Abortion, human rights and the Left. [Archive]

Unicorn

14th April 2008, 02:23

Qwerty Dvorak

14th April 2008, 02:27

Abortion is no exception.
It is an exception in that it is an area where dissent and disagreement is not tolerated within the left.

Leftism is the position that people should be emancipated from oppression, that each individual should be the master of their own destiny, able to live their lives as they want to, freely and equally.
If this is the case, then it would not be unheard of for a leftist to support the right of a child to be the master of its own destiny, and to ultimately live its life the way it wants to, freely and equally.

Leftists therefore oppose capitalism, racism and homophobia as these things oppress people and prevent them from living their lives as they wish to, and support abortion and communally owned property because those things are required for people to live freely and equally and to control their own destinies.
Surely being born and not being killed is something which is required for children to live freely and equally and to control their own destinies.

Why is the idea that a woman's right to autonomy is more important to a child's right to life the only leftist position available? Do leftists generally oppose the right to life?

Unicorn

14th April 2008, 02:37

It is an exception in that it is an area where dissent and disagreement is not tolerated within the left.

If this is the case, then it would not be unheard of for a leftist to support the right of a child to be the master of its own destiny, and to ultimately live its life the way it wants to, freely and equally.
Well, Stalin outlawed abortions and I think that is very notorious. Opposition to abortion rights was common among Marxists in the past but it was not even then motivated by quasi-religious beliefs about the personhood of the fetus.

It is true though that modern Marxists generally consider the Stalinist anti-abortion position bankrupt.

RHIZOMES

14th April 2008, 02:43

Why is the idea that a woman's right to autonomy is more important to a child's right to life the only leftist position available? Do leftists generally oppose the right to life?

I'm for the right to life.

The right to life for the mother. The right to live her life as she wants without having to worry about having to carry what basically boils down to a very intrusive PARASITE in their body for 9 months every time she has sex.

Qwerty Dvorak

14th April 2008, 02:54

From a pro-life site (so take it with a grain of salt) I found this explanation of Marxism and abortion rights.

A recent article in The Tribune, the official newspaper of the Communist Party of Australia, expounded upon the Marxist view of abortion, adding new understanding to the international debate over the rights of the unborn.

"Human Life and Fetal Images," an essay by Rebecca Albury, appeared in the Australian publication on August 10 of this year. Albury made the following statements about the teachings of Karl Marx and their relationship to the unborn:

* A Marxist believes that personality and human value are imparted by the external and economic environment, not by any inherent spiritual value, or even by biological processes.

* The fetus, according to a Marxist, becomes a person when he is judged as such by "someone of higher wisdom." The humanity of the fetus depends upon how the mother perceives the "social relationship" that exists between them. If the mother desires to keep the baby, then she "fantasizes" it into becoming a human being. But, if she does not want the pregnancy, "it is something else entirely." Her opinion of the fetus thereby denies it of personhood.

* "Biological processes," says Albury, "do not carry automatic moral values as the Right to Life suggests ... Human economic, social, and political relationships create moral values."

* According to Albury, "Material conditions of life change, and so do moral values." This means that, to a Marxist, the unborn baby may be a human being for a time, but may then become depersonified and rendered 'pre-human,' all because his or her mother began to think differently about him or her. She adds: "Certainly, many women experience mixed feelings; the fantasy baby may even appear for a while. Women can tell it goodbye forever."

http://forerunner.com/forerunner/X0450_Marxism__Abortion.html

So a mother defines when her child is and is not a person? That's a rather bizarre notion, highly inconsistent legally and I much rather the idea of an objective test for personhood.

More generally though, does disagreement with Marx, or, rather, with certain people's interpretation of Marx, necessarily make one a reactionary? Should I be restricted for the view I have expressed above?

Well, Stalin outlawed abortions and I think that is very notorious. Opposition to abortion rights was common among Marxists in the past but it was not even then motivated by quasi-religious beliefs about the personhood of the fetus.
That is not really relevant to the question though. Let's stay on topic.

The right to life for the mother. The right to live her life as she wants without having to worry about having to carry what basically boils down to a very intrusive PARASITE in their body for 9 months every time she has sex.
You realize that the right to bodily autonomy and the right to life are two different things yes? If you don't then please stay out of this thread; I don't mean to sound like an ass but this is a rights-based discussion, so it is necessary for participants to have an extremely basic understanding of what rights actually are, or even that there are different kinds of rights.

Now, why should every leftist agree with you in that a child inside its mother's womb is not actually a child but a parasite with no rights (or whose rights don't matter)?

And again, I don't want to know why you think the above, but rather why it is necessary that any leftist from any tendency must believe the above.

14th April 2008, 04:01

It is an exception in that it is an area where dissent and disagreement is not tolerated within the left.

Theres nothing exceptional about that, dissent and disagreement are not tolerated with regards to racism or homophobia in the left either.

If this is the case, then it would not be unheard of for a leftist to support the right of a child to be the master of its own destiny, and to ultimately live its life the way it wants to, freely and equally.

A fetus doesn't have the material capability to determine its own destiny, it doesn't think or have desires or a concept of the future or self.

Similarly leftists don't advocate civil rights for infants; they're mechanically incapable of exercising any so lacking them is no oppression.

Stop abstracting a fetus into something its clearly not in reality.

Do leftists generally oppose the right to life?

Yes leftists do not believe in a right to life, leftist's have a materialist view of rights based on freedom from degrading, oppressive or exploitive relationships and actions between people not abstract metaphysical entitlements.

Someone starving, shipwrecked on a desert island is going to die the same way someone starving in a slum of an industrial city is. Now a Christian who believes in an abstract right to life because god is equally responsible for both scenarios might see no difference and think that both were suffering in the same way, but a leftist would correctly acknowledge that someone starving on a desert island starves because they are incapable of getting food and someone starving in a slum starves because they will be put in jail for theft if they try to take food. The later is a result of oppression, the former is not.

jake williams

14th April 2008, 07:12

I'm going to completely ignore "abortion" for a bit and speak more generally.

The idea of "left" as a very solid and discrete and absolute political descriptor lost its validity around 1820, and was never very useful outside of... France. That story about you have the French legislature and people sit on different sides of it and you get "left" and you get "right"? And that's what we have now? Fuck it isn't. There are sort of associations and genealogies and crossovers and political bloodlines and so on. But there were different sets of social and historical conditions then, and different issues people confronted, and thought about, and cared about. It's just all different.

###IMPORTANT PART STARTS HERE:

We've taken the idea of "left" and different things have happened to it, and there is a very loose collective of vaguely anti-capitalist, anti-authoritarian, anti-church and anti-"tradition" ideas and positions that get collectivized into a "left", and that's what we have. We call it a discrete and absolute thing, but it is way too broad to do that very honestly. If we want to say we're generalizing a lot then it's very definitely a useful sort of category, but it's a big generalization.

Where, then, does abortion fit into the picture? Views in favour of abortion rights (which is the discussion - Penn Gilette is kind of a douchebag, but he was right (not the only time, either) - everyone is pro-life and pro-choice) show up on our "left" partly just by chance. Partly though there are ideological reasons - reproductive rights are perhaps the fundamental need if you want to have women's rights at all. If your live is slave to your status as the factory for the baby of any man who can scheme his way into your pants (and our sexual culture should not and need not be that, but that's much of what it is), you cannot be free as a person.

When we come to the abortion question though, a main thought I have is it really shouldn't be something a person should get upset about. Even by the time it's a months-old fetus, it's not even close to being a Person. Certainly you can't get upset about abortions if you eat meat, ever, unless you eat like, roadkill and carcasses you find out in the bush. The fact is that morally it's a very trivial issue - if we're sincere and rational just about the only important issues are its costs as a medical procedure and the legitimate emotional issues I suspect some women might face with respect to their own bodies.

