Abortion

[RedFlagComrade]

I dont understand why so many leftists blindly support abortion simply because other leftists do.

Abortion may be good to keep population/crime rates (less unwanted kids)down but thats a very callous way of looking at it.

The children in the womb are the most vulnerable minority in the world.Id support abortion if the mothers life was threatened in or in a case of rape (where the foetus would probably have been found before it could mature) but otherwise...

Vote!

[RaiseYourVoice]

I suggest you search the forum, your "argument" against abortion has been destroyed in many threads already.

Nobody here "blindly" supports abortion. Also not to keep population low. Its a womens basic right to decide over her body, and not the states. A pregnancy means pain and sometimes permanent damage done to the womens body. No one has the right to force that onto women.

[AGITprop]

Your approach to this question is quite un-Marxist RedFlagComrade. No offence.

To approach this question we must first understand a few things.

A woman's body is hers to control and do as she wishes with. From a purely scientific point of view. The embryo, foetus, or baby in the womb is not a minority, as it is not even human. This may sound shocking but I will justify this.

The embryo or foetus is nothing more than a group of parasitic cells in the woman's womb. At first it qualifies as nothing more than purely organic matter, not even life. At a certain stage, a qualitative leap is made where the foetus does become life, when it develops the means to sustain itself potentially; ie a heart, brain, lungs. Now, at this point though, it still is a parasitic life.

Here is where my view may become controversial. At a certain point, in the end of the pregnancy, the baby is fully capable of sustaining itself on its own, without the placental bond with the mother. Even at this stage though, the wife should have the right to terminate the pregnancy. In a socialist system, there would be no need for this as there will be means to care for unwanted babies, so this IS out of context but still a relevant point.

To shock even more. I would not be entirely opposed to post-natal termination either if the circumstances were severe enough. Now this view of mine is based solely on the fact that babies, even after birth, are not conscious. They do not think and are not self-reflective; two things essential in defining human life. This is true because the baby has not interacted with its environment enough to develop this sort of thought-process. At which point babies DO make this leap though, is debatable.

So on this note. I fully support the act of women terminating pregnancies as they are nothing more than parasites and do NOT qualify as human life, because they are no higher than animal life. In my books, humans rank higher than animals as we are qualitatively superior to them.

I believe this view may stir up some discontent by some, but I am merely analyzing the facts and making a decision based on that.

PS My views are completely personal and do not reflect those of any of my comrades.

[Unicorn]

I dont understand why so many leftists blindly support abortion simply because other leftists do.

Abortion may be good to keep population/crime rates (less unwanted kids)down but thats a very callous way of looking at it.

The children in the womb are the most vulnerable minority in the world.Id support abortion if the mothers life was threatened in or in a case of rape (where the foetus would probably have been found before it could mature) but otherwise...
Umm... why do you call yourself "anarcho-communist" if you are against the right to bodily autonomy? Stalin criminalized the abortions though so probably the Stalinist/Hoxhaist comrades take the anti-abortion view. I have zero sympathy for that position though.

Brezhnev legalized abortions in the Soviet Union.

[RedFlagComrade]

Umm... why do you call yourself "anarcho-communist" if you are against the right to bodily autonomy?

Anarchism doesnt give you the right to murder wantonly.

[AGITprop]

Abortion is not murder.
Are you a Christian-fundamentalist? And I mean this in the most serious fashion.
You should read my post, I prove this.

[RaiseYourVoice]

Stalin criminalized the abortions though so probably the Stalinist/Hoxhaist comrades take the anti-abortion view.
I dont think ANYONE on this website takes an anti-abortion stance. I really dont know who criminalised what 1930, and dont want another boring argument about it, but knowing what Stalin did back then does not replace actually like you know, talking to real life comrades who may agree with Stalin on some points.

[RedFlagComrade]

So on this note. I fully support the act of women terminating pregnancies as they are nothing more than parasites and do NOT qualify as human life, because they are no higher than animal life.
Thats avery callous way of describing a creature that will one day be a real person with a real conscience whatever it is during pregnancy, a person who might write novels, make fine art, raise a family, love a partner or lead a communist revolution-with intelligent thoughts and emotions

I hate the way some people blindly follow certain doctrine cos they think they have to to be leftist.
Thats my opinion your free to yours.

[AGITprop]

Thats avery callous way of describing a creature that will one day be a real person with a real conscience whatever it is during pregnancy, a person who might write novels, make fine art, raise a family, love a partner or lead a communist revolution-with intelligent thoughts and emotions

This is an idealist argument which is completely irrelevant comrade. We cannot predict who or what anyone will be. On that note, until a certain point, babies, foetuses, and embryos are NOT human.

Again, are you a Religious Fundamentalist.In all seriousness.

[RHIZOMES]

In before anyone who votes "Pro-Life" gets restricted.

[AGITprop]

In before anyone who votes "Pro-Life" gets restricted.

Is this a rule?
I think it should be.

Also, did you read my post. I am expecting responses to see whether my analysis is complete as I am considering publishing this analysis in an article.

[jake williams]

The children in the womb are the most vulnerable minority in the world
By this logic what we should really be upset about is the wanton destruction of... weeds and grass and stuff. Usually when a woman has an abortion, she at least thinks about it - no such humanity is afforded to our plant-matter brethren.

END THE MURDER!

http://i199.photobucket.com/albums/aa87/jammoe/donttread.jpg

[Guerrilla22]

If you outlaw abortion, you might as well put politicans in all hospitals to be there to tell people what you can and cannot do with their own bodies.

[Unicorn]

I dont think ANYONE on this website takes an anti-abortion stance. I really dont know who criminalised what 1930, and dont want another boring argument about it, but knowing what Stalin did back then does not replace actually like you know, talking to real life comrades who may agree with Stalin on some points.
Lenin's view was that abortions would not be necessary in a socialist society and they would gradually disappear. Abortion was a social ill created by capitalism according to him.

Marxists at the time generally regarded maternity as a social duty, analogous to the duty of labour. This was also the view of Alexandra Kollontai who was one of the most "pro-feminist" Marxists.

Lenin legalized abortion because adequate social services had not yet been developed and social ills created by capitalism were still prevalent in the society. Nevertheless, Lenin was opposed to contraception which was not available in the USSR before the Gorbachev era.

Stalin criminalized abortions because women had achieved the full equality of rights and could "fulfil the great and responsible duty of giving birth to and
bringing up a new generation without fearing the future’".

More info:
https://bora.uib.no/bitstream/1956/2224/1/article_stenvoll.pdf

My position is that Lenin was wrong and Brezhnev right. Women have a right to decide themselves whether they become mothers and also in socialist countries women become pregnant unintentionally or have other legitimate reasons to want an abortion. I also think contraception should be available unlike in the USSR.

[Mujer Libre]

Please read the zillion other threads on this, using the links at the bottom of the page.

Your arguments are based on emotion, which for some reason you feel for a FOETUS or EMBRYO (not a child) more than for the millions of women who you would deprive of control over their bodies.

[guevara2093]

Women should have the right to abortion, even though it would be better just to use contraceptives. After all, it is their body, not yours, and while I rather that they don't, they still must have the option available.

[Os Cangaceiros]

People should have absolute, total sovereignty over their own bodies. Period.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Please read the zillion other threads on this, using the links at the bottom of the page.

Your arguments are based on emotion, which for some reason you feel for a FOETUS or EMBRYO (not a child) more than for the millions of women who you would deprive of control over their bodies.
In fairness, your arguments are as emotionally charged as his. Pro-choice arguments tend to be. What it comes down to is these two questions:

1) Does an "unborn child" in the womb at any point during pregnancy come to qualify as a person for the purposes of the law?

This in itself is a question that has led to much debate, and there is division even within the pro-choice left about it. Much of the debate here is scientific in nature.

In my opinion, there is little difference between an "unborn child" at a late stage in the pregnancy and a child shortly after pregnancy medically, though socially the difference is obviously quite huge. The question for me then is, are persons defined for legal purposes by the relation to society or by their biological characteristics, or if it is a combination if both (which I think it is), which is more important?

2) If the answer to the first question is yes, then which is more important; the baby's right to life or the woman's right to bodily autonomy?

And here is where the argument gets emotional on both sides, because the pro-choicers start talking about an absolute right to bodily autonomy on the part of the woman which is incompatible with reality; we can, for example, throw women in jail of they commit a crime, and while they are in jail, they will eat the food that is given them, they have no choice of what they ingest into their own body.

This is not to say that the pro-choice argument itself is based solely on emotion, but that it is tends to be presented emotionally.

In reality, what makes the abortion question so difficult for many is that it is based on one's own perception of logic and fact, which seems almost paradoxical. But where an issue comes down to a conflict of rights it is entirely possible for arguments to be based both on logic and morality.

[AGITprop]

I put a lot of thought into my short article and no one is responding. I need some feedback please. I have pretty much covered every point in it that has been posted thus far by other members.

Also, who is voting against abortion?
Perhaps these people should enter the conversation as well. I'd like to hear their arguments. I shudder at the thought that some leftists are opposed to pro-choice.

[Os Cangaceiros]

we can, for example, throw women in jail of they commit a crime, and while they are in jail, they will eat the food that is given them, they have no choice of what they ingest into their own body.

What does this have to do with the concept of "personal sovereignty"? :confused:

[chimx]

Is this a rule?
I think it should be.

Pro-lifers are generally considered to be anti-worker and restricted for this reason. The physically and economic coercion done to women is completely unacceptable and is by far more damaging than aborting a fetus.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

What does this have to do with the concept of "self-ownership"? :confused:
If you own an object you get to decide where to put it. It is a necessary part of self-ownership to be able to decide where you go or stay - or, of course, what you eat. But even this is not absolute.

[Os Cangaceiros]

If you own an object you get to decide where to put it. It is a necessary part of self-ownership to be able to decide where you go or stay - or, of course, what you eat. But even this is not absolute.

I decided not to use the phrase "self ownership", because ownership implies that you have a claim to something that could, in theory, be given to someone else. I think "sovereignty" is a better term.

Anyway, we all know that people can (and very often do) violate the "rights" of others when it comes to things like abortion and drugs; my stance is that it isn't moral to do so, however. I feel that myself (as in, my body) is the only thing in this world that is unequivacably mine.

[OrientalHado]

Anti-Abortion ideas is simply an attack on Women's liberty, and the advancement of patriarchy. Anything other then total support for control over their bodies is contradictory consciousness for a radical leftist.

You should question your socialist credentials people who have voted for the anti-abortion ideology. I would expect this from a religious fundamentalist, not a so called ‘comrade.’

[BIG BROTHER]

People should have absolute, total sovereignty over their own bodies. Period.

But, if someone considers an unborn baby a "person" then one could argue that you're taking away his sovereignty by aborting him.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

I decided not to use the phrase "self ownership", because ownership implies that you have a claim to something that could, in theory, be given to someone else. I think "sovereignty" is a better term.

Anyway, we all know that people can (and very often do) violate the "rights" of others when it comes to things like abortion and drugs; my stance is that it isn't moral to do so, however. I feel that myself (as in, my body) is the only thing in this world that is unequivacably mine.
It is yours of course, but what does that mean? Does that fact that it is unequivocally yours render your use of it exempt from any restriction or qualification by law? I don't see why it should, it would certainly be very anomalous. You cannot use your body to assault another human being, to smuggle weaponry into a prison cell or to escape from prison, to name but a few examples. It is clear that there is no absolute right to exclusive ownership of one's body.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

But, if someone considers an unborn baby a "person" then one could argue that you're taking away his sovereignty by aborting him.
Exactly.

[Unicorn]

I put a lot of thought into my short article and no one is responding. I need some feedback please. I have pretty much covered every point in it that has been posted thus far by other members.

Also, who is voting against abortion?
Perhaps these people should enter the conversation as well. I'd like to hear their arguments. I shudder at the thought that some leftists are opposed to pro-choice.
Lenin and Stalin didn't consider the unborn persons but they still considered abortions a social ill. Stalin criminalized it. Your post does not really address their point of view.

[Os Cangaceiros]

It is yours of course, but what does that mean? Does that fact that it is unequivocally yours render your use of it exempt from any restriction or qualification by law? I don't see why it should, it would certainly be very anomalous. You cannot use your body to assault another human being, to smuggle weaponry into a prison cell or to escape from prison, to name but a few examples. It is clear that there is no absolute right to exclusive ownership of one's body.

Ah, but if I use my body to assault another person, essentially violating their rights, then action can justifiably be taken against me.

Again, these really all are just subjective opinions; abortion, as you said, is a very moral issue.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Ah, but if I use my body to assault another person, essentially violating their rights, then action can justifiably be taken against me.
And similarly, if you abort an unborn child you are violating its rights. If, of course, you accept that it has rights.

[AGITprop]

Lenin and Stalin didn't consider the unborn persons but they still considered abortions a social ill. Stalin criminalized it. Your post does not really address their point of view.

And?
My post addresses the right to sovereignty over one's body and the ability to decide whether or not to keep a parasitic group of cells or life-form in your womb.

Now the latter part about termination on post-natal babies is another issue altogether.

Let us also remember that abortion was legalized for the purpose of sovereignty over one's body.

[AGITprop]

And similarly, if you abort an unborn child you are violating its rights. If, of course, you accept that it has rights.

Parasitic organic matter and animal life have no rights. Only the mother has the right to choose.

[AGITprop]

But, if someone considers an unborn baby a "person" then one could argue that you're taking away his sovereignty by aborting him.

Herein lies the issue. They are not a person. Please refer to my post at the beginning of the thread.

[Os Cangaceiros]

And similarly, if you abort an unborn child you are violating its rights. If, of course, you accept that it has rights.

Well, I certainly don't think of it as a person like I would think of an adult as a person; and I think that that view is held by the majority of society, else abortion would net you the same kind of penalty that first degree murder gets you, regardless of how much people regard abortion as distasteful or morally contemptable.

[BIG BROTHER]

Parasitic organic matter and animal life have no rights. Only the mother has the right to choose.

I would consider that, more of an opinion than a fact.

[AGITprop]

Well, I certainly don't think of it as a person like I would think of an adult as a person;

Exactly. My only concern is preservation of human life. Human life is defined by the ability to self-reflect and consciously interact with the environment.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Parasitic organic matter and animal life have no rights. Only the mother has the right to choose.

You're opening a Pandora's box there though. The issue is not as simple as you would make it out to be. While it is obviously true that, at the start of a pregnancy, the unborn... thing is just a bunch of cells, that is not true at the end of pregnancy. In fact, in the later stages of the pregnancy the unborn is much, much closer to a baby than to a bunch of cells.

There is no single, strict legal definition of what constitutes a human person for the purposes of the law.

[AGITprop]

I would consider that, more of an opinion than a fact.

It would be absurd to assume that cells and animals have nearly as many rights as a human being, if any at all.

[crimsonzephyr]

Although i find that abortion is completely immoral, it should be the mother's choice no matter what.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Exactly. My only concern is preservation of human life. Human life is defined by the ability to self-reflect and consciously interact with the environment.
So people who are unconscious, in comas or who suffer certain types of mental deficiencies can also be terminated?

Where are you getting this definition, and why should I accept it?

[Fedorov]

Abortion is indeed about one's sovereignty over the body and no doubt every person should be in control of that but heres a question seeing as I honestly never cared all that much on the topic. Now in your opinion, is there a point where that mass of cells or that parasite actually develops to a point that it can be considered a human? Has science proven that that embryo feels basic stimulus, for example pain and wouldn't that classify it as at least a simple organism at some stage and therefor be granted rights? Animal abuse is illegal (as it should be) even though animals are not of a high order in comparison to us. Don't take it too literally, its just a general thought that I have no conclusion on.

[AGITprop]

You're opening a Pandora's box there though. The issue is not as simple as you would make it out to be. While it is obviously true that, at the start of a pregnancy, the unborn... thing is just a bunch of cells, that is not true at the end of pregnancy. In fact, in the later stages of the pregnancy the unborn is much, much closer to a baby than to a bunch of cells.

There is no single, strict legal definition of what constitutes a human person for the purposes of the law.

Perhaps we should redefine what constitutes human life. As I said, as far as I am concerned, humans are conscious and self-reflective. Also, even at the end of the pregnancy, when the baby is fully capable of being taken away from the placental bond, it is no higher qualitatively than an animal. It has no consciousness as this is only developed by contact with material reality through the senses. All it has are basic reactions innate to life, based in the lower spine.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Well, I certainly don't think of it as a person like I would think of an adult as a person; and I think that that view is held by the majority of society, else abortion would net you the same kind of penalty that first degree murder gets you, regardless of how much people regard abortion as distasteful or morally contemptable.
Yes but then, do you think of a newborn baby in the same way as you would think of an adult? What about mentally retarded people? There are clear fundamental differences between these kinds of people and able-bodied, able-minded adults. Which of these differences, if any, renders which of the categories of alleged people, if any, devoid of legal rights?

[AGITprop]

So people who are unconscious, in comas or who suffer certain types of mental deficiencies can also be terminated?

Where are you getting this definition, and why should I accept it?

People who are in comas are not proved to be unconscious. There is still complex brain activity. Also, people can recover from comas.

People born with mental deficiencies are not brain dead. They still interact with the environment and develop a consciousness, although not able to express it through our language due to some illness.

I don't want to create the image of Gunther the baby killer, but I am simply analyzing this scientifically and creating a view on the issue. I've taken the liberty to think this out quite while but I can understand its nature is shocking to some.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Perhaps we should redefine what constitutes human life. As I said, as far as I am concerned, humans are conscious and self-reflective. Also, even at the end of the pregnancy, when the baby is fully capable of being taken away from the placental bond, it is no higher qualitatively than an animal. It has no consciousness as this is only developed by contact with material reality through the senses. All it has are basic reactions innate to life, based in the lower spine.
Perhaps we should redefine it, yes. But how, and why? Is there a certain qualitative threshold that a species must meet mentally before being considered a human being? Is there any such threshold that can preclude unborn children but include all classes of disabled people?

[Fedorov]

Yes but then, do you think of a newborn baby in the same way as you would think of an adult? What about mentally retarded people? There are clear fundamental differences between these kinds of people and able-bodied, able-minded adults. Which of these differences, if any, renders which of the categories of alleged people, if any, devoid of legal rights?

Exactly my thoughts on the matter. Just because someone or "thing" has not a developed sense of being and consciousness as a normal human that does not give the right to "pull the plug" just for being inferior. Speaking of which that is starting to sound like something Goerbels would say. (Not accusing anyone, just popped into my head):blushing:

[Qwerty Dvorak]

People who are in comas are not proved to be unconscious. There is still complex brain activity. Also, people can recover from comas.

People born with mental deficiencies are not brain dead. They still interact with the environment and develop a consciousness, although not able to express it through our language due to some illness.
But should brain activity alone constitute self-reflection, which is what you said earlier was part of the definition of human life?

Animals have brain activity, they also interact with their environment.

And one can "recover" from being unborn, so to speak.

Animals can also be conscious.

[AGITprop]

Perhaps we should redefine it, yes. But how, and why? Is there a certain qualitative threshold that a species must meet mentally before being considered a human being? Is there any such threshold that can preclude unborn children but include all classes of disabled people?

Put simply; what differentiates us from animals? The fact that we are conscious. We have developed this through evolution while in contact with the material world. The threshold between animal life and human life is this point. Where it happens is debatable but I'd assume somewhere around 2-3 months, perhaps earlier, I'll leave it up to scientists.

Disabled people can and do still develop consciousness.

I am not trying to impose this view on anyone, but just opening the door to expanding our view of human life. These kinds of discussions are key in understanding why abortion is the right of the woman who bears the embryo, foetus, or child. Thanks everyone for discussing though.

[AGITprop]

But should brain activity alone constitute self-reflection, which is what you said earlier was part of the definition of human life?

Animals have brain activity, they also interact with their environment.

And one can "recover" from being unborn, so to speak.

Animals can also be conscious.

I never said brain activity is consciousness.

Animals are not conscious, they have not developed this ability. If so, they would be manipulating their environments extensively as humans do to meet their needs instead of having to adapt to them.

Animals interact with their environment to a certain extent. Chimps use sticks to fish out termites, but this does not qualify as tool-making.

I personally haven't read Dialectics of Nature by Engels, but it explains very well this qualitative difference.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Put simply; what differentiates us from animals? The fact that we are conscious. We have developed this through evolution while in contact with the material world. The threshold between animal life and human life is this point. Where it happens is debatable but I'd assume somewhere around 2-3 months, perhaps earlier, I'll leave it up to scientists.

Disabled people can and do still develop consciousness.

I am not trying to impose this view on anyone, but just opening the door to expanding our view of human life. These kinds of discussions are key in understanding why abortion is the right of the woman who bears the embryo, foetus, or child. Thanks everyone for discussing though.
You're running into the same old problem though. There are different definitions of consciousness, why should we accept yours?

Furthermore, you are basically saying that humans only actually become humans 2 or 3 months after being born, which is completely unprecedented. Do you have any credible authorities for your views?

In reality conciousness, regardless of definition, is not something that just happens. It is a very gradual and progressive shift from an unconscious foetus to a conscious baby.

Animals can also show limited signs of consciousness (such as cognition), and severely mentally disabled people to have very limited introspective capabilities regardless of what you say.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

I never said brain activity is consciousness.

Animals are not conscious, they have not developed this ability. If so, they would be manipulating their environments extensively as humans do to meet their needs instead of having to adapt to them.

Animals interact with their environment to a certain extent. Chimps use sticks to fish out termites, but this does not qualify as tool-making.

I personally haven't read Dialectics of Nature by Engels, but it explains very well this qualitative difference.
So must we be able to create tools and otherwise exploit our environments in order to be considered humans? I personally know several mentally disabled people who would be incapable of doing this.

And you never explicitly said that brain activity was consciousness, but you did say that people in comas should still have rights because they have brain activity, despite not being strictly conscious (they cannot analyse, manipulate or even recognize their environment).

[AGITprop]

You're running into the same old problem though. There are different definitions of consciousness, why should we accept yours? Consciousness is Consciousness, the only difference we may claim there to be is that we cannot understand the consciousness of a disabled person fully.


Furthermore, you are basically saying that humans only actually become humans 2 or 3 months after being born, which is completely unprecedented. Do you have any credible authorities for your views? Well considering I am no scientist, if this is what you mean, then, no. But what I am doing is acknowledging the fact that human beings are not born fully developed. This is documented. Our brains have not completely matured to allow us to do simple things such as walk, let alone self-reflect. And we know from anthropologists that consciousness is the result of our interactions with the material world, though Engels said it first.



In reality conciousness, regardless of definition, is not something that just happens. It is a very gradual and progressive shift from an unconscious foetus to a conscious baby. Wrong, I must say. A Foetus barely has a brain. How can you possibly expect it to accomplish anything even resembling consciousness. As I previously said, babies aren't even born fully developed.



Animals can also show limited signs of consciousness (such as cognition), and severely mentally disabled people to have very limited introspective capabilities regardless of what you say. Some animals may be slightly more advanced such as dolphins. But as a dialectical materialist I stand by the fact that the leap from unconsciousness to consciousness is qualitative. This is why, Chimps, only 2 percent different from us in genetic code, are so close, yet far enough to not be human. It was a qualitative leap. And there isn't enough evidence to prove that disabled people have limited mental capabilities. This is hard to prove as we really cannot communicate with them on the same level. They are conscious though.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Yes but then, do you think of a newborn baby in the same way as you would think of an adult? What about mentally retarded people? There are clear fundamental differences between these kinds of people and able-bodied, able-minded adults. Which of these differences, if any, renders which of the categories of alleged people, if any, devoid of legal rights?

Ah, I see where this is headed. I've had this kind of conversation before. ;)

The fact is, these are all subjective opinions, when you boil it down. I've had abortion discussions evolve into discussions about conciousness, rights for the mentally handicapped, and even animal rights, believe it or not. Many times it becomes: what does it mean to be human? There isn't any measure, that I've found anyway, that tell us whether abortion is "good" or "bad" in the objective sense, at least none that I've found.

