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 When I mentioned it to other friend she said it was my views but they were quite outdated and misogynistic.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

eccentrica I think the insistence is that you must be pro choice up to the moment of birth otherwise you're not a feminist, rather than, you're not pro choice

But we are allowed to self-harm. It's not a crime to do so. We are, these days, allowed to consent to BDSM activities. We're allowed to amputate our own feet if we want to - this may be a silly thing to do but it's not a crime and you can't be prosecuted.

Again: what's it got to do with you if a tiny, vanishingly tiny, number of women might choose to terminate late in pregnancy? (late terminations for any reason at all are very much in the minority, most terminations in the UK are carried out before 12 weeks.) How can it possibly be anyone else's business?
It is the business of prochoicers that there are proven cases of women dying because they haven't been allowed to abort pregnancies that put them at serious risk (never mind the women dying from illegal abortions which were performed in unsafe conditions).

I am aware that some antichoicers are women who have had fertility problems - either inability to concieve or inability to carry a pregnancy to viability - and while I appreciate that this might make you sad and bitter, other women choosing to terminate their pregnancies are not responsible for your distress.

Basically, whining on about late terminations for 'social reasons' is a clear and simple indicator that you are either wilfully ignorant or you simply hate women and think they should be treated as walking incubators rather than human beings.

Alright eccentrica - I do actually get what you are saying, thank you for posting such a fabulously explained reply.

I am not blindly insisting that you are a hypocrite if you don't believe in termination up to the full term point. I believe that full-term abortion should be legal, because above all, the woman trumps any 'rights' over the unborn baby. Of course, that is my belief, and aside from on this forum I would never speak about it because it's an emotive subject, among other reasons.

My (badly written and explained) point is, and always has been - the woman's right always, always, always should trump the unborn baby's 'right'. In fact, thinking over, the debate of comparing it to drink-driving or under-age sex is pointless. All these 'comparable' situations involve human(s) who can battle their 'rights' out in court, and you can argue who is right and wrong, who was or wasn't behaving illegally. But when it comes to a pregnant woman there is only ONE person involved, and she should get the final say in what happens to her body.

(Am I making sense?)

Actually maybe I haven't been concentrating, but I don't think anyone's said you can't believe in cut off dates and still be a feminist.

They've said that believing a woman loses her right to control her own body after a certain cut off date, is not a feminist position.

Lots of feminists do things or think things that are inconsistent with feminism. Doesn't mean they're not feminists, just that their position on xyz is not a feminist one.

Nicely said Basil.

Although - I don't think you can consider yourself a feminist if you stand outside abortion clinics and shout at women.

Can,t stay away from the thread. VaH after the date of foetal viability there are two people involved. One has no voice to speak for him/herself so the law must speak for them. Up to the point where a live baby could be born then I will agree (reluctantly because I can't imagine doing it) that the woman has absolute autonomy over her body. After that then any delivery should be done with every attempt to ensure a live birth. That's my feeling, in my definitely pro women gut, to be right as opposed to wrong.

I'm not sure that delivering seriously premature babies, who will need massive intervention to keep them alive, are likely to have life-long disabilities and will be difficult to find adoptive families for is something to aim for.

Quite...so let's just kill them quietly instead eh? I know that is a mad idea but can't anyone see the wrongness of ,say, two 25 week pregnancies, one where there is a desperate struggle to ensure survival and one where there is 'disposal' of an unwanted foetus.

the two are not the same

I'm not sure I would desperately struggle to keep a very premature baby alive to be honest, so I don't think it's that clear cut. Especially a very premature baby that doesn't have a home to go to.

I definitely don't 'hate women' (stupidly crass and aggressive rhetoric - I am a woman)

But

When it comes to viable babies in the third trimester, I cannot agree with killing them if they are perfectly healthy. I cannot come to terms with what some people seem to be saying on this thread, which is that the right of the mother to terminate the baby is more important that the baby's right to life. Even when the baby could survive without the mother. How can it be better or even justifiable to terminate close to term rather than to deliver a live baby? I fully support the right of the mother to not have anything to do with said baby, and to deliver prematurely if needs be, but not to kill it when it has a chance to live.

Those saying otherwise, where does it end? Should the mother have a right to kill a breastfeeding baby? Why not? What difference does the physical act of leaving the body of its own devices, as opposed to a premature C section make?

Eccentrica, the examples you bring up involve only adults dealing with other adults, and the decisions that one person makes about him or herself, and are not analogous to the issue of a woman carrying a foetus. Sex with children is not permitted for sound reasons to do with the ability of children to consent and the necessity to have one law for all (there may well be 14 year olds who could completely understand what they were getting themselves in for but law needs to be tidy). Drunk driving (over a certain limit) is not permitted because it has been proven dangerous.

If the foundation of a law permitting abortion is the autonomy of the woman over her own body then that has to hold until the time of natural birth. If an abortion law limits a woman's autonomy over her own body to a certain time frame then it is in fact illogical.

