#selective abortion

[aux-squiggle]

Daughter or Abortion #1

Conclusions at the bottom

The other week I made a tiktok post about how I will get an abortion if my fetus is male because I will only birth daughters and I found it hilarious how much it pissed off supposed "pro choicers."

And it's made me realize a lot of mainstream pro-choicers reasons for being pro choice isn't because they truly agree with the meat of pro-choicism, but rather because they approve of abortion in more cases than what we consider prolife.

They approve of abortion in cases of rape, poverty, medical necessity, lack of parental skill, career aspirations, unpreparedness etc. But that's not why pro-choicism exists. Pro choice is not about having a good reason to abort, or extending abortion to enough reasons, but because of arbitration.

Whether a woman will carry a fetus to term or not is a complete arbitration. She could decide to flip a coin on whether or not she'll have the baby and that's completely morally neutral. If that makes you uncomfortable, get over it.

Mainstream pro-choicers can justify the above "good reasons to abort" via an array of arguments including the argument that fetuses are not people (which is true). But in their complaint against me saying I will abort a male fetus when I am trying for children (via a separatist method btw I couldn't be caught dead fucking a man), they expose that they have not taken the "fetuses are not people" thought process to its logical end.

Fetuses pre-24 weeks are no better than an organ. They are just rapidly growing cells, that will mostl likely become a baby but is not yet a baby. But until it actually becomes a baby, it is just as "unbaby" as every other organ in your body.

Post 24 weeks fetuses have the brain structures necessary for consciousness (though when this consciousness actually "turns on" for the first time is debated. Let's say it's 24 weeks for the sake of the conversation even though it may be 28 weeks or even later).

Maybe you consider consciousness the start of personhood or maybe you consider being born the start of personhood (I personally consider first consciousness the start of personhood, however fetuses beyond 24 weeks still are at arbitration because the mother has the right to remove it at any time, same way if your body was hooked up to keep someone else alive, you can unhook it anytime).

Therefore I consider first consciousness the time a fetus becomes a baby, and babies are people. Fetuses are not babies, and are also not people.

Discrimination* is only a thing that happens to people.

*In the social sense of treating a group differently and/or unfairly because of their traits. Not the literal meaning of discriminate which is essentially akin to sorting or approaching things differently.

What does this mean? Fetuses cannot be discriminated against.

Abortion typically happens before 24 weeks (and any abortion I have will be pre-24w). Therefore no person is suffering or being treated differently if I abort it for being male, because fetuses aren't people.

Of course people immediately snap "oh what if someone aborts daughters huh?" First of all, a pre-24w abortion is incapable of harming the female fetus because it's not a person. That "potential daughter" did not experience the (presumed) misogyny behind the decision because it can't experience anything. It's not conscious, it was never conscious, and it's a not a person.

If the woman aborted the female fetus because of misogynistic messaging she's received in society, that's still her choice, and I still support her choice to do anything regarding her own pregnancy. The only victim in the situation is her from the misogyny she already experienced in life. An aborted female fetus is the consequence of misogyny and not a method of misogyny in and of itself. Her womb is not real estate for social justice and equality.

Let me say that again. Her womb is not real estate for social justice and equality.

If carrying a female fetus to term would upset her, because misogyny has told her it's better to have sons, then it doesn't matter if she ends up becoming the next Andrea Dworkin ultra feminist 20 years down the line, because the stress and anxiety she experienced from having a pregnancy she didn't want (even if I don't agree with the reason why she didn't want it) will become birth trauma which is one of the deepest forms of trauma someone can have.

It would be better for her to have aborted and be happy than give birth and be sad, even if I think the reason for the happiness and sadness is ridiculous or misogynistic.

Complete arbitration is necessary to be pro choice. If you don't like complete arbitration, then you're not pro choice, you're pro-abortion-for-more-situations-than-typical-pro-lifers. The two are not the same.

Additionally, had the daughter been born to a mom who doesn't want her, she'd be traumatized so it's better to never have known that suffering in the first place.

Inversely, if you are pro-choice it doesn't matter whether you agree or not with me not wanting sons. I don't want a walking liability, I don't want a ticking time bomb who I could feed feminism from the moment he says his first word yet can grow up into a sneako rat or the next Andrew prostate. The most laterally misogynistic daughter is not enabled to do as much harm as a mildly misogynistic son.

