An articulation of contempt for a woman's right to choose

[Rascolnikova]

I hope you will all forgive me for an ungraceful induction into OI. I am not a very experienced leftist, and in my ignorance I was under the impression that a socialist was someone who believed the workers should own the means of production, and a feminist was someone who believed in fighting for gender equality.

Like most involved and aware reproductive rights activists, I am in favor of reducing abortion. This is a stance I am deeply attached to, and the more important part of this essay by far.

When someone asks me if I support the complete availability of abortion, I ask myself, “is there any case in which I would support some restriction on abortion?” And the answer is, “yes, if abortion is understood as a procedure which both ends the pregnancy and destroys the fetus, in a circumstance where merely ending the pregnancy would be safer.” While this is my best judgment, by and large I don't care. This is never a stance I would devote any kind of resources to. I probably wouldn't ever spend this much time arguing for it had I not been restricted for it's sake, and I probably wouldn't have mentioned it ever, had I not been attempting to honestly answer a question. It is merely what I think is best, and I reiterate it now strictly for honesty.


On restricting abortion:

There are two issues; the health of the mother, and the value of the fetus.

The value the fetus' life is an old bag, around which much of the abortion debate has unfortunately raged. While from a scientific standpoint I think it's silly to say the fetus is not alive, when it comes to the question of allowing abortion I don't give a shit whether or not it's a person.

Innocent people die every day for the maintenance of inequality; allowing a few to die for equality is a neccessary if unfortunate exchange.

The issue of health risks from abortion is real. Death by pregnancy isn't common in the first world, but there are some ends that make it much more likely than others; particularly, complications with a live birth, or a late term abortion.

My potential willingness to restrict abortion stems, perhaps, from an unusual intimacy with midwifery. Modern--dare I say, patriarchal—medicine has an unfortunate habit of not even mentioning statistically small risks it can easily hide.

It is my understanding that abortion, on average, is about three times more likely to result in the death of the mother than birth. The chances of death are very low, but if there are two procedures leading to the same end, one of which has more than three times the death rate of the other, shouldn't we make a practise of using the safer one?

Always providing the option of induced labor fulfills the criteria that any woman can choose to stop being pregnant at any time, for any reason. Restricting the availability of late term abortions in cases where induced labor would be a safer practise could reduce the incidence of what should be, but is not, called malpractice. It also potentially acts to minimize the casualties of equality without sacrificing freedom to end pregnancy.

Clearly this applies only in certain social and political environments. This stance seems best to me, though is far less important than my stance on the availability of abortions (and induced labor under competent supervision), which is to say, that they need to be available. . . and it is massively less important to me than my stance on reducing abortion.



On reducing abortion:

For every woman who has difficulty accessing an abortion when she wants one, there are at least five who have difficulty feeding the children they had no desire at all to abort. Women continue to bear the substantial majority of economic, biological, social, and personal costs of family planning, childbearing and childrearing. These tasks are not going to go away, and attempting to manufacture a biological equality with abortion will not solve this workload inequality. Most abortions are situational solutions for particular instances of this systemic problem.

I'd like women to have the choice of asking their partner to be the one who puts their long term health and short term happiness at risk by using hormonal birth control. I'd like them to have the choice of engaging in healthy parenting practices, like breastfeeding and spending time with their children, in public, with minimal exclusion from society. I'd like them to have the choice of carrying a pregnancy to term and raising a child after they are raped or abandoned without risking a lifetime of economic hardship.

I'd like human beings to have the choice of engaging in a professional world with enough flexibility, protections, and social support for parenthood—including pregnancy—that being an involved parent is never a severe handicap there. I'd like all people to have the choice of excelling in the subjects that lead to high paying professions—and for that matter, as far as it's practical the choice of excelling at anything—without sacrificing social capital, and without sacrificing parenthood.

The concept of a human being's right to bodily autonomy is not a dispassionate one for me. I would love to live in a culture that actually believed in this concept, and I would love to see every woman always have the choice of whether or not to continue a pregnancy. Certainly the option of abortion has a place of importance on any list of essential human rights.

That doesn't have any influence on the fact that abortion is a painful and often traumatic way to solve the problem of unplanned pregnancy. When you have held a 14 year old as she cried through the night after her first abortion and helped her change her dressings, when you have held the hands of women who have gone through with this procedure under pressure from others to their own great detriment, and most importantly when you have watched a friend undergo repeated abortions only to be continuously subjected to the horrific conditions that lead to them in the first place, then you will have room to say a distaste for abortion is anti-feminist. At that point, you will no longer be able to maintain any humanitarian facade while telling me that this is a procedure we shouldn't be trying to reduce the incidence of. The fact that the atmosphere on revleft is so hostile to anti-abortion policies that few, if any, (in the absence of such an open challenge) (http://www.revleft.com/vb/feminist-life-contradiction-t87884/index.html?t=87884) are willing to publicly sympathize with this view reveals nothing short of pigheadedness, institutionalized cowardice, an ethically barren landscape and a sickening ignorance or unconcern regarding the actual welfare of women.

Parenting based inequality (along with capitalism) forms the roots of economic and social oppression that leaves women much more vulnerable to domestic violence, rape, physical disability, political and social disenfranchisement, and ignorance. We should aggressively reduce abortion by attacking this more significant cause of demand for it, rather than shoot our own feet by , at the expense of useful action, emphasizing a short term emergency-care solution that appeals to few people as the answer to a chronic and debilitating problem that effects almost everyone.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Interesting essay.

Anyway, another question I have is: in a post-revolutionary society, your utopia et al, would a parent be able to simply decide that she no longer wants her kid and, at anytime of the childs life before adulthood, be able to give him/her away and forget about the child? Like, starting over, I guess.

This obviously doesn't apply to the Brave New World folks.

[Lynx]

A woman's right to control her own body would be preserved even in a utopia. I don't see a direct alternative to abortion on demand. Improving social conditions would encourage some women to carry through on a pregnancy, but not all women. A direct alternative will have to wait for some technological marvel.

[freakazoid]

Dude, very nice essay, :thumbup1:

So basically what I gather is that you do not believe that there should be a law restricting abortions at any stage of pregnancy. Am I right?

[Rascolnikova]

.

[Bud Struggle]

A really well thought out essay from both a philosophical and a progmatic point of view.

A couple of things:
Innocent people die every day for the maintenance of inequality; allowing a few to die for equality is a neccessary if unfortunate exchange. I wonder then who should be the judge of who should die? On could equally say that maybe it should be the mother that dies for equality. How could you say that it should ALWAYS be the baby?


It is my understanding that abortion, on average, is about three times more likely to result in the death of the mother than birth. The chances of death are very low, but if there are two procedures leading to the same end, one of which has more than three times the death rate of the other, shouldn't we make a practise of using the safer one? Now that IS a very interesting point. So birth is the safest route.


Restricting the availability of late term abortions in cases where induced labor would be a safer practise could reduce the incidence of what should be, but is not, called malpractice. It also potentially acts to minimize the casualties of equality without sacrificing freedom to end pregnancy. Great point.


I'd like women to have the choice of asking their partner to be the one who puts their long term health and short term happiness at risk by using hormonal birth control. I'd like them to have the choice of engaging in healthy parenting practices, like breastfeeding and spending time with their children, in public, with minimal exclusion from society. I'd like them to have the choice of carrying a pregnancy to term and raising a child after they are raped or abandoned without risking a lifetime of economic hardship.
Wonderfully reasonable. I also think that in the long run is something that RevLeft might agree with if they would take a break from the abort, abort, about rhetoric for a moment.


That doesn't have any influence on the fact that abortion is a painful and often traumatic way to solve the problem of unplanned pregnancy. Very true.


The fact that the atmosphere on revleft is so hostile to anti-abortion policies that few, if any, (in the absence of such an open challenge) (http://www.revleft.com/vb/feminist-life-contradiction-t87884/index.html?t=87884) are willing to publicly sympathize with this view reveals nothing short of pigheadedness, institutionalized cowardice, an ethically barren landscape and a sickening ignorance or unconcern regarding the actual welfare of women. That's what happens when ideology is more important than humanity.


Parenting based inequality (along with capitalism) forms the roots of economic and social oppression that leaves women much more vulnerable to domestic violence, rape, physical disability, political and social disenfranchisement, and ignorance. We should aggressively reduce abortion by attacking this more significant cause of demand for it, rather than shoot our own feet by , at the expense of useful action, emphasizing a short term emergency-care solution that appeals to few people as the answer to a chronic and debilitating problem that effects almost everyone. And that should be the main goal of Socialism--the betterment of humanity as a whole not the libertarian individualism of the radical pro-abortion crowd.

Great post--welcome to OI. Stick around you'll do quite well here.

[danyboy27]

verry interesting.

Reducing arbortion would be super if the state would take in charge the unwanted children, in order to give them a good life and to give him eventually parents.

Women arbortion decision are usually motivated by the fact that they cannot take care of them or are not ready to have children, so finding a good way to take care of those children may change all that.

and beside, if contraceptives methods are well practiced and well spread, it should reduce greatly the risk of pregnancy, i think that the risk of being pregnant for the contraceptive pills is like 4%, and add the condom and it almost 0%.

Personally, i dont mind for arbortion, i think its brutal and violent, but well, its her choice somehow.

Peo-ple are dropped in the IO every time they have an opinion on it and i find it sad, its not beccause a person personally advocate a different opinion on arbortion that he not a good socialist or communist. Its his personnal opinion for god sake! he dont demand it has a prerequirste for a new world! he just THINK that he would prefers that.

[Rascolnikova]

LOL. . ..
Thanks Tom. I'm not sure you're helping. . . but thanks anyway. :)



A couple of things: I wonder then who should be the judge of who should die? On could equally say that maybe it should be the mother that dies for equality. How could you say that it should ALWAYS be the baby?

Where did I say that it should always be the baby, or anything even slightly like that? My argument is not that the child should always die, but that it should always be the mother's choice.


There are a couple of closely related issues at stake here. One is that historically, external forces have done a shitty job of deciding when women should and shouldn't be allowed to have abortions. If I'm not mistaken, that was the original deciding factor in Roe v. Wade. "Roe" claimed to have been raped, and her case looked shaky, but regardless it was clear that if she had waited for a legal abortion instead of seeking an illegal one, it would have been substantially dangerous to her health by the time the permissions went through--if they went through.


The other is that human beings, on a very serious and fundamental level, should be permitted to decide what goes on with their own bodies. There are two sides this.

It might seem fair to assume that a child would always decide to live, if they were able to decide for themselves, but I don't believe this is the case. I know that as a woman, for a long time I felt that even in a worst case scenario, where I had been raped and my life were in danger from carrying the fetus to term, the right choice would be to preserve the child's life over my own. Even now, when I no longer believe my body belongs to everybody else, I can see that there might be circumstances where I would chose to risk my own life in favor of a potential child's; I can only assume that sometimes the unborn person in question might choose a similar sacrifice.

I personally don't believe in natural rights for parents. However, as a society we give parents very strong rights, in hopes that they will make the best decisions for their children because it's clear we have no other mechanism that will do a better job. As a parent, a pregnant woman has the responsibility of looking after the her child/fetus' right to physical self-determination and weighing that against any other factors. Once more--as far as I can tell, at least--we don't have a mechanism that will do a better job.


Finally, we reach the crux of most pro-choice arguments--a woman's right to decide about herself, for herself. To be honest, I don't even know where to start on this, there's so much to say. I suppose that as a central issue, if one believes in any kind of freedom or any kind rights at all, the right to control one's own body is an obvious centerpiece. As we live in a culture that seems to jump at any excuse to diminish acceptance of a woman's right to her own body, the place this takes in the abortion debate can be an incredibly tender one.

I'm sure there are strong technical arguments somewhere about why personal choice about one's body is key, but the strongest argument I've ever experienced for this is incredibly basic. I've tried believing that my body was for everybody else. I'm aware that my experience with this was perhaps more terrible than average, but I genuinely don't understand how anybody ever does it and stays sane.

There are plenty of examples of how our culture supports the idea that a woman's body is for everybody else; marital rape, for example, was legal in some states of the US through the early 90s. I believe the burden of proof for it, now, in many places still far exceeds what is required to prosecute any other kind of rape. This is only one reflection of a strong cultural attitude that wives have a duty to surrender their bodies to their husbands at any time, on demand. How is it possible to conceive of an equal relationship under that presupposition? How is it possible, as a woman, to believe that you are as legitimate a human being as a man is when you believe that it is natural duty and demand of your gender that you submit to such violation?

Besides the practicalities of not having any better ideas, the implications of physical self-determination for equality are overwhelming. If we are to have equality, we can't have a situation in which physical self-determination is automatically removed for one gender but never for the other. On top if it's own basic injustice, it sets an unapologetic precedent in the law for removing someone's right to their own body for someone else's benefit, which is dubious even if it weren't gender discriminatory. This alone should make a strong argument for leaving the choice up to the mother.


You may note that besides all of this, I unapologetically maintain that to avoid the the moral hazard of sacrificing what might be innocent lives, the danger of taking abortion as a solution to the problem of unequal parenthood, and the extremely high costs of abortion to women, we should do maintain a high commitment to reducing abortion while always maintaining a woman's freedom to end pregnancy at will.

[Rascolnikova]

That's what happens when ideology is more important than humanity.


perhaps this is another point of ignorance, but I'd always felt the ideology of communism should be about humanity.

[Bud Struggle]

LOL. . ..
Thanks Tom. I'm not sure you're helping. . . but thanks anyway. :) You know I hear that a lot from women--on a whole variety of issues. :rolleyes::lol:


Where did I say that it should always be the baby, or anything even slightly like that? My argument is not that the child should always die, but that it should always be the mother's choice. I understand, but yo still have a hiearchy of choice. The mother chooses before the baby. Maybe because the mother is host to the baby?



There are a couple of closely related issues at stake here. One is that historically, external forces have done a shitty job of deciding when women should and shouldn't be allowed to have abortions. If I'm not mistaken, that was the original deciding factor in Roe v. Wade. "Roe" claimed to have been raped, and her case looked shaky, but regardless it was clear that if she had waited for a legal abortion instead of seeking an illegal one, it would have been substantially dangerous to her health by the time the permissions went through--if they went through. Of course, because the human issues were never quite as important as the ideological issues. Witness the RevLeft arguement of all abortion all the time. The human issues never come into play--no considerations but the political freedom of the mother, no thinking of any other alternative than a fetus is a protoplasic blob until the vgoyage out of the birth canal. Even when it's pretty obvious that baby old enough to be viable. While I understand the Party Line RevLeft attitude, is bespeaks of ideological politics not common sense humanity. And in a practical sense such attitudes will kep the kind of Communism practiced here at RevLeft parochial and small time.

It's an insult to Communism for a good and intelligent Socialist like you to be branded with the title "Counter-Revolutionary" and cast among the Miesians and Chicago Schoolers and factory owners of OI. But be that as it may. Hopefully you'll see you are accepted among the Capitalists no matter what your beliefs on Abortion and you will further your journey to Caoitalist Republicanism ;):)



The other is that human beings, on a very serious and fundamental level, should be permitted to decide what goes on with their own bodies. There are two sides this.

It might seem fair to assume that a child would always decide to live, if they were able to decide for themselves, but I don't believe this is the case. I know that as a woman, for a long time I felt that even in a worst case scenario, where I had been raped and my life were in danger from carrying the fetus to term, the right choice would be to preserve the child's life over my own. Even now, when I no longer believe my body belongs to everybody else, I can see that there might be circumstances where I would chose to risk my own life in favor of a potential child's; I can only assume that sometimes the unborn person in question might choose a similar sacrifice. Good answer. Again your point goes beyond ideology and focuses on the humanity and the morality of the situation.


I personally don't believe in natural rights for parents. However, as a society we give parents very strong rights, in hopes that they will make the best decisions for their children because it's clear we have no other mechanism that will do a better job. As a parent, a pregnant woman has the responsibility of looking after the her child/fetus' right to physical self-determination and weighing that against any other factors. Once more--as far as I can tell, at least--we don't have a mechanism that will do a better job.


Finally, we reach the crux of most pro-choice arguments--a woman's right to decide about herself, for herself. To be honest, I don't even know where to start on this, there's so much to say. I suppose that as a central issue, if one believes in any kind of freedom or any kind rights at all, the right to control one's own body is an obvious centerpiece. As we live in a culture that seems to jump at any excuse to diminish acceptance of a woman's right to her own body, the place this takes in the abortion debate can be an incredibly tender one.

I'm sure there are strong technical arguments somewhere about why personal choice about one's body is key, but the strongest argument I've ever experienced for this is incredibly basic. I've tried believing that my body was for everybody else. I'm aware that my experience with this was perhaps more terrible than average, but I genuinely don't understand how anybody ever does it and stays sane.

There are plenty of examples of how our culture supports the idea that a woman's body is for everybody else; marital rape, for example, was legal in some states of the US through the early 90s. I believe the burden of proof for it, now, in many places still far exceeds what is required to prosecute any other kind of rape. This is only one reflection of a strong cultural attitude that wives have a duty to surrender their bodies to their husbands at any time, on demand. How is it possible to conceive of an equal relationship under that presupposition? How is it possible, as a woman, to believe that you are as legitimate a human being as a man is when you believe that it is natural duty and demand of your gender that you submit to such violation?

Besides the practicalities of not having any better ideas, the implications of physical self-determination for equality are overwhelming. If we are to have equality, we can't have a situation in which physical self-determination is automatically removed for one gender but never for the other. On top if it's own basic injustice, it sets an unapologetic precedent in the law for removing someone's right to their own body for someone else's benefit, which is dubious even if it weren't gender discriminatory. This alone should make a strong argument for leaving the choice up to the mother.


You may note that besides all of this, I unapologetically maintain that to avoid the the moral hazard of sacrificing what might be innocent lives, the danger of taking abortion as a solution to the problem of unequal parenthood, and the extremely high costs of abortion to women, we should do maintain a high commitment to reducing abortion while always maintaining a woman's freedom to end pregnancy at will.

Very well reasoned. But unlike the "da and nyet" set I see the reasonableness of your positions.

FWIW: I personally am a Catholic and feel that if there is a certain (yes, God given) sanctity to each and every human life, so I am not in the least in favor of Abortion. If one were to postit (as I do) that a fetus at any stage is a human life it's difficult to take any other option. In the same way that I take the idea ther each (birthed) human has a distinct dignity and worth. One of the reasons I'm on RevLeft is to get new perspectives and insights on the best and fruitful way to treat and understand workers and their issues and problems. I don't always agree with the Communists here but I take their views into careful consideration and I think it's made me a better and more humane business owner. The other reason I'm here is to tell really bad jokes--and these guys are the only people on the net that will listen. :D

Welcome, stick around OI and we'll make a stock broker of you yet. :lol:

[Rascolnikova]

That's funny. . . I'd have thought it was an insult to communism for you to say I was a "good and intelligent socialist" and then imply that because of this I'd be switching ideologies shortly.

I'm not sure you do understand the revleft take on abortion; while clearly I'm not a fan of how it's handled, there is a very real humanitarian reason behind it. Have you ever been in a position where your right to your own bodily integrity was compromised, not only by your immediate material situation, but by the social and political constructs of your world?

At any rate, I'm most curious; do you believe--or do you believe god believes--that equality or physical self-determination are of little importance? And can I take this to mean that you are against all killing, or at least all killing of innocents?

[Bud Struggle]

That's funny. . . I'd have thought it was an insult to communism for you to say I was a "good and intelligent socialist" and then imply that because of this I'd be switching ideologies shortly. This was a poke/joke at RevLeft--not at you. I've told them before--if they keep kicking Socialists into RevLeft for the ancillary views on Abortion--they will loose lots of good people. We actually had a spate of them a while back. And that brings me back to the OTHER reason I'm here at RevLeft--to tell bad jokes.


I'm not sure you do understand the revleft take on abortion; while clearly I'm not a fan of how it's handled, there is a very real humanitarian reason behind it. Have you ever been in a position where your right to your own bodily integrity was compromised, not only by your immediate material situation, but by the social and political constructs of your world? I certainly understand RevLeft's position. As a matter of fact their overall humanitarian position is why I post on RevLeft. I am muchly in sympathy with their ends--it's their means I have trouble with. As to my own bodily integrity being compromised--no, but my parents were refugees from Poland right before WWII so I do understand how political and social constructs can devastate people.


At any rate, I'm most curious; do you believe--or do you believe god believes--that equality or physical self-determination are of little importance? And can I take this to mean that you are against all killing, or at least all killing of innocents? I think equality is of great improtance in the world. Everyone should be fair and equitable chances for a happy and prosperous life. As is self determination important but everything has to be tempered by a judicious understanding of the rights of others. Again--if you feel the fetus is a human life then the right of the fetus should be respected--if you don't I can fully understand and respect the ramifications there also.

And I'm against all killing of on human being by another--one person justdoesn not have the right to take the kife on another person...so, I'm not a fan of the death penalty.

[Rascolnikova]

This was a poke/joke at RevLeft--not at you. I've told them before--if they keep kicking Socialists into RevLeft for the ancillary views on Abortion--they will loose lots of good people. We actually had a spate of them a while back. And that brings me back to the OTHER reason I'm here at RevLeft--to tell bad jokes.

hey, I said it was funny. ;)



I certainly understand RevLeft's position. As a matter of fact their overall humanitarian position is why I post on RevLeft. I am muchly in sympathy with their ends--it's their means I have trouble with. As to my own bodily integrity being compromised--no, but my parents were refugees from Poland right before WWII so I do understand how political and social constructs can devastate people.

