.

What the fuck are you rambling on about?

[The Feral Underclass]

Also, you people need to pay more attention to the Board's Guidelines:


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

Rules (http://www.revleft.com/vb/faq.php?faq=restrictions#faq__)

[LovingEmbrace]

what is your life about? who are you? who you want to be?

the machine lords, the great puppet masters which are controlling the brainwashed herds, making them walk slowly towards the recycling bin, have separated life from the human existence. by creating a capitalist prison, to break the human spirit.

life wants to reach out and liberate all passions. life is a mighty storm. you are a storm child, let your anger loose! children, let us arise and tear down the Tower of Babel, the great One-Eyed Pyramid which stares down on the hordes of corporate slaves! let us sacrifice the servants of Babel and establish True Zion and True Avalon and raise the Communist Paradise!

[The Feral Underclass]

what is your life about? who are you? who you want to be?

the machine lords, the great puppet masters which are controlling the brainwashed herds, making them walk slowly towards the recycling bin, have separated life from the human existence. by creating a capitalist prison, to break the human spirit.

life wants to reach out and liberate all passions. life is a mighty storm. you are a storm child, let your anger loose! children, let us arise and tear down the Tower of Babel, the great One-Eyed Pyramid which stares down on the hordes of corporate slaves! let us sacrifice the servants of Babel and establish True Zion and True Avalon and raise the Communist Paradise!

I call troll.

[LovingEmbrace]

life is more than just the birth

it is better to be aborted as a foetus, and sold to china to be part of a delicious chicken soup, than to be mind-raped by the brainwashing system, to be a mental slave for Babylon, giving the lizard lords at the top negative energies to feed on, to self-perpetuate this giant blind, slobbering living dead corpse we call "civilization" on it's inevitable course towards the robot future!

we shall break free from this, rather than debate politics and issues! politics are nothing but bread and circus for perverted monsters who fuck their own daughters :D

[Quail]

LovingEmbrace this is a verbal warning for spam/trolling.
Please make more constructive posts, or else you probably won't be here very long.

[papito]

life is more than just the birth

it is better to be aborted as a foetus, and sold to china to be part of a delicious chicken soup, than to be mind-raped by the brainwashing system, to be a mental slave for Babylon, giving the lizard lords at the top negative energies to feed on, to self-perpetuate this giant blind, slobbering living dead corpse we call "civilization" on it's inevitable course towards the robot future!

we shall break free from this, rather than debate politics and issues! politics are nothing but bread and circus for perverted monsters who fuck their own daughters :D

Thanks for making me appear comparatively sane.

It seems I had misunderstood the nature of this thread, I thought it was asking people for their opinions on abortion. Clearly it isn't given the above rules.

Ultimately I am a guest here, one who confines himself to posting in opposing ideologies. I will therefore cease to engage in the debate.

You should be aware though that I had prepared a series of brilliant arguments which upon reading would have caused you to re-examine your position and recognise me as a genius.

[Vireya]

What the hell is this guy talking about?

[Consistent.Surprise]

Alright. Let us remove the human/living/baby/fetus factor

I don't think any of us are really all about human extinction.

The question to ask is when birth control ( which should be available to ALL. Free vasectomies. Free IUDs & tubal ligation & all that jazz) should a woman, who both her & her partner do not want children, have the right to terminate?

[Flying Purple People Eater]

the great One-Eyed Pyramid

True Zion

Oh it's you.

[The Intransigent Faction]

Pro-choice, and pro-freedom of speech:


Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently. Not because of any fanatical concept of ‘justice’ but because all that is instructive, wholesome and purifying in political freedom depends on this essential characteristic, and its effectiveness vanishes when ‘freedom’ becomes a special privilege.

If people wanna protest about it, it's not up to me or anyone to tell them they can't, or that they are so vile that they need to be relegated to a special "protest zone". That would be at least as anti-communist as 'pro-lifers'.

Yeah...just sayin'.

[Ace High]

Honestly, it is useless to debate with pro-lifers in the end. They have this mindset that they've developed through their own moral reasoning, and they won't give it up because you can't convince them based on giving them facts and figures. No matter how oppressive it is to tell a woman what to do with her own body, pro-lifers won't ever respect that unfortunately. Trust me, I have seen too many debates with them. I don't know which ones are worse, the ones who base it off of religion or the ones who don't. The ones who base it off religion are generally more delusional, however, you can say "oh well, religious people can be like that." But when you aren't religious and are pro-life, that is just baffling.

[The Intransigent Faction]

Honestly, it is useless to debate with pro-lifers in the end. They have this mindset that they've developed through their own moral reasoning, and they won't give it up because you can't convince them based on giving them facts and figures. No matter how oppressive it is to tell a woman what to do with her own body, pro-lifers won't ever respect that unfortunately. Trust me, I have seen too many debates with them. I don't know which ones are worse, the ones who base it off of religion or the ones who don't. The ones who base it off religion are generally more delusional, however, you can say "oh well, religious people can be like that." But when you aren't religious and are pro-life, that is just baffling.

Maybe I'm just stubborn, but I like to think that it isn't some natural law that even the most reactionary people can never come around.

I see your point, though.

[D-A-C]

Hmmm this thread seems interesting.

Anyway, just as a point I'm going to give my opinion on Abortion and maybe someone could explain if it makes me 'Pro-Life' or 'Pro-Choice' because I don't really know which side I'm on.

I'd also like to post in order to clarfy my own opinion of the subject and maybe get some feedback on mu position from comrades.


So, my opinion of Abortion is:

1. If a woman is raped, she should be allowed an abortion for free.

2. If a woman is going to die through childbirth, or there is evidence enough to suggest a high probability of the death of the mother, then she should be allowed an abortion for free.

3. If a woman is having a child which has significant birth defects, then she should be allowed an abortion for free.

4. If a woman is economically burdened (as a significant portion of abortion cases are) and simply cannot afford to bring up another child, that is not enough reason for an abortion and so she should carry it to term and then immediately give it up for adoption.

