The Family

Ok I understand what you are saying, but I do not agree.

Also I pride myself on morality, so I know I have morals.

What abortion seems like to me is a free pass for their mistakes. So a woman can go out and get drunk and then have sex and except to be accepted into society? Mostly rape happens at parties when the woman is drunk because she goes out and parties and neglects her responsibilities. So what do we do now? Tell her it is okay, tell her we forgive her. Also sex should happen only after marriage in a healthy finacial situation so they can afford to take care of their kids.

What you are doing is enforcing your point of view on women who are obviously more capable of making this decision than you are. This is what oppression is. It is not your place nor is it anyone elses place to tell her what will be done with herself.

But it goes the same with other moral issues, yes? Murder, for one. Murder is taking the life of another individual intentionally. We can tell people this is not good, because any moral person will agree with me. It is our place to tell people what can and what cannot someone do if it corrupts moral structure. If we loose morality, what do we base everything on? I do not think women are capable of deciding what should be done in many situations, because mostly they would want pardon for their crimes. So they can go out and have sex again, so if all ele fails, there is abortion. It is like the a 'just-in case' situation, if all goes wrong. Well, having sex, you must deal with what is brought from your actions. If you are immature, please do not except society to hold your hand and basically advocate the murder or an inocent in your defense.

cause all women that are accidentally impregnated are immature sluts.

you disgust me

No no, I never said that. In many cases, the women are not being responsible, or they are not defending themselves. If they cannot be responsibile, they should have the baby anwyays and put it up for adoption in the worst case situation. But I say this is not all cases, but in small minority, they have to have baby, too. Put it up for adoption There are many families who would love to have a child but cannnot. They will adopt.

so that means you understand that the majority of these irresponsible women are working class women with inadequate access to birth control or condoms right?

Okay, so they do not have sex then.

so if you are poor then you can't have sex

good reasoning there male chauvinist!

ITS GENIUS!

Shabazz Freeman wrote:

a baby does not gain consciousness until it's birth

I'm not sure wether to agree with that a but I disagree with the statement that a baby is part of his mother while not gainaing consciousness.

The embryo develops aside from its mother's body, it is a separate living entity, it simply is protected and nourished by its mother.

From that premise, an embryo is a living being and shall not be sacrifced. In my personal view, it's a much greater crime to kill an innoncent human than someone that is a fascist by conviction.

you just described a parasite.

if a living thing isn't aware it's living, then where is the crime in killing it?

lol, but babies ARE parasites! (jk, i don't think so, but medically, that's what they are classified under XD)

oh, card, no one addressed your question on what to base society on if there is no morality! i say: COMMON SENSE! PERSONAL ETHICS! there would be more than enough to go around in a truly equal society...

and finally: look, card, you already admitted that its only some women who are immature that go get themselves pregnant (is it not also the fault of the immature man who helped that along as well? what equal amount of physical/emotional suffering should be imposed on him?)

shouldn't we provide for the women who are genuinely in trouble? if only a small amount are going to "misuse abortion" so to speak, then...why shouldn't we provide abortion to all? isn't it better that a few misuse this right than have hundreds (throwing a random number out) of good people dying in the hands of inexperienced con artists?

that said, i repeat my position: abortion becomes near obsolete in a communist world where births have become painless and children are cared for communally anyway. (however, it should still be taught to doctors, just in case.....)

Quote :

in a communist world where births have become painless

Uhh, what? I wouldn't be so quick to speak on that subject.

Quote :

From that premise, an embryo is a living being and shall not be sacrifced.

I don't like the idea of abortions either, but i don't believe it can, and i in no way think it would be desirable to try to enforce a law prohibiting abortion. I believe that law enforcement and communism are irreconcilable in their essence.

I do agree with Sol, to some extent at least, when he says that it will become obsolete. I, myself, wouldn't use such a strong word, since there still may be accidents and possibly people who will have a change of heart. But with financial stability and free access to birth control, abortion would be an insignificant matter.

To answer the original question, i don't believe the family is the...

Quote :

Key to socialism

or a system to be replaced?

... i just think it is twisted when it is heirarchical, the way it is in most cases. So i don't think there is any inherent problem with it, just that it is sick in its current form. If it were people, as Zealot said, that are together willingly and want to have that kind of life, then by all means; but no one can be coerced, or forced, or else it is a gross enfringement upon personal autonomy and needs to be purged. Children should have no obligation their parents; they were brought into the world by someone elses will, and cannot be held responsible for his or her family or environment. When they feel they are capable, they should be free to leave.

card, your logic is iron clad.
first of all the right to pleasure is inalienable, second of all, to quote the late bill hicks

Quote :

YOU ARE NOT A HUMAN BEING UNTILL YOUR IN MY PHONE BOOK!

AD: i said "near obsolete"...sorry i just couldn't think of appropriate terms lol. uhh, just...not particularly useful, but at the same time, shouldn't be done away with...

and i think that there will be a time when births have become painless experiences, at least in the physical sense....(emotional stress lol)....

that or possibly creating babies in the nontraditional sense, through artificial wombs or something? just a suggestion...

i kinda want to look into transhumanism lol ^_^;;

and yes - families should simply be defined as a free association of people, with the right to retract said association. at least, that's what i think. =D

Shabazz Freeman wrote:

you just described a parasite.

