Abortion

[bl!ng]

After studying books, asking questions here, etc... I can now almost call myself a socialist. Actually, I can call mysyelf a socialist, just one who hasn't decided on the topic of abortion. I argue in my head, and I never seem to come up with a viable answer that isn't pro-life. None of my argumens are religious, as I am not religious, they are all purely scientific.

The basis behind my anti-abortion argument is that I think abortion is a form of murder. And I am anti-murder.

1. I believe that this is a right and a wrong answer. You cannot simply make a vague ruling in this matter, there has to be a difinitive moment when something becomes alive.

2. Sperm, by themselves, have no potential for reproduction (So Masturbation isn't murder). Eggs, by themselves, have no potential for reproduction.

3. As soon as the egg and sperm meet, however, and from that time on forever no part of that human being changes. The sperm and the egg provide all 46 chromosomes and there is nothing added to that sperm and that egg for all of eternity. It provides the code for that humans life, and the only thing from that point on that happens is normal development.

Therefore, I believe that the point at which life becomes life is the time at which sperm and egg are united. This is the only point in time which can be purely scientifically proven, no soul bullshit here.

And no, I am not anti-feminist. I am simply anti-murder.

[RedGeorge]

1. I believe that this is a right and a wrong answer. You cannot simply make a vague ruling in this matter, there has to be a difinitive moment when something becomes alive.

You could argue forever about when exactly something becomes alive, but I guess I would go for when it becomes recognisably human, after however many weeks that is (can't remember what science currently thinks).


So Masturbation isn't murder

Thank god. :D


3. As soon as the egg and sperm meet, however, and from that time on forever no part of that human being changes. The sperm and the egg provide all 46 chromosomes and there is nothing added to that sperm and that egg for all of eternity. It provides the code for that humans life, and the only thing from that point on that happens is normal development.

But, until the foetus becomes recognisable as a human being, that is it develops a conscious (sp?), I see no reason why it shouldn't be aborted.


The basis behind my anti-abortion argument is that I think abortion is a form of murder. And I am anti-murder.

That's not a view that many socialists take. I for one am extremely pro-choice, and even if I felt abortion was wrong, I would always allow the woman to choose. I disagree completely that abortion is a form of murder, because the foetus has not yet 'experienced' life, and so you're not really taking anything away from it.

And that was my two cents.

[Delta]

A fetus isn't exactly alive, it's not like you could take it out and it would survive on its own. It relies on it's mother to nourish it and develop it to the point that it could actually survive on its own. If the mother doesn't want to do that then the fetus shouldn't be able to force her to do so.

Besides, what's so special about human life? Well, humans have a higher degree of conciousness than other animals, are more capable of feeling and experiencing life, so we value human life more than other life. But a fetus can do none of this, and so doesn't deserve some special treatment. It's less concious than a cow, and thus deserves no special protection.

Abortion is similar to taking a human vegetable off of life support. It's not murder because the form of life doesn't have any feeling on the matter. It doesn't want life. Hell, it wants death just as much as it wants life.

[Red Polak]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 06:58 PM
A fetus isn't exactly alive, it's not like you could take it out and it would survive on its own. It relies on it's mother to nourish it and develop it to the point that it could actually survive on its own. If the mother doesn't want to do that then the fetus shouldn't be able to force her to do so.
exactly

and if we were to have a communist society who would stop a mother from aborting the baby if that's what she wanted to do?


Everyone makes mistakes, we shouldn't force people to ruin their lives over a small mistake (in some countries abortion is illegal and if 16 year olds get pregnant then that's their life pretty much ruined).

However, I think education is still a better answer than simply abortion. The lack of contraception leads not only to unwanted pregnancies but also to the spread of STD's, including aids. Educating children about this is important, and so abortion shouldn't be made readily available on every street corner because it leads to ...damn I've forgotten the word...when people don't bother to take precautions because there's an easy way out.

[Black Dagger]

bl!ng, have you had a chance to look at the current thread discussing abortion in OI?

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=51920

^ It might find some answers to your questions in that thread - it is quite a varied and useful discussion.



