Abortion

[Pogue]

Could someone please briefly outline the pro-choice arguments for me?

[Red October]

fetuses live in a woman's body, women have the right to sovereignty and control over their own bodies.

[Pogue]

But what about all the foetus is a living thing stuff?

[Kami]

But what about all the foetus is a living thing stuff?


Despite what some here think, that's an irrelevant issue, and it's because we get stuck on that issue that there's so many pro-lifers. If we could effectively show people that doesn't matter, as I'm sure everyone here would agree, we'd move forward a lot faster.

[Trystan]

* Belief in the woman's right to choose.
* Contention that the fetus does not qualify for "personhood"; very basically, it is just a clump of cells that has only the potential to be a person.

[Hessian Peel]

Despite what some here think, that's an irrelevant issue, and it's because we get stuck on that issue that there's so many pro-lifers. If we could effectively show people that doesn't matter, as I'm sure everyone here would agree, we'd move forward a lot faster.

Agreed.

Although the majority of "Pro-Lifers" are theists and so the bulk of their arguments can be easily debunked as they rely on superstitious beliefs.

[Malakangga]

i don't agree with abortion

[Saorsa]

Um, why not? Do you not even agree for it if the woman is pregnant as a result of rape?!?

Woman's body, woman's choice. Pro-life is pro-Patriarchy.

[Chapter 24]

I am pro-choice.

For the record though, on these terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice", they're entirely misleading and they're utterly bastardized. Hopefully everyone on this board is pro-life - that is, they are for life. Not in the definition of life given by anti-choice nuts, but that you are against people, like, dying. These are terms that have been manipulated so that when a "pro-choicer" says that they are against pro-life that they're some murderous fiends who are against life itself. The same can be said about pro-choicers, that if you are not entirely pro-choice for whatever reason that you are some kind of fascist who's bent on making sure no woman ever has a choice in this matter.

I don't know. I just think that these stupid fucking terms carry no point but to make the position holder look like a "life hater"/ tyrant, depending on what position you hold. To me it's either you agree a woman has a right to sovereignty on her body, or you don't. None of this "pro-life"/"pro-choice" misleading bullshit.

[Saorsa]

I agree with you re women's sovereignty over her body, but I'd be abit cautious about the statement we oppose all people dying in general. For example, would you oppose armed struggle that results in people dying? Execution of counter-revolutionaries? I think you have to be careful about you're approach, as it can lead to pacifism. we have to find a balance between callous disregard for human life, and pacifist promotion of human life over revolutionary armed struggle.

[Chapter 24]

I agree with you re women's sovereignty over her body, but I'd be abit cautious about the statement we oppose all people dying in general. For example, would you oppose armed struggle that results in people dying? Execution of counter-revolutionaries? I think you have to be careful about you're approach, as it can lead to pacifism. we have to find a balance between callous disregard for human life, and pacifist promotion of human life over revolutionary armed struggle.

Well yes, I agree. Pacifism is awesome in theory, it's just that... everyone has to do it. And even in a "peaceful" world that's free of war and killing that does not solve any class-related struggle. I don't believe every human life is precious if that's what you mean. In fact that's never been and never will be true. What I'm saying is is that people who are on the "pro-choice" side of the line that are not "pro-life" puts an automatic image in people's head of death and murder. Which it's not. But many people do get this image in their head because of simple terms like these. Maybe these people should study up on the position if that's the case; or maybe we should just re-phrase the terminology altogether.

[Saorsa]

Yeah I agree with you on that. We shouldn't use terminology like "pro-life" when we can just as easily label them as "anti women having control of their own bodies".

[mykittyhasaboner]

But many people do get this image in their head because of simple terms like these. Maybe these people should study up on the position if that's the case; or maybe we should just re-phrase the terminology altogether.
they also get the image stuck in their head when "pro-life" protesters parade streets with giant pictures of aborted fetuses. :closedeyes:

they preach on and on about how we should "give fetuses a chance at life". but the reason why people have abortions in the first place, is because women are not ready to support a baby in a nurturing environment, so the baby would just suffer anyways.

to the OP:
basically as others have already pointed out, the government should have no place in deciding what a woman should do with her body. what if a woman was raped, and impregnated? what if a couple accidentally conceived a fetus, and cannot support the baby? basically "pro-lifers" act as if every single birth is a wonderful occasion, even when there are about 6 thousand infant mortality in the US alone, in 2007.

[Lost In Translation]

Could someone please briefly outline the pro-choice arguments for me?
Pro-choice is basically supporting abortion, and encouraging the woman's choice to end potential life. We, as the pro-choice side, believe that because the fetus resides in the woman's body, she has control over what she would like to do with it (eg. abortion and whatnot). In the case of an accidental impregnation (the partner was an ass and insisted on not using a condom), or, as some have pointed out, rape, an abortion may be the only choice left.

However, those who support pro-life must remember: it's not an easy choice for the woman carrying the fetus to make. Would you rather give birth to a child that you know has a severe birth defect, and watch him/her suffer, or would you want to wait until the time is right, then become pregnant?

