Abortion!

[Robespierre2.0]

I'll admit that I'm naive about gender politics, and that I had the point of view that abortion should be allowed only when it does not fall under the category of a living 'human being'. I had the assumption that Marxism is an ideology that seeks to liberate every human being, and therefore those fetuses that could be considered living should have the opportunity to live and reach their potential as part of society, etc. etc.

However, after being mocked for my position (by TragicClown), I'd like to know why my point of view was wrong, and why abortions could be justified even if the fetus is considered living. Please, enlighten me in the least condescending way possible.

If I've expressed any other reactionary views on the subject of gender politics, please teach me the correct Marxist stance. I'd honestly like to have progressive, Marxist opinions on this subject, but I suppose midwest chauvinism has had more of a grip on me than I thought.

[spartan]

If you firmly believe that the fetus has a right to live, and shouldnt be aborted, then you cant progress.

My advice to you is to stop thinking this way as you cant justify forcing a woman to have a child she doesnt want (If thats what you are even proposing?).

Of course pro-lifers will argue that you cant justify the killing of a fetus either, as it will (And here is the important word here) eventually develop into a living being, but the fetus is tantamount to a parasite that a woman must carry around for 9 months before suffering in agony for hours as it enters the world as a living human being (This can also potentially kill her!).

So why shouldnt she have the choice not to bear such a responsibility and risk to her life?

She is living and the fetus isnt (Yet).

[Faux Real]

Why should you dictate what a person can or cannot with their body? Simple.

[RedKnight]

Originally posted by Marxosaurus [email protected] 01, 2008 08:52 pm
I'll admit that I'm naive about gender politics, and that I had the point of view that abortion should be allowed only when it does not fall under the category of a living 'human being'. I had the assumption that Marxism is an ideology that seeks to liberate every human being, and therefore those fetuses that could be considered living should have the opportunity to live and reach their potential as part of society, etc. etc.

However, after being mocked for my position (by TragicClown), I'd like to know why my point of view was wrong, and why abortions could be justified even if the fetus is considered living. Please, enlighten me in the least condescending way possible.

If I've expressed any other reactionary views on the subject of gender politics, please teach me the correct Marxist stance. I'd honestly like to have progressive, Marxist opinions on this subject, but I suppose midwest chauvinism has had more of a grip on me than I thought.
Actually, both I am the Worker Communist Party of Iran agree that late term abortions should be banned.
Abortion
Few phenomena like abortion, i.e. the deliberate elimination of the human embryo because of cultural and economic pressures, display the inherent contempt for human life in the present system and the incompatibility of existing class society and exploitative relations with human life and well- being. Abortion is a testimony to the self-alienation of people and their vulnerability in the face of the deprivations and hardships that the existing class society imposes on them.
The worker-communist party is against the act of abortion. The party fights for the creation of a society where no pressures or circumstances would drive people to performing or accepting this act.

At the same time, as long as the adverse social circumstances do drive a large number of women to resorting to backstreet abortions, the worker-communist party in order to prevent abuse by profiteers and ensure protection of women's health calls for the introduction of the following measures:

1 - Legalization of abortion up to the twelfth week of pregnancy.
2 - Abortion after the twelfth week to be legally permitted if there is danger to the health of the mother (until that time when Caesarean section and the saving of the foetus is possible given the latest medical expertise). Such cases to be ascertained by the competent medical authorities.

3 - Wide and freely available facilities for pregnancy tests. Instruction of people in their use to ensure quick detection of unwanted pregnancies.

4 - Free abortion and free post-abortion care in licensed clinics by gynaecologists.

5 - The decision whether to have or not to have an abortion rests with the woman alone. The state has the duty, however, to inform her before her final decision, of the dissuasive arguments and recommendations of the scientific authorities and social counsellors as well as of the financial, material and moral commitments of the state to her and her child.

6 - To reduce the number of abortions, the worker-communist party also calls for the introduction of the following urgent measures to prevent unwanted pregnancies and to free women from economic, cultural and moral pressures.

7 - Broad sexual education of people on contraceptives and on the importance of the issue. Widely accessible advisory services.

8 - Wide and free access to contraceptives.

9 - Allocation of adequate funding and resources to help the women who are considering having an abortion because of economic constraints. The state should stress its duty and readiness to take care of the child should the mother decide to give birth to the child.

10 - Resolute campaigns against prejudices and moral pressures that drive women to abortion. Active state support to women against such pressures, prejudices and intimidations.

11- Campaign against the ignorant, religious, male- chauvinistic and backward attitudes that hinder the growth of people's sexual awareness and, specifically, impede women's and young people's wide use of contraceptives and safe-sex devices.-http://www.m-hekmat.com/en/0600en.html#T25

[w0lf]

Originally posted by comrade in [email protected] 01, 2008 09:11 pm
Why should you dictate what a person can or cannot with their body? Simple.
Is a growing fetus part of the women's body or a separate organism?

[Faux Real]

Originally posted by w0lf+January 01, 2008 02:14 pm--> (w0lf @ January 01, 2008 02:14 pm)
comrade in [email protected] 01, 2008 09:11 pm
Why should you dictate what a person can or cannot with their body? Simple.
Is a growing fetus part of the women's body or a separate organism? [/b]
It's part of her body until it leaves it. Just like a bullet!

