Abortion and contraception: not seeing the principle for the facts

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

"Abortion should not be used as an alternative to contraception." How many times have we heard this statement both from open forced-birthers and by concern trolls masquerading as pro-choice? Yet it seems to me that the usual response, which in my experience is to deny that anything like this happens, is entirely inadequate.

In fact the empirical data seems to support the conclusion: women do not use abortions as alternatives to contraception. By focusing on this fact, however, we seem to concede the actual point: we seem to be saying that, if such things did happen, then perhaps restrictions on abortion might be warranted.

The truly socialist response is to confirm the control the woman has over her own self (her body, which is not some object she owns, but is her), no matter the circumstances. A woman should be free to abort with no charge and without shaming, harassment or anti-abortion propaganda, at any point of her pregnancy, for whatever reason. Even if she is using abortion as an alternative to contraception. Even if she thinks the ghost of comrade Stalin ordered her to abort. No qualifications, no exceptions.

The same goes, by the way, for the usual homophobic argument about gay people being promiscuous. It won't do any good to cite statistics about the sexual behaviour of gay people, because the important point is that consenting partners should be able to do whatever they want to each other. Even if they have bareback orgies every night (I wish the sex life of the average gay person was like that) and day.

So, what does the rest of RevLeft think?

[Rosa Partizan]

I agree on that abortion part, although I think that a responsible usage of contraception is better for you. I know women that were glad as hell to have aborted and never had problems with it, and I know women that were totally devastated afterwards and regretted it when later, they weren't able to become pregnant again. I support any woman that has aborted and will abort and I've never heard of a single woman using abortion as alternative to contraception, so this is a kind of an invalid point anyway.

When it comes to bareback stuff, I'm not that tolerant, I gotta admit. I've seen too many people suffer here at the AIDS centre I work voluntarily for to know that this is stuff you often enough regret sooner or later. I know you can't prohibit that, and I wouldn't, but if I had a friend doing this, I'd sure as hell tell him what I think about that and warn him over and over again.

[PhoenixAsh]

I think anybody using abortion as a form of contraception when they have unrestricted access to all the other methods is as fucking stupid as somebody going to the emergency room of a hospital for applying a bandage. Both happen...quite a lot actually. Plus I think people who think the ghost of Stalin ordered them to have an abortion need other help too.

Do I think any of these reasons to restrict abortion? No.

Disproving of people being stupid however does not equal conceding the point that restrictions are warranted nor should anybody in the left actually argue that critiquing methods constitutes arguing limitations to free access to abortion. Which is where you always seem to be heading...finding another way to label people as class traitors and fueling your prosecutionist mentality. Framing this, once again, in the pro-life vs pro-choice narrative is just simply inane.

[Atsumari]

Here is a lecture that pretty much cover what we need and should know about abortion. It covers abortions around the world, the health effects, legality, and most important to the topic, contraception and abortion.
http://oyc.yale.edu/molecular-cellular-and-developmental-biology/mcdb-150/lecture-21

Here is the biology
http://oyc.yale.edu/molecular-cellular-and-developmental-biology/mcdb-150/lecture-23

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I agree on that abortion part, although I think that a responsible usage of contraception is better for you. I know women that were glad as hell to have aborted and never had problems with it, and I know women that were totally devastated afterwards and regretted it when later, they weren't able to become pregnant again. I support any woman that has aborted and will abort and I've never heard of a single woman using abortion as alternative to contraception, so this is a kind of an invalid point anyway.

Perhaps, but my point was precisely that we should not focus (as most people, in my experience, do) on whether such cases exist. Instead we should cut the knot and affirm the freedom of the woman to abort at any time, in any situation, for any reason.


When it comes to bareback stuff, I'm not that tolerant, I gotta admit. I've seen too many people suffer here at the AIDS centre I work voluntarily for to know that this is stuff you often enough regret sooner or later. I know you can't prohibit that, and I wouldn't, but if I had a friend doing this, I'd sure as hell tell him what I think about that and warn him over and over again.

First of all, the "bareback" part was an attempt to sound scandalous without being overtly pornographic. The point was that reactionaries often accuse gay people of being promiscuous. Now, the standard liberal reflex, adopted unfortunately by many socialists, is to try to argue the facts of the matter, whether gay people are promiscuous or not. But, again, this concedes the really important point, that sexual behaviour between consenting partners is something that should be controlled, judged etc. Our response to this should be "if that is true, so what"?

