Late Term Abortions (split from Article Submissions)

[Xiao Banfa]

at all stages of pregnancy


Does this mean 10 minutes before giving birth?

I had no idea people actually believed that.

I thought I was the most pro-choice person in the world, but this is unacceptable.

Why not pick up the baby after it's been born and smack it against a brick wall?

[RedAnarchist]

So, you believe that theres a certain date during a pregnancy when women lose the right to make decisions about their own bodies? Women are not incubation machines, they are human beings, and human beings should be allowed as much control over their own bodies as is possible.

[Comrade Rage]

Does this mean 10 minutes before giving birth?

I had no idea people actually believed that.

I thought I was the most pro-choice person in the world, but this is unacceptable.

Why not pick up the baby after it's been born and smack it against a brick wall?This sounds ENTIRELY hypothetical, but I support a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy ANYTIME.

[Xiao Banfa]

Yeah I know all that. It doesn't remove the fact that you're condoning the killing of a more or less fully grown baby which is different to standard abortion.

You have to balance the rights of both the women and the baby if you want to minimise harm, which is what it's about.

It's neither about some kind of "every sperm is sacred" fetish nor some kind of absolute approach like you are proposing.

[TC]

Yeah I know all that. It doesn't remove the fact that you're condoning the killing of a more or less fully grown baby which is different to standard abortion.

Its not fully formed on a materially relevant level until its out of the womb and able to experience the world without posing a threat to its (now) mother.


You have to balance the rights of both the women and the baby if you want to minimise harm, which is what it's about.

I have no interest in minimizing harm to fetuses, I have an interest in ensuring that all fully functioning, self aware persons are able to have their dignity and bodily autonomy protected as inviolable.

You are obscenely paternalistic to talk about 'balancing rights' of 'women and babies' as if you could dictate to women as the other, as those external to the people making those 'balanced' decisions as if women and babies were both under your care rather then that women are independent agents and fetuses no matter how late term entirely dependent and conditional on the people carrying them.

A fetus no matter how late term is not equal to the woman carrying it, but even if it were, her intrinsic right to self defense and bodily integrity would still trump it.

[Xiao Banfa]

as if you could dictate to women as the other


I'm not dictating shit. Men and women who are pro-choice believe this.

When you live in a society that collectively decides that certain behaviour is unacceptable you go with that, because it's the law.

Basically you are saying that you are okay with killing a fully grown baby.

And why in the fuck is this in opposing ideologies?

[freakazoid]

And why in the fuck is this in opposing ideologies?

Because believing in a limit on abortion is an OI. Welcome to the OI.


I have said it before and I will say it again, I do not believe in the banning of abortions.

[Joby]

Why isn't this guy Restricted?

I got Restricted for saying I think late-term abortions are wrong.

[BobKKKindle$]

I'm not dictating shit. Men and women who are pro-choice believe this.I'm going to repeat the material in my private message so you're forced to respond. Since when do we have a duty to support the "standard" view? Most Pro-choice activists are not radical enough in their approach to abortion - they don't recognize the need to fight for the rights of that small group of women who need late-term abortions and are content to accept restrictions once the fetus has reached a certain level of development. Socialists should try and assume the most radical position when it comes to abortion - we don't just change our views to comply with the majority.

This underlying approach is in direct conflict with the basic idea of the vanguard party. We maintain a constant revolutionary position, to the left of the working class, because our role is not the same as that of normal parties - we don't want to attract as many votes as possible (which could be achieved by offering policies which appeal to the prejudices of ordinary people) but instead aim to change people's views - to develop class consciousness.

You have not yet given a clear explanation of why you object to (very) late-term abortions. Is it just because the idea disgusts you? Do you think the ethical status of the fetus changes after a certain period of time has elapsed due to physiological development?

Regardless of what you think, the state has no right to tell women what they are able to do with their own bodies, and women should be given the ability to terminate any organism which uses their body - including fetuses. Power belongs in the hands of individual women - not reactionaries like you.

