Anti-choice Sexism from Joby (Split from Discrimination)

[Joby]

I'm pro-choice, maybe pro-life after the first 12 weeks. And I don't think that my tax money should go towards performing abortions.

I guess that makes me a gender-hater, doesn't it?

In my defense, let me state the obvious.

1. Having a baby is the biological reason for sex. It's the very reason you have your junk. It's what it's there for. If you forgot that, tough.

2. If you want an abortion, you fucked up. Now, you have to remember that having a kid is the real reason for having sex. With that in mind, if you want to have sex without having a child then -gasp!- use one of the billion birth-controls available.

Of course rape is a different situation.

BTW, I love how conservatives are very pro-life and pro-gun, while liberals are pro-choice and pro-gun control. Conservatives think that if you kill the fetus your a murderer, but if you get killed on the street, well, that's how the dice fell. Liberals are vice-versa.

[BobKKKindle$]

Joby, you're yet another misguided reactionary. Your references to 'taxpayer money' and the liberal/conservative dichotomy shows aren't willing to think outside of the established political framework and accept the prevailing ideas of a capitalist society. I'm going to look at each of your points in turn, and show how in each case, you have presented a misguided stance on this key issue.


Having a baby is the biological reason for sex. It's the very reason you have your junk. It's what it's there for. If you forgot that, tough.

Who are you (or anyone else for that matter, including the state) to define the purpose of sex for everyone else? People have sex for a whole range of different reasons, including the fact that it is very pleasurable for all those involved, and the purpose of sex is very much something depends on individual desire. At the core of your judgement lies the idea that there is a 'natural' way for people to behave, especially in the sphere of sexuality, and anything outside of this narrow conception of what is 'natural' is somehow bad and something to be averted. As a judgement that is universal and thus applies to everyone, is at odds with the freedom of the individual, and the diversity of human sexual desire, and is therefore reactionary. Socialists don't seek to force people to accept any form of ideological paradigm, and advocate the complete liberation of all humans in every sphere of life.


If you want an abortion, you fucked up

Why? If a woman is seeking access to abortion, clearly she did not intend to become pregnant, and yet you seek to punish women, by forcing them to accept an invasive organism without their consent. I consider the cause of unwanted pregnancy (the failure to use contraception, the failure to apply contraceptive devices properly, etc) to be somewhat irrelevant, as, in any case, the foetus has no ethical value and so by carrying out an abortion we are not infringing on anyone's rights.


Of course rape is a different situation.

Why, exactly? You haven't given any indication of why you would restrict abortion beyond a narrow time frame, but if, as you may believe, all foetuses are accorded a basic right to life once they have reached a certain level of development, why does the cause of pregnancy affect the ethical status of the foetus?

Restricting abortion is very similar to rape, as in both cases, a woman is denied the ability to control her own body.

[Luís Henrique]

1. Having a baby is the biological reason for sex. It's the very reason you have your junk. It's what it's there for. If you forgot that, tough.

I had sex some thousands of times during my life, but I don't have thousand of children.

If having babies is the "biological reason" for sex, how comes women have sex after menopause? How comes sterile men and women have sex? How comes women who take pills don't lose their sex drive?

Is having babies also the "biological reason" for *gasp* homosexual sex?


2. If you want an abortion, you fucked up. Now, you have to remember that having a kid is the real reason for having sex. With that in mind, if you want to have sex without having a child then -gasp!- use one of the billion birth-controls available.If having babies is the real reason for having sex, how comes there even are birth-control methods?

Has at any time crossed your mind that no known birth-control method is completely safe? So what if you use those methods, and end up pregnant any way?


Of course rape is a different situation.Why?

If the "real reason" for sex is having a baby, how comes this does not apply to rape?


BTW, I love how conservatives are very pro-life and pro-gun, while liberals are pro-choice and pro-gun control. Conservatives think that if you kill the fetus your a murderer, but if you get killed on the street, well, that's how the dice fell. Liberals are vice-versa.And, with all due respect, "liberals" are 100% correct. Killing a person is murder, killing a fetus is not, because a fetus is not a person.

Luís Henrique

[Joby]

Joby, you're yet another misguided reactionary. Your references to 'taxpayer money' and the liberal/conservative dichotomy shows aren't willing to think outside of the established political framework and accept the prevailing ideas of a capitalist society. I'm going to look at each of your points in turn, and show how in each case, you have presented a misguided stance on this key issue.

If we were I a post-revolutionary society, I would post diferently.


Who are you (or anyone else for that matter, including the state) to define the purpose of sex for everyone else? People have sex for a whole range of different reasons, including the fact that it is very pleasurable for all those involved, and the purpose of sex is very much something depends on individual desire. At the core of your judgement lies the idea that there is a 'natural' way for people to behave, especially in the sphere of sexuality, and anything outside of this narrow conception of what is 'natural' is somehow bad and something to be averted. As a judgement that is universal and thus applies to everyone, is at odds with the freedom of the individual, and the diversity of human sexual desire, and is therefore reactionary. Socialists don't seek to force people to accept any form of ideological paradigm, and advocate the complete liberation of all humans in every sphere of life.

I like AK-47s. I've shot several in my life. They're fun. There's nothing as rewarding as hitting that target.

But that AK was designed to kill people. It has many different uses, but doing the best job at killing somebody is why years went into it.

Like our bodies with reproduction, except that that's taken a much longer time, of course.


Why? If a woman is seeking access to abortion, clearly she did not intend to become pregnant, and yet you seek to punish women, by forcing them to accept an invasive organism without their consent. I consider the cause of unwanted pregnancy (the failure to use contraception, the failure to apply contraceptive devices properly, etc) to be somewhat irrelevant, as, in any case, the foetus has no ethical value and so by carrying out an abortion we are not infringing on anyone's rights.

Though she may have not intended to become pregnant, she did the work required to craete a fetus. I didn't force her to create the fetus, she did it. How is it an invasive organism if she created it, and how is that organism deserving of the death which it did nothing to deserve?

Perhaps the woman, and the man, are the ones lacking 'ethical value.'


Why, exactly? You haven't given any indication of why you would restrict abortion beyond a narrow time frame, but if, as you may believe, all foetuses are accorded a basic right to life once they have reached a certain level of development, why does the cause of pregnancy affect the ethical status of the foetus?

I'm a pragmatist, also. Babies from rape is a rare occurance, and I wouldn't want anyone who had no choice in the matter to have to carry a baby.


Restricting abortion is very similar to rape, as in both cases, a woman is denied the ability to control her own body.

I disagree. She did not consent to rape, and the rapist should be punished.

If she did consent to the process by which babies are made, then she should be responsibe for the baby.

[Joby]

I had sex some thousands of times during my life, but I don't have thousand of children.

Do you use contraception? If you don't, you may want to check your sperm count.

I've had sex quite a few times, never with the intention of having a child. But I don't forget that that's what the process may result in, so I always wrap it all up.


If having babies is the "biological reason" for sex, how comes women have sex after menopause? How comes sterile men and women have sex? How comes women who take pills don't lose their sex drive?

Having kids is the reason for the anatomy itself, it's why evolution was so generous as to give me a penis. And why I am attracted to people with a vagina.

The process is certainly enjoyable

In most cases, all we do with our lives is eat, sleep, work, and fuck. It's pathetic, but at least the last one is extra enjoyable.


Is having babies also the "biological reason" for *gasp* homosexual sex?

No, and in that case I wouldn't have to suggest using contraception.


If having babies is the real reason for having sex, how comes there even are birth-control methods?

I wasn't refering to the pleasures that motivate people to have sex, I'm just saying that having children is the reason we've always done it. It's the end result. It's been that way since our Ape-Man and Ape-Woman ancestors got cozy by the fire together, and before.

It's why you and I exist.

As far as I know, we're the only animal that enjoys sex, as it's never been proven that any animal does. Yet, it's how kittens and puppies come about also.


Has at any time crossed your mind that no known birth-control method is completely safe? So what if you use those methods, and end up pregnant any way?

I know a guy who knows a guy who charges $1000 a head shot, $500 for chest.

Just kidding, though it would come down to her choice, since I have no say in the matter.


Why?

If the "real reason" for sex is having a baby, how comes this does not apply to rape?

Because rape is, obviuosly, unconsensual. The woman did not choose to take the risk that sex may bring about a child (which is what every woman should do before having sex...unless we're at a party together).


And, with all due respect, "liberals" are 100% correct. Killing a person is murder, killing a fetus is not, because a fetus is not a person.


Person A shoots somebody on the street in a mugging gone wrong.

Person B beats an 8 month pregnant woman to death in a burglary gone wrong.

Should they be equal before the law?

[Jazzratt]

I like AK-47s. I've shot several in my life. They're fun. There's nothing as rewarding as hitting that target.

But that AK was designed to kill people. It has many different uses, but doing the best job at killing somebody is why years went into it.

Like our bodies with reproduction, except that that's taken a much longer time, of course.

Here in the 21st century we have, for the most part, grown out of the "as god intended" mentality. I'm afraid that stating something is the "natural order" or "design" (designed by whom, exactly?) doesn't say anything about the correctness.


Though she may have not intended to become pregnant, she did the work required to craete a fetus. I didn't force her to create the fetus, she did it.

Let's say, for example, that the "work required" to have a foetus growing inside the woman in question is having sex with a guy who was using a faulty condom - is she still bound to serve as an incubator because your medieval morality has no room for people who have sex purely because it is pleasurable?

Just because you're jealous that some women are getting laid more than you does not mean you have the right to force them to keep an expanding clump of cells in their body if they don't want it.


How is it an invasive organism if she created it, and how is that organism deserving of the death which it did nothing to deserve?

Whether something that isn't strictly alive "deserves death" is an insane question.


Perhaps the woman, and the man, are the ones lacking 'ethical value.'

It doesn't matter. The woman had sex and doesn't want a baby, simply because you've yet to escape from the 19th century doesn't mean she should become a slave to an organism she doesn't want inside her.


I'm a pragmatist, also. Babies from rape is a rare occurance, and I wouldn't want anyone who had no choice in the matter to have to carry a baby.

Suddenly choice matters to you? Why the change of heart, earlier you were talking of women being forced to carry babies to term against their will simply to fulfil some mystical "biological imperative." I'm afraid we, as humans, have transcended many of our other "biological imperatives" and I think it's just sick to force us to stay constrained by unwanted pregnancies because it's something you, in your indignant (and presumably white male) moral righteousness support.


I disagree. She did not consent to rape, and the rapist should be punished.

This question is separate from abortion.


If she did consent to the process by which babies are made, then she should be responsibe for the baby.

Oh fuck off back to your cave, Neanderthal, the Homo Sapiens Sapiens are talking.

[Luís Henrique]

I like AK-47s. I've shot several in my life. They're fun. There's nothing as rewarding as hitting that target.

An AK-47, to quote yourself, "was designed to kill people".

Sex wasn't designed at all; God does not exist.


I disagree. She did not consent to rape, and the rapist should be punished.

Yeah. In some societies, rapists are punished by being forced to marry to their victims and provide for the babies.

It seems that having to raise a baby, in some strange minds, is an appropriate punishment for a woman who makes sex in an "irresponsible" way. Perhaps it is an appropriate punishment for a rapist too? Why not?


If she did consent to the process by which babies are made, then she should be responsibe for the baby.

Sure. And her responsibility starts exactly by deciding whether she is able or not to raise that baby, whether or not she will be able to give it a good start on life. It is up to her, and nobody else, to make such decision. If you can't trust her in this, how are you going to trust her in the thousands of further decisions she will have to take in the following years?

Luís Henrique

[Joby]

Here in the 21st century we have, for the most part, grown out of the "as god intended" mentality. I'm afraid that stating something is the "natural order" or "design" (designed by whom, exactly?) doesn't say anything about the correctness.

I'm not arguing it's "as god intended."

It is why evolution provided for these things.


Let's say, for example, that the "work required" to have a foetus growing inside the woman in question is having sex with a guy who was using a faulty condom - is she still bound to serve as an incubator because your medieval morality has no room for people who have sex purely because it is pleasurable?

Every time I have had sex, it was merely for pleasure. Sometimes it ended too fast, but hell, I still enjoyed it.

The question is, why is she depending on the man to provide the contraception?


Just because you're jealous that some women are getting laid more than you

Ahhh, you discovered my jealousy of whores.


does not mean you have the right to force them to keep an expanding clump of cells in their body if they don't want it.

If they don't want this "expanding clump of cells" (Hey, congratulations on that expanding clump of cells Ms. Gardner! :rolleyes:) then they shouldn't do the process by which these unalive cells (of which we are all at one point) come about without taking the proper measures to ensure that these "cells" are unable to form.


Whether something that isn't strictly alive "deserves death" is an insane question.

Your right.

Now excuse me, I need to go roast some jews on the spit.


It doesn't matter. The woman had sex and doesn't want a baby, simply because you've yet to escape from the 19th century doesn't mean she should become a slave to an organism she doesn't want inside her.

SHE CREATED THE 'ORGANISM'!!!

If I clone Pamela Anderson, does she have any rights? I created her, and, strictly speaking, she really isn't a homo sapien...so....

And, as you just admitted, the Fetus is an ORGANISM!

I don't like the organism my girlfriend brought over (shih tzu), I think I'll take your advice that, b/c it's infringing my space, I'll beat it to death.


Suddenly choice matters to you? Why the change of heart, earlier you were talking of women being forced to carry babies to term against their will simply to fulfil some mystical "biological imperative."

I DO believe in choice, the choice to have sex. When that choice isn't given to the women, she shouldn't be responsible.

And if you really need the "mystical biological imperative" laid out, talk to a biology or anatomy proffessor. It could do you some good. It's not 'mysticism," it's how every person who ever exists was created.


