Abortion

[1936]

While in a differnt forum i was asked wether or not i was anti-abortion. My answer of yes, brought about an odd silence to of which a blame the common missconception that all anti abortion action is religious in some way.

I have decided to clarify my reasons for being anti-abortion.

If i were of a position of where i could ultimatley "control" the ending of another life to benefit my own, by taking the option to end the other life i have become what is in my opinion a facist, in the definition of lower case F like so well defined by comrade Rice...

In my belief, abortion of a feotus because the mother belives a baby would negatively effect her life, is no differnt to this short story i have composed to show my case.

"General Smith is of authoratarian position over the state of what i shall call Z. In STATE Z, a small problem has arised for SMITH. A group of actavists have arouse to bring about reform within the government in which SMITH shall lose power and considerable income. Obviousley SMITH is opposed to this idea and has the actavists causing the trouble "termanated". In defintion SMITH has ended the life of others because it is of inconvience to him for them to carry on (or begin in abortions case) living. STATE Z has reached the happy little situation of a dictatorship facism."



Another reason for my views on abortion is simply summed up by "who says when?". This is of the case, if it is ok to end life at 25 weeks of conception, then why not 26 weeks?. Then after that why not 50 weeks? And why not 30 years?. Who is of the position to say when life is of value? And why should this person have so much power over so much life?

Thankyou.

[LSD]

In the same vein, I think it is indeed morally imperative for all who are able to use linux just as it is imperative that those who are able not buy products made by children in sweatshops.

There is a difference between ending human life and ending potential human life.


"General Smith is of authoratarian position over the state of what i shall call Z. In STATE Z, a small problem has arised for SMITH. A group of actavists have arouse to bring about reform within the government in which SMITH shall lose power and considerable income. Obviousley SMITH is opposed to this idea and has the actavists causing the trouble "termanated". In defintion SMITH has ended the life of others because it is of inconvience to him for them to carry on (or begin in abortions case) living. STATE Z has reached the happy little situation of a dictatorship facism."

Your analogy is hopelessly flawed because the murder of fully developed members of society is a crime against everyone in that society. One someone has the authority to control the life and death of the people around him, no one is safe.

But, a foetus inside of a women is not a person and is not a member of society. While genetically unique and genetically human, the same can be said for a cancer cell. The potentiality of a person developing from this biological organisim cannot be denied, but remains potential until it actually happens.


Another reason for my views on abortion is simply summed up by "who says when?". This is of the case, if it is ok to end life at 25 weeks of conception, then why not 26 weeks?. Then after that why not 50 weeks?

Absolutely. Right up to the momment of birth. So long as the foetus is inside the mother they are biologically joined and the foetus has no independent rights.


And why not 30 years?

Because once the foetus has been born, they are entitled to natural societal rights. If they are living independently the they, obviously, are no longer a part of the mother and she has no natural rights over them.


Who is of the position to say when life is of value? And why should this person have so much power over so much life?

"life" or human life.

We kill "life" all the time and indeed half of medicine is developing more effective ways to end life (bacteria, fungi...). So the real question isn't about "life" but aboung humanity and whether a foetus in a womb has any.

The answer is no. Despite biological similarities and the potentiality of transformation, until that transformation happens, the foetus is a biological whole with the mother. The foetus has no unique identiy until it actually is independent.

[rice349]

THis is a highly subjective view that is a slave to one's own personal beliefs and ethics. Personally, regarding abortion, i believe it should be state sponsored and available upon request. As for time-frame, i believe abortions should be available up until actual birth. WHile im sure a number of you will disagree, remember, this is a completely subjective topic.

[Redmau5]

Ummm.... maybe because it's her body and it's her decision.

What about a struggling single mother who already has three kids and is living in impoverished conditions ? Another child will obviously put more strain on an already stressful situation.

What about rape cases ???

[Redmau5]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 05:30 PM
THis is a highly subjective view that is a slave to one's own personal beliefs and ethics. Personally, regarding abortion, i believe it should be state sponsored and available upon request. As for time-frame, i believe abortions should be available up until actual birth. WHile im sure a number of you will disagree, remember, this is a completely subjective topic.
I agree with you Rice but you are aware comrade Stalin banned abortion on demand ? He wanted more stress placed on "traditional" values, in other words, Right-wing values lol.

Just another reason that you shouldn't be a Stalinist :D

[1936]

What about a struggling single mother who already has three kids and is living in impoverished conditions ? Another child will obviously put more strain on an already stressful situation.

This is a case of inconviniance, its of no benefit to me therfor it can be disguarded.




What about rape cases ???

This would be a rare circumstance, as that the womans body when in the shock of rape cannot function and biolgicly accept the sperm cell, but as of "Date rape". Then i belive abortion is sometimes fairer to the child if anything, so there is circumstances in which i would belive it acceptable.




There is a difference between ending human life and ending potential human life.

And who is of the authority to classify when it is no longer potential human life, and that it is human life. I belive no one should have that authority.





Because once the foetus has been born, they are entitled to natural societal rights. If they are living independently the they, obviously, are no longer a part of the mother and she has no natural rights over them.

So if you are dependent upon some one else, they may say that your life is not valuable, because they dont want the burden of someone being dependent on them?

So therfor Mr.Tax payer can walk into a hospital and pull the plug on granpa, because he dosent want to have to be depended on to provide the money of the service being provided?

And before you replie the whole point of my beliefs are not of the baby has rights to live, its about no-one having the right to end even POTENTIAL human life.


