678,119 posts

What happened to my body, my choice?

Reddit View
September 21, 2019
241 upvotes
post image

Post Information
Title What happened to my body, my choice?
Author metal0737
Upvotes 241
Comments 84
Date 21 September 2019 04:59 PM UTC (10 months ago)
Subreddit antifeminists
Link https://theredarchive.com/post/707682
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/antifeminists/comments/d7d2r0/what_happened_to_my_body_my_choice/
Similar Posts

Red Pill terms found in post:
dark triad
Comments

[–]Egalitarianwhistle50 points51 points  (16 children) | Copy

It goes both ways. Radfems condone aborting male fetuses because they don't want to "raise a rapist."

Don't believe me? go check r/GenderCritical

[–]Vodnik-Dubs14 points15 points  (10 children) | Copy

Holy shit, seen posts criticizing Islam, the LGBT community and whole bunch of other shit that makes me think they came full circle.

[–]Egalitarianwhistle6 points7 points  (8 children) | Copy

Gender Critical are called TERFS by mainstream feminists and they are shunned. But GC feminists are radical as fuck and dont think twice before calling for male genocide.

[–]Jex1173 points4 points  (7 children) | Copy

Used to be widely shunned in Feminist circles*

In the past year or two, TERFs have become a large portion of mainstream Feminism. Enough so that many Feminists are freaking out over their loss of control over the movement, and its unstoppable ever-advancing extremism.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/07/opinion/terf-trans-women-britain.html

https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/9/5/20840101/terfs-radical-feminists-gender-critical

https://quillette.com/2018/10/18/trans-activists-campaign-against-terfs-has-become-an-attack-on-science/

[–]FluffyRedFoxy1 point2 points  (6 children) | Copy

Everyone in the feminist movement that isn't a TERF openly detests TERFs.

[–]Jex1172 points3 points  (5 children) | Copy

Everyone? That's a bold generalization. If this was the case, and they faced unilateral opposition from mainstream Feminists, then how have TERF's expanded into such a significant portion of the movement? How have they secured positions of influence and authority if the movement has so strongly opposed them and their bigoted extremism?

Since you're clearly the grand avatar for Feminism and everyone who stands behind it, you seem best qualified to explain this discrepancy.

[–]FluffyRedFoxy1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy

Because feminism isn't some private group with a structured hierarchy? There's no "positions of influence and authority". People speak on what they believe to be right, and others who agree with them join them. People don't just stop existing because others dislike them. If feminists could just make TERFs disappear by opposing them, don't you think they'd apply that to other issues as well? TERFs don't have influence because feminists "let" them, it's because other TERFs support them. Ask literally any non-TERF feminist and they'll tell you that they and every other feminist hates TERFs.

[–]Jex1171 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy

Because feminism isn't some private group with a structured hierarchy? There's no "positions of influence and authority".

Feminism is a socioeconomic movement, represented and lead by numerous advocacy organizations like N.O.W and the people who run them. N.O.W has a seat on the U.N. There are entire nations on this planet that don't have seats on the U.N, but Feminism does. The Feminist movement is provided more authority and influence than entire nations on this planet.

This idea that there are no positions of influence and authority within the movement is a blatant fallacy. It simply isn't true. I realize you're just regurgitating a popular rebut to any criticisms towards the movement, but what you're saying simply isn't true.

People speak on what they believe to be right, and others who agree with them join them. People don't just stop existing because others dislike them.

Feminism isn't based in democracy, it's based in populism. There are no voting circuits within Feminism, merely the collective group-think of the movement itself, which leaders it collectively agrees to support and advocate, and which voices represent it at large.

This idea that the movement doesn't pick its most prominent voices and recognizable figures just isn't true. It does, just not through democracy - merely populism and group think. Which begs the question - if all Feminists despise TERFs then how have TERFs secured such a significant portion of the movement?

If feminists could just make TERFs disappear by opposing them, don't you think they'd apply that to other issues as well?

Poor comparison. This is an internal struggle within the movement, not an external struggle like voting rights or abortion rights.

The rise of TERFs into mainstream Feminism is absolutely the responsibility of the movement, how it manages itself, how it represents itself.

TERFs don't have influence because feminists "let" them, it's because other TERFs support them.

