Abortion

[STABD]

I was thinking about this today. The Liberals are always said to be the tree huger life lovers, so why aren’t they the ones that are pro life? The I realized that the Republicans don’t care about babies because they are christens, they care about cheap labor and consumers because there conservative. Children that would have been aborted almost never grow up to be successful, they are doomed to be cheap labor and brainwashed consumers, this is why the conservatives don’t want to lose them. Just a thought that popped into my head, tell me what you think.

[bombeverything]

Because the liberals would probably understand that "loving life" requires that people have a say over what they do with their own. I think it is an issue of control rather than an argument about human life.

[Vanguard1917]

Children that would have been aborted almost never grow up to be successful, they are doomed to be cheap labor and brainwashed consumers, this is why the conservatives don’t want to lose them.

No, conservatives are against abortion for religious and moral reasons.

Socialists are pro-abortion because we believe that it is a human right to be allowed to have full control over the process of reproduction. We believe that women should have the unconditional right to decide for themselves - no ifs, no buts, and no moral high grounds.

[*Exodus]

Who would want to be a kid growing up in a home that does not want him? Is it better to suffer but live or to not live or suffer? These are the questions everyone needs to ask themselves.

[Zapata]

isnt it ironic that the conservatives are both "pro-life" and pro-death penalty?

[patrickbeverley]

So it's better to die than be unloved?

Yes.

[which doctor]

Since none of us can really understand when life begins and when it ends than we really can't exactly understand the whole issue. Anyways I'm pro choice, and I really enjoyed a post that I think was by Gnosis in a previous thread on abortion. But I do think for some people adoption is a better choice. But abortion also helps keep the population down. I think that the earth already has more people than it can sustain for long amounts of time.

[PrideoftheProletariat]

Being "pro-life" is simply a continuation of the republicans attempt to take away personal liberties. They're trying to get the government to tell a woman what to do with her uterus. And I fully agree with what people have said earlier about respecting life is letting life choose what it does to its own offspring. What I can't stand on this issue, personally, is the fact that pople seem to think that being pro-choice means being pro-abortion. being pro-choice is just that: allowing people to choose. If you want to be all religious and think that life begins at conception, go ahead. We're not forcing you get abortions. We're not surrounding you with coar hangers forcing you to terminate the "living being" inside of you.

[al-Ibadani]

I see no contradiction between believing that life begins well before birth and bieng a communist. However I think that the best way to sop abortion will be after a revolution. When no baby will be unwanted. In the meantime I think abortion whould be illegal after the first 12 weeks. By then it's a baby for sure: it look, acts and moves like one.

[KC]

I see no contradiction between believing that life begins well before birth and bieng a communist. However I think that the best way to sop abortion will be after a revolution. When no baby will be unwanted. In the meantime I think abortion whould be illegal after the first 12 weeks. By then it's a baby for sure: it look, acts and moves like one.

Life doesn't begin until it is born. That is both legally and physiologically (physically independent life; the child is no longer a parasite to the mother). Abortion should never be illegal. If abortion is illegal then people will get them done illegally. Which is much more dangerous. If you don't like the idea of an abortion, don't get one. Just don't press your beliefs onto others.

[drain.you]

Obviously people who have abortions, weren't planning on having a baby and for whatever reason don't feel they can support a child. Some protesters seem to think women are actively getting pregnant just to murder an innocent life. Its ridiculous. Its not even as though abortion is an easy decision for a women to make, its one that they will question for the rest of their lives.
People who claim to be 'pro-life' and want to make abortion illegal seem quite strange to me, if someone wants to have an abortion then its obviously for the best, the alternative being perhaps a troubled life of poverty, unhappiness and not being loved.
If someone wants to have an abortion, its their choice and I very much expect that its for the right reasons

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

There are already too many mouths to feed. Why force people to bring in one more?

[Marxistinn]

I'm Pro-Choice.

I don't think there are many things that are worse than growing up in an environment where your parents hate you. I wouldn't make it. And 14 year old kids (and younger) are definately not suitable to be parents. I mean, they haven't nearly finished school, and getting a job at that age is pretty hard.

[Zapata]

i don't even think that all children born who may have been aborted would be hated in life. but they certainly are another mouth to feed, another contribution to overpopulation, and are completely unnecessary pains. infanticide and late abortions are very, very bad, but abortion is not any of those things. i find it particularly interesting that somewhere around 70% of anti-abortion activists are men, who obviously wouldn't have to give birth or raise a child alone. also morbidly amusing is the fact that you get extreme anti-abortion zealots who kill abortion doctors and blow up clinics. these are the pro-life activists

[Hate Is Art]

but they certainly are another mouth to feed

Since when has a human life ever been anything as simple as 'another mouth feed' If that's all we are, why the fuck don't we just kill ourselves. Human's are a complex mess of bodily functions and emotions, any argument on abortion shoul have nothing to do with food.

[rioters bloc]

agreed, digital nirvana

i don't agree with your analysis though stabd:


Children that would have been aborted almost never grow up to be successful, they are doomed to be cheap labor and brainwashed consumers

i'd say this is true of most people, whether they would have been aborted or otherwise. i'm not too sure where you were going with that idea, did you mean that people whose mother wanted to abort but didn't for whatever reasons are neglected/abused/and thus less likely to be successful? because i really see that as an unfounded generalisation

[Xian]

I only advocate abortion when the child has a chance of being ill, having to live a life of suffering.

Now if the child is healthy then I believe it is wrong to murder it. Conservatives are pro-life because it is religously immoral. Leftists are pro-choice because they think that people should have the freedom to control sexual action. None of these make sense. Conservatives also are for the death penalty. Leftists have a total lack of respect for the value of life. Murder is murder and that goes for inmates and unborn babies. Because that baby can grow up and be the greatest thing to ever happen to this world, and an inmate can write a Nobel Prize winning memoir and turn around his fellow inmates' lives. That's life.

~peace~

[Colombia]

I am probably the only person here who dislikes abortions.

However, I understand that I nor anyone should press their views onto other people. Therefore even though I don't like it, if a woman wants an abortion, then let her have it.

I may not agree with what your saying, but I'll fight for your right to say it.

[Intifada]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 02:05 AM
Now if the child is healthy then I believe it is wrong to murder it.
This argument against abortions just cannot stand up on a leg, simply because the "it" you refer to is not a human, but, technically speaking, a parasite that is still biologically dependent upon the mother.

It does not have human rights, and should not have the power to decide a human person's (the mother) fate.


Because that baby can grow up and be the greatest thing to ever happen to this world, and an inmate can write a Nobel Prize winning memoir and turn around his fellow inmates' lives. That's life.


You and I have the potential to turn into killers and ruin the lives of many people. Does this mean we should be locked up or sentenced to death in order to prevent such a potentiality?

Potential is not real, and does not bolster the argument against abortions, which is generally a load of crap anyway.

[Black Dagger]

Human's are a complex mess of bodily functions and emotions, any argument on abortion shoul have nothing to do with food.

So, working class woman gets pregnant, doesn't have enough money to support a child (ie. feeding, clothing etc.) and thus decides to have an abortion- nope? Nothing to do with 'mouths to feed'?

[rioters bloc]

Originally posted by Black [email protected] 15 2005, 07:44 PM

Human's are a complex mess of bodily functions and emotions, any argument on abortion shoul have nothing to do with food.

So, working class woman gets pregnant, doesn't have enough money to support a child (ie. feeding, clothing etc.) and thus decides to have an abortion- nope? Nothing to do with 'mouths to feed'?
while that can be the reason that womyn get abortions, that shouldn't be the case. mainly, because there should be social structures set up to ensure that this situation never arises. so in a communsit society, an argument like that for abortion would not stand.

[Black Dagger]

while that can be the reason that womyn get abortions, that shouldn't be the case. mainly, because there should be social structures set up to ensure that this situation never arises. so in a communsit society, an argument like that for abortion would not stand.

But unfortunately for the womyn involved we do live in a capitalist society, and will for the foreseeable future- therefore the 'mouths to feed' argument is completely valid, yes?

And as far as future societies, it is also likely that there will be times in the future, and yes even in a communist society- where there will be food shortages, bad harvests, droughts, floods, hurricanes, disease/pest damage etc. Such that the 'mouths to feed' argument is valid still.

[rioters bloc]

i guess i saw this as a theoretical debate, as opposed to a practical one.

also, i personally don't like to think of children as a burden or as i guess a commodity, even - is it economically beneficial to have a child? will i profit from having one or make a loss? in bangladesh, i think for almost everyone in my village having children is not economically viable. but for almost everyone, they don't think like that.

that's my personal opinion. like i said earlier, while i will fight for womyn's reproductive rights/the right to have an abortion, i would not get one myself unless there were medical complications. so that probably skews my view.

