Can I be pro-choice, but still really dislike some reasons and timing?

[CuntyBunty]

Can I?
I really dislike celeb culture and try not to expose myself to it, if at all possible.
I think we all know who I am talking about here, but didn't want to go on the other AIBU as it was "too too" and I wouldn't get much out of a piley-in to put the boot in.
In this case, can my contempt transcend gender? I had to Google who JC was the other day and we have very different values, but I do know that I am more privileged; better start in life, higher expectations etc.
I in no way think she should have the baby if she doesn't want it, no good could come of an enforced pregnancy, but I don't think my feelings really come from a concern for her welfare.
I have been honest here in an attempt to be better educated by the FWR posse, but I'm a bit of a mediocre feminist, aren't I?

[TinyTear]

Doctrine I was referring to the previous poster who was talking about potential term abortions - as in 30w plus - i know it is hypothetical and i think if you went through 35w of pregnancy then that child is ready to be born...

I would never approve of forcing someone to go through a full pregnancy when that would be bad for her health, her life, her situation...

I am aware that only 1% or less of abortions are late (20 to 24w and also aware that sometimes you hide your head in the sand - especially after reading the link above.)

Like the OP, the reasons of JC really sit badly with me.

I have one DD and have had 5mc... and yet I remain pro-choice as I know there were times in my life when I had pregnancy scares I would have gone through with an abortion. I come from a country where it was illegal and did find out from a friend that she knew of someone who could do it... but it was a stress related vanishing period so the situation never happened...

[Blistory]

For me, I don't think it's a feminist position to deny a woman autonomy over her body.

I don't like the idea of near term terminations but I like the alternative even less.

And while I wholly agree that you can be a feminist and do some things that are unfeminist (whatever that means), I think the right to control reproductive status and autonomy over one's physical body as being so fundamental in feminist thinking that a feminist cannot support termination with limits or conditions and still call themselves a feminist.

It's fine IMO to reject late term, multiple terminations whatever for yourself but as a concept I think feminists do need to support the idea of 'as early as possible, as late as necessary' regardless of how terrible the reality may be.

How much do we need to water down feminism just to make it acceptable for all ? It's okay that not every woman is a feminist - I'd rather stick with that than change feminism to accommodate every individual woman's needs/wants/ethics.

[EBearhug]

16 weeks is enough time to make up your mind - if you know you are pregnant all that time, if your circumstances don't otherwise change in that time, if you have at least some of your friends and family in support.

If women are going to go for abortion, I'd always advise as early as possible - but there are cases where that simply isn't possible. The percentage of late abortions is very low anyway, and I can't believe that it's an option any woman would choose easily.

But then I find it hard to believe someone thinks going on a TV show is a good reason to end a pregnancy, either. I do think choices like that are ill-advised at best, and it makes me question the sort of pressures some people are under, and the sort of advice they're being given to reach a conclusion that that's the best course of action. But then I have no idea what's really going on, only the headlines of what's been reported, which might not be without bias or anything.

[grimbletart]

It makes me angry that this case - where honestly I think this person needs psychological help - should be used as an anti late abortion example when it is clearly so untypical of the very few late abortion cases.

But hey, it's shock horror so naturally the media vultures and their fellow carrion are out for blood. Bastards.

I don't believe that, as a feminist, you should feel you have to support a woman just because of her sex - that's illogical, and sometimes I do get cross with girls and women who act like sheep and want to give them a good shake. But surely anyone can see that this person's self-esteem is at rock bottom and she has fallen victim to the odious celeb 'culture' and there are probably serious mental health issues going on.

Yes, I find the apparent reasons for her decision profoundly disturbing but if one is pro-choice then I can't see how it is possible to support forced birthing however distasteful the situation is.

[CuntyBunty]

Just to be clear: I am in no way advocating taking choice away in any circumstances. Reasons and timings may be unpalatable for me, but I do think the alternative is worse. I am questioning my feelings, media conditioning and my integrity as a feminist really.

It does fuck me off that the spotlight is always shone on the controversial

[PenguinsLoveFishFingers]

Just to take a tangent for a minute, I think the 'free dental work' thing is a comment simply for the benefit of the media. From what I know from a relative who is a dentist, the availability of any cosmetic dentistry work on the NHS (even for those who qualify for free NHS treatment) is pretty limited. Even within necessary treatment, only certain types are permitted. For example, I seem to remember some years ago that you could get NHS fillings, but not white fillings except in very specific front teeth. Happy to be corrected on that, but I think she/her publicists/the reporters have added that to put a particular spin on her attitudes without it necessarily being factually accurate.

[PenguinsLoveFishFingers]

Cunty - It is smoke and mirrors. It is meant to distract from the fundamentals and the realities.