[BobKKKindle$]

Abortion is primarily an issue of individual choice; What right does the state have to prevent each individual from making decisions, on the basis of what they think will best suit their own needs? Some people think that a fetus should be considered a human being with rights equivalent to those that we accord adults that are not dependent on another organism for survival; but in the case of an individual pregnancy it is the woman that must endure the physical discomfort of childbirth and, if support from the state or any other institution is not available, the financial cost of childcare, and so any attempt to undermine her ability to decide on the outcome of pregnancy are illegitimate.

Forcing someone to accept use of their body without express consent bears a striking similarity to another issue within the broad theme of sexual reproduction: Rape. I think this analogy is fully appropriate - in both cases one is concered with denying someone the right to control their own body.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I wrote this on another forum.

Oh boy, here we go again. The drawl of proclaimed pro-lifers in eager attempt to convince men (and women) that their liberty should be sacrificed for the unborn. When facts disprove their position, they resort to shouting matches. I am pro-life. I support taking care of the 50 million people who die each year due to conditions brought about by lack of money. I also campaign against the death penalty and ideologies prone for war.
I am also pro-life because I'm on the mother's side.
Some weak arguments that can easily be dismissed.
1.) Fault. Pro-'lifers,' specifically those who have no qualms about posting pictures of fetuses on your wall when you're eating, will never relent on trying to make the pregnant mother feel like it's her fault. Obviously some responsibility needs to be taken on behalf of both parties who engaged in intercourse, but blaming the unexpected mother is not different than trying to emotionally punish most skin cancer victims, or obese children. In fact, such indiscriminate pointing of fingers at an unexpected mother is probably one of the leading causes of abortion. If merely having a fat belly gets you scorn, one reasons having a kid means a life of it.
2.) Protection. This topic cracks me up simply because many who oppose the right for a mother to choose also have an aversion to preparing kids for sex. Amsterdam has one of the lowest teenage pregnancy rates in the world, and it is also one of the most liberal places you could ever imagine. The low numbers are a result of extensive sexual education. It's time for our society to give up on the inane thought-process of abstinence only and have kids learn about their bodies STARTING in elementary school and ending senior year. In addition, we need to have FREE birth control available in indiscriminate places where teenagers and other embarrassed individuals can go for anonymity.
3.) Moment of conception. This is a word thrown around almost as regularly as "murder!" and it's said in just as naive a manner. There is no moment of conception. Conception is a process; not a instance one could record using a stopwatch. It takes around 48 hours for the egg and sperm to precisely transform into a new human embryo. During this process other sperm cells are culled from the vagina and if necessary the body will reject the formed embryo -- most miscarriages aren't even known.
4.) The Slippery Slope. If abortion is murder (and we have legal jurisdiction), all miscarriages should have to be recorded by the police or mothers will be charged with negligence. Any consumption or activity that defects/kills an embryo can be reason for charging mothers with manslaughter, or murder. Similar measures have been taken in the more socially conservative Latin American countries.
5.) Banning abortion just means women die. Conservative think-tanks have tried to rewrite history by claiming few mothers died of back-door abortions. In fact these studies are often purposely inaccurate. The ones I've seen only list KNOWN cases of women who died during the procedure, not accounting for emotional distress, infection, and doctor mistreatment.
6.) There is no pain. No study has been able to prove when a human starts feeling pain, but that won't stop anti-choicers from propagating "fetal pain" on the same faulty science they use to "prove" the Earth is only 12,000 years old. All studies have been unable to find pain in the first and second trimester; the third trimester is still being disputed by doctors. Dr. Mellor has a peer-reviewed article out suggesting a fetus doesn't awake until birthing. Those same people who "don't care about pain" or "if the fetus is awake" defend the radical fringe wanting to stop families from taking their loved ones off life support.

[FireFry]

At any rate, it's what the women think, the halls of power filled mostly with men should decide what women should do.

Even if the decision is democratic.

haha.

Even if it is the man's baby, does the woman have a right to cease the development of the fetus? And if abortion is legal, then why is killing a pregnant woman count as double murder in todays society? Is not the baby simply the "property" of the women and hence should be treated like "the destruction of property" ?

To me, that sounds like a double standard.

[Kitskits]

I don't believe that early on the fetus is a "living human being in society". But even if it was, through a utilitarian prospective, which is better? To let some baby live unwanted by his mother/parents and cause physical pain to the mother and future psychological pain to both the mother because of taking up a role she didn't want and the baby because it will probably receive less "love" than the other "desired" babies. Or to painlessly kill that human being?

Sorry but sometimes the "let nature do" stance of the idealists and some related people leads to some wild manifestations of middle-age darwinist torments caused by "wise mother nature". This critique that would call me a barbarian killer for intervening is the same right-wing critique of the anti Laissez-faire ideology.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

At any rate, it's what the women think, the halls of power filled mostly with men should decide what women should do.

Even if the decision is democratic.

haha.

Even if it is the man's baby, does the woman have a right to cease the development of the fetus? And if abortion is legal, then why is killing a pregnant woman count as double murder in todays society? Is not the baby simply the "property" of the women and hence should be treated like "the destruction of property" ?

To me, that sounds like a double standard.

If Terri Schiavo had her throat cut, would that have counted as murder? Depending on where you draw the connection, such a double standard could survive the test of logic. Nobody denies a fetus is living; the question turns to is it a person (obviously not) and does it feel pain (disputed at about 25 weeks).

