pro-life =restricted?

[danyboy27]

how come a pro life person can be moved into the restricted section?

i dont think that being pro life is being anti-communist...
after all, in a communist society, people would not need has much arbortion, due to the factor that the baby need will be covered by society.

i am not a pro life myself, but never found anything wrong into those peoples

[comrade stalin guevara]

yeah its stupid,
tells you there aint any real commies in the cc

[Lector Malibu]

Well simply it's a matter of it is not our choice to decide what a woman can do with her body. Really it is not. It's actually a very solid form of sexism. Therefore since communism seeks to end these issues of sexism condoning them is in fact an Oposing Ideology.

[Bud Struggle]

You can disagree on twenty ways to have Communism--you don't even have to be a real Communist to be on Rev-Left but say one word against Abortion and your are Restricted.

It's the RevLeft version of Reformism. Marx never said you have to be pro Abortion, neither did Lenin or Trotsky.

RevLeft says it.

[comrade stalin guevara]

Revleft re writing the manifesto,
honestly its so stupid.

[Lector Malibu]

Revleft re writing the manifesto,
honestly its so stupid.

Do communist stand for sexism Yes or No?

Is controlling a womans right to chose sexist Yes or No ?

[Bud Struggle]

Do communist stand for sexism Yes or No?

Is controlling a womens right to chose sexist Yes or No ?

Did Marx think it was an issue? Yes or No?

Has it ever been discussed in any Interernational Yes or No?

Trotsky make it a condition of communism Yes or No?

Something RevLeft decided to do on it's own? Yes or No?

Revisionist. It panders to the Liberals.

[danyboy27]

a pro life can be against arbortion without forcing other to be against arbortion.

there is different level in all kind of faith

[Kami]

Revleft re writing the manifesto,
honestly its so stupid.


Yeah, its aweful. We should acccept sexism - nay, embrace it! Women having control over their own bodies? Feminazi nonsense!

What does it matter if we rewrite the manifesto? Material conditions change. This isn't a religion, we have no holy books. No one is exempt from being wrong, and nothing is exempt from change. Dogmatists are just fools who will be left behind.

[534634634265]

i think the problem here isn't that people are conservative christians or sexists, merely that they see restricting people due to their opinions as a fairly uncommunist trait. i would agree with that analysis. we should do away with restrictions in general.

[comrade stalin guevara]

Im not saying sexisim is good, never
im pro choice,
i just people should not be banned for such a little thing
in the hole communist issue,
ive heard/seen white people here on revleft
say/write nigga do they get banned for racisim?

[Kami]

i just people should not be banned for such a little thing
They're not.

ive heard/seen white people here on revleft
say/write nigga do they get banned for racisim?
Words are only racist in context. If something racist comes up, then it's discussed in the CC, and if they indeed are racist, they are restricted or banned. If not, they aren't.

[Lector Malibu]

Did Marx think it was an issue? Yes or No?

Why should he have? or anyone else for that matter ? The God fearing folks don't like it though. Do they Tom?:)


Has it ever been discussed in any Interernational Yes or No?

International what Tom?


Trotsky make it a condition of communism Yes or No?Trotsky was more interested in being boring Tom. Actually the Trots are some of the most outspoken abortion (at any trimester) members on the board. From what I've seen.


Something RevLeft decided to do on it's own? Yes or No?Combat sexism? Well I don't think were originators of this issue actually Tom. We do however not slack on it though...


Revisionist. It panders to the Liberals.Try and look at it as not tolerating sexism. It will help you not to give it inapplicable labels.

[comrade stalin guevara]

They're not.

Words are only racist in context. If something racist comes up, then it's discussed in the CC, and if they indeed are racist, they are restricted or banned. If not, they aren't.


If people are not restricted for it why is
my comrade Socialist 18 restricted?

[Bud Struggle]

Combat sexism? Well I don't think were originators of this issue actually Tom. We do however not slack on it though...

Try and look at it as not tolerating sexism. It will help you not to give it inapplicable labels.

It is the one area that RevLeft is actually revolutionary than just being ideologica and historical.

And while the Liberals actually led the charge for Abortion, Communists soon followed 50 years later.

[Kami]

If people are not restricted for it why is
my comrade Socialist 18 restricted?
not what you asked:

i just people should not be banned for such a little thing

[Lector Malibu]

If people are not restricted for it why is
my comrade Socialist 18 restricted?

Because you're friend holds views on the issue that are off. Let me explain. Socialist 18 feels that abortions are the result of people being irresponsible. Well that is what called a straw ma argument. The point is regardless of the reasons for the abortion as they very, it's not up for us to decide in the matter.

That is where Socialist 18 is off and why in addition to other concerns is restricted.

A women who choses to have an abortion is not acting irresponsible.

[comrade stalin guevara]

not what you asked:


Yes sorry wrong words.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

It is the one area that RevLeft is actually revolutionary than just being ideologica and historical.

And while the Liberals actually led the charge for Abortion, Communists soon followed 50 years later.

Anarchists like Emma Goldman were screaming for reproductive freedom before women had the right to vote you stupidface.

[danyboy27]

Because you're friend holds views on the issue that are off. Let me explain. Socialist 18 feels that abortions are the result of people being irresponsible. Well that is what called a straw ma argument. The point is regardless of the reasons for the abortion as they very, it's not up for us to decide in the matter.

That is where Socialist 18 is off and why in addition to other concerns is restricted.

A women who choses to have an abortion is not acting irresponsible.

some are acting irresponsably.

i think a healthy number of people that got arbortion have good reason, but i know some people that been arborted just beccause they didnt feel in the mood to take the pills.

[Chapter 24]

It is the one area that RevLeft is actually revolutionary than just being ideologica and historical.

And while the Liberals actually led the charge for Abortion, Communists soon followed 50 years later.

What do you mean that the Communists "soon followed"? Lenin legalized abortions in the Soviet Union in 1920. Wasn't the USSR what cappies call the "first communist country"? :rolleyes: If you haven't heard any communists advocating for abortion that is because, well... the media is kind of hesitant on letting communists have a voice. At all.

[Lector Malibu]

It is the one area that RevLeft is actually revolutionary than just being ideologica and historical.

And while the Liberals actually led the charge for Abortion, Communists soon followed 50 years later.

Communist have always supported equality Tom on several levels. And the reality is that the needs of the people change Tom. There has to be some flexibility.

It's not revisionism if anything it's staying current on newer front Tom.

[Lector Malibu]

some are acting irresponsably.
i think a healthy number of people that got arbortion have good reason, but i know some people that been arborted just beccause they didnt feel in the mood to take the pills.

And what I'm saying is "some" does not make a whole so that is what a straw man means.

Look It's not our bodies plain and simple. It's not negotiable nor should be.

How would you like it if I made it illegal to masturbate or get a hand job as I felt it was a waste of sperms life and vitality.

Yes people have tried this :lol: but do you see my point ?? I 've got no business telling you what you can do personally concerning you're body.

Same thing with abortion flat out.

[spartan]

People can be against abortion but dont feel the need to stop people from having them or oulawing the practice.

Some politicians are christians (Tony Blair comes to mind) and have actually introduced legislation to expand abortion services and allow you to have them later on in the pregnancy despite the fact that it is technically against their religious beliefs!

I personally wouldn't shun anyone who is against abortion as there are alot of working class people who hold very conservative views concerning things like abortion, and coming out saying stuff like "all those against abortion aren't welcome" etc will just disalushion working class people with leftist politics and drive them into the hands of far-right populist parties who combine socialist rhetoric on economic matters and conservative rhetoric on personal and social matters (to great effect i might add as well) which appeals to alot of working class people.

I am not saying that we should compromise our beliefs or anything but constantly coming out with unpopular subjects isn't going to attract us alot of supporters which is necessary for the revolution.

We should leave this kind of stuff for the right people at the right time and stop having such a black and white view on things in public which disaffects alot of people preventing us from receiving lots of support.

The trouble with alot of leftists is that they have this condescending attitude of "we are right and you are wrong" towards people who dont agree with absolutely everything they belief in and this is wrong and actually quite damaging to the movement as a whole as it scares off potential leftists who may be taught why there beliefs on certain issues may be wrong (people learn through being educated not shunned).

And before someone comes in accusing me of being anti-choice (honestly it's a given on this forum sometimes) let me tell you that i am pro-choice and would allow a woman to have an abortion at whatever stage of the pregnancy if that is what she wishes.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

I am pro-choice, but as for my views on whether or not pro-lifers should be restricted, see this thread: http://www.revleft.com/vb/abortion-human-rights-t75849/index.html

Quite an interesting discussion.

[danyboy27]

And what I'm saying is "some" does not make a whole so that is what a straw man means.

Look It's not our bodies plain and simple. It's not negotiable nor should be.

How would you like it if I made it illegal to masturbate or get a hand job as I felt it was a waste of sperms life and vitality.

Yes people have tried this :lol: but do you see my point ?? I 've got no business telling you what you can do personally concerning you're body.

Same thing with abortion flat out.

i understand your point, but still, when someone tel he pro-life it dosnt necessarly mean he want to force other of not having a arbortion, he just think its immoral to arbort.

not all pro life are the sames, the same goes for communists.

that was my point, basicly

[Lector Malibu]

Come on guys it's not like people don't make the effort to explain this issue and all Restricted people are not silenced. And some make it off restriction. Bottom line is that is entirely a black and white issue. Either you support a womans own choice or you do not.

[Lector Malibu]

i understand your point, but still, when someone tel he pro-life it dosnt necessarly mean he want to force other of not having a arbortion, he just think its immoral to arbort.

not all pro life are the sames, the same goes for communists.

that was my point, basicly

An immortality that has been handed down by dogmatic morality imposed by the church.

The church does not like lot's of things. That does not make those things immoral.

If you're pro -life that is what you are isn't it ?:lol: Why are some abortions okay and others not?

[freakazoid]

despite the fact that it is technically against their religious beliefs!

Actaully it isn't, :)


That does not make those things immoral.

Not everyone bases there beliefs off of what the church believes. Some people actually think it is killing a living being with rights and therefore shouldn't be done. Whether or not it is correct for them to believe that, that is what they believe. To simply think that they do it because they somehow want to restrict a womans rights is idiotic.


Why are some abortions okay and others not?

Some people think that it is a human being with rights at different stages.