[Black Dagger]

So is the 'mouths to feed' argument valid/sound or not? Come on oishee!

:P

[Zapata]

when i said 'mouths to feed' i didn't mean abortion should be the choice simply when it is convenient. children in most industrialized societies are a liability, not an asset, and having too many can be a major problem for both the parent(s) and the community. also, having a child at a very young age, say, 15, can be devastating to the mother, father, their parents... there's a lot of reasons why abortion might be the right option, but convenience is not one of them. i do understand the conservative point of view, that it's murder, but the fact is its not. a fetus is not a human being

[Hate Is Art]

So is the 'mouths to feed' argument valid/sound or not?

No. Not Valid. There is enough food in the world for everyone. In a Communist society there will be enough food for everyone.

[Black Dagger]

No. Not Valid. There is enough food in the world for everyone.

That doesn't make it invalid, at all. Because 'in the world' food isn't distributed in perfect equality- nor is this reality like to change in the foreseeable future- thus it is a completely valid position- because it is the reality for most of the world's population.



In a Communist society there will be enough food for everyone.

How do you know this? That is unrealistic assertion, particularly considering the amount of social dislocation that will occur during the revolutionary process, things don't run smoothly from 'day one'- nor is a communist society immune to the effects of natural disasters- or just plain old weather patterns. My state has been in a drought for something like 10 years! Most of the country in fact. It's logical that such situations would occur in the future, and possibly at an increased level given the state the planet is currently in, as such if there arises circumstances where there isn't enough food- or isn't being distributed perfectly- this isn't utopia- the position retains validity.

It's illogical to just say 'No. Not valid'- because you're talking about the future, unless you're some kind of time traveller, you haven't been there!

[Hate Is Art]

Well why don't we just kill off 5,000,000,000 people so everyone can live in peace and happiness with oodles and oodles of food and lemonade?

[al-Ibadani]

A fetus might technically be a parasite. So what? It is still a separate organism, and a member of our species. Take a premature baby, born let's say two months early. It is tiny, frail, prone to illness and biologically similar to a fetus of the same age. The only difference between a premature baby and a fetus of the same age is their location: one is in the womb the other isn't.

If the mother of the fetus were to be shot in the head, the fetus could be removed within a certain period of time, and still survive. This has actually been done before. If I were to stick a bayonet into the fetus it will feel the same pain as the premature baby would if I were to stick it with a bayonet. From the point of view of the fetus, it's technical status as a "parasite" changes NOTHING.

To say that life begins at birth is not only stupid, it is calloused. I find it hard to understand how a person who is enraged by world hunger, by exploitation and suffering, can at the same time be so damn heartless towards the tinyest, most vulnerable members of our species.

We are all fetuses. We depend on others, on the labor of others to live our lives. (Robinson Crusoe might be an exception). We are all interconnected as a species, and we ought to cherish every life. I am a communist, and as such I say no abortions after the first 12 weeks, unless the mother is in danger of course.

But like I said, the best way to stop abortions is to create a world in which they would be totally unecessary. That would require a world revolution.

[danielfolsom]

A fetus is not living
Living things are defined not only as able to move, but also to move on its own in order to get food. A fetus is a cell mass, if you want to get picky next time you have a bugbite and you scratch think of the hundreds of cells youre killling. I hope your ahamed.

[LSD]

A fetus might technically be a parasite. So what? It is still a separate organism, and a member of our species.

Perhaps, but it isn't a member of our society, and that makes all the difference.


If the mother of the fetus were to be shot in the head, the fetus could be removed within a certain period of time, and still survive.

And at that point, it would become an independent member of society, not a moment before.

As long as it exists within the mother as a de facto organ of her body, it remains a potentiary person and nothing more.

A foetus does not live independently, if it is removed from the mother then, by definition, it is living independelntly and should be afforded the same protections as all pre-rational members of society. But until that happens, it can no more be afforded protections or "rights" than a sperm cell or ovum can.

Both of them are, after all, like the foetus, potentiary potential members of society. Although not capable of societal participation themselves they have the potential to have the potential to be.

Unfortunately, that's just too many "potentials" for society to get involved.

While society should and does protect first generation potentialities (infants, the infirmed, the severely disabled), it cannot protect second. They are simply too far down the chain to legitimize the suppression of the woman.

In the end, it's a balance. The fundamental rights of an established human society member vs. the nebulous rights of a potential potential. The former being absolutely essential to any free society, the latter being largely insignificant.

It isn't a tough decision.


To say that life begins at birth is not only stupid, it is calloused.

"calloused"? No.

Inaccurate? Perhaps.

The definition of "life" is a complex one. Ultimately, you may in fact be correct. "Life" may indeed not begin at birth ...but then "life" is irrelevent to this discussion.

The question is not when does "life" begin, it's when does societal membership begin; and the answer to that is birth.


We are all fetuses.

Speak for yourself!


I am a communist, and as such I say no abortions after the first 12 weeks, unless the mother is in danger of course.

And what precisely changes after the arbitrary date of "12 weeks?

The foetus develops a little more? Maybe the early cortex begins to complexify?

Sorry, but none of that matters.

Until that foetus is out in the world, it is outside the purvue of society. Society extends exactly so far as the boundries of your skin, it goes no deeper. It exists to protect its membership which is defined as those independent moral agents capable of participating in human societal discourse within a human societal environment.

That includes the mother, it does not include the foetus. In simplest terms, the foetus lives inside the mother, not society. It is subject to the dictates of it's environment which means the interests of its greater whole as defined by the wishes of the mother.

Until it is born and, hence, part of the human societal environment, human society has no jurisdiction over it. It does not exist.

Whatever the mother wants to do with this part of her body is up to her. Burn it, stab it, spray it with acid, it's her body and hers to do with as she wills.

Society has no right to her womb.

[al-Ibadani]

Oh how easy it is to evade the crux of the matter. What difference is there between a fetus being stabbed by a bayonet and a premature newborn of the same age being stabbed by a bayonet, from the POV of the stabbed entities. Does the fetus not feel pain? Is that a feeling that suddenly appears at birth? IF you can't answer this question then your argument fails.

Some basic facts:

Week 12: The baby has all of the parts necessary to experience pain, including nerves, spinal cord, and thalamus. Vocal cords are complete. The baby can suck its thumb. (hence the "abritrary cut-off point").

Fetuses recognize thier mother' voices by 32 weeks. Fetuses by that age have all the psychological and emotional characteristics as newborns. Source: New England Journal of Medecine

Again to the crux of the argument. The fetus by 32 weeks is no different than a newborn. Like I said the only difference is location.

To the counter-arguments:

#1) A fetus cannot be a part of the mother and a parasite. A liver is a part of the mother, a tumor is a part of the mother; a tapeworm is a parasite. See the diference? A tapeworm is a separate organism, surviving off a host. A fetus is likewise a separate organism surviving off its mother, not a part of her. THe difference is that the fetus is a homo sapien, and the tapeworm isn't.

This doesn't mean the issue is black and white. There are complexities about the "cut-off point", the health of mom, etc.

#2) A fetus is part of our society. People don't say "Come feel the fetus kick." They refer to it as a baby. Some of name us our children before birth, we proudly show off their ultrasound pictures. Mothers take care not to harm the fetus by not drinking or smoking. Just like you take care not to harm any member of the society. Thier choices are limited by social RESPONSIBILITY.

"A woman in an unhappy marriage has a 237% greater risk of bearing a child with physical and psychological problems than a woman in a secure relationship." [Source: T. Verney & J. Kelly, The Secret Life of the Unborn Child, Delta Books, 1981, p. 49]
And the fetus isn't a member of society? Come on

A case comes to mind about a woman with kidney failure who gets pregnant. She refuses an abortion against the advice of her doctors. Halfway through the pregnancy her condition improves dramatically. Her fetus's kidneys are filtering her blood. By the time the baby is born th mother is fine. But the condition quickly returns so she decides to get pregnant again. The same thing happens. It buys her time to get her transplants. How social a creature can one be? To save a life before being born.

#3) A fetus lives off his mother. Throughout most of the history of our species every newborn lived off its mother milk. Yes fetuses are totally dependent on thier mothers, but that dependency remains long after birth.

#4) THe independence argument is bogus. None of us are independent (like I said Robinson Crusoe might be an exception). We live in societies. That cup of coffee you had this morning is the product of society. Our choices are limited by social obligations. I may happen to have another human inside my womb, or surviving off the milk from my breasts, or depending on me to tuck her in at night and teach her how to read. It would be murder to take any of those lives.

