abortion [Archive]

3rd October 2005, 06:12

Im pro choice but what I would like to know is how far along should A women be before she can`t get an abortion.

Up until birth.

i think that it should be at any stage because its that womans decision if she wants to make the mental and physical commitment.

I agree.

People should be able to have a pro-life opinion if they want. Remember this IS a free country (well to an unfortunate extent).

They should be able to? They are able to. That doesn't mean we can't ridicule them for their choice.

I will say though that 3rd trimester abortions should be outlawed. Thats just wrong.

Why?

aye, what i ment by that was, we need to throw off these reactionary church ideals. i wouldnt hate someone because they were pro life but i think its a pretty dumb stance.

I can't stand pro-lifers because of their reactionary church ideals.

I am against conveniency abortions. The kind where a mother gets an abortion because it would ruin her chances at getting a better job.

And why isn't it her choice? Why does it matter why she wants to get an abortion? If she wants an abortion then let her have it! It's not like what's in her is human (yet).

It's this kind of selfish thinking that's ruining us! It's also this kind of thinking that exsists threefold in capitalist system. We shouldn't have to extinguish potential life just so others can live. It's wrong.

Extinguishing potential life so others can live is wrong? Why? That's completely different than saying "life" instead of "potential life." Also, wouldn't the problem then be capitalism and not abortion? Capitalism teaches people to be greedy. You should be against capitalism, not abortions.

As it stands though, that's the system we live in and it won't change anytime soon. If a true socialist/anarchist society ever came along, I won't support it under those circumstances.

Huh? You won't support it under what circumstances? And why not?

At some point the right’s of the unborn baby come into play though, I’m pro-choice there should be a limit to when they can have an abortion.

People that aren't born yet don't have rights. An unborn baby isn't a human. It is an extension of the mother.

Also what are the right’s of the father? Should a father have to pay child support if he didn’t want the baby? I don’t think he should have to, it’s not his body so he can’t force her to have an abortion but also why should his life be recked because of an unwanted pregnancy?

The father shouldn't have to pay child support if he didn't want the baby and there are options on how the mother can get rid of the child (i.e. abortion, adoption, etc...). I do, however, think that they should split the medical costs.

Mujer Libre

3rd October 2005, 07:12

I hate when people bring up third trimester abortions!

I mean, under normal circumstances ANY women would have had the abortion much earlier, I mean... before she's hugely pregnant, yeah? So we understand that third trimester abortions only occur in serious, often dangerous situations where NOT having the abortion could cost the mother's life. (or for other reasons, like being poor in a country with no public healthcare) So WHY outlaw them?

It's not like women are exactly queuing up to have a dangerous (more dangerous than normal early abortion anyway) procedure for the fun of it!

Edit: In case you can't tell I'm pro-choice. <_<

FleasTheLemur

3rd October 2005, 07:47

Originally posted by Lazar

Quote

I am against conveniency abortions. The kind where a mother gets an abortion because it would ruin her chances at getting a better job.

And why isn't it her choice? Why does it matter why she wants to get an abortion? If she wants an abortion then let her have it! It's not like what's in her is human (yet).

QUOTE

It's this kind of selfish thinking that's ruining us! It's also this kind of thinking that exsists threefold in capitalist system. We shouldn't have to extinguish potential life just so others can live. It's wrong.

Extinguishing potential life so others can live is wrong? Why? That's completely different than saying "life" instead of "potential life." Also, wouldn't the problem then be capitalism and not abortion? Capitalism teaches people to be greedy. You should be against capitalism, not abortions.

The matter of the fact is capitalism creates selfishness that I attribute to abortion.. Capitalism is the route of this problem and I'm totally against capitalism on all fronts. If I wasn't, I would have been banned to the OI. However, I can see why abortion might be needed in a capitalist society and as I said before even in a socialist/communist society I'd support abortions under certain circumstances. However, why would any rational thinking member of society support abortions under the 'better life' clause in a socialist/communist society?

Ultimately, yes. It's not up to me what a woman can or can't do with her body. It won't stop me from thinking it's a deplorable act comparable to the ‘abortions’ of Roman times.

3rd October 2005, 17:12

However, why would any rational thinking member of society support abortions under the 'better life' clause in a socialist/communist society?

Because it's the woman's right to do whatever she wants with her body. It's hers. What is inside her is hers. It's not another person until it's born.

FleasTheLemur

3rd October 2005, 19:25

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 04:43 PM

However, why would any rational thinking member of society support abortions under the 'better life' clause in a socialist/communist society?

Because it's the woman's right to do whatever she wants with her body. It's hers. What is inside her is hers. It's not another person until it's born.

When the child grows a brain---that's when it becomes a person.

We can all agree that when a child is born, that it's defiantly human. A child at this stage, however, seems incoherent... it's just a dependent clump of organs needing to cling for her parents for sustenance and survival. However, we realize the potential of our new baby girl. We understand that the brain that exists past her soft skull will enable her to develop rational, coherent thought and she'll develop many skills that surpasses all other adult animal species on Earth.

It's also universally accepted amongst the red and black as well as many other ideologies that limiting potential is ultimately wrong. When the capitalist orders a worker to toil his long hours in his cubical to the point that he can't raise his children properly; that's the limiting of human potential. When you end a life, that's the destruction of human potential.

I honestly believe that women should have rights, but what of those who cannot speak? What of infant's rights? We cannot cast them aside as if it was nothing just because the infant can't form ideas as coherent and concrete as ours.

In fact, the very nature of the English language is against abortion. Fetus in Latin literally means young one. Source The root word of abortion is 'abort', meaning to end. When you abort a mission, you're ending the mission. When you abort a fetus, you're killing a young one. You're destroying human potential.

When you argue for the right for women who destroy human potential, especially under the banner that it will lead them to a better life, then you should also argue for the capitalist who limits potential because by having the proles work for him, it leads him to a better life.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

3rd October 2005, 19:55

Originally posted by Mujer [email protected] 3 2005, 06:43 AM
I hate when people bring up third trimester abortions!

I mean, under normal circumstances ANY women would have had the abortion much earlier, I mean... before she's hugely pregnant, yeah? So we understand that third trimester abortions only occur in serious, often dangerous situations where NOT having the abortion could cost the mother's life. (or for other reasons, like being poor in a country with no public healthcare) So WHY outlaw them?

It's not like women are exactly queuing up to have a dangerous (more dangerous than normal early abortion anyway) procedure for the fun of it!

Edit: In case you can't tell I'm pro-choice. <_<
Quoted for truth.

gilhyle

3rd October 2005, 20:15

I am entirely pro-choice, without equivocation - as long as the State tries to use laws to ban - or, in particular, criminalise abortion as part of the attempt to limit the independence of women. Once that battle is won (and remember that in the U.K. it was won by deception), the issue arises of what standards society wants and third trimester abortions are a serious problem.

If/when it ceased to have a broader political significance (and in a society that guaranteed free access to efficient abortion facilities), the abortion of a foetus that could survive would be reprehensible.

Its a bit like banning women from working long days, as was done in the 19th century. That was a victory then. It would have been reprehensible to retain the ruling later if it became a basis for discrimination against women.

At the moment, society needs to give women an unfettered control over their own reproduction in order to wipe out the relations of domination and inferiority in which women have been chained. That need will not always be so pressing.

3rd October 2005, 22:54

When the child grows a brain---that's when it becomes a person.

Why a brain? Why not a heart? Why not lungs, etc...? Why not when the child develops consciousness?

We can all agree that when a child is born, that it's defiantly human.

When it is born it is a human, yes.

A child at this stage, however, seems incoherent... it's just a dependent clump of organs needing to cling for her parents for sustenance and survival. However, we realize the potential of our new baby girl. We understand that the brain that exists past her soft skull will enable her to develop rational, coherent thought and she'll develop many skills that surpasses all other adult animal species on Earth.

You might as well go over with pro-lifers then. They recognize that the moment of conception will eventually enable her to develop rational, coherent thought and she'll develop many skills that surpasses all other adult animal species on Earth.

It's also universally accepted amongst the red and black as well as many other ideologies that limiting potential is ultimately wrong. When the capitalist orders a worker to toil his long hours in his cubical to the point that he can't raise his children properly; that's the limiting of human potential.

So you are pro-life then? It doesn't say anywhere about how "limiting potential is wrong." You're comparing abortion to the capitalist system? What a frivolous analogy. That's like trying to compare apples and oranges on the basis that "they're both fruit."

When you end a life, that's the destruction of human potential.

Life hasn't even begun until the child is born.

I honestly believe that women should have rights, but what of those who cannot speak? What of infant's rights? We cannot cast them aside as if it was nothing just because the infant can't form ideas as coherent and concrete as ours.

We're not talking about mutes. We're not talking about infants. We're talking about fetuses. Unborn babies are not infants.

