The NationStates Feminist Thread

[Valystria]

What? I don't hate women. I am a woman!

That doesn't mean anything. Opposition towards the rights of the group one belongs to can and does happen. Like you're doing right now.

You may not hate women but perhaps you hate the thought of them sleeping around out of wedlock and getting knocked up, and so you rationalize that by saying it's really the life of the fetus you're concerned about. Definitely not punishing women for getting pregnant.

It can't be coincidental that the people who are most strongly against reproductive rights overwhelmingly happen to be strongly against living an "immoral lifestyle" such as having sex for the purpose of recreation while out of wedlock.

[Valystria]

No, I know that, of course. I'm not new to this issue at all.
I'm asking you guys. Because if abortion ends a pregnancy...it ends a life.
If it ends a life...it's anti-life.

So does the death penalty, war, and self-defense. I don't hear more social conservatives complaining.

What I'm sensing from these social conservatives is that it's only okay for women have sex in ways social conservatives are supposedly against such as anal sex, same-sex relationships, using sex toys and watching porn by themselves. Because it's not okay to have sex in a way which might get you pregnant. And yet the alternatives are cracked down upon too.

[Huesenheimer]

One of the things anti-abortion advocates never address is the inevitable rise in crime if abortion was outlawed.Tons of unwanted children will be dumped into an already overburdened foster system overseen by social service departments already hanging by a thread after years of budget cuts. (Thanks Compassionate Conservatism ^TM !) Some of the southern states already rife with poverty and teen pregnancy are so overwhelmed that their public medical and social programs are ready to collapse like a house of cards if Planned Parenthood and other charities weren't there to prop it up.

Now all these kids will be stuck in limbo on a waiting list until a spot opens up in an overcrowded, neglectful foster house. Their immune systems will be shit because they won't be given breast milk in infancy. Their mental health will be shit due to neglect and touch deprivation. Then at age 18 they'll be kicked out into the world with no money, no job, and no family. Mental health services will be too overwhelmed to help them, not that they could afford medical care in the first place. Their options are to join the military (soon to be overwhelmed by other orphans doing the same and forced to cut benefits to compensate) or live in abject poverty and turn to crime. They will live miserable lives until they die from preventable illness or violent death.

"Save the babies" isn't so glamorous when you realize the babies are doomed to live as a permanent underclass. There's a reason crime dropped after Roe v. Wade.

[Des-Bal]

One of the things anti-abortion advocates never address is the inevitable rise in crime if abortion was outlawed.Tons of unwanted children will be dumped into an already overburdened foster system overseen by social service departments already hanging by a thread after years of budget cuts. (Thanks Compassionate Conservatism ^TM !) Some of the southern states already rife with poverty and teen pregnancy are so overwhelmed that their public medical and social programs are ready to collapse like a house of cards if Planned Parenthood and other charities weren't there to prop it up.

Now all these kids will be stuck in limbo on a waiting list until a spot opens up in an overcrowded, neglectful foster house. Their immune systems will be shit because they won't be given breast milk in infancy. Their mental health will be shit due to neglect and touch deprivation. Then at age 18 they'll be kicked out into the world with no money, no job, and no family. Mental health services will be too overwhelmed to help them, not that they could afford medical care in the first place. Their options are to join the military (soon to be overwhelmed by other orphans doing the same and forced to cut benefits to compensate) or live in abject poverty and turn to crime. They will live miserable lives until they die from preventable illness or violent death.

"Save the babies" isn't so glamorous when you realize the babies are doomed to live as a permanent underclass. There's a reason crime dropped after Roe v. Wade.

Should we euthanize babies that don't get adopted? (I'm not going to wait for you to answer so if you said "yes" I apologize) If someone believes that abortion kills babies then you aren't going to convince them of anything by talking about the societal benefits of allowing it unless they are an absolute monster. Abortion isn't justifiable because of the positive societal effects, it's justifiable because fetus =/= baby with next to no other points worthy of contention.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

It ends a pregnancy. Really, this is not a difficult concept to understand.