Originally posted by Red Polak+--> (Red Polak)and so abortion shouldn't be made readily available on every street corner because it leads to ...[/b]

Whilst you are obviously exaggerating (every street corner etc) to prove a point, do you not think that abortion should be available on demand? I.E. whenever it is requested?


Red Polak

damn I've forgotten the word...when people don't bother to take precautions because there's an easy way out.

A cop-out?

I really don't see why it should matter how many abortions are performed.

[Ali.Cat]

Everyone makes mistakes, we shouldn't force people to ruin their lives over a small mistake (in some countries abortion is illegal and if 16 year olds get pregnant then that's their life pretty much ruined).

Although I don't know that I would go as far as to say a 16 year olds life wowuld be ruined should she give birth - I have to agree that mistakes happen. The only reason I wouldn't say her life would be ruined is because you have no way of determining that - no one does... stay away from generalizations.

Abortion should be a choice, and if someone does not agree with it then that is absolutely fine - don't get an abortion. Choices Choices Choices...


A fetus isn't exactly alive, it's not like you could take it out and it would survive on its own. It relies on it's mother to nourish it and develop it to the point that it could actually survive on its own. If the mother doesn't want to do that then the fetus shouldn't be able to force her to do so.


Very good point.

[Red Polak]

Originally posted by Black Dagger+Jul 15 2006, 07:21 PM--> (Black Dagger @ Jul 15 2006, 07:21 PM)
Originally posted by Red [email protected]
and so abortion shouldn't be made readily available on every street corner because it leads to ...

Whilst you are obviously exaggerating to prove a point, do you not think that abortion should be available on demand? I.E. whenever it is requested?


Red Polak

damn I've forgotten the word...when people don't bother to take precautions because there's an easy way out.

A cop-out?

I really don't see why it should matter how many abortions are performed. [/b]
you've stopped changing my name? :)

It's an English saying "on every street corner".

I think it should be available, but not overly so. and this links to the last point, if people can see that they can simply get an abortion then they're more likely to have unprotected sex (leading to other problems), and this isn't good.

You don't think it matters? What about the physological effects on the woman? I can't speak from experience (thank god), but going through an abortion cannot be a nice process and so you don't want thousands of people going through them because of the effect I just mentioned (more likely to have unprotected sex due to the availability of a "cure").


It's like with drugs - cool if people want to take them they should be able to but I think they should also be educated about the effects first.

[Red Polak]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 07:29 PM

Everyone makes mistakes, we shouldn't force people to ruin their lives over a small mistake (in some countries abortion is illegal and if 16 year olds get pregnant then that's their life pretty much ruined).

Although I don't know that I would go as far as to say a 16 year olds life wowuld be ruined should she give birth - I have to agree that mistakes happen. The only reason I wouldn't say her life would be ruined is because you have no way of determining that - no one does... stay away from generalizations.

Abortion should be a choice, and if someone does not agree with it then that is absolutely fine - don't get an abortion. Choices Choices Choices...
ok I apologize.

But you know, you have a 16 year old at school, and suddenly she's pregnant. University seems like a much harder choice and she's less likely to bother. Look at the situation in England with the teenage pregnancies and the type of culture which has, whether rightly or wrongly, become associated with it.

I agree definitely it should be a possible choice.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by Red Polak+--> (Red Polak) you've stopped changing my name? [/b]

Yes.


Originally posted by Red Polak+--> (Red Polak)
I think it should be available, but not overly so. [/b]

What does this mean in effect though?

Do you support abortion on demand or not? I.E. Abortion should be available to anymore who requests, whenever she requests it, no refusals.


Originally posted by Red Polak

and this links to the last point, if people can see that they can simply get an abortion then they're more likely to have unprotected sex (leading to other problems), and this isn't good.

For reasons you mention below i don't think this is the case (abortions are not laugh riots), nor are womyn the only people who take procautions as to having 'protected sex'.

Abortion on demand does not mean a huge spike in abortions as contraception - there is no actual evidence to support this assertion and it reads very much like a 'slippery slope' argument.

Furthermore, the idea that abortion will become a substitute for contraception is also silly for reasons that you yourself have stated -

IF abortion is available on demand, people will still use protection when having sex because they don't want to contract sexually transmitted diseases or other infections/etc. (and also perhaps because they dont want to have an abortion unless they have to?)