[Lector Malibu]

FreakyTo simply think that they do it because they somehow want to restrict a womans rights is idiotic.

I did not say that. I'm saying that it is sexist whether it is realized or not.


Some people think that it is a human being with rights at different stages.Ultimately it's part of a womans body. Therefore it belongs to her as she made it.

[spartan]

Bottom line is that is entirely a black and white issue. Either you support a womans own choice or you do not.

You can be against abortion but that doesn't mean that you are automatically in favour of forcing pregnant women to have babies.

Some people find both aborting a fetus and forcing someone to do something against their wishes to be immoral.

Thus it isn't a black and white issue as there are some shades of grey inbetween.

Personally i wouldn't shun those who are against abortion as this is unconstructive. What should be done is having open debates with these people where you can teach them why there position is wrong and you never know they might just change their minds!

[freakazoid]

I did not say that. I'm saying that it is sexist whether it is realized or not.

It would only be sexist if the fetus isn't a human being with rights, and they believe that it is. Therefore they do not believe that they are violating any rights of the woman.


Ultimately it's part of a womans body. Therefore it belongs to her as she made it.

True, and this should be explained to them, but they shouldn't be restricted. Especially if they don't even believe it should be outlawed. How exactly are they being sexist when they still think that the woman should still be able to have an abortion?

Also, what is the purpose of restricting someone. Is it to keep them from trolling other threads or is it to punish someone for what they believe?

[freakazoid]

What should be done is having open debates with these people where you can teach them why there position is wrong and you never know that might just change their minds!

Yes, by restricting them you automatically put them in the defensive. Plus you create an atmosphere that is hostile to open debate because you create a fear that if you say something wrong you will automatically be restricted. Or if you even hint at possibly believing in something that is a restrictive offense you are automatically restricted without even being asked to clarify.

[danyboy27]

An immortality that has been handed down by dogmatic morality imposed by the church.

The church does not like lot's of things. That does not make those things immoral.

If you're pro -life that is what you are isn't it ?:lol: Why are some abortions okay and others not?

humm.. i am not pro life...i am pro choice has a matter of fact.
also, not all pro life are god fearing peoples.
you know, this is this kind of broad generalisation that lead to bad thing in that world, you know, putting everyone in the same basket.

[Lector Malibu]

You can be against abortion but that doesn't mean that you are automatically in favour of forcing pregnant women to have babies.

Some people find both aborting a fetus and forcing someone to do something against their wishes to be immoral.

Thus it isn't a black and white issue as there are some shades of grey inbetween.

Personally i wouldn't shun those who are against abortion as this is unconstructive. What should be done is having open debates with these people where you can teach them why there position is wrong and you never know that might just change their minds!


What do you think OI is? :lol: How are these debates not open?

[chimx]

Ultimately it's part of a womans body. Therefore it belongs to her as she made it.

From a biological point of view, I doubt many would say a fetus is "part of a woman's body" in the same sense as her appendix or small intestine.

Nor does "making it" imply a right of belonging.

These strike me as very poor reasons for opposing pro-lifers.

[Lector Malibu]

It would only be sexist if the fetus isn't a human being with rights, and they believe that it is. Therefore they do not believe that they are violating any rights of the woman.

The fetus is a parasite that depends on the woman for survival. Since a fetus can not survive on it's own outside of the womb and cannot be classed as a separate entity with rights. The fetus is a part of a womans body with a parasitic relation. Therefore the woman can decide what ever in regards to aborting and that is why limiting this choice is sexist.


True, and this should be explained to them, but they shouldn't be restricted. Especially if they don't even believe it should be outlawed. How exactly are they being sexist when they still think that the woman should still be able to have an abortion?

Because there should be no stipulations placed on it as it is not there choice. Personally I'm pro choice for all trimesters.


Also, what is the purpose of restricting someone. Is it to keep them from trolling other threads or is it to punish someone for what they believe?

How are they being punished exactly? How have we silenced them?

[Lector Malibu]

From a biological point of view, I doubt many would say a fetus is "part of a woman's body" in the same sense as her appendix or small intestine.

Nor does "making it" imply a right of belonging.

These strike me as very poor reasons for opposing pro-lifers.

Is it yours than? In what capacity does a man have a right to force a woman to have a baby?

[chimx]

How are they being punished exactly?

It limits their access to this site which consequentially limits the ability to engage in political discussions.


Is it yours than?

Nope.

[Lector Malibu]

humm.. i am not pro life...i am pro choice has a matter of fact.
also, not all pro life are god fearing peoples.
you know, this is this kind of broad generalisation that lead to bad thing in that world, you know, putting everyone in the same basket.

I'm ripping on Tom,, chillax.:lol: And it is also safe to say that the vast majority of pressure to end abortion stems to a sense of "human morality" often inline with well you know...

[Lector Malibu]

It limits their access to this site which consequentially limits the ability to engage in political discussions.

Can they not have political discussions here in OI?


Nope.

Than who's is it? The State's? God's? Who does the fetus belong too?

[freakazoid]

The fetus is a parasite that depends on the woman for survival. Since a fetus can not survive on it's own outside of the womb and cannot be classed as a separate entity with rights. The fetus is a part of a womans body with a parasitic relation.

I'm not saying I don't disagree with you on this.


How are they being punished exactly? How have we silenced them?

By not allowing them to post about topics outside of OI in here. And if you try to post on something outside of OI your threads gets closed and trashcanned, :cursing:


In what capacity does a man have a right to force a woman to have a baby?

I would say ever since this, http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=5302756&page=1 :laugh:

[Lector Malibu]

I'm not saying I don't disagree with you on this.

Okay than.


By not allowing them to post about topics outside of OI in here. And if you try to post on something outside of OI your threads gets closed and trashcanned, :cursing:

Well yes. This is a website for left wing discussion and networking. Revleft is not the home of allowing sexism and tolerance towards non leftwing views. There are other boards you know:lol: Where anything goes. Really though I think they are being treated well up here though. They can talk about whatever and make threads and whatever. How is that so unfair :lol:


I would say ever since this, http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=5302756&page=1 :laugh:

Very funny but no dice:lol:

[Socialist18]

Because you're friend holds views on the issue that are off. Let me explain. Socialist 18 feels that abortions are the result of people being irresponsible. Well that is what called a straw ma argument. The point is regardless of the reasons for the abortion as they very, it's not up for us to decide in the matter.

That is where Socialist 18 is off and why in addition to other concerns is restricted.
irresponsible.

Not true, I said I agree with abortions and women can have them when ever they like.period!

I also said IF people used contraception the amount of abortions would be reduced, hence no pain involved for the woman.

I never said I didn't agree with it, I've explained myself tons but you and some others refuse to acknowledge it and no matter how many times I say I'm pro choice you lot keep saying I am anti choice.

[freakazoid]

They can talk about whatever and make threads and whatever. How is that so unfair

Actually you can't. I had two of my threads locked and trashed. One was about information on those groups that patroll the border, although that one was eventually unlocked. I don't remember what the other one was about.


Revleft is not the home of allowing sexism and tolerance towards non leftwing views.

The sad thing is is that not everyone that is restricted is either sexist or holds non-leftwing views.


Very funny but no dicehttp://www.revleft.com/vb/pro-life-restricted-t85689/revleft/smilies2/laugh.gif

Darn, I was hoping that would allow me to oppress women. :lol:

[Winter]

Commie #1: "Ah yes, finally after all these years it is time to unleash the revolution upon our oppressive imperialist nation! Who's with me?"

Commie #2: "Me! Marx is the greatest man ever to walk the Earth! Let's show the bourgeois that we mean business, comrade!"

Commie #1: "Wait, before we revolt...are you pro-life?"

Commie #2: "Uhm, personally I am, but I don't mind if other people do it, I -"

Commie #1: "-Nevermind! I cannot revolt with you!" :rolleyes:

Commie #2: "Wtf!?" :crying:

[Lector Malibu]

Not true, I said I agree with abortions and women can have them when ever they like.period!

Um no you did not. Your words:


I only agree with abortion in the case of a rape. If a man and a woman are responsible enough to fuck then they are responsible enough to care for the child they created. If they don't want children then they should use a preventative.
Its as simple as that in my book as we must each be responsible for our own actions.


I also said IF people used contraception the amount of abortions would be reduced, hence no pain involved for the woman.Well no you didn't. Read you're own words again


By responsible I mean taking responsibility for all your actions. Don't do shit without thinking, use your head, think about shit. Ya know?!?!
This is NOT about whether she has the right or not as we've already established she has. Its about taking preventative measures in an attempt to prevent unwanted side effects of fucking.
If you know you don't want something to take place you do all you can to prevent it, you don't just dive in head first and think "oh well, theres a cure" that would be being a dumb ass human.


I never said I didn't agree with it, I've explained myself tons but you and some others refuse to acknowledge it and no matter how many times I say I'm pro choice you lot keep saying I am anti choice.I think you've touched quite a bit actually since you're arrival and none of it sits well with me. I think you're stance on abortion is chauvinist and is not really pro choice as you claim.

And as I said from day one you're argument is a straw man.

[Socialist18]

In the quote of my post you just posted I clearly say she has the right, so why do you continue to say otherwise?!?!?


This is NOT about whether she has the right or not as we've already established she has.So what? I advocate people being responsible, whats the big deal with that.

You can believe what you like, I couldn't care less but stop posting lies on the forum about me.

If I say I'm pro choice then I'm pro fucking choice, right!

[Lector Malibu]

Actually you can't. I had two of my threads locked and trashed. One was about information on those groups that patroll the border, although that one was eventually unlocked. I don't remember what the other one was about.

Just for no reason???


The sad thing is is that not everyone that is restricted is either sexist or holds non-leftwing views.

Than why are they restricted? I know you think it's a result of authoritarian rule , but what else could it be I wonder?:lol:




Darn, I was hoping that would allow me to oppress women. :lol:

So freaky tell me are ya getting a little homesick up here?

[Lector Malibu]

So what? I advocate people being responsible, whats the big deal with that.

You can believe what you like, I couldn't care less but stop posting lies on the forum about me.

If I say I'm pro choice then I'm pro fucking choice, right!

Those where your quotes or was someone else typing for you?

[Socialist18]

Read my last post again, or are you so fucking dumb you cant read when I say "I'm pro choice" over and over again!?!?!

