Abortion from Unfair restrictions...again [Archive]

Bud Struggle

26th May 2008, 02:03

This is inaccurate, for the simple reason that communism is not defined by abortion rights. You could argue from a theoretical position that it is inconsistent with basic tenets of Marxism or your specific understanding of communism, but I think it is evident that abortion rights are a logical extension of communist / anarchist beliefs, not a fundamental.

True. And RevLeft is NOT Communism. It is a forum that represents SOME Communists with their paticular ideas of Communism. All well and good. I think that RevLeft should kept and police any rules it sees fit--the abortion rule included, but I think that for members of RevLeft or the Commie Committee to opine that THEY speak for Communism as a whole or for the Communist movement in general is hubris and dangerous to the cause of the Revolution.

Have your rules, but keep in mind that International Communism is much greater than just this site or just the people that post here. :star::hammersickle:

Dros

26th May 2008, 03:45

RedFlagComrade

26th May 2008, 13:42

Go back and read the thread. I have made the point 1000 times that the rights of women are fundamental to Communism.

And so far nobody has denied that-they've simply pointed out that it is not right that a lifestyle choice take precedence over the life of an unborn child. Why does somebody get the right to kill a baby just cos she has a vagina?

Jazzratt

26th May 2008, 13:46

And so far nobody has denied that-they've simply pointed out that it is not right that a lifestyle choice take precedence over the life of an unborn child. Why does somebody get the right to kill a baby just cos she has a vagina?

It's not a lifestyle choice dumbfuck, it's a medical procedure to remove an unwanted foreign entity from the body. Forcing a woman to carry said entity in her body for 9 months and then to have it forced out of her with incredible discomfort it directly going against her rights.

Marsella

26th May 2008, 13:49

I had an abortion because Cosmopolitan told me to.

apathy maybe

26th May 2008, 13:57

I had an abortion because Cosmopolitan told me to.

I had Cosmopolitan because an abortion told me to.

RedAnarchist

26th May 2008, 14:06

And so far nobody has denied that-they've simply pointed out that it is not right that a lifestyle choice take precedence over the life of an unborn child. Why does somebody get the right to kill a baby just cos she has a vagina?

Emotional crap - "Aw, poor baby being murdered by that bad, bad woman!":rolleyes:

Its not because she has a vagina, but because she has the right to decide what happens to her own body. I presume you don't like male masturbation - all those poor potential lives extinguished. Men shouldn't have the right to do that just because they have penises!:ohmy:

RedFlagComrade

26th May 2008, 14:21

Its not because she has a vagina, but because she has the right to decide what happens to her own body. I presume you don't like male masturbation - all those poor potential lives extinguished. Men shouldn't have the right to do that just because they have penises!:ohmy:

Ah...the scientific "when does human life begin argument?" Well if we follow you're reasoning that human life doesnt truly begin before consciousness to the far end of the spectrum...does that give us the right, as Hitler advocated,to kill babies, small children who are not yet sentient, and mentally handicapped people simply because their parents/guardians "don't want" them or cant afford to keep them. This is an issue that can't be argued in this simplistic manner.

RedFlagComrade

26th May 2008, 14:27

No true communists have been restricted on this site because of abortions. This is because we only restrict people for being anti-choice. Thus, no communists get restricted.

That is quite sectarian and closed-minded, people are entitled to hold independant opinions within the communist movement, but what else should I expect from an neo-fascist Stalinist.

And secondly, if you for some reason have the audacity to believe that an issue like reproductive autonomy for women is insignificant, then you are most certainly not a Communist or even a leftist. If you believe women shouldn't have a basic human right, then I want no part of your men's only revolution.

I'm most certainly not a sexist or a chauvinist, far fucking from it...in my country many, in fact most, women are pro-life.

Marsella

26th May 2008, 14:31

I'm most certainly not a sexist or a chauvinist...in my country many, in fact most women are pro-life.

Yes...and we consider them as just as chauvanistic and reactionary.

Having a vagina is not an excuse for reactionary views.

Dros

26th May 2008, 17:24

That is quite sectarian and closed-minded, people are entitled to hold independant opinions within the communist movement, but what else should I expect from an neo-fascist Stalinist.

1.) Fuck you.:)
2.) Blah blah blah. I'm sectarian. And I'm closed minded to reactionary idiots who don't grant women rights. It's an issue of definition. Communists seek to emancipate humanity, not just men. If your ideology is unable to do this, you are not a Communist. It's that fucking simple.

I'm most certainly not a sexist or a chauvinist...in my country many, in fact most, women are pro-life.

Who gives a fuck? That doesn't change the fact that you (and they) hold reactionary and chauvinistic views about women's bodies.

Yes...and we consider them as just as chauvanistic and reactionary.

Having a vagina is not an excuse for reactionary views.

:wub::thumbup::lol:

Epic win.

Killfacer

26th May 2008, 19:27

hang on, it is not supposed to emancipate humanity, just the bits that it considers worthy of emancipation which in your case appears to be (rightly in my opinion) women aswell as men.

Dean

27th May 2008, 15:19

Go back and read the thread. I have made the point 1000 times that the rights of women are fundamental to Communism.

Of course they are. But that isn't the point. The point is whether or not communism is defined by rights to a specific medical procedure.

I am not in any way disputing that it is inconsistent to be a communist and to oppose abortion. That seems obvious. But my point is that communism is widespread enough among so many different types of people that those who fit into a major movement (anti-abortion) are bound to have a few. So many people spend so much type not worried about theory that there are bound to be a plethora of communists who have very disingenuous lines on different issues. But I don't think we should be telling these people that they aren't communists. We should be explaining why their stance is wrong. I think its more important to support their choice of communism in our arguments about abortion, then to base our arguments against them on their anti-abortionist stance and tell them that they shouldn't call themselves communists.

Dros

27th May 2008, 20:33

Of course they are. But that isn't the point. The point is whether or not communism is defined by rights to a specific medical procedure.

I am not in any way disputing that it is inconsistent to be a communist and to oppose abortion. That seems obvious. But my point is that communism is widespread enough among so many different types of people that those who fit into a major movement (anti-abortion) are bound to have a few. So many people spend so much type not worried about theory that there are bound to be a plethora of communists who have very disingenuous lines on different issues. But I don't think we should be telling these people that they aren't communists. We should be explaining why their stance is wrong. I think its more important to support their choice of communism in our arguments about abortion, then to base our arguments against them on their anti-abortionist stance and tell them that they shouldn't call themselves communists.

I understand your argument but I think we are proceeding from two different points. Firstly, I am arguing about whether or not you can objectively be a Communist and be pro-life. You simply can not. It is not possible. Remember, there are lots of people who call themselves Communists and who think they are Communists who really aren't.

What line we should take in dealing with these people seems to be your point. We should try and engage these people, just like any other non-communist.

RedFlagComrade

27th May 2008, 20:57

Of course they are. But that isn't the point. The point is whether or not communism is defined by rights to a specific medical procedure.

I am not in any way disputing that it is inconsistent to be a communist and to oppose abortion. That seems obvious. But my point is that communism is widespread enough among so many different types of people that those who fit into a major movement (anti-abortion) are bound to have a few. So many people spend so much type not worried about theory that there are bound to be a plethora of communists who have very disingenuous lines on different issues. But I don't think we should be telling these people that they aren't communists. We should be explaining why their stance is wrong. I think its more important to support their choice of communism in our arguments about abortion, then to base our arguments against them on their anti-abortionist stance and tell them that they shouldn't call themselves communists.

Exactly

Remember, I'm not forcing you to be pro-life, I'm just not willing to sacrifice my own beliefs, thats all.

RedFlagComrade

27th May 2008, 21:02

I understand your argument but I think we are proceeding from two different points. Firstly, I am arguing about whether or not you can objectively be a Communist and be pro-life. You simply can not. It is not possible. Remember, there are lots of people who call themselves Communists and who think they are Communists who really aren't.

What line we should take in dealing with these people seems to be your point. We should try and engage these people, just like any other non-communist.

It's you're opinion that one cannot be both communist and pro-life. It's my opinion that being a Stalinist and a communist are mutual exclusive...that supporters of brutal dictatorial regimes cannot possibly have the interests of The People at heart. Yet for some reason your minority beliefs are permitted on this forum whereas my pro-communist (yet also occasionally mildly pro-life) opinions aren't.

Dros

27th May 2008, 21:21

It's you're opinion that one cannot be both communist and pro-life.

How many times are you going to say the same stupid shit and how many times am I going to have to tell you the same correct answer before you figure this out?

Saying "It's just my opinion" is not an excuse for reactionary beliefs. I'm telling you that the term "Communist" as it is used on this forum has an objective meaning attached to it. I'm also telling you that your beliefs are not capable of leading to a Communist society. This means, you are objectively not a Communist! It's really that simple.

It's my opinion that being a Stalinist and a communist are mutual exclusive...

:lol::lol::lol:

Maybe that's why no one cares about your opinions.

that supporters of brutal dictatorial regimes cannot possibly have the interests of The People at heart.

Read a book.

Yet for some reason your minority beliefs are permitted on this forum whereas my pro-communist (yet also occasionally mildly pro-life) opinions aren't.

Let me tell you what that reason is: I'm a Communist and you want to deny women rights. Pretty fucking simple.

RedFlagComrade

27th May 2008, 21:41

How many times are you going to say the same stupid shit and how many times am I going to have to tell you the same correct answer before you figure this out?

Because every time you say this it simply doesnt get any more logical because you're not reading my posts properly.

Saying "It's just my opinion" is not an excuse for reactionary beliefs. I'm telling you that the term "Communist" as it is used on this forum has an objective meaning attached to it. I'm also telling you that your beliefs are not capable of leading to a Communist society. This means, you are objectively not a Communist! It's really that simple.

My beliefs are't reactionary or chauvinistic-I fully support all branches of feminism..on another note altogether I have vague misgivings about the issue of abortion.

Also, in my mind, grinding the lives of workers into the dirt and safeguarding the power of an elite few isn't communism, but Stalin did it and here you are.

Maybe that's why no one cares about your opinions.

Good argument...I'm convinced, abortion is good and I'm an idiot..prick.

Read a book.

Any suggestions?

Let me tell you what that reason is: I'm a Communist and you want to deny women rights. Pretty fucking simple

1.Well, you're a communist and you want to deny everybody rights if we are to judge by stalin's atrocities.
2.I don't want to deny women rights-I do however want to safeguard the rights of those who are completely voiceless.

