She/her. I don’t know what the fuck I’m doing. New to the Fediverse, literally just picked the instance that seemed the most frictionless. Progressive new urbanist vegan in New England.

  • 2 Posts
  • 27 Comments
Joined 1 month ago
cake
Cake day: January 29th, 2026

help-circle
  • The case has gripped South Korea, where abortions are not regulated properly. The procedure was decriminalised in 2019, there is no clear regulation on how far into pregnancy it can be carried out.

    I cannot imagine a single reasonable person arguing that there is any legal right to kill an already born baby as a part of any abortion policy.

    A huge fundamental principle of the pro-choice movement is about bodily autonomy and your right to decide that you will not use your body to incubate a fetus to maturity at this time, for any reason. The idea is that you have the right to remove a fetus from your body using reasonable methods, and if hasn’t matured into a viable baby that can survive outside of your uterus by that point, then it is an abortion.

    There are a whole lot of arguments to be had within this realm. What does ‘reasonable’ look like in different cases? At what point is the fetus enough of a person for its rights to be considered, and how does that weigh against the pregnant person’s right to decline consent to using their organs to provide life support to another person? If a pregnancy is near the point of viability and there is no threat to the pregnant person, how long is it reasonable to expect them to wait to bring the fetus to the point of being a viable baby instead of aborting? Even among people who hold a consensus on the right to an abortion, there is some debate.

    But I have never once encountered a single person who has argued that abortion law applies after the baby is already fucking born.

    This is not a legal gray area.












  • This feels like a “read the room” kind of comment.

    All humans are biologically considered animals, and there are many times when I feel that viewing human behavior through that lens genuinely encourages compassion and understanding, and yet: there is a long history of people being called “animals” as a dehumanizing measure in order to justify doing the same horrible things to them that humans routinely do to non-human animals. This is particularly true for historically marginalized groups.

    Likewise, there is a long, racist history of white people calling Black people “apes” or “monkeys” to justify racist systems and treat Black people the way they view monkeys and non-human apes, as resembling humans but not fully human.

    This representative is specifically responding to a video shared by Trump, who has a long history of racist behavior, in which the Obamas were depicted as distinctly non-human apes (I cannot recall the specific ape and cannot readily look it up. Gorillas, I think?), echoing that racist trope.

    When someone responds to Trump trafficking in racist tropes with “Black people aren’t apes,” they are not getting into the nitty gritty of taxonomical clades, they’re countering that trope. “Well, actually”-ing about humans technically being apes is undercutting the focus on countering Trump’s racism. Time and place.