Does anyone know any blogs or videos I could watch on this subject? Or if you can construct an argument, from a feminist perspective, that is not a strawman, I would be glad to hear it.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Matt Dillydally is an extreme liberal and debates abortion with Kristine Kruszelnicki
He makes so many inane assertions in this debate that it is shocking.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aO_DpGkTOAU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpnUNeaYedA&t=248s
EDITED AGAIN - removed the apology - It is in Matts opening comments.
@Cog I did not notice any inane assertions by Matt Dillahunty. Care to point them out?
I had an apology written out and thought I had seen a different video and then I heard it playing in the background.......
(350) Matt States "Pregnancy is an involuntary condition." WRONG People are not absolved from their actions regardless of precautions they take. Nothing at all involuntary about it. He goes on to say it is often in conflict with out desires - Agree.
(400) Matt StatesL "Pregnancy is something that happens to us NOT BY US." NO! You took your dick out of your pants and she spread her legs. Nothing happened to you! You were an active participant and not a passive recipient. I COULD NOT DISAGREE MORE.
Okay - it is not without significant risk True. It is the correct video. I don;t have any other issues with the comments by Matt. "Pregnancy is something that just happens to you?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpnUNeaYedA&t=2708s
I am actually pro women's rights and I believe abortion should be available to women with one stipulation, (It is not to be used as birth control.) That means, I agree with it, within limits. If a woman returns to the birth control clinic year after year after year, something is wrong with her brain. She needs some sort of intervention. Abortions are not like trips to the dentist where teeth are simply removed. ( I would like to see some sort of reasonable limit.) NEXT: Abortion is NOT HEALTH CARE. Tax dollars should NEVER PAY FOR IT unless it is the result of a RAPE.
Just my opinions. The two people who get pregnant had sex knowing full well it could happen, even if precautions were taken. I have no problem with the idea that some pregnancies are unwelcome and no problem with abortion. When push comes to shove, it is the woman's body and she gets to make the choice. (No Problem) But calling it "Something that just happens to you ." IS FUCKING IGNORANT. It is a complete negation of the responsibility people should have when engaging is sexual activity.
That's my Rant. I can't agree with Matt on everything.
I agree with you. It's inconsistent that if a man says he cannot afford to raise a child, he's told to think of that before having sex, but to say that to a woman would get you branded as a patriarchal bigot.. . Sometimes it becomes a medical necessity..But ending a life simply for the furtherance of a career seems pretty selfish.
Sex comes with responsibility, especially today when fertility can be easily controlled. But responsibility is a word that many don't want to hear.
I once was gung ho 'pro choice' (after all that's what good liberals believed, no?) but as a parent, as a grand parent, my view has changed radically.
@Cognostic
As these are not the debate boards but the atheist hub, I will try to check the debate part of me at the door. (I also mostly agree with what you wrote.)
How would you decide which women are using abortion as a form of birth control versus a more "legitimate" need? Also how would it be enforced? How would it stop a woman of means to travel all over the world to get an abortion 4-5 times a year every year they are fertile if they so chose to? How is it fair that women that can pay for it can get all the abortions they want, but the women that cannot afford it can't even get an abortion unless they can prove it was the result of rape? (How do you prove it is rape? Even if you are married you can get raped by your spouse, how do you prove the fetus is the result of rape from your husband? Especially months after the fact?)
I agree, I would not want to see women using abortion as an expensive but very procrastinating form of birth control that allows them to skip condoms or other possibly uncomfortable forms of birth control, (if they could afford the procedure and travel.) And I certainly would not want to pay for that procrastination and not using day after pill with my tax dollars and/or increased medical coverage costs for myself or anyone else. But the unfortunate reality to me is: there may be no way to enforce "not allowing or paying for more 'arbitrary' abortion" from a more legitimate need from people that may not otherwise be able to afford it. (Happily PP is well funded enough from generous donors that if you can get access to a PP clinic, the cost are usually quite small and affordable for those of little financial means.)