In fact, the very nature of the English language is against abortion. Fetus in Latin literally means young one. Source The root word of abortion is 'abort', meaning to end. When you abort a mission, you're ending the mission. When you abort a fetus, you're killing a young one. You're destroying human potential.

You're an idiot. Times have changed since these words were attributed to these objects.

When you argue for the right for women who destroy human potential, especially under the banner that it will lead them to a better life, then you should also argue for the capitalist who limits potential because by having the proles work for him, it leads him to a better life.

Honestly, that's insulting. Fuck you and your pro-life irrationality. A fetus isn't alive. It is a parasite. It fits the definition of a parasite. It is not a human. If you are against destroying human potential then you might as well be against periods, masturbation, anal sex, gay sex, gays in general, the death penalty, a revolution, any case where "human potential is limited." You're a fucking hack and people that spout this shit just piss me off. Fuck you.

Orthodox Marxist

3rd October 2005, 23:11

Pro choice the decision should be left up to the mother to decide whats right for her.

LSD

4th October 2005, 10:15

When the child grows a brain---that's when it becomes a person.

The "child" doesn't grow anything. The foetus in the mothers womb grows a preliminary brain, but it is still very much an organ of the mother.

And besides, why should the presence of a brain matter? Dogs have brains, fish have brains, dinosaurs had brains, but you don't seem as eager to extend societal rights to them.

We can all agree that when a child is born, that it's defiantly human.

Yes.

A child at this stage, however, seems incoherent... it's just a dependent clump of organs needing to cling for her parents for sustenance and survival. However, we realize the potential of our new baby girl.

Correct, we recognize that the child is a potentiary moral actor and is therefore afforded basic societal protections, although full societal rights don't come until later.

This child lives within society and is an implicit potential member, therefore society has a specific interest in protecting it. Because it exists within the moral framework of society and because it is developing asumedly inexorably towards participation in said framework, society grants protections in the interests of its future and its membership.

A foetus, however, does not live within society, it lives within the mother. It is, quite literally, part of her. Accordingly, society has no interest in affording distinct rights to it. A foetus is not a potential member of society, it is a potential potential actor. It is the precursor to a precursor and accordingly too far down the chain for society to interfere. Society has the same interests with regards to a foetus as it does with regards to human ovum. Both will result in a child given proper conditions, but neither is a child.

As long as the mother and foetus are physiologically indistinct, they are socially indistinct. Their interests are taken as a de facto whole and thereby the interests of the greater being, i.e., the mother, takes precedence.

It's also universally accepted amongst the red and black as well as many other ideologies that limiting potential is ultimately wrong.

No it isn't.

We all have the "potential" to commit acts of violence, but neither myself nor any other member of the "red and black" movement that I know has a problem with limiting the human "potential" towards murder.

Likewise, no one I know has a problem with allowing people to limit the "potential" of others to have sex with them. I, for instance, have the "potential" to fuck Julia Roberts. I can't, however, because she's "limiting" my "potential" to do so.

It's called controlling your own body.

When the capitalist orders a worker to toil his long hours in his cubical to the point that he can't raise his children properly; that's the limiting of human potential.

No it isn't, it's exploitation.

The problem with capitalism isn't that it "limits potential", it's that it exploits. It forces workers to provide their labours to others without reaping the substantial bennefits of said labours.

If anything, capitalism encourages "potential", it just doesn't compensate for it.

When you end a life, that's the destruction of human potential.

Again, no it isn't.

The word "potential" has several different meanings, you're misunderstanding them all.

When you end a human* life, you end that life. The only "potential" involved, is the potential actions which that human would have done had you not killed him. In other words, his future.

But he himself was in no way "potential", he himself was a member of society and his death is an act against society not because of his "potential" but because of his membership in said society, period.

I honestly believe that women should have rights, but what of those who cannot speak? What of infant's rights?

What "infant"? I thought we were taking about foetuses here, and foetuses have no rights.

In fact, the very nature of the English language is against abortion. Fetus in Latin literally means young one. Source The root word of abortion is 'abort', meaning to end. When you abort a mission, you're ending the mission. When you abort a fetus, you're killing a young one.

:lol:

Wow, etymology as biology?

It's a new one, I'll give you that!

Donnie

4th October 2005, 18:08

Originally posted by organic [email protected] 2 2005, 03:57 PM
I would like to know everyones opinion on the issue of abortion. My personal stance is that of free choice. I dont believe its my right to tell a woman what to do with her own body.

I would like to know everyones opinion on the issue of abortion. My personal stance is that of free choice. I dont believe its my right to tell a woman what to do with her own body.
I'm the same as you; pro choice.

FleasTheLemur

4th October 2005, 18:50

Beh. I knew I shouldn't have stated a primarily right wing opinion on a radical left wing message board about a very divided issue. Of course, I had to say something because I was tired of everyone parroting the same answer. The irony hasn't escaped me, however, that I'm parroting a lot of the same responses that someone of the right wing would answer to this rather divded question.

The matter of fact is, this is one of those issues that everyone can debate until we pass out from lack of oxygen. All we can do is point out the fallacies in HOW we're conducting our arguement and I do realize that my arguement for potential was an exercise in fallacy at best, (thanks, L.A.D.). Of course, I've never been a five star debater. While most thought processes jump into a car and drive on the highway, my thought process takes long narrowing hikes through the mountains and ultimately arrives at the same point most people arrived at three years ago.

Slow thinker? Yeah.

Dyslexic? More than likely.

Dumb? I have an IQ 120-125, according to those online IQ tests. Of course, considering that a few of those places supply such tests like "Are You a Good Lover?" than the relivence of those IQ test also comes into question (even "good" IQ tests have been attacked by psychologists). Considering that most people instantly relate all pro-lifers to bible-thumping, flag waving, homosexual hating, racists nynaderthals I could be a radical left wing thinker in all other fields and still be linked to the reactionaries and thus be called an idiot.

Honestly, that's insulting. Fuck you and your pro-life irrationality. A fetus isn't alive. It is a parasite. It fits the definition of a parasite. It is not a human. If you are against destroying human potential then you might as well be against periods, masturbation, anal sex, gay sex, gays in general, the death penalty, a revolution, any case where "human potential is limited." You're a fucking hack and people that spout this shit just piss me off. Fuck you.

I appolgize for being insulting. Attacking the oppossion either be comparison or directly never makes for a good debate. Calling you something comparible to a capitalist was out of line. I just hope we can return to a more neutral status and return to the much more important task of destroying capitalism.

adreamofequality

5th October 2005, 03:52

and people wonder why I'm so full of hatred and anger
It's cause some ***** killed my first son with a coat hanger-immortal technique

enough said

Xvall

5th October 2005, 04:28

I think it is ultimately the woman's choice. Not only do I not have a problem with abortion, I practically encourage it as a means of population control. Then again, I do not hold life in extremely high regard anymore.

5th October 2005, 05:46

and people wonder why I'm so full of hatred and anger
It's cause some ***** killed my first son with a coat hanger-immortal technique

enough said

Wasn't his choice. It wasn't his.

5th October 2005, 12:44

I am against conveniency abortions. The kind where a mother gets an abortion because it would ruin her chances at getting a better job.

wtf shouldn't women (not 'mothers', you're not a 'mother' unless you actually have a kid) make decisions about their bodies and themselves according to whats most convient for them?

It's this kind of selfish thinking that's ruining us!

When it comes to deciding who gets to use your body, whether its lovers, research scientists, friends who need organs, or fetuses, its percisely the time to be selfish!

It's also this kind of thinking that exsists threefold in capitalist system.

Um, no, capitalists think that they're entitled to a parasitic relationship where they *live off of* another person. You seem to think that fetuses are entitled to the same thing.

We shouldn't have to extinguish potential life just so others can live. It's wrong.

So i guess eating anything but fruit is wrong? Have to do it to live but it extinguishes other life!

When the child grows a brain---that's when it becomes a person.

Lots of things have brains that aren't treated as persons, but the point is really irrelevant. Even if the fetus was a full person you would still have every right to abort it because it would still be violating your rights.

Are you familier with Judith Thomson's "Violinist scenario"?

The scenario is basically this: You wake up in bed with some guy hooked up to you introveniously. You're told that he's a famous violinist with kidney failure and after checking medical records you're the only one in the area with the right blood type/whatever to help him. If he was disconnected from your circulatory system, he'd die, and it would only be for nine months at which point he'd have recovered sufficently to be safely disconnected...so you think you have the right to pull out your IV tubes and walk away from that f'ed up situation or you think you have the absolute obligation to walk around with a violinist attached to you for nine months?

I think most people would say that though the violinist is a full person with full human rights, he does not have the right to violate your right to personal liberity and control over your body so whether you want to put up with him is entirely up to you.

