Can Pro-lifers be feminists?

[DevilsAdvocate123]

I am personally pro-choice, but in my 60 years, I have encountered pro-life feminists. Many of which asked that many other feminists try to "revoke their feminist cards", since they are pro-life.

I've asked them if it were sexist to be pro-life, and they explained these points to me:

-They entirely believe in the equality of men and women
-The reasoning behind the pro-life stance has nothing to do with sex
-If men could bear children, their opinion of abortion would be the exact same, as the reasoning behind the pro-life stance has nothing to do with sex
-They want to save babies of all genders, as the reasoning behind the pro-life stance has nothing to do with sex

I'm a fairly reasonable person. I've had discussions with liberals that think socialism is evil, I've had discussions with gays that believe a private business can do business with whomever it chooses, and I've talked with gun rights advocates that staunchly believe in background checks. I like to hear people out. I get things.

In this instance, I believe I understand where the pro-life feminists are coming from when they say they are still feminists.

Should the feminist community embrace these people into the community and work together, or should these people be shunned from the feminist community and not welcome?

Jemima

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9548293/Mother-who-aborted-baby-in-final-week-of-pregnancy-jailed-for-eight-years.html

This woman needed support not imprisonment. She did not want to be pregnant.
"The court heard that Catt had an appointment for a consultation at a Marie Stopes abortion clinic in March 2010, but a scan the day before showed that she was 29 weeks five days pregnant and so too late for a legal termination."

As early as possible, as late as necessary.

BarrackerBarmer - The state has the right to set the abortion limit to whenever it wants.

If a woman takes it into her own hands and potentially kills a live baby, like possibly happened in this case. It's murder or manslaughter.

"When you say pro forced birth basil, do you include those of us who don't want the 24 week limit increased?"

How can it not include you, if you believe that women should be forced to carry pregnancies and give birth against their will if they haven't sorted out a termination before 24 weeks? That's being in favour of forced birth, isn't it?

Unless you think there's another way of denying women an abortion without forcing them to undergo a pregnancy and birth they don't want?

Do States have rights or do people have rights?

Bloody hell, 8 years in prison for a woman clearly in need of help! I certainly don't agree with that and can see that if she had access to an abortion earlier when she initially sought help (though it was after 24 weeks) it would never have got that far.

Well I've never been called a forced birther before, and I've not heard it suggested that agreeing with abortion without limits was a requirement for being a feminist. So yeah, I'm a bit surprised by this thread and asked for clarification.

Sometimes it makes me frustrated though; in the US the original women’s liberation movement had nothing to say about abortion; the campaign for abortion was driven by MEN who worked hard to get Betty Friedan and her supporters on board

That is absolute bollocks.

How can it not include you, if you believe that women should be forced to carry pregnancies and give birth against their will if they haven't sorted out a termination before 24 weeks? That's being in favour of forced birth, isn't it?

But if you haven't sorted out a termination by 24 weeks you will have to 'give birth' anyway won't you? Unless 'forced birth' means 'giving birth to a live baby that you don't want to be alive'? Which, maybe it does.

The state has the right to legalise slavery too. But we've accepted that people should own themselves, not be owned by others.

Civilisation is about allowing individuals to live free from ownership.

It is not murder to withdraw life support from another.
It is not manslaughter to refuse to have one's own body compelled into the service of another against one's own self interest.

I can't demand one of your kidneys and then criminalise you if you refuse to give it to me.

If you need one of mine, and I refuse it, your death is not my responsibility, nor are you murdered by me.

I won't even deny that a foetus will cease to exist if it cannot continue to draw on, and be created by, the body of a woman. I accept this. It's true. A foetus is alive in much the same way as a patient on life support is, the difference being that a patient can be kept alive by a machine, but not by the state compelling another person to give so much as a drop of blood.

I contend that no being has the right to the use of another's body to maintain its own life.
I'm saying that every person has the right to refuse the use of their body for another's benefit.

