Is it ok to question policy?

[ashtonh]

It seems like a lot of people who dont fit the crosshairs get restricted or banned. Are we allowed to openly discuss and debate certain policy and/or question the policy?

[BIXX]

Well you've defended pro-life pints on here, if I remember correctly, so no, not for you.

I don't "fit the crosshairs" here at all, as a good portion of the membership will tell you. I am not a communist, I am not a leftist, I don't follow most of the shit posted here. But I get to stay because I am not a reactionary, whereas those who are reactionaries tend to be put in OI or banned. Either way, you have presented an inaccurate vision of what gets people banned/restricted here.

[Sinister Intents]

Astonh, you're probably safe, but defending a pro-lifer maybe the downfall. Plus If you look at those that get restricted and their posts or get banned and their posts. They deserved it. Like Vanguard 1917.

Also questioning policy and questioning in general is fine and healthy.

[Црвена]

I think so, or at least, I hope so. Everyone I've seen restricted or banned so far have been reactionaries, bigots or both. You don't have to stick to the "party," line here...it's not the USSR!

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

You can question policy all you want, but in the meantime, and until it is changed, it applies to you as per the rules you agreed on when joining. So if you think the rule about pro-lifers being restricted needs to be changed, you can say that. However until it is changed it still applies, so if you're opposed to free abortion on demand you will be restricted.

[Ele'ill]

It seems like a lot of people who dont fit the crosshairs get restricted or banned.


Yes, there are a lot of positions that people hold that aren't allowed as discussion on this forum. This forum isn't here to serve the irreconcilable clash or to set up an 'intellectual' arena of trench warfare. It is here to discuss topics that are beyond that. The reason is that the forum would (and has in the past) become completely saturated with back and forth from what are nearly opposite poles. Sure, some might say that is healthy, and I might even agree, sometimes it can be. But so is having a very specific space to discuss very specific things with the very specific absence of certain positions.



Are we allowed to openly discuss and debate certain policy and/or question the policy?

No, yes. If you have a question about a policy you should PM a mod or admin and if you want to add "hey do you think I could make a thread about this in the technical forum, would that be non-repetitive and acceptable to get feedback?' to your message to them then that is okay. Otherwise the forum becomes saturated with what every OP feels is an original critique on policy when its been done 30 times a year since 2002.

[TC]

Why was Vanguard1917 restricted and banned? I don't remember him being reactionary.

[Sinister Intents]

Why was Vanguard1917 restricted and banned? I don't remember him being reactionary.
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2772423&postcount=392
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2772505&postcount=393

[motion denied]

While I didn't read that thread carefully, I don't remember Vanguard1917 being sexist. in fact, I think Hit_The_North complained about it.

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

If it's not ok, something needs to change.

[Ele'ill]

You could try pming a mod or admin and asking them since they are the ones who decided on it. You would be more likely to get a reply from that than making threads with tons of questions. Historically these threads never yield any answers.

[Ele'ill]

Since this is going to turn into a thread with lots of complaining I'll switch gears now and add in that we should have bigger avatars why can't we have them

[Five Year Plan]

Because, Mari3L, we leftists believing in rationing everything, including fabulousness.

[Sinister Intents]

My forum offers large avatars for all and revleft should too!

[TC]

How was Vanguard 1917 sexist? I know ashtonh is sexist and he's still here though...

[Decolonize The Left]

How was Vanguard 1917 sexist? I know ashtonh is sexist and he's still here though...

PM an admin. It was a long time coming but basically he was trivializing rape and rape victims. As for ashtonh, I can only imagine his time is limited.

[PhoenixAsh]

It seems like a lot of people who dont fit the crosshairs get restricted or banned. Are we allowed to openly discuss and debate certain policy and/or question the policy?

You agreed to be a member of this site and in becoming a member you accepted the forum rules. These rules explicitly state that:


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


This position is not up for debate. We are not going to change those rules.

The reasons for this are debated at length at varius intervals whenever the question pops up. Here is a short explanation: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2778038&postcount=147

For a more indepth analysis use the search function.

As with all rules when you become CU member you can make suggestions to board policy. Threads can be started in the CU suggestion thread. If you are not a CU member this option is unavailable. Suggestions started are still succeptable to forum rules.

As with every rule violation the BA decides which, if any, sanction it deems appropriate within the confines of the forum guidelines.

[ashtonh]

How was Vanguard 1917 sexist? I know ashtonh is sexist and he's still here though...

Sexism or gender discrimination is prejudice or discrimination based on a person's sex or gender.[1] Sexist attitudes may stem from traditional stereotypes of gender roles,[2][3] and may include the belief that a person of one sex is intrinsically superior to a person of the other.[4] A job applicant may face discriminatory hiring practices, or (if hired) receive unequal compensation or treatment compared to that of their opposite-sex peers.[5] Extreme sexism may foster sexual harassment, rape and other forms of sexual violence.[6]
Thank you wikipedia for a definition. Now ill consult websters
prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially : discrimination against women
2
: behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex Well there we go nothing about being against infanticide. And I know basically no one will get an abortion that late.

[TC]

PM an admin. It was a long time coming but basically he was trivializing rape and rape victims.

Thats disappointing to hear.

[Red Star Rising]

I don't agree with abortion one day before birth. I think abortion is absolutely fine until the point where the baby is a recognizably sentient human and not a clump of embryonic cells. Am I going to get banned?

[Sinister Intents]

I don't agree with abortion one day before birth. I think abortion is absolutely fine until the point where the baby is a recognizably sentient human and not a clump of embryonic cells. Am I going to get banned?

