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?

SGB has answered your question for me.

Like I said in my last post, a newborn foetus has no real consciousness. It's not thinking 'they're going to kill me', it's not thinking anything very much. Pro-lifers have used the pain argument in abortion debates for ages unitl it was proved that there was a physical reaction to stimulus at X weeks but that the neurology wasn't actually connected to feel pain.

If a pregnant woman does not want to carry her foetus to term, that is her right in my opinion.

And I don't think you can be a true feminist (to drag this discussion kicking and screaming to its roots) unless you believe that, however distasteful it may be to you.

LadyBiscuit, I'm sure it was an error but you wrote "a newborn foetus". Your argument rather hinges on their being a critical difference between the two. I struggle to understand how different can be the consciousness of a foetus - who SGB and others argue should be able to be killed with impunity - and a newborn baby - who cannot. Your pain and consciousness arguments don't stand up as far as I'm concerned. It is not necessary to prove either pain or consciousness for it to be wrong to kill a person. I think you must look elsewhere for reasons.

I'm clearly not the sort of feminist who will be to SGB's taste. I'm quite glad of that, tbh, and I think I'll stick with my own judgement about whether or not I'm a true feminist.

there, not their, obviously

No, it wasn't an error. My earlier post said:

'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 seriously do not understand this whole sanctity of life stuff.

But really, we're talking about the dramatic absolutely point end of the pencil here because 99% of abortions are carried out when the foetus has no chance of survival outside its mother's uterus. That is really what the abortion debate is about. Pushing it to extremes renders it theoretical (because term abortions with no disability are currently not legal anywhere as far as I know)

Coleysworth, thank you! I have complained to the practice manager about it. My dr said it was practice policy & the practice manager confirmed that, so no one else within the practice would have done differently.

I told her how wrong it was & what a mess my life was as I waited for a termination.

I still see the dr who refused my request for tubal ligation, because he deserves to live with the fact that I had to terminate because he rebuffed my feelings & thought he knew better.

I do understand that I probably wouldn't have had the op before I fell pregnant, so it may still well have happened, but he had NO right to deny me something so basic. He thought he knew me better, because of his profession, he doesn't. He looked very shocked the day I told him I needed a referral for a termination.

Like some on here, he obviously didn't believe that I knew what I wanted. I was 35, ffs. I think I know how many children I want!

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

I personally couldn't have done this, because 1/ it is the pregnancy that takes it toll on me, not the baby, per se. I have had 2 horrible pregnancies. With dd2, it was NEVER an option to terminate, but I would cry regularly wondering why I was putting my body at risk of PE & HELLP again.

I have had 2 sections. I have numbness in my legs where my nerves have been permanently affected by either the spinal or the section incision. Same for my feet, I have to wear socks in bed as the colder weather makes the painful.

I have aches & pains in my pelvis after 2 lots of SPD.

I get increased numbness & pins & needles in my hands after carpal tunnel with dd2. Which was so bad at the time, I couldn't even hold her when she was delivered, because I couldn't feel to grip her. I still get problems now if it is too cold.

The surgeon who delivered told my baby told me after that the placenta had to be scraped off the uterine wall in pieces.

So I should go through all that & give the baby away? No I don't think so. I would never leave a baby I bought into this world out there, all alone. And I couldn't explain to it, if it came looking for me why I loved it's sisters, but not him/her. Because I suffered that as a child, only my mother didn't give me up, she had me.

I don't see what is so wrong with choosing how big your family gets, how many children you bring into this world, or how many you raise. I don't understand this 'it happened, so you must bare the responsibility for it'.

How about letting a woman decide what happens to her body, he life?

Would you force a woman to marry someone she didn't want to?
Would you force a woman to rob a bank?
Would you force a woman to have sex when she didn't want to?
Would you force a woman to learn how to drive?

No? But you want to force her to have a baby....nice.

bedlambeast, thank you.

The irony is, the very same hospital that told me no for TL, did it for a very close friend of mine.

The difference? She had 3 children. That's it! She was younger than me too. Double standards. A nurse friend, who went on to become a midwife within that same hospital tried to investigate our cases, asking why I was denied & friend wasn't. But she didn't get any firm answers, just told 'I expect we thought a family with 2 children wasn't complete'

It is crazy, it really is. My friend gets to say what happens to her body just because she has 1 extra child to me? NOT RIGHT, not right at all!

And that is exactly how I felt, bedlambeast. Like I had no voice. Thank you, you pointed out exactly how it was & how I felt.