5. If the pregnancy is unwanted, in this day and age that simply isn't enough of a reason to have an abortion and so she should carry it to term and give it up for abortion. Abortion is not, and never should be a form of contraception that is a reset switch for poor choices of behaviour.

6. The age limit for abortions should probably be the earliest recorded number of weeks in which a baby was born and survived without any significant quality of life issues or defects. I'm not sure what the actual number of weeks is, but if for example, it is on record that a child was born after 16 weeks and it was medically sound and healthy and grew up normally, then that should be the date at which abortions should be available until.

The problem though is that points 1-3, when I feel that women should be allowed Abortions, are such that an argument for all 3 can be made that the mother should be allowed to terminate the fetus regardless of the number of weeks that have passed.

But again, if a child was delivered successfully after 16 weeks, then technically that would prove the child was already functionally alive and thus you are actually killing a person in the name of the mother. Unfortunately that, for me at least, isn't socially acceptable, and so the earliest number of weeks at which a fetus was succesfully delivered alive and healthy should be the benchmark for the abortion limitation.


Conclusion of my position:

I cannot stress enough though how unequivically I am against abortion as birth control.

The Right-Wing, it is important to note, seize on that image to advance their anti-abortion agenda, and I know from having read on the subject that the majority of abortion cases are not simply forms of 'last minute contraception', and that it is only a tiny percent that use abortion in this manner. But the Left shouldn't automatically cede territory in the abortion debate to the Right because it is afraid of a slight overlap in views. Not allowing Abortion as contraception is not the same as being against abortion altogether in my opinion.

A tiny percentile of cases or not, I simply cannot stress enough that there is no excuse in my mind for women (in the Western World at least) to use abortion as a method for the termination of an unwanted pregnancy that was the result of poor social choices and lack of contraceptional planning.

If a woman is being given the right to choose what happens to her body, then with that right comes responsbility.

Its perhaps an unfortunate material fact that men can impregnate women and simply dissappear, but women should be educated enough to know that this is a possibility and so if they want to engage in promiscuious (an unfortunate word) sexual relations then simply plan accordingly.

However, immediately we can see is not black and white.

For example, it is obvious that along with complete rejection of women using abortion as a form of contraception, I am by default assuming an equally important level of sexual education.

If for example there is no sexual education in an area and girls are not informed of the dangers of sex without contraception, then obviously that is not a proper sitaution in which to reject totally the use of abortion as contraception. Again, by default my position on abortion would assume that I would equally be engaged in the struggle for proper sexual education to be taught to children and teenagers in schools.

No struggle, whether it is for abortion rights, the right to vote, the death penalty, economic equality etc takes place in isolation.

Alot of my own positions on abortion assume a certain number of other struggles have been undertaken and successfully won. It is hardly correct to tell a woman who is completely uneducated and living in a patriarchal, economically backwards area that her right abortions rights are entirely equal to those of a high-flying, Harvard edcated, business woman in New York.

As always local conditions and particularities inform the abortion debate, as they do all debates and I am sensitive enough to amend my positions in certain instances.

However, by in large, that is my stance on abortion.

So if a few comrades could inform me as to what exactly my position entails in terms of Marxist, Leninist, Maoist, Anarchist, etc, etc approaches to the abortion question and where my ideas fit in, or with who (i.e did Lenin, Mao, Che etc say the same types of things for example) then I would be very appreciative.

(Also if anyone is against my positions or thinks I am wrong, am misinformed or have an Un-Marxist approach to abortion, it would be great to have it explained as to why this is the case so I can adequately alter my position for the future. Thanks.)

[Consistent.Surprise]

So, my opinion of Abortion is:

1. If a woman is raped, she should be allowed an abortion for free.

2. If a woman is going to die through childbirth, or there is evidence enough to suggest a high probability of the death of the mother, then she should be allowed an abortion for free.

3. If a woman is having a child which has significant birth defects, then she should be allowed an abortion for free.



These are rational & very important reasons for termination



4. If a woman is economically burdened (as a significant portion of abortion cases are) and simply cannot afford to bring up another child, that is not enough reason for an abortion and so she should carry it to term and then immediately give it up for adoption.

Putting a child up for adoption is far more damaging than most people think. Here, in the States, few children of color are adopted & are placed into foster homes, creating a system where they are moved from one environment to another until they age out of the system



5. If the pregnancy is unwanted, in this day and age that simply isn't enough of a reason to have an abortion and so she should carry it to term and give it up for abortion. Abortion is not, and never should be a form of contraception that is a reset switch for poor choices of behaviour.

What about those who use contraception? Abortion does not prevent conception, thus cannot be referred to as contraception. It is not birth control. It is a painful procedure.




6. The age limit for abortions should probably be the earliest recorded number of weeks in which a baby was born and survived without any significant quality of life issues or defects. I'm not sure what the actual number of weeks is, but if for example, it is on record that a child was born after 16 weeks and it was medically sound and healthy and grew up normally, then that should be the date at which abortions should be available until.

In other words, at 28 weeks, even though many machines need to be used, all embryos must be allowed to be delivered?

You seem to have a skewed version of choice; if it is forced upon you or is endangering you, you may terminate.

I don't get how this isn't dictating what a woman can do with their body.

Edit: removed personal language to not seem attacking

[papito]

Well I think number 5 is unnecessarily cruel, I know you think I'm a moralizing prick but carrying to term then giving it up for abortion is barbaric.

[Consistent.Surprise]

Well I think number 5 is unnecessarily cruel, I know you think I'm a moralizing prick but carrying to term then giving it up for abortion is barbaric.

I never said that you're a prick. But what are you calling "term"? Medically that is when the fetus is inverted & the cervix dilated.

[papito]

I never said that you're a prick. But what are you calling "term"? Medically that is when the fetus is inverted & the cervix dilated.