Either a woman has autonomy or she does not have autonomy with no grey area in between. There is not such thing as autonomy with an asterisk. Anything less than full autonomy is not autonomy. That is the nature of autonomy. If you base your support for abortion rights on women's autonomy then that support must involve supporting the right to abort up to the time of natural birth. Place any limits to a woman's right to abortion and you are either misunderstanding the term autonomy or you are basing your support for abortion rights on some other foundation.

And that needs to be owned.

({EP}'I think the insistence is that you must be pro choice up to the moment of birth otherwise you're not a feminist, rather than, you're not pro choice'
Actually, I am not at all concerned here with what is or what isn't a feminist position. I am more concerned with examining the implications of the labels 'pro choice' and 'pro life'.)

Eccentrica 'Is a 16th birthday, or 80mg/100ml, or 24 weeks of pregnancy, a magical, determined-by-nature limit? Or are these in fact, obviously boundaries which have been agreed upon as the best possible compromise between conflicting and naturally messy, grey-area reality?'

If you are throwing the term autonomy into the mix then you are not dealing with grey areas, and how can there possibly be a compromise?

mathanxiety i do love your posts but on this subject I just can't agree with you. The step that you make says that it is logical but since the baby can survive out of utero, to me, that means everything changes.

BTW as I said upthread I've had 2 abortions and don't regret them in the slightest.

Sorry, I simply don't accept the term pro life.

People who are in favour of supporting a woman's right to control her own body are also pro-life - they just happen to think that a woman's life is as important as that of a man and that just as a man cannot be forced to donate blood or organs or the use of his body without his consent in any circumstances, even if his refusal to donate the use of his body results in the death of another human being, neither can a woman, even if that other human being is actually inside her body.

I think allowing pro-forced-birthers to use the term pro-life is wrong and I deliberately use the term pro-forced-birth because if you believe in limiting women's rights to control their own bodies, then that is in effect what you believe - that women should be forced to carry a pregnancy and give birth against their will if you deem the circumstances require it.

It's that thing about owning your position that Matha keeps returning to. I'm perfectly willing to own mine - I think women should have the right to abortion on demand at any point in their pregnancy unless they have lost their mental capacity. That means risking that the legendary feckless sluts with full mental capacity who decide at 38 weeks that they want to terminate so that they can go to a party the week after, will go ahead and do so. But frankly I know of no case in history of a woman deciding that and I have faith in women's humanity and common sense. Someone point me to evidence that there has ever been a case in recorded history, of a woman demanding an abortion in those circumstances - you won't find one, because these women are a figment of patriarchy's imagination. I think the people who are uncomfortable with late abortions because of the mythical party-girl 38 week abortioners, have swallowed the narrative our culture pushes, of women as weaker vessels with untrustworthy moral capacity tbh.

Fantastic post, Basil.

Yabu

How.insulting to victims of rape,incest or people who've had to terminate for any other reason. You are outdated

Whether your pro life or pro choice, how dare someone suggest you have an abortion, especially when you just said it won't look good at work!

I'm conflicted over the 'abortion at any term date', only because as far as I'm aware, abortion at very late dates involves inflicting violence on a viable foetus in order to kill it not just cause its expulsion, or almost fully deliver it and then kill it.

However, I do believe that the woman should have the right to cause its expulsion (end the pregnancy) at absolutely any date, thereby taking ownership of her own body back.

But I do think that efforts (not heroic, massively invasive ones) should be made to give the baby a chance at life once it is delivered (and I am talking about near to full term, where it has a fighting chance).

That would of course lead to larger societal issues such as what to do with the born unwanted babies, but a) I don't think many women would take up late-term abortion unless absolutely necessary, and b) I don't think the fact that it would present society with a problem is enough of a reason to justify the killing of virtually full-term babies (sometimes part-way down the birth canal).

solari That is a very interesting point...I have always struggled with that end of the debate because I believe the conflicting statements that the woman has the right to autonomy but that the baby has the right to life once it can survive outside the womb. But actually your solution works for me.

Presumably a baby can be delivered by C-section at almost any point. IF this leaves a viable baby then so be it. The woman has exercised her right to get her body back under her control and the baby is given the chance to survive.

For those of you happy with the idea of these late term abortions would you also be happy enough to kill the live baby at birth yourselves or would you prefer to leave that for others to do because someone would have to. And for those of you saying that these late abortions don't happen has obviously been put to bed by that guy in America recently prosecuted for killing multiple infants after the late term abortions he carried out.

www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/13/kermit-gosnell-found-guilty-murder

Letitsnow it has already been established by MNHQ that the OP is a bit hairy-handed and that the scenario in her OP probably only happened in her head...

neu what happened in Amercia is a direct consequence of unfavourable abortion laws.

In countires where abortion is illegal worse, much much worse, than that takes place!!!!

I don't think anyone is saying late abortions don't happen. They're saying its by far the rarest type of abortion, which it is. They will also include abortions that were absolutely medically necessary.

UK - 1% over 20 weeks
<a class="break-all" href="http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130107105354/www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsStatistics/DH_4136852" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">UK link

USA - 1.4% over 21 weeks
USA link