Can Pro-lifers be feminists?

Sorry coming late to this thread, so haven’t read all comments.

I am anti-abortion - I know most people say “pro-life” but I am against abortion and don’t have a problem with that terminology.

For that reason, although I am in sympathy of 90 % of what I read on this board, I don’t call myself a feminist. Mostly because I feel it would be dishonest, somehow - feminists would assume I was with them on the abortion issue, when I’m not. Also, my friends who are against abortion would be confused and upset as they would think I was expressing support for abortion.

Mostly it doesn’t bother me (not being able to call myself a feminist); to me, it’s just another label, and labelling to me is part of the reason politics has become so polarised; people often allow the label they wear to dictate their views, and are signed up to a prescribed set of positions without necessarily having thought them through. Not wearing a label means I am free to believe what I want.

What I believe is that my child was as much my child and as much himself the minute before I gave birth to him as he was after. He was my child and he was himself, with his own unique DNA, in the womb, before 24 weeks - even at that stage he had a name, the name he still has today. How can a being with a heartbeat not be alive? He was alive and he was my son. Nobody will ever make me believe that he was “something” as opposed to “someone.”

So I don’t mind not being a feminist - I will support feminist causes with which I agree (if they want my support - maybe they don’t and I’m completely beyond the pale; I don’t know). But on this, I can’t.

Sometimes it makes me frustrated though; in the US the original women’s liberation movement had nothing to say about abortion; the campaign for abortion was driven by MEN who worked hard to get Betty Friedan and her supporters on board. They convinced her, but there were women who were involved from the start who didn’t capitulate and were appalled at the new focus on abortion - are they not feminists either, even if they were fighting for women’s rights before most of us were born? I think it’s interesting that men played such a huge role then, and in my opinion today the people who benefit most from abortion are still men.

But I digress; when it comes down to it, I can live without being considered a feminist and I wouldn’t sell out my beliefs just to be accepted by a group.

@DevilsAdvocate123 said LonnyVonnyWilsonFrickett You just dismissed it without providing reasoning.

I've been on this thread all day and provided reasoning all the way through, as have others. But I have a fairly short supply of patience for faux naive goaderyfuckery, tbh.

Anti choice isn't compatible with feminism.
It's akin to being anti-slavery, except a little bit when it suits.

Either every human gets full autonomy over their body from birth to death, or men do and women don't. You endorse a second class 'slave' status, in law, to women. Whereby for periods of their lives their bodies, their organs, are literally owned by another person and by a state, and they are not free to pursue their own health choices.

It's also compelled health risk and danger which by necessity punishes women who choose to control their own bodies.

To any self-proclaimed 'feminist' who is anti choice, I would ask this:
What legal punishment to you endorse for women who defy their enforced bodily slavery and end their own pregnancies?

IF you believe in the state punishing women who OWN themselves and their bodies, WHAT punishment do you support, and WHO gets to decide upon that punishment?

well exactly.

What is life/alive?

Unless the goal of feminism is to produce female "clones" of uniform and identical opinion then yes I think feminists can be pro-life. Otherwise you are denying women the right to the full spectrum of philosophical thought and opinion at which point the whole point of feminism self detonates if the point of feminism is liberation. If women aren't free to think as they choose on matters of ethics and politics we've sort of pratfalled at the first hurdle

They can be PERSONALLY prolife and be a feminist, in that if they agree their choice is only relevant to themselves and not anyone else. I'm not denying anyone their philosophical thought, but if they are seeking to deny my right to bodily autonomy, which one is more important?

The only argument I abhor is trying to deny the other side of the debate their use of accurate facts. Yes it's forced birth, yes it's killing an unborn child/ foetus

Big problem with your accurate facts: they aren't accurate or facts. Can you kill something that is not alive? Killing means the act of causing death, and I for one would argue that something that was never born was never alive in the first place.

Both sides use emotive language and I'm glad they do. It underscores the gravity and enormity of the dillema. The only argument I abhor is trying to deny the other side of the debate their use of accurate facts. Yes it's forced birth, yes it's killing an unborn child/ foetus.

Unless the goal of feminism is to produce female "clones" of uniform and identical opinion then yes I think feminists can be pro-life. Otherwise you are denying women the right to the full spectrum of philosophical thought and opinion at which point the whole point of feminism self detonates if the point of feminism is liberation. If women aren't free to think as they choose on matters of ethics and politics we've sort of pratfalled at the first hurdle.

For clarities sake I am pro-life (in that is always the sovereign principle that guides my thinking), but I am very much swayed by the argument that if you make abortion illegal you then lose the mother and the child/foetus thanks to illegal abortions. I'd even support abortions up to term if the data showed that's where the greatest number of lives saved were.

When you say pro forced birth basil, do you include those of us who don't want the 24 week limit increased?

Of course you can be pro life and a feminist.

I'm pro life, except when that life is affecting mine adversely.

Like cockroaches, for example. I'm not in favour of cockroaches and their lives.

Or rats.

What you can't be, is in favour of allowing a largely man-made criminal jurisidiction forcing women to carry pregnancies and give birth to children against their will.

You can not like the idea of abortion. You can be anti abortion. You can be pro birth. But you cannot be anti legal, safe abortion and pro forced birth IMO.

If you don't believe that women are sovereign over their own bodies, just like men are, your feminism is like Tony Blair's socialism IMO.

