Abortion from a feminist perspective

67 posts / 0 new
Last post
Cognostic's picture
Yes, Technically..... "I don

Yes, Technically..... "I don't care." I do not want the seriousness of the decision to be lessened. You don't get a "free pass." The woman didn't simply pull a tooth. She is making a "LIFE ALTERING DECISION." For her own life and the potential life within. My measurement for abortion like euthanasia is QUALITY OF LIFE. I wrote more below.

Spectre of Marxism's picture
> My hesitancy to call myself

> My hesitancy to call myself by the label of feminist is also because of where I live.

I know it might seem like a bit of a random point, but I personally don't think there's anything really wrong with not being a feminist. One can be an egalitarian, a humanist, without being a feminist. I think its even possible to formulate an anti-feminist position on the basis of anti-identitarian, radical egalitarian humanism.

Its always been strange to me that there exists a pressure for one to identify as a feminist. I can understand feminism being some kind of cultural or maybe artistic movement, mainly for women, but its not clear to me why it should be on such forefront in politics. Certainly when political feminism tends to accumulate some, shall we say, undesirable attributes.

arakish's picture
I bow out. I ain't getting

I bow out. I ain't getting into this shit.

rmfr

Rohan M.'s picture
Why is that? I’m not

Why is that? I’m not disappointed or anything, I’m just curious.

arakish's picture
I am pro-choice. Tired of

I am pro-choice. Tired of getting into arguments why.

rmfr

Rohan M.'s picture
Yeah, same. I’m so goatdamn

Yeah, same. I’m so goatdamn tired of misguided people on the Religious Wrong constantly blathering about how atheists and feminists are because many of both groups are pro-choice- including myself (I am all three of those things- The Degenerate Trifecta.)

Rohan M.'s picture
As a profeminist and pro

As a profeminist and pro-choicer, I’ve got a pretty good argument for you:

A lot of the anti-choice arguments seem to imply something that, from my POV, says a lot about their views on the humanity and dignity of women:

“An unborn fetus is not a woman’s body; she MUST carry it to term no matter what.”

So basically what this is implying is that when a woman gets pregnant (even if it was caused by rape), she is no longer a full human being. She is now a sacred baby factory, and must accept it. If she doesn’t want or can’t afford the child, then she still must go through the pain for nine months, because then she owes some random couple a baby.

It’s also worth noting that in anti-choice propaganda, you will find that they often demonize feminism, and in fact, it is not at all uncommon to see many a “men’s rights activist”/“redpiller“ bitch about abortion and how it helps teh feminazis do a “male gendercide”. What do you think all of that says?

Nyarlathotep's picture
If you don't own your own

If you don't own your body, you are a slave, IMO.

Meepwned's picture
@Rohan Thanks for supplying

@Rohan Thanks for supplying your argument.

I find the idea of the fetus not being a separate body from the mother intriguing. My reasoning faculties tells me that there is no clear separation between the fetus and mother, yet I find that conclusion unsatisfactory.

Perhaps it's the fact that I do not like hearing about humans dying. Although, would a fetus classify as a human? Before it's nervous system develops, it's basically a clump of cells with an anus.

Cognostic's picture
The separation issue you

The separation issue you mention is why I have a problem with abortion as birth control. I agree that a blasphemous is potentially a living being. My issue is bringing a living being into the world unloved and unwanted, addicted to drugs or worse. Churches and God are NOT GOING TO HELP! A mother who treats her children as a burden and the substance of all her problems is NOT A JOY TO BE AROUND. I know this for a fact.

TRUE STORY TIME:
Can you imagine being a child of 7, (No father in the house - different story) being dragged on a bus to the with a 5 year old brother and a 3 year old sister in tow. (Not one of the worst stories but one that should make my point clear.)

I recall every active minute of the encounter that ensued. We entered this building that looked like something from the MIB movie. A guard was sitting in a wooden chair in an empty room, There was a door at the back of the room, opposite the one we entered. dark wood paneling all around, and a small window to the left, the kind you pay bills at that slid open like a small sliding door.

My mom banged on the window until someone opened it. There was some discussion about the welfare check and $300 not being enough for three kids. Then all hell broke loose. Cursing, swearing, "Take these fucking kids!" "I not taking care of them any more." "I'm going to leave them here." "Put them in homes, I don't care." and this went on for at least 15 minutes. No voice of sanity came from the window. My sister, too young to escape the grip of mom's hands, was slung about like a boat on rough seas as the barrage of slanderous insults continued towards the open window. Then the window was simply shut. That's it. Nothing more. No one came out of the little door. Nothing. The guard had stood but did nothing but look. The new and sudden but new empty silence of the room was deafening. Mom jerked my sister out the front door and not knowing of anything else to do, my brother and I followed.

