All kinds of shite from the Unfair Restrictions thread, mainly abortion

[freakazoid]

The opposite is also true: Just because someone has reactionary opinions in some areas doesn't make all their other opinions reactionary, it doesn't mean that the person in question can't have progressive opinions in other areas, and it doesn't mean that they are necessarily "scum" with nothing to contribute to leftist discussion.

Sure it does, if they even think you might be anti-abortion then you must be, and all of your views on everything else don't matter because abortion rights are more important than the actual class struggle. <_< After all restricting comrades really achieves a lot.

[spartan]

Sure it does, if they even think you might be anti-abortion then you must be, and all of your views on everything else don't matter because abortion rights are more important than the actual class struggle. <_< After all restricting comrades really achieves a lot.

Well let me put it this way.

We leftists are for the liberation of everyone (That includes women).

Now if you are a leftist, then the most basic thing you should hold as truth, is that every living being has the right to do whatever they want to do to their body, because it is their body and not our body to control.

Now a fetus isnt a living being, so why should it have any rights or a guarantee of "protection" over the woman (Who is a living being who can contribute to society) who is carrying it?

Women cant be liberated if they cant have control over their own bodies when they become pregnant!

The fact is i would rather fight for the liberation of a living being, that can contribute something to society, then a parasite that contributes nothing until it is born (And even then it takes about twenty years until they are adults, for them to start contributing to society).

[freakazoid]

Now a fetus isnt a living being, so why should it have any rights or a guarantee of "protection" over the woman (Who is a living being who can contribute to society) who is carrying it?

Technically it is living, just saying.

Now what I did not say though was that I believe abortions should be banned. But it's not about what I said, it's what they wished I believed becaues they are just looking for an excuse to silence me.

[Holden Caulfield]

i totally agree with you until this line,



(And even then it takes about twenty years until they are adults, for them to start contributing to society).

it isnt needed, and makes you seem abit inhumane,

what if somebody is disabled and cannot contribute to society, should they be killed to free their partners/carers?

[spartan]

what if somebody is disabled and cannot contribute to society, should they be killed to free their partners/carers?

Well if they detect any problems during the pregnancy, then it is up to the parents what they want to do.

If people are severely disabled and cant contribute anything to society, then it is societies duty to look after those people.

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." Karl Marx.

[pusher robot]

Well if they detect any problems during the pregnancy, then it is up to the parents what they want to do.


I don't think you really believe that. Suppose the father and the mother disagree?

[Phalanx]

The mother is carrying the baby, so the final decision should be hers.

[pusher robot]

The mother is carrying the baby, so the final decision should be hers.

Right, so it's not up to the "parents" as he said. It's up to the mother, and the father's opinion is irrelevant.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

We leftists are for the liberation of everyone (That includes women).

Now if you are a leftist, then the most basic thing you should hold as truth, is that every living being has the right to do whatever they want to do to their body, because it is their body and not our body to control.

Now a fetus isnt a living being, so why should it have any rights or a guarantee of "protection" over the woman (Who is a living being who can contribute to society) who is carrying it?

Women cant be liberated if they cant have control over their own bodies when they become pregnant!
All very true. Now tell me why exactly someone who doesn't support women's liberation should be treated as if (s)he has nothing useful to say on, for example, the history of national liberation movements. When a member is restricted for being anti-choice, why shouldn't they be allowed to post in the History forum, for instance?

The point is that just because you're wrong on one issue doesn't mean you should be treated as if you're wrong on all issues. This kind of all-or-nothing approach is called sectarianism.

[RedAnarchist]

Right, so it's not up to the "parents" as he said. It's up to the mother, and the father's opinion is irrelevant.

I'm sure many women wouldn't mind asking the father of their opinion, although it is always the woman who ahs the final say over her body. Sometimes, though, she cannot ask the opinion because the pregnany was the result of rape, or for some reason she needs to hide the pregnancy.

[RGacky3]

All very true. Now tell me why exactly someone who doesn't support women's liberation should be treated as if (s)he has nothing useful to say on, for example, the history of national liberation movements. When a member is restricted for being anti-choice, why shouldn't they be allowed to post in the History forum, for instance?

The point is that just because you're wrong on one issue doesn't mean you should be treated as if you're wrong on all issues. This kind of all-or-nothing approach is called sectarianism.

One can be against abortion, and be restricted because they support something that some consider a violation of a womans right, However, someone can be against the right to life in general, like for example can defend gulags, and be against liberation in general, like support a dictatorial government, and still be considered (for this board) a leftist in good standing. a little bit hypocritical perhaps?

[bezdomni]

Now tell me why exactly someone who doesn't support women's liberation should be treated as if (s)he has nothing useful to say on, for example, the history of national liberation movements. When a member is restricted for being anti-choice, why shouldn't they be allowed to post in the History forum, for instance?

Patriarchial pigs can say whatever "useful" things they desire....in OI.

[bezdomni]

One can be against abortion, and be restricted because they support something that some consider a violation of a womans right
Even most liberals acknowledge that women have a right to choose what goes on inside of their body. The question of abortion and women's liberation should not even be a question among those of us on the revolutionary left. If you oppose a woman's right to choose, your interests stand entirely contrary to the liberation of humanity. Your ideas and the ideas of radical leftism are completely alien to one another.


defend gulags, and be against liberation in general, like support a dictatorial government
Nobody on the radical left is "against liberation in general". That's what we're all about.

Your politics are liberalism at best, and due to your position on women...are even already of a particularly reactionary brand of liberalism.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Patriarchial pigs can say whatever "useful" things they desire....in OI.
You have not answered the question. Why do we act as if patriarchial pigs - or any other people restricted for one reactionary opinion - could not possibly have anything useful to contribute to leftist discussion in areas not related to their one reactionary opinion? (in this case, women's liberation)

I understand that you hate them. Fair enough. I hate nationalists too, for example, but that doesn't mean I'd want to restrict Ho Chi Minh or refuse to listen to anything he has to say just because he was a nationalist. Bakunin was an anti-Semite, but anarchists don't seem to have a problem with his arguments on issues not related to the Jewish people. To say that we should not listen to Bakunin or Ho Chi Minh on any issue because they were wrong on one issue is to commit the fallacy of ad hominem.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Even most liberals acknowledge that women have a right to choose what goes on inside of their body. The question of abortion and women's liberation should not even be a question among those of us on the revolutionary left. If you oppose a woman's right to choose, your interests stand entirely contrary to the liberation of humanity.
No, they don't. If you oppose a woman's right to choose, your interests stand entirely contrary to the liberation of women. The liberation of women is a core part of the liberation of humanity, yes, but it is not the only part, and there is no logical reason why someone who opposes women's liberation from patriarchy must also oppose the liberation of the working class from capitalism.

Capitalism and patriarchy are two distinct historical phenomena. A person who supports one need not necessarily support the other and vice versa. You have pretty much admitted this yourself when you pointed out that most liberals (who support capitalism, by the way) are in favour of abortion rights. If it is possible to be a pro-choice capitalist, why is it not possible to be an anti-choice socialist?

[pusher robot]

The question of abortion and women's liberation should not even be a question among those of us on the revolutionary left.

You have no logical rationale for this position. It's simply left-liberalism.

[bezdomni]

You have no logical rationale for this position. It's simply left-liberalism.
No, left-liberalism is the position that "well...I personally think women can have abortions and not feel bad, but it's cool with me if other people want to bomb their clinics! They have a right to their opinion too! As long as they aren't hurting anyone."

Liberalism doesn't make any attempt to understand the nature of ideas in a rigorous way consistent with reality.



Capitalism and patriarchy are two distinct historical phenomena.
Patriarchy is indeed older than capitalism, but it does not exist as an abstraction from bourgeois society.


there is no logical reason why someone who opposes women's liberation from patriarchy must also oppose the liberation of the working class from capitalism.

Communists stand for nothing short of the liberation of humanity as a whole. The working class isn't some magical group of people that brings happyness if only they control the state apparatus...the proletariat is special because it is the only class in history capable of abolishing class society (and all of the oppressive social conditions that stem from it) as a whole.

We're communists, not "workerists".

[Phalanx]

It doesn't seem logical to me to restrict members based on one issue, regardless if they're solid comrades in other topics.

[RedAnarchist]

It doesn't seem logical to me to restrict members based on one issue, regardless if they're solid comrades in other topics.

It is if you realise that by being against abortion, you want to restrict women's choice.

[bezdomni]

It doesn't seem logical to me to restrict members based on one issue, regardless if they're solid comrades in other topics.

Sure, I'm a communist...but I think slavery is quite alright!

[Phalanx]

Completely different issues. Good luck with your revolution if you continue to be so elitist.

[RedAnarchist]

Completely different issues. Good luck with your revolution if you continue to be so elitist.

Are they?

Slavery = Forcing someone to do something, often because of something they are (black, poor etc), exploiting them and taking away their freedom to choose what is best for them.

Anti-Choice = Forcing women to do something (carry a baby even if she can't have/doesn't want it), because they are women and women are supposed to be no more than incubation centres for tomorrows workers, exploiting them and taking away their freedom to choose what is best for them.

They don't sound that different to me.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Are they?

Slavery = Forcing someone to do something, often because of something they are (black, poor etc), exploiting them and taking away their freedom to choose what is best for them.

Anti-Choice = Forcing women to do something (carry a baby even if she can't have/doesn't want it), because they are women and women are supposed to be no more than incubation centres for tomorrows workers, exploiting them and taking away their freedom to choose what is best for them.

They don't sound that different to me.
Slavery isn't just "forcing someone to do something" - that is a much too broad definition. Slavery is the private ownership of human beings. If person A is a slave to person B, then person B can order person A to do anything. Forcing someone to do one specific thing is not slavery; for instance, forcing you to donate blood is not slavery. Slavery is when you can force someone to do anything you want.