[BobKKKindle$]

I agree that there is a kind of double standard, but not for the reasons that you've suggested. "Pro-Life" activists are hypocritical because, although the claim to believe in a right to life inherent within all living beings, they are often closely tied to or at least support groups which advocate the use of the death penalty as a solution to violent crime, and condone the use of military force to preserve american interests and establish control in areas of strategic importance - a position that is in direct conflict with basic principles of human well-being.

[dark fairy]

i don't think of a group of cells clumped together as a living organism...
I DO think that if someone is having sex, they should keep in mind
the results of sex.
If they think they're old enough, mature enough to have sex then they should know that in order NOT to have a child they must wear a condom, (the female) must take pills, injections, or WHATEVER.
I think that if a woman is raped, ends up pregnant, AND does not want to keep
the child then she should have the choice to destroy it before it counts as a baby.
If it's too late into the pregnancy, fetus is formed, considered alive, then perhaps she could have it and put the child up for adoption?
Aside from that, i think letting women destroy, and GET OFF THE HOOK so easily is bad...
THEN AGAIN!
The earth is OVER POPULATED, so women who have abortions might be doing the world a favor...
THIS is a complicated subject.
I don't think it's a black and white topic.
There is a gray area, A BIG gray area... :(

[Sergei Simonov]

It's part of her body until it leaves it. Just like a bullet!

Bad analogy. A bullet is never part of a gun. It is merely contained in it. The essential components of a gun are the firing pin, hammer, extractor, barrel, etc. These are more akin to the liver, heart, nervous system, etc. Bullets are analogous to something held in the hand.

That said, I am supportive of abortion on demand and without apology.

[BobKKKindle$]

If it's too late into the pregnancy, fetus is formed, considered alive, then perhaps she could have it and put the child up for adoption?
Aside from that, i think letting women destroy, and GET OFF THE HOOK so easily is bad...
THEN AGAIN!

So, do you think the state such impose restrictions on abortion once the fetus has reached a certain level of development, measured by the time that has elapsed after conception? (e.g. beyond the second trimester) Please given an answer to this issue.

For me what matters is the fact that the fetus is dependent on the mother for survival in the absence of extensive support in the form of medical technology. This dependency does not change until the fetus has actually exited the uterus, and so for that reason I support abortion at all stages of pregnancy, even if the fetus resembles a child and has fully developed organs. Very few women actually have abortions in the third trimester, but those that do constitute a vulnerable minority, often overlooked by the pro-choice movement, that needs to be protected, because abortions occur at that stage primarily due to medical complications that could not be detected earlier, or because the woman could not easily access an abortion.

Your points regarding the need to be responsible are irrelevant, because that position is based on the assumption that the fetus actually has some form of value and so should be protected - Socialists should dispense with this idealistic notion of 'rights of the unborn' and show how abortion is essential, if women are to gain equality with men.

[Don't Change Your Name]

If I've expressed any other reactionary views on the subject of gender politics, please teach me the correct Marxist stance. I'd honestly like to have progressive, Marxist opinions on this subject, but I suppose midwest chauvinism has had more of a grip on me than I thought.

Sorry but I feel I have to point out this kind of things: I find it extremely ridiculous that you've just written something like "I'd honestly like to have progressive, Marxist opinions on this subject"...your "opinions" on a "subject" should be based on what seems to be reality, not on your desires to fit in in some ideology (or being "politically correct", no matter how, well, correct your point of view would be) and be "accepted" by the others who think the same, which is what you seem to be thinking. You sound like a Christian complaining about being tempted by Satan to sin (and subsconsciously feeling the rest of the "congregation" might despise your sinful tendencies).

[TC]

I'll admit that I'm naive about gender politics, and that I had the point of view that abortion should be allowed only when it does not fall under the category of a living 'human being'.

So if something falls under the category of a living 'human being' it's entitled to use another human's body against their wishes. Or, is this not a general philosophy of yours but something you only apply to women's bodies.


I had the assumption that Marxism is an ideology that seeks to liberate every human being, and therefore those fetuses that could be considered living should have the opportunity to live and reach their potential as part of society, etc. etc.


Fetuses, were they persons, would be oppressing any non-consenting hosts. There is no right to live at the expense of another person, thats what capitalists do. An actual born infant doesn't have any rights to use their parents organs even if failing to provide them would result in its death.

This is why all issues concerning the status of a fetus (which i'll assume is a person that feels pain and is every bit as cute as a 2 month old baby for the purpose of this discussion, although this is probably not the case) are besides the point.

You like other reactionaries don't really care about a 'right to life' or you'd follow it to its logical conclusion and demand manditory live organ donations, you're concerned with being able to control women's reproductive capacity. Thats the only logical motivation for forced-pregnancy proponents, they want to ensure that women can't just boycott an imaginary reproductive imparative to produce the next generation of workers, and they/you fundamentally don't see this demand as a problem because they don't recognize the full personhood of women.



However, after being mocked for my position (by TragicClown), I'd like to know why my point of view was wrong, and why abortions could be justified even if the fetus is considered living. Please, enlighten me in the least condescending way possible.

The same way it would be justifiable to kill a living person who was planning to and able to force feed you and inject you with hormones for 9 months and then cut up your vagina or stomach. Its a matter of self defense. If lethal force is the minimum force required to protect yourself from severe bodily injury every common law and socialist law juristiction permits it. The only people whose inherent right to self defense is ever questioned are women.