I'm afraid we, as humans, have transcended many of our other "biological imperatives"

Like eating, sleeping, or working?


and I think it's just sick to force us to stay constrained by unwanted pregnancies

All right, sorry if I find that phrase a bit disgusting.

Like a cross between Orwell and Huxley.


because it's something you, in your indignant (and presumably white male) moral righteousness support.

Yes, I'm a white male.

Now, please start, you know, ACTUALLY DEBATING MY POINTS!


Oh fuck off back to your cave, Neanderthal, the Homo Sapiens Sapiens are talking.

Please offer some real debate. My stance doesn't really matter, your showing everyone here why, ahem, LEFTISTS SUCK AT DEBATE DOES!!!

You really come off like a 17 year old.

Its pathetic, at least other posters HAVE THE SKILL TO MAKE A CASE FOR THEMSELVES.

NEWSFLASH: Not many people are GOING TO AGREE WITH YOU. ON ANY ISSUE.

Learn how to DEBATE WITHOUT ALIENATING PEOPLE.

[spartan]

The question is, why is she depending on the man to provide the contraception?

Because it is the mans semen that will potentially impregnate her.

Therefore it should mostly fall on the man to provide protection against this as it is his sperm that needs to be stopped from impregnating her.



Just because you're jealous that some women are getting laid more than you
Ahhh, you discovered my jealousy of whores.

Ah right so men who sleep with lots of women are "studs" whereas women who sleep with lots of men are "whores".

Great logic there you Chauvinist prick.


Your right.

Now excuse me, I need to go roast some jews on the spit.

Fuck off Nazi boy!

[Joby]

An AK-47, to quote yourself, "was designed to kill people".

Sex wasn't designed at all; God does not exist.

You were designed by the thousands of generations which came before.

Bu, yes, you make a good point.


Yeah. In some societies, rapists are punished by being forced to marry to their victims and provide for the babies.

A little off topic, but rapists and child molestors are among the only criminals I have no sympathy for. But that's an inetersting take on the problem.


It seems that having to raise a baby, in some strange minds, is an appropriate punishment for a woman who makes sex in an "irresponsible" way. Perhaps it is an appropriate punishment for a rapist too? Why not?

Don't get me wrong. I don't see it as "punishment," and in a better (post-revolutionary) world, having to weigh financial decisions when deciding whether or not to have a baby would be a moot point.

And I agree that the man should be equally responsible for the child as well, though I doubt many rapists would be able to provide.


Sure. And her responsibility starts exactly by deciding whether she is able or not to raise that baby, whether or not she will be able to give it a good start on life. It is up to her, and nobody else, to make such decision. If you can't trust her in this, how are you going to trust her in the thousands of further decisions she will have to take in the following years?

This is probably the root of the disagreement.

I would argue that she should decide these when considering the choice to have sex, in and of itself.

If she decides during pregnancy that she won't be able to handle raising the child, she should consider adoption.

I just don't feel that the organism inside of her should be punished.

Though I've certainly enjoyed it and hold nothing against anyone else, I think it's unfortunate that sex has become just another thing you do to have fun....It reminds me of the emotionless landscape of Brave New World....

[Joby]

Because it is the mans semen that will potentially impregnate her.

Therefore it should mostly fall on the man to provide protection against this as it is his sperm that needs to be stopped from impregnating her.

That is a good debating point, though I would urge all women to make sure he didn't go cheap...


Ah right so men who sleep with lots of women are "studs" whereas women who sleep with lots of men are "whores".

Great logic there you Chauvinist prick.

No, though I have slept with quite a few women I'm certainly not a 'stud.'

Should sex not be emotional? Something people who love each other do?

Or is it really just something for fun?

We live in a materialistic, get happy quick culture were sex has become just another activity.

I;m not criticizing anybodys lifestyle choice, it's just that, for me, I would like a girl who hasn't made too many rounds.



Fuck off Nazi boy!

I was responding to his argument with some satire, please forgive me if you took it seriously.

[spartan]

I was responding to his argument with some satire, please forgive me if you took it seriously.

Then why exactly would you be making satire out of the Holocaust in response to an arguement about abortion?

The only reasons i can think of is that you are a Nazi posing as a leftist, or you have a really stupid and sick sense of humour?

[Joby]

Then why exactly would you be making satire out of the Holocaust in response to an arguement about abortion?

The only reasons i can think of is that you are a Nazi posing as a leftist, or you have a really stupid and sick sense of humour?

My point is that not everybody has the same definition for what constitutes life.

If he argues that fetus is not living and that is the end of the debate, it isn't that far-stretched to think of a state declaring an entire race is not human and that is the end of the debate.

When anybody who questions these things immediately becomes a "neanderthal," problems may arrise.

[Mujer Libre]

No, though I have slept with quite a few women I'm certainly not a 'stud.'

Should sex not be emotional? Something people who love each other do?

Or is it really just something for fun?

We live in a materialistic, get happy quick culture were sex has become just another activity.

I;m not criticizing anybodys lifestyle choice, it's just that, for me, I would like a girl who hasn't made too many rounds.
Sex should be whatever the participants want it to be.

You're enforcing moralism under the guise of "anti-consumerism" or whatever. Your analogy is however completely false. The romanticisation of sex has less to do with opposing materialism and more to do with disciplining peoples' (particularly women's) bodies.

Also, you referring to women who have lots of sex, or rather "more sex than you" as whores is deeply offensive and sexist. With attitudes like that you have no place on this board, let alone in the movement.

[Jazzratt]

I'm not arguing it's "as god intended."

It is why evolution provided for these things.

You're personifying evolution. We're not monkeys in the trees any more and I fail to see why we need to still do everything as it was "intended". Aside from people everything in your immediate vicinity is, more likely than not, completely unnatural.



Every time I have had sex, it was merely for pleasure. Sometimes it ended too fast, but hell, I still enjoyed it.

But this is going against your claim that if you have sex you must be willing to, at the very least, accept the possibility you will be forced to endure nine months of pregnancy followed by childbirth which is a process, I am reliably assured, so painful you would hesitate to wish it upon anyone.


The question is, why is she depending on the man to provide the contraception?

Does it matter who provided the contraception if it fails?



Ahhh, you discovered my jealousy of whores.

Also your undisguised and revolting sexism. Possibly your "mummy didn't love me" issues too.



If they don't want this "expanding clump of cells" (Hey, congratulations on that expanding clump of cells Ms. Gardner! :rolleyes:) then they shouldn't do the process by which these unalive cells (of which we are all at one point) come about without taking the proper measures to ensure that these "cells" are unable to form.

Because they enjoy having sex. If they can have an abortion, why do they need to be fastidious about contraception - after all how is it any more reprehensible to "kill" the organism a few days after it's formation using a pill instead of a few months later using a medical procedure?



Your right.

Now excuse me, I need to go roast some jews on the spit.

The non-sequitur ladies and gentlemen, alive and well.




SHE CREATED THE 'ORGANISM'!!!

No she didn't. I don't know if you've been to school at all but when I went they taught this subject called "biology" it was fascinating and I still like to keep abreast of it but during these lessons it was explained, amid fits of giggles from fresh-faced youths, that a foetus is formed when a sperm cell from a man's testes combines with an egg from the woman's ovum. The woman doesn't actively create the foetus any more than the man does.


If I clone Pamela Anderson, does she have any rights? I created her, and, strictly speaking, she really isn't a homo sapien...so....

Er, a clone of pamela anderson would be of the same species as pamela anderson and would also be both self-aware and alive. If you cloned pamela anderson but decided you didn't want the clone (for example because you realised that the clone wouldn't have any plastic implants and would spend most of the first few years shitting herself and crying) then it would be perfectly acceptable to destroy the foetus before it became a viable baby.


And, as you just admitted, the Fetus is an ORGANISM!

So is the cold virus.


I don't like the organism my girlfriend brought over (shih tzu), I think I'll take your advice that, b/c it's infringing my space, I'll beat it to death.

Your girlfriend may take offence. YOur whole argument is a ridiculous straw man anyway because you're suggesting that because I recognise that a foetus is a multicellular organism then anything that applies to the foetus (as an unaware, non-independent organism) must then apply to all other multicellular organisms (regardless of awareness or independence) which is insane. It's like me saying that you would happily eat humans because they are mammals like cows.


I DO believe in choice, the choice to have sex. When that choice isn't given to the women, she shouldn't be responsible.

That's disgusting, there is no reason to deny someone sex because you believe we still need to suffer under a primitive fear of pregnancy.


And if you really need the "mystical biological imperative" laid out, talk to a biology or anatomy proffessor. It could do you some good. It's not 'mysticism," it's how every person who ever exists was created.

Yes but as any decent biologist (or any other type of person) will tell you simply because something can cause something to happen doesn't mean it should. After all, I presume you wouldn't mind someone with an STD getting their disease treated?


Like eating, sleeping, or working?

Why are you suing a computer, your hands were "designed" to allow you to grasp simple tools and use them in gathering food, not for tapping away on a keyboard espousing your disgusting and outdated ideology.


All right, sorry if I find that phrase a bit disgusting.

Like a cross between Orwell and Huxley.

If I have something that I don't want, that thing becomes unwanted why does that concept conjour up dystopian novels to you?


Yes, I'm a white male.

Now, please start, you know, ACTUALLY DEBATING MY POINTS!

That's what most of my post was, dumbshit.


Please offer some real debate. My stance doesn't really matter, your showing everyone here why, ahem, LEFTISTS SUCK AT DEBATE DOES!!!

Is it because we write semi-intelligible phrases in all caps hoping that this makes them true?


You really come off like a 17 year old.

What an astoundingly arbitrary age to choose. Being correct, by the way, is not affected by age.


Its pathetic, at least other posters HAVE THE SKILL TO MAKE A CASE FOR THEMSELVES.

Not that you've read or, really, replied to them.


NEWSFLASH: Not many people are GOING TO AGREE WITH YOU. ON ANY ISSUE.

That depends on the issue. Pro-choice positions are common where I am but marxian class analysis, with this in mind I'd contend it's quite presumptuous to say "all issues", wouldn't you?


Learn how to DEBATE WITHOUT ALIENATING PEOPLE.

The method worked with dark fairy. If it doesn't work with you, well there are plenty of others willing to argue the same case who use different styles.

I would add that I'm sorry if you're offended but I doubt you are and I don't really care.

[Joby]

Sex should be whatever the participants want it to be.

And if they have this freedom, they should also have the responsibility to live with their actions.


You're enforcing moralism under the guise of "anti-consumerism" or whatever. Your analogy is however completely false. The romanticisation of sex has less to do with opposing materialism and more to do with disciplining peoples' (particularly women's) bodies.

Sorry, but in my experience, it seems that the more time a girl spends at the mall, the more likely she will be to have sex.

Hence why I would wear a polo to a party. It works.

To say that the 'romanticisation' of sex is about disciplining womens' bodies is to say that all physical attraction a man feels towards a wopman is in and of itself sexist. If that be the case, then I don't want to join this "movement" of bloggers.


Also, you referring to women who have lots of sex, or rather "more sex than you" as whores is deeply offensive and sexist. With attitudes like that you have no place on this board, let alone in the movement.

If they've had more sex than I've had I would personally consider them easy, yes. Not that I disagree with their freedom to have unlimited amounts of sex, it's simply that I'm not attracted to that lifestyle in a woman.

To say that promiscuity equals freedom is ridiculous, and not only in a spiritual sense (if there is such a thing).

[Joby]

You're personifying evolution. We're not monkeys in the trees any more and I fail to see why we need to still do everything as it was "intended". Aside from people everything in your immediate vicinity is, more likely than not, completely unnatural.

But you are the product of those monkeys. And I'm not saying that the reason you have sex is necessarily about child birth, but that is why those earlier lifeforms adapted to have their 'junk.'

But I still don't think it's right for someone to kill their unborn young. That's all.


But this is going against your claim that if you have sex you must be willing to, at the very least, accept the possibility you will be forced to endure nine months of pregnancy followed by childbirth which is a process, I am reliably assured, so painful you would hesitate to wish it upon anyone.

Which is why I wrapped my stuff up, even when she assured me she was on birth-control. Not for her, mind you, but for entirely selfish reasons.


Does it matter who provided the contraception if it fails?

No.


Also your undisguised and revolting sexism. Possibly your "mummy didn't love me" issues too.

I don't need my mommy to love me.


Because they enjoy having sex. If they can have an abortion, why do they need to be fastidious about contraception - after all how is it any more reprehensible to "kill" the organism a few days after it's formation using a pill instead of a few months later using a medical procedure?

Because a few month later it's heart will be beating, and it will go from being an agglomation of cells to an organism.


The non-sequitur ladies and gentlemen, alive and well.

yes yes quite right


No she didn't. I don't know if you've been to school at all but when I went they taught this subject called "biology" it was fascinating and I still like to keep abreast of it but during these lessons it was explained, amid fits of giggles from fresh-faced youths, that a foetus is formed when a sperm cell from a man's testes combines with an egg from the woman's ovum. The woman doesn't actively create the foetus any more than the man does.

Outside of rape, she chose to allow these sperm to enter. If she did not want to choose to become impregnated, she could choose not to have sex.


So is the cold virus.

So what's the difference between a fetus organism and a virus?

The fetus is our own species, and as I've already stated, I disagree with killing the unborn young.


Your girlfriend may take offence. YOur whole argument is a ridiculous straw man anyway because you're suggesting that because I recognise that a foetus is a multicellular organism then anything that applies to the foetus (as an unaware, non-independent organism) must then apply to all other multicellular organisms (regardless of awareness or independence) which is insane. It's like me saying that you would happily eat humans because they are mammals like cows.

First, I would be down for eating some human if it was prepared right, they deserved to die, and it was virgin meat.

Secondly, I think we're going to break up, but not for these reasons.

Thirdly, I've asked before and I'll ask again.