Now, the reason why you cannot be a pro-slavery socialist is because that would require you to believe at the same time that (a) all workers should have a say in the use of the means of production, and (b) some workers should be slaves. Those two views are contradictory. You cannot want to enslave people and given them power over the means of production at the same time, because a slave, by definition, has no rights and no power.

On the other hand, you can be an anti-choice socialist, since that would require you to believe at the same time that (a) all workers should have a say in the use of the means of production, and (b) women should not be able to get abortions. These two views may not go particularly well together, but they are not logically contradictory - it is logically possible to hold both at the same time.

Edit: Notice that I was careful to use the word "socialist," rather than "communist," in the above argument. Socialism, under my definition of the term, requires full public ownership over all the means of production and equality between all human beings regardless of gender, nationality, race, religion, sexuality etc. - but not anything more than that. Socialism is therefore compatible with an anti-choice view. Communism, on the other hand, goes one step further. It requires not only public ownership and equality, but also the liberation of humankind from all forms of oppression and exploitation, and is therefore not compatible with an anti-choice view.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

It is if you realise that by being against abortion, you want to restrict women's choice.
Yes, anti-choice people hold opinions that are incompatible with revolutionary leftist philosophy, but that's not the point. The stated reason for the restriction policy is to prevent reactionaries from disrupting leftist conversations. I don't understand how anti-choice people can be seen as disruptive to leftist conversations on issues other than abortion.

Basically, what I am advocating is this: If a person is anti-choice, he should be given a warning not to participate in any discussions of abortion outside of OI. If he respects the warning, no further action should be taken. If he ignores the warning, he should be restricted.

Similar policies should be adopted towards all people who hold one reactionary opinion but agree with revolutionary leftism on other issues: "Please do not discuss your reactionary opinion outside of OI. If you do, you will be restricted. If you respect this warning, you may carry on posting normally."


Patriarchy is indeed older than capitalism, but it does not exist as an abstraction from bourgeois society.
True. However, precisely because patriarchy is older than capitalism, there is no reason to believe that the end of capitalism will necessarily be the end of patriarchy (unfortunately), nor is there any reason to believe that patriarchy must be fought and overcome at the same time as capitalism.

I am of the opinion that the struggle against capitalism is of the utmost importance and takes precedence over everything else; I believe we should build alliances with all anti-capitalists that are broadly progressive and egalitarian in their outlook, and delay any other conflicts until after capitalism has been finally vanquished.

In other words, I prefer to fight one enemy at a time.


Communists stand for nothing short of the liberation of humanity as a whole.
Yes. Communists stand for nothing short of the liberation of humanity as a whole. But I believe that discussion on revleft should be open to all socialists (see definitions in my previous post), not just communists in particular.

[pusher robot]

Now, the reason why you cannot be a pro-slavery socialist is because that would require you to believe at the same time that (a) all workers should have a say in the use of the means of production, and (b) some workers should be slaves.
That connundrum is easily resolved by redifining some "workers" as "counterrevolutionaries." Then, since they are no longer "workers," they can be enslaved.

[RedAnarchist]

That connundrum is easily resolved by redifining some "workers" as "counterrevolutionaries." Then, since they are no longer "workers," they can be enslaved.

Why on earth would people be enslaved in a communist society?

[QuestionEverything]

Anti-Choice = Forcing women to do something (carry a baby even if she can't have/doesn't want it), because they are women and women are supposed to be no more than incubation centres for tomorrows workers, exploiting them and taking away their freedom to choose what is best for them.



With the exception of extreme cases of rape and abuse, women choose to become pregnant.
If you are mature enough to have sex, you should be mature enough to deal with the consequences. The consequence of sex is a baby.

I don't think the slaves chose to be black.

[pusher robot]

Why on earth would people be enslaved in a communist society?
To do needed labor that workers aren't willing to volunteer for in sufficient quantity?

[RedAnarchist]

With the exception of extreme cases of rape and abuse, women choose to become pregnant.
If you are mature enough to have sex, you should be mature enough to deal with the consequences. The consequence of sex is a baby.

I don't think the slaves chose to be black.

Really? What about the Catholic woman who can't use contraception and can't get rid of it because of her faith? What about the teenage girl who's had sex without contraception adn found her pregnant but feels that she can't have an abortion in case her parents found out?

One of the consequences of sex is possible STDs, should a women 9or a man, for that matter) not be able to seek treatment for it, because its the "consequence of sex"?

And of course black people didn't choose to be black, but women also didn't choose to be women.

[RedAnarchist]

To do needed labor that workers aren't willing to volunteer for in sufficient quantity?

Do you actually understand how a communist society would work?

[spartan]

With the exception of extreme cases of rape and abuse, women choose to become pregnant.

You know every single woman?


If you are mature enough to have sex, you should be mature enough to deal with the consequences. The consequence of sex is a baby.

The great thing about our modern times is that you no longer have to deal with the consequences of sex, as you can have an ABORTION!

Also contraception isnt 100&#37; guaranteed to protect from possible accidents, so your logic of "Everyone knows what the consequences of sex are, and should deal with it" fails.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

If you are mature enough to have sex, you should be mature enough to deal with the consequences. The consequence of sex is a baby.
One of the possible consequences of crossing the road is getting hit by a truck. Should we therefore not help people who get hit by trucks, because they knew the risks when they crossed the road?


I don't think the slaves chose to be black.
Yes, you do not choose your skin colour, but you do choose, for example, your religion. Is it therefore acceptable to enslave Muslims, for instance?

Just because you are able to make a choice doesn't mean that it's acceptable for society to do arbitrary bad things to you as a result of something you chose.

[QuestionEverything]

Really? What about the Catholic woman who can't use contraception and can't get rid of it because of her faith?

Adoption is an option.
There is natural ways to lessen the chance of becoming pregnant without contraception.
There are always other options.
Abortion is not the multipurpose answer for pregnancy.


What about the teenage girl who's had sex without contraception adn found her pregnant but feels that she can't have an abortion in case her parents found out? Again, if she is mature enough to have sex, she should be mature enough to deal with the consequences. In this case, dealing with her parents.


One of the consequences of sex is possible STDs, should a women 9or a man, for that matter) not be able to seek treatment for it, because its the "consequence of sex"?Are you comparing STDs to a baby?
That is rather heartless.


And of course black people didn't choose to be black, but women also didn't choose to be women.But they can choose to have sex.

[QuestionEverything]

You know every single woman?

Is there another way to get pregnant that I don't know about?
Sex is either consensual or it is not.


The great thing about our modern times is that you no longer have to deal with the consequences of sex, as you can have an ABORTION!

Also contraception isnt 100% guaranteed to protect from possible accidents, so your logic of "Everyone knows what the consequences of sex are, and should deal with it" fails.Simply because you can terminate a pregnancy does not mean you should do so.
How does the failure of contraception make my statement wrong?

[QuestionEverything]

One of the possible consequences of crossing the road is getting hit by a truck. Should we therefore not help people who get hit by trucks, because they knew the risks when they crossed the road?

Nice strawman.
This is a specific consequence for a specific action.
You cannot apply this to every instance where a choice is made.


Just because you are able to make a choice doesn't mean that it's acceptable for society to do arbitrary bad things to you as a result of something you chose.

What "arbitrary bad things" is society doing to a woman when it doesn't allow her to kill her unborn fetus?
Making her take responsibility for her actions?
Teaching her cause and effect?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Nice strawman.
This is a specific consequence for a specific action.
You cannot apply this to every instance where a choice is made.
Sure I can, unless you can give a reason why the choice to have sex is different from the choice to cross the road. Why should we punish someone for the unintended consequences of sex but not for the unintended consequences of crossing the road?


What "arbitrary bad things" is society doing to a woman when it doesn't allow her to kill her unborn fetus?
Forcing her to go through nine months of severe discomfort and the agonizing pain of childbirth. I certainly wouldn't want to go through that just because I made an honest mistake.

[RedAnarchist]

Adoption is an option.
There is natural ways to lessen the chance of becoming pregnant without contraception.
There are always other options.
Abortion is not the multipurpose answer for pregnancy.

Again, if she is mature enough to have sex, she should be mature enough to deal with the consequences. In this case, dealing with her parents.

Are you comparing STDs to a baby?
That is rather heartless.

But they can choose to have sex.

What options are there bar abstaining or sterilisation?

What happens if she feels that her parents could hurt her for getting pregnant?

I'm only comparing them because of their similarities. I know a baby is very differnt to an STD and all that, but they are both products of sexual intercourse.

Yes, they can choose, but they can't choose to have one of their eggs fertilised.

[QuestionEverything]

Sure I can, unless you can give a reason why the choice to have sex is different from the choice to cross the road. Why should we punish someone for the unintended consequences of sex but not for the unintended consequences of crossing the road?

There are two reasons why one has sex.
First, for emotional or physical pleasure.
Secondly, to procreate.

The road was not created so that people could get hit by cars.


Forcing her to go through nine months of severe discomfort and the agonizing pain of childbirth. I certainly wouldn't want to go through that just because I made an honest mistake.So should all mistakes be without consequence?
If you want to apply my logic to all circumstances, surely yours can do the same.

[QuestionEverything]

What options are there bar abstaining or sterilisation?

Did you not take sex ed in school?
Women are most fertile while ovulating.
As such, after her ovulation, she is less fertile.


What happens if she feels that her parents could hurt her for getting pregnant?She obviously does not care enough not to get pregnant.


I'm only comparing them because of their similarities. I know a baby is very differnt to an STD and all that, but they are both products of sexual intercourse.Again, sex is intended for two reasons.
1. Pleasure
2. Baby making
Getting an STD is not on that list.


