A question about a rule?

[ashtonh]

Ok so in the FAQ I see it restricts pro lifers, I am pro-choice but I need something clarified. It says unrestricted access at any points. Does that mean any point in the pregnancy as in 1 day before a child is born? I have seen a lot of people banned because of pro-life so clarifications please.:confused::confused:

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

As per my post in the other topic you posted this question in, yes, it means free access to abortion at any time, including a day before birth, half a day before birth and one second before birth.

[ashtonh]

Ok thanks for clarifying.:unsure:

[IllumiNaughty]

wow people are restricted for not believing in abortion and is classified as sexist? Doesnt seem right. I mean, i think someone having an abortion is no one's business, but in my opinion, abortion shouldnt be legal for someone who is about to give birth. Thats pretty crazy imo. So would i be restricted because of this?

[Sinister Intents]

Its a woman's body and her own choice so it makes sense to me.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

wow people are restricted for not believing in abortion and is classified as sexist? Doesnt seem right. I mean, i think someone having an abortion is no one's business, but in my opinion, abortion shouldnt be legal for someone who is about to give birth. Thats pretty crazy imo. So would i be restricted because of this?

According to the rules, yes, that is grounds for restriction. This entire thread is restriction-bait.

[IllumiNaughty]

Its a woman's body and her own choice so it makes sense to me.


According to the rules, yes, that is grounds for restriction. This entire thread is restriction-bait.

Lol you guys are crazy as hell

[Sinister Intents]

Lol you guys are crazy as hell

Because I'm pro-choice? Nah I think you're crazy. Plus she could put the baby up for adoption if she finds that necessary.

[IllumiNaughty]

Because I'm pro-choice? Nah I think you're crazy. Plus she could put the baby up for adoption if she finds that necessary.

You know well thats not what i meant. You guys think people who have my belief are sexist because a fully grown baby can still be aborted? Thats not right. So yea the baby should be adopted instead of aborted when its already mostly developed.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

You know well thats not what i meant. You guys think people who have my belief are sexist because a fully grown baby can still be aborted? Thats not right. So yea the baby should be adopted instead of aborted when its already mostly developed.

You're still telling women what they can and can't do with their bodies and enforcing the role of women in bourgeois society as incubators for a new generation of workers.

So it is blatantly sexist.

[IllumiNaughty]

You're still telling women what they can and can't do with their bodies and enforcing the role of women in bourgeois society as incubators for a new generation of workers.

So it is blatantly sexist.

Lol you take it to extremes. Youre telling me if some of us happen to think aborting a nearly fully grown baby is not right (instead of just putting it up for adoption), we are just sexist and should be restricted? Thats why i say y'all are crazy.

[Sinister Intents]

You know well thats not what i meant. You guys think people who have my belief are sexist because a fully grown baby can still be aborted? Thats not right. So yea the baby should be adopted instead of aborted when its already mostly developed.

That's why I said she can put the baby up for adoption

[Sinister Intents]

Lol you take it to extremes. Youre telling me if some of us happen to think aborting a nearly fully grown baby is not right (instead of just putting it up for adoption), we are just sexist and should be restricted? Thats why i say y'all are crazy.

My argument still stands: Its a woman's body, so its a woman's choice. If she wants to get an abortion because she's not ready to be a mother, then by all means she has every right to get an abortion or put the baby up for adoption.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Lol you take it to extremes.

We're extremists.

[Five Year Plan]

What's puzzling is that it is apparently permissible on this forum for people to openly and blatantly shill for regimes that banned abortion. How is that not endorsing sexism?

[IllumiNaughty]

My argument still stands: Its a woman's body, so its a woman's choice. If she wants to get an abortion because she's not ready to be a mother, then by all means she has every right to get an abortion or put the baby up for adoption.

Its just my opinion of course, that babies who are already fully grown should not be allowed to be aborted, even if the mother wants to. To me, thats not a sexist belief, its about giving more consideration to the baby. People should not be restricted for this. Now if theyre just total a holes and blatantly look down on women, then of course they should be restricted or banned. But because someone thinks abortion is not right and should not be legal (or at least for a baby who is seconds from being born!) doesnt automatically mean they are sexist.


We're extremists.

So clever :rolleyes: Logical extremist you mean.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

It is the stated position of the board that anyone who does not support abortion into the 5th trimester is restricted to OI IIRC

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Its just my opinion of course, that babies who are already fully grown should not be allowed to be aborted, even if the mother wants to. To me, thats not a sexist belief, its about giving more consideration to the baby. People should not be restricted for this. Now if theyre just total a holes and blatantly look down on women, then of course they should be restricted or banned. But because someone thinks abortion is not right and should not be legal (or at least for a baby who is seconds from being born!) doesnt automatically mean they are sexist.

You don't seem to grasp the point: you are asking the bourgeois state to control the lives and bodies of women (not that it would be any better for a workers' state to do so). No matter how many layers of rhetoric you pile up, that is still misogynist. Maybe you don't personally hate women. But you advocate their oppression.


So clever :rolleyes:

I try. There is a point, though - communists are consistent, which means that to people who get off on being moderate and compromising we appear to be crazy extremists. Which is a good thing, as being moderate has never done anyone any good.

The reactionaries hate them because they're trying to not be reactionary, we hate them because - well, if these people lived in Nazi Germany they would probably say that killing disabled people is a bit too much but that the people who want them to live freely with full legal rights are a bit too extreme and that maybe they should be sterilised or locked up or something.

[IllumiNaughty]

What's puzzling is that it is apparently permissible on this forum for people to openly and blatantly shill for regimes that banned abortion. How is that not endorsing sexism?

Lol are you refering to me?


It is the stated position of the board that anyone who does not support abortion into the 5th trimester is restricted to OI IIRC

I find this disturbing. Even if someone has completely marxist beliefs and not an asshole?

[Sinister Intents]

Its just my opinion of course, that babies who are already fully grown should not be allowed to be aborted, even if the mother wants to. To me, thats not a sexist belief, its about giving more consideration to the baby. People should not be restricted for this. Now if theyre just total a holes and blatantly look down on women, then of course they should be restricted or banned. But because someone thinks abortion is not right and should not be legal (or at least for a baby who is seconds from being born!) doesnt automatically mean they are sexist.



So clever :rolleyes:

If the baby is already fully grown then she can put up for adoption, but if shes terrified of giving birth and not ready to be a mother, and I'm also going to assume she would get the abortion early, rather than to wait last minute. She should always have the option of abortion. Your argument is based on morality and I doubt someone would wait until the last minute. If I had the option I'd probably get an abortion if I was pregnant, I wouldn't be ready to bring life into the world, and I'm physically male. To me its always sexist to tell a woman she can't have a choice or to think that she shouldn't have a choice. Being pro life and antiabortion is sexist no matter how its cut.

[IllumiNaughty]

You don't seem to grasp the point: you are asking the bourgeois state to control the lives and bodies of women (not that it would be any better for a workers' state to do so). No matter how many layers of rhetoric you pile up, that is still misogynist. Maybe you don't personally hate women. But you advocate their oppression.



I try. There is a point, though - communists are consistent, which means that to people who get off on being moderate and compromising we appear to be crazy extremists. Which is a good thing, as being moderate has never done anyone any good.

The reactionaries hate them because they're trying to not be reactionary, we hate them because - well, if these people lived in Nazi Germany they would probably say that killing disabled people is a bit too much but that the people who want them to live freely with full legal rights are a bit too extreme and that maybe they should be sterilised or locked up or something.

Like i edited in my last post- youre a logical extremist. I do get your point and youre saying not letting women have abortions (in my belief, just the last trimester of pregancy or days from being born) means im a misogynist and advocating female oppression lol! Youre trying to equate me with a bourgeois oppressor and a nazi killer of disabled people :lol:

[Rosa Partizan]

this will be maybe an unpopular opinion, but I understand why someone would feel uncomfortable with the thought of a pregnant woman aborting one day before birth or so. It's just that this "thing" is almost ready to become a real baby, but this still doesn't change a damn thing about the woman's autonomy over her body. If we make exceptions for when an abortion is not ok, these exceptions get legitimate ground for being extended, like, let's make it a month before birth, then two months and so on. But we don't have this right, be it eight months or 8 hours before birth, it's a principle that we put the woman before this unborn being and my feelings or anyone other's feelings of discomfort have no place in legislation. There's no way it's okay to force a woman to give birth to a child, no exceptions and that's about it, nothing to add there.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Like i edited in my last post- youre a logical extremist. I do get your point and youre saying not letting women have abortions (in my belief, just the last trimester of pregancy or days from being born) means im a misogynist and advocating female oppression lol! Youre trying to equate me with a bourgeois oppressor and a nazi killer of disabled people :lol:

The digression about a hypothetical moderate in Nazi Germany was a comment on the nature of liberal compromise politics. Of course disabled people aren't being killed (openly) anymore, but this sort of "moderation is good, extremism is bad" sentiment is just as rotten and anti-worker as it has always been. Today one is likely to hear sentiments such as "give gay people some rights but not all rights", "make abortion legal in some circumstances but not in others" and so on. And twenty years from now on, people will look at that sort of sentiment like they look on the hypothetical moderate Nazi.

Prohibiting abortion, in any circumstance, leads to horrors. Giving the state control over someone's body is one of the most odious things you can do, which is why we oppose, for example, sodomy laws. And we oppose women being forced to give birth.



this will be maybe an unpopular opinion, but I understand why someone would feel uncomfortable with the thought of a pregnant woman aborting one day before birth or so.

Being uncomfortable is one thing, shaming and calling for state bans is another. I'm uncomfortable with women having large families, for example, but that doesn't mean I go out of my way to shame them or call for them to be banned.

[Red Star Rising]

Its a woman's body and her own choice so it makes sense to me.

Absolutely, the body of a woman is much more important than a clump of cells, but one day before birth? You must understand that at that point the child is as fully formed as it is after birth it can see and hear (fetuses can respond to specific voices) as well as move around much like any other infant. Killing a child 1 day before birth is much the same as killing it one day after birth - the child is no longer part of the mother's body but a human contained within another - it is a sentient being with a fully formed brain. That is not to say that abortion is always wrong, it isn't, or that the child can't be put up for adoption, but killing it at this stage absolutely is wrong. I'm not being a prolife fanatic or a religious nut, killing a baby is wrong and the fetus at this point is essentially a baby.