[Lector Malibu]

Read my last post again, or are you so fucking dumb you cant read when I say "I'm pro choice" over and over again!?!?!

Yeah and you have stipulations attached to that so not really? :lol: Sorry but I get yelled at all the time doesn't phase me. You're gonna have try harder at being internet tough.:lol:

[Socialist18]

You seem to have problems understanding me, it seems you have some sort of mental problem.

Ok, I'll make it simple and ask you to interpret this: (note, theres no conditions)

I'm pro choice, I think women can have abortions under ANY circumstances if thats what they want to do, I don't think its anyone else's business what they do.

[freakazoid]

Just for no reason???

Pretty much, it was NoXion who closed them, and Jazzratt didn't care. He said I was "getting around my restriction." :rolleyes: Jazzratt basically told me to stop whining about them being closed and that he agreed with NoXions decision. Eventually Jazzratt reopened the one about the border patrol saying that it did have usefull information, :rolleyes: I believe the real reason is because I have been able to be a Christian and an anarchist, and see no conflict between the two, and they don't like that.


Than why are they restricted?

I was restricted for being a supposed "pro-lifer". After many many months, they finally got it through there heads that I really wasn't.

[Lector Malibu]

You seem to have problems understanding me, it seems you have some sort of mental problem.

Really? I think I understood you loud and clear. You're still not getting the whole internet tough thing down though..:lol:

Your words:


I agree with abortion in certain cases, like accidents and rape. I just wouldn't like to think people are taking advantage of it and doing it as a first line of defense though.
I also never said a woman doesn't have the right,of course she does.

Yes you have said that you think a woman has a right and you have also said there are stipulations on that right. How about just pro choice period?


Ok, I'll make it simple and ask you to interpret this: (note, theres no conditions)Actually I did not find that quote..

[Socialist18]

If only the could get it thru their heads that I'm not anti choice.

In my first few posts here I thought i agreed with "conditional abortion", I admit that, but after some thought I realized it made no difference really, abortions abortion and you either agree with it or not.

[Lector Malibu]

If only the could get it thru their heads that I'm not anti choice.

In my first few posts here I thought i agreed with "conditional abortion", I admit that, but after some thought I realized it made no difference really, abortions abortion and you either agree with it or not.


Well i'll tell you what. Keep working on that and learning about this issue and why it is important to support and I will be more that happy to recant my vote when the time deems right.

[Socialist18]

I know its important to support, I don't need to work on anything.

[Lector Malibu]

I know its important to support, I don't need to work on anything.

:lol: You want the last word? Okay have it. Because the last word is the most important thing in the whole world you know.

[BobKKKindle$]

Socialists support access to abortion at all stages of pregnancy. If women are unable to exercise control over their fertility, they are unable to participate in public life on an equal basis with men, and are also unable to enjoy the same degree of freedom in their sexual relations, because they face the danger of getting pregnancy and not being able to do anything about it. Abortion is not some kind if peripheral issue which is of minor importance compares to other issues which are often the subject of discussion between socialists - it is a central issue for millions of women around the world who are currently forced to undergo the risks of abortions performed in unsafe conditions by people who lack the required qualifications, or give birth when they would rather terminate the pregnancy, and so any socialist who rejects or fails to uphold the right to abortion will never be able to gain the support of female workers.

In many liberal-democratic countries, access to abortion at an early stage is a right which is now accepted, but legal restrictions which prevent access to abortion at a late stage still exist. Although late-term abortions account for only a small proportion of all the abortions that actually occur, the women who need to have abortions at this late stage of pregnancy comprise a vulnerable group, as they are often unable to have an abortion at an earlier stage due to needs which are specific to individual women - for example, women may not be able to recognize that they have become pregnant due to trauma arising from rape, or because they have confused pregnancy with the symptoms of the menopause.

[freakazoid]

You want the last word? Okay have it. Because the last word is the most important thing in the whole world you know.

NO! I shall have the last word, I am awesome, :D

Woooo...
/me runs around in a circle with his hands raised victoriously in the air.







.....:laugh:

[Socialismo_Libertario]

I am pro-choice in the sense that I would respect and defend the choice of an individual. However my personal opinion stands against abortion. why ? I include an article writen by a professor called Carl Estabrook. It's titled "abortion and the left":



There is no orthodoxy more firmly fixed on the American political landscape than that opposition to abortion belongs on the Right, while "defense of abortion rights" is the linchpin of the Left. But a consideration of what Left and Right mean suggests that the conjunction may be accidental and only temporary.

It's a commonplace that the distinction between Left and Right is fraught with ambiguity. (When the Democratic party is spoken of as on the Left, it's gotten pretty silly.) And it's also generally accepted that the terminology arose from the seating arrangements in the French National Assembly of 1789.

But if we want a consistent usage for the Left/Right distinction, we might think of political parties ranged along a line according to how authoritarian or democratic they are. The further Right one goes, the more authoritarian the parties, and the further Left, the more democratic. (At the far Left end are the socialists, who want not just a democratic polity but a democratic economy as well -- investment decisions made not by corporations but by elections.)

Lenin's Bolsheviks, then, must be seen as a right-wing Marxist party, as must all twentieth century communist parties in the Marxist-Leninist tradition, owing to their authoritarianism And they were indeed so described by left-wing Marxists like Rosa Luxemburg and Anton Pannekoek.

The commitment to democracy and an ever-widening franchise means that it has been the Left under this definition that has called attention to marginalized groups in the modern West. The historic task of the Left has been to include in political and civil society groups formerly excluded on the grounds that their full humanity was denied -- e.g., Africans, Amerindians, and women.

Most arguments that hold abortion to be an ethically-acceptable choice depend on the assertion that a fetus is not a fully human person, and therefore the rules about killing human beings (e.g., that killing can be justified in cases of self-defense) simply don't apply to the argument. (It's true that some recent defenses of abortion have begun from the premise that abortion means killing a human being: as the defender of civil liberties Nat Hentoff puts it, it's finally hard to deny that "it's a baby.") Physical dependency -- the fact that the fetus depends on its mother's body -- is often, curiously enough, alleged as an indication of the less-than-full humanity of the unborn.

If the Left continues to draw out the implication of its principles, it will discover the marginalization of the unborn and unwanted as for example it discovered the marginalization of women in the first and second waves of feminism in the 19th and 20th centuries. And it's reasonable to suspect that the discovery will take as long and involve as many contradictions as that concerning women did -- and does.

There are of course groups on the political Left who have drawn this conclusion. Elizabeth Cady Stanton wrote to Julia Ward Howe in 1873, "When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit." Emma Goldman thought that abortion was an index of the general immiseration of the working class, and the suffragist Alice Paul spoke of it as "the ultimate exploitation of women."

Contemporary groups with similar positions include the Seamless Garment Network, which organizes against war, the death penalty, and violence against women -- within which they include abortion. A Feminists for Life group was expelled from NOW for deviance on this issue, and there are a number of religious-based radical groups that are anti-abortion, such as that associated with the late Philip Berrigan, the anti-nuclear direct-action group, Plowshares.
But it's not just that the Left should oppose abortion if it is understood as it has wished to be for more than two centuries, as proposing the increasing democratization of human life. It should also do so because much of the thinking that leads to the position that abortion is generally acceptable depends upon a capitalist view of ownership, against which the Left is properly critical.

That the Left is opposed to capitalism should go without saying, although it's a bit abstractly theoretical. The Left stands for real democracy, and capitalism is fundamentally contradictory to democracy. (Democracy at a minimum presumes one person/one vote, but capitalism depends upon inequality, based on how much wealth one controls.) Of course what the Left confronts today is hardly capitalism (as its right-wing promoters and Ayn-Randists like Alan Greenspan should be the first to point out), but "state-subsidized and protected private power centers -- internally tyrannical, unaccountable to the public, [and] granted extraordinary rights by US courts in radical violation of classical liberal ideals," in Noam Chomsky's words.

But theory is always the last to know. Even though capitalism doesn't exist, our general view of society is no other than the ghost of deceased capitalism, sitting crowned upon the grave thereof. (It's happened before: arguments drawn from pre-capitalist societies, notably feudalism, still underlie much of the common law.) And ownership is surrounded with mystification in our understanding, because the modern ruling class is made up of those who claim to have this peculiar relationship to the means of production - they "own" them -- rather than consisting of warriors, as in the feudal society, or drivers of slaves, as in the ancient world. And those who don't control productive property in our society are even spoken of by a massively misleading analogy as "owning" their own labor (which they must sell).

Abortion is among other things a matter of political economy. Practically all of my friends who've had abortions or seriously considered doing so -- mostly privileged people -- have said that they acted for economic reasons, inability to afford the care of a child in the midst of a career being the principal one. It's our being caught in the cash nexus that dictates to the poor and well-to-do alike that abortion is necessary.

Even the approval of abortion by Nixon's Supreme Court -- not generally men of the Left -- depended in part on a calculus that abortion was cheaper than the adequate social services for which there was a popular demand a generation ago (Roe v. Wade, January 22, 1973). The justices were undoubtedly motivated by visions of an insistent "underclass," at home and abroad, in those days of fear of both revolutionary and demographic explosion. Like the US government officials contemporaneously pressing anti-natal polices on the Third World, they agreed with the remark (probably apocryphal) attributed to Che Guevara, that "It's easier to kill a guerrilla in the womb than in the hills."

Some recent defenses of the moral legitimacy of abortion have shifted from arguments based on the non-humanity of unborn children (i.e., that the fetus is not human enough to have rights) to what in the US are called libertarian arguments -- e.g., "I have the right to do what I want with my body (including the contents of my womb)." Defense of abortion on the basis of the ownership of one's own body is then similar to the right- wing account of "takings," which resists governmental attempts to limit what can be done with real estate.

But I don't own my body; I am my body. Talking of owning one's body arises from a malign mix of factitious capitalist theory and debased Christianity: I am then regarded as an immaterial mind/soul related to my body as the bus driver is to the bus -- a ghost in a machine, in the classic phrase. (Some Christians seem to forget that the fundamental Christian doctrine is the resurrection of the body, not the immortality of the soul.) It's finally this distancing, dualist, indeed Manichean idea of the self that casts abortion into the capitalist discussion of ownership.

Defense of the general acceptability of abortion on the basis of one's ownership of one's body is a capitalist position that the Left should be skeptical of, on its fundamental principles. But it's certainly correct -- if a little oddly put -- to say that every person has rights over her or his body: inalienable rights indeed (which means you can't even give them away), to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The abortion argument reduces to the question of how many persons are involved.



