Results 101 to 113 of 113
for sure capitalism is a major factor in why abortions occur (there's no proper adequate facilities for the care of the baby, and minimal financial support), but i would argue that both mother and father should be allowed to take as much time off from work as they need (with proper financial help and high quality nursing care) so they can take care and bond with their child, even if this is for the first 2 years were development and closeness with a newborn is important.
Do you approve that a baby should be in the care of 'paid carers', and not their parents while growing up ? i see many flaws in that idea.
The problem is the bourgeois conception of a family. Do not forget that at one time, for a few thousand years, children of a tribe were seen as children of the whole tribe more than they were the children of their parents. We must understand that the current nuclear family is transitional.
In some parts of the world yeah, but for most of the time, children were raised my their parents, which, seams to be the natural way of things, the same way with most mammels.
It has nothing to do with a so-called "bourgouis" notion of a family, bourgouis, just to remind you, means capitalist, i.e. owns means of production. So what your essencailyl saying is that the notion of family is a "owners of productoin" notion, you see how stupid that sounds?
You are coming dangerously close to opening the door to pro-capitalists' "human nature" argument. As I said before, for centuries, even in present times, the role of bringing up children has not been exclusively or largely the responsibility of the parents.
Also there are "bourgeois" concepts of various things, including the family.
Let's look at what Marx said about this in the Manifesto:
"On what foundations is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.
The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.
Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty. But, you will say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social."
A fetus is in fact a human being. So says any biologist that got past the first few weeks of college. Even the word fetus means "unborn child." So even with the mindless word games and platitudes you're all still factually wrong and the bullshit euphemisms you all memorized from whatever bullshit free clinic handbook you read last night doesnt change scientific FACT.
Answer this question (you cant). What are we made of that a fetus is not? EXACTLY. Funny how you child-killers play word games to justify murdering human beings. When a woman is not going to murder her child she says, "the baby is kicking" not "the fetus is kicking." It's "I'm going to have a baby" not...."there's a clump of flesh and cells in me now." But soon as people want to justfy murder the try to throw pseudo-science that is BTW not even science but made up bullshit that's easiely debunked through basic research at a fucking library.
Disagree with me all you want I'm not pro-life at all. If I could push a button and kill all of you I would. Anybody that murders a defenseless human being shouldnt be walking the Earth. So Im not some bleeding heart pro-lifer. BUt dont insult my intelligence with easily debunked bullshit. Thanks.
I think TC put it best in this post:
So if something falls under the category of a living 'human being' it's entitled to use another human's body against their wishes. Or, is this not a general philosophy of yours but something you only apply to women's bodies.
Fetuses, were they persons, would be oppressing any non-consenting hosts. There is no right to live at the expense of another person, thats what capitalists do. An actual born infant doesn't have any rights to use their parents organs even if failing to provide them would result in its death.
This is why all issues concerning the status of a fetus (which i'll assume is a person that feels pain and is every bit as cute as a 2 month old baby for the purpose of this discussion, although this is probably not the case) are besides the point.
You like other reactionaries don't really care about a 'right to life' or you'd follow it to its logical conclusion and demand manditory live organ donations, you're concerned with being able to control women's reproductive capacity. Thats the only logical motivation for forced-pregnancy proponents, they want to ensure that women can't just boycott an imaginary reproductive imparative to produce the next generation of workers, and they/you fundamentally don't see this demand as a problem because they don't recognize the full personhood of women.
The same way it would be justifiable to kill a living person who was planning to and able to force feed you and inject you with hormones for 9 months and then cut up your vagina or stomach. Its a matter of self defense. If lethal force is the minimum force required to protect yourself from severe bodily injury every common law and socialist law juristiction permits it. The only people whose inherent right to self defense is ever questioned are women.
The denial of women's humanity inherent in your position on abortion pretty much amounts to a completely reactionary view of gender. You view one gender as inferior, whether you are willing to admit it or not.
There are plenty of reactionary organisations posing as "communist parties", just as you are a reactionary posing as a communist.
Whether its an organ or a seperate organism (specifically a parasitic organism) is just a semantic difference that has no relevance on the issue. Rapists are separate organisms and women are clearly entitled to do whatever is required to get them out of their bodies!
Not really, considering that were fetuses to be accorded all of the rights equivolent to adults that are not dependent on another organism for survival, abortion would still be permissable on self-defense grounds and because adults are not accorded the right to use another's body against their will.