I'm fine with it because that abortion would be able to be done through C-section or induction and the hospital would be able to sustain the child and the baby could get adopted. Don't let anti choicers and pro lifers influence your politics with reactionary bullshit

[Red Star Rising]

I'm fine with it because that abortion would be able to be done through C-section or induction and the hospital would be able to sustain the child and the baby could get adopted. Don't let anti choicers and pro lifers influence your politics with reactionary bullshit

Oh yeah, that is fine. I don't agree with those mad abortion nuts who think that a conventional abortion can be carried out in which the baby is killed in the process like often happens in China. Adoption is OK.

[ashtonh]

Well i would agree that a woman can have a c-section and go for adoption

[PhoenixAsh]

You would agree that a woman can or can't do somerhing.

That is mighty Nice of you.

:rolleyes:

[Sinister Intents]

Well i would agree that a woman can have a c-section and go for adoption

Don't be anti choice! Would you tell me I couldn't modify my body such as getting a sex change?

[ashtonh]

Don't be anti choice! Would you tell me I couldn't modify my body such as getting a sex change?

Im sorry can meant could not saying i want it legislated it was a personal opinion agreeing with another user. And it is none of my business if u get a sex change . Anti-choice means what Pro-choice but not ur definition r pro-life bc it seems like the first is correct.

[Sinister Intents]

What?

[Ele'ill]

Anti-choice means what Pro-choice but not ur definition r pro-life bc it seems like the first is correct.


"anti-choice means what pro-choice but not ur definition are pro-life because it seems like the first is correct"



what?

[Zoroaster]

Im sorry can meant could not saying i want it legislated it was a personal opinion agreeing with another user. And it is none of my business if u get a sex change . Anti-choice means what Pro-choice but not ur definition r pro-life bc it seems like the first is correct.

What am I even looking at.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

What am I even looking at.

Words on a screen I do believe.

[#FF0000]

Are we allowed to openly discuss and debate certain policy and/or question the policy?

i'm still here so yes

[ashtonh]

Sorry I asked what is pro-choice then asked if it included any version of pro-choice but ur own

[Red Star Rising]

You would agree that a woman can or can't do somerhing.

That is mighty Nice of you.

:rolleyes:

And You would agree that the rights of the baby mean nothing. That is mighty nice of you. A woman is under no obligation to have a child that she does not want or can't live with. She cannot disregard the child's human rights once it is a proper sentient human. That is not a difficult concept.

[PhoenixAsh]

And You would agree that the rights of the baby mean nothing. That is mighty nice of you. A woman is under no obligation to have a child that she does not want or can't live with. She cannot disregard the child's human rights once it is a proper sentient human. That is not a difficult concept.

And it is only a proper sentient human when it is outside the womb. Before it is outside the womb it is a fetus.

That is not a difficult concept now is it?

Yet you seem to have problems with it.

So lets put it bluntly: As long as the fetus is in the womb...it is not a baby and does not have rights unless the woman carrying it decides it has...no...it does mean nothing.

And since it is HER body SHE can do pretty damned well everything SHE pleases with it...including having a fetus cut out of HER body up until day of birth in any way SHE deems medically necessary without your or anybodyelses moral evaluation and condemnation of HER actions. You have no bussiness regulating HER womb

Get it?

[TC]

I don't agree with abortion one day before birth. I think abortion is absolutely fine until the point where the baby is a recognizably sentient human and not a clump of embryonic cells. Am I going to get banned?

Fetuses aren't sentient until after birth.

Source: http://www.rcog.org.uk/fetal-awareness-review-research-and-recommendations-practice

[TC]

I'm fine with it because that abortion would be able to be done through C-section or induction

What if a woman doesn't want to have her stomach cut open, her abdominal muscles sliced, her uterus cut open, weeks of recovery and permanent disfigurement and high risks for any future pregnancy? What if a woman also doesn't want the agonizing pain of induced labor and the resulting urogenital damage that not only usually involves either ripping or cutting her vagina open but frequently results in urinary incontinence and painful intercourse?

In that case, you want to force her against her will?

You don't think she should be able to refuse and, provided a physician is willing, have a deceased fetus removed in a safer, less injurious fashion then its possible to remove a live fetus?

C-sections and child birth are big fucking deals that, just like having sex, no one should be forced into if they don't want to.

And delivering a live and viable but less than full term fetus on maternal request would also raise significant medical health ethics issues not present in abortion decisions. Which isn't to say that I don't think it should be an option but that it creates its own problems.

[TC]

Sorry I asked what is pro-choice then asked if it included any version of pro-choice but ur own

Its not really pro-choice if you are only in support of choices that you personally feel comfortable with. Everyone is "pro-choice" in that way. Picking and choosing which pregnancy options should be available to someone who isn't yourself is exactly what the anti-choice movement does.

Lots of choices strike me as personally disturbing ones that I would categorically reject for myself, but using those feelings as a basis for violating someone else's bodily integrity, personal autonomy and dignity is not legitimate.

[Sinister Intents]

What if a woman doesn't want to have her stomach cut open, her abdominal muscles sliced, her uterus cut open, weeks of recovery and permanent disfigurement and high risks for any future pregnancy? What if a woman also doesn't want the agonizing pain of induced labor and the resulting urogenital damage that not only usually involves either ripping or cutting her vagina open but frequently results in urinary incontinence and painful intercourse?

In that case, you want to force her against her will?

You don't think she should be able to refuse and, provided a physician is willing, have a deceased fetus removed in a safer, less injurious fashion then its possible to remove a live fetus?

C-sections and child birth are big fucking deals that, just like having sex, no one should be forced into if they don't want to.

And delivering a live and viable but less than full term fetus on maternal request would also raise significant medical health ethics issues not present in abortion decisions. Which isn't to say that I don't think it should be an option but that it creates its own problems.

I understand C sections are dangerous and I was taking into account I was arguing against someone who is anti-choice, the woman always has a choice and she should be able to have done whatever is necessary for her. I she wants something safer than C section than I'm sure something exists. I don't want to force any one against there will, I'm strictly pro-choice. I'm not talking about forcing anyone into anything. I'm not an expert on this. You're post addressing me was rather pointless in my opinion.

