Is banning abortion literally the hand maid’s tale?

Your point about the Iranian revolution stands because she actually mentioned it in the epilogue
I feel as if the interpretation I got from the book was vastly different to what the author actually intended. The society in the book was facing demographic collapse and extreme environmental and social problems. Even if the their society didn’t become a fundamentalist dictatorship shit would’ve still hit the fan big time. What was Gilead SUPPOSED to do? What was their alternative given the situation? Do nothing? If anything the book speaks to the importance of childbirth to a functional society. The handmaids were MORE free when women could all have kids.

I don't really understand this whole abortion thing. When I look at the media it's always "women's rights" or "women's bodies". They never seem to mention the fetus? Why not just say "I think it should be legal to kill the fetus until week X". Instead they never mention this or pretend the fetus doesn't exist. I don't have a strong opinion onthis matter, but this just seems stupid. Just state clearly what your position is.

>What was Gilead SUPPOSED to do? What was their alternative given the situation? Do nothing?
Respect the heckin rights of women CHUD

Abortion is a human sacrifice ritual, and the most powerful known to exist. It was invented by eugenicists within the occult to curry favor with Satan, while also gaining his protection for their war mongering, usury, and industrial scale manipulation of people's minds.

Why is abortion such a powerful form of ritual human sacrifice? Because it involves the most defenseless victim conceivable - an unborn child - being willfully murdered by the very person most spiritually bound to love and protect them, their own mothers. These ritualized murders are carried out in a nonchalant, routine way, as a means of facilitating hedonistic apathy, laziness, and convenience - the magic is in symbolically placing ten seconds of physical pleasure above the value of a human life. It symbolizes evil, within cruelty, within evil. It proffers that a few seconds of vaginal contractions mean more than human life, your own child, and it does this using the greatest symbol of love and compassion - a mother - satanically inverted into spiritually numbed, unfeeling executioners.

So the next time you see a woman of the West screeching into the camera about her rights, on the steps of some federal building, look into her eyes and understand that you're looking into the eyes not of a simple murderer, but of a demon, the literal definition of evil. And understand that this steady stream of death she inflicts upon the unborn is what power's the elite's satanic karma, and in turn enables their ever tightening grip on our nation, our society, our culture, and our very lives.

It's because the fetus is a human being. The first stage of a separate human organism is the zygote. This is the biological fact of the matter. So the fetus is a human. The term "fetus" when they deign to use it, is insisted on because this is a more clinical term which makes the matter more abstract.

So since we can't talk about the fact that it's a human the matter moves to whether it is a "person," which is a fully arbitrary legal construct that can mean whatever you want it to mean. It's a legal marker for which human beings you can legally kill and which you can't.

>I don't really understand this whole abortion thing. When I look at the media it's always "women's rights" or "women's bodies". They never seem to mention the fetus? Why not just say "I think it should be legal to kill the fetus until week X". Instead they never mention this or pretend the fetus doesn't exist. I don't have a strong opinion onthis matter, but this just seems stupid. Just state clearly what your position is.
Okay
rintintin.colorado.edu/~vancecd/phil215/Thomson.pdf

I know your post is ironic but many people would probably unironically say this.
So my answer to that if it were said seriously is this. The reason women became a commodity in Gilead was human nature, not patriarchy or control over women. It was even mentioned in the book itself. Something only becomes valuable when it is rare. The book goes into detail about how her life with Luke was good. The situation only got bad when children became extremely hard to create.

>It's because the fetus is a human being
objection
imo depends on how old is the fetus

couple of days after conception? definitely not a human being. has the potential to become one, but is not one yet
8 and a half months in? definitely a human being. killing it is murder

the big question is where do you draw the line
im not a doctor, so i have no opinion on where the line should be drawn
but in my mind this is the best solution

2nd best would be to dab on the roasties and make abortion illegal
just for the lulz.
>smug_frog_in_tuxedo_smoking_cigar.jpg

No. But the Biden Administration's Disinformation Governance Board is literally the Ministry of Truth.

Attached: cringe sister.jpg (1311x1206, 269.46K)

One of the stupider things in the show was how they made it even more explicit than the book that Gilead was the only functioning society, the only place with a future, because of how they controlled fertile women

No, it is scientifically a separate homo sapiens from the mother at the zygote stage. You are conflating two different things, whether it is a human and whether it is a """person""". The number of days and such things has nothing to do with it being human. It has to do with your made-up """person""" category which you can define to mean literally anything. Reread my post because it apparently went over your head.

>What was Gilead SUPPOSED to do?

umm... paying the fertile women instead of enslaving them?

Yes, the Pope will say "Twans wights UwU" and that'll be the solution to the homo question.