Yes, they can choose, but they can't choose to have one of their eggs fertilised.By having sex, you accept that as an option.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

There are two reasons why one has sex.
First, for emotional or physical pleasure.
Secondly, to procreate.

The road was not created so that people could get hit by cars.
The intent of the road builders does not matter at all to the person crossing the road, so I don't see your point.


So should all mistakes be without consequence?
In an ideal world, yes. The reason we cannot apply this to the real world is because sometimes there is no way to tell if something was intentional or the result of a mistake.


If you want to apply my logic to all circumstances, surely yours can do the same.
Indeed. See above.

[QuestionEverything]

The intent of the road builders does not matter at all to the person crossing the road, so I don't see your point.

How can you miss the point?
Sex, as an act, is in existance for those two reasons.

The road is not in existance for the reason of people getting hit.



In an ideal world, yes. The reason we cannot apply this to the real world is because sometimes there is no way to tell if something was intentional or the result of a mistake.


I'd rather not live in a world without consequences.
Oh wait, I don't.
Welcome to the real world.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

How can you miss the point?
Sex, as an act, is in existance for those two reasons.

The road is not in existance for the reason of people getting hit.
Sorry, I still have no idea what you are trying to argue. What is the connection between (a) the reasons why sex and roads exist, and (b) the way we should treat people who make mistakes regarding sex and roads?


I'd rather not live in a world without consequences.
Oh wait, I don't.
Welcome to the real world.
That's what I already said about real versus ideal.

And I was talking about consequences for mistakes, not consequences in general.

* * *

Edit: It looks like we have yet another abortion debate on our hands. Perhaps it would be a good idea for this topic to be split starting on the last post on page 29, so that we can return to discussing restriction issues.

[spartan]

The road is not in existance for the reason of people getting hit.

Yes but that is a risk that people take when crossing the road, just like getting pregnant is a risk when having sex.

It doesnt matter if that was or wasnt the intention of the road, or the act of sex, in the first place.

But that doesnt mean that we should force someone to stay pregnant because they took a risk!

Just like we shouldnt leave someone, hit by a car whilst crossing the road, to die, because they took the risk of crossing that road to achieve something (Getting on the other side).

Sex, in our modern times, is usually for the achievment of pleasure on the part of the people having sex.

Now if the result of this pleasure seeking is pregnancy and the woman, who is pregnant, doesnt want it, then what is your problem with her getting rid of it?

Unless the consequences of an action are unsolvable, people shouldnt have to suffer from the consequences of their (Perfectly normal) actions (That is why abortion is an option for pregnant women).

Of course commiting a crime is an action that should have consequences, for the person commiting the crime, but women getting pregnant, who may not have wanted to, shouldnt have to suffer because you have a problem with a woman being sexually active.

Because this is what it really boils down to with the pro lifers.

Admit it, the idea that, in our modern times, women can now be just as sexually active and liberated as men (Due to no consequences having to be suffered for their actions, because of contraception and modern measures such as abortion) makes your blood boil.

[QuestionEverything]

Admit it, women being sexually liberated and active makes your blood boil.

I didn't intend to debate this at all when I put in my two cents.
I fully understand that you cannot comprehend the idea of taking owenership for your actions.

No it doesn't make my blood boil.
What does upset me though is the fact that people find it acceptable to live without consequence.
"If you can avoid an unpleasant consequence, why not?"
That is what upsets me.

[Dean]

With the exception of extreme cases of rape and abuse, women choose to become pregnant.
Except when birth control fails, or they simply take the risk. They take the risk regardless if they have sex, should the risk therefore always involve the potential consequence?


If you are mature enough to have sex, you should be mature enough to deal with the consequences. The consequence of sex is a baby.
That's what abortion is for. To make the "consequence of pregnancy" (not sex) optional. In other words, so that women - and society in general - can better maintain and control it's own population growth and economic livelihood.


I don't think the slaves chose to be black.
And I also don't think women who are denied the right to an abortion choose to be denied them. And It is a fact that women don't choose to get pregnant - they take a risk, or if they want it, attempt to be impregnated.

[Joby]

Do you actually understand how a communist society would work?

Yeah, like it'll work :D

[Black Dagger]

Joby please do not troll; although this is OI it is expected that your opposition is intelligent and not simply provocative.

[bezdomni]

Completely different issues. Good luck with your revolution if you continue to be so elitist.

Without access to abortion, women who don't want to have babies but get pregnant anyway are forced to be productive tools. That's what slavery is. When people are forced to be productive tools.

[QuestionEverything]

Without access to abortion, women who don't want to have babies but get pregnant anyway are forced to be productive tools. That's what slavery is. When people are forced to be productive tools.

That is an absolute fallacy.
You cannot compare the two.
A woman chooses to have sex which leads to being pregnant.
What choice does a black person make to become a slave?

[freakazoid]

Personally I'm against anti-choice because I don't take to kindly to the government telling me what I can and can not do. But of course it doesn't matter what I think because they don't care what I truly believe, only what they wished I believed :mad:

[TC]

Benazir Bhutto was pro-life.

She was also pro-Taliban, pro-American, anti-Soviet, and incredibly corrupt. What passes as being 'progressive' in an islamic republic isn't progressive by international standards; progressive is a relative concept.


The opposite is also true: Just because someone has reactionary opinions in some areas doesn't make all their other opinions reactionary, it doesn't mean that the person in question can't have progressive opinions in other areas, and it doesn't mean that they are necessarily "scum" with nothing to contribute to leftist discussion.

Opinions and ideas are interconnected, not isolated. To hold one opinion will often as a consequence entail another idea. To believe that a fetus has a 'right to life' entails believing that its acceptable to force women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term, which entails believing that women are or can be made to be tools for purposes other than their own, which entails rejecting human liberation, which entails rejecting leftism.


Sure it does, if they even think you might be anti-abortion then you must be, and all of your views on everything else don't matter because abortion rights are more important than the actual class struggle. <_<

Once you uphold a view that necessarily denies personal autonomy to more than half of the working class, then yes, your views on anything else are more or less irrelevant to actual class struggle. You can't stuggle for any greater aspirations if you're being forced to breed.


After all restricting comrades really achieves a lot.

Taking a sharp and well articulated line against you reactionaries and demonstrating precisely why you aren't our comrades has achieved something valuable, its elevated the theoretical level (Axel1917 tm) of the rest by deconstructing the bourgeois ideological assumptions they make that are inconsistent with historical materialism.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/abortion-t25978/index.html

Look at how many regular posters who even now in this thread (which someone bumped) are arguing consistent leftist positions against people like you, had equally reactionary lines four years ago.

The difference is that while Red Anarchist used to advocate a pro-forced pregnancy line four years ago, when it was explained how the logical conclusion of his position was incompatible with leftism (including general human liberation, not just male liberation) , he abandoned his line in favour of a consistent leftist position. You on the other hand prefer to abandon social progress in favour of your patriarchal position.

Really if you go to that old abortion thread its startling how affective these polemics have been at bringing people's views into the left.


Right, so it's not up to the "parents" as he said. It's up to the mother, and the father's opinion is irrelevant.

The example that Spartan was using was if there were fetal problems during a *wanted* pregnancy; obviously someone who *wants* to have a child is likely (though obviously not required) to want to factor into her decision whether or not her partner would be supportive. A spouses opinion *may* be relevant to the pregnant woman's thought process if her desire to carry a particular pregnancy to term depends on the amount of child care her spouse is going to be willing to perform...and obviously disabled children could require more attention than expected.

Deciding to terminate an unwanted, unplanned pregnancy should be (and is for many people despite the media myths) a simple, uncomplicated and easy decision...but deciding on whether or not to terminate a planned pregnancy that goes badly clearly has the potential to be complicated.


All very true. Now tell me why exactly someone who doesn't support women's liberation should be treated as if (s)he has nothing useful to say on, for example, the history of national liberation movements. When a member is restricted for being anti-choice, why shouldn't they be allowed to post in the History forum, for instance?

Because women didn't just appear on the historical scene in the 1960s, history is the history of class struggle not the history of great men or just men. Core leftist ideology applies to all social and political issues and to reject women's liberation entails rejecting that core ideology.



The point is that just because you're wrong on one issue doesn't mean you should be treated as if you're wrong on all issues. This kind of all-or-nothing approach is called sectarianism.

Maybe not math problems or food criticism, but to be wrong on *this* one issue does mean you're *necessarily* wrong on all other social, historical, political or economic issues...

...because even if an anti-choicer superficially agrees with some position that Marxists also hold, they agree for different reasons, the structure of their ideological stance is necessarily different.

This is because to arbitrarily reject the liberation of one demographic group, whether its women or black people or gays or even white men, is to adopt a non-materialist stance on the issue of human liberation by applying an idealist, or chauvinist rational for why some people deserve more freedom and power than others.

And as soon as you depart from a materialist, positivist theory of human liberation, you are working in an entirely different theoretical paradigm than Marxists and Marxian anarchists.

A religious communitarian might advocate a very similar type of society as a Communist would, but they would do so for radically different reasons and understand it radically differently. The left is not merely egalitarian, its position is what Marx and Engels called scientific socialism in contrast to Utopian socialism. As soon as you abandon support for one demographic group arbitrarily you can at best be a utopian socialist.


Sometimes, though, she cannot ask the opinion because the pregnany was the result of rape, or for some reason she needs to hide the pregnancy.

Err, or less dramatically, why ask the partner's opinion if his preference wont make the difference one way or the other (unless you want help paying/driving/etc)?

If someone wants to terminate a pregnancy and their boyfriend/husband also wants them to, telling them will just make them feel pointlessly guilty and embarrassed for getting them pregnant, and if they want their partner to keep it, telling them will just upset and possibly alienate them.

Just as pregnant women don't magically lose their right to bodily autonomy when they're pregnant, they don't lose their right to medical privacy either.