Originally posted by Red Polak

You don't think it matters? What about the physological effects on the woman?

You're missing my point, i'm not suggsting that abortions are as simple as putting on your slippers in the morning or as fun as lighting up a spliff, but that it doesnt really matter if people are having abortions, or how many abortions people are having if this is what the womyn involved want - that is paramount in this debate.


Red [email protected]

I can't speak from experience (thank god), but going through an abortion cannot be a nice process and so you don't want thousands of people going through them because of the effect I just mentioned (more likely to have unprotected sex due to the availability of a "cure").

Abortions are not 'nice' but the point is that that they are necessary

If someone wants an abortion they should be able to get one, do you think it's 'nice' to force someone to carry a pregnancy to term if they dont want to?

Do you really think that the womyn who are going to be denied abortions because someone else is telling them that it's going to be too 'distressing' for them are going to just understand and be happy?

'Well, the doctors know best... i really didn't want this child... but i suppose now i have no choice.'

Moreover, not all abortions are like what you see in 'pro-life' propaganda.

The actual idea of abortions might not be pleasant, but abortions are not inherently destructive for a persons psyche.

Some can be as simple as taking a pill.

As per your comment about people using abortion as a form of contraception - i've addressed this above.


Red Polak

It's like with drugs - cool if people want to take them they should be able to but I think they should also be educated about the effects first.

Of course, but there is a fine line between 'educating' womyn about the 'effects' of abortion and 'pro-life' propaganda that is designed to persuade or guilt womyn into keeping unwanted pregnancies.

[Red Polak]

Originally posted by Black Dagger+Jul 15 2006, 08:04 PM--> (Black Dagger @ Jul 15 2006, 08:04 PM)
Originally posted by Red Polak+--> (Red Polak)
I think it should be available, but not overly so. [/b]

What does this mean in effect though?

Do you support abortion on demand or not? I.E. Abortion should be available to anymore who requests, whenever she requests it, no refusals.[/b]

I thought it was fairly obvious what I meant.

On demand yes, of course. BUT I don't want to see abortion clinics popping up like Mc Donalds everywhere.


Originally posted by Black Dagger+Jul 15 2006, 08:04 PM--> (Black Dagger @ Jul 15 2006, 08:04 PM)For reasons you mention below i don't think this is the case (abortions are not laugh riots), nor are womyn the only people who take procautions as to having 'protected sex'.

Abortion on demand does not mean a huge spike in abortions as contraception - there is no actual evidence to support this assertion and it reads very much like a 'slippery slope' argument.

Furthermore, the idea that abortion will become a substitute for contraception is also silly for reasons that you yourself have stated -

IF abortion is available on demand, people will still use protection when having sex because they don't want to contract sexually transmitted diseases or other infections/etc. (and also perhaps because they dont want to have an abortion unless they have to?)[/b]

No I disagree.

I think if you can see the alternative everywhere everyday then you're more likely not to take precaution. This applies with both sexes (not that a man can get pregnant but he still plays a role if a woman gets pregnant (er...obviously)).


Originally posted by Black [email protected] 15 2006, 08:04 PM

Originally posted by Red Polak

You don't think it matters? What about the physological effects on the woman?

You're missing my point, i'm not suggsting that abortions are as simple as putting on your slippers in the morning or as fun as lighting up a spliff, but that it doesnt really matter if people are having abortions, or how many abortions people are having if this is what the womyn involved want - that is paramount in this debate.

yeah if the woman want it fine.

I did think you were suggesting to make it like putting on slippers (which would be problematic), so sorry I misunderstood that bit.


Originally posted by Black [email protected] 15 2006, 08:04 PM

Red Polak

I can't speak from experience (thank god), but going through an abortion cannot be a nice process and so you don't want thousands of people going through them because of the effect I just mentioned (more likely to have unprotected sex due to the availability of a "cure").

Abortions are not 'nice' but the point is that that they are necessary

If someone wants an abortion they should be able to get one, do you think it's 'nice' to force someone to carry a pregnancy to term if they dont want to?

Do you really think that the womyn who are going to be denied abortions because someone else is telling them that it's going to be too 'distressing' for them are going to just understand and be happy?