I endured emotional abuse at the hands of my mother for 2 more years but had the strength to disown her when I was 9. No one knows why some kids survive but I was the lucky one. My brother and sister have been in and out of prison and strung out on drugs their entire lives. Everything from kidnapping to B and E. I ended up with 2 university degrees, teaching credentials, a psychotherapist license, and the ability to travel the world. Go figure. No child should be raised by a parent that does not want it. It is a horrible place to begin life. I am in 100% agreement with any mom who is not ready and willing to have a child, to ADMIT HER MISTAKE, and go ahead and have the abortion. I have no EMPATHY at all for a woman who uses abortion as a form of birth control. THAT IS THE PEAK OF IRRESPONSIBILITY. A blasphemous does have the potential for human life. Abortion is a SERIOUS choice. And the choice to abort should be made for a GOOD REASON. Ending a life before it gets started to an unloving or nonsupporting environment, is in my book an act of mercy. IT IS THE WOMAN'S BODY AND THE WOMAN'S LIFE. SHE GETS TO MAKE THE CHOICE. A woman who acts irresponsibly, on the other hand, probably needs psychological or medical help. An abortion is not a small thing, It is not like a trip to the dentist to remove a tooth.

AND IF YOU ARE GOING TO POST - WELL YOU TURNED OUT OKAY - SERIOUSLY Don't go there.
It's the ole,. You just killed Einstein BS.

arakish's picture
And I agree with the idea of

And I agree with the idea of "abortion as a form of birth control." That is when my stand on pro-choice is just plainly abused. Even in the long run, the pill is cheaper. And if I am not mistaken, if the pill cannot be afforded due to low income, then it is free. Of course I could be wrong.

The one thing really raises my hackles is the Christians view of a woman being nothing more than a baby factory and a house slave. That is abominable in my viewpoint.

I quit before I go off on a rant like LogicFTW.

rmfr

LogicFTW's picture
Woah on what happened to you

Woah on what happened to you Cognostic.

General nod of respect towards you that you were strong enough to make a real life for yourself despite the difficulty being stacked against you.

Rohan M.'s picture
Well, IMHO the fetus is only

Well, IMHO the fetus is only it’s own human being once it’s viable (meaning that it has a realistic chance of surviving if born prematurely). The conservative may claim that there’s something “sacred” or magical about “every potential life”, but this is unscientific, and it also falls flat because not everyone believes in their imaginary sky fairy.

LogicFTW's picture
@Rohan M.

@Rohan M.

Agreed.

My way too long post from a week ago or so touched on this as well.

When a "human being" is a human being that gets the full rights of a human being, and more rights to a mother's womb then the mother has of her own womb/body is a point of opinion. Their is solid arguments for when a human being is indeed a human being all along the spectrum, while most people's opinions fall somewhere from point where a sperm successfully enters a viable egg, to the point of natural birth, it is just that, opinion. No one should be able to force their opinion of what is human or not over the opinion the mother that is carrying the potential human within her own body. Certainly not old men that historically decided what is human or not instead of the woman carrying the potential human.

However, something does happen along the process, a new option appears, there is a point of viability where a new option becomes increasingly available, a mother can choose to no longer carry a baby, but the baby can survive without the mother (but will still need a lot of help to survive to the point it is self sufficient!). In this scenario with a new option the mother can claim back the right of her own body without killing the baby. I think just about all of us can agree a healthy fetus 22-40 weeks (depending on availability of an advanced modern NICU) has a very good potential to be a full on human being, without the mother's body. No longer is it an argument of a woman's right to her own body versus the rights of a potential human being, since just about all of us hold human life or potential human life as something worth protecting, we can save this potential life if we so wish. And we probably should if it is reasonable. Someone's opinion that the the 22+ week old baby deserves a shot at life can be realized without overriding a woman's right to her own body and those that feel that way can share the burden of the cost/resources to raise this potential human being to the point that the human is self sufficient (usually a 2 decade or so process these days.)

Meepwned's picture
@Cog Well, you turned out

@Cog Well, you turned out okay.

Sorry, had to take the bait. It is, indeed, a big choice and should not be taken lightly. My biological mother is mentally challenged. My biological father is also mentally challenged. I haven't met them, as I was adopted shortly after birth. I have 3 biological sisters. One is clinically mentally retarded, one is, in my eyes, extremely delusional, as she believe any fictional story she thinks up, and the youngest is probably as normal as me. I do have quirks about me, that suggests the mental challenges my biological parents had.

