Wtf Meghan Murphy

[CassieMaddox]

A feminist I used to really admire, deciding pussy grabbing, porn loving, convicted felon Trump and his misogynistic, fickle, anti abortion, running mate Vance are the best choice for American women.

https://x.com/MeghanEMurphy/status/1814817323754381763

Feminists/'feminist' men keep insisting to me that @JDVance1 is a misogynist who wants to 'take away women's rights' yet Trump/Vance are the only choice if we wish to restore women's sex-based rights in America (never mind the fact that Vance is anti-p*rn). I am not a fan of letting the government have any say over what women do with their bodies, but 'abortion rights' have for decades been used as a pawn in political games, and women keep letting themselves be played.

Voting Democrat solely because they'll let you have an abortion while they allow all the rest of our sex-based rights to be destroyed seems unwise to me. Women need to take their bodily autonomy into their own hands imo — this means we need to learn about and educate other women about their bodies and reproductive system, so we aren't relying on the government to dole out hormonal birth control (which is HORRIBLE for us) and dictate our reproductive choices. It's far from an ideal situation, but I resent being told I must vote for a party that can't even define the word 'woman' because they'll allow women to have abortions. That gives me the icks and should give you the icks as well.

I don't believe we should be handing over our power to governments, and the more we understand about our own bodies, the power of food/herbal medicine, the less we need to rely on the state or the medical establishment to allow us bodily autonomy and pretend to be invested in our health and wellbeing.

I do think we should fight against anyone/any laws that tell us what we may or may not do with our bodies, but the Democrats are not the party of body sovereignty either, so I'm not sure why women give them that credit.

I'm not sure what's going on with her but this is a huge shock. Very glad I'm not in the States right now.

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

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.

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

😆 Tinsel this absolutely killed me! You win the thread

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.

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

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'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).

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

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'.

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

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.

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).

"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."

I don't think the parents whose kids are barreling down the gender path to being a lifelong medical patient while people like Harris cheer them on feel it's a trivial issue. Dismissing their concerns sure looks priviledged.

So which parents have it worst? The mom of the 10 year old girl who's been raped and cant get an abortion or the mom of the 15 year old girl who's been emancipated so she can get her breasts cut off? Both suffer, IMO but MM telling us JD Vance and Trump is the better choice, especially as she is a citizen of a country where she can get an abortion is very much a privileged position. She's cherry picking her most important issue and telling us which way to choose, when she has no skin in the game.

For me, an American voter?I just don't think there's any way to square "women's rights" with voting for the GOP in this election regardless of how I felt about trans rights.

It's so, so much more than abortion. Yes, there's a wing of the GOP that wants to restrict access to contraception (enforcement of the Comstock Act, banning IUDs) and restrict divorce. But it is much more than that. GOP policies restrict the right of women to sue for discrimination and harassment. They impede all women's health care in states that ban abortion because gynaecologists don't want to work there and there isn't a clear line between abortion and miscarriage care; they use many of the same procedures. Doctors are afraid to treat women with unviable pregnancies. Increased demand from illegal states impacts the availability of care in others. Some of them want to ban IVF (a move that backfires every time they try but it doesn't stop them!) Failure to expand Medicaid means that maternal and neonatal mortality rates are higher and women with chronic health conditions go untreated: look up health outcomes for different states to see how this plays out. The GOP opposes maternity leave and child care. Some of them tried to stop re-authorisation of the Violence Against Women Act. Some are so pro-Second Amendment they think proven domestic abusers should retain the right to own a gun. (Thank God, the Supreme Court ruled that they can be stripped of that right.)

I simply can't look at all of that and say, "Well, stopping gender ideology is more important." They think feminism is gender ideology. Their motivations aren't anything to do with protecting women and girls; it's merely an extension of their desire to control women's bodies.

Also, if I had concerns about aspects of trans care, I would find it far more worthwhile and effective to lobby the AAP, who write the guidelines. State legislatures have a terrible history of writing bad law. Some of the legislators don't even understand basic anatomy; it's an embarrassment.

I agree with your analysis here.

A lot of the GOP lot seem to want to go after no-fault divorce as well. NFD literally saves women's lives.

Reports coming in that Kamala has asked JB Pritzker to be VP.

At least they are saying the quiet bit out loud now.

Democracy and the transfer of power is also at risk. Which, IMO, is greater even than feminism as an issue. I'd accept a conservative government (say if Mitt Romney or Liz Cheney ran), but that's not what Trump or Vance want - the first wants a monarchy, the second a theocracy.

What reports? I've not seen any that she's decided on Pritzker. Last report in NYTimes as of today didn't even list him.

Three people close to the campaign, who were not authorized to talk publicly, say that five people are under serious consideration: Governor Shapiro, Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona and Govs. Roy Cooper of North Carolina, Tim Walz of Minnesota and Andy Beshear of Kentucky. But that list, they warn, remains in flux.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/24/us/politics/harris-vice-president-search.html

There's been rumours flying for days. Pritzker was certainly on the shortlist, but not one of the top ones. He does not have huge appeal for swing state voters. He does have a ton of money, but that has its own downsides.

He also has a very prominent brother who goes by the name of Jennifer, and whose family fortune is very 'influential'.