Wtf Meghan Murphy

No idea how many of the posters here are American, but I find her pronouncements on our politics tedious, much like I did KJK's chiding us not voting Trump. You must have quite the privilege for gender woo to be the only women's issue impacting your life.

JD Vance is misogyny on steroids and is fine with 10 year old girls carrying their rapists babies. He also mocks women who don't have children as "cat ladies."

I'm a feminist and American and im voting Kamala Harris.

MM, sweetie, we US rad feminists aren't in need of counsel on what to do with our vote. Most of the US feminists I know will go blue in November. Enjoy your margaritas in Mexico, we're busy in the US with many women's issues, not just the insanity of trans (which is polling poorly and I've noted not one mention of it in VP Harris's campaign issues).

Not in Europe. Which is presumably where we are talking about. There are no third-trimester 'abortions' in Europe, they are all planned early inductions for one reason or another.

However, allowing abortion to the point of birth may impact on ethnic minorities now in Europe, especially in the region of sex-selective abortions (which some feminists support on the grounds that it helps the mothers of these unborn daughters!). In the UK, currently, sex-selective abortion is illegal except in the case of some hereditary conditions which are sex-linked. I would like that to remain the case.

Well, no, but I'm not clear why that matters. All kinds of things are unusual occurrences, but still regulated.

But whether they should be permissible, or not, is another question. Maybe better to have a law with a reasonable time limit - and outwith that only in very specific types of circumstance, and that would be a medical decision, rather than a matter of personal 'choice'.

which is why i said "unlikely" and not never. But it's not a common occurrence to have 3rd trimester abortions.

I'd list the reasons for abortion, I think. e.g. rape, incest, mother too young to be carrying a child (i.e. under 14, perhaps); mother mentally incapable i.e. has severe special needs so that she does not understand what is happening to her (this is probably covered by rape/incest as well); baby unable to live a meaningful life, i.e. severely disabled (not for club foot, cleft palette, spina bifida, Downs' Syndrome etc.); anencephaly and other conditions which mean the child will die painfully within hours of birth; death of child in utero; danger of sepsis in mother; arrested miscarriage where child is no longer viable (if this is what the mother wants, obv.); need for invasive treatment of mother that is urgent e.g. treatment for cancer, where this will affect the unborn child (if this is what the mother wants - many women wait as long as possible so that the child has a chance to survive); need for treatment of child which cannot be done whilst still in the womb. I have not included ectopic pregnancy since this is not an abortion, but a medical procedure.
Those listed that would happen in the third trimester (e.g. for surgical reasons, treatment of the mother etc.) are not abortion, of course, but induced labour expecting that the child will be born alive and can survive. Removal of a child that has died/will iminently die in utero is also not abortion, but a surgical procedure to save the life of the mother.
With this list, there is no real need to have a cut-off point, though one meets problems with rape/incest victims and underage girls, who may not realise/may be in denial of pregnancy, which might go over a 22/24 week limit. That would need careful legislation, but not case-by-case decisions (way to cause a real mess in a Common Law country).

I keep remembering how they were pushing needles into baby girl's fontanelles at birth in China, to murder them at birth because they wanted boys.

I would too because it's the lesser of two evils. But those are not the only choices.

But where are you getting this idea from?

History, including recent history, is full of examples of people getting that far, or through birth itself, and attempting abortion or killing infants. There are whole societies that insisted imperfect infants be murdered or exposed. People are capable of all kinds of things.

There are cases where people only belatedly find they are pregnant, or due to youth, mental illness, or outside pressures, they do not take steps to deal with a pregnancy until it is far too late.

There are people like Kermit Gosnell - clearly a psychopathic horror, but where do you think the women who came to him came from?

I don't know if you are really naive, or lacking in imagination, or what.

😆 Tinsel this absolutely killed me! You win the thread

Don't dismiss this course of action out of hand.

VAWG, FGM, pregnancy health care are all tied up with the trans agenda. Women have been called bigots for suggesting that FGM only affects women and girls, or, since trans surgery requires what amounts to FGM for 'transmen, that they are transphobic.
The transagenda is homophobic, particularly affecting Lesbians, since it replaces same sex attraction with same gender attraction (i.e. a Lesbian should be attracted to a Trans identified man and is a bigot if she's not), and misogynistic, with the intention of taking all the gains women have had from them and replacing them with 'gender segregated' sports, prizes, lavatories (the urine leash, very important) etc. So, yes fighting the transagenda is more important than fighting the rest, because if it is not fought, the rest of women's rights and protections are gone.

She did not know she was pregnant. It had not occurred to her because she was a 'man'. Stupid is stupid, I guess.

Someone up-thread asked if MM was refering to herbal abortifacients in her X post. I think she is. This is a left-over, I think, of the fairly hippy end of second-wave feminism. Use of them is dangerous, however, and not to be recommended. Homeopathy has its place, but that place is not in home-made abortions.

Knowing Trump anyone who sucks up to him is in his favour.
Many if not most of the leading Tras are rampant misogynists and Incels.
They will be right up his street, and frankly I've always suspected Trumps tendencies...

Why does it have to be either or?
The first issue affects every woman on the planet and all childbearing aged women in the US.
The tide is turning via courtcases. The sane thing to do is vote for the goverment that wont destroy the first and continue the work to change it.
And has it ever occured that if Trump targets LGBTQ that will turn them into martyrs and strengthen their cause sense of martyrdom, give them massively more support, and make it even more dangerously blackmarket than it is?

I dont trust either the motivation or the logic and imagination of whomever is pushing this line via their platforms.
I think its incredibly dangerous for women and society and unthought out.
Imagine the impact of millions and millions more unwanted children on a society that either doesnt care or cant look after them. And the poor women, often just children so many the victims of rape and incest, its UNBELIEVABLY CRUEL to women and will alter their lives and prospects irretreivably.

But it is a hot topic to stir division and aquire more followers and donations on Youtube.

Actually it feels more like trying to discuss complex issues with someone who just flies in and slaps down a dead kipper and runs.

Nice summary of why I have given up engaging with OP.