I'm trying to come to grips with a sudden shift to the far right on the political spectrum I've had as a result of...

I'm trying to come to grips with a sudden shift to the far right on the political spectrum I've had as a result of going too far left. To preface: I have been thinking a lot about bodily autonomy and how it is prided and kept sacred to the point of hurting society as a whole. As an example, I feel organ donors should be mandatory and blood/tissue should be required through a lottery in a similar system to how we have jury duty, but with your blood type as a requirement. I have begun to resent people who wont inconvenience themselves to save the lift of another.

This has lead me to abortion. Now, of the three types of abortion, involuntary, medically necessary, and voluntary, this only pertains to the last. I just can't keep my stance of anti-body autonomy and be pro-voluntary abortion at the same time. Any way you cut it, I see it as choosing to brush away an inconvenience at the cost of another person's life.

Thoughts?

its one of those things which is driven mainly by economics. having a kid is fucking expensive, regardless of whether you give it up for adoption or not, and a lot of abortions happen because people aren't financially stable enough to secure a future for their child. honestly i don't know if it would be better under le full communism but i think a lot of these cases wouldn't happen if there wasn't a huge economic burden associated with the whole thing

I'd drink bleach like the Kulaks slaughtered their livestock

I understand that, and, in my perfect world order, contraception would be readily available, and children would be raised with the help of the whole society. I get that my views on body autonomy require other socialist building blocks to be in place before it could work. Having societal ideologies sync up with fundis just makes me feel dirty.

i mean a lot of the stuff regarding legal abortion in the US really isn't about religion or whatever, it's about making sure poor populations don't have a ton of kids who the state will have to provide for and more importantly who will be dissatisfied with their lives and eager for change

What the fuck does any of that have to do with a left-right dichtomy?

With blood donation you are harming no one and potentially saving someone's life. Tissue and organ donation are securing the health of someone who does exist at the expense of someone who is dead anyway. In these cases you're at most inconveniencing someone in order to ensure better medical care for everyone.

By restricting voluntary abortion you are choosing the will and well-being of someone who doesn't yet exist over someone who does. Not the whole of society, just a single, totally hypothetical future person. If someone doesn't want to take on the health risks and emotional burdens of having a child, I have no idea why you'd force them to.

You mean that whenever someone gets sick and needs a transplant you run the lottery to see what poor chap needs to give up a kidney? That sounds like the basis for a shitty dystopian short story tbh

Maybe then you get to have a lottery to see who replaces the kidney you gave.

A fertalized egg or early development fetus isn't a person yet. Saying you have to do the necessary work to make it develop into a person is about like saying you have to protect every sperm and force it into a fertile womb or else you're costing another person's life. It's basically true by the same logic and is similarly nonsense.

I'm not sure i agree that organ or blood donation should be mandatory either, but i see that as a different issue altogether.

...

Goddamn moralists and their nonsensical hypotheticals.

It isn't always going to be just kidneys you know.
To be fair this seems like a problem most easily solved by developing artificial organs. There aren't going to be that many people needing a heart transplant anyways.

Don't worry OP, this will all go away when you take a general biology class and learn the plasticity and limitations of defining life and an organism.

I like how this comic owns itself by showing a growing economy on the graph.

Central planning works nerds

It doesn't stop there. Now that we know it is possible to clone an organism from somatic cells this basically extends it to all parts of your body. Cut yourself and lost some flesh? That's murder.

Too right.

tbh there's no reason to not have the dead be organ donors (when medically viable), unless you're a superstitious christfag

You don't actually know how many people are involved in a centrally planned economy? GOSPLAN had over a thousand people working for it.

too much bother with other people, shit goes too far when you can't sleep because there's a douchebag walking the earth right now

that's why every central planned corporation shoots itself in the legs regularly and stumbles through the falls

??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

That's because it's showing an ideal fantasy that will never happen.

Jesus, it's like tankies don't even understand basic irony

Get over your sociopathic control freak issues, and get back to us when you're actually advocating for LESS hierarchy, instead of "everybody needs to be required by the state to do X".

Yep doing nothing rather than something sounds pretty leftcom to me

I can never donate blood, I carry antibodies against a blood born pathogen I used to carry. What do u do with somebody like me?

