Can Pro-lifers be feminists?

A woman will make the decision she feels is right for her own body. And should be allowed to do so.

But that loops back into lots of areas where (radical) feminists (mostly) agree that there should be laws in place to prevent them.

If I feel it is right for my own body to carry another person's child as a surrogate, I should be allowed to do so.

If I feel it is right for my own body to inject heroin, I should be allowed to do so

If I feel it is right for my body for strangers to penetrate me provided they stump up the requisite payment, I should be allowed to do so

Etc etc etc

It's been said on this thread that a woman should have the right to demand that a baby that is about to be born is killed first, in case, having been adopted, it inconveniences her by contacting her when aged 18. Do you agree with that?

A woman will make the decision she feels is right for her own body. And should be allowed to do so.

You're not seriously saying that every woman always makes the right decision. So what do you mean about trusting women?

If you don't trust women you are not a feminist.

I do trust women as a class. Within that group there are women I don't trust, but more pertinently, there are vulnerable women who need help and protection in order to get the outcome that they want.

What's more I'd say that I think femisism should include more view points so it's more representative- because only saying it's for those that hold extreme views and allowing them to set the narrative for all women - well it's not exactly what I would say is women's liberation. I'd say women as a "whole" should be deciding what liberation looks like.

I understand that women's choice is an important part of feminism- I don't think it should be pushed to extremes where all reason is excluded.

What is trust? What you basing that on?

As I've said women make up 50% of population- You expect they are all virtuous, good people, and going to make good decisions? It's completely unrealistic to assume this.

The women I posted links about earlier, are they good examples of trustworthiness- Ie Sarah Catt

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-19621675

As I said should we legalise murder because we expect people not to take up the offer?

Clarissa - I think the whole purpose of people comparing the foetus to a tumour, parasite etc, is to try and deny the infants humanity to justify the killing. If people admitted to the infants personhood- they have to defend the stance that treating a person as their property to be extinguised at will is ok.

Our ancestors would have waited until birth to kill the baby, and late term abortion is practically same thing- there is nothing progressive about it- its a regressive act which denies the right of another life.

I think there is plenty of room for women of moderate views to be considered feminists. If it was limited to the views of "abortion to term" it makes feminism seem like a bunch of extremists that don't reflect the views of majority of women they are supposed to be representing. Then again some people already feel this way. Many would say feminism is now already out of touch.

It isn't that complicated really. If you don't trust women you are not a feminist.
This thread has been all over the place. Aborting a pregnancy is said to be like slavery, and like slitting a goats throat, and it is done frivolously for bad reasons or no reason at all.
When the fight for abortion rights began it was the position of the judges that if a woman was not willing to risk dying in childbirth she should not have sex. Women are in prison for stillbirths and spontaneous abortions. Reading what women on this thread think of women who have had abortions was a real eye opener.

"Perfectly fine to rule out abortion for themselves on moral grounds. Totally unacceptable to want their moral stance affect any other woman's rights."

• no one should be able to block my right to keep slaves, if you don't like it you don't have to have one. (And people used to think like this, that they had rights over someone with none).

"This is how the don't like abortion don't have one" argument sounds to me.

It's a matter of human rights, an once that foetus is considered "human" it has the right not to be killed. So yes I think people do have a right to speak out.

I think it's horrible that someone compared a woman's right to decide to have an abortion as the same as a man's right to decide to have treatment for prostrate cancer.
Being pregnant is rarely a terminal condition. It is something that most women experience. In cases where it is a terminal condition for medical reasons, there is in the UK an absolute right to have an abortion at any time.
And a foetus is not a cancerous tumour. It is a living being, which in the later stages of pregnancy is ready to lead an independent human life.
The decision on whether a foetus should be given rights or not is one for society to make, not just the individual woman who conceived it.
This extreme view that a foetus can be completely disregarded until after birth, even to the extent that a woman has the right to kill it shortly before birth because its being alive might inconvenience her because it might track her down as an adult having been adopted, is chilling. And it reads to me as an article of faith rather than anything else.