But, a foetus inside of a women is not a person and is not a member of society. While genetically unique and genetically human, the same can be said for a cancer cell.

There is a differnce between a individual cell, and a foetus.

[rice349]

I agree with you Rice but you are aware comrade Stalin banned abortion on demand ? He wanted more stress placed on "traditional" values, in other words, Right-wing values lol.

THis is true; however, a bit out of context. Stalin did not ban abortion on the grounds of religious or "family values," instead, he saw it as a means to provide the future generations with plentiful workers. He approached the issue more as a statistical point of view, rather than a tradionalist. Birth control such as abortion was banned on the grounds that the state saw the impending need for a larger workforce in the years to come. It was never supposed to be a permanent ban on woman's rights.

As far as other right-wing values, you wll have to inform me a little more on this because under my current understanding, Stalin maintained legalization of homosexuality initiated by Lenin, encouraged women into the workplace, and while slow, a number of feminist policies were implemented by the Stalin government, such as the creation of new marriage laws giving more rights to women than they had ever had, the creation of a "common-law marriage," and the 5 year plans gave women the opportunity to learn and take part in brand new industries and fields of education and professionalism.

[LSD]

So if you are dependent upon some one else, they may say that your life is not valuable, because they dont want the burden of someone being dependent on them?

You're confusing societal dependence, with biological dependence.


There is a differnce between a individual cell, and a foetus.

Granted, but neither one is human or should be afforded human rights.


And before you replie the whole point of my beliefs are not of the baby has rights to live, its about no-one having the right to end even POTENTIAL human life.

Why not? Potentialities are dy definition not real!

As long as the foetus is within the mother it is a part of her body, nothing more. It is irrelevant to say that it could be something else given enough time and the proper conditions. For our purposes it only matters what it is.

[1936]

As long as the foetus is within the mother it is a part of her body, nothing more. It is irrelevant to say that it could be something else given enough time and the proper conditions. For our purposes it only matters what it is.

You completey missed the point of my last paragraph.

I understand the feotus has no rights, this is understood by me, yes? we agree?

But i belive no man deserves the right the have the ultimate power over whats real, or in this case not yet real.


Give a bully an inch, hell go a mile

Dont know what song thats from but its relavent. If you offer someon the authority to end a life in whatever stage, where will he stop?

[rice349]

As long as the foetus is within the mother it is a part of her body, nothing more. It is irrelevant to say that it could be something else given enough time and the proper conditions. For our purposes it only matters what it is.

I'm going to have to agree with you 110% on this.

[LSD]

I understand the feotus has no rights, this is understood by me, yes? we agree?

If you feel this way, how can you oppose a mother choosing whether or not a foetus should be terminated?


But i belive no man deserves the right the have the ultimate power over whats real, or in this case not yet real.

Fine, how about a woman then?

:lol:

Seriously though, we do it evere day. Life, by definition, is making judgements on reality. Society is the same. It is ludicrous to in one breath say "the feotus has no rights" and in the next to say but no one can make such a determination.

You just made it!

We all make such determinations, all the time. By your logic, no one can use birth control because we're preventing a potential life from emerging. If you acknowledge that a foetus, in and of itself, has no intrinsic rights, then your sole argument becomes one of preserving potentialities, which is an insand foundation to build an argument on.

[1936]

As long as the foetus is within the mother it is a part of her body, nothing more. It is irrelevant to say that it could be something else given enough time and the proper conditions. For our purposes it only matters what it is.

So when a human life is within what can ultimatley be described as the "property" of the mother, the mother is free to do what her will is with it? So because this baby is within its mothers "property" it is nothing more then the "property" of its mother?

So human life can be described by you as, "materialistic" and to "own" and "control" .....are you by any chance italian? and slightly over weight....bald?....go by the name of mousilini?

So if i lived in your "property" lets just say that was Rome...not that im implieng similarites between you and any other individual in history....

While i am in rome depending on the recources brought in....you can decide my ultimate fate and you can deem when my life is benefitial to human society?

[Redmau5]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 05:47 PM
As far as other right-wing values, you wll have to inform me a little more on this because under my current understanding, Stalin maintained legalization of homosexuality initiated by Lenin, encouraged women into the workplace, and while slow, a number of feminist policies were implemented by the Stalin government, such as the creation of new marriage laws giving more rights to women than they had ever had, the creation of a "common-law marriage," and the 5 year plans gave women the opportunity to learn and take part in brand new industries and fields of education and professionalism.
Im not familiar with all of Stalin's policies but i do know that he outlawed homosexuality.

[LSD]

So when a human life is within what can ultimatley be described as the "property" of the mother, the mother is free to do what her will is with it? So because this baby is within its mothers "property" it is nothing more then the "property" of its mother?

No. Where did you come up with that from?!?!

You yourself said "the feotus has no rights, this is understood by me", so what are you going on about now.

The foetus is not a human life, it is a potential human life but it isa part of the mother. Not "property", a biological part of her.


So human life can be described by you as, "materialistic" and to "own" and "control"

No, you came up with that shit on your own,

You're the only one in this thread to bring up "property".


.....are you by any chance italian? and slightly over weight....bald?.

No.


....go by the name of mousilini?

No, but as I recall, you admitted to being a National Socialist, so who's the fascist here?


While i am in rome depending on the recources brought in....you can decide my ultimate fate and you can deem when my life is benefitial to human society?

No, because you are biologically a human being a foetus is NOT. Why is it so hard for you to understand that A FOETUS IS NOT A HUMAN BEING!!!!!