Again, Feminism is based in populism - the rise of TERFs into mainstream status within the movement is absolutely the responsibility of average feminists, who they support, who they validate, and who they denounce.

Ask literally any non-TERF feminist and they'll tell you that they and every other feminist hates TERFs.

Mere anecdote.

[–]FluffyRedFoxy0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

Except TERF influencers don't represent feminism, they represent TERFs. Feminists actively protest TERFs. Their support comes from the far-right, not from feminists. Not sure how I can make this any simpler for you to understand.

[–]Jex1171 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

I've already referenced citations from Feminist media outlets regarding the rise of TERFs within mainstream Feminism. This idea that TERFs are in some kind of separate movement is a fallacy, according to more prominent Feminists than yourself.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

They are right criticizing the homos tho.

[–]DarkNights2921 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

I got banned for when a girl said she hates all men even her father cause he’s a male with about 200 upvotes I said “without a dad, you wouldn’t be here?? 🤔”

[–]EddardNedStark2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

Jesus fuck they’re toxic as hell.

[–]Greeneyeball671 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

I just got banned from there

[–]Egalitarianwhistle1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Join the club. Even mainstream feminists get banned from there. But the misandry is strong there.

[–]GiveMeTheBroccoli1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Or just watch Sydney Watson in YouTube she’s oh shit I just said a sexist word, I mean it is an anti feminist legend

[–]FluffyRedFoxy12 points13 points  (105 children) | Copy

There's a big difference between aborting because you don't want a child and aborting because you want a child of a different gender and will keep aborting until you get it. And in countries that do this, it's often not the woman's choice at all. It's also commonly not abortion, but rather killing the child after it's born.

[–]MarchingFire2 points3 points  (96 children) | Copy

The difference is that the first issue can be resolved by pre (IUD's, condoms,...) or post coitus contraceptives 5 minutes before to 72 hours after having sex, the second by doing feminism parades where it's actually useful and for a better reason than advocating for the right to walk in the streets in panties.

In both cases abortion is killing.

[–]Jex1173 points4 points  (43 children) | Copy

We're talking about rural India here. Nothing you're talking about is even remotely applicable to these peoples lives, culture, region, and country.

Girls are often married out at a young age in arranged marriages, impregnated against their will, and their child murdered post-birth if it's a girl.

[–]MarchingFire1 point2 points  (42 children) | Copy

I don't get it, you are suggesting that if a child is married at a young age and essentially raped, the son is to blame ?

Sounds like abortion is merely a symptom here...

[–]Jex1174 points5 points  (41 children) | Copy

Nowhere did I explicitly nor implicitly make that suggestion. You're attempting to put words in my mouth as a means of throwing red herrings to derail my argument.

You clearly have no confidence in your stance. You've surrender all attempt to dispute my points.

[–]MarchingFire0 points1 point  (40 children) | Copy

Girls are often married out at a young age in arranged marriages, impregnated against their will, and their child murdered post-birth if it's a girl. [So abortion is ok]

Sounds like an accurate description the one I gave...

[–]Jex1172 points3 points  (39 children) | Copy

Can you highlight the portion where I suggested that sons are to blame? Because I'm just not seeing it here.

It's almost like you're pandering fallacies around in lieu of a legitimate rebut.

[–]MarchingFire0 points1 point  (38 children) | Copy

Can you highlight the portion where I suggested that sons are to blame? Because I'm just not seeing it here.

You listed a series of faults of the Indian traditions and culture rooted in misogynistic behaviour as an excuse for aborting LITERALLY the only creatures that are outside all of this shit and are actually the only hope of changing this.

So yeah...

[–]Jex1170 points1 point  (37 children) | Copy

You listed a series of faults of the Indian traditions and culture rooted in misogynistic behaviour as an excuse for aborting LITERALLY the only creatures that are outside all of this shit and are actually the only hope of changing this.

I'm still waiting for you to highlight my suggestion that the sons are to blame. Are young boys born these days to blame for long standing cultural differences?

You're assuming this problem is rooted in misogyny, when I'd wager it has more to do with the demanding and inhospitable regions where this is widely practiced. These villagers and farmer aren't aborting their girls out of hatred, they're doing it because boys are physically more useful than girls in their region.

