Loading...
Welcome to Anarcho-Punk.net community ! Please register or login to participate in the forums.   Ⓐ//Ⓔ

Photos I've taken outside an abortion clinic

Discussion in 'Anarchism and radical activism' started by Becomingsoil, Apr 11, 2011.

  1. punkmar77

    punkmar77 Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member


    5,737

    203

    718

    Nov 13, 2009
     United States
    So have I Ivanovich, but this is about women being empowered to control their own lives and bodies without any morality imposed by the same gender that has (for the most part) oppressed their entire existence on the planet. How far do you take it then? Is using a spermicidal morally reprehensible as well? There is absolutely a grey area, obviously not to your sensibilities..
     
  2. Nigel

    Nigel Member Forum Member


    24

    0

    0

    Feb 26, 2012
     
    If all killing was universally prohibited then we could not exist.

    When I talk about the statistics that show that the crime rate in the US has dropped as a direct result of legalized abortion, I am not talking about "killing future offenders". That is the wrong framing for the phenomenon. Most women who have abortions go on to have children later in life... wanted children who they are in a position to support. The abortion doesn't merely eliminate an unwanted pregnancy, but also serves to interrupt a situation which most likely would have severely compromised the woman's ability to reach a point in her life when she could carry and support wanted children. This is not a discussion about eliminating the poor through killing; it is also pretty well established that eliminating the poor through better resource distribution and access to education would reduce the need for abortion. It is not a one-or-the-other proposition.

    It seems like a few people are conflating the idea of eliminating poverty and/or mitigating the effects of poverty with the idea of eliminating "the poor". That is a false equation.
     
  3. Bentheanarchist

    Bentheanarchist Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member


    931

    10

    66

    Dec 10, 2010
     
    Actually, I kind of think the universe is infinite. Wether it is finite or infinite is an unsolvable question.
     
  4. Ivanovich

    Ivanovich Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    676

    4

    6

    Jan 31, 2010
     
    Sperm and eggs do not have full compliment of dna, they are not individual life forms, merely part of the parent. Sure, there is no grey area to me. To destroy life if bad, always. You don't need a god to view life as sacred. To control your own life and body aint the problem, it's controlling other lives and bodies that is the problem. Matters not if you call them a person, I don't call cows people, still don't kill them, cos they are alive, and that's all that matters. In the absence of god, who has authority to say that my life is greater than that of a lettuce? There is none, I just happen to have a big sharp knife. In other words, power. I got more power. I got the power to play god and kill, so the lettuce dies. Might is right, and somewhere in the background I hear Hitler laughing in his grave. Not for me, I want to move beyond that. No choice, to live you must destroy life. Compromise, least harm. Still not good enough.
     
  5. Ivanovich

    Ivanovich Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    676

    4

    6

    Jan 31, 2010
     
    Fruitarians exist without killing, as do most plants. You don't think we could ever work out a way to take our energy direct from the sun, and synthesize food?

    Ok, so if you are not talking about killing future offenders, or people that are likely to be poor, what happens to the very much dead fetus?

    Do they get reincarnated a few years later, or what?

    Unwanted people. Killing unwanted people.

    Is it just me? I mean, don't ideas like that send a chill through your bones?
     
  6. butcher

    butcher Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    2,118

    2

    18

    Sep 8, 2009
     
    stick to talking to lettuces.
     
  7. slother

    slother Experienced Member Experienced member


    91

    0

    0

    Dec 27, 2011
     
    I don't get the whole Fruitarian thing. Their still eating something that was once living. Just because they didn't kill it doesn't make it any better than eating vegetables. I wouldn't eat a cow that someone else killed or that died of natural causes. And how do you suppose we "work out a way to take energy from the sun?" If that was possible, then I think our bodies would have already evolved that way. The only other way I could see that happen is through genetic modification, which would most likely be tested on animals or humans, and many test subjects would probably die in the process.
     
  8. crustybeckham

    crustybeckham Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member Forum Member


    358

    4

    13

    Jan 22, 2012
     
    In France, there is some kind of odd sect that calls itself "respiriens". They litterally feed on air, water and "energy". I think their sage leader died of hunger though...
     
  9. Ivanovich

    Ivanovich Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    676

    4

    6

    Jan 31, 2010
     
    "And how do you suppose we "work out a way to take energy from the sun?" If that was possible, then I think our bodies would have already evolved that way."

    Ok... but we aint evolved wings, and you heard of aircraft, right? So seems like evolution did miss out on a few things that are possible.

    "I don't get the whole Fruitarian thing. Their still eating something that was once living."

    The deal with eating fruit is that, not only does it not kill the plant, but the fruit has been produced by the plant to be eaten. It's how the plant disperses it's seeds. That's why they taste good, so animals will come along and eat them, and shit out (or throw away) the seeds. Everyones a winner, init.
     
