Anti-Choice. [Archive]

12th April 2007, 17:14

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 12, 2007 10:14 am
I've always been iffy about "where to draw the line". I know many people around here (and people such as Richard Dawkins) draw the line at birth. But to me, I can't see the difference between the baby in a mother 10 minutes before a birth, and 10 minutes after. Both equally rely on another to look after them, both are as equally developed etc. Yet we can kill one, but not the other?
The difference between a fetus 10 minutes before birth and a baby 10 minutes after birth is vital, for a number of reasons.

First, cognition as we understand it requires minimal sensory experience, our brains are part of a nervous system thats responsive to external stimuli and has thoughts about things and ideas derived from it; theres no mind without thoughts and there are no thoughts without minimal sensory exposure to the world; babies (and animals) have that, fetuses do not for the obvious reason that they've been in the equivalent of a sensory deprivation chamber with no prior thoughts.

Second, there is, at the time of consideration, no such thing as a 'fetus 10 minutes before birth' except retrospectively because any number of things can happen between then; childbirth in humans is dangerous and complicated, if cellular irreducible complexity is taken to be evidence that life was intelligently designed, the human reproductive system would have to be a very unintelligent design.

Finally and most importantly, a fetus before birth is an occupant in someone elses body, and as people have exclusive rights to use their own bodies and cannot be compelled to submit to violations of their bodily integrity for someone elses benefit, to do so would reduce their status to a non-person object, a means to serve others interests rather than someone with their own vital interests. This means that regardless of whether a fetus can feel pain, think, have emotions or compose symphonies, it entitlement to use it's hosts body requires her consent. A baby ten minutes after its born, is in an entirely different position simply because its not in someone elses body, which means that its mother no longer has any claim to exclusive interests over it as its no longer part of her.

This is why birth is not an arbitrary line to draw, its the line that follows from a belief that pregnant women are people with the same rights over their bodies as everyone else. Any other line is demeaning to the status of women.

13th April 2007, 04:43

I'm pro-life as long as that life will be filled with love, freedom, fun, and life lived to its fullest. If that is not the life that the child will have then I'm pro-choice, but only until the second trimester, after that its just bloody cruel.

How are you going to be able to tell what kind of life the kid will live? Look into the future?

BurnTheOliveTree

13th April 2007, 08:36

TragicClown - Wouldn't that make murdering your siamese twin an ethical option?

-Alex

jaycee

13th April 2007, 10:51

i think under capitalism we have to accept that abortion is often the best and only option. However I think in communism it would be far less frequent and possibly would be stopped altogethre. This is because (a) in communism a child would not mean that the mother and/or father would have to give up so much in their lives. Because things like food, shelter etc would be guaranteed. (B) the communial way of living would mean that those people would not have sole resonsibility for the child as they do now.

13th April 2007, 18:28

Originally posted by burntheolivetree+--> (burntheolivetree) TragicClown - Wouldn't that make murdering your siamese twin an ethical option?

-Alex
[/b]

That kindof depends on what kindof siamese twin you're talking about since they're very different, because naturally these are not identical scenarios.

In the case of a parasitic heteropagus conjoined twin, then its absolutely an ethical option for the host twin to have it removed (thereby killing it, but i wouldn't describe that as 'murder'). This is in fact, what people with parasitic siamese twins are almost always advised by their doctors to do. This is basically an equivalent scenario to abortion from the perspective of rights and morality.

In the case of two mutually dependent twins, separation would be lethal to both, so it would amount to suicide. Since i think, we should agree that people have the right to kill themselves if they find their living conditions intolerable (as in the case of many extremely ill people). In any case its kind of a null question because enforcement is impossible, if you had one dicephalus dipus twin calling the police that their twin had tried to kill them (which would be fatal to the 'attacker'), what would you have them do, put both of them in prison? Clearly for practical purposes mutually dependent conjoined twins require the others consent to live, so the answer in that case again would be, yah you can kill your siamese twin, but for slightly different reasons than in the first case and in the case of a fetus.

In fact, one case of siamese twins which is almost a precises parallel is fetus in fetu teratoma, where a developed twin is born with an undeveloped fetal twin inside of it. Obviously no one ever objects to having those removed (you know, theres little point in conservatives making a moral issue out of terminating a fetus thats a twin rather than an offspring because it doesn't serve to punish women for having sex).

In any case, the most common instance where a twin needs another twin's consent to live, is not in the case of siamese twins at all, but normal people suffering from some type of organ failure who need an organ donation from their healthy twin in order for them to survive. Now, someone might be able to reasonably ask their twin for a spare kidney or bone marrow or lung or liver segment, but it would be insane to think they were entitled to it, or could attempt to compel an unwilling organ donor. And this is essentially what the anti-choice camp does, it attempts to compel unwilling uterus donors.

Jaycee
However I think in communism it would be far less frequent and possibly would be stopped altogethre. This is because (a) in communism a child would not mean that the mother and/or father would have to give up so much in their lives. Because things like food, shelter etc would be guaranteed. (B) the communial way of living would mean that those people would not have sole resonsibility for the child as they do now.

Clearly it would be easier to have a child if you want to in a communist society, but to think that it would then follow that abortion might "stop all together" takes the absurd and sexist assumption that any sexually active woman would want to have a child if she could afford one, which is so obviously not the case.

This sort of psudo-leftist pro-life position reduces the rational motive for having an abortion to wanting to avoid the financial and social devastation that comes from raising children, but this is really no real motive at all because women in capitalist societies can always put their babies up for adoption, often receiving financial benefits for doing so. The motivation is more likely not wanting to be pregnant, not wanting to give birth or have a c-section, and not wanting the short and long term physical consequences those things entail, which might be perceived as tolerable or 'worth it' to someone who very much wants a baby, could likely be felt to be traumatic and mutilating to someone who doesn't.

In fact, socialist societies and former socialist societies almost always have much higher abortion rates than capitalist societies do, probably because patriarchy and the patriarchal cult of domestic motherhood and belief in sex as a sacred rather than recreational thing have been eliminated or greatly reduced.

In Cuba for instance, mothers and fathers get a year of paid leave from work and free full time day care, and the revolutionary state pays for their childrens food and clothes and education and health care, so there literally no financial or social disincentives to having children...yet they still have abortions much more frequently than people living in advanced capitalist countries do, even though they also have access to contraceptives. This alone empirically demonstrates that your position is incorrect.

The optimal goal when considering reproductive and personal rights is not to have no abortions, but to have no unwanted pregnancies and births. Wanting to cut down on abortions should only be desirable in achieving that goal through less invasive options. Its obviously better to use contraceptives than even early abortions because its much less invasive and expensive, but then, the people who want abortions "stopped altogethre[sic]" are rarely the same people who want to hand out condoms and birth control in schools.

counterblast

14th April 2007, 09:53

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 03:52 pm
I'm pro-life as long as that life will be filled with love, freedom, fun, and life lived to its fullest. If that is not the life that the child will have then I'm pro-choice, but only until the second trimester, after that its just bloody cruel.
So you're suggesting we use telepathics to evaluate abortion patients?

Here is an interesting question to all of the people who identify as "pro-life"; would you support a soldier's choice to leave the army, or would you force him to stay until his service time expired?

EwokUtopia

16th April 2007, 02:22

Late term abortions are not a good thing. They are much messier, more dangerous, more difficult, and much more on the verge of destroying a sentient being than early or mid-term abortions, and few women ever want to go through one. Partial Birth abortion is not a pleasant thing, and is usually a last-ditch resort....If a woman actually puts herself through this, you can bet there is a damn good reason.

I believe that we need to encourage women seeking abortion to do it as quickly as possible, and to do this, we need to make early term abortions free and readily accessible.

I dont think that late term abortion will be a problem in society for long, I think we are comming to a technological point where women who do not wish to carry a foetus to term will be able to put it in an incubator, which solves alot of problems surrounding this issue. What is up to society is to invest funds in making this a possibility.

but as I said, late term abortion is not a good thing for anyone involved. Even in clinics, there is a huge risk to the woman. It should be discouraged by providing the resources to women for early abortions.

EwokUtopia

16th April 2007, 02:26

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 04:14 pm
birth is not an arbitrary line to draw, its the line that follows from a belief that pregnant women are people with the same rights over their bodies as everyone else. Any other line is demeaning to the status of women.
What do you mean by birth? Is it the begining of labour, or the cutting of the umbilical cord...where do you draw the line on this long process?

16th April 2007, 22:24

Partial Birth abortion is not a pleasant thing,

Only pro-life rightwingers call it "partial birth abortion", the correct and politically neutral term is intact dilation and extraction.

and its not a pleasant thing but less unpleasant than unwanted natural child birth!

I believe that we need to encourage women seeking abortion to do it as quickly as possible, and to do this, we need to make early term abortions free and readily accessible.

Really theres almost no scenario where anyone would have a late term abortion due to lack of availability of early term abortion, because early term abortions are always more readily available than late term abortions, since more places can do them, there are fewer laws restricting them, and they're less expensive.

So clearly your premise is incorrect. Women who have late term abortions aren't doing it because of lack of availability of early abortions but because they didn't decide to have an abortion until they were already late in pregnancy, due to unexpected changes in their circumstances, health, or fetal viability. Because of this reality there will always be a need for late term abortion; early term abortion can't replace it.

We don't need to encourage women who want abortions to do it as quickly as possible, clearly anyone would have an abortion as early as they decided to do it, because the longer its put off the more complicated a medical procedure it is.

If you feel the need to encourage women to have abortions on your time table then i think you should refrain in deference to their right to privacy.

I dont think that late term abortion will be a problem in society for long,

I don't think that late term abortion is a "problem in society" now. It needs to be available for people who need it, thats not a problem for me, is it a problem for you??

I think we are comming to a technological point where women who do not wish to carry a foetus to term will be able to put it in an incubator, which solves alot of problems surrounding this issue.