We've got to remember that the patriarchy doesn't give a fuck about women's opinions and feelings. The patriarchy only exists to serve men. Women tend to become internally misogynistic and/or laterally misogynistic to ease the cognitive dissonance that occurs from being a human woman, in a system that treats women as subhuman. But the patriarchy does not actually care if you internally agree or not, it just wants to control you. Internalized & lateral misogyny make you easier to control. But you could be a complete anti-patriarchal ultra radical feminist, but as long as you're as easy to control as a believing tradwife, patriarchy doesn't care. Men don't care.

Because the patriarchy doesn't give enough of a shit about you to truly care about your deepest opinions and just wants to control you, no woman in a patriarchal sphere of influence will be elevated to the level of authority and control as a man. Because of the fact she could use her authority to spread anti-patriarchal dissent by hiding her deepest opinions to get that authority in the first place.

This is especially concerning when it comes to intimate relationships and what men can get away with.

An ultra far right laterally misogynistic tradwife daughter posts bs propaganda on the internet and ruins her own life. A casually misogynistic man (on the right or the left) rapes women. Or beats women and calls it kink, or buys sex (another form of rape) and calls it female empowerment. The misogynistic daughter is an embarrassment, the misogynistic son is a targeted nuclear warhead heading for women that I helped fashion. Absolutely not, under no circumstances will I create such a risk to the female class.

A poor person who supports capitalism will never be as bad as an actual capitalist who benefits from labour they did not do, and often makes the material conditions for the proletariat unfair or abusive.

It's funny though because you need a LOT of abuse, social conditioning and often straight up programming to turn a daughter into such a class traitor, which my future daughter(s) will seldom have due to the fact they will grow up without a patriarch and without brothers.

Single sex schools are still fairly common in Ireland too so they'll most likely be going to those (and most of said single sex schools ban makeup for students too, and are uniformed, so way less expensive trends and self consciousness about the face). And Ireland, while not some beam of patriarchy-less sunshine, is one of the best for gender equality and as a woman living here I can attest it is much better Nigeria which I'm originally from. And honestly from what I see my American friends going through it seems to be a lot better than large swathed of the USA.

My future daughter(s) with all that, on top of a radfem GNC separatist mom, will be hard pressed to turn into a misogynistic tradwife, whereas a son only needs an internet connection to become a danger to humanity.

But ultimately it doesn't matter if you dislike my reasons for aborting male fetuses if I have one, because my womb is not real estate for social justice and equality.

Additionally it is majorly disrespectful to me but also any mom/future mom to say "don't have children if you're going to hate your child for their sex." Lol what? Obviously if a stork flew down with my magic male full-term or near-full term baby, that is my child and I will obviously love him and raise him as best as I can to be a feminist ally. A pre-24w fetus is not my child because it's not a person. Even after that, until it's born, it's up to a woman's interpretation when a fetus becomes a baby, and further when the baby becomes HER baby.

Overall wider culture but even people on the left, even so-called pro-choicers, seem to take issue with sacrifice minimization. It makes them uncomfortable that a woman will exercise her liberties to bring about the best and happiest outcomes for her child(ren) with the minimal amount of input.

Like described above, bringing about a son who truly respects women and isn't a misogynist at all, is magnitudes much harder than bringing a daughter who has female class consciousness. Why would I out myself through the stress for a son for the high likelihood of failing, when I could live a much more relaxed life with a daughter who is not only class conscious but happy, with way less stress?

I also find people invoke this kind of shame when they try to guilt women into having more than one baby. "Give your kid a sibling, they'll be lonely otherwise!" meanwhile having a sibling can also be lonely and it can cause actual trauma if the siblings don't get along. A lot of one-and-done moms talk about how much easier and more fun life is compared to their friends with 2+ kids. Not saying it's common for pro-choicers to shame women into having more kids, just saying there is a similarity between their distaste for sacrifice minimization.

The sacrifice minimization concept is also allegorical to the conversation about the ethics of aborting disabled fetuses.

Many people abort fetuses for congenital/antenatal disabilities because they view disabled people as lesser, people who don't belong in their family, invalid, they straight up hate disabled people which is extremely ableist. Which makes having kids contraindicated entirely, as any kid can become disabled or have an indetectable disability.

Issue is, the abortion of disabled fetuses is the culmination of extreme ableism, not an act of ableism in and of itself. Because fetuses aren't people, therefore no person was victimized or discriminated against when aborting.