I think equality is of great improtance in the world. Everyone should be fair and equitable chances for a happy and prosperous life. As is self determination important but everything has to be tempered by a judicious understanding of the rights of others. Again--if you feel the fetus is a human life then the right of the fetus should be respected--if you don't I can fully understand and respect the ramifications there also.

And I'm against all killing of on human being by another--one person justdoesn not have the right to take the kife on another person...so, I'm not a fan of the death penalty.

Since--I assume?--you believe abortion should be restricted, how do you feel the equality issues in restricting abortion should be resolved?

Are you also against war, in all cases?

[Bud Struggle]

Since--I assume?--you believe abortion should be restricted, how do you feel the equality issues in restricting abortion should be resolved?I think human life trumps fairness. It's better to sacrifice some of one's personal freedom than to harm another.


Are you also against war, in all cases?Here I try to be reasonable. I'm against killing--but if someone broke into my house and threatened my family, if I were forced to kill him, I would. Same with war--I guess about 95% of them are just the worthless expenditure of human life but inorder to prevent some greater slaughter I guess a war could be permitted in some circumstances.

[BobKKKindle$]

There are two issues; the health of the mother, and the value of the fetus.

These are the only two issues we should consider in the abortion debate? The most important issue is the right of each individual woman to choose whether she wants to carry a pregnancy to term, and if a woman decides to terminate the pregnancy then she should be able to opt for what she sees as the best means of doing so, whether that involves induced labour, or an alternative method such as dilation, even if her chosen method poses a greater health risk than inducing labour. You have still not put forward a coherent case for restricting abortion.

[Bud Struggle]

These are the only two issues we should consider in the abortion debate? The most important issue is the right of each individual woman to choose whether she wants to carry a pregnancy to term, and if a woman decides to terminate the pregnancy then she should be able to opt for what she sees as the best means of doing so, whether that involves induced labour, or an alternative method such as dilation, even if her chosen method poses a greater health risk than inducing labour. You have still not put forward a coherent case for restricting abortion.

The standard RevLeft cut and paste Party Line.:rolleyes: :lol:

[Rascolnikova]

I think human life trumps fairness. It's better to sacrifice some of one's personal freedom than to harm another.

That's very Christian of you.

Some of us think that restricting certain freedoms constitutes harm, probably including you.


These are the only two issues we should consider in the abortion debate?

Those were the two issues that were relevant to defending my position. If you feel there are other issues at stake in that particular position--besides the one I've addressed below--please raise them.



The most important issue is the right of each individual woman to choose whether she wants to carry a pregnancy to term, Simplistic, but close enough; the policies I proposed preserve this right completely.



and if a woman decides to terminate the pregnancy then she should be able to opt for what she sees as the best means of doing so, whether that involves induced labour, or an alternative method such as dilation, even if her chosen method poses a greater health risk than inducing labour. And this is a separate question.

Tell me, do you also defend the availability of non-sterile abortions?

I am not suggesting that women should be punished for having this procedure; I'm suggesting that sometimes the physician should be liable for malpractice when he or she chooses the less safe option. Effectively, this restricts the availability. . . just as the availability of other medical procedures is restricted at times, when there is a better option that ought to be used instead.


You have still not put forward a coherent case for restricting abortion.That's possible, and I'm entirely willing to concede that it may be best not to even slightly restrict abortion. When I say I am passionate about my view on abortion, I mean I am passionate about the idea that abortion is a terrifically important right to have available, but that we've simultaneously a profound duty to minimize need for it--and thereby minimize it, within the bounds of what's possible while preserving what is needed.

Be all of that as it may, you have not explained how the case I've made is incoherent.


By the way, bobkindles, thank you very much for jumping in. I was about to post something like this:


I have to say, I'm sort of disappointed in this response. As much fun as it is to discuss abortion with TomK, since I'm restricted to opposing ideologies now, it would have been nice to get some opposition. Clearly there is opposition to my view, somewhere on this board, or I wouldn't have been restricted for it.

From reading old posts written to people in similar situations, and in some pms to me, I've seen a lot of, "we want you to develop proper socialist views. Do so, demonstrate it clearly, over time, and we will let you come back." I've already talked to the people I know in real life. My view on abortion is one that I have held for awhile, and I feel that it is passionate and well informed. It's not going to change unless someone can at least point me in the direction of something to read that would give me new information.

If my view is so un-socialist that it renders me unfit to discuss any topic in the general forum, why will no one explain what is un-socialist about it? The closest that I've come to this is in the "unfair restrictions" thread when Jazzrat told me I was in favor of restricting a woman's right to choose to avoid discomfort. It seems to me that at this point it becomes a question of whether it should be illegal to penalize doctors for preforming a more dangerous procedure over a less dangerous one, or perhaps a question of whether people in general ought to have the freedom to choose more dangerous procedures which might be more comfortable for them.

Even this, as I've said, I'm not attached to. . . in which case perhaps it's my advocation for reducing abortion that's gotten me restricted? But no one will explain why that position is wrong either. In theory, my restriction is a question of logic and ideology and evidence, not one of personal offense? I hope? If you believe this is something I've made up in the hope of conveniently avoiding restriction, I'll disagree, but at least there would be some sort of logical charge made against me, which would be nice.

What I find most likely is that, feeling uncomfortable with my strong stance on minimizing abortion and taking a single statement out of context, my views were misinterpreted. It is possible that this is not the case, and that there really is something fundamentally incompatible with an ideal socialist society in my view; if this is the case, I genuinely want to learn about it.

I was excited when I came to revleft because I don't get a chance to talk to a variety of leftists in real life. Communism hasn't come free to me, as in the process of becoming dedicated to these views over the past two years, a number of my friendships have been damaged and destroyed for it. The barrenness of discussion (discussion, not pontification--you know who you are) in real life makes me hesitant to leave, but if this is the conversation I'm given room for there's no reason to spend a lot of time here.

I know you have no obligation to engage me, but it would be both helpful and kind if you would oblige, and I would deeply appreciate it. Please reconsider joining this discussion.P.S.
Btw, Bobkindles, it's worth noting that when you left the note on my page saying


hey, do you think abortion should be available at all stages of pregnancy =)after I'd been attacked for declaring myself anti-abortion in a thread that proclaimed itself to be about whether someone could be feminist and anti-abortion, I answered your question presuming a colloquial use of the term "abortion"--which, in medical speech, would be an umbrella term for any early termination of a pregnancy, whether or not it destroyed the fetus.

[Bud Struggle]

That's very Christian of you.

Some of us think that restricting certain freedoms constitutes harm, probably including you.

Ah yes, I feel that restricting my God given Capitalist right to own a factory constitutes harm (to me) but I am in a minority on RevLeft in that belief. :(

You see phrases like "restricting certain freedoms constitutes harm" become realtive judgement calls very quickly.

[Rascolnikova]

Ah yes, I feel that restricting my God given Capitalist right to own a factory constitutes harm (to me) but I am in a minority on RevLeft in that belief. :(

You see phrases like "restricting certain freedoms constitutes harm" become realtive judgement calls very quickly.

you feel that your right to be a factory owner is god given?

No offense, Tom, but that's kind of creepy.

What exactly isn't a relative judgment call?

[Bud Struggle]

you feel that your right to be a factory owner is god given?

No offense, Tom, but that's kind of creepy.

What exactly isn't a relative judgment call?

With no God--everythings a judgement call.

The creepy is your opinion--and ONLY your opinion. You might as well say that Black people are creepy or gays or Capitalalists. Other people's judgement calls. Just opinions.

Now the BASIS of your opinion--that's what matters.

[Rascolnikova]

With no God--everythings a judgement call.

The creepy is your opinion--and ONLY your opinion. You might as well say that Black people are creepy or gays or Capitalalists. Other people's judgement calls. Just opinions.

Now the BASIS of your opinion--that's what matters.

lol. . .

yeah, well... I guess I hadn't even thought of "creepy" as an opinion, more of a visceral reaction. I can't disagree that there's all sorts of random things that give people adverse visceral reactions, many of which shouldn't be acted against in any way. In this case, my reaction is similar to what it would be if I heard someone likeable, kind, and ostensibly humanitarian mention irrelevantly that they feel they've a God given right to own slaves. It's not personal at all, I'm aware that your view lines up more closely with the rest of society.

I suppose the question of why you think there's a God, and why you think some particular set of information represents it's preferences, should be reserved for another thread. :)

[534634634265]

rascolnikova is my new favorite OI'er.:wub:

[Plagueround]

rascolnikova is my new favorite OI'er.:wub:

Tell her about your rejection of class struggle politics in favor of creating an army of homeless drug addicts to do your bidding. I'm sure she'll swoon. :p

[Bud Struggle]

rascolnikova is my new favorite OI'er.:wub:

You Commies kicking her out of RevLeft is one of the really one of the more classic cutting of your noses to spight your face moves I've ever seen. :rolleyes:

[Bud Struggle]

lol. . .

yeah, well... I guess I hadn't even thought of "creepy" as an opinion, more of a visceral reaction. I can't disagree that there's all sorts of random things that give people adverse visceral reactions, many of which shouldn't be acted against in any way. In this case, my reaction is similar to what it would be if I heard someone likeable, kind, and ostensibly humanitarian mention irrelevantly that they feel they've a God given right to own slaves. It's not personal at all, I'm aware that your view lines up more closely with the rest of society.I understand but all that we have of an ethic is what's been given to us. If you have been born the daughter of Col. Beaureguard T. Cornpone of the Virginia Planter Cornpones in 1820 you mught have a completely different understanding of slavery. As I said--it's all relative.


I suppose the question of why you think there's a God, and why you think some particular set of information represents it's preferences, should be reserved for another thread. :) I just brought up God as an arbitrary place to start an ethic. I didn't mean to go off topic.

[Rascolnikova]

I understand but all that we have of an ethic is what's been given to us. If you have been born the daughter of Col. Beaureguard T. Cornpone of the Virginia Planter Cornpones in 1820 you mught have a completely different understanding of slavery. As I said--it's all relative.

I'm sure I would have. I went to kindergarten in Alabama, and had never seen a black person before, never lived in the south before. Having not grown up around the history, I was quite shocked at my teacher's explanation of slavery--"well, somebody had to do the work"--but I seemed to be the only one. If this is how they taught six year olds in the 90's, I am not capable of imagining 1820.

I'm sure I have similar issues which I'm unaware of, but from this perspective I feel quite safe in condemning some few things, slavery being high on the list. We can examine what we're given, even if we will never have perfect freedom from it.

I remember having this impression, when I visited Montecello; I'd never been a big fan of Jefferson, but being there it was so clear--in context of all I'd read--that owning slaves, he knew that what he was doing was wrong. . . there was such a sense of guilt and personal struggle, such a profound sense of being bound by his time, all tangled up and winding through the absolute beauty and stunning brilliance of his work. He did so many things to make the lives of his workers better, put so much thought into careful, beautiful, fantastic design on their behalf--while he ate fine French food in his library, while he owned them, and sometimes sold them, while they slept in the dirt.

We are all bound by our world, and we all have to answer to our guilt.



I just brought up God as an arbitrary place to start an ethic. I didn't mean to go off topic.And I didn't mean to accuse you of going off topic, but rather to imply that there's a full thread worth of material at least in that sub-discussion. No one seems to want to have this thread, anyway, so we might as well get in lots of spam. :)




Anyway, another question I have is: in a post-revolutionary society, your utopia et al, would a parent be able to simply decide that she no longer wants her kid and, at anytime of the childs life before adulthood, be able to give him/her away and forget about the child? Like, starting over, I guess.

This obviously doesn't apply to the Brave New World folks.

What do you mean by the Brave New World folks?

Apparently you hadn't noticed this, but a parent can simply decide that he or she doesn't want their child at any time, and the question of whether they are able to forget seems an entirely strange one to me. Usually this is done by simple abandonment, but there's an official version that involves renouncing parental rights in court.

The most tragic form of this, I think, happens when parents know they are too poor to care for their children and therefore relinquish them forever to the state--usually for want of special needs care. This is made worse by the fact that state programs pretty uniformly do a terrible job of raising kids, rendering the idea that a state could be utopian enough to somehow give them a good life extremely dubious.

The measures I suggest to reduce abortion would, incidentally, also dramatically reduce child abuse. And likely overpopulation.

I say this from the perspective of being in my second year of working officially in the child welfare system in the US, after a decade of secondhand experience.



Edit: I should mention, TomK, that as much as I deeply enjoy being a ***** at times, I do in fact like you quite a lot and it's not my intent to set myself up as arbiter of your morality, or anything of the sort. . . just making observations from my own experience, and am well aware I haven't what I'd need to apply them to yours.

[Bud Struggle]

I remember having this impression, when I visited Montecello; I'd never been a big fan of Jefferson, but being there it was so clear--in context of all I'd read--that owning slaves, he knew that what he was doing was wrong. . . there was such a sense of guilt and personal struggle, such a profound sense of being bound by his time, all tangled up and winding through the absolute beauty and stunning brilliance of his work. He did so many things to make the lives of his workers better, put so much thought into careful, beautiful, fantastic design on their behalf--while he ate fine French food in his library, while he owned them, and sometimes sold them, while they slept in the dirt.


I'm wondering if some young lady's going to write this 250 years from now:

I remember having this impression, when I visited the museum of the 21st century businessman TomK's Savehay Farm; I'd never been a big fan of TomK, but being there it was so clear--in context of all I'd read--that owning the means of production, he knew that what he was doing was wrong. . . there was such a sense of guilt and personal struggle, such a profound sense of being bound by his time. He did so many things to make the lives of his workers better, put so much thought into careful, beautiful, fantastic design on their behalf--while he ate fine French food in his library, while he employed them, and sometimes fired them, while they slept in cheep apartments.

We are all bound by our world, and we all have to answer to our guilt.

:lol::unsure:

[freakazoid]

I'm wondering if some young lady's going to write this 250 years from now:

I remember having this impression, when I visited the museum of the 21st century businessman TomK's Savehay Farm; I'd never been a big fan of TomK, but being there it was so clear--in context of all I'd read--that owning the means of production, he knew that what he was doing was wrong. . . there was such a sense of guilt and personal struggle, such a profound sense of being bound by his time. He did so many things to make the lives of his workers better, put so much thought into careful, beautiful, fantastic design on their behalf--while he ate fine French food in his library, while he employed them, and sometimes fired them, while they slept in cheep apartments.

We are all bound by our world, and we all have to answer to our guilt.

:lol::unsure:

:lol:

[Rascolnikova]

I'm wondering if some young lady's going to write this 250 years from now:

I remember having this impression, when I visited the museum of the 21st century businessman TomK's Savehay Farm; I'd never been a big fan of TomK, but being there it was so clear--in context of all I'd read--that owning the means of production, he knew that what he was doing was wrong. . . there was such a sense of guilt and personal struggle, such a profound sense of being bound by his time. He did so many things to make the lives of his workers better, put so much thought into careful, beautiful, fantastic design on their behalf--while he ate fine French food in his library, while he employed them, and sometimes fired them, while they slept in cheep apartments.

We are all bound by our world, and we all have to answer to our guilt.


:lol::unsure:



*laughing*

1) you'd better watch out.. . it could happen. ;)

2) if your personal correspondence has anything like the tone of your revleft posts, no one's going to pick up a sense of guilt from reading it, so maybe you don't need to be too worried. Or, you should get on that, depending what you prefer.

3) If you have the design talent of Thomas Jefferson, What the fuck are you doing on Revleft? You should be out building things.




Edit: so, I might as well say something relevant in this post. Spam is a little salty straight.

I've been thinking of your assertion that the child's life simply trumps a woman's right to choose, within your own morality. .. While I can see, in that weird "god said so" sort of way, how that works out, I wonder-- what do you think should be done to address the inequality issues related to this in other ways?

[DesertShark]

Interesting thread, good beginning essay. However, I looked through everyone's posts (I may have missed this, if I did my apologies) and did not see anyone discuss why women have abortions. This is important because it leads us to the cause of abortion and where our focus should be to end the need for abortions. No one likes abortion, but sometimes they are necessary and if they hadn't been banned for so long we might have mainstream knowledge of how to naturally induce an abortion instead of having to go to a doctor for a medical procedure, but that's a whole different issue.

So why do women have abortions? In most cases it is because of an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy. If this is true, then the focus should be on preventing unplanned/unwanted pregnancies. The best way to do this is education; educating women about their bodies and educating both sexes about safe sex practices and then making those options easily available.

On a completely different note: I dug how you pointed out the burden of preventing pregnancy shouldn't be solely the woman's. I think it would be awesome for the option to be there for men to take some sort of pill to prevent their ability to seed a pregnancy, hopefully science is getting on that.

-DesertShark

[Rascolnikova]

1) thank you.

2) No one likes abortion--except revleft. You are the first person who is not restricted who I've seen publicly admit that abortions are worth avoiding*, and I've been running searches on it. In fact, I was threatened with restriction before I'd said anything remotely implying the restriction of any abortion procedure purely on the basis of this stance; that's a very hostile atmosphere to belief in reducing abortion.

The exception, of course, is threads from before the current policy came into play.

3) I thought the question of under what circumstances abortions are needed was implicitly dealt with in the essay, and for that matter, in my original post (linked from the essay) from which all this has come.

When I say we need better economic and social support for parenting to reduce abortion, that implies the fact that women choose to have abortions because they don't feel they can afford it economically and socially, even when they'd otherwise want to. When I say we need to improve adoption as a choice for women, that implies that sometimes women have abortions when they would be willing and able to carry the fetus to term, but don't want to raise it. When I say we need to pour money into the development of better birth control options, that implies that women end up choosing to have abortions because birth control is problematic--either by failing, being invasive and uncomfortable, being unavailable, etc.

These solutions address, respectively, the way that most pregnancies which end in abortion--or which, if abortion were available now as it should be, would end in abortion--came to be unplanned or unwanted in the first place.


*excepting one earlier comment in this thread, which was of sort of ambiguous intent due to language issues.

[DesertShark]

2) No one likes abortion--except revleft. You are the first person who is not restricted who I've seen publicly admit that abortions are worth avoiding*, and I've been running searches on it. In fact, I was threatened with restriction before I'd said anything remotely implying the restriction of any abortion procedure purely on the basis of this stance; that's a very hostile atmosphere to belief in reducing abortion.

The exception, of course, is threads from before the current policy came into play.
I don't believe that revleft likes abortion, I think they're worried about people's rights being restricted, which is a concern I share. I don't think abortions should be restricted; choosing to have an abortion is an extremely difficult decision and I would like to see women not have to be put in the situation in the first place.


When I say we need better economic and social support for parenting to reduce abortion, that implies the fact that women choose to have abortions because they don't feel they can afford it economically and socially, even when they'd otherwise want to. When I say we need to improve adoption as a choice for women, that implies that sometimes women have abortions when they would be willing and able to carry the fetus to term, but don't want to raise it.
The difference is that these deal with the problem after pregnancy has occurred. The approach I was advocating was one that deals with the problem before pregnancy happens.


When I say we need to pour money into the development of better birth control options, that implies that women end up choosing to have abortions because birth control is problematic--either by failing, being invasive and uncomfortable, being unavailable, etc.
This sort of addresses the issue, but I don't believe that women choose abortions because birth control is problematic.


These solutions address, respectively, the way that most pregnancies which end in abortion--or which, if abortion were available now as it should be, would end in abortion--came to be unplanned or unwanted in the first place.
Dealing with economic and social issues involved in having a child are after the fact. While these things should be improved, I really think the answer is found way before a woman becomes pregnant. Which is why I was advocating education, which I don't remember you mentioning.

-DesertShark

[freakazoid]

2) No one likes abortion--except revleft. You are the first person who is not restricted who I've seen publicly admit that abortions are worth avoiding*, and I've been running searches on it. In fact, I was threatened with restriction before I'd said anything remotely implying the restriction of any abortion procedure purely on the basis of this stance; that's a very hostile atmosphere to belief in reducing abortion.

Welcome to revleft. I was caught up in it when it was starting to become a big issue. But I was finally released because they eventually realized that I DIDN'T think abortions should be banned. But what can us common people do?

[Rascolnikova]

I don't believe that revleft likes abortion, I think they're worried about people's rights being restricted, which is a concern I share.

This reflects a far greater concern with the right to not have a child once one is pregnant than with the right to have one, and not face crippling inequality because you chose to. Since I feel this second right effects far more people, far more of the time, than the first, I am more concerned with it. I think Revleft should be too, and that their dogmatism on the first at the expense of supporting the second is effectively an anti-choice position.


I don't think abortions should be restricted; choosing to have an abortion is an extremely difficult decision and I would like to see women not have to be put in the situation in the first place.In this we completely agree.



This sort of addresses the issue, but I don't believe that women choose abortions because birth control is problematic.I know that women end up in the position where they have to decide whether to get an abortion--and therefore, some women have abortions--because birth control is problematic. What exactly are you saying here? I don't see how any reasonable person could possibly make the assertion you seem to be making.

I'm not saying they say, "screw birth control, it's problematic. if it comes to that I'll just have an abortion." I'm saying when your boyfriend is drunk it can be hard to get him to wear a condom; I'm saying effectiveness and side effects of the pill vary from individual to individual, and sometimes there's no way to know how it works for you till it's too late; I'm saying that to be on the pill just in case is not a good option for a lot of women because it costs a lot of money and it can fuck with your health. Birth control is problematic. We need to work on it.