No it doesn't and thats pretty ridiculous i think.

As of now, neo-natal intensive care units can keep a minority of premature neonates alive in incubators who might have been aborted as fetuses...that doesn't mean that everyone who wants a late term abortion would want to opt for a c-section instead, since a c-section is much more invasive, dangerous surgery than late term abortion.

That sort of proposal, that you're making, is straight out of the patriarchal anti-choice lobby's argument for reducing the window of time women have in deciding whether or not they want to keep a pregnancy.

What is up to society is to invest funds in making this a possibility.

I don't think you've made any case for why its desirable at all

but as I said, late term abortion is not a good thing for anyone involved.

Its a good thing to have as an option if you're in a less than optimal position.

To suggest a scenario, if someone has a late term pregnancy which they just found out has a serious congenital disease (which are not always detectable early in pregnancy) and they just caught their husband cheating on them, they might decide at that point that they'd rather not go through with that particular pregnancy, even though they wanted to a few months ago when they were unaware of the defect and the affair. In that scenario, late term abortion would be a good a thing compared to not having one, even though knowing the full circumstances around it earlier would have been a better thing.

Even in clinics, there is a huge risk to the woman.

No, theres not.

Very early abortion is safer than late term abortion, but late term abortion is safer than labour and delivery or c-sections, which are the only alternatives at the point in which late term abortion would be considered.

So there is absolutely no health argument or risk argument against late term abortion.

What do you mean by birth? Is it the begining of labour, or the cutting of the umbilical cord...where do you draw the line on this long process?

Um, by "birth" i meant birth, the beginning of labour isn't birth, that would be, before birth, cutting an umbilical cord isn't birth, that happens after birth.

Its totally wrong to suggest that a pregnant woman magically loses her personal rights as soon as she enters labour and its a tactic thats been used before by reactionaries in america to demand non-consensual medical and surgical treatment on women in labour, even so far as bringing murder charges on those who refuse emergency c-sections.

EwokUtopia

17th April 2007, 01:45

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 09:24 pm
Only pro-life rightwingers call it "partial birth abortion", the correct and politically neutral term is intact dilation and extraction.
I take back the term then, unfortunately thats all Ive ever heard it reffered to as.

Um, by "birth" i meant birth, the beginning of labour isn't birth, that would be, before birth, cutting an umbilical cord isn't birth, that happens after birth.

Ok, lets get even more specific....whats birth, when the head enters the outside world, or when the last toe is removed?

I do realize that this is rather absurd (Ive never heard of an abortion occuring this late in the game), but its a question of a theoretical line to draw between human and foetus.

I think you may have gotten me wrong on my opinions, Im not saying we should get rid of late term abortion, but I am saying it is a much worse process to go through, and therefore it should be a last resort, which it is. In my country of Canada, hospitals offer free abortions on demand for the first month or so, and this is a great way of giving women more accessibility, and I would wager that Canadian abortions, on average, occur at much earlier (and therefore safer and healthier) times than American Abortions, which are far more restricted. I dont even think Ive ever seen an Abortion Clinic in Canada (though Im sure they exist) because the majority of them are performed early on in a hospital, which is the best way for all involved. I would support these rights being extended to mid term abortions, but I think it is safer to have late term abortions performed at specialized clinics with specialized doctors, as it is a much harder process, and not one best left to amatures.

All I was getting at is that early term is vastly prefferable to late term, and early term abortion must be made so accessable that late term abortions are reserved for emergency situations.

Coggeh

17th April 2007, 15:55

I support abortions in cases such as rape and the like , also i think the line should be 8-12weeks while the foetus hasn't really developed at all in that time let alone have the ability to feel .

Black Dagger

17th April 2007, 16:27

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 12:55 am
also i think the line should be 8-12weeks while the foetus hasn't really developed at all in that time let alone have the ability to feel .
So after 8-12 weeks women lose the right to terminate their pregnancy or what?

17th April 2007, 19:00

gilhyle

17th April 2007, 21:41

This is simple: the later the abortion, the more undesirable. But banning late term abortions is (usually) penalising the woman for the failures of the health system. Occasionally that is not the case - women are sometimes negligent; but that is not the predominant case.

The solution is not banning late term abortion; the 'solution' is efficient health services to minimise the occurence of late term abortion.

I think the difficult cases arise at 24/27 weeks when the foetus is beginning to be viable, with current developments, and early birth is beginning to be a viable alternative to abortion. I find tese very rare cases very difficult as some women could still argue that they want the foetus dead so as not to have had a child.

However, I refuse to accept that the capitalist state is fit to legislate for these cases.

EwokUtopia

17th April 2007, 21:42

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 02:55 pm
I support abortions in cases such as rape and the like , also i think the line should be 8-12weeks while the foetus hasn't really developed at all in that time let alone have the ability to feel .
You support abortion in case of rape, meaning you support less than 5% of abortions, but your still doing better than the catholics :rolleyes: Besides, if you make abortion only available to rape victims, I think youll see the reported rape rates skyrocket.

So, if it has the ability to feel, that makes it automatically human? Correct me if I am wrong, but if I punch a cow, it will flinch, therefore it has the ability to feel, but we still kill them by the millions because they are tasty....how is this not worse than killing an foetus because it could destroy a persons life, and in all probability lead a shitty life itself? As long as its done properly, the foetus shouldnt feel much at all, a quick death. I agree it would be wrong (and dangerous) to kill it slowly, like intentionally drinking enough alcohol to kill it. Plus this would likely not kill it, just fuck with its development alot, but we arent talking about foetal torture, we are talking about clean termination, much like what happens to the cow at the slaughterhouse. The whole arguement that it is a human, and its innately wrong to harm it goes on the assumption that individual souls exist and are exclusive to the Human race, this is why the religious right opposes it so much, because the addition of the soul factor makes it a much trickier arguement, but I dont believe in the whole individual immortal souls for all humans bit, do you?

8-12 weeks is still pretty early, I know girls who didnt even know they were pregnant untill 10 weeks after.

coda

17th April 2007, 23:17

<<The difference between a fetus 10 minutes before birth and a baby 10 minutes after birth is vital, for a number of reasons.
First, cognition as we understand it requires minimal sensory experience, our brains are part of a nervous system thats responsive to external stimuli and has thoughts about things and ideas derived from it; theres no mind without thoughts and there are no thoughts without minimal sensory exposure to the world; babies (and animals) have that, fetuses do not for the obvious reason that they've been in the equivalent of a sensory deprivation chamber with no prior thoughts.
Second, there is, at the time of consideration, no such thing as a 'fetus 10 minutes before birth' except retrospectively because any number of things can happen between then; childbirth in humans is dangerous and complicated>>

ahhhh Tragic Clown... that paragraph is pretty much all bullshit.

18th April 2007, 02:36

Well NYA whether its 'bullshit' or not (admittedly its somewhat necessarily speculative given the nature of the data involved) its actually irrelevant to my argument.

The relevant difference between a fetus 10 minutes before birth and a baby 10 minutes after birth is literally its position, not its nature, since even being a baby, or a full person, does not entitle one to override decisions about another's body even when their life depends on it, (as in the case of people who need organ donations) and an infant 10 minutes before birth requires someone elses consent, whereas a baby 10 minutes after birth does not.

So just disregard that paragraph since it was irrelevant anyways.

Fawkes

18th April 2007, 04:07

Originally posted by EwokUtopia+--> (EwokUtopia)Ok, lets get even more specific....whats birth, when the head enters the outside world, or when the last toe is removed?

I do realize that this is rather absurd (Ive never heard of an abortion occuring this late in the game), but its a question of a theoretical line to draw between human and foetus.[/b]
Though this is a pedantic, hypothetical question that is unlikely to ever be in need of an answer, I would argue that birth occurs when the baby know longer needs to rely solely on the mother for survival. When that occurs during labor, I do not know.

Originally posted by [email protected]

Okay, so I'm still pro-choice, but recently I've wondered if we should be allowed to abort babies past 25ish weeks...

Do they have emotions at this point? Are they aware of anything at all?

I'm just not very into the idea of ending life that has emotion and awarness.

I'm sure this is just a phase, but I'd like reassurance all the same.

-Alex

I will quote TAKN here seeing as how his opinion on this matter is the same as mine.

TAKN
I'm all for abortion. A foetus is only a parasite, it is not guaranteed to become a baby (ie miscarriages etc) and woman should have the right to remove the parasite if they so wish. It is only when it is fully devloped that it becomes a human. I mean, do you call an egg a chicken?

EwokUtopia

18th April 2007, 04:53

Well, I wouldnt outright call any foetus a parasite. I believe that terming it as such is the choice of the mother...IE If she wants to keep it, you wont find many pregnant women calling their wanted child a parasite, if she does not, then it is.

The word parasite has negative connentations, and pregnancy is far from being universally negative.

I believe the right to choice extends to terminology as well, and try telling an excited expecting mother she is carrying a parasite.

If she chooses to call it a parasite, its a parasite, if she chooses to call it a baby its a baby, its nobody's call but the woman who bears it, or refuses to bear it.

Fawkes

18th April 2007, 05:43

Well, regardless of the actual term used to describe a fetus, the fetus itself does not change. By the definition of the word, a fetus is indeed a parasite. Now, whether or not a mother chooses to refer to her soon-to-be child as a parasite or not is entirely up to her, but that does not change the fact that it---by definition---is actually a parasite.

EwokUtopia

18th April 2007, 09:16

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 04:43 am
Well, regardless of the actual term used to describe a fetus, the fetus itself does not change. By the definition of the word, a fetus is indeed a parasite. Now, whether or not a mother chooses to refer to her soon-to-be child as a parasite or not is entirely up to her, but that does not change the fact that it---by definition---is actually a parasite.
But, and forgive me if I am wrong, is a parasite not by definition also necissarily harmful? This could be used to describe unwanted pregnancies, but without wanted pregnancy we would see the end of the human species (or any other mammalian species) within one generation.

