A stark example of how digital footprints will be utilized in a post-Roe America

The article is from Aug 10, 2022 but remains relevant

  • Infiltrated_ad8271
    link
    fedilink
    1
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Why do so many people find it so hard to understand the position of anti-abortionists and invent a fantasy about misogynist fascists?

    To them fetuses are babies (which is correct at some point before birth, when is another debate) and therefore subjects of rights, so from their position they are defending a much greater right, the right to life. Essentially, from their perspective they are defending human rights, is it that hard for you to empathize with that?

    It’s undeniable (unless you hate women)

    Oh yep, you seem to have a flexible mentality, open to debate and not demonizing others, the opposite of what fascists typically do.

    • Pegatron
      link
      fedilink
      3
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      All the pro life arguments are new. Theyre disingenuous and hypocritical. The modern pro life movement was cooked up by hardcore right wingers when they lost the fight against civil rights , in a transparent attempt to create a new voting bloc. Before the 1960s, the Baptists and Methodists were pro abortion and called it a Catholic issue.

      Person hood is a red herring. Even if you accept fetal person hood, no one owes another person the use of their body.

      Lastly, legislators have no place in medical decisions. Doctors are not terminating viable fetuses in the third trimester and never have. There were less than 10 third trimester abortions in the US per year and all we’re either to save the life of the mother or to remove a fetus that had a fatal defect. Banning the procedure will only have deleterious effects and keep doctors from performing vital life saving procedures. We have already seen this in Ireland and central America.

      • xuxebikoOP
        link
        fedilink
        2
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        They are not pro-life. If they were pro-life they would work to make life good/ better for those who they insist birth children and for those who they should be born.

        They are pro-slavery, Forcing/ coercing women to be incubators against their will is sexual slavery. They refuse to consider women as equal human beings with equal rights to men, and seek to diminsh women’s independence by forcing on her (and only her, men are not held accountable) to the unwanted burden of gestating, birthing, and caring for children, even at the cosf of her physical and mental well-being.

        Their call of “fetal personhood” is a tool to emotionally manipulate people (“won’t you think of the children?”), while they deny actual living persons their personhood. All their actions & words are geared towards dehumanizing women.

        Tellingly, they also are not against child labour (“wont you think of the billionaire’s profits?”), once a child is born. Their goal is to deny women their personhood, bind women to sexual slavery, and ensure the wealthy have a supply of cheap & easily available labour.

    • xuxebikoOP
      link
      fedilink
      3
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Oh yep, you seem to have a flexible mentality, open to debate and not demonizing others, the opposite of what fascists typically do.

      And there’s the DARVO. That didn’t take much time.

      If foetuses are babies to anti-abortionists (you’ve dropped the pro-life facade) then anti-abortionists need science lessons, because foetuses are not babies.

      Since anti-abortionists don’t consider women as human beings possessing equal human rights, they don’t care about any baby born or unborn from her. Indeed, they think they have the right to dictate to women on what her rights should be, ignoring that she is born with inalienable basic rights. “Born with” not ‘unborn/ in-utero’ with.

      A right to life without right to agency is slavery. Do you understand that anti-abortionists want women to be slaves?

      • Infiltrated_ad8271
        link
        fedilink
        1
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It’s probably a waste of time, but okay, I will be kind enough not to delve into your ignorant slander, delusions, straw men and ad hominems.

        Since anti-abortionists don’t consider women as human beings possessing equal human rights (…) A right to life without right to agency is slavery. Do you understand that anti-abortionists want women to be slaves?

        Let us come to the main issue. As I mentioned, this is a difference of importance, not all rights are equal and when there is a conflict one should prevail over the other. Although nothing is written it is easy in some cases, for example, the right not to be tortured is more important than the right to marry.

        If for a moment you are able to consider the premise that fetuses are subjects of rights (say one of 42-week to make it easier), tell me, which is more important, the temporary and partial suspension of the right of agency or the right to life?
        (I do not include slavery because I find it fucking absurd, as well as a trivialization of something very serious. You could have said something more coherent like reproductive freedom.)

        This is not something like seeing the woman as property to be controlled, only considering the rights and interests of “both”. Let us also not forget that it is a self-imposed situation, and the cases in which it is “imposed by third parties” abortion is allowed all over the world.

        • xuxebikoOP
          link
          fedilink
          3
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Thank you for making clear

          1. your utter contempt for women,
          2. your denial of women as human beings with human rights, and
          3. your misconception that you and other anti-abortionists are arbiters of human rights

          ps: How is an unwanted pregnancy is a “self-imposed situation”? Is it your understanding that women are capable of parthenogenesis?

          • Infiltrated_ad8271
            link
            fedilink
            1
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            *Sigh. As I guessed, your reading comprehension is nil and you are not capable of debate or simple mental work, you can only use fallacies. Well, at least I tried.

        • jwiggler
          link
          fedilink
          11 year ago

          Fetus does not have the right to life. It’s not a person, it does not have rights. Simple as that. People have rights, fetus does not.

          • Infiltrated_ad8271
            link
            fedilink
            1
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Aha, we agree, at least until high fetal development and viability.
            However, that’s not my point, and it’s a pity no one bothers to address it.