And like I said before, no one's womb is real estate for social justice and equality. It's no one's place to judge what is or isn't evicted from someone's uterus (or who, if the pregnancy is post-24w).

Additionally, not everyone aborts disabled babies because they hate disabled people. To preface, of course disabled people as a whole are very very much not a privileged group. However within the demographic that is disabled people, most of us activists are privileged in comparison. Frankly any one of us who is able to access the internet is very privileged in comparison to some disabled people's difficulties, and this is the stuff that rarely gets posted.

I used to work as a healthcare assistant (for a short time before I had to quit due to my own disabilities) and without exposing anyone's private life, I can comfortably say that as a childhood torture survivor & ritual abuse survivor, still dealing with the physical injuries of torture, there are antenatal disabilities that cause such pain and suffering (to the disabled person) that makes my worst experiences as painful as bumping into a wall in comparison. And such disabilities are not as rare as we'd like them to be.

When it comes to the topic of sacrifice minimization, it's not about whether or not people think such people "deserve" to live or not or if aborting them "saves them from misery," let's put that aside. It is utterly ridiculous to tell a hopeful mom that she SHOULD go through the level of grief, stress, depression, and anxiety to a) go through the more dangerous pregnancy as these in-utero disabilities tend to come with higher risks and b) actively know her entire life will be changed to care for a child with such a high level of need, and then purposefully go through with that, and have that weight and guilt on her shoulders.

Mothers already deal with guilt when it comes to health issues completely unrelated to them, like freak accidents they weren't even present for or had any control over. That (misplaced) guilt is magnified an indescribable amount of times when she has a test showing fetal abnormality and she chooses to keep. That choice to keep, if it occurs, should not be egged on by detached so called pro-choice telling her aborting over this is somehow creating cruelty and hate. It's nobody's business to be swaying her either way.

On top of that, while one should prepare for one's child to be disabled, those possible disabilities often stack onto whatever congenital disability is under scrutiny in the first place. It's not like you get a set of illnesses and that's it, disability parking slots booked out for the future. Many disabled people are at higher risks for other disabilities too. Using one's given medical information to abort disabled fetuses also means only birthing babies with a relatively decreased risk of further disability as well, which means higher potential quality of life (depending on the disability, QoL varies a LOT, and some measurements of QoL are ableist in and of themselves and assume disabled ways of living are inherently worse. I mean QoL in the abstract here).

Babies without many certain antenatal disabilities have not only a far higher chance of survival, but also the mom has a lot more available resources to secure that child's wellbeing, safety and happiness, and are in a better position to address disabilities that appear later while the adults are still caring for the child (or even at birth conditions such as CP). Aborting disabled fetuses is often a form of sacrifice minimization (and probably the most common form of said minimization amongst selective abortions), not always from ableism (although I agree it often is both or just ableism). And mainstream pro-choice left clearly takes issue with sacrifice minimization to some degree.

—

Conclusion: 1) Fetuses (at the very least pre-24 week fetuses) are not people. Fetuses cannot suffer from being aborted. Fetuses that would grow to belong to certain demographics don't experience discrimination for being aborted because they're not people.

2) Abortions based on the future demographic of a fetus is not an act of discrimination in and of itself but is often a culmination of pre-existing discrimination.

3) People's uteruses are not the places for social justice or moralisms. There's no "wrong" thing to do with the contents of one's womb.

4) It is perfectly fine for women to use abortion to minimize their sacrifices in raising children, while still working for the best possible outcomes for the children they do decide to birth.

5) Some people who call themselves pro-choice don't understand point 1 or point 3 and need to work on that stat.

6) If you don't agree with the underlying principles of pro-choice, you're not pro-choice, you're just abortion-permissive to more situations than pro-lifers.

Note: Edited some sentences for clarity. Message of the post is the same

[fthistumblershit]

What do you not understand about the male fetus post?

Look, I don't mean to offend anybody's convictions and I'm aware that there's a sort of schism in radfem thought regarding this topic , but I consider myself a radfem and I actively participante in radfem groups online and irl, and in activism. I also plan on getting pregnant in the near future, am I supposed to abort the fetus from a very much wanted pregnancy because it's a male? Aren't there radfems out there who gave birth to males, such as Gail Dines and many important radfems in my country, for example? I have to imagine all of this is said jokingly but I've seen it so much on radblr recently that I'm not sure anymore. As long as I don't have a better understanding of it, I have to say I disagree with this idea.

