[Oxymandias]

@Victoribus Spolia

Ah, bad wording on my part. What I meant was, what are your thoughts on Medieval Arab Islamic Culture given that it fits your ideas for the most part.

[Finfinder]

The new senator from Alabama would have voted for #1 A Full-Grown Sow Has The Right To Life, No Unborn Human Fetus Has The Right to Life.

[mikema63]

The other guy would finger the fetus. Your point?

Seriously though, from the point of view of republicans was there actually a good option? I'm sure it sucks that you lost a senate seat but did you really want to have a crazy cowboy type that most americans think is crazy running around representing the brand day in day out?

[Finfinder]

The other guy would finger the fetus. Your point?

Seriously though, from the point of view of republicans was there actually a good option? I'm sure it sucks that you lost a senate seat but did you really want to have a crazy cowboy type that most americans think is crazy running around representing the brand day in day out?

If you paid attention at all I said there wasn't a good option but interesting you are taking joy in the fact that a guy who supports murdering children got elected. Sicko

[mikema63]

I'm extremely pro choice, I have a pretty different set of beliefs about personhood than you do. Im all for pro choice politicians.

There's no need to demonize the other side on this question, it's a difficult choice and I can respect the beliefs and values of the other side even if I disagree.

I'm also pretty partisan so of course I'll be happy when my side makes a crazy win that if anyone told me it would happen a few months ago I would've called them crazy.

[Crantag]

I'm extremely pro choice, I have a pretty different set of beliefs about personhood than you do. Im all for pro choice politicians.

There's no need to demonize the other side on this question, it's a difficult choice and I can respect the beliefs and values of the other side even if I disagree.

I'm also pretty partisan so of course I'll be happy when my side makes a crazy win that if anyone told me it would happen a few months ago I would've called them crazy.

I sort of feel like a leftist critique of abortion is overdue.

I think the notion of banning abortion is self-evidently an extremist idea, owing to a laundry list of reasons belonging to the field of medicine. Moreover, recognition that abortion is an ancient practice--also needs to be maintained.

But as I alluded to in an earlier post, the potential for socioeconomic and institutional factors should be considered.

For all I know, these are red herrings; or perhaps not. That's the point of investigation.

[Victoribus Spolia]

I sort of feel like a leftist critique of abortion is overdue.

i'd be interested in hearing this....red herring or not.

[mikema63]

It exists, after all the social liberalism of the modern era is hardly the beginning middle and end of "leftism".

Most leftists who find themselves anti-abortion tend to have similar values issues at the root of their views. I personally think that where you fall on this issue tends to be more emotionally grounded than ideological for most people.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Most leftists who find themselves anti-abortion tend to have similar values issues at the root of their views. I personally think that where you fall on this issue tends to be more emotionally grounded than ideological for most people.

My brother is as queer as a three dollar bill and was a hardcore Bernie guy, but is both pro-life and pro-gun oddly enough.

[SolarCross]

i'd be interested in hearing this....red herring or not.

I think the way to start with that is to look at what are the totem values of the leftists and see how that can be used to make a pro-life argument. For the leftist "equality" is their totem value, specifically the making of equality out of inequality, it is more important to them than anything else, it is the standard by which they judge the good or bad in anything. Once upon a time it was "liberty, equality, fraternity" but in the intervening years they have discovered the contradiction between these three values and ditched the first and the last so to keep "equality".

If you are going to make a leftist argument against abortion the concept of equality is where you should start and finish. Luckily this is very easy to do for abortion. To the leftist "equality" means the greater being reduced to the lesser, forcibly if need be. Clearly the fetus with respect to the reluctant mother is the lesser and the reluctant mother the greater. Clearly to make an equality out of this unequal relationship at the very least the mother must be, forcibly if need be, prevented from murdering the fetus, the same as the rich man should be, forcibly if need be, made to provide funds to the poor man. To make everyone equal.

One could add, in case reactionaries want to make a loophole to allow continued fetus exploitation, that the legalistic defining of personhood so as to make the fetus ineligible for equal rights is just as perfidious and self-serving as the legalistic defining of personhood so as to make the black person condemned to slavery like an animal whilst the white person is exempt as seen, notoriously, in US history.