###IMPORTANT PART ENDS HERE

(There's a lot of ridiculous propaganda about this latter point, but I don't think we should just deny it out of fear. It seems perfectly fair and natural that sometimes a woman will feel that this is part of her, and sort of person-ish, or at least maybe-person-ish, maybe she isn't sure whether or not she wants to be a mother and it's difficult, and that's fine. We just shouldn't lie about it on either side. But we should recognize that this is a moral and emotional issue for the woman - it's not about the fetus because the fetus doesn't have rights or real thoughts or anything else. I don't give a fuck about fetuses. Fuck fetuses. You have a right to feel sort of emotional about your own fetus, but you don't have a right to pretend that fetuses are like people with rights, and to thereby control women and effectively destroy their and their potential children rights.)

(Secondary tangent on this latter point. People blather about "potential children". You know what? How many women have abortions and go on to have children? A whole fuck of a lot, that's how many. How many of those eventually-born kids would've been born had the mother had the first kid? Not many. So you just can't talk about potential kids like that. You're pretty much selecting between this potential kid and that potential kid, for a lot of women. And if you take a woman, and force on her a kid who she's decided she can't raise the way she'd like, the kid that gets born ends up way worse off. So basically you're fucking over kids who get born, and "potential kids" who don't get born. Look - if a woman decides it's wrong to let the kid be born - she's probably right.)

RHIZOMES

14th April 2008, 07:38

You realize that the right to bodily autonomy and the right to life are two different things yes? If you don't then please stay out of this thread; I don't mean to sound like an ass but this is a rights-based discussion, so it is necessary for participants to have an extremely basic understanding of what rights actually are, or even that there are different kinds of rights.

And if they don't have a right to bodily autonomy then a pregnancy could very well ruin their life.

Now, why should every leftist agree with you in that a child inside its mother's womb is not actually a child but a parasite with no rights (or whose rights don't matter)?

it is a child, but it is essentially a parasite on the women's systems. And yeah, it sucks for the unborn child I agree, but it's fucking insane to say a mother has to put up with a 9 month pregnancy which will seriously fuck her up in many ways because "the baby is more important". How can a leftist support forcing such a burden on women?

And again, I don't want to know why you think the above, but rather why it is necessary that any leftist from any tendency must believe the above.

Again, forcing a woman to put up with a 9 month pregnancy is not very leftist at all. You can be pro-choice yet sympathize for the aborted babies sure, but being pro-life (anti-choice) is simply barbaric and is forcing a major burden on women.

jake williams

14th April 2008, 07:50

it sucks for the unborn child I agree
Um, no, at least not as far as we understand neurological development and so on. If I punch my pillow in the face it doesn't get upset. And talk about "potential people" is ludicrous because instantly masturbation becomes mass-murder. Kleenex is expensive as it is, if we had to cry over every jerk-rag too we'd be using far too much of the stuff.

RHIZOMES

14th April 2008, 08:30

Um, no, at least not as far as we understand neurological development and so on. If I punch my pillow in the face it doesn't get upset. And talk about "potential people" is ludicrous because instantly masturbation becomes mass-murder. Kleenex is expensive as it is, if we had to cry over every jerk-rag too we'd be using far too much of the stuff.

Good point, I stand corrected. After all, I am not a scientist.

counterblast

15th April 2008, 14:53

NOTHING -- has the right to occupy my body, if I don't want it to.

If I walk through a thick forest wearing a skirt, and I get leeches, I still have a right to get rid of those leeches. Whether you think it was irresponsible on my part or not, my body still belongs to me, not an outside organism. Same applies to unprotected sex.

Marsella

15th April 2008, 15:28

So what about leftism necessarily holds the right to bodily autonomy of a woman to be more important than the right to life of a child?Because the economic and social repercussions of having to go through an unwanted pregnancy are intolerable for someone who wants equality.

Being poor and pregnant is not a good situation. That overrides whatever 'right to life' such a 'child' has.

LuÃs Henrique

15th April 2008, 17:13

The fetus does not have a "right to life". Only persons can be moral subjects and have rights. Personhood begins when the child is born.

Okay. Now, not only do you have to show why personhood begins at birth, but more importantly, why any belief that personhood begins before birth is inherently reactionary. Why is such a belief inherently at odds with leftist beliefs?

Personhood begins at birth, because if it began before, untractable contradictions would arise in the legal system. The most blatant is that you would have to prosecute pregnant women who attempt suicide, on grounds of "attempted murder". The most nasty are that you would have to have a criminal investigation on every miscarriage to rule out the possibility of murder, and that fetal death caused by pregnant women neglicence would be likely to be prosecuted as manslaughter.

Luís Henrique

LuÃs Henrique

15th April 2008, 17:22

The right to live her life as she wants without having to worry about having to carry what basically boils down to a very intrusive PARASITE in their body for 9 months every time she has sex.

This is the worse argument we can make, starting from the fact that it is just plainly wrong.

Parasitism is a type of symbiotic relationship between organisms of different species in which one, the parasite, benefits from a prolonged, close association with the other, the host, which is harmed.

As fetuses are certainly of the same species that their mothers are, it is ridiculous to call them parasites.

Luís Henrique

LuÃs Henrique

15th April 2008, 17:29

Being poor and pregnant is not a good situation. That overrides whatever 'right to life' such a 'child' has.

This is a flawed argument, which is easy to destroy.

Being poor and having a small child is not a good situation. Still, we don't think that a mother who kills her toddler is justified to do so.

Luís Henrique

Devrim

15th April 2008, 18:18

Theres nothing exceptional about that, dissent and disagreement are not tolerated with regards to racism or homophobia in the left either.

Really, I don't think that it would be difficult to find 'left wing' groups that many people on here support who think that homosexuality is a bourgeois deviation.

Or is it OK to support groups like that in the so-called 'third world', but not to invite the same sort of people round for coffee at home?

Devrim

15th April 2008, 18:53

This is the worse argument we can make, starting from the fact that it is just plainly wrong.

Parasitism is a type of symbiotic relationship between organisms of different species in which one, the parasite, benefits from a prolonged, close association with the other, the host, which is harmed.

As fetuses are certainly of the same species that their mothers are, it is ridiculous to call them parasites.

Luís Henrique

So when Lenin describes officialdom and standing armies as parasites on the body of bourgeois society, or when he writes about the parasitism of financial capital, you think he's talking about non-human species?

Stop being an idiot while trying to sound smart. Parasitism is a general term that is not limited to its specific usage in ecology. You cannot take a specialist use of a common term and demand that the term only be used according to the specialty definition rather than the general definition. A fetus is a parasite in the general usage definition.

The American Heritage Dictionary's 1# definition of parasite is: "

Biology An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host."A fetus clearly meets that definition.

Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary (Beta Version) (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/kdict.html):
"parasite [ˈpӕrəsait] noun
an animal or plant that lives on another animal or plant without giving anything in return
Example: Fleas are parasites; He is a parasite on society.""

Again, a fetus clearly meets that definition.

Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/mwmed.html) Main Entry: par·a·site
Pronunciation: 'par-&-"sIt
Function: noun
: an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism

Again, definitely a parasite!

Even in the specialist scientific definition of the term your claim is ridiculous. Angler fish males are for instance, referred to as "parasitic males" even though they're of the same species as angler fish females and contribute to their reproductive success:

http://museumvictoria.com.au/marine/index.aspx?page=1&img=mn017417

So you're the one being ridiculous.

LuÃs Henrique

15th April 2008, 20:03

So when Lenin describes officialdom and standing armies as parasites on the body of bourgeois society, or when he writes about the parasitism of financial capital, you think he's talking about non-human species?

Don't be ridiculous. Lenin is using the term in a different acception, totally out of the field of biology.

Stop being an idiot while trying to sound smart. Parasitism is a general term that is not limited to its specific usage in ecology. You cannot take a specialist use of a common term and demand that the term only be used according to the specialty definition rather than the general definition. A fetus is a parasite in the general usage definition.The relationship between pregnant women and fetuses, however, is a biological relationship, and is not one of parasitism.

The American Heritage Dictionary's 1# definition of parasite is: "
Biology An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host."A fetus clearly meets that definition. Of course not; it is quite clear that what it means by "different organism" is an organism of a different species.

And what would be the other definitions of that dictionary?

1. Biology An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host. 2a. One who habitually takes advantage of the generosity of others without making any useful return. b. One who lives off and flatters the rich; a sycophant. 3. A professional dinner guest, especially in ancient Greece.So, to make it more clear about Lenin's quote, he was using acception 2a, which is a recognised meaning of the word; while those calling fetuses parasites are misusing acception 1.

Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary (Beta Version) (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/kdict.html):
"parasite [ˈpӕrəsait] noun
an animal or plant that lives on another animal or plant without giving anything in return
Example: Fleas are parasites; He is a parasite on society.""Evidently, this dictionary gives a lousy definition, that doesn't even match the examples it gives (society is not an animal or plant). It's a multilingual dictionary, not designed to give precise definitions of words, but rather their translation into other languages.

Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/mwmed.html) Main Entry: par·a·site
Pronunciation: 'par-&-"sIt
Function: noun
: an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism

Again, definitely a parasite!Do you think so? Reread: "an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism".

And what is parasitism, according to Merriam-Webster?

1: the behavior of a parasite (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/parasite)
2: an intimate association between organisms of two or more kinds; especially : one in which a parasite (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/parasite) obtains benefits from a host which it usually injures
3: parasitosis (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/parasitosis)So parasitism involves organisms of two or more kinds, ie, species, which is evidently not the case of fetuses.

Even in the specialist scientific definition of the term your claim is ridiculous. Angler fish males are for instance, referred to as "parasitic males" even though they're of the same species as angler fish females and contribute to their reproductive success:

http://museumvictoria.com.au/marine/index.aspx?page=1&img=mn017417Evidently "parasitic males" (or "parasitic twins", FWIW) are not parasites.

So you're the one being ridiculous.Ask a biology teacher.

Luís Henrique

Qwerty Dvorak

15th April 2008, 20:43

A fetus doesn't have the material capability to determine its own destiny, it doesn't think or have desires or a concept of the future or self.

But as a person it has that right. Children, the seriously ill and the mentally retarded may lack the "material capability" to determine their own destiny, that does not give us a right to kill them.

Similarly leftists don't advocate civil rights for infants; they're mechanically incapable of exercising any so lacking them is no oppression.

Not civil rights no, but leftists still advicate human rights for children, like the right to life.

Stop abstracting a fetus into something its clearly not in reality.
Well here you're kind of begging the question. You're assuming that personhood does not begin at birth, when you have not shown why (in reality, I am not asking you to show why but rather why no leftist could possibly think so).

Yes leftists do not believe in a right to life, leftist's have a materialist view of rights based on freedom from degrading, oppressive or exploitive relationships and actions between people not abstract metaphysical entitlements.
Saying that it would be good if we protected people from being killed for no reason is not necessarily a Christian, anti-materialist view though.

And the right to life from a criminal law point of view is based on actions between people, nobody is going to be prosecuted if someone is struck by lightning and dies because of it. Homicide only exists where one person kills another, but abortion may be relevant in that regard.

Someone starving, shipwrecked on a desert island is going to die the same way someone starving in a slum of an industrial city is. Now a Christian who believes in an abstract right to life because god is equally responsible for both scenarios might see no difference and think that both were suffering in the same way, but a leftist would correctly acknowledge that someone starving on a desert island starves because they are incapable of getting food and someone starving in a slum starves because they will be put in jail for theft if they try to take food. The later is a result of oppression, the former is not.
That's irrelevant. This discussion is about one person killing another person (or a non-person, if you can prove it). Murder is still considered a crime by most leftists even if is not a result of oppression or expoitation.

Partly though there are ideological reasons - reproductive rights are perhaps the fundamental need if you want to have women's rights at all.
And the right to life is perhaps the fundamental right if you want to have human rights at all.

When we come to the abortion question though, a main thought I have is it really shouldn't be something a person should get upset about. Even by the time it's a months-old fetus, it's not even close to being a Person. Certainly you can't get upset about abortions if you eat meat, ever, unless you eat like, roadkill and carcasses you find out in the bush. The fact is that morally it's a very trivial issue - if we're sincere and rational just about the only important issues are its costs as a medical procedure and the legitimate emotional issues I suspect some women might face with respect to their own bodies.

More misunderstanding the question. This is not about your personal opinion or whether or not abortion is objectively right or wrong. This is about whether or not leftists must necessarily, by virtue of their being leftist, favour the right to bodily autonomy of a woman over the right to life of a child.

And if they don't have a right to bodily autonomy then a pregnancy could very well ruin their life.

It might drastically alter their life, but it would not destroy it.

it is a child, but it is essentially a parasite on the women's systems. And yeah, it sucks for the unborn child I agree, but it's fucking insane to say a mother has to put up with a 9 month pregnancy which will seriously fuck her up in many ways because "the baby is more important". How can a leftist support forcing such a burden on women?
It's just as insane to say that a child must die because the woman is more important, is it not? And does every leftist think it is not?

Um, no, at least not as far as we understand neurological development and so on. If I punch my pillow in the face it doesn't get upset. And talk about "potential people" is ludicrous because instantly masturbation becomes mass-murder. Kleenex is expensive as it is, if we had to cry over every jerk-rag too we'd be using far too much of the stuff.
Why though, can it not suck for the baby because the baby cannot appreciate it is being killed? Or because it does not suffer? So if I kill someone in a coma, or in their sleep, or by spiking their drink with a fast-acting, painless poison, does it not suck for them?

And enough of this talk about potential people. The question is whether or not personhood begins at birth. Is it inherent in leftist doctrine that there is a major difference legally, socially and physically between a baby 2 minutes after birth and a baby 2 minutes before birth?

The most blatant is that you would have to prosecute pregnant women who attempt suicide, on grounds of "attempted murder".
That may seem odd to you, but it is by no means an "untractable contradiction". The law on suicide has always been a dodgy area. At common law, for example, if two people consentually entered a suicide pact and one survived, the survivor was guilty of the murder of the deceased. So realistically there is nothing about charging a pregnant woman who attempts to commit suicie of attempted murder that is odd or contradictory at a level previously unheard of.

However that's rather a moot point because the offence could be reduces or even abolished by statue, as happened with suicide itself. Realisticallly it is quite likely for this to happen.

The most nasty are that you would have to have a criminal investigation on every miscarriage to rule out the possibility of murder, and that fetal death caused by pregnant women neglicence would be likely to be prosecuted as manslaughter.

You probably wouldn't have any more criminal investigations for murder then than you have for abortion now (in countries where abortion is illegal), or for murder in cases of accidental death.

Also, there is a very high degree of negligence required for a manslaughter conviction so there is little danger of a woman being found guilty of manslaughter on that ground.

In general though, there is strong authority (ie Attorney General v X) in Ireland to suggest that an unborn child may be considered a person by the Constitution. And despite the obvious repercussions for abortion law and their effects, there have not been any untractable contradictions which cannot be worked around.

Stop being an idiot while trying to sound smart. Parasitism is a general term that is not limited to its specific usage in ecology. You cannot take a specialist use of a common term and demand that the term only be used according to the specialty definition rather than the general definition. A fetus is a parasite in the general usage definition.
When using the fact that someone is a parasite as a justification to kill them though, "parasite" as a general expression doesn't really cut it. By your definition homeless people and unemployed people in first world welfare states are parasites, that doesn't mean we have the right to kill them. So I think adherence to the medical definition of "parasite" is necessary here.

The American Heritage Dictionary's 1# definition of parasite is: "

Biology An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host."A fetus clearly meets that definition.

Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary (Beta Version) (http://www.anonym.to/?http://dictionary.reference.com/help/kdict.html):
"parasite [ˈpӕrəsait] noun
an animal or plant that lives on another animal or plant without giving anything in return
Example: Fleas are parasites; He is a parasite on society.""

Again, a fetus clearly meets that definition.

Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary (http://www.anonym.to/?http://dictionary.reference.com/help/mwmed.html) Main Entry: par·a·site
Pronunciation: 'par-&-"sIt
Function: noun
: an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism

Again, definitely a parasite!

If you are so confident, why not ask an expert biologist if they think a foetus is a parasite, they'll tell you it's not. A foetus contributes genetic continuity, and thus does not meet the medical definition of parasite.