Additionally ask any woman that has gone through an abortion, and ask them if they would prefer that method of "birth control" (abortion) over much easier, faster and cheaper birth control methods (some of which like the condom also helps with preventing STD's) The woman that gets multiple abortions simply because they can not be bothered to use other forms of birth control is mostly a myth, just about all of them figure out it is far better to simply take the morning after pill if she had unprotected sex.
Also realize more than a few people consider the day after pill to be abortion. Should day after pills be limited so people do not use it as a form of birth control?
Whoops my debate side kicked in.. Dang, I seemingly cannot help myself! I may have a problem lol!
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮ I am an atheist that always likes a good debate. ▮
▮ Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me. ▮
▮ Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016. ▮
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Keep, you wrote, “Or if you can construct an argument, from a feminist perspective, that is not a strawman, I would be glad to hear it.”
An argument? For what? What does that mean? What are you looking for? Please provide parameters. Abortion under certain conditions? Define feminist.
It tough to address an OP like this sans details.
@CyberLN I simply want to understand the thinking behind pro-choice arguments, specifically from a feminine or feminist perspective. I did not set specific parameters because I am not going to argue against any position, if I was, I would have posted in the debate section.
Meep, you wrote, “I simply want to understand the thinking behind pro-choice arguments, specifically from a feminine or feminist perspective.”
If you don’t already understand the thinking behind pro-choice arguments from a feminist perspective, then it follows you are neither pro-choice nor feminist.
Why do want to know these perspectives?
I want to know them better because I am on the fence on the issue. I am neither feminine or a feminist, I may be wrong due to ignorance.
I wish to learn. My views don't really matter. I want to understand better how banning abortions cause women to be a slave to their own body. I want to know how often women feel guilt after having an abortion and how they can effectively manage or diminish it.
I wish to not remain ignorant.
Well, since all a feminist is, is someone who thinks women should have opportunity equal to that afforded to men, it’s too bad you’re not one. I think everyone should be. Just as I think opportunity should be equal no matter a person’s skin color, and many other factors. I think any other stance is simply immoral.
As to your questions concerning the banning of abortion...imo, it doesn’t work and by its nature, says that a woman is not to be in charge of her own body.
You also asked about feelings of guilt. Be careful not to confuse guilt with regret. They are distinctly different things. Additionally, there are women who have neither regret nor guilt after an abortion. As to the ‘management’ of ant feelings a woman might have post abortion, well, that is going to be as individual as anything else about a person.
Unlike some people, I really don’t care if a woman has had no abortions or one hundred of them. I don’t think abortion somehow becomes immoral based on quantity. I think, however, there are easier, less invasive, less expensive methods of preventing parenthood but some people are, at least at times, short on sense. Oh well.
Plain and simple, I think folks want to limit women’s reproductive choices because they want to limit women.
Banning abortions is a terrible idea. (Slave to their own body is more of a hyperbolic assertion.) Banning abortion sends a clear message to the woman that she is not to have one. If she gets pregnant she must have that baby. This is a bad idea for many reasons.
1). A university student who has plans for her future is now saddled with pregnancy and a child when she is not ready for it.
2) Perhaps it was a drunken roll in the hay and she has no idea who the father is.
3). Perhaps a drug addicted whore got pregnant and does not want a child.
4). A young couple who are not ready to have children.
5). Does the reason really matter? It is the woman's body, If she does not want to have a baby, THAT IS ENOUGH. No one should be able to force her. Not her boyfriend, husband, the government or her frigging church. By banning abortion, the woman becomes a slave to her body.
FINALLY: By banning them, women will try to have them anyway. This, in the past, has led to the "back ally, illegal abortions with coat hangers" that left many women injured or dead.
Abortion in Korea is illegal. (I live here now.) Doctors still perform them and make insane amounts of money. The other option is to fly to Japan where they are legal and have one there. If you do not have money, you are going to have that baby., NO CHOICE.
Not sure if I can argue from the feminist perspective. Not sure really what you are asking there.
