Abortion and Anarchism - Far Left

I can't work out if this is a troll or not, but......

If we're being pedantic with our definition of a human being then let's be pedantic about the definition of murder - an unlawful killing. So abortion can't be murder in any society that legalises it.

But beyond that your argument is pretty terrible. To equate aborting a foetus with killing a person with a learning disability is absurd. The argument is not about dependence but bodily integrity. You are basically arguing that women shouldn't be in control of their own bodies.

The question of what is human being is or how you choose to categorise a zygote or an embryo is irrelevant. The interests of an actual person are of more weight than those of a potential person. If anyone needs solidarity it is women in countries where abortion is illegal or made hard to obtain.

Interesting the name of the poster begins with "mister", huh?

But to be a bit less flippant, man, your argument isn't going to have any traction on this forum. Beyond the fact that anarchists are pretty universally defend the reproductive rights of women, the only alternative to safe, legal abortion is unsafe, illegal abortion. You're never going to stop abortion.

By all means, let's create a society where abortion is less common (easy access to contraceptives, support for mothers, paid paternity leave and reduced working hours for all, free universal childcare) but fetuses aren't humans, they're part of a woman's body. No linguistic acrobatics can change that.

Dear Misterwhatever,

Do you have a uterus? If not, then kindly fuck off.

mistermaxgre #1

‘…any kind of abortion is nothing else but an act of murder.’

Your attitude appears to me to be authoritarian and judgmental. Who are you to determine the ethics of someone’s actions under all conceivable situations? You may not be religious, though your condescension is more appropriate to an ‘infallible’ pope. Question your own ethical decisions before you pontificate to others.

Is it just me, or has there been an uptick in weirdo, 'anarchist' reactionaries posting on here lately?

So, shitbag, what you're saying is that women should be forced to go through with pregnancy? That we shouldn't have a choice about what happens to our own bodies?

Who are you, someone who will never ever be in that situation, to flap your wank-stick opinions around willy-nilly?

Tell you what, stick some watermelon seeds up your urethra and carry them to term.

Definitions aren't important, the issue is, but if we're playing that game:

[according to merriam-webster Dictionary, 11th edition:Murder: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought]

Again, 'unlawfully'. And it's pretty fucking meaningless to refer to a foetus as a person.

Women who terminate a pregnancy aren't killing people. That's where I'm finding you wrong.

Do you mourn for the 50% of pregancies that end in a miscarriage (most before the woman is even aware she is pregnant)?

I don't want to speak for Fleur, but your comparison is ridiculous. You have no place to tell women what to do with their bodies.

Yeah, definitely more way more reactionaries lately.

My toleration for arguing with asshats is completely maxed, so I'm not even pretending to debate you.

I have no patience for anyone telling anyone else what to do with their own bodies. None whatsoever. If you feel you can dictate how someone manages their reproductive choices or any other aspect of their bodily integrity then you're a really lousy anarchist.

You have zero possibility of conceiving, gestating or giving birth, which gives you no say whatsoever in how someone deals with a pregnancy. So keep you opinions out of our uteruses, it's none of your fucking business.

I am white, I have the utmost respect for Malcolm X and the BPP, neither of which have anything to do with reproductive choices.

Abortion has always happened and always will happen given that no form of birth control is 100% effective. Also, shit happens and people get knocked up. Presumably you would be in favour of people being forced to carry unwanted pregnancies through to full term, which makes you something of a nasty shithead. But there again, it's never going to happen to you, so why would you care? Approximately 1 in 3 women will have an abortion in their lives, whether it is safe and legal or not.

Emma Goldman was involved in the movement to bring greater access to birth control to women. She was enraged at the burden placed on women by multiple childbearing, maternal injury, infant mortality etc. However, with all due respect to Goldman, the words of someone over a hundred years ago mean jack shit to me in 2016, and certainly not to legitimize your ignorant, sexist opinions.

There is the adage that if you don't like abortion, then don't have one but you can't get pregnant so it doesn't apply. So, I would sincerely hope that you never, ever, ever have any kind of sex which would carry any risk, however miniscule of resulting in a pregnancy. That way there is no chance of an abortion resulting from it. It's the only way to be sure.

edit:

Yes, I am allowed to criticize the moral grounds of such acts.

Oh for fuck's sake, not more armchair moralists.

mistermaxgre #8

‘Dear Auld-bod, It is as authoritarian and judgemental my attitude as it is with Racism, States, Authority, Slavery, Patriarchy, Capitalism and so on.’

So, you really are the all seeing-eye.

mistermaxgre #14

'5.The proper purpose of the law is to side with the innocent, not against them.
None of the arguments are based upon religious belief'

Wonderful, an 'anarchist' who is insisting on 'the proper purpose of the law', you couldn't make it up.

you do realize that childbirth is dangerous, right? the availability of contraception and sex education is unevenly distributed, also. this whole argument over when a human is a human (surprise - the idea is socially constructed) in regards to pregnancy has only gained steam because of the enormous increases in the care available for premature children in the last fifty years. without mechanical respiration and medication, a fetus delivered between the 16th week to the 29th week, is likely to die, especially within the 16-26th week period. This also applies for congenital abnormalities that would have been a death sentence decades ago.

also, since 50-70% zygotes never reach term, the logical conclusion of your ideas would be to set up an authoritarian monitoring regime over the behavior of pregnant women - did they have a glass of wine? did they eat enough folate? this already exists in some states, such as el salvador, where a woman can be imprisoned if she has a miscarriage, where a miscarriage is assumed to be evidence of abortion.

humans have practiced abortion for a long time in many different social formations, and there is increasing evidence that different animals also engage in purposeful abortion.