Flower Eater you are opinion is based on a narrow minded, view of what socialism/communist stands for. How about the rights of the baby to live ? Is the right of free choice more important than the right to......live ? Communism is there to defend the rights of the unwanted, the rejected, the sidelined. In this case Isn't the foetus another form of the unwanted ? the rejected ? the sidelined ?

It's funny how you advocate for free choice while at the same time you restrict people for choosing to have a different opinion.

This is my personal opinion. That does not mean however that I'll not respect the, and fight for, your freedom to choose

[Socialist18]

Prepare to be restricted my friend!

[Socialismo_Libertario]

If I get restricted then I'm off this forum. Censorship is a fascist tactic I refuse to accept

[Socialist18]

Holding views like you do on abortion its only a matter of time.

I'm pro choice and I'm still restricted, thats fascism for ya!:D

[Socialismo_Libertario]

Mind me asking what's wrong with such views ? Have you read the article ?

[Socialismo_Libertario]

The issue here is not really my views on abortion, the issue is free speech. I did not express any form of fascist or racist views or any other that does not comply with socialist ideals

[Socialist18]

No I haven't read it but this
However my personal opinion stands against abortion. is what will get you restricted quick smart!

[Lector Malibu]

I am pro-choice in the sense that I would respect and defend the choice of an individual. However my personal opinion stands against abortion. why ? I include an article writen by a professor called Carl Estabrook. It's titled "abortion and the left":
Flower Eater you are opinion is based on a narrow minded, view of what socialism/communist stands for. How about the rights of the baby to live ? Is the right of free choice more important than the right to......live ? Communism is there to defend the rights of the unwanted, the rejected, the sidelined. In this case Isn't the foetus another form of the unwanted ? the rejected ? the sidelined ?

It's funny how you advocate for free choice while at the same time you restrict people for choosing to have a different opinion.

This is my personal opinion. That does not mean however that I'll not respect the, and fight for, your freedom to choose


Well thanks but really you're off on alot off things concerning me. Firstly I'm not a communist , sure I like some of what I have learned about communism and all but really I'm not the new face of communism.

Second I don't "restrict" people. I am part of a body that votes and debates on whether a member should be restricted or banned but It's not like I'm the driving authoritarian force behind the restrictions on the board.

Third. The fetus has a parasitic relation with the mother and cannot survive on it's own. Therefore it is not able to be classified as a separate entity with "rights" Hardly a narrow view but simple fact.

Fourth. People who are restricted are for a reason it varies and to place it on my shoulders is not even remotely accurate.

fifth. I'm pro choice at any trimester. Why? It's simply not my body therefore it is not my place to limit this choice. To claim to be able too is sexist period.

[Socialismo_Libertario]

restricting someone without even considering and challenging their views is outright authoritarian and fascist. The main idea is that the claim that one OWNS his/her body stems from the capitalist idea of ownership. What the article is saying is that you do not own your body, YOU ARE your body. An idea defended by several feminists and left-marxists such as R.Luxembourg.

Abortion is one of the ideals of capitalism, quoting from capitalism.org:



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


"Third. The fetus has a parasitic relation with the mother and cannot survive on it's own. Therefore it is not able to be classified as a separate entity with "rights" Hardly a narrow view but simple fact."

what ? who defines that ? Why is the fetus a parasitic entity ? You know, several years ago people used this claim against africans in order to justify slavery!!

[Socialismo_Libertario]

There is a whole FAQ section in capitalism.org to defend abortion:

(add www) capitalism.org/faq/abortion.htm

As I have said, I believe in no restriction in free choice but it is ridiculous to suggest that being anti-abortion is totally incompatible with socialism!

You are not communist ? In a previous post you said that anti-abortion opposes communism


Well simply it's a matter of it is not our choice to decide what a woman can do with her body. Really it is not. It's actually a very solid form of sexism. Therefore since communism seeks to end these issues of sexism condoning them is in fact an Oposing Ideology.

[Lector Malibu]

restricting someone without even considering and challenging their views is outright authoritarian and fascist. The main idea is that the claim that one OWNS his/her body stems from the capitalist idea of ownership. What the article is saying is that you do not own your body, YOU ARE your body. An idea defended by several feminists and left-marxists such as R.Luxembourg.

Abortion is one of the ideals of capitalism, quoting from capitalism.org:

Yeah and tell me who I've restricted and banned as a result of me being an "authoritarian fascist?"

With every restrictive measure there is a debate process and a body has to vote on the appropriate action to take. So you're claim is off.

And the notion that we do not have control over our bodies despite who said that is not on the mark.

And if that where the case YOU do not have the right to control somebody else's body , I'm sure as they aren't yours either. :rolleyes:

[Lector Malibu]

You are not communist ? In a previous post you said that anti-abortion opposes communism

I think anti -abortion is a non left wing idea. I was not referring to communist specifically.

[Socialismo_Libertario]

As the first part of your post is concerned I take that back and I apologise.

Please READ MY POST again. I said that I would respect the choice of an individual to have an abortion, however my personal opinion is against abortion. I do not wish to control somebody else's body

[Lector Malibu]

what ? who defines that ? Why is the fetus a parasitic entity ? You know, several years ago people used this claim against africans in order to justify slavery!!

They said that us blacks where fetus's?:confused:

The fetus is a parasite. How can a fetus survive outside of the womb? Can the fetus fend for it self in the wild?

The fetus relies on the host mothers womb for survival ,simple biology

[Socialismo_Libertario]

Anti-abortion is not always sexist. How about abortion as a result of external pressure ? In certain communities being a single mother is considered bad, and as a result women are forced to have an abortion by their family/boyfriends in other instances the economic failure of capitalism forces women, that would otherwise choose to keep the baby, to have an abortion.

Isn't that against women's fundamental rights and isn't that a form of oppression against women ?

[Socialismo_Libertario]

You are talking to a biochemistry graduate that is about to start medicine as from next year. Biologically and medically the fetus is considered a living organism by all definitions. The fact that it is dependent on the mother only makes it a parasite if you would like to view it that way. In medicine human foetus is considered human, and it's treated as such ! The definiton of a parasite is very specific and does not include the foetus. In fact it is one of the fundamental principles of developmental biology and fetal medicine

So according to you human life is classified according to the level of self-support and
competence ? In that sense are you telling me that the life of somebody mentally handicapped has less value than your life ? This is not far from Hitler's "euthanasia" programme to eliminate all those "unfit"

[Lector Malibu]

Anti-abortion is not always sexist. How about abortion as a result of external pressure ? In certain communities being a single mother is considered bad, and as a result women are forced to have an abortion by their family/boyfriends in other instances the economic failure of capitalism forces women, that would otherwise choose to keep the baby, to have an abortion.

Isn't that against women's fundamental rights and isn't that a form of oppression against women ?

Whatever the reasons it's not my choice is all I'm saying. People get abortions for all kinds of reasons I'm actually not emotionally attached to the matter.

[Socialismo_Libertario]

You must consider the potential of the foetus and not it's existing state. A parasite is something that has no potential to develop into anything else than a parasite

[danyboy27]

You must consider the potential of the foetus and not it's existing state. A parasite is something that has no potential to develop into anything else than a parasite

he do have a point

[Socialismo_Libertario]

1. parasite is defined as an organism of one species living in or on an organism of another species (a heterospecific relationship) and deriving its nourishment from the host (is metabolically dependent on the host). (See Cheng, T.C., General Parasitology, p. 7, 1973.)

Now! A human embryo or fetus is an organism of one species (Homo sapiens) living in the uterine cavity of an organism of the same species (Homo sapiens) and deriving its nourishment from the mother (is metabolically dependent on the mother). This homospecific relationship is an obligatory dependent relationship, but not a parasitic relationship.

2. A parasite is an invading organism -- coming to parasitize the host from an outside source.

A human embryo or fetus is formed from a fertilized egg -- the egg coming from an inside source, being formed in the ovary of the mother from where it moves into the oviduct where it may be fertilized to form the zygote -- the first cell of the new human being.

3. A parasite is generally harmful to some degree to the host that is harboring the parasite.

A human embryo or fetus developing in the uterine cavity does not usually cause harm to the mother, although it may if proper nutrition and care is not maintained by the mother.

4. A parasite makes direct contact with the host's tissues, often holding on by either mouth parts, hooks or suckers to the tissues involved (intestinal lining, lungs, connective tissue, etc.).

A human embryo or fetus makes direct contact with the uterine lining of the mother for only a short period of time. It soon becomes isolated inside its own amniotic sac, and from that point on makes indirect contact with the mother only by way of the umbilical cord and placenta.

5. When a parasite invades host tissue, the host tissue will sometimes respond by forming a capsule (of connective tissue) to surround the parasite and cut it off from other surrounding tissue (examples would be Paragonimus westermani, lung fluke, or Oncocerca volvulus, a nematode worm causing cutaneous filariasis in the human).

When the human embryo or fetus attaches to and invades the lining tissue of the mother's uterus, the lining tissue responds by surrounding the human embryo and does not cut it off from the mother, but rather establishes a means of close contact (the placenta) between the mother and the new human being.

6. When a parasite invades a host, the host will usually respond by forming antibodies in response to the somatic antigens (molecules comprising the body of the parasite) or metabolic antigens (molecules secreted or excreted by the parasite) of the parasite. Parasitism usually involves an immunological response on the part of the host. (See Cheng, T.C., General Parasitology, p. 8.)

New evidence, presented by Beer and Billingham in their article, "The Embryo as a Transplant" (Scientific American, April, 1974), indicates that the mother does react to the presence of the embryo by producing humoral antibodies, but they suggest that the trophoblast -- the jacket of cells surrounding the embryo -- blocks the action of these antibodies and therefore the embryo or fetus is not rejected. This reaction is unique to the embryo-mother relationship.

7. A parasite is generally detrimental to the reproductive capacity of the invaded host. The host may be weakened, diseased or killed by the parasite, thus reducing or eliminating the host's capacity to reproduce.

A human embryo or fetus is absolutely essential to the reproductive capacity of the involved mother (and species). The mother is usually not weakened, diseased or killed by the presence of the embryo or fetus, but rather is fully tolerant of this offspring which must begin his or her life in this intimate and highly specialized relationship with the mother.