Now, concerning actual bareback sex, I think it's something the people concerned need to work out for themselves. Yeah, it carries its risks. But everything does, and I find myself increasingly worried by attempts to make everything as "safe" as possible, even if the people concerned don't want it.


I think anybody using abortion as a form of contraception when they have unrestricted access to all the other methods is as fucking stupid as somebody going to the emergency room of a hospital for applying a bandage.

Well that's nice. I'm sure they'll welcome your unsolicited opinion on their choices that concern only them. And hey, after all, it's not as if we live in a structurally misogynist society where shaming and anti-abortion propaganda plays a crucial role in restricting the access of women to abortion services.


Plus I think people who think the ghost of Stalin ordered them to have an abortion need other help too.

Perhaps, if they want it. But if they want to abort due to that, that's their prerogative. Of course, it isn't unheard of for ostensible socialists to advocate that in such cases the decision be taken out of the woman's hands and placed in the benevolent hands of the bourgeois state, but this simply highlights the low intellectual and theoretical level of the present movement.


Disproving of people being stupid however does not equal conceding the point that restrictions are warranted nor should anybody in the left actually argue that critiquing methods constitutes arguing limitations to free access to abortion. Which is where you always seem to be heading...finding another way to label people as class traitors and fueling your prosecutionist mentality. Framing this, once again, in the pro-life vs pro-choice narrative is just simply inane.

Good grief, this rubbish again? This is simply lazy, abstract thinking that ignores the social context. Hey, let's all support people who tell gay people that being gay is a sin, too! It's not like they're necessarily arguing for legal restrictions, now. And apparently legal restrictions are the only restrictions because we're such good materialists.

There is no other way to frame the problem. Either you are for free abortion on demand at any point in the pregnancy for whatever reason, without shaming and exclusion, or you are not. If pointing this out makes me a "prosecutionist" (whatever that might be), so be it.

It is absurd that you would spend so much energy on a site ostensibly catering to the revolutionary socialist milieu arguing for your right to shame women. Ugh.

[Decolonize The Left]

Just to be clear, abortion is not a form of contraception.

Contraception is: the deliberate use of artificial methods or other techniques to prevent pregnancy as a consequence of sexual intercourse.

Abortion is: the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy.

The latter is, by definition, not a part of the former as the latter takes place after pregnancy while the former takes place before.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Just to be clear, abortion is not a form of contraception.

Contraception is: the deliberate use of artificial methods or other techniques to prevent pregnancy as a consequence of sexual intercourse.

Abortion is: the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy.

The latter is, by definition, not a part of the former as the latter takes place after pregnancy while the former takes place before.

I never said that they were, so I'm a bit unclear as to the purpose of this comment.

[PhoenixAsh]

Well that's nice. I'm sure they'll welcome your unsolicited opinion on their choices that concern only them. And hey, after all, it's not as if we live in a structurally misogynist society where shaming and anti-abortion propaganda plays a crucial role in restricting the access of women to abortion services.

Perhaps, if they want it. But if they want to abort due to that, that's their prerogative. Of course, it isn't unheard of for ostensible socialists to advocate that in such cases the decision be taken out of the woman's hands and placed in the benevolent hands of the bourgeois state, but this simply highlights the low intellectual and theoretical level of the present movement.

Good grief, this rubbish again? This is simply lazy, abstract thinking that ignores the social context. Hey, let's all support people who tell gay people that being gay is a sin, too! It's not like they're necessarily arguing for legal restrictions, now. And apparently legal restrictions are the only restrictions because we're such good materialists.

There is no other way to frame the problem. Either you are for free abortion on demand at any point in the pregnancy for whatever reason, without shaming and exclusion, or you are not. If pointing this out makes me a "prosecutionist" (whatever that might be), so be it.

It is absurd that you would spend so much energy on a site ostensibly catering to the revolutionary socialist milieu arguing for your right to shame women. Ugh.

Rich coming from a guy who argued that specifically targeting female hostages and children in order to punish their husbands and sons was perfectly acceptable because the ends justify the means and whose prosecutionist mentality is legendary on this site and who whitewashed and dismissed rape of women by Bolshevik officials as being "incidents". But I guess you conveniently forgot that part....just as long as we are not saying choices are stupid if women make them.

Hey...didn't you btw just the other day attack the SPGB for being misogynist and homophobic for not making an explicit statement saying otherwise? But all of the sudden you are now being completely honest in your intentions and really aren't prosecutionist at all? Sure.

