: In my opinion, which I believe is consistent with a revolutionary Marxist perspective, a woman's right to choose is paramount, outweighing the 'freedom' of the child to be born into a family that rejects him / her.
Yes, but WHY is it paramount. Obviously if it was a real live child you would uphold the child's right to live. Equally obviously, the fetus is not quite equavalent to a child. But how close to a human being is it, really? How can we resolve this issue without determining whether the fetus is, or is not, a human being.
: The Spartacist League, adopting a resolute Bolshevik stance, concurs.
Oh, wow, I think I'm going to go shit myself in fear now that the Spartacists have spoken. I might as well tell you, I don't find them too convincing, and whenever I see Brad, their local spokesman, hanging around, I bait him by mentioning Allende or the Sandinistas.
: As far as Stalin goes, he reversed the Bolshevik position on abortion-on-demand primary because he wished to uphold the nuclear family (read: women's subordination to men).
Yeah, right. When I hear certain people tear down the family, both in its nuclear and other variations (communal, matriarchal, polygamous) it often strikes me as pointless dissensionism - dissent for dissent's sake, rather than for good reasons. The family is based on love. Every society has some kind of familial unit, although certain societies do break down the distoicntion between individual families and the community as a whole. These latter societies, though admirable and interesting, really shouldn't be taken by you as an example, because they are radically pre-industrial- amny of them are even pre-agricultural.
The family, in whatever manifestation, is built on love. It is a basic unit to teh survival of our species- human infants are helpless and quickly die withot constant adult care, tutelage and socialization. Sometimes the community does thsi instead of teh parents, though rarely; however, that's only realistic if you abandon a large-scale modern state and revert to small peasant communes. I can't think of an example of families not existing in amodern industrial society.
The fa,mily incarnates the best human mortivations, emotions and aspirations. It ought to be celebrated instead of demeaned. Anything that pulls peopel out of selfish individualism is, to my mind, a good thing. (Note: racism doesn't count because it is, I think, a form of selfishness and self-worship; you're worshiping an aspect of yourself, your skin color, instead of the whole thing, but it is still the same idea.)
Incidentally, family life does not imply the nuclear family, nor does the nuclear family imply patriarchy. What alternative to teh nuclear family woudl you propose in modern America? PErsonally, I believe that the government shoudl allow families to form as they wish. I think we should accept joint families, extended families, communal families, homosexual marriages, polygamous marriages, matriarchal families, etcetra. Cultural inclusiveness.
: His other polices in this area---such as rejecting communal laundries, dining halls, etc.---bears this interpretation out.
What's wrong with a family wanting to have an intimate family dinner by themselves? Suppose they don't WANT to eat dinner with the neighbors EVERY SINGLE NIGHT> Is that such a bad thing? I thought you and I agreed on a lot more of thsi stuff Barry. What, exactly, are you proposing here? Is it that individual kitchens are bad? or is it that if Stalin did it, it must be bad?
: Now that I've covered the basics, lets drop it. I find discussing abortion to be inappropriate for men.
That's OK. I don't, however. You sound like my (liberal) mother. You two should get together.