Feminists Against Abortion?

what are the demerits of abortion though? why are hormonal contraception and liberal abortion (what is liberal abortion?) unacceptably bad?

Add message | Report | Message poster holyShmoley Sat 10-Sep-11 09:11:50
I wonder if we have permitted this whole debate to be framed in the wrong way?
If I frame it thus: over the last 50 years what has been the man/patriarchy response to women insisting that they take responsibility for their own gametes and it's products? It has been to get women to take hormonal contraception, and to sell women liberal abortions. I think that this is a piss poor response and that we should say it is unacceptably bad. This is not an anti-choice position, but states that no abortion through no demand is whats needed (as opposed to no abortion through no availability).
Has liberal abortion increased in any way the extent to which men take equal reponsibility for their sperm/pregnancies/children? No, absolutely not. So instead of taking about the merits of safe liberal abortion, lets start talking about the demerits and how they have given men greater freedom to walk away.

Sorry to post and run but will try to get back later.

looking forward to hearing a bit more holyShmoley

Do anti abortion feminists aspire to dictating to other women though, or is theirs more of a theoretical moral position?

I mean do they see abortion as something that women should have access to at the moment, due to the lack of control they have over their own fertility, but they are against this 'solution' to the problem as they see it? They see the solution as being that women have full control over their fertility and patriarchy stops presenting PIV sex as something men are entitled to.

If that is the case, I'm quite sympathetic to their position even though I very pro choice myself.

I could see that sort of thinking being hijacked by people who do wish to dictate to women and control and punish them however (if they are able to understand it!!).

How can you be a feminist and aspire to dictate what other women do with their bodies and their lives?

It's not the same as murder unless you can imagine a murder victim who lives inside another person's body, being utterly dependent on that body to survive.

If you are an anti-choice feminist, would you find it reasonable to have a woman implanted with a foetus against her will? If not, why not? You've already shown that you consider a woman's role as host more important than her own choice.

Other people have probably put that better, but ... grr!

It's a daft name, but I kind of like being unpronounceable. It makes me feel at home (my RL name here is mangled spectacularly on a regular basis).

Trillian: this is the response I often get too. The response I tend to give is the following. In different cultures moral rules are not always the same; murder is generally condemned but killing is justified in a variety of contexts. It ends up being governments who draw up the rule book on the issue. Most (but not all) people who are opposed to abortion are often only ready to permit it when the mother's life is in danger (because they consider this to finally outweigh the right of life of the foetus). Thus they recognise that in this case, the women is actually more important that a foetus in utero. If they are ready to recognise this, it comes back down to the question of moral choice. I would ask them if they would oblige/avise a women in this position to abort or would they be ready to let her make the decision? If the answer is that they would let the woman decide, the obvious continuation is to ask, why they aren't ready to let her make life and death decisions in other contexts?
In the case of those like the hardliners here, in Nicarauga and the Phillipines and other places, who oppose abortions even in these circumstances the argument is much more difficult: the only thing really to be said imho is to point out the cruelty in prioritising a as yet not born person over those already in existence. The woman's other children for a start; and to point out how much maternal absence through death affects the prospects of her children. It doesn't tend to convince anyone, though, because most people who go for this argument have no experience of being in the position to be about to lose or have lost their mother/partner/realtive/friend in this circumstance. Sadly, equally those who do sustain it, if they were to find themselves in such a position would do all they could to move their loved one to somewhere where abortion is possible.
I'm bitter about this because for me attitudes to abortion are a key feminist issue. The policing of pregnancy -the imprisoning of women for miscarrying or having a still birth- the marginalisation and condemnation for single mothers -the lack of access to contraceptives -the idea that women are responbsable uniquely and totally for all children- is the patriarchy in action. In a world where such attitudes were not present abortion would still be necessary in some cases -but it would be very few. The reason that abortion is quite so necessary at the moment is precisely beacsue women are not permitted to control (and actively prevented from doing so in many cases) their own fertility.

Cat.....Now you say you're in Mexico I can pronounce your MN username!!

sorry, as you were.

This is a really interesting thread - abortion seems to divide my feminist friends unlike anything else.

Giving an overview of dicussions we have had, it seems that there are two different frameworks for being anti-abortion. The first one is because some people believe that a foetus is a human being from conception, and therefore terminating a pregnancy comes with a whole host of moral issues (whether you are female or a male supporting this choice) which are not solely linked to the woman's rights.

The second one is the whole sanctity of motherhood, selfishness of women, blah blah blah can't ven be arsed going in to it as you ll know what I mean.

I find the first one very easy to understand and respect these views.

The second, I find an example of reducing a woman to a role, and therefore everything to do with feminism.

TBH, I don't know where my own, private views on abortion fall. I am glad that women (and couples) have access to abotions, and have supported more than one friend through the process without a qualm or second thought. I wholeheartedly believed that this was the right decision in each case.

However, I can't quite bring myself to be 100% at ease with saying that I have no personal moral issue wth abortion.

I hope this isn't offensive or hurtful to anyone - not my intention. I suppose I mean that I don't know if I ever could have had an abortion personally, but am very glad that it is an option and believe it should not be divided into 'good' (i.e. 'blameless' - rape, being a teenager) and 'bad' (having had sex, failed contraception, unwanted pregnancy, etc etc) reasons.

I don't think it is possible to be a feminist and be 100% pro-life anti choice.

I wonder if people who say they are pro-life actually understand that this means forcing women to have babies they don't want? Though I assume they would say a woman shouldn't have sex if she doesn't want a baby.

FWIW I don't think abortion is something to celebrate but I would never judge a woman who had one and I am absolutely pro-choice.