I'm sorry but you really didn't need to make this post.

To be clear I share the boards position to a T on the case of abortion:

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.

That comes from a post PheonixAsh made the above quote

[Deep Sea]

Why is abortion not a National Question? I think it is worth considering the arguments put forth by some that Europeans have tried to use it as a form of genocide/population control of other peoples.

It reminds me of divorce in the USSR. Right after the Revolution, they made divorce very easy. However, many women quickly turned against the new policy, as it allowed men to easily leave their families and start new ones elsewhere, so the policy was reversed.

[consuming negativity]

What if a woman doesn't want to have her stomach cut open, her abdominal muscles sliced, her uterus cut open, weeks of recovery and permanent disfigurement and high risks for any future pregnancy? What if a woman also doesn't want the agonizing pain of induced labor and the resulting urogenital damage that not only usually involves either ripping or cutting her vagina open but frequently results in urinary incontinence and painful intercourse?

In that case, you want to force her against her will?

You don't think she should be able to refuse and, provided a physician is willing, have a deceased fetus removed in a safer, less injurious fashion then its possible to remove a live fetus?

C-sections and child birth are big fucking deals that, just like having sex, no one should be forced into if they don't want to.

And delivering a live and viable but less than full term fetus on maternal request would also raise significant medical health ethics issues not present in abortion decisions. Which isn't to say that I don't think it should be an option but that it creates its own problems.

I feel like you really undermined your own argument here when you referred to the fetus as being "deceased", implying that it would have to be killed to remove it. While RevLeft is great for its stance on women's rights, there is a reason that "late term" abortions are illegal even in the most progressive countries, and it's because nobody making public policy is thinking of things merely in ethical terms but in practical terms. That is, it is easier to force women to give birth to otherwise-viable fetuses than it is to justify to the rest of the electorate that the woman's right to her body outweighs the fetuses right to be born if it is viable. People get really pissed off at the idea of dead babies, and they see birth as a lesser, more "natural" evil in the situation. I myself think that an otherwise-healthy and viable fetus being killed in the ninth month of pregnancy is very immoral and wrong, it's just that I'm not going to say that me or anyone else should be rushing in and stopping it, or otherwise be shaming the person who got the procedure done. The anti-abortion crowd are exceptionally prone to violence, and pregnant women are exceptionally vulnerable to it, and so my position is tactically a very precarious one, which is why I tend to keep my mouth closed because I would rather support a crowd which would abort fetuses than attack living young women. But that doesn't change the fact that we have a very uphill battle to face here.

[TC]

PM an admin. It was a long time coming but basically he was trivializing rape and rape victims.


So, I'm really not interested in trying to read everything Vanguard1917 wrote lately...


...but was he actually, in effect banned because he opposes *criminalizing female adultery* where the theory for *criminalizing female adultery* was that a woman who cheats on her husband and then sleeps with her husband having failed to disclose that she cheated has committed rape if the husband would decline to sleep with her had he known of her adultery?

Did that really happen?

And Devrim in a comment I read seemed to express an identical position but wasn't restricted...

Apologies if I have this wrong or don't understand the situation (I admittedly don't know what I"m talking about here!!) - was it something different?

[TC]

I feel like you really undermined your own argument here when you referred to the fetus as being "deceased", implying that it would have to be killed to remove it.

I'm not implying it, I'm stating it expressly. There is no way to remove a fetus from a pregnant woman without either severely injuring the woman or destroying the fetus. Getting a large fetus out intact necessitates a lot more physical trauma to the woman carrying it than getting a large fetus out if it doesn't need to come out intact. Its not something anyone enjoys thinking about but its the reality. Vaginal childbirth and/or c-sections are severely to extremely painful and moderately to extremely damaging procedures - the entire point of abortion is to offer an alternative for someone who doesn't want to give birth or doesn't want to give birth to that particular pregnancy (whether because of her life plans or because of its particular circumstances including medical circumstances).

No one gets a late term abortion on a whim - anyone who knew from the start that they did not want a child would get an early abortion since there are few things more terrifying and upsetting then being pregnant when you don't want to be pregnant. Late term abortions are therefore always the result of something going wrong, whether that something going wrong was with the fetus, the pregnant woman's body or health (including not discovering the pregnancy until very late which is a lot less rare than you might think), or in her life (including financial or legal barriers to obtaining an early abortion). Unlike elective abortions early in pregnancy, late term abortions are *almost always heartbreaking experiences* for a pregnant woman who almost certainly wanted to have a child (or she would have had an earlier abortion). That doesn't mean that you should get to add additional injury by forcing someone to give birth against her will.


While RevLeft is great for its stance on women's rights, there is a reason that "late term" abortions are illegal even in the most progressive countries,

In most "progressive" countries late term abortions are restricted not completely banned, and some countries including Canada and multiple US states have no legal restrictions on abortion according to gestational length.

But this is a nonsense argument. In most "progressive countries" you can privately own a factory and employ people in it for a fraction of what they produce for you. Advocating for that stance will also get you restricted here.


That is, it is easier to force women to give birth to otherwise-viable fetuses than it is to justify to the rest of the electorate that the woman's right to her body outweighs the fetuses right to be born if it is viable. People get really pissed off at the idea of dead babies, and they see birth as a lesser, more "natural" evil in the situation.

Yeah and people in Saudi Arabia get really pissed off at the idea of women driving cars or showing their face in public or socializing with men who don't own them or traveling by themselves. None of those things feel natural to lots of people in Saudi Arabia.

