Abortion

[FidelCastro]

Offering abortion costs at a minimum is a bad idea. I'm somewhat pro-choice but this promotes unprotected sex at the cost of a fetus which has the potential to life with no repercussions. Frankly, I think abortion should be doctor sanctioned so it can't be abused. We have adoption programs for those who don't want to keep the baby. Why kill the fetus when you can grace another family who may be incapeable of conceving with the joy of life.

[TC]

I'm somewhat pro-choice
clearly not.


but this promotes unprotected sex

Thats pretty absurd, no one would plan ahead of time to use abortions in place of other forms of birth control because even the least invasive non-surgical abortions are much more unpleasent (physically not morally) than birth control pills, condoms, spermacides, or other common types of contraceptives...people only use abortion as birth control when their primary form of protection fails no one would deliberately get pregnant if they didn't want it.


at the cost of a fetus which has the potential to life with no repercussions.

Every time you have sex with protection you're wasting millions of sperm and an egg cell, which have the same potential to life...

I really hope you never masturbate...its so wasteful!(obviously, under your theory, its okay if girls do though :-p)


Frankly, I think abortion should be doctor sanctioned so it can't be abused.

Theres no such thing as "abusing" abortion. Clearly no one in the anti-choice lobby actually believes that fetuses have human rights, except when they're the product of rape, incest, or a risky pregnancy, its just that they, sadistically and out of a bizzar patriarchial complex, want to punish women for having recreational sex, so they don't care so much if they get abortions for other reasons.


We have adoption programs for those who don't want to keep the baby.

Adoption programs aren't for people who don't want to keep babies they're for people who want babies but can't or don't want to get pregnant.

There is no sane reason why someone should have to tolerate pregnancy and childbirth when they don't want a child.


Why kill the fetus when you can grace another family who may be incapeable of conceving with the joy of life.


Why gain an increadible amount of weight for nine months, have your hormones screwed up, feel sick all the time, get massive, perminant scars all over your lower torso, and then have either extremely painful or extremely medicalized delivery, when you don't need to and you gain nothing by doing so?

[chimx]

although i don't really agree with fidel, i know plenty of pro-choicers whose views are somewhat similar. it is fucked up that LSD is taking it upon himself to restrict him over this issue. neonazi forums have less arbitrary dictatorial moderation than revleft.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

It seems to me that, at least in the earlier stages, the baby is less alive than an ant, or perhaps a plant. So if you can uproot a daisy, or tread on an ant, you can abort a fetus.

That probably needs backing up, but it's the morning and I really can't be arsed.

-Alex

[TC]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 05:30 AM
although i don't really agree with fidel, i know plenty of pro-choicers whose views are somewhat similar. it is fucked up that LSD is taking it upon himself to restrict him over this issue. neonazi forums have less arbitrary dictatorial moderation than revleft.
Fidel Castros position isn't pro-choice because he refuses to recognizes women's right to choose what they want to do with their bodies, rather it just acknowleges that there are certain instances where he'd find abortion tolerable.

Thats certaintly not a "pro-life" position but its still anti-choice.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by chimx
although i don't really agree with fidel, i know plenty of pro-choicers whose views are somewhat similar. it is fucked up that LSD is taking it upon himself to restrict him over this issue. neonazi forums have less arbitrary dictatorial moderation than revleft.

Why are you singling out LSD? He was just enforcing the rules of the board, an anti-choice stance on abortion is an automatic restriction - that is the rule, it has nothing to do with 'dictatorial moderation'.

[bombeverything]

Offering abortion costs at a minimum is a bad idea. I'm somewhat pro-choice but this promotes unprotected sex at the cost of a fetus which has the potential to life with no repercussions. Frankly, I think abortion should be doctor sanctioned so it can't be abused. We have adoption programs for those who don't want to keep the baby. Why kill the fetus when you can grace another family who may be incapeable of conceving with the joy of life.

Somewhat pro-choice? Given that you think doctors should be given the authority to decide says that you are not.

[chimx]

doctor sanctioned is anti-choice? its a fucking medical procedure. are you gonna get all pissed off that heart transplants are doctor sanctioned? excessive abortions is extremely hard on a woman's uterus. doctors have the right to deny any kind of operation if it isn't in the patients best medical interests.

[Delta]

We have adoption programs for those who don't want to keep the baby

Babies are not something that you simply make and then say "bah, I don't want this shit, let's throw it in the local orphanage with the others". If a baby isn't wanted, it should be aborted. It saves the baby from the pain of having a potentially loveless upbringing. But really that isn't even the core issue. It's the woman's choice. She should not be forced to carry something around in her body for almost a year of her life if she doesn't want it. As the others have said above me, woman do not enjoy abortions. I've never heard a woman say "oh yes, I'm going to the wild party this weekend, I've already called my doctor and scheduled an abortion visit 6 months from now. You gotta plan ahead sweetie".

[Delta]

And also I think a pro-life position does merit restricted access, but perhaps only in the case that one cannot be convinced otherwise. It would be unfortunate to have some comrades around our forums who were afraid of confronting their semi pro-life beliefs because they didn't want to be ostracized from the group.

[RebelOutcast]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 03:30 PM
doctors have the right to deny any kind of operation if it isn't in the patients best medical interests.
Extracts from the Hippocratic oath:


# To practice and prescribe to the best of my ability for the good of my patients, and to try to avoid harming them.

# To never deliberately do harm to anyone for anyone else's interest.


Indeed doctors have the right to refuse medicine and procedures to patients who do not need them, or which may harm the patient needlessly.

Would you support doctors handing out morphine to people who don't need it? Or giving digitalis to those without heart conditions?

[Delta]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 05:10 PM

Would you support doctors handing out morphine to people who don't need it? Or giving digitalis to those without heart conditions?
Absolutely, it's their life. And if the alternative is some doctor deciding what he thinks is "best for me", I'd much rather have the former.

And besides, your analogy isn't relevant. It's a fairly simple question to decide whether someone needs a heart operation or whether they need morphine. But it's a different, moral question, when a doctor says "sorry, can't have an abortion, Jesus told my preacher and my preacher told me that it was bad" or "sorry, I want to punish you for not having safe sex, better luck next time whore".

[LSD]

although i don't really agree with fidel, i know plenty of pro-choicers whose views are somewhat similar. it is fucked up that LSD is taking it upon himself to restrict him over this issue. neonazi forums have less arbitrary dictatorial moderation than revleft.

On March 19, 2006, the CC voted 37 - 5 to restrict "pro-life"/"anti-choice" members to OI. I was merely enforcing that decision. There was absolutely nothing "arbitrary" about it.

And in terms of "dictatorial", welcome to the internet. This is a message board, it has a set of rules and they are enforced. If you want to equate that to a "dictator" (Hitler? Stalin perhaps?), go right a head. You wouldn't be the first person and you certainly won't be the last.


doctor sanctioned is anti-choice?

Yes. Because it removes the choice from the woman.

Doctors should evaluate and advise, but they ultimately have no right to make absolute decisions over someone else's body. Matters of personal integrity are personal decisions.


its a fucking medical procedure. are you gonna get all pissed off that heart transplants are doctor sanctioned?

:rolleyes:

Abortion is, for the most part, a non-surgical procedure so comparing it to massive coronary surgery is ridiculous.

Not to mention that a heart transplant also requires a heart donor, something that is imately rare. There's a reason that organ transplants are very carefuly handled and, uniquely in such a capitalistic society, specifically isolated from the market system.

Scarcity requires sharp controls, but since there is no shortage of abortifacient medication, a requirement for "doctor sanctioning" would be entirely superfulous.

Abortifacients should be over the counter medication and instruction in their proper use should be mandatory in all basic sex ed courses.


excessive abortions is extremely hard on a woman's uterus. doctors have the right to deny any kind of operation if it isn't in the patients best medical interests.

Doctors have a right to disuade individuals from medical prodedures that they judge to not be in their interest. They have no right to dictate what one may or may not do with one's own uterus.


Indeed doctors have the right to refuse medicine and procedures to patients who do not need them

Absolutely. But, who is to determine who "needs" an abortion?

The only fair way of approaching the issue is for the mother to decide. Indeed, for those who do not want a child, pregnancy is functionally a disease and a rather debilitating one at that.

Accordingly, for a doctor to refuse an abortion to any woman who wants one is a violation of basic medical ethics.


Would you support doctors handing out morphine to people who don't need it?

No.

But I likewise do not support the state restriction who can have morphine to those who some doctor "approves" it for.

The entire "presecription drug" system is an abusive and oppressive system of social control which cannot be supported by any even remotely progressive leftist. No state or "medical" body has the legitimate authority to dictate what mature individuals choose to consume.

The contents of one's mind and one's body are no official's business!

[bombeverything]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 03:30 PM
doctor sanctioned is anti-choice? its a fucking medical procedure. are you gonna get all pissed off that heart transplants are doctor sanctioned? excessive abortions is extremely hard on a woman's uterus. doctors have the right to deny any kind of operation if it isn't in the patients best medical interests.

There is a significant difference between a heart transplant and an abortion. Doctor sanctioned means the decision will ultimately be up to the doctor, rather than the woman. Such a law would force the woman to prove that she is making the "right decision", thus leaving the doctor with the power to judge whether her claim is "valid" enough. Someone I know who got an abortion encountered a pro-life doctor who made it clear that he was unhappy with her decision. Imagine giving someone like that the power to decide. No thanks.

[chimx]

Originally posted by bombeverything+Jun 29 2006, 10:48 PM--> (bombeverything @ Jun 29 2006, 10:48 PM)
[email protected] 29 2006, 03:30 PM
doctor sanctioned is anti-choice? its a fucking medical procedure. are you gonna get all pissed off that heart transplants are doctor sanctioned? excessive abortions is extremely hard on a woman's uterus. doctors have the right to deny any kind of operation if it isn't in the patients best medical interests.

There is a significant difference between a heart transplant and an abortion. Doctor sanctioned means the decision will ultimately be up to the doctor, rather than the woman. Such a law would force the woman to prove that she is making the "right decision", thus leaving the doctor with the power to judge whether her claim is "valid" enough. Someone I know who got an abortion encountered a pro-life doctor who made it clear that he was unhappy with her decision. Imagine giving someone like that the power to decide. No thanks. [/b]
i never said anything about laws. but you are ignoring the fact that it takes two individuals to have an abortion, and the individual autonomy of both needs to be respected. as it is, you are demanding that doctors subjugate themselves to their patients and create a new power structure. you people are anarchists and communists. i would have thought this was obvious.

[theraven]

QUOTE
I'm somewhat pro-choice

clearly not.


he doesn't oppose abortion...


QUOTE
but this promotes unprotected sex


Thats pretty absurd, no one would plan ahead of time to use abortions in place of other forms of birth control because even the least invasive non-surgical abortions are much more unpleasent (physically not morally) than birth control pills, condoms, spermacides, or other common types of contraceptives...people only use abortion as birth control when their primary form of protection fails no one would deliberately get pregnant if they didn't want it.

no one gets dlibertly pregentn then has an abortion, but I have known girls who have unprotected sex with their boyfirends and use aborton when they get pregennt (and don't use the pilll-i guess they forget or something)


QUOTE
at the cost of a fetus which has the potential to life with no repercussions.


Every time you have sex with protection you're wasting millions of sperm and an egg cell, which have the same potential to life...

I really hope you never masturbate...its so wasteful!(obviously, under your theory, its okay if girls do though :-p)


No, sperm are not indepenet organisms, only when mated with eggs do they have any real pottential to become life.


QUOTE
Frankly, I think abortion should be doctor sanctioned so it can't be abused.


Theres no such thing as "abusing" abortion. Clearly no one in the anti-choice lobby actually believes that fetuses have human rights, except when they're the product of rape, incest, or a risky pregnancy, its just that they, sadistically and out of a bizzar patriarchial complex, want to punish women for having recreational sex, so they don't care so much if they get abortions for other reasons.


or could it be that some of them genuinely think abortion is wrong because the baby is dying?


QUOTE
We have adoption programs for those who don't want to keep the baby.


Adoption programs aren't for people who don't want to keep babies they're for people who want babies but can't or don't want to get pregnant.

There is no sane reason why someone should have to tolerate pregnancy and childbirth when they don't want a child.

and where do these magical adoption babies come from except for from unwanted pregenicnes? i think his point was that if you get pregent theres no requirment for you to keep it.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 04:35 PM


QUOTE
but this promotes unprotected sex


Thats pretty absurd, no one would plan ahead of time to use abortions in place of other forms of birth control because even the least invasive non-surgical abortions are much more unpleasent (physically not morally) than birth control pills, condoms, spermacides, or other common types of contraceptives...people only use abortion as birth control when their primary form of protection fails no one would deliberately get pregnant if they didn't want it.

no one gets dlibertly pregentn then has an abortion, but I have known girls who have unprotected sex with their boyfirends and use aborton when they get pregennt (and don't use the pilll-i guess they forget or something)
Was their a point to that statement? You know some people who have had abortions? Whoo-dee-fucking-hoo.






QUOTE
at the cost of a fetus which has the potential to life with no repercussions.


Every time you have sex with protection you're wasting millions of sperm and an egg cell, which have the same potential to life...

I really hope you never masturbate...its so wasteful!(obviously, under your theory, its okay if girls do though :-p)


No, sperm are not indepenet organisms, only when mated with eggs do they have any real pottential to become life.
Bollocks. The only differenc between wasting millions of sperm and an egg through protected sex and millions of sperm and egg in an abortion is a matter of time, size and shape. People get too emotional about abortions, it's pure silliness.




QUOTE
Frankly, I think abortion should be doctor sanctioned so it can't be abused.


Theres no such thing as "abusing" abortion. Clearly no one in the anti-choice lobby actually believes that fetuses have human rights, except when they're the product of rape, incest, or a risky pregnancy, its just that they, sadistically and out of a bizzar patriarchial complex, want to punish women for having recreational sex, so they don't care so much if they get abortions for other reasons.


or could it be that some of them genuinely think abortion is wrong because the baby is dying?
Unfourtunatley a lot of people think like that, it's certianly odd and shows a distinct inability to seperate logical thought from the dogmatic emotional hyperbole of the anti-choice sect.




QUOTE
We have adoption programs for those who don't want to keep the baby.


Adoption programs aren't for people who don't want to keep babies they're for people who want babies but can't or don't want to get pregnant.

There is no sane reason why someone should have to tolerate pregnancy and childbirth when they don't want a child.

and where do these magical adoption babies come from except for from unwanted pregenicnes? i think his point was that if you get pregent theres no requirment for you to keep it.Hmm, but why suffer through a pregancy and birth just to give the child away at the end when you can just as easily avoid it?

[LSD]

i never said anything about laws. but you are ignoring the fact that it takes two individuals to have an abortion

Abtually, it usually takes one individual and a pill.


the individual autonomy of both needs to be respected. as it is, you are demanding that doctors subjugate themselves to their patients and create a new power structure.

:rolleyes:

So you're saying that an ER doctor has the right to refuse a patient a needed blood transfusion if it goes against his "beliefs"? Sorry but that's not Anarchism, it's lunacy.

When a person agrees to become a doctor, they nescessarily cede some of their personal "autonomy"; they become responsible for their patients and are obligated to give them the best possible care.

If that means an abortion, so be it. The doctor gave up his right to "abstain" when he took his MLEs.


No, sperm are not indepenet organisms, only when mated with eggs do they have any real pottential to become life.