8. A parasite is an organism that, once it invades the definitive host, will usually remain with host for life (as long as it or the host survives).

A human embryo or fetus has a temporary association with the mother, remaining only a number of months in the uterus.
A parasite is an organism that associates with the host in a negative, unhealthy and nonessential (nonessential to the host) manner which will often damage the host and detrimentally affect the procreative capacity of the host (and species).
A human embryo or fetus is a human being that associates with the mother in a positive,healthful essential manner necessary for the procreation of the species.

[forward]

I fail to see how being against abortion is sexist, I have never heard anything as ridicuolous as that. One should take responsibility for her actions instead of prancing around and being a slut. If you dont have the financial means to support the child, dont have sex and you certainly shouldnt have it outside of marriage anyways. if my workers are skipping and getting drunk with their buddies, i'm gonna fire them because they aren't being responsible by not giving me their labour, the world doesn't work where people et whatever they want, despite them screwing up their lives being idiots. not only does it disturb me to see immorality prominent, but it also disturbs me to see such rampant support of such immorality. disgusting. i dont support murder, and it certainly shouldn't e a solution for those dumb girls who think they're forgiven from society (this is in response to the girls who have sex all the time, not females in general), as well this hardly makes me sexist, because i think both men and women should take responsibility for their actions.

[Lector Malibu]

You are talking to a biochemistry graduate that is about to start medicine as from next year. Biologically and medically the fetus is considered a living organism by all definitions. The fact that it is dependent on the mother only makes it a parasite if you would like to view it that way. In medicine human foetus is considered human, and it's treated as such ! The definiton of a parasite is very specific and does not include the foetus. In fact it is one of the fundamental principles of developmental biology and fetal medicine


Does the fetus have a non symbiotic parasitic developmental relation with the host or not?



So according to you human life is classified according to the level of self-support and competence ?I'm saying how a fetus survives in the womb.


In that sense are you telling me that the life of somebody mentally handicapped has less value than your life ?I'm saying that I support abortion at any trimester. How you extrapolated that is beyond me.


This is not far from Hitler's "euthanasia" programme to eliminate all those "unfit"Just stop.

[Socialismo_Libertario]

What I am saying has nothing to do with sexual freedoms, it's about defending the rights of the unwanted, the oppressed, the rejected! In this case the foetus is the rejected!

[Demogorgon]

Abortion is Communism's holiest sacrament.

[Lector Malibu]

You must consider the potential of the foetus and not it's existing state. A parasite is something that has no potential to develop into anything else than a parasite

*Parasitic relationship*

[Socialismo_Libertario]

I apologise for the hitler comment BUT do read my post on the definitions of a parasite and how the parasite is totally different than the embryo. You are supporting abortion at any trimester ? How about the pain caused to the embryo as a result of abortion when it's nervous system is sufficiently developed ?

You suggested that because the embryo is dependent on the mother (therefore not fit to live outside thewomb) then it's life is meaningless. Can you not see the link ?

Anyway, read my post on the definition of a parasite. Parasitic relationship is called that way because it's a very specific relationship of a PARASITE and a host. The parasite must be of different species than the host

[forward]

those who support abortion dont care about the fetus, afterall it's a woman's right to choice, screw the potential baby and how it feels pains, thats encourage immorality ok????????????? yay

[danyboy27]

those who support abortion dont care about the fetus, afterall it's a woman's right to choice, screw the potential baby and how it feels pains, thats encourage immorality ok????????????? yay


dude seriously, that not a proper way to debate.

[Demogorgon]

*Parasitic relationship*

As has already been explained it is not a parasitic relationship as pregnancy is biologically advantageous.

Contrary to what certain idiots think, I support abortion rights, but using really stupid (and appallingly right wing) arguments does not help the case for freedom to chose whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term or not.

[Bud Struggle]

As has already been explained it is not a parasitic relationship as pregnancy is biologically advantageous.

Contrary to what certain idiots think, I support abortion rights, but using really stupid (and appallingly right wing) arguments does not help the case for freedom to chose whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term or not.

Actually, FE's rhetoric just like that of the rabid anti-abortion people both are harmful to a rational discussion of the subject.

[freakazoid]

If I get restricted then I'm off this forum. Censorship is a fascist tactic I refuse to accept

Yeah, welcome to the OI. If you don't lock-step in line with there view of abortion then it is off to OI with you.


Third. The fetus has a parasitic relation with the mother and cannot survive on it's own.

Actually that is not true. With the advances in science a fetus can survive pretty early outside of the womb.

[Lector Malibu]

Yeah, welcome to the OI. If you don't lock-step in line with there view of abortion then it is off to OI with you.

Freaky you're missing OI aren't you ?:)




Actually that is not true. With the advances in science a fetus can survive pretty early outside of the womb.

Can a fetus survive on it's own outside of the womb? It is very true that it cannot.

[Lector Malibu]

Actually, FE's rhetoric just like that of the rabid anti-abortion people both are harmful to a rational discussion of the subject.

Tom I'm not preventing you from discussing anything. I'm just not agreeing will all of you as usual....

[pusher robot]

Can a fetus survive on it's own outside of the womb? It is very true that it cannot.

Well, then, by your definition, all children are "fetuses" until they're, what, 9 or 10 years old at least? Do you support aborting toddlers because they can't survive on their own outside the womb?

[politics student]

Well, then, by your definition, all children are "fetuses" until they're, what, 9 or 10 years old at least? Do you support aborting toddlers because they can't survive on their own outside the womb?

They can survive on their own outside the womb. I really worry when people get such basic facts wrong.

A 6 month old fetuses are not developed to the point they can not.

I support abortions up to 7 months.

Her Body, Her Future, Her Choice.

[Winter]

They can survive on their own outside the womb. I really worry when people get such basic facts wrong.

A 6 month old fetuses are not developed to the point they can not.

I support abortions up to 7 months.

Her Body, Her Future, Her Choice.


I agree. I think there is a point when the fetus is still in the womb where abortion should not be allowed. There's a vast difference between taking a morning after pill the next day and waiting 8 months to have an abortion. The fetus is too developed and too human. It can feel pain.

[politics student]

I agree. I think there is a point when the fetus is still in the womb where abortion should not be allowed. There's a vast difference between taking a morning after pill the next day and waiting 8 months to have an abortion. The fetus is too developed and too human. It can feel pain.

I agree I mistyped when I put 7 I meant to put 6.

Most abortions are very early on most late term abortions take place for medical reasons (Risk to mother or serious genetic problems)

[bcbm]

Anti-abortion is not always sexist. How about abortion as a result of external pressure ? In certain communities being a single mother is considered bad, and as a result women are forced to have an abortion by their family/boyfriends in other instances the economic failure of capitalism forces women, that would otherwise choose to keep the baby, to have an abortion.

Isn't that against women's fundamental rights and isn't that a form of oppression against women ?

Pro-choice means there is a choice involved. Is there a choice involved in your example? Oh, there isn't? Right, then that's not what anyone is talking about so it is a stupid, pointless example. Nice one. :rolleyes:

[danyboy27]

Pro-choice means there is a choice involved. Is there a choice involved in your example? Oh, there isn't? Right, then that's not what anyone is talking about so it is a stupid, pointless example. Nice one. :rolleyes:

pr0 life dosnt mean no choice is involved. only a handful of people in the world that are pro life do think the whole system should be like their views.

other think its wrong to abort, but that about it, what the other do is not their problem.

like in everything, this is always a handful of people that want the society to act like they want, other have idea and views

[Lector Malibu]

Well, then, by your definition, all children are "fetuses" until they're, what, 9 or 10 years old at least? Do you support aborting toddlers because they can't survive on their own outside the womb?

I support abortion. I did not say anything about children up to that age being fetuses. I'm trying to explain that there is a basically a parasitic relation between the fetus and the mother while the fetus is in the womb. I'm not saying anything other than that ie . I'm not saying the fetus is a parasite, kids should be killed because they can't procure there own food or any of the other bazaar extrapolations that have been made on my statement.

And yes I do support abortion at any trimester as well.

[Bud Struggle]

I agree. I think there is a point when the fetus is still in the womb where abortion should not be allowed. There's a vast difference between taking a morning after pill the next day and waiting 8 months to have an abortion. The fetus is too developed and too human. It can feel pain.

True. If a fetus can survive (even with life support) outside the womb it should be allowed to live.

If the mother wants to "part" with him/her at that time--fine. But the baby should be allowed to live.

And keeping people alive is what humanity has developed the science of medicine for. It's not up to any of us to say who should receive care and who shouldn't because of some political extrapolations.

If a mother wants to abort a baby after it is viable--he/she should be removed and placed on life support.

And the best of luck to him/her.

[Captain Morgan]

And yes I do support abortion at any trimester as well.

Geeze, don't you think you are going a bit too far if you are actually supporting abortion "at any trimester".

Pro-choice is fine and everything but it crosses the line when the choice is not only about my own body - but body and life of completely another life form with advanced nerval system and functioning body. People in womb are people too, and I personally don't make difference between late abortion and murder of just recently born human baby.

Nice to see how people down here seem to think that woman has a larger right to decide what she can do with ther body than the baby has right to live.

[Lector Malibu]

Geeze, don't you think you are going a bit too far if you are actually supporting abortion "at any trimester".

Pro-choice is fine and everything but it crosses the line when the choice is not only about my own body - but body and life of completely another life form with advanced nerval system and functioning body. People in womb are people too, and I personally don't make difference between late abortion and murder of just recently born human baby.

Nice to see how people down here seem to think that woman has a larger right to decide what she can do with ther body than the baby has right to live.

No I don't think I'm going to far nor am I emotionally attached to the issue. I don't say that to be shallow but I'm not. I'm just not some one who has a sense of morality around the abortion debate.

I feel that a woman can have an abortion for whatever reasons she sees fit. Quite simply I'm just pro choice. Personally to me I don't feel it's my prerogative to limit choices that affect this decision as it is not my body.

[Bud Struggle]

I'm just not some one who has a sense of morality around the abortion debate.

Obviously.:rolleyes:


I feel that a woman can have an abortion for whatever reasons she sees fit. Quite simply I'm just pro choice. Personally to me I don't feel it's my prerogative to limit choices that affect this decision as it is not my body.