In addition, if you do believe abortion should be restricted, then it will obviously be necessary to decide on a date, after which abortion is no longer allowed - and yet any date will always be purely arbitrary. How can the ethical status of an organism suddenly change overnight? Or, to look at the issue from the opposite direction, why should we suddenly deny a woman her right to control her body? How would this date be decided upon?

It's not abortion that should be restricted - It's YOU.

[Joby]

I'm going to repeat the material in my private message so you're forced to respond. Since when do we have a duty to support the "standard" view? Most Pro-choice activists are not radical enough in their approach to abortion - they don't recognize the need to fight for the rights of that small group of women who need late-term abortions and are content to accept restrictions once the fetus has reached a certain level of development. Socialists should try and assume the most radical position when it comes to abortion - we don't just change our views to comply with the majority.

This underlying approach is in direct conflict with the basic idea of the vanguard party. We maintain a constant revolutionary position, to the left of the working class, because our role is not the same as that of normal parties - we don't want to attract as many votes as possible (which could be achieved by offering policies which appeal to the prejudices of ordinary people) but instead aim to change people's views - to develop class consciousness.

You have not yet given a clear explanation of why you object to (very) late-term abortions. Is it just because the idea disgusts you? Do you think the ethical status of the fetus changes after a certain period of time has elapsed due to physiological development?

Regardless of what you think, the state has no right to tell women what they are able to do with their own bodies, and women should be given the ability to terminate any organism which uses their body - including fetuses. Power belongs in the hands of individual women - not reactionaries like you.

In addition, if you do believe abortion should be restricted, then it will obviously be necessary to decide on a date, after which abortion is no longer allowed - and yet any date will always be purely arbitrary. How can the ethical status of an organism suddenly change overnight? Or, to look at the issue from the opposite direction, why should we suddenly deny a woman her right to control her body? How would this date be decided upon?

It's not abortion that should be restricted - It's YOU.

First, where are there "Pro-Choice" Activists? There are Pro-Life Activists, because Choice is the status quo.

Second, what the hell does a social issue like abortion have to do with Class Consciousness?

Third, By the time it's "late-term," the fetus is most likely viable, ie it's alive, and who the fuck wouldn't notice the lump by the time it's "late-term?"

Fourth, Adopting the most radical position available isn't going to get you anywere outside a campus, that is, nowhere at all. It's about baby-steps, the idea that you can hang up a picture of Lenin or Stalin or Mao and expect someone to rise up in some spontaneous moment is ridiculous.

Fifth, the whole idea of women being in charge of their bodies is an overused saying. Forced conscription into the Red Army denied men, and women, of all of their rights, yet we seldon criticize that blatant attack on an individual's freedom and right to self-determination.

Sixth, when does the Far-Left think it'll be relevant again?

I'll answer this one. The second they drop all this "vanguard" crap, realize they're doing absolutely nothing constructive on the internet, and go outside and do something. The net is good for one thing - Organization. After that it's just masturbation.

[Dean]

So, you believe that theres a certain date during a pregnancy when women lose the right to make decisions about their own bodies? Women are not incubation machines, they are human beings, and human beings should be allowed as much control over their own bodies as is possible.

Yeah, Dec. 25th!

[BobKKKindle$]

First, where are there "Pro-Choice" Activists? There are Pro-Life Activists, because Choice is the status quo.

Unfortunately, in many countries, "choice" is not the status-quo - even in the United States, where abortion is legal, women often have to travel long distances to find an abortion clinic, and, as you would know if you read my article, they find themselves confronted by right-wing protesters, attempting to make women feel guilty, when they try and enter these clinics - this is not a genuine "choice". In the UK, women seeking abortion must persuade two doctors to agree to her decision due to restrictive legal criteria. This allows doctors to delay or inhibit womens requests. Even when doctors agree, women often face delays due to poor low levels of funding and further restrictions which prevent qualified nurses and midwives from performing abortions. And of course, there are countries where abortion is simply not allowed.

Your assumption that women do have a "choice" shows that you don't really have any concern for the welfare of women.


Third, By the time it's "late-term," the fetus is most likely viable, ie it's alive, and who the fuck wouldn't notice the lump by the time it's "late-term?"

