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?

I think you can be pro-life and a feminist, as long as you don't feel a need to dictate to other women that they are wrong and you are right.

As others have said though, being pro-choice isn't about being pro-abortion. I don't think there are many people in the world who are actively pro-abortion. Most women would see it as a desperate last resort, not as casual birth control.

And I have to say, as much as I abhor the idea of abortion, I find the idea of a women being forced to continue a pregnancy she doesn't want far more abhorrent.

But HerBex how is having a baby adopted,and knowing that at least your baby is alive,worse than it being dead?

you are using very emotive language. "Alive" and "dead".

You really can't imagine how having a baby somewhere else that you can't keep is worse than not having had a baby? How waiting for that knock at the door in 18 years might be worse than an abortion?
Think about it and find some empathy.

I think that it does not matter how seldom anyone would actually decide to terminate at 39 weeks (or thereby). I think that we can all accept that, in reality, few women, if any, would either choose to do so at that stage or would get to that stage before their circumstances became such that to do other than abort would be intolerable. That doesn't matter to my point. If you are prepared, as I am, to accept that there is a place for abortion then you are prepared to accept, as I am, that the needs of the mother will generally trump those of the foetus. I am also of the view that there are situations where the interests of the foetus beging to carry more weight and might, in some circumstances outweigh those of the reluctant mother. The later in pregnancy you get the more likely that is to happen but it will depend on the particular circumstances.

It is being argued that, no matter when and no matter why, it should always be a woman's absolute right to terminate a pregnancy on demand. However unlikely, it means that it is being argued that such a late abortion should be every bit as accessible as one within the 1st trimester.

If you are prepared to argue that, just because it is very very unlikely to happen, it is not necessary to reflect on how acceptable that might be then, imo, you are copping out.

Its not copping out, you are missing the point. Who decides what is "acceptable"? You? The lawmakers? The government?

Do I like the idea of a very late abortion? Of course not, the notion is horrifying. But that doesn't change the fundamental right of all women to bodily determination. Nothing changes that, nothing can ever change that.That should be every womans right, every persons right.

Agree with BuzzLB and HerBeX. Hellymel you are weird, its always her body, whether she has eggs in there or a foetus.

No, I am willing to argue it because I think women should be the ones to decide what happens to their body, no-one else. And I think if you don't concede that, you infantilise women and put them in the power of men who rule the world and make the laws and control medicine.

I just don't want to do that.

Buzz, who ever decides what is acceptable? Who decides that it is not acceptable to kill someone (except in some narrow, exceptional circumstances)?

The time when a foetus' needs become separate from the mother is when it is born and becomes a baby. At that point, if the mother decides she cant parent the baby, the baby's needs are taken into consideration and a foster/adoptive parent found.

Its an emotive issue.And its also the truth.Surely that is the kernel of the issue? And no,I can't imagine how giving a child to someone else to bring up is worse than an abortion in the long term.for women or their babies.At least in terms of the late abortion that I was talking about.In other circumstances,such as very young girls,or women in truly dire situations,then I can see that abortion may be the best route out of many equally bad routes.But at 28 weeks?No.

hellymelly, just because you can't imagine it, doesn't mean it's not so.

That's the point really, it's not about you. Or me, or anyone else. It's about the woman makign the decision about her life and her body.

Helly - the option to adopt is only an option once the baby is actually a baby. Before that it is a fetus living in and completely reliant on the mothers body, therefore it is her choice and her responsibility.

As a society we decide thats its bad to kill a person. But since a foetus is not a person and is not in society but inside another person, why should society get to decide it?

Its not "truth" thats the point. If something has never lived how can it be alive?

I really don't understand the right to life stuff. I never have, never will. If you are not a conscious being (and any of us who have held a newborn will know that they really aren't that conscious) why does it matter if you live or die?

I'm not advocating smothering at birth but if a woman terminates her pregnancy before term, her foetus does not know and does not care.

Yes Herbex,I realise that,you are right of course.But the woman making the decision does not exist in a vacuum,she is making that choice based on what her partner/family/peers and social group expect of her and it takes a lot of conviction to step outside that,even when you are my age.I think there is a real lack of support for women who are wavering about keeping their baby,and that the social sway is often in the other direction,to the detriment of women,particularly younger ones,who are also stigmatised if they do give birth.Do we ever have a true autonamous choice without outside influence?
HHLimbo,no I don't think that at all.The woman I was talking about aborted a baby that would have most probably survived outside the womb had she gone into labour at that point.Anyway a new born infant is also entirely dependant on its primary carer.

A new born infant is dependent on any primary carer, its not analogous.

Yes, and I find the OP's language rather odd "Having been an almost/potentially aborted fetus myself"

All of us had the potential to be aborted as fetuses. I wouldnt care if I had been, it wouldnt make any difference to me, I just wouldnt have existed.

LadyBiscuit, a baby born at 33 weeks is a conscious being but a foetus aborted at 34 weeks would not be? What is the difference?

No one should ever tell their child they were considering terminating them. Why would you do that?

Perhaps the OP has some ishoooes they need to address in Stately Homes?

time for

Yes, I find it acceptable that a woman might decide to terminate her pregnancy at 39.6 weeks. Because I accept the woman's right to autonomy. It's not up to me, you or anyone else to take ownership of her body and make decisions for her. Why is that so difficult for some people to understand?

^ that was to MsH

I agree LadyB, there are deeper issues there if her parents told her things like that!

MsH - it's about wanted and unwanted. I didn't want my aborted foetus. I wanted my miscarried foetus very, very much. My feeling about them both was hugely different. And the mother's feelings are all that's important.

LadyBiscuit, I can't see that the difference between a foetus at,say, 36 weeks gestation and a baby born at the same stage who survives is enough to make it OK to abort the former just because of the mother's feelings. In reality, I expect that all women who h

ave late abortions have extremely good reasons for doing so because the law requires that it be so. I am questioning those who argue that this is not enough and that abortion should be legally available no matter how late and for no other reason than that the mother has decided she does not want to continue with the pregnancy. If it is not OK to kill a baby born at 36 weeks, why would it be OK to abort a 36 week foetus? "It would never happen" just isn't good enough for me.

MsHighwater: then you needn't have an abortion at 36 weeks (though I would hope that if you did need one due to the foetus being hugely encephalic or whatever you would be able to obtain one). The point is, the contents of another woman's womb and what she does with said contents are her business and NOT YOURS.