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?

An early abortion within a few weeks of conception, after a contraceptive failure or mistake is not a tragedy.

I don't regard taking the MAP as a tragedy, but an abortion at later stages are either taking abortifacient drugs with strong side effects, or having a surgical procedure that can result in infertility in some cases.

To put it in context: my DS was unplanned because of contraceptive failure. DH and I were having problems at the time for many reasons so it was not the ideal time to have a child. I probably should have taken the MAP, I have taken it before, however I didn't and discovered I was pregnant. If I had laid all of my reasons out for not being able to cope with the pregnancy (and there were shitloads) I would have been able to get an abortion with no problem, but I don't think that making that huge decision to end what I know is a life would have been as simple as the decision to take a pill and make absolutely sure that schroedinger's sperm did not make a baby. I'm not claiming any kind of moral superiority, just that you can't know for certain when you take the MAP that you are definitely pregnant, when you opt for an abortion you definitely are and you know that it is an important decision. DH wasn't really "pressuring" me, more making his preference known, but if I had had views less strong than those I hold I could easily see how that could have been a consideration.

Some people think the choice is between an abortion and a hoot ever after roses round the door baby story. Like on the thread about a girl having a baby at 14 where someone said that news of a baby on the way was always good news. The birth of a baby can be an unmitigated disaster for everyone concerned- including the baby.

"I believe anyone who feels they are should be allowed to call themselves a feminist."

Am I allowed to call myself a vegetarian - I've just eaten a sausage roll but I identify as vegetarian, surely that's enough?

I hear how having a baby would be bad and it's kinder to terminate, because of financially difficulty, demands of supporting another person, the limitations on the parents-
But my view is you don't get to take a life because it's inconvinient- i.e. We don't get to kill people because they are a burden- the elderly, the disabled or unwanted children.

• although some people who would like to see euthanasia introduced would probably quite like to just get rid of people who are an inconvenience.

My feelings on abortion, are if you can justify late term abortion then you can justify killing anyone who you think happens yo be a "burden" and why not, if life has no sanctity then anyone's fair game.

Yoga-
You are comparing two things that are completely different. The pro-choice people do not get to have a monopoly on feminism- excluding the views of other women who feel differently to them.

I think if there is no right to life- you have no rights at all.

The right to life needs to be universally upheld because without it all other rights can be extinguished.

The abortion advocates used to argue that the unborn was not life, but it's hard to argue this with ultrasounds, and babies being born and surviving at 23 week. It now depends on the myth of bodily autonomy- which no one truly has.

And I wait for the viability argument- ah but babies at 23 week need life support to survive- well yes but they are alive no less.
When you are ill on life support in hospital, I don't have the right to kill you because you are dependant on the intervention keeping you alive. Dependency is not a justification to kill.

If you remove the notion of sanctity of life- You have no rights. Your life depends on whether someone feels you are deserving of it, so long as you are not to much of a burden to them.

As for original question-
If feminism is concerned with giving women a voice and representation, I find it ironic that women who express a pro-life opinion are told they can't belong to the club! Sorry it's ridiculous.
"You can have a voice, so long as you agree with us!"

@Missymoo100 that all depends on accepting that life begins at conception, and that an unborn embryo/foetus/baby has full human rights from the point of conception. Which isn't going to be universally agreed with.

Well, arguing that women must carry a baby to term and then either raise it or adopt it against their will rather railroads over the rights of those women. So you can see how it's hard to agree that women who support that are as feminist as they claim.

Square no, we don't agree - abortion isn't a tragedy 100% of the time.

Sometimes it is very sad for the woman concerned, because the decision is made because of circumstances like financial ones - yes, that is regrettable, I wish we lived in a society where money wasn't a factor in pregnancy
Sometimes it is completely neutral
Sometimes it is an unbridled relief
Sometimes it is a coerced decision - that is tragic.

But this is why it boils down to autonomy. Do I personally regret the trend of termination due to disability? Yes. Do I think that the fact Downs Syndrome has been practically eradicated in some countries is a worrying trend? Yes.