LuÃs Henrique

15th April 2008, 21:04

That may seem odd to you, but it is by no means an "untractable contradiction". The law on suicide has always been a dodgy area. At common law, for example, if two people consentually entered a suicide pact and one survived, the survivor was guilty of the murder of the deceased.

And this is like it has to be; otherwise it would be a practical way to kill friends or relatives...

So realistically there is nothing about charging a pregnant woman who attempts to commit suicie of attempted murder that is odd or contradictory at a level previously unheard of.

Yes; in fact I expressed myself wrongly. The contradiction is in the fact that a woman, if absolutely forbidden or prevented to have an abortion in any other way, can always kill herself. So anti-abortion laws always run the risk of causing two deaths instead of preventing one.

However that's rather a moot point because the offence could be reduces or even abolished by statue, as happened with suicide itself. Realisticallly it is quite likely for this to happen.

Not without other contradictions, such as that killing an infant, somebody who cannot defend themselves, and people under your care usually increase penalties, instead of lessening them. There is no way out of this; birth makes a substantial difference.

You probably wouldn't have any more criminal investigations for murder then than you have for abortion now (in countries where abortion is illegal), or for murder in cases of accidental death.

Yes, but when abortion is forbidden as a different crime from murder (again because a fetus is not a person), you can leave it to public hipocrisy. Nobody wants to put women who have abortions in jail, and only a few policeman will use anti-abortion laws to harass abortion doctors - and nobody will be overlooking murder, which, in any coherent legal system, must be the most important and most heavily punished crime.

Also, there is a very high degree of negligence required for a manslaughter conviction so there is little danger of a woman being found guilty of manslaughter on that ground.

Do you think so? You can be convicted on manslaughter for killing someone when driving drunk; why wouldn't a woman be convicted of manslaugher for drinking while pregnant?

In general though, there is strong authority (ie Attorney General v X) in Ireland to suggest that an unborn child may be considered a person by the Constitution. And despite the obvious repercussions for abortion law and their effects, there have not been any untractable contradictions which cannot be worked around.

Evidently there are. What happened to the young woman who told the authorities she would commit suicide if she wasn't allowed to travel to England?

And this is just a suggestion that an unborn child may be considered a person.

When using the fact that someone is a parasite as a justification to kill them though, "parasite" as a general expression doesn't really cut it. By your definition homeless people and unemployed people in first world welfare states are parasites, that doesn't mean we have the right to kill them. So I think adherence to the medical definition of "parasite" is necessary here.

Exactly. You can have it as a metaphor, but then it carries no juridical meaning. If you want it to produce juridical effects, you need a precise definition. Moreso in criminal law, in which analogies are inadmissible.

If you are so confident, why not ask an expert biologist if they think a foetus is a parasite, they'll tell you it's not. A foetus contributes genetic continuity, and thus does not meet the medical definition of parasite.

Evidently. The parasitic fetus argument is ridiculous, absurd, and only harms the cause of those who support abortion rights.

Luís Henrique

LuÃs Henrique

15th April 2008, 21:11

And enough of this talk about potential people. The question is whether or not personhood begins at birth. Is it inherent in leftist doctrine that there is a major difference legally, socially and physically between a baby 2 minutes after birth and a baby 2 minutes before birth?

I don't know if it is inherent in leftist doctrine; but it certainly is inherent in coherent law that there is a major legal, and social difference between a fetus two minutes before birth, and a baby two minutes after birth. The physical difference is being inside or outside the womb; any other physical differences or lack thereof do not matter.

Luís Henrique

chimx

15th April 2008, 21:14

As luck would have it, my mother is an expert biologist. She is a college professor in the field of biology, and has her PhD in physiology. I gave her a call, and she says the following:

"Gestation is not an abnormality in mammals, but how we have evolved. Using the word parasitism to describe gestation is not a good application of the term, and is not used by biologists. It is a way to describe gestation cynically, not biologically."

The last bit made me laugh.

LuÃs Henrique

15th April 2008, 21:19

Or is it OK to support groups like that in the so-called 'third world', but not to invite the same sort of people round for coffee at home?

Sometimes I have the impression that some first-worlders might believe and say anything about the third world, no matter how ridiculous and self-contradictory it may be.:rolleyes:

Luís Henrique

LuÃs Henrique

15th April 2008, 21:22

Qwerty Dvorak

15th April 2008, 23:40

And this is like it has to be; otherwise it would be a practical way to kill friends or relatives...
You wouldn't have to be convicted of murder though. It could be manslaughter. Furthermore, there could be extra requirements etc. to ensure that the system is not abused, but the judges of common law decided to impose the rule as an absolute.

I'm not going to turn this into a debate about that particular issue though, the point is that just because a law strikes you as "odd" doesn't mean that law shows that the law in general has fallen into an intractable contradiction.

Yes; in fact I expressed myself wrongly. The contradiction is in the fact that a woman, if absolutely forbidden or prevented to have an abortion in any other way, can always kill herself. So anti-abortion laws always run the risk of causing two deaths instead of preventing one.
A very astute observation, but one which was already made in the case I mentioned earlier. No consistent system of law which criminalizes abortion will disallow a woman from getting an abortion if there is a serious risk of her killing herself if disallowed, for that exact reason.

Not without other contradictions, such as that killing an infant, somebody who cannot defend themselves, and people under your care usually increase penalties, instead of lessening them. There is no way out of this; birth makes a substantial difference.
It's not killing a baby, it's attempting to kill a baby so it's not as serious morally as actually killing a baby, thus making a statute more likely. Realistically most statute-made law is inconsistent with common law to some degree, as if it followed logically from the common law it would probably be part of the common law itself. Regarding harsher sentences for killing defenceless creatures in one's care, you'd think that but it is not necessarily the case. Infanticide is a separate offence to murder, introduced by statute in common law countries during the 20th century. Basically, a woman who kills her newborn baby while the balance of her mind is disturbed as a result of the birth process will be convicted of infanticide, a type of manslaughter, instead of murder. An unbalanced mind can mean post-natal depression, which falls far short of the requirement for diminished responsibility, thus making the statute anomalous. Yet it remains, and there are no major calls to remove it.

Yes, but when abortion is forbidden as a different crime from murder (again because a fetus is not a person), you can leave it to public hipocrisy. Nobody wants to put women who have abortions in jail, and only a few policeman will use anti-abortion laws to harass abortion doctors - and nobody will be overlooking murder, which, in any coherent legal system, must be the most important and most heavily punished crime.

There is still the fact that investigations into accidental death do not overwhelm the system.

Do you think so? You can be convicted on manslaughter for killing someone when driving drunk; why wouldn't a woman be convicted of manslaugher for drinking while pregnant?
Well I'm just going by English/Irish law here, but according to R v Adomako the jury should, when assessing whether or not the negligence of the defendant was gross negligence (which is the test for manslaughter), they should look at the extent of the deviation from the standard of care. As drinking is unlikely to cause death to an unborn baby, the standard of care of a mother towards her child would not be so high as to include not drinking alcohol. Thus, while drinking in extreme excess may exceed the standard of care, it would not exceed it to a sufficient extent to constitute gross negligence for the purposes of manslaughter.

Evidently there are. What happened to the young woman who told the authorities she would commit suicide if she wasn't allowed to travel to England?
She was allowed to travel to England. Problem solved.

Zurdito

15th April 2008, 23:47

Okay. Now, not only do you have to show why personhood begins at birth, but more importantly, why any belief that personhood begins before birth is inherently reactionary. Why is such a belief inherently at odds with leftist beliefs?

erm no, you only need to show that it's incorrect. to cling to an incorrect assertion regardless of evidence and the harm it causes is reactionary.

Qwerty Dvorak

15th April 2008, 23:55

erm no, you only need to show that it's incorrect. to cling to an incorrect assertion regardless of evidence and the harm it causes is reactionary.
Lol, that would never ever work on this forum though (or any pluralist, inter-tendency forum). By that logic only one extremely specific set of beliefs and opinions is revolutionary, and anyone who does not conform to that set of beliefs and opinions is a reactionary and should be restricted. By contrast there are literally hundreds of tendencies and sects and sub-sects within the leftist movement.