If I've expressed any other reactionary views on the subject of gender politics, please teach me the correct Marxist stance.

The denial of women's humanity inherent in your position on abortion pretty much amounts to a completely reactionary view of gender. You view one gender as inferior, whether you are willing to admit it or not.


Actually, both I am the Worker Communist Party of Iran agree that late term abortions should be banned.

There are plenty of reactionary organisations posing as "communist parties", just as you are a reactionary posing as a communist.


Is a growing fetus part of the women's body or a separate organism?

Whether its an organ or a seperate organism (specifically a parasitic organism) is just a semantic difference that has no relevance on the issue. Rapists are separate organisms and women are clearly entitled to do whatever is required to get them out of their bodies!


Some people think that a fetus should be considered a human being with rights equivalent to those that we accord adults that are not dependent on another organism for survival; b

Not really, considering that were fetuses to be accorded all of the rights equivolent to adults that are not dependent on another organism for survival, abortion would still be permissable on self-defense grounds and because adults are not accorded the right to use another's body against their will.


the physical discomfort of childbirth

I half think its euphemisms like 'discomfort' that make people think its no big deal to force someone to carry a pregnancy to term. Maybe if pro-choicers countered the forced-pregnancy lobby's use of aborted late term fetus photos on placards with photos of 12 year olds giving birth it would shift the focus of the people's sympathies from fetuses to real people.


if support from the state or any other institution is not available, the financial cost of childcare,

Thats a lame argument considering that mothers with unwanted children can always given them up for adoption without pentality.


Forcing someone to accept use of their body without express consent bears a striking similarity to another issue within the broad theme of sexual reproduction: Rape. I think this analogy is fully appropriate - in both cases one is concered with denying someone the right to control their own body.

I totally agree and i think pro-choicers should stop shying away from it; the anti-abortion lobby isn't pulling any punches with its language.


I am also pro-life because I'm on the mother's side.

Are you a "mother" to an unimplanted fertalized egg in a tampon? Obviously not. Likewise you're not a 'mother' to a clump of tissue in a medical waste bucket!

Mothers are people who typically choose to assume an inferior and self-limiting socials status by having and raise children, its insulting to attach this stigma to anyone who gets pregnant.


In fact, such indiscriminate pointing of fingers at an unexpected mother is probably one of the leading causes of abortion. If merely having a fat belly gets you scorn, one reasons having a kid means a life of it.


Thats such bullshit. There is overwhelming cultural pressure to exhault pregnant women and celebrate pregnancies, and theres tremendous pressure to encourage pregnant women to give birth and then go crazy over how 'wonderful' their babies are and how 'magical' the whole creepy experience is. The bourgeois dictated culturally appropriate reaction to hearing that a friend got knocked up is "congradulations!!" "is it a boy of a girl?!" "have you picked out a name yet?!" "when is your baby shower and what type of gifts do you want?!" not "oh i'm so sorry to here that, thats just terrible knews when are you getting it taken care of?"


At any rate, it's what the women think, the halls of power filled mostly with men should decide what women should do.

Even if the decision is democratic.

haha.



Err, i realize that you're trying to make some kindof a joke but it doesn't make any sense.


Even if it is the man's baby, does the woman have a right to cease the development of the fetus?

Of course she does, what are you insane? Do you think if you stick your dick in someone you pretty much own her?


And if abortion is legal, then why is killing a pregnant woman count as double murder in todays society?

It counts as a double murder in some rightwing juristictions because anti-abortionists are trying to make a point that fetuses are people without running afowel of specific legal restrictions on the type of laws that can be passed in the US established by roe vs wade.

Thats the only reason. Historically this has never been the case, its not even the case in biblical law.


Is not the baby simply the "property" of the women and hence should be treated like "the destruction of property" ?


Yes, but like any personal property with significant sentimental value emotional distress should be considered as an aggrevating issue.


If Terri Schiavo had her throat cut, would that have counted as murder?

If Terri Schiavo was hooked up to another person instead of machines, it would count as self defense.



i don't think of a group of cells clumped together as a living organism...
I DO think that if someone is having sex, they should keep in mind
the results of sex.
If they think they're old enough, mature enough to have sex then they should know that in order NOT to have a child they must wear a condom, (the female) must take pills, injections, or WHATEVER.


Abortion is the only 100% effective form of birth control. Just because involuntary pregnancy is a potential result of sex doesn't mean that involuntary childbirth should be.


I think that if a woman is raped, ends up pregnant, AND does not want to keep
the child then she should have the choice to destroy it before it counts as a baby.

LOL so wait, if you're *raped* then you can have an abortion, but only *before* it "counts as a baby", so, by implication, if you have consensual sex you can't have an abortion even if its *before* it "counts as a baby."


If it's too late into the pregnancy, fetus is formed, considered alive, then perhaps she could have it and put the child up for adoption?


Yah...i guess maybe if she didn't mind having her body mutilated over a period of nine months followed by hours of torture leaving her scarred and damaged for the rest of her life...but for everyone who isn't a masochist who doesn't get off on being used and degraded to the status of a human incubator, perhaps not.


Aside from that, i think letting women destroy, and GET OFF THE HOOK so easily is bad...
THEN AGAIN!

Yah, someone better punish those sluts before they think they can have sex for fun and get away with it!! :rolleyes:


I don't think it's a black and white topic.
There is a gray area, A BIG gray area...

