Abortion - Round II

[BobKKKindle$]

It's laughable that people think abortion is really decided at the ballet box...[etc]This is such a poor argument because it is totally unsupported by empirical evidence. One of the first decisions the Bolsheviks made as soon as they came to power was to legalize abortion and enhance the availability of abortion services because they recognized that abortion rights are key to women exercising control over their own bodies and being able to participate in society on an equal basis with men - not because there were terrifying pharmaceutical companies which wanted to use aborted fetuses for their own sinister ends. When the British government legalized abortion in 1967 it was not because a hidden corporate lobby forced the government to change their policy, but because a mass movement of women objected to restrictions on their bodily autonomy and wanted to be able to enjoy sexual freedom, and increased opportunities for social advancement, both of which can only occur when abortion is available. And, earlier this year, when a proposed amendment to the Human and Fertilization and Embryology Bill threatened to reduce the time limit on abortion from 24 to 20 weeks throughout Britain, the amendment was defeated mainly through a campaign involving large numbers of women who want to maintain the rights they have won through past struggles. The majority of MPs who voted for the amendment were from the Conservative Party, which does not receive substantial finance backing from the pharmaceutical industry, as can be shown from this list of major donors to party funds: Link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2007/aug/07/conservatives.uk)

Furthermore, to look at this issue from another angle, when Nicaragua introduced a total ban on all abortions in 2006 (even in cases of rape, or when there is a risk to a woman's heath) is was not because of pressure from the pharmaceutical sector for the simple reason that Nicaragua is a deeply poor country and does not even have an effective health system, and certainly not a powerful group of pharmaceutical companies - the main factor behind the ban was the political significance of the Catholic Church and the conservative religious beliefs of Nicaraguan citizens.

OB's laughable argument demonstrates the absurdity of trying to explain every aspect of the political system with reference to links between corporations and politicians. There are, as far as I'm aware, no corporate interests in keeping abortion legal - and this is demonstrated not only by the examples provided above, but also by the fact that the most pro-corporate parties in every developed country are committed to undermining abortion rights, not maintaining availability.

[Jazzratt]

Brand new thread, a continuation from this one (http://www.revleft.com/vb/abortion-t75235/index.html). This topic really requires no introduction as it is, apparently, a firm favourite of the crowd here.

Bollocks from the Unfair Restrictions thread(s) will be moved here as usual.

Edit: Yay the order of posts is fucked up already <<

[Plagueround]

IM IN YER WOMB KILLIN YER FETUSES.

(Ok, that was a bit tasteless, but I'm going to roll with it).

[danyboy27]

ho no another arbortion tread...jesus.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Brand new thread, a continuation from this one (http://www.revleft.com/vb/abortion-t75235/index.html). This topic really requires no introduction as it is, apparently, a firm favourite of the crowd here.

Bollocks from the Unfair Restrictions thread(s) will be moved here as usual.

Edit: Yay the order of posts is fucked up already <<
Can I object to the loaded question. The poll should be worded in terms of "I support the woman's right to have an abortion", or simply replace the word "choose" in the current poll with "abort". The question as it stands is very loaded. Someone can oppose a woman's right to abort but support a woman's right to choose in other areas.

PS I voted for the first option.

[revolution inaction]

Can I object to the loaded question. The poll should be worded in terms of "I support the woman's right to have an abortion", or simply replace the word "choose" in the current poll with "abort". The question as it stands is very loaded. Someone can oppose a woman's right to abort but support a woman's right to choose in other areas.

PS I voted for the first option.

It's a poll on abortion, what the fuck are people going to think the choice is about?

[Qwerty Dvorak]

It's a poll on abortion, what the fuck are people going to think the choice is about?
That's not the point, the point is that the wording implies that people who oppose abortion want to deprive women of any right to choose, not just in that respect.

[Black Dagger]

What 'support' means isn't really clear - you need to distinguish between supporting access, legislated restrictions on access and personal restrictions or opposition to abortion. Also the 'mostly pro-choice' option is misleading - pro-choice is not a matter of degrees. If you are 'pro-choice' this mean you support a womens right to choose - without restrictions. You can't kind of support someones choice - there's no such thing as 'mostly pro-choice'.

'Mostly' = anti-choice.

The anti-choice options themselves are also very loaded and not really appropriate as ever closer union points out above:


That's not the point, the point is that the wording implies that people who oppose abortion want to deprive women of any right to choose, not just in that respect.

So yeah, rewording please? What was wrong with the options in the last poll? Oh and it should also be public.

[synthesis]

I believe I agree with what Rascolnikova has to say on this subject. I don't think it is as simple as being "pro-abortion" or "anti-abortion". It is without question that women should be able to have an abortion, but we also need to recognize that capitalist conditions are capable of coercing women into aborting babies they would have preferred to keep and that this is often a very traumatic experience for them.

In some ways, discourse on this issue is reminiscent of some discussions on prostitution that have taken place here, where prostitution is asserted to be fundamentally the same as other exploitative forms of labor. However, the issue is not whether people should be traumatized by these experiences but rather that they are traumatized and that capitalist conditions are at fault.

[Black Dagger]

I don't think it is reasonable (that is, supported by evidence) to claim that either sex work or abortion is necessarily 'traumatic'. That is not to say they cannot be (there really is a myriad of factors that need to be considered when making claims like this), but there is no evidence to suggest that it is as normative as you seem to be suggesting.

[synthesis]

I suppose it could have been read that way, if you are someone who sees simplicity in everything. Things don't have to be "normative" to be a problem.

[Black Dagger]

Okay, but in that case you need to make the argument as to why such atypical contexts should be considered important factors in a discussion dealing with the choices available to ALL women.

[redguard2009]

I don't think these types of discussions are very constructive. Most non-restricted leftists on this board must know by now that if they do not openly show they are bloodthirsty fetus-killers, they face immediate restriction.

I voted "mostly pro-choice". I do not agree on restricting any woman's access to abortion on any grounds, but I do feel that the fetishism developing around killing fetuses has become a little absurd. There's no need to turn a campaign for a woman's right to choose into a campaign for terminating fetuses at every possible oppurtunity. At this rate I expect I'll soon see protesters standing around the condom isle in my local pharmacy protesting contraception on the grounds that it infringes on a woman's right to abort her child.

[synthesis]

Again, you are confusing something that is "normative" with something that may or may not be "typical." The fact that we perceive traditional morality to be bullshit does not mean that view is universally shared by people whose interests we should have at heart.

The fact that we don't perceive abortion or prostitution to be fundamentally wrong doesn't mean that people who engage in abortion or prostitution (1) don't perceive themselves to be degraded by it and (2) have not been coerced into these activities by capitalism.

It has nothing to do with limiting choice, it has to do with re-framing the debate. Abortion is neither intrinsically wrong nor void of context.

[Black Dagger]

The fact that we perceive traditional morality to be bullshit does not mean that view is universally shared by people whose interests we should have at heart.

Where have i made an argument that assumed universal agreement with my personal views? To me things seem quite the opposite, in my recent post i have been criticising what i see as your (!) universalist assumptions about the inherently 'traumatic' nature of sex work and the abortion procedure. Whilst i agree that both of these things can be traumatic, they certainly don't have to be (although it does depend on what you mean by 'trauma' when talking about capitalist social relations etc.)



The fact that we don't perceive abortion or prostitution to be fundamentally wrong doesn't mean that people who engage in abortion or prostitution (1) don't perceive themselves to be degraded by it and (2) have not been coerced into these activities by capitalism.

Of course, but forgive me for saying, but that is so obvious as to seem redundant? Of course (1) and (2) are possible - lots of things are possible, why do these have particular significance? Here's some alternative possibilities. Many sex workers (1) don't perceive themselves to be degraded* by their work, and (2) chose** to and enjoy being sex workers.

*The idea of sex being degrading and sex work as particularly degrading seems more likely to be an attitude held by non-sex workers towards sex work, than an attitude common amongst sex workers themselves. Certainly i think many organised sex workers (http://www.scarletalliance.org.au/who/)would not seem to share this view - whilst nevertheless remaining concerned about issues of Occupational Health & Safety, discrimination etc. I think sex work is too broad a category to make generalisations in the way that have been made. Certainly there are probably huge differences in the matter of choice for example, like between women trafficked to western countries versus citizen sex workers.
**As much as any person has a choice in a wage-labour system.


It has nothing to do with limiting choice, it has to do with re-framing the debate. Abortion is neither intrinsically wrong nor void of context.

Sure, but now i'm not really sure what we're talking about? :bored: I'm all about the context, i just don't see how or why negative personal contexts are relevant when talking about group rights?

Back to some of your earlier comments:


It is without question that women should be able to have an abortion, but we also need to recognize that capitalist conditions are capable of coercing women into aborting babies they would have preferred to keep and that this is often a very traumatic experience for them.


No one is saying that abortion is never traumatic for anyone, ever. But that's really beside the point isn't it? Why should the personal feelings of an individual effect the rights of a whole group? I just don't see the importance of this admission to the debate as a whole, I.E. that abortions can be traumatic.

[synthesis]

To me things seem quite the opposite, in my recent post i have been criticising what i see as your (!) universalist assumptions about the inherently 'traumatic' nature of sex work and the abortion procedure.Your use of words like "universal" and "inherently traumatic" are derived from your assumption that my arguments are in favor of limiting abortion rights. They're not.

Issues are more complex than the role that government plays in them.


I just don't see the importance of this admission to the debate as a whole, I.E. that abortions can be traumatic.Although there is nothing fundamentally unethical about abortion or prostitution, in practice it is beyond question that they are capable of having negative effects - physical and psychological - on those who engage in them and that this is often because their circumstances have forced them into abortion or prostitution.

And the ultimate point is that these "circumstances" are inherent in the capitalist system. When people challenge abortion rights, we should be inviting them to envision a world where abortion is no longer an economic necessary and therefore there would be no need to ban it. The focus on abortion as a "right" is peripheral to our agenda as communists.

[Sankofa]

Option 1 for me...and I can't help but wonder if this thread will continue for 29 pages too. I really can't understand; and yet find it extremely funny at the same time how much this subject manages to rile people up!

I haven't witnessed any supposed "fetishism" over terminating fetuses on the board. Many people are very adamant about a woman retaining the right to have complete control over her body, but I haven't seen it go so far as to advocate abortion for the sake of abortion.

Oh and this:


IM IN YER WOMB KILLIN YER FETUSES.

Made me spit water all over my monitor and keyboard! :lol:

[Jazzratt]

BD, orr any other admin that reads this, feel free to remove the poll and start it afrsh. I forgot to make it public anyway.

[RGacky3]

This has nothing to do with prostitution, 2 compleatly seperate issues, no one dies in prostitution, its 2 consentual adults having sex, nothing more, Abortion is about whether or not your killing a fetus.

The wording of being pro-choice is just as misleading as pro-life, its asuming that pro-lifers are against women making desisions and assuming that pro-choicers are against life. Both are rediculous.

The argument should be whether or not a fetus is a human or not, it has nothing to do with supporting rights to choose of being for life, its simply is a fetus a person or not. Keep the argument where it belongs.

[humanitynow]

better jobs, health care, school systems, to make easier to keep a child

if the mother does not want to keep the child have better ophanages or adopting parents

there is no need to take an innocent life.

this problem comes form other problems in society that can be solved.

[humanitynow]

yep

waiting to get curse out like usual:)

[BobKKKindle$]

if the mother does not want to keep the child have better ophanages or adopting parents

There are many things I could say about your flawed and reactionary views but I don't have the time and you probably won't change your mind anyway - I do, however, want to deal with this argument because it does come up as a proposed alternative quite a lot, and can seem reasonable if you don't look into what would actually happen under the kind of policy you want to see.

Even if orphanages afforded excellent conditions for children and were widespread so any parent could get rid of an unwanted child as soon as they got out of hospital, woman would still want to have abortions, because pregnancy can lead to severe negative economic impacts, especially for working class women - there are still cases of women who get sacked when they reach the final stages of pregnancy and sometimes as soon as they become pregnant, because the boss knows they won't be able to work as hard due to the physical effects of pregnancy, and won't be able to come to work at all when they have to spend time in a hospital giving birth, as well as during the recovery period. Obviously losing your job and even having to take time of work means that you're going to suffer a loss of income, especially when we consider that a woman may have to pay for her time in hospital if labour care is not available for free as part of a universal system of healthcare provision, and having to bring up an (extra) child imposes additional costs on the household budget which some workers simply won't be able to bear. When there is still pressure for women to have abortions, but abortion is not legally available, they will resort to black-market abortions which carry health risks and may result in women being maimed for the rest of their lives.

[Plagueround]

yep

waiting to get curse out like usual:)

Ok I'll start. When you get banned twice for being a reactionary homophobe, then make a sockpuppet to get around that ban, make sure you don't set the same location, birthday, and skype ID. Even then, realize that unless you know a lot more about computers than the people around here, we are going to find any sockpuppet you create. Bye.

[humanitynow]

that is why we need faternity leave for wemon, also make cotraceptives more available.

until then i guess i am pro-choice, but we need to make great changes in our society now so we will stop the oppression as well as the lose of innocent life

[RebelDog]

I'm going to quote the wisdom of international terrorist Ronald Reagan here:

"I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born."

[Sendo]

There are many things I could say about your flawed and reactionary views but I don't have the time and you probably won't change your mind anyway - I do, however, want to deal with this argument because it does come up as a proposed alternative quite a lot, and can seem reasonable if you don't look into what would actually happen under the kind of policy you want to see.

Even if orphanages afforded excellent conditions for children and were widespread so any parent could get rid of an unwanted child as soon as they got out of hospital, woman would still want to have abortions, because pregnancy can lead to severe negative economic impacts, especially for working class women - there are still cases of women who get sacked when they reach the final stages of pregnancy and sometimes as soon as they become pregnant, because the boss knows they won't be able to work as hard due to the physical effects of pregnancy, and won't be able to come to work at all when they have to spend time in a hospital giving birth, as well as during the recovery period. Obviously losing your job and even having to take time of work means that you're going to suffer a loss of income, especially when we consider that a woman may have to pay for her time in hospital if labour care is not available for free as part of a universal system of healthcare provision, and having to bring up an (extra) child imposes additional costs on the household budget which some workers simply won't be able to bear. When there is still pressure for women to have abortions, but abortion is not legally available, they will resort to black-market abortions which carry health risks and may result in women being maimed for the rest of their lives.

So basically what you're saying (I think), and what I like, is that abortion is a symptom of many other problems. It really exposes the hypocrisy of Christian conservatives who beg us to save fetuses while they divert would-be health care and child raising $ to war.

[redguard2009]

Now the poll is just retarded -- you're either pro-choice or anti-choice "with exceptions"? Very saddening coming from "leftists".

[Demogorgon]

Now the poll is just retarded -- you're either pro-choice or anti-choice "with exceptions"? Very saddening coming from "leftists".
Hardly. The line of opinion on abortion is not binary, people have different views all along the spectrum. The most commonly held views are indeed that abortion should be allowed up until a certain point but not allowed except in certain circumstances late in pregnancy.

Personally I think that is a silly position, not least because it probably increases the number of abortions anyway as it pressures people into early decisions.

Really though, an issue so fraught with dispute is ultimately going to have to be up to individual choice. I don't think abortion should be legislated upon at all, leaving it up to the women concerned whether to abort or not.

[PostAnarchy]

I am completely pro-choice! No exceptions. :)

[PostAnarchy]

Now the poll is just retarded -- you're either pro-choice or anti-choice "with exceptions"? Very saddening coming from "leftists".

Why? Leftists and heck even rightists support abortion rights why should revolutionary leftists compromise on such a basic issue?

[Qwerty Dvorak]

FFS the wording of the poll is absolutely rubbish.

[RedKnight]

I suuport a woman's right to choose an abortion, up to the point of foetal viability http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus#Viability. Unless perhaps it's to save the life of the expectant mother, which would then be justfiable foeticide. But then again, I've been restricted.

[PostAnarchy]

FFS the wording of the poll is absolutely rubbish.

Care to explain why?? :confused:

[Jazzratt]

FFS the wording of the poll is absolutely rubbish.

No. It's perfect.

A pro choice position, in the context of abortion, is one of unrestricted access. An anti choice position is one that limits access either completely or partially. What the fuck is wrong with the wording, considering that this thread is called ABORTION and it's pretty fucking obvious that it's in the context of abortion?

I know you have lawyerly pretensions but try to be a little less pedantically legalistic about the wording of a poll on the fucking internet.

[Lenin's Law]

No. It's perfect.


I know you have lawyerly pretensions but try to be a little less pedantically legalistic about the wording of a poll on the fucking internet.


:lol::lol: Classic Jazzy!!

[PostAnarchy]

I suuport a woman's right to choose an abortion, up to the point of foetal viability http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus#Viability. Unless perhaps it's to save the life of the expectant mother, which would then be justfiable foeticide. But then again, I've been restricted.


I can see why no disrspect

[RedKnight]

I can see why no disrspect
Did you mean to type "I can see why. No disrespect."? If so, why do you feel that a human being only has value upon birth? What is so special about existance outside the womb. In fact, Peter Singer believes that even infanticide may be justified, under certain circumstances. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer#Abortion.2C_euthanasia_and_infanticid e Is this really want we want the Left to become? A movement that believes that human life only has worth as a part of collective society, and that those with birth defects might have even less worth? This was also the mentality of ancient Sparta, and Germany under Hitler. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_T4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparta#Birth_and_Death I however happen to feel that human rights rightfuly derive from the "Natural Law", and that no one may deny the indivisual right to life.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law So therefore, the woman's right to choose ends when the unborns right to life begins.

[BobKKKindle$]

So therefore, the woman's right to choose ends when the unborns right to life begins.

Okay, now you need to show that the unborn actually has a right to life. Clearly the fact that something is alive does not automatically mean that the thing is entitled to rights and should be protected from harm by the state - humans regularly kill other living organisms to provide a source of food or to protect ourselves from danger. What is about a fetus that actually requires us to stop women from exercising control over their own bodies to prevent fetuses from being killed as a result of abortions?

[RedKnight]

Okay, now you need to show that the unborn actually has a right to life. Clearly the fact that something is alive does not automatically mean that the thing is entitled to rights and should be protected from harm by the state - humans regularly kill other living organisms to provide a source of food or to protect ourselves from danger. What is about a fetus that actually requires us to stop women from exercising control over their own bodies to prevent fetuses from being killed as a result of abortions? If you read my posts above, you'd see that I regard foetal viability as being the point in which the foetus has rights, protected under law. As far as I know, this is currently the law, at least in the U.S.A..

[BobKKKindle$]

If you read my posts above, you'd see that I regard foetal viability as being the point in which the foetus has rights, protected under lawWhat you're really trying to say here is that the fetus should be accorded the status of personhood as soon as it becomes viable. You haven't given an explanation of why viability should be used as the criterion to determine whether the fetus is a person, but even if we grant that this is the right criterion to use we encounter a more pressing issue which you need to address, namely does being a person mean that you can never be legitimately killed? Communists argue that there are conditions under which a person can lose their right to life, and it becomes morally acceptable to kill that person - this is applicable when a person is using the body of someone else who has not given their consent to being used, especially when use results in the imposition of harm. This is why it is acceptable for a woman to resist someone who is trying to rape her even if her resistance results in the death or permanent injury of the rapist - rape constitutes a violation of the woman's bodily autonomy because rape is, by definition, sex without consent, even though the rapist is a person and so would normally be entitled to exactly the same rights as any other human being. The same principle is applicable in the case of abortion because the fetus is using the woman's body for its own growth and development, and by wanting to have an abortion the woman is signifying that she does not consent to the fetus. This is true of all stages of pregnancy and operates independently of whether the fetus is a person.


As far as I know, this is currently the law, at least in the U.S.A..This may be the law in the US but there are other countries which have more liberal laws, such as Cuba where a woman is allowed to access abortion for free at any stage of pregnancy regardless of her reason for wanting to have an abortion. The fact that something is law in a given country does not automatically make it right - the US clearly has other laws which are oppressive, and so you need to put forward an argument showing that the law on abortion which is currently being used in the US is morally and rationally justified.

[Demogorgon]

This may be the law in the US but there are other countries which have more liberal laws, such as Cuba where a woman is allowed to access abortion for free at any stage of pregnancy regardless of her reason for wanting to have an abortion.
Nope, Cuba only allows it in the first 12 weeks except in extraordinary circumstances.

US laws on abortion are far less restrictive.

[PostAnarchy]

Regardless if laws on Cuba or the US is less/more restrictive I and I believe the vast majority of leftists argue unequivically for absolutely no restrictions on the fundamental right of a woman to with her own body as she pleases.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Okay, now you need to show that the unborn actually has a right to life. Clearly the fact that something is alive does not automatically mean that the thing is entitled to rights and should be protected from harm by the state - humans regularly kill other living organisms to provide a source of food or to protect ourselves from danger. What is about a fetus that actually requires us to stop women from exercising control over their own bodies to prevent fetuses from being killed as a result of abortions?
Hmmm. Where should the burden of proof lie, and why? It could be said that because the right in question (the right to life) is so fundamentally important, more so even than the right to choose, it is more appropriate to err on the side of caution and place the burden of proof on those asserting that something or someone does not have a right to life. That would mean it is up to you to show that the fetus does not have a right to life, not vice versa.

[Killfacer]

better jobs, health care, school systems, to make easier to keep a child

if the mother does not want to keep the child have better ophanages or adopting parents

there is no need to take an innocent life.

this problem comes form other problems in society that can be solved.

So you expect the tax payer to foot the bill for people who want to have unsafe sex? Not sure many people would be best pleased about that.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Care to explain why?? :confused:
I already have.


No. It's perfect.

A pro choice position, in the context of abortion, is one of unrestricted access. An anti choice position is one that limits access either completely or partially. What the fuck is wrong with the wording, considering that this thread is called ABORTION and it's pretty fucking obvious that it's in the context of abortion?

I know you have lawyerly pretensions but try to be a little less pedantically legalistic about the wording of a poll on the fucking internet.
:rolleyes:

I never said that people wouldn't understand what the poll is about. But everyone outside RevLeft knows that cramming a poll with loaded terms is just bad practice. Now I know that I don't run this site, Malte decides who does that because he has the property ri... er, never mind. But that doesn't mean I can't make a non-binding suggestion as to how to not make yourselves look like clueless, oblivious ****s for once.

[BobKKKindle$]

Nope, Cuba only allows it in the first 12 weeks except in extraordinary circumstances.Abortion is available on request up to ten weeks but thereafter if a woman wants to have an abortion she has to appear before a committee of obstetricians, psychologists and social workers who judge the medical impact of having an abortion and advise her on the best course of action to take. (Source: Recent Trends in Fertility, Abortion and Contraception in Cuba, International Family Planning Perspectives, Vol. 6, No. 3 (Sep., 1980), pp. 97-106)
This is not ideal but less restrictive than the current state of abortion legislation in the United States, and the level of access to abortion services is also much better in Cuba than in other countries around the world where women have to travel long distances just to receive advice and even further to actually have an abortion because they do not have a clinic in the vicinity of their homes.

[Demogorgon]

Abortion is available on request up to ten weeks but thereafter if a woman wants to have an abortion she has to appear before a committee of obstetricians, psychologists and social workers who judge the medical impact of having an abortion and advise her on the best course of action to take. (Source: Recent Trends in Fertility, Abortion and Contraception in Cuba, International Family Planning Perspectives, Vol. 6, No. 3 (Sep., 1980), pp. 97-106)
This is not ideal but less restrictive than the current state of abortion legislation in the United States, and the level of access to abortion services is also much better in Cuba than in other countries around the world where women have to travel long distances just to receive advice and even further to actually have an abortion because they do not have a clinic in the vicinity of their homes.
This is rich, after ten weeks (it seems I was mistaken about 12) in order to get abortion you must appear before a panel and take part in an intrusive and demeaning procedure to see if you have good enough reasons to get an abortion and will more likely be refused permission than given it and you are praising the system.