[Crantag]

I think the way to start with that is to look at what are the totem values of the leftists and see how that can be used to make a pro-life argument. For the leftist "equality" is their totem value, specifically the making of equality out of inequality, it is more important to them than anything else, it is the standard by which they judge the good or bad in anything. Once upon a time it was "liberty, equality, fraternity" but in the intervening years they have discovered the contradiction between these three values and ditched the first and the last so to keep "equality".

If you are going to make a leftist argument against abortion the concept of equality is where you should start and finish. Luckily this is very easy to do for abortion. To the leftist "equality" means the greater being reduced to the lesser, forcibly if need be. Clearly the fetus with respect to the reluctant mother is the lesser and the reluctant mother the greater. Clearly to make an equality out of this unequal relationship at the very least the mother must be, forcibly if need be, prevented from murdering the fetus, the same as the rich man should be, forcibly if need be, made to provide funds to the poor man. To make everyone equal.

One could add, in case reactionaries want to make a loophole to allow continued fetus exploitation, that the legalistic defining of personhood so as to make the fetus ineligible for equal rights is just as perfidious and self-serving as the legalistic defining of personhood so as to make the black person condemned to slavery like an animal whilst the white person is exempt as seen, notoriously, in US history.

I think an inevitable requirement would be for the State--through some means--to actually take an enthusiastic role in raising the children whose parents are unable, unwilling, or unavailable to raise them.

Seems radical in the prevailing climate.

[B0ycey]

I think an inevitable requirement would be for the State--through some means--to actually take an enthusiastic role in raising the children whose parents are unable, unwilling, or unavailable to raise them.

This is the only option if you remove the right of abortion.

For a fit and healthy child, there are plenty of mothers out there who are unable to have children that would be more than happy to raise such child. Where the issue lies is when the child is not fit or healthy. A severely unhealthy child needs a lot of care and medication (for what could be an uncomfortable life). If the mother is unable to look after such a child, the state would need to have the enthusiasm to look after such child. After all, it was their policy that limited the mother's choice to begin with.

[SolarCross]

I think an inevitable requirement would be for the State--through some means--to actually take an enthusiastic role in raising the children whose parents are unable, unwilling, or unavailable to raise them.

Seems radical in the prevailing climate.

It needn't be the state, private charities or religious organisations can (and did) fill that role. The governors (or "state" since you like to anthropomorphise inanimate property) might be interested in all these unwanted children as they could be raised as a caste of slave-soldiers like the janissaries of the Ottoman Empire. Otherwise the religious institutions will have them and turn them into true believers of their faith, missionaries and priests.

As an aside the medical researchers main interest in legal abortion is to secure a steady and substantial supply of human bio-matter, specifically stem cells. Those are essentially commercial interests and could certainly be considered to be exploitative.

What did you think of my leftist style argument against abortion?

[Finfinder]

I'm extremely pro choice, I have a pretty different set of beliefs about personhood than you do. Im all for pro choice politicians.

There's no need to demonize the other side on this question, it's a difficult choice and I can respect the beliefs and values of the other side even if I disagree.

I'm also pretty partisan so of course I'll be happy when my side makes a crazy win that if anyone told me it would happen a few months ago I would've called them crazy.

The other guy would finger the fetus. Your point?

Seriously though, from the point of view of republicans was there actually a good option? I'm sure it sucks that you lost a senate seat but did you really want to have a crazy cowboy type that most americans think is crazy running around representing the brand day in day out?

Funny your are partisan to the point of being a hack, you don't have much sanctity for life. Making fun of fingering fetuses in favor of supporting candidates who are for late term abortion, which is murder. Hey, but winning is the only thing that matters, you'd vote for Kermit Gosnell to win. That's a good look.

[Godstud]

Fetuses are not human beings so joking about them is just fine. You pro-lifers are the ones who truly have no respect for the sanctity of life. You'd rather sacrifice the life of a mother for an embryo.

Canada(as an example) has no limit on when the abortions can take place, but you will not find a doctor willing to do so, after the 3rd trimester, unless the woman's life is at risk. Your asinine claim of people supporting late term abortions, is trash. Please provide a source or candidate running on such a platform. Such people have no support even from the pro-choice people.