Zurdito

16th April 2008, 00:02

Lol, that would never ever work on this forum though (or any pluralist, inter-tendency forum). By that logic only one extremely specific set of beliefs and opinions is revolutionary, and anyone who does not conform to that set of beliefs and opinions is a reactionary and should be restricted. By contrast there are literally hundreds of tendencies and sects and sub-sects within the leftist movement.

This is true, however, you can't make a clearly false statement like "personhood begins before birth", and then say "prove why saying this is reactionary". The truth can't be "progressive" or "reactionary", only actions can be progressive or reactionary -and even then the classification can be arbitrary as most thigns are contradictory.

Anyway, we want to create societies based on meeting humans real needs. Therefore, misinforming people about the basics of their own existence can hardly lead to progressive actions, can it?

ckaihatsu

16th April 2008, 09:12

This is about whether or not a pro-abortion stance is the only leftist stance, or to phrase it another way, whether or not an anti-abortion stance is inherently reactionary.

Why, from a rights perspective, is a pro-abortion choice the only progressive choice?

To address Ron's initial question, I'd like to do the preliminary term-defining step: What does it mean to be progressive? What is 'progressive'?

3. Promoting or favoring progress toward better conditions or new policies, ideas, or methods: a progressive politician; progressive business leadership.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/progressive

So in simple terms we're looking for something to be materially *better* -- there has to be an improvement, quantitatively, qualitatively, or a combination of the two.

By that logic only one extremely specific set of beliefs and opinions is revolutionary, and anyone who does not conform to that set of beliefs and opinions is a reactionary and should be restricted.

In political terms we can say that, yes, something is specifically progressive in value -- that it adds something in the direction of revolutionizing society, or else it is static, or else regressive -- that is, tending toward a reactionary, or backward, destructive direction. Should an enlightened, revolutionary minded society tolerate that which is reactionary, or destructive? Should we allow someone to go on a rampage, harming others? How about destroying lives, resources, or assets with imperialist warfare? Should we tolerate someone's speech who advocates that which is destructive of others' lives, resources, or assets?

As an optional, related resource, I'd like to recommend checking out a worldview diagram I did:

Worldview diagram
http://tinyurl.com/ypmxx3

At the individual level we can speak of a person's development, or increasing abilities, in three domains -- cognitive, affective, and psychomotor:

Bloom's Taxonomy
http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/bloom.html

Bloom's Taxonomy, Illustrated
http://tinyurl.com/44kry8

If a woman is forced to expend her time and effort (energy) tending to an embryo or fetus she does not want to dedicate herself to, then she would only incur stress on herself if she were put under duress somehow to go against her own wishes on the matter -- this stress would hamper her ability to develop herself further, and so it would be regressive, or reactionary, on her as an individual.

Because the economic and social repercussions of having to go through an unwanted pregnancy are intolerable for someone who wants equality.

Being poor and pregnant is not a good situation. That overrides whatever 'right to life' such a 'child' has.

Abortion is no exception.

Leftism is the position that people should be emancipated from oppression, that each individual should be the master of their own destiny, able to live their lives as they want to, freely and equally.

Leftists therefore oppose capitalism, racism and homophobia as these things oppress people and prevent them from living their lives as they wish to, and support abortion and communally owned property because those things are required for people to live freely and equally and to control their own destinies.

Abortion is not the exception and there is no debate on the (real) left about abortion just as there is no debate about capitalism or racism or homophobia. To have a disagreement on any of those issues places you outside of the left, because it means that you oppose the left's core ideological agenda.

Once the child is born one could argue that the larger society would be able to provide relief and nurturing to the child in lieu of the mother's cooperation, if she were unwilling to raise the child. This means that the state, as it is, acting as a representative of society's best interests -- to some degree -- does have an interest in child welfare and so should be able to provide relief to the child if the mother is unwilling or incapable of providing nurturing and opportunities for growth.

Personhood begins at birth, because if it began before, untractable contradictions would arise in the legal system. The most blatant is that you would have to prosecute pregnant women who attempt suicide, on grounds of "attempted murder". The most nasty are that you would have to have a criminal investigation on every miscarriage to rule out the possibility of murder, and that fetal death caused by pregnant women neglicence would be likely to be prosecuted as manslaughter.

Luís Henrique

Chris

--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Favorite web sites: chicago.indymedia.org, wsws.org, marxist.com, rwor.org, labourstart.org, fightbacknews.org, laboraction.org, ifamericansknew.org, substancenews.com, socialismandliberation.org, whatreallyhappened.com, plenglish.com, moneyfiles.org/temp.html, informationclearinghouse.info, blackcommentator.com, narconews.com, truthout.org, raven1.net

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u

LuÃs Henrique

16th April 2008, 11:47

She was allowed to travel to England. Problem solved.

Which means, she was allowed to circumvent the law.

Now tell me, would she be allowed to circumvent the law to commit murder?

If no, I would say that the Irish State is not that sure that a fetus is a person. You can travel to England to kill one; you cannot travel to a non-man's land to kill a person.

Luís Henrique

LuÃs Henrique

16th April 2008, 11:55

Regarding harsher sentences for killing defenceless creatures in one's care, you'd think that but it is not necessarily the case. Infanticide is a separate offence to murder, introduced by statute in common law countries during the 20th century. Basically, a woman who kills her newborn baby while the balance of her mind is disturbed as a result of the birth process will be convicted of infanticide, a type of manslaughter, instead of murder. An unbalanced mind can mean post-natal depression, which falls far short of the requirement for diminished responsibility, thus making the statute anomalous. Yet it remains, and there are no major calls to remove it.

Yes, but this is not a difference due to the nature of the victim, but due to the altered state of the author. It is related to the fact (fiction?) that some women become emotionally disturbed within a few weeks after giving birth. And, at least in Brazil, this allegation must be proved: if there is no reason to believe that the woman was mentally unstable when the act was committed, then it is still murder.

I think it is easy to see that most abortions don't happen under the influence of mental instability, but rather as the result of rational decisions.

Luís Henrique

Marsella

16th April 2008, 12:01

This is a flawed argument, which is easy to destroy.

Being poor and having a small child is not a good situation. Still, we don't think that a mother who kills her toddler is justified to do so.

Luís Henrique

No we don't.

Presumably, the life of a child is more valuable than that of a foetus.

And of course, one doesn't need to kill a toddler to get rid of the economic and social consequences of it - adoption is available. The difference being that in pregnancy you really have only one choice - to keep it or abort it. Whereas for a child adoption is there and hence why would you kill it?

LuÃs Henrique

16th April 2008, 14:25

No we don't.

Presumably, the life of a child is more valuable than that of a foetus.

Yup. That difference is the difference between the life of a person, and the life of something that is not a person.

And of course, one doesn't need to kill a toddler to get rid of the economic and social consequences of it - adoption is available. The difference being that in pregnancy you really have only one choice - to keep it or abort it. Whereas for a child adoption is there and hence why would you kill it?If we radicalise that reasoning, adoption would be an option even during pregnancy - and if 10% of the pro-lifers weren't just hipocritical bigots that don't give a rat's ass for the "sacred life" of the fetus, practically any pregnant women could be sure that her fetus would be adopted at birth. Hell, they would be probably able to get their fetus adopted before birth, and even a stipendium from the adopters, so that everythings goes OK with the beloved future child...

Luís Henrique

careyprice31

16th April 2008, 15:23

"Is it inherent in leftist doctrine that there is a major difference legally, socially and physically between a baby 2 minutes after birth and a baby 2 minutes before birth?"

of course there is a major difference. any biologist will tell you that. Major changes happen within and outside of the fetuses body when it is born. so that a baby 2 mins before birth is not the same as a baby 2 mins after birth. Its such a drastic change its amazing the fetus becoming a baby is strong enough to withstand it.

black magick hustla

16th April 2008, 18:07

Sometimes I have the impression that some first-worlders might believe and say anything about the third world, no matter how ridiculous and self-contradictory it may be.:rolleyes:

Luís Henrique

I told her something similar once and she thought I was an "idiot" and "racist".:laugh:

Demogorgon

17th April 2008, 01:36

Personhood begins at birth, because if it began before, untractable contradictions would arise in the legal system. The most blatant is that you would have to prosecute pregnant women who attempt suicide, on grounds of "attempted murder". The most nasty are that you would have to have a criminal investigation on every miscarriage to rule out the possibility of murder, and that fetal death caused by pregnant women neglicence would be likely to be prosecuted as manslaughter.

