Communist views on abortion?

[Red_Morg98]

I was just wondering what other communists or lefties thought about abortion on this site.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Big fan.

Seriously, we fight for the right of the woman to have a free (as in free of charge) and safe abortion, without harassment, at any stage of the pregnancy (yes, even "late-term" abortions).

[Црвена]

We're pro-freedom, therefore pro-choice.

[Rosa Partizan]

pro choice, be it the choice to not have the child or the choice to give birth, nothing more to add.

[The Jay]

I was just wondering what other communists or lefties thought about abortion on this site.


It isn't exactly a subject related to Communism, and this is demonstrated by many people being pro-choice who are reactionary in other ways. The subject is one of philosophical or theological persuasion. My own personal view is that women should be able to choose whether or not they have children.



We're pro-freedom, therefore pro-choice.

Pro-freedom you say? What is freedom anyway?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

It isn't exactly a subject related to Communism, and this is demonstrated by many people being pro-choice who are reactionary in other ways. The subject is one of philosophical or theological persuasion. My own personal view is that women should be able to choose whether or not they have children.

Since bourgeois-state control of women's sexuality is crucial for the maintenance of capitalism - and since more than half of the proletariat has a uterus! - I'd say it's pretty much "a subject related to communism". Talking about "philosophical or theological persuasion" is a cop-out.

[Comrade Jacob]

I think late-term abortions are disgusting but even the legalization of that is a part of women's liberation and thus I support their right to go though with it.

[Red_Morg98]

I agree with all of your opinions about it being really, down to the mother to make the decision. However, I believe and I would keep it to myself that unless it would put the mother and child in life threatening danger, the child should be giving the chance at life. And if the mother can't financially support the child, adoption would be a better choice than abortion. Is my viewpoint considered more right than left?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I agree with all of your opinions about it being really, down to the mother to make the decision. However, I believe and I would keep it to myself that unless it would put the mother and child in life threatening danger, the child should be giving the chance at life. And if the mother can't financially support the child, adoption would be a better choice than abortion. Is my viewpoint considered more right than left?

There's no "child" to be given a chance at life in an abortion. It's a fetus. A fetus is not a goddamn child anymore than splooge is.

I friggin' hate that language.

[Rosa Partizan]

yeah lets stop emotionalizing the process of abortion with terms like child and life and stuff. A fetus is in medical terms rather comparable to a parasite and could not survive without its connection to the female body, so she has full autonomy over it.

[Црвена]

Pro-freedom you say? What is freedom anyway?

Well that's a question of semantics and I of course view freedom as something unachievable without overthrowing capitalism and the state through revolution, but in this case I support a woman's right to be free to choose what she wants to do with her body and free from the government, who don't care about people anyway and are "pro-life," for superstitious reasons in most cases, controlling her. Freedom and our current system can't coexist, but we may as well support people getting a tiny bit more social autonomy.

[Loony Le Fist]

What I don't understand is why we simply cannot fix this issue through fetal transplantation. We would never have to face this abortion issue ever again. There's plenty of individuals that want children that cannot have them on their own. Why not give them the opportunity to have one, while at the same time having choice available to those that need it (I think is absolutely essential)? If those who identify as pro-life (in general) cared about anything about the sanctity of human life, they would be pushing for that. Except we all know that the truth is that pro-life really means anti-sex--for women specifically. It's about control, not life.

As far your specific question--there is nothing about communism that I know of that indicates there is some official position on abortion. Liberation theologists tend to be pro-life, in my experience, but most leftists generally are in favor of having it legal and accessible to those that desire to have one.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

What I don't understand is why we simply cannot fix this issue through fetal transplantation. We would never have to face this abortion issue ever again. There's plenty of individuals that want children that cannot have them on their own. Why not give them the opportunity to have one, while at the same time allowing choice (that I think is absolutely essential)? If those who identify as pro-life (in general) cared about anything about the sanctity of human life, they would be pushing for that. Except we all know that the truth is that pro-life really means anti-sex--for women specifically. It's about control, not life.

As far your specific question--there is nothing about communism that I know of that indicates there is some official position on abortion. Liberation theologists tend to be pro-life, in my experience, but most leftists generally are in favor of having it legal and accessible to those that desire to have one.

Liberation theologists also aren't Marxists or class-struggle anarchists.

The problem with these sort of "fetal transplantation" scenarios, and believe me, I've heard quite a few in my time, is that they impose conditions on how a woman is able to dispose of her own body. And they would end up with unsafe operations being preformed, endangering a woman in order to "save" something that has no social existence or identity, and is therefore at best on the same level as a cow or pig, and I don't think most of us are committed vegetarians.