Person A shoots a man on the street in a mugging gone wrong.
Person B shoots an 8 month old pregnant woman in a burglary gone wrong.

Are you saying that they should have the same punishment?

Why is it that if an OB-GYN fucks up somewere during the 9 months he can be held responsible, even though the fetus wasn't alive?


That's disgusting, there is no reason to deny someone sex because you believe we still need to suffer under a primitive fear of pregnancy.

Fearing woman, meet half of Walgreens.

You should respect the power these organs have. They can create new people. Quite amazing, really.


Yes but as any decent biologist (or any other type of person) will tell you simply because something can cause something to happen doesn't mean it should. After all, I presume you wouldn't mind someone with an STD getting their disease treated?

Treating an STD and having an unborn child removed and killed are slightly different issues in my opinion.

Being pregnant shouldn't be a "disease" to be cured.


Why are you suing a computer, your hands were "designed" to allow you to grasp simple tools and use them in gathering food, not for tapping away on a keyboard espousing your disgusting and outdated ideology.

Wow, technology progressed. But we still eat, sleep, fuck, and on and on.

We're still animals, just because we've never really worked a day in our lives doesn't mean shit.


If I have something that I don't want, that thing becomes unwanted why does that concept conjour up dystopian novels to you?

Both of those novels talked about rampant promiscuity, Brave New World describes a "utopia" in which everybody has there tubes tied and and all babies are born in a test tube.

Sometimes, I think that's what Womans Lib is pushing for.


That's what most of my post was, dumbshit.

All right *****, I was refering to the holier than thou tone you had.

This post, I must say, sounds much more intelligent and your points are a lot better drawn out.


Is it because we write semi-intelligible phrases in all caps hoping that this makes them true?

I lost my head, my apologies.


What an astoundingly arbitrary age to choose. Being correct, by the way, is not affected by age.

Let's just say I've been on quite a few forums, and there's a certain tone leftists seem to give off...


Not that you've read or, really, replied to them.

I've tried. I was at work all day, Sorry if I denied anyone the opportunity to take a couple shots at myself.



That depends on the issue. Pro-choice positions are common where I am but marxian class analysis, with this in mind I'd contend it's quite presumptuous to say "all issues", wouldn't you?

My point being that for all youn know, I'm Fidel and I'm testing your debating skills.

A lot of people aren't going to agree with you, and that's OK. The point is to raise a debate, and try and convince other people to understand the soundness of your position.


I would add that I'm sorry if you're offended but I doubt you are and I don't really care.

No, I don't. But thanks for thinking about it.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Outside of rape, she chose to allow these sperm to enter. If she did not want to choose to become impregnated, she could choose not to have sex.
I think this is one of the main flaws in the pro-life argument; this does not logically follow. A couple who use contraception which fails, or who for whatever other reason try but fail to protect against conception, do not choose to have a child or for the woman to become impregnated any more than the rape victim does. There is no distinction here regarding intention. SO in reality, what's the difference between rape victims and unfortunate/clumsy couples?

[Herman]

Outside of rape, she chose to allow these sperm to enter. If she did not want to choose to become impregnated, she could choose not to have sex.

So it's either to have sex and be forced to carry on with the pregnancy or not have sex at all?

How delightfully reactionary.

[Joby]

So it's either to have sex and be forced to carry on with the pregnancy or not have sex at all?

How delightfully reactionary.

Or use contraception.

Killing your unborn young may not be reactionary, but it is barbaric.

[Joby]

I think this is one of the main flaws in the pro-life argument; this does not logically follow. A couple who use contraception which fails, or who for whatever other reason try but fail to protect against conception, do not choose to have a child or for the woman to become impregnated any more than the rape victim does. There is no distinction here regarding intention. SO in reality, what's the difference between rape victims and unfortunate/clumsy couples?

I'll give you that I would have sympathy for someone who "breaks their rubber."

But I simply don't feel that killing your unborn young should be an option for being clumsy.

[spartan]

But I simply don't feel that killing your unborn young should be an option for being clumsy.

Well why exactly should the woman spend 9 months with a parasite living inside of her and then spend hours of agony, which could potentially kill her, getting it out just because of an accident?

People shouldnt have to suffer because of accidents, and before you say that the aborted fetus would be suffering because of an accident, dont because a fetus is not a living being but a parasite that lives off of the woman that is carrying it.

[Black Cross]

Socialists don't seek to force people to accept any form of ideological paradigm, and advocate the complete liberation of all humans in every sphere of life.


Except, of course, the ones that are still in the womb.


People shouldnt have to suffer because of accidents, and before you say that the aborted fetus would be suffering because of an accident, dont because a fetus is not a living being but a parasite that lives off of the woman that is carrying it.

So at what point is it not okay to kill the child?


I think this is one of the main flaws in the pro-life argument; this does not logically follow. A couple who use contraception which fails, or who for whatever other reason try but fail to protect against conception, do not choose to have a child or for the woman to become impregnated any more than the rape victim does. There is no distinction here regarding intention. SO in reality, what's the difference between rape victims and unfortunate/clumsy couples?

Responsibility. I shouldn't have to explain this since Joby already did, but if you choose to have sex you should be aware of the potential consequences. Should rape victims be aware of the consequences of being raped before that happens? As if they can control it? That's the difference. If you don't like that, I apologize, but there's nothing else to it. Contraceptives don't work 100% of the time. Abortions do, though, so I guess it makes sense that people would go to that for an easy way out.

[Sam_b]

killing your unborn young

How can you be killed if you aren't born exactly?

[spartan]

So at what point is it not okay to kill the child?

It isnt a child, it is a fetus!

Stop humanising it!

As to your question, i would say that the woman carrying the fetus is the best judge for when it is not okay to abort (Not kill) her fetus.

So i am guessing from your tone that you are completly against abortion, and are instead for the forcing of completion of unwanted pregnancies, to satisfy your medieval morality?

[Dean]

I'm pro-choice, maybe pro-life after the first 12 weeks. And I don't think that my tax money should go towards performing abortions.

I guess that makes me a gender-hater, doesn't it?

No. You have to understand that tax revenue is supposed to be usable by all of society. If there is surplus, why shouldn't a person get an abortion? I really haven't seen a good argument about it in your whole post.


In my defense, let me state the obvious.

1. Having a baby is the biological reason for sex. It's the very reason you have your junk. It's what it's there for. If you forgot that, tough.
As are various psychological devices which direct our very movement. One could argue, as Dawkins did, that our very existance is to propagate our species and genes. Does that mean I should worry about reproduction only? I wasn't consulted before I was given a sex drive.


2. If you want an abortion, you fucked up. Now, you have to remember that having a kid is the real reason for having sex. With that in mind, if you want to have sex without having a child then -gasp!- use one of the billion birth-controls available.
Which are very expensive, some people don't know that they're pregnant before 12 weeks, sometimes ALL controls can fail (yes even the pill and similar forms). Really, a myriad of reasons for why an accident is justifiable or otherwise reasonable.


Of course rape is a different situation.
Not at all. A women gets pregnant and once there, decides if whe wants to keep it. A very careful woman can become pregnant. A rape case doesn't change the issues at stake with pregnancy, except in regards to the emotions of the parties involved.


BTW, I love how conservatives are very pro-life and pro-gun, while liberals are pro-choice and pro-gun control. Conservatives think that if you kill the fetus your a murderer, but if you get killed on the street, well, that's how the dice fell. Liberals are vice-versa.

The right to use guns is not an inherant biological function worthy of the same retgard as the right to an abortion, but I will agree that both should be freer.

[RedAnarchist]

Except, of course, the ones that are still in the womb.



So at what point is it not okay to kill the child?



Responsibility. I shouldn't have to explain this since Joby already did, but if you choose to have sex you should be aware of the potential consequences. Should rape victims be aware of the consequences of being raped before that happens? As if they can control it? That's the difference. If you don't like that, I apologize, but there's nothing else to it. Contraceptives don't work 100% of the time. Abortions do, though, so I guess it makes sense that people would go to that for an easy way out.

There is no point before birth in which it is not ok to dispose of the foetus.

Abortion an easy way out?! Do you think most women just stroll into an abortion clinic and have a quick abortion before getting on with other things? It may not be much more than removing a parasite, but it is an hard decision to take for many women and there are quite a few ]problems that could arise.

[Holden Caulfield]

what if it sex for sexs sake (which might i add is better to get it with than you god squad esque 'isn't the creation of life wonderful, sex is for a baby' stance) and the girl gets pregnant she is to not work live off benafits pay for child care and spend at least 18 years of her life worrying and caring for a child she wasnt allowed to not have while the dad can continue on randomly shagging safe in the knowledge that any consequences aren't on him,

your sexist as well as wrong

[luxemburg89]

1. Having a baby is the biological reason for sex. It's the very reason you have your junk. It's what it's there for. If you forgot that, tough.

2. If you want an abortion, you fucked up. Now, you have to remember that having a kid is the real reason for having sex. With that in mind, if you want to have sex without having a child then -gasp!- use one of the billion birth-controls available.


Oh, fuck off you moron. Now that I have greeted you in a deserving manner I will proceed to point out how you are, in the words of Ben Jonson, 'a ****ing fuckwit'.

1. Abortion is not always a biological issue; it is also a social issue. Therefore we must consider the SOCIAL reasons for sex, namely pleasure and interaction with people to whom you are attracted. Most people do not have sex for the purpose of having babies, hence the large number of condoms bought each year; as a result we can consider the primary reason for sex - and we're talking about society here not biology - is to give and receive pleasure, no?
People normally act on their emotions and desires rather than what biology tells them. Biologically our feet were not made for kicking football- or Rugby-balls but we do it anyway. Sex is the same as football in that you do it for pleasure; I find this analogy particularly apt given the exploits of Manchester United players at parties recently:D.

2. Abortion can be used as a method of correcting mistakes. If having a baby was a mistake, or not what a woman wants after all, then all abortion does is correct the mistake. Does that view shake you to your reactionary core?

I expect you'll give some pointless and angry attempt at refuting the arguments stated in this thread but please save yourself the embarrassment, you'll be wasting time you could be spending reading up on abortion and the accounts of women that have had them; or committing a quick suicide - either one is fine by me.

xxx

[pusher robot]

Oh, fuck off you moron. Now that I have greeted you in a deserving manner I will proceed to point out how you are, in the words of Ben Jonson, 'a ****ing fuckwit'.

1. Abortion is not always a biological issue; it is also a social issue. Therefore we must consider the SOCIAL reasons for sex, namely pleasure and interaction with people to whom you are attracted. Most people do not have sex for the purpose of having babies, hence the large number of condoms bought each year; as a result we can consider the primary reason for sex - and we're talking about society here not biology - is to give and receive pleasure, no?
People normally act on their emotions and desires rather than what biology tells them. Biologically our feet were not made for kicking football- or Rugby-balls but we do it anyway. Sex is the same as football in that you do it for pleasure; I find this analogy particularly apt given the exploits of Manchester United players at parties recently:D.

2. Abortion can be used as a method of correcting mistakes. If having a baby was a mistake, or not what a woman wants after all, then all abortion does is correct the mistake. Does that view shake you to your reactionary core?

I expect you'll give some pointless and angry attempt at refuting the arguments stated in this thread but please save yourself the embarrassment, you'll be wasting time you could be spending reading up on abortion and the accounts of women that have had them; or committing a quick suicide - either one is fine by me.

xxx

Please explain why both (1) and (2) would not also justify infanticide, or straight-up homicide for that matter.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

This has already been refuted to death, but I want to join in the fun:


I'm pro-choice, maybe pro-life after the first 12 weeks. And I don't think that my tax money should go towards performing abortions.
Your tax money? In what sense is it yours, exactly? What kind of property relations do you support?

As an aside, I find it interesting when people talk about the money they pay to the government in exchange for various services - tax money - as if it's still somehow rightfully theirs. Yet they never apply the same standard to other payments. You never hear someone say that the money they paid at the mall is still rightfully theirs, and you never hear them demanding to be given power over what private companies may or may not do with the money they receive from customers.

And by the way, taxes don't exist in a socialist economy anyway.


Having a baby is the biological reason for sex. It's the very reason you have your junk. It's what it's there for. If you forgot that, tough.

[...]

I'm not arguing it's "as god intended."

It is why evolution provided for these things.
Evolution does not "provide" for anything. Evolution doesn't intend anything, evolution just happens. It is not the "purpose" of a rock to fall to the ground under the influence of gravity, and it is not the "purpose" of a biological organism to have offspring. There is no such thing as "purpose" in nature. Purpose can only be created by an intelligent mind.


If you want an abortion, you fucked up.
Perhaps, in the same sense that you "fucked up" if you get yourself into a car accident and need surgery. But in a civilized society we don't deny medical treatment to people just because we think their medical condition was their own fault in some way. You wouldn't want doctors saying "you know, you really could have avoided that other car coming at you, so this is all your fault, and you can put your own spleen back inside you sorry bastard."


I like AK-47s. I've shot several in my life. They're fun. There's nothing as rewarding as hitting that target. But that AK was designed to kill people. It has many different uses, but doing the best job at killing somebody is why years went into it.

[...]

If she did consent to the process by which babies are made, then she should be responsibe for the baby.
So, using your gun comparison, anyone who consents to be around guns should be held responsible for getting shot?


If they've had more sex than I've had I would personally consider them easy, yes.
So it's okay for you to be promiscuous - because you're a man - but it's not okay for a woman to be promiscuous, because she's a woman? Such reasoning - applying different standards of behaviour to men and women for no other reason than their gender - is a textbook example of sexism.


Ahhh, you discovered my jealousy of whores.
So women who need abortions are whores?