I realise that if you [pretend to] raise abortion to the level of the holiest sacrament of Communism and feel the need to pretend that Cuba is a democratic and free society you need to engage in extraordinary intellectual gymnastics to try and reconcile the two, but come on, at least acknowledge the hypocrisy.

[Jazzratt]

I never said that people wouldn't understand what the poll is about. But everyone outside RevLeft knows that cramming a poll with loaded terms is just bad practice. Now I know that I don't run this site, Malte decides who does that because he has the property ri... er, never mind. But that doesn't mean I can't make a non-binding suggestion as to how to not make yourselves look like clueless, oblivious ****s for once.


This is difficult to argue because you automatically identify any objective term as "loaded". You're redefining words for your own argument, Pro-choice has a specific meaning (i.e that a woman's right to choose is inviolate) and anything that must contrevene that should be defined as opposite to it.

[Demogorgon]

This is difficult to argue because you automatically identify any objective term as "loaded". You're redefining words for your own argument, Pro-choice has a specific meaning (i.e that a woman's right to choose is inviolate) and anything that must contrevene that should be defined as opposite to it.

The trouble is that pro-life also has a specific and valid meaning, should the pro-choice position therefore be called anti-life?

Indeed that is exactly what many pro-lifers call it. Can we try to go a bit above their level?

[Qwerty Dvorak]

This is difficult to argue because you automatically identify any objective term as "loaded". You're redefining words for your own argument, Pro-choice has a specific meaning (i.e that a woman's right to choose is inviolate) and anything that must contrevene that should be defined as opposite to it.
I think you mean subjective there, not objective (or else you do mean objective, you're just wrong). Being pro-choice is quite subjective obviously, only a moron would try to attribute to it one absolute definition. The phrase is really all things to all people, and like most other terms in the abortion debate is used by each side how they see fit. Defining pro-choice as believing that the right to choose is inviolate is one definition, but not the only one and in fact it is probably the definition which is most inconsistent with general views on rights. No right is inviolate; most rights can be curbed in accordance with the common good, but all rights must be balanced against the rights of others. To view any right at all as inviolate, even in a relatively narrow context, is fucking stupid and that's not a "lawyerly pretension" either, that's just common sense.

[Sasha]

a fetus is IMO not a life.
and i know i take an extreme point of view but i dont even see why there are restrictions to abortion at all either (unless when its to dangerous for the womam involved),
i know its psycholigical/emotinal difficult for some women so i think there should be good proffesional psychological assistance provided but for me an abortion is nothing more than the removal of unwanted parisital cell tissue.
thats why i also dont see where there has to be a fixed amount of time, between the moment you express you want an abortion and the moment the procedure is performed. Why?
I don't need a couple of days to rethink my decision to have an apendix operation either, do i? the fact i went to hospital already proved i gave it thought.
sanctity of life? my arse, i care only about the quality of life, so i support abortion, euthansia, assited suiecide and even the killing of infants not only on medicical grounds (to prevent an life long suffering from dissease) but also on human grounds (if an women can't provide for an humane life on for example economic grounds and decides to euthanise her child i see no reason that that woman should be prosecuted).
i do offcourse think you should prevent situations like these by sex-education, free and accesible birt control, free and accesible abortion and if nesicary/possible adoption.

[BobKKKindle$]

a fetus is IMO not a life.
and i know i take an extreme point of viewThis isn't an "extreme" position, it's just stupid. The fetus is obviously "a life" or "alive" as most of us would say but this has no bearing on the morality of abortion, because a bacterial cell is also "a life" and yet no reasonable person would ever argue that using antibiotics to prevent people dying from infectious diseases constitutes a violation of rights or an immoral act.

[Sasha]

you misunderstood me, my refrence to "extreme point of view" was not regarding my position wheter or not an fetus is a life or alive, but about the rest of my positions on "life isues" that in my expierence so far most people even leftists find going to far.

And about my "stupid" idea that a fetus isn't life or alive, i dont think so because they cant exsist independent of the mother without extreme scientific assistance, so IMO they are not alive and niether is for example an braindead person who's body functions are kept going by machines.

[BobKKKindle$]

i dont think so because they cant exsist independent of the mother without extreme scientific assistance, so IMO they are not alive and niether is for example an braindead person who's body functions are kept going by machines.You obviously don't know what the scientific definition of life is. The accepted scientific definitions of life do use physical independence as the main criterion to determine whether something is alive or not, instead they investigate other factors such as whether the object responds to changes in the external environment, which is obviously true in the case of a fetus, whether the object is capable of reproduction once it has reached maturity, and whether the object is composed of cells, which form the basic units of all living organisms. This set of definitions would include fetuses, in addition to humans who are in a comatose state, and scientists recognize that parasites are also living organisms despite their condition of dependence on other beings. This is not something which is up to your individual opinion, it is scientific fact, and your assertion that comatose humans are not alive is also absurd because there have been numerous cases where people lying in comas have recovered and gone on to lead normal lives - according to you these people have died and then become alive again after being dead for several years.

[Sasha]

and yet again, in your haste to burn me down, you completly miss my point thanks to sellective reading.
First of all this topic/poll/board/etc is about peoples opinions, not scientific defenitions. secondly i was talking about
braindead person who's body functions are kept going by machines and deliberatly did NOT use the word comatose because there is a diffrence, dead is dead and means you cant come back to live.
i have seen the word "strawman" used a lot on this board, i think it aplies to your last post.

[Demogorgon]

dead is dead and means you cant come back to live.

Under normal definitions of death that is not strictly true. Under certain circumstances, it is possible to be technically dead for several minutes, such as during an operation or such, and still come back.

Of course you could argue that we need a tighter definition of "dead" than that, but the subject is notoriously difficult to pin down accurately.

[Sasha]

^your correct, i guess i would mean "pronounced dead".
isn't it so you that as an layman you are only allouwed to pronounce someone dead if the head is seperated from the body by more than an hand with? :laugh:

[Demogorgon]

^your correct, i guess i would mean "pronounced dead".
isn't it so you that as an layman you are only allouwed to pronounce someone dead if the head is seperated from the body by more than an hand with? :laugh:
I believe so. Normally only doctors can pronounce people dead, though police can too in certain circumstances. Only a Doctor can sign a Death certificate though.

[BobKKKindle$]

First of all this topic/poll/board/etc is about peoples opinions, not scientific defenitions

Abortion is a medical procedure which involves the termination of a living organism, and so there are some terms which we have to define in a scientific way just to ensure that everyone is thinking about the same thing when these terms are used in a discussion, including "life". This is not even limited to science or discussion - if everyone just decided to define terms in exactly their own way with no concern for whether other people understand the term in the same way as them, even a basic level of human interaction would rapidly become impossible, because speech itself is based on a community having a set of shared definitions which have been agreed upon. If, for example, I defined "I" to mean the second person singular (i.e. what people normally convey with the term "you") then you can imagine how everyday conversation would operate, or rather not operate, for both participants. The idea that you can define "life" in a way that is right for you personally is silly because this is a scientific term which has been defined by the scientific community, and if you persist in using your own twisted definition of "life" you are simply wrong, you are not expressing a legitimate opinion, because the definition of "life" is not something which is up for debate, at least for people who are not engaged in serious research on the issue.


and deliberatly did NOT use the word comatose because there is a diffrence, dead is dead and means you cant come back to live.
i have seen the word "strawman" used a lot on this board, i think it aplies to your last post.

A mistake on my part, but the point still stands - there has never been a single case of someone being declared dead when they are being sustained by a life support system, which makes sense when we consider that people in this position meet all the criteria of life and are often capable of normal interaction with the outside world. In the same way, people who are connected to a dialysis machine (designed to take the place of kidney functions) are not "dead" despite their lack of physical independence.

[Sasha]

good points..... ill think them through.

[RedKnight]

What you're really trying to say here is that the fetus should be accorded the status of personhood as soon as it becomes viable. You haven't given an explanation of why viability should be used as the criterion to determine whether the fetus is a person, but even if we grant that this is the right criterion to use we encounter a more pressing issue which you need to address, namely does being a person mean that you can never be legitimately killed? Communists argue that there are conditions under which a person can lose their right to life, and it becomes morally acceptable to kill that person - this is applicable when a person is using the body of someone else who has not given their consent to being used, especially when use results in the imposition of harm. This is why it is acceptable for a woman to resist someone who is trying to rape her even if her resistance results in the death or permanent injury of the rapist - rape constitutes a violation of the woman's bodily autonomy because rape is, by definition, sex without consent, even though the rapist is a person and so would normally be entitled to exactly the same rights as any other human being. The same principle is applicable in the case of abortion because the fetus is using the woman's body for its own growth and development, and by wanting to have an abortion the woman is signifying that she does not consent to the fetus. This is true of all stages of pregnancy and operates independently of whether the fetus is a person.

This may be the law in the US but there are other countries which have more liberal laws, such as Cuba where a woman is allowed to access abortion for free at any stage of pregnancy regardless of her reason for wanting to have an abortion. The fact that something is law in a given country does not automatically make it right - the US clearly has other laws which are oppressive, and so you need to put forward an argument showing that the law on abortion which is currently being used in the US is morally and rationally justified. Viability is when the foetus has completely developed. So therefore it is just as much an indivisual human life as a prematurely born infant, at least. And I also believe that conjoined "siamese" twins, who share vital organs, are not permitted to be surgicly separated either. A Communist is only to take a life if it is necessary. I don't think that Karl Marx, V.I. Lenin, etc., would have approved of slaughtering crippled people, for example. The concept of "life unworthy of life"(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensunwertes_Leben) was formulated by the Nazis under Hitler. It has always seemed strangely funny to me that it was in third reich Germany that certain disabled people were put to death, and as far as I know at least, in the Soviet Union no one was killed for being disabled. Yet in Germany, soldiers had printed on there belt buckles "Gott Mitt Us" (God With Us), while Communism is supposedly godless in nature. And also lastly, if abortion is not wrong, eventhough you claim that it destroys human life, and not just potential life, what makes explotation wrong? Or any other supposed vice. If all moral values are subjective, and or relative, what if anything makes it wrong for death squads to kill suspected subversives? Or what makes socialism more desirable than capitalism? And what if I happen to like imperialism? I don't. But what if I did? What rightful basis would you have to tell me I'm wrong? We all have values. One of the things which I happen to value is life, especially human life. Though we may not necessarily have a religion, we should still uphold an ethical culture(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_Culture). I therefore believe that atheism needs to be combined, and ballanced, with secular humanism. It's not enough just to reject gods, we must also respect persons. Otherwise we'll have myn acting like gods, with the power of life and death over us all. Which is also why the Worker Communist Party, and I, oppose capital punishment, as well as late term abortion. http://www.m-hekmat.com/en/0600en.html#T25 http://www.trailblazerswyd.org/Donations/Choose_Life/choose_life_logo%20recent.jpg

[Bud Struggle]

Otherwise we'll have myn acting like gods, with the power of life and death over us all. Which is also why the Worker Communist Party, and I, oppose capital punishment, as well as late term abortion.

Well said. And the Worker Communist Party? They these guys? http://www.marxists.org/archive/hekmat-mansoor/1992/05/fundamental-characteristics.htm

Not on your case--just interested.

Myn? :cool:

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Otherwise we'll have myn acting like gods, with the power of life and death over us all. Which is also why the Worker Communist Party, and I, oppose capital punishment, as well as late term abortion.
Em, in what sense are we not already acting like gods? Isn't the whole idea of revolutionary socialism based on the idea of the working class playing God with the lives of the bosses? We can already traverse the world in a matter of hours, cure and prevent natural diseases etc.. I don't really see any reason why we should avoid performing feats and duties that some might once have attributed to a supernatural entity.

[Woland]

Voted the second one by mistake. I am completely for it.

[RedKnight]

Em, in what sense are we not already acting like gods? Isn't the whole idea of revolutionary socialism based on the idea of the working class playing God with the lives of the bosses? We can already traverse the world in a matter of hours, cure and prevent natural diseases etc.. I don't really see any reason why we should avoid performing feats and duties that some might once have attributed to a supernatural entity.
We humyns should be godlike when it comes to helping people, but not when it comes to harming people. Coincidently, just last night I watched on the "Investigation Discovery" channel, a documentary about the Nazis and the occult. According to the program, Hitler believed that "Aryans" were descended from godmen from Atlantis, who were contaminated by intermarriage with mere mortals. Therefore, he believed that it was morally justified for the Nazis to kill not only non-indo-europeans, but Germans with defects as well. This was what he believed should be done to create a master race of godmen. As far as I know anyway, the "godless Communist" Soviet Union never put to death those with disabilities. Now isn't that just ironic? Helen Keller, who was deaf and blind, was a Communist. And the Nazis, whose soldiers had on there beltbuckles "God is with us", euthanised those like her. So again I ask, do we as a socio-political movement want to become like the National Socialists in regards to the sanctity of life? If so, I do not wish to be a part of it. I'd call myself anything but a Communist.

[RedKnight]

Well said. And the Worker Communist Party? They these guys? http://www.marxists.org/archive/hekmat-mansoor/1992/05/fundamental-characteristics.htm

Not on your case--just interested.

Myn? :cool: Yes, the Worker Communist Party was founded by Mansoor Hekmat. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mansoor_Hekmat This is distinguished from the Tudeh Party. And "myn" is maoist for men. They just spell it differently in order to be inclusive of women as well. Thanks for asking.:)

[hugsandmarxism]

When it comes to the pro/anti choice debate, and defining the beginning of what can be referred to as human life, I think Descartes put it best:

Cogito, ergo, sum.

I think, therefore, I am. If a life form lacks essential human thought, than it is not a person, and the health, comfort, and well being of this non person can in no way trump the health, comfort, and well being of a person.

Now, since newborn children still lack that essential human thought until 6 months to a year into life, does that make infanticide ok? No. This is because a living baby, outside of the womb, has a more direct impact on society and thus is granted a certain level of social person-hood for its being there.

I believe that as long as it's inside the mother, than the mother can do as she wishes, and it is not our place to interfere. That's my opinion.

[Jazzratt]

We humyns should be godlike when it comes to helping people, but not when it comes to harming people. Coincidently, just last night I watched on the "Investigation Discovery" channel, a documentary about the Nazis and the occult. According to the program, Hitler believed that "Aryans" were descended from godmen from Atlantis, who were contaminated by intermarriage with mere mortals. Therefore, he believed that it was morally justified for the Nazis to kill not only non-indo-europeans, but Germans with defects as well. This was what he believed should be done to create a master race of godmen. As far as I know anyway, the "godless Communist" Soviet Union never put to death those with disabilities. Now isn't that just ironic? Helen Keller, who was deaf and blind, was a Communist. And the Nazis, whose soldiers had on there beltbuckles "God is with us", euthanised those like her. So again I ask, do we as a socio-political movement want to become like the National Socialists in regards to the sanctity of life? If so, I do not wish to be a part of it. I'd call myself anything but a Communist.

Godwin, much?

If you don't understand the difference between a foetus and a child you, frankly, should have your right to an opinion on abortion revoked.

[Sam_b]

We humyns should be godlike when it comes to helping people, but not when it comes to harming people. Coincidently, just last night I watched on the "Investigation Discovery" channel, a documentary about the Nazis and the occult. According to the program, Hitler believed that "Aryans" were descended from godmen from Atlantis, who were contaminated by intermarriage with mere mortals. Therefore, he believed that it was morally justified for the Nazis to kill not only non-indo-europeans, but Germans with defects as well. This was what he believed should be done to create a master race of godmen. As far as I know anyway, the "godless Communist" Soviet Union never put to death those with disabilities. Now isn't that just ironic? Helen Keller, who was deaf and blind, was a Communist. And the Nazis, whose soldiers had on there beltbuckles "God is with us", euthanised those like her. So again I ask, do we as a socio-political movement want to become like the National Socialists in regards to the sanctity of life? If so, I do not wish to be a part of it. I'd call myself anything but a Communist.

Are you trying to compare the horrific crimes of the Nazis with a woman's right to choose?

If so you are sickening and ridiculous.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

We humyns should be godlike when it comes to helping people, but not when it comes to harming people. Coincidently, just last night I watched on the "Investigation Discovery" channel, a documentary about the Nazis and the occult. According to the program, Hitler believed that "Aryans" were descended from godmen from Atlantis, who were contaminated by intermarriage with mere mortals. Therefore, he believed that it was morally justified for the Nazis to kill not only non-indo-europeans, but Germans with defects as well. This was what he believed should be done to create a master race of godmen. As far as I know anyway, the "godless Communist" Soviet Union never put to death those with disabilities. Now isn't that just ironic? Helen Keller, who was deaf and blind, was a Communist. And the Nazis, whose soldiers had on there beltbuckles "God is with us", euthanised those like her. So again I ask, do we as a socio-political movement want to become like the National Socialists in regards to the sanctity of life? If so, I do not wish to be a part of it. I'd call myself anything but a Communist.
How do you distinguish though? Legalizing abortion helps as well as harms.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

When it comes to the pro/anti choice debate, and defining the beginning of what can be referred to as human life, I think Descartes put it best:

Cogito, ergo, sum.

I think, therefore, I am. If a life form lacks essential human thought, than it is not a person, and the health, comfort, and well being of this non person can in no way trump the health, comfort, and well being of a person.

Now, since newborn children still lack that essential human thought until 6 months to a year into life, does that make infanticide ok? No. This is because a living baby, outside of the womb, has a more direct impact on society and thus is granted a certain level of social person-hood for its being there.

I believe that as long as it's inside the mother, than the mother can do as she wishes, and it is not our place to interfere. That's my opinion.
I don't really agree with the "human thought" as determining whether or not someone or something has rights. But the second part of your post is spot on. IMO, subjects have personal rights depending not on intrinsic biological characteristics but on their relation to society.

[RedKnight]

I was responding to those who view foetuses as being human life, but condone destroying them anyway. I happen to personaly believe that life begins at the point of foetal viability. So I am not against allowing abortion all together.

[Jazzratt]

I was responding to those who view foetuses as being human life, but condone destroying them anyway. I happen to personaly believe that life begins at the point of foetal viability. So I am not against allowing abortion all together.

I love the mixed messages anti-choice weirdos send out.

"Abortion is very important moral choice and you should carefully weigh up the pros and cons!" they screech but after an arbitrary time has passed they become shrill once more, this time in protest "but you can't make your choice now, you spent too much time umming and ahhing over the pros and cons, you clearly really want this kid and anyway - fuck you your only a woman, but that "life" inside you is precious. Sacrafice yourself incubator-whore!".

Or something.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

I love the mixed messages anti-choice weirdos send out.

"Abortion is very important moral choice and you should carefully weigh up the pros and cons!" they screech but after an arbitrary time has passed they become shrill once more, this time in protest "but you can't make your choice now, you spent too much time umming and ahhing over the pros and cons, you clearly really want this kid and anyway - fuck you your only a woman, but that "life" inside you is precious. Sacrafice yourself incubator-whore!".

Or something.
That's retarded. Like, really retarded. That's why there can be no healthy, rational debate on abortion on this site, because in the eyes of some morons people who think that a foetus has a right to life view women as nothing but "incubator-whores".

[hugsandmarxism]

I don't really agree with the "human thought" as determining whether or not someone or something has rights. But the second part of your post is spot on. IMO, subjects have personal rights depending not on intrinsic biological characteristics but on their relation to society.

Well, the point I'm making with thought is this: when you lack the human thought and understanding to know you are alive, and this biological life is taken away from you, what do you care? (then again, this in and of itself is a slippery metaphysical slope) The argument I'm making with the first is that you cannot take "human life" from those without the concept of "being alive." An interesting argument to this end in one of my university ethics class, but i can't do it justice in this format... sorry for my ineptitude :o

[Sendo]

I love the mixed messages anti-choice weirdos send out.

"Abortion is very important moral choice and you should carefully weigh up the pros and cons!" they screech but after an arbitrary time has passed they become shrill once more, this time in protest "but you can't make your choice now, you spent too much time umming and ahhing over the pros and cons, you clearly really want this kid and anyway - fuck you your only a woman, but that "life" inside you is precious. Sacrafice yourself incubator-whore!".

Or something.

do you honestly believe that's what prolifers think inside their heads?

If someone is perpetuating institutional sexism, like those who perpetuate institutional racism, it is rarely conscious and attitudinal sexism. Prolifers don't recruit using messages of sexism, but messages of life begins at X Y or Z and often use idealist arguments to replace reality (like banning abortions doesn't stop them from happening).


What you've posted isn't a caricature; it's just ridiculous and won't win any converts.

[Jazzratt]

What you've posted isn't a caricature; it's just ridiculous and won't win any converts.

What I was trying to point out by way of the charicture is quite simple, though. The distinction they make is insanely arbitratry and makes little or no sense - especially if they support earlier abortions. I'm not saying they actually, literally consider women to be "inucabtor-whores" or whatever (although that is the basic outcome of their deranged mentality) but that they have an almost schizophrenic shift past a certain time - all of their rhetoric for the first twenty-odd weeks of pregnancy is that time should be taken over the decision but after too much time has past they go completely hysterical.

[Rascolnikova]

What I was trying to point out by way of the charicture is quite simple, though. The distinction they make is insanely arbitratry and makes little or no sense - especially if they support earlier abortions. I'm not saying they actually, literally consider women to be "inucabtor-whores" or whatever (although that is the basic outcome of their deranged mentality) but that they have an almost schizophrenic shift past a certain time - all of their rhetoric for the first twenty-odd weeks of pregnancy is that time should be taken over the decision but after too much time has past they go completely hysterical.

I think viability is a reasonable place to draw the line--and that means, what, around 21 weeks, 23? Something?

To be clear, we all know how I feel about killing babies--as seldom as possible, as often as necessary. However, I think most on the left would take umbrage at being accused of condoning killing babies, and, coupled with rabid pro-abortion stances, I find this to be very schitzo.

To be sure, there are some wack job conservative types out there who seem to regard virtually all women as incubator-whores, but most of the ones I know object to abortion after 21 weeks do so because they think there's an innocent person involved who shouldn't be killed--and that strikes me as self consistent, and no more arbitrary than anything else.

In the Christianity I was raised with, there are any number of situations beyond one's control where it is only considered moral to sacrifice one's self for others--and some of them apply only to men. Having a moral obligation to sacrifice one's bodily integrity for other human beings is not gender specific in that framework, and I don't believe it's fair to describe it as sexist--though there are other things about the same framework that most certainly are sexist.

[Sam_b]

'killing babies' :rolleyes: Give me a break.

So its okay for the state to draw a line under a women's personal autonomy and what happens to her own body? Well no it isn't, and yes its disgusting.

[Rascolnikova]

'killing babies' :rolleyes: Give me a break.


. . . . you say give me a break, but you don't explain why a creature inside the womb who could survive in or out is less of a person before leaving it's mother.

I don't know if you noticed this, but I'm willing to accept some very violent things for the sake of equality.


So its okay for the state to draw a line under a women's personal autonomy and what happens to her own body? Well no it isn't, and yes its disgusting.I have never said that, as, if you'd read my posts, you might know.


If a woman kills someone who is attempting to rape her, we don't say, "it wasn't really a person she killed." We say, she had the right to kill that person. I feel it is dishonest to approach abortion otherwise. Yes, there are reasonable ways to draw the line of personhood that leave fetuses well out of it, but to draw that line at birth is arbitrary, self indulgent, and overly convenient.

[Bud Struggle]

but to draw that line at birth is arbitrary, self indulgent, and overly convenient.

And very RevLeftistic. I don't agree with you Rasco--but you are bring some intelligent discussion to the Commissars of the Politburo Club. :)

[Rascolnikova]

And very RevLeftistic. I don't agree with you Rasco--but you are bring some intelligent discussion to the Commissars of the Politburo Club. :)

Awe, I thought you did agree with me. .. . but that the difference was you don't find it acceptable to kill babies.

Did I misunderstand your stance?

[Bud Struggle]

Awe, I thought you did agree with me. .. . but that the difference was you don't find it acceptable to kill babies.

Did I misunderstand your stance?