RedFlagComrade

27th May 2008, 22:22

Dean

27th May 2008, 22:34

Y'see one of the main problems I have with the pro-choice argument is that by its very nature it appears to justify killing young children, babies and mentally handicapped people, because according to you're philosophy, if they can't actually think for themselves they are not human and thus not fit to live. It's a point that has been brought up repeatedly yet I have not found an adequate pro-choice response to it on any of the multitude of abortion threads on revleft. I'm not a sexist, I'm just trying to speak up for the likes of these people who don't have the voices to defend themselves. Killing them like animals is very similar to what Hitler intended for mentally-disabled people. Foetuses in fact, given the high chance that they at least will some day achieve sentience, are by you're own flawed logic given higher precadence than the mentally-disabled, a horrific argument in itself.

The argument, for me, is that a woman has a right to govern her body in all aspects of it, and that right supersedes the right a fetus may have. You also have to consider that a fetus is at a much lower level of sentient existence than even a baby, let alone the mentally challenged or a full-grown woman. The argument you are talking about is the issue of whether animals should ahve rights, and I agree with the logical conclusion of it. However, fetuses are not sentient, thinking creatures like babies or humans are. If they were, that would raise a moral issue, but they aren't so that issue isn't there.

Dros

28th May 2008, 01:44

My beliefs are't reactionary or chauvinistic-

Yes they are. Your need to restrict the rights of women is chauvenistic.

I fully support all branches of feminism..on another note altogether I have vague misgivings about the issue of abortion.

Wow.

"I fully support giving equal rights to women. However, on a completely unrelated noted, I don't want to give women basic autonomy rights."

Also, in my mind, grinding the lives of workers into the dirt and safeguarding the power of an elite few isn't communism, but Stalin did it and here you are.

I'm not restricted. This conversation isn't about my politics. It is about your reactionary beliefs, one of which you have just elaborated upon, above.

Any suggestions?

Another View of Stalin
Stalin's Industrial Revolution
Best Sons of the Fatherland

1.Well, you're a communist and you want to deny everybody rights if we are to judge by stalin's atrocities.

And it comes as no shock to anyone that you have no idea what you're talking about.

2.I don't want to deny women rights-I do however want to safeguard the rights of those who are completely voiceless.

"I don't want to deny women rights. I just want to reinforce outmoded and chauvinistic social relations by denying them reproductive autonomy."

Awful Reality

28th May 2008, 02:13

And so far nobody has denied that-they've simply pointed out that it is not right that a lifestyle choice take precedence over the life of an unborn child. Why does somebody get the right to kill a baby just cos she has a vagina?

I agree with you that the father should have some voice in abortive decisions- if that's even what you're saying. But really it's not about being female that determines whether or not you have an abortion. It's about your ability to care for the child.

Wait a minute, I'm going to renounce that. Yeah, it is about you having a fucking vagina. Cause if you didn't how the hell do you expect to have an abortion?

BobKKKindle$

28th May 2008, 11:36

I agree with you that the father should have some voice in abortive decisions- if that's even what you're saying. This is why you are restricted. If a man is given the right to interfere in the decision of whether to opt for abortion, then men will be able to violate a woman's right to defend herself against an entity which is using her body. The fetus is using a woman's body, and it is the woman who must suffer the discomfort of pregnancy and giving birth, and so she is the only person who has the right to decide whether to abort.

It's about your ability to care for the child.No it is not. A woman may choose to abort because she does not possess the means to provide sufficient care, but even if she is able to care for a child, she may choose not carry the pregnancy to term for a range of other reasons - possibly because she does not want to suffer the pain of giving birth, or because caring for a child can impose constraints on personal freedom. Whatever the reason is - even if woman want to abort simply because they do not want to appear fat - women deserve the access abortion on demand.

Wait a minute, I'm going to renounce that. Yeah, it is about you having a fucking vaginaThe right to abort is just one expression of a more important right - the right to self defense. A woman who is aborting a fetus is exercising the same right as a woman who resists a man who is trying to rape her - each woman is acting to prevent an external entity from using her body without her consent.

Killfacer

28th May 2008, 11:45

Thats just a painfully and wierdly skewed veiw. Now, i am pro-choice, women deserve the right to be able to pick whether to have a child or not, without intevention on the man's part. Yet the reasons given seem odd and pretty unpleasant. Talking about a fetus like it is nothing but a parasite is just unfair on both the woman and the fetus. For the woman it cheapens it, makes it sound as though it is easy to choose to have an abortion. A fetus has the potential to be a human being and nothing can take that away, definatly not just calling it a parasite. Also i dont think that the discomfort of pregnancy is a particuarly good grounds for abortion and im sure it is not that which makes Women have abortions. Once again your cheapening the whole subject with ridiculous statements.

On the other i hand i am in full support of a woman's right to choose. It is not a choice which should be made on someones behalf.

careyprice31

28th May 2008, 12:08

First I'd like to point out the irony of a STALINIST campaigning for pro choice and women's rights. Especially since its well known and documented that Stalin himself was chauvinistic and outlawed both homosexuality and abortions.

Second, why is it that it looks like redflagcomrade hasnt learned the difference between a fetus and a seperate entity such as a borned child. He still says what is the difference between killing a fetus and killing aa born person with a disability or some stuff like that. You arent even in the same ball park. The two are not the same.

Module

28th May 2008, 12:14

Talking about a fetus like it is nothing but a parasite is just unfair on both the woman and the fetus. For the woman it cheapens it, makes it sound as though it is easy to choose to have an abortion.
A fetus is a parasite. Whatever other meaning the fetus could have is given by the individual woman herself; and indeed often it is given a lot more meaning by women, but then at the same time often it is not.
The point is that if further meaning is given to the fetus by those to whom it does not belong, it does not rightfully serve as sufficient grounds for intervening in that woman's pregnancy; her body.

A fetus has the potential to be a human being and nothing can take that away, definatly not just calling it a parasite.
An acorn has the potential to be an oak tree - but how is that in any way important in regards to how we treat an acorn?

Also i dont think that the discomfort of pregnancy is a particuarly good grounds for abortion and im sure it is not that which makes Women have abortions. Once again your cheapening the whole subject with ridiculous statements.
No, you are adding unnecessary emotional meaning to it.
You are in no position to say why women do or don't have abortions. They have them for all kinds of reasons, and without a doubt this will be one of them.
The point is that whatever the reasons are, it is the woman's choice, and nobody else's.

BobKKKindle$

28th May 2008, 12:36

A fetus has the potential to be a human being and nothing can take that away, definatly not just calling it a parasite.

A sperm cell also has the potential to become a human being - is masturbation an immoral act because potential humans are wasted when the male ejaculates?

Also i dont think that the discomfort of pregnancy is a particuarly good grounds for abortion

It is unlikely that many women decide to have an abortion for this reason - but what right do you have to make judgements about why women decide to terminate pregnancy? What criteria can be used to assess the validity of a reason?

For the woman it cheapens it, makes it sound as though it is easy to choose to have an abortion.

By making it seem as if abortion is always an emotional procedure, women are made to feel guilty. Some women may experience difficult in deciding whether to have an abortion, but there are also other women who have made a firm decision, but are prevented from easily accessing abortion because of legal restrictions, which require women to meet a set of conditions (such as gaining the permission of doctors) before the procedure is allowed.

Awful Reality

28th May 2008, 14:57

This is why you are restricted. If a man is given the right to interfere in the decision of whether to opt for abortion, then men will be able to violate a woman's right to defend herself against an entity which is using her body. The fetus is using a woman's body, and it is the woman who must suffer the discomfort of pregnancy and giving birth, and so she is the only person who has the right to decide whether to abort.
The fact is simply that the father of a child is in fact the father, and is a crucial factor in the future, conception, and development of the child. And do not make it seem as there are no effects on the father of a child when he has a child. There are very complex and significant emotional reactions. Having a child has an extremely stressful effect on a person, including caring for, paying for, raising, etc the child. And may I add that due to this the likelyhood is that the husband will opt for, not against, abortion. I am not saying the father is the ultimate decision-maker, simply that perhaps he should have 20-25% of the decision.

No it is not. A woman may choose to abort because she does not possess the means to provide sufficient care, but even if she is able to care for a child, she may choose not carry the pregnancy to term for a range of other reasons - possibly because she does not want to suffer the pain of giving birth, or because caring for a child can impose constraints on personal freedom. Whatever the reason is - even if woman want to abort simply because they do not want to appear fat - women deserve the access abortion on demand. I agree, certainly. However none of those reasons were going to satisfy RedFlagComrade:cursing:

The right to abort is just one expression of a more important right - the right to self defense. A woman who is aborting a fetus is exercising the same right as a woman who resists a man who is trying to rape her - each woman is acting to prevent an external entity from using her body without her consent.
Non-Abortion=Rape is sensationalist trash. Anyway, I'm not disagreeing! Why do you think I am?

Awful Reality

28th May 2008, 15:02

A sperm cell also has the potential to become a human being - is masturbation an immoral act because potential humans are wasted when the male ejaculates? If you're jewish, yes :glare: In any case, that's a bad example because that's something you can make a decision about. Is menstruation an immoral act because it removes from the body eggs and parts of the uterus vital to having children?

It is unlikely that many women decide to have an abortion for this reason - but what right do you have to make judgements about why women decide to terminate pregnancy? What criteria can be used to assess the validity of a reason? That's irrelevant. The point is that the state or any other entity outside the actual direct parenting of the child has no right to decide what a woman does with her child or her body. The reason is totally outside of the situation.

Kropotesta

28th May 2008, 15:18

If you're jewish, yes :glare: In any case, that's a bad example because that's something you can make a decision about. Is menstruation an immoral act because it removes from the body eggs and parts of the uterus vital to having children?

What about wet dreams?

Awful Reality

28th May 2008, 15:27

What about wet dreams?
True, but unlike mensturation you can "choose" whether or not to have them via masturbation.

Kropotesta

28th May 2008, 15:35

True, but unlike mensturation you can "choose" whether or not to have them via masturbation.
you can't choose whether to or not have wet dreams though.

Awful Reality

28th May 2008, 15:54

you can't choose whether to or not have wet dreams though.

