View on Abortion

[AGITprop]

I've decided to repost my short response to ComradeRedFlag's question on abortion, in Sciences and Environment as it is pertinent to the issues discussed here. Here is my short analysis of abortion and human life. I'd appreciate constructive feed back and any questions you may have.


Abortion

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.

To view a full debate and discussion on these points please refer to the Abortion thread in Politics, where I wrote this as a response.

[Unicorn]

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.
Why exactly should the parents have the right to decide whether the baby lives or dies? The baby is not a part of the woman's body anymore. Babies are persons, not the property of their mothers.

I don't support infanticide.

[AGITprop]

It is not infanticide, because I do no consider a newborn any higher than an animal. I consider it non-human. Reasons stated. And anyway as I said, there is no reason to kill unwanted children in a society where there are means for caring for them, but in extreme cases where all human resources are being used up in a crisis such as war, the less babies to care for the better. But again, this is an idealistic situation.

An entire discussion on this is available in the Politics forum. I explain much more there.

[Unicorn]

It is not infanticide, because I do no consider a newborn any higher than an animal. I consider it non-human.
Infanticide means the killing of infants at birth or soon after. Your view that they are "non-human" is totally wrong. They are members of the species homo sapiens.

[Jazzratt]

This isn't for S&E, especially given the views of the (hopefuly) soon to be restricted Unicorn.

[ckaihatsu]

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 don't think there's any need to resort to scientistic, technical arguments for what is objectively a *social* / societal judgment. Yes, we *could* say -- in a technical sense -- that an embryo or fetus is 'parasitic', but then where do you draw the line?

Newborns and infants are just as 'parasitic' because they aren't independent, and must depend on nurturing for survival and growth.

The human species has only been able to evolve to its present level by developing its higher brain functions through a higher-level socialization function, where infants are cared for by the larger community instead of *having* to fend for themselves right after birth, as many lesser-functioning species' offspring must.

So -- it's been shown / proven that our most recent evolutionary developments, genetically, are directly the result of our evolved *socialization* practices in rearing the young. They are inseparable from each other, allowing greater brain development after birth.

Whether *individual* embryos / fetuses / newborns / infants / people are allowed to live or die is entirely a societal issue -- we can't be myopic and only look at the termination of human life in its earliest stages without also looking at the termination of human life at its mature stages, too.

I would argue that we shouldn't have imperialist wars that kill off millions of full-grown adults, not to mention children and younger forms of human beings. A poverty-stricken and/or war-torn social environment that is difficult to live in for an adult is also going to be difficult for a young life to grow up in as well. Better developed, peaceful, First World conditions are obviously less stressful for anyone and will allow life to thrive, no matter the age.

If the question is whether a woman should want to terminate a pregnancy or not, then that's a material issue, too -- would that woman, with a possible companion and larger social network, if any, be able to do well for that potential life or not?

So, as with any other life, the question is about *options* -- what options are available to a 'parasitic' life, a newborn life, a young life, an adolescent life, a middle-aged life, an older life?

What *options* would an embryo / fetus have if the woman doesn't want to go through with a birth? I would say *none* -- (though the state may disagree with me, depending on the trimester).

I would never give an inch to some religious nut who wants to split hairs about the technicalities of "when life begins" -- that's an idealistic / dualistic formulation which doesn't take the larger picture into account.

The point of this scenario is to have *no* *unwanted* children -- if a sexually active couple isn't interested in raising children at all, perhaps society should be set up so that the couple has options to *prevent* *unwanted* pregnancies and births by whatever are the best means available. The smoothest option would be to prevent a conception in the first place, but if society doesn't provide contraception, then that leaves fewer remaining options.

The woman's health should take precedence, so she should not be put into a position by society where she might suffer harm if she considers herself unfit for pregnancy or birthing.

In political terms this means that abortion is health care, and health care is a universal human right, which needs to be provided for free, unconditionally, by the state.



It is not infanticide, because I do no consider a newborn any higher than an animal. I consider it non-human. Reasons stated. And anyway as I said, there is no reason to kill unwanted children in a society where there are means for caring for them, but in extreme cases where all human resources are being used up in a crisis such as war, the less babies to care for the better. But again, this is an idealistic situation.