Ban this patriarchal creep.

1.Human offspring are human beings, persons from fertilization.

I don't agree. It's meaningless to think of a cluster of cells, an embryo or a foetus as a human being or a person. They have no independent existence or self awareness.

2.Abortion is homicide – the killing of one person by another.

So therefore abortion is not the killing of one person by another.

3.There is never a right to kill an innocent person. Prenatally, we are all innocent persons.

Nope. Prenatally we are all foetuses, embryos, clusters of cells. We aren't moral beings.

4.A prenatal child has the right to be in the mother's body. Parents have no right to evict their children from the crib or from the womb and let them die. Instead both parents, the father as well as the mother, owe them support and protection from harm.

If it's prenatal it's not a child. And why does it have the 'right' to be in the mother's body? Who granted that right? Does an appendix have a 'right' to be in my body? If you can't see a difference between a crib and a womb then it's hard to see how we can have a rational argument.

[Edit: I didn't think about how fucked this was - do you honestly see women's bodies in the same light as a wooden receptacle for children?]

4.No government, nor any individual, has a just power to legally "de-person" any one of us, born or preborn.

But you're just arbitrarily defining a foetus as a person, so this is irrelevant.

5.The proper purpose of the law is to side with the innocent, not against them.
None of the arguments are based upon religious belief

The primary purpose of the law is to maintain the conditions necessary for capitalism and to protect the state. Maybe you could read some Emma Goldman beyond quote-mining.

creepin on libcom 2016

4.No government, nor any individual, has a just power to legally "de-person" any one of us, born or preborn.

Can we "de-person" this guy?

"The custom of procuring abortions has reached such appalling proportions in America as to be beyond belief...So great is the misery of the working classes that seventeen abortions are committed in every one hundred pregnancies."

So, I don't really like Goldman's politics in general, but I don't think this can be read as anti-abortion statement. Goldman might have been anti-abortion, I don't know, but this statement is just about the role of social conditions in relation to the number of abortions. Which basically goes back to my very first response to you.

Anyway, FWIW, I don't actually think this guy has said anything ban-worthy. He's said some deeply ignorant, patriarchal, reactionary shit, but I don't think it's been anything bannable. What I will say, Mistermax, is that you can pretty safely assume that a number of people reading this thread have had abortions. You are pretty explicitly calling those people murderers. That's pretty fucked up.

Between this guy who thinks he can tell people how to control their own bodies and think that the "life" of a zygote is worth more than that of an actual living, breathing, sentient pregnant person, the guy who didn't like how rape survivors react to their own rape, the one who thought cat calling was a compliment, the one who posted a video of a man battering a woman for jollies, the man who tried to prove that women were equally as violent as men in domestic violent situations, I'm beginning to see a pattern of why discussing gender issues always becomes a clusterfuck on this site. Is there some kind of subliminal cyber magnet for reactionary assholes embedded in this site? An obscure form of malware maybe...

I think several of those were the same person under different accounts.

Anyway, I'm shocked at the lack of support for gamete personhood on this thread. Haploid doesn't mean half a person! Every ovulation is murder! Every ejaculation is genocide!

Don't forget that every sperm is sacred - don't waste any!

Just a small point though, we're talking in terms of women's reproductive rights, and I'm certainly not planning on getting into any arguments about pronouns or anything else that some people have a really hard time getting their heads around, but trans men are also get pregnant and need abortions. Sometimes I forget and refer to abortion as a solely women's issue but that's not entirely the case.

That's a fair point, I was just thinking about that.

Something from today's NYT - the return of the DIY abortion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/06/opinion/sunday/the-return-of-the-diy-abortion.html?emc=edit_tnt_20160306&nlid=57494874&tntemail0=y&_r=0

Don't know the context but Goldman could have easily been concerned with the cost and danger of unlicensed abortions rather than any 'moral' implications.

If you think that from the moment of conception a zygote is a person then you are correct. But if you think that you can use a defintion that few here would agree with and that is not logical and then build an argument around it then there's no point continuing. You have set a condition stating that you have won (despite the fact that it is at best controversial) so there is no discussion or debate. In which case why bother?

I think abortion is very problematic and I do think that simply giving the choice to the woman is not fair in some ways. However as woman have to carry foetuses everyone has to make our peace with that biological fact. So yes as a man I may not have final say over whether someone aborts 'my' potential child, but I also don't have to carry the weight of having the final say. While it might sound reductive to say men don't have a right to an opinion I think that it's the closest to the right answer we have and as men have been using reproductive rights to control women then I think women have a right to be angry and demand control of their bodies and anything short of "well of course you should have control over your own body" is unacceptable. When I can carry a child then I can have full control over the process, that's the biological hand that I've been dealt.