Luís Henrique

I think this is as good argument as to why we should support abortion rights as any other. It certainly proves why we should oppose blanket restrictions on abortion.

Additionally the argument that we should support bodily autonomy is also a good one. Ultimately we can not have people other than the person carrying the fetus deciding what is to happen to it or not.

That being said, the vilification of anyone who is remotely pro-life has to end. It is understandable why someone may view a fetus (particularly in the later stages of pregnancy) as being a person and would be uncomfortable with abortion. The answer to such views is constructive engagement and debate. Not creating a stand off. If someone believes that but otherwise believes in leftist principles I have no problem calling them a comrade of mine.

Something I find even more troubling, is the way a few people here have become so obsessed with abortion as to say anything that will reduce its use is bad. This seems to me to imply that even such things as contraception are bad as their widespread use will obviously minimise abortion. Frankly such a position i simply absurd. Because having an unwanted pregnancy and aborting it is quite clearly a worse outcome than not having an unwanted pregnancy in the first place.

LuÃs Henrique

17th April 2008, 01:49

Because having an unwanted pregnancy and aborting it is quite clearly a worse outcome than not having an unwanted pregnancy in the first place.

These days I was imagining the following dialogue:

- Darling, I think it better if we don't have sex for the rest of the month, or if we just have oral sex.

- But why?

- Because I forgot to take my pill today.

- Oh screw it, if you get pregnant, you have just an abortion, what is the problem?I am sure that some here would find this guy the paramount of revolutionary feminism, and his girlfriend a reactionary moron...

Luís Henrique

A.J.

18th April 2008, 11:39

I'm totally against abortion unless in an extreme set of circumstances such as rape or incest.

Now. prove that's a reactionary position.

BobKKKindle$

18th April 2008, 13:41

I'm totally against abortion unless in an extreme set of circumstances such as rape or incest.

"Reactionary" means a desire to return to the past or calling for restrictions on the freedom of individuals. Opposing abortion is reactionary because banning abortion denies a woman the right to exercise exclusive control over what happens to her body, and also restricts her ability to participate in society on an equal basis with men, as she is unable to plan her life or enjoy free sexual relationships. Fighting for abortion rights has always been an important objective of the feminist movement, and the restriction of abortion would signify an attack on the gains that have been made.

What legitimate reason is there to restrict abortion?

Devrim

18th April 2008, 14:21

"Reactionary" means a desire to return to the past or calling for restrictions on the freedom of individuals.

No, it doesn't. You are making this up.

Devrim

BobKKKindle$

18th April 2008, 14:33

No, it doesn't. You are making this up.

What definition of "reactionary" do you suggest? Although it may not be correct to define "reactionary" in terms of individual freedom, it is true that attempts to prevent a revolution by the forces of reaction necessitate attacks on freedom, to prevent political organization outside the confines of bourgeois ideology. This applies to Fascism, which was recognized by Lenin as a system of government which gains support from the bourgeoisie when a threat to capitalism emerges.

Devrim

18th April 2008, 14:40

ckaihatsu

20th April 2008, 23:33

I'm totally against abortion unless in an extreme set of circumstances such as rape or incest.

Now. prove that's a reactionary position.

[...]

Personhood begins at birth, because if it began before, untractable contradictions would arise in the legal system. The most blatant is that you would have to prosecute pregnant women who attempt suicide, on grounds of "attempted murder". The most nasty are that you would have to have a criminal investigation on every miscarriage to rule out the possibility of murder, and that fetal death caused by pregnant women neglicence would be likely to be prosecuted as manslaughter.

Luís Henrique

ckaihatsu

21st April 2008, 00:05

In which case the abolition of wage labour is 'reactionary' as it calls for restrictions on the capitalists right to own property, and make profit.

Basically, you are making up your own definition of reactionary, which you would not find in a dictionary because it helps your argument.

Devrim

Devrim, I don't see at all how the restriction -- and hopefully the eventual usurping -- of capitalists' rights to own property and make profits could be termed 'reactionary'.

I'm also very surprised to hear this coming from a "Senior Revolutionary, Left-Communist, Commie Club Member" with 1,606 posts to your name on RevLeft.

As I'm sure you very well know capitalism itself has been a reactionary socio-political force in society since -- arguably -- the formation of joint-stock companies and the primitive accumulation of capital.

Once the industrial working class came into formation due to the formation of industry there was a presence of the workers in such proximity and labor-based organization so as to allow their self-organization into unions, demonstrating a structure that would be sufficient in mass to defeat the forces of capital.

The abolition of wage labor would have to be in conjunction with the overthrow of the capitalist class, including their privileges to own property and make profits (off the exploitation of workers' labor).

Please see:

1) Expropriation throughout the economy and sovkhozization (not mere kolkhozization) of agriculture;
2) Planned economy;
3) Workers' control over the means of production;
4) Abolition of wage slavery and establishment of labour-time economics.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/lenins-conception-socialism-t74699/index.html

Chris

--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u

Qwerty Dvorak

21st April 2008, 01:02

I keep meaning to reply to all this but the more I put it off, the more there is to respond to :(

I'll do it tomorrow, when I should be studying.

Module

21st April 2008, 01:46

In which case the abolition of wage labour is 'reactionary' as it calls for restrictions on the capitalists right to own property, and make profit.
You know as well as anybody else here that the abolition of wage labour is not a case of creating restrictions for certain individuals so much as it is to remove them for everybody else.
You could call anything a 'right' if you wanted to prove a point, but you know as well as anybody else here that the 'right to own property' is not a valid right.

(Answers.com)Reactionary: "

A tendency to revert to a former state.
Opposition to progress or liberalism; extreme conservatism." Abortion is reactionary by the above definitions - it seeks to revert to a former state where the individual wellbeing of a woman, intellectually, emotionally and physically were subject to her predisposed role as a mother and child-bearer, as well as a wife to her husband.

The belief that a fetus, an unconscious mass being grown in the body of a woman, feeding off her, should rightfully be able to progress into the stage of becoming a human being, at the expense of that woman, a human being who's life is severely restricted by carrying the fetus, and will continue to be after birth, I imagine especially if it is forced upon her, is a purely reactionary belief, that puts a woman's wellbeing below that of something which is not even human.

The pro-life position I have no doubt is primarily fueled by the belief that woman should not be having sex unless they intend on having children, and that if she has an unwanted pregnancy it is strictly her own foolish fault for having sex without that intention and she should henceforth ... I hear it put this way a lot: "suffer the consequences", but to describe the true position of many pro-lifers, it's more adequate to say she should be punished for it.

Devrim

21st April 2008, 06:00

Devrim, I don't see at all how the restriction -- and hopefully the eventual usurping -- of capitalists' rights to own property and make profits could be termed 'reactionary'.

You know as well as anybody else here that the abolition of wage labour is not a case of creating restrictions for certain individuals so much as it is to remove them for everybody else.

In which case the abolition of wage labour is 'reactionary' as it calls for restrictions on the capitalists right to own property, and make profit.

My point here was just about people using words to mean what they want, a bit like Humpty Dumpty. 'Reactionary' does not mean what he said. I was just pointing out the consequence of the definition.

but you know as well as anybody else here that the 'right to own property' is not a valid right.

Actually, I would say that historically it is at the heart of the very concept of rights, but that is a different discussion.

Devrim

ckaihatsu

21st April 2008, 06:55

Devrim,

I hope that my continuation of this dialogue is well-received by you -- I figure that in the interests of building a shared repository of objective revolutionary knowledge this line of discussion about the meaning of the term 'reactionary' is useful.

My point here was just about people using words to mean what they want, a bit like Humpty Dumpty.

When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'

http://www.sundials.org/about/humpty.htm

I have included the excerpt above from the page in Lewis Carroll's _Through the Looking Glass_ that contains an extended exchange between Humpty Dumpty and Alice about words. Perhaps this excerpt in particular is what you were referring to?