All of your analogies assume that a foetus and a human being are interchangable, they are not. Maybe if I spell it out a few more times:

A FOETUS IS NOT A HUMAN BEING!!!!!
A FOETUS IS NOT A HUMAN BEING!!!!!

Comprehend, yet?

[1936]

Your analogy is hopelessly flawed because the murder of fully developed members of society is a crime against everyone in that society.

Im sorry i over read this before, this makes it very clear.

If one is not productive member of society progressing that society, they have no rights.

I tell you what, in light of my new found understanding of this, theres a 3 year old child down the road, hes a human life but hes not aiding or progressing society in anyway. Hes dependant on hes mother, and although POTENTIALLY benefitail to society hes not yet.

Brb, im going to buy a double barrel pump action, so i can unload it on the little fuckers face.

Then ill start on the mentally disabled....because they have no rights either do they?....see my point yet?

When you offer people the authority your no longer of the position to stop them on the case you offerd them authority of. NO-ONE should have the authority over a 40 year old man as much as a 40 day feotus.

[1936]

No, but as I recall, you admitted to being a National Socialist

Not another little fuck head....find me the post where i said i was a national socialist please? thank you because im yet to read it.

[LSD]

If one is not productive member of society progressing that society, they have no rights.

I NEVER SAID THIS. STOP MISQUOTING ME.

I said "fully developed member of society", not "productive". I meant biologically developed, as in human.

Learn to read before you rant.

[rice349]

Im not familiar with all of Stalin's policies but i do know that he outlawed homosexuality.

This is a pretty widespread belief so maybe i'm wrong, but my understanding was that he discouraged it as counter-productive to enlarging the workforce; and that it became criminalized when only in the 30's and especially in the 40's with the disintigration of the workforce due to exile and eventually war. WHile i disagree with the criminalization of homosexuals, i just think its important to note that it was again based on a empirical statistics rather than considering homosexuality to be "immoral."

[1936]

Firstly, the bold letter buttton shall still be there tommorow, consider a bit of moderation on how many times you press the bastard thing.

And secondly the feotus could strangle itself through bloody depression i couldnt care less, its the person with authority to say when life is valuble that worries me.


Learn to read before you rant.

I suggest the same to you. Ive said enough times that i dont care for the feotus.


Oh and thirdly wheres the link to my coming out as a national socialst?

[LSD]

Ive said enough times that i dont care for the feotus.

Then stop making analogies in which you compare abortion to murder.


And secondly the feotus could strangle itself through bloody depression i couldnt care less, its the person with authority to say when life is valuble that worries me.

That "person" is the woman in who's body it is. It's her body, the foetus is biologically a part of her. It is, therefore, entirely her choice just the same as deciding to donate an organ.


suggest the same to you.

You interpreted "fully developed member of society" as "productive member of society".
You interpreted "As long as the foetus is within the mother it is a part of her body, nothing more." as "So because this baby is within its mothers "property" it is nothing more then the "property" of its mother?".

Clearly it is you who needs to read more carfully.


Oh and thirdly wheres the link to my coming out as a national socialst?

Controversial (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=32591&hl=national%20socialism&st=0)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Abortion should be entirely the woman's choice. Anything else is tyranny.

[1936]

Yep read the link....cant find the bit where i say im a national socialst...

I refused to discrimanate nelson mandele when the inprisoned him ya know...therefor i am nelson mandele?.....i see

So when you find where i say im a national socialst, send it me in some pretty bold writing like usual....cheers



How is the woman the ONLY authoratarian in this process? what about the person saying when your allowed it? in which this case is Tony Blair saying up to 24 weeks after conception....so you kinda have missed the point....so you kinda are the 1 needing to read more carefully...

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

You're breaking up Elmoist, you're losing coherency.

[1936]

I take high fuckin offence from some twat calling me a fuckin nazi all the live long fucking day, ban me i dont give a fuck, i can hav ppl call me a fuckin nazi anywer i dont hav to log on to my computer for this darling fuckin treatment.

[The Apathetic Atheist]

Don't like abortions?

Then don't get one...

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by The World's 1st [email protected] 27 2005, 08:42 PM
I take high fuckin offence from some twat calling me a fuckin nazi all the live long fucking day, ban me i dont give a fuck, i can hav ppl call me a fuckin nazi anywer i dont hav to log on to my computer for this darling fuckin treatment.
Since when did I call you a nazi Elmoist?

[Saint-Just]

It's her body, the foetus is biologically a part of her. It is, therefore, entirely her choice just the same as deciding to donate an organ.

Without knowing the exact details of the development of the foetus, is a foetus or a child not usually considered to have a relationship to its father too?


As long as the foetus is within the mother it is a part of her body, nothing more.

In saying that a foetus is part of its motherand nothing more, are you not saying that it is therefore property of the mother? The use of the term property is irrelevent, one could use a number of different terms to describe the idea that the continuation or termination of the life of the foetus will be determined by the mother.


I meant biologically developed, as in human.

Regardless of whether the foetus, or embryo, is biologically human it the life of it has implications for those biologically developed humans. So, the question of whether it is acceptable to destroy the foetus is not simply a question about the rights of the foetus.



Don't like abortions?

Then don't get one...

When a group of humans live together, the actions of one human can affect the lives of others in the group. Politics is based on, inter alia, this assumption.

[rice349]

who really gives a shit about a fetus? eventually it won't matter as soon as we can take advantage of the cloning technology and replace traditional parenthood with science and technology.