[TC]

Sinister Intents, if you want to retract your earlier comment I'm cool with that. But this comment:


I understand C sections are dangerous and I was taking into account I was arguing against someone who is anti-choice, the woman always has a choice and she should be able to have done whatever is necessary for her. I she wants something safer than C section than I'm sure something exists. I don't want to force any one against there will, I'm strictly pro-choice. I'm not talking about forcing anyone into anything. I'm not an expert on this. You're post addressing me was rather pointless in my opinion.

I'm sorry but you really didn't need to make this post.

No I think I really did, because you said:



I'm fine with it because that abortion would be able to be done through C-section or induction

Which is to imply that you aren't actually okay with late term abortion, you are only okay with induced labor and childbirth or c-sections on demand. Abortion is not the same as choosing when to go into labor or getting a c-section (although some abortions are performed through labor induction given patient preference).

It amounted to say that you were okay with childbirth on demand but not abortion on demand.


Now, if you mistyped or hadn't thought through the implications fully I'm not going to give you a hard time. I accept that people make mistakes. I'm not saying you should be restricted.

But understand that what you posted did raise an issue that I thought I should address.

[consuming negativity]

I'm not implying it, I'm stating it expressly. There is no way to remove a fetus from a pregnant woman without either severely injuring the woman or destroying the fetus. Getting a large fetus out intact necessitates a lot more physical trauma to the woman carrying it than getting a large fetus out if it doesn't need to come out intact. Its not something anyone enjoys thinking about but its the reality. Vaginal childbirth and/or c-sections are severely to extremely painful and moderately to extremely damaging procedures - the entire point of abortion is to offer an alternative for someone who doesn't want to give birth or doesn't want to give birth to that particular pregnancy (whether because of her life plans or because of its particular circumstances including medical circumstances).

No one gets a late term abortion on a whim - anyone who knew from the start that they did not want a child would get an early abortion since there are few things more terrifying and upsetting then being pregnant when you don't want to be pregnant. Late term abortions are therefore always the result of something going wrong, whether that something going wrong was with the fetus, the pregnant woman's body or health (including not discovering the pregnancy until very late which is a lot less rare than you might think), or in her life (including financial or legal barriers to obtaining an early abortion). Unlike elective abortions early in pregnancy, late term abortions are *almost always heartbreaking experiences* for a pregnant woman who almost certainly wanted to have a child (or she would have had an earlier abortion). That doesn't mean that you should get to add additional injury by forcing someone to give birth against her will.

In most "progressive" countries late term abortions are restricted not completely banned, and some countries including Canada and multiple US states have no legal restrictions on abortion according to gestational length.

But this is a nonsense argument. In most "progressive countries" you can privately own a factory and employ people in it for a fraction of what they produce for you. Advocating for that stance will also get you restricted here.

Yeah and people in Saudi Arabia get really pissed off at the idea of women driving cars or showing their face in public or socializing with men who don't own them or traveling by themselves. None of those things feel natural to lots of people in Saudi Arabia.

I can't stand it when people cut up my posts like this, and the reason why is because, inevitably, they've done so so that they can straw man me by taking what I've said out of context. This is a textbook example - I was not arguing the points of reactionaries, I was explaining what they were and how your word "deceased" plays into their arguments. And, I note, you used the phrase "destroy the fetus" in your response, which is a tacit agreement with my criticism of that wording. Everything else we're in agreement on, making the rest of your post superfluous.

[Sinister Intents]

Sinister Intents, if you want to retract your earlier comment I'm cool with that. But this comment:



No I think I really did, because you said:




Which is to imply that you aren't actually okay with late term abortion, you are only okay with induced labor and childbirth or c-sections on demand. Abortion is not the same as choosing when to go into labor or getting a c-section (although some abortions are performed through labor induction given patient preference).

It amounted to say that you were okay with childbirth on demand but not abortion on demand.


Now, if you mistyped or hadn't thought through the implications fully I'm not going to give you a hard time. I accept that people make mistakes. I'm not saying you should be restricted.

But understand that what you posted did raise an issue that I thought I should address.

I understand and I'll keep this in mind so I don't make this mistake in the future. I'm very prone to shitty mistakes :/ I'll ensure the future holds better results in my arguments for this then, thanks.

[TC]

I understand and I'll keep this in mind so I don't make this mistake in the future. I'm very prone to shitty mistakes :/ I'll ensure the future holds better results in my arguments for this then, thanks.

Thanks, and sorry if I made you feel bad, it wasn't my intention. The internet lends itself to ambiguity and overly harsh interpretation.

[Red Star Rising]

And it is only a proper sentient human when it is outside the womb. Before it is outside the womb it is a fetus.

That is not a difficult concept now is it?

Yet you seem to have problems with it.

So lets put it bluntly: As long as the fetus is in the womb...it is not a baby and does not have rights unless the woman carrying it decides it has...no...it does mean nothing.

And since it is HER body SHE can do pretty damned well everything SHE pleases with it...including having a fetus cut out of HER body up until day of birth in any way SHE deems medically necessary without your or anybodyelses moral evaluation and condemnation of HER actions. You have no bussiness regulating HER womb

Get it?

So fetuses magically become humans inside the birth canal? Before that they are incapable of feeling or perception or a sense of self? Despite the fact that in the womb fetuses can recognize and respond to specific voices, they can open their eyes, see and feel. Sentient.

[PhoenixAsh]

I don't care of they were writing a nthesis on How to cure cancer; compose a symphony or recite Shakespeare...as long as they are inside a woman doing it them the wishea of that woman prevail. Period.

[Red Star Rising]

I don't care of they were writing a nthesis on How to cure cancer; compose a symphony or recite Shakespeare...as long as they are inside a woman doing it them the wishea of that woman prevail. Period.

Why? The Fetus is a separate person that is fully formed and simply awaiting birth.

[PhoenixAsh]

because...get this...


