Can I be a feminist and not be fully pro-choice until term?

[Moonfishstar]

As in to think there should be some restrictions on stopping a mother aborting their foetus very close to term if there is no reason other than the mother has decided not to proceed?

I don’t think there should be legal limits on abortion. This wouldn’t mean that there wouldn’t be limits - because there are ethical considerations when aborting a viable foetus. But I think they should be handled by medical guidelines rather than legalisation.

The best way to reduce abortion after 21 weeks is to ensure free, safe, legal and accessible abortions. We know this so I’m a bit suspicious of attempts to restrict abortion legally - or see a foetus as a legal entity.

I'm not entirely sure where I stand but I don't think 'rights' are inevitably without limit. Like, it would be unreasonable to argue the right to murder your husband even if it would improve some women's lives immeasurably.

I was thinking about it again, and I think it is possible, but lazy.

In my country it is 12 weeks without reason, 12-24 with medical reasons on both sides and 24+ exceptional medical circumstances.

And it just isn't enough.
It is cruel to force a woman whose situation significantly changed 16 weeks in to continue being pregnant if she doesn't want to. It is absurd to put strict time limit and unnecessary pressure to parents of foetuses with some slight anomaly detected in 20 weeks waiting 2 weeks for detailed test results and giving them less than a week to evaluate the situation.

No woman ever should be forced to be and remain pregnant if she doesn't want to. Very common abortion technique is practically inducing labour. I can imagine, that for a late stage pregnancy when the reason isn't medical, the right to not be pregnant could be exercised as early labour and adoption, so if the child is viable and healthy, it would be given a chance. However, I don't expect there would be huge number if cases needing this, even if completely legal

@HBGKC

'Thousands' of late abortions are not performed every year so there is no way thousands are surviving.

@Moonfishstar it doesn't really matter if people disagree, that is my position. It starts and ends with the woman's body, anything else means you are giving a woman fewer rights than men.

Can anyone get figures on late term abortions which were notdone for medical reasons?

In theory there should not be any in the UK as abortion is illegal late term for non medical reasons. Women who do abort late for non medical reasons face up to life in prison.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/12/woman-in-uk-jailed-for-28-months-over-taking-abortion-pills-after-legal-time-limit

@LauderSyme

I feel like you have created a paper tiger with this thread. "those who make these extreme demands". Is anyone with any power and control listening to them though? I don't see any evidence of public opinion being successfully persuaded to agree with them. There is zero appetite in society to change the law to do what you say the radical pro-choice lobby want: abortion without restriction.

That's a fair point. I think my issue isn't that the pro-choice purists are on the cusp of getting all abortion laws scrapped. They clearly are nowhere close to that and public opinion isn't behind it. It's that this group have poisoned the word feminism, making it synonymous for many with the neo-Marxist left.

The word feminism originally defined their struggle to be fully emancipated into society alongside men. However, it's been
commandeered and weaponised by zealots who have taken it upon themselves to be guardians of who legitimately can call themselves one!

It feels wrong and disconcerting to agree with the dictionary definition of a "feminist", and yet be reluctant about to call yourself one due to the baggage and association.

Surely if there was a severe threat to the mothers life after 24w they would get the baby out ( alive) and hope it survived?

My friend was in this exact position at 26w. Luckily they both survived.

"It is a one dimensional ethical issue. It is about a woman's bodily autonomy."

I don't believe it is a choice of yes or no - I personally don't agree with abortion but understand why people have a different view to me, there are a whole spectrum of views over a pregnancy. I don't believe that this view is the view that either determines someone is a feminist or not - there are other differences of opinion and feminists have vastly different lives some mothers who stay at home and look after their children, others who work full time, other s part-time - some the main bread winner. Feminism is about choice, but also we are free to have different views on different issues.

@sashh

it doesn't really matter if people disagree, that is my position. It starts and ends with the woman's body, anything else means you are giving a woman fewer rights than men.

If you genuinely cared about the "rights" you promote then of course it matters if people disagree! Generally people who want change will try and win hearts and minds, to persuade and to influence until they succeed, even if it's only in part. You seem to be content with just being angry about it.

@sashh

Also, feminism shouldn't be some crass zero-sum game where we consider absolutely everything through the lens of being equal with men without any consideration whatsoever of our innate biological, and specifically reproductive, differences.

Sensible and reasonable feminism recognises that equality with men needs to understood within the context of recognising these innate reproductive differences will mean we will never be exactly the same... but that we should embrace and celebrate these differences in a society that values the two sexes equally.

Being. pregnant and giving birth, with all the responsibility, pain and also great joy that can bring, is solely a woman's role, by definition. Treating it as some kind of medical condition that is fundamentally no different to any other just so we can gain complete parity with men is denying biological reality and I think is based in a mindset of grievance and bitterness at being a woman... which is very sad in my opinion.

Feminism that is based on this principle doesn't recognise women for being women, rather it is trying to erase what is fundamental about being a woman on the altar of uncompromising equality.

@sashh @OdinsHorse

I wrongly described the stats in the table I referenced in the RCOG guidelines, my apologies. The numbers refer to a 9 year period. My mistake.

I think this comment betrays a lack of awareness of the history of feminism and the ways in which it has developed, though.
I am not sure when you are finding a definition of feminism which meant women’s struggle to be fully emancipated into society alongside men. And even if you are finding this, what do you think have historically been and still are the barriers to this full emancipation?