Incidentally if I'm braindead then you can turn my machines off. I can see why we keep people's bodies going when they're no longer really alive it's a sign of compassion and hope (or an inability to accept loss and death) but it doesn't prove that they're alive and it's not an argument for bringing unwanted children into the world, with all the damage that it does to the mother child and society. A foetus does not think or feel in any way that we can really see as human, honestly for a time in their development neither do babies but I think that a child that has been born has made it far enough to have earned a shot, although quite frankly I think the definition of viable for premature kids has been pushed too far (as a non-parent it's a hell of a lot easier for me to say that)

In an ideal world there would be no unwanted pregnancies, as has been said above, but there won't be an ideal world so abortion needs to exist.

Joseph Kay

I think several of those were the same person under different accounts.

Tbh I think the problem is bigger than that one poster though, I agree with Fleur, there is a wider problem with sexist posters.

fingers malone

Joseph Kay

I think several of those were the same person under different accounts.

Tbh I think the problem is bigger than that one poster though, I agree with Fleur, there is a wider problem with sexist posters.

Yes, I was being flippant. As forum use declines it does seem to mean there's a higher ratio of drive-by reactionaries.

If abortion is taboo in anarchism (and it's not) it's only because the position that a zygote is a human being at conception is only held generally by the doctrine of the Catholic Church (and even then relatively recently in the history of the Church), evangelicals and people with a terrible grasp of biology.

Just because you claim not to be influenced by religious dogma (and I have never yet come across anyone with such rigid and judgemental attitudes on this subject as you do who haven't got a shit load of religious baggage lurking in their background) it doesn't mean that your opinions are not as authoritarian and oppressive as anything peddled by the church. If you find a lack of discussion on this subject, it's most likely because your opinions are antipathetic to anarchism, that someone should have the authority to control what someone else can do with their own bodies.

Unless you feel that the fertilization of ovum and sperm automatically imbues it with spirit at conception, the argument that this cluster of cells which has the potential to develop into a viable human being, against all odds, should the conditions be right, is a person is just ridiculous.

We get your point of view, we just disagree with it.

Your premise doesn't have the implications you think it has. To say that certain cells are human doesn't carry any moral weight, and to claim that specific cells have personhood is absurd.

mistermaxgre

Some Emma Goldman (in case you do not know she was a real Anarchist)

"The custom of procuring abortions has reached such appalling proportions in America as to be beyond belief...So great is the misery of the working classes that seventeen abortions are committed in every one hundred pregnancies." ( Mother Earth, 1911)

You know one thing that really bugs me is this cultish tendency of "Well X said this, so that makes Y automatically a tenent of ____ism" argument that seems so prevalent on the internet.

But more relevant to this discussion this here is a rather poor quote, because it doesn't say what you think it says. The reference to the misery of the working classes means she's talking about poor working class women resorting to abortion because they can't afford to survive with a child. Furthermore in 1911 abortion wasn't legal in the USA except for the case of rape/incest or if medical professionals deemed child birth to be fatal to the mother, and then only in a few states. So in addition to lamenting the brutalities of living in poverty we have the added dangers of illegal and often shoddy back street abortionist*.

She also attended several abortions preformed by doctors, (she was after all a midwife) and championed the spreading of birth control practice and knowledge. So this proper anarchist would be an accessory to murder in your eyes. I think its fair to say she took the "prevention is better than cure" approach to pregnancy, but she's miles away from you mate.

Oh and I found this,

* I should point out that even legal medically approved abortions were also unsafe.

zygote is a new life, get over it.
https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

That link didn't contain any quotes from embryos. How disappointing.

mistermaxgre

Dear Tigeriskillers,

zygote is a new life, get over it.
https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

A germinated seed is a new life. How dare you eat carrots, you murdering monster.

I previously held anti-abortion views, but I've completely reversed it up to extreme levels. What always bothered me was the pro-abortion folk simplistically stating that it wasn't my choice to make. But this ignores that the foetus is left without choice. Similarly, anti-vegans state that it is simply their choice. But this ignores the animal. The argument then is the right to choice for the foetus or animal, and therefore this argument requires addressing. Ultimately, I was convinced otherwise when I factored in the consciousness of beings.

Right of life should be determined by the level of the state of consciousness. Even after birth, the baby does not consider itself an independent being. This conscious realisation happens some time after birth, I forgot how long this takes. Emotionally, killing newborn baby is absolutely horrific and sickening because it demonstrates an utter lack of empathy and therefore a predisposition towards cruelty. Morally, it isn't particularly condemnable I would say, controversially. The baby has no emotional ties to life, to people, did not have plans for the future. The newborn baby does not understand itself in time, past, present, or future. It is barely conscious. This does not mean I think it should be permitted to kill newborn babies, but I would not consider killing a newborn baby to be on the same level as killing an adult. Additionally, killing the newborn baby of parents would possibly traumatise the parents, whom do experience emotional ties to the newborn baby. Second, it is not necessary, as one can be unburdened of the newborn baby in non-cruel ways. This logic does not apply to carrying a foetus to terms to then give it up for adoption as the foetus imposes itself on the carrier. The state of consciousness of the mother, in this case, overrules the right to life of the foetus owing to the latter's far lower, insignificant state of consciousness.

