To think not everything is ‘misogyny’

[Cuppasoupmonster]

… and that the word is massively overused on here?

I’m getting quite tired of it if I’m honest, it feels like every other conversation the ‘misogyny’ card is whipped out and anyone who disagrees has ‘internalised misogyny’ (um no I just have a different opinion).

It’s becoming the ‘BeKind’ of feminism. Overused to the point it’s getting meaningless and irritating, and just used to ‘win’ any kind of nuanced topic without any proper discussion.

AIBU? 🤷🏼‍♀️

If the baby is conceived by rape, she thinks that the additional stress/emotional harm of carrying a rapist's baby "tips the scales", at least theoretically.

But she cannot know or measure the 'additional stress / emotional harm' of a woman who had consensual sex being forced to continue a pregnancy and give birth.

If someone gets pregnant after consensual an abusive partner and they want a termination because he has threatened to harm her during pregnancy and so they aren't tied to that abuser for at least 18 years... would she theoretically agree with that termination? Presumably yes?

If a 17 year old in care gets pregnant after consensual sex, has no family support or other support network, will fall through the cracks in the system due to not being 16 and under and not being 18 or over, and was due to attend university to escape that situation... would she theoretically agree with that termination? Presumably yes?

You see this is why on a human rights level, access to abortion needs to be universal. Because having a grey area (ok for rape and incest, not ok for others) means that the rights of women are being judged on their 'merit' and that is not a workable solution when it comes to women's rights.

That was meant to say:

If someone gets pregnant after consensual sex with an abusive partner...

Again.

No one said they didn't understand it.

Just that they disagree with it and that it is an inherently mysoginist pov.

She also said she was undecided about rape. Not that it tipped the scales.

It also completely ignores the actual harm forced pregnancy does to women and children

@niceduvet 's position is perfectly coherent if you are looking at abortion law as a balance of competing interests rather than an inherent right to bodily autonomy.

Aside from the fact that niceduvet doesn't even have a coherent opinion from point of view of looking at abortion law as a balance of competing interests as Lola points out, any position that doesn't give the woman complete control over her choices is quite simply misogynistic.

When you are asking society to place a value on a woman's bodily autonomy you take agency away from that woman. There is only one kind of person that harms.

There is only one kind of person that harms

No actually there are 2 there are also the unwanted babies potentially born into poverty or to be born to be put up for adoption. I don't see forced birthers like niceduvet providing the solution to that either.

@lifeturnsonadime
any position that doesn't give the woman complete control over her choices is quite simply misogynistic.

I strongly disagree with this as a principle as I outlined a couple of pages ago.

yubgummy that's your right.

Just as it is mine to think the opposite. But out of interest what is your solution? Because once you take away complete control, once you limit women's autonomy on this, then you are forcing some women to give birth against their will. That seems about as un-feminist a position as is possible.

These past what is it 10 pages? are a classic example of what the OP was talking about. Some posters are against abortion and they clearly state the reasoning behind it. Whether you agree with that reasoning or not is no the point, but there is a reason and it's clearly not just to put women in their place.

Still there are other posters who insist that the only motivation is misogyny and that's it. Like talking to a brick wall, no matter the reason or thought, it has to be misogyny.

As the OP wrote, not everything is misogyny.

@Cloudz

That would be because the reasons are mysoginist

If you can prove they're not, let's hear it

If that was relevant to the question it should be legal to kill a newborn too if they were unwanted or destined to a life of poverty. But that's not the case. Clearly from the second we recognise the baby as a human being it becomes illegal to kill it. Which means the entire argument hinges on when we should recognise the foetus as a human.

Whether you agree with that reasoning or not is no the point, but there is a reason and it's clearly not just to put women in their place

But what else does forced births do, other than put women in their place?

The reason that you consider a foetus to be a human being has nothing to do with misogyny. I'm not interested in rehashing the debate of the last 10 pages whether it is or isn't a human. Just pointing out that it's not misogynistic.

Of course the unwanted children born as a result of forcing women to give birth against their will are relevant to the question of whether it is appropriate to force a woman to give birth.

There is not just one victim. The forced birthers prefer to ignore this fact.

It doesn't allow the killing of an unborn just to suit someone's convenience. You can argue whether it's considered killing or aborting, ie whether the foetus is a human being or not, but if it is the argument for not killing it is very strong.

We wouldn't allow an actual mother to just dump her baby in the park for convenience, and we'd expect her to bring it to safety (lets say a hospital) before abdicating responsibility. In this case safety means the culmination of he pregnancy.

I'm not arguing that this is correct because I can see the other side too. What I'm pointoing out is that the entire argument rests on the status of the foetus and is not in any way anti women.

