Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
I really hate them.
Here's Ann Furedi and some sensible comments:
perhaps you could do a concurrent series on who you really love too?
Or maybe you could just fuck off?
obviously depsise me then. I hate abortion.
I accept I can't force my views onto others and ban it, but I find it an absolutely horrifying thing...
but it's an important right.
It should be used as casually as the pill
you believe we should use Capital Punishment casually as well...
That's a particularly dumb comment
Have you been at an abortion center.
It's an operation : it has physical and psychological consequences.
between the pill and abortion
you're trying to provoke argument. Which is fine, but please cite your own views rather than a link to a 'I'm so painfully liberal' article.
I'm strongly anti-abortion and your comment that it should be used as casually as the pill really is what is so frightening about the whole situation. Namely that it will simply become another form of contraception.
However the psychological and perhaps long term physical impact of these pills cannot have been adequately measured just yet.
Provoking discussion and debate is not the same as provking argument.
The article does express my views. I don't think this forum excludes the views of people who are not actively taking part. Last time I checked this forum didn't include every intellectual in the world. To suggest that only the users' views should be expressed is to decry any intellectual input from elsewhere.
Do you have any evidence for your scare story of your last paragraph?
Ann Furedi is a fucking liberal, but I think you know that
that your 'used as casually as the pill' debate was made to provoke argument. Debate is fine, but it really needs people to see and acknowledge other people's viewpoints.
I haven't got evidence no, but my opinion is that these drugs are fairly new and until they have been used by women for say ten years there is no accounting for the long term effects particularly if like you endorse they are used so frequently and casually as the pill so people could end up having countless abortions without ever having to stop and consider the deep impact it is going to have on them because it's as 'easy' as taking a pill.
And of course other views are acceptable...
the resources should be used to test them, and improve them. A safe and effective abortion pill would be extremely welcome. To reach a scenario where abortions are unnecessary because there's a quicker (and cheaper) alternative should be the goal. Unfortunately, such an approach doesn't suit the current government's agenda.
as far as I can see both involve the casual taking of a life...
casual in that it is an easy decision to make.
I mean casual in that someone can take a decision to end a life (I don't really accept that is just potential) to make things more convenient for them...
In political debate I often refuse to discuss an issue in the framework presented by a right-wing agenda.
right wing agenda.
so you'll only discuss an issue with someone if they have the same views as your own?
But as it is quite strong, it shouldn't let people be less cautious ( especially since there can be worse consequenves after sex than being pregnant...)
Contraception is better
I used to be full on anti-abortion, but now I just think that apart from if someones got up the duff from being raped or something, they should be allowed to abort, but be forced to look at the tiny dead baby that just got minced out of them or whatever.
Abortion is one thing, but the oft pimped idea that it is a casual pain and consequence free easy option for the enlightened modern woman is repulsive.
he said EXCEPT in cases of rape should the above happen.
which i don't agree with, because it assumes that having an abortion is an "easy" decision to make with no side-effects, which I can imagine it never is.
but it still doesn't make what he said a great deal better.
as i said, it's taking the point of view that having an abortion is the "easy" way out, which it really really isn't.
you've never been kicked in the balls.
so can any man.
True. Ultimately, men can never know. But, a man can have a political view on women's rights.
your first paragraph is meant to be a joke.
"I feel there is now a culture where abortion is put on a par with the morning after pill or even the pill itself."
Let's hope so.
well, it wasn't a joke, but I wouldn't seriously DO that to people.
However I do think there is too much feminist stuff like that article that doesn't show the downside of having an abortion, and I kinda wanted to highlight that.
I don't know anyone who has had an abortion who hasn't been totally fucked up and guilt-ridden by it.
I find feminism a pretty offensive concept, by the way, 'cos it's not based on any interest in equality, it's all about 'revenge' on the species of men for their dominance of women over the ages...
People are people...we should be getting to a stage in our evolution where we can try and work past silly superficial differences
different things - standpoint feminism, postmodern feminism etc.
That is all middle-class hogwash. See my post below.
real feminism is a feature of socialism. All other agendas using the term "feminism" are not interested in true equality.
"That is like saying that socialism is the only "real" ideology or politic."
Yes, and your point is?
"It maybe be your ideology or politics but there is more in the world than just yourself Traynor." It's not mine, I think some German fellow first elucidated it.
and that comment shows you have very little understanding of feminism and feminists.
and what true eqaulity means.
sure you have convinced yourself of that.