MisterAsshat has been watching too many crap misleading anti Planned Parenthood videos. The anterior cingulate, which is where pain processing is handled in the cerebral cortex, doesn't even start developing until the 26th week of gestation. and the connections required to transmit pain don't start developing until the 29th week. As for babies crying, it's a reflex. Anencephalic babies (ie babies born without a brain but with a brain stem) also cry. Like I said, just to keep it simple for you, it's a reflex. It's not a sign of sentience.

The vast majority of pregnancy terminations occur by 16 weeks, the fetus have no capacity of neural transmission of pain or anything else.

Oh, don't misunderstand me, I'm not here to debate you, just to call you a dumbfuck and tell you you're wrong.

coma patients usually have the totality of the neuroanatomical systems, but do not "feel" pain, as has been established by brain scans.
regardless, people who can get pregnant will continue to seek abortions, legal or not. what is your solution to that?

well, one difference between "common" murder and abortion is that many factors can lead to the termination of a pregnancy before term - where would the line be drawn? would every pregnant person be subject to control and surveillance of their diet and behavior, or face the charge of murder if their pregnancy was not viable?

i actually don't think that this is a "minor thing"; my issue isn't the technical aspect, but the vast amount of social control that would have to be imposed to regulate pregnant people to determine why a pregnancy ended, which seems completely antithetical to any anarchist social organization

Dennis Robert Pike

I previously held anti-abortion views, but I've completely reversed it up to extreme levels. What always bothered me was the pro-abortion folk simplistically stating that it wasn't my choice to make. But this ignores that the foetus is left without choice. Similarly, anti-vegans state that it is simply their choice.

what your ignoring is no one can be justified in hijacking someone else body, even if the fetus was a fully conscious person that wouldn't require that the person whos womb it inhabited carry it to term

this fuckin' guy

I bother because I am an Anarchist and it frustrates me the fact that there are taboos within our movement, we should be at least able to talk.

No, no one owes you a defense of their agency over their body.

As you so bravely put it, get over it.

#18:

It's meaningless to think of a cluster of cells, an embryo or a foetus as a human being or a person. They have no independent existence or self awareness.

I thought that the essence of a human being is his/her social aspect not his/her 'independence' or awareness of self.

To think a human being exists from the moment of conception is based on faith. It cannot be proven to be true or false.
All evidence is questionable as doubt is only the means to test the faith of a true believer.
Faith like the seas have their source, and so have shallow springs.
The firmest faith is found in fewest words – “I believe”.
Blind faith the corrupter of the human spirit.

(With apologies to Edward Dyer from whom I borrowed a few lines)

Can we ban this troll please?

Ill informed nasty little busy body wrote:

they keep asking how minor things will be regulated

As if the policing and regulating and judging other people's bodies is a minor thing.

In my community I will be voting for no abortions and if accepted, every woman that commits murder would have to face the same trial and procedures from the same court as any other "common" murderer.

So, in the minutest off chance that dipshit will find a community of anarchists who all want to regulate people's bodies, this minor thing will require monitoring people's reproductive choices. Mmm, very libertarian communist. How's that going to work, do tell. Monthly pregnancy tests for everyone who can get pregnant, just to be sure that any potential fetus (31% of fertilized eggs are not viable) is fully protected by the strength of the law you seek to impose. If someone tests positive they'll have to be watched like a hawk to make sure nothing happens to the precious little zygote.
Given that the most common form of early abortion (outside the US) is non-surgical, I suggest monitoring everything the pregnant person ingests, just in case they consume any Mifepristone or Misoprostol, or more likely as you will have decided to ban these very safe drugs, a toxic cocktail of poisonous herbs or other substances. I guess if someone does miscarry, then you will preside over a tribunal to decide whether or not it was medical mishap or murder. That will probably involve a physical examination/sexual assault.

Your attitudes to regulating the bodies of other people to conform to your own morality is entirely incompatible with anarchism and you would be better investigating other forms of ideology, have you considered joining the Westboro Baptist Church? If you want to force people to give birth to babies they do not want, fuck knows what else you think is acceptable.

Cutting you more slack than you deserve here, not even the Pope or any other religious doctrine holds the same draconian views on abortion as you - trying someone who has had an abortion for murder. What a cruel and vindictive person you are. The only explanation I can find for your opinions, if you're not religious, is that you're just fucking clueless. Maybe you're just too young, never been in the confidence of adult women, because if you had and you had even an iota of empathy you would understand just what a big deal pregnancy is, what a physical and psychological toll it takes on a body, how hazardous to the health it is, how dangerous it can be and how much of a disaster an unwanted pregnancy is. We're not fucking incubators, you can't just pop one out casually, pregnancy, childbirth, child-rearing has massive effects and consequences.
Even in a hypothetical world without poverty and full parental support having a child would be a colossal undertaking. You must really dislike women if you want to put them through that when they don't want to.

I do not feel humanity can be reduced to the level of cells that would fit into a test tube. The exact moment when these cells emerge into what is recognisably a human being holds little interest to me. The real immediate needs of the victims of rape, incest, etc., I believe take precedence over these rather pedantic interests.