Wet Dreams are caused by a natural build-up of sperm in the male body. Masturbation halts this building by releasing large amounts of sperm. If a male does not masturbate, naturally he releases this when, during sleep, his body forces him into a state of arousal and ejaculation. If one masturbates, He will not have wet dreams. In any case, either way you're "wasting" sperm, so it still works as an analogy,

Killfacer

28th May 2008, 17:02

Qwerty Dvorak

28th May 2008, 17:05

Okay, here's my take on it in a nutshell.

A foetus is not a "person" for legal purposes, nor should it be. Therefore, it does not enjoy the same rights protection as a human being, it should not be granted personal or human rights which are protected by the law.

Hypothetically, if a foetus was a human being, if it had its own social identity and legal personality, like a baby for example, then it would be afforded human and political rights and these rights would be protected by law. In such a case, there would be nothing wrong with an opposition to abortion in my view. If you have two different people, and one person's right to bodily autonomy conflicts with another's right to life, the right to life must prevail.

However, since the foetus is not a person, it does not have a right to life, so there is realistically no conflict between the right of the woman to bodily autonomy and any right to life. There is no other right of any person which competes or conflicts with the woman's right to bodily autonomy, so there is no reason from a right perspective not to allow abortion at any point until pregnancy. It is a well known fact that at common law a foetus was not considered a person. Abortion was a separate common law offence to murder, and did not itself constitute murder. It is submitted that the basis of this separate common law offence of abortion was public morality and not human rights protection. Leftists, as materialists, do not believe in enforcement of morality by the state. Thus, any knowledgable leftist must necessarily support a woman's right to choose.

However, the problem here is that, because of the underhanded tactics employed by the pro-life lobby, many many people believe that legally, a foetus is a human person and always has been, so they have trouble accepting that the foetus has no right to life. Once a person believes, however mistakenly, that a foetus has a right to life, I cannot really fault them for wanting to protect that right, they have after all been victimized by the lies of the pro-life lobby. I think we should only restrict them if they refuse to accept that a foetus is not on the same level as a person based on artificial and unmaterialist reasons, like religious belief etc.

Demogorgon

28th May 2008, 17:19

irstly, I am arguing about whether or not you can objectively be a Communist and be pro-life. You simply can not. It is not possible.

So your precious Hoxha was not a Communist? I am glad we can agree on something.

Demogorgon

28th May 2008, 17:46

Anyway, I agree with Ron Burgundy, or whatever his name is now. Communists should, on balance support abortion rights, but some of the arguments we can see on this board are simply dreadful.

The biggest mistake people make here is to think that the right to bodily autonomy trumps the right to life, when it does not. The right to life is the most important right of all. It is the centre point of human rights so to speak. If a foetus really were a person, then abortion would be wrong so long as the life of the mother were not under threat. Quite plainly the position of the pro-choicer has to be that birth grants higher status and hence prior to birth, the bodily autonomy of a living person, can trump the right to life of an unborn person.

Similarly, calling a foetus a parasite is just a childish statement designed to offend and nothing else. It certainly is not a valid argument. Foetuses are not parasites for two reasons:
1)They are of the same species as the mother and;
2)They are biologically advantageous in that they carry the mothers genetic material.

Anyway a sane examination of abortion is going to be a legalistic one rather than half arsed attempts at biological arguments. As Ron Burgundy points out; traditionally abortion has not been considered murdered. Abortion before Quickening was either accepted or considered a petty crime indeed and abortion after quickening was considered wrong, but not as bad as murder. The notion that abortion is murder is a modern one and one that does not have any legal or historical basis. As for moral basis, well it is difficult to argue, I think, that the rights of the unborn, must fully match those of those who are born.

There is also the issue of what those who wish to ban abortion would actually propose. Punishing women who have abortions? That would be uncommonly harsh to say the least? Punishing doctors? Again cruel. What is it?

RedFlagComrade

28th May 2008, 21:25

freakazoid

28th May 2008, 21:42

Why was this thread removed from the Unfair restriction thread. The issue at stake here isn't whether abortion is right or wrong, but whether being communist and a pro-life are mutuallly exclusive, and whether pro-lifers should be restricted.

Because it is a separate issue dealing with the restriction process, not with your individual restriction.

RedFlagComrade

28th May 2008, 21:43

This is why you are restricted. If a man is given the right to interfere in the decision of whether to opt for abortion, then men will be able to violate a woman's right to defend herself against an entity which is using her body. The fetus is using a woman's body, and it is the woman who must suffer the discomfort of pregnancy and giving birth, and so she is the only person who has the right to decide whether to abort.

Actually I agree here-if an abortion is completely unavoidable it should be the woman's decision and her decision alone.

No it is not. A woman may choose to abort because she does not possess the means to provide sufficient care,

So essentially, if a foetus, through accident of conception, finds itself in the womb of a poorer woman, it should be killed. Basically you're saying that poorer children should have less of a chance of being born than the foetuses of richer families...and this is the communist stance on the issue?

but even if she is able to care for a child, she may choose not carry the pregnancy to term for a range of other reasons - possibly because she does not want to suffer the pain of giving birth,

1.Here is my opinion, and I accept that it wont be echoed by many although I can't fathom why, the potential life of an unborn child (who could cure cancer, walk on the surface of mars, get laid, lead a communist revolution...) outweighs a few hours of discomfort...and anyway...
2....there are drugs-Have you heard of epidural drugs?

or because caring for a child can impose constraints on personal freedom.

Send it to a foster home, an orphanage, into care etc...just don't murder it...life is too valuable and in the end of the day everybody wants to live.

Whatever the reason is - even if woman want to abort simply because they do not want to appear fat - women deserve the access abortion on demand.

That is a lifestyle choice, and the worst argument I have ever heard, a woman would have to be callous indeed if her only reason for killing an unborn foetus was because she didn't want to look ugly. This argument is just stupid-the potential life a foetus far outweighs this.

The right to abort is just one expression of a more important right - the right to self defense. A woman who is aborting a fetus is exercising the same right as a woman who resists a man who is trying to rape her - each woman is acting to prevent an external entity from using her body without her consent.

Overkill, mate. Anyway the foetus has no choice in the matter.

RedFlagComrade

28th May 2008, 21:48

I think we should only restrict them if they refuse to accept that a foetus is not on the same level as a person based on artificial and unmaterialist reasons, like religious belief etc.

Yay I fit that, I'm not religious and all my reasons for being pro-life, while not concrete opinions, are based on logical conclusions...unrestrict me.

Qwerty Dvorak

28th May 2008, 21:49

That's only my opinion. I argue that opinion in the CC, that doesn't mean the CC accepts it.

So why are you pro-life?

Dros

28th May 2008, 21:53

So your precious Hoxha was not a Communist? I am glad we can agree on something.

No he wasn't. And I'm not a Hoxhaist you dumb fuck.

RedFlagComrade

28th May 2008, 22:04

So why are you pro-life?

I dunno...
I'm Irish and we can often be quite conservative on these matters so I grew up pro-life, but unlike the way I changed to become a communist, I remained pro-life because I simply never came across a compelling enough argument to indicate that being pro-choice is more logical and, I dunno, morally better perhaps, than being pro-life, and believe me I've read all the posts in this thread but somehow nobody has succeeded in convincing me that a foetus' life is as meaningless as you believe.

Bud Struggle

28th May 2008, 22:24

I dunno...
I'm Irish and we can often be quite conservative on these matters so I grew up pro-life, but unlike the way I changed to become a communist, I remained pro-life because I simply never came across a compelling enough argument to indicate that being pro-choice is more logical and, I dunno, morally better perhaps, than being pro-life, and believe me I've read all the posts in this thread but somehow nobody has succeeded in convincing me that a foetus' life is as meaningless as you believe.

You know. That was a truly honest post. Better one of you on the Communist side than a thousand "Comardes" saying, "da, da, da."

RFC--you are the future of the Communist movement. Fuck the restriction--keep thinking for yourself. It's better to be occasionally wrong (not speaking of this particular case)--and thinking than to be a sheep.

Qwerty Dvorak

28th May 2008, 22:29

You know. That was a truly honest post. Better one of you on the Communist side than a thousand "Comardes" saying, "da, da, da."

RFC--you are the future of the Communist movement. Fuck the restriction--keep thinking for yourself. It's better to be occasionally wrong (not speaking of this particular case)--and thinking than to be a sheep.
"Thinking for yourself" sounds admirable and indeed in many cases it is (on a lot of issues I think for myself and disagree with virtually all other leftists as a result), but thinking for yourself doesn't really mean anything unless you base your thought on reality, on materialism and on logic. RFC basically just said "I was brought up a conservative, and even though I'm not any more, I still am actually". I don't see how ignorance is admirable at all.

And RFC, in light of my post and the fact that a foetus has never been considered a human being, I would think that the onus is on you to prove why we should start thinking it is after centuries of consensus.

Oh, and: 2000th post, woohoo!

RedFlagComrade

28th May 2008, 22:32

You know. That was a truly honest post. Better one of you on the Communist side than a thousand "Comardes" saying, "da, da, da."

RFC--you are the future of the Communist movement. Fuck the restriction--keep thinking for yourself. It's better to be occasionally wrong (not speaking of this particular case)--and thinking than to be a sheep.

Awww Shucks, TomK :rolleyes:

Yea, abortion was never anything I gave much thought to until I came to revleft...I was always pro-life cos I didn't like the thought of killing babies, but I never developed on that in my head as to what real issues I held against it until this abortion argument here.
I only started the original abortion thread that got me restricted because I was pro-life and I want to provoke some (as opposed to a gigantic) debate, I didn't think I'd be restricted.

Demogorgon

28th May 2008, 22:32

Why was this thread removed from the Unfair restriction thread. The issue at stake here isn't whether abortion is right or wrong, but whether being communist and a pro-life are mutuallly exclusive, and whether pro-lifers should be restricted.
It is turning more into a discussion of abortion. Anyway my position is that you can be a Communist and pro-life and that pro-life people should not be restricted unless they go too far in their views. But thus far I am in the minority on that matter.

Demogorgon

28th May 2008, 22:34

No he wasn't. And I'm not a Hoxhaist you dumb fuck.

Your membership of the Hoxhaist Union begs to differ.

RedFlagComrade

28th May 2008, 22:39

"Thinking for yourself" sounds admirable and indeed in many cases it is (on a lot of issues I think for myself and disagree with virtually all other leftists as a result), but thinking for yourself doesn't really mean anything unless you base your thought on reality, on materialism and on logic. RFC basically just said "I was brought up a conservative, and even though I'm not any more, I still am actually". I don't see how ignorance is admirable at all.