IT IS IN A WOMAN'S BODY

[Sinister Intents]

This is crazy that antichoicers don't understand

[Five Year Plan]

This is crazy that antichoicers don't understand

Being that you didn't understand just a few posts back, I don't think it's good for you to be so judgmental about others grappling earnestly with the issue.

[Red Star Rising]

because...get this...


IT IS IN A WOMAN'S BODY

And why does that mean that its life is totally meaningless? I'm all for pro-choice but when there is a viable alternative that doesn't involve killing a sentient human then it should always be used instead.

[PhoenixAsh]

And why does that mean that its life is totally meaningless? I'm all for pro-choice but when there is a viable alternative that doesn't involve killing a sentient human then it should always be used instead.

Because it is the woman who carries the child who decides what is a viable alternative and what is not and, get this, nobody else....not a doctor, not a politician, not some judge. Nobody....since it is NOT their body. And as long as that sentient parasite is in a woman's body it has no more rights than a ring worm, helminth or other sentient parasites which occupy human bodies from time to time.

Because...get this...you have no place in morally condemning what risk somebody is and is not willing to take...what medical damage they are willing to take and what inconvenience they are willing to suffer.

Because for all your high moral values...you simply decide here that the body of a woman is less important, the status of a woman is less important, and the health of a woman is less important than your stupid moral and ethical conundrums and to such an extend that you are perfectly willing to force somebody to undergo painfull medical procedures, with lengthy recovcery processes which you, as a self identified male, will never ever have to go through.

And from your position it is pretty damned easy to simply say c-section is harmless and have a woman sliced open, have her muscles cut, her abdomnen cut open, sown shut and have them imobilized for several days to weeks to recover with a high risk of infections, severe bleedings (6%), 3-5 days stay in hospital if there are NO complications, risk of hysterectomy, bladder problems, (both of which demanding additional surgical procedures) a higher than vaginal birth mortality rate and...ironically...a 2% injury rate of thiose precious children you are so very, very worried about.

So how is that for something you dismiss as relatively harmless.

And guess what...all this because of your emotional knee-jerk reaction which is akin to "awwwww look! fluffy kitten pictures".

Because your position simply amounts to not giving a fuck about anything you equate your little precious bundle of joy to a woman.

Ponder that.

[Red Star Rising]

Because it is the woman who carries the child who decides what is a viable alternative and what is not and, get this, nobody else....not a doctor, not a politician, not some judge. Nobody....since it is NOT their body. And as long as that sentient parasite is in a woman's body it has no more rights than a ring worm, helminth or other sentient parasites which occupy human bodies from time to time.

Because...get this...you have no place in morally condemning what risk somebody is and is not willing to take...what medical damage they are willing to take and what inconvenience they are willing to suffer.

Because for all your high moral values...you simply decide here that the body of a woman is less important, the status of a woman is less important, and the health of a woman is less important than your stupid moral and ethical conundrums and to such an extend that you are perfectly willing to force somebody to undergo painfull medical procedures, with lengthy recovcery processes which you, as a self identified male, will never ever have to go through.

And from your position it is pretty damned easy to simply say c-section is harmless and have a woman sliced open, have her muscles cut, her abdomnen cut open, sown shut and have them imobilized for several days to weeks to recover with a high risk of infections, severe bleedings (6%), 3-5 days stay in hospital if there are NO complications, risk of hysterectomy, bladder problems, (both of which demanding additional surgical procedures) a higher than vaginal birth mortality rate and...ironically...a 2% injury rate of thiose precious children you are so very, very worried about.

So how is that for something you dismiss as relatively harmless.

And guess what...all this because of your emotional knee-jerk reaction which is akin to "awwwww look! fluffy kitten pictures".

Because your position simply amounts to not giving a fuck about anything you equate your little precious bundle of joy to a woman.

Ponder that.

The body of the foetus isn't the woman's body either so why should it be subject to her desire of termination when there is an alternative.

[Sinister Intents]

Being that you didn't understand just a few posts back, I don't think it's good for you to be so judgmental about others grappling earnestly with the issue.

Huh? What the fuck is this bullshit?

[Xena Warrior Proletarian]

Fetuses aren't sentient until after birth.

Source: http://www.rcog.org.uk/fetal-awareness-review-research-and-recommendations-practice

Huh...

I did not know that. In fact I thought that they were, and so opposed abortions where the fetus would be sentient, and experience the pain of death.

If anyone cares this means that I have changed my mind (incidentally) about abortions; not that at any point I've claimed that my opinions are relevant or should be 'enforced'.

I would like to point a few things out though. I have found that the criticisms levelled against those who oppose late term abortions have been sometimes unfair, and grossly over simplistic.

The argument that goes like: "don't say child, when the fetus isn't out of the womb because you are then moralising." In the same breath as "sentient fetuses have no rights because they are not sentient human being children". If this distinction isn't a 'moralistic' one, then I really don't know what is. This is part of a gripe I have with the users of this site, which I won't fully address now. Like it or not, your positions are based on moralism. 'Rape is bad' is a moralism. There is nothing wrong with moralism; trying to deny that you have any is ridiculous and intellectually dishonest.

Almost as stupid I guess as trying to claim that women have no effect on the patriarchy because it is a solely 'male product', but I suppose PhoenixAsh already said that.

Trying to say that anyone who opposes your specific position is sexist is a little odd as well. In fact it's childishly naïve. Does RevLeft have a monopoly on the definition of feminism and sexism?

We wonder why ordinary people don't want to enter into leftist politics, all the while employing black and white 'logic' to defend personal dogmas, and then denouncing anyone else who earnestly questions these positions as reactionaries, and restrict them to the same part of the forum as the fascist trolls.