[Blistory]

Well, it's a easy way for the media to demonise feminism, isn't it. The headline of 'feminists support baby killing' is much more attention grabbing than 'feminists support the rights of women'.

The problem is that the negativity means that we're in danger of watering down the fundamental concepts of feminism in order to stay mainstream and to not scare women away from feminism.

I do think we need to move away from the touchy feely crap that pats women on the head and says that as long as you think you're a feminist then you are. Because it feeds the media to have women identifying as feminists when they are not and giving out completely anti women sentiments.

[Grennie]

I agree blistory. The idea that it matters if someone calls themselves a feminist, while not having the slightest idea of what feminism means, makes no sense at all to me.

[Grennie]

It is very different telling women they are not feminists, to encouraging those who don't understand feminism to identify as feminists. The former is policing. The latter is a dumbing down. For example, saying to women do you think you should be allowed to vote and work? If you do then you are a feminist.

[Blistory]

I agree.

It's fine for women to support feminism and feminist principles but not to be feminists. We seem to have viewed that as a negative and tried to convert everyone to the feminism movement with a resulting backlash.

Women can't be feminists until they recognise their own internalised sexism, IMO. By trying to encourage them to identify as feminists, we avoid calling the sexism what it is and encourage them to retain these beliefs instead of supporting them to disregard them or at least recognise them for what they are.

I haven't found an easy way to point out when women hold sexist beliefs and to be honest, it took a lot of self reflection and having my arse kicked before I recognised it in myself. Putting it into practice in the workplace and genuinely committing to those ideas instead of just paying them lip service has been really really difficult and I still don't think I always see my own sexism.

At least on FWR, I can share those ideas and get help from people genuinely committed to feminist principles but look what happens elsewhere on here if you try to explore a feminist angle.

I don't mind the raging differences in opinions on here on feminism but I just can't support this Feminism Lite which seems to go on elsewhere on MN

[Blistory]

Ranging - not raging. Although.........

[almondcakes]

I don't have an intellectual conflict about late term abortions. For me, feminism (and every other movement for equal rights) is about collectively gaining equality of outcome for women, not the defence of any other particular principle. That doesn't involve giving everyone exactly the same rights as each other.

I am not, for example, going to fight for the right for people who are entirely blind to become fighter pilots. In principle this means they do not have equal employment opportunities people who can see, but in reality fighting for such a right would give blind people a right they neither want nor need. It is better to recognise that blind people will not be able to carry out certain jobs, and make sure that the law in terms of reasonable adjustments and benefits for people with disabilities in employment are suitable and adhered to. This creates a sort of compensating situation that allows us to work towards equality of outcome. Not recognising the different wants and needs of disabled people by giving them identical rights rather than contextually beneficial rights would be damaging.

I believe the same for abortion. There may be some circumstances where a woman who previously wanted a baby so continued a pregnancy has a huge change in her social situation, making continuation of the pregnancy highly undesirable for her. But few, if any women, put in that situation would want an abortion for non-medical reasons at 35 weeks. To defend equality of bodily autonomy in that situation is to give most women in that situation a useless right. It would encourage callous behaviour where people can say, well woman X should have an abortion at 35 weeks to avoid that situation so we don't have to do anything about changing the situation.

It is far better for the law to recognise that the vast and overwhelming majority of women would not want to abort at 35 weeks for social reasons, and would be mentally traumatised by doing so. As a consequence, the law limits their bodily autonomy. Women in late pregnancy should then be compensated through contextually beneficial rights by having greater rights to workplace protection, maternity leave, benefits and housing than other people. We are then working towards equality of outcome by not having equality in the principle of bodily autonomy but by giving pregnant women greater rights elsewhere to compensate.

The important point in looking at those factors is that they are all about the wellbeing of women, and balancing the rights given and taken from them, without bringing in the rights of the foetus as some sort of reason for simply disregarding women's rights. The problem with the abortion debate is that it seems to be all about saying women can't have various rights because children are more important, with no regard for women's equality or how to address it at all.

I am not saying that bodily autonomy isn't important and should be disregarded in a cavalier way. But I think there are some rare situations where equality is more likely to be achieved through other means, and there is no reason to defend the principle of bodily autonomy in every single context.

With regard to the woman in question and 16 weeks, I don't know enough about her situation to comment. Presumably the person who does know and has to ethically agree it is in her best interests is her doctor. I suppose it is rather like benefits where we accept that by setting up a benefits system, there will be a few people who will use it in ways we do not like, but it is so important to the wellbeing of the massive number of people who don't misuse it and really need it that we must keep on supporting it and seeing it as a great social good.

[rinabean]

Bodily autonomy doesn't have ifs or buts. There's no balance necessary. Either you're a human being and you control your own body and have the right to deny your body to others no matter the consequences for them or you're not. There's no "well REAL normal MATERNAL women might CRY so it should be illegal"

It's true that women are different to men. That doesn't mean women should have basic human rights denied to them so that men don't have to feel bad about not being able to bear children. The rights pregnant women and mothers need don't need balancing out with lack of bodily autonomy.