Dealing with economic and social issues involved in having a child are after the fact. While these things should be improved, I really think the answer is found way before a woman becomes pregnant. This distinction doesn't make any sense to me.

The economic and social environment in which a pregnancy takes place is not "before" or "after." It is a set of surroundings for the whole process that determines many things about whether and how women become pregnant, how they experience their pregnancies, and what their options realistically are to deal with the situation.

I think you are right that in the very specific issue of "those unplanned pregnancies where the mother wouldn't have wanted a child anyway," improved birth control and education--pre-emptive solutions--are certainly the best answer. I also think that outside of that limited circumstance, improving birth control as an option, both through further development, better education, and better distribution, would be fantastically useful for women (and not unuseful to men), and is certainly something we should heavily invest in.

I think there will probably always be unplanned pregnancies, and I don't consider it a casual or after-the-fact solution to try and make sure that in those cases where the mother would be happy to bring the fetus to term and/or raise it, save for our current social/political/economic setup, she has the resources necessary to make that a good option for her.


Which is why I was advocating education, which I don't remember you mentioning.I probably haven't mentioned that in this thread, though I'm pretty sure I did in the thread I linked from the op. You are right, this is a very important issue; I tend to lump it with birth control, because coming to the point where virtually everyone knows how to use birth control and has full medical disclosure on it is one of the central problems of birth control. Sorry for the unclarity/presumption.

[Rascolnikova]

I possibly shouldn't say this at all, but if I'm going to this seems as good a place as any.

I've understandably been doing a fair bit of pming and emailing on my abortion views of late.

If you are a man, and you have not attended at least one anesthetized birth or in some other way experienced something you are willing to describe which leads you to believe you can add to my own insight and experience on the matter, please do not inform me that labor involves discomfort and the risk of vaginal tearing. Please. Just as a courtesy.

That's all.

[534634634265]

i'm still confused by the comment on guilt.

am i to feel guilty for the years of oppression and death the led to me posting on this forum? am i to feel guilty for the thousands of species that have been eliminated by the blind consumption and growth of our civilization?

i think we may have personal guilt for our actions, but to assume any load of debt larger than that is to nail yourself to a cross unnecessarily. i could see a woman feeling guilty after having an abortion, or a man feeling guilty after having accidentally impregnating a woman, but to say we should feel guilty because people have abortions?
maybe i misunderstood.

[Rascolnikova]

i'm still confused by the comment on guilt.

am i to feel guilty for the years of oppression and death the led to me posting on this forum? am i to feel guilty for the thousands of species that have been eliminated by the blind consumption and growth of our civilization?

i think we may have personal guilt for our actions, but to assume any load of debt larger than that is to nail yourself to a cross unnecessarily. i could see a woman feeling guilty after having an abortion, or a man feeling guilty after having accidentally impregnating a woman, but to say we should feel guilty because people have abortions?
maybe i misunderstood.

a) The comment on guilt was poetic spam, not directly related to the topic at hand, and

b) hell if I know.

Everything I have to say on this probably belongs in a discussion on atheist Christianity. If you want to start one or necro a good one, I'll be sure to join in. :)

[Bud Struggle]

I possibly shouldn't say this at all, but if I'm going to this seems as good a place as any.

I've understandably been doing a fair bit of pming and emailing on my abortion views of late.

If you are a man, and you have not attended at least one anesthetized birth or in some other way experienced something you are willing to describe which leads you to believe you can add to my own insight and experience on the matter, please do not inform me that labor involves discomfort and the risk of vaginal tearing. Please. Just as a courtesy.

That's all.

The BEST POST EVER on RevLeft. :laugh::thumbup::laugh:

[Rascolnikova]

Um. . . thanks, I think.. . but we've been over this.. . ;)

Unfortunate news for y'all ant-choice cappies, Bobkindles has found some statistics that strongly imply that I'm wrong. For reasons unbeknownst to me, he's chosen not to post them in this thread--and in fact, the link he sent me to them didn't work. But I quite believe they exist, and while I wouldn't accept them out of hand,* it's not terribly unlikely that with more information I'll have to revise my stance to restricting the availability of abortion only


if abortion is understood as a procedure which both ends the pregnancy and destroys the fetus, in a circumstance where merely ending the pregnancy would be safer.oh noes.


* in terms of modern medicine, the 70s wasn't exactly a golden age of women's health.

[Robert]

deleted.

[Rascolnikova]

WTF? Well, I have "attended at least one anesthetized birth". (Did you by chance mean non-anesthetized?) So I guess I am qualified -- or is it "entitled"? -- to inform you that labor involves ....

I did, but there was an "at least" on it, so I figured it still worked. . . and it doesn't make you entitled, it makes you slightly less rude should you choose to say something.



But I wouldn't presume. Rasco, keep a count of the "men" who would make so bold as to "inform you" on the subject of childbirth. I'll guaran-damn tee you that not ONE of them will be a conservative. Our reticence on this particularly unmentionable subject is just one of our many fine qualities.

I don't think considering childbirth unmentionable is a virtue; I think that attitude is the root of why so many revlefters are so uninformed about it, and I don't think that misinformation and willingness to still talk makes people ""men"". Considering that the other fine qualities of conservative men include a sickeningly strong tendency to try and justify rape, I think I'm still on solid ground.

[Robert]

deleted

[Rascolnikova]

Yeah (hiccup), me and the boys are havin' us a lil' meetin' tonight, as a matter o' fack. We's a gwine have to bust Billy Bob outta jail. We don't want to, mind you ... we has to. Some fool gal done gone and accused him of, uh, that is, uh ... well, we don't need to go into that, you bein' a lady and all, but Billy's a good ole boy. He just gets a little frisky now and then.

Now ... whar's mah terbacky?

You are trivializing my life.

[Robert]

Rasco, I think you know what I was really trivializing. But I shouldn't have put it in the form of a joke, so I apologize and withdraw the post.

You might reconsider your charge of conservatives men's "strong tendency" to justify rape. It is not a conservative value.

[Plagueround]

\
I don't think considering childbirth unmentionable is a virtue; I think that attitude is the root of why so many revlefters are so uninformed about it, and I don't think that misinformation and willingness to still talk makes people ""men"". Considering that the other fine qualities of conservative men include a sickeningly strong tendency to try and justify rape, I think I'm still on solid ground.

I don't know if "conservative men" sit out in the lobby and brandish their "new daddy" cigar or something...but I personally have no problem discussing childbirth. I was right there coaching, holding up a leg, and wishing I could transfer all that pain to myself. ;)

[Rascolnikova]

Rasco, I think you know what I was really trivializing. But I shouldn't have put it in the form of a joke, so I apologize and withdraw the post.

You might reconsider your charge of conservatives men's "strong tendency" to justify rape. It is not a conservative value.

I don't know what you think you were really trivializing. That conservatives often justify rape has been a difficult but thoroughly learned lesson for me, and to treat it as hysterical and absurd is, in fact, trivializing every experience that has lead me to that conclusion.

I will not pretend that it is a value all conservatives hold. However,

-Many people who advocate for "family values" use this as an excuse to belittle experiences of incest and domestic violence, telling victims to hold their speech and often to continue living in danger "for the good of the family". When you tell someone that the family unit is more important than the bodily integrity it has violated, you are justifying rape.

-Conservative religious leaders have consistently advocated for positions that entail a complete non-value on a woman's right to choose anything about her body. This includes many subjects including how to present and express sexuality, abortion, and the teachings of subservience and submission--up to and including outright insistence on the non-existence of marital rape. Having abstinence and chastity pounded into your head, like being molested as a child, is usually one more way of learning that your body does not belong to you. This is a particularly potent message when the clergy in question also offers God's forgiveness to the perpetrators of sexual violence. It is not meaningful to tell people that you object to the fact that what is theirs has been violated, if you also maintain it was never theirs in the first place.

-There is a strong trend in conservative culture to do something which appears to be, but is not, about protecting women against the threat of rape. Women are not to walk alone at night, live alone, or do any of a million other things without a man to protect them. Often times, the same men who "protect" them are believed over them when they are raped. . . not by the mythical stranger in the night, but, as happens with a much greater statistical frequency, by their "protectors." To participate in this charade is to ignore and justify the reality.

-In a related issue, it's worth taking note that such justifications as "she shouldn't have dressed like that/been there/done those drugs/had sex with him before/prostituted herself" do not come from the left. No matter how true they may be, to bring them up at all implicitly negates the fact that every rape represents a choice made by a human being who should be held responsible, not a social virus that one catches by being "slutty" or not wearing enough clothes.


This is a world where parents who won't let their young teenage daughters walk two blocks alone stand by and do nothing when they learn the same children have been molested by a family member. Anyone who idealizes this culture or thinks it is something to aim for (in a non-ballistic sense) is tacitly joining in its justifications of rape.

[Rascolnikova]

I don't know if "conservative men" sit out in the lobby and brandish their "new daddy" cigar or something...but I personally have no problem discussing childbirth. I was right there coaching, holding up a leg, and wishing I could transfer all that pain to myself. ;)

Awe. . . good for you. :)


Rasco, I think you know what I was really trivializing. But I shouldn't have put it in the form of a joke, so I apologize and withdraw the post.

You might reconsider your charge of conservatives men's "strong tendency" to justify rape. It is not a conservative value.

By the way, I appreciate the apology, though I don't think you apologized for the same thing I was offended by. . . and I'm not a big fan of deletions; a retraction is much better. Seriously, I don't understand why people would, unless one is offended by the specific construction rather than the ideas. . . oh, wait. . . never mind. At any rate, yay for historical record. :)


also, please ignore any emotes that show up here--they do all sorts of weird crap when you edit.;):)

[Bud Struggle]

Rasco--I have no clue what conversation between you and Robert begot this post--but it is utter nonesense.
I don't know what you think you were really trivializing. That conservatives often justify rape has been a difficult but thoroughly learned lesson for me, and to treat it as hysterical and absurd is, in fact, trivializing every experience that has lead me to that conclusion. Sick perverted people that hurt people have excuses for justifying what they do--every criminal does something of the sort. There's no particular political bent that justifies crimes of violence more than any other.


I will not pretend that it is a value all conservatives hold. However,

-Many people who advocate for "family values" use this as an excuse to belittle experiences of incest and domestic violence, telling victims to hold their speech and often to continue living in danger "for the good of the family". When you tell someone that the family unit is more important than the bodily integrity it has violated, you are justifying rape. Some people do that and they are criminals. All criminals have excuses.


-Conservative religious leaders have consistently advocated for positions that entail a complete non-value on a woman's right to choose anything about her body. This includes many subjects including how to present and express sexuality, abortion, and the teachings of subservience and submission--up to and including outright insistence on the non-existence of marital rape. Having abstinence and chastity pounded into your head, like being molested as a child, is usually one more way of learning that your body does not belong to you. This is a particularly potent message when the clergy in question also offers God's forgiveness to the perpetrators of sexual violence. It is not meaningful to tell people that you object to the fact that what is theirs has been violated, if you also maintain it was never theirs in the first place. Ranting here. If I missed something let me know.


-There is a strong trend in conservative culture to do something which appears to be, but is not, about protecting women against the threat of rape. Women are not to walk alone at night, live alone, or do any of a million other things without a man to protect them. Often times, the same men who "protect" them are believed over them when they are raped. . . not by the mythical stranger in the night, but, as happens with a much greater statistical frequency, by their "protectors." To participate in this charade is to ignore and justify the reality. And that's only conservatives? I bet if you look at the stats--it would be across the board.


-In a related issue, it's worth taking note that such justifications as "she shouldn't have dressed like that/been there/done those drugs/had sex with him before/prostituted herself" do not come from the left. No matter how true they may be, to bring them up at all implicitly negates the fact that every rape represents a choice made by a human being who should be held responsible, not a social virus that one catches by being "slutty" or not wearing enough clothes. Little bit of ranting, again. People shouldn't be ever bothered. EVER.



This is a world where parents who won't let their young teenage daughters walk two blocks alone stand by and do nothing when they learn the same children have been molested by a family member. Anyone who idealizes this culture or thinks it is something to aim for (in a non-ballistic sense) is tacitly joining in its justifications of rape. Again--I guess you have an issue here, but your accusations are across the board. It's not conservatives, or liberals or anyone of any other political stripe that are at fault--it's rapist, molesters and criminals that are at fault.

The people that commit crimes are the people that commit crimes--it's not because of their color, political orientation, sexual orientation or national origin.

They are criminals and should be punished for their crimes.

[Rascolnikova]

Rasco--I have no clue what conversation between you and Robert begot this post--but it is utter nonesense.

His part of the conversation in question is quoted in full in my posts, which remain intact.



Sick perverted people that hurt people have excuses for justifying what they do--every criminal does something of the sort. There's no particular political bent that justifies crimes of violence more than any other.Clearly I disagree, though to be precise, I was referring to rape, not all violent crimes.



Some people do that and they are criminals. All criminals have excuses.It is not, actually, a criminal act to advise someone on religious grounds that they have a moral obligation to endanger their personal safety.



Ranting here. If I missed something let me know.The point is that there's a substantial underlaying connection between conservative religious ideology and the guilt virtually all rape victims experience over having been raped. . . and more directly, that conservative religious dogma can't credibly pose any objections to rape that are stronger than it's objections to vandalism, or perhaps theft. If you saw ranting instead perhaps you should read more closely.



And that's only conservatives? I bet if you look at the stats--it would be across the board. In my experience, a conservative stranger is far more likely to offer me companionship so that I don't have to travel alone at night than a liberal one. Likewise, I've never met a liberal parent who wouldn't let their twelve year old daughter have even half the freedom of their ten year old son, on the pretense of protecting from rape. I don't know how one would collect statistics on this, or what you thought I was saying.



Again--I guess you have an issue here, but your accusations are across the board. It's not conservatives, or liberals or anyone of any other political stripe that are at fault--it's rapist, molesters and criminals that are at fault.

The people that commit crimes are the people that commit crimes--it's not because of their color, political orientation, sexual orientation or national origin.I was not at all saying there's a higher proportion of sexual crimes committed by conservatives than by liberals-- and to be fair, liberals certainly have their own modes of justification, but they are far less deep set and there seems to be less of a need to make everyone else agree with them.

I was saying conservative cultures often have justifications of rape built deep into their foundations, leading back to my original claim--that conservative men have a strong tendency to justify rape.

[Bud Struggle]

I don't know how one would collect statistics on this, or what you thought I was saying.
I have no idea about the stats either. And I understand all of this is from your personal experience and insight and therefore rather subjective, so there is not much I can say to counter any point you make.

[Rascolnikova]

I have no idea about the stats either. And I understand all of this is from your personal experience and insight and therefore rather subjective, so there is not much I can say to counter any point you make.

There's nothing subjective about citing specific examples of specific events, and logical analysis of religious dogma is not more subjective than logical analysis of any other cultural phenomena.

The only think I can think of about this that could reasonably be construed as subjective is my assertion that the cultural aspects themselves exist, and I believe I could present fairly strong evidence for that if I were trying; it hadn't occurred to me that it might come into dispute. Such evidence might include a survey at my local rape crisis center (to quantify what I know from talking to people there about clergy justifications of domestic violence), or mentioning the fact that one of the local universities has a "safewalk" program where unscreened young men escort female students home so they don't have to walk alone at night.


Edit: Though, I must say it's very generous of you to upgrade it from "utter nonsense.":rolleyes:

[Bud Struggle]

There's nothing subjective about citing specific examples of specific events, and logical analysis of religious dogma is not more subjective than logical analysis of any other cultural phenomena. Well technically you are using a pretty shakey form of logic called inductive reasoning--going from the particular to the general. And yes you have particular evidence of a certain thing in one or maybe a few instances--but I'm sure there's other compelling evidence that hasn't been looked at in the opposite direction. As my brother once said: "you can't believe how much better looking I got since I made a million dollars." You can make a case that at least as far as wealthy conservative men go--liberal women seem to make themselves more "available" to them in many circumstances--often to cry rape and then settle for cash. Ah, and believe me--there are those kinds of scarlet women out there.

A lot of things come into play.


The only think I can think of about this that could reasonably be construed as subjective is my assertion that the cultural aspects themselves exist, and I believe I could present fairly strong evidence for that if I were trying; it hadn't occurred to me that it might come into dispute. Such evidence might include a survey at my local rape crisis center (to quantify what I know from talking to people there about clergy justifications of domestic violence), or mentioning the fact that one of the local universities has a "safewalk" program where unscreened young men escort female students home so they don't have to walk alone at night. I'm not denying the women get raped--they do all of the time but to say that people of a certain political belief does so more than another....that's where I'd need to see data. Now on the other hand if you want to look at the statistics of domestic violence and rape as a % of the population based on race--you might get some interesting statistics there, too.



Edit: Though, I must say it's very generous of you to upgrade it from "utter nonsense.":rolleyes: Well, I still think all this is your impression, writ large.

[Rascolnikova]

Well, I still think all this is your impression, writ large.

Indeed. . . a little like how Maxwell's equations are just Faraday's impression, writ large.*

Since you don't appear to even understand what I'm talking about, I'm a little hesitant to continue this, but I'm going to try one last time to be very clear:

I am not making an argument that some group of men commits rape more often than some other group of men. At all.

In fact, I'm not even making an argument that rape happens, at all. That is not what my argument is about. If you want to learn what my argument is about, you could try reading it again, or you could ask a question.


You have just demonstrated why the idea of an exclusionary forum is legitimate.


*I'm not really that presumptuous. I would have used something much less spectacular, but I have a crush on Michael Faraday. :)

[Bud Struggle]

Yea, I know--conservative "culture" is at fault for giving the giving at least the semblance that rape could be justified. I was just making your argument more specific. If the "culture" permits rape--than conservative men--rape.

And bringing you premise to it's logical conclusion is where your argument falls apart. OK, well maybe it doesn't fall apart--but it does fly off into idle speculation. I could also make the case in the same way that Black culture induces Black men to rape women more than white culture induces men like to rape women. I could pull up all sorts of conviction statistics to justify that theory.

Is that theory true? I could make a case for it using you reasoning.

[Edit] So, you asked me tons of questions--if I may ask you one--do you think Black culture, hip hop music, all of that stuff. I could make you a list, but do you think Black culture justifies the objectification and rape of women?

[Rascolnikova]

I'll have time to answer to the first bit later, but for the moment, suffice it to say that your "logical conclusion" is not the conclusion it was ever intended to reach.



[Edit] So, you asked me tons of questions--if I may ask you one--do you think Black culture, hip hop music, all of that stuff. I could make you a list, but do you think Black culture justifies the objectification and rape of women?

I absolutely think the mainstreamized--and much of the underground--hip hop and rap subcultures justify and encourage the objectification and rape of women. I also think that it is racist as well as a bit logically unsound to equate this to "black culture" in general.

[DesertShark]

I don't know what you think you were really trivializing. That conservatives often justify rape has been a difficult but thoroughly learned lesson for me, and to treat it as hysterical and absurd is, in fact, trivializing every experience that has lead me to that conclusion.

I will not pretend that it is a value all conservatives hold. However,

-Many people who advocate for "family values" use this as an excuse to belittle experiences of incest and domestic violence, telling victims to hold their speech and often to continue living in danger "for the good of the family". When you tell someone that the family unit is more important than the bodily integrity it has violated, you are justifying rape.

-Conservative religious leaders have consistently advocated for positions that entail a complete non-value on a woman's right to choose anything about her body. This includes many subjects including how to present and express sexuality, abortion, and the teachings of subservience and submission--up to and including outright insistence on the non-existence of marital rape. Having abstinence and chastity pounded into your head, like being molested as a child, is usually one more way of learning that your body does not belong to you. This is a particularly potent message when the clergy in question also offers God's forgiveness to the perpetrators of sexual violence. It is not meaningful to tell people that you object to the fact that what is theirs has been violated, if you also maintain it was never theirs in the first place.

-There is a strong trend in conservative culture to do something which appears to be, but is not, about protecting women against the threat of rape. Women are not to walk alone at night, live alone, or do any of a million other things without a man to protect them. Often times, the same men who "protect" them are believed over them when they are raped. . . not by the mythical stranger in the night, but, as happens with a much greater statistical frequency, by their "protectors." To participate in this charade is to ignore and justify the reality.

-In a related issue, it's worth taking note that such justifications as "she shouldn't have dressed like that/been there/done those drugs/had sex with him before/prostituted herself" do not come from the left. No matter how true they may be, to bring them up at all implicitly negates the fact that every rape represents a choice made by a human being who should be held responsible, not a social virus that one catches by being "slutty" or not wearing enough clothes.


This is a world where parents who won't let their young teenage daughters walk two blocks alone stand by and do nothing when they learn the same children have been molested by a family member. Anyone who idealizes this culture or thinks it is something to aim for (in a non-ballistic sense) is tacitly joining in its justifications of rape.
Amen Sister!

[Rascolnikova]

^^ thanks. :)


Yea, I know--conservative "culture" is at fault for giving the giving at least the semblance that rape could be justified. I was just making your argument more specific. If the "culture" permits rape--than conservative men--rape.

you were making my argument different. I didn't say "permits"--I said justifies.



And bringing you premise to it's logical conclusion is where your argument falls apart.It's a good thing I don't take it there, then, isn't it.

