so ive been leaning a lot further left than i used to be when i was a liberul, but there is one thing that i went rightwards: abortion.
dont you think all humans conceived should be considered humans and not killed unless they consent to? or at least have both parents agreeing before an abortion is conducted?
pic unrelated im too lazy to download a pic related sorry
Most on this board would agree that it should be legal. Why do you think it shouldn't?
well, its the typical pro-life arguments: every human deserves a chance to live. it is the responsibility of the parents for making the child and their responsibility to raise it, they dont have the rights to take away the child's rights to survive.
also, dont the man deserve a voice in the abortion? a lot of the times its just the womans choice to "do whatever she wants with her body", but the child isnt her property, its created by both the man and the woman. the man should be able to choose too.
if you believe you own your own body, then it's her property
Then mother is bourgeoisie that is exploits her child as kills him because it benefits her.
Now, with all demographic crisis we are having right now, should we really accept abortion of potentially healthy children and risk health of their mothers? Because abortions themselves aren't healthy. You always have a chance to never have the ability to have kids again.
I am pro life, because i hate killing people and consider such mentality inhuman, but if you want to dump your kid, at least dump him into orphanage, at least he would have a chance to live his life that way.
Everyone must have equal chance to live.
In what way can a cluster of cells have rights, why should we even care?
By all means, the thing we care about in a human is the human mind. It would make no sense to care about the rights of a bunch of unfeeling, mindless organs. It doesn't really make sense to talk about a liver's right to life, we do not care about the "consent" of a heart muscle. Even if we start attaching one to another it doesn't really make any sense. Up until we add a mind.
Now, importantly, we can also separate this in the other direction. If we were to take a human mind out of a human body, we would still most likely think of that new being as having the same rights as the original. Therefore, the meat sack really is irrelevant.
Now we come to another issue. The "potential" or "inevitable" fully formed person. Let us consider our meat mannequin again. If I start building a person out of whole, living organs, but do not give it a functioning brain, is it a person? By the previous logic, no. If we put a brain and a mind into it, it is a person.
Now what happens if we have the "potential" or "inevitable" personhood? I, as the mad scientist, am about to put a functioning brain into my mindless organ sack and throw the switch. Suddenly, my lab partner decides to stab the organ sack until it dies. Has my lab partner committed murder? Not any more than he could murder any of the organs separately. The body is destroyed, but no person is.
By all means, then, I do not recognize a cluster of cells, even if it has a unique DNA blend. even if it has the "potential" to become a fully formed person, to be a person. It therefore makes total sense to say that abortion before the development of a mind can happen is not murder.
Now, weeing as we know that the brain is in fact the organ that deals with the mind directly, we can easily recognize that before the brain begins formation, it makes no sense to talk about the embryo being a person before the brain begins development.
What comes after that point is obviously more murky, but I can not see any reason why aborting a two-week old embryo is a bad thing.
The defining feature of a human is its cognitive power and rationality, isn't it? How can you call an early-term conceptus a human if it doesn't even have a brain to think with?
These same people will demand that this same baby starve if the mother is on welfare.
Pro-life politics are a cultural obsession with feeling like a savior. There is no moral aspect
Well. You potentially killing a person who can contribute to your society. You say that he doesn't exist at embryo level, but in reality he already exists in the future if you let him live. By making anti abortion laws you can raise significantly birth rates if your country is in demographic crisis.
If you must make equal opportunity to everyone, then you must count rights of your children too, who will become future citizen and contributors to the society.
I don't think life is inherently important, especially with overpopulation. It's the quality of life that is important. If a child is likely to have an awful life then it is probably better to abort. While obvious cases like drug addict mothers, rape babies, etc come to mind, even things such as the parent being unable to raise the child due to finances is a problem. To be honest, I imagine abortions would decrease in a communist society.
Well, that's stupid. I don't even believe we need to kill porkies, just send them to sibir, for entire life.
I have to admit, rising life conditions will definitely decrease abortions. Abortions are also strongly advertised in capitalist society, and made into political commercials, if you noticed. Not the ability to do them alone increases abortions, but awareness that you would do that for the sake of your fake liberal views.
(You)
He could also be a NEET, or a serial killer. Hell, he might even be a stillbirth, and you'll have made a woman go through all the trouble of carrying an unwanted fetus to term for nothing.