What options would a *newborn* have if the woman isn't ready, for whatever reason, to be a mother? Well, there may be a grandparent, or a relative, or a foster parent -- or, depending on the situation, there may *not* be -- again, it's a socio-political question....

How about the state? Perhaps the society is evolved to the point where the government plays a role in the issue of the raising of children and may lawfully be able to step in for the child's welfare if no better alternative exists. I'd rather see public funds going to social services like child welfare and education than for wars of aggression and conquest, in pursuit of markets and profits.


Chris





--
___

YFI S Dis cussion B oard
ht tp:// discussion. newy outh .com

Fa vor ite we b si tes: chica go.indym edia. org, wsw s. org, ma rxist. com, rwor .org, lab ourstart .or g, fightba ckne ws .org, lab oraction. org, ifam ericansknew .org, subst ancenews . com, soci alismandliberation .o rg, wh atreally hap pened .co m, ple nglis h. com, moneyfile s.o rg/temp .h tml, inform ationcl earingho use .i nfo, blac kcom menta to r. com, na rconew s. com, tru tho ut. org, ra ven1 .n et

Ph otoi llustr atio ns, P oliti cal Di ag rams by Ch ris K ai hatsu
h ttp :/ /co mmunit y.w ebsho ts. co m/u ser /ck aihatsu/

M ySp ace:
ww w. mys pace .co m/ck aihatsu

Co uchSu rfing:
htt p:/ /tinyu rl.c om/ yo h74u

[Unicorn]

This isn't for S&E, especially given the views of the (hopefuly) soon to be restricted Unicorn.
What is wrong with my views? I am 100% pro-choice. The fetus is not a person. I just oppose infanticide.

[Jazzratt]

What is wrong with my views? I am 100% pro-choice. The fetus is not a person. I just oppose infanticide.

Sorry misinterpreted you...

[pusher robot]

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.

I don't want to Godwin this thread. But let me just ask, in the spirit of a Bob Dylan song: how many times must we go down this road, before we will know where it ends?

[spartan]

It is not infanticide, because I do no consider a newborn any higher than an animal. I consider it non-human. Reasons stated. And anyway as I said, there is no reason to kill unwanted children in a society where there are means for caring for them, but in extreme cases where all human resources are being used up in a crisis such as war, the less babies to care for the better. But again, this is an idealistic situation.

I am sorry but there is a huge difference between aborting a developing fetus in a woman's womb (Abortion) and killing a human being after it has been born and is alive (Infantcide) and is no longer a burden to the mother as she can give it up for adoption if she doesnt want the burden of caring for it.

Now i am for abortion during whatever stage of the pregnancy but killing a perfectly healthy newborn baby because you simply dont want it, or because resources are slim, is going a bit too far, and is nothing short of euthanasia without the consent of the subject.

Now i can understand when you say that even newborns are parasites as they depend on another persons care for survival until they are developed enough to look after themselves, but the difference between a baby and a fetus is that babies are independent creatures (In the sense that they are not physically connected with the mother anymore to require survival) that have equal rights to a fully grown adult (Unlike a fetus) and shouldnt be killed when there are perfectly acceptable more humane alternatives for people unable to give the care required for the babies survival (Giving it up for adoption for example).

Also who decides what when it comes to killing and the allocation of resources, the state?

Resources shouldnt come into whether a person lives or dies as you are treating people as nothing more than statistics instead of the human beings that they are.

Would you by any chance have the same views on disabled people? (i.e. they "waste" much needed resources and should be killed).