Your morality is akin to the ethical zest of the inquisition, having to be cruel to be kind. As they were interested only in saving souls for the next life, you are careless of the born in pursuit of the rights of the unborn.
People with your brand of ideas compound the miseries of humanity.

All these pro-lifers talking about the right to life for the unborn child. Women have abortions for various good reasons, sometimes because the preganancy threatens their life, but also sometimes because they know they won't have the resources or wherewithall to be able to provide for the coming child. I have to ask -- talking about the right to live is one thing. But what about the right of the fetus to not have to be forced into a world that would provide them with unreasonable pain and suffering?

Is life always a good thing? I know it sounds sick to ask such a thing, but after seeing many of my elders beg for death in their miserable last years -- and how everyone else in the family kept trying to keep them alive -- I just feel a little confused about this. I certainly don't know that people should get abortions just because they don't desire, in some superfluous way, to take care of a special needs child -- it's not my place to really make that judgement -- but what if they literally cannot take care of such a child? Do we still force that child into existence because we believe that life is essentially a good thing, no matter how miserable or painful? I kinda feel sick thinking about this because it all has a eugenics sort of tinge to all of it. I hope you all understand that resistance I have to my own thoughts here. But I'm wondering what all of you think?

Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception)... Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being.

Moore, Keith L., Essentials of Human Embryology; Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2

infektfm

Doctor assisted suicide has recently become legal here, it's definitely something I would favour for myself if my quality of life got so dire.

My workplace is involved in supporting an organization which supports low income families of children with special needs/disabilities. From what I see there, society's support for families of special needs kids is just woeful. In addition to the lack of financial and social support, relationships often break down under the strain of caring for a kid with disabilities, leaving one parent doing most of the heavy lifting. I don't think that anyone has the right to force someone to either go through with a pregnancy of a child with profound disabilities or to compel someone to terminate it. I don't see anti-abortion making any serious noise about helping and supporting children or parents after birth.

Thing is, I think we pander to these assholes too much. The argument always goes alone the lines of what about rape, incest, birth defects, danger to the pregnant person's health, always having to justify some kind of acceptable reason why someone has an abortion, when not wanting to be a parent is a perfectly justifiable excuse. Anti abortion people are always talking about babies, where the baby stage - for all the sleep deprivation etc - is actually the easiest part of child raising. Having a baby involves 18+ years of commitment to caring for, supporting and nurturing another human being, through all kinds of circumstances. If somebody doesn't want to do that, for whatever reason, then not continuing with that pregnancy is a perfectly reasonable choice.

And you can quote as many texts pontificating about where you think life begins at what stage of embryonic development as you like, it really doesn't fucking matter. There are few things which carry as much responsibility as bringing another human being into the world and raising them to adulthood and if you are not ready, willing or able to do that, nobody should be forced into it.

mistermaxgre

Dear Reddebrek,

I didn't post the quote of Red Emma to prove me right, but to imply that Anarchist can be against Abortion. I had to do that because there was name calling (ie shitbag) and some people were asking mods to ban me.

Your opening post called many users murderers so you don't have any right to complain about a lack of civility.

The quote is not straight forward but its clear that Emma considers it "bad", or an indication of misery.

No actually it isn't, it is very obvious that she viewed abortion as an effect of a cause, she criticising the cause not the effect. She also repeatedly condemned the class based hypocrisy of the issue, where by wealthy women could easily acquire a (relatively speaking) safe abortion, whilst working class women had to rely on quacks and poisons.
That is basically the core of all of her positions.Furthermore in her own autobiography she explains the reason she always refused to preform the procedure herself despite being begged repeatedly for it was because it was dangerous.

"I could,of course,induce an abortion. Many women called me for that purpose, even going down on their knees and begging me to help them, “for the sake of the poor little ones already here." They knew that some doctors and midwives did such things, but the price was beyond their means. I was so sympathetic; wouldn’t I do some thing for them? They would pay in weekly instalments. I tried to explain to them that it was not monetary considerations that held me back; it was concern for their life and health. I would relate the case of a woman killed by such an operation,and her children left motherless. But they preferred to die, they a vowed; the city was then sure to take care of their orphans, and they would be better off"

Emma was not attending Abortions, despite being midwife, I guess just because of the nature of the procedure (involving the killing of a helpless offspring).

Your lying, you don't actually know what Emma Goldman's views were on the topic and are merely scraping the bottom of the barrel. I notice that the quote you posted was also plastered over many anti abortion sites, all without context or elaboration. Here's another time she explained her reasons for not preforming abortions.

page 164
" I could not prevail upon myself to perform the much -coveted operation. I lacked faith in my skill and I remembered my Vienna professor who had often demonstrated to us the terrible results of abortion.He held that even when such practices prove successful, they undermine the health of the patient. I would not undertake the task. It was not any moral consideration for the sanctity of life;a life unwanted and forced in to abject poverty did not seem sacred to me. But my interests embraced the entire social problem, not merely a single aspect of it, and I would not jeopardize my freedom for that one part of the human struggle"

In summary Emma Goldman's opposition to abortion was based on two planks, one its a very dangerous procedure -which it was at the time- but medical science has made these operations much safer and less damaging, so this is outdated. And two, she felt there were better ways to combat the social ills of untenable pregnancy.

