Why I Oppose Abortion

[EcoFemSoc]

I'm a socialist, a feminist, and an environmentalist...

...and I oppose abortion.

This planet's natural resources are consumed so rapidly by recklessness, and that recklessness is only encouraged when people can make love without planning ahead. Also, I know people are concerned about unplanned pregnancies, but it degrades women to say it's OK to be stupid.

Lastly, abortion caters to the elite. It gives the masses an excuse to avoid doing something more constructive with their time, and lets elites abort to avoid taking on responsibility.

That is why I oppose abortion.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

How does abortion increase consuming nations resources? And i fail to see how it "caters to the elite"...

 

[EcoFemSoc]

How does abortion increase consuming nations resources? And i fail to see how it "caters to the elite"...

That should be pretty easy (for a socialist) to understand.

The relations of production include the relations of reproduction. When people can get away with not relating with what they make, they can afford inefficient use value.

Likewise, the elite can abort instead of having children which means they can focus less on people and more on capital.

 

[Mr. Invisible]

That should be pretty easy (for a socialist) to understand.

The relations of production include the relations of reproduction. When people can get away with not relating with what they make, they can afford inefficient use value.

Likewise, the elite can abort instead of having children which means they can focus less on people and more on capital.

Or they can just have children and have their servants take care of them while putting their focus on capital. 'Cause, they, you know, have money.

 

[EcoFemSoc]

Or they can just have children and have their servants take care of them while putting their focus on capital. 'Cause, they, you know, have money.

Every ounce of capital spent on their own children is an ounce less spent on keeping the proletariat oppressed.

Furthermore, if they have to hire servants, those are opportunities for elites' children to sympathize with the working class' plight. It increases the chance of permanent revolution into the future with servants leading the dictatorship of the proletariat.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

That should be pretty easy (for a socialist) to understand.

The relations of production include the relations of reproduction. When people can get away with not relating with what they make, they can afford inefficient use value.

Likewise, the elite can abort instead of having children which means they can focus less on people and more on capital.

This is about womans rights and the right to their body. A fetus does not come into play with the relations of production. This is not some capital scheme.

 

[Mr. Invisible]

Every ounce of capital spent on their own children is an ounce less spent on keeping the proletariat oppressed.

Furthermore, if they have to hire servants, those are opportunities for elites' children to sympathize with the working class' plight. It increases the chance of permanent revolution into the future with servants leading the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Laughable statements are laughable.

"Every ounce of capital spent on their own children is an ounce less spent on keeping the proletariat oppressed." Because, ya know, they can't make intelligent investments and recoup several times the money they spend on their children.

"if they have to hire servants, those are opportunities for elites' children to sympathize with the working class' plight." Funny. I know that the Rockefellers, Fords, and Rothschilds all have servants and yet few (if any) of them have "sympathize[d] with the working class' plight."

Finally, isn't a "dictatorship of the proletariat" actually deeply ironic seeing as how the working class has been fighting for its freedom then turns around and oppresses others?

EDIT: Grammar

 

[EcoFemSoc]

This is about womans rights and the right to their body. A fetus does not come into play with the relations of production. This is not some capital scheme.

Women should not be encouraged to commodify their own bodies for relief. If anything's "right", it's encouraging women to make thorough decisions.

A fetus is also commodified when it's treated as an abortion object.

 

[Fisher]

This is about womans rights and the right to their body. A fetus does not come into play with the relations of production. This is not some capital scheme.

Well for some, but for others it is about the rights of the unborn, like the right to live....

 

[EcoFemSoc]

Laughable statements are laughable.

"Every ounce of capital spent on their own children is an ounce less spent on keeping the proletariat oppressed." Because, ya know, they can't make intelligent investments and recoup several times the money they spend on their children.

"if they have to hire servants, those are opportunities for elites' children to sympathize with the working class' plight." Funny. I know that the Rockefellers, Fords, and Rothschilds all have servants and yet few (if any) of them have "sympathize[d] with the working class' plight."

Finally, isn't a "dictatorship of the proletariat" actually deeply ironic seeing as how the working class has been fighting for its freedom then turns around and oppresses others?

EDIT: Grammar

The more children elites have, the more divided their investments and difficult it is to keep under control.

Besides, if elites only throw capital at their children, those children will learn what it is to be commodified. Elites have to choose between spending time managing capital, or spending time parenting children which gives workers a chance to revolt.

 

[Mr. Invisible]

The more children elites have, the more divided their investments and difficult it is to keep under control.

Besides, if elites only throw capital at their children, those children will learn what it is to be commodified. Elites have to choose between spending time managing capital, or spending time parenting children which gives workers a chance to revolt.

"The more children elites have, the more divided their investments and difficult it is to keep under control."

But here's the thing, do you know elites to have many children? I sure don't.

"Besides, if elites only throw capital at their children, those children will learn what it is to be commodified. Elites have to choose between spending time managing capital, or spending time parenting children which gives workers a chance to revolt."

Or those kids could learn to take that capital, intelligently invest it and make a profit. Your second statement is completely false as they can have people invest and manage their money for them while they spend time with their kids.

 

[Carjosse]

Well for some, but for others it is about the rights of the unborn, like the right to live....

Well considering they are legally not people and are biologically not people they do not have rights. An issue solved decades ago.

 

[Goshin]

the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Oh lawd, not that tired old canard....


... cuz it worked out SO well for the USSR...