My adoptive parents are older and have been happily married for over 40 years. They have been foster parents for about the same amount of time. I've had about 400-500 kids go through my home, while growing up. I know plenty about parents that should not have had children.

From an objective point of view, my biological mother should have had plenty of abortions. However, each birth resulted in better and better societally adjusted individuals each time. I cannot see where the abortions should have stopped, because both of my biological parents were unable to take care of me or my siblings.

As a person that grew up in a foster home, but was adopted, I have a bias towards giving kids a fighting chance. My bias causes me to not want any abortions to happen, unless it saves lives or rape.

However, I support abortion in a manner similar to you, as I have no logical reason not to.

arakish's picture
@ Meepwned

@ Meepwned

Everyone has mental challenges. I have ADHD as long as I can remember. My mind races at FTL. Sometimes I think this is why I get migraines. My mind races so fast that eventually it can't go on any longer and needs a break. I also had a very hard time understanding humor. I could never believe the Bible or any religion. However, me dad solved that problem when he told me my mind is like a computer and nothing logical or irrational did not compute. It was not until I was married and me wife helped to explain humor that I finally got it.

In a way, I kind of agree with the whole mentally challenged persons not having children. However, there is no correlation between that and producing children that are also mentally challenged. It is more likely; however, I have seen where two mentally challenged persons actually produced children that were exceptionally intelligent. As a child, across the street and three houses down to the right, there was a couple who were both considered to be "mentally retarded" (the label of those times), but their three children were as intelligent as I was, but also more capable of understanding humor than I was. Genetics is a fickle finger.

On the flip side, I have read stories of two persons who were considered to be geniuses, yet they produced children that were mentally challenged. A fickle finger.

rmfr

Rohan M.'s picture
I agree with Arakish. I have

I agree with Arakish. I have ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder), and because of this, I find it very difficult to pay attention to what others say verbally, and it is especially troublesome when I’m working at school or paying attention to my homework after school without medication.

However, I have reason to believe that my ADD might have helped me escape religion, because during Sunday indoctrination classes at church, I had a hard time paying attention, and when I later realized what was being taught, I was surprised. However, when I saw some anti-abortion and anti-atheist propaganda on the Internet about 2 and a half years ago, I did become more brainwashed by them- but only because they were visual- not auditory.

Randomhero1982's picture
Ive always found this to be

Ive always found this to be one of the toughest conversations to approach...

Although I don't agree nor subscribed to the new wave of screeching feminism that is offended at every single thing you can imagine,
I do completely agree with equal rights and equal opportunity... furthermore, i would never dream of telling my fiancee what she can or cannot do with her body.

However, I'm equally torn as we have two children and the happiness and joy they give me is unrivalled.

We had a 4D scan at 26 weeks and no one can tell me that is not an independent life.
I could see our unborn child I'm both occasions reacting to music, speech, light... and strangely, a well placed ice pack on their mother tummy.

I totally agree in cases of rape, emergency where the mother's health is in question and so fourth...

But damn, it's a tough, tough subject to tackle.

SecularSonOfABiscuitEater's picture
Meep not everything is so cut

Meep not everything is so cut and dry. You can support feminism without joining a feminist movement. You have the ability that we all do, to see what is right from wrong. Oh and by the way, a father should be able to voice an opinion to appeal to a mother's decision. And that's all it should be. A conversation before an educated decision is made. The man has no power in this decision because his body will not be the one at stake.

Rohan M.'s picture
I concur with SSoaBE. Given

I concur with SSoaBE. Given that from what I could gather you are obviously for women’s rights, you’d already qualify as a profeminist by some standards if you were to take a test for that kind of thing.

For more info on feminism according to the perspective of feminists themselves, please refer to this article (which btw I might have helped write myself): https://www.rationalwiki.org/wiki/Feminism

Spectre of Marxism's picture
But why is it so important to

But why is it so important to be specifically "pro-feminist"? You could just bypass the label entirely and be egalitarian humanist. I don't think its a problem if he doesn't feel like supporting it as a movement. Feminism isn't the only way to progressive politics, its a mere component; disposable and not a particularly good one at that.

CyberLN's picture
Well, feminism is a very

Well, feminism is a very specific subset of humanism. It advocates for gender equality. It focuses on a quite prevalent and preventative social issue. We can better move toward gender equality if we advocate, specifically, for the rights of this under-represented, under-valued, under-privileged group of people. Are you also resistant to a focus on other groups that are marginalized? When we talk about any group (in this case, women) who are not on equal footing, why is it inappropriate to use the word that best describes it (in this case, feminism)?