I'm saying that I weigh up the balance of enforced bodily slavery of women vs the 'right' of a foetus to have use of that woman's body, and I come firmly down in favour of treating women as unslaved, autonomous people, and against that of a foetus to have protected rights over a woman's body.

For arguments sake, I agree that no other being has the right to live off another and baby or foetus can be removed from the woman at anytime, on demand.

However, to do this the state will not kill the baby and will do all it can to ensure it's survival if possible.

So if someone wants a baby removing from them at 8 months. The NHS will do that, but will only do it in a way, that doesn't kill the baby or foetus. Or must the foetus be killed in all instances.

"Well I've never been called a forced birther before, and I've not heard it suggested that agreeing with abortion without limits was a requirement for being a feminist."

I haven't said it was.

My argument's a bit more nuanced than that, but it's too late to go into tonight, I might come back to this tomorrow.

Yes, interesting point whatnow. If the foetus can survive outside of the womb, does it have to be killed if the woman no longer wants to support it with her body?

And I can admit this is where I still am thinking hard.

Because I support the right of a woman to halt her pregnancy.
I think (I'm still working this out for myself) it preferable if that foetus can be born alive if it can sustain its own life.

But again, I wouldn't want to legislate against or criminalise a woman for what she does literally INSIDE her body. It's still her body, her organs are her own, and I'm still opposed to granting separate rights to anything inside her body that can conflict with her own rights.

So I suppose it comes down to trusting women to do whatever they feel they must with their own bodies and accepting those outcomes.

Ultimately, it comes down to granting rights to people from the moment they are born and separate individuals, but not before, not whilst they are part of / within another human's body

Yes, interesting point whatnow. If the foetus can survive outside of the womb, does it have to be killed if the woman no longer wants to support it with her body?

The woman should have control over whether a live child comes out of her body or not.

The thought experiment is if it was possible to harmlessly teleport a foetus out of a woman's body and into say an infertile woman who wanted the pregnancy, would I support that? Or into an incubator if the foetus was viable? I think on balance yes. But that's not what we have here.

This woman needed support not imprisonment. She did not want to be pregnant

Well I would not make her your poster girl. I think you would find very few people who would not take the view if she had gone that far she could have gone to another week and given birth. You can't actually be forced to take a child home from the hospital.

There are 2 logical positions on abortion- life begins at conception and it is always wrong - or a termination is legal until birth.

The law in the UK adopts an illogical but pragmatic approach. Abortion is legal to 24 weeks (one of the longest in the world)and still legal in extreme circumstances after that.

I am glad of this and support this illogical pragmatism which came about, I think, by legislators seeing abortion as the less bad thing of 2 bad things. Public opinion in the UK generally supports this illogical pragmatism but it is the case, as Larry pointed out, more women than men support a reduction below 24 weeks. I would leave mainland UK where it is but get rid of the 2 doctor rule and obviously bring NI into line.

I think women who are sexually active have a duty to do as much as they can to avoid getting pregnant if they don't want to be.

I have read on MN comments like I know I had been a bit casual about contraception or my periods were always irregular so I didn't suspect anything (Seriously you are having sex, pregnancy tests are cheap and reliable - no matter how irregular your periods are did it not occur to you after 6,7,8 werks without one to check?).

If women want to be treated like grown-ups- then behave like one. Clearly this admonishment does not apply to women and girls in situations where they cannot take responsibility.

I hate the language used by some on the pro-choice side- foetus, parasite. I don't think such language is helpful to bringing NI into line with the rest of the UK or making abortion legal in Ireland.

I think that sort of language and citing the case you referred to and expecting sympathy for her, are a very good way of hardening opinion in those who want to lower the UK limit.

I neither know nor care if my position is a feminist one or not.

The thought experiment is if it was possible to harmlessly teleport a foetus out of a woman's body and into say an infertile woman who wanted the pregnancy, would I support that? Or into an incubator if the foetus was viable? I think on balance yes

I would say no, unless the woman gave full informed consent to do so and still had the option of a proper abortion.

Sorry, basil, that was more of a general response to the thread rather than just your comments. I was combining two thoughts in to the same statement and I can see how that came across as misrepresenting what you said.

