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?

Lass and wiseup

I tend to avoid that kind of argument. To me it just allows forced birthers to devalue the entire argument, it allows them to go look look evil women abort so late for funzies when they have no facts to back their statement but that gets lost in the emotion of the debate

Missy, you can call yourself what you like
But given you wish to remove my right to my own body its hard to see how thats a feminist action
Thats the exact opposite

Well you don't have autonomy now..
As I have said and yet to have an answer should adult women be able to consent to FGM? If you don't think so, then I could argue you don't believe in bodily autonomy...

I’m getting bored of one person dominating this thread now. It’s just getting repetitive and there is nothing interesting being added to the debate.

To begin with I think the debate was reasonably respectful and posters who disagreed were considering each other’s arguments, for the most part.

Now we are just going around in circles with idiotic repetitive posts demanding explanations that have already been given several times over.

You can’t argue with stupid.

Well in that case another emma, why don't you add something to the debate instead of being insulting.

Absolutely not, IMHO

That's not an answer to the question, missy.

You've fudged it.

The same way that discussions about, say, leg shaving always get reframed from "can we talk about how I am a feminist, but I still shave my legs, because try as I might, I can't shake the upbringing that made me think it's kind of icky not to" to "OMG, you're saying that you can't be a feminist if you shave your legs, jesus no wonder nobody wants to be a feminist".

It's disingenous. Feminism is about taking feminist actions. You can call yourself a feminist, but if you're doing things that shit on women, in the full knowledge that they shit on women, then I may very well not agree with your assessment of yourself.

But why should that matter to you? Call yourself a banana milkshake, I don't care. But every time you try to redefine feminism to "whatever a woman does is a feminist act", you de-fang it, and dilute it and it becomes toothless. I care about that.

I have been adding to the debate but I oint you’ve read any of my posts since you keep asking for explanations that I and others have already posted.

oint = doubt

So I'll ask again.

Can seeking to limit women's access to abortion ever be a feminist act?

If yes, how so? How does that liberate women? how does that even make women equal? How does that do anything to advance the cause of equality?

It doesn't.

Sophocles
I think you can be a feminist who does some feminist acts and some non-feminist ones. It’s pretty impossible to be a perfect feminist all the time. Challenging patriarchy is hard work, and most of us pick our battles.
I remove some of my body hair sometimes. That might not be a feminist act (I don’t see how it’s anti feminist though because I’m not forcing other women to remove their body hair) but it doesn’t mean I’m not a feminist. I still have feminist values that I live by.
Having said that, I do think abortion rights are more crucial to feminism than whether or not we remove our body hair

If you believe a developing foetus is a human life (after n number of weeks), then you're going to face the inevitable issue:

1. The mother has a right to do with her body as she pleases (accepting there are some laws that overrule this).
2. The 'foetus / unborn human' has a right to live (if you are pro-life).

Now, we know that mothers are without doubt 100% sentient human beings, and we debate the validity of the unborn foetus - when does is become a sentient human? does it only gain a right to life after birth? etc.

As things stand, surely we have to err on side of the mother's right to control what happens with her own body?

Now, most people seem able to accept there are some circumstances where abortion is a very understandable course of action (deformity, risk of life to the mother, rape / sexual abuse etc). The issue with pro-life seems to come when the reasons for an abortion appear to be for other reasons. There's a wide gamut of reasons for terminations - from failed contraception, to 'having a child is inconvenient to me' and I believe this is where the pro-life people have the biggest issue - when the right to life for the foetus is overruled by a woman's right to choose, and where that choice appears to be convenience rather than absolute necessity.
In such situations the right to choose is harder to reconcile.

How many women terminate simply because it's a convenient option? very few I would say, but there is certainly a spectrum of reasons where I believe the pro-lifers can cope or can't cope.

Perhaps I'm completely wrong, but with pro-lifers it really does seem to come down to not IF a termination is ok, but WHY...

Can seeking to limit women's access to abortion ever be a feminist act?

Yes, when the restrictions put in place are aimed at regulating the safety standards. Unfettered access to 'easy' abortions can lead to a lowering of standards and put women's health at risk.

I totally agree that it's impossible to be a perfect feminist emma. God knows I'm far from perfect myself! I just think we shouldn't dress up our non-feminist actions (of which I do many, as do we all) as us doing feminism. Loads of them don't matter - like leg shaving - but there are a few core ones that really, really do, like women having meanignful control of our bodily autonomy - and if you're against them, then it just doesn't make sense to call youself a feminist.