[Rosa Partizan]

the way you quoted me makes me look like an idiot :crying:

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

the way you quoted me makes me look like an idiot :crying:

I don't see how, but being an actual idiot, I guess I wouldn't. :lol:

[Rosa Partizan]

I don't see how, but being an actual idiot, I guess I wouldn't. :lol:

not sure if this means "I'm the idiot", "you're the idiot" or "we're both idiots". let's go for the last one, can't be wrong with that.

[Sinister Intents]

the way you quoted me makes me look like an idiot :crying:

I'm sure mine make me sound like an idiot, you're definitely not an idiot, you're very great with everything you argue while I always fall short or say things wrong

[IllumiNaughty]

The digression about a hypothetical moderate in Nazi Germany was a comment on the nature of liberal compromise politics. Of course disabled people aren't being killed (openly) anymore, but this sort of "moderation is good, extremism is bad" sentiment is just as rotten and anti-worker as it has always been. Today one is likely to hear sentiments such as "give gay people some rights but not all rights", "make abortion legal in some circumstances but not in others" and so on. And twenty years from now on, people will look at that sort of sentiment like they look on the hypothetical moderate Nazi.

Prohibiting abortion, in any circumstance, leads to horrors. Giving the state control over someone's body is one of the most odious things you can do, which is why we oppose, for example, sodomy laws. And we oppose women being forced to give birth.



Being uncomfortable is one thing, shaming and calling for state bans is another. I'm uncomfortable with women having large families, for example, but that doesn't mean I go out of my way to shame them or call for them to be banned.

Like i said, Logical extremes. and who said anything about not liking large families or restricting gay rights. They are not the same thing as aborting a fully formed baby. At least that family is large and not killed lol.


Absolutely, the body of a woman is much more important than a clump of cells, but one day before birth? You must understand that at that point the child is as fully formed as it is after birth it can see and hear (fetuses can respond to specific voices) as well as move around much like any other infant. Killing a child 1 day before birth is much the same as killing it one day after birth - the child is no longer part of the mother's body but a human contained within another - it is a sentient being with a fully formed brain. That is not to say that abortion is always wrong, it isn't, or that the child can't be put up for adoption, but killing it at this stage absolutely is wrong. I'm not being a prolife fanatic or a religious nut, killing a baby is wrong and the fetus at this point is essentially a baby.

Exactly what im trying to say. And its just dismissed as being superficially moral. I understand what you guys are saying about how a law against aborting babies in their last trimester could lead to extending the law til she cant abort a baby at all, but youre just assuming that, anyway. Theres gotta be a limit. Its just not right to abort a fully formed baby like that. Of course you dont agree, but this should not be grounds for restriction for a marxist to be stuck in oi with all the closet fascists

[Rosa Partizan]

stop this vocab like child! It's not a child when it's not born! It still relies - via physical connection - on the female body to get nutrition and supplies, it's rather a parasite than a child. Don't emotionalize this discussion by using terms like "kill", "child", blahblah.

[Sinister Intents]

Like i said, Logical extremes. and who said anything about not liking large families or restricting gay rights. They are not the same thing as aborting a fully formed baby. At least that family is large and not killed lol.



Exactly what im trying to say. And its just dismissed as being superficially moral. I understand what you guys are saying about how a law against aborting babies in their last trimester could lead to extending the law til she cant abort a baby at all, but youre just assuming that, anyway. Theres gotta be a limit. Its just not right to abort a fully formed baby like that. Of course you dont agree, but this should not be grounds for restriction for a marxist to be stuck in oi with the bourgies

That would be infanticide, also its still a woman's body and her own choice, I doubt someonewould wait tthat fucking long to get an abortion. I'm not advocating infanticide

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

not sure if this means "I'm the idiot", "you're the idiot" or "we're both idiots". let's go for the last one, can't be wrong with that.

Someone help me, I'm in a small positively-curved space and I'm surrounded by idiots.

(Like the person who thought this would be a funny joke.)


Like i said, Logical extremes. and who said anything about not liking large families or restricting gay rights. They are not the same thing as aborting a fully formed baby. At least that family is large and not killed lol.

Sodomy laws negatively impact gay people and represent an attempt by the bourgeois state to regulate what people do with their bodies in order to enforce some religious or semi-religious morality and secure bourgeois control over the reproduction of workers.

Anti-abortion laws negatively impact female people and represent an attempt by the bourgeois state to regulate what people do with their bodies in order to enforce some religious or semi-religious morality and secure bourgeois control over the reproduction of workers.

So what's the difference?

[Lily Briscoe]

I understand what you guys are saying about how a law against aborting babies in their last trimester could lead to extending the law til she cant abort a baby at all, but youre just assuming that, anyway. Theres gotta be a limit.
Why does the state need to set a limit on abortion? What is the problem with it being a private decision for a pregnant woman and her doctor to make, rather than something the state has to have some sort of say in?

Personally, I don't think anyone should have to be comfortable with the thought of a late-term abortion. The issue is the law around abortion and the actual impact it has on pregnant women seeking to terminate, not your personal level of comfort at the thought of the procedure.

[IllumiNaughty]

stop this vocab like child! It's not a child when it's not born! It still relies - via physical connection - on the female body to get nutrition and supplies, it's rather a parasite than a child. Don't emotionalize this discussion by using terms like "kill", "child", blahblah.

a parasite? lol ok


Sodomy laws negatively impact gay people and represent an attempt by the bourgeois state to regulate what people do with their bodies in order to enforce some religious or semi-religious morality and secure bourgeois control over the reproduction of workers.

Anti-abortion laws negatively impact female people and represent an attempt by the bourgeois state to regulate what people do with their bodies in order to enforce some religious or semi-religious morality and secure bourgeois control over the reproduction of workers.

So what's the difference?

They still get to live while an unborn kid/fetus/parasite (whatever u wanna call it lol. not trying to be "emotional") does not? This is a matter of life and death, not peoples sexual preferences.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

They still get to live while an unborn kid/fetus/parasite (whatever u wanna call it lol. not trying to be "emotional") does not?

Are you in favour of prohibiting tapeworm removal?

[Sinister Intents]

Are you cool with a half developed fetus being aborted?

[BIXX]

Basically, fuck you, abortions at any stage rock.

(Btw I really doubt anyone is going to go for a super late term abortion unless they were actually cool enough to try and make it into the Guinness book of world records for latest abortion).

[IllumiNaughty]

Are you in favour of prohibiting tapeworm removal?

lol you just dont stop do you. Now youre gonna say "if u dont think fetuses should be aborted then why should tapeworms be removed? Theyre both living things and feed from a host".


Are you cool with a half developed fetus being aborted?

Not cool with it, i still think its worng. but its not really developed either, a clump of cells in a fully grown human, so i dont think they should be legally restricted from that. So the real question is why they get abortions. Mainly lack of support or money right? I believe that in a fully marxist society, there would be a LOT less abortions or no need for it. Another of many reasons why im a marxist. my beliefs are not rooted in misogyny or some hidden desire for control. So anti abortionists (no matter how much they believe abortions should be restricted) dont automatically deserve to be considered anti revolutionary and stuck in a forum full of fascists and a holes.

[Sinister Intents]

lol you just dont stop do you. Now youre gonna say "if u dont think fetuses should be aborted then why should tapeworms be removed? Theyre both living things and feed from a host".



Not cool with it, but its not really developed either, a clump of cells in a fully grown human, so i dont think they should be legally restricted from that. So the real question is why they get abortions. Mainly lack of support or money right? I believe that in a fully marxist society, there would be a LOT less abortions or no need for it. Another of many reasons why im a marxist. my beliefs are not rooted in misogyny or some hidden desire for control. So anti abortionists (no matter how much they believe abortions should be restricted) dont automatically deserve to be considered anti revolutionary and stuck in a forum full of fascists and a holes.

So you're a proponent of a statist and classist society where laws are created based on morality and how someone feels about someone else's personal choice. I'm pro abortion at all stages.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

lol you just dont stop do you. Now youre gonna say "if u dont think fetuses should be aborted then why should tapeworms be removed? Theyre both living things and feed from a host".

It's not so much that they feed from a host, it's that they're physically in a person's body, causing them extreme discomfort and potential physical harm. So yeah, if tapeworms can go, why not fetuses? It's all blatantly inconsistent.


Not cool with it, but its not really developed either, so i dont think they should be legally restricted from that.

Well it's nice that you deign to allow women to have an abortion. Do you really not see the problem with this sort of thinking?


So the real question is why they get abortions. Mainly lack of support or money right?

Or because they've changed their mind. Do they need to justify themselves to you?

[IllumiNaughty]

So you're a proponent of a statist and classist society where laws are created based on morality and how someone feels about someone else's personal choice. I'm pro abortion at all stages.

well if u dont value its life, even if its not fully formed, then thats your thing. I look at it as a matter of responsibilty, instead of just aborting another human. So why else are you marxists if not for the moral belief in everyone having equal chances? Dont your beliefs root from a moral belief anyway? why do you care enough to be a marxist or into politics anyway. And you dismiss my argument as superficially moral.

[Sinister Intents]

well if u dont value its life, even if its not fully formed, then thats your thing.

This isn't about valuing life, which is something I've heard pro-lifers say time and time again :P, this is about saying a woman has a choice over her own damned body, if she doesn't want to have the fetus developing inside her, or if she doesn't feel comfortable, or for any personal reason she has, she has every right to get an abortion. This is a woman's choice!

I'm probably being trolled I realize now

[Hit The North]

How would a baby one day from birth be aborted?

[IllumiNaughty]

This isn't about valuing life, which is something I've heard pro-lifers say time and time again :P, this is about saying a woman has a choice over her own damned body, if she doesn't want to have the fetus developing inside her, or if she doesn't feel comfortable, or for any personal reason she has, she has every right to get an abortion. This is a woman's choice!

I'm probably being trolled I realize now

yea im a troll because i dont agree with you

[Sinister Intents]

yea im a troll because i dont agree with you

You call yourself a Marxist, but your anti abortion and you want some kind of control over a woman's choice at any point during a pregnancy

[Lily Briscoe]

Basically, fuck you, abortions at any stage rock.

They really don't.

[Rosa Partizan]

They really don't.

...yeah this was another unpopular post I was going to make. It's okay to piss trolls off with such postings, but if we wanna stick to reality, it sucks. I heard some stories, some women feel great and relieved after it, but some do struggle really hard with that, wondering what will happen if at a later point in life they want children but have difficulties getting pregnant (not because of the abortion). Safe and hygienic abortions are necessary, but they can be a huge psychic liability and this is something that men won't be able to understand (not aiming at dd, in no way, I think he was just going to piss off the pro lifers).

