The NationStates Feminist Thread

[Chestaan]

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

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.

But isn't this against the whole right to bodily sovereignty argument? If it's ok to abort a fetus early on, because of the right to bodily sovereignty, then shouldn't it be ok for the whole term of the pregnancy?

[New Larthinia]

Not that stupid, though. At least my opinion.

They are.

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

I know they are not, but it's not like you're fucking with 0% protection. At least you tried to prevent pregnancy from happening, and if it still happens I can see it as not being your fault anymore.

[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.

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.

I'd be fine with them only having legal personhood under the circumstances I outlined, or in adding caveats to those laws to also include them while not confering personhood. In any case, you accept that it's a seperate debate entirely, and that's fine.

(By the way. I do agree they aren't actually people yet. I just think that in some cases the law should treat them as though they were.)

[Soldati Senza Confini]

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.

But isn't this against the whole right to bodily sovereignty argument? If it's ok to abort a fetus early on, because of the right to bodily sovereignty, then shouldn't it be ok for the whole term of the pregnancy?

Yes, technically that's what "birth induction" is. A technical abortion at the late stages. Except it doesn't kill the now-baby while doing so, so it's not really called an "abortion" in the colloquial sense of the word.

[The Serbian Empire]

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.

It shows education on it's own isn't enough.

[Aelex]

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.

To be fair, the societal benefits of abortion for both the State and People are the main reasons I'm myself a Pro-Choice.

[Chestaan]

But isn't this against the whole right to bodily sovereignty argument? If it's ok to abort a fetus early on, because of the right to bodily sovereignty, then shouldn't it be ok for the whole term of the pregnancy?

Yes, technically that's what "birth induction" is. A technical abortion at the late stages. Except it doesn't kill the now-baby while doing so, so it's not really called an "abortion" in the colloquial sense of the word.

Ah so it removes the baby/fetus/whatever term people prefer from the womb but it still lives? Sounds like a pretty good system to me.

[Esheaun Stroakuss]

Not that stupid, though. At least my opinion.

They are.

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

No, they are not, though- between that and contraceptive pills- they are the best bet. Of course, I am not totally against not having sex, but it depends on the reasons why.

Also, weren't we talking about feminism?

[Tahar Joblis]

Yes, technically that's what "birth induction" is. A technical abortion at the late stages. Except it doesn't kill the now-baby while doing so, so it's not really called an "abortion" in the colloquial sense of the word.

Ah so it removes the baby/fetus/whatever term people prefer from the womb but it still lives? Sounds like a pretty good system to me.

Fundamentally, this is what you want to fund and pass legal support for if you want to eliminate abortion while respecting bodily integrity. It's a technology method of going around the underlying philosophical disagreement.

That said, intact extraction of embryos (early term) & fetuses (later term) into artificial wombs / incubation / intensive care is always going to be expensive, but if interested parties were willing to donate half as much effort & money into supporting that as they are into trying to either defend or overturn Roe v. Wade, that would be a surmountable obstacle.

That said, there are people with philosophically indefensible positions who would oppose this for their own reasons, e.g., persons wanting women to have control over fetuses' / embryos' continued survival after extraction, wanting men to remain on the hook for obligations incurring from genetic relationship but without wanting women to be vulnerable to such obligations, etc.

There are two fundamental rights and one essentially unanswerable question at play in the abortion question. The two fundamental rights are bodily autonomy and survival. The essentially unanswerable question is when you consider an embryo / fetus / infant / child to have rights. This comes down to a choice of postulates on what constitutes personhood (and blends into the question of animal rights as well, with the question of what constitutes life).

[Jute]

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

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.

Well, then this is a misunderstanding. I just think of any unborn child as "fetus", hence probably why I was confused. Glad we cleared that up. And in some cases, abortions are done to spare a child from a life in pain, I've read, so it's not always just the interests of the mother.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

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.

I'm not seeing any issue with that. War is anti-life, so is the death penalty. *shrug*

Besides, the issue of ''ending a life'' is irrelevant when abortion is about, rights, maintaining bodily integrity and reproductive controls.

[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.

I'm not seeing any issue with that. War is anti-life, so is the death penalty. *shrug*

Besides, the issue of ''ending a life'' is irrelevant when abortion is about, rights, maintaining bodily integrity and reproductive controls.