[Creative Destruction]

Politically, I'm pro-choice, all the way through late-term. Personally, I'm uncomfortable with it but would never shame anyone over having an abortion. I feel like if we offered services, empowered women and put the responsibility of birth control on men, or at least make it a much more shared responsibility beyond flimsy condoms (a male birth control pill, etc.), then that would reduce the instances of abortion. But there are huge ethical issues in telling a woman a.) what she can and can't do with her body and b.) making it illegal in the face of the fact that it will always go on and will always be much more dangerous if it is unavailable.

[Rosa Partizan]

Liberation theologists also aren't Marxists or class-struggle anarchists.

The problem with these sort of "fetal transplantation" scenarios, and believe me, I've heard quite a few in my time, is that they impose conditions on how a woman is able to dispose of her own body. And they would end up with unsafe operations being preformed, endangering a woman in order to "save" something that has no social existence or identity, and is therefore at best on the same level as a cow or pig, and I don't think most of us are committed vegetarians.

It's interesting that you bring up the veggie thing. Some people were like "why are you pro choice? Are animals more important to you than babies?" I wouldnt compare that to fetuses at all. Animals are autonomous creatures, eating and breathing on their own, so I see no reason to compare them to fetuses, I'd rather have a fetus "killed" than a cow or pig.

[Loony Le Fist]

Liberation theologists also aren't Marxists or class-struggle anarchists.

Not in all cases, but there is overlap. Sorry if I'm not precise enough for your taste. I thought we were having a friendly discussion, not writing some dry academic paper.



The problem with these sort of "fetal transplantation" scenarios, and believe me, I've heard quite a few in my time, is that they impose conditions on how a woman is able to dispose of her own body.


When did I say it should be required that women do this? I said it should be available as an option! Who said anything about imposing conditions! I was simply saying that if people really believed their pro-life position, they would be trying to preserve life and give people options, not control women.



And they would end up with unsafe operations being preformed, endangering a woman in order to "save" something that has no social existence or identity, and is therefore at best on the same level as a cow or pig, and I don't think most of us are committed vegetarians.

Abortion already places that same level of danger on them! Duh! That's my point! They should have more choices with what to do. If they can give someone else to have the opportunity to have a child, all the better.

Here's a pro-tip. When you want to make a counter argument to a claim, at least make it against the claim and not some version that you think it is. You do this in every single discussion we have. You really are starting to sound like a troll. ;)

EDIT: Furthermore, maybe some women that would feel uncomfortable having an abortion would be willing to have a fetal transplant. I'm just trying to give women more options. That's what this is about. I have no idea why you want to be such a snooty turd about it.

[The Jay]

Since bourgeois-state control of women's sexuality is crucial for the maintenance of capitalism - and since more than half of the proletariat has a uterus! - I'd say it's pretty much "a subject related to communism". Talking about "philosophical or theological persuasion" is a cop-out.

Just because something is an issue that effects the proletariat does not make it an issue of Communism. Women should be allowed to choose their reproduction but that is an issue of Patriarchy. Capitalism may use Patriarchy to its own ends and the two are coinciding but one is not the same as the other. Even if women had completely equal standing in everything that would not eliminate Capitalism. It would simply be a 'more equal' Capitalism. This is shown by imagining a world where women occupy the same percentage of positions of power as their percentage of the population. It would still be Capitalism.

Feminism is important and necessary to fight Patriarchy and Feminism and Communism can and do work well together but they are not necessarily the same thing.

To summarize: you are equating two different issues but I understand why you are doing so. The two issues are intertwined due to historical relations.

[Xena Warrior Proletarian]

yeah lets stop emotionalizing the process of abortion with terms like child and life and stuff. A fetus is in medical terms rather comparable to a parasite and could not survive without its connection to the female body, so she has full autonomy over it.

Even once it's born though it won't survive on it's own. Most adults wouldn't survive completely on their own either. Surely dependency isn't where we draw the line?

To make myself clearer, I am pro-choice. It is essential that women are allowed control over their own bodies.

There are some discussion points however that I would like to explore a little more deeply. Specifically - when does it stop being OK to get rid of a fetus/child?

Fertilisation?
Once it can feel pain?
Once it has sentience?
After birth?
After umbilical cord is cut?
After it can provide a reasoned argument as to why it shouldn't be killed?
After it's become independent?