[AGITprop]

Ah, I see where this is headed. I've had this kind of conversation before. ;)

The fact is, these are all subjective opinions, when you boil it down. I've had abortion discussions evolve into discussions about conciousness, rights for the mentally handicapped, and even animal rights, believe it or not. Many times it becomes: what does it mean to be human? There isn't any measure, that I've found anyway, that tell us whether abortion is "good" or "bad" in the objective sense, at least none that I've found.

Abortion is a topic which must be discussed completely objectively. This is the basis of my theory.

The issue is, which 6 people voted against abortion. They should definitely own up. Unless of course it is just a joke.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Consciousness is Consciousness, the only difference we may claim thee to be is that we cannot understand the consciousness of a disabled person fully."Consciousness" is not a very satisfying definition of consciousness, though. The fact of the matter is that you don't know what consciousness is, scientists have an extremely hard time defining it themselves.

By saying that we cannot understand the consciousness of a disabled person, you are implying that there are different kinds of consciousness, and that different people, with different levels of mental development, can have different levels or kind of consciousness (otherwise there would be no problem understanding anyone's consciousness; they would either have it or they wouldn't). If there are different levels of consciousness though then there is no one strict definition for consciousness.


Well considering I am no scientist, if this is what you mean, then, no. But what I am doing is acknowledging the fact that human beings are not born fully developed. This is documented. Our brains have not completely matured to allow us to do simple things such as walk, let alone self-reflect. And we know from anthropologists that consciousness is the result of our interactions with the material world, though Engels said it first.No, humans are not born fully developed. But the question, of course, is how developed do you have to be to be considered human. You have not adequately answered this question yet. It is a medical fact that many people may never really develop beyond a very low mental age, and may spend their whole lives reacting with their environments in ways similar to more intelligent animals.

You also say that consciousness is the result of our interaction with the material world, yet animals interact with the material world all the time.


Wrong, I must say. A Foetus barely has a brain. How can you possibly expect it to accomplish anything even resembling consciousness. As I previously said, babies aren't even born fully developed.An unborn child ten minutes before pregnancy has every bit as much a brain as a born child ten minutes after pregnancy. There is no significant development of mental capacity during birth.

Here I am, by the way, sticking with the traditional view that humans become humans when they are born. You have not presented any compelling case as to why this should not be, and most leftists would accept this view.


Some animals may be slightly more advanced such as dolphins. But as a dialectical materialist I stand by the fact that the leap from unconsciousness to consciousness is qualitative. This is why, Chimps, only 2 percent different from us in genetic code, are so close, yet far enough to not be human. It was a qualitative leap.
You saying that there is a qualitative leap does not make it so. To be honest I don't like to debate about dialectical materialism because I haven't read much about it and it sounds frightfully boring, but the fact is that medically there is no qualitative leap during childbirth or infantile development.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Anywho I'm off to bed, we'll pick this up tomorrow. :)

[Dros]

I fully agree with the OP.

Abortion should be criminalized.

It is against the wishes of God. And it hurts America. And makes Jesus cry.

Also, women shouldn't be allowed to leave the kitchen. Unless it's because they have to do laundry or make more babies.


=====


This is of course a joke. Don't restrict me.


This is an issue of personal choice. Leftism respects the rights of all people to basic personal autonomy. An integral part of liberating the working class is liberating women from partriarchal production relations and ideology.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Abortion is a topic which must be discussed completely objectively. This is the basis of my theory.

The issue is, which 6 people voted against abortion. They should definitely own up. Unless of course it is just a joke.

In terms of issues like individual sovereignty, yes, it's very subjective. Someone could refuse to even acknowledge the concept or the right, or agree with it, but only to a certain extent. The only way you could attempt to prove that abortion was beneficial as a whole, with empirical data, is to demonstrate using something like the writers of that book Freakanomics did, and point to crime going down as a possible result of abortion (although they also aknowledged that there was also a possibility of correlation not equaling causation.)

I've also heard the argument trotted out, on the other side, that abortion is hindering our ability to pay for an rapidly retiring population, because it is taking away from the workforce available.

[AGITprop]

"Consciousness" is not a very satisfying definition of consciousness, though. The fact of the matter is that you don't know what consciousness is, scientists have an extremely hard time defining it themselves. Consciousness is simply defined as the ability to be self-aware and self-reflective. To be aware of your interaction with nature as more than just an animal reaction. I understand consciousness perfectly well.


By saying that we cannot understand the consciousness of a disabled person, you are implying that there are different kinds of consciousness, and that different people, with different levels of mental development, can have different levels or kind of consciousness (otherwise there would be no problem understanding anyone's consciousness; they would either have it or they wouldn't). If there are different levels of consciousness though then there is no one strict definition for consciousness. No one is more conscious than another. What the difference may be is mental capability, but consciousness is defined as mentioned above.


No, humans are not born fully developed. But the question, of course, is how developed do you have to be to be considered human. You have not adequately answered this question yet. It is a medical fact that many people may never really develop beyond a very low mental age, and may spend their whole lives reacting with their environments in ways similar to more intelligent animals. To be considered human, you need to be self-aware and self-reflective. Perhaps they appear to be acting like no more than a developed animal but this does not disprove the fact that they are conscious. Just because they cannot communicate it to us because of mental impairment.


You also say that consciousness is the result of our interaction with the material world, yet animals interact with the material world all the time. Yes but human development of consciousness is the product of the right material conditions. When the first primitive apes were cast out of the jungle, they had to adapt to the tundra through bipedal-ism. This then freed their hands which could be used to manipulate objects. This contributed to brain development, which was contributing to further more complex use of the hand, and so o and so forth. It was a dialectical relationship. This is all explained in Dialectics of Nature nd these theories are accepted by modern anthropologists.

You are right animals do interact but they just did not evolve to a conscious state. That is the fact of the matter. That is what makes us qualitatively higher.


An unborn child ten minutes before pregnancy has every bit as much a brain as a born child ten minutes after pregnancy. There is no significant development of mental capacity during birth. Exactly, it still has not developed consciousness, therefore is at the exact same qualitative level; an animal.



You also say that consciousness is the result of our interaction with the material world, yet animals interact with the material world all the time. Yes but human development of consciousness is the product of the right material conditions. When the first primitive apes were cast out of the jungle, they had to adapt to the tundra through bipedal-ism. This then freed their hands which could be used to manipulate objects. This contributed to brain development, which was contributing to further more complex use of the hand, and so on and so forth. It was a dialectical relationship. This is all explained in Dialectics of Nature and these theories are accepted by modern anthropologists.

You are right animals do interact but they just did not evolve to a conscious state. That is the fact of the matter. That is what makes us qualitatively higher.


Here I am, by the way, sticking with the traditional view that humans become humans when they are born. You have not presented any compelling case as to why this should not be, and most leftists would accept this view.. Why would a baby in a womb magically become human when it is born? It is mystical arguments like these that force leftists like me to redefine what is human life. And I think I have done quite a compelling job.



You saying that there is a qualitative leap does not make it so. To be honest I don't like to debate about dialectical materialism because I haven't read much about it and it sounds frightfully boring, but the fact is that medically there is no qualitative leap during childbirth or infantile development. Your right. There is a qualitative leap at a certain point after interaction with the material world.

[Seven Stars]

Pro-Choice but not Pro-Abortion.

[Marsella]

I do not call several pounds of dough a cake.

I do not call an embryo, a foetus or whatever, a human being.

But really, it is beside the point if a foetus is a human being or a separate entity by itself. It's somewhat a naturalistic fallacy (or whatever the term is); the foetus is a human being, that is natural, natural things should be supported, abortion should be suppressed.

Denying abortion has so many negative social and economic impacts on women that it can not be tolerated by someone who also wants equality and proletariat emancipation.

For that reason, I think the right to abort is something that should always be supported. Indeed, in my eyes, if you do not support such a thing you are effectively denying equality for over half the population and could by no means be for the liberation of the working class, just a minority of it.

The CC has policies which adequately reflect this.

[Sendo]

the question is irrelevant. I think we can all agree that abortion should ideally happen less, whether by contraception, education, lack of rape, or guaranteed care for children. In practice, banning abortion accomplishes nothing bu putting it behind closed doors, it does not impact rates of abortion in a significant way. This is true for the same reason that capital punishment did not deter grand theft or murder (in times when theft was punishable so), and still fails to deter murder; if you are driven to desperate acts you will find a way and will follow through.

That being said, I formulated an opinion on this during an agnostic period, so don't accuse me of being dogmatic or superstitious. I feel that the fetus at some point takes on qualities that I would use to define it as human life. This does not include social relationships, or permanent memory or viability (I don't define being a human or a person in these terms). The whole viability argument is silly to me: aren't parents forced to work to provide food for children who can't fend for themselves? I would never advocate abortion, I would advocate adoption or something down that road. I think the current laws are bizarre: if men are forced to pay child support, this supposes that the men entered into an equally consensual and conscious decision to have sex in the first place (!), then why do they have no vote on the fate of the fetus? If we suppose that the fetus is not yet a human and it is up to the woman to determine its fate, doesn't the formation or cancellation of the formation of a "full human" become solely the woman's choice?

That being said, it is also downright hypocritical to ban legal abortion knowing full well that it does little to curb the ability of the rich to have abortions. It becomes merely a way to discriminate against the poor.


PS:
As for the whole original comment on overpopulation, sociology has shown correlations between poverty and the uncertainty over the survival of one's children with high birth rates. Paradoxically, scarcity in today's world likely causes higher birth rates.

[RaiseYourVoice]

It doesnt matter when a bunch of cells becomes a human. What matters is that the birth will inflict serious damage on the womens body. Everyone has the right to defend their own body from harm. There is no other way to avoid that harm other then get rid of that bunch of cells, foetus whatever. By talking about when the bunch of cells becomes a human bla bla you are completly ignoring the damage, the pain and all the other disadvantages of a pregnancy done to the women. Forcing that on a person is not acceptable FOR ANY REASON not even for human life. This is exactly what any pro-life position does.


I think the current laws are bizarre: if men are forced to pay child support, this supposes that the men entered into an equally consensual and conscious decision to have sex in the first place (!), then why do they have no vote on the fate of the fetus? If we suppose that the fetus is not yet a human and it is up to the woman to determine its fate, doesn't the formation or cancellation of the formation of a "full human" become solely the woman's choice?

Well of course men cannot have a choice what happens to the baby, since its a decision solely affecting the women. You are right though, the fact that the biological father has to pay is totally reactionary. Society should take responsibility for the child. In todays society though its the lesser evil, since if the state would pay for the baby it would probaly not be enough to live of. In a socialist society the father wouldnt have to pay for the child and the state would jump in.

[RHIZOMES]

Is this a rule?
I think it should be.

I remember people getting restricted for even hinting at pro-life sentiments back when I started posting on this forum.

[Mujer Libre]

RB, I think the difference between myself and the OP is that while I might get emotional about abortion, their entire argument is based on emotional, rather than reason.

For example, on the question of autonomy, which I still see as a valid reason to be pro-choice, the OP bestows rights on a foetus almost metaphysically, in terms of potential events and the ill-defined notion of personhood. I reject that notion and feel that the right to autonomy comes with actually existing independently. (as in, not ensconced in another's body- and no, there is no slippery slope there that applies to people on life support or babies, foetus-hoos is quite unique)

[careyprice31]

i am pro- choice. I think i gave my reasons which are the same as other comrades so why repeat them.

but as per the fetus being a parasite, well it is. Even the sperm is regarded as an enemy by the woman's body. The woman has 46 chromosomes. A sperm has only 23. when the sperm is made with the semen he is given special nurse cells to protect him from the woman's immune system when he goes into the vagina. The woman's body regards it as an enemy because he only has 23 chromosomes.

Maybe you lot didnt know this, but I learned it through study of science.

It is a fact that more women die from prgnancy related issues than from abortion. It is also a fact that every minute, a woman around the world dies from pregnancy related issues.

Pregnancy is much more dangerous, not only physically but economically socially and everything. Think of reproductive rights being at the center of a wheel and all other issues economic and so on being the spokes. If a woman cant control her reproductive life, then she cant control the other parts of her life either, ex the spokes of life.

Therefore it is detrimental to the working class (and all women, not just the working class) but richer women usually have more options open to them because they have the money to pay for child care and so on.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Consciousness is simply defined as the ability to be self-aware and self-reflective. To be aware of your interaction with nature as more than just an animal reaction. I understand consciousness perfectly well.

No one is more conscious than another. What the difference may be is mental capability, but consciousness is defined as mentioned above.

To be considered human, you need to be self-aware and self-reflective. Perhaps they appear to be acting like no more than a developed animal but this does not disprove the fact that they are conscious. Just because they cannot communicate it to us because of mental impairment.

Yes but human development of consciousness is the product of the right material conditions. When the first primitive apes were cast out of the jungle, they had to adapt to the tundra through bipedal-ism. This then freed their hands which could be used to manipulate objects. This contributed to brain development, which was contributing to further more complex use of the hand, and so o and so forth. It was a dialectical relationship. This is all explained in Dialectics of Nature nd these theories are accepted by modern anthropologists.

You are right animals do interact but they just did not evolve to a conscious state. That is the fact of the matter. That is what makes us qualitatively higher.

Exactly, it still has not developed consciousness, therefore is at the exact same qualitative level; an animal.


Yes but human development of consciousness is the product of the right material conditions. When the first primitive apes were cast out of the jungle, they had to adapt to the tundra through bipedal-ism. This then freed their hands which could be used to manipulate objects. This contributed to brain development, which was contributing to further more complex use of the hand, and so on and so forth. It was a dialectical relationship. This is all explained in Dialectics of Nature and these theories are accepted by modern anthropologists.

You are right animals do interact but they just did not evolve to a conscious state. That is the fact of the matter. That is what makes us qualitatively higher.

Why would a baby in a womb magically become human when it is born? It is mystical arguments like these that force leftists like me to redefine what is human life. And I think I have done quite a compelling job.


Your right. There is a qualitative leap at a certain point after interaction with the material world.
Gunther, since your argument is largeley based on your redefinition of human life I am going to address your definition generally.

Basically, what you have failed to show is what makes your definition of human life legitimate, why it is better than any other definition of human life. You claim that it is given legitimacy by the fact that it distinguishes humans from all other animals, but how does this in itself make a definition correct or legitimate? Of course this is one of the requirements for a definition to be considered legitimate, but it cannot be the only one.

Take, for example, the definition of a chair. Dictionary.com defines a chair as "a seat, esp. for one person, usually having four legs for support and a rest for the back and often having rests for the arms". This definition (a) distinguishes a chair from any other object, and (b) is a legitimate definition of a chair. However, consider this alternative definition for a chair: "a seat, esp. for one person, usually having four legs for support and a rest for the back and often having rests for the arms, which is made of wood". Now, this distinguishes its target from all other objects just like the first definition, but is not a legitimate definition of a chair. This is because it does not encompass all things which we as humans have come to understand to be chairs. This, I feel, is the problem with your definition; yes, it distinguishes that which is attempting to define from all other things (or, in this case, life forms) but it is still an illegitimate definition because it fails to encompass all the things which we have come to understand to be human. No doubt there are other definitions of human life which distinguish us from other animals, which may again be flawed (or may not).

Now, why is your definiotion, as opposed to other definitions which distinguish human life from all other life, lacking merit? First of all, because you have failed to prove why your definition is desirable above all other definitions.

But there are other reasons, and in order to understand one of these reasons you must look at why we need to define things strictly for the purposes of the law. It is because the purpose of the law is to regulate human behaviour in accordance with the principles and ethos of society; it therefore applies almost exclusively to human (animals cannot incur civil or criminal liability, nor are they granted any rights by the law). For this reason, we need a definition of human life which encompasses anything which is sufficiently close to a human in terms of behaviour, and which interacts with society in a way that humans appreciate as being a human interaction. Though babies might not have developed an advanced consciousness or sense of self-reflection, they do have all the basic human traits and instincts, and they do interact with humans and human society by way of their crying, their kicking, their laughing, their smiling, their breastfeeding etc. etc.. For this reason babies can be said for legal purposes to be a part of human society.

The other reason is scientific. You claim that before and shortly after babies are born, they are alive no doubt, but they cannot be classified as human. But, they are alive, and they must belong to some species of animal. Inferring on your definition of human life, then, we can come to three conclusions:

1. That humans give birth to a species of animal that is not human, and humans to not give birth to humans and are not born of humans;
2. That there is a species of animal which is absolutely 100% genetically identical to humans, which is more or less entirely dependent on the human species, whose close and extensive interaction with the human species is depended on for the continutation of the human species (and by extension of this other species), but which is in fact distinct and separate from the human species; and
3. That a member of this other species will one day, without any appparent leap in terms of mental, physical or genetic capacity or featiures, transform into a member of the human species.

All of these conclusions are entirely at odds with evolutionary science. So we have determined, by way of reductio ad absurdum, that your definition of human life is inadequate.

To put all that in context, without your handy dandy definition of human life which allows us to classify babies both born and unborn as animals separate and distinct from humans, we are left with the question of whether or not unborn babies qualify as humans for the purpose of having legal rights.

[AGITprop]

Gunther, since your argument is largeley based on your redefinition of human life I am going to address your definition generally.

Basically, what you have failed to show is what makes your definition of human life legitimate, why it is better than any other definition of human life. You claim that it is given legitimacy by the fact that it distinguishes humans from all other animals, but how does this in itself make a definition correct or legitimate? Of course this is one of the requirements for a definition to be considered legitimate, but it cannot be the only one.

Take, for example, the definition of a chair. Dictionary.com defines a chair as "a seat, esp. for one person, usually having four legs for support and a rest for the back and often having rests for the arms". This definition (a) distinguishes a chair from any other object, and (b) is a legitimate definition of a chair. However, consider this alternative definition for a chair: "a seat, esp. for one person, usually having four legs for support and a rest for the back and often having rests for the arms, which is made of wood". Now, this distinguishes its target from all other objects just like the first definition, but is not a legitimate definition of a chair. This is because it does not encompass all things which we as humans have come to understand to be chairs. This, I feel, is the problem with your definition; yes, it distinguishes that which is attempting to define from all other things (or, in this case, life forms) but it is still an illegitimate definition because it fails to encompass all the things which we have come to understand to be human. No doubt there are other definitions of human life which distinguish us from other animals, which may again be flawed (or may not).

Now, why is your definiotion, as opposed to other definitions which distinguish human life from all other life, lacking merit? First of all, because you have failed to prove why your definition is desirable above all other definitions.

But there are other reasons, and in order to understand one of these reasons you must look at why we need to define things strictly for the purposes of the law. It is because the purpose of the law is to regulate human behaviour in accordance with the principles and ethos of society; it therefore applies almost exclusively to human (animals cannot incur civil or criminal liability, nor are they granted any rights by the law). For this reason, we need a definition of human life which encompasses anything which is sufficiently close to a human in terms of behaviour, and which interacts with society in a way that humans appreciate as being a human interaction. Though babies might not have developed an advanced consciousness or sense of self-reflection, they do have all the basic human traits and instincts, and they do interact with humans and human society by way of their crying, their kicking, their laughing, their smiling, their breastfeeding etc. etc.. For this reason babies can be said for legal purposes to be a part of human society.

The other reason is scientific. You claim that before and shortly after babies are born, they are alive no doubt, but they cannot be classified as human. But, they are alive, and they must belong to some species of animal. Inferring on your definition of human life, then, we can come to three conclusions:

1. That humans give birth to a species of animal that is not human, and humans to not give birth to humans and are not born of humans;
2. That there is a species of animal which is absolutely 100% genetically identical to humans, which is more or less entirely dependent on the human species, whose close and extensive interaction with the human species is depended on for the continutation of the human species (and by extension of this other species), but which is in fact distinct and separate from the human species; and
3. That a member of this other species will one day, without any appparent leap in terms of mental, physical or genetic capacity or featiures, transform into a member of the human species.

All of these conclusions are entirely at odds with evolutionary science. So we have determined, by way of reductio ad absurdum, that your definition of human life is inadequate.

To put all that in context, without your handy dandy definition of human life which allows us to classify babies both born and unborn as animals separate and distinct from humans, we are left with the question of whether or not unborn babies qualify as humans for the purpose of having legal rights.

Alright you are using formal logic in some of your arguments which is making you come to absurd conclusions like this;

"That a member of this other species will one day, without any appparent leap in terms of mental, physical or genetic capacity or featiures, transform into a member of the human species."

Just because I defined humans as being conscious does not in any way mean that any other species with sudden consciousness is human. I'm not trying to give humans a definition, only pointing out the fact we do have consciousness, something unheard of in the animal kingdom, therefore we are above it, qualitatively higher. Is this so difficult to understand. If in a million years dolphins evolve to have consciousness, they will no longer be dolphins. The same way we are no longer chimps.

Now perhaps my theory that "babies are not human" is excessive, BUT I'm simply pointing out the qualitative difference between a baby and a fully developed human. I say they are of higher than an animal, you say that they are part of the human race, but this is a product of a lack of better term for them, because no one has dared before to consider this.

[Unicorn]

Gunther, the argument you make is not new. Princeton professor Peter Singer supports infanticide. He says that parents have a right to kill disabled infants.



In Chapter 4 we saw that the fact that a being is a human being, in the sense of a member of the species Homo sapiens, is not relevant to the wrongness of killing it; it is, rather, characteristics like rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness that make a difference. Infants lack these characteristics. Killing them, therefore, cannot be equated with killing normal human beings, or any other self-conscious beings. This conclusion is not limited to infants who, because of irreversible intellectual disabilities, will never be rational, self-conscious beings. We saw in our discussion of abortion that the potential of a fetus to become a rational, self-conscious being cannot count against killing it at a stage when it lacks these characteristics - not, that is, unless we are also prepared to count the value of rational self-conscious life as a reason against contraception and celibacy. No infant - disabled or not - has as strong a claim to life as beings capable of seeing themselves as distinct entities, existing over time.

The difference between killing disabled and normal infants lies not in any supposed right to life that the latter has and the former lacks, but in other considerations about killing. Most obviously there is the difference that often exists in the attitudes of the parents. The birth of a child is usually a happy event for the parents. They have, nowadays, often planned for the child. The mother has carried it for nine months. From birth, a natural affection begins to bind the parents to it. So one important reason why it is normally a terrible thing to kill an infant is the effect the killing will have on its parents.

It is different when the infant is born with a serious disability. Birth abnormalities vary, of course. Some are trivial and have little effect on the child or its parents; but others turn the normally joyful event of birth into a threat to the happiness of the parents, and any other children they may have.

Parents may, with good reason, regret that a disabled child was ever born. In that event the effect that the death of the child will have on its parents can be a reason for, rather than against killing it. Some parents want even the most gravely disabled infant to live as long as possible, and this desire would then be a reason against killing the infant. But what if this is not the case? in the discussion that follows I shall assume that the parents do not want the disabled child to live. I shall also assume that the disability is so serious that - again in contrast to the situation of an unwanted but normal child today - there are no other couples keen to adopt the infant. This is a realistic assumption even in a society in which there is a long waiting- list of couples wishing to adopt normal babies. It is true that from time to time cases of infants who are severely disabled and are being allowed to die have reached the courts in a glare of publicity, and this has led to couples offering to adopt the child. Unfortunately such offers are the product of the highly publicised dramatic life-and-death situation, and do not extend to the less publicised but far more cormnon situations in which parents feel themselves unable to look after a severely disabled child, and the child then languishes in an institution.

Infants are sentient beings who are neither rational nor self- conscious. So if we turn to consider the infants in themselves, independently of the attitudes of their parents, since their species is not relevant to their moral status, the principles that govern the wrongness of killing non-human animals who are sentient but not rational or self-conscious must apply here too. As we saw, the most plausible arguments for attributing a right to life to a being apply only if there is some awareness of oneself as a being existing over time, or as a continuing mental self. Nor can respect for autonomy apply where there is no capacity for autonomy. The remaining principles identified in Chapter 4 are utilitarian. Hence the quality of life that the infant can be expected to have is important.