What I'm pointoing out is that the entire argument rests on the status of the foetus and is not in any way anti women.

Removing the autonomy of women over their bodies and FORCING them to give birth against the women is not in any way anti women?

Give over.

Your argument is complete and utter rubbish.

@Cloudz

No one has discussed the foetus being human.

It definitely is.

That has nothing to with a womans rights being removed being mysoginist.

You're creating a strawman and then declaring everyone else wrong because you don't understand the argument

They have none of the physical consequences, no additional risks to their mental health from the pregnancy and birth, no risk of ongoing trauma, no time spent on reduced allowances (maternity pay isn't very high after all), no time out of their career, no worrying about fitting a job around the children, no worrying about unpaid leave when the children are unwell, no hits to their pension contributions, and get to maintain their earnings and earning potential
And this is a typical misandry comment. Men very much do suffer mental health in these circumstances. My dad dated a lady after I was born who got pregnant after an 'accident'. One that wasn't because in an argument later, she acknowledge that she didn't care about him and just used him to have a child.

Anyway, a few months after the child was born, she moved away with the child and refused contact. My dad made the choice not to pursue it through the court because he believed she would never adhere to any court decision, but it affected him a lot and for a long time. It affected our relationship, it affected his job. He certainly didn't just turn the page and got in with his life.

Yes, she took the burden of raising a child alone but SHE got what she wanted in exchange, the love of a child and fulfillment being a mum. My dad just got the shit. No love but plenty of guilt and regrets. No pregnancy would have been a much better outcome for him.

I disagree - the foetus has the potentiual to become a human being when all necessary conditions are met. A woman having a termination is removing those conditions, so that potential future no longer exists, but no one was killed.

I can see what @Cloudz is saying - from a religious/moral perspective that a foetus is a life unjustly taken - but I disagree because I think valuing the life and rights of an existing woman/girl as less important than the right of a foetus to be carried to term is an inherently misogynistic position. It views women's value as gestational vessels as as more significant than their value as human beings.

@Cloudz there is a theoretical moral argument to have about souls and the value of human life but in practice, we can see what happens in the real world when women are denied access to abortion. Women die. Women suffer horrific injuries and health complications. Women's mental health is destroyed. Women are imprisoned for experiencing miscarriage and stillbirths. Women's life opportunities are reduced, their outcomes are poorer and they are impoverished. Doctors in hospitals deny them life saving treatment and condemn them to drawn out lingering deaths for the sake of foetuses that have no chance of survival. If you ban abortion, you harm women. You can see the evidence of that everywhere that abortion is severely restricted and banned. So to oppose women's right to abortion is absolutely a misogynistic stance. You might tell yourself it's driven by love of the unborn rather than hatred of women, but if you choose to inflict all of the above on women then I can't see how you can convince yourself it isn't misogyny.

@InsertPunHere

It has the potential to life.

It's always human.

OK, @Topgub , I agree it's human in the way my hair is human hair not cat hair etc.

But I said human being. You know, a person. Because it's not, but it could become so in the right circumstances.

@InsertPunHere

Fair enough

The reason that you consider a foetus to be a human being has nothing to do with misogyny. I'm not interested in rehashing the debate of the last 10 pages whether it is or isn't a human. Just pointing out that it's not misogynistic.
They don't consider the foetus to be human though.
They consider the foetus to be human and precious in situations where a woman has had consensual sex, but then have said they're undecided on how they feel about abortions when the sex was not consensual. Women might or might not get a say in those situations, so consenting women who have sex are deemed to be consenting to a baby, even if they use contraception to try to prevent a pregnancy.

It would seem the difference in personhood and how precious the foetus is depends on whether a woman consents to sex or not. It's misogyny.

If someone said to me they were pro life, against abortion because of a sincerely held belief that life begins at conception, and they were actively in favour of measures that centre women and families, that address many of the reasons why women may wish to terminate (eg poor housing, discrimination at work, financial issues) and they also outlined how they feel those women and children could be adequately supported, then I'd fundamentally disagree with them, and still feel that forcing women to give birth is misogynistic, but would appreciate their position originates from a place about the sanctity of life from conception.

Any argument about forced birth that reduces the preciousness of a potential human life down to what someone thinks of a woman's sex life and starts to draw distinctions on the deserving/undeserving woman, the consenting woman and the non consenting woman, the moral woman and the immoral woman etc is not an argument about the sanctity of life. It's policing women.

You are not being unreasonable.

But being a victim is a popular trend so don't expect many to agree with you.

@BabyOnBoard90
This happened a couple of days ago too - a group of posters were having a relatively in-depth discussion on this thread, and then some clown plopped in with a pointless ‘you’re all wrong and women are stupid’ type comment. What’s the point?