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?

See, this is why I don’t usually get involved in these polarised debates... If you think I’m wrong, just tell me you think I’m wrong or you don’t agree and explain why; I don’t agree with most of you but I wouldn’t tell you you’re talking bollocks 🙁

FWIW I think abortion allows men to have unprotected sex irresponsibly while women pay the price emotionally and physically. Men are detatched from the situation - they aren’t the ones who carry the child and make the ultimate decision to end its life, so they aren’t affected in the same way - so it gives them greater opportunity to have unprotected sex without facing up to any responsibilities. It is also especially used as a weapon against women in cultures where females are already oppressed. It would be dishonest to claim that that’s the main reason I oppose it - I do so for a number of reasons - but I was asked to expand, so there you go.

It’s a wee bit annoying when a whole persona and perceived set of beliefs and motivations are attributed to you because you happen to believe life begins at conception. People are individuals, not stereotypes and I wouldn’t dream of making a whole load of assumptions about people who disagree with me on one single issue.

Anyway, I guess it doesn’t really matter what I think as I never claimed to be a feminist in the first place (Not meant to sound snarky)!

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 logical conclusion I wouĺd come to following that line is that I would be opposed to abortion. The illogical position which I can tolerate emotionally is the UK position with a bit of relaxation.

I think you can view it differently for yourself than you do for women as a class. As a Feminist I am committed to bodily autonomy for class women. I choose to trust women.

FWIW I think abortion allows men to have unprotected sex irresponsibly while women pay the price emotionally and physically. Men are detatched from the situation - they aren’t the ones who carry the child and make the ultimate decision to end its life, so they aren’t affected in the same way - so it gives them greater opportunity to have unprotected sex without facing up to any responsibilities. It is also especially used as a weapon against women in cultures where females are already oppressed. It would be dishonest to claim that that’s the main reason I oppose it - I do so for a number of reasons - but I was asked to expand, so there you go

First of all, let me apologise for anything I said which contributed to your feeling that way.

Many years ago, I was blessed to know a woman who said very much the same thing as yourself here, and whose own position was as deeply thought out as yours is. I am reminded of her (she is long since passed), because she was a fierce woman whom I deeply respected, even if we did not always agree.

I utterly respect that position, and thank you for voicing it.

“FWIW I think abortion allows men to have unprotected sex irresponsibly while women pay the price emotionally and physically.”

I disagree, but it’s an interesting point. You could use the same argument against the MAP, I suppose. And I think it’s also important to consider how women “pay the price” of an unwanted pregnancy whether they get an abortion or continue that pregnancy (which I would argue has a higher “price” in many ways, in terms of risks, impact and demands placed on the mother).

We also need to consider the reasons that women get an abortion. It’s my understanding that many are a result of contraceptive failures and not just failure to use contraception at all.

Do you think that a man who pressures or coerces a woman to have unprotected sex cares whether she has free, safe and legal access to the MAP or an abortion? Do you think that factors into his overriding privilege and sense of entitlement? I’m not convinced that it makes a difference to him. It makes a huge difference to her, of course. While she may not have the power to resist his demand for unprotected sex, she does at least have the right to take control over the consequences.

varvara, I think men still have unprotected sex irresponsibly while women pay the price emotionally and physically whether we have legal abortions or not so I don't consider that a good reason to restrict abortion.

I actually agree that abortion can be used as a weapon against some women. So when abortion is legal it should be in conjunction with respect for the right of a woman to choose to continue a pregnancy if she wants. Women should be free to make either choice, without recrimination, and to suggest that women are never judged in the UK for continuing a pregnancy would be dishonest IMO.

What I find illuminating is how if a woman gets pregnant but then for whatever reason she wishes to terminate, but is unable to that becomes literal slavery. If that's the case then virtually all women have lived in a state of potential slavery throughout history. Yet the source for that enslavement is biology, as society at large nor men nor even other women had the power to reliably give women a choice on the matter.

Short answer, no. They're mutually exclusive.

If for whatever reason, at 30 weeks + a woman decides she wants an abortion. Can you be a feminist and be against the womans right to choose?

We don't have that right in this country, we don't get to choose that. And to take it less literally, I'd still say yes. I'm fully pro choice with the current parameters we have. I would be uncomfortable with someone choosing to abort a baby that had every chance of surviving without health problems or intensive intervention if it were birthed live.