And in regard to body anonymity, in that regard do you also have the right to control what that person eats? Even minor, subclinical levels of folate deficiency can increase the risk of neural tube defects in a child. Do you have the right to control all aspects of lifestyle? From a medical standpoint light drinking during pregnancy is totally ok, it isn't until the person picks up high levels of drinking that fetal alcohol syndrome becomes an issue. In regards to organ donation do you have the right to tell somebody not to drink too much, since drinking increases the risk of fibrosis, making the liver unviable for transplant? Do you see what I'm getting at? And how does the stateless communist society control this? Do we create body militias to patrol the neighborhood and enforce body policing?

I really think u are better off creating an egalitarian society in which this things are voluntary and 2nd nature. I think when people are happy they are less likely to harm themselves, no laws required, and they're more likely to help when things volunteers for blood are needed

Hello. I'm here to suggest that anyone who expresses leftist opinions on their YouTube channel (or just anyone who has a channel and has leftist viewpoints) create a fallback channel on Vidme. There's a chance that what happened to Bat'Ko could just be the beginning. While a purge will likely not happen, we should still play it safe. Leftypolvideos has already set up a Vidme in case they get purged.

I'm also anti-abortion. But not for the same reasons as you, I think as people who haven't killed ourselves yet we can mutually agree that life is a good thing and life is the font of all freedom. To deprive someone else of being born doesn't allow them to live or even attempt to be free at all and I do not thing any healthy community should tolerate that.

Of course the capitalist west is sick and so it does.

What gives human life value?
The magic soul? Then congratz you might be against abortion

Because humans are intelligent? Congratz your not against abortion

Nothing, nothing inherently anyway. Inherently human lives have absolutely no value whatsoever. So is the case for everything else.

However if we're all going to get along with each other in our lives we're going to need to come up with some ways of deciding by ourselves what is and isn't important and as people who are still alive you'd think we'd decide life and the opportunity to live it are very important to us.

I don’t think life is that important.
It’s just not. People get too excited.

My life is very important to me. Dare I say it's the most important thing in the entire universe.

It's okay to disagree but feel free to kill yourself. That's not an insult, I just think that if your own life isn't important to you then suicide is an absolute no brainer.

knowing we'd still have these assholes in communism…

This thinking is too facile when you start to approach late term abortions. Personhood does not magically appear when one exits the womb - most children would be medically viable many months before birth, thanks to advanced medical technology.
You could go to the other extreme and say that since infants lack most of the faculties of fully formed persons - they are basically just machines that eat milk and produce noise and shit - infanticide should be legal. It was legal in ancient societies, for example ancient Rome.
Abortion is a morally fraught subject, and people should not be too blasé about it. Late term abortions especially.

I would concede this only when someone concedes that personhood does not magically appear when a sperm hits an egg. Most abortion criminalizers will not do that, so I'll stick to the prior argument.

If you want to move on from there to whether or in what way it might be ok to restrict late term abortions, then great. Courts here have already address that at length though.

Which is not the right way to do it imho. I'll try as best I can to formulate my thoughts on the matter.
Personhood does not appear either on exiting the womb or on the sperm hitting the egg, or anywhere in between. You will not find any personhood anywhere in nature, in the study of biology, medicine, etc. It's entirely a (legal) fiction based on unfalsifiable moral axioms. People who have different moral groundings will reach different conclusions, and neither position will be more right or wrong because we are in the realm of "ought", not "is".
When you hold up as a shield the opinion of the courts, I don't agree with that. Especially in the US, the courts reach these conclusions by reaching into pre-established or inventing wholesale "fundamental rights", which is of course nonsense. They are just looking for justifications for their own moral convictions, and imposing those on the populace using their authority as courts.
Are there nonetheless minimal moral norms we wan all agree on? Possibly. If there are, these would be them: you decide what you do with your own body, but you don't get to decide what to do with someone else's. The question of when to allow abortion is exactly to define where this limit is. It can't be left to the individual to decide just where this limit is, because it would mean, at the least, that the mother-to-be imposes her idea of where personhood begins on the infant-to-be. More widely, she also imposes that choice on the community at large which is so bereft of a new member.
So it's up to the community to define where personhood begins - the popular assemblies etc. Parliament. The House and Senate. Not the individual, or the courts. This is not a very strong argument, I realize that. It's just that my first instinct whenever a question cannot be solved objectively, and is larger than any one individual, is to kick it over to democratic decision.