If RevLeft is even slightly representative of the atmosphere we are trying to create in order to help people realise their situations and encourage learning; then we are in deep deep shit.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

The really amusing thing is that, in Europe and America at least, the Internet is the only place where the "free abortion on demand" line is in question, and this has been the case since the seventies at least. Like, I think that in the US the only groups who opposed that line were Maoists and Hoxhaists, who were bound to defend the policies of the Chinese and the Albanian parties, and the odd group around Kay Ellens, which was also pretty anti-gay, generally workerist and so on. The rest of the left - from Pabloists to Shachtmanites to Spartacists to Marcyists to the "official communists" - all of them supported and continue to support free abortion on demand.

In fact the situation with abortion and feminism on RevLeft is exactly the opposite of that in the real world - the first is questioned, the second isn't.

Also it's pretty lazy to say that opposition to rape is due to moralism. I mean, women are, what, more than 50% of the proletariat, their interest as oppressed woman workers is the interest of the proletariat. Women aren't some exotic species we're being benevolent toward.

[Xena Warrior Proletarian]

The really amusing thing is that, in Europe and America at least, the Internet is the only place where the "free abortion on demand" line is in question, and this has been the case since the seventies at least. Like, I think that in the US the only groups who opposed that line were Maoists and Hoxhaists, who were bound to defend the policies of the Chinese and the Albanian parties, and the odd group around Kay Ellens, which was also pretty anti-gay, generally workerist and so on. The rest of the left - from Pabloists to Shachtmanites to Spartacists to Marcyists to the "official communists" - all of them supported and continue to support free abortion on demand.

In fact the situation with abortion and feminism on RevLeft is exactly the opposite of that in the real world - the first is questioned, the second isn't.

Also it's pretty lazy to say that opposition to rape is due to moralism. I mean, women are, what, more than 50% of the proletariat, their interest as oppressed woman workers is the interest of the proletariat. Women aren't some exotic species we're being benevolent toward.

'Interests' are a moralism. Or subjective at least.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

'Interests' are a moralism.

That doesn't even make grammatical sense. And no, talking about interests per se is not moralism. Trying to invent some universal timeless morality based on interest would be. But why in the name of Lenin's bald spot would we want to do that? We don't need to convince people they should follow their interest - most people in fact already want to do so. Do you think most workers want to sacrifice their finances to help the capitalists, for example? That's preposterous, and as communists we aren't preaching some kind of moral gospel to the proletariat. Our task is, at certain junctions, to explain their class interest and how they can act to further it.

[Xena Warrior Proletarian]

That doesn't even make grammatical sense. And no, talking about interests per se is not moralism. Trying to invent some universal timeless morality based on interest would be. But why in the name of Lenin's bald spot would we want to do that? We don't need to convince people they should follow their interest - most people in fact already want to do so. Do you think most workers want to sacrifice their finances to help the capitalists, for example? That's preposterous, and as communists we aren't preaching some kind of moral gospel to the proletariat. Our task is, at certain junctions, to explain their class interest and how they can act to further it.

What is in anyone's "interest" is completely subjective. To say that being exploited is not in someone's "interests" is subjective. The problem with morality is that it is subjective, and 'moralism' and 'subjectivity' seem to be synonymous concepts on this site.

Morality: principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.
Interest: the advantage or benefit of a person or group

Who decides what is beneficial to a person or group and how would you go about that without subjectivity?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

What is in anyone's "interest" is completely subjective. To say that being exploited is not in someone's "interests" is subjective.

That's a pretty bizarre statement. Your subjective view of exploitation won't change the material fact that exploitation - in this period, not so much in previous ones (which again underscores the pointlessness of any universal timeless morality) - results in the worker having less possibilities, less food, water, a shelter of lower quality etc. than the alternative of a fully socialised economy.

[Xena Warrior Proletarian]

That's a pretty bizarre statement. Your subjective view of exploitation won't change the material fact that exploitation - in this period, not so much in previous ones (which again underscores the pointlessness of any universal timeless morality) - results in the worker having less possibilities, less food, water, a shelter of lower quality etc. than the alternative of a fully socialised economy.

And it is a SUBJECTIVE view (albeit a common one) that having more food, better housing, more possibilities is BENEFICIAL.

It also happens to be my subjective view, but I recognise it as such, and don't pretend that my political beliefs are based in science, but instead that they are based in my particular MORAL code.

There is nothing moralistic about a Marxist analysis, but to then say that that the world SHOULD be changed is moralism. I would just like everyone to accept this and move on from this ridiculous situation.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

And it is a SUBJECTIVE view (albeit a common one) that having more food, better housing, more possibilities is BENEFICIAL.

Not really - these are (some of the things) that define interest. I mean, that is simply how we use the term "interest", and no one is going to claim that starvation (for example) is beneficial to a person unless they also posit some sort of overriding benefit that is possible due to starvation (from those that exist, such as weight loss, to made-up benefits like spiritual enlightenment etc.).

[Ele'ill]

I think the relevant conversation should be split wait what

[Xena Warrior Proletarian]

Not really - these are (some of the things) that define interest. I mean, that is simply how we use the term "interest", and no one is going to claim that starvation (for example) is beneficial to a person unless they also posit some sort of overriding benefit that is possible due to starvation (from those that exist, such as weight loss, to made-up benefits like spiritual enlightenment etc.).

That's just all based on the MORAL and SUBJECTIVE view that survival is preferable.

Which I why I first said that the entire concept of "interests" is moralistic. And broken/useless.

I basically think it's about time we stopped ignoring the fact that 'moralism' is something we all employ, and instead focused that effort on thinking about these morals (where they came from etc.) so that we are at least aware of these (currently hidden) principles that determine so much of our politics.

[Krasnyymir]

The really amusing thing is that, in Europe and America at least, the Internet is the only place where the "free abortion on demand" line is in question

Actually, there's a big difference between abortion laws in Europe and the US. Not sure about Canada.