No, I know that, of course. I'm not new to this issue at all.
I'm asking you guys. Because if abortion ends a pregnancy...it ends a life.
If it ends a life...it's anti-life.

It depends on how much do you value said "life" as much as your own, that you consider it a real loss.

[Furry Alairia and Algeria]

It ends a pregnancy. Really, this is not a difficult concept to understand.

No, I know that, of course. I'm not new to this issue at all.
I'm asking you guys. Because if abortion ends a pregnancy...it ends a life.
If it ends a life...it's anti-life.

If something ends a life that is not human and you are opposed to it, I assume you're a vegetarian?

[The Huskar Social Union]

I just looked up the term PIV, being previously unaware of it and this is what I found...

That is one of the stupidest things ive ever read in my life.

Like honestly.. the lack of Logic is... astounding.

[Chestaan]

I just looked up the term PIV, being previously unaware of it and this is what I found...

That is one of the stupidest things ive ever read in my life.

Like honestly.. the lack of Logic is... astounding.

And as Gallo pointed out, the worst thing is the string of comments fully supportive of the idea.

[Jute]

Who said that you are "pro-life" just because you are opposing abortion? Some people oppose it because they oppose women rights, that is out of sheer woman-hate.

What? I don't hate women. I am a woman!

Well, what does an abortion do? (I suppose this is part of another thread, but
answer me that.)

You got me wrong, I meant "you" as in the generic "you", as in, not everyone opposed to abortion does it out of concern for unborn lifes. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[Jute]

It ends a pregnancy. Really, this is not a difficult concept to understand.

No, the difficult concept is not the fact it ends a pregnancy.

The difficult concept to grasp (although it is debated fiercely) is that the embryo/fetus is literally a baby. Which is basically a form of animism, or giving an inanimate object animate qualities. And it is a bias we have towards our progeny.

That doesn't mean ending a pregnancy is bad, it just is.

How is an unborn baby (at least one that is already seven-eight months old) an inanimate object?

No, I know that, of course. I'm not new to this issue at all.
I'm asking you guys. Because if abortion ends a pregnancy...it ends a life.
If it ends a life...it's anti-life.

It depends on how much do you value said "life" as much as your own, that you consider it a real loss.

As much as your own ability to make choices, you mean? There are therapy sessions for women who decided to have one for a reason. For most women it's not an easy decision, as far as I know.

[Ostroeuropa]

People shouldn't get bogged down in the personhood of fetus debate. It's irrelevant.

Bodily autonomy trumps all. It would not matter if fetuses had full consciousness, sentience, awareness, and personalities and such, a person does not have the right to use your body without your consent.

For one thing, i'm inclined toward supporting viewing fetuses as legal persons in order to both print death certificates for miscarriages (Which i gather some unfortunate people are quite upset they can't get in some cases) and in order to charge for murder/manslaughter etc in the case of forced miscarriages through violence, as well as product liability and such.

But none of that changes the fact that a person has the right to deny the use of their body to someone else. The personhood is irrelevant, it bogs down a very simple topic in semantics, mysticism, arguments about the soul, and ultimately very subjective viewpoints.

Not only that, i'm concerned it makes the pro-choice movement seem uncaring and ultimately irrational to many people. It should be made very, very clear.

The pro-choice movement has NO POSITION on the personhood of fetuses. Only on bodily autonomy rights.

This will allow people who do view the fetus as a baby to actually start paying attention to the proper argument instead of viscerally rejecting it because they think the premise is based on denial of fetuses personhood.

[New Larthinia]

People shouldn't get bogged down in the personhood of fetus debate. It's irrelevant.

Bodily autonomy trumps all. It would not matter if fetuses had full consciousness, sentience, awareness, and personalities and such, a person does not have the right to use your body without your consent.

