PDA

View Full Version : Abortions?



wheelchairman
11-08-2004, 07:17 AM
Personally I think religious dogma gets in the way of tihs issue. I'll take the completely feminist view that a woman is not an incubator and should not be treated as one. Anything else is unacceptable and backwards.

This will be an issue that will get more and more attention over the coming months I fear. So we should discuss this issue and expand our knowledge of it.

MindlessSelfIndulgent
11-08-2004, 07:42 AM
Well i dont think abortion should be illegal, but i do think its wrong. I think we are killing something that would have turned into a little sweet babie. I dont see it as flat out murder, but, yes. But we can discuss this to no end, would throwing sperm away be killing babies too? Blah blah. As i said i dont think abortions should be illegal, cause then thered be tons of shitty mothers and fathers, and therefore tons of shitty babies. I just think that people should think twice before fuckin without condums. I know a girl (omg, yes), whos had three abortions, and that just makes me so fuckin mad. Gwah, im shit at explaining.

samr
11-08-2004, 07:51 AM
Abortion should stay legal. But only for some circumstances. Abortion should be good, for rape victims, or if the baby will most likely die at birth, or if the mother might die at the birth. and thats only if the mom wants to.

It should not be an alternative to safe sex. you cant bone someone, then get an abortion afterwards.

It is a touchy subject though, because if you get pregnant and have a baby, the baby shouldnt be a punishment to you, because its a living thing. If you tell your kid when they grow up "I had to drop out of school, and I cant go to college, and the reason I have no money is because of you, because I had sex without safety" The kid will feel bad.

But some people just dont learn and even after one kid, they might get another. so.... just keep it out, dang...

samr
11-08-2004, 07:55 AM
As for the issue of whether you are really killing something, when you get an abortion:

Well, I dont really know, because I am a guy, but I asked my mom about this, and she says that to the mother, when you feel the baby move, and kick, and all that stuff that babys do inside, it IS alive. I guess it depends how far along you are...

MindlessSelfIndulgent
11-08-2004, 07:58 AM
Well, i think theres something living from the very start.

shatskater
11-08-2004, 08:01 AM
i think the women should have the right to choose for there abortion, if they want one, get one, if they dont, then they wont get one, that simple.

MindlessSelfIndulgent
11-08-2004, 08:05 AM
Eventhough they get 27 of them?

RXP
11-08-2004, 08:05 AM
The greatest evil two people do is bring a child into this world. I'm all for abortion.

Although fuck the feminists. They should eat cum.

wheelchairman
11-08-2004, 08:11 AM
Personally, it's none of my business if a woman has an abortion 27 times or just once. Each time it should be her own choice.

I don't believe people see abortions as a form of contraception, that's just an argument used by anti-choice'ers to try and pull a moral high ground.

Women aren't incubators, nor should they be treated like them. A fetus is not a human being either, but I believe the option of abortion should be open to a woman even late into her pregnancy.

MindlessSelfIndulgent
11-08-2004, 08:18 AM
Well, yes, it should be their own choice, but meh. I just cant emagine how theyd be able to live with that. Most, to not say all, women who get abortions are deeply depressed for several months. Murder or not. I do believe you feel youve killed something. Thats normal. And then for someone to just get abortion after abortion. Just so careless. Pluh, i dont think they should even be allowed to have sex.

SicN Twisted
11-08-2004, 08:42 AM
If abortion is matter, so is contraception. And not having sex when you have an opportunity too.

Moose
11-08-2004, 10:19 AM
abortion should stay legal, because the negatives that come with making it illegal are just to high for society. meaning abortions using hangers, kids being left in dumpsters, parents hating their kids, fucking up everyone's life because of the kid, discrimination of a pregnant mother when it comes to getting a job in some cases, and people would still get abortions, just underground and a lot more dangerous. ya i dont like abortion, but rationalization would show making it illegal would just create a lot of problems. i didnt even mention rape victims, dangerous pregnancy, 15 yr old pregnancies, and yada yada.

lousyskater
11-08-2004, 01:05 PM
i'm pro-choice, so i'm for abortion. i seriouosly can care less if someone has an abortion. it's their business, not mine.

killboypwrheadjx
11-08-2004, 01:24 PM
kill the babies! cook em up and eat em! rarrrrrrrrr!

lousyskater
11-08-2004, 01:38 PM
^ oh god that reminded me of A Modest Proposal, by Jonathan Swift.

leo3375
11-08-2004, 03:46 PM
I'm 100% pro-choice to a certain degree. I believe that a girl or woman should have the right to obtain an abortion safely and anonymously during the first trimester of a pregnancy. Any time beyond that must be for a valid medical reason (birth defect that would likely kill the child shortly after birth, birth too risky for the mother, etc.).

Parental notification, waiting periods, and laws requiring clinics to hand over information about abortion patients to state health departments are among the hurdles put up by anti-choice politicians to intimidate people out of such a choice.

Also tying into this issue is birth control. Abortion is not birth control. It's a very agonizing decision that nobody ever wants to face. In order to prevent many voluntary abortions, the people should have easy access to birth control. Also, is it so hard to just make the "morning-after pill" available without a prescription?

nieh
11-08-2004, 05:01 PM
I can't really get into abortion without rambling about why I think it's stupid when most people have sex....
Basically, abortion should NOT be a form a bith control. My opinion is that no matter how much birth control you use, you should not be having sex if you're not willing to take the risk of having a kid. There will always be a slim chance that you'll get pregnant and it's irresponsible for people to brush it off. Unfortunately, people don't think the same way as I do, so they fuck casually and end up in stupid situations. It's difficult to say "you can't have an abortion because you were stupid and had sex at 15 and your condom broke" when you know that if they don't have an abortion, both the baby and the mother will have kinda crappy lives if they don't. They shouldn't have been having sex, but it's too late for shouldn't haves. You can't treat pregnancy as a punishment because it hurts the child, not just the parents. I dunno, maybe if abortion was made illegal people would be less likely to be stupid about things cause they wouldn't have that whole 'last resort' thing going on, but that's not reason enough for it to be illegal or anything. I've always hated the terms pro-life and pro-choice though, because I can't stand the fact that people are just like "you know, I don't want this baby, I'm going to have an abortion" and choose something like that (and yes, I'm aware that there's more to it than that, but shush, this is me rambling). Sometimes people get themselves into situations that are so shitty that an abortion is the least shitty way out. Basically they shouldn't call themselves pro-life when sometimes the best way for life as a whole to go on is to allow the mother to have an abortion.

SicN Twisted
11-08-2004, 06:58 PM
Contraceptives can be 95% accurate. I think it's rediculous that you claim people should only have sex if they're committed enough to havea kid. Some married couples simply doin't want children, even consider that? Also, casual sex is natural. If it wasn't, guys would only get aroused for girls they're in love with. Even if you don't believe in it personally for yourself, people shouldn't be disgouraged or intimidated from casual sex the way they are.

nieh
11-08-2004, 08:37 PM
Contraceptives can be 95% accurate. I think it's rediculous that you claim people should only have sex if they're committed enough to havea kid. Some married couples simply doin't want children, even consider that? Also, casual sex is natural. If it wasn't, guys would only get aroused for girls they're in love with. Even if you don't believe in it personally for yourself, people shouldn't be disgouraged or intimidated from casual sex the way they are.

I know it's a bit unrealistic, hence me saying "people don't think the same way as I do". Casual sex is natural, yes, but today's society isn't. It makes things a lot more complicated than they have to be. In a natural world, a 15 year old getting pregnant wouldn't be an issue, because they wouldn't have to work for money to take care of it. Unfortunately, today's society makes it impossible to live a really natural life. Yeah, it may be stupid but it's not like I'm trying to force anyone else think the same way I do. But about the 95% thing, isn't orthotricyclen supposed to be more than 99% accurate if you take it right?

Rag Doll
11-08-2004, 08:40 PM
depo provera is supposed to be like 99% effective if taken at the right times as well.

The Cheshire Cat
11-08-2004, 08:46 PM
99% still leaves that 1% having kids.

The earths population is what, 6 billion people? That makes 3 billion women (Slightly more, the current split is about 51% women, but I'm ignoring that). So even if every human on earth were using a 99% effective contraceptive, we'd still have 30 million women who were giving birth when they didn't want to.

You can't count on contraceptives ALL the time, even by combining them you can't get 100% effectiveness. Sometimes abortions are the only way (Plus, they lead to stem cell research, which may save countless more lives, so it comes down to a cost/benefit scenario. It's kind of callous to think of it like that, but still).

Also, if a woman can barely afford to support herself, gets pregnant somehow (Say by being raped, just to make the example as extreme as possible), then has the baby, she wouldn't be able to support both of them, so she would likely die, leaving the baby with no-one to provide for them, killing them as well. So without the abortion, they both end up dead anyway.

Normally it's not that extreme, but it's not unheard of either.

SicN Twisted
11-08-2004, 10:15 PM
dep provera apparently causes side affects that makes pregnancy and raising a child seem like better options. Or so I've heard.

wheelchairman
11-08-2004, 10:24 PM
In a natural world, a 15 year old getting pregnant wouldn't be an issue, because they wouldn't have to work for money to take care of it.
I am not an expert in the natural world, but I can guarantee you that that would never ever happen in nature, ever. You must've gotten confused.

Furthermore puritanism never helped anyone and banning sex wouldn't get anywhere. Banning abortions does not force people to behave more responsibly, it forces people to get illegal abortions that are surprisingly dangerous.

leo- Abortion should be an option for all women up until the final stage of pregnancy.

JoY
11-09-2004, 07:02 AM
I'm pro abortion all the way.
in case a woman is raped - in case she accidently got pregnant (it happens, even with every form of birthcontrol, there's always a chance you'll get knocked up) & isn't ready for it - in case the kid won't have a suitable, or present father & the woman feels she can't raise a kid alone, or wants a chance with a guy that'll stick around for the kid's benefit.......

I've once been in the position to make a decision - abortion, or no?
I know, that if I'd been forced to actually make it, I would've chosen abortion with all my heart. no matter how much I love children & would adore to raise one, or two. not back then, not in that situation with that father. if I get a kid, I want to be able to raise it to become a happy human being. not a disturbed, loveless piece of crap, with a hopeless, dependand, immature, frustrated mother.
on top of that, I wouldn't ever want to be that mother - my chances to study medicine, to live an active studentlife, to be somewhat independand, to be young & careless all taken away.

a woman already doesn't have many options; we fucking bleed every fucking month for the greatest part of our lives - we're the ones, who carry the tits, that men so playfully call funbags, but which can be a pain in the back for us women - we have to carry the kid for nine months in case there's the intention to let it be born - we have to fucking push it out afterwards, which I've heard is hell - we morally can't get away from the responsibility to raise it on top..... then there are cultural defined obligations... dude.. don't take this last oportunity to have freedom of choice away from us. it might save a woman's chances in the world & it probably will save an unborn child a LOT of pain.

JoY
11-09-2004, 07:11 AM
oh, & nieh. please explain to me what in this world is still natural? in a natural world there's no birthcontrol, unless you want to point out the existence of sheepskin to me.

in a natural world pregnancy was pretty much out of anyone's control, unless you were suffering from severe lack of sex. it just happened, so sure it never was turned into an issue. it was common & inevitable. now we have the knowledge that enables us to consider quality of human life. I'm not saying it's right to apply that knowledge to every situation, but in cases necessary I think it should be used for our benefit.

nieh
11-09-2004, 07:42 PM
oh, & nieh. please explain to me what in this world is still natural? in a natural world there's no birthcontrol, unless you want to point out the existence of sheepskin to me.

in a natural world pregnancy was pretty much out of anyone's control, unless you were suffering from severe lack of sex. it just happened, so sure it never was turned into an issue. it was common & inevitable. now we have the knowledge that enables us to consider quality of human life. I'm not saying it's right to apply that knowledge to every situation, but in cases necessary I think it should be used for our benefit.