[IllumiNaughty]

You call yourself a Marxist, but your anti abortion and you want some kind of control over a woman's choice at any point during a pregnancy

its not simple like that. Its more a matter of life and death, i dont give a shit about controlling anyone, even if u want to believe that so hard.

[IllumiNaughty]

...yeah this was another unpopular post I was going to make. It's okay to piss trolls off with such postings, but if we wanna stick to reality, it sucks. I heard some stories, some women feel great and relieved after it, but some do struggle really hard with that, wondering what will happen if at a later point in life they want children but have difficulties getting pregnant (not because of the abortion). Safe and hygienic abortions are necessary, but they can be a huge psychic liability and this is something that men won't be able to understand (not aiming at dd, in no way, I think he was just going to piss off the pro lifers).

So im a troll because i dont agree with u guys. Yea DD made me mad so im gonna go cry now

[Hit The North]

stop this vocab like child! It's not a child when it's not born! It still relies - via physical connection - on the female body to get nutrition and supplies, it's rather a parasite than a child. Don't emotionalize this discussion by using terms like "kill", "child", blahblah.
This seems like an arbitrary distinction. A child is as dependent on a physical connection with the mother a day after birth as it is a day before. Put another way, it is as capable of drawing sustenance from a surrogate a day before birth as a day after.

[Sinister Intents]

You're not even trying to debate, you've not contradicted my points

[IllumiNaughty]

its not simple like that. Its more a matter of life and death, i dont give a shit about controlling anyone, even if u want to believe that so hard.


You're not even trying to debate, you've not contradicted my points

Go back and read my posts. ive stated my point several times. All youre saying is im not a marxist and that i want control over a woman's body, a misogynist. it total bs. for the 5th time, i dont think anti abortion is grounds for calling someone anti revolutionary and all that crap and then restricting them. its not misogyny, its a matter of life and death for another human, taking its life into consideration.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Go back and read my posts. ive stated my point several times. All youre saying is im not a marxist and that i want control over a woman's body, a misogynist. it total bs. for the 5th time, i dont think anti abortion is grounds for calling someone anti revolutionary and all that crap and then restricting them. its not misogyny, its a matter of life and death for another human, taking its life into consideration.

But you do want the state to control a woman's body. Why should the life that has same sort of awareness as a cow at best be taken into consideration?

[Hit The North]

But you do want the state to control a woman's body. Why should the life that has same sort of awareness as a cow at best be taken into consideration?

A one month old human infant will have less awareness than an adult cow. Should its rights not be considered?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

A one month old human infant will have less awareness than an adult cow. Should its rights not be considered?

Rights are besides the point here, surely. The infant is not in anyone's body. If it was still lodged into someone's body then yeah, its "rights" would be of no concern to us.

[Hit The North]

Rights are besides the point here, surely. The infant is not in anyone's body. If it was still lodged into someone's body then yeah, its "rights" would be of no concern to us.

Even if it can be removed from somebody's body without risking its life (like a day before birth)?

At what stage do you think an infant is suitably autonomous to be afforded rights?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Even if it can be removed from somebody's body without risking its life (like a day before birth)?

At what stage do you think an infant is suitably autonomous to be afforded rights?

I don't think the concept of rights makes any sense when you pose it so abstractly. Rights are limitations on the enemy class state that arise in the course of political struggle - they aren't some timeless form discovered by humans. And yes, even if it can be removed without risking its life, as the life and comfort of the human with an actual social existence - most likely a proletarian - takes precedence to us.

[Sinister Intents]

Go back and read my posts. ive stated my point several times. All youre saying is im not a marxist and that i want control over a woman's body, a misogynist. it total bs. for the 5th time, i dont think anti abortion is grounds for calling someone anti revolutionary and all that crap and then restricting them. its not misogyny, its a matter of life and death for another human, taking its life into consideration.

I've read every one of your posts and refuted them fully. I'm not a Marxist either by the way, and I'm saying you're fine with someone else decided whether a woman may have an abortion or not. I've not called you a mysoginist once, I didn't say you couldn't be revolutionary. You're sexist because your cool with having a choice in someone's personal choices. Yeah I think you should get restricted. Its a matter of the mother's life and her choice. Let's take the pregnant individual's life into consideration.

[Lord Testicles]

What would a 1-day before birth abortion actually involve? Wouldn't it be indistinguishable from a caesarean section or a form of labour induction?

[IllumiNaughty]

Rights are besides the point here, surely. The infant is not in anyone's body. If it was still lodged into someone's body then yeah, its "rights" would be of no concern to us.

See why we disagree? You dont think an unborn infant (however underdeveloped it is) deserves rights, and im being emotional, a troll, an anti revolutionary and advocate state control over a woman's body (how are you not using emotional language yourselves) because i think it does deserve rights. I dont think abortion should be allowed, but it is necessary only right now because the world economic system makes raising a child seem scary and very expensive, as ive said in the previous page. and its not supposed to be that way

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

What would a 1-day before birth abortion actually involve? Wouldn't it be indistinguishable from a caesarean section or a form of labour induction?

Probably that, with no effort to keep the fetus alive (which simplifies things immensely).


See why we disagree? You dont think an unborn infant (however underdeveloped it is) deserves rights, and im being emotional, a troll, an anti revolutionary and advocate state control over a woman's body (how are you not using emotional language yourselves) because i think it does deserve rights. I dont think abortion should be allowed, but it is necessary right now because the world economic system makes raising a child seem scary and very expensive, as ive said in the previous page.

I don't think anyone "deserves rights", rights are very specific things that arise in political struggle, not Platonic forms that humans deserve because the lord God has decreed so. And no, sorry, I am not using emotional language when I point out prohibitions on abortion entail forced birth, which is an example of the bourgeois state controlling the lives of women (along with laws against lesbianism, premarital sex, drug use etc. etc.).

In the socialist society, if a woman decides she doesn't want to give birth, who is going to stop her from going to a physician and aborting, some "socialist" morality police?

[Sinister Intents]

You're a pro lifer is what you are

[IllumiNaughty]

I've read every one of your posts and refuted them fully. I'm not a Marxist either by the way, and I'm saying you're fine with someone else decided whether a woman may have an abortion or not. I've not called you a mysoginist once, I didn't say you couldn't be revolutionary. You're sexist because your cool with having a choice in someone's personal choices. Yeah I think you should get restricted. Its a matter of the mother's life and her choice. Let's take the pregnant individual's life into consideration.

i meant all you collectively making it seem like im that way.

i fail to see how its sexist. It involves another life, not simply about personal choices.

[Lord Testicles]

Probably that, with no effort to keep the fetus alive (which simplifies things immensely).


I think you'll have trouble finding a doctor who wouldn't try to save both lives if it was possible.

[IllumiNaughty]

Probably that, with no effort to keep the fetus alive (which simplifies things immensely).



I don't think anyone "deserves rights", rights are very specific things that arise in political struggle, not Platonic forms that humans deserve because the lord God has decreed so. And no, sorry, I am not using emotional language when I point out prohibitions on abortion entail forced birth, which is an example of the bourgeois state controlling the lives of women (along with laws against lesbianism, premarital sex, drug use etc. etc.).

In the socialist society, if a woman decides she doesn't want to give birth, who is going to stop her from going to a physician and aborting, some "socialist" morality police?

no one deserves rights by default? wow


You're a pro lifer is what you are

youre a baby killer is what you are. lol see i can use stupid labels too

[Lord Testicles]

It involves another life, not simply about personal choices.

Read this (http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm). Then get back to us.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I think you'll have trouble finding a doctor who wouldn't try to save both lives if it was possible.

They can try to save the fetus as much as they want as long as the life, health or comfort of the mother is not jeopardised. Abortion entails getting the thing out safely and with no onerous impositions to safeguard the "precious" fetal life. What happens after that is really of no political importance.

[Sinister Intents]

i meant all you collectively making it seem like im that way.

i fail to see how its sexist. It involves another life, not simply about personal choices.

You may not be a sexist, but you believe in something that relates to sexism, antiabortion is inherently a sexist stance. When the fetus is inside the woman it is her choice because its her body. Late term abortions she could just put the child up for adoption if its viable

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

no one deserves rights by default? wow

Yeah, materialism takes some getting used to.

You still haven't answered, how would you prevent a woman from aborting in a socialist society? I ask this because most of the "but-but the poor baby fetuses" crowd doesn't have a firm grasp of what socialism is and what revolutionary socialists want to accomplish.

[Sinister Intents]

no one deserves rights by default? wow



youre a baby killer is what you are. lol see i can use stupid labels too

Rights are a restrictive and liberal construction. Rights don't actually exist and isn't it funny someone can determine them for you?

Lol thanks sexist bastard

[Sinister Intents]

Do you support the right to property?

[IllumiNaughty]

Read this (http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm). Then get back to us.

I was expecting something scientific, not some guys long winded opinion with a bunch of hypothetical scenarios instead of any real content.

A newly fertilized ovum, a newly implanted clump of cells, is no more a person than an acorn is an oak tree. But I shall not discuss any of this.

thats the closest he gets to saying something thats not total bs, then he says, oh ill just not discuss this lol


Yeah, materialism takes some getting used to.

You still haven't answered, how would you prevent a woman from aborting in a socialist society? I ask this because most of the "but-but the poor baby fetuses" crowd doesn't have a firm grasp of what socialism is and what revolutionary socialists want to accomplish.

im well versed in socialism. i mean rights as in being allowed to live lol.


Rights are a restrictive and liberal construction. Rights don't actually exist and isn't it funny someone can determine them for you?

Lol thanks sexist bastard

sexist bastard. ok whatever u want to believe.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

im well versed in socialism. i mean rights as in being allowed to live lol.

And socialists don't propose actions that would result in people being killed? Don't be ridiculous. The transitional period will cause quite a few deaths of people with, as I said, a real social existence. But you haven't answered my question at all. Once again: if a woman in the socialist society wants to abort, how do you propose she be stopped?

[Lord Testicles]

I was expecting something scientific, not some guys long winded opinion with a bunch of hypothetical scenarios instead of any real content.

A newly fertilized ovum, a newly implanted clump of cells, is no more a person than an acorn is an oak tree. But I shall not discuss any of this.

thats the closest he gets to saying something thats not total bs, then he says, oh ill just not discuss this lol


It's not a scientific paper because it's not a scientific issue. You obviously don't have any interest in actually discussing this issue, as is obvious from your dismissive tone, which is why you are a troll.

