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?

Posters are referring to the UK because
(a) I suppose it is the jurisdiction the majority are familiar with;
(b) the majority of posters are comfortable, more or less, with the position in the UK (which incidentally is one of the most liberal in the world)
(c) posters who have spoken approvingly of the mainland UK position would assume would be happy for a similar system to be the norm;
(d) do not assume these UK centric posters do not support campaigns for abortion rights elsewhere.

(c) posters who have spoken approvingly of the mainland UK position, would I assume, be happy for a similar system to be the norm elsewhere.

I think that the current UK laws are as sensible a way to navigate these difficult waters as any other that I could think of

(Our Parliament isn't perfect by a long straw, but it is actually quite good at finding a middle ground for tricky issues)

Perfectly fine to rule out abortion for themselves on moral grounds. Totally unacceptable to want their moral stance affect any other woman's rights.

TheSecond,

Only if you will yourself into the position that the foetus the day before birth is not human and has no rights can you justify the above statement.

It comes from the same (mistaken) logic that allows a religious Moslem to slit a goat’s throat in the street and claim anyone who objects is infringing his right to pursue his faith in peace.

He did not believe the goat had any rights at all and he believed his autonomy to practise his religion was overridingly important.

I must admit I'm getting more won over by the forced birther position philosophically as the thread goes on, but I am still concerned that if you limit abortion any further the overall loss of life will go up. I still cannot justify putting an ideological position over human life even if that ideological position is the sanctity of human life. To do otherwise would violate the whole point of the argument in the first place.

Can we not however given our ideological differences find some common ground? Like for example you can be against abortion philosophically, so donate to gingerbread and other charities designed to support single mothers? Thus lessening the chances of someone aborting on grounds of financial hardship.

It also brings home one of the dimensions of how terrifying a crime rape is, as just the threat of it means any woman no matter what choices she makes or what views she may hold on abortion personally maybe forced into having to make this decision. It makes me want to increase the severity of sentences of convicted rapists.

I think it's horrible that someone compared a woman's right to decide to have an abortion as the same as a man's right to decide to have treatment for prostrate cancer.
Being pregnant is rarely a terminal condition. It is something that most women experience. In cases where it is a terminal condition for medical reasons, there is in the UK an absolute right to have an abortion at any time.
And a foetus is not a cancerous tumour. It is a living being, which in the later stages of pregnancy is ready to lead an independent human life.
The decision on whether a foetus should be given rights or not is one for society to make, not just the individual woman who conceived it.
This extreme view that a foetus can be completely disregarded until after birth, even to the extent that a woman has the right to kill it shortly before birth because its being alive might inconvenience her because it might track her down as an adult having been adopted, is chilling. And it reads to me as an article of faith rather than anything else.

A foetus due to be born tomorrow is not a human life, it is the equivalent of a cancerous growth.
How different is that from the statement: A man who thinks he is a woman is a woman?
They are both nonsensical positions, held for the convenience of the woman/man concerned.

"Perfectly fine to rule out abortion for themselves on moral grounds. Totally unacceptable to want their moral stance affect any other woman's rights."

• no one should be able to block my right to keep slaves, if you don't like it you don't have to have one. (And people used to think like this, that they had rights over someone with none).

"This is how the don't like abortion don't have one" argument sounds to me.

It's a matter of human rights, an once that foetus is considered "human" it has the right not to be killed. So yes I think people do have a right to speak out.

It isn't that complicated really. If you don't trust women you are not a feminist.
This thread has been all over the place. Aborting a pregnancy is said to be like slavery, and like slitting a goats throat, and it is done frivolously for bad reasons or no reason at all.
When the fight for abortion rights began it was the position of the judges that if a woman was not willing to risk dying in childbirth she should not have sex. Women are in prison for stillbirths and spontaneous abortions. Reading what women on this thread think of women who have had abortions was a real eye opener.

What is trust? What you basing that on?

As I've said women make up 50% of population- You expect they are all virtuous, good people, and going to make good decisions? It's completely unrealistic to assume this.

The women I posted links about earlier, are they good examples of trustworthiness- Ie Sarah Catt

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-19621675

As I said should we legalise murder because we expect people not to take up the offer?

Clarissa - I think the whole purpose of people comparing the foetus to a tumour, parasite etc, is to try and deny the infants humanity to justify the killing. If people admitted to the infants personhood- they have to defend the stance that treating a person as their property to be extinguised at will is ok.

Our ancestors would have waited until birth to kill the baby, and late term abortion is practically same thing- there is nothing progressive about it- its a regressive act which denies the right of another life.