It's terrible that girls are being aborted due to their gender, but it's also terrible that boys are treated like chattel, to be bred and worked in the fields like goats and oxen. Which option is worse? Which is better?

[–]MarchingFire1 point2 points  (36 children) | Copy

I'm still waiting for you to highlight my suggestion that the sons are to blame

You are ok with people aborting them because the young girls are forced to get pregnant, no ?

[–]FluffyRedFoxy3 points4 points  (45 children) | Copy

Except pre- and post-sex contraceptives always have a chance of failing, many girls don't know to use it because of terrible sex education in the US, and rapists don't really care to use protection.

Fighting for one issue is not mutually exclusive with fighting for another.

Only the latter case in which the child is killed post-birth is killing.

[–]MarchingFire1 point2 points  (44 children) | Copy

Except pre- and post-sex contraceptives always have a chance of failing

0,6% of failing if you wait for the 5th day after having sex ? And 2 or more can be used like condoms and pills togheter... Piss off, you are just looking for an excuse to kill

many girls don't know to use it because of terrible sex education in the US

Defund planned parenthood and fund sex education

rapists don't really care to use protection.

Which is why post coitum contraceptives happen...post

[–]Jex1174 points5 points  (15 children) | Copy

None of this is in any way relatable to the situation girls are facing across India. The topic of discussion isn't abortion in the U.S, the topic is abortion in India.

[–]MarchingFire-1 points0 points  (14 children) | Copy

"Killing is right when I say so"

[–]Jex1171 point2 points  (10 children) | Copy

Who does "I" refer to in this context? Me? You? Society in general? Because there absolutely are situations where it's legally and ethically acceptable to kill a person, or even let a person die.

Should people to go prison for defending themselves if it results in death, even if they weren't trying to kill their attacker(s)? Should Police be automatically imprisoned everytime an assailant gets shot to death? Should nurses be imprisoned for taking part in medically assisted suicides? There absolutely are situations where it's ethical and legal to kill a person.

So the question is two fold:

  1. Is a fertilized egg considered "a person" at the exact moment of conception?

  2. Are there any situations where it is ethically acceptable to abort a pregnancy?

[–]MarchingFire0 points1 point  (9 children) | Copy

There absolutely are situations where it's ethical and legal to kill a person.

And is never for the mere convinience of it

Is a fertilized egg considered "a person" at the exact moment of conception?

The only way to identify a being beyond any doubt is the DNA, so yes, a fertilized egg is already a person

Are there any situations where it is ethically acceptable to abort a pregnancy?

When the pregnancy put the host at risk

[–]Jex1171 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy

And is never for the mere convinience of it

Medically assisted suicide is almost exclusively for the convenience of a quick death, opposed to a drawn-out death.

Abortion is more than a mere convenience in cases of teen pregnancy and poverty - an unplanned pregnancy can ruin a persons life before they even reach adulthood. When you take into account the widespread social benefits of abortion among impoverished and single mothers, it becomes far more than a mere convenience.

The only way to identify a being beyond any doubt is the DNA, so yes, a fertilized egg is already a person

There are exceptions to that assumption, like in cases of Chimerism.

Furthermore, the nuclei don't immediately merge upon conception - so even within your model there is a window for aborting hte zygote.

When the pregnancy put the host at risk

Like when a teenager gets an unplanned pregnancy? Their entire life is at risk.

[–]MarchingFire0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

Medically assisted suicide is almost exclusively for the convenience of a quick death, opposed to a drawn-out death.

Can't you tell the difference between being your actual personal choice about you or killing someone who can't speak for himself and merely committed the sin of existing ?

There are exceptions to that assumption, like in cases of Chimerism.

Is not an exception, it just means two different set of genes that are still unique.

By all evidences and studies, DNA is the true tangible self.

the nuclei don't immediately merge upon conception

Again, like I said, you have got quite a few days after conception. Anything after that is being a dick for no reason.

Like when a teenager gets an unplanned pregnancy? Their entire life is at risk

Use copper IUD's

[–]Shockblocked0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy

An onion has more DNA than you. It's more of a person than you are.

