Pro-life/ Pro-choice?

[thefinerthingsinlife]

I am a very vocal supporter of pro-choice. It's a women's body therefore it is her choice whether she continues with a pregnancy.

I've come across alot of pro-life supporters lately who put the right of the baby above that of the mother, which I think is madness.

I was wondering what everyone else thought

wigglesrock Sorry, reading my comment back now I regret the way I framed it. I did not mean to be patronising, I didn't mean to explain your church to you and I was not intending to be critical of you personally.

Cloudydays, it doesn't really make that much of a difference, what your motivation is, if you put the rights of a foetus above the rights of a woman, its an inherently ant-feminist stance.

Thats why you can't be pro-life and feminist, because thats all it boils down to.

I am catholic and ... firmly pro-choice. I don't like the idea of a pregnancy being terminated for frivolous reasons ( ie forgot the contraception) but strongly believe it's a woman's right to choose.

The Catholic church are anti choice and anti contraception, amazing as those making the decrees are largely male and celibate!

I am a pro-choice feminist. At the far end I tend to think that UK law has got it about right, but at the early end I think we should make abortion much easier and quicker - if abortions are required thry should be carried out as early as possible and the hoop jumping of the current law militates against that.

Like cloudy I think that it is theoretically possible to be a "pro-life" feminist. Most pro-lifers appear to be motivated by some awful anti-feminist motives, but it is possible for some to be motivated purely by a deeply held belief in the moral status of the foetus.

suchprospects Don't ruin my flounce by being decent, I'm a bit arsey today, no harm done.

It isn't "above", though, NeverSayPie, it's "on a par with."

In the same way that any other two human beings' rights should be on a par with each other. Even if you don't agree, surely you can see the logic in that argument for someone who does view the embryo / foetus / full-term baby as a human being?

I would consider myself pro-choice because I believe that safe, legal abortion (with an upper gestation limit that recognises the personhood of a baby who could live outside the womb) is preferable to the alternative, which is unsafe, illegal abortions being carried out in back alleys.

But I refuse to accept that it makes me less of a feminist than someone who believes there should be no such limits, or more of a feminist than someone who believes that abortion at any gestation is the taking of a human life.

For many on the "pro-life" side of the debate (and to be fair, they're not usually the most vocal debaters), their stance is about respecting the rights and the human status of the foetus, not about denying rights or status to the woman.

The fact that one human life lives inside the other makes the moral and political question much too complex to be reduced to either "abortion equals murder" or "anti-abortion means anti-feminist". Those are equally simplistic, offensive, and ignorant comments.

We're not going to convince each other on this issue so I'm not going to get further embroiled in debating it. But I wanted to clarify my point. Nobody said anything about "above".

x-posts Dilys - you said it much more succinctly.

Pro-choice here and I was horrified to see a stand at my local fair on Saturday (in Richmond Surrey) for a pro-life group in amongst the local schools, scout troops and other charities.

But a full term baby couldn't live outside the womb without someone to care for it?

I haven't thought about whether my 'pro-choiceness' includes an upper limit but surely, forbidding a woman to control her own body, is anti feminist and really, barbaric?

I see the logic, but I don't agree thats in on a par with, because you end up prioritising one. If you deny women an abortion at some point you are saying that the foetus' right is above the right of the woman to choose.

There is no par. It's one right or the other, they can't both win. You say:

"For many on the "pro-life" side of the debate (and to be fair, they're not usually the most vocal debaters), their stance is about respecting the rights and the human status of the foetus, not about denying rights or status to the woman. "

It is about denying the rights of the woman, at whatever point you decide that she can no longer make the decision to have an abortion. If you are respecting the rights of a foetus by giving it the rights to live within a womans body when she wants otherwise, you have risen its rights above hers. I understand why you think it necessary, and what the logic is. But there is no par. There can't be.

I'm pro choice. I am uncomfortable with an upper limit as it implies that once a foetus passes a certain point its rights become more important than the mother's. I think abortion should be available on demand and without explanation or apology. If others disagree with abortion then it is their right not to have one. It is not, however, their right to force their morality onto others.

A) you don't have to conduct this debate in terms of rights, you can conduct it in terms of interests.
B) more relevantly, even if you're talking rights you can allow some rights to trump others. In this case you can coherently allow the foetus's right to life to trump the woman's right to self-determination on the grounds that it is a higher-order right. You could take the position that this is the case from conception, or that it becomes the case at a later stage (though this sort of fuzzy line doesn't fit very well with the hard edges of rights-based debate).
C) However if you decide that the foetus's right to life outweighs the woman's right to life at any point then I would say that that marks the point beyond which you cannot possibly be a feminist.

msrisotto

No baby could could live without someone to care for it let alone a newborn. I am just so uncomfortable with the thought of abortion at full term, it's now a fully formed and functioning baby. The only times when I see it happening are during life threatening, unforeseen complications.

