| ▲ | khalic 3 hours ago |
| What’s this fixation of far-right populists on genitals and reproduction? It’s really disturbing |
|
| ▲ | joshuaheard 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| The issue with abortion is that some think the fetus deserves legal protection because it is equivalent to a human baby. So, they don't think it should be killed. In Italy, abortion is allowed in the first 90 days. After that, it is illegal. These websites were providing abortion pills to be used past the 90 day period, which is illegal. So, these websites were being blocked because they were engaged in illegal activity. |
| |
| ▲ | krunck 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Would not illegality be handled by charging those suspected of the activity and hearing the case in a court of law? Maybe those blocking the sites are not acting on behalf of law enforcement but rather their own ideas of legality and morality. |
|
|
| ▲ | Argonaut998 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Because if you believe this fetus to be a human life then it follows believing that if it is terminated, it is akin to murder/infanticide. I don't know why people are being so (deliberatively?) reductive ITT. |
| |
| ▲ | realo 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Yes but... you used the word "belief". Nothing scientific there. If the mother was raped and knows for sure she will not bring up her rapist's kid ... or if there is a possibility that letting the baby be born will kill the mother, MY belief is to follow the mother's wishes. It's her body and her life. | | |
| ▲ | hbn 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Whether or not a fetus is human life isn't a scientific concept. Pro-choice people "believe" that it isn't. That's not scientific either. | | |
| ▲ | loup-vaillant an hour ago | parent [-] | | > Pro-choice people "believe" that it isn't. Not all of us I would bet. One can believe the fetus is a human life, and still want to allow the mother ending it. Sure it’s rough, but this is a classic case of conflicting interest. Pretending the fetus isn’t human yet is just one of several ways to side with the mother’s decision. Malformations or danger to the mother’s life are two others. And then there’s the more radical position that as long as the fetus hasn’t left the womb, the mother’s autonomy is still more important than its life. This last one is less a belief, (one week before birth the baby is clearly viable), than it is a value system. Though I’d be curious to see the statistics on countries that allow abortion up to birth itself. If it turns out practically no one aborts after 4 months or whatever, that particular point would be moot. | | |
| ▲ | lelanthran an hour ago | parent [-] | | > This last one is less a belief, (one week before birth the baby is clearly viable), than it is a value system. Upthread, a response to me indicated very clearly that, even at 1 day before delivery, it should be the mother's choice. There's a lot of nuance here, with clearly many people stuck in denial: this is not a binary question. There's a spectrum, all the way from 1 day after conception to 1 day before delivery. The pro-choicers are pretending that all the pro-lifers want to outlaw the morning after pill. The pro-choicers are also not doing themselves any favours by actually, on this story alone, positioning themselves as supporting 1-day-before-delivery abortions. Everyone has a line they'll draw. Not everyone's line is in the same place. |
|
| |
| ▲ | 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | lelanthran an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Yes but... you used the word "belief". Nothing scientific there. And you think the opposing arguments are? | |
| ▲ | 26 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | nailer 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | But it’s not. The child has different DNA, and a different life. • Survival rates begin to appear (still low) around 22 weeks (roughly 5–35% depending on the study, active treatment, and hospital, with high rates of complications).
https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/154/4/e20240... | |
| ▲ | mbmbn 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | And in Italy, she has 90 days to do it legally and for free. And please stop that rape red herring. The overwhelming majority of abortions are carried out as contraceptive methods. | | |
| ▲ | surgical_fire an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | You are being downvoted, and I don't know why. The majority of abortions are a result of people getting pregnant and not wanting a baby. And that's alright, there's nothing wrong with that. I say this as someone that is 100% pro-abortion. If a woman wants to not have a baby, it's her body, and her right to decide. The discussion ends there. Life is hard in the best of times. It must suck to be brought into a world where your mother doesn't even fucking want you around. Moreover, it's probably preferable that people that make poor decisions regarding pregnancy opt themselves out of the gene pool. | |
| ▲ | dudefeliciano an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Even so, you are deliberately dismissing rape victims that got pregnant[1], what is their recourse? Or do you just care about the rights of a fetus while it's in utero and then they're on their own as soon as they pop out? [1]https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullar... | | |
| ▲ | Manuel_D 18 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Nothing in your link contradicts the fact that the vast majority of abortions are not terminating rape-related pregnancies. | | | |
| ▲ | lelanthran an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Even so, you are deliberately dismissing rape victims that got pregnant[1], what is their recourse? To have the legally available and free abortion that is offered within the first 90 days of their rape? | | |
| ▲ | dudefeliciano an hour ago | parent [-] | | I linked to a study exploring the numbers in the US states where abortion was banned, not referring to Italy here. My response was to the "rape victim red herring" which i find incredibly distasteful. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | quickthrowman 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | If someone is morally opposed to abortion, they don’t need to have one. That’s where it should end, there’s no need to control the bodies of others due to a moral belief that other people don’t hold. | | |
| ▲ | cocoto 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | The whole point of the debate is that the fetus has no choice during an absorption, not some “moral” ground that you are imposing to someone else. | | |
| ▲ | nancyminusone 13 minutes ago | parent [-] | | That is unfortunate, but the opposing view entitles a fetus to use of another persons body. This is something I am not entitled to, even if a blood transfusion, marrow transplant, or organ donation would save my life with certainty. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | whateverboat 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| As other commenter said, control over women. But this is not just some desperate attempt, but a way to get back to the roots. |
|
