First, though, I must show you the (mostly awesome) picture that inspired it:
I agree except for the pro-choice thing. In fact, I may even argue that pro-choice feminism is bad for intersectionality. Not only does it dehumanize unborn children, but its rhetoric is often ableist ("fetuses aren't people because they can't ______"). Abortion has been used for eugenics, the sake of keeping a "perfect" body, and covering up evidence of rape. It also avoids fixing problems like pregnancy discrimination, poverty, and irresponsibility (i.e. leaving your pregnant partner). If we should teach men not to rape rather than teaching women not to get raped, why must women (and trans people with female reproductive organs) bear the responsibility of adjusting to a system that doesn't accommodate their needs? The opposition to crisis pregnancy centers leaves abortion as a poor person's only option, which is not at all pro-choice.
Most importantly, whose place is it to decide which human lives matter and which don't? There was a long time when women weren't considered people. If the rights of one human are violated, the rights of all humans are threatened. While some argue that abortion is justified regardless of fetal personhood because nobody has the right to use another person's body (i.e. Thomson's violinist), it is important to consider the difference between the right to refuse and the act of brutally killing someone who is using your body. What if you also had to tear off the limbs of the violinist and suck out their brains? Also, you could in theory save the violinist some other way. As of right now, there isn't really a good way to keep the unborn child alive and healthy without using their mother's body. If there were, I'd totally support it. But abortion brutally kills an unborn baby, and I cannot support that.
Anyway, that's my case for pro-life intersectional feminism. You can disagree with me all you like, but you can't say I'm a misogynist.
No comments:
Post a Comment