One can be against abortion, and be restricted because they support something that some consider a violation of a womans right, However, someone can be against the right to life in general, like for example can defend gulags, and be against liberation in general, like support a dictatorial government, and still be considered (for this board) a leftist in good standing. a little bit hypocritical perhaps?

No you can't be in favour of arbitrary detention or and be a leftist in good standing, that should be obvious.

All leftists support democratic social organization while differing on what they think that consists of in theory and practice; but to reject this on principle would also clearly be rejecting leftism.


Bakunin was an anti-Semite, but anarchists don't seem to have a problem with his arguments on issues not related to the Jewish people.

If Bakunin was on the forum no one would argue that he shouldn't be restricted.


If you oppose a woman's right to choose, your interests stand entirely contrary to the liberation of women. The liberation of women is a core part of the liberation of humanity, yes, but it is not the only part, and there is no logical reason why someone who opposes women's liberation from patriarchy must also oppose the liberation of the working class from capitalism.


Yes but it doesn't logically follow both ways. You can oppose patriarchy while supporting capitalism because capitalism does not require patriarchy, but you cannot support patriarchy while also supporting the liberation of the working class from capitalism because workers revolution entails general emancipation because it entails the abolition of the private ownership of the means of production that creates the material basis for all forms of oppression, including capitalism, feudalism, slavery and patriarchy.



Capitalism and patriarchy are two distinct historical phenomena. A person who supports one need not necessarily support the other and vice versa.

I totally agree, but to support communism requires rejecting both. You can likewise support both slavery and feudalism, or feudalism but not slavery, or slavery but not feudalism, and there have been societies that have followed all three patterns, but you cannot support both communism and slavery or feudalism.


If it is possible to be a pro-choice capitalist, why is it not possible to be an anti-choice socialist?

To be a pro-choice, and for the sake of argument, feminist pro-capitalist is to support the oppression of workers by one set of social relations (capitalism) while rejecting the oppression of workers by a second set of social relations (patriarchy). To be an anti-choice pro-capitalist is simply to accept double oppression of workers by two sets of social relations, capitalism and patriarchy. Mao suggested that in pre-revolutionary China, men were oppressed by three sets of social relations and women were oppressed by four.

However to be a socialist means reject the oppression of workers by all oppressive social relations. So while a pro-capitalist could be either for or against patriarchy, for or against slavery, and for or against feudalism, a socialist is necessarily against all of those things.

Thats why multiple lines on abortion are possible among people in favour of capitalism but only one line is possible among people in favour of socialism. Similarly one cannot be in favour of capitalism while rejecting private property rights, the two positions are simply inconsistent.


Slavery isn't just "forcing someone to do something" - that is a much too broad definition. Slavery is the private ownership of human beings. If person A is a slave to person B, then person B can order person A to do anything. Forcing someone to do one specific thing is not slavery; for instance, forcing you to donate blood is not slavery. Slavery is when you can force someone to do anything you want.

By that definition they never owned slaves in the American south or in the Roman Empire or ancient Greece, all of which are conventionally considered slave societies.

To make use of someone's body against their will, even if there are specific limitations on how you can go about doing this, is functionally equivalent to 'owning' them because it treats them as an object for the use of other people rather than a person in their own right.

Similarly there are plenty of legal restrictions on what you can and cannot do with a car you own, but the fact that you can't do *anything* with your car does not mean your car isn't your private property. Similarly someone who can be compelled to perform just one type of activity is still being treated as property, as a slave.



On the other hand, you can be an anti-choice socialist, since that would require you to believe at the same time that (a) all workers should have a say in the use of the means of production, and (b) women should not be able to get abortions. These two views may not go particularly well together, but they are not logically contradictory - it is logically possible to hold both at the same time.


Socialism doesn't just mean 'having a say in the use of the means of production', you have that in bourgeois liberal democracy every time you vote for people who appoint people who set interest rates, and for that matter everytime you buy any commodity where there isn't a monopoly.

Socialism means the end of exploitation of people by people, of alienation from labour and the product of one's labour, of social relations that forcibly prevent personal self determination. These things are clearly logically incompatible with opposition to abortion.



Edit: Notice that I was careful to use the word "socialist," rather than "communist," in the above argument. Socialism, under my definition of the term, requires full public ownership over all the means of production and equality between all human beings regardless of gender, nationality, race, religion, sexuality etc. - but not anything more than that.

Sure and to say that one gender can have sex while retaining their right to bodily autonomy while the other gender cannot have sex if they want to maintain their right to bodily autonomy is clearly not equality between genders.


However, precisely because patriarchy is older than capitalism, there is no reason to believe that the end of capitalism will necessarily be the end of patriarchy (unfortunately), nor is there any reason to believe that patriarchy must be fought and overcome at the same time as capitalism.

The reason to believe that the end of capitalism will necessarily be the end of patriarchy is because patriarchy entails a gendered division of labour and power which requires private property (or at least that some people are socially excluded from property and power) and the abolition of capitalism by proletarian revolution entails ending those property and power relations.

I agree however that theres no reason to believe that patriarchy couldn't end *before* capitalism but it couldn't end any *later* than socialism.


With the exception of extreme cases of rape and abuse, women choose to become pregnant.
If you are mature enough to have sex, you should be mature enough to deal with the consequences. The consequence of sex is a baby.

I don't think the slaves chose to be black.

Slaves don't choose to be black but as Marx commented its only the social relations that made black people slaves.

If women "choose" to be pregnant, then slaves "chose" not to run fast enough to get away from the slave catchers. Had they run faster, they wouldn't be slaves.

Obviously in *all other cases* no one thinks that someone "chose" to do something that was an unintended consequence of something they did or failed to do.


Adoption is an option.

Yah, if you're a masochist and enjoy pain and public humiliation for its own sake.


There is natural ways to lessen the chance of becoming pregnant without contraception.


True. They're not very effective, thats why the catholics like them.


Are you comparing STDs to a baby?
That is rather heartless.


Seriously heartless. Having a baby would be so much worse than having any other STD, apart from say, multiple HIV strands.

I mean, most STDs are asymtopmatic!

http://img.revleft.com/revleft/misc/progress.gif
But they can choose to have sex.

Black people can choose to run faster.

Clearly if everyone had unlimited control of their own biology no one would have an unwanted pregnancy and no one would be a slave (unless they were a masochist). This is obviously not the case.


Is there another way to get pregnant that I don't know about?
Sex is either consensual or it is not.


Crossing a street is either consensual, or its not, but that doesn't mean that consenting to crossing a street means consenting to getting run over by a car, even though it requires such a risk.


So should all mistakes be without consequence?
If you want to apply my logic to all circumstances, surely yours can do the same.

It isn't an issue of whether mistakes should be without consequence, simply put, child birth is not a necessary consequence of pregnancy, to attempt to force people to go through with child birth as if it were is to impose a specific punishment not to make someone deal with the consequences of their mistake.

The logically necessary consequences include abortion or childbirth or miscarriage or death in that all pregnancies necessarily end in one of those four scenarios. You want to arbitrarily eliminate one of the four possible consequences (obviously everyone would prefer to eliminate the last one).

Similarly, if you get hit by a car while crossing the street, the consequences could include either bleeding to death while paramedics ignore you, or not bleeding to death while paramedics treat you. To eliminate the later consequence and insist that the person bleed to death is not to say that you're forcing them deal with the 'consequences of their mistake' but rather that you've artificially created one.

[jasmine]

Because women didn't just appear on the historical scene in the 1960s, history is the history of class struggle not the history of great men or just men. Core leftist ideology applies to all social and political issues and to reject women's liberation entails rejecting that core ideology.

So since you are so interested on the liberation of women please explain how your moderator, Jazzrat, and others, were able to abuse me as a "****" over and over again. I don't recall you objecting (you hypocritical little shit). Latterly much of this abuse was in defence of a foul racist.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

.

So since you are so interested on the liberation of women please explain how your moderator, Jazzrat, and others, were able to abuse me as a "****" over and over again.

What's so special about female genitals? You wouldn't be crying sexism if people were calling you a dickhead or cockfeatures, but some people attribute some undefined, special quality to female genitals so that people can't insult others by comparing them to intimate parts of the female anontomy.

Using the word "****" does not oppress women. Denying them abortions does. It may be rude and offensive, but that is not the same as oppression.

You (and many others on this board!) must learn the difference between hurt feelings and oppression. Oppression may cause hurt feelings, but there is more to it than that.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Opinions and ideas are interconnected, not isolated. To hold one opinion will often as a consequence entail another idea.
Often, but not always. Of course that anti-choice people are most often reactionary capitalists. But not always. I am not arguing that anti-choice socialists are numerous; I am only arguing that they exist.

People should be judged by the opinions they actually hold, not by the opinions they may hold due to their way of thinking.


To believe that a fetus has a 'right to life' entails believing that its acceptable to force women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term, which entails believing that women are or can be made to be tools for purposes other than their own, which entails rejecting human liberation, which entails rejecting leftism.
That's a slippery slope fallacy. If a person believes that it is acceptable to force women to do one thing (carry a pregnancy to term) against their will, that does not necessarily imply that this person believes women should be forced to do anything else against their will.

You are basically saying that anyone who opposes any aspect of human liberation must also oppose all other aspects. This is empirically false. The world is not divided between communists and advocates of universal slavery.


Once you uphold a view that necessarily denies personal autonomy to more than half of the working class, then yes, your views on anything else are more or less irrelevant to actual class struggle. You can't stuggle for any greater aspirations if you're being forced to breed.
Women's rights are about much more than abortion. To deny personal autonomy to women is to deny all women's rights, not just the one particular right to abortion.

And I still don't see how opposition to abortion rights means that you can't have anything useful to say on the topic of imperialism, or the economics of a socialist society, or the methods by which to achieve a proletarian revolution.