But its important to keep in mind, that she never once condemn a woman for seeking an abortion, nor did she condemn those medical professionals whom preformed them. What she did condemn was the social evils that forced women to try this dangerous procedure, the back street abortionists whom behaved unethically, and the legal and moral authorities that force so many poor and desperate women into the hands of the back street sawbones.

Nevertheless I do not suggest to accept or condone aborions just because X was for or against. This is actually what I am saying to other members here pointing Church hate towards abortions.

Not buying it, you cited Emma Goldman to validate your ideas as `anarchistic` all you've done instead is exposed your ignorance even more so.

A temporarily unconscious person's state of consciousness is still defined as conscious, sentient, and self-aware. Perhaps the ability to become conscious should be factored in, to an extent. But not when this interferes with the carrier's self-determination.

mistermaxgre

@Rededbrek

If we accept that a zygote is a new human, then, I guess, you agree with me, that they are murderers. I didn't say -or care- whether a random user is a murderer or not.

??? I didn't say you cared, I said you shouldn't moan when you receive rudeness after calling other people murderers. You also shouldn't complain when a user calls you something you don't like because the same logic applies to them.

For example, if "we" (its also considered incredibly rude to presume to speak for others by the by) accept that calling someone a murderer is the action of a "shitbag" then, I guess you agree with them that you are a shitbag.

How's that for logic?

As far as Emma is concerned it is obvious that I didn't do my research very well and you have a valid point. But, this doesn't affect my main point that abortion is the killing of - as emma states- a new life.

Actually it does because at no point did she state when exactly she believed a pregnancy resulted in a "Life", the closest she ever came to a "new life" statement was referring to successful births, so no you and her have nothing in common and your repeated attempts to latch onto her limpid like is just another example of your poor behaviour. You're still being grossly dishonest and trying twist out of your own trap.

I don't have an opinion on this matter either way. I just wonder why so many of the commentators on this thread and others feel it necessary to rip into someone personally. I have looked at the account of misterrmaxgre and this is only the second topic that he/she has posted on these forums. I presume that you would wish to accept as many and as varied contributors as possible (as long as they profess to be anarchist/socialist/communist) for the most animated discussion. Or is your sole purpose to preach your lines to the converted?

As far as abortion is concerned my own proviso is that caution should be taken when making the decision and that society should stress that it be an action [taken by a doctor] of last resort.

What's animating about this discussion? Men spewing anti-choice nonsense are easy enough to find on any number of news networks, why would anyone have any desire to engage with that on a libertarian communist forum? And given that there are plenty of people who profess to be anarchists who use it to peddle pedophilia (e.g. Hakim Bey), crypto-fascism (e.g. national anarchists), and any number of other appalling things, this seems like a very poor criteria for treating someone with whatever you regard as the adequate level of thoroughly unearned respect--and the OP's already gotten far more in-depth responses from Fleur and others than they've done anything to warrant.

Whirlwind #64

I basically share your opinion on abortion and doubt if anyone here takes the procedure lightly.
However, if someone posts about abortion as murder and advocates retribution, all cloaked in a concern about the essence of life/showing solidarity to the unborn child, they are asking for their motives to be questioned. As Tyrion intimates, there are plenty of individuals parading as anarchists (and communists) who imagine that gives them a license to talk reactionary crap.

mistermaxgre #44

‘In my community I will be voting for no abortions and if accepted, every woman that commits murder would have to face the same trial and procedures from the same court as any other "common" murderer.’

This is advocating retribution in my book, or where you thinking of awarding good conduct medals?

Right Auld-bold, in this instance the haranguing was evidently necessary to bring out the atrocious views this man was not revealing at first.

Right, so everything is out in the open. This man is up shits Creek without a paddle. No one has been banned. But why did four of you c*#ts vote me down. What did I do? I never advocated putting women up for trial because they've aborted their pregnancy. All I want to demonstrate is that beyond the hellish existence we have now there may be a future life where there will be no circumstances in which abortion will be the preferred choice. It is not such a distant dream!

MrWhatever

My post on assisted suicide was not directed at you, it was addressing points Infektfm made, which is why I tagged it so in bold at the top of my post. See my post #42

Oh, don't misunderstand me, I'm not here to debate you, just to call you a dumbfuck and tell you you're wrong.

Your arguments are not debate worthy, they are beneath me.

You got this from what I wrote (again not to you)

So, because society mistreat special needs kids, we should be allowed not to kill just them, but all of them. You must be a nuclear scientist or something... (My pov is not to kill either)

You're not very bright then because that was not at all what I said. Incidentally you ought to look up what a nuclear physicist actually does. I used to know one very well and he used to monitor nuclear reactors, never killed a child in his life.

whirlwind

I don't give a toss whether this is a new poster, a regular or the pope, someone who considers the lives of actual people to be considerably less than the hypothetical potential of development of a fetus is beneath contempt and deserves no respect.