How many women terminate simply because it's a convenient option? very few I would say, but there is certainly a spectrum of reasons where I believe the pro-lifers can cope or can't cope

Perhaps I'm completely wrong, but with pro-lifers it really does seem to come down to not IF a termination is ok, but WHY...

The "pro-lifers" are probably the vast majority of the public, including those who support the current UK position.

What those who support abortion to term for any or no reason can't or won't answer is what is the difference between a woman being induced to give birth at 39 weeks, where at some point in that process the life of the foetus must be ended, and a woman giving birth to a baby at 39 weeks if there is no compulsion or coercion therafter to be a mother to the foetus or child?

In one scenario active steps must be taken to terminate the life of the foetus and in the other a baby will be nourished and looked after.

Saying , but this scenario will only rarely happen doesn't answer it. "Bodily autonomy" "her choice" doesn't answer it because by that point the physical process is identical.

Can seeking to limit women's access to abortion ever be a feminist act?

I don't care one way or another about being a feminist but would ask you - is campaigning for a position which is extreme, has zero chance of being adopted and every chance of alienating support a feminist act if you want to help women in countries where abortion is banned or limited?

It should surely be only in very exceptional circumstances that it should be permissible to perform an abortion in the later stages of pregnancy.
For instance, if a woman decides, at week 30, to split up from her partner, and doesn't want to be a single mother, and as she is not going to keep the baby doesn't want to go through childbirth, I would not see that as being a good enough reason to kill a by that time viable child.
In most circumstances - contraceptive failure etc, the woman has the opportunity to abort in the early stages. Why should she be given the opportunity to abort later?
She has conceived the baby - which in the absence of rape she has some responsibility for. She has then elected not to abort the baby in the early stages. I don't see why she should not be required to be responsible for the baby to the extent of not being offered an abortion in the late stages of pregnancy. The baby is not some foreign body that has been forced into her body without her consent.
All the stuff about a foetus not being "competent" is rubbish (a seriously disabled person may not be competent, but has the right to live). The argument that a foetus is alive only in the sense that an organ of one's body is alive is also very unhelpful. The foetus is a full human, with a brain, a sense of pain, the ability to function on its own once it is born, etc.

sophocles, I agree that it isn't possible to be a perfect feminist but the question last night seemed to become whether belief in "abortion to term for whatever reason" is a central core requirement to be a feminist. There is space for a range of views, especially in nuanced debates, but for a political movement / philosophy like feminism the cope principles have to be held by the majority in order for the word to have any meaning.

After last night's discussion I actually looked up the statistics I questioned and, it turns out, 7% of people describe themselves as feminist (Fawcett society) and 1% of people support abortion to term (ComRes poll upthread). So approximately 85% of feminists do not support abortion to term. On that basis, I would say that "abortion to term" is not a core belief of feminism.

In addition, if it is believed that "bodily autonomy for women" at all costs, and in every case, is a core principle of feminism, it logically follows that feminists MUST support legalisation of prostitution and that campaigning against grid girls / pornography / page 3 is an anti-feminist act because it impinges the bodily autonomy of women who want to do those jobs.

Can seeking to limit women's access to abortion ever be a feminist act?

No, I don't think so. But that doesn't mean that the woman who does so can't be a feminist.

Having thought about it, I go back on my previous statement and can see how in some cases, limiting access to abortion may be a feminist act.

Jemima,

That is correct. It also supports the legalisation of all drugs. Why should the state interfere with my autonomy to inject heroin into my veins?

Really agree with last few posts-
Bodily autonomy is not an absolute given because it gives power to the individual to usurp the views of society at large. This is the basis of law and order, that an individual can't just do what they want, "because it's my body"-because that can be extremely destructive to the individual and to everyone else.

Lass-
What those who support abortion to term for any or no reason can't or won't answer is what is the difference between a woman being induced to give birth at 39 weeks, where at some point in that process the life of the foetus must be ended, and a woman giving birth to a baby at 39 weeks if there is no compulsion or coercion therafter to be a mother to the foetus or child?

Yes, this^ .. I don't think I've ever heard anyone try to even answer this question without side stepping it.

The difference is almost always whether or not the baby is going to suffer agonies and then die. 39 week abortions are so rare as to be impossible to generalise about. But I think that the rights of the woman outemweigh the rights of the foetus. At any time.