Wtf Meghan Murphy

Well that's lovely you know what is important to you. And other women have different priorities and perspectives.

I also wonder what you get out of these threads, you insist you're right and don't seem very interested in exploring or debating (rather than arguing against) other viewpoints. Do you want to educate others out of their wrongthink perhaps?

If that's the case I'm thinking of it's a bit more complicated. The transman actually told the staff that he was trans when he arrived although his medical records said he was a man.

He'd done a home pregnancy test which was positive and had wet himself, a nurse ordered a pregnancy test but there was no urgency and he later gave birth to a still born baby.

I mean surely a simple "I'm pregnant" there would have helped clear up that particular issue?

Sounds like the medical staff were spectacularly bad at their jobs

There is a real issue around removing sex-based language, which results in erasure of women. That erasure could/likely will have an impact on health care during pregnancy. I believe there has been one instance - US? - or a stillbirth because the labouring mother presented as a man and had male as her sex on her notes. That is dangerous. Lot's of medicine relies on knowing the sex (not the gender ID) of a patient. Words have consequences.

I feel late term abortion is not seen as a moral issue (unless it ends in infanticide, which is a criminal issue) but a medical one. No-one chooses to start labour early and bring a baby not quite ready into the world unless there is an emergency, either with the baby or the mother, e.g. life-saving surgery, cancer treatment, etc. And that would not be a late term abortion, but induction of labour to save lives.

Because it's extremely unlikely to get 8.5 months into a pregnancy and just think "oh i don't want this now". It's a non-issue.

If the options are abortions across the board or no abortions, i'll choose abortions across the board.

I doubt the US would cope with a real insurrection. For one thing they wouldn't recognise what it was.

I've always been in favour of a woman's right to acccess abortion. I have had two terminations myself; one at age 15, and one when already a single parent, age 23. Most women and girls access abortion in the first trimester. I think Europe has it about right with its limits ( in exceptional circumstances a pregnancy can be terminated outwith those limits).

There is somethingly profoundly disturbing about full term abortion, though..........and it is an incredibly provocative law. Also what is very provacative, and to my mind, ironically, very anti woman...and that is seeing crowds of people shouting " What do we want? Abortion. When do we want it - now" and waving banners saying " My body, my choice" As if abortion is something to be celebrated, rather than the often very painful and difficult choice when in very difficult circumstances, that it most often is.

This kind of feminism - that which seeks its goal in the eradication of the facts of female biology, the denial of female biology; of the worthiness and value of motherhood; which perceives pregnancy and childbirth to be the worst things that can happen to a woman - the source of all suffering and oppression - is not the sort of feminism I've ever related to.

My feminism is rooted in the facts of the female body, and in the reality of the female experience; which sees dignity and power in that experience, not in the eradication and denial of it.

My apologies, it was intended as clear feedback to you and as a recent example for others to demonstrate that you don't appear to think about how your arguments come across. To be clear and avoid another confusion, your arguments come across as poorly drafted and lacking in supporting evidence. And they are undermined by links that do not back up what you are saying. That does not result in a threat. It is unusual for an adult to decide in their own mind that they are a threat, then to write that down like it is a good thing, and post it with glee.

It is also unusual for an adult to boast about dismissing diverging viewpoints as being "in one ear, out the other". It comes across as you having zero intention of reflection, and totally lacking any ability to reflect on yourself and critically evaluate whether or not you've engaged and persuaded others. And that is the point of MN: to listen, to persuade and be persuaded, to read new materials and different views or approaches to various topics of discussion. That is why posters such as LangCleg and Barracker were so well regarded and why many of us learned such a lot from them.

It's unclear what you get out of posting here. Perhaps you would be better off in a closed WA or FB group, where people who offer different views or challenge you with evidenced arguments can be removed at will.

I feel a bit presumptuous answering because I don't really know what I'm talking about, I just sometimes listen in on people who are over-invested interested in U.S. politics.
As you say, in theory the Republicans are very small goverment. In practice they can't help invading third world countries which necessetates taxes and big government insitutions - defence related, but still big government in effect.
Trump lived up to the small government, swamp draining ideal by not being bellicose. (Formatting edit!!)

Are the Republicans ‘small state’? Do they prefer the American Government being limited in its interference in States (and the States in people’s lives). I mean in political practice rather theory?

yes I think that's right, @KielderWater
A decades long Mexican stand off.