It wasn't directed at you surprise. Re-read what the poster writes in number 5, I was just having a little joke.

[Consistent.Surprise]

Ah, yes ;) I see now

Edit: one liner but wanted to give clear affirmation

[Red Nightmare]

I voted pro-choice.

[Vireya]

I voted pro-choice.

Why? Elaborate.

[papito]

Why? Elaborate.

@Red Nightmare. If you need any help with why you voted pro-choice or what your reasons were, just read some of the previous posts.

[Quail]

Abortion is no contraception, as someone explained above.

Also... What planet are you on if you think people use abortion "as contraception"? Abortion is either a painful process if you take the pill which is available early on, or an invasive medical procedure for later abortions. Neither of those is to be taken lightly!

Another point to make is that contraception is not always 100% effective, so someone who has taken perfectly reasonable precautions against pregnancy who isn't in a position to raise a baby could become pregnant - really through no fault of their own. Unless you believe that only people who are at a convenient, sensible point in their life to have a baby should ever have sex.

Also, giving up a child for adoption is potentially extremely damaging for both the mother and the child. Not to mention, pregnancy is hard work, can be damaging to the body and shouldn't be forced upon anyone. Imagine you were forced to carry a heavy, wriggly thing in your body, which made you tired more easily, made it harder to get around and do your work, the chores in the house, etc., and then you had to spend something like 20 hours in really bad pain to get it out of you. I can't stress enough that pregnancy sucks, so to make someone go through all that for the sake of a blob of cells seems particularly cruel. Whatever your personal feelings on abortion, they should never be used as an argument for restricting access to it. Your moralising attitude is sickening.

[Vireya]

Another point to make is that contraception is not always 100% effective, so someone who has taken perfectly reasonable precautions against pregnancy who isn't in a position to raise a baby could become pregnant - really through no fault of their own. Unless you believe that only people who are at a convenient, sensible point in their life to have a baby should ever have sex.
That's pretty much my way of seeing it. It's be the best way to go about things.


Also, giving up a child for adoption is potentially extremely damaging for both the mother and the child. Not to mention, pregnancy is hard work, can be damaging to the body and shouldn't be forced upon anyone. Imagine you were forced to carry a heavy, wriggly thing in your body, which made you tired more easily, made it harder to get around and do your work, the chores in the house, etc., and then you had to spend something like 20 hours in preally bad pain to get it out of you. I can't stress enough that pregnancy sucks, so to make someone go through all that for the sake of a blob of cells seems particularly cruel. Whatever your personal feelings on abortion, they should never be used as an argument for restricting access to it. Your moralising attitude is sickening.
Nothing is more damaging than death itself, Abortion is the killing of a living entity for quite literally no justifiable reason. They aren't malignant, unlike a cancer. Adoption is an acceptable alternative to abortion, bother her and child get to live, and the parents don't have to care for a child they don't want. The child has a chance to be placed with a family that does want one.

I also find the "don't use your personal preferences" to be a weak argument in itself. It is impossible for one not to use their personal feelings to justify what they believe in, you're doing it right now by citing how you believe restricting acces to abortion is "cruel" to women.

[Consistent.Surprise]

My question to you, Vireya, is where is the line drawn on your personal opinions & the autonomy of people's bodies?

You are vehemently opposed to abortion but pro-infliction of the psychological damage adoption can cause. It seems you think sex is also only meant for procreation.

I am not pro-abortion. I am pro-choice. Pregnancy has 3 options. Why do your opinions get to dictate if I have sex, get pregnant, & opt to terminate? I am not dictating you to have sex for the joy it is.

Edit: misspelled OPs name

[The Feral Underclass]

Well I think number 5 is unnecessarily cruel, I know you think I'm a moralizing prick but carrying to term then giving it up for abortion is barbaric.

Yet forcing a human being to suffer and endure something against their will is perfectly acceptable?

In any case, I'm quite certain the poster meant "adoption" not "abortion."

[#FF0000]

That's pretty much my way of seeing it. It's be the best way to go about things.

Nah


Abortion is the killing of a living entity for quite literally no justifiable reason.

Because pregnancy is extremely hard on the mother, mentally and physically, and seeing as it is their body, they ought to be able to decide whether they want to go through with it.

And keep in mind that a fetus is basically just a mass of cells -- not a human being.

[papito]

In any case, I'm quite certain the poster meant "adoption" not "abortion."

Did they Mr Tension? Did they? I wasn't sure, I genuinely thought that the poster was suggesting delivering a baby then aborting. I completely had not realised in any way that they meant adoption. Are you sure they meant adoption? Because if I had realised they meant adoption I would not have recreated their own faux pas for petty comic effect.

[papito]

Nah


And keep in mind that a fetus is basically just a mass of cells -- not a human being.

It really isn't you know. I don't know if you've had any sort of biology education but what is inside a lady's tummy when it's big and round isn't a jumbled up mass of cellular soup, it's an ickle baby.

[Consistent.Surprise]

It really isn't you know. I don't know if you've had any sort of biology education but what is inside a lady's tummy when it's big and round isn't a jumbled up mass of cellular soup, it's an ickle baby.

My uterus is not my tummy. That would make procreation really difficult. & technically it isn't a baby until it is born. It's still a fetus

[The Feral Underclass]

Did they Mr Tension? Did they? I wasn't sure, I genuinely thought that the poster was suggesting delivering a baby then aborting. I completely had not realised in any way that they meant adoption. Are you sure they meant adoption? Because if I had realised they meant adoption I would not have recreated their own faux pas for petty comic effect.

There is nothing funny about anything you say.

[Vireya]

My question to you, Vireya, is where is the line drawn on your personal opinions & the autonomy of people's bodies?

You are vehemently opposed to abortion but pro-infliction of the psychological damage adoption can cause. It seems you think sex is also only meant for procreation.