Its really not. Theres no ambiguity, either your body belongs to you and only you, or it doesn't. Either its okay to alienate someone from their body and physically impose on them, or its not.

Reactionaries want to make you think its a 'big gray area' so you pump out kids to work for them and consume their products. That doesn't mean it is one.

[Mujer Libre]

Aside from that, i think letting women destroy, and GET OFF THE HOOK so easily is bad...
Why should women be punished or having sex?

[dark fairy]

i don't think anyone should be punished for having sex, SHOOT sex is GREAT!
but if you're not doing it the right way then maybe you should be punished.
:confused: if you're not responsible about it, if you know that having un-protected sex MIGHT leave you pregnant then maybe you should be punished...
There are mal-functions, torn condoms, missed pills... these are accidents.
But having something SUCKEDout of you or extracted out of your body, that doesn't seem like an accident. I do believe a woman should have the right to do what she wants with her body, i don't think women or anyone should be able to bail out on mistakes like that just whenever, though. By mistakes i mean, being drunk and sleeping with someone. Or Not asking your partner to wear a condom, Or not wearing a condom yourself, because "pulling out" doesn't always work.

About the rape victims, NO i don't think that women who are raped are the only ones that should have abortions. I was only pointing out that I can understand that situation.

And to clear up that whole, fetus, abortion at a certain stage thing.
(be right back gotta read what was said again)

[dark fairy]

Abortion is the only 100% effective form of birth control. Just because involuntary pregnancy is a potential result of sex doesn't mean that involuntary childbirth should be.



Well of course it's 100% effective, because someone is already pregnante and sucking out a "thing" out of her.

LOL so wait, if you're *raped* then you can have an abortion, but only *before* it "counts as a baby", so, by implication, if you have consensual sex you can't have an abortion even if its *before* it "counts as a baby."
once more, No. It just seems wrong *to me* to be able to have consensual sex and Not-be responsible for a child that might come a long. If you won't be able to porvide for a child, if the child is better off not being born, then i can understand an abortion. I ask that you keep in mind that some of us were brought up a certain way. Not that i take to heart EVERY fucking old story and opinion my mother and father have hammered into me. But i was brought up to believe that when a child is expected, and when you want a child, THEN THERE you have it. Not the opposite where, "oh shit im pregnante", "it's ok, i'll just have that taken out of me tomorrow" -situation.
I feel that if you have consentual-UNPORTECTED sex, the "next day pill" is better than waiting any longer and having an abortion.


Yah...i guess maybe if she didn't mind having her body mutilated over a period of nine months followed by hours of torture leaving her scarred and damaged for the rest of her life...but for everyone who isn't a masochist who doesn't get off on being used and degraded to the status of a human incubator, perhaps not.

This i must say you are right on. This is hard for me. I can see why a woman should have the right to terminate a pregnancy, since it is her body, and a child is a life changing situation and experience. I am having a hard time picking where to stand.:confused: I understand what you are saying and agree with it to a certain extent. Then again I am not sure if it's how i feel or if it's what was drilled in my brain about the whole "Casual" abortion. It seems like it's become a very casual, and normal thing. When to me, it seems like under the right circumstances it is correct to have an abortion, and under different circumstances not ok. Then again, WHO AM I? to say this is right or wrong, all i can say is that it is only my opinion.

Yah, someone better punish those sluts before they think they can have sex for fun and get away with it!! :rolleyes:

Sex is FUN!, don't get me wrong, sex is GREAT! sure as hell feels great... but i think there is a right way of having fun. Then again... :/ i can see why some people would prefer to have sex without a condom... I am a female, so i do not know how different it feels, but plenty of my male friends have told me that sex while wearing a condom feels 10 times better than sex with a condom, so the chances of a woman becoming pregnant increase with this.

[Jazzratt]

But i was brought up to believe that when a child is expected, and when you want a child, THEN THERE you have it. Not the opposite where, "oh shit im pregnante", "it's ok, i'll just have that taken out of me tomorrow" -situation.
I feel that if you have consentual-UNPORTECTED sex, the "next day pill" is better than waiting any longer and having an abortion.

1) No one aborts a child they want, that's ridiculous.

2) Someone thinking "Oh shit I'm pregnant" probably indicates they don't want to be.

3) The morning after pill is basically a chemical abortion, but it isn't always effective and sometimes someone can be unaware they are pregnant.


This i must say you are right on. This is hard for me. I can see why a woman should have the right to terminate a pregnancy, since it is her body, and a child is a life changing situation and experience. I am having a hard time picking where to stand.:confused:

It needed be that hard. Supporting the rights of the extant woman rather than the potential child.


Then again I am not sure if it's how i feel or if it's what was drilled in my brain about the whole "Casual" abortion. It seems like it's become a very casual, and normal thing.

You've got a very warped sense of what is and isn't casual, an abortion is still a medical procedure regardless so the people performing it don't treat it casually. As for the idea of getting one casually, you must be joking, even in places where it is legal women still have to endure the advice and counselling of "experts" before they are finally allowed to run the gauntlet of howling Christian pricks trying to make them feel guilty and eventually get the damn abortion.


When to me, it seems like under the right circumstances it is correct to have an abortion, and under different circumstances not ok.