The fact however is that we do not live in a world that is divided by a pro-life or pro-choice polarization. Not only are those two terms completely inane and actually playing into bourgeois liberal notions but framing the issue of abortion into those categories also completely ignores the fact that different parts of the world struggle with different issues surrounding abortion and third it completely lacks a proper Marxist/revolutionary analysis of the issue. But hey...I am used to some Trots being more than a little confused as to what actually counts as socialism and what is just counter revolutionary bullshit in disguise. What you also seem to be forgetting is that pro-choice actually does not equal "you have to have an abortion" and there are a whole host of reasons to actually think using abortion as an alternative to a perfectly available range of freely available anti-conception products in some countries that have preciously little to do with somebody shaming woman or about the nature and status of abortion.

But everything boils down for you to the notion that there is only your position on abortion and everybody else secretly wants to restrict abortions. Sure Vincent....whatever you want. Make sure that when the revolution comes and you recreate your secret thought police to execute workers who disagree with your ideology of state-capitalism you tell the women right before you shoot them that at least you argued for others not to say it was stupid using medical procedures which hold risks to your health, take a huge amount of time out of your day and work life and requires some recovery and which will actually INCREASE your chance to get pregnant and which cost about 350 euro of own risk coverage in the first few weeks after you have had one if you don't use other means of contraception, is costly and takes up hospital time and places as a form of anti-conception in lieu of using a condom (€1) or pill (covered in health care) or pessary (€7 with two tubes of semen killing pasta at the local pharmacy) or morning after pill (€ 7,85) is stupid....you know...all things you can get for free at several clinics or can buy in just about every grocery store :rolleyes:


Because perish the thought that people actually use common sense.

I am sure that I was arguing the restrictions of bandages too.

[Rosa Partizan]

Perhaps, but my point was precisely that we should not focus (as most people, in my experience, do) on whether such cases exist. Instead we should cut the knot and affirm the freedom of the woman to abort at any time, in any situation, for any reason.

yes, this is right. But the far better thing would be to avoid pregnancy. Contraception is easier, cheaper and less stressful than an abortion. It's not like that it's the same thing. Both things are the woman's choice. However, if I had a friend who was like "I don't wanna get pregnant, but I don't use contraceptives either, lulz, norisknofun yolo", I'd most def tell her off how stupid I find that. Yeah, after that, she can do whatever she wants, but it's not like as a friend, you have to agree on every decision your friends make without stating your opinion. I like my own friends to tell me when they consider some of my actions stupid or dangerous or whatever.





First of all, the "bareback" part was an attempt to sound scandalous without being overtly pornographic. The point was that reactionaries often accuse gay people of being promiscuous. Now, the standard liberal reflex, adopted unfortunately by many socialists, is to try to argue the facts of the matter, whether gay people are promiscuous or not. But, again, this concedes the really important point, that sexual behaviour between consenting partners is something that should be controlled, judged etc. Our response to this should be "if that is true, so what"?

Now, concerning actual bareback sex, I think it's something the people concerned need to work out for themselves. Yeah, it carries its risks. But everything does, and I find myself increasingly worried by attempts to make everything as "safe" as possible, even if the people concerned don't want it.



I can wholeheartedly state and agree that I don't care how promiscuous people are. And as I said before, I'm not interested in regulating that stuff by law, but on the other hand, I know some HIV figures and statistics here from my own town, not by only reading them somewhere, but first-hand, and I find them deeply troubling and I DO care if HIV spreads or not and if this is the case, it's not anymore only those people's concern. Yeah, one can now go like "but you can use condoms". Every sane person should do that, but even then, unfortunate incidents are possible, and there are some other nice STDs apart from HIV you can get. You can call me hysteric or whatever, but yeah, I actually AM freaked out by HIV and got myself tested so many times when other people would be like "geez, you are really overcautious", and guess why, I've seen the face of HIV and Aids a few times too often to be pissed off by people who "attempt to make everything as safe as possible". Sorry for sounding a bit aggressive, but when it comes to HIV and AIDS, I'm not joking around or anything.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Oh, Hindsight, you really are a one.