I have only ever heard "forced birther" used to describe people who are totally against any abortion rather than people who agree with abortion within the current law in England. That's what I asked you for clarification of and thank you for responding.

Separately, I have never come across the idea that you have to support abortion without limits to be a feminist. That is the general feeling I'm getting from this thread, and I'm surprised. As was quoted upthread, only 1% of people believe that abortion should be allowed up to term, but I thought more like 10% of people described themselves as feminists.

My personal opinion is that women should have easier access to contraception, MAP and early abortions. SRE needs to be compulsory in all schools and I don't believe parents should be allowed to remove their children from education on contraception and abortion. Two doctors having to sign off is bollocks and I find it outrageous that abortion isn't allowed in Northern Ireland (or other countries, but NI is in the UK ffs, how can women in the same country as me have fewer legal rights than me?!). I can't see myself agreeing with sex-selective abortions, but maybe it is time for me to do a bit more research and thinking on late term abortion.

I hate the language used by some on the pro-choice side- foetus.... I don't think such language is helpful to bringing NI into line with the rest of the UK or making abortion legal in Ireland

You have people using the correct words for things? It is a foetus, why would we not call it that?

Wiseup, I'd wonder then if the option to end a pregnancy - but not to abort the foetus - would be okay? That would be, I think, my ideal way of getting around it.

Perhaps. I’m not sure about the ethics of deliberately delivering a baby early, with the associated extra risks of prematurity.

And I would offer all women the option to not have to birth their baby, whether abortion, induction or regular birth. In an ideal situation.

I would agree with this, in general. In reality, the number of women in the position of needing/wanting a late termination (other than TFMR) is very, very small, and maybe there should be room for case by case decision making.

I have read on MN comments like I know I had been a bit casual about contraception or my periods were always irregular so I didn't suspect anything (Seriously you are having sex, pregnancy tests are cheap and reliable - no matter how irregular your periods are did it not occur to you after 6,7,8 werks without one to check?).

Some women bleed during pregnancy, and mistake it for menstruation. Certainly happened to my friend who had no idea she was pregnant until 14 weeks. And she’s a nurse.

If right to life starts at conception/embryonic stage, where are the prosecutions for mass murder?

Anti-abortion laws are removing rights from women in the USA. And then there is descent into this level of control.

You have people using the correct words for things? It is a foetus, why would we not call it that?

Because when it is always done with such determination to see no other view point. And it becomes absurd in the case Baracker referred to. Even worse is the use of "parasite" (which I have seen used) or "forced birther" about anyone who does not support abortion to term.

If right to life starts at conception/embryonic stage, where are the prosecutions for mass murder?

There probably are calls from hard line anti abortioners just to do that. However it is not my ethical dilemma. As I said I am happy to go along with the illoģical pragmatism we have in the UK mainland.

Separately, I have never come across the idea that you have to support abortion without limits to be a feminist. That is the general feeling I'm getting from this thread, and I'm surprised.

I don't think anyone ought to expect fully formed, impeccable and identical feminist beliefs from anyone else. We're all at different stages of working stuff out for ourselves.
Thoughts evolve, once a person has decided on their most fundamental principles their opinions on other issues start to be seen through that prism and they are shaped accordingly.

I hadn't considered prostitution as paid rape until someone introduced me to the idea, and I put it together with my thoughts around consent.

I think it's normal to have the position of "this is what I can tolerate emotionally" rather than, "this is actually the logical conclusion of my principles". But I think we have an obligation to properly test our own principles by examining them, hard, to see where that takes us, and that might not be a comfortable place, but it should be the fairest place.

The OP is great for raising this dilemma and making people question. It's an option for people to consider whether they are OK with a kind of two tier rights system where there is an element of literal slavery for half the population because, hey female biology, tough. Important to own that, if that's one's stance.

In a toss up of 'which is worse', I've decided it's worse to deny half the human race rights over their own bodies, than it is to accept that some women will choose to stop creating and supporting foetuses with their own bodies as they see fit.