  10. kyle klemenc

    kyle klemenc Member Forum Member


    10

    0

    0

    Feb 22, 2012
     United States
    I don't know what i think about the subject. i personally would never kill my own son or daughter, but people should be able to abort the organism before it has a heart beat. In my opinion when it starts developing into an actual living being it's almost unjustified to kill it. maybe this is one of the most difficult subjects to get around, all i know is I wouldn't want to be aborted and I'm thankful that i wasn't. I would however like to know the opinions of those who are for abortion-I'd like to know if it's really a decision for you or the child you carry and how soon it should be aborted, and if it's just abortion that is okay or if you should be able to kill the child after it is born? are all anarchists against pro-life(or is it spite against christains-why anarchists dislike christians if they believe everyone should be able to chose what they want in life) And if christains only go pro-life because it's their god's will or if they really value life. please do reply i have had a lot of contraversy with this subject and please don't take offense to my questions, i have alot of interest in learning about anarchism so i want real genuine answers so i may better understand.
     
  11. chief sevenleaf

    chief sevenleaf Active Member Forum Member


    42

    0

    0

    Feb 15, 2012
     
    :/

    Sorry, Ivanovich, but I strongly disagree. Killing is a necessary part of life. Tell me, is the lion a terrible creature for killing the gazelle? Am I a bad person for unknowingly decimating entire populations of bacteria? What if they are inside of me? Did you know that some bears are known to kill and eat, not 'abort', their young? These cubs are clearly living, thinking, feeling beings. Is the hunger-quenched bear evil? Is he a murderer?

    The human is smart, capable, and incredibly social, but no less an animal. Should we hold ourselves to a higher moral standard because we are more intelligent? What about the stupid? Surely the bear would refrain, if only he knew better?

    :ecouteurs:

    Please, don't get me wrong. I would never condone the killing, much less eating, of a human child. (Unless it's roasted & salted baby on rye - shit is delicious).

    [​IMG]

    I only mean to point out that there are absolutely no generalizations in this issue, whatsoever. (Get it?) When the very morality of life and personal freedoms are in question, I feel we should tread softly and arrive at decisions carefully.

    The real idea being debated here is whether or not a woman should be allowed to do as she pleases with the contents of her uterus. It amazes me that even members of an anarcho-punk forum could argue against the freedom of choice. You're arguing against the very freedom you claim to fight for. If a woman is not allowed to choose, who will do the disallowing? Who will enforce this law?

    I don't think I would ever have an abortion. I think I would bottle up a whole lot of frustration toward myself, the father, and the child I never wanted to bring into the world, which would lead to much unnecessary suffering for all parties involved. Fortunately for me, I have a penis, so this is a non-issue.

    Regardless of your thoughts on the subject, if you have a penis, your conclusion should be the same as mine. You are not a woman, therefore you should not presume to have a say in what is to be done with a woman's uterus, fertilized egg or not. Furthermore, if you're not the woman to whom the fucking uterus belongs, what fucking right do you assume you have that allows you to determine the fate of said uterus? Are you the fucking uterus police?

    :ecouteurs:

    So, at what point does a fetus acquire a right to life? At what point does a mother have a moral obligation to carry the fetus to term? What if the mother's socioeconomic condition guaranteed the child's suffering? Why must this moral obligation exist? Will aborting a fetus hurt it's feelings? Has the fetus written a pro-life poem recently?

    Personally, I don't believe in any intrinsic good or evil in nature. All of this just is, and so are we, for a little while. The lion is not wrong to kill and eat the gazelle nor is the gazelle wrong to escape and starve the lion. Somehow, while the lions, gazelles, and cub-eating-bears are off living their lives in whatever way nature allows for, the humans are stuck with the miserably tedious calculation of a point at which it's morally acceptable to remove an unborn fetus from the womb.

    Never should have eaten that damn apple...

    :ecouteurs:
     
  12. Caps

    Caps Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    393

    1

    6

    Nov 3, 2010
     
    I can understand the complexity of the issue but I think the solution is very simple: the right to choose. The level of consciousness, pain-reception and development of an unborn child is small enough to clearly not be considered part of the debate. Therefore, it is up to the parents, the woman more than the man, to decide whether bringing the child-to-be into existence is the right choice. You can be opposed to abortion on a personal level; if so, don't have one, probably don't have sex too if you're not prepared for the logically possible, ultimate consequence, there are no pure guarantees with protection. However, you do not have the right to interfere with another person's view that doesn't align with your own, at least in relation to this matter. That would be my simple summation of the situation.
     
  13. Ivanovich

    Ivanovich Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    676

    4

    6

    Jan 31, 2010
     
    Forget about lions and bears, they are a different species, they make their own rules, don't impose ours upon them. That would just be dumb.

    So, necessary equates to good, or at least, not bad?

    Not sure about that. Pain is pretty bad, well, it wouldn't be doing it's job if it wasn't bad, but it's necessary, I think.

    Do I get the right to choose what I do with my body, then, like can I strangle people with my hands, and shit, or what?
     
  14. Canis latrans

    Canis latrans Active Member Forum Member


    43

    0

    0

    Feb 26, 2012
     
    Your freedom to extend your fist ends at my nose. You at that point aren't affecting your body you are affecting my body.

    So, show of hands, who here that is saying that abortion is wrong have a uterus?
     