By that stage a woman would have to give birth anyway. The choice would be whether to give birth to a live baby or a dead one. I think I would find the former option less traumatizing.

If that's the case then virtually all women have lived in a state of potential slavery throughout history.

Not far off it... No vote, not allowed to drive, not in charge of their own money, property, children. Of course they had little power over their own bodies or fertility.

(Although of course, abortion has always existed in some form or another for those desperate enough to seek it out.)

If that's the case then virtually all women have lived in a state of potential slavery throughout history.

Well, yes. Women as property for most of history.

Leilaniiii
That is a lie. One of the oldest lies that evil people tell about women and their doctors.
It is such an insidious lie the US changed their laws so doctors have to use a different procedure. All because old men in congress believed this evil lie. Now when a fetus dies and has to be removed from a woman's uterus they can not dilate and extract so the devastated woman can mourn the loss of a wanted pregnancy. Because of liars like you Leilaniiii, they now have to dismember the fetus.
Are you one of those people who if the clinic is on fire leaves the toddler to die in order to save the dish of embryos?

I would like to know if some of the pro forced birth people on this thread are American. The rhetoric, the bare faced lies and the timing of posts...

thebewilderness Sadly, it isn't a lie. And to be honest, I have never heard of anyone else telling this story before. I worked in gynaecology years ago. Which is why I am now pro-life.

Lass, as ever, argues with compelling logic. I don’t always agree with her (although I 100% do here) but she can see both sides of an argument whilst still coming down on one side (I imagine she is an excellent lawyer).

Taking any argument to a reductio ad absurdum conclusion is very dangerous to society. A lot of the arguments concerning late abortion come down to the foetus being a chattel with which you can do as you will up until the moment of birth. The post above saying a woman should have a right to abortion up to birth even if the baby could be magically teleported to an incubator provides telling evidence here,

Some of the arguments used above could easily be used for infanticide. After all, a newborn severely curtails your autonomy, not least your bodily autonomy to sleep.

The idea that it is your body to do as you will with as long as it does not affect anyone else is a good starting point. This is a powerful argument for early abortion on demand (without 2 doctors etc).

However, it is w powerful argument against late abortion. Most people believe the foetus, at this point, has elements of ‘personhood’, so is clearly affected. In addition the abortionist is affected. In the few places late terminations for non medical reasons are allowed, they have failed to recruit obstetric surgeons to carry out the procedure, as they find it too traumatic.Finally, the cheapening of life of vulnerable people (and even animals) has a detrimental effect on civilised society, which is why so many women are against it.

We used to be able to torture and kill dogs with no repurcussions (my dog to do as I like to, clearly not human so has no rights).

Abortion is sui generis. I too agree with the (illogical) compromise that we currently have.

You obviously don't know much about abortion. Many aborted babies ARE born alive. There is nothing more heartbreaking than seeing an aobrted baby squirming in a kidney bowl in a sluice room, fighting for its life.

And then it says "mummy, why don't you love me?" in a piteous voice, because at 13 weeks (the stage within which the majority of abortions happen) that's totally a thing that a fetus can do.

Honestly, do you think people can't use Google? Regardless of where you stand on the question of abortion this is just nonsense, and if you think lying strengthens your argument and will win people over then you're in for a surprise.

Leilaniii if you choose to believe that, you need psychiatric help

On the subject upthread of periods, I haven't had one since I had my Mirena coil fitted. I have two friends in my relatively small circle who got pregnant when they had mirenas in.

That's extremely rude of you, LineysHorseWithNoName. Maybe you should do some research before you use psychiatric problems as an insult.

I am pro-choice, but not sure how I feel about abortion to full-term. Just remembering when mine was born, and thinking that theoretically (if you could abort to term), I could have aborted her a few days earlier, makes me feel... Weird? I'm not sure.

But, the forced-birth argument would still stand up to term, wouldn't it? By that I mean that if a woman decided to abort at term, she would still have to give birth to a fully developed but dead baby? So then the argument is not about forced birth, but about not wanting adoption or to raise a child. ?

If aborted babies are never born alive, how do you get abortion survivors?

Exactly alpineibex. It would be a 'forced birth' whether the baby was alive or dead. So why not let it live and give it a chance? After it is born it is its own person. Let it live its life.

Sorry I used babies. It's just natural to me. I retract - fetus!