One relatively common birth disability is a faulty development of the spine known as spina bifida. Its prevalence, varies in different countries, but it can affect as many as one in five hundred live births. In the more severe cases, the child will be permanently paralysed from the waistdown and lack control of bowels or bladder. Often excess fluid accumulates in the brain, a condition known as hydrocephalus, which can result in intellectual disabilities. Though some forms of treatment exist, if the child is badly affected at birth, the paralysis, incontinence, and intellectual disability cannot be overcome.

Some doctors closely connected with children suffering from severe spina bifida believe that the lives of the worst affected children are so miserable that it is wrong to resort to surgery to keep them alive. Published descriptions of the lives of these children support the judgment that these worst affected children will have lives filled with pain and discomfort. They need repeated major surgery to prevent curvature of the spine, due to the paralysis, and to correct other abnormalities. Some children with spina bifida have had forty major operations before they reach their teenage years.

When the life of an infant will be so miserable as not to be worth living, from the internal perspective of the being who will lead that life, both the 'prior existence' and the 'total' version of utilitarianism entail that, if there are no 'extrinsic' reasons for keeping the infant alive - like the feelings of the parents - it is better that the child should be helped to die without further suffering. A more difficult problem arises - and the convergence between the two views ends - when we consider disabilities that make the child's life prospects significantly less promising than those of a normal child, but not so bleak as to make the child's life not worth living. Haemophilia is probably in this category. The haemophiliac lacks the element in normal blood that makes it clot and thus risks prolonged bleeding, especially internal bleeding, from the slightest injury. if allowed to continue, this bleeding leads to permanent crippling and eventually death. The bleeding is very painful and although improved treatments have eliminated the need for constant blood transfusions, haemophiliacs still have to spend a lot of time in hospital. They are unable to play most sports and live constantly on the edge of crisis. Nevertheless, haemophiliacs do not appear to spend their time wondering whether to end it all; most find life definitely worth living, despite the difficulties they face.

Given these facts, suppose that a newborn baby is diagnosed as a haemophiliac. The parents, daunted by the prospect of bringing up a child with this condition, are not anxious for him to live. Could euthanasia be defended here? Our first reaction may well be a firm 'no', for the infant can be expected to have a life that is worth living, even if not quite as good as that of a normal baby. The 'prior existence' version of utilitarianism sup- ports this judgment. The infant exists. His life can be expected to contain a positive balance of happiness over misery. To kill him would deprive him of this positive balance of happiness. Therefore it would be wrong.

On the 'total' version of utilitarianism, however, we cannot reach a decision on the basis of this information alone. The total view makes it necessary to ask whether the death of the haemophiliac infant would lead to the creation of another being who would not otherwise have existed. In other words, if the haemophiliac child is killed, will his parents have another child whom they would not have if the haemophiliac child lives? If they would, is the second child likely to have a better life than the one killed?

Often it will be possible to answer both these questions affinnatively. A woman may plan to have two children. If one dies while she is of child-bearing age, she may conceive another in its place. Suppose a woman planning to have two children has one normal child, and then gives birth to a haemophiliac child. The burden of caring for that child may make it impossible for her to cope with a third child; but if the disabled child were to die, she would have another. It is also plausible to suppose that the prospects of a happy life are better for a normal child than for a haemophiliac.

When the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed. The loss of happy life for the first infant is outweighed by the gain of a happier life for the second. Therefore, if killing the haemophiliac infant has no adverse effect on others, it would, according to the total view, be right to kill him.
http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1993----.htm

[AGITprop]

I'm not a utilitarian, I'm a Marxist.
His argument is not the same as mine. I'm not calling for the death of disabled children. UGH. Please do not compare me to this psychopath.

I'm saying all newborn can be terminated if the situation is extreme and there are not the resources to care for this unwanted child.

My justifications are in my analysis of what constitutes human life.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Just because I defined humans as being conscious does not in any way mean that any other species with sudden consciousness is human.
So if another animal had consciousness it would still not be human, and an animal that has consciousness is not necessarily human? But I thought that humans were the only animals with consciousness, and therefore if an animal suddenly gained consciousness it would suddenly go from being non-human to human.

I understand that you are trying to say that humans are qualitatively better than other animals, but this does not solve the question of who or what we can legitimately define as human for the purposes of the law, which is the only part of this whole argument that is relevant to the topic in question (abortion, if I recall correctly).


Now perhaps my theory that "babies are not human" is excessive, BUT I'm simply pointing out the qualitative difference between a baby and a fully developed human. I say they are of higher than an animal, you say that they are part of the human race, but this is a product of a lack of better term for them, because no one has dared before to consider this.
Okay, there is a qualitative difference between an adult and a baby. So what? How does that render babies devoid of rights?

[AGITprop]

So if another animal had consciousness it would still not be human, and an animal that has consciousness is not necessarily human? But I thought that humans were the only animals with consciousness, and therefore if an animal suddenly gained consciousness it would suddenly go from being non-human to human. Alright, humans now, are the only beings that we know of with consciousness. If any other animal develops consciousness then they will qualify as a new form of sentient life, I would support their rights as well.

We can define humans easily, because we have a genetic make-up unique of other creatures. It's not difficult to see that another animal is not human.


Okay, there is a qualitative difference between an adult and a baby. So what? How does that render babies devoid of rights?

Because their existence individually is no where nearly as important as human life. I would much rather save the human than save the baby. Humans are conscious and can contribute to society, babies can't.

This is not to say I don't think all babies should be taken care of, so we can continue to have human existence.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

We can define humans easily, because we have a genetic make-up unique of other creatures. It's not difficult to see that another animal is not human.
Okay, so it's our unique genetic makeup that defines us as human beings. That's actually not a bad definition. Of course, by that definition we would have to include babies and unborns at the later stages of pregnancy, because their genetic makeup is (obviously) 100% identical to ours.


Because their existence individually is no where nearly as important as human life. I would much rather save the human than save the baby. Humans are conscious and can contribute to society, babies can't.
but they are human life. As per your definition above.

[AGITprop]

Okay, so it's our unique genetic makeup that defines us as human beings. That's actually not a bad definition. Of course, by that definition we would have to include babies and unborns at the later stages of pregnancy, because their genetic makeup is (obviously) 100% identical to ours.


but they are human life. As per your definition above.

They are potential human life. Because again, human life is qualitatively higher than animal life as it is conscious. Since they have not yet developed this, they are not fully human.

But I am happy this extremely awesome conversation has brought us to some sort of conclusion hopefully.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

They are potential human life. Because again, human life is qualitatively higher than animal life as it is conscious. Since they have not yet developed this, they are not fully human.

But I am happy this extremely awesome conversation has brought us to some sort of conclusion hopefully.
You have yet to tell me why the definition of human life as being conscious and self-reflective has any more merit than any other definition, especially considering that it is onconsistent with evolutionary science.

You also keep switching definitions, one minute humans are defined by their genetic makeup (an argument which has scientific merit) and the next they are defined by consciousness (and argument which doesn't).

Another problem with the consciousness definition of human life is the issue of unconscious humans which you have yet to address.

I think it's time for you to drop that definition, to be honest. It is perfectly acceptable to argue that unborn or newborn humans are qualitatively lower than fully developed humans, while still maintaining that unborns and newborns are human.

[Unicorn]

You have yet to tell me why the definition of human life as being conscious and self-reflective has any more merit than any other definition, especially considering that it is onconsistent with evolutionary science.

You also keep switching definitions, one minute humans are defined by their genetic makeup (an argument which has scientific merit) and the next they are defined by consciousness (and argument which doesn't).

Another problem with the consciousness definition of human life is the issue of unconscious humans which you have yet to address.

I think it's time for you to drop that definition, to be honest. It is perfectly acceptable to argue that unborn or newborn humans are qualitatively lower than fully developed humans, while still maintaining that unborns and newborns are human.
Yes, the unborn are humans but they are not persons. Only persons can be moral subjects.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Yes, the unborn are humans but they are not persons. Only persons can be moral subjects.
Excellent, I think this is a more correct approach.

There is a difference, then, between humans and persons? Can there be human non-persons? If so, what criteria does one have to fulfill to become a person?

I think you can see why these questions might bring about some emotionally-charged or morally-based answers.

[AGITprop]

You have yet to tell me why the definition of human life as being conscious and self-reflective has any more merit than any other definition, especially considering that it is onconsistent with evolutionary science. How is it inconsistent? Evolutionary science agrees with this theory of how consciousness came to be.


You also keep switching definitions, one minute humans are defined by their genetic makeup (an argument which has scientific merit) and the next they are defined by consciousness (and argument which doesn't). Okay perhaps I should have included the genetic part as well, I was just using consciousness to differentiate us from animals. And I see no reason to claim this is not scientific.


Another problem with the consciousness definition of human life is the issue of unconscious humans which you have yet to address.
I have. There is no such thing. Even people with severe mental disabilities and people in comas are conscious.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

How is it inconsistent? Evolutionary science agrees with this theory of how consciousness came to be.

But evolutionary science would dictate that humans would not give birth solely to a non-human species, nor that a creature would transform from one species to another suddenly and without any qualitative leap.


Okay perhaps I should have included the genetic part as well, I was just using consciousness to differentiate us from animals. And I see no reason to claim this is not scientific.
Sure, it differentiates us from animals, but is it what defines us? And if so, why?


I have. There is no such thing. Even people with severe mental disabilities and people in comas are conscious.
Well then you must admit that your definition of consciousness is different to the generally accepted definition of consciousness as well, because if you ask most people if it is possible for a person to be unconscious, they will say yes and if you ask them if people in comas are conscious, they will say no (including medical professionals by the way).

[AGITprop]

But evolutionary science would dictate that humans would not give birth solely to a non-human species, nor that a creature would transform from one species to another suddenly and without any qualitative leap. Oh noes! Evolutionary science is not-godsend, there is nothing stopping us from further developing our definitions and creating new standards.



Well then you must admit that your definition of consciousness is different to the generally accepted definition of consciousness as well, because if you ask most people if it is possible for a person to be unconscious, they will say yes. Most people are not Marxists. This is why I analyzed it this way. I'm trying to cast away old stereotypes and have a purely Marxist analysis of human life.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Well you can choose to work with science or to reject it and think up your own shit. Personally, I tend to go with science, and so do most Marxists. Marxism and science are not mututally exclusive, as you seem to be claiming.

[Unicorn]

Excellent, I think this is a more correct approach.

There is a difference, then, between humans and persons? Can there be human non-persons? If so, what criteria does one have to fulfill to become a person?
IMO, this criteria:
1. Consciousness,
2. The ability to steer one's attention and action purposively,
3. Self-awareness, self-bonded to objectivities (existing independently of the subject's perception of it),
4. Self as longitudinal thematic identity, one's biographic identity.

[AGITprop]

Well you can choose to work with science or to reject it and think up your own shit. Personally, I tend to go with science, and so do most Marxists. Marxism and science are not mututally exclusive, as you seem to be claiming.

Not at all? Ridiculous claim.

You can't always blindly listen to science as it too makes mistakes, and needs to reinvent itself.

[RedFlagComrade]

It is a fact that more women die from prgnancy related issues than from abortion. It is also a fact that every minute, a woman around the world dies from pregnancy related issues.
I said that id be in favor of abortion if the womans health was endangered (or in a case of pregnancy following rape) but otherwise theres no moral reason to allow abortion.

[AGITprop]

I said that id be in favor of abortion if the womans health was endangered (or in a case of pregnancy following rape) but otherwise theres no moral reason to allow abortion.

I think this entire discussion has refuted this.

Once again, are you a religious fundamentalist? I asked you this twice before and you did not answer. I'd like to know so we can discuss more based on that.

[RedFlagComrade]

Yes im a hard right religious fundamentalist on a revolutionary leftist discussion forum!joke!

Im in fact an atheist-but my opinion is that we should not be allowowed to easily discard the promise of future life.Thats my opinion your entitled to yours.

[Rosa Provokateur]

As a pro-lifer I'm pretty ticked with the main-stream pro-life movement; life doesnt end after someone is born and we need to create a society that will nurture every new-born long before they leave the cradle. Mothers are getting abortions beacause they cant take cae of these children, we should build a world where they can.

[Jazzratt]

As a pro-lifer

Pro-lifer's are genuinely restricted to this subforum on revleft; here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/faq.php?faq=restrictions#faq_whatisrestrict)are some more details on restriction, I would strongly advise that you read all of it with special attention the last question as well - several members believe your posts constitute unnecessary proselytising.

[Faux Real]

Mothers are getting abortions beacause they cant take cae of these children, we should build a world where they can.No, some women would rather not have a child at all. There are plenty of reasons to aside from being unable to support a child.

Men should not decide whether or not a woman is able to abort a child and a woman against abortion should not apply her restrictive personal beliefs on everyone else... she just shouldn't abort one herself.

[Faux Real]

I said that id be in favor of abortion if the womans health was endangered (or in a case of pregnancy following rape) but otherwise theres no moral reason to allow abortion.There's no moral or empirical reason to oppose it either.

[Sky]

There needs to be a struggle against both the dogmatic "pro-choice" and "pro-life" sides in regard to abortion. While abortion under socialism would be permitted in some cases, it would be restricted for just any reason. Along with abortion, there would be restrictions placed on contraception. The precedent of socialist construction demands a high birth rate in order to make the nation powerful and prosperous.

Neomalthusianism, which Marxists reject, tried to justify the growing impoverishment of the working people by pseudo-scientific theories of "absolute over-population", diminishing returns on the soil, etc. Neomalthusianism regards birth control as means of bolstering up capitalism and alleviating the misery of the masses.


Its a womens basic right to decide over her body, and not the states.
Wrong. It is the proletarian state which dictates population policy.

[Unicorn]

There needs to be a struggle against both the dogmatic "pro-choice" and "pro-life" sides in regard to abortion. While abortion under socialism would be permitted in some cases, it would be restricted for just any reason. The precedent of socialist construction demands a high birth rate in order to make the nation powerful and prosperous.
Banning abortion did not work in the Soviet Union. The ban just caused a public health problem with widespread illegal abortions. It is better to allow women have hygienic and safe abortions in public hospitals while improving maternity benefits and otherwise encouraging women to have large families if population growth is desired.

[Bud Struggle]

Also, who is voting against abortion?
Perhaps these people should enter the conversation as well. I'd like to hear their arguments. I shudder at the thought that some leftists are opposed to pro-choice.

Well, I am--but I'm not worried about being restricted. :lol:

A fuller answer later.

[careyprice31]

I said that id be in favor of abortion if the womans health was endangered (or in a case of pregnancy following rape) but otherwise theres no moral reason to allow abortion.

Wrong.

I think my post summed it up quite nicely.

"Pregnancy is much more dangerous, not only physically but economically socially and everything. Think of reproductive rights being at the center of a wheel and all other issues economic and so on being the spokes. If a woman cant control her reproductive life, then she cant control the other parts of her life either, ex the spokes of life."

that and some women would rather not have a child at all. Im one of them. I dont even like babies. so I would make a terrible mother.

The only way I would like babies is if it was a baby kitten . :)

[RedFlagComrade]

There's no moral or empirical reason to oppose it either.

Apart from the unfortunate fact of having to kill an ,albeit unborn, innocent child.

[RedAnarchist]

Apart from the unfortunate fact of having to kill an ,albeit unborn, innocent child.

A child has already been born. I believe you mean a foetus?

[Redmau5]

Wrong. It is the proletarian state which dictates population policy.

Wrong. It's the woman who decides what she does with her body.

[Vanguard1917]

Lenin and Stalin didn't consider the unborn persons but they still considered abortions a social ill.


What happened under Stalinist reaction is nothing for Marxists to defend - but where's your evidence that Lenin considered abortion a 'social ill'?

In reality, when the Bolsheviks came to power they introduced the most progressive abortion laws in the world at that time - being the first 20th century government to legalise abortion (in 1920).

Marxists should be extremely proud to stand in that tradition.

[Unicorn]

What happened under Stalinist reaction is nothing for Marxists to defend - but where's your evidence that Lenin considered abortion a 'social ill'?
That was a position shared by virtually all Soviet Marxists of the time, also Kollontai who perhaps had the most progressive view of women's rights.

"According to classic Marxist and Leninist ideology, abortion is a social ill created by the capitalist system of production. The Russian revolutionaries wanted to abolish restrictive birth control policy, and argued that abortion would gradually disappear in the new Soviet society, because there would be no more need for them (Lenin 1913)."

https://bora.uib.no/bitstream/1956/2224/1/article_stenvoll.pdf



In reality, when the Bolsheviks came to power they introduced the most progressive abortion laws in the world at that time - being the first 20th century government to legalise abortion (in 1920).
The law was introduced because sufficient social security system was not yet developed. Some women who were pregnant were not in a position to take care of children. Later when the best social security system in the world was developed in the USSR all Soviet women could safely give birth to children and take care of them. For that reason Stalin prohibited abortion and he did not contradict Lenin's position on this issue.

[Unicorn]

Lenin stated his opposition to contraception and abortion in the article "The Working Class and NeoMalthusianism" published in Pravda on June 16, 1913.



At the Pirogov Doctors’ Congress much interest was aroused and a long debate was held on the question of abortions. The report was made by Lichkus, who quoted figures on the exceedingly widespread practice of destroying the foetus in present-day so-called civilised states.

In New York, 80,000 abortions were performed in one year and there are 36,000 every month in France. In St. Petersburg the percentage of abortions has more than doubled in five years.

The Pirogov Doctors’ Congress adopted a resolution saying that there should never be any criminal prosecution of a mother for performing an artificial abortion and that doctors should only be prosecuted if the operation is performed for “purposes of gain”.

In the discussion the majority agreed that abortions should not be punishable, and the question of the so-called neomalthusianism (the use of contraceptives) was naturally touched upon, as was also the social side of the matter. Mr. Vigdorchik, for instance, said, according to the report in Russkoye Slovo,[1] that “contraceptive measures should be welcomed” and Mr. Astrakhan exclaimed, amidst thunderous applause:

“We have to convince mothers to bear children so that they can be maimed in educational establishments, so that lots can be drawn for them, so that they can be driven to suicide!”

If the report is true that this exclamation of Mr. Astrakhan’s was greeted with thunderous applause, it is a fact that does not surprise me. The audience was made up of bourgeois, middle and petty bourgeois, who have the psychology of the philistine. What can you expect from them but the most banal liberalism?

From the point of view of the working class, however, it would hardly be possible to find a more apposite expression of the completely reactionary nature and the ugliness of “social neomalthusianism” than Mr. Astrakhan’s phrase cited above.

... “Bear children so that they can be maimed” ... For that alone? Why not that they should fight better, more unitedly, consciously and resolutely than we are fighting against the present-day conditions of life that are maiming and ruining our generation?

This is the radical difference that distinguishes the psychology of the peasant, handicraftsman, intellectual, the petty bourgeois in general, from that of the proletarian. The petty bourgeois sees and feels that he is heading for ruin, that life is becoming more difficult, that the struggle for existence is ever more ruthless, and that his position and that of his family are becoming more and more hopeless. It is an indisputable fact, and the petty bourgeois protests against it.

But how does he protest?

He protests as the representative of a class that is hopelessly perishing, that despairs of its future, that is depressed and cowardly. There is nothing to be done ... if only there were fewer children to suffer our torments and hard toil, our poverty and our humiliation—such is the cry of the petty bourgeois.

The class-conscious worker is far from holding this point of view. He will not allow his consciousness to be dulled by such cries no matter how sincere and heartfelt they may be. Yes, we workers and the mass of small proprietors lead a life that is filled with unbearable oppression and suffering. Things are harder for our generation than they were for our fathers. But in one respect we are luckier than our fathers. We have begun to learn and are rapidly learning to fight—and to fight not as individuals, as the best of our fathers fought, not for the slogans of bourgeois speechifiers that are alien to us in spirit, but for our slogans, the slogans of our class. We are fighting better than our fathers did. Our children will fight better than we do, and they will be victorious.

The working class is not perishing, it is growing, becoming stronger, gaining courage, consolidating itself, educating itself and becoming steeled in battle. We are pessimists as far as serfdom, capitalism and petty, production are concerned, but we are ardent optimists in what concerns the working-class movement and its aims. We are already laying the foundation of a new edifice and our children will complete its construction.

That is the reason—the only reason—why we are unconditionally the enemies of neomalthusianism, suited only to unfeeling and egotistic petty-bourgeois couples, who whisper in scared voices: “God grant we manage somehow by our selves. So much the better if we have no children.”

It goes without saying that this does not by any means prevent us from demanding the unconditional annulment of all laws against abortions or against the distribution of medical literature on contraceptive measures, etc. Such laws are nothing but the hypocrisy of the ruling classes. These laws do not heal the ulcers of capitalism, they merely turn them into malignant ulcers that are especially painful for the oppressed masses. Freedom for medical propaganda and the protection of the elementary democratic rights of citizens, men and women, are one thing. The social theory of neomalthusianism is quite another. Class-conscious workers will always conduct the most ruthless struggle against attempts to impose that reactionary and cowardly theory on the most progressive and strongest class in modern society, the class that is the best prepared for great changes.
http://marx.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/jun/29.htm

I do however think that Lenin was wrong on this issue and I am pro-choice.

[Vanguard1917]

"According to classic Marxist and Leninist ideology, abortion is a social ill created by the capitalist system of production. The Russian revolutionaries wanted to abolish restrictive birth control policy, and argued that abortion would gradually disappear in the new Soviet society, because there would be no more need for them (Lenin 1913)."


This is someone putting words into Lenin's mouth. Do you have a primary source of Lenin making such statements?


Lenin stated his opposition to contraception and abortion in the article "The Working Class and NeoMalthusianism" published in Pravda on June 16, 1913.

Have you read the article? He explicitly says that demands should be made for 'the unconditional annulment of all laws against abortions [and] against the distribution of medical literature on contraceptive measures, etc.'

Lenin is merely criticising the misanthropic neo-Malthusian proponents of birth control - a criticism which i fully agree with, by the way.



The law was introduced because sufficient social security system was not yet developed. Some women who were pregnant were not in a position to take care of children. Later when the best social security system in the world was developed in the USSR all Soviet women could safely give birth to children and take care of them. For that reason Stalin prohibited abortion and he did not contradict Lenin's position on this issue.


Once we actually read what Lenin had to say on the matter and we review his actions in government, we find that the Stalinist regime fully contradicted the Leninist position on abortion and women's emancipation.

[Unicorn]

This is someone putting words into Lenin's mouth. Do you have a primary source of Lenin making such statements?
I posted already the Lenin's article on Neo-Malthusianism.



Have you read the article?
Yes. Apparently you did not understand it.



He explicitly says that demands should be made for 'the unconditional annulment of all laws against abortions [and] against the distribution of medical literature on contraceptive measures, etc.'
Yes. Lenin also implies that women's need to have abortions is an "ulcer of capitalism" and the bourgeois state is therefore "hypocritical" when it outlaws abortions.

Because the ulcers of capitalism did not disappear overnight Lenin supported abortion rights until a socialist state was built and the need for abortions according to Lenin therefore disappeared.

The relevant passage:


It goes without saying that this does not by any means prevent us from demanding the unconditional annulment of all laws against abortions or against the distribution of medical literature on contraceptive measures, etc. Such laws are nothing but the hypocrisy of the ruling classes. These laws do not heal the ulcers of capitalism, they merely turn them into malignant ulcers that are especially painful for the oppressed masses.



Lenin is merely criticising the misanthropic neo-Malthusian proponents of birth control - a criticism which i fully agree with, by the way.
The term "Neo-Malthusianism" was a in the early 20th used to refer to birth control.

The scholar Teitelbaum states: "Lenin opposed contraception as shabby Malthusianism."
http://www.annalsnyas.org/cgi/content/citation/882/1/200



Once we actually read what Lenin had to say on the matter and we review his actions in government, we find that the Stalinist regime fully contradicted the Leninist position on abortion and women's emancipation.
Firstly, you need to provide a sources which supports your view of Lenin's views on abortion and contraception.