Rich coming from a guy who argued that specifically targeting female hostages and children in order to punish their husbands and sons was perfectly acceptable because the ends justify the means

It isn't a matter of "justification" - I am reminded of Dzerzhinsky's quip to the effect that the CheKa doesn't judge, the CheKa strikes. In a revolutionary situation, the interim proletarian state exists in order to safeguard the revolution. The institution of hostages did just that, and therefore using this institution was the correct communist policy, no matter what "anarchists" who support reformist bourgeois "socialist" parties think about it.


and whose prosecutionist mentality is legendary on this site and who whitewashed and dismissed rape of women by Bolshevik officials as being "incidents". But I guess you conveniently forgot that part....just as long as we are not saying choices are stupid if women make them.

And now you're relying on outright fabrication. You mentioned rape by CheKa officers, to which I replied that these were isolated incidents punished by shooting. You haven't really responded to that; apparently you think that everyone shares your weird Orientalist obsession with alleged hordes of subhuman Russian, Bashkir, Latvian etc. rapists.


Hey...didn't you btw just the other day attack the SPGB for being misogynist and homophobic for not making an explicit statement saying otherwise? But all of the sudden you are now being completely honest in your intentions and really aren't prosecutionist at all? Sure.

No, I'm not a "prosecutionists" because the word doesn't mean anything, it's just something you made up. You might think it makes you look smart but it just makes you look weirdly desperate, like you've run out of accusations and have to invent new ones.

And yes, I did accuse the spamgbots of being homophobic and misogynist, both on the basis of explicit SPGB statements and the glaring omissions when it came to questions of womens' and queer liberation. It's interesting that you mention that discussion, given that the spamgbots participating have shown themselves to be family-mongers of the worst sort.

Any sort of principled communist politics requires that revisionists, opportunits, reformists and liberals masquerading as socialists be exposed and attacked. I'm sorry if this goes against some fairy-tale notion of "left unity" you have, but that's not my problem.


The fact however is that we do not live in a world that is divided by a pro-life or pro-choice polarization. Not only are those two terms completely inane and actually playing into bourgeois liberal notions but framing the issue of abortion into those categories also completely ignores the fact that different parts of the world struggle with different issues surrounding abortion and third it completely lacks a proper Marxist/revolutionary analysis of the issue. But hey...I am used to some Trots being more than a little confused as to what actually counts as socialism and what is just counter revolutionary bullshit in disguise. What you also seem to be forgetting is that pro-choice actually does not equal "you have to have an abortion" and there are a whole host of reasons to actually think using abortion as an alternative to a perfectly available range of freely available anti-conception products in some countries that have preciously little to do with somebody shaming woman or about the nature and status of abortion.

And here we come to the crux of your post, that is your confused and impressionistic ranting. I mean, seriously - half of the sentences don't seem to be connected to anything I have written, anything you have written, or any coherent human thought whatsoever. "Pro-choice actually does not equal 'you have to have an abortion'"? No one claimed it does. What seems to offend you is that we talk about abortion as a private affair of the woman, not as some cosmic tragedy that women should be talked out of. The world is not "divided by a pro-life or pro-choice polarization"? What does that even mean? It doesn't mean anything, it's a jumble of words desperately trying to be a sentence and failing. The fact of the matter is, either you support the prerogative of the woman to have an abortion free of charge, harassment and shaming, at any point, for whatever reason, or you don't. If you don't, you might fit the bourgeois category of "pro-choice", but you are an enemy of women and an enemy of the socialist movement. There is no need for complicated analysis here - it all follows once you genuinely accept that women are not incubators. There are interesting things to be said about how the need to restrict abortion arises in capitalism in order to secure the process of the reproduction of the proletariat, but I've written on that elsewhere. The last sentence is missing a verb. By virtue of actually not carrying any sort of complete information, it is the best sentence of your post.


But everything boils down for you to the notion that there is only your position on abortion and everybody else secretly wants to restrict abortions. Sure Vincent....whatever you want. Make sure that when the revolution comes and you recreate your secret thought police to execute workers who disagree with your ideology of state-capitalism you tell the women right before you shoot them that at least you argued for others not to say it was stupid using medical procedures which hold risks to your health, take a huge amount of time out of your day and work life and requires some recovery and which will actually INCREASE your chance to get pregnant and which cost about 350 euro of own risk coverage in the first few weeks after you have had one if you don't use other means of contraception, is costly and takes up hospital time and places as a form of anti-conception in lieu of using a condom (€1) or pill (covered in health care) or pessary (€7 with two tubes of semen killing pasta at the local pharmacy) or morning after pill (€ 7,85) is stupid....you know...all things you can get for free at several clinics or can buy in just about every grocery store :rolleyes:


Because perish the thought that people actually use common sense.