A parasite is an organism that lives off of another organism while contributing nothing to it, and in all likeliness causing harm. I doubt that there is anyone here so radical to say that this is true of all pregnancies. Pregnancy is, from a biological point of view, essential for survival of the species. This is deffinately not saying that all women should have children, indeed, given overpopulation, a ratio of one child per every 2-4 adults may be prefferable, but with no pregnancy whatsoever, the species has about 80 years left. Therefore, to call all foetus's parasites would be a misuse of the word.

Just because it does not share the social status and rights of a live human does not mean you have to lower a foetus to the same level as stomach worms to make a redundant political point. A foetus is a foetus, and a parasite is a parasite.

18th April 2007, 17:00

But, and forgive me if I am wrong, is a parasite not by definition also necissarily harmful? This could be used to describe unwanted pregnancies, but without wanted pregnancy we would see the end of the human species (or any other mammalian species) within one generation.

A parasite is an organism that lives off of another organism while contributing nothing to it, and in all likeliness causing harm. I doubt that there is anyone here so radical to say that this is true of all pregnancies. Pregnancy is, from a biological point of view, essential for survival of the species. This is deffinately not saying that all women should have children, indeed, given overpopulation, a ratio of one child per every 2-4 adults may be prefferable, but with no pregnancy whatsoever, the species has about 80 years left. Therefore, to call all foetus's parasites would be a misuse of the word.

Just because it does not share the social status and rights of a live human does not mean you have to lower a foetus to the same level as stomach worms to make a redundant political point. A foetus is a foetus, and a parasite is a parasite.

Parasite: An organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.

Fawkes

18th April 2007, 18:20

As Zampanò already pointed out, a parasite is not necessarily harmful by definition.

I doubt that there is anyone here so radical to say that this is true of all pregnancies.
But...that's exactly what a fetus is.

Therefore, to call all foetus's parasites would be a misuse of the word.
By the definition of the word---which Zampanò already stated---it is not at all a misuse of the word.

Just because it does not share the social status and rights of a live human does not mean you have to lower a foetus to the same level as stomach worms to make a redundant political point. A foetus is a foetus, and a parasite is a parasite.
I'm not lowering it to any level nor am I making a redundant political point. Of course a fetus is a fetus and a parasite is a parasite. But, as I have already stated, according to the definition given by Zampanò from www.dictionary.com, a fetus is a parasite.

EwokUtopia

18th April 2007, 19:21

According to Websters:

parï¿½aï¿½sitï¿½ism
Pronunciation: 'per-&-s&-"ti-z&m, -"sI-, "pa-r&-
Function: noun
1 : the behavior of a parasite
2 : an intimate association between organisms of two or more kinds; especially : one in which a parasite obtains benefits from a host which it usually injures

The thing about calling it a parasite is that that word has immensely negative connentations. When you hear "parasite" you think of something bad that you want to kill without thinking it through, and this is not true of all foetus's.

Besides....doesnt calling it a parasite imply that it is a seperate organism and not a part of the womans body?

Fawkes

18th April 2007, 19:28

This is a rather trivial debate, so I will just make one more post regarding it. The key part of that definition is that it usually injures the host, but not always. Frankly, I don't really care if the term "parasite" is looked down upon by the rest of society when referencing a fetus, the fetus is still the same thing. Nothing has changed about it and---regardless of what word is used---it is still solely dependent on the host (mother) for survival.

The Grey Blur

18th April 2007, 19:47

On abortion I just sumit to what female comrades say. I don't think males have any right to formulate "opinions" on something that we can't experience or relate to at all.

Black Dagger

18th April 2007, 20:00

And if the female comrades are anti-choice what then?

To say that men dont have the 'right' to an opinion on abortion is pretty bizarre, you dont have to have a vagina to understand or advocate that humans should not be arbitrarily deprived of control of their bodies.

Besides, im pretty sure every woman who is pro-choice or gets an abortion appreciates the support of pro-choice ANYONE, coz it's not like women are universally pro-choice or its a position in-line with hegemonic 'values'.

18th April 2007, 23:43

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 18, 2007 06:47 pm
I don't think males have any right to formulate "opinions" on something that we can't experience or relate to at all.
I agree that men don't have any right to formulate a position on what women should do with their bodies, but a woman doesn't have any right to formulate a position on what other women do with their bodies either.

Just because an anti-choice reactionary has a womb doesn't give her any special right to tell anyone else what they can and can't do with theirs. A women who opposes reproductive choice is imposing her will on other women's bodies in the same manner that an anti-choice man does.

So i would reject the notion that you ought to "sumit[sic]" to "female comrades" on this issue and instead recognize that choice in abortion isn't a gender issue, its a personal issue, so everyone should differ their judgment to the personal decisions of anyone who has to deal with it.

And if the female comrades are anti-choice what then?

Then they're not our comrades!

Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures

19th April 2007, 10:22

Children up to the age of around 7 have no concept of themselves, nor are they self awher: therefore they are no diffrent to most animals.

apathy maybe

19th April 2007, 12:35

I think the age is earlier then that (4-5) but otherwise yes.

So, do you think humans should have the same "right" to kill them as they do the "right" to kill other animals?

BurnTheOliveTree

19th April 2007, 16:48

The age is actually 2. And to say they aren't much different from most animals is just ridiculous, really.

Are you including insects, birds, plankton in 'animals'?

A young child has a huge capacity to learn language, relatively massive problem solving ability, etc etc.

-Alex

EwokUtopia

19th April 2007, 19:42

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 03:48 pm
The age is actually 2. And to say they aren't much different from most animals is just ridiculous, really.
Humans are animals....we are one of many species, but we are essentially the same. However, we are social, so we can have a concept of rights (which is an innately societal thing....a person along on an Island with a lion next to them really has no "human rights", as the society that grants those would be missing). This is why the abortion debate is such a hot topic....where do those rights extend to.

A zygote/embryo/foutus, while not being a parasite (dont worry, Im not getting back to this debate on semantics) is not a member of society. It is a part of the woman who bears it, and therefore its rights or lack thereof are defined by the mother, not by society. If she chooses to call it a person, she has the power to grant it human rights, and I think the killing of a foetus (say some mysogynist psychopath walks up to a random pregnant person and stabs her in the stomach) whose mother wants to keep it should be called murder (if she choses to call it such), as the woman has granted it status of personhood. However, if she does not give it those rights, it has none. Human rights for living born humans are determined by society as a whole, and the rights of a foetus should be determined by the woman who bears it. It is not a part of society, so human rights as we know them do not apply to it, but since it is a part of a person, that person should have the right to grant it whatever human rights she deems fit.

We are pro-choice, not pro-abortion. Abortion is only one choice, and the choice is nobodys to make but the person who is pregnant. Abortion may be the right choice for one woman, but the wrong one for another. It is not for us to say unless we are pregnant.

LuÃs Henrique

19th April 2007, 22:58

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 03:48 pm
Are you including insects, birds, plankton in 'animals'?
What definition of "animal" are you using?

If they aren't fluffy, cuddly, and nobody says, "aaaaaaaaaaaawww" when they see them, they cannot possibly be animals.

Welcome to Disneyleft ™...

Luís Henrique

BurnTheOliveTree

20th April 2007, 08:24

Oh fuck off, Luis, I'm sick of this assumption that I'm some emotional "save the whale" guy.

I asked because I couldn't quite believe he would compare a 7 year old to a grasshopper.

Ewok - Yeah, I agree. I was responding to the idea that children who are born and have some independence are not like most animals.

-Alex

apathy maybe

20th April 2007, 08:57

No, but I would compare a two year old to a pig. Or a three year old to a chimp.

gilhyle

20th April 2007, 19:04

Most people are quite like dogs. :D Sometimes I agree with Fredierick the Great that I prefer dogs.

Craig

11th May 2007, 23:29

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 06:28 pm
This is a rather trivial debate, so I will just make one more post regarding it. The key part of that definition is that it usually injures the host, but not always. Frankly, I don't really care if the term "parasite" is looked down upon by the rest of society when referencing a fetus, the fetus is still the same thing. Nothing has changed about it and---regardless of what word is used---it is still solely dependent on the host (mother) for survival.
In biological and scientific terms, a fetus isn't a parasite. Perhaps in some semantic sense you might be making some kind of rhetorical point, but otherwise you've really got no legs to stand on. A parasite is an invading species, whereas a fetus is the natural product of human reproduction. Do we have any biologists here that are willing to put this ridiculous conversation to rest?

-Craig

Craig

11th May 2007, 23:32

Your arguments in favor of abortion almost make me want to abandon my pro-choice position. Your defense of abortion sounds dangerously close to the arguments in favor of private property.

-Craig

Jazzratt

12th May 2007, 02:41

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 10:32 pm
Your arguments in favor of abortion almost make me want to abandon my pro-choice position.
Are you really that astonishingly stupid? If so how is that you manage to, say, operate a computer or keep track of your breathing?

Your defense of abortion sounds dangerously close to the arguments in favor of private property.
What the fuck does what they sound "dangerously close" to have anything to do with the arguments themselves. I smell red herring. Silly ****, unreasonable, fallacious arguments are for deranged cretins.

[quote]

StartToday

13th May 2007, 22:34

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 12, 2007 04:14 am
I do think that abortion is all right, but I base my position more on the level of pain caused.
Same here. I'm no doctor or anything, so I don't know when the fetus develops a nervous system, but that's where I'd draw the line. I think that if people didn't have to jump through so many hoops, it would be rather easy to make their decision and get it over with within two months of conceiving, so that's as far as I support, really...

