Abortion

[MKS]

We're not "allowed" to express pro-life sentiments? I can be sometimes someone can be pro-choice in the greater social context and pro-life personally, what's wrong with that? Furthermore what is "wrong" with just being anti-choice (in regards to abortion)? Is it your prerogative to declare moral absolutes especially about something as mysterious as life, its meaning, the existence of god/gods? You don’t know for sure that being pro-abortion is "good" and being anti-abortion is "bad", you have beliefs and have developed principles based on those beliefs, but they are nonetheless improvable maxims. The Revolution should not make moral decisions for the people but it should increase the people's ability to make enlightened ethical decisions for themselves and it should respect the individual’s right to live amongst those who have a shared moral code. Coercion of thought is the foundation for almost all other forms of tyranny.

One thing that I have never like about RL is the admins/mods/etc who seek to act as commisars or police. Using the argument of "private property" as reason for such action which to me is pure hypocrisy coming from so called committed "communists, anarchists or Socialists". It just goes t show you; Freedom of expression or speech will probably never really exist in any society, it is always held below the rights of the property owner.

[LSD]

We're not "allowed" to express pro-life sentiments?

Not outside of OI, no. Just like you're not allowed to express capitalist, primativist, theocratic, etc... views.


sometimes someone can be pro-choice in the greater social context and pro-life personally, what's wrong with that?

Nothing, but "personal" views aren't the issue. Political ones are. If you don't personally want to have an abortion that's your own business, if you want to stop others from doing so, however, it becomes the rest of ours.


The Revolution should not make moral decisions for the people but it should increase the people's ability to make enlightened ethical decisions for themselves and it should respect the individual’s right to live amongst those who have a shared moral code.

Exactly which is why anti-abortion "pro-choice" moralism is incompatible with the revolutionary left and any expressions of such sentiments will get one restricted to OI.

Of course we can't "guarantee" that our views our correct, but this board is a revolutionary leftist forum and it will reflect revolutionary leftist views.

I would think that would be obvious... :rolleyes:

[RevMARKSman]

Coercion of thought is the foundation for almost all other forms of tyranny.

One thing that I have never like about RL is the admins/mods/etc who seek to act as commisars or police. Using the argument of "private property" as reason for such action which to me is pure hypocrisy coming from so called committed "communists, anarchists or Socialists". It just goes t show you; Freedom of expression or speech will probably never really exist in any society, it is always held below the rights of the property owner.

a. We restrict cappies so they don't go spam "commies are bad LOLOLOLzorz" over all the other forums.
b. We restrict pro-lifers because their "arguments" have been refuted time and time again. And again. And again. And again. And again and again and again and again and again and again...
c. We're living in a capitalist society. (one would think you'd realize that.) So don't expect us to be lifestylists and try to run our own little "commune" instead of being practical.
d. READ THE GUIDELINES. You should have done this before you joined.


Originally posted by guidelines
While we do love our decentralization, and we do consider it a reflection upon how we see a future society can be organized along Socialist lines, this is not a country. There will always be a hierarchy here, no matter what we think of hierarchy in the real world. Malte will always own this site, and have the final decision if he chooses to make it.

[commiecrusader]

Coercion of thought is the foundation for almost all other forms of tyranny.
It boils down to this. A Pro-Life view is much more coercive than a Pro-Choice viewpoint. Think about it. Pro-Choice still allows those who want to, to keep their children, it doesn't mean everyone has to abort their babies. Pro-Life is merely the hangover of centuries of religious conservatism, forcing people to keep unwanted children. If someone chooses to abort, it doesn't harm you just because you wouldn't.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Pro choice is aptly named; it is for somehting, and that is the right to self determination, it is not against life.

Pro life is not correctly termed; it states it is for life, but by the same arguments you can go against sex for non-procreation. That is to say that the possibility of life (fetus) should be brought into the world no matter what, this could also be applied to sperm as neither will survive outside of an actual living body for very long.

By contrast it can compromise quality of life. Mostly however, it is not a view that is for something, but one that is against something. Pro life really means anti-choice. It takes away from us the ability to decide for ourselves in one of the most difficult areas of decision that some of us ever have to make. Being able to determine our own course of action is something that any revolutionary leftist seeking a stateless, classless society should be aiming for.

Pro choice states; do what you think is best in your situation
Pro life (anti choice) states; do what we say because we know best...or go to jail.