Otherwise who is going to remain pregnant for 40weeks then decide to do an abortion, when they are at most a couple of weeks away from giving birth. I also know what is done to fully formed babies and it doesn't sit well with me.

I am pro-choice but with reason, but generally keep my thoughts on it to myself.

I am a feminist, I'm not religious; but I am not pro-choice. I am, incidentally, against capital punishment and war and believe in proper support for mothers who have children in difficult circumstances. I share a dislike for the "pro-life" people who see nothing contradictory in bombing the hell out of children in Afghanistan etc.. I agree that there is a horrible strain of misogyny in some men's opposition to abortion.

The fact, however, is that an embryo is the beginning of a unique human life. As cloudydays says, there are two human lives involved, not just one. It is not a question just of "controlling one's own body". There is someone else's body involved too. The point of controlling one's own body comes in deciding whether or not to take the risk of conception.

Of course there are situations where one has to be balanced against the other; but the honest starting point is that there are two human lives involved; and that abortion involves deliberately ending a human life. I had an ectopic pregancy ended at 9 weeks and was perfectly aware that the scan showed a heartbeat and the beginning of limbs. I had that embryo (which would have diesd in any event when it killed me) killed.

I would not ban abortion altogether: there are certainly circumstances in which the balance of compassion all round is to allow it- in some cases to a very late time; but I think abortion on demand is appalling.

I think that the shrill refusal to contemplate that anything other than a "pro-choice" stance is compatible with feminism does feminism no favours: it suggests that women, in our approach to the question will take just as self-serving a position as men have always done in theirs. Surely, being as close to questions of conception, preganancy, birth and child-rearing as women tend to be, a more nuanced ethical consideration should be possible?

If the right to life of a foetus is a higher right than the right of a woman to self determination, then we are granting a foetus more rights than we would ever give another human, and a pregnant woman less. No other living being is entitled to use the body of another to be sustained, and no other living being would be forced to sustain the life of another against their wishes.

calling other women "shrill" for having a strident opinion, thats pretty anti-feminist in itself, in fact its a word beloved of misogynists and smug men.

And your facts are opinions, not facts. Its an opinion that an embryo is a life, its an opinion that a foetus is a life, its an opinion that an abortion ends a life. Thats your perception and position, it is certainly not any class of a fact.

Certain things are incompatible with political stances, this is not self-serving and posturing. A desire for unimpeded immigration is anti-BNP, a desire for a ban on property ownership means you are not a Conservative, and advocating for abortion to be banned is anti-feminist.

Yes Millie, the traditional feminist counter to the trumping aspect of the "right to life" argument is by pointing out that this is also an argument for compulsory kidney donation. There are counter-arguments from the other side which are as convincing as you want to be, but I've normally bailed long before that point.

Im Pro-choice. Always wondered whether pro-lifers really believe a woman should be physically forced to have a child she doesn't want. Is the idea to tie her down to a maternity ward bed till she gives birth?

Pro-choice. It is a non-issue for me.

I entirely agree with NeverSayPie. I absolutely cannot see how anyone can say they are a feminist and be anti-choice. It is a fundamentally misogynist stance.

Straight2Extremes - the difference between a foetus and a newborn is that anyone can care for a newborn, it doesn't have to be the mother.

...by which I mean, of course it is a very serious and important issue, but I cannot even contemplate being anti-abortion (a better description than 'pro-life', imo).

ChristinedePizan

I responded to this comment "But a full term baby couldn't live outside the womb without someone to care for it? "

She was talking about outside the womb so it is not a foetus anymore.

Oops, apols, Straight2Extremes - must read more carefully (and not be distracted by Just a Minute)

Plus when it's outside a womb, the baby is no-longer a risk to the mother's health.

Do pro-lifers also believe that if your kidneys match the type of someone with kidney failure you should be forced to give one up?

Pro-lifers really seem to blithely forget the risks and effects of carrying a child to term.

Why would any woman want to terminate a full term baby? There's a huge difference between an embryo which is just cells and a viable, full term baby. I am extremely uncomfortable with that - not least as to how the termination might occur. Currently terminations are allowed up to a point where giving birth would effectively terminate the pregnancy and the foetus. By extending the limit for termination this method won't work because women will be delivering live, viable babies. And what happens then?

I would like to see abortions available on demand up to 12 weeks using the abortion pill (when the procedure becomes surgical) because it has better outcomes for women. I would also like optional, independent counselling available for those who request it pre-termination.

Late term abortions are not something any woman I've ever met wants to do and should only be for extreme circumstances because it is unpleasant and traumatic. Early abortion should be much more accessible to avoid the need for late term abortion. The sooner an unwanted pregnancy can be terminated the better for the woman and the embryo/foetus.