"I don't care what 99% of women think about my body, the only opinion that matters is mine"

THIS

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.

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.

“It is incredibly hard to justify without the most amazingly contorted leaps of (false) logic why a baby born at 30 weeks should not be able to be taken off life support if the mother so chooses, and yet a foetus of 36 weeks gestation should be able to be 'aborted' by an injection of potassium chloride into its heart.”

It’s not hard at all. It’s very simple. The baby is either inside its mother’s body or it isn’t. Once born, a baby is still dependent, but literally anyone can look after it. A fœtus (or baby, if you insist) that has not yet been born is dependent on its mother and no one else.

This is the yougov poll

cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/a0c0uf8c2g/YouGov-Survey-University-of-Lancaster-Results-130130.pdf

Bertrand:

Comres poll 2017:

ComRes interviewed 2,008 British adults online between 12th and 14th May 2017. Data was weighted to be representative of all GB adults.

· Only 1pc want the abortion time limit raised to birth
· 70pc of women would like the current time limit for abortion to be lowered.
· 59pc of women would like the abortion time limit lowered to 16 weeks or lower.
· 65pc oppose UK taxpayer money being spent on abortions overseas.
· 93pc of women want independent abortion counselling introduced.
· 91pc of women want a sex-selective abortion ban.
· 79pc of general population want a five-day consideration period before abortion.
· 84pc of women want improved pregnancy support for women in crisis.
· 76pc of population want introduction of doctors verifying women not coerced.
· 70pc of parents want introduction of parental consent for girls 15 and under to get abortions.

Yougov 2013 poll puts it slightly higher at 4% amongst women, but still only 1/25

Leaving aside medical emergencies, which of
these options do you favour?
Increasing the time limit to above 24 weeks 6 6 6 5 6 6 5 7 4 9 6 5 5 7 4 8 5 5 7 3 4 4 5 6 6
Keeping the time limit at 24 weeks 40 42 42 48 40 42 47 42 38 46 37 40 41 43 37 41 40 40 39 44 34 39 39 48 38
Reducing the time limit to below 24 weeks 28 30 28 26 32 26 27 19 37 22 28 30 29 28 28 22 31 29 27 28 28 34 31 26 28
Banning abortions altogether 7 5 7 4 6 7 5 7 6 6 7 7 7 5 9 8 5 7 8 9 9 6 6 5 9
Don't know 19 17 17 17 17 19 16 24 14 17 22 19 17 17 22 21 19 19 19 16 25 17 20 14 19

That did not come out very well but easy to google

Are people really saying that to be feminists women have to actively support abortion on demand up to the moment of natural birth? Is being comfortable with the status quo in England, Wales and Scotland and wanting it extended to Northern Ireland (and other countries) not good enough?

Women's bodies dispose of potential babies every time they menstruate. While people are clusters of cells it does not follow that clusters of cells are people.

“99% of women believe extending the legal limit on abortion would be wrong“ What’s your source?

“Not exactly sure how saying "the unborn child" is a crime.”

You conveniently missed out the word “killing” in your quote.

I didn’t say it was a crime, I said it was very telling of your position.

“Killing babies” or “killing children” is emotive language used by the anti-choice brigade to demonise and guilt-trip women who have abortions. In my opinion.

Larry it seems you don't have a good understanding of bodily autonomy and integrity.

From that hotbed of radical feminism, Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodily_integrity
Bodily integrity is the inviolability of the physical body and emphasizes the importance of personal autonomy and the self-determination of human beings over their own bodies.

Women, even pregnant ones, are human beings.

I have no problem with early TOP, it should be easily accessible. Embryos are just a bunch of cells, a potential baby, with no possibility of survival outside the woman.

Termination of a foetus up to the point of viability also causes me no issues. That’s not to say the TFMRs my SIL and friend had were not very sad and terribly traumatic.

I would not support bringing the limit down below 22-24 weeks. Although many more 24 week premature babies survive now, the lowest viable gestational age has not really gone down by more than a few days in 30 years.

However, I do have a problem with termination up to term, and a greater problem the closer to term. A 36 week foetus would usually survive without any medical help, and the woman has no choice but to deliver the products of termination anyway. I have difficulty in seeing much difference between stopping a 36 week foetus’s heart in utero, and killing a newborn. So the balance tips.

But I wouldn’t judge a woman who feels differently, and in some circumstances the scales would definitely tip in the woman’s direction.

Silly argument. I own my car. I cannot do whatever I like with it if it affects other people. 99% of women believe extending the legal limit on abortion would be wrong. Maybe you should listen to them

my body is not a car,and I can do whatever I like with it when it doesn't affect other people, which abortion does not.
I don't care what 99% of women think about my body, the only opinion that matters is mine. I will never listen to them.

I don't understand what you mean by life starting at conception? Do you mean the moment the egg is fertilized?
To say life starts at conception is saying that it starts when it begins.
That is a nonsense statement.
An estimated 70% of fertilized eggs fail to survive gestation. Nature, or God if you will, is pro abortion, obviously.

Silly argument. I own my car. I cannot do whatever I like with it if it affects other people. 99% of women believe extending the legal limit on abortion would be wrong. Maybe you should listen to them.

Not exactly sure how saying "the unborn child" is a crime

Its not a crime, its just factually incorrect. A child is born, there is no such thing as an unborn child.