It's also universally accepted amongst the red and black as well as many other ideologies that limiting potential is ultimately wrong.

Um, no its not. We want to limit the potential for imperialist expansion, limit the potential for multinationals to control local economies, limit the potential for people to exploit each other, ect. Your statement makes no sense at all.

What of infant's rights? We cannot cast them aside as if it was nothing just because the infant can't form ideas as coherent and concrete as ours.

As in the "Violinist scenario" the infant doesn't have the right to violate other people's rights.

In fact, the very nature of the English language is against abortion. Fetus in Latin literally means young one.

Though that comment is completely irrelevant, i took three years of latin in school and i think fetus actually comes from a first declension word meaning fruitful, pregnant or full of something, especially used when talking about agriculture, from the root Fe. The words fecund, fecundity, and fertile in english come from this root. It is also used figuratively to refer to 'sucklings'...which gives us the english word fellatio :o .

When you argue for the right for women who destroy human potential, especially under the banner that it will lead them to a better life, then you should also argue for the capitalist who limits potential because by having the proles work for him, it leads him to a better life.

The 'limiting potential' stuff is entirely besides the point. The real issue is that capitalists live by taking advantage of, use, and exploit the workers as a resource. Likewise, fetuses live off the person whose womb they happen to be in, using them as an exploitable resource.

Redmau5

5th October 2005, 19:01

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 05:27 AM

and people wonder why I'm so full of hatred and anger
It's cause some ***** killed my first son with a coat hanger-immortal technique

enough said

Wasn't his choice. It wasn't his.
That's easy to say. Im totally pro-choice and I know I wouldn't have a say in what the woman does, but if whoever I was with got pregnant, I wouldn't want her to terminate it. However if she did decide to get an abortion, I wouldn't judge her whatsoever.

But I totally agree with a woman's right to choose.

Sir Aunty Christ

5th October 2005, 19:11

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 07:42 PM
That's easy to say. Im totally pro-choice and I know I wouldn't have a say in what the woman does, but if whoever I was with got pregnant, I wouldn't want her to terminate it. However if she did decide to get an abortion, I wouldn't judge her whatsoever.

But I totally agree with a woman's right to choose.
That's kind of how I feel too. If I were just in a casual relationship and got a girl pregnant, I wouldn't any expect any consultation if she decided to have an abortion but if we'd been in a relationship for some time, I least hope we'd talk about it.

Xvall

5th October 2005, 23:05

enough said

No, I'm sorry, but taking a quote from as song is not "enough" in a logical argument. Thank you, drive through.

violencia.Proletariat

5th October 2005, 23:11

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 11:33 PM
and people wonder why I'm so full of hatred and anger
It's cause some ***** killed my first son with a coat hanger-immortal technique

enough said
wow, immortal technique has some awfully reactionary lyrics, im not going to listen to him anymore. not only is that sexist comment but its also very very stupid on his part. if she is a "*****" why does he want to have a kid with her, and doesnt it seem like talking about having a kid is the right thing to do before you get her pregnant and then call her a ***** for having an abortion.

marxist_socialist_aussie

6th October 2005, 00:51

I have grown up with a mother who is an ardent feminist, a sister who taken after her and my lefty father who supports feminism, hence, obviously I am completely pro-choice. It is a women's body therefore, her right to chose. Simple as that. If people don't agree with abortion, then don't fucking have one but don't put your precious little ideals onto others who don't share them.

Commie Girl

6th October 2005, 03:26

Definately Pro-Choice

*Exodus

6th October 2005, 21:00

It is the woman choice and no one else's

Karl Marx's Camel

7th October 2005, 12:57

How about the baby's choice? If the child grows up, he or she can decide if they want to end their own life's, or not.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

7th October 2005, 13:04

The foetus (It's not a baby, dammit) doesn't get to make a choice any more than a cow gets to choose being made into leather and beef.

LSD

7th October 2005, 16:45

How about the baby's choice?

What about the sperm's choice when you wank off?

Reproductive cells don't have rights!

7th October 2005, 16:48

And there are millions of them too...male masturbation is genocide!

Sir Aunty Christ

7th October 2005, 16:59

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 05:29 PM
And there are millions of them too...male masturbation is genocide!
In that case, I'm a war criminal.

gilhyle

7th October 2005, 18:14

Always slightly interesting how this argument continues to get conducted in terms of 'rights' (a vocabulary of capitalism) and dodgy metaphysical arguments based on biological facts arbitrarily selected continue to get built up, as if political responsibility could be avoided by appealing to 'self-evidence'.

The pro-lifers choose the ground and the pro-choicers feebly try to play on it, in the hope of capturing the midde ground.

LSD

7th October 2005, 19:17

Always slightly interesting how this argument continues to get conducted in terms of 'rights' (a vocabulary of capitalism)

"vocabulary of capitalism"?

"Rights" proceed capitalism by millenia; they will exist long after capitalism is forgotten.

You may see the word "right" as bouregeois, but that's just petty semantics.

Rights are nothing more than societal protections afforded to the individual. The nature of these protections, the enfranchisement, the degree, the penetration, the saturation, etc.. they is all dependend on the society

They are also often controversial and, of course, many so called "rights" are indeed nothing more than the legitimization of exploitation, but calling rights themselves "bourgeois" or "capitalist" is just an excuse for tyranny and oppression. Rights exist, the only question is which ones exist and to whom to they apply.

and dodgy metaphysical arguments based on biological facts arbitrarily selected

Unfortunately dodgy metaphysics is all that the anti-abortionists have to offer and we are forced to rebut their "arguments".

as if political responsibility could be avoided by appealing to 'self-evidence'.

:huh:

Orthodox Marxist

7th October 2005, 19:19

Pro choicer's usually falls in to these categories

1.Belief that everyone should have the right to choose
2.Neutral opinion i.e dont care for various reasons
3Disgust with the pro lifer's

Black Dagger

8th October 2005, 07:24

What's your point?

gilhyle

8th October 2005, 14:19

It is correct that the concept of 'rights' precedes capitalism, but not as clearly as you might suggest. For example, 'the divine right of kings' is itself a product of the transition to capitalism . But that isnt the point. The point is that a concept of rights as self-evidently attributable to the individual is the vocabulary in which the relations of property (i.e. power to contract, equality before the law etc.) were generalised into a dominant ideology. It doesn't facilitate tyranny to refuse to base your arguments on the ideology of rights.

My point is that it is as ineffectual to say that women should have the power to choose because the foetus is located entirely within their bodies as it is to say that abortion is murder just because the foetus looks human.

Pro choice is correct because society is better place where women have this power than if they don't.

LSD

8th October 2005, 15:35

For example, 'the divine right of kings' is itself a product of the transition to capitalism .

Nonesense.

The pharaohs claimed semi-divinity long before the emergence of capitalism. The "rights" claimed by the Roman aristocracy are as complex and layered as any by the late middle age kings and nobles.

The "divine right" claimed by post-rennaisance kings is functionaly identical to the rights claimed by Sumerian lords and Babylonian Emperors.

The point is that a concept of rights as self-evidently attributable to the individual is the vocabulary in which the relations of property (i.e. power to contract, equality before the law etc.) were generalised into a dominant ideology.

They were the dominant force in pratice if not ideology for a long time before that. The generalization of individual rights just constrained their power.

Property has been the stratifying force in social relations for all of post-neolithic society. Individual rights did not invent power dynamics, they checked them.

It was Sumerian individual rights that said that even if I had more property, and hence more power, then you I still could not kill you without paying some penalty for it. It was Greek individual rights that said that even if you were a nobleman and me a peasent, I still had the right to a trial.

Rights emerged as a means to balance the natural inequality caused by property, not the other way around.

My point is that it is as ineffectual to say that women should have the power to choose because the foetus is located entirely within their bodies as it is to say that abortion is murder just because the foetus looks human.

No it isn't.

The former is a valid argument, the latter is superstitious garbage.

Society has an obligation to protect all of its members, if the foetus were such a member then society would be required to protect it. It is, therefore, requisite that we establish whether or not a foetus is such a member.

It's the paramount question on the issue of abortion. Ignoring it in favour of some nebulous "better place" argument is shoddy at best and fascistic at worst.

Dismissing the issue of whether or not an action constitutes willfull murder is unjustidiably negligent. There is simply no question more important than that and not answering it is not an option.

Pro choice is correct because society is better place where women have this power than if they don't.

And Mussolin imade the trains run on time.

Arguments for the abstract "betterment of society" are always intrinsically dangerous because it always comes down to who gets to define society and who gets to define betterment.

Slavery, after all, made society a "better place" for those in the elite. In the American South, slavery was, arguably, good for society as a whole. It was certainly good for the white majority.

If helping society in the abstract is all that matters then enslaving 49% of the population is accetpable so long as 51% bennefit.

That's not leftism, it's fascism.

