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?

God doesn't seem to hold with the sanctity of life all that much either, what with all the earthquakes, tsunamis, floods, bush fires, cancers and plagues he send us.

And he doesn't seem to distinguish between humans and animals at all.

We have more intelligence, luckily for us, so we've just put ourselves in charge.

Humans kill other humans all the time. It ought not to be, but it is.

To those posters who believe in an imposed time limit for abortions, I ask again:

What punishment do you support for women who disagree with you and who choose to take full unapologetic ownership of their own bodies?

What would you WANT to happen to a woman who ends her own pregnancy beyond whatever limit YOU choose?

It's not enough to say "it shouldn't be allowed, I disagree". If you really want this to be enforced upon other women, you have to be prepared to say "There should be a punishment for women controlling their own bodies, (beyond your limit) and here's the punishment I advocate"

What should the punishment be for such women?

I'm not suggesting an arbitrary point, I'm suggesting when the baby is born. That's when it acquires full human rights. Up until that point it is still a potential person. The person carrying the embryo/foetus/baby takes precedent up until that point, if it occurs. The reason for this is that the person carrying the baby is already recognised as having human rights. They are a fully fledged person, with all that entails. What they want takes precedent over the potential life they are carrying. Even up till full term, if that's necessary.

If you give full human rights from fertilisation onwards then there are a whole host of consequences which I would assume you support, given your belief that the human rights of the embryo are sacrosanct?

Barracker-
I recognise women will seek abortions anyway and cause themselves harm... so I would legislate for it, but I'd reduce the threshold from what it is now- 24week.
There doesn't have to be punishment for women, but perhaps for those carrying out the procedure.

Why no punishment when they have killed a human, in your eyes, deliberately? They have committed murder in your belief system surely?

Up until that point it is still a potential person....

That's it though babies at 37 week are not potential people, they are people, - fully formed and alive

No, if they are not yet born they are still wholly dependent on the woman carrying them and still are only potentially able to become a person. Yes they are fully formed and yes they are alive.

They are not wholly dependant- they could be delivered by c section or labour induced and live-
Whether they are in or out of he womb is a matter of geography not personhood.

Of course they're wholly dependent. Until they are born, as you describe. That's what I said, dependent until born. A potential person, as not yet an independent separate human being.

You see the woman carrying the baby as irrelevant, a simple issue of geography. Not worth considering in decisions about the superior human rights of the embryo/foetus/baby.

No the location of the baby is geography... not the woman..
A baby born at 37 weeks gestation is no different to one carried on utero at 37 week. No less a person.
Being dependant on something is not a denial of personhood-
I.e. Being on life support doesn't mean you have no rights or can be killed.
There is nothing magical about the passage through the vagina that confers personhood.

It depends what you mean by pro-life.

I had a termination when I was younger because it wasn't the right time for me to have a baby.

Older now. With 2 kids.
I definitely don't want any more!

Bit.., I honestly don't know if I could go through with another termination again. So would probably have another baby if I was pregnant.

But am totally never going to think badly of someone else for having one.

I guess if I were to be against a woman's right to decide what's best for her - then I would NOT be able to call myself a feminist.

It's important also to remember that late abortions are incredibly rare, and almost invariably because of catastrophic disability or great risk to the woman. Would you ban abortion under those circumstances too?

Part of the so called pro life movement is a removal of a womans right to choose and access healthcare. Extremely anti feminist if you ask me
Personally id call them firced birthers

"A baby born at 37 weeks gestation is no different to one carried on utero at 37 week. No less a person. "

Of course it's totally different. One is independent of the other and not reliant on it. Once a child is born it becomes an individual in it's own right. While a foetus is in it's mother's womb it is part of the mother and has no independence.

I also think this is not the premise of the thread. The question is whether a woman can be a pro-life feminist, not when should the cut off for terminations be.

Missymoo100
No the location of the baby is geography... not the woman..
A baby born at 37 weeks gestation is no different to one carried on utero at 37 week. No less a person.
Being dependant on something is not a denial of personhood-
I.e. Being on life support doesn't mean you have no rights or can be killed.
There is nothing magical about the passage through the vagina that confers personhood.

