I fail to get why being against abortion makes one sexist

Post Reply New Topic

I still wouldn't use the sexist, ideally. I just think the topic is extremely nuanced, and particular to each specific circumstance or each specific couple. I hate double standards where people talk about rights for one half of the world's population, and not the other. It's not men's fault they can't conceive. Likewise, a lot of people harass men by saying "You should have kept it in your pants", etc. as if pregnancy is always their fault. I'm not blaming either party of course, but it's not always "men's fault" and they don't deserve to be condemned when pregnancy happens.

Most contraception is designed for women to use on an honour system. The man has to trust that she took her pill, that she inserted a diaphragm, or used jellies, or got an IUD. How would he know? Also he has no clue where she's at in her cycle, or if she's ovulating. In contrast men have one method for birth control, and it's pretty obvious if he uses it or not. There isn't the same trust factor involved, or the same ability for men to pretend they're using birth control when they aren't. But somehow, society blames him if she gets pregnant? I just feel sorry for men in situations of consensual sex, and pregnancy.

I'm not vilifying anyone. I'm not saying men's rights matter more than women's. I'm just saying that this topic is really complex, and both parties suffer tremendously. It's not an easy decision to have a baby, or not to have a baby.

My brother is still grieving from a girlfriend's decision to abort about 30 years ago. He always wanted to be a father and he was willing to raise that child on his own if need be. It was the only time in his life he could have been a biological father. He ended up adopting a child five years later and he's been a single dad for 25 years now, willingly and on his own. I feel like society, in general, doesn't give enough credit to men of good character who would make excellent parents. Instead they're all trashed as bad people who shouldn't have a say whatsoever, unless a baby is born. (And then they pay).

FXE: Yup. I agree. To reiterate I still think women need to have the final say, and women need to have choice even if the choice is no. It's a matter of biology and it's unavoidable. But - I always try to see both sides of an issue.

Those are good points. What I don't understand though is why this abortion issue is such a big deal in the US when it's legal there. Therefore, how is it an issue compared to other countries in the world. Yet Americans keep complaining about it even though it's legal.

From what I understand they are trying to impose extremely unreasonable restrictions on the procedure, and deny more women their right to choice. I believe some of the states have already imposed these measures a few years ago. I remember debating about some of it on WP a year or two ago. I agreed that the laws weren't fair. There were also major inconsistencies between states, which I personally think is unconstitutional.

But have the states been successful at though, since it still seems legal? Or is it only legal in certain states now?

I have no idea, to be honest. I'm not American and it's not something I research. Normally I won't even debate this topic because it's very personal to me, and I know I can get triggered. Something about the OP question drew me in this time.

I think the word "sexist" is often overused by people who don't appreciate more complex issues.

I'd say there's also a matter of people using imperfect vocabulary to avoid going off on other rabbit holes clarifying what they mean. NTs speak like NTs and anyone who isn't still ends up mirroring their vocabulary because it's easy to assume everyone is on the same page in terms of vocab. Sometimes it's because the language is coming from academia but other times it's more a reflection of how communities themselves describe the terms vs. how outsiders do (people who aren't part of whatever given demographic will sometimes downplay or normalize bigoted language or behaviour vs. members of that community because the label associated with that form of bigotry is stigmatized).

Yup. Well put. A lot of words are flung about too easily. They become catch-phrases and lose their meaning when they're applied to every situation like a cliché. It's pretty easy to slap a label on something instead of considering the big picture. Sometimes those labels are accurate, but sometimes they aren't.

It's not always a matter of the term being thrown around too loosely, sometimes it's people trying to define it in an excessively restrictive way to avoid having to be labelled that way.

Say for example with the term genocide, it doesn't always imply the industrialized sort of genocide as perpetrated by the Nazis and their associates. It implies a targeted killing of a people along ethnic lines. When referring to incidents that occurred prior to the 20th century or that didn't involve death camps there is sometimes an attempt to try to define them as something other than genocidal action. Being inefficient in pursuing the goal doesn't alter the goal, especially when there's in-period documentation of the goal.

It also comes up in cases where historic institutions were so terrible that abuses were normalized. I've read that basically except for a bloc of (mostly) Germanic speaking peoples that child marriage was the normal, either child brides and grooms to allow control over the young couple as they became established or child brides and adult grooms who had already amassed enough wealth to support a bride. That means that applying a word that we use with a pretty clear understanding in historical contexts becomes either problematic or we just have to accept oh s**t, people were terrible back then and there. It even makes it hard to grasp how genuine kindness and affection may have existed within those relationships because it's so obviously exploitative and wrong.

It's fair to call that institution terribly sexist and downright appalling, and yet... it did exist. I'm fine with calling it what it was but some people might be shocked to hear the appropriate label for those men's actions described in our current language. And yet no one's gonna argue with me that it was exactly what it was.

Well the thing about so many people in the US complaining about abortion rights, is I don't get it because since abortion is legal in most places there it seems anyway, then it's not a real problem to complain about then. Why complain about something that is not a problem, yet so many people make so much drama out of it, I do not get it.

Because conservatives keep chipping away at the details of how readily available it is.

But that's just chipping though. It's not like they are going to be successful, are they?

Fixed it for you

Right wingers version of "cancel culture". Apparently they are allowed to impinge on other people's rights

@ FXE - Exactly. Good points.

I'm not saying sexism is never part of the abortion debate. Of course there are people who oppose choice for sexist reasons. There are people who oppose choice for ethical reasons, who may not be sexist at all. I know a few "woke" men and women who believe in gender equality and SJW principles, but they oppose abortion because they are pacifists. They're vegan and won't eat animal products because it harms animals. They would be hypocritical (in their mind) to support abortion law and allow living tissue to be terminated. It has nothing to do with the sex of either parent. If men could become pregnant, they would protest abortion for men just as actively. Likewise there are non-binary people who oppose abortion. That doesn't make them sexist. They believe gender is a social construct and they don't view issues in terms of male vs female rights. They believe in human rights. In that regard it's sometimes an overgeneralisation to suggest that any person and / or any government opposing choice is motivated by sexist ideology.

Every time they chip they succeed a little bit more. In some places it's borderline impossible as this point. It's not quite South America but it's very restrictive.

But since abortion is legal and available, saying that it could be taking away is just needless complaining. Plus the chances of needing abortion are small too as long as you take precautions and use enough protection, very small. It's like going on social media and preaching about how a piano could land on you someday, and making a big political deal out if it. Sure, it could happen, but it probably won't so why complain about it?