It doesn't matter if the fetus is "alive" or if the fetus is capable of feeling pain, such issues don't alter the fact that a woman should exercise control over her own body - regardless of it's level of development, as long as it remains within the womb, the fetus is using the woman's body for its own survival, and it is this "use" which gives a woman the right to terminate pregnancy at any stage - no organism has the right to use someone else's body without their prior consent. This also applies to other ethical issues, including rape - rape is wrong because a woman does not consent to the rapist using her body for sexual pleasure.


fuck wouldn't notice the lump by the time it's "late-term?"

Women who have been raped are sometimes unwilling to admit they are pregnant, because rape is such a deeply humiliating and disturbing experience. Neither you nor I can imagine what it is like to have someone forcibly penetrate one's body. Your apparent surprise that late-term pregnancy can sometimes occur because of this shows utter ignorance and insensitivity on your part.


Fourth, Adopting the most radical position available isn't going to get you anywere outside a campus, that is, nowhere at all. It's about baby-steps, the idea that you can hang up a picture of Lenin or Stalin or Mao and expect someone to rise up in some spontaneous moment is ridiculous.


Second, what the hell does a social issue like abortion have to do with Class Consciousness?

Altering our policies to suit existing prejudices is political opportunism, and a tactic favored by parties which exist to gain as many votes as possible - the vanguard party exists to develop class consciousness and, eventually, change the way society is organized, and so we see no need to alter our socialist principles, even when these principles are not accepted by the working class, because we are aware that out party has a different role (and a different set of objectives) to that of mainstream parties. Developing class consciousness is not easy, and may take a long time, but consciousness will never emerge if we simply adopt the prevailing ideas of the status quo.

Note the Bolshevik's policy of "revolutionary defeatism" during WW1 as an example of this approach.

I brought up class consciousness because the OP's approach to abortion indicated that he did not understand the role of a vanguard party, and so I attacked the logic underlying his position.


Fifth, the whole idea of women being in charge of their bodies is an overused saying. Forced conscription into the Red Army denied men, and women, of all of their rights, yet we seldon criticize that blatant attack on an individual's freedom and right to self-determination.

Forced conscription is also unfortunate, but it was necessary to protect a country against an enemy with strong military forces there is no similar pressing "need" to restrict abortion. Your analogy fails.

[TC]

I'm not dictating shit. Men and women who are pro-choice believe this.

No, they don't. Even US bourgeois Democrats who are weak on abortion rights like Hillary Clinton have voted against disallowing "partial birth" abortion.

Abortion is a black and white issue, either you believe that women are people and therefore have bodily integrity, privacy, and personal autonomy needs that must be respected, or you don't.

The point of terminating a pregnancy is to avoid childbirth, and any healthy fetus terminated before that point could have developed into a baby if given the opportunity and support of the person carrying it. The timing then is from the point of view of whats right and wrong, totally irrelevant. (of course, earlier is more desirable from the point of view of the person having the abortion but its not 'morally' superior)


When you live in a society that collectively decides that certain behaviour is unacceptable you go with that, because it's the law.

Laws are rarely the results of society collectively deciding anything, and personal issues should not be subject to collective decisions as people have exclusive remit over their own bodies.


Basically you are saying that you are okay with killing a fully grown baby.

I'm okay with killing a "fully formed baby" in the uterus of someone who doesn't want to go through childbirth, just as I'd be okay with killing a "fully formed adult person" if they were about to torture another fully formed adult person and that was the minimum force required to stop them. People don't lose sovereignty over their own body just because something else is attempting to us it.

If someone said to you "hey, a pweshous bawyebee is gonna die unless I get to torture you with a level of agony beyond your previous comprehension for 16 hours, slice up your genitals, and literally rip your lower abdominal and pelvic muscles apart from the inside out resulting in likely impotence and incontinence" do you think you should have the choice to at least consider whether you want to pick yourself over that pwesous bayeebee.


And why in the fuck is this in opposing ideologies?
So you can post in it after you get restricted. :lol:

[LSD]

Does this mean 10 minutes before giving birth?

