What do most revolutionary leftists think of abortion?

[TheWannabeAnarchist]

By pretty much all measures, I'm pro choice on abortion. A fetus may be "human," but it has no qualities that make it a person. It has no mind, and most scientists agree that it feels no pain in the first and second trimesters. At the very least, I see abortion as a fundamental right of all women in the first and second trimesters of pregnancy.

By the third trimester, however, I'm a bit more ambiguous. It's not that I think it should be illegal--I don't, that's a heavyhanded approach that I can't endorse. Even so, morally, it seems like a grayer area. At that point, it is quite possible that fetuses can feel pain. And if something can feel pain, is it wrong to intentionally cause this pain?

Then again, few people are upset by the thought of slaughtering a cow--and an adult cow has a far more developed mind and sense of pain than even a newborn child.

And women have real, valid reasons for choosing abortion late (genetic diseases, poverty, etc) unlike slaughtering a cow, which serves no more purpose than creating a taco. Objectively, it is far more brutal and uncalled for to kill a cow than a fetus--but you never see fundies calling screaming "life is precious" while holding pictures of cattle.:rolleyes:

So I suppose I do support a basic right to terminate a pregnancy, even late-term. It does have a bit of an "ick" factor, but my disgust is not a basis for a civilized society.

Can you guys offer your own perspective?

[Fourth Internationalist]

Wouldn't it just be easier to give birth (not necessarily vaginally) to a premature baby if the woman is in the third trimester? Unless, for example, the mother's life is in danger and an alternative form of birth is still impossible.

[Vici]

A woman who is forced to bear a child against her will is assaulted and degraded in body and spirit. On the other hand, a woman who can control her own reproduction and decide whether and when to have children will be stronger, more independent, and better able to deal with the world at large, outside the confines of the family.

[Quail]

Women's liberation is an important and necessary part of socialism, and having control over our bodies and reproduction is a pretty important part of that.

I think the discussion of issues around "choice" should be broader than just "pro/anti-abortion" though, and should include being able to choose to continue a pregnancy. There are women who feel they have no choice but to have an abortion for various reasons (such as poverty, childcare, etc). Nobody should be forced to make a decision one way or the other.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I see being 'pro-choice' as a 'legal' position. As Quail says, nobody should be forced to make a decision one way or the other.

Indeed, I know many feminists - absolutely pro-choice feminists - who personally would struggle to opt for an abortion in certain circumstances, simply out of personal choice. However, the idea of allowing abortion under the law is not one of 'morality' - far from it. It is one of women having control over their own bodies. It is their choice - hence the term 'pro-choice'.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I like it, I'm in favor.

[BIXX]

If someone wants an abortion, they can have it. That's my opinion.

I must say that I find your ability to look past what makes you uncomfortable very impressive.

[Sabot Cat]

I spent about two hours writing an essay about this topic into the quick reply box, but it was wiped by the forum. So here are just a couple links that I cited within it instead:

http://anes-som.ucsd.edu/vp%20articles/topic%20c.%20anand.pdf

http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/fetal-pain.shtml

[DasFapital]

Of the small number of third trimester abortions that do occur, almost all are due to severe fetal defects or major health risks to the mother. The issue is massively exaggerated by the "pro -life" camp. So while I would be personally opposed to third trimester abortions for reasons other than the ones mentioned above, they don't really seem to happen even in our shitty society so I see no reason why they would occur post capitalism

[Flying Purple People Eater]

I support all abortion, including third-trimester ones.

[Luisrah]

I don't see many reasons why there would be an abortion in the third trimester.

Unless there are health risks to the mother or problems with the baby, if the woman was raped, or got pregnant by mistake or whatever, then they probably wouldn't have waited 6 months to get an abortion, I suppose.
I'm not trying to say it should be illegal, just trying to say that late abortions seem more rare because they have less reasons.

[Quail]

I don't see many reasons why there would be an abortion in the third trimester.

Unless there are health risks to the mother or problems with the baby, if the woman was raped, or got pregnant by mistake or whatever, then they probably wouldn't have waited 6 months to get an abortion, I suppose.
I'm not trying to say it should be illegal, just trying to say that late abortions seem more rare because they have less reasons.

Assuming there is good and free access to abortion (and I guess support for women who do have babies), I think it is unlikely anyone would have a late-term abortion for reasons other than health. Some abortions now are performed later than they would be because of various barriers some women face. For example, Irish women who have to travel to access abortion might have to wait until they've got the money together.

[CommieNicole]

I would never get an abortion, but I believe everybody should have access to birth control of all forms. My personal opinion should not be made into policy and women should have access to abortion facilities in every state and county.