I am not pro-abortion. I am pro-choice. Pregnancy has 3 options. Why do your opinions get to dictate if I have sex, get pregnant, & opt to terminate? I am not dictating you to have sex for the joy it is.

Edit: misspelled OPs name

I draw the line where the result of ones actions have negligible effects on the community.

Note, adoption can cause harm to a child, not will. That is the defeatist view of the "pro-choice" camp, they have a negative perception of life in general and especially of birth. It is their default to assume ones life will go poorly and "not be worth living".

Pro-choice is pro-abortion, you are willing to allow abortions to be performed and for parents to have them at their leisure for any reason. If not outright for it, you are at best apathetic about it.

There is a saying about indifference and apathy:

“The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference. The opposite of art is not ugliness, it's indifference. The opposite of faith is not heresy, it's indifference. And the opposite of life is not death, it's indifference.” - Elie Wiesel

[Consistent.Surprise]

I draw the line where the result of ones actions have negligible effects on the community
By your previous comments, you are saying any sex not meant for procreation is wrong? Does this also include masturbation? Sperm not being used to add to the good of the community?

I'm still wondering where my abortion has any affect on the community. It's a personal thing.


Note, adoption can cause harm to a child, not will. That is the defeatist view of the "pro-choice" camp, they have a negative perception of life in general and especially of birth. It is their default to assume ones life will go poorly and "not be worth living".
May I ask how close are you to folks on both sides of adoption? You are far too willing to lump people into stereotypes. Smells trollish to me even more now


IPro-choice is pro-abortion, you are willing to allow abortions to be performed and for parents to have them at their leisure for any reason. If not outright for it, you are at best apathetic about it.
I have never forced anyone to have an abortion. So. Well, your theory is very wrong. Try looking words up before using them against someone

I've been having this argument longer than you think & for some reason, your thoughts are seeming selfish & dictating what I can & cannot do. Not very socialist of you. Oppressing another person.

[Vireya]

By your previous comments, you are saying any sex not meant for procreation is wrong? Does this also include masturbation? Sperm not being used to add to the good of the community?

I'm still wondering where my abortion has any affect on the community. It's a personal thing.


May I ask how close are you to folks on both sides of adoption? You are far too willing to lump people into stereotypes. Smells trollish to me even more now


I have never forced anyone to have an abortion. So. Well, your theory is very wrong. Try looking words up before using them against someone

There is a saying about indifference and apathy:

“The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference. The opposite of art is not ugliness, it's indifference. The opposite of faith is not heresy, it's indifference. And the opposite of life is not death, it's indifference.” - Elie Wiesel[/QUOTE]

Masturbation isn't sex, and no, I don't have anything against it. Sperm is at best half human, nor is it a developing human.

Abortion as an idea and as an institution is a poison to society's ethics and outlook on life in general. It trains them to indulge in ever riskier sexual endeavors and to have no respect for the lives of the unborn.

I know many people on both sides of the aisle, even some of my friends, it doesn't change the fact the I view the pro-choice camp as being wrong.

There's the difference between you and the people here, I take your views seriously, very seriously, because I view them as a threat. Yet the other way around you assume I'm must be joking or trolling because my ideas don't conform to your position (which happens to have legal support ATM).

[Consistent.Surprise]

There's the difference between you and the people here, I take your views seriously, very seriously, because I view them as a threat.

Good. That means I've made my case. For you to not take me seriously means I hadn't made you think. My job is done.

[Fakeblock]

We shouldn't respect the potential lives of the unborn, if they conflict with the choices of the mother concerning her own body.

[papito]

There is nothing funny about anything you say.

I suspect the same can be said of you sir.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Alright, so this thread is basically an awful wreck, and not an entertaining one either, and I have decided to provisionally end my well-publicised retirement from this site in order to yell at people for being (hopefully) unconscious misogynists.

Socialists should always think in concrete terms. There does not exist a feature of the modern society that someone has not found an abstract justification for, no matter how awful it is to us. And conversely, there is no feature of the modern society, or of the socialist society, that someone has not found an abstract argument against. As materialists, we should "cut the knot", so to speak, and analyse the situation in terms of the concrete, actually-existing social forces involved, individuals affected etc. etc.

First of all, it should be made clear what restrictions on abortion imply: state or communal violence against pregnant people in order to force them to give birth. That is the material reality behind claims about "morality" and "the rights of the fetus" and whatnot. Pregnant women being forced to give birth - suffering extreme discomfort and jeopardising their health - under threat of violence. How socialist!

And how do restrictions on abortion figure in the wider structure of the present society? They are an essential part of the special oppression of women - just as sodomy laws (also often supported by "moral" arguments and whatnot) are part of the special oppression of queer people. Furthermore, these restrictions are part of the essential character of the bourgeois family unit, necessary for the replenishment of the labour force in a manner that is conductive to further capitalist exploitation - forced birth and unpaid domestic labour are one of the lynchpins of the capitalist mode of production.

The call for greater restrictions on abortion is also usually part of a more comprehensively reactionary social agenda - thus our flowery newcomer has come to claim that sex should (what a nasty little word) only be for procreation - quite in contrast to their initial claims that they "support LGBT people".

But what about the fetus? What about the fetus? Socialists are the party of the proletariat. Are women part of the proletariat? Yes, the dominant part. Are fetuses? I haven't seen that many fetuses in union meetings, though there are certainly people with the intelligence of a fetus in the movement. Even if fetuses were bona fide persons, it wouldn't matter. Their "rights" would conflict with the interest of the proletariat just as much as the "rights" of the bourgeoisie.

And good grief, how this love for fetuses rings hollow. Whether fetuses are alive, human beings or whatever, that is an empty semantic debate. The material reality is that fetuses have nothing, nothing, that most people find valuable in other individuals. They have no linguistic thought, no capacity for independent action, no memory, no personality - their level of mental development, to the extent that this term even applies to fetuses, is significantly less than that of, say, adult nonhuman monkeys. Or cows. It surprises me that those who are opposed to abortion are not also trying to ban hamburgers. But consistency is difficult.