But a quick run down on why I think the "pro-lifers" got it all wrong. At least from a US standpoint:
1. At the federal level, roe vs wade decriminalized abortion, but really left it up to the states to decide. States then rapidly split on the issue, with some states making abortion all but impossible to get within that state. What that did was make it so rich women families of the pregnant women, could easily, painlessly, quickly without delay get abortions, but the poor typically did not have the option, making it an issue of inequality. Women of child bearing age also frequently did not have the financial resources men did, making it so the male could ultimate decide due to financial access reasons decide if he wanted the abortion to happen or not. (There's the gender bias inequality) Basically due to the general problem of inequality, the inequality issues quickly tides over to the abortion issue. This is made especially true because abortion is almost never covered in health insurance, nor are employers required to give a person paid or unpaid time off to go do the procedure.) Fortunately Planned parenthood is very well funded from donations these days and low cost abortions can be provided to those that cannot afford it, IF they can get to a PP clinic. Of course these poor women making possibly the hardest choice of their lives due frequently face harassment outside these abortion clinics.
2. At the heart of the argument (at least to me) is: "what is human," and what is "just an egg," versus a real human being that should have rights that perhaps even supersedes the mothers right to her own body. This is where it gets real messy. For many in the religious circles religion typically talks of souls, and god deciding a person will be "born" and this happens when the egg gets fertilized. As science advanced and we began to understand the human reproductive cycle, fertilization etc, and how all that works, religion typically decided to update their "god decides who lives and dies" to be at the point of fertilization. As intercourse would be silly because it fails so often. (Incidentally anywhere from 30-60 percent of all fertilized eggs actually never make it to normal healthy birth! With a bulk of them dying within a day, naturally. - seems religious folks are okay with god "changing his mind" a lot.)
However, while fertilization of the egg, (the male sperm dna contribution to the egg that acts as a catalyst to start the growth of a human being is actually only 1 step in the cycle of human life/reproduction. It is a pretty pivotal moment, but actual reality based by scientific finding, it is only 1 step along the way of the human reproduction cycle. And that step as "what is a human" is purely an opinion based one. An opinion formed by old men, typically religious leaders, that push their opinion onto their masses. And the men "head of the household" were more than okay with this, as it solidified their status as the "shot caller" the one that decides everything. It is just as perfectly valid to pick another point in the cycle of reproduction as the point "when a person should get full legal rights and protection because it is a person. It is all OPINION! The human reproductive/life cycle began literally hundreds of millions of years ago when our very distant basic ancestors first started to do gametes based reproduction instead of just simple cell division (mitosis meiosis.)
I personally pick the point where the baby is no longer wholly reliant upon the host mother to survive is when the baby's rights begin to actually supercede the mother's rights to her own body. Mainly because that is when the baby can possibly survive w/o the mother. But I fully admit just like the "fertilization point" as "when is human" my own opinion is purely just that, my own opinion. The only real fact here, is that is the point that the fetus/baby etc actually has a shot at surviving w/o the mother host body. Thing is I would not force my opinion on "what is human" on anyone. Who's opinion matters? The mother's. The one that is growing the baby inside her, the one that is the host body. So instead of women's right to choose being overruled by old men, the decision should instead fall on the person most closely involved with the baby. It is not murder if the mother host of the fetus decides that fetus is not a "human" yet. Especially considering said "human" could not possibly survive w/o her host body.
If a mother feels even the day after pill is murder of an innocent baby, she is perfectly fine to believe that and practice that. But I think we can all agree, even most "pro lifers" that would be highly unfair for someone else to force that particular opinion on everyone else. (Lets ban day after pills! No wait! less ban condoms!) On the polar opposite end, if a mother is 40 weeks in, the baby is healthy and there is no risk, thanks to modern medicine and typical access, birthing the baby makes more sense then killing it. The baby could survive w/o the host body. There is typically a long wait list for babies. (Polar opposite for 12+ year old boys, especially if they are not white, whole different issue I will refrain from getting into here.)
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮ I am an atheist that always likes a good debate. ▮
▮ Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me. ▮
▮ Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016. ▮
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
@CyberLN I am careful to label myself a feminist because of the feminists that are using the label for less noble causes.
I think there should be some say from the father, but I recognize that it would cause more issues than it solves. So I am not totally sure.
Thanks, everyone for responding.