[chimx]

I can be sometimes someone can be pro-choice in the greater social context and pro-life personally, what's wrong with that?

nothing is wrong with that. most pro-choice woman i talk to often times share a similar sentiment, saying they will always vote for politicians that defend the right to receive abortions, but that they would never feel comfortable getting one themselves.

if you are pro-life yourself, but support the rights of others to receive abortion, than there is no coercion involved and i don't see what the big deal is.

of course, if you don't have a uterus, it kind of makes it a moot point, right?

[MKS]

Exactly which is why anti-abortion "pro-choice" moralism is incompatible with the revolutionary left and any expressions of such sentiments will get one restricted to OI.

Im failing to see your logic. The Revolutionary Left should attempt or worl towards a free society, and in that society any moralist idealogy should be accepted as long as that moral view point does not infringe upon the freedom of others. My anti-abortion pro-choice moralism does not infringe on anyones personal liberties, in fact it recgonizes the fact that my personal opinions will not and should never be forced upon anyone else. It is a libertarian viewpoint.


Of course we can't "guarantee" that our views our correct, but this board is a revolutionary leftist forum and it will reflect revolutionary leftist views

I have always considered myself a revolutionary leftist (in my thinking, sometimes in action too) so wouldn’t any view that a "revolutionary Leftist" hold be considered a Revolutionary Leftist view? Has a seal been placed on the discussion, dissemination or conception (evolution) of the Leftist ideology? Shouldn’t the Revolutionary Left at the very least be a place of free thought, expression and discovery? If we cease to allow this haven’t we stopped being revolutionary?

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Yeah that's interesting how you get restricted for being "pro-life" How "pro-choice" do you have to be? I don't pay much attention to abortion so I don't really define myself as either yet I believe it's a 'woman's choice'

[chimx]

uh oh!

someone restrict lefthenry. he is anti-woman.

[inquisitive_socialist]

it seems that this forum has discovered a point that people all over the world cant. if i say im pro choice that doesnt mean im saying go out and fuck people so theres lots of kids to abort, im saying its not my nor your business what anyone decides to do with their baby/fetus/meatwad. if i get girl preggers and we decide its best to leave it under an overpass, its our decision. not yours. but still, the general american sentiment is that of pro-life. maybe instead of saying pro life we should refer to it as anti thought, simply because it prevents people from thinking and making decisions for themselves.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2006 11:36 pm
does not infringe on anyones personal liberties, in fact it recgonizes the fact that my personal opinions will not and should never be forced upon anyone else. It is a libertarian viewpoint.
Then that does not necessarily make you anti-choice. It isn't pro-abortion, it is the right to self determination that is important.

However being anti abortion personally could lead to conflict. If you got someone pregnant and they wanted to abort what would your response be?

[MKS]

However being anti abortion personally could lead to conflict. If you got someone pregnant and they wanted to abort what would your response be?

I would let her do what she felt was best for her health and well being, but not before presenting my case on why I dont agree with abortion, obviously I would offer to raise the child, support it financially as well as emotionaly, I would take all responsibility in all matters. but if she still believed abortion was the best decision for her than so be it. I cant say I wouldnt be disappointed and at first a little angry, but Im only human it is impossible to discard my personal feelings so easily.

I personally do not think a "pro-life" pundit should be automatically restricted. I do not see the harm in allowing them to express their opinions, as I have mine. And I certainly do not think a pro-life position is incompatible with Leftist thinking.

I'll ask this question again:Shouldn’t the Revolutionary Left at the very least be a place of free thought, expression and discovery? If we cease to allow this haven’t we stopped being revolutionary?

There should be a vote on this issue, if not by the general membership than by the CC.

[Hegemonicretribution]

MKS you sound more like a pro-choicer than a "pro-lifer."

Abortion should never be forced, and should never be forbidden. To assume that there should be an authority capable of preventing abortions for all (regardless of individual choice) is a line of thinking far out of step with any leftist thinking. The choice to abort is seldom made lightly, but to have someone claim the right to make that choice for you would be horrible; that is what "pro-lifers" claim.

Freedom of though, discussion and expression are all good, however you have missed the contradiction involved in claiming this with regards to a position against this. We shouldn't have the freedom (on the board at least) to claim that genocide is a good idea whilst hiding behind the freedom of the left, and I am sure you can see why. The same is true of "pro-lifers," they stand against freedom and therefore cannot use the line of argument you have suggested.

The votes on this matter have been overwhelmingly one sided, and I would chew on my own testicles if the results did go the other way...it would be astonishing (and sad). For the reasons stated I still fail to see the legitimacy of the "pro-life" opinion on the left. You yourself sound like you are far more of a choicer anyway.

[MKS]

We shouldn't have the freedom (on the board at least) to claim that genocide is a good idea whilst hiding behind the freedom of the left, and I am sure you can see why. The same is true of "pro-lifers," they stand against freedom and therefore cannot use the line of argument you have suggested.