Since you insist on taking it in this direction, I will--but this part is, in fact, quite subjective. There are counterbalancing factors in conservative culture that don't negate it's justifications of rape, but I think they do, somewhat, reduce it's prevalence. Heavy emphases on community and property rights both work in this direction.

Whether or not this is the case, I'm pretty sure the factors in my original post are almost all, if not all, trackable, and that the conclusions I draw from them are legitimate.



[Edit] So, you asked me tons of questions--if I may ask you one--do you think Black culture, hip hop music, all of that stuff. I could make you a list, but do you think Black culture justifies the objectification and rape of women?To start with, let's be clear; the thing that I'm about to discuss isn't "black culture." It something that started out a part of black culture, and that has subsequently come to contain what is arguably the most racist set of images to entertain America since Birth of a Nation.

That said:

Rap and hip-hop as presented in mainstream media: objectify women, justify and encourage rape? Yes, very much so. The largest consumer group for these media are currently upper middle class white teenagers.

Underground rap and hip hop? This isn't exactly an ERA utopia, and it certainly varies from scene to scene. Gang culture isn't good for anyone, and it has it's share of rape. However, there's a significant trend of hip-hoppers and rappers (unpaid, street level) who focus on their art to the exclusion of gang violence, and in these circles women can be substantially respected. I don't know enough about it to say whether these subcultures justify or encourage rape, or not--and even on a purely speculative level, from what I do know it's a coin toss.

[redguard2009]

Yes, I think that is quite ignorant to equate "black culture" with what you see on MTV. It's borderline racist to attribute the entire black population with such travesties as rape and objectification of women. Fortunately, I didn't have any respect left for you to lose.

[Bud Struggle]

Yes, I think that is quite ignorant to equate "black culture" with what you see on MTV. It's borderline racist to attribute the entire black population with such travesties as rape and objectification of women. Fortunately, I didn't have any respect left for you to lose.

Not MTV--BET. :)

[Rascolnikova]

Not MTV--BET. :)

It's all Viacom. Though I'm sure there are plenty of other examples as well.

[Bud Struggle]

It's all Viacom. Though I'm sure there are plenty of other examples as well.

Actually, I don't get cable--so I haven't see any of that stuff, too much. We live out in the country so you really have WANT to satch something on TV to see it through all the snow from the rabbit ears. We don't do video games either. (Mean Daddy :(.) Anyway, some of my younger Black employees occasionally turn on hip-hop in my plant and before you know it sombody in some somg says something and then the Spanish women come to my office screaming at me about some nasty thing that was sung or said. And I get caught in the middle of some crappy conversation with a bunch of people screaming at me. :rolleyes:

But in general I don't think that IS Black culture any more than I think the things you pointed out are conservative culture. There are things people do that sometimes have effects far beyond what are intended.

[Rascolnikova]

Actually, I don't get cable--so I haven't see any of that stuff, too much. We live out in the country so you really have WANT to satch something on TV to see it through all the snow from the rabbit ears. We don't do video games either. (Mean Daddy :(.) Anyway, some of my younger Black employees occasionally turn on hip-hop in my plant and before you know it sombody in some somg says something and then the Spanish women come to my office screaming at me about some nasty thing that was sung or said. And I get caught in the middle of some crappy conversation with a bunch of people screaming at me. :rolleyes:

Awe. . . the travails of being a factory owner.



But in general I don't think that IS Black culture any more than I think the things you pointed out are conservative culture. There are things people do that sometimes have effects far beyond what are intended.

I think most of the things people do have effects far beyond what's intended. It doesn't make them ok. In so far as that is "Black culture," it's still wrong.

If not a strong concern for property ownership, in-group loyalty, obedience to authority, and traditional Christian dogma--including notions of gender roles and purity--what do you think conservative culture is all about?

[Bud Struggle]

If not a strong concern for property ownership, in-group loyalty, obedience to authority, and traditional Christian dogma--including notions of gender roles and purity--what do you think conservative culture is all about?

I am all for property ownership; loyalty, I'm neither here nor there--I recognize everyone has their ways of thinking and believing; I am a Traditional Catholic, so I go along with that; much interested in gender roles, I have two daughters--and I would like them to do or be whatever they like; and purity, I 'm all for that, it works for me.

[Killfacer]

and purity, I 'm all for that, it works for me.


Before i start having a pop at you can you clarify what you mean by this.

[Rascolnikova]

And also, can you explain how that in any way answered the question, which wasn't about you, but about what you consider the essence of conservative culture to be?

[Bud Struggle]

Before i start having a pop at you can you clarify what you mean by this.

I'm a happily married guy and if I even HINTED that I was anything other than a good and faithful husband my wife would castrate me. :cool: :lol:

[Bud Struggle]

And also, can you explain how that in any way answered the question, which wasn't about you, but about what you consider the essence of conservative culture to be?

I think I nailed it--I'm just about where the heart of Conservative culture is right now. I think you have your Fundamentalists which are, granted pretty close to your post--but they are a bit out there.

No, I think I am right in line with most Conservative Americans.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Ah yes, I feel that restricting my God given Capitalist right to own a factory constitutes harm (to me) but I am in a minority on RevLeft in that belief. :(

You see phrases like "restricting certain freedoms constitutes harm" become realtive judgement calls very quickly.

What 'right' do you have to buy and sell labor?

[Bud Struggle]

What 'right' do you have to buy and sell labor?

If people are willing to sell, then there's no harm in buying. There's no law against it, now maybe YOU have some moral principles against it, and that's fine, don't do it yourself. But you have no right to tell me or people that want to sell their time and talent to me what we can or can't do.

You (and others who believe the way you do) are certainly free to live the way you choose, and I (and others who believe the way I do) should be free to live the way I choose.

Seems reasonable.

[Labor Shall Rule]

If people are willing to sell, then there's no harm in buying. There's no law against it, now maybe YOU have some moral principles against it, and that's fine, don't do it yourself. But you have no right to tell me or people that want to sell their time and talent to me what we can or can't do.

You (and others who believe the way you do) are certainly free to live the way you choose, and I (and others who believe the way I do) should be free to live the way I choose.

Seems reasonable.

You are right, there is no 'law' against selling their labor-power, but those without capital are faced with a situation where they have no means of securing the necessities of life, even if they have a real human desire to live. The Bill of Rights says that we have a right to "live" - assuming that the will to "live" is not truly a choice, then choosing the social relations that regulate the compulsion to "live" under certain conditions is not voluntary at all.

As so, I can't "live the way I choose" since someone else owns the very means in which my labor becomes a commodity, by which my commodity becomes money, and in which that money is diminuted into investments or marginal revenue (i.e. profit).

It's entirely involuntary, exploitative, and coercive.

[Robert]

The Bill of Rights says that we have a right to "live"Incorrect. Maybe you are talking about the declaration of Independence, but it's hard to tell:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Then again, you may be talking about the Vth Amendment which is in the Bill of Rights:

No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

Note the source of the right ("their Creator") to life in the Declaration; note also the qualifier ("without due process") in the Vth Amendment.

You need to write your own constitution. The one you appear to be thinking of won't get you even half way to a workers' utopia.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Incorrect. Maybe you are talking about the declaration of Independence, but it's hard to tell:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Then again, you may be talking about the Vth Amendment which is in the Bill of Rights:

No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

Note the source of the right ("their Creator") to life in the Declaration; note also the qualifier ("without due process") in the Vth Amendment.

You need to write your own constitution. The one you appear to be thinking of won't get you even half way to a workers' utopia.

Yes, I meant the Declaration of Independence.

I don't want a "utopia" - I want worker's control over the means of production and distribution. The Constitution and Declaration of Independence were documents that fit their own epoch, as Jefferson, a 'founding father' and slave owner made clear himself.

Virginia certainly owed two millions sterling to Great Britain at the conclusion of the war. Some have conjectured the debt as high as three millions ... This is ascribed to the peculiarities in the tobacco trade. The advantages made by the British merchants on the tobacco consigned to them were so enormous, that they spared no means of increasing those consignments. A powerful engine for this purpose, was the giving good prices and credit, till they got him more immersed in debt than he could pay, without selling his lands or slaves. Then they reduced the prices given him for his tobacco, so that let his shipments be ever so great, and his demand of necessaries ever so economical, they never permitted him to clear off his debt. These debts had become hereditary from father to son, for many generations, so that the planters were a species of property, annexed to certain mercantile houses in London.He signed and pushed for that document, with the rest of his planter class, simply because Piedmont, or the upland region of Virginia, was faced with heavy British duties. Boston and New York, though primary 'loyalist' centers, also saw certain restrictions from Parliament's taxes. The tightening of credit, along with the military rule of 'red-coats', made it almost necessary to take a revolutionary road. The point is, the farming and merchant bourgeois classes framed the Constitution to prop up their rule. Madison and other Federalists made it clear that the state's function was to protect the "Higher classes" from debtors, veterans, slaves, and bond laborers that were truly not 'equal' to everyone once.

There'll likely be new documents to clarify the distinct political character of a new worker's republic, since the proletariat, the revolutionary class of our time, will takeover.

[synthesis]

Conservatives justify rape all the time, even while expressing their disapproval of the act itself. They blame it on our culture's degrading sense of sexual prudishness: "She was wearing that little skirt and tank top," they say, "she was asking for it."

[Rascolnikova]

I think I nailed it--I'm just about where the heart of Conservative culture is right now. I think you have your Fundamentalists which are, granted pretty close to your post--but they are a bit out there.

No, I think I am right in line with most Conservative Americans.

Fair enough--just a definitional thing. Certainly most of the people I've met who fall into the realm of my post don't consider themselves fundamentalists--at all--but to even be talking about conservatives at all, in this sense, is a bit fuzzy anyway.

I don't find it unlikely that there are characteristics of "fundamentalist" culture that bleed into yours, but I wouldn't make nearly so strong a claim about it, and I don't know enough about it to argue it further.

[Rascolnikova]

Bobkindles, this is a formal request--which I'll be posting to you by both forum and PM--to post those statistics. I'm not actually thrilled about the fact that I may have been passing along misinformation. . .

[Reclaimed Dasein]

I am all for property ownership; loyalty, I'm neither here nor there--I recognize everyone has their ways of thinking and believing; I am a Traditional Catholic, so I go along with that; much interested in gender roles, I have two daughters--and I would like them to do or be whatever they like; and purity, I 'm all for that, it works for me.
I'm glad you're a Traditional Catholic, because I only support Traditional Christians who act like Christ. You know... like these guys. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_theology

[BobKKKindle$]

At the request of a member, I've been asked to clarify the risks of late-term abortion with some statistics. It has been asserted that induced labour is far safer than D&E (Dilation and Extraction, the most common late-term abortion method) but this is actually false. This (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.anonym.to/?http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/280/8/747/TABLEJCV71005T1) table, issued by the Journal of the American Medical Association, shows that from 1972 through to 1987, the risk of death for D&E at 21 or more weeks' gestation was 11.9 deaths per 100,000 procedures, similar to the rate for induced labour, at 10.3 deaths per 100,000 procedures. Both compare favorably with overall pregnancy-related mortality rates in the United States (9.1 to 23.5 deaths per 100000 live births). There are also important advantages associated with D&E - a woman may experience contractions but does not have to go through the process of labour if she opts for this method, which is an important advantage given that labour is an immensely painful process for any women regardless of whether she is giving birth "naturally" or if labour has been induced, and labour can also result in permanent harm to the body through stretching of the vaginal tissue. In addition, D&E can be carried out through regular hormonal injections in the privacy of a woman's home or at an outpatient unit, whereas induced labour requires a woman to spend time in hospital. These advantages are important when we consider that the woman who need to terminate pregnancy at this late stage are often very vulnerable and so they need to be made as comfortable as possible, something which can often best be achieved through D&E.

[Rascolnikova]

At the request of a member, I've been asked to clarify the risks of late-term abortion with some statistics. It has been asserted that induced labour is far safer than D&E (Dilation and Extraction, the most common late-term abortion method) but this is actually false. This (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.anonym.to/?http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/280/8/747/TABLEJCV71005T1) table, issued by the Journal of the American Medical Association, shows that from 1972 through to 1987, the risk of death for D&E at 21 or more weeks' gestation was 11.9 deaths per 100,000 procedures, similar to the rate for induced labour, at 10.3 deaths per 100,000 procedures. Both compare favorably with overall pregnancy-related mortality rates in the United States (9.1 to 23.5 deaths per 100000 live births). There are also important advantages associated with D&E - a woman may experience contractions but does not have to go through the process of labour if she opts for this method, which is an important advantage given that labour is an immensely painful process for any women regardless of whether she is giving birth "naturally" or if labour has been induced, and labour can also result in permanent harm to the body through stretching of the vaginal tissue. In addition, D&E can be carried out through regular hormonal injections in the privacy of a woman's home or at an outpatient unit, whereas induced labour requires a woman to spend time in hospital. These advantages are important when we consider that the woman who need to terminate pregnancy at this late stage are often very vulnerable and so they need to be made as comfortable as possible, something which can often best be achieved through D&E.


1) Could someone move this over to my "Articulation of contempt" thread, where it addresses the primary argument? It was at my request that he posted it, and there seems to have been a miscommunication about where.

2) The link doesn't work--leads to the JAMA sign in page. I would really like to see those statistics.

3) Once we get this moved, I can explain all the reasons your analysis is misleading/wrong. :D

4) Thank you. :)

[BobKKKindle$]

The link doesn't work--leads to the JAMA sign in page. I would really like to see those statistics.The link is fine for me, but just in case you keep having problems, here is the actual table:

http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/vol280/issue8/images/medium/jcv71005t1.gif

Taken from Vol. 280 No. 8, August 26, 1998 of the Journal. The full article from which the table is taken is available here (http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/280/8/724) if you're interested.

EDIT: I just realized that my computer is on the university network, and the name of my university is at the top of the page, which is why I can see the article but you can't. Send me a PM and I'll try and sort something out if you want to read the whole thing. Or if you're at university as well, I guess you could always try and access it using your own network.

[Rascolnikova]

At the request of a member, I've been asked to clarify the risks of late-term abortion with some statistics.

Thank you very much; I've finally had a chance to get a good look, and I found it to be a fascinating article.

I must confess that you've proven me quite wrong; contrary to my midwife, the CDC's medical definition of abortion insists on the termination of the fetus. My apologies for misleading use of terminology.



It has been asserted that induced labour is far safer than D&E (Dilation and Extraction, the most common late-term abortion method) but this is actually false. This (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.anonym.to/?http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/280/8/747/TABLEJCV71005T1) table, issued by the Journal of the American Medical Association, shows that from 1972 through to 1987, the risk of death for D&E at 21 or more weeks' gestation was 11.9 deaths per 100,000 procedures, similar to the rate for induced labour, at 10.3 deaths per 100,000 procedures.
I believe the confusion is here:

The article (quoting the CDC) defines abortion as "a procedure intended to terminate a suspected or known intrauterine pregnancy and produce a nonviable fetus at any gestational age."

It also states that

"At 21 weeks or more, the mortality rate was 16.7 per 100,000 procedures, and exceeded the risk of maternal death from childbirth, which was 6.7 per 100,000 procedures"

Notice this confirms my midwife's "three times as likely" statistic.

Of course, current medical and statistical methods consider that to be a statistically insignificant difference. I am not personally well enough versed in statistics to explain the methodology I take issue with, but--once more, it is my understanding--that what is "statistically significant" is somewhat arbitrarily defined, and in cases like this often very badly defined. My source on this is a professional mathematician who doesn't deal professionally in foundations of statistical methodology, which is unfortunately not a field serious mathematicians do much work in.

"Induced labor" in the table refers to those procedures--so referenced earlier in the article, where various abortion procedures are described--where induced contractions were used in conjunction with a fetus termination procedure. This is a quite understandable usage for them to have chosen, as the context was extremely specific.

So, the important missing statistic here is maternal fatality for induced labor after 21 weeks intended to result in a live birth. Ideally I would want to compare this for properly supported births, not for the nightmare hospital births that were common in the US through the 80s, as complications are less when laboring women are more comfortable. I'm guessing that a lack of availability for this statistic, and the favorable survival rate with live births, is what has lead the professionals I've spoken with to extrapolate a higher relative safety from induced childbirth.



Both compare favorably with overall pregnancy-related mortality rates in the United States (9.1 to 23.5 deaths per 100000 live births).Yes, indeed; categories of intentional ways to end a pregnancy have lower mortality rates than the category which also includes all deaths by complications not during a procedure.


There are also important advantages associated with D&E - a woman may experience contractions but does not have to go through the process of labour if she opts for this method, which is an important advantage given that labour is an immensely painful process for any women regardless of whether she is giving birth "naturally" or if labour has been induced, and labour can also result in permanent harm to the body through stretching of the vaginal tissue. Strangely enough, I've noticed that labor is painful, and that it can cause damage to women's bodies. Those particular body parts are evolved to stretch. If you examine the article you sent me, you may note that the risks associated with abortion aren't "stretching*," but rather "perforation" and "laceration." I know what sounds better to me.



In addition, D&E can be carried out through regular hormonal injections in the privacy of a woman's home or at an outpatient unit, whereas induced labour requires a woman to spend time in hospital. I know people who have induced for home births; I request a reference for the sake of public debate, but I can only imagine, wherever you got this, that it is either another definition issue or modern medicine being absurd about childbirth--an old habit for it in the US especially.



These advantages are important when we consider that the woman who need to terminate pregnancy at this late stage are often very vulnerable and so they need to be made as comfortable as possible, something which can often best be achieved through D&E.
Actually, the comfort of the woman is often a major factor in the success of any serious procedure dealing with late pregnancy. . . and this is a factor which any competent physician should consider seriously in making recommendations about procedures.


*tearing is actually also a risk, but long term damage from it is far rarer than from artificially inflicted cuts. How do we know this? Good old modern medicine decided clean cuts were better, so we have years of data for comparison.

[BobKKKindle$]

You seem to be getting quite confused with these statistics. If a woman wants to terminate a pregnancy, and does not want to have to care for a live child after the pregnancy has been terminated, she can either opt for D&E, or induced labour, as these are the main methods which are used to terminate pregnancy and the fetus during the third trimester. The statistics I've put forward show that the difference between these methods in terms of fatality is minimal, and so for those women who do not want to have the burden of caring for a child, or the emotional distress of giving birth to a live fetus and then having to pass it on to someone else, the government should not restrict access to either method, and each individual woman should be able to choose which method is best for her, with the aid of advice given by her doctor. My point stands.

Now, if a woman wants to obtain a live fetus, that's a different matter entirely, and I actually thought our entire discussion was based on the premise that a woman did not want to obtain a live fetus, given that we were always talking about the issue of abortion, and abortion, as defined in the article, and as you admitted, involves the termination of the fetus. I don't know enough about this aspect of maternal health to understand why a woman would induce labour with the intention of having a viable instead of just "naturally" carrying the pregnancy to term, and perhaps you could offer some insight, but as far as the other category of women goes, my point stands - there is no justification for legally restricting D&E and forcing women to opt for induced labour.

[Rascolnikova]

You seem to be getting quite confused with these statistics. If a woman wants to terminate a pregnancy, and does not want to have to care for a live child after the pregnancy has been terminated, she can either opt for D&E, or induced labour, as these are the main methods which are used to terminate pregnancy and the fetus during the third trimester. The statistics I've put forward show that the difference between these methods in terms of fatality is minimal, and so for those women who do not want to have the burden of caring for a child, or the emotional distress of giving birth to a live fetus and then having to pass it on to someone else, the government should not restrict access to either method, and each individual woman should be able to choose which method is best for her, with the aid of advice given by her doctor. My point stands.

Now, if a woman wants to obtain a live fetus, that's a different matter entirely, and I actually thought our entire discussion was based on the premise that a woman did not want to obtain a live fetus, given that we were always talking about the issue of abortion, and abortion, as defined in the article, and as you admitted, involves the termination of the fetus. I don't know enough about this aspect of maternal health to understand why a woman would induce labour with the intention of having a viable instead of just "naturally" carrying the pregnancy to term, and perhaps you could offer some insight, but as far as the other category of women goes, my point stands - there is no justification for legally restricting D&E and forcing women to opt for induced labour.


You should fucking read the first essay on the thread.

[BobKKKindle$]

Which "essay" are you referring to? The tirade you posted on the first page of this thread? Sorry, when you referred to an "essay", I thought you meant a long document which has been checked over, with suitable academic references and supporting material, not what you posted.

Anyway, with regard to your tirade, it is based on the assumption that terminating a pregnancy and the fetus (by D&E, induced labour, or any other method) is somehow equivalent in all respects except safety to terminating the pregnancy by giving birth to a live and viable fetus earlier than would occur if a woman had simply carried the pregnancy to term and given birth "naturally", and so women should be encouraged, or even forced to opt for the latter because it is better if women do not have to bear such a risk to their health. This is the underlying flaw to your argument - terminating the fetus, and giving birth to a live fetus, are not the same thing, even if both are possible methods of terminating a pregnancy. I don't know if any research has been done into this and it's too late for me to start sifting through academic documents, but I would argue that there are a whole range of emotional and psychological issues a woman has to deal with if she actually gives birth and the resulting fetus is viable - if a woman sees a live baby in front of her, having just given birth, but then has to give the baby away because it is not economically viable for her to keep it, or whatever her reason for wanting to terminate the pregnancy in the first place, the emotional impact will be much more severe than if the woman never has to see what her body has produced.