Regarding the use of language I agree with Humpty Dumpty, at least to the point of using words purposefully, to express meanings. One quickly finds that words have the ability to communicate through their socially defined, shared meanings. One can certainly communicate without using words, but words allow for much greater precision in meaning than without them.

'Reactionary' does not mean what he said.

Would you clarify this, please, Devrim? 'Reactionary' does not mean what *who* said?

I was just pointing out the consequence of the definition.

Would you clarify this, as well? What do you see as being the consequences of a definition of the word 'reactionary', and would you like to provide a definition of the term yourself?

Actually, I would say that historically [the right to own property] is at the heart of the very concept of rights, but that is a different discussion.

Well, Devrim, since you decided to type it up and post it, we may as well discuss it. Rights, like language, are socially defined. Rights have not always existed -- they are a development of the bourgeois revolutions, most notably the French Revolution.

The right to own private property, especially that which extends beyond what one uses for oneself and one's family in daily life, is a very recent invention, one that came about with the rise of financial capitalism.

Some will say that the right to private property, or wealth, is a fundamental right, but Marxists disagree with that notion entirely. Marxists correctly see the practice of private accumulation of wealth as being reactionary, because it wastes human effort on wealth-accumulation for the individual. Wealth should be socialized, in the same way that public services are currently socialized, like roads, water, waste treatment, and so on.

The reason for this is to realize economies of scale -- it is ludicrous to think of a system of roads in which private bidders could each own a mile of road, with separate tolls collected every mile. The same thing goes for pretty much any other government service, even though we've seen privatization making plenty of inroads lately.

I don't mean to defend the current system of government, either -- it is drastically underfunded and corrupt, while foreign policy is run according to imperialist policies.

So any politics that tend towards balkanization can be generally considered regressive or reactionary, while the consolidation of political areas, *combined* with adequately funded social services, can be considered progressive.

Devrim

21st April 2008, 10:41

Would you clarify this, please, Devrim? 'Reactionary' does not mean what *who* said?

An earlier poster:

"Reactionary" means a desire to return to the past or calling for restrictions on the freedom of individuals.

My point was about his definition of reactionary (my emphasis). Personally, I think that calling for restrictions of abortion rights is reactionary, but not for the reason highlighted above.

Would you clarify this, as well? What do you see as being the consequences of a definition of the word 'reactionary', and would you like to provide a definition of the term yourself?

I am happy with the common dictionary ones. I don't see the consequences as being particularly deep. I just think that he was using the word in a very different way than most people would use it.

Well, Devrim, since you decided to type it up and post it, we may as well discuss it. Rights, like language, are socially defined. Rights have not always existed -- they are a development of the bourgeois revolutions, most notably the French Revolution.

The right to own private property, especially that which extends beyond what one uses for oneself and one's family in daily life, is a very recent invention, one that came about with the rise of financial capitalism.

As you say they emerge with the French (and also the American) revolution. However property rights formed a basic part of them:

2. The aim of all political association is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man. These rights are liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression.
17. Since property is an inviolable and sacred right, no one shall be deprived thereof except where public necessity, legally determined, shall clearly demand it, and then only on condition that the owner shall have been previously and equitably indemnified.

Devrim

Qwerty Dvorak

21st April 2008, 19:40

This is true, however, you can't make a clearly false statement like "personhood begins before birth", and then say "prove why saying this is reactionary". The truth can't be "progressive" or "reactionary", only actions can be progressive or reactionary -and even then the classification can be arbitrary as most thigns are contradictory.
Actually it's not clearly true. You are, once again, begging the question.

If a woman is forced to expend her time and effort (energy) tending to an embryo or fetus she does not want to dedicate herself to, then she would only incur stress on herself if she were put under duress somehow to go against her own wishes on the matter -- this stress would hamper her ability to develop herself further, and so it would be regressive, or reactionary, on her as an individual.
Similarly, killing a baby would be regressive, or reactionary, on it as an individual.

Which means, she was allowed to circumvent the law.

Now tell me, would she be allowed to circumvent the law to commit murder?

If no, I would say that the Irish State is not that sure that a fetus is a person. You can travel to England to kill one; you cannot travel to a non-man's land to kill a person.

Luís Henrique
She is not circumventing the law, it is the law which has allowed her to travel.

The fact which you are missing here is that the law can afford to be inconsistent, indeed, in certain circumstances it may have to be inconsistent. There are inconsistencies and blurred lines in many areas of every law, but these systems of law still stand, and many are better off because of it.

Yes, but this is not a difference due to the nature of the victim, but due to the altered state of the author. It is related to the fact (fiction?) that some women become emotionally disturbed within a few weeks after giving birth. And, at least in Brazil, this allegation must be proved: if there is no reason to believe that the woman was mentally unstable when the act was committed, then it is still murder.
That's not the point. The point is in why the law was created; infanticide was brought in as an offence because juries were having difficulty convicting a woman in such circumstances of such a heinous crime as murder, out of sympathy with the mother. It's an example of a murder sentence being reduced simply because society sympathizes with the woman.

I think it is easy to see that most abortions don't happen under the influence of mental instability, but rather as the result of rational decisions.
And what of the women that kill their newborn babies as the result of rational decisions?

Presumably, the life of a child is more valuable than that of a foetus.
Saying that it is presumed doesn't make it true.

of course there is a major difference. any biologist will tell you that. Major changes happen within and outside of the fetuses body when it is born. so that a baby 2 mins before birth is not the same as a baby 2 mins after birth. Its such a drastic change its amazing the fetus becoming a baby is strong enough to withstand it.
Like?

I think this is as good argument as to why we should support abortion rights as any other. It certainly proves why we should oppose blanket restrictions on abortion.

Additionally the argument that we should support bodily autonomy is also a good one. Ultimately we can not have people other than the person carrying the fetus deciding what is to happen to it or not.
I think this is all dependent on one factor though; in order for any of these arguments to be true, it must be accepted that the foetus is not a person. See the end of this post.

Devrim, I don't see at all how the restriction -- and hopefully the eventual usurping -- of capitalists' rights to own property and make profits could be termed 'reactionary'.

I'm also very surprised to hear this coming from a "Senior Revolutionary, Left-Communist, Commie Club Member" with 1,606 posts to your name on RevLeft.

As I'm sure you very well know capitalism itself has been a reactionary socio-political force in society since -- arguably -- the formation of joint-stock companies and the primitive accumulation of capital.

Once the industrial working class came into formation due to the formation of industry there was a presence of the workers in such proximity and labor-based organization so as to allow their self-organization into unions, demonstrating a structure that would be sufficient in mass to defeat the forces of capital.

The abolition of wage labor would have to be in conjunction with the overthrow of the capitalist class, including their privileges to own property and make profits (off the exploitation of workers' labor).
The historical placement of capitalism is largely irrelevant in this respect. The fact of the matter is that right now, many people (not all, or even most) are free to buy and sell their property as they choose. The overthrow of capitalism will inevitably restrict this right.

Perhaps a more relevant example would be to say that preventing someone, by law or otherwise, from killing another is reactionary.

You know as well as anybody else here that the abolition of wage labour is not a case of creating restrictions for certain individuals so much as it is to remove them for everybody else.
You could call anything a 'right' if you wanted to prove a point, but you know as well as anybody else here that the 'right to own property' is not a valid right.

(Answers.com)Reactionary: "

A tendency to revert to a former state.
Opposition to progress or liberalism; extreme conservatism."Abortion is reactionary by the above definitions - it seeks to revert to a former state where the individual wellbeing of a woman, intellectually, emotionally and physically were subject to her predisposed role as a mother and child-bearer, as well as a wife to her husband.

The belief that a fetus, an unconscious mass being grown in the body of a woman, feeding off her, should rightfully be able to progress into the stage of becoming a human being, at the expense of that woman, a human being who's life is severely restricted by carrying the fetus, and will continue to be after birth, I imagine especially if it is forced upon her, is a purely reactionary belief, that puts a woman's wellbeing below that of something which is not even human.

