←back to thread

728 points freedomben | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.431s | 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 #
dmix ◴[] No.44610711[source]
Well social/religious conservatives often think the child has rights even during pregnancy so it's not as simple as the mothers rights.

The libertarian view tends to much more favour the parents rights to make choices for their children if I remember correctly, and obviously favour the option where the government isn't deciding for them.

replies(2): >>44611071 #>>44611855 #
Ancapistani ◴[] No.44611071[source]
Exactly.

My personal belief is that life begins at conception. As a result, I’m opposed to abortion in all cases.

… but I’m also an anarchist, and therefore believe it is emphatically not the state’s role to make these types of decisions for people.

I don’t think there is a “right answer” here in terms of policy. Some large portion of the people will see it as a violation of their rights no matter how extreme or nuanced the line is drawn.

replies(1): >>44612602 #
1. xcrunner529 ◴[] No.44612602[source]
There is no unique dna at conception. I know this is fun to repeat but it really shows you ignore science. .