Actually, I was brought up a leftist, albeit within the capitalist left, I musn't have been clear enough...I just said that Irish people can be "conservative" on certain issues regarding abortion and euthanasia (and I'm in favor of euthanasia myself)

And RFC, in light of my post and the fact that a foetus has never been considered a human being, I would think that the onus is on you to prove why we should start thinking it is after centuries of consensus.

Actually that was a preety good point. But it is hard to disregard the potential life that is ceased in an abortion, would you like if everything in that has happened your life hadn't happened because you were killed before you were even given a chance?

Oh, and: 2000th post, woohoo!
Congrats

Bud Struggle

28th May 2008, 22:43

Your membership of the Hoxhaist Union begs to differ.

On guarde!

Jazzratt

28th May 2008, 22:48

Kwisatz Haderach

28th May 2008, 22:52

Actually that was a preety good point. But it is hard to disregard the potential life that is ceased in an abortion, would you like if everything in that has happened your life hadn't happened because you were killed before you were even given a chance?
The counter-argument to that is as follows: Would you like it if everything that has happened in your life hadn't happened because your parents never met? No, obviously not. But does that mean that your parents should have been forced to meet and have you as their child even if they didn't want to? No, it does not.

Yes, every time a woman has an abortion, that eliminates a potential life. But every time two people have sex with a condom, that eliminates a potential life. Every time two people choose not to have sex when they could be having sex, that eliminates a potential life.

We cannot have a moral rule that it is wrong to eliminate a potential life, because such a moral rule would lead to ridiculous conclusions - it would mean, for example, that we should be having as much unprotected sex as possible in order to maximize the number of potential lives that come into existence. I'm a Christian, and such logic is clearly incompatible with Christianity.

(for the record, I also think you should be unrestricted)

Sam_b

28th May 2008, 22:53

Man, these threads are getting tiresome. Not the subject, of course, but the constant whine of "I'm a communist, but I feel that I can rise above other people and tell them what they can and cannot do to their own bodies! Unrestrict me! UNRESTRICT ME!!!!". Demanding what a woman does with her body is an adherance to the patriarchical captialist system that oppresses women. THIS is why communists/anarchists/socialists are in opposition to it.

The people on here arguing a chauvenistic line are no 'pro-life'. Scientific fact shows that a faetus is not a human being. They are anti-choice. You can be against abortion if you like, but it is unacceptable to force the issue upon women. A lot of women would not get an abortion, and thats fine, but a woman who does should never, ever be restricted from her own determination.

Bud Struggle

28th May 2008, 22:57

Scientific fact shows that a faetus is not a human being.

Nope. It's moral choice.

You are as bad as the ID people.

Bud Struggle

28th May 2008, 23:03

I feel respect to my mother for having gone through the immense pain of childbirth for me and my sister but that's as far as that line of thinking has ever really taken me.

I don't know if that's totally honest. You once said that you were against abortion.

Jazzratt

28th May 2008, 23:07

I don't know if that's totally honest. You once said that you were against abortion.

Not in the two years I've been on this board I haven't. The last time I I voiced any anti-choice opinion was 3 or 4 years before I even knew this board existed. Maybe you have me confused with another member?

Bud Struggle

28th May 2008, 23:13

Not in the two years I've been on this board I haven't. The last time I I voiced any anti-choice opinion was 3 or 4 years before I even knew this board existed. Maybe you have me confused with another member?

No--on of a couple of occasions you said: "when you were younger."

No exact timeline. I thought it might have been more recent.

Sam_b

28th May 2008, 23:18

It's moral choice

Fine. But that moral choice should never be forced on others.

Jazzratt

28th May 2008, 23:19

No--on of a couple of occasions you said: "when you were younger."

No exact timeline. I thought it might have been more recent.

No, it's in the hazy mists of "when I was younger", just as I was forming opinions and was therefore a bit of a twat.

Out of interest this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=713430&postcount=17) was my first post on the subject, in my first month on the board when I was just an ickle newbie. Rather than a big newbie with mod powers :lol:

Dros

28th May 2008, 23:26

Your membership of the Hoxhaist Union begs to differ.

I like their conversation. They are very intelligent generally.

Qwerty Dvorak

29th May 2008, 00:09

Actually, I was brought up a leftist, albeit within the capitalist left, I musn't have been clear enough...I just said that Irish people can be "conservative" on certain issues regarding abortion and euthanasia (and I'm in favor of euthanasia myself)
I'm Irish too, it really isn't that hard to break the mould. Admittedly we have one of the most conservative populations in the world but that doesn't mean you have to be conservative yourself. Society will never move forward if people are everyone is afraid to step out of line. Luckily there is a growing pro-choice movement in Ireland.

Actually that was a preety good point. But it is hard to disregard the potential life that is ceased in an abortion, would you like if everything in that has happened your life hadn't happened because you were killed before you were even given a chance?
This argument has been refuted in the above posts, and on this board generally in the past. Any one of an almost infinite number of things could have happened in the past that would result in me never having been conceived. What if my dad had chosen on the night to wear a condom? Or even more trivially, what if my mother chose not to go out, or chose to go somewhere else, the night she met my dad in a bar? Had any of these things happened, I would not be here. But needless to say, legal sanctions would not have resulted from their alternative choices.

Your argument falls down because it is trying to make a woman (or a couple) morally culpable for not having a child, from the perspective of the child that would have been had they chosen otherwise. The first problem with that is that, again, you are arguing from moralism instead of materialism or logic, and secondly, the child never actually exist so there was no harm inflicted on anyone. No harm, no foul.

Plagueround

29th May 2008, 00:22

RFC,
Here's my take on the matter, which I've touched on previously in other
threads.

There was a time in my life a little over two years ago where I was faced with the prospect of being a father. My girlfriend wanted my input on the situation and we talked about it for a long, long time. It was an emotional and difficult conversation as we discussed the pros and cons of her having our child. One of the things that I immediately told her before we had that conversation was this:

"No matter what, this decision is yours. I will stick by whatever decision you want to make."

Now at the time, I felt I was ready to be a child's father. I wanted a baby. But never once did I think to myself "because I'm ready she is too". After assuring her that I would stick by her no matter what, she made the choice and we made a trip to the doctor.

I used to contemplate what my life would be like had she made a choice different from the one she made. But then I realized this was stupid. Like every single choice or moment in our life, once it is done it's done and any potential scenarios you run through your head are meaningless. I like my life how it is now because it is my life now...if that makes sense.

Whatever choice my girlfriend made would be her own. I wanted a baby, but if she did not I would love her just the same and would never once make her regret something that only she could choose. And this is why:

I would not dare suggest the idea of abortion is wrong for any reason and I would certainly never push to make it illegal. If you take away this option from a woman, you have taken away their right to autonomy. Respecting autonomy for one's body does not mean you have to like and cheer on every decision they make, but it does mean you should champion and cheer on their right to make those decisions. It also means you should recognize those decisions are theirs and only theirs and your personal feelings on their decision are irrelevant.

You do not need to LIKE the idea of abortion. You should however, as someone who is progressive and intelligent, recognize the reason it should remain an option for all woman at all times for all reasons.

The New Manifesto

29th May 2008, 00:50

I dunno...
I'm Irish and we can often be quite conservative on these matters so I grew up pro-life, but unlike the way I changed to become a communist, I remained pro-life because I simply never came across a compelling enough argument to indicate that being pro-choice is more logical and, I dunno, morally better perhaps, than being pro-life, and believe me I've read all the posts in this thread but somehow nobody has succeeded in convincing me that a foetus' life is as meaningless as you believe.
:cursing:Bullshit.
As I fellow Irish Man, I would just like to point out; the IRISH ARE (typically) CATHOLIC! Thus there views on Woman’s Autonomy.

Note: Calling the CC "fucks" IS NOT GOING TO GET YOU UNRESTRICTED!
Calling a good portion of Revleft(and the cc) false communists, because you believe western propaganda IS NOT GOING TO GET YOU UNRESTRICTED!
Holding a reactionary, counter-revolutionary, sexist, chauvinistic view IS NOT GOING TO GET YOU UNRESTRICTED!

Bud Struggle

29th May 2008, 00:54

RFC,
Here's my take on the matter, which I've touched on previously in other
threads...

Really beautiful and heartfelt post. I much admire your for writing it--but more so, for living your life so honestly.

I disagree about the feotus..I personally think it is a child from inception, but no matter--I respect you honesty and your courage.

Demogorgon

29th May 2008, 01:02

TomK, I know you are a reasonable fellow, so would you mind answering a few questions? (Other pro-lifers should feel free to answer too).

We get so caught up on bullshit on this board that we never manage to have a sensible discussion on abortion, so I would be interested in hearing the answers to a few questions.

You say you believe a foetus is a ful human from conception. Do you then believe that abortion very early in pregnancy is as equally as bad as abortion very late in pregnancy?

What legal sanctions (if any) would you like to see imposed should abortion be outlawed?

If you believe that a foetus is a full human, do you still support abortion to save the mother's life? If so, what is it that makes the mother's life more important?

I find the last one very interesting to ask a Catholic. Most people answer that if the mother dies the baby dies too anyway, so one death is better than two, but because the abortion requires actual action to kill (which is generally not favourably regarded by Catholics), it seems to be quite complicated there.

pusher robot

29th May 2008, 01:34

Fine. But that moral choice should never be forced on others.

Well, that's the rub, isn't it? I mean, in a capitalist society you can easily say "live and let live" but in a society where health care resources are communally provided, supposing that abortions are so provided, aren't you forcing that moral choice on the workers whose surpluses are collected for this purpose? That seems wrong to me. It's their labor and their resources, but you want to impose your morality on them.

Sam_b

29th May 2008, 01:50

but in a society where health care resources are communally provided, supposing that abortions are so provided, aren't you forcing that moral choice on the workers whose surpluses are collected for this purpose?

No. You yourself can not be in favour of abortion, but that should never make you stand in the way of someone that does. Such a mass denial of such access would be anti-choice in nature.

It's their labor and their resources

No it isn't. Its everyones labour and everyones sources. Socialism is about the benefits of the collective.

Robert

29th May 2008, 01:59

supposing that abortions are so provided, aren't you forcing that moral choice on the workers whose surpluses are collected for this purpose?Not to dodge your question, but I don't know that national health care legislation has to cover every medical procedure. It might, say, exclude breast augmentation (boo!!!), late term or all abortion, liposuction, sex change, and so on.