Another thing that really bothers me is the office-870 attitude that some posters display. So, you don't like abortion. Tough luck. How on earth does this personal distaste of yours warrant the use of state power to force women to go through a painful, dangerous and degrading procedure?

Free abortion at any point is a prerequisite of the liberation of women and the destruction of the last miserable remnants of the present society. Socialists can not oppose it.

[The Feral Underclass]

I suspect the same can be said of you sir.

There is no suspicions about it. I am not trying to be funny. You might take people's autonomy and the fight against patriarchy lightly. I do not.

[D-A-C]

These are rational & very important reasons for termination

Thank you. Glad you agree.


Putting a child up for adoption is far more damaging than most people think. Here, in the States, few children of color are adopted & are placed into foster homes, creating a system where they are moved from one environment to another until they age out of the system

I did mention that the abortion issue isn't an isolated issue. Obviously if I am arguing for putting children up for adoption, I am also arguing for a struggle for a better adoption system as well.

I see no reason why a system cannot be developed that minimizes long term emotional damage to children put up for adoption. In fact, I would argue adoption is an excellent place for people who are loving but 'barren' (coarse language, but true) to find the happiness that is only available through the raising of a child.

Equally those who are too young, unfit, or unwilling to have that child have a fine course of action that solves their problem/predicament.



What about those who use contraception? Abortion does not prevent conception, thus cannot be referred to as contraception. It is not birth control. It is a painful procedure.

True. I can't really argue with that I guess.



In other words, at 28 weeks, even though many machines need to be used, all embryos must be allowed to be delivered?

If a baby was saved at a certain number of weeks, and was healthy and normal, then, unfortunately my view is that that proves it was alive at that point. So aborting babies past that point seems kinda wrong as there is evidence it is alive, because as I said, another baby was delivered and saved at that number of weeks.

If a baby can be made to live normal and healthy, then whatever the lowest number of weeks that is possible at should be the last time your allowed an abortion.

At the same time, I'm incredibly loathe to argue a rape induced baby, a baby that might kill a mother, or one that is severly defective, should be brought to term. In those instances I'm sort of on the fence about allowing for a longer timeline, but then, that is immediately in conflict with my belief that the baby is alive at the minimum recorded number of weeks of a baby successfully being delivered and surviving.

Its a very grey issue for me at least. Sorry if that offends anyone.



Alright, so this thread is basically an awful wreck, and not an entertaining one either, and I have decided to provisionally end my well-publicised retirement from this site in order to yell at people for being (hopefully) unconscious misogynists.

Socialists should always think in concrete terms. There does not exist a feature of the modern society that someone has not found an abstract justification for, no matter how awful it is to us. And conversely, there is no feature of the modern society, or of the socialist society, that someone has not found an abstract argument against. As materialists, we should "cut the knot", so to speak, and analyse the situation in terms of the concrete, actually-existing social forces involved, individuals affected etc. etc.

First of all, it should be made clear what restrictions on abortion imply: state or communal violence against pregnant people in order to force them to give birth. That is the material reality behind claims about "morality" and "the rights of the fetus" and whatnot. Pregnant women being forced to give birth - suffering extreme discomfort and jeopardising their health - under threat of violence. How socialist!

And how do restrictions on abortion figure in the wider structure of the present society? They are an essential part of the special oppression of women - just as sodomy laws (also often supported by "moral" arguments and whatnot) are part of the special oppression of queer people. Furthermore, these restrictions are part of the essential character of the bourgeois family unit, necessary for the replenishment of the labour force in a manner that is conductive to further capitalist exploitation - forced birth and unpaid domestic labour are one of the lynchpins of the capitalist mode of production.

The call for greater restrictions on abortion is also usually part of a more comprehensively reactionary social agenda - thus our flowery newcomer has come to claim that sex should (what a nasty little word) only be for procreation - quite in contrast to their initial claims that they "support LGBT people".

But what about the fetus? What about the fetus? Socialists are the party of the proletariat. Are women part of the proletariat? Yes, the dominant part. Are fetuses? I haven't seen that many fetuses in union meetings, though there are certainly people with the intelligence of a fetus in the movement. Even if fetuses were bona fide persons, it wouldn't matter. Their "rights" would conflict with the interest of the proletariat just as much as the "rights" of the bourgeoisie.

And good grief, how this love for fetuses rings hollow. Whether fetuses are alive, human beings or whatever, that is an empty semantic debate. The material reality is that fetuses have nothing, nothing, that most people find valuable in other individuals. They have no linguistic thought, no capacity for independent action, no memory, no personality - their level of mental development, to the extent that this term even applies to fetuses, is significantly less than that of, say, adult nonhuman monkeys. Or cows. It surprises me that those who are opposed to abortion are not also trying to ban hamburgers. But consistency is difficult.

Another thing that really bothers me is the office-870 attitude that some posters display. So, you don't like abortion. Tough luck. How on earth does this personal distaste of yours warrant the use of state power to force women to go through a painful, dangerous and degrading procedure?

Free abortion at any point is a prerequisite of the liberation of women and the destruction of the last miserable remnants of the present society. Socialists can not oppose it.

Being new here, I don't know you, but welcome back I guess.

As for your post, its incredibly persuasive.

I am tempted to amend my position and argue, like yourself, that full and free abortion rights are a fundamental cornerstone of the liberation of female workers, and I guess, women in general.

A very interesting and well thought out post to say the least. And for me, definate thinking material to help me clarify my own position on the abortion issue.

Thanks.

[#FF0000]

It really isn't you know. I don't know if you've had any sort of biology edu

fetuses aren't babies.


It trains them to indulge in ever riskier sexual endeavors

1) Prove it
2) So what?