[Rascolnikova]

Which "essay" are you referring to? The tirade you posted on the first page of this thread? Sorry, when you referred to an "essay", I thought you meant a long document which has been checked over, with suitable academic references and supporting material, not what you posted.

Anyway, with regard to your tirade, it is based on the assumption that terminating a pregnancy and the fetus (by D&E, induced labour, or any other method) is somehow equivalent in all respects except safety to terminating the pregnancy by giving birth to a live and viable fetus earlier than would occur if a woman had simply carried the pregnancy to term and given birth "naturally", and so women should be encouraged, or even forced to opt for the latter because it is better if women do not have to bear such a risk to their health. This is the underlying flaw to your argument - terminating the fetus, and giving birth to a live fetus, are not the same thing, even if both are possible methods of terminating a pregnancy. I don't know if any research has been done into this and it's too late for me to start sifting through academic documents, but I would argue that there are a whole range of emotional and psychological issues a woman has to deal with if she actually gives birth and the resulting fetus is viable - if a woman sees a live baby in front of her, having just given birth, but then has to give the baby away because it is not economically viable for her to keep it, or whatever her reason for wanting to terminate the pregnancy in the first place, the emotional impact will be much more severe than if the woman never has to see what her body has produced.

Unless there's something important you haven't mentioned, I am in a better position than you to understand the respective emotional and psychological impacts of abortion and birth. In my experience, abortion is invariably more traumatic, even when the woman has a very difficult time giving up the child for adoption as she had planned.

[BobKKKindle$]

I actually don't think either of us has the right to cast sweeping and universal judgments on large numbers of women who will ultimately all have different needs and emotional states, and this is why women need to be given the right to choose between different courses of action, as they, as individuals, are the best judges of which method is right for them. What is true in your experience is not true of all women, as evidenced by the fact that women continue to demand late-term abortions, instead of all giving birth to viable fetuses. The fact that you are a woman and have presumabely given birth has no impact on this, and you wouldn't even be able to make this argument if I was also a woman.

[Rascolnikova]

I actually don't think either of us has the right to cast sweeping and universal judgments on large numbers of women who will ultimately all have different needs and emotional states, and this is why women need to be given the right to choose between different courses of action, as they, as individuals, are the best judges of which method is right for them. What is true in your experience is not true of all women, as evidenced by the fact that women continue to demand late-term abortions, instead of all giving birth to viable fetuses. The fact that you are a woman and have presumabely given birth has no impact on this, and you wouldn't even be able to make this argument if I was also a woman.

Actually, I was referring to experience with both abortion and birth, as well as my first hand and scholarly familiarity with the psychology of womanhood in American culture.

I was raised in a family of sisters, in a culture where having a baby every two years (what life without birth control realistically tends to work out to, about) is in some ways idealized. One of those sisters has been a dula since I was in my early teens, and I lived with her for a time while she was undergoing that training--and spouting it randomly at every opportunity. It's worth noting that these are not uneducated rednecks; in my family it has not been unusual for a woman with an advanced technical degree to choose to bear many children.

I attended high school on the outskirts of a large city, and was befriended by some extremely disadvantaged kids. In this context I witnessed the necessity and the actuality of abortion on a frequent, if not constant, basis. I have experienced few things more heartbreaking.

Were you to have had life experience that in some way complemented or compared to this, I would take it as somewhat less presumptuous when you lecture me about the psychology of these experiences, but you have made no indication of such. I am aware that my experience can not be generalized to all women, but as I've said, unless there's something you aren't mentioning, I'm in an infinitely better position than you to be making suppositions about the psychology of childbearing.*


I certainly have never suggested that the option of late term abortion be cut off entirely. What I do advocate is that doctors be held seriously responsible for the consequences to women of the advice they give regarding the selection of procedures--and it is my belief that, if taken seriously, and if the midwives are correct about late term abortion being substantially more dangerous than induced childbirth, this will somewhat reduce the availability of late term abortions, as is consistent with a coherent notion of malpractice.

It occurs to me also that I have not been clear; the frequency of emotional trauma from abortion is one of the reasons I hold this position. When I say the health of the mother needs to be considered, I do not mean it should not be permitted unless she's about to die; I mean her over-all wellbeing should be considered. It does little good to survive childbirth (or abortion) if one commits suicide or stops enjoying life afterwards from the ensuing depression, which are significant risks.


*And incidently, I'm aware that in some cases women experience abortion as extremely liberating and childbirth as the opposite. I take my experiences and information on balance.

[534634634265]

I actually don't think either of us has the right to cast sweeping and universal judgments on large numbers of women who will ultimately all have different needs and emotional states, and this is why women need to be given the right to choose between different courses of action, as they, as individuals, are the best judges of which method is right for them. What is true in your experience is not true of all women, as evidenced by the fact that women continue to demand late-term abortions, instead of all giving birth to viable fetuses. The fact that you are a woman and have presumabely given birth has no impact on this, and you wouldn't even be able to make this argument if I was also a woman.

funny how you can make these sweeping generalizations, and then talk about who needs to make them and not make them.:)

also, to dismiss a womans personal experience with birth seems like a fairly misogynistic decision. you and I as males are likely to have to an inaccurate concept of childbirth since we haven't experienced it. just like you say its a powerfully emotional event, regardless of its outcome.

[Octobox]

The abortion racket is a $4billion per year industry (clinics and doctors – Planned Parenthood made $150M last year alone) -- it also provides "pure" and "free" stem cell research (the cost savings in this sub-industry is impossible to calculate - how much would it cost to obtain a fetus in a country where abortion was murder - a million per fetus, who knows?).

Would some women consider "black market abortions" a lucrative side business? The Pharma Corps are probably saving 100's of billions in costs alone -- what's their profit margin then in our current "free baby fetus" welfarized economy?

Women are being cut out of major profits. $1Million per fetus (the older the fetus the better) I think women could be making $80,000 or maybe even $150,000 per hatchling?

The Pharma Corps who lobbied for abortion rights through NOW and Planned Parenthood (others as well) would lobby to off-shore the costs or to put regulatory sanctions on these outrages womb-fees the mothers would start charging.

I think its “illegal” to conduct Stem-Cell Research on aborted fetuses which means they are sold on the black market OR you might be able to do it with consent, not sure. The fact is that its being done.

There is absolutely no fear of abortion going away ever with Bush-Clinton-McCain-Obama-Feinstein-Frank types in power; they all play for the same team.

Team Coercive Welfare-Corporatist Profits

Get the Coercive Gov't Welfare out of the equation and you will see most liberals will not "donate" to keep this going (obviously conservatives wont).

If you hurt a woman while she is pregnant and the baby dies you will be tried for manslaughter of the un-born fetus. Even in the early stages. You will be sued as a doctor if you cause the death. So, why does the mother get to murder?

I say remove the “profit” rents/regulations and see who supports what.

In a free-market women would pay for abortions themselves, this would be costly.

This would drive innovation – I think early-live extraction would catch on. The babies live and the pregnancy terminated (mother is free again). In a free-market monopolies in pharmaceutical corporations are impossible given that most of their revenues are generated by way of regulatory coercion or direct/indirect subsidization of their costs.

Fully 56% of all illegal abortions are performed by doctors

19% by “other medical specialists”

12.5% by “amateur associates”

12.5% by “self-induced”

[Rascolnikova]

If you hurt a woman while she is pregnant and the baby dies you will be tried for manslaughter of the un-born fetus. Even in the early stages. You will be sued as a doctor if you cause the death. So, why does the mother get to murder?

Because she is the parent who the baby is living inside.


Could I see some sort of references on. . . any of this?

The planned parenthood thing seems odd to me especially--they provide all sorts of free and inexpensive services--are you suggesting that they support it all with stem cell research? I'm not sure I follow.

[Octobox]

I'm sorry it was $350M over 7 years and Planned Parenthood alone performed 1.4M abortions over that same period -- last year there was 1.4M (million) total abortions in the U.S of which planned Parenthood performs 1 in 4 -- so they are spiking.

In the same time period PP received 1.5B (billion) in Gov't Grants of which they spent more on continued lobbying then the entire budget of Homeland Security, hahahahaha.

They receive tax-payer funded grants and the doctors earn around $900 per hour in many clinics. It's major invasive surgery.

Abortion Statistics:
http://www.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/phil%20115/Stats_on_abortion.htm

Abortion Profits:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48455

[DesertShark]

The abortion racket is a $4billion per year industry (clinics and doctors – Planned Parenthood made $150M last year alone) -- it also provides "pure" and "free" stem cell research (the cost savings in this sub-industry is impossible to calculate - how much would it cost to obtain a fetus in a country where abortion was murder - a million per fetus, who knows?).
Your claim about "pure" and "free" stem cell research is false. Most stem cells that are viable for research come from fertility clinics because they know the exact age of the embryo. The stem cells they are after (totipotent or pluripotent) are found in very young embryos, under 14 days. Totipotent cells specialize into pluripotent cells after 4 days. Most women having abortions, don't know about their pregnancy that early and therefore the stem cells that could be extracted from the fetus are too old to use.


Would some women consider "black market abortions" a lucrative side business? The Pharma Corps are probably saving 100's of billions in costs alone -- what's their profit margin then in our current "free baby fetus" welfarized economy?
I'm confused about the relevance of this statement.


Women are being cut out of major profits. $1Million per fetus (the older the fetus the better) I think women could be making $80,000 or maybe even $150,000 per hatchling?
This is confusing- Why would an older fetus be better? The older the fetus the farther along the stem cells have differentiated, researchers don't want stem cells that have already differentiated because they can't turn them into any cell type they want.


The Pharma Corps who lobbied for abortion rights through NOW and Planned Parenthood (others as well) would lobby to off-shore the costs or to put regulatory sanctions on these outrages womb-fees the mothers would start charging.

I think its “illegal” to conduct Stem-Cell Research on aborted fetuses which means they are sold on the black market OR you might be able to do it with consent, not sure. The fact is that its being done.
Again, this is confusing and you seem to misinformed about stem cells and fetuses.


There is absolutely no fear of abortion going away ever with Bush-Clinton-McCain-Obama-Feinstein-Frank types in power; they all play for the same team.
Why would anyone not want safe medical procedures avaiable to women? There is a fear of abortion going away, states are already trying to pass laws that would override Roe v Wade.


Team Coercive Welfare-Corporatist Profits

Get the Coercive Gov't Welfare out of the equation and you will see most liberals will not "donate" to keep this going (obviously conservatives wont).

If you hurt a woman while she is pregnant and the baby dies you will be tried for manslaughter of the un-born fetus. Even in the early stages. You will be sued as a doctor if you cause the death. So, why does the mother get to murder?

I say remove the “profit” rents/regulations and see who supports what.

In a free-market women would pay for abortions themselves, this would be costly.

This would drive innovation – I think early-live extraction would catch on. The babies live and the pregnancy terminated (mother is free again). In a free-market monopolies in pharmaceutical corporations are impossible given that most of their revenues are generated by way of regulatory coercion or direct/indirect subsidization of their costs.

Fully 56% of all illegal abortions are performed by doctors

19% by “other medical specialists”

12.5% by “amateur associates”

12.5% by “self-induced”
Can you clarify why/how this is relevant?



I'm sorry it was $350M over 7 years and Planned Parenthood alone performed 1.4M abortions over that same period -- last year there was 1.4M (million) total abortions in the U.S of which planned Parenthood performs 1 in 4 -- so they are spiking.

In the same time period PP received 1.5B (billion) in Gov't Grants of which they spent more on continued lobbying then the entire budget of Homeland Security, hahahahaha.
"The FY 2003 Budget directs $37.7 billion to homeland security" (http://www.whitehouse.gov/homeland/homeland_security_book.html) 37.7 billion is bigger then 1.5 billion, so you are wrong.


They receive tax-payer funded grants and the doctors earn around $900 per hour in many clinics. It's major invasive surgery.

Abortion Statistics:
http://www.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/phil%20115/Stats_on_abortion.htm

Abortion Profits:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48455
You haven't quoted any reliable sources here, come back when you have credible sources. The first one looks like it was cut out of a livejournal post and the second is from an article/website that lacks sources for it's claims.

-DesertShark

[DesertShark]

Since Planned Parent is a non-profit organization I think that they have to show where all their money goes and you can find that here: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/AR_2007_vFinal.pdf
Page 6 shows the break down of their spending of $10.5 million in 2006. As you can see, only 3% goes towards abortion, while 38% goes to contraceptives and 29% goes to testing and treatment of STDs/STIs.

-DesertShark

[synthesis]

If you hurt a woman while she is pregnant and the baby dies you will be tried for manslaughter of the un-born fetus. Even in the early stages. You will be sued as a doctor if you cause the death. So, why does the mother get to murder?

Your grandmother is in a permanent vegetative state. You cannot afford to keep paying for life support (she's at your house) so you pull the plug. She would be incapable of living without you, but it's ultimately your decision to devote resources to her and you see nothing positive about continuing on that path for either of you.

But if someone were to break into your home to rob your house and pull the same plug in the process, that would be murder since they have no actual jurisdiction in the matter in terms of allocation of resources.

This goes a hundred times for abortion since the "life support" in question is actually literally part of a woman's body; therefore she has total sovereignty over it.

[Octobox]

Okay -- Since you are the resident geneticist explain the following articles as they refute your refutation of my explanation, hahahahaha.

From MSNBC (this is just one medical case -- this is not about success; it’s aboot the Billion Dollar Abortion Industry):
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16159766/

Aborted Fetuses For Beauty:

Here, poverty-stricken young women are paid 200 U.S. dollars to carry babies up to the optimum eight to 12-week period - thought to be best for harvesting stem cells [I guess you were right about that]. They are then sold on to cosmetic clinics.

'The cavalier attitude of Russian cosmetic surgeons is grotesque,' says Dr Minger. 'The origin of the cells is ethically immoral. Furthermore, they don't bother to test for compatibility between the cells injected and the patient who receives them. Medical risks from complications can include infection, tumors and rejection of foreign tissue.'

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1605616/posts


In one of the articles they say that there was 100's of aborted fetus stem cell transplants -- If there were 100's how many were used in "testing" -- What about overseas.

Now this one is from a ProLife Blog (the enemy right), but they quote all their sources!! This one absolutely destroys your arguments against my arguments which were based on Economics not Science, but you prompted be to find Scientific articles and this was quite easy!!!

The conference presentation, "Human Fetal Stem Cell Therapy for Dilated Cardiomyopathy", was authored by Dr. Valavanur A. Subramanian, who is on the Board of Directors of ISMICS (http://www.ismics.org/) (International Society of Minimally Invasive Cardiothoracic Surgery) -- They use Aborted Fetuses Too :)
http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles/archives/2005/06/stem_cells_from.php

So you are wrong when you say they do not use aborted fetuses. Which must mean, using your logic that everything else you say is suspect owing to "your" lack of facts.

Or maybe you and I are both seeking the truth and ad hominen (sp?) attacks is not necessary to make our points, okay chuckles

The sources I quoted above are now back up for discussion because the articles I'm postin here refute everything you said -- *In Samurai Voice* "...do you wish to cross article swords with me grass-hopper?"

Look I have read 100's of articles in scientific journals and blogs -- from PhD’s to people like you and I -- I don't know who is credible or not. But as an Economist I always follow the money and the politics and Politicians never do anything for ethical reasons its always tied to lobbying dollars -- period!!! If you understand re-election and regulatory power you'll know this one truth.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1605616/posts

Another PhD:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/359

According to him: "Much of the pressure for selling fetal body parts comes from stem cell research and cosmetics.....The Ukrainian Institute argues that their “materials” are produced legally using early aborted fetuses that would otherwise be disposed of as “biowaste.” -- Now this is the "Ukraine" but I feel in Eastern Europe they are more "out" about their "evil" and America is far far far more "selective and discrete." Similar to how in the movie "Lord of War" Nick Cage talks about the vast amount of arms is sold by US, America, China, France, England, and Russia -- however, when selling to the enemies of our allies we use the "black market," and that's what's happening with Aborted Fetuses.

From Physicians for Life I offer this quote:
"The organs from a single disease-free late-term aborted baby in Ukraine can fetch about $17,000. The body of a newborn baby is worth even more.
Given the 1.2 million annual abortions in Ukraine, we find that the fetal and embryonic stem cell and organ trade in this one country is worth multiple hundreds of millions — perhaps even billions — of dollars annually, even if only a small percentage of the aborted babies are used for research and harvesting. This money goes a long, long way in a nation where the average yearly salary of a highly-trained doctor is only about $2,500."

Now we have 1.4M (million) abortions per year here in the states -- I'm sure our Puritanical society would never engage in such an un-profitable black-market and I'm more than positive our Welfarist Super Pharma Corporations would never profit from such a market or use any data (whether created here in the states or overseas) to generate revenue or "advancements."

Now as for pointing out the "lost profits" these women are losing and would they (if they knew of the profit) think of a private cottage womb industry if they could get $17K per aborted fetus? Now that's $17K "American" in the Ukraine what would they get here if the sale of fetuses were made "legal" and on the free-market -- rather than the Lobby-Eared Highly Regulated "un-regulated" Black-Market. You "regulated" to create the "black-market," which is "un-regulated." I hope I don't have to explain that one too?

Anti-Aging Stem Cell From Aborted Fetuses:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-399376/A-barbaric-kind-beauty.html

From the Guardian UK:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/apr/17/ukraine.russia

Human Fetal Kidney Tissue was used to Develop Polio Vaccines in the 30's:
http://www.ascb.org/index.cfm?navid=121&id=1820&tcode=nws3

From High Beam Research:
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-9481941.html

[Octobox]

Kun Fana -- I agree 100% with you!

I like to use odd disjointed arguments to make people "connect dots" and to cause thought provoking discussion -- also, I try to obscure my position (especially) on a Communist/Anarchist website where I was "restricted" before I got through my first post -- I love regulation of thought. :)

[Plagueround]

Kun Fana -- I agree 100% with you!

I like to use odd disjointed arguments to make people "connect dots" and to cause thought provoking discussion -- also, I try to obscure my position (especially) on a Communist/Anarchist website where I was "restricted" before I got through my first post -- I love regulation of thought. :)

You were restricted as this forum is for leftists, which you are not. It is not a means of regulating thought so much as it is an attempt to focus the discussion. This was implemented early on in the site's history because all discussion forums degraded into back and forth arguments. It was not encouraging thought, it was stifling it. This forum allows you to still freely express your views, and you're more than welcome to address posts you see in the other sections here. This is much more than other forums will do, most of them will just ban you outright.

In regards to what you've posted in this thread, if the sources you've cited are true (I have not had a chance to read them so I'm not doubting you, I'm just not yet qualified to say) you've simply demonstrated one of the greatest failings of money. If there is a profit to be had, people will find a way to convert all manner of causes into a profiteering racket.

[Rascolnikova]

I try to obscure my position

If your position isn't thought provoking enough when stated coherently, perhaps it should be reconsidered.

[synthesis]

Kun Fana -- I agree 100% with you!

I like to use odd disjointed arguments to make people "connect dots" and to cause thought provoking discussion -- also, I try to obscure my position (especially) on a Communist/Anarchist website where I was "restricted" before I got through my first post -- I love regulation of thought. :)

It seems to me that your (unstated?) central thesis is that abortion - like everything else - has become subsumed into the capitalist model and is open to exploitation in a capitalist economy.

This is a valid concern but not a sound argument - at least in the way you have presented it, apparently because your data are derived from the pro-life movement, which has merely modified their irrational rhetoric to appeal to leftist ethics.

[Octobox]

I was not engaged in a debate -- I was joining the fray in an afro-cuban manner, which is improvisational (like jazz); I figured you guys could connect your own dots, rather than semantical cat fights like on all the previous pages -- well I guess I answered my own thought, "obviously not," hahahahaha.

It's all good -- If their is anything you disagree with in what I said we can handle it issue by issue, smile.

[Octobox]

Plaguer: You did not restrict me, so you do not know the reason. I was restricted after one post.

What's more left an Anarchist or a Communist and don't say they are even remotely the same?

I'm more of a leftist then a Communist is -- Murray Rothbard was a leftist and he is a Libertarian-Anarchist.

I always thought "left" meant "voluntary" but maybe I'm off -- there's so much arguing over who's on what side.

Edit: I just wanted to add that my quotes are not from Pro-Life websites -- Only one is a prolift website. The one that is from a pro-life website quotes all its sources. There are no "centrist" websites on this issue -- there is right and left. As an economist its easy to see the truth. All the presidents since Roe v Wade have all claimed pro-life; most sitteing officials claim pro-life but there has only be one or two real sounding Bills dealing with the subject. They always vote it down. For me the answer is simple -- chase the lobby-dollars. There's more on the pro-choice or stem cell cosmetic aborted fetus side - period!!

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Now as for pointing out the "lost profits" these women are losing and would they (if they knew of the profit) think of a private cottage womb industry if they could get $17K per aborted fetus? Now that's $17K "American" in the Ukraine what would they get here if the sale of fetuses were made "legal" and on the free-market -- rather than the Lobby-Eared Highly Regulated "un-regulated" Black-Market. You "regulated" to create the "black-market," which is "un-regulated." I hope I don't have to explain that one too?

Hell yeah we should allow the importation of fetuses. I want to live forever, and I don't give a shit about whatever moral bullshit big pharma is trying to spin. If we are to globalize, I want to see the motherfuckin good side to that shit too. This is big pharma charging us more to eat a selective form of solvent green as opposed to the cheaper alternative.