[Sea]

Personally, I'm a big fan of abortion.

[tallguy]

By pretty much all measures, I'm pro choice on abortion......Can you guys offer your own perspective?

I have no problem with abortion in principle.

However, in practice, there should always be some cut-off point dependant upon contemporary knowledge of the sentience of the foetus. That is to say, the point at which it may be determined to have a mind of sufficient coherence to be able to experience suffering. This still leaves open the question of where that point of sufficient coherence actually is as there will inevitably be disagreement at the margin. That's as good as it get. The margin unarguably moves about a bit maybe, as knowledge progress, and most rationally minded people will be able to agree on the general region the margin sits in. But, there will always be some disputation in the finer details.

[Red Commissar]

As far as I'm concerned this should be something up to the mother to decide. Since she's the one carrying the burden of the pregnancy, it's completely up to her how she should go forward with it. The state or society should have no involvement here, regardless of what your personal views on the matter are. That is her choice and her choice alone.

[tallguy]

As far as I'm concerned this should be something up to the mother to decide. Since she's the one carrying the burden of the pregnancy, it's completely up to her how she should go forward with it. The state or society should have no involvement here, regardless of what your personal views on the matter are. That is her choice and her choice alone.
So, would you have no ethical problem with someone who chooses to terminate a pregnancy, say, four weeks before natural delivery would have been expected? This would necessarily involve active measures being taken to destroy the foetus either before it leaves the woman's body or immediately after leaving it since there would be a reasonably high probability of it surviving if delivery was simply induced at that point in the pregnancy.

The above is an extreme example, to be sure. However, it is at the extremes that our positions are put to the test. In light of the above, do you still wish to hold to your position that it should be, without qualification, her choice and her choice alone?

[CharisaAce]

I am pro-abortion because I think it's women's right. They (we) should be able to get abortion if they (we) decide so.

[tallguy]

I am pro-abortion because I think it's women's right. They (we) should be able to get abortion if they (we) decide so.
I agree with you in principle, but with significant operational qualifications. Consequently, I will ask you the same question I asked the previous poster (to which they have yet to reply) who made roughly the same argument you have done:

Would you have no ethical problem with someone who chooses to terminate their pregnancy, say, four weeks before natural delivery would have been expected? This would necessarily involve active measures being taken to destroy the foetus either before it leaves the woman's body or immediately after leaving it since there would be a reasonably high probability of it surviving if delivery was simply induced at that point in the pregnancy.

The above is an extreme example, to be sure. However, it is at the extremes that our positions are put to the test. In light of the above, do you wish to qualify your position or would you maintain, without any qualification, that a woman should be able to get an abortion if she decides so.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The above is an extreme example, to be sure. However, it is at the extremes that our positions are put to the test. In light of the above, do you still wish to hold to your position that it should be, without qualification, her choice and her choice alone?I would, yes. Whose choice would it be otherwise? In industrial societies there is a legacy of the state (specific agencies of the government or health services) attempting to control biological reproduction. Anti-abortion attempts are just the flip-side of forced sterilization, an attempt to regulate biological reproduction and control women... Especially poor women and in the u.s. Especially black women. It's also tied into sexist moralizing and shaming of "irresponsible mothers" which often also has racist undertones. On top of all this are the less direct effects of our ability to have children or not being impacted by economic factors such as reprocessions on the job for women having kids or just not being able to afford the time or money. So having our own control (for people with a womb that is) over having children or not is essential and part of the class struggle.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

Have yet to survey most of them, but speaking from my own perspective (which is kinda rev lefty);
It is the right of every woman to have access to an abortion at a time of her choosing with the only restrictions being based on consideration for her health and whatever medical consensus is re the 'x number of weeks' limit for the foetus.

[tallguy]

Have yet to survey most of them, but speaking from my own perspective (which is kinda rev lefty);
It is the right of every woman to have access to an abortion at a time of her choosing with the only restrictions being based on consideration for her health and whatever medical consensus is re the 'x number of weeks' limit for the foetus.I completely agree with this. Of course, this then opens up a secondary debate about where that "x number of weeks" precisely falls. But, that is largely a technical question, though there is sill a bit of unavoidable woo-woo in there vis a vis consciousness and when it may be said to emerge. Notwishstanding, the general area in terms of that point can be reasonably rationally arrived at and any disputation merely comes down to the finer details.

I guess I just find my hackles rising when I hear the same kind of mindless statements about total and utter pro-choice, without any qualification whatsoever, as I so often hear from the religious nutters on the other extreme end of the debate.