Another account of Lenin's position on abortion:



"It was at that time that Kollontai began to concentrate on securing equal rights and a modicum of power for women. Her name is often connected with such widely acclaimed developments of those years as the legalization of abortion, accessibility of divorce, maternity benefits and the founding of the special bureau of the Communist Party devoted to organizing and indoctrinating women, the Zhenotdel.

All three biographies contain devastating documentation of the hostility of the male Bolshevik leaders to any program, legislation or organization addressed specifically to the interests of women, of the constant necessity for Kollontai and other women within the Bolshevik hierarchy to pretend that their concern with women's issues had nothing to do with the ideology of the despised feminist ''equal righters.'' Thus, abortion was legalized only as a temporary measure, necessitated by the Civil War; the legalization was expressly proclaimed to serve the benefit of the collective, not of the individual woman in need of an abortion"
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E00E6D6163BF937A35752C0A9679482 60&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

[TC]

What the fuck Unicorn, read that article a little more carefully, Lenin isn't arguing against abortion and birthcontrol he's arguing against social malthusianism,
the doctrine that people should be actively discouraged from having children.

Re-read the last paragraph:



It goes without saying that this does not by any means prevent us from demanding the unconditional annulment of all laws against abortions or against the distribution of medical literature on contraceptive measures, etc. Such laws are nothing but the hypocrisy of the ruling classes. These laws do not heal the ulcers of capitalism, they merely turn them into malignant ulcers that are especially painful for the oppressed masses. Freedom for medical propaganda and the protection of the elementary democratic rights of citizens, men and women, are one thing. The social theory of neomalthusianism is quite another. Class-conscious workers will always conduct the most ruthless struggle against attempts to impose that reactionary and cowardly theory on the most progressive and strongest class in modern society, the class that is the best prepared for great change.



Not only was Lenin not against abortion and birth control (which he calls "elementary democratic rights of citizens, men and women" clearly indicating a materialist, human emancipation perspective on reproductive rights issues rather than a utopian socialist utilitarian view), but he was clearly concerned that someone like you and the author of that anti-communist propaganda piece you posted would mistake his views on social malthusianism for being anti-abortion, i.e. "The social theory of neomalthusianism is quite another."

Lenin's views were the same as Trotsky's view (in sharp contrast to the position advanced by the Soviet government 1936-1953 and those of Romania and Albania). Kollantai was a reactionary in this regard, just because she was a woman who wrote about women's issues doesn't mean she was any type of a 'feminist.' Kollantai, Hoxha and Ceausescu were the only high profile communist leaders who took pro-natalist positions (as well as Stalin's post-great purge government although I don't think Stalin took such a line personally); Lenin, Trotsky, and every other communist government including the DDR, post-anti-party-group soviet union, and the People's Republic of China from the beginning (not only was Mao pro-choice but he actually took a anti-natalist/pro-abortion line in public from a social responsibility perspective, i.e. assumed people would have more abortions once they were more educated so as to protect their personal and collective interests).


So please do not take one lame article's attempt to slander Lenin with Alexandra Kollantai's non-materialist social theory as if it was his own. She was a politically marginal figure from 1918 onward her view was never the received 'Marxist and Leninist' view on abortion, she was just projecting her view of children onto everyone else. The times article similarly slanders the soviet government by attributing to it Kollantai's social reaction.



(which is a fairly common mistake for people to make, its the overattribution error where someone views the motives of a group of people, such as women who want children but can't afford them, and extrapolates from that the motives of all people, as in all people who terminate pregnancies...this is somewhat similar to the Engels/Hoxha view of homosexuality based on intergenerational homosexual practices in ancient greece which they mistakenly attributed to homosexuality in general. Both the Kollantai/Hoxha/Stalin view of abortion and the Engels/Hoxha view of homosexuality make the same error of taking a special case as a general rule; this is ultimately an empirical error which if they acted as faithful Marxists they would yield to when the error is pointed it. )



Another account of Lenin's position on abortion:

Thats not an account of Lenin's position its an account of Kollantai's position. Kollantai was a reactionary in this regard, Lenin was not, stop misattributing, either find a direct quote or stop slandering Lenin.

[Vanguard1917]

I posted already the Lenin's article on Neo-Malthusianism.


Lenin does not oppose abortion itself in that article. He merely opposes abortion as a Malthusian method of population control. This is a position which all Marxists share. If there is one 'pro-choice' 'ally' that i have no time for, it's those neo-Malthusians and environmentalists who support abortion and birth-control because they want less people on earth.

However, Lenin fully supports abortion itself as a basic right. He says that 'It goes without saying that this does not by any means prevent us from demanding the unconditional annulment of all laws against abortions or against the distribution of medical literature on contraceptive measures, etc.' He argues that access to abortion and contraceptive rights are 'elementary democratic rights of citizens, men and women'.



Firstly, you need to provide a sources which supports your view of Lenin's views on abortion and contraception.


Yes, the article which you posted. As well as his conduct in the Soviert government - being the first leader of a modern state to fully legalise abortion.

[Unicorn]

What the fuck Unicorn, read that article a little more carefully, Lenin isn't arguing against abortion and birthcontrol he's arguing against social malthusianism,
the doctrine that people should be actively discouraged from having children.
I quoted Stenvoll who interprets that article in the same way as I do. Anyway, I am 100% pro-choice and I have no agenda on this issue and nothing more to contribute to this discussion.

[TC]

Vanguard1917 is totally right...you quoted Stenvoll who interprets the article incorrectly.

Unicorn...you're a marxist-leninist, actually in agreement with Lenin on this issue, why lol are you so invested in arguing that Lenin disagreed with you on this issue when you haven't produced any evidence?

I think the problem is that people overestimate the importance of Kollontai (who really did express such a view in her writing; she was not socially progressive by communist standards). What I don't get is why you're so invested in arguing that Kollontai's line was Lenin's especially when its well known among Marxists (if not the general public) that Lenin and Kollontai sharply differed in their views on women and sexuality.

[careyprice31]

That was a position shared by virtually all Soviet Marxists of the time, also Kollontai who perhaps had the most progressive view of women's rights.

"According to classic Marxist and Leninist ideology, abortion is a social ill created by the capitalist system of production. The Russian revolutionaries wanted to abolish restrictive birth control policy, and argued that abortion would gradually disappear in the new Soviet society, because there would be no more need for them (Lenin 1913)."

https://bora.uib.no/bitstream/1956/2224/1/article_stenvoll.pdf


The law was introduced because sufficient social security system was not yet developed. Some women who were pregnant were not in a position to take care of children. Later when the best social security system in the world was developed in the USSR all Soviet women could safely give birth to children and take care of them. For that reason Stalin prohibited abortion and he did not contradict Lenin's position on this issue.

I'm gonna follow suit on Tragic Clown and say

what the fuck, Unicorn?

I actually despise Lenin but even I think this is kind of nuts?

Marx was in favor of emancipationw women and Lenin did so as well. I'll admit he did this even though I don't like him. But I have to say what is true. He should be given credit for that.

and women werent able to take care of hordes of babies under stalin. Stalin didnt make abortion illegal in 1936 because women could take care of babies. He did it to raise the population level and because stalin had a rather patriarchal side to him as well and sexist side to him.

[Unicorn]

Vanguard1917 is totally right...you quoted Stenvoll who interprets the article incorrectly.

Unicorn...you're a marxist-leninist, actually in agreement with Lenin on this issue, why lol are you so invested in arguing that Lenin disagreed with you on this issue when you haven't produced any evidence?
I researched the issue and found a couple of papers saying that Lenin was morally against abortion, none that he was for it. I am only interested in the truth. If he held a wrong position on this issue it does not diminish his worth in my eyes the least. He was wrong about homosexuality as was Engels.

BTW, I found another paper. One scholar says that "In 1921, Lenin legalized abortion in the revolutionary Soviet Union as the right of the woman "to control her own body," but opposed contraception"
http://www.jstor.org/pss/986863

I don't understand what really was Lenin's problem with contraception. However, at least according to that statement Lenin favored abortion rights.



I think the problem is that people overestimate the importance of Kollontai (who really did express such a view in her writing; she was not socially progressive by communist standards). What I don't get is why you're so invested in arguing that Kollontai's line was Lenin's especially when its well known among Marxists (if not the general public) that Lenin and Kollontai sharply differed in their views on women and sexuality.
Why do you criticise Kollontai? My understanding is that whereas Kollontai advocated free love Lenin defended traditional marriage. In matters of human sexuality Kollontai often held a more progressive and correct view than Lenin in questions in which they differed.

[Xiao Banfa]

I have no right to participate in this discussion due to being a complete papist die hard (of course).


I actually despise Lenin but even I think this is kind of nuts?

What? You despise Lenin? A 'bukharinite' who despises Lenin?

That's the stupidest, most fucking naive thing I've heard in a while.

Nothing personal.

[Unicorn]

Stalin didnt make abortion illegal in 1936 because women could take care of babies.
Well, it was his stated reason along with his admittedly patriarchal belief that women have a duty to reproduce.

[Vanguard1917]

BTW, I found another paper. One scholar says that "In 1921, Lenin legalized abortion in the revolutionary Soviet Union as the right of the woman "to control her own body," but opposed contraception"
http://www.jstor.org/pss/986863

I don't understand what really was Lenin's problem with contraception. However, at least according to that statement Lenin favored abortion rights.


No. Lenin had no such 'problem'. Lenin had no opposition either to abortion or to contraception. In fact, Lenin called for 'unconditional' support for both of these things as 'elementary democratic rights'.

You've simply made a series of claims against Lenin with no real basis whatsoever.

What Lenin did oppose were neo-Malthusian arguments in favour of population control. He was able to see that some people were supporting birth control from an absolutely reactionary angle. Lenin rightly and astutely pointed this out and strongly denounced such people - the kinds of people, e.g. environmentalists and other misanthropes, who today support abortion and other birth control measures as means of reducing the human population.

But this had nothing to do with Lenin's overall support for full abortion and contraception rights.

[Unicorn]

"In November 1920 the Soviet government had legalized abortion. The decree noted the growing number of illegal abortions (due to extreme economic hardship following the Civil War), and in the interest of women's health allowed free abortions in hospitals provided that they were performed by doctors. [33] The Soviet government, however, did not recognize abortion as a woman's right. Indeed Nikolai Semashko, the Commissar of Health, explicitly stated at the time that abortion was not an individual right, that it could depress the birthrate and hurt the interests of the state, and that it should be practiced only in extreme cases. [34]

Birth control was legalized in the Soviet Union in 1923, and two years later the Central Scientific Commission for the Study of Contraceptives was established. Debates divided physicians between those who supported contraception as a means to reduce the number of abortions and prevent the spread of venereal disease, and those who argued that it would depress the birthrate and threaten the nation's welfare, and perhaps even its survival. [35]"

David L. Hoffmann "Mothers In The Motherland: Stalinist Pronatalism In Its Pan-European Context". Journal of Social History.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2005/is_1_34/ai_65576670/pg_4

[careyprice31]

I have no right to participate in this discussion due to being a complete papist die hard (of course).



What? You despise Lenin? A 'bukharinite' who despises Lenin?

That's the stupidest, most fucking naive thing I've heard in a while.

Nothing personal.

No offence taken, my friend.:) I expected this because most of this forum like Lenin. So I am not offended.

I am a bukharinite and bukharin and lenin were friends but that is not to say that I agreed with everything Bukharin did. Just most of it hehe

although even Bukharin and Lenin had their many disagreements. They did not always agree.

and once I liked Lenin but after spending like more than ten years studying Russian/soviet history and reading about lenin I can truthfully say Had i been alive back then I would have been a Menshevik.

i dont say much of anything against lenin, although I dont personally like him. But there are many people that do, so I keep my mouth shut out of respect for the nice people here on RL and in many other places in the world who do like him.

[Xiao Banfa]

But to despise him?

[careyprice31]

But to despise him?

Yea i agree. Despise is a strong word. I shouldnt have used that word. I dont despise the man. I dont like him, but i dont despise him.

He did a number of good things and bad things (and although i feel the bad outweighs the good he did do some good things which he should be given credit for like the abortion and contraception issue).

[Lector Malibu]

I am completely pro choice. I love how pro lifers can go on and on about murder and such, than turn around and support wars and a host of other things.

[Dr Mindbender]

I dont understand why so many leftists blindly support abortion simply because other leftists do.

Abortion may be good to keep population/crime rates (less unwanted kids)down but thats a very callous way of looking at it.

The children in the womb are the most vulnerable minority in the world.Id support abortion if the mothers life was threatened in or in a case of rape (where the foetus would probably have been found before it could mature) but otherwise...

Vote!

Send me a postcard when you get to restricted-ville. ;)

[Xiao Banfa]

See that's a guy who needs to be restricted. Not someone like me who is so the real thing that people spontaneously orgasm when they hear my speeches.

Let me explain my position this way- a referendum in which only women can participate where how late you can have an abortion is determined.

There would be full-on education an everything and no formal lobbying allowed.

How different that is from papism.:scared:

[Sky]

..

[Bud Struggle]

Abortion in Russia was legalized in Russia on 18 November 1920 due to the economic ruin of the country and the horrendous material circumstances of the population. This policy on abortions should not be interpreted as "pro-choice" or other liberal nonsense but as a necessary step for the reconstruction of the war-torn country.

On 27 June 1936, the Central Executive Committee enacted a decree titled "On the prohibition of abortion, the increase of financial help to mothers, the establishment of State help for large families, the broadening of the network of maternity hospitals and daycare centers, the amplification of judicial penalty for deviation from prescribed child support and about certain changes in legislation of divorce." It limited abortions only for medical reasons. By 1937, abortion decreased by a factor of three from the 1935 level.

That makes sense.

I could have been a bit wrong about you, Sky.

[Xiao Banfa]

That makes sense.

No, Tom it does not. Make sense.

...Maybe to power mad megalomaniacs?


I could have been a bit wrong about you, Sky.

You're joking right? Sky is a DPRK sockpuppet. I HAVE PROOF.

[Red Equation]

This is something that I myself I am not sure of.

There are many ways to look at it.

A woman has her right to her own body, so she should have the right to decide whether or not to bring life into the world.

But, another way that contradicts the first:

Is a baby alive after one minute before birth? Yes, it is. What about one minute before birth? One hour? One day? One week? One month? One Season? When is a baby "alive"? In some respects, abortion could be considered as murder.

But there are also many issues with both facts, such as rape....

Personally I believe that you should have the choice, although I am slightly hesitant about that. Unless it is a rape, women know they will have a baby if they choose to have sex, so it would be in a way, intentionally killing someone...

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Personally I believe that you should have the choice, although I am slightly hesitant about that. Unless it is a rape, women know they will have a baby if they choose to have sex, so it would be in a way, intentionally killing someone...
No. Abortion is used to terminate unwanted pregnancies. This means that either (a) the woman did not want to get pregnant in the first place, or (b) she wanted to get pregnant but her life changed in some way during the pregnancy so that she no longer wants to give birth (for example she got fired from her job, or broke up with her partner, or whatever).

And having sex does not automatically lead to pregnancy. Yes, it carries a risk of it, but crossing the street carries a risk of being hit by a car - yet you wouldn't say that people should expect to be hit by cars if they choose to cross streets.

[Red Equation]

Comparing getting hit by a car to the chance of getting impregnated during sex is not a good comparison. Try not getting hit by cars at night while wearing a black suit.

What i'm saying is that the chance of becoming pregnant is obviously high enough that it wouldn't make sense to not expect it.

[Lector Malibu]

Unless it is a rape, women know they will have a baby if they choose to have sex, so it would be in a way, intentionally killing someone...

Women always do not get pregnant after having sex. It's actually sometimes not so easy, than there are other times that it just happens.

So to say a woman knows if she has sex she will become pregnant is not really true

The point is that decisions on issues that concern a womans body should be hers to make period.

[Joby]

Pro-Choice but not Pro-Abortion.

This absloutely positively needs to be the lefts motto in the issue.

Also, the Left does a horrible job on some other points I think they could make an argument with:

1. Being Pro-Choice, we support other choices other than abortion or, what in many cases amounts to, a severe loss of financial stability. This isn't a choice at all, the woman in many cases has been left no choice but abortion. Women should be given a real choice that involves society ginving them a hand if they so choose that option.

2. Even under moderate economic reforms done by liberal politicians, such as Bill Clinton, the number of abortions per capita decreased dramatically.

3. Finally, hit the crazy Chistians back. They can't ban education on safe sex and help for pregnant women, then want to ban abortions. That's very un-Christian, and quite simply, and evil policy in every way. The Left needs to capitalize and point out these fallacies, hopefully turning the tables.

Always remember that you have the moral ground on the issue; don't cede it.

[AK-1917]

The point is that decisions on issues that concern a womans body should be hers to make period.

But the same decision affects the father as well. It's totally naive to suggest that it only has to do with the mother. The problem with the abortion question is that it makes it a question of women's rights only, which is hugely reductionist.

[zelda]

I dont understand why so many leftists blindly support abortion simply because other leftists do.

Abortion may be good to keep population/crime rates (less unwanted kids)down but thats a very callous way of looking at it.

The children in the womb are the most vulnerable minority in the world.Id support abortion if the mothers life was threatened in or in a case of rape (where the foetus would probably have been found before it could mature) but otherwise...

Vote!

I agree with you up until "if the mothers life was threatened in or in a case of rape (where the foetus would probably have been found before it could mature)"
Rape is not the child's fault and shouldn't be punished for it. With our technology today, no mothers life should be threatened during childbirth.

[chimx]

What? You're arguing against a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy caused by rape? You're holding a microscopic fetus to a higher level than women? You need to reassess your priorities.

[Bud Struggle]

You're holding a microscopic fetus to a higher level than women? You need to reassess your priorities.

So a bigger a person is the more important they are?

You must be a fan of the WWE. :lol:

[TC]

I agree with you up until "if the mothers life was threatened in or in a case of rape (where the foetus would probably have been found before it could mature)"
Rape is not the child's fault and shouldn't be punished for it. With our technology today, no mothers life should be threatened during childbirth.


Have to give you credit for at least having a consistent position, unlike most reactionary rightwing morons.

Its hilarious however that you don't want to 'punish' a child, and by child, one means non-sentient bundle of parasitic cells, but you have no problem punishing women for being unlucky enough to get raped. Good for you real humanitarian!

[hekmatista]

Somewhere early in this thread, one of the anti-abortion proponents argued that because the fetus can grow into a fully formed autonomous human person, it is therefore a person ab initio, and should have its rights respected (first and foremost its right to life). I suspect that an argument similar to this is lying in the back of the minds of some comrades who are shamefaced about abortion ("we support choice, not abortion, per se"), or otherwise exhibit symptoms of mauvais fois. If the reductionism of the argument were not immediately apparent already, advances in science like cloning should clarify that the potential for being a full human person is not the same as the present reality of being a fully human person. You don't have to be a dialectitian to reject Thomist idealism.

[Bud Struggle]

one means non-sentient bundle of parasitic cells,... Good for you real humanitarian!

You could have found slave owners saying as much about Blacks 100 years ago.

Thank heaven we've realize (or the more progressive of us have) that all races of people are human. Now we need to realize that all all timelines of the human being are human (as the more progressive of us have.)

Abortion, like slavery, is a Borgeoise struggle.

[TC]

You could have found slave owners saying as much about Blacks 100 years ago.

Err...no actually, slave holders thought Blacks deserved far more protection then I think fetus's deserve.

They might have thought Blacks were in some way inferior but they didn't think they were non-thinking, unconscious organisms that do not enter into moral calculus, on the contrary they tried to justify slavery by claiming that it was in the best interests of Blacks (civilized them, saved their immortal souls with Christianity, etc). I don't justify abortion with the interests of the fetus, fetuses have no interests as they lack consciousness.


Now we need to realize that all all timelines of the human being are human (as the more progressive of us have.)

If thats the case then why bring up abortion, that kills for instance something like a mere 200,000 "people" in the UK a year, when there is a magnitudes greater holocaust of male masturbation with trillions of deaths per day. The horror, the horror. Who will protect the earliest timeline of humans, sperm cells??

[Bud Struggle]

Err...no actually, slave holders thought Blacks deserved far more protection then I think fetus's deserve.

They might have thought Blacks were in some way inferior but they didn't think they were non-thinking, unconscious organisms that do not enter into moral calculus, on the contrary they tried to justify slavery by claiming that it was in the best interests of Blacks (civilized them, saved their immortal souls with Christianity, etc). I don't justify abortion with the interests of the fetus, fetuses have no interests as they lack consciousness.

Thanks for the Bourgeoise clarification. We all appreciate you sharing with us the slave owners justifications and reasonings.


If thats the case then why bring up abortion, that kills for instance something like a mere 200,000 "people" in the UK a year, when there is a magnitudes greater holocaust of male masturbation with trillions of deaths per day. The horror, the horror. Who will protect the earliest timeline of humans, sperm cells??

The fetus is human--not sperm. That's a masterbatory argument--in more ways than one. :lol:

Abortion, like slavery, is a Borgeoise struggle.

You are Bourgeois. :)

[TC]

Thanks for the Bourgeoise clarification. We all appreciate you sharing with us the slave owners justifications and reasonings.


Thanks for sleeping through your secondary school ameican history lessons thus confirming our prejudices about your understanding of history.



The fetus is human--not sperm. That's a masterbatory argument--in more ways than one. :lol:

Oh thats a very sophisticated argument; so, I could say black people are human, but not fetuses, and that would work for you? Or no, and your argument with an identical form also doesn't work?

Think of the millions you're murdering!!



You are Bourgeois. :)

Then where is my capital investment, eh?

[Bud Struggle]

Then where is my capital investment, eh?

You personally--I don't know you--but the Abortion Industries investment is here:

Americans may be surprised to learn that Planned Parenthood has plenty of money, and taxpayers are contributing a large part of it. In 2005-06 it took in nearly $1 billion and boasted a surplus of $55 million. More than one-third of its income — $305 million — came from government subsidies. Its president receives an annual compensation of almost $1 million.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/mar/26/the-abortion-industry/

And Planned Parenthood is just the tip of the iceburg. It's an industry.

Good enough? :)

You might as well be shilling for Halliburton.

Pretty Bourgeois, don't you think?

[Bud Struggle]

Further interesting statistics on abortion by RACE:

(From the USA--I don't know where you are from TC)

http://www.abortionfacts.com/statistics/race.asp

Abortion is being used by the Bourgeois to keep the numbers of Blacks under control.

Abortion is a tool of the Bourgeois.

Excellent job, Tragic Clown. I hope you are being well paid by your masters.

[TC]

You personally--I don't know you--but the Abortion Industries investment is here:

Americans may be surprised to learn that Planned Parenthood has plenty of money, and taxpayers are contributing a large part of it. In 2005-06 it took in nearly $1 billion and boasted a surplus of $55 million. More than one-third of its income — $305 million — came from government subsidies. Its president receives an annual compensation of almost $1 million.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/mar/26/the-abortion-industry/

And Planned Parenthood is just the tip of the iceburg. It's an industry.

Good enough? :)

You might as well be shilling for Halliburton.

Pretty Bourgeois, don't you think?

Err, planned parenthood is a non-profit; bourgeois business by definition attempt to turn a profit, thats the point.

As for it being an 'industry', i don't get what makes you think that leftists would oppose industry.

However, would you prefer people giving themselves menstrual extraction style abortions at home (which requires no medical training or prescription drugs) to avoid the 'abortion industry?' Or is this line of argument just a way to divert attention from the degree to which you're a reactionary, like the people argue for specific time limits when they would prefer to ban all abortions.


Abortion is being used by the Bourgeois to keep the numbers of Blacks under control.

Abortion is used by Black women like white women to control their own bodies and reproduction; the only way you can see this as 'keeping the numbers of blacks under control' is if you view black women not as people with their own dreams, lives, and aspirations, but as black baby making tools. Here you seem to take the attitude of slave owners who viewed and used them just as that. You're disgusting.

[Bud Struggle]

Err, planned parenthood is a non-profit; bourgeois business by definition attempt to turn a profit, thats the point.