There's no "child" to be given a chance at life in an abortion. It's a fetus. A fetus is not a goddamn child anymore than splooge is.

It would become a baby though; Just as a baby would become an adult.

On a thread about animal liberation I found that most people would not condone the eating of a baby before a pig - despite the pig being more advanced in every way. The reasoning was that the baby would become an adult and eventually likely more advanced an organism than the pig.

Now, as we have decided to reject emotionally charged and moralistic terms like 'child' 'life' etc. we shouldn't be attaching any value to irrelevant terms such as 'human' 'animal' either.

So my question to you is... Would you eat a baby before a pig? And why/why not?

If your answer is No - then I suspect it's because the baby will become an adult/advanced being. The other reason I suspect you may say no is simply 'because it's human' - this also seems to contradict the 'emotionally charged language' or semantics part of many peoples' arguments. Either way I expect to see some hypocrisy/contradictions.

I don't know what this kind of 'will become' argument is called; but it causes an awful lot of problems.

---

I am very aware that many people will not be at all happy at me for this post. The truth is that I hate hypocrisy and discrimination. One rule for one and a different for another. I see many similarities between this issue, and the animal rights issue; and A LOT of hypocrisy.

I would hope to prompt people to examine their opinions further, and gain some consistency. It pains me greatly to see any kind of discrimination - particularly at the hands of communists and anarchists. I hope some of you might gain some clarity of thought and change your minds about the relevant issues (such as animal rights/speciesism/anthropocentrism)

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Not in all cases, but there is overlap. Sorry if I'm not precise enough for your taste. I thought we were having a friendly discussion, not writing some dry academic paper.

It's not a matter of being insufficiently precise, but of the class line. "Liberation" theologists are not revolutionary socialists, or communists, but paternalistic liberals. Bourgeois-nationalist radicals like Chavez or Mengistu are closer to revolutionary socialism than these people ever were, and surely everyone would rightfully object if we claimed that Mengistu or Chavez were communists.

So, once you remove such "communists", it becomes clear that there is really no debate about abortion on "the left". Even the most wretched reformist and centrist currents are "pro-choice".


When did I say it should be required that women do this? I said it should be available as an option! Who said anything about imposing conditions! I was simply saying that if people really believed their pro-life position, they would be trying to preserve life and give people options, not control women.

What you said was:


What I don't understand is why we simply cannot fix this issue through fetal transplantation.

And I think anyone would conclude, both from that sentence and your subsequent explanation, that you think that, regardless of the consistency of the "pro-life" crowd, the "issue" can be "fixed" (why fixed? was it "broken"?) by "fetal transplantation" (something that can't be preformed at this time).

As for the supposed choice you want women to have, again, let's look at what you said:


There's plenty of individuals that want children that cannot have them on their own. Why not give them the opportunity to have one, while at the same time allowing choice (that I think is absolutely essential)?

It's obvious that you think women should have the choice to expel the fetus from their bodies, but not by killing the fetus, since you talk about giving people who can't have children "the opportunity to have one".

The problem is that this still treats women primarily as incubators for fetuses. This is bourgeois logic - women are incubators for the next generation of workers and soldiers, as well as for the fetuses that will inherit the property of their parents, reproducing the bourgeoisie as a class. It places limits on what a woman can do with her body.

For example, what if the head of the fetus gets stuck somewhere? Now, our answer - the only consistently communist answer - is that you unstuck it by any means necessary, even if you have to take the scissors to the head of the fetus, killing it. Because the important life in this scenario is that of the mother, the actually existing person. Whereas you apparently think the fetus should be saved whatever it takes, even if it endangers the mother.


Abortion already places that same level of danger on them! Duh! That's my point! They should have more choices with what to do. If they can give someone else to have the opportunity to have a child, all the better.

Adoption services already exist - and they're not the best solution, given how the bourgeois state is, but they're something. And "fetal transplants" can't be preformed. You might as well be asking for free nanobots and a blowjob for every passenger on board the spaceship Krasni Oktyabr.


Just because something is an issue that effects the proletariat does not make it an issue of Communism. Women should be allowed to choose their reproduction but that is an issue of Patriarchy. Capitalism may use Patriarchy to its own ends and the two are coinciding but one is not the same as the other. Even if women had completely equal standing in everything that would not eliminate Capitalism. It would simply be a 'more equal' Capitalism. This is shown by imagining a world where women occupy the same percentage of positions of power as their percentage of the population. It would still be Capitalism.