Yes, the "ending a life" defence is a red herring to distract from bodily autonomy and reproductive rights.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I'm not seeing any issue with that. War is anti-life, so is the death penalty. *shrug*

Besides, the issue of ''ending a life'' is irrelevant when abortion is about, rights, maintaining bodily integrity and reproductive controls.

Yes, the "ending a life" defence is a red herring to distract from bodily autonomy and reproductive rights.

Oh, trust me, I am well aware.

[Valystria]

Hell will freeze over before she debates honestly on topics that go against her viewpoints.

So we have until November at the earliest or somethin?

As long as it takes.

[Haktiva]

This is the best news I've heard all day

[Valystria]

This is the best news I've heard all day

These sort of things seem to happening more frequently.

[Haktiva]

This is the best news I've heard all day

These sort of things seem to happening more frequently.

I think it's part of societal decay, honestly.

[Olerand]

This is the best news I've heard all day

What is the point of these actions? I see that they have become increasingly popular in the Anglo-Saxon world, but unlike say the FEMEN, they do not denounce something...well, worth denouncing. Targeting these soft cultural events, and organizing social media campaigns to do the same, or change burdensome to some -but not harmful- cultural phenomena, honestly accomplish nothing, concretely.

What do they think will come of this? Publicity, and then what?

[Valystria]

This is the best news I've heard all day

What is the point of these actions? I see that they have become increasingly popular in the Anglo-Saxon world, but unlike say the FEMEN, they do not denounce something...well, worth denouncing. Targeting these soft cultural events, and organizing social media campaigns to do the same, or change burdensome to some -but not harmful- cultural phenomena, honestly accomplish nothing, concretely.

What do they think will come of this? Publicity, and then what?

They expect every aspect of public and private life to conform to their ideology. Everything within feminism, nothing outside feminism.
What you see as the release of a movie, they see as an opportunity to storm with smoke bombs and swarming the area, for no other than reason than to protest about something unrelated.

What gets me the most about the incident is that they haven't the slightest concern about how there isn't any funding towards domestic violence shelters for men. I'd say it certainly qualifies as more of a crisis than minor funding cuts to women's shelters here and there. Only women matter, seemingly.

[Olerand]

What is the point of these actions? I see that they have become increasingly popular in the Anglo-Saxon world, but unlike say the FEMEN, they do not denounce something...well, worth denouncing. Targeting these soft cultural events, and organizing social media campaigns to do the same, or change burdensome to some -but not harmful- cultural phenomena, honestly accomplish nothing, concretely.

What do they think will come of this? Publicity, and then what?

They expect every aspect of public and private life to conform to their ideology. Everything within feminism, nothing outside feminism.
What you see as the release of a movie, they see as an opportunity to storm with smoke bombs and swarming the area, for no other than reason than to protest about something unrelated.

What gets me the most about the incident is that they haven't the slightest concern about how there isn't any funding towards domestic violence shelters for men. I'd say it certainly qualifies as more of a crisis than minor funding cuts to women's shelters here and there. Only women matter, seemingly.

Well this does not answer my question, I am certainly not sympathetic to your "Men's Rights" (another rising phenomenon in the Anglo-Saxon world, a reaction to silly theatrical feminism(?)) argument.

My question still stands, to those who support these kinds of actions -social media campaigns- etc- what have you- what do you think will come of this?

[Haktiva]

They expect every aspect of public and private life to conform to their ideology. Everything within feminism, nothing outside feminism.
What you see as the release of a movie, they see as an opportunity to storm with smoke bombs and swarming the area, for no other than reason than to protest about something unrelated.

What gets me the most about the incident is that they haven't the slightest concern about how there isn't any funding towards domestic violence shelters for men. I'd say it certainly qualifies as more of a crisis than minor funding cuts to women's shelters here and there. Only women matter, seemingly.

Well this does not answer my question, I am certainly not sympathetic to your "Men's Rights" (another rising phenomenon in the Anglo-Saxon world, a reaction to silly theatrical feminism(?)) argument.

My question still stands, to those who support these kinds of actions -social media campaigns- etc- what have you- what do you think will come of this?

money or some shit.

[Ostroeuropa]

They expect every aspect of public and private life to conform to their ideology. Everything within feminism, nothing outside feminism.
What you see as the release of a movie, they see as an opportunity to storm with smoke bombs and swarming the area, for no other than reason than to protest about something unrelated.