Yes, because ten minutes is no different from eleven minutes is no different from twelve minutes.

If you believe that a woman has the right to control her own body, it really doesn't matter what stage of development the fetus has undergone, it's still in her body and it's still subject to her interests.

I fully understand why many women might have a much harder time aborting a nine month old fetus than a law week old one, but there's no distinction there that the law has any business making.

This thread shouldn't be about what's "good" or "bad", it should be about what we do. 'Cause if you want to lock up women who terminate any pregnancy the moment it becomes a real viable human baby, you have about 10,000,000 women to lock up in the United States alone.

[Xiao Banfa]

I have said it before and I will say it again, I do not believe in the banning of abortions.


Neither do I. Thanks for misrepresenting what I said.



Sixth, when does the Far-Left think it'll be relevant again?


Please don't confuse these wacko's with 'the far left'. The far left does a lot of very constructive activism on the hard issues, please give them the credit they deserve.


Because believing in a limit on abortion is an OI. Welcome to the OI.

That is obscene.


No, they don't. Even US bourgeois Democrats who are weak on abortion rights like Hillary Clinton have voted against disallowing "partial birth" abortion.

I'm not american, so I don't know too much about that. We don't have a big threat from the religious right trying to criminalise abortion in NZ, so we don't have looneys on both side so much shouting people down.

I'd assume she would be trying to stop a slipperry slope which leads to the criminalisation of all abortions, which I can understand.

I support late-term abortions where there are complications.


if you do believe abortion should be restricted, then it will obviously be necessary to decide on a date, after which abortion is no longer allowed - and yet any date will always be purely arbitrary. How can the ethical status of an organism suddenly change overnight? Or, to look at the issue from the opposite direction, why should we suddenly deny a woman her right to control her body? How would this date be decided upon?


I don't know when that date would be.

I think women know when they are pregnant and under a humane provision for abortion would have enough warning to seek an abortion in the early stages. And if there is a medical reason they could seek abortion in the late stages.

But giving someone carte blanche to be callous is fucked. It is distasteful to most people. If someone is terminating a pregnancy in a late stage without good reason, this is callousness no matter what you dress it up in.

You can accuse me in believing in morality or whatever, but this is just how most people feel- nothing to do with moral codes, patriachy, men vs women etc.


'Cause if you want to lock up women who terminate any pregnancy the moment it becomes a real viable human baby, you have about 10,000,000 women to lock up in the United States alone.

That's not what it's about. It's about making abortion as humane as possible without compromising a womans right to choose which I resolutely support, so don't insult me.

[Xiao Banfa]

Thanks for the severe anti-climax.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

This thread shouldn't be about what's "good" or "bad", it should be about what we do. 'Cause if you want to lock up women who terminate any pregnancy the moment it becomes a real viable human baby, you have about 10,000,000 women to lock up in the United States alone.
That is such a weak argument against a ban on abortion. The idea that you might actually have to enforce a law is not an argument against that law. Laws cannot and do not apply retroactively, so no, no one would have to lock up 10,000,000 women for anything. And once abortion is illegal and abortion clinics have been shut down you are going to find that a lot less women actually get abortions in that jurisdiction.

[Xiao Banfa]

RedStar1916, this thread is not about banning abortion.

You could even say it's about saving the right to choose.

[TC]

RedStar1916, this thread is not about banning abortion.

You could even say it's about saving the right to choose.

No, you couldn't, thats obscenely stupid.

Your position as you've stated is in opposition to post-viability abortions (unless there are "complications"), of shaming women who have them and graphically comparing them to people who kill infants for no reason; thats a position that obviously attacks women's choices.

[Feslin]

So, you believe that theres a certain date during a pregnancy when women lose the right to make decisions about their own bodies? Women are not incubation machines, they are human beings, and human beings should be allowed as much control over their own bodies as is possible.

Along with other human beings bodies?

I was born prematurely, does that mean it would have been fine to kill me at birth?

[careyprice31]

i still cannot see how people can rationalize taking away women's choices just because the fetus reaches a certain age and development and if removed, could survive outside th womb at this age.