I don't find it acceptable to kill anyone that is (or potentially) human--from inception to grave.

[Rascolnikova]

I don't find it acceptable to kill anyone that is (or potentially) human--from inception to grave.

I presume you refer only to those you'd consider innocent and/or not threats?

[Bud Struggle]

I presume you refer only to those you'd consider innocent and/or not threats?

Yea, if someone comes into my house and threaten my wife and kids--I'll be nasty...on the other hand I don't think a "baby" in woman's womb is a "threat."

[Sam_b]

I have never said that, as, if you'd read my posts, you might know.


You do, by condoning any form of restriction on abortion. And by reading your posts, I do in fact know quite a few things - one of which is tht you are of an oposing ideology and deserve to be restricted.

So spare me the moralistic, wishy-washy liberal 'baby killing' rehetoric, it is the language of mysoginism and the language of restricting a woman's personal choice.


, but you don't explain why a creature inside the womb who could survive in or out is less of a person before leaving it's mother

I believe it was Bobkindles who put it very well in the CC debate about this, and I refer you to it.


I don't know if you noticed this, but I'm willing to accept some very violent things for the sake of equality.

And what exactly has this got to do with...anything? I think it smacks of you trying to justify your stance and failing to do so.


but to draw that line at birth is arbitrary, self indulgent, and overly convenient.

...and is absolutely none of your business to say that when you have no idea of the women's personal situation that would make her want to do this. You are nothing more than an anti-choice apologist.

[Bud Struggle]

You do, by condoning any form of restriction on abortion. And by reading your posts, I do in fact know quite a few things - one of which is tht you are of an oposing ideology and deserve to be restricted.

No offense, but you Abortion Nazis should give it a rest. Like anything else in Communism there should be discussion and mutual agreement, but there should always, ALWAYS room for divergent opinions.

The post above could fit in nicely with anything posted on Stormfront.

Argue the points as you may--but to throw out personal invectives and stigmatizations based on someone's supposed lack of adherence to questionable Communist themes, to me seem a bit Fascististic.

[Sam_b]

The post above could fit in nicely with anything posted on Stormfront.

How dare you equate me being a fascist. That is the most petty argument i've ever seen, and coming from such an experienced user like yourself I would've thought you of all people would know better.

[Bud Struggle]

How dare you equate me being a fascist. That is the most petty argument i've ever seen, and coming from such an experienced user like yourself I would've thought you of all people would know better.

Abortion is not nor ever has been a central Communist theme--NEVER. And the continual banishment from RevLeft of otherwise good Communists because of some questioning of this "local" Revleft belief seems to throw the real esssece of Communism away to opt for some rule driven Communism of the been there done that already variety.

I apologize for the the fascist term--it was a bit harsh.

[Sam_b]

Abortion is not nor ever has been a central Communist theme--NEVER

That is untrue.

A central part to communist thought is the idea of the state and coercion. You cannot be coerced to not do what you want to your own body.

And women's liberation and abortion should be one of the central parts of any sel-respecting socialist party. Thankfully many place it there.

[Black Dagger]

No offense, but you Abortion Nazis should give it a rest. Like anything else in Communism there should be discussion and mutual agreement, but there should always, ALWAYS room for divergent opinions.

The post above could fit in nicely with anything posted on Stormfront.



I don't see your point tom.

There doesn't need to be a 'debate' or 'mutual agreement' between communists on this issue - at least not in the way you're suggesting. You're still thinking about this issue in the manner of a patriarchal society where people other than the individual women concerned make decisions about what extent women are to have reproductive freedoms.

On the contrary, in an a communist society reproductive freedom should be the starting point - universal access, equality of access to abortion would be the order of the day - the only 'debate' that remains is for each individual woman to decide whether they will excercise this freedom or not.

No other system really makes sense in a meaningful, libertarian communist society - as it would require the arbitrary restriction of my freedom by others (a basic anarchist criticism of a state-dominated capitalist society). Also, in an anarchist society there is no state or ruling class to make sweeping laws like this (restricting abortion) - so any problem of access that did exist would necesarily be limited by locality. But yeah, it seems highly improbable that such a situation would arise given the centrality of personal freedom (inc. support for reproductive freedom), equality of access and opportunity that dominate contemporary anarchism (I can't remember, but i'm not certain this sort of reproductive freedom existed in 1930s spain for example).


Abortion is not nor ever has been a central Communist theme--NEVER. And the continual banishment from RevLeft of otherwise good Communists because of some questioning of this "local" Revleft belief seems to throw the real esssece of Communism away to opt for some rule driven Communism of the been there done that already variety.


This is fallacious for several reasons.

Firstly, the functioning of this messageboard has nothing at all to do with 'communism' - the history of communist ideas, movements or any future communist society. So can you please give this 'real essence of communism' stuff a rest? It's a bit silly. Secondly, abortion or reproductive freedom specifically may not be a transhistorical 'communist theme' (why that matters i'm not sure?) - but as an issue - speaking now of contemporary communisms rather than communisms of the past - it certainly is an important issue.
And as an issue it draws on an important 'communist theme' that sam_b mentions, "A central part to communist thought is the idea of the state and coercion. You cannot be coerced to not do what you want to your own body" - that is, freedom - which is a historical 'theme' of communist ideas. Obviously it took some agitation (thank marx for communist women!) to link the two explicitly, but arguments similar to sam_b's have been made by anarchists for over a century.

I.E. That we wish to see an end to the domination of human-by-human, a liberatory society where my freedom is limited only when my actions would impinges upon the freedom of others.

Now this is anarchist rhetoric, not marxist - but still 'communist' as you mentioned - and in this sense, reproductive freedom is a given - and restriction of this freedom is plainly at odds with one of the most basic, anarchist ideas or arguments. Also, just as an aside - the movement for reproductive freedoms - at least where i live - is a hot-bed for commies ;)

[AtteroDominatus]

*sighs and waits to be flames*
I'm a female, and I'm tried of hearing people tell me that they're saying pro choice so I get to choose. I don't think it should be a choice. Rhetorical, cliche, whatever, it is a LIFE and I am thoroughly against killing something that cannot even defend itself. I am not taking away woman's right to do anything else. If anything I want more rights, because half the time I feel like people are ordering me around. If I hear 'act more like a lady' one more time I'm going to groin kick someone.

People claim it's taking away a woman's rights if you deny her the ability to murder an innocent child. how is it fair? Who gave her the right to kill the baby? Oh right, her body, or some shit like that. Guess what! it's her own damn fault if she gets pregnant. No more of this wishy washy bullshit where people blame contraception not working, ro rape cases (because only 2% of rape cases yield children, a national census on the US, at least. and in such a case, i still do not agree with abortion, but that's not the point) becaue it's the woman's fault! She consented to sex. Oh, but people say she didn't consent to having the child, another big arguement i hear from teens my age, trying to defend the fact they just had sex with their boyfriend because they're so 'madly in love' and now are carrying another life. Guess what? I consent to posting things like this on the internet, i don't consent to people flaming me or disagreeing if i say something. BUT I know full well the consequences of my actions. Everybody knows if you have sex, there's a chance of pregnancy, so women can't use the excuse that they didn't consent. By allowing yourself to have sex you are taking the chance that you could end up getting a kid. And even if you don't want it, too bad! Hos is it right to make another person pay for your own mistakes? If you don't want the kid, give birth to it and just give it to someone who wants it! Yes, adoption and daycare centers are over populated, but that's because no one can withhold from sex long enough to save their lives! Sex isn't seen as intimate anymore, it's seen as pretyt much a right. Everyday I hear thigns from girls and guys talkign casually about sex. Annpyign as it is, whatever. Just know that if you are doing the action, you shoudl take responsibility, stop whinning, and have the kid.

But the biggest wuarrel I have is with partial birth abortion. It's an absolute monstorsity. While i can at least see the point of the others, even if i do not agree, partial birth is murder. the baby can feel by then, it's nearly fully grown. And in a partial birth, the mother is giving birth anyway, as she's given drugs to cause contractions. And then, the evil behind it, and it IS evil, I beleive that with all of my soul, begins. they literally tear the baby from the mother. What if an arm falls of? What if a leg is torn from the child whild it's born? It can feel that, and it screams, it feels its body being mutilated and wails and cries, and goes through agony as the mother says fine, whatever, let it die. and then, even if it survives, it is left to die. If that was not enough, after the often times mutilated child is delivered, they smash its skull and suck out its brains. I kid you not, look up the medical procedue. My mother is a nurse, and I've read medical books, as well. It happens, and it is beyond barbaric. Even if it is not partial birth, the sentiment is the same. It is killing, it is murder, it is wrong. And I shall stand by that fact no matter what anyone says. No one has the right to kill a defensless person, and letting women have abortions is allowing them to murder. It is not a human right, it is jsut sick.

[Sam_b]

Guess what! it's her own damn fault if she gets pregnant

I'll give you...um...five minutes until you're restricted.

Welcome to OI. Please stay here.

[AtteroDominatus]

I'll give you...um...five minutes until you're restricted.

Welcome to OI. Please stay here.
it is her fault. I know where this thread is about and what it is for. And, how is it not her fault? It takes two to have sex.

[PigmerikanMao]

It's ridiculous that you people are still arguing over this. :rolleyes:

[Sam_b]

it is her fault. I know where this thread is about and what it is for. And, how is it not her fault? It takes two to have sex.

Read this and the previous thread. See how your argument has been absolutely torn to pieces. Your views have absolutely no place in the left movement.

[AtteroDominatus]

*shrugs* then let people prove me wrong. it will not change what i believe.

[PigmerikanMao]

Watch it kid; you'll get restricted like me. :)

[AtteroDominatus]

I'm just giving my opinion, is that so wrong? :)

[PigmerikanMao]

To revleft's gang of mods, yet it is. You can be killed for it here- welcome to the gulag. :)

I've been here for three months for saying crap I don't even believe in anymore and I'm still not reeducated. :rolleyes:

[Sam_b]

I'm just giving my opinion, is that so wrong?

Everything. You show by this that you are reactionary and against women's liberation and emancipation. You also by this support a state actor preventing a woman's right to abortion, and thus aggrivate dangerous backstreet abortions where many women are maimed or killed.

So you have no place in the main board sections of RevLeft. So thats' whats 'so wrong'.

[PigmerikanMao]

Everything. You show by this that you are reactionary and against women's liberation and emancipation. You also by this support a state actor preventing a woman's right to abortion, and thus aggrivate dangerous backstreet abortions where many women are maimed or killed.

So you have no place in the main board sections of RevLeft. So thats' whats 'so wrong'.

Not all anti-abortionists believe in state actions to prevent abortion, they simply hold a moral objection to it. Even though they won't personally ever have one, they allow people the RIGHT TO CHOOSE.

What's so wrong with that?

[Sam_b]

Not all anti-abortionists believe in state actions to prevent abortion, they simply hold a moral objection to it. Even though they won't personally ever have one, they allow people the RIGHT TO CHOOSE.

What's so wrong with that?

Nothing at all. Howeverwith the rhetoric of this poster it is clear she holds a reactionary position.

[PigmerikanMao]

Hmm... is there a statute of limitations as to how long I can be restricted? :(

[AtteroDominatus]

Everything. You show by this that you are reactionary and against women's liberation and emancipation. You also by this support a state actor preventing a woman's right to abortion, and thus aggrivate dangerous backstreet abortions where many women are maimed or killed.

So you have no place in the main board sections of RevLeft. So thats' whats 'so wrong'.
oh yes, because by wanting children to have the right to live I'm OBVIOUSLY against their rights. I never said it should be illegal, show me where i said that at all. I know it would never work, I'm not ignorant to this topic. I'm just saying it is WRONG. And tell me, who dictates whether I have the right, you?

It's sad when people just start telling other people to get lost because they don't evne want to acknowledge people thinking any different! GOD FORBID people think differently or have different views of life on this world!

And whether you are for or against it, the fact is, it is denying a life to exist. Wehtehr you believe it is a life at that time or not. It was on its way to becoming one.

I am not taking away woman's rights. I jsut feel they are mature enough to know what they are getting into, and should take responsibility of what they do.

[PigmerikanMao]

Very mature, AD- allow people to do what they feel is right but maintain your own moral code. Too bad the rest of Revleft doesn't do this.

Quite frankly, when Revleft attacks people for their own moral reservations, it only serves to isolate free thinking intellectual socialists from the rest of the community.

[Black Dagger]

Tell me about it - one would think this issue is very simple!

Do what you want to do - if you want to have an abortion - have one, if you don't - well then don't!


I don't think it should be a choice.

Like ever? Way to punish women!

I agree though, the more women are shackled by child-birth/rearing the better i say! That way women can be actively discriminated against in a whole range of areas, it really helps patriarchy survive (i'm male, so thats awesome!) by making women dependant on others (often men) - less than if real reproductive rights existed because it means if you get pregnant and it's not a good time - too bad! Like a woman gets pregnant to some jerk by accident (n00b can't put a condom on correctly, was too drunk to remember to put one on whatever) and as a consequence her boss gets to fire her! Pregnant? See ya later! And too bad it was just a one-night stand, so now there's 9 months of discomfort, loss of dignity, income and mobility to look forward to alone! Well i guess she can go on welfare, sounds like fun doesn't it? That's what happens when you take away peoples choices. You're forcing women into a position of weakness and subservience to men.



Rhetorical, cliche, whatever, it is a LIFE and I am thoroughly against killing something that cannot even defend itself.

But god does this all the time? Why can't humans do it? How do you know it was not a part of gods plan to begin with?

Besides, why is the 'life' of a fetus be more important than the life of a mother? :confused:
You can say 'it's not' - but that doesn't really tally up with your argument. You clearly preference the 'life' of a gooey pile of cells which may not even have a meaningful conception of self over a living breathing human. And by doing so, you force women who do want an abortion (the horrors!) to go to illegal, and potentially unsafe/deadly methods to do so - but i guess their deaths are a small price to pay for all those little fetuses?



I am not taking away woman's right to do anything else.

Lol, i guess that's ok then? :confused:



If anything I want more rights, because half the time I feel like people are ordering me around. If I hear 'act more like a lady' one more time I'm going to groin kick someone.

rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrright.

So you oppose sexism/patriarchy unless it reinforces or your personal religious views - in which case - it rules! >_<

Sorry, but gender inequality will persist as long as people treat women who get pregnant like second-class citizens, as either incubators or murderers.



People claim it's taking away a woman's rights if you deny her the ability to murder an innocent child. how is it fair?

I guess, i don't agree that some cells dividing in your uterus counts as a child? I mean, if we're gonna be so attached to every fertilised egg AKA a child!!! - you really should take your own body to court for murder,



Who gave her the right to kill the baby? Oh right, her body, or some shit like that.

Lol.



Guess what! it's her own damn fault if she gets pregnant.

Wow, i never knew women could fertilise their own eggs :lol:



No more of this wishy washy bullshit where people blame contraception not working, ro rape cases (because only 2% of rape cases yield children, a national census on the US, at least. and in such a case, i still do not agree with abortion, but that's not the point) becaue it's the woman's fault! She consented to sex.

Yeah you've hit the nail on the head here, women are to blame for everything.

Women: If you don't want to get pregnant NEVER have sex.

Men: Fucking go for it bro! Fuck whoever you want, don't use a condom, it doesn't matter - whatever happens it's not your fault and you've got no responsibility to do anything!!!



Everybody knows if you have sex, there's a chance of pregnancy, so women can't use the excuse that they didn't consent.

Ah yes, back to the old 'incubator vs. murderer' dichotomy.

Women should be forced to remain pregnant even if it totally fucks up their whole life (incubators)... or they can have a backyard abortion (murderer).


Hos is it right to make another person pay for your own mistakes?

But someone should pay right? And of course it will be women (coz it's 'all their fault') - how delightfully misogynistic.

[hugsandmarxism]

oh yes, because by wanting children to have the right to live I'm OBVIOUSLY against their rights. I never said it should be illegal, show me where i said that at all. I know it would never work, I'm not ignorant to this topic. I'm just saying it is WRONG. And tell me, who dictates whether I have the right, you?

It's sad when people just start telling other people to get lost because they don't evne want to acknowledge people thinking any different! GOD FORBID people think differently or have different views of life on this world!

And whether you are for or against it, the fact is, it is denying a life to exist. Wehtehr you believe it is a life at that time or not. It was on its way to becoming one.

I am not taking away woman's rights. I jsut feel they are mature enough to know what they are getting into, and should take responsibility of what they do.

Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but this is a reactionary/counter-revolutionary stance that defacto makes women the brood-mares of the bourgeoisie capitalist state. You can read back to see what I personally believe about the issue if you wish, but I'd recommend reading Marx's account on communism and the "family values" bit.

[Sam_b]

but this is a reactionary/counter-revolutionary stance that defacto makes women the brood-mares of the bourgeoisie capitalist state.

this.

[hugsandmarxism]

You might want to read back to the thread where someone gave you a link to the Communist Manifesto, brush up on it a bit, and see if this is really the politics and forum for you. No one will be mad if you decide you're too "moderate" for this forum.

[Black Dagger]

To revleft's gang of mods, yet it is. You can be killed for it here- welcome to the gulag. :)

I've been here for three months for saying crap I don't even believe in anymore and I'm still not reeducated. :rolleyes:

It's really not that hard to get unrestricted.

I'm guessing you haven't been unrestricted yet because:

-Despite claiming to be pro-choice, all you ever do is defend anti-choicers/pro-lifers, never making a pro-choice argument or defending this POV.
-You constantly whinge and attack the rules of the board, including the people who are going to be voting on your un-restriction - comparing it to a 'gulag' and using hyperbolic 'internet oppression' rhetoric, oh and being abrasive. Which is understanable as you feel you've been restricted unfairly, but there's a point in which you need to get over that and start contributing to the board in a serious, mature way.

Probably a combination of the two.

[PigmerikanMao]

It's clearly the ladder.

[Black Dagger]

oh yes, because by wanting children to have the right to live I'm OBVIOUSLY against their rights. I never said it should be illegal, show me where i said that at all

Well you did say:


I don't think it should be a choice.

What's the difference?

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


It's clearly the ladder.

In either case, i don't think you help yourself at all. Really, just try posting seriously (and not like a cynical douche)- demonstrating that you are pro-choice and i bet you'll get unrestricted soon enough.

[AtteroDominatus]

But god does this all the time? Why can't humans do it? How do you know it was not a part of gods plan to begin with?
Are we God?


Besides, why is the 'life' of a fetus be more important than the life of a mother? :confused:
It's not. If the pregnancy endangers the mother, I think the fetus should be aborted, because if she dies, so will the child. I never said it was, I just value all life equally.



You can say 'it's not' - but that doesn't really tally up with your argument. You clearly preference the 'life' of a gooey pile of cells which may not even have a meaningful conception of self over a living breathing human. And by doing so, you force women who do want an abortion (the horrors!) to go to illegal, and potentially unsafe/deadly methods to do so - but i guess their deaths are a small price to pay for all those little fetuses?

It's going to become a human, that's the point of giving birth, isn't it? And that's what being pregnant is, the definition is to end up having a kid. It's how life works. It continues on through reproduction. And, again, I never said I agree on a law passed to stop it, just that I believe it is wrong.



Lol, i guess that's ok then? :confused:
i was saying this because people were getting the idea gas int woman's rights as a whole and trying to opress them.




rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrright.

So you oppose sexism/patriarchy unless it reinforces or your personal religious views - in which case - it rules! >_<

Sorry, but gender inequality will persist as long as people treat women who get pregnant like second-class citizens, as either incubators or murderers.

ummmmmm, I was saying that's the only thing i really disagree on? anyway, it will continue, doesn't mean it should. And I don;t consider them incubators, they are people, too. their lives are as valueable as anyone else. Maybe not in today's society, but when communism rolls around, won't people not be judged for such things anyway?



I guess, i don't agree that some cells dividing in your uterus counts as a child? I mean, if we're gonna be so attached to every fertilised egg AKA a child!!! - you really should take your own body to court for murder,
Isn't it going to be a child? Kinda the point, really.



Wow, i never knew women could fertilise their own eggs :lol:
Well, the woman had the choice to have sex, so in a way it's her fault. and i never said the father was exempt from responsibility, either! It's like people keep assumign I'm blaming women, when I'm kinda blaming both the people. I jsut thought people knew that? Guess not, sorry. either way, I think both people should be responsible for it. I jsut don't think the woman shoudl abort a child, because she and whoever she was with were aware of what could happen.



Yeah you've hit the nail on the head here, women are to blame for everything.

Women: If you don't want to get pregnant NEVER have sex.

Men: Fucking go for it bro! Fuck whoever you want, don't use a condom, it doesn't matter - whatever happens it's not your fault and you've got no responsibility to do anything!!!
Yeah, because i was totally exemtping the male from all responsibility.


Ah yes, back to the old 'incubator vs. murderer' dichotomy.

Women should be forced to remain pregnant even if it totally fucks up their whole life (incubators)... or they can choose to be a murderer (have a backyard abortion).
Once again, they knew what they were getting into. And society really sucks if that's the way people think, even here.



But someone should pay right? And of course it will be women (coz it's 'all their fault') - how delightfully misogynistic.
yeah, because i totally said that :D

Not like my opinion matters, or i should even be here, according to Sam_b. Because it seems having an opinion her eis a curse, and havign a conflicting opinion makes you a fascist! Kind of upsets me that a place like this, wher ei came to learn more, ends up beign filled with intolerant people whose goal it seems to be to put down and mock others. I was never blaming women, or saying they were SOLEYL responsible, that it shoudl be illegal, that i was making them do anything. I was jsut giving my opinion, which seems to be an awful thing here, too.

[AtteroDominatus]

sorry for double spot, but Black, it's the fact i'm not going to do anything about it. Even if i was given the chance to abolish abortion, i would not. I don't think they should have the chocie, but i'm not going to take it away no matter how wrong i think it is. I don't theink they should, but they do, and will. And nothign I say can change that. People have their own vveiws and choices. I personally do not believe because I believe it to be a life. however, i acknowledge not all people think this way. I'm hoping people will take responsibbility, and admit they knew full well, and admit they know what they are doing. but at the end of the day, i'm not forcing anyone to agree with me, and not screaming at anyone to change their ways, I am giving my honest-to-blood opinion on what i believe. As is everyone else on this thread.

[hugsandmarxism]

The abortion debate, like other debates in main-stream politics, is a distraction, meant to motivate the reactionary single-issue voting blocks to vote for candidates and parties who really don't represent or care about them (like the gun issue, or the prayer in schools issue, etc.). While we, leftists all, bicker over this issue, no one is really talking about the social injustices which lead to increased abortion rates. The debate really misses the forest for the trees, and serves to espouse pettiness.

[Bilan]

I don't get why there's even a debate about this.
From a social point of view, anti-choice's are wrong.
From a scientific point of view, anti-choice's are wrong.
From any rational point of view, anti-choice's are wrong.

[Demogorgon]

I am continually troubled by the bullying attitude here regarding the abortion debate. The behaviour of some people indicates they don't have the first clue as to the actual substance of the debate and have no hope of ever actually convincing people as to their position. We need to realise that out in the real world simply screaming "reactionary" and telling people that only the aspects of the debate we want to consider can be considered isn't going to convince anybody.

In order to convince somebody of a position they are skeptical of we must first try to find some point of common ground to build upon and then address their objections, not tell them that it is a thought crime to think them. From their we start with the easiest points first and work progressively along trying to take the person as far down the road as we can. If at some distance down said road, we cannot convince them to go any further. We do not scream abuse at them, but rather we thank them for going so far and hope we can further convince them in the future.

So as to the abortion debate, we have to address the argument that a fetus has to be afforded rights independent on the requirements of the mother. It is imperative that we do this without becoming hysterical when we hear the argument or by becoming crass (calling the fetus a parasite for instance). So where do we begin? Well first of all we need to recognise that the abortion debate as to a pregnancy five minutes after conception is a different one to the one five minutes before birth. And we are not going to convince anybody by starting with more radical than thou statements about how such abortions should not just be allowed but are to be celebrated. The starting point should be abortion very early in pregnancy when we really are talking about a bundle of cells. At that stage it seems obvious to me that the needs of the mother in terms of reproductive freedom have to outweigh concerns for what is still undeveloped genetic material.