"Potential" is irrelevent.

A fetus, given enough time, properly cared for, and given a bit of luck, will turn into a baby; but then the same is true for a sperm cell. All it needs, after all, is an egg.

Neither a fetus or a sperm are babies, and neither are nescessarily going to become one. In both cases, the right circumstances must occur. And as such, it is the hight of arbitraryness to "protect" one and not the other.

Members of society have societal rights, not chunks of cells inside a uterus.


and where do these magical adoption babies come from except for from unwanted pregenicnes?

The point is that there are already far more children up for adoption than adults who want them. And considering that overpopulation is rapidly becoming a problem, there is no need to add to the numnber of unwanted children.

And unwanted pregnancy is, effectively, a sexually transmitted disease. If a woman wants to suffer through that disease for whatever reason, that's her choice, but if she wants to be treated, her doctor has a duty to abort.

[TC]

Chimx writes

doctor sanctioned is anti-choice? its a fucking medical procedure. are you gonna get all pissed off that heart transplants are doctor sanctioned?


Yes, its absolutely anti-choice.


Abortions as birth control are not solely health motivated medical procedures, they are elective medical procedures, and like all elective medical procedures they are at the patients discretion.

A heart transplant is not an elective procedure, its a medically necessary procedure, so it is up to the doctor to determine the medical necessity.


excessive abortions is extremely hard on a woman's uterus.

Your comment that "excessive abortions [are] extremely hard on a woman's uterus" is about the most absurd comment i've ever heard on this issue.


First, the only alternative to abortion is pregnancy to delivery, which vastly vastly more dangerious and a far far greater health risk to any woman than any type of clinical abortion. Natural child birth without complications almost inevitably damages your entire reproductive anatomy, not just your uterus. However, 25-30% of full term pregnancies have complications and require caesarian delivery, serious invasive abdominal surgery. If you think that suctioning the inside of a patients uterus is "extremely hard" on it, think about how many times harder having it cut open is!

Second its *just not true*. The risk of uterine damage is 0.1-0.4%, less than half of one percent, and the risk of cervical damage is 1%. These are not cumulative risks, more than 99 out of 100 surgical abortions result in no effects to someone's reproductive anatomy, thats certaintly not true of 99 out 100 childbirths and its never true of caesarians.

Reference: http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000054E4.htm

Finally, it is utterly paternalistic to presume that the risks to someone's non-vital, non-essential organs like their uterus put someone's "health in danger" when in fact they only put their fertility in danger. Doctors deliberately damage people's reproductive organs to make them less fertile all the time, it doesn't negatively impact on their health it only impacts on their social life, and for people who don't want to have kids its a very positive effect. To think that a doctor ought to be able to decide, on their own, that a minute risk to someone's fertility, somthing that has nothing to do with their overall system-wide health which they may or may not personally value, should supercede a patients informed demand to end a pregnancy, is patronizing and fairly insulting.

It amounts to suggesting that doctors should treat women as potential incubators rather than free agents.

LSD writes

The only fair way of approaching the issue is for the mother to decide.

I know it wasn't your intent but i really resent calling women who get abortions "mothers." People can only be mothers to babies not to fetal tissue, a pregnant woman isn't automatically a mother only someone who actually decides to give birth is, otherwise it implies that being the mother to a child is an automatic consequence of being pregnant.

[chimx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 04:50 PM

i never said anything about laws. but you are ignoring the fact that it takes two individuals to have an abortion

Abtually, it usually takes one individual and a pill.


the individual autonomy of both needs to be respected. as it is, you are demanding that doctors subjugate themselves to their patients and create a new power structure.

:rolleyes:

So you're saying that an ER doctor has the right to refuse a patient a needed blood transfusion if it goes against his "beliefs"? Sorry but that's not Anarchism, it's lunacy.

When a person agrees to become a doctor, they nescessarily cede some of their personal "autonomy"; they become responsible for their patients and are obligated to give them the best possible care.

If that means an abortion, so be it. The doctor gave up his right to "abstain" when he took his MLEs.
i'm not talking about the pill, ru486, etc. i could give a fuck about the fetus and if it is kept or not.

the issue is whether doctors should have the right to treat people or not if they don't feel it is in their patients best interests. patients didn't go through years and years of medical school, why should they have a fucking say? if some retard is destroying his or her body, in this case the excessive use of abortions on a uterus, than you're god damn right a doctor should have the right to refuse service.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by chimx+Jun 30 2006, 07:22 PM--> (chimx @ Jun 30 2006, 07:22 PM)
[email protected] 30 2006, 04:50 PM

i never said anything about laws. but you are ignoring the fact that it takes two individuals to have an abortion

Abtually, it usually takes one individual and a pill.


the individual autonomy of both needs to be respected. as it is, you are demanding that doctors subjugate themselves to their patients and create a new power structure.

:rolleyes:

So you're saying that an ER doctor has the right to refuse a patient a needed blood transfusion if it goes against his "beliefs"? Sorry but that's not Anarchism, it's lunacy.

When a person agrees to become a doctor, they nescessarily cede some of their personal "autonomy"; they become responsible for their patients and are obligated to give them the best possible care.

If that means an abortion, so be it. The doctor gave up his right to "abstain" when he took his MLEs.
i'm not talking about the pill, ru486, etc. i could give a fuck about the fetus and if it is kept or not.

the issue is whether doctors should have the right to treat people or not if they don't feel it is in their patients best interests. patients didn't go through years and years of medical school, why should they have a fucking say? if some retard is destroying his or her body, in this case the excessive use of abortions on a uterus, than you're god damn right a doctor should have the right to refuse service. [/b]
Yeah, except the 'it damages your uterus' argument is bollocks (see TC's post). In the case of elective procedures the doctor should limited themselves to giving only their considered an proffesional opinion and explain the relevant dangers (if any).

[LSD]

the issue is whether doctors should have the right to treat people or not if they don't feel it is in their patients best interests.

Abortion is an elective procedure. With very few exceptions it is not medically required. Accordingly, aside from advising the patient, the doctor's role in terms of decision-making is marginal.

Obviously if an abortion would kill a women, a doctor would be ethically bound to not perform it; but if she were in such dire straights, it's quite likely that giving birth would be dangerous as well.

Again, in almost every singe case having an abortion is vastly safer than pregnancy/giving birth, so the idea of a "medical danger" to abortion is really a nonissue.


if some retard is destroying his or her body, in this case the excessive use of abortions on a uterus, than you're god damn right a doctor should have the right to refuse service.

If her uterus were really that fucked up, don't you think that proceding to birth would be even more dangerous?

And there is no such thing as "excessive use of abortions". There is simply no medical evidence that abortions cause long-term damage to any part of a woman's body; while there is convincing evidence that giving birth has severe and long-term consequences.

Remember, in most cases we are talking about nonsurgical abortions!


I know it wasn't your intent but i really resent calling women who get abortions "mothers." People can only be mothers to babies not to fetal tissue, a pregnant woman isn't automatically a mother only someone who actually decides to give birth is, otherwise it implies that being the mother to a child is an automatic consequence of being pregnant.

You're right, of course. :blush:

[bombeverything]

i never said anything about laws. but you are ignoring the fact that it takes two individuals to have an abortion, and the individual autonomy of both needs to be respected. as it is, you are demanding that doctors subjugate themselves to their patients and create a new power structure. you people are anarchists and communists. i would have thought this was obvious.

If something has to be “doctor sanctioned” that is a law. How does giving women the right to choose what they do with their own bodies create a “new power structure”?


the issue is whether doctors should have the right to treat people or not if they don't feel it is in their patients best interests. patients didn't go through years and years of medical school, why should they have a fucking say? if some retard is destroying his or her body, in this case the excessive use of abortions on a uterus, than you're god damn right a doctor should have the right to refuse service.

I don’t care what the doctor thinks. We are talking about ensuring that the choice remains with the woman. This is what “pro-choice” means. What do you mean by “retard”? Are you referring to people who are living with an intellectual disability?

[rioters bloc]

this is directed at chimx, rebeloutcast, etc. i can't be bothered quoting and stufff.

all doctors have their own agendas. cos they're people. whether or not that agenda is conscious is a different matter entirely, but no matter how objective you think doctors are, no-one lives in a vacuum and to think otherwise is completely naive. i personally have never had to have an abortion, but certain friends of mine who have have been attempted to have their minds swayed by the doctors they visited. not for medical reasons, but simply because the doctor wanted them to 'reconsider' before going through what is essentially a rather simple procedure.

another female friend of mine once went to see a doctor about her bulimia - the doctor responded with, "oh all young wom*n go through that at some stage in their lives, you'll grow out of it." i once went to the doctor for some antibiotics and the doctor asked me if i was allergic to anything. then she said "well you're only 16 so you're definitely not pregnant" and ticked off that box on the computer without even asking me if i was or not.

the point is, doctors too have their own views and 'morals', and they are likely to come out (however subtly) especially when dealing with highly controversial issues like abortion. i'm not saying all will try and talk you out of it, but there are a good many who will. especially when the family planning clinic you go to is funded by a church or something (a good deal are) and you don't realise because you didn't think it would be necessary to look into its interests, precisely because you think that all doctors have a duty to be neutral.

another thing: yes, sometimes excessive abortions can heavily damage the uterus. germaine greer is a textbook example. but, i mean - so what? smokers damage their lungs, drinkers their livers, anything you do is going to damage some part of your body, it seems. so while doctors can advise their patients that excessive abortions may potentially damage the uterus (i don't even know how true that is), the final choice is not theirs. just like cigarette packets have warnings on them about mouth cancer and lung cancer, but essentially the decision is the smokers'. what is so 'special' about the uterus that makes it any different? is it because then the wom*n may be unable to reproduce?

nice work reducing wom*n to their function as baby-makers :rolleyes:

[MKS]

This discussion makes one assumption which in my view is a false conclusion to make. While I am an athiest, and pro-choice, I am anti-abortion, personaly speaking, however since I am a male my opinion about abortion should be given little weight, also I do not want my personal views to interfere with the personal right of choice that all people are entitled to.

If I impregnated a woman as a result from consenual sex, I would argue against abortion. To me abortion is another consequence of the modern world, the marginalization of human life. If you are adult enough to engage in a behavior that would produce a child than you are adult enough to live with the consequences, to simply dispose of life is to me selfish and irresponsible. Especially in this modern age with so many contraceptive choices avaible to both men and women. Adoption is always an option. Unlike the Christians who will make purely theological arguments against abortion, my stand against abortion is one of the simple ideal of the responsibility of the individual, and the realization that the easiest way is not always the best way.

[bombeverything]

Well said RB.


all doctors have their own agendas. cos they're people. whether or not that agenda is conscious is a different matter entirely, but no matter how objective you think doctors are, no-one lives in a vacuum and to think otherwise is completely naive. i personally have never had to have an abortion, but certain friends of mine who have have been attempted to have their minds swayed by the doctors they visited. not for medical reasons, but simply because the doctor wanted them to 'reconsider' before going through what is essentially a rather simple procedure.

This is bad enough in itself, and giving the doctor the power to decide could mean that those seeking abortions may have to see a number of different doctors in order to find one that approves the procedure. This would also give those doctors who want to sway the decision free reign to enforce compliance.


If I impregnated a woman as a result from consenual sex, I would argue against abortion. To me abortion is another consequence of the modern world, the marginalization of human life. If you are adult enough to engage in a behavior that would produce a child than you are adult enough to live with the consequences, to simply dispose of life is to me selfish and irresponsible. Especially in this modern age with so many contraceptive choices avaible to both men and women. Adoption is always an option. Unlike the Christians who will make purely theological arguments against abortion, my stand against abortion is one of the simple ideal of the responsibility of the individual, and the realization that the easiest way is not always the best way.

Well that is your personal opinion and you are entitled to it, but the issue is whether or not the decision should be up to the wom*n.

[MKS]

Well that is your personal opinion and you are entitled to it, but the issue is whether or not the decision should be up to the wom*n.

Obviously the decision belongs solely to the woman since it is her body that will carry the baby to birth. However we must consider always the opinions of the man who carries an equally emotional, and certainly a biological attachment to that life.

[Mujer Libre]

On doctor-sanctioned abortion- I deifnitely agree with Tragic Clown. It's ludicrous to think that doctors have a right to remove a patient's autonomy. It seems that people on here just buy into ideas of medical dominance (ie 'doctors know best') without looking critically at the culture of medicine, and doctors bringing their prejudices into practice.

After all, one of the key principles you learn in medical ethics is that a competent patient ALWAYS has the right to make autonomous decisions regarding their health. While paternalism does exist, it just doesn't cut it ethically. You're also not supposed to bring you own personal prejudices into practice. You provide the patient with information, and she makes the decision. Like Tragic Clown said, doctors DO have prejudices that they bring- so to leave decisions about someone's life up to them because they're supposed to be neutral is absurd.

Abortions are, in most cases, relatively minor day-surgery and I see no reason why they should be subject to restrictions that aren't placed on other similar procedures. For a leftist to think otherwise simply helps to perpetuate the idea that abortions are somehow 'controversial' or negative. The sooner we can leave that behind the better!

[TC]

nother thing: yes, sometimes excessive abortions can heavily damage the uterus. germaine greer is a textbook example.

No she's not. Germaine Greer (who is among the most misogynistic, people to co-opt the term "feminist",) simply attributed supposed infirtility to an abortion she had in college, she has no evidence to suggest this is the case, in fact, she probably didn't even really know whether or not she was infirtile in her 20s since she hadn't tried (Greer, as part of her argument about why women shouldn't be able to have sex, insists that its exposing your cervix to male "hyperfertility", but in reality, a couple having frequent unprotected sex has only a 1 in 4 chance of getting pregnant in any given month, so doctors wont consider a couple in their 20s infirtile unless they've been having frequent unprotected sex for a year without any luck). Greer is essentially against abortions (which fits in for her general contempt of heterosexual western women) although pro-choice, and this is just part of the career she made out of expanding her personal feelings about her own experiances to universial claims about women and people in general.

It is extremely extremely unlikely that someone's uterus would be heavily damaged by an abortion performed in modern conditions (we're talking about a 1 in a thousand chance of any damage), its mostly a myth created by the pro-lifers.


smokers damage their lungs, drinkers their livers, anything you do is going to damage some part of your body, it seems.

Thats true but doctors wouldn't deliberately damage a patients lungs or livers...but you need your lungs and liver to live, you don't need your uterus and doctors perform tubal ligation all the time as routine elective surgery which deliberately does the same thing.


the point is, doctors too have their own views and 'morals', and they are likely to come out (however subtly) especially when dealing with highly controversial issues like abortion.

Well i think one of the most obnoxious things about medical practice is the assumption that its inherently important to preserve women's firtility, or even absurdly the apperance of firtility (in the case of placebo pills in birth control), as if there was no choice about whether or not you want to have children...like its somekindof "duty."


(i don't even know how true that is),

Like i said in my previous post and in the article i linked to, its really not.


what is so 'special' about the uterus that makes it any different?

Really. Its quite absurd that people are allowed to make their own choices about what *serious* risks they put their lungs and liver and kidneys through, when those are organs that they need for their entire life span, and lung, liver, or kidney failure results in death, whereas when it comes to someone's uterus its seen as controversial to make choices that would put it at even *tiny* risk, when its a non-essential organ thats only useful to some women for a comparatively short time in their lives, and failure results only in infirtility, not death, which is something that will happen to everyone in their 30s or 40s anyways.