Spectre of Marxism's picture
Not all feminism is humanist;

Not all feminism is humanist; I would say that feminism is its own school of thought which in some areas overlaps with humanism. But there are branches which are divorced from humanism. However the main thrust of my argument is that feminism isn't a *necesary component* of humanism, that humanism can do just fine without it. And yes, I'm a very, very staunch opponent of identity politics and what is commonly dubbed as "intersectionality" - I'm definitely not a fan and consider these ultimately harmful ideas that warrant opposition.

Proper humanist egalitarianism doesn't work with sub-groups, it works with a universal principle of human equality and then regards human beings as such. Its not the equality of group X with group Y; its the equality of a human being to another. The introduction of "groups" based on identity or some other notion disfigures this framework, it robs it of its substantive content.

CyberLN's picture
Well, I think your stance may

Well, I think your stance may appear noble but not realistic. I absolutely concur that all of us should embrace the universal principle of human equality. Where we likely diverge is in which is a successful methodology to get there.
If I understand you correctly, it seems you support the idea that this universal principle can be reached directly. I disagree. I think it will take incremental, focused steps. For instance, if person thinks a particular group is less intelligent or are bad drivers, or are all greedy, are you implying that it is ineffective to address that specifically, that it should be addressed only at, well, a species level?

Spectre of Marxism's picture
Yes, that is the idea which I

Yes, that is the idea which I support. The means by which this is reached is the abolition of capitalism, but I will not go into great detail about this because it is slightly beside the point. The better way for me to respond would not be to present alternatives but to undermine the point you make (no doubt in good faith): that incremental steps by disparate groups will lead to any kind of unification of human interests in common equality. I think that there's very good reason to doubt this.

The very moment feminism declares itself "femin-ism", it takes a step backwards, not forwards, from the humanist position. It should go without saying that same applies to "masculin-ism"; these no longer orient around the notion of human species as a whole, and over generations the ideology that develops around these labels will rally behind the object of the -ism (here, the feminine, the women) instead of the greater species and their common equality. The movement over time (no matter how noble its original goals would be) becomes fixed around the central object of the -ism.

All -isms follow this basic notion. Communism (the ideology/framework of the communal society); capitalism (the ideology/framework of capital accumulation); humanism (the ideology/framework of the human agency and being); egalitarianism (the ideology/framework of the equal relations); theism and atheism (the ideology/framework of the belief or nonbelief in god); etc. etc.

This is due to the very basic way by which the human mind works. And, there's absolutely no reason to expect that a framework that identifies itself as feminism (the ideology/framework of the feminine, the female) would lend itself into a movement of common human equality and well-being. Be honest - you would not lend this credit to a movement calling itself "masculinism". And why would you? It should be obvious what the true loyalty of movement calling itself such is. The question is...why would you allow feminism to play by different rules?

I say that feminism is fundamentally based upon a false consciousness, at best, and at worst its dishonest about its true goals.

As for the notion that this isn't a realistic viewpoint, the USSR could do well without needing to invoke the ghost of feminism. And while the Soviets obviously had their flaws, especially during the Stalin era, it was not necessary to have a feminist movement to achieve equality among citizenry. The reason why they were able to change their society so radically from the Czarist era was precisely that they struck at the root of the problem, the base structure of society which gave form to the superstructure and its various lesser oppressions.

CyberLN's picture
I suspect Pussy Riot would

I suspect Pussy Riot would disagree with much of your last paragraph.

Spectre of Marxism's picture
Pussy Riot emerged in 2011;

Pussy Riot emerged in 2011; USSR ceased to exist in 1991, and had already lost its proper socialist character in latter half of 1980s. I don't see the connection between this anti-Putin group, which honestly seems to be rather bourgeois anyway, and the point I made about the USSR.

But I take the brief character of your response as a provisional sign that you either agreed with or were unable to refute the remainder of my previous post. Feel free to prove me wrong on that assumption though.

CyberLN's picture
Naw, I don’t agree with you.

Naw, I don’t agree with you. Probably never will. The impasse is obvious, tho, and there are other ways I prefer to spend my limited energy.

Spectre of Marxism's picture
Well, can you at least

Well, can you at least provide a brief summary on your disagreement with my points? No need to get super lengthy about it. In the spirit of decent debate?

Meepwned's picture
@Roman While I am for

@Roman While I am for equality of all genders, but I still take issue with calling myself feminist. I would use egalitarian, but it runs into the same issues I wish to avoid.

Thanks for the link. It was a good read.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.