The pro-life position I have no doubt is primarily fueled by the belief that woman should not be having sex unless they intend on having children, and that if she has an unwanted pregnancy it is strictly her own foolish fault for having sex without that intention and she should henceforth ... I hear it put this way a lot: "suffer the consequences", but to describe the true position of many pro-lifers, it's more adequate to say she should be punished for it.
Well all this shows is that you have to be careful with definitions you take from websites which aren't dictionary websites. Or perhaps, that you should be careful with definitions in general.

1. A tendency to revert to a former state.
Say a law is passed banning trade unions and strikes, and leftists protest against that law. They want to law to be repealed, they want to go back to before the law was passed and they could join unions and strike for better wages. Are leftists therefore reactionary? In a literal, semantic sense yes, because they are reacting to this negative development, but in a political sense they are not.

2. Opposition to progress or liberalism; extreme conservatism.
Progress is a general term; one can (a) oppose one aspect of "progress" but support the progress of society in general, and (b) have one's own definition of progress which may or may not include killing babies.

--------------------------------

I think that through the discourse above this thread has largely served one of its primary functions. Realistically all other arguments for abortion rely on the idea that the foetus is not a person for the purposes of the law, and similarly all arguments against rely on the idea that it is a person.

ckaihatsu

21st April 2008, 19:45

As you say they emerge with the French (and also the American) revolution. However property rights formed a basic part of them:

So, yes, we know that the American and French Revolutions -- both *bourgeois* revolutions -- brought forth property rights as a basic, foundational right.

The problem with this approach is apparent today: bloated hedge funds, gargantuan corporations, super-exploitation of poor areas of the world, and so on.

I hope, Devrim, that as a revolutionary you recognize all of this. Wealth ownership is *reactionary* because it sucks up people's time and even their entire lives with the pursuit of profit, or at least employment out of necessity. To me it is as primitive as having to spend time walking long distances to a well to get water -- no disrespect intended.

Shouldn't we automate as much as possible, to the point where people can live the lives they *want* to, without having to deal with mundane, personal infrastructure concerns? I wouldn't mind shopping for personal items of my choosing, but the day-to-day utilities that we all depend on should definitely be governed collectively, without the profit motive involved.

Qwerty Dvorak

21st April 2008, 19:47

So, yes, we know that the American and French Revolutions -- both *bourgeois* revolutions -- brought forth property rights as a basic, foundational right.

The problem with this approach is apparent today: bloated hedge funds, gargantuan corporations, super-exploitation of poor areas of the world, and so on.

I hope, Devrim, that as a revolutionary you recognize all of this. Wealth ownership is *reactionary* because it sucks up people's time and even their entire lives with the pursuit of profit, or at least employment out of necessity. To me it is as primitive as having to spend time walking long distances to a well to get water -- no disrespect intended.

Shouldn't we automate as much as possible, to the point where people can live the lives they *want* to, without having to deal with mundane, personal infrastructure concerns? I wouldn't mind shopping for personal items of my choosing, but the day-to-day utilities that we all depend on should definitely be governed collectively, without the profit motive involved.
Freedom to be a reactionary is still freedom, just like freedom to be a murderer is still freedom.

LuÃs Henrique

21st April 2008, 21:32

She is not circumventing the law, it is the law which has allowed her to travel.

Moreso. The law then allows someone to go abroad to kill a fetus. It doesn't allow anyone to go abroad to kill a person. Ergo... the Irish law does not consider a fetus a person.

That's not the point. The point is in why the law was created; infanticide was brought in as an offence because juries were having difficulty convicting a woman in such circumstances of such a heinous crime as murder, out of sympathy with the mother. It's an example of a murder sentence being reduced simply because society sympathizes with the woman.

I don't think so. At least the Brazilian law is very clear: it is infanticide to kill one own's baby under the influence of "puerperal state". If it isn't possible to reasonably prove that the killing was committed under such influence, the crime is murder, not infanticide. What does the Irish law say?

And what of the women that kill their newborn babies as the result of rational decisions?

In Brazil at least, it is covered in article 121 of the Penal Code, "homicide". Carries a penalty of six to twenty years in jail (infanticide, under article 123, carries two to six years in jail). In fact, since committing a crime against descendants and against children are two different aggravating circumstances (article 61), a woman who murders her own children out of a rational decision will probably be sentenced to more than six years in jail.

Saying that it is presumed doesn't make it true.

Yes, it does. Since we are discussing here juridical values, the law punishes more harshly the crimes against higher juridical values. Philosophical, ethical, moral, etc. values are immaterial here.

The life of a person is the higher juridical value. The law may or may not attribute a value to the life of fetuses; but it cannot attribute it the same value as to the life of a person, without provoking prohibitive inconsistencies. You end up allowing a young woman to travel to England, thus showing that the values are different, even when people believe they are the same.

Luís Henrique

ckaihatsu

21st April 2008, 21:36

cappin

21st April 2008, 21:52

Note: It's a peculiar thing. Because a tree doesn't cry, we feel no remorse in chopping one down.

Qwerty Dvorak

21st April 2008, 22:44

Obviously, Ron, you are an anti-abortionist. That is unfortunate because this is a revolutionary leftist forum, and your politics are abhorrent to the participants here.

I don't want to waste more of my time with your posts -- suffice it to say that society can do far better than the current state it's in, under capitalism, with its reactionary privileges for wealth (private property) ownership.

Likewise, society could do far better for women, like providing free, well-funded health care, including free abortions. That would make it so that women don't have to go through additional hardships to find abortion providers, and incur extra expenses.
If you're going to get emotional and start throwing around labels like "anti-abortionist" then please remove yourself from this thread. Of course I am pro-choice, probably everyone else here knows that. It's just that most anti-abortion arguments employed by pro-choicers tend to be fairly shoddy, so it's time for some adversarial discussion on why leftists are pro-choice, so that we may sharpen our arguments in its favour.

Qwerty Dvorak

21st April 2008, 23:08

Moreso. The law then allows someone to go abroad to kill a fetus. It doesn't allow anyone to go abroad to kill a person. Ergo... the Irish law does not consider a fetus a person.
Or, the law is inconsistent in this area because to be consistent would provoke outrage amongst society.

Another point I forgot to make earlier is that abortion is legal in the UK whereas England is not. If I recall correctly the judgement in X was that a woman could not prevent a woman from travelling to another state in order to avail of services legally available in that state.

I don't think so. At least the Brazilian law is very clear: it is infanticide to kill one own's baby under the influence of "puerperal state". If it isn't possible to reasonably prove that the killing was committed under such influence, the crime is murder, not infanticide. What does the Irish law say?
"...at the time of the act or omission the balance of her mind was disturbed by reason of her not having fully recovered from the effect of giving birth to the child or by reason of the effect of lactation consequent upon the birth of the child."
I don't see the relevance though? Are you saying that the law was not brought through because of juries' sympathy with women? Because this is the reason I have seen given by all the legal academics I have read, and I believe the statistics also support it (though admittedly I don't have them to hand). In Ireland at least, the imbalance of the mind required for infanticide falls far short of any other diminished responsibility defence so there is an exception being made.

Or are you saying that the defence is purely due to the state of the accused and not of the victim? Because in both Ireland and England, and presumably most other jurisdictions which have an offence of infanticide, there is a time limit after birth in which the act must be committed in order to constitute infanticide. So it is also dependent on the age of the child.

Yes, it does. Since we are discussing here juridical values, the law punishes more harshly the crimes against higher juridical values. Philosophical, ethical, moral, etc. values are immaterial here.
No. Legal debate does not focus exclusively on legal precedent, if it did then nothing would ever change. Philosophy, ethics, science etc. frequently come into legal debate and are often used in argument where it is submitted that a law or legal principle is anachronistic, immoral or otherwise repugnant to modern society's concept of justice.

The life of a person is the higher juridical value. The law may or may not attribute a value to the life of fetuses; but it cannot attribute it the same value as to the life of a person, without provoking prohibitive inconsistencies. You end up allowing a young woman to travel to England, thus showing that the values are different, even when people believe they are the same.
Well as I have explained above, there is a legal distinction between travelling to England for an abortion and travelling to commit murder. I have also explained that the law doesn't need to be completely consistent.