As for it being an 'industry', i don't get what makes you think that leftists would oppose industry.

You asked
Then where is my capital investment, eh? Remember you're own quote?


However, would you prefer people giving themselves menstrual extraction style abortions at home (which requires no medical training or prescription drugs) to avoid the 'abortion industry?' Or is this line of argument just a way to divert attention from the degree to which you're a reactionary, like the people argue for specific time limits when they would prefer to ban all abortions.I'm against all abortion--just like I'm against all slavery--not only the slavery of Blacks. Abortion is a barbaric and disgusting practice and best left to the Capitalists.

This from Capitalist.org

http://capitalism.org/faq/abortion.htm


What is the capitalist view on abortion?

Given the above, under Capitalism abortion is an inalienable right. Any one who advocates the outlawing of abortion -- like Steve Forbes -- is an enemy of individual rights, and thus of capitalism.




See: you're Bourgeois.




Abortion is used by Black women like white women to control their own bodies and reproduction; the only way you can see this as 'keeping the numbers of blacks under control' is if you view black women not as people with their own dreams, lives, and aspirations, but as black baby making tools. Here you seem to take the attitude of slave owners who viewed and used them just as that.


No--you foist abortion on the blacks community to keep their numbers at an acceptable segment of the population. It's used tem times more among the black population as the white population.


You Tragic Clown are a tool of the Slave owners. I hope you are paid well for your services.



You're disgusting.


I'm a true Progressive. :)


And since you are resorting to personal invective: I am not trying to be disgusting--I honestly believe that as Progressives we must be responsove to ALL human life and that we should NEVER kill human life. And especially. when we are in doubt of what is or is not human we should ALWAYS err on the side of "it may be human" before "it's not human."


I'm certainly not sure that human life begins at conception--but I am willing to say that we should err on the side of the it might be life.


Sorry to have been argumentative.

[Malakangga]

Ah.what the hell. Fuck abortion

[chimx]

Ah.what the hell. Fuck abortion

care to elaborate?

[Bud Struggle]

care to elaborate?

BIG BROTHER is watching.

red-poem, please follow the party line.

This is your first warning--there WILL NOT be another. :)

[Hyacinth]

And since you are resorting to personal invective: I am not trying to be disgusting--I honestly believe that as Progressives we must be responsove to ALL human life and that we should NEVER kill human life. And especially. when we are in doubt of what is or is not human we should ALWAYS err on the side of "it may be human" before "it's not human."

I'm certainly not sure that human life begins at conception--but I am willing to say that we should err on the side of the it might be life.

Why is the fact that something is biologically human important? There is research in the works to, for instance, grow clones of people without heads to harvest organs; would this be wrong? And why? And if this isn't wrong, how could it be wrong to abort a fetus, which has the same mental life as our headless organ bank.

[Bud Struggle]

Why is the fact that something is biologically human important? There is research in the works to, for instance, grow clones of people without heads to harvest organs; would this be wrong? And why? And if this isn't wrong, how could it be wrong to abort a fetus, which has the same mental life as our headless organ bank.








Because it's a slippery slope. The second you say that one part of "humanity" is expendable--everything is up for grabs. You want research that says that Blacks aren't quite as "human" as whites--I bet it could be produced. You want research that says Asians are smarter than whites--I bet that could be produced--and then who is to decide what the dividing line is?

Once you let a line between "us" and "them" exist then it can become political (Ayran and Jew) or intellectual (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve) or psychological or whatever--and then some people aren't as "human" as the next.

I take the position that ALL human DNA life is human.

I don't mind you disagreeing with me--but I do want you to understand my position in this debate. I'm not trying to be anti-woman or repressive or reactionary. My interest is the betterment of ALL the human race. The GOOD of ALL before the good of a few.

And I think that is the only TRULY PROGRESSIVE position.

[Hyacinth]

Because it's a slippery slope. The second you say that one part of "humanity" is expendable--everything is up for grabs. You want research that says that Blacks aren't quite as "human" as whites--I bet it could be produced. You want research that says Asians are smarter than whites--I bet that could be produced--and then who is to decide what the dividing line is?

Once you let a line between "us" and "them" exist then it can become political (Ayran and Jew) or intellectual (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve) or psychological or whatever--and then some people aren't as "human" as the next.

I take the position that ALL human DNA life is human.

I don't mind you disagreeing with me--but I do want you to understand my position in this debate. I'm not trying to be anti-woman or repressive or reactionary. My interest is the betterment of ALL the human race. The GOOD of ALL before the good of a few.

And I think that is the only TRULY PROGRESSIVE position.
I’m afraid that you’re clearly not familiar with the personhood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person)literature in ethics. The biological category human doesn’t carry in it of itself any moral weight, what does is a person (something that is self-aware, sentient, sapient, etc.) In fact, for the very reasons that you point out, namely, that across the biological category of human there are *vast* differences, and the properties which make something a human don’t seem to be morally relevant. When you examine the position from the perspective of personhood one cannot make the sort of slippery slope arguments that you propose.

Because, keep in mind, if we take humans to be moral subjects (rather than persons) then it likewise follows that *any* killing, including that of animals, is prohibited. Since, well, what are the morally relevant differences between a human fetus and let us say a dog fetus? None. I’m not saying that the position is untenable, but only that it has far more reaching consequences than you assume.

Also, I’m not dissenting with you because I think you’re being reactionary or anything of the sort. I think you’re well intentioned, but misguided. I disagree, and argue, because I think that you are *mistaken* in attributing moral worth to humans rather than to persons (not all humans are persons, and not all persons are humans, for instance, intelligent alien life would qualify for personhood, likewise some of the great apes might as well). Possessing a certain sort of DNA structure is entirely morally irrelevant.

[hekmatista]

With advances in cloning technology, then, will I have to acknowledge every cell of my body as a potential person? Surely you see the absurdity.

[Hyacinth]

With advances in cloning technology, then, will I have to acknowledge every cell of my body as a potential person? Surely you see the absurdity.
This is exactly why the potentiality argument doesn’t work (that basically tries to argue that even if a fetus isn’t a person, it is still a potential person). From that logic every single unimpregnated egg or “wasted sperm” (I’m thinking back to the Monty Python “every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8)” song) would be denying a potential person life. And, as you point out, with the advent of cloning every single cell in your both would all of a sudden get a right to life. Quite absurd.

[Wake Up]

At the end of the day it is the parents right (ultimately the womans) to decide whether they want to have a child. It is no business of ANYBODY else's to make that decision for them.
I've never seen a pro-life supporter who is on minimum wage and facing redundancy if she has a child. I reckon the shock of raising a child on state benefits when you previously had prospects would be enough to shock any of these moral crusaders out of their self-righteousness.
.


A fetus is not a human being it is a innate group of cells and as Bill Hicks said, "your not a human being till your in my phone book."
:)

[Demogorgon]

I don't understand why people here feel the need to choose the worst possible arguments for abortion. First off, a fetus in the later stages of development is sentient. It is capable of suffering. Sapience is what it lacks, not sentience.

Next this talk of pregnancy as a "punishment" is the most stupid thing said on the subject since the ne about a fetus being called a parasite. Recently I seriously injured an already bad leg playing rather vigorously with the dog. I may well be walking with a stick for life. Now in a sense, it could be called my fault that this has happened as I shouldn't have been playing that wildly with a bad leg, but is anyone really going to call my injury a "punishment" or talk about it in terms of whether I deserved it or not?

Right, the stupid arguments for abortion made, let's again look at some more sensible ones. There are three arguments basically. First of all, a woman's body is a woman's body. Denying bodily autonomy is in of itself a bad thing. Of course, you could argue in turn that the right to life trumps the right to bodily autonomy, and it does providing we are talking about two equal beings.

That brings us to the second argument, the legal one. It is a very bad idea to legally consider fetuses to be of equal humanity. Doing so would require police investigation of every miscarriage to check if it were abortion for one. So we cannot consider abortion murder. Of course we could still take the traditional response to this which was that abortion is not as bad as murder, but still not very good. (there were plenty of variations of this. The Catholic position before the nineteenth century was that abortion before quickening was permisable and afterwards was wrong, but not on the same level as murder).

That brings us to the final argument, the social one. Banning abortion has terrible social affects. It leads to huge numbers of children being abandoned. Mothers becoming destitute. Large numbers of back-ally abortions and so forth. Not desirable in the slightest.

Mind you, the hypocrisy on this board with regards to abortion is astounding. The CC seems to regard it as being the defining issue of the left over and above opposition to capitalism. And Tragic Clown here has made her usual claim that anything short of completely unrestricted abortion is terrible, not bothering to mention that whenever Cuba comes up, she vigorously defends Cuba's first trimester only policy.

[Bud Struggle]

I’m afraid that you’re clearly not familiar with the personhood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person)literature in ethics. The biological category human doesn’t carry in it of itself any moral weight, what does is a person (something that is self-aware, sentient, sapient, etc.) In fact, for the very reasons that you point out, namely, that across the biological category of human there are *vast* differences, and the properties which make something a human don’t seem to be morally relevant. When you examine the position from the perspective of personhood one cannot make the sort of slippery slope arguments that you propose.

Because, keep in mind, if we take humans to be moral subjects (rather than persons) then it likewise follows that *any* killing, including that of animals, is prohibited. Since, well, what are the morally relevant differences between a human fetus and let us say a dog fetus? None. I’m not saying that the position is untenable, but only that it has far more reaching consequences than you assume.

Also, I’m not dissenting with you because I think you’re being reactionary or anything of the sort. I think you’re well intentioned, but misguided. I disagree, and argue, because I think that you are *mistaken* in attributing moral worth to humans rather than to persons (not all humans are persons, and not all persons are humans, for instance, intelligent alien life would qualify for personhood, likewise some of the great apes might as well). Possessing a certain sort of DNA structure is entirely morally irrelevant.


I'm well aware of the person hood argument you mention--I just don't buy it. Or rather, it while it might have some correlation to reality it has a flawed understanding of the importance of the human species in the world. I rather not in any way disfigure or kill the human species--either through genetic engendering or through abortion or euthanasia.

I rather the human being not be tampered with genetically. As I said, I don't know (and neither does anyone else know) what is human--and I would rather err on the side of extreme caution.

Take it another way--if we had Today's technology coupled with our ethics of 200 years ago we might have easily harvested Blacks or other races to supply our need for organs. I don't see ethics as any absolute science--and actually, for the most part, I see ethics as a justifier of the pragmatic desires of culture rather than as a leader in this area.

Just as you could have found ample justification in ethics for slavery 200 years ago--so you can find justification for abortion, today.

I'm just not that trusting.

And Hyacinth, I didn't mean to get on your case that you in particular thought my views were reactionary, I just got over an argument with Tragic Clown whee she personally attacked me--the moint was more meant for her. Thanks.

[Invader Zim]

on the contrary they tried to justify slavery by claiming that it was in the best interests of Blacks (civilized them, saved their immortal souls with Christianity, etc).You're confused. Missionaries, and those who supported the missions to the West Indies, were ardent abolitionists. The Evangelical Revival and the 18th century abolition movement did not just coincide through luck. While some slavers thought that christianity pacified slaves, a great many thought it made them rebellious and as a result missionaries often faced a great deal of opposition when they attempted to preach to slaves. The primary argument of those in favour of slavery were economic, the main arguments against were religious. Though obviously, as the occassion presented its self each side attempted to use the others against them. But for the most part, your Wilberforces, Sharpes and so forth were very much in favour of what they saw as spritual as well as temporal emancipation.

[Demogorgon]

The basis for saying that slave-owners thought they were doing their slaves a favour seems to me to come from the arguments Southern Slave holders in the United States sometimes used against Northern Abolitionists. They liked to claim that slavery protected the black slaves both from themselves (they thought blacks were feeble minded) and from the economic situation of most Northern Blacks (arguing that slave owners at least had an incentive to keep their slaves alive. Northern Employers could simply hire more.)

That kind of falls into the category of "well they would say that wouldn't they?" though, doesn't it?

I doubt many people actually believed that slavery did the slaves any good. It was just a propaganda tool to try and paint the abolitionists as the bad people.

[Invader Zim]

The basis for saying that slave-owners thought they were doing their slaves a favour seems to me to come from the arguments Southern Slave holders in the United States sometimes used against Northern Abolitionists.

It is certainly an argument you see appearing in the sources, but I would argue it long pre-dates the mid-ninteenth century. One of the most illustrative examples is the 1788 work of Rev. Raymund Harris, entitled: Scriptural researches on the licitness of the slave trade. Harris, a Jesuit Spaniard who had been kicked out of his own country, made many of the common religious arguments in favour of the slave trade.

Another anonyamous author, who went by the title Mercator (and thought to be Sir John Gladstone, father of the prime minister William Gladstone), also made the argument that christian docrine defended slavery and that slaves were better off for the slave trade in 1807. But there are plenty of examples of letters coming back from the West Indies where the slavers exposed themselves as having only their own economic interests at heart.

[RedKnight]

Mind you, the hypocrisy on this board with regards to abortion is astounding. The CC seems to regard it as being the defining issue of the left over and above opposition to capitalism. And Tragic Clown here has made her usual claim that anything short of completely unrestricted abortion is terrible, not bothering to mention that whenever Cuba comes up, she vigorously defends Cuba's first trimester only policy.
Cuba has a first trimester only policy, in regards to abortion?:blink: Oh, man. Even I was never that restrictive. Before I was sentenced here, I just stated that abortion should be limited to the first TWO trimesters. And some people thought I was being anti-choice.:rolleyes: So let me get this straight. If Fidel Castro were to be posting on these boards, even he might get restricted to Opposing Ideologies? :laugh: Well I guess I'd be in good company then.;) Viva Fidel Castro!:castro: (LOL)

[Invader Zim]

Cuba has a first trimester only policy, in regards to abortion?:blink: Oh, man. Even I was never that restrictive. Before I was sentenced here, I just stated that abortion should be limited to the first TWO trimesters. And some people thought I was being anti-choice.:rolleyes: So let me get this straight. If Fidel Castro were to be posting on these boards, even he might get restricted to Opposing Ideologies? :laugh: Well I guess I'd be in good company then.;) Viva Fidel Castro!:castro: (LOL)

I am afraid that Cuba's abortion policy is not a topic i am at all familiar with, but I did find this article, for any interested parties: -

Cuba Needs Church to Combat Abortion, Says Castro (http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/10/17/180314.shtml)

[Hyacinth]

I'm well aware of the person hood argument you mention--I just don't buy it. Or rather, it while it might have some correlation to reality it has a flawed understanding of the importance of the human species in the world. I rather not in any way disfigure or kill the human species--either through genetic engendering or through abortion or euthanasia.

I rather the human being not be tampered with genetically. As I said, I don't know (and neither does anyone else know) what is human--and I would rather err on the side of extreme caution.
All well and good, but that isn’t an argument. If you disagree with the personhood idea of moral agency, and would instead like to state that humans (however you define them) are what instead have moral worth, you have to provide an argument as to a) why the personhood account it wrong/problematic/etc., and b) why your alternate account is superior/to be preferred.

As for what a human is, I’m treating it as a biological category where, as far as I understand, it is clearly defined.


Take it another way--if we had Today's technology coupled with our ethics of 200 years ago we might have easily harvested Blacks or other races to supply our need for organs. I don't see ethics as any absolute science--and actually, for the most part, I see ethics as a justifier of the pragmatic desires of culture rather than as a leader in this area.

Just as you could have found ample justification in ethics for slavery 200 years ago--so you can find justification for abortion, today.
I agree with you re: today’s technology and the ethics of 200 years ago, in fact, we don’t even have to look that far back. Today’s technology and the ethics of 70 years ago, we saw very well what it produced in the Holocaust. That being said you haven’t shown that the notion of personhood is compatible with such atrocities as anti-semitism and racism. The issue with these were that some persons (those who qualify for personhood under the definition) were denied personhood, or rather, their personhood was not morally recognized.

And I agree with you that ethics is not an “absolute science”, in fact it isn’t a science at all. That being said it is hardly a reason to dismiss progress in ethics. We have advanced, in a sense, from 200 years ago, from 70 years ago, even from 10 years ago regarding our ethical outlooks. That having been said, I fail to see what concept of moral worth we would have to employ in order to give a bundle of cells (a fetus) enough moral standing as to prohibit abortion.

Also, though you keep bringing up racism (and I’ve just brought up the Holocaust), I fail to see how these are at all analogous. In the one case we are dealing with persons, in the other with the broader biological category of humans, of which we have not, mind you, established that they have in themselves any moral worth.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Fundamentally, the question of reproductive rights, up to and including abortion, is not one of morality, but rather of equality.

The right to abortion on demand gives women the opportunity to choose whether or not they wish to have a child, thus allowing them equal footing. Attempts to deny, or limit that right to women aims to keep them enslaved, in a social order in which it's their "duty" to produce children.

Communists fight for the full liberation of women, which can only occur through socialist revolution. In order to tear up the roots of the oppression of women, a workers state must provide abortion on demand and must work to socialize house work.

[Hyacinth]

I don't understand why people here feel the need to choose the worst possible arguments for abortion. First off, a fetus in the later stages of development is sentient. It is capable of suffering. Sapience is what it lacks, not sentience.
If you wish to argue for the rights of a fetus based on sentience alone, by all means abortion could be made to be wrong, but only if you are willing to extent the same right to all sentient beings. Let me ask you a question: do you eat meat? Do you think the killing of animals is permissible? If so, what relevant difference is there between an animal (some of which have far more of a mental life than a fetus, or even a newborn) and a fetus such that it is permissible to kill one but not the other?


Right, the stupid arguments for abortion made, let's again look at some more sensible ones. There are three arguments basically. First of all, a woman's body is a woman's body. Denying bodily autonomy is in of itself a bad thing. Of course, you could argue in turn that the right to life trumps the right to bodily autonomy, and it does providing we are talking about two equal beings.
Alas, isn’t that the point of contention, whether a fetus has a right to life? Not to mention even the opponents of abortion don’t believe that the right to life of a fetus trumps autonomy in all circumstances, since they would, for instance, wish to permit for abortions in the case of rape, incest, etc. Which brings up a question: supposing that a fetus does indeed have a right to life, is this right to life inalienable?


That brings us to the final argument, the social one. Banning abortion has terrible social affects. It leads to huge numbers of children being abandoned. Mothers becoming destitute. Large numbers of back-ally abortions and so forth. Not desirable in the slightest.
Prohibition of abortion (or for that matter most things) results in abortion being driven underground, and being preformed in unsafe and unsanitary conditions, thereby putting the life of the woman at risk. As well it creates considerable social problems due to the rise of unwanted pregnancies which cannot be gotten rid off, which results in child abandonment, which puts a burden on orphanages (which are not very nice places), etc. Even if abortion were wrong, let us say, it can still be the case that prohibiting it would result in a worse outcome than permitting it, and hence we should permit it.

Moreover, one thing that opponents of abortion ignore is the quality of life of said child. Suppose that we are dealing here with a fetus that will, if born, have a rather poor quality of life, whatever the reasons (they could be socioeconomic, they could be biological). Should a pregnancy of that sort be carried to term? Is it even moral to give birth to a baby that will be born either with severe defects that will impair its qualify of life and result in great suffering, or to bring a child into the world into severe poverty?

Opponents of abortion seem to gloss over what will happen to the child *after* it has been born. It reminds me of a joke: “Republicans only care about you up until birth, and after you’ve reached military age.”


Mind you, the hypocrisy on this board with regards to abortion is astounding. The CC seems to regard it as being the defining issue of the left over and above opposition to capitalism. And Tragic Clown here has made her usual claim that anything short of completely unrestricted abortion is terrible, not bothering to mention that whenever Cuba comes up, she vigorously defends Cuba's first trimester only policy.
That’s all well and good, but what does it have to do with abortion? Even if people who are arguing for it are somehow hypocritical that in no way impacts the validity or soundness of their arguments. You’re attacking the person, not the position.

[pusher robot]

The right to abortion on demand gives women the opportunity to choose whether or not they wish to have a child, thus allowing them equal footing.

I don't really see how this can be. You propose that men get no choice whatsoever about having a child - yet they must bear half the responsibility. You call that equality?

[Wake Up]

I don't really see how this can be. You propose that men get no choice whatsoever about having a child - yet they must bear half the responsibility. You call that equality?

No they don't.
The woman bears the child and gives birth to it. The man doesn't.
After that the responsibility is equal but because of the child carrying aspect the Woman should always be placed above the man.

Having said that the fathers rights in separation cases are appalling in the UK.

[Bud Struggle]

All well and good, but that isn’t an argument. If you disagree with the personhood idea of moral agency, and would instead like to state that humans (however you define them) are what instead have moral worth, you have to provide an argument as to a) why the personhood account it wrong/problematic/etc., and b) why your alternate account is superior/to be preferred.

I don't see any reason for doing all of that. I'm not saying I couldn't--I just don't see any reason to do so. Ethical arguments are all nutral in reality. You start out with an end (e.g. "the greatest good for the greatest number,") and then you figure out the best way to get there. The personhood argument is just just that--a way at arriving at a particular ethical end. Ethics isn't true or false, it's just a means to "justify" some human action. If ther is a God that is the fount of all goodness, then you have some sort of starting point--but without Him (or Her) you can't have any absolute moral certitude. For that matter you really can't even have good or bad--you just wind up with "nice" or "naughty."

So my account of what should be moral is as valid as any other account--I think that in the long run, while there may be individual problems along the way, best course of action for the human race is to accept the right of life over that of freedom in each and every circumstance.


As for what a human is, I’m treating it as a biological category where, as far as I understand, it is clearly defined.

I understand--I'm doing something similar, I'm just painting with a broader brush. The United States (where I live) government doesn't fund stem cell research for roughly the same reasons that I have layed down--so it is a reasonable well held argument.



I agree with you re: today’s technology and the ethics of 200 years ago, in fact, we don’t even have to look that far back. Today’s technology and the ethics of 70 years ago, we saw very well what it produced in the Holocaust. That being said you haven’t shown that the notion of personhood is compatible with such atrocities as anti-semitism and racism. The issue with these were that some persons (those who qualify for personhood under the definition) were denied personhood, or rather, their personhood was not morally recognized.

Right. In the past certain people or groups of people were able to define personhood to suite certainly end needs of the defining people. "We believe Jews did XYZ, they are not human and should be destroyed." Easy enough. They developed an ethic to suit their need and presented it to the world as "true." And to an extent the ethic worked. In Nazi germany there were many normally "good" people that believed the Nazi ethic and supported the Nazi cause. That's how so many good people did so many bad things.


And I agree with you that ethics is not an “absolute science”, in fact it isn’t a science at all. That being said it is hardly a reason to dismiss progress in ethics. We have advanced, in a sense, from 200 years ago, from 70 years ago, even from 10 years ago regarding our ethical outlooks. That having been said, I fail to see what concept of moral worth we would have to employ in order to give a bundle of cells (a fetus) enough moral standing as to prohibit abortion.

See, for the reason I stated above, I don't really trust ethics. We were worse 70 years ago than we were 100 years ago. I don't know if there is progress in ethics, there is only shifting values to justify shifting ends.

That's why I support no killing of human life--it doesn't rely on a shifting ethics, it relies on a categorical. That's the only certainty. Today science tells us that the fetus is not sentient. Tomorrow science could tell us something different, there was Global Cooling 20 years ago, now there's Global Warming. Science stating that a fetus isn't sentient may or may not be the final answer on the question.


Also, though you keep bringing up racism (and I’ve just brought up the Holocaust), I fail to see how these are at all analogous. In the one case we are dealing with persons, in the other with the broader biological category of humans, of which we have not, mind you, established that they have in themselves any moral worth.

I brought up slavery just because it is a convientient "moral wrong" that everyone today would be against, but 200 years ago it's ethical standing was rather more positive. Otherwise--no special purpose for it. BUT Blacks in many cases were not considered full human beings. Neither were Native Americans in their time or Jews, etc. The list is endless, but each of these peoples were the butt of a working ethic that reasoned well (at the time) that they might be exterminated or owned or killed with nor moral repercussions.

