Can Pro-lifers be feminists?

You obviously don't know much about abortion. Many aborted babies ARE born alive. There is nothing more heartbreaking than seeing an aobrted baby squirming in a kidney bowl in a sluice room, fighting for its life.

And then it says "mummy, why don't you love me?" in a piteous voice, because at 13 weeks (the stage within which the majority of abortions happen) that's totally a thing that a fetus can do.

Honestly, do you think people can't use Google? Regardless of where you stand on the question of abortion this is just nonsense, and if you think lying strengthens your argument and will win people over then you're in for a surprise.

Lass, as ever, argues with compelling logic. I don’t always agree with her (although I 100% do here) but she can see both sides of an argument whilst still coming down on one side (I imagine she is an excellent lawyer).

Taking any argument to a reductio ad absurdum conclusion is very dangerous to society. A lot of the arguments concerning late abortion come down to the foetus being a chattel with which you can do as you will up until the moment of birth. The post above saying a woman should have a right to abortion up to birth even if the baby could be magically teleported to an incubator provides telling evidence here,

Some of the arguments used above could easily be used for infanticide. After all, a newborn severely curtails your autonomy, not least your bodily autonomy to sleep.

The idea that it is your body to do as you will with as long as it does not affect anyone else is a good starting point. This is a powerful argument for early abortion on demand (without 2 doctors etc).

However, it is w powerful argument against late abortion. Most people believe the foetus, at this point, has elements of ‘personhood’, so is clearly affected. In addition the abortionist is affected. In the few places late terminations for non medical reasons are allowed, they have failed to recruit obstetric surgeons to carry out the procedure, as they find it too traumatic.Finally, the cheapening of life of vulnerable people (and even animals) has a detrimental effect on civilised society, which is why so many women are against it.

We used to be able to torture and kill dogs with no repurcussions (my dog to do as I like to, clearly not human so has no rights).

Abortion is sui generis. I too agree with the (illogical) compromise that we currently have.

thebewilderness Sadly, it isn't a lie. And to be honest, I have never heard of anyone else telling this story before. I worked in gynaecology years ago. Which is why I am now pro-life.

I would like to know if some of the pro forced birth people on this thread are American. The rhetoric, the bare faced lies and the timing of posts...

Leilaniiii
That is a lie. One of the oldest lies that evil people tell about women and their doctors.
It is such an insidious lie the US changed their laws so doctors have to use a different procedure. All because old men in congress believed this evil lie. Now when a fetus dies and has to be removed from a woman's uterus they can not dilate and extract so the devastated woman can mourn the loss of a wanted pregnancy. Because of liars like you Leilaniiii, they now have to dismember the fetus.
Are you one of those people who if the clinic is on fire leaves the toddler to die in order to save the dish of embryos?

If that's the case then virtually all women have lived in a state of potential slavery throughout history.

Well, yes. Women as property for most of history.

If that's the case then virtually all women have lived in a state of potential slavery throughout history.

Not far off it... No vote, not allowed to drive, not in charge of their own money, property, children. Of course they had little power over their own bodies or fertility.

(Although of course, abortion has always existed in some form or another for those desperate enough to seek it out.)

If for whatever reason, at 30 weeks + a woman decides she wants an abortion. Can you be a feminist and be against the womans right to choose?

We don't have that right in this country, we don't get to choose that. And to take it less literally, I'd still say yes. I'm fully pro choice with the current parameters we have. I would be uncomfortable with someone choosing to abort a baby that had every chance of surviving without health problems or intensive intervention if it were birthed live.

By that stage a woman would have to give birth anyway. The choice would be whether to give birth to a live baby or a dead one. I think I would find the former option less traumatizing.

Short answer, no. They're mutually exclusive.

What I find illuminating is how if a woman gets pregnant but then for whatever reason she wishes to terminate, but is unable to that becomes literal slavery. If that's the case then virtually all women have lived in a state of potential slavery throughout history. Yet the source for that enslavement is biology, as society at large nor men nor even other women had the power to reliably give women a choice on the matter.

varvara, I think men still have unprotected sex irresponsibly while women pay the price emotionally and physically whether we have legal abortions or not so I don't consider that a good reason to restrict abortion.

