|
Pages: [1] 2
|
 |
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Abortion (Read 3229 times)
|
Nulono
Newbie
 Offline
Posts: 10
|
 |
Abortion
« on: May 01, 2009, 01:06:01 PM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Faceless
New Member
Newbie
Offline
Posts: 34
dit-dit-dit
|
Comrade,
thanks for posting the article. As this is your first post allow me to be the first to say "welcome" and happy may day!
I have to say however that reading the article, it is one of the most confused pieces I've read in a while! For starters, and in fairness to the author, as a "pro-choice Socialist" there are a handful of things that I don't find entirely disagreeable in the article. I don't disagree that "women often choose to have abortions because they feel stuck in an undesirable situation". It's true that because of the corrosive affect that capitalism has on family life and relationships in general a lot of women are forced into the prospect of raising a child alone and that many individual and couples just can't afford the financial strain of bringing up a kid. However, restricting a woman's right to abortion - and this is what is being proposed - does not solve any of the social problems which may influence a woman to choose to have an abortion and only compounds those problems.
The line of argument in the paper is very weird. Firstly it suggests that abortion is a product of male desire and convenience. It then goes on to attack feminists' disregard for the lifes of fetuses on the basis of the overriding desire and convenience of women! Here's a few other things I found "odd":
"Abortion negates women's ability to create life [...] Manipulating nature and its resources is detrimental to environmental harmony and disrespectful to womanhood. Abortion disrupts the natural flow and processes of life and rejuvination."
This is a particularly confused paragraph. Strangely the author believes women should also have access to birth-control although this also "negates women's ability to create life". Why the choice to to be able to create life or "negate" that ability shouldn't lie with the particular woman isn't explained. Likewise there isn't any explanation as to why manipulating nature is even a bad thing. I'm not entirely sure what the author's getting at here. I mean, do they also believe that transgender people shouldn't be able to have gender realignment surgery? Shouldn't we "manipulate nature" to prevent disease and to promote good health? A very strange line of argument indeed...
"Many Socialists are pacifists and as such we condemn unnecessary violence. The taking of a life or the possibility of human life, especially when it involves pain, dismembering, and mutilation of a baby and emotional turmoil of a mother, cannot be reconciled with a belief in non-violence. Being pro-choice and pacifict are incompatible positions."
It hardly needs stating that Socialists in general are by no means pacifists. What counts as violence however isn't exactly defined. I mean, isn't it an act of violence to force a woman to go through with a pregnency even if it threatens her health? Isn't it an act of violence to bring an unwanted child into the world? The truth is that pacifism leads to all sorts of confused formulations. Secondly, the idea that a fetus = a baby really is a crude equation. Until a fetus can survive outside the womb it isn't an independently functioning life. Unless you happen to believe in the Christian idea of "ensoulment", it ought to be pretty clear that a tiny bit of tissue and a baby are not the same thing.
The article seems to dart back and forth trying to find all kinds of different reasons why abortion is wrong - it just gives the final impression of being chaotic and poorly thought through. I don't know.. the truth is that denying abortions not only is a form of discrimination, but it forces women down much more dangerous illegal routes and ultimately costs lives.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Nothing is as powerful as an idea whose time has come.
|
|
|
Nulono
Newbie
Offline
Posts: 10
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Faceless
New Member
Newbie
Offline
Posts: 34
dit-dit-dit
|
Hi Nulono,
I would like to hear more about your own personal opinion, and to hear if you agreed with my thoughts at all. I have to say, yet again, I disagree with the sentiments in the article you posted and I found it to be confused. One weird thing was this:
Lenin's Bolsheviks, then, must be seen as a right-wing Marxist party, as must all twentieth century communist parties in the Marxist-Leninist tradition, owing to their authoritarianism And they were indeed so described by left-wing Marxists like Rosa Luxemburg and Anton Pannekoek.
The Bolsheviks were a right-wing party? I don't recall Luxemburg ever making such a strange statement. The truth is that they were authoritarian, yes. They had to defend Russia from invading armies and Tsarist generals who turned against the young Soviet regime. Their regime was also the most democratic in the world - and no, that is not a contradiction - the Soviets were based upon direct representation from the workplace. Presumably the article would draw the conclusion that such staunch "left-communists" as Luxemburg and Pannekoek were also pro-life? I'm not saying they're wrong but I'd like to see the evidence. It was actually the great democrat Joseph Stalin (I mean this with irony) who restricted a woman's right to have abortions.