For the first time ever, I find myself in need of an insult from Jazzratt's repertoire.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Please explain why both (1) and (2) would not also justify infanticide, or straight-up homicide for that matter.
< insert your favourite philosophical explanation of why murder is usually wrong - there are many to choose from >

[RevMARKSman]

Responsibility. I shouldn't have to explain this since Joby already did, but if you choose to have sex you should be aware of the potential consequences. Should rape victims be aware of the consequences of being raped before that happens? As if they can control it? That's the difference. If you don't like that, I apologize, but there's nothing else to it. Contraceptives don't work 100&#37; of the time. Abortions do, though, so I guess it makes sense that people would go to that for an easy way out.

Blaming the victim.

http://fstdt dot com/fundies/comments.aspx?q=19820

[pusher robot]

< insert your favourite philosophical explanation of why murder is usually wrong - there are many to choose from >

You're just being circular. If murder is wrong, then why isn't the killing of a viable fetus a murder? We know your stock answer already of course - because it's not a person with rights. So here's the REAL question: Why? What is your objective, scientific basis for drawing the line of "personhood" at "ejection from the vagina?"

[Joby]

Abortion an easy way out?! Do you think most women just stroll into an abortion clinic and have a quick abortion before getting on with other things? It may not be much more than removing a parasite, but it is an hard decision to take for many women and there are quite a few ]problems that could arise.

I have a coworker who has had 5 abortions, and is now pregnant.

She may have helped me form my opinion on the issue...

[Joby]

No. You have to understand that tax revenue is supposed to be usable by all of society. If there is surplus, why shouldn't a person get an abortion? I really haven't seen a good argument about it in your whole post.

Yes, it should be used by the whole of society.

But I don't like the idea of me working pallet after pallet so that someone can receive a free abortion. I'm a worker, and quite frankly, I like having my money. I'd be much happier paying taxes if I got some benefit from those taxes.

Outside of a case were a rape-test was administered and showed it was indeed rape, It was Their mistake and should be their responsibility.


As are various psychological devices which direct our very movement. One could argue, as Dawkins did, that our very existance is to propagate our species and genes. Does that mean I should worry about reproduction only? I wasn't consulted before I was given a sex drive.

No, and you should try and avoid reproduction if you aren't ready for it.


Which are very expensive, some people don't know that they're pregnant before 12 weeks, sometimes ALL controls can fail (yes even the pill and similar forms). Really, a myriad of reasons for why an accident is justifiable or otherwise reasonable.

I've never known anybody who died in a car crash while wearing their seatbelt.

I've known over a dozeen people who died in a car crash.

Accidents happen, but pre-caution lowers the chances drastically.


Not at all. A women gets pregnant and once there, decides if whe wants to keep it. A very careful woman can become pregnant. A rape case doesn't change the issues at stake with pregnancy, except in regards to the emotions of the parties involved.

Very few very careful women become pregnant.
Rape gives the women no choice in the process which creates a child. her choosing to have sex obviously does.


The right to use guns is not an inherant biological function worthy of the same retgard as the right to an abortion, but I will agree that both should be freer.

"inherent biological function?"

[Joby]

Your tax money? In what sense is it yours, exactly? What kind of property relations do you support?

Yes, My tax money.

I woke up with a hangover. I drove to my job. I clocked in. I worked for 8 hours. I should get my compensation.

Stop pretending we live in a post-revolutionary world. I wish we did, but we don't.

If we did, there would be no reason to have an abortion other than inconvenience, since 'property relations,' ie money, wouldn't matter.


As an aside, I find it interesting when people talk about the money they pay to the government in exchange for various services - tax money - as if it's still somehow rightfully theirs.

I would rather they not take it. I have bills.


Yet they never apply the same standard to other payments. You never hear someone say that the money they paid at the mall is still rightfully theirs,

When I pay at the mall I expect something in return. Which is why I willingly give my money. If this good or service is not provided, I get a refund.

The GOVT takes my money under threat of incarceration, then show no fiscal responsibility when divvying it up among their friends.


and you never hear them demanding to be given power over what private companies may or may not do with the money they receive from customers.

Because those people gave those companies money willingly.

The Govt takes your money under threat of imprisonment, and claims it is "For the people, by the people, of the people."

What Private company has that on their charter?


And by the way, taxes don't exist in a socialist economy anyway.

Neither would financial reasons to get an abortion.

We're not in a socialist society, and I need money to keep myself off the street.


Evolution does not "provide" for anything. Evolution doesn't intend anything, evolution just happens.

Evolutio doesn't just happen. Over millions of years, the gene pool is whittled down until you are what you are.

Thousands of generations of apes had to fight their way through the cold, dark world, in order for you to have you to be you. They had to adapt to the world around them, which they did quite well. Those who couldn't adapt eventually died, or in a bigger aspect, became extinct.

And how, exactly, was every new generation created?


It is not the "purpose" of a rock to fall to the ground under the influence of gravity, and it is not the "purpose" of a biological organism to have offspring. There is no such thing as "purpose" in nature. Purpose can only be created by an intelligent mind.

Offspring is the biological result for sex.

It can be argued that only intelligent minds have sex for any other reason.


Perhaps, in the same sense that you "fucked up" if you get yourself into a car accident and need surgery. But in a civilized society we don't deny medical treatment to people just because we think their medical condition was their own fault in some way. You wouldn't want doctors saying "you know, you really could have avoided that other car coming at you, so this is all your fault, and you can put your own spleen back inside you sorry bastard."

And in todays world, I would have to pay for it. My insurance rates would skyrocket, I might lose my license to drive.

What if you get into a car accident, and go into a coma?

Your health-insurance should make the decision on when to pull the plug, right? You're not viable, like a fetus, and not footing the bill, like a fetus. If the insurance company doesn't decide your worth anything, they obviously have the right to pull the plug.

But, like a fetus, if allowed to develop there is a good chance you will be viable once again.


So, using your gun comparison, anyone who consents to be around guns should be held responsible for getting shot?

No, just as every woman who is around a lot of penises isn't giving consent, at all, to having sex.

When the woman agrees to get "shot," then she is responsible (but no less esponsible than the man, of course).


So it's okay for you to be promiscuous - because you're a man - but it's not okay for a woman to be promiscuous, because she's a woman? Such reasoning - applying different standards of behaviour to men and women for no other reason than their gender - is a textbook example of sexism.

That's my personal preference.

Come on, are you going to say you find it attractive, on a personal level, when a woman is known as being 'easy?'


So women who need abortions are whores?

Not in all cases, no.


For the first time ever, I find myself in need of an insult from Jazzratt's repertoire.

Come on, everybody else has been able to find some pot-shot.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

You're just being circular. If murder is wrong, then why isn't the killing of a viable fetus a murder? We know your stock answer already of course - because it's not a person with rights. So here's the REAL question: Why? What is your objective, scientific basis for drawing the line of "personhood" at "ejection from the vagina?"
I will happily admit that there is no biological basis (I assume that's what you meant by "objective and scientific") for drawing the line of personhood anywhere - at birth or any other point. You see, the problem is that personhood is a discrete variable; a binary one, actually. You're either a person or you're not. 1 or 0. Biology, unfortunately, doesn't work with discrete variables. The development of a human embryo or fetus is continuous. There are no clear discrete lines, no sudden leaps in intelligence or awareness that allow us to say "this is the point where personhood starts."

So biology won't help any side in the debate, and any appeal to biology is ultimately futile, because any line you draw for personhood will inevitably be arbitrary from a biological standpoint.

[Dean]

Yes, it should be used by the whole of society.

But I don't like the idea of me working pallet after pallet so that someone can receive a free abortion. I'm a worker, and quite frankly, I like having my money. I'd be much happier paying taxes if I got some benefit from those taxes.
Are you a communist or a socialist of any stripe?


Outside of a case were a rape-test was administered and showed it was indeed rape, It was Their mistake and should be their responsibility.
Again, are you a leftist at all? The whole reasoning behind communist value systems is that some people fuck up, some people are disabled, etc., and the rest of society should help out and be socially concerned. If you don't agree, fine, but that is simply a different argument.




No, and you should try and avoid reproduction if you aren't ready for it.
That's why many people get abortions: they realise that they are not ready for the responsibility of a child.


I've never known anybody who died in a car crash while wearing their seatbelt.

I've known over a dozeen people who died in a car crash.

Accidents happen, but pre-caution lowers the chances drastically.
Again, that's really not the point.




Very few very careful women become pregnant.
Not true.


Rape gives the women no choice in the process which creates a child.
As does your proposed prohibition of abortion.


her choosing to have sex obviously does.
As does abortion.


"inherent biological function?"
I meant that pregnancy is an inherant biological function, that is a function the body was specifically designed for. Our eyes, arms and nervous system were not specifically designed for wielding and discharging firearms.

[RevMARKSman]

Is anyone going to answer my blaming-the-victim post or not?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Yes, My tax money.

I woke up with a hangover. I drove to my job. I clocked in. I worked for 8 hours. I should get my compensation.
Yes, of course you should be fairly compensated for your work - that is one of the basic pillars of socialism. I was pointing out, however, that you are not currently being compensated for your work due to the fact that you live in a capitalist system. What you receive as payment is considerably less than the value of the work you put in, and what your boss receives as payment is considerably more than the value of the work he puts in - so it is wrong to assume that one's income represents the amount of wealth one has rightfully earned.

On another note, suppose you were employed by the government. You woke up with a hangover, drove to your job, clocked in and worked for 8 hours. Do you not still deserve compensation for your work? And doesn't this compensation come from tax money?


Stop pretending we live in a post-revolutionary world. I wish we did, but we don't.

If we did, there would be no reason to have an abortion other than inconvenience, since 'property relations,' ie money, wouldn't matter.
Correct. That fact, coupled with the knowledge that contraception would be widely available for free in a socialist society, leads me to believe that abortion rates would drop significantly under socialism. After all, most women would prefer not to get pregnant in the first place rather than be in a situation where they require an abortion.


I would rather they not take it. I have bills.
Taxes are bills - bills for such services as road maintenance, medicare, social security etc.

What you're saying is that you'd rather not have to pay some bills.


When I pay at the mall I expect something in return. Which is why I willingly give my money. If this good or service is not provided, I get a refund.

The GOVT takes my money under threat of incarceration, then show no fiscal responsibility when divvying it up among their friends.
Yes, the present day bourgeois United States government rips you off. No one can contest that. However, the same cannot be said for every kind of government that may possibly exist.

Socialists tend to advocate a highly democratic and transparent form of government that is at the mercy of the people to the greatest possible extent and that can easily be held accountable for fiscal mismanagement.


Because those people gave those companies money willingly.
Define "willingly." One may buy a product not because it is particularly good but because a company has a local monopoly on that product, or because one cannot afford better and more expensive versions of that same product. Moreover, although people usually have a range of choices to pick from, it often happens that they don't really like any of the choices and must pick the lesser evil.

If your definition of "willingly" is so broad that any choice at all is enough to make an action voluntary, then I could easily argue that your payment of taxes is also voluntary, since you have the choice to leave the country if you don't like the taxes.


Evolution doesn't just happen. Over millions of years, the gene pool is whittled down until you are what you are.

Thousands of generations of apes had to fight their way through the cold, dark world, in order for you to have you to be you. They had to adapt to the world around them, which they did quite well. Those who couldn't adapt eventually died, or in a bigger aspect, became extinct.

And how, exactly, was every new generation created?
You are describing facts, not purposes. Re-read the quoted paragraphs for yourself: There is nothing in there to suggest that your birth was somehow the "purpose" of all those millions of years of evolution. That's my point. Evolution has no purpose. There is no purpose in nature; purpose can only exist in your head, because you have the intelligence to come up with the concept of "purpose."


And in todays world, I would have to pay for it. My insurance rates would skyrocket, I might lose my license to drive.
Actually, there are many countries where you'd be covered by a universal health care system in case of such an accident. In the Western world, the bizzare American health system is the exception, not the rule.

But in any case, the question is not whether you would have to pay for the surgery - abortion may require payment too - but whether the government should pass a law banning you from having surgery if the accident was your fault.


That's my personal preference.

Come on, are you going to say you find it attractive, on a personal level, when a woman is known as being 'easy?'
I don't listen to gossip, so what a woman may or may not be "known as" is irrelevant to me. The only important thing is what I learn for myself when I talk to her. Also, I don't care what happened in the past, I only care what could happen in the future. Past sexual history may be an entertaining bit of trivia, but nothing more. And most important of all, sexual issues in general are not that high up on my list of things to look for in a partner (for example, believe it or not, politics ranks higher than attractiveness, in the sense that I'd rather spend time with someone who is less attractive than with an outspoken conservative).


Come on, everybody else has been able to find some pot-shot.
I don't normally insult people - not overtly, anyway - unless I actually hate them. And I think you have a bunch of very sexist views, but I certainly don't hate you.

[Joby]

Are you a communist or a socialist of any stripe?

....

Again, are you a leftist at all? The whole reasoning behind communist value systems is that some people fuck up, some people are disabled, etc., and the rest of society should help out and be socially concerned. If you don't agree, fine, but that is simply a different argument.

Yes, society should help every member of society, equally. However, that is currently not the state of things and while I would, and will, push for change.

Until then, my paycheck is not to be viewed as a charity. I barely have enough money to pay my bills, let alone someone elses abortion.


That's why many people get abortions: they realise that they are not ready for the responsibility of a child.

And, obviously, they lack the responsibility to make that decision before.


Not true.

How careful to do you consider careful?


As does your proposed prohibition of abortion.

When did I do that?

liberals....you suggest that having an abortion is wrong and you become a religous authoritarian....sigh...


As does abortion.

You can choose to kill your wife.
You can't choose the consequences.


I meant that pregnancy is an inherant biological function, that is a function the body was specifically designed for. Our eyes, arms and nervous system were not specifically designed for wielding and discharging firearms.

Ok.