To not allow a true freedom of expression is to allow such dangerous sentiments as fascism to stay dormant with the holder, to thrive in its own self complacency. If those same ideas, or thoughts are aired, especially in this forum, then they can be challenged and refuted through intellectual and open conversation. In such an open environment such anti-libertarian sentiments are always at risk as they should be, but contained and suppressed such sentiments build up a false legitimacy and when the opportunity arises they are used to coerce, terroize and establish tyranny.

[Publius]

if i get girl preggers and we decide its best to leave it under an overpass, its our decision. not yours.

I don't know if this is brilliant satire, or just total dumb-fuckery.

"If me and my girlfriend and are feeling homicidal, and we decide to kill someone, its our decision. not yours."

You might want to rethink that about.

And if, in the off chance you are being satirical, good job.

What I find so funny is how you take one specific aspect of the abortion debate, "women's rights", and use that as the sole matter of import. Sorry, but it isn't. The entire debate (which you neatly, and rather ignorantly sidestep) is where life begins, what constitutes human, what advances human rights. It's really an interesting debate, not just into what makes a human human, but what makes a person moral, and what constitutes a right. It's really interesting debate you entirely ignore because you're too caught up defending "women's rights".

The real debate is whether a subjective "right to life" for the fetus trumps a subjective "right to choose" for the woman. Anyone that presumes to know the actual answer to this difficulty is a fucking liar: it's a pure judgement call. No side is 'right', no side is 'wrong'. You can't "prove" that women have a right to abort and you can't "prove" fetuses have a right to life. But what you can do is not be an ideological zealot (on par with any religious fanatic, though I think myself facile for using so base a comparison) and instead use an ounce of logic and perhaps empathy to realize what other people's concerns are.

See, I don't actually disagree with your final estimation, that pro choice is better than pro life. What I disagree with is your ignorant attitudes and your laughable attempts at equating leftist thought with an almost lock-step adherence to a seldom (never?) questioned fealty to "women's rights", instead of a 'revolutionary' inconoclasm and inquistive attitude. Whatever happened to question everything? Is it now "question everything except the holy idols of the church of leftism."?

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Abortion should never be forced, and should never be forbidden.

What about in those freak cases, ie late term abortion where the baby is days away from being born? What about then? Does the scenario change in that situation?

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2006 03:10 pm

Abortion should never be forced, and should never be forbidden.

What about in those freak cases, ie late term abortion where the baby is days away from being born? What about then? Does the scenario change in that situation?
Of course not, there's no 'special' circumstances when its 'ok' to deny a womans autonomy.

[MKS]

What about in those freak cases, ie late term abortion where the baby is days away from being born? What about then? Does the scenario change in that situation?

Of course not, there's no 'special' circumstances when its 'ok' to deny a womans autonomy

If the child is days away from being borne I dont see how waiting those few days would be a great infringement, if any on the womans autonomy. She has already carried the child to term, a couple of more days would make very little or no difference. And one could cretainly argue that terminate a pregancy at such a late stage is downright murder.

[TC]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2006 09:28 pm


What about in those freak cases, ie late term abortion where the baby is days away from being born? What about then? Does the scenario change in that situation?

Of course not, there's no 'special' circumstances when its 'ok' to deny a womans autonomy

If the child is days away from being borne I dont see how waiting those few days would be a great infringement, if any on the womans autonomy. She has already carried the child to term, a couple of more days would make very little or no difference. And one could cretainly argue that terminate a pregancy at such a late stage is downright murder.
Uh its not just a matter of 'waiting a couple more days' or whatever but the fact that childbirth is extremely traumatic and no one should be forced to do it who doesn't want to.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2006 02:22 am
To not allow a true freedom of expression is to allow such dangerous sentiments as fascism to stay dormant with the holder, to thrive in its own self complacency. If those same ideas, or thoughts are aired, especially in this forum, then they can be challenged and refuted through intellectual and open conversation. In such an open environment such anti-libertarian sentiments are always at risk as they should be, but contained and suppressed such sentiments build up a false legitimacy and when the opportunity arises they are used to coerce, terroize and establish tyranny.
I agree, and to the same token it is only by comparing ideas that we hold true to those we see as false that we maintain our claim to truth.

However the bord is a specialised arena for a certain sort of debate, and as such certain views will be held in a certain area (OI or religion). Just as the religious have a place to express themselves in the religion forum, those with ideas that cross into an area that has been agreed upon as unacceptable can only express them here.....those that want to talk shit do so in chit chat etc...