We have sweat shops were women are forced to have an abortion if they are impregnated. why should we allow this to go to waste? seriously, if some good can be brought from that slab of organic material, why not? it may yield much better results than it simply being dumped into the river.

speaking of which some of these countries ought to start making some abortions happen. i mean india goddamn that's fucking insane. at least china did the honorable thing and forced people to have one kid. i give them props for that. and i'm sure they'd be a great supplier of fetuses if we allowed them to.

[Rascolnikova]

Hell yeah we should allow the importation of fetuses. I want to live forever, and I don't give a shit about whatever moral bullshit big pharma is trying to spin. If we are to globalize, I want to see the motherfuckin good side to that shit too. This is big pharma charging us more to eat a selective form of solvent green as opposed to the cheaper alternative.

We have sweat shops were women are forced to have an abortion if they are impregnated. why should we allow this to go to waste? seriously, if some good can be brought from that slab of organic material, why not? it may yield much better results than it simply being dumped into the river.

speaking of which some of these countries ought to start making some abortions happen. i mean india goddamn that's fucking insane. at least china did the honorable thing and forced people to have one kid. i give them props for that. and i'm sure they'd be a great supplier of fetuses if we allowed them to.

That's a fucked up perspective, quite reminiscent of when Swift suggested that since people were starving in Ireland, they should sell their children to the wealthy as flesh and leather.

Except he wasn't serious; he was outraged.

[Plagueround]

That's a fucked up perspective, quite reminiscent of when Swift suggested that since people were starving in Ireland, they should sell their children to the wealthy as flesh and leather.

Except he wasn't serious; he was outraged.

I believe CultOfAbe isn't serious either, but then, given some of the stuff he's said around here, I could be wrong.

[Plagueround]

Plaguer: You did not restrict me, so you do not know the reason. I was restricted after one post.

Actually, not to be rude, but I know the exact reason and probably read more threads on you restriction, along with any other restriction here, than you did. In any event, this thread is not the place to discuss restrictions so I'll leave it at that.


What's more left an Anarchist or a Communist and don't say they are even remotely the same?

Certainly they can be. Many of us around here are anarchist-communists. Personally I like the notion that communism is the economic system and anarchism is the social system.


I'm more of a leftist then a Communist is -- Murray Rothbard was a leftist and he is a Libertarian-Anarchist.

Rothbard believed in retaining capitalism and thus maintaining economic hierarchies. To me such a person is no anarchist.


I always thought "left" meant "voluntary" but maybe I'm off -- there's so much arguing over who's on what side.

While it isn't perfect, and the test definitely leaves much to be desired, I like the political compass model, where left-right is complimented with authoritarian and libertarian.

I've always maintained a civil discourse with you, however I feel some aggression in your words. Forgive me if this is brought on by what I said because this was not my intent.

[Jazzratt]

That's a fucked up perspective, quite reminiscent of when Swift suggested that since people were starving in Ireland, they should sell their children to the wealthy as flesh and leather

I think both people have written with the same intent. I could be wrong though.

[Rascolnikova]

I think both people have written with the same intent. I could be wrong though.

I hope so. I do have an unfortunate tendency to take things over-literally.

[DesertShark]

Not a geneticist, but someone who understands biology.


Okay -- Since you are the resident geneticist explain the following articles as they refute your refutation of my explanation, hahahahaha.

From MSNBC (this is just one medical case -- this is not about success; it’s aboot the Billion Dollar Abortion Industry):
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16159766/
A quote from the article: "the neural stem cells taken from fetuses — donated to a nonprofit medical foundation by women aborting early-stage pregnancies" - the key here is EARLY-STAGE, which is what I was saying. Also from the article, "The stem cells injected into Daniel’s head aren’t human embryonic stem cells," so this article just contradicted itself. Good choice.


Aborted Fetuses For Beauty:

Here, poverty-stricken young women are paid 200 U.S. dollars to carry babies up to the optimum eight to 12-week period - thought to be best for harvesting stem cells [I guess you were right about that]. They are then sold on to cosmetic clinics.

'The cavalier attitude of Russian cosmetic surgeons is grotesque,' says Dr Minger. 'The origin of the cells is ethically immoral. Furthermore, they don't bother to test for compatibility between the cells injected and the patient who receives them. Medical risks from complications can include infection, tumors and rejection of foreign tissue.'

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1605616/posts
How can a fetus be aborted live? Did you know that the foreskin of baby male penises are used in cosemetics as well? Apparently, it makes skin softer and has some anti-aging effects.


In one of the articles they say that there was 100's of aborted fetus stem cell transplants -- If there were 100's how many were used in "testing" -- What about overseas.

Now this one is from a ProLife Blog (the enemy right), but they quote all their sources!! This one absolutely destroys your arguments against my arguments which were based on Economics not Science, but you prompted be to find Scientific articles and this was quite easy!!!

The conference presentation, "Human Fetal Stem Cell Therapy for Dilated Cardiomyopathy", was authored by Dr. Valavanur A. Subramanian, who is on the Board of Directors of ISMICS (http://www.ismics.org/) (International Society of Minimally Invasive Cardiothoracic Surgery) -- They use Aborted Fetuses Too :)
http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles/archives/2005/06/stem_cells_from.php

I wasn't able to find their research paper anywhere, if you could find it and post it that would be helpful. Since I couldn't find their research, I'm not convinced of the validity of their work. No one in first world nations have been able to do this, so if it is true why isn't it all over the scientific communities here? And why have they not published a paper that can be peer reviewed and tested to make sure it is actually viable? Remember the North Koreans claiming they cloned a dog? They didn't, this is why peer reviewing is so important in the scientific community because it proves or disproves the validity of the work.


So you are wrong when you say they do not use aborted fetuses. Which must mean, using your logic that everything else you say is suspect owing to "your" lack of facts.

Or maybe you and I are both seeking the truth and ad hominen (sp?) attacks is not necessary to make our points, okay chuckles
No, I'm not wrong. They don't use OLD aborted fetuses because they don't have they type of stem cells necessary to perform the research they want to do (I give a full explanation about embryonic stem cells at the bottom). That's why most stem cells used in research come from fertility clinics where they know exactly how old the embryos are. Look it up.


The sources I quoted above are now back up for discussion because the articles I'm postin here refute everything you said -- *In Samurai Voice* "...do you wish to cross article swords with me grass-hopper?"
Still not reliable sources. You want to talk science, read some scientific journals that have peer reviewing: Neroun (one of the BEST journals out there), Cell, Journal of Cell Biology, and Nature (sometimes). These are actual credible scientific journals.


Look I have read 100's of articles in scientific journals and blogs -- from PhD’s to people like you and I -- I don't know who is credible or not. But as an Economist I always follow the money and the politics and Politicians never do anything for ethical reasons its always tied to lobbying dollars -- period!!! If you understand re-election and regulatory power you'll know this one truth.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1605616/posts
How do you know that I don't have PhD? Above I gave you a list of journals that are credible. It is actually really easy to find credible scientific journals if you tried. Do you want a cookie for being an economist? I don't understand how that is relevant.


Another PhD:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/359

According to him: "Much of the pressure for selling fetal body parts comes from stem cell research and cosmetics.....The Ukrainian Institute argues that their “materials” are produced legally using early aborted fetuses that would otherwise be disposed of as “biowaste.” -- Now this is the "Ukraine" but I feel in Eastern Europe they are more "out" about their "evil" and America is far far far more "selective and discrete." Similar to how in the movie "Lord of War" Nick Cage talks about the vast amount of arms is sold by US, America, China, France, England, and Russia -- however, when selling to the enemies of our allies we use the "black market," and that's what's happening with Aborted Fetuses.
He also mentions fertility clinics: "fertility practices that result in embryos that are subsequently destroyed". The low birth weight thing is not just present in the Ukraine, it actually happens in a lot of countries that the babies aren't registered as born/alive until they meet basic measurements because most of the time, they don't survive being born so premature.


From Physicians for Life I offer this quote:
"The organs from a single disease-free late-term aborted baby in Ukraine can fetch about $17,000. The body of a newborn baby is worth even more.
Given the 1.2 million annual abortions in Ukraine, we find that the fetal and embryonic stem cell and organ trade in this one country is worth multiple hundreds of millions — perhaps even billions — of dollars annually, even if only a small percentage of the aborted babies are used for research and harvesting. This money goes a long, long way in a nation where the average yearly salary of a highly-trained doctor is only about $2,500."
If this were true, wouldn't we see tons of scientific papers coming out of the Ukraine from all the research? And wouldn't there be tons of medical advancements because of their work?


Now we have 1.4M (million) abortions per year here in the states -- I'm sure our Puritanical society would never engage in such an un-profitable black-market and I'm more than positive our Welfarist Super Pharma Corporations would never profit from such a market or use any data (whether created here in the states or overseas) to generate revenue or "advancements."

Now as for pointing out the "lost profits" these women are losing and would they (if they knew of the profit) think of a private cottage womb industry if they could get $17K per aborted fetus? Now that's $17K "American" in the Ukraine what would they get here if the sale of fetuses were made "legal" and on the free-market -- rather than the Lobby-Eared Highly Regulated "un-regulated" Black-Market. You "regulated" to create the "black-market," which is "un-regulated." I hope I don't have to explain that one too?
Does your abortion number include miscarriages, which are infact abortions? Why don't they pay money for fetuses that were spontaneously aborted (ie miscarriages)?

Women can actually make a lot more money selling their eggs (up to $50,000) or carrying babies for couples that can't get pregnant (about $20,000 plus all medical expenses).


Anti-Aging Stem Cell From Aborted Fetuses:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-399376/A-barbaric-kind-beauty.html
The following quotes are from the article:
"The attractive brunette has opted for a controversial stem- cell therapy where umbilical cord tissue from new-born babies will be injected into her body." So they're not coming from fetuses, but from babies that have already been born (meaning they were not aborted).
"In Britain, stem-cell research is governed by strict ethical considerations - it is limited to registered institutions using cells from embryos up to 14 days old" Up to 14 days because that's where the stem cells used in research are found, thank you for supporting my argument.
"'By definition, what such clinics are doing is highly experimental and risks damaging the reputation of legitimate stem-cell research we are doing to help cure illnesses,' says leading UK stem-cell researcher Colin Blakemore. 'Because so many clinics are based in tourist spots and refuse to be members of the only recognised board to regulate ethical stem-cell research - The International Stem Cell Forum - there is much room for unethical and morally dubious treatment by unqualified doctors. And if anything goes wrong afterwards, it is hushed up to prevent damage to the business." An extremely good point, furthering my argument. The examples you've been giving aren't legtimate stem cell researchers.



From the Guardian UK:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/apr/17/ukraine.russia
Again, not legtimate researchers. The previous article you linked explained why that is dangerous.
"Abortions performed more than 12 weeks into a pregnancy are restricted in Ukraine. Older foetuses fetch extra because their curative powers are thought to be greater." Which is actually not true, see embryonic stem cell information below.


Human Fetal Kidney Tissue was used to Develop Polio Vaccines in the 30's:
http://www.ascb.org/index.cfm?navid=121&id=1820&tcode=nws3
This says that most of the tissue does not come from abortion clinics. It also gives lots of examples of how beneficial fetal tissue research has been in many different disesases.


From High Beam Research:
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-9481941.html
I wasn't able to get access to the whole article.

Some important information about embryonic stem cells. All stem cells go through the same stages (the farther along through the stages, the more restricted the gene expression): totipotent (they can become anything, including placental cells) -> pluripotent (can become any cell type but placental) -> multipotent (already organ specific, but still have self renewal) -> terminally differentiated. Stem cells are characterized by the ability of self renewal. Somatic stem cells are multipotent, while embryonic stem cells are pluripotent. Embryonic stem cells are found in the Inner Cell Mass during the bastula stage (day 5), just before implantation. Organogenesis (the formation of organs) occurs during days 15-24. Taking the Inner Cell Mass from the bastula destroys the embryo.

On another note, why did this even come up in the discussion at hand? I missed the connection between this and a woman's right to choose.

-DesertShark

[Octobox]

Plaguer: We haven't had that many discourses and I think you are "reading into" my font, which is cool I've made that mistake before - Never before in history has the written word be so powerful as it is right now, at least on the telephone you can "hear tone" -- we will need a few generations to master this medium (to be able to convey subtlety in emotion) or a better language-tech-format.

May the Force be With You

[Rascolnikova]

Plaguer: We haven't had that many discourses and I think you are "reading into" my font, which is cool I've made that mistake before - Never before in history has the written word be so powerful as it is right now, at least on the telephone you can "hear tone" -- we will need a few generations to master this medium (to be able to convey subtlety in emotion) or a better language-tech-format.

May the Force be With You

It's a forum; you are what you post. If you constantly and intentionally obscure your views, it's rather hard to sympathize with the idea that it was unfair for someone to misinterpret them.

Honestly--I haven't said anything because for the most part desertshark has been saying what needed saying--I really don't understand what the state of affairs your statistics describe (even should we take said statistics unquestioned at face value) has to do with what should be done about abortion, on either a philosophical or a practical level.

[Octobox]

Desert Shark: You are not a geneticist are you a PhD at all, because that's who I was quoting.

In one of you other rants you discredited a source not by any statistical or economic merit but by simply saying it "wasn't a reliable source" -- wow. People spend hundreds of hours investigating and only you have the absolute authority on who is credible or not.

I wont go further in this "semantical" debate.

Let's change pace/tactics.

Let's build our arguments step by step.

Do you believe free-markets are inherently dishonest and that abortion is a "righteous choice?"

I will always question anything most politcians are un-willing to change when the predominance of the country wants it changed.

[Rascolnikova]

Desert Shark: You are not a geneticist are you a PhD at all, because that's who I was quoting.

this doesn't follow.



In one of you other rants you discredited a source not by any statistical or economic merit but by simply saying it "wasn't a reliable source" -- wow. People spend hundreds of hours investigating and only you have the absolute authority on who is credible or not.

Neither does this. If people spend hundreds of hours investigating, they should cite their sources.


I wont go further in this "semantical" debate.

Reliable sources aren't a question of semantics.

[Octobox]

Rasco: How many of my posts have you read? "You are what you post," well yeah I guess that's true - I mean who has time to investigate, right?

I only made one post "obscure" and by obscure I meant in regard to sides -- pro-life or pro-choice.

DesertShark -- Is not posting links to back his arguments I was - so it is up to you to "believe" based on what is credible to you -- Him or the PhD's I'm quoting. If he's been "right" in the past and I'm "un-known" then I can understand the blind trust. Unless you are a geneticist and "know" what he says is true?

As far as the "relevance" I figured everyone knew that there were 1.4M abortions last year (or could investigate that) #1; additionally, no one in "RevLeft" would be in favor of Big Pharma Corps (they are corporatists, lobby seeking welfarists -- who operate outside of the free-market) #2; and thusly people would question any policy that benefits those who are raping the wealth of the nation (the people - the workers).

I was just throwing it out there. I read the other posts and saw there wasn't anyone following the money trail (as I said before) and that it might stimulate conversation.

This is a "club" and I'm not really a member -- there are insiders, rules of play, and a culture that I do not understand.

Just ignore me until I say something "relevant" to you.

Personally I think following the money is the only wise solution to solving social policies -- people are more honest about how they feel as it effects their ability to trade and consume. Show 'em how a policy hits there pocket book (taxation, inflation, regulatory advangtages, welfarism, lobbying, bailouts) and they are likely to change.

Make an economic argument and you'll suade more people or bring out their "wrath," regardless you get to "see them" and now you can target your attacks. Debate is War - Politics is War - Communism-Democracy-Socialism are In-Voluntary Perpetual Militarists. I'm for coming up with solutions in a Voluntary manner -- thus to criple the Militarists you must find their resources (money).

Just some Thoughts

[DesertShark]

Desert Shark: You are not a geneticist are you a PhD at all, because that's who I was quoting.
Was that a statement or a question? And not everyone you quoted was a PhD, in fact only one was and I was not able to find his dissertation paper.


In one of you other rants you discredited a source not by any statistical or economic merit but by simply saying it "wasn't a reliable source" -- wow. People spend hundreds of hours investigating and only you have the absolute authority on who is credible or not.
Statistical or economic merits do not determine whether or not a source is credible. The scientific community determines amongst themselves who is credible and who is not, through peer reviewing and the running of experiments among other things. I gave you a list of accepted credible scientific journals, not by my word but ones that are highly regarded throughout the scientific field. I claim no absolute authority, only knowledge and understanding of the scientific community/field.


I wont go further in this "semantical" debate.

Let's change pace/tactics.

Let's build our arguments step by step.

Do you believe free-markets are inherently dishonest and that abortion is a "righteous choice?"
Out of curiosity, where is this coming from and how is this related to the thread topic? What is the "semantical" debate you are referring to?

Define "righteous choice."
I am not an economist; I dislike money and all forms of government because both are made up, neither are necessary, and both are used to exert power over others.


I will always question anything most politcians are un-willing to change when the predominance of the country wants it changed.
What are you specifically referring to with this?


Do you feel like you have a better understanding of what embryonic stem cells are? I feel like you just gave up on my response to your post instead of trying to understand what I was talking about.

-DesertShark

[Octobox]

Rasco: What doesn't follow -- It follows perfectly if you've been reading how he has been discrediting my sources by not providing any himself -- thus I asked him if he was a PhD because that's who I'm quoting. Why do I have to quote sources and links (and I do) and Desert does not?

[DesertShark]

DesertShark -- Is not posting links to back his arguments I was - so it is up to you to "believe" based on what is credible to you -- Him or the PhD's I'm quoting. If he's been "right" in the past and I'm "un-known" then I can understand the blind trust. Unless you are a geneticist and "know" what he says is true?
Thanks for assuming my gender and my education level, I am not actually a male - I lack the penis aspect of it.
Links about embryonic stem cells:
http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics3.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryonic_stem_cell_research
Also, any college level biology text book will cover this topic (including neuroscience text books), along with the introductions to any credible scientific paper about embryonic stem cell research. If you want links to specific papers, I'll get them to you but some are hard to access without having paid for the journal or having access to the journal through a university.


As far as the "relevance" I figured everyone knew that there were 1.4M abortions last year (or could investigate that) #1; additionally, no one in "RevLeft" would be in favor of Big Pharma Corps (they are corporatists, lobby seeking welfarists -- who operate outside of the free-market) #2; and thusly people would question any policy that benefits those who are raping the wealth of the nation (the people - the workers).
I did and I could not find that number. I found this: "After reaching a high of over 1.6 million in 1990, the number of abortions annually performed in the U.S. has dropped back to levels not seen since the late 1970s." (From the National Right to Life website (http://www.nrlc.org/ABORTION/facts/abortionstats.html)). It appears by their numbers that the number of abortions per year has dropped below 1 million. They also don't say whether or not these numbers include spontaneous abortions.


I was just throwing it out there. I read the other posts and saw there wasn't anyone following the money trail (as I said before) and that it might stimulate conversation.

This is a "club" and I'm not really a member -- there are insiders, rules of play, and a culture that I do not understand.

Just ignore me until I say something "relevant" to you.

Personally I think following the money is the only wise solution to solving social policies -- people are more honest about how they feel as it effects their ability to trade and consume. Show 'em how a policy hits there pocket book (taxation, inflation, regulatory advangtages, welfarism, lobbying, bailouts) and they are likely to change.
In my opinion, the only "wise solution to solving social policies" is to determine the cause behind the "problem" (which was already discussed on the topic of abortion earlier in this thread) and stopping the problem before it starts.


Make an economic argument and you'll suade more people or bring out their "wrath," regardless you get to "see them" and now you can target your attacks. Debate is War - Politics is War - Communism-Democracy-Socialism are In-Voluntary Perpetual Militarists. I'm for coming up with solutions in a Voluntary manner -- thus to criple the Militarists you must find their resources (money).

Just some Thoughts
War is overrated and there is no need for it. Debate is a discussion, not war. Politics suck and lead to war. Money isn't real, it's a fake exercise of power over others. Money doesn't bring out anything true in people, it makes people illogical and causes people to do things they wouldn't normally do so I don't think that it is a reliable way to understand a person or their ideals/motives.

-DesertShark

[Octobox]

DesertShark: I think you guys are used to a certain type of "site in-cutlurated" way of "discrediting" sources that I'm not used to.

See I quoted sources to back up what I was saying and you did not site sources - rather you discredited them by saying they were not "peer reviewed" yet you offered no peer reviewed quotes (correct). A thing is not correct or incorrect based on peer review and that had nothing to do with what I was saying, which was that there are 100's of billions being made off of aborted fetuses -- A fact you've been un-able to counter except to wave your wound of irrefutable knowledge, hahahaha.

You commit the Fallacy of "appeal to mockery" when you say things like "do you want a cookie" -- yes Desert I'm looking for a cookie.

You were commiting the fallacy "appeal to authority" so I mentioned that I was an Economist since that's how you were playing the game. Now you didn't say you were an authority other than stating you knew biology but you started breaking down stem cell research from a position of authority since you were not "quoting" or "linking." Call it a "silent appeal to authority," hahahaha.

The only reason I posted was to stimulate conversation.

The best we can do is to offer links to support our claims -- Since, you do not have to do this and I do and you can pick apart what I post without any evidence then "truth" is not what we are seeking. We are seeking in that instance, absolutism.

I doni't know if what I post is true and I can admit that -- We can't reseach all topics beyond the library or internet. What to prove my point I need to become a geneticist but you can discredit by saying "non-credible sources" then to make your points you quote no one, hmmmmm?

