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 When I mentioned it to other friend she said it was my views but they were quite outdated and misogynistic.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?

All this focus on late-term abortions from anti-choicers is not just embarrassingly obvious and immature attempts to keep the discussion in the realms of manipulative and non-factual emotion, but more importantly, part of the misogynist rhetoric of anti-abortion, because it posits the notion that women are so irresponsible, immature and self-centred that they would choose to wait until the foetus inside them was potentially viable to seek abortion. I mean, that makes no sense whatsoever to anyone with a shred of logic or humanity, but when it comes to the fixation with embryonic life being more important than existing life, well, we're not in Kansas anymore, Toto.

loopsylou Sun "can you honestly justify a 21 year old woman who wants to live life and party and play, who gets pregnant because she doesn't use contraception, and they kills a child at 38 weeks so that she can keep up her desired lifestyle."

Except that would never happen, and only someone who has never thought about the reality of late-term abortion would suggest it.

CrapswithBrars -- yes, baby is a term of endearment, a pet name for a foetus, like tummy for stomach, and foetus is the correct medical term. But my point was that there would be no fuss about the question of abortion unless there was some acknowledgement of the humanity of the foetus and all that that implies for life outside of the uterus for all concerned.

Someone upthread pointed out that to be pro-life requires ownership of all that entails, and realistically to be pro choice requires ownership of all that entails too, including termination at 40 weeks as the rights and welfare of the mother always trump those of the foetus in the pro choice view and not just up to a certain point of pregnancy (which is illogical). There are many, many people in both camps who would baulk at the idea of abortion on demand up to natural birth. There are many in both camps who baulk at the idea that a woman (or girl) who is impregnated by means of rape should have to go through pregnancy, birth and the decisions about the baby's upbringing after that.

Most people say 'I am pro life but...' or 'I am pro choice but...'. You rarely hear someone expressing the logical conclusion of either party's position as clearly as StuntGirl does. She understands her position and all of its implications. Many people are actually far more on the fence than they think they are. However, when a matter becomes the subject of laws it is necessary to make one law for all. Otherwise you get the tangled mess of the Irish situation (where all that guides citizens is a court ruling because no political party has the will to tackle legislating the matter).

er but mathanxiety, it's exactly because people do not on the whole hold the ridiculous extreme versions of those positions that the law - like all laws - is a compromise between the rights of different entities. That compromise being the point at which the foetus would be viable outside the mother's body - not because that will actually be put to the test, but because it's an acceptable compromise between two extreme and essentially nonsensical views.

There is no obligation - moral, ethical, logical or philosophical - to hold the most extreme version of any view. There is nothing wrong with having complex, nuanced opinions. To be anti-abortion does not entail saying there is no difference between a fertilised egg and a month-old baby. To be pro-choice does not entail saying that a woman should be able to abort right up to full-term.

It is not illogical to say that the woman has the right to abort up to a certain point, and not beyond. Just like it's not illogical to say that you can drive up to 70mph on a motorway, but not faster than that. Or to say that you can drink alcohol and drive, but only up to a certain limit. Or that you can buy alcohol, but only over the age of 18.

Mathanxiety I think that's an important point. There's nearly universal acknowledgment on both sides of the debate that abortion is, in many (most?) cases, an extremely difficult, traumatic decision to make. if the foetus was in fact merely a bunch if cells and nothing more you'd imagine the decision would not be so fraught - it would be on par with getting a mole removed.

Conversely if "pro-lifers" genuinely believed that abortion was equal to murdering babies then you'd imagine they would be obligated, as citizens. to storm abortion clinics and stage violent interventions as you would do if you actually saw an infant in danger of death.

I don't think the extreme view in this case is anything other than a logical one. If a woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy then it's logical for that right to exist for as long as the pregnancy exists.

How can a termination be ok at 21 weeks 6 days but not 21 weeks 7 days ? How does any prolife stance justify that ?

Surely it's less ridiculous to say that termination is legal throughout but we address what happens to the foetus based on medical reality. That way a woman retains autonomy over her body and a viable foetus is able to live.

If termination is unacceptable at 8 weeks, 12 weeks whatever, surely the logical response for pro lifers is that it's not acceptable at any point.

None of it is ideal, it's actually pretty gruesome but the extreme views are the only logical ones. Everything else is entirely emotive, understandably so.

When it stops being a "bunch of cells" and actually is a little tiny living baby. That is a very big difference and that is why the law is set out that way. It is a life.

The current law is illogical and outdated. It should either be legal to have a termination or not, regardless of circumstances.

There should then be much more support in place so that very few women ever need to consider it.

FrameyMcFrame
*BlessedDespair, you say women choose to have sex and pregnancy is a consequence.

WRONG

Women do not always 'choose' to have sex, rape, women with mental health issues, marital rape, sex workers women trapped in abusive relationships women with learning disabilities. Do they 'choose'?