In addition, a lion's share of abortions are succeeded by periods of extreme depression (not mood swings, just plain depression). The length of this depression varies, but it does happen, so the women know the consequences of getting an abortion.

[Decolonize The Left]

Arguments for 'pro-choice' i.e. pro-abortion rights:

- (Best argument) Woman's body, woman's choice.
- Until the third trimester, the 'fetus' is not that, but a clump of cells capable of replicating into any other cells. This certainly cannot quality as a person, as it could be cheetah, or a pig, or a lizard!
- Even after this point, when the fetus is called such and begins to resemble a human being, it is still a complete parasite. It feeds off the nutrients in the mother's blood stream. Hence it cannot be considered an 'individual', let alone something capable of self-recognition (a person).

So the anti-choice arguments center around the 'destruction of life.' But this is a pointless argument for the following, extremely simple reasons:
- You can't oppose abortion and support war, or the death penalty. This is a fundamentally hypocritical position to hold.
- You also can't support logging, fishing, hunting, or anything else that kills life. For this is also a hypocritical position to hold.
- Basically, you can't support life and be an pro-life supporter. Ha!

- August

[Aurelia]

The bourgeois will always be inexorably opposed to abortion because they opposed a sustainable population, ie a population which keeps pace with the resources at hand to ensure a good life. The bourgeois also oppose contraception because they desire women to have more children than they can afford, thus creating future reserves of unemployed and welfare dependent youths who are willing (before of scarce work and money) to work for less than the older worker who can be sacked.

So yes, the defense of womens rights must be a forefront of the struggle.

[Pogue]

I agree with you re women's sovereignty over her body, but I'd be abit cautious about the statement we oppose all people dying in general. For example, would you oppose armed struggle that results in people dying? Execution of counter-revolutionaries? I think you have to be careful about you're approach, as it can lead to pacifism. we have to find a balance between callous disregard for human life, and pacifist promotion of human life over revolutionary armed struggle.

Do you support the execution of counter-revolutionaries?

[Pogue]

What about cases where a woman has been irresponsible, created what some would consider to be a living thing, and then wants to have an abortion just because she does not want a baby? But she was not raped, and she is in a position financially and psychologically to raise a child, she just doesnt want too, because she is pursuing a career or something?

[Gold Against The Soul]

What about cases where a woman has been irresponsible, created what some would consider to be a living thing, and then wants to have an abortion just because she does not want a baby? But she was not raped, and she is in a position financially and psychologically to raise a child, she just doesnt want too, because she is pursuing a career or something?

There are no right or wrong reasons to have an abortion.

Another addition to the pro-choice argument: Men have control over their fertility. If there are abortion laws and therefore women do not have the same rights as men in this respect, then how can they play a full and equal role in society?

Most people now would not accept the idea that women should get paid less for equal work so why not equality too in terms of control over fertility?

[Gold Against The Soul]

Agreed.

Although the majority of "Pro-Lifers" are theists and so the bulk of their arguments can be easily debunked as they rely on superstitious beliefs.

Not anymore. Most of them now use secular scientific style arguments to try and convince people. Of course, their real agenda is what you say but they realise that they've lost that argument so instead they've moved to talking about whether or not the foetus feels pain etc. See the whole debate in the UK from a while back over the 24 weeks limit. It was scary how well the anti-abortion religious types would use secular arguments for their own ends.

[Pogue]

There are no right or wrong reasons to have an abortion.

Another addition to the pro-choice argument: Men have control over their fertility. If there are abortion laws and therefore women do not have the same rights as men in this respect, then how can they play a full and equal role in society?

Most people now would not accept the idea that women should get paid less for equal work so why not equality too in terms of control over fertility?

I don't understand what you're saying. Women can take the pill or get an injection to prevent them becoming pregnant, and they have a responsibility to ensure that a condom is used in intercourse. That responsibility is split 50-50.
I'm talking in terms of consensual sex here.

[Pogue]

Please note if I argue here, I'm playing devils advocate because I want to be 100% convinced that the pro-abortion arguments are sound, because its an issue I've always thought about and never found eays to conclude. It's just the issue of whether or not a foetus is a living thing which has bothered me. Is there any definitive proof? Could someone tell me the age at which most scientists consider it to be a living thing, a real child?
And what do comrades say to the proposal that a woman should not get an abortion, but give birth then put the child up for adoption?

[Gold Against The Soul]

I don't understand what you're saying. Women can take the pill or get an injection to prevent them becoming pregnant, and they have a responsibility to ensure that a condom is used in intercourse. That responsibility is split 50-50.
I'm talking in terms of consensual sex here.

But if there are abortion laws and all of the above fails (and they often do. Contraception has improved, but is still fallible), what then? The option has to be there as a back up to birth control. Otherwise if a women HAS to go through with an unwanted pregnancy then they're denied the same opportunity to participate in society in the way that men do.

[Gold Against The Soul]

And what do comrades say to the proposal that a woman should not get an abortion, but give birth then put the child up for adoption?

It's down to them. Bottom line is that we all surely value autonomy over our bodies? There are no laws for example that say that if your child is dying and badly needs the kidney of a parent to survive, the parent MUST agree to transplantation. People would object strongly to that because they understand that it is down to the person in question to do what they want with regards to their body.