So starting from there we proceed, always aware that we have already made an achievement in addressing early term abortion successfully. We need to now discuss the fact that circumstances mean that abortions sometimes have to be carried out later on, that we cannot simply draw an arbitrary line as to when it suddenly becomes wrong and so forth. That said, it is worth understanding the debate as to when abortion is acceptable. It seems to me that there are three definite points where one can draw the line without plucking a time period out of thin air, conception, quickening and birth (there is also viability, but as nobody can agree when that actually is, I cannot help but feel that it is no more valid than aforementioned figure plucked out of thin air).

So how do we do this. Well, we have to start with dismissing conception as the date to draw the line, I have already addressed that. We then have to get to quickening. At this point we need to understand that we won't necessarily be able to convince beyond this point and that our response once again must not be a hissy fit. Nonetheless we need to explain that even at the point of quickening, we are still not talking about a particularly developed being and so forth.

There are other arguments that need to be brought up as well of course. It has to be pointed out that abortion is a necessary last line of defence in Birth Control and that consequently early term abortions at the very least have to be legal for gender equality to be achievable. Then we need to discuss how these issues are best left to individual discretion anyway, so the issue is one best decided privately rather than publicly. That is a powerful argument. People do not like the state intruding into personal affairs.

Really though, the most important thing of all is to remember that our job is to convince pro-lifers to accept our position. Our goal is to argue for legal abortion, not to shock our parents. Claiming that abortions are wonderful events to be celebrated is utterly absurd and is simply crassness for the sake of showing just how shocking we can be. We need to stay reasonable and discuss how we wish to minimise the circumstances where abortion is necessary, discussing how we want contraception to be universally available, how women who would like a child, but cannot afford to raise one, will be rendered able to do so by our policies and such like. It is important to stay reasonable and approachable in this debate.

[AtteroDominatus]

I don't get why there's even a debate about this.
From a social point of view, anti-choice's are wrong.
From a scientific point of view, anti-choice's are wrong.
From any rational point of view, anti-choice's are wrong.
Because some people have differing opinions?
Because there are people who believe it is killing?
Because science is defined by humans and can be wrong?


But, I agree with Demo on the bullying aspect of it. I can here to give my opinion and I'm pretty much literally attacked for my views. Nice. I think people have to start accepting, even within the comrade force, people will think differently than you do. If we cannot agree on this, than we are no better than the bourgeois who argue amongst themselves and fight within their own groups. We are a brotherhood of sorts, and matters such as this should just be our views, and not seen as a vicious derailment of all communism and anarchy stand for.

[BobKKKindle$]

Because there are people who believe it is killing?Anyone with a basic level of intelligence can recognize that having an abortion involves "killing" - but the fact that this is the case does not automatically mean that abortion must be wrong and the state has a right to intervene and prevent women from exercising control over their bodies, because we acknowledge that "killing" is legitimate and acceptable in many instances - for example, when people are sick they often decide to take antibiotics, which results in bacterial cells being killed. What you have to do to prove your position is show that there is something special about a fetus that justifies state intervention, even though restrictions on abortion have a negative impact on sexual equality and drive women to seek illegal abortions, which carry a high risk of permanent damage (possibility resulting in an inability to have children) and even death. So far, this is not something you have been able to do. You totally dismissed the issue of contraception, but the fact is that contraception does fail, especially when teenagers have not been given adequate sex education, as is often the case in countries such as the US where conservative organizations are able to influence the content of the national curriculum and prevent teenagers from being told about where they can find contraception and how it should be used, and in the event of contraceptive failure it would be unfair to hold someone responsible for something which is totally beyond their control.

However, contraception should not be the central issue of the abortion debate - regardless of why a woman wants to have an abortion, she should always be able to do so for the simple reason that no organism has the right to use a person's body unless that person has first given their consent to being used, and if at any point during the period of "use" consent is withdrawn, the removal of the organism by any means necessary is fully legitimate, and consistent with the principles of bodily autonomy. This principle is not just applicable in the case of abortion, but in all aspects of human experience, and even when someone appears to have knowledge of what will happen if they choose to engage in a particular course of action, they always retain the right to defend their bodily autonomy.

Concerning the specific issue of late-term abortions (or what you refer to as "partial-birth") we should all be able to agree that if a woman is going to have an abortion, it is preferable for her to have it during the earlier stages of pregnancy, solely because abortions conducted in the third trimester tend to require more complex procedures and also carry a higher mortality risk. However, even though the number of late-abortions has always been fairly low, the women who require abortions at this stage are often in a position of intense vulnerability, and that is why they need to be able to exercise their rights and have access to abortion. Young women often don't realize they are pregnant, whereas some go into denial until they can't hide it possibly due to the trauma arising from the experience of being raped. One other major reason that women need access to abortion at a later stage is the discovery of severe foetal abnormality. For example, one important test for impairments such as Down's syndrome is amniocentesis. This cannot be carried out until 16 weeks, the results may take two to three weeks, and then the woman may need counselling and advice. If she decides to have an abortion it may be yet another week or two before this can be arranged. These reasons affirm the need to defend abortion rights and fight for the removal of all existing restrictions on abortion, and the radical expansion of abortion services.

[Bilan]

Because some people have differing opinions?

Your opinion is wrong.



Because there are people who believe it is killing?

Some people believe trees scream. I quite frankly don't care if you believe its genocide, you're still wrong because you have no idea what you're talking about.



Because science is defined by humans and can be wrong?

Oh, so therefor, science is susceptible to inaccuracies, but being a self-righteous moralist prat is not?
I'm going to go with science. Science is based in reason, not in sky wizards or fictitious morals based purely on ignorance.
Science is the destroyer of ignorance.

[AtteroDominatus]

Your opinion is wrong.
Yes, because my opinion differs from yours, which automatically makes me wrong.




Some people believe trees scream. I quite frankly don't care if you believe its genocide, you're still wrong because you have no idea what you're talking about.
Oh yes, that’s such a nice tactic. Compare me to something absurd in order to completely devalue all my views. And I obviously have NO idea what I’m talking about at all! Because I obviously don’t know cells aren’t considered human at first, I obviously don’t know science says they are not alive until they can live on their own. I have no worldly idea that people argue over when life starts. And, truth be told, if you don’t care, then you shouldn’t even bother psoting you don’t care because if my opinion doesn’t matter, there’s no point even acknowledging my views, is there?




Oh, so therefor, science is susceptible to inaccuracies, but being a self-righteous moralist prat is not? I'm going to go with science. Science is based in reason, not in sky wizards or fictitious morals based purely on ignorance.
Science is the destroyer of ignorance.
Oh yes, telling what I believe is self righteous all right. Just idle prattle in the views of this world filled with people who are convinced their only was is the right way. And Science is open to interpretation. There are many theories on what exists. Look at genetics, for example. For a long time, there were disputes, and even now there still are. We don’t understand everything in the world, even with science. And yes, go ahead and start saying I view these morals from a higher being, because that is, without a doubt, what I mean! I’m listening to the teachings of some magical man who shoots fire balls! And morals based of ignorance? You cannot deny that soon that ‘bundle of cells’ will become a living creature. There can be no dispute on that because it is the truth. The only thing that differs is people’s views of when that little bundle is a life, and whether the mother has the right to deny it a life.

I find it sad when no one can state their opinion, even here, without people trying to demoralize or cut them down. I would expect a comrade to be open to views. Unless you don’t view me as a comrade because I disagree in this one area; because I have slightly different views than you, because I think differently than everyone else. But then, it seems you prefer regarding me from aside, because I disagree on one small bit of communism, which completely makes me an ignorant person. I joined this place to learn more, but all I find are people not open to any thoughts, rude people who prefer to insult and mock anyone who thinks differently, and the same inner arguing and hatred as you see in the bourgeois itself! I would like the close by saying that I’m not forcing you to believe what I’m saying, the same as I expect you to give me the respect to not try to force your views upon me. It is the same as an atheist saying they do not believe in God and hate it when people tyr to force them to believe and then going to a Jew and screaming at them that God is a lie and they are stupid if they do not believe such.

I understand your point of view, and I can see why your opinion differs than mine. So I don’t see why you feel a need to completely attack my views, based on my morals, because nothing you say will change what I feel, and nothing I say will change how you feel. This is just my opinion, and I am entitled to state it, whether or not you agree.

[BobKKKindle$]

Unless you don’t view me as a comrade because I disagree in this one area

You did not respond to my last post.

What you see as "one area" is actually a central concern for women throughout the world who are currently living under laws restricting access to abortion. All abortion restrictions have sexist implications, because if women are denied the right to control their bodies, and terminate pregnancy if they so desire, they are unable to participate in public life on an equal basis with men, as an unintended pregnancy can lead to women being denied opportunities for promotion, or even removed from their jobs. If you believe the revolutionary left should be open to those who advocate abortion restrictions (i.e. opponents of sexual equality) should we also accept people who believe that some racial groups are more advanced or of greater value than others, or people who think that heterosexuality is the only acceptable form of sexual relationship?

[TC]

Yea, if someone comes into my house and threaten my wife and kids--I'll be nasty...on the other hand I don't think a "baby" in woman's womb is a "threat."

Actually if you think about it for a minute, "babies" in women's wombs are threats: they kill people all the time!

Unlike infants, which don't.

If its okay to use violence against a mugger (who has thoughts, feelings, aspirations, friends, etc) who you anticipate may cause serious bodily harm if not met with a violent response, it should be okay to use violence against a fetus (who has no thoughts, no feelings, no aspirations, no friends, no identity) that will cause serious bodily harm.

[Rascolnikova]

Actually if you think about it for a minute, "babies" in women's wombs are threats: they kill people all the time!an excellent point.

You do, by condoning any form of restriction on abortion. And by reading your posts, I do in fact know quite a few things - one of which is tht you are of an oposing ideology and deserve to be restricted.

It's entirely your prerogative to disapprove of my views, and it does seem reasonably clear that they are in opposition, at least to yours. However, I would ask that you refrain from disapproving of me for views I have never expressed and do not hold. I feel this would safeguard the level of discourse.

I have never suggested that the state punish women for having abortions. I have suggested that the state hold doctors accountable for falsely presenting more harmful procedures as better than less harmful ones. I also feel strongly that doctors should not be permitted to influence away from abortion based simply on their own ideology, and that this should clearly be punishable. If they have a problem with it they should promptly refer the patient to someone who doesn't.

I remember bobkindles once saying something like, "we should defend a woman's right to puncture her uterus with a rusty coat hanger." I find this view disgusting. We should be defending a woman's right not to be in any situation where such tactics are necessary or appealing. In virtually all cases, the need for an abortion means we have already failed in the causes we should be (because they effect far more people) more vigorously defending--particularly parenting equality and the development of Much better birth control. If a woman decides she needs an abortion, by all means she should have it. Let's not pretend that making that always possible brings us, on more than a theoretical level, substantively closer to gender equality as a society at large.



So spare me the moralistic, wishy-washy liberal 'baby killing' rehetoric, no.



it is the language of mysoginism and the language of restricting a woman's personal choice.That it certainly is. I have to say, sometimes I forget the social implications of things. . . like when I died my hair green. .. it simply didn't occur to me how much it would make people stare.

On thinking it over, though, despite the unfortunate social implications I can't think of language that better expresses my view. I am a purveyor, perhaps, of bloodthirsty ideology; to escape the genocidal system in which we presently reside, I would advocate the killing of--as far as I can tell--anybody, should the calculus of gain deem it to clear enough advantage. Violence does not often seem useful to me, but the case of abortion is one of the clearest exceptions; when they are needed, they should be had. We have a strong moral obligation, by my ethics and most others to make them necessary as seldom as possible.



I believe it was Bobkindles who put it very well in the CC debate about this, and I refer you to it. Would you do me the kindness of sending me a link to the specific post/s you're referring to?



And what exactly has this got to do with...anything? I think it smacks of you trying to justify your stance and failing to do so.As a nihilist, I feel that ethical standards are a matter of taste. That leaves one with few options in enforcing ethics on others; one can hold them to their own ethical standards, or one can express the opinion that their standards are in bad taste.

I have a strong preference for honesty. Ethical standards which conveniently ignore the harm of the actions they facilitate leave a bad taste in my mouth, and I've no respect for the people who propagate them.



...and is absolutely none of your business to say that when you have no idea of the women's personal situation that would make her want to do this. You are nothing more than an anti-choice apologist.This perhaps makes the least sense of all. I've stated that I think some abortions constitute killing babies; I've stated that for myriad reasons we, societally, should be avoiding abortion--particularly since most of the things I've suggested to avoid it would be very beneficial to society in several other ways. I've suggested no guidelines about when a woman should or shouldn't make that particular choice.



Women: If you don't want to get pregnant NEVER have sex.

Men: Fucking go for it bro! Fuck whoever you want, don't use a condom, it doesn't matter - whatever happens it's not your fault and you've got no responsibility to do anything!!!There are two sides from which to address this inequality. I'm in favor of addressing it from both, and I think it does us in particular and people in general a great disservice to pretend that abortion alone solves this wider systemic problem.

[BobKKKindle$]

I remember bobkindles once saying something like, "we should defend a woman's right to puncture her uterus with a rusty coat hanger." I find this view disgusting. We should be defending a woman's right not to be in any situation where such tactics are necessary or appealingObviously no woman should ever be placed in a position where she has to resort to any kind of dangerous method to terminate a fetus - this is why communists have always led the struggle against abortion restrictions and have fought to increase the availability of abortion services. However, the context of that remark was your argument [as I understood it at the time] that the higher risk of certain methods of late-term abortion is sufficient justification for the state to intervene and narrow the scope of methods available to women who want to have an abortion beyond the third trimester. The remark was intended to convey a basic liberal principle - the state should not restrict the right of any individual or group of consenting individuals to engage in activities which harm no-one but themselves, as this would constitute a violation of autonomy and would endanger the rights to which every citizen is entitled. Based on this principle, it is legitimate for the individual to take hazardous drugs, starve themselves, and, if they so desire, harm their bodies with sharp objects. If you reject this principle, you are implicitly acknowledging the right of the state to tell private individuals how they should behave and interact with each other, which is a paternalistic notion with no place on the radical left.

[Sam_b]

However, I would ask that you refrain from disapproving of me for views I have never expressed and do not hold...I have never suggested that the state punish women for having abortions

But you have said: "I have never, while holding my present views, advocated that a woman's choice to terminate a pregnancy be restricted. I have rather suggested that under some social and political conditions it might be preferable to place some limited restrictions on the availability of procedures that involve greater risk to the woman."

The second sentence is important here. So you are advocating 'restrictions', yes. And detrimenting a woman's choice.


Would you do me the kindness of sending me a link to the specific post/s you're referring to?

CC > polls on member status > passed > Unrestrict Rascolnikova. See all of Bob's posts, they hit the nail on the head.

[Sam_b]

The remark was intended to covey a basic liberal principle - the state should not restrict the right of any individual or group of consenting individuals to engage in activities which harm no-one but themselves, as this would constitute a violation of autonomy and would endanger the rights to which every citizen is entitled.

Absolutely. This sums it up for me.

[Rascolnikova]

But you have said: "I have never, while holding my present views, advocated that a woman's choice to terminate a pregnancy be restricted. I have rather suggested that under some social and political conditions it might be preferable to place some limited restrictions on the availability of procedures that involve greater risk to the woman."

The second sentence is important here. So you are advocating 'restrictions', yes. And detrimenting a woman's choice.


I'm advocating a coherent notion of medical malpractice. I can see accepting a society that doesn't adhere to any concept of malpractice like we have now, but under the current social and political conditions where such a notion is the norm, it only makes sense to punish doctors for giving shitty advice. . . . and effectively that restricts the availability of some abortion procedures.

But as Des put it, if we keep the idea of malpractice I'm also for restricting a doctor's right to advocate amputation as a suitable treatment for mozzie bites.

[BobKKKindle$]

No-one would object to the principle that women should be given as much information as possible so as to enable them to make informed choices and not incur unnecessary risks, but the ultimate question is: if a woman opts for what a doctor sees as a hazardous procedure even after she has been informed of the whole range of options, should the doctor be able to deny a woman access to the procedure in question, and not face punishment?

[Demogorgon]

No-one would object to the principle that women should be given as much information as possible so as to enable them to make informed choices and not incur unnecessary risks, but the ultimate question is: if a woman opts for what a doctor sees as a hazardous procedure even after she has been informed of the whole range of options, should the doctor be able to deny a woman access to the procedure in question, and not face punishment?
Doctors turn down treatment they see as unwise or dangerous all the time. Indeed they can be disciplined for proceeding with treatment when they should have known better. The person wanting the treatment has to go to a different doctor should they still wish it.

In the case of abortion where feelings run very high, Doctors should be free not to carry out abortions should they not wish to, that is only reasonable, because to force them to do so would be a terrible imposition. As long as there are other Doctors willing to do so, this has no impact on women's rights.

[TC]

Comments like
I've stated that for myriad reasons we, societally, should be avoiding abortion

Produce a false sense of commonality because they can be understood to mean the entire range of possible reactions.

Everyone thinks we should avoid abortions. Everyone thinks, on an abstract level, what Hillary Clinton said: "the ideal number of abortions is zero."

This is obviously because, pro-choicers want to avoid unwanted pregnancy and the most efficient way to do that is to avoid pregnancy which entails avoiding abortion, and anti-choicers want to avoid abortions because they see an inherent value in reducing the number of abortions.

This way it can be read either as an obvious value neutral statement (i.e. we should avoid rootcanals) or a moralistic one (i.e. the ideal number of people made to live below the poverty line is zero).


You don't hear people say "we should avoid unwanted child birth." or "the ideal number of unwanted births is zero" because it puts the issue the other way around: everyone likewise would prefer to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies: pro-choicers because we think people should be able to prevent or terminate pregnancies they don't want, anti-choicers because they think every "child" if concieved should be wanted.

The reason its not put that way however, is because the relevant issue is whether you'd want to raise the number of unwanted births to lower the number of abortions, or vice versa. Is a non-consensual birth or an abortion less desirable?

[Rascolnikova]

Doctors turn down treatment they see as unwise or dangerous all the time. Indeed they can be disciplined for proceeding with treatment when they should have known better. The person wanting the treatment has to go to a different doctor should they still wish it.

In the case of abortion where feelings run very high, Doctors should be free not to carry out abortions should they not wish to, that is only reasonable, because to force them to do so would be a terrible imposition. As long as there are other Doctors willing to do so, this has no impact on women's rights.

Out of curiosity, what about when there aren't other doctors willing to do so?

[Rascolnikova]

The reason its not put that way however, is because the relevant issue is whether you'd want to raise the number of unwanted births to lower the number of abortions, or vice versa. Is a non-consensual birth or an abortion less desirable?

I disagree.

I think the relevant issue is how best to reduce incidence of unwanted pregnancies. . . but I suppose that's too relevant to real life, and not relevant enough to the abortion debate?

I know it's certainly more relevant where I live. "Anti-abortion" is one of the few ways people will consistently vote here; reducing the need for abortion is the only leftist platform people here will accept until religion is gone. Since I'm not going to wait for that, making practical issues central seems right on both the tactical and the ethical stage.


I also feel strongly that placing abortion legality at the forefront shortchanges the much more complex and practically important issue of parenting equality.

Edit: It's also worth noting that by focusing on the part everyone (at least theoretically) agrees on, it becomes sensible to articulate an incredibly touchy social issue as a matter of class struggle, and bring things to a concrete level where people are able to work together.

[BobKKKindle$]

Doctors should be free not to carry out abortions should they not wish to, that is only reasonable, because to force them to do so would be a terrible imposition. As long as there are other Doctors willing to do so, this has no impact on women's rights.This is the wrong position to take. By your own admission, abortion is a contentious issue within the medical profession, and so by giving doctors the right to refuse abortions, you will be allowing doctors who are opposed to abortion on moral grounds to obstruct access by using health risks as an excuse, and ultimately deny women the ability to exercise their rights and terminate unwanted pregnancies. The kind of system you seem to be proposing is similar to the system which currently exists in the UK under which a woman must obtain the permission of two doctors before she is allowed to have an abortion, regardless of her personal wishes or the urgency of her request. You have naively assumed that doctors will not abuse their power, but the fact is that allowing doctors to withhold treatment will have negative impacts on womens rights especially in areas where the numbers of abortion providers is limited and conservative views are dominant, as is often the case in rural communities in the United States, as Rascolnikova will doubtless affirm.* Doctors should be forced to offer abortions by means of punishments if they refuse to comply. It is precisely because abortion is often so contentious and yet also of such crucial importance for women that doctors cannot be granted the rights they may be able to exercise in the case of other treatments/procedures.

* To expand on this point - if the only clinic in an isolated community refuses to offer abortions, a woman may have to travel long distances to access treatment. The expense of travel and the other problems associated with traveling away from home to access any kind of medical procedure, such as the need to take time off work or find someone to take care of dependents, means that, in the event of women being unable to access abortion in their own community, they would possibly have no choice but to give birth, and so, in practical terms, would be denied the right to choose. But of course, you didn't think of that.

[Rascolnikova]

by giving doctors the right to refuse abortions, you will be allowing doctors who are opposed to abortion on moral grounds to obstruct access by using health risks as an excuse,

One could simply make this behavior punishable. It's not like the legitimacy of "health concerns" can't be taken before a review board.

[BobKKKindle$]

One could simply make this behavior punishable. It's not like the legitimacy of "health concerns" can't be taken before a review board.

You seem to be forgetting the crucial element of time - if a woman needs to have an abortion quickly because she is about give birth or for any other reason, bringing a doctor before a review board is not a realistic possibility, because even arranging a hearing is often problematic, and the process of questioning the doctor and examining their reasons for refusing to grant treatment can also be lengthy. A review process also poses difficulties for women who may be vulnerable due to the circumstances of their pregnancy, as it would be unfair to force these women to endure a review when they are anxious to secure treatment. In addition, if we acknowledge that the medical profession contains doctors who are willing to allow their personal beliefs to interfere with their duty to meet the needs of the patient, how can we assume that a board composed of doctors will make fair judgments, and not simply support the prejudices of doctors who have obstructed access?

[Rascolnikova]

You seem to be forgetting the crucial element of time - if a woman needs to have an abortion quickly because she is about give birth or for any other reason, bringing a doctor before a review board is not a realistic possibility, because even arranging a hearing is often problematic, and the process of questioning the doctor and examining their reasons for refusing to grant treatment can also be lengthy. A review process also poses difficulties for women who may be vulnerable due to the circumstances of their pregnancy, as it would be unfair to force these women to endure a review when they are anxious to secure treatment. In addition, if we acknowledge that the medical profession contains doctors who are willing to allow their personal beliefs to interfere with their duty to meet the needs of the patient, how can we assume that a board composed of doctors will make fair judgments, and not simply support the prejudices of doctors who have obstructed access?

The review process has to be stringent enough to serve as a deterrent--and if not enough of the population supports a law that it can be enforced, it isn't really a law there anyway.

[Demogorgon]

Doctors should be forced to offer abortions by means of punishments if they refuse to comply
What else should they be forced to do? If you force Doctors to do something that goes against their conscience, they will quite the profession in droves rather than do what they will absolutely refuse to do and the only outcome will be lack of doctors available to meet needs.

There is nowhere on earth where Doctors have to perform abortions if they do not wish, in order to get an abortion women simply go to Doctors who provide them. What you wish to do, despite preaching your line about choice is remove all choice from Doctors as to whether they should get involved or not. That is outrageous.

[AtteroDominatus]

What else should they be forced to do? If you force Doctors to do something that goes against their conscience, they will quite the profession in droves rather than do what they will absolutely refuse to do and the only outcome will be lack of doctors available to meet needs.