Worst of all, he might even become a consequentialist who uses Aristotelean notions of teleology to make his anti-abortion arguments.
My point is, it's nonsense to incur a risk when there's no way to discern what the reward may be.
Nigga are you listening to yourself
Just because something might be something else in the future does not make that something that something else now. Just because I chop down a tree with the intention of making it into a chair does not mean that the log is a chair. A fetus without a brain is no different; it's not a person until it gains the material basis for its subjectivity.
Abortion on demand and without apology.
The autonomy of the woman's body trumps the baby's "right" to life.
By this logic you should rape and forcefully impregnate every women you meet, after all if you don't then you're basically preventing people from existing. Abstinence is murder!!!
Kill all babies.
It's the only ethical choice.
Just admit it, you have fetishism over killing fetuses, so you protect it that much. After all a fair family won't make a lot of abortions, because the family institute itself is made so children can be raised inside it. Only whores and sluts raise such need in abortions, because they were impregnated by chance and their own stupidity. Shame capitalist slut culture, and it will lessen the amount of abortions even more.
Well, i also have to admit my own problem, i do believe in existence of the soul, that is formed before body does, but you will have typical atheist argument against that, and i know that. We are enemies for each other because of that stupid dispute.
Who would win in a fight: an anti-abortionist or an anti-natalist?
...
Why you gotta make this shit personal?
For that matter, why you gotta slut shame?
You a shit and not my comrade.
Also
I literally changed one word pham
Go to heaven, you insufferable idealist.
I really don't care m8. We all die eventually. An unborn child is never really alive. You might as well be opposed to masturbation.
When I was 6 and my mom told me about heaven and all the new beautiful colors and animals we'd see once we got there, I thought about taking a kitchen knife and stabbing myself through the brain so I could live it.
Why don't you do what I failed to do?
:')
The other defining feature of humans is long-distance running endurance.
An excellent point. Not only do fetuses not have the endurance required for long-distance running, but they also lack the neuromotor capacity to run at all!
This thread is spooky.
dont you think all humans possible should be considered humans and not conceived unless they consent to?
Abortion should be a fuckin non-issue. Fuckin spooksville.
There's a time-limit for an abortion; in the end it's just a clump of cells without consciousness as we know it. It's not a "human" in any meaningful sense of the term, no more than a sapling is a tree (or maybe a wooden table is a better metaphorical extension). If you eat meat, it means you support the killing of animals that possess more cellular complexity and likely more capacity for emotional response than a fetus to be aborted.
People love to say "oh but you're taking the life of a human." It's not a human. And you might have prevented a potential serial killer. At any rate, I think it's much more humane to be cautious and abort rather than to bring a child into the world that you are not emotionally and/or financially capable of caring for. I'd rather a kid not exist than fuck him up because I was too stupid to wear a condom.
...
So, to be consistent, I can assume you are also in favor of infanticide and killing off people in comas?
I think everyone has a right to life, and even the clumps of cells have the potential to be human beings worthy of this right.
But in the current system its just not viable to make abortion illegal. Firstly, woman will probably take a coat hanger to themselves if their desperate enough. Secondly, your asking women to bring up children on their own in a system all about economic competition. Its not guaranteed but its highly likely that kid is going to have a shitty life anyway. Even if the mother has her shit together, why would you want to bring a child into a world where everyone's bodies are used as money making machines and we are slaves to a consumerist culture.
Also, when raising questions about who potentially has the right to life and who doesn't, why are foetuses places into that category but not sperm or eggs? Did I commit two abortions yesterday when I sprayed some tissues with potential children while watching violent anal porn? What makes a fetus similar to baby but dissimilar to my cum?
Both of these are valid reasons
This is liberalism, not Marxism. Abortion is a matter of public health concern, not "muh body".
The proletariat must determine population policy. Under socialism, abortion could be restricted for just about any reason, for instance if socialist construction requires a higher birthrate. Not only might abortion be restricted, but contraception too. Communists reject neomalthusianism.
Not the same guy but
(edge lord inbound) although why you object to killing either is beyond me :)
I already addressed that. It doesn't make sense to say you murdered a bunch of unthinking, unfeeling organs lying on a lab bed because they would have become a mindful person had they had a brain put in them.
I do count the rights of children, and brainless embryos are not children.
What is the proletariat decides that woman have that choice over their body?
