“Loves abortion” is just kinda… wrong and purely there to trigger conservatives.
If you truly love abortions, I think you have some explaining to do…
Loving the freedom of choice to have or not have an abortion, that is something I think we all can get behind.
It’s clear it’s referring to bodily autonomy using inflammatory language to get a reaction as you said. Basically just add the word access after abortion, don’t be obtuse.
loves abortion
feminist
wat
What would be confusing about that?
Females can get pregnant.
Loving abortion seems opposed to that fundamental feature of (majority of) females, being able to carry children, making more people (including females). Loving aborting them seems like a real dark fetish, against a fundamental potential of females, a core function of their sex…
Idk which “wave” of feminism that is.
To me, I still try take feminism as egalitarianism as pertains to sex/gender.
Loving abortion seems like succumbed to some kind of anti-human depopulation psyop agenda, moved the goal posts from reproductive integrity and freedom from letting rapists decide who the mothers of their children are. The choice, the protection, good. But to love abortion? … That evokes to me an image of punched wombs and coat-hangers. Not feminist imagery evoked from that phrase “loves abortion”. To me, when I read that, it evoked startling brutally misogynist imagery.
So if this is not an Orwellian slip-n-slide… what’s the feminist meaning there that’s offering you no confusion at this phrasing and (what to me is a clashing) juxtaposition?
Has “feminism” been moved on to some “wave” even further removed from its women-respecting egalitarian roots?
Sorry. Help me out here. What the fuck.
You’re saying females so much, i cant tell if you’re ferengi or incel.
Women are not defined by childbirth. Likewise loving abortion does not imply they love having them. It means loving ownership of their body.
Interesting. More ad-hominem attacks here.
ferengi
Money is money, but females are better. ;D
Likewise loving abortion does not imply they love having them. It means loving ownership of their body.
If so, then there are many far better ways to phrase it such that it does not pick up the unintended inference. Strikingly atrocious and divisive when worded so. A little Wittgenstein awareness would go a long way. Orwell too. For sure. Retroactively picking up the pieces to clarify it means something other than it literally says, should be an indicator it’s not ideally worded. That is if one even ever encounters someone who questions it, rather than just moves on along without a word, dismissing the messenger for their grammatical ineptitude, or fallacious self contradiction, or worse, loves or loathes the idea as interpreted literally.
So, it’s just innocent grammatical ineptitude, and stubborn reluctance to consider the variety of readers outside the in-group (who know what it’s intended to really mean), to phrase it so?
Most generous I can reach for with that, is that it’s a kind of ableist bigotry. Hey ho, used to it. World not yet built for us each and all. Much to mend still. Not easy when some presume to be right and arrogantly capping what they have as best, and fight efforts to construct better (rather than actively seeking, or at least welcoming), wrapping their identity with their ideas, going all social-dominance reflexive flailing.
PS, voluntary. :P
No the phrasing is fine, the issue is you’re trying to frame this as something it’s not.
Okay. We’re stuck at contradiction level of graham’s hierarchy of disagreement now. At least it’s better than the ad-hominems.
Happy to hear any counter-arguments or refutations, or even non-disagreeing explorations of the ideas.