I actually agree that abortion can be used as a weapon against some women. So when abortion is legal it should be in conjunction with respect for the right of a woman to choose to continue a pregnancy if she wants. Women should be free to make either choice, without recrimination, and to suggest that women are never judged in the UK for continuing a pregnancy would be dishonest IMO.

“FWIW I think abortion allows men to have unprotected sex irresponsibly while women pay the price emotionally and physically.”

I disagree, but it’s an interesting point. You could use the same argument against the MAP, I suppose. And I think it’s also important to consider how women “pay the price” of an unwanted pregnancy whether they get an abortion or continue that pregnancy (which I would argue has a higher “price” in many ways, in terms of risks, impact and demands placed on the mother).

We also need to consider the reasons that women get an abortion. It’s my understanding that many are a result of contraceptive failures and not just failure to use contraception at all.

Do you think that a man who pressures or coerces a woman to have unprotected sex cares whether she has free, safe and legal access to the MAP or an abortion? Do you think that factors into his overriding privilege and sense of entitlement? I’m not convinced that it makes a difference to him. It makes a huge difference to her, of course. While she may not have the power to resist his demand for unprotected sex, she does at least have the right to take control over the consequences.

FWIW I think abortion allows men to have unprotected sex irresponsibly while women pay the price emotionally and physically. Men are detatched from the situation - they aren’t the ones who carry the child and make the ultimate decision to end its life, so they aren’t affected in the same way - so it gives them greater opportunity to have unprotected sex without facing up to any responsibilities. It is also especially used as a weapon against women in cultures where females are already oppressed. It would be dishonest to claim that that’s the main reason I oppose it - I do so for a number of reasons - but I was asked to expand, so there you go

First of all, let me apologise for anything I said which contributed to your feeling that way.

Many years ago, I was blessed to know a woman who said very much the same thing as yourself here, and whose own position was as deeply thought out as yours is. I am reminded of her (she is long since passed), because she was a fierce woman whom I deeply respected, even if we did not always agree.

I utterly respect that position, and thank you for voicing it.

I think you can view it differently for yourself than you do for women as a class. As a Feminist I am committed to bodily autonomy for class women. I choose to trust women.

I think it's normal to have the position of "this is what I can tolerate emotionally" rather than, "this is actually the logical conclusion of my principles". But I think we have an obligation to properly test our own principles by examining them, hard, to see where that takes us, and that might not be a comfortable place, but it should be the fairest place

The logical conclusion I wouĺd come to following that line is that I would be opposed to abortion. The illogical position which I can tolerate emotionally is the UK position with a bit of relaxation.

See, this is why I don’t usually get involved in these polarised debates... If you think I’m wrong, just tell me you think I’m wrong or you don’t agree and explain why; I don’t agree with most of you but I wouldn’t tell you you’re talking bollocks 🙁

FWIW I think abortion allows men to have unprotected sex irresponsibly while women pay the price emotionally and physically. Men are detatched from the situation - they aren’t the ones who carry the child and make the ultimate decision to end its life, so they aren’t affected in the same way - so it gives them greater opportunity to have unprotected sex without facing up to any responsibilities. It is also especially used as a weapon against women in cultures where females are already oppressed. It would be dishonest to claim that that’s the main reason I oppose it - I do so for a number of reasons - but I was asked to expand, so there you go.

It’s a wee bit annoying when a whole persona and perceived set of beliefs and motivations are attributed to you because you happen to believe life begins at conception. People are individuals, not stereotypes and I wouldn’t dream of making a whole load of assumptions about people who disagree with me on one single issue.

Anyway, I guess it doesn’t really matter what I think as I never claimed to be a feminist in the first place (Not meant to sound snarky)!

Separately, I have never come across the idea that you have to support abortion without limits to be a feminist. That is the general feeling I'm getting from this thread, and I'm surprised.