 

[EcoFemSoc]

"The more children elites have, the more divided their investments and difficult it is to keep under control."

But here's the thing, do you know elites to have many children? I sure don't.

"Besides, if elites only throw capital at their children, those children will learn what it is to be commodified. Elites have to choose between spending time managing capital, or spending time parenting children which gives workers a chance to revolt."

Or those kids could learn to take that capital, intelligently invest it and make a profit. Your second statement is completely false as they can have people invest and manage their money for them while they spend time with their kids.

Some elites have lots of children: 6, 8, 10. Those families typically have dire estate battles.

Children will always have a chance to intelligently invest capital. The more children had, the lesser the chance because the less resources available per head.

 

[Fisher]

Well considering they are legally not people and are biologically not people they do not have rights. An issue solved decades ago.

Time has a funny way of changing Justices and laws......

 

[EcoFemSoc]

Oh lawd, not that tired old canard....


... cuz it worked out SO well for the USSR...

The Soviet Union legalized abortion. I wouldn't.

 

[Carjosse]

Time has a funny way of changing Justices and laws......

It's funny it hasn't changed since the late 80s and being pro-life ends your political career and almost guaranteed to lose you the election at least here anyways up in the bastion of civilization of Canada.

 

[Mr. Invisible]

Some elites have lots of children: 6, 8, 10. Those families typically have dire estate battles.

Children will always have a chance to intelligently invest capital. The more children had, the lesser the chance because the less resources available per head.

The keyword in your first sentence: some. While they are elites they are not unaffected by general cultural shifts, which have quite recently shifted to a two-parent household with two children (generally speaking).

Once again, you ignore the fact that the elites can make intelligent investments, give all of their kids an equal amount to invest, and then recoup that money either through the investments that that kids have made or investments they themselves have made.

 

[Mr. Invisible]

Oh lawd, not that tired old canard....


... cuz it worked out SO well for the USSR...

Well, if we want to be super specific, what happened in the USSR was not a dictatorship of the proletariat, but rather a dictatorship of the middle class intellectuals. Personally, I am quite weary of the middle class in a revolutionary context as they are often the ones that don't want radical changes, but rather slight reforms to the system which will benefit them the most, while leaving the overall oppressive and exploitative structure intact.

 

[EcoFemSoc]

The keyword in your first sentence: some. While they are elites they are not unaffected by general cultural shifts, which have quite recently shifted to a two-parent household with two children (generally speaking).

Once again, you ignore the fact that the elites can make intelligent investments, give all of their kids an equal amount to invest, and then recoup that money either through the investments that that kids have made or investments they themselves have made.

Can you think of another reason other elites have less children besides abortion or sexual frustration?

I didn't ignore your second question. The pie gets divided in more slices, so each child has less control. The upper class interest becomes more difficult to protect.

 

[Goshin]

The Soviet Union legalized abortion. I wouldn't.

I wasn't aware that your opinion, by itself alone, constituted a Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Perhaps a majority of the Proletariat will disagree with you on that... and perhaps on many other things.


Also, I'm not sure but I rather suspect that abortion was not the sole reason for the oppression, poverty and eventual collapse of the USSR...

 

[Mr. Invisible]

Can you think of another reason other elites have less children besides abortion or sexual frustration?

I didn't ignore your second question. The pie gets divided in more slices, so each child has less control. The upper class interest becomes more difficult to protect.

I didn't say you ignored my second question, I said you ignored the fact that elites can easily recoup money.

In regards to your question of elites having children, I don't need another answer as the answer I gave is perfectly reasonable and sensible.

 

[Goshin]

Well, if we want to be super specific, what happened in the USSR was not a dictatorship of the proletariat, but rather a dictatorship of the middle class intellectuals. Personally, I am quite weary of the middle class in a revolutionary context as they are often the ones that don't want radical changes, but rather slight reforms to the system which will benefit them the most, while leaving the overall oppressive and exploitative structure intact.

Yes, but a "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" WAS the alleged ideal of Communism was it not? Yet there has never BEEN an actual Dictatorship of the Proletariat in any communist country... for some reason human nature seems to yank that rug out from under fast in every case...

 

[Mr. Invisible]

Yes, but a "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" WAS the alleged ideal of Communism was it not? Yet there has never BEEN an actual Dictatorship of the Proletariat in any communist country... for some reason human nature seems to yank that rug out from under fast in every case...

Well, once again, if you wanna be super specific about it, Marx's true overall goal was one that was anarchistic in nature. He saw the dictatorship of the proletariat as a stepping stone for the rise of a society in which the workers owned the means of production which was in turn a stepping stone for the state itself to eventually be abolished. But, to answer your original question, it was somewhat of the alleged ideal of Communism, yes.

In regards to your final sentence, I would say that it would be a mixture of human nature and the fact the old saying absolute power corrupts absolutely.

 

[EcoFemSoc]

I wasn't aware that your opinion, by itself alone, constituted a Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Perhaps a majority of the Proletariat will disagree with you on that... and perhaps on many other things.


Also, I'm not sure but I rather suspect that abortion was not the sole reason for the oppression, poverty and eventual collapse of the USSR...

The Soviet Union had incredible abortion rates which lead to widespread disregard for children and immense poverty for the State to compensate.

Abortion in Russia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Family in the Soviet Union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If the working class is going to succeed, it needs to refrain from commodifying itself.