[–]MarchingFire0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy

Yeah, because is totally about "quantity" of dna and not that a fetus has already a specific dna of a specific person and by every single data is a complete separate entity from her mother other than already a living being.

Like I said, logic won't stop you because you can't even read.

[–][deleted]  (2 children) | Copy

[deleted]

[–]MarchingFire0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

TIL: plants don't live

[–]FluffyRedFoxy0 points1 point  (27 children) | Copy

How about fund both and don't give a shit about what some delusional nutjob has to say about it.

[–][deleted]  (23 children) | Copy

[removed]

[–]FluffyRedFoxy-1 points0 points  (22 children) | Copy

Undeveloped fetuses =/= children.

Thanks for proving that you are in fact a nutjob by telling me to harm myself, though.

[–]MarchingFire0 points1 point  (10 children) | Copy

Undeveloped fetus

Has a specific set of genes that will never be replicated, is feeding itself through her mother and grows, developing with such substances new cells and functional organs

He's alive by every definition avaiable and you are killing it for sport because you couldn't bother taking a pill and sticking a condom on your mate.

Then you go back posting cat pics on Tumblr with other retards like you. You are fucking heartless...

[–]FluffyRedFoxy1 point2 points  (9 children) | Copy

Discarding a combined sperm and egg is no more murder than discarding the same sperm and egg separately is. It's not a person, it's at best a parasite.

You are fucking heartless

Lmao, rich coming from someone who promotes self-harm and sees sperm as more of a person than an adult woman.

[–]MarchingFire-1 points0 points  (8 children) | Copy

Discarding a combined sperm and egg is no more murder than discarding the same sperm and egg separately is. It's not a person, it's at best a parasite.

Absolute retard here can't tell the difference between fertlized eggs or not, and post crossing over cells.

Absolute devoid of logic and reason like a typical feminist.

[–]MaKo19820 points1 point  (10 children) | Copy

Undeveloped fetuses =/= children

Newborn babies are also not fully developed. Placing the limit at the day of birth makes no sense at all and it is completely arbitrary. It's not like babies are completely undeveloped and at the day of birth they go poof and are completely developed. And don't come at me with 'They couldn't survive on their own', because if they can survive at the day of birth, they could've survived one day earlier, etc. There is no clear point when the baby goes from able to survive to unable to survive.

I don't think that women have no rights about their own body, but I do think that the right to live is more important than the right over your own body.

Thanks for proving that you are in fact a nutjob by telling me to harm myself, though.

To be fair, you have been provoking him a lot. He crossed a line there but so did you by calling him a nutjob in the first place

[–]AgoristOwl1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

To be fair, you have been provoking him a lot. He crossed a line there but so did you by calling him a nutjob in the first place

I think that was their point. Provoking so they get get a response they could run off to other subs to call this one a "hate sub". I seriously doubt they was arguing in good faith.

[–]MaKo19821 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

https://www.reddit.com/r/TopMindsOfReddit/comments/d7h3h6/top_mind_of_rantifeminists_proves_theyre_not_a/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share

They literally did that. Also the cut away the part where they were insulting the other guy. Really makes me sad.

[–]FluffyRedFoxy3 points4 points  (7 children) | Copy

I'm not saying being born is the cut-off. Maybe I used the wrong word; I think "embryo" is more accurate? I'm not talking about a fetus that's one day away from delivery, I'm talking about the sperm that has just barely begun to develop, which is the point in development where abortion typically occurs.

The rights of an actual person supersede those of an undeveloped clump of cells that has 0 cognition of itself even existing.

so did you by calling him a nutjob in the first place

And then he immediately proved me entirely right.

[–]Jex1171 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

It's worth noting that late-term abortions are already extremely rare, and are only performed when it's deemed medically necessary for either mother or child - the only exception to this is when parents learn that their child will be severely disabled, will never lead a normal life, and will be a burden for the rest of their lives - I think the ethics on this are valid, but it's widely debated.

[–]MaKo19820 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy

I'm not saying being born is the cut-off.

Then, when is the cut-off? Based on your second paragraph,

The rights of an actual person supersede those of an undeveloped clump of cells that has 0 cognition of itself even existing.

I would assume that cognitive ability is the decisive point for you l. However, cognitive ability develops 6-9 months after the baby has been born.