'Well, the doctors know best... i really didn't want this child... but i suppose now i have no choice.'

Moreover, not all abortions are like what you see in 'pro-life' propaganda.

The actual idea of abortions might not be pleasant, but abortions are not inherently destructive for a persons psyche.

Some can be as simple as taking a pill.

As per your comment about people using abortion as a form of contraception - i've addressed this above.

what? no! that wasn't what I was suggesting at all.

Women should definitely have a choice, but AFTER being informed about the effects it can have on them. I think starting with children we let them know the option is always there but we also let them know about the alternatives


Black [email protected] 15 2006, 08:04 PM

Red Polak

It's like with drugs - cool if people want to take them they should be able to but I think they should also be educated about the effects first.

Of course, but there is a fine line between 'educating' womyn about the 'effects' of abortion and 'pro-life' propaganda that is designed to persuade or guilt womyn into keeping unwanted pregnancies.

no, don't guilt them into it with those kind of pro-life picture brainwashing crap, just like with drugs, make sure people know what they're doing.

I'm in favour of legalising abortion totally, on the condition that people are informed about it from childhood.

[bl!ng]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 05:58 PM
A fetus isn't exactly alive, it's not like you could take it out and it would survive on its own. It relies on it's mother to nourish it and develop it to the point that it could actually survive on its own. If the mother doesn't want to do that then the fetus shouldn't be able to force her to do so.
This could also applied to babies that are already born. A 5 month old baby requires somebody to provide nourishment, or it will surely die. So, is it allright to murder a 5 month old baby?

Seems like that would just lead to people executing mentally retarded children, boys if they wanted girls, girls if they wanted boys, etc...

Slippery slope...

[bl!ng]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 05:16 PM
That's not a view that many socialists take.
Anti-murder? I guess I never thought of that. Maybe Socialism isn't my cup of tea then. I know that there must be a revolution, and the bourgeiose need to be taken care of. But, I don't think that killing them is the answer... People can be kept from doing things.

Just as in the death penalty, people related to the bourgeoise will be effected by this. Sons, daughters, etc... And though they might be bourgeoise too, they could very well not be. I, personally, know 3 people that after graduating college and receiving their trust funds have donated every penny to charities to wash their hands of the whole matter. This doesn't mean that when you kill their parents that they won't feel it too.

[Whitten]

Originally posted by bl!ng+Jul 15 2006, 09:50 PM--> (bl!ng @ Jul 15 2006, 09:50 PM)
[email protected] 15 2006, 05:16 PM
That's not a view that many socialists take.
Anti-murder? I guess I never thought of that. Maybe Socialism isn't my cup of tea then. I know that there must be a revolution, and the bourgeiose need to be taken care of. But, I don't think that killing them is the answer... People can be kept from doing things.

Just as in the death penalty, people related to the bourgeoise will be effected by this. Sons, daughters, etc... And though they might be bourgeoise too, they could very well not be. I, personally, know 3 people that after graduating college and receiving their trust funds have donated every penny to charities to wash their hands of the whole matter. This doesn't mean that when you kill their parents that they won't feel it too. [/b]
No one's saying murder is a good thing. He was saying that not many socialists take the view that abortion=murder.

I operate on teh logic that:

1) A Fetus of a few weeks old isnt yet alive (in the human sense at least).

2) A Fetus has the potential to become a life.

If we decide that preventing something with the potential to create a life from doing so is murder, we end up with a poor decision which could be applied to almost anything. For example, a Sperm on its own cant become a life, however it does have the potential to gain the potential to become a life, and so does have (a small) potential to create a life. And similar things could be said for any decision in a person's life which does not result in a baby being born.

If we allow abortion (up to a certain amount of time) then we are not causing any harm to a living human, because one does not exist yet, the same is true with masturbation. If we allow a human being to come into existance, in circumstances where the mothered wanted to prevent it from being borm, what sort of life can be expected for the child?

In the end you dont necessarily HAVE to be pro-choice to be a socialist, as sodialism itself is just an economic system.

[RaiseYourVoice]

Sperm, by themselves, have no potential for reproduction (So Masturbation isn't murder). Eggs, by themselves, have no potential for reproduction.


