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.

See, I read all this as ideology before humans.
There are barely any late terminations, most are TFMR.
What you suggest is forcing a woman to give birth to a child she doesn't want, and forcing the child to be given up for adoption or raised by a mum who doesn't want it. Both harmful to the child as well as the mother. That's if the child is healthy.
If its TFMR you are forcing the child to live what's likely to be a short, painful life full of medical procedures. For your ideology.

Bollocks to that. The whole argument is underpinned by misogynistic bullshit that capricious women will spend 8.5months pregnant before deciding they can't be arsed and then doctors will just merrily kill a healthy term foetus at their say so. It is a ridiculous argument and can only be spouted by someone who either has not engaged their brain or has never been pregnant.

To be fair, some late term terminations are genuinely for non medical reasons (in the States certainly, and probably here). The usual background is a chaotic lifestyle and unstable relationships (woman gets pregnant with a guy who is a dead loss and sometimes they are together and sometimes they are not, she then forms a relationship with a new guy who doesn't want her unborn baby etc. etc.). In some cases, a woman is obese and has PCOS and does not realise she is pregnant until very late in the pregnancy. Not saying this should be banned, necessarily, but I get why there is discomfort about abortion at these late stages.

(The information on the above type of abortion is from the Guttmacher Institute, which is the data wing of Planned Parenthood, by the way. I was also quite surprised when I read through the documentation.)

Yes I understand why people don't like it. Equally though I think why do you want to subject a child to that kind of parenting and where will that end?

Anyway its kind of irrelevant, as MM basically said making abortion illegal was a price worth paying so as to avoid another democrat presidency. Which is batshit. But some of the recent posts about her have been quite illuminating.

if not they are ticking every MAGA cult box...

Herbal medicine . Ah yes. Full spectrum conspiracy syndrome. See Russell Brand et al

it's so annoying a viewpoint because it's hardly only themselves they are affecting with their views.
Russell Brand was always a wrongun - he was just better at hiding it (because society didn't care about the disgusting things he did). It's a shame as i still quote his 'don't tell the daily mail' skit :(

Abortion up until birth is permissible in five U.S states. Abortion limits, in other states which permit abortion, vary from 6 weeks to 24 weeks - but more States permit abortion than do not.

Most of Europe has a time limit of 14 weeks. Britain and The Netherlands have the highest limit - at 24 weeks.

https://fullerproject.org/story/how-major-abortion-laws-compare-state-by-state-map/

Just imagine calling yourself a feminist and putting in power someone who locks women up in communal cells with convicted serial rapists resulting in many of them being raped and the rest living in fear of it, who makes it illegal for girls to object to getting undressed in front of men, who destroys women’s sports, who pushes the idea that women are merely a selection of harmful stereotypes?

@Alwaystired94
bold of you to sarcastically say ‘so feminist of you’ when i’m arguing against ‘feminists’ handing over women’s right to their body away

This
Absolutely topsy turvy upside down world on here with some.
It IS feminist to not want our reproductive rights and bodily autonomy taken away.
Yes, advocate taking away access to abortion which would affect people in abusive relationships, or just expect women to be able to "control" how many they have and just stop at two or whatever if they wanted as that's what Granny said they did in the 2Os said according to a pp.
Yes, because that sounds a completely foolproof plan 🙄😂
It's putting women back in the kitchen, tied to the house mentality. Keep them pregnant and they can't do anything about it
I remember a thread on here a while back where someone said "nobody's advocating for taking it away, though are they?
Yet here we are.
It's madness to say "we can give them away and then try and get them back after they've gone."
As if it'd happen like that.

^^
Agree! From a "feminist board" it really doesn't seem like it on here more and more so.

Well Cassie, I think it's because most people don't think it's ok to kill a child because the mum does not want it, or the household might not be ideal, or adoption might be in the cards.

Whether it's a late termination or infanticide immediately after birth, you are talking about an infant at the same stage, with the same capacities.

I wondered before, do you really not understand that if people are taught that it is morally ok to kill an infant at term, that many will believe it and it will happen - it's been quite common historically. Because it seemed like you believed that no one would ever do such a thing.

It seems that in fact you do understand that, you just think it's ok.

She didn't say that at all.

What she said was that she was not going to have the threat of abortion legislation held over her to determine her vote.

You are assuming such legislation is likely if Trump gets in, and not if the Democrat candidate gets in. MM is saying that isn't the case, it is an empty threat in this election, used for years by both parties to try and force women's votes.

You need to learn to read more carefully, it's a common theme that you miss half of what a writer has said.

Yes I really think it won't happen. Because our biology is such that women won't be pregnant for 8.5 months then capriciously decide they can't be arsed. It's a complete straw man though because barely anywhere allows unrestricted abortion up until term. And there is a vested interest from anti-abortion campaigners to focus on the extremes to restrict all rules. This is not my first rodeo and I really cba debating it with a pro lifer.

Do you really believe the only reason humans behave in certain ways is because they have been taught its morally correct? Seems a bit at odds with GC feminism. As in that case, surely a woman is just what she's taught to be.

i don't disagree with you, those things also are against women. I just can't see how you can call yourself a feminist and advocate for a proven predator in power who believes restricting womens access to healthcare is ok.

neither side in US politics is feminist friendly. It's dog shit.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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

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?