I think that abortion is partially acceptable to society only because the person you are killing is not visible yet and you don't have an emotional bond to them. The other arguments you give are only justifications for you because abortion is "easier" and "more comfortable" for you. But it is still murder. Period. A human being is not defined by whether or not they have social contacts or emotional bonds to anyone. Biologically, a person has been a human all the way since they were an embryo.

[–]EddardNedStark0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

If both are going to be funded, there better be universal healthcare as well. Go big or go home, right?

[–]Jex1171 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

They are here in Canada, and we'd lose our shit as a country if any politician tried to change that. We have multiple generations who've grown up with it - it's an ingrained part of our society now.

The amount of money we save by providing free abortions and contraceptives vastly outweighs the soaring costs of childcare programs.

Turns out providing free healthcare is also cheaper than charging your citizens for it, because Canadians tend to get medical issues addressed when they're in their early stages. We don't have to worry about medical debt so most of us don't ignore medical issues, waiting for them to become big problems.

[–]FluffyRedFoxy0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Yes, universal healthcare would be great.

[–]Shockblocked0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy

So is jizzing then I guess, in which case life isn't that sacred or important.

[–]MarchingFire1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy

Imagine thinking gametes crossing over happens with jizzing HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

[–]Shockblocked0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

Cells are life. You said life right?

[–]MarchingFire1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

No ? Wtf are you talking about ?

Did you study what conception is ?

[–]Shockblocked-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy

Nope. Enlighten me

[–]Nexlon0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Imagine thinking life is sacred or important in the first place.

[–]missweach-1 points0 points  (6 children) | Copy

I've NEVER known a woman, in real life, to get an abortion because of gender issues...

[–]beriozka_gorgone1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

There's a whole lot of other people out there than those you know.

[–]FluffyRedFoxy1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy

I've never known anyone who's been murdered, I guess murder doesn't exist.

[–]missweach0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

Not the point. It doesn't happen as often as people put out there.

[–]FluffyRedFoxy1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

Maybe not to your small scope of the world, but your personal anecdote doesn't represent anything beyond yourself. I've never seen anyone get murdered, so murder doesn't happen as often as people put out there.

[–]missweach1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Fair enough.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

Emmmm you should definitly have been one of them :)

[–]Merlinfrost14 points15 points  (9 children) | Copy

But seriously though. Feminism is needed in India. It’s really bad there. Last time I checked the gender ratio was about 20-1. Many husbands will kill the baby if it’s born a woman and not a boy.

[–]pablochocobarr117 points18 points  (3 children) | Copy

It's 943 females per 1000 males as per census of 2011. I'm not saying this ratio is okay, but it's not at all as skewed as you've stated.

[–]Merlinfrost5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy

I watched some documentary that said the results. I watched it last year in AP human geography so I’ll have to ask the teacher about it.

[–]ii_misfit_o2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

most documentaries are massively biased, they probably used a very small data set or a very short time frame (seconds) of local births

[–]DEVOmay974 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

Tbh that small of a variation is entirely possible simply by chance. We're talking about roughly a 5 and a half percent difference, not some gigantic gap. If there's anywhere that feminism is badly needed I'd say it's the middle east.

[–]pushkar_nark02 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

Equality is needed in India. Not feminism. There is a huge difference in those two terms.

[–]Egalitarianwhistle5 points6 points  (2 children) | Copy

women engage in infanticide more than men at a ratio of 5 to 1.

[–]Jex1172 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy

Obviously we need to force school girls and adult women to attend mandatory "anti-infanticide classes" the way boys and men are forced to attend anti-rape training...

And while we're at it, let's begin lecturing every woman and girl how dangerously toxic their femininity is....

[–]snailarium1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Ban infanticide it's pretty simple And ban abortion with very few exceptions

[–]DarkNights2920 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Actually I read the laws against men in India

[–]DemocratTears2020-1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy

This is why I support abortion. For non-whites. Thank god 45% of abortions in the USA are performed on black females. How many abortion committers are colaburners? Thank god there are fewer non-whites in the USA.

[–]HRELast1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Ok, incel



You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2020. All rights reserved.

created by /u/dream-hunter