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?

If our innate evil impulses are not controlled women will apparently take to demanding abortions a week before birth is anticipated, cackling "mwah hah hah" as it happens.

if you are to kill this baby, then you should have a very compelling reason to do so.

My reason was: I don't want a child and I don't want to be a mother.

I assuming that's about as compelling a reason as you'll ever get, right? So do I pass? I mean, it's too late now, but did I?

And I've gone on to have two very much wanted babies/children (obviously saw them a few times on ultrasound), 2 miscarriages that upset me incredibly - and yet I don't regret my abortion for a second (I felt nothing but utter relief, and continue to know in my heart that it was the right decision).

Because - the difference between a wanted child and an unwanted pregnancy, is the difference between night and day.

I don’t understand how people can say if your pro life you are anti choice? In most cases surely the woman chose to have sex and also chose to not be using adequate contraception? Birth control is free in the UK and easily accessible. It really isn’t that hard to prevent most pregnancies. To me that is a lot of ‘choice’.

Obviously I am not talking here about cases where the woman was raped etc. But from what I know the number of abortions carried out as a result of rape is very small compared to those carried out for reasons of absent or failed contraception.

“t really isn’t that hard to prevent most pregnancies“

Agreed. Which is why most pregnancies don’t end in abortion.

Just to circle back to "bodily autonomy" meaning that feminists who want bodily autonomy must be pro-porn. You've misunderstood what I mean by "bodily autonomy" - it means deciding what happens in, to and on your body - what goes in it, what comes out of it, who touches it. It doesn't mean "the right to do whatever you want while you are in your body", because that's obviously "everything a human can do". Bodily autonomy means something specific. So no, it is not in the least illogical to be pro choice and anti porn.

Interesting that I have been assumed to be pro-abortion to term. Actually, for all you're arguing against me, lass, our opinions are not far apart at all. My own personal opinion is that abortion to term is a matter for a woman and her doctors, but what I campaign for is the current law to stay the same in the UK, and be applied to NI. I would like the necessity to have the two doctor rule removed, but the danger with campaigning for that is that you open up the debate and risk having the situation worsened with the influence of the evangelical anti choicers. So best to leave it as it is.

I dont' spend a great deal of time worrying about women recklessly having late term abortions because it is very, very rare, is almost always for medical reasons, and I agree with the PP (kittens?) that to think women are recklessly aborting at 39 weeks doesn't demonstrate a very high opinion of women at all, which I find sad and troubling.

I have posted many times on this thread re the illogicality of the ‘logic’ which gets to ‘abortion on demand until term is a feminist position’.

All I will say here is that if most feminists do not believe in it, and that is what all the surveys say (linked to, above) it is not THE feminist position.

If a (generous) 10% of feminists want this to be the feminist position, they are forming a break away group and, sure, they can tell others they cannot join this particular clique. It does become very life of brianesque though.

You can believe what you like but society as a whole make laws, which, again, you can choose to break and take the consequences.

This ‘high opinion of women’ argument holds zero water. Not many people kill their babies, and most have a ‘reason’. I am not sure legalising infanticide (by women) would demonstrate ‘a high opinion of women’.

*But a fully viable baby that is due to be born in a few weeks being killed before the woman gives birth to it or has it cut out of her body, because she would prefer it not to "walk the earth" is not my idea of a great solution either.

OK, then find an example of a situation where this actually happened and we can talk about it.*

That’s not the pont though, is it. Posters on this thread are saying that the only feminist position is to permit abortion up to the day of birth.

Yes, I agree that it’s very unlikely to happen in practice for a healthy foetus, however there clearly are cases where women have concealed births and dispose of the baby, so a small number of women will see very late termination as their only option, and certainly safer than delivering alone.

If there was to be a change in the law these new ethical problems would need to be explored. I don’t understand how telling women to shut up about it is appropriate. Even if some of them are spouting misogynist bollocks.

This is not an anti-choice view.

Feminism is not an identity. It is a political movement for the liberation of women. There is a body of work by women to support and explain this.
I keep saying this and people keep saying no, anyone who says they are a feminist is a feminist even though their policies are anti feminist and they have no clue what the tenets of feminism are.

The trans activists of feminism?

(Sorry)

Thebewilderness

Does any country allow legal abortion to term without a medical reason? Canada was mentioned upthread. They have no time limit because they trust women and their doctors to do what is appropriate

And as pointed out Canadian doctors are self imposing a lower limit than the UK permits where no medical reason is needed.