[Zurdito]

A baby has an existence outside of it's mother, so it's not comparable to a foetus.
Unlike a foetus, it's existence is not a direct physical burden on its mother.
Unlike a foetus it will not be pushed out of her causing her a great amount of pain.
Unlike animals, babies represent the continuation of human life, and each baby has the potential to become a civilised person contributing to society.Therefore each death is a tragic waste.
Yes there is precedent of infanticide, of babies being killed as if they weren't human. I know this full well, and many cultures today operate like this.
But, so what? There is also precedent of the elderly, the infirm, the mentally ill etc., being treated this way. There are plenty of societies in which scarcity forced nomadic tribes to move on without the "weak", leaving them to die. This doesn't make it scientifically justified. In fact this model today is a fantasy of many free marketeers.
As Marxists we obviously take a materialist approach and do not idealistically "condemn" such societies - however we do seek to eradicate such a way of life, rather than present it as a model of what humanity should aim for. As revolutionaries we stand for a society which provides a high standard of living for each individual, even those who are unable to provide for themselves: the exact opposite of primitive cultures which were forced into barbaric acts like infanticide.Why the bullet points? Umm, I just love 'em. ;)

[Bluetongue]

And once again, for the record:

If the fetus is biologically related to the mother, is cannot be a parasite. Whether you like it or not, whether it is politically correct or not, scientifically speaking, it is not a parasite.

When two beings live in the same physical spaces, we call this symbiosis. There are three types: parasitism, commensualism, and mutualism. There is only one way to determine the nature of this relationship: how partner-A affects the fitness of partner-B.

Since the fetus is carrying the mother's genetic information, it inherently increases her fitness. The ability to reproduce is fitness. There is no other definition. Technically, a woman carrying an unrelated implanted fetus is carrying a parasite, assuming it is not voluntary and there is no other compensation.

Furthermore, hijacking the term "parasite" in this way is agitprop. It displays a profound level of anti-life self-hate.

[AGITprop]

^^It only has half of he genetic code.

Also, again to reiterate my points from other threads. I agree with you alll, babies should be defended as they will become conscious human life eventually. If there are unwanted babies, all resources must be first exhausted to care for it.

[Bud Struggle]

I am totally at odds with this assessment. First of all a woman is not her body. A person is her mind, her body is a piece of matter in which her mind resides. I'm not a Material monist--I rather favor a Cartesian dualism where the mind is separate from the body. An example--in the bad old days you could own a slave--a slaves body, but the slave's mind could have (though not always did) remain free. A slave could hate his master even though being totally owned in body by him.

So, what happens to a woman's body is something that happens to a woman's "property" not the woman herself. Just as what happens within my factory is something that happens within my "property." If I am unhappy with some worker in my property, I can't just kill him. And when a baby is conceived a body is produced as well a mind. We know this because a person's mind had to come from somewhere--and the beginning of a body is as good a time to a assess a beginning to a mind.

The destruction of a fetus is the destruction of a human mind (along with a body.) Obviously the fetus isn't viable at the beginning, but certainly can be viable in the third trimester--and science is pushing back the boundaries of viability daily,

While I can't be certain as to the beginning of the human mind--I find it's best to err on the side of safety and kill no one. And I take that belief to the full extent of like. People die in accidents all of the time, but as an ethical point people should NEVER kill other people.

Anyway, no abortion.

[Sky]

Abortion under socialism would only be allowed when pregnancy endangered the life of a woman or was the result of rape or incest, or if the child was likely to have a serious disease or deformity. Additionally, abortion wold be permitted if the woman was over forty years of age or had given birth to at least four children who remained under her care. Any abortion performed for any other reason would be a criminal offense. Rapid population growth is necessary for the socialist economy.

[LSD]

I am totally at odds with this assessment. First of all a woman is not her body. A person is her mind, her body is a piece of matter in which her mind resides.

The problem with your analysis is that her mind is but a "piece of matter" as well. We are all "pieces of matter", from our brains to our lungs to our skin cells. We still remain individual organisms, whole and distinct. You can seperate the "mind" from the "body", but the material reality is that there is no distinction. The brain is jut another organ, and the person is the sum of the parts.

Now, we could get into a complex philisophical debate on the nature of consciousness, but the truth is that's all irrelevent to this discussion. Regardless of your personal conception of the mind-body connection, the undeniable fact remains that the human mind is inextricably linked to the human body. So linked, in fact, that one cannot survive absent the other.

The same obviously cannot be said for any piece of "property", so your Ayn Randian analysis fails a priori.

Indeed, even your own example fails to prove your case. Slave masters claimed ownership of their subjects bodies, and yet claimed their minds as well. A slave might have been free to despise his master, but he was nonetheless forced to devote his practical thoughts to those tasks to which he was assigned.