I have a pretty good understanding of feminism...I did a term long module during my philosophy degree
I'm not an ignorant person, I just find it a pointless and annoying standpoint
it isn't 'middle-class'. what the fuck are you even talking about? it's just that feminism has been subdivided into different movements by people studying it.
if you don't make such distinctions, it's difficult to say what you agree with and disagree with sufficiently accurately. e.g. i agree with feminists who strive for equality but not with the ones who say 'all men are bastards' and stuff. if there was only one strand of feminism it would be hard to slag off the right people.
People call themselves feminists and yet hold political views that counter true equality.
Non-socialist "femisim" is just middle-class chattering that has no connection with equality other than for the wealthy.
feminism = egalitarianism then?
You confuse me sometimes.
Equality of the sexes is an aspect of social equality expoused by Marx and subsequent commentators.
A socialist is automatically a feminist, just as he or she is automatically oposed to racism. A true proponent of feminism would, necessarily, need to be a supporter of socialism.
Any woman should ahve the right to not have a child. Eqaully, every woman should have to right to have a child. Single mothers should have access to FREE childcare so that they can pursue a career, or, alternatively, a rate of benefit that allows them to provide for their children without constant demands that she finds a job, and a decent home.
Any feminist should be thoroughly and unambiguously opposed to the demonisation of single mothers claiming benefit.
These "girls" as you call them, should have access to affordable and decent accommodation outside of the parental home regardless of whether or not they have children. The fact that some young women can only see a chance of a home if they are pregnant is a daming indictment of the housing situation in this country. Nobody wants to "get benefits"; they want enough money to live on.
that's simply not supported by facts. the overwhelming majority of teenage mothers continue to live at home.
Feminism is the striving for equality, and, as Jasmine points out, if there is equality then feminism is not required because it has achieved its goal.
"*If you tally up work hours."
Exactly. So it's a stupid thing to say.
But I hate racism
i think hollywood_freak is right. I've always thought the anti-abortion movement is morally and philosophically consistent. But i'm pro-choice because i'm a realist and a pragmatist.
hmmm, it's very difficult to to talk about this with regard to the whole world since in the poorest countries men and women tend to be very low earners and often unskilled. In developed countries, however, it's different.
it's also nonsense to equate hours with work. Me and my dad both do 50 hour weeks but he's a doctor and probably does more work than i do.
You are deliberately judgine my ability to examine and understand the world based on how you appraoch an intellectual understanding. Age helps in understanding, as does not existing in cotton wool, financially.
They are much more interested in the political aspects of easy-to-obtain abortion.
nonsense. their position is pretty morally consistent. perhaps you can try to find fault with it?
exist to provide bigger profits for Western companies that exploit the people in those countries.
always end up going off on a tangent.
I like that you provoke debate but I wish you could see an argument through.
You start discussions well, but when somebody outwits you, you divert the conversation towards something completely different or something so woolly that noone can continue to debate with you.
and you know it
to be carful that a topic is discussed erroneously as a seperate entity unconnected to other issues. Such an approach ensures that the topic is not discussed fully and a merely abstract discussion takes palce. In discussion, I don't allow those opposed to discussion to place false boundaries around the topic being discussed.
you place a false boundary around EVERY discussion by CONSTANTLY invoking an irrelevant 19th century sociologist.
I will dismiss irrelevences
You're just wrong. Ineqaulity is the cause of capitalism, not the other way round.
economic systems tend to not consider women as autonomous units so its not THAT relevant
does that make you 'middle-class'?
how dare you sully Traynor's thread?!
My politics developed independently of ideology. They developed from observation and experience. Marxism, both old and new, elucidated what I already knew and supported.
If you wish to deride my knowledge and understanding by claiming I am merely a follower of an ideology, in order to help your argument then go ahead.
what caused capitalism? the inequitable allocation of resources thousands of years ago.
you're talking specifically about underdeveloped countries, then. I just don't think it's clear that its a feminist issue and not just a general issue of underdevelopment and poverty.
They are right-wingers who include anti-abortion views in their manifesto because it suits their political outlook and aims.
mentally lazy bullshit.
you can't pick a moral hole in the anti-abortion case so you question your political opponent's integrity. How very socialist.
Is a word invented and used by a right-wing agenda to decry and insult a political viewpoint. It is used to imply that supporters of a political outlook are led by instinct rather than intelligence and are unable to assess anything intelligently and rationally.
I don't need to pander to agenda-ridden requests from those who seek to dismember my views
In some of the poorest nations in the world, women are treated appallingly, yes. But I don't believe that European societies subjugate women and the growth of political freedoms in wealthy societies has been pretty much allied with economic development. So, I don't see why Africa needs feminism as much as it needs good government.