Like no one believed that a mum, at 35 with 2 complicated pregnancies behind her, could know what she wanted, didn't believe her when she said she didn't want to do it again. How could she possibly know what she wanted, how dare she be in control of her body & her life. How dare she decide when she gives birth & when she doesn't, how dare she decide how many children to raise!

We are still seen as baby making machines & in my view, that is worse than being a porn star, because at least a porn star is allowed to decide what she does with her body, women with babies inside them don't get that right, according to many!

bedlambeast, I hope your friend gets the help she needs. It is very wrong when people are denied basic human rights, such as to be in control of when they procreate.

It is horrible that she is forced to live through this too.

Isn't it...we obviously can't be trusted to know what we want to do with our own bodies, yet we are allowed to make a decision that affects thousands & thousands of people (vote)...I find that quite bizarre!

Back on the late abortion grounds I find the maternal life argument quite odd. In many cases of life-threatening conditions to the mother doctors will try to deliver ASAP, not abort.

Unless that's supposed to reflect the fact that up until the birth actually takes place the mother's medical needs automatically come first, which is perfectly logical?

'any of us who have held a newborn will know that they really aren't that conscious'

Really? Both mine were very awake and alert, following lights with their eyes, turning their heads in response to my voice.

I don't think you can decide on whether or not an action is moral or ethical on the basis of how it makes you feel personally. That leaves the door open for all kinds of things. Killing your newborn as a result of all the bawling? Smothering your elderly parent because they're a nuisance? Drowning your dog because it's become incontinent?

Sigh - I am not saying that abride. I mean in terms of whether they have any strong wanting to be alive desire in a conscious way.

Anyway, this is a ridiculous debate - like I said in my last post, I find it hugely irritating that these discussions always end up being about term abortions when the reality is that they don't happen and, even if the abortion rules were relaxed, they would still be vanishingly rare.

It still should be a woman's choice of whether she brings a child into the world or not. I am not advocating infanticide. And yes I do think there's a difference.

As I said before, the people squawking and whining about term abortions are people who don't like women. They're prepared to believe that there are lots of women who will abort within days of their due date just because they have 'changed their minds'. This is definitely an antifeminist view because it's buying into the idea that women are wicked and selfish and can't be trusted and therefore need to be controlled for society's good and their own.

I am reminded, though, of one of the recurring nightmares of my own pregnancy which started after a well-meaning friend said 'What are you going to tell them to do if it all goes horribly wrong and they have to choose between saving the baby and saving you?'
After about a fortnight of blubbering over that one I spoke to the MW who said 'Look, that doesn't happen any more, they do their best to save you both if it goes wrong.'
But I do remember reading (and am prepared to accept that this may be a myth) that Catholic doctors are required to prioritize the baby over the mother, or they used to be.

differentname That is so bloody unfair! I had a sterilisation at 29 after only two DC, when I was single, ffs! I had two counselling sessions beforehand but none of this 'we know best' paternalistic crap! It's terrible that access to tl should be such a lottery, especially as it doesn't even seem to be based on cost, but on the whims of HCP.

'following lights with their eyes, turning their heads in response to my voice'

You can programme a robot to do that with about 10 lines of code.

I can believe that SGB, about Catholic doctors prioritizing the baby over the mother.
I once read about the first C-sections carried out where the mother always died. Imagine that! It wasn't to save her life:　they just wanted to cut out the baby. No-one was too bothered about the mothers .
I've never quite got over reading that.

its not surprising when a whole country prioritises the baby over the woman. Did anyone look at my link about the recent Irish case? Does anyone remember the X case where the courts issued an injunction to stop a raped 14 year old from getting an abortion in England?

This isn't just a theoretical debate, this is real lives.

I've been researching this, and have found that Canada has no restrictions on abortion, no legal limit at all. And there abortion rate has been decreasing since they did that.

Looks like women in Canada can be trusted to decide for themselves. Do we think we are some how less able than them?

I wonder if that's because women then don't feel pressured that they have to decide just in case at 23 weeks, say, because the absence of a limit gives them the time and space to come to their own decision.

Canada is cool. I had Backlash lying on my sofa for the last MN bookclub and when my Candian friend saw it she said she'd read it for high school

'ut I do remember reading (and am prepared to accept that this may be a myth) that Catholic doctors are required to prioritize the baby over the mother, or they used to be.'

I am a Catholic and would be appalled if I found out this were so--in this country it would be illegal, I'd imagine!

A woman in our parish had an ectopic pregnancy, which she chose to end. She had two other children at the time. She said the priest was lovely to her, very understanding of the fact that pregnancy had to end.

Please don't judge us all by the standards of Ireland and South AMerica. They are very different societies to Britain.