[tanoraqui]

VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE!

Find your polling place | Register day-of | Ready your ID | Hassle your boss for legally required time off (varies by state) | Uber and Lyft are both offering discounted rides to your polling place (and some random restaurants are offering random deals, too, I guess?)

WHY VOTE?

The Bean will be disappointed in you if you don’t

Voting for the lesser of two evils DOES reduce the amount of evil. Voting for the lesser of two evils SAVES LIVES.

^ Bernie Sanders gave a really good breakdown of this, actually.

Voting is not a choice of your personal idol, it’s a choice of who you have the best chance of persuading around to your side. It’s public transit—you don’t get exactly where you want to go, but you get close enough to walk, or at least to somewhere you can catch the next bus.

Harris has a genuinely good track record of helping the people she serves, and genuinely good goals for doing it some more as President

Trump’s most repeatedly and explicitly stated goal is to order the armed forces to persecute protestors, immigrants, journalists and his political enemies. He’s even less grounded than last time, very likely suffering dementia, and anyone from his previous administration who once restrained him even slightly is warning people that he’s a fascist who explicitly admires Hitler. Their replacements will be vaccine deniers, climate change deniers and the authors of Project 2025.

Hope alone is an act of defiance. Defiance alone is an act of hope. You WILL feel better if you vote, no matter who wins, because you’ll know you did what you could.

Also for the love of god please vote for House and Senate races, too. The Biden-Harris administration only passed the Infrastructure Reduction Act, “the single largest investment in climate and energy in American history” because they held both House and Senate AND VP Harris to break a Senate tie. Not a single Republican voted for it; all Democrats did.

And more local races, of course! They ALL have real effects!

Once you’ve voted, the Bean will be able to rest easy once more—AND so will Candi!

GO VOTE!

[odinsblog]

Yeah, so I got to thinking about the fuckery in Arizona. They just passed an anti-abortion law from 1864, right? At that point in time, Arizona wasn’t even a state, however they did provide troops to fight in the Confederacy. It’s like they really want to “take America back(wards)” to the good old days of patriarchy on steroids + white supremacy

Anyway, it got me to thinking about what other archaic laws are on the books that Arizona might want to selectively enforce? Being Black, my first thought was, is slavery off the table or nah? What about laws against interracial marriage? Same sex marriage? What about laws restricting who could and could not vote??

There are a lot of outdated laws that are still on the books in Arizona (and other states too), but nobody on the Arizona Supreme Court is really tryna make things like adultery illegal, right? Why pick and choose or be selectively outraged about one and not the other? (answ: hypocrisy. misogyny. racism.)

Any law that was on the books before a territory became a state should be repealed, or at the very least, they should have to be reconsidered or voted on again

[the-tenth-arcanum]

I can't believe trump is winning the elections...

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Charlotte Clymer at Charlotte's Web Thoughts:

Over the years, I’ve occasionally seen the argument pop up from some conservatives that men’s bodies are controlled through the military draft system. They use this bad faith response to women’s bodies being controlled by anti-choice lawmakers. In recent months, this argument has been more prevalent, particularly online, as abortion has become arguably the single most potent issue in the presidential campaign. So, let's quickly discuss this ridiculous talking point given that some conservative men have betrayed their complete ignorance on the Selective Service System.

Arguing the draft is to men like abortion is to women is ludicrous for three big reasons. First, the draft in the United States hasn't been in effect since December 27th, 1972. That was the last day young men were inducted in our Armed Forces. And yes, that means young men in the U.S. have been free of being drafted longer than young women have had abortion access. Second, the consequences for young men failing to register for the draft are not even close to being similar for young women who don't have abortion access. It's like comparing a scratch on your car to a catastrophic wreck. Young men who don't register for the draft essentially cannot be hired by the federal government and some state governments. And in some states, they cannot get a driver's license without registering for the draft.

That's completely unjust, I agree, but it ain't close to being the same. Conservative men will then come back and claim young men can be prosecuted for failing to register, but this is basically false. The Justice Department decided to suspend prosecutions for draft registration back in 1988 because they realized it's pointless and helps no one. Then they’ll claim that young men who don’t register for the draft can't receive federal student aid for college, but this isn't true, either. That law is no longer on the books. A young man's federal aid for college will NOT be impacted by their draft registration. Meanwhile, young women who don't have abortion access can literally die and many have. Women have died at hospitals because doctors were too afraid to offer abortion care for fear of breaking cruel laws implemented after the Dobbs ruling.