I'm thinking the reason why people can pretend that uteruses are special and special care needs to be taken around them is because men don't have them so they're unaffected by medical propaganda about it. :-p.

MKS writes

If I impregnated a woman as a result from consenual sex, I would argue against abortion.
...how weird did that sentince sound...so if you raped a woman (thats the implied contrast no) and she got pregnant than you'd argue in favor of abortion? Cause fetuses from consensual sex are human life and fetuses from rape are not? That makes soooooooo much sense.


To me abortion is another consequence of the modern world, the marginalization of human life.

People have had abortions since ancient times tehy just did it different ways. The conservative, traditionalist notion that, "back then", when things were different and good and whatever lol, human life was sacred, people werent' so materialistic, there was no violence among kids and childhood and purity was guarded, etc, all of that crap, is an absolute myth. The world used to be a far far rougher place, if anything i think modern society is far gentler than any before it.


If you are adult enough to engage in a behavior that would produce a child than you are adult enough to live with the consequences,

First, the "if you're adult enough to _______ then you're adult enough to _______" is a political meme thats been applied to all sorts different scenarios (perhaps the first being "old enough to fight, old enough to vote") to the point that you could basically insert anything in there and it would make a similar amount of sense; its use has become a new informal fallacy.

Second, the "live with the consequences of your actions", a phrase often used when justifying punishment for crimes or rule breaking assumes that abortion is a way of trying to avoid the consequences of 'iressponsible' action...

This is not true, needing an abortion is itself a potential consequence of unprotected sex. You could just as well say that being adult enough to have sex means being adult enough to get an abortion if you have an accident.


Theres nothing especially "adult" about giving birth, kids do it all the time when they're not able to make an informed choice.


to simply dispose of life is to me selfish and irresponsible.

Theres nothing selfish about not wanting anyone or anything else to use your body against your consent, which is what an unwanted fetus does, that would be like suggesting that refusing to let someone have sex with you is "selfish", a parallel that the anti-abortionists like yourself will rarely see, except perhaps with married women.

Theres also absolutely nothing irresponsible about taking care of your body and making sure that things don't happen to it that you aren't going to like, like going through full term pregnancy and childbirth, that to me seems very responsible to me.

Additionally when you're talking about "simply dispos[ing] of life" thats about as self aware and biologically autonomous as a piece of fruit or a vegitable, there should be little drama about it.


Especially in this modern age with so many contraceptive choices avaible to both men and women.

Contraceptives aren't always easily available, don't always work, and people don't always remember to use them properly...abortion is just a type of birth control like any other, the only reason to use it as a backup rather than primary means is because its more invasive, uncomfortable and expensive (depending on what type and how its done).


Adoption is always an option.

Adoption is a *bad* option that necessitates a far greater amount of physical and likely emotional pain (though obviously not always) for the same end result. To insist that people to make use of adoption rather than abortion because they need to 'learn that there are consequences to their actions' or 'to take responsibility' only amounts to wanting to punish girls and women for having sex.


Unlike the Christians who will make purely theological arguments against abortion,

Actually, i've rarely ever heard them make a theological argument, most of their arguments look just like yours!


However we must consider always the opinions of the man who carries an equally emotional, and certainly a biological attachment to that life.


Thats bullshit. Just because someone had an orgasm in someone doesn't mean that they have any special right to an opinion over their body, and thats all it amounts to.

If men have such a huge "biological attachment" to every little piece of DNA that comes out of them why do they masturbate or have sex at all.

[greymatter]

If given the choice, who actually chooses having an abortion in lieu of wearing a rubber? Giving free abortions simply insures that women get the medical treatment they need regardless of age or income.

Only a chauvinistic fuck would argue otherwise.

[theraven]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 04:54 PM
If given the choice, who actually chooses having an abortion in lieu of wearing a rubber? Giving free abortions simply insures that women get the medical treatment they need regardless of age or income.

Only a chauvinistic fuck would argue otherwise.
You'd be suprised....

[greymatter]

Originally posted by theraven+Jul 3 2006, 05:03 PM--> (theraven @ Jul 3 2006, 05:03 PM)
[email protected] 3 2006, 04:54 PM
If given the choice, who actually chooses having an abortion in lieu of wearing a rubber? Giving free abortions simply insures that women get the medical treatment they need regardless of age or income.

Only a chauvinistic fuck would argue otherwise.
You'd be suprised.... [/b]
Either way, it is simply not a good idea to force women to have babies, and that looks like what most anti-abortion activists have in mind.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by theraven
You'd be suprised....

What kind of response is this? Someone poses a question, and your response is 'you'd be suprised' - suprised about what? You're havent said anything specific - why would we be suprised? What are basing your statement on?

[Sense-A]

A woman can do what she wants with her own body. However if I was in the position, which is a very tough position, I think that I'd be a man about it and go on with the pregnancy. I think about the consequences of sex, the possibility of pregnancy or disease. If anything there is a large portion of Americans that do not consider consequences. It has become 'okay' to live a nightlife of swinging and use abortion as a safety net when you wake up to an ugly fat girl that you just got pregnant the night before, and a bad hangover.

basically there has to be something done to keep abortion to a minimum. Abortions are something we don't want to have to do, something that I don't want to see as COMMON practice. Again, though, I say I am pro-choice. People will have to make their own moral judgements and live with them for the rest of their lives. But I also think the would-be-father should have some say in the matter, although it should be more-so up to the woman who will be raising the baby in her womb.

These are my opinions on the issue. And ever so, it is hard to say without being in the predicament. Becoming a parent is scary for someone who is not emotionally, mentally, financially ready. Sometimes though you have to play the cards life deals you.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by Sense-A+--> (Sense-A)However if I was in the position, which is a very tough position, I think that I'd be a man about it and go on with the pregnancy. [/b]

You cant get pregnant, so how could you ever be in this position? If by being in this position you mean if YOUR PARTNER was pregnant, you have no right to 'be a man' and force her to go on with the pregnancy if she does not want to.

What do you mean that you'd 'be a man'? What does that mean? How does 'a man' act?


Originally posted by Sense-A+--> (Sense-A)
It has become 'okay' to live a nightlife of swinging and use abortion as a safety net when you wake up to an ugly fat girl that you just got pregnant the night before, and a bad hangover.[/b]

This sounds a lot like something i met expect from a religious minister, about how 'immoral' people are 'these days' - 'swinging!' heaven forbid! :lol:

And 'fat ugly girl'? Wow, that's nice... of course some people dont use contraception, but most people use some form, be it the pill, a condom, diaphragm, spermicide etc.

Dragging a debate about abortion down on to the level of, 'people abuse it as a safety net' is misrepresentative of the reality of the issue, most people dont use abortion as the only form of contraception, so trying to frame the debate that way is loaded bull and practically tantamount to an anti-choice argument.


Originally posted by Sense-A

basically there has to be something done to keep abortion to a minimum.

Why does it matter how many abortions are performed in society? It's not as if there exceptionally high levels of abortions or anything. And so what if there are?


Originally posted by Sense-A

Abortions are something we don't want to have to do

Abortion is a medical procedure (and sometimes not even that, say for a morning after pill or similar), it's not 'child killing', it's a means of controlling one's own body.

It is not a question of society finding abortions desireable or undesireable - we should not be assigning value-judgements to the exercising of reproductive rights - the point is that abortions are necessary and useful, if people want to have them they should be able to, no matter what.


Originally posted by Sense-A

something that I don't want to see as COMMON practice.

Why does it matter what you want to see?

The only 'wants' that matter when it comes down to it are those of the womyn who are pregnant, if they want to get an abortion they should be able to, if this makes abortion a 'common' practice (isn't it already?), then so be it.

Besides, what is wrong with abortion being 'common'?


Originally posted by Sense-A

People will have to make their own moral judgements and live with them for the rest of their lives.

Abortion really has nothing to do with 'morals', and dragging the debate in this direction (as with dragging it towards 'abortion as a safety net' type arguments) is unhelpful and unncessary - and coincidentally (?) along with the safety-net argument, is one used typically by anti-choice advocates...


Sense-[email protected]

But I also think the would-be-father should have some say in the matter, although it should be more-so up to the woman who will be raising the baby in her womb.

Whilst it would obviously be preferable if all partners could come to agreement on the issue, when it comes down to it, it's the womyn's decision alone, it is her body.


Sense-A

Becoming a parent is scary for someone who is not emotionally, mentally, financially ready. Sometimes though you have to play the cards life deals you.

This sounds very much like a disguised anti-choice argument. 'Things might seem bad, you may not think you can handle being a parent, but sometimes you have to play the cards life deals you' because you never know, things will be probably turn out okay in the end - bollocks.

Abortion exists, no one should have to 'play the cards' they are dealt with if the option exists to take control of your own life and body, and deal your own cards!

[bombeverything]

basically there has to be something done to keep abortion to a minimum.

What like some sort of legislation? Sorry but you contradict yourself numerous times. I thought you said you were "pro-choice"?


Sometimes though you have to play the cards life deals you.

Why? If there is another option and you want to take it why shouldn't you?

[Mujer Libre]

I've been doing reading on abortion lately, and a lot of what Sense-A seems to be saying are arguments in which a woman's ability to get pregnant is used to 'blame' her for having an abortion. You know, "well you took the risk, now put up with it." It's absurd! I know someone who got pregnant while she was on the pill- what are the odds of that? Is that an acceptable risk to take? How is that determined? Should medical practitioners have to interview women asing for an abortion to determine if they're 'morally eligible?'

Fuck that.

[theraven]

Originally posted by Black Dagger+Jul 4 2006, 04:58 PM--> (Black Dagger @ Jul 4 2006, 04:58 PM)
theraven
You'd be suprised....

What kind of response is this? Someone poses a question, and your response is 'you'd be suprised' - suprised about what? You're havent said anything specific - why would we be suprised? What are basing your statement on? [/b]
Basing it on personal experince. My mom is a assitant at an OBGYN and I am in college. I have heard of in very general terms from my mother about it (and shes pro-choice btw-as am I) and i have heard of girls at my college doing it as wel.

[MKS]

how weird did that sentince sound...so if you raped a woman (thats the implied contrast no) and she got pregnant than you'd argue in favor of abortion? Cause fetuses from consensual sex are human life and fetuses from rape are not? That makes soooooooo much sense.

I was trying to make the point that the only time a male’s opinion should matter is when the pregnancy is a result of consensual sexual intercourse, obviously if it is a result of rape the decision is entirely up to the woman. It is easy to dismiss the male’s role in procreation but we must always try to view things through every perspective possible, and believe me, there is an emotional and certainly a biological attachment to offspring from the male. I would hope that if I impregnated a girl my opinion would matter in the decision.



People have had abortions since ancient times tehy just did it different ways. The conservative, traditionalist notion that, "back then", when things were different and good and whatever lol, human life was sacred, people werent' so materialistic, there was no violence among kids and childhood and purity was guarded, etc, all of that crap, is an absolute myth. The world used to be a far far rougher place, if anything i think modern society is far gentler than any before it.

I would challenge you to find evidence of ancient abortions, and if they did occur I’m sure they were not in such a large number as we have seen modern science and medicine produce. Also I never said anything about "the good old days", but I do believe that the rise in materialism, and commercialization has had a negative impact on humanity, it seems to me we have grown accustomed to the easiest way out of something or the quickest result. In the case of sex and abortion, the modern era has seen the “mass production” of sexuality, and as a result the consequences of sex (STD's as well as pregnancy) have been dealt with in a very "casual" manner. I know it is not easy for anyone to have an abortion (emotionally and physically) but it has become almost commonplace when it should, in my opinion, be the exception.


Theres nothing especially "adult" about giving birth, kids do it all the time when they're not able to make an informed choice.

Do these "kids" live under rocks? The Western world has several outlets of information that should give a very informed decision to anyone who seeks it. But you have proved my point, these kids have engaged in an "adult" behavior, something that their pubescent minds either fail to or simply ignore the very adult consequences of. They thought they were mature enough to handle sex, and they were wrong, now they will "simply" dispose of the problem like some unwanted litter. To me that’s a very childish reaction to a very adult problem. (I know some "kids" who have been able to make a mature decision and have thrived so it is not impossible to go against the cultural norm of instant gratification).


To insist that people to make use of adoption rather than abortion because they need to 'learn that there are consequences to their actions' or 'to take responsibility' only amounts to wanting to punish girls and women for having sex.

I never insisted that women need to be punished for having sex. I think a lot of militant “pro-choicers” seem almost oblivious to the third party, the child, who should enjoy every expectation of life. Remember we humans are mammals who give birth to live young, which means to have an abortion is too end a life. I think it is a noble thing for a woman who does not want a child to carry that child to birth and then allow him/her at least a chance to live a full and happy life. Adoption is a choice that allows for that outcome, and not only gives the child a chance to live, but gives a couple or a person, the chance to experience the joys that they otherwise wouldn't have been able to experience. What’s so wrong with that?


Theres nothing selfish about not wanting anyone or anything else to use your body against your consent, which is what an unwanted fetus does, that would be like suggesting that refusing to let someone have sex with you is "selfish", a parallel that the anti-abortionists like yourself will rarely see, except perhaps with married women.

The woman having sex is inviting that circumstance of her own choice (in most cases) she is fully aware of what sex can result in, including pregnancy. In other words she has allowed the fetus to exist through her actions; the fetus is an innocent victim of her whims. To equate an unwanted pregnancy with rape is ludicrous, because there is consent in most unwanted pregnancies. There is a reason that people view the pro-choice movement so negatively, it is because they fail to see the very human nature of birth, the taking of a life that in it of itself is very inhumane.

Like I said before I am pro-choice, but personally I am anti-abortion, I do believe the woman should have the right to make an informed decision without outside coercion or force of law. However I do see the act of abortion (in almost all cases) as unethical and something that we as a race must begin to marginalize. Life to me is something that once it is established should not be summarily destroyed, we must regard each life as something that has intrinsic worth and we cannot become machinations of cold destruction and disposal, which the modern era is allowing. Women must remember their role as the vessels of life, and treat that role with respect, maturity and responsibility. To force women to adhere to any law over the destiny of her body is wrong, just as it is wrong for the woman to coldly dispose of a life which she helped create, and to deny any responsibility of the guardian of the life that resides within her.

The majority of the pro-choice faction seems to ignore any ethical question when dealing with abortion, they stand militantly for the rights of the woman, they remove themselves from the humanity of the fetus in order to push their agenda and that is why the pro-choice movement is met with such ferocity from the "right-wing" of Western culture, because of their persistent devaluation of human life

I would be making the same arguments against abortion if it were males who gave birth. To be anti-abortion is not to be anti-woman, at least not for me.

[Sense-A]

Black Dagger picked my post apart pretty well. I've never been in the situation and I don't neccesarily KNOW in depth the medical procedures that take place.

Yes i know I am a man and cannot get pregnant. thanks for pointing that out. What I meant was that if my girlfriend became pregnant I would at least want to discuss it with her BEFORE she goes ahead and has an abortion. If sex was consentual, so should the abortion be consentual. In case of disagreement then yes it is up to the FEMALE the one who actually gets pregnant.

morals do come into play. self morals. not me imposing judgement on others who have had abortions. but women who have abortions ARE emotionally effected. It could be a traumatic experience, but not for all women.