[IllumiNaughty]

Do you support the right to property?

now u guys are questioning my knowledge of socialism right?

i dont support private ownership of food, education, healthcare, goods (the means of production eh?) and socialism is not concerned with taking your car for gov ownership or forcing people to share your house like the right wing brainwashes people to believe

[Sinister Intents]

now u guys are questioning my knowledge of socialism right?

i dont support private ownership of food, education, healthcare, goods (the means of production eh?) and socialism is not concerned with taking your car for gov ownership or forcing people to share your house like the right wing brainwashes people to believe

Then why tell a woman she can't have an abortion at a certain amount of time?

[IllumiNaughty]

And socialists don't propose actions that would result in people being killed? Don't be ridiculous. The transitional period will cause quite a few deaths of people with, as I said, a real social existence. But you haven't answered my question at all. Once again: if a woman in the socialist society wants to abort, how do you propose she be stopped?

what does the violent revolution of killing the minority bourgie scum who cause oppression have to do with aborting the unborn?

and well, i guess she cant be stopped if there is hardly a state to enforce it. Doesnt change my opinion of it being wrong.


It's not a scientific paper because it's not a scientific issue. You obviously don't have any interest in actually discussing this issue, as is obvious from your dismissive tone, which is why you are a troll.

i looked at it and that paper had no content just an opinion and scenarios, no facts or refernces, hes not saying anything new that you guys havent already said.

[Sinister Intents]

This is annoying

[Lord Testicles]

i looked at it and that paper had no content just an opinion and scenarios, hes not saying anything new that you guys havent already said.

http://deeperbreaths.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/scully-facepalm.jpeg

It's called a thought experiment and it presumes that the fetus has a right to life and why it's right to life doesn't make abortion morally impermissible.

But you want to know how I definitely know you haven't read it? You keep referring to someone who's called Judith as a "he".

[IllumiNaughty]

Then why tell a woman she can't have an abortion at a certain amount of time?

I would agree with you guys if we were talking about a woman being allowed to choose how she wants to make a living or whatever (of course theres no argument there) but abortion is not so simple where if u are against it, then it automatically means you re sexist. it involves another life which is why its always such a huge topic.

[Lord Testicles]

it involves another life which is why its always such a huge topic.

Which is why you should actually read up about it not just spout your mouth off like a buffoon.

[Five Year Plan]

Let me start off by saying that I support a woman's free access to an abortion throughout her entire pregnancy.

With that out of the way, I want to emphasize that much of this discussion demonstrates an almost total lack of awareness of the profound philosophical and social-theoretical questions that have been raised over the past forty years by people who are pro-choice and by those who are anti-choice. It also, for the most part, demonstrates a lack of empirical concern regarding the application of the principles being discussed, which is shocking on a forum for people who are supposed to be wedded to some kind of materialist worldview.

On the philosophical-theoretical side, bodily autonomy is an important factor, the paramount factor, to consider, but it is just silly and intellectually lazy to act like the members of a society could never on principle have any stake or interest in the future-human life gestating within a woman's womb that might entail some small compromises with bodily autonomy, as if any person's bodily autonomy is absolute. This isn't to say that the future-human life is a "person," but it does emphasize the reality that a developing fetus is not just an indistinguishable part of a woman's body: it's a life-form with a trajectory toward its own independence.

It is for this reason that ensuring women who do want to carry a fetus to term should be provided by society with priority access to medical care, nutrition, parking spaces, positions in queues, and educational information about how to deal with their pregnancy. Because at that point, it's not just about them. It's also about the fetus, a future-human life. Such an argument can't be made effectively if you simply zero the fetus out of the equation and treat it all as an undifferentiated "woman's body" as if the fetus were a benign tumor or kidney stone, and as if a pregnant woman were in the same analytic category as a morbidly obese or disabled woman.

On the empirical side, third trimester abortions are extremely rare, and for a woman to endure one, something terribly wrong must have happened somewhere along the way. Possibilities include the pregnant person being a minor who was ashamed to tell her parents about her sexual activity, the extreme deformity of a fetus, or even the odd occurrence that a woman doesn't know she is pregnant until that late (and yes there have been documented cases of this happening, as unlikely as it might sound).

As a man, I know I will never be able to understand exactly what it's like to be pregnant, but I've been informed by people who are in a position to know that if you're pregnant, and you don't want to have take the fetus to term, nothing--and I mean, nothing--is going to stop you from trying to get it out of you.

The point of this all is that there is a tendency to arrive at the right position for less than perfect reasons. The demagogic and simplistic way that arguments on this forum are presented are highly problematic in that their bourgeois character, by which a body is treated as a piece property rather than a dynamic site of the interplay between personal interests and social interests, resembles the self-ownership argument that can easily be used in other contexts to lead to some quite reactionary positions (e.g., taxation for a social pension is 'theft' and so on). And to be perfectly honest, women's issues like this deserve a lot more thoughtfulness, care and attention than the cheap sloganeering it often gets on this forum.

[Sinister Intents]

I would agree with you guys if we were talking about a woman being allowed to choose how she wants to make a living or whatever (of course theres no argument there) but abortion is not so simple where if u are against it, then it automatically means you re sexist. it involves another life which is why its always such a huge topic.

An abortion is a choice and it should always be a woman's personal choice because that directly affects her life. She should have the choice no matter what and and you're going to get restricted for being anti-choice/pro-life. Its a matter of a woman's choice and a right to her body and her own life. God fucking damn it am I fucking confusing you?

[Hit The North]

What would a 1-day before birth abortion actually involve? Wouldn't it be indistinguishable from a caesarean section or a form of labour induction?
But it would only be an abortion if the baby was then destroyed. Otherwise it would be a delivery by caesarian or induction, which is common enough anyway.

[Lord Testicles]

But it would only be an abortion if the baby was then destroyed. Otherwise it would be a delivery by caesarian or induction, which is common enough anyway.

Which leads me to the question, how do you go about destroying a 38 week old fetus and is it riskier or safer than delivery by caesarian or induction?

I just assumed that if someone wanted an abortion on the 38th week they'd just have an induced birth or a caesarian.

These are honest questions, I have no medical background so I honestly don't know.

[IllumiNaughty]

http://deeperbreaths.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/scully-facepalm.jpeg

It's called a thought experiment and it presumes that the fetus has a right to life and why it's right to life doesn't make abortion morally impermissible.

But you want to know how I definitely know you haven't read it? You keep referring to someone who's called Judith as a "he".

''I have argued that you are not morally required to spend nine months in bed, sustaining the life of that violinist, but to say this is by no means to say that if, when you unplug yourself, there is a miracle and he survives, you then have a right to turn round and slit his throat. You may detach yourself even if this costs him his life; you have no right to be guaranteed his death, by some other means, if unplugging yourself does not kill him. There are some people who will feel dissatisfied by this feature of my argument"

ok thought experiment. whatever you want to call it- ultimately, all shes doing is abstractly using a bunch of hypothetical scenarios and opinions. u say read this first and come back to us, shes not saying anything we havent already said.

lol so what if i forgot and referred to her as he. only reference to her being female is the name at the top.

[Hit The North]

I don't think the concept of rights makes any sense when you pose it so abstractly. Rights are limitations on the enemy class state that arise in the course of political struggle - they aren't some timeless form discovered by humans. And yes, even if it can be removed without risking its life, as the life and comfort of the human with an actual social existence - most likely a proletarian - takes precedence to us.

No they are not a timeless form. But neither are they reducible to struggle. They are legal norms extended to members of a specific community or polity. In a civilised community individuals should not have to struggle to have their rights met as this should be the duty of the community. My question to you is when should an infant have the right to the protection of its life? Presumably you don't think it permissible for a mother to have the right to stave in the head of their unwanted day old baby. Or do you? Also, at what point does the infant become a worker and therefore attain priority for you - it will be many years before it becomes a productive wage slave, after all?

[Lord Testicles]

''I have argued that you are not morally required to spend nine months in bed, sustaining the life of that violinist, but to say this is by no means to say that if, when you unplug yourself, there is a miracle and he survives, you then have a right to turn round and slit his throat. You may detach yourself even if this costs him his life; you have no right to be guaranteed his death, by some other means, if unplugging yourself does not kill him. There are some people who will feel dissatisfied by this feature of my argument"

ok thought experiment. whatever you want to call it- ultimately, all shes doing is abstractly using a bunch of hypothetical scenarios and opinions. u say read this first and come back to us, shes not saying anything we havent already said.

lol so what if i forgot and referred to her as he. only reference to her being female is the name at the top.

They're called analogies, and you don't seem to be able to address them directly.

"She isn't saying anything new" he pleads.

Au contraire, nobody in this thread has presumed that the fetus has a right to life and still argues that abortion isn't morally wrong. I still don't think you've read it and if you have I don't think you've quite comprehended what you've read.

[IllumiNaughty]

An abortion is a choice and it should always be a woman's personal choice because that directly affects her life. She should have the choice no matter what and and you're going to get restricted for being anti-choice/pro-life. Its a matter of a woman's choice and a right to her body and her own life. God fucking damn it am I fucking confusing you?

like i said, the baby is a human too. Of course, it should be aborted if its really causing her mortal medical problems. But other than that, i see it as killing another human for no reason. confusing me? youre throwing a fit now because i dont agree with you. "restricted for being anti choice/pro life" lol what a bunch of a holes.

question- Do you guys think many people will be getting abortions anyway after a socialist society and the main conditions that cause people to get abortions will be gone?

[Hit The North]

Which leads me to the question, how do you go about destroying a 38 week old fetus and is it riskier or safer than delivery by caesarian or induction?

I just assumed that if someone wanted an abortion on the 38th week they'd just have an induced birth or a caesarian.

These are honest questions, I have no medical background so I honestly don't know.

It's no longer a fetus at 38 weeks, but whatever you want to call it, there are many safe ways to destroy it once it is removed from the mother. But one would hope that it would be removed and its life preserved by agents other than the mother. But this would not constitute an abortion. Abortions don't live to tell the tale.

My contention, then, is that those who are arguing that a woman has the right to an abortion one day or one hour before birth are arguing that she has the right to order the termination of that life.

[Lord Testicles]

It's no longer a fetus at 38 weeks, but whatever you want to call it, there are many safe ways to destroy it once it is removed from the mother.

If I may be pedantic for a moment. It's technically a fetus all the way up until it's born.