[...] For more than five decades, feminist leaders have argued that: 1) young men should have autonomy over their bodies and a military draft is the complete opposite of that and 2) exempting young women from the draft is a sexist double standard. But when efforts come up to either eliminate the military draft entirely OR require young women to register for it just like young men, it's Republicans in Congress who have led the way, every time, in killing those efforts. So, if you're a conservative young man who is angry about this double standard, I agree with you. It's not fair that you're required to register for the military draft and women aren't.

You have every right to be angry about that, but you should be angry at Republicans. Because it's feminist leaders who have been fighting for your equality all this time. It's the feminist movement who was first making the argument that young men shouldn't be coerced into military service. It's an issue of autonomy. And Republicans have consistently opposed that. So, please, don't compare draft registration to abortion access because it makes you look ridiculous, but moreover, you should hold Republican elected officials accountable for stripping away your autonomy in service to a sexist double standard. While you’re at it, thank feminist leaders who were calling this out long before you were born.

Charlotte Clymer wrote an excellent column on how males that were once being drafted to serve in the military is NOTHING like lots of American women losing abortion access as a result of Dobbs.

[lorynna]

Seperate post because I am unable to reblog yesterday's debate about sex-selective abortions:

Down below is the link to the full blog post if anyone is interested in reading the whole thing. I am just going to reply to a few of the absolute insane and brainrot takes by @aux-squiggle :

1) "I'm sure you'd (correctly) chastize me if I went on every post with someone having bleach & dyed hair crying about how hair bleach harms the hair and saying "yes I understand it's your body and I'm not against your autonomy but hair dye is so stupid" at some point one realizes that it's just my opinion on hair dye and I should shut up unless explicitly asked for my opinion, which at no point were you asked for your opinion on what I'll do or (what you think) makes sense to do with my body."

Starting right off, it's actually the first time I ever spoke about sex-selective abortion on here, so me "going on every post" is wrong and intentional inflammatory wording. The comparison between dyed/bleached hair and abortion lacks heavily - it's also ridiculously stupid. I'm sure what you do with your hair and the policies surrounding it is an equally political and complicated topic like abortion. Even if you should go around telling people "Sure, do your thing, dye your hair but it's unnecessary in my opinion to promote the beauty industry by partaking in it, because it makes money off of women's insecurities" you have the right to speak your opinion and reblogging another person who's stating their opinion, who's stopping you? Surprise, you can speak your opinion even without being asked for it! Some people will agree, some won't, that's the way it is! I'm sure you don't ask people you have differing opinions from each time if you please may reblog their post, or do you? This is the internet babe.

2) "Next thing idk where you've gotten this "trivilization of abortion thing" or making it seem like I have said abortion is a cutesy procedure with absolutely no harm but as poodle has said it's also very safe. Idk if you think every mention of abortion has to come with a full list of disclaimers but if you read me saying "I will get an abortion if it's a male" to mean "lol guys I get abortions every weekend let's go down to the spa for a pampering plus abortion trolololol" that's your own tbh. The issue is you view being pregnant with a male fetus (as opposed to a female one) as a trivial difference, when it's not trivial to me, many other radfems and indeed for many libfem women."

Surely not every mention of abortion needs to come with a huge list of disclaimers, after all you're not their doctor but idk about you, talking about "i will get pregnant and abort as many times as I have to, until I conceive a daughter" does sound very trivializing to me. Lastly, sure the future sex of anyone's baby means something different to anyone and a certain preference or even the so called "gender disappointment" is real and valid, but is it really the solution to spin the wheel on each pregnancy again and again until you get what you want?

3) "As for the race, sex, other attributes thing, as I've already established, since fetuses are not people and are not going to suffer if their mom gets rid of them, I don't care. I couldn't give a fuck if a white woman aborts a half POC baby tbh like that's her business. No POC suffers from her actions. I also refuse to have a half white baby.

Obviously that's easily addressed by me choosing a black African sire but if I were in a consensual relationship with a white male (would never happen because I don't date males but ygtp) I would abort because I don't want to birth a half Euro baby, as statically they pair up with Eurodescendants themselves. I already know you probably also think that's stupid but I have no wish to contribute to my oppressor's group in that regard either, even by a generational separation, as I know the most likely choice Afro/Euro biracial children make as opposed to monoracial black children.