There is nowhere on earth where Doctors have to perform abortions if they do not wish, in order to get an abortion women simply go to Doctors who provide them. What you wish to do, despite preaching your line about choice is remove all choice from Doctors as to whether they should get involved or not. That is outrageous.
it's the same view as people on this thread trying to force others to believe the same as them thinking abortion is right, or be views ads a fascist. Even here, it seems there is intolerance.

Also, to clarify, because I'm tired of arguing with people who only try to insult and demean. I do not morally agree with abortion because despite science, i view a fetus, a 'bundle of cells' as a life. However, I would never stop abortion, because naturally we can see what happened last time. It would just lead to worse scenarios than now. I am not trying to demean or take away other womens' rights, I just believe it is killing. And no, I'm not condemning them to be 'incubators' or 'murderers' as people put it. I highly respect any mother, and society should as well. And, I do not label women who abort their children as cold blooded killers. It is their choice in the end, though I don't agree. And I would enver think less of anyone who had an abortion. In my opinion, it is not a sexist action, being agaisnt abortion. It is a matter of I think human life is valauble. that is all there is to it. Argue and insult me all you want. I've never pushed my veiws on anyone, nor will I. I was stating my opinion, and if you have a problem with that, then deal with it.

[PigmerikanMao]

life http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/ahd4WAV/L0158000/life) (līf) Pronunciation Key (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/ahd4/pronkey.html)
n. pl. lives (līvz)
1. The interval of time between birth and death: She led a good, long life.

Terminating a pregnancy isn't murder because in order to commit murder, you must kill something. Killing requires the termination of life, and life- by definition, doesn't begin until after birth. A fetus cannot think, be self aware, or even live for itself and breathe without use of the mother. By definition, a fetus is a parasite until birth when it is able to survive on its own and process thought.

Ever read the works of Jean Piaget, most babies don't understand that they're alive until after the "sensory motor stage," which ends at the age of two years. The idea that a fetus can feel pain, think, or even know ANYTHING is a pointless argument. It's just a lump of cells.

[Bud Struggle]

I don't see your point tom. First of all let me again apologize fro the Nazi tern--it was entirely unwarranted--I was just a bit angry.


There doesn't need to be a 'debate' or 'mutual agreement' between communists on this issue - at least not in the way you're suggesting. You're still thinking about this issue in the manner of a patriarchal society where people other than the individual women concerned make decisions about what extent women are to have reproductive freedoms.
No I'm thinking of it in terms of when people believe human "life" begins and from when people believe that life has rights as a human being.

It is nothing that can EVER be proven--so the best we can do is have ouw own seperate opinion--and then respect the opinions of people that believe otherwise.


On the contrary, in an a communist society reproductive freedom should be the starting point - universal access, equality of access to abortion would be the order of the day - the only 'debate' that remains is for each individual woman to decide whether they will exercise this freedom or not. But that's an arbitrary starting point. One could also argue that human life itself should be the beginning of rights and since we don't know when that starts--we should take the most conservative view.


No other system really makes sense in a meaningful, libertarian communist society - as it would require the arbitrary restriction of my freedom by others (a basic anarchist criticism of a state-dominated capitalist society). I don't see that at all. Respect for all human life--in it's myriad of forms could also be a worthwhile starting point.


Also, in an anarchist society there is no state or ruling class to make sweeping laws like this (restricting abortion) - so any problem of access that did exist would necessarily be limited by locality. But yeah, it seems highly improbable that such a situation would arise given the centrality of personal freedom (inc. support for reproductive freedom), equality of access and opportunity that dominate contemporary anarchism (I can't remember, but I'm not certain this sort of reproductive freedom existed in 1930's Spain for example). It may have, but it was the Women of Spain that but the death blow to Anarchy in Spain in the 30's--so there's more to it than that.




This is fallacious for several reasons.

Firstly, the functioning of this messageboard has nothing at all to do with 'communism' - the history of communist ideas, movements or any future communist society. So can you please give this 'real essence of communism' stuff a rest? It's a bit silly. Well---no I expect a bit more of Communists than to just post about Communism and then live their lives in "other ways" when they have the opportunity to live as Communists.


Secondly, abortion or reproductive freedom specifically may not be a transhistorical 'communist theme' (why that matters i'm not sure?) - but as an issue - speaking now of contemporary communisms rather than communisms of the past - it certainly is an important issue. It is--and pro-file is a very valid way for Communism to be discussed in many areas--especially in Liberation Theology. For RevLeft to discount vast areas of Communism, and many of these people are REAL LIFE Communists, not just Internet revolutionaries. These Comrades and their beliefs shouldn't be overlooked.



And as an issue it draws on an important 'communist theme' that sam_b mentions, "A central part to communist thought is the idea of the state and coercion. You cannot be coerced to not do what you want to your own body" - that is, freedom - which is a historical 'theme' of communist ideas. A central point that I have been making on the forum is that Marxism is a rather beautiful philosophy on paper--but in real life it ALWAYS turns into the Soviet Union where even slight dissidenters are punished with exile. I realize that RevLeft is not a Communism society--but the similarities are striking. I'm certainly not making a case for me or other Cappies to be part of the main body of RevLeft--but for disagreeing about the date when human life should be respected in an otherwise fine and noble Communists--I see that as a problem with the authoritarian nature Communism itself.


Obviously it took some agitation (thank marx for communist women!) to link the two explicitly, but arguments similar to sam_b's have been made by anarchists for over a century.

I.E. That we wish to see an end to the domination of human-by-human, a liberatory society where my freedom is limited only when my actions would impinges upon the freedom of others.

Now this is anarchist rhetoric, not marxist - but still 'communist' as you mentioned - and in this sense, reproductive freedom is a given - and restriction of this freedom is plainly at odds with one of the most basic, anarchist ideas or arguments. Also, just as an aside - the movement for reproductive freedoms - at least where i live - is a hot-bed for commies ;)

I can't argue Anarchy--I don't quite "get" it all--I will, but not yet. :confused::)

[TC]

I disagree.

I think the relevant issue is how best to reduce incidence of unwanted pregnancies. . . but I suppose that's too relevant to real life, and not relevant enough to the abortion debate?

Right, its not relevant to the abortion debate, I was referring to politically relevant issues.

That we should reduce the incidence of unwanted pregnancies is something that everyone agrees on, its a non-issue.

Now, how we should do it is an issue only in the sense that anti-sex reactionaries who are more concerned with controlling their teenage daughters lives than making sure they can take care of themselves. But the issue of 'how' wasn't what i was responding to.



I know it's certainly more relevant where I live. "Anti-abortion" is one of the few ways people will consistently vote here; reducing the need for abortion is the only leftist platform people here will accept until religion is gone. Not really. People who oppose abortion also oppose every effective means for reducing the need for abortion. They oppose distributing condoms, oppose over the counter status (or, really, any) of morning after pills, sex education in schools, etc.

If anti-choicers actually wanted to reduce the need for abortions, they would be demanding over the counter birth control pills at government subsidized rates (or free), condom machines in every public restrooms, legislation to compel school nurses to offer Depo Provera shots, etc.

What they actually want is not simply fewer abortions but the reproduction of the traditional patriarchal family and in order to achieve that they need to ensure that women don't have control of their own reproduction.



I also feel strongly that placing abortion legality at the forefront shortchanges the much more complex and practically important issue of parenting equality.In order to have, the bargaining position to demand parenting equality, women need to be able to deny men use of their bodies for reproduction. The anti-choicers don't want women to be able to do that percisely because they want to preserve the male dominated patriarchal family. So I actually think that, you can't deal with the issue of parenting equality if you don't deal with the issue of abortion access.

Additionally i think emphasizing parenting issues exclusively is problematic because 1. its another way of suggesting that if you're a woman you're expected to be a mother or that being a mother is a politically and socially prioritized role, and this is harmful to everyone whether they want to be a parent or not 2. not everyone wants to be a parent at all, regardless of the arrangment.



Edit: It's also worth noting that by focusing on the part everyone (at least theoretically) agrees on, it becomes sensible to articulate an incredibly touchy social issue as a matter of class struggle, and bring things to a concrete level where people are able to work together.I'm not sure that I understand the point you're trying to make here, but we need to be frank: there is an issue of class struggle, men in patriarchal family structures have differing and conflicting interests to the women who wait on them and their children at their own expense.

Issues of class struggle don't just exist in a vulgar 'workers vs capitalists' reduction of society into a binary equation but all of the power dynamics in society. There is struggle between but also within the major class groupings.

[Sam_b]

It's not like the legitimacy of "health concerns" can't be taken before a review board

Oh great, so besides the whole stress and anxiety around abortion and pregnancy a women will have to wait and be stigmatised by a group of doctors deciding whether or not she can exercise her right to an abortion?

That is absolutely disgusting.

[hugsandmarxism]

Oh great, so besides the whole stress and anxiety around abortion and pregnancy a women will have to wait and be stigmatised by a group of doctors deciding whether or not she can exercise her right to an abortion?

That is absolutely disgusting.

Agreed. And the Right will force them to sit down and watch an anti-choice snuff film to make them feel even worse, and listen to some evangelical minister shout in their ears about the "soul" of the child being created. These efforts at restriction are landmines set by reactionary hooligans in order to sew religious guilt, and every piece of red tape they can put between women and their right to choose is a win to their patriarchy and legislation of religious morality.

[Bud Struggle]

Agreed. And the Right will force them to sit down and watch an anti-choice snuff film to make them feel even worse, and listen to some evangelical minister shout in their ears about the "soul" of the child being created. These efforts at restriction are landmines set by reactionary hooligans in order to sew religious guilt, and every piece of red tape they can put between women and their right to choose is a win to their patriarchy and legislation of religious morality.

Kind of like what RevLeft is doing to Communist who may question the validity of abortion--only in reverse. Good plan. :thumbup1:

[PigmerikanMao]

Kind of like what RevLeft is doing to Communist who may question the validity of abortion--only in reverse. Good plan. :thumbup1:

It's what got us all here today isn't it? :lol:

[hugsandmarxism]

Kind of like what RevLeft is doing to Communist who may question the validity of abortion--only in reverse. Good plan. :thumbup1:

Heckling a pregnant woman with moralistic drivel and arguing for women having a right to their bodies are different. If you're on rev-left, you should expect some heated debate. If you're a teenage girl in a doctors office having your doctor lecture you about morality, you're comparatively more vulnerable. Apples and oranges, bub.

[Bud Struggle]

Heckling a pregnant woman with moralistic drivel and arguing for women having a right to their bodies are different. If you're on rev-left, you should expect some heated debate. If you're a teenage girl in a doctors office having your doctor lecture you about morality, you're comparatively more vulnerable. Apples and oranges, bub.

And if you are baby in the womb of a pregnant mother you are the most vunerable of all. :(

The problem is--unlike what the soothsayers of RevLeft preach--there is no scientific answer to this question. It's all arbitrary. And if a girl gets pregnant--it's her right, and if she wants to get an abortion--it's her right and if a doctor want's to preach--it's her right. Who are you to say a doctor (or anyone else) has no right to voice her opinion?

After the Revolution you will not be allowed to limit anyone's right of free speech, on any subject.

And so the Soviet shall vote.:hammersickle::redstar2000:

[Black Dagger]

it's the same view as people on this thread trying to force others to believe the same as them thinking abortion is right, or be views ads a fascist. Even here, it seems there is intolerance.

Also, to clarify, because I'm tired of arguing with people who only try to insult and demean. I do not morally agree with abortion because despite science, i view a fetus, a 'bundle of cells' as a life. However, I would never stop abortion, because naturally we can see what happened last time. It would just lead to worse scenarios than now. I am not trying to demean or take away other womens' rights, I just believe it is killing. And no, I'm not condemning them to be 'incubators' or 'murderers' as people put it. I highly respect any mother, and society should as well. And, I do not label women who abort their children as cold blooded killers. It is their choice in the end, though I don't agree. And I would enver think less of anyone who had an abortion. In my opinion, it is not a sexist action, being agaisnt abortion. It is a matter of I think human life is valauble. that is all there is to it. Argue and insult me all you want. I've never pushed my veiws on anyone, nor will I. I was stating my opinion, and if you have a problem with that, then deal with it.

I don't see how your position is consistent?

In your first post you said " I don't think it should be a choice" and "[a fetus] is a LIFE and I am thoroughly against killing something that cannot even defend itself. I am not taking away woman's right to do anything else." - what happened to do that?

The first sentence is about as anti-choice as is literally possible, and the next only reinforces this - implying very clearly that you want to take away a 'womans right' to to take 'innocent life' as you call it, but nothing else.

Oh and this statement which is a direct attack on universal access to abortion - equating abortion with murder, and claiming no one has the 'right' to 'murder' an 'innocent child':


People claim it's taking away a woman's rights if you deny her the ability to murder an innocent child. how is it fair? Who gave her the right to kill the baby? Oh right, her body, or some shit like that

Now of course you say you support access to abortion, but that is not consistent at all with these statements. Though you did later try to claim you never said any of the above ('i never said that it should be made illegal!), you did really - so please explain this apparent turn around (from one post to the next).

Please be honest. Oh and do you support any restrictions on abortion? Or do you think that people should be allowed to terminate their pregnancy at any time and for whatever reason?

Also, you have said many times that abortion is murder and that no woman should be 'allowed' to commit murder simply because it is their body (see above) - how do you square this obviously strong feeling with supporting the right of others to commit murder?

Surely you think murder should be prevented? If not, i don't understand your personal objections to abortion - you personally oppose abortion because abortion is murder, but you nevertheless support others who commit murder?

So which is it?

Do you oppose murder or not?

Also, if you do support a womans right to murder innocent children, why criticise abortion in the first place? It seems a bit morally hypocritical to denounce the murder of innocent children on the one hand, whilst nevertheless supporting the 'right' of others to murder innocent children. What is their to denounce in the first place? This is an action after all - that you support - yes? Surely the morally consistent thing to do is to oppose murder - full stop? If someone is going to commit a murder they should be prevented from doing so, not encouraged!

[BobKKKindle$]

I don't see that at all. Respect for all human life--in it's myriad of forms could also be a worthwhile starting point.

You cannot possibly believe that killing is morally illegitimate in all possibly instances - if someone is being attacked or forced to do something against their will they have a legitimate right to resist even if their actions result in the death of the attacker, because personal autonomy should always remain paramount. The same principle is applicable in the case of abortion - and you should be aware of the fact that this perspective transcends debates over whether the fetus is a person or when life begins as it is based on the autonomy of the person who is being attacked or "used". Your sole "argument" consists of asserting that restricting members who are anti-choice leads to real communists being denied access to discussion on the main part of the board, but you seem to be forgetting that this is our board and we set the rules, not a middle-aged capitalist with too much time on his hands.

[Rascolnikova]

Oh great, so besides the whole stress and anxiety around abortion and pregnancy a women will have to wait and be stigmatised by a group of doctors deciding whether or not she can exercise her right to an abortion?

That is absolutely disgusting.

Read.

The review board is for the doctors, after the fact; it's to serve as a deterrent for doctors who might otherwise be tempted to allow their own ideological leanings to interfere with availability of abortions and say it was because of health risks. If such a system were widely in place and the penalties severe enough, women would be protected from being denied abortions on the basis of health risks that aren't really there, and a coherent notion of malpractice could be applied.

I don't think it's too much to ask of doctors that they both avoid malpractice and avoid ideological restriction on the availability of abortion. . . . in fact, I think these are only reasonable things to demand.

[AtteroDominatus]

I don't see how your position is consistent?

In your first post you said " I don't think it should be a choice" and "[a fetus] is a LIFE and I am thoroughly against killing something that cannot even defend itself. I am not taking away woman's right to do anything else." - what happened to do that?
arguing happened.


The first sentence is about as anti-choice as is literally possible, and the next only reinforces this - implying very clearly that you want to take away a 'womans right' to to take 'innocent life' as you call it, but nothing else.
i do not want them to have the choice, but they do. I wish i could take it away, but i know it will create more problems. that's why (as i said) I want people to realize what it is they are doing wrong, so that way they actually see the problems it causes.


Oh and this statement which is a direct attack on universal access to abortion - equating abortion with murder, and claiming no one has the 'right' to 'murder' an 'innocent child':"People claim it's taking away a woman's rights if you deny her the ability to murder an innocent child. how is it fair? Who gave her the right to kill the baby? Oh right, her body, or some shit like that"

Now of course you say you support access to abortion, but that is not consistent at all with these statements. Though you did later try to claim you never said any of the above ('i never said that it should be made illegal!), you did really - so please explain this apparent turn around (from one post to the next).
i don't support it, but i realize I cannot get rid of it. sorry for the weird wording, i do seem to be double taking in a few areas. It jsut gets complicated to say what I mean, and then it gets frustrating. I take full fault for that, though.


Please be honest. Oh and do you support any restrictions on abortion? Or do you think that people should be allowed to terminate their pregnancy at any time and for whatever reason?
I don't support it, though I don't think I can get rid of it. Plus, I don't want to condemn anyone who thinks differently me in that respect. And yes, if it is endangering the mother's life or is going to die anyway, I think ti should be aborted.


Also, you have said many times that abortion is murder and that no woman should be 'allowed' to commit murder simply because it is their body (see above) - how do you square this obviously strong feeling with supporting the right of others to commit murder?
I believe it is murder, but others do not. It is like a vegetarian saying killing animals is murder, but people who kill them to make money do not see it as such. (sorry, it might be a bad analogy). In this, he is just doing this to make a living (as a woman would do so because they feel they have the right) so in their mind nothing is wrong with it. I don't think it's fair to condemn anyone if they honestly believe they are doing the right thing. And, that their arguement is a strong one, such in the case of abortion.


Surely you think murder should be prevented? If not, i don't understand your personal objections to abortion - you personally oppose abortion because abortion is murder, but you nevertheless support others who commit murder?
Yes, i do. I do not supoort the act, no. But I realize even if i could stop it, it would end up being worse for all the women who want them.


Do you oppose murder or not?

Also, if you do support a womans right to murder innocent children, why criticise abortion in the first place? It seems a bit morally hypocritical to denounce the murder of innocent children on the one hand, whilst nevertheless supporting the 'right' of others to murder innocent children. What is their to denounce in the first place? This is an action after all - that you support - yes? Surely the morally consistent thing to do is to oppose murder - full stop? If someone is going to commit a murder they should be prevented from doing so, not encouraged!
Yes, I do not agree with murder. And because I believe it is murder, that is why i oppose it. And I wish it would stop, but wishes are not granted in this world, needless to say. If i could stop it without people doing it in alleyways, i would. I don't think women should be thought of as less for having kids. I do not like how society judges pregnant women (see other posts for exampels i.e. incubator or a waste) and i think if people did not see it this way, then perhaps women wouldn't feel as inclined to abort their unborn child. I don't encourage abortion, as said, i am thuroughly opposed to it. but i cannot stop it, and even if i did, it would lead to more dangerous things. I don't want to see anyone die. I value life with the utmost care. So I want the woman to have a happy life, but also the child. It's hard to sort it all out when the woman may have a worse life for having the child, but then it would be killing the baby.

Regardless, i realize i look like i'm changing veiw points everywhere, so i rightly accept any slant on my chracter for this. after all, those who cannot keep their lines straight are hypocrites, agreed. But I'm trying to larify things and then i can't think right when things keep getting mixed up.

[Rascolnikova]

despite science, i view a fetus, a 'bundle of cells' as a life.

That's funny.. . it's because of science that I view a bundle of cells as a life. For most people it's a question of what sort of life; for me it's a question of whether we should protect it at the expense of other important things.

[AtteroDominatus]

That's funny.. . it's because of science that I view a bundle of cells as a life. For most people it's a question of what sort of life; for me it's a question of whether we should protect it at the expense of other important things.
well, a bunch of people don't view it as a life until it's born. it's not just the second question. Often, people don't get that far because they disregard that it is a life yet in the first place

[Rascolnikova]

And if you are baby in the womb of a pregnant mother you are the most vunerable of all. :(


Actually, I don't think that's true. Unless she's having trouble carrying at all, the mother's body forms an extremely effective protective capsule. People are always worried about miscarriage after car accidents or whatever, but generally the real risk is very much to the mother. Unless a decision is specifically made to terminate it, a fetus is safer than most people most of the time. . . . and honestly, once just about anyone has specifically decided to kill you and is dedicated enough about it, you're pretty vulnerable regardless of your circumstance. . . oh, wait, unless you're particularly wealthy. . ..

As for the soothsayers of revleft, well. . . as you know, I don't think one has to invoke science to arrive at ethics. It's like Zizek says (http://difficultjane.blogspot.com/2008/11/word-from-zizek.html); we want to live in a dogmatic society. If you don't, that's a matter of your own poor taste.

[Rascolnikova]

well, a bunch of people don't view it as a life until it's born. it's not just the second question. Often, people don't get that far because they disregard that it is a life yet in the first place

Those people need to take a high school biology class and/or learn to use the English language. The term "a life" doesn't actually invoke the natural rights argument you're trying to imply, since it also applies to, say, squid. No one's suggesting we abolish calamari appetizers. . .

[AtteroDominatus]

Those people need to take a high school biology class and/or learn to use the English language. The term "a life" doesn't actually invoke the natural rights argument you're trying to imply, since it also applies to, say, squid. No one's suggesting we abolish calamari appetizers. . .
except vegetarians =P

Anyway, I've been told life is from birth to death, and apparently dictionaries say that, too. And yes, I can see your point. Regardless, I still believe they have rights.

[Rascolnikova]

except vegetarians =P

Anyway, I've been told life is from birth to death, and apparently dictionaries say that, too. And yes, I can see your point. Regardless, I still believe they have rights.

Indeed, as do I. They have rights like other children. . . you know, like the ten thousand other children who starve to death every day because of inequality.

[Sam_b]

The review board is for the doctors

This is what I meant. So you wish to have a woman, already under a tremendous amount of strain wait while a group of doctors decide if she's allowed to take control of her body?

That is an absolute shocker.

[Black Dagger]

Thank you for your reply, but this didn't really answer my question:





Oh and do you support any restrictions on abortion? Or do you think that people should be allowed to terminate their pregnancy at any time and for whatever reason?

And yes, if it is endangering the mother's life or is going to die anyway, I think ti should be aborted.


So do you support women having access to abortion at any time of the pregnancy and for whatever reason? Or only for specific reasons (such as the ones you mentioned) and until a specific point?

[Rascolnikova]

This is what I meant. So you wish to have a woman, already under a tremendous amount of strain wait while a group of doctors decide if she's allowed to take control of her body?

No really. READ.

Or look up "after the fact"? Or "deterrent?"


I don't know how to help you here, but I do wish you'd quit stating things about what I wish. I didn't say anything about a waiting period for pregnant women; I said something about them getting another doctor, and I said something about them being protected from malpractice.

[Sam_b]

"deterrent?"


What do you mean by 'deterrant'? Are you in favour of coercing a woman into not having an abotion even though it is her specific desire to do so?

[Rascolnikova]

What do you mean by 'deterrant'? Are you in favour of coercing a woman into not having an abotion even though it is her specific desire to do so?

I have never deleted a proper cussing-out before. I wish I believed in God so I could pray for you to become less dense.

I'm in favor of deterring doctors from imposing their ideology on women and calling it "health risks."

[Black Dagger]

I'm in favor of deterring doctors from imposing their ideology on women and calling it "health risks."

How is this achieved in practice? Also, this POV suggests that doctors are more likely to talk women into abortions then out of them, which seems a little sus to me given the history of reproductive rights.

[TC]

Any discussion about 'health risks' relating to abortion is completely disingenuous because abortion is always less risky than childbirth whether natural or through c-section. Simply put without being overly graphic, the medical risk in removing a larger object intact from a person's body, is always going to be greater than removing that same object while smaller and not intact. Thats true regardless of what medical conditions you might have.

So, while there are medical reasons *to* have an abortion, there are never medical reasons to *not* have an abortion.

[Rascolnikova]

How is this achieved in practice? Also, this POV suggests that doctors are more likely to talk women into abortions then out of them, which seems a little sus to me given the history of reproductive rights.