Society is nothing more than the collective whole of its membership. To truly bennefit society, you must bennefit the entire society individually. You are correct in that permitting abortion is better for this membership, but the real question is why?

Is it better because it means less pregnant women? No.

Is it better because it means less children? No.

Is it better because it affords control over ones own body? Yes.

Abortion helps society because it helps the individual. Because it respects the individual rights of the mother. Unfettered abortions allow mothers to excersize control over themselved and accordingly live their lives as they see fit. It allows them to pursue their own interests and hence maximize their happiness and well-being.

It respects their rights as fully as possible.

In the end, that's the only reason society exists.

It doesn't facilitate tyranny to refuse to base your arguments on the ideology of rights.

It depends on what you base it on instead.

So far you've argued from a "betterment of society" paradigm which, aside from being hopelessly vague, does indeed tend to facilitate tyranny.

gilhyle

8th October 2005, 18:50

Your right about one thing - arguments about social betterment don't protect us from distortion by those who can control the dominant conception of what is best for society. But that is the ground I am happy to argue on because I don't think there is any alternative approach which somehow binds my opponent. Furthermore, I reject the alternative approach based on rights because the argument about bodily integrity is arbitrary. Apparently it seems self-evident to you, but it is not to me......thus you and I are reduced to irrational counterposition because you have relied on an arbitrary principle ...... and you worry that my form of argumentation leaves the door open for fascism and tyranny?

Of course you can find concepts and practices akin to those of the modern conception of 'rights' as far back as you want to go. But most of those are actually concepts of priviledge, whether the priviledge associated with elite citizenship (city states) or divinity or class or caste. It is an anachronism to assimilate those to the concept of the 'rights' attaching to the individual qua individual that emerged in the Enlightenment and that de-classed conception of 'rights' (i.e. priviledges common to all humans or all citizens of a nation). Why did that movement emerge: essentially to argue for the rights of property before the courts in the form of the equal right of all bearers of property to be heard and considered equally without regard to class origin.

The desire to formulate political argument in terms of 'rights' comes from the wish to hoist the capitalist state on its own petard - since inconsistency never bothered a dominant ideology, the effort usually fails.

Strange is it not, that I am happy to argue that a society where women control their own bodies is a better society, and you (apparently) find that argument weak ?

LSD

8th October 2005, 21:02

Furthermore, I reject the alternative approach based on rights because the argument about bodily integrity is arbitrary.

How so?

thus you and I are reduced to irrational counterposition because you have relied on an arbitrary principle

How is the concept of individual rights "arbitrary"?

It's nothing more than the premise that each member of society, by virtue of being a member of society and pursuant to the sole purpose of society, namely maximizing the bennefit of its members, is afforded fundamental protections and liberties by that sociery such as to allow them maximum freedom, autonomy, and personal happiness.

The nature and extent of those rights can be logically debated such that they indeed optimize these variables while minimizing the harm caused to others in the process.

From this paradigm, we can rationaly determine why one political system is preferable and another is not.

If we come at it from the paradigm of "bettering society" we cannot do this, because the "beterring" of a so abstract and grosse a concept like "society" is always subjective. Not to mention that if we dismiss the individual we are left with an environment in which the minor gain of the majority is worth the serious deteriment of the minority.

Unless we organize based on the premise of individual protections, we are only asking for oppression of one sort or another.

Of course you can find concepts and practices akin to those of the modern conception of 'rights' as far back as you want to go. But most of those are actually concepts of priviledge

Now you're splitting hairs.

Of course antiquity concepts of rights were rudimentary and strongly laced with class and priviledge, but they were nonethless present.

More importantly, however, I would contend that this discussion is irrelevent anyways. It genuinely doesn't matter when rights emerged as a leading concept, what matters is their incredible use as a pradigm for determing social legislation.

Rights are an eminently useful short-hand for referring to the obligations of society to the individual. If you don't like the word, because it strikes you as too "bouegoie" or "enlightenement", you can always pick another, but the concept is indispensible. You with your "better society" model have not provided a remotely realistic alternative.

The desire to formulate political argument in terms of 'rights' comes from the wish to hoist the capitalist state on its own petard

Nonsense, it comes from a desire to maximize societal well-being through bennefitting the individual.

You may see this as using capitalist language against itself, but the same argument could be made for communist societies using industry. Nonetheless, no one (aside from whack-job primmies) is proposing that we give up technology in a post-capitalist society.

Rights, as they exist now, may indeed have largely emerged from the enlightenment. Certainly the concept of univeral or semi-univeral sufferage did. So what? It's nonetheless a useful concept.

A post-capitalist society needs a paradigm like it if it is going to survive. A recognition of implict societal obligations to the individual is essentia if any such society is going to survive.

I'm not saying that that paradigm will take the form of "rights" in their present form, but it will certainly be something very similar.

Rights are not going anywhere anytime soon.

Strange is it not, that I am happy to argue that a society where women control their own bodies is a better society, and you (apparently) find that argument weak ?

What I find weak is your failure to justify that argument. To say why abortion makes society better.

Again, arguing that something "betters society" without providing an explanation for what it is precisely that constitutes both "society" and "betterment" is a dangerously vague proposition.

Without speaking in terms of the individual mothers, how do you rationally determine what is "better" and what is "not"? What are the variables you are examining?

Treating society as an object is the first mistake of the "benevolent" despot; "helping" the whole by oppressing the few.

It's what Lenin did, it's what Stalin and Mao tried to do, in many ways it's what Hitler tried to do.

These were not subjectively "evil" men. They saw themselves as helping "society" because they saw society as an objective whole that could be "bettered" in and of itself.

Well, they failed and they failed because they didn't recognize that society, at qua, does not exist. It is nothing more than the people that make it up. If you do not respect them individually, you cannot respect them en masse.

One cannot "better society", one can only only better people. If you do it right, you've bettered society. But at least if you do it wrong, you haven't oppressed it.

leocon

9th October 2005, 11:36

See here....me sees why the God factor is SO important to the human race!
Without a God there are NO ABSOLUTES! I am the "god" of my world and so I might as well take a gun and shoot the guy in front of me in the cue so that i can get through and pay for my goods sooner!

It disgusts :angry: me to see the lack of pure love for human life. Not just here on this site, but in society in general. Some of you are real sick to think that its ok to "abort" a baby up until its born (I saw "lazer" making those statements, just gross). Are you so blinded by your own ignorance of the internal afairs of this Earth? My God, this world is gowing downhill FAST...................>!

But to hear some (very few) stand out from the masses and say that you are pro-life, THAT is music to my ears.

You see I believe that God made the world and you and me too! I also believe that God made us to enjoy life and especially the one thing in life that is pro-ductive...SEX!
God said "Be ye fruitful and multiply and replenish the Earth". In other words God was telling the forst man and woman created to go and have sex so that there would be more little baby humans! So I am all for obeying that command and 2 months ago me and my wife (we were married in July 2005) had a beautiful baby girl. She is a handful but we would never turn back and wish she had never "happened".

God Bless you who knowingly, or unknowingly, fullfil Gods commandment to have sex (sex with a purpose of course, that being child bearing).

;)

LSD

9th October 2005, 13:42

It disgusts me to see the lack of pure love for human life.

This isn't about "pure love", it's about society and its purvue for interference.

You can feel free to love any damn thing you want to, including a collection of cells inside a mother's womb. But that "love" does not give you the right to interfere in her right to control her own body.

If you want to tell a woman that she does not have the right to complete self-sovereignty, you need to provide logical argumentation.

Your "love" doesn't cut it.

Some of you are real sick to think that its ok to "abort" a baby up until its born

No, we're just rational. You might want to try it one day.

You see I believe that God made the world and you and me too!

So much for being rational... <_<

I also believe that God made us to enjoy life and especially the one thing in life that is pro-ductive...SEX!

And that belief is based on what exactly? "Faith"? :lol:

violencia.Proletariat

9th October 2005, 14:26

It disgusts :angry: me to see the lack of pure love for human life.

a fetus is not alive

Are you so blinded by your own ignorance of the internal afairs of this Earth?

internal afairs of this earth? well what else are we supposed to be worried about? have you been seeing aliens?

But to hear some (very few) stand out from the masses and say that you are pro-life, THAT is music to my ears.

whos not pro life here? we dont want people dieing if they dont have to. but a fetus isnt alive

God Bless you who knowingly, or unknowingly, fullfil Gods commandment to have sex (sex with a purpose of course, that being child bearing).

i thought people had sex because it felt good ;) am i missing something? oh i get it now, people only have sex to please god :lol:

gilhyle

9th October 2005, 18:00

The basic point about rights being a modern idea is not controversial. See, for example,
http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/GLOSSARY/RIGHTS.HTM

It seems to me the guarantor of womens' capacity to control their own bodies is not any forceful argument that anyone makes but their own ability to fight for that power. I haven't bothered to articulate the arguments for why society is a better place with women having such power, because I'm talking to a board that shares that belief.