[Pants-of-dog]

I think the way to start with that is to look at what are the totem values of the leftists and see how that can be used to make a pro-life argument. For the leftist "equality" is their totem value, specifically the making of equality out of inequality, it is more important to them than anything else, it is the standard by which they judge the good or bad in anything. Once upon a time it was "liberty, equality, fraternity" but in the intervening years they have discovered the contradiction between these three values and ditched the first and the last so to keep "equality".

If you are going to make a leftist argument against abortion the concept of equality is where you should start and finish. Luckily this is very easy to do for abortion. To the leftist "equality" means the greater being reduced to the lesser, forcibly if need be. Clearly the fetus with respect to the reluctant mother is the lesser and the reluctant mother the greater. Clearly to make an equality out of this unequal relationship at the very least the mother must be, forcibly if need be, prevented from murdering the fetus, the same as the rich man should be, forcibly if need be, made to provide funds to the poor man. To make everyone equal.

One could add, in case reactionaries want to make a loophole to allow continued fetus exploitation, that the legalistic defining of personhood so as to make the fetus ineligible for equal rights is just as perfidious and self-serving as the legalistic defining of personhood so as to make the black person condemned to slavery like an animal whilst the white person is exempt as seen, notoriously, in US history.

The equality argument for abortion is as follows:

I am not allowed to use anither person’s body as a life support system without their consent.

Therefore, to be equal, fetuses should also not have this right.

[Victoribus Spolia]

The equality argument for abortion is as follows:

I am not allowed to use anither person’s body as a life support system without their consent.

Therefore, to be equal, fetuses should also not have this right.

This seems almost like a tautology its so unprofound, its almost a mere defining of the pro-choice position that it doesn't really add anything to the conversation. In sum, how this any different than just saying "my body, my choice"?

Besides, a Pro-Lifer is just going to saying that consent is implicit in sexual relations and therefore the responsibility for the potential child is a mere consequence assumed as possible in that initial consent with the right to life being inalienable under such circumstances.

Once again, nothing being profoundly advanced in either of these positions, its just repeating what we already know about both sides.

[SolarCross]

The equality argument for abortion is as follows:

I am not allowed to use anither person’s body as a life support system without their consent.

Therefore, to be equal, fetuses should also not have this right.

No that is the liberty / libertarian argument for abortion. Leftists don't care about liberty they care about equality. They don't care about consent, they mostly don't even believe in freewill. They are completely comfortable with forcing one person the (rich and successful) to be the life support system for another (poor and unsuccessful) without the consent of the former person, because to them equality is paramount and liberty matters nothing at all. It is completely feasible then to make a leftist argument against abortion by simply identifying the mother as the privileged exploiter and the baby as the oppressed and vulnerable and thus an inequality that must be equalised at the expense of the privileged exploiter's liberty.

The question remains how can a leftist use their equality idealism to make an argument for abortion? I can't see any way to do it hence why they plagarise the libertarian argument even though they don't care about liberty.

[B0ycey]

The problem you have is that in nature there is no such thing as a 'right for life'. Whether you live or die is dependent on many circustances that are not ethical in nature. The law (UK) also gives the fetus no rights to life prior to 24 weeks either. So even this means the mother can choose what is right for the fetus in legal terms.

So really it is only a personal moral judgement can decide whether the fetus has a right to life. There is no legal guidance to dictate was is correct. And nature does not give a shit about ethics either.

[Victoribus Spolia]

The question remains how can a leftist use their equality idealism to make an argument for abortion? I can't see any way to do it hence why they plagarise the libertarian argument even though they don't care about liberty.

Ultimately, only humans have rights to equality, and fetuses are not regarded as legal humans by most leftists....I suppose its that simple for most of them...you know, the whole "just a cluster of cells" line.

The problem you have is that in nature there is no such thing as a 'right for life'. Whether you love or die is dependent on many circustances that are not ethical in nature. The law (UK) Only a personal moral judgement can decide

Oh boy, lets go down that road to the "mythical state of nature," where almost any heinous act can be justified by the "law of the jungle."