A foetus due to be born tomorrow is not a human life, it is the equivalent of a cancerous growth.
How different is that from the statement: A man who thinks he is a woman is a woman?
They are both nonsensical positions, held for the convenience of the woman/man concerned.

I must admit I'm getting more won over by the forced birther position philosophically as the thread goes on, but I am still concerned that if you limit abortion any further the overall loss of life will go up. I still cannot justify putting an ideological position over human life even if that ideological position is the sanctity of human life. To do otherwise would violate the whole point of the argument in the first place.

Can we not however given our ideological differences find some common ground? Like for example you can be against abortion philosophically, so donate to gingerbread and other charities designed to support single mothers? Thus lessening the chances of someone aborting on grounds of financial hardship.

It also brings home one of the dimensions of how terrifying a crime rape is, as just the threat of it means any woman no matter what choices she makes or what views she may hold on abortion personally maybe forced into having to make this decision. It makes me want to increase the severity of sentences of convicted rapists.

TheSecond,

Only if you will yourself into the position that the foetus the day before birth is not human and has no rights can you justify the above statement.

It comes from the same (mistaken) logic that allows a religious Moslem to slit a goat’s throat in the street and claim anyone who objects is infringing his right to pursue his faith in peace.

He did not believe the goat had any rights at all and he believed his autonomy to practise his religion was overridingly important.

Perfectly fine to rule out abortion for themselves on moral grounds. Totally unacceptable to want their moral stance affect any other woman's rights.

I think that the current UK laws are as sensible a way to navigate these difficult waters as any other that I could think of

(Our Parliament isn't perfect by a long straw, but it is actually quite good at finding a middle ground for tricky issues)

(c) posters who have spoken approvingly of the mainland UK position, would I assume, be happy for a similar system to be the norm elsewhere.

Posters are referring to the UK because
(a) I suppose it is the jurisdiction the majority are familiar with;
(b) the majority of posters are comfortable, more or less, with the position in the UK (which incidentally is one of the most liberal in the world)
(c) posters who have spoken approvingly of the mainland UK position would assume would be happy for a similar system to be the norm;
(d) do not assume these UK centric posters do not support campaigns for abortion rights elsewhere.

I keep running into this same wall of how it is done in the UK. I find it somewhat amusing because the USians on the internet are constantly derided for being US centric.
I can only conclude that in the UK the self styled Feminists believe that they can be Feminists and pro life, aka opposed to women's bodily autonomy, because the current laws do not inconvenience them.

Are you aware that 20 weeks is the earliest point at which anomalies are tested for in the fetus?

How is this relevant (in GB)? Termination up to term is permitted for foetuses with birth defects incompatible with life.

How do the people on the thread who advocate for abortion to be illegal past a certain point think the law should punish women who violate it.

The punishment should be for the abortionist, or the seller of the TOP medicine, not the woman.

Thebewilderness,

You would punish them according to the tariff set up for the crime. Clearly mitigating circumstances are taken into account.

There are many tragic reasons people commit crimes. Some people do steal to feed their children. Many drug addicts are not evil but victims, and yet they commit crime to sustain their dependency.

Sentencing is not just to punish but to deter.

Just thinking about it now, and wondered how feminist still consider the aborting of female foetus’ a feminist issue?
Surely, if to be a feminist you must fundamentally agree with abortion for any reason at any stage, then it doesn’t matter why these female foetus’ are being aborted?

It’s nuanced, isn’t it?
24.5 weeks? Nothing.
39.5 weeks? The same punishment as if the baby were alive and then killed.
I think at the point the baby has a right to life.
I’m sure there would be exemptions, common sense would be applied on a case by case basis.

Emotional problems whereby you repeatedly create and then end life are morally repugnant to me. That’s my personal opinion, and I judge.

"But after your fourth or fifth abortion that’s just fucking carelessness"

Actually I don't think it is. I suspect it's much more complex than carelessness. I think it's probably some kind of emotional problem about pregnancy and abortion, but I don't quite know what it is, not being clued up on this subject.

Obviously I was not specific enough in my language.
How do the people on the thread who advocate for abortion to be illegal past a certain point think the law should punish women who violate it.