the right to choose?
Results 1 to 18 of 18
The right to choose is under attack in Colorado
[FONT=Arial]The right for a woman to choose is under attack in Colorado. There will be a state-wide referendum on the issue: http://christiannewswire.com/news/589426567.html
Hopefully the courts will strike it down as unconstitutional but I urge all people to get out and campaign against this nonsense. [/FONT]
the right to choose?
A woman's right to access abortion. Socialists support the right to abortion at every stage of pregnancy, and believe that abortion should be provided for free through a system of universal healthcare, as access to abortion is an essential component of womens liberation, and a prerequisite for womens equal participation in public life.
In the UK, the right to choose is also threatened, as a proposed amendment to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, which is currently being debated in parliament, will change the limit set by the government so that women are unable to access abortion after twenty weeks, except under special conditions, instead of the current twenty-four week limit which is currently used.
You're a fucking lunatic.
Do you support a limit on abortions, after which a woman is not able to legally obtain access to abortion? If so, why, and what limit should be set? Women who demand abortions after twenty weeks account for only two percent of all the abortions which are performed, but it is important that they are given access, because women who demand abortion at this late stage comprise a vulnerable group - mainly women who were not aware, or were not willing to recognize that they had become pregnant, due to the trauma arising from a rape experience, or because the lack of a menstrual cycle is a common symptom of the menopause. The stage of fetal development does not affect a person's right to self-defense, as no organism, regardless of its capacity to feel pain or respond to external stimuli, has the right to use a person's body unless that person gives their consent to being used, especially when this "use" results in the imposition of harm, as in the case of pregnancy.
Anyone who does not support the right abort up to the moment of birth is fundamentally opposed to womens liberation. I'm interested as to what you meant by your comment - but answer very carefully, RNK.
Last edited by BobKKKindle$; 15th May 2008 at 03:31.
My girlfriend and I had our own personal feelings about going through with an abortion and decided to keep our child. On a strictly personal experience basis, it was the right decision for us, and I love my son very deeply. But...even with all that in mind, I recognize the essential right for a person to make that choice and realize that choice is not mine to make for them. I know it may be hard to get past personal feelings, but supporting that right does not make a person a "fucking lunatic".
[FONT=Arial]I just wanted to add there is no hard evidence of when a fetus can succumb to "pain." Estimates range from 25 weeks to the first full breath of oxygen. Like you I don't see the matter as too important, but it should be quantified. [/FONT]
Ability to feel pain is of no importance - if a man attempts to rape a woman, and the woman resists by kicking the man in the skull and knocking him to the ground, the man is likely to feel pain, and may even suffer permanent damage, but the woman's resistance is still legitimate, because she is acting in self defense. The same principle applies to abortion - it is still legitimate to abort, even if the fetus is capable of feeling pain at an early stage of development, because abortion is based on the right to self-defense.
You are, however, scientifically correct, and SW recently ran an article on this subject: Why a foetus can’t feel pain
A note regarding the article: it attempts to draw a clear psychological line between a fetus before birth and a baby right after, when there really isn’t one. A newly born infant doesn’t have much more of a mental life outside the womb as it did in it right before birth. In fact, it isn’t until a few weeks (and possibly more) after birth until you see the development of higher cognitive functions. Most great apes have more of a mental life than both a fetus at any stage of pregnancy, as well as very young human infants.[FONT="] In fact, dogs have more of a mental life than a fetus. [/FONT]
Moreover, even if it were to be granted, for the sake of argument, that a fetus is a person (where personhood is defined by the possession of certain relevant mental properties, which a fetus clearly lacks), that alone doesn’t establish that abortion is wrong (see Judith Jarvis Thompson, “A Defense of Abortion”, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1971; the article has been reprinted numerous times; or look up the Violinist thought experiment, from aforementioned article).
Last edited by Hyacinth; 15th May 2008 at 08:58.
The "Violinist scenario" is derived from the right to self defense and the illegitimacy of non-consensual use of a person's body - as explained in my post above, although I chose to use the example of rape to demonstrate the importance of these concepts, because rape is a component of womens oppression, and so bears a closer link to the restriction of abortion, rather than an abstract scenario which could never exist in real life.
Although Thompson provides an effective critique of the idea that personhood means that abortion is illegitimate, she suggests that abortion should only be performed under certain conditions, women should not demand abortion solely because they do not wish to suffer the inconvenience of being pregnant. This is expressed thus:
This position only makes sense if the fetus is accorded some degree of ethical value, or else there would be no reason to describe such an abortion as "indecent". This is in direct conflict with our position - socialists recognize that the morality of abortion does not depend on why the woman wishes terminate pregnancy, or the stage of pregnancy at which she demands abortion, because the fetus lacks ethical value.