Whether appealing to God or to some utillitarian standard of the sum of individual benefits or arguing that foetus' are not alive is all just unsustainable metaphysical speculation, doesn't add anything constructive, it only weakens the argument by making it (and those who make it) vulnerable to artifically rationalist artifices that can be turned against women as easily as operate in their favour.

But it is clear that many who share a pro-choice view do so for many different reasons, many I would consider bad...but with a good outcome.

LSD

9th October 2005, 18:19

Whether appealing to God or to some utillitarian standard of the sum of individual benefits or arguing that foetus' are not alive is all just unsustainable metaphysical speculation, doesn't add anything constructive

Of course it does.

Not the former that is, the trash about "God" is indeed utterly useless. But establishing whether or not a foetus is in a protected class of individuals is absolutely essential for determing social obligations and responsibilities.

I agree that we have no need for the "metaphysical" nor for "speculation". But your hyperbolic name-calling aside, logical utilitarianism on individual benefits is precisely what we are here for. It's why we are communists, it's why society exists, and it's why we struggle to change it.

it only weakens the argument by making it (and those who make it) vulnerable to artifically rationalist artifices that can be turned against women as easily as operate in their favour.

That's a ludicrous statement.

Any rational argument is "vulnerable" to the "artificially rationalist". Does that mean that we should abandon reason in favour of subjective emotionalism?

The argument is only weakened if the argument is weak. The mere act of presenting a case does not make that case suspect. To argue such defeats the entire purpose of logical dialogue.

Affording societal rights over ones own body can be objectively determined to be benneficial. Likewise, a right to security of person is demonstrably a requirement for any sustainable just social model.

The individual must be protected by society as it is the sole reason for partaking in said society in the first place.

Accordingly, if the foetus were a person and member in society, that person would be deserving of protections by society even if such protections could be demonstrated to not be in the lesser interests of the mother or of "society" in the abstract whole.

That's how society works, it balances. I, for instance, would personally bennefit more if I had five or six slaves to do all my work for me. My material objective living standard would be undoubtable improved. My happiness, however, must be sacrificed on this front because any potential slaves have individual rights to not be used in such a manner.

So it would be, as well, if the foetus were classifiable as a societal person.

That is why it is important to establish these details you so callously call "metaphysical". Because the nature of society is that it is essential that we determine precisely who has protections and what those protections are.

Sacrificing the entire language of "rights" and "securities" in favour of some nebulous "betterment of society" paradigm, again, is simply not a realistic option. Forget dispensing with the metaphysical, what you're proposing is nothing short of utter subjectivism.

Without what you call "individual utilitarianism", we all have nothing.

But it is clear that many who share a pro-choice view do so for many different reasons

Why one has an opinion does not matter, how they justify it does.

People come to personal conclusions for all sorts of reasons, many of them emotional and subjective. These personal concerns are of no importance. All that matters is how "beliefs" and contentions can be logically argued.

If a position is rationaly tennable and logically robust, it should be adopted; if it is not, then it should not be.

It may strike you as cold or unfeeling, but it's a hell of a lot better than the emotionalist alternative.

9th October 2005, 21:20

oh i get it now, people only have sex to please god laugh.gif

And you know, He watches everything! Sick bastard.

gilhyle

11th October 2005, 18:35

Guess I'm just a bit too much of a Marxist to be that kind of a utillitarian. I suport a women's right to choose WITHOUT doing the accounts on which option maximises the sum total of benefits to the greatest number of people.

LSD

11th October 2005, 18:41

Guess I'm just a bit too much of a Marxist to be that kind of a utillitarian.

I doubt that Marx would approve.

I suport a women's right to choose WITHOUT doing the accounts on which option maximises the sum total of benefits to the greatest number of people.

And what "accounts" are you doing instead?

You still need to have reasons for your decision, hopefully rational and articulated ones. I suppose you could rely entirely on emotion and subjectivism, but there's nothing useful and there's nothing "Marxist" in that.

It's called scientific socialism because it's scientific, that means based in logic. Utilitarianism, cold hard numbers and figures, may not be as "sexy" as believing "WITHOUT", but unlike the alternative it actually works.

Gnosis

11th October 2005, 23:22

"God" is a name, a lable which stands for the entire universe as one.

Yes God created men and women and the Earth.
But more than that, God IS men, women, and the Earth.
God is everything, every process, every thought, every emotion, every life and every death.
God is not only life, but God is death, for to live is to be dying, and to be dying is to be alive.
And to be dead is to be living, and to be living is to be adead.

And God is the tool which impregnates the female, and God is the idea of aborting the foetus, and God is the tool which extracts that foetus, and God is the labratory in which that foetus is experimented on and God is the process of cloning and God is the clone.

It is the will of God, for it is the will of men and women, to abort a foetus for any reason or purpose.
Just as it is the will of God that we should recreate our selves, it is the will of God that we should ultimately disintegrate and return to the Earth-womb from wence we came.

To say that God is to have sex is not untrue at all, but neither is to say that God is to kill.

God is to kill as God is to die.

If God was not to kill, then nothing would ever die, and in effect nothing would ever live.

In this way, change is stability, for if but one of the wheels of the Works was to stop turning, the entire machine would fail to move and in failing to move, fail to be, for one may not be without motion.

Is it not obvious that all points of view are correct?

Do as you will for the only person you will ever have to answer to is yourself.

And if you agree with yourself and your will is pure you should find peace in whatever decision you are to make.

And in being at Peace with yourself and your interactions with your self, you may find Joy and Love in all that you do. And if that Joy and that Love be honest, you may attain Trust in yourself to always be right and to always do the right thing.

"Right" and "wrong" are essentially the same concept in that they are both used to describe the same thing, it is a matter of perspective and perception which seperates them into what they mean.
Your perspective and your perception combine to form your opinion or point of view.
And your opinion of the reality before you is always correct as it is the opinion of God.
God is "right" or God is "wrong", the truth is in your point of opinion.

If you believe an action is the correct action to take, then so be it, for it is your will and your will is correct if you will it so.

12th October 2005, 02:08

"God" is a name, a lable which stands for the entire universe as one.

"The universe" is a name which stands for the entire universe.

Yes God created men and women and the Earth.
But more than that, God IS men, women, and the Earth.
God is everything, every process, every thought, every emotion, every life and every death.
God is not only life, but God is death, for to live is to be dying, and to be dying is to be alive.
And to be dead is to be living, and to be living is to be adead.

God doesn't exist.

And God is the tool which impregnates the female

God is a penis?

and God is the idea of aborting the foetus, and God is the tool which extracts that foetus, and God is the labratory in which that foetus is experimented on and God is the process of cloning and God is the clone.

...

God doesn't exist.

Simotix

12th October 2005, 02:13

Although the conversation topic has shifted I thought I would throw in some views.

Anyone is under the position to get an abortion. However, people will begin to say 'Well what if your mother got an abortion, you wouldn't be here'. No, that is correct. However, it is not the conceiving that makes the person - It is the society that makes the person. Your life is based off of the way you were brought up and the way society has formed it into the current state that it is now in.

If the male does not want the child he should not have to pay child support. Whiled I am a little fenced on this issue, it would not be in the fairness for the man to have to pay for an investment that he did not want to be suitable for. However, in order for this to be in effect the male must have shown that he was in some shape or form trying to prevent the birth of the illegitimate child of his. (ie: Condom)

Who pays for the abortion? They split the cost. It is not fair to just have the women pay for it.

Gnosis

12th October 2005, 13:43

Obviously "God" is not the only lable one may attach to the universe as one body, but in order to make the point I was aiming for it was the most appropriate language to use.

Insert the words "The universe" in every spot where I used the word "God" and the meaning of my last post will have changed only in so much as you define "The universe" and "God" in seperate ways.

The universe is everything, everything is the universe.

All is one under God, the universe.

And when it comes to whether or not God exists, it is not incorrect to say that it does not.
If non-existence exists, which one might assume it does not as non-existence is by nature non-existent, then one would, if he so chose, be able to explain that form of nature as being just as much God as everything else.

But I've never experienced anything which does not exist, and I can't say I have ever not existed, and so I cannot judge either way whether God exists or does not.

In the case of God existing, I cannot say that it does for though I am sure I and all around me exist, I have nothing outside myself and my surroundings to compare to that would allow me to determine whether or not existence actually is or is not anything.

With out a point of reference to exist in relation to, does anything exist at all?

How can we say we exist if there is no non-existence to be non-existent and in turn give us the point of reference we need to accurately judge ourselves "existent" in relation to?