I repeat I am pro-choice. I have no right to tell someone else what to do with their body. my only plea is that government NOT get the choice. government already tries to run every perspective of peoples' lives.

*MKS makes good points that I believe speak for my uncertainties and discomfort about the topic.

[Anti-Red]

I myself am personally pro-life but I do not believe abortion should be banned because just banning something does not make it go away, so politically, I am moderately pro-choice. (I am also for the death penalty and assisted suicide, making me totally "pro-death" as I like to joke) Still, I do not understand you guys. I mean, there should be restrictions at least, like no partial birth abortion and required counseling. You guys sound like you are all about free abortion on demand.

[EwokUtopia]

I am neither pro-life nor pro-choice, but I rather am anti-legislation and do not find abortion to be a particularly good thing, but I also realize it is not my place as a man to tell anybody what to do. But, I will say this, there is a huge difference between early and late abortion. Abortion should not be an option if the foetus has progressed to the point that it can live outside, because at that point, there isnt really any difference between a foetus outside the womb, or i guess the word is baby. An early term abortion is far closer to protected sex than it is to a late abortion, and such differences should be made. I see very little difference between aborting a foetus a week before it should have been born and killing a newborn about a week after, why? physically, not much has changed, it is pretty much just able to breath and has a belly button. But of course I realize that such late term abortions constitute a small fraction of all abortion, and focusing on it is more of a waste of time than anything else (30,000 kids will die today of starvation, maybe 20 late late term foetus will be aborted) but still, I dont understand why one should kill it if taking it out alive has more or less the same results. But I suppose all of them are done under extenuating circumstances, and the best way to eliminate these unnecisary abortions is to eliminate these circumstances (starting with Poverty, the cause of roughly half abortions in the US). Abortion is the trademark of a sloppy society, which I would hope everyone here would agree we live in (after all, that is why we are here, is it not?). Im sure everyone here would like to see a society with less need for abortion, because as pretty well any woman who has had to make that difficult choice would tell you, it isnt really a choice, and certainly not one made with a light heart. eliminate the causes with free and ample birth control and a poverty free society and I am certain you will see a huge drop in abortion rates, far surpassing anything that harmful and ultimately futile laws can do.

[TC]

MKS writes

I was trying to make the point that the only time a male’s opinion should matter is when the pregnancy is a result of consensual sexual intercourse,

And why should it matter then? Giving consent to have sex isn't consent to giving birth, and consent is something that can be withdrawn at any time.


It is easy to dismiss the male’s role in procreation but we must always try to view things through every perspective possible,

Its a totally irrelevant perspective though so theres no reason to take it into account. I don't care how someone's boyfriend or husband or for that matter, father or minister or rabbi or one-night-stand or doctor or anyone feels about what they should do with their own body, their perspective is the only one that counts.


and believe me, there is an emotional and certainly a biological attachment to offspring from the male.

Guys aren't emotionally attached to fetuses the way they are to babies because they don't *know* fetuses, they've never met it, seen it, held it, thought it was cute, etc, they can only possibly find the *idea* of it emotionally appealing rather than the thing in itself...and even if they did, simply having an emotional or "biological" attachment to something doesn't automatically entitle you to rights over it. If someone has an emotional attachment to their boyfriend's hair cut, they might tell the guy that they like it the way it is, but they can't expect to recieve a phone call from any hair salon to get their o.k. before he changes the style. Likewise an emotional attachment to a part of someone's girlfriend's body wouldn't entitle them to be consulted on what she did with it.


I would hope that if I impregnated a girl my opinion would matter in the decision.


Lol you might hope your opinion matters, but it doesn't!

Of course if she cared about how you felt she might consider your opinion when formulating her own, but that would be her choice based on her priorities and simply a way of forming her opinion rather than implying that your opinion 'matters.'


I would challenge you to find evidence of ancient abortions, and if they did occur I’m sure they were not in such a large number as we have seen modern science and medicine produce.

Nothing occured in such a large number as in modern times because there weren't nearly as many people, but actually abortion through the use of abortifacient herbs was very common and relatively uncontroversial in ancient europe. In fact entire greek city states had their economies organized around silphium as a cash crop for export because it enduces abortions.


Do these "kids" live under rocks?

No they live in oppressive households with misogynistic people like you for parents.


The Western world has several outlets of information that should give a very informed decision to anyone who seeks it.

And many western schools are also engaged in deliberate disinformation campaigns about birth control and contraceptives known collectively as "abstinence only education" which spreads lies like "condoms aren't very effective" "birth control gives you cancer" etc.

There are also christian run "abortion counsoling centers" often advertised as "aboriton services" which not only spread disinformation about abortion but they'll even misrepresent people's pregnancy test results.


But you have proved my point, these kids have engaged in an "adult" behavior,

Theres nothing 'adult' about haing sex or having children, humans of both genders are most fertile as adolecents not as adults.


something that their pubescent minds either fail to or simply ignore the very adult consequences of.

Having an abortion isn't ignoring the consequences of pregnancy its *dealing* with them...child birth is what happens when you just ignore the consequences ;)


They thought they were mature enough to handle sex, and they were wrong,

How is taking care of yourself when you have what is essentially a medical problem 'immature.'


(I know some "kids" who have been able to make a mature decision and have thrived so it is not impossible to go against the cultural norm of instant gratification).

Yah i'm suuure. Its pretty f'ing impossible to go through school, college and university on time if you have a kid...unless you basically have someone else taking care of both you. Sure some people can do it and thats good for them if thats what they prefer and not what they were talked/guilted/forced into, but most don't.


I never insisted that women need to be punished for having sex.

You very clearly imply it by what you argue for and how you argue for it.


I think a lot of militant “pro-choicers” seem almost oblivious to the third party, the child, who should enjoy every expectation of life.

Lol a fetus doesn't have any expectations of life, it doesn't have any awareness of life or its situation even at the end.


I think it is a noble thing for a woman who does not want a child to carry that child to birth and then allow him/her at least a chance to live a full and happy life.

The "child" is only a theoretical thing at the point when someone decides whether or not to have an abortion, the same way that its merely a theoretical thing when a guy wanks off or uses a condom instead of having unprotected sex (omg that doesn't even give the child a chance!).


Adoption is a choice that allows for that outcome, and not only gives the child a chance to live, but gives a couple or a person, the chance to experience the joys that they otherwise wouldn't have been able to experience. What’s so wrong with that?

Theres nothing wrong with giving a baby up for adoption if you change your mind about having one *after* its already born, but its a pointless, wasteful source of needless pain and avoidable suffering for someone who doesn't want a child to go through pregnancy and birth for one...to me that is wrong.


The woman having sex is inviting that circumstance of her own choice (in most cases) she is fully aware of what sex can result in, including pregnancy. In other words she has allowed the fetus to exist through her actions; the fetus is an innocent victim of her whims. To equate an unwanted pregnancy with rape is ludicrous, because there is consent in most unwanted pregnancies.

The fact that sex, protected and unprotected, with birth control and without birth control, carries a degree of *risk* for a number of bad things to happen to you, including pregnancy, does not mean that mere knowlege of that risk implies any *consent* to the bad things that might happen to you.

If someone crosses a street, they understand that theres a small but real risk that a careless driver will run them over...however accepting the fact that they're taking this risk doesn't mean that they're giving permission to be run over, or that they don't have the right to sue if they're run over. If you say, get on a subway, there might be an extremely low risk of getting blown up by a suicide bomber, but no one says 'oh well, they basically consented to being blown up because they knew what taking the subway could result in.'

It would not be considered a plausible defense at a rape trial for the alleged rapist to say "she was fully aware of what can happen if you're walking alone in a dark street with a in a bad part the city during the night, so there was implied consent!"

In no other scenario would anyone ever argue that accepting necessary, low probability risks is equivolent to consenting to the worst case result occuring, so why is sex and pregnancy a unique instance here?


Life to me is something that once it is established should not be summarily destroyed,

It is one thing to want to protect people, its another thing to want to protect every bit of human DNA. A fetus is not an indepedent, self-aware, conscious person, like sperm cells that people waste casually, constantly, it only has the theorietical potential to become a person.


Women must remember their role as the vessels of life, and treat that role with respect, maturity and responsibility.

:angry: Thats utterly repulsive. Who the fuck are you to tell half of humanity what their 'role' is? The suggestion that women should 'remember their place' as mere objects, containers, for something, is absolutely disgusting and dehumanizing. :angry:

You seem to see a lot of humanity in fetuses and not a lot in women. :angry:


To be anti-abortion is not to be anti-woman, at least not for me.
SUUUUUUURE, its not "anti-woman" cause women's role is apparently just being "vessels", you're just making sure we remember our place...

Of course its against women, you specifically and graphically reduce women to baby carriers rather than free agents capable of making decisions about what they want their 'role' to be.

[Shadowlegion]

I'm probably more pro-life than pro-choice. You can call me a retarded caveman or whatever, but I've always thought that preventing the situation of pregnancy in the first place is the best thing to do. I think abortions should be available but I think we should have a society that encourages more adoption and safe sex. Seems pretty reasonable to me.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 08:50 PM
I'm probably more pro-life than pro-choice. You can call me a retarded caveman or whatever, but I've always thought that preventing the situation of pregnancy in the first place is the best thing to do. I think abortions should be available but I think we should have a society that encourages more adoption and safe sex. Seems pretty reasonable to me.
This doesn't really reveal anything about your politics. I don't know this for a fact, but im guessing that most people who have an abortion, especially when the foetus has developed slightly, didn't want to be pregnant in the first place. Im sure the emotional and physical stress of having sex with a condom is far more desirable that the emotional and physical stress of having a doctor whisk a foetus and hoover it out of you.

Of course there should be an emphasis on safe sex, it's far more desirable for all parties I would have thought. But there are times when the protection falls, when it wasn't applied properly, or when the couple were too drunk or lust driven to remember such precautions, there are millions of reasons why a woman could get pregnant and not want the baby. In which case, she undeniably should have the right to abortion.

[LSD]

I would challenge you to find evidence of ancient abortions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion


but I do believe that the rise in materialism, and commercialization has had a negative impact on humanity, it seems to me we have grown accustomed to the easiest way out of something or the quickest result.

Yes, things were so much better in the "good old days" when women "knew their place" and slavery was still around. :rolleyes:

Do you really think that women 500 years ago didn't want abortions? You really think that they wanted to be constantly pregnant with 10 children to feed and pick up after.

Maybe you imagine that it&#39;s just a "female fantasy" to be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. <_<

Well, let me tell you, it&#39;s not "materialism" that&#39;s lead to an increase in abortion, it&#39;s demand. Women want autonomy over their bodies, and no amount of Rousseau-esque whining about the "glorious past" will change that simple fact.

People want "easy" and "quick" results nowadays? Good&#33; Easy and quick beats the hell out of difficult and slow.

It&#39;s only a misogynist control-freak who sees the mainstreaming of family planing to be a "bad thing". What&#39;s wrong, worried that "your woman" might get "out of hand" and start making choices for herself?

Well, fuck you right the fuck back. :angry:


I think it is a noble thing for a woman who does not want a child to carry that child to birth and then allow him/her at least a chance to live a full and happy life.

So potential "humans" have "interests" and "rights" now? What&#39;s next, sperms and eggs? :rolleyes:

If women have a "noble" duty to protect a zygote, do they have that same "duty" to their unfertalized eggs? After all, genetically and organically speaking, they are virtually identical. Both are potential human societal actors and both are genetically distinct; should every period be a "tragedy" then? Should a "noble" woman save her flushed eggs, perhaps in cryogenic storage so that their "chance to live" is not wasted? :lol:

There is nothing "special" about a foetus. One day it may become a baby, but until it is born it is nothing but a collection of cells inside a uterus. It&#39;s genetically unique, yes, but so&#39;s a cancer cell. Strangely, though, no one&#39;s suggesting that chemotherapy is murder... <_<


However I do see the act of abortion (in almost all cases) as unethical and something that we as a race must begin to marginalize.

Too fucking bad.

Lots of people see lots of things as "unethical" and most of the time they&#39;re rellying on antiquated superstitious bullshit to come to that conclusion.

Accordingly, a civilized society should pay no mind to the personal "beliefs" of "spiritualist" fools and relly on objective and rational standards when crafting policy.

You don&#39;t like abortion? Fine, whatever; but since you&#39;re never going to be pregnant yourself, that conviction is kind of irrelevent. And any attempt on your part to pressure or persuade anyone to your pathetically provincial "morality" is worse than disgusting.

You have absolutely no business telling anyone what they can or cannot do with their body, even in an "advisory" sense.

Given your disgustingly misogynistic attitude on this subject, I&#39;d be shocked if any women felt comfortable enough to sleep with you, but if one were particularly desperate and you were to inadvertantly impregnate her, I hope you understand that your "opinions" would be worth precisely dick.

It doesn&#39;t matter that you were "part" of "creating life", the foetus is in her body and as such is her business. This attitude that men have some sort of "rights" over the feotus or the body that carries it because they were part of concieving it is as ridiculous as asserting that someone infected with AIDS owes "rights" to the individual who infected them.

Unwanted pregnancy is a sexually transmitted disease. There is absolutely nothing wrong with treating it as such.


we must regard each life as something that has intrinsic worth and we cannot become machinations of cold destruction and disposal

Why?


Women must remember their role as the vessels of life, and treat that role with respect, maturity and responsibility.

Oh, so a woman&#39;s "role" is to be a "vessel", is it? :unsure:

Do you actually know what a "vessel" is, MKS? It&#39;s an object that exists solely to be filled.

Repulsive, truly repulsive. :angry:

[Anti-Red]

Yeah, the truth of the matter is, to all pro-lifers out there, and I hate to take sides of the leftists, but it is truth, that things were once much worse. In the 1830s in America abortion was legal and generally rates were as high as 1 in 4 fetuses, and to top it off the methods were much more brutal and late term was much more common and was even rare today when it was outlawed. Or we could go back even further to the time when in abortions the rate of mothers dying was even higher, so two lives were lost. Or we could even go back to good old ancient times when the left any baby that could bring "bad luck" out on the mountainside, OR even further back when they SACRIFICED LIVE CHILDREN&#33;&#33;&#33;

[The Sloth]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 04:15 AM
I&#39;m somewhat pro-choice but this promotes unprotected sex at the cost of a fetus which has the potential to life with no repercussions. Frankly, I think abortion should be doctor sanctioned so it can&#39;t be abused. We have adoption programs for those who don&#39;t want to keep the baby. Why kill the fetus when you can grace another family who may be incapeable of conceving with the joy of life.

Offering abortion costs at a minimum is a bad idea.

that&#39;s really not true at all.


but this promotes unprotected sex at the cost of a fetus

the dead skin cells on your fore-head have the potential for human life, as well. i&#39;m sure that, at some point, the skin cells might be used to create life. we should, then, scrape our foreheads & throw the matter in a jar, to be opened in the future, once technology wills it.

also, sperm, obviously, has the potential for human life. and remember, during sex, sperm doesn&#39;t always go in the traditional hole. i wonder if we should scoop up this "life matter", too?

anyway, contraceptives fail, and fail pretty often. very few people want children with a pleasant partner.. they simply want the joys that come with youth (and, sometimes, with old age). so, when the pregnancy does occur, the child is obviously un-wanted.. and a huge strain is put on two people&#39;s lives.

what if someone, who doesn&#39;t know any better, uses anti-biotics in conjunction with birth control, and gets pregnant.. and what if this person has a life, a job, and school work to take care of, meaning, she can&#39;t spend nine months out of her life carrying a child?

what if her family is one of those very religious, very authoritarian families, who&#39;ll emotionally abuse her for the rest of her life once they find out that their daughter has been "free and wild"?

it happens all the time.