That's what I'm saying, today's world ISN'T natural, so to say something along the lines of "I promote casual sex because it's the natural thing" is kind of wrong because the world today isn't built for what's natural anymore. Compare the way we live now to the way animals live (don't anyone even try to criticize that because if we're talking natural that's all we are) animals don't work themselves into exhaustion at mind-numbing jobs for 40 hours a week to just barely get by, they live to survive. They can have sex casually and get pregnant at whatever age and all because there are no social complications (maybe more health ones, but not social ones). They don't get fucked up lives if they drop out of school at age 15 to raise a child because they got pregnant and the father won't help out. Unfortunately, in today's society, things like a high school diploma are borderline life necessities for an adult, let alone a person with a child. The fact of the matter is that as much as it sucks, modern society fucks natural life up the ass. So long as the world is set up the way it is now and the shitty society is still in place, people have to be a lot more careful about their decisions on who and when to fuck than most of them actually are. I'm not saying "only have sex if you actively want a child" (I'm all for birth control pills, I think they're like the best invention ever) I'm saying if you ask yourself 'If the worst should happen and I end up the parent of this person's child, would I be able to deal?' and you can't answer yes, then you shouldn't be taking the risk.




In a natural world, a 15 year old getting pregnant wouldn't be an issue, because they wouldn't have to work for money to take care of it.

I am not an expert in the natural world, but I can guarantee you that that would never ever happen in nature, ever. You must've gotten confused.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say...do you mean that a 15 year old wouldn't get pregnant in a natural setting? What I meant when I said that was that in a natural world, if a 15 year old gets pregnant it's not so bad, because there's no social rules to fuck them over.

Rag Doll
11-09-2004, 08:14 PM
dep provera apparently causes side affects that makes pregnancy and raising a child seem like better options. Or so I've heard.

depo does have terrible side effects. just saying it is pretty effective, as long as it's taken on the right days.

SicN Twisted
11-09-2004, 10:00 PM
Nieh, of course today's world is natural. If something evolves a certain way, it's natural. The only unnatural acts are ones that cannot occur.

punk_flamingo
11-09-2004, 11:42 PM
ive got nothing against abortion....unless its being used as a contraception.

You cant turn around and say that 15 year olds werent having sex 20 years ago, the truth is they were, it was just an issue that was covered up.

Abortion should always be an option available

Izie
11-09-2004, 11:49 PM
I'm for abortion. Yes, it is a woman's choice, and yes, the child may be more miserable if it's born to a family that never wanted it.

Also, I do think women get abortions too often. Then on the other hand, if you think that's bad, you might want to think about the consequences of abortions. Someone mentioned depresseion. No one mentioned the possibility that you may never be able to have kids again.

And no offence, but birth control in any hormonal form is awful. I praise the day they will invent the pill for men (apparently in 5 years or less), which is supposed to have less side effects, and the day I'll be able to get off this synthetic crap. I don't know about depo provera, but the pill has side effects too. And you don't really want to know. Now, it does have good consequences too, but long term... Not really.

And in conclusion, I'm about to give a double standard. If one of my friends wanted/needed an abortion, I'd prolly be there for her all the way. On the other hand, I would never have one, unless, maybe, in the chance of rape, and most likely in the chance of mother/baby being at risk. Why? I don't think I'd be able to handle it, especially after seeing what it did to some people very close to me. I'm just that kind of a person. Too emotionally/psychologicaly unstable And that's why I'm on that pill anyway.

nieh
11-10-2004, 10:30 AM
Nieh, of course today's world is natural. If something evolves a certain way, it's natural. The only unnatural acts are ones that cannot occur.


Anarchism a political idealogy that believes all state problems are direct results of the states existence and part of the state's nature, and that people can only be free without rulers. People think it's incredibly unrealistic, but it's the most natural way for humans to live and thrive. At least, in my opinion.

Your opinion of anarchy shows that you think today's society isn't as natural as it could be, what with the "it's the most natural way for humans to live and thrive" thing. Either that or anarchy isn't really what's most natural simply because it's not what's evolved.

Lithuanian Offspring
11-10-2004, 10:42 AM
I think it is simple. Abortion=Murder.
I hate all of these Uber-Lesbian-Feminists telling everyone that they have the right. How about you wait until the baby is born and slit its throat in its crib. I mean, why waist money, you know.
Everyone has this fucked up dream that sex is some natural right for every single person. Its not. Believe me I wish I had the constitutional right to bang a supermodel every night. But the reality is we have to have protection and watch what the fuck we're doing. I say to all the teenage mothers "To fucking bad, boohoo! You were fucked the wrong guy! At the wrong time, and its time for you to face it and shut up."
So don't choose the fools way out. As we all know murder is the simplest answer of all. How about we think alittle more.

wheelchairman
11-10-2004, 11:20 AM
I think it is simple. Abortion=Murder.
In what way is a fetus even considered a life? If it's not a life how can life be taken from it? You are wrong even when you are trying to be simple. What a pity that must be.


I hate all of these Uber-Lesbian-Feminists telling everyone that they have the right. How about you wait until the baby is born and slit its throat in its crib. I mean, why waist money, you know.
Now you are just using petty imagery that is completely irrelevant. Please try and argue maturely. Also don't worry, we Uber-Lesbian-Feminists (the use of that term already shows your ignorance and male-chauvinism) we hate conservative nutjobs like you too.


Everyone has this fucked up dream that sex is some natural right for every single person. Its not. Believe me I wish I had the constitutional right to bang a supermodel every night. But the reality is we have to have protection and watch what the fuck we're doing.
relevance? Protection is not fail-proof. Besides, why shouldn't people be allowed the right to abortion? The last thing this overpopulated world needs is another mouth to feed, especially when it will end up in a world that never wanted it anyways.


"To fucking bad, boohoo! You were fucked the wrong guy! At the wrong time, and its time for you to face it and shut up."
You crazy male-chauvinist you, I'd like to see you tell incest/rape victims this.

Also all children will eventually become the responsibility of society in some way, shape, orform, so it's definitely not time for her to shut up and face it, as you so eloquently put it. But I'm glad you think you have the right to tell women that they must give birth to all fetuses inside them. Perhaps you also believes it's their duty to be constant birthing machines? That women are merely incubators?


So don't choose the fools way out.
what? you mean like a blanket ban on abortions? Forcing women to have children?


As we all know murder is the simplest answer of all.
It sure is good that it's not murder then, isn't it?


How about we think alittle more.
Yes, because obviously the only solution is to force women to give birth to everything all the time. That's using your brain. Male power!

Lithuanian Offspring
11-10-2004, 11:36 AM
Listen rape victims are an exception. Ok they're rape victims. I am refering to the use of abortion as protection. I don't know why you wouldn't consider a fetus a living thing. I would consider a baby a living thing when it is concieved. Maybe when it finally has a neural system. Babies don't start to remember things until they are about 2 years of age. So why don't we slaughter babies under 2 years of age, and call that a noble thing, in the name of the population and all. Another thing. Countries that have overpopulation problems don't have clinics in which they can murder babies. I'd like to know the percentage of babies clinically murder in in Bangladesh. I'm sure they could use baby slaughter houses. But in European countries and in America there is no use. Either way you are going to have crummy parents and crummy children that you can't abort, unfortunatly. You are a communist right? Don't you think all people have the right to a life? Thats not very communal of you.

Lithuanian Offspring
11-10-2004, 11:51 AM
I don't think we will come to a conclucsion on this because you obviously think that life is when its out of the mother. I can see you're a opinion and thats great and all. But I just don't like the idea of killing babies. Thats my view. Sorry.

Lithuanian Offspring
11-10-2004, 11:54 AM
I don't think the only solution is telling the woman to carry everything and anything, I just think that its really her and her partner's fault shes pregnent. Rapes ofcourse an exception.

wheelchairman
11-10-2004, 11:57 AM
Of course a fetus isn't alive. It's about as alive as a pimple is for example, yet we have no qualms with popping those.

And I'd ask you not to use words like "baby-slaughter house" it not only makes you look stupid (which is bad when having a discussion), but it's incorrect.

The thing about overpopulated areas is for example they have very strong religious values quite often, which tie in with one's denial of abortion. Since when it comes down to it, the idea that a fetus is a living thing comes from religious dogma. Which is also why they also have crazy idea like "waste not any of your seed". However I'm fairly certain abortions are an option in China, which can only be a beneficial thing.

Oh and I'm fairly certain that a fetus does not have a neural system. So that would not make it a living thing under your definition. Although I'm not sure what you define as a neural system. Regular cognitive activity is not, I believe expected to happen until much later than the fetus stage.

Now your problem, is that you are ignorant enough to believe that a fetus is a person, an individual, when it in every definition is not.

And as a communist I believe in women's rights and their liberation of the patriarch, I certainly don't have the same feelings of solidarity with a pack of cells that is not even a human being.

wheelchairman
11-10-2004, 11:59 AM
I don't think we will come to a conclucsion on this because you obviously think that life is when its out of the mother. I can see you're a opinion and thats great and all. But I just don't like the idea of killing babies. Thats my view. Sorry.

First, how is it her partner's, or her's fault if the condum breaks? or you know that condums are only 99% effective yes? I actually believe it's a lot less that 99%, I know the pill is 99% though.

Anyways I did not see this reply when I made my rebuttal, withdrawal accepted.

Vera
11-10-2004, 12:06 PM
I'm Pro-Choice.

I'm sure for most women, it's not an easy decision to make. And it's not like many women have unprotected sex frequently and then just head for the abortion clinic to get their unwanted pregnancies sorted.

Lithuanian Offspring
11-10-2004, 12:09 PM
Oh. Maybe me using words like baby-slaughter house make you look stupid. And your rebutals take hours to appear so cudos. You are an ignorant loser. Honestly your version of communism seems so nice how would it all work. Communism doesn't work it always ends up being a dictatorship. Believe me 2 generations of my country has lived under communism. People who work hard and people who don't work have the same pay.umm Wow thats really fair. Furthermore a fetus is a baby. I see you were trying to call me insenstive or something like that when you are the one who thinks the killing of inocent babies is a morally right thing to do. My friend your ideologies are really messed up. They contridict themselves. Lets make equal pay for everyone so everyone is happy. Lets pay the ignorant as much as the diligent. Lets kill a baby for the conveinance of a woman who had a one night stand. How are these thing moral, I don't know. You are very misled.

Lithuanian Offspring
11-10-2004, 12:16 PM
No rebutal, huh? I won!!!

Vera
11-10-2004, 12:22 PM
Don't start arguing with WCM about communism. You'll lose and they are his beliefs and he's entitled to have them.

Besides, isn't it like, no country has ever actually had communism because communism is what socialism should in theory lead to? There has only been socialism.

Anyway, the thing with abortions is that it's a very tricky thing, it all goes down to difficult questions like what is human, what is living, when do we develop consciousness, an idea of who we are, what we are, etc. In short, when is a baby/fetus considered human, when is it immoral to kill it? If it's basically a collection of human cells, is it human if it doesn't have consciousness? It's not exactly a problem that can be solved with a yes or a no, but those are basically choices you are given.

And if pregnancies resulted by rapes are okay to get rid of, what about pregnancies just as unwanted as those begun by rape? You're basically saying, "suck it up, bitch, it was YOUR fault you got pregnant", when the woman didn't exactly impregnate herself but she's the one who has to bear the consequences.

Lithuanian Offspring
11-10-2004, 12:28 PM
Didn't she have intercourse to begin with? If she did then she should have been careful. You have to choose a partner who you won't be ashamed or displeasured in having a baby with. I don't understand how I'm not allowed to critisize a form of government that killed many of my relatives and he is allowed to critisize me for believing it is moral to let babies live. Ok the bounderies are uncertain but I have made my choice. Is my choice not as good as yours. I don't think so.

Lithuanian Offspring
11-10-2004, 12:30 PM
He has never lived in a Communist state to begin with. My parents, grandparents, great grandparents (well they were slaughtered by communists)and I lived in a communist state. If anyone has the right to argue about communism its me.