But on the merits, I used to rant about taxpayer funded "art." You and TomK might support issuance of bonds to erect a bronze nude of, say, I don't know, me probably (just by way of example), whereas I might oppose it on grounds of morality. Hell, I know I would. Not to mention my modesty.

But if you guys insist on getting it erect, that's a moral choice you guys are forcing upon me. I would just have to live with it. Same dilemma with wars, defensive or otherwise, and abortion.

Plagueround

29th May 2008, 02:32

Really beautiful and heartfelt post. I much admire your for writing it--but more so, for living your life so honestly.

I disagree about the feotus..I personally think it is a child from inception, but no matter--I respect you honesty and your courage.

I'm glad you liked it Tom. By the way, if you look closely at what I wrote...I never said what that doctor's visit was or which choice she had made. ;)

My son turns 2 on June 5th.

Bud Struggle

29th May 2008, 02:56

I'm glad you liked it Tom. By the way, if you look closely at what I wrote...I never said what that doctor's visit was or which choice she had made. ;)

My son turns 2 on June 5th.

I indeed saw that you never mentioned the outcome. How things turned out was your business, till you dicided to share.

Happy Birthday to your little angel.

Tom

Qwerty Dvorak

29th May 2008, 03:01

Don't get too friendly guys; it'll be harder for you to kill each other when the revolution comes.

;)

BobKKKindle$

29th May 2008, 04:14

Arguing against abortion on the grounds that abortion could prevent the birth of an important person who will advance the knowledge of our species is very poor, as it is just as easy to argue for abortion because aborting a fetus could prevent the birth of a psychopath, who, if they were allowed to be born, would commit many murders against innocent victims.

It is also ironic that someone who claims to care about the welfare of children should promote orphonage care as a solution to unwanted pregnancy - given the poor conditions which exist in many of these institutions and the lack of sufficient foster parents. It is preferable for the child not to exist, then to have to suffer life without parents who are able to provide care.

Ultimately, abortion is about the right to self-defense - not abstract debates about whether the fetus can be classified as a person. When an organism uses the body of a person without that person's consent, the organism loses its right to life, and so it is legitimate for the person who is being used to act in any way necessary to resist the organism's violation of autonomy - including the use of deadly force when no other option exists. This is recognized in law, where harming another person can sometimes be excused if the person who inflicted harm was acting in self-defense.

It is of course also possible to defend abortion on the grounds that the fetus is not a person - but this creates a debate about what criteria should be used to define personhood.

RHIZOMES

29th May 2008, 04:57

And so far nobody has denied that-they've simply pointed out that it is not right that a lifestyle choice take precedence over the life of an unborn child. Why does somebody get the right to kill a baby just cos she has a vagina?

Why does someone have the right to enforced pregnancies on people just because of their subjective moral views?

That is quite sectarian and closed-minded, people are entitled to hold independant opinions within the communist movement, but what else should I expect from an neo-fascist Stalinist.

LOL

I'm most certainly not a sexist or a chauvinist, far fucking from it...in my country many, in fact most, women are pro-life.

Doesn't make it any less oppressive to women. There were black nationalist groups in the 60's that were pro-segregation. Doesn't make segregation any less racist.

Remember, I'm not forcing you to be pro-life, I'm just not willing to sacrifice my own beliefs, thats all.

And your own beliefs advocate forcing women into unwanted pregnancies. More hypocrisy and contradiction!

Your membership of the Hoxhaist Union begs to differ.

The Hoxhaist Union and the Hoxhaist group is different. One is for Hoxhaists, the other is for discussing Hoxhaism. I'm a member of the Hoxhaist group, but I am not a member of the Hoxhaist Union. There are a lot of people who are members of groups for ideologies they don't subscribe to.

29th May 2008, 05:11

Yet the reasons given seem odd and pretty unpleasant.

It is unpleasant, forced pregnancy and childbirth are like forced sex or forced organ donation extremely unpleasant things and recognizing how profoundly unpleasant it is is necessary in understanding why it is so vital that women have their right to bodily autonomy unconditionally defended.

You can only start imagining it being tolerable to violate women's bodily autonomy by trying to shift the debate to more pleasant or at least less upsetting and graphic aspects of it and in doing so you miss the reality of what it means to take that choice away.

Talking about a fetus like it is nothing but a parasite is just unfair on both the woman and the fetus. For the woman it cheapens it, makes it sound as though it is easy to choose to have an abortion.

It is easy for many women; for women who know they don't want a child it can be among the easiest most natural decisions when faced with the consequences of indecision.

The fact that some women who want a child and have complicated feelings about whether they want the particular fetus they're carrying to become their child due to their personal circumstances or its development does not make it complicated for everyone.

Sorry but you are cheapening it by calling the baby a parasite. I guarentee you absolutly NO woman who is considering having an abortion considers the fetus a parasite.

LOL yah all women think fetus's are precious widdle baybeees and we all luuve baybees. We're just stupid that way.

All i was attempting to say later on is that giving the discomfort of pregnancy as a reason for having an abortion and being pro choice is crap because i doubt that it is actually ever a grounds for an abortion

Also i dont think that the discomfort of pregnancy is a particuarly good grounds for abortion and im sure it is not that which makes Women have abortions. Once again your cheapening the whole subject with ridiculous statements.

More like humiliating, disfiguring, and excrutiatingly painful. Having to wait in the rain for a bus is uncomfortable. Childbirth is torture. Lets be clear this isn't like, stubbing you're toe, its ripping your reproductive tract and genitals apart from the inside out or waking up having had your entire abdominal muscles cut open. Is that something you'd be willing to do for a fetus you didn't want? Something you'd think a stranger was entitled to?

And, no really, when it comes to white western babies with no genetic illnesses and multi-year long waitlists for adoptive parents wanting to take care of them, it does pretty much come down to not wanting to go through the physical aspects of pregnancy and childbirth. I mean if giving birth were as easy as sneezing and pregnancy involved putting on one pound rather than scores and stretch marks and it didn't require any lifestyle changes and it wasn't debilitating or physically disfiguring or in the end extremely painful for hours and hours and afterwards probably damaging for life (urinary and sexual dysfunction, scar tissue in all the wrong places, stretch marks, radical loss of shape in all fatty tissue, etc) then the issue would be different.

If it was as easy physically for women to reproduce as it is physically easy for men to reproduce, the need to control reproduction would be less pressing and the issue more trivial (i mean, lol if it just meant having an orgasm and thats it, then who wouldn't give it up for adoption instead of stopping it from happening?).

This is of course, not reality and if you don't look at the real physical experience you wont get why it matters so much.

29th May 2008, 05:17

If you have two different people, and one person's right to bodily autonomy conflicts with another's right to life, the right to life must prevail.

So if my kidneys are failing, you have two and you're a match, can I take one by force?

That would seem to be the only consistent conclusion. If you say yes then you're illiberal but not a male chauvinist, if you say no than you're a profound male chauvinist for essentially thinking that bodily autonomy is only conditional for women with fetuses and not with you.

RGacky3

29th May 2008, 06:18

if you say no than you're a profound male chauvinist for essentially thinking that bodily autonomy is only conditional for women with fetuses and not with you.

Theres somewhat of a difference, one is being let die, the other is being killed.

Also its not being a male chauvinist, men and women are different, they have different anatomies, women give birth, thus that would put a different set of ethics as far as child baring goes. The same goes for men in the sense that men are stronger and thus can hurt women physically much more, which is why man on woman domestic violence is much more severe than women on man, now is that being misandrist? No its simply agnologing male/female differences.

Lector Malibu

29th May 2008, 06:35

The abortion issue is an issue that people need to emotionally detach from ethically and religiously.

Quite simply it is not one persons place to tell another person what they can do with their body.

Anti abortion views are entirely wrong on every level.

BobKKKindle$

29th May 2008, 06:41

women give birth, thus that would put a different set of ethics as far as child baring goes. The fact that women are able to give birth is not sufficient grounds for according women a different set of rights. By adopting this position, you are reducing the identity of women to their ability to give birth (or "walking baby factories" at TC would put it) instead of acknowledging women as human beings, who have the right to act in self-defense when they are faced with the imposition of harm by an external entity - this is not a right which is given on the condition of having male genitalia, it is a universal right which is applicable to all human beings.

Your example of domestic violence is not relevant - attacking someone is a violation of the victim's autonomy, regardless of the sex of the participants - even though the extent of the harm may differ, depending on the sex of the attacker.

Module

29th May 2008, 12:17

Sorry but you are cheapening it by calling the baby a parasite. I guarentee you absolutly NO woman who is considering having an abortion considers the fetus a parasite. And if they dont then you shouldnt be forcing labels onto the fetus, it is cheapening to call it a parasite.
It doesn't matter what else she may consider it, it doesn't stop a fetus from being a parasite, and neither you or me are in any position to think of it, objectively, as anything else.
As I said, it doesn't 'cheapen' it at all, because while most women will have further emotional meaning for the fetus, the point is, that it is none of anybody else's concern.
All further meaning is purely emotional, and therefore not sufficient grounds to rightly interfere with the body of another human being.

All i was attempting to say later on is that giving the discomfort of pregnancy as a reason for having an abortion and being pro choice is crap because i doubt that it is actually ever a grounds for an abortion: I doubt anyone wants to have a child then decides against it because it will be uncomfortable.You are in no position to say what reason is crap and what is not, and yes, I would not be surprised if that was a reason many women had.
Hell, it would certainly be one of my reasons if I got an abortion.

Desrumeaux (or however the fuck you spell it), i have never claimed to be in a position to say why women have abortions. Saying i said that is just crap mudslinging.You're making a judgement of the worth of women's reasons for having an abortion, for one, as well as saying that you don't think women have abortions because it's uncomfortable, which is what you just said .. in the previous paragraph.
And I will quote you again;

im sure it is not that which makes Women have abortions. Once again your cheapening the whole subject with ridiculous statements.

Marsella

29th May 2008, 12:27

I oppose abortions for several reasons.

1. A foetus is a human being.

2. Killing humans for personal reasons is murder.

3. Murder is wrong (see the Commandments).

4. There are other alternatives than killing an innocent child who one day may be the next great Marx.

5. A foetus should have a say in his/her life.

6. If we allow for abortion, next minute we will be gasing Jews or black people like Hitler.

7. Hitler is bad.

8. Mothers should be the protectors and carers of their child. Not their murderers.

9. Men force women to have abortions.

Killfacer

29th May 2008, 14:20

Bud Struggle

29th May 2008, 14:33

TomK, I know you are a reasonable fellow, so would you mind answering a few questions? (Other pro-lifers should feel free to answer too).