Abortion laws in Europe are much more restrictive, generally outlawing abortion after the second trimester, and in some cases restricting it even before that.

Funny enough, there isn't nearly as much debate or friction in Europe over abortion as there is in the US.

Perhaps because some moderation and tolerance is needed of both sides of the issue, and the lack of that only makes the other side dig in even more.

It speaks volumes that "pro life" side of the argument is forced to use illogical and absolutist slogans like "All abortion is murder", while the "pro choice" side has to go through the mental gymnastics of categorizing any child, until the minute it exists the birth canal as just a fetus eligible for abortion, at the same time as many preemies born in the 8th month of pregnancy (or much earlier through intensive medical intervention) can survive on their own outside the womb. And while the law in many cases treats said fetus as a person.

TLDR: European abortion laws tend to be much more restrictive than American, but there isn't nearly as much debate or animosity over it.
While no one in their right mind in Europe would propose outlawing all kinds and cases of abortion, nobody would dare suggest that there shouldn't be any limits at all on abortions right until the moment of birth either.*

*OK, Ireland is the only exception.

[Five Year Plan]

Huh? What the fuck is this bullshit?

It's me calling you out for acting haughty when you were corrected on a very important issue that you mangled a few posts back. A little humility from you in how you treat others experiencing confusion or making mistakes would have been more appropriate, I think.

[Sinister Intents]

What post? Let's discuss this through PM

The one TC called into question and showed where I fell short? Why don't you shut the fuck up in that case because its over and done with and she made her point. Yeah I'm judgmental. Boo fucking hoo

[Five Year Plan]

What post? Let's discuss this through PM

The one TC called into question and showed where I fell short? Why don't you shut the fuck up in that case because its over and done with and she made her point. Yeah I'm judgmental. Boo fucking hoo

I have no problem with judgmental people. I do have a problem with people who act as though the issues being discussed are obvious and clear-cut when they were just recently shown errors that they were making.

[Zoroaster]

Would a moderator kindly close this thread?

[Sinister Intents]

Thanks, and sorry if I made you feel bad, it wasn't my intention. The internet lends itself to ambiguity and overly harsh interpretation.

Nah, it's completely alright and I'm appreciative of that you pointed out that I messed that up.


I have no problem with judgmental people. I do have a problem with people who act as though the issues being discussed are obvious and clear-cut when they were just recently shown errors that they were making.

I wasn't really acting like that and I was being fucking sarcastic when I posted that. I do fucking realize that others have there own fucking opinions and often they can't see the other way around it because they think they're right, like other people. I took to the fact that I was fucking shown the errors in my motherfucking posts, so why don't you shut the fuck up.

[Five Year Plan]

I wasn't really acting like that and I was being fucking sarcastic when I posted that. I do fucking realize that others have there own fucking opinions and often they can't see the other way around it because they think they're right, like other people. I took to the fact that I was fucking shown the errors in my motherfucking posts, so why don't you shut the fuck up.

If you were being sarcastic and not serious, then there's no need to take my criticism seriously, is there?

[PhoenixAsh]

^^ that,...was f-ing awesome.

Sorry FYP...I agree with you but I simply have to say that I am totally blown away by Sinister biting back :)

They grow up so fast...:crying:

[Zoroaster]

So is the thread closed? Please?

[Sinister Intents]

If you were being sarcastic and not serious, then there's no need to take my criticism seriously, is there?

Then why post anything to begin with on both accounts: Mine and yours.

My post here:

This is crazy that antichoicers don't understand

This was fucking sarcasm and lack of seriousness, it was a motherfucking one liner for Christ's sake! Yeah I'll take you seriously because I get tired of being patronized or being made to feel like I'm five years old. TC didn't do this, but you just attacked a pointless post of mine. Historically have I not fucking been shown to put more fucking thought in my posts? I do try and I try very hard to be accurate in what I say, but believe it or not I have motherfucking disabilities and you pissed me the fuck off. Especially with how my day has gone I'm like a loose cannon and I'll be logging the fuck off. Have a nice day, night, or whatever.


So is the thread closed? Please?

I hope it gets closed as well.

[PhoenixAsh]

We created a monster :)

I like this version way better than the more insecure one :)

[Five Year Plan]

Then why post anything to begin with on both accounts: Mine and yours.

Obviously because I didn't detect any sarcasm, and was unaware of a sarcastic intent until you specified it after our exchange had begun.

[Five Year Plan]

We created a monster :)

I like this version way better than the more insecure one :)

You need to balance this praise, or SI will just go around the forum telling everybody to fuck themselves. :ohmy:

[PhoenixAsh]

wait...was this meant as a warning or were you just enticing me?

:)

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

That's just all based on the MORAL and SUBJECTIVE view that survival is preferable.

Which I why I first said that the entire concept of "interests" is moralistic. And broken/useless.

I basically think it's about time we stopped ignoring the fact that 'moralism' is something we all employ, and instead focused that effort on thinking about these morals (where they came from etc.) so that we are at least aware of these (currently hidden) principles that determine so much of our politics.

One peculiar thing about moralists is that they believe everyone else is a moralist. And that every concept is, in the end, a moral one. But simply saying so several times does not make it so. There is broad agreement on what someone's interest is. No one, for example, is going to say that starvation is in the interest of a healthy person, unless they believe that crap such as "spiritual enlightenment" exists. Interest is as objective as these things get.

If your politics are based on morality, alright. That's a pretty shit basis for politics, but such is life. But don't go around claiming that everyone else's politics is like yours.

[Xena Warrior Proletarian]

One peculiar thing about moralists is that they believe everyone else is a moralist. And that every concept is, in the end, a moral one. But simply saying so several times does not make it so. There is broad agreement on what someone's interest is. No one, for example, is going to say that starvation is in the interest of a healthy person, unless they believe that crap such as "spiritual enlightenment" exists. Interest is as objective as these things get.