But that's plain bollocks. The problem people have with abortion is they erroneously view it as ending a life, if it magically stops being the ending of a life in certain circumstances (rape, incest or whatever) then you're not being logically consistent.


Then again, WHO AM I? to say this is right or wrong, all i can say is that it is only my opinion.

You're a human being with atrocious writing habits that make my eyes hurt, but you need to have a solid opinion on things (I don't have to agree with or even pay attention to it, but that's a different story) if you're going to seriously consider yourself a revolutionary leftist. If you continue down the "who am I" line you eventually get to "who am I to demand stateless, classless society?"


Sex is FUN!, don't get me wrong, sex is GREAT! sure as hell feels great... but i think there is a right way of having fun.

That way is consensually. Sure it's unsafe to have sex unprotected and, assuming heterosex, a good way of getting pregnant but it's not incorrect or even morally reprehensible to do so.


Then again... :/ i can see why some people would prefer to have sex without a condom... I am a female, so i do not know how different it feels, but plenty of my male friends have told me that sex while wearing a condom feels 10 times better than sex with a condom, so the chances of a woman becoming pregnant increase with this.

I don't see how it follows that people should be punished for having sex without a condom, especially as it is a one sided punishment where the woman has to do all the physical suffering and have their body disfigured. What does the bloke get? The inconvenience of child support. Maybe. If he's too poor for a good lawyer.

[dark fairy]

1) No one aborts a child they want, that's ridiculous.
of course it is.
2) Someone thinking "Oh shit I'm pregnant" probably indicates they don't want to be.
exactly
3) The morning after pill is basically a chemical abortion, but it isn't always effective and sometimes someone can be unaware they are pregnant. [/color]
i wasn't aware of this, i only knew of the existance of the pill.


It needed be that hard. Supporting the rights of the extant woman rather than the potential child.
i gree with this line.


You've got a very warped sense of what is and isn't casual, an abortion is still a medical procedure regardless so the people performing it don't treat it casually. As for the idea of getting one casually, you must be joking, even in places where it is legal women still have to endure the advice and counselling of "experts" before they are finally allowed to run the gauntlet of howling Christian pricks trying to make them feel guilty and eventually get the damn abortion.
This i knew, and do not see abortions as casual, i merely meant that it seems like it at times because of how they are talked about.


But that's plain bollocks. The problem people have with abortion is they erroneously view it as ending a life, if it magically stops being the ending of a life in certain circumstances (rape, incest or whatever) then you're not being logically consistent.
I acknowlege your point of view, and agree. I see it as ending a life when, *sigh* i've seen pictures of formed bodies, that were sucked out of women, and found them disturbing. Then is when i see it as ending a life. If it's a early stage fetus, that is not ending a life, and this doesn't change weather a woman was raped or if it was consensual. Incest, i must say is a good reason to abort, because the potential child would be born with problems, that is a different point.


You're a human being with atrocious writing habits that make my eyes hurt, but you need to have a solid opinion on things (I don't have to agree with or even pay attention to it, but that's a different story) if you're going to seriously consider yourself a revolutionary leftist. If you continue down the "who am I" line you eventually get to "who am I to demand stateless, classless society?"
i change the font color to show where you said something and where i am replying to it. And i apologize for my atroucious writing habits. And i was saying the "who am i" line because i am one person, many people do share my point of view, and i may not be saying what i think correctly, perhaps. I have had this disscusion with other people, in a room live, it worked better then as far as them understanding me. My flip flopping point of view, as it seems was shared by others, but it does seem wrong to flip flop since, in a goverment laws aren't made like that.


That way is consensually. Sure it's unsafe to have sex unprotected and, assuming heterosex, a good way of getting pregnant but it's not incorrect or even morally reprehensible to do so.


It is not incorrect. My question, flat out, is do you find it ok for a woman to have sex with a man, become pregnant and be able to have the potential child sucked out of her? This, without any repercussions? She is free to do this over and over again?

I don't see how it follows that people should be punished for having sex without a condom, especially as it is a one sided punishment where the woman has to do all the physical suffering and have their body disfigured. What does the bloke get? The inconvenience of child support. Maybe. If he's too poor for a good lawyer.
I was thinking of that when i looked back on the other replies and mine as well. There hasn't really been talk of the man's role in this whole situation. I've thought of it, and have even seen it happen. The situation was that the woman i knew didn't want the child, and the man she was in a relationship with, did. It wouldn't be fair to her to have to carry the child, for 9 months just for his sake. Also very recently a good friend of mine gave birth, and through the whole process i asked questions, and it is a very painful process that a woman should not be forced to endure. Therefore, i believe that i am almost ready to pick a side.
:o
And this i must say, is a subject that i've had mixed emotions towards for years.
So if i do pick a side tonight, you will have been of great help, and i must thank you for this, Jazzratt.

[Jazzratt]

This i knew, and do not see abortions as casual, i merely meant that it seems like it at times because of how they are talked about.

I see that talking about abortions as casual things is not worrying, but instead a show of healthy liberation there needn't be the stigma there currently is around abortion.


I acknowlege your point of view, and agree. I see it as ending a life when, *sigh* i've seen pictures of formed bodies, that were sucked out of women, and found them disturbing.

I've probably seen the self same pictures and I'll agree that, thanks to the way the foetuses resemble small people they can be a little shocking. That's the point of these pictures though, whenever they are trotted out by the right wing anti choice lobby the questions asked are not whether the thing that was aborted functions as a human being on a technical level but rather what people's emotional response is to these things that look like babies being "killed".