It still has to rely upon the woman's body to nurish it. If the woman does not want it, why should she be forced to give up her body to an organism that she does not want there.

the point being, 8 or 9 months is not different from 5 months is not different from 1 month is nopt.

the woman still should have the say that she shouldnt have to let the organism use her body (and dont forget pregnancy and childbirth is much many times more dangerous than abortion, in fact around the world a woman dies every minute from pregnancy and childbirth complications)

if she doesnt want it, she shouldnt be forced to have it.

[TC]

Along with other human beings bodies?

I was born prematurely, does that mean it would have been fine to kill me at birth?


No it would have been fine to kill "you" before birth just like everyone else; a woman carrying a fetus has absolute sovereignty over it as it is within her body and requires her consent and participation to develop and survive, a mother with an infant does not have this absolute sovereignty as there is no special physical reason why she needs to be the one to care for it and it does not violate her bodily autonomy to give it to someone else; its not attached to her.

However i'd point out that even talking about the infants that grew up to be the children who we were as being "me" or "you" is rather ridiculous...infants don't think the way people do, they don't remember anything, they don't speak, their understanding of whats going on is clearly minimal, they don't even physically resemble the adults they grow into as children do;

You can't reconstruct a coherent self-aware narrative from your current state back to when you were an infant. Even on the material level, while you have the same DNA that you did as an infant, you don't have the same cells or matter, let alone memory or consciousness...If "you" were killed as an infant "you" wouldn't have developed into "you" to care. How does it make sense to say "you" were a particular infant, on a philosophical level of analyzing personal identity, then it does to say you were the particular ovum and sperm that became that infant (or, fertilized egg if you prefer something with your DNA but again nothing of your mind).

[Xiao Banfa]

of shaming women who have them and graphically comparing them to people who kill infants for no reason; thats a position that obviously attacks women's choices.

Shaming women who have them? My graphic comparisons are to make make a point that you can't just keep saying 'right to choose, right to choose' untill the initial righteousness of that slogan is diluted in blood.

I wouldn't say I'd go as far as 'shaming' women.

Face it- practically under the provision for abortion I support, women have plenty of recourse to abortion.

The only come to grief if they are horribly messy and indifferent.

Most women are not like this.

[Joby]

Unfortunately, in many countries, "choice" is not the status-quo - even in the United States, where abortion is legal, women often have to travel long distances to find an abortion clinic, and, as you would know if you read my article, they find themselves confronted by right-wing protesters, attempting to make women feel guilty, when they try and enter these clinics - this is not a genuine "choice".

And I had to drive a ways to get my Nikes. And I have to deal with Left-wing protestors. And I didn't feel guilty. It's their isue, not mine.


In the UK, women seeking abortion must persuade two doctors to agree to her decision due to restrictive legal criteria. This allows doctors to delay or inhibit womens requests. Even when doctors agree, women often face delays due to poor low levels of funding and further restrictions which prevent qualified nurses and midwives from performing abortions. And of course, there are countries where abortion is simply not allowed.

If you live on the UK, you should vote with this issue in mind if it's important to you.

If your country doesn't allow abortions, you should do something about it.


Your assumption that women do have a "choice" shows that you don't really have any concern for the welfare of women.

Every woman in my country does have a choice.


It doesn't matter if the fetus is "alive" or if the fetus is capable of feeling pain, such issues don't alter the fact that a woman should exercise control over her own body - regardless of it's level of development, as long as it remains within the womb, the fetus is using the woman's body for its own survival, and it is this "use" which gives a woman the right to terminate pregnancy at any stage - no organism has the right to use someone else's body without their prior consent. This also applies to other ethical issues, including rape - rape is wrong because a woman does not consent to the rapist using her body for sexual pleasure.

But according to communism itself, people don't have a right to their bodies. They're required to do the job society tells them to, for the amount society tells them to.

How many strikes in the USSR were succesfull?

Also, why aren't people free to put whatever they want into their body?