And if you imagine a flying pig it's still a pig, proving there's no connection between terrestrial life and being a pig. Marxists analyse concrete, actually existing social formations and their historic development, not some pure intellectual forms. And existing capitalism is structurally misogynist. And this misogyny differs from the misogyny of feudal or Asiatic-despotic society, belying the anti-materialist radical-feminist theory of "patriarchy" as a timeless system of oppression.

It's not just a matter of jerking off about having a correct theory, all of this has direct political consequences. If "patriarchy" has nothing to do with class society and merely concerns the sectional interest of women, then proletarian women can enter into "people's fronts" with their bourgeois "sisters" in order to fight for what is ostensibly their "common" interest. But when that happens, they quickly find themselves being sold out by their "bourgeois sisters".

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I was just wondering what other communists or lefties thought about abortion on this site.

I'm infertile so I couldn't have one? Pretty much that personally, idc what other women choose to do with themselves.

Also, I would totally and in all do seriousness eat a human baby before I would a adult or baby pig. Ideally I would eat humans before animals as I have more respect for non-human animals than I do my own species but apparently, for whatever reason, is still (unfortunately) frowned upon most places. :( damn prejudice people lovers

Yes guys I think cannibalism is cool. Helloooo, it's 2014.

[The Jay]

And if you imagine a flying pig it's still a pig, proving there's no connection between terrestrial life and being a pig. Marxists analyse concrete, actually existing social formations and their historic development, not some pure intellectual forms. And existing capitalism is structurally misogynist. And this misogyny differs from the misogyny of feudal or Asiatic-despotic society, belying the anti-materialist radical-feminist theory of "patriarchy" as a timeless system of oppression.

Well, you couldn't resist that straw-man could you. I did not approach it from an idealist standpoint either. Why don't you show me my error then? I suspect that you are using the marxist-feminism here while I am addressing it on the whole.


It's not just a matter of jerking off about having a correct theory, all of this has direct political consequences. If "patriarchy" has nothing to do with class society and merely concerns the sectional interest of women, then proletarian women can enter into "people's fronts" with their bourgeois "sisters" in order to fight for what is ostensibly their "common" interest. But when that happens, they quickly find themselves being sold out by their "bourgeois sisters".

No shit.

[Creative Destruction]

Liberation theologists also aren't Marxists or class-struggle anarchists.

The problem with these sort of "fetal transplantation" scenarios, and believe me, I've heard quite a few in my time, is that they impose conditions on how a woman is able to dispose of her own body. And they would end up with unsafe operations being preformed, endangering a woman in order to "save" something that has no social existence or identity, and is therefore at best on the same level as a cow or pig, and I don't think most of us are committed vegetarians.

I don't think it hurts in promoting other options, along side abortion. The adoption process (in general, not specifically to women who are considering having an abortion), for example, I know a lot of people are afraid of because it's seen as intensely bureaucratic and not worth dealing with. Finding some way to make the adoption process better and promoting it would be good. And then, I didn't even know fetal transplantation was a viable thing and I consider myself fairly read on the subject.

So, it shouldn't be used as a shaming tool -- saying, "Well, you can get an abortion, but wouldn't you want to be a better person and do these other things...?" Rather, it'd be good to promote these other options to ensure that women can make a choice with as much information as is available.

[Creative Destruction]

Even once it's born though it won't survive on it's own. Most adults wouldn't survive completely on their own either. Surely dependency isn't where we draw the line?

That's not what is meant by "dependency" in this context. You're conflating social dependency with physical dependency. Rather, what is meant by a fetal dependency on the mother is that if a fetus is pulled out of the woman, it will not live. It still depends on the body of the mother for nutrients, for breathing, for development and what not. It is not at a stage in its life where it can be disconnected from the womb and still live. Once it turns into a fully formed human child, capable of breathing, digesting and living on its own internal systems, then it is no longer physically dependent on the mother in that sense. It may not know how to feed itself yet, etc., but it can still be alive independent from the mother.

[Slavic]

That's not what is meant by "dependency" in this context. You're conflating social dependency with physical dependency. Rather, what is meant by a fetal dependency on the mother is that if a fetus is pulled out of the woman, it will not live. It still depends on the body of the mother for nutrients, for breathing, for development and what not. It is not at a stage in its life where it can be disconnected from the womb and still live. Once it turns into a fully formed human child, capable of breathing, digesting and living on its own internal systems, then it is no longer physically dependent on the mother in that sense. It may not know how to feed itself yet, etc., but it can still be alive independent from the mother.