Then is when i see it as ending a life.

"Looking human" is arbitrary to the extreme as a cut off point and impossible to judge with technical accuracy.


If it's a early stage fetus, that is not ending a life, and this doesn't change weather a woman was raped or if it was consensual.

What if a woman was raped and, for whatever reason, doesn't terminate the foetus until it looks human, is this acceptable? And if for a rape victim why not for anyone else?


i change the font color to show where you said something and where i am replying to it. And i apologize for my atroucious writing habits.

The colour is fine, it was more the mid-sentence question mark and erratic capitalisation, but it was really a minor point.


And i was saying the "who am i" line because i am one person, many people do share my point of view, and i may not be saying what i think correctly, perhaps. I have had this disscusion with other people, in a room live, it worked better then as far as them understanding me.

Well, I guess all I can really say to that is that you should perhaps try writing in a way different to how you would talk "face to face".


My flip flopping point of view, as it seems was shared by others, but it does seem wrong to flip flop since, in a goverment laws aren't made like that.

Yeah there's that too, although you shouldn't be afraid to change your opinion, it's that anyone involved in politics on any level should have opinions that are strongly held and, more importantly, that they can back up.


It is not incorrect. My question, flat out, is do you find it ok for a woman to have sex with a man, become pregnant and be able to have the potential child sucked out of her? This, without any repercussions? She is free to do this over and over again?

I see absolutely no reason why not. The behaviour may be a little strange to me but there is no reason to intervene.


I was thinking of that when i looked back on the other replies and mine as well. There hasn't really been talk of the man's role in this whole situation.

Unless the person carrying out the abortion is a man I don't see any reason for the man to be involved in the woman's choice.


I've thought of it, and have even seen it happen. The situation was that the woman i knew didn't want the child, and the man she was in a relationship with, did. It wouldn't be fair to her to have to carry the child, for 9 months just for his sake.

Precisely.


Also very recently a good friend of mine gave birth, and through the whole process i asked questions, and it is a very painful process that a woman should not be forced to endure. Therefore, i believe that i am almost ready to pick a side.
:o
And this i must say, is a subject that i've had mixed emotions towards for years.
So if i do pick a side tonight, you will have been of great help, and i must thank you for this, Jazzratt.

Erm...you're welcome?

[Cryotank Screams]

If they think they're old enough, mature enough to have sex then they should know that in order NOT to have a child they must wear a condom, (the female) must take pills, injections, or WHATEVER.

What if a couple uses all the appropriate birth control and yet the women still winds up pregnant? What then? Birth control doesn't work 100% of the time.

[Mujer Libre]

In any case, punishment is a poor way to go about things. It certainly doesn't work, and in this case is hugely out of proportion with the "crime."

Being pregnant, going through labour and then bringing a child into the world are all major things, that will hugely impact this woman's life, and the life of a child. So to retrospectively say "they should have been more careful" is not good enough.

People will always have sex, safe and unsafe. Punishment won't make people use condoms, or go on the pill.

The best we can do is offer people ways to cope with the consequences, and of course educate and empower people to act safely. Saying that people who have unprotected sex shouldn't have abortions is like saying people who get STI's from unsafe sex shouldn't get antibiotics.

Also, people do not have abortions 'casually,' like they're just popping down to the shops for a litre of milk or something. That whole "omg young women using abortions like contraception" thing is a myth of the anti-abortionists.

[Forward Union]

Why should people be punished for not using protection exactly? If they have the ability to abort the baby then what, materially, is the problem? You're again, reenforcing the idea that abortion is in some way "bad" and people should be made to avoid it.

I think most people do what they can to avoid getting pregnant if they don't want to be. But why should the joys of modern science come at a price for women? If people are less cearful about contraception it's because they know they can use abortive methods afterwards. This is a sign of technological progress.

Abortion is only bad in the sence that it can cause emotional and physical stress for people involved. But it's far less compared to birth.

I fully support a womans right to control her own body. She must always have the last say over what happens.

What I would add, however is that the man should not obliged to care for the child. If she has become pregnant by mistake, and he says that he is not emotionally or economically capable/willing to rear a child. Then the woman can either decide to abort based on teh fact she'll be a single mother. Or be a single mother. The woman should not be able to dictate the terms of another humans life. But this is only really a problem within capitalism, where the father is legally and financially tied to the baby. In a communist society the baby would be the concern of the community.

The male should not be able to run off, if he has agreed to bring the child up before her pregnancy. That would be him dictating her terms...

[Robespierre2.0]

You sound like a Christian complaining about being tempted by Satan to sin (and subsconsciously feeling the rest of the "congregation" might despise your sinful tendencies).

The difference being that I realize that, despite my opinion being based on my observations of reality, I realize that not only have I never been confronted with pregnancy or abortion in my life, I also lack a vagina. The 'reality I'm supposed to base my opinions off of' was therefore limited to what I could read on the subject, and explanations from friends and family, who generally tended to be reactionary.

Therefore, realizing that what little knowledge I had on the subject probably came from reactionaries, I decided that it would be better for me to defer to someone else with more experience on the subject.

TragicClown, I appreciate your response. I think I understand your position on the subject now. The position I once had, despite all the euphemisms used to dress it up, was one of forced pregnancy- something that totally contradicts the rights of women, and now that I realize that, I have changed my opinion.

