Originally posted by The Rev. LuXe+--> (The Rev. LuXe)Can see the other sides point though, however my opinion is to let the individual choose over the matter themselves. But when the fetus has reached a certain age (3 months since impregnation or so) then i would consider it unethical, since then you are actually killing off something with concsience. [/b]
Originally posted by 0NighT0+--> (0NighT0) I am pro choice all the way but i also agree that abortion after a certain stage of development is unethical. Once consciousness is developed, the baby then has rights as a living human being and one of those rights is the right to live. At that stage i would consider abortion murder.
[/b]
It doesn't have personal sentiants, that requires the context of the experiance of sensory input. Do you remember being a fetus? No i didn't think so. They have an absense of any experiance and awareness until birth because they don't experiance anything until birth.
Even if they did though, it would be totally irrelevant because were a fetus a person (which its not) it would not be entitled to use someone elses body against their wishes. People aren't assumed to have the right to trespass in someone elses house so they definately don't have the right to trespass in someone elses womb.
Mullah Red
[email protected]
Here is the Worker Communist position. Abortion
Few phenomena like abortion, i.e. the deliberate elimination of the human embryo because of cultural and economic pressures, display the inherent contempt for human life in the present system and the incompatibility of existing class society and exploitative relations with human life and well- being. Abortion is a testimony to the self-alienation of people and their vulnerability in the face of the deprivations and hardships that the existing class society imposes on them.
The worker-communist party is against the act of abortion. The party fights for the creation of a society where no pressures or circumstances would drive people to performing or accepting this act.
Thats absolutely absurd paternalistic anti-choice rubbish hidden in leftwing language. The cultural pressures have always been for people tolerating unwanted pregnancies rather then ending them and the economic pressures are eliminated in socialism, but in any case, one wouldn't deliberately get pregnant if they felt too constrained by their financial position...so the notion of 'economic pressure' would only apply to begin with to accidental pregnancies which would be assumed as unwanted regardless.
So really its an increadibly patronizing way of ridiculuing poor women's control of their own bodies by assuming that they must naturally want a child if not for their economic conditions, rather than assuming that they might simply not want all of the negative consequences and experiance of unwanted pregnancy and childbirth for purely personal reasons.
At the same time, as long as the adverse social circumstances do drive a large number of women to resorting to backstreet abortions, the worker-communist party in order to prevent abuse by profiteers and ensure protection of women's health calls for the introduction of the following measures:
So, basically, the workers-communist party of iraq is anti-choice, in that it has no regard for women's self determination of their own bodies, but wants to regulate abortion so as to prevent underground abortion facilities. Nice.
The state has the duty, however, to inform her before her final decision, of the dissuasive arguments and recommendations of the scientific authorities and social counsellors as well as of the financial, material and moral commitments of the state to her and her child.
Similar to the American requirement for abortion "counsuling" that the republicans push in some states so, you might eventually get to have an abortion but only after being subjected to a humiliating ordeal of having to explain and justify your strictly personal choices to people in a position of authority over you...its like if the conservatives can't punish women for having sex by making them carry a pregnancy to term at least they'll get a shot at harrassing them first.
11- Campaign against the ignorant, religious, male- chauvinistic and backward attitudes that hinder the growth of people's sexual awareness and, specifically, impede women's and young people's wide use of contraceptives and safe-sex devices.
They could start campaigning against themselves then?
Uber-Liberal
But, if she does, or if HE does (fathers have rights, too) than there is a legitimate reason for keeping the child until term.
I agree that fathers have rights too, like, if someone gets them pregnant, they should get to decide what to do with the medical anomaly.
But don't be absurd. A man's reproductive choice whether or not he's willing to cum in someone (or take the risk that it might happen), doing it doesn't grant him some kindof automatic right over his sex partner's body. Its like you think that having sex with someone means you own them, or at least for the next nine month.
However i also don't think that women should have the right to compell a man to act as a father to a child she wants but he didn't...unlike some of the bourgeois morality conservatives in the earlier discussion on that topic. Both men and women shouldn't have to be a parent just because they had sex with someone who wants different things than they do.
What about partial birth abortion? Should an unborn infant be killed, just because it hasn't yet exited the womb?
Its not an infant, its a fetus.
So the question remains. When does life begin? When does abortion become infanticide?
The issue isn't when 'life' begins as the vast majority of people's bodies are made up of living tissue but when someone's living tissue becomes an individual with interests seperate from that person's...and that happens when its seperate from that person and aware. People don't consider the rights of their organs when having failing ones removed and if necessary replaced despite them being living things.
The question isn't 'when does life begin' but rather 'how do we justify controlling people's physical and sexual rights, turning women into machines for producing valuable workers rather than individuals whose bodies are their own buisness', except, no one wants to pose that question that way openly because the obvious answer would be that they can't justify it.