If the body were truly a distinct entity from the mind, those slaves should been able to "sell" their bodies with no discernable harm to their "mind". Obviously that's not the case.


So, what happens to a woman's body is something that happens to a woman's "property" not the woman herself. Just as what happens within my factory is something that happens within my "property." If I am unhappy with some worker in my property, I can't just kill him.

No, but there are circumstances under which you could. If, for instance, that worker were holding a gun to your head and threatening your life. Or if, even absent a weapon, he was on the verge of doing you imminent harm without your consent. It woudln't even matter if that worker intended that harm; self-defense does not carry a burden of moral culpibility.

To extend your analogy, if that hypothetical worker had the mind of a foetus (i.e., not much of a mind at all), but was barreling towards you with a knife prepared to drive it into your gut, would you not be justified in shooting him?

And would you not be equally justified if he were inside of you, attempting to barrel out? Well, that's what it means to be unconsentingly pregnant; it means having a nother organism inside you violently forcing itself through your internal organs, despite your vehement desire that it not do so.

How can you really argue that a person does not have the right to alleviate sucha situation?

Especially when one considers that the organism in question has the intellectual development of an animal, just like the animals we routinely kill every day. It's not a member of society, it has no capacity to interact or conceptualize human ideas. It is a potential human being, but then so is a stem cell.

Our obligation, as a society, is to those who are actually here, not phantom "babies". After all, when you get right down to it, there is no practical difference between a zygote and a cancer cell. And yet the eradication of one is a medical routine, while the latter is a political powder-keg.

The issue here isn't "property", it's life, specifically a human being's fundamental right to a life without coercion or oppression. And that includes the oppression of being forced to bear another organism within one's body without one's consent.


The destruction of a fetus is the destruction of a human mind (along with a body.)

That really depends on how you define "human mind". Something which, for all your insistance on a dualistic approach, I notice that you have failed to do.

I suppose the problem is that, when you get right down to it, there's no such thing as a "mind". There's a brain to be sure, and it contains all the thoughts and memories and processes we normally associate with the "mind", but the "mind" itself is a philisophical construct. An ephemeral phantom of no substance and little value.

And so when you speak of the destruction of "minds", you are talking of thin air. Cows have "minds", neural pathways far more developed than those of foetuses. And yet we slaughter them routinely. Go back far enough in fetal development, and even infectious diseases are more complex and, therefore following your logic, deserving of some protection.

You see, this is the mess we get into when you start trying to apply rights to things that don't naturally enjoy them, to creatures that cannot conceptualize and so cannot hold them.

Human societal rights apply to human societal members, that is members of human society.


Abortion under socialism would only be allowed when pregnancy endangered the life of a woman or was the result of rape or incest, or if the child was likely to have a serious disease or deformity.

Then it's a very good thing that we won't be living "under socialism" any time soon.

I guess all that talk of a "classless, stateless society", was just that, talk? 'Cause clearly no stateless society would have the means to enforce an abortion prohibition.

There are simple too many ways to kill a foetus and too many women desperate to terminate their pregnancies -- not to mention good-hearted people willing to help them.

In countries in which abortion is currently illegal, there are massive government infastructures involved in suppression and investigation. Admittedly, many states only prohibit abortion de jure and routeinly tolerate it. But that kind of hypocrisy would surely not be allowed in your new socialist workers paradise!

No, you're going to need a huge government bureaucracy to make sure that these damn whores aren't running around killing their babies. I mean, really, don't they understand that the state is more important than their personal freedom?

It's almost as though they think they have human rights! :ohmy:


Rapid population growth is necessary for the socialist economy.

:rolleyes:

And you people wonder why no one takes you seriously...

[RGacky3]

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.

Its very hard to proove that, also if the newborn is not a human, the circumstances would'nt have to be severe, the parent should be able to do it just to do it.

I have another question, I kind of know the answer already, in a legal system, if someone hits a mother and kills the fetus, could he be tried for anything more than what he would be for just hitting anyone? Considering the Fetus is just a part of her body, like her skin cells.