[Joby]

Yes, of course you should be fairly compensated for your work - that is one of the basic pillars of socialism. I was pointing out, however, that you are not currently being compensated for your work due to the fact that you live in a capitalist system. What you receive as payment is considerably less than the value of the work you put in, and what your boss receives as payment is considerably more than the value of the work he puts in - so it is wrong to assume that one's income represents the amount of wealth one has rightfully earned.

I realize this, but we live in the capitalist world. Until that changes, ie money has pretty much been abolished, please just leave me my money.



On another note, suppose you were employed by the government. You woke up with a hangover, drove to your job, clocked in and worked for 8 hours. Do you not still deserve compensation for your work? And doesn't this compensation come from tax money?

If I worked for them, I'd be providing a service.

But, yes, there are many people who I help fund who don't deserve it.


Correct. That fact, coupled with the knowledge that contraception would be widely available for free in a socialist society, leads me to believe that abortion rates would drop significantly under socialism. After all, most women would prefer not to get pregnant in the first place rather than be in a situation where they require an abortion.

This is what the Left should be advocating, not "abortions equal freedom!"


Taxes are bills - bills for such services as road maintenance, medicare, social security etc.

Local taxes cover the roads.

The income taxes go towards paying off ever-expanding war-driven deficit, no-bid pharma contracts for seniors, and a system of which I will see no benefit.

Gee, thanks government.


What you're saying is that you'd rather not have to pay some bills.

I wish, but I like having a roof, refrigerator, the lights working...


Yes, the present day bourgeois United States government rips you off. No one can contest that. However, the same cannot be said for every kind of government that may possibly exist.

Socialists tend to advocate a highly democratic and transparent form of government that is at the mercy of the people to the greatest possible extent and that can easily be held accountable for fiscal mismanagement.

I know, I'm a socialist.


Define "willingly." One may buy a product not because it is particularly good but because a company has a local monopoly on that product, or because one cannot afford better and more expensive versions of that same product. Moreover, although people usually have a range of choices to pick from, it often happens that they don't really like any of the choices and must pick the lesser evil.

True, though it can be argued that they have many more choices than the government alone could provide. Though the cost may be unaffordable to some, it's the value we, as a people, put on these items themselves that creates this problem.


If your definition of "willingly" is so broad that any choice at all is enough to make an action voluntary, then I could easily argue that your payment of taxes is also voluntary, since you have the choice to leave the country if you don't like the taxes.

I do have that choice, though I would rather not. Which is why I vote, I suppose.


You are describing facts, not purposes. Re-read the quoted paragraphs for yourself: There is nothing in there to suggest that your birth was somehow the "purpose" of all those millions of years of evolution. That's my point. Evolution has no purpose. There is no purpose in nature; purpose can only exist in your head, because you have the intelligence to come up with the concept of "purpose."

All right, I see your point.

Though we could get into a philosophical debate on determinism, I'll just restate my point that sex is how you were created, and all of your ancestors for the last couple hundred millions of years.

It's what sex does.


Actually, there are many countries where you'd be covered by a universal health care system in case of such an accident. In the Western world, the bizzare American health system is the exception, not the rule.

Sorry, I meant America.

It's an entirely different debate with universal, single-payer healthcare.


But in any case, the question is not whether you would have to pay for the surgery - abortion may require payment too - but whether the government should pass a law banning you from having surgery if the accident was your fault.

I've never said that the govt should make that choice.


I don't listen to gossip, so what a woman may or may not be "known as" is irrelevant to me. The only important thing is what I learn for myself when I talk to her. Also, I don't care what happened in the past, I only care what could happen in the future. Past sexual history may be an entertaining bit of trivia, but nothing more. And most important of all, sexual issues in general are not that high up on my list of things to look for in a partner

Think High-school.

That hot cheerleader who slept with half the baseball/football/basketball team.

I'll be her friend, but that's were it ends.


(for example, believe it or not, politics ranks higher than attractiveness, in the sense that I'd rather spend time with someone who is less attractive than with an outspoken conservative).

I grew up in Dallas...I didn't exactly have a good crop on the political front...


I don't normally insult people - not overtly, anyway - unless I actually hate them. And I think you have a bunch of very sexist views, but I certainly don't hate you.

Thank you.

[pusher robot]

I will happily admit that there is no biological basis (I assume that's what you meant by "objective and scientific") for drawing the line of personhood anywhere - at birth or any other point. You see, the problem is that personhood is a discrete variable; a binary one, actually. You're either a person or you're not. 1 or 0. Biology, unfortunately, doesn't work with discrete variables. The development of a human embryo or fetus is continuous. There are no clear discrete lines, no sudden leaps in intelligence or awareness that allow us to say "this is the point where personhood starts."

So biology won't help any side in the debate, and any appeal to biology is ultimately futile, because any line you draw for personhood will inevitably be arbitrary from a biological standpoint.

Thank you. That is the precise argument I would make as well. But, if it is as you seem to accept, entirely arbitrary when a human is deemed to become a "person," how can opposition to late-term abortion be anti-leftist thinking so severe as to necessistate restriction? Aren't you thereby admitting that leftist principles are completely arbitrary and fundamentally illogical?

If this distinction is arbitrary, then the the recrimination and condemnation of those with views opposite to the "received wisdom" of the CC is in fact religious. What is being condemned is blasphemy, because there is no scientific, objective, or logical justification for preferring one dividing point over another.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Thank you. That is the precise argument I would make as well. But, if it is as you seem to accept, entirely arbitrary when a human is deemed to become a "person," how can opposition to late-term abortion be anti-leftist thinking so severe as to necessistate restriction?
It is not. I have always argued that it is in fact possible to be an anti-choice socialist; it seems rather common sense that the issue of abortion is entirely separate from the issue of property over the means of production, but apparently many people on this website are of the opinion that workers cannot own factories unless abortion rights are guaranteed. I find that extremely bizzare.

I happen to support both abortion rights and socialism, but I make no pretense that the two are somehow related. They are not. Restrictions on abortion rights are wrong, but there is a difference between something being wrong and something being incompatible with socialism. It saddens me when people do not see that distinction.

I believe that socialism includes a broad spectrum of opinions - at least as broad as the spectrum of bourgeois ideologies. I reject the idea that there is always one single true socialist™ answer for every question. For some questions there is, and for others there isn't. Socialism requires full public ownership over all the means of production and equality between all human beings regardless of gender, nationality, race, religion, sexuality etc. Socialism does not, however, require anything beyond that.


Aren't you thereby admitting that leftist principles are completely arbitrary and fundamentally illogical?
We were talking about personhood. Are you suggesting that the whole concept of personhood is a "leftist principle," and, moreover, that it is "arbitrary and illogical?"

I said the definition of personhood is arbitrary from a biological point of view, which it is. There is nothing in human biology to suggest a certain moment of development as the threshold of personhood.

However, there are non-biological reasons why we should assign personhood at a particular moment of development - specifically, birth. First, and most obvious, there is the fact that a pre-birth fetus depends entirely on sustenance acquired from the mother without her consent. It would be ridiculous to argue that person A has the right to drain nutrients from the bloodstream of person B without person B's consent (all other things being equal). Therefore, even if we defined a fetus as a person, the mother should still have the right to an abortion, making the personhood of the fetus rather meaningless.

Secondly, there is the argument that personhood - that is to say, membership in human society - should only be granted to those who are able to participate in society, or be affected by society, or at least have some kind of sensory experience of society. A fetus has none of those. A fetus has absolutely no relationship with any human being other than the mother, and even its relationship with the mother involves no transfer of information of any kind.

A third line of argument is to look at the social consequences of anti-abortion legislation, and conclude that they are highly undesirable and do little to reduce the incidence of abortion anyway.

In brief, there are many good arguments as to why personhood should be granted at birth, though none of them are biological.


If this distinction is arbitrary, then the the recrimination and condemnation of those with views opposite to the "received wisdom" of the CC is in fact religious. What is being condemned is blasphemy, because there is no scientific, objective, or logical justification for preferring one dividing point over another.
Yes and no. First of all, there is no biological justification for preferring birth as the moment of acquiring personhood, but there are social and philosophical justifications, as I said above. Second, your use of religious language is unnecessary. The policy of restricting anti-choice members is not somehow "religious," it is merely sectarian - one group of socialists insisting that you must agree with them about all things, rather than just basic socialist principles, in order to be considered a socialist. And third, it is an gross exaggeration to say that everyone in the CC - or even a majority - is guilty of this. From what I've seen, most people in the CC are not sectarian, but there are a few vocal sectarian members and they can dictate policy because no one else wants to make the effort to oppose them. The line of thinking goes like this: "well, I'm personally pro-choice, so if this vocal person over here insists so much on restricting anti-choice members, I guess I'll go along with it."

The original intent of the restriction policy was to prevent troublesome capitalist trolls from disturbing discussions between socialists. Unfortunately it has grown far beyond that - not only are people being restricted for holding capitalist views even if they do not disturb discussions between socialists, but now even some socialists are being restricted for holding views contrary to the dominant opinion on issues that are not inherently related to socialism.

[pusher robot]

It is not. I have always argued that it is in fact possible to be an anti-choice socialist; it seems rather common sense that the issue of abortion is entirely separate from the issue of property over the means of production, but apparently many people on this website are of the opinion that workers cannot own factories unless abortion rights are guaranteed. I find that extremely bizzare.

I happen to support both abortion rights and socialism, but I make no pretense that the two are somehow related. They are not. Restrictions on abortion rights are wrong, but there is a difference between something being wrong and something being incompatible with socialism. It saddens me when people do not see that distinction.

I believe that socialism includes a broad spectrum of opinions - at least as broad as the spectrum of bourgeois ideologies. I reject the idea that there is always one single true socialist™ answer for every question. For some questions there is, and for others there isn't. Socialism requires full public ownership over all the means of production and equality between all human beings regardless of gender, nationality, race, religion, sexuality etc. Socialism does not, however, require anything beyond that.


We were talking about personhood. Are you suggesting that the whole concept of personhood is a "leftist principle," and, moreover, that it is "arbitrary and illogical?"

I said the definition of personhood is arbitrary from a biological point of view, which it is. There is nothing in human biology to suggest a certain moment of development as the threshold of personhood.

However, there are non-biological reasons why we should assign personhood at a particular moment of development - specifically, birth. First, and most obvious, there is the fact that a pre-birth fetus depends entirely on sustenance acquired from the mother without her consent. It would be ridiculous to argue that person A has the right to drain nutrients from the bloodstream of person B without person B's consent (all other things being equal). Therefore, even if we defined a fetus as a person, the mother should still have the right to an abortion, making the personhood of the fetus rather meaningless.

Secondly, there is the argument that personhood - that is to say, membership in human society - should only be granted to those who are able to participate in society, or be affected by society, or at least have some kind of sensory experience of society. A fetus has none of those. A fetus has absolutely no relationship with any human being other than the mother, and even its relationship with the mother involves no transfer of information of any kind.

A third line of argument is to look at the social consequences of anti-abortion legislation, and conclude that they are highly undesirable and do little to reduce the incidence of abortion anyway.

In brief, there are many good arguments as to why personhood should be granted at birth, though none of them are biological.


Yes and no. First of all, there is no biological justification for preferring birth as the moment of acquiring personhood, but there are social and philosophical justifications, as I said above. Second, your use of religious language is unnecessary. The policy of restricting anti-choice members is not somehow "religious," it is merely sectarian - one group of socialists insisting that you must agree with them about all things, rather than just basic socialist principles, in order to be considered a socialist. And third, it is an gross exaggeration to say that everyone in the CC - or even a majority - is guilty of this. From what I've seen, most people in the CC are not sectarian, but there are a few vocal sectarian members and they can dictate policy because no one else wants to make the effort to oppose them. The line of thinking goes like this: "well, I'm personally pro-choice, so if this vocal person over here insists so much on restricting anti-choice members, I guess I'll go along with it."

The original intent of the restriction policy was to prevent troublesome capitalist trolls from disturbing discussions between socialists. Unfortunately it has grown far beyond that - not only are people being restricted for holding capitalist views even if they do not disturb discussions between socialists, but now even some socialists are being restricted for holding views contrary to the dominant opinion on issues that are not inherently related to socialism.

Thank you, that was a very well-reasoned post. I would probably argue with some of your points, but frankly that's not as interesting to me. My main goal was to point out that the extremism on this issue is nonsensical on this board, that it's beyond ideological. Apparently you understand that as well, so there's no real dispute.

Not that it's really any of my business, but I think that if what you say is true, then there is a leadership problem on this board. It would probably be best to do something about it.

[Mujer Libre]

liberals....you suggest that having an abortion is wrong and you become a religous authoritarian....sigh...

Religious, well that depends on whether your decision is based on religious beliefs. It definitely does make you authoritarian because, as people have said over and over again, you want to force your sexism ("women who have abortions are sluts") onto women's bodies through direct control.

Is that so difficult to understand?

Also, we're not 'liberals' in the sense you mean... But considering your stance on women I don't think you're advanced much further than troglodyte, so there's no point explaining it.

[Module]

But you are the product of those monkeys. And I'm not saying that the reason you have sex is necessarily about child birth, but that is why those earlier lifeforms adapted to have their 'junk.'
Monkey's may have sex for the purpose of having children, but we are not monkeys, so what they do is irrelevant to us. The fact of the matter is that human beings don't simply have sex to have children.
Another biological function of sex that has arisen over the process of evolution is, surprise, surprise, pleasure. The clitoris, for instance, has no other function besides pleasure. So having sex simply for pleasure is entirely natural.
One could even say, because of this, that having sex simply for children and not for pleasure, as occurs in many religious groups, is just as 'unnatural' as the other way around.
To say that the function of sex is only to create children is simply wrong.


Because a few month later it's heart will be beating, and it will go from being an agglomation of cells to an organism.
An acorn becomes a tree over time, but you wouldn't equate picking acorns with deforestation.
It's not what something will (or far more accurately, can) become, but what something is.


