Feminists Against Abortion?

[DontCallMeFrothyDragon]

OK, hoping someone can fill me in here. I was wondering what the arguments against abortion could be, from a feminist perspective? I've always been pro-choice, so I'm a bit confused as to any desire to take away a woman's choice whether to abort an unwanted pregnancy.

holyShmoley, I think SuchProspects has answered you clearly. I'd like to re-stress the point that, when it comes to getting pregnant, men and women are not equal and never can be equal. By definition, men can't be pregnant or give birth. The ultimate responsibility is always the woman's. To restrict a woman's choices on the basis of theoretical equality is to deny her genetic reality and, indeed, to treat her as an incubator.

are you arguing for a restriction on women's choices holyShmoley? I hoped you were saying that in addition to abortion on demand you'd like to see men exercising more responsibility?

If anyone wants an insight into what a society without abortion is like, this is an excellent documentary about Guatemala. It's only 25mins long and well worth watching:

Really interesting thread.

Garlic your post up thread is exactly how I feel about abortion.

A question though. Someone a while ago said that if you a pro-choice you should support abortion up until the point of natural birth for any reason. I thought this was crap tbh and, if I'm honest, unless it's for medical reasons only support abortion until the baby could survive outside of the mother. Does this just mean I see women as incubators though and am I dividing abortion into good and bad?

Also I do think that men should take more responsibility for their sperm but I think that there is a large danger that by giving men equal responsibility to a woman he could then prevent her from aborting.

I am reluctantly pro-choice. I realize that safe, legal abortions are a necessity, but also realize that they make me sad.

My "feminist" reasons (though I have more or less been told on this site that to have even the slightest hesitation about abortions for any reason and at any time up until birth makes me a slobbering, fetus worshipping misogynist) are as follows.

1. Women have been coerced and at times downright forced into abortions they didn't want because men didn't want physical proof that they'd been cheating on their wives, or didn't want to provide financially for the child.

2. Why does being a mother seem so at odds with having a life? Men create the possibility of children right left and center, and still manage to get an education, work in high-powered careers, etc ,etc. Why is it not the same for women? (Obviously, the physical side of being pregnant would put some things on hold for a year or so.) But why are there not support systems in place so that women achieve things even with children?

Heck, developing a non-surgical procedure (for men) would go a long way to solve some of the problems. I imagine the state would have a lot more money to help people at the end of the day if a male birth control pill could be placed on the market.

I will name no names. :o

Anyway despite our differences in opinion on several matters there are -ahem- some posters I quite like and admire for the zeal with which they defend their positions.

Yes, I think less need for abortions pretty much says it for me. I would like for less women to be raped. Rape ain't fun; I've been there. I'd like women AND men to be more careful about/informed on/able-to-get contraception. I'd like girls/women who aren't ready for sex to not feel like they have to have it. And so on.

ComradeJing, a late-stage abortion does involve induced birth. It would be possible for this to be done without killing the foetus, then put the baby in IC if needed and dispose of it otherwise - adoption or the care system.

The fact that this isn't happening already suggests the demand for babies isn't quite as strong as anti-choicers say.

HS, I never meant to suggest that men have no responsibility. Sorry if it looked that way. But this isn't a thread about whether men should ever ejaculate into a woman without agreeing on a course of action if she becomes pregnant. It's about what happens when a woman is pregnant.

At that point, she's the one with all the responsibilities and, in my view, she therefore merits as wide a choice of options as possible. The man's opinions/options/actions are relationship issues - that's if he hasn't already disappeared over the horizon. The woman cannot run away from her pregnancy, so she has all the rights and responsibilities over it.

My apologies.

Garlic I don't know that that's necessarily true, about the late term abortions.

I think it would be possible to find homes for the infants (which they would be at that point I suppose) but there are a host of other reasons as to why it's not done.

I was referring to the "medically induced abortion" and you are right, there is a two-stage surgical alternative according to the NHS website. I thought the surgical option was only offered to women with serious health problems, but it doesn't say that so my post may have been misleading.

Since elective abortions are only carried out up to 24 weeks in the UK - and the limit will go down as 'viability' improves - all the rest is a bit theoretical. A 24-week foetus only has about a 50% chance of survival, and requires a long time in IC.

If 'terminations' were offered up to term, then women who decided not to proceed with having a child could, presumably, be offered a CS and the child removed. Personally, I feel the woman should have the right to terminate a pregnancy however she sees fit at any stage, but I see the emotive arguments against that. If there is a strong demand for babies, then surely a live CS should be offered at later stages? I haven't got the faintest idea how often this happens for real.

Perhaps, but I think if a woman has decided on adoption as the answer to her pregnancy then she'd just carry to term. If women decide that abortion's the answer they'll seek one out ASAP, I'd think. So there are probably numerous reasons it doesn't happen.

I'm more curious about it than anything. Afaik (I'm uninformed on this), a woman who'd decided on adoption would be expected to carry to term and have a vaginal birth? Quite traumatic, probably, no matter how sure she was. But what if her circumstances changed; maybe her partner had a big affair or turned abusive during pregancy - both common enough, sadly - and she didn't want the baby: would she be allowed to have a CS, maybe a few weeks early, to reduce the trauma?

Having just given myself a quick update on preterm babies, I'm seeing more evidence in favour of permitting abortions later than 24 weeks on non-medical grounds. I do realise why many wouldn't agree with me, though.

I'm sure you could, here in the US anyway. If you find the right doctor you can get a C-section for any damn reason really. :)

You're welcome SaF

" I can see how someone could be an anti-abortion feminist who would like to see more people be prepared to carry a foetus to term in less than ideal circumstances but thinks the law should be pro-choice because forcing a woman to continue a pregnancy is heinous."

waves
Yes, that's my position. I have a very early threshold for considering a foetus a 'person' and really really really don't like that they happen. I do have alot of sympathy with the woman's-body-woman's-choice perspective, and I certainly don't support the absurd laws they're trying to get going in certain US states about foetal homicide. But in considering foetuses (foeti??!) proto-people I can't, try as I might, see it as anything other than killing something.

However, I also recognise that the law cannot force women to carry to term, on a pragmatic level if nothing else, and that as someone else said above, the goal should be no unwanted pregnancies in the first place. Thus campaigning for good sex ed, empowerment of girls to insist on contraception and freely available, convenient options for contraception. And then hopefully abortion rates would plummet.