[IllumiNaughty]

Which is why you should actually read up about it not just spout your mouth off like a buffoon.

same can be said about everyone in this thread. u all act like a bunch of brats

"We have in fact to distinguish between two kinds of Samaritan: the Good Samaritan and what we might call the Minimally Decent Samaritan. The story of the Good Samaritan, you will remember, goes like this:

A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.
And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.
And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side.
But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was, and when he saw him he had compassion on him.
And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.
And on the morrow, when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, "Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee." (Luke 10:30-35)

The Good Samaritan went out of his way, at some cost to himself, to help one in need of it. We are not told what the options were, that is, whether or not the priest and the Levite could have helped by doing less than the Good Samaritan did, but assuming they could have, then the fact they did nothing at all shows they were not even Minimally Decent Samaritans, not because they were not Samaritans, but because they were not even minimally decent."

that article is full of nonsense like this lol. link to something more empirical instead of this crap.

[Five Year Plan]

Take your religious nonsense to the TBN prayer line.

[The Feral Underclass]

It is my view that all pregnancies should be aborted. Especially for women who do not want abortions.

[Lord Testicles]

<snip>

You're an idiot with atrocious spelling. Do you have a point to make?

[PhoenixAsh]

Like i edited in my last post- youre a logical extremist. I do get your point and youre saying not letting women have abortions (in my belief, just the last trimester of pregancy or days from being born) means im a misogynist and advocating female oppression lol! Youre trying to equate me with a bourgeois oppressor and a nazi killer of disabled people :lol:

Yes to the oppressor part. You are whether you see it or not.

Simply put. childbirth is potentially deadly and holds medical risks. As long as it is in a woman's body the only person that should decide about her deviding cells is the woman herself. There is no objective ethical or moral reason why you want to force somebody to give birth at risk to their health or going against their will. arguing that position means you support the forceful control over women.

[The Feral Underclass]

My contention, then, is that those who are arguing that a woman has the right to an abortion one day or one hour before birth are arguing that she has the right to order the termination of that life.

She does.

[IllumiNaughty]

You're an idiot with atrocious spelling. Do you have a point to make?

atrocious spelling because i dont capitalize and use punctuation in every single word? im not at work or writing a school essay! hah my left shift key is not working by the way

lol keep em coming, smart ass

[The Feral Underclass]

^You misspelled capitalise.

[ashtonh]

I didnt realize to be a ultra-leftist you had to be ok with abortion to such great extents shouldn't the peoples socio-economic ideals matter more instead of arbitrary BS. Our politics are great but why do we care whether you think a woman can have them anytime or only 1st or 2nd trimester. All we need is pro-choice not all the additives. This kind of bull is what causes fractures in the left. This is what causes people to leave the site, why dont we have a poll, If anytime no matter if its a second before birth wins everyone who votes differently shuts up about it never to voice openly for some time, if the side against second before even abortion rule change. Fair and simple since theres a lot of argument on this topic.

[ashtonh]

Starting it in learning.

[The Feral Underclass]

If I can't indiscriminately kill unborn children, then it's not my revolution.

[Lord Testicles]

atrocious spelling because i dont capitalize and use punctuation in every single word? im not at work or writing a school essay! hah my left shift key is not working by the way

lol keep em coming, smart ass

No, because you spell "you" as "u".

I'll ask again. Do you have a point or are you just hell bent on proving that you are the most unsubtle, unskilled troll in history?

[PhoenixAsh]

This seems like an arbitrary distinction. A child is as dependent on a physical connection with the mother a day after birth as it is a day before. Put another way, it is as capable of drawing sustenance from a surrogate a day before birth as a day after.

No...They can't. For the simple fact that they are inside a body. They need to be out to be able to rely on another source. Tiny detail....big difference.

[IllumiNaughty]

^You misspelled capitalise.

LMAO u guys crack me up! im american. yorkshire? youre in england right? its different. im used to spelling with z instead of s in some words. its acceptable over here.


I didnt realize to be a ultra-leftist you had to be ok with abortion to such great extents shouldn't the peoples socio-economic ideals matter more instead of arbitrary BS. Our politics are great but why do we care whether you think a woman can have them anytime or only 1st or 2nd trimester. All we need is pro-choice not all the additives. This kind of bull is what causes fractures in the left. This is what causes people to leave the site, why dont we have a poll, If anytime no matter if its a second before birth wins everyone who votes differently shuts up about it never to voice openly for some time, if the side against second before even abortion rule change. Fair and simple since theres a lot of argument on this topic.

i see why people leave the site. i stated my opinion calmly on the first few pages and now its turned into insults because i dont dogmatically agree with everything they do.

[PhoenixAsh]

I didnt realize to be a ultra-leftist you had to be ok with abortion to such great extents shouldn't the peoples socio-economic ideals matter more instead of arbitrary BS. Our politics are great but why do we care whether you think a woman can have them anytime or only 1st or 2nd trimester. All we need is pro-choice not all the additives. This kind of bull is what causes fractures in the left. This is what causes people to leave the site, why dont we have a poll, If anytime no matter if its a second before birth wins everyone who votes differently shuts up about it never to voice openly for some time, if the side against second before even abortion rule change. Fair and simple since theres a lot of argument on this topic.

Leaving the site? Good...because simply put if your position is that women should be forced to give birth then you do not belong in the revolutionary left.

Let me put it in really simpel terms so everybody can understand: there is no debate on this topic. The only acceptable position is full free, medically safe access to abortions during the entire pregnancy.

If you have to ask the question why we should care... then you should perhaps look down...if there is something dangling between your legs that may just be your male privilege which is incapable of understanding that you just said that the state should legislate what a woman can and can't do with her body and as such is the final arbiter which will force decisions on her about her body. Basically you are arguing for the legal oppression of 50% of the population based on their sex.

[Five Year Plan]

On second thought, if Ismail is allowed to religiously quote Hoxha, why can't IllumiNaughty religiously quote the Bible?

[IllumiNaughty]

No, because you spell "you" as "u".

I'll ask again. Do you have a point or are you just hell bent on proving that you are the most unsubtle, unskilled troll in history?

lol seriously, who gives a shit how i spelled you? arent U able to know exactly what im saying anyway? insufferable punks

[The Feral Underclass]

LMAO u guys crack me up! im american. yorkshire? youre in england right? its different. im used to spelling with z instead of s in some words. its acceptable over here.

It is neither different nor acceptable.

[IllumiNaughty]

On second thought, if Ismail is allowed to religiously quote Hoxha, why can't IllumiNaughty religiously quote the Bible?

haha that was a quoted text that skinz linked me too.

[Five Year Plan]

I'm waiting for TAT to correct me on my split infinitives...

[Lord Testicles]

lol seriously, who gives a shit how i spelled you? arent U able to know exactly what im saying anyway? insufferable punks

You're trolling me, I have every right to point out how you are as dumb as a bag of spanners. (It's not even an insult, from your posts so far I can only conclude that you are regularly deprived of oxygen for significant amounts of time.)

Has this thread got to the point where we can just post pictures of animals yet?

[IllumiNaughty]

It is neither different nor acceptable.

thats just how american society teaches us to spell it and im used to it. of course its unacceptable to you, a brit.

[PhoenixAsh]

On second thought, if Ismail is allowed to religiously quote Hoxha, why can't IllumiNaughty religiously quote the Bible?

Because Hoxha didn't exist and is a figment of our imagination.

[IllumiNaughty]

You're trolling me, I have every right to point out how you are as dumb as a bag of spanners. (It's not even an insult, from your posts so far I can only conclude that you are regularly deprived of oxygen for significant amounts of time.)

Has this thread got to the point where we can just post pictures of animals yet?

LOL why do U care so much about how i spell on an internet forum?

i was talking with everyone calmly for the first few pages until U and other people started throwing insults. its no wonder people leave the site.

[Lord Testicles]

LOL why do U care so much about how i spell on an internet forum?

I don't really, I'm just a little embarrassed for you.


its no wonder people leave the site.

Do us a favour and fuck off then.

[IllumiNaughty]

I don't really, I'm just a little embarrassed for you.



Do us a favour and fuck off then.

well youre the only one embarrassed. its faster and easier to type. im not at work or school, so fuck it. You can read what i type anyway. and like i said, my shift key is fucked. youre all the ones who started all these personal attacks. lol you guys are crazy as hell.

[PhoenixAsh]

@ illumiNaughty

Consider this a warning.

You are here since may 2013. For over a year you had the chance to learn and educate yourself on the position of the board and why we have this position. This would be more than sufficient time. This means there are two alternatives:

1). You are a reactionary who advocates the perpetuation of oppression of women and is in favor of the state legislating women's bodies. In this case you do not belong on the open forum.

2). You are trolling. Which I find highly likely. Especially considering nearly 45% of your entire postcount is made in this thread alone. Again this is against forum rules.

So you understand full well why your position is not allowed on this site.

[IllumiNaughty]

@ illumiNaughty

Consider this a warning.

You are here since may 2013. For over a year you had the chance to learn and educate yourself on the position of the board and why we have this position. This would be more than sufficient time. This means there are two alternatives:

1). You are a reactionary who advocates the perpetuation of oppression of women and is in favor of the state legislating women's bodies. In this case you do not belong on the open forum.

2). You are trolling. Which I find highly likely. Especially considering nearly 45% of your entire postcount is made in this thread alone. Again this is against forum rules.

So you understand full well why your position is not allowed on this site.

yea of course this thread is 45% of my postcount, because i did more reading than post. i was calmly debating with everyone here on the first few pages til they started throwing insults. but yea, u guys have issues. so bye. i will keep reading for all the info, but my account is done. punks

[Sinister Intents]

yea of course this thread is 45% of my postcount, because i did more reading than post. i was calmly debating with everyone here on the first few pages til they started throwing insults. but yea, u guys have issues. so bye. i will keep reading for all the info, but my account is done. punks

The only time I called you a sexist bastard was because you called me a baby killer and you posted a bunch of quotes that stem from the bible which shows me that you're a pro-lifer and deserve restriction.

[IllumiNaughty]

The only time I called you a sexist bastard was because you called me a baby killer and you posted a bunch of quotes that stem from the bible which shows me that you're a pro-lifer and deserve restriction.

lol for the third time, that was a quote from skinz's link showing how dumb that paper was. im not religious lol

[Sinister Intents]

lol for the third time, that was a quote from skinz's link showing how dumb that paper was. im not religious lol

I see that now and you must forgive me reading because I was on a cellphone.

What's your alternative to abortion and why are you against it exactly? I also missed your one post in which I'll address that in a bit

[ashtonh]

Leaving the site? Good...because simply put if your position is that women should be forced to give birth then you do not belong in the revolutionary left.

Let me put it in really simpel terms so everybody can understand: there is no debate on this topic. The only acceptable position is full free, medically safe access to abortions during the entire pregnancy.

