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 When I mentioned it to other friend she said it was my views but they were quite outdated and misogynistic.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

[HorryIsUpduffed]

Sorry, forgot my conclusion.

To prioritise a legally non-existent being over a living, breathing, feeling woman is deeply unfeminist, yes.

[Solari]

I don't remember Stuntgirl, but I definitely remember reading something that sounds very much like what you describe. I wonder if I can find it again...

[Solari]

What an interesting point HorryIsUpduffed , I do think science and the public in general should focus its efforts better on how to give women choices (esp. regarding preventing pregnancy or opting out of a current one), instead of seeking to control their choices.

Abortion only results in the death of the foetus because we don't currently have a better way to end an unwanted pregnancy.

[xylem8]

To prioritise a legally non-existent being over a living, breathing, feeling woman is deeply unfeminist, yes.

do you mean priotitise the choices of a woman or prioritise the life of the woman

[Teapot13]

The party lifestyle comment may not have been on.

Your friend is totally out of order though. She claims to be all for women's bodily autonomy, yet she criticises what you have decided to do about your own pregnancy? Surely she doesn't think women ought to have abortions they don't want?

[KateSMumsnet]

Hello all,

It's come to our attention that the OP of this thread may not be all the they seem, so we will be deleting this thread shortly.

Thank you for all your responses.

[seeker]

What, despite the fact that it is an interesting, mostly measured, informative debate? Why not just delete the offending post, and leave the thread?

[Solari]

I was finding it interesting too.

[StuntGirl]

Agree seeker, the poster may be a troll but it's been a fairly measured and interesting discussion so far.

[KateSMumsnet]

You know what, you guys are right, is IS an interesting discussion and we don't see why the hairy of hand should stop it.

We'll leave you to carry on - without the OP...

[twofingerstoGideon]

Given that we can now take the OP with a hefty pinch of salt, I think the notion that a friend casually suggested that someone 18 weeks pregnant might like to have an abortion could be reliably ignored. I can't imagine even the most ardent pro-choicer suggesting to a happily pregnant friend that they have an abortion.

Anti-abortionists often like to call pro-choicers 'pro-abortion', as it suits their rhetoric, but I've never come across a pro-choicer who actively advocates FOR abortion.

[Solari]

Agreed twofingerstoGideon.

[firawla]

I've not read the whole thread, sorry its soo many pages. But i think your friend is the one BU really - you told her you are pregnant, she started to say why dont you have an abortion???? wtf - who does that. your views are not relevant really, you're not even the one to bring them up. How is it appropriate to start debating this with a pregnant woman?? i dont see how you need to apologise to your friend, noone asked her to bring up this line of conversation in the first place.
Personally i dont think i could ever have an abortion, i dont like the idea of abortions although obviously people have to make up their own mind. i still consider myself a feminist. abortion is not something ever to be celebrated imo?? sadly in some cases it comes necessary - but whatever the circumstances, its still sad

[Solari]

Original post is probably made up firawla, (shortly being deleted by MN), but the rest of the discussion is going to be allowed to remain as its been interesting for many of us.

[StuntGirl]

Oh I'm glad MN are leaving it up.

I found that blog solari; I've actually misremembered some sections of it (it was almost 5 years ago I read it!) and re-reading it it's not as great as I initially remembered but some sections were the same or similar; he's Catholic rather than Republican and although his views theoretically align with Republican he voted Democrat as their policies lead to the outcome he prefers - despite those policies including measures his viewpoint suggest he should be against.

He's wildly naive and presumptious in some parts - viewing better access to adoption services as something of a magic bullet to help reduce abortion, but I like that his approach is more considered than many religious pro-life advocates.

[IneedAyoniNickname]

I'm glad this thread is staying, I've found it very interesting even though I haven't contributed after my initial post.

[Wuldric]

I knew the OP was fake - emotionally it just didn't ring true.

[eccentrica]

mathanxiety
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.

You are wrong, and didn't respond to all the analogous points I made.