Perhaps it somewhat clarifies things that I've already posted this?



Originally Posted by Bobkindles http://www.revleft.com/vb/../../revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../../showthread.php?p=1307678#post1307678)
by giving doctors the right to refuse(Rasco's edit: to personally administer) abortions, you will be allowing doctors who are opposed to abortion on moral grounds to obstruct access by using health risks as an excuse,One could simply make this behavior punishable. It's not like the legitimacy of "health concerns" can't be taken before a review board.


and this




Originally Posted by Bobkindles http://www.revleft.com/vb/../../revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../../showthread.php?p=1307703#post1307703)
You seem to be forgetting the crucial element of time - if a woman needs to have an abortion quickly because she is about give birth or for any other reason, bringing a doctor before a review board is not a realistic possibility, because even arranging a hearing is often problematic, and the process of questioning the doctor and examining their reasons for refusing to grant treatment can also be lengthy. A review process also poses difficulties for women who may be vulnerable due to the circumstances of their pregnancy, as it would be unfair to force these women to endure a review when they are anxious to secure treatment. In addition, if we acknowledge that the medical profession contains doctors who are willing to allow their personal beliefs to interfere with their duty to meet the needs of the patient, how can we assume that a board composed of doctors will make fair judgments, and not simply support the prejudices of doctors who have obstructed access?The review process has to be stringent enough to serve as a deterrent--and if not enough of the population supports a law that it can be enforced, it isn't really a law there anyway.


So to be clear: I am suggesting that the behavior of Doctors be subject to stringent after-the-fact review, both against medical malpractice and against the possibility of their using "health concerns" to de-facto impose anti-abortion ideology on women.





Any discussion about 'health risks' relating to abortion is completely disingenuous because abortion is always less risky than childbirth whether natural or through c-section. Simply put without being overly graphic, the medical risk in removing a larger object intact from a person's body, is always going to be greater than removing that same object while smaller and not intact. Thats true regardless of what medical conditions you might have.

So, while there are medical reasons *to* have an abortion, there are never medical reasons to *not* have an abortion.


The following are from an article Bobkindles has very kindly provided me:




To minimize uterine or cervical perforation from instruments or from laceration by fetal parts, some physicians use a form of D&E that has been referred to as intact D&X (dilation and extraction). . . Intact D&X may minimize trauma to the woman's uterus, cervix, and other vital organs.and


At 21 weeks or more, the mortality rate was 16.7 per 100 000procedures and exceeded the risk of maternal death from childbirth, which was 6.7 per 100,000 deliveries
The article also says that there are other risks which may be higher with intact D&E, and that the difference in mortality between late abortion and live birth was not statistically significant (a claim I take some issue with (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1283645&postcount=80)) I'm not seeing clear evidence either way, but your "simple" claim about what's true of any medical condition doesn't seem to be substantiated.

Edit: This post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1284182&postcount=86) (starting after the 4th paragraph break) and this post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1270852&postcount=1) (intro and section labeled "on restricting abortion") offer more nuanced description of my take on the health-risk/malpractice issue.

[synthesis]

I wish I believed in God so I could pray for you to become less dense.

Marked down in my list of "phrases to be someday plagiarized."

I agree with you in general, but I don't think his concerns are unfounded. If doctors were to be punished for giving abortions to women with health risks, in practice that might impede a woman's ability to have an abortion because there would be an incentive for doctors to abstain from abortions entirely.

[Rascolnikova]

Marked down in my list of "phrases to be someday plagiarized."

:D



I agree with you in general, but I don't think his concerns are unfounded. If doctors were to be punished for giving abortions to women with health risks, in practice that might impede a woman's ability to have an abortion because there would be an incentive for doctors to abstain from abortions entirely.
I didn't say it was an illegitimate concern. In fact, I said


So to be clear: I am suggesting that the behavior of Doctors be subject to stringent after-the-fact review, both against medical malpractice and against the possibility of their using "health concerns" to de-facto impose anti-abortion ideology on women.

[synthesis]

I stand corrected. But how do you differentiate between a doctor who declines to provide abortions using "health concerns" to mask their anti-abortion ideology, and a doctor who will not perform abortions because they are more likely to be punished for it?

[Rascolnikova]

I stand corrected. But how do you differentiate between a doctor who declines to provide abortions using "health concerns" to mask their anti-abortion ideology, and a doctor who will not perform abortions because they are more likely to be punished for it?

How would they more likely be punished for it?

Whether the doctor had good reason to think the health concerns were a legitimate reason to advise against abortion can be determined by a panel of experienced specialists.

[BobKKKindle$]

and that the difference in mortality between late abortion and live birth was not statistically significantFirstly, the statistics contained in the article relate to the United States - we need to examine maternal mortality (i.e. mortality for live birth) on a global scale to evaluate the relative safety of late-term abortions. This (http://www.unfpa.org/publications/detail.cfm?ID=343) report issued by UNFPA in cooperation with other UN agencies entitled 'Maternal Mortality in 2005' shows that the worldwide maternal mortality rate is 400/100,000 births - this is obviously much higher than the figure for the US and so on a world scale it may be safer to opt for late-term abortions as a means of terminating pregnancy instead of giving birth to a live fetus. Secondly, and as I pointed out when we last discussed this issue, from a psychological viewpoint, it is, with respect, absurd to suggest that giving birth to a living neonate is a viable way to terminate pregnancy and could ever take the place of procedures which result in the removal of a dead fetus, i.e. abortions. Although I have never encountered any research on this topic, the emotional consequences of having to reject a living neonate are likely to be far more serious than disposing of a dead fetus. In addition, neonates born prematurely (as would occur if women opted for your favored course of action) are generally only able to survive with the aid of extensive medical technology in the form of incubators and often suffer physical deformities and/or mental retardation as a result of not remaining in the womb for the full nine months of pregnancy. Neonates born prematurely would presumabely be handed over the the care of an orphanage because the reason that women choose to terminate pregnancies in the first place is that they do not want to or are unable to care for a child. Once this is grasped, it becomes clear that even if could be shown that the risk of abortion is substantially higher than the risk of giving birth to a live neonate, there are a whole range of psychological and medical (i.e. the medical problems suffered by premature neonates) issues to be considered - and this is why women need to have access to late-term D&E and other forms of abortion.

[synthesis]

How would they more likely be punished for it?

I meant "more likely" in the sense that a doctor would be much safer if s/he stuck to taking kids' temperatures since there is far less of a chance that something could go wrong.

[Rascolnikova]

Firstly, the statistics contained in the article relate to the United States - we need to examine maternal mortality (i.e. mortality for live birth) on a global scale to evaluate the relative safety of late-term abortions. This (http://www.unfpa.org/publications/detail.cfm?ID=343) report issued by UNFPA in cooperation with other UN agencies entitled 'Maternal Mortality in 2005' shows that the worldwide maternal mortality rate is 400/100,000 births - this is obviously much higher than the figure for the US and so on a world scale it may be safer to opt for late-term abortions as a means of terminating pregnancy instead of giving birth to a live fetus.

If we use the global live birth statistic we need to use the global abortion statistic. Obviously sterile conditions vs. not is never going to be a fair comparison.



Secondly, and as I pointed out when we last discussed this issue, from a psychological viewpoint, it is, with respect, absurd to suggest that giving birth to a living neonate is a viable way to terminate pregnancy and could ever take the place of procedures which result in the removal of a dead fetus, i.e. abortions. Although I have never encountered any research on this topic, the emotional consequences of having to reject a living neonate are likely to be far more serious than disposing of a dead fetus.

I quite agree that options need to be out there.

The last time we discussed this I pointed out that when it comes to psychology your stance on what is based on personal conjecture, based on--your experience as a young male college student? Feel free to jump in and correct me here--

And when it comes to psychology, my stance is also based on personal conjecture (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1284182&postcount=86). . . but my conjecture at least has some sort of basis in experience.



In addition, neonates born prematurely (as would occur if women opted for your favored course of action) are generally only able to survive with the aid of extensive medical technology in the form of incubators and often suffer physical deformities and/or mental retardation as a result of not remaining in the womb for the full nine months of pregnancy. Neonates born prematurely would presumabely be handed over the the care of an orphanage because the reason that women choose to terminate pregnancies in the first place is that they do not want to or are unable to care for a child. Once this is grasped, it becomes clear that even if could be shown that the risk of abortion is substantially higher than the risk of giving birth to a live neonate, there are a whole range of psychological and medical (i.e. the medical problems suffered by premature neonates) issues to be considered - and this is why women need to have access to late-term D&E and other forms of abortion.

It depends on how prematurely; I don't believe I was precise at all about what situations I would have dealt with in which way, other than to say that I prefer safer options.

Really, I think the concept of health as "over all well being" as mentioned in the post I linked above deals with all of this.

[Rascolnikova]

I meant "more likely" in the sense that a doctor would be much safer if s/he stuck to taking kids' temperatures since there is far less of a chance that something could go wrong.

That's the question of how to get people to do less desirable jobs instead of more desirable ones, an issue to be tackled in many parts of socialism. This particular job both has some undesirable aspects to it, and very much needs to be done well. . . I'm sure it's not the only job of that kind.

[Bud Struggle]

You cannot possibly believe that killing is morally illegitimate in all possibly instances - if someone is being attacked or forced to do something against their will they have a legitimate right to resist even if their actions result in the death of the attacker, because personal autonomy should always remain paramount. I have never argued that.



The same principle is applicable in the case of abortion - and you should be aware of the fact that this perspective transcends debates over whether the fetus is a person or when life begins as it is based on the autonomy of the person who is being attacked or "used". Sorry, I just don't believe that a fetus is "attacking" a mother in the womb. There's no aggravated intent and no desire on the part of the fetus to do anothing other than to survive. But no matter--it's a case of not what is "true" or "false" but a matter of what you believe in this situation. Now if you believe the starting point of the abortion ethic starts with the welfare of the mother--that's fine but if you believe that it starts with the welfare of a "human life" in the uterus--well that's EQUALLY fine. It's a personal ethical judgment call--not science.


Your sole "argument" consists of asserting that restricting members who are anti-choice leads to real communists being denied access to discussion on the main part of the board, Well it is my argument, yes.


but you seem to be forgetting that this is our board and we set the rules, I know it's your board and except for an all to human slip now and then I have strived to follow all the rules and regulations of the board. But there's no crime in discussing the makeup of Communist mentality and questioning how things should be administered in the true Communist spirit.


not a middle-aged capitalist with too much time on his hands.All too true. I'll be much busier after the Revolution when I'll REALLY be in charge of everything. ;):)

[AtteroDominatus]

Thank you for your reply, but this didn't really answer my question:



So do you support women having access to abortion at any time of the pregnancy and for whatever reason? Or only for specific reasons (such as the ones you mentioned) and until a specific point?
i don't think a woman should have them once the second trimester starts. that's when the baby start becoming more human like in the eyes of the public. I agree i can't stop abortion, and maybe no even second trimester. but third trimester, i definitely am fully against any abortion in that stage unless lives are already at stake. I don't really support any access to abortion, but since it isn't going to change anytime soon, i know only banning in the third trimester seems reasonable at the moment. But in my veiws (if people would stop having abortions if these laws were passed, which obviously wouldn't happen) i would ban it from second trimester on. It's still a life even at the first, but i cna't expect people to agree withme on that veiw.

[synthesis]

I think he's saying he's willing to compromise.

[Black Dagger]

No offense, but again that's not really morally consistent.

You said that life begins at conception, superficial appearances should no impact upon whether you value a human life, surely? If life begins at conception drawing a line and saying well, life begins at conception - but it's fine to take human life until this date - but any time after and the life becomes 'human'.

Surely it is a human from conception? (You have said this yourself).

But now you are saying that a human life is more important when it looks or is more 'fully formed' (or close it) than when it's less developed? But a less developed human is still a human isn't it? As 'humanity' starts at conception. It sounds like you're suggesting that some human life is more important than others, and the less important human lives (i.e. the less developed fetuses) are dispensable. How does that flow with what you said earlier? I.E. That all human life should be protected, that it's all equal

I liked what you said before, about respecting other peoples opinions - that people have different ideas about things and that people should be able to make these decisions without other people judging them simply because they have different values. For mine, taking that approach is much more flexible - otherwise you end up with a very messy situation, morally speaking.

[Black Dagger]

Who is? AD is a woman.

[synthesis]

I don't know how my post got above yours - weird.

In any case, yes, I was referring to AD. Bad assumption on my part.

[AtteroDominatus]

No offense, but again that's not really morally consistent.


You said that life begins at conception, superficial appearances should no impact upon whether you value a human life, surely? If life begins at conception drawing a line and saying well, life begins at conception - but it's fine to take human life until this date - but any time after and the life becomes 'human'.

Surely it is a human from conception? (You have said this yourself).

But now you are saying that a human life is more important when it looks or is more 'fully formed' (or close it) than when it's less developed? But a less developed human is still a human isn't it? As 'humanity' starts at conception. It sounds like you're suggesting that some human life is more important than others, and the less important human lives (i.e. the less developed fetuses) are dispensable. How does that flow with what you said earlier? I.E. That all human life should be protected, that it's all equal

I liked what you said before, about respecting other peoples opinions - that people have different ideas about things and that people should be able to make these decisions without other people judging them simply because they have different values. For mine, taking that approach is much more flexible - otherwise you end up with a very messy situation, morally speaking.
Yes, I believe life begins at conception. I did not say it was okay, and I do not feel it is okay. If we are talking morally, yes I am opposed to all abortion and want it to be illegal. However, if we are talking realistically, I do not think that could ever be possible, because people will always view things differently.

Yes, it is a human from conception.

I’m not saying it is to me, but to other people, it is. According to recent research, fetuses feel pain around the 28th week (7th month, which is the third trimester ). Which is why I am completely against abortion in the third trimester. They could feel pain earlier, but I’m not sure, as no proof has been given yet. But, at this time, I feel abortion is even worse because the child can actually -feel- the pain of being killed. Fetuses also have brain waved anywhere from the middle to end of the second trimester, which means it is thinking by then. Another reason besides life that I’m opposed to abortion at this stage. But before this, I have no evidence other than I believe it is life. I’m not saying it is more important once it becomes older, just that it worsens my views on the situation. I believe from the moment the sperm attaches to the egg it is a child, or at least a life. I want to protect those lives, but I have no evidence other than that view to back my own argument in this case. So, to me it’s not fair to start condemning other people who do not agree with my views, even if I believe it to be wrong.

It gets hard to argue a case such as abortion when the two groups are black and white in many cases. Either wanting it to be able to happen all the time, or never be able to happen. It’s hard to compromise on the issue of life, too. What I dislike at this time; however, is that many times parents force their children to have abortions, or not to. And then society always tells women that it’s either evil to abort, or it should be encouraged. As long as people disagree on viewpoints, abortion will always be views as evil or to be celebrated in this world. I don’t think it’s right, as I have said, but I don’t want anyone to feel punished by society for doing something they thought is perfectly okay.

edit: whoa, messed up my text

[Rascolnikova]

I don’t want anyone to feel punished by society for doing something they thought is perfectly okay.

How is this consistent with wanting it to be illegal?

[AtteroDominatus]

Because by THAT time the child can feel pain/think. And I think people should, by then,. know it's wrong. at least for when it can feel pain. i don't think people should ignore that. by that time, you've carried it for so long anyway. Besides, the child can feel pain. It's been proven, and been shown. At that point i think anyone, even those who don't believe at life at conception, should realize it's wrong.

[Black Dagger]

Which is why I am completely against abortion in the third trimester.

Third trimester abortions account for about 1% of all abortions and are nearly always performed for medical reasons (i.e. the health of the woman is at risk). And you have said that you have no problem with an abortion that takes place for a medical reason so? You really need to think about that.

About 90% of abortions take place in the first trimester (based on figures for the US/UK), i would suggest that there is a much higher correlation between 'later' abortions and health reasons than at any other time - this is only logical. If someone gets pregnant they will in all likelihood decide what they want to do (and access an abortion) before the third trimester, the chances that someone would wait all the way to the third trimester to abort simply because they 'changed their mind' or never wanted it in the first place seem fairly negligible. So why make a big deal about third trimester abortions?

If you are to be consistent with what you said before, i would think that third trimester abortions are the 'best' kind of abortions from your moral POV, as they are almost all related to protecting the life of the woman and not based on what you deem to be an arbitrary decision to terminate a pregnancy (much more common in first trimester abortions).

You've already said that you support abortions up to but not including the third trimester (and given the above, i'm not sure why you are opposing the third trimester abortions either) so why not just support abortion all of the time instead of wrangling over these minor details? I.E. in reality third trimester abortions are extremely rare and really only exist to protect life, yet you have ignored the context in which these procedures take place looking only at the state of the fetus, but not the woman and asked, why would she be having an abortion so late in the pregnancy?

Clearly you have a personal opposition based on your own morality - but as you said morals are not absolute - people view the world differently and in order for people to really be free in this world we must refrain from imposing our morals on others - these are personal decisions that must be taken with care by each individual, it is not for you or i to decide what is morally right for others - only for ourselves.

[Rascolnikova]

Right, its not relevant to the abortion debate, I was referring to politically relevant issues.

That we should reduce the incidence of unwanted pregnancies is something that everyone agrees on, its a non-issue.

Now, how we should do it is an issue only in the sense that anti-sex reactionaries who are more concerned with controlling their teenage daughters lives than making sure they can take care of themselves. But the issue of 'how' wasn't what i was responding to.

Not really. People who oppose abortion also oppose every effective means for reducing the need for abortion. They oppose distributing condoms, oppose over the counter status (or, really, any) of morning after pills, sex education in schools, etc.

If anti-choicers actually wanted to reduce the need for abortions, they would be demanding over the counter birth control pills at government subsidized rates (or free), condom machines in every public restrooms, legislation to compel school nurses to offer Depo Provera shots, etc.

What they actually want is not simply fewer abortions but the reproduction of the traditional patriarchal family and in order to achieve that they need to ensure that women don't have control of their own reproduction.


In order to have, the bargaining position to demand parenting equality, women need to be able to deny men use of their bodies for reproduction. The anti-choicers don't want women to be able to do that percisely because they want to preserve the male dominated patriarchal family. So I actually think that, you can't deal with the issue of parenting equality if you don't deal with the issue of abortion access.

Additionally i think emphasizing parenting issues exclusively is problematic because 1. its another way of suggesting that if you're a woman you're expected to be a mother or that being a mother is a politically and socially prioritized role, and this is harmful to everyone whether they want to be a parent or not 2. not everyone wants to be a parent at all, regardless of the arrangment.


I'm not sure that I understand the point you're trying to make here, but we need to be frank: there is an issue of class struggle, men in patriarchal family structures have differing and conflicting interests to the women who wait on them and their children at their own expense.

Issues of class struggle don't just exist in a vulgar 'workers vs capitalists' reduction of society into a binary equation but all of the power dynamics in society. There is struggle between but also within the major class groupings.
This is Fucking Ridiculous.


While in word everyone may agree that we should be avoiding the need for abortion, I've seen precious few people who devote the kind of resources to this that they do to theoretical arguments on abortion legality. Just as, if they actually care about reducing abortion, they should support the wide availability of birth control, if you actually care about the welfare of women, you should be pouring more energy into measures specifically designed to reduce the need for abortion. If someone says, "I think we shouldn't have abortion," the right answer is, "It needs to be there for special cases, and that women should be able to decide for themselves what those cases are--but by and large, I agree with you. Let's have less abortion--let's have it by making birth control and sex ed better and more available, and by making it possible as often as possible for people to carry pregnancies to term and/or to raise the child when they want to." Then if they explain that they don't want birth control handed out in schools, you ask them how they call themselves anti-abortion.

To say that "People who oppose abortion also oppose every effective means for reducing abortion" is a sickening generalization. I understand that there are fucked up religious conservatives out there who would rather birth control not exist, and who would not have abortion available even in cases of rape. I live in Utah--in one of the most conservative regions in the world. I meet my fair share of those people, and they also make me sick. Most of the people here, though, aren't in that category--and if most of the people here aren't, I think think it's safe to say they aren't the majority anywhere except perhaps backwoods Georgia and Alabama.

Most of the conservative religious women I know have bought into a "post feminist" world view. There's a great deal of rhetoric in their culture about respect for women. One of my closest friends, for example, is male college student. He wants to marry someone who wants to stay home and raise children--and he wants to go out and support that family--because he thinks it's the right thing to do. He speaks to me of how he hopes someday to give his wife some hours to herself everyday, even when the kids are still small; he speaks of how much he respects anyone who would undertake such a difficult thing, and he genuinely sees his own future efforts primarily as a support for her more important work. He is one of the gentlest people I've ever known; he promotes religion because it has brought him happiness, and would never dream of forcing someone to stay home and raise his kids. I can't begin to imagine him demanding that a woman wait on him. He opposes abortion availability because he genuinely believes it is a matter of protecting human life that can not protect itself. I don't have a lot of stomach for his lack of faith in women's ability to make this important decision for themselves, but it isn't indicative of misogyny--rather, it's undeveloped, unreflective. I think it's wrong, but I find your generalized contempt for all people like him to be incredibly short sighted, counterproductive, unfounded, and outright stupid.

I know lots of conservative religious people who are against abortion who would support a campaign to reduce the need for it* via birth control and other social programs. Some of them do want the reproduction of the patriarchal family--which happens to usually oppress women--but because they want to make it easier for people to have this when they want it, not because they wish to force it on everyone. They would generally be horrified at the implication that their opposition to abortion is founded on some sort or desire to coerce people into traditional family situations, or to coerce women into bearing children they don't want.

The notion that human beings don't have a right to sex and could (except in cases of rape) choose not to have it is not absurd. The notion that people have some sort of natural right to sex with other people implies justification of rape. I know it's popular on the left to mock the concept that people could simply choose not to have sex, but that concept is not implicitly wrong. What is wrong about it is the sexist reality that obtains when we attempt to rely on it--and reasonable conservatives support balancing this sexist reality out with punitive action towards irresponsible men. As I mentioned before, it's better to attack this problem from both sides.

Abortion access is not a good primary means to reproductive freedom. In fact, it's a terrible primary means. If we want reproductive freedom, why aren't we campaigning for the development of better birth control methods? Adequately improved, birth control could be an excellent primary means of reproductive autonomy. Abortion is a very important failsafe--but if there's one happening, it means something went wrong. Lets try to prevent things from going wrong--is that so difficult a concept?


And here, lastly, is the point I think you're missing the most. In terms of gender equality, real reproductive freedom must not mean just the freedom not to have children--it must also be the freedom to have them without being subverted by the patriarchal structure. Sure, maybe you don't choose to become a parent. Maybe a lot of people choose not to become parents. But until science goes much further than it has, the continuance of humanity means that women will bear children--and until the personal, social, economic, and intellectual costs of parenting are much more evenly distributed between men and women, widespread gender equality is impossible. Abortion perhaps may free a few, in some limited ways; it enables individuals to opt out. Systemically it fails to address the central issue.

I think the concern that emphasizing parenting issues relegates women to motherhood is invalid. Things could be approached that way, but they don't have to be. Workplace flexibility and other other support for parenting not only would enable mothers to partake more fully in society, they would reduce the incentives men presently have not to share the burden of parenting. Whatever other roles women may wish to hold, most would prefer to be mothers as well; offering support so that motherhood is not so exclusive of other roles does not promote the idea that women shouldn't be involved in other roles.

It's not just men that use women's bodies for reproduction; women also use women's bodies for reproduction, and in the majority of cases it is consensual but carries unequal cost. For the vast majority of women, giving up motherhood in exchange for equality is not an appealing compromise. Ignoring the fact that most people--including women--want at some point to have children will get us nowhere in the real world.