Craig

15th May 2007, 20:32

Originally posted by Jazzratt+May 12, 2007 01:41 am--> (Jazzratt @ May 12, 2007 01:41 am) [quote][email protected] 11, 2007 10:32 pm
Your arguments in favor of abortion almost make me want to abandon my pro-choice position.
Are you really that astonishingly stupid? If so how is that you manage to, say, operate a computer or keep track of your breathing?

Your defense of abortion sounds dangerously close to the arguments in favor of private property.
What the fuck does what they sound "dangerously close" to have anything to do with the arguments themselves. I smell red herring. Silly ****, unreasonable, fallacious arguments are for deranged cretins.

[/b]
Haha. Wow, it takes some nerve to point out logical falacies like "red herring" while engaging in some weak ad hominem attacks.

What is that I smell? Is there a hint of irony in the air?

Incidentally, the word "****" is an extremely sexist remark here in the States. You might want to consider that when making knee-jerk attacks in an international forum. The last time I checked, those sort of insults were a violation of RevLeft policy.

And, finally, relax. I really think your verbal explosion was a bit over the top. I don't hate you, and since you don't even know me I'm guessing you can't possibly hate me yet. I think the name-calling out of line.

-Craig

Jazzratt

15th May 2007, 23:43

Haha. Wow, it takes some nerve to point out logical falacies like "red herring" while engaging in some weak ad hominem attacks.

What is that I smell? Is there a hint of irony in the air?
Oh deary, deary me. someone doesn't know the way an ad hominem attack works do they? I pointed out a flaw in your argument, and dismissed on those grounds, the fact I called you a "naughty name" had nothing to do with my argument.

I think people should be taught the difference between an ad hominem attack and an insult before they are allowed to use the internet.

Incidentally, the word "****" is an extremely sexist remark here in the States.
That's fantastic, I'll remember that next time I'm in the states.

You might want to consider that when making knee-jerk attacks in an international forum. The last time I checked, those sort of insults were a violation of RevLeft policy.
Of my thousands of posts on this forum I'm sure that at least a hundred, if not more contain the word "****" in an insulting context, assuming that no special provisions have been made for me I'm fairly sure that it's a "safe" word.
[As for the "international forum" comment remember that most non-americans are fine with the word ****]

And, finally, relax. I really think your verbal explosion was a bit over the top.
It probably was but it was a lot of fun and certainly a lot better than some of the endless paragraphs of bombast that litter this board.

I don't hate you, and since you don't even know me I'm guessing you can't possibly hate me yet. I think the name-calling out of line.

-Craig
Yet.

Oh and I know you're called Craig, it's your user name - the sign off is a little excessive. If you really feel like ending your posts with it why not put it in your signature?

StealthyCat

1st June 2007, 08:29

a) Technically, a parasite is of a different species from the host. It would be more accurate to compare a foetus to a cancer - both are characterised by rapid cell division, and the consumption of massive amounts of reserves of the person 'hosting' the cancer. In rare cases, when cell division becomes out of control, a 'foetus' can develop into a cancer, known as a hydatidiform mole.

b) Dilation and extraction is/was primarily performed in cases in which a very severe congenital condition or foetal abnormality is detected very late in the pregnancy, or when the mother's life or health is at risk. An example of a severe foetal abnormality is hydrocephalus, in which the head of the foetus becomes massively swollen due to the presence of water. Often, a foetus with this condition will not have developed any cortical function, and thus will have no awareness, in addition to the fact that it will be very likely to die shortly after birth.

c) The argument that abortion should only be allowed in the case of rape is not only misogynistic but also impractical. How would you determine whether a rape had occurred in the event that there was no physical trauma? Rape is underreported, and if a woman who had become pregnant as a result of a rape knew that whether a rape had occurred, and thu8s whether she would be 'allowed' to abort knew she was going to be subjected to questioning and judgment, she would likely be less inclined to report the rape.

NorthStarRepublicML

1st June 2007, 09:33

(a) in communism a child would not mean that the mother and/or father would have to give up so much in their lives. Because things like food, shelter etc would be guaranteed. (B) the communial way of living would mean that those people would not have sole resonsibility for the child as they do now.

agreed, extensive adoption programs would also benefit society ....

obviously the current adoption system in the USA is not working and needs to be reorganized, but a working adoption system seems more in line with socialism then does abortions .... am i alone here?

I would be willing to wager that adoption programs are MORE beneficial to society then abortion programs, although there could be arguements made that for leftists to focus on adoption as opposed to abortions is harmful to womens rights, it seems to me that only individuals benefit from abortions and not society at large ....

opinions on adoptions?

2nd June 2007, 16:47

Originally posted by apathy maybe+--> (apathy maybe)
So, do you think humans should have the same "right" to kill them as they do the "right" to kill other animals?
[/b]

Humans don't have a "right" to kill animals anymore than they have a "right" to take trains to work, but animals and trains do not have the capacity to demand that their rights and integrity be protected so they are not social actors, or persons, that way. Rights are always on an interactional level, rights exist when mutually exclusive self-articulated interests compete. Animals, trains and fetuses cannot self-articulate their interests, so they do not have rights.

Neither do infants for that matter, (but toddlers and children do have them), but people have natural and obvious rights over their fetuses but no natural or obvious rights over infants (if you leave an infant unattended, someone else can take care of it, the same is not true of a fetus, so the social relationship to a fetus is exclusive to its host, but the social relationship to an infant is non-exclusive to its parents). Similarly no one would ever suggest that any human has a right to kill any animal, the social relations and interests between humans are different.

The age is actually 2. And to say they aren't much different from most animals is just ridiculous, really.

I think the sensible age at which infants become "different from animals" is when children are capable of conversational speech, because thats when they're capable of interacting with society as an individual and representing themselves as such, rather than as a fashion accessory for their parents. But when you're talking about infants, the only non-sentimental differences between an infant and a dolphin or a chimp is that the dolphin or chimp is more intelligent, self are, autonomous and competent.

But then, we wouldn't kill a dolphin or a chimp...or a dog or cat or a horse...though some cultures would. Just as some cultures would find it wrong to kill a cow. Without speech, nothing really has 'rights' or entitlements they just elicit sympathetic or unsympathetic reactions from people.

Originally posted by EwokUtopia+--> (EwokUtopia)This is why the abortion debate is such a hot topic....where do those rights extend to.
[/b]

No really the debate is such a hot topic because rightwing patriarchal conservatives want to control women's reproductive capabilities as if it were a natural resource to be exploited. The shift to discussion "rights" of a fetus is only a diversionary tactic because they realize that their real reasons are so appalling to anyone who doesn't share their warped ideology that it would not be entertained in serious public debate. I mean, really, they think fetuses have rights but people don't? I don't think so, i think they're just lying about their motivations.

A zygote/embryo/foutus, while not being a parasite

Originally posted by Craig
In biological and scientific terms, a fetus isn't a parasite. Perhaps in some semantic sense you might be making some kind of rhetorical point, but otherwise you've really got no legs to stand on. A parasite is an invading species, whereas a fetus is the natural product of human reproduction. Do we have any biologists here that are willing to put this ridiculous conversation to rest?

Originally posted by StealthyCat
a) Technically, a parasite is of a different species from the host. It would be more accurate to compare a foetus to a cancer - both are characterised by rapid cell division, and the consumption of massive amounts of reserves of the person 'hosting' the cancer. In rare cases, when cell division becomes out of control, a 'foetus' can develop into a cancer, known as a hydatidiform mole.

No, i'm sorry, you're just wrong.

A parasite is defined as an organism that lives off of an other organism in a dependent fashion.

While many parasites are invading species, this is not essential to the scientific or general definition of the term.

Here are some scientific and medical journal articles that describe parasites of the same species:

www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2393/4/13
"Prenatal diagnosis of pygopagus tetrapus parasistic twin: case report" - a human fetus as a parasite on another human fetus, despite the two being of the same species.

www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1046/j.1463-6395.2000.00062.x
"histology of the fusion area between the parasitic male and female and the female in the deep-sea anglerfish Neoceratias spinifer Pappenheim" - a fish species (angler fish) where the male is a parasite of the female, despite the two being of the same species.

www.springerlink.com/index/T63714268H774017.pdf
"Colonial Nesting and the Importance of the Brood Size in Male Parasitic Reproduction of the Mediterranean Damselfish"

So, there you go, a parasite is a parasite, at least to the scientific community (and everyone who isn't trying to make a rightwing political point) even if its part of the same species, even if its essential to reproduction of that species. So you have no "legs to stand on" in claiming that a fetus is not a parasite.

And a fetus can't quite be described as a cancer because cancers are usually defined by metastasis not merely disruptive growth. Although, lol if you wanted to go for that analogy, you could say it was a tumor with benign histology but due to rapid growth its potentially life threatening, although fortunately operable :rolleyes:...so more like a brain tumor than a skin cancer.

Originally posted by Craig
Your arguments in favor of abortion almost make me want to abandon my pro-choice position.

Then clearly you never actually supported women's rights as human beings and you're just revealing yourself as a reactionary.

Originally posted by Craig
Your defense of abortion sounds dangerously close to the arguments in favor of private property.

Are you insane? Of course your own body is your personal property. Read the f'ing Communist Manifesto, the objection is never with private personal property but with private social property, the type of property that employs and creates capital. Communist are not against personal property we are against the ownership of mass means of production, . Something which you and the other reactionaries reduce women to.

Originally posted by StartToday

Same here. I'm no doctor or anything, so I don't know when the fetus develops a nervous system, but that's where I'd draw the line.

So you would "draw the line" earlier than every western capitalist country. Except Ireland, South Dakota and the Vatican.

[email protected]
I think that if people didn't have to jump through so many hoops, it would be rather easy to make their decision and get it over with within two months of conceiving, so that's as far as I support, really...

You don't magically turn into a non-person entity with no rights over your own body two month into pregnancy. Consent to a pregnancy can be revoked at any point just like consenting to have sex in the first place can.