What is to say that the ethic of abortion isn't today's ethical mistake that will be looked with horror by future generations?

[pusher robot]

No they don't.
The woman bears the child and gives birth to it. The man doesn't.
After that the responsibility is equal but because of the child carrying aspect the Woman should always be placed above the man.

So it seems that some sexes are more equal than others.

[Hyacinth]

I don't see any reason for doing all of that. I'm not saying I couldn't--I just don't see any reason to do so.
Fair enough, but until you provide an argument don’t expect your position to be taken seriously.


I understand--I'm doing something similar, I'm just painting with a broader brush. The United States (where I live) government doesn't fund stem cell research for roughly the same reasons that I have layed down--so it is a reasonable well held argument.
:lol:Forgive me, but the fact that the United States government says or does something hardly makes it a “reasonably well held argument”.


That's why I support no killing of human life--it doesn't rely on a shifting ethics, it relies on a categorical. That's the only certainty. Today science tells us that the fetus is not sentient. Tomorrow science could tell us something different, there was Global Cooling 20 years ago, now there's Global Warming. Science stating that a fetus isn't sentient may or may not be the final answer on the question.
I'm afraid that unless our definition of sentience somehow changes there is no possibility of a fetus being sentient on account of the fact that it doesn't have any nervous system to begin with (during the later stages of pregnancy there likely is sentience, but conceding that doesn't mean a fetus has the same moral worth as a person, unless you're prepared to concede that all sentient beings have the same moral worth).


I brought up slavery just because it is a convientient "moral wrong" that everyone today would be against, but 200 years ago it's ethical standing was rather more positive. Otherwise--no special purpose for it. BUT Blacks in many cases were not considered full human beings. Neither were Native Americans in their time or Jews, etc. The list is endless, but each of these peoples were the butt of a working ethic that reasoned well (at the time) that they might be exterminated or owned or killed with nor moral repercussions.
All well and good, but again what is the relevant similarity between blacks, Jews, et al. and a fetus such that the persecution of the former is equivalent to abortion.


What is to say that the ethic of abortion isn't today's ethical mistake that will be looked with horror by future generations?
I'd be happy to concede that point if only the anti-abortion crowd would provide good arguments to that effect. I have yet to encounter any compelling arguments in the abortion literature.

[The Grapes of Wrath]

Isn't it a little bit difficult to sum up the whole Abortion controversy in "Yes" or "No" response?

I do not really like abortion, it's not really a pleasant thing, I would not wish for someone I know (esp. someone I got pregnant) to have one. But I do believe that women have the right to control their bodies so we cannot get rid of it, however, I believe that there needs to be moderate and logical abortion limits.

Therefore, I do not find "yes/no" to be an adequate response. You're creating an "Us vs. Them" situation; which is the problem with the controversy.

TGOW

[Hyacinth]

Isn't it a little bit difficult to sum up the whole Abortion controversy in "Yes" or "No" response?

I do not really like abortion, it's not really a pleasant thing, I would not wish for someone I know (esp. someone I got pregnant) to have one. But I do believe that women have the right to control their bodies so we cannot get rid of it, however, I believe that there needs to be moderate and logical abortion limits.

Therefore, I do not find "yes/no" to be an adequate response. You're creating an "Us vs. Them" situation; which is the problem with the controversy.
What limits? And what is the justification for having such limits? And how would such limits be imposed?

[TC]

Isn't it a little bit difficult to sum up the whole Abortion controversy in "Yes" or "No" response?

I do not really like abortion, it's not really a pleasant thing, I would not wish for someone I know (esp. someone I got pregnant) to have one. But I do believe that women have the right to control their bodies so we cannot get rid of it, however, I believe that there needs to be moderate and logical abortion limits.

Therefore, I do not find "yes/no" to be an adequate response. You're creating an "Us vs. Them" situation; which is the problem with the controversy.

TGOW

To debate what 'limits' can be imposed on abortion is to take a position that how women's bodies are used is a matter up for the public/community/state to decide. If you are willing to entertain this debate then you've taken a view of women as less then people whose bodies are theirs and theirs alone. Once you get into any discussion of 'limits' you've already on the fundamentally wrong side of the issue; virtually no anti-choicers want to ban abortion in all cases they just believe that whether or not to give birth to a child is not completely up to a woman.

In this sense it truly is us vs them, its people who view women as full persons and those who view women as at least in part public (or family, fetal, etc) property.

[Demogorgon]

I don't really see how this can be. You propose that men get no choice whatsoever about having a child - yet they must bear half the responsibility. You call that equality?
If the mother wants the baby and the father doesn't, should the father's outlook be taken into account and the woman pressured into abortion?

[Invader Zim]

a workers state must provide abortion on demand

Seemingly Castro would disagree.

[Bud Struggle]

Fair enough, but until you provide an argument don’t expect your position to be taken seriously. As I said--it is some made up argument to prove an end. I don't see how it has any foundation in reality.


Forgive me, but the fact that the United States government says or does something hardly makes it a “reasonably well held argument”. Of course, and just because a group of RevLefters feel a certain way doesn't make their point of view any more acceptable. But I agree with you--just because a large organization or group of people think something is right it doesn't automaticly make it right.



I'm afraid that unless our definition of sentience somehow changes there is no possibility of a fetus being sentient on account of the fact that it doesn't have any nervous system to begin with (during the later stages of pregnancy there likely is sentience, but conceding that doesn't mean a fetus has the same moral worth as a person, unless you're prepared to concede that all sentient beings have the same moral worth). I think all sentient human beings have the same moral worth--and I don't know how you can deny rights to a sentient fetus that is born premature (and still viable) yet abort and kill it it if it were still in the woumb--you actually fall into the same trap. That's why in the end my argument focuses on the biology of humanity.



All well and good, but again what is the relevant similarity between blacks, Jews, et al. and a fetus such that the persecution of the former is equivalent to abortion.

All were considered to be non-human. You have only to go over to Stormfront and places similar to see those same beliefs being held by people today.



I'd be happy to concede that point if only the anti-abortion crowd would provide good arguments to that effect. I have yet to encounter any compelling arguments in the abortion literature.

They are arguing from a different point of view than I am.

[Demogorgon]

I have said it until I am red in the face and still people ignore me, but I will say it here again, you cannot convince a pro-lifer by repeating stupid (and often offensive) arguments that at any rate usually presume the very things that pro-lifers argue against. All arguments for abortion must rest either on an argument that you cannot count a fetus as equal to someone who has been born (my legal argument) or that the social consequences of banning abortion are undesirable. People need to stop satisfying themselves with stupid arguments and start looking at the issue rationally.

[Wake Up]

So it seems that some sexes are more equal than others.

Huh, how do you work that out?

If a woman has to carry a baby for 9 months then go through labour while the man does not then it stands to reason that the woman should get slightly more preferential treatment than the man.

Yes the sexes are equal but in this case the woman is given priority, just as you would chose a random man to do a heavy labour job over a random woman.

[Bud Struggle]

I have said it until I am red in the face and still people ignore me, but I will say it here again, you cannot convince a pro-lifer by repeating stupid (and often offensive) arguments that at any rate usually presume the very things that pro-lifers argue against. All arguments for abortion must rest either on an argument that you cannot count a fetus as equal to someone who has been born (my legal argument) or that the social consequences of banning abortion are undesirable. People need to stop satisfying themselves with stupid arguments and start looking at the issue rationally.

Personally, I rather you didn't take those points of view. ;):D

Also: nothing I love more than the, "follow this link, read what it has to say, than refute it or else your thoughts are meaningless to me" post. :) Sigh.

[pusher robot]

Yes the sexes are equal but in this case the woman is given priority, just as you would chose a random man to do a heavy labour job over a random woman.

Oh, jolly good. Now men not only get no say in whether they get to support children, they also get to do all the heavy labor as well. Your notion of "equality" is misandristic.



If the mother wants the baby and the father doesn't, should the father's outlook be taken into account and the woman pressured into abortion?


No. But let me turn that question around on you:
If the mother wants the baby and the father doesn't, should the monther's outlook be taken into account and the man pressured into sacrificing for mother and child?

[Demogorgon]

No. But let me turn that question around on you:
If the mother wants the baby and the father doesn't, should the monther's outlook be taken into account and the man pressured into sacrificing for mother and child?

It depends on the circumstances. If it was a one night stand, I doubt it would be fair to do so But in the context of marriage or other long term relationships, a man must be willing to take his fair share of the responsibility.

[pusher robot]

It depends on the circumstances. If it was a one night stand, I doubt it would be fair to do so But in the context of marriage or other long term relationships, a man must be willing to take his fair share of the responsibility.

Responsibility for what? Wanting to have sex? Are you saying that if a man in a long-term relationship doesn't want children, he must be chaste?

EDIT: Or, I suppose, he could simply have one night stands with other women. Is that your suggestion?

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Oh, jolly good. Now men not only get no say in whether they get to support children, they also get to do all the heavy labor as well. Your notion of "equality" is misandristic.
Yeah, damn this matriarchal sexist society!

Let's burn our boxer shorts pusher.

[Demogorgon]

Responsibility for what? Wanting to have sex? Are you saying that if a man in a long-term relationship doesn't want children, he must be chaste?

EDIT: Or, I suppose, he could simply have one night stands with other women. Is that your suggestion?

I am saying that if he doesn't want children he should be clear about that before the issue arises. If his partner agrees they can use contraception and other means as well as falling back on abortion as a last resort. If not, then they will have to come to a compromise.

Let's be clear though, in the case of the two partners fundamentally disagreeing on the issue, the relationship is unlikely to last very long, so it can be a moot point. You can generally get the measure of a man if he decides to run off at the first sign of having to take responsibility though.

[Hyacinth]

I think all sentient human beings have the same moral worth--and I don't know how you can deny rights to a sentient fetus that is born premature (and still viable) yet abort and kill it it if it were still in the woumb--you actually fall into the same trap. That's why in the end my argument focuses on the biology of humanity.
Yes, I get that. What I'm curious about is what you believe to be the relevant moral difference between sentient human beings and sentient non-human beings such that one is accorded moral worth and the other not (or one is accorded more moral worth than the other)?

[Bud Struggle]

Yes, I get that. What I'm curious about is what you believe to be the relevant moral difference between sentient human beings and sentient non-human beings such that one is accorded moral worth and the other not (or one is accorded more moral worth than the other)?

Because there is a big difference morally--to me, at least--between the extermination of all Blacks or Jews than the extermination of some moth or some fish.

Tell me you feel differently? Kill all Blacks or kill all gypsy moths--you see there is a moral difference?

If you see that than you agree that humans are "special." The rest of the argument is just the nuts and bolts of how "special" you feel the humans are.

[Hyacinth]

Because there is a big difference morally--to me, at least--between the extermination of all Blacks or Jews than the extermination of some moth or some fish.

Tell me you feel differently? Kill all Blacks or kill all gypsy moths--you see there is a moral difference?

If you see that than you agree that humans are "special." The rest of the argument is just the nuts and bolts of how "special" you feel the humans are.
I can tell you what the difference is to me: one is sapient, self-aware, etc. (i.e. are persons) and the others are not. Very simple. Though you obviously cannot accept this as the morally relevant distinction between humans and moths, given that it also excludes fetuses from having the same moral worth as full grown adults.

But you still haven't told me what the morally relevant difference is between a sentient non-self-aware non-sapient human (a fetus, at least during later stages of pregnancy) and a dog (which, interestingly enough, has more of a mental life than said fetus)? You said you felt there is a big difference between humans and moths; care to tell me what this big [morally relevant] difference is? Simply saying that you "feel" that there is a difference doesn't mean that there is one.

[Bud Struggle]

I can tell you what the difference is to me: one is sapient, self-aware, etc. (i.e. are persons) and the others are not. Very simple. Though you obviously cannot accept this as the morally relevant distinction between humans and moths, given that it also excludes fetuses from having the same moral worth as full grown adults.

NO! I think a moth is very self aware in itself--it does moth things as well as a moth does. It IS exactly what it should be. But after all that--humans are more morally relivant. Right? (You never seemed to answer my question.)


But you still haven't told me what the morally relevant difference is between a sentient non-self-aware non-sapient human (a fetus, at least during later stages of pregnancy) and a dog (which, interestingly enough, has more of a mental life than said fetus)? You said you felt there is a big difference between humans and moths; care to tell me what this big [morally relevant] difference is? Simply saying that you "feel" that there is a difference doesn't mean that there is one.

My point is that I DON'T KNOW what is sentient and what is not. I don't know when a blob of protoplasm become a human child--and I am betting on the most cautous approach--because I don't want to kill human life.

Science is mostly right--but sometimes wrong in its analysis--it corrects itself in time, but when human lives are at stake--shouldn't the more prudent course be to act as conservativly as possible? It makes sense.

And I can't explain the difference between moths and human life--I do feel the difference. One is more important than the other.

Do you feel they are both the same? Or can you state some scientific truth on the subject?

I don't see you making you case.

[Hyacinth]

NO! I think a moth is very self aware in itself--it does moth things as well as a moth does. It IS exactly what it should be. But after all that--humans are more morally relivant. Right? (You never seemed to answer my question.)
I’m afraid that a moth is not self-aware, where self-awareness is defined as awareness of one’s own existence. It has nothing to do with doing “moth things as well as a moth does”; if we accepted that definition of self-awareness, then it follows that, for example, a car is self aware since it does car things as well as a car does. So I don’t accept your premise that a moth is self-aware.

And I did answer your question; I told you why I don’t regard the life of a moth to be on equal footing as a life of a human adult. A moth isn’t: a) self-aware, b) sapient, c) conation (the ability to activity intentionally), d) emotions, etc. (I could enumerate even more mental differences between moths and human adults).


My point is that I DON'T KNOW what is sentient and what is not. I don't know when a blob of protoplasm become a human child--and I am betting on the most cautous approach--because I don't want to kill human life.

Science is mostly right--but sometimes wrong in its analysis--it corrects itself in time, but when human lives are at stake--shouldn't the more prudent course be to act as conservativly as possible? It makes sense.

And I can't explain the difference between moths and human life--I do feel the difference. One is more important than the other.

Do you feel they are both the same? Or can you state some scientific truth on the subject?

I don't see you making you case.
Well, lucky for you *I* do know, and there are plenty of other people, philosophers and scientists alike, who are more knowledgeable on such questions who come out on the side that a bundle of cells doesn’t have the same psychological standing (and by extension moral standing) as a full grown human adult.

Precaution is normally prudent, except that there still needs to be a basis for it. And as it stands there is no argument to be made for acting conservatively with respect to the life of a bundle of cells which lacks any mental life.

Again, the mere fact that you “feel” a difference doesn’t mean that there is one. The mere fact that you place greater importance on the life of a human than that of a moth doesn’t mean that they are more important (except in the subjective sense of more important to you). I have given you an explination of why we should value the lives of human adults more than that of moths, and more than that of fetuses, and it has to do with the psychological differences between the two.

No, I don’t think or “feel” that they are of equivalent worth (which I have repeatedly stated), *and* yes I do have a scientific explanation for it; namely, the differences in the mental lives between the subjects in question (adult humans are people, moths and fetuses are not).

I’ve made my case, I’ve given you a definition of personhood, and stated why it is a morally relevant distinction. It is you who have not made your case: I’ve asked you what the morally relevant distinction between a fetus and dog (or other sentient animals) is, and you have not given one, in fact admitted that you can’t give one. By extension I’m forced to conclude that there is none.

[Bud Struggle]

I’m afraid that a moth is not self-aware, where self-awareness is defined as awareness of one’s own existence. It has nothing to do with doing “moth things as well as a moth does”; if we accepted that definition of self-awareness, then it follows that, for example, a car is self aware since it does car things as well as a car does. So I don’t accept your premise that a moth is self-aware.

I disagree. If a creature acts inaccordance with it's principals--it is highly self aware. It is what it is. A car is a machine--something different--it has no "life." You don't see a difference between things that are alive and that aren't? I certainly do.


And I did answer your question; I told you why I don’t regard the life of a moth to be on equal footing as a life of a human adult. A moth isn’t: a) self-aware, b) sapient, c) conation (the ability to activity intentionally), d) emotions, etc. (I could enumerate even more mental differences between moths and human adults).

OK, fine. I disagree on some points--but at least you answered the question.



Well, lucky for you *I* do know, and there are plenty of other people, philosophers and scientists alike, who are more knowledgeable on such questions who come out on the side that a bundle of cells doesn’t have the same psychological standing (and by extension moral standing) as a full grown human adult.

And I know the scientists of the United States government disagree.

So in all--we both know a buch of scientists that say lots of things. But we don't know the truth.


Precaution is normally prudent, except that there still needs to be a basis for it. And as it stands there is no argument to be made for acting conservatively with respect to the life of a bundle of cells which lacks any mental life.

Since we don't KNOW when mental life begins, how can you be so certain in your statement. Do you KNOW the moment human life begins in the womb? Best to be prudent, don't you think?


Again, the mere fact that you “feel” a difference doesn’t mean that there is one. The mere fact that you place greater importance on the life of a human than that of a moth doesn’t mean that they are more important (except in the subjective sense of more important to you). I have given you an explination of why we should value the lives of human adults more than that of moths, and more than that of fetuses, and it has to do with the psychological differences between the two.

Fine and all, but I fail to see the differences. You see--it's ALL subjective. There are no answers, all that nonsense about "science" is bullshit. Science tells us facts--but there are NO facts about the moment life begins.

We don't know. I'm against human killing human life. And if a fetus is something human, I'm against abortion.


No, I don’t think or “feel” that they are of equivalent worth (which I have repeatedly stated), *and* yes I do have a scientific explanation for it; namely, the differences in the mental lives between the subjects in question (adult humans are people, moths and fetuses are not).

But of course you don't KNOW what a moth feels or understands. And you can hautily state what this creature feels and understands and what that creature feels and understands--but you don't know. But more importantly you don't know when a fetus becomes a human--and if there is life, there is something sentient about the thing--best leave it alone.


I’ve made my case, I’ve given you a definition of personhood, and stated why it is a morally relevant distinction. It is you who have not made your case: I’ve asked you what the morally relevant distinction between a fetus and dog (or other sentient animals) is, and you have not given one, in fact admitted that you can’t give one. By extension I’m forced to conclude that there is none.

And by extension the difference between a person and a dog. I see a moral difference--as humans as a moral directive we should be responsible for one another, take care of one another, we are indeed brothers and sisters to one another--if not, there is no real reason for Communism to exist--is there?

Being prolife is the only REAL Communist point of view.

[Hyacinth]

I disagree. If a creature acts inaccordance with it's principals--it is highly self aware. It is what it is. A car is a machine--something different--it has no "life." You don't see a difference between things that are alive and that aren't? I certainly do.
Self-awareness means being aware of its own existence. A moth is much more like a machine with respect to this than an adult human.



And I know the scientists of the United States government disagree.

So in all--we both know a buch of scientists that say lots of things. But we don't know the truth.
As far as I'm aware there isn't a disagreement in the scientific community, even in the US, as to the psychological life of a fetus (I'd be more than glad to be proven wrong on this point if you can point me to an article that shows this is a contentious issue). The question of abortion is purely a moral one. The scientific facts are not in dispute.




Since we don't KNOW when mental life begins, how can you be so certain in your statement. Do you KNOW the moment human life begins in the womb? Best to be prudent, don't you think?
Well, that all depends on your definition of human, but if we simply use the biological definition involving DNA, then human life begins at conception. So we do know when human life begins. As for when mental life begins, this too we know, mental life begins only with the development of a nervous system, and continues to increase in degrees proportional to the complexity of said system. So, for instance, a fetus becomes sentient (ability to feel pleasure/pain) long before it becomes self-aware or sapient. And even its sentience develops in degrees. Certain rudimentary senses exist in the womb, but more complex senses don't develop until after birth (in fact, several weeks after birth).

The question of when mental life begins, and when life begins, both seem to be to be factual questions.


Fine and all, but I fail to see the differences. You see--it's ALL subjective. There are no answers, all that nonsense about "science" is bullshit. Science tells us facts--but there are NO facts about the moment life begins.
Unless you mean something different by "life" than I do, science does tell us when life begins. That is a factual question.

The moral question is whether or not this is relevant or matters morally. Or whether life has any value. That I agree with you is a separate set of questions altogether. Science cannot determine those.


We don't know. I'm against human killing human life. And if a fetus is something human, I'm against abortion.
Yes, I understand that, but the question I ask you I think is rather simple. A human fetus, in this case, has certian metanl and physical properties which are likewise shared by many other sentient non-human animals. Given that you object to the killing of a human fetus (which has said properties) why don't you object to the killing of non-human animals which share those properties?


But of course you don't KNOW what a moth feels or understands. And you can hautily state what this creature feels and understands and what that creature feels and understands--but you don't know. But more importantly you don't know when a fetus becomes a human--and if there is life, there is something sentient about the thing--best leave it alone.
Alright, we're getting somewhere. Fair enough, let's concede that for the sake of argument. That having been said, should we abstain from killing moths? After all, as you point out, we cannot be sure what sort of mental life they have; given this, wouldn't it be prudent to be conservative and obstain from harming moths (and any and all other sentient beings)?


And by extension the difference between a person and a dog. I see a moral difference--as humans as a moral directive we should be responsible for one another, take care of one another, we are indeed brothers and sisters to one another--if not, there is no real reason for Communism to exist--is there?

Being prolife is the only REAL Communist point of view.
In moral philosophy we do distinguish between moral agents and moral subjects. Moral agents are those beings capable of acting and being held responsible for their actions. Moral subjects are those beings which have moral worth, but for various reasons don't possess agency, and hence cannot be held morally accountable. E.g. a human adult is considered a moral agent, whereas a human child is a moral subject. Adult humans certainly have duties of the sort that you've described, sure. Nevertheless it would be hard to say that a child, which doesn't understand such concepts, has the same duties (if you said that they did, then they would have to be held accountable for failing to live up to the duties). That being said, I fail to see what the duties that we as *persons* (moral agents) have to one another have to do with abortion. You're, once again, placing moral worth on the biological category of human without establishing that said category has any value.

As for being pro-life, well, clearly many communists world over disagree with you that it is the only "real" communist point of view. A communist can consistency maintain that the sort of duties that you've describes are duties owed to people (a moral category), not to humans (a biological category). Since the fetus is not a person (even while human) we don't owe it any duties, nor does it possess any rights.

[Bud Struggle]

Self-awareness means being aware of its own existence. A moth is much more like a machine with respect to this than an adult human.

See, here I don't know that. I think a moth is well aware if it is being hunted and killed. It knows it exists.


As far as I'm aware there isn't a disagreement in the scientific community, even in the US, as to the psychological life of a fetus (I'd be more than glad to be proven wrong on this point if you can point me to an article that shows this is a contentious issue). The question of abortion is purely a moral one. The scientific facts are not in dispute.

Scientists can measure a fetus's viability-- but to the measure of a fetus's humanity is purely a moral decision. It has nothing to do with scientists at all. Scientist may disagree with all sorts of information--but the second a fetus, or a bunch of cells becomes human is a moral, not a scientific fact.

It's not that scientists disagree really--it's that they don't have a clue.


Well, that all depends on your definition of human, but if we simply use the biological definition involving DNA, then human life begins at conception. So we do know when human life begins. As for when mental life begins, this too we know, mental life begins only with the development of a nervous system, and continues to increase in degrees proportional to the complexity of said system.

Maybe--but nothing can be proved. So when human "life" begins is still a conjecture. As I said before--best to be safe and not ever kill even the faintest human life.



So, for instance, a fetus becomes sentient (ability to feel pleasure/pain) long before it becomes self-aware or sapient. And even its sentience develops in degrees. Certain rudimentary senses exist in the womb, but more complex senses don't develop until after birth (in fact, several weeks after birth).

So you are making a case that life begins in the womb--if a fetus can feel pain--IT SHOULD NOT BE aborted?


The question of when mental life begins, and when life begins, both seem to be to be factual questions.