The sperm and the egg provide all 46 chromosomes and there is nothing added to that sperm and that egg for all of eternity.
so killing eggs isnt murder, killing sperms isnt murder, but both together is... hell that makes sense

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by Red Polak+--> (Red Polak)BUT I don't want to see abortion clinics popping up like Mc Donalds everywhere. [/b]

I don't understand why you make this point.

What if there was a demand for abortion clinics to pop up everywhere?

I don't understand why the amount of clinics or abortions bother you, you claim to be pro-choice and to support abortion on demand, in that case it's irrelevant how many people demand abortions or clinics, because you say that it should be their choice - because you're meant to be 'pro-choice' -

So why does it matter how many clinics there are?


Originally posted by Red Polak+--> (Red Polak)I think if you can see the alternative everywhere everyday then you're more likely not to take precaution. This applies with both sexes (not that a man can get pregnant but he still plays a role if a woman gets pregnant (er...obviously)).[/b]

You're suggesting that increasing the availability of abortion will decrease condom usage - on what basis are you making this claim? Is this just your opinion?

The are several reasons why men use condoms in hetero relationships,

- They don't want their sex partner to get pregnant
- They don't want to contract STD's
- They don't want to make a mess
- It makes them last longer

The first two are obviously the most pressing in terms of decision making, and abortion on demand does nothing to prevent STD's, so why would people suddenly stop caring about the possibility of contracting an STD? STD's are very widespread, and of course, unpleasant! (and in some cases deadly).

There is more than just the prevention of pregnancy in mind when 'protection' is used during sex.

You make a point about how distressing abortions are, but at the same you suggest that womyn will use abortion as a replacement for a condom - why on earth would they do thisif its so distressing?

Besides, if people do use abortion as a form of contraception, so what?



Red [email protected]

Women should definitely have a choice, but AFTER being informed about the effects it can have on them. I think starting with children we let them know the option is always there but we also let them know about the alternatives

What are the alternatives? Child birth?


Red Polak
I'm in favour of legalising abortion totally, on the condition that people are informed about it from childhood.

What does this mean in practice though? What should children be taught about abortion?

[Mariam]

Everyone makes mistakes, we shouldn't force people to ruin their lives over a small mistake (in some countries abortion is illegal and if 16 year olds get pregnant then that's their life pretty much ruined).


Abortion should be a choice, and if someone does not agree with it then that is absolutely fine - don't get an abortion. Choices Choices Choices...

add to that the results of phedophilia and incest i think women should have the right.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by Mariam
add to that the results of phedophilia and incest i think women should have the right.


I don't understand what you mean, can you please re-phrase this? :)

[Mariam]

I don't understand what you mean, can you please re-phrase this?

Sorry, I was posting half asleep! ;)
I mean when a young girl gets pregnant as a result of incest or phedophilia she should have the right to abort the fetus, right?

[Lord Testicles]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 03:30 PM

I don't understand what you mean, can you please re-phrase this?

Sorry, I was posting half asleep! ;)
I mean when a young girl gets pregnant as a result of incest or phedophilia she should have the right to abort the fetus, right?
A person should have the right to abort the fetus for whatever reason she wants.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by Mariam
I mean when a young girl gets pregnant as a result of incest or phedophilia she should have the right to abort the fetus, right?

I agree with what Skinz said, abortion should be available to any womyn on demand, no refusals - that's pro-choice.

[Si Pinto]

I agree with the general consensus here. That abortion has to be available to all women.

Any attempt to reduce availability or 'ration' it will result in 'backstreet' abortions and the dangers that would bring.

Reading what women who were denied abortions or for whom it wasn't available had to go through.....knitting needles etc....and the resultant mortality and infertility problems make the wholesale availability of abortions a must in my opinion.

We can't uninvent something.

[violencia.Proletariat]

This could also applied to babies that are already born. A 5 month old baby requires somebody to provide nourishment, or it will surely die. So, is it allright to murder a 5 month old baby?

No this can't be applied. Fetuses can not provide their own respiration until 7-9 months. This is a requirement of "life." Most abortions don't happen this late unless its of necessity.