Izie
11-10-2004, 12:33 PM
Honestly your version of communism seems so nice how would it all work. Communism doesn't work it always ends up being a dictatorship. Believe me 2 generations of my country has lived under communism.

THAT was NOT communism. The whole idea of communism was taken from Marx and brutaly twisted into something absolutely wrong.

Communism would work, if it had something to start from. It was never intended as a theory for the poor east, but the capitalist west. And the west, of course didn't like it, but implemented it very nicely on the east.

Oh, what the hell, WCM, would you please explain? It'll take me longer than you.

Oh, and do correct me if I was wrong.

Lithuanian Offspring
11-10-2004, 12:43 PM
How does the quality of a person's labor differ in every part of the world? There will still be crappy workers and good workers all over the world. And by communism they will get the same pay. And you obviously don't know about communism because you are form Belguim No communism there.

Lithuanian Offspring
11-10-2004, 12:46 PM
THAT was NOT communism. The whole idea of communism was taken from Marx and brutaly twisted into something absolutely wrong.

Communism would work, if it had something to start from. It was never intended as a theory for the poor east, but the capitalist west. And the west, of course didn't like it, but implemented it very nicely on the east.

Oh, what the hell, WCM, would you please explain? It'll take me longer than you.

Oh, and do correct me if I was wrong.
It will always end up being brutally twisted. CHina not real communism, Korea not a real country anymore. Look at all the countries around the world and see the ones that are doing great with communism. There are no such countries. West didn't want it because....... It doesn't work.

Izie
11-10-2004, 12:46 PM
Anyway, the thing with abortions is that it's a very tricky thing, it all goes down to difficult questions like what is human, what is living, when do we develop consciousness, an idea of who we are, what we are, etc. In short, when is a baby/fetus considered human, when is it immoral to kill it? If it's basically a collection of human cells, is it human if it doesn't have consciousness? It's not exactly a problem that can be solved with a yes or a no, but those are basically choices you are given.

And if pregnancies resulted by rapes are okay to get rid of, what about pregnancies just as unwanted as those begun by rape? You're basically saying, "suck it up, bitch, it was YOUR fault you got pregnant", when the woman didn't exactly impregnate herself but she's the one who has to bear the consequences.

Pretty much agreed. The philosphical part of the whole debate is quite interesting, but I (yet again) don't think we'll ever get to a definite answer. The only person who can "feel" the life of the baby while it's in the womb is the mother, and obviously, when the baby starts moving, it should be alive, but then again, if it were born at that point, it would die. So maybe we could say that there is a point at it being alive, only when it can be born and survive. I'm not sure about when that is, but I think it CAN'T be before 7 months, and even then, it can be severely disabled.

And it's NOT the woman's fault, it HAS to be a fault of two people, because two people had sex, right? So no, it's not all the woman's fault. And, no offence, the woman takes MUCH more of the burden of the preagnancy.

I so wish men could feel the utter pain of your flesh being torn while giving birth, or the neverending menstrual cramps. Ony certain individuals though. And all the pretty feelings Bella already pointed out.

Izie
11-10-2004, 12:49 PM
How does the quality of a person's labor differ in every part of the world? There will still be crappy workers and good workers all over the world. And by communism they will get the same pay. And you obviously don't know about communism because you are form Belguim No communism there.

Except for the fact that I was born, raides, and up to the past 2 months lived in Serbia, which had the so-called "communism" up to 4 years ago. Yeah, you're so smart.

And yet again, communism was to be implemented on THE RICH CAPITALIST countries. Read. China and Korea do not apply.

Lithuanian Offspring
11-10-2004, 12:54 PM
It is not fair for the last time. In any country. You don't get it! What is it you can't read the message in its entirety? Ok well bye.

Izie
11-10-2004, 12:58 PM
Okay, so now we're gonna fight about who can't read.

You say it doesn't work, I say it doesn't exist. Never did in the proper way it was described. So you can't claim it doesn't work. Period.

And we should open a communism topic, we ruined this one, and it was DAMN good.

Vera
11-10-2004, 01:05 PM
I think what Izie means is that communism started off as a noble idea by the philosopher Marx, but has been carried out poorly in all states where it has been tried to carry out. It's not a very simple thing, it's not just "power to the working class!", it's a complex economical and political thing that I don't understand too much about, but to me it doesn't seem like you understand much about it either.

The Soviet Union was really the worst place in the world to carry out the ideas of Marx and the whole thing was just fucked up beyond belief.

I wouldn't condemn the entire thing, but I admit I can't believe in the idealism of the communism Marx wrote about and that it could be carried out with non-catastrophic results.

And yes, the woman did have intercourse, probably used protection, maybe the condom broke, but the guy was there as well. So he just gets away with it, walks away free, no consequences to him because he's the male? And she has no choice but to keep this baby because it was her fault she opened her legs?

Hurrah for equal rights.

And yes, we should probably all sleep with people we want to have babies with. However, in the modern world, it just doesn't work like that. People have sex with people they're attracted to, people they like, some people have sex for money. Young people may love their partners dearly but are just not ready to start a family.

It's must be easy to think about this, knowing you can never get pregnant. Only your girlfriend can. And when she does and you decide you don't want to be daddy'o yet, you can just ditch her.

TripBoy.
11-10-2004, 01:11 PM
i agree with you

Izie
11-10-2004, 01:15 PM
I think what Izie means is that communism started off as a noble idea by the philosopher Marx, but has been carried out poorly in all states where it has been tried to carry out. It's not a very simple thing, it's not just "power to the working class!", it's a complex economical and political thing that I don't understand too much about, but to me it doesn't seem like you understand much about it either.

The Soviet Union was really the worst place in the world to carry out the ideas of Marx and the whole thing was just fucked up beyond belief.

I wouldn't condemn the entire thing, but I admit I can't believe in the idealism of the communism Marx wrote about and that it could be carried out with non-catastrophic results.

Yeps. What she said. And the idealism might have been a bit too far fetched, but no one, ever really tried the whole thing as it was concepted. So - no proof he was wrong.


And yes, the woman did have intercourse, probably used protection, maybe the condom broke, but the guy was there as well. So he just gets away with it, walks away free, no consequences to him because he's the male? And she has no choice but to keep this baby because it was her fault she opened her legs?

Hurrah for equal rights.

And yes, we should probably all sleep with people we want to have babies with. However, in the modern world, it just doesn't work like that. People have sex with people they're attracted to, people they like, some people have sex for money. Young people may love their partners dearly but are just not ready to start a family.

It's must be easy to think about this, knowing you can never get pregnant. Only your girlfriend can. And when she does and you decide you don't want to be daddy'o yet, you can just ditch her.

And agreed again.

I love your writing :)

the_GoDdEsS
11-10-2004, 01:23 PM
I'm pro-abortion and mostly agree with Iza and Vera. The consciousness problem is difficult. The little thing is of course not aware of itself but it's wrong to say it's not a living thing because the baby in the utterus DOES react to the outside world.

Justin, stop reading Swift. Now!

Plus, to that Lithuanian dude or whatever. Don't fucking blame women for ever having unprotected casual sex. I SOOO wish men could get pregnant too, trust me.

wheelchairman
11-10-2004, 01:52 PM
Oh. Maybe me using words like baby-slaughter house make you look stupid.
Next to you, I'll always look like a genius.


. And your rebutals take hours to appear so cudos.
Oh I'm so sorry for making you wait. Damn this busy life of mine!


You are an ignorant loser.
This sounds interesting, how is he going to back this up?


Honestly your version of communism seems so nice how would it all work.
That's it? This is how you backed it up. With something completely irrelevant to abortions? darn. And not only that, but it's the most typical anti-communist reply ever.


Communism doesn't work it always ends up being a dictatorship. Believe me 2 generations of my country has lived under communism.
Your country lived under Socialism. Socialism is supposed to be a dictatorship, the state itself in any form is generally a dictatorship. Communists are fighting for the working class to take power, so that their class interests will be served and not the other way around.


People who work hard and people who don't work have the same pay.umm Wow thats really fair.
Incorrect, in so many ways. Neither communism nor socialism was ever about getting the same pay. For example, a man with 5 children would get more money than a single man.


Furthermore a fetus is a baby.
Congratulations, that has to be the quickest change of conversation in one paragraph I've ever seen. But your rebuttals always appear in the form of one long ramble that jumps from point to point, that's why mine perhaps take longer to write.
And you are incorrect in your hypothesis,
http://rwor.org/a/v24/1181-1190/1190/abortion.htm




I see you were trying to call me insenstive or something like that when you are the one who thinks the killing of inocent babies is a morally right thing to do.
When have I said killing babies is alright? I've only said that aborting a fetus is alright. Killing and babies are not involved at any point.


My friend your ideologies are really messed up. They contridict themselves. Lets make equal pay for everyone so everyone is happy. Lets pay the ignorant as much as the diligent.
Wow another jump to another subject in the same paragraph. I never talked about equal pay anywhere, I've refuted that once already, should I give you a link to where Lenin and others have talked against exact equal pay for everyone?

Now also, let me ask you a question, (this is to your point on paying the ignorant and diligent.) Let's compare the pay of a brain surgeon and a barber. The brain surgeon must make a hell of a lot more money. That's just common knowledge. However, per day, I believe the barber does a lot more work, and in fact works more on average than the brain surgeon would. So why do we pay the brain surgeon more for working much less?


Lets kill a baby for the conveinance of a woman who had a one night stand. How are these thing moral, I don't know. You are very misled.
We aren't killing babies. But then we can turn this around, what you are arguing for, is that women should give birth to babies that they don't want, who will grow up to have shitty lives. No one is going to thank you here. Your so'called morals are ruining the lives of at least 3 people. What if the mother and father aren't ready to have kids? They will just either have to take care of the child badly and leave the child incapable of living a normal life. Or we can put it through the incredibly risky process of adoption.


No rebutal, huh? I won!!!
Yes, heaven forbid I take a shower eh?


Didn't she have intercourse to begin with?
Ah so now you are saying intercourse is a sin. Oh you fanatics and your wacky beliefs.


If she did then she should have been careful.
What happens if the guy lies? This happens. But then again, you hate feminists, you are all for male-dominance, so I guess you must not worry too much about this.


You have to choose a partner who you won't be ashamed or displeasured in having a baby with.
You choose a partner who you are physically attracted to and mentally attached to. These have nothing to do with shame or displeasure (and no one chooses a partner that shames and displeasures them, you are living in one of your High-Moral-Conservative-Fundamentalist dreams worlds again.)

Let me ask you something? Do you find masturbation to be murder? It's basically the same as an abortion. Separating out a pack of cells. Do you think masturbation is a sin? Do you think Onan committed a crime? Sounds like you believe condums and birth control is a sin too.



don't understand how I'm not allowed to critisize a form of government that killed many of my relatives and he is allowed to critisize me for believing it is moral to let babies live.
Now it sounds like you are lying for dramatic effect.

And where have we said it is wrong for you to criticize my opinions? We only want you to do it in an intelligent way, which you continually disappoint us in.

Edit: We have a character maximum apparently. I will post the second part of my post after this.

wheelchairman
11-10-2004, 01:54 PM
Ok the bounderies are uncertain but I have made my choice. Is my choice not as good as yours. I don't think so.
Well mine is based on scientific process and results, yours is based on religious prejudice and dogma. So yes, mine is better.


He has never lived in a Communist state to begin with. My parents, grandparents, great grandparents (well they were slaughtered by communists)and I lived in a communist state. If anyone has the right to argue about communism its me.
Now friend, do you really expect us to believe you? You can't offer any proof of this ever happening. And chances are your great grandparents died before 1944 anyways, if you had said grandparents then it might've been believable.

Oh and my friend, I've been to China, Mongolia and Cuba. I've seen my fair share of socialism in action.

As what to Izie, is trying to say (and doing a fine job so far) is that Communism, as Marx saw it, was to start with a socialist revolution in a Western country. Because the material conditions were more ripe for it (a large working class etc.)