In the Soviet Union, contraception AND abortion was legal and encouraged by the state. According to Do Communists Have Better Sex? there reasoning was essentially "sexually active comrades = happy comrades = beneficial members of society"
That doesn't seem to be something the proletariat is going to turn down for MUH MORALS especially considering woman are probably going to just go to back alley abortion clinics anyway.
Even before Stalin criminalized abortion, there was still somewhat of an anti-abortion atmosphere in the USSR: Lenin regarded abortion as a "social evil" and decriminalization was out of concern for women's health. Lenin just didn't believe the right way to combat abortion was by making it illegal.
This is what would happen to a woman who requested an abortion in the USSR:
marxists.org
A 50% chance of complication vs a 100% of having a baby a additional complications at brirth transform.childbirthconnection.org
Hmmm, tough choice, id probably still abort
So Lenin opposed it for moral reasons? Spooky
Just more proof of how shitty and stupid Leninism is.
This seems like the same uncomfortable rigmarole we give women now for abortions. Notice how it still doesn't work?
Don't get me wrong; I am in favor of abortion, in fact I think it should be performed retroactively on "anarcho-communists", Trots, and fascists.
it is a bit telling of how Lenin's views of moralism and what was right for the people was completely different from that of the proletarians themselves
What is meaningfully different between a fetus and a sperm and egg separately?
So, every single potential human deserves the right to life? What about pulling out, that's denying a potential pregnancy? There are infinite potentialities and an infinity of infinities of potential human beings.
Fetus do not feel pain, they do not have any wants or needs, they are not conscious of anything. They have no frame of reference for any experience because they have not yet ever experienced. They cannot consent and their consent is not needed for anything because they have not yet become human. A human is shaped by experiences, by reflection and by relationships to its world. If a baby is conscious of none of this than it is not living as a human lives. As covered before, if you're saying that every potential human deserves the chance to life then that is simply not practical at all.
I cannot get over the fact that a fetus simply does not have any moral value on its own.
Instead of worrying about what consitutes a human being, consider the following. Abortions being illegal won't stop abortion, it will just make them more risky as mothers will use coat hangers or vacuums in alleyways to desperately avoid having another mouth to feed.
In a perfect world every child would have enough food and clothing and love so as to make abortions pointless.but we don't live in that world, and people will do what they need to in order to live. Abortions should be kept legal and accessible to all, otherwise you're going to end up with more dead mothers-to-be.
It's funny how the same folks who decy abortions as violating the sanctity of life have no qualms about spending billions on blowing up brown people. If anything, those brown folks have more potential to change their life than a fetus that's dependent on its provider for 18 years.
The fact that the human body natural reabsorbs old sperm in order to produce new sperm.
Are you suggesting we should hook every man up to a seminal milking machine the moment they can produce motile sperm?
Because I agree, that's pretty fucking hot.
All a baby knows is agonizing fear of starvation whenever it's hungry and temporary escape from the pain when it's full.
At least a fetus will not have known this fear if you abort it.
Why would you let it go through that? How can you be so soulless?
In my opinion the entire debate comes down to whether you believe a fetus is a human or not. If it is a human then allowing the mother to terminate it sets in place a group of people over the other. This of course is unacceptable. It is my personal opinion that due to the inevitable nature of the development of the fetus into an infant that, fetuses should e considered human.
What you say is true, if you believe in some kind of objective morality.
Simple fact is banning abortion doesn't make abortion go away. It just means people die in back allies with a fetus on the end of a coat hanger hanging out of their vagina
PIC RELATED
On a serious note, Jesus Christ. How do you not know by now, through all the scientific studies: foetuses are only sentient after about 20 weeks (the LOWEST levels).
Furthermore, I'd argue that the only thing that makes something ethically relevant is whether it is sentient. Hence prior to 20 weeks you have no case for the foetus being ethically relevant.
And also, yeah, just stop having children altogether. Problem solved. If you have an issue with a child dying after 1 minute, why no issue after 100 years? What's the defining factor? No one will ever be satisfied with their length of life.
OP, you should become a christian commie
Enjoy your weak, and underpopulated society if you allow abortion.
this
I am sick of you authoritycucks
Damnit Holla Forums, you're not even trying anymore.
That's not a Catholic stance rebel; dammit stop LARPing.
This is what so-called "socially conservative leftists" actually believe.
That was the joke. I'm not a catholic =(
I just thought the pic was qt.