To me, mixed (b&w) people are black, but ¾ white people are white. Having a monoracial black child means my grandchildren (if any) will also be black (mixed b& something else, or monoracial) meaning the family makeup is what I'm most happy with. Idc what my great-grandchildren (if any) are, I'm probably dead anyways.

So yes I would intentionally make choices, including that of abortion, that bring me the life I'm happiest with. Other women who do that are not my business, I don't care. They could abort because they don't like the star sign their kid is expected to have. A birth that brings the mother sadness, no matter how small or how frivolous the reason for sadness is, is not good and if she aborts to avoid that, all power to her."

That's....really interesting...to know. You have established you would not blink an eye for whatever reason people abort, be it their future baby's star sign, their sex or their ethnicity & race. Your reasoning for not wanting a non 100% black baby being that according to you they statistically are more likely to pair up with eurodescendants making you worry about your family tree becoming "less black"? Then you're going on about "who is black" and "who is white" according to you.

To clarify to anyone who does not know my stance on abortion: I am pro choice, I support every woman's right that does want to get an abortion, despite her reasoning. An abortion as the process itself is not tied to a moral aspect, as the fetus in these stages of development where an abortion is possible, is a non conscious clump of cells. However I do think that the reason for why a woman decides to abort can be criticised. For example: A woman wants to get pregnant and succeeds. She finds out the baby would be born in February, making it an Aquarius, so she aborts it. My stance on sex-selective is similar to how I view cheating on a spouse. I don't think cheating is right but I wouldn't want it to be illegal.

"Regarding pro-choicers saying "no one aborts for fun and silly reasons" and prolifers potentially using this as a clapback, what do you want me to do about that? There's far superior pro-choice arguments, and further to that, these are only fun and silly reasons to you. These are monumental to other people (including me), and since it's their womb they're the only one's who's feelings matter.

Again as I've told you, I will not censor myself for the sake of prolifers not getting offended, I genuinely could not give less of a fuck what they feel. They will always find a reason to hate on the pro-choice movement and since we understand prolifism is actually about tying women down to men and control of women, everything about both my and your lifestyles upset them. There's no placating their bs. If you are upset that I won't censor myself, keep it to yourself."

Making it seem like I gave a fuck about pro lifers and said "oh look at this poor pro lifer being so upset about your words!" instead of "you are actively harming the acceptance of the pro choice movement". You don't understand that the activism you are making is nothing the world is ready for yet. In most countries, abortion is completely banned and women who go through with it nonetheless are going to prison or are even paying with their lives. I am genuinly glad, that you are living in a progressive country where you can access abortion easily and safely and where healthcare even pays for it. Most people do not have that kind of privilege and pro choice activism firstly needs to focus on gaining acceptance by introducing people step by step to the movement, coming to them with facts and good arguments. You've got to understand your far rad stance is not realistically applicable as of right now.

"If in the 0.00001% chance the genetic test is wrong (which have functionality been at 100% accuracy for years, btw I've found several Irish based tests so I don't have to use an international product) at 8 weeks (and the tests after that) then I get several scans from 14 weeks on that also confirm the sex (and would be told if there is a discrepancy). If at those tests they find it's actually a male and the Y chromosome was somehow not picked up, I go to the UK and get an abortion then. If somehow it's not found out until 24 weeks+ (I'd have an easier time winning the lottery) I go to New Zealand for a 3rd trimester abortion. There's probably something wrong if it was missed that many times, at every single scan and test.

Have you prepared for nuclear war Lorynna? Have you decided what to do if a gamma ray burst sanitizes exactly half the planet (the side you're not on), and have you got a contingency plan on what to do if suddenly 4 billion people die? What if global supply chains collapse tomorrow (an actual likely thing tbh). Nuclear war and supply chain collapse at least are far more likely than a fetus being missed as male not only on the first genetic test, AND the tests after that, AND every single ultrasound after that. Idk about gamma ray burst though, probably the same likelihood.

If by some hellish demon reality I get stuck with a son then obviously I raise my son, as I've discussed previously in the linked essay."

Insanity. Proceeding to ask me about every possible catastrophic event that potentially happen and asking me if i prepared for it because yes, sure - it is exactly as unlikely as your baby to turn out being a boy despite all of your fancy tests. But glad to know that should the tests fail, you'll raise your son?

