pro-life feminism- an oxymoron?

[darleneconnor]

I dont know if it's possible to have this discussion without it turning into a pro/anti abortion or a pro/anti feminism catfight debate, but we'll see.

Having been an almost/potentially aborted fetus myself I was quite stongly anti-abortion in my teens. In those days I saw feminism/feminists as synonymous with pro-choice, and thus rejected the entire feminist cause (naive teen that I was).

In my 20s I got into feminism big time but found it difficult to reconcile with my (now much more liberal but still anti) views on abortion.

Now, in my 30's I see the pro-life movement (esp in USA) as deeply mysognyistic and would not wish to allign myself with them at all.

However, I do still think that abortion (esp surgical) is quite an unpleasent thing and that society would be better off if there were fewer of them. I would NEVER vote for any kind of criminalisation but I do think some effort should be made to reduce the numbers. No-one ever talks about this, probably because they are scared of being associated with radical anti-abortionists, which I can understand. But surely it is a feminist issue to try to prevent some of the female suffering that comes from this? Even if you discount the embryo/fetus, abortions (esp later ones)can be traumatic and harmful both physically and psychologically to the woman. The debate is so caught up with issues of fetal viability that the woman is forgotten.

So, the question is: can I be a feminist and think that (some) abortions are bad for (some) women?

Yes, of course she should think that. But even protected sex isn't failsafe...and why the hell should it be all her responsibility? I just can't believe that you wrote that women who have abortions can't accept the consequences of their own actions.

MsH, it is an anti-feminist position to say that women should be forced to bear children they don't want, to teach them the consequences of their actions. It's basically all about being uncomfortable with women being sexually free and making choices you disapprove of.

It is morally wrong as well. To actually think that the introduction of a baby to the world is a useful punishment for his/ her mother's behaviour, is really quite a fucked up attitude to babies IMO.

flamingobingo, I didn't say that. You did.

HerBeX, it's kind of my point that there might be good reasons why it might not always be that way. Anyway, if a woman has an abortion, something happens to someone else's body, too.

HerBeX, I said nothing about teaching anyone anything or about continuing with a pregnancy being a punishment. That was all you. If your argument relies on putting words in my mouth, your argument is weak.

Since that someone else is dependent on a woman for his/ her body, their needs cannot be privileged above that of the woman.

There is no possibility of compromise here. Either you say tht the foetus' rights to camp out in a woman's body trump those of a woman to decide who she wants camping out in her body, or you say that women are full human beings who must be allowed to have sovereignty over their own bodies, even if that means that they will make choices you don't like.

You limit a woman's sovereignty over her body, you limit her status as a full citizen and full human being.

Men are allowed to decide what happens to their bodies. Women must have the same rights, otherwise they are just not considered as fully grown up citizens as men. We can't concede that.

In this context, consequences means the same as punishment.

It's like those middle class parents who refuse to use the word punishment and say consequence instead, when they take away the Nintendo DS as a punishment/ consequence for bad behaviour.

The consequence of having unprotected sex and then getting pregnant as a result without wanting to, is an abortion if that is what you decide. If you withhold that right to abortion, it's not a consequence, is it, it's a punishment.

Not being rude, must go to bed now but back tomorrow. Good night.

HerBeX, we must disagree. I can't go along with your absolutist position which seeks to ignore (as inconvenient?) the simple fact that women, not men, get pregnant and the foetus occupies the woman's body, not the man's. It might be inconvenient but it's a fact and I don't think it helps to characterise pregnancy as the foetus "camping out" in it's mother's body.

HerBeX, if I smoke (I used to), I might get lung cancer. I will not necessarily (tho I might try to) prevent myself dying from it but I might be unsuccessful. That is a situation where my actions have had consequences (not, emphatically not, punishment). Consequences are not always punishment.

I know it's not a perfect analogy but it works as far as it needs to, for me.

And so you shouldn't get any treatment for that lung cancer because thats the consequences of your own actions?

I don't see how its possible to be a feminist and anti-abortion. Its a basic.

I did say it wasn't a perfect analogy. It was just about there being consequences that might be unavoidable. Maybe the treatment doesn't work. That's all.

I just have to reject your assertion about feminism and being "anti-abortion". BuzzLightBeer. It's not basic. Apart from anything else, I just don't accept the labels that anyone puts on this or would seek to put on me because of what I believe. My views are, I think, more nuanced than any label appears to allow. I am not anti-abortion because I think that it should be available but, clearly, I'm not "pro-choice" enough for some because I don't think it should be freely available in absolutely any circumstances.

It's not that black and white for me.

I didn't say you were. I was answering the OP. I do think pro-life feminism is an oxy-moron.

HerBex's post of 16:42 says it all for me. Abortion isn't some standalone individual rights issue. The entire social/economic context has to be taken into account (as HB does brilliantly in that post).

Buzz, it probably depends on what you understand by "pro-life".

I wouldn't say it's oxymoronic. If you hold certain very hardline philosophical views about the moral status of the foetus then all the feminism in the world won't make it right to destroy it.
I don't hold those views, but if I did it wouldn't stop me being a feminist, or calling myself one.