Outside of rape, she chose to allow these sperm to enter. If she did not want to choose to become impregnated, she could choose not to have sex.
Or she can choose to use contraception.
But according to you, even if it was to fail, when it was not a consentual pregnancy, the fetus shouldn't be "punished" because of it.
It seems that your issue seems to be with a woman having sex at her own accord, period, rather than whether or not the pregnancy itself was consentual.
And this would be parallel with you 'preferring' girls who didn't have a lot of sex, whilst still feeling free to sleep with a lot of girls yourself. You have some deeply sexist views.


So what's the difference between a fetus organism and a virus?

The fetus is our own species, and as I've already stated, I disagree with killing the unborn young.
The fetus is not a human beings, it is a cluster of cells. You simply cannot rationally say that a human being exists as soon as the ovum and sperm are joined. That is not what a human being is.


First, I would be down for eating some human if it was prepared right, they deserved to die, and it was virgin meat.
Virgin meat? (And I doubt it)


Person A shoots a man on the street in a mugging gone wrong.
Person B shoots an 8 month old pregnant woman in a burglary gone wrong.

Are you saying that they should have the same punishment?
Yes.


Treating an STD and having an unborn child removed and killed are slightly different issues in my opinion.

Being pregnant shouldn't be a "disease" to be cured.
That depends on whether or not it's wanted. If it isn't, then you could very well call it something to be cured with abortion.


Wow, technology progressed. But we still eat, sleep, fuck, and on and on.
Yep, and now abortions are available human beings can fuck far more freely.

I'll reply more later.

[Joby]

Religious, well that depends on whether your decision is based on religious beliefs. It definitely does make you authoritarian because, as people have said over and over again, you want to force your sexism ("women who have abortions are sluts") onto women's bodies through direct control.

I've never said that women who have abortions are sluts, necessarily, nor have I ever said that the state should restrict a woman's right to an abortion.

....liberals....you suggest abortion is wrong and you become a religous authoritarian...sigh....


Also, we're not 'liberals' in the sense you mean... But considering your stance on women I don't think you're advanced much further than troglodyte, so there's no point explaining it.

Seeing you're not willing to debate what I actually wrote, no, there isn't.

[Joby]

Monkey's may have sex for the purpose of having children, but we are not monkeys, so what they do is irrelevant to us.The fact of the matter is that human beings don't simply have sex to have children.

If we're not monkeys, what are we then? We're certainly primates.

And yes, I, for one, have never had sex to have children.


Another biological function of sex that has arisen over the process of evolution is, surprise, surprise, pleasure. The clitoris, for instance, has no other function besides pleasure. So having sex simply for pleasure is entirely natural.

I'm not debating that many people have sex for pleasure.
I am saying that, often, sex results in offspring...like it has for hundreds of millions of years.


One could even say, because of this, that having sex simply for children and not for pleasure, as occurs in many religious groups, is just as 'unnatural' as the other way around.

Ok.


To say that the function of sex is only to create children is simply wrong.

It isn't the only reason. I never said it was.


An acorn becomes a tree over time, but you wouldn't equate picking acorns with deforestation.

Ok.

We may or may not be monkeys, but we're certainly not trees.


It's not what something will (or far more accurately, can) become, but what something is.

A fetus already is, the seed had already been planted, the tree has sprouted, the flowers are blooming, and on and on


Or she can choose to use contraception.
But according to you, even if it was to fail, when it was not a consentual pregnancy, the fetus shouldn't be "punished" because of it.
It seems that your issue seems to be with a woman having sex at her own accord, period, rather than whether or not the pregnancy itself was consentual.

No, my issue is with the woman who kills her unborn young, period, and the society which pushed her to do this.


And this would be parallel with you 'preferring' girls who didn't have a lot of sex, whilst still feeling free to sleep with a lot of girls yourself. You have some deeply sexist views.

blah blah blah


The fetus is not a human beings, it is a cluster of cells.

And you're saying that you're more than a big "cluster of cells?"


You simply cannot rationally say that a human being exists as soon as the ovum and sperm are joined. That is not what a human being is.

According to websters?

And no, I don't think that's when the human being is created, to answer your question.


Virgin meat?

Not in the same sense.

Non-smoker, non-drinker, etc


Yes.

You're kidding, right?

Killing a pregnant woman


That depends on whether or not it's wanted. If it isn't, then you could very well call it something to be cured with abortion.

So if a group in society is unwanted, who's to say we can't 'cure' ourselves of them


Yep, and now abortions are available human beings can fuck far more freely.

Hassled by those unwanted pregnancies?
Trying to get back to you're normal scheldule of fuckin'?

Well come on down!

Fun Time Abortion Clinic, We bring the kid out in ya!

[Joby]

Not that it's really any of my business, but I think that if what you say is true, then there is a leadership problem on this board. It would probably be best to do something about it.

Viva la revolucion!

[Module]

If we're not monkeys, what are we then? We're certainly primates.
We're human beings. Obviously.



I'm not debating that many people have sex for pleasure.
I am saying that, often, sex results in offspring...like it has for hundreds of millions of years.But you are saying that the function of having children is the one that should be primarily respected and considered when deciding to have sex.


It isn't the only reason. I never said it was.I quote..
"1. Having a baby is the biological reason for sex. It's the very reason you have your junk. It's what it's there for. If you forgot that, tough."
"Having kids is the reason for the anatomy itself."
So yes, you pretty much did say that.


Ok.

We may or may not be monkeys, but we're certainly not trees.Please don't ignore the argument.




A fetus already is, the seed had already been planted, the tree has sprouted, the flowers are blooming, and on and onA fetus is in the same way an acorn is.
An acorn is not a tree and should not be treated like one. An acorn doesn't have leaves, or branches, or anything that makes a tree a tree.
Similarly, a fetus does not have thoughts, feelings, aspirations, opinions, loved ones, anything that makes a person a person.



No, my issue is with the woman who kills her unborn young, period, and the society which pushed her to do this.Sorry, please explain in what way society pushes women to have abortions.


blah blah blah Are you not going to defend yourself?


And you're saying that you're more than a big "cluster of cells?"Well, technically speaking, no. Nothing is. However, I am an intelligent, independent lifeform, with all of the above mentioned that 'makes a person a person'. I deserve more respect because of this fact than other 'cluster of cells'.


According to websters?

And no, I don't think that's when the human being is created, to answer your question.Websters?
Well, let's look at some dictionary definitions...
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/human
And once you read that you'll have to read this...
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/person
And I think you'll agree that none of those definitions could possibly encompass 'fetuses'.



You're kidding, right?

Killing a pregnant womanNo, I'm not kidding. Somebody being pregnant doesn't make their murder any more terrible.


So if a group in society is unwanted, who's to say we can't 'cure' ourselves of themThat's truly a ridiculous comparison.
Groups of human beings in society, as I have said, are worth something, equal to other human beings. Their opinion, which is, I'm sure, not that they are 'unwanted' and their existence genuinely means something. They are equally a part of society as others.


Hassled by those unwanted pregnancies?
Trying to get back to you're normal scheldule of fuckin'?

Well come on down!

Fun Time Abortion Clinic, We bring the kid out in ya!Nice one. You truly are a comedian.

[Demogorgon]

If this distinction is arbitrary, then the the recrimination and condemnation of those with views opposite to the "received wisdom" of the CC is in fact religious. What is being condemned is blasphemy, because there is no scientific, objective, or logical justification for preferring one dividing point over another.
The CC has determined a policy of regarding pro-life positions as being against women's freedom and hence not compatible with leftist thought. That much is probably fair enough but of course the CC (of which I am of course part) does go to far in its attempts to enforce the policy sometimes, and I have repeatedly argued for far less restrictions across the board, but it is not fair to say we are putting out an almost religious line. The cc can be incredibly self important but it isn't yet that bad.

[Joby]

ooops, made two posts. it logged me out, and i thought it hadn;t gonw thru

sorry

[Joby]

We're human beings. Obviously.

And you're saying that we're special?


But you are saying that the function of having children is the one that should be primarily respected and considered when deciding to have sex.

Yes, you should have respect for the organs involved.


I quote..
"1. Having a baby is the biological reason for sex. It's the very reason you have your junk. It's what it's there for. If you forgot that, tough."
"Having kids is the reason for the anatomy itself."
So yes, you pretty much did say that.

It is the biological reason for your junk.
It is not the only reason people have sex.


Please don't ignore the argument.

The comparing a fetus with an acorn analogy?

Ok, but only if I get to be a redwood, possibly a Douglas Fir.


A fetus is in the same way an acorn is.
An acorn is not a tree and should not be treated like one. An acorn doesn't have leaves, or branches, or anything that makes a tree a tree.

A beating heart, and obvious resemblence to our species, hair, arms, legs


Similarly, a fetus does not have thoughts, feelings, aspirations, opinions, loved ones, anything that makes a person a person.

Then how does a newborn baby now who it's mother is, and stops crying when she holds him or her? Did the newborn develop this emotional attachment on the 30 second it was outside the womb alone?

The very fact that the fetus leaves the womb crying shows that it may, indeed, have emotions, though not as developed as you or I. And a fetus will kick when it's hungry, which means that it is, indeed, thinking, and, quite possibly, angry. And it has an opinion...I'm hungry.


Sorry, please explain in what way society pushes women to have abortions.

The same way it pushes children to work in factories.

Society could very well support women financially, and allow them to have a real alternative, but, instead, it would rather allow them to have an abortion.


Are you not going to defend yourself?

On my preference of what women I find attractive?


Well, technically speaking, no. Nothing is. However, I am an intelligent, independent lifeform, with all of the above mentioned that 'makes a person a person'. I deserve more respect because of this fact than other 'cluster of cells'.

So we can pick and choose what 'clusters of cells,' deserve a right to live?


Websters?
Well, let's look at some dictionary definitions...
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/human
And once you read that you'll have to read this...
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/person
And I think you'll agree that none of those definitions could possibly encompass 'fetuses'.

I was being sarcastic, and no, neither of them do.


No, I'm not kidding. Somebody being pregnant doesn't make their murder any more terrible.

Ok.


That's truly a ridiculous comparison.
Groups of human beings in society, as I have said, are worth something, equal to other human beings. Their opinion, which is, I'm sure, not that they are 'unwanted' and their existence genuinely means something. They are equally a part of society as others.

Once again, who gave you, or the state, the right to define what's "worthy" in society of having rights?

Was their anything morally wrong, then, about the Nazis forcing women to have abortions in order to control populations? Since the fetus, as you say, is not a person with any rights, havig women get abortions would be about as equivalent as removing soome brush to build a new road...or even less digusting.


Nice one. You truly are a comedian.

Thank you.

[TC]

Yes, you should have respect for these organs.


LOL how ridiculous, like Tom Cruise's character in Magnolia: "Respect the cock!"



Yes, it is the biological reason you have your junk.
No, it's not the only reason people, such as myself, have sex.

I'm sure this has already been pointed out to you but you're too stupid for it to stick: there is no 'biological reason' for anything because biology, nature and evolution are unreasoned unstructured phenomenon with a high degree of randomness. Stop trying to appeal to a secularized 'god' in the form of 'biological reason.' Biology doesn't have a reason or purpose, it just has an existance, purpose is only imposed by people making value judgements, such as judging reproduction to be more primary than recreation or vice versa.



First, this analogy is ridiculous.

A fetus can kick because it's hungry, when it leaves thewomb, it's crying. Who's to say it hadn't been crying before, thereby showing emotion?

1. Having a nervous system and crying (in reality, screaming) is no evidence for emotion.

2. Kicking is no evidence for being awake; most animals move and kick in their sleep. A fetus in a womb is totally devoid of stimulus to produce any kindof emotional response, theres no reason to think they're even 'awake' or if they were 'awake' that they could recognize it meaningfully.

3. Exposure to air through the lungs produces real psysiological changes in infants. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002395.htm there is really no reason to think that fetus's are neurologically equivolent to neo-nates because fetuses nervus systems are inactive in measureable ways.




Uhhh, I hate to have to explain this on a socialist site..but OK.

Many women have abortions because, financially, they have no choice. Because society would rather allow these women to have abortions than give them the financial well-being to seriously consider an alternative, they are pushed to do so.

I hate to have to explain this on a socialist site, but Abortions aren't financially motivated; the decision on the part of someone who wants children to have children later rather than sooner and thereby abort earlier ones might be financially motivated, but there is no financial advantage to having an abortion rather than having a baby and giving it up for adoption (given that adoption agencies will cover medical costs incurred).

Financially, everyone who doesn't want a child (either ever, or at the time) in the first world has a choice between abortion and adoption, and abortion is the right choice given that pregnancy and childbirth is disgusting, disfiguring, humiliating, and excruciatingly painful.

Society never pushes women to have abortions, the reverse is true. Even though 25-40% of women in most industrial countries will have at least one abortion in their lifetime, the subject is taboo and immensely stigmatized and there is considerable pressure to have unwanted children (to produce the next generation of wage slaves and consumers for capital). You'll never for instance see abortion in a 'feel good' movie or any mainstream film, and in comedies involving accidential and socially undesireable pregnancy (knocked up, Juno, The Waitress, the Sex in the City story arc involving Meranda's pregnancy etc) the characters totally urnealistically choose to give birth and abortion isn't presented as a real consideration, despite being in their obvious best interests. In the rare bits of media that deal with abortion in a fictional setting, abortion is universially depicted as emotionally traumatic (six feet under, 4 months 3 weeks 2 days, etc).

The media, health, educational, and above all religious establishment do everything they can to depict abortion as a 'difficult choice' that 'no one enters into lightly' in an effort to guilt and manipulate people into sacrificing themselves for population growth. Abortion is one of the few subject matters (along with like, the holocaust, 9/11 up until about 2005, and very few if any other subjects) that its truely socially unacceptable to joke about.



