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?

I'm with Sophocles. This is not a good subject to be pedantic and devil's advocate-y about, and having anti-feminist men stick their oar in too isn't helping.

I agree. The "Well, if you agree with abortion then you have to agree with porn and prostitution" line is deeply distasteful.

Thanks kittens, and bert.

I've had a glass of wine and some dinner and I could probably get back in the ring for round two now.

I'm late to the thread and have tried to RTFT but have probably missed lots

I have said from the outset I support 24 weeks, the removal of the 2 doctor rule and the retention of no limit in exceptional circumstances. If that mainstream to liberal stance makes me a "forced birther" heaven help you changing the minds of anti abortion supporters

I agree with this completely. I've said before on similar threads that, having had a prem baby at 35 weeks who needed no medical intervention at all to thrive, I can't support the proposition that women should be able to choose abortion to term for any reason at all. I understand the "as early as possible, as late as necessary" mantra, and I nod along to most of the arguments made for the removal of the upper time limit in abortion law in England, Wales and Scotland. If that means that I don't fit the definition of a feminist, well, so be it (though I would argue that I "qualify" on many other grounds)

I don't get that argument either.

Porn and prostitution are the antithesis of bodily autonomy

Porn and prostitution are the antithesis of bodily autonomy

They are the antithesis of bodily autonomy in the opinion of the radical feminists on here because they do not consider the women involved are making a true choice. There are many people who disagree with that.

Some one defined bodily autonomy as it means deciding what happens in, to and on your body - what goes in it, what comes out of it, who touches it

I don't think that was a helpful definition because unless you whole heartedly accept there is no free choice ever in being inolved in the "sex industry" that definition applies to it as much as deciding to have an abortion.

So sorry unless your audience is always restricted to like-minded radical feminists I think it is a defintion which shoots you in the foot and makes you a hostage to supporters of porn etc.

Personally I think porn and prostitution are so damaging and degrading to the women involved and society as a whole that the "bodily autonomy " argument is irrelevant. I don't care how freely someone enters into it- porn and prostitution ultimately do no good to anyone.

I found the appropriation of Savita Halappanavar and the misrepresentation that anyone who does not support abortion to term in all circumstances would support what happened to her offensive.

I agree Lass and I could see the arguments against even when I wrote it. It is difficult to counter the 'happy hooker' argument because there are undeniably some who will enter voluntarily. It doesn't mean it's a good choice much like continuing to drink to excess or take Class A drugs is not a good choice. Is it right to justify it as a valid choice because some people choose it, whereas many/most (?) just end up in it? I would tend to think not

There are also some who consistently enter or stay in abusive relationships because they 'love' the partners.

That's not even taking into account those who forced into prostitution or those forced to remain in it

An obvious rejoinder is how many women are coerced into having abortions? Either by partners or their own families? Furthermore how many women choose to terminate because they no they are lacking funds, and were it not for poverty would choose to have the child?

I fail to see how the "free choice" arguments work for abortion but not prostitution?

Missymoo100
Squeakums-
As I said, and other added...
FGM for consenting adults- I see you agree with this
But these....
Wilful grievous assault with consent
Illegal drugs
Prostitution
Do you think the law should be remove to allow bodily autonomy I'm these cases, if it's so important.
Then as jemima added
Porn
Page 3
Etc....
If you say autonomy is absolute you cannot place restriction on anyone, everything is allowable, even if they are harming themselves or indirectly others

Prostitution, page 3, drugs, again all a persons choice and i have no issue with them. It dont harm me, as long as they not forced its all good to me, i do grant there are womem who forced into prostitution and that is wrong on every level. Im talking the woman who do it purely by choice and want
Ive never heard of someone wanting to be asulted but i spose people get their kicks in many ways, again if they consenting whats the issue? Its their body

Laws in reality are on paper, as it stands you dont have to obey them and can do as you wish with your body, just depends if your willing to put up with the punishment IF your caught.