Because women didn't just appear on the historical scene in the 1960s, history is the history of class struggle not the history of great men or just men. Core leftist ideology applies to all social and political issues and to reject women's liberation entails rejecting that core ideology.
It seems there is a fundamental difference in our ways of thinking, TC. I couldn't care less what ideological justification people use for class struggle and revolutionary socialism as long as they support class struggle and revolutionary socialism.

When deciding who my comrades are, I am not interested in whether they support "core leftist ideology." I am only interested in their answers to three specific questions:
1. "Do you believe that all human beings have equal worth and their happiness is equally important regardless of race, gender, sexuality, religion or any other consideration?"
2. "Do you believe capitalism and private property over the means of production should be abolished?"
3. "Do you want to replace capitalism with a system in which the means of production are owned by the collective or the state and in which political and economic decisions are made democratically?"

Anyone who answers "yes" to all three questions is a socialist and a comrade, regardless of their reasons for answering that way or their opinions on any other issues.


Maybe not math problems or food criticism, but to be wrong on *this* one issue does mean you're *necessarily* wrong on all other social, historical, political or economic issues...

...because even if an anti-choicer superficially agrees with some position that Marxists also hold, they agree for different reasons, the structure of their ideological stance is necessarily different.
And as I noted above, I am not interested in anyone's reasons for being a revolutionary socialist as long as that person is a revolutionary socialist. I also think that it is a grave error to speculate on the structure of a person's ideological stance, because many people - perhaps most - simply support a collection of political views with no overarching ideology or philosophy. Most workers are not Marxists, and they never will be Marxists because they are just not interested in ideology or philosophy; they are only interested in concrete policies and results.

Besides, revleft isn't just for Marxists - we also have a significant number of anarchists. The structure of their ideological stance is clearly different from our own. Should they be therefore restricted?


This is because to arbitrarily reject the liberation of one demographic group, whether its women or black people or gays or even white men, is to adopt a non-materialist stance on the issue of human liberation by applying an idealist, or chauvinist rational for why some people deserve more freedom and power than others.

And as soon as you depart from a materialist, positivist theory of human liberation, you are working in an entirely different theoretical paradigm than Marxists and Marxian anarchists.
Yes, yes you are perfectly correct. But I disagree with you on the importance of theoretical paradigms in my judgement of someone as friend or enemy (as I explained above).


A religious communitarian might advocate a very similar type of society as a Communist would, but they would do so for radically different reasons and understand it radically differently.
If a person's goals are the same as ours, why should we treat them as an enemy just because we don't like their reasons for agreeing with us? That seems very petty, particularly since we need all the allies we can get.


Yes but it doesn't logically follow both ways. You can oppose patriarchy while supporting capitalism because capitalism does not require patriarchy, but you cannot support patriarchy while also supporting the liberation of the working class from capitalism because workers revolution entails general emancipation because it entails the abolition of the private ownership of the means of production that creates the material basis for all forms of oppression, including capitalism, feudalism, slavery and patriarchy.
Yes, proletarian revolution entails the abolition of the material basis for all forms of oppression, including patriarchy, but you may support the abolition of the material basis for X without explicitly being against X. This can happen when you do not understand the connection between X and its material basis.

Supporters of patriarchy usually don't even acknowledge the existence of patriarchy. If you don't think that patriarchy exists, then you don't worry about what might happen to it if its material basis is destroyed. It is possible for a person to support the abolition of the private ownership of the means of production while being anti-choice because that person does not see their anti-choice position as a form of oppression, and therefore does not realize that it would be undermined by the abolition of private ownership of the means of production.


I totally agree, but to support communism requires rejecting both [capitalism and patriarchy]. You can likewise support both slavery and feudalism, or feudalism but not slavery, or slavery but not feudalism, and there have been societies that have followed all three patterns, but you cannot support both communism and slavery or feudalism.
Yes, to support communism requires rejecting both capitalism and patriarchy, but to support socialism (as I define it) requires only rejecting capitalism and upholding political and economic equality. It is possible to be a socialist without being a communist, and I do not believe any socialists should be restricted.


To be a pro-choice, and for the sake of argument, feminist pro-capitalist is to support the oppression of workers by one set of social relations (capitalism) while rejecting the oppression of workers by a second set of social relations (patriarchy). To be an anti-choice pro-capitalist is simply to accept double oppression of workers by two sets of social relations, capitalism and patriarchy. Mao suggested that in pre-revolutionary China, men were oppressed by three sets of social relations and women were oppressed by four.

However to be a socialist means reject the oppression of workers by all oppressive social relations. So while a pro-capitalist could be either for or against patriarchy, for or against slavery, and for or against feudalism, a socialist is necessarily against all of those things.

Thats why multiple lines on abortion are possible among people in favour of capitalism but only one line is possible among people in favour of socialism. Similarly one cannot be in favour of capitalism while rejecting private property rights, the two positions are simply inconsistent.
I agree with the above as long as you replace references to "socialism" with references to "communism."



Slavery isn't just "forcing someone to do something" - that is a much too broad definition. Slavery is the private ownership of human beings. If person A is a slave to person B, then person B can order person A to do anything. Forcing someone to do one specific thing is not slavery; for instance, forcing you to donate blood is not slavery. Slavery is when you can force someone to do anything you want.
By that definition they never owned slaves in the American south or in the Roman Empire or ancient Greece, all of which are conventionally considered slave societies.

To make use of someone's body against their will, even if there are specific limitations on how you can go about doing this, is functionally equivalent to 'owning' them because it treats them as an object for the use of other people rather than a person in their own right.

Similarly there are plenty of legal restrictions on what you can and cannot do with a car you own, but the fact that you can't do *anything* with your car does not mean your car isn't your private property. Similarly someone who can be compelled to perform just one type of activity is still being treated as property, as a slave.
Very well, perhaps my definition of slavery was too narrow, since it is rare that masters can literally do anything they want with their slaves (or material property for that matter).

But then surely your definition is too broad if you suggest that anyone forced to do even a single thing against their will is a slave. By your definition, we are all slaves right now. That would be an absurd position to hold. While we are indeed oppressed and exploited, we are not nearly as oppressed or exploited as slaves in ancient Rome or the American south.



On the other hand, you can be an anti-choice socialist, since that would require you to believe at the same time that (a) all workers should have a say in the use of the means of production, and (b) women should not be able to get abortions. These two views may not go particularly well together, but they are not logically contradictory - it is logically possible to hold both at the same time.
Socialism doesn't just mean 'having a say in the use of the means of production', you have that in bourgeois liberal democracy every time you vote for people who appoint people who set interest rates, and for that matter everytime you buy any commodity where there isn't a monopoly.
It's true that my description of socialism in that paragraph was too vague. I was trying to be brief - I explained my view of socialism in more detail elsewhere. Let me restate my point then: To be a socialist requires you to believe that the means of production should be owned publicly or collectively and that all workers should have an equal and democratic say in how the means of production are used.



Edit: Notice that I was careful to use the word "socialist," rather than "communist," in the above argument. Socialism, under my definition of the term, requires full public ownership over all the means of production and equality between all human beings regardless of gender, nationality, race, religion, sexuality etc. - but not anything more than that.
Sure and to say that one gender can have sex while retaining their right to bodily autonomy while the other gender cannot have sex if they want to maintain their right to bodily autonomy is clearly not equality between genders.
I was talking about equality in political and economic matters, in the power to make political and economic decisions. That is all socialism requires. Broader equality is required by communism.


The reason to believe that the end of capitalism will necessarily be the end of patriarchy is because patriarchy entails a gendered division of labour and power which requires private property (or at least that some people are socially excluded from property and power) and the abolition of capitalism by proletarian revolution entails ending those property and power relations.

I agree however that theres no reason to believe that patriarchy couldn't end *before* capitalism but it couldn't end any *later* than socialism.
I disagree, because patriarchy isn't just entrenched in property relations and capitalist institutions - it's also entrenched in social attitudes, which are notoriously slow to change even long after their material basis has disappeared (notice for example how many fathers still act as if they own their daughters - particularly when it comes to sex - long after we have abolished the laws and feudal institutions that allowed fathers to treat their daughters as property; notice also how women are often pressured to stay at home even though capitalism, the dominant mode of production, would rather have them in the workforce).

Capitalism cannot survive without its material basis. But patriarchy can, at least for a while. There are still ongoing battles between capitalism and patriarchy that capitalism has not yet fully won, despite being the dominant mode of production. I expect that when socialism becomes the dominant mode of production, it too will have to fight long drawn-out battles with the last remnants of patriarchy.

If private property over the means of production is abolished, capitalism will immediately crumble, but patriarchy will only begin a slow fall that may take quite some time.


If Bakunin was on the forum no one would argue that he shouldn't be restricted.
I would, as long as he behaved himself and did not bring up his reactionary views outside of OI.

The reason for the restriction policy is to prevent leftist discussions being disrupted by people with reactionary opinions. If a person with a reactionary opinion on issue X only brings up issue X in OI and acts like a leftist on all other forums, why should he be restricted?

We must not lose sight of the fact that restriction is supposed to apply to people who are being disruptive of leftist conversations, not to people who are reactionary according to my views or your views or anyone else's views. Even if I completely agreed with you that all anti-choicers must necessarily be reactionary, I would still oppose their restriction on the grounds that they are not necessarily disruptive. And the same applies to everyone else who supports revolutionary leftist views on some issues but not others.

The question is not whether anti-choicers are reactionary. The question is whether they will disrupt our conversations on issues not related to abortion. And the answer is no.

[Dean]

What's so special about female genitals? You wouldn't be crying sexism if people were calling you a dickhead or cockfeatures, but some people attribute some undefined, special quality to female genitals so that people can't insult others by comparing them to intimate parts of the female anontomy.