However, Socialist revolutions happened first succesfully (with the exception of the Paris Commune) in Russia. Which had to do a lot more struggling, a *lot* more struggling to survive. And personally I think it did pretty fine, if it ended up being one of the most powerful countries in the world. Unfortunately by that time it had been corrupted.

However the revolution in China under Mao accomplished great things. Mao in my opinion did several great things, I also find Hoxha to be a very interesting leader as well. (he was from Albania.) Socialism did a lot of good things for the Eastern world, it brought it into modern society, it educated the people far better than any other system, and more efficiently than the west. The healthcare system was unparalleled, and Cuba's is still considered to be one of the best in the world.




How does the quality of a person's labor differ in every part of the world?
Read what she wrote. She obviously meant amount of workers, at the time of the revolution in Russia, the economy was mainly agricultural.


There will still be crappy workers and good workers all over the world.
Yes, which is why communists educated all workers.


And you obviously don't know about communism because you are form Belguim No communism there.
This makes me laugh. It really does. Izie, as she has explained, grew up in Serbia. Which I believe after the fall of Yugoslavia, had a very violently nationalist form of Socialism. I don't know too much, but what I've read scares me a bit in how it turned out. It seems to me very nationalist, however I have a friend in Slovenia working for a communist party (not the party though, considers them to be more conservative than progressive) and it seems less nationalist in his party now. Although Serbia economically I believe is or was at a disadvantage to regions like Slovenia and Croatia which had more resources. One could say that one of Tito's more major faults, was the lack of development for the rest of Yugoslavia.


It will always end up being brutally twisted.
What about Cuba?


CHina not real communism, Korea not a real country anymore. Look at all the countries around the world and see the ones that are doing great with communism. There are no such countries. West didn't want it because....... It doesn't work.
Wow, so many wrong points it's funny.
1. China up until Mao's death, real socialism. Good stuff that.
2. Korea is in fact a real country, I think many Koreans would laugh at this statement.
3. Let's see around the world with countries succeeding with Socialism, well Cuba has done fantastic. Venezuela isn't doing bad. The Zapatista's in Mexico are doing quite well, very interesting that. Vietnam has problems due to the American fire-bombing and war-crimes, but has made great progress. North Korea, also known as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, from what I've heard from people who've been there, is doing quite well despite the old famine. Socialism developed Eastern Europe to a very high level. Pridnestrovie has even chosen to keep it. The Russian Communist party gets high amounts of votes. The Communist Party of Moldavia was voted into power. The Communist Party of Mongolia was also voted into power recently. Laos is doing well, however they lack many necessities like infrastructure. The Communists in the Nepali revolution are expected to take Kathmandu this year.

As for Communists in the West, the French Communist party has a long and strong history. The Old SED party of Germany, now the PDS just got incredibly good results in regional elections, especially in East Germany. The Spanish Socialist party was also elected into power. But they are not really socialist. The Zapatista's in Spain are doing fantastic. In Brazil, Venezuela, Chile and Uruguay, Communists and Socialists have all done fantastic in elections. Oh and there's also Cuba which is doing great as well.

Please, do some research instead of just having some old reactionary views.


I so wish men could feel the utter pain of your flesh being torn while giving birth, or the neverending menstrual cramps. Ony certain individuals though. And all the pretty feelings Bella already pointed out.
I think Lithuanian Offspring needs this.


It is not fair for the last time. In any country. You don't get it! What is it you can't read the message in its entirety? Ok well bye.
You are an embarrasment to arguments. This is not an argument, this is just being childish.

While writing this, the debate has gone on. I look forward to reading it.

RXP
11-10-2004, 02:15 PM
ommunists are fighting for the working class to take power, so that their class interests will be served and not the other way around.

Except soon as the working class get power, they cease to be working class. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

IMHO most forms of government work in theory. Democracy is a theortical concept too.

wheelchairman
11-10-2004, 02:47 PM
Yes you are correct. I agree with Trotsky in that the workers that got government power formed a new "bureaucratic class."

This however can be avoided with reforms to the Marxist-Leninist model in my opinion. (obviously more direct voting, more fluidity of the people in power, and work should be a requirement of all politicians for example. These are just some thoughts I have.)

the_GoDdEsS
11-10-2004, 03:08 PM
Why does nobody agree with my stance on abortion? It's the correct one. Are you all wrong?

Do you know what gyppos do? They have the strongest genes of all Europeans. Why? Because whenever a child is born that is ill or crippled, they don't kill it but they simply don't care about it/don't feed it until it dies. Point is, in such a way they don't pass illnesses or defects on the following generations. Because there are no ill individuals to mate.
It's a freaking cruel thing to do. But it's a strong breed. See?

ThrashedThrasher
11-10-2004, 04:31 PM
I think abortion should be legal. There are a couple of people at my school that I'm actually friends with that are all ultra religious and see abortion as this very bad thing for a woman to do. Well what the fuck! You don't know what's going through one's head until you're in their position. Hell, some of these women could do a lot better having an abortion than keeping the kid. Take my cousin for example, she's always had a pretty fucked life because she spent most of it taking care of her mother and her siblings, she had a minimum wage job and wouldn't have been able to afford the ideal cost of basically having a child of her own. Not only that but, she couldn't just give the child up for adoption she thought of that as even worse especially if her kid grew up and never knew her. My cousin had 3 abortions *one on the account of rape* she now has about 2 month old twins. She says that if she didn't have the option of abortion before she would have never been able to raise a child in a good environment.I say best to terminate the pregnancy if you know you can't raise a child efficiently rather than keeping it or putting it up for adoption.

punkangel
11-10-2004, 04:36 PM
ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm I just heard a commercial about this
subject... All around this dump there are treatment places to do this kind
of thing...weird

killboypwrheadjx
11-10-2004, 05:45 PM
these chicks came to my church and tried to tell us all that abortion was murder and convincing people by showing em pictures. they were so damn stupid i wanted to punch em in the face.

Betty
11-10-2004, 06:40 PM
Regarding abortion: pro-choice

Regarding foetus's (I don't know if that's spelled right, but I know there's an o in either french and/or english) being alive:

I would tend to think that in terms of "life" there is life even before conception because sperms and ovaries are "alive" in the same way that plants and microorganisms are alive (but we kill those). At the point of conception there is NEW life, like, new DNA... However, I guess I would only consider the foetus a living organism in it's entirety once it could survive out of the mother's womb. WCM, you keep saying a foetus is not alive, but I don't know at what point it is still a foetus. If you're saying that until it comes out it's not alive, that doesn't make sense, since babies that are born prematurely can survive. But if you're just referring to whatever trimester when a foetus is developped basically into a complete person, then I guess you could say it's not "alive" as an individual organism.

That's my argument regarding whether it's alive... but I don't think I would be a big stickler about it anyway, because I can actually see the merit in Trip's (or whoever he stole it from) ideas, although it is terribly cruel.

There is something off topic however that I HAVE to address:

I am not an expert on communism, but I can address a specific comment. I know Vera said not to argue about communism with you, but I definitely am going to.

WCM: "Let's compare the pay of a brain surgeon and a barber. The brain surgeon must make a hell of a lot more money. That's just common knowledge. However, per day, I believe the barber does a lot more work, and in fact works more on average than the brain surgeon would. So why do we pay the brain surgeon more for working much less?"

Wow. First we can start with education. If you invest 10+ years of your life (and tons of money and ressources) into learning something, you SHOULD get paid more for it. You invested more in it. If you argue that in communism everybody would be educated, well... some people just lack the capability of being a doctor so not everybody can be educated to the same amount, although I'll agree that everybody can have some place in society... Besides that, there's RESPONSIBILITY. A surgeon is gambling with people's lives everyday, he or she SHOULD get paid more. He has to take the fault if something goes wrong, he has to feel the stress every single day. He has to be on call. He has to continuously re-educate himself, etc, etc, etc.

This whole theory is just wrong on so many levels. Why would you want to ever be a surgeon if you had to go through way more school (and work hard to learn the material) and then go through all the stress, when you got paid the same as somebody else doing something way easier? Money is part of the driving force to get people to take these jobs. There is also supply and demand. What if somebody wants to be a... I don't know... a candle maker... and nobody wants the candles... but he still works really hard at it. Should he get paid the same amount? Or are people forced into jobs that are required by society, whether they want to or not in this theory? (See, I haven't really learned to much about it since it doesn't seem to make sense already at the basic levels).

Sure the barber may do more manual labour, but it's not just equivalent like that. And what about say, a librarian who just sits at a desk. That doesn't seem very hard... does that person get more or less than the barber?

Now, don't get me wrong, I don't even intend to be rich (a sad realization I have come to recently). I'm going to be in school like 10 years (like the surgeon) and maybe be a prof where I'll make $60 000 a year. Seems like a lot but not compared to the $300 000 the surgeon makes. Is this fair? Well, the surgeon does have more responsibility I would suppose. But it's still my choice, I could have been a surgeon, but I didn't want to. I live with the consequences. Then there are the sports stars and the movie stars, etc. And, well, that's pretty ridiculous, but they make the money because people pack the stands or arenas every game or go see Titanic at the theatre 18 times. People pay, they make money. How do you combat these forces?

Oh boy, that was a lot. And I know you even said that communism isn't even about equal pay, but that hypothetical situation really got me going. And if you have an argument that actually convinces me, I will be surprised (and happy I guess).

SicN Twisted
11-10-2004, 10:09 PM
Should the CEO, who had to spend four years getting a BA in business, and then sits on his ass and simply accumulates profit be payed more then a factory worker who constantly risk his life doing dangerous, physically taxing labor? You can say worker is not qualified to do the CEO's job, but I don't know too many CEO's who'd be capable of doing meat packing. And also, what makes the CEO's job more important? A society can exist and thrive without corperations, but not without factories.

SicN Twisted
11-10-2004, 10:20 PM
Lithuanian Offspring is a fucking idiot. He probably doesn't know the slightest thing about the idea behind communism and what communists are trying to achieve. Calling the Soviet Union communist is like callingthe United States a democracy. It is - in name only.

And he couldn't read the Communist Manifesto - he'd get confused before he got past the first page. I can tell by reading one of his sentences that he has the comprehension abilities of a five year old.

WCM, I'm somewhat of a socialist myself, but I still think the brain surgeon should be paid more then the barber, simply because brain surgery a much more difficult skill to learn. The problem is how much more brain surgeons get paid. The problem also is that barbers have to pay more taxes with brain surgeons, which is complete ludicrous. The more you get paid, you should probably pay more taxes, not vice versa.

Izie
11-11-2004, 01:56 AM
This makes me laugh. It really does. Izie, as she has explained, grew up in Serbia. Which I believe after the fall of Yugoslavia, had a very violently nationalist form of Socialism. I don't know too much, but what I've read scares me a bit in how it turned out. It seems to me very nationalist, however I have a friend in Slovenia working for a communist party (not the party though, considers them to be more conservative than progressive) and it seems less nationalist in his party now. Although Serbia economically I believe is or was at a disadvantage to regions like Slovenia and Croatia which had more resources. One could say that one of Tito's more major faults, was the lack of development for the rest of Yugoslavia.


I'm willing to be a (non)objective source of information if anyone's actually interested in the topic. I tend to know a ood amount of things about the last few years (as I've actually been old and interested enough to pay attention), and I know about as much on the period before the 90s. The 90's have been slightly... Impossible to read about, impossible to find an objective oppinion, since all the people involved are still alive and the whole war thing is still kept not completely known. I basically know how/why it started, but not exactly what happened.

I need to brush up on modern SCG history.

Betty
11-11-2004, 07:31 AM
"Should the CEO, who had to spend four years getting a BA in business, and then sits on his ass and simply accumulates profit be payed more then a factory worker who constantly risk his life doing dangerous, physically taxing labor? You can say worker is not qualified to do the CEO's job, but I don't know too many CEO's who'd be capable of doing meat packing. And also, what makes the CEO's job more important? A society can exist and thrive without corperations, but not without factories."