I am sure that I was arguing the restrictions of bandages too.

I don't know if you want to be a writer, but definitely don't quit your day job to become one. It won't work out. It doesn't matter what condoms cost, you goon, because it's none of your business what women do with themselves. If they want to get pregnant over and over and abort over and over, more power to them. And, again, you completely ignore the social context, as you usually do, even comparing abortion with a bandage. Well, I look forward to the day when ridiculous opinions like yours are finally done away with and the fact that abortion is a simple medical procedure that doesn't concern anyone but the patient is recognised, but in the mean time we live in, as I said, a structurally misogynist society where shaming and social exclusion are used to restrict womens' access to abortion. You are, quite frankly, part of the problem.

[PhoenixAsh]

Oh, Hindsight, you really are a one.

It isn't a matter of "justification" - I am reminded of Dzerzhinsky's quip to the effect that the CheKa doesn't judge, the CheKa strikes. In a revolutionary situation, the interim proletarian state exists in order to safeguard the revolution. The institution of hostages did just that, and therefore using this institution was the correct communist policy, no matter what "anarchists" who support reformist bourgeois "socialist" parties think about it.

There was no revolution.
Your precious Bolsheviks claimed privileges over workers and then killed them and their families when they did the socialist thing: organize and strike. Your ideology is counter revolutionary drivel and your rhetorics and arguments are a direct continuation of this counter revolutionary anti-worker bourgeois reaction. Your ideology doesn't belong in the revolutionary left.


And now you're relying on outright fabrication. You mentioned rape by CheKa officers, to which I replied that these were isolated incidents punished by shooting. You haven't really responded to that; apparently you think that everyone shares your weird Orientalist obsession with alleged hordes of subhuman Russian, Bashkir, Latvian etc. rapists.

You completely diminished and denied it as being widespread practice based on witness statements often going unpunished. Which you, as it turns out in good Trotskyist tradition, denied and waved away as unimportant. You then proceeded to defend the institution of the Cheka and tried to blame some other organization for the repression of actual revolutionary workers. And I love how you are equating Bolsheviks with ethnicity and try to work some racism in. But you do not have a perse****ionist mentality at all.


No, I'm not a "prosecutionists" because the word doesn't mean anything, it's just something you made up. You might think it makes you look smart but it just makes you look weirdly desperate, like you've run out of accusations and have to invent new ones.

Actually I have quite consistently accused you of being persecutionist. It isn't there to make me sound smart because I am quite aware that the word itself doesn't exist, however everybody seems to understand what it means. It is there to tell you you have a sickly need to prosecute people and create lies and fabrications and straw man arguments in order to paint other people and groups in a slanderous way.

It is there when you became a member. It was there when you attacked the SPGB for homophobia based on the absence of statements to the contrary. It was there when you accuse Robbo of being a Whiteguard and it is here right now when you insidiously try to work some racism into your attack.


1
And yes, I did accuse the spamgbots of being homophobic and misogynist, both on the basis of explicit SPGB statements and the glaring omissions when it came to questions of womens' and queer liberation. It's interesting that you mention that discussion, given that the spamgbots participating have shown themselves to be family-mongers of the worst sort.

Explicit SPGB statements which you completely and utterly failed to reproduce. You then went on to argue that they were also completely wrong and communism meant the destruction of ALL forms of the family....for which you also failed to reproduce evidence. And then you of course went on to accuse everybody there of being white guards. This statement was of course easily disproven...and you ran with your tail between your legs from that thread. I have seen that debate. My Trotskyist girlfriend facepalmed in shame for you.

But yes. Talking about glaring omissions as a fair basis of accusation. Lets see how that works out: "I haven't seen you condemn the SR denial of rape and outright rape apologism. Since you are a Trotsyist and failed to do so you must definitely be a rape apologist.

Leave your Cheka methods at the log in when you come to revleft.



Any sort of principled communist politics requires that revisionists, opportunits, reformists and liberals masquerading as socialists be exposed and attacked. I'm sorry if this goes against some fairy-tale notion of "left unity" you have, but that's not my problem.

Yes. I quite agree. However we have a problem. Since I think you are the revisionist, opportunist, reformist and actually a counter revolutionary reactionary tool defending outright repression, torture and murder of workers in order to secure your classist and elitist power over them.

