Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]

Find and be included in our regional map here!

Welcome to the boards of the Democratic Socialist Assembly!

Charter Opt-In (LINK)

    New? [notice]Helpful Resources for Nationbuilding; courtesy of Comrade Ratateague [link]http://s1.zetaboards.com/DemocraticSocialist/topic/5052223/1/[/link][/notice]
    Active Discussions [notice]Roleplay [link]http://s1.zetaboards.com/DemocraticSocialist/forum/1567864/[/link][/notice] [notice]Map! -- LINK [/notice] [notice]General Discussion Forum [link]http://s1.zetaboards.com/DemocraticSocialist/forum/1565787/[/link][/notice][notice]Optional Census of the DSA [link]http://s1.zetaboards.com/DemocraticSocialist/topic/5037512/[/link][/notice]
Welcome to Democratic Socialist Assembly. We hope that you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means that you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features that you can't use. If you join our community (register) in the Democratic Socialist Assembly, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Abortion, Life, & Choice; A discussion about the merits of permitting the intentional termination of pregnancy
Topic Started: 6 Nov 2013, 05:55 (320 Views)
Suceavija
Member Avatar
"House Chairman"
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Hello, all!
We got on the subject of abortion on the RMB and I thought it pertinent to give you a specific subforum to discuss these complex issues in depth. The original post that started everything off was one that questioned whether abortion should be permitted after the first trimester. We all understand this is a sensitive subject matter with multiple viewpoints - let's keep it civil, rational, and respectful.
The United Socialist States of Suceavija
Founding Nation of the Suceavijan Commonwealth of Socialist Nations
Resume - & - Factbook
Posted Image
Regional Cartographer
Eternal Defender and Advocate of the
Democratic Socialist Assembly
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mettia
Member Avatar
Sol Metta
[ *  * ]
I think abortion is not a good solution and harms not only the embryo, but also the mother and the whole family.
Regarding the political point of view, I support mothers in having right to decide on keeping their child or not.
If the society wishes to avoid abortion it must solve the problems which make abortion necessary.
Efforts are needed to be made to educating youth about behaving responsible in their sexual life, and also society must take responsibility for creating a moral environment which reduces the annual number of sexual crime cases.
Genetic researches also must improve in filtering genetic complications as early as possible. It is not necessary to spend for these processes from taxes, it is better if private companies fund these projects, thus they create PR value for themselves.


Mettia

"I will tell, darling, the secret of the song to help:
When someone hears a tune, he listens to himself.
There is a song in the core of each human fellows,
We hear our own soul in each of the other songs.
Whoever has a nice melody flowing in his heart,
For him the tunes of others are a piece of art."
- Mihály Babits
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jack Steiner
No Avatar
Minister of Foreign Affairs
[ *  *  * ]
Sol Metta
6 Nov 2013, 19:12
I think abortion is not a good solution and harms not only the embryo, but also the mother and the whole family.
The embryo is a part of the mother and should be her decision. If the mother didn't feel ready for emotionally for motherhood, it would effect her and the family anyway, in that context, to react against abortion is irrational in my opinion.
Quote:
 
If the society wishes to avoid abortion it must solve the problems which make abortion necessary.

Are you familiar with group marriage?[1]Anyway, this was much more common in paleolithic times, ('ur' communism/early 'primitive' communism)[2], anyway, I'm sure you can see why group motherhood would be advantageous to our current ideology of the family, eg, sharing children and household responsibilities and would reduce the necessity of having an abortion.
Quote:
 
Efforts are needed to be made to educating youth about behaving responsible in their sexual life,

No, the youth are often blamed for social decay, policing the sex lives of the youth is not the way forward, improving their lives with concrete demands such as polytechnic type secondary education, the right of every young person to a job on leaving education and provision for youth hostels and housing would help significantly.
Quote:
 
and also, (sic) society must take responsibility for creating a moral environment which reduces the annual number of sexual crime cases.

No, I don't see how moralising helps and empowering women, which implies a weakening of the ideology of the family would help reduce sex crimes, as would organising sex workers into trade unions.
Quote:
 
Genetic researches also must improve in filtering genetic complications as early as possible. It is not necessary to spend for these processes from taxes, it is better if private companies fund these projects, thus they create PR value for themselves.

