Framing opposition to abortion as “hatred of women” sidesteps the substance of the argument and replaces it with motive-smearing. Many women oppose abortion for principled reasons, and dismissing their views as “internalized misogyny” erases their agency by implying they are incapable of independent moral reasoning. Moral responsibility is not confined to what affects someone personally; most human rights concerns demand judgment and action from people who are not directly harmed. Supporting women’s equality does not require endorsing the deliberate killing of other humans, because equality cannot be achieved by shifting violence onto a different, vulnerable group. Disagreement over abortion can exist without imputing animus: the belief that no one has the right to kill innocent humans is a moral claim, not misogyny. Saying that people cannot kill other people is not hatred of women.
Key Takeaways
Labeling women who oppose abortion as misogynistic denies their agency and treats them as incapable of independent thought.
Moral judgment is legitimate even when the issue does not personally affect the speaker; human rights principles routinely work this way.
Equality cannot be grounded in permitting the intentional killing of other humans; that relocates oppression rather than ending it.
Opposition to killing innocent humans is a moral stance, not evidence of hatred toward women.