If you don't believe in a womans right to control her own body (a fetus if its still inside her is part of her body) then FUCK OFF. The last thing we need is another moralist piece of shit preaching reactionary sentiments on the left.


I know that there must be a revolution, and the bourgeiose need to be taken care of. But, I don't think that killing them is the answer... People can be kept from doing things.

Yeah we know how you people who want to "keep people from doing things" do that, you build prisons. Then you get violent assholes to torture and beat the inmates. You create a hierarchy of prison officers and guards thereby creating a counterrevolutionary current in the post revolutionary society.


This doesn't mean that when you kill their parents that they won't feel it too.

Who gives a fuck. A revolution is out of necessity. We must smash the social and economic conditions out of necessity. The feelings of some bourgeois kids is not our concern.

[Red Polak]

Originally posted by Black Dagger+Jul 16 2006, 04:34 PM--> (Black Dagger @ Jul 16 2006, 04:34 PM)
Originally posted by Red Polak+--> (Red Polak)BUT I don't want to see abortion clinics popping up like Mc Donalds everywhere. [/b]

I don't understand why you make this point.

What if there was a demand for abortion clinics to pop up everywhere?

I don't understand why the amount of clinics or abortions bother you, you claim to be pro-choice and to support abortion on demand, in that case it's irrelevant how many people demand abortions or clinics, because you say that it should be their choice - because you're meant to be 'pro-choice' -

So why does it matter how many clinics there are?[/b]

ok you seem to have misunderstood or something - it's not the clinics which bother me or the idea of abortions for any woman who wants one, I'm fine with that. What I don't want is for a culture to grow up where abortion is seen as nothing. It IS something, and I don't know why to be quite honest, but I thnik people need to know it is something. I'm all in favour of making them totally legal and accessible but I don't like the idea of some slaggy culture growing up around them. I'm not saying that would happen, but I think the potential is there.



Originally posted by Black Dagger+Jul 16 2006, 04:34 PM--> (Black Dagger @ Jul 16 2006, 04:34 PM)
Originally posted by Red Polak
I think if you can see the alternative everywhere everyday then you're more likely not to take precaution. This applies with both sexes (not that a man can get pregnant but he still plays a role if a woman gets pregnant (er...obviously)).

You're suggesting that increasing the availability of abortion will decrease condom usage - on what basis are you making this claim? Is this just your opinion?

The are several reasons why men use condoms in hetero relationships,

- They don't want their sex partner to get pregnant
- They don't want to contract STD's
- They don't want to make a mess
- It makes them last longer

The first two are obviously the most pressing in terms of decision making, and abortion on demand does nothing to prevent STD's, so why would people suddenly stop caring about the possibility of contracting an STD? STD's are very widespread, and of course, unpleasant! (and in some cases deadly).

There is more than just the prevention of pregnancy in mind when 'protection' is used during sex.

You make a point about how distressing abortions are, but at the same you suggest that womyn will use abortion as a replacement for a condom - why on earth would they do thisif its so distressing?[/b]

ok, yeah, when you put it like that my earlier assertion does sound a little bit naive. :blush:


Black [email protected] 16 2006, 04:34 PM
Besides, if people do use abortion as a form of contraception, so what?

well.....the problems you just mentioned :unsure:



Originally posted by Black [email protected] 16 2006, 04:34 PM

Red [email protected]

Women should definitely have a choice, but AFTER being informed about the effects it can have on them. I think starting with children we let them know the option is always there but we also let them know about the alternatives

What are the alternatives? Child birth?


Red Polak
I'm in favour of legalising abortion totally, on the condition that people are informed about it from childhood.

What does this mean in practice though? What should children be taught about abortion?

Prevention rather than cure - condoms etc. That's what I meant. Of course we shouldn't be forcing women to give birth if they don't want to, but I think prevention is better than resorting to abortions (because of the mental effects in the later stages).

I didn't know that some abortions were simply taking a pill, so in those cases, absolutely no problems would be there at all. But in the later ones I'm sure there are mental effects on the woman, which, by use of contraception during sex can be avoided. That's what I was referring to by educating people.

[elmo sez]

Im pro-abotion, anti-choice






















No wait abortions for some miniture american flags for others