[EwokUtopia]

It will happen. That is a fact. There has allways been abortion, it isnt new, but it also happens in much higher rates in sloppy societies with abundant poverty and backwards moral codes that restrict birth control. Therefore, although conservatives oppose abortion with useless legislations, they actually perpetuate systems that lead to a society with a high rate of abortions. So we need to clean society up, reduce poverty, reduce male hegemonic dominance (an attribute that leads to rapes and forced pregnancies and a whole slew of other unpleasantries), all the while making abortions done as safely, cleanly, privately, and above all quickly as possible. I believe that abortion withing the first week has more in common with the pill than abortion in the last few weeks, and abortion in the last few weeks has more in common with killing a newborn baby than it does with early abortion. biologically, a late term foetus has much more in common with a newly born child than it does with a zygote. So that is why if it is to be done, it should be done quickly, safely, cleanly, and free.


Of course, Chemical abortion is the best option, so that should be the first resort. Late term abortion should be reserved for all but the most extreme circumstances, and even then, an effort should be made to extract the foetus and keep it alive on the outside.

[MKS]

Yes, things were so much better in the "good old days" when women "knew their place" and slavery was still around.

Do you really think that women 500 years ago didn&#39;t want abortions? You really think that they wanted to be constantly pregnant with 10 children to feed and pick up after.

Maybe you imagine that it&#39;s just a "female fantasy" to be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.

Well, let me tell you, it&#39;s not "materialism" that&#39;s lead to an increase in abortion, it&#39;s demand. Women want autonomy over their bodies, and no amount of Rousseau-esque whining about the "glorious past" will change that simple fact.

People want "easy" and "quick" results nowadays? Good&#33; Easy and quick beats the hell out of difficult and slow.

I never glorified the past, as you illustrate, however I do think past generations have had a greater reverence for life and the creation of life than the current one does. You can blame it on antiquated religious ethos, but at least there was a sense of "right" and "wrong". I was merely stating an opinion that today&#39;s modern condition of humanity (materialism, commercialism, etc.) has allowed certain factions or people to take a lassie-faire attitude with situations that I think deserve a greater reverence and/or perspective, such as the issue of abortion.


People want "easy" and "quick" results nowadays? Good&#33; Easy and quick beats the hell out of difficult and slow

This proves my point. The quickest way is not always the best way. In fact this attitude has created some of the greatest exploitations of man in modern history, including the proliferation of slavery in North America, the denigration of women and excluding them from their rights as citizens and equal persons, and the creation of mega-corporations which consistently devalue human life in the name of profit.


If women have a "noble" duty to protect a zygote, do they have that same "duty" to their unfertalized eggs? After all, genetically and organically speaking, they are virtually identical. Both are potential human societal actors and both are genetically distinct; should every period be a "tragedy" then? Should a "noble" woman save her flushed eggs, perhaps in cryogenic storage so that their "chance to live" is not wasted?

There is nothing "special" about a foetus. One day it may become a baby, but until it is born it is nothing but a collection of cells inside a uterus. It&#39;s genetically unique, yes, but so&#39;s a cancer cell. Strangely, though, no one&#39;s suggesting that chemotherapy is murder...

There is something special about a fetus, a fetus is the beginning of human life, and a cancer cell is not. Of course there is potential for any human cell to "become life" such a comparison is flawed because the fetus is recognized as the initiation of the biological human. The combination of sperm and fertilized egg is the catalyst to the birth of a human child. Remember humans are a mammal which means we give birth to live young. For nine months there is life, not potential life, being carried by the female.


Unwanted pregnancy is a sexually transmitted disease. There is absolutely nothing wrong with treating it as such.

Such an assertion is ludicrous and has no scientific basis. It is pure hyperbole, which is a dangerous sign of the principles that some "pro-choice" pundits hold.



Oh, so a woman&#39;s "role" is to be a "vessel", is it?

Do you actually know what a "vessel" is, MKS? It&#39;s an object that exists solely to be filled.

Repulsive, truly repulsive


Scientifically speaking, the role of the female of most species is to give birth to offspring. (I know it is reversed for the Seahorse). That is not to say that is their only role in society, but in regards to procreation that is their assigned duty. It is basic natural law, just as the basic natural purpose of sex is to procreate. Obviously modernity has relegated the "basic role of sex" obsolete, but with such progression there should also be consideration for the consequences of such a relaxed attitude to such a serious endeavor (sex). Unwanted pregnancy is one of those consequences, and to simply discard with the weighty issue in order to alleviate temporary discomfort or condition is irresponsible and corrosive to the moral and ethical fabric of any society.

The issue of abortion is one that seems to polarize people, and those of each camp seem to be so ardently aggressive at asserting their claims they become blinded to any relevant or insightful principles of the opposition. As I have stated several time before; I am pro-choice, the state should never hold power over the individual about any medical decision, my personal principles or morals should never impede on the liberties of another, however I do believe abortion is a sad reality that should be contained to the exceptional cases. It is my hope that everybody (male and female) would re-examine the issue and realize that human life is something that must be held as intrinsically valuable, if this basic principle is not held by the majority than abortion will advance as a "method of birth control".

The issue was once raised; why we value human life? And I was surprised that a "revolutionary leftist" should ask such a question. If we do not hold the value of human life as something that cannot be defined, that it is above all other life unique and hallowed, than there is no purpose to a socio-economic progression, and the current system should be regarded as acceptable to hold such a belief is not anti-left, or sacrilege of the atheistic ethos.

[RevMARKSman]

For nine months there is life, not potential life, being carried by the female.

Yup, life with no senses, no self-awareness, and no capability of rational thought. No different from a leech.




The issue was once raised; why we value human life? And I was surprised that a "revolutionary leftist" should ask such a question. If we do not hold the value of human life as something that cannot be defined, that it is above all other life unique and hallowed, than there is no purpose to a socio-economic progression, and the current system should be regarded as acceptable to hold such a belief is not anti-left, or sacrilege of the atheistic ethos.


why we value human life?

Because humans have senses, can think rationally, are self-aware, and can be participants in society.



If we do not hold the value of human life as something that cannot be defined, that it is above all other life unique and hallowed

Sounds a whole lot like Christianity to me.
"Our genetic code is hallowed and the highest form of life."
"Humans are the highest form of life because we were made in the image of God."

:wacko:



than there is no purpose to a socio-economic progression, and the current system should be regarded as acceptable to hold such a belief is not anti-left, or sacrilege of the atheistic ethos.

We are looking to meet the needs of all sentient, self-aware, rational beings (only BORN humans are so developed) with the least amount of labor or pain drawn from those beings as possible.

[MKS]

Yup, life with no senses, no self-awareness, and no capability of rational thought. No different from a leech.

But it is human life in utero, also there are plenty of "living" humans who have no self-awareness, no capability of rational thought and limited senses. Should these people be regarded as sub-human, by your definition of viable life which should be allowed such consideration, they would not be considered worthy of any such protection. Shouldn’t the life inside the mother be considered worthy of life outside the womb? Why are so many, so ardent to deny such a right? How can we as a race determine that the life inside a womb is dispensable? Isn’t such a sentiment fatalistic if not plain amoral? When did human life become so dispensable?


Sounds a whole lot like Christianity to me.
"Our genetic code is hallowed and the highest form of life."
"Humans are the highest form of life because we were made in the image of God."

There is nothing Christian about what I wrote. It maybe construed as "spiritual" or metaphysical but certainly not Christian. I never mentioned god or gods, I simply stated that we as humans should hold each individual life as unique and worthy of life, at the very least.


We are looking to meet the needs of all sentient, self-aware, rational beings (only BORN humans are so developed) with the least amount of labor or pain drawn from those beings as possible

Well at least you define what life is. But aren’t such definitions subjective. As I stated before, should those who are handicapped (mentally or otherwise) be considered sub-human and not worthy of our protection?

A simple question: Why can’t those who are conceived consensually be allowed to survive? Why must they be disposed of?

Responsible and rational people should be capable of preventing pregnancy, why can’t these same rational and sensible people be brought to bear the full weight of their actions and allow the life which they have created to grow and thrive?


I have yet to hear any rational argument for abortion (in non-rape/incest related cases).

[RevMARKSman]

Why can’t those who are conceived consensually be allowed to survive? Why must they be disposed of?

Because they are parasites and have no human cognitive characteristics. Simply because they have human DNA doesn&#39;t give them human rights. The woman however has the right to do what she wishes with her own body.

[EwokUtopia]

Contraception and equal society will lead to a far lower abortion rate, Not laws and governmental restrictions. I dont think anybody here wants a society with a high abortion rate, because right or wrong, it is sloppy, and no woman ever got kicks out of it or felt smashing right after it was done, it just isnt a pleasant thing to go through. Making it illegal wont stop women from going through it, it will just make it a much more unpleasant and wholley dangerous thing. It will go down once things are done better, take for instance the comparison between the US and Denmark. The former is a conservative society with great class division and many states in which abortion is illegal, and the latter is a (comparitavely) egalitarian society, and although it still has many faults, its systematic problems are nowhere near as bad as those in the US. Abortion is far more readily available there, and yet the american abortion rate is something like double or triple that od Denmark. Avoiding the circumstances that lead to the choice is better than having to make the choice. therefore, if you wish to stop so many abortions from happening, please, help get condoms to those who need it (especially in countries in the economic south) and stop babbling about some useless laws. If they didnt work in the 50&#39;s, there is no way theyll work now.

[MKS]

Contraception and equal society will lead to a far lower abortion rate, Not laws and governmental restrictions

I agree.


many states in which abortion is illegal

In the US only one state (South Dakota) has made abortion illegal, however the Federal Law imposed by the Roe v Wade decision trumps any state law that exists making abortion in almost all cases legal. I think the social mores about unwanted pregnancy, coupled with great economic divisions and obstacles are the reasons why abortions are so high in the US.


Because they are parasites and have no human cognitive characteristics

Wow. So I guess when your mother was pregnant with you she would say, "oh my parasite isn’t due until the autumn”, or, "my parasite kicked for the first time", and people asked her, "So what will you name your parasite"?

Come on, such a view is completely ludicrous and vehemently fatalistic. Something a rational and mature person would never hold as a principled truth. Stop veiling your amoral dogma as feminism.

[RevMARKSman]

Because they are parasites and have no human cognitive characteristics



Wow. So I guess when your mother was pregnant with you she would say, "oh my parasite isn’t due until the autumn”, or, "my parasite kicked for the first time", and people asked her, "So what will you name your parasite"?


Basically, yeah. I wasn&#39;t even conscious, I have no memories from that time, "I" in terms of my conscious being didn&#39;t even exist.

[EwokUtopia]

Dont underestimate the time in the womb, just because you dont remember it doesnt mean it didnt happen, or to put it another way, do you remember taking your first steps or saying your first words? Every person alive has gone through the experiance in the womb, and it is a very important transition, from nothing (or at least something that words lack description of) to what you are now. You grow in the womb faster than you will ever grow outside of it, or to put it another way, a Foetus has far less in common with a zygote than an old person does with a baby. Dont cast the experiance in the womb off because you dont remember it, because that nine months stay turned you from a clot of cells into a human, very quickly i may add. When you became a human is up for debate, and what humanity is in itself is also another discussion.

I believe that if you look at us objectively, you will find that the entire human race is a rabble of parasites. Or at least thats the way its becoming, and we need to stop our ever-consuming inifnitely expanding ways, or else there isnt much of a future for anyone.

But that was a total digression and i took that into a tangent of my own, whats the topic again?

Ah yes, abortion.......well, Abortions for some, Miniature American flags for others.

[Morag]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 12:18 AM

Because they are parasites and have no human cognitive characteristics

Wow. So I guess when your mother was pregnant with you she would say, "oh my parasite isn’t due until the autumn”, or, "my parasite kicked for the first time", and people asked her, "So what will you name your parasite"?

Come on, such a view is completely ludicrous and vehemently fatalistic. Something a rational and mature person would never hold as a principled truth. Stop veiling your amoral dogma as feminism.
Fetuses really are parasites, though, biologically speaking. The ambilical cord is a way of filtering blood so the the mother&#39;s anti-bodies (not just the Rh antibodies, but the immune system itself) won&#39;t attack and kill the fetus (otherwise a truer connection through porous epithileal lining, like in the lungs, would suffice). This is because the fetus uses energy (huge amounts of energy&#33;), nutrients, oxygen and shunts blood away from the mother, along with the other unhealthy aspects of pregancy, and the body recognises such actions as parasitic and not in its interests. So, yes, parasite. Not always unwelcomed, but a parasite all the same.

It isn&#39;t feminism to state a biological fact. It&#39;s feminism to say that it doesn&#39;t matter one way or another, the woman gets to choose.

[MKS]

It isn&#39;t feminism to state a biological fact. It&#39;s feminism to say that it doesn&#39;t matter one way or another, the woman gets to choose

A digression-but Feminism to me has become almost a militant anti-male cabal, not a party (parties) that seek the progression of the equality of sexes and the advancement of women’s issues. Modern Feminism seeks to assert Female dominance as opposed to gender equality.

[Morag]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 02:23 PM

It isn&#39;t feminism to state a biological fact. It&#39;s feminism to say that it doesn&#39;t matter one way or another, the woman gets to choose

A digression-but Feminism to me has become almost a militant anti-male cabal, not a party (parties) that seek the progression of the equality of sexes and the advancement of women’s issues. Modern Feminism seeks to assert Female dominance as opposed to gender equality.
That&#39;s your opinion. My experience is different. Gender equality is still the goal, by and large, but just like many many men would ike to see male dominance, yeah, there are some women who&#39;d like to be on top. Don&#39;t equate me, or other feminists, with this, because that&#39;s a stereotype. There are dozens of dfferent types of femeinism.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by MKS
A digression-but Feminism to me has become almost a militant anti-male cabal, not a party (parties) that seek the progression of the equality of sexes and the advancement of women’s issues. Modern Feminism seeks to assert Female dominance as opposed to gender equality.


Ann Coulter is that you? :o

Sorry, what do you base your anti-feminism on? Examples rather than shock jock generalisations please.

[MKS]

Sorry, what do you base your anti-feminism on? Examples rather than shock jock generalisations please.

I’m not anti-feminist, but I do stand against the very militant factions of the Feminist movement which seem to me to seek Female dominance rather than gender equality. I am all for equality, no gender, ethnic group, etc should presume superiority over another. One of the reasons I have stopped associating with the SPUSA is because it espoused such an over abundance of Feminist rhetoric, to me gender equality should be considered an automatic principle of any Left-Progressive movement, and it shouldn&#39;t overshadow the ultimate ends (class equality, direct democracy, etc)

[LSD]

I never glorified the past, as you illustrate, however I do think past generations have had a greater reverence for life and the creation of life than the current one does.

:rolleyes:

So "past generations" were more "reverant" than the current one and, in your judgment, this is a state of affairs that we should return to.

Guess what? That&#39;s called glorifying the past.


You can blame it on antiquated religious ethos, but at least there was a sense of "right" and "wrong".

Yeah, an irrational and idealist "sense" that&#39;s probably responsible for more misery and hardship than any other social institution save the class system.