It all seems like a pretty goddamn leftist argument to me. <_<


The definition of "life" is a complex one. Ultimately, you may in fact be correct. "Life" may indeed not begin at birth ...but then "life" is irrelevent to this discussion.

The question is not when does "life" begin, it&#39;s when does societal membership begin; and the answer to that is birth.

Even if one believes the dubious claim that social membership begins at birth, to dismiss the life argument is about as calloused as it gets.

[LSD]

What difference is there between a fetus being stabbed by a bayonet and a premature newborn of the same age being stabbed by a bayonet, from the POV of the stabbed entities.


That&#39;s a flawed question. The "POV" of the foetus is irrelevent.

By your argument, there is no moral difference between killing a person and killing a dog because "from the POV of the killed entity", it&#39;s all the same.

Obviously, there&#39;s something wrong with that approach.

What you&#39;re missing here is that society is not in the "POV" of its members, it is an impartial, unemotional judge of membership, based on strict and comprehensive criteria. Whether the foetus feels pain or not is wholly irrelevent. After all, virtually every animal on earth feels pain to some degree or another, that doesn&#39;t make them members of human society.

In order to be afforded the protections of human society one must be capable of participating in said society as an independent moral actor or be an independent potentiary to same.

Again, a potential potential doesn&#39;t cut it.

You are attempting to craft an entirely emotionalist claim. What does the foetus feel et al., In trial law, that kind of argument is called the "golden rule" and would earn you an instant mistrial, in academic parlance it&#39;s called an appeal to emotion and would get you laughed out of the room.


Again to the crux of the argument. The fetus by 32 weeks is no different than a newborn. Like I said the only difference is location.

And that makes all the difference.

An organism that exists outside of human society cannot be protected by human society. Until it lives within a human societal context, it is subject not to human society but to the de facto jurisdiction in which it lives -- the mother.

Accordingly, society cannot interfere in her sovereign rights to govern the contents of her own skin. Society deals with it&#39;s members, it does not address what&#39;s inside of them.


A fetus is part of our society. People don&#39;t say "Come feel the fetus kick." They refer to it as a baby.

So what?

Some people refer to their pets as their children; language does not define biology&#33;


Mothers take care not to harm the fetus by not drinking or smoking. Just like you take care not to harm any member of the society. Thier choices are limited by social RESPONSIBILITY.

Again, so what?

The fact that the mother wants her foetus to be healthy in no way makes that foetus a part of society, again it makes that foetus a part of the mother.

I notice you tacked on "social RESPONSIBILITY" at the end there to try and make your argument relevent ...didn&#39;t really work did it?

What a mother does to her own body and anything contained therein is entirely up to her. For it to be a "social RESPONSIBILITY", it would have to exist within a social context, that means an environment in which human society has jurisdiction, again that does not include the inside of your body.


"A woman in an unhappy marriage has a 237% greater risk of bearing a child with physical and psychological problems than a woman in a secure relationship." [Source: T. Verney & J. Kelly, The Secret Life of the Unborn Child, Delta Books, 1981, p. 49]
And the fetus isn&#39;t a member of society? Come on

:lol:

You&#39;re joking, right? Tell me that&#39;s a joke&#33;

The ability to be harmed by society does not make one member of it&#33; For God&#39;s sake man, how many creatures have gone extinct due to human action? That doesn&#39;t make them members of human society&#33;


How social a creature can one be? To save a life before being born.


A timely asprin would save your life too, doesn&#39;t make it a person.


Throughout most of the history of our species every newborn lived off its mother milk. Yes fetuses are totally dependent on thier mothers, but that dependency remains long after birth.

Obviously, but there&#39;s a difference between social dependency and biological dependency.

The former is, by definition, the responsibility of society. In order to be socially dependent, one must live within society, in this case as a potentiary rational moral agent. Because of this potentiary state as well as living within a societal framework, the baby must be offered certain basic protections until it reaches the age at which point it can act as a member of said framework.

But before it is born, it does not live in society, it lives in the mother and, accordingly, outside of the purvue of societal interference. Its biological dependency on the mother, in this case, means that it is for all intents and purposes a part of her body.

Again, this means that society cannot interfere.


Even if one believes the dubious claim that social membership begins at birth, to dismiss the life argument is about as calloused as it gets.

And why precisely is that?

"Life" is entirely superfulous to this discussion. Human society kills life all the time; a good majority of our society eats life whenever it can.

The only relevent question to the issue of societal rights and protections is societal membership.

And I would remind you, in this case, the burden of proof is squarely on you.

You are proposing that society use foce to prevent women from excersizing their sovereign rights to their own bodies. You want action to be taken against them should they attempt to commit "unwanted" acts upon themselves and organisms contained within themselves.

In order to justify this grosse breach of personal liberty, you must provide valid rational argumentation to prove that the rights of the foetus supercede those of the mother. You must demonstrate, in effect, that the foetus has right at all.

So far, you have not done so.

For all your subjectivism and appeals to emotion, you have yet to lay out a clear, defined reason why a foetus should be considered a member of society.

Yes, a foetus feels pain; so does a dog.
Yes, a foetus is genetically human; so is a cancer cell.
Yes, a foetus could potentially become a human being; so could an ovum.
Yes, a foetus is often loved; so is a pet rock.

Human society exists to serve its members, those members being defined as those who are capable of participating as independent rational agents in the human societal moral framework.

Those are the only beings who can be afforded full societal rights.

For those beings which are potentiary moral agents (infants), or moral agents prevented from excersizing their agency due to a debilitating condition (the comatose, the severely infirmed), societal protections exist for myriad of reasons, not the least of which, in the case of children especially, is to keep society progressing.

In all of these cases, however, the being in question lives within societal jurisdiction. That is, it lives among humans. That allows for society to care for said being as an independent, albeit limited, organism.

The problem with attempting this with foetuses is threefold.

First of all, there is the very simple issue of purvue. The foetus does not live within society and so society has no prima facie obligation to it. Since it is neither an independent moral actor nor a potential agent living under human society, there is no justification for human societal interference.

Second of all, again, the foetus does not live in a societal context. For society to offer protections to such a being requires it acting through a proxy agent, namely the mother. i.e., society has no access to the foetus. It, furthermore, has no means of control over it and so can only exert power through the coercion of the mother.

Third of all, any action in defense of said foetus would nescessitate the grosse violation of the mother&#39;s sovereign rights as granted by society&#33; Any attempt to prevent abortion is, by definition, the excersize or threat of force to prevent independent action by the mother. This constitutes a complete breach of the basic tacit societal agreement, namely that society exists to serve its members and only interferes against positive human action.

Look, I understand that this issue is emotional for you, and so if you don&#39;t want to have an abortion (assuming you&#39;re female), don&#39;t. But if you want society to take positive action to prevent anyone else from doing so, you need to give logical argumentation why.

Unfortunately for you, none exists.

[al-Ibadani]

My last response.

A dog is not a human bieng. A rock in not a human bieng

A cancer is not a human being.

A fetus is. That simply can&#39;t be denied, and you have actually managed not to deny that.

You are unable to argue that a fetus is not a human bieng. You can only argue that isn&#39;t is a member of society. A fetus is a member of socieity living off its mother. And if it were born could live independently (after 24 weeks). ONLY Robinson Crusoe qualifies as a person not a member of society. Even so I&#39;d be against the "freedom" to murder Mr. Crusoe, but apparenltly you wouldn&#39;t object to that "freedom." After all he is not a member of society.

To force a woman not to have an abortion is no worse than to force her not to remove her premie form its incubator. Society is absolutley meaningless if arbritrary criteria like location (womb or incubator) are used for qualification for basic rights. So prohibiting abortions limits your choices, that&#39;s what society is all about.

Your argument boils down to this. You have no problem with the "freedom" to kill another human bieng. Their humanity is of no consequence. All that matters is thier membership in society based on the totally arbritrary criterion (strict and comprehensive as it may be) of location. Killing a person in an incubator is a no no. Killing a persin in a womb is ok. Killing a person isolated on an island in the middle of the sea is ok as well. His POV matters not, nor does his humanity. All that matters is his membership in society based on the arbritrary criterion of location.

Like I said, this is calloused but worse it is irreconcilable with a humanely functioning society. It will be impossible to build a better world based on your logic. I do suspect that if our descendants do manage to build a communist world, they will look back at their leftist ancestors and wonder how barbaric they were, proclaiming the "freedom" to murder as a basic right. Nuff said.

[KC]

A fetus is. That simply can&#39;t be denied, and you have actually managed not to deny that.