Yes it can be left to the individual to decide because:

1. The "infant-to-be" has no idea about where personhood begins to conflict with the mother's idea. As such there is no imposition of one idea over another.

2. The community has no right to demand they be given new members by someone. If they did, there is no argument against forced marriages or forced impregnation.

And I don't see how your argument against the courts doesn't also apply to assemblies, parliaments. You're just shifting which group is making up "(legal) fiction based on unfalsifiable moral axioms".

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I wanted to type out a quick "this is what X actually believe", but then found myself to think of any group that's as crazy as you are.

Because all life is The Catholic Church Presents: Sacred™, user, and an entity with no nervous system, no defined organs, no memories and no capacity to feel pain is just as human as you or I. The soul, I mean "bodily autonomy" is clearly possessed by entities that have no will at all and hence no capacity for autonomy.

….

The reason is that doctors will let you die in the hospital so they can get more organs.

Why is the "opportunity to live" important to those who don't exist? By that logic, you should outlaw all contraception because you're depriving future humans of the "opportunity to live". Hell, you'd have to institute forced breeding camps where people will have to fuck night and day to give as many people the "opportunity to live" as possible.

And here you're assuming personhood for the "inant-to-be". Unless it's a person (personhood) to begin with, who cares if the mother's idea of personhood is imposed on it?

So you start by saying there's no such thing as personhood, any idea is as good as any other, but then you say it can't be left up to the individual because the infant-to-be has personhood.

Vid.me is such shit, why does everyone seem to discount Vimeo?

Infants don't have ideas of much of anything until they are a couple of years old anyway. So infanticide should be permissible until the infant can formulate its objections? If you put no value at all on the mere potentiality of self-consciousness, you have nothing to oppose to this except for "don't be absurd etc." And of course the feeble minded can be killed in all cases.
As to the rights of the community, that's a bit of a moot point of course: they have all the rights which they have the power to seize over you. If your community forces a marriage on you, and you don't have access to a stronger or other community to oppose that demand, good luck getting out of it. That is of course why I don't reference "rights", I merely noted that the mother-to-be imposes a condition on the community. The community therefore has an interest in regulating this behavior, rights be damned.
Given that, I' much rather have all this nonsense be decided by a popular assembly (or even better, referendum) for which I can at least cast a vote, than by a court over which I have no, or at least much less power.

I don't.

I do.

assuming personhood again i see, after arguing there's no such thing. Nice job.

Also, the hallmark of abortion criminalizers is manipulative wordplay. Children have awareness of themselves and others, cry, smile and have emotions, among other things. What you're trying to use to seize power over strangers does not.

Are you really so much of a brainlet that this is a binary issue to you? Either all abortion is criminal or it is not? This is idiocy. At some point in time abortion turns into infanticide - when the fetus turns into a baby. For what it's worth, I think the potential for a live birth seems like a good cutoff point, minus a few weeks for good measure. And I base that on absolutely nothing but my feefees, because there is nothing else to base it on. Certainly not the birth itself - the brain and senses of the baby don't suddenly turn on when it worms out of the vagina.
At any length, the determination of where exactly that happens is not currently made by the individual. You upstream defended this decision being made by some governmentally appointed old men and women, judges. I don't like that, because I do think I should get a say in what infanticide is.
Maybe you believe that this decision should be made entirely by the individual alone, and that's all very well, but then, you will have to contend with people who also individually decide where personhood begins for them, and think of you as a murderer. And you have nothing to oppose to them except "I respectfully disagree and have made an autonomous choice", which you better hope the state, or the people's militia, will defend for you. If they too think of you as a murderer, you will be in trouble. Strangers will have power over you whether you like it or not. And to the degree that you are capable of harming other stranger, your own children, it's well that they should.

It seems you are pretty much agreeing with what is already current law in the US - the viability standard. If so, fine. I can live with that. So none of what you're saying above applies to an embryo or an early development fetus. Fine. However, the vast majority of abortion criminalizers reject this entirely and make no distinction between a clump of cells and a toddler.

I regard these people as lunatics, and the ones who adopt rhetoric like yours, dangerous lunatics. If you're so intent on having power over others that you will reach inside stranger's bodies to find "murders" of "victims" who have no functioning brain or awareness of their own existence, I think it's fair to call you a dangerous lunatic who is a direct threat to actual (not potential) people.