Where will you draw your line if you make abortions illegal???

I wish people would use a little thought before jumping on the opinion bandwagon.*

Eh??? The highlighted bit in my post is a quote from someone else not my own thoughts....

The bit underneath that is my view, sorry if that wasn't clear in my post

And it still isn't clear as it hasn't highlighted that one :-/

You talk about the baby not having the 'right' to use a woman's body without her consent hopkinette-as if the embryo-foetus whatever makes a choice to do that! I have rarely read anything here or elsewhere which disgusted me as much as that statement.I was enjoying the debate but that is too much.I will now hide this thread

Sheltered life, much?

When it stops being a "bunch of cells" and actually is a little tiny living baby. That is a very big difference and that is why the law is set out
that way. It is a life

A teeny tiny little living baby _

Does your argument boil down to "it's cute!"? Really?

I am not saying make it illegal. I am saying there is a reason why there is a recommend limit. Because we know that babies at a certain stage of development in the womb begin to function i.e are fully formed, therefore is a living being.
Why anyone would want to wait 24 weeks into it just to abort the baby is not even worth thinking about. (I have already mentioned medical issues)
Women have the right to abort a progressing pregnancy, but they are advised to do so before it has produced a fully formed baby. Why change that.

hopkinette

Not once did I say it was cute. I said it was alive. Which it is at that stage of development it is a baby.

So here's something I've been mulling over while reading this thread.

I am 100% pro-choice. 100%.
But If I were a doctor and if a women came to me and asked for a late-term abortion then I don't think I'd be able to perform it. Actually, I know that I wouldn't. I'd refer her on though.

I feel weird about this dichotomy. Any thoughts?

If you think that abortion is OK when the woman has been raped, but not otherwise, then you are still a woman-hater. Because, if you were a genuine foetus-worshipper who believed that every embryo has more rights than the actual woman pregnant with it, you wouldn't be able to cope with the idea of an 'innocent baby' being terminated because a woman was raped. If you want abortion restricted except in cases of rape then your actual position is that women who have consensual sex are irresponsible sluts who should be forced to have babies, because that will disabuse them of the idea that they are free human beings and put them in their proper place: breeding animals and domestic servants.

Because the law as it currently stands doesn't actually give any woman the right to terminate. It needs changing.

There is no need for the victim of rape to wait till she is 24 weeks gone though. That is all I was saying.

sunshine

It makes no difference what you call it. It's irrelevant. No person - born or otherwise - has the right to use any other person's body without their consent.

It is legal to have an abortion up to a certain development point.

There is no need for the victim of rape to wait till she is 24 weeks gone though

From a practical point of view, this is unworkable.

Eco, what if there genuinely was an option to end the pregnancy but save the foetus ? Could you do it then ?

As much as I support it, I struggle with it as well but there is no acceptable alternative IMO

It's legal sunshine but it isn't a right.

I don't think any law reflects any commonly held position unless a referendum is held to determine exactly what it constitutes.

The extremes may be 'ridiculous' but they are the logical conclusions of positions held. If pro life then keeping abortion illegal under all circumstances is the logical conclusion. Likewise, if pro choice then accepting the absolute right of the mother to abort at any stage of pregnancy is the only logical conclusion.

Law has to draw a line and it has to be a line applicable to all. In the case of abortion, law reflects a squaring off of two rights, that of the mother and that of the foetus. Determining when a foetus is viable as been used to determine the cutoff date but so has determining what constitutes a threat to the life or health of the mother. Right now the de facto situation is that a woman can abort up to the time of natural birth (though that eventuality is rare) depending on the view of her doctor. It's not really an acceptable compromise from a legal pov. There is room for debate and contention and the right of the mother is not specifically legally acknowledged -- depending on one's doctor's pov is what it boils down to. Otoh, as in the case of girl X and a few others in Ireland, a woman could well face a court and require a judge's ok, or in the case of Savita, a woman could end up at the mercy of an overzealous doctor.

The 'extreme' views are in fact the logical ones and law without logic tends to always leave room for controversy. It really is illogical to say a woman has a right to abort up to a certain point and not beyond. If a woman has in fact autonomy over her body then she has autonomy over her body full stop. It can't be autonomy with an asterisk. That is illogical. The implications of the right to autonomy need to be owned.

After the legal point of no return, abortion-speaking, has been reached, the foetus remains in the uterus, perhaps able to survive outside (albeit with massive medical intervention and poor prognosis for future quality of life depending on when exactly it is delivered) and perhaps not, even once the 22 or 23 or 24 or 25 week point is reached. There is no difference for the pregnant woman, who is still carrying a foetus within her and who still faces the prospect of birth and decisions about the products of conception she will deliver.

Tooearlyintheday -- this used to happen frequently outside US clinics where abortions were performed.

It makes no difference what you call it. It's irrelevant. No person - born or otherwise - has the right to use any other person's body without their consent.

What a weird thing to say.