Anyone is under the position to get an abortion. However, people will begin to say 'Well what if your mother got an abortion, you wouldn't be here'. No, that is correct. However, it is not the conceiving that makes the person - It is the society that makes the person. Your life is based off of the way you were brought up and the way society has formed it into the current state that it is now in.

I must urge the author of this point to learn better the english language.
It is very hard to understand what might be a perfectly valid point when you confuse the heck out of the reader by using phrases like:
"No, that is correct"
And you jump from one point to the next without much transitioning and that makes yyou hard to follow as well.
You might have a point in your first sentence, but you could have chosen words which would have been more effective in portraying the image you wish to communicate.
I would have said "Any woman is in the position to have an abortion".
It is more appropriate to say "In the position" rather than "Under the position".
Maybe if you wanted to use the word "under" you could say " Within any woman are the conditions under which an abortion may take place."
That elaborates even further who it is we are talking about and what it is they are doing or having done to them.
The words "No, you are correct" take the reader right out of the context of the quote.
Who is the "you" that you are talking to?
I thought you were talking about "People will begin to say..."
Maybe you could insted use these words " I have heard many people say, "What if your mother got an abortion, you would not be here today if she did".
And then instead of confusing the reader, you could either agree with that point, not agree with it, or not show any opinion as to its meaning at all.
If you wish to say that is correct, then say so, but don't disagree with it first.
What are you agreeing with, the fact that the quote is correct, or the fact that you disagree with the quote?
And when you go on to say "However..." it is like you are saying "inspite of the fact that if your mother had had an abortion that you would not be here, your conception does not make you a person, but instead it is society which makes peope"
This may be true, but what I observe is to points attempting to be expressed in the same sentence without seperation where thereshould be seperation.
This coud mean either you don't know what you are talking about, or that you mind works so quickly that you can't type one point fast enough before the next one wants to jump out of your mind and so you try to compensate but its just not working.
And so instead of picking the rest of your post apart piece by piece, I will assume that you understand what I mean and give this advice to you: Slow down, decide what it is you believe, and take the time to formulate seperate sentences for seperate opinions on seperate topics.
I think you are probably reletively intelligent and so I hope I do not make you feel less than so by analyzing your work.
I felt like you could benefit from some healthy, constructive critisism before the hungrey jackles of this site find you and tear you and your opinion to shreds leaving nothing behind but the tired, rotting frame of what once was a person called "exoity".
I mean it, these kids don't care, they will kill you if you are not strong enough.

One more thing:

If the male does not want the child he should not have to pay child support.

I would love to hear you elaborate more fully and more understandaly on this opinion.
I do not agree with you and I think we could have a swell debate if you're up for it.
This is my stance:

I grew up without a father. He was a drunk and a druggie and used to beat my mother. He never wanted children, but she ended up giving birth to me and my brother because she does not believe in abortions a the correct way to go about raising children.
My father left when I was three and did not come back for five years.
In those five years he never paid child support and my mother, brother, and I lived in a poor neighborhood in a shitty apartment with barely enough food because my mother is deaf and cannot perform many jobs which might pay her more than minimum wage.
Winters were cold, and we never had enough of anything.
I have stomache problems but we could barely afford the foods I needed.
My brother and I were constantly in the care of baby sitters and day cares which were not (in my opinion) suitable for the care of children.
I lost half of my finger when I was thirteen months old because no one was paying attention to me when I was playing with a door hinge.
We could have used a little help, but instead of feeding his children, his own seed made manifest, my father was off in California fucking hookers and having a fuckin great time with heroin and coke.
He eventually came back nd faced his responsability like a man,m but it was too late, I was already full of hate and mistrust.
I had never had a positive male role modle in my life becasue he Did Not Want Me.
I never had enough clothes or food because my creator Did Not Want Me.

Do you know how that feels?
I don't care about money, but to be not wanted by your own creator...

Is that your stance when saying abortion is correct?
Should my mother aborted me because my father said he did not want me?
Should they not have had sex in the first place?
Should my fathers mother have had an abortion?

What should have been done is now irrelevent, here I am and thats my story.

It was my mothers right to choose whether or not to keep me.
When I was younger I used to say she should have had an abortion, and that hurt her more than anything else because she gave up every freedom, every thing she could've done without me, just to see tha I survive and become who I am today.

My father could not be so selfless.

Having a child is a test of character, of the strenghth it takes to give up everything for the love of a child which you have created.
How a man reacts to such a test is an ultimate judge of the strenghth of his character and his will to be selfless.

I do not believe men who are too immature or selfish to face up to their own responsability should be allowed to flurish under law.
If you are to make it more possible for any man who wants no child to get a woman pregnant and leave her without halping her you are making more possible a failure of a society.

That is not to say a man should be forced into making payments, that is to say men should not have sex with women unless they are fully prepared for the natural consequences.
And women should not have sex with any selfish, immature men who might not stick around if she was to choose to keep a baby if she got pregnant.

It is the choice of the parents to have sex and to risk pregnancy.
If the risk was not there in the first place, if people made better descions, if people were more responsable in the first place as well as after the fact of birth, we might be bette off as a whole.

Simotix

12th October 2005, 16:52

I know of a women that wanted a baby, but the father did not want the child. They often had sex, however, she was on the pill. The father that did not wanted the child so he continued to use a condom, as a precautionary. Needless to say, she ended up becoming pregnant by some chance and the father had a blood test so it can be confirmed that it was his child. The test was positive.

In this situation I believe that the father should not have to pay child support.

I also grew up without a father and without a mother. I was taken away from my mother by Divice when I was 10 (along with me sister) after my mom could not keep a job and battled alcoholism for years. My father was on Worst Dads in America.

Constructive criticism is always welcome.

gilhyle

12th October 2005, 20:52

An argument was posted about the nature of Marxism, as follows:

"It's called scientific socialism because it's scientific, that means based in logic. Utilitarianism, cold hard numbers and figures, may not be as "sexy" as believing "WITHOUT", but unlike the alternative it actually works."

The question is about how the historical methodology of Marxism is incompatible with the rationalisations promoted by utillitarianism and what the historical methodology of Marxism does to political calculation.

I'm happy to discuss it. But its a big topic and too far off the abortion issue to take up here. It would need a separate thread.

Gnosis

13th October 2005, 00:21

My interpretation:
The man did not want any children, but he did want sex, and so he used a condom and had sex with a woman using the pill.
The precautions failed and she kept the child.
He still does not want children, and so it is your opinion that he should not be forced into paying for it because he never wanted it in the first place.

Hm.

This activity disturbs me.

First of all, a person who has sex with another person whom they would never consider having or raising a child with is in my opinion irresponsable, reckless, and a danger to society.
They are irresponsable because they refuse to take responsability for the consequences or the possible consequences of their actions.
They are reckless because they do not consider the consequences of their actions other than the consequence of orgasm. They want to orgasm and they don't care about the risk involved so long as they get what they want.
They are a danger to society because they are the types of people who breed carelessly without any thought before hand. That type of breeding is one cause of overpopulation, and overpopulation is the cause of almost all modern human suffering. (or at least my human suffering)
They are unconsciously diminishing the quality of the human race while at the same time turning up the volume of the quantity.
They are a danger to the life they create, as this type of person is not capable of raising a child to be any better than they are, and unless that child realizes its potential or its nature on its own it is doomed to fail in the exact same ways as its parents.

The human race is a plague upon the earth.
The majority of humans are unconscious, they do not consider the actions of their consequences because they do not know what those consequences are.
It could be said that they don't even know what their actions are.
I want to blame them, I want to be desgusted and I want to hate them, but I cannot.
I know better than to blame them, they are the victims of circumstance.
They are the victims of a system which demands their unconsciousness so that it may use them to complete its ultimate war vision.
I want to say they are wrong, but they are not.
They are not right, but they are not wrong.

That being said, and after a few moments more consideration, I must agree with you.
I do not believe any one should ever be forced into doing anything they do not wish to, and that includes paying money to an unwanted child.
I do believe everything happens for a reason, and that includes a child being abandoned by its father.

However, I do not like the idea of one having sex with a person they would not consider raising a child with, even if one does take precautions and consider abortion an option.

That is not to say one should refrain from having sex before "marriage" or anything traditionally considered "moral" like that, it is to say that one should really consider their feelings for the person they are sharing their body with and really take responsability for their self and the self of the person they are sleeping with.
And by "taking responsability for the self" I mean making sure you and the person you are sharing the most intimate human experience with are both physically, mentally, and emotionally healthy enough to take on any task which might come your way so that any task which might come your way is dealt with equally by both people involved and in a way which is in the best interest of all.

It is not a sin to have sex for the sake of superficial pleasure. It can be a rewarding experience indeed.
But having sex simply for pleasure without discrimination or thought before hand or discussion before hand, or even a healthy friendship before hand is some what irresponsible in my eyes.

This time in history is not the time to be reproducing and then abondoning your young.