Meep, you wrote, “@CyberLN I am careful to label myself a feminist because of the feminists that are using the label for less noble causes.”
I suspect you meant to say you are careful NOT to label yourself a feminist....
To which ‘less noble causes’ do you refer?
No. The Father should only have the amount of say that the woman agrees to. She does not have to marry you, she does not HAVE to have your kid.; SHE CAN NOT EVEN BE FORCED TO HAVE IT IF YOU ARE MARRIED TO HER. It is the woman's body and the woman's life. SHE IS NOT YOUR SLAVE If she does not want to have your baby you can not force her to do so. If you don't like that "Tough Shit." Sticking your dick in a woman does not make her your slave. You do not get to choose what she does with her life. You have every right to try and work things out with her if you want to keep it, but in the end, the choice is hers. (The issue is pretty clear.)
And I agree with the pro-lifers, you are killing a baby. You are ending the life of a human being. So, I am agreeing with murder when people are not ready to have babies, when they can not support them, when they are unwilling to support them, in the case of rape, or frankly for any reason at all, up to and including fear or just not wanting the responsibility. NOTHING IS MORE INHUMANE THAT BRINGING AN UNWANTED BABY INTO THE WORLD. As I said before, what is not acceptable is using abortion as birth control. (A woman who has abortions year after year after year has a mental problem. IMO) And abortion is not HEALTH CARE, so it should not be paid for by insurance or the government, with the exception of rape and possibly some other exigent circumstances. (Serious life threat to the mother, knowledge of disease or deformity, etc.... ) I admit there are some situations that actually do fall under health care. It would be a shame not to help a young mother or family in these situations. I do not think this is the case with most abortions. Most are simply unwanted babies. The reason does not matter. Abortion should be legal and it is always the woman's choice.
Well said, Cog. I mostly agree, except for just one thing:
Correction: It’s technically not murder if the abortion is done before the fetus is viable (before week 22-23)- that is, if it has a realistic chance of surviving to term if born prematurely. Up until then, it’s not, scientifically speaking, a living organism because its organs are not well developed, and it has a practically zero percent chance of surviving if born at that stage (a la miscarriages).
@CyberLN Yes, thanks for the correction. I was referring to the feminists that advocate for the rights of women to be elevated above men. Not specifically related to abortion, but custody, child support, etc.
Well, it’s interesting that you would decline to identify as something because a minority engages in behaviors of which you disapprove. That sure seems to hand over to them more power than, perhaps, they deserve, or offers them lone ownership of the word. There are folks who are atheist who engage in behavior with which I don’t agree, yet I am still atheist. There are humans who are assholes and yet I am still human. You are certainly not alone in your distaste for the word ‘feminist’, but I must admit that I find myself sceptical that the actual reason you won’t identify as one is those few folks with whom you disagree. Not an attack, Meep, just saying...
What @CyberLN said. Also, by declining to identify as “feminist” or “profeminist”, it also helps the antifems demonize feminism even more, because then they go, “See? SEE?! I told you that feminism = misandry!!!”
Just a thought, though. You can identify as you wish.
As many feminists like to bemoan, words matter. Even though I support the equality of males and females, I would not call myself a feminist, since the very name of the movement itself is exclusionary of males, even if the standard fall-back narrative, when feminist arguments are criticized, is that it strives for equality of the sexes.
@Peurii Evidence please. I have seen no such narrative in feminism, and as the saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Scroll up. It's literally here in this thread. I'm unsure what you mean, though. So the narrative that feminism is about equality is untrue according to you? What?
The whole word is pretty meaningless, because there are so many feminisms. Feminists would really do themselves a service if they would start to specify what kind of a feminist one is, instead of just saying one is a "feminist". Often times when a feminism of the radical misandrist sort is criticized, someone runs in to point out how feminism is infact just about equality. That's a classic reverse of the bait-and-switch, the motte-and-bailey. Criticism is quenched, since the object of criticism has in fact changed.
Sure, that might be the broadest definition, but the kind of end goal of what would be equality depends on one's view of the nature of biological sex and gender as a social construct. And as such the policy suggestions differ widely.