You know that 47,000 people die from the complications of unsafe abortions every year?
http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/topics/unsafe_abortion/magnitude/en/

You know that's a conservative figure too? Did you read the article I pasted up on page 1 about the return of backstreet abortions in the US? Or are you too busy pontificating on the subject which is a serious issue of life and death to actual living pregnant persons, reducing down to head up your arse theoretical navel gazing on the meaning of consciousness? And as people who will never have to deal with pregnancy, you think you have any actual legitimate say in how someone who is pregnant decides to carry on? Who are you to decide what circumstances an abortion occurs? An action of last resort? Unless you're the one who's knocked up it's none of your fucking business what criteria someone decides to terminate their pregnancy.

Why should I play nice? Why should I humour people who want to meddle in someone else's medical issues? Why should I debate in a kind and generous way with someone who wants to control other people's bodies? Fuck knows, the other side don't play nice. They deny pregnant people the agency over their own bodies and their own lives, they condemn people to injury and death, to wrecking their bodies and their health with forced pregnancies, criminalize people who want to control their own childbearing, imprison people for miscarriages in the name of pro-life. Someone took a gun and shot up a Planned Parenthood last year in the US, at the same time as death by backstreet abortion has returned to the US, when access to safe legal abortion is under sustained attack. I don't play nice anymore and I don't humour ignorant, misogynist bigots. I'm lucky enough to live somewhere where we have safe, free, legal abortion on demand and I think everyone should be able to access this too. And fuck people who are never going to be put in the position where they need an abortion waffling on about ethics, the meaning of life, definitions of sentience or any other hypothetical mumbo jumbo. It's not an exercise in theoretical clap trap, it's an actual necessary procedure that people need.

Auld-bod:

Is abortion something that people take lightly? I certainly don't. Just a few decades ago there was no access to abortion where I am and it killed and maimed people, as it still does in so many parts of the world. I damned sure I don't want to go back to that and I will not play nice and I will shout down arseholes who want to drag us back there.

misterbigot:

I'm not addressing any of the so called issues you're bringing up because you're just spewing crap. Given that most of the people who get pregnant are women, anyone who is vindictive enough to deny them basic reproductive choices must really hate women, and therefore you are not worthy of my engagement.

Just go fuck yourself and I sincerely hope nobody else ever does.

And just what we all need, another After The Revolution fantasy, living in a cloud cuckoo land hypothetical world that nobody here will ever see, dancing over a subject which has massive impact on real people in the real world right now.

mistermaxgre

I am happy with the discussion, I think I have defended well my points.

Hahaha! I love that this is an example of a discussion going well for you! Funny, but oh so sad :-(

So just cos you seem to dodge these questions repeatedly and then accuse others of trolling and ignoring your 'points':

What's the grand plan for policing women on their behaviour while pregnant?
How are you going to keep track of who is pregnant?
How will you determine if it's a miscarriage?
Why is it ok for men to wank and kill all those potential little people?

I love that he is offended at the word cunt as sexist but wishes to control women's bodies.
Also this line (my bold.)

Any comrade who will jump into this will read our arguments and decide for himself.

Really, Mr. Whatevers and Whoevers and Everybodies can go pound sand and turn blue. What they think or say about the "moment of human life" is just bollocks.

This is a question of social control; of society denying women safe access to medical procedures in order to maintain women in a subordinate status.

What you like or don't like, what you believe or don't believe, what offends you or doesn't, is completely immaterial.

As a women friend said to more than me on more than one occasion, "If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament." Indeed.

Everybody should just shut up. Our obligation is to provide safe, free reproductive health care to all women. The decision whether to have an abortion is solely, solely a decision of the woman involved and her healthcare provider.

Absolutely, we should all just shut up because discussing real issues which affect actual people isn't at all important, not when we could be picking over the bones of dead Spaniards or translating Otto Ruhle into Esperanto or something equally as vital.

If you're going to discuss real issue, then discuss the real issue-- the denial of safe medical care to a sector of the population based on gender.

Discussing "when life begins" is not discussing a real issue. Advising caution when considering abortion is not a real issue. No woman undergoes an abortion on a whim.

I'm slightly amused and at the same time slightly baffled by all three replies just above. Do you behave with such bluster in life outside of Internet chat rooms? One says she does not wish to debate but continues to; another recoils from a term of everyday speech; and then the third...

These are not matters that we have much bearing on in any case: the state is the primary arbitrator on matters of life and death. The state can determine whether a woman aborts it's unborn child without consent of the mother to be; and it is the state we should reserve our venom for. Good morning, good day and good night. Speak soon.

Fleur #72

‘Auld-bod:
Is abortion something that people take lightly? I certainly don't. Just a few decades ago there was no access to abortion where I am and it killed and maimed people, as it still does in so many parts of the world. I damned sure I don't want to go back to that and I will not play nice and I will shout down arseholes who want to drag us back there.’

I am puzzled by part of your post (#72). I’ve had no objections to the content of your posts on this thread.

The post, which you take exception to (#66), was clearly in reply to whirlwind (#64), who stated that in his/her opinion abortion should not be undertaken lightly, so inferring that some posters may not take this position. I stated I did not think this was the case. The only example I know of, would be the old Soviet Bloc, where abortion was often used as a form of birth control. This is not, I think, relevant to the present discussion.

I’ve had friends and family who have miscarried and had terminations, and need no lecture from you or anyone else about the stress and harm caused by these life changing events. I agree with you regarding the days of illegal abortions, as these were not only dangerous but added immeasurably to the trauma of the process. Again, I’ve friends who are now in their seventies, who still bear the scars.