It is not 'illogical' to draw lines and limits, and to say that x or y is OK up to but not beyond a certain point. It is legal to have consensual sex with people AS LONG AS they are over 16. It's legal to drink alcohol and drive up to a certain level of blood alcohol. Pretty much every single other law you can think of says that things are legal within certain defined limits. It's even legal to kill people within certain parameters - say, during armed conflict or in self-defence.

The implications of the right to autonomy need to be owned. this is complete balls. It does not follow that to be pro-choice automatically means saying it's ok to abort a full term healthy foetus, any more than being in favour of consensual sex between adults automatically implies you have to say it's ok to have sex with children.

[Blistory]

It does not follow that to be pro-choice automatically means saying it's ok to abort a full term healthy foetus

I would agree with that simply for someone who is pro choice but it's not necessarily a stance that supports women. In my opinion, it cannot therefore be said to be a feminist stance.

[nooka]

Thanks for that blog link Solari (the one from the previous pro-lifer). It makes a very strong case that the pro-life movement (at least in the States) really and truly is about punishing women for having sex as opposed to 'saving babies'. Not that I think everyone who is uncomfortable with the idea of abortions is also against birth control or supporting poor women and their families, but the movement as a whole is I agree very dishonest.

[VisualiseAHorse]

eccentrica

Actually - the things you've compared it to are logical. There's a limit on drink for driving because over that limit your senses are impaired. There's a limit for sex, because sex under 16 is having sex with a child who may not be fully understanding of what 'having sex' is all about, it is put in place to protect children.

Either a woman has control over her body or she doesn't. The fact that there is a time limit on abortion suggests that at 24 weeks, all of a sudden, the foetus is now a living human baby with more rights than the mother.

[EglantinePrice]

Eccentrica

you say

It's even legal to kill people within certain parameters - say, during armed conflict or in self-defence.

I think abortion probably falls into this category, not unlike self defence.

However saying a woman is autonomous at 24 weeks but not 24 weeks and a day just doesn't make sense.

[eccentrica]

Visualise "There's a limit for sex, because sex under 16 is having sex with a child who may not be fully understanding of what 'having sex' is all about, it is put in place to protect children.Either a woman has control over her body or she doesn't. The fact that there is a time limit on abortion suggests that at 24 weeks, all of a sudden, the foetus is now a living human baby with more rights than the mother."

Blimey, can you really not see how those are exactly the same situations? At midnight on someone's 16th birthday, all of a sudden, they are deemed to be able to consent to sex, while one minute earlier they were a child unable to consent.

When it comes to drink driving, 80 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood means you are unfit to drive, but 79 mg in 100ml and you're completely fine.

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?

The great majority of laws are about trying to balance different autonomies and rights. Obviously by defining which things are ok and which are not, you are going to end up with sharp lines separating things (such as 24 weeks of pregnancy, and 23 weeks 6 days), which are not in fact sharply distinct from each other. That is a necessary consequence of trying to balance different rights and wrongs.

We do not have absolute control over our bodies. We are not allowed to sell blood, organs or to rent our wombs out for surrogacy. We are not allowed to consent to sadomasochistic acts, constituting assault. We are not allowed to self-harm or amputate parts of our bodies without the likely intervention of medical/legal professionals.

As stated repeatedly it is NOT illogical to draw boundaries and that is reflected in the fact that the vast majority of people have the sense to do so. There are very few "pro lifers" who would want a woman to die rather than take a morning-after pill which would save her life, and there are very few pro choicers who would support a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy at any gestation for any reason. Those people are not illogical, they are not hypocrites, they are intelligent people responding to a complicated and difficult ethical question with no simple answer.

I find the blind insistence that IF YOU ARE PRO CHOICE YOU MUST BE PRO CHOICE UP TO THE MOMENT OF BIRTH OTHERWISE YOU'RE A HYPOCRITE a weird and frankly tangential point, as it's irrelevant to the overwhelming majority of cases. To be honest I have no idea what point you even think you're making.

[DottyboutDots]

Eccentrica, I am loving your posts. You are making me think deliberately about the cut off timings properly.