A fetus is not a human being. It has potential to become a human being, but the potential it has does not make it a human being. A fetus could become a child, but it could also become a miscarriage, which is definitely not a child. Because you see the fetus as becoming a child, you see the fetus as a child. This is completely idealist; just because something could become something else does not make it that thing. In the same sense, use-values are only realized as commodities in the exchange process. Use-values aren&#39;t commodities because they can be exchanged at some point; they are commodities only when they are exchanged. Suggesting anything else is jumping to conclusions, and that is exactly what you are doing.

[Dimentio]

When the life standard increases, the population tends to stabilize itself. Literacy is the best way to prevent over-population. Besides that, our current production capacity is overdimensioned in relation to the amount of people on the planet [the reason why there is starvation depends on the price system].

[LSD]

A cancer is not a human being.

Why not?

It fulfills exactly the same criteria as a foetus does. It is both genetically human and genetically distinct from the mother.

Both a cancerous tumour and a foetus are distinct human cells with the capacity to become more.

You see, the definition of "human being" is a complex one. Does it include every genetic human as you seem to want? Well, no, &#39;cause that would include cancer cells.

Does it include only those genetic humans which are advanced beyond a certain date or which have developed certain features? Well, no, &#39;cause that&#39;s entirely arbitrary. If a foetus is human at twelve weeks then it&#39;s human at eleven and a half and if it&#39;s human at eleven and a half then it&#39;s human at eleven and so forth.

There is no satisfying definition of "human being" when it comes to this issue. When crafting policy we need specifics and biology can&#39;t offer good specifics on this question.

Luckily, we don&#39;t need them&#33;

Because "humanity" is not the issue here; society is.

Society is a collection of individuals who have decided to cede natural liberties for the sake of safety, comfort, and options. That collection of individuals has no obligation beyond itself. It exists to serve its collective whole. Organisms which live outside of this whole, i.e., non-humans, are not protected by it.

But how is this membership decided? Should it be entirely genetic, as you seem to be suggesting? That is, every organism with a certain 99.9% genetic match should be instantly protected?

The obvious question that emerges is ...why?

What the hell do genetics matter in terms of basic rights? Why does a foetus have a right to protection when a dog, which is infinitely smarter and much more alive, does not?

What makes one particular genetic pattern so damn special?

You see, one thing which recent biological advances have taught us is that special lines aren&#39;t quite as special as we once thought. We share 99% of our genes with the great apes for God&#39;s sake. A living, breathing, thinking, reproducing chimpanzee has a lot more in common with you than a 12 week old foetus.

...but you want to protect the latter.

That, you see is emotionalism, and it has no place here.

The only way to rationaly determine societal membership is to examine the nature of society itself. Society, again, exists as a collection of rational moral individuals and, therefore, the sole logical criteria for membership is the ability to participate in society. If you are able to be a member, you&#39;re a member, if you are not then you are not. It may seem harsh, but it makes sense.

Beyond this, society offers protections for those "comming and going" as it were. It protects those individual agents which are approaching societal partcipation as well as those who were former participants no longer able to take part.

A foetus does not fall into either category. It is not a potential moral agent, it is, again, a potential potential. Once it is born it becomes a baby and a baby is a potential actor. More than that it is an independent being living within a human societal context. It can be directly influenced and, if need be, protected by society as it develops towards full membership.

A foetus, however, has none of this. It is a growing mass of cells, much like our hypothetical cancer-mass. It is developing and it is growing in complexity, but until it exists in the world, it is nothing more than an incredibly complex part of the mother.

You call this "location", but it&#39;s a whole lot more than that. It&#39;s about standing; and the foetus has none. It&#39;s not that society "doesn&#39;t want" to protect it, it&#39;s that society can&#39;t. As far as human society is concerned, a biological part of the mother, even one with the potential to one day be a potential member, is none of its concern.

Whether the foetus is genetically human or not is irrelevent, whether it is aesthetically human or not is irrelevent, all that matters is whether it can be construed to be in a protected class so far as human society is concerned.

Society has only two classes of protectees: members and potential/disabled members. The foetus is neither.


A fetus is. That simply can&#39;t be denied, and you have actually managed not to deny that.

Again, "human being" is a remarkably nebulous concept.

I deny that the foetus is "human" in the same way that you or I are human, but your obvious question would be, if it isn&#39;t human then what species is it?

From a genetic standpoint, the foetus is indeed human, but what you don&#39;t seem to realize is that you&#39;re asking the wrong question.

The question you need to be asking is not whether the foetus is human or not, it&#39;s why does it matter?


You can only argue that isn&#39;t is a member of society.

An argument which you have failed to refute.


ONLY Robinson Crusoe qualifies as a person not a member of society.

That&#39;s utter nonsense.

Of course Robinson Crusoe is a member of society, he is merely temporarily isolated. That in no way diminishes his ability to participate in human societal relationships should the opportunity arise.

Again, you miss the point entirely.


To force a woman not to have an abortion is no worse than to force her not to remove her premie form its incubator.

Of course it is.

Even taking the superficial, there is an obvious difference.

Preventing one from removing an infant from an incubator requires merely that you keep this person away from said incubator. Preventing one from terminating an organism within themselves requires that you take positive action to restrict their person.

The first is a question of well-placed armed guards, the second a question of basic human freedom.

But let&#39;s take a deeper look, shall we? What really seperates your hypothetic foetus from your equally hypothetical "premie"?

Well, for starters, there is indeed location. You scoff, but when the "location" in question is inside someone&#39;s body, it matters. This isn&#39;t a matter of room A or room B, it&#39;s the difference between the external world of human society and the internal world of a person&#39;s body.

Saying that that difference is insignificant transcends ludicrousity.

As I have outlined several times now, society does not have jurisdiction within your body. The limitations of the fundamental tacit human contract preven it, and you have offered no compelling reason why a foetus&#39; life takes precedence.

The foetus is clearly not a member of society, it is nothing more than a potential potential member with severly limited capacities and no ability to participate in society. It&#39;s protections exist only in regards to the whim of the mother in who&#39;s body it exists.

For society to invade her skin and dictate restrictions over her personal actions, a credible argument must be presented that a foetus has overriding social obligtions owed to it.

Not only have you not done this, you have been unable to even show that the foetus is owed any obligations whatsoever.


Your argument boils down to this. You have no problem with the "freedom" to kill another human bieng. Their humanity is of no consequence.

That&#39;s because their "humanity" is meaningless&#33;

There&#39;s no such thing as "humanity" in the strict constructionist attributive way you mean.

For all your talk of "humanity" and "human beings" you have failed to offer even a cursory definition of what precisely a "human being" is.

Even more damningly, you have to explain why this property of "being human" matters in terms of societal protections.


Killing a person isolated on an island in the middle of the sea is ok as well.

Don&#39;t be absurd.


His POV matters not

"His POV"?

What of the POV of the cow that was your supper? What, her "POV" doesn&#39;t count?

I would remind you that she was far more complex than your perpetually hypothetical 12 week old foetus.


All that matters is thier membership in society based on the totally arbritrary criterion (strict and comprehensive as it may be) of location.


It&#39;s only arbitrary because you say it is.

It&#39;s actually based on strict logical analyses, analyses which, I&#39;d remind you, you have so far been unable to rebut.

[apathy maybe]

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...564&hl=abortion (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=26564&hl=abortion)
http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...284&hl=abortion (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=6284&hl=abortion)
http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...topic=19613&hl= (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=19613&hl=)
http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...topic=17730&hl= (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=17730&hl=)
http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...wtopic=2347&hl= (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=2347&hl=)
http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...wtopic=6103&hl= (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=6103&hl=)
http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...wtopic=4862&hl= (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=4862&hl=)
http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...topic=41102&hl= (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=41102&hl=)
You get the idea. (Search for abortion in title only. Lots of fun for everyone.)

[EwokUtopia]

Beethoven would have probably been considered for abortion however. He was dirt poor and most his siblings were challenged in one way or another. Most abortions happen within the poor, so you dont fix this problem by banning abortion (causing a rise in coat hanger sales) but rather you solve this problem by elevating the poor. It isnt a matter to be taken lightly, however, and i think that the saddest irony is that "pro-life" people atend their pro-life ralleys, then go to pro-gun ralleys. Is a fetus a human? yes and no. certainly if you eat one, you are a cannibal (sick example i know, but it works), but a fetus is more like dough compared to the proverbial pizza of humanity. that being said, dont waste the dough. Thereputic abortions i am for, but elective abortions i believe are ungood. "just because" is a crappy reason to abort. If i got a girl pregnant, I would stick it through. I wouldnt consider abortion as an option unless there were extreme circumstances, but thats just me. abortion should not be seen as an easy way out, but rather an extreme option for extreme circumstances. Another thing I hate about pro-lifers, abortion and stem cell research are completely divorced topics. I am for stem cell research, but still in that grey area about abortion. out of all cases of abortion, maybe 10% would have been back alleys if it was illegal, the rest would be "fuck, i didnt expect this, oh well". i think that it should be legal, but restricted. hence, there has to be a reason for it to happen, just like every other operation a doctor can perform (I havnt had my appendix removed because i have never been in the circumstance where i need it done, and i dont know about this, but i dont think a doctor would remove it unless i had to have it done). according to wikipedia (shut up, its a good source), the reasons why are as follows.