[Son of the Revolution]

Replace traditional parenthood with science and technology? But then we won't be able to have sex! :(

LAD's right. If the foetus is in a woman's body then its up to her what happens to it. I do think we should research more humane ways of killing the foetus though.

[rice349]

Replace traditional parenthood with science and technology? But then we won't be able to have sex!

Have no fear comrade! There will be plenty of sex for all!

[RedLenin]

I am not saying abortion is right. I just think it should be up to the woman, not the government.

[encephalon]

It's easy for males to sit there and say abortion is wrong when they don't actually have to fully deal with pregnancy and the threat thereof.

A woman is not equal to a man until she can choose to have or not have a child. It's why it's such an issue for feminists.

You can sit there and say she should be abstinent all you want, but men don't have to sit there and be abstinent in order to not get pregnant.

A similar analogy is opening a window, and a seed flies, possibly taking root. This only happens, however, if a woman is the one that opens the window. So you're saying that women shouldn't get rid of the plant no matter how it affects her life, while the men don't even have to worry about it. This is inequality.

And in the case of rape, the window is forcefully opened by someone else.

There are many different manners of contraception out there, and people should use them whenever possible if they do not want a child. If it fails, or if the woman chooses not to, however, this does not mean that they can't get rid of the plant because they don't have a screen in place.

[rice349]

I am not saying abortion is right. I just think it should be up to the woman, not the government.

Why can't it be promoted and issued by the government? I'm pro-abortion and i believe the state doesn't have to be entirely separate from the decision, especially if the state takes a pro-abortion stance.

[act_5]

i have to say that i am very anti-abortion.

the reason for this is simple

in my school there is a girl who has been pregnant how many times?
5

how many abortions has she had?
5

what has she learned?
nothing

abortion = no consequences


i wholeheartedly agree that rape victims should have the choice, but the village bicycle should not.


those who say "thats unfair to the woman"

its perfectly fair!

she knew there was a chance she would get pregnant when she opened her legs so how can it be unfair?

thats not saying that the guy responsible shouldnt be responsible for the kid, its fair that he has to stay around and support the kid!



and thats what i believe about this, if you disagree......honestly i couldnt care less.

[MKS]

I am pro choice, but never being able to have a child (cause im a male) I should keep my mouth shut? I agree with that. Possesion is 9/10 of the law, the ladies posses the sperm once it leaves my body therfore it hers to decide what to do with.

Personaly abortion is one of the great mechanisations of something natural. It just proves that man has given more power to the material world.

[LSD]

what has she learned?
nothing

So what?

Who says that eveything in life has to have "consequences"? If you go out in the rain and catch pnemonia, should I withhold anti-biotics because you should have "known better"?

How about condoms? Don't they prevent us from "learning"? Shouldn't catching AIDS be a natural "consequence" of sex?


those who say "thats unfair to the woman"

its perfectly fair!

she knew there was a chance she would get pregnant when she opened her legs so how can it be unfair?

Again, so what? She knew she could get pregnant and knew that if she did she could abort it?

I honestly don't see your problem.


and thats what i believe about this, if you disagree......honestly i couldnt care less.

It's so nice to see an open mind

[rice349]

act_5: what the fuck is your point?

[act_5]

act_5: what the fuck is your point?

well you see...

last time i checked this board was about stating your opinion on abortion...

or havent you noticed :D

[LSD]

Yes. but the point you made was fundamentally illogical.

rice349 (if I can speak for him) was asking on what basis you were anti-abortion or opposed abortion since your "no consequences argument holds no water.

Or he just though you were fucking nuts. Either way.

[encephalon]

you didn't get the memo on article 64839 of the revered revleftution?? It states:

1. All acts contrary to that of the committee are herein banned and punishable by death.
2. All opinions in support of acts contrary to the committee are herein considered acts against the committee itself, and herein punishable by death.
3. The committee has no opinion, and therefore all opinions are contrary to that of the committee.
4. These laws do not affect committee members, unless I say so.

Too bad ignorance of the law isn't a legal excuse to break it!

[Roses in the Hospital]

In a society where contraception (should be) widely available I don't really see the need for abortion. We'd be better off spending time and money teaching kids about sex and contraception and overcoming the middle-class prudishness which veils the issues than spending time and money on reducing/banning/enocuraging abortion...

[LSD]

In a society where contraception (should be) widely available I don't really see the need for abortion.

Well... how about:

1) Rape
2) Intoxication / drug use
3) Misfunctioning contraceptives
4) Misuse of contraceptives
5) Ignorance of contraceptives
6) Failure to use contraceptives

etc..

Yes, contraceptives should be freely and widely available.... and so should abortions.

[rice349]

if abortion were cheaper or they legalize RU-486 in the states (unless they have i might be wrong!) then that could be the predominant form of contraceptive for at least people who know whether or not their partner has an STD.

[codyvo]

I think that abortion should not be a birth control method but I do think that in certain cases like rape, women under 18, babies that will be born with birth defects or women that physically can not handle a pregnancy it should be acceptable.
Limited abortion, in my opinion is the best method.
Don't plan on seeing me at any pro-life rally's though.

[Cokane]

Yeah in cases of rape and that yeah, but 300 000 women are not raped in the UK every year, lots are just lazy bastards who forgot to take precautions, if they're so ignorant or lazy they should be told to fuck off and have their baby!

Limited Abortion is the best way codyvo.

[NovelGentry]

Limited abortion is just plain blah. There's several arguments here.