I half think its euphemisms like 'discomfort' that make people think its no big deal to force someone to carry a pregnancy to term. Maybe if pro-choicers countered the forced-pregnancy lobby's use of aborted late term fetus photos on placards with photos of 12 year olds giving birth it would shift the focus of the people's sympathies from fetuses to real people.
Thats a lame argument considering that mothers with unwanted children can always given them up for adoption without pentality.
I totally agree and i think pro-choicers should stop shying away from it; the anti-abortion lobby isn't pulling any punches with its language.
Are you a "mother" to an unimplanted fertalized egg in a tampon? Obviously not. Likewise you're not a 'mother' to a clump of tissue in a medical waste bucket!
Mothers are people who typically choose to assume an inferior and self-limiting socials status by having and raise children, its insulting to attach this stigma to anyone who gets pregnant.
Thats such bullshit. There is overwhelming cultural pressure to exhault pregnant women and celebrate pregnancies, and theres tremendous pressure to encourage pregnant women to give birth and then go crazy over how 'wonderful' their babies are and how 'magical' the whole creepy experience is. The bourgeois dictated culturally appropriate reaction to hearing that a friend got knocked up is "congradulations!!" "is it a boy of a girl?!" "have you picked out a name yet?!" "when is your baby shower and what type of gifts do you want?!" not "oh i'm so sorry to here that, thats just terrible knews when are you getting it taken care of?"
Of course she does, what are you insane? Do you think if you stick your dick in someone you pretty much own her?
It counts as a double murder in some rightwing juristictions because anti-abortionists are trying to make a point that fetuses are people without running afowel of specific legal restrictions on the type of laws that can be passed in the US established by roe vs wade.
Thats the only reason. Historically this has never been the case, its not even the case in biblical law.
Yes, but like any personal property with significant sentimental value emotional distress should be considered as an aggrevating issue.
If Terri Schiavo was hooked up to another person instead of machines, it would count as self defense.
Abortion is the only 100% effective form of birth control. Just because involuntary pregnancy is a potential result of sex doesn't mean that involuntary childbirth should be.
LOL so wait, if you're *raped* then you can have an abortion, but only *before* it "counts as a baby", so, by implication, if you have consensual sex you can't have an abortion even if its *before* it "counts as a baby."
Yah...i guess maybe if she didn't mind having her body mutilated over a period of nine months followed by hours of torture leaving her scarred and damaged for the rest of her life...but for everyone who isn't a masochist who doesn't get off on being used and degraded to the status of a human incubator, perhaps not.
Yah, someone better punish those sluts before they think they can have sex for fun and get away with it!!
Its really not. Theres no ambiguity, either your body belongs to you and only you, or it doesn't. Either its okay to alienate someone from their body and physically impose on them, or its not.
Reactionaries want to make you think its a 'big gray area' so you pump out kids to work for them and consume their products. That doesn't mean it is one.
So you say a fetus is a person? Ok, tell me, can you divide into a separate person? A fetus can. Can you divide into another person, and then merge back into one, thus possessing two separate genetic codes(look up chimerism). So clearly a fetus is not a person.
The rest of your posts is just ridiculous semantics. Oh and we know you pro-lifers aren't bleeding hearts. You see no problem in shooting doctors and bombing innocent women. Why don't you guys man up some time and go take on international sex traffickers or drug lords. Oh that's right, they shoot back.
'Funny how you child-killers play word games to justify murdering human beings.'
Funny how you justify murdering human beings in your final paragraph.
Last edited by Girl A; 17th February 2010 at 20:47. Reason: Grammatical mistake
“Every daring attempt to make a great change in existing conditions, every lofty vision of new possibilities for the human race, has been labeled Utopian." Emma Goldman
Formerly dream1991
Yeah, but most of the time it has been, and also the pro-capitalist "human nature" even if its true does'nt defend capitalism at all.
First of all, I don't give a shit what Marx said, he was'nt right about everything.
While parents may have been involved in children's upbringing for centuries, this does not mean the standard nuclear family has always been the norm. And if we insist on that kind of family relation just because it's "been that way for a long time", that also opens the door to arguments against lesbian and gay families.
I do agree that it's best not to just agree with everything Marx said just because you are influenced by him, but I would ask what your issue with that quote in particular is...?
Formerly dream1991
if something like that happens it'll occur because of the conditions not because it was set in stone or set in a policy. something that'll probably be natural, but if it wont progress to that level, i dont see how it would be a detriment to the good of society.