Using the word "****" does not oppress women. Denying them abortions does. It may be rude and offensive, but that is not the same as oppression.

You (and many others on this board!) must learn the difference between hurt feelings and oppression. Oppression may cause hurt feelings, but there is more to it than that.
Calling a woman a "****" carries with it more than the usual antagonistic sense of the term. It's very similar to calling a black man a "nigger" versus calling your friends that. I have friends who I address as "nigger," in a purely friendly fashion. At the same time, I don't call black people "nigger" because I am afraid that it may offend them, but more importatnly because I know for a fact that it would be uncomfortable and have unstated meaning between both me and the person. It's similar to calling a man versus a woman a "*****." We are all aware of the implications of calling a woman a "*****" - that she "*****es" too much, or is an asshole. To say that about a man, however, is to call him a "wimp." When it comes to "****," it is simply a much more negative and hurtful term when applied to women. I think it's very fair to say that jasmine deserves an apology for Jazzrat's usage of the term, if nothing else.

[freakazoid]

Taking a sharp and well articulated line against you reactionaries and demonstrating precisely why you aren't our comrades has achieved something valuable, its elevated the theoretical level (Axel1917 tm) of the rest by deconstructing the bourgeois ideological assumptions they make that are inconsistent with historical materialism. ... You on the other hand prefer to abandon social progress in favour of your patriarchal position.

Maybe you haven't been reading what I have been saying but, I DON'T BELIEVE IN THE BANNING OF ABORTION!!!

[spartan]

Maybe you haven't been reading what I have been saying but, I DON'T BELIEVE IN THE BANNING OF ABORTION!!!

So why are you restricted then?:confused:

Was it a perception that you were anti-choice that got you restricted in the first place?

[pusher robot]

So why are you restricted then?:confused:

Was it a perception that you were anti-choice that got you restricted in the first place?

Clearly. It's plainly obvious what's been going on here.

All the rhetoric and the ideological hand-waving aside, there is no empirically sound justification for the proposition that shifting a fetus a few feet in position over a few seconds transforms it from a non-entity with no rights whatsoever into a full-fledged human that cannot be harmed without overwhelming justification. It plainly confuses people because it doesn't make sense. It seems arbitrary.

And it is arbitrary. Not to say there are no justifications for such a policy - there may be pragmatic reasons why we would want to choose this arbitrary dividing point. But to a few powerful people here, that's intolerable. They can brook no dissent, probably because they realize there is no determinable "correct" answer. So rather than accept even a stalemate, they shut the debate down altogether by threatening exile to members of their own community for even questioning the basis of their position.

I'm already proudly restricted and obviously have no hopes of ever not being so, so I'm not afraid to say it: this behavior is disgusting, even to someone who isn't particularly interested in whether this community succeeds or not. It smacks of the worst kind of abusive wielding of power, that, frankly, your movement should be trying to avoid more than most given its history. How many allies have you chased away with your inflexible opinions and threats? How many members of this board claim to have been "enlightened" but simply mouth the proper words so they can remain in good standing? Do you even care? How many members won't even participate in any discussions on the subject because they have to worry about swift retribution expressing the verboten opinions, even accidentally? I of course have no knowledge but I would be not at all surprised to find out that efforts were underway to restrict Edric even as I type this, so keen are these self-appointed ministers of ideological hygiene to continue to purge impure opinion with threats of banishment.

Is this the kind of community you would want to live in?

[Lynx]

I'm pro-choice. Leftist ideals had nothing to do with my arriving at that position many years ago. Nevertheless I find that leftist ideals can help in arriving at a pro-choice position.
In that spirit, I believe abortion is an issue comrades should work out for themselves or through debate on Revleft. Restrictions need not be permanent and should be reserved for those who are being disruptive.

[Jazzratt]

Calling a woman a "****" carries with it more than the usual antagonistic sense of the term. It's very similar to calling a black man a "nigger" versus calling your friends that. I have friends who I address as "nigger," in a purely friendly fashion. At the same time, I don't call black people "nigger" because I am afraid that it may offend them, but more importatnly because I know for a fact that it would be uncomfortable and have unstated meaning between both me and the person. It's similar to calling a man versus a woman a "*****." We are all aware of the implications of calling a woman a "*****" - that she "*****es" too much, or is an asshole. To say that about a man, however, is to call him a "wimp." When it comes to "****," it is simply a much more negative and hurtful term when applied to women. I think it's very fair to say that jasmine deserves an apology for Jazzrat's usage of the term, if nothing else.

Fuck. That. I don't know where you come from but where I am I've never heard of this "**** is a sexist slur" shit, it seems to mainly come from americans - but then they tend to be so much more fucking uptight about everything. :rolleyes: Also given the history and usage of the word "****" it's misleading to compare it to "nigger" or even "*****".

That said I have only mustered up the enthusiasm to reply to this because it's getting boring to see jasemine come back to this forum every so often to whine about me, flattering though it is. In general I couldn't give two shits who is offended by the word "****", because I'm interested in women's liberation, not laughable language restriction.

[Dean]

Clearly. It's plainly obvious what's been going on here.

All the rhetoric and the ideological hand-waving aside, there is no empirically sound justification for the proposition that shifting a fetus a few feet in position over a few seconds transforms it from a non-entity with no rights whatsoever into a full-fledged human that cannot be harmed without overwhelming justification. It plainly confuses people because it doesn't make sense. It seems arbitrary.

And it is arbitrary. Not to say there are no justifications for such a policy - there may be pragmatic reasons why we would want to choose this arbitrary dividing point. But to a few powerful people here, that's intolerable. They can brook no dissent, probably because they realize there is no determinable "correct" answer. So rather than accept even a stalemate, they shut the debate down altogether by threatening exile to members of their own community for even questioning the basis of their position.

I'm already proudly restricted and obviously have no hopes of ever not being so, so I'm not afraid to say it: this behavior is disgusting, even to someone who isn't particularly interested in whether this community succeeds or not. It smacks of the worst kind of abusive wielding of power, that, frankly, your movement should be trying to avoid more than most given its history. How many allies have you chased away with your inflexible opinions and threats? How many members of this board claim to have been "enlightened" but simply mouth the proper words so they can remain in good standing? Do you even care? How many members won't even participate in any discussions on the subject because they have to worry about swift retribution expressing the verboten opinions, even accidentally? I of course have no knowledge but I would be not at all surprised to find out that efforts were underway to restrict Edric even as I type this, so keen are these self-appointed ministers of ideological hygiene to continue to purge impure opinion with threats of banishment.

Is this the kind of community you would want to live in?

For once, I pretty much agree with you. The dogmatism here is astounding; I think someone should show that they are disruptive to discussion in order to be banned, nothing more. I don't care if someone is a militant racist so long as they are polite enough and don't spam / bring it up in every thread. It seems like a few here are genuinely afraid of any meaningful dissent, criticism or debate on the tougher issues.

The only two things I disagree with are not wanting to be unrestricted, and the arbitrariness of the abortion issue. I think, so long as the fetus / baby / creature is a part of or in a woman's body, it is her right to make decisions based on what happens to it. This is regardless of the conclusions on the life / sentience issue, which, if the fetus does have much coherant mentality, it is a sad thing when abortions occur, but the woman's right to control he own body take precedence..

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Calling a woman a "****" carries with it more than the usual antagonistic sense of the term.

Most of the people I call ****s happen to be male, but I don't use the term exclusively for either sex. It's an American thing to use it exclusively or expressly against women.


It's very similar to calling a black man a "nigger" versus calling your friends that.While calling a black person "nigger" is usually extremely offensive, it doesn't actually oppress them. The word also has connotations that simply don't attatch to the word ****, which when you get right down to it is simply an impolite word for vagina.


I have friends who I address as "nigger," in a purely friendly fashion. At the same time, I don't call black people "nigger" because I am afraid that it may offend them, but more importatnly because I know for a fact that it would be uncomfortable and have unstated meaning between both me and the person. It's similar to calling a man versus a woman a "*****." We are all aware of the implications of calling a woman a "*****" - that she "*****es" too much, or is an asshole. To say that about a man, however, is to call him a "wimp." When it comes to "****," it is simply a much more negative and hurtful term when applied to women. I think it's very fair to say that jasmine deserves an apology for Jazzrat's usage of the term, if nothing else.Absolutely not. There is no such dichotomy to the word in the UK, and Jazzratt being a resident of that country in all likelyhood used it simply in it's nominal insulting capacity.

Furthermore, if someone is so emotionally damaged by words they willingly read that were written by a total stranger, they need to get out more. I'm sure you can agree that having someone yell abuse in your actual face is far more traumatic than anything written on a screen can do to you.

[Sentinel]

In Finland, the word **** is very undramatised and perhaps the most common curseword -- used by both men and women. Sometimes I feel it's about every fifth word people use in conversation.. just wanted to confirm that the loadedness of these words varies greatly geographically and culturally.

[Joby]

Technically it is living, just saying.

Now what I did not say though was that I believe abortions should be banned. But it's not about what I said, it's what they wished I believed becaues they are just looking for an excuse to silence me.

hey, me too!

:D

(psst...don't worry...nobody on this board is going anywhere! :lol:)

[freakazoid]

So why are you restricted then?http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/confused1.gif

Was it a perception that you were anti-choice that got you restricted in the first place?

Yeah, it was from some off comment I made in a topic in the religion section. But that topic doesn't even exist anymore because it seems anything before January in the religion section was deleted, otherwise I'd link to it.

[pusher robot]

I think, so long as the fetus / baby / creature is a part of or in a woman's body, it is her right to make decisions based on what happens to it. This is regardless of the conclusions on the life / sentience issue, which, if the fetus does have much coherant mentality, it is a sad thing when abortions occur, but the woman's right to control he own body take precedence..

