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 When I mentioned it to other friend she said it was my views but they were quite outdated and misogynistic.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

YABU and, just FYI in light of the more recent comments, I've had two abortions and barely blinked an eye over either. The circs made it very easy for me to choose. Both times were with different men and split condoms on either end of my cycle with no access to MAP.

I know have 3 children that I cherish but still no guilt over the abortions and the recovery at the time was fine too.

Gah now, not know.

At the risk of sounding callous, having a termination does not have to be physically and emotionally painful.

I had one at 6 weeks. It wasn't painful, it wasn't traumatic, it was just a procedure.

That doesn't mean that I took it lightly but I don't have a single regret. The only thing it left me with was a sense of relief and responsibility that I have to live my life is such a way that it wasn't for nothing.

I knew all about contraception but he was older, I was a teenager, I was intimidated, he didn't care and I didn't really want to be having sex for the first time in that way. If I wasn't capable of actually telling him 'no' then I certainly wasn't capable of telling him to put a condom on it. Again, life isn't simple.

For plenty of women, abortion is not a source of lifelong regret.

i share your viewpoint that abortion is abhorrent and should only happen where a mother's life is at risk by continuing the pregnancy or when the baby is such that it will have no quality of life. However i am very careful about expressing my views in public and would never have made such insensitive comment about rape.

WHat I really don't get about the antichoicers is what the fuck it's got to do with them in the first place what choice a woman makes. THere are real, documented examples of women dying unnecessarily because of the misogyny and stupidity of anti-choicers - Savita Hannapalah, Angela Carder etc, but nothing other than vague third-hand anecdotes about all these 'selfish' women who decide to wait till they are seven months PG and then terminate because they want to go to a party. Antichoicers are more upset by hypothetical 'murdered' babies than by the deaths of real women.

Oxfordbags you have been on this thread twice now to tell us how embarrassing and immature the discussion is. Is this going to be the limit of your contribution or would you care to add something intellectual and mature?
The discussion about late term abortions is going on between both pro and anti abortion posters. Its not 'non-factual emotion' its real, it happens, we've just looked at a list of some of the many reasons it happens. Are you suggesting we shouldn't discuss it? Or that it doesn't happen?

itsonlysubterfuge completely agree people should be educated about abortion. We don't normally require evidence of lack of knowledge seeker to educate. It should be the norm. Not just one side - that obviously isn't education. The negatives/risks as well as the other side such as blistory told above.

EcoRI me too. Thing is, the right of the woman trumps the right of the baby. But that doesn't make it pleasant.

That list is really sobering reading :(
How awful that so many of them were given incorrect advice from their own gp!!
And how awful that so many of the young women were so ignorant about contraception.

SGB- I don't speak for all pro-lifers but to me once fertilisation has taken place, then a genetically unique human life has begun.So if you substitute new born baby in all the pro-life arguments then you can see my POV.

WHat I really don't get about the antichoicers is what the fuck it's got to do with them in the first place what choice a woman makes

well that is true of many wrongs in the world.Should I just turn a blind eye to children being abused because it is the parents' choice and nothing to do with me? who speaks for that human embryo being murdered?

. THere are real, documented examples of women dying unnecessarily because of the misogyny and stupidity of anti-choicers

I don't think even the most hardline pro-life supporter would say that a pregnancy should be continued where the mothers life is at risk

xylem but you've just contradicted yourself. In your first post you say that as soon as fertilisation has taken place then the baby is a human in its own right and should not be killed. But then you say if the mother's life is at risk then the baby can be killed. Surely in that scenario, both are equally important?
(I summarise, apologies if you feel I've misquoted)

I don't think even the most hardline pro-life supporter would say that a pregnancy should be continued where the mothers life is at risk

Then you have not met many.

After Savita Halappanavar died there many demonstrations, a sign at one said "Must millions of babies be murdered because of the death of one woman?"

There is a woman in San Salvador appealing to the high court for a termination. What she is carrying, whether you describe it as a child, baby or fetus, it will not live.

abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/el-salvador-court-hears-arguments-abortion-case-19187145#.UZoEMsqe2LA

Pro life means no abortion no matter what the circumstances, and if you are identifying as pro life you should make yourself aware of what happens when abortion is outlawed.

In Mexico if you have a miscarriage, you have to prove to the police it is that, and not a termination. That is the reality of pro life.

Pro choice, on the other hand, is not fixed, it is a spectrum of people some who believe abortion at any stage should be legal, others only under certain circumstances.

'I don't think even the most hardline pro-life supporter would say that a pregnancy should be continued where the mothers life is at risk'

But thats exactly what happened with Savita? The mother's life was at risk but the pregnancy was continued.

Here are some tables from the USA. Under 'public opinion' . There is a percentage of between 4 and 25% that believe there should be no abortion even if the woman is at risk.

"I don't think even the most hardline pro-life supporter would say that a pregnancy should be continued where the mothers life is at risk"

You can't have met many then.............