And at that point since the child is independently viable, it does not infringe on the autonomy of the mother. When it is a fetus it is physically dependent on the mother and thus infringes on the mothers autonomy.

So the line is drawn at birth, specifically at the seperation of the umbilical cord.

[PhoenixAsh]

For the record and as a general reminder:

Parasite or not. The position of the board is: up until full term legal and medically safe abortion decided by the mother.

[The Modern Prometheus]

I don't know how you could be a Communist and not be pro-choice. The Anti-choice crowd (aka right to lifers who ironically are all for the death penalty) think they have the divine right to tell women what they can and cannot do with their bodies. As it is solely the woman's choice i don't see how Communists could not support better access to medical care for women who want a abortion.

It's sad that in this day age age even in Canada there are provinces where women have basically no access to abortion services because health care is handled by the province and certain nice old Socially Conservative provinces such as New Brunswick choose to basically make it not available to women at all. So the people well off enough to be able to afford it either go to the next province over or down to the US which is rather ironic when you think of it.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Well, you couldn't resist that straw-man could you. I did not approach it from an idealist standpoint either. Why don't you show me my error then? I suspect that you are using the marxist-feminism here while I am addressing it on the whole.

I honestly don't know what the last sentence is supposed to mean.

Anyway, the problem is that you base your argument on a counterfactual situation, which is blatantly idealist. Sure, you can imagine a sort of capitalism "where women occupy the same percentage of positions of power as their percentage of the population". But people can imagine a lot of things; that in itself does not mean that these things are possible or even coherent. If women were represented in the labour force according to the percentage of the general population that they make up, and were generally free of structural violence (I am going to be charitable and assume you weren't trying to say that the discrepancy between the two numbers I mentioned before is the only thing that is objectionable about the status of women in modern society), capitalism literally could not reproduce itself. It would collapse.


No shit.

Yeah, no shit. But that's what you get if you think that there exists some sort of timeless "patriarchy" that is independent of class society.


I don't think it hurts in promoting other options, along side abortion. The adoption process (in general, not specifically to women who are considering having an abortion), for example, I know a lot of people are afraid of because it's seen as intensely bureaucratic and not worth dealing with. Finding some way to make the adoption process better and promoting it would be good. And then, I didn't even know fetal transplantation was a viable thing and I consider myself fairly read on the subject.

It isn't. "Fetal transplantation" is science-fiction, a blue option that you can't use because you don't have the requisite crew. That doesn't stop people from talking about it as a way of circumventing the issue. That is problematic in itself because it posits abortion as something problematic, and seems to imply that the personal discomfort of the person making the argument should be the centre of the discussion, instead of the woman making the decision. In addition to problems I've already stated.

Of course, if such a thing were possible, women should be informed. But I don't see how you could promote it without at the same time shaming women who have an abortion, and pressuring them to not have an abortion.

[Creative Destruction]

It isn't. "Fetal transplantation" is science-fiction, a blue option that you can't use because you don't have the requisite crew. That doesn't stop people from talking about it as a way of circumventing the issue. That is problematic in itself because it posits abortion as something problematic, and seems to imply that the personal discomfort of the person making the argument should be the centre of the discussion, instead of the woman making the decision. In addition to problems I've already stated.

Of course, if such a thing were possible, women should be informed. But I don't see how you could promote it without at the same time shaming women who have an abortion, and pressuring them to not have an abortion.

lol, what? that's fucking insane; the idea that necessarily providing more options aside from abortion is shaming. it's not outside the realm of possibility to say that there are women who might change their minds -- independently of feeling "ashamed" -- were other options (aside from fetal transplantation, if it is actually not a viable option) presented to them. or that they don't know what their options are at that point.

it's still not taking choice off the table and it's opening up a wide range of possibilities. just merely promoting it alongside abortion is a bad thing? jesus christ. get the fuck out. that's just about as ridiculous as the opposite argument from the religious right, who say we should only teach abstinence lest all women start aborting their babies.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

lol, what? that's fucking insane; the idea that necessarily providing more options aside from abortion is shaming. it's not outside the realm of possibility to say that there are women who might change their minds -- independently of feeling "ashamed" -- were other options (aside from fetal transplantation, if it is actually not a viable option) presented to them. or that they don't know what their options are at that point.

it's still not taking choice off the table and it's opening up a wide range of possibilities. just merely promoting it alongside abortion is a bad thing? jesus christ. get the fuck out. that's just about as ridiculous as the opposite argument from the religious right, who say we should only teach abstinence lest all women start aborting their babies.