Yes, I know you think this. But why? What justification do you offer other than some nebulous, anti-materialist conception of "rights?" Where do these rights come from? How can they be proven? How do we know which rights take precendence over others? You say it's not arbitrary but then back it up by invoking aribitrary "rights." You are simply repeating the conclusions you draw from your axioms. I question your axioms!

[Dean]

Yes, I know you think this. But why? What justification do you offer other than some nebulous, anti-materialist conception of "rights?" Where do these rights come from? How can they be proven? How do we know which rights take precendence over others?
My axioms are simple. People have a right to self-determinism. Even assuming a fetus were a person in this sense, its right to determinism would be usurped by nature of the fact that it necessarily takes all its existence and sustenance from the carrier. Because it takes away determinism from the mother, the latter takes precedence when a question arises between the rights f the two.


You say it's not arbitrary but then back it up by invoking aribitrary "rights." You are simply repeating the conclusions you draw from your axioms. I question your axioms!
All rights are arbitrary, then so why concern yourself with the distinction? From this standpoint, an abortion is hardly a crime, neither is murder. So who cares? There is then no argument at all.

[TC]

Yes, I know you think this. But why? What justification do you offer other than some nebulous, anti-materialist conception of "rights?" Where do these rights come from? How can they be proven? How do we know which rights take precendence over others? You say it's not arbitrary but then back it up by invoking aribitrary "rights." You are simply repeating the conclusions you draw from your axioms. I question your axioms!

There is absolutely no materialist, logical positivist, way to derive claims about the desirability or undesirability of an outcome or phenomenon without appealing to a set of interests, values, or axiomatic claims.

The claim for instance that surplus value comes from the exploitation of labour power purchased at a price less than it is worth and this relationship leads to alienation from ones self and others is a materialist observation; the desire to stop this exploitation and the belief that it is wrong is a political judgment that ultimately comes down to personal preference and values, it cannot be argued for to someone who rejects it, whereas the observation can.

Now, I would argue that there are some axiomatic claims but not the ones you think there are, the rights themselves aren't axiomatic they're logically positivistically derived from more basic premises.

That first premises is ultimately the same as the premises of libertarianism, of conservatism, and of liberalism: that people belong to themselves. From this is derived that people do not belong to others, from this that they have a natural right to self defense (which, so far even Hobbs agrees with, let alone every other enlightenment and post-enlightenment political philosopher and politician) and from this is derived a general claim that people are entitled to be free. Every political ideology after the divine right of kings has agreed with this because it is so self-evidently in everyone's personal interests, with the sole exception of Fascists.

Now, when a Fascist disagrees with this premises, we have no answer to them other than we have an irreconcilable conflict of interests which we will pursue to the detriment of theirs, but when someone who believes in this axiom, a liberal, a conservative, a libertarian, or so on, disagrees with Communism (or in this case abortion rights) we can show how their position is inconsistent along positivistic lines. They do not for instance, really believe that exploitation not entered into freely is acceptable, but you need Marxian economics to recognize that this is what occurs in capitalism.

This is the materialist approach to politics, it is not without at least one 'arbitrary' axiom, but rather it applies it consistently to material reality and only derives political positions from material reality. The unmaterialist or idealist position is one that applies an axiom inconsistently or selectively to material reality (i.e., a baby can be killed if its father is a rapist, if not its murder; some people have a right to personal liberty others don't)) or appeals to political positions that have utterly no basis in material reality (i.e. god knew each baby before it was conceived).

The reason why Communist political objectives are materialist and the others are anti-materialist is because Communist political objectives are positivistically derived from that original axiom whereas the other popular ideologies maintain that axiom while also maintaining many political positions that do not follow it and that can be shown to be inconsistent with it through Marxist socio-economic theory, and this is why we are right and you are wrong.

We've already demonstrated many times how this specific right (to terminate a pregnancy) is derived from this more general axiom (that people should be free) which is agreed on by all post 18th century ideologies apart from Fascism. If you disagree with this axiom than we have nothing to talk about, if you agree with it then stop claiming that these specific rights are axiomatic when they're not and respond to the method that they were derived.

[pusher robot]

[quote=Dean;1066914]My axioms are simple. People have a right to self-determinism. Even assuming a fetus were a person in this sense, its right to determinism would be usurped by nature of the fact that it necessarily takes all its existence and sustenance from the carrier. Because it takes away determinism from the mother, the latter takes precedence when a question arises between the rights f the two.

That is not very convincing. First of all, whence comes this inviolable "right to self-determinism?" How could a committed leftist even support such a concept while talking about individual subordination to "communities" and "dictatorships" of one class over another? Suppose I am determined to make a contract? Suppose I am determined to occupy a piece of land and claim it as my own?

Second of all, you can't mean to argue that one person's right to self-determination takes precedence over another person's right to self-determination, otherwise the right itself is internally contradictory and cannot exist. I might be determined to beat the ever-loving crap out of you - it would absolutely be a violation of my "right to self-determination" to physically prevent me from doing so. Yet I suspect that you will not argue that you are morally compelled to offer yourself up for the beating, so presumably we are to conclude that one person's right to self-determination cannot result in an overriding of another person's right to self-determination. But your abortion argument on the basis of "self-determination" regardless of personhood status only holds if you allow that one person's right to self-determination trumps another person's.



All rights are arbitrary, then so why concern yourself with the distinction? From this standpoint, an abortion is hardly a crime, neither is murder. So who cares? There is then no argument at all.

Sure you can - you can argue the axioms, for one. You can argue based on the consequences of axioms, on their consistency, on their practicality. Their are plenty of ways to argue for or against a policy other than "it is the revealed truth." The only problem with such an approach is that it necessarily recognizes the nominal legitimacy of opposing arguments, which is why it is not popular here and is why you are restricted. For some reason, there are certain people who cannot permit argument to possibly be in good faith - opponents must be evil, and the only way that opponents must be evil is if your axioms must be true regardless of reality.

I am concerned with the distinction because without it, logical argument is impossible.

[pusher robot]

We've already demonstrated many times how this specific right (to terminate a pregnancy) is derived from this more general axiom (that people should be free) which is agreed on by all post 18th century ideologies apart from Fascism. If you disagree with this axiom than we have nothing to talk about, if you agree with it then stop claiming that these specific rights are axiomatic when they're not and respond to the method that they were derived.

Very well, I can agree that you start with certain sets of fundamentally unproveable axioms and derive your principles therefrom. In fact, I argue that very thing myself.

The problem is that an axiom like "people should be free" or that "people belong to themselves" is so broad as to permit many possible derivations. You cannot possibly claim that there is only one logically valid chain of deduction from such a broad axiom. But - that is in fact what you claim.

I am not even really concerned with disputing your derivation. I am concerned with disputing your supposed exclusivity.

[TC]

The problem is that an axiom like "people should be free" or that "people belong to themselves" is so broad as to permit many possible derivations. You cannot possibly claim that there is only one logically valid chain of deduction from such a broad axiom. But - that is in fact what you claim.

I am not even really concerned with disputing your derivation. I am concerned with disputing your supposed exclusivity.

They need to be broad so that you only need one, because having more than one leads to internal logical conflict and inconsistency. For instance, political Evangelical's tend to have three, an axiomatic claim to right to liberty, an axiomatic claim to right to life, and an axiomatic claim that morality is derived from God; each one can be shown to be mutually exclusive with the other two, so the ideology is internally inconsistent and therefore inherently wrong on the surface. Communism has just one political axiom: there should be general emancipation. This Marxist philosophical position found in the older philosophical writing of Marx is ultimately unprovable, but if you accept it as most in fact do, it can be demonstrated that the Marxist economic, anthropological and sociological theories in the later Marx are factually true on a material level, and then from the the axiom on the one hand and the material observations on the other, the Marxist political conclusions are necessary.

As to the exclusivity, this can be proven because other views either have inconsistencies with material reality (i.e. banking generates profit, if you put money in the bank it grows) or they are internally inconsistent by way of applying different standards with no positivist differences (i.e. a fetus has a right to its hosts body, but a dependent neonate has no rights to its parent's bodies, nor does a stranger). You can arrive at a single correct political line from broad axioms the same way that you can arrive at a single correct medical diagnosis from diverse symptoms, by applying differential diagnosis so to speak, evaluating positions for interconnected support for one another on the one hand or arbitrary inconsistencies on the other, based on accurate observations on the one hand or idealist assumptions on the other.

If you don't want to participate in this type of constructive debate that aims for the truth rather than just argument for its own sake then you really have no reason to be here.

[pusher robot]

As to the exclusivity, this can be proven because other views either have inconsistencies with material reality (i.e. banking generates profit, if you put money in the bank it grows) or they are internally inconsistent by way of applying different standards with no positivist differences (i.e. a fetus has a right to its hosts body, but a dependent neonate has no rights to its parent's bodies, nor does a stranger).

Fine, if that is what you care to argue. But then you must realize that you can't defend inconsistincies or arbitrariness by referring back to fundamental principles like rights without being completely circular. For example, if it is inconsistent to apply different standards to fetuses and neonates, and there is not ethical problem with terminating a fetus, then on what basis is there any ethical problem with terminating a neonate?

Or, to step back from this specific line of deduction - how do you resolve the contradiction between a woman's desire - and imputed right - to terminate a fetus and a doctors desire - and imputed right - not to perform the work?

[TC]

That is not very convincing. First of all, whence comes this inviolable "right to self-determinism?" How could a committed leftist even support such a concept while talking about individual subordination to "communities" and "dictatorships" of one class over another?

Real Marxists don't believe in the subordination of individuals to communities and dictatorships, the dictatorship of the proletariat does not involve individual subordination. As to a dictatorship of one class over another, the dictatorship of the proletariat does not enslave or subordinate the bourgeois, it eliminates it as a functional class, its individual members becoming members of other classes.