[Jimmie Higgins]

But what about the fetus? What about the fetus? Socialists are the party of the proletariat. Are women part of the proletariat? Yes, the dominant part. Are fetuses? I haven't seen that many fetuses in union meetings, though there are certainly people with the intelligence of a fetus in the movement. Even if fetuses were bona fide persons, it wouldn't matter. Their "rights" would conflict with the interest of the proletariat just as much as the "rights" of the bourgeoisie.

I was once real-life trolled by an anti-abortion activist who tried to equate abortion to slavery. I said "a feotus has no concept of life or death let alone 'legal rights'; but the existing pregnant people who want abortion or birth express their will and desires, so being anti-abortion is not being for 'feotus rights' but being against the right of women to control their bodies".

He said very smugly, "yeah, but what about slavery - slaves had no rights! So are you for slavery too? How do you know slaves wanted emancipation?"

I said: "Because they fucking said so! And organized for it, revolted, killed their masters, bought their way out, or ran away!"

[Glitchcraft]

So, you don't like abortion. Tough luck. How on earth does this personal distaste of yours warrant the use of state power to force women to go through a painful, dangerous and degrading procedure?

Free abortion at any point is a prerequisite of the liberation of women and the destruction of the last miserable remnants of the present society. Socialists can not oppose it.

This quote says it all
I don't care if every single foetus is the unborn baby Jesus.
If your Anti Abortion your Anti Women. Your Anti Working class and your a counter revolutionary. Literally part of the problem.

[NGNM85]

First, let me apologize for not reading your post more closely, I read it very quickly and misinterpreted what you were saying. That being said; I don't find this argument any more persuasive, actually, much less so.


2 years old can usually breathe on their own and dosnt need to be in a woman womb to stay alive.

(Unfortunately) There are plenty of adult humans who cannot breathe on their own. That is arbitrary, and, therefore irrelevent.

You are mistaken. A baby delivered at 26-28 weeks has about a 95% chance of survival.


and from the 11th to the 40th, it still need the womb to develop itself.

See above.

[NGNM85]

fetuses aren't babies.

The difference between a 28-week-old 'fetus' and a 38-week-old 'baby' (Or a 28-week-old baby.) is semantic. There is no significant biological basis for this distinction. What you are suggesting is that the parents' body cavity is a kind of magical gateway that transforms an inert lump of tissue into a human being. This has no basis in medical fact. It is ridiculous.

[Ele'ill]

the results of this poll should go public

[danyboy27]

First, let me apologize for not reading your post more closely, I read it very quickly and misinterpreted what you were saying. That being said; I don't find this argument any more persuasive, actually, much less so.
.
ORLY?




(Unfortunately) There are plenty of adult humans who cannot breathe on their own. That is arbitrary, and, therefore irrelevent.

these folks most of the time got a well developped brain to take an informed decision if they want to stay on the respirator or just die, an the other folks who are living vegerable depend on the tutor will to keep him connected or not.



You are mistaken. A baby delivered at 26-28 weeks has about a 95% chance of survival.

the survival of the feutus still involve a lot of medical work, not has much has in 24 or less, but without some sort of minimal care, it might die, that what the premature wing of the hospital is for, its not only for 24 or less.

But even if we assume its murder(i really dont but ok), what would be the best in that case? to die without even realizing it, or to experience a potentially traumatizing life that will scar him for life?

[Uccello]

The question here isn't pro-choice or pro-life. It isn't even pro-choice or anit-choice. The questing being asked here is pro-woman's rights versus anti-woman's rights. With this being a far-left forum, I think the results will be pretty obvious.

And unless I am mistaken, wasn't being 100% pro-choice one of the terms and conditions you must accept in order to register with revleft? :confused:

[NGNM85]

ORLY?

I don't know what it is that you find difficult to believe.

Yes; I quickly skimmed your post, when I first read it.

Yes; I apologize for that.

Yes; in my haste, I misinterpreted what you were saying.

Yes; I still disagree with what you were saying, just as I disagreed with what I thought you were saying.


these folks most of the time got a well developped brain to take an informed decision if they want to stay on the respirator or just die, an the other folks who are living vegerable depend on the tutor will to keep him connected or not.

That's irrelevant.


the survival of the feutus still involve a lot of medical work, not has much has in 24 or less, but without some sort of minimal care, it might die, that what the premature wing of the hospital is
for, its not only for 24 or less.

25 weeks, or less, you mean. Yes; I realize that.

True, preemies born at 26-28 weeks require greater care than infants born at 40 weeks. However, they have a greater than 90% chance of living long, healthy, productive lives. Also, it's not as if 40-week-old infants are exactly independent.

Again, none of this is relevant. Like I told #FF0000; the difference between a 26-28 year old fetus, and a baby delivered at 40 weeks, is basically semantic. This idea, that a fetus is an inert blob of goo until it crosses the threshold of it's parents' body cavity, whereupon it magically transforms into a human being, is preposterous. It's even more ridiculous coming from self-described materialists.


But even if we assume its murder(i really dont but ok), what would be the best in that case? to die without even realizing it, or to experience a potentially traumatizing life that will scar him for life?

In that case, why don't we euthanize infants born with intellectual disabilities? Hell, by that thinking; we should euthanize all infants. We have no way of predicting what life holds, and we don't have the right to make that decision. I'm not arguing against terminating a fetus with a terminal birth defect, but I draw the line at terminating what is, for all intents and purposes, a perfectly healthy baby, a human being. This is, of course, somewhat moot, as no-one on earth actually wants to do that, which, of course, is part of what makes this situation so ridiculous.

[NGNM85]

The question here isn't pro-choice or pro-life. It isn't even pro-choice or anit-choice.

That's two ways of saying the same thing. 'Anti-choice' is a pejorative for Pro-lifers' coined by Pro-choice activists in an attempt to cast the Pro-life movement in a negative light. Personally; I think they do a marvelous job of that, all by themselves. I also think the debate over abortion will be won by arguments, not catchphrases, but that's neither here, nor there.