"Morality" divoced from rationality is one of the worst forces of social oppression around. When people operate on their "sense" of "right and wrong" instead of logical analyses of objective reality, they end up justifying all sorts of horrific injustices.

In your case it&#39;s driven you to condemning a woman&#39;s right to fundamental self-determination out of some nebulous desire to "save" a bunch of cells in her uterus.

How sad. :(


This proves my point. The quickest way is not always the best way.

Obviously not, but quick ways do have implicit advantages over slow ones -- namely they&#39;re quicker. Sometimes that speed comes at un acceptable price (usually harm to oneself or another member of society), but otherwise, there&#39;s no reason not to pursue speed and/or efficiency.

And getting rid of a foetus instead of "carrying it" to term and then "giving it up for adoption" is not only quicker, it&#39;s also safer, healthier, and easier. For women with unwanted pregnancies, it&#39;s the obviously superior choice.


There is something special about a fetus, a fetus is the beginning of human life

Bullshit.

A sperm cell is just as "alive" as a zygote and just as much of a "potential person"; the same goes (if not more so) for unfertalized eggs.

The "begining of human life" stretches back millions of years, there is no special "demakation" where "life begins" and any attempt to "find" such a "line" is idealist nonsense.

There is however a very concrete begining of social participation, and that comes, rather intuitively, when one enters society. Upon that point one becomes a de facto societal actor and, even more important, a realised potential rational moral agent.

As such one is entitled to all the basic social protections in preparation for full social rights.

A feotus, however, is nothing more than a parasitic collection of cells developing towards social potentiality. And the social status of "potential potentials" is far to indirect for them to be comsidered a protected class of "creature".


For nine months there is life, not potential life, being carried by the female.

"Life" is irrelevent.

Cows are "alive", bacteria are "alive, cancer calls are "alive". That doesn&#39;t grant them any special societal status. All that matters in terms of societal protection is societal membership, something which foetuses do not and cannot have.

On this subject, there is, interestingly enough, an implicit reciprocity between "animal" and "unborn" rights, although many in both movements refuse to acknowledge it. The fact is, though, that if "animals" have "rights", so must foetuses and vice versa.

And that both of these movments ("animal liberation" and "pro-life") are dominated by petty-bourgeois idealists is no coincidence. People who tend to think based on emotion and "what feels right" are always drawn into these kind of idealist faux politics.


Scientifically speaking, the role of the female of most species is to give birth to offspring.

Scientifically speaking "role" is a meaingless term.

If women want to have children, they should; if they don&#39;t they shouldn&#39;t. Anf if they want to flush the contents of their uterus including any non-participatory fetal cells, that&#39;s what they should do as well.

There is absolutely nothing "unethical" or "wrong" about abortion and despite your hyperbolic moralistic language, you have yet to offer even a single coherent shred of evidence otherwise.


Obviously modernity has relegated the "basic role of sex" obsolete, but with such progression there should also be consideration for the consequences of such a relaxed attitude to such a serious endeavor (sex).

Why?


The issue was once raised; why we value human life?

We don&#39;t. "Human life" is far too nebulous and vague a concept to have any concrete political "value". Rather we must value human rights as they emerge from societal membership and the utilitarian interests of rational moral agents.


But it is human life in utero, also there are plenty of "living" humans who have no self-awareness, no capability of rational thought and limited senses. Should these people be regarded as sub-human, by your definition of viable life which should be allowed such consideration, they would not be considered worthy of any such protection.

That&#39;s called the "argument from marginal cases" and while it&#39;s an interesting philisophical question, it is ultimately a moot political issue.

There are number of reasons for affording protections (note that&#39;s protections, not rights) to so-called "marginal" humans, none of which apply to foetuses in utero. If a foetus were to be removed from a mother and were living independently then, as a social entity, it too would qualify as a "marginal case", but not otherwise.

Some people calls this the "location distinction", but it actually has less to do with location than with standing.

An infant which exists independently is a de facto responsibility of socciety. Accordingly it is deserving of all basic social protections until it becomes an active social participant.

When a foetus is in the womb, however, it cannot interact with society at any level; rather it exists solely through the body that carries it. That body is its subsistance paradigm and as such is its "law".

What the woman in question choses to do with that "law" is, of course, her own business which absolutely no social "ethical" duties either way.


Shouldn’t the life inside the mother be considered worthy of life outside the womb?

No&#33;


I’m not anti-feminist, but I do stand against the very militant factions of the Feminist movement which seem to me to seek Female dominance rather than gender equality.

That&#39;s what all anti-feminists claim these days. No one openly admits that they oppose female liberation, rather they&#39;re all just fighting "militant" "reverse sexism".

Like you, of course, they don&#39;t have any actual examples to back up their accusasions; they just "feel" that, as men, they&#39;re "under attack" by "militant feminism". In reality, of course, it&#39;s not their gender but their gender privilege that is being attacked by feminism, but many men are unable to recognize the difference.

[VermontLeft]

Originally posted by MKS
A digression-but Feminism to me has become almost a militant anti-male cabal, not a party (parties) that seek the progression of the equality of sexes and the advancement of women’s issues.

um...do you actually have any proof of this or do you just like making inflamatory claims for fun?

and isnt this, like LSD said, what all anti-progressives claim, that their oponnents are "too radical" or that their "trying to supplant them"?

"white nationalists" say that their "not really racist", they just "love their race" and dont want to see it "defeated" by the "other" races. hell, even fucking hitler claimed that he was "fighting" against "JEwish inflitration" or some shit.

NO ONE admits that they are bigoted. they all claim that they&#39;re the ones working for equality or justice and that everyone else is "against them".

and when it comes to sexism, its really fucking common. "reverse sexism" or "man-hating feminazis" is the big convervative buzzwords these days.

i mean doesnt George Bush claim to support female equality as well? like you, he says that hes fighting "excesses" or "radical" feminists ...but we now what that means in practice. <_<

you oppose abortion, you oppose feminism, you call women "vessels" and say that their "natural role" is childbearing. you know what? that makes you a sexist. :angry"

no wonder your restricted... <_<

[MKS]

So "past generations" were more "reverant" than the current one and, in your judgment, this is a state of affairs that we should return to.

Guess what? That&#39;s called glorifying the past.

It is not glorifying the past to cite a specific example of a precedent, now seemingly ignored. To glorify it would be to exaggerate its importance while at the same time downplaying its less beneficial characteristics. And if by your definition I am glorifying the past, than so be it, you are allowed your opinion.


A feotus, however, is nothing more than a parasitic collection of cells developing towards social potentiality. And the social status of "potential potentials" is far to indirect for them to be comsidered a protected class of "creature".

Another point we disagree on, thankfully science will concur that human life begins at conception, no matter how trivial biologically that life is, it is the beginning of the creation of a human being. A separate sperm and egg are obviously not held to the same definition, they are two ingredients, but separately they are meaningless.



"Life" is irrelevent

It is this sort of amoral ethos that holds most of the Revolutionary Left movement relegated to the "extreme" wing of the spectrum. And such thinking should always be considered dangerous to humanity. Again, thankfully the majority of the population does not hold such a cold regard for human life.


There is absolutely nothing "unethical" or "wrong" about abortion and despite your hyperbolic moralistic language, you have yet to offer even a single coherent shred of evidence otherwise

It is impossible to prove a subjective "truth or "truths" such as right and wrong. I think abortion (in almost all cases) is wrong, however I would never force my principles upon any person, and would certainly never support any State action to curtail or sever a person’s right to choose.


That&#39;s what all anti-feminists claim these days. No one openly admits that they oppose female liberation, rather they&#39;re all just fighting "militant" "reverse sexism".

I have actually participated in actions for several feminist organisations and causes (including rallies to increase paid maternity leave, increase access to birth control and abortion clinics, and have donated funds and time to an organization that seeks to end female sex slavery in the US and abroad). I am an ardent proponet of gender equality. Through this participation I have witnessed a faction of feminist (a small faction) who openly espouse the supremecy of the female gender, while these extremist are marginalized by the popular majority, they are still very vocal.


um...do you actually have any proof of this or do you just like making inflamatory claims for fun?

See above.


mean doesnt George Bush claim to support female equality as well? like you, he says that hes fighting "excesses" or "radical" feminists ...but we now what that means in practice

Bush seems to be pretty good about gender equality, several cabinet positions are held by women. He has nominated several women to key court and diplomatic positions as well. Clinton to be seems to be the chauvinist with his treatment of women (including his wife) I hate defending Bush but sometimes you guys make it so easy when you make baseless claims.

[LSD]

It is not glorifying the past to cite a specific example of a precedent, now seemingly ignored.

Except that&#39;s not what you did. Rather you made a rather vague assertion regarding an historical "reverence" (whatever that means) for "life" (whatever that means).

Not only is such a statement entirely assumptive and nonspsefic, but it is also abjectly false. Anyone who knows anything about history knows that "respect for life" has never been particularly high in mainstream society.

If we&#39;re talking about feotuses and "babies" in particular, it is worth noting that for most of history abortion was considered completely acceptable and, indeed, even the Catholic Church had no problem with it.

Infantacide was also quite common for much of human history; an act which, I&#39;m sure even you, would acknowledge as worse than abortion.

This "good old days" mentality is utterly without material basis.


Another point we disagree on, thankfully science will concur that human life begins at conception

Again, "human life" is a nebulous and, ultimately, meaningless term.

An egg is just as "alive" as a zygote. Sure, alone, it won&#39;t turn into a baby; but neither will a foetus.

Both require very specific circumstances to actualize their potential. I suppose that, if you define your terms very carefuly, you could qualify one as slightly "more" "potential" than that other, but this kind of semantic quibbling is completely irrelevent to practical issues of societal rights.

Societal members enjoy societal rights, no one else.

Again, if you extend rights to foetuses you must extend it to bacteria as well. Somehow though, I doubt that you consider antibiotics "unethical"... <_<

[MKS]

Again, if you extend rights to foetuses you must extend it to bacteria as well. Somehow though, I doubt that you consider antibiotics "unethical"

Shouldn&#39;t the fetus, which is human life, be accorded even the most basic right to exist? I could understand the argument of a giving such a right to a sperm or egg, but a fetus is the completion of conception which culminates (in 9 months) to the birth of a live human child. Why is there such an opposition to allowing created life to exist? The creation (in most cases) was consensual and done with a full knowledge of the consequences of the action? Isn&#39;t the attitude of "casual" disposal a symptom of a society in decline? Don&#39;t even consider the argument of the past reverence of life, but consider the progressive enlightened ideal of respect for life beyond the bounds of any theistic dogma, just as humanity recognizing the indefinable mystery of life, existence and death. Even Che admitted to the "mystery" of life.

Why are you and so many others in this forum so opposed to admitting the unkown qualities of life, and furthermore so ardently opposed to any concept of revernece for human life, or of the mysterious quality of birth (human or otherwise).

[EwokUtopia]

whats all this talk about fetuses? Fetal abortions are sloppy and innefective. Furthermore a fetus is more like a born baby than anything else. I dont really support calling something with a working human brain (any psychologist will tell you about the importance of the last bit in the womb and its effects on the person you become) and beating human heart a parasite, unless you are to reffer to the parasitic attributes of the human race in general. So why all this talk about fetus&#39;s? Besides, most abortions are preformed in the zygote and embyo states, which is far cleaner, healthier, and less embarrasing (who wants to start to show with nothing to show for it?). Abortions, if preformed, should be made available long before there is a fetus, and prefferably before there is an embryo.

[LSD]

Shouldn&#39;t the fetus, which is human life, be accorded even the most basic right to exist?

No.

Again, rights do not merely "exist", they stem from society and social relationships. Unless one is a part of a society, one cannot have rights. That&#39;s why chickens don&#39;t have rights; that&#39;s why cancer cells don&#39;t have rights.

Remember, a bacterium is far more "alve" than any foetus will ever be. Unlike an "unborn child" a bacterium is actually fully developed. Even more than that, it is capable of a complete and independent life.

If "life" grants some sort of special status and killing a feotus for the convenience of the mother is "unethical" then, logically, so must be using antibiotics.

After all, it&#39;s killing life&#33; :o


Why is there such an opposition to allowing created life to exist?

Because "created life" is a nebulous and practically meaingless term.

Again, an unfertalized egg, by any reasonably definition, is just as alive as a fertalized one. It is also a "potential life". Given the right circumstances, it too will become a human child and eventually a human societal actor.

I will accept that, statistically speaking, a randomly selected fertalized egg has a higher chance of becoming a baby than a randomly selected unfertalized one. But the difference is not nearly as great as you seem to be contending.

Even more importantly, however, despite your bizarre idealist assertions to the contrary, there is nothing "especially" or "distinctly" "alive" about the latter as comared to the former.

"Life" is a rather vague term to begin with and when it comes to the "begining" or "demarkation line" of life, there&#39;s really very little constructive to be said.

That&#39;s why, again, no "moral" or political system can rely upon "life" as any kind of significant attribute. "Life" is merely a state of organization/biology, it has no "spiritual" or "metaphysical" significance.

Now, that said, living humans make up the entirety of human society, so insofar as that society is concerned, living humans matter a great deal; but only because of their status as particpatory social actors.

A "living" organism that does not meet that critera -- like a cow, e. Coli bacterium, or human foetus -- cannot be afforded "rights". To do so would undermine the entire foundation of organized civilized society.

That&#39;s why the "animal rights movement" is romantic nonsense and the anti-abortion movement is oppresive sexism. :angry:


The creation (in most cases) was consensual and done with a full knowledge of the consequences of the action? Isn&#39;t the attitude of "casual" disposal a symptom of a society in decline?

Why are you so hung-up in how the foetus was made?

It doesn&#39;t matter whether the sex was consentual or if there was a known risk of pregnancy. Crossing the street carries a known risk of being hit by a car, that doesn&#39;t make medical treatment following an accident "wrong".

The irresponsible thing would be to have a child even when one is not able/willing to take care of it; perhaps "putting it up for adoption" so that it is forced to grow up in the abject horrors of the modern "child services" system.

It is far more adult and rational to merely eliminate an unwanted foetus as soon as it is detected.

And no, that is not a "symptom" of a "declining society", it&#39;s rather and encouraging sign of a more rational attitude towards sexuality, not to mention a great victory for the women&#39;s rights movment.


Why are you and so many others in this forum so opposed to admitting the unkown qualities of life

There are many things that we do not know about life, but you seem to be talking about more than temporary ignorance.

Instead you seem to be prattling on about the so-called "metaphysical mysteries" of life; the idealist myth that life has some sort of implicit "spiritual" or "devine" nature that makes it distinct from the rest of the universe.

That idea was quite the vogue in the 19th century, but it has nothing to do with a modern scientifc approach to human sexuality.

[EwokUtopia]

How very Darwinistic. Tell me why society should matter if life doesnt? And also, tell me why animals shouldnt have any rights, do you think that humans are inately superior to the point where we should be able to kill anything else for kicks?

You said that a bacteria is at least fully developed, but is a born baby fully developed? should a 1 year old have the same legal rights not to be killed as you do?

Dont be so pig-headed, you come across as a person who hates every foetus, embryo, and zygote, which I hope is not true. Dont speak with such hate, it makes your arguement seem less credible because ordinary people do not have such hatred for foeti. Its almost as (but not quite) stupid as the pro-lifers pulling the Hell card all the time.