Women who have been raped are sometimes unwilling to admit they are pregnant, because rape is such a deeply humiliating and disturbing experience. Neither you nor I can imagine what it is like to have someone forcibly penetrate one's body. Your apparent surprise that late-term pregnancy can sometimes occur because of this shows utter ignorance and insensitivity on your part.


Their issues are their problem.



Altering our policies to suit existing prejudices is political opportunism, and a tactic favored by parties which exist to gain as many votes as possible - the vanguard party exists to develop class consciousness and, eventually, change the way society is organized, and so we see no need to alter our socialist principles, even when these principles are not accepted by the working class, because we are aware that out party has a different role (and a different set of objectives) to that of mainstream parties. Developing class consciousness is not easy, and may take a long time, but consciousness will never emerge if we simply adopt the prevailing ideas of the status quo.

Note the Bolshevik's policy of "revolutionary defeatism" during WW1 as an example of this approach.

I brought up class consciousness because the OP's approach to abortion indicated that he did not understand the role of a vanguard party, and so I attacked the logic underlying his position.


What vanguard do you belong to?

Seriously, though.

The revolutionary left has failed to mobilize large numbers even when one of the most blatant examples of US imperialism is under way...When a city full of an oppressed minorities is left to be flooded...When 1 out of every 100 Americans are now locked up by the government....When the economy has significantly fallen....



Forced conscription is also unfortunate, but it was necessary to protect a country against an enemy with strong military forces there is no similar pressing "need" to restrict abortion. Your analogy fails.


And if I decide that my country isn't worth my life, I should have the choice to not fight.

[Xiao Banfa]

And I had to drive a ways to get my Nikes. And I have to deal with Left-wing protestors. And I didn't feel guilty. It's their isue, not mine.

You sound like a selfish nihilist libertarian with aspergers.

And you're kind of derailing the abortion debate.


What vanguard do you belong to?

Railing against vanguardism is quite boring. It sounds like a 12 year old Anarchist who has just read the liner notes of some punk record.

What is an executive committee then? That's much worse. They aren't the same, but related principles are at work with both ideas.

I know. Organised capitalist interests can continue to be effective with their leadership of the capable, but not the left. Oh no, that would be dictatorship.

The only people that use "leaderless resistance" are green anarchist mentally ill bohemians, anti-federal millitia and white nationalist overgrown children. And these time-wasters spend most of their time chasing their tails.

[Joby]

You sound like a selfish nihilist libertarian with aspergers.

And you're kind of derailing the abortion debate.

I just like my kicks.

And sorry.



Railing against vanguardism is quite boring. It sounds like a 12 year old Anarchist who has just read the liner notes of some punk record.

What is an executive committee then? That's much worse. They aren't the same, but related principles are at work with both ideas.

I know. Organised capitalist interests can continue to be effective with their leadership of the capable, but not the left. Oh no, that would be dictatorship.

The only people that use "leaderless resistance" are green anarchist mentally ill bohemians, anti-federal millitia and white nationalist overgrown children. And these time-wasters spend most of their time chasing their tails.


My problem isn't with the "vanguard," per se. I'm just mocking them.

Forgive me if I make a mistake, but vaguardism would require a tight-knit, well trained corps of true believers.

Were are they? They aren't just going to form among the masses overnight, especially in the first world. How about instead of trying to form a Marxist-Leninst vanguard that competes with Maoist/Trotskyist/Whatever ones, we form an umbrella group? Like the PLO, or the SDS, for instance? We have the internet for chrissakes....15 years ago you and I could never have been able to hold this debate.

All these little (and these days, most of these groups should take "little" as a compliment) should unite over some basic framework of co-operation and solidarity spanning the far-far-left and social-democrats on the right? We shouldn't be staring off into the glorious future half as mcuh as we do, and we should be getting the word out about any of the dozens of social issues we wish to see progress in a thousand times harder.

It doesn't even need to have political aspirations. Slapping stickers on cars and buying people beer's isn't the goal so much as forcing people to think about the issues being presented. Or, like in the Grapes of Wrath, we should be those striking workers who force the bosses to pay people more; The rock in their left shoe. We should be getting heard among those who don't even think about the political sysyetm we have, ie the vast majority.