The reason anti-choicers generally restricted to here is that the overwhelming majority of the boards regular members support a pro-choice point of view, from what you have said it seems that you do as well. I have stated the reasons why this has been agreed upon, and I am yet to see an argument against this from anything but a moralistic and often religious standpoint.

The argument from freedom of speech is nice, however this is clearly covered in the guidelines. There are lots of places to discuss issues from other perspectives on the internet, and this board isn't for everyone, but again because the core members that make up this board agree the rules are right to remain as they do. If you apply this to anti-choicers do you also apply it to capitalists and fascists? The board has been open before, but because every discussion was essentially an OI discussion this section of the board was created. The open idea on this particular message board is tried and tested...and it also failed. In society freedom of speech is essential, but just as in real life, there is a time and a place for discussion, people should of course defend their view points, however they should be able to develope their opinion beyond the first basic stage. Conflict may be necessary for developing ones ideas, but the ideas you arrive at can only ever be truly held if you have had time to explore and cement them with more focussed discussion. When members want change they can find it easily here (OI) or another board so it isn't like people are being stunted.

[inquisitive_socialist]

its not that im unaware of the greater issue, and i dont see any sort of lock step action in my arguement. i see me jokingly making a statement, and maybe you reading into it a bit much. sorry if i left too little content. allow me to elaborate.

while a baby is still in development, i question its sentience and thus its humanity. i dont equate sentience with humanity, but being sentient is definitely a prerequisite for it. anyway, the issue of it being a babies right to live, or a mothers right to choose only seems, to me, to matter if she wants to kill it after its reached the point at which is sentient, and self aware. if the mother wants to have an abortion before the birth of the child, she should be allowed to. the fetus is at that point still part of her body, and is little more than a highly complex cancer. however, there are people who say that this fetus is at all times self aware, or sentient, or that its a human. i say we should agree to disagree right there. i find the concept of the divinity of human life to be laughable, and i think those who say pro choice encourages sex are unaware of how much sex people are having. your not going to be more likely to have sex since you can have an expensive medical procedure performed on you.

[EwokUtopia]

Nobody is restricting your ability to say pro-life, theocratic, conservative, capitalist comments in the real world, such restrictions would be horrible, as you have the right to say whatever you want so long as it is not abusive or negates anybody elses freedoms. However, RevLeft is not the same as the real world, or a public free-for-all forum. Think of it like somebody's house. If you go into someones house and start offending them by assaulting their beliefs, and they tell you to leave (or in the case of revleft, go to the garage), you would have to do it, as its their home and they have the right not to be verbally assaulted in it. If you go up to them on the street and say the same thing, you have every right to do so, as long as you arent threatening them or calling them by abusive derogitory names. Your rights to say all this and that are respected, and in certain situations (like OI) welcomed (we all love arguing, thats why we are here), but please understand where you are, and that although you have the right to say pretty well whatever you want, you do not have the right to say it wherever you want.

Savvy?

[LSD]

There should be a vote on this issue, if not by the general membership than by the CC.

There was.

On March 19th of this year, the CC voted 37 - 5 to restrict "pro-lifers".

It should also be noted that despite his defence of anti-abortionists, MKS was not restricted for his views on abortion; he was restricted for supporting capitalism and calling for the execution of all Marxists.

[Alexander Hamilton]

I do not accept the term "pro-life" and will never use it.

EVERYONE on the planet is pro-life. The term means nothing.

I refer to the views as pro-choice and anti-choice, which I believe is:

1. more fair

2. more accurate

It boggles the brain that others believe that the term pro-life should be the exclusive property of the anti-choice.


A. Hamilton

P.S. I'm pro-choice, if it matters.

[MKS]

he was restricted for supporting capitalism and calling for the execution of all Marxists

Please cite where I ever supported Capitalism? As for the comment about Marixsts, it was an obvious use of hyperbole to illustrate a point. I dont want anyone to be executed. But Marxists should be considered an obstacle to any Progressive Revolutionary Movement.

[Alexander Hamilton]

MKS:

Don't feel bad about it. It is a micro version of what Communism requires: A society without due process, where a group meets, makes a decision, perhaps has a show trial over things, perhaps not, bangs a gavel, and you're off to whatever Siberia the Revolution's created for you.

Don't expect a group of patriots to ever again fight for a Bill of Rights. 1789 - 1791 was a once in a 5,000 year thing, not likely to ever again be repeated.


A. Hamilton

[chimx]

unfortunately i agree with your criticism of the revleft administration 100%. it is certainly one of the most undemocratic, censor-loving, ban-happy forums on the internet that i have ever been to.