"" There's no reason to fight" "but I do have an opinion." As established, your opinion was unnecessary and uninvited, so it's very likely people will get mad at you if you call major life choices "stupid" without providing any reasoning beyond your feelings. Like I said, telling me what I should be ok with residing in my womb is nothing short of foul, and frankly unasked for."

Oh no! How evil of me, I dare to have an opinion and according to you it was unnecessary and uninvited! Oh man, so many people are going to get mad at me for calling major life choices stupid without providing any reason at all! At this point I'm almost 100% sure you're illiterate and typed your responses while blindfolded and with your left pinky toe. Claiming my arguments are feeling-based rather than objective criticism. And sure, because I said that if you were mature, you'd approach an intended pregnancy, accepting that both sexes can be the outcome of that and that a person who wants to get pregnant in my opinion should be okay with either, I am the worst!

[dbssh]

normal women who think well-adjusted things about children and totally understand logistics and biology and the climate crisis and dont think of themselves as the main characters in ya dystopias

[0ystercatcher]

ive had enough of el niño its really time to commit aggravated weather event pedicide

[dark-twist-fairytales]

Oof, gotta love suddenly feeling sick to your stomach.

[bmoreisapunkrocktown]

Eugenics is explicitly tied to the view of children as "things" that someone owns and controls, and until we do away with that idea, we can never be truly free of eugenics.

And that sucks, but there are a lot of people who claim to be anti eugenics who still very rigidly hold on to the idea of the nuclear family and the "right" to have a child, and that is not and never will be an anti-eugenics opinion, nor will it ever lead to any better conditions for disabled children.

[malloryrowinski]

It's one thing to decide for yourself that you'd rather get an abortion than have a son, which is your right and I'll fight by your side to have it, but it's a completely different thing to shame women (and you're always going after feminists too...) who do have sons. Once again your hatred for men overshadows your love for women.

[sharonaparadox]

[Image: greyscale fanart focusing on Lute and Vaggie from Hazbin Hotel redrawing a panel from “Born To Be Alive,” the sequel to the Zootopia abortion comic.

Lute is angrily grabbing Vaggie by the shoulders and shouting, in all capital letters, “You’re not like that, Vaggie! You’re just fooling yourself! Please dump this lezzy and get back to your true self!”

Vaggie snaps back, also in all caps, “Don’t you dare call her that!”

Beside Vaggie, Charlie is watching and trembling with a shocked and worried expression, a wobbly speech balloon with only an ellipsis above her as she clasps her hands in front of her chest. Behind Lute, Adam seems to be a distance away as he watches with a bored expression and sips on a drink with a straw.

The original panel is at the bottom, showing that Lute is drawn in place of Nick, Vaggie in place of Judy, and Charlie in place of an original vixen character. There is no character corresponding to Adam’s presence. End description.]

Wormed its way into my brain

[reasonsforhope]

Kamala Harris just announced that her vice president will be Minnesota governor Tim Walz. Based on the coverage so far I'm really reassured by this decision.

The Washington Post did an obviously great job of making a prepared article for each option, considering how long an article they had up 7 minutes after the announcement.

((Okay technically it's not an official announcement yet it's "according to three people familiar with the pick, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a decision that is not yet public." But listen. I am 99% sure this is a weather balloon. (Meaning: a deliberate leak to gauge reaction.) Because the sheer weakness or incompetence on the part of the Harris campaign that it would take for three people to all confirm that within a few hours hours of each other and the planned announcement it is massive.))

-via The Washington Post, August 6, 2024

Honestly this decision, from everything I've read and can tell, looks like it's brilliant politics.

Important Context: The vice president(ial candidates)'s job in an election is not to be similar to the president. The vice president's job on the ballot is very, very much specifically to be different from the president. Why? So they can cover each others' weaknesses. Especially regionally.

(Sidenote: I feel a bit ridiculous saying this. But genuinely if you want to get a stronger understanding of how US elections really work. Go watch seasons 6 and 7 of The West Wing. Genuinely, a lot of politicians have said - especially back in its day - that that was the most accurate depiction of an election they'd ever seen. Also specifically features an entire arc about a contested Democratic primary convention, so also very good if you're interested in understanding weird nominating convention shenanigans.)