Today, the masses consider Hillary Clinton to be "left."

[careyprice31]

And I had to drive a ways to get my Nikes. And I have to deal with Left-wing protestors. And I didn't feel guilty. It's their isue, not mine.



If you live on the UK, you should vote with this issue in mind if it's important to you.

If your country doesn't allow abortions, you should do something about it.



Every woman in my country does have a choice.



But according to communism itself, people don't have a right to their bodies. They're required to do the job society tells them to, for the amount society tells them to.

How many strikes in the USSR were succesfull?

Also, why aren't people free to put whatever they want into their body?



Their issues are their problem.



What vanguard do you belong to?

Seriously, though.

The revolutionary left has failed to mobilize large numbers even when one of the most blatant examples of US imperialism is under way...When a city full of an oppressed minorities is left to be flooded...When 1 out of every 100 Americans are now locked up by the government....When the economy has significantly fallen....



And if I decide that my country isn't worth my life, I should have the choice to not fight.

excuse me but saying that women having to travel for abortions is not your problem its theirs, has to be one of the most ignorant statements I have ever read. Who provides the sperm to make the fetuses? You only extend the problems by saying that, not help solve it.

Abortions are hardly the same as getting Nikes.

If you dont know how to use a condom, u men should go to a PP or someplce and they can show u how, and they can start with a banana.

Men should be doing their part to help make sure their partners are never put into a situation they dont want to be in in the first place. Who are you trying to fool, saying that this issue isnt yours (men's) concern?)

[pusher robot]

It is wildly inconsistent, though, to be completely against any restriction on abortion while condoning conscription. That's a fair point.

[RGacky3]

It still has to rely upon the woman's body to nurish it. If the woman does not want it, why should she be forced to give up her body to an organism that she does not want there.


How about killing parapaligics as well? Or retarded people? THey can't take care of themselves.

[RedAnarchist]

How about killing parapaligics as well? Or retarded people? THey can't take care of themselves.

They are already alive, a feotus is not technically alive - if it were, we would all be 9 months older!

And mentally challenged people can look after themselves to some extent, but they have already been born, they aren't feeding off their mothers by way of a tube inside her womb.

[pusher robot]

How about killing parapaligics as well? Or retarded people? THey can't take care of themselves.

They typical argument seems to be that if you are dependent on any given individual, that individual has every right to kill you in self defense.

On the other hand, if you are only dependent on someone, then someone has a duty to support you at their own expense.

[Whitten]

Xiao Banfa, welcome to OI. Congratulations on joining the privilaged group of pro-choice Communists who happen to actually understand the biology involved when dealing with a late stage fetus (such as the fact that following an "abortion the fetus is capable of surviving outside the womb but not without extreme risk of brain damage and other serious health problems. Why a women can't get an abortion in one of the first two trimesters instead of forcing a child to be born with extreme disabilities, is apparently not important.)

Note: I have also been criticised on this forum for suggesting being born without serious disabilities is somehow not preferable to being born with them... (yes, there are no shortage of wackjobs in the CC who adopt an ironicly fascist style of running this forum).

[Bud Struggle]

I didn't read every single post. I'm pro-life. I think every single life is sacred from the moment of conception to the moment of death. No abortion--no death penalty. As long as there is is even a glimmer of a thought of human life, it should be held sacred. No human should kill another human.

We are all a family.

[Xiao Banfa]

Xiao Banfa, welcome to OI. Congratulations on joining the privilaged group of pro-choice Communists who happen to actually understand the biology involved when dealing with a late stage fetus (such as the fact that following an "abortion the fetus is capable of surviving outside the womb but not without extreme risk of brain damage and other serious health problems. Why a women can't get an abortion in one of the first two trimesters instead of forcing a child to be born with extreme disabilities, is apparently not important.)

Note: I have also been criticised on this forum for suggesting being born without serious disabilities is somehow not preferable to being born with them... (yes, there are no shortage of wackjobs in the CC who adopt an ironicly fascist style of running this forum).


I'm not sure if I'm with you on the details, but TC is a rabid obsessive who needs to stop dreaming.