So I love terrible zines, and I read this entire thing. I might write a longer review later, but I’ll summarize the argument as having three strands woven together mostly incoherently.
1 The author brings the full weight of philosophy 101 and out of context Latin to argue there such a thing as inherent human life/worth and a that zygote (not fetus, zygote) fulfills these qualification. Like all debate nerds, this person just assumes that everyone will agree with their poorly constructed syllogisms and declares her argument as objectively correct before moving on.
2 She points out abortion has historic ties to eugenicist movements, and therefore, it is anti black or ablest to support abortion rights. This conversation is better tackled by the reproductive justice movement which advocates for creating conditions where reproduction is truly a choice. In this zine, the author borderline conflates free abortion with forced sterilization.
3 A lot of magical wombmanhood thinking in which the author assumes that, because it’s natural, all women, would be happy and fulfilled by having a child in any circumstance as long as there is paid maternal leave and free childcare. This includes victims of rape and incest.
The author argues that capitalism wants women to get abortions, so they can continue working, which is true for a person’s immediate employer, but she forgets other forces which want to increase the number of “domestic infants” something Barrett even brought up in her concurrence. The writer is very tied to the idea that abortion is capitalism forcing women to never fulfill their dreams of motherhood and that women can’t give informed consent to abortion because they don’t fully understand their options. I think she’d be surprised to learn that the average abortion patient already has children and might be making that choice because they love their children and want to control how their family operates. She is also anti adoption, so it’s very much about believing in magical motherhood.
In essence, a lot of this feels like bizzaro world terfism where a gay femme for whom potentially procreative sex is most likely hypothetical wants to use woke buzzwords divorced from their material context to deny other people’s bodily autonomy.
I also feel like she might be into some weird pregnancy porn (not that there’s anything wrong with that). I just get that vibe.
She sees it as a like a crime against the cosmic need for women to be with their children. The only adoption she accepts is people adopting ivf zygotes for fertilization or whatever.
So I love terrible zines, and I read this entire thing. I might write a longer review later, but I’ll summarize the argument as having three strands woven together mostly incoherently.
1 The author brings the full weight of philosophy 101 and out of context Latin to argue there such a thing as inherent human life/worth and a that zygote (not fetus, zygote) fulfills these qualification. Like all debate nerds, this person just assumes that everyone will agree with their poorly constructed syllogisms and declares her argument as objectively correct before moving on.
2 She points out abortion has historic ties to eugenicist movements, and therefore, it is anti black or ablest to support abortion rights. This conversation is better tackled by the reproductive justice movement which advocates for creating conditions where reproduction is truly a choice. In this zine, the author borderline conflates free abortion with forced sterilization.
3 A lot of magical wombmanhood thinking in which the author assumes that, because it’s natural, all women, would be happy and fulfilled by having a child in any circumstance as long as there is paid maternal leave and free childcare. This includes victims of rape and incest.
The author argues that capitalism wants women to get abortions, so they can continue working, which is true for a person’s immediate employer, but she forgets other forces which want to increase the number of “domestic infants” something Barrett even brought up in her concurrence. The writer is very tied to the idea that abortion is capitalism forcing women to never fulfill their dreams of motherhood and that women can’t give informed consent to abortion because they don’t fully understand their options. I think she’d be surprised to learn that the average abortion patient already has children and might be making that choice because they love their children and want to control how their family operates. She is also anti adoption, so it’s very much about believing in magical motherhood.
In essence, a lot of this feels like bizzaro world terfism where a gay femme for whom potentially procreative sex is most likely hypothetical wants to use woke buzzwords divorced from their material context to deny other people’s bodily autonomy.
I also feel like she might be into some weird pregnancy porn (not that there’s anything wrong with that). I just get that vibe.
:rat-salute:
Thankyou for your service.
Anti adoption??
She sees it as a like a crime against the cosmic need for women to be with their children. The only adoption she accepts is people adopting ivf zygotes for fertilization or whatever.
Yeah surely children being under thr care of the state is better than adoption jfc