You can obviously come up with counter examples (e.g. why does the actress make millions) that may not exactly follow the pay vs merit of work deal... I just think WCM chose a very poor example in illustrating his first point and had he chosen the CEO example, it would have been harder to counter on the sole basis of it being a terrible example of merit of work.

And though I may not necessarily believe that the CEO deserves the money he/she makes based on how much he/she works (in certain cases, it depends) I think that it's just how it has to work because I believe in capitalism. I think that it is what drives progress and gives society motivation to improve. Like I've said before, you need those crazy rich people. If you take some sort of big R&D corporation, how would they be motivated to continue if there was no profit to be had?

I will admit that capitalism fails when it comes to inheritance, because that's not fair, it's not based on merit. But it's just one of those things you have to accept as a shortcoming, I guess, unless you can find a better theory altogether that you agree with.

As for 4 years for a BA... I would disagree. My dad has had so many rants about how taking business is useless. I would agree in most cases that it takes a special kind of person to do that kind of job. If I think of any of the richer people I know personally in high positions... they are all extremely intelligent, motivated, driven, hardworking people. Not only that, but they know how to communicate, how to deal with people, how to make connections. Many of them work 24/7 and have to travel all the time. Also, for the people who buy/sell businesses to makes profit, there is a lot of gambling involved. My millionaire uncle is usually rich, but sometimes he's in rough shape when the deals go wrong. I know I could never do something like that. And I know that many people couldn't. Some people, yes, get where they are through connections and are undeserving... but, well, that's what sucks.

And I think that most CEO's could be meat cutters if they wanted to.

As for taxes, I think that a flat tax has many merits. The rich person is still paying WAY more, but it's a fair equal cut of the earnings. Also, in the spirit of capitalism, the point of not taxing the rich isn't just so that they can be richer, but so that they will be driven to spend the money on opening businesses, creating more jobs, spending more money on goods and services, etc.

In socialism/communism/whatever where is the DRIVE? What motivates people to seek certain employment, what motivates people to develop and innovate new products, what motivates people to open businesses, etc.?

wheelchairman
11-11-2004, 07:36 AM
Betty- It really depends on how early the fetus comes out of the womb. And the development of it. Because more often than not a fetus won't survive without machines if it comes out to early, even more than a month early for example.

And I never meant for the barber/surgeon issue to be taken so seriously, even I know the surgeon does more (since he must continually stay up to date on all medical issues.) It was more meant to question modern day pay standards and try and find the logic behind them. That sort of excercise. And I just figure the example Sic gave, the worker and the CEO is used far too often among socialists (since there is only a handful here I suppose that's not a problem).

Although responsibility wise, one could argue that even though the surgeon's job takes a lot of responsibility, that could be evened out by how the barber's skills need to be used far more frequently.

But if you want an argument to convince you, then Sic's example is the classic and best example.

wheelchairman
11-11-2004, 07:45 AM
"Should the CEO, who had to spend four years getting a BA in business, and then sits on his ass and simply accumulates profit be payed more then a factory worker who constantly risk his life doing dangerous, physically taxing labor? You can say worker is not qualified to do the CEO's job, but I don't know too many CEO's who'd be capable of doing meat packing. And also, what makes the CEO's job more important? A society can exist and thrive without corperations, but not without factories."

You can obviously come up with counter examples (e.g. why does the actress make millions) that may not exactly follow the pay vs merit of work deal... I just think WCM chose a very poor example in illustrating his first point and had he chosen the CEO example, it would have been harder to counter on the sole basis of it being a terrible example of merit of work.

And though I may not necessarily believe that the CEO deserves the money he/she makes based on how much he/she works (in certain cases, it depends) I think that it's just how it has to work because I believe in capitalism. I think that it is what drives progress and gives society motivation to improve. Like I've said before, you need those crazy rich people. If you take some sort of big R&D corporation, how would they be motivated to continue if there was no profit to be had?

I will admit that capitalism fails when it comes to inheritance, because that's not fair, it's not based on merit. But it's just one of those things you have to accept as a shortcoming, I guess, unless you can find a better theory altogether that you agree with.

As for 4 years for a BA... I would disagree. My dad has had so many rants about how taking business is useless. I would agree in most cases that it takes a special kind of person to do that kind of job. If I think of any of the richer people I know personally in high positions... they are all extremely intelligent, motivated, driven, hardworking people. Not only that, but they know how to communicate, how to deal with people, how to make connections. Many of them work 24/7 and have to travel all the time. Also, for the people who buy/sell businesses to makes profit, there is a lot of gambling involved. My millionaire uncle is usually rich, but sometimes he's in rough shape when the deals go wrong. I know I could never do something like that. And I know that many people couldn't. Some people, yes, get where they are through connections and are undeserving... but, well, that's what sucks.

And I think that most CEO's could be meat cutters if they wanted to.

As for taxes, I think that a flat tax has many merits. The rich person is still paying WAY more, but it's a fair equal cut of the earnings. Also, in the spirit of capitalism, the point of not taxing the rich isn't just so that they can be richer, but so that they will be driven to spend the money on opening businesses, creating more jobs, spending more money on goods and services, etc.

In socialism/communism/whatever where is the DRIVE? What motivates people to seek certain employment, what motivates people to develop and innovate new products, what motivates people to open businesses, etc.?

Well the motivation for profit theory, in practice has absolutely no foundation in my opinion. Because it's only the CEO who is motivated for profit. Anyone and everyone below him will *generally* do as little work as possible. I mean it's rare to be in a job where everyone is working their little hearts out as fast as they can purely because they want to be. Most times people don't have a share in the profit of the company in which they are putting their labor into, and thus they have no motivation at all.

And let's face it, if motivation can only be at the top, then that was never a reason to why the soviet economy failed. (also since it (the USSR) was based on a profit system since 1956 that's a poor example.) The elected leaders of socialist industry would be just as motivated as any CEO I would imagine. That is how the USSR went from a backwards agricultural state to the second most powerful country in the world. That is why Cuba has some of the best healthcare in the world as well.

In my opinion no CEO deserves his money, because he's only earned it off the hard labor of others. He's easily replaceable and therefore just a leach on the working class. I mean seriously, let's take Phil Knight of Nike (he's my Homie from Eugene, OR). I don't know what he earns but I believe it would be in the 100 millions. Yet he uses slave labor in India who get paid .75$ a day and sells the shoes for far more than their material value (for far more than their production value in general actually.) So this is why socialism is the correct answer, and why unionism is so important. The CEO, while working hard in the setting up of his/her firm and laying the foundations. Will eventually come into a point where he must exploit the people at the bottom to pay for their fabuously (I have no idea how to spell that) way of life. While the people at the bottom get the bare bones of a living wage. I mean the reason we stopped forcing people to work 16 hours a day for .75$ in the West was because it was unhealthy and shortened their lives by about 15 years if not more.

wheelchairman
11-11-2004, 07:58 AM
I'm willing to be a (non)objective source of information if anyone's actually interested in the topic. I tend to know a ood amount of things about the last few years (as I've actually been old and interested enough to pay attention), and I know about as much on the period before the 90s. The 90's have been slightly... Impossible to read about, impossible to find an objective oppinion, since all the people involved are still alive and the whole war thing is still kept not completely known. I basically know how/why it started, but not exactly what happened.

I need to brush up on modern SCG history.
Well I've only read bits and pieces by Milovan Djilas, a few links on general Yugoslavian history (very general) and a work about Slovenia's secession (on a military play by play basis.)

So what I'd like to know (and I'll try to make these questions specific since I know that broad and general questions would be difficult.) And I'll try to avoid asking you about Tito's application of Marxist theory in general because that might be a bit complicated if you are not a marxist yourself (I assume so at least).

After Tito, how was the power situation that developed inside the party? What were the general changes that happened? What in your opinion was the cause of the break-up and the extreme nationalism that now exists?

(and sorry if this sounds like propaganda to you, I just hear what some people have said about Albanians and it's like "woah" you know. But I don't know what your opinion is either.)

Betty
11-11-2004, 08:11 AM
There are many rungs in a corporation... not just the CEO. There are tons of administrative positions below him/her and therefore people will want to get promotions, etc. If there is a separate factory, then those people might not be as motivated, but we'll get to that in a sec.

The image you give is one guy making millions having the power over hundreds of poor slaves. And that's it. Is that not an outdated concept, at least in the western world?

People in factories here are treated quite well. They get more than minimum wage in all of the cases I've seen. They get benefits. Sure they're not making the millions, but they're no worse off than a lot of people. I'm not really talking sweatshop in third world countries here... although these people are not forced to work there right? And therefore they want to because it is better than not working there? Even though it seems bad by our standards?

Now the big thing. Unions. I think they have had their time and are no longer needed, especially if there are base labour laws (ie minimum wage, health and safety, etc) in place. The union is what makes these factory workers have zero motivation. Why should they try and do a good job when they CAN'T be fired. Unions screw over people deserving of a promotion. At my job I couldn't get a raise, or more hours, even though I worked way harder and better than most of the other staff because they had "seniority". So what? I work my ASS OFF. Fair? No. What did the union ever do for me? Well, it prevented my coworkers who slacked off from facing any sort of reprimand, it restricted me from getting any sort of raise, and yeah, I forgot, it probably cost me about 500-600$ altogether. Hmm...

Unions are totally anti-merit. And pro slackers. And that's terrible. And as long as there are basic labour laws, why is there still the need for them in industrialized countries?

Also, regarding the sweatshops... I believe that the theory is that if we tax the businesses, say in the US, less, they will be motivated to come back INTO the US and not escape to some third world country to avoid having to deal with the ridiculous unions/taxes/etc. If we tax them more because they are rich, they go out of business or they leave the country and we are left with no jobs and no progress.

And a CEO is not easily replaceable, I have to disagree. I hate how people always think that people in high up positions just sit there and slack off all day and that anybody could do their job. Sure, some are like that. But many aren't. It's like the president. That's a HARD job, and I would feel bad to really criticize somebody that I wasn't a big fan of being I know how hard it is.

I have class.

wheelchairman
11-11-2004, 08:29 AM
1.There are many rungs in a corporation... not just the CEO. There are tons of administrative positions below him/her and therefore people will want to get promotions, etc. If there is a separate factory, then those people might not be as motivated, but we'll get to that in a sec.

2. The image you give is one guy making millions having the power over hundreds of poor slaves. And that's it. Is that not an outdated concept, at least in the western world?

3. People in factories here are treated quite well. They get more than minimum wage in all of the cases I've seen. They get benefits. Sure they're not making the millions, but they're no worse off than a lot of people. I'm not really talking sweatshop in third world countries here... although these people are not forced to work there right? And therefore they want to because it is better than not working there? Even though it seems bad by our standards?

4. Now the big thing. Unions. I think they have had their time and are no longer needed, especially if there are base labour laws (ie minimum wage, health and safety, etc) in place. The union is what makes these factory workers have zero motivation. Why should they try and do a good job when they CAN'T be fired. Unions screw over people deserving of a promotion. At my job I couldn't get a raise, or more hours, even though I worked way harder and better than most of the other staff because they had "seniority". So what? I work my ASS OFF. Fair? No. What did the union ever do for me? Well, it prevented my coworkers who slacked off from facing any sort of reprimand, it restricted me from getting any sort of raise, and yeah, I forgot, it probably cost me about 500-600$ altogether. Hmm...

5.Unions are totally anti-merit. And pro slackers. And that's terrible. And as long as there are basic labour laws, why is there still the need for them in industrialized countries?

6. Also, regarding the sweatshops... I believe that the theory is that if we tax the businesses, say in the US, less, they will be motivated to come back INTO the US and not escape to some third world country to avoid having to deal with the ridiculous unions/taxes/etc. If we tax them more because they are rich, they go out of business or they leave the country and we are left with no jobs and no progress.

7. And a CEO is not easily replaceable, I have to disagree. I hate how people always think that people in high up positions just sit there and slack off all day and that anybody could do their job. Sure, some are like that. But many aren't. It's like the president. That's a HARD job, and I would feel bad to really criticize somebody that I wasn't a big fan of being I know how hard it is.