If you have to ask the question why we should care... then you should perhaps look down...if there is something dangling between your legs that may just be your male privilege which is incapable of understanding that you just said that the state should legislate what a woman can and can't do with her body and as such is the final arbiter which will force decisions on her about her body. Basically you are arguing for the legal oppression of 50% of the population based on their sex.
Ha male privelige yes I'm a male but theres not much privilege in not wanting to kill children a second before they come out sorry your version of pro-choice is widely different than any man or woman I know.

[#FF0000]

I'm pretty sure the definition of abortion specifies that it occurs before viability.

[#FF0000]

I also think that we can agree that if someone reaches labor before they can get an abortion, that there has been a catastrophic failure in whatever system to dispense medical care is in place.

[Sinister Intents]

like i said, the baby is a human too. Of course, it should be aborted if its really causing her mortal medical problems. But other than that, i see it as killing another human for no reason. confusing me? youre throwing a fit now because i dont agree with you. "restricted for being anti choice/pro life" lol what a bunch of a holes.

question- Do you guys think many people will be getting abortions anyway after a socialist society and the main conditions that cause people to get abortions will be gone?

The baby is indeed human, but it still relies on the mother and is a part of the mother, so it still remains her choice, and definitely abort a fetus or baby if it's causing the woman problems. I don't see abortion as murder because it's a woman's choice quite literally which I will continue to insist on because it is the woman's choice, afterall it is within her body and directly affects her life. I'm not expecting you to agree with me because the older people get I notice the more they get trapped in their convictions. People often can't look at their awful selves and will not recoil in shock, but they may when they realize they're afflicted by ugly reactionary thoughts. For example I used to be extremely sexist and anti-abortion. I used to insist that a woman should be executed for an abortion because I was quite mysoginistic, I also thought racism was healthy. THis was a very brief period of my life.

As per the change in material conditions when socialism is achieved, I assume people will get abortions if they're not ready to have a child, but socialism will make it easier and happier to bring a life into this world. At least I hope. The conditions that exist now, such as woman getting abortions due to rape will disappear, et cetera I'm too tired to type up longer responses or huge lenghty posts

[Sinister Intents]

Ha male privelige yes I'm a male but theres not much privilege in not wanting to kill children a second before they come out sorry your version of pro-choice is widely different than any man or woman I know.

Define pro choice and pro life.

[ashtonh]

Misogyny is a horrible problem within the right but it is not misogyny to not allow infanticide

[#FF0000]

Probably that, with no effort to keep the fetus alive (which simplifies things immensely).

A doctor literally can't do that. The thing is out, it's viable -- he has to keep it alive. That doesn't mean the mother has to keep it, however.

It doesn't sound like you actually thought about this at all.

[ashtonh]

I feel this sites rule makers have lost sight, The left must maintain solidarity if we hope to suceed If we win power then vote on the arbitrary specifics.

[Hit The North]

No...They can't. For the simple fact that they are inside a body. They need to be out to be able to rely on another source. Tiny detail....big difference.

Obviously I'm referring to this hypothetical case set up of a woman having the right to have the pregnancy terminated a day before labour. I'm referring to the foetus/baby being so developed that it could live and develop to maturity away from the host, after extraction. In other words, should a woman have the right to demand the removal and destruction of a 38 week old foetus (i.e. an abortion) when it would be an easy thing for the baby to be removed, incubated and nurtured by others?

It seems to me, more civilised and more humane that a woman can demand not to go through a full pregnancy, but not, after a certain late period in the development of the foetus (i.e. when it is viable outside the womb), to demand its death.

[Sentinel]

Enjoy your restriction Illuminaughty.

[ashtonh]

Restrictions are out of hand here its like person A debates (gasp) against the leftist line and thinks for themselves therefore banned or restricted.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Let me start off by saying that I support a woman's free access to an abortion throughout her entire pregnancy.

With that out of the way, I want to emphasize that much of this discussion demonstrates an almost total lack of awareness of the profound philosophical and social-theoretical questions that have been raised over the past forty years by people who are pro-choice and by those who are anti-choice. It also, for the most part, demonstrates a lack of empirical concern regarding the application of the principles being discussed, which is shocking on a forum for people who are supposed to be wedded to some kind of materialist worldview.

On the philosophical-theoretical side, bodily autonomy is an important factor, the paramount factor, to consider, but it is just silly and intellectually lazy to act like the members of a society could never on principle have any stake or interest in the future-human life gestating within a woman's womb that might entail some small compromises with bodily autonomy, as if any person's bodily autonomy is absolute. This isn't to say that the future-human life is a "person," but it does emphasize the reality that a developing fetus is not just an indistinguishable part of a woman's body: it's a life-form with a trajectory toward its own independence.

It is for this reason that ensuring women who do want to carry a fetus to term should be provided by society with priority access to medical care, nutrition, parking spaces, positions in queues, and educational information about how to deal with their pregnancy. Because at that point, it's not just about them. It's also about the fetus, a future-human life. Such an argument can't be made effectively if you simply zero the fetus out of the equation and treat it all as an undifferentiated "woman's body" as if the fetus were a benign tumor or kidney stone, and as if a pregnant woman were in the same analytic category as a morbidly obese or disabled woman.

On the empirical side, third trimester abortions are extremely rare, and for a woman to endure one, something terribly wrong must have happened somewhere along the way. Possibilities include the pregnant person being a minor who was ashamed to tell her parents about her sexual activity, the extreme deformity of a fetus, or even the odd occurrence that a woman doesn't know she is pregnant until that late (and yes there have been documented cases of this happening, as unlikely as it might sound).

As a man, I know I will never be able to understand exactly what it's like to be pregnant, but I've been informed by people who are in a position to know that if you're pregnant, and you don't want to have take the fetus to term, nothing--and I mean, nothing--is going to stop you from trying to get it out of you.

The point of this all is that there is a tendency to arrive at the right position for less than perfect reasons. The demagogic and simplistic way that arguments on this forum are presented are highly problematic in that their bourgeois character, by which a body is treated as a piece property rather than a dynamic site of the interplay between personal interests and social interests, resembles the self-ownership argument that can easily be used in other contexts to lead to some quite reactionary positions (e.g., taxation for a social pension is 'theft' and so on). And to be perfectly honest, women's issues like this deserve a lot more thoughtfulness, care and attention than the cheap sloganeering it often gets on this forum.

I don't think the notion of bodily autonomy necessarily leads to the notion of "self-ownership" - a particularly incoherent notion as, to materialists, the body is a person, it isn't an object owned by the person. I think we can agree that unwanted interference with the bodily functions of other people causes them harm, and is particularly odious as it compromises their material existence. I can only look in horror at things that would have happened to me a few hundred years ago, like chemical castration and so on, and I don't think being forced to give birth, by all accounts a painful, invasive and degrading (if it is forced) procedure, is any better. So I think it is a good thing for the socialist movement to have a broad conception of non-interference with the bodies of worker, and even to err on the side of caution in that regard. Of course this does not mean that I promote any sort of universal abstract "right", as I said these are meaningless and the transitional workers' state will probably be forced to do worse things than interfere with someone's body. But I don't see how interference with the bodily autonomy of pregnant people is ever warranted.

You say that society have an interest in the fetus. But what society, and what interest? In the present society it is the bourgeoisie who have an interest in the reproduction of the proletariat, and hence this entire debate. But I don't think that is something that should concern us. In the transitional or communist society, there is no need to reproduce the proletariat as such, so what interest would society have in the developing fetus?

I also think pregnant people should receive some benefits, but not because of the fetus as such, but because they are in a serious condition that causes pain, can be extremely dangerous etc. I don't see the principled difference between giving my place in a queue to a visibly pregnant woman and giving it to someone who has to use a Zimmer frame to walk.


No they are not a timeless form. But neither are they reducible to struggle. They are legal norms extended to members of a specific community or polity. In a civilised community individuals should not have to struggle to have their rights met as this should be the duty of the community. My question to you is when should an infant have the right to the protection of its life? Presumably you don't think it permissible for a mother to have the right to stave in the head of their unwanted day old baby. Or do you? Also, at what point does the infant become a worker and therefore attain priority for you - it will be many years before it becomes a productive wage slave, after all?

A "civilised community" would presumably be the communist society, in which neither legal norms nor rights would exist, so I fail to see the point. As for infants, that is a complex question. As I said, infants have no social existence - they do not participate in society - but they can be protected without odious impositions on other people. On the other hand, I don't think infanticide committed while a woman has problems is something people should go to jail for etc.


I'm pretty sure the definition of abortion specifies that it occurs before viability.

Not any definition I'm aware of, to be honest, and in any case viability is a fuzzy notion. Also, I mean, think about what you're saying. It almost sounds like you agree with that NGNM fellow.


A doctor literally can't do that. The thing is out, it's viable -- he has to keep it alive. That doesn't mean the mother has to keep it, however.

It doesn't sound like you actually thought about this at all.

Sure he can. In most countries there are all sorts of contradictory rules that restrict the ability of doctors to preform third-trimester abortions, but that is not the case in Vietnam, for example. The point is that asking doctors to save the fetus limits their ability to get it out safely and without undue discomfort for the woman. Once it is out, and if it's alive, they can try to save it all they want.



Restrictions are out of hand here its like person A debates (gasp) against the leftist line and thinks for themselves therefore banned or restricted.

Well if you want to be on a forum where people who want to control the bodies of women post freely...

[BIXX]

They really don't.

I was just baiting the troll. I understand that abortions are really not fun etc...

The point I was trying to allude to at the same time as being obtuse and kinda a dick is that abortions at any point in time should be considered just as fine as one early in the pregnancy- meaning fully. As log as the person getting an abortion is happy about their decision I think that it is wonderful.

[BIXX]

So im a troll because i dont agree with u guys. Yea DD made me mad so im gonna go cry now

Mission fucking accomplished!

Seriously though, whatever your problem is with people being able to make choices about their own body is, I hope someone knocks some sense into you someday. Cause you are saying some seriously stupid shit.

[BIXX]

I feel this sites rule makers have lost sight, The left must maintain solidarity if we hope to suceed If we win power then vote on the arbitrary specifics.

MUH LEFT UNITY

Fuck off, dude. If your goals are contrary to mine then there will never be any unity between us.

[E.Everhard]

Can you really be so foolish? Not too long ago an Irish woman, soon to give birth in the hospital began to miscarriage. When she asked the nurse for an abortion she was told " we don't do that, this is a Catholic country" she died. This is the kind of sadness your prejudice and abortion laws lead to.