OP banned, trolling.

Good!

Apologies, only just seen this, but yes he has been banned, and he is not an anarchist at all, elsewhere he has made posts supporting ISIS. Interesting how he would reconcile that with being opposed to murder…

Do you behave with such bluster in life outside of Internet chat rooms

I do. Never write anything on the Internet you are not willing to say to somebody's face.

I do. Never write anything on the Internet you are not willing to say to somebody's face.

Same. I don't do nice to ignorant assed bigots spouting bullshit. My days of being nice to assholes spewing bigotry is over. You want a nice polite debate, take it to the Guardian. You want to consider both sides, how fucking liberal can you get? And talk about hypocrisy, if a member of Britain First came here and started spewing fash crap it'll be all "Way hey, lads, let him have it!" However when a vile troll comes here and starts on hating women and wanting to have people who have had abortions tried for murder, we're suppose to have a nice kind debate, turn it into some bioethical mumbo jumbo about when it is appropriate to allow someone to have an abortion or an ATR fantasy scenario about what reproductive choices should be permitted in a hypothetical future world? The state may be deserving of my venom but so does any arsewipe who advocates the sort of shit the OP did. I have no patience for endless yakking on about what people hope life will be like in the future when you can't be doing with confronting things as they are right now.

Auld-bod:

I was taking issue with your agreement with whirlwind's position on abortion, namely that it should be an option of last result. Yet another concession to what other people feel acceptable when permitting abortion. In the same post as he said he didn't have an opinion on the subject either way, which begs the question why the fuck he was bothering to post, he also was opining that he thought it should be stressed that it was an option of last resort. People should keep their morality out of other people's reproductive health choices.
Incidentally, because of the services available to me and because I have already had 3 children and have no intention of having any more, should I find out that I was pregnant today it would be my option of first resort and I would definitely arrange an abortion by the end of this week because like most people who are confronted with a pregnancy I am perfectly capable of making up my own mind on something and don't need to be told what exactly is right for me.

I know he's gone, but it's amazing the person who calls other murderers then sulks at the lack of civilized debate....

Fleur #88

The ‘option of last resort’, I interpreted as carefully weighing the options before making a decision. I would think most people would, so no big deal. I don’t think there is anything pejorative in the term ‘resort’ (a thing one has recourse to), perhaps you think I wish to interfere in someone’s free choice – not so.

Do you behave with such bluster in life outside of Internet chat room

I do. Never write anything on the Internet you are not willing to say to somebody's face.

I believe you, so do I mate, just for some reason I tone it down when writing.

Down votes

mistermaxgre

The question how we will tackle abortion comes after whether Abortion is a murder or not.

It isn't a murder so we'll tackle abortion by making it freely available and safe.

Same. I don't do nice to ignorant assed bigots spouting bullshit. My days of being nice to assholes spewing bigotry is over. You want a nice polite debate, take it to the Guardian. You want to consider both sides, how fucking liberal can you get? And talk about hypocrisy, if a member of Britain First came here and started spewing fash crap it'll be all "Way hey, lads, let him have it!"

I agree. My comments were directed at those who wanted to hear him out; who thought there was some sort of "moral" question, "sanctity of life," issue involved.

There is not. The issue is simply providing safe medical care to a sector of the populations that uniquely may decide to use it. That's it.

When you oppose that, when you think that is not the issue, you are arguing for control of this portion of the population-- its subjugation through unequal, unsafe, unsanitary, unhealthy, medical care. Like one would consign a prison or slave population.

Again, the embryo isn't sufficiently conscious to be entitled to self-determination to the point where it limits the self-determination of the carrier/mother.

Dennis Robert Pike, are you proposing the state determines the point at which the embryo is conscious in order for the state to pronounce when it is legal for it to exterminate the unborn?

This all seems a long way from what my understanding of what anarchism is.

whirlwind

Dennis Robert Pike, are you proposing the state determines the point at which the embryo is conscious in order for the state to pronounce when it is legal for it to exterminate the unborn?

This all seems a long way from what my understanding of what anarchism is.

That's exactly where the discussion does not belong-- as if someone is trying to develop an index or a point when the state sanctions "extermination" of the unborn.

The issue is and remains what type of health care will be made available to women based on their, women's, determination of their own needs.

The decision to terminate a pregnancy cannot be determined, or circumscribed, by someone's points on a moral compass. Such decisions must be solely between the woman and her health care provider.

What is Whirlwind's purpose with this? Is it to find a point where the state does not determine the consciousness of the embryo and thus does not interfere in the decision between a woman and her healthcare provider? Is it to enable the blanket prohibition on abortion?

What are the social consequences of whichever and whatever purpose Whirlwind has, or does not have, in mind?

What is Whirlwind's purpose with this? ...to find a point where the state does not determine the consciousness of the embryo and thus does not interfere in the decision between a woman and her health...

Since when does the state abdicate its 'right' to interfere in any human relationship? Whirlwind, your reasoning is very dubious. The state makes up the rules it thinks fit.

...when does the state abdicate its 'right' to interfere in any human relationship?

When it is smashed.