Rice has stated abortion become the only form of contraceptive -- this is just plain bad, not because of any sanctity of life bullshit, but because of the resources, time, and danger it could pose to women. I'm not 100% sure, but I can imagine multiple abortions can't be good for you. There's much more realistic solutions which won't require a woman going to see a doctor to stop having a kid every time, and there's no good reason NOT to give up on these methods.

Others have stated limiting abortions? Why? What good does this solve? So girls who do not with to bring to term can take more dangerous means? To help with the additional overpopulating of the earth? On what grand scale, aside from religious believe and sanctity of life arguments, should one be concrned with limiting abortions?

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 08:57 PM
Limited abortion is just plain blah. There's several arguments here.

Rice has stated abortion become the only form of contraceptive -- this is just plain bad, not because of any sanctity of life bullshit, but because of the resources, time, and danger it could pose to women. I'm not 100% sure, but I can imagine multiple abortions can't be good for you. There's much more realistic solutions which won't require a woman going to see a doctor to stop having a kid every time, and there's no good reason NOT to give up on these methods.

Others have stated limiting abortions? Why? What good does this solve? So girls who do not with to bring to term can take more dangerous means? To help with the additional overpopulating of the earth? On what grand scale, aside from religious believe and sanctity of life arguments, should one be concrned with limiting abortions?
If women want the abortion, I'm pretty sure the doctors tell them the risks. Just like when they get pregnant it's usually spontaneous (if they don't actually want a child) so is getting the abortion. If they would rather not have the child and potentially suffer some health risks (be they physical or psychological) all the power to them. They made the choice, and it should be the choice of every woman whether they want to get them. Why must they be the ones who suffer the biggest consequences of unprotected sex?

[NovelGentry]

They made the choice, and it should be the choice of every woman whether they want to get them. Why must they be the ones who suffer the biggest consequences of unprotected sex?

I think you might be confusing what I'm saying here. Rice was saying it could be the primary means of birth control - that is, no more condoms, no more morning after pill, no more normal birth control pill. This is what I'm disagreeing with -- it should no doubt be open to all women, and it should be 100% their choice, but it should not be the ONLY choice of means of avoiding having a child.

I'm 100% pro choice -- but there's no reason to say abortion should become the primary means of avoiding having a child. It takes 15 seconds to swallow a morning after pill... how long does it take to drive to an abortion clinic and have an abortion? There's easier, faster, and simpler ways to avoid it.

[ComradeChris]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 01:25 PM

They made the choice, and it should be the choice of every woman whether they want to get them. Why must they be the ones who suffer the biggest consequences of unprotected sex?

I think you might be confusing what I'm saying here. Rice was saying it could be the primary means of birth control - that is, no more condoms, no more morning after pill, no more normal birth control pill. This is what I'm disagreeing with -- it should no doubt be open to all women, and it should be 100% their choice, but it should not be the ONLY choice of means of avoiding having a child.

I'm 100% pro choice -- but there's no reason to say abortion should become the primary means of avoiding having a child. It takes 15 seconds to swallow a morning after pill... how long does it take to drive to an abortion clinic and have an abortion? There's easier, faster, and simpler ways to avoid it.
Oh my bad. I agree with you then. I guess how you were saying what Rice was saying I thought it was you. Other means are better. Less health risks in the long run for sure.

[Raisa]

All these people, they talk about " she can put it up for adoption"
And I havent seen none of you anti abortion people adopting any of the orphans that are here now!

What a bunch of shit.

It doesnt make a damn difference what you say.

Especially YOU with the immortal technique avatar...youve pissed me the hell off so much I dont even care what your name is. ..you know who you are.

Blaming the woman is a punk ass thing to do. Like it is all her fault she got pregnant...when the man LET his sperm come out inside her. It is obviously his fault too...but you do not see that..you PUT IT ALL ON THE WOMAN....

ALOT is put all on the women...and asshole mentalities like yours are the reason why...cause it is all her fault right, even if you treat us like little queens before you put it in. Not for nothing but you seem like you got that hit and run mentality yourself...." damn hoe, if you get pregnant its on you ma!" Id be surprised to see how long you stick around for that baby with ideas like that.

As long as people like you are willing to put ALL the BLAME on the woman...that is why we need abortion because we dont want your babies any damn way!

[redwinter]

What Is an Abortion and Why Women Must Have the Right to Choose
Life Cannot and Should Not Always Be Preserved
by A.S.K.

Revolutionary Worker #1265, January 23, 2005, posted at rwor.org

The Christian fascist movement has been growing and strengthening its base in society for decades—through religious organizations, "think" tanks, school boards, lobbying groups, "abstinence-only" programs, movies like The Passion of the Christ and other cultural works, and in various other ways. And as became stark with the reelection of George W. Bush, the Christian fascists are firmly entrenched in the top levels of the ruling class and within the government itself. They have a lot of initiative and are increasingly setting the terms, and no other section of the ruling class is either willing or able to pose a real challenge. Emboldened by Bush’s recent victory and clutching a social program interwoven with tradition’s chains, these forces have set their sights on abortion: by restricting access and funding, building up anti-abortion organizations, promoting unscientific notions that a fetus is a "human being," and preparing to outlaw abortion altogether through a Supreme Court decision to overthrow Roe v. Wade.

The right of women to control their reproduction is essential to women’s liberation—this is why the Christian fascists see outlawing abortion and increasing control over women as an essential component and leading edge of their whole Dark Ages social program. And this is why everyone who doesn’t want to live in the nightmarish future envisioned by these Christian fascists has to jump into the political battle over abortion. In order to wage this battle, people need truth and scientific understanding. The following presentation of the science behind abortion is a slightly edited version of an article that originally appeared in RW #897.