From the article:

"Harris’s choice for a running mate was among the most closely watched decisions of her fledgling campaign, as she sought to bolster the ticket’s prospects for victory in November and rapidly find someone who could be a governing partner. In picking Walz, she has selected a seasoned politician with executive governing experience and signaled the importance of Midwestern battleground states such as Wisconsin and Michigan.

Walz’s foray into politics came later in life: He spent more than two decades as a public school teacher and football coach, and as a member of the Army National Guard, before running for Congress in his 40s. In 2006, he defeated a Republican to win Minnesota’s 1st Congressional District--a rural, conservative area--and won reelection five times before leaving Congress to run for governor.

Walz was first elected governor in 2018 and handily won reelection in 2022. Though little-known outside his state, Walz emerged publicly as one of the earliest names mentioned as a possible running mate for Harris, and in the ensuing days he made the rounds on television as an outspoken surrogate for the vice president...

“These are weird people on the other side. They want to take books away, they want to be in your exam room. … They are bad on foreign policy, they are bad on the environment, they certainly have no health care plan, and they keep talking about the middle-class,” Walz told MSNBC in July. “As I said, a robber baron real estate guy and a venture capitalist trying to tell us they understand who we are? They don’t know who we are.”

Walz also has faced criticism from Republicans that his policies as governor were too liberal, including legalizing recreational marijuana for adults, protecting abortion rights, expanding LGBTQ protections, implementing tuition-free college for low-income Minnesotans and providing free breakfast and lunch for schoolchildren in the state.

But many of those initiatives are broadly popular. Walz also signed an executive order removing the college-degree requirement for 75 percent of Minnesota’s state jobs, a move that garnered bipartisan support and that several other states have also adopted.

“What a monster. Kids are eating and having full bellies, so they can go learn, and women are making their own health-care decisions,” Walz said sarcastically in a July 28 interview with CNN when questioned whether such policies would be fodder for conservative attacks, later adding: “If that’s where they want to label me, I’m more than happy to take the [liberal] label.”

Walz also spoke at a kickoff event in St. Paul for a Democratic canvassing effort, casting Trump as a “bully.”

“Don’t lift these guys up like they’re some kind of heroes. Everybody in this room knows--I know it as a teacher--a bully has no self-confidence. A bully has no strength. They have nothing,” Walz said at the event, sporting a camouflage hunting hat and T-shirt.

Walz has explained that he felt some Democrats’ practice of calling Trump an existential threat to democracy was giving him too much credit, which prompted his decision to denounce the GOP nominee instead as being “weird.”

“I do believe all those things are a real possibility, but it gives him way too much power," Walz said on CNN’s “State of the Union” regarding the Democrats’ rhetoric. “Listen to the guy. He’s talking about Hannibal Lecter, shocking sharks, and just whatever crazy thing pops into his mind.”

If Walz is elected vice president, under state law, Minnesota Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan (D) would assume the governorship for the rest of his term. Minnesota Senate president Bobby Joe Champion, a Democrat, would become lieutenant governor."

-via The Washington Post, August 6, 2024

--

This guy. Sounds like. fucking Moderate swing-state/rural/Midwestern/southern/"heartland"/working class white voter catnip. He sounds like he's also a very smart politician and strong campaigner. And he's apparently genuinely a good guy with a good record, too.

He sounds like he's going to do a really good job of appealing to voters in several of the big deal swing states without being from any of them specifically. Which means it doesn't feel like pandering to one of the states involved (and thereby spurning the others), which is also great.

(Also he was the one who started "weird" @ conservatives and I think we should take that seriously as a very good political instinct/move. Judging in large part by how it has so clearly hit an actual nerve with conservatives like so little else. Also hugely relevant: that post going around about how part of why conservatives are so upset about "weird" is because in the Midwest, "weird" specifically also implies anti-social or harmful behavior.)

Officially feeling more optimistic about Trump not winning in November

[lorynna]

I’m pro-choice for any reason and you should be too. “Radfem” my gaping asshole. Abort that thang

I am too, but that must not mean that I have to think that it is a good thing, if a woman gets pregnant willingly and chooses to abort based on sex.

If you had actually read my reblog on this topic you just sent me an anon about, you'd know my stance on this and wouldn't have had to sent this bs.

Link below.

[bechdelexam]

sex selective abortion against male fetuses should be promoted. doctors should be telling their patients 'it's a boy... now you do have options here...'