But if a child can survive outside the womb--why not give the kid a chance? The mother doesn't have to be involved. It's just the baby and science.

Why does the baby have to be killed if it can survive outside the womb? The only reason I can see is to please some political agenda, and don't you think enough people have been killed in the last century to please some particular political agenda? :)

[pusher robot]

No I don't think I'm going to far nor am I emotionally attached to the issue. I don't say that to be shallow but I'm not. I'm just not some one who has a sense of morality around the abortion debate.

I feel that a woman can have an abortion for whatever reasons she sees fit. Quite simply I'm just pro choice. Personally to me I don't feel it's my prerogative to limit choices that affect this decision as it is not my body.

But, your position does not logically flow from your premises.

PREMISE: Women have a right not to be a host to a parasite.
HIDDEN PREMISE: The only way not to be a host to the parasite is to kill it.
CONCLUSION: They may therefore kill the parasite.

Your hidden premise is wrong. Medically, it is entirely possible for a women late in pregnancy to terminate the parasitic relationship late without killing the parasite. Since that results in the overall least harm to everyone without compromising the woman's choice at all, why don't you support this position? The only apparent reason can be that you support killing, not choice. Harsh but it's the only logical explanation.

[Captain Morgan]

I feel that a woman can have an abortion for whatever reasons she sees fit. Quite simply I'm just pro choice. Personally to me I don't feel it's my prerogative to limit choices that affect this decision as it is not my body.

Thing you are forgetting here that while it's her body, we are also talking about the baby's body. I'm all for pro-choice: I think that people should be do whatever they want with their body as long as it doesn't harm other people's right to use their bodies.

And, last time I checked, if you are dead, your possibilities to choose what you do with your body and life are slightly, in minor scale, somewhat limited.

[spartan]

Medically, it is entirely possible for a women late in pregnancy to terminate the parasitic relationship late without killing the parasite. Since that results in the overall least harm to everyone without compromising the woman's choice at all, why don't you support this position? The only apparent reason can be that you support killing, not choice. Harsh but it's the only logical explanation.
I would like to hear what the general consensus of leftists on pusher robot's suggestion is as getting rid of a fully developed fetus late in the pregnancy without killing it (and without the mother having to be involved at all in it's life) seems like a great alternative choice to forcing a woman to carry it to full term and give birth and the problem many have with late abortions (killing the baby completely even though it has a strong chance at survival).

I think at the very least this should be another option women wanting late term abortions can take (if that is what they so wish) as i am sure many women who want abortions also feel uncomfortable with the fact that they are technically preventing something from having a life of it's own (which pusher robot's suggestion solves completely without any of the shit involved with forcing women to carry it to full term and give birth which alot of pro-lifers want to see happen).

And this extra option isn't a bad thing either it's just another choice women have when wanting a late term abortion (and last time i checked it's all about choice amongst us pro-choicers).

Personally i think late term abortions should be allowed but i also think that this extra option should also be made available to women as another option if they wish to take it (and it's their choice at the end of the day).

[Dr Mindbender]

Everyone watch this and then STFU.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=MrXvDXVhqfU&feature=related


END of thread.

[Bud Struggle]

Sorry. Dead viable babies aren't a joke.

Just like dead people from AIDS aren't a joke and dead, people that die from hunger aren't a joke. People that have died in Nazi concentration camps aren't a joke either.

All have been make fun of. So?

I fail to see the humor in human misery and death. You may have your issues about if a viable fetus is human or not. The Nazis certainly had their issues about Jews being human. The Southern plantation owners had their issues about Blacks.

It's best to give the the optimum chance to the greatest number. A viable human is a viable human.

What is the problem there?

[Lector Malibu]

Obviously.:rolleyes:

Ooooooohhh not the dogmatic guilt trip. :laugh:


But if a child can survive outside the womb--why not give the kid a chance? The mother doesn't have to be involved. It's just the baby and science.

A fetus can not survive outside the womb with out aid. Gee Tom what about all those other places on earth that don't have access to high end incubators and medical facility's? What than?


Why does the baby have to be killed if it can survive outside the womb? The only reason I can see is to please some political agenda, and don't you think enough people have been killed in the last century to please some particular political agenda? :)

Why do you eat meat? There are other things you can subside off of:lol:

[Lector Malibu]

Thing you are forgetting here that while it's her body, we are also talking about the baby's body. I'm all for pro-choice: I think that people should be do whatever they want with their body as long as it doesn't harm other people's right to use their bodies.

And, last time I checked, if you are dead, your possibilities to choose what you do with your body and life are slightly, in minor scale, somewhat limited.

I haven't forgotten anything. I see the issue differently that's all.

[Lector Malibu]

But, your position does not logically flow from your premises.

PREMISE: Women have a right not to be a host to a parasite.
HIDDEN PREMISE: The only way not to be a host to the parasite is to kill it.
CONCLUSION: They may therefore kill the parasite.

Your hidden premise is wrong. Medically, it is entirely possible for a women late in pregnancy to terminate the parasitic relationship late without killing the parasite. Since that results in the overall least harm to everyone without compromising the woman's choice at all, why don't you support this position? The only apparent reason can be that you support killing, not choice. Harsh but it's the only logical explanation.


Pusher I don't have a hidden agenda. I do support abortion and pro choice. Forget I used the word parasite , it's obviously tripping people up and causing more inane extrapolations like above.

Funny you have all sat up here and raved about how pro choice you all are and each and every one recanted on that :lol:

To me pro choice means pro choice. I don't know what else to tell you.

[Dr Mindbender]

Sorry. Dead viable babies aren't a joke.
emotive play at the heartstrings. Bad show.


Just like dead people from AIDS aren't a joke and dead, people that die from hunger aren't a joke. People that have died in Nazi concentration camps aren't a joke either.
AIDS and holocaust victims dont represent semantic debates regarding the autonomy of women.




I fail to see the humor in human misery and death. You may have your issues about if a viable fetus is human or not. The Nazis certainly had their issues about Jews being human. The Southern plantation owners had their issues about Blacks.
the fact remains, its a baaaad analogy.

Please dont use it again. It is an insult to slave descendants and holocaust victims.



It's best to give the the optimum chance to the greatest number. A viable human is a viable human.

What is the problem there?

the problem is pro-life isnt pro-life, its 'anti-woman' as mr carlin stated.

[freakazoid]

Freaky you're missing OI aren't you ?http://www.revleft.com/vb/pro-life-restricted-t85689/revleft/smilies/001_smile.gif

:P


Can a fetus survive on it's own outside of the womb? It is very true that it cannot.

It is very true at the very late stage it can. Are you saying it can't a minute before it is actually going to come out? Do you support an abortion a minute before actual birth? Also on the really early stages, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ectogenesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_uterus


I support abortions up to 7 months.

Restricted.


I agree. I think there is a point when the fetus is still in the womb where abortion should not be allowed.

Restricted.


Geeze, don't you think you are going a bit too far if you are actually supporting abortion "at any trimester".

Restricted.


Gee Tom what about all those other places on earth that don't have access to high end incubators and medical facility's? What than?

Well gee, what about all those places that do?

[Dr Mindbender]

:P



It is very true at the very late stage it can. Are you saying it can't a minute before it is actually going to come out? Do you support an abortion a minute before actual birth? Also on the really early stages,?

i think the other side of the debate that the pro-lifers are missing is that pregnancy can kill the woman anytime until the foetus leaves the body.

For that purpose alone, she should have full autonomy over what is effectively a parasite.

[Killfacer]

slight problem with the ole dont kill the baby, take it out thing. Not sure if anyone is going to be best pleased to have to look after these "unwanted children". Several problems:
1. Great, your stuck in an orphanage because your parents dont want you (crushing for a child)
2. Whos going to fund this? The "parents"? Clearly not because that was the point for some of them, they cannot afford it. The Taxpayer? Not many people going to be best pleased about that one either. Why should we pay for people to get knocked up willy nilly, ooarr oaar.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

restricting someone without even considering and challenging their views is outright authoritarian and fascist. The main idea is that the claim that one OWNS his/her body stems from the capitalist idea of ownership. What the article is saying is that you do not own your body, YOU ARE your body. An idea defended by several feminists and left-marxists such as R.Luxembourg.

Abortion is one of the ideals of capitalism, quoting from capitalism.org:



"Third. The fetus has a parasitic relation with the mother and cannot survive on it's own. Therefore it is not able to be classified as a separate entity with "rights" Hardly a narrow view but simple fact."

what ? who defines that ? Why is the fetus a parasitic entity ? You know, several years ago people used this claim against africans in order to justify slavery!!
The foetus is not a parasite, not legally, not biologically. It is simple fact that afoetus cannot be accurately classified as a parasite. People will try to bring that up in debate but don't listen, the claim has no basis.

[spartan]

A fetus can not survive outside the womb with out aid.

Yes but when you get to a certain point in the pregnancy, a very late term fully developed fetus waiting to be shat out by the mother can survive outside the womb with a little medical care and someone (not necessarily the mother if she chooses not to) to look after it until it is older enough to look after itself.


Gee Tom what about all those other places on earth that don't have access to high end incubators and medical facility's? What than?

Well they wouldn't be able to keep the baby alive but they also wouldn't be able to give abortions so poor countries are pretty much stuck what with the current situation of the world.

Anyway the point i think TomK was trying to make is that an alternative to late term abortion (killing the fetus completely even though if it was born prematurely it could survive) you could instead remove the baby from the womb and after making it healthy you could then give it to another couple who cant have children.

This way the mother can get rid of the child without having to carry it to full term, give birth and look after it, whilst other people who cant have a baby get the advantage of now being able to raise a child.

Everyone wins!

I would only have this though as another option for women seeking late term abortions. It's up to the women themselves whether or not they want an abortion or this other method or perhaps neither (which is why i am pro-choice).

I think what TomK and pusher robot are getting at is why kill a late term fully developed fetus when there is another alternative which doesn't involve forcing the woman to carry it to full term and give birth nor does it involve killing the fetus/baby completely like abortion does.

So instead of two options for women they could now have three, what's wrong with that?

Anyway i'll just wait for someone to try and construe this post into an arguement for the enslavment of pregnant women seeking abortion (which couldn't be further from the truth).

[freakazoid]

Great, your stuck in an orphanage because your parents dont want you (crushing for a child)

Simply being crushing for the child, only a possibility, is a lot better than death.


i think the other side of the debate that the pro-lifers are missing is that pregnancy can kill the woman anytime until the foetus leaves the body.