I have class.
1. There are many in the administrative levels who I think don't really care either. But I wasn't talking about them, any corporation that produces a product of some sort will have far more factory workers than anyone else.

2. I don't know about Canadian conditions, but there are sweatshops in America as well. Unorganized labor is exploited to it's full extent and illegal immigrants are prizes to behold.

3. Sweatshops in the US aside, factory workers who work unorganized (non-union) generally have shit conditions. They often need to take two jobs to be able to pay for the necessities and family.

And let me tell you a thing about where people have a choice to work. Because let's face it, the job-market is not large today, in fact unemployment is rising in most countries. So if you must take a shitty 75 cent job to pay for your family, wouldn't you? I know I would. Even if it took 20 years off my life. Even though it would go against every fiber of my body. The poorest in a country like India don't have many choices on where to work, and unemployment is huge. Yet we are still shortening their lives by 20 years and doing no one but ourselves a favor, it's absolutely disgusting to me.

4. The only real criticism I can think of for Unions is corruption. Like you said, prizing seniority above all else (although in some senses that might make some sense depending on how old such a person is.) The ideal union would be a union fighting for more control for the worker's on the decisions of how the company should be run. However in the western world unions generally tend to fight for economic benefits which is a pity. However unions prevent a hell of a lot of people from being laid off for instance, it ensures that these people will have a good life and material conditions. And if the unions were to suddenly disappear like you want them to, I can gaurantee you that it wouldn't be long until their benefits started to disappear as well.

5. Incorrect. And basic labor laws are easily repealed, governments are generally in the hands of big business. This talk about unions being a lobby is really ridiculous sometimes.

6. Oh I'd agree, reforming companies to be more human would only end up bankrupting them, I never said I believed in reform though.

7. In socialism he is though, his job would be either done by the state or the worker's of his company. (as in an elected council and committee.) It also would be more efficient.

too_close_to_see
11-11-2004, 08:31 AM
Pro Choice

Vera
11-11-2004, 09:28 AM
1. China up until Mao's death, real socialism. Good stuff that.


I'm sorry, but what?

wheelchairman
11-11-2004, 09:30 AM
By real socialism I mean they attempted to implement as well as they could. And no I don't buy into that "Mao was a mass killer". With Russia there are some arguable points in that area, but saying he started the "Let 100 Flowers Bloom" campaign just to find dissenters is a little ridiculous as well as that stuff about how the Cultural Revolution only ended up in killing millions of people.

Vera
11-11-2004, 09:45 AM
The Great Leap or whatever you call it was just plain stupid. And people did die. Millions died. Definitely didn't lead to quick industrialization. But hey, you can always blame the sparrows!

Call me odd, but I don't think any country where there are prison camps for people who disagree with the leader a country well-run.

wheelchairman
11-11-2004, 09:54 AM
The Great Leap Forward was not a horrible idea. China definitely needed reform. And the Great Leap Forward in many ways did help with the development of Chinese society. (yes of course there were far more bad things.) However much of the blame for example could be said that the Chinese planners had thought that the west would buy their products. A gamble they never should've made.

Depending on who you talk to, the Great Leap Forward is either a horrible failure or a great victory. (I know this Maoist in America who will never admit to a mistake on Mao's part.)

But for example, China's high level of development now would be impossible without the Great Leap Forward.

wheelchairman
11-11-2004, 09:56 AM
Oh and on people dying. I always take it with a grain of salt when people claim mass death in a Communist country. They always do that. I've seen numbers for China ranging from 5 million to 280 million. When the range of error is 275 million then it's just obviously ridiculous propaganda. It's a much worse situation than the anti-Russian propaganda.

As for political prisoners, I would take that again with a grain of salt. Things are exaggerated. But when it comes to people like the former Bourgeois who couldn't go along with the demands of the people, then I'd have no problem with it.

Not Ozymandias
11-11-2004, 10:06 AM
Me <3 abortion.

Vera
11-11-2004, 10:55 AM
Oh and on people dying. I always take it with a grain of salt when people claim mass death in a Communist country. They always do that. I've seen numbers for China ranging from 5 million to 280 million. When the range of error is 275 million then it's just obviously ridiculous propaganda. It's a much worse situation than the anti-Russian propaganda.

As for political prisoners, I would take that again with a grain of salt. Things are exaggerated. But when it comes to people like the former Bourgeois who couldn't go along with the demands of the people, then I'd have no problem with it.
CONSPIRACY!!!!111

The only socialist leader I have any respect for was Lenin and that is only because I think I've been taught biased information about him. He was a friend of Finland, so people in here are not eager to label him a completely rotten leader. All of the others I've read about have basically been maniacs. I won't argue with you about this because I quite frankly don't give a hell about communism and it's all about perspective in history anyway (meaning your information sources are as biased as are mine). No political system is or ever will be flawless, but I prefer democracy, flaws and all.

Not Ozymandias
11-11-2004, 11:12 AM
http://www.creativedynamix.com/grafix/fetus.jpg

Betty
11-11-2004, 03:49 PM
*chuckles*

WCM - I don't know... I suppose you can have your unions in the third world sweatshops and apparently (?) in the US because apparently they still need them... but I'm going to say that in Canada, we can do away with them. Unions represent to me like, exactly who you should not be liking. All they want is money... they are big pointless corporations in themselves... they don't even seem to be in it for the workers. And they're very pushy. Take the Wal-mart case for example... not sure if that would be a familiar case to you... but people all hate Wal-Mart cause it comes into a town to establish itself and apparently puts all the small businesses out of business. I'm not overly concerned myself, and I'd shop at the small business over Wal-mart if the prices were relatively competitive. But anyway, it is non-unionized and the union is ALWAYS trying to get ahold of it. And they try and convince workers that it'll be better, and the management opposes it... and then there's the big vote, etc. So, a Wal-mart came into my old hometown and a bunch of the people form the grocery store where I worked under a Foods and Commercial workers union all applied to Wal-Mart and they are SO EXCITED to be working there. They get better pay. They get better hours. They couldn't get more than 24 hours at the grocery store since the union wouldn't allow it since it would be more expensive, etc. So anything I hear about Wal-Mart workers getting poorly treated becasue they don't have a union, well, I've only experienced the opposite. Then there's another example. My boyfriend worked at this thrift shop chain Value Village. They didn't have a union either and they were treated absolutely great. They got regular raises, opportunities for promotions, good hours and BONUSES if the store met quota. Their raises were based partially on... PERFORMANCE... and not just time worked. I think that is awesome.

"And let me tell you a thing about where people have a choice to work. Because let's face it, the job-market is not large today, in fact unemployment is rising in most countries."

Well, as I believe it is, the US has one of the lowest unemployment rates possibly because the capitalist theory is working?? See, the whole thing about getting rid of unions and lowering taxes for businesses is to promote their growth and their expansion and hence the jobs offered. Everybody will be richer, everybody will buy more, and it will be a big happy cycle of growth and prosperity. So in theory, the driving force should be competition for workers. A corporation is going to want good workers. How is it going to get them? Well, by offering benefits... by offering promotions based on performance... by offering good working condition... by offering better wages. As soon as there is competition for workers, there shouldn't be the need for unions. Or even the potential for competition because eliminating unions should help that.

Regarding these US sweatshops, are there not minimum wage laws in the US? Are they being followed in these cases? There are definitely minimum wage laws here.

I guess a case where a union would be useful would be if a company fired somebody on the verge of retirement so that they didn't have to pay them their benefit package. I think that is absolutely terrible. That actually happened to my neighbour and now he still works to afford his home, etc. But his family is doing fine! I think overall, the benefits of getting rid of unions outweigh the benefits of keeping them. My dad was layed off once because of some corrupt conspiracy thing, since his boss didn't want him to outsucceed him or something... and that was terrible too. And times were rough, but people get through them...

And like, regarding the sweatshops in third world countries and their low wages... if the company left they wouldn't have a job AT ALL and would be in worse shape. Sure, the working conditions are terrible, but if the company had to raise wages, they would leave anyway. WHy would they want a company there when they could just have one in the US at the same labour cost? The US can't fix everything in the world and give everybody in poor countries jobs. So if they IMPROVE their life by offering them a shitty job by our standards, is this not better for the people? And if it actually makes them worse off, then like I said, they could just not work there. The point is, you can't have it both ways and you have to look at it realistically. Does this make sense?

You can have:
1. Sweatshop: people make some money, bad conditions.
2. No sweatshop: People don't make money at all.
3. Sweatshop with fair wages: Business packs up and leaves. People make no money.

Which situation is best? #1. I can't think of any alternative situation.

malumboman
11-11-2004, 05:35 PM
I am pro-abortion, but I am not pro-choice. The government should have the power to force a woman to have an abortion. For example, if the baby is going to like Good Charlotte or if the beby is going to have sex with dogs-wait, i repeated myself.

SicN Twisted
11-11-2004, 08:25 PM
Betty, I respect your opinion, but you're factually misguided on several issues. For one, the US has a reletively high unemployment rate. The more socialistic countries in Europe are much more succesful in that area.

Also, I don't think you really understand the way sweatshops work. The reason sweatshops offer no other options is because American corperations by out all the local business in the poor countries they invade, and force American currency on them so any national business has absolutely no chance and have to close down. Companies like Nike force countries into slave labor by destroying jobs in those countries. It's ludicrous to say that sweatshops offer employment opportunity.

And in regard to capitalism's drive - I don't really understand how capitalism motivates people to succeed since capitalism, by nature, has to make success nearly impossable. The more capitalist society is, the higher the gap is between the rich and the poor, because the more tax dollars and benefits are flooded into the top ten percent and the higher the middle and lower classes are taxed. It has to be that way, since there's only a certain amount of produced wealth, and there's no regulation so nobody can stop corperations from buying out local industries and stealing their profits. All capitalism does is give a minority of people an opportunity to make rediculous amounts of money they'd never need while destroying low income job opportunities. History has gradually proven this. For instance, Sweden and Finland are basically welfare states, and there's a much more constant current of of wages based on hours worked, and there's much less poverty. In Sweden, everyone over 60 automatically recieves a government provided personal aid to pay bills and do shopping. And also, the more capitalistic a western republic is, the higher a rate of homelessness it has. If the rich are taxed, not the poor, and there's more money to pour into economic opportunities. So basically, someone living in a more socialistic country has a much better chance of making a decent living.

I'd also like to say a few things about the common right wing sentiment that poor people are mostly lazy and don't support their families because they just don't wanna get a job. If this were true, then explain the great depression? Was their an epidemic of lazyness in the 1930s, which ended because in the 40's, everyone got off their asses to get jobs? The lower classes exist because of social inequalities that come with capitalist systems. Capitalism might work in a small, populous country like Japan and Switzerland, but in huge industrial countries that rely on international trade, all capitalism creates and forced inequality.

On a side note, I don't think a murderous tyrant taking absolute power and liquidating dissenters is the answer to our problems. If it was, then the Sovet Union and Communist China would be pleasant countries to live in, which they clearly weren't.

wheelchairman
11-13-2004, 04:31 AM
Well Sic covered most of what I would've replied with.

However on Walmart, it is not uncommon for WalMart to come with high-benefits in the beginning (and still be against worker's organization), but that is only in the beginning. It's a common trick used to establish one's place in the local market.

Little_Miss_1565
11-13-2004, 10:13 AM
Agreed with Sic. Though I am too impatient, not to mention tired and sick, to read all the threads, I think I've gotten the gist of the last few pages, so here goes.

Anyone who wants to talk about the greatness of Mao and yay Chinese revolutions of 50-60 years ago needs to shut the fuck up right now. There is nothing that annoys me more than when the Maoist Communist groups near school make dropoffs of their newspapers in the student center. My grandmother is Chinese, and left the country out of pure luck, escaping Communism and other practices that destroyed her family and cost lives. So maybe my reaction is a little too personal, but for crying out loud. Let's not forget that Mao rose to power in a country that had just suffered a genocide.