I will reply to the rest of your drivel later.

[PhoenixAsh]

And here we come to the crux of your post, that is your confused and impressionistic ranting. I mean, seriously - half of the sentences don't seem to be connected to anything I have written, anything you have written, or any coherent human thought whatsoever. "Pro-choice actually does not equal 'you have to have an abortion'"? No one claimed it does.

You are prone to playing into the liberal/conservative notion between pro-choice and pro-life. Both these terms however are hollow and serve to distract from the main issue. By perpetuating the notion and framing everything in this liberal reactionary polarization model you are ignoring the fundamental aspects of what pro-life and pro-choice actually mean and you are insidiously distracting from the issue at hand.

Your entire arguments considering abortion solely focus on the abortion part and exclude all other parts having to do with choice. In fact you specifically prevent others from debating the issue extensively by framing the entire debate in the pro-life vs pro-choice polarization...and assigning moral evaluations on legitimate arguments by labeling as belonging to either one of the two camps you so falsely and incorrectly apply to the debate.

In doing so you seem to create a bubble of "non debatable" on certain issues like: providing information to women; sex ed.; free access to adoption agencies; reorganization and restructuring of the adoption process; providing education in pregnancy prevention or creating economic support for women who do not wish to fall into your fallacy that pro-choice is actually limited to abortion. After all all arguments to actually do so would provide ammunition for the supposed pro-life group. Your position prevents extensive analysis of problematic issues regarding adoption and the actual right to chose (you know...how the term should actually be used rather than your limited and wrong definition of it) and how to solve them.



What seems to offend you is that we talk about abortion as a private affair of the woman, not as some cosmic tragedy that women should be talked out of. The world is not "divided by a pro-life or pro-choice polarization"?

And in giving into your reactionary classification of the issue of framing pro-choice as limited to abortion only, you create a false dichotomy which any and all positions that do not conform with YOUR specific definition must therefore be "talking women out of abortions". Straw manning. Why? Because you are too fucking blind and too fucking stupid to actually open your eyes to reality and everything with you must be black or white out of your sick necessity to sniff out possible traitors.



What does that even mean? It doesn't mean anything, it's a jumble of words desperately trying to be a sentence and failing.

It means exactly what it says. The Framing of the issue of abortion and per extension "choice" and female empowerment within the polarization of liberal bourgeois notions of "pro-life vs pro-choice" is empty rhetorics serving your own personal need while preventing issues being solved and properly addressed.

It also denies the simple reality that not every country deals with abortion in the same way as the "pro-choice vs pro-life" insanity as in the US and not every "pro-choice vs pro-life" debate has the same characteristics or the same expressions. By forcing the definition applicable to some countries in a widely bourgeois move on every other country denies the fact that some countries have completely different issues surrounding abortion than "shaming". It also tries to force the false notion that women everywhere are at the exact same point in the battle to end patriarchal domination and regulation of their reproductive organs.

You also falsely try to create a polarization between: criticism of behavior and arguing to restrict and legislate. You are prone to this almost sickening opposition to analysis and education to lead to proper empowering of oppressed and suppressed groups.

You are for example free to stick a knife in yourself for no other reason than you want to. It is your body. You can do with it what you want. This does however not mean that sticking a knife in yourself simply because you want to isn't bloody fucking stupid. And this evaluation isn't akin to arguing restricting people to either have access to knifes or legislating that they can't stick knifes in themselves. It is however the evaluation that somebody is bloody fucking stupid. Another proper analysis might be somebody is sticking knifes in themselves because they need serious help; lack attention or lack proper education on what sticking a knife in yourself actually does.

Not so with our valiant Vincent West. He would probably perceive the criticism as being part of a social context in which freedom would be repressed and saying something is bloody stupid is completely akin to shaming and therefore arguing for restriction. Not that you would actually make that argument of freedom, because given your pension for validating and actually approving of torture and execution of innocent people based on the crime of association or simply opposing your specific ideology of reaction it would be a real breach of character.


The fact of the matter is, either you support the prerogative of the woman to have an abortion free of charge, harassment and shaming, at any point, for whatever reason, or you don't. If you don't, you might fit the bourgeois category of "pro-choice", but you are an enemy of women and an enemy of the socialist movement.