I'm also opposed to the kind of bourgeoisie corporate "woke" feminism of the Anita Sarkeesian sort, that ends up being actualized in the same censorious forms as the evangelical Christians tried to affect culture, in my youth. The kind where one has to confess one's original sin of "maleness" and "whiteness" etc. to be accepted into the church of the woke, to be baptised by the symbolic renounciation of priviledge and the true and imagined sins of one's forefathers, and to prozelytize the unvelieving Other and to excommunicate the those deemed sinful through conducted offence archeology. The one where almost anything can be explained through the accumulation of symbolic dirtyness of patriarchy, only to be purified by the object's reaccumulation of femininity, defined as what ever one wants, really.
It's not really a coherent movement, but just the general that we seem to be living now in the west.
No, what I meant was that I would like to see some evidence for your assertion that feminism = misandry, as well as your repeated accusations of “censorship”. Are they censoring your response right now?
If you got the impression that all feminism = misandry, I am sorry for giving such an impressions. Some forms of feminism are misandrist in nature.
The censorship comes mainly when forms of feminism, or ideas originating there, are mixed with corporations and institutions. The Damore case is a standard example. A more esoteric case is the harrasment of scholars studying gender dysmorphia by feminist transactivists.
Can you please give some specific examples of such feminists?
Ok, here's a few somewhat notable feminists in popular culture in the recent years that fit the description in some way or another:
Riley Dennis
Emily McCombs
Anita Sarkeesian
Sarah Jeong
Chanty Binx
A few local ones:
Wille Hyvönen
Koko Hubara
Arttu Seppänen
Crazy murderous sort:
Valerie Solanas
Clementine Ford
Jenny McDermott
For some casual misandry, look at #KillAllMen on Twitter
A whole branch of feminism dedicated to segregation from males: political lesbianism.
Also in Professing Feminism Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge portray interestingly how some of the controversies surrounding the intersection of feminism and science and university were launched in the 90's.
But like I said, it's not really a coherent movement, but the trickling down of feminist ideas of various sorts to our cultural fore during the past few years. You can see the logic of it play out in the controversies in Evergreen (Weinstein & Heyn), Yale (Christakises), the smearing of J.B. Peterson, rewriting of history in Battlefield V, call-out-culture, the victimhood culture and the concept creep surrounding words like "white supremacy".
I'm not sure it is fair to paint that all under feminism, but the language and concepts surrounding these phenomenons seem to be originating in feminisms of a sort or another.
And don’t forget Cathy Brennan; not only is she ultra-paranoid about trans people (esp. the MTF ones), but she is also ultra-paranoid of cisgender men. But I’d be careful with this example; most other feminists and profeminists have condemned her bigotry. In fact, RationalWiki (the pet peeve of every online antifem) has an article calling her out: https://www.rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cathy_Brennan
Meepwned: I was referring to the feminists that advocate for the rights of women to be elevated above men.
I am in complete agreement with this and still an advocate of a "Woman's Right to Choose." Have you seen "The Red Pill?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WMuzhQXJoY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ln3niFI0Mas
@Cog Yes, I have. Wonderful film.
@CyberLN My hesitancy to call myself by the label of feminist is also because of where I live. Feminism is seen as a cancer, in most circles here.
Also, I've been pro-choice for years now, but I haven't given it much thought until recently. I've been watching pro-life videos and wanted to see if others shared my views. 99% of what Cog has said, I agree with.
I do struggle with the idea of the man having no say in the matter. I do not want to violate the rights of the woman, however. I simply wish there was a way to make it more fair, without violation of rights.
Don’t let the social stigma attached to the label “feminism” discourage you. By telling them that you are (at least) profeminist, you are helping to challenge their stereotypes. But then again, if what you say about the people who are near you is the case, then they’ve probably already been programmed to automatically hate and distrust all whose views even vaguely resemble those of a feminist- just to clarify, do you ever hear such people use terms like “red pill”, “hypergamy”, “good/bad guy” or“alpha/beta male”, or do you hear some of them fantasize about using Sharia law to re-coerce western women into silence, submission, and self-loathing?
Pages