Which is not to deny that there's an enormous amount of practical misogyny in the anti-abortion movement, I'm just saying that it's theoretically possible to hold both positions.

But what is feminism if it isn't standing up for womens rights? And is controlling womens bodies not anti-feminist?

Thing is, for most of you its all very theoretical, its not so much when you live in a country where abortion is illegal. Where you can't even get one when you are dying and the pregnancy will kill you faster

why must it be all or nothing? I don't think abortion should be illegal but nor do I think it should possible to terminate in any circumstances.

but then you are saying that your opinion on a womans pregnancy is more important than hers. A woman wants an abortion can be told no by others. Why?

Its self-regulating, there are very very few late abortions, its not like its a huge problem. What I'm asking you is how can you be a feminist and tell women that they cannot be in charge of their own bodies?

(I'm not being argumentative btw, I'm honestly perplexed by that opinion)

What circumstances MsH? I can understand some people feeling squeamish about late abortions but that is not about circumstance, it's about the passage of time. Do you mean circumstances of conception? Of the individual woman concerned? What?

I think society has been set up in a way that often makes it difficult for women to choose to carry their baby to term. Financial difficulties are the main barrier to completing a pregnancy. Or losing out on career prospects if you get pregnant young. So I think society should help mothers. Luckily, the UK is a caring society and we have a system that actually supports pregnant women, so they can have the baby even if there is no dad around. IN the past we didn't, and neither do lots of societies around the world today, which means that women around the world are forced to have abortions. Thankfully the UK has also got rid of the "shame" surrounding pregnancy without a father around.

BUt women have abortions for many other reasons, and of course they should be able to. The woman's life trumps the foetus' life.

In the past in Japan, abortion was the natural step for women to take if their family was already too big. LIttle wooden dolls exist here to represent the babies the women chose not to carry to term. They're slightly macabre to look at, because you know they represent a baby, but I find it interesting that abortion was accepted as being a natural part of the life cycle here. If the mother knew that having another child would cause problems for her current family, the only sensible option would be to abort.

I'm also reading Manon des Sources at the moment by Marcel Pagnol, and his female characters collect herbs to sell in the market, including the illegal "rue" herb, which could be made into a tisane to cause abortion. WOmen always used this method- since the dawn of time. It's silly to say the foetus' life trumps womens'

Devils Advocate:

What about the rights of the father in all this? What if he desperately wants the baby and the mother doesn't?

I think abortion is one of those horrific moral issues because of course a woman should never be pushed into a situation where she doesn't consent to what is happening over her body (and I don't use 'the word control deliberately because pregnancy by it's nature is uncontrollable) but it doesn't just affect her.

Removing or campaigning for the removal of the option for abortion would be anti-feminist. Personally being anti-abortion and not acting on that belief or imposing it on others isn't anti-feminist and if being anti-abortion is being pro-life (which I don't think it is) then logically it must be possible to be pro-life and a feminist but I don't think you can be a pro-life activist and a feminist.

So going back to an earlier I think to be pro-life and a feminist does depend on ones labelling of pro-life.

Hello,

well, I am a feminist, and I believe in an ideal world there should not be abortions.

I believe in the UK you can do it up to 24 weeks, at which time the baby is sometimes viable (alive!) when taken out, despite lethal injections, and isn't that just literally murder? If during an abortion, the baby comes out alive, and is then killed it IS murder for the law. odd really, or not?!

To me abortion should be for absolute emergencies (say a young girls who was raped), and only within the first 12 weeks.

the REAL key issue is, I think, that MEN should be held responsible for any pregnancy they cause. If men would have to pay maintenance for every baby they make, they might not be so keen to do "it" without condom.

It makes me sad that birth control and pregnancy are still seen as an entirely female domain. Men should be forced to support the baby, if they don't want that responsibility, then don't have unprotected sex.

Chandon.....So a woman is forced to have a baby? Wow.

Until the pro life lobby stop waving placards and offer REAL help to women who find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy, (practical help-not just throwing money at the problem,but things like babysitting & support) then its got to be pro-choice.

The pro-lifers are like bridezilla - all about the wedding and nothing about the marriage. Children are an 18 + year committment -where are the pro-lifers for all those years, except tutting about unmarried mothers, burden on the state, uncontrollable teens etc etc etc. There is a massive stigma associated with giving up a child for adoption now - women are expected to keep the child, and give up their own lives.

The pro-lifers have absolutely no knowledge of the mother's or father's cicumstances and sit in judgement. Many are looking at the situation from a fundamentalist religious perspective.

I find them deeply offensive and hypocritical, and so I do not believe a pro-lifer can also be a feminist, unless they are prepared to stand up and support that child for 18 years. Because that would actually enhance the mothers life choices, enable her to builda career if she wishes, or to stay at home.

Pro-life seems to be about punishing and limiting choices for the mothers who have dared to concieve out of wedlock, or who have decided that an extra mouth to feed is not feasible.

I would question the assertion that more information = fewer abortions.

There has never been more information made available to children of all ages. The abortion rate has gone up for decades.