StealthyCat
c) The argument that abortion should only be allowed in the case of rape is not only misogynistic but also impractical. How would you determine whether a rape had occurred in the event that there was no physical trauma? Rape is underreported, and if a woman who had become pregnant as a result of a rape knew that whether a rape had occurred, and thu8s whether she would be 'allowed' to abort knew she was going to be subjected to questioning and judgment, she would likely be less inclined to report the rape.

I think the biggest danger would actually be over-reporting of rape because there would be an obvious (and completely understandable) motivation for lying about being raped if that was the only way to obtain an abortion. The practical result would a lot of innocent men going to jail for rape and a lot of rapists getting away with it as fewer people would believe their victims.

2nd June 2007, 17:56

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 08:33 am

(a) in communism a child would not mean that the mother and/or father would have to give up so much in their lives. Because things like food, shelter etc would be guaranteed. (B) the communial way of living would mean that those people would not have sole resonsibility for the child as they do now.

agreed,

As i pointed out earlier in this thread:

1. In capitalism, a child doesn't mean a mother has to give up *any* of their lives, they can always put a baby up for adoption. Women have abortions not because they don't want babies which can be gotten rid of without abortion, but because they don't want to be pregnant and don't want to give birth. It is disgustingly sexist to think that any sexually actively woman would want a child and be willing to endure pregnancy and childbirth if only she had the money. This sort of fake-leftist paternalism is just as misogynistic as the open anti-choicers.

2. In socialist countries where its already the case that society as a whole takes care of children and parents do not make any financial or social sacrifices for children (as in Cuba currently and other socialist societies in the past) abortion rates are actually much higher than in capitalist countries. When faced with an unwanted pregnancy and neither constrained by financial and social stigma of having a baby or religious and patriarchal social stigma of having an abortion, people are more likely to decide to have an abortion than with both sets of mitigating factors on their decisions.

So you're just wrong. Communism would lead to more abortions not less when compared to capitalism (similarly capitalism means more abortions than feudalism), and this is a good thing because it means fewer women will be carrying unwanted pregnancies to term.

extensive adoption programs would also benefit society

No it wouldn't. Infant adoption benefits certain individuals (those who want babies) at the expense of other individuals (those who don't, but have them anyways), which is exploitation.

obviously the current adoption system in the USA is not working and needs to be reorganized,

How so? I don't think its at all obvious that it isn't working. Anyone who has a baby that they don't want can give it up to someone who does, this is no difficulty, the point is that people don't want to go through the pain, discomfort, risk and public humiliation and lasting physical damage of pregnancy and birth for no benefit to themselves.

but a working adoption system seems more in line with socialism then does abortions.... am i alone here?

No you're not alone, George Bush and the Republican Party agree with you. I however do not.

I would be willing to wager that adoption programs are MORE beneficial to society then abortion programs,

Infant adoption of unwanted pregnancies benefits no one except the people who receive those babies, it does not benefit society as a whole and it hurts women with unwanted pregnancies who are manipulated and guilted into sacrificing their bodies so some rich infertile couple can selfishly fulfill their child-raising fantasies.

Abortion is clearly beneficial to more people (every sexually active fertile heterosexual or bi woman) than adoption (everyone who wants a baby who can't have one, a smaller of people group), but to even talk of this misses the point: you cannot violate someone's most fundamental rights for someone elses benefit.

although there could be arguements made that for leftists to focus on adoption as opposed to abortions is harmful to womens rights,

That would be because it totally disregards women's rights. In any case, such an argument can't be made one way or the other because leftists do not focus on adoption as opposed to abortion, if you do that, than you're not a leftist.

it seems to me that only individuals benefit from abortions and not society at large

I guess from a Maggie Thatcher "there is no society" standpoint thats true, but its also true that only individuals benefit from adoptions. When you're talking about individual benefits to half of society though its clearly a social benefit.

And in any case abortion helps the economy because without effective contraceptives and abortion women would not be able to contribute to the work force, so it has an obvious collective benefit.

In practice, infant adoption typically occurs when rich middle aged women who can't have children effectively get poor young women to have them for them, which is in a way a quintessentially capitalist system: the poor make the goods and the rich take them from them.

opinions on adoptions?

Adoption shouldn't even be discussed in relation to abortion as it is not a solution to unwanted pregnancy, which is what abortion is. Obviously in a patriarchal society there needs to be adoption agencies in order to place children whose parents have died or who find they can't take care of them, but encouraging women with unwanted pregnancies to give birth and put their babies up for adoption is extremely exploitive.

In any case i think collective child raising is better than family based child raising.

2nd June 2007, 18:30

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 06:42 pm
It is a part of the woman who bears it, and therefore its rights or lack thereof are defined by the mother, not by society. If she chooses to call it a person, she has the power to grant it human rights, and I think the killing of a foetus (say some mysogynist psychopath walks up to a random pregnant person and stabs her in the stomach) whose mother wants to keep it should be called murder (if she choses to call it such), as the woman has granted it status of personhood. However, if she does not give it those rights, it has none. Human rights for living born humans are determined by society as a whole, and the rights of a foetus should be determined by the woman who bears it. It is not a part of society, so human rights as we know them do not apply to it, but since it is a part of a person, that person should have the right to grant it whatever human rights she deems fit.

I completely disagree.

A pregnant woman cannot ascribe rights to her fetus, rather she has rights over it. Stabbing a random pregnant woman or otherwise causing someone with a wanted pregnancy to lose it doesn't violate the fetuses rights it violates the pregnant woman's rights. The fetus has no rights whether the person carrying it wants it or not, but if the person carrying it wants it than she has rights to it just like she has rights to her foot or kidney.

If a pregnant woman loses a fetus in an attack, her calling her fetus a "baby" does not make it "murder" anymore than calling it "my little prince" would make it "regicide."

The attempts to have murders of pregnant women counted as double homicide or even worse, batteries causing miscarrages as 'murder', is just a backdoor way of conceptualizing the fetus as a person with rights so that real people can be deprived of theirs. Thats why the republicans are so thrilled by those laws.

We are pro-choice, not pro-abortion.

I'm really not comfortable with that (frequently sited) statement because it suggests that abortion is a bad thing or otherwise not the optimal choice.

I'm completely pro-abortion when it comes to unwanted pregnancies. Its not just a choice, its a good choice. If you want a baby you shouldn't get an abortion, if you don't want a baby and you get pregnant, than you really should. To demand that women with unwanted pregnancies consider their other "choices" is really to badger and manipulate them into a false dilemma and it often relies on false comparisons of their experience to women with wanted pregnancies.

Kwisatz Haderach

2nd June 2007, 22:52

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 12:43 am

And if the female comrades are anti-choice what then?

Then they're not our comrades!
Okay, I'm going to stay out of this debate but I have problems with statements like that.

We all know that the left has a long and tragic history of factionalism and splits. That is precisely because of the tendency of some people on the left to say "if you disagree with me on even one single issue, you are not my comrade".

Nonsense, I say. Anyone who wants to abolish capitalism and replace it with socialism is my comrade, no matter what other views they might hold.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, stop making such a damn big deal about abortion. It is a secondary issue at best.

Kwisatz Haderach

2nd June 2007, 23:10

On second thought, I guess I won't stay out of the debate...

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 06:56 pm
1. In capitalism, a child doesn't mean a mother has to give up *any* of their lives, they can always put a baby up for adoption.
But not without stigma. A woman that actually gives birth to a child is under far more pressure to keep it than a woman who is considering an abortion.

Besides, there are all sorts of negative economic and social consequences that may ruin your career because you spend 9 months being pregnant. None of these would exist under socialism.

2. In socialist countries where its already the case that society as a whole takes care of children and parents do not make any financial or social sacrifices for children (as in Cuba currently and other socialist societies in the past) abortion rates are actually much higher than in capitalist countries. When faced with an unwanted pregnancy and neither constrained by financial and social stigma of having a baby or religious and patriarchal social stigma of having an abortion, people are more likely to decide to have an abortion than with both sets of mitigating factors on their decisions.
Your facts are simply incorrect. There are far more abortions today in capitalist Eastern Europe than there were in the same countries prior to 1989. And the only reason Cuba has a higher [legal] abortion rate than the rest of Latin America is because abortions are banned in most cases across most of Latin America (which doesn't stop large numbers of illegal and unsafe abortions, of course).

So you're just wrong. Communism would lead to more abortions not less when compared to capitalism (similarly capitalism means more abortions than feudalism), and this is a good thing because it means fewer women will be carrying unwanted pregnancies to term.
I would argue that, on the contrary, socialism and communism would allow women to have less unwanted pregnancies in the first place, which will lead to less abortions.

And even though abortion may not be a bad thing in itself, it is an indication that a bad thing has happened - a woman got pregnant against her wishes. Ideally, unwanted pregnancies should not exist at all.

but a working adoption system seems more in line with socialism then does abortions.... am i alone here?

No you're not alone, George Bush and the Republican Party agree with you. I however do not.
I believe that socialism should work to prevent the problem of unwanted pregnancies from occurring in the first place (which will also have the effect of reducing the number of abortions).

you cannot violate someone's most fundamental rights for someone elses benefit.

Nonsense. There are no such things as natural rights. No one has a "fundamental" "right" to anything. Human rights are granted by society for the purpose of maximizing the happiness of its members.

Oedipus Complex

3rd June 2007, 02:33

Edric O

Nonsense, I say. Anyone who wants to abolish capitalism and replace it with socialism is my comrade, no matter what other views they might hold.

Even a view which forces women to have no sovereignty over their own body? How about a view which holds that one race has superior qualities to another? What is the point of emancipating the proletariat if we shall still enforce how others use their own autonomous bodies?