No, because you don't KNOW the moment life begins. How does it begin? What chemical/biological things must happen before life begins. At what moment...



Unless you mean something different by "life" than I do, science does tell us when life begins. That is a factual question.

No. It tells us about heartbeats and nervous systems and chemical reactions. You confuse your terms--it tells us nothing about life.


The moral question is whether or not this is relevant or matters morally. Or whether life has any value. That I agree with you is a separate set of questions altogether. Science cannot determine those.

I agree there.



Yes, I understand that, but the question I ask you I think is rather simple. A human fetus, in this case, has certian metanl and physical properties which are likewise shared by many other sentient non-human animals. Given that you object to the killing of a human fetus (which has said properties) why don't you object to the killing of non-human animals which share those properties?

Because I (we) are human and there is a unique moral quality that other animals don't have. It's purely subjective, I realive there are people that attribute to animals the same qualities that humans have. (Anthromorphism.)



Alright, we're getting somewhere. Fair enough, let's concede that for the sake of argument. That having been said, should we abstain from killing moths? After all, as you point out, we cannot be sure what sort of mental life they have; given this, wouldn't it be prudent to be conservative and obstain from harming moths (and any and all other sentient beings)?
Truth be told, I'm not much of a moth killer. But I do fish a bit and I catch kill and eat them. And personally, I see the terror of the fish on the cutting block. I kill it and eat it--but I see the terror. I rather give up fishing and end abortion that contunue with abortion and keep fishing. There is a terror of death at the most basic levels of life.



In moral philosophy we do distinguish between moral agents and moral subjects. Moral agents are those beings capable of acting and being held responsible for their actions. Moral subjects are those beings which have moral worth, but for various reasons don't possess agency, and hence cannot be held morally accountable. E.g. a human adult is considered a moral agent, whereas a human child is a moral subject. Adult humans certainly have duties of the sort that you've described, sure. Nevertheless it would be hard to say that a child, which doesn't understand such concepts, has the same duties (if you said that they did, then they would have to be held accountable for failing to live up to the duties). That being said, I fail to see what the duties that we as *persons* (moral agents) have to one another have to do with abortion. You're, once again, placing moral worth on the biological category of human without establishing that said category has any value.

Well, the moral subjectivity of the fetus is in the end a subjective (in another sense of the word) choice. It comes to the question of "how do we valuse the human species?" I seem to take it as that of supreme moral worth--over and above that of anything else. The human species in each and every variant and form (i.e. each and every human being) should be loved and cherished in and of itself. Every chance of humanity should be held relivant to the totality of what it means tobe a human being.



As for being pro-life, well, clearly many communists world over disagree with you that it is the only "real" communist point of view. A communist can consistency maintain that the sort of duties that you've describes are duties owed to people (a moral category), not to humans (a biological category). Since the fetus is not a person (even while human) we don't owe it any duties, nor does it possess any rights.

I can see your point, of course BUT to disengage Communist from full intercourse with the body politic of RevLeft because they hold a divergent point of view on this subject--seems disingenuous at best.

[Hyacinth]

Scientists can measure a fetus's viability-- but to the measure of a fetus's humanity is purely a moral decision. It has nothing to do with scientists at all. Scientist may disagree with all sorts of information--but the second a fetus, or a bunch of cells becomes human is a moral, not a scientific fact.

Maybe--but nothing can be proved. So when human "life" begins is still a conjecture. As I said before--best to be safe and not ever kill even the faintest human life.

No. It tells us about heartbeats and nervous systems and chemical reactions. You confuse your terms--it tells us nothing about life.

No, because you don't KNOW the moment life begins. How does it begin? What chemical/biological things must happen before life begins. At what moment...
It clearly seems to me that you’re using “human” and “life” as moral terms rather than in the scientific sense of member of the species homo sapiens (for ‘human’) and metabolism and reproduction (for ‘life’). In these senses of the terms we know exactly what both humans and life are.

But you have yet to answer my question: why is it the case that something being alive or human are morally relevant properties?

So you are making a case that life begins in the womb--if a fetus can feel pain--IT SHOULD NOT BE aborted?
No, because I don’t believe sentience carries enough moral worth to make abortion impermissible.

Because I (we) are human and there is a unique moral quality that other animals don't have. It's purely subjective, I realive there are people that attribute to animals the same qualities that humans have. (Anthromorphism.)

Truth be told, I'm not much of a moth killer. But I do fish a bit and I catch kill and eat them. And personally, I see the terror of the fish on the cutting block. I kill it and eat it--but I see the terror. I rather give up fishing and end abortion that contunue with abortion and keep fishing. There is a terror of death at the most basic levels of life.
At least you’re prepared to be consistent, I was simply pointing out the logical consequences of prohibiting abortion (namely, that doing so would result in the prohibition of the killing of any sentient being).

Well, the moral subjectivity of the fetus is in the end a subjective (in another sense of the word) choice. It comes to the question of "how do we valuse the human species?" I seem to take it as that of supreme moral worth--over and above that of anything else. The human species in each and every variant and form (i.e. each and every human being) should be loved and cherished in and of itself. Every chance of humanity should be held relivant to the totality of what it means tobe a human being.
WHY? What property does the human species possess such that it has more moral worth than anything else? I’ve given you my explanation, namely, most humans are persons, and this is what grants them more moral worth than say an animal or a fetus.

I can see your point, of course BUT to disengage Communist from full intercourse with the body politic of RevLeft because they hold a divergent point of view on this subject--seems disingenuous at best.
That would be all well and good if it weren’t for the fact that most communists don’t regard abortion any more of an open issue than they regard racism. Should we extend the same privilege to racists, sexists, fascists, etc.?

[Dyslexia! Well I Never!]

This poll's options are phrased in a biased nature.

Being pro-choice is not supporting abortion that would be pro-fetuicide or pro-infancticide depending on how one cares to see it. Most beings with half the bains it took to leave the trees can see that distinction even if the latter concept sometimes appeals to a new parent at another 3:46am waking.

Being pro-choice is simply not being a blinkered baby-booming catho-nazi birth incentive giving motherfucker who feels the interminable need to spawn an enormous brood and deep moral outrage at:

1) the poor misunderstood fuhrer's rabid claims that the master race needs more children being ignored.
2) the indignant screams of the cosmic (and quite possibly Jewish) ghost in the sky being ignored.
3) Lack of other white/black/hispanic/chinese/faithful/inbred people being ignored.
4) any or all of the above being ignored.

Being pro-choice is simply letting a woman choose how to deal with a process that principally concerns her own body that may if unchanged can lead to the eventual creation of another person it's her decision and hers alone the father of course has more right to beg and plead one way or the other that anyone else but the final say is always to belong to the person who will have to endure birth.

[Bud Struggle]

It clearly seems to me that you’re using “human” and “life” as moral terms rather than in the scientific sense of member of the species homo sapiens (for ‘human’) and metabolism and reproduction (for ‘life’). In these senses of the terms we know exactly what both humans and life are.

But you have yet to answer my question: why is it the case that something being alive or human are morally relevant properties?

Human life is a moral term but I also mean it as a categorical term. I take the moral standpoint that human life shouldn't be destroyed in any circumstances. I think it's been resonably proved by history that "discounting" human life is always problematic. when one group of people, usually the stronger--decides that another group of people are not human or something less than human--slaughter results. And it is only when the slaughter is over that people really see the horror of it.


No, because I don’t believe sentience carries enough moral worth to make abortion impermissible.

Well fair enough, then we disagree.


At least you’re prepared to be consistent, I was simply pointing out the logical consequences of prohibiting abortion (namely, that doing so would result in the prohibition of the killing of any sentient being).

And I'm saying that human being are different from animals.


WHY? What property does the human species possess such that it has more moral worth than anything else? I’ve given you my explanation, namely, most humans are persons, and this is what grants them more moral worth than say an animal or a fetus.

But the explaination is arbitrary. It has changed over time. It might be better today than it was a few hundred years ago--but you give me nothing certain to say that your definition of personhood is correct. Your definition could be viewed in the future as barbaric as any Nazi doctor is viewed today (nothing personal intended). My position is that all human life should be allowed to live--here I feel secure that I am taking the most responsable position for doing the least amount of harm to humanity.


That would be all well and good if it weren’t for the fact that most communists don’t regard abortion any more of an open issue than they regard racism. Should we extend the same privilege to racists, sexists, fascists, etc.?


Sorry about that--I guess I was doing a little speechmaking. :blushing:

[Hyacinth]

But the explaination is arbitrary. It has changed over time. It might be better today than it was a few hundred years ago--but you give me nothing certain to say that your definition of personhood is correct. Your definition could be viewed in the future as barbaric as any Nazi doctor is viewed today (nothing personal intended). My position is that all human life should be allowed to live--here I feel secure that I am taking the most responsable position for doing the least amount of harm to humanity.
I don’t think the characteristics of personhood are morally arbitrary. For instance, sentence (as one such characteristic) we consider to be very much morally relevant; this is why we distinguish between animals and inanimate objects. If sentience was truly an arbitrary distinction then we would expect that one could have a (non-absurd) morality that claims that breaking a rock is morally wrong. In the case of sentient creatures I can provide an answer to such a question, namely, that sentient creatures feel pain/pleasure, and we all recognize pain as bad, and pleasure by as good (except masochists, but even then it isn’t so much that they regard pain as good, but rather that they take pleasure in pain).

Ditto re: sapience; this too I consider a morally relevant characteristic. It is clearly something that distinguishes us from animals.

If the distinctions are truly arbitrary you would have to say that they are morally irrelevant. Saying that sentience is irrelevant leads to the absurd conclusion that sentient beings have as much moral worth as non-sentient objects. And saying that sapience is irrelevant leads to the (albeit less absurd) conclusion that sapient beings (us) have the same moral worth as non-sapient sentient beings (most animals).

And I'm saying that human being are different from animals.
Indeed, and all I’m asking is how are humans beings different from animals such that one has enough moral worth to prohibit killing it (even while a fetus) and the other doesn’t (even as an adult)?

Surely you would concede that if some being a has properties x,y, and z whereby in virtue of x,y, and z a has moral worth, then likewise any other being b which shares said properties would also have moral worth. If you want to say that a human being, fetus or otherwise, has moral worth but that, say, animals don’t have the same moral worth, you have to point to some (non-arbitrary) difference between the two. I’ve done so, except the difference I point to excludes fetuses.

If you were religious, for instance, you might point to a soul. This is the standard response. An atheist would, of course, fine that unsatisfactory.

[Bud Struggle]

I don’t think the characteristics of personhood are morally arbitrary. For instance, sentence (as one such characteristic) we consider to be very much morally relevant; this is why we distinguish between animals and inanimate objects. If sentience was truly an arbitrary distinction then we would expect that one could have a (non-absurd) morality that claims that breaking a rock is morally wrong. In the case of sentient creatures I can provide an answer to such a question, namely, that sentient creatures feel pain/pleasure, and we all recognize pain as bad, and pleasure by as good (except masochists, but even then it isn’t so much that they regard pain as good, but rather that they take pleasure in pain).

Ditto re: sapience; this too I consider a morally relevant characteristic. It is clearly something that distinguishes us from animals.

I understand your points--and they are all fine BUT Moral theorists have surmised that which makes a "person" for thousands of years--but often, more than often the hindsight of history proves them wrong. Everything "seemed" to be right in Nazi Germany's view of Jews or 18th Century America's view of Blacks. The moral philosophers all make their well reasoned arguments. But they were wrong in the end. What proof do we have that we (the 21st Century Ethicists) we won't be shown to be wrong in the future in our choosing of what is "human" and what is not? As I said science is correct in the end--but at any given moment it can be wrong.

Is our science correct at this given moment? We don't know. Is our ethics correct at this given moment? We don't know. The most prudent path is to kill nothing that is human.


Indeed, and all I’m asking is how are humans beings different from animals such that one has enough moral worth to prohibit killing it (even while a fetus) and the other doesn’t (even as an adult)?

Humans are capable of sapience, to be sure--but where does that sapience come from, how is arrived at? At what moment does sapience arrive from the intert? I, for one, don't know. Is it inherent? Was it there at conception? I don't know. Since so much is unknown--best to leave it alone. More importantly--Humans are a unique moral worth to humans--more important than any animals. It's logical as part of the species. Moths generate and protect baby moths--not ants. As Humans we should protect our own species.


Surely you would concede that if some being a has properties x,y, and z whereby in virtue of x,y, and z a has moral worth, then likewise any other being b which shares said properties would also have moral worth. If you want to say that a human being, fetus or otherwise, has moral worth but that, say, animals don’t have the same moral worth, you have to point to some (non-arbitrary) difference between the two.

Of course--but life isn't all that easy. As I said above, human being as "special." They are different from animals--and more importantly, in terms of biology, they are US--me and you--as Humans. It's is not only part of our moral makeup--but also our biological make up that we look for the survival of our race--in every instance.


I’ve done so, except the difference I point to excludes fetuses. Now, that seems to be fairly illogical.


If you were religious, for instance, you might point to a soul. This is the standard response. An atheist would, of course, fine that unsatisfactory.

Technically, I am a religious Catholic--and I believe all that Jesus stuff. But with Athiests I rather not use the "soul" argument--Sextus Empiricus, does a better job with them.:lol:

[Hyacinth]

I understand your points--and they are all fine BUT Moral theorists have surmised that which makes a "person" for thousands of years--but often, more than often the hindsight of history proves them wrong. Everything "seemed" to be right in Nazi Germany's view of Jews or 18th Century America's view of Blacks. The moral philosophers all make their well reasoned arguments. But they were wrong in the end. What proof do we have that we (the 21st Century Ethicists) we won't be shown to be wrong in the future in our choosing of what is "human" and what is not? As I said science is correct in the end--but at any given moment it can be wrong.

Is our science correct at this given moment? We don't know. Is our ethics correct at this given moment? We don't know. The most prudent path is to kill nothing that is human.
Doubt is all well and good, but one equally needs reason for doubt as one does for belief. That being said, what reason do we have to doubt the science of today with respect to the question of intelligence? There is nothing in our science to even suggest that a nervous system might not be necessary for sentience or sapience. Moreover, for sapience, a rather complex neurological structure is required.

I suppose what we disagree upon is whether we do know.

But, as well, let us, again for the sake of argument, suppose that there is indeed some reasonable doubt. The problem with your precautionary approach is that it itself has consequences. I should ask, first of all, when you say that we should take the “prudent path” what do you mean exactly? That we should prohibit abortion? Punish those who perform them and have them by law? How would the measures that you propose be enforced?

The problem, as I see it, is that the moral worth of a fetus (which I’ll grant you for the sake of argument for the moment) doesn’t settle the question of whether or not abortion should be prohibited. Since, after all, the cost of prohibiting it might be worse than the costs of allowing it. So one can still say “yes, abortion isn’t a good thing, but banning it is worse”. I think that is an argument which needs to be addressed.


Humans are capable of sapience, to be sure--but where does that sapience come from, how is arrived at? At what moment does sapience arrive from the intert? I, for one, don't know. Is it inherent? Was it there at conception? I don't know. Since so much is unknown--best to leave it alone. More importantly--Humans are a unique moral worth to humans--more important than any animals. It's logical as part of the species. Moths generate and protect baby moths--not ants. As Humans we should protect our own species.
If you don’t know why not consult those who are more knowledgeable. I for one don’t think that the necessity of a brain is disputed when it comes to sapience, or that the necessity of a nervous system for sentience.


Of course--but life isn't all that easy. As I said above, human being as "special." They are different from animals--and more importantly, in terms of biology, they are US--me and you--as Humans. It's is not only part of our moral makeup--but also our biological make up that we look for the survival of our race--in every instance.
And I ask again: how are they “special”? How are they different from animals? In a morally relevant way, that is.

I would dispute that it is part of our moral or biological make up that we “look for the survival of our race—in every instance”. History would show otherwise, given the amount of suffering that we humans inflict upon members of our own species. Isaac Asimov had a good quote relevant to this: “To insult someone we call him 'bestial'. For deliberate cruelty and nature, 'human' might be the greater insult.”


Now, that seems to be fairly illogical.How so?

a) Only persons have moral worth;
b) A fetus is not a person;
Therefore c) a fetus has no moral worth.

That follows; it is valid. If you’d care to take up the soundness of my argument then please attack one of the premises. You have to either reject a) or b), and provide reasons for such.


Technically, I am a religious Catholic--and I believe all that Jesus stuff. But with Athiests I rather not use the "soul" argument--Sextus Empiricus, does a better job with them.
And rightly so that you steer away from that, but let me ask, is your religion (and the belief re: the soul which accompany that) which motivate you to oppose abortion?


Not to get too personal, but you are a pretty sharp woman. (You are a woman, right? Hyacinth?)
Why thank you, I’ll take that as a compliment, even if I’m not a woman. :lol:

[Bud Struggle]

Doubt is all well and good, I threw you that bone. :) It's a devastating argument.



but one equally needs reason for doubt as one does for belief. That being said, what reason do we have to doubt the science of today with respect to the question of intelligence? There is nothing in our science to even suggest that a nervous system might not be necessary for sentience or sapience. Because equally well intentioned ethicists were wrong when exposutaling about the human race in the past. How can we be sure we are right this time? We can't. Best not to act.



I suppose what we disagree upon is whether we do know.

Indeed!


But, as well, let us, again for the sake of argument, suppose that there is indeed some reasonable doubt. The problem with your precautionary approach is that it itself has consequences. I should ask, first of all, when you say that we should take the “prudent path” what do you mean exactly? That we should prohibit abortion? Punish those who perform them and have them by law? How would the measures that you propose be enforced? And now we go from the ethical to the pragmatic. And we should do nothing as a society. As individuals we should abstain from doing bad and should look to do good. So people shouldn't have abortions.


The problem, as I see it, is that the moral worth of a fetus (which I’ll grant you for the sake of argument for the moment) doesn’t settle the question of whether or not abortion should be prohibited. Since, after all, the cost of prohibiting it might be worse than the costs of allowing it. So one can still say “yes, abortion isn’t a good thing, but banning it is worse”. I think that is an argument which needs to be addressed. I don't think we need to bann it. We need to let people know it is the lesser of two paths. No, further than that--we need to let people know that it very may well be evil.



If you don’t know why not consult those who are more knowledgeable. I for one don’t think that the necessity of a brain is disputed when it comes to sapience, or that the necessity of a nervous system for sentience. As I asid before, experts (science) are always right in the end--justin getting to the end, they are often mistaken. How do we know that thay aren't mistaken this time?



And I ask again: how are they “special”? How are they different from animals? In a morally relevant way, that is.
Nature provides that species look after themselves. To do otherwise would be to go against nature--and that would be wrong for a species to do.


I would dispute that it is part of our moral or biological make up that we “look for the survival of our race—in every instance”. History would show otherwise, given the amount of suffering that we humans inflict upon members of our own species. Isaac Asimov had a good quote relevant to this: “To insult someone we call him 'bestial'. For deliberate cruelty and nature, 'human' might be the greater insult.”

True--but those are instances where we as humans went against nature--became "unnatural." It would be best if we, as all creatures, follow the course of nature rather than oppose it. Who could argue with that?




a) Only persons have moral worth;
b) A fetus is not a person;
Therefore c) a fetus has no moral worth.

I have that little problem with "b'.


That follows; it is valid. If you’d care to take up the soundness of my argument then please attack one of the premises. You have to either reject a) or b), and provide reasons for such.

A fetus may very well be a person. We know that a fetus is viable after 20 or so weeks--that's enough to say that that part of fetusdom is definitely human, and thus shouldn't be murdered. (Murdered would be the correct term because you are taking a viable human life.) The bit before 20 weeks is up for grabs to be sure--but since we don't KNOW when human life begins--best to be safe.



And rightly so that you steer away from that, but let me ask, is your religion (and the belief re: the soul which accompany that) which motivate you to oppose abortion?

My religion (Catholicism) is an ontological operation in me. I am "that." Now there are epistomological application of my religion--and the teachings of the Church on abortion is part of that epistomology I can't deny that--BUT on my own (though admittedly as a Christian,) I rather not kill anyone anywhere. No death penalty or abortion. No euthanasia. I take the path of each human life living to its fullest capacity.



Why thank you, I’ll take that as a compliment, even if I’m not a woman. :lol:

And all this while I was thinking you were Hyacinth Bucket. :lol:

[Hyacinth]

And now we go from the ethical to the pragmatic. And we should do nothing as a society. As individuals we should abstain from doing bad and should look to do good. So people shouldn't have abortions.

I don't think we need to bann it. We need to let people know it is the lesser of two paths. No, further than that--we need to let people know that it very may well be evil.
Well, at least you don't take the position that we should ban it. On that much we can agree.


As I asid before, experts (science) are always right in the end--justin getting to the end, they are often mistaken. How do we know that thay aren't mistaken this time?
Mistaken in respect to what? That a fetus is sentient? The preponderance of evidence makes this extremely unlikely, unlikely enough that we need not base our policies on such unreasonable doubts.


Nature provides that species look after themselves. To do otherwise would be to go against nature--and that would be wrong for a species to do.
Again, I’ve given you a counterexample with respect to humans. Humans certainly don’t look out after one another. Regardless, you’re also trying to draw a moral conclusion from a fact, committing the naturalistic fallacy. The simple fact that something is natural doesn’t mean that it ought to be done.


True--but those are instances where we as humans went against nature--became "unnatural." It would be best if we, as all creatures, follow the course of nature rather than oppose it. Who could argue with that?
Again, naturalistic fallacy. That being said, let’s go along with it. By that logic modern medicine is immoral, after all, the natural thing for the old and sick is to die off, leaving more room and resources for the younger and better adapted members of the species. Should we then ban modern medicine because it goes against nature?


A fetus may very well be a person. We know that a fetus is viable after 20 or so weeks--that's enough to say that that part of fetusdom is definitely human, and thus shouldn't be murdered. (Murdered would be the correct term because you are taking a viable human life.) The bit before 20 weeks is up for grabs to be sure--but since we don't KNOW when human life begins--best to be safe.
From the mere fact that something is human it doesn’t follow that it would be wrong to kill it, as would be the case in say a brain-dead individual. The fetus, like said brain-dead individual, lacks higher cognitive functions.

At present there is no evidence to indicate that a fetus has the necessary cognitive functions to qualify for personhood. Some of the great apes are better candidates than a human fetus.


My religion (Catholicism) is an ontological operation in me. I am "that." Now there are epistomological application of my religion--and the teachings of the Church on abortion is part of that epistomology I can't deny that--BUT on my own (though admittedly as a Christian,) I rather not kill anyone anywhere. No death penalty or abortion. No euthanasia. I take the path of each human life living to its fullest capacity.
Do you think there are any viable non-religious arguments for your position? Because, for instance, I cannot see the value in keeping a person who wishes to die due to great suffering whatsoever. Nor can I see the value in keeping a fetus alive, especially in circumstances where it would not have a high quality of life (I presume that you are opposed to abortion no matter what sort of quality of life said fetus would have once born).

[Bud Struggle]

Well, at least you don't take the position that we should ban it. On that much we can agree.

OK



Mistaken in respect to what? That a fetus is sentient? The preponderance of evidence makes this extremely unlikely, unlikely enough that we need not base our policies on such unreasonable doubts.

We don't know if science is tell the truth. It measures some thing--maybe it doesn't measure others. Maybe we don't know about other things. Maybe we have to wait till new devices and inventions are made. Maybe we need a life-O-meter to tell us when life begins. Till we can be CERTAIN we should wait.



Again, I’ve given you a counterexample with respect to humans. Humans certainly don’t look out after one another. Regardless, you’re also trying to draw a moral conclusion from a fact, committing the naturalistic fallacy. The simple fact that something is natural doesn’t mean that it ought to be done.

I'm not so happy with your example. People shouldn't slaughter one another, people shouldn't start nuclear war or have Holocausts. decimation each other isn't a natural OR a good thing.



