Can Pro-lifers be feminists?

Missy- it is really, really difficult. But a foetus is not an autonomous individual. The mother has to take precedence.

Betrand
"The point is that the only adult person whose bodily autonomy you can make decisions about is yourself."
And that unborn child with Down's syndrome that's about to be aborted is not "yourself"

Assassinated-
What I find interesting is that some have become less concerned with when life begins. It seems that people know that a baby at 23 weeks gestation is alive- because they can be born so, but are not concerned by this. The goal posts of the argument have been moved from when life begins to "bodily autonomy". I hear arguments such as "early as possible, late as necessary", which suggests people have no concern about terminating what they know to be life.
As I said on a previous post autonomy is a myth, no one has full bodily autonomy nor should they.
Your right to bodily autonomy is nothing without the right to life.
If you can't uphold the basic right to human life all other so called rights become meaningless.
No right to life= no rights at all.

Missymoo either you believe in the fundamental principles of something - for example vegetarianism or feminism, or you do not.

As has been stated numerous times on this and many other threads , one of the fundamental principles of feminism is bodily autonomy.

If you personally wouldn't have a termination, that is your choice; but believing that other women should not have the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy is not feminist.

“If feminism is concerned with giving women a voice and representation, I find it ironic that women who express a pro-life opinion are told they can't belong to the club! Sorry it's ridiculous.
"You can have a voice, so long as you agree with us!"”

The point is that the only adult person whose bodily autonomy you can make decisions about is yourself. I personally would only have an abortion in a very very limited range of circumstances. But I do not have the right to make that decision on behalf of anyone else.

missymoo feminism is a fairly broad church, but there are surely some central ideas that define its membership? The right to full bodily autonomy has to be at the core of feminism, surely.

If you don't believe that, you may hold other feminist ideals and ideas, but you're not a feminist.

The bacon-eating vegetarian is a good analogy!

Square no, we don't agree - abortion isn't a tragedy 100% of the time.

Sometimes it is very sad for the woman concerned, because the decision is made because of circumstances like financial ones - yes, that is regrettable, I wish we lived in a society where money wasn't a factor in pregnancy
Sometimes it is completely neutral
Sometimes it is an unbridled relief
Sometimes it is a coerced decision - that is tragic.

But this is why it boils down to autonomy. Do I personally regret the trend of termination due to disability? Yes. Do I think that the fact Downs Syndrome has been practically eradicated in some countries is a worrying trend? Yes.

But still, no individual woman is wrong for having a termination if that's what she (freely) wants.

Well, arguing that women must carry a baby to term and then either raise it or adopt it against their will rather railroads over the rights of those women. So you can see how it's hard to agree that women who support that are as feminist as they claim.

@Missymoo100 that all depends on accepting that life begins at conception, and that an unborn embryo/foetus/baby has full human rights from the point of conception. Which isn't going to be universally agreed with.

As for original question-
If feminism is concerned with giving women a voice and representation, I find it ironic that women who express a pro-life opinion are told they can't belong to the club! Sorry it's ridiculous.
"You can have a voice, so long as you agree with us!"

I think if there is no right to life- you have no rights at all.

The right to life needs to be universally upheld because without it all other rights can be extinguished.

The abortion advocates used to argue that the unborn was not life, but it's hard to argue this with ultrasounds, and babies being born and surviving at 23 week. It now depends on the myth of bodily autonomy- which no one truly has.

And I wait for the viability argument- ah but babies at 23 week need life support to survive- well yes but they are alive no less.
When you are ill on life support in hospital, I don't have the right to kill you because you are dependant on the intervention keeping you alive. Dependency is not a justification to kill.

If you remove the notion of sanctity of life- You have no rights. Your life depends on whether someone feels you are deserving of it, so long as you are not to much of a burden to them.

Yoga-
You are comparing two things that are completely different. The pro-choice people do not get to have a monopoly on feminism- excluding the views of other women who feel differently to them.

I hear how having a baby would be bad and it's kinder to terminate, because of financially difficulty, demands of supporting another person, the limitations on the parents-
But my view is you don't get to take a life because it's inconvinient- i.e. We don't get to kill people because they are a burden- the elderly, the disabled or unwanted children.

• although some people who would like to see euthanasia introduced would probably quite like to just get rid of people who are an inconvenience.

"I believe anyone who feels they are should be allowed to call themselves a feminist."

Am I allowed to call myself a vegetarian - I've just eaten a sausage roll but I identify as vegetarian, surely that's enough?

Some people think the choice is between an abortion and a hoot ever after roses round the door baby story. Like on the thread about a girl having a baby at 14 where someone said that news of a baby on the way was always good news. The birth of a baby can be an unmitigated disaster for everyone concerned- including the baby.

I don't regard taking the MAP as a tragedy, but an abortion at later stages are either taking abortifacient drugs with strong side effects, or having a surgical procedure that can result in infertility in some cases.

To put it in context: my DS was unplanned because of contraceptive failure. DH and I were having problems at the time for many reasons so it was not the ideal time to have a child. I probably should have taken the MAP, I have taken it before, however I didn't and discovered I was pregnant. If I had laid all of my reasons out for not being able to cope with the pregnancy (and there were shitloads) I would have been able to get an abortion with no problem, but I don't think that making that huge decision to end what I know is a life would have been as simple as the decision to take a pill and make absolutely sure that schroedinger's sperm did not make a baby. I'm not claiming any kind of moral superiority, just that you can't know for certain when you take the MAP that you are definitely pregnant, when you opt for an abortion you definitely are and you know that it is an important decision. DH wasn't really "pressuring" me, more making his preference known, but if I had had views less strong than those I hold I could easily see how that could have been a consideration.

An early abortion within a few weeks of conception, after a contraceptive failure or mistake is not a tragedy.

Splen
MAP works usually by delaying ovulation so nothing is conceived.
It also prevents thickening of lining in the even of fertilistaion to prevent implantation but this is secondary to its mode of action.

I don't think it's always a tragedy. Sometimes (often?) it's just fixing a contraception failure.

Would you describe taking the MAP after a split condom as a tragedy? Not being goady, I'm genuinely interested.

Square-
You make sense to me,
An abortion shouldn't be a neutral decision- as if it were deciding to have for ones dinner tonight

For example?

Decisions don't have to be either joyful or a tragedy. They can be totally neutral, not sad or a tragedy.

I mean that something has led to a baby being unwanted. Whether that is that the child or the mother is unable to survive if the pregnancy continues, whether there has been abuse, whether a relationship has ended, whether a mother is not in a place to care for a child - there is no such thing as a happy reason to get an abortion. If you can think of one I would be open to hear it. I just can't think of a situation where an abortion is a joyful situation - either an unfortunate circumstance has led to being pregnant unintentionally or a planned or wanted pregnancy can't be gone through with.

Square-
I agree with you here, it should be safe, legal but crucially- rare.
The rare bit has completely gone, it's really common and increasing.
I don't like the way it is used to discriminate against disabled unborn babies that can be aborted up to birth. Conditions like Down syndrome are virtually disappearing in countries like Iceland. Why bother protecting disabled people who are born when they can be eradicated prior to birth.
I don't think anyone's rights should trump the ultimate right- to life. So yes you can be feminist and pro life. No one owns the label "feminist" as far as I'm concerned, and no one will dictate to me what it can and can't mean.
As for autonomy- no one has full bodily autonomy for example;

• you cannot consent to having grievous bodily harm inflicted on oneself it's against the law. There is stated case law of this sort of thing.
• you can't demand to have an organ removed at will because you want to.

What do you mean by 100% of the time it is a tragedy?