* 25.5% – Want to postpone childbearing
* 21.3% – Cannot afford a baby
* 14.1% – Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy
* 12.2% – Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy
* 10.8% – Having a child will disrupt education or job
* 7.9% – Want no (more) children
* 3.3% – Risk to fetal health
* 2.8% – Risk to maternal health
* 2.1% – Rape, incest, other

Some of these reasons are valid, some are selfish. basically, I oppose any one with the word "want" in it. let go of want, as the buddha said. "shit happens" is another good motto. Also, I dont think anybody should pursuade people into abortions, that will cause regret in women later on, if it is a choice issue, it should be their choice, and not that of their ashamed parents or commitment-fearing boyfriend. The money issue is valid, but it shouldnt be an issue, if we destroy poverty and offer money to pregnant women, that will be eliminated too.

My biggest problem is if, under the law, abortion is legal because its "their body, their choice", why can women elect to have fetus&#39;s removed from their bodies, but i can not CHOSE to inhale marijuana into mine. If you want a legal issue to talk about, its marijuana. LEGALIZE IT&#33; Either make abortion illegal or make marijuana legal, thats how we can go about freeing the drug hypocracy. Does anybody agree that it is hypocritical that one is legal and the other isnt, and that it should change (hopefully to the point where walking around downtown smells alot cooler than it used to?). People should go natural. marijuana is a natural thing. I consider the topic linked, or at least, abortion laws would make a good precident for legalizing marijuana. and so, regardless of my opinions of abortion (im pro-inbetween, or rather, anti-everything) the fact that marijuana is illegal is appaulling. And while we argue about this and that abortion-wise, thousands rot in jail (or gaol for our limey friends) due to marijuana legislation.
That rant aside, I am also wondering about another thing. If you have a dog or a cat that gets pregnant, do vetrenarians abort the cat or dog fetuses? I think that is wrong too, except under special circumstances. who cares if a fetus is a human or a dog or whatever, those poor things. my solution? test tubes, abort them into test tubes and let them live that way. then if they are a dog, send it to some pound to be adopted, if a human, send it to a commune where they can basque in the love of their brethren. this is the third option.

This is by no means a black and white issue, both sides have their pro&#39;s and their con&#39;s. Neither is right, and neither is wrong. treating it as a black and white issue, bringing absolutes into the matter, is overly simplistic, its like saying "issue every person a gun when they turn 18" vs. "Nobody should ever under any circumstances carry a device that kills, including knives and scissors". i mean sure, if everybody had a gun, people would be careful when they tried to rob a person, but alot would die. and if nobody had any weapons, the world would be taken over by those damn kung fu black belts. middle ground is allways best. I know this is a partisan site, and i realize the irony. I am left, but i try to understand everybody&#39;s opinions, if not agree. Only one thing i can&#39;t understand is capitolism, are CEO&#39;s happy when they make profits, or are the producers of the consumer culture naught but consumers themselves?

[coda]

<<being pro-choice is just that: allowing people to choose.>>

Yup, That&#39;s what it&#39;s all about.

to choose to have an abortion if you are pregnant for whatever and any reasons whatsoever or to choose to not have an abortion if you are pregnant for whatever and any reasons whatsoever --- That is pro-choice.

and you are right, it does not mean pro-abortion. You can be personally anti-abortion and still be objectively pro-choice.

[Invader Zim]

Abortion is a sad and depressing product of neo-capitalist society. Not to say that abortion would not happen in a progressive socialist society, but it sure as wouldn&#39;t happen as much. A great many abortions are the product of poverty, eliminate poverty and you eliminate the motive for a great many abortions.

As for the ethical view on abortion, I support a womans right to control her body as she see&#39;s fit. Of course, i don&#39;t consider it to be as black and white as many people make it out to be, circumstance should often dictate what advice should be given.

[Black Dagger]

circumstance should often dictate what advice should be given.

Advice to the pregnant? Why can&#39;t a woman make the decision herself?

[rioters bloc]

Originally posted by Black [email protected] 31 2005, 09:40 PM
Advice to the pregnant? Why can&#39;t a woman make the decision herself?
there&#39;s a big difference between receiving advice and making a desicion - you can choose to disregard said advice if you wish. then again im thinking in medical terms.


circumstance should often dictate what advice should be given.

that does sound rather patronising. who would be giving the advice and why does s/he feel that they&#39;re authorised to give that advice?

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by rioters bloc+Oct 31 2005, 01:15 PM--> (rioters bloc @ Oct 31 2005, 01:15 PM)
Black [email protected] 31 2005, 09:40 PM
Advice to the pregnant? Why can&#39;t a woman make the decision herself?
there&#39;s a big difference between receiving advice and making a desicion - you can choose to disregard said advice if you wish. then again im thinking in medical terms.


circumstance should often dictate what advice should be given.

that does sound rather patronising. who would be giving the advice and why does s/he feel that they&#39;re authorised to give that advice? [/b]
I was thinking mainly in medical terms. Of course family would probably want whats best, and give advice as well.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Black [email protected] 31 2005, 12:40 PM

circumstance should often dictate what advice should be given.

Advice to the pregnant? Why can&#39;t a woman make the decision herself?

Advice to the pregnant?

Dr&#39;s give advice to patiences considering lots of different medical problems, why should considering an abortion be any different?

Oh and its not advice to the pregnant but advice to someone considering an abortion, which has both emotional, medical and financial implications.

For example, should a Dr not advice a patient that an abortion may be an option if the child may suffer a genetic desease. Or perhaps an abortion may be dangerous for the mother, should a Dr not give advice to a patient?

Why can&#39;t a woman make the decision herself?

She can and would, that doesn&#39;t stop advice being helpful and it doesn&#39;t mean that a person would have to take the advice.

[EwokUtopia]

Originally posted by Black [email protected] 31 2005, 11:40 AM
Advice to the pregnant? Why can&#39;t a woman make the decision herself?
Its a tough call, there has to be advice. If I was in that situation (I probably wouldnt consider abortion, and I probably wont be in that situation anytime soon, but for arguements sake, lets say I am a female who was raped by the most disgusting person in the world) I&#39;d rely so heavily upon advice given to me by friends and family. God, I couldnt even quit a part time job without consulting a bunch of my friends before doing so. Its no spur of the moment decision, thats for sure, and I dont think anybody will say otherwise. Abortion IS a nasty buisiness, so it falls upon the community to give as much support and advice to distraught pregnant women. I know of people who&#39;s parents love them, but at the time of pregnancy, considered aborting them. The thing about stressful circumstances is that they can and usually do change. All and all, dont take this matter lightly.

[drain.you]

Just out of curiosity, can people tell me which of the following examples you think could be a valid reason to have an abortion

01) The parents would not be able to support a child economically.
02) The mother has been abandoned by the father.
03) The mother will almost certainly die in child birth.
04) The child will be born out of wedlock.
05) The parents are young and don&#39;t wish to be &#39;tied down&#39; by a child.
06) The parents are old and feel they cannot cope with a child at this age.
07) The child is a product of rape.
08) The child will almost certainly be born with a disability.
09) The mother is uncertain of who the father of the child is.
10) The child will belong to ethnic minority in a racist country.

Cheers, just give me an insight to what you all are thinking.
Personally I believe 01, 03, 07, 08 and 10 would be valid reasons for abortion due to the fact that them situations would not be nice for a child to grow up in. I think not knowing who your father isn&#39;t ideal but isn&#39;t as serious as say 01. I think being born out of wedlock means nothing, its the same as being born in wedlock if you ask me.

[gilhyle]

Colombia wrote "I am probably the only person here who dislikes abortions."

The people who worry me are the pro-choice people who don&#39;t dislike abortion. Thankfully, many pro-choice people do understand how difficult abortion is.

[EwokUtopia]

8 is a bad reason IMO. Killing people based on handicaps? where have we seen this before.....In Sparta, they didnt have abortions, but no matter, if a handicapped child was born, they leave it to die on some godforsaken rock, this was a problem then, and a much more silent problem now. Plus, you cant really tell whats going to happen. Before one of my friends birth, the doctor said "ma&#39;am, your child will be born with no legs or arms, do you want to have an abortion" and she said "hell no". turns out the doctor was wrong, she was born with all limbs attached. so reason #8 is bad.