The act of getting a woman pregnant and then expecting her to get an abortion when she does not want to is just as unjust as not allowing a pregnant woman the option of abortion if she wants one.

When it comes down to it, it truely is the pregnant woman's responsability to choose what she will do with her body and everything inside it.
No man can take that responsability away, as no man can ever be pregnant in place of a woman.
However, a man has alot of influence over the woman he loves if she loves him back.
She will talk to him if their relationship is healthy. She will consider his point of view if her mental and emotional states are healthy.
And he will understand her point of view and allow her to know that it is ultimately her decision, and if he is a healthy, conscious man, he will stand by his partner whatever decision she should make.
The sane and healthy woman will always want to keep her child, and that is to be expected.
But there are times when a woman benefits from the option of abortion. When having the child would be a risk to her health, or the child might be defromed or handicapped in some way, or because the child is a product of a rape or incest or one of the many other reasons why an otherwise sane woman would want to kill her unborn child.
You cannot expect a woman who is made pregnant by a rape to want to allow that rapists child to pass through her body let alone raise it.

I agree that a man should not be forced into paying for a child he does not want and which could have been aborted or avoided in the first place.

I do not like the idea of men who do not like children, especially their own.
I do not like the idea of men who would not be glad to help feed their child, even if they did not want it in the first place.
I would never have sex with such a man.
Such a man is not sane. He is a product of a system which encourages such behaviour.
He is unconscious and I would not ever want to be in his presence.
The role of men is to fertalize the woman and to feed her so that the seed may grow, and then to protect her and the child so that the species may flurish.
The role of women is to be the vessel through which the body of the species passes from the dimention of the unknown to the dimention of physical manifestation.
She is to be fertalized and to feed the child which she is to give birth to.
These roles have been abandoned, this time in history marks a dark age for the human consciousness.
Insanity all around is ripening and we are on the brink of devestation at every hour.
How much longer will this go on?
How much more can we take?
When a woman makes a decision to kill her baby and a man makes a decision to abandon is brood, something is not right within the human consicousness.
And yet, I cannot deny the will of God.
I cannot deny the fact that no action is ever failure.
There is not wrong on a higher level, this I know.
Knowing this I cannot say they are wrong, but I cannot say it is wrong for me to think they are insane.
Going against their very nature, and yet they are in direct accordance with their nature.

One last question before I give up: what is this "Divice" you have mentioned?

Is it like the Department of Social Services (DSS)?

Ownthink

13th October 2005, 01:20

Has anyone yet mentioned that 90% of all abortions take place in the first trimester (IE first 12 weeks/3 months, when the Fetus is some goop the size of the period at the end of this sentence.)?

http://www.abortion.com/topic.php?topic=1s...ter%20Abortions (http://www.abortion.com/topic.php?topic=1st%20Trimester%20Abortions)

Simotix

13th October 2005, 02:57

Divice is New Jersey's Department of Social Services.

LSD

13th October 2005, 04:15

Isn't that called "DYFS"?

Simotix

13th October 2005, 16:12

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 13 2005, 03:56 AM
Isn't that called "DYFS"?
That would be true, but we usually spell it as it is said (unless for legal documents).

Hate Is Art

13th October 2005, 16:54

Moralising - Imposing your own moral code upon someone else.

1. No one should be forced to live under the moral judgements they don't share.
2. Unless they are too cause harm to someone else.
3. A fetus is hardly a someone, unless you believe in the Christian notion of the sanctity of life.
4. If you do, you're probably a bit weird.

xx

gilhyle

13th October 2005, 23:07

[QUOTE"They are irresponsable because they refuse to take responsability for the consequences or the possible consequences of their actions."]

If humans must take responsibility for the possible consequences of their actions then we live in world where no morality is possible and where complete denial of the true nature of one's actions is the necessary basis for achieving any conscientous peace of mind.

It is typical of the religious mind to promote such denial. An interesting survey once in the U.S. strongly correlated geographical concentrations of sexual infidelity to regions of religious fervour. Come down to earth if you want to play any positive part in life or have any self-knowledge.

FleasTheLemur

14th October 2005, 04:49

Seeing this arguement survive as long as it did feels like drill digging it's way past my teeth and into my gums. I'm not here to defend my "nothing after 8-weeks stance", I am wanting to call a close to this arguement. It's one of those emotionally charged issues the will continue to divide people, even if you made some kind of compromise. We ultimately have much more to worry about. The arguement for and against abortions has no overwhelming evidence (overwhelming being the key word) for either side. We see our probamatic system around us.

LSD

14th October 2005, 18:44

The arguement for and against abortions has no overwhelming evidence (overwhelming being the key word) for either side.

It doesn't need to.

If you can't provide a logical argument for why society should interfere in a mothers sovereign human right to control her own body and what's contained within it, then society cannot do it.

That's the point. This isn't a neutral issue; from the very beginning it's slanted towards one side. Pro-abortionists are arguing for freedom, anti-abortionists are arguing for coercion. The burden of proof is always on the latter.

Gnosis

14th October 2005, 22:42

If humans must take responsibility for the possible consequences of their actions then we live in world where no morality is possible and where complete denial of the true nature of one's actions is the necessary basis for achieving any conscientous peace of mind.

You are incredibly articulate.

I divide this quote into two parts.

First part: "If humans must take responsibility for the possible consequences of their actions then we live in world where no morality is possible..."

Response: I do not agree.
Morality and correct action are a matter of opinion, and it is my opinion that a sense of what is fair, just, and correct will always be present within the human consciousness.
It is my opinion that fairness, justice, and correct action are representations of morality.
To be fair one must be honest.
If one is always honest, one should have no problem taking, owning, and recognizing responsability for any action one does choose to undertake.

I think the ultimate moral standard is honest, fair, and takes responsability for not only the consequences of the actions one has alredy undertaken, but also for any consequence which might arise in the future.
One considers before hand any consequence which might occur and for what reasons it should or should not, and takes responsability for the consequence whether it be desired or not.

It truely is the personal opinions of the one being moral which constitute what the meaning of the word "moral" really means.

It is impossible to force some one to believe in something, they are either in belief or they are not.

That being said, I would like to point out that I agree with you when you say "No morality is possible".

Yes, it is possible to be other than moral.
If you believe what you have done, what you have thought about doing, or what some one else has done is in your opinion immoral, than it is and so are you and so is that person.
But one does not HAVE to have morals, and one does not have to have immorals either.
It is a personal decision whether or not to follow any rules of conduct.
It is a personal decision to see your self one way and someone else as different or wrong, or different and right for that matter.
Morality stems from opinion.
Morality is opinion in action.

Second part: "where complete denial of the true nature of one's actions is the necessary basis for achieving any conscientous peace of mind"

Response: I disagree. Nothing is ever necessary, especially when it comes to denial and morals.
What is the true nature of one's actions, and if they are so true then how is it possible for one to deny them?
I say acceptence is the key to Peace, not denial.
The peace brought about by denail is false, it is an illusion which is easily shattered.
All one must do to completely anihilate that sort of peace is recall the image or experience being denied.
It is much easier to accept what has been done, know that the meaning of the word "wrong" is a matter of opinion and it is your opion alone which determines that meaning, and any meaning you precribe is your own choice to uphold and you are free to know that everything you can ever do is completely correct in every way so long as you so decide it so.
Your opinion is your opinion, the only thing which may ever hold you back is your opinion.
The only thing which may ever lift you up is your opinion.
Youset your own standards.
You may disagree with the opinions of other.
You may see them as immoral, it is your own choice to do so.
You may be at peace with yourself and those around you, it is your decision.
You may either accept or deny, it is your decision, and only you may control it for only you may give meaning to your life.
You may choose to agree with one organisation for as many reasons as you may choose to disagree with another organisation.
It matters only to you what your opinions are, for only you may determine where you life takes you, how you get there, and what you think about it before, during, and after the experience.
And your life is the only life you have, the only life you have any right to (in my opinion).

Digital Nirvana: I agree with number 1 on you list. The other three I do not agree with.
You've contradicted yourself in number two, and numbers three and four are pure opinion which I do not share.

We ultimately have much more to worry about.

I agree with this statement.
Though abortion is emotional and contraversial, I believe we should not be arguing over it at this point in history.
I say we leave it alone, decide for ourselves what we believe and what we will do, and leave it up to other people to do the same.

[/QUOTE]If you can't provide a logical argument for why society should interfere in a mothers sovereign human right to control her own body and what's contained within it, then society cannot do it.[QUOTE]

The government has more than enough "logical argument" for why abortions should not be happening within this society.
They can interfere if they want to, or so they believe, and they will if they can because thats what they do for a living.
The more they interfere with our lives and change our minds so that they support the same opinions as they do, the more money and power they obtain.