I'm tired now. Bleh.

wheelchairman
11-13-2004, 11:22 AM
Anyone who wants to talk about the greatness of Mao and yay Chinese revolutions of 50-60 years ago needs to shut the fuck up right now.
Cursing at me. I'm now convinced.


There is nothing that annoys me more than when the Maoist Communist groups near school make dropoffs of their newspapers in the student center.

American Maoists annoy me too, but that's cause they never stop talking about Bob Avakian.



Communism and other practices that destroyed her family and cost lives.
That should read socialism. And otherwise you are not detailed enough to give a proper reply.


So maybe my reaction is a little too personal, but for crying out loud. Let's not forget that Mao rose to power in a country that had just suffered a genocide.

I'm tired now. Bleh.
I don't see the connection between suffering a genocide, and how Mao was an awful leader after leading a successful revolution after that.

SicN Twisted
11-13-2004, 12:09 PM
Communism didn't oppress anyone. Governments that tacked on the word to justify oppressing people oppressed people.

WCM, when you say you have no problem throwing a middle class person in jail for not going along the the "demands of the people" I seriously started laughing - outlouad. No Communist regime has represented "the people -" since every single one, especially China and Russia, were dictatorships that didn't allow labor unions. By "going against the people," you're saying in newspeak, "has an individual identity and doesn't neccesarily agree with everything the government is doing." Why do you think Stalin and Mao worked so hard to surpress individualism, and literature and art, and anything academic for that matter? Because they hated it, they wanted everyone to be a brainwashed, mind numbingly conformist worker/peasant that thinks the government is "repressenting" him, because those people are less likely to revolt - contrary to Lenin's beliefs, revolutions were always committed by the middle class.

wheelchairman
11-13-2004, 12:32 PM
Sic-
When middle Class interests (petty bourgeois, i.e. people who aren't bourgeois but are working to be) interfere in the class struggle, especially during a revolutionary time, then it would be justifiable to stop them. Not knowing the time period or circumstances of 1565's family I can't really have an opinion as of yet.

But during a revolution, when the country is still fragile and in conflict, I think it makes sense to imprison your opponents.

The middle class never made a revolution. Or else the middle Class would've gained power. A revolution is when a class takes power. The middle class, to my knowledge rules nowhere.

wheelchairman
11-13-2004, 12:35 PM
On trade unions. I don't know enough about them really to have an opinion either way. I wouldn't be surprised though that under Stalin and afterwards they were corrupt and servile.

However, take the situation in Cuba. The Communist Party only holds about half the parliamentary organ or less. Most of the people running for candidature come from different interest groups, the Unions, Women's Rights organizations etc. And the unions, contrary to popular belief, are not in the pocket of the government. Wouldn't make much sense to have a demonstration if they were, for example.

Rabbit209
11-13-2004, 02:52 PM
as i read in the first page (didnt feel like reading the other 9) everyone was saying it should be the Mother's decision, but what about the Father? ( i dont know if anyone else asked this cuz i only read the 1rst page but fuck taht) I know alot of people who want to be the father of there baby but there kids mom wont let them. just the fact that they want to help with the kids life the mothers should be glad to let them spend time with them.. but then again theres alot of men that dont want to take responsiblity of there child. as for my veiws on aborition i dont think its good, but i dont think it should be illegal, they SHOULD veiw some other opitions like adoption and child care services and stuff before they deicide abortion but thats proabaly not going to happen.. all in all just dont fuck a girl unless if your welling to spend the rest of your life with her, condom or not.

wheelchairman
11-13-2004, 02:59 PM
Thank you Captain Abstinence.

The thing about "the father's point" is irrelevant. How it could only possibly work in practice would be that the woman could only get the abortion on permission of the father. It makes no sense. Especially since in every case the women's connection to the child should be far stronger (since it is living inside her.)

In the end, the final decision should always be the woman's. Always.

sumrandumpunk
11-13-2004, 03:29 PM
k i removed my post so u can stop bitching about my dumbass male views

Vera
11-13-2004, 03:39 PM
You're so absolutely convincing. Hah, not.

If someone gets raped, how is that avoiding responsibility? She's NOT responsible for getting raped. I don't see it as the woman's obligation to keep the baby.

If she was to keep it, what would the child be? A remaining reminder of the time she got sexually assaulted. Wow, the child would have such a happy childhood with that backround. Mom, where's daddy? Daddy is in prison because the police finally caught him for raping 6 women, including mommy.

Charming.

Again, I can't help but think you'd probably think differently if you were the one who'd have to carry an unwanted child for nine months inside you.

JoY
11-13-2004, 03:42 PM
I agree with Sanni for a 100%, but it already was obvious from my post in this topic.


ah dude, every time I read that post, I think "hell yeah!". I so agree with it.

wheelchairman
11-13-2004, 03:57 PM
I must say right now every fiber of my body agrees with Vrea.


The common reasons for abortion (i hate):
1. some stupid slut fucked a guy (or vice versa) and doesnt want to be in trouble
Clearly showing your male chauvinism. You watch your fucking mouth alright. Women should never be referred to as stupid sluts. You make me sick.




2. she got raped (its still killing a child)

Incorrect it is not. There is no evidence whatsever that clusters of cells constitute a child. If you believe that, then you should also be working on fighting nocturnal emissions and PMS. You male-chauvinist jackass.



3. same as one except to avoid responsibility

You got to be fucking kidding me. I mean honestly, if your parents had been responsible they would've aborted you.
I think that a woman, who does not have the means nor the capability of taking care of a child, is being about as responsible as humanly possible by having an abortion.




I think it should be banned altogether... its an escape from being caught or in trouble most often...
Verify this now. If you have no statistics then don't make stupid ass claims.




in the cases of rape its still evading the truth of what happened and evading the fact that its A FUCKING HUMAN CHILD...
Under this definition, so is sperm. Do you masturbate?


would yall kill your baby cuz it costs to much or so you dont get caught fucking someone??? (imagine that it was already birthed; only difference is that its still in the woman) think about it...
That will never be my choice, and that will never be your choice either, this is a woman's decision and no other's. But thanks for your input Ayatollah Sumrandumpunk.



(i didnt specify if your coming from male or female view so you can't say im biased by sex or anything...) do you think its right to kill a child to stay out of trouble, avoid responsibility, or avoid what really happened?!? i dont think so (look at both sexes sides as you read this)
Why shouldn't we specify sexes? I mean you're sitting here calling women stupid sluts. You must like telling people what to do, don't you? Asshole.

You have a screwed up version of responsibility if you think the best result of responsibility is a nation of broken homes and shitty parents who raise shitty children.

wheelchairman
11-13-2004, 03:59 PM
I agree with Sanni for a 100%, but it already was obvious from my post in this topic.



I wrote practically the exact same thing without even reading this reply. Cool. Although comparing the times, I find it telling that it took me over 15 min. to write that reply.

JoY
11-13-2004, 04:04 PM
I wrote practically the exact same thing without even reading this reply. Cool. Although comparing the times, I find it telling that it took me over 15 min. to write that reply.
*points & laughs*


you spent, no - wasted - 15 perfectly good minutes of your life replying to some dick-jerking waste of life & space on earth.

hihihi.

wheelchairman
11-13-2004, 04:08 PM
The sad thing is, that can apply to most of my posts in the Politics forum.

JoY
11-13-2004, 04:14 PM
wait, I want to add something.
I don't quite understand the argument, that contained; "so you dont get caught fucking someone".
I first thought it was one very twisted, but brilliant joke, because I honestly couldn't stop laughing. first off the usage of verbs is too funny to put into words & secondly... the content!!!!!
AAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!111

rrroight. enough humour for me on one night.



to the author: no worries, cheesecake. mah mommy knows perfectly well her daughter has the sex. still I wonder if I'd directly run to her, if I get knocked up. not because I'm ashamed for the failure that's called birth control, or because she can't know I fuck my housemate - oh she knows -, but simply because I don't want to worry her with my mess & try to solve it myself first somehow, before I pick up that telephone, cry & whine to her. I know she's worries a lot, also about me, already.

some people aren't just merely selfish.

JoY
11-13-2004, 04:16 PM
sorry Per. I know I just wasted very important time, especially since I have so much to do & could also be writing you an e-mail right now.


...but it was so much fun. XD

RXP
11-14-2004, 12:44 AM
Clearly showing your male chauvinism. You watch your fucking mouth alright. Women should never be referred to as stupid sluts. You make me sick.


Why not? Never, you gotta qualify that shit. If a woman is a whore I'll call her a whore.

Also rape is in the lawful defintion, at least in the UK, I disagree with. Everyone here I know what they mean by rape but in English law rape means something very different now. I'd bother explaining it but I can't be arsed and the defintion they adopt is fucking stupid because it produces anaomlies like if some poor whore sleeps with her boss to get a promotion. That's rape. NO ITS FUCKING NOT YOU FEMINIST REFORMING BITCHES DIE.

RXP
11-14-2004, 12:45 AM
I should also point out I think whores provide a valuable service to society.That's not being an idoit I truly believe they do.

wheelchairman
11-14-2004, 04:18 AM
Why not? Never, you gotta qualify that shit. If a woman is a whore I'll call her a whore.


Because it's a form of patriarchic oppression.

How is prostitution a valuable service?

RXP
11-14-2004, 04:23 AM
No hookers rape would increase.

Every country needs to legalise it. Then they'd stop it from going underground. It's different from drugs cause there's no fucking harm of legalising it. It's just societies morality is fucking stupid. Then you'd stop the pimps the crime associated with it. You'd get less STDs therefore less negative externalities (as economists would say) on society. It's better for everyone.

But society is full of retarded idoits. Oh well if only I was PM or leader of the world, eh?

wheelchairman
11-14-2004, 04:49 AM
From what I understand. Rape doesn't happen because people get a lack of sex. Rape happens because rapists like having complete power over their victim.

Sex with a prostitute wouldn't really solve that need would it?

RXP
11-14-2004, 05:19 AM
Domination hookers or submissive ones. There's some weird shit out there. Google it up.

Rape happens for a lot of reasons. cf: Jennifer Temkin (I think that's how you spell it) wrote this huge paper on Rape Myths and your one was one of them (for sex) but she also wrote it's stupid to encompass all rape under one field. It happens for a lot of reasons. Date rape, for example, occurs mainly for lust.

JoY
11-14-2004, 08:45 AM
Why not? Never, you gotta qualify that shit. If a woman is a whore I'll call her a whore.

calling prostitutes whores is.. well, justified, because they are. referring to women generally, or just women pregnant by accident, as stupid sluts is ignorant & idiocy & stupidity drips from it like an overdose of melted cheese from an overheated pizza. like saying every insect is evil, when you're only referring to ants. it just doesn't make sense.

JoY
11-14-2004, 08:46 AM
Date rape, for example, occurs mainly for lust.
& is that justified, according to you?

RXP
11-14-2004, 09:01 AM
No way in hell is that justified.

Revolver-2005?
11-14-2004, 09:25 AM
I think tht if the abortion isnt late into the pregnancy its ok, but if the babys gonna be born in like 2 months tht is murder, otherwise i dont see a problem

Vera
11-14-2004, 09:54 AM
You know, there is a certain limit to when abortion can be done. I can't remember what it is, but it's measured in weeks.

SicN Twisted
11-14-2004, 02:40 PM
Of course date rape is justified. If it wasn't, it would never occur. Anything a human is capable of doing is obviously justifiable, because their are people who do it.

Betty
11-14-2004, 06:18 PM
Betty, I respect your opinion, but you're factually misguided on several issues. For one, the US has a reletively high unemployment rate. The more socialistic countries in Europe are much more succesful in that area.

Still not sure if I agree on that one. I know it was pointed out that the consequences of any unemployment could be far worse in the US due to lack of welfare/unemployment benefits/etc... but based on stuff I've read it still seems as if their unemployment is lower.


Also, I don't think you really understand the way sweatshops work. The reason sweatshops offer no other options is because American corperations by out all the local business in the poor countries they invade, and force American currency on them so any national business has absolutely no chance and have to close down. Companies like Nike force countries into slave labor by destroying jobs in those countries. It's ludicrous to say that sweatshops offer employment opportunity.