Those who do not support abortion are not comrades but rather reactionaries who wish to force others into their own moral code without allowing women to use their bodies as they please. So, no, they are not comrades.

3rd June 2007, 03:17

Originally posted by The Rev. Edric O

Your facts are simply incorrect. There are far more abortions today in capitalist Eastern Europe than there were in the same countries prior to 1989. And the only reason Cuba has a higher [legal] abortion rate than the rest of Latin America is because abortions are banned in most cases across most of Latin America (which doesn't stop large numbers of illegal and unsafe abortions, of course).

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: LOL The christian is sooooooo funny. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I love how he says "Your facts are simply incorrect" ! Its like, he wants to puff himself up and speak from such authority like he knows what he's talking about when he's really just full of shit!

No, I'm sorry Christian but you're fucking wrong, you have the facts wrong, there is data on this, and they show the exact opposite of what you just claimed

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2504499.html

The abortion rate in every single Soviet Republic's (other than Armenia) dropped after the fall of socialism in eastern europe, and the same is true of every other warsaw pact nation!

In 1988, socialist Russia had a rate of 126.6 per 1000, in 1995 capitalist Russia had a rate of just 68.4...still higher than in the west but much lower than under socialist economic planning. This trend is the same in every single other soviet republic and warsaw pact nation.

Yet, all of them still have much higher rates than western europe and the united states. Even under capitalism, post-soviet women have abortions at a higher rate, probably because those are atheist countries which don't have crazy Christians trying to bully them into keeping unwanted pregnancies.

Your statement that Cuba only has a higher abortion rate than the rest of Latin America because abortion is illegal in every other Latin American country s highly misleading. It would not show anything about the difference in abortion rates between socialist and capitalist economies if the Cuban abortion rate was merely high for the region and not for the planet, but the Cuban abortion rate is the third highest in the world and much higher than any first world nation's. The only two countries that have higher abortion rates than Cuba are post-socialist Romania and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. Western capitalist countries don't come close.

This can all be verified from the link i just provided.

So don't be arrogant Christian, you just look stupid when you pretend to know something that you don't.

3rd June 2007, 03:30

Okay, I'm going to stay out of this debate but I have problems with statements like that.

Cause you're a christian misogynist?

We all know that the left has a long and tragic history of factionalism and splits. That is precisely because of the tendency of some people on the left to say "if you disagree with me on even one single issue, you are not my comrade".

Nonsense, I say. Anyone who wants to abolish capitalism and replace it with socialism is my comrade, no matter what other views they might hold.

This is not just any issue, this is the heart of leftist ideology. Our aim is not socialism for an arbitrary reason the agenda of communism is and has always been nothing more or less than human emancipation. Human emancipation is only achievable through socialism but it entails more than just collective ownership of the means of production it entails social equality and personal freedom.

Any restrictions on abortion would be contrary to the aim of human emancipation so it would be contrary to the core of communist ideology.

Similarly, you are also not a comrade of ours because as a Christian you reject materialism, which is the basic theoretical foundation of Marxist politics.

This isn't a matter of factionalism its a matter of fundementaly divergent and irreconcilable ideological positions.

The Nazis wanted to abolish capitalism and replace it with socialism as well, where they (and you) differed from Communists was in rejecting human emancipation as the basis for socialism.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, stop making such a damn big deal about abortion. It is a secondary issue at best.

No, its part of the primary issue which is human emancipation, if you don't recognze this its only because you're a Christian misogynist and not a leftist.

It is impossible to have proletarian democracy or freedom without abortion the same way that its impossible to have them with slavery or with racial hierarchy or castes.

But not without stigma. A woman that actually gives birth to a child is under far more pressure to keep it than a woman who is considering an abortion.

Stupid Christians love to try to harass women into keeping pregnancies to give babies up for adoption, this is well known. The stigma of abortion, to christians and other patriarchal types like yourself, is much higher than the stigma of giving a baby up for adoption, so where a stigma might exist its relatively lesser.

Besides, there are all sorts of negative economic and social consequences that may ruin your career because you spend 9 months being pregnant. None of these would exist under socialism.

How stupid are you? Unless you're like a construction worker you can go to work while pregnant and go back to work shortly after childbirth. Pregnancy itself doesn't hurt women's careers, its the having children that does, because actually having and keeping a kid means time out of work to look after a new born and then reduced hours thereafter. This is not the case for women who put their infants up for adoption.

So you're argument is stupid and totally wrong.

I would argue that, on the contrary, socialism and communism would allow women to have less unwanted pregnancies in the first place, which will lead to less abortions.

You could argue that but it would be without any empirical data.

As i've already demonstrated, the facts of the matter is that abortion rates are much higher in socialist societies than in capitalist societies, and ex-socialist societies have lower rates than under socialism but higher rates than societies which were never socialist. So even if there are fewer unwanted pregnancies there are still more abortions.

The reality is that theres no way of eliminating unwanted pregnancies anymore than theres a way of eliminating car accidents. Human error exists in any society.

And even though abortion may not be a bad thing in itself, it is an indication that a bad thing has happened - a woman got pregnant against her wishes. Ideally, unwanted pregnancies should not exist at all.

Yes and ideally no one would ever die or get sick or be disappointed or hurt or get colds and it would never rain, and so on, but this has nothing to do with reality. Unwanted pregnancies will always exist. Even if no one ever conceived accidentally because contraceptives were 100% perfect and everyone always used them perfectly, there would still be unwanted pregnancies because people would still change their minds about wanting a baby while already pregnant after their circumstances changed (say, they broke up with their partner).

In any case stop entertaining this fantasy, you want to have your cake and eat it too by clearly being anti-abortion without wanting it to contradict your phoney commitment to communism.

Nonsense. There are no such things as natural rights. No one has a "fundamental" "right" to anything. Human rights are granted by society for the purpose of maximizing the happiness of its members.

If you think that people can be used for social benefits than you're no leftist, the only type of socialist you resemble is the national kind.

Kwisatz Haderach

3rd June 2007, 04:02

Originally posted by Oedipus Complex+June 03, 2007 03:33 am--> (Oedipus Complex @ June 03, 2007 03:33 am) Even a view which forces women to have no sovereignty over their own body? How about a view which holds that one race has superior qualities to another? What is the point of emancipating the proletariat if we shall still enforce how others use their own autonomous bodies? [/b]
First of all, there is a world of difference between "no sovereignty over one's body" and a limited degree of sovereignty in one particular instance (abortion). Forcing women to have no sovereignty over their own body would mean forcing women into slavery, and slavery is an economic institution that is absolutely incompatible with socialist relations of production.

The point of emancipating the proletariat is that capitalist exploitation is much more widespread and intense than any other kind of exploitation which currently exists in the world. I would love to be able to abolish all exploitation and oppression in one fell swoop. But that is unlikely. My view, in essence, is as follows: Let's get rid of capitalism first, then fight over anything else. If your views are incompatible with mine in all respects except our anti-capitalism and support for socialism, I will still work with you to build socialism. Only after the future of socialism is secure will I consider it acceptable to start opposing you.

Originally posted by TragicClown+--> (TragicClown)LOL The christian is sooooooo funny.

I love how he says "Your facts are simply incorrect" ! Its like, he wants to puff himself up and speak from such authority like he knows what he's talking about when he's really just full of shit!

No, I'm sorry Christian but you're fucking wrong, you have the facts wrong, there is data on this, and they show the exact opposite of what you just claimed

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2504499.html [/b]

I admit I was simply assuming that all of Eastern Europe followed the Romanian path (since I am myself Romanian). Speaking of which, I find it interesting how you call Romania "post-socialist", as if to avoid using the term capitalist Romania and thus admit that capitalism has produced a sharp rise in the Romanian abortion rate.

But thank you for posting that link. Some of the data is very educational:

For example, rates fell by 28-47% in the four former Soviet states with reasonably complete data (Belarus, Estonia, Kazakhstan and Latvia), and by 18-65% in six states with less-complete reporting. Similar patterns were seen in such nations as Bulgaria, Hungary and the Czech and Slovak Republics. Rates have also declined in several other developed countries: Since 1975, the abortion rate in such countries as Denmark, Finland, Italy and Japan has dropped by 40-50%.

So, apparently, your much vaunted reduction in the abortion rate in Eastern Europe after the introduction of capitalism was matched or even dwarfed by the reduction in the abortion rates of some other countries that have always been capitalist. If natural fluctuations within capitalism can reduce abortion by 40-50%, the fact that similar things happened at the same time in countries moving from (quasi-)socialism to capitalism isn't saying a whole lot.

[email protected]
The abortion rate in every single Soviet Republic's (other than Armenia) dropped after the fall of socialism in eastern europe, and the same is true of every other warsaw pact nation!

In 1988, socialist Russia had a rate of 126.6 per 1000, in 1995 capitalist Russia had a rate of just 68.4... still higher than in the west but much lower than under socialist economic planning. This trend is the same in every single other soviet republic and warsaw pact nation.
"Every single"? You have yourself admitted that it is not true for Armenia, and the data shows that the exact opposite is true for Romania. I wonder how many other countries may be in the same situation but have been conveniently left out of your post. Meanwhile, I should address a flat out lie you have written...