Is it true that a fetus is a form of life? Of course it is. It is made up of live cells, it is growing and processing energy, it has the capacity to mature and reproduce, it has a genetic system and so on.

Will an abortion destroy this form of life? Yes, absolutely.

Well then, isn’t an abortion killing another human being? No, absolutely not.

A fetus is not yet a human being. It is more like a seed or a sprout of a human being. It is "alive," but that is also true of all the other cells in a woman’s body. It has no life of its own yet. It is not yet a separate life from the life of the woman in whose uterus it is.

Just because something has the characteristics of "life" doesn’t mean people should necessarily preserve it. This is an obvious truth. Think about it: People routinely terminate "life" for what is seen as a greater good. We do this every time we eat—all the fruits, vegetables, and meats come from live plants and animals killed for our nourishment. People end "life" every time we cut a tree for firewood, every time we take antibiotics to kill off the live disease organisms which are making us sick, or even every time we kill other human beings in self-defense or to prevent them from causing other human beings to suffer and die.

In other words, we kill life to preserve and enrich other life . So what about the life of the woman?

The life of a woman who is forced to continue an unwanted pregnancy is endangered. She might have to resort to a risky back-alley abortion. And if she is forced to go on with the pregnancy, her life is weakened and degraded. She will be robbed of pride and self-respect because she has been told by society that she is essentially worthless—even an undeveloped bunch of cells that isn’t even a whole baby yet gets more respect and has more value than this woman! Because she is not allowed to control her own body, her own reproduction, not allowed to decide whether or not or when to become a mother, she has no more freedom than a slave.

If a woman doesn’t want to continue a pregnancy all the way (for whatever reason), she should have the freedom to end it, safely and easily. This is for the greater good—for the health and overall well-being of that woman, whose life we should value and cherish more than that of a partially formed fetus. And for the greater good of humanity. After all, isn’t it in the greater interests of all of humanity that women not be slaves?

The "right-to-life" people don’t see it that way at all. They have made it crystal clear that to them the life of the fetus is more important and has more value than the life of the woman in whose uterus it is. From a social point of view, these people who want to forcibly take away a woman’s right to abortion are nothing but vicious, rabid dogs.

But from a scientific point of view, they are also ignorant fools or calculating liars.

A Fetus Is Not a Baby—It is Part of a Woman’s Body
Have you seen the pictures they use? Check them out. These pictures are very often blown-up pictures of fetuses almost ready to be born (but the truth is that more than 90 percent of abortions in the U.S. are done in the first three months of pregnancy). These pictures are designed to make you feel like the fetuses women are aborting are just like cute little babies, ready to be held in someone’s arms and cuddled and burped. But they’re not! Far from it.

And have you noticed how the fetuses are conveniently pictured floating around all by themselves, as if they weren’t still inside a woman’s body? Where is the woman in all this? Even in most school textbooks they show you drawings or photographs of a fetus inside a uterus, but they don’t show you the woman it is part of! It sort of makes you forget the woman is even there!

One of the things the Operation Rescue types are doing is taking advantage of the ignorance many people are kept in concerning their own bodies—what happens inside a body, how a pregnancy develops, and so on. Let’s have a look at what the truth is about how a fetus develops.

The truth is that pregnancy is a process which takes some time. And it is not some mysterious event guided by outside forces either. It is part of the normal processes of the woman’s body. Not the man’s, who has nothing to do with it except for providing the sperm. Not the church, not the government, not any other person. It all takes place inside the woman.

The egg changes and develops into a fetus, and keeps on changing for nine months, only because the woman’s physiology (the way her body works) is making these changes happen .

Let’s review what happens in the first trimester of a pregnancy (1 to 13 weeks since the woman’s last menstrual period):

It all starts with an egg cell and a sperm cell. Each egg cell and sperm cell is alive.

Over a period of about 30 years a woman releases one or more of these live egg cells from her ovaries every single month. That’s a lot of egg cells over a lifetime! Every time a man ejaculates, he releases between 200 and 400 MILLION LIVE SPERM CELLS! And that’s definitely a lot of live cells! Of course most of the time they just all die. Funny, isn’t it, that even though eggs and sperm are "life" too, the right-to-lifers aren’t trying to "save" every one of them!

If even just one of those sperm cells released in a woman’s vagina swims into the uterus and out into one or the other of the two Fallopian "tubes" (on each side of the uterus), and runs into a ripe egg cell, fertilization can take place. That means that the egg and sperm have fused and the result is called a fertilized egg.

The fertilized egg gets pushed down the tube. The egg started off as one cell, but soon divides into two cells, then four cells, and so on. By the time it gets back to the uterus (a muscular sack only about the size of a small pear) the egg is still much smaller than the period at the end of this sentence.

For the pregnancy to keep going, this tiny egg has to stick to the sides of the uterus. If it doesn’t stick (implant), it will simply be flushed out of the uterus with the menstrual blood during the woman’s next period. When this happens—a form of "spontaneous abortion"—the woman doesn’t know it, because the size of the fertilized egg is so tiny.

If the egg does stick to the woman’s uterus, this triggers hormonal changes which will keep the woman’s next period from coming on. The way pregnancy tests work is that they measure these hormones in the woman’s blood or urine to tell if she’s pregnant.