She was directly inspired by abortion shit. Her archives are at U of T and I had a prof who did a tonne of research into her for a lecture series/book he wrote on the development of Canadian literature. In his lecture on Atwood (see below) he mentions annotated newspaper clippings about the abortion debate in the US. Also, even though he obviously respects Atwood it's had to find her likable after listening to the lecture.

youtu.be/gfhLjuX-Qt0

Attached: atwood.jpg (1841x316, 192.47K)

Thats doesn’t work irl. You need the three positive mindsets, which is Time, Outlook, and Environment. If you doesn’t have of things nobody is having any kids.

The argument people make when they compare abortion to the handmaids tale isn’t about the morality of abortion. They’re more upset that men have a say on abortion because of muh body! They think that men having a say in the matter (in an open and democratic society no less) is an oppressive form of control.
They realised that they weren’t getting anywhere with the whole “abortion is ok because the fetus doesn’t count as a life” argument so they transitioned their talking points and strategy accordingly. Now morality is not even a part of the discussion. If you try to bring it up all they’ll say is “it’s a woman’s body so your opinion doesn’t matter anyway” and they never have to bother debating morality.
Now having the wrong opinion on abortion is equivalent to a form of oppression all on its own

Attached: EC719924-2B7C-4267-A21C-685B08582D64.jpg (330x310, 14.91K)

in my ontology, "human being" == "person"
if it doesn't have a functioning brain, thoughts, emotions, etc, it doesn't count

a freezer full of human organs/limbs doesn't count as a person, even if they all belonged to the same person previously

the zygote having its own distinct DNA also doesn't make it a separate person, not until it can reasonably be classified as an existing human being on its own right

on the one extreme, very few people would classify the zygote as a human being when it only consists of a single cell or even a few tens/hundreds/thousand cells
it has the potential to become a human being, a person, but its not one yet
but nearly everyone would agree that it is a human being at 8 and a half months.

it works when you talk about gestating and giving birth alone, not raising the children
there is no shortage of surrogate mothers today

Literally all feminists were (and probably still are) like this. Just look at Camille Paglia.

>imo depends on how old is the fetus
That seems like a very strenuous definition of what a human being is. Well it doesn't matter. You can define it which way you want: what's clear is that a zygote is an organism of the human species, I don't think that can be denied. It's the first stage of the same human organism that you, for instance, are right now. Compared with a sperm cell, however, that's a seperate organism, because it cannot develop into an adult human.

I don’t find this to be completely true. I think she wrote Gilead to be a complex and thought provoking place. And she succeeded. The epilogue drives that point home. Gilead was stuck between a rock and a hard place, with very difficult choices to make. The reader should be left with questions like “I deplore the way Gilead treated those women, but given the situation was there a preferable alternative? If so what?” And something to the effect of “what would we do in a situation like this?”
I think it comes across as so one dimensional because the loudest interpretations of the book are midwit takes trying to draw direct parallels between our society and theirs.

Well that’s just retarded, you need people who mentally and emotional commit to child development, you can’t just breed them out like some factory line, this disrupts family relations and structure.

You’re absolutely correct that we have plenty of woman to do so but that isn’t the moral argument. it’s about fixing woman’s priorities. The problem isn't abortions and divorces exactly, go speak with women of childbearing age and see what their priorities are. Go speak to the men who want to spend their nights drinking monster and playing video games. Our societies aren't having as much sex as our great-grandparents' generation did, and they were that horny without having abortions and divorces on the table as options to get away from consequences. The problem isn't that you can have an abortion or a divorce, it's that children are not wanted. Children not being wanted are WHY we have the abortion law. People will not start having magnitudes more children just because they can't officially have abortions.

yes, it will be so awesome when you get your wish and LaQweesha, Maria Rosalinda and Honey Boo Boo will spawn 12 sprogs each instead of six

so many bebez saved, so many more niggers, spics and white trash around to make America great again

future will be so bright we will all need mirror shades

i have no more desire to see more niggers than you
but that's not the issue being discussed here
ideally, we would have sensible abortion policies AND a nigger holocaust at the same time.
a man can dream.

Who does that work on though? To say it is a woman's body still presupposes that the fetus is not a human person. That is the foundational premise. Nobody serious will just concede it.

I don't care what your opinion is. I'm talking about the scientific fact of the matter. A human is a homo sapiens. A zygote (a fertilized egg) is a separate homo sapiens organism from the mother. Any legal definition you provide of what constitutes a "person" is arbitrary, regardless of how "obvious" you think it is. We can easily define a person only as humans capable of self-sufficiency, and thus comatose people and young children who have been born are not yet persons.

A baby is a separate body, so its not "your body your choice"
Its never unexpected, you had sex you retard

>in my ontology, "human being" == "person"
Notice the babykilling supporters can't even make an argument without mixing terminology to try to confuse people.

Yes aka vanilla Islam

It works on the women themselves. By convincing them that the abortion argument is actually a fundamental question of their human rights, instead of a moral question you create much more passionate abortion advocates who won’t concede anything. As they see it making a concession would be sacrificing their rights. It also widens the pro abortion appeal because many woman probably do understand your point of view, but if they can be convinced that it doesn’t matter and is just a front to steal their rights then they won’t accept it.