You've misunderstood what I mean by "bodily autonomy" - it means deciding what happens in, to and on your body - what goes in it, what comes out of it, who touches it. It doesn't mean "the right to do whatever you want while you are in your body", because that's obviously "everything a human can do". Bodily autonomy means something specific. So no, it is not in the least illogical to be pro choice and anti porn

Full bodily autonomy would be the right to do anything to your body once you are an adult as long as it does not harm any one else. The state intrrvenes to curtail that. The UK has decided that except in certain circumstances you cannot have an abortion after 24 weeks. Other countries including NI have decided you cannot pay to insert a penis into another person.

it means deciding what happens in, to and on your body - what goes in it, what comes out of it, who touches it that covers porn and prostitution. Goodness knows I'm as anti porn/ anti the "sex industry" as you will find but your definition does not stand up.

SophoclesTheFox - Where does Prostitution fit in with bodily autonomy?

One big arguments about Prostitution is that it harms ALL women. Even if it doesnt harm the women partaking in said activity.

Many ardent pro-lifers feel the same about abortion. Is there a difference?

the bewilder

"In Ireland a woman died a couple years ago because the doctors agreed with you. Srsly! They let her die rather than abort post viability despite the fact that the fetus was dead. Savita Halappanavar. Say her name."

Sorry but that's a very unfair misrepresentation of my position. There is no need for that

I agree AssignedPuuurfectAtBirth It is an unfair representation of just about every one's position.

Savita Halappanavar. Say her name.
She is an example of what happens when self righteous people pass laws banning abortion. This was a late term pregnancy that should have been aborted and was not. This is the reality of what we are talking about here.

That was in Ireland. Not in the UK. It wouldn't have happened here. So the 'illogical pragmatism' argument still stands. And it really isn't self righteous. That's as much of a judgement as those who talk about 'killing babies'.

UK exclusive discussion? So the query should have been can women in the UK be both Feminists and pro-life.
I did not realized there was this restriction.

So to my simple brain, bodily autonomy allows for the ending of a pregnacy at any time. I get that.

Where to logic comes unstuck is when the mother then has the additional right to determine whether, post viability, it is a live or still birth because in a late termination she will have to go into labour regardless.

By all means end a pregancy at 35 weeks but as the foetus is totally viable outisde the womb bodily autonomy does not allow the mother the right to terminate life and by this point the person who provides 50% of the DNA would also have a say (not in ending the pregnancy of course)

Its all pointless semantics anyway is it would never be allowed in the 1st place.

These women who abort a live fetus at term are about as common as the welfare queen driving the Cadillac collecting for fourteen children each from a different father made famous by Ronald Reagan. None of whom have ever been found.

So is your position that the law should be changed to allow abortion on demand up to term, because no woman would ever have an abortion after foetal viability? That isn’t a logical position, and, given the fact that women do conceal births and let their babies die, unlikely to be true.

If a law is to be changed, the consequences must be explored.

bewilderness

Ok. UK or whatever, my position is that unless there is a threat to the mother's life or a reason threatening the child's health, abortion after viability date should not be necessary. If you can think of other exceptions, such as a rape victim not knowing that they were in fact pg until after that time, then certainly these situations should be covered.

Nor am I saying that there are lots of late term abortions, but some people advocate abortion up to birth, which I can't accept.

Our difference in opinion is probaby due to my believing that there is life from conception in some form, but after the date of viability, I cannot countenance that that life should be terminated without there being risk to life of the mother. On a person level, I don't believe that disability shoud be a reason for late termination either, but I would not campaign to have this removed

Savita Halappanavar. Say her name.
She is an example of what happens when self righteous people pass laws banning abortion. This was a late term pregnancy that should have been aborted and was not. This is the reality of what we are talking about here

No it is not. No one on here has said abortion in those circumstances should be banned. No one has said they support the Irish position.

You're in a facility that does IVF and associated procedures, and a fire breaks out. In the room with you is a container with hundreds of already fertilized embryos, and a toddler. You can only carry one. Which do you save? If a fertilized embryo really is a life then surely you'd have to save the container with hundreds of them rather than one child. And yet I've never yet encountered a person whose immediate gut response wouldn't be to grab the toddler and run

It is taken me a while to realise what is wrong with that question. If you leave the toddler she will die in considerable pain and fear. The embryos, if they do not survive will not even be aware of it , far less suffer pain and distress.

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.
No it doesn't. Bodily autonomy precludes coercion. Feminist theory does not support coerced abortion any more that it supports forced birth.

Obviously, people have different understandings of what bodily autonomy means than I do It doesn't necessarily follow that mine is wrong.

There's something about the freedom of the choice involved in prostitution and its relation to bodily autonomy (ie bodily autonomy is fine for the Happy Hooker (TM) but not for the trafficked woman), but you know what - I've had a shit day at work, I'm tired, and I can't be arsed with the tone of the debate here right now. It's wearing me down right now that posters who I think agree with me on large chunks of stuff can't be bothered to engage in the common ground without attacking the areas of difference. Too tired. Agree to differ.