Abortion

I have been mulling over this topic for quite some time now. My specific question is: what place, if any, does abortion have in a future socialist society? I suppose it will be helpful if you state what your current stance on abortion is, as well, and how this opinion might change given different circumstances. Personally, I have always disliked the idea of abortion, and feel that it has no place in any worthwhile society. It seems so degenerate to me. Children should not have to become an inconvenience as a result of poor financial circumstances.

Additional questions:

Why do you think the issue of abortion can/cannot be remedied in the future?
Can socialism effectively make abortion less necessary?

Any opposing opinions are welcome.

This is a divisive question that i don't think can be put under the "in a socialist society" banner. With that said, abortion (or the choice not to do it) concerns mainly the parents, and specially the mother. Therefore, it's only fair that she is given the choice. Now we could argue that said choices would cost the community resources, etc etc, and that's why i am a strong advocate of contraceptives and it's dissemination, but in the end, having an abortion under the limits stipulated by science during wich the fetus is not formed yet, is for me a better solution than just bring an unloved child to the world, whose mother never wanted in the first place. Besides, who i am to judge what a woman does with what is still her body.

Leon Mcnichol wrote:This is a divisive question that i don't think can be put under the "in a socialist society" banner. With that said, abortion (or the choice not to do it) concerns mainly the parents, and specially the mother. Therefore, it's only fair that she is given the choice. Now we could argue that said choices would cost the community resources, etc etc, and that's why i am a strong advocate of contraceptives and it's dissemination, but in the end, having an abortion under the limits stipulated by science during wich the fetus is not formed yet, is for me a better solution than just bring an unloved child to the world, whose mother never wanted in the first place. Besides, who i am to judge what a woman does with what is still her body.

An understandable position, but my main point was to discuss exactly what perpetuates the need for the procedure. I truly believe that the popular pro-abortion stance is directly related to, and originated from, the state of our society economically/politically (making it an issue of convenience) rather than any "it's my body" defense, though it has developed into the latter in terms of popular culture. Indeed, it seems to me that as per usual, the focus is on the minuta, while the larger matters that perpetuate such problems are ignored. The issue of pro choice vs. pro life is, in my opinion, secondary to what I believe is the real issue, and that is what exactly makes abortion "necessary" in the first place.

Well Altair, surely the financial situation of the parents is an issue, an issue that would cease to be in a truly socialist society. But honestly, i don't think it's the main issue. The main issue here is the lack of maturity or will. Most abortions come either from teenagers who think it's too soon to have more kids, or from older couples who think they already had enough kids.

Of course, both these causes can be severely mitigated with more access to contraceptives or family planning/sexual education. But as we all know, "accidents happen", and those i think will keep happening, unless there is some sort of scientific and easily achievable solution to render a human being unfertile or fertile at will, wich would be the only thing that would render abortion pointless, even in a socialist society.

Altair wrote:My specific question is: what place, if any, does abortion have in a future socialist society?

I'm currently pro-choice and I doubt my stance on the issue would change even within the context of a socialist commonwealth. I would obviously prefer if people would utilize abortion as a last resort only, though I think that is often the case as it is. One of the problems today is that not enough teenagers are taught how to properly use contraceptives, and they are often inaccessible for many young people. Consequently, some teenagers from religious households get pregnant and, in fear of facing their parents' judgement, have abortions so as to maintain the illusion of chastity. There are also those individuals who accidentally get pregnant, cannot keep the child due to financial hardships, and would prefer for the fetus not to develop into a child and thereafter face an uncertain future with adopted parents, etc.

Why do you think the issue of abortion can/cannot be remedied in the future?
Can socialism effectively make abortion less necessary?

I believe that fewer unplanned pregnancies would occur within a socialist nation (as a result of accessibility of contraceptives and sex education being expanded), and it would be resorted to less frequently because there would be a greater degree of financial stability for individuals due to employment and social services being provided to the entire populace.

I personally think that personhood is the deciding factor, not human genetics. It's the same reason that I would acknowledge an ai if it said that it was self-aware, and, therefore, a person. Before the brain is developed I have no problem with someone wiping out a cell cluster, however, once the brain begins to function, that's where the problem starts. I do not accept the argument that it is part of a woman's body though, due to the different genetic code. As a libertarian socialist, I see no reason that early term abortions should be stopped, since no person is harmed, aside from the unavoidable complications that could arise from consensual surgery.

I agree, abortion is degenerate. Many people abort their infant depending on its sex in China. In cases such as rape, a fetus being malformed or retarded it should be aborted. I look at it from an eugenics points of view. I am in favor of abortion being legal but restricted. A fetus being aborted while it has been in the womb a few months is almost outright murder. If it has only been in the womb a few weeks I do not think it is conscious. There is a debate on where life begins in the womb. I think a socialist society can limit abortion so much it will almost be abolished.

My stance on this, is that conception is an act of God. All people do is procreate (go through the act); the sperm meets the egg. A resultant pregnancy isn't withheld from persons who aren't married, or in committed relationships. For example, God knew that the conception would take place, and didn't withhold life from the baby, because of the irresponsibility of others. What an insult to God, he keeps creating babies, and people keep killing them through abortion. I believe the only exception for an abortion, is to save the life of the mother, not her emotional well-being (life), not her psychological well-being (life), as these are often used as excuses for abortion, but to save her physical life. Even with that, she might opt to give her child life, at the expense of her own. It's 2013, and many women who are pregnant, still don't know they have a human life within them. They think it's a blob of tissue. Coercive capitalism gains from this viewpoint, and so does statism. The woman does not garner support from her husband, boyfriend, or family, oftentimes, but rather relies upon a healthcare plan, that covers all the costs, for instance, in what tends to be a sterile type atmosphere, with even medical professionals failing to tell her that there's a heartbeat, or show her a picture of a sonogram, etc.

Many women have an abortion for fear of losing their job. In this, they are marching to the beat of the market. In reality, they are being dictated to, but often think they are liberated. This isn't really about their rights at all, but rather being beholden to an economic system that takes, with no regard for family structure, nor individual well-being. Your family tree matters nil to many a corporate capitalist, but your rugged individualism is priceless to them (it's their spiritual surplus value). This thread raises the questions as to how a woman could best keep her child in relative economic comfort in a socialist society, and in what instances abortion would be permitted in a socialist society (which should be able to be spelled out in time). Incentives in a socialist economy foreseen, would be conducive to social cohesion, such as reduced hours for a pregnant woman, as needed, without the threat of a loss of job, adequate maternity leave for mothers and fathers,economic access to choice pre and post-natal care, etc.

"The collapse of the former Soviet Union is an example of a nation whose demographic implosion has contributed to its economic breakdown. "The main reason for their collapse was internal-300 abortions for every 100 live births for decades. Their future is still grim. Right now, there are not enough younger women to reverse their population decline. Indeed, they are expected to lose another 40 million people between now and 2050.""
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/47080

elysium wrote:"The collapse of the former Soviet Union is an example of a nation whose demographic implosion has contributed to its economic breakdown. "The main reason for their collapse was internal-300 abortions for every 100 live births for decades. Their future is still grim. Right now, there are not enough younger women to reverse their population decline. Indeed, they are expected to lose another 40 million people between now and 2050.""
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/47080

That is nonsense, but i will indulge you. Prove that please. I can also say that the colapse of the soviet union was due to lack of rock music. Formal fallacies galore...

1. Abortion was the most prevalent form of contraception in the former Soviet Union.
2. This left aging populations, of which a logistical outcome, was importing other populations, and then encouraging them to reduce their birth rates, to balance out the numbers.
3. The life expectancy of men and women were already shortened, due to deteriorating health conditions, and lack of access to adequate health care.

Currently, Russia has one of the highest abortion rates in the world, and a doubling of the amount of persons over the age of 60. Most abortions in Russia are performed after the first trimester, posing long-term health risks to the mother, and this also contributes to reduced births. For instance, secondary sterility is said to effect one out of every ten women there.

http://missinglink.ucsf.edu/lm/russia_guide/russianhealth2.htm

http://www.ewtn.com/library/PROLENC/ENCYC057.HTM

elysium wrote:1. Abortion was the most prevalent form of contraception in the former Soviet Union.
2. This left aging populations, of which a logistical outcome, was importing other populations, and then encouraging them to reduce their birth rates, to balance out the numbers.
3. The life expectancy of men and women were already shortened, due to deteriorating health conditions, and lack of access to adequate health care.

Currently, Russia has one of the highest abortion rates in the world, and a doubling of the amount of persons over the age of 60. Most abortions in Russia are performed after the first trimester, posing long-term health risks to the mother, and this also contributes to reduced births. For instance, secondary sterility is said to effect one out of every ten women there.

http://missinglink.ucsf.edu/lm/russia_guide/russianhealth2.htm

http://www.ewtn.com/library/PROLENC/ENCYC057.HTM

So? What does that have to do with the colapse of the Soviet union? High fertility rates are common in Africa, and i don't see any benefit coming out of that.

There are often "mysterious reasons" cited in literature pertaining to the collapse of the former Soviet Union. No one expected it to fall so fast; not among the Soviet blocs, nor among U.S. policy experts. I think the reasons are attributable to many social ills and conditions, with abortion underpinning these.

With the highest abortion rate in the world, and the highest divorce rate in the world, this left people in the Soviet Union feeling that they lacked control over their lives and futures. This ambivalence is not something that energized or invigorated, but tended to create a distrust of government, raising questions such as why the government is interfering in the lives of individuals. Medical ethics were not applicable to abortion. It was looked at as a means to solve a social problem, exacerbated by fears about low incomes, lack of housing, skepticism about the level of medical services, and doubts about the availability and affordability of food.

In short, this falls in line with the social thermodynamics theory-their spiritual energies were spent, which would explain their lack of resistance during the breakup of the Soviet Union.

I would posit that when the Soviet republics broke away, in 1991, declaring their independence, that many people were full of apathy, having nothing that they wanted to fight for, up to and including their natural resources, that went with the Russian Federation. Wealth had been controlled by the political elite, there were high rates of death, due to alcoholism and heart disease, a collapsing social safety net, and the death rates surpassing the birth rates, due to abortion.

In conclusion, it can be demonstrated that abortion was exploitative, displaying no inherent logic, particularly, with regard to abortion for fear of loss of income (an abortion economy?), but rather, was reducible to mere consumerism, leading to the alienation of the people of the former Soviet Union, who lost their will to fight for their geographical boundaries, preservation of their form of government, natural resources, and to a large extent, their individual well-being.

elysium wrote:There are often "mysterious reasons" cited in literature pertaining to the collapse of the former Soviet Union. No one expected it to fall so fast; not among the Soviet blocs, nor among U.S. policy experts. I think the reasons are attributable to many social ills and conditions, with abortion underpinning these.

With the highest abortion rate in the world, and the highest divorce rate in the world, this left people in the Soviet Union feeling that they lacked control over their lives and futures. This ambivalence is not something that energized or invigorated, but tended to create a distrust of government, raising questions such as why the government is interfering in the lives of individuals. Medical ethics were not applicable to abortion. It was looked at as a means to solve a social problem, exacerbated by fears about low incomes, lack of housing, skepticism about the level of medical services, and doubts about the availability and affordability of food.

In short, this falls in line with the social thermodynamics theory-their spiritual energies were spent, which would explain their lack of resistance during the breakup of the Soviet Union.

I would posit that when the Soviet republics broke away, in 1991, declaring their independence, that many people were full of apathy, having nothing that they wanted to fight for, up to and including their natural resources, that went with the Russian Federation. Wealth had been controlled by the political elite, there were high rates of death, due to alcoholism and heart disease, a collapsing social safety net, and the death rates surpassing the birth rates, due to abortion.

In conclusion, it can be demonstrated that abortion was a bourgeois, capitalistic policy, displaying no inherent logic, particularly, with regard to abortion for fear of loss of income, but rather, was reducable to mere consumerism, leading to the alienation of the people of the former Soviet Union, who lost their will to fight for their geographical boundaries, preservation of their form of government, natural resources, and to a large extent, their individual well-being.

Nice
The capitalist elite have created a system where we can even throw away our unborn away like the cheap plastic and electronic tat we throw away everyday.Personally I find it extremely unethical that in a world with sex education,contraception,family planning and social security people kill their unborn kin because they want to go uni/marbs/traveling for a year or what ever,If you do feel that way fine but at least have the decency to bring the child into the world and let somebody else raise it for you and give the little bugger a fighting chance.However abortion in the case of rape or medical reasons would IMO have a place in society.

elysium wrote:There are often "mysterious reasons" cited in literature pertaining to the collapse of the former Soviet Union. No one expected it to fall so fast; not among the Soviet blocs, nor among U.S. policy experts. I think the reasons are attributable to many social ills and conditions, with abortion underpinning these.

With the highest abortion rate in the world, and the highest divorce rate in the world, this left people in the Soviet Union feeling that they lacked control over their lives and futures. This ambivalence is not something that energized or invigorated, but tended to create a distrust of government, raising questions such as why the government is interfering in the lives of individuals. Medical ethics were not applicable to abortion. It was looked at as a means to solve a social problem, exacerbated by fears about low incomes, lack of housing, skepticism about the level of medical services, and doubts about the availability and affordability of food.

.

What rambling... this is all your (rather weird) personal view, and the matter of fact is that it was absolutely irrelevant to the end of the Soviet Union. People also didn't resist much when poland turned into a capitalist cesspool, and yet, it was deep religious country. Abortion and divorce were very uncommon there. How do you explain that?...

The elites were successful in finding a way to thwart emergent group behavior (this is the crux of the matter). It's not difficult to see that with the highest abortion and divorce rates in the world, that people would not then want to rally, to continue to prop up post-revolutionary capitalists, or revisionists, perpetuating market reforms (they became disoriented from the hive-as a poison was injected, they no longer had an immune system capable of warding off undue influences), and worked themselves into an oblivion of sorts, as economic, social, and political conditions deteriorated. A disproportionate amount of single men and women, seem to meet the criteria (the right populous), for an economic coup of this sort.

Poland retained many features from communism, such as doing away with the landed aristocracy, which cleared the way for more upward mobility. The loss of their social programs however, is something they endured, but regretfully so.

They repatriated many of their citizens from abroad, and maintained high births in response to market reforms.

Polish society was very grounded in a traditional outlook. It valued intellectual capital, and viewed its social institutions as a launching ground for ideas.

elysium wrote:The elites were successful in finding a way to thwart emergent group behavior (this is the crux of the matter). It's not difficult to see that with the highest abortion and divorce rates in the world, that people would not then want to rally, to continue to prop up post-revolutionary capitalists, or revisionists, perpetuating market reforms, within the former Soviet Union, while economic, social, and political conditions deteriorated. A disproportionate amount of single men and women, seem to meet the criteria (the right populous), for an economic coup of this sort.

You are wrong. Tradicional family instituitions are far more conservative than individuals, something that history proved time and time again, specialy in an environment that doesn't promote individualism, as was the Soviet one. Don't mix the social groups of the capitalist countries of today, with the social groups of the USSR.

People in the Soviet Union were more conservative, in that they were agricultural-based, and tribal. The same claim (for different reasons) could have been made about the American landscape, during that time frame. However, when the policy doesn't match (i.e., expansive abortion, no-fault divorce, etc.), and the resultant fallout is evident, that assertion (re: traditional institutions) has to be questioned, as it is often swept off its foundations, and becomes a cliche. The reason being, traditional institutions can exist without the nation/country, but the nation/country cannot exist without the said institutions.

Re: Historical contrasts between America and Russia/USSR:

http://www.goehner.com/russinfo.htm

I don't see how abortion on demand in Soviet society, versus abortion as an unalienable right under capitalism is any different. 

Additionally, these instruments for social change had no intrinsic safeguards to prevent the misuses of power. If a woman is equal to a man, then she would not be put in a position to have an abortion in order to retain a job, social standing, or quality of  living conditions.

elysium wrote:I don't see how abortion on demand in Soviet society, versus abortion as an unalienable right under capitalism is any different. 

And your point is...? Abortion was a right conquered in the west, as, dare i say it, a good by product of the culture of the individual. Not all was bad in the western social democracy, and that was a good thing.

The issue is whether a country's economic and social policy reduces or increases one's anxiety (in other words, the degree of domestic tranquility), rather than the labels they attach to themselves (i.e., collective, conservative, liberal, etc.). What seems to be expressed by the individual, is often, to varying extents, a misrepresentation of the people (as the ideas actually expressed, represent the state/market controls).

The individual-level behavior seems to be more reflexive on the part of the participants (the man and the woman). The man, because he has learned reinforced irresponsibility-as abortion is a constitutional right, and when a pregnant woman refuses his offer for payment, the argument is often given, that because it is her right, and he is willing to pay, then she is just a troublemaker, and that it's her problem and responsibility. On the part of the woman, because from a historical perspective, she's essentially in the same position. This is how we know the status quo is being preserved. It's a question of who's benefiting.

Leon, I found more of what I was looking for in terms of quantitative, rather than qualitative material, related to the internal collapse of the U.S.S.R. Most of the articles list the statistics of abortion rates, stating that it contributed to its demise, without elaborating as to how.

http://www.visionandvalues.org/2011/07/the-secret-memo-that-predicted-the-soviet-collapse/

The Secret Memo That Predicted the Soviet Collapse

July 25, 2011 | by Paul G. Kengor | Topic: The American Story, The DNA of Greatness, The GlobalChallenge

In a socialist society people will have full access to sexual education and contraceptives, and once the concerns of material welfare of the individual are a collective and social concern, women will be able to fulfil the role of motherhood without pressure or fear of not being able to provide for the child materially. These measures would greatly reduce the need for abortion. However, abortion must still remain legal—I doubt that even if it were illegal, the number of abortions would decrease, it would just fall into the hands of backstreet quacks and many women would be at serious risk from unsafe procedures. The only way to fight abortion is with contraception.