The questing being asked here is pro-woman's rights versus anti-woman's rights. With this being a far-left forum, I think the results will be pretty obvious.

This is a common misunderstanding. As I've explained; the Pro-life movement is not primarily driven by sexism, (Although, I don't deny there's plenty of that in that crowd.) but religion.


And unless I am mistaken, wasn't being 100% pro-choice one of the terms and conditions you must accept in order to register with revleft? :confused:

I'm; '100%' Pro-choice. Everyone who is Pro-choice is; '100% Pro-choice', just as everyone who is Pro-life is 100% Pro-life. It's like being the Prince of Wales, or a marmoset. Pro-lifers who believe in exceptions for rape, or for the life of the parent aren't any less Pro-life then Pro-lifers who take the hard, absolutist position. So, there is no question, on that front. I don't think there are currently any Pro-lifers who regularly post in OI.

The forum rules provide a number of reasons by which a member may be Restricted. Sexism, homophobia, racism, etc., etc. Obviously; you must be a Socialist, to post on the boards. It is true that you have to be Pro-choice, but you can still be Restricted even if you are Pro-choice. Hell; I'm Pro-choice. So; that's not really the issue, here.

[danyboy27]

I don't know what it is that you find difficult to believe.

Yes; I quickly skimmed your post, when I first read it.

Yes; I apologize for that.

Yes; in my haste, I misinterpreted what you were saying.

Yes; I still disagree with what you were saying, just as I disagreed with what I thought you were saying.

.
Dude relax.




That's irrelevant.
.

It is, since the fetus is pretty much in the same situation than the brain dead patient on life support.




25 weeks, or less, you mean. Yes; I realize that.

True, preemies born at 26-28 weeks require greater care than infants born at 40 weeks. However, they have a greater than 90% chance of living long, healthy, productive lives. Also, it's not as if 40-week-old infants are exactly independent.

But we right now we are not talking about the chances or the potential of the developement of a foetus, we are talking about the ability for a foetus to survive without the need of a womb, that two different things.



Again, none of this is relevant. Like I told #FF0000; the difference between a 26-28 year old fetus, and a baby delivered at 40 weeks, is basically semantic. This idea, that a fetus is an inert blob of goo until it crosses the threshold of it's parents' body cavity, whereupon it magically transforms into a human being, is preposterous. It's even more ridiculous coming from self-described materialists.

its not semantic, has long has the foetus need a womb to exist its dependent on the mother and her will to keep it alive.



In that case, why don't we euthanize infants born with intellectual disabilities? Hell, by that thinking; we should euthanize all infants. We have no way of predicting what life holds, and we don't have the right to make that decision. I'm not arguing against terminating a fetus with a terminal birth defect, but I draw the line at terminating what is, for all intents and purposes, a perfectly healthy baby, a human being. This is, of course, somewhat moot, as no-one on earth actually wants to do that, which, of course, is part of what makes this situation so ridiculous.
Beccause infants when intellectual disabilities still have the potential to live happy, fufilling lives? but if that make you feel better, if an adult or an intellectually disabled person is unable to breathe on his own, its still up to the family to decide if he or she should be stll living on the life support or not.

[NGNM85]

It is, since the fetus is pretty much in the same situation than the brain dead patient on life support.

Incorrect. Someone who is brain-dead is, for all intents and purposes, deceased. Their brain has completely ceased to function. The fetal brain, at 28 weeks, is active, a 28-week-old fetus can dream, etc.


But we right now we are not talking about the chances or the potential of the developement of a foetus, we are talking about the ability for a foetus to survive without the need of a womb, that two different things.

Viability is a bit of a red herring, this is my primary disagreement with the Supreme Court's decision in Roe, although, I concur with their conclusion. In any case, as stated; a 28-week-old fetus is entirely viable. It has something like a 95% survival rate.


its not semantic, has long has the foetus need a womb to exist its dependent on the mother and her will to keep it alive.

See above.



Beccause infants when intellectual disabilities still have the potential to live happy, fufilling lives?

I can't say for certain, but I believe so. In any case; this hardly justifies euthanizing retarded people, like animals.


but if that make you feel better, if an adult or an intellectually disabled person is unable to breathe on his own, its still up to the family to decide if he or she should be stll living on the life support or not.

Just because a patient cannot breathe, does not mean that they are incapable of higher reasoning. Obviously, in cases where the patient is mentally incapacitated, temporarily, or permanently, a third party must make decisions for them. However; there are several key distinctions. First; a healthy 28-week-old fetus does not need it's parent to survive. Second; a healthy 28-week-old fetus is not facing the prospect of immanent death, or extended suffering. Third; the decision to take a patient off of life support is made out of mercy, it is done to spare the patient needless, unavoidable suffering, not because their existence is inconvenient.

[NGNM85]

As I've already pointed out; the idea that a fetus is an inert blob of tissue, until it exits it's parent, thereupon it, magically, transforms into a human being, what I call the; 'magical gateway' argument, is ludicrous. This is (obviously) completely unscientific, an it's twice as ridiculous coming from self-professed 'materialists. 'There is, however, one other way by which one could ethically justify terminating a healthy fetus, in the third trimester, (Which, incidentally; literally no-one wants to do.) which is to take the; 'hard utilitarian' approach, commonly associated with Peter Singer. This argument, thankfully, does not require one to reject medical science, however; it is, at least, equally problematic, in it's own way, if not more so.