Yes I suppose that would be true. I guess I won't accept it 100%, but I'm sure not an expert on sweatshops... so I would have to do my research. Hence, I could see the use of unions in these types of situations, as they do not have the necessary labour laws established to combat that kind of treatment.


And in regard to capitalism's drive - I don't really understand how capitalism motivates people to succeed since capitalism, by nature, has to make success nearly impossable. The more capitalist society is, the higher the gap is between the rich and the poor, because the more tax dollars and benefits are flooded into the top ten percent and the higher the middle and lower classes are taxed. It has to be that way, since there's only a certain amount of produced wealth, and there's no regulation so nobody can stop corperations from buying out local industries and stealing their profits. All capitalism does is give a minority of people an opportunity to make rediculous amounts of money they'd never need while destroying low income job opportunities. History has gradually proven this. For instance, Sweden and Finland are basically welfare states, and there's a much more constant current of of wages based on hours worked, and there's much less poverty. In Sweden, everyone over 60 automatically recieves a government provided personal aid to pay bills and do shopping. And also, the more capitalistic a western republic is, the higher a rate of homelessness it has. If the rich are taxed, not the poor, and there's more money to pour into economic opportunities. So basically, someone living in a more socialistic country has a much better chance of making a decent living.

I'd also like to say a few things about the common right wing sentiment that poor people are mostly lazy and don't support their families because they just don't wanna get a job. If this were true, then explain the great depression? Was their an epidemic of lazyness in the 1930s, which ended because in the 40's, everyone got off their asses to get jobs? The lower classes exist because of social inequalities that come with capitalist systems. Capitalism might work in a small, populous country like Japan and Switzerland, but in huge industrial countries that rely on international trade, all capitalism creates and forced inequality.

On a side note, I don't think a murderous tyrant taking absolute power and liquidating dissenters is the answer to our problems. If it was, then the Sovet Union and Communist China would be pleasant countries to live in, which they clearly weren't.

I am certainly not an expert on capitalism (or any of the ism's either) but what you say is not entirely correct. Like, regarding taxes... it's not that the rich are taxed less and the poor and middle classes are taxed more... it's that the poor and middle classes are taxed as per usual (or less!) and the rich are not taxed as much, hence less income from taxes period. This leads to less social programs... but gives people the option of choosing where their money is spent themselves on more things... And it's not just about that top 10% of the population. Those other middle 80%, yeah, they're doing quite well for themselves... much better than they would be doing in a non-capitalist state. Maybe that lower 10% may not be as well taken care of, but there should be plenty of jobs available for them to have...

So, here's my link... the economic freedom of the world report...

http://www.freetheworld.com/2004/efw2004ch1.pdf

It shows correlation between economic freedom (which would be defined much better in the report) and per capita GDP, economic growth, overall income of the lowest 10% (so you're in the lowest 10%, well you're still making way more than the lowest 10% in a less capitalist country), and NO correlation with the share of income earned by the lowest 10%... (and then the other stuff like poverty, infant mortality, literacy, etc.)

Also, I don't think your argument regarding the great depression applies... because that concerned everybody... I really don't see how that could relate to laziness for some people (which I'm not necessarily saying I agree with, but I do stick with my view that stereotypes exist for a reason).

Also, I won't say that capitalism in it's pure form would work, in the same way that communism in it's pure form probably would not work, people people just aren't perfect enough for these perfect theories. But I can still say that countries that are more capitalist are better off for the most part. And, being non-hypocritical, I would have no qualms in moving to the US... and I would like anybody who supported another theory to have no qualms in moving to a country that supported that theory as well.

malumboman
11-14-2004, 06:38 PM
Lets kill some babies!

wheelchairman
11-14-2004, 10:23 PM
Lets kill some babies!
Well that's clever. I hate to stereotype, but it always seems the greeks are very dogmatic on this issue. Even the KKE which makes no real sense.

Betty, I don't have the time right now. But I will try to address your post at a later point.

malumboman
11-15-2004, 06:42 PM
im just messin, i love babies. im prochoice

Sexy Panda
11-16-2004, 12:57 AM
I'm pro choice.

Why has this thread been hijacked by a communism/capitalism debate? Were you discussing the difficulty of poor women in getting abortions?

DexterHollandluver
11-16-2004, 04:30 AM
ok i really dont know all this talk about abortions. my mom told me to get one because im only 14 and cant take care of a child. fuck that

lousyskater
11-16-2004, 04:33 AM
ok i really dont know all this talk about abortions. my mom told me to get one because im only 14 and cant take care of a child. fuck that
wtf? your pregnant at 14? you fucking kids and your sex...

Kitten
11-16-2004, 05:29 AM
I agree that abortions should be legal. Not as a form of contraceptive, but as a last resort. As for sex education, there should be more information about different types of contraceptives, and the repercussions (both emotionally and physically) of abortion. As others have said, no contracpetive is 100% reliable. Is the govenment now expecting us to live with the fact that they cannot produce something that protects us from getting pregnant? No matter how many precautions you take, you can still end up pregnant.
Not only does unwanted pregnancy ruin the mothers life (and possibly the fathers if he hasn't run off and skipped the border) it ruins this precious human life that could be born. If human life was so precious, shouldn't we work on improving the quality of life for those already here, rather than protecting the rights of a chemical reaction?
In most instances I agree with the saying that you learn from your mistakes, but not this one.
The mother would be struggling to make a living, not only for herself, but for that child. A teenager should be young and carefree, and yet due to lack of education might believe an older guy that pulling out is completely safe. Ok, she made her own bed, she should lie in it. Serves the stupid little slut right for being naive. Wrong.

Fallen.
11-16-2004, 07:45 AM
i've just skim read the topic, but i hear absolutely no mention of the Father's rights......

wheelchairman
11-16-2004, 08:06 AM
I agree that abortions should be legal. Not as a form of contraceptive, but as a last resort. As for sex education, there should be more information about different types of contraceptives, and the repercussions (both emotionally and physically) of abortion. As others have said, no contracpetive is 100% reliable. Is the govenment now expecting us to live with the fact that they cannot produce something that protects us from getting pregnant? No matter how many precautions you take, you can still end up pregnant.

It's rare that people use abortions as a form of birth control, it hardly needs to be brought up as any sort of issue.

Furthermore, in what world do you live in, where abortion doctors don't warn about the repercussions of an abortion (emotionally and physically)?

wheelchairman
11-16-2004, 08:08 AM
i've just skim read the topic, but i hear absolutely no mention of the Father's rights......
Father's rights ( the fact that he's not a father yet, aside) is irrelevant.

I mean, are you proposing, that we should legalize abortions, but only allow them to happen if the 'sperm donor' agrees to it?

Ridiculous.

Kitten
11-16-2004, 11:37 AM
It's rare that people use abortions as a form of birth control, it hardly needs to be brought up as any sort of issue.

Furthermore, in what world do you live in, where abortion doctors don't warn about the repercussions of an abortion (emotionally and physically)?

I am sure docotrs do warn about the repurcussions, however, not having ever had to make the decision, I wouldn't be able to say. But that's were education comes in before it gets to that stage. While abortion is rarely used as a form of birth control, some people don't think of the repurcussions of their actions and have unsafe sex.
There should be education to tell girls that you must use protection when having sex, or else have to face these issues, not just the issue of the possibility of STD's.

wheelchairman
11-16-2004, 11:43 AM
Now honestly, I grew up in America. And even in that backasswards theocracy, we were told about different forms of birth control. (Of course celibacy was always the best form of prevention. But we did hear about the other forms and the STDs.

I don't think there are many western countries that don't cover birth control.

Kitten
11-16-2004, 11:49 AM
Now honestly, I grew up in America. And even in that backasswards theocracy, we were told about different forms of birth control. (Of course celibacy was always the best form of prevention. But we did hear about the other forms and the STDs.

I don't think there are many western countries that don't cover birth control.

It's obviously working with the marked decrease in teenage pregnancy.

wheelchairman
11-16-2004, 12:03 PM
Nothing gets past you does it.

Kitten
11-16-2004, 12:09 PM
Nothing gets past you does it.

Nope. Nothing...

I am just saying that the education tends to be a little passive.

malumboman
11-16-2004, 02:27 PM
a baby is an std

JoY
11-18-2004, 09:18 AM
a baby is an std
I'd tell my kid that too, if I'd gotten you.

malumboman
11-18-2004, 04:01 PM
i do not know what you are talking about. sex is wrong and if you have sex, you are going to burn eternally!

acgc2002
11-18-2004, 08:28 PM
I am against abortions, not in a way "ah, it is killing sth that could have turned out a life" etc... I think if you want to fuck, just take enough care with a pill, condoms... so many kinds of stuff to prevent that!!! If we were at my grandma´s birth decade, I would be for abortion because there weren´t many methods to avoid an unwanted pregnancy... but nowadays??????

wheelchairman
11-19-2004, 02:45 AM
Right because these all have 100% chances of preventing pregnancy. *rolls eyes*

Even with the surgery to tie your tubes, women have gotten pregnant.

JoY
11-19-2004, 02:54 AM
I am against abortions, not in a way "ah, it is killing sth that could have turned out a life" etc... I think if you want to fuck, just take enough care with a pill, condoms... so many kinds of stuff to prevent that!!! If we were at my grandma´s birth decade, I would be for abortion because there weren´t many methods to avoid an unwanted pregnancy... but nowadays??????
silly girl. *shakes head*

RXP
11-19-2004, 03:37 AM
Come the revoultion, as soverign I shall decree only oral sex be permitted.

Vera
11-19-2004, 04:12 AM
What about wanking?

RXP
11-19-2004, 04:31 AM
u got me hard lol

Vera
11-19-2004, 04:39 AM
I do that to myself a lot, as well.

RXP
11-19-2004, 04:50 AM
what get RXP hard?

*confused*

Mota Boy
12-05-2004, 10:30 AM
Right because these all have 100% chances of preventing pregnancy. *rolls eyes*

Even with the surgery to tie your tubes, women have gotten pregnant.


Abortions should be used as a last resort, however. A very carefully thought out last resort.

Lessthanfree
12-07-2004, 08:12 PM
First off, oral sex would not become the only form of sex permitted, because as it is, many states view both cunninlingus and fellatio as illegal as they involve an object other than the penis in the vagina or a penis is an orifice other than the vagina, respectively. So, in all likeliness, oral sex would not become a replacement for intercourse.

More importantly however, abortion is indeed murder, for the being killed was on its way to becoming a human and had just as much potential as the millions of sperm in a man's testicles or the eggs inside a woman. For that reason, masturbation is murder and so is the menstrual cycle. To relieve our the world of these horrible problems that occur everyday, we as worldly citizens must unite and organize the rape of pubescent young men everywhere so that the murder rate steadily decreases. Women will not be left out though, for they too must be raped in order to save the souls of the eggs and potential people. In order to ensure that no one is left out of this radical new movement, strict punishments will be carried out on any boy caught masturbating and any girl caught menstruating. To pledge your support to this growing movement, feel free to email the organization (endspermicide@yahoo.com) with any questions or comments regarding policies and procedures.

Committee Against the Daily Massacre of Undeveloped Beings (CADMUB)

sKratch
12-07-2004, 08:17 PM
My opinion will change the way the world views abortion.

BoobOoBaByKiTtEn17
12-07-2004, 08:24 PM
Abortion is for those with a choice....think of a women who gets raped and dont want to keep a child that was made from lust from just another horny man......or a women who is a drug addict and knows that if she gets pregnant then she is putting her child at risk along with herself...abortion is all about choice. and some people are able to make that choice althought it is a hard choice ......men are lucky they dont have to have abortions!

number70
12-12-2004, 03:21 AM
yes, i agree, uh, what's dogma?

Not Ozymandias
07-09-2005, 06:55 PM
An overrated movie that sexless nerds like.

Endymion
07-09-2005, 08:37 PM
http://www.csulb.edu/~rjames/classic/kermit.png