Eglantine, I have been on this thread more than twice and have added some very long and detailed thoughts and facts, intellectual and mature all. But I totally understand that nitpicking and lying about my contributions might be easier than engaging with the real stuff that I've written.

How do pro lifers determine that a mother's life is at risk ?

Are we talking about physically at risk ? So if the pregnancy would result in her death, termination is ok ? What about if her life is at risk in other ways ? What if another child would result in an appalling quality of life for her and her existing children ? Should she just accept that and continue to exist instead of living ? What if pregnancy only causes her serious physical harm but not actually enough to kill her ? Would that meet your pro life criteria ?

I would have more time for the pro life brigade if they actually had the courage of their convictions and said that termination was unacceptable no matter what. That way the world could see that they only view woman as having value as a breeding machine. It might be horrific but at least it would be honest.

Of course pro-lifers are against abortion in the case of rape!

They believe that abortion is murder. You can't justify murder in the ase of rape.

I've even heard some say that abortion following rape is doubly traumatic and that continuing with the pregnancy can be therapeutic!!!

What I really don't understand about people who are anti-abortion (including myself once upon a time), is why the focus is on banning women... which of course wouldn't actually stop the practice, just force it underground.

If it really is about saving lives, then why not work on the reasons women find themselves in a position where an abortion seems like the best choice.

-Better contraception with less hormone-wreaking-havoc
-Education of boys to double-up contraception and not rely solely on the girl.
-More Plan B options
-More support with actually raising babies/children, with more accessible childcare and/or financial recognition of the mother carrying out that work herself
-Better handling of childbirth, including guarantee of adequate pain-relief

All of those things would be far more likely to actually aid in less conception of unwanted babies, and less fear/disincentives to actually having a baby.

Banning abortion wouldn't stop abortions, it would just assure that the mother got 'punished' for doing so by risking her life in unsanitary conditions, or that mothers were raising actual born babies/children that were completely unwanted.

I agree with a lot of what you've said solari. I read a wonderful blog many years ago by an American man who said he was Republican through and through, believed in Republican principles and ideals such as abortion being a bad thing.

And that was why he voted Democrat. Because studies showed that abortion rates dropped during Democrat ruled governments due to an increase in sex education and access to necessary health services (including abortion), and dropped during Republican governments due to their increased focus on promoting abstinence and lack of access to health services and contraception. I thought he raised a pretty good point.

I read that too StuntGirl

Also a blog post from another former pro-lifer who states why she lost faith in the real underlying motives:

rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/10/30/how-i-lost-faith-in-%e2%80%9cpro-life%e2%80%9d-movement-1/

This thread is both shocking and interesting.
I am 100% pro choice.
But for me I could not have a abortion. I refused it even when my life was at risk, my son was born 24 weeks to the day and we both survived but it could have been very different. But that's kind of the point isn't it-that was the right choice for ME not necessarily for anyone else. We each have the right to choose for ourselves and have no right to judge anyone else for their decisions.

What an interesting read Stuntgirl - there's a person with the right attitude, who had clearly looked at the facts and details surrounding abortion.

Abortion should never ever be banned - just because it was made legal in 1967 in the UK, doesn't mean it wasn't happening for hundreds of years before that. By making it legal, we empowered women to make their own decision in a safe and medical environment.

Oo I wonder if it really was the same blog solari...was it on Livejournal?

I remember reading a story in one of the proleporn mags when I was pregnant (made me feel absolutely wonderful and my mate banned me from reading any more of the wretched magazines) - a woman found out that her much-wanted pregnancy was not viable. because the foetus had something wrong with its lungs/kidneys which meant it would never breathe outside the womb. She decided that she wanted to continue the pregnancy, on the grounds that if she went to term and gave birth naturally the baby would be registered as a dead person not a miscarriage.

I completely support this woman's choice, just as much as I support the right of all women to terminate their pregnancies as early as possible, as late as necessary. I also support additonal charges of murder being brought against people who assault pregnant women and make them miscarry. Because what matters is the viewpoint of the woman. That takes priority over everyone else's feelings, opinions, superstitions etc, because it's her body and her choice.

Hypothetically, if an unwanted foetus could safely be transplanted from one womb to another, we wouldn't be having this argument.

Pregnancies end in only three ways - mc (early or late), birth (live or otherwise), or termination. If we could end the pregnancy without killing the foetus, then nobody would care whether the woman had social or medical reasons for wanting to do so, we would just skip to the waiting "host womb" top of the list. Neater than donor egg/sperm and the uncertainties of IVF etc, maybe, because only an already statistically viable foetus would be transplanted?

The pro-choice argument is about ending an unwanted pregnancy, of which the effect on the foetus is an unfortunate side-effect. The pro-life argument is about protecting the birth/life of a foetus, of which the effect on the host is an unfortunate side-effect.

I don't think anyone who is pro-choice actually thinks that a dead foetus is anything but regrettable - everyone would far far rather no unwanted conception had taken place.

And the law rightly prioritises a physically adult woman who exists as a legal person, over a foetus who does not legally exist as a human being until after birth, regardless of gestation and statistical viability.