That is true, but you're basically killing a human that is still not as developed as you. Also, it's most likely your fault if you are pregnant and did not want to be pregnant (excluding rape)

[Ostroeuropa]

People shouldn't get bogged down in the personhood of fetus debate. It's irrelevant.

Bodily autonomy trumps all. It would not matter if fetuses had full consciousness, sentience, awareness, and personalities and such, a person does not have the right to use your body without your consent.

That is true, but you're basically killing a human that is still not as developed as you. Also, it's most likely your fault if you are pregnant and did not want to be pregnant (excluding rape)

And that's unfortunate, but ultimately unavoidable in the usage of this right. There is no "Fault." here. I can see why it would be irksome for someone to purposefully inseminate themselves then have an abortion, but still ultimately it is their right to do so. In the overwhelming majority of cases, it's merely accidental pregnancy. There is no "Fault." to be had in that.

[Val Halla]

People shouldn't get bogged down in the personhood of fetus debate. It's irrelevant.

Bodily autonomy trumps all. It would not matter if fetuses had full consciousness, sentience, awareness, and personalities and such, a person does not have the right to use your body without your consent.

That is true, but you're basically killing a human that is still not as developed as you. Also, it's most likely your fault if you are pregnant and did not want to be pregnant (excluding rape)

Not really, no.

[New Larthinia]

That is true, but you're basically killing a human that is still not as developed as you. Also, it's most likely your fault if you are pregnant and did not want to be pregnant (excluding rape)

And that's unfortunate, but ultimately unavoidable in the usage of this right. There is no "Fault." here. I can see why it would be irksome for someone to purposefully inseminate themselves then have an abortion, but still ultimately it is their right to do so. In the overwhelming majority of cases, it's merely accidental pregnancy. There is no "Fault." to be had in that.

Yes, it is. Unprotected sex with the awareness of the fact that you can get a child is a fault, for example. It's their right, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's right.

[Ostroeuropa]

And that's unfortunate, but ultimately unavoidable in the usage of this right. There is no "Fault." here. I can see why it would be irksome for someone to purposefully inseminate themselves then have an abortion, but still ultimately it is their right to do so. In the overwhelming majority of cases, it's merely accidental pregnancy. There is no "Fault." to be had in that.

Yes, it is. Unprotected sex with the awareness of the fact that you can get a child is a fault, for example. It's their right, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's right.

I'm not inclined to blame people for what I see as a result of poor education and ignorance.

If we were in a situation with comprehensive sex education being the norm, then I could see this argument having more weight.

[New Larthinia]

Yes, it is. Unprotected sex with the awareness of the fact that you can get a child is a fault, for example. It's their right, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's right.

I'm not inclined to blame people for what I see as a result of poor education and ignorance.

If we were in a situation with comprehensive sex education being the norm, then I could see this argument having more weight.

Poor education

You don't need freaking 5 grades in fucking to have some common sense, though. It's obvious that if you don't want children, you must use a condom. And even if it's not obvious, these generations are so exposed to the internet they will find out on the internet anyway.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

No, the difficult concept is not the fact it ends a pregnancy.

The difficult concept to grasp (although it is debated fiercely) is that the embryo/fetus is literally a baby. Which is basically a form of animism, or giving an inanimate object animate qualities. And it is a bias we have towards our progeny.

That doesn't mean ending a pregnancy is bad, it just is.

How is an unborn baby (at least one that is already seven-eight months old) an inanimate object?

It depends on how much do you value said "life" as much as your own, that you consider it a real loss.

As much as your own ability to make choices, you mean? There are therapy sessions for women who decided to have one for a reason. For most women it's not an easy decision, as far as I know.

1. Because I totally meant 8-month old fetuses
Once it is viable, I don't consider it a "fetus" anymore, given the fact it can live outside the womb (which is around, maybe, the 6th-7th month). But how does a 8-month old compare to a 3-month old fetus?