All I'll say is that an industry as large as the health industry, (the fact that US healthcare receives a lot of state subsidies should tell you something) can mobilise more effectively if they're under democratised state control rather than a fragmented system of disorganised privatised companies in which the first priority is profit for shareholders rather than workers needs.

Notes:

1. C.Knight, (2008), Early Human Kinship, pp.61-82
http://www.chrisknight.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/Early-Human-Kinship-Was-Matrilineal.pdf
Also see,
Lewis H. Morgan, (1877), Ancient Society
Marxist Archive

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/morgan-lewis/ancient-society/
F.Engels, (1884), Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/origin_family.pdf

2. Weekly Worker #946 , Jan 24, 2013, 'Anthropology: Reclaiming the dragon (what was primitive* communism?)' by Lionel Simms, (Radical Anthropology Group)**
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/946/anthropology-reclaiming-the-dragon

* 'Primitive' Communism is an incorrect translation from German, it should be original or early communism- 'ur communism'.
** http://www.radicalanthropologygroup.org/new/Home.html


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ratateague
Member Avatar
"Politician"
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
One of the things I notice when there is a debate about abortion, is that the pro-life side tends to give the moral appeal, while the pro-choice side tends to give the utilitarian appeal. We're standing on two distant hills, trying to make the case that ours is the bigger one, "and never the twain will meet." So to take a different approach, I'll ask a different question from their hill. If we are to make moral choices, assuming that it is the choice that defines us philosphically, why are we passing a law to take that decision away from us? If morality is legislated, and we are following a law, can we still argue that we are making a conscientious choice to be moral? Or are we just acting out of fear of state-sponsored retribution?

The question almost answers itself.

The pro-life argument essentially boils down to that killing is wrong no matter the circumstance, and if someone has the ability to care for a fetus/adopted infant, they should. However, the conclusion they derive (that abortion should be illegal), is missing a few steps. Pro-choice makes no such legalist claim and leaves it up to the individual to make the appropriate decision.
Edited by Ratateague, 18 Jan 2014, 23:23.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Defwa
Member Avatar
<<< Minister of Role Play >>>
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
The question I like to bring into these revolves around other people's right to your body.

At this time, in the US at least, organs cannot be taken and used from the dead unless at some point in their life they consented to it.
You cannot be forced to donate blood even though almost everyone has extra and it could directly contribute to the life of another.
You cannot be forced living or dead to contribute to the health of another person even in a life or deaths situation.

Now we get extreme.
What if another person needed to integrate their circulatory and digestive system with yours in order to live? Obviously not, duh.
What if that person was your son? No, still no one telling you that you have to do it much less law saying you must.

Why then do we attribute more right to life to the unborn than the already out-and-about?
No one has the right to any part of your body unless you grant it to them explicitly. Even a zygote, embryo, fetus, baby. If we attribute it the rights of an adult, it still only has the right to be separated. If it is unable to support itself, it has the right to a minimally painful death (should you consider it alive in the first place, but that's more difficult to argue).
Edited by Defwa, 14 Feb 2014, 08:39.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Anglan
Member Avatar
"Citizen"
[ * ]
Ratateague
18 Jan 2014, 23:08
If we are to make moral choices, assuming that it is the choice that defines us philosphically, why are we passing a law to take that decision away from us? If morality is legislated, and we are following a law, can we still argue that we are making a conscientious choice to be moral?


Agreed, and to build off of that-What is morality? That is the question the philosophers have puzzled over for the past couple hundred of years, and nobody has come close to answering. The hedonistic and rule utilitarians no closer then the Kantians and the Contractanarians. So if we don't necessarily know what is moral and what is not we can't truly legislate morality on controversial issues. I think this demands that the final decision on abortion not to be left to government but to the individual. Now perhaps the decision the individual makes is immoral-but I think at this time, a government would be acted with incomplete information if they banned abortion
Edited by Anglan, 15 Mar 2014, 19:44.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
« Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply