PkSanTi

Yes... Except we are not asking wether it would or wouldn't work, but trying to make an approximation to Marx ideas that's, so to speak, washed and cleaned from the interpretations and prejudices that some governments caused on people. A Marx approximation through Marx. That's the first orientation point I made on the post; not all followed it. As Jimmy said, we don't say tomatoes are bad because they were used as ammunition against people, haha. Then returning to the actual question: why MARXISM (not stalinism, maoism or leininism...) is a bad word? Can't we learn to read an author ignoring what people made of him? Because in that case Nietzsche was a son of a bitc* because he was the philosopher of Nazism. But we read him and respect him because we know he is something else than what Nazism made of him. Just trying to re-orientate the discussion.

I didn't say the system functioned against the poor because it functions in favour of the rich. I said it works against the poor because it does, regardless of its functionality for the rich. The fact that the rich get better when the poor get worst is incidental, though part of the system; but that doesn't mean I say that "if it is for the rich it must be against the poor". That would be weak reasoning. To my eyes, what you mean by "western world" is quite an eurocentric concept: Europe and its good sons (the USA, Australia, and some other). What about, just to state an example, Latin America? It is part of the western world, geographically and culturally speaking, and yet doesn't benefit at all by capitalism. It is, actually, the most unequal region of the entire world!! So the statement "capitalism works fine for western cultures" is just ignoring half of the countries of the western world. I know that you said that it works in the western world "in general", but it is a whole continent you were just putting out of the picture, not a few isolated countries. That's not generality! I believe that is quite an English conception (I do not say this contemptuously, I really love England, its personalities and literature) that of trusting the social contracts and formal statements. The poorer the country, the more you notice that those have no match with reality. To legally and formally state equality wont create material, factual equality. That's like the Golem's jewish legend: you wont create a man by just pronouncing some words to a bunch of mud, as god did. All you get is a nasty, not human creature that can barely speak or think. I don't know if my analogy is precise, but it is eloquent. Words, formal statement's and enunciation have a limited power when dealing with reality. I could name hundred of countries in which equality is formally declared and materially denied.

I don't think those that don't want to change things aren't good people, the same way i don't think people who want to change things are necessarilly good. I never implied you weren't good people. I don't blame the rich. The rich people are usually folks who tried to make the best of it. I don't think they are evil and all evils are their fault. They are humans, most of them full of fears, passions and frustrations, just like all of us. So I wouldn't demonize them. All I do is recognize the system works in favor of the rich and against the poor. That's how the system works, not because of evilness, but because of its structure. I am sorry for your personal story, but I don't think that the fact that sone people overcame adversities changes the fact that it is so much harder and unfair for the poor. I would say that you, more than anybody, would know that. I mean, don't you hope that no other kids should have to live a situation like yours? Everyone diserves education; a little kid shouldn't have to work to get it. Anyway, I congratulate you, but a subjective experience does not change an objective reality. And I'll just insist on the fact that I don't believe rich are evil. Manny communist do, though. I just think they are people. I wont demonize them nor will I think poor are good people just because they are poor. I am talking about a system. People just live in it the best they can.

"A poor man's child has the same opportunity for betterment (which includes education) as a rich mans child. There is no legal or social impediment (in modern western cultures at least) to anyone willing to put the effort in. Some of the wealthiest people alive today, started with nothing, and some of the children of past generations of "rich" people have ended up with nothing, because the didn't work for it." Oh, come on! You seriously think that the fact that they are legally, constitutionally and formally allowed to receive education denies the fact that poor kids, or poor people in general, have to work earlier and stop going to school and stop many many many things?? There are no legal or social impediments: there are material impediments: do they live away from school? Do they have money to buy books and pay the bus to the institution? Can they do their homework when they have to work with their fathers? Are they father's educated and capable of providing them the same cultural education? There are so many material things that make it so different for a poor man's child than a wealthy man's child that this list could go on forever. Are you seriously gonna deny this? Did you never see or talk to a poor man, or a poor child? Perhaps some people live in a bubble or something, and never saw true poverty. And that's okay, if it works for you it's fine. But how far can you get into denial? Put yourself in the position of a boy who lives 2 km from school, his father has no job and can't afford even a good pair of shoes to use, and tell me if you'd had the same opportunities than those who live in a nice neighbourhood, near to a decent school, and have money to afford the books and school-uniforms. Please... that was just too much, man. I may sound rude, but I did see poverty as a reality very close from mine, and that statement of your's was just too much. What's next? Are we gonna say that poor boys don't finish their education because they are lazy or don't want to? Because hey, they had the same chances, didn't they! And the fact that some people came out of nothing and became big personalities or rich doesn't change any of the facts I mentioned. Argh. Now we are very far from Marx. I'll just pull myself back from this argument; there's no point of me getting so far away of the topic I myself insisted that was the one to discuss, only because I can't hold my temper.

I do not believe we are far from our ancestors either, neither biologically nor psychologically (Jung's archetypes...). I don't disagree on that; I disagree on using that argument as an excuse to resign to our so called "nature", which apparently is evil and selfish by definition though we can't define it by any means (do you notice the contradiction...?). And if you think science and genetics will tell you what our nature is, you should come to notice that, though they do influence, they are not the whole. Neither of us is only a genetic disposition, but a big amount of factors, among the which genetics is only one, and perhaps not even the most important. So... We can keep telling ourselves we know something about human "nature" as a defined thing. The true is that we don't. Now, if you'd say that we are usually capable of evil and selfishness, I wouldn't deny it, and I would admit it's a huge concern regarding communism; mostly because it pretends to deposit on one individual the power of "the people". And who can say that individual is righteous? It may be Ernesto Guevara, in which case we are lucky, just as it could be Stalin... in which case we are not. So, as you can see, I agree with this argument; but to identify the possibility of greediness and selfishness with the nature of human being is wrong; it's a possibility. If that's the logic, it would be equally fair to say we are good and kind by nature, since we are capable of goodness and kindness; this is, since those are a possibility. Superficially I would say I agree with your concern; but I couldn't say the same when dealing with your argument's strength. Short notes: Capitalism is not equality of opportunities; a labour's man's son with a bad education and forced to work since early age has not the same opportunities that the son of a wealthy man does. That's a reality nobody can deny. Communism is not equality of income. Where did you even get that from? Haha. In the most favourable case, it's superficial propaganda against communism, but has no contact with communism as a theory. That's why people should read Marx's works and see what Marx's proposals were before attribute its theory fake aims and bases. (Actually, with Jimmy we discussed this prejudice before; you can read on those posts the thing with income in communism (basically people getting what their work is worth, and not loosing their work's value in the hand of others...)). We developed "social contracts" as a consequence primarily of "religion", in order to create "civilizations". Well... very arguable. And you didn't give any argument, just throw the enunciation by itself. Don't even know if it's worth the debate anyway; wouldn't be sticking to the point. If your point was that communism handled the religious phenomenon very badly, I agree a hundred per cent: people should be free to practise any religion they want. But, again..., Marx didn't want to kill religious people, or repress them, but hoped humanity would overcome religiousness as a repressive form of life. I don't agree with that point of his, but come on, it's not even the important part of communism, haha. And, in theory, we were debating his ideas, not the mistakes of Castro or Stalin. So... well... that's it.

I might also add -sorry for the double comment- that argument's related to the such called "human nature" are so questionable and week that I wouldn't bother to even use them. We can't be certain of what human nature truly is. The so called "fight" was a law of nature perhaps on a savage state of our development as a specie, but who says it is or has to be a current law? (We may also add that the idea of evolution as the supremacy of the strongest one is mistaken; what Darwin meant was the supremacy of the most adapted one; this is: the one who reproduces the most. Fight and savage competition won't necessary be our evolutionary manner... Lot's of species reproduce more -this is, they are better adapted- through cooperation and society.) How certain are we that we are just deadly animals looking to win on whatever price? How certain are we that me are not capable of caring for the others more than what we care for ourselves? I know that the human kind is capable of evil and disaster: that is certain. But it is also capable of wonderful things. To my eyes, it's just a week and comfortable position: "ah, we are humans so that will never work, why make an effort...". So easy to escape a challenge or even a responsibility that way. Perhaps we should assume that capitalism pushes people to poverty and lack of freedom, instead of just resign to that fact because of our such called 'humanity', which's characteristics and character, by the way, is too complex and uncertain to reduce to a simple animal impulse to win or conquer.

Only to clarify, Aurelius: Marxism is not only a political theory, but a philosophical understanding of reality -which goes beyond-. We should be able to discuss it without falling on this or that government on such and such year of the xx century, since, though reality deserves a place (a quite important one), so does theory. Since it's the lack of understanding of Marx's theory and ideals what made communist governments, in general -I, personally, believe there are exceptions- so bad, I can't hurt to discuss it.

As I suspected, the discussion is turning into a matter of practical communism, of communist governments here and there, or of the absence of such. I will just remind the point 1) which I pretended to use as a guide through the post: the discussion of communism as a theory, as a philosophical view of reality, specially as Marx explained it.

I'm actually from Argentina, so it's a nice coincidence that you mentioned that. Yeah, I don't know if things work so well here in that projects; they did when the crisis (year 2001) arrived, and people did work together to stand over it. Hard times... over 50% of poverty and unemployment among the total of the population. It's impressive how we managed to put those number's down to 16% and 8% per cent respectively just a few years ago... until the last government came. Which is quite what you meant by the banks finding a way to screw things up again... not far from the current situation, haha! Just give us some time and, as things are going, we'll be facing another crisis in a couple of years (crisis are endemic to capitalism, but it amuses me how some politicians seem experts in breeding them amazingly fast). Also repression and violence are back... Well, but times for Argentina. But, to get back to the topic in question, I don't won't to think that communism won't work because we are humans. Yes, we are capable of evilness and corruption, but we are also, in the words of Miguel Hernández, 'The animal that sings, the animal that cries and settles down', so let's not take off all of our credit. We are capable of good. The question is: are we willing to put our efforts to help another human? But this is, in the bottom, a philosophical posture: to believe or not to believe in human kindness. There are fine arguments on both sides, and I won't try to convert anyone, since it lacks a point.

You look like a good candidate, specially since you are in the forum often (lot of folks asked me to participate; with several I shared info and even lines, but most of them end up quitting the project by the means of never answering me again, haha!), which makes you trust-worthy. I am currently in India, which puts the project in stand-by for at least two or three weeks; but we should get in touch trough PM, since there is another project in my mind which requires a good reader and a good voice. So we should discuss in which would you like to participate, if not in both. About your lack of recording devices, it should be something to worry, but not impossible to solve in a practical, convenient way :) Thanks for the good-will!

Regarding what you said about equality: we discuss that with Jimmy in the former posts, very superficially analysing which was the concept of equality that marxism has, and it is different to how you described it. That inhuman way of considering equality among man is a twisted one, applied but some dictators -mostly in China, but they're not the only one-, but not the one Marx and marxism have as a theory. If you are curious on which is the true concept of equality in Marx's theory, just read the posts we wrote, or look for the word "equality" and read just the ones in which that was the topic. Because it would be too long and too much of a waste to write down again what equality means under Marx's theory. (Actually, that's why I didn't want to discuss governments; because they policies, most of the time because of the greed of their leaders, rarely match with Marx's true intentions and theory. Anyhow, you're commentaries of actual governments did made a fair point, so I would not pick you on that.) Bottom line, equality on marxism doesn't want everyone to be the same. If you don't want to read Marx's works, which is understandable -not everyone has to like reading economy or philosophy-, there's as I said a very brief, quickly and superficial explanation on the former posts. It will give you another way of understanding what communism really wants.

Yes, you're right. It'd be so nice if everyone could see, even behind the most economics and hard works of Marx, such as The Capital or the Grundrisse, the sound humanity and true concern for the others that lies on the bottom of his theory. I too think that his diagnoses of capitalism's inner issues and contradictions are today more worth of attention than ever. Thanks, Jimmy!, great contributions.

I think your analysis is precise, though I think marxism's idea of equality is different to yours. Of course giving uniforms and cutting our hairs the same way doesn't make us equals, because of course we are not the same (and neither should be). This is just something the Chinese people thought off, a culture that inherits a very, veeery long tradition of emperors and restrict imperial order, so perhaps it's more a cultural thing than a communist issue (one of Marx's mistakes was precisely that: to underestimate the power of culture and tradition, and to consider them only as dependent's of the economic system and order of property...). I believe that the equality Marx wanted was merely social; this is, to build an order in which no one has to work (this is, no one has to sell it's labour force) for another private individual, but for the interest of all (and himself). This is: I doesn't even believe that marxism requires a society in which no-one posses's more than another, since everyone should get the reward of their work fairly, and those who work more should get more -Marx didn't have a problem with this-. I think it's more a manner of human needs satisfied for all -this is, a floor from which to start- and the recognition of one's work as it is: the fruit of one's creativity and persistence, and not some standarized product that has no relation with it's producer and which plus-value also goes into another one's hand. (This is why is so ironic that capitalism sells that it encourages creativity and personal ideas; it doesn't. It produces mass, unpersonal work, in which there's no true connection between the producer and the product (alienation). Marx is precisely the one who is telling us: I want you to be creative and connected with what you do! And precisely because he wants the individual to reach a full development and overcome alienation, it seeks not individual equality -that everyone would be the same, think the same and use and wear the same- but social equal bases from where to start. It's just a very, very sophisticated elaboration of the liberal principle (which fails under liberalism): no one should be reach enough to be able to buy somebody else, and no one should be poor enough to have to sell himself to others). It's also a misconception the argument that consists on the false fact that under capitalism one get's what he deserves. It's the opposite of that, and anyone that understands the simple concept of surplus value would get why.

Yes, that is correct. In fact, I wont even comment on anything you said, because I could not say it better, and couldn't agree more. See, the only issue I found is the next: rich, powerful people; this is, those that would by badly affected by communism, are not the only ones who reject it. In fact, I met more poor or regular people anti-communist than rich anti-communist -but this is perhaps due to the simple fact that I've met more poor or regular people than rich people, simple statistics-. And of course one could think that the regular man thinks that way because governments and corporations have established the notion of communism as a terrible, threatening thing; and, even one in many cases this is true, not everybody is a puppet controlled by the strings of financial and economic power (at least I don't wont to deny every anti-communist they're intelligence and will, and just say that they're all responding to the established ideas of power, even when, as I said, many may do so). So, leaving rich, wealthy people aside, whose rejection to communism has a clear cause, why do we, the simple guys, the folks that wonder around a mod's forum, or simple not wealthy neo-liberal man, think of communism as a threat? And what should we really think of communism, understood as Marx's theoretical work rather than the selfish and cruel acts of some dictatorships (to whom one might fairly said it would've been the same to disguise they're massacres under the flags of any other ideal, as long as it worked)?

In essence, your thesis is that of Berkeley: the savour of the fruit is neither on the fruit nor in the tongue, but in the contact of both. I tend to agree with that -and also you've explained it very clearly and straight-forward, which is a rare thing, so that's appreciated-. If by 'senses' you meant every sense -that would be the reasonable thing to expect-, a blind man could perceive beauty trough sounds, touch and so. It's just a missing sense, which is a missing source of beauty. But this are conjectures of mine that I didn't think carefully enough to consider worth attention. I would only ask if you could explain more precisely what you mean by "in complete harmony with our awareness", because I think of some objections but am afraid of not understanding fully what you meant, so I'd just reserve them until I am sure we are speaking in the same terms. So... what is to be in harmony with our awareness and what makes an object or a thing to be so?

See, this is precisely why I wrote the a) base, and insisted on it. There was no point made about marxism as a political theory, but only the disasters of some or other governments. Why did I bother to specify the terms under which the debate should be made in the purpose of not falling on common arguments known to everybody, such as that Stalinism killed a bunch of people? Of course it did, we all know that. But why do we reject marxism considered only as a theory and a political critic to the capitalist system? Perhaps politics its too much of a hot topic to discuss following determined lines of argument, but why is it so hard for us to discuss the theory itself, in all its deepness and richness, and not only the theory as it was used for some greedy politicians in order to justify murder and death? Because Marx loathed the state and its institutions (army, repression, etc.) too, for that matter. But we seem to be stuck thinking of the mistakes and horrors some people did in the name of communism and not paying enough attention to Marx's words. EDIT: Just to be ridiculously emphatic: Marx did not want mass murder, repression or death; and the grow of the state was, in his view of communism, just a momentary phase: communism's ideals is to build a society with no state at all. So pleaaase, let's stick with Marx's words and not of Stalin's fist: to talk about the last one is fair too easy.

Hello, friend. Yes, that's a viable thesis. Specially explains why the greater the industrial development of a nation, the stronger the reject to communism becomes in it. And yet, I'd like to go deeper, since what you just wrote -and I stand for it- still is a superficial explanation. I wonder what is it that makes man so afraid of marxism's ideas; what is it they think when they think of communism that terrifies or disgusts them in such a way. What do we feel or think of Marx's theory that makes us absolutely reject them, or, in the opposite cases, to embrace them? I suppose the title of the topic was not right, since your post answers it quite sufficiently. But I wonder about this other things, which are perhaps subjective, in the sense that they are emotional reactions or intellectual considerations towards marxism.

Before I say anything, I would like to state the terms under which I plan to direct these topic. I'll do so as clearly and briefly as I can. a) Even though is hard and probably pointless to discuss politics in an abstract way, I would like to refer that I am not speaking about communist governments in particular; this is not a debate about the Soviet Union, neither North Korea (even though I have reasons to doubt those were truly communist governments). So please, let's not fall under arguments such as "the Soviet Union repressed and killed the opposition", or "Cuba had multiple crisis". All of this facts are true, but can rely on subtleties such as the world financial and economic situation, the current wars of the time or any other material circumstance. So I'd like us to speak here about marxism as a political, economical and even philosophic structure and project: no Fidel Castro, no Stalin, no anybody, but the ideas, critics and theories that marxism encompasses, and which only aims were, for Marx, freedom and equality among man. b) Marxism is a complex matter: let's not reduce it to simplifications and chatter. I say this because I've heard arguments such as 'Marx was crazy and was talking non-sense", or "he is an evil man who wanted to banish private property", AND EVEN "if there's no private property, that means that this computer and this socks you are wearing would belong to the state". None of this are true, and are silly things to say; to say this things only proves either that you've never read Marx's works or that you've never made the effort of thinking about them seriously. Marx was a clever and quite human man, who intended to describe and analyse the economic system, and to transform it into a better, more including and fair one. (And no, communism doesn't imply that the socks you wear and the computer you use would belong to the state!!) c) The reasons why I wanted to open this topic is one of understanding, so please, no fighting! I'll explain myself better: where I am from, fascism killed and tortured thousands of people only to repress communism. Here, marxism is not necessarily a bad word, even when it has its detractors. But I have got a friend that lived in the USA and says that over there to be communist is... she told people looked at you nearly as if you were an alien, haha. Now, I don't know if that's true!! But I do notice in every forum I participate in, that communism is very hated or misunderstood. And, even when I am not saying one should be a communist (I am not a communist myself), hatred to communism is a different thing, and has to respond to something. Because one thing is to say: "I don't agree with this for such and such reason", and another is to say "bloody communists!!, stupid communists!!", "Marx was a crazy assassin!!" or anything such as that. So... why is communism a bad word over there? d) I truly insist on the point a). Thanks.

Copy and paste the script here.

See, I know little bit about followers, since I never made anything related to them. But it would be helpful if you showed us you partner script, in order to see if anything is wrong with it. Also, you said you are a beginner: do you know anything about AI packages? It's likely (I don't know for sure) that a follower would need an specific AI package. Sooo... waiting for your script and your answer.

Or until the rest of the world decides that there are bigger and more powerful countries now, and some of them attacks you folks or drops a bomb (let's hope this is not the way; and yet, one can't help considering it possible...). That's the issue here: things ARE coming down for the USA; now, what's gonna crash down the house of cards: the soft breeze of time, or the raging windings of the war? I suspect we are going to do it to ourselves. No one really wants a war. And I would like to think no one wants a NUCLEAR war...... The US only attacks small countries now...... So, N. Korea is firmly in our sites, along with Iran..... Guess we'll see what happens. Well, I suppose that's what we are left with: hopping. I just hope that, when it all comes to an end, it'll be the less bad scenario possible. But even that scenario would be bad enough. Time will speak, when it shall. For now... just good luck.

Or until the rest of the world decides that there are bigger and more powerful countries now, and some of them attacks you folks or drops a bomb (let's hope this is not the way; and yet, one can't help considering it possible...). That's the issue here: things ARE coming down for the USA; now, what's gonna crash down the house of cards: the soft breeze of time, or the raging windings of the war?

Not seldom I see you here on the debates forum, TheMastersSon, and you strike me as a reasonable guy. It must be hard be a compromised and sensible north-american this days, with the current situation. I can do nothing but understand you and hope for the best :/ I just don't want to let resentment get in the way of reason; nobody should wish the USA people disappeared. Where I am from, we know pretty much about disappearances: not a cool deal. The only way, as we both said, for that to happen, is to see a change in north-american exterior policy, which seems unlikely. So let's just hope for the best :/

I am from a poor country. Just a couple of decades ago, we suffered the most violent and cruel dictatorship in the history of the country; 30.000 people are disappeared and not found till today, and lot more were killed or persecuted by political reasons. I myself have relatives who were interrogated (this means tortured), and relatives living in exile since then, whom I never met in person (they left before I was born). This was only one of the many dictatorships we suffered (more than ten, more or less violent depending to the case), which is a lot considering that my country has barely more than 200 years of history. Practically, the whole XX century were dictatorships. Most of these dictatorships, and particularly the last one, were financially and military supported by the USA governments, since they could sell weapons to the military governments over here, and also because all this governments had the common characteristic of being anti-communist and neo-liberal -which means they would accept any deal USA would offer, and benefit multinationals coming from the United States-. In short terms, USA supported and actively participated in the disappearance of over 30.000 people and the death and exile of many others only in my country (not to count others countries who suffered the same) for economical purposes. The world hasn't decide that you are evil and must be destroyed; you are the destroyers. And you are evil, in the perception of most of the countries. What I'm trying to say is, this is not just something the world "has decided": it's the consequence of a long-term international policy of interference and war. I loathe USA policies. But do I think you have to be destroyed? No, I don't. Not even when the USA has destroyed lot of countries, under the idea of freedom (since when freedom comes with international interference, political impositions and death?). Because I know -this is hard for me, but I do know it- that not all american people are like this. Not all american people invaded Vietnam, the Middle East and supported the exile and death of many families, including mine. I must, in order to be fair, realise that there's no identity between the US government and the US people. You folks have gave the world John Cheever, Noam Chomsky and Walt Whitman. How would I want you to disappear? How would I hate every american? What I am trying to say is: in countries such as mine, that suffered your invasions and interference constantly, both of which never brought anything but death and misery to us, people do hate you, but they have a human reason to do so. I, myself, do not want you to disappear, but sadly, in this case, I am an exception. And with this current president of yours, people are starting to get more and more defensive, and to worry for you much more. So, what I want to say last, is PLEASE be careful with your votes. You murdered our presidents, contributed to the death and exile of our families, and thrown us to ruin not once, not twice, but many times through our history, and my country is not even a conflict-zone currently. So yes, the world is getting tired of this abuse, and it's very likely that someday there'll be a reaction. Perhaps North Korean president attacking, perhaps not. I sure hope that doesn't ever happen. But you must know that, if we, outside, don't like you, there's a reason; and that the USA must change their exterior policy in order to preserve itself. Otherwise, you won't be able to repress the world without consequences much longer, and nothing good will come out of that for you neither for the rest of the world. But that probably won't happen: USA will continue with their traditional outside policy and continue to create war and chaos. I just hope that people is aware, like me, that the american people must not pay for the wrong deeds of the american government. I'm worried for the world and for the USA people, because death should not be paid with more death.

It is hard enough to have an ethical life; it's impossible to build a fully ethical society. The reason is our precious individuality, and the way our considerations of ethics and our own needs will never be fully in sync with society's ethics. We must, then, think reasonably, and avoid considering abortion in an ethical way when discussing the policies; it should only be considered ethically when thought of as a decision on a particular case. And reality says: abortion happens. Laws do not prevent abortion; they only seclude abortion to a clandestine, unsafe underground of society. If we can't prevent that it occurs, we might as well try to build our society in a way that, when it occurs, it occurs safely. Women die constantly for wrong-conducted abortions; how long will we ignore that fact? If abortion was legal, it's safe to say that the number of abortions that in fact occur would not increase considerably, since they happen anyway, but they'd occur safely for the woman that chooses to practise one. That's the end of the case policy-wise.  In the ethical order, to which the political order doesn't necessarily follow -to think that politics is the discipline of social ethics is naive; it's the discipline of social reality, which seldom has anything to do with ethics-, most of the ethical discussions are too full of shades and colours to establish precise and unquestionable bases. Abortion is not the case: we can establish a scientific beginning of life within a more or less precise period of time since conception. It is unquestionable that human life does not begin with conception, and that it occurs much later. With those limits established, it's fair to say that there's plenty of time for a woman to practise abortion without falling into the stigma of having killed a life. Abortion is NOT assassination. And, ultimately, the ethical decision of practising abortion falls into the hands of the woman, not the state, since abortion has little impact -as it's being stated before- in social life. Actually, the only true and strong impact abortion has on social life is the constant death and pains we put woman through by banning it. I believe the answer is clear.  In relation to conservative arguments, it's quite common to see how right-winged sectors don't fully agree on what they say and do. I do not think it matters, anyway. Only thing that matters are facts, and the facts say: abortion happens, whether it's banned or not. So we might just as well legalise it and make it safe for the people; we gain both in ensuring safety and granting freedom to the women. (Same argument goes for drugs.) Ethics are an individual question, and state -nor religion- have nothing to do with it.   I've travelled a lot in my yet short life, and came to know societies in which abortion was already legal. Cuba was the first one (let's not enter in a Cuba related discussion, since it's another topic; let's stick with abortion, which is the point I want to make!!). I talked to women who had practised abortion, most of them several times in their lives, in a safe, medically controlled environment, and for free! And none have been stigmatised nor had regrets. Why? Because, with lot's of things to say about Cuba, is a material, scientific society, with nearly no christian superstitions. I believe that christian heritage and christian values confuse us when trying to decide what are factual and ethical problems. I believe we should build a society that thinks and acts according to facts and reason, and not superstitions. Anyway, just sharing what I saw in Cuba, which surprised me.