On the other hand if the women does not have this strength of feeling, it should not be the duty/religious calling of another women or man, feminist or otherwise to tell her she mustn't have an abortion.

I disagree. If I believe that something you are considering doing murder then it is my duty to try to persuade you not to commit murder.

Trillina: I think some feminists (and even non feminists) would subscribe to the poisition you described. I have come across it a lot. I think it could only be described as a anti feminist opinion if the person sought to impose her beliefs on other women. It's quite a standard argument: the women who is pregnant is the person who should get to decide what happens to her body. If she thinks abortion is akin to murder it would be cruel and inhumane and definitely not feminist to make her have an abortion. On the other hand if the women does not have this strength of feeling, it should not be the duty/religious calling of another women or man, feminist or otherwise to tell her she mustn't have an abortion. I can't quite think that a feminist could do that.
In the stuff I am involved in here in Mexico, we tend to frame the argument in terms of morals (this is a very Catholic place). Legalising terminations is about allowing women to make a moral choice about whether or not to continue with her pregnancy. A state which outlaws abortion is adopting the attitude that women can't be trusted to make such moral choices and thus these must be made for them. It belittles women and denies that they are moral beings. And of course, the correct moral choice for one women is not always the same for another.

I would have described myself as an anti abortion feminist once. I would have cited men as the originator of the problem with their lack of respect and responsibility for women and children. I would have condemned a patriarchal society and it's failure to support women and their threatening ability to give birth and nurture their young. I would have cited better contraception, support and opportunities as the most important things.

I was in short a naive product of a catholic upbringing with family very involved in pro life campaigning. Thankfully I was not out spoken in views in any general way and even then couldn't see any other option for some pregnant friends.

An antiabortion feminist is to me an oxymoron. The campaigners I met were often male, always religious and had generally led the kind of charmed inward looking life that allowed them to focus on the simplicity of the unborn foetus rather than the messy social, cultural and personal pressures that necessitate abortion rights.

As someone who is staunchly pro-choice, the only teeny corner of me that is unhappy with abortion is where it is sytematically and purposefully used to abort female feotuses.

even if you believe an egg and sperm that have just met are instantly a life [...]

Well, I know that this is considered a bit of a hot one by some but: I actually think that, strictly speaking, it is a life in the biological sense. It obviously has a metabolism and, once it's a little more than just a few cells, will even respond to stimuli. More than that: It's human life - any DNA test will confirm this.

I've personally always thought that the really relevant questions were rather "is it a person?", "does it have a demonstrable interest in beng born?" or "is there any reason to believe its interests are a) not the same as the mothers and b) in any way capable of comparing to or even outweighing hers?".

LRD
My abortion was actually a really positive experience with the medical profession on the whole. However, I had a strong inkling that my GP would not be supportive and by-passed her by going private from the outset. Well worth it IMHO - even if I could ill afford the £500 as an undergraduate student.

I can't square forcing a woman to go through a pregnancy with feminism at all. In fact I can't square too many patriarchal constructs, like religion, with it either. I was listening to Dorres on Radio 4 last night.....wanted to throw the radio....but the insistent crap she spouts about depression and MH issues for women that have had a termination had me shouting at the radio.

dividing women into 'good' and 'bad' categories.

I agree with Josephine.

The only way that I could reconcile being feminist and not pro-choice would be if I believed that killing a foetus was murder. In that case abortion would only be acceptable if it was a life-or-death situation, and how much of the women's fault it was that she was pregnant would not come into it.

even if you believe an egg and sperm that have just met are instantly a life i still don't see how you could prioritise that over the fully grown woman whose body they have met in.

I can see it. The fully-grown woman goes through some distress and pain and unpleasantness, but that's a lower priority than the other person dying (we're working on the assumption that both count as people). Death rates higher than 9 months of stress.

(I am pro-choice by the way, just thinking it through)

'Pro life' is a horrible term. I know it's meant to be, but it still pisses me off. Women don't get to have lives, you note.

NotADude - me too for b). It's one of the things that showed me how very useless medics can be with women.

Isn't Catherine MacKinnon wonderful?

"Whoever controls the destiny of a fetus controls the destiny of a woman."

She just has such clarity of thought. Thanks for that Proles.

No-one is really for abortion, except possibly ... surprise, surprise, the patriarchy, especially when they want to exert that form of control.

This. And I'm saying that as someone who a) has been involved in all sorts of pro-choice activism and b) has actually had an abortion.

I would by no means say that I am "pro-abortion" in any way. I am pro women being able to chose between motherhood and remaining childless. I am also absolutely pro prioritizing the interests of women over those of foeti.

What GothAnneGeddes says is spot on IMHO inasmuch as reproductive choices are broader than simply terminate/carry to term.

Don't know if this is a derail, but sometimes it can be presented as if the only reproductive choice/right to fight for is the right to have an abortion and the focus is too narrow.

Whereas many women throughout history have had to fight to be able to have children, fight to be able to keep their children and fight to have control over their reproductive system, the right to even know how their reproductive system works. We don't just need choice, we need justice, reproductive justice: www.now.org/nnt/fall-2006/reproductive_justice.html

I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the idea of 'the sanctity of motherhood' (and not being one, maybe I just don't know). But I am pro-choice and not keen on abortion. No-one is really for abortion, except possibly ... surprise, surprise, the patriarchy, especially when they want to exert that form of control.

I think being a feminist and being anti-abortion is a logical position for the reasons given by hester in the second post. Being anti-choice, however IS illogical for the simple reason that if you are a feminist that you believe that the law/society/state does not always have women's best interests at heart and so any thing which takes more contol away from women and gives it to the state cannot be good.