[drain.you]

I suppose #8 is a difficult one and I see your arguement, comrade EwokUtopia.
My sister has a learning difficulty which will mean she will probably never be able to care for herself. She&#39;s seven now and my mother cares for her but one day my mother will pass away and me and my sister will have to care for her. I love her to bits and this is going to sound horrible but she serves no use to society and probably never will. She may have a happy life but will drain the energy from her carers. There are people worse of course who have disabilities that won&#39;t allow them to have happy lives whether through discomfort, discrimination against them and other things, I was thinking in the interest of the child that abortion could save them through a life that could effectively be hell for them. But like I said, I see your point and killing on due to any physical or mental variation is not a good way to go about things.
Let me be clear that I&#39;m not for killing disabled children, I have nothing against them, I just don&#39;t think their lives will be as happy as they should be and I think its unfair for them to suffer for something that they can&#39;t control.

[KC]

01) The parents would not be able to support a child economically.
02) The mother has been abandoned by the father.
03) The mother will almost certainly die in child birth.
04) The child will be born out of wedlock.
05) The parents are young and don&#39;t wish to be &#39;tied down&#39; by a child.
06) The parents are old and feel they cannot cope with a child at this age.
07) The child is a product of rape.
08) The child will almost certainly be born with a disability.
09) The mother is uncertain of who the father of the child is.
10) The child will belong to ethnic minority in a racist country.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. All of them. People should be able to have abortions whenever they want. And I support that right regardless of the situation.

[bombeverything]

As for the scenarios I feel they are irrelevant as abortion should always be the woman&#39;s choice. If a woman decides to have an abortion for any of those reasons, they must be able to. The issue is not whether we believe abortion is "morally right" in certain situations, but rather that women should have the choice -- period.

[EwokUtopia]

Should women be able to have abortions when they are in an unsound state of mind? Being pro-choice is one thing, but being pro-reasonable choice is another. moreover, if a woman is in a condition where she is not fit to drive (intoxication, extreme emotional distress) should her choice be seen as the right one no matter what?


Just throwing this out to spark debate.

[drain.you]

If she is of unsound mind then perhaps she wouldnt even be able to care for the child, but if you dont accept her choice then who will decide?

[Black Dagger]

Should women be able to have abortions when they are in an unsound state of mind? Being pro-choice is one thing, but being pro-reasonable choice is another.

Erm, how is &#39;unsound state of mind&#39; defined? And by who?

[bombeverything]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 06:46 AM
Should women be able to have abortions when they are in an unsound state of mind? Being pro-choice is one thing, but being pro-reasonable choice is another. moreover, if a woman is in a condition where she is not fit to drive (intoxication, extreme emotional distress) should her choice be seen as the right one no matter what?


Just throwing this out to spark debate.

Yes. The issue is not about whether the choice is "right" or "wrong", but whether the woman should have the choice in the first place.

[Zapata]

big difference between aborting baby w/ disability and straight up killing drain.you&#39;s sister. killing her would be murder, plain and simple. so would killing someone in middle life who is having difficulty supporting themselves financially. once the person is born (or for that matter a fetus late in the pregnancy) its totally different.
i strongly disagree with the reasoning for #10, but if a mother (or father too) wanted to abort the baby for that reason, it should be their call.

[EwokUtopia]

Should she in a state of extreme stress be able to make that decision? I&#39;ve made extremely poor decisions which i regret due to stress, and I&#39;m sure everybody has. But imagine if the consequence of that decision is that your entire life would be lived out with the regret of feeling that you murdered your own child. Women who have misscarriages often are traumatized, imagine if a women, in the heat of stress has an abortion, and doesnt feel it was a good decision? I do not think that people who are emotionally overwhelmed should be allowed to have abortions, just as people who are emotionally overwhelmed are not even legally able to drive a bloody car (at least in Canada). As for abortions, I have only known about people who got them, most of my friends who got pregnant (I just got out of high school, so they were young pregnancies) were met with happiness. Most women I know say that they would never recieve one. I&#39;m sure that their opinions would change if they got unexpectedly pregnant, but that would be an emotionally driven responce, and I&#39;m sure that if they went through with an abortion, they would begin to regret it with the utmost despair you can imagine, and as a friend to them, I would offer my support for them to not recieve one, just like I would take the keys away from a drunk friend. Not every woman who recieves an abortion under stress regrets it, but also, not every person who drives drunk crashes. We stop our friends from making rash decisions they will regret, and abortion can be one. Right now I am thinking more for the sake of women than the sake of foetus&#39;s. Also, they should not be forced to recieve one from a spouse or parent. That definately should not be legal. But, it does happen, more than we&#39;d like to think. As for my opinions on the matter, I am both pro-life and pro-choice. Is there anybody here who is opposed to life or choice? If so, either kill yourself (anti-life), or get back to doing what your being forced to do (anti-choice). Once again, I will say, this is NOT a black and white issue. I am grey. And one criticism I will make about both extremes is that they both fail to understand the other&#39;s points. They are both right, and they are both wrong. Both camps stress out too much on this issue. Pro-choice should also speak strongly against the laws against marijuana and mushrooms, and pro-life should do something about the consumer-led depression that leads to so many suicides in this country. We&#39;ve in the last 35 years taken what was a small arguement in the last 4000 years, and made it into something that seems like it could spark the next civil war. a word to both: Relax.

[EwokUtopia]

One more question to spark debate.

A while ago in France, a pregnant woman (who wanted to keep her child) went in for a check-up. The doctor "accidentally" aborted the child, and the mother was, to say the least, somewhat emotionally upset about this. What, in your opinions, do you think should happen to the doctor?


Ive noticed that this forum is arguements between pro-choice moderates and radicals.

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 12:21 AM
One more question to spark debate.

A while ago in France, a pregnant woman (who wanted to keep her child) went in for a check-up. The doctor "accidentally" aborted the child, and the mother was, to say the least, somewhat emotionally upset about this. What, in your opinions, do you think should happen to the doctor?


Ive noticed that this forum is arguements between pro-choice moderates and radicals.
I don&#39;t think that&#39;s really going to start a debate... It&#39;s called malpractice. :blink:

On topic, women need to be the ones making these decisions. We can&#39;t ever be free from patriarchy when some bloke in Canberra (to use an Australian example), or a doctor (who are at this stage majority male, although the balance is shifting) is making these decisions for us, controlling what we can and can&#39;t do with our bodies.

Also, on the topic of doctors and advice; I think there&#39;s a very dangerous line to walk between giving information, advice and being paternalistic. If requested the doctor is obliged to give information, but they need to make it as value neutral as possible. Counselling is even more dangerous, I mean one of our more conservative ministers suggested that ALL women be given counselling pre-abortion. The idea there was to &#39;convince&#39;(coerce?) women not to go through with the termination. Good counsellors will never give advice, as such, but if it&#39;s made compulsory who knows?

[EwokUtopia]

Well no, they shouldnt flat out say it. If a friend came up to me and said she was pregnant and considering abortion, i wouldnt flat out say "dont get one" but rather, I&#39;d reassure her and tell her that most likely this problem isnt as big as it seems right now and that before she makes a decision, she needs to spend a good long time thinking about it. In the end, i think that is a more effective way of stopping an abortion from happening. not many here thinks that abortion is a good thing, just as not many are pro-abortion. However, there is a difference between thinking it is bad and thinking it should be outlawed. It isnt a jolly matter, and should be avoided at all costs. The difference between being for the choice and for abortion is different. Rational pro-choice people see it as an extreme last resort. Just like euthanasia. You don&#39;t ask the doctor to kill you when he says you have the flu and will be horribly sick for a month, thats absurd. and just as absurd is to use abortion as an alternative to condoms and the pill. The fact is that it isnt a matter to be taken lightly. Legalized abortion should serve as a safe alternative to back alley abortions, which arent a matter taken willy-nilly. What scares me is apathetic abortion. To terminate a pregnancy because it interferes with a job is not a good thing. Pregnancy matter more than some job. Especially nowadays where most labour is meaningless and just goes to support the consumer culture. People need to remember their priorities. Both father and mother should put any career on hold for a child. or is money suddenly worth more than humanity?



And if abortion is about being free to do with your bodies as you will, why are people fare mor apathetic to the fact that I can&#39;t smoke pot into mine? If I want to have THC in my bloody body, is that not my right? In all honesty, I really care about this issue a hell of alot more than i care about abortion rights or lack thereof.

[KC]

Legalized abortion should serve as a safe alternative to back alley abortions, which arent a matter taken willy-nilly. What scares me is apathetic abortion.

What scares me is people like you trying to tell people what is important and what isn&#39;t.