I agree with most postmodern theology which disregards scripture in favour of the subjective relationship.
A thinker isn't a thinker unless if it has a thought, spiritual fag
DROPPED
If you wanted to avoid the same "moral" quandary that we have with fetuses then yes
What about eugenics? Wasn't hitler right? :^)
Sperm = Fertilised Egg
Wut
The mess I made in my bed this morning could become a potential human. Was it morally wrong that I dumped it? What about all the eggs women lose over their lifetime?
Agreed OP.
Tbh though I place economics > everything so I'll still vote for left parties that have standard boilerplate liberal social policy even though I don't like abortion. I could always move to Ecuador or somewhere in Latin America though.
The probability of your mess becoming human is 0%. The likelihood of a fertilised egg becoming a human is much higher.
But before I came, it had a probability of becoming a human if I impregnated someone.
What probability do we need before we decide if something is human or not?
No, you didn't, because you weren't in a position to have consensual intercourse with a woman.
So if I had sex with a woman, if I pulled out would that be murder?
Do I leave sperm in my balls and wait for an opportunity to impregnant a woman?
No because the egg was not fertilized. Contraception is not murder.
That's preferable to masturbating yes but if you're talking about preserving life masturbating isn't murder.
Why is contraception not murder?
Because killing a foetus (life) through abortion is not the same thing as putting a wall between the egg and sperm so they never meet.
Nevermind that until the third trimester What is inside the uterus barely even resembles a human, there is no reason to bring a life into the world that will almost certainly suffer.
Postmodern theology != postmodernism
Hello all my /christian/ friends
egg and sperm are both as alive as the embryonic cell they become
The question of whether a fetus can or cannot be considered a living human is besides the point when it comes to questioning the legitimacy of abortion. One cannot be a proper leftist and be "pro-life".
Take for a moment to consider the argument that an unborn child has the right to live. To be sure, it has as much of a right to live as anyone else. So far in, that no one has the right to live.
What about the bourgeois? Do they not have a right to live as much as anyone else? But as leftists, we would deny them that "right" in the pursuit of our own better interests. It is permissible to slay them as long as their self interests conflict with our own
So to is the interests of the unborn child in direct opposition to the would-be mother's interests. The relationship between a mother of an unwanted child is in many ways a mirror to the bourgeois-proletariat relationship. To prioritize the desires of that child over the desires of the mother can only stem from spooks such as morality, religion, culture, and perhaps one of the greatest spooks of all; the value of a single human life.
And because one such life is in immediate danger of ending, some respond emotionally and protect the "rights" of the child over the "rights" of the mother. Would you protect the bourgeois from revolution, because they too deserve life? You can see here that the argument that "all deserve to live, and therefore we cannot take lives" falls apart immediately.
No. Stalin and Hoxha were right. Total prohibition of abortion at all costs.
Cathartic as it would be, I'm not out to murder individual porkies for being porkies. I'll kill them if they try to stop me but it's not a goal.
But neither can be construed as a separate organism.
They can't? They both live perfecty fine. They are both life.
bump
With the exact same DNA as the organism that created them. They're alive, sure, but not much different than the skin cells that you shed millions of every day.
It's after fertilization, when the DNA from the two combines, that it can be rightfully called a separate organism.
how do you figure this? that's not the scientific definition of an organism by any means
In every ejaculation there are millions of sperm. Even if fertilization happens, that's only one sperm out of millions that become a human.
Women constantly ovulate then shed their egg and uterine lining.
Eggs and sperm are biologically disposable. Fetuses are not.
WHY????
We have enough humans already.
Muh soul is a spook.
Please be a troll. This is some retarded bullshit right here.
The baby is doing nothing for the mother but using resources. It is not an organ, it does no work, it does not produce anything of value for the body except for the possibility of perpetuating the genes of its parents. Whereas the mother is sacrificing her metabolism, circulatory system, hormonal balance, diet, mobility, recreation possibilities, etc. for 75% of a year purely to build a kid from scratch. I can't fathom the mental gymnastics required to compare a pregnant mother to the bourgeoisie and a developing, unthinking fetus to an exploited worker.
The person I was responding to was saying that the mother was the bourgeois. I was saying the comparison was shit because the mother is the only one working, not that the reverse comparison is true. The mother and the fetus aren't competing economic classes so shoehorning marxism into the relationship is idiocy. I'm not sure what your point is.