[tallguy]

I would, yes. Whose choice would it be otherwise? In industrial societies there is a legacy of the state (specific agencies of the government or health services) attempting to control biological reproduction. Anti-abortion attempts are just the flip-side of forced sterilization, an attempt to regulate biological reproduction and control women... Especially poor women and in the u.s. Especially black women. It's also tied into sexist moralizing and shaming of "irresponsible mothers" which often also has racist undertones. On top of all this are the less direct effects of our ability to have children or not being impacted by economic factors such as reprocessions on the job for women having kids or just not being able to afford the time or money. So having our own control (for people with a womb that is) over having children or not is essential and part of the class struggle.The entire post, above, is a straw-man in relation to the question I posed, I haven't got time to point out why right now because I've got to go out. But you can be assured I will point out why before this day is out.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

100% pro-choice.

[Comrade #138672]

It is pretty simple. Pro-choice is the only revolutionary standpoint. Anything less is reactionary, including the "but in some situations..." arguments.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I guess I just find my hackles rising when I hear the same kind of mindless statements about total and utter pro-choice, without any qualification whatsoever, as I so often hear from the religious nutters on the other extreme end of the debate.the "religious nutters" are extreme because their argument is that an objective force, in this case God, determines when and how women should give birth, not the person who is pregnant. Though arguments about "qualifications" or some timetable may seem more reasonable or a compromise, while they might be less severe, it's as extreme politically as the religious version. it's just science, more accurately an interpretation of scientific data, which stands-in as the objective force determining how and when women should give birth. So that's why in this capitalist sexist society, it should argued unequivocally for women to have full control in deciding on giving birth or not. Any legitimate "qualification" of this in my view would be in very unlikely and absurd circumstances like if someone wanted to abort by drinking poison or something.

Some things don't have much middle ground, for example it would be like being in favor of divorce but with qualifications:well they were together for a long time and they have a history of fighting but then getting back together again... Ok, the court decides to reject the divorce request and sentences you two to be accidentally locked in the backroom of a store after it closes and then you stay there all night and at first you fight and then you realize you both love each other and kiss and the audience says: awwwwwww. Or here's an extreme analogy: it wouldn't be reasonable to be an abolitionist with qualifications... orphans and illegitimately born people should still be held as property because they have no place to go, but otherwise I'm all for emancipation, totally.. It might be a better pro-slavery position... And many people were abolitionists with qualifications, even racist qualifications, but my point is that when it comes down to it, abortion is really "either or" in my view.

[Bolshevik Sickle]

Sentimentally wrong by all means, but logically sometimes it's rational.

[tallguy]

the "religious nutters" are extreme because their argument is that an objective force, in this case God, determines when and how women should give birth, not the person who is pregnant. Though arguments about "qualifications" or some timetable may seem more reasonable or a compromise, while they might be less severe, it's as extreme politically as the religious version. it's just science, more accurately an interpretation of scientific data, which stands-in as the objective force determining how and when women should give birth. So that's why in this capitalist sexist society, it should argued unequivocally for women to have full control in deciding on giving birth or not. Any legitimate "qualification" of this in my view would be in very unlikely and absurd circumstances like if someone wanted to abort by drinking poison or something.

Some things don't have much middle ground, for example it would be like being in favor of divorce but with qualifications:well they were together for a long time and they have a history of fighting but then getting back together again... Ok, the court decides to reject the divorce request and sentences you two to be accidentally locked in the backroom of a store after it closes and then you stay there all night and at first you fight and then you realize you both love each other and kiss and the audience says: awwwwwww. Or here's an extreme analogy: it wouldn't be reasonable to be an abolitionist with qualifications... orphans and illegitimately born people should still be held as property because they have no place to go, but otherwise I'm all for emancipation, totally.. It might be a better pro-slavery position... And many people were abolitionists with qualifications, even racist qualifications, but my point is that when it comes down to it, abortion is really "either or" in my view.
Okay, so no qualifications whatsoever then;

In which case, can you please answer the following question which, I am bound to note, not one single person who I have previously asked this question of on this thread who have espoused precisely your dogmatic position, has answered, as yet;

All other things being equal, would you have no ethical problem with someone who chooses to terminate their pregnancy, say, in the final month of pregnancy before natural delivery would have been expected in any event? This would necessarily involve active measures being taken to destroy the foetus either before it leaves the woman's body or immediately after leaving it since there would be a reasonably high probability of it surviving if delivery was simply induced at that point in the pregnancy.

The above is an extreme example, to be sure. However, it is at the extremes that our positions are put to the test. In light of the above, do you still wish to hold to your position that it should be, without qualification, her choice and her choice alone?