O I forgot. Women are of course very fragile creatures who must be shielded from any form of criticism. But it is perfectly ok for your precious Bolsheviks as part of integral policy to specifically target them, rape them, torture them and then execute them because their husbands, fathers and brothers were striking like real socialists. All in the name of protecting your counter revolution.


There is no need for complicated analysis here - it all follows once you genuinely accept that women are not incubators. There are interesting things to be said about how the need to restrict abortion arises in capitalism in order to secure the process of the reproduction of the proletariat, but I've written on that elsewhere. The last sentence is missing a verb. By virtue of actually not carrying any sort of complete information, it is the best sentence of your post.

Were you actually interested in women's rights instead of using women's rights as yet another vehicle of creating a system of prosecution and stifling any real socialist and Marxist analysis of problems surrounding abortion and choice I would be inclined to actually take your words here serious. As it stands now they are as hollow as your mantle of pro worker revolutionary ideology.


I don't know if you want to be a writer, but definitely don't quit your day job to become one. It won't work out. It doesn't matter what condoms cost, you goon, because it's none of your business what women do with themselves. If they want to get pregnant over and over and abort over and over, more power to them. And, again, you completely ignore the social context, as you usually do, even comparing abortion with a bandage. Well, I look forward to the day when ridiculous opinions like yours are finally done away with and the fact that abortion is a simple medical procedure that doesn't concern anyone but the patient is recognised, but in the mean time we live in, as I said, a structurally misogynist society where shaming and social exclusion are used to restrict womens' access to abortion. You are, quite frankly, part of the problem.

Actually...WE do not. Which was my point you doorknob.

I live in a part of the world where women frequently have abortions and have free access to medically save abortions...and their right to do so is recognized. Shaming because of abortions is very, very rare and happens on individual non structural basis. Exclusion because of abortion happens within families not in society as a larger part. 1 in 5 girls before the age of 18 have had multiple abortions and abortion is a normally accepted part of life for the vast majority of the Dutch. Only small religious fringe groups argue against abortion...and only then to limit the allowable term for abortion to take place.
If there are anti-abortion protests last time...I believe a hundred or so religious nuts showed up.

Even though access to abortion is free, legal and most often without negative social connotations the Dutch have one of the lowest abortion rates...and even then usually this rate is inflated by women from abroad coming here for the procedure. The analysis why we have the lowest abortion rate is because of sex-ed and open access to preventatives which are widely available. However we do have a growing number of girls and women starting to use abortion as a means of contraception.

As an example of this being the case: The last three months alone there have been 7 requests for a second leave period with regards to abortion in as many months. Let me clarify that for you: 7 individual women out of 57 asked for leave for the second time because they need to have an abortion. For 3 of them that would be their fourth or fifth one in the last 10 months. Since we do not register anything without doctors notes this means they have doctors notes substantiating their claim/requests. In total this year we have had over 89 women for which additionally to the ones I mentioned 11.5% asked for leave regarding a first abortion.

Our problem is not in shaming you complete dolt but in the limitations on the term in which abortion is legal....for which is extensive arguing from the scientific community to abandon the limitations.

[PhoenixAsh]

O and VW.. don't think I didn't notice your completely dishonest comment of you wanting to see abortion as a normal medical procedure while at the same time of course attacking me for comparing using abortion as an anti contraceptive to using the emergency room to aplly i a bandage...

[Wuggums47]

I know this probably isn't a viewpoint other people will agree with, but I don't support abortion for the same reason I think we should stop producing meat. It's wrong to hurt any living thing for any reason but self preservation. If abortion will save the mothers life, or she has another good reason then I do support it though. My own mother was told she had a 50-50 chance of surviving giving birth to me and I would probably die too. She went through with it and we're both alive today. I don't understand why supporting abortion is seen as a right/left thing, I hold a socialist viewpoint on everything else.

[consuming negativity]

I know this probably isn't a viewpoint other people will agree with, but I don't support abortion for the same reason I think we should stop producing meat. It's wrong to hurt any living thing for any reason but self preservation. If abortion will save the mothers life, or she has another good reason then I do support it though. My own mother was told she had a 50-50 chance of surviving giving birth to me and I would probably die too. She went through with it and we're both alive today. I don't understand why supporting abortion is seen as a right/left thing, I hold a socialist viewpoint on everything else.
Because denying the right of abortion to women is a violation of their bodily autonomy. A fetus does not gain the right to a woman's body by virtue of existence, and a woman's being pregnant does not cede control of her body to you, the state, or anyone else.