←back to thread

728 points freedomben | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.074s | source
Show context
arprocter ◴[] No.44606758[source]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melinda_Tankard_Reist#Collecti...
replies(1): >>44608067 #
raincole ◴[] No.44608067[source]
> a "pro-life feminist"

What.

Seriously what? I thought pro-choice is a core tenet of feminism?

replies(2): >>44608406 #>>44610903 #
Ancapistani ◴[] No.44608406[source]
Why would it be?

I live in a red state in the South. I'd say about 2/3 of the women I know well enough to be confident of their politics to that degree of detail would describe themselves as both feminists and anti-abortion/pro-life.

If you want to put a name to it, they're basically second-wave feminists with a few third-wave beliefs tacked on.

The real lesson here is that politics are nuanced, and the US party dichotomy doesn't come close to covering it.

I consider myself an AnCap (shocking given my username, I know), but grew up here surrounded by Republicans. I fit in well enough overall because this is where I developed my "social mask" in the first place. I lived in a community with nearly directly opposite politics (Charlottesville, VA) for a few years and found that I fit in pretty well with that crowd as well.

I share enough with both parties that I can have conversations on things that I agree with them on and connect to the point that they assume that I'm "one of them". Invariably, once conversation turns to other topics I'm accused of being a member of the other party. It's to the point that it amuses me when it happens, and I frankly enjoy being in a place where I can connect with most everyone and serve as a sort of translator: I've spent enough time "in enemy territory" from their perspectives that I can explain the other side's position fairly and with empathy while explicitly not holding that position. It makes for stimulating conversation with little risk of offense.

replies(1): >>44610578 #
pazimzadeh ◴[] No.44610578[source]
Because "anti-abortion/pro-life" removes a right from women. Trading the rights of a developed adult for the rights of a hypothetical future person.

What does ancapistanism have to do with it? Is there a non-religious reason to be against the right to choose abortion up to 24 weeks of pregnancy?

replies(3): >>44610711 #>>44610735 #>>44611043 #
1. Ancapistani ◴[] No.44611043[source]
> Because "anti-abortion/pro-life" removes a right from women. Trading the rights of a developed adult for the rights of a hypothetical future person.

Their perspective is that abortion is killing a human being. Given that, it’s entirely consistent.

> What does ancapistanism have to do with it?

Nothing, other than that I was providing some context on where I’m coming from.

> Is there a non-religious reason to be against the right to choose abortion up to 24 weeks of pregnancy?

While religion is certainly a factor for a lot of these people, this question doesn’t make sense to me. Is there a non-religious reason to be against killing any person, regardless of age?

The base difference in perspective is that the other side here believes that the fetus is a human being, with all the rights that come with it.

replies(1): >>44611818 #