You see, the above is nothing more than the ultimate logic of your extreme, non-qualified position. If you would not have any ethical problem with the above, then at least you would be consistent, I guess. I am bound to note, though, that I strongly suspect those others who I have asked this question of have chosen not to address its moral dilemma because they know full well it would be morally repugnant to continue to hold their position under such circumstances. I also suspect, for the same reason, you will equally attempt to ignore and obfuscate around this question for the same reason. Then again, you may surprise me. I'm all ears.

And herein lies the true irony of your position in that is is precisely akin, in structure, to that of a religious loony fundamentalist anti-abortionist in that it is irrational, indefensible at the merest real-world hurdle placed in front of it, which is what my question represents, and is based on a dogmatic adherence to an ideological belief in the absence of the moral and material reality on the ground.

I am not against abortion. Far, far from it.

What I am against is dumb-ass dogmas, whatever their source.

[Quail]

I'm not sure why these debates always end up so focussed on the unlikely scenario that someone chooses to have an abortion a few weeks before the due date. For all intents and purposes that is a strawman because it's so rare (less than 1% of abortions carried out in the US are in the third trimester), and when it does happen it's generally because it would be dangerous (for whatever reason) to continue the pregnancy. I have a couple of points to make about it anyway though.

1) We don't live in a perfect world where all women have access to good sex education, contraception and early abortions. There are various reasons why a pregnancy might go undetected for a while, or a woman might not be able to get the right medical care. This means that some women aren't able to access abortion until later than they would like. I don't see how revolutionary leftists can support forcing these women to continue with their pregnancy. Though I couldn't find much information on third trimester abortions, I thought this article (http://www.livescience.com/17529-trimester-abortions.html) was interesting, giving some data about who gets second trimester abortions.

2) Most people who are against elective third trimester abortions would not be against them in the case of health risks - so what about the mental health risk to forcing someone to carry a pregnancy to term? Reasonably, having to carry a pregnancy to term and then give birth when you don't want to is going to be a traumatic experience. There is the real risk that a woman denied an abortion may turn to more extreme measures, like say trying to poison herself - in which case, we should spare her the danger and allow the procedure to be carried out safely.

[tallguy]

I'm not sure why these debates always end up so focussed on the unlikely scenario that someone chooses to have an abortion a few weeks before the due date. For all intents and purposes that is a strawman because it's so rare (less than 1% of abortions carried out in the US), and when it does happen it's generally because it would be dangerous (for whatever reason) to continue the pregnancy. I have a couple of points to make about it anyway though.

1) We don't live in a perfect world where all women have access to good sex education, contraception and early abortions. There are various reasons why a pregnancy might go undetected for a while, or a woman might not be able to get the right medical care. This means that some women aren't able to access abortion until later than they would like. I don't see how revolutionary leftists can support forcing these women to continue with their pregnancy. Though I couldn't find much information on third trimester abortions, I thought this article (http://www.livescience.com/17529-trimester-abortions.html) was interesting, giving some data about who gets second trimester abortions.

2) Most people who are against elective third trimester abortions would not be against them in the case of health risks - so what about the mental health risk to forcing someone to carry a pregnancy to term? Reasonably, having to carry a pregnancy to term and then give birth when you don't want to is going to be a traumatic experience. There is the real risk that a woman denied an abortion may turn to more extreme measures, like say trying to poison herself - in which case, we should spare her the danger and allow the procedure to be carried out safely.It is irrelevant if they are rare or not since those who are preprepared to spew a dogma, should be prepared to defend it under all circumstances. For the record, I agree, attempted third trimester abortions are likely to be extremely rare. However it is at the extremes that dogmas are put to the test and I object to dogmas because the mouths they come out of are not properly connected to the brains that are supposed to operating them.

Also, to be clear, my own objections, all other things being equal, to a late abortion is the issue of consciousness. That is to say, consciousness is the basis of human morality. It's why people wouldn't look twice at you if you stood on a rock, but might still, at least feel a slight twinge of moral queasiness if you so much as stood on even an ant without reasonable cause. And, as we move up the ladder of complexity of life, that moral queasiness becomes ever more apparent. It's in our bones. The material issue of physical survivability outside of the womb, for me, is actually less of an issue than that of consciousness. Or, to put it another way, I would have far less of an issue with an abortion which took place in the final month of pregnancy to a foetus which was physically capable of surviving but which was shown to be brain-dead, than I would with an abortion at 7 months to a foetus that may have considerable difficulty physically surviving, but which was demonstrating significant indications of consciousness.