[ashtonh]

MUH LEFT UNITY

Fuck off, dude. If your goals are contrary to mine then there will never be any unity between us.
And that is why we don get shit done. No wonder the right suceeds far more than the left because from moderate to far-right they dont fight these arbitrary battles about the "acceptable" right-wing thoughts or actions

[Art Vandelay]

MUH LEFT UNITY

Fuck off, dude. If your goals are contrary to mine then there will never be any unity between us.

Union of egoists!

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

And that is why we don get shit done. No wonder the right suceeds far more than the left because from moderate to far-right they dont fight these arbitrary battles about the "acceptable" right-wing thoughts or actions

Or maybe because the right and parts of "the left" like liberals and social-democrats want to preserve the existing state of affairs and we want to violently overthrow it? I mean, yeah, let's just hold hands with everyone from Obama-drones to NazBols, that'll make everything better.

[Five Year Plan]

I don't think the notion of bodily autonomy necessarily leads to the notion of "self-ownership" - a particularly incoherent notion as, to materialists, the body is a person, it isn't an object owned by the person. I think we can agree that unwanted interference with the bodily functions of other people causes them harm, and is particularly odious as it compromises their material existence. I can only look in horror at things that would have happened to me a few hundred years ago, like chemical castration and so on, and I don't think being forced to give birth, by all accounts a painful, invasive and degrading (if it is forced) procedure, is any better. So I think it is a good thing for the socialist movement to have a broad conception of non-interference with the bodies of worker, and even to err on the side of caution in that regard. Of course this does not mean that I promote any sort of universal abstract "right", as I said these are meaningless and the transitional workers' state will probably be forced to do worse things than interfere with someone's body. But I don't see how interference with the bodily autonomy of pregnant people is ever warranted.

Of course bodily autonomy is a different concept than self-ownership, but you wouldn't know it from the way the concept is discussed on Revleft, where the notion is invoked as absolute in a way that actually implies self-ownership as an abstract "right," no matter how vocally some people might object to the idea that that is not what they are intending to do.


You say that society have an interest in the fetus. But what society, and what interest? In the present society it is the bourgeoisie who have an interest in the reproduction of the proletariat, and hence this entire debate. But I don't think that is something that should concern us. In the transitional or communist society, there is no need to reproduce the proletariat as such, so what interest would society have in the developing fetus?I think I pretty clearly laid out a number of areas where a pregnant woman is treated differently than a non-pregnant woman due to the interests that society has in ensuring that a woman wanting to bear a child receives help in carrying the healthiest possible fetus to term. Those are cases where society's interests lie in helping the mother and the fetus.

An example of where a society is expressing its interests in the healthy development of a fetus with some autonomy from a mother would be a case where a pregnant woman 7 months along, and who up to that point had every intention of keeping her pregnancy, gets into a car accident in a way that is potentially devastating for the fetus. The hospital decides that the only way to save the fetus is to deliver it and place it in an incubator, despite the fact that the mother is unconscious in a coma. Let's say that the mother was considering having it aborted in the following two weeks, but had never told anybody this. Is this a case of "respecting the mother's bodily autonomy"? Or is it a recognition that there are (rare) cases where, indeed, there is a gap between "bodily autonomy" and how society might treat a fetus?

One-liners about bodily autonomy might be good for agitational slogans at a march or something, but in a discussion, we need to dig deeper.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I think I pretty clearly laid out a number of areas where a pregnant woman is treated differently than a non-pregnant woman due to the interests that society has in ensuring that a woman wanting to bear a child receives help in carrying the healthiest possible fetus to term. Those are cases where society's interests lie in helping the mother and the fetus.

An example of where a society is expressing its interests in the healthy development of a fetus with some autonomy from a mother would be a case where a pregnant woman 7 months along, and who up to that point had every intention of keeping her pregnancy, gets into a car accident in a way that is potentially devastating for the fetus. The hospital decides that the only way to save the fetus is to deliver it and place it in an incubator, despite the fact that the mother is unconscious in a coma. Let's say that the mother was considering having it aborted in the following two weeks, but had never told anybody this. Is this a case of "respecting the mother's bodily autonomy"? Or is it a recognition that there are (rare) cases where, indeed, there is a gap between "bodily autonomy" and how society might treat a fetus?

One-liners about bodily autonomy might be good for agitational slogans at a march or something, but in a discussion, we need to dig deeper.

It all depends, doesn't it? If the hospital has good reasons to assume that the woman intends to keep the pregnancy, then they are merely following what they assume (with good reasons, by supposition) to be the desire of the woman. If, however, the hospital does not have such reason (and I don't think the assumption that most women want to keep their pregnancies is a good reason), then surely it would be irresponsible of them to jeopardise the life or health of the woman by unduly focusing on the fetus? I don't think the fetus needs to be terminated, in such circumstances - merely that it needs to be extracted from the woman so that the woman is not unduly harmed. If it survives the extraction process, OK. If not, also OK. I think this is how most of us would want the doctors to treat us.

I think it is problematic to point to current practice, as we are living in bourgeois society, dominated by the logic of capital - and that requires that the proletariat be reproduced. So motherhood is given a special ideological role (taken to the logical extreme, as always, by Stalinist regimes). I do think pregnant people deserve extra resources, priority in queues and so on - but mostly because pregnancy is an extremely painful and physically debilitating condition.

To put it into concrete terms: let us suppose that, in a queue, a heavily pregnant woman is behind a woman who has back problems that make it difficult to walk, and for argument's sake let us assume that these problems are the same or sufficiently similar to those experienced by the pregnant woman. Is it in the interest of society that the woman with back pain give her place in the line to the pregnant woman? I don't think it is.

Generally, it is in social interest to treat people who are experiencing any sort of physical difficulty in a way that would alleviate their difficulties. I think we are in agreement on this. But is it in the interest of society for children to be born? In one sense it is, as extinction of the human race would massively interfere with the five-year plan. However we can assume that people in the future would also give birth to children, although probably not as much as they do now, so the birth of any particular child is not exactly a matter of social interest. Of course, when that child becomes an independent person with a social life their interest becomes part of the social interest.

I think insisting on the supposed interest of society in this matter can lead to ugly consequences, from restrictions on abortion to proscribing what pregnant women can and can't ingest etc.

[PhoenixAsh]

Obviously I'm referring to this hypothetical case set up of a woman having the right to have the pregnancy terminated a day before labour. I'm referring to the foetus/baby being so developed that it could live and develop to maturity away from the host, after extraction. In other words, should a woman have the right to demand the removal and destruction of a 38 week old foetus (i.e. an abortion) when it would be an easy thing for the baby to be removed, incubated and nurtured by others?

It seems to me, more civilised and more humane that a woman can demand not to go through a full pregnancy, but not, after a certain late period in the development of the foetus (i.e. when it is viable outside the womb), to demand its death.

What about at 7 months? Technically and biologically the foetus can survive outside the womb given the proper aid?

This line of reason to allow legislation into the equation based on the fear that something might happen, but never does (I know of no such documented cases), is an incredibly slippery slope.


edit: well I found some cases. Including a woman who was sentenced to 8 years in prison for inducing birth with some poison in the final week of gestation or something. Didn't really read it. Prevalence of after week 30 abortion is marginal at best and below 0.08% of all abortions.

[The Feral Underclass]

Obviously I'm referring to this hypothetical case set up of a woman having the right to have the pregnancy terminated a day before labour. I'm referring to the foetus/baby being so developed that it could live and develop to maturity away from the host, after extraction. In other words, should a woman have the right to demand the removal and destruction of a 38 week old foetus (i.e. an abortion) when it would be an easy thing for the baby to be removed, incubated and nurtured by others?

Well, what's the alternative?...Forcibly remove it from her womb? Using the state to prohibit autonomy over her body? Cuz I don't really see any other choices...

[Five Year Plan]

It all depends, doesn't it? If the hospital has good reasons to assume that the woman intends to keep the pregnancy, then they are merely following what they assume (with good reasons, by supposition) to be the desire of the woman. If, however, the hospital does not have such reason (and I don't think the assumption that most women want to keep their pregnancies is a good reason), then surely it would be irresponsible of them to jeopardise the life or health of the woman by unduly focusing on the fetus? I don't think the fetus needs to be terminated, in such circumstances - merely that it needs to be extracted from the woman so that the woman is not unduly harmed. If it survives the extraction process, OK. If not, also OK. I think this is how most of us would want the doctors to treat us.

That's the whole point I was making, wasn't it? "It all depends." As in, there is no cut-and-dry slogan that can be applied in all scenarios. It's simply not good enough to use non-intervention by society, or its nefarious stand-in "the state," as an inviolable covering principle. To do so is essentially to invoke a repackaged version of right-wing libertarianism, and an extreme form of it, too. There are other cases where I can imagine a person's bodily autonomy might be a little more complicated than it is often treated on this forum: that of a twelve-year-old who wants to keep the fetus to term (because it was produced in agreement with her significantly older sex partner whom she claims to love), but whose parents don't want her to. Do we respect her right to bodily autonomy? If so, what does that say about positions on issues like, for example, the age of consent, where society generally leaps in to make judgments on behalf of the expressed preferences of the young people whose bodies are involved?


I think it is problematic to point to current practice, as we are living in bourgeois society, dominated by the logic of capital - and that requires that the proletariat be reproduced. So motherhood is given a special ideological role (taken to the logical extreme, as always, by Stalinist regimes). I do think pregnant people deserve extra resources, priority in queues and so on - but mostly because pregnancy is an extremely painful and physically debilitating condition.Well, no, I am not pointing to current practice at all. I am talking about a hypothetical scenario. Whether it matches or doesn't match current practice is beyond the scope of argument.


To put it into concrete terms: let us suppose that, in a queue, a heavily pregnant woman is behind a woman who has back problems that make it difficult to walk, and for argument's sake let us assume that these problems are the same or sufficiently similar to those experienced by the pregnant woman. Is it in the interest of society that the woman with back pain give her place in the line to the pregnant woman? I don't think it is.Yes, that logic of collapsing pregnant women into disabled women works for your scenario, but not all scenarios. The one we've been discussing in depth above makes this clear. Sometimes a woman might be in a position where her express wishes are unknown, and where leaving a fetus alone might prove just as harmful to the woman as taking it out, but where a fetus will surely die if not removed within a certain time frame. What does a medical professional do? What should she be authorized to do by society? She (or he) has to consider that the fetus is a future-human life, and there's no avoiding that doing so presents a different set of calculations than dealing with a kidney stone or a benign tumor.


