Can Pro-lifers be feminists?

I just need to step through this, missy.

If you can be anti-choice (I don't use "pro life", but I others would) and a feminist, how are you proposing to punish women who break the law by seeking or having a termination and still remain a feminist?

Because that would be one hugely sexist law. It would only apply to women.

And you can't have laws that have no penalty or sanction for being broken (can you? I can't think of any).

So no, I have to conclude again that you cannot be a feminist and oppose abortion. Because you are proposing a sexist law that would force women to give birth, or punish them for not wanting to.

As a side note, none of this is a good outcome for the foetus/baby (delete according to beliefs). They have a criminal mother. Are they going to jail too? Or being financially penalised with her?

It's back to the logical pragmatism again. No matter your beliefs of what should be right, you can't legislate for the foetus without shitting on the woman carrying it.

Missymoo100
No the location of the baby is geography... not the woman..
A baby born at 37 weeks gestation is no different to one carried on utero at 37 week. No less a person.
Being dependant on something is not a denial of personhood-
I.e. Being on life support doesn't mean you have no rights or can be killed.
There is nothing magical about the passage through the vagina that confers personhood.

Bullshit, the location is the woman.
They are different, one is born, considered a legal person, the other is not, with good reason too
Actually no born person is obligated to give life for another, so you cant demand blood or a kidney should you need it, even if it kills you, people can say no. Just like a fetus has no legal ownership or right to the womans body, she has every right to put her health and wellbeing first

Plus common sense says if a woman is aborting that late, the fetus wasnt going to survive birth

"A baby born at 37 weeks gestation is no different to one carried on utero at 37 week. No less a person. "

Of course it's totally different. One is independent of the other and not reliant on it. Once a child is born it becomes an individual in it's own right. While a foetus is in it's mother's womb it is part of the mother and has no independence.

I also think this is not the premise of the thread. The question is whether a woman can be a pro-life feminist, not when should the cut off for terminations be.

Part of the so called pro life movement is a removal of a womans right to choose and access healthcare. Extremely anti feminist if you ask me
Personally id call them firced birthers

It's important also to remember that late abortions are incredibly rare, and almost invariably because of catastrophic disability or great risk to the woman. Would you ban abortion under those circumstances too?

It depends what you mean by pro-life.

I had a termination when I was younger because it wasn't the right time for me to have a baby.

Older now. With 2 kids.
I definitely don't want any more!

Bit.., I honestly don't know if I could go through with another termination again. So would probably have another baby if I was pregnant.

But am totally never going to think badly of someone else for having one.

I guess if I were to be against a woman's right to decide what's best for her - then I would NOT be able to call myself a feminist.

No the location of the baby is geography... not the woman..
A baby born at 37 weeks gestation is no different to one carried on utero at 37 week. No less a person.
Being dependant on something is not a denial of personhood-
I.e. Being on life support doesn't mean you have no rights or can be killed.
There is nothing magical about the passage through the vagina that confers personhood.

Of course they're wholly dependent. Until they are born, as you describe. That's what I said, dependent until born. A potential person, as not yet an independent separate human being.

You see the woman carrying the baby as irrelevant, a simple issue of geography. Not worth considering in decisions about the superior human rights of the embryo/foetus/baby.

They are not wholly dependant- they could be delivered by c section or labour induced and live-
Whether they are in or out of he womb is a matter of geography not personhood.

No, if they are not yet born they are still wholly dependent on the woman carrying them and still are only potentially able to become a person. Yes they are fully formed and yes they are alive.

Up until that point it is still a potential person....

That's it though babies at 37 week are not potential people, they are people, - fully formed and alive

Why no punishment when they have killed a human, in your eyes, deliberately? They have committed murder in your belief system surely?

Barracker-
I recognise women will seek abortions anyway and cause themselves harm... so I would legislate for it, but I'd reduce the threshold from what it is now- 24week.
There doesn't have to be punishment for women, but perhaps for those carrying out the procedure.