Singer acknowledges that a 28-week old fetus is, for all intents and purposes, a human being, but insists that this is irrelevent. Singer contends that as the fetus is not a; 'person', as in; 'personality', it has no awareness, or agency, not only does it come second to those who are 'persons', (Which I grant.) he argues that it has no rights, whatsoever. This line of reasoning, however, creates several serious problems, not in the least of which is the logistical difficulty of establishing non-arbitrary criteria by which to establish who is, or is not a; 'person.' The bigger issue, however, is that, whatever criteria one employs, an infant would be unable to satisfy those conditions for some considerable period of time after birth, perhaps up to three years of age. A 28-week-old fetus certainly isn't a; 'person', in this sense, but neither is a one-year-old. To be fair, this reasoning does not require one to support infanticide, (Singer, for example, does not.) but it does necessitate that infanticide be reduced to a minor offense, akin to animal cruelty. I don't find that remotely compelling. It's painfully obvious that there is a world of difference between running over your neighbors' cocker spaniel, (Which is, admittedly, cruel, and inexcusable.) and smothering a healthy infant. I seriously doubt there are many among us who don't see that.

In addition to being hopelessly flawed, neither of these arguments has anything to do with Marxism, or Anarchism, (The former is actually fundamentally antithetical to Marxism, and Anarchism, as they are fundamentally materialist philosophies.) much less being fundamental to Marxism, or Anarchism. Therefore; there's absolutely no reason why members should be required to accept, and endorse them. Again, to be clear; I fully accept the one should be required to be Pro-choice to participate in a radical forum, in the 21st century. That seems totally obvious, and I see no justifiable reason for that to change. What I am disputing is that it should be considered obligatory that Socialists should reject medical science, as in the 'magical gateway' argument, or adopt Singer's 'hard utilitarian' ethics. This is, also, again, made doubly absurd by the fact that elective abortions are never performed in the third trimester, and literally no-one wants one. This is a purely symbolic stand in defense of a nonexistant thing.

[Marshal of the People]

I believe that women should have the choice to terminate their child if they don't want to go through the hell known as pregnancy, they don't want their life changed or they just don't want to have a child.

[Bolshevik Sickle]

Death is such a horrible thing. But pro-choice, always.

[DasFapital]

I think ultimately the solution will be to move reproduction and gestation outside the human body, but until that technology becomes available I am pro choice. It is an issue of body autonomy.

[adipocere]

One thing that bothers me about the pro-choice/anti-abortion debate is that it tends to equal out in an anti-woman theme which is the perception that motherhood is an undesirable or backward role for a woman to take.

Take me for example...the pro-choice position was a concept that was drilled into my head with almost religious fervor - somewhat ironically reinforced by Catholic School. I grew up with this deeply ingrained notion that a woman with children was indulgent and irresponsible and was less respectable then a progressive woman who could "control" her body. I believed that there was something deeply shameful in pregnancy.
Now add that to the penis-envy aggression of 80's's-90's feminism and what I see now is a form of deep sexism repackaged into a politically correct way of making sure our daughters weren't visibly slutty. Basically the new message is: childlessness is next to godliness, that having a baby is both stupid and trashy and that women are just as good as men until they get knocked up.
Anyway, my parents seem genuinely disappointed and confused that they have four adult children and no grandchildren.

I don't know quite what I'm getting at here...I just wanted to point out that there is something inherently sexist about the whole thing because of what it implies...If we were really able to get to the root of sexism, there would be no need to debate abortion...birth would stop being something that needed to be controlled, just handled....society would cherish all babies, wanted or not, and fetuses could stop being "parasites" Girls and women wouldn't feel pressured to have abortions (and yes absolutely they do - and it is fucked up in it's own special way) We could also stop discussing capitalist forms of population control.

[Quail]

One thing that bothers me about the pro-choice/anti-abortion debate is that it tends to equal out in an anti-woman theme which is the perception that motherhood is an undesirable or backward role for a woman to take.

Take me for example...the pro-choice position was a concept that was drilled into my head with almost religious fervor - somewhat ironically reinforced by Catholic School. I grew up with this deeply ingrained notion that a woman with children was indulgent and irresponsible and was less respectable then a progressive woman who could "control" her body. I believed that there was something deeply shameful in pregnancy.
Now add that to the penis-envy aggression of 80's's-90's feminism and what I see now is a form of deep sexism repackaged into a politically correct way of making sure our daughters weren't visibly slutty. Basically the new message is: childlessness is next to godliness, that having a baby is both stupid and trashy and that women are just as good as men until they get knocked up.
Anyway, my parents seem genuinely disappointed and confused that they have four adult children and no grandchildren.

I don't know quite what I'm getting at here...I just wanted to point out that there is something inherently sexist about the whole thing because of what it implies...If we were really able to get to the root of sexism, there would be no need to debate abortion...birth would stop being something that needed to be controlled, just handled....society would cherish all babies, wanted or not, and fetuses could stop being "parasites" Girls and women wouldn't feel pressured to have abortions (and yes absolutely they do - and it is fucked up in it's own special way) We could also stop discussing capitalist forms of population control.
You raise some interesting points here. I think having children, especially if you're young, is very much looked down on. I often find myself feeling a bit embarrassed when I meet other people my age (23) at uni and tell them I have a 3 year old child because I guess getting pregnant as a teen is often viewed as irresponsible and/or stupid. But of course, everyone who has sex, even if they're using condoms or whatever, runs the risk of pregnancy. People have asked why I didn't have an abortion because I guess the assumption is that if you're young, abortion is the best way to go. I think part of that is that studying and getting a job are harder if you have children, because society isn't organised in a way that makes it easy for women with children, especially single women, to study or work. Another part of it is that child-rearing, as "women's work" is devalued and seen as unimportant compared to "real work" - yet raising the next generation of young people and caring for children is, in my opinion, one of the most valuable jobs there is. A society without sexism would value the unpaid caring work that so many women do just as much as other socially useful work.

[NGNM85]

A society without sexism would value the unpaid caring work that so many women do just as much as other socially useful work.

This is not a byproduct of sexism, but capitalism. However, I certainly agree that child-rearing is one of the most valuable contributions one could make to society, and should be compensated, as it would be, in a rational society. Unfortunately, we do not live in a rational society.