I think insisting on the supposed interest of society in this matter can lead to ugly consequences, from restrictions on abortion to proscribing what pregnant women can and can't ingest etc.I don't think there are cases where a woman's expressed desire to terminate a pregnancy should be overridden, which is why, as I said, I support free and safe abortions for the entirety of pregnancy. But leaping from acknowledging the paramount importance of bodily autonomy to the claim that a fetus therefore is just the same as any other part of a woman's body and entails the exact same interests that society has in regards to every other part of a woman's body is highly problematic, per the scenario we've been discussing.

I mean, one of the reasons that free and safe abortion is so important is precisely because of the point I made earlier. A woman who doesn't want to keep a fetus can often perceive that fetus does not to belong inside her, is not really a part of her, and is in some sense an invading force that needs to be removed. She will often stop at nothing to have it removed, including resorting to highly dangerous back-alley procedures.

[PhoenixAsh]

In case it wasn't clear


The only acceptable position on this board regarding abortion is the unrestricted and unobstructed access to free and medically safe abortions for the entire duration of the pregnancy decided upon by the woman herself.


All other positions may lead to restriction or banning.


This position is based on the fact that it is not the place of society nor the state, nor any other individual than the women herself, to have any say in how a woman uses her body. There is no legitimacy in the position that a womans body should and needs to be legislated.

We reject these positions as patriarchal and mysogenist and see abortion legislation within the context of the infantilisation and objectification of women and the marginalization of women as individuals who can decide about their own bodies and reproduction.

This includes late and full term abortions.

At no part do we accept legislation and the interference of the state, society or individuals to be aimed to force a woman to give birth.

Lets get this straight: at no point during pregnancy should anybody else than the woman decide about her own body and the risks she is taking or willing to take. This decision is, and should be, entirely her own and can be for whatever reason.


The arguments in this debate are problematic at best.


There is a kneejerk reaction to "OMG think of the children" where all of the sudden the call for legislation creeps in just in case something which currently practically never (or only in the most exceptional circumstances) happens...might possible, maybe in the future happen. Late term abortions...or abortions after week 20 have a world wide occurance of 2% - 0.5% of all abortions. Past 24 weeks this percentage is reduced to 0.08%. There is obvious demands for past week 30 abortions. Most of these demands are because the woman did not previously have access to medical facilities and or didn't know they were pregnant, there are late term complications, or there is a medical necessity for the mother/woman to do so. Apparently these women should just be forced to give birth.
Prevalence is extremely low. People are clammoring to legislate a womans right of choice.

Following the line of reasoning that there needs to be legislation to prevent this "infanticide" means there is no possible argument against forced birth at 7 months. And there is no reason not to force a woman to carry to full term because the fetus might possible interact with its environment. And we can follow that slippery slope entirely down into the rabbit hole of the religious right.

The method of late term abortion is mostly cesarean/induction. However...Extraction is another common method. As is D&X. And yes..these either involve sucking the innards of the fetus through a tube and deflating the body...or disecting the fetus. And yes...mostly these are done because of the incredibly health risk of birth and induction at that stage.

Most of those making the arguments for abortion legislation are men. You do not carry the child. You do not take the risk. You do not have to take care of the child. You do not have to live with the decisions you make. Stay...the fuck...away from trying to decide what a woman can and can not choose because of some "OMG think of the children" morality spiel.

Those two points are as an aside from the turn of phrases used in the arguments such as:

"should allow"
"trust women" (made in another thread on the subject)

Which are incredibly sexist and pedantic. I hope these do not need explaining.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

That's the whole point I was making, wasn't it? "It all depends." As in, there is no cut-and-dry slogan that can be applied in all scenarios. It's simply not good enough to use non-intervention by society, or its nefarious stand-in "the state," as an inviolable covering principle. To do so is essentially to invoke a repackaged version of right-wing libertarianism, and an extreme form of it, too.

I don't think this is the case. American "libertarianism" upholds an extremely abstract form of juridical freedom, bourgeois freedom in the absence of material prerequisites of bourgeois freedom. Anyone who can hold their nose and read through their bilge will find that these people have no problems with, for example, extreme impositions on pregnant women and gay people, as long as these imposition originate with "the private sector".

I think it is important for socialists to underscore what you call non-interference, not in isolation from and in opposition to the social interest but precisely as indispensable for that very interest - the free development of one being the prerequisite of the free development of all etc. Of course, this is not "an inviolable principle". In contradistinction to other political trends, socialists have very few of those. But it is not something to be casually disregarded either (and I'm not saying you want to do so, but I have seen more than enough posters on this site who think humans should become for all intents and purposes an eusocial species, and as ridiculous as this naked mole rat socialism is, you can find its echoes in some of the less savoury socialist organisations).

As for the state, well, I think it is much more scientific to talk about state intervention than social intervention in general, as in the present period, it is the state, a collection of special bodies of armed men, that intervenes. And when the state has disappeared, surely the stateless society would not intervene as government over men will have been abolished.


There are other cases where I can imagine a person's bodily autonomy might be a little more complicated than it is often treated on this forum: that of a twelve-year-old who wants to keep the fetus to term (because it was produced in agreement with her significantly older sex partner whom she claims to love), but whose parents don't want her to. Do we respect her right to bodily autonomy? If so, what does that say about positions on issues like, for example, the age of consent, where society generally leaps in to make judgments on behalf of the expressed preferences of the young people whose bodies are involved?

http://www.animemay.com/thumbnails/detail/20121220/sayonara%20zetsubou%20sensei%20japanese%20clothes% 20simple%20background%20tsunetsuki%20matoi%201600x 1200%20wallpaper_www.animemay.com_27.jpg

...ignoring things that, like my encyclopaedic knowledge of lime pits around Zagreb, can't be discussed on this site, no one said that reality is not complicated. In the scenario you outline, the capacity of the child to consent to possible serious bodily harm complicates matters. Truth be told, I don't think there is some magical number of months when the hitherto ignorant child becomes capable of making such a decision - these things need to be solved on a case-by-case basis, presumably, and it seems to me that members of the society that possess skills or knowledge related to the case should have more of a say than the parents, if parents would even exist in socialism as such. Yet the bodily integrity of the child can't be ignored even in this scenario. I think, in fact, it should take first place in any deliberation. Particularly, it should rule out any coercive means (and, as an aside, one of the few things that sounds more horrible to me than a little girl giving birth and dying in pain because her body can't take it would be for that little girl to be forcibly strapped down and, for all intents, medically violated; perhaps that's just me, though).


Yes, that logic of collapsing pregnant women into disabled women works for your scenario, but not all scenarios. The one we've been discussing in depth above makes this clear. Sometimes a woman might be in a position where her express wishes are unknown, and where leaving a fetus alone might prove just as harmful to the woman as taking it out, but where a fetus will surely die if not removed within a certain time frame. What does a medical professional do? What should she be authorized to do by society? She (or he) has to consider that the fetus is a future-human life, and there's no avoiding that doing so presents a different set of calculations than dealing with a kidney stone or a benign tumor.

Not necessarily disabled but experiencing pain and great discomfort and requiring additional medical care. As for your second scenario, not only does it sound somewhat contrived, I think it is clear that, simply considering the alternatives, saving the fetus means that the woman will either be glad because she wanted the fetus or relieved because it has been removed from her - and leaving a fetus that would die and cause potentially serious complication would be rank malpractice. Now, I realise this was simply an example, and I don't categorically claim to have every answer in advance (if I did, I wouldn't spend my time he... ah, I probably would anyway, revising is hard).


I don't think there are cases where a woman's expressed desire to terminate a pregnancy should be overridden, which is why, as I said, I support free and safe abortions for the entirety of pregnancy. But leaping from acknowledging the paramount importance of bodily autonomy to the claim that a fetus therefore is just the same as any other part of a woman's body and entails the exact same interests that society has in regards to every other part of a woman's body is highly problematic, per the scenario we've been discussing.

I never said you were opposed to abortion at any stage - that would be an uncomradely accusation. However, I still think that one ought to be careful when asserting that society has a vested interest in the delivery of healthy children. I don't think it is necessarily wrong or even reactionary to assert this, but I think it needs to be explored in more detail.


I mean, one of the reasons that free and safe abortion is so important is precisely because of the point I made earlier. A woman who doesn't want to keep a fetus can often perceive that fetus does not to belong inside her, is not really a part of her, and is in some sense an invading force that needs to be removed. She will often stop at nothing to have it removed, including resorting to highly dangerous back-alley procedures.

Sure, but I never said that a fetus was part of a woman's body just like any other; in fact the only comparison I made was with a parasite. Or generally any organism that finds itself lodged in your body.

[QueerVanguard]

Why are we wasting time actually arguing with this reactionary, sexist shitball instead of banning his misogynistic ass?

[Diirez]

I don't know...
I share the same pro-choice beliefs as Sinister Intents and 870, but I'm not sure I agree with the grounds of restrictions on this site.

I think people should be allowed to express their opinions on the site. I do understand the reasoning behind restricting radical pro-lifers but I think even the pro-choicers who don't support late term abortions should be allowed to express such views for discussion.

[ashtonh]

Or maybe because the right and parts of "the left" like liberals and social-democrats want to preserve the existing state of affairs and we want to violently overthrow it? I mean, yeah, let's just hold hands with everyone from Obama-drones to NazBols, that'll make everything better.

Hold on Nazbols are not exactly what anyone would consider a part of the left, xenophobia, rascism,sexism, and fascism. Are those leftist traits?

[ashtonh]

Can you really be so foolish? Not too long ago an Irish woman, soon to give birth in the hospital began to miscarriage. When she asked the nurse for an abortion she was told " we don't do that, this is a Catholic country" she died. This is the kind of sadness your prejudice and abortion laws lead to.

Thats sad very sad but slippery-slope argument is used by people against abortion and marriage equality.

[Sinister Intents]

Hold on Nazbols are not exactly what anyone would consider a part of the left, xenophobia, rascism,sexism, and fascism. Are those leftist traits?

I want you to re-read 870's post, and you'll see that he's not including them as leftists at all.


Thats sad very sad but slippery-slope argument is used by people against abortion and marriage equality.

I think that guy was arguing for free access to abortion based on his post.

[TC]

Can you really be so foolish? Not too long ago an Irish woman, soon to give birth in the hospital began to miscarriage. When she asked the nurse for an abortion she was told " we don't do that, this is a Catholic country" she died. This is the kind of sadness your prejudice and abortion laws lead to.

This is absolutely right and worth keeping in mind.

Although it doesn't make a difference, should be noted that Savita Halappanavar who I'm sure you're referring to was an Indian dentist stuck in Ireland.

[Zoroaster]

Close the thread. Good Lord.

[Five Year Plan]

Close the thread. Good Lord.

That's not very libertarian-marxist of you, is it?