SANITYNYT Publishes a Gender Critical Article

submitted by xoenix from (nytimes.com)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]cephyrious 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

It's an extension of bodily autonomy rights. If a finger nail clipping of mine could save 100 lives, I am within my right to deny anyone who asks me to give it up. I have full and final rights to my body. So, if someone can decide to not give a nail clipping to save 100 people, why shouldn't a woman be allowed to not give a whole plethora of bodily resources to sustain a life for months in the womb? I think this is the logic it relies upon.

I am confused by the US divide here, though. Usually, the right is pro freedom, against rules and regulations, and abortion feels like a freedom that they advocate removed by rules and regulation. Also, the US right seems to be in favour of less immigration and naturalization, more gerrymandering etc to keep the voting populace favourable, but if there were no abortions that would potentially increase demographics that tend to lean left (planned parenthood was started by people wanting to curb the black population after all), so this seems somewhat counter-intuitive. Also, if the unborn child is so important, why is the right so unwilling to increase maternal care and welfare, like proper maternity leave. If the nuclear family is important, parental leave like practiced in for instance Scandinavia, is very healthy to establish strong family bonds.

[–]proc0 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I have full and final rights to my body

I was not my mom's body at any point in time EVER. She doesn't own my life. At the literal second my dad's sperm entered that egg, she had a responsibility to take care of me until I can survive on my own. This is the reality of life. Women have a duty to take care of defenseless babies, not kill them. I never chose to be born, and I would not have consented to being aborted. I assume pro-choicers would not have wanted to be aborted... yet now they want to kick the ladder of life behind them and prevent others from being born. It's fucking psychotic.

This isn't about freedom, just like killing another human isn't about freedom. You are not free to kill, but you are free to abstain and prevent pregnancy, or to at least settle down in a stable relationship before doing an act that very clearly can result in a new life.

Obviously exceptions exist, but just aborting because of financial reasons is ridiculous. By extension parents should kill their children if one day they can't take care of them anymore. A fetus/embryo deserves human rights!!

[–]Cass 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I hope you get to watch someone you love starve. Not trying to be mean, but you seem very naive and sheltered.

[–]raven9 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

So, if someone can decide to not give a nail clipping to save 100 people, why shouldn't a woman be allowed to not give a whole plethora of bodily resources to sustain a life for months in the womb? I think this is the logic it relies upon.

I dont think that is a valid analogy. Abortion is not to deprive the foetus of resources, abortion is a physical assault on the foetus that actively and deliberately kills it. Also there is the fact of criminal negligence which is to allow harm to happen to someone else either by action or inaction when a person ignores a known or obvious risk, or disregards the life and safety of others.

[–]UrethraFranklin 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Usually, the right is pro freedom, against rules and regulations, and abortion feels like a freedom that they advocate removed by rules and regulation.

The right also tends to be largely religious, typically Christian, and they treat sex as only being permittable if one aims to have children, or are willing to accept that is the possible result. Abortion, to them, is an attempt to avoid the consequences of sex. Some don't even support the use of contraceptives like condoms.

[–]Chipit 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

What a ridiculous third-hand report. In the future please do not strawman enemy opinions. Instead steelman them, present the best possible version of your enemy's opinion. At least show that you understand them first.

[–]UrethraFranklin 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I don't see how it's "strawmanning" to point out the rights position on sexual matters, unless you have evidence that I'm incorrect in my statement?

I'd really like to see you counter my claims, if they are apparently so incorrect, otherwise it seems like you're simply attacking me with baseless rhetoric.

[–]Objecting_Sphere 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You have to understand that in the US, the right is religious and the left isn't. This gives them different worldviews.

The religious perspective is generally that the fetus already has a soul and thus is a person - and killing a dependent is murder no matter how taxing their life is to your body. So while the right likes rights, they can't abide what they see as child murder.

The left doesn't believe in souls, generally. They take the more biological view that you aren't really a person until fairly late in development. The fetus is just a fetus, not a person until very late - and having a heartbeat or neurological activity makes the fetus a living animal, but still not developed enough to be a person. So it's acceptable to remove it if it's not very developed.

Personally I take the latter view, but if I was raised to believe that fetuses had souls I can imagine being pro-life instead.

[–]wylanderuk 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Keep your knickers on, legs closed or use birth control...

Problem solved for majority of women.