Clarissa I don't trust every woman to make the "right decision". Some women get pregnant and abort repeatedly. For starters, I don't believe that they are making the right decisions. Why are women assumed to be such infallibly good decision makers? And why are unborn children being given absolutely no value at all, while suddenly gaining massive value and rights as soon as they leave the uterus? If you feel this way about the unborn baby, it doesn't seem too much of a leap to approving of female infanticide, for instance - there's only 5 minutes difference between what has been described as a parasite in the woman's body, that she should be free to deal with as she wishes, and the newly born unwanted baby girl

First up, children are born, we are talking a fetus here.
A fetus has value, if the woman wants the pregnancy. If not its a problem that needs removal, that simple, take the bs emotion out of it.
In that 5 minutes a big thing changes. The fetus goes from attached from the woman and a risk to her wellbeing to a legal seperate person that isnt attached to anothers body.
Once born can you demand someone gives you a kidney or donates blood? No, even if you die, so how is it different for a woman and her uterus

Srilli, 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

Contraception fails, women have every right to fix that failure by choice
Women on contraception didnt want to be pregnant in the first place so why deny them?

The above argument also positions children as a punishment for sex, which isn't nearly as child friendly an argument as the people making it would probably like to think.

I don't agree with the regular transplant analogy for this debate. That assumes that a woman at 24 weeks gestation has had no choice at all at that point to refuse to continue the pregnancy. It may work in countries which don't allow any abortion, but that isn't the case here. Women have choices before the 24 week limit, and further choices after that under specific circumstances.

I was recently selected as a candidate for potential bone marrow donation having signed up to the bone marrow register. In the literature, even at the stage before full blood testing is done, it is made abundantly clear that there comes a stage in bone marrow donation where the recipient would die if the donor changes her/his mind. That is far more analogous to the time limit vs no time limit debate.

Actually, come to think about it, I don't think any transplant donation analogy will work fully. One is insisting that a person undergoes a medical procedure (never acceptable where a person has the capacity to refuse) and the other is denying access to a medical procedure (sometimes acceptable even where a person has the capacity to consent).

The bone marrow analogy is still closer than (for example) kidney transplant tho.

The bone marrow example is analogous though. Yes, the recipient would die if you changed your mind, but you still cannot be forced to undergo the procedure if you choose not to allow your body to be used in this way.

I'm pro-choice but I think the transplant analogy is a bit of a non-starter. Probably the closest analogy would be if someone was already using your donated kidney and then you wanted it back.

There is a big difference overall in rights from and rights to.

We have a right from being assaulted. We do not have a right to be assaulted.

We do not have an automatic right to surgery.

Late abortion does not only affect the pregnant woman. It affects the rights of the foetus (at very late term, most would call it a baby), the team who perform a traumatic procedure and society as a whole.

You cannot choose to define bodily autonomy in a way to help defend your argument. There are many ways in which we do not have total bodily autonomy.

I think this thread illustrates quite well how a person can be feminist and pro-life-
I think labelling something pro-choice is not entirely accurate. Most people don't support abortion to term. They don't support many other things that come under "bodily autonomy" i.e. As someone said I don't support your right to pump yourself with heroin. I don't think anyone can claim to entirely support absolute autonomy because it's harmful. Therefore there is range of views on the issue- on where choice should have sensible limits.
I read an news article on another post a while ago where a women demanded an natural birth despite having had numerous c sections- she said it was her choice- In this case its dangerous to her and a waste of nhs funds when it all goes wrong. What I'm saying is autonomy rightly should have limits, within reason.

Yes Larry the autonomy argument doesn't hold up- if that's the stance it needs to be all or nothing.
I cannot compare a foetus to an organ because it is distinct from the mothers body.
When lass talked about why it's preferable to deliver a dead baby to a live one in the case of late term abortion- the reasons suggested were-

1. So it doesn't walk the face of the earth
2. Incase woman can get better pain killers when baby is dead.

I appreciate people we're trying to think reasons but I find these ideas quite shocking. As far women making right decisions- you honestly think the female 50% of population are all wise, virtuous and sensible...... As for it being small, even if one baby was aborted for no good reaso late on, it's one too many for me. Would you legalise murder just because you wouldn't expect many people to take up the offer.

Also the fact that some on here would deny a woman the right to appear on page 3 but absolutely support her in aborting an unborn baby to term,... well it boggles my mind.

Smacks of hypocrisy and cherry picking where and when women can have their "autonomy"

As usual, the forced birthers are focussing on the vanishingly tiny number of late abortions, when what they actually want to do is deny women access to abortion at any stage. In some cases even including the MAP.

I don't think it's cherry picking exactly, because I think most people who have an opinion on abortion either way do so from a position of conviction. This is isn't an easy discussion, if it was we'd have worked it all out ages ago.

Also-and this is one of the very few things I would say this about-I really think men do not have a right to a say on this issue. Obviously they have opinions. But I feel very strongly that this should be a matter for women only.