@CainPrice Third party opposition, in other words men with no connection to the woman in question desiring to prevent her from having an abortion, IS a vestige or component of patriarchy. This is not altered where current conditions give these desires no weight or legal standing.

The rest of the argument presented here hinges on whether one considers an unwanted zygote (the stage at which over 90% of US abortions occur equivalent to a fully developed and self-aware human. There are a multitude of reasons one might consider this so, and it is not my desire nor place to challenge them, where they concern his own potential offspring.

However, it is my opinion that this befits bluepill/religious/tradcon territory. I also see it invoked by the subset of ethnonationalists, who take offense at any thought of one less child of their preferred race being born, though with no more comprehensive plans than the rest for getting the resulting infant to functional adulthood with all which that entails.

Absent this assumption, the third party desire to prevent a woman from abortion is definitely at odds with the concept of self-determination, because it places the interests of a third party, with near certainty involving government empowerment and intervention, over those of the woman in question, for the sake of protecting a not-yet-human-individual. I've yet to see a compelling argument that an anti-abortion position belongs in the category of things considered "red pill."

Comparing it to having a mole removed is an emotional argument, and a red herring at that. A majority of women who consider, much less resort to abortion (100% in my small sample size of those who I've personally discussed it with) find it very emotionally distressing, even damaging; though balanced as less so than the significant consequences of carrying an unwanted child to term and beyond.

@MentORPHEUS The fact that there is third party male opposition to anything women do at all, whether it's abortion, casual sex, divorcing a guy and taking him for everything he's worth, or anything else women do, supports the fact that the patriarchy doesn't exist.

If the patriarchy existed, we wouldn't be having these discussions at all. Abortion would be the patriarch's decision, casual sex would actually devalue women, divorce would be a pro-male proceeding, and so on. The fact that men impotently whine about their viewpoints and their opposition while women and society as a whole sneer at the very idea that men are allowed to have an opposing viewpoint on this at all strongly supports the Red Pill idea that we live in a female-centric society and that this patriarchy thing doesn't exist.

Abortion, as an issue, is fairly exempt from the whole libertarian/freedom/self-determination thing, because there's an important unresolved philosophical question at its root: What is the zygote/fetus?

If it's a pre-human, then opposing abortion is no different than opposing murder, which even libertarians do. If it's just a lump of non-human cells, then opposing abortion is an over-reaching attempt to control female healthcare decisions. For this to be at odds with libertarian/self-determination principles, we have to accept as a given that a zygote/fetus is non-human, when that question has not been resolved.

Regardless of whether those cells in a woman's uterus are a human life or not, they're definitely life of some kind. They're alive, the same way a dog or tree is alive. The same way bacteria is alive. Scientists unanimously agree that bacteria is alive, and some fetus is easily as alive as bacteria. When a pregnancy is terminated, even if a human life is not being ended, something that is alive is being killed. Considering that the lump of cells that is being killed eventually turns into a human if you leave it alone, this process at least deserves as much grief and consideration and respect and dignity as we'd give when a family puts its pet dog to sleep. Abstracting this to some kind of clinical medical procedure - a mere healthcare choice, like the woman's just having a mole removed or something - completely blows past the seriousness of the issue. And intentionally so, to make abortion easier to stomach.

@itiswr1tten The purpose of this question is to show whether drawing the biggest crowd is worth anything, when their methods don't include the ability to meaningfully influence anyone outside of their ingroup.

I've discussed elsewhere my extensive real-world experience putting my ideas out into the public arena and changing skeptical minds in order to reach lofty goals.

One recurring observation is that starting a public spat will make huge crowds of people who were previously mostly ignoring you all stop and watch while the fight is going on. Once it runs out, the people all drift away without their previously existing beliefs changed. This is the basis for much of what is programmed on television.

Anybody from this "largest tribe" can respond with a single instance when GLO's methods successfully influenced someone in the real world, drawing from their entire adult life experience.

@MentORPHEUS When I was very young, first or second grade, I had a problem with the Toothfairy. You see some children got dollars, some got Dairy Queen while all I got was some fucking dimes. I tried to reason with my Mom about this discrepancy. None of the reasons she gave made any sense and it didn't fix my problem either. The Toothfairy was cheating me out of fair market value for my teeth. This made it personal.

I didn't realize it at the time but I was arguing against a negative. So one night, when I was supposed to be sleeping, I yanked out a tooth, put it under my pillow and went to sleep. If that bullshit fairy is so magical, let's see it then, I thought.

The next morning, when I woke up, underneath my disgustingly bloody pillow was the tooth and no money. I presented this evidence to my visibly disturbed Mother. She started to make excuses as to why the tooth fairy did'nt show up but ultimately, she admitted to pretending to be the Toothfairy.

Now this isn't direct evidence that the Toothfairy doesn't exist. It is Abductive reasoning because a negative cannot be proven. The mythical Toothfairy herself probably felt personally attacked (AD Hominem) by being called cheap, unfair and full of shit. All that she needed to do was back up her claims of being a magical fairy.