[RedFlagComrade]

Its not that far a leap from saying that babies are less than human to saying that certain disabled people are too-they might not be self aware but that does not give us like the Nazis the right to kill them because they are a burden on society/their mother.

[ckaihatsu]

That really depends on how you define "human mind". Something which, for all your insistance on a dualistic approach, I notice that you have failed to do.

I suppose the problem is that, when you get right down to it, there's no such thing as a "mind". There's a brain to be sure, and it contains all the thoughts and memories and processes we normally associate with the "mind", but the "mind" itself is a philisophical construct. An ephemeral phantom of no substance and little value.

And so when you speak of the destruction of "minds", you are talking of thin air. Cows have "minds", neural pathways far more developed than those of foetuses. And yet we slaughter them routinely. (LSD)



Its not that far a leap from saying that babies are less than human to saying that certain disabled people are too-they might not be self aware but that does not give us like the Nazis the right to kill them because they are a burden on society/their mother. (RedFlagComrade)



LSD,

This is just a technical aside -- I agree with everything else in your post....

A decent definition of *mind* is that it's an emergent property of the material brain with its interaction with the larger environment / world, through the body. No one can say that there's no such thing as mind, because it's basically synonymous with *consciousness*. Without a mind you wouldn't be able to write what you have written -- none of us would.

By saying the mind is a philosophical construct you're making an idealistic / dualistic argument about the mind-body. You then contradict yourself by noting that cows and [human] fetuses have neural pathways -- the stuff of brains and minds.

In terms of the management of life on the planet, we should use a hierarchical framework as a general guide -- developed, mature human life comes first in any situation of either-or -- if an adult *has* to abandon others for the sake of self-survival, or kill an animal for protein (admittedly more of a gray area here), then that's might very well happen. The hypothetical situation we're discussing here really sounds more like a hyper-dramatic, Hollywood movie plot, anyway -- in most cases there is a surrounding society that can handle such dire contingencies, without resorting to drastic means.

It's really a measure of civilization to see how it handles the weaker and more defenseless members of its society.

In times of duress, as when a country is attacked from without by stronger military forces, its level of civilization will necessarily decrease, in favor of self-defense -- more of a turn to barbaric means, if you like, given barbaric conditions.

More developed countries have much older populations because their wealth allows for higher, healthier standards of living far into old age -- poorer countries have much younger-based populations because of greater uncertainties about future family survival, not to mention a lack of options for pleasure and self-development.

From what I can tell, this is all a discussion about political generalities -- the revolutionaries in this thread are for empowering collective working-class actions, but no one here is talking in the direction of legalistic policy objectives -- oh, except for Sky's reactionary take on abortion rights -- certainly not a truly socialist position...(!)


Chris

[Sentinel]

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.When the infant is born, it is no longer a parasite of it's mother like it was in it's foetus stage, and whatever damage was caused her by it's birth has already happened. Sure, the infant is not thinking yet. But neither is it any longer trapped inside the mother, and thus it can no longer cause harm for her. It can also survive without her if taken care of by the society -- it is no longer dependent of her.

So, killing the infant is not necessary to protect either the womans bodily autonomy or health. It would merely be counterproductive to the our collective interests, as the society can potentially benefit a lot from every new citizen. Every new citizen is a new chance, or like the Dutch-Swedish radical singer Cornelis Vreeswijk put it: 'Were there no kids -- I'd quit'.

These are the material reasons why infanticide is condemnable.

[AGITprop]

When the infant is born, it is no longer a parasite of it's mother like it was in it's foetus stage, and whatever damage was caused her by it's birth has already happened. Sure, the infant is not thinking yet. But neither is it any longer trapped inside the mother, and thus it can no longer cause harm for her. It can also survive without her if taken care of by the society -- it is no longer dependent of her.

So, killing the infant is not necessary to protect either the womans bodily autonomy or health. It would merely be counterproductive to the our collective interests, as the society can potentially benefit a lot from any new citizen.

I never denied that.

My point was that the baby is not qualitatively equal to a fully developed human, but in all fairness, i answered all the questions posed to me in the Politics thread and I am really not in the mood to reiterate my points. Perhaps another time Sentinel, if anything in my other posts is a concern to you, can you send send me a PM?