I ask you just one question, when, in your beliefs, does killing it cease to be abortion and becomes infanticide? In my beliefs, it occurs when the foetus is capable of living outside the mother, and extraction should occur, not abortion, and I dont see why this is not done more. True, there are too many people, and especially with this system that doesnt want to afford to feed them all, having too many would be a problem, but we have the capacity to feed the world 12 times over, so after that capacity is realized, the technology should be developed to rid the woman of her pregnancy while still keeping the foetus alive. Then everyone is happy. But until then, early free and safe abortion should be made available, and unwanted pregnancy should be severly reduced by useful sexual education along with ample and free pills and condoms.

Aside from that, I am pretty discouraged by your cold and at times seemingly hateful approach to this subject. Women should have the rights to choose what they do with their pregnancies, but only because many pregnant women are left with little recourse. I dont think many pregnant women would light heartedly walk into a clinic, get an abortion, and go get pregnant and do it again because it is just a contraceptive like all others...no this is absurd. There is a spiritual quality to life for those who see it, but there is also a spiritual quality to trees, the wind, the sun, and pretty much everything else in the universe. What it is, I am not fully sure, but some binding force that allows all things to be, and be the very specific way they are. To completely understand existance transcends human abilities. Just because we can explain things with science, or put a metaphorical story on it with religion does not mean we can truly understand it. An embryo exists, but it does not percieve or feel, therefore killing it does not create suffering to it, but rather it stops its development into a thinking, feeling, percieving human. That being said, one should not kill it unless one is left with little recourse. Not getting pregnant is becoming more and more easy, people are just still being sloppy, this needs to change.

[LSD]

Tell me why society should matter if life doesnt?

Society matters relative to society, nothing more. Similarly, I suppose, life matters relative to itself as well, although that&#39;s rather irrelevent to our present discussion.

The question at hand is when is abortion "unethical" or a violation of "rights"; since those terms only exist in the context of human society, we are obligated to approach the issue from a solely societal paradigm.

If we were talking about wolves and aborting wolf foetuses, human society would not matter; but since we are talking human rights, the source of those rights -- namely society -- must be considered.

And, again, society has a concrete material existance. "Life" is a vague, almost catch-all, metaphysical "construct". Accordingly, while basing a social system upon social nescessity is a rational excersize; trying to use "life" as a basis for any sociopolitical paradigm is doomed to failure.

Humanity cannot survive without "destroying life". Killing is the very heart of our biological subsistance. And so calling "killing" "wrong" is meaningless jibberish.

Violating rational social prohibitions is "wrong", everything else is "fair game"&#33;


And also, tell me why animals shouldnt have any rights, do you think that humans are inately superior to the point where we should be able to kill anything else for kicks?

This has nothing to do with "superiority" in some sort of idealist metaphysical sense. Humans are capable of particpating in human society, hence they are entitled to the protections of said society. Animals are not.

Again, when it comes to societal rights, the only relevent issue is societal membership. Nebulous idealist concepts like "life" or "humanity" only distract from a propper rational analysis.

If you want to discuss "animal rights" further, I suggest that you start a thread on the subject. This one is for discussing abortion and its so-called "imorality"; a position that, I&#39;m sorry to say, you seem to be quite close to agreeing with.

I know that you consider yourself to be pro-choice (at least I&#39;d hope so&#33; :o), but like MKS over there, you are unwilling to recognize that a woman&#39;s rights extend beyond merely legal recognition.

A woman has the right to do whatever she wants to her own uterus and no one -- not the law, not the government, not you -- has the right to label her as "unethical" for doing so.


should a 1 year old have the same legal rights not to be killed as you do?

Yes.


I ask you just one question, when, in your beliefs, does killing it cease to be abortion and becomes infanticide?

Birth.


I dont think many pregnant women would light heartedly walk into a clinic, get an abortion, and go get pregnant and do it again because it is just a contraceptive like all others...

Obviously not. Preventative contraception is almost universally simpler and easier than abortion. But if a woman were to use abortion as her standard means of preventing pregnancy, there would be nothing "wrong" with it.

It probably wouldn&#39;t be the wisest decision, given that abortion does have a mild risk attactched to it and is universally more work than comdoms/birth control pills/etc... but "morally" speaking, there&#39;s no issue whatsoever.


There is a spiritual quality to life

:rolleyes:

Should this be moved to Religion?

[Comrade-Z]

Really, when you get down to it, all of the Earth&#39;s life since its beginning has been one long self-perpetuating (with adequate external inputs of energy) chemical reaction. An individual human is just one (miniscule) part of that chemical reaction. Therefore, to use "life" or even "human life" as a demarcation of rights makes no sense.

And "rights" are not just inherent in things. They do not have a material existence. Rights" are ideas and modes of behavior with which social beings interact with each other. We confer "rights" to others because we realize that our survival depends on a social context. These ideas of "rights" affect our behavior in ways that foster cooperation that is essential to our existence. Thus, insofar as we are dependent on a social context, we will give rights to all the members of that social context.

We are very minimally dependent on our social context with dogs, for instance, so we confer some minimal "rights" to dogs in our dealings with them. If dogs were still an essential part of our hunting and survival and if dogs had better conceptual skills, we would be conferring a lot more "rights" to dogs in order to maintain their alliegiance with us. The fact that their communication and social interaction with us is necessarily minimal (because of their lack of developed speech) means that our social interdependence with dogs can only be diminished when compared to other humans. We are more interdependent with humans than with dogs, and accordingly, we see it as in our self-interest to confer a lot more rights to humans than to dogs. LSD is correct when he talks about how the idea of conferring equal rights to humans and dogs (or any other animal) is pure romanticism.

One reason that we confer rights to mentally retarded people is that we recognize the possibility that one day we too, as individuals, could become retarded, perhaps as a result of an injury. Thus, by protecting mentally retarded people, we are potentially protecting ourselves. However, in the case of dogs, there is never a possibility of us becoming dogs, so our incentive to protect dogs is lessened. (Similarly, barring time-travel, the possibility of us becoming foetuses again is nil).

The point of all this is that one must be a member of a social context in order to be treated with (socially-created) rights, and the foetus is not a social member of human society, as LSD and others have already pointed out. Accordingly, the foetus is not conferred the rights of human society. The carrier of the foetus gets to decide on what to do with the foetus.

[EwokUtopia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 09:25 PM
I know that you consider yourself to be pro-choice (at least I&#39;d hope so&#33; :o), but like MKS over there, you are unwilling to recognize that a woman&#39;s rights extend beyond merely legal recognition.

A woman has the right to do whatever she wants to her own uterus and no one -- not the law, not the government, not you -- has the right to label her as "unethical" for doing so.
I dont consider myself pro-life or pro-choice because frankly it isnt a really big issue for me. I support a womans right to choose insofar as it makes the inevitable safer, cleaner and more discreet, but when there is a human brain and beating human heart that can survive outside of the womb, it really makes no sense to kill it instead. Forgive me if I am wrong, but I understood that the primary goal of abortion was to have the woman being no longer pregnant, which would be the same result if the foetus (and I say foetus here because I am reffering specifically to late term pregnancies, not ambiguously to all womb-bound entities as has been done on this forum so incorrectly) is extracted alive, which is becoming increasingly possible. You say that the parasitism of a foetus ends at the act of birth, while I say that you are wrong. It is parasitic long after that, if nobody payed attention to a newborn baby, it would die very very fast. Additionally, it leaches off the mothers breast for sustainance, if thats not parasitism, then what is? However, the technology exists to feed a child with artificial milk, and the technology also exists to extract a baby alive in the third trimester. So why isnt this done?

Ask yourself this, is there really that much biologically different between a foetus with one week to go till birth from a week old baby? both can survive without the mother, then why kill the latter? Does letting the foetus live by extracting it from the womb negate a womans rights when killing it ultimately reaches the same results? Of course, this proceedure should be done absolutly free of charge, which would be easy in a profitless world, that is of course what we want, isnt it?

Now if you can tell me how I am undermining womens rights by proposing an alternate solution with the same ultimate results, Im all ears. Perhaps I misunderstand abortion, you see, I allways thought that the point of it was to get rid of unwanted pregnancy, not kill &#39;life unworthy life&#39;. Now with our developing technology and profit-driven society, the former is much harder, and in early pregnancies impossible, but early abortions do not concern me in the slightest. The technology is available to take a third trimester foetus out alive, effectively aborting the pregnancy while preforming a birth at the same time that turns a parasite into a human....tell me how this is a bad thing and should not be done.

[EwokUtopia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 04:37 AM

I dont consider myself pro-life or pro-choice because frankly it isnt a really big issue for me.
Let me re-phrase this. I have never been affected by abortion, nor has anyone I know, or at least if they have, they have been quiet about it (which I respect and support) so I have no strong emotions pertaining to it, and although I support the pro-choice camp over the pro-life camp (which has very freaky tendancies that creep me about without even touching the issue of abortion), but I hold other issues far dearer (like poverty and war and pollution) to my heart, and my sympathies for pro-choice do not even come close to my allignments with the anti-war or anti-imperialist stances, and therefore I would not presume to call myself pro-choice, because they are merely sympathies and not actions.

[LSD]

but when there is a human brain and beating human heart that can survive outside of the womb, it really makes no sense to kill it instead

Why not?

If it&#39;s better for the woman involved and is her prefered option, it seems like it makes perfect sense.

Since she is, again, the only societal member involved, her opinion on the subject must be "law". I understand that your "ethics" may lead you to a different conclusions, but you really have absolutely no standing on this isse.

You don&#39;t like abortion? You want fetal "extractions" to be the norm? Too fucking bad. The decision has nothing to do with you. :angry:


You say that the parasitism of a foetus ends at the act of birth, while I say that you are wrong. It is parasitic long after that, if nobody payed attention to a newborn baby, it would die very very fast.

Again though, it&#39;s not the "parasitism" of a foetus which makes it not deserving of human societal rights. You are absolutely correct, many members of society are, arguable, parasites, and far more are, in some way or another, dependent on others for their survival.

But that&#39;s the inate nature of an interdependent society, it has absolutely nothing to do with the relevent issue of when human societal membership begins.

A baby may be dependent on its parents/guardians for survival, but it is nonetheless an independent actor, one which is not capable of rational moral participation yet, but which is rapidly developing towards it.

A foetus, on the other hand, is not even a potential independent rational agent, as it idoesn&#39;t even live in society yet&#33;

Look, there are number of pressing reasons for affording protections (note that&#39;s protections, not rights) to so-called "parasitic" humans, whether they be infants, the ill, or the infirmed, but none of those reasons apply to foetuses in utero.

If a foetus were to be removed from a mother and were living independently then, as a social entity, it too would qualify as a "marginal case", but not otherwise.

Some people calls this the "location distinction", but it actually has less to do with location than with standing.

An infant which exists independently is a de facto responsibility of socciety. Accordingly it is deserving of all basic social protections until it becomes an active social participant.

When a foetus is in the womb, however, it cannot interact with society at any level; rather it exists solely through the body that carries it. That body is its subsistance, and by extension "moral", paradigm.

A foetus, by definition, has no societal rights, accordingly any interference "in the name" of that foetus is an unjustified intrusion into the existant social rights of another.

It&#39;s really that simple.


Ask yourself this, is there really that much biologically different between a foetus with one week to go till birth from a week old baby?

No. But there is an enormous social difference.

For the hopefuly last time, biology -- or "life" -- is quite irrelevent to this discussion. All that&#39;s relevent in a discussion on societal rights is societal membership. Whether a foetus has a "beating heart" or a "brain" is a matter for the mother and her obstetrician, not society at large.


Does letting the foetus live by extracting it from the womb negate a womans rights when killing it ultimately reaches the same results?

And who precisely will be doing the "letting" in your hypothetical case?

If a woman wants to "extract" her foetus, she should, of course, be given every opportunity to do so. But if she&#39;d prefer not to unnescessarily endur the associated risks, time, and pain, that is also her soveriegn right.

Forcing her to chose the inferior option (from her perspective) is indeed a "negation" of her fundamental rights.

[EwokUtopia]

You have very totalitarianistic views on society if society is the greatest good of all of humanity. Very Brave New World-esque. What you are saying is that my rights to live are dependant on my being a functioning part of society. People have felt this way before. It lead to the T-4 Euthanasia program, and other wonderous things.

Fuck Society, society leads to nations, genocides, wars, class structure, purges, oppressions, exploitation, and a whole slew of wonderous things. The less society we have, the better. Im not saying lets all forget to speak and devolve a few hundred thousand years, but stop saying that the only reason the individual exists is to further society. That leads to alot of conformist attitudes which inevitably lead to work being the meaning of human life.

After all, Everybody belongs to everybody else, thank Ford&#33;

[LSD]

You have very totalitarianistic views on society

First of all, "totalitarianistic" isn&#39;t a word.

Second of all, my "views on society" are entirely logical and in keeping with a Marxist understanding of social rights. There is nothing "totalitarian" in recognizing that rights have a material basis, and what&#39;s really dangerous is treading into that idealist romantic notion of a "supernatural" origin of rights.

Because once we divorce protections from social reality, we are no longer able to craft those protections to meet actual needs.

Society exists to serve its members, accordingly it must protect those members from harm; it does this by granting "rights" and "protections" to all the individuals within it. Accordingly, only those who are within society are covered by its franchise.

That&#39;s why you have human rights and a chipmunk doesn&#39;t. It doesn&#39;t matter that you are both "alive" or that you are both mamals, all that is relevent is that your membership in human society grants you protections relative to that society.

If there were an equally evolved "chipmunk society", then that chipmunk would be entitled to protections from it. But since there isn&#39;t, he exists at the mercy of the natural world.

That&#39;s the way the world works.


What you are saying is that my rights to live are dependant on my being a functioning part of society.

No. What I&#39;m saying is that your social right to live is dependent on your societal membership. And, really, on what else could it be based?

Tell me, since you reject a materialist study of rights, in your paradigm of "natural rights" (or whatever nebulous idealist phrase you chose to use), why do you have rights and a bacterium doesn&#39;t? If not societal participation, what criterium are you using to establish franchise?

The "mysteries of life"? :lol:


People have felt this way before. It lead to the T-4 Euthanasia program

<_<

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin&#39;s_law


stop saying that the only reason the individual exists is to further society

Where on earth did I state that? :blink:

I never said that individuals "exist to further society", indeed I didn&#39;t even touch upon the concept of "purpose" or "individual meaning; so how you get read this into what I&#39;ve written is frankly baffling.

All that I said was the human societal rights come out of human society and that in order to be covered by the franchise of a moral paradigm, one must be a participant in it.

This position is not "radical", nor is it even particularly "controversial": and, of course, most important to this discussion, it is also thus far unrefuted.

For all the hyperbolic distractions and ad hominem nazi comparisons (:rolleyes:), you have still to actually rebut my paradigm of human rights. as emegent from societal obligation.