2. I never said it was. Also, not what I meant. If said fetus is valuable to you and you had hopes and dreams of a child (which, let's be honest, 99% of the time it is) then yea, of course you will feel bad about it and it's not an easy decision. In the rare case you don't, that's not evil either; it just means the potential life of a human being is less important to the mother than her own interests.

[Ostroeuropa]

I'm not inclined to blame people for what I see as a result of poor education and ignorance.

If we were in a situation with comprehensive sex education being the norm, then I could see this argument having more weight.

Poor education

You don't need freaking 5 grades in fucking to have some common sense, though. It's obvious that if you don't want children, you must use a condom. And even if it's not obvious, these generations are so exposed to the internet they will find out on the internet anyway.

You'd be surprised how many people believe stupid shit like you can't get pregnant the first time.

[Val Halla]

I'm not inclined to blame people for what I see as a result of poor education and ignorance.

If we were in a situation with comprehensive sex education being the norm, then I could see this argument having more weight.

Poor education

You don't need freaking 5 grades in fucking to have some common sense, though. It's obvious that if you don't want children, you must use a condom. And even if it's not obvious, these generations are so exposed to the internet they will find out on the internet anyway.

You seem to be forgetting that people are stupid.

[Ostroeuropa]

Poor education

You don't need freaking 5 grades in fucking to have some common sense, though. It's obvious that if you don't want children, you must use a condom. And even if it's not obvious, these generations are so exposed to the internet they will find out on the internet anyway.

You seem to be forgetting that people are stupid.

Especially teenagers who can barely think straight because their brains are so awash with hormones telling them to fuck.

[New Larthinia]

Poor education

You don't need freaking 5 grades in fucking to have some common sense, though. It's obvious that if you don't want children, you must use a condom. And even if it's not obvious, these generations are so exposed to the internet they will find out on the internet anyway.

You'd be surprised how many people believe stupid shit like you can't get pregnant the first time.

I'd actually be very surprised.

And, if that's the case, we should insert sexual education in more countries, then. In my country, we already have sexual education courses. That's not my fault anymore, it's their fault.

[New Larthinia]

Poor education

You don't need freaking 5 grades in fucking to have some common sense, though. It's obvious that if you don't want children, you must use a condom. And even if it's not obvious, these generations are so exposed to the internet they will find out on the internet anyway.

You seem to be forgetting that people are stupid.

Not that stupid, though. At least my opinion.

[Val Halla]

You seem to be forgetting that people are stupid.

Not that stupid, though. At least my opinion.

They are.

And you know, condoms aren't 100% reliable.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

People shouldn't get bogged down in the personhood of fetus debate. It's irrelevant.

Bodily autonomy trumps all. It would not matter if fetuses had full consciousness, sentience, awareness, and personalities and such, a person does not have the right to use your body without your consent.

For one thing, i'm inclined toward supporting viewing fetuses as legal persons in order to both print death certificates for miscarriages (Which i gather some unfortunate people are quite upset they can't get in some cases) and in order to charge for murder/manslaughter etc in the case of forced miscarriages through violence, as well as product liability and such.

But none of that changes the fact that a person has the right to deny the use of their body to someone else. The personhood is irrelevant, it bogs down a very simple topic in semantics, mysticism, arguments about the soul, and ultimately very subjective viewpoints.

Not only that, i'm concerned it makes the pro-choice movement seem uncaring and ultimately irrational to many people. It should be made very, very clear.

The pro-choice movement has NO POSITION on the personhood of fetuses. Only on bodily autonomy rights.

This will allow people who do view the fetus as a baby to actually start paying attention to the proper argument instead of viscerally rejecting it because they think the premise is based on denial of fetuses personhood.

You are right that the the personhood of the fetus should be irrelevant.

However, the personhood of the fetus doesn't exist. You seem to believe that legal personhood is a viable compromise. It isn't. Once you give fetuses legal personhood you have to give the philosophical personhood also, which in turn means repercussions in ethics for the medical community, and especially women seeking an abortion or other services while pregnant.