Last edited by BobKKKindle$; 15th May 2008 at 12:41.
I was going to reply to you, bob, but after reading what you've written, I simply can't bring myself to. You are a disgusting fuck and I hope to Marx your life ends as soon as possible through whatever means.
What is it about my views that you find disgusting? My position is that women should be able to access abortion, on demand, without legal restrictions such as those currently employed in the UK, at every stage of pregnancy - the fact that you consider this position to be "disgusting" suggests that you believe the fetus should be accorded ethical value, and so abortion is an operation of moral significance - whereas it is not, and should not be considered as such. In another thread you suggest that the right abortion should "not be taken lightly" and although it is correct that the right is important, you give no explanation as to why the procedure itself must be treated so seriously - women should not be made to feel guilty about accessing abortion, because, by aborting a fetus, they have not done anything wrong, it only those who oppose abortion who want to make women feel guilty, often by using edited images of fetus in the absence of rational argument, to discourage women from aborting unwanted pregnancies. Socialists should encourage the widespread acceptance of abortion as a standard operation - so that people view abortion in the same way as they might view having another minor operation, or taking medication to cure a disease, so that women are no longer subject to the psychological oppression of being made to feel guilty.
Last edited by BobKKKindle$; 16th May 2008 at 06:45.
I disagree. Although I agree with you that on a philosophical level an infant meets none of the criteria for personhood (as opposed to being a 'human animal' in the sense used in the personal identity debate in logic/metaphysics) that doesn't mean there are not profound psychological differences between a fetus and a neonate.Originally Posted by Hyacinth
The article I think probably overestimates an infants psychological experiences yes, but a fetus has no meaningful sensory datum, no short term memory, no long term memory, zero awareness, its experience amounts to nil, like being kept in a sensory deprivation tank from birth having no concept of yourself or the world.
A baby on the other hand even from birth, although it lacks long term memory, speech, and I would strongly suggest lacks any kind of awareness of self, has a wide scope of sense datum (though i semi-doubt it can interpret it) and at a minimum stimulus-response mechanism.
[/FONT]I'm sure any mammal, a little mouse, has more mental life than a new born baby, because human new borns are profoundly underdeveloped compared to all other mammal species; in most mammals a new born is a mini adult that can stand and behave socially in hours; in humans new borns are closer to a larva form with a totally different phenotype and only reach the point that other animals do after maybe18-20 months.
But to a fetus theres no comparison, you might say a fetus occupies a realm of experience less than a persistent vegititative state patient but more than a brain dead patient.
☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮
The article said that they would be submitting the signatures on May 13th, not that it was officially on the ballot. It also doesn't say what exactly this iniative would do.
Indeed, I concur with you. Thomson’s argument only serves to establish that even personhood shouldn’t result in the prohibition of abortion (something that many opponents of abortion seem to think). As for her talk of decency, I haven’t the slightest idea what decency or indecency has to do with morality.
Though, in fairness to Thomson, her article has to be taken in a historic context, it was published in 1971, 2-years before the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling. If Thomson’s intent was to argue for abortion rights, moderating her position in the 1970’s moral climate was likely a prudent course of action. For the time it was progressive, even if today it seems needlessly puritanical (even the word “indecent” betrays Puritanism).
Last edited by Hyacinth; 15th May 2008 at 19:31.
I won’t contest your claims (I don’t, at the moment have the sources necessary to do so, but also because I don’t think it makes a difference). My point was only that if the personhood of newborn infants was in question, then really there is little hope of securing the personhood of a fetus.
gourvernement has no place i n this queston
the gouvernement has n o right to interférer with woman's right.in quebec,, the catholique church appliquer this queston t o the gouvernementt and this i s wrong.this i s issue were only people must decide.
religion, d e séparer les gens à faire la guerre
Last edited by Svante; 26th May 2008 at 00:54.
Go back to Romania, Nicolae. The far-right needs its Warsaw Pact lap dog to liberate us from bounty, liberty, and gender equality. There's a high price to pay for your warped concept of "value", and both the human race as a whole and the revolutionary left in particular pay it in spades every time someone like Ceausescu or Ortega flies our standard.
Last edited by Cheung Mo; 27th May 2008 at 01:09.