[Quail]

It is irrelevant if they are rare or not since those who are preprepared to spew a dogma, should be prepared to defend it under all circumstances. For the record, I agree, attempted third trimester abortions are likely to be extremely rare. However it is at the extremes that dogmas are put to the test and I object to dogmas because the mouths they come out of are not properly connected to the brains that are supposed to operating them.
It's not really irrelevant though because your hypothetical situation is extremely unlikely so it's a bit of a dishonest argument. I support free access to abortion in all circumstances, but the point I am trying to make is that essentially the situation where a woman decides on a whim four weeks before her due date that she doesn't want a baby any more and chooses to abort it is so unrealistic that it is meaningless as an argument.

Also, you ignored the rest of my post:

2) Most people who are against elective third trimester abortions would not be against them in the case of health risks - so what about the mental health risk to forcing someone to carry a pregnancy to term? Reasonably, having to carry a pregnancy to term and then give birth when you don't want to is going to be a traumatic experience. There is the real risk that a woman denied an abortion may turn to more extreme measures, like say trying to poison herself - in which case, we should spare her the danger and allow the procedure to be carried out safely.

[Decolonize The Left]

Also, to be clear, my own objections, all other things being equal, to a late abortion is the issue of consciousness. That is to say, consciousness is the basis of human morality. It's why people wouldn't look twice at you if you stood on a rock, but might still, at least feel a slight twinge of moral queasiness if you so much as stood on even an ant without reasonable cause. And, as we move up the ladder of complexity of life, that moral queasiness becomes ever more apparent. It's in our bones. The material issue of physical survivability outside of the womb, for me, is actually less of an issue than that of consciousness. Or, to put it another way, I would have far less of an issue with an abortion which took place in the final month of pregnancy to a foetus which was physically capable of surviving but which was shown to be brain-dead, than I would with an abortion at 7 months to a foetus that may have considerable difficulty physically surviving, but which was demonstrating significant indications of consciousness.

If you want to be coherent, as you are claiming you are holding others to such a standard, then be so:
1) What is consciousness? Can you define it as a thing? If so, where is it and what is it composed of?
2) What are "indications of consciousness?" And how are these applicable across the board?
3) How, please explain, is consciousness (which you have not explained) "the basis of human morality?"
4) If consciousness is your claim against late-term abortions, then you certainly agree that you are opposed to the killing of all conscious animals in all situations. After all, if a human in a womb is conscious enough to negate the will of its mother, then all conscious animals are valuable enough to negate the will of humans who desire to kill them for whatever purpose, no?
5) If someone is not demonstrating "indications of consciousness," are they expendable?

The real truth of the matter is that a woman's body is her own and no one has any right to legislate decisions onto her. End of discussion.

[The Intransigent Faction]

Why even ask this question? Pretty sure any answer other than "abortions for everyone, because we can!" will get you restricted. Not a criticism (I'm pro-choice)...just seems like there's no point in discussing any given issue in the context of only one answer being permissible. It makes things kinda monotonous.

[tallguy]

Why even ask this question? Pretty sure any answer other than "abortions for everyone, because we can!" will get you restricted. Not a criticism (I'm pro-choice)...just seems like there's no point in discussing any given issue in the context of only one answer being permissible. It makes things kinda monotonous.I'm pro-choice as well, as it happens. I just happen to be also anti the type of dogmatic, mindless bullshit I am seeing being spewed all over this board on a variety of topics.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I'm pro-choice as well, as it happens. I just happen to be also anti the type of dogmatic, mindless bullshit I am seeing being spewed all over this board on a variety of topics.
It's not dogmatism because the way I see the debate is a question of woman's rights and control over the reproductive process. This used to be the common sense pro-abortion position even by mainstream liberals back when there was an actual women's lib movement. Now a whole hell of a lot of ground is lost politically and the right has eroded support, largely through reframing the issue to make it about abstract concerns like when life starts and shit like that.

So are there rare examples where a doctor or loved one has to make a decision? Sure, if someone has had a breakdown, they can't make medical decisions etc, but it's not worth talking about because it's really secondary to the pro or anti abortion debate.

And frankly it's poor form to say that someone who disagrees with you is dogmatic basically because they disagree with you. Women's control over reproduction is a principle for me and I think it is a necessary part of fighting against systemic sexism in society and more generally part of the class struggle. I am attempting to argue and explain my position to you because you asked a question. I disagree that women are irrational enough to seek abortions when it's completely unnecessary and so general qualifications are not needed in my view and that is what I am attempting to argue.

[Diirez]

I'm in favor for freedom, not tyranny.
So I support the right for a woman to choose on whether or not she wants to have an abortion or not.