Fine with me! :)

You say you believe a foetus is a ful human from conception. Do you then believe that abortion very early in pregnancy is as equally as bad as abortion very late in pregnancy?

Yes. I honestly don't know when "live" begins--neither does anyone else, but my stance is that EVERY human life is important and valuable--I soo no difference between a beggar or a king of a feotus or a mother, so I can't decide who should live or who should die by rank or placement or location.

What legal sanctions (if any) would you like to see imposed should abortion be outlawed? I would like to see it outlawed as I would like to see the death penalty outlawed--and war for that matter.

If you believe that a foetus is a full human, do you still support abortion to save the mother's life? If so, what is it that makes the mother's life more important? They are both equally important, every life ie totally equal to the next, none more important than the other--so no, I'm in favor of doing whatever could be done to save both lives.

I find the last one very interesting to ask a Catholic. Most people answer that if the mother dies the baby dies too anyway, so one death is better than two, but because the abortion requires actual action to kill (which is generally not favourably regarded by Catholics), it seems to be quite complicated there.

I guess--in that extreme situation, it's better to loose one life than loose two, so MAYBE, I guess, it's OK to kill the fetus. I guess. Maybe.

But here's the real thing I'm saying: since we don't "know" for certain if a fetus is a human being and if you are right, that it isn't my position--discomforts the mother by not letting her have an abortion is she wants one. If you are wrong and a fetus is a real human being then your position kills a human child.

Personally, I rather the position of discomforting the woman before I would kill the baby as doing the least harm. I see my stance as being the more ethical.

freakazoid

29th May 2008, 14:55

I oppose abortions for several reasons.Welcome to the OI, :D I see that you have a pretty high post count and have been on this board for quite some time and haven't until now become restricted. It's a shame they do this, :(

1. A foetus is a human being.Not yet.

6. If we allow for abortion, next minute we will be gasing Jews or black people like Hitler.Jews and black people, and all the others he had killed, are all human beings, a fetus isn't yet.

9. Men force women to have abortions.While this is probably true some of the time, women also can choose themselves. Are you saying that women don't?

Jazzratt

29th May 2008, 14:57

Frakazoid: Something tells me Marsella was being sarky...

pusher robot

29th May 2008, 14:59

Quote: It's their labor and their resources
No it isn't. Its everyones labour and everyones sources. Socialism is about the benefits of the collective.

Then why is it not everyone's pregnancy? That's the fundamental contradiction I can't wrap my mind around: it's apparently held as a sacred principle of "communism" that you mustn't under any circumstances force a woman through the labor of pregnancy against her objection for the benefit of society. However, forcing men through labor of any other kind - that's perfectly fine, whatever their moral objection, so long as it's for the greater good.

Marsella

29th May 2008, 15:06

Frakazoid: Something tells me Marsella was being sarky...

I'm being serious.

I don't think I should have the right to drive, let alone abort a little Baby Jesus.

eyedrop

29th May 2008, 15:28

Abortion is more of an issue of practicality for me. Everyone should be able to have as much sex as they would like without the fear of unwanted pregnancy hanging over them. When your prevention methods fails you take an abortion so you don't have to be pregnant and have a baby. One should never really have a baby when you don't want to.

Myself as a male I prefer to have a vasektomi ( or whatever it's called) and freeze down some sperm so I can rather choose when I would like to have a baby and not let nature and chance decide for me when I'm ready to be a father. Personally I don't see why procreation and sex should be connected, procreation should rather be controlled than left by chance.

Demogorgon

29th May 2008, 16:56

I would like to see it outlawed as I would like to see the death penalty outlawed--and war for that matter. What I am asking, really, is that while outlawing the death penalty simply involves removing the power of the courts to enforce it, outlawing abortion requires the threat of legal sanction to those who carry out abortion anyway. So the question is what should be done to punish those who have or provide abortions. Should both mother and doctor be punished or just the doctor? What kind of punishment is appropriate.
But here's the real thing I'm saying: since we don't "know" for certain if a fetus is a human being and if you are right, that it isn't my position--discomforts the mother by not letting her have an abortion is she wants one. If you are wrong and a fetus is a real human being then your position kills a human child.

I find this approach a little troubling owing to the consequences attached to it. The trouble is that if we are to grant the foetus full human status in law, we have to grant it all its legal rights, rather than just the right to not be aborted. Most seriously this means that every miscarriage would have to be reported to the police and most likely an inquest held each time. I seriously doubt many people would want that, but it is what would transpire should foetuses be treated as equal to the already born.

This is why even jurisdictions that ban abortion regard abortion as considerably less serious than murder and still allow abortion in exceptional circumstances. But when they d this, they are already acknowledging that the foetus is not fully human.

Bud Struggle

29th May 2008, 17:29

What I am asking, really, is that while outlawing the death penalty simply involves removing the power of the courts to enforce it, outlawing abortion requires the threat of legal sanction to those who carry out abortion anyway. So the question is what should be done to punish those who have or provide abortions. Should both mother and doctor be punished or just the doctor? What kind of punishment is appropriate.

I understand. You are asking about the practical aspects of abortion. For the past thousand years it has been a crime to commit an abortion--and the laws and courts have done what ever they had to do to inforce the law. I rather think murder is murder when punishment is concerned. Further--it still is murder if you kill a mentally impared individual--are they fully human? I think thelaws are correct--because then we start of a slippery slope of who is "human" and who isn't. When you judge by discression rather than a simple "everyone" you run into the problem that the Southeners (of the US) when they said the black men were 3/5ths human. Mankind has spent the last 100,000 years getting to the point where we can finally agree that all people are equally human. I rather nog go backward.

I find this approach a little troubling owing to the consequences attached to it. The trouble is that if we are to grant the foetus full human status in law, we have to grant it all its legal rights, rather than just the right to not be aborted. Most seriously this means that every miscarriage would have to be reported to the police and most likely an inquest held each time. I seriously doubt many people would want that, but it is what would transpire should foetuses be treated as equal to the already born.

This is why even jurisdictions that ban abortion regard abortion as considerably less serious than murder and still allow abortion in exceptional circumstances. But when they d this, they are already acknowledging that the foetus is not fully human.

Miscarrages are a simple, though unfortunate part of regular life--I don't think there needs to be any special legal proceedures for it. Now here in the US in many places if you kill a pregnant mother you are chaged with a double homicide--so there are severe regulations about what can be done with fetal life.

As to abortion in special circumstances--I conceded that point earlier. But that is similar to the situation where Siamese twins are separated. Sometimes people die.

Jazzratt

29th May 2008, 17:30

I'm being serious.

I don't think I should have the right to drive, let alone abort a little Baby Jesus.

Any more troll posts will be deleted.

Dean

29th May 2008, 17:44

Demogorgon

29th May 2008, 18:04

I understand. You are asking about the practical aspects of abortion. For the past thousand years it has been a crime to commit an abortion--and the laws and courts have done what ever they had to do to inforce the law. I rather think murder is murder when punishment is concerned. Further--it still is murder if you kill a mentally impared individual--are they fully human? I think thelaws are correct--because then we start of a slippery slope of who is "human" and who isn't. When you judge by discression rather than a simple "everyone" you run into the problem that the Southeners (of the US) when they said the black men were 3/5ths human. Mankind has spent the last 100,000 years getting to the point where we can finally agree that all people are equally human. I rather nog go backward.

Well I think we agree fundamentally that all people need to be treated equally, but we disagree on the point where the full legal personhood should be applied. I think it should be applied at birth, you at conception.

I confess that I find it somewhat difficult to see a fertilised egg as a person. I can understand the view that personhood should be granted before birth, but conception seems to be pushing it.

Miscarrages are a simple, though unfortunate part of regular life--I don't think there needs to be any special legal proceedures for it. Now here in the US in many places if you kill a pregnant mother you are chaged with a double homicide--so there are severe regulations about what can be done with fetal life.

As to abortion in special circumstances--I conceded that point earlier. But that is similar to the situation where Siamese twins are separated. Sometimes people die.
Well the thing is that if a foetus is to be legally human, it must have its rights respected if it dies, which means there would have to be a legal procedure for it. Cot deaths in infants are also an unfortunate part of life, but we certainly go through the proper procedures with them. The point I am trying to make is that the legal consequences of saying personhood comes before birth can be very problematic.

Bud Struggle

29th May 2008, 18:15

Actually Demegorgon, we do seem to agee on the fundamentals--our differences are in the details--not that they are small things, but they are details. :)

29th May 2008, 18:32

Actually Demegorgon, we do seem to agee on the fundamentals--our differences are in the details--not that they are small things, but they are details. :)

I'm glad you agree with me that your and Demagorgon's positions are fundamentally the same, I've been arguing your line (that you an open pro-lifer and Demagorgon a closeted one are both arguing from the same perspective) for some time.

eyedrop

29th May 2008, 19:03

I'm glad you agree with me that your and Demagorgon's positions are fundamentally the same, I've been arguing your line (that you an open pro-lifer and Demagorgon a closeted one are both arguing from the same perspective) for some time.

Could you expand a bit on your opinion that Demogorgon is a closet pro lifer? Or point me to a tread where you do?

apathy maybe

29th May 2008, 19:25

Meh, these threads are boring. The same arguments repeated from both sides.
Let me interject a little bit of personal history here.

I was raised a catholic, but never really thought about the whole affair. About the time I joined this site, I became very vocal in my belief in God and, when the issue came up, that abortions were wrong. (Not that I could articulate the catholic line on the matter..., abortion is killing something that doesn't have a choice. I was absolutely fine with suicide and voluntary euthanasia, because the individuals concerned could choice to make that decision. Even then I was a bit liberalish and supported freedom.)

When I was introduced to the ideas of Peter Singer, and other philosophers on the matter of sentience, my ideas shifted, I no longer thought that all abortion was wrong. After all, the foetus could feel no pain, and we kill and hurt animals that could feel a lot more pain then something that didn't even have a nervous system. (Somewhere in there I become irreligious, and then later anti-religious, however, the two issues, god and abortion, were not related.)

I went this way a while, saying that abortions were fine up until the foetus could feel pain, at which point it wasn't all right. (Somewhere in there I became a vegetarian as well, partly influenced by Peter Singer, but mostly just on the belief that civilised beings shouldn't kill other civilised beings. So, I wasn't a real vegetarian, being willing to eat road kill (not that I ever did), or meat/meat products that were going to be discarded anyway. I dumpster dived.)