What gets me the most about the incident is that they haven't the slightest concern about how there isn't any funding towards domestic violence shelters for men. I'd say it certainly qualifies as more of a crisis than minor funding cuts to women's shelters here and there. Only women matter, seemingly.

Well this does not answer my question, I am certainly not sympathetic to your "Men's Rights" (another rising phenomenon in the Anglo-Saxon world, a reaction to silly theatrical feminism(?)) argument.

My question still stands, to those who support these kinds of actions -social media campaigns- etc- what have you- what do you think will come of this?

It isn't a reaction to silly theatrical feminism. It's partially a reaction to traditional conservatism and feminisms failure to combat it when it harms men, and partially a reaction to institutionalized feminism discriminating against men.

[Glorious KASSRD]

Well this does not answer my question, I am certainly not sympathetic to your "Men's Rights" (another rising phenomenon in the Anglo-Saxon world, a reaction to silly theatrical feminism(?)) argument.

My question still stands, to those who support these kinds of actions -social media campaigns- etc- what have you- what do you think will come of this?

It isn't a reaction to silly theatrical feminism. It's partially a reaction to traditional conservatism and feminisms failure to combat it when it harms men, and partially a reaction to institutionalized feminism discriminating against men.

These people are getting attention by starting mass protest for movies that more or less support their ideology. I'm not sure you want this group to support you, although other, more reasonable feminists helping would be nice.

[Olerand]

Well this does not answer my question, I am certainly not sympathetic to your "Men's Rights" (another rising phenomenon in the Anglo-Saxon world, a reaction to silly theatrical feminism(?)) argument.

My question still stands, to those who support these kinds of actions -social media campaigns- etc- what have you- what do you think will come of this?

It isn't a reaction to silly theatrical feminism. It's partially a reaction to traditional conservatism and feminisms failure to combat it when it harms men, and partially a reaction to institutionalized feminism discriminating against men.

I don't see it. Much of the Men's Rights Movement is a critic and rejection of feminism, not an assertion of some separate but non-conflicting ideology. Men's Rights seems to be "anti-feminsim", not "pro-men".

[Ostroeuropa]

It isn't a reaction to silly theatrical feminism. It's partially a reaction to traditional conservatism and feminisms failure to combat it when it harms men, and partially a reaction to institutionalized feminism discriminating against men.

I don't see it. Much of the Men's Rights Movement is a critic and rejection of feminism, not an assertion of some separate but non-conflicting ideology. Men's Rights seems to be "anti-feminsim", not "pro-men".

The two are unavoidably linked. Feminist ideology controls the establishment and it's institutions.

Those institutions discriminate against men as a result of unfettered feminist ideology.

When you discuss male domestic violence victims, it's impossible to give an accurate explanation of why they are fucked over without pointing out how feminism has contributed to and continues to contribute to this.

You may as well be saying feminists aren't pro-women, so much as they are anti-traditionalist roles for women.

Dude.

That is pro-women.

Just like being anti-feminism is pro-men, provided you are also anti-traditionalist. Which the MRM most decidedly is.

The MRM narratives are in part an explanation of why institutionalized feminism victimizes men. They don't claim to be a seperately emerging ideology. SOME aspects of it absolutely are, and the MRM androcentric lens is a valuable tool in understanding how traditionalism fucks over men.

That said, on the feminism issue:
You have 3 major camps.

MRAs who think MRM criticism of feminism will result in the movement reforming itself and becoming an egalitarian movement.

MRAs who think that MRM criticism of feminism will cause it to lose it's monopoly on institutional power and media control, at which point the two movements can counterbalance eachother working on men/womens issues seperately.

MRAs who think MRM criticism of feminism will cause the collapse of it's legitimacy as a movement and it's fall from power, at which point a new egalitarian movement will form from moderates on both sides.

What you're ignoring is that if the status quo discriminates against men, and feminism is the status quo, then ofcourse in order to be pro men you need to be anti-feminist.

Feminist "Moderates" who accept mens issues too and work on them from an androcentric perspective but don't call themselves something like Feminist-MRA are in total denial of where they got their androcentric viewpoints from, and whitewashing their movements history of persecution against men. They've been forced by MRM criticism and activism to adopt the MRMs views, but are disingenuously pretending those pieces of their ideology originate from within their movement, when they most assuredly do not.

To be a feminist without also being an MRA is to be a sexist. That is why the MRM is anti-feminism.

Feminist-MRAs would fall under the first category of MRA.