pro-life feminism- an oxymoron?

What circumstances MsH? I can understand some people feeling squeamish about late abortions but that is not about circumstance, it's about the passage of time. Do you mean circumstances of conception? Of the individual woman concerned? What?

but then you are saying that your opinion on a womans pregnancy is more important than hers. A woman wants an abortion can be told no by others. Why?

Its self-regulating, there are very very few late abortions, its not like its a huge problem. What I'm asking you is how can you be a feminist and tell women that they cannot be in charge of their own bodies?

(I'm not being argumentative btw, I'm honestly perplexed by that opinion)

why must it be all or nothing? I don't think abortion should be illegal but nor do I think it should possible to terminate in any circumstances.

But what is feminism if it isn't standing up for womens rights? And is controlling womens bodies not anti-feminist?

Thing is, for most of you its all very theoretical, its not so much when you live in a country where abortion is illegal. Where you can't even get one when you are dying and the pregnancy will kill you faster

I wouldn't say it's oxymoronic. If you hold certain very hardline philosophical views about the moral status of the foetus then all the feminism in the world won't make it right to destroy it.
I don't hold those views, but if I did it wouldn't stop me being a feminist, or calling myself one.

Which is not to deny that there's an enormous amount of practical misogyny in the anti-abortion movement, I'm just saying that it's theoretically possible to hold both positions.

Buzz, it probably depends on what you understand by "pro-life".

HerBex's post of 16:42 says it all for me. Abortion isn't some standalone individual rights issue. The entire social/economic context has to be taken into account (as HB does brilliantly in that post).

I didn't say you were. I was answering the OP. I do think pro-life feminism is an oxy-moron.

I did say it wasn't a perfect analogy. It was just about there being consequences that might be unavoidable. Maybe the treatment doesn't work. That's all.

I just have to reject your assertion about feminism and being "anti-abortion". BuzzLightBeer. It's not basic. Apart from anything else, I just don't accept the labels that anyone puts on this or would seek to put on me because of what I believe. My views are, I think, more nuanced than any label appears to allow. I am not anti-abortion because I think that it should be available but, clearly, I'm not "pro-choice" enough for some because I don't think it should be freely available in absolutely any circumstances.

It's not that black and white for me.

And so you shouldn't get any treatment for that lung cancer because thats the consequences of your own actions?

I don't see how its possible to be a feminist and anti-abortion. Its a basic.

HerBeX, if I smoke (I used to), I might get lung cancer. I will not necessarily (tho I might try to) prevent myself dying from it but I might be unsuccessful. That is a situation where my actions have had consequences (not, emphatically not, punishment). Consequences are not always punishment.

I know it's not a perfect analogy but it works as far as it needs to, for me.

HerBeX, we must disagree. I can't go along with your absolutist position which seeks to ignore (as inconvenient?) the simple fact that women, not men, get pregnant and the foetus occupies the woman's body, not the man's. It might be inconvenient but it's a fact and I don't think it helps to characterise pregnancy as the foetus "camping out" in it's mother's body.

Not being rude, must go to bed now but back tomorrow. Good night.

In this context, consequences means the same as punishment.

It's like those middle class parents who refuse to use the word punishment and say consequence instead, when they take away the Nintendo DS as a punishment/ consequence for bad behaviour.

The consequence of having unprotected sex and then getting pregnant as a result without wanting to, is an abortion if that is what you decide. If you withhold that right to abortion, it's not a consequence, is it, it's a punishment.

Since that someone else is dependent on a woman for his/ her body, their needs cannot be privileged above that of the woman.

There is no possibility of compromise here. Either you say tht the foetus' rights to camp out in a woman's body trump those of a woman to decide who she wants camping out in her body, or you say that women are full human beings who must be allowed to have sovereignty over their own bodies, even if that means that they will make choices you don't like.

You limit a woman's sovereignty over her body, you limit her status as a full citizen and full human being.

Men are allowed to decide what happens to their bodies. Women must have the same rights, otherwise they are just not considered as fully grown up citizens as men. We can't concede that.

HerBeX, I said nothing about teaching anyone anything or about continuing with a pregnancy being a punishment. That was all you. If your argument relies on putting words in my mouth, your argument is weak.

flamingobingo, I didn't say that. You did.

HerBeX, it's kind of my point that there might be good reasons why it might not always be that way. Anyway, if a woman has an abortion, something happens to someone else's body, too.

MsH, it is an anti-feminist position to say that women should be forced to bear children they don't want, to teach them the consequences of their actions. It's basically all about being uncomfortable with women being sexually free and making choices you disapprove of.

It is morally wrong as well. To actually think that the introduction of a baby to the world is a useful punishment for his/ her mother's behaviour, is really quite a fucked up attitude to babies IMO.

Yes, of course she should think that. But even protected sex isn't failsafe...and why the hell should it be all her responsibility? I just can't believe that you wrote that women who have abortions can't accept the consequences of their own actions.

It doesn't matter if she has unprotected sex, she still has the right to decide what happens to her body. Not anybody else's. Just her's.

flamingobingo, really? You don't think that if a grown woman has unprotected sex she ought to think there might be a teeny tiny chance that she might get pregnant? Really?

"Limiting the availability of abortion is more about there being consequences to one's actions. "

Really! You think continuing with an unwanted pregnancy is an acceptable punishment consequence of stupidly thinking that maybe the man might take responsiblity for contraception?

Your post has made me feel really angry, MsHighwater (maybe you should change it to MsHighhorse!).

I actually don't think of limits on the availability of abortion as being about removing a woman's control over her body (any more than any pregnancy does that, anyway).

Forcing a woman to have an abortion. That would be about denying her the control that is rightly hers. Limiting the availability of abortion is more about there being consequences to one's actions. Which there are. It's a bit of a bummer that, when it comes to sex, the consequences affect the woman more than the man but there it is.

I think that abortion should be available in some circumstances, but I would not like to see it available to absolutely anyone in absolutely any circumstances.

Pointissima it's not blind to insist on the necessity that women control their own bodies whatever the scenario.

As soon as you start saying that foetus's have rights too and that those rights can be allowed to interfere with the rights of an adult woman, you are saying that adult women are not wholly sovereign over their own bodies in the way that adult men are.

And that is absolutely unacceptable to anyone who thinks that women can never be supposed to be incapable or simply not allowed, to be in control of their own bodies. Either you accept that they and they alone are in control of their bodies, as men are, or you don't - there isn't a compromise on this. If you don't, you don't believe that women are as adult and competent as men. Part of believing in women's adulthood, is the knowledge that some women may make choices that you don't agree with, disapprove of, or are disgusted by. But they have the right to make them, because they are full, adult human beings.

HerBeX...great post and I totally agree with Lenin's rather concise point.

I am pro choice, having made that choice myself. A whole heap of issues, none of which are ignorance, lead to me getting pregnant. The second termination hurt the most, mentally and emotionally. In fact it wasn't until my third pregnancy that I even dealt with any of the feelings... I digress.

Abortion is certainly better than the alternative of trapping more women in the clutches of poverty with little regard or support for them. The only way, in my mind, to reduce abortion is to stop unwanted pregnancies.

I don't think it's possible to be pro life and a feminist.