I don't remember exactly when, but it was this site again that influenced once more a change of thought. While I had read the "self-defence" argument before, I hadn't really taken it on board. However, this one time, TragicClown (who normally completely fucks up pro-abortion arguments by ranting about male chauvinists and similar), presented this argument. Basically, a women has the right to defend her self against an unwanted pregnancy, just as much as any person has the right to defend themselves against acts of aggression, both deliberate and unintentional. (Months before this, I had stopped being a vegetarian, through convenience. Personal circumstances being what they were, I stopped being a vegetarian. No I won't go into it.)

I was converted.

However, I still feel that there are distinct flaws in the pro-choice arguments when it comes to time around 9 months. Nearly everyone draws a distinct line at birth (even though there is no clear line to draw). However, such circumstances are so rare as to be unnecessary to discuss.

Bud Struggle

29th May 2008, 19:51

I'm glad you agree with me that your and Demagorgon's positions are fundamentally the same, I've been arguing your line (that you an open pro-lifer and Demagorgon a closeted one are both arguing from the same perspective) for some time.

Actually, what I and Demogoron agree on is that all human life should be treated equally. The differences are that I am more revolutionary in my stance and it seems you Communists are more reactionary. :(

Demogorgon

29th May 2008, 19:53

Could you expand a bit on your opinion that Demogorgon is a closet pro lifer? Or point me to a tread where you do?Pro-lifer is just Tragic Clown's phrase of choice for anyone she doesn't like.

Bud Struggle

29th May 2008, 20:03

While I had read the "self-defence" argument before, I hadn't really taken it on board. However, this one time, TragicClown (who normally completely fucks up pro-abortion arguments by ranting about male chauvinists and similar), presented this argument. Basically, a women has the right to defend her self against an unwanted pregnancy, just as much as any person has the right to defend themselves against acts of aggression, both deliberate and unintentional.

With all due respect--kind of a flimsey arguement for a Communist. The "unwanted" pregnancy is for the most part (exclusive of some such thing like rape,) caused by the woman's actions. To be an agressive atacker implies some sort of violent volition on the part of fetus--which isn't the case. The fetus is just behaving in the course that nature has intended when one participates in sex. It's nothing that wouldn't be expected.

There is a big difference between deliberate action on the part of an aggressor and the natural result of actions of a host. If someone comes into your house and attacks you--it is the attacker's fault. If you decide to drink and drive and get into an accident--through your own fault--you are the one that make the decision to hurt yourself. NO ONE ELSE IS TO BLAME. The same works for the fetus. It didn't set out to hurt you--it shouldn't be blamed.

eyedrop

29th May 2008, 20:05

Pro-lifer is just Tragic Clown's phrase of choice for anyone she doesn't like.

Clears things up a bit. I had some trouble myself finding some justification for that remark.

My own views on abortion closely resembles yours I think.

Tomk
With all due respect--kind of a flimsey arguement for a Communist. The "unwanted" pregnancy is for the most part (exclusive of some such thing like rape,) caused by the woman's actions. To be an agressive atacker implies some sort of violent volition on the part of fetus--which isn't the case. The fetus is just behaving in the course that nature has intended when one participates in sex. It's nothing that wouldn't be expected.
Unwanted pregnancy is just an unwanted sideffect of having sex. I don't see why one should be forced to be pregnant before one chooses to, even if one are a bit whimsy on birthprevention methods. If one forgets the pill for a week one should be punished with 9 months of pregnancy and 18 years of parenthood? Sounds a bit harsh in my taste.

Bud Struggle

29th May 2008, 20:13

Unwanted pregnancy is just an unwanted sideffect of having sex. I don't see why one should be forced to have be pregnant before one chooses to, even if one are a bit whimsy on birthprevention methods.

One could also say that workers are a side effect of having a business--one should really be able to treat them any way you desire.

That's not the case--every life should be treated with respect. And I am of the belief that a fetus is human life--just like a worker is human life.

Though there are a lot of factory owners that have the same view of workers that you Communists have of fetuses.

eyedrop

29th May 2008, 20:20

One could also say that workers are a side effect of having a business--one should really be able to treat them any way you desire. And workers wouldn't agree to that.

But that's not the case--every life should be treated with respect. And I am of the belief that a feuts is human life--just like a worker is human life.And I'm of the belief that a fetus is just a clump of flesh. Unfortunately it is kinda hard to principaly determine what is human life. We could go into a long discussion on what human life is but I can't say I'm that interested in that. I can understand your viewpoint if one starts the assumption that a fetus is human life in any meaningful form.

apathy maybe

29th May 2008, 20:27

With all due respect--kind of a flimsey arguement for a Communist. The "unwanted" pregnancy is for the most part (exclusive of some such thing like rape,) caused by the woman's actions. To be an agressive atacker implies some sort of violent volition on the part of fetus--which isn't the case. The fetus is just behaving in the course that nature has intended when one participates in sex. It's nothing that wouldn't be expected.

There is a big difference between deliberate action on the part of an aggressor and the natural result of actions of a host. If someone comes into your house and attacks you--it is the attacker's fault. If you decide to drink and drive and get into an accident--through your own fault--you are the one that make the decision to hurt yourself. NO ONE ELSE IS TO BLAME. The same works for the fetus. It didn't set out to hurt you--it shouldn't be blamed.
So, if a women is raped, she should be able to get an abortion? What if both she and her partner made conscious actions, including using various forms of pregnancy prevention, to prevent pregnancy but still she managed to get pregnant?

What if (and this has happened before), a women has had surgery to prevent her getting pregnant (tied tubes), but the doctor fucked up?

Anyway, like I said, you have the right to defend yourself against intentional actions just as much as deliberate ones. If someone is swinging a knife around while blind-folded, and you can't get out of the way, you have the right to defend yourself (by kicking or whatever). Even if the person doesn't mean to hurt you (maybe they are deaf and thus can't hear your screaming), or even know you are there.

Besides which, a foetus cannot feel pain, at least for the first few months. Is not a conscious living being. Some parrots are more intelligent then new borns (some are estimated to have the same intelligence and self awareness as five year olds! I think it is the African Grey, see for example http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg16522214.500). And you eat meat!

You rank an animal that can't even feel pain, above animals that can empathise with each other, have rudimentary speech, and are a heck of a lot more intelligent. (For further information, see http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg19826571.700-so-you-think-humans-are-unique.html )

Lector Malibu

29th May 2008, 20:43

Pro-lifer is just Tragic Clown's phrase of choice for anyone she doesn't like.

Naw , I think your just a little hurt in the pride department.

Demogorgon

29th May 2008, 20:46

There is a big difference between deliberate action on the part of an aggressor and the natural result of actions of a host. If someone comes into your house and attacks you--it is the attacker's fault. If you decide to drink and drive and get into an accident--through your own fault--you are the one that make the decision to hurt yourself. NO ONE ELSE IS TO BLAME. The same works for the fetus. It didn't set out to hurt you--it shouldn't be blamed.
I agree that the self defence argument is silly, however I do not think that it is helpful to get into discussions of blame, one way or another in these things. Plainly some people get pregnant without meaning to, whether it be because of drink, through carelessness or failed contraception. However it does not get us anywhere to start assigning blame in these cases. If somebody gets an STD we don't refuse them treatment because they got it through risky sexual behaviour.

I normally use two arguments when i wish to defend the right to abortion. The legal argument that I laid out here plus an argument that the consequences of banning abortion are often pretty unpleasant, and very often don't save many unborn lives anyway. But here is a third argument; perhaps the most important to me personally. Nobody knows the circumstances of every woman getting abortion, there are all sorts of reasons for doing so and it is rarely a decision taken lightly. I believe people have a right to human dignity and we should respect that much at least. I will not condemn the difficult choices that others have to make, regardless of my opinion on the matter. I will never have to choose whether to have an abortion or not and shall not lecture to those who do have to make the choice, nor will I look down upon them.

Bud Struggle

29th May 2008, 22:30

I agree that the self defence argument is silly, however I do not think that it is helpful to get into discussions of blame, one way or another in these things. Plainly some people get pregnant without meaning to, whether it be because of drink, through carelessness or failed contraception. However it does not get us anywhere to start assigning blame in these cases. If somebody gets an STD we don't refuse them treatment because they got it through risky sexual behaviour.

I normally use two arguments when i wish to defend the right to abortion. The legal argument that I laid out here plus an argument that the consequences of banning abortion are often pretty unpleasant, and very often don't save many unborn lives anyway. But here is a third argument; perhaps the most important to me personally. Nobody knows the circumstances of every woman getting abortion, there are all sorts of reasons for doing so and it is rarely a decision taken lightly. I believe people have a right to human dignity and we should respect that much at least. I will not condemn the difficult choices that others have to make, regardless of my opinion on the matter. I will never have to choose whether to have an abortion or not and shall not lecture to those who do have to make the choice, nor will I look down upon them.

Of course--but neither should we "blame" the fetus. The real question is larger than just the problems of the mother (with whom I do sympathize.) The real question is how we define human life and how best we can cherish each and every individual life on the planet. I think we should define human life in the very broadest sense so that no one is excluded.

The history of the human race has been one of constant exclusion and exclusivity. It's about time we change our way of thinking about every human life on the face of the earth--we really should make the world a brotherhood of man.

Wasn't it Marx who said, "the greatest good for the greatest number"?

Demogorgon

29th May 2008, 22:40

Of course--but neither should we "blame" the fetus. The real question is larger than just the problems of the mother (with whom I do sympathize.) The real question is how we define human life and how best we can cherish each and every individual life on the planet. I think we should define human life in the very broadest sense so that no one is excluded.

The history of the human race has been one of constant exclusion and exclusivity. It's about time we change our way of thinking about every human life on the face of the earth--we really should make the world a brotherhood of man.

Wasn't it Marx who said, "the greatest good for the greatest number"?It was actually Bentham who said that, but nevermind, it is certainly a nice sentiment.

Anyway as has been noted before, we share many of the same values, we simply differ on how to achieve such matters. You obviously have the best intentions in your position, as I hope I do too, but it seems we cannot reach agreement on the issue of when life begins. I understand your position, but I do not think it is legally sustainable.