Again, naturalistic fallacy. That being said, let’s go along with it. By that logic modern medicine is immoral, after all, the natural thing for the old and sick is to die off, leaving more room and resources for the younger and better adapted members of the species. Should we then ban modern medicine because it goes against nature? Medicine is indeed natural and good. We should look out for one another using the best methods possible. What's wrong with that? And people die off, medicine hasn't cured death, but when death should occur doesn't need to be a matter object chance.



From the mere fact that something is human it doesn’t follow that it would be wrong to kill it, as would be the case in say a brain-dead individual. The fetus, like said brain-dead individual, lacks higher cognitive functions. I don't know that. I just know we don't have devices that could measure those kinds of cognitive functions if they did exist.


At present there is no evidence to indicate that a fetus has the necessary cognitive functions to qualify for personhood. Some of the great apes are better candidates than a human fetus. If a fetus can survive--shoudn't it be given the opportunity?


Do you think there are any viable non-religious arguments for your position? Because, for instance, I cannot see the value in keeping a person who wishes to die due to great suffering whatsoever. Nor can I see the value in keeping a fetus alive, especially in circumstances where it would not have a high quality of life (I presume that you are opposed to abortion no matter what sort of quality of life said fetus would have once born).

I am opposed to killing any human life. Religion isn't really a part of the discussion.

[Sharon den Adel]

I am very strongly pro choice, and I support abortion up until birth, because it is my belief that a fetus only becomes a person when it has taken a breath.

Having said that, no one has the right to tell someone what they can and cannot do with their own bodies.

If a woman has abortion, it is no ones business but her own.

[Dyslexia! Well I Never!]

Put frankly abortions happen. Religious, Sociological and philosophical retards can ***** all they want about it just like they do with any progress made by scientists and every third technology they can't pronounce while having a cheesgrater jammed into their rectum.

A fetus isn't a person until it can function independently as a separate being I don't care if a mother post-natally aborts her new-born with a baseball bat as long as the umbilical cord hasn't been cut. I would of course view such a woman as utterly fucking nuts for leaving it so late and going through birth needlessly.

A woman's body is her own fucking business, I mean if any guy was told he wasn't allowed to have a simple operation because it was morally wrong he'd go fucking ballistic and if nessercary go elsewhere to get it anyway.

It's not an issue really if people are going to do something anyway it should be allowed so it can be monitored.

[RGacky3]

Put frankly abortions happen.

So does Murder and rape.


I would of course view such a woman as utterly fucking nuts for leaving it so late and going through birth needlessly.


Why not? Maybe she just enjoys hitting fetus' with baseball bats? Whats wrong with that?



We can argue about when a fetus or baby becomes a human until we're blue in the face, its like arguing about pretty much anyother philisophical subject, there is no concrete absolute answer, you'll never find one, its like discussing the meaning of existance, or eternaty you'll kill yourself doing it. Really thats the issue, no whether or not a woman has a right to an abortion, thats secondary, to when does a person become a person, thats the real issue.


If a woman has abortion, it is no ones business but her own.

A Mans house is his own business, no one can tell him what he does in his house, if he wants to rape his kid, so be it. Its his house.

[Red Flag Rising]

Frankly, as a revolutionist, I am willing to see a great many people killed so why should I be against abortion? It is hypocritical to support the killing of capitalists but be against the aborting of fetuses.

[KrazyRabidSheep]

A Mans house is his own business, no one can tell him what he does in his house, if he wants to rape his kid, so be it. Its his house.
You disgust me.

Some OI members I can respect because although I disagree with them, they are reasonable and not malicious. They also understand the difference between privacy and abuse of human rights.

Others are like you; they get their jollies off by verbally abuse others over the internet (I can only assume because they can't get jacked in the face over the internet), so they seek out trouble to cause.

I have never said this before, but I hope you are banned.

[Bud Struggle]

You disgust me.

Some OI members I can respect because although I disagree with them, they are reasonable and not malicious. They also understand the difference between privacy and abuse of human rights.

Others are like you; they get their jollies off by verbally abuse others over the internet (I can only assume because they can't get jacked in the face over the internet), so they seek out trouble to cause.

I have never said this before, but I hope you are banned.

You might want to cool down a bit, I believe RGacky was using the "man's home is his business" as a metaphor. He wasn't abusing anyone. :)

[Jazzratt]

Why not? Maybe she just enjoys hitting fetus' with baseball bats? Whats wrong with that?

Presumably because pregnancy and childbirth are quite a long process of suffering to go through with in order to get the rather short term thrill of twatting a baby with a baseball bat. Also because this is unusual behaviour it would be fair to deem the woman less than compus mentis or, to put it another way:


utterly fucking nuts


We can argue about when a fetus or baby becomes a human until we're blue in the face, its like arguing about pretty much anyother philisophical subject, there is no concrete absolute answer, you'll never find one, its like discussing the meaning of existance, or eternaty you'll kill yourself doing it. Really thats the issue, no whether or not a woman has a right to an abortion, thats secondary, to when does a person become a person, thats the real issue.

Yes that is the real issue. And it seems your answer is "a person becomes a person when they get a dick [unless they're unborn, in which case they're allowed both a vagina and basic human consideration]". You deny the right of bodily autonomy to women with your entrenched Abrahamic religious morality.


A Mans house is his own business, no one can tell him what he does in his house, if he wants to rape his kid, so be it. Its his house.

That's a [I]reductio ad absurdum and a strawman, don't do that again.

[Demogorgon]

That's a reductio ad absurdum
Just to point ou that a reductio ad absurdum is an entirely legitimate way to argue.

[Bud Struggle]

Meanwhile, back in the United States--the absurdum is reduced to the sublime...

Teen LDS marriages (in the multiple, of course)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIdh3RYi3HI

[Hyacinth]

A Mans house is his own business, no one can tell him what he does in his house, if he wants to rape his kid, so be it. Its his house.
Except that the two cases are not in the least analogous. In one case we’re dealing with people, in the other we aren’t. So the reductio doesn’t follow.

[Bud Struggle]

I muchly disagree...a man's house; a woman's belly, what's the difference? Your definition of "people"--certainly not in the least mine.

Got something to back that up? :)

[Mersault]

I find it difficult to accept the basis of any thought or idea that has, as its basis, the restriction of autonomy. The collimation of belief that this kind of power bestows upon human beings is so fundamentally unfounded that it must surely be rejected? Everything that is your body belongs to you and neither political, social, religious, moral nor legal "authority" has any basis to say otherwise. If a woman wants to rip out the fetus from their womb with their bare hands then what is the basis to stop them?

[Hyacinth]

I muchly disagree...a man's house; a woman's belly, what's the difference? Your definition of "people"--certainly not in the least mine.

Got something to back that up? :)
The reason that the notion of personhood (sapience, self-awareness, sentience, etc.) put forth should be preferred to your notion is because personhood at least draws the distinction between humans and animals, between sentient and non-sentient, between sapient and non-sapient, etc. It accounts for why we, human adults, have more moral worth than a dog, for instance.

That having been said, you haven’t given us any conception of ‘human being’ that gives us a morally relevant distinction between a human adult and a dog which also doesn’t exclude fetuses. For that matter, you haven’t given any definition at all, you’ve just asserted that humans (in the biological sense) have moral worth.

[Bud Struggle]

For that matter, you haven’t given any definition at all, you’ve just asserted that humans (in the biological sense) have moral worth.

I assert that as a human. If any other biological species wish to assert as much--I leave this space open........






I thought as much. :)

[Dean]

The reason that the notion of personhood (sapience, self-awareness, sentience, etc.) put forth should be preferred to your notion is because personhood at least draws the distinction between humans and animals, between sentient and non-sentient, between sapient and non-sapient, etc. It accounts for why we, human adults, have more moral worth than a dog, for instance.

That having been said, you haven’t given us any conception of ‘human being’ that gives us a morally relevant distinction between a human adult and a dog which also doesn’t exclude fetuses. For that matter, you haven’t given any definition at all, you’ve just asserted that humans (in the biological sense) have moral worth.

Who is to say that dogs aren't sentient? That goes against the knowledge of our scientists. Sapience may be arguable, but who cares? Must I be aware of myself to have a right to live?

[Hyacinth]

Who is to say that dogs aren't sentient? That goes against the knowledge of our scientists. Sapience may be arguable, but who cares? Must I be aware of myself to have a right to live?
Dogs are sentient (ability to feel pleasure and pain), this isn't in dispute. Sapience here is intelligence, rather than self-awareness (awareness of ones continuous existence through time). As for why sapience matters, well, it is something that demarcates us from other sentient creatures, and if you are going to assign more moral worth to humans than other sentient creatures it has to be on the basis of sapience, since that seems to be one of the relevant differences. I’m not saying that you have to accept this notion of personhood, of course, merely that if you disregard personhood as morally relevant then must be willing to extend the same rights to all sentient creatures, which seems a tad absurd.

As a matter of practice we do think that sapience and self-awareness matters; for instance, consider cases where a person has suffered some trauma to the head such that it has left them without any higher cognitive capacities, but where they still have lower ones (i.e. sentience). As a matter of medical practice we don’t regard these people as worth keeping alive, since, well, for all intents and purposes the person is dead.

[RGacky3]

Some OI members I can respect because although I disagree with them, they are reasonable and not malicious. They also understand the difference between privacy and abuse of human rights.

Others are like you; they get their jollies off by verbally abuse others over the internet (I can only assume because they can't get jacked in the face over the internet), so they seek out trouble to cause.

I use those extreme examples to point out flaws in arguments, i.e. just because something is 'your business' does'nt mean you can do whatever you want if it effects others. I'm not being malicious, I'm taking arguments to the extreme to make a point.


That's a reductio ad absurdum and a strawman, don't do that again.

I'm just taking other people's logic and applying it to a different senario, its not a strawman, I took what was said and applied it to something else, i.e. a womans body is her business she can do whatever she wants (the idea of a fetus being a human or not was'nt part of the point, if it was the post would have included arguments about why it is not), so I took that argument and applied it to a guys house, which is also his business. So maybe its a reductio ad absurdum, but its not a strawman, and the reductio ad absurdum is used over and over by many people including me to show how property is unethical.


Except that the two cases are not in the least analogous. In one case we’re dealing with people, in the other we aren’t. So the reductio doesn’t follow.

Well then comes the argument over if a fetus is a person or not, which is a philisophical question, and a hard one at that, at least to argue that its not.

[Hyacinth]

Well then comes the argument over if a fetus is a person or not, which is a philosophical question, and a hard one at that, at least to argue that it’s not.
It's hard to argue that a fetus is not a person? Hardly. It is ruled out from being a person by the definition of personhood. If you'd care to argue otherwise you'd have to establish that a fetus is a) sentient, b) sapient, *and* c) self-aware. While people will readily concede that a fetus, in the later stages of pregnancy, is sentient, but that alone is insufficient for personhood.

[Hyacinth]

I use those extreme examples to point out flaws in arguments, i.e. just because something is 'your business' does'nt mean you can do whatever you want if it effects others. I'm not being malicious, I'm taking arguments to the extreme to make a point.
Also, given that people aren't property, your (sic) wife and your (sic) child *aren't* your business. Regardless, you are correct that the consequences that your actions have on others put a limit on your actions. That having been said, I fail to see what any of that has to do with abortion, given that there is no other involved here.

[bezdomni]

Well then comes the argument over if a fetus is a person or not, which is a philisophical question, and a hard one at that, at least to argue that its not.
And that philosophical question has a philosophical answer: A fetus is not a person.

...At least if you're a materialist and revolutionary communist, that is.

[Hyacinth]

And that philosophical question has a philosophical answer: A fetus is not a person.

...At least if you're a materialist and revolutionary communist, that is.
I can’t think of any serious philosophical literature that tries to argue that a fetus is a person since the position is untenable (you don't have to be a revolutionary to see that, though I would hope it would help). I find largely that those philosophers who are motivated to argue against abortion come from a religious background, and hence believe that our right to life exists because we have a soul (and likewise that a fetus has a soul). But, of course, they can’t come out and say *that* since every serious analytic philosopher would simply dismiss them, so they try to concoct other arguments as to why abortion is wrong.

[pusher robot]

It's hard to argue that a fetus is not a person? Hardly. It is ruled out from being a person by the definition of personhood. If you'd care to argue otherwise you'd have to establish that a fetus is a) sentient, b) sapient, *and* c) self-aware. While people will readily concede that a fetus, in the later stages of pregnancy, is sentient, but that alone is insufficient for personhood.


Wouldn't an infant fail the same test? Do you promote infanticide?

[Hyacinth]

Wouldn't an infant fail the same test? Do you promote infanticide?
Indeed, a very young infant also fails the same test (as the consistent writers on this issue have been forced to admit). That being said, though, there is a difference between infanticide and abortion, namely, once the infant has been born the mother (or father, or for that matter anyone else) has no claim to it since people are not property; whereas, in the context of abortion, the fetus occupies the woman’s body. That is the relevant difference between infanticide and abortion.

[Socialist18]

I only agree with abortion in the case of a rape. If a man and a woman are responsible enough to fuck then they are responsible enough to care for the child they created. If they don't want children then they should use a preventative.
Its as simple as that in my book as we must each be responsible for our own actions.

[Hyacinth]

If they don't want children then they should use a preventative.
What if they did use contraception and pregnancy still occurred? After all, it isn't 100% effective. Should the woman be forced to carry the child to term in such a circumstance?

[Socialist18]

Well they should consider it but ultimately it would be okay if they terminated.

This very thing actually happened to me and my ex girldfriend, we decided to terminate and for a few years we regretted it but realized it was for the best.

[Hyacinth]

Also, the mere fact that people can have sex doesn’t imply that they can raise a child. Socio-economic conditions, for instance, might pose a great barrier to that, i.e. raising children in first world countries is expensive, one might simple be unable to afford to give the child a reasonable standard of living. Would it be responsible, then, to bring a child into the world if they are to live in poverty?

[Lector Malibu]

I only agree with abortion in the case of a rape. If a man and a woman are responsible enough to fuck then they are responsible enough to care for the child they created. If they don't want children then they should use a preventative.
Its as simple as that in my book as we must each be responsible for our own actions.


It's not your responsibility to decide choices that concern a womans body.

[Socialist18]

Its called being responsible, if you know you cant afford to raise a child then you should use a preventative.

[Socialist18]

It's not your responsibility to decide choices that concern a womans body.

If people be responsible for themselves then this problem would rarely arise.
Is that too much to ask?

[Lector Malibu]

If people be responsible for themselves then this problem would rarely arise.
Is that too much to ask?

Does not matter the reasons. Abortion is a womans choice to make and a womans choice alone period.

[Socialist18]

Does not matter the reasons. Abortion is a womans choice to make and a womans choice alone period.

Responsibility must be taken, its every humans duty to be responsible for themselves.
Sure she can,anyone can do anything they like but it doesn't mean people need to be unnecessarily irresponsible.

[Lector Malibu]

But responsibility must be taken, its every humans duty to be responsible for themselves.

Having an abortion is not a sign of irresponsibility. That is a straw man. Bottom line is that a woman has a right to terminate a pregnancy whenever she feels like it for whatever reason. It's her body. Not your's or mine. to state else wise is sexist.

[Socialist18]

Having an abortion is not a sign of irresponsibility. That is a straw man. Bottom line is that a woman has a right to terminate a pregnancy whenever she feels like it for whatever reason. It's her body. Not your's or mine. to state else wise is sexist.


I ain't talking about if she has the right or not,of course she does, she can do what ever she likes, but if people ARE responsible the matter of abortion would rarely arise,hence, rarely be an issue, preventative action is better than the cure.

[Lector Malibu]

I ain't talking about if she has the right or not,of course she does, she can do what ever she likes, but if people ARE responsible the matter of abortion would rarely arise,hence, rarely be an issue, preventative action is better than the cure.

Straw man again. Women have abortions for all kinds of reasons. Quite frankly it's not anyones business. Your stance on abortion reeks of moralities and sexism.

Not our bodies not our choice. It's that simple.

[Socialist18]

So responsibility is sexist now?

I've already said women can do what they like but I also suggested that responsibility wouldn't hurt either.
And,if a woman gets pregnant the man is equally responsible for without him there would be no pregnancy.What part do suppose the man play? Does he even have the right to make a suggestion?

Are you against responsibility or something?

[Lector Malibu]

So responsibility is sexist now?

I've already said women can do what they like but I also suggested that responsibility wouldn't hurt either.
And,if a woman gets pregnant the man is equally responsible for without him there would be no pregnancy.

Are you against responsibility or something?

Having an abortion is not irresponsible.

Using a condom does not guarantee 100% that a pregnancy will not occur. Yes it cuts down the risk and I recommend safe sex practice for a variety of reasons.

The notion that your putting forth that abortions have come about as a result of humanity's irresponsibility is dogmatic morality , sexist and reactionary.

Against responsibility? by whose moralistic standards?

[Socialist18]

By responsible I mean taking responsibility for all your actions. Don't do shit without thinking, use your head, think about shit. Ya know?!?!

This is NOT about whether she has the right or not as we've already established she has. Its about taking preventative measures in an attempt to prevent unwanted side effects of fucking.

If you know you don't want something to take place you do all you can to prevent it, you don't just dive in head first and think "oh well, theres a cure" that would be being a dumb ass human.

[Lector Malibu]

By responsible I mean taking responsibility for all your actions. Don't do shit without thinking, use your head, think about shit. Ya know?!?!

This is NOT about whether she has the right or not as we've already established she has. Its about taking preventative measures in an attempt to prevent unwanted side effects of fucking.

If you know you don't want something to take place you do all you can to prevent it, you don't just dive in head first and think "oh well, theres a cure" that would be being a dumb ass human.

Again your stating a straw man argument.

All kinds of things happen to lead to a pregnancy. It varies and really a woman having an abortion for what ever reason she would like Is not a reflection on the woman. That's where your sexist dogmatic morality rears it's head again.

[Socialist18]

If there exists a pill to prevent cancer do you take the pill or do you choose to get cancer and go through months of chemotherapy?


If you are out fucking all the time without prevention and you choose to abort every time, that is being irresponsible especially when for the tiniest amount of money,and even free in some countries, you can get a preventative.Why would you want a woman to go through all that unnecessary pain and possible regret of abortion.

Sexism has absolutely NOTHING to do with it.

[Lector Malibu]

If there exists a pill to prevent cancer do you take the pill or do you choose to get cancer and go through months of chemotherapy?


If you are out fucking all the time without prevention and you choose to abort every time, that is being irresponsible especially when for the tiniest amount of money,and even free in some countries, you can get a preventative.Why would you want a woman to go through all that unnecessary pain and possible regret of abortion.

Sexism has absolutely NOTHING to do with it.

It's not my place to say what a woman should go through concerning choices that affect her body. Sexism has everything to do with it. To say what a woman can or can not do with her body and to imply that her choice is irresponsible based, on your straw man argument is highly sexist on your end.

[Module]

If there exists a pill to prevent cancer do you take the pill or do you choose to get cancer and go through months of chemotherapy?


If you are out fucking all the time without prevention and you choose to abort every time, that is being irresponsible especially when for the tiniest amount of money,and even free in some countries, you can get a preventative.Why would you want a woman to go through all that unnecessary pain and possible regret of abortion.

Sexism has absolutely NOTHING to do with it.
Who on earth has sex thinking they'll just have an abortion if they get pregnant? Who? Nobody does that!
I am willing to bed that childbirth is a fuckload more painful, and involves a fuckload more regret than having an abortion does.
Who are you to say when a woman should and should not have an abortion?
Who are you to say that a woman should go through 9 months of pregnancy and childbirth, regardless of whether or not she wants the child?

[Socialist18]

I never said any of that, what I did say is people should think about their actions as actions have consequences.

Anyways, my stance on abortion is its fine if its via rape or its an accident even though preventative measures were taken.
Make of it what you will, I couldn't care less.

[Module]

I never said any of that, what I did say is people should think about their actions as actions have consequences.

Anyways, my stance on abortion is its fine if its via rape or its an accident even though preventative measures were taken.
Make of it what you will, I couldn't care less.
Right, so you think it's okay to force a woman to go through pregnancy and childbirth?
You think it's okay to take away the woman's freedom over her own body, and force her to grow a child insider her?

[Socialist18]

No I never suggested she be forced to do anything,I suggested a little responsibility would drastically reduce the amount of abortions necessary.

[apathy maybe]

Socialist18, I too used to think that women should choose by using contraception. However, when it comes down to it, a few simple cells aren't worthy of our protection. They aren't a person. Souls don't exist.

If you are willing to eat meat, then you are willing to hurt a being with far higher intelligence and ability to feel pain then a foetus in the first few months.

So yeah. Read some Peter Singer on this and similar issues.

(One step at a time.)

[Sharon den Adel]

I only agree with abortion in the case of a rape. If a man and a woman are responsible enough to fuck then they are responsible enough to care for the child they created. If they don't want children then they should use a preventative.
Its as simple as that in my book as we must each be responsible for our own actions.

Not all contraception is foolproof. If contraception fails, what then?

You cannot force someone to gestate against their will. Simple as that.

[Socialist18]

Not all contraception is foolproof. If contraception fails, what then?
I already answered this question,its fine in the case of an accident.

[Socialist18]

Socialist18, I too used to think that women should choose by using contraception. However, when it comes down to it, a few simple cells aren't worthy of our protection. They aren't a person. Souls don't exist.

If you are willing to eat meat, then you are willing to hurt a being with far higher intelligence and ability to feel pain then a foetus in the first few months.

So yeah. Read some Peter Singer on this and similar issues.

(One step at a time.)
Well it all depends on how far along the pregnancy is then doesn't it?!?!?
So then we would need to invent a standard by which to judge,although this is a problem as no one would agree on the same standard.

[Sharon den Adel]

I already answered this question,its fine in the case of an accident.

I can see that, I hadn't read through all the responses.:)

[Module]

No I never suggested she be forced to do anything,I suggested a little responsibility would drastically reduce the amount of abortions necessary.
You said this;
" Anyways, my stance on abortion is its fine if its via rape or its an accident even though preventative measures were taken."
Which suggests that it is not fine in other circumstances.

Why do you have a problem with abortion, that you think that it's important to reduce the number of them occouring, in the first place? Why do you care?

[apathy maybe]

Well it all depends on how far along the pregnancy is then doesn't it?!?!?
So then we would need to invent a standard by which to judge,although this is a problem as no one would agree on the same standard.

That's why I said "one step at a time". If you accept the position that I put forward in my post, you'll be one step further towards the position that all abortion should be permitted.

So, do you accept that early term abortions are fine, even if the women is using them as a first line contraceptive?

If not, why not? Why are a bunch of cells (128 cells for example) worthy of protect?


I'll present the next argument if you accept the position that I've put forward here and above.

[Socialist18]

You said this;
" Anyways, my stance on abortion is its fine if its via rape or its an accident even though preventative measures were taken."
Which suggests that it is not fine in other circumstances.

Why do you have a problem with abortion, that you think that it's important to reduce the number of them occouring, in the first place? Why do you care?

Because I'm Agnostic and IMO it could quite possibly be murder if there is in fact a soul.No one can 100% say if there is or isn't.



That's why I said "one step at a time". If you accept the position that I put forward in my post, you'll be one step further towards the position that all abortion should be permitted.

So, do you accept that early term abortions are fine, even if the women is using them as a first line contraceptive? No I don't, not as a first line as this is irresponsible as there are better first lines of defense one can take.


If not, why not? Why are a bunch of cells (128 cells for example) worthy of protect? It may or may not be more than that, I'm Agnostic so I must represent the possibility.

[apathy maybe]

Well, may I advice you to read materialist literature?

Basically, you say you can't rule out the existence of "souls", and yet you also can't rule out Russel's Teapot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot).

:

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

Moreover, being agnostic, you can't say that the Invisible Pink Unicorn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn) doesn't exist. She is both invisible, and pink! How cool can you get?

"Invisible Pink Unicorns are beings of great spiritual power. We know this because they are capable of being invisible and pink at the same time. Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them." — Steve Eley

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/Ipu.pngA picture of the Great Invisible Pink Unicorn!

[Socialist18]

Yes I've heard those arguments before.

You may.