The implanted egg is now called an embryo, and its shape starts to change as the cells start to move around to different positions. The cells are beginning to "differentiate." That means they are starting to take on different functions and form different kinds of tissues which will later become different parts of the body. Instead of all being the same, some cells will become skin cells or heart cells or eye cells, for instance.

Three weeks into the pregnancy, the whole embryo is still only about 2mm (2 millimeters) long, or about the size of the letter "o."

The placenta gets formed from a combination of some of the tissues of the woman’s uterus and of the woman’s embryo. It is a mass of tissue rich in blood vessels, which connects the embryo to the woman’s blood circulation system. During the whole pregnancy the fetus will remain attached to the placenta through the umbilical cord .

The placenta helps show how the embryo or fetus is very much part of the woman’s body for the whole pregnancy. The embryo cannot get food on its own, clear out its own wastes, or even breathe on its own. It gets oxygen and dissolved food nutrients (and sometimes toxic substances) from the woman’s blood through the placenta and umbilical cord. It gets rid of its wastes the same way, releasing carbon dioxide and urea into the woman’s bloodstream for disposal.

Just as a single live cell cannot survive independently of a body, the embryo cannot survive independently of a woman’s body because it is truly part of her.

After four weeks of pregnancy the embryo looks a little like a tadpole. It even has gill slits like a fish, and a bony tail! These are features shared by embryos of many different species of animals and reflect our common evolutionary history. The embryo is now about 5mm long, smaller than this: ooo.

By the third month of pregnancy the embryo, now called a fetus, starts to look a little more "human" as it grows arms, legs, sex organs, fingers, and toes. It is undergoing a lot of changes, but inside, its internal organs, muscles, skeleton, and nervous system are still very undeveloped. The whole thing is still only about 25mm long, or about this long: oooooooooooooo

ABORTION IN THE FIRST TRIMESTER (1 through 13 weeks since last menstrual period)
More than 90 percent of abortions done in the U.S. are done in these first three months of pregnancy.

This is the best time to do it. It is the easiest, safest, and cheapest time to do it. It does not need to be done in a hospital but can be done in a walk-in clinic. You don’t have to be put to sleep.

The way it is done is that a flexible tube the size of a straw is inserted up the vagina and into the uterus. This tube is connected to a bottle with a suction pump. When the pump is turned on, it acts like a small vacuum cleaner and sucks out the contents of the uterus. What comes out looks mainly like blood, since the embryo or fetus is still so small. The abortion is usually not very painful. The woman may feel "cramps" in her uterus similar to having an IUD put in. The whole thing lasts only about 5 to 15 minutes and then it’s over. The woman rests for a while, and then she can go home.

There is no doubt that if a woman is pregnant and doesn’t want to be, she should do everything possible to go to a clinic and get an abortion within the first three months since her last period. The sooner the better.1

SECOND TRIMESTER: (14 through 24 weeks since last period)
This is a time when the fetus grows a lot. Starting around the fifth month, the woman is able to feel it kicking, even though it is still only about eight inches long. It may suck its thumb, simply because of a genetically programmed sucking reflex which facilitates nursing after birth. Its internal organs, bones, and muscles continue to develop. In the sixth month it grows rapidly, to around a foot in length.

But it is important to realize that it is still not "complete" and that a whole lot of development still has to go on. Even at the end of this trimester it cannot survive outside the woman’s uterus without special medical measures.Its brain is still very unformed. Its lungs are not ready to take in air. It is still very much a part of the woman’s body and completely dependent on her bodily processes.

Abortion in the second trimester can still be done. But it can be hard for a woman to find a doctor or hospital to do it. Because the uterus is softer and the fetus is bigger, there is a greater possibility of medical complications, such as a torn or "perforated" uterus or infections. It is important to get good medical care for these second- trimester abortions.

There are different ways of doing these later abortions. Sometimes a doctor will inject a saline solution into the woman’s uterus. This kills the fetus and makes the woman’s body go into labor, and the fetus is expelled like a live baby would be. Sometimes a doctor will give the injection and then leave the woman alone, or with just a nurse, to "deliver" the dead fetus. This is cruel and difficult for all concerned and it is totally unnecessary. There are other methods.

The best procedure for second trimester abortions involves a combination of dilation, curettage and evacuation (it’s called a D and E). The entrance to the uterus is stretched open (dilation), and the uterus is scraped with a metal loop (curettage) and emptied out (evacuation) by suction. This is a much better procedure: much safer, and less upsetting for the woman and medical staff than the "induction" abortions which cause the woman to go into labor. D and E abortions can be done from 12 to about 16 to 24 weeks of pregnancy.

Since abortion is so much easier (physically and emotionally), safer, and cheaper, in the first three months of pregnancy, why does any woman ever get one later than that? The answer is that sometimes errors are made with pregnancy tests, or a woman gets pregnant while taking pills, or with an IUD, and doesn’t realize she is pregnant right away. Sometimes she has to fight off the pressures of men or family members who object to the abortion out of their own backwardness. Sometimes she has to struggle through her own ignorance, fears, and lack of information before knowing what to do. Most often the delay is caused—and this is a real crime—by a lack of money. Increasingly, state laws that impose waiting periods and the lack of abortion facilities in rural areas will force more women to have abortions in the second trimester.

A high proportion of the women who are forced to get later abortions are young, poor, or women of color. This is another example of how women of color suffer a double oppression. And when laws are passed to force under-age women to get a parent’s permission before getting an abortion, more delays and more "late" abortions are certainly the cruel consequence.