As for blaming the foetus, well of course it shouldn't be blamed. Self-defence, like the silly argument that it is a parasite is quite simply a non-starter. Rather I am saying nobody should be blamed and rather we should take a compassionate and non-judgemental approach to women who wish to have abortion.

pusher robot

29th May 2008, 23:47

Anyway, like I said, you have the right to defend yourself against intentional actions just as much as deliberate ones.

What you don't have the right to do is claim self defense when you yourself created the conditions that you claim necessitated your act.

Example: you hold up a liquor store clerk with a knife. The clerk pulls out a gun so you stab him to death. Now, literally, you were in fact acting in self-defense. But your claim of self-defense would be barred because but for your initial act, the action would not have been necessary. See? What is being argued is that but for both the mother's original act of sexual intercourse, and also her failure to do anything about it at the early stages, the supposed infringement against her would not exist in the first place.

Here's another problem: proportionality. You can't kill a person because they were slapping you and legitimately claim self-defense. But pregnancy is rarely fatal, while abortion is always so. If self-defense is the real moral basis for abortion, then where is the requirement for proportionality?

freakazoid

30th May 2008, 01:37

Here's another problem: proportionality. You can't kill a person because they were slapping you and legitimately claim self-defense. But pregnancy is rarely fatal, while abortion is always so. If self-defense is the real moral basis for abortion, then where is the requirement for proportionality?

Of course if the fetus isn't a human being then it doesn't matter, because it doesn't have the same rights.

Kami

30th May 2008, 01:48

Of course if the fetus isn't a human being then it doesn't matter, because it doesn't have the same rights.
Badly phrased; of course the foetus is human. It is not, however, sentient, sapient, or a person.

Personhood and the like simply don't matter.

Let me give a hypothetical situation; you are lying in hospital, with a multitude of tubes linking you to a person in the next bed. It is thanks to this that this person continues to live.
Would you have the right to disconnect the tubes and walk away?
Of course you bloody well would. It is your body, and you have no duty to remain and keep this other being, this parasite alive, and it is an act of charity if you choose to do so.

freakazoid

30th May 2008, 02:03

Let me give a hypothetical situation; you are lying in hospital, with a multitude of tubes linking you to a person in the next bed. It is thanks to this that this person continues to live.
Would you have the right to disconnect the tubes and walk away?
Of course you bloody well would. It is your body, and you have no duty to remain and keep this other being, this parasite alive, and it is an act of charity if you choose to do so.

Isn't there some example like that about some violin player or something?

Kami

30th May 2008, 02:07

Isn't there some example like that about some violin player or something?
Yeah, that's what I was paraphrasing ^^ Would've posted the original, but I heard it in my philosophy class a couple years ago, so can't for the life of me remember the details.

Dean

30th May 2008, 02:23

Badly phrased; of course the foetus is human. It is not, however, sentient, sapient, or a person.

Personhood and the like simply don't matter.

Let me give a hypothetical situation; you are lying in hospital, with a multitude of tubes linking you to a person in the next bed. It is thanks to this that this person continues to live.
Would you have the right to disconnect the tubes and walk away?
Of course you bloody well would. It is your body, and you have no duty to remain and keep this other being, this parasite alive, and it is an act of charity if you choose to do so.

I disagree. There is a fundamental difference between a fetus and a sentient human being. I don't think personhood means much; thats just a semantic argument. I think there is a clear ethical issue of social duty at stake when it comes to the example you give, and on top of that it can be compared to the communist versus capitalist concepts of freedom, or positive and negative freedom.

The issue obviously changes when it requires a person's active input to maintain another's life. But you can't pretend that the person on life support is irrelevent. That would basically mean that a person deserves life while another doesn't simply because they have been cast into different roles in society. I find that viewpoint dangerous.

Bud Struggle

30th May 2008, 02:36

Of course if the fetus isn't a human being then it doesn't matter, because it doesn't have the same rights.

The question is: why do YOU get to say who's a human being? Why can't some Stormfront guy say Blacks aren't human? Or some factory owner say workers aren't human--they don't deserve a living wage?

When you make the definition of humanity arbitrary--anything goes.

Bud Struggle

30th May 2008, 03:11

Some parrots are more intelligent then new borns (some are estimated to have the same intelligence and self awareness as five year olds! I think it is the African Grey, see for example http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg16522214.500). And you eat meat!

Apathy, please watch this video until 1 min. 15 sec. in. It's a comment on your post.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=EwbEe4gAHJ0

:)

pusher robot

30th May 2008, 06:14

Of course if the fetus isn't a human being then it doesn't matter, because it doesn't have the same rights.

That's what I've been arguing all along - the fundamental disagreement is is the fetus a person? Or, maybe more properly, how much of a person is a fetus? (I reject the notion that "personhood" is a binary status.) That question, however, is often rejected in favor of others because there is no simple, ethically consistent or scientific answer. But, as we see, all the other questions circle back around to this one.

apathy maybe

30th May 2008, 10:12

Apathy, please watch this video until 1 min. 15 sec. in. It's a comment on your post.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=EwbEe4gAHJ0

:)

Yes, humans are animals. And parrots can be taught to have conversations, request things with perfect understanding etc. And so can chimpanzees.

You know that thing that we call "training" (dog training for example), well it is the same sort of process that is used to teach children.

Yeah so, why do you eat meat again?

Kwisatz Haderach

30th May 2008, 10:59

Then why is it not everyone's pregnancy? That's the fundamental contradiction I can't wrap my mind around: it's apparently held as a sacred principle of "communism" that you mustn't under any circumstances force a woman through the labor of pregnancy against her objection for the benefit of society. However, forcing men through labor of any other kind - that's perfectly fine, whatever their moral objection, so long as it's for the greater good.
Communism is not about forcing anyone through any kind of labour; communism is about collective property. Society doesn't get a vote on the use of your body, or your labour; society only gets a vote on the use of property.

Now, obviously, the use of property can affect, and limit, your choices about how to use your body and labour. But that is not directly comparable to banning abortion. We are not opposed to the idea that the use of property can affect, and limit, a woman's choices about a pregnancy - for instance, the availability of a certain job can affect a woman's choices about a pregnancy. We are not suggesting that a woman should have complete control over every single thing in the world that might possibly have an effect on her life - that would be absurd, not to mention unworkable because different women would have competing claims over the same objects. We are only suggesting that women have control over their bodies and labour, just like everyone should have control over their bodies and labour (but not exclusive control over productive property).

Module

30th May 2008, 11:13

i'm not claiming that we should interfere with anything, like i said i am pro choice, i am simply saying that for MOST women i doubt having an abortion is as easy as calling it a parasite and just doing it. I say most women because of the vitriolic response i got which said i thought women was stupid. Whoever wrote that clearly is stupid because i dont think the veiws of a couple of far left communist women is likely to be reflective of wider trends.
You've decided to add a 'but' to your 'pro-choice' label. I am pointing out that you saying referring to a fetus as a parasite 'cheapens' it is a blatantly stupid thing to say.
Me being a communist has nothing to do with my views on abortion so much as me being a woman who respects women as human beings has to do with my views on abortion; and simply because I am a communist does not mean I have no idea how 'regular' women think, and to be honest, I think I have a much better idea of how 'regular' women think than you do, and the pain of child birth is a genuine reason women have for not wanting a child. Imagine squeezing a softball through your pee-hole and then try telling me you don't think many women have a genuine problem with the picture of squeezing a baby through their cervix. Why the fuck do you think women scream so much when they're giving birth?
There is nothing 'cheap' about it.

I am not judging reasons given for women having an abortion.
I am simply saying that i doubt the reason put forward by you is one used very often."i dont think that the discomfort of pregnancy is a particuarly good grounds for abortion"
That is a quote from you.

What I am saying is that the reason, no matter what reason it may be, it is nobody but the woman's place to say if it's valid or not.

A woman who wants a baby is unlikely not to have it because its an unpleasant experience. an Inability to look after the baby, poor timing, rape, even just not wanting a baby are far more likely to be the reasons.So what?
It's not a case of 'how often'. It's a case of 'regardless'!
And yes, there will be women who don't want to give birth for that reason!

Killfacer

30th May 2008, 13:31

not once have i put a but on my pro choice veiws. Its up to whoever is thinking about having an abortion to choose. To simplify what i am saying because you still dont seem to be getting it:

I am criticising one of the reasons you gave as i do not think it is applicable to much of the population. Ok.

RedKnight

11th June 2008, 04:52

I used to believe that late term abortion was an unjust destruction of human life. Then I read this article. http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/5148/ P.S. I still don't think that I or anyone else should be restricted for sincerly held ethical views. The question should be "when does life begin?". Since no one should have the right to take another persons life, unnecessarily. Not even a woman. But no foetus is a person, unless it's fully developed, and has viable life.

RGacky3

11th June 2008, 15:15

Bud Struggle

11th June 2008, 23:54

Demogorgon

12th June 2008, 09:33

Just to be clear, I'm not sure if this question has been asked, but, if a man hits a pregnant woman who wants the child in the stomach and kills her child, he in no way shape or form should be responsible for murder, it must be treated the same way as if he punched a non-pregnant woman in the stomach, right? If not how do you justify it.

If so, then sure youro being consistant, but I guarantee you the mother would look at things differently.
It isn't the same as hitting a non-pregnant woman but it is not murder either.

Inducing miscarriage is obviously a severe aggravating factor, but to consider it murder would ultimately involve considering the foetus a legally independent being and that leads to undesirable consequences.

pusher robot

12th June 2008, 15:10

Demogorgon

12th June 2008, 15:20

There is an ethical problem though, with the principle that the woman can do anything whatsoever with her body and the "things" inside of it. If she fails to terminate the pregnancy, then her actions do have a huge impact on a real person. E.g., if the woman is disinclined to get an abortion but drinks heavily during the pregnancy, causing the child to be born mentally feeble. Clearly, the mother has done something that has significantly decreased the quality of life for another actual person. I think you would have to be a monster to argue that she has done nothing ethically wrong here, but the oft-cited principle of "it's her body, anything goes" does not account for this.

If you take it in the simplistic terms people here use it, you are right. However the outlook can be more sophisticated than that A woman's right to bodily autonomy can be taken to mean she has the right to decide whether to carry the pregnancy to term or not. However should she decide to have the child she also takes on the responsibility for the child. The right to bodily autonomy should be taken as the right to decide whether to abort or to take on the responsibility. There cannot, morally speaking, be an easy way out where one can decide not to abort but still inflict harm upon the foetus.