I am still waiting for a rational argumentation in defense of your contentions. But then since most of your contentions are predicated on emotionalist idealism and you have demonstrated no ability to look at this issue objectively ...I&#39;m not exactly holding my breath. <_<

[EwokUtopia]

Objectivly, I dont really care, as I am only opposed to late term abortions, and they represent too small of a number to constitute any real significance. Im really not one for carrying on arguements for arguements sake over the internet, and for the most part, I have lost all interest in abortion. Arguements like these proove nothing. You have your views that rights are granted by societies, and if thats true, than rights dont really exist but for pen and paper, which would actually be a pretty good assessment. However, the society that promotes abortion in large numbers while doing little to prevent unwanted pregnancy, which isnt really that hard to do, is a poorly ran society that focuses on convenience rather than social responsibility. Unwanted pregnancies shouldnt happen, but they always will, that is a face of life, but they can be avoided much better than they currently are. A society that aborts a quarter of its pregnancies is a society that seems to have no clue about how to avoid these unfortunate circumstances. Whose fault it is? Of course not the womens, in most cases they come from the poorest elements of society (I think poverty was the number one cause for about half abortions in the US, and an underlying cause for alot more than this too), but rather it was those who failed to provide them with free and easily accessable contraceptives and education about how to avoid unwanted pregnancy. Even when it happens, it should be aborted as early as possible (hence there should never be a foetus, and I still dont understand why you keep calling it that) because that makes the most sense to everyone (it is far easier, safer, cheaper [free in my country] and more private).

So my final arguement is this, what we were talking about (late term abortions) is irrelevant, they will allways happen, right or wrong, because some people are not wise and make bad choices, like being pregnant until they are very visibly pregnant and about to give birth and then suddenly deciding to abort even though the foetus could easily live outside the womb and at no cost to the mothers convenience (most harm done is to the doctor because this requires more effort and skill than to simply suck its brains out). I dont know how often it happens, but I gather that most people are smarter than to let that happen, therefore, even though I dont like it and it bothers me, it really doesnt fucking matter because I cant do anything about it, and it represents such a small sector of society that there are about a million issues I care about more than it.

I was on LSD&#39;s side, but I came into arguement with you over the way you defended your point. It seemed very darwinistic, and almost hateful of unwanted pregnancies. I do not believe that an unborn entity, even if it is unwanted and does not share the same rights of a human, is not a parasite, this is a very bleak and negative view of how people are born, and again, it reminds me very much of brave new world. It is much more symbiotic than parasitic IE women have wombs for no other reason than to bear children, whether they want to or not is a completely different matter, I am talking biology, not societal rights right now, women also have the right to use their womb and not to use their womb, I can think of no other organ in human biology that people have the ability and right to use or not than the womb, and please, dont say that I am saying that all women have to have kids, because I really am not, I am just stating a fact, wombs are ment for pregnancies. I dont think they really even have another use, though biology was never really my area of study, and I am willing to admit I am wrong on this one if so prooven. I cant think of any other parasite that leeches on to an organ specifically made for it, so I disagree with such terminology. It really isnt so much what you said, but how you said it that discouraged me. But I grow weary of this topic, so say what you will and let that be the end of my participation in it. I can only think of abortion so much in one week, besides, far more important things are currently unfolding in the world this week anyways.

[MKS]

A woman has the right to do whatever she wants to her own uterus and no one -- not the law, not the government, not you -- has the right to label her as "unethical" for doing so.

I have every right to judge person’s actions as "immoral" or "unethical", we all are entitled to our opinions. So long as my opinion does not influence any law or prohibition it is harmless to anyone. I, unlike many of the "Revolutionary Leftists", consider certain actions to be right or wrong, these principles are founded on logic, consideration and the ultimate belief that humanity is gifted with the almost limitless aptitude for great good or great evil, and the assertion that the human race should act toward the highest ethical standard, and seek to create societies based on the precepts of equality, justice and liberty. Abortion in my opinion is something that humanity can do without, and should do with out (in almost all cases). The fatalist attitude that LSD holds and most on the "Left" hold is something that we should always be weary of, as it is corrosive and seeks the cold mechanization of human existence. Thankfully his opinions are not the popular opinions and almost all people (pro choice and anti-choice) will at the very least recognize the very weighty implications of any subject dealing with human life and death.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by MKS
Abortion in my opinion is something that humanity can do without, and should do with out (in almost all cases).

But why? Abortion is necessary, why should a womyn be forced to carry to term every time she gets pregnant? Even when she does not want a new child, cannot support it etc? You&#39;re saying that womyn should not be given complete control of their own bodies, that is you&#39;re asserting an external authority over them, denying them personal autonomy - why should anyone be able to do this? That is anti-thetical to communism.

How can womyn be emancipated when they forced into pregnancies that they dont want? And births? You&#39;re putting the lives of womyn at risk.

Should men be similarly punished for all the sperm they waste? Those are all potential lives that you are wiping off yourself, why don&#39;t you care about those? What about men who wear condoms? They could have created life but instead they chose to exert control of their own bodies and their own future - they wore a condom, selfish pigs&#33; That sperm could have been a little baby&#33;

Unfortunately for womyn they do not get off so easily.

Every time a womyn happens to have one of their eggs fertilised (and this happens even when people use condoms and are on the pill etc):

&#39;Sorry hun, 9 months of pregnancy for you, don&#39;t forget the birth, that might be a bit painful, but hey - you&#39;re used to it now aren&#39;t you? What? You&#39;ve got to work? Sorry lass, you&#39;ll have to take time off work, you&#39;ve got to take care of your baby remember? Hey its&#39; not my fault you don&#39;t get paid maternity leave&#33; Should have thought about all these &#39;complications&#39; before YOU decided to have sex - hey hey, don&#39;t try and put this on the man, if you want to have sex you have to face up to the consequences&#33;&#39;

Thanks.

[MKS]

Abortion is necessary, why should a womyn be forced to carry to term every time she gets pregnant?

This is getting redundant. I never advocated forcing women to do anything. I am pro-choice. I was simply stating that personally I hold most abortions as an unethical act of selfishness. It is possible for one to hold a personal opinion and not want to proselytize or force that principle upon people. Pro-Choice does not automatically equal pro-abortion, it is only allowing the individual the choice unhindered by law or prohibition. Same thing as being for the decriminalization of most drugs, I personally think most drug use is a disgusting, addictive habit, but I also think that people, as mature adults and citizens, are allowed to do whatever they want to their bodies and their lives therefore all drugs should be legal, or decriminalized. While I hope people will someday abandon their dependancy on drugs, I know that laws and prohibtions do not solve an ethical crisis, and in some ways make it worse.

[chimx]

I have been away for some time and don&#39;t have time to work through how this discussion has developed, but I did want to reply to some comments directed towards me originally.

When looking at birth control and abortion in 1st world countries, Japan acts as a significant case study. While abortion has been legal there for decades (since 1948 if I remember correctly), birth control pills have only very very recently been legalized. Because of the illegality of typical birth control methods except for condoms, women used abortion as a primary form of birth control.

Because of the inherent problems of excessive abortion procedures, women developed what is called riddled uterus syndrome, an increase in scar tissue on the uterus drastically decreases the possibility of conception--making women infertile. If you look at studies on Japan&#39;s birth rates, you will see that there was a drastic decrease because of this.

Contraception needs to be practiced, and abortion should only be used as a safeguard to contraceptive failure. Abortion as a primary means of birth control has already shown itself to be unhealthy to both the woman and society as a whole when used in excess.

[Invader Zim]

Abortion is, for the most part, a non-surgical procedure so comparing it to massive coronary surgery is ridiculous.

A doctor can also refuse to perscribe an asprin. Surgical proceedur or not, the point stands.

[MKS]

A doctor can also refuse to perscribe an asprin. Surgical proceedur or not, the point stands

There is no relation to a doctor prescribing aspirin and a doctor refusing to perform an abortion. Aspirin is a known remedy for many ailments (heart attack, pain relief ect.) however abortion is not a remedy to a medical problem, but is a resolution to a personal problem (in most cases). Abortion is an expedient measure to relive the woman from the encumbrances of a pregnancy. Of course there are exceptions to this rule, some women are at risk medically if they carry to term, and some women have been impregnated against their will (Re. rape/incest). But for the majority of women abortion is a means to an end, not a treatment for a medical symptom or disease.

[LSD]

A doctor can also refuse to perscribe an asprin. Surgical proceedur or not, the point stands.

Only for justifiable medical reasons, not "personal beliefs".

Aspirin isn&#39;t perscription medication, of course, so a doctor doesn&#39;t even have to perscribe it. But for any pain medication, it a person is in pain, a doctor is obligated to help him alleviate it.

In the same way, a doctor is obligated to help a woman remove a pregnancy if she so wants. With very few acceptions, abortion is always safer than pregnancy so there is simply no reason for a doctor to not perform one if it is requested.


There is no relation to a doctor prescribing aspirin and a doctor refusing to perform an abortion. Aspirin is a known remedy for many ailments (heart attack, pain relief ect.) however abortion is not a remedy to a medical problem

Nonsense, abortion is a remedy to pregnancy; a painful, dangerous, and inconvenient condition for women who do not want it.


Abortion is an expedient measure to relive the woman from the encumbrances of a pregnancy.

Funny, &#39;cause I thought that was the definition of abortion&#33;

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by MKS
some women have been impregnated against their will (Re. rape/incest)
Any woman who wasn&#39;t trying to get pregnant was impregnated against her will. Just because there wasn&#39;t some conscious decision for it to happen doesn&#39;t mean that isn&#39;t the case.

[Black Dagger]

Excellent point Mujer Libre&#33;


Originally posted by MKS
I was simply stating that personally I hold most abortions as an unethical act of selfishness.

Why is not wanting to carry a pregnancy or give birth to an unwanted child selfish?

I don&#39;t see how words like &#39;selfish&#39; are even relevant - these are choices that people make concerning their own life, it&#39;s neither selfish or otherwise to have an abortion - when they&#39;re wanted they happen, when someone doesnt want an abortion they dont have one.

To assert that it&#39;s selfish to have an abortion is basically saying that&#39;s its the responsiblity of every womyn to carry every pregnancy to term - that womyn are above all other considerations, including their own desires, their own lives, above all else - that womyn are babymakers, and if they dont do their job, they&#39;re being selfish - what of a load of sexist SHIT.

[Invader Zim]

[UOTE]
Only for justifiable medical reasons, not "personal beliefs".[/QUOTE]

For some women an abortion can prove to be a dangerous proceedure.

Not to mention that you are wrong, a doctor is not obligated to do anything.



Aspirin isn&#39;t perscription medication, of course, so a doctor doesn&#39;t even have to perscribe it.

That is completely irrelevant. The drug could be asperin it could be insulin, the drug was irrelevant to the point.


With very few acceptions, abortion is always safer than pregnancy so there is simply no reason for a doctor to not perform one if it is requested.

I would love to see your medical basis for that. This isn&#39;t the 18th century where giving birth was a regular killer.

[MKS]

Any woman who wasn&#39;t trying to get pregnant was impregnated against her will. Just because there wasn&#39;t some conscious decision for it to happen doesn&#39;t mean that isn&#39;t the case.

Unless the woman is mentally disabled, they should have full knowledge of the consequences of sexual intercourse. Pregnancy is not a medical ailment, it is sometimes dangerous and obviously is painful, but it is a consequence of an adult/mature human behavior. Rape wold be the only case where the pregnancy was forced upon the woman. In this modern age of contraception both the male and the female must be pro-active at preventing pregnancy if they do not want to deal with the inconvience of child rearing. Lets say Im out hunting and I shoot myself in the foot by accident, of course I wasnt trying to shoot myself, but I did have knowledge that irresponsible and unsafe handling of my firearm could lead to dangerous situations, the same can be said of unwanted pregnancy, arrogance of the implications does not constitute forced consequence.




that womyn are babymakers, and if they dont do their job, they&#39;re being selfish - what of a load of sexist SHIT.

alot of people like to throw around the sexist argument when justifying abortion. Its BS however. It is not sexist to recgnoize the role of women as the mother, in fact the US government has gone to great lengths to ensure that priority consideration is given to the female and not the male when dealing with child birth, abortion and support. All decisions about whether to have the baby are given soley to the mother, the father has no legal input. If the woman has an aborition there is nothing the male can do to stop it, and if she has the child the male is forced, if not willing, to pay at least half of the support expenses for the rest of the child&#39;s life. This attitude towards women can easily be defined as State sponsored sexism, and I for one agree with it, women should be accorded a preference when making reproductive decisions, as well as child rearing/support decisions.

[LSD]

Not to mention that you are wrong, a doctor is not obligated to do anything.

Nonsense.

A doctor is ethically obliged to provide all nescessary medical care to his patient. If he refuses for any non-medical reason, he can be stripped of his liscence to practice medicine or even criminally prosecuted.

And, by the way, it should be noted here that I vehemently oppose the entire system of "prescription" medicine. No individual, whether they be a doctor or state bureaucrat, has the right to limit what substanced I may choose to injest.

The right to personal sovereignty to pregnant women and abortifacients just as much as it applies to you and marijuana. The question of "medical ethics" should not even enter into this issue, because forcing women to "go through" a doctor is oppressive in itself.

It would probably be a good idea for a woman considering abortion to make sure that it is a healthy option for them (which, by the way, it almost always is), but forcing them to do that is an unjustifiable breach of their fundamental rights.


For some women an abortion can prove to be a dangerous proceedure.

I would love to see your medical basis for that. This isn&#39;t the 18th century where giving birth was a regular killer.

http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000054E4.htm


Unless the woman is mentally disabled, they should have full knowledge of the consequences of sexual intercourse. Pregnancy is not a medical ailment, it is sometimes dangerous and obviously is painful, but it is a consequence of an adult/mature human behavior.

So what?

What is this obesession you have with the "causes" of pregnancy? Since when does the relative risk of a consequence have anything to do with ones right to address it afterwards?

Most people having sex are indeed aware that pregnancy is a risk, they are also aware, however, that there are numerous ways to deal with pregnancy.

Aborting an unwanted foetus, no matter how it was conceived is an example of "adult/mature human behaviour"; it&#39;s recognizing a problem and eliminating it quickly and responsibly.

I suppose that technically pregnancy is not a "disease", but it most certainly is an "ailment" by any reasonably definition of the word. And since as you say, pregnancy is "dangerous" and "painful", why shouldn&#39;t women utilize any tool at their disposal to eliminate the problem?

You have repeatedly implied that because women "know" that they might get pregnant, it is somehow "not responsible" to abort the pregnancy afterwards. What you have not done, however, is offered a single rational argument in defense of this position.

People should not have to "suffer" pain or discomfort ever. Whether unprotected sex carries a known risk of pregnancy is, frankly, irrelevent.


Lets say Im out hunting and I shoot myself in the foot by accident, of course I wasnt trying to shoot myself, but I did have knowledge that irresponsible and unsafe handling of my firearm could lead to dangerous situations

Indeed, and after accidently shooting yourself as you describe, I have no doubt that you would quickly transport yourself to a hospital where you would expect to be readily treated for your injuries.

The fact that you voluntarily engaged in a dangerous activity to begin with would have no bearing on your right or expectation to be treated for being shot. No doctor would refuse to remove the bullet because it "was your own fault" nor would you be given lesser priority than someone who had been shot engaging in less risky behaviour.

For some bizarre reason, however, you are unwilling to extend this logic to pregnant women. Instead, you seem to be insisting that their medical problem should go untreated; that they should "have" to suffer the "consequences" of their actions despite the ready availability of treatment options.

It&#39;s almost as though you&#39;re suggesting that women need to be "punished" for engaging in "risky behaviour", a moral position which has absolutely nothing to do with medicine or objevctive social policy.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 05:30 AM
neonazi forums have less arbitrary dictatorial moderation than revleft.
Really? How many neonazi forums have you experienced, that you are able to tell us that?

Luís Henrique

[chimx]

5,692