* actually, thanks for the reminder, I should get on that. :)

[BobKKKindle$]

I don't think anyone is suggesting or has ever suggested that abortion should be used as a substitute for other forms of birth control which prevent pregnancy from ever occurring, and it is obviously more convenient for women if they never have to get abortions for the simple reason that having an abortion involves making arrangements with a doctor (as in the case of any other medical procedure) and is also more expensive than buying a pack of condoms or an emergency pill - and so from that perspective reducing the prevalence of abortion would be a good thing. Reactionaries want to reduce abortion because they see it as morally wrong and also because making abortion freely available would undermine the basis of patriarchal oppression as well as the sexual oppression of young people - and this is why, in addition to reducing the availability of abortion, reactionaries are also committed to making contraception difficult to access even though this will result in more women getting pregnant, given that abstinence-based programs have been shown to be totally ineffective or at least less effective than widespread contraception. Communists, by contrast, do not view abortion as morally wrong, and acknowledge that making abortion freely available is a precondition for allowing women to exercise sexual freedom and participate in society on an equal basis with men. Communists support the elimination of patriarchal oppression and complete sexual freedom for every member of society, and that is why we want abortion to be completely legal, and also fight for the widespread and free distribution of a range of contraceptive devices.

[RedKnight]

One other major reason that women need access to abortion at a later stage is the discovery of severe foetal abnormality. For example, one important test for impairments such as Down's syndrome is amniocentesis. This cannot be carried out until 16 weeks, the results may take two to three weeks, and then the woman may need counselling and advice. If she decides to have an abortion it may be yet another week or two before this can be arranged. These reasons affirm the need to defend abortion rights and fight for the removal of all existing restrictions on abortion, and the radical expansion of abortion services So just because the pre-born infant is indicated to have some defect, like Down's Syndrome, s/he should be able to be destroyed? How is this any different from the Aktion T4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_T4 program? For those of us that believe that viable humyn life begins sometime during the third trimester, killing a Down's foetus is no different than killing a Down's baby.

[synthesis]

So just because the pre-born infant is indicated to have some defect, like Down's Syndrome, s/he should be able to be destroyed? How is this any different from the Aktion T4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_T4 program? For those of us that believe that viable humyn life begins sometime during the third trimester, killing a Down's foetus is no different than killing a Down's baby.

Because you can't just "believe" that "viable life" begins at one time or another. The point is that the fetus requires the mother's resources, including her own body, and it is ultimately her decision whether or not to continue devoting those resources.

[Rascolnikova]

Because you can't just "believe" that "viable life" begins at one time or another. The point is that the fetus requires the mother's resources, including her own body, and it is ultimately her decision whether or not to continue devoting those resources.

Actually, this isn't just a belief; if I'm not mistaken, "viable" begins when the fetus can survive outside the womb--and, though exactly when a probabilistic knowledge rather than a precise one, I think medicine has pretty well determined that viability does indeed begin "sometime in the third trimester."

[synthesis]

Actually, this isn't just a belief; if I'm not mistaken, "viable" begins when the fetus can survive outside the womb--and, though exactly when a probabilistic knowledge rather than a precise one, I think medicine has pretty well determined that viability does indeed begin "sometime in the third trimester."

I understand the concept of viability, but what s/he said is just not specific enough. I should have clarified. A lot of the time, when you hear arguments like this, it's people who don't necessarily know what they're talking about but are seeking to limit abortion regardless. It's not necessarily ill-intentioned, but it's also not necessarily productive.

If they had some sort of criteria like a test a doctor could do that accurately determined viability, I think it would be a stronger argument. Maybe they do already - I'm not sure.

[RedKnight]

I have just discovered the existance of a prominant Indian Communist, Lenin Raghavarshi, who opposes abortion. http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=11239&size=A So while it certainly appears to be rare, it is not unheard of for Communists to oppose abortion.

[AtteroDominatus]

I have just discovered the existance of a prominant Indian Communist, Lenin Raghavarshi, who opposes abortion. http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=11239&size=A So while it certainly appears to be rare, it is not unheard of for Communists to oppose abortion.
oh this forum it is. and those who do get restricted.

[Decolonize The Left]

This has nothing to do with prostitution, 2 compleatly seperate issues, no one dies in prostitution, its 2 consentual adults having sex, nothing more, Abortion is about whether or not your killing a fetus.

No, it's not. Abortion is obviously the killing/destruction of a fetus - that's basically the definition of the word. You are attempting to argue:
1) That a fetus is a person.
2) That killing a person is wrong (murder).
3) That the killing of a fetus is wrong.

This argument crumbles immediately due to the inadequacies of defining personhood. When does a fetus become a person? You can't say for certain. Hence the entire argument is rooted in poor premises and becomes questionable, if not faulty, from the beginning.

Furthermore, the notion that murder is wrong is merely one ethical viewpoint. It is also a completely unjustified viewpoint - you have offered no argumentation as to why this is the case. Hence your second claim doesn't hold weight as it is an unjustified relative moral claim.


The wording of being pro-choice is just as misleading as pro-life, its asuming that pro-lifers are against women making desisions and assuming that pro-choicers are against life. Both are rediculous.

Pro-lifers are against women making decisions. If they weren't, they'd support the autonomy of women...


The argument should be whether or not a fetus is a human or not, it has nothing to do with supporting rights to choose of being for life, its simply is a fetus a person or not. Keep the argument where it belongs.

No, the argument has several levels. Here they are:

1 - Strongest argument: bodily autonomy) A fetus is a parasite, it exists solely upon the nutrients extracted from the mother's bloodstream. Hence the fetus is dependent upon the woman's body for survival - this makes the fetus an extension of her body. Hence the existence of the fetus is a question of bodily autonomy. To deny a woman the right to an abortion is to deny her the right to decide over her body.

2 - Weaker argument: personhood) This second argument is a rebuttal to the pro-life argument that a fetus is a person. Here goes:
- 88.2% of abortions in the US were conducted within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy (the 1st trimester). (wikipedia)
- Until the 8th week of pregnancy, we are dealing with embryos. An embryo could be a lion, an elephant, a monkey, or a human as it is merely a multicellular diploid eukaryote. It cannot possibly be called a person as it cannot yet be called a human.

Immediately we understand that we cannot call an embryo a person, and hence the argument that abortion is murder can only apply (if at all) to abortions which occur after the 8th week of pregnancy (as this is when an embryo is called a fetus - though not necessarily a person).

Now, with that out of the way, let's talk about personhood. How do you define what's a person? Until you furnish a definition of personhood, and back this definition up with logic and reasoning, you have no argument.

- August

[Qwerty Dvorak]

This argument crumbles immediately due to the inadequacies of defining personhood. When does a fetus become a person? You can't say for certain. Hence the entire argument is rooted in poor premises and becomes questionable, if not faulty, from the beginning.
Okay, so because we cannot adequately define personhood, we are entitled to presume that a foetus is not a person and therefore that it can be terminated? What about you? I can't define personhood adequately (and I'm sure you'd disagree with whatever definition I put forward) so am I allowed to kill you?



Now, with that out of the way, let's talk about personhood. How do you define what's a person? Until you furnish a definition of personhood, and back this definition up with logic and reasoning, you have no argument.

- August
Why is that for him to do and not you?

[Decolonize The Left]

Okay, so because we cannot adequately define personhood, we are entitled to presume that a foetus is not a person and therefore that it can be terminated? What about you? I can't define personhood adequately (and I'm sure you'd disagree with whatever definition I put forward) so am I allowed to kill you?

No. You fail to understand. The reason why abortions should be completely legal and available to all women is due to a woman's right to her own bodily autonomy. Period.

The reason why I elaborated on personhood was to demonstrate the completely poor reasoning behind this position and its failure to elucidate any sort of coherent position.


Why is that for him to do and not you?

Because it is the basis of his supposed argument.

- August

[AtteroDominatus]

Pro-lifers are against women making decisions. If they weren't, they'd support the autonomy of women...
umm, not me.

I support women's rights all the way. But I believe the fetus is a life, hence where i think the rights overlap. I am not against women making choices for themselves or doing what they do to get better in society. But, I am opposed to killing.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

No. You fail to understand. The reason why abortions should be completely legal and available to all women is due to a woman's right to her own bodily autonomy. Period.

The reason why I elaborated on personhood was to demonstrate the completely poor reasoning behind this position and its failure to elucidate any sort of coherent position.

I don't fail to understand. I know all that.

But do not attempt to "personhood was to demonstrate the completely poor reasoning behind this position" if you are incapable of doing so, which you are. Your response to the personhood argument was extremely weak, and I was simply pointing that out.

[Decolonize The Left]

umm, not me.

I support women's rights all the way. But I believe the fetus is a life, hence where i think the rights overlap. I am not against women making choices for themselves or doing what they do to get better in society. But, I am opposed to killing.

No, you aren't. You're opposed to "murder," not "killing." For you eat vegetables, meat?, etc... you support killing living things constantly.

And furthermore, if you oppose complete and widespread access to abortion, you are opposed to the bodily autonomy of women.



But do not attempt to "personhood was to demonstrate the completely poor reasoning behind this position" if you are incapable of doing so, which you are. Your response to the personhood argument was extremely weak, and I was simply pointing that out.

All I have to do is note that we are incapable of accurately and objectively determining when a human being is a person, and hence the argument that 'a fetus is a person and therefore ought not to be murdered' is based on pure speculation.

- August

[Qwerty Dvorak]

All I have to do is note that we are incapable of accurately and objectively determining when a human being is a person, and hence the argument that 'a fetus is a person and therefore ought not to be murdered' is based on pure speculation.

- August
As is the argument that you are a person and ought not to be murdered.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Because it is the basis of his supposed argument.

- August
Fair enough. But then, as part of your argument, you have to establish why the right to bodily autonomy should be more important than the right to life. Because if you cannot prove that (and that is a mammoth task), then your argument fails unless you can establish that the right to life is not at stake, which falls on whether or not the person is a foetus, so personhood (or lack of personhood) becomes the basis of your argument.

[Decolonize The Left]

As is the argument that you are a person and ought not to be murdered.

No - I am a person. We are noting that we don't know when human beings become people.

- August

[Decolonize The Left]

Fair enough. But then, as part of your argument, you have to establish why the right to bodily autonomy should be more important than the right to life. Because if you cannot prove that (and that is a mammoth task), then your argument fails unless you can establish that the right to life is not at stake, which falls on whether or not the person is a foetus, so personhood (or lack of personhood) becomes the basis of your argument.

I must go to work. I will respond when I return tonight, or perhaps tomorrow.

- August

[Qwerty Dvorak]

No - I am a person. We are noting that we don't know when human beings become people.

- August
Why are you a person?

[Bud Struggle]

Why are you a person?

He of course owns at least a million dollars worth of property and has at least $250K per annum worth of income.

What's the problem there?

Any income below that--surely such creatures could be killed at will. Humans, I think not! Leaches on society as best.

One could make a viable case that since NO members of the Proletariat contribute real capital to society--they aren't really human at all.

Not to be easily deposed of--but a workable numbers of them--excesses should be eliminated.

No objection here is there?

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Over the top emotive vitriol helps no one.

[Bud Struggle]

Over the top emotive vitriol helps no one.

The point is: if the beginning of life is arbitrary, let's make it arbitrary where it can do some good. Haven't Capitalists been killing off third workd people for hundreds of years because they are superfluities?

It's not vitriol, I'm just stating the rationality of Capitalism.

[Decolonize The Left]

The point is: if the beginning of life is arbitrary, let's make it arbitrary where it can do some good. Haven't Capitalists been killing off third workd people for hundreds of years because they are superfluities?

It's not vitriol, I'm just stating the rationality of Capitalism.

No, actually, you've entirely missed the point. No one is talking about the "beginning of life." We are discussing personhood, and when an individual is a person.

Please pay attention and read the thread, or at least a couple pages, before posting more nonsense that has nothing to do with anything.

- August

[Decolonize The Left]

Why are you a person?

I am an autonomous, self-aware, individual with an identity.

- August

[Rascolnikova]

No, it's not. Abortion is obviously the killing/destruction of a fetus - that's basically the definition of the word. You are attempting to argue:
1) That a fetus is a person.
2) That killing a person is wrong (murder).
3) That the killing of a fetus is wrong.

This argument crumbles immediately due to the inadequacies of defining personhood. When does a fetus become a person? You can't say for certain. Hence the entire argument is rooted in poor premises and becomes questionable, if not faulty, from the beginning.

Furthermore, the notion that murder is wrong is merely one ethical viewpoint. It is also a completely unjustified viewpoint - you have offered no argumentation as to why this is the case. Hence your second claim doesn't hold weight as it is an unjustified relative moral claim.



Pro-lifers are against women making decisions. If they weren't, they'd support the autonomy of women...



No, the argument has several levels. Here they are:

1 - Strongest argument: bodily autonomy) A fetus is a parasite, it exists solely upon the nutrients extracted from the mother's bloodstream. Hence the fetus is dependent upon the woman's body for survival - this makes the fetus an extension of her body. Hence the existence of the fetus is a question of bodily autonomy. To deny a woman the right to an abortion is to deny her the right to decide over her body.

2 - Weaker argument: personhood) This second argument is a rebuttal to the pro-life argument that a fetus is a person. Here goes:
- 88.2% of abortions in the US were conducted within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy (the 1st trimester). (wikipedia)
- Until the 8th week of pregnancy, we are dealing with embryos. An embryo could be a lion, an elephant, a monkey, or a human as it is merely a multicellular diploid eukaryote. It cannot possibly be called a person as it cannot yet be called a human.

Immediately we understand that we cannot call an embryo a person, and hence the argument that abortion is murder can only apply (if at all) to abortions which occur after the 8th week of pregnancy (as this is when an embryo is called a fetus - though not necessarily a person).

Now, with that out of the way, let's talk about personhood. How do you define what's a person? Until you furnish a definition of personhood, and back this definition up with logic and reasoning, you have no argument.

- AugustI'm going to quote something I said in an earlier abortion argument via PM-



I find the idea that the fetus is an organ or a part of the mother's body to be either silly or a convenient semantic device. Through every stage after the egg is released, it is a set of distinct cellular structures that serves no purpose towards a woman's life or well-being except towards satisfying any desire she might have to create a life outside her own.

Certainly how we define a human-being is up for grabs. Plenty of adults don't even treat each other as people; historically, defining human beings as less than human beings has been a key step in preparing the public to destroy any sub-population one wishes to get rid of. Since I attempt to be a humanitarian, I try to hold to the widest definition of what a human is that seems reasonable.

I feel it is best not to create an arbitrary line. In quantum physics, there are various quantities we can not know precisely, but rather, we can only know a probability for. While this limits what we are able to define about, say, quantum electrodynamics, we are still able to solve some very complex problems using only those probabilities. We don't have to know, or claim to know, or pretend to know exactly when a fetus becomes a person*, and we don't have to pretend there's no chance it is a person, to make a responsible choice concerning it.

*by the present definition/s, which, admissibly, are socially defined. . . just like the Jews were socially defined as vermin.

[Rascolnikova]

He of course owns at least a million dollars worth of property and has at least $250K per annum worth of income.

What's the problem there?

Any income below that--surely such creatures could be killed at will. Humans, I think not! Leaches on society as best.

One could make a viable case that since NO members of the Proletariat contribute real capital to society--they aren't really human at all.

Not to be easily deposed of--but a workable numbers of them--excesses should be eliminated.

No objection here is there?

I find this to be an excellent point. We are defining person hood for the sake of deciding who lives; capitalism's rationale is very much like this.

Of course, I disagree about your "viable case," but you've done an excellent job of sounding like Ayn Rand.

[Rascolnikova]

I am an autonomous, self-aware, individual with an identity.

- August

So to be clear--do you feel that this changes automatically at the moment of birth, or are you arguing as I do that it might sometimes be right to kill babies?

[Rascolnikova]

I don't think anyone is suggesting or has ever suggested that abortion should be used as a substitute for other forms of birth control which prevent pregnancy from ever occurring, and it is obviously more convenient for women if they never have to get abortions for the simple reason that having an abortion involves making arrangements with a doctor (as in the case of any other medical procedure) and is also more expensive than buying a pack of condoms or an emergency pill - and so from that perspective reducing the prevalence of abortion would be a good thing.

I think you radically misunderstand what abortion actually entails, emotionally. These are reasons to reduce abortion; they are nowhere near the best reasons.

I contend that if the radical left is actually interested in women's liberation, if sacrifices are made, the priorities ought to be in ordered:

-parenting equality
-birth control
-abortion

As such, tactically, if campaigning for abortion availability interferes with the ability to make gains in these other two categories (which reduce the need for abortion, since abortion is close to a last resort), it should be sacrificed first. I think in revleft's zeal to remove anti-abortionists from it's ranks, it looses the opportunity to create advocates for these more primary equality issues, as well as for the central issue of class struggle.

I do not believe this because I think abortion is sometimes morally wrong; I believe it because I think it is a much more effective way to achieve women's rights and gender equality.



Reactionaries want to reduce abortion because they see it as morally wrong and also because making abortion freely available would undermine the basis of patriarchal oppression as well as the sexual oppression of young people Indeed.

They go around in their reactionary churches, saying, "Ok, guys, we have to keep abortion unavailable because to do otherwise would undermine the basis of patriarchal oppression."

And patriarchal oppression is so awesome.

dude.


They are human beings. Stupid? Yes. Often. But they hold values that make some sort of sense, and it's a straw-man approach to not even try to recognize that.

The sense that their values make is not "grunt grunt, we are the men in charge, wait on us, stupid women." See my defense of conservatives in the cc, I don't feel like repeating the arguments.




- and this is why, in addition to reducing the availability of abortion, reactionaries are also committed to making contraception difficult to access even though this will result in more women getting pregnant, given that abstinence-based programs have been shown to be totally ineffective or at least less effective than widespread contraception.

Communists, by contrast, do not view abortion as morally wrong, and acknowledge that making abortion freely available is a precondition for allowing women to exercise sexual freedom and participate in society on an equal basis with men. Communists support the elimination of patriarchal oppression and complete sexual freedom for every member of society, and that is why we want abortion to be completely legal, and also fight for the widespread and free distribution of a range of contraceptive devices.Interesting. . . I thought communists were those who combined French republicanism with German socialism. . . or those who participate in or advocate for the post-socialist stage of a Leninist society. Those are the two most coherent historical definitions of communism I have seen.

Now, I haven't read nearly as much Marx as I should have, but the only thing I remember him actually saying about it was the section in the manifesto where he discusses the abolition of the bourgeois family. I don't know about you, but to me the argument "you get to sleep with our wives and daughters, and you go after each other's wives, so quit whining" does not seem deeply egalitarian to me. . . for some reason. In fact, one might almost think (as some religious conservatives I know do) that he was simply angling at more egalitarian opportunity among men for the sexual exploitation of women. I understand that at many other junctures marxism has made strides towards gender equality, but this concern bears consideration.

His argument that notions of family life between bourgeois and proletariat were completely different doesn't hold up to well under the present material conditions either; today's proletariat are often quite attached to their families, regardless of how similar those family relations might or might not be to those of the bourgeoisie.

For this and other reasons, I can only reject the (Marxist) current in feminism that seeks to solve inequality by integrating women into the workers movement, and with them the work they'd previously done in the private sphere. . . and in turn, it becomes difficult to accept the feminist current in Marxism that demands no more than this integration. In short, we can't simply replace private life and relationships with industrialization and expect it to solve inequality.

I view abortion as being sometimes morally wrong. Are you saying I am not a communist? By what definition on what authority? I can wholeheartedly endorse an approach that says, "If you are sexist, we don't want to associate with you." However, it doesn't make sense to me that you say "if you are sexist, you aren't a socialist/communist/leftist at all." Please explain.

Edit: sorry everyone for the quad post--computer issues. :(

[Junius]

...is evidently not a leftist, ....calls for legal restrictions on abortion...
Well so do I, but I'm certainly not a 'leftist.'

I 'call'* for a legal restriction on abortion - that only medical practitioners, that is, an individual with the recognized medical qualifications and experience should be able to perform the procedure. I think that someone who performs the procedure, where access to abortion is legal, without the required medical qualifications, should face some sort of consequences because they are performing an operation where it is possible for the female to be harmed in some manner owing to their ignorance of the proper medical procedures.

Despite what the FAQ says about there being 'unrestricted' access to abortion, there are restrictions. And they are often perfectly legitimate. Of course, this is contrary to the FAQ that someone whom 'disagrees with this position and calls for any kind of barrier to access or suggests that any other party should have any degree of control will be restricted on the grounds that opposition to abortion is a form of sexism.' Calling for a restriction on whom can perform an abortion is certainly a restriction on abortion; i.e. on whom can perform it, and is certainly a barrier to its access. But this is by no means 'sexist'; on the contrary, supporting restrictions of abortions to ones performed by doctors is one of social benefit to women. Hardly socially disadvantageous.

Like all liberal claims, the FAQ sounds nice but fails in practice.

*Obviously I don't spend any time arguing for 'abortion rights', since I think there are enough liberals to do so, and it really isn't a radical demand at all, but one confined to self-righteous liberals. The way that most of revleft sees it, is that abortion is the class struggle.

[Rascolnikova]

Well so do I, but I'm certainly not a 'leftist.'

I 'call'* for a legal restriction on abortion - that only medical practitioners, that is, an individual with the recognized medical qualifications and experience should be able to perform the procedure. I think that someone who performs the procedure, where access to abortion is legal, without the required medical qualifications, should face some sort of consequences because they are performing an operation where it is possible for the female to be harmed in some manner owing to their ignorance of the proper medical procedures.

Despite what the FAQ says about there being 'unrestricted' access to abortion, there are restrictions. And they are often perfectly legitimate. Of course, this is contrary to the FAQ that someone whom 'disagrees with this position and calls for any kind of barrier to access or suggests that any other party should have any degree of control will be restricted on the grounds that opposition to abortion is a form of sexism.' Calling for a restriction on whom can perform an abortion is certainly a restriction on abortion; i.e. on whom can perform it, and is certainly a barrier to its access. But this is by no means 'sexist'; on the contrary, supporting restrictions of abortions to ones performed by doctors is one of social benefit to women. Hardly socially disadvantageous.

Like all liberal claims, the FAQ sounds nice but fails in practice.

*Obviously I don't spend any time arguing for 'abortion rights', since I think there are enough liberals to do so, and it really isn't a radical demand at all, but one confined to self-righteous liberals. The way that most of revleft sees it, is that abortion is the class struggle.

I'm tempted to beg you to return to the cc. Abortion can be a fun and interesting debate, but it doesn't really have so much to do with class struggle.

[AtteroDominatus]

@Rasc: kk, well you wanted an answer, gimme a sec, gotta re read it again, make sure i hit all the bases.

rape cases *Cringes* i hate looking at those. anyway, just curious, how would it have been dangerous to her? Not trying to be an ass or anything, just curious as to what quite you mean by that.

Ahh, I see what you mean by assuming that the child would decide to live. From the rates of suicide, it surely would say some people wouldn't choose to live. But, even as bad as that is, to hear you believed your body was not your own and the baby would be preserved first, I can't help but feel for a potential child as well, who does not get the right to choose for his/her life.

agreed, i don't think we have anything better than parents to decide as their children. Obviously, depending on the parent, they are not fit to make decisions. Especially with all the abuse cases that go around. But, I know there is nothing better than the parents on an overall level at the time.

Reading this, it's hard to still say i believe in women having rights to their body if they can't decide about whether or not to even conceive.

marital rape...awful. How could anyone ever approve of that? women, to me, have as many rights as men. So I also understand your case, here. Men don't have the right to order women around. Just as i do not have the right to order other women around by my beliefs.


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.
here here to the last bit. Still, i believe it is a life, it's hard for me to decide whether or not the woman has rights over it =/ especially with what was said in the Roe V Wade post. It's thing wires ehre, and hard for me to make a decision when on one hand i'm valuing the fetus' life but on also denying the rights of women. And then if i approved of women gettign them, i'd be going against my own belifs that killing a fetus is murder and murder is wrong.

[synthesis]

I am an autonomous, self-aware, individual with an identity.

- August

So humans who do not possess autonomy, self-awareness, or an identity aren't people?

I don't think that's what you meant, but that's what would follow from your argument.