  15. chief sevenleaf

    chief sevenleaf Active Member Forum Member


    42

    0

    0

    Feb 15, 2012
     
    You can strangle as many people with your hands, and/or shit, as you like, so long as they are inside you.

    Pain is not bad, pain is a very good thing. It only feels bad, physically. Pain is how your brain tells you your body is in danger. It's an evolutionary survival tool. Seeing how such a tool greatly aided the survival of our species and those that predated us back to the dawn of sentient life, I consider pain to be a very good thing. Got any other bad examples?

    My point with the lions and bears is that clearly it does not take an act of hatred, malice, or evil to kill. Sometimes killing is practical. I wouldn't think twice about slitting the throat of a Nazi, cop, racist, sexist, homophobe, etc. were they threatening the life or liberty of another individual. But surely you understand the difference between this kind of killing, and say, putting a dying man with no hope of survival out of his misery?

    The fact is, a fetus under 15 weeks (94.6% of all U.S. abortions in 2006, source here) simply is not a free person or individual in any sense. It is dependent on the mother for survival. It is still part of the mother. If the mother isn't free to determine the fate of her own body, who is? To put it simply, who has the authority here? If it's anybody but the individual in question, I believe you are on the wrong forum.

    While there is certainly a difference between a mother who was raped or does not have the means to raise a child and a young promiscuous girl being careless with her sex life, you must accept that other individuals have free will. People make mistakes. Who the fuck are you to say whether or not they have to carry their mistake into the future, and care for it? Hmm?
     
  16. punkmar77

    punkmar77 Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member


    5,737

    203

    718

    Nov 13, 2009
     United States
    Life affords you that right, dealing with intent, guilt/innocence, and consequences are relatively modern man-made constructs...do you think Homo-Erectus worried much about these things?
     
  17. Ivanovich

    Ivanovich Experienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    676

    4

    6

    Jan 31, 2010
     
    Actually, I think they did worry about it. We have been social animals going way back. All our morals, laws, codes of behaviour evolved over time, all necessary to enable us to function as a social group. Same as any social species, even insects. They have their rules, codes of behaviour, society. They may not be so 'aware' of them, mostly hard coded' dna, I guess, since they are really extended families, but anyway, is still there. Just one of nature's solutions, the individual has more chance of surviving if part of a group, the species has more chance of survivng if more individuals do, though if you are a tough one, maybe you can do better alone and sod the group. Left wing, right wing, good, bad, all that shit goes way back. They is the fundamental duality of nature. Neither man, nor god, invented this shit. We just tried to understand, and wrote it down, is all.
     
  18. chief sevenleaf

    chief sevenleaf Active Member Forum Member


    42

    0

    0

    Feb 15, 2012
     
    :ecouteurs:

    Let me get all this straightened out...

    Bees, lettuce, cows and people are all on the same playing-field. Every living thing, however small or simple, has a right to life. To kill anything, ever, is bad:
    Comparing humans to lions and bears - to support the idea that good and evil are constructs of mankind, not nature - is just dumb:
    However, Comparing humans to insects is not dumb because it supports the idea that good and evil are natural, and that humans just don't fully understand what is good and what is evil:
    :ecouteurs: :ecouteurs: :ecouteurs:

    If it's wrong to kill, regardless of context, how do you explain all the killing that goes on outside the realm of humanity? Are other animals evil for killing? 'The fuck do you have against carnivorous mammals?
    What about bacteria? Eukaryotes? Do viruses count? I mean, they have a full set of genetic material. Of course, they can't metabolize by themselves, but neither can a fetus. They both require a host to replicate and synthesize new genetic material.

    In this case, perhaps abortion isn't the greatest genocide ever. This is:

    [​IMG]

    Back to the point: Not killing anything, ever:
    What about the poisonous ones? Plants I mean, not fruitarians. Did you know that some plants kill each other? The process by which plant organisms produce biochemicals that inhibit the growth & survival of other organisms is called Allelopathy.
    We're working on it. Unfortunately, solar technology isn't quite ready to meet the energy needs of all mankind. We'll try a little harder. Maybe one day we'll all grow solar nano-tubes instead of hair. Also, what would you synthesize food from if taking it from plants and animals is wrong? We could eat rocks, like the Gorons!

    :lmao: :ecouteurs:

    False. It gives you the freedom to choose. Let me know if I need to explain this one further.
    You do! Don't you understand what an amazingly fucking complex, intelligent, and beautiful organism you are?

    Your holy photosynthesizing / fruitarian / rock-eating society where laws and morals evolve and leaf vegetables have equal rights - It fucking terrifies me.

    :ecouteurs:

    I'm going to have to go with butcher on this one;
     
  19. silasraven

    silasraven Member Forum Member


    21

    0

    0

    Feb 26, 2012
     
    so most if not all of us would agree fight war not wars, so fucking clique but who cares. war is killing and ruining ones life for a meaningless cause whos only reason for it being is profit. thus it can be summed up abortion is the same as war. for life not war
     
  20. Bentheanarchist

    Bentheanarchist Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member


    931

    10

    66

    Dec 10, 2010
     
    No Its not. Most people who are against abortion are men and I am guessing you are too.
     
Loading...