However, you still come off as incredibly condescending. Fuck you.

[Luís Henrique]

Why should people be punished for not using protection exactly?

And even then, how comes forced pregnancy is the choice punishment?

Why would anyone have to start his/her life as an instrument of punishment against his/her mother?

Luís Henrique

[dark fairy]

sorry, Jazzratt...
couldn't reply right away,
but i believe.
That I have made a choice.
Something that is already living and breathing
should have priority over something that isn't yet
able to survive on it's own.
I see this point now because the women that give birth
give birth to living breathing humans.
The women who have abortions have something extracted from them that was feeding off them.
So i see this now. And yes, a raped woman, and someone else should have the same right.
A raped women, and another woman who does not wish to have a child
should have a choice...

Oh and yes, birth control does not always work.
It's hard to keep in mind, at times.
So if someone does end up pregnant even after they used proctection, if do not wish to have a child, they should have a choice.
Since it will change their life, and a child should only be born to people who want them.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Thats such bullshit. There is overwhelming cultural pressure to exhault pregnant women and celebrate pregnancies, and theres tremendous pressure to encourage pregnant women to give birth and then go crazy over how 'wonderful' their babies are and how 'magical' the whole creepy experience is. The bourgeois dictated culturally appropriate reaction to hearing that a friend got knocked up is "congradulations!!" "is it a boy of a girl?!" "have you picked out a name yet?!" "when is your baby shower and what type of gifts do you want?!" not "oh i'm so sorry to here that, thats just terrible knews when are you getting it taken care of?"

What are you being so defensive about? I agreed with you. :rolleyes:

[Miss Mindfuck.]

I think that if a woman is raped, ends up pregnant, AND does not want to keep
the child then she should have the choice to destroy it before it counts as a baby.
But if she were to say, accidentally skip a pill; or get her injection a few days late, and somehow end up in the family way, she wouldn't be entitled to the same rights to her own body, despite the fact that she exercised good sense in using contraceptives previously? Sounds like a bullshit double standard to me.



i think letting women destroy, and GET OFF THE HOOK so easily is bad...

I'm sorry, what?
What hook are you referring to?
Pregnancy isn't exactly a picnic...
Between morning sickness, soreness, swelling, the warping of your body, the drastic emotional shifts, the mental and emotional stress of coping with what is happening to you, not to mention the searing pain of childbirth, coupled with the possibility of death.
Plus, have you ever heard of an appeaseotomy? Could you blame ANYONE for wanting to avoid that at all costs?

Also, it's not as if you can run to your local box store and drop a twenty on an abortion; you do realize that a First Trimester abortion can run between $350 and $800 dollars? It's not like you can just say, "Oopsies, I'm irresponsible and now I'm pregnant! No sweat, I'll just run right out and get an abortion!" A Second Trimester abortion will range between $600 and $6000. Now, pair all this information with the fact that abortions are INCREDIBLY painful. In fact, Inga Muscio describes it as being one of the most horriffic experiences of her life.

I can't post an image yet, but her book is called ****: A Declaration of Independence.

You should check it out.

[RedKnight]

So if something falls under the category of a living 'human being' it's entitled to use another human's body against their wishes. Or, is this not a general philosophy of yours but something you only apply to women's bodies.



Fetuses, were they persons, would be oppressing any non-consenting hosts. There is no right to live at the expense of another person, thats what capitalists do. An actual born infant doesn't have any rights to use their parents organs even if failing to provide them would result in its death.

This is why all issues concerning the status of a fetus (which i'll assume is a person that feels pain and is every bit as cute as a 2 month old baby for the purpose of this discussion, although this is probably not the case) are besides the point.

You like other reactionaries don't really care about a 'right to life' or you'd follow it to its logical conclusion and demand manditory live organ donations, you're concerned with being able to control women's reproductive capacity. Thats the only logical motivation for forced-pregnancy proponents, they want to ensure that women can't just boycott an imaginary reproductive imparative to produce the next generation of workers, and they/you fundamentally don't see this demand as a problem because they don't recognize the full personhood of women. And you do not recognise the personhood of a fully formed, viable, unborn child. Including foetuses that would have been female. The woman's right to choose rightfully ends when the unborn's right to life begins. The only reason I know of for aborting third trimester foetuses is a possible birth defect, like Down Syndrome, or Spina Bifada, which is a horrible reason to destroy a life. It is in fact the same concept of "life unworthy of life" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_unworthy_of_life that Hitler held. I on the other hand uphold the principle of "from each according to there abilities, to each according to there needs". Foetuses need the womb for life support. It is the woman's personal responsibility to provide it until birth.

[Coggeh]

Her responsibility your language suggests she is just a walking incubator put on this planet to pop until she drops.

No potential life of a fetus should ever come before that of a fully developed living human ,A woman who finds herself pregnant and does not wish to remain so should have a right to free, safe abortion on demand. This is not an abstract political slogan, we don't go around shouting "free abortion on demand" in the belief that it can only be gained in the context of a socialist revolution. We believe that it is merely one of the basic first steps in freeing women from the constraints placed on them by capitalism.A constraint you wish to see them remain in ?

[Coggeh]

Ah dammit , the thought police got to him before I did :(:p

[RedAnarchist]

Ah dammit , the thought police got to him before I did :(:p

Why not post your reply to him in the OI then?