Bullshit, the location is the woman.
They are different, one is born, considered a legal person, the other is not, with good reason too
Actually no born person is obligated to give life for another, so you cant demand blood or a kidney should you need it, even if it kills you, people can say no. Just like a fetus has no legal ownership or right to the womans body, she has every right to put her health and wellbeing first

Plus common sense says if a woman is aborting that late, the fetus wasnt going to survive birth

I just need to step through this, missy.

If you can be anti-choice (I don't use "pro life", but I others would) and a feminist, how are you proposing to punish women who break the law by seeking or having a termination and still remain a feminist?

Because that would be one hugely sexist law. It would only apply to women.

And you can't have laws that have no penalty or sanction for being broken (can you? I can't think of any).

So no, I have to conclude again that you cannot be a feminist and oppose abortion. Because you are proposing a sexist law that would force women to give birth, or punish them for not wanting to.

As a side note, none of this is a good outcome for the foetus/baby (delete according to beliefs). They have a criminal mother. Are they going to jail too? Or being financially penalised with her?

It's back to the logical pragmatism again. No matter your beliefs of what should be right, you can't legislate for the foetus without shitting on the woman carrying it.

Bullshit, the location is the woman.

Then take the baby out of the woman and let it live! What gives you the right to kill it?

And for all you people banging on about it only being a 'foetus', were you aware that 'foetus' is the Latin name for what we refer to as a 'baby'?

One of my objections to the stance being taken by Baracker is that I think it is a supremely unhelpful agenda to push for.

The case she linked to was a termination at 39 weeks. It was illegal but if termination up to the point of labour were permitted that women would go through a birthing process. At some point the life of the foetus would have to be ended. Does anyone think the legislators of NI, Ireland, Poland , Venezuela would ever sanction the possibility of that? Or pay any attention to a campaigner with that agenda? It is just going to harden opposition of those who are implacably opposed and worse, possibly sway those who might otherwise have accepted abortion with limits in the wrong direction.

It's important also to remember that late abortions are incredibly rare, and almost invariably because of catastrophic disability or great risk to the woman

Which are legal in the UK but what Baracker wants is abortion for no reason with no time limit.

Some one a while back disputed that medical staff would refuse to carry out late abortions. On a previous thread I looked up the position in Canada which in theory has no upper limit - in practice women are crossing the border to the U.S. because doctors will not carry them out. I think , but would need to check "late" abortions refused were well within the UK limit.

Were you aware that 'foetus' is the Latin name for what we refer to as a 'baby'?

What in the name of buggery fuck has that got to do with anything? Also, have a look at what Mary Beard says about Roman culture before you bring them into a thread about feminism, sheesh!

Missymoo My opinion is that right to life is the ultimate right that is above all others

Thats fine, for you.
Women have a right to life, you know the ones we currently living, we are not incubators and owe nothing to a fetus if thats what we want
You cant demand an organ or blood from a person should you need it, like a fetus cant demand a host

No, if they are not yet born they are still wholly dependent on the woman carrying them and still are only potentially able to become a person. Yes they are fully formed and yes they are alive.

I’m not disagreeing with your overall stance. Termination should be available freely and quickly on demand up to the point at which no foetus is independently viable with medical help (arguably 23 weeks nowadays - despite wishful thinking this really isn’t going to drop until we have artificial uteruses (uteri?)). Termination after then gets into a grey area as any baby born up to 32 weeks will need NICU/SCBU care. But after about 35 weeks they are mostly completely viable without specialist care.

If a woman chooses to have a termination at this stage there is no option but for her to deliver (via section or vaginally). This biologically inevitable. If the foetus’s heart isn’t stopped in utero before delivery, it will most likely survive.

I’m struggling with the concept that it is OK to inject a foetus with KCl while it is inside the woman but would be murder to do the same an hour later once it has been delivered.

Of course this is hypothetical, and if free non-judgmental access to early abortions was coupled with terminations up to term I would think such a situation would be vanishingly rare, but it would need to be considered.

Lass can't speak for others, but while I believe abortion to term is the only logical position for a pro-choice person, I have no appetite for campaigning for a change in the law to increase limits - it's a fight we won't win. Would rather spend my time protecting the hard-won rights we do currently have.

Plus common sense says if a woman is aborting that late, the fetus wasnt going to survive birth

Eh? A feotus born after 26 weeks has a fair chance of surviving.