[DesertShark]

DesertShark: I think you guys are used to a certain type of "site in-cutlurated" way of "discrediting" sources that I'm not used to.

See I quoted sources to back up what I was saying and you did not site sources - rather you discredited them by saying they were not "peer reviewed" yet you offered no peer reviewed quotes (correct). A thing is not correct or incorrect based on peer review and that had nothing to do with what I was saying, which was that there are 100's of billions being made off of aborted fetuses -- A fact you've been un-able to counter except to wave your wound of irrefutable knowledge, hahahaha.
But once you asked for sources, I gave you some. My comments about peer reviewing come from an understanding of the scientific community and that is what makes something correct or incorrect within that specific community. I made no claims about economics. I discredited your claims about the money being made off of aborted fetuses, by telling (and in the last post giving you links to sources) you how embryonic stem cells are retrieved and the age that the cells are viable for research. If you understand where embryonic stem cells come from, you would understand that there isn't viable research in old aborted fetuses and if what you were saying is true, then there are people getting severely shafted by not understanding biology and embryonic development. Lack of education is a huge problem in a lot of areas.


You commit the Fallacy of "appeal to mockery" when you say things like "do you want a cookie" -- yes Desert I'm looking for a cookie.

You were commiting the fallacy "appeal to authority" so I mentioned that I was an Economist since that's how you were playing the game. Now you didn't say you were an authority other than stating you knew biology but you started breaking down stem cell research from a position of authority since you were not "quoting" or "linking." Call it a "silent appeal to authority," hahahaha.
You made the first claim about authority calling me a geneticist; one doesn't need to understand genetics to understand stem cell research and where stem cells come from. I was clarifying that I was not the authority you were making me out to be. As soon as you asked for links and citations, I provided them.


The best we can do is to offer links to support our claims -- Since, you do not have to do this and I do and you can pick apart what I post without any evidence then "truth" is not what we are seeking. We are seeking in that instance, absolutism.

I doni't know if what I post is true and I can admit that -- We can't reseach all topics beyond the library or internet. What to prove my point I need to become a geneticist but you can discredit by saying "non-credible sources" then to make your points you quote no one, hmmmmm?
Everyone needs to provide support if they are asked to. Again, I have provided sources and if you need more to understand what I am talking about, I'll be more then happy to give them to you. Again, no need to be a geneticist; I don't actually know why you think you need to be one to understand embryonic stem cell research.

What else from my "claims" do you want sources for?

-DesertShark

[Reclaimed Dasein]

I was not engaged in a debate -- I was joining the fray in an afro-cuban manner, which is improvisational (like jazz); I figured you guys could connect your own dots, rather than semantical cat fights like on all the previous pages -- well I guess I answered my own thought, "obviously not," hahahahaha.

It's all good -- If their is anything you disagree with in what I said we can handle it issue by issue, smile.
You should lay off the hash before posting. Also, you're a freeper (someone from free republic) and ergo retarded. That's not an ad hominem. I don't think your arguments are inherently wrong because you're retarded, but it is a justification for why I don't want to take the time to listen to your arguments.

Also, how the fuck do you support free markets but restricting political liberties? "We should do away with the state, except when people do things I don't like." You're not a libertarian or an anarchist. You're just an asshole.

Also, all of you are wrong. This is the only thing that needs to be said about abortion. Wait for it, it's totally worth it.
http://jp.truveo.com/FriskyDingoS02E10/id/633338689

Jango Machete.

[Octobox]

DesertShark: I'm sorry for assuming you were male -- must have been the "tone" I incorrectly read and mostly your name, though why can't there be a female DesertShark you know *cough*

When I said "debate is war" I didn't mean Vietnam or the masacre at Little Big Horn, I meant there is a desire to tip the balance in ones favor -- rarely is it a "getting at truth," when it is it must start off with that as a goal and many definitions and assumptions must be agreed upon otherwise it will turn semantical -- you know.

I teach Defensive Tactics to Navy Seals, S.W.A.T, Gang Task-Force, Cell Extraction Units (Prison Guards - Specifically when they must remove dangerous Convicts from their Cells), Bouncers, Citizens, and unusually to a large number of Girls going off to college. Suffice it to say that I spend a lot of time discussing politics with a very broad range of people and I feel pretty comfortable (especially given my backgroun in Economics) in saying that "money" motivates and drives peoples day-to-day decision tree as much as the other two top drivers: Sex and Child Rearing (if they are single the latter is replaced by "Consumption choices" which is really only an extended application of "Money"). Other than a Hairstylist-Barber, a Bartender, or a Financial Analyst (which I've been as well) is there an occupation that more penetratingly enters into a persons psyche than Defensive Tactics Instructor -- People tell you everthing. I bet a Speech or Voice coach might as well too -- anything that makes people deeply relax or deals in an area where people have to over come personal weakness do they really open up.

Too not want to deal with things from a "money" perspective (in todays world) because it is "useless medium" (which I'm going to assume your meaning and cannot fully disagree with) would be to deny one of the three biggest prime motivators: 1) Sex, 2) Child Rearing (or Consumptive Choices), and 3) Money

Most Psychologists will say these are the three biggest reasons relationships fail and my posting on the relevance of abortion and the money-trail (and the brouhaha it has caused) might show a parallelism or spot on truism -- the latter being nearly impossible to pin down in a forum or blog, hahahaha.

Deep Peace and Joy to You (with no religious embellisments in full respect to everything politically correct - ceteris peribus)

Octobox

[Octobox]

Reclaimed Decision: I've been leveled by your logic and assessment -- I will take your advice and not smoke hash before commenting, thanks. You got me.

[Rascolnikova]

Rasco: How many of my posts have you read? "You are what you post," well yeah I guess that's true - I mean who has time to investigate, right?

I only made one post "obscure" and by obscure I meant in regard to sides -- pro-life or pro-choice.

I read everything you'd posted to that point (almost half your total posts, if I recall--it was 15 or 20 at the time?) when you made the unified field theory comment, and I saw the notice in the admin thread about why you were restricted. Your ideas are often interesting, but either you are a terrible communicator or your preference for obscurity is not limited to one post.

As far as sources go, it's up to the person making assertions to have good ones. The links I followed did not look good; if you're going to create that sort of impressionist argument, I would think you'd want to have particularly solid evidence behind it.

Given that the occupation listed on her profile is "biologist/scientist" or something of the sort (I forget exactly), assuming Desertshark has no PhD and is not a geneticist is a bit obnoxious--and you quoting someone else who does have a PhD also has nothing to do with whether she has one or not.

[Octobox]

Rasco: She said she was not a genecist. I posted a link (a citation). She countered as an "expert" by saying what I posted was "false" then using un-quoted impressive sounding statements to show proof. How was that obnoxious? It is obnoxious if you do not follow everything step by step.

Now you say my "links" don't look good?

The "links" I cited and what I posted are essentially saying that geneticists are using aborted fetuses for stem cell reseach. DesertShark said that wasn't possible, so I showed links to PhD's and articles quoting geneticists who said it is possible and it is being done. Regardless I was slammed by everyone and its understandable because what I said was a horrible revelation.

That aborted fetuses are being sold (mostly on the black market) to cosmetic companies and large pharma corps.

I mean if I told you America exports torture to Egypt (and elsewhere) because it's illegal here in the States -- I wouldn't even need to provide a link (especially not in RevLeft). Yet you want to believe that abortion is kept legal because of "choice" and not because its a mutli-billion dollar revenue stream and probably 100's of billions in black market and "legal" market sales (cost savings).

I was just reading this article that talks about how some states allow stem cell research on aborted fetuses (which refutes what DesertShark said) -- it was going over the laws. How if the patient consents they can do it legally. But, what if the patient doesn't consent then the "honest" abortion clinic (the "non-profit) throws away a $17K to $80K fetus and you believe that -- come on. A fetus might be worth as much as a 100K -- I imagine its based on wholeness, but maybe they part them out. Now why would they be talking about "legality" on an issue according to DesertShark says does not exist? If it does exist I'm asking, how much is the industry worth? As an economist we only need certain data to "approximate" it -- how much do doctors / specialist get an hour (performing abortion - $150 - $900 per hour), how much do they make selling drugs, how much do they make selling literature (yadda yadda) - when these services are "free" then the cost is higher as it comes in the forms of grants -- do I need to argue the budgetary/tenure tract management inefficiecies? Then the question is how much for live aborted fetus or dead aborted fetus? I found two major "buyers" cosmetics and pharma corps -- (cosmetics - gross right).

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/Genetics/embfet.htm

And yes they can extract fetuses whole and alive -- in some instances and keep them alive long enough to work on "fresh" tissue. Mostly they let the fetus die alone in another room, this can take hours according to doctors who performed abortions at Christ Church Hospital (the latter seems ironic).

Google: "Live Birth Abortions" -- There are articles by Dr's and plenty of blogs "confirming" this, but so far in RevLeft this has been pooh-pooh'd and I understand why!

Go Obama! http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_live_born_abortion/2008/08/26/124988.html

Also, someone (can't remember who) said they didn't think there was 1.4M abortions last year. So, I searched some more and its possible the number I was using was an estimate; however, in 2005 the number was 1.2M -- 1.4M might appear as a drastic spike but I read somewhere that we (America) naturalized 8.5M in 2005 (a third were Mexican) -- As much as I dislike Bush his gov't has been the greatest "friend" to immigrants and illegals than anyother according to Pew Hispanic Org (144% increase of Mexican naturalization: Bush over Clinton). This 8.5M was only 1/3 the total foreign born legal/illegal people in the U.S and this population draws heavy welfare and abortion rates, thus one possible answer to the spike.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
Guttmacher is somehow connected with Planned Parenthood

According to Buttmarcher there are 46M abortions worldwide per year or 126,000 per day!!

I'm just saying maybe this is 100 billion dollar industry or maybe it's not who am I to decide I can only provide links.

Octobox

[Rascolnikova]

News articles aren't a reliable source for science.

I don't find it impossible, or even unlikely, that abortion is such a huge industry as you say. However, I still don't see what that has to do with either the theoretical or the practical implications of my stance on abortion--or any other communist's. .. although for a pro-lifer it could make some sort of interesting supporting argument against capitalism.

[Octobox]

Rasco -- Do you live in America? If so then understanding the money trail is very important.

You said:


I still don't see what that has to do with either the theoretical or the practical implications of my stance on abortion


What I'm arguing is directly related to your two main arguments: 1) On Restricting Abortion and 2) On Reducing It.

Who has the power to restrict? Who benefits from restrictions (financially)? Who benefits from reducing it? Forget the women -- it's about the billions in aborted fetus profits not saving lives or protecting rights.

I also thought all the statistics supported your positions nicely.

Anyway -- Glad I could kick some dust up!!!

I'm alive and was adopted so I guess I'm situationally pro-life -- like as in my situation, but since I got in it's back to pro-choice for me I guess. What if my soul mate is incarnating next to me and instead they rock-paper-scizzor and break-out the Dust Devil? Well let my friends in I guess and my kids, but not lobbyists or Che supporters (sorry I'm half Cuban and that slips out -- No "real" Cubans like Che by-the-by).

Good talking to you ;)

Octobox

[synthesis]

Is your point that people make money off abortions? I don't think that was ever in question.

It might not be your intention, but I have to say that your posts are very confusing. If you don't really have a specific point you want to make (as you implied earlier) it sure seems like you do.

[Rascolnikova]

Rasco -- Do you live in America? If so then understanding the money trail is very important.

You said:


What I'm arguing is directly related to your two main arguments: 1) On Restricting Abortion and 2) On Reducing It.

Who has the power to restrict? Who benefits from restrictions (financially)? Who benefits from reducing it? Forget the women -- it's about the billions in aborted fetus profits not saving lives or protecting rights.

Is the money trail not important everywhere?

I don't think anyone actually benefits financially from the restriction of abortion except maybe adoption agencies and black market abortionists. Raising a child is far more expensive than having one aborted, and birth isn't free either.

It also seems to me that there are much stronger economic motives not to take the measures I've described to reduce abortion--and to be honest, reducing abortion isn't the most important reason we should be doing those things.

You have described something about why things are the way they are--but not about why or how they should be different; there's too many directions possible to go for that to be clear.



I also thought all the statistics supported your positions nicely.


So did I. . . thanks muchly for that. :)

I really do owe Bobkindles. . :blushing:
I should be nicer to him.

[apathy maybe]

Having just read the first post in this thread, and then many of the subsequent ones, I fail to find what was ever so objectionable in Rascolnikova's opinion.

I also think that the title, specifically the inclusion of the word "contempt" colours the entire thread, to an unnecessary extent. Especially, from what I can understand, there is no "contempt" at all (correct me if I'm wrong Rascolnikova).

Everybody should agree that it is better to reduce abortions (and I believe it has been mentioned by a number of people before, even if a search was unable to turn it up). Reduction through means of access to safe contraceptions, education etc. Abortion is a last resort, if nothing else, it is an acknowledgement that contraception can fail.



Similarly, I also think that everyone should feel uncomfortable at the thought of a nine month pregnant women killing ("aborting") a viable foetus (for whatever reason). I know I do, and I also feel quite uncomfortable at the thought of infanticide.

The question is, what are you going to do about it? Well, there is nothing that I can do, or would do. Though, if I were a doctor in that situation, I may suggest that someone else do the operation instead of me.

This isn't contempt for anything, it is merely a slight shudder.

(PS, if any fuckwit thinks that you want to restrict me now, for expressing a view that I have held for a long while now, then fuck off and die.)

[Rascolnikova]

I also think that the title, specifically the inclusion of the word "contempt" colours the entire thread, to an unnecessary extent. Especially, from what I can understand, there is no "contempt" at all (correct me if I'm wrong Rascolnikova).

I was sarcastically quoting Jazzrat; in the "complain about your unfair restriction" thread she said that to describe abortion in terms of killing babies revealed a contempt for a woman's right to choose. It also works well with this (clip of post 34) part of my position-


This reflects a far greater concern with the right to not have a child once one is pregnant than with the right to have one, and not face crippling inequality because you chose to. Since I feel this second right effects far more people, far more of the time, than the first, I am more concerned with it. I think Revleft should be too, and that their dogmatism on the first at the expense of supporting the second is effectively an anti-choice position.

[Octobox]

A Good Argument:

Rasco: If we assume we will be living in Capitalist America and that it is ever moving toward the "worst" kind of Socialism (not the kind that RevLeft would advise -- I'm referring to the march toward Fascism). If we assume this then we need to understand the difference between "true" free-market (capitalists) and our current Subsidized-Coercive Markets (Corporatists).

The importance of understand the power structure in a Regulated Market or Corporatist Society is very important if you want to make things "shift."

If we could affect the following then we could have whatever change we wanted in a voluntary society – We must remove/understand their horns of power.

3-Positions of Power: 1) Lobbyists (Comprised of Unionized Voting Blocks and Wealthy Corporatists) -- 2) Politicians -- 3) Wealthy Banking Clan

3-Revenue Sources for the Corporatist (we must control the Corporatist): 1) Consumers who Purchase, 2) Consumers who Invest, and 3) Gov't (Bailouts, Subsidies, and Regulatory Advantages).

3-Solutions: 1) Force Corporatists to Lobby only for us, 2) Destroy all other Lobbies, and 3) Destroy Regulatory Power in all Markets!!!!

The Corporatist is whom the Gov't gets its consolidated power as he directs the wealth of the consumers (the workers the proletariat) toward specific lobbying ends.

The Banking Clan is actually very weak -- Only a vote from Congress keeps them in Power and We Know This (End the Fed).

Two Pronged Non-Partisan Approach toward 1-Victory

1) Daily-Dollar-Vote (a Consumer Union) 2) Vote out the Incumbent (at all levels of Gov't: city, county, state, and federal) -- Liberty Lobby (this is non-partisan)

If you understand how the Lobbyist distributes his influence/money which are finite resources you'll see the power in this simple voting philosophy. This will also destroy the 2-Party system (can you see how that would happen?).

If you understand the political "appointment process" and whom the Lobbists targets in Congress/Senate you'll see from yet another angle how this will work.

This has to be completely non-partisan. Very specific Corporatists must be targeted.
If you don't get it just ask

[synthesis]

Economically, the right constantly vacillates between "laissez-faire" capitalism and subsidized capitalism, depending on the circumstances. They often go hand in hand. "Free market" capitalism has never been anti-"corporatist", or at least that is rarely its focus - their priorities are generally removing restrictions on big business.

In practice, there is no contradiction between them, and they are both symptoms of ruling class ideology and praxis.



This has to be completely non-partisan. Very specific Corporatists must be targeted.Why? For our image? They're still going to call us Commies.


If you don't get it just askI don't get what this has to do with abortion.

[Octobox]

Economically, the right constantly vacillates between "laissez-faire" capitalism and subsidized capitalism, depending on the circumstances. They often go hand in hand.

You cannot have Free-Markets in a Regulated Economy -- You can only vacillate between Highly Regulated Markets to Quasi-Regulated Markets. You also cannot have a free-market with Fiat Currency -- Essentially nothing can come between the Consumer and the Shop Keeper's ability to place value on their private trade.

A "free-market" cannot exist if Gov't has regulatory power over any one market. The phrase "free-markets" was well understood until Reagan-Bush1-Clinton-Bush2 got done with it (ie., NAFTA and CAFTA are not free-trade). The phrase comes prior to Keynes. It's kind of like how Communists do not like that word associated with any country that was "communist" for longer than 12 minutes {I'm paraphrasing a RevLeft member, can't remember who}. Kind of like the word "natural" or "organic." Free-Range vs Conventional yadda yadda.


"Free market" capitalism has never been anti-"corporatist", or at least that is rarely its focus - their priorities are generally removing restrictions on big business.

Capitalism was forever changed after Keynes, the Monetarists, 16th Amendment, and Fiat Currency. I would argue that America was never a "free-market" -- I can't honestly say there has ever been a free-market. A transaction can be "free of" regulation or gov't but I was talking about Society.


In practice, there is no contradiction between them, and they are both symptoms of ruling class ideology and praxis.

Again too simplistic. Just as "real" Communism has never been practiced so "real" Free-Markets have never existed (there has definitely been times when the markets were "almost" free and in some industries the markets are "freer," but never "free").


I don't get what this has to do with abortion.

I was actually talking to Rasco and she asked a question that lead to "action" and my response was that to have any action in a "Corporatist" society we need to understand the power structure and lay out an angle of attack. But you welcome to debate semantics and definitions -- that's how these forums usually go (the nature of blogging right).

Octobox

[Reclaimed Dasein]

You cannot have Free-Markets in a Regulated Economy -- You can only vacillate between Highly Regulated Markets to Quasi-Regulated Markets. You also cannot have a free-market with Fiat Currency -- Essentially nothing can come between the Consumer and the Shop Keeper's ability to place value on their private trade.

A "free-market" cannot exist if Gov't has regulatory power over any one market. The phrase "free-markets" was well understood until Reagan-Bush1-Clinton-Bush2 got done with it (ie., NAFTA and CAFTA are not free-trade). The phrase comes prior to Keynes. It's kind of like how Communists do not like that word associated with any country that was "communist" for longer than 12 minutes {I'm paraphrasing a RevLeft member, can't remember who}. Kind of like the word "natural" or "organic." Free-Range vs Conventional yadda yadda.



Capitalism was forever changed after Keynes, the Monetarists, 16th Amendment, and Fiat Currency. I would argue that America was never a "free-market" -- I can't honestly say there has ever been a free-market. A transaction can be "free of" regulation or gov't but I was talking about Society.



Again too simplistic. Just as "real" Communism has never been practiced so "real" Free-Markets have never existed (there has definitely been times when the markets were "almost" free and in some industries the markets are "freer," but never "free").
Octobox
I will stand by any self identified communist regime in history except for two. I won't stand by the Khmer Rouge and North Korea. It's important to note that Khmer Rouge was stopped by Vietnamese communists and that in North Korea people are not allowed to read Marx. Otherwise, those countries have had communism applied to their historical and material conditions. Has it always been successful? It's been universally more successful than whatever was there before. Can you say the same of any form of capitalism? Or is capitalism the ideology you justify to fuck people up the ass and then claim "it wasn't really capitalism."

Also, you say "real" Cubans don't support Che? Do you mean real Cubans who live in America or what?

[Bud Struggle]

North Korea isn't Communist. It's old style Feudalism with a coating of red paint.

[Reclaimed Dasein]

North Korea isn't Communist. It's old style Feudalism with a coating of red paint.
I'm sorry my statement was ambiguous. I meant all other communist countries except for those two had communism applied to their historical conditions. So I support china, USSR, cuba, vietnam, etc. Just not Cambodia and North Korea.

[Bud Struggle]

I'm sorry my statement was ambiguous. I meant all other communist countries except for those two had communism applied to their historical conditions. So I support china, USSR, cuba, vietnam, etc. Just not Cambodia and North Korea.

Oh, I wasn't on your case. I just think there's a couple of countries out there where the "official" economic system or philosophy of the leader or the country itself have really nothing to do with what is actually practiced in the country.

North Korea is Communist in name only. It is a kingdom ruled from father to son who keep their serfs in tight control. Kim Jong-Il is less of a Marxist than George Bush.