TragicClown
Yet, all of them still have much higher rates than western europe and the united states. Even under capitalism, post-soviet women have abortions at a higher rate, probably because those are atheist countries which don't have crazy Christians trying to bully them into keeping unwanted pregnancies.
My turn to point out how fucking wrong you are. Here is a very useful map of the levels of religiosity (= percent of people who believe in God) in the countries of the European Union:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Europe_belief_in_god.png

At a glance, you may notice that the East (with the exception of the Czech Republic) is more religious than the West. The data is taken from a World Values Survey, by the way. Here is their complete list, with percentages of religious people and the dominant religion in each EU and EU-candidate country:

* Malta (Catholic) 99.1%
* Poland (Catholic) 96.2%
* Ireland (Catholic) 93.7%
* Moldova (Orthodox) 91.8%
* Romania (Orthodox) 91.6%
* Croatia (Catholic) 91.4%
* Italy (Catholic) 87.8%
* Portugal (Catholic) 84.0%
* Greece (Orthodox) 83.7%
* Austria (Catholic) 82.7%
* Bulgaria (Ortodox) 82.6%
* Spain (Catholic) 78.4%
* Iceland (Protestant) 76.9%
* Switzerland (Catholic/Protestant) 76.4%
* Slovakia (Catholic) 75.9%
* Finland (Protestant) 73.8%
* Serbia (Orthodox) 72.9%
* Montenegro (Orthodox) 72.4%
* Belarus (Orthodox) 72.2%
* Latvia (Balanced) 70.1%
* Lithuania (Catholic) 69.9%
* Ukraine (Orthodox) 69.1%
* Luxembourg (Catholic) 68%
* Belgium (Catholic) 65.9%
* Norway (Protestant) 65.1%
* Hungary (Mostly Catholic) 64.9%
* Slovenia (Catholic) 62.1%
* Denmark (Protestant) 62.1%
* United Kingdom (Mostly Protestant) 60.6%
* Russia (Orthodox) 59.3%
* Netherlands (Catholic/Protestant) 58%
* France (Catholic) 56.1%
* Germany (Catholic/Protestant) 49.5%
* Sweden (Protestant) 46.6%
* Estonia (Protestant/Orthodox) 41.0%
* Czech Republic (Catholic) 33.1%

Notice that abortion-crazy Romania is the third most religious country in Eastern Europe, after Poland and Moldova. Notice also that Russia has more believers than France and Germany, and just a little less than the United Kingdom. Poland is the most Catholic country in Europe (not counting tiny Malta). So much for communist atheism...

3rd June 2007, 04:40

First of all, there is a world of difference between "no sovereignty over one's body" and a limited degree of sovereignty in one particular instance (abortion).

Apparently you don't understand the definition or concept of 'sovereignty', or for that matter human rights or personal dignity.

I admit I was simply assuming that all of Eastern Europe followed the Romanian path (since I am myself Romanian). Speaking of which, I find it interesting how you call Romania "post-socialist", as if to avoid using the term capitalist Romania and thus admit that capitalism has produced a sharp rise in the Romanian abortion rate.

How can you be Romanian and so ignorant of Romanian history?

Until 1989, unlike in the rest of the socialist world, abortion was virtually illegal in Romania.

In 1989 a group of leftwing Communist revolutionaries called the LSN overthrew the corrupt phony-socialist government and ran the country for three years...

...and in those three years, the only three years when Romania had a system similar other socialist countries, it had the highest abortion rate ever. That rate declined steadily from 181.7 under the marxist LSN government to 78 in 1996 after capitalism was really restored post 1992.

So you're wrong, even in Romania, there was a sharp decline in abortion after the restoration of capitalism (the increase was from a righting phoney socialist government where abortion was illegal to a to a leftwing socialist government).

So, apparently, your much vaunted reduction in the abortion rate in Eastern Europe after the introduction of capitalism was matched or even dwarfed by the reduction in the abortion rates of some other countries that have always been capitalist. If natural fluctuations within capitalism can reduce abortion by 40-50%, the fact that similar things happened at the same time in countries moving from (quasi-)socialism to capitalism isn't saying a whole lot.

You are again, being stupid. The rate of decline in those cases was actually much much much lower, because it was from 1975 to 1996 not 1991 to 1996 and is probably attributable to contraceptive availability, so again you're wrong. And in any case, the absolute rate is always much lower in capitalism than in socialism and that was my point to begin with. The fact that socialist countries after capitalism is restored tend to gradually fall back in line with lower capitalist abortion rates is consistent with this observation.

"Every single"? You have yourself admitted that it is not true for Armenia, and the data shows that the exact opposite is true for Romania.

Again, you're just wrong about Romania. Abortion was illegal in Romania before 1989, but in 1990 when it was legal but capitalism hadn't been restored yet, it was much higher than it is now.

In the case of Armenia its held basically steady; and in any case armenia is one small country so it hardly undermines the pattern that every other country including Romania has followed.

My turn to point out how fucking wrong you are. Here is a very useful map of the levels of religiosity (= percent of people who believe in God) in the countries of the European Union:

Uh, no. The relevant issue here is the strength of conservative traditionalist and patriarchal religion, something which was basically wiped out by socialism in eastern europe, not how someone answers a survey as to whether or not they believe in some sort of a god. Its organized reactionary religion not belief in god which has social consequences.

Kwisatz Haderach

3rd June 2007, 04:42

Originally posted by TragicClown+June 03, 2007 04:30 am--> (TragicClown @ June 03, 2007 04:30 am) Cause you're a christian misogynist? [/b]
Yes, yes, and I also build a large pyre in my back yard every Sunday to burn heretics, and I'm saving up money so I can buy a large broadsword and go off on a crusade. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by TragicClown+--> (TragicClown)This is not just any issue, this is the heart of leftist ideology. Our aim is not socialism for an arbitrary reason the agenda of communism is and has always been nothing more or less than human emancipation. Human emancipation is only achievable through socialism but it entails more than just collective ownership of the means of production it entails social equality and personal freedom.

Any restrictions on abortion would be contrary to the aim of human emancipation so it would be contrary to the core of communist ideology.[/b]
Speak for yourself. As far as I am concerned, the agenda of communism is and has always been nothing more or less than human EQUALITY. I'm not even entirely sure what you mean by "emancipation" in this context. I was under the impression that "emancipation" meant "freedom from exploitation", but your definition apparently includes a whole host of other things as well.

Originally posted by TragicClown
Similarly, you are also not a comrade of ours because as a Christian you reject materialism, which is the basic theoretical foundation of Marxist politics.
Do I, now? How fascinating that you know all these things about me that I was not aware of myself. :rolleyes:

Why don't you quit the fucking stereotyping and maybe pay attention for a second. You may find out that I am in fact a staunch advocate of historical materialism. My only possible point of disagreement with Marxism is in the realm of metaphysics - which is so far removed from practical politics that it hardly matters anyway.

Originally posted by TragicClown
The Nazis wanted to abolish capitalism and replace it with socialism as well...
The Nazis wanted to abolish private property over the means of production? O RLY? I suppose the record profits made by Thyssen and IG Farben under the Nazi government were just an illusion, then.

In any case, socialism does not simply mean a planned economy or a state-owned economy. It means above all a democratically controlled economy, and the Nazis were fundamentally opposed to democratic control over anything.

Oh, and this might be a good time for me to invoke Godwin's Law. I believe that means you've just lost the argument...

Originally posted by TragicClown
No, its part of the primary issue which is human emancipation, if you don't recognze this its only because you're a Christian misogynist and not a leftist.

It is impossible to have proletarian democracy or freedom without abortion the same way that its impossible to have them with slavery or with racial hierarchy or castes.
Really? It is impossible for the proletariat to control the means of production if they can't have abortions? Amazing. Would you care to explain this fascinating deduction of yours?

Originally posted by TragicClown
Stupid Christians love to try to harass women into keeping pregnancies to give babies up for adoption, this is well known. The stigma of abortion, to christians and other patriarchal types like yourself, is much higher than the stigma of giving a baby up for adoption, so where a stigma might exist its relatively lesser.
You overestimate the influence of complete strangers on a person's decisions. If you try to give up a baby for adoption, the stigma and pressure will come from your friends and family, Christian or not, who will feel that you are being cowardly or irresponsible.

As for Christian fundamentalists, they can't pressure you not to have an abortion unless they know that you are trying to have one, so, again, most of the pressure can only come from your friends and family.

Originally posted by TragicClown
How stupid are you? Unless you're like a construction worker you can go to work while pregnant and go back to work shortly after childbirth. Pregnancy itself doesn't hurt women's careers, its the having children that does, because actually having and keeping a kid means time out of work to look after a new born and then reduced hours thereafter. This is not the case for women who put their infants up for adoption.
"Unless you're a construction worker" - or any kind of factory worker, for that matter. Yes, I'm talking about something that mostly affects the proletariat. You may remember reading something about them once.

Originally posted by TragicClown
The reality is that theres no way of eliminating unwanted pregnancies anymore than theres a way of eliminating car accidents. Human error exists in any society.
Yes, but we should strive to minimize it. Let unwanted pregnancy be a rare and unusual occurence.

[email protected]

Nonsense. There are no such things as natural rights. No one has a "fundamental" "right" to anything. Human rights are granted by society for the purpose of maximizing the happiness of its members.

If you think that people can be used for social benefits than you're no leftist, the only type of socialist you resemble is the national kind.
I am a staunch utilitarian. The greatest total happiness for Humanity (not any nation, but Humanity) is the only goal of society. All laws, governments and human rights should be created with this purpose in mind.

Oh, and "national socialism" is a contradiction in terms. To be a socialist means to believe that all human beings are fundamentally equal. To be "national" means to believe that some nations and people are better than others. You cannot rationally believe both those things at the same time.

But perhaps you would care to enlighten me how a materialist can believe in the supernatural notion of "rights" that somehow exist outside the human mind and independent of human decisions.

TragicClown
In any case stop entertaining this fantasy, you want to have your cake and eat it too by clearly being anti-abortion without wanting it to contradict your phoney commitment to communism.
I was being entirely honest when I said I regard abortion as a secondary issue. Yes, I would like to see as few abortions as possible. No, I do not believe anti-abortion laws are an effective way to achieve that. And yes, I will give up my opposition to abortion in the blink of an eye for the purpose of communist unity.

Notice the difference between you and I: I am willing to compromise on some of my views for the sake of communist revolution and the construction of socialism. You are not. I am willing to work with socialists who disagree with me. You are not.

