Stem-Cell research

[RedCornFlakes]

Is it acceptable for a socialist or marxist to support Stem Cell Research?

[Q]

Yes, I don't see why not. The medical and scientific opportunities are legion. The main argument against it comes from christians that complain you're killing a 'life' (that is, an amorphous bunch of cells).

[Dialectical Wizard]

Is it acceptable for a socialist or marxist to support Stem Cell Research?

There’s nothing wrong with supporting stem cell research, only reactionaries and idiots oppose it.

[RedThinker]

I think that what ever can help life being better, easier and more livable is a good thing. The only downside is profit... If someone find something new out, he is prob gonna sell it for so much that a normal person would't be able to effort it.

[Q]

I think that what ever can help life being better, easier and more livable is a good thing. The only downside is profit... If someone find something new out, he is prob gonna sell it for so much that a normal person would't be able to effort it.

Well, that's a social problem, not an argument against stem cell research.

[RedCornFlakes]

Yes, I don't see why not. The medical and scientific opportunities are legion. The main argument against it comes from christians that complain you're killing a 'life' (that is, an amorphous bunch of cells).

Well this might be a tad off-topic but I personally think abortion is wrong, morally at least. However it's her body and the fetus is barely human anyway. There's too many burdens to having a child, and even conceiving the child all together. But why not donate the fetus to Stem-Cell Research? Might as well make the thing useful.

[Dialectical Wizard]

Well this might be a tad off-topic but I personally think abortion is wrong, morally at least. However it's her body and the fetus is barely human anyway. There's too many burdens to having a child, and even conceiving the child all together. But why not donate the fetus to Stem-Cell Research? Might as well make the thing useful.

Opposing abortion is reactionary and sexist comrade, like you said it’s her body so men or society have absolutely nothing to say what she can or can’t do with her body. Opposing abortion is inherently sexist and patriarchal, it isn’t wrong the world is already overpopulated enough.

[Future]

Opposing abortion is reactionary and sexist comrade, like you said it’s her body so men or society have absolutely nothing to say what she can or can’t do with her body. Opposing abortion is inherently sexist and patriarchal, it isn’t wrong the world is already overpopulated enough.

Opposing abortion on ethical grounds is neither reactionary nor sexist. It's clear that RedCornFlakes' opposition to abortion is on moral grounds - and has only to do with fetus rights and how the termination of potential life is immoral, etc.

I disagree with his (or her, I don't know which) opinion as much as you do, but it's overkill to call someone a sexist reactionary because they have a disagreement with you on the ethics of unborn life. It would be sexist and reactionary if RedCornFlakes actually supported the taking away of women's rights to their bodies, sexual health, and moral autonomy. Wanting to limit a woman's ability to deal with her own body the way she sees fit would be patriarchical and strongly reactionary - but just having a philosophical disagreement with the rightness or wrongness of such an action is harmless when one's concern is the metaphysics of life and/or the potential of fetus pain.

So, opposing abortion does not make one sexist. Opposing a woman's right to have an abortion is sexist.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

Opposing abortion on ethical grounds is neither reactionary nor sexist. It's clear that RedCornFlakes' opposition to abortion is on moral grounds - and has only to do with fetus rights and how the termination of potential life is immoral, etc.

I disagree with his (or her, I don't know which) opinion as much as you do, but it's overkill to call someone a sexist reactionary because they have a disagreement with you on the ethics of unborn life. It would be sexist and reactionary if RedCornFlakes actually supported the taking away of women's rights to their bodies, sexual health, and moral autonomy. Wanting to limit a woman's ability to deal with her own body the way she sees fit would be patriarchical and strongly reactionary - but just having a philosophical disagreement with the rightness or wrongness of such an action is harmless when one's concern is the metaphysics of life and/or the potential of fetus pain.

So, opposing abortion does not make one sexist. Opposing a woman's right to have an abortion is sexist.

And what about the role of "moral" shaming in propping up reactionary laws, mores, and generally limiting women's access to abortion services? I mean, we generally call people who think homosexuality is immoral homophobes; why should we give any leeway to people who think abortion is wrong?