But still, no individual woman is wrong for having a termination if that's what she (freely) wants.

missymoo feminism is a fairly broad church, but there are surely some central ideas that define its membership? The right to full bodily autonomy has to be at the core of feminism, surely.

If you don't believe that, you may hold other feminist ideals and ideas, but you're not a feminist.

The bacon-eating vegetarian is a good analogy!

“If feminism is concerned with giving women a voice and representation, I find it ironic that women who express a pro-life opinion are told they can't belong to the club! Sorry it's ridiculous.
"You can have a voice, so long as you agree with us!"”

The point is that the only adult person whose bodily autonomy you can make decisions about is yourself. I personally would only have an abortion in a very very limited range of circumstances. But I do not have the right to make that decision on behalf of anyone else.

Missymoo either you believe in the fundamental principles of something - for example vegetarianism or feminism, or you do not.

As has been stated numerous times on this and many other threads , one of the fundamental principles of feminism is bodily autonomy.

If you personally wouldn't have a termination, that is your choice; but believing that other women should not have the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy is not feminist.

Assassinated-
What I find interesting is that some have become less concerned with when life begins. It seems that people know that a baby at 23 weeks gestation is alive- because they can be born so, but are not concerned by this. The goal posts of the argument have been moved from when life begins to "bodily autonomy". I hear arguments such as "early as possible, late as necessary", which suggests people have no concern about terminating what they know to be life.
As I said on a previous post autonomy is a myth, no one has full bodily autonomy nor should they.
Your right to bodily autonomy is nothing without the right to life.
If you can't uphold the basic right to human life all other so called rights become meaningless.
No right to life= no rights at all.

Betrand
"The point is that the only adult person whose bodily autonomy you can make decisions about is yourself."
And that unborn child with Down's syndrome that's about to be aborted is not "yourself"

Missy- it is really, really difficult. But a foetus is not an autonomous individual. The mother has to take precedence.

A baby isn't autonomous - I can't kill it
To me it's simple life is life, and when I know a human is alive I should do it no harm.

I mean a born infant isn't autonomous, neither are disabled persons without capacity autonomous- they have rights not to be harmed

It's never been about trying to decide when an unborn embryo/foetus/baby has full human rights for me. It's always been about bodily autonomy.

Of course a ball of cells is alive, an embryo is alive, a foetus is alive, an unborn baby is alive. Being alive doesn't automatically mean full human rights - my liver is alive, but isn't treated as if it is a human being. It doesn't have a right to life.

You say no one has full bodily autonomy, and that they shouldn't. But clearly people do have some degree of bodily autonomy. You can't compel me to give blood, donate a kidney, or submit to treatment I don't want (if I have mental capacity). I would also argue that no one should be able to compel me to continue with a pregnancy, give birth and then either raise or give up for adoption. You believe that the life of an unborn embryo/foetus/baby is a full human life and should have full human rights, in fact more than that, as you believe that the "rights" of the embryo/foetus/baby always outweigh any rights of the woman. That is your belief. But, what gives you the right to impose your beliefs on other women?

Yoga-
I would say that the issues feminism is concerned with are so broad that not everyone could possible be universally agreed and have same opinion on all issues- doesn't make them less feminist.

As I said, it’s very difficult. But ultimately, the woman has to come first. Because otherwise she would be being forced to give birth.

I'm pro elective euthanasia. I want to have the choice for myself.

I realise that other people don't feel the same way, and don't want to exercise that right. I do not feel they should have the right to make that decision on my behalf. It should be between me and my doctor.

"Of course a ball of cells is alive, an embryo is alive, a foetus is alive, an unborn baby is alive. Being alive doesn't automatically mean full human rights - my liver is alive, but isn't treated as if it is a human being. It doesn't have a right to life."

So by saying this you are in effect saying that simply being alive doesn't mean you are entitled to "human rights". That it is okay in some circumstances to kill someone else. Just think how dangerous that is. That just because a human is alive doesn't mean they are entitled to "human rights". On this basis, on what merit do you extend human rights.

My opinion is that right to life is the ultimate right that is above all others. I truly believe that if you remove this all other rights are meaningless and can be easily taken away.

Someone who is brain dead and dependant on a machine to keep them breathing does not have an automatic right to life.