[Post-Something]

killing a fetus is murder and murder is wrong.

Look, you're missing the point. Foetuses aren't people. Until you understand that, you won't realize why your argument is wrong. You can't just keep saying things like "well, that goes against my beliefs", you know why? Because beliefs are subject to just as much questioning as anything else. They are not special truths that are protected from all speculation, they have to be founded on reason.

The thing is, the "pro-life" argument is absolutely irrational. Look at the argument you just gave me:

1. Killing a person is murder.

2. Murder is wrong.

3. A foetus is a person.

4. Therefor killing a foetus is murder.

Now, for the conclusion to be true, all of the premises must also be true. But they're not! The third premise, "A foetus is a person" is based on nothing! Foetuses are not people. If they were people, they would have rights. If they were people, they would know about it to some degree. But they don't. You know why? Because...


They're not people.

[Sam_b]

but it doesn't really have so much to do with class struggle.

It has everything to do with the class struggle. It has to do with women's autonomy in a society thats patriarchical. Remember, a hell of a lot of the 'pro-life' lobby are men, and this is an act of them being against a woman to take control of her own body.
The anticapitalist struggle is a woman's struggle - a movement against patriarchy that capitalism inevitably breeds.

[AtteroDominatus]

Look, you're missing the point. Foetuses aren't people. Until you understand that, you won't realize why your argument is wrong. You can't just keep saying things like "well, that goes against my beliefs", you know why? Because beliefs are subject to just as much questioning as anything else. They are not special truths that are protected from all speculation, they have to be founded on reason.

The thing is, the "pro-life" argument is absolutely irrational. Look at the argument you just gave me:

1. Killing a person is murder.

2. Murder is wrong.

3. A foetus is a person.

4. Therefor killing a foetus is murder.

Now, for the conclusion to be true, all of the premises must also be true. But they're not! The third premise, "A foetus is a person" is based on nothing! Foetuses are not people. If they were people, they would have rights. If they were people, they would know about it to some degree. But they don't. You know why? Because...


They're not people.
prove they're not. They have all the chromosomes of humans, would you call someone less of a human based on size? no, i doubt so. Just because they are not a full fledged human does not mean a thing. And what dictates when they -are-. When they're born? They're still not done developing at that stage. I think you man they're not alive' because that is the basis to this arguement. Not whether or not they are people, because they pretty much are, they contain all the genetic makeup necessary to be one.

[Post-Something]

prove they're not. They have all the chromosomes of humans, would you call someone less of a human based on size? no, i doubt so. Just because they are not a full fledged human does not mean a thing. And what dictates when they -are-. When they're born? They're still not done developing at that stage. I think you man they're not alive' because that is the basis to this arguement. Not whether or not they are people, because they pretty much are, they contain all the genetic makeup necessary to be one.

All you have provided is the means in which they can accomodate a persona. So what, they have a body? That's your justification? They can't think, they can't desire, they don't have instincts, they don't have rights, they don't even breathe their own air. It's just a bit of flesh that looks like a person, that doesn't mean they are one. All it is, is something that feeds off it's mother, until it becomes a person. Until then, it's a parasite. Until then, the mother has the right to act in self defence if she decides against it. Until then, it's just a little body, and you're forcing the mother to be an incubator. If you force the mother to keep something inside her against her will, you are denying her right to her own organs.

Now, this is the part where you turn round with a dashingly well worded response as to why foetuses are people, so over to you...

[AtteroDominatus]

I've already argues this like 5 times, look back over my posts, I don't feel like repeating myself again.

also, something very interesting: http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2007/02/19/some-call-her-a-miracle-liberals-call-her-a-choice/

[AtteroDominatus]

sorry for the double post, just thought this was a good article, too. http://www.ewtn.com/library/PROLIFE/ZNEONATE.HTM

[Post-Something]

I've already argues this like 5 times, look back over my posts, I don't feel like repeating myself again.

also, something very interesting: http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2007/02/19/some-call-her-a-miracle-liberals-call-her-a-choice/

Ok, so you really think life begins at conception? After fertilization it takes a week before it reaches the uterus, and 80% of the fertilized eggs will be rinsed out of her body anyway. So according to you, most women are serial killers?

It's obvious that an egg with a sperm in it is not a person. So please, mabe I have missed it, but repost your evidence that these cells are in fact people, and as a result deserve rights.

[Sendo]

"A foetus is a person" is based on nothing! Foetuses are not people. If they were people, they would have rights. If they were people, they would know about it to some degree. But they don't.

That's a shit argument. If your only argument for pro-choice is that fetuses are not humans for those reasons, you're in trouble, since 2 year old babies don't know what their rights are. Awareness of one's rights does not constitute humanity. There are better reasons to be pro-choice, like banning abortions does no good/only creates backalley abortions, abortion bans don't take into account class differences between access to abortion or contraceptives or education, the vast majority of women will not use abortion as casually as a condom and to assume so is ridiculous, fetuses are not conscious until at least past the point miost people get abortions anyhow, there's no public funding for the babies once had (hypocrisy of right wing pro-lifers)

[Post-Something]

That's a shit argument. If your only argument for pro-choice is that fetuses are not humans for those reasons, you're in trouble, since 2 year old babies don't know what their rights are. Awareness of one's rights does not constitute humanity. There are better reasons to be pro-choice, like banning abortions does no good/only creates backalley abortions, abortion bans don't take into account class differences between access to abortion or contraceptives or education, the vast majority of women will not use abortion as casually as a condom and to assume so is ridiculous, fetuses are not conscious until at least past the point miost people get abortions anyhow, there's no public funding for the babies once had (hypocrisy of right wing pro-lifers)

I think you've misread what I said:

1. The second half of what you quoted, this part:


If they were people, they would know about it to some degree.

was a seperate issue and argument, not to do with rights. It was to do with the foetus not having some sort of self identity. Some sort of way of being able to distinguish itself from it's surroundings. Some way of viewing from the perspective of "self". No consciousness whatsoever.

and

2. The rights argument is nothing to do with whether they know they have rights or not, it's whether they deserve rights.

[AtteroDominatus]

My problem is who gets to decide the rights? People like -you- who are already very much alive and born. Though thinking they can give themselves right is ludicrous. But, to quote another person earlier, it is indeed true those that argue for abortion have already got the chance to be born.

also, a fetus has self awareness. (scientifically proven in the 7th month when it has brain waves, but it is thought to be earlier when it has seen the baby reacts to stimuls inside the uterus, though it could be reflex)

[Post-Something]

My problem is who gets to decide the rights? People like -you- who are already very much alive and born. Though thinking they can give themselves right is ludicrous. But, to quote another person earlier, it is indeed true those that argue for abortion have already got the chance to be born.

Do you actually believe this? Do you think maybe we need representatives from "the other side" as well? Is it too biased to the living?

I mean, who else are we going to get to decide what's a person and what's not? A dead guy? An aborted foetus? ...God?

If you haven't noticed we have one advantage over those without minds, one major advantage. We have the ability to reason. Nothing else is able to come to logical conclusions of this complexity, especially not aborted foetuses. Who is in a better position to judge than living humans?


also, a fetus has self awareness. (scientifically proven in the 7th month when it has brain waves, but it is thought to be earlier when it has seen the baby reacts to stimuls inside the uterus, though it could be reflex)

That's not self-awareness. Those are just sleep patterns. There is no actual thought going on, no logic.

Anyway, you're jumping ahead of yourself, because you believe life begins at conception.

[Sendo]

That's not self-awareness. Those are just sleep patterns. There is no actual thought going on, no logic.

Anyway, you're jumping ahead of yourself, because you believe life begins at conception.

could not the same be said of 6 month old babies? Aren't they pretty basic and animal?

I just think mentioning self-awareness as a prerequisite for humanity would deprive many newborns and mentally crippled people from a right to life. I'm not referring to vegetables post-car-accidents, here; that's another topic.

[Decolonize The Left]

So much to which to respond - I shall address the comments/replies in order posted.


Fair enough. But then, as part of your argument, you have to establish why the right to bodily autonomy should be more important than the right to life. Because if you cannot prove that (and that is a mammoth task), then your argument fails unless you can establish that the right to life is not at stake, which falls on whether or not the person is a foetus, so personhood (or lack of personhood) becomes the basis of your argument.

Indeed - it is not difficult to argue that a fetus is not a person.


I find the idea that the fetus is an organ or a part of the mother's body to be either silly or a convenient semantic device. Through every stage after the egg is released, it is a set of distinct cellular structures that serves no purpose towards a woman's life or well-being except towards satisfying any desire she might have to create a life outside her own.

Your second claim is not an argument, nor does it in any way refute my argument:
"A fetus is a parasite, it exists solely upon the nutrients extracted from the mother's bloodstream. Hence the fetus is dependent upon the woman's body for survival - this makes the fetus an extension of her body. Hence the existence of the fetus is a question of bodily autonomy. To deny a woman the right to an abortion is to deny her the right to decide over her body."


Certainly how we define a human-being is up for grabs. Plenty of adults don't even treat each other as people; historically, defining human beings as less than human beings has been a key step in preparing the public to destroy any sub-population one wishes to get rid of. Since I attempt to be a humanitarian, I try to hold to the widest definition of what a human is that seems reasonable.

I feel it is best not to create an arbitrary line. In quantum physics, there are various quantities we can not know precisely, but rather, we can only know a probability for. While this limits what we are able to define about, say, quantum electrodynamics, we are still able to solve some very complex problems using only those probabilities. We don't have to know, or claim to know, or pretend to know exactly when a fetus becomes a person*, and we don't have to pretend there's no chance it is a person, to make a responsible choice concerning it.

*by the present definition/s, which, admissibly, are socially defined. . . just like the Jews were socially defined as vermin.

There is a difference between a human being and a person. I am arguing personhood. A fetus is obviously a developing human being, that is irrelevant.


So to be clear--do you feel that this changes automatically at the moment of birth, or are you arguing as I do that it might sometimes be right to kill babies?

No, birth has nothing to do with it. A one-minute old baby is not a person. It isn't self-aware, it isn't autonomous, and it has no identity (as identity follows from self-awareness).


So humans who do not possess autonomy, self-awareness, or an identity aren't people?

Correct.


prove they're not. They have all the chromosomes of humans, would you call someone less of a human based on size? no, i doubt so. Just because they are not a full fledged human does not mean a thing. And what dictates when they -are-. When they're born? They're still not done developing at that stage. I think you man they're not alive' because that is the basis to this arguement. Not whether or not they are people, because they pretty much are, they contain all the genetic makeup necessary to be one.

This claim is so full of holes it's amazing.
1) A person is different than a life, or a human. You have conflated these three terms throughout this entire post.
2) This tired old religious dogma of "prove they're not" or "prove God doesn't exist" is so weak it's insulting. You are claiming fetuses are people, right? Then you better be able to back that claim up, no? Similarly, you are claiming a God exists, so you might consider furnishing some evidence, no?

But you don't. You squirm and say, "well, you prove they're aren't people." Children use cop-outs like these when they don't have an argument - they dump the burden of proof on someone else. I am happy to provide an argument for a why a fetus isn't a person - but are you happy to provide one for why they are? I doubt it.

Instead, you make the claim that "they contain all the genetic makeup necessary to be one." So does a monkey... are monkeys people?

- August

[Post-Something]

could not the same be said of 6 month old babies? Aren't they pretty basic and animal?

I just think mentioning self-awareness as a prerequisite for humanity would deprive many newborns and mentally crippled people from a right to life. I'm not referring to vegetables post-car-accidents, here; that's another topic.

Er, at that stage a baby is able to pass objects from one hand to another, and are able to understand concepts of cause and effect. It's clear that this kind of action requires logic, whereas sleep patterns don't.

[AtteroDominatus]

But you don't. You squirm and say, "well, you prove they're aren't people." Children use cop-outs like these when they don't have an argument - they dump the burden of proof on someone else. I am happy to provide an argument for a why a fetus isn't a person - but are you happy to provide one for why they are? I doubt it.

Instead, you make the claim that "they contain all the genetic makeup necessary to be one." So does a monkey... are monkeys people?

- August
because all the proof is in science. Not to say a human fetus is a person seems to be a rather off kilter argument. i mean, as said, they contain all the information to be one.

also, monkeys do not contain all the genetic necessity to be humans. they contain the necessary DNA and genetic info to be a -monkey-. They do not have the same amount of chromosomes, they do not have even close to specifications. monkeys aren't even closely related to us. Great apes are, but even they are extremely different in their makeup. would you also argue, then, that fetuses of these creatures are not their respective species?

Also, jsut a question, not part of my arguement, jsut curious. you said a human is not a person? I don't quite understand your point there. I was under the opinion that humans were people and people are humans.

[Post-Something]

Also, jsut a question, not part of my arguement, jsut curious. you said a human is not a person? I don't quite understand your point there. I was under the opinion that humans were people and people are humans.

No, a foetus can be a human, but not a person. That's what we've been trying to say all along. AugustWest posted the reasons why earlier on in this thread.

[Rascolnikova]

"A fetus is a parasite, it exists solely upon the nutrients extracted from the mother's bloodstream. Hence the fetus is dependent upon the woman's body for survival - this makes the fetus an extension of her body. Hence the existence of the fetus is a question of bodily autonomy. To deny a woman the right to an abortion is to deny her the right to decide over her body."

Dependence on something doesn't make you an extension of it; I am not, for example, an extension of my food.

How do you deal with the question of abortions at nine months--when the fetus is clearly only dependent upon the mother because it remains inside the her?



No, birth has nothing to do with it. A one-minute old baby is not a person. It isn't self-aware, it isn't autonomous, and it has no identity (as identity follows from self-awareness).


Ah, well, good to see some consistency.
:)

[Rascolnikova]

It has everything to do with the class struggle. It has to do with women's autonomy in a society thats patriarchical. Remember, a hell of a lot of the 'pro-life' lobby are men, and this is an act of them being against a woman to take control of her own body.

Well, you've certainly clarified the way it's approached on revleft--as a fight to be had between men, having little to do with the actual welfare of women.



The anticapitalist struggle is a woman's struggle - a movement against patriarchy that capitalism inevitably breeds.

I agree that anti-capitalism is potentially of enormous benefit to women, but the ideologies of socialism and gender equality aren't fundamentally linked, and you've yet to show otherwise.

[Decolonize The Left]

because all the proof is in science. Not to say a human fetus is a person seems to be a rather off kilter argument. i mean, as said, they contain all the information to be one.

also, monkeys do not contain all the genetic necessity to be humans. they contain the necessary DNA and genetic info to be a -monkey-. They do not have the same amount of chromosomes, they do not have even close to specifications. monkeys aren't even closely related to us. Great apes are, but even they are extremely different in their makeup. would you also argue, then, that fetuses of these creatures are not their respective species?

Also, jsut a question, not part of my arguement, jsut curious. you said a human is not a person? I don't quite understand your point there. I was under the opinion that humans were people and people are humans.

I believe the problem you are encountering is understanding the difference between a human being and a person. A human being is a biological, scientific term: "A large sapient (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sapient), bipedal (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bipedal) primate (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/primate), with notably less hair than others of that order (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/order), of the species Homo sapiens (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens)" (wiktionary)

It is often used as synonymous with "person," but this is a casual usage which may not necessarily reflect material reality. For example, in the dictionary quote I posted above, the next word was "; person." I left this out due to the following (from wikipedia's entry on "person"):
"Human beings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_being) - Once human beings are born (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth), personhood is considered automatic.
Exceptions: - Exceptions to this are often emotive and controversial. Some people have given opinions that fetuses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus), the disabled (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disability), the profoundly and long term brain damaged (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_damage), those in coma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coma) or other persistent vegetative states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistent_vegetative_state), may be dubious as regards personhood. Such views are strongly debated from both sides."

Indeed, they are. Allow my argument:
A person is necessarily someone with an identity. And an identity is dependent upon being self-aware. Ex: I cannot be "I" (AugustWest - my identity) if I am not aware of myself, and my separation from all other people. An "I" is entirely dependent upon the "not-I." Hence identity is dependent upon self-awareness, and hence personhood is dependent on self-awareness as well.
This then becomes a matter of when an individual human being becomes self-aware. We know that children become self-aware at a certain time (the mirror test comes to mind), but I'm short on time.

Does this clear some things up?

- August

[Rascolnikova]

I believe the problem you are encountering is understanding the difference between a human being and a person. A human being is a biological, scientific term: "A large sapient (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sapient), bipedal (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bipedal) primate (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/primate), with notably less hair than others of that order (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/order), of the species Homo sapiens (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens)" (wiktionary)

It is often used as synonymous with "person," but this is a casual usage which may not necessarily reflect material reality. For example, in the dictionary quote I posted above, the next word was "; person." I left this out due to the following (from wikipedia's entry on "person"):
"Human beings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_being) - Once human beings are born (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth), personhood is considered automatic.
Exceptions: - Exceptions to this are often emotive and controversial. Some people have given opinions that fetuses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus), the disabled (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disability), the profoundly and long term brain damaged (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_damage), those in coma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coma) or other persistent vegetative states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistent_vegetative_state), may be dubious as regards personhood. Such views are strongly debated from both sides."

Indeed, they are. Allow my argument:
A person is necessarily someone with an identity. And an identity is dependent upon being self-aware. Ex: I cannot be "I" (AugustWest - my identity) if I am not aware of myself, and my separation from all other people. An "I" is entirely dependent upon the "not-I." Hence identity is dependent upon self-awareness, and hence personhood is dependent on self-awareness as well.
This then becomes a matter of when an individual human being becomes self-aware. We know that children become self-aware at a certain time (the mirror test comes to mind), but I'm short on time.

Does this clear some things up?

- August



In movement analysis we identify the I-not I stage as "core distal." Comes pretty early. . . in fact, ironically, I've been known to make the argument that it comes before birth. :)

No matter though-- as long as your position is consistent. To be clear, you are arguing that it's ok (or at least that it's not murder) to kill babies. :)

[Bud Struggle]

In movement analysis we identify the I-not I stage as "core distal."

*an aside*

My daughter's ballet teacher talks about that stuff now and again. (What I get is distilled through my daughter's explainations.) From what I understand it's a pretty interesting way of looking at movement (fast and slow and and light and heavy.) Some guy named Barnoff invented it.

Interesting you should bring it up--we were just talkig about it the other day.

But, back to your conscience easing techniques of Baby Killing....:)

[Rascolnikova]

*an aside*

My daughter's ballet teacher talks about that stuff now and again. (What I get is distilled through my daughter's explainations.) From what I understand it's a pretty interesting way of looking at movement (fast and slow and and light and heavy.) Some guy named Barnoff invented it.:)

A woman, Irmgard Bartenieff. The single best class I have ever taken; if you ever get the opportunity, give it a try.

And now back to baby killing. :)

[Decolonize The Left]

In movement analysis we identify the I-not I stage as "core distal." Comes pretty early. . . in fact, ironically, I've been known to make the argument that it comes before birth. :)

The "I-not I" stage requires conceptual development which requires basics of language - No? How can this come before birth?


No matter though-- as long as your position is consistent. To be clear, you are arguing that it's ok (or at least that it's not murder) to kill babies. :)

I am arguing that it is not murder to kill a human being which is not a person.

For example: You have a terrible accident and are paralyzed and have lost most of your cognitive abilities. You are no longer autonomous or self-aware - you are not a person and for me, as your relative, to kill you would not be murder.

- August

[Decolonize The Left]

Here's a simple way to understand the difference between a person and a human being:

You are in a spaceship traveling deep into space when you come across a planet populated with lifeforms. You land and step out to explore. An alien lifeform approaches you and begins to communicate. This alien is a person, but not a human being.

- August

[Rascolnikova]

The "I-not I" stage requires conceptual development which requires basics of language - No? How can this come before birth?

In Bartenieff movement analysis, we take a lot of things from childhood development--patterns of movement as related to the body more or less follow the stages in which an infant discovers it's body. The first pattern is breath, an expand/contract. . . and the second is core distal, which involves identifying that one has a core (whence stability comes) and distal parts, which connect to the outside world.

I am not convinced that an infant can not have core-distal awareness in the womb, since it's not like a sensory deprivation chamber--there's an outside-of-them which they physically adjust themselves to, so if they are capable of being aware it only makes sense that they'd be aware of it.


I am familiar with the thought-can't-precede-language bit, but not enough to argue the ins and outs--suffice it to say, I don't know if I agree with it or not. In any case, I find your person/not person argument consistent and reasonable, though not essentially important within my world view.

[AtteroDominatus]

thanks August, that clears things up :3

Also, can't thought precede language? Babies can understand things long before they can say them, right? Unless I'm understanding the actual ideology wrong.

[PigmerikanMao]

thanks August, that clears things up :3

Also, can't thought precede language? Babies can understand things long before they can say them, right? Unless I'm understanding the actual ideology wrong.
Ever hear of Jean Piaget's Theory of Cognitive Development?
A child usually doesn't understand the most basic environment around them until they're two years old, which is usually thought to be the reason they can't speak (too well anyways)) before that. As a matter of fact, a child 2 and a half years old has yet to establish, in their mind, object permanence- meaning that they cannot conceptualize something continuing to exist when they cannot see it. It simply vanishes off the face of the earth. This is why peek-aboo is so intriguing to them. We move into pre-birth time and understand that the fetus isn't even self aware- it doesn't understand that it exists. Sure, a fetus at four months can react to a stimulus, but this is basically off of instinct.
Yes, thought can precieve language, but this thought usually doesn't develop until seven or so months after birth- even then it is elemantary and the child can only process desires for motor reflexes. A child can make hand motions at a mom's breasts when it is hungry, but only because it is hungry- it does this, basically out of instinct, and cannot think to repeat the action when it is not hungry.
~PMao :)

[not_of_this_world]

Even in a pure Communist state freedom of religion will exist and if it does not I want no part of it, the state has been compromised. I am also a Catholic and know of no religion that endorses abortion. Personally I adore babies and I would adopt one if I could but 67 year old men are not permitted to adopt a new born. They would rather kill it and I find that reprehensible and murder one! This is not even an argument with me, it is a given and I do not preach it nor do I march with pro life groups. It is a waste of time in this political climate of capitalism. People often find it incongruous that I am Marxist Communist but I have always been out of step with the world.

[Plagueround]

Even in a pure Communist state freedom of religion will exist and if it does not I want no part of it, the state has been compromised. I am also a Catholic and know of no religion that endorses abortion. Personally I adore babies and I would adopt one if I could but 67 year old men are not permitted to adopt a new born. They would rather kill it and I find that reprehensible and murder one! This is not even an argument with me, it is a given and I do not preach it nor do I march with pro life groups. It is a waste of time in this political climate of capitalism. People often find it incongruous that I am Marxist Communist but I have always been out of step with the world.

Ah cripes...I rather liked your posts.

:(

[TC]

I have always been out of step with the world.

Can't dispute that!

[casper]

i'm pro-life. non-religious, and view a fetus as just another stage in human development. really the entire abortion issue has to do with what one calls "human". technically theres not much difference between myself and a chemical soup. i just see embroys and fetuses as stages of human development, not as something non-human. everybody has thier own views on this, its all rather intresting.

...thought isn't dependent on language by the way.

[Post-Something]

i'm pro-life. non-religious, and view a fetus as just another stage in human development. really the entire abortion issue has to do with what one calls "human". technically theres not much difference between myself and a chemical soup. i just see embroys and fetuses as stages of human development, not as something non-human. everybody has thier own views on this, its all rather intresting.

...thought isn't dependent on language by the way.

Casper, if you are pro-life, and think the foetus is just another stage in human development, then why is it ok to stop a child being concieved earlier on in the process? Life wouldn't have come about unless two people had intercourse, should those two people be forced into having sex by the state? Because that's the logical conclusion from your argument.

And yes, there is a difference between you and chemical soup; you are a person. Foetuses are not people.

[casper]

a haploid isn't a stage in human development, rather their production is part of an process in a stage of human development.

your last sentence is the main point of our disagreement. what is humanity? isn't that one of the great questions?