I don't think anyone ought to expect fully formed, impeccable and identical feminist beliefs from anyone else. We're all at different stages of working stuff out for ourselves.
Thoughts evolve, once a person has decided on their most fundamental principles their opinions on other issues start to be seen through that prism and they are shaped accordingly.

I hadn't considered prostitution as paid rape until someone introduced me to the idea, and I put it together with my thoughts around consent.

I think it's normal to have the position of "this is what I can tolerate emotionally" rather than, "this is actually the logical conclusion of my principles". But I think we have an obligation to properly test our own principles by examining them, hard, to see where that takes us, and that might not be a comfortable place, but it should be the fairest place.

The OP is great for raising this dilemma and making people question. It's an option for people to consider whether they are OK with a kind of two tier rights system where there is an element of literal slavery for half the population because, hey female biology, tough. Important to own that, if that's one's stance.

In a toss up of 'which is worse', I've decided it's worse to deny half the human race rights over their own bodies, than it is to accept that some women will choose to stop creating and supporting foetuses with their own bodies as they see fit.

If right to life starts at conception/embryonic stage, where are the prosecutions for mass murder?

There probably are calls from hard line anti abortioners just to do that. However it is not my ethical dilemma. As I said I am happy to go along with the illoģical pragmatism we have in the UK mainland.

You have people using the correct words for things? It is a foetus, why would we not call it that?

Because when it is always done with such determination to see no other view point. And it becomes absurd in the case Baracker referred to. Even worse is the use of "parasite" (which I have seen used) or "forced birther" about anyone who does not support abortion to term.

If right to life starts at conception/embryonic stage, where are the prosecutions for mass murder?

Anti-abortion laws are removing rights from women in the USA. And then there is descent into this level of control.

I have read on MN comments like I know I had been a bit casual about contraception or my periods were always irregular so I didn't suspect anything (Seriously you are having sex, pregnancy tests are cheap and reliable - no matter how irregular your periods are did it not occur to you after 6,7,8 werks without one to check?).

Some women bleed during pregnancy, and mistake it for menstruation. Certainly happened to my friend who had no idea she was pregnant until 14 weeks. And she’s a nurse.

Wiseup, I'd wonder then if the option to end a pregnancy - but not to abort the foetus - would be okay? That would be, I think, my ideal way of getting around it.

Perhaps. I’m not sure about the ethics of deliberately delivering a baby early, with the associated extra risks of prematurity.

And I would offer all women the option to not have to birth their baby, whether abortion, induction or regular birth. In an ideal situation.

I would agree with this, in general. In reality, the number of women in the position of needing/wanting a late termination (other than TFMR) is very, very small, and maybe there should be room for case by case decision making.

I hate the language used by some on the pro-choice side- foetus.... I don't think such language is helpful to bringing NI into line with the rest of the UK or making abortion legal in Ireland

You have people using the correct words for things? It is a foetus, why would we not call it that?

Sorry, basil, that was more of a general response to the thread rather than just your comments. I was combining two thoughts in to the same statement and I can see how that came across as misrepresenting what you said.

I have only ever heard "forced birther" used to describe people who are totally against any abortion rather than people who agree with abortion within the current law in England. That's what I asked you for clarification of and thank you for responding.

Separately, I have never come across the idea that you have to support abortion without limits to be a feminist. That is the general feeling I'm getting from this thread, and I'm surprised. As was quoted upthread, only 1% of people believe that abortion should be allowed up to term, but I thought more like 10% of people described themselves as feminists.

My personal opinion is that women should have easier access to contraception, MAP and early abortions. SRE needs to be compulsory in all schools and I don't believe parents should be allowed to remove their children from education on contraception and abortion. Two doctors having to sign off is bollocks and I find it outrageous that abortion isn't allowed in Northern Ireland (or other countries, but NI is in the UK ffs, how can women in the same country as me have fewer legal rights than me?!). I can't see myself agreeing with sex-selective abortions, but maybe it is time for me to do a bit more research and thinking on late term abortion.