While first-trimester abortions should be encouraged, and everything done to facilitate them, it is important to uphold the right of women to terminate an unwanted pregnancy at any time, and to provide women with the safest and the least physically and emotionally demanding abortions available at that time.

THIRD TRIMESTER (25 weeks or more since last period)
Abortions are rarely done in the third trimester except in emergencies to save the life of a woman. In such cases the doctor has to cut open the uterus and remove the fetus and placenta, and this would be considered major surgery.

The fetus still has a lot of development to undergo in these last three months of pregnancy. It grows a lot. But in the seventh month the fetus still only has a small chance of surviving if it is born prematurely because its internal organs are still not developed enough. In such cases doctors have to take special measures to try to finish incubating the fetus.

Final organ formation takes place in the eighth and ninth months. This is when the lungs finish developing. Until the lungs are finished the fetus would not be able to breathe air independently outside the uterus.

Also during this time lots of new brain cells are formed and major nerve tracks develop in the brain. In human beings a lot of the brain development continues to take place in the six months or so after birth . But by the end of the nine months of pregnancy the fetus is developed enough to be born and the woman’s body needs to expel the fetus before it gets too big to get past her pelvic bones! The woman’s body now goes into labor, contracting the muscles of the uterus, and finally pushing out the fully formed fetus.

As soon as the umbilical cord connecting the fetus to the woman’s body is cut, the supply of oxygen from the woman to the fetus is cut off and the newborn takes its first independent breath. This is its first act as an independent human being. It is now really a "baby." For the first time it is a truly separate life entity, and a separate social entity as well. From this moment it is really a separate human being, and should be treated as such.

A.S.K., the author of "Life Cannot and Should Not Always Be Preserved," is a contributing writer to the Revolutionary Worker with experience in the struggle for scientific experimentation as well as the revolutionary struggle.

What Is Life?
1. We are, in fact, made of "starstuff,’’ along with everything else on earth, living or not.

2. On earth, living things are typically made up of one or more living cells. And all forms of life on earth are related and are descendants of the first one-celled creatures to live on this planet.

3. All the different kinds of living creatures or organisms have in common:

the ability to grow and process energy
the ability to reproduce
and the ability to encompass (make happen and "take in") change, and to pass it on over the generations.
4. Human beings have a lot in common with all the other life-forms on the planet. What makes us "different’’ is not really the things that prove we are "alive." After all, there’s a lot of "life" all around!

What makes us different, or "special," is that we have evolved to a higher degree than any other species— the ability to change the conditions of life through social means —by living and struggling in concert with other human beings during our entire lives. This— being part of human society rather than just being alive —is the essence of what makes us human beings.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Footnotes
1Note from RW editors: The drug RU-486 is another method of abortion. Called the abortion pill, it causes the embryo to "unhook" and the menstrual period to start, flushing the embryo out of the uterus. It can only be used at the very beginning of a pregnancy. Anti-abortion forces are attacking this method, spreading misinformation and hysteria about its safety.

Another area that the right wingers have attacked is emergency contraception, or "Plan B," a pill that is taken within the first three days after sex. Plan B is not an abortion pill—it is basically a high dosage of ordinary birth control pills that works by either stopping the egg from fertilizing, delaying ovulation, or preventing a fertilized egg from becoming implanted in the uterus, depending on when the pill is taken in relation to the woman’s menstrual period and when the woman had sex. Right wingers have blocked women from being able to get this pill at pharmacies without a prescription so they can get access to it in time, and have spawned a movement of hospitals and pharmacies that refuse to offer the pill to rape victims, even though they are legally obligated to.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This article is posted in English and Spanish on Revolutionary Worker Online
http://rwor.org
Write: Box 3486, Merchandise Mart, Chicago, IL 60654
Phone: 773-227-4066 Fax: 773-227-4497

[redwinter]

[double post]

[red_orchestra]

To have a choice is important. No choice, means no respect for women....and that is typically the religious rights' view. ie/ women were put here as baby makers and homemakers and scorned every other time.

[RevolverNo9]

I'm rather surprised at all the pro-'life' mob here on, er, revolutionaryleft.

To amplify the significance of potential life, consider that had any of your parents had sex at any time, any other micro-second or had their movement altered by a heartbeat... you wouldn't be here. Different sperm reaches the egg, different organism develops. End of story.

Man cannot transpose his moral insecurities into queezy sentimentalism.

[Irish_Bebop]

Anything that has its logic based on religious ignorance, rubbs me up the wrong way.
I believe in choice, if it was a situation involving me, id try encourage the girl to keep it, but in the end - its her choice, although the idea doesnt sit that well with me.

I think that in governments that should be considered secular, there isn't even any room for this debate, and from a religios stand point, the belief that every fetus has a soul isn't even univesally recongnised - jews for example believe that there is only a soul when the baby is actually in the process of being born. I find the whole pro-life argument very irrational. It holds no scientific basis, for example the nerve-system is only developed by the 26 week, and actual brain funtion only starts at an even later stage (if im not mistaken). The only thing that pro-lifers can claim to be doing is sicking there own morals and values onto people who will have to live with the consiquences.

[Vanguard1917]

I say 100% free and unrestricted access to abortion. No ifs, no buts... and certainly no moral high grounds.

[apathy maybe]

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...ghlite=abortion (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?act=Search&CODE=show&searchid=bc5e5777932c787f7fc2f73af61b3294&search_in=titles&result_type=topics&highlite=abortion)
Enjoy.