| ▲ | loup-vaillant 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| There are several aspects to this. One is control over women. Another is panic over the idea that other people with darker skin tone might overrun us with their reproductive might; either by mating like rabbits, or straight up stealing our our women. (They’re ours, right? Riight?) Also, the Book said something like "Be fruitful and multiply". The weird thing about Great Replacement bullshit, is how it manages to mix superiority complex with inferiority complex. Like viewing oneself as less attractive than the "inferior" brother accros the street, or believing in the superiority of one’s culture, and in natural selection, and be afraid of being overrun by an "inferior" one… |
|
| ▲ | fhdkweig 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Controlling reproduction means controlling women. Controlling women seems to be a high priority for crotchety old men. But that doesn't really answer your question, it just rephrases it. I think it is like anorexia. Someone who has no control over their own lives tries to control the few things they can. An anorexic controls their food, but a married man controls his wife and kids. It makes even the weakest person feel strong to have someone to boss around. |
| |
| ▲ | skissane 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Controlling reproduction means controlling women. Controlling women seems to be a high priority for crotchety old men. You ignore that so many leading anti-abortion activists are women. I think for example of Joanna Howe, [0] who is arguably the most prominent activist against abortion rights in contemporary Australia-and far from some “crotchety old man”, she is a 43 year old law professor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joanna_Howe | |
| ▲ | philipov 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I don't think you need an analogy like that to explain why people want to control women. They want to control women for the same reason they want to control men. Is it any mystery why people seek power? Those with power can decide how to distribute the resources of the society in a way that preferences them and their inner circle. Access to reproduction is one of the most basic resources a society has available. It is common for the old men to control the young men by being the ones to decide who gets access to women. "Work for us loyally, and we'll allow you to get married" | | |
| ▲ | fhdkweig 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I don't think they are trying to control men. I'm not seeing any evidence of that. When I see a law that attacks women, it is very clearly targeted towards women, but I don't see anything that clearly targets men. | | |
| ▲ | philipov 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Controlling women means controlling men. The most basic way to do that is by controlling who is allowed to get married. Attacks against the reproductive rights of women are caused by a desire to avoid "side channels" by which a couple could avoid passing through the systems established to control marriage. Society became much more complex than a tribal village where the elders decide everything, and so have the levels of indirection in how control of reproduction is wielded. The situation is also quite a bit more complicated now that populations are able to grow so far above the local carrying capacity of the land. Yet we can still trace a line back to when it was necessary for a community to collectively maintain the sustainability of their population by deciding how many children could be supported at any one time. | |
| ▲ | lelanthran 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > When I see a law that attacks women, it is very clearly targeted towards women, but I don't see anything that clearly targets men. Drafts? They typically only targeted men, with a large possibility of maiming or death as the result. | | |
| ▲ | philipov 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | "After you get back from the war, your reward will be a wife and household." |
| |
| ▲ | 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
| |
| ▲ | nailer 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Access to reproduction is one of the most basic resources a society has available. The topic is not access to reproduction. Nobody is controlling access to pregnancy. > the ones to decide who gets access to women. Nor is access to women. |
| |
| ▲ | skrebbel 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > crotchety old men Such as Giorgia Meloni? | | |
| ▲ | fhdkweig 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I don't know what is going on in Italy, but that's why we are doing it in America. | | |
| ▲ | altern8 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Oh, a post about Italy. Let's take this opportunity to talk about America :-D | | |
| ▲ | fhdkweig 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | I zeroed in on khalic's mention of "far right populism" which I thought was a universal term, but skrebbel made it sound like that doesn't apply to Italy (but I still think it does), so I clarified. |
|
| |
| ▲ | lolgab 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The first thing she did in office was a order to be called "il signor presidente", masculine of the correct "la signora presidente".
She's not an old man but behaves as such and the fascist side of her support is strongly misogynist. |
| |
| ▲ | geremiiah 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | This is the kind of rational you arrive to, if you spend too much time in feminist circles and never bother to actually try to understand the other side. I can assure you that nobody thinks in terms of "controlling women". | | |
|
|
| ▲ | mbmbn 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| So, providing information on how to carry out abortion after the 1st trimester in a country where abortion in the first 90 days is legal and free is not the disturbing part to you… it’s trying to prevent abortions after those 90 days. I believe there’s something very wrong with your moral compass, pal. |
| |
| ▲ | dudefeliciano an hour ago | parent [-] | | the question was why do far right populists care so much about genitals and reproduction, nothing to do with whatever you are saying here |
|
|
| ▲ | CamperBob2 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinder,_K%C3%BCche,_Kirche And in the US [1,2]: 2016 election: Approximately 39% to 42% of female voters cast their ballots for Trump. 2020 election: Approximately 44% of female voters cast their ballots for Trump. 2024 election: Approximately 46% of female voters cast their ballots for Trump Like it or not -- and make no mistake, I don't like it -- many women want this. ---------- 1: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2025/06/26/voting-patte... 2: https://www.cfr.org/articles/women-voters-pivotal-role-elect... |
|
| ▲ | jamesbelchamber 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Reproductive control undermines most right-wing ideologies; outlawing it patches up the cracks. |
|
| ▲ | bwestergard 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| The worse the experience of working life gets, the more important an idealized family life becomes for many downwardly mobile or precarious people. Most people's family lives cannot actually live up to this fantasy, so scapegoats - gender non-conforming people, feminists, immigrants - are required to deal with the cognitive dissonance. |
