To think that just because I'm pro-life doesn't mean I hate feminism?

[TinkerSailerSoldierSpy]

Friend and I were having a discussion, I'm 18 weeks pregnant, and it was a bit of an inconvenient surprise, considering I've started a new job just 2 months ago.I mentioned that it wasn't going to look good, me taking maternity leave after not even being there for a year, and she suggested perhaps considering there was no dad on the scene and my new job, I should terminate. I felt a bit uncomfortable but told her that I could never do that as I'm pro life and view it as killing a child. She then proceeded to stare at me like I had an extra head and ask me why in a shocked voice. I explained my reasons and views and we got into an arguement about it, the usual stuff, what about in cases of rape and if the woman's not financially able to support the child, to which I countered but is it right for a woman to get an abortion just because she wants to continue a party lifestyle? And she stormed out the house shouting that I was misogynistic and women have the right to their own bodies. Let me be clear, I certainly would never stop anyone from making their decision about an abortion, I just can't seem to get over the idea of it, it repulses me. But I wouldn't judge a woman who got one. I understand the other viewpoint but I can't agree with it myself, and in all other respects I would say i was very liberal about womans rights. When I mentioned it to other friend she said it was my views but they were quite outdated and misogynistic. Are they? I need advice, should I apologize to friend A?

I want to respond to these points:

mathanxiety

Similarly, arguments about what is or isn't a human being or how long a foetus would survive without a mother are moot -- there are many grandparents who couldn't survive without 24/7 support from their carers after all, and many people with disabilities who also couldn't survive without constant support.

These two situations are in no way comparable to a pregnancy. Elderly and disabled people are not solely reliant on one person's body. If caring for someone with a disability or an elderly relative was causing your mental, emotional, physical and even financial health to suffer, then someone else can care for them. That is absolutely not the case for a pregnant woman.

The same women in different circumstances rejoice if the prospect for the baby seems positive, and are happy to call it a baby and hear their friends and family do the same.

Of course women are happy when they are pregnant with a wanted fetus and call it a 'baby'. Baby is a term of endearment, I've called ex-partners 'baby', I was never pregnant with them. Pro-lifers use the term baby because they know it evokes images of an actual newborn infant, not this. That's why pro-choice people object to it, it is an appeal to emotion specifically used to upset women considering abortions, those that have had one and those that support them.

Sorry but that image looks quite human to me. You need to start a few weeks earlier still if you want a bunch of cells image.

Can someone explain to me how the rape exception is going to work in practical terms?

Has anyone who's graciously conceding that they will allow women to exercise bodily autonomy in the case of rape actually given any consideration to the practicalities of how that would work?

Chunderella makes some superb points above. Her post should be cut and pasted in all discussions on this topic!

Being pro-choice doesn't mean you like the idea of abortions, or don't really care abut what happens during them. It doesn't mean that you can't hate the idea for yourself, or sometimes feel judgy about it (I remember being outraged a few yrs back at the case of a women who aborted because her foetus had a cleft lip, but it was no-one else's business but hers). It doesn't mean you don't feel sad that abortions happen for whatever reasons, or wish they didn't have to happen. It just means that regardless of what you'd choose for yourself faced with the dilemma, you would not tell another woman what to do because you do not believe that your personal opinion should come into it.

And anyone who suggests that pro-choicers all support, or have to support, 40 week abortions is just embarrassing themselves with primary school-level black and white thinking.

Also, I want to address things AngloAmerican raised in her posts. Firstly, I am so sorry that you had to make the decision you did, and even more sorry that you (wrongly) think you killed your child. But you said something that I don't think you understand the importance of in the wider context of abortion: that you did what you did to save your child from suffering.

All abortion is to save someone from suffering. Whether that's because the foetus will be in agony due to extreme disability once born, or because a woman in an abusive marriage with multiple children already can't bear the thought of bringing another child into the world, or because a 14 yr old girl is not ready to be a mother. The suffering of the living woman is more important than that of a living thing that only survives because it is inside her. That is simply not living or being real in the same way.

If people are call themselves pro-life, why do they focus their concern on the unborn and not on the child once it is truly, properly, legally living? What about the rest of their life? Bringing an unwanted child into an unhappy and unsuitable environment, with the effects on it that the struggle and resentment caused to the parent or parents will have, is actually far crueller and offensive to human life than abortion. Unhappy, unwanted children all too often go on to have problems that adversely affect other individuals and society as a whole. If a pregnant woman knows that she does not want that child, that she is not in the right place in her life to do her best for it, and so on, then to have an abortion is the most loving and caring option. It is the most mature option. Human life is not so important over all other things that people should be given that life just to suffer and make others suffer. What's caring or pro-life about that?!

thegreylady Where in my post did I state that embryos didn't look human? I was pointing out the vast differences between an embryo at 8 weeks (around when the majority of abortions take place) and an infant.