Providing more options is always good. What I find problematic is promoting one option above others - and yes, when the main idea seems to be "saving" the fetus, I would say that constitutes shaming. Just as it would be problematic to, for example, leave homosexuality legal but promote heterosexuality. That would also mean shaming and harassment.

[Rosa Partizan]

I get what 870 is saying. Basically the tone would be "a living fetus is better than a dead one" and this would lead back to the woman that is willing to "kill" it, but thank God that there are scientists who save it from this cruel woman. In theory, this idea sounds good, but in practice, I'm extremely sure it wouldn't go without shaming the aborting woman.

[Comrade #138672]

Some people say that a child should be given a chance at life, at the expense of the mother.

But they do not seem to care that around 50,000 children die every day of hunger alone. Many children live in poverty. Should we not start with giving them a chance?

[Creative Destruction]

Providing more options is always good. What I find problematic is promoting one option above others - and yes, when the main idea seems to be "saving" the fetus, I would say that constitutes shaming. Just as it would be problematic to, for example, leave homosexuality legal but promote heterosexuality. That would also mean shaming and harassment.

I'm not saying we promote "one above the others". Where did you get that from my post?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I'm not saying we promote "one above the others". Where did you get that from my post?

Well, you're free to explain how you can promote something (and you did say it should be promoted) except by promoting it above other options (or by claiming that is is better than other options etc.). If you "promote" all options equally, you aren't promoting any option. (And for the record I don't think abortion needs to be "promoted", in fact anyone who says what a woman should do with her body has crossed the line.)

[Creative Destruction]

Well, you're free to explain how you can promote something (and you did say it should be promoted) except by promoting it above other options (or by claiming that is is better than other options etc.). If you "promote" all options equally, you aren't promoting any option. (And for the record I don't think abortion needs to be "promoted", in fact anyone who says what a woman should do with her body has crossed the line.)

lol, good lord. okay -- i'll say "present". these other options should be presented alongside the option to have an abortion.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

lol, good lord. okay -- i'll say "present". these other options should be presented alongside the option to have an abortion.

Alright, but that changes the meaning of the statement entirely. And yes, if the woman concerned wants information, she should be given information. I don't think anyone would be opposed to that.

[The Jay]

I honestly don't know what the last sentence is supposed to mean.

Anyway, the problem is that you base your argument on a counterfactual situation, which is blatantly idealist. Sure, you can imagine a sort of capitalism "where women occupy the same percentage of positions of power as their percentage of the population". But people can imagine a lot of things; that in itself does not mean that these things are possible or even coherent. If women were represented in the labour force according to the percentage of the general population that they make up, and were generally free of structural violence (I am going to be charitable and assume you weren't trying to say that the discrepancy between the two numbers I mentioned before is the only thing that is objectionable about the status of women in modern society), capitalism literally could not reproduce itself. It would collapse.

How would it make Capitalism collapse exactly?

[Atsumari]

rzY0L2g1f64
inb4 someone calls this "liberal bullshit"

[Raquin]

I find it amusing that Western leftists, especially on RevLeft(which consists almost entirely of men) are more preoccupied with the abortion issue than 95% of women in the real world, to the point of obsession .

[Xena Warrior Proletarian]

I find it amusing that Western leftists, especially on RevLeft(which consists almost entirely of men) are more preoccupied with the abortion issue than 95% of women in the real world, to the point of obsession .

Oh shit, maybe we should stop bothering with this whole proletarian wage slavery issue since 95% of the working class don't seem to mind as much as us.

[Raquin]

Oh shit, maybe we should stop bothering with this whole proletarian wage slavery issue since 95% of the working class don't seem to mind as much as us.
Prey tell Xena(favorite show of my childhood by the way, thank you for reminding me of it), when did that happen? Just about every employed person I know complains about how they are alienated by their dehumanising jobs, how their wages are unlivable, how they are treated poorly by their managers and bosses, and so on. The issue is that people on this forum, and the Western left in general, live in their own fantasy world, or rather, their own set of personal fantasy worlds, as every "tendency"(in other words, sect) has its own fantasy world, sometimes more than one per "tendency" even(and in the same country too), and for the most part are incapable of communicating with normal people in the real world and thus Western leftist is reduced into a never-ending introverted circlejerk.