CAN kill, it is not a 100% chance. And even then it is incredably low.

[Dr Mindbender]

CAN kill, it is not a 100% chance. And even then it is incredably low.

the fact remains, the margin for that possibility should give her the right to do as she sees fit.

[spartan]

slight problem with the ole dont kill the baby, take it out thing. Not sure if anyone is going to be best pleased to have to look after these "unwanted children". Several problems:
1. Great, your stuck in an orphanage because your parents dont want you (crushing for a child)
2. Whos going to fund this? The "parents"? Clearly not because that was the point for some of them, they cannot afford it. The Taxpayer? Not many people going to be best pleased about that one either. Why should we pay for people to get knocked up willy nilly, ooarr oaar.
Actually if the child knows no different than it isn't crushing at all.

Indeed saying that it is implies that a child naturally aspires to have two parents (one man and one woman both of whom are heterosexual, are in a relationship together and are the child's natural biological parents) which is wrong as we are shaped by society not so called human nature.

If society stopped with all this children need two parents shit then all those kids who dont have two parents wont feel fucking crushed because of it.

We need to change society.

[freakazoid]

the fact remains, the margin for that possibility should give her the right to do as she sees fit.

Which is why I am pro-choice, well not THE reason.

[RHIZOMES]

Oh no, pro-lifers are restricted?!

http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/4435/bawwwwqq4.jpg

Looks like they'll have to take their anti-woman bullshit somewhere else. :(

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I'm pro-life, yet I think abortion is a rather disgusting practice in and of itself.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Looks like they'll have to take their anti-woman bullshit somewhere else. :(

You're a fucktard.

disregard this, i was drunk.

[RHIZOMES]

I'm pro-life, yet I think abortion is a rather disgusting practice in and of itself.

Why the fuck is the yet there?

It's like saying "I'm communist, yet I think capitalism sucks". It's completely fucking redundant.


You're a fucktard.

:crying::crying::crying:

[534634634265]

i think he meant disgusting as in gross to the visual senses, not disgusting in the way that capitalism disgusts a communist.

also, not all pro-lifers are anti-women. thats a rather simplistic view of things.

also, i have a child and the mother and i are separate, we are raising our daughter outside of the 2 parent norm and so far it hasn't really been an issue. i think the concept of the 2 parent raising process is getting to be antiquated. more and more people are comfortable raising their children in a loving environment, however that may present itself. children need affirmation of their parents love for them, not for each other.:thumbup1:

[RHIZOMES]

i think he meant disgusting as in gross to the visual senses, not disgusting in the way that capitalism disgusts a communist.

Didn't understand my point lol. more examples:

"I'm feminist, yet I am against patriarchy"
"I have a phone, yet I call people with it"
"I am a photographer, yet I take photos"

It's stupid and redundant.


also, not all pro-lifers are anti-women. thats a rather simplistic view of things.

Actually, it's true. Why are so many "pro-lifers" also for imperialist war and capital punishment? Which kill so many more people than legalised abortion does, who are actually BORN as well? And why are so many pro-lifers against contraception? It seems obvious to me that anti-choicers REALLY want, is to turn women into subserviant baby factories.

[pusher robot]

Didn't understand my point lol. more examples:

"I'm feminist, yet I am against patriarchy"
"I have a phone, yet I call people with it"
"I am a photography, yet I take photos"

It's stupid and redundant.



Actually, it's true. Why are so many "pro-lifers" also for imperialist war and capital punishment? Which kill so many more people than legalised abortion does, who are actually BORN as well? And why are so many pro-lifers against contraception? It seems obvious to me that anti-choicers REALLY want, is to turn women into subserviant baby factories.


Wow, way to parachute into the thread and troll unconstructively. Why not engage the actual arguments rather than vacuously droning on with your "anti-woman" platitudes like some kind of mindless, jelly-filled automaton set to loop the same dull recordings over and over again.

You could start by answering this question: How is it "anti-woman" to permit the removal of a fetus but not its unnecessary destruction?

[RHIZOMES]

Wow, way to parachute into the thread and troll unconstructively.

Your welcome. I do my best.

[Hiero]

I'm pro-life, yet I think abortion is a rather disgusting practice in and of itself.


Lots of things are disgusting.

Taking note of what Arizona Boy said, did you mean to say "I'm pro-choice, yet.." Because that would make more sense.


also, not all pro-lifers are anti-women. thats a rather simplistic view of things.

Yes they are. You can't say "women shouldn't have the right to abort, yet I am all for women". The option to abort a pregnancy is in an option for women. Considering one of the main biological difference found in women is the ability to give birth, denying their right to control this part of their life is a major oppressive restriction.

[freakazoid]

Actually, it's true. Why are so many "pro-lifers" also for imperialist war and capital punishment? Which kill so many more people than legalised abortion does, who are actually BORN as well? And why are so many pro-lifers against contraception? It seems obvious to me that anti-choicers REALLY want, is to turn women into subserviant baby factories.

That sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory.

[politics student]

CAN kill, it is not a 100% chance. And even then it is incredably low.

Its only low in the modern world where we have medical care.


UN POVERTY REPORT: WOMEN'S HEALTH SAFE CHILDBIRTH

Independent, The (London) (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158), Jan 18, 2005 (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20050118) by Maxine Frith (http://findarticles.com/p/search?tb=art&qa=Maxine+Frith)



E-mail (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20050118/ai_n9695813/tell)
Print (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20050118/ai_n9695813/print)
Link (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20050118/ai_n9695813#)

THE MOTHERS pictured above are the lucky ones: Afghanistan has one of the poorest records in the world on the health of women and children. Maternal mortality rates are shocking. And despite the grand promises made to post-war Afghanistan, there is no sign of improvement any time soon.
Unicef says 1,600 women per 100,000 die in childbirth in Afghanistan; in the UK, the rate is 16 per 100,000. In the most remote areas the maternal mortality rate is 6,000 per 100,000, meaning that 6 per cent of women die during labour.
Even if mother and baby survive, their prospects are dismal. One in four children dies before their fifth birthday; in most Western countries, the rate is fewer than 30 per 1,000 live births.
Most PopularUnified Communications (http://jobfunctions.bnet.com/abstract.aspx?docid=361025)5 Landmines Of Social Media Advertising (http://jobfunctions.bnet.com/abstract.aspx?docid=346951)Conflict Resolution & the Project Manager (http://jobfunctions.bnet.com/abstract.aspx?docid=359319)Pricing Considerations And Strategies (http://jobfunctions.bnet.com/abstract.aspx?docid=324158)The What's Next? Process For Creating A Winning Competitive Strategy (http://jobfunctions.bnet.com/abstract.aspx?docid=355370) http://dw.com.com/rubicsimp/c.gif?ver=2&ts=2008.08.03.06.24.25&edId=&onId=&ptId=&sId=-2&appId=24&unitId=54&poolId=1&f1=%2d0&f2=%2d0&f3=%2d0&alg=3&opt=1&off=64,-1;104,-1;114,-1;8,-1;24,-1


The 26 million people have just 900 clinics for reproductive health and childbirth. Charities and aid agencies have been frustrated that the Millennium Development Goals did not directly address the issue of reproductive health.
The US refusal to fund any organisation that promotes abortion has made matters worse. Lucy Palmer, support manager for the sexual health charity Marie Stopes International in south Asia, said: "Because of the work we do on abortion, we cannot get funding from the US and have to rely on European partners.
"The Americans had committed a lot of money to a basic healthcare package in Afghanistan which would have given women better access to services, but just before the elections the cash was diverted to building roads.
"Contraception is not illegal in Afghanistan but women only have access to these services if there is a clinic two or three kilometres away, and for most that is not the case."
Chronic shortages of trained doctors, midwives and hospitals also mean most women who develop complications during labour are likely to die. Ms Palmer added: "The country needs a national training centre for doctors and midwives."
Copyright 2005 Independent Newspapers UK Limited
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved.



Source http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20050118/ai_n9695813

[Killfacer]

thats bullshit Spartan. You think these kids are not gonna notice that they were abandoned at birth, the children will grow up at the expense of others and the children will realise that they were not wanted at birth.

[politics student]

thats bullshit Spartan. You think these kids are not gonna notice that they were abandoned at birth, the children will grow up at the expense of others and the children will realise that they were not wanted at birth.

I feel sorry for them the emotional stress would be greatly damaging and lets not forget the poor state of the care system.

[danyboy27]

thats bullshit Spartan. You think these kids are not gonna notice that they were abandoned at birth, the children will grow up at the expense of others and the children will realise that they were not wanted at birth.

i think its depend of the age of the kid and the deucation he received.

[Trystan]

Is it not possible to be pro-life and simultaneously support abortion's legality? Seems a little silly to restrict people for bring "pro-life" per se.

[Killfacer]

the main thing is, nobody would ever support this. It would require huge nation expense, just to save the conscience of some people who got knocked up.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Lots of things are disgusting.

Taking note of what Arizona Boy said, did you mean to say "I'm pro-choice, yet.." Because that would make more sense.

Yes, I did.

[RHIZOMES]

That sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory.

No. It's called pointing out a double standard.

[Socialismo_Libertario]

Pro-choice means there is a choice involved. Is there a choice involved in your example? Oh, there isn't? Right, then that's not what anyone is talking about so it is a stupid, pointless example. Nice one. :rolleyes:

What a narrow minded comment. A "choice" can be forced upon by several factors/conditions. In fact the concept of "forced choice" is one of the most debated topics in the debate about abortion. So yes, In my example there is a choice involved. A forced one!

[Socialismo_Libertario]

I support abortion. I did not say anything about children up to that age being fetuses. I'm trying to explain that there is a basically a parasitic relation between the fetus and the mother while the fetus is in the womb. I'm not saying anything other than that ie . I'm not saying the fetus is a parasite, kids should be killed because they can't procure there own food or any of the other bazaar extrapolations that have been made on my statement.

And yes I do support abortion at any trimester as well.

It's really annoying when people ignore facts to support their claims. I already explained using a long post with definitions of a parasitic relationship and demonstrated that the foetus-mother relationship is NOT a parasitic one. So stop using that term

[Socialismo_Libertario]

The age of viability is 24-26 weeks gestation!



i think the other side of the debate that the pro-lifers are missing is that pregnancy can kill the woman anytime until the foetus leaves the body.