I think there is plenty of room for women of moderate views to be considered feminists. If it was limited to the views of "abortion to term" it makes feminism seem like a bunch of extremists that don't reflect the views of majority of women they are supposed to be representing. Then again some people already feel this way. Many would say feminism is now already out of touch.

I understand that women's choice is an important part of feminism- I don't think it should be pushed to extremes where all reason is excluded.

What's more I'd say that I think femisism should include more view points so it's more representative- because only saying it's for those that hold extreme views and allowing them to set the narrative for all women - well it's not exactly what I would say is women's liberation. I'd say women as a "whole" should be deciding what liberation looks like.

If you don't trust women you are not a feminist.

I do trust women as a class. Within that group there are women I don't trust, but more pertinently, there are vulnerable women who need help and protection in order to get the outcome that they want.

You're not seriously saying that every woman always makes the right decision. So what do you mean about trusting women?

A woman will make the decision she feels is right for her own body. And should be allowed to do so.

It's been said on this thread that a woman should have the right to demand that a baby that is about to be born is killed first, in case, having been adopted, it inconveniences her by contacting her when aged 18. Do you agree with that?

A woman will make the decision she feels is right for her own body. And should be allowed to do so.

But that loops back into lots of areas where (radical) feminists (mostly) agree that there should be laws in place to prevent them.

If I feel it is right for my own body to carry another person's child as a surrogate, I should be allowed to do so.

If I feel it is right for my own body to inject heroin, I should be allowed to do so

If I feel it is right for my body for strangers to penetrate me provided they stump up the requisite payment, I should be allowed to do so

Etc etc etc

Unfortunately, the law can't just offer carte blanche legislation. Women with mental health issues MAY need to have decisions made on their behalf, plus there's still that issue of the female abuser who got herself pregnant via a minor, and the biggest issue of all still remains - at what point in time does the 'lifestyle' decision to abort expire? I think virtually everybody agrees that in life threatening situations, the mother can elect to abort. A good proportion of people agree that abortion for serious defects is permissible (providing it takes place at the earliest diagnosis). The biggest bone of contention seems to revolve around the theoretical option to abort late term simply because the mother chooses to. Currently this is not possible in the UK, but it seems some would like it to be. Some are arguing it's every woman's right to abort for whatever reason she chooses and at any time she chooses, whilst others are arguing for the rights of the child in the womb. I can't see how arguing for the rights of the child in the womb is anti-feminist.

I think Larry touched on something with the goat example and religion-
As others have said the abortion to term argument seems to be faith based.
No matter what evidence that there is to show the foetus is a baby- which it most certainly is by a certain point - it won't make a difference to the view points of some because they view feminism as a religion-
1.Thou shall support abortion to term
2.All women's choices are good ones and they will always make the right decisions
Etc
No matter what evidence there is some will argue against it- because it's like religion- a set of principles to be kept, a feminist dogma.
Some have said- I don't like it but thats how it has to be;
.... well why? Because of "women's choice?" Because you defend women's choice no matter what? Well that's dogma rather than reason.
In fact someone said this to me as an example- a feminist boy supporting abortion- it's like saying your religious but not believing in god.
Feminism shouldn't be a belief system. I'd rather think that feminism was a vehicle for good, rather than a misplaced faith- that is so unbending it won't submit to reason and women are excluded.
What about women doing their part, all those helping other women such as d v supporters, refuge workers etc, if they are pro-life they can't be part of the feminist club?
I think they- (the people actually fighting a cause) - could be more feminist, than people who just spout feminist doctrine regardless of thought or reason. I don't think it's particularly constructive to be so obstinate on an issue.

I think being a forced- birther, anti-choice is a bit like being labelled a heretic by those that treat feminism as a religion.

Forced birthing is incompatible with feminism.

Boy*--- not

Upstart crow-
That kind of line there is part of the dogma. just calling someone a forced birther is a way to close down the discussion- there's no reason to that statement and no explanation of what exactly you mean. How can there be any sensible dialect?
I seem to get the impression that some think a small minority of woman, opposed to most other women- have ownership of feminism, and well no, that's not true.

Why do you object so much to "forced birthed"? It's a simple statement of fact. Pro Life is completely inaccurate. Is there another term you would like to be used to describe people who would deny a woman an abortion?

It's like the trans activists just calling people TERF- is not progressive, they're closing down the debate because they think the belief is not open to question or reason. They dont want their belief challenged. It's BELIEF- it's nothing more.