In any case the Communist position on this is vastly more complicated than can be explained in this thread.


Suppose I am determined to make a contract? Suppose I am determined to occupy a piece of land and claim it as my own?

Second of all, you can't mean to argue that one person's right to self-determination takes precedence over another person's right to self-determination, otherwise the right itself is internally contradictory and cannot exist. I might be determined to beat the ever-loving crap out of you - it would absolutely be a violation of my "right to self-determination" to physically prevent me from doing so.

Yet I suspect that you will not argue that you are morally compelled to offer yourself up for the beating, so presumably we are to conclude that one person's right to self-determination cannot result in an overriding of another person's right to self-determination.


No, it wouldn't be. What you're describing isn't a right to SELF-determination but a general "right" to determine conditions and relationships with others. To attack someone is to attempt to deprive them of 'self determination' as you are determining their physical condition for them; self determination only extends to ones self, it does not extend to other people, thats why its called "self" determination!

Moreover, the concept of 'self-determination' as I'm describing is a position that can be held consistently and it leads to a position that everyone is inviolable, whereas your faux-'self determination' position would be internally inconsistent since it leads to a position that everyone is both inviolable and has a right to violate others (which are mutually exclusive positions). Therefore your position is clearly wrong (note that it does not prove my position, but only that yours is false).



But your abortion argument on the basis of "self-determination" regardless of personhood status only holds if you allow that one person's right to self-determination trumps another person's.

No, a fetus, were it a person, would be violating it's host by growing inside her and eventually harming her body; to have an abortion would be self-defense against this. There is no right to terminate a pregnancy derived from a right to self-determination except the one derived from defense against this violation of your rights; as a result you have a right to terminate your own pregnancy but you have no right to terminate another person's pregnancy; you have a right to kill your own fetus but you have no right to kill your own premature neonate.

Now, if you believe in an axiomatic "right to life" that takes precedence over a right to self-determination, then the fetus has stronger grounds. But we don't believe in a general right to life, in fact no one does; we all die, a right to life is impossible. No society can protect it any society that uses war or a state, or that recognizes a right to self defense with lethal force, or that fails to prioritize this 'right' absolutely (forced live organ and blood donation, universal and unlimited forced health care, unlimited forced life support, 100% of the economy devoted to medical research, ban on cars, alcohol, anything one could injure oneself with, mandatory veganism, government mandated diet and exercise regimes, etc...oh and for practical purposes, forced universal sterilization since reproduction results in offspring who will necessarily be deprived of their lives). Its therefore very clear that no one actually believes in a 'right to life' in the general sense to the exclusion of the right of personal self determination.

Similarly when we speak of 'self-determination' we do not mean a right to determine *anything* for oneself as this is impossible but rather a freedom from other persons infringing on what one can do on ones own with ones self, and that is possible.


The only problem with such an approach is that it necessarily recognizes the nominal legitimacy of opposing arguments, which is why it is not popular here and is why you are restricted. For some reason, there are certain people who cannot permit argument to possibly be in good faith - opponents must be evil, and the only way that opponents must be evil is if your axioms must be true regardless of reality.

Because opposing arguments actually have the same axioms that ours do, ultimately you believe in the same right to self determination that we do (i.e. as freedom from your self being determined by others, not freedom to determine anything you want) they apply them inconsistently and incorrectly, thats why they're wrong.

On the other hand, for someone to actually reject the shared axiom might make their argument consistent, it would however make them irreconcilably opposed; not wrong, but evil in the secular sense of the word. Thats why we restrict conservatives like you, but ban fascists.

[pusher robot]

No, it wouldn't be. What you're describing isn't a right to SELF-determination but a general "right" to determine conditions and relationships with others. To attack someone is to attempt to deprive them of 'self determination' as you are determining their physical condition for them; self determination only extends to ones self, it does not extend to other people, thats why its called "self" determination!

Ah, now we're getting into the really enjoyable stuff. I do appreciate your willingness to approach this topic from first principles.

I see a large conceptual problem with the right as you outline it above - literally nothing we do with ourselves, no action or inaction, has no effect on the physical conditions of others. Therefore, does this right meaningfully exist? Let's put it this way: suppose I am the primary provider for my family. Now, I decide to kill myself. Surely, you won't argue that I am not in a substantial way determining the physical condition of my dependents, will you? Or suppose I stand by as a man chokes to death on a pretzel. Doesn't my self-determination not to help him obviously determine his physical condition? I'm hard-pressed to think of a single thing we can do that does not affect other people. Even if I'm just standing in the shower jerking off, that means I'm not at the soup kitchen handing out food. That affects other people, possibly even their own right to self-determination.

So we have at least established with the question of battery that there is sometimes a duty not to act, sometimes a duty to deny our own self determination. But there must be some close boundary to that which we are permitted to act.

[casper]

searching around, found this old thread


Well let me put it this way.

We leftists are for the liberation of everyone (That includes women).

Now if you are a leftist, then the most basic thing you should hold as truth, is that every living being has the right to do whatever they want to do to their body, because it is their body and not our body to control.

Now a fetus isnt a living being, so why should it have any rights or a guarantee of "protection" over the woman (Who is a living being who can contribute to society) who is carrying it?

Women cant be liberated if they cant have control over their own bodies when they become pregnant!

The fact is i would rather fight for the liberation of a living being, that can contribute something to society, then a parasite that contributes nothing until it is born (And even then it takes about twenty years until they are adults, for them to start contributing to society).
(I know this is a old post, but i'm using it as a launch board)
if someone is for the liberation of humanity, and sees a fetus as a human and are ok with their destruction, then are they really for the liberation of humanity? of course womans should have control of their bodies, however how much control should they have over their childrens' bodies? after all a unborn child is still a child. If that is the main point of disagreement, i don't see being pro-life as reactionary or anti-woman, rather it is a implementation of a principle common to all on the left. It is actually Pro-liberity with in the framework of a more extendend humanity.

[StalinFanboy]

searching around, found this old thread


(I know this is a old post, but i'm using it as a launch board)
if someone is for the liberation of humanity, and sees a fetus as a human and are ok with their destruction, then are they really for the liberation of humanity? of course womans should have control of their bodies, however how much control should they have over their childrens' bodies? after all a unborn child is still a child. If that is the main point of disagreement, i don't see being pro-life as reactionary or anti-woman, rather it is a implementation of a principle common to all on the left. It is actually Pro-liberity with in the framework of a more extendend humanity.
Fetuses are not sentient.

An "unborn child" is not a child. It is a fetus.

[casper]

Thats not the point i was making.
the point was should we restrict someone for having that view?

[kiki75]

Did you really need 2 threads about this?

If you can't survive outside the womb, your humanity is in question, imo. If you need to be hooked up to machines in order to remain alive, how alive are you?

You were not making the point about fetuses, but you are basing your restriction argument on it, so it makes sense that someone would bring it up.

A pregnant woman is not considered to be at least two people when the census takers come around.

[casper]

Did you really need 2 threads about this?

If you can't survive outside the womb, your humanity is in question, imo. If you need to be hooked up to machines in order to remain alive, how alive are you?

You were not making the point about fetuses, but you are basing your restriction argument on it, so it makes sense that someone would bring it up.

A pregnant woman is not considered to be at least two people when the census takers come around.
i just saw a quote i could use.
some one could make the argument that no one is independent, we all rely on some form of externality to supply sustenance, we all have to be hooked up to the social machine, to the economic machine, does this mean that we should be replaced for the benefit of that machine when ever that machine decides that it would be better to do with out you?

[AtteroDominatus]

there's no point trying to argue with them. I'm anti abortion too because i believe
1. if the woman is pregnant, she has a right to take care of the child that comes with it.
-she had the sex, (though i don't think the male is out of responsibility) and either she used no contraception or it failed. All women are well aware of the fact having sex can make you pregnant. it's what it-s -made- for, for reproduction. It's one of the consequences to having it
2. the Fetus is a person.
-Because where do we draw the line? A new born baby can't survive on its own, either. It has the genetic makeup of a human, it is a human, even if it does not look like one, have the necessary internal organs, or has the ability to feel/communicate.
3. Abortion is killing.
-Because I believe the fetus is a human being, because scientifically it is all the makeup of humans, it will live like other humans and play a part in society like other humans do. It is a life, and I believe women have rights, but the rights of a baby coincide with those rights because the woman knew what she was getting into. It's murder because it is killing a life
4. However;
-I don't think it should be banned/declared illegal because it just leads way to back alley abortions, so more people die
-I don't believe these women should be judged for their choices, because though i believe it's a life and look down upon abortion, my thought isn't going to change anyone else's
-I believe the man is also responsible, because he impregnated the women, and it is not her doing in itself.
Yet, despite these points (i have more, but it would take awhile for them all and i don't remember all of them off the top of my head, because there are so many incidents) I'm restricted because i believe abortion is wrong. it doesn't matter your stance on it, the CC doesn't care, and neither do the rules of the forum. What does it matter to them if people are being opressed? even ones that think like they do on other situations? being against abortion is being sexist to them, which obviously means you are not a leftist, and means you have no right to speak here. they could care less what we say or thought as long as we can't do anything. kinda like the burgeousie against the proletarian ;3

[kiki75]

i just saw a quote i could use.
some one could make the argument that no one is independent, we all rely on some form of externality to supply sustenance, we all have to be hooked up to the social machine, to the economic machine, does this mean that we should be replaced for the benefit of that machine when ever that machine decides that it would be better to do with out you?
Wow.

I'm sorry. I didn't realize you were this illogical. I won't waste your time by discussing this topic with you from now on.

[casper]

its basicly the same Scenario, just different scale. different abstractions.