Oxford and Chunderella are exactly correct. If you take the pro life stance it means you want to have abortion laws like the republic of Ireland, where victims of violent rape are forced to have their rapists child or travel abroad for treatment.
Or women die of septic shock waiting for natural miscarriage to happen because doctors are too afraid of the law to remove the foetus even though they know that foetus has no chance of life.

Hear hear Framey

UANBU and you shouldn't have to ask for validation of your views. In my opinion they are not outdated. I don't know what you said to your friend to make her storm out but there are plenty of people who think that pro life does not conflict with feminism. I believe that Germaine Greer is one of them.

Seems to me the OP is largely pro choice, not pro life from her post, but explained herself clumsily, and her friend was determined to be offended.

Germaine Greer doesn't think feminism conflicts with transphobia, homophobia, support of FGM, or rape-denial.

Anyone against abortion should go and live in a country where is is illegal. Experience the consequences before you wish to shove them onto the rest of us.

Anglo, I'm replying to you without catching up - I hope I am duplicating other replies!

Thanks for your clarification that all of the scenarios I outlined - and your own - describe the killing of a child, in your terms. By inexorable logic, then, you consider some child killings more excusable than others.

This is very interesting. I may find it chilling, but I'm still eager to hear your developed thoughts on how you determine some child killings less-bad than others. How far do you extend this meritocracy of murder? Could you construct any kind of matrix, showing which lives are worth more than other lives?

I know this is going to be unpopular but a woman chooses to have sex, and pregnancy is always a risk of having sex - that is its purpose. People seem to think that having consequence free sex is a right, but sometimes the consequence is an sti, and sometimes it's pregnancy, no matter what protection you use.

So the only sensible solution would be for everyone to be homosexual unless they wanted to 'breed' where by they would find a suitable member of the opposite sex 'do the deed' and then go back to living a homosexual life. 50/50 custody of any resulting child?

Or only have vaginal intercourse if you are intending to 'breed' and anal at all other times. Only being allowed to 'breed' if you are in a secure relationship.

There would be less need for children to be taken into care ect... as all children would be much wanted and be planned?

Both the above ideas are daft and not really feesable. I'm pro choice - do what ever you want with your body, choose whatever you want, but don't try and make my choices for me :-)

I will continue to find the deliberate ending of a potential human because it is inconvenient, abhorrent.

But how do we define an 'inconvenience'? Had I fallen pregnant last year, whilst in the midst of awful PND, PTSD and psychotic episodes, I would have aborted, because it would've been inconvenient - it would have been inconvenient because I was trying to recover and look after a small baby, and trying to support my amazing OH (in job and mental health terms). It would not have been productive for anyone, at that point, for me to have another baby.

It may inconvenient for another woman to have a baby for a variety of reasons - her career, her family life, her partying lifestyle, her education, - whatever. Where on Earth do you draw the line here?

The key word here is always CHOICE. You may not support abortion and may not be able to do it yourself, but by taking away the choice from other women you are essentially stating that women are not 'good enough' to make their own decisions. You are anti-choice, whether you like it or not.

No woman has complete choice over her body. The time limit for a legal abortion is 24 weeks.

How I consider "child killings" excusable or not is entirely irrelevant. As I have stated (I think this is the third time) how an individual reconciles her choice to terminate is entirely her business. Not mine. I simply believe the language of "bundle of cells/choice/autonomy" is disingenuous at best, dishonest at worst. My argument is really rather a simple one, although you seem determined to misunderstand me repeatedly. No matter.

not in all cases - if the mothers life or mental health is at risk or if the child is at risk of serious health problem there is no time limit

I don't think I am deliberately misunderstanding. I'm disputing your assertion that it's more honest to use the word 'kill' when speaking of embryonic terminations. 'Kill' is a word used specifically to describe the deliberate ending of an already extant life. In relation to fellow humans, it is a serious crime called murder.

You are not playing with words, you're using deliberately inflammatory language to imply that abortion is equivalent to murder. I gave you opportunities to qualify your view but you've chosen not to.

As you say, no matter ...

(Overuse of 'deliberate' there was not deliberate, just lazy!)

I know someone who has had more than one abortion to continue a party lifestyle. I also have heard teenage girls talking about how you don't need to practice safe sex because "it's all right you can just have an abortion." I think people need to be educated about what an abortion actually entails. How physically and emotionally painful it can be. It should be seen as a last resort rather than an easy alternative. I'm of course not speaking of the women who have been raped, I'm speaking of consenual sex.

It can be easy for some. One friend of mine had half a dozen abortions (roughly; I didn't count.) She wasn't traumatised by them. Despite a slight shuddery feeling on a personal level, my only rational response is "It works for you, so why not?"

My last post on this, because I think my ears are starting to bleed. Killing is exactly what you're doing when you terminate a pregnancy.

(And you are incorrect, for the record, in your definition of killing as deliberate. You can kill someone without it being a deliberate act.) Another reason I'm leaving this discussion. I'm trying to discuss language with someone who clearly has a limited understanding if it.