Imagine proposing that men don't really need bodily autonomy, it sounds ridiculous.

[almondcakes]

I don't believe in any absolute moral principles, and I'm not going to fight for them.

If there are examples of where women with other basic human rights in place has wanted the right to abort a foetus at 35 weeks for social reasons, and felt strongly it was in her best interests to do so, then I would change my mind. But in the absence of any such case, I see no reason to defend a right that no woman in that situation has wanted to exercise. I do think that the rights of 'real normal maternal women who might cry' are more important than the rights of women who are at this point entirely fictional and hypothetical.

'That doesn't mean women should have basic human rights denied to them so that men don't have to feel bad about not being able to bear children.'

The feelings of men and the fact they get pregnant is entirely irrelevant to my point.

[evertonmint]

But a 'real normal maternal woman who might cry' has the right not to have an abortion at 35 weeks so her rights over her own body are not in any way being overridden by any woman who might choose to abort at 35 weeks in the future.

[almondcakes]

And I didn't say they were being overridden. I simply said that I was concerned with their rights, not the rights of a group of women who nobody has provided any real life example of actually existing. And the rights of women who would be mentally traumatised by being put under social conditions so terrible that they ended up having an abortion at 35 weeks of a foetus they previously wanted to carry to term are dealt with by fighting for rights for housing, benefits, maternity and employment protection for pregnant women. They are not dealt with by fighting for abortion on demand to term for social reasons.

[Blistory]

I don't think anyone's fighting for the right to terminate on demand at term. It's a theoretical stance rather than one actively being pursued, is it not ?

If there are active attempts to diminish the poor laws that we currently have in the UK, then that's a different matter and I think it would become an issue that feminists would consider fighting for and even then, I doubt it would be about fighting for the right to terminate at term, it would be about recognising the rights of women to have autonomy over their bodies, a side effect of which would be that termination at term would become a possibility. That doesn't mean it would become a reality.

[evertonmint]

But nor are those issues dealt with by taking away the right to abortion at a late stage. You don't remove one right in order to replace it with others. You put other conditions in place, yes, but you don't remove the one causing an individual a problem and thus denying that to somebody else for whom it isn't a problem and is in fact actually needed.

And I don't quite know how you know there are women pressurised into abortions at 35 weeks but are adamant that there haven't yet been women who make a free choice to have one then.

[MoominsAreScary]

I agree, the pictures of her holding her bump make me feel especially uncomfortable, but its her body and she has the right to do what she wants.

I would hate to live somewhere that forces a women to continue with a pg they dont want or like one of the women on the thread forced to continue with a pg where her baby will die after birth.

I think jc is probably in the minority though, changing her mind about the pg at 18 weeks.

[CaptChaos]

I believe that a woman's bodily autonomy trumps any other consideration. Abortion should be available to women for whatever reason up until term. The reasonableness or callousness of a woman's choices in this situation are for her to deal with, not for anyone else to judge or condemn.

I don't have to like another woman's reasons for doing anything. My censure is immaterial. I will defend a woman's right to have complete control over her body at all times. Society has no remit to decide arbitrary dates and times during which a woman has no rights over her own body.

The whole JC thing sits badly with me, not because of anything she is doing, but for how she is being abused by people who should really know better. She has been discriminated against for being pregnant, and, like a lot of women who fear financial problems because they happen to be pregnant, is seeking to remove the problem.

To answer the OP, you can't really count yourself as a feminist and deny women's bodily authority for periods of her life, you can however feel as uncomfortable as you like with other people's choices. You just can't censure them for them.

[almondcakes]

We do know there are women pressurised into having very late abortions for social reasons. There are plenty of reports of people have late abortions of girls because the other option in rural areas in certain countries is that the person delivering the foetus at term will then kill it after the birth. I am certainly not going to say those women are better off not having the abortion.

If there are examples of women who have basic human rights but think it is in their best interests to have an abortion at 35 weeks, then give an actual real life example.

Yes, we do restrict rights and then replace them with other rights to resolve unequal situations. We do it all the time for many groups of people.

And I am not advocating taking away the right to social abortion at a very late stage. We do not have it in the UK or similar countries, and I do not think that it is necessary for somebody to argue in favour of gaining that right in order to consider themselves a feminist, unless somebody is actually going to provide evidence of actual real life women who need such a change in the law.

[CaptChaos]

Also..... the real maternal woman who might cry, or, I'd love to have a baby but can't because of x is irrelevant. Stopping other women from being able to have safe legal abortions doesn't stop women crying or give another person a better chance of conceiving. To think otherwise has overtones of magical thinking to it.