Does someone in a coma have any rights?

Not if they need to use someone elses body to recover, than no.


And thereby there was nothing wrong with the Nazis forcing women to have abortions in order to control the populations of certain groups?

I realize that this women-are-people-too concept is difficult for your male chauvinist brain to wrap its tiny self around, but forcing women to have abortions against their will just like forcing women to give birth against their will is wrong because it violates the woman's bodily autonomy and integrity treating them as a mere object rather than a person. The status of the fetus is irrelevant, whats relevant is what the woman in question consents to.


Why...because you say so. What gives you, or th state, the right to say that the fetus isn't a member of society?

They're objectively not, they don't communicate, interact, express themselves or produce anything in society.

Equally an argument could be made that infants aren't members of society in any meaningful way (nor are they 'persons', they lack language and self awareness or self identity as they lack long term memory); but infants don't pose any conflicts to other people's bodily autonomy/integrity so the justification for being able to destroy (ones own) fetuses does not apply to infants.

[Joby]

I'm sure this has already been pointed out to you but you're too stupid for it to stick: there is no 'biological reason' for anything because biology, nature and evolution are unreasoned unstructured phenomenon with a high degree of randomness. Stop trying to appeal to a secularized 'god' in the form of 'biological reason.' Biology doesn't have a reason or purpose, it just has an existance, purpose is only imposed by people making value judgements, such as judging reproduction to be more primary than recreation or vice versa.

What the fuck are you talking about?
Creating offspring has been the reason every organism on this planet which fucks has fucked for hundreds of millions of years. Only recently has it been looked at differently.

Evolution does not just randomly happen. Now that we can look back on time, we see that species which were able to adapt to their environment ultimately survived. Randomness such as the changing of these environments led to the extinction of many species, but, thankfully, we've been able to keep on fuckin.


1. Having a nervous system and crying (in reality, screaming) is no evidence for emotion.

What is evidence for emotion, then?


3. Exposure to air through the lungs produces real psysiological changes in infants. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002395.htm there is really no reason to think that fetus's are neurologically equivolent to neo-nates because fetuses nervus systems are inactive in measureable ways.

So what of a fetus which could have been viable on its own, but was never given the opportunity to breathe air?


I hate to have to explain this on a socialist site, but Abortions aren't financially motivated;

Bullshit


the decision on the part of someone who wants children to have children later rather than sooner and thereby abort earlier ones might be financially motivated, but there is no financial advantage to having an abortion rather than having a baby and giving it up for adoption (given that adoption agencies will cover medical costs incurred).

-You'll be expelled from your school if you're pregnant
-You're job gives no time off, let alone benefits, for being pregnant

Not everyone lives in the cozy world you might.


Financially, everyone who doesn't want a child (either ever, or at the time) in the first world has a choice between abortion and adoption, and abortion is the right choice given that pregnancy and childbirth is disgusting, disfiguring, humiliating, and excruciatingly painful.

1. Do you consider a pregnant woman disgusting, or hilarious?

Maybe that's a British thing.

2. Yes, there's a lot of work required with pregnancy.


Society never pushes women to have abortions, the reverse is true.

Bullshit

-You'll be expelled from school if you're pregnant
-Your job won't give you time off, let alone benefits, for being pregnant
-Your family will disown you due to the social taboo of non-marital pregnancy

Not everyone lives in the cozy world you might.


Even though 25-40&#37; of women in most industrial countries will have at least one abortion in their lifetime, the subject is taboo and immensely stigmatized and there is considerable pressure to have unwanted children (to produce the next generation of wage slaves and consumers for capital).

1. You're just another wage slave and consumer for capital
2. Society would much rather allow women to have abortions than take the chance that women will want societys help with their children.


You'll never for instance see abortion in a 'feel good' movie or any mainstream film, and in comedies involving accidential and socially undesireable pregnancy (knocked up, Juno, The Waitress, the Sex in the City story arc involving Meranda's pregnancy etc) the characters totally urnealistically choose to give birth and abortion isn't presented as a real consideration, despite being in their obvious best interests.

Something about killing the unborn young turns people off.


In the rare bits of media that deal with abortion in a fictional setting, abortion is universially depicted as emotionally traumatic (six feet under, 4 months 3 weeks 2 days, etc).

Yes, I agree this is not the case.

A coworker of mine just got her 6th done....and she couldn't be happier.


The media, health, educational, and above all religious establishment do everything they can to depict abortion as a 'difficult choice' that 'no one enters into lightly' in an effort to guilt and manipulate people into sacrificing themselves for population growth. Abortion is one of the few subject matters (along with like, the holocaust, 9/11 up until about 2005, and very few if any other subjects) that its truely socially unacceptable to joke about.

Yes, it's a politically polarizing issue.

Abortion is still available, and because society refuses to support women who may wish to seek another option, all the solemn talk is just that.

For all the guilt trip, many women have no choice in the matter.


Not if they need to use someone elses body to recover, than no.

And if that other person put them into a coma?


I realize that this women-are-people-too concept is difficult for your male chauvinist brain to wrap its tiny self around, but forcing women to have abortions against their will just like forcing women to give birth against their will is wrong because it violates the woman's bodily autonomy and integrity treating them as a mere object rather than a person. The status of the fetus is irrelevant, whats relevant is what the woman in question consents to.

If the fetus is not living, then there would be nothing more morally reprehensible about forcing a woman to have an abortion than forcing her to get her flu shots. Neither would take into account her private opinion, of course, but both would be done for the good of society as a whole.


They're objectively not, they don't communicate, interact, express themselves or produce anything in society.

And are these the new guidelines to what memebers of society may be eliminated?


Equally an argument could be made that infants aren't members of society in any meaningful way (nor are they 'persons', they lack language and self awareness or self identity as they lack long term memory); but infants don't pose any conflicts to other people's bodily autonomy/integrity so the justification for being able to destroy (ones own) fetuses does not apply to infants.

And the same argument could be made for the elderly with alzheimers, and since my tax money is used to support them, perhaps we should eliminate them.

[Mujer Libre]

Evolution does not just randomly happen. Now that we can look back on time, we see that species which were able to adapt to their environment ultimately survived. Randomness such as the changing of these environments led to the extinction of many species, but, thankfully, we've been able to keep on fuckin.
You're confusing the driving force behind evolution (natural selection) with a 'purpose.' Natural selection is just a force- there is no unassailable purpose. Humans do all sorts of things that defy natural selection, like keeping people with chronic illness alive. According to your logic we shouldn't because it contradicts the 'purpose' of evolution.

[Dean]

Was their anything morally wrong, then, about the Nazis forcing women to have abortions in order to control populations?
Being pro choice menas that someone should have the right to and from abortion insofar as government and economic regulations are concerned.


Since the fetus, as you say, is not a person with any rights, havig women get abortions would be about as equivalent as removing soome brush to build a new road...or even less digusting.
Of course, the woman's rights don't factor in at all in your scenario. How inconceivable that one might support a woman's right to and from abortion! What next? Women's suffarage means that you have the choice of different candidates?! Well, I never!

[TC]

Joby, what you're saying has absolutely no relationship to what goes on in the real world.



What the fuck are you talking about?
Creating offspring has been the reason every organism on this planet which fucks has fucked for hundreds of millions of years. Only recently has it been looked at differently.

No, only recently has it been looked at at all because non-human organisms lack the linguistic skills required to characterize their behavior's intentionality and purpose.

When two dogs have sex they're not having sex because they want to make puppies, they're having sex because it feels good; reproduction is a side effect from the point of view of the dogs. They don't understand that if they have sex they'll get pregnant and have puppies: the connection between the deliberate act on the one hand, and a largely unobserved biological process that they have no control over and only become aware of some months later by which point they would have no idea what if anything to attribute it to. Finding sex pleasurable is an adaptive advantage in terms of increasing offspring in species too stupid to make this connection because it motivates organisms to have sex which as a consequence leads to offspring...but the 'reasoning' is never creating offspring.

So on the contrary, its reasonable to suspect that humans are the only species that ever have sex for reproductive purposes, all other species only have sex for physical pleasure.


Evolution does not just randomly happen. Now that we can look back on time, we see that species which were able to adapt to their environment ultimately survived. Randomness such as the changing of these environments led to the extinction of many species, but, thankfully, we've been able to keep on fuckin.

its random in the sense that mutations altering the gene pool are random and there is a high degree of internal randomness in cellular reproduction, and particular organism and specise survival and reproduction are highly random, not that gene selection within a species is random. It is however, unguided and unpurposeful and totally unreasoned.


What is evidence for emotion, then?

Speech that articulates emotion and facial expressions in children and adults able to communicate linguistically so as to understand the social meaning of those non-linguistic forms of communication.

An infant screaming at birth doesn't suggest any emotion, its an instinctual response to fill its lungs with air and get rid of amniotic fluid. Its not crying, its gasping.


So what of a fetus which could have been viable on its own, but was never given the opportunity to breathe air?


Every egg and sperm cell has the potential to be a person given the right conditions, if its 'given the opportunity' so to speak, so whats your point?


-You'll be expelled from your school if you're pregnant
-You're job gives no time off, let alone benefits, for being pregnant
[/QUOTE]
WRONG on both counts!


You're incredibly stupid and clearly dont' know what you're talking about at all.

You can't be expelled from school for being pregnant, at least not in the United States or Europe. Its been illegal since 1972 for schools to expell students or restrict their activity for being pregnant; there was actually a texas court case that ruled against a school for trying to take a student off the cheerleading squad for being pregnant, pregnant students are that absurdly legally protected to a level above the protection given to students suffering from any other physical imparement.

Pregnancy and childbirth are the only lifestyle choices that employers are required by law to reward with time off work, everywhere. Apart from the United States and Australia (which require time off with benefits), virtually every other country including every european country legally require paid maternity leave, often for many months, often at 100% payment and although not legally required most American firms provide paid maternity leave anyways. The law wont give you a free bonus and free time off for anything else; its that obvious how badly they want women to keep pumping out kiddies.



Not everyone lives in the cozy world you might.


No actually everyone lives in a world where its illegal to expell students from state funded schools for being pregnant and its legally mandated to give new mothers time off from work, thats the real world. The real world is structured towards pressuring women to have children, you don't get free time off work with benefits and free money for having an abortion! In many places that abortion is legal you can't even get it covered by health insurence and have to pay out of pocket! Which 'choice' is really rewarded by the bourgeois here?


1. Do you consider a pregnant woman disgusting, or hilarious?

No I think the physical and social experience of being (visibly) pregnant would be disgusting.


2. Yes, there's a lot of work required with pregnancy.


And theres a word for physically forcing someone to do a particular type of work or denying them the right to quit a job: slavery.



-You'll be expelled from school if you're pregnant
-Your job won't give you time off, let alone benefits, for being pregnant
-Your family will disown you due to the social taboo of non-marital pregnancy

Not everyone lives in the cozy world you might.

You've repeated yourself, but as stated before, its legally impossible to be expelled from school for a pregnancy or denied time off from work with benefits, everywhere.

As to families disowning people, the reverse also normally true: parents and grandparents are known for putting a great deal of pressure on their adult children and adult daughters in particular to have children; misery loves company. Plenty of conservative families would however disown someone for having an abortion.


1. You're just another wage slave and consumer for capital

And I'd rather be a slave to wages than in real slavery under the law!


2. Society would much rather allow women to have abortions than take the chance that women will want societys help with their children.


As described above, patriarchal society does everything to encourage women to have children and everything to discourage women from having abortions. Abortion laws in the US and UK have been systematically designed to make it difficult and inconvenient to get abortions.


Something about killing the unborn young turns people off.

you can't have it both ways, either society encourages people to have abrotions (which it so clearly does not) or society is turned off by them, but you clearly have no consistent argument if you try to switch between the two claims when one wont explain the data.


Yes, I agree this is not the case.

A coworker of mine just got her 6th done....and she couldn't be happier.


Clearly abortion isn't entertaining, but it needn't be anymore traumatic than having a tooth extraction or any other minor, minimally invasive surgery; social stigma and the social expectation that one *ought* to feel guilty and bad about it or else be labled *heartless* serve to elevate it to something beyond what it actually is. This is all in an attempt to dissuade people from making free choices.


And if that other person put them into a coma?

If a blind person steps out onto the street while you're driving and you as a result hit them with your truck rupturing their liver, they're not entitled to yours.

[/quote]
If the fetus is not living, then there would be nothing more morally reprehensible about forcing a woman to have an abortion than forcing her to get her flu shots. Neither would take into account her private opinion, of course, but both would be done for the good of society as a whole.
[/quote]

Forcing someone to have a surgical abortion is only more represensible than forcing someone to have a flu shot because its more physically invasive. These are not fundementally dissimilar situations they just differ by degree.

I suppose I would agree that forcing someone to have a medical/nonsurgical abortion is no more morally reprehensible than forcing that person to have a vaccination; both are reprehensible.


And are these the new guidelines to what memebers of society may be eliminated?


they're guidelines to what members of society may be given less regard. Someone's dog interacts with people more than a factory farmed chicken and similarly someone's dog is entitled to more legal protections than a factory farmed chicken, but neither interacts on the level of a person and neither is given the level of legal protections that people are entitled to.

Similarly brain dead and vegitative people have no legal protection and are treated essentially as the property of their family members.


And the same argument could be made for the elderly with alzheimers, and since my tax money is used to support them, perhaps we should eliminate them.

elderly people with alzheimers can still speak and remember some things. people in a vegitative state who do neither of these are in fact not entitled to the same standard of care or legal protection as normal people.

All of this however is totally irrelevant because the reason why a fetus may be killed is not because its a non-person (which is debatable) but because it poses a clear and unavoidable threat to a person and the threat cannot be removed otherwise (which is not debatable).