[Rosa Partizan]

Prey tell Xena(favorite show of my childhood by the way, thank you for reminding me of it), when did that happen? Just about every employed person I know complains about how they are alienated by their dehumanising jobs, how their wages are unlivable, how they are treated poorly by their managers and bosses, and so on. The issue is that people on this forum, and the Western left in general, live in their own fantasy world, or rather, their own set of personal fantasy worlds, as every "tendency"(in other words, sect) has its own fantasy world, sometimes more than one per "tendency" even(and in the same country too), and for the most part are incapable of communicating with normal people in the real world and thus Western leftist is reduced into a never-ending introverted circlejerk.

and the connection to abortion is what exactly...?

[Creative Destruction]

rzY0L2g1f64
inb4 someone calls this "liberal bullshit"

this is one of the best documentaries i've ever seen.

[Slavic]

and the connection to abortion is what exactly...?

Apparently caring about abortion is a leftist fantasy because men are more interest.in abortions than women. Apparently

[Wuggums47]

This is actually the only thing that I disagree with left politics about. I personally feel that everyone has a right to live a comfortable life, including animals and fetuses. Killing anything stops it from living a comfortable life.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

This is actually the only thing that I disagree with left politics about. I personally feel that everyone has a right to live a comfortable life, including animals and fetuses. Killing anything stops it from living a comfortable life.

A foetus does not live. Enjoy your restriction.

[The Intransigent Faction]

H0yUjMklVuI

Probably the one time Ayn Rand's and the left's responses are virtually indistinguishable. Nobody ought have the authority to make that choice for women.

In any case, maybe you're unfamiliar with the rules, but only one answer won't lead to restriction, so there's not much room for discussion here unless you want to post this in OI. This post is kinda pointless and it's been done before if you're curious.

[PhoenixAsh]

This is actually the only thing that I disagree with left politics about. I personally feel that everyone has a right to live a comfortable life, including animals and fetuses. Killing anything stops it from living a comfortable life.

This sounds immensely confused and frankly a bit weird.

Could you expand on this position? Does this mean you oppose abortion as a means to end pregnancy?


ALSO.


I would like to remind everybody who needs it again:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2766112&postcount=25



For the record and as a general reminder:

Parasite or not. The position of the board is: up until full term legal and medically safe abortion decided by the mother.

So:

As long as the fetus/child/parasite is inside the body of the mother, regardless if it could possibly survive outside it...regardless if it is one day, four minutes or weeks away from birth...regardless of gestation...and regardless of your individual moral, religious, humanist, or otherwise motivated views....the mother is the sole person who has the right to decide whether to abort or not and nobody, including the father, has any right & shouldn't have any right, legal or otherwise, to prevent the decision of the mother. Access to abortion should be free, medically safe and legal.

Expressing any opposition to the above is considered a restriction worthy position.

This is however a site for learning so if you have trouble understanding why the board has this position you should feel free to ask questions as to why we have this position.

[SmirkerOfTheWorld]

Always defend the right to choose.

No-one's pretending abortion is a laugh-riot, but it is neither the right of men (who seem so obsessed with the subject) nor of religionists or state moralists to be telling women what they can and can't do with their own bodies.

[Redistribute the Rep]

I personally feel that everyone has a right to live a comfortable life, including animals and fetuses.

Including malignant tumors, sperm cells, and skin cells as well? They are living after all

[Slavic]

Including malignant tumors, sperm cells, and skin cells as well? They are living after all


Don't be ridiculous, the issue comes down to autonomy. Does the fetus's dependence on it's carrier constitute an autonomous agent or not? That is the issue at hand. It is a legitimate question to ask about whether or not a fetus has its own agency since this fetus will most likely turn into a child which we all agree has its own agency and autonomy.

Comparing a fetus to sperm cells or tumors just makes you sound just as stupid as the pro-lifers that protest abortion clinics.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Don't be ridiculous, the issue comes down to autonomy. Does the fetus's dependence on it's carrier constitute an autonomous agent or not? That is the issue at hand. It is a legitimate question to ask about whether or not a fetus has its own agency since this fetus will most likely turn into a child which we all agree has its own agency and autonomy.

Comparing a fetus to sperm cells or tumors just makes you sound just as stupid as the pro-lifers that protest abortion clinics.

It's a legitimate response whenever someone claims to be in favour of life in general. Because no one, not even the most fanatic Jains, is in favour of life in general.

Also, I don't see why the autonomy of the fetus would be relevant. The important thing to socialists, surely, is the woman, a human person with an actual social existence, and the role of abortion controls in the oppression of women.