Some may like to have their own home
you'd guarantee a house for teenage mothers?
so 14-year old mother should have to live at home?
i know the developing world is more than just africa. i just got fed up of typing 'developing world'
I really wanted an argument about the 'pay gap' but you can't always have what you want
the British gender pay gap
haha. ok. i'm off to watch the football now.
I was talking about women over 16 and having left school.
that's another issue, that I can bring into this discussion without worry of going off on one of SCL's "tangents", the lack of availaibility of contraception to those under 16.
It is a dismissive nose-in-the-air response to moronic views that do not deserve anything else
The fact that you don't have an accurate idea of your polictics speaks volumes.
Your assertion that I am not speaking from a position of surety about my outlook on life but rather am reiterating a standard view is either dishonest or else your understanding is infested by common modern prejudices that devalue an intellectual understanding of the world.
and aquantances who work in this field and they are yet to meet anyone who told them they got pregnant to get a house, more benefits etc. It is a generalisation and assumption.
One of many that exist.
The demonisation of people who are unemployed is one of the worst consequences of the last twenty-seven years of right-wing government.
the original point, banning abortion would mean more unloved children growing up in orphanages etc. It's an unfair world, children dying of starvation etc. If we could get it together as a species we could maybe put an end to both of these. I don't see it though so banning abortion is a non starter in realistic terms.
so what i say may have been mentioned before.
I'm guessing we all agree killing innocent human life is wrong. So this debate comes down to when human life starts. I'm anti-abortion as i think human life starts when you are concieved. Lots of people disagree, but hating everyone who thinks that way is very stupid.
I suppose you can look at the abortion issue in two different ways
If you believes that the foetus is human, and that killing (innocent) humans is wrong, then without question you have to stand against abortion. None of this "i think its wrong except where the mother is really upset cos she's been raped, or she has discovered that (shock horror) her baby might have a disability of some kind." *If* you think the foetus counts as life, and killing life is wrong, then its just tough luck to the rape victims, they can't kill their babies; abortion is wrong.
Now not that many people go along with that, though there are two ways to solve it: a) deny the foetus as human life OR b)decide its okay to kill it.
a) The question of when human life begins is, of course, a difficult one. I disagree it begins at fertilisation as I find it hard to identify one cell as a human life, regardless of its potential to become one.
Another popular criterion is that a foetus is only human when it is able to live outside the womb. However such a criteria for human life is ridiculous, as the ability to live outside the womb is largely dependant on the technology available, and so under this criteria human life begins at different points in different periods of time, hence the human life of someone born in the 1900's is defined differently from someone born in 2000, this causes obvious problems. One solution is to tighten the criteria to foetus is only human when able to survive unaided outside the womb, this again causes problems as premature babies are no longer seen as human...
So how to define human life? Commonly we define humanity as that which differentiates us from animals: consciousness. So could we say the human life begins when a foetus is aware that its aware? To me such a definition appears fine, except for the obvious problem that we are currently unable to determine when this happens. As such a relatively cautious limit for abortion may be appropriate, one based on the size of the foetus's brain perhaps? I don't know I'm not a biologist.
B) In the absence of such absence of such information we can seek to defend abortion on utilitarian grounds. Under such utilitarianism, as anyone who has been forced to study it will know, human life is not seen as sacred, as long as the destruction of it will lead to greater utility overall. So abortion increases utility as it improves the mothers life and prevents the possible pain caused to the unwanted baby, whether that be being brought up by an unloving mother, being brought up in an unloving children's home, being abandoned on the street.
This Utilitarian line of argument is one usually taken by feminists. For feminists abortion represents a vital right for women becuase women without it simply do not have control over their reproductive lives and cannot participate on equal terms with men.
Anyway, I wish people who are obviously type b)s would not dress up their reasoning beyond the convenience level it is at. If you think life is sacrosanct, then fine, believe it. But don't go and contradict yourself by saying that in some circumstances related to personal convenience its okay to kill.
reminds me of that south park episode where cartmans mum wants to get him aborted at the age of 8.
when the object of the attack is not even close to me.
My political views stem from personal experience, initally. Your's, conversely, stem from observation within a controlled environment.
I always thought that the first issue of a huge series came with a free ring-binder?
The fact that more women are using the abortion pill is very positive news. The sooner a pregnancy is realised and, if unwanted, dealt the better. As a bonus, it's cheaper for the NHS.