[Future]

And what about the role of "moral" shaming in propping up reactionary laws, mores, and generally limiting women's access to abortion services? I mean, we generally call people who think homosexuality is immoral homophobes; why should we give any leeway to people who think abortion is wrong?

Well, I think that a homophobe's opinion is largely harmless as long as they are not promoting the limiting of homosexuals' rights in some way. A homophobe can have a completely irrational disapproval of homosexuality, yet still support (or at least not try to counter) homosexual rights. Such a person would be very morally flawed, but not an active reactionary.

I don't care how people feel about abortion and homosexuality as long as they don't push their irrationalism upon society or, as you said, try to "shame" others. If someone is trying to shame women for getting abortions or trying to shame homosexuals, that person is actively being reactionary in an endeavor to limit rights.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

Well, I think that a homophobe's opinion is largely harmless as long as they are not promoting the limiting of homosexuals' rights in some way. A homophobe can have a completely irrational disapproval of homosexuality, yet still support (or at least not try to counter) homosexual rights. Such a person would be very morally flawed, but not an active reactionary.

I don't care how people feel about abortion and homosexuality as long as they don't push their irrationalism upon society or, as you said, try to "shame" others. If someone is trying to shame women for getting abortions or trying to shame homosexuals, that person is actively being reactionary in an endeavor to limit rights.

And by voicing their opposition to abortion, they are shaming women.

[Future]

I'd also add that being against homosexuality and being against abortion differ in an important way. Being against homosexuality is to discriminate against romantic and sexual preferences - that is, to discriminate against individuals for their nature. Being against abortion is not morally sexist if the person in question is only concerned with fetus rights. Such a person would be equally concerned if men could get pregnant, or if we grew a fetus in a lab, etc. Granted, I realize that most people against abortion are so because of grossly reactionary and sexist reasons. I'm just saying that it's possible to be against the idea of abortion morally, but still be pro-women's rights, and that not be a sexist position, rather an irrational position based around concern for a fetus.

Edit: I think that kind of responds to your last post as well. Voicing opposition to abortion is not inherently the same as voicing opposition for a woman's right to abort. Such a person as I described could argue against the morality of abortion (the act of terminating a fetus in a vacuum), but do so independently of women's rights.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

I'd also add that being against homosexuality and being against abortion differ in an important way. Being against homosexuality is to discriminate against romantic and sexual preferences - that is, to discriminate against individuals for their nature. Being against abortion is not morally sexist if the person in question is only concerned with fetus rights. Such a person would be equally concerned if men could get pregnant, or if we grew a fetus in a lab, etc. Granted, I realize that most people against abortion are so because of grossly reactionary and sexist reasons. I'm just saying that it's possible to be against the idea of abortion morally, but still be pro-women's rights, and that not be a sexist position, rather an irrational position based around concern for a fetus.

Morality schmorality. We are Marxists - we don't care if X is going to heaven or hell for having bad thoughts (they aren't), but we do care what their role in the structural, material oppression of women is.

[Future]

Morality schmorality. We are Marxists - we don't care if X is going to heaven or hell for having bad thoughts (they aren't), but we do care what their role in the structural, material oppression of women is.

Morality is very important to me and it should be to you too. Ethics is an essential part of human life and progress. Also, I'm a Marxist in the sense that I agree with the Marxian analysis of history and class - I'm also an anarchist who values libertarian ethics.

And keep in mind that I don't believe it is immoral for a woman to abort a fetus. But some people might think it is, and as long as they're against it for some metaphysical reason, I don't find that reactionary. Misplaced and irrational, yes, reactionary, no, not always.

[Dialectical Wizard]

I'd also add that being against homosexuality and being against abortion differ in an important way. Being against homosexuality is to discriminate against romantic and sexual preferences - that is, to discriminate against individuals for their nature. Being against abortion is not morally sexist if the person in question is only concerned with fetus rights. Such a person would be equally concerned if men could get pregnant, or if we grew a fetus in a lab, etc. Granted, I realize that most people against abortion are so because of grossly reactionary and sexist reasons. I'm just saying that it's possible to be against the idea of abortion morally, but still be pro-women's rights, and that not be a sexist position, rather an irrational position based around concern for a fetus.