For that purpose alone, she should have full autonomy over what is effectively a parasite.

Abortion can cause sterility, infection, increase the risk of future premature births, increase the risk of future development of depression and suicidal behavious and of-course death. I think most pro-lifers in here will agree that abortion should be carried out in cases where the life of the mother is in danger, but certainly the risks of abortion are higher than the risks of....pregnancy

[Socialismo_Libertario]

2. Whos going to fund this? The "parents"? Clearly not because that was the point for some of them, they cannot afford it. The Taxpayer? Not many people going to be best pleased about that one either. Why should we pay for people to get knocked up willy nilly, ooarr oaar.

Good question! The state shoud fund this, otherwise what's it's purpose other than providing welfare and support. Replace abortion with a high standard welfare system.

It's interesting how some of you in here have the same views on abortion as hard-core capitalists. Just check out the section on abortion on capitalism.org

[Socialismo_Libertario]

Looks like they'll have to take their anti-woman bullshit somewhere else. :(


Nice mentality there ? Anti-woman ? Maybe you should also call those notable feminists such as Susan B. Anthony, that oppose abortion also anti-woman.

It reminds me of dark times when several left-wingers were regarded as being traitors of their country and unpatriotic by the right-wing, only because of having a different ideology.

Again, the real issue here is not abortion, the real issue is free speech and whether some people have enough brains to engage in a reasonable debate.

Being pro-life is not necessarily being anti-woman. Certain pro-life supporters believe that the life of the foetus is important and as significant as the life of the mother, the father, the brother etc.

Socialism has traditionally defended the rights of those rejected from the society, the unwanted, the sidelined. Certain people BELIEVE that In this case the foetus is the unwanted, the rejected, the aborted!

My personal opinion is not favourable towards abortion, I do however respect the choices made by any individual! That would make me a pro-choice anti-abortionist. There is a difference between having opinions and forcing your opinions upon others


In fact there is a group called "Feminists for Life":



"Alice Paul, author of the Equal Rights Amendment, called abortion the ultimate exploitation of women,” Foster said. “And Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton championed the rights of women to vote, of slaves to be free, and of our right to life. So if they understand their rich feminist history, they'd understand abortion is a betrayal of feminism."


So yes, certain feminists consider abortion as an abuse against women!

[Lector Malibu]

It's really annoying when people ignore facts to support their claims. I already explained using a long post with definitions of a parasitic relationship and demonstrated that the foetus-mother relationship is NOT a parasitic one. So stop using that term

Than give me another word for a the type of developmental relationship the fetus has in the womb. And like I've said the word parasitic was chosen because I was trying to articulate that the fetus is dependent on the mother similar to that type of scenario.

Also when I realized that people where getting tripped up over my simple comparison I said to forget I had used the term( as it was obviously not the best description).

Bottom line is that whether abortion is the best solution or not I support the right to decide.

And I am also for voluntary euthanasia as well. Yes unrelated but my point is that people should be allowed to make decisions that concern their own bodies.

[Socialismo_Libertario]

Agreed. I support the right to decide, but personally my views are not favourable towards abortion. But how about decisions concerning ones own property ?

Just a thought - if someone rejects the capitalist idea of private ownership then shouldn't she/he also reject the idea that individuals own their body ?

I am in favour of voluntary euthanasia myself, this however is a totally different issue as it does not involve another living organism

[Lector Malibu]

Agreed. I support the right to decide, but personally my views are not favourable towards abortion. But how about decisions concerning ones own property ?

Just a thought - if someone rejects the capitalist idea of private ownership then shouldn't she/he also reject the idea that individuals own their body ?

I am in favour of voluntary euthanasia myself, this however is a totally different issue as it does not involve another living organism

I feel if a person is able to acknowledge a personal existence they are able to claim ownership over that personal existence.

Not the best articulation I know but hopefully you can see where I'm going with it.

[534634634265]

Than give me another word for a the type of developmental relationship the fetus has in the womb.
how about this... "its a fetus, in its mothers womb. its an organic growth than can become a human being, and its gestating in the womb of its mother, who is supporting its growth with her body. a fairly natural process that all mammals engage in."

im not anti abortion, but i am pro-life. being pro-life doesn't mean your opposed to abortion, it just means that you personally aren't going to make that choice. i'm a father, and i told the mother that i would support her decision, no matter what choice she made. i think all living things are beautiful and amazing, regardless of their level of consciousness or their relationship to other living beings. life astounds me, so i support its existence.
also, being pro-life doesn't make a neo-con, and to assume that is to reveal a level of close-minded ignorance that is staggering.

[Decolonize The Left]

i think all living things are beautiful and amazing, regardless of their level of consciousness or their relationship to other living beings. life astounds me, so i support its existence.

Really? Better oppose logging, eating animals and plants, industrialized society, the death penalty, war, etc...

"Pro-life" is a meaningless term. It is entirely incoherent and foolish as I have just demonstrated.


i'm a father, and i told the mother that i would support her decision, no matter what choice she made.

This is called being "pro-choice." You see how you supported her right to choose?

- August

[RHIZOMES]

the real issue is free speech and whether some people have enough brains to engage in a reasonable debate.

Yes because restricting but keeping in the board to engage in discussion is obviously the same as banning. :rolleyes: You're a tool.

[534634634265]

Really? Better oppose logging, eating animals and plants, industrialized society, the death penalty, war, etc...

promoting the existence of all life doesn't mean i have to oppose any of those.
you can log without deforestation, you can eat meat and plants without causing extinction, you can industrialize without destroying the environment.

why would i not oppose the death penalty and war? two completely useless things in my opinion. also, i think this dualistic view of the abortion debate as either pro-life/pro-choice is ridiculous.

[Socialismo_Libertario]

"We refuse to choose [between] women and children. We refuse to choose between sacrificing our education and our careers for our family…Our focus is to systematically eliminate the reasons that drive women to abortion."

--Serrin Foster




I found this quote from a notable feminist and social activist (Serrin Foster).

So why not fight to eliminate the reasons that drive women to abortion ? Many of those reasons are the result of capitalism and it's exploitation of workers to achieve it's goals that are nothing else than making profit.

[Lector Malibu]

I found this quote from a notable feminist and social activist (Serrin Foster).

So why not fight to eliminate the reasons that drive women to abortion ? Many of those reasons are the result of capitalism and it's exploitation of workers to achieve it's goals that are nothing else than making profit.

Many does not equate all though.

I was adopted in 1972. I am a person of color. My birth mother is white of German/Irish decent and my father is a person of color I want to say, mostly of African American descent. My birth was the result of a one night stand between a soldier on leave and my college student mom. My mom did chose to carry me and put me up for the adoption. However the year was 1972 there was (as there still is ) alot of racism in America. My mom was young and her family was not happy with the birth and there was no way to provide for me. It was also very common to disown family members over stuff like this back than (as almost happen to my current mother from her racist parents). Though It was decided I live I would have completely understood if she had opted for an abortion as she could not provide and I was not planned.

Abortion will always be a difficult issue. Based on the fact that there are so many motivating variables that lead to abortion it can't really be seen as wrong in my eyes.

Destroy capitalism yes and free a womans right to choice.

[Socialismo_Libertario]

Though It was decided I live I would have completely understood if she had opted for an abortion as she could not provide and I was not planned.


Interesting, so the reasons of an abortion in this case were racism and socio-economic conditions. Fortunately these reasons were not enough for your mother to choose to have a abortion. In several other cases however women are forced to have an abortion as a result of such external pressures.

My point is that in order for anyone to talk about free choice, (and I mean FREE choice) one has to first eliminate such conditions (i.e. racism, poverty etc.). Once such conditions are eliminated then any actions will trully be the choice of a free-thinking individuals

[RGacky3]

If being anti-abortion is sexist, then being anti-man-hitting-woman as opposed to man-hitting-man is also sexist, because it discriminates against the man.

Men and Women are biologically different, Women hold the child, thats the way nature works, the question is'nt about choice or not, the question is about the definition of person hood.

Also how come pro-choicers arn't so viemently against child support payment laws?, logically they should be.

Many non restricted people would restrict the right of people to speak their minds, much less kill an unborn child, lets get our priorities straight.

[Le Libérer]

Interesting, so the reasons of an abortion in this case were racism and socio-economic conditions. Fortunately these reasons were not enough for your mother to choose to have a abortion. In several other cases however women are forced to have an abortion as a result of such external pressures.

My point is that in order for anyone to talk about free choice, (and I mean FREE choice) one has to first eliminate such conditions (i.e. racism, poverty etc.). Once such conditions are eliminated then any actions will trully be the choice of a free-thinking individuals
I would be curious to know how Louder knew such intimate details of his birth parents when in the 70s there was very little if any information exchanged from birth parents to the adoptive parents. Then the mother wasnt even allowed to hold the child, if she had agreed to give it up for adoption. There were circumstances that didnt apply to the above, but they were rare and specific. In fact, abortion was legal then and you could get it free without the parents signature if you wereunder aged. I had many friends that did it. They later changed that law, and planned parenthood no longer pay for the procedure. It is much more restrictive now than it was then as far as financially being able to afford an abortion.

So I would say, cost (poverty) is more of an issue than racism in the US now.

[Lector Malibu]

I was able to get a letter that contained basic information about my original birth parents when I was much older. Some information I have such as my original birth name came from my dad who told me when I was older. He told me he saw the name on a piece paper briefly.

And alot of the confidentially laws around adoption have changed. My sister (also adopted) actually met her original birth parents.

[ashaman1324]

why are you arguing over an issue that has no concern over the welfare of communism?
do the laws of communist china or north korea not reflect cultural/ethnic beliefs
since this is a global site
our global views should be respected, at very least by fellow leftists
i personally believe that it is solely a womans choice, regardless of her culture
if a man wants to keep a baby and the woman get rid of it, it creates a problem where none needs to exist, and save a baby from a probably poor relationship with her mother

[Mala Tha Testa]

why are you arguing over an issue that has no concern over the welfare of communism
that's why it's in opposing ideologies. and it sort of does, and China isn't even Socialist, let alone Communist.

[ashaman1324]

hmm
i see my name above
but i dont recall posting anything here
weird.
but im prochoice like it says

[ashaman1324]

and i agree
china is becoming more capitalist than the us