To terminate a pregnancy because it interferes with a job is not a good thing. Pregnancy matter more than some job.

So your opinion is the last say in everything? This is your opinion. This is not everybody&#39;s opinion. How about not pressing your opinions upon others? This is the problem.



Especially nowadays where most labour is meaningless and just goes to support the consumer culture. People need to remember their priorities. Both father and mother should put any career on hold for a child. or is money suddenly worth more than humanity?

To someone it might be. Who are you to decide what is important and what isn&#39;t?



And if abortion is about being free to do with your bodies as you will, why are people fare mor apathetic to the fact that I can&#39;t smoke pot into mine? If I want to have THC in my bloody body, is that not my right? In all honesty, I really care about this issue a hell of alot more than i care about abortion rights or lack thereof.


Of course it is your right.

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 03:44 AM

Legalized abortion should serve as a safe alternative to back alley abortions, which arent a matter taken willy-nilly. What scares me is apathetic abortion.

What scares me is people like you trying to tell people what is important and what isn&#39;t.


To terminate a pregnancy because it interferes with a job is not a good thing. Pregnancy matter more than some job.

So your opinion is the last say in everything? This is your opinion. This is not everybody&#39;s opinion. How about not pressing your opinions upon others? This is the problem.



Especially nowadays where most labour is meaningless and just goes to support the consumer culture. People need to remember their priorities. Both father and mother should put any career on hold for a child. or is money suddenly worth more than humanity?

To someone it might be. Who are you to decide what is important and what isn&#39;t?



And if abortion is about being free to do with your bodies as you will, why are people fare mor apathetic to the fact that I can&#39;t smoke pot into mine? If I want to have THC in my bloody body, is that not my right? In all honesty, I really care about this issue a hell of alot more than i care about abortion rights or lack thereof.


Of course it is your right.
Exactly. It&#39;s the fact that Ewok seems to think that abortions are ok in certain circumstances, and not in others, where it&#39;s really none of his business. Besides which, it&#39;s completely and utterly subjective; and in this case it&#39;s the woman&#39;s subjectivity that matters, not some random guy on a messageboard.

[EwokUtopia]

Agree to disagree?



I hate this topic, people get way too opinionated and I&#39;d be wrong to say I dont either.


It just sucks people into arguement. And yeah, I am just some guy on a post, so are you. Having opinionated arguements is terrible on the internet, I&#39;ve pissed plenty a friend off on the msn, and been plenty pissed off by others.



This does not happen in real life.

[rioters bloc]

i think cos in real life i&#39;m afraid ill kick the other person in the head.

i find it easier to argue in person. i don&#39;t know why, because i tend to stutter when i get overly excited or frustrated, and that frustrates me even more.

[Black Dagger]

But imagine if the consequence of that decision is that your entire life would be lived out with the regret of feeling that you murdered your own child.

Um... the phrase &#39;murdered your own child&#39; is hardly appropiate- you&#39;re implying that abortion is murder, which it is not, or which in the very least, is not a neutral way (it&#39;s &#39;pro-life&#39; rhetoric) of phrasing that point.



I do not think that people who are emotionally overwhelmed should be allowed to have abortions,

Why? People make a lot of decisions in life, big and small when they are &#39;emotionally overwhelmed&#39;- that doesn&#39;t make them bad decisions, it&#39;s kinda of hard to someone not feeling any emotions when deciding to have an abortion- but that hardly makes them incapable of making sound decisions. What you&#39;re in effect saying is that basically no women should be allowed to have an abortion, as i said, few would make the decision without emotion- so no one can&#33; And besides, how the hell can you this be determined? One must undergo a psych test before the the procedure? Well?



I&#39;m sure that their opinions would change if they got unexpectedly pregnant, but that would be an emotionally driven responce,

Or perhaps a rational one. Perhaps that they realise in this future context, that they cannot support a child- or perhaps they will fall &#39;unexpectedly pregnant&#39; via rape? You seem very determined to deny women the right to choose.



and I&#39;m sure that if they went through with an abortion, they would begin to regret it with the utmost despair you can imagine,

How are you &#39;sure&#39;? How can you foresee their future psychological-emotional state?



and as a friend to them, I would offer my support for them to not recieve one, just like I would take the keys away from a drunk friend.

Wow, what a great friend&#33; How about you support whatever decision they make instead of &#39;supporting&#39;/coercing them into your position?



Not every woman who recieves an abortion under stress regrets it, but also, not every person who drives drunk crashes.

And not every good boy deserves fruit, what&#39;s your point?



We stop our friends from making rash decisions they will regret, and abortion can be one.

Except despite your best efforts to equate women who get abortions to drunk drivers, it is not your place, and certainly not the role of a friend, to be unsupportive of another friends choice- particularly with something like abortion- that woman will need your support- emotionally etc- preaching about why she is making the wrong decision or otherwise coercing her to change her mind is paternalistic and unsupportive.



Right now I am thinking more for the sake of women than the sake of foetus&#39;s.

How&#39;s that? Your entire position revolves around how women shouldn&#39;t have abortions because they get to &#39;emotional&#39; to make rational decisions- their own decisions.



Also, they should not be forced to recieve one from a spouse or parent.

I agree, but your position is the inverse of that, you&#39;re saying that &#39;as a friend&#39;- you&#39;ll push them to not have an abortion, that&#39;s nearly as bad.



As for my opinions on the matter, I am both pro-life and pro-choice.

Explain how that is logically possible. &#39;Pro-choice&#39; (or pro-death?) means that the choice of having or not having an abortion should be up to the woman, fullstop. &#39;Pro-life&#39; (anti-choice?) means that women should not have be allowed to have abortions, because an abortion is &#39;murder&#39;. There is no logical way of being both of these at once without changing the orthodox definition of the terms, in which case you wouldn&#39;t be &#39;pro-life&#39; or &#39;pro-choice&#39;- you&#39;d be something else.


And one criticism I will make about both extremes is that they both fail to understand the other&#39;s points.

How is supporting reproductive rights for women an &#39;extreme&#39; position? People who are &#39;pro-choice&#39; not &#39;fail to understand&#39; anything, they understand the &#39;pro-life&#39; position completely- it means they&#39;re shouldn&#39;t be allowed to have abortions because abortion is &#39;murder&#39;- that&#39;s pretty straightfoward.



They are both right, and they are both wrong.

Explain.



Pro-choice should also speak strongly against the laws against marijuana and mushrooms, and pro-life should do something about the consumer-led depression that leads to so many suicides in this country.

No, they shouldn&#39;t. Because &#39;pro-choice&#39; and &#39;pro-life&#39; only have meaning in the context of abortion, that&#39;s where the terms originate and that is where they&#39;re applied. It&#39;s fallacious to criticise them for not supporting positions that have nothing to do with abortion- because that&#39;s the context they&#39;re using those labels to describe themselves. Being &#39;pro-choice&#39; doesn&#39;t mean you support the right for everyone to have a &#39;choice&#39; about everything, that&#39;s an absurd misrepresentation.



We&#39;ve in the last 35 years taken what was a small arguement in the last 4000 years, and made it into something that seems like it could spark the next civil war. a word to both: Relax.

Why should anyone &#39;relax&#39;? Abortion should be a matter of choice, anything else is an imposition of religious morals that have no place in a secular government, women should be able to control/make decisions that concern their own body- it&#39;s that simple. People who are &#39;pro-choice&#39; should not &#39;relax&#39; until complete reproductive rights are secured, at present they are not- so no &#39;relaxation&#39;- they still have rights to fight for.



I&#39;d reassure her and tell her that most likely this problem isnt as big as it seems right now and that before she makes a decision, she needs to spend a good long time thinking about it. In the end, i think that is a more effective way of stopping an abortion from happening.

Erm... you said, "i wouldnt flat out say "dont get one"- and then you say this? That&#39;s contradictory. You wont say &#39;don&#39;t get one&#39;- you&#39;ll just pressure them into making the decision you want instead? You slipped up when you said, "i think that is a more effective way of stopping an abortion from happening"- that is your position- you want to stop abortions, you don&#39;t support a womans&#39; right to choose at all.



not many here thinks that abortion is a good thing, just as not many are pro-abortion.

Abortion is not a &#39;good&#39; thing, but it a necesary thing, yes.



and just as absurd is to use abortion as an alternative to condoms and the pill.

I doubt many if any people actually do that, but why is that &#39;wrong&#39;?



Legalized abortion should serve as a safe alternative to back alley abortions, which arent a matter taken willy-nilly.

Abortion should serve as a way to terminate unwanted pregnancies, that&#39;s it.



To terminate a pregnancy because it interferes with a job is not a good thing.