Edit: I think that kind of responds to your last post as well. Voicing opposition to abortion is not inherently the same as voicing opposition for a woman's right to abort. Such a person as I described could argue against the morality of abortion (the act of terminating a fetus in a vacuum), but do so independently of women's rights.

You can get banned or restricted for opposing abortion, so I wouldn’t defend pro-life apologists if I was you…

[Future]

You can get banned or restricted for opposing abortion, so I wouldn’t defend pro-life apologists if I was you…

If what I've said puts me at risk for being banned or restricted than I've gravely misjudged this forum. And if what I've said puts me at risk of being banned or restricted then I don't want to belong to a forum that censors genuine philosophizing. I think what I've said is very clear and reasonable, so I'm not worried in the slightest, Military Mind.

Also, who said I oppose abortion?

[Dialectical Wizard]

If what I've said puts me at risk for being banned or restricted than I've gravely misjudged this forum. And if what I've said puts me at risk of being banned or restricted then I don't want to belong to a forum that censors genuine philosophizing. I think what I've said is very clear and reasonable, so I'm not worried in the slightest, Military Mind.

Also, who said I oppose abortion?

I never said you opposed abortion, you clearly don’t. But you do seem to defend pro-life apologists. It's just friendly warning comrade…

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

Morality is very important to me and it should be to you too. Ethics is an essential part of human life and progress.

Ethics is an essential part of every reactionary sentiment, from homophobia to misogyny. Communists have no need of ethics - we can analyze society and discern our interest as a class and the interests of oppressed groups without relying on semi-theological notions.

Also, I'm a Marxist in the sense that I agree with the Marxian analysis of history and class - I'm also an anarchist who values libertarian ethics.

That's nice. But your arguments in this thread don't seem very libertarian - you are treating women's bodily autonomy as something problematic to be debated with reactionaries, instead of firmly taking a stand for this autonomy.

And keep in mind that I don't believe it is immoral for a woman to abort a fetus. But some people might think it is, and as long as they're against it for some metaphysical reason, I don't find that reactionary. Misplaced and irrational, yes, reactionary, no, not always.

So we're supposed to ignore material realities because someone has (allegedly) good intentions?

[Future]

never said you opposed abortion, you clearly don’t. But you do seem to defend pro-life apologists. It's just friendly warning comrade…

Well, I'm not defending pro-lifers or defending the notion that being pro-life (as the term is used) is not reactionary. Pro-lifers are in support of limiting (or totally removing) a woman's right to have autonomy over her reproductive body. I'm not defending the pro-life position - I'm promoting the idea that someone who is against abortion on metaphysical grounds concerning the value of fetus life (independent of the fetus' carrier), can hold such an opinion (irrational, I agree) without actually being a reactionary (since such a person could still defend a woman's right to choose) and without being sexist (if this person would feel the same way if men could get pregnant or if a fetus is being grown in a lab or some other non-female role in fetus development). That's it. So thank you for the warning, but I think what I've written here is not in violation of the rules of this forum.

[Future]

Ethics is an essential part of every reactionary sentiment, from homophobia to misogyny. Communists have no need of ethics - we can analyze society and discern our interest as a class and the interests of oppressed groups without relying on semi-theological notions.

First of all, my ethics have nothing to do with religious nonsense. My ethics are derived from a logical and scientific understanding of human nature, based upon a foundation that supports that which is in promotion of our survival and enhancement of that survival as a species.

Also, any ethics that tries to justify mysogyny and homophobia is a shitty ethics not grounded in reason.

That's nice. But your arguments in this thread don't seem very libertarian - you are treating women's bodily autonomy as something problematic to be debated with reactionaries, instead of firmly taking a stand for this autonomy.

What are you talking about. I've done no such thing. To me, this entire argument about a hypothetical position is purely academic. To say that I stand for taking away a woman's autonomy is nothing but a slander and you know it. I take a firm stand against sexism - I'm just pointing out that the hypothetical position I have outlined here, while irrational, can be shown to not be sexist.

So we're supposed to ignore material realities because someone has (allegedly) good intentions?

Who said that? The material realities are what ethics should be based on.