If your politics are based on morality, alright. That's a pretty shit basis for politics, but such is life. But don't go around claiming that everyone else's politics is like yours.


One peculiar thing about moralists is that they believe everyone else is a moralist. And that every concept is, in the end, a moral one. But simply saying so several times does not make it so. There is broad agreement on what someone's interest is. No one, for example, is going to say that starvation is in the interest of a healthy person, unless they believe that crap such as "spiritual enlightenment" exists. Interest is as objective as these things get.

If your politics are based on morality, alright. That's a pretty shit basis for politics, but such is life. But don't go around claiming that everyone else's politics is like yours.

What about someone who wanted to die? Or someone who likes pain? Starvation for them would be fantastic. What about people who consider their interests to be shopping for brand items that make them feel better about themselves? Are you going to tell them that their idea of what is better or worse is wrong?

"Interest is as objective as these things get"

Something cannot be 'quite objective', the point is that interests are subjective (as you've kind of just admitted).

Are you about to tell me what the interests of the working class are? Or that there are some kind of standard group of normal interests?

The reality of the situation is that the concept of 'working class interests' is completely subjective, and therefore not 'scientific' - which isn't something that many communists like to accept.

What is your politics based on? Marxist analysis - great, that just tells you how the world is, not what you want to do about it. As soon as you advocate for proletarian control, or working class interests you are employing some moralism. Can you tell me without moralism/subjectivity why communism is preferable to capitalism for the working class? The answer is no.

Moralism is great. I like being able to say 'rape is bad', 'exploitation is bad' etc... An overeliance on moralism is going to get you into hot water, but you have to accept that you are using some. Denying that is silly.

[PhoenixAsh]

Huh...

I did not know that. In fact I thought that they were, and so opposed abortions where the fetus would be sentient, and experience the pain of death.

If anyone cares this means that I have changed my mind (incidentally) about abortions; not that at any point I've claimed that my opinions are relevant or should be 'enforced'.

I would like to point a few things out though. I have found that the criticisms levelled against those who oppose late term abortions have been sometimes unfair, and grossly over simplistic.

The argument that goes like: "don't say child, when the fetus isn't out of the womb because you are then moralising." In the same breath as "sentient fetuses have no rights because they are not sentient human being children". If this distinction isn't a 'moralistic' one, then I really don't know what is. This is part of a gripe I have with the users of this site, which I won't fully address now. Like it or not, your positions are based on moralism. 'Rape is bad' is a moralism. There is nothing wrong with moralism; trying to deny that you have any is ridiculous and intellectually dishonest.

Almost as stupid I guess as trying to claim that women have no effect on the patriarchy because it is a solely 'male product', but I suppose PhoenixAsh already said that.

Trying to say that anyone who opposes your specific position is sexist is a little odd as well. In fact it's childishly naïve. Does RevLeft have a monopoly on the definition of feminism and sexism?

We wonder why ordinary people don't want to enter into leftist politics, all the while employing black and white 'logic' to defend personal dogmas, and then denouncing anyone else who earnestly questions these positions as reactionaries, and restrict them to the same part of the forum as the fascist trolls.

If RevLeft is even slightly representative of the atmosphere we are trying to create in order to help people realise their situations and encourage learning; then we are in deep deep shit.

Wonderfull.

So you are a feminists only when it suits you and are in fact a huge fake. Good to know. And to think you tried to lecture me about understanding feminism.

However...I did NOT actually argue that women do not ever affect patriarchy as I specifically stated they could. I did argue that women can not perpetuate patriarchy by behaving in some way or another because they are women...anymore than a slave can perpetuate the system of slavery by the mere fact of being a slave. As far as the women opression of patriarchy goes...that was and is totally a male product which can ONLY be changed by overthrowing men as the dominant force through violent revolution; have men change their minds about their opinion on how women are in fact not lesser beings and have them adress and take responsibility for their gender socialization and privilege ...or...segregate. Now...personally...In also stated that in order to defeat patriarchy...women need men and vice versa...short of actually killing all men and keeping some of them under restriction (I personally prefer the first...but I admit that is entirely based on self preservation interests**) . Beyond that...socialized gender roles are enforced on women who are, by virtue of them being women, always entirely subjected to patriarchy because they are women regardless of their actual position and behavior.


But let us not interruptor distract from your total discreditment of your self acclaimed feminism and revolutionary politics here by rejecting both of them.



**
PS . That is to mean I am acting out of my best interest. Which is not akin to moralism. As I do not like men in general and am probably some form of mysandrist to some extend...I have no moral and or ethical reservations about women killing men to overthrow patriarchy....whatsoever. I do however think it is not in my best interest to be one of the ones killed. This is not subjective...it objectively is my best interest.

Just in case you would want to use this as some form of example of your insane notion that interest equates morals

[PhoenixAsh]

And it is a SUBJECTIVE view (albeit a common one) that having more food, better housing, more possibilities is BENEFICIAL.

Actually it is not really a subjective view. It is pretty objectively established. It is also a factually incorrect position because it is entirely progressive and entirely depends on the amount of food and housing...at a certain point more food and more housing stop being beneficial and become both redundant and detrimental....Soooo using this as an example therefore is self serving since you are setting it up for failure in order to prove your point.


What is factually correct and objective is the statement that: having sufficient food and sufficient housing to live your life as you desire at every stage of it is beneficial over having insufficient food and insufficient housing to live your life as you desire at any stage of it.

[BIXX]

Obviously because I didn't detect any sarcasm, and was unaware of a sarcastic intent until you specified it after our exchange had begun.


This was done on purpose, right?

[BIXX]

Just in case you would want to use this as some form of example of your insane notion that interest equates morals


I fucking hate it when people do that. It's the dumbest shit.