If abortion is so bad, why countries that ban it are world's worst shitholes?

Answer truthfully: if you had a choice (heh) would you prefer to live in blue/green or yellow/red/black part of the world?

Attached: Abortion_Laws_2020.jpg (1211x964, 263.77K)

Why can't men have a say in pregnancy issues? I've heard it said over and over by our elite class that men can get pregnant just as well as women can. How can pregnancy even be understood as a "women's issue" without excluding trans folk?

Well I am a doctor and I'm here to tell you there is no medically acceptable way to determine when a fertilized ovum officially becomes "a human being." We've more or less arbitrarily decided that it is when the fetus has made enough surfactant in their lungs to keep them open that there is a 50% chance with all modern medical intervention they could survive outside of the mother

But that doesn't seem very satisfying an answer does it? That's because the question is entirely philosophical and reducing the debate to medicine and biology is not the way to go. I'm pro choice because I live in a democracy and don't believe in telling other people what to do, but given how much doubt we have about where the line is between "clump of cells" and "human being" it's probably best that we try not to kill whatever it is that's growing inside a lady

Human life starts at fertilization. This is a scientific fact.

If you are right then it seems to me that Women, as a group, all must start reading Plato.

This is cogent argument, with no logical flaws. Are you a professional arguer?

>Well I am a doctor and I'm here to tell you there is no medically acceptable way to determine when a fertilized ovum officially becomes "a human being."
Because it's already a human. A human is a homo sapiens. You're conflating scientific matters with made-up legal categories just the same as he is.
>I live in a democracy and don't believe in telling other people what to do
Unless you want them to die because their mother finds them inconvenient.

>Don't kill a human being!
>this is what living in a democracy is like because telling people what to do is le bad

having Homo Sapien DNA and being technically "alive" is not enough to confer a right to life.

>reducing the debate to medicine and biology is not the way to go
Can't let facts get in the way, right?

>Rights are conferred by the government and are not intrinsic to humans.
60 million dead so far in the USA alone. This is where that leads.

>I don't care what your opinion is
i don't care about yours either
this argument is intended to influence other readers

>zygote (a fertilized egg) is a separate homo sapiens organism from the mother
yes, its is
but its not deserving of personhood and attendant rights until some later date, at which it could be argued that it is a human being

>Any legal definition you provide of what constitutes a "person" is arbitrary, regardless of how "obvious" you think it is
i do not thing its obvious, nor do i think it should be arbitrary
i specifically stated i have no opinion on where the line should be drawn, since i am not a doctor (or whatever sort of scientist you should be to make that judgement)
i only presented 2 extrema, which to me are obvious:
-the zygote still at the single cell stage or very soon afterwards is not a person
-an 8 and a half months old fetus is a person

>We can easily define a person only as humans capable of self-sufficiency
that's a retarded definition and i do not support it

>comatose people
i would classify them as persons, unless they are provably 100% brain dead, with no cerebral activity whatsoever
at that point i would classify them as dead.

>young children who have been born are not yet persons
like i explained above, in my mind it depends on how young exactly they are.

>he still believes in natural rights
LOL. Let me know how high school's going for ya

I feel like there's a joke somewhere in there to make about how the most horrifying vision a lefty woman's mind can conjure up is about being made to give birth.

at what date does the brain start developing?
how many weeks/months in do the first neurons start firing?

Well, I'm colombian. When will these abortion laws make us rich

It's classical rhetorical ethos and pathos torpedoing logos. Women know more about having babies and suffer the consequences of not being able to get abortions so they should have more say regardless of how logical any argument coming from a man may be saying they shouldn't be killing their children. So naturally this is an argument made by women for themselves

What if the zygote would be the potential (You)? Would you endorse the killing of your potential person? In other words, how would you apply the golden rule?
>Do not treat others in ways that you would not like to be treated.

>I don't care what your opinion is. I'm talking about the scientific fact of the matter. A human is a homo sapiens. A zygote (a fertilized egg) is a separate homo sapiens organism from the mother.
What about your sperm, tho?

fuck no, cuz im special (my mom said so.)
but for everyone else, i want a cold rational discussion about things.

Do you think Orwell would have laughed if he somehow knew that that inaugural director of the Ministry of Truth used terms like "engagement boner" and referenced all the "dick pics" she supposedly received?

Attached: engagement boner.jpg (886x1788, 770.77K)

How about you reread what I said, retard? A fertilized egg is the first stage of human life.

>Women know more about having babies and suffer the consequences of not being able to get abortions so they should have more say regardless of how logical any argument coming from a man may be
Men get pregnant too now. There's nothing exclusive about pregnancy to women and so they don't have any special say in it. Birthing people can be either men or women.