I'm not suggesting an arbitrary point, I'm suggesting when the baby is born. That's when it acquires full human rights. Up until that point it is still a potential person. The person carrying the embryo/foetus/baby takes precedent up until that point, if it occurs. The reason for this is that the person carrying the baby is already recognised as having human rights. They are a fully fledged person, with all that entails. What they want takes precedent over the potential life they are carrying. Even up till full term, if that's necessary.

If you give full human rights from fertilisation onwards then there are a whole host of consequences which I would assume you support, given your belief that the human rights of the embryo are sacrosanct?

To those posters who believe in an imposed time limit for abortions, I ask again:

What punishment do you support for women who disagree with you and who choose to take full unapologetic ownership of their own bodies?

What would you WANT to happen to a woman who ends her own pregnancy beyond whatever limit YOU choose?

It's not enough to say "it shouldn't be allowed, I disagree". If you really want this to be enforced upon other women, you have to be prepared to say "There should be a punishment for women controlling their own bodies, (beyond your limit) and here's the punishment I advocate"

What should the punishment be for such women?

Humans kill other humans all the time. It ought not to be, but it is.

God doesn't seem to hold with the sanctity of life all that much either, what with all the earthquakes, tsunamis, floods, bush fires, cancers and plagues he send us.

And he doesn't seem to distinguish between humans and animals at all.

We have more intelligence, luckily for us, so we've just put ourselves in charge.

Assassinated
human life is should be protected- I absolutely believe this... saying when life begins means me saying some arbitrary start point if I don't count from conception.
Do you think a baby at 37 weeks gestation should have no rights? If not why not? If you think it's wrong, where do you draw the line?

Your right being alive, doesn't give you human rights... but an unborn baby is human and alive- so should have rights

I get tired of saying this but people seem to have forgotten or perhaps never knew.
Feminism is the political movement for the liberation of women. All women. Even the women who disagree and do not like the principles of Feminism.

Bewilderness-
I agree and I too would draw the line at where there is risk in continuing the pregnancy - because I think right to life also covers the mother who is carrying the baby, and should get priority in this instance.

I'm not sure you're understanding what I'm asking. Why do you consider an embryo from conception to have the "sanctity" of human life, or full human rights in other words?

You've misunderstood my point about being alive /= human rights. I'm not comparing viruses to humans, I'm saying that alive-things are not all given human rights.

But we already have abortion and society is not screwed. At least, not by abortion.

My opinion is that right to life is the ultimate right that is above all others.
Codifying this into law means the women will die along with the fetus in cases of ectopic pregnancy or toxemia. Further it denies the right to self defense as a legal argument, or even accidental death in some cases.
Far as I know there is nowhere that legal exceptions are not made where life is in the balance.
It is hard to answer these questions for ourselves much less for anyone else. Still, talking about us helps think it through.

A fetus has no competence. Any 'rights' it has are trumped by the woman who carries it.
If you base the value of human life on competence- then you truly could justify killing vulnerable people.

You say who am I to say on those issues- but If people didn't stop other people doing things for the greater good - society would be screwed. Of course people have opinions on things they don't do themselves- it's how we make laws! It's not a case of simple each to their own, that's a recipe for disaster.

You can absolutely be a feminist and hold a pro-life view. Because you realise that the ultimate "right" is the right to be alive - its fundamental to all other rights, including other women's rights

missy You do have bodily autonomy to to all sorts of things to yourself that I, personally, would find abhorrent and harmful. Most of the laws around things like surgical intervention are actually there to protect surgeons, if you think about it. It's not illegal to have your dick cut off - I personally think that's terrible, but, given mental competence, that's not my decision to make.

In the case of hormone blockers being given to an 8 year old, we assume that 8 year old isn't competent to make their own decisions. Should they grow up and want to have hormone treatment, again I think that's terrible but it's not my decision to make.

A fetus has no competence. Any 'rights' it has are trumped by the woman who carries it.

You clearly are anti-abortion. That's fine. I'm not actually interested in arguing the toss with you on what are clearly deeply held views.

But you're no feminist if you hold these views - and that is the point of the thread.