"While purporting to be motivated by pro-life (or at least anti-death) principles, these laws and bills are fundamentally misogynistic. They have three fundamental functions. The first is to appease a key portion of the base. Second, couched in pro-life language, these laws provide excellent dog whistles for misogynists. The male misogynists generally understand that the message being sent to them is: "Your baby in her body. Her body in your kitchen. Making you a sandwich to put in your body.""
"Third, the laws codify misogyny by harming women. To be fair, I can add a fourth reason that brings in the Democrats: the abortion debate was something of a battlefield of deceit in which the Republicans falsely claim to be pro-life (or at least anti-death) and the mainstream Democrats agreed to fight the battle on this assumption. The Democrats rhetoric is that they are pro-choice and the mainstream never seems inclined to get into a substantial and complex fight over the core ethical issues."
Anti-abortion laws often operate to satisfy a segment of the conservative base, using pro-life rhetoric to mask deeper motives. The measures send coded signals that validate male misogyny and assert control over women’s bodies. These laws produce tangible harms by restricting access to reproductive care and reducing women's autonomy. Mainstream Democrats accepted the pro-life framing of the debate, limiting substantive engagement with complex ethical and political questions. Political rhetoric frequently preserves the status quo while allowing both parties to maintain power rather than resolve foundational conflicts.
Read at A Philosopher's Blog
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]