[Buttscratcher]

Since bourgeois-state control of women's sexuality is crucial for the maintenance of capitalism - and since more than half of the proletariat has a uterus! - I'd say it's pretty much "a subject related to communism". Talking about "philosophical or theological persuasion" is a cop-out.
How is it crucial for the maintenance of capitalism though? In what way does it affect the stability of capitalism?

[Slavic]

It's a legitimate response whenever someone claims to be in favour of life in general. Because no one, not even the most fanatic Jains, is in favour of life in general.

Also, I don't see why the autonomy of the fetus would be relevant. The important thing to socialists, surely, is the woman, a human person with an actual social existence, and the role of abortion controls in the oppression of women.

The reason why the woman is the most important aspect for socialists is because we deny autonomy for the fetus as a default, so yes the autonomy of the fetus is key in these discussions. Anti abortion activists hold that the fetus has autonomy and is a person which would grant it certain protections.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

The reason why the woman is the most important aspect for socialists is because we deny autonomy for the fetus as a default, so yes the autonomy of the fetus is key in these discussions. Anti abortion activists hold that the fetus has autonomy and is a person which would grant it certain protections.

Are the bourgeoisie autonomous? They are. Who cares about that? Not us.


How is it crucial for the maintenance of capitalism though? In what way does it affect the stability of capitalism?

Coercion in reproduction is necessary to reproduce the proletariat as a proletariat; if abortion were truly free at any stage of the pregnancy without harassment, less children would be born in poverty and forced to sell their labour-power to survive, driving down the rate of profit.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Even once it's born though it won't survive on it's own. Most adults wouldn't survive completely on their own either. Surely dependency isn't where we draw the line?

To make myself clearer, I am pro-choice. It is essential that women are allowed control over their own bodies.

There are some discussion points however that I would like to explore a little more deeply. Specifically - when does it stop being OK to get rid of a fetus/child?

Fertilisation?
Once it can feel pain?
Once it has sentience?
After birth?
After umbilical cord is cut?
After it can provide a reasoned argument as to why it shouldn't be killed?
After it's become independent?



It would become a baby though; Just as a baby would become an adult.

On a thread about animal liberation I found that most people would not condone the eating of a baby before a pig - despite the pig being more advanced in every way. The reasoning was that the baby would become an adult and eventually likely more advanced an organism than the pig.

Now, as we have decided to reject emotionally charged and moralistic terms like 'child' 'life' etc. we shouldn't be attaching any value to irrelevant terms such as 'human' 'animal' either.

So my question to you is... Would you eat a baby before a pig? And why/why not?

If your answer is No - then I suspect it's because the baby will become an adult/advanced being. The other reason I suspect you may say no is simply 'because it's human' - this also seems to contradict the 'emotionally charged language' or semantics part of many peoples' arguments. Either way I expect to see some hypocrisy/contradictions.

I don't know what this kind of 'will become' argument is called; but it causes an awful lot of problems.

---

I am very aware that many people will not be at all happy at me for this post. The truth is that I hate hypocrisy and discrimination. One rule for one and a different for another. I see many similarities between this issue, and the animal rights issue; and A LOT of hypocrisy.

I would hope to prompt people to examine their opinions further, and gain some consistency. It pains me greatly to see any kind of discrimination - particularly at the hands of communists and anarchists. I hope some of you might gain some clarity of thought and change your minds about the relevant issues (such as animal rights/speciesism/anthropocentrism)

The problem with this is that it approaches "baby" and "pig" as generic categories, rather than in terms of specificities. "A baby" and "a pig" are very different from specific babies, or specific pigs. In most cases, I would eat neither (and I've certainly eaten splooge more recently than I've eaten pork). Of course, the question of eating is a bit of a chimera (there are reasonable taboos around eating both humans and pigs for health reasons - prionic diseases, trichinosis, w/e) - I think "killing" is more pertinent. And I'll be explicit - there are many specific people over whose killings I'd shed no tears. On the contrary, no pig has ever been a president or cop.

[Slavic]

The important thing to socialists, surely, is the woman, a human person with an actual social existence, and the role of abortion controls in the oppression of women.


Are the bourgeoisie autonomous? They are. Who cares about that? Not us.

You are invalidating your own argument. You are stating that women would be allow abortions because they are a human person with a social existence. A person is an autonomous agent within a social environment. To deny autonomy's importance in the discussion and then to use it to support your own view is ridiculous not to mention comparing the agency of a fetus with that of a class.

So to get down to it, it all relies on person hood. Since the woman is a person, her body should not be infringed upon. If the fetus is determined to be a person, then his/her body should not be infringed upon. So instead of using autonomy I shall use person hood.