Medically, as Solpacvoicis said, a baby qualifies as a parasite, I just didn't want to use the word.

Shabazz Freeman wrote:

if a living thing isn't aware it's living, then where is the crime in killing it?

Not being aware of its life doesn't mean it isn't alive. I'm pretty sure a 2 month old baby isn't aware he is alive so employing this logic killing a newborn is not a crime. And if we're not to consider a baby that is just 3 days away from birth a human being, or a living being, it would be perfectly ethic to "stop its lifelike development" (not to mention "kill it") before it goes out of the vagina. Basically is like saying "As long as it is inside you girl, you decide what to do with him, it's not a human just a part of your body".

Anarchist.Dagger wrote:

... i just think it is twisted when it is heirarchical, the way it is in most cases. So i don't think there is any inherent problem with it, just that it is sick in its current form. If it were people, as Zealot said, that are together willingly and want to have that kind of life, then by all means; but no one can be coerced, or forced, or else it is a gross enfringement upon personal autonomy and needs to be purged. Children should have no obligation their parents; they were brought into the world by someone elses will, and cannot be held responsible for his or her family or environment. When they feel they are capable, they should be free to leave

Agree with this.

Anarchist.Dagger wrote:

I don't like the idea of abortions either, but i don't believe it can, and i in no way think it would be desirable to try to enforce a law prohibiting abortion. I believe that law enforcement and communism are irreconcilable in their essence.

My logic on this matter is simple AD: An embryo on any stage of its development is, in my view, to be considered a living human being. We're to protect the lives of our fellow humans even from from other fellow humans isn't that right? If an embryo is a living human being in development and abortion implies killing it, then it is murder. So, in my view, allowing abortion is like allowing murder of an innocent being whose live is, like you said in the above quote, responsability of others. In my view is like if a couple has a kid but they in some moment decide is not convenient to have him live and are convinced that he'll suffer in this world, etc. So they kill him. Or like if a woman had her baby and one day she decides that she doesn't want him anymore, so she kills him.
So forbiding abortion is like forbiding murder. How does that go against communism?

Killing an innocent being is inhumane, as Zealot has said, and this is what I agree with. It is not "oppressive" to think that murder is unethical. What should we be more concerned with, the little girl who goes out has sex and then gets pragnant should have an abortion of a potential being because it is her "right" to choose to evade responsibility, or should we think of the baby's interests?

As I have said earlier, sex should be reserved for those who are married, and they should have a stable financial situation in addition. I do not tolerate little girls going out and getting drunk and getting pragnent, because they think "IT IS OKAY, I CAN GET AN ABORTION!" It is rare for a girl who is raped to get pragnant in comparison to those who ahve sex for fun because they choose pleassure above responsibility, so mostly it is their fault. And even in the cases of rape, the girl could defend herself, if not, the baby should be put up for adoption.

At the stages of embryo's development, it begins to kick and is a living, breathing, organism, and almost a human. Why should we kill a potential human just to pardon the mistakes an individual has made? This is silly, no?

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Anarchist.Dagger wrote:

I don't like the idea of abortions either, but i don't believe it can, and i in no way think it would be desirable to try to enforce a law prohibiting abortion. I believe that law enforcement and communism are irreconcilable in their essence.

My logic on this matter is simple AD: An embryo on any stage of its development is, in my view, to be considered a living human being. We're to protect the lives of our fellow humans even from from other fellow humans isn't that right? If an embryo is a living human being in development and abortion implies killing it, then it is murder. So, in my view, allowing abortion is like allowing murder of an innocent being whose live is, like you said in the above quote, responsability of others. In my view is like if a couple has a kid but they in some moment decide is not convenient to have him live and are convinced that he'll suffer in this world, etc. So they kill him. Or like if a woman had her baby and one day she decides that she doesn't want him anymore, so she kills him.
So forbiding abortion is like forbiding murder. How does that go against communism?

Okay, sorry about the delay on responding to this; i kinda spaced it. First off, i think it's technically homocide, if there are no laws. Second, i understand where you are coming from as far as your feelings towards unborn children as i used to be a christian and still have those feelings to a slight degree. So i empathize, but here's how i see it. There's no way to stop it (unless the need for it altogether disappears somehow). If you make laws, you begin to create heirarchy, and if you go rouge and, well, i think we can all imagine how that would go. You can still speak out against it, but you can't force people to do what you want, and unfortunately that seed can't speak in its own defense. So basically, i disagree with it, but trying stop it with force will only make it worse.

Shabazz Freeman wrote:

Key to socialism

or a system to be replaced?

Trots believe the family is the bedrock of women's oppression.

your thoughts?

they are theere own opressors or atleast a study in iceland showed that even women would give othere women a lower wage than they would give a man for the same job.

its called internalized racism or in this case internalized chauvinism.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=real+racist&sitesearch=#q=internalized%20racism check that out

dude 1 hour and 20 minits pleas something less?

its important to understand what the media does