NorthStarRepublicML

3rd June 2007, 09:26

Women have abortions not because they don't want babies which can be gotten rid of without abortion, but because they don't want to be pregnant and don't want to give birth.

so economic factors are not a part of your equation? what about abortions due to the inability of persons to afford children?

No you're not alone, George Bush and the Republican Party agree with you. I however do not.

just reactionary statement, a leftist comparing someone to george bush is like an evangelical comparing someone to the devil .... hey go for broke ... why not invoke hitler .... i'm sure it will strengthen your arguements ....

When you're talking about individual benefits to half of society though its clearly a social benefit.

well by that logic it would benefit society to a greater extent if a larger percentage of it had reproductive control ....why not go for all of society then? why not give males a say in abortions or adoptions?

if you do that, than you're not a leftist.

i am sincerely grateful that you do not speak for all leftists ...

infant adoption typically occurs when rich middle aged women who can't have children effectively get poor young women to have them for them, which is in a way a quintessentially capitalist system: the poor make the goods and the rich take them from them.

sources?

more of your retarded stereotyping again ....

..... people choose to adopt for many reasons, infertility is one reason but many adopt because they are single or they because they are same-sex couples who have no desire to use a surrogate or sperm donor, even some fertile couples adopt because of overpopulation in places such as China or India or because they believe that it is more important to care for those unwanted children already born then it is to create a new one. Others may adopt to prevent the spread of disease or to avoid health concerns associated with childbearing.

as far as believing adoption to be only associated with the rich (not sure how rich your talkin, obviously the homeless aren't adopting), you are just misinformed (madonna maybe?) but in the United States no one is charged for making an adoption plan with an agency .... and adopters are given a 10,000 tax credit ... also if your going through the child welfare agency adoptions cost absolutely nothing for all parties involved ....

I don't think its at all obvious that it isn't working.

now although adoption is mostly free of charge (beside the normal costs of raising a child) in the USA does not mean that it is not without problems .... opposition to same-sex couples adopting is a big obstacle, as is lacking education to naviagate the complex process of adopting and "racial" prejudice that favor certain children over others.

but you're right , those issues are not obvious ... especially to someone who doesn't know shit about it ....

oh ... just noticed how you contradicted yourself here:

without effective contraceptives and abortion women would not be able to contribute to the work force

How stupid are you? Unless you're like a construction worker you can go to work while pregnant and go back to work shortly after childbirth.

so ..... how stupid are you?

just so i am clear here, i never suggested that abortion is to done away with or that contraception is not required ....

Yes, I would like to see as few abortions as possible. No, I do not believe anti-abortion laws are an effective way to achieve that. And yes, I will give up my opposition to abortion in the blink of an eye for the purpose of communist unity.

Notice the difference between you and I: I am willing to compromise on some of my views for the sake of communist revolution and the construction of socialism. You are not. I am willing to work with socialists who disagree with me. You are not.

Agreed!

so here is a hypothetical (remember i said HYPOTHETICAL, i saw how TC jumped on Edric for being a christian, so i know he likes to stereotype and i don't want to end up being called a Stalinist-Nazi-Eugenicist or anything):

why not sterilize EVERY last person on earth .... if they want to get pregnant they can take a pill that is ALWAYS availiable free of charge to ANYONE .... would you support this?

Kwisatz Haderach

3rd June 2007, 11:57

Thank you, NorthStar. It's good to hear another voice of reason.

A few small points about Romanian history...

Originally posted by TragicClown+--> (TragicClown)Until 1989, unlike in the rest of the socialist world, abortion was virtually illegal in Romania.[/b]
Correct.

Originally posted by TragicClown+--> (TragicClown)In 1989 a group of leftwing Communist revolutionaries called the LSN overthrew the corrupt phony-socialist government and ran the country for three years...[/b]
What? First of all, the organization that overthrew Ceausescu was called Frontul Salvarii Nationale (FSN). That means National Salvation Front in English, which would be abbreviated NSF. I have no clue where you got "LSN" from. Second, the FSN was vaguely leftist at best - to call them "communist revolutionaries" is outright laughable. It was the FSN prime minister Petre Roman who set Romania on the path to a market economy by allowing private enterprise and free floating prices, and it was the FSN who presided over the writing of the 1991 Romanian Constitution (still in force today).

I should also point out that the FSN later split in two, with one half forming the Democratic Party (Partidul Democrat, PD) and the other half forming the Social Democratic Party (first called Partidul Democratiei Sociale din Romania, PDSR; currently Partidul Social Democrat, PSD). PDSR/PSD governed Romania from 1992-1996 and 2000-2004; PD was a member in coalition governments from 1996-2000 and 2004-2007. Thus, in fact, the two successor parties of the FSN have governed almost continuously since 1989 and they have both presided over large-scale privatizations and the restauration of capitalism. So much for your "communist revolutionaries"...

Originally posted by TragicClown
You are again, being stupid. The rate of decline in those cases was actually much much much lower, because it was from 1975 to 1996 not 1991 to 1996 and is probably attributable to contraceptive availability, so again you're wrong.
Nonsense. The article you cited shows that the experience of Eastern European and Soviet states varied considerably. Some had a sharp decline in abortion after 1991, others had a steady decline from 1975 to 1996, and yet others had a sharp increase after 1991 followed by a continued decline.

[email protected]
And in any case, the absolute rate is always much lower in capitalism than in socialism and that was my point to begin with. The fact that socialist countries after capitalism is restored tend to gradually fall back in line with lower capitalist abortion rates is consistent with this observation.
If anything, the data shows that abortion rates are lower in the more industrialized countries and higher in the more agrarian countries, regardless of economic system. And no Eastern European capitalist countries have "fallen in line" with the West yet.

TragicClown
Uh, no. The relevant issue here is the strength of conservative traditionalist and patriarchal religion, something which was basically wiped out by socialism in eastern europe...
Excuse me? I cannot believe just how ignorant you truly are of the real situation in Eastern Europe. The strength of conservative traditionalist and patriarchal religion is as great as ever, particularly in Poland and Romania. It is commonplace for presidential candidates, for example, to donate large sums of money to the Church and attend church services as a way to gain popularity in the polls. And let's not even talk about what can happen to you if you are openly gay...

The fact is that Eastern Europe - or at least the part I know - is extremely reactionary. Indeed, if it hadn't been for the iron grip of the European Union we would have probably descended into fascism by now. It is only external pressure that forces our politicians to put on a liberal facade. Look at Estonia... they'd honestly build Hitler a statue if they could get away with it.

Friedrich Nietzsche

3rd June 2007, 14:43

..I think this topic has taught me something:

In a communist society, if a person has a major disagreement with the government, they're called traitors and possibly shot-on-sight..

Or atleast, that's how some of you are bloody acting. What are some of you lot, leftist-fascists? Whatever happened to "Having a different opinion, and that's alright"?

People's Councillor

4th June 2007, 22:48

"tolerance" is a liberal position, not a Left one. A position isn't valid because it exists; one has to have the balls to defend one's position.

And incidentally, what government?

:AO:

Black Dagger

5th June 2007, 07:34

Originally posted by People's [email protected] 05, 2007 07:48 am
one has to have the balls to defend one's position.
Not everyone has balls <_<

apathy maybe

5th June 2007, 14:18

OK, let's have a change in the direction of the debate.

What do people think about this (obviously hypothetical) scenario.
(While considering this, pretend that resources are unlimited, a perfect society exists etc. Consider only the ethical/moral issues presented.)

The medical expertise exists to keep a foetus alive (artificially) until it is old enough to be "born", there also exists a proceeder that is absolutely harmless to all concerned. It is far cheaper, safer, quicker and so on in all ways to all concerned. Except, instead of kill the foetus, it keeps it alive (thus allowing it to be transferred to an artificial womb).

Should women use this facility instead of having an unwanted pregnancy?
Does it change a women's right to her own body (in regard to killing the foetus)?
Should women be forced to use this facility (instead of aborting I mean)?

Consider also, the idea that a foetus is a potential member of society (and is not dependent on a single person, in this scenario). Should it thus be accorded "rights" in the same way that a person who is in a incurable coma is?

I won't be able to respond I to this again for a while I don't think, but I look forward to reading your views.

Edited for minor clarification.

People's Councillor

5th June 2007, 16:36

Originally posted by bleeding gums malatesta+June 05, 2007 06:34 am--> (bleeding gums malatesta @ June 05, 2007 06:34 am)
People's [email protected] 05, 2007 07:48 am
one has to have the balls to defend one's position.
Not everyone has balls <_< [/b]
My mistake. :blush:

NorthStarRepublicML

6th June 2007, 18:52

The medical expertise exists to keep a foetus alive (artificially) until it is old enough to be "born", there also exists a proceeder that is absolutely harmless to all concerned. It is far cheaper, safer, quicker and so on in all ways to all concerned. Except, instead of kill the foetus, it keeps it alive (thus allowing it to be transferred to an artificial womb).

Should women use this facility instead of having an unwanted pregnancy?
Does it change a women's right to her own body (in regard to killing the foetus)?
Should women be forced to use this facility (instead of aborting I mean)?

Consider also, the idea that a foetus is a potential member of society (and is not dependent on a single person, in this scenario). Should it thus be accorded "rights" in the same way that a person who is in a incurable coma is?

although i don't feel comfortable anaswering your questions, i will say that they are interesting and highlight hiow advancing technologies can transform a stagnant debate. the point i want to make is that often the way an issue is viewed changes by external factors (technology in this case) and it is irresponsible to assume that because something is generally accepted by "left wing doctrine" (like abortions) at a certain point in time does not mean it will remain static forever ....

i never consider any topic closed for debate and reintrepretation, anyone who does is selling themselves and their ideals short. i'm curious as to what answers the "left wingers" here have to say about this if they have any responses at all besides the standard ones ......