[Octobox]

I will stand by any self identified communist regime in history ...[save Korea and Khmer Rouge]

Stalinism (20M dead) - Lenin-Trotsky (2M dead) - Maoism (50M dead) and we are not talking standing army versus standing army (like the North and South here in the states) or like the American Revolution (England vs U.S). Most of the former deaths were commited by way of democide and a lessor amount owing to direct genocide. Please don't argue as if American Capitalism is what I'm in favor of -- I detest it.

An ideal transitional gov't (from where we are - here in the States) would be a Minarchism.

My idead of Minarchism would be a Small Central Gov't with one function; to oversee the Navy (to powerful and vast to privatize). The individual States would have two jobs: 1) Murder / Rape Investigation (too costly for any one individual to pay) and 2) Air and Army Guard (you can't hire an organized army after you've been invaded - thus a need for State "pre-emption"). More power would be given to border states, costal states, Hawaii, and Alaska then the interior states but they could build up there own. With control of the military dispersed and no central authority military colonialism (which America is now) is impossible.

Additionally: The State and small central gov't would both be one-term Meritocracies -- thus lobbying is impossible owing to power being so broadly dispersed (think in terms of costs and cash disbursements). This would be a no party system, hahaha -- "Merit" (Meritocracy). These "leaders" would be hired based on merit and paid in terms of "innovation" - "cost reductions or economic value added" as incentives rather than guaranteed salaries -- I would imagine "teams would be hired" rather than hiring on individual basis. The central gov't and State gov'ts would not have regulatory power in any markets. This allows Consumer and Shop Keeper to come to their own terms. Even the court system could be privatized and agreed upon prior to contracts being signed.

This Minarchy (with Meritocratic governence) would be far easier to transition into Social-Anarchy, Anarcho-Communism, Libertarian-Anarchy -- whatever the people wanted to "voluntarily" be part of.



It's been universally more successful than whatever was there before. Can you say the same of any form of capitalism? Or is capitalism the ideology you justify to fuck people up the ass and then claim "it wasn't really capitalism."


The "idealism" has never been achieved because the people "elect" others (whether its a union, a corporation, or a gov't) to do their thinking for them -- there can never be liberty in abdication.

Your foul language at the end of your post is indicative of a bankrupt intellect or at the very least shows your contempt for civilized discourse -- you are a "thug" with a subsidized cotten "Che" t-shirt paid for in Central Bank Notes.

The first of twelves steps is to admit you are part of this system!




Also, you say "real" Cubans don't support Che? Do you mean real Cubans who live in America or what?

I'm half cuban and have family that lives in Cuba and that fled Cuba. I promise you that you are completely un-aware of what is really been happening in Cuba -- I do not look to American Capitalism as "real" Capitalism just like "most" Communists will not look to any application of Communism as being representative of Marx Theory.

I will say that America naturalizes nearly 2M people per year, under Bush it has gone up to nearly 9M - though over his Presidency I think the average is closer to 4M. This means that "evil" American naturalizes more people per year than the rest of the world combined -- "tough immigration."

American Capitalism is successful because it offshores "poverty" (think of that as economic burden) and "brain drains" the best and brightest.

So you could say I abhor American Capitalism.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

That's a fucked up perspective, quite reminiscent of when Swift suggested that since people were starving in Ireland, they should sell their children to the wealthy as flesh and leather.


That's what I planned on doing when I started the post, but then I got thinking.

If Octobox is right (I don't have time to reasearch at the moment), and big pharma pays $17k for a fetus to fund new development, then we're probably getting ripped off.

I realize it sounds disgusting, and that to a pro-lifer it'd be akin to someone saying "hey I just saw your house go up in flames. Mind if I use your wife's ashes for my garden soil?" But the facts are that millions have abortions have and will occur, and raises the question as to why not use the fetus for scientific progress if it can be usefull? Once the fetus is removed, this is the only way it can be beneficial, otherwise it is simply waste.

As for India and overpopulation, well, they're going to have more people than China in a few decades. You have to admit they're needs to be some form of birth-control used there (I'd rather not it be abortion but that's me), lest there be 6 billion people on the Indian sub-continet alone by the time the century is out. And that's billions of people whose life consists of starving and reproducing.

[Plagueround]

I'm half cuban and have family that lives in Cuba and that fled Cuba. I promise you that you are completely un-aware of what is really been happening in Cuba -- I do not look to American Capitalism as "real" Capitalism just like "most" Communists will not look to any application of Communism as being representative of Marx Theory.


I am intrigued to hear more about this. Many people here are supportive of Cuba to varying degrees, but I know not many (if any) have been there. Perhaps you could make another thread?

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Stalinism (20M dead) - Lenin-Trotsky (2M dead) - Maoism (50M dead) and we are not talking standing army versus standing army (like the North and South here in the states) or like the American Revolution (England vs U.S). Most of the former deaths were commited by way of democide and a lessor amount owing to direct genocide. Please don't argue as if American Capitalism is what I'm in favor of -- I detest it.

Tens of thousands of homes were torched and many civilians killed in the civil war, as were the possesions-even lives-of many tories during the American revolution.

But these two are the exception, every time the ruling class fails to do its job and the people become so distraught with it as to violently change it, of course there is going to be deaths.



An ideal transitional gov't (from where we are - here in the States) would be a Minarchism.

My idead of Minarchism would be a Small Central Gov't with one function; to oversee the Navy (to powerful and vast to privatize). The individual States would have two jobs: 1) Murder / Rape Investigation (too costly for any one individual to pay) and 2) Air and Army Guard (you can't hire an organized army after you've been invaded - thus a need for State "pre-emption"). More power would be given to border states, costal states, Hawaii, and Alaska then the interior states but they could build up there own. With control of the military dispersed and no central authority military colonialism (which America is now) is impossible.


Interesting notions, and your quasi-states-rights stance would be welocomed in the south.

But I have some concerns:

What do you do without an FBI? If I choose to rape someone and flee for the west coast, what organization will provide the tools needed to hunt me down and bring me to justice?

Who looks after our ICBM's? Individual states? Not to mention our interstate, satellite, and energy infrastructure...

Do you believe citizens of every state should be given equal rights? Obviously, it's a stretch for Cali, but if you were denied public entry into college based on your ethnicity, would you demand federal intervention? Or would you move and give up the struggle for equality?



Additionally: The State and small central gov't would both be one-term Meritocracies -- thus lobbying is impossible owing to power being so broadly dispersed (think in terms of costs and cash disbursements). This would be a no party system, hahaha -- "Merit" (Meritocracy). These "leaders" would be hired based on merit and paid in terms of "innovation" - "cost reductions or economic value added" as incentives rather than guaranteed salaries -- I would imagine "teams would be hired" rather than hiring on individual basis. The central gov't and State gov'ts would not have regulatory power in any markets. This allows Consumer and Shop Keeper to come to their own terms. Even the court system could be privatized and agreed upon prior to contracts being signed.


In theory, we have a Meritocracy (nice word, by the way).

Our officials are chosen by the people based on what we feel they can and have accomplished. Obviously, the practice is much different. Who will quantify what the 'team' has indeed accomplished? You aren't seriously going to depend on the American people to determine it, are you?



The first of twelves steps is to admit you are part of this system!


:lol:


American Capitalism is successful because it offshores "poverty" (think of that as economic burden) and "brain drains" the best and brightest.

What do you mean by this? I don't want to start a debate on something I misunderstood.

[freakazoid]

Obviously, it's a stretch for Cali, but if you were denied public entry into college based on your ethnicity, would you demand federal intervention?

Seeing as how that would violate our basic rights that can't be a problem.

[Octobox]

Tens of thousands of homes were torched and many civilians killed in the civil war, as were the possesions-even lives-of many tories during the American revolution.

I said I do not like American Capitalism - I'm black-cuban and irish (America has been hard on "my people"). That being said you can't compare the in-house cruelty of Mao, Stalin, or Trotsky-Lenin -- let alone Pol Pot or Hitler with that of the U.S. Now "off-shored" death -- only U.S and England reign supreme.


Interesting notions, and your quasi-states-rights stance would be welocomed in the south.

It will be welcomed everywhere -- It will also create "natural" income redistribution and "natural" universal health care; IF you can connect the gibble to the gabble.


But I have some concerns: What do you do without an FBI? If I choose to rape someone and flee for the west coast, what organization will provide the tools needed to hunt me down and bring me to justice?


Who looks after our ICBM's? Individual states? Not to mention our interstate, satellite, and energy infrastructure...

"Looks after" -- People do? Do you mean "launch codes." We've had 2-Bushes, Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Reagan, Nixon, and Johnson who all had launch codes. Imagine if honorable men held them -- they'd be just as "un-launched" as they are now. I also believe we'd be able to "re-cycle" many of these weapons (if possible) otherwise decomission them. It took FEMA 5 days to get water to the Super-Dome, smile.


Do you believe citizens of every state should be given equal rights? Obviously, it's a stretch for Cali, but if you were denied public entry into college based on your ethnicity, would you demand federal intervention? Or would you move and give up the struggle for equality?

Universities well be de-subsidized and fully privatized. In a truly free-market all corporations have the same revenue stream: 1) Consumers who Invest and 2) Consumers who Purchase -- Without Gov't Subsidy Seeking, Regulatory Power, Tax Incentives, Favoritism, or Bailouts the corporation is manipulated by the terms of the consumer and the "consumer" is us (the worker or prolitariat). If you understand the difference between Monopoly Formation in a Corporatist Society vs a "truly" Free-Market Society then this wll be easy to see.


In theory, we have a Meritocracy (nice word, by the way). Our officials are chosen by the people based on what we feel they can and have accomplished. Obviously, the practice is much different. Who will quantify what the 'team' has indeed accomplished? You aren't seriously going to depend on the American people to determine it, are you?

We don't have a Meritocracy as the "hiring commitee is un-qualified" and owing to the "non-competitive hiring pool" the sampling selection is corrupt. An alternating council (with 10,000 alternates) would be hired to "hire" the Meritocratic Team whose sole function is to oversee the Navy. This Meritocracy has no regulatory power, no tax authority, and no law authority. The alternating council should be drawn from competitive and conflicting organizations - philosophies - universities - personality experts - social engineers - military and weapons experts for the purpose of argumentation and deliberation. The "Team" they hire will "compete" with other teams to "win" leadership. Some kind of hiring rubric will be used. Because the Meritocracy has no social authority and their pay is based on Innovation - Efficiency in Implimentation - Cost Effectiveness or Economic Value added their ideas can be reviewed in advance and there is infinitely less corruptibility. The states would function in a very similar manner.



What do you mean by this? Octobox wrote: "American Capitalism is successful because it offshores "poverty" (think of that as economic burden) and "brain drains" the best and brightest."


Offshore Poverty and Brain Drain have similar answers. Let me keep this short as its a lengthy topic. We offshore Poverty and Brain Drain owing to several mechanism: 1) Fiat Currency Devaluation (dollar destruction which increases inflation/prices -- Purchasing Power Parity), 2) Price Controls (Regulatory Power), 3) Coercive Gov't backed above market price Union Wage Increases (which are sought after owing to falling Purch-Power-Parity), 4) Enviromentalism (which is used to steer advantages away from one industry into another or to steel wealth from the people <inflation or direct tax> to subsidize the transition -- Gore's Eco-Climate Profit Model), 5) Corporate Taxation --- The above are only some of the major reasons corporations offshore, so how does this explain "offshoring poverty?" #1 The industries them selves are subsidized-bailedout (welfarized) - without the welfare consumers (we the people) would have voted them out of existence, thus they are "inefficient or misguided" - one leg in the poverty equation. #2 For American Corporatist Gov't to do this to her industries then to offshore them they must partner with a country that will deliberately devalue their currency -- China. Which criples the entire nation -- to compensate for this the country will then turnaround and supply "credit" to other nations (including its host - America).

Thus the offshoring of poverty. Brain Drain is the same only involving the education system and dumbing down of American kids. Our kids are dumbed down for the same reason China devalues its currency to "support" the other countries "program." We want smart kids to work for 30 to 300% less and we want their education to be paid for in countries that don't have restrictions on practical education (like we do here).

Octobox

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I said I do not like American Capitalism - I'm black-cuban and irish (America has been hard on "my people"). That being said you can't compare the in-house cruelty of Mao, Stalin, or Trotsky-Lenin -- let alone Pol Pot or Hitler with that of the U.S. Now "off-shored" death -- only U.S and England reign supreme.

And those who enjoy the benefits America provides without having to pay taxes for it.


"Looks after" -- People do? Do you mean "launch codes." We've had 2-Bushes, Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Reagan, Nixon, and Johnson who all had launch codes. Imagine if honorable men held them -- they'd be just as "un-launched" as they are now. I also believe we'd be able to "re-cycle" many of these weapons (if possible) otherwise decomission them. It took FEMA 5 days to get water to the Super-Dome, smile.

First, I don't mind the idea of the current scum having the power to launch nukes. They're bastards, and they realize people, weapons, et al are just pawns, and use them to gain an advantage. What terrifies me is the notion of true believers holding them.

Secondly, FEMA is shit, especially for black people.



Universities well be de-subsidized and fully privatized. In a truly free-market all corporations have the same revenue stream: 1) Consumers who Invest and 2) Consumers who Purchase -- Without Gov't Subsidy Seeking, Regulatory Power, Tax Incentives, Favoritism, or Bailouts the corporation is manipulated by term forms of consumer and the "consumer" is us (the worker or prolitariat). If you understand the difference between Monopoly Formation in a Corporatist Society vs a "truly" Free-Market Society then this wll be easy to see.


It is the government which has supplied the most demand, and much of the innovation, for most of the technological advances we have. Jet Engines, Computers, Radar, the (detiorating) interstate highway/railway/port systems we have, the internet, atomic energy, many of the medical breakthroughs we've seen, and the list goes on...

The point is that it took government investment, which was not dependent on the immediate satisfaction of consumers and investors, to develop otherwise unprofitable industries. Today, it is government support for oil alternatives that is needed to help society move on when oil is cheap for the month. Our economy is largely tied its the price, our dollars give power to "bad folks," many of our cities choke in smog, and it simply makes sense that we, as a people, change our ways.

In other words, despite they're massively strategic positions, I doubt either the Panama or Suez canals would have ben built on free-market capital alone. The projects both took years; few investors would have dumped a fortune on a project in which no results would be seen for that long. Not that I agree with the motives of either Britain or the US at the time, but I do believe both have contributed much good over the years to a globalized world.



We don't have a Meritocracy as the "hiring commitee is un-qualified" and owing to the "non-competitive hiring pool" the sampling selection is corrupt. An alternating council (with 10,000 alternates) would be hired to "hire" the Meritocratic Team whose sole function is to oversee the Navy. This Meritocracy has no regulatory power, no tax authority, and no law authority. The alternating council should be drawn from competitive and conflicting organizations - philosophies - universities - personality experts - social engineers - military and weapons experts for the purpose of argumentation and deliberation. The "Team" they hire will "compete" with other teams to "win" leadership. Some kind of hiring rubric will be used. Because the Meritocracy has no social authority and their pay is based on Innovation - Efficiency in Implimentation - Cost Effectiveness or Economic Value added their ideas can be reviewed in advance and there is infinitely less corruptibility. The states would function in a very similar manner.


Eh, all I can say is it seems to be an interesting idea.

Seriously, it sounds like it could be a very efficient model, especielly relative to the system we have. And in America, it definitely sounds romantic in our very boring political landscape.

But until the rubber meets the road...



Offshore Poverty and Brain Drain have similar answers. Let me keep this short as its a lengthy topic. We offshore Poverty and Brain Drain owing to several mechanism: 1) Fiat Currency Devaluation (dollar destruction which increases inflation/prices -- Purchasing Power Parity), 2) Price Controls (Regulatory Power), 3) Coercive Gov't backed above market price Union Wage Increases (which are sought after owing to falling Purch-Power-Parity), 4) Enviromentalism (which is used to steer advantages away from one industry into another or to steel wealth from the people <inflation or direct tax> to subsidize the transition -- Gore's Eco-Climate Profit Model), 5) Corporate Taxation --- The above are only some of the major reasons corporations offshore, so how does this explain "offshoring poverty?" #1 The industries them selves are subsidized-bailedout (welfarized) - without the welfare consumers (we the people) would have voted them out of existence, thus they are "inefficient or misguided" - one leg in the poverty equation. #2 For American Corporatist Gov't to do this to her industries then to offshore them they must partner with a country that will deliberately devalue their currency -- China. Which criples the entire nation -- to compensate for this the country will then turnaround and supply "credit" to other nations (including its host - America).

Thus the offshoring of poverty. Brain Drain is the same only involving the education system and dumbing down of American kids. Our kids are dumbed down for the same reason China devalues its currency to "support" the other countries "program." We want smart kids to work for 30 to 300% less and we want their education to be paid for in countries that don't have restrictions on practical education (like we do here).


Very interesting theory, and I'm about to research more into this.

What I will say now, however, is that I do not believe that America's investments in much of the world are necesarily a bad thing. For example, following WWII, we took our conquered lands, whose industrial capabilities had manifested themselves during the war, and we turned them into our workshops. Both Germany and Japan have largely gotten a free ride under American hegemony, and both have become very valuable pieces of what has beome a multi-polar economy. Should the current status-quo be preserved forver? Of course not, but it does show what has been accomplished by the American-run rebuilding of these nations.

Americans getting dumbed down is there own damn fault. I can't feel sorry for them, as it's impossible for the consenting to be raped.

More later.

[Octobox]

Abe wrote: First, I don't mind the idea of the current scum having the power to launch nukes. They're bastards, and they realize people, weapons, et al are just pawns, and use them to gain an advantage. What terrifies me is the notion of true believers holding them. Secondly, FEMA is shit, especially for black people.

The "current scum" are very much "true believers." They've been steering us this way for the better part of 200 years -- dynamically so in the last 100. FEMA didn't work because Gov't blocked all private market attempts to help those people -- including the yearly private market plans to fix the levies. They didn't create the weather but they engineered the destruction to allow Subsidized-Corporatist Contractors to come in and reap absurd profits on our dime. Gov't Pimps the fully Subsidized Prostitutes then makes us (the John) pay above market Prices over their "ghosted" revenues.


Americans getting dumbed down is there own damn fault. I can't feel sorry for them, as it's impossible for the consenting to be raped. The point is that it took government investment, which was not dependent on the immediate satisfaction of consumers and investors, to develop otherwise unprofitable industries. Today, it is government support for oil alternatives that is needed to help society move on when oil is cheap for the month. Our economy is largely tied its the price, our dollars give power to "bad folks," many of our cities choke in smog, and it simply makes sense that we, as a people, change our ways.

Before you reply let me repeat something and you meditate on it deeply because if you got it before you wouldn't have made that statement (1 paragraph above).

In a "truly" Free-Market there are two sources of income for the Corporation (no matter how big or small): 1) Consumers who Purchase and 2) Consumers who Invest. In our current system there are <<<three>>> sources: 1) Consumers who Purchase, 2) Consumers who Invest, and 3) Gov't Subsidizatin (Bailouts-RegulatoryAdvantages-Loopholes).

The 100's of billions spent every year (from all industries) to "buy" lobbying power (in our current form of government) would instead (in a truly Free-Market) be 100% directed toward innovation, intrapreneurialism, and entrepreneurialism. Now nearly 100% of all entrepreneurialism (out side the firm creativity) and intrapreneurialism (worker smarts) come from three major groups: 1) Immigrants, 2) Blacks, and 3) Engineers -- -- all three of whom are in the poor or middle income. The wealthy spend their money on talent who can find talent -- they rarely innovate once they are rich. This means that in a "truly" free-market the 100's of billions would go toward R&D or to the ingenius poor and middle income "thinkers." Once their ideas make them rich a whole new generation of poor and middle income thinkers crops up. So on and So on. [I]Think On the model of gov't I offered on the previous page and then Think On all those tax and inflationary savings being kept by the people.

If Gov't puts price controls, rents, regulatory advantages, taxation, destruction of the dollar owing free printing and the nature of fiat currency, or otherwise gets in-between the poor and mid-income "thinkers" and the wealthy investors (who in a truly free-market have no othe vehicle to stay wealthy) -- well it should be obvious now. No income redistribution very little Innovation.

Now go back and answer that question for yourself -- It is impossible to "coerce" the right kinds of innovation. We would have "different" and more "efficient" technologies in all markets had gov't stayed out. The Gov't only "protects" bad ideas they cannot innovate the best ones -- Not if you understand the re-election and budget/tenure tract processes.

Oh in the Minarchist Gov't I offered if you commit an offense against an invidual (barring their liberties, effecting their business, theft, or damaging private property) then you pay as much of 60% as possible -- the remainder (call it 100%) is distributed cost over the following people: 60% goes to first 100 family members (outside your immediate family -- for adults "immediate" means spouce and children), 30% goes to the first 1000 neighbors, and 10% is paid by your city. The same philosophy is applied to homelessness, healthcare, and welfare. This policy alerts people to "inharmonies" in their community and family members to a budding problem -- allows for early intervention. It will draw communities and families very close together -- this will in course prevent many crimes. More importantly it will innovate the welfare problem and universal health care and most importantly preventative medicine.

Because families and communities are so battered/tattered and isolationistic the above policy will be a tuff pill to swallow -- but within two generations a greater harmony will erupt. Also, it will give "family remedy" experts a chance to work outside of the welfarized collegiate enviroment and earn a "real" pay-check -- hahahahaha. People will compete and innovate to get the job of "Community Happiness Engineer" (okay we'll let someone else come up with the names). Probably be a very lucrative career "Harmony Innovator," smile.

Octo