Meh... I can't be bothered anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Nothing is as powerful as an idea whose time has come.
|
|
|
|
P.O.U.M
|
"Abortion negates women's ability to create life [...] Manipulating nature and its resources is detrimental to environmental harmony and disrespectful to womanhood. Abortion disrupts the natural flow and processes of life and rejuvination." That line just reeks of social-Darwinism. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Nulono
Newbie
Offline
Posts: 10
|
What?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nulono
Newbie
Offline
Posts: 10
|
I know what it is; it just doesn't apply.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Faceless
New Member
Newbie
Offline
Posts: 34
dit-dit-dit
|
I think the point is that it stems from the same basic philosophy - that we shouldn't mess with the so-called "natural" order of things. The truth is that what's defined here as "natural" is totally arbitrary and leads to contradictions. Birth control is apprantly "natural" but abortions aren't (according to the author that is). Likewise social darwinists, if I understand correctly, think that capitalist differentiation between rich and poor is "natural" but state intervention to help the poor isn't.
Perhaps you disagree with me but I did go to the effort of replying to your articles - it'd be nice to hear what you think.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Nothing is as powerful as an idea whose time has come.
|
|
|
Nulono
Newbie
Offline
Posts: 10
|
Social Darwinism is itself interfering with the natural process of evolution.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Lech
Newbie
Offline
Posts: 29
|
I've seen this article before and I don't totally agree with it.
I am indeed generally pro-life, but not for the reasons in the article. I just simply don't think that potential human life should be terminated causally.
Now I certainly don't think abortion should be restricted, just regulated. I also don't support late abortions.
I also think that abortions should be unconditionally allowed in the case of rape, danger to a mother's life, incest, or some other factor outside the mother's control.
I also realize that most abortions could be avoided if
1. The economic factors that force some girls into early sex (i.e. prostitution) were eliminated
2. Birth control was more readily available and schools would stop teaching abstinence only.
3. People were more informed about safe sex.
The pro-life side comes in when I think about the people who believe that they can have unprotected sex as much as they want because they can just abort the baby if it happens. I know that such people are a minority but the potential still exists. When that happens, we lose a bit of our humanity.
That being said, I believe that pregnancy that are not the result of something outside the mother's control should not be aborted. If the mother can't take care of the baby, she could always put it up for adoption or in the care of a family member.
I believe I'm ranting again.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
A means can be justified only by its end. But the end in its turn needs to be justified.
|
|
|
Nulono
Newbie
Offline
Posts: 10
|
Why an exception for incest? I've never understood this.
Also, 90% of abortions are on accidental pregnancies.
And a fetus is an actual life, not just a potential one.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Faceless
New Member
Newbie
Offline
Posts: 34
dit-dit-dit
|
Why an exception for incest? I've never understood this.
Also, 90% of abortions are on accidental pregnancies.
And a fetus is an actual life, not just a potential one. Disclaimer: I've not slept tonight so the following post may contain abuse and grammatical errors... Nulono, with all due respect I made the effort to reply to the arguments laid out in the articles you posted. All you have responded with are a bunch of one-liners and more articles written by other people which re-hash the arguments in your previous posts. If you "never understood" why carrying a pregancy caused by the abuse of a relative might be damaging to the mother (not to mention the quality of life of the child if it is carried through to birth), you need to rethink what the implications of incest are. I'm not suggesting that abortion is the only option, but I certainly don't think it's your business or my business to force a woman to have that child and to tell her she's a killer if she doesn't. Lech, although I'm pretty hardline pro-choice I actually agree with most of what you said. That most abortions are caused by socio-economic factors was what I've been trying to get through to Nulono - to little avail - the idea of punishing women for reason of class is repugnant to me. I don't think we should be casually terminating pregnancies either largely for health reasons. I'm no medic but pumping estrogen into your system can't be good. That said, I don't think you're entirely on the money to equate a pregnancy with a baby. It might not be what you meant but potential human life is just that: a potential, in the same way that sperm and an ovum is potential human life. So if by "regulation" instead of restriction you mean that girls and women (and men for that matter!) should be given the proper education about abortions from a young age then I'd agree. Anyway: am tired so I probably totally misread what you wrote. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Nothing is as powerful as an idea whose time has come.
|
|
|
Lech
Newbie
Offline
Posts: 29
|
Thanks for the reply Ben.
Don't worry, you read my post correctly. I am not equating potential human life with human life but at the same time, I can't equate it with lifelessness.
I certainly don't equate abortion to murder. To do such a thing would be hypocritical.
I am also not a hardline pro-lifer. I am more than willing to allow for abortions as long as the reasoning behind it is sound.
But I belive that only a few people actually abuse the ablility to abort their baby.
Other than that, I think we are in agreement.
By the way, Nulono. Incest can cause birth defects which can impair the quality of life of the infant.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
A means can be justified only by its end. But the end in its turn needs to be justified.
|
|
|
Nulono
Newbie
Offline
Posts: 10
|
You're missing my point. "Fetal defects" and "rape" are already exceptions often cited. Incest isn't a guarantee of either.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2
|
|
|
 |