[Kwisatz Haderach]

TC, I agree with most of your points, particularly this one:


All of this however is totally irrelevant because the reason why a fetus may be killed is not because its a non-person (which is debatable) but because it poses a clear and unavoidable threat to a person and the threat cannot be removed otherwise (which is not debatable).
This is a very strong argument for abortion rights - stronger than I used to give you credit for (I have discovered in recent months that a highly effective way to silence anti-choicers is to ask them if the government should mandate that their blood be continually drained of nutrients for nine months in order to feed coma patients; none were willing to accept the proposition, and consider the fact that having nutrients drained from your bloodstream is only one among many medical problems caused by pregnancy).

However, I'm not sure I understand your stance on maternity leave. Are you suggesting that maternity leave should not exist? You point out more often than anyone else how traumatic it is to go through pregnancy and give birth. I would expect anyone to benefit from paid sick leave if they went through a highly traumatic experience requiring medical intervention - such as being hit by a car - and I don't see how pregnancy is any different. Surely you wouldn't suggest that giving people paid sick leave for going through a traffic accident will encourage them to throw themselves in front of cars.

[TC]

I think its only humane that people should have paid leave whenever economically viable to use however they like, and if you want to have a child, that would be a pretty obvious thing to use it on and the fact that lots of people reasonably want to do this should be factored in to company (whether state, co-operative or private) expectations...but i don't think that parents should be disproportioantely rewarded
for having children. In France, mothers get two years off...thats clearly not 'recovery time' its a defacto bribe; fathers get two weeks paid off when nothing medically happens to them! Ideally in an extremely wealthy society there would be nothing wrong with giving everyone a two year sabbatical, but to give it to people for being mothers without giving it to women who pursue any other aspiration for which they might like two years off for is clearly a way of demonstrating social priority, value, judgement, and a degree of pressure.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

That makes sense. I would definitely support such a policy, though if the economic conditions are such that we cannot afford to give everyone a long sabbatical, priority should be given to people who have medical reasons for requesting time off.

And I had no idea that maternity leave was two years in France. That's ridiculous. I still don't think I'd ever want to go through childbirth if I were a woman, even in France, but you're right, those two years off do provide a huge incentive. I might consider intentionally causing a mild injury to myself if it could get me that much time off.

[pusher robot]

All of this however is totally irrelevant because the reason why a fetus may be killed is not because its a non-person (which is debatable) but because it poses a clear and unavoidable threat to a person and the threat cannot be removed otherwise (which is not debatable).

No, I think it still would depend on the personhood status of the fetus, because but for the acts and omissions of the mother, the fetus would not exist in its dependent state.

[Demogorgon]

No, I think it still would depend on the personhood status of the fetus, because but for the acts and omissions of the mother, the fetus would not exist in its dependent state.

Now my biology may be a little shaky, but I seem to recall there being a father involved in the process somewhere along the line. Maybe he's the one who gets the stork to come or something.

At any rate while it quite literally "takes two to tango" so to speak in creating a baby, only to woman involved has to bear the brunt of the pregnancy. Now that is unavoidable biological fact, but it strikes me as the height of patriarchy for men to lecture women that they have to put up with pregnancy and to terminate the fetus when they never have to get pregnant themselves.

[pusher robot]

Now my biology may be a little shaky, but I seem to recall there being a father involved in the process somewhere along the line. Maybe he's the one who gets the stork to come or something.

At any rate while it quite literally "takes two to tango" so to speak in creating a baby, only to woman involved has to bear the brunt of the pregnancy. Now that is unavoidable biological fact, but it strikes me as the height of patriarchy for men to lecture women that they have to put up with pregnancy and to terminate the fetus when they never have to get pregnant themselves.

Obviously a father is required, but it is the woman's body, and as such she has complete and ultimate control over whether or not a pregnancy results in the creation of a new person. Past the point of insemination, when obviously no person is created, the father has zero control. The mother has all the control.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

No, I think it still would depend on the personhood status of the fetus, because but for the acts and omissions of the mother, the fetus would not exist in its dependent state.
That argument may possibly hold some water if mothers intentionally created fetuses for the purpose of aborting them. But this is never the case; an unwanted pregnancy is never in the interest of the mother - quite the contrary. Any woman would prefer not to get pregnant in the first place rather than have to undergo an abortion, for the same reason you'd rather not get sick than have to treat a disease, no matter how mild the disease or how easy the treatment.

Even if a fetus were a person, the fact remains that abortion is always the solution to an unfortunate mistake, never an act of intentional malice. Mistakes should be minimized as much as possible, of course - that's where contraception and sexual education come in - but asking a person to suffer for nine months and go through an excruciatingly painful experience for a simple mistake is asking a bit too much.

Besides, I'm not saying that women should abort unwanted fetuses. I'm only saying that they should be given the choice. Even if a fetus were a person, carrying a pregnancy to term is so painful and demands so much effort that women could not and should not be forced to go through with it, but they should of course be given the choice.

Edit - Let me put it this way: Childbirth is, by all acounts, one of the most painful experiences a human being can go through. Such pain can certainly be considered torture if caused deliberately to a person. Now, perhaps you believe that people should be punished for their mistakes. Fair enough. But should people be tortured for their mistakes? If we don't even torture murderers, how could we possibly justify torturing women who fail to use contraceptives? Holding an anti-choice view almost requires you to believe that sex can be a worse crime than murder.

[Demogorgon]

Obviously a father is required, but it is the woman's body, and as such she has complete and ultimate control over whether or not a pregnancy results in the creation of a new person. Past the point of insemination, when obviously no person is created, the father has zero control. The mother has all the control.

Does she? Even with rape/alcohol/faulty contraceptives mixed into the bargain.

It is hardly my favourite analogy because it tends to stir people up more than make a point. But there is no more control over becoming pregnant than there is over getting an STD. Or most other illnesses come to that.

What you are saying essentially is that women must abstain from sex should they not wish to become pregnant, but men do not have this responsibility. That is the height of patriarchy.

[pusher robot]

Does she? Even with rape/alcohol/faulty contraceptives mixed into the bargain.

It is hardly my favourite analogy because it tends to stir people up more than make a point. But there is no more control over becoming pregnant than there is over getting an STD. Or most other illnesses come to that.

What you are saying essentially is that women must abstain from sex should they not wish to become pregnant, but men do not have this responsibility. That is the height of patriarchy.

That's just silly. She can abstain, use contraceptives, morning-after pills, or abortion prior to the point when a fetus becomes a person. There is almost no conceivable circumstance where a woman could carry a fetus for nine whole months by mistake.

[Demogorgon]

That's just silly. She can abstain, use contraceptives, morning-after pills, or abortion prior to the point when a fetus becomes a person. There is almost no conceivable circumstance where a woman could carry a fetus for nine whole months by mistake.

She could use contraception yes, but contraception fails, perhaps as much as 10% of the time.

As for having an abortion before the fetus "becomes a person", this is a tad difficult. We go right back to where you define that to happen? Quickening?

Most women who have abortions obviously are going to have it sooner rather than later, apart from anything else, the longer it is left, the more serious the procedure becomes. But there are occasions where the abortion has to be left till later. There can be pressure not to have the abortion putting her off until then, or new reasons not to have the baby, or perhaps it simply took time to make what is always going to be a difficult decision. You can't presume to know what motivates other people's decisions and seek to impose what you think they should do on them.

[pusher robot]

As for having an abortion before the fetus "becomes a person", this is a tad difficult. We go right back to where you define that to happen? Quickening?

Yes, clearly! That is my point! This issue is "a tad difficult" because it rests on such a nebulous distinction!



You can't presume to know what motivates other people's decisions and seek to impose what you think they should do on them.
I welcome your embrace of free markets!

[Kwisatz Haderach]

That's just silly. She can abstain, use contraceptives, morning-after pills, or abortion prior to the point when a fetus becomes a person. There is almost no conceivable circumstance where a woman could carry a fetus for nine whole months by mistake.
Of course there is. She may have mistakenly believed for the duration of those nine months that conditions will allow her to raise a child, only to find out at the last moment that this is not the case (for instance, the father might have decided to run away and leave her with the baby, or the company that employed her might have gone bankrupt, or something else might have changed her life in such a way that she no longer wants to go through with the birth).

[Demogorgon]

I welcome your embrace of free markets!

Very clever. Of course when I say you cannot presume to impose on other people, I mean it quite literally. Not in the vague propoganda sense you mean it in.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I welcome your embrace of free markets!
Free markets are based on individual choice within the context of private property. If one supports individual choice but not private property, one does not support free markets.

[pusher robot]

Free markets are based on individual choice within the context of private property. If one supports individual choice but not private property, one does not support free markets.

I've been repeatedly assured that communism does not preclude personal possessions and that "private property" means "means of production." You could certainly have markets without private ownership of the means of production.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I've been repeatedly assured that communism does not preclude personal possessions and that "private property" means "means of production." You could certainly have markets without private ownership of the means of production.
What we call "property" consists of a bundle of rights and powers which may, if necessary, be separated. In other words, when you "own" something under current property law, that means not one but several different things: (a) you have the right to use the object in any way at any time; (b) you have the power to deny others use of the object for any reason; (c) you have the power to sell the object to anyone in exchange for anything; and perhaps others that I have omitted here.

In the kind of communist society I envision, there is no private property in the sense that no one has the collection of rights and powers over an object that defines "private property" under capitalism. In other words, no one holds all the powers listed above over any object - but people may hold some of them, in full or in part. For instance, you may hold only powers (a) and (b) over some personal possessions, allowing you exclusive use over them but not the right to trade them. Or you may hold a limited version of power (c) that allows only trade between an individual and the community but not trade between individuals. Or you may hold restricted versions of powers (a) and (b) such that you can use an object in some ways at some times and deny others use of that object at those times.

[Black Cross]

There is no point before birth in which it is not ok to dispose of the foetus.

Abortion an easy way out?! Do you think most women just stroll into an abortion clinic and have a quick abortion before getting on with other things? It may not be much more than removing a parasite, but it is an hard decision to take for many women and there are quite a few ]problems that could arise.

But it's just a foetus, right? So how could it possibly be that difficult?

[RedAnarchist]

But it's just a foetus, right? So how could it possibly be that difficult?

Its not necessarily an easy decision to be taken.

[TC]

It might be truly hard choice to decide whether or not to abort a desired but congenitally defective fetus, but It should be an easy decision for anyone who has an unwanted pregnancyand it is an easy decision for many women.

In a lot of ways this narrative of abortion as not a big life changing emotional trauma but simply an inconvenient but insignificant medical procedure is one thats being silenced not only by those who want to force women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term, but also those arguing in favour of abortion on demand while accepting the anti-choicers claim that 'abortion hurts women' while adopting a position that they have therefore suffered enough already.

This is problematic as it encourages guilt and shame around abortion. Its also amazingly patronizing towards women as it essentially implies that even when its a 'choice' its still a painful conflicted, coerced one, and not one freely entered into as competent people freely deciding and sure of what they want. This essentially conservative narrative is used to get women 'off the hook' for having abortions, essentially acknowledging abortions as bad and women as not being responsible for them, and while this may win some sympathy by conceptualizing women who get abortions as co-victims with their poor unborn babies, it is immensely disempowering and ultimately discourages people from making choices freely unburdened by judgment or, what you might call socially necessary guilt.

There is an excellent Guardian article by Zoe Williams addressing this problem:

"With pro-lifers dominating the debate, and even leftwingers describing abortion as a 'necessary evil', women's hard-won rights could soon be under threat. In an introduction to an eight-page special, Zoe Williams asks: are we just going to roll over? ...

Even writing that, I am furious - it is considered a given, an unarguable tenet of modern society, that you would feel ashamed of having a termination, that you would, in some cutesy, feminine, inarticulate way, feel "bad" about it. You are not allowed to talk about this operation unless it is to say how dirty it made you feel. We are all expected to have these moral objections and yet suffer the business anyway, in the name of pragmatism. Ethically, this is a far dodgier and more repugnant position than mine, which is that I am entirely pro-abortion because I do not consider it murder; if you do not consider this foetus human, then it becomes no more of an issue than getting a tumour removed. If I have any shame at all, it is because, when my health was at stake, I immediately opted out and went private, and I would have hoped before that happened that it would have taken more than an unwanted pregnancy. Never mind. The NHS doctor made me feel that if I had stayed in the system, I would be wasting resources that rightfully belonged to poorer, younger mothers. I was 25; if I had been the age I am now, I would not have taken any notice of her.

This is worth revisiting. The prevailing attitude these days seems to be that abortion is state-sanctioned murder and we put up with it because if we didn't, women would have them in back alleys anyway. It is the lesser of two evils, therefore, and as such, must be cloaked in silence, since whichever way you look at it, it still has an evil at its core. This line has taken hold because it is the least controversial way of supporting the right: so an MP standing up and saying "Women need this right, because otherwise they will put their health at risk having illegal terminations" will not find the pro-life lobby instantly rearing up against them, petitioning their constituents with what a murderer he or she is. If, however, an MP were to stand up and say "I am pro-choice because I do not consider this to be murder. I do not consider it to be evil. I do not consider a foetus which a woman has a one in three chance of involuntarily rejecting anyway to be a viable life unless she deems it so. I do not buy this craven sentimentality about the unborn, this pseudo-spiritual cleanliness we ascribe to it. In fact, it makes me sick","

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1932830,00.html

[Joby]

I've been repeatedly assured that communism does not preclude personal possessions and that "private property" means "means of production." You could certainly have markets without private ownership of the means of production.

That's the first non-dogmatic post I've seen in this thread in a while.

I agree that any socialist who is realistic must admit that after the revolution (which is not-imminet), that market forces must dictate the production of many things.

Hell, even Trotsky admitted that.