Some people believe morality is only effective if everyone shares the same opinions and acts in the same ways.
I disagree with that.
I believe we may all hold our own opinions, whether they are the same or in opposition, and still allow for living in a peacful society at the same time.
It is up to the individual to decide the ways in which they interact with those around them.

gilhyle

15th October 2005, 12:29

You are right: morality is a matter of opinion. Which is why morality is private. I cannot know well the consequences of my actions. Thus all I can do is honestly take into account the consequences of my actions that I anticipate. In the case of sex, it is usually reasonable nowdays to assume that if a two people have sex, one of them will not get pregnant.

Politics is the opposite. Intentions don't count in politics. All that counts are consequences, intended or unintended. Your political significance IS the political consequences of your actions. That is the cruelty of politics.

Abortion is politically good because the death of the innocents (as the pro-lifers would put it) makes for a better world.

Hate Is Art

15th October 2005, 19:00

I agree with number 1 on you list. The other three I do not agree with.
You've contradicted yourself in number two

Could you explain why? And I know two is a contr-diction, but there has to be a line drawn somewhere. True freedom can not exist, we can only allow people to be as free as is acceptable to the majority whilst still allowing indivuality.

novemba

15th October 2005, 21:33

pro-choice is the only way to go.

that way you can have your own set of moral beliefs as it affects you, someone elses baby isn't your mofuckin business.

Angry Young Man

15th October 2005, 22:22

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 07:06 PM
this is the 21 century, no one should be pro-"life"
i agree. i also dont think that people against choice should be called ''pro life''- they should be called ''pro chauvinist bigotry'' and wat right do MEN have (even though i am one) to enforce their views onto women when they will never have to make such a decision? catholic priests are the worst, cos they will never even have sex!

Gnosis

16th October 2005, 02:42

gilhyle, you confuse me.
I am not sure why, but every time I have ever read anything you have written, I have immediately become confused.
Or to put this "confusion" under the condition of another statement, I feel like I cannot understand what it is you are saying, though I know perfectly well that I can.
You have an incredible ability to speak, an incredible ability to say alot without saying alot.
I always find myself having to read your words about three times before I really begin to see what it is you are saying, and who it is you are underneath your veil.
I am not sure if your "veil" is intentional, but if made so you are likely to follow a role in politics that will lead you to many realizations and many truths.
I question your honesty on one hand, and yet on the other I am persuaded at first glance that you speak but the truth.
That is what I call "political cruelty".

A question: Is morality so private as you explain?

An interesting statement:

In the case of sex, it is usually reasonable nowdays to assume that if a two people have sex, one of them will not get pregnant.

I like this: "...If a two people..."

And a question: Is it not all days reasonable to assume that when two people have sex that one might end up pregnant?

And is it also all days just as reasonable to assume that when two people have sex, that one is guaranteed never to end up pregnant?

Maybe that is something we should all think about a little bit more.

Maybe there is a reason why certain decisions should be made by woman alone in relation to men but without the force of men (or other women).

That is to say: It is up to a woman to know what is right for her body, and no man, however forcful he may be, can ever take that honesty away.

And no woman can decide for any other woman, for each woman is her own self, her own individual, her own truth.

In fact, that truth may be stretched to areas of life which are other than the area of sex, pregnancy, and child birth.

We are limited only by our own ability to imagine and to be.

Could you explain why? And I know two is a contr-diction, but there has to be a line drawn somewhere. True freedom can not exist, we can only allow people to be as free as is acceptable to the majority whilst still allowing indivuality.

I cannot explain to you why you have contradicted yourself.

I can explain to you why it is my opinion that you have contradicted yourself.

Moralising - Imposing your own moral code upon someone else.

1. No one should be forced to live under the moral judgements they don't share.
2. Unless they are too cause harm to someone else.

You seem at first to be against moralising, and then you are a moraliser.

"Unless they are to cause harm to someone else"

or did you mean "too"?

I interpreted it to mean "to".

But even then, you are forcing people to live by your rule even if they are only "to cause harm" which implies that the harm has yet to be caused and you are applying your law to them out of suspicion that they some day might cause harm, and not because they actually have caused harm.

And I also see condradiction because you seem to be against moralising, and then you seem to be for imposing your morals onto others for whatever reason you deem fit.

"Harm"

What is the meaning of this word?
How many defintions might it have?
In what way is the action "harmful"?
What is being harmed, and in relation to what?

"Causing harm" is a term which has been used against many peacful people.

Reflect upon the peaceful protests in Seattle of 1999.

Those people were harming the state of the business week.

Some of those people were caught harming the windows of a local Starbucks.

What moral code should be impressed upon such people?

What moral code should be impressed upon those following their hearts where ever they shall be lead, even if while on the journey they participate in the death of another?

What moral code should be impressed upon any one?

What is the definition of a crime?

Is punishment criminal?

Is it right to kill a man for killing a man and not be killed yourself by a man to be killed soon after by a man to be killed after him ad infinitum?

Is that not futile?

but there has to be a line drawn somewhere. True freedom can not exist, we can only allow people to be as free as is acceptable to the majority whilst still allowing indivuality.

This quote is pure opinion.

It is only reasonable to respond by stating my own opinion.

Freedom is not "allowed".

I can not give you freedom any more than I can take it away and that goes not only for me but for every one.

How may there exist "individuality" when one is so tied to the opinions of the majority?

What is "individuality"?

To me it is the fact that I am one as well as you are one and everyone is one and together we make one big one and that one is infinite and in being so nothing at all.

And that nothing is one nothing.

Is this what you call "individuality"?

I must tell you that nothing is certainly dividual.

All one may ever do is divide, and in doing so multiply.

And that is the origin and stability of the universe as expressed in mathematical terms as I currently understand it.

0=2

"Pro-choice" and "Pro-life" are one and the same.

Propaganda, the instument of torchure implemented by the ministry of division and political cruelty.

i agree. i also dont think that people against choice should be called ''pro life''- they should be called ''pro chauvinist bigotry'' and wat right do MEN have (even though i am one) to enforce their views onto women when they will never have to make such a decision? catholic priests are the worst, cos they will never even have sex!

They have all the right in the world to enforce their views so long as they believe they have that right.

But the product of their force is an illusion, and one easily shattered by honesty and love.

I agree that the decision is one for a woman to make for herself.

One has no say concerning sex if one has no sex.

gilhyle

16th October 2005, 17:16

I think that to live in a society in which "It is up to a woman to know what is right for her body, and no man, however forcful he may be, can ever take that honesty away" would be a political step forward, and one towards which a lot of progress has been made. It is a society in which a substantial part of the oppresion of women that goes back to the dawn of 'civilisation' has been done a way with and we can all be winners (as a society, not as individuals) in the longer run from that.

I think achieving that involves allowing women, individually, to chose to have a foetus killed and, given the condition of our health services, it involves allowing women, individually, to decide that at what ever stage of pregnancy so that health service inefficiency is not used to turn the right to choose into an ineffective power.

The cruelty, the violence, the destruction involved in those decisions about abortion should not be hidden behind 'its not alive' or 'its not a person' sentiments.

That is politics: See things for what they are, look at the consequences of courses of action and decide what is best, politically, from those consequences.

Morality is a private matter. Morally, I try to live in hoped-for harmony with the image I construct of myself and as I go through life that image, that self, changes and my morality changes with it. And sometimes, its not a matter of me changing, its a matter of me letting myself down and so on.

That has nothing to do with politics. If I was a woman, the two would cross over, if I had to make the choice about abortion and had to take on the moral burdens that go with that. As part of a couple, I might enter the sphere of that moral choice, but only as an interloper, as a partner, as an accessory.

Trotsky in 'Their Morals and Ours' talks about morality in a different sense. This is the morality of political action, which is no more than smart politics, always looking to the long term, always remaining consistent with your political understanding. But this is all about social consequences of political actions. It is not about your actions remaining consistent with your sense of self.

He could confuse that distinction becaue he came from a generation that turned themselves, heart and soul, into the bearers of political relations. They were nothing else but that. THey really had no personal sense of self. Of if they had, they suppressed it. Thus, they had no personal morality.

It is not wise in this epoch - in my view - to make yourself a political animal to that degree. Politics has not the potential in it to justify such an unequivocal commitment to it, at the moment. Thus, at this time morality must remain a private matter - a matter of self-definition - and politics, at almost all times, remains a matter of social consequences.

In relation to abortion, that means that in debate here we can and should support pro choice as the option that creates the best social consequences (in the end) and women must individually choose, wrestling with the moral issue, and there is no generally right answer for them.

I can't help admitting that I am kinda glad I have never had to bear the primary moral responsibility for choosing to have an abortion. At a personal level, all my sympathy goes to women who have to go through that, but my political preferences arise not from that sympathy, but from the desirability for me, as a political agent, of a society in which women are not subject to a disproportionate oppression based on gender.

Where is the contradiction ?