Can Pro-lifers be feminists?

Why do you think a baby at 37 weeks can be aborted but a baby born at 37 week cannot be murdered?

“So then it is ok to extinguish a persons life if you feel another person is entitled to more rights-
The one here holding the most power perhaps...”

OK- maybe it’s time for this discussion to end? Or for me at least to bow out. I have explained that if there is a conflict of rights between a living, autonomous person and a foetus, then the living, autonomous person has to win. I don’t actually like it, but it has, pragmatically to be that way. Otherwise, women will be forced to give birth.

Well because I believe in the sanctity of human life-
Once you make exceptions to it you can justify killing anyone-
If humans are comparable to a virus- then why can they not be killed, why can't the powerful say who should live or die-
Why can will not kill off the disabled, old people etc....
What makes you entitled to any rights if you believe yourself no more important that a fly?
If someone says it's for the greater good we should kill these people off, why not?

The point is that being alive doesn't mean that an organism is automatically afforded full human rights. You think that an embryo from fertilization onwards has full human rights, in fact more than full human rights, because you think that the embryo/foetus/baby always outweighs the woman. Why do you think that full human rights should be given to embryos from conception?

It really depends on the sanctity you give to life, how much you think something has a right to life, and - in my opinion - how much of a hypocrite you are.

Humans are animals, so I admit to a certain degree of hypocrisy, in that I give born humans more rights than pigs, cows, sheep, etc. I also don't have any innate feelings about the sanctity of insect life and far prefer any flys, ants, wasps and cockroaches that might be close to me, dead.

So, as you can see the 'sanctity of life' argument doesn't hold much weight with me.

I don't think any of us go out of our way to ensure we preserve all life, at all costs. It's only humans we extend this to.

So, for me, I'm happy to draw the line there, too. A unwanted zygote or embryo doesn't have the same rights as a born human.

I'm quite comfortable with my distinctions - but then again, I also think that people who have a terminal illness and wish to die should absolutely / unquestioningly have that right.

So then it is ok to extinguish a persons life if you feel another person is entitled to more rights-
The one here holding the most power perhaps...

“I agree but people move the goal posts between bodily autonomy and the "unborn are not really alive", therefore have no rights, argument.”

I don’t think I am moving the goal posts. I think that any rights a foetus might have do not carry as much weight as the rights of the woman incubating it.

Is a 37 week gestation infant an amaboe? A virus?

If human life is comparable to a virus, an amoebae.. then it is deserving of no absolute rights

We are no talking about a virus, though are we- human life.
In going with option 1- it is saying that killing another human is justifiable-

Yes, I've already said that an unborn embryo/foetus/baby is alive, and I agree that aborting at any stage would kill the embryo/foetus/baby. However, alive /= full human rights. An amoeba is alive, a virus is alive, my liver is alive, my pancreas is alive.

To me the pro-abortion stance is to

1. Deny the life of the unborn

1. To accept that of course it is alive, but that your right to kill it is justified by your right to "bodily autonomy"

Do you believe that a 37 week old unborn baby is another... do you think it alive? Do you concede that aborting it is killing?

A abortion is not doing any harm to others.

What a sorry state we would all be in if people screaming about their rights, get their own way. It is impossible to appease everyone's so called rights without causing chaos.
Again I think the ultimate right that is worthy of protecting is the right to life, to do no harm to others... it's the most basic and most important.

Assassinated
yes I know I'm not changing the world be expressing my opinion on an Internet forum, no one is..
My point is someone said
Each to their own, if it's not affecting you, it's their body-
We'll flip it round- who are you to say on an individual level that you disagree with 8 year olds being given hormone blockers- it's not effecting you! Others disagree with you- who are you to oppose their will!?
My point- that just because something doesn't affect you doesn't mean that you shouldn't have an opinion on it. Just because people shout about their rights doesn't mean they aren't doing harm

If that's the woman's choice then yes, that's her choice. You presume to know what's the right choice for all women everywhere?

So presumably it's ok in a country where most people favour boys, to find out what you're having, and abort if it's a girl?

Clarissa-
I agree but people move the goal posts between bodily autonomy and the "unborn are not really alive", therefore have no rights, argument.

Where did the idea of the woman having an abortion because the baby clashed with a holiday come from?

"Do you believe that parents should be able to give their children hormone blockers at age 8?" - I'm presuming you mean in order to halt puberty because the child identifies as transgender, rather than for medical reasons such as early onset of puberty?

Well, an 8 year old child has human rights and should be protected from harm. That's not my individual will, that's society agreeing that human rights apply to children from birth. Which I happen to agree with. I wouldn't agree with parents giving an 8 year old child heroin, or cocaine for example.

if you believe that human rights should apply to embryos from the moment of conception, it is up to you to give reasons why that can't be argued with in order to persuade society to agree with you. Just stating your belief isnt really sufficient.

Betrand-
So do you think fgm law should be revoked for consenting adult females?
if you say the individual rights of a person are so great that they must have autonomy, you need to remove laws there to protect people

Why can't I have my genitals mutilated if I want as a consenting adult in this country- should we remove law on fgm for consenting adult females in name of bodily autonomy?

Obviously anyone can believe what they want for thrmselves A I said, I would only have an abortion in very limited circumstances myself. But I do not have the right to make that choice for anyone else,

I can cope with the right to have an abortion prior to the viability of the foetus. Though in the absence of extreme circumstances I don't think I would feel able to abort myself. But a right to abort for any reason up to the actual birth? So killing the baby one day before its due birth is totally fine, it's not a human being, whereas killing it as soon as it is born is murder?