Hardly. Some people, we&#39;ll call them the working class, need to keep working to survive. If one was to fall pregnant that might prevent this person from working for a considerable amount of time, and thus lose income/or the job itself. The pregnancy is thus in that context, unwanted, so the person gets an abortion.



Pregnancy matter more than some job.

Why? &#39;Some&#39; jobs help people pay their rent, buy food, support their family, survive. What&#39;s so important about giving birth?



Especially nowadays where most labour is meaningless and just goes to support the consumer culture.

How is labour &#39;meaningless&#39;? Selling your labour is how you survive in a capitalist society, what else are we supposed to do?



People need to remember their priorities. Both father and mother should put any career on hold for a child.

It&#39;s their choice, not yours, your attitude is very paternalistic.



or is money suddenly worth more than humanity?

See above about the need to survive.



And if abortion is about being free to do with your bodies as you will, why are people fare mor apathetic to the fact that I can&#39;t smoke pot into mine? If I want to have THC in my bloody body, is that not my right? In all honesty, I really care about this issue a hell of alot more than i care about abortion rights or lack thereof.

It&#39;s good to see you care about the opression of women. The legal status of cannabis has nothing to do with abortion, the &#39;if i can do X- why not Y&#39; arguments are meaningless.



Agree to disagree?

No. I support a womans right to choose, i&#39;m not going to &#39;agree&#39; with any other position, you should defend yours.



I hate this topic, people get way too opinionated and I&#39;d be wrong to say I dont either.

If you hate the topic so much you shouldn&#39;t have made such inflammatory posts, they were bound to cause controversy/discussion.

[drain.you]

Okay, sure its the pregnant woman&#39;s body but what about the man? He just has to accept that his &#39;lover&#39; is killing his child?
What gives a woman more rights over an unborn child than a man?

[rioters bloc]

i guess, i dunno, maybe the fact that her body is the one undergoing the surgery/giving birth? they can discuss it all they like, and i think that they should and it&#39;s healthy to, but ultimately she&#39;s the one carrying the child, she&#39;s the one who will have to go under the knife or go through hours of potentially painful labor, and if anyone&#39;s rights dominate, it&#39;s hers

[drain.you]

I don&#39;t think its either the man&#39;s or the woman&#39;s choice, it should be mutual in my view but I guess thats not always how it works out. Meh.

[rioters bloc]

in a relationship where both partners have the same expectations and the same views on what bringing a child into the world entails, it should be, but if there&#39;s a conflict who should get the final say? certainly not the man, and certainly not the government

[drain.you]

I agree on that, the government has no place in the family unit.

[Martyr]

I&#39;am Pro-life not from a religious stand point because there was a time when I went away from religion for awhile but still was pro-life, the real reson I&#39;am pro-life is because the soon to be baby will not have a future because of an abortion. The best way from preventing desperate,teen or just psychotic soon to mothers from having a baby is to educate them and teach them a different love and pull them out of that environment. I know for a fact that alot of things can happen in that moment but if education system would have programs that would help teach the youth of today on what it means to have a baby or to give it all up for someone then we would not have this problem of abortion.
Just my two cents.

[KC]

Sex-ed won&#39;t make the abortion question go away. You are avoiding the issue.

[EwokUtopia]

This is not a question of womans rights really, it is simply a question of what do you think a foetus is. If you think it is human, how could anybody justify abortion? Even the strongest femminist would not justify killing in the interest of womens rights (Susan B Anthony opposed abortion, she felt they were human). If you think they arent human, then of course a woman has a right to abort as it is no worse than clipping a toenail. If this was a womans rights issue, then I wouldnt know so many femminists who hate abortion. I also wouldnt know so many abusive men who support it. You say I am Paternalistic, your right, and a woman should be Maternalistic. Who here doesnt have a mother or father? Paternalism/Maternalism is essential to humanity. I am not speaking in your terms of "men should control everything" paternalism, my father is not like that at all, and thats really the root of the word paternalism- fatherhood. I am not patriarchal however. Many First Nations societys were maternalistic and I believe that they had a better way of life then we do. Bringing Religion into the Pro-Life camp is a low blow, and bringing femminism into the pro-choice camp is equally low. both are divorced from this subject. It is all a matter of your perception of humanity. Is a foetus a human? more to the point, is there anybody here who believes a foetus is a human that is ultimately pro-choice? I dont expect to convert anybody to my way of thinking, just as nobody will persuade me to theirs. This is simply supposed to be a forum of varrying opinions to get a better perspective of a tough issue with no ultimate answer. If you cant respect other viewpoints, then what do you want this to be? simply saying "oh i agree so much"? rather boring, now isnt it?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by EwokUtopia
Paternalism/Maternalism is essential to humanity.

Since you make no effort to define exactly what you mean by "paternalism" and "maternalism", I have no idea whether you&#39;ve made a true statement or a false one.

But there is a quaint tone to it...it "sounds like" something that someone would have said back around 1900 or so.

Human infants and children require considerable care prior to adolescence. No one would argue with that obvious truth.

As far as we know, human infants and children are indifferent to the source of that care as long as it is present in sufficient quantity and quality.

Do you imagine otherwise???

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[EwokUtopia]

Would you want to be raised in an orphanage? need i say "boy for sale"? By paternal/maternal i simply mean fatherly/motherly attributes of love, care, and nurture. I also believe that we should treat all people with these attitudes, however having respect for the more vast intelligence age brings.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by EwokUtopia
Would you want to be raised in an orphanage?

Orphanages under capitalism do not "raise" children, they warehouse them...just as "nursing homes" warehouse old people.

I think we could do better than that&#33;


By paternal/maternal I simply mean fatherly/motherly attributes of love, care, and nurture.

As a child, I would have gladly foregone the "love" in favor of respect.

I think you have a rather romantic view of the nuclear family. Sometimes, now and then, it still works out fairly decently. But over the years on this board, I&#39;ve read plenty of horror stories.

What seems to be happening is that the "old-style" human family is gradually breaking apart...it simply cannot "work" in a modern high-tech environment.

There is much speculation on what will replace it...but I think that everyone who has thought about it seriously understands that it must be replaced by something better.

Perhaps in the next five or ten decades we will have a better idea of what would really meet human needs.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[novemba]

YOURE ALIVE&#33; YAY&#33;

i know im probably late

[EwokUtopia]

Meh, I came from one of those families which gave me both love and respect. Sure there are plenty of horror stories, but I dont base my opinions on them because I havnt experianced them. To each their own I suppose. And I oppose the high-tech environment, its simply not natural, and must be destroyed before it destroys the world. allready we are breathing cancer. in essence, Fuck Industrialism.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 10:44 PM
YOURE ALIVE&#33; YAY&#33;

i know im probably late
Thank you. I am still somewhat surprised that I actually lived through two major hurricanes myself...especially with so many of my contemporaries dead from the various effects of the storms. It&#39;s now reported that the "official death toll" from Katrina is "anyone&#39;s guess"...but it was mostly old people (like me&#33;) who died.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 10:58 PM
Meh, I came from one of those families which gave me both love and respect. Sure there are plenty of horror stories, but I dont base my opinions on them because I havent experienced them. To each their own I suppose. And I oppose the high-tech environment, its simply not natural, and must be destroyed before it destroys the world. already we are breathing cancer. in essence, Fuck Industrialism.
Well, it&#39;s no wonder that your posts give off the air of some musty old book that no one has opened for a century or two.

Life in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina was very "low tech" indeed...and I&#39;ve never experienced anything closer to hell than that. I fervently wish that every primitivist could have "enjoyed" the experience.

If only you and they could have a first-hand encounter with "low tech living", I don&#39;t think we&#39;d ever again hear a single word from them on the subject.

Assuming you survived, of course. :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

And I oppose the high-tech environment, its simply not natural, and must be destroyed before it destroys the world. allready we are breathing cancer. in essence, Fuck Industrialism.

Fuck primitivism :angry:

[Lord Testicles]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 05:28 PM

And I oppose the high-tech environment, its simply not natural, and must be destroyed before it destroys the world. allready we are breathing cancer. in essence, Fuck Industrialism.

Fuck primitivism :angry:
i agree with NoXion, and id like to add if you oppose the high-tech enviroment why are you using a pc to post mesages on the internet?

[Martyr]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 04:42 PM
Sex-ed won&#39;t make the abortion question go away. You are avoiding the issue.
I know that but there are ohter alternatives to what happens if a women finds out if she is pregnant. And the fetus although not fully grown is still evolving into becoming a breathing species.

[KC]

I know that but there are ohter alternatives to what happens if a women finds out if she is pregnant. And the fetus although not fully grown is still evolving into becoming a breathing species.

That doesn&#39;t matter. Read this thread, and all of the other threads on abortion on this forum.