Even if you go back to the late nineteenth and early twentieth century when women were campaigning for the vote and seeking access to the professions alongside men, this was with arguments about women’s role as mothers and what they brought to the public sphere. In the early twentieth century, women were also concerned about and campaigning for better pregnancy and maternity care because of the high numbers of pregnancy losses, particularly among women in poorer socio-economic circumstances. Once you get to the 1930s, birth control and abortion were fully on the agenda. This was because, as I said upthread, one in five maternal deaths were from illegal abortion.
That’s before you get to second wave feminism where abortion rights were a torch paper, if that is the right expression. Although in fact, the current abortion rights we have were pretty much in place due to campaigning and work since the 1930s and the role of key doctors. Second wave feminists also campaigned for childcare and organised play groups for their DC as there was no provision, so it was not just about limiting pregnancy and birth.

My point is that there has never been a time when women’s position as the sex which bear and mostly rear children has not been central to feminist thought. This is because it is this point - that women are the sex which bear and mostly rear children - which historically prevented and still prevents their being fully emancipated into society.

That is my first point. The second is about the various strands of feminism - liberal feminism, socialist feminism, radical feminism, I am sure there are more but these are the ones I can think of of the top of my head. Feminism has always been a much broader church than you describe, and it is okay to disagree with other feminists. The history of feminism is full of disagreement about how best to achieve equality.

@DaffodilsAlready

Thanks. I appreciate my description of feminism was simplistic, and your post on feminist historical development was useful and I broadly agree with it.

My only issue is that you are saying I don't believe feminism is a "broad church", when my belief is the opposite and that it should be... and my beef is with those narrow the "eligibility criteria" to those who have a purist pro-choice stance... That was the whole original point of this thread!

The issue then is that because those with these views tend to be more strident and vocal, feminism and purist pro-choice become synonymous, meaning that significant numbers of women (and men) who would otherwise be happy to call themselves feminists, don't, because firstly, they don't want to be regarded as "extreme", and secondly, they're not regarded as feminists by that vociferous "faction". And that is sad.

But it was ever thus. Women’s rights campaigners in the late nineteenth century were derided as being ‘manly’ and not of their sex. Second wave feminists were caricatured as dungaree wearing, hairy lesbians (nothing wrong with being any of these things, but detractors have always found a way of deriding feminists for not being sufficiently feminine and quiet). What such criticisms boil down to is ‘why don’t these women shut up?’. Arguably it takes the strident voices to push the debate forward or keep matters under discussion, and to be honest, I don’t think it particularly matters whether men identify as feminists or not, what matters is that they reflect on the issues.

I think it is also worth pointing out that, as noted in the article I posted upthread, the majority of MPs seem to agree that late term abortion should be decriminalised and while decriminalisation and legalisation are not the same thing, the direction is closer to what people you are calling ‘strident and vocal’ are arguing on this thread than the status quo, or greater restrictions. I don’t particularly care whether those supporting decriminalisation call themselves feminists or not, but I do care that a woman in what are undoubtedly desperate circumstances is treated with compassion and care.

No-one would call out a man for being ‘strident and vocal’ on an issue he cares about.

Also, feminism shouldn't be some crass zero-sum game where we consider absolutely everything through the lens of being equal with men without any consideration whatsoever of our innate biological, and specifically reproductive, differences.

I'm not saying there are no differences. I'm saying men would never be put in the position of not having bodily autonomy.

I'm not interested in cajoling and persuading people.

Pregnancy and childbirth have, and continue to be used to control women and girls and until abortion is legal in all circumstances it will continue to be used.

Pregnancy is also the cause of many adverse health conditions , if you are lucky you have a healthy baby and few stretch marks.

As for male feminists.

Male feminists are like white South Africans who objected to apartheid. Yes they could see it was wrong but they benefited from better living conditions, a better education, no fear of the police not believing you.

Of course you can but make sure you use fool proof contraception.
Pro choice also can mean pro life.
You can't make that decision for others though.

As the baby already exists it will need to exit the woman's body either through a section or a vaginal birth whether alive or dead.

Feminism is about equality across the board with equal opportunities and choice, in my opinion. Men cannot have abortions so there cannot be equal choice there it is just not possible, but they do have control over their bodies, with little restriction. Abortion is a totally female thing and while I believe in choice and control over our bodies I do also believe in some restrictions, one being a limit as to how far along you are. After a time when the baby could, in most cases be survive outside of the body this would be an induction resulting in a live birth and then what happens is the baby killed? It is a highly unlikely scenario but if the law allows it is will happen, a woman will demand it. This cannot be good for then oman, baby and healthcare workers.

@Meghan96 ,

They make sure the foetus is dead (I am sure some will object to this word, but what would you prefer?). This is generally an injection of potassium chloride into the heart I think.

This avoids the ethically difficult question of birthing then killing the baby. Personally I struggle to see the ethical difference that a few hours and 30cm or so of birth canal make.

This idea of absolute bodily autonomy up until the moment of birth is one of the stranger backwaters of feminism, in that more women than men want earlier cut offs for abortion. But somehow these women’s opinions don’t count (well they do in the real world, just not in this kind of forum).

Firstly no one has absolute bodily autonomy. You can’t demand liposuction or stomach stapling, even if dangerously obese, and in a deadly epidemic, there would be compulsory vaccination.

Abortion is a fraught issue and demands a compromise, considering bodily autonomy but also the rights of the foetus to life, and also the impact on society and those involved in the procedure. I think we have it about right in the uk.

It doesn't surprise me that in the real world women are opposed to late abortion without a medical reason as once you have had a child you become aware of just how alive the fetus is in the later stages of pregnancy.

That said you also become aware of how many things can go wrong in pregnancy. I am strongly opposed to laws like the ones in the US which stop women from receiving proper medical care when things go wrong as doctors are worried about being prosecuted . I think the present UK law seems reasonable.

Women's rights are restricted later in pregnancy by not just by laws but by reality. Another human (half of whom will be girls) has already grown inside their body. It's not a question of forced birth. The baby is there and will have to be born one way or another.