I am not a U.S. constitutional lawyer by any stretch, but my understanding is that any state legislation which restricted abortion was technically in conflict with Roe v. Wade but noone ever challenged them so they didn't go to the Supreme court to be struck down (which they would have been, if my understanding is correct).

presumably it wouldn’t have been struck down though as the Supreme Court ruled Roe v Wade was wrong. Perhaps why the states weren’t challenged - because of that risk.

I am not a U.S. constitutional lawyer by any stretch, but my understanding is that any state legislation which restricted abortion was technically in conflict with Roe v. Wade but noone ever challenged them so they didn't go to the Supreme court to be struck down (which they would have been, if my understanding is correct).
Does anyone else think Murphy might be referring to herbal medicine abortifacents in the opening quote? I've read about them in feminist histories by never come across any women's lib group promoting them now.
Makes sense, from a libertarian feminist perspective.
Another nitpick, the GFC resulted in large part from the wild west deregulation done under Clinton. Certainly Bush jnr did nothing to stabilise the market but he didn't start the fire.

A termination at 8.5 months is a live birth. The baby is viable at that stage. You're discussing infanticide, not abortion, and I don't believe any doctor or clinic would do this for any reason other than medical. A baby born at that stage can be adopted if its parents cannot care for it.

I wasn't expecting it to be OK to terminate at 8 and a half months because the child might be subject to bad parenting.

It's this utter idiotic pandering to the left 'everyone must be free to do anything they want with their own bodies' that puts a fire under the right to put a stop to it. This is the cause of the polarisation, not a symptom.

We currently live in a society where late abortions are seen, mainly, as quite tragic, and also as having moral implications. Which is why the vast majority of places in Europe and the UK restrict them.

Do you not think that might have a lot to do with why they aren't particularly common?

That's not the position the activists mentioned earlier, who want to completely open up abortion at all stages, are taking.

If it is a moral issue, then there is good reason for both social norms and the law to address it. Just being uncommon doesn't mean that we don't address it if it is serious.

If it's not a moral issue, than expect people to act as if it's not a moral issue.

You are trying to have it both ways here.

Murphy is a Professor of Philosophy afaik, so intelligent. I believe she has thought about this carefully. Trans ideology, profoundly homophobic and misogynistic, is a threat to women the world over for it seeks to erase women, being a Men's Rights movement. That the Democrats espouse it is a problem for those who must choose between the VP, Kamala Harris, and Trump/Vance. Both sides are women-haters, though the Democrats hide it in a cloud of trans rights are human rights and TWAW and worry over abortion rights. Glad I do not have to make the choice - but then we have Starmer and his cohort of TRAs in the Labour Party.
In summary, abortion rights will be a pimple on a pig's bum if TRAs get their way, because all the rights women have fought for will disappear - they are sex-based and if sex is an illusion/colonial construct, there is no basis for enforcing those rights, nor any way to trace their abolition or their infringement.
Hold your nose and voter Trump, I think.

Roe V Wade was overturned under a democratic president and the VP now presumptive nominee. What did they do about it?

You are a slippery fish, I can't decide if it's unorganized thinking or you are purposefully trying to obscure what you are saying.

For example - saying both that it will never happen because people know it's bad, but it is ok if it does - and implying "because she can't be arsed" is the reason something like this would happen, and pretending that there aren't all kinds of other reasons that choices like that could be made, and on that basis accusing people of saying that women can't be arsed to care for their kids. (Although possibly some posters might have seen situations like that...)

Possibly you are uneducated enough that you don't realize that historically, infanticide was very common. In fact it's still common today in much of the world. And there are absolutely places where late term abortions happen because of pressures from society. If you think social norms don't have an effect on what people think and do, I don't know what to say really. I don't know why you'd think that jas anything to do with being GC.

It's interesting though, that for you anyone who doesn't support abortion to them is anti-abortion. It very much illustrates the point that the pp made about activists, which some were incredulous of. It is indeed a thing, even in the UK.

Only the extreme like to go on about "killing a child at 8.5months" . In reality, late terminations are not common. And those that do have them, will be done for health reasons and extreme circumstances.

Here are some useful facts to consider when it comes to the numbers, including this tidbit: The vast majority of abortions occur during the first trimester of a pregnancy. In 2021, 93% of abortions occurred during the first trimester – that is, at or before 13 weeks of gestation, according to the CDC. An additional 6% occurred between 14 and 20 weeks of pregnancy, and about 1% were performed at 21 weeks or more of gestation.

What the data says about abortion in the U.S. | Pew Research Center

But yes the pro-birth crowd love to go on about abortions at 8+ months because they know it's a shocking and emotive talking point. But they don't let facts get in the way do they?