Some might think it is morally wrong for a parent not to consent to the kidney being used in this circumstance when their child might die without the organ but morals don't come into it. It is the same with abortion. Some people may think it's morally wrong. Fine. No one is forcing anyone to have an abortion if you don't want one. What I can't understand is why that can't accept the same right for someone who doesn't think its morally wrong and decides to have one?

[Sam_b]

Women can take the pill or get an injection to prevent them becoming pregnant, and they have a responsibility to ensure that a condom is used in intercourse. That responsibility is split 50-50.

Its a man's responsibility to ensure that a condom is used.

Are you saying that if a woman gets pregnant its her own fault?

[superiority]

It's just the issue of whether or not a foetus is a living thing which has bothered me.

That really shouldn't be the issue. It is entirely irrelevant to the issue of whether a woman should have control over her own body.


Is there any definitive proof? Could someone tell me the age at which most scientists consider it to be a living thing, a real child?

There's no clear line, but I believe it's somewhere around the end of the second trimester. Although this is of course irrelevant to the issue of abortion.


And what do comrades say to the proposal that a woman should not get an abortion, but give birth then put the child up for adoption?

I for one say that a woman should not be forced to carry a baby or babies for nine months if she does not want to.

[Saorsa]

Do you support the execution of counter-revolutionaries?


Yes. Don't you? And if not, why not? Also, if not, why is you're avatar the flag of the POUM, a Spanish Marxist organisation that executed counter-revolutionaries?

The issue can be boiled down to the question of whether or not women should have control over their own bodies. If you oppose free, no-questions-asked abortion, then you are opposed to this.

[KC]

Its a man's responsibility to ensure that a condom is used.

Actually, it's both of their responsibility. Why would you say it's just the man's fault? It takes (at least) two people to have sex.

[Black Dagger]

What about cases where a woman has been irresponsible, created what some would consider to be a living thing, and then wants to have an abortion just because she does not want a baby?

The reason why someone is pregnant is not really important - what's important is what they want to do, if anything, about the situation. It's their body and thus their choice what happens right? Should some just have their freedom taken away arbitrarily?

In this case and in all cases the wishes of the woman in question is paramount - there is no alternative which is consistent with communist philosophy. We advocate freedom for all, but not the 'freedom' to take away the freedom of another. As a communist i reject the coercion inherent (amongst other things) in an anti-choice position.



But she was not raped, and she is in a position financially and psychologically to raise a child, she just doesnt want too, because she is pursuing a career or something?

If she has no problem with getting an abortion, and doesn't want to be pregnant then she'll probably get an abortion... what else is their to do? If someone doesn't want to be pregnant, for whatever reason, they should not be forced to be - don't you think?

I don't understand what you're saying. Women can take the pill or get an injection to prevent them becoming pregnant, and they have a responsibility to ensure that a condom is used in intercourse. That responsibility is split 50-50.
I'm talking in terms of consensual sex here.

If the responsibility is split 50-50, why is it a womans responsibility to ensure that a condom is used?




It's just the issue of whether or not a foetus is a living thing which has bothered me. Is there any definitive proof? Could someone tell me the age at which most scientists consider it to be a living thing, a real child?

Why does it matter? Even if a fetus is a living thing? That doesn't mean its life has to be preserved to the detriment of another persons life.



And what do comrades say to the proposal that a woman should not get an abortion, but give birth then put the child up for adoption?

I would say that's ridiculous.

That argument says that once women are pregnant they lose full control over their body - that they are obligated to sacrifice significant aspects of their freedom, some control over their lives (which in capitalism doesn't equate to a whole lot). Why? Because you can't harm one of 'gods precious infants'.

A fetus is a living thing, its life must be preserved at all costs (do you think all human life is sacred?).

But given that its continued existance depends on remaining in the 'womb' its 'life' can only be protected by taking away the basic freedom of someone else. You can't kill a fetus - it's a human being... so once you're pregnant you've entered a sacred contract that cannot be broken. All human life must be protected, killing is wrong!

What that argument really says is that women must be incubators or they are murderers.

Pregnancy is not an easy task, and for a woman to be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term is a massive disruption to their life. It means nine months of discomfort, potential loss of income/job, relationship breakdown, loss of dignity (being reduced to a slave 'breeder'), and ultimately the pain of childbirth - and for what?

Because some people think that it is the role of women to be child-bearers and that women should have no say in the matter? Hooray! Take that women! That unborn fetus has greater decision making power than you! Can't you see how patriarchal that is?

That once you're pregnant the fetus should have in effect exclusive or predominant ownership of your body - it's gotta come first. So if you get pregnant and you don't want to be, it's too bad - the fetus is your new boss and you've just gotta shut up and put in work.

No one should have control over their own body taken away from them, that is anti-thetical to communism.

[RHIZOMES]

The women should have the choice over what to do with her own body. Restricting that means you are oppressing 50% of the population. Which is probably not good. :rolleyes:

And imagine what a healthy and happy society we'd have if we littered the world with shitloads of unwanted children and unwilling mothers.