I fail to get why being against abortion makes one sexist

Post Reply New Topic

Transmen can already get pregnant and their existence doesn't change whether or not banning access to abortion services is sexist.

Well I don't think that is the only reason. There is that factor but it can be sexist in the way of not letting the woman choose to get an abortion...like it's sexist because it's taking away the right to choose from women as others outside the women in question should make the decision about their pregnancy. As if a woman can't make the decision themselves.

But I guess that is an interesting thought if both could get pregnant, not sure if the sexism factor would be as much of a thing. But if all the men could get pregnant to I figure some of them might change their tune on abortion if they got pregnant...

Well if some people against abortion are sexist towards women, then what is their motivation for being against it more specifically? Just because they do not like women and nothing more? There has to be more specific motivation than that doesn't there? And is this the government we are talking about here?

It's probably not simple misogyny like you describe, although there most certainly is some of that as well.

I'm sure some of them really do believe when they cry oh won't somebody please think of the children.

The only problem is that interfering with access or banning abortion effectively means that a portion of people are obliged to make their own interests subordinate to another persons, specifically they're forced to allow another person to occupy their flesh at significant cost (some of which are permanent) with potential for catastrophic negative outcomes.

It wouldn't matter the scenario, we'd never force a person to grant another person ongoing access to their body in any sort of analogous way. If we wouldn't do that for a person it's hard to argue that a non-person's rights should somehow be more important than a person's.

Sexist is the best term to use because of how it impacts AFAB people and not AMAB people but it would still be problematic if somehow the burden of carrying pregnancy was equally distributed. I agree with Sweetleaf when she suggests that if men also got pregnant throughout history that most people would be pro-choice because men wouldn't allow themselves to not be able to unburden themselves from unwanted pregnancies.

Oh okay, when you say that it is not simple misogyny like I describe but there is some of it in there, what is that misogyny that is in there particularly though? It just seems like there has to be a more specific motive other than that, "well these people who are wanting abortions are women, and therefore a part of me wants to give them a hard time about it, just because they are", unless there is more too it than that?

As far as people who are against abortion, they don't all oppose it for the same reason.

Not everyone thinks in the same depth, some people really do have simple motives when you question them, but those people probably aren't the majority

Actually, I know several hardcore pro-life women, including mothers.
It's really not that simple.
What I usually encounter: quite subtle ethical arguments weighting the good of a fetus vs their mother's get flooded in oversimplifications, largely correlated to group identity and political partisanship - and, sometimes, taking one's personal experiences for universal.

Which is sad because it leads to decisions that benefit no one, like what we recently had in Poland: we used to have about 1000 legal - usually damaged fetuses - and up to 200 000 illegal/"tourist" abortions per year. Does anyone really believe that making the law even more restrictive would save a single unborn life?
It's clearly political and it spawns tragedies.
But on the other hand - women who mourn after miscarriages and abortions for medical reasons are often met with dismissal and devaluation. That's another class of tragedies.

Really let's just be... responsible and supportive to real human stories.

Well, there is apparently a subset of the male human population with no greater fear - nay, *profound existential horror* - in life than the prospect of independent women who get to make their own decisions about their education, career and when - or if - to get married and have children.

But it takes waaaaaaay too long to mention this motivation all the time, so a lot of people usually just refer to it as "sexism" instead.

Oh okay, but why do men have a fear of that? What's so scary about women being independent as opposed to men?

We need a like button...

The curse of conceptual binarism.
To me, it is a sign of a limited intellectual capacity, over a certain age.
There are other factors involved, of course.



The curse of hyperpartisanship.
To me, it is a sign of a limited intellectual capacity, over a certain age.
There are other factors involved, of course.



Good luck with that.
I am too cynical to embrace such positivity, these days.
"Life" is a harsh teacher.

BTW, given the choice, I would have preferred myself being aborted, rather than an extended imprisonment in Stalag Earth.

Control, if they can dictate whether a woman gets an abortion or not then they have the control. Like taking away a persons decisions about their body can quite effectively put the mindset on them that they really are lesser.

I mean if you really want to get into some of the motivations, well there is religious stuff to. For instance I grew up christian and was taught things of like how women are more sinful because of that Adam and Eve story where she persuaded him to eat the forbidden fruit. And how having inconvieniece and pain with a period was a 'punishment' for the original sin of women. So Idk maybe the sexism factor comes more from religious ideas that women are like the more sinful sex and thus have to be put in check. Which yeah can seem to carry over to abortion where the government in this case wants to make the decision for women, as if they cannot like feel their own bodies and what is going on and decide for themself what they should do. And I mean many people opposed to abortion are not willing to adopt children and don't even care about wellbeing of children they just want to make a decision for someone else that they don't have to have a hand in. Like I wonder as like a thought experiment if it was required for anti abortion activists to adopt children, if some of them would change their tune about abortion due to not wanting the responsibility of parenthood.

The one thing that I do consider sexist about it, is that men and fathers don't have rights. For example if the woman wants to terminate she can do so, under the right conditions of course, without the father's consent. His voice doesn't matter because it's not his body. The fact that it's his child doesn't matter. He has to defer to the mother's wishes. In contrast if she chooses to keep the baby (again - possibly against his wishes or better judgment), he is expected to pay child support and / or coparent the child for 18+ years. Suddenly his role as a father counts. If he steps aside or doesn't want to parent, he's considered a deadbeat and insulted or even incarcerated for not participating. Either way, he has no say. I think it's very sexist against men that they're helpless either way, and their input doesn't seem to matter until it's time to pay support.

That's a good point. So maybe there is sexism against both men and women there, and it evens out in a way?

I'm not sure it can even out, so to speak, but yes, it does go in both directions. The father and the fetus might both have rights, but they can't be allowed to trump the mother's rights (in my view).