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?

So what would you call someone who wants to prevent a woman having an abortion that she wants and needs? Happy to use another term. Just not Pro Life because it is inaccurate.

The term "forced birthed" is well just illogical- for reasons stated already- one being that beyond a certain gestation, birth is inevitable.
Forced birther really is a manipulative term.
It's not about people being anti woman, more to do with protecting another life.
Russell-
Why do you think anyone is pro- forced birth?

• because they like the idea of forcing women to give birth? Do you actually think this is the reasoning? What do you actually think they seek to gain by forcing women to give birth?

"What do you actually think they seek to gain by forcing women to give birth?"

Because they think that the foetus is more important than the woman.
And/or-
Because they think women should be punished for getting pregnant/having sex.

"Just not Pro Life because it is inaccurate.... "
in what way? How about-anti- killing.
I'd say pro-life fits the intention better than forced birth!

"Because they think that the foetus is more important than the woman.
And/or-
Because they think women should be punished for getting pregnant/having sex."

Punish? What is your evidence that people want to punish women by denying abortion to term? It doesn't make sense. Some don't want to legislate for later term abortion but are ok with early abortion- is the motive there to punish?
The foetus isn't MORE important, but I would argue is a live human being - and I don't think we have the right to kill human beings. That's why it's Pro-life.

Because so called Pro Choicers are pro life - pro the woman's
Life and whatever she wants to do with it.

Can I just say that I don't understand the logic that you can terminate if you're an addict/rape victim/going to be a single mum/any other arbitrary line. I don't get it.
There is no difference between the foetus created by a single mum, heroin addict and a 35 year old career woman who's never wanted kids and a 14 year old girl who made a mistake out of ignorance.
you, speaking generally, (proven incorrectly by science) clearly believe that a foetus feels pain or some such. What difference does it make if they "feel"that pain for one reason or another? I've also never understood saying "limit abortions to only 3" or whatever. What's the difference between the 1st foetus and the 4th?
How can you say one is murder and one is not? I myself am pro choice but I would love to hear an explanation for this thinking. It makes no logical sense to me.

"Because they think that the foetus is more important than the woman
And/or-
Because they think women should be punished for getting pregnant/having sex

If that were true the posters here you call "forced birthers" would oppose abortion in all circumstances. I think only one person has said that.

If I support abortion on demand up to a certain point but then only in cases where to continue the pregnancy would put the mother's life at risk or in cases with severe, life limiting conditions, am I a "forced birther"? "Pro-choice to 24 weeks then a forced birther"? "Feminist but then misogynist"?

(proven incorrectly by science) clearly believe that a foetus feels pain or some such. What difference does it make if they "feel"that pain for one reason or another?
No, it's really not been proven. it also depends on gestation..
I spose people are willing to compromise on exceptions, or try to make a cut off point. It varies from person to person.

The science on foetal pain is still very much ongoing, but much like the debate on the right point for viability, science currently suggests 26-30 weeks before a foetus can register pain. Who knows what science might prove in the future.

Regardless, is 'pain' now the determining factor of when it's ok to terminate or not? I thought it was viability? or is it some other factor?

This debate only serves to illustrate the complexities of abortion for those contemplating one, for those who have to carry them out, and for those who have to try and legislate for them in law.

I think most posters have broadly accepted the British abortion laws as reasonable, so perhaps energy is best spent in ensuring all women in the UK have access to legal, safe abortion rather than agonising over the entirely hypothetical situation of aborting to term for social reasons, which is not legal, won't become legal, and not really an issue when some women can't access abortion at all,

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.

That is it exactly. It is hard to talk about feminist class analysis these days because the "everything is subjective" individualism of post modernism has influenced us to see everything as individual people making individual choices.

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

I don't really think it's about that. I see an unborn child as a separate human, albeit one residing in another person. And for that reason the separate human should be afforded certain rights as a human, ie the right to life.

“I don't really think it's about that. I see an unborn child as a separate human, albeit one residing in another person. And for that reason the separate human should be afforded certain rights as a human, ie the right to life.”

That’s a perfectly reasonable position to hold. But you can’t hold it and be a feminist.

Of course you can, BR. That's ridiculous. Lots of feminists hold lots of different views.

I don't understand why it's a mutually exclusive choice between the baby (non-feminist) or the mother (feminist).

If you believe both are of equal value, but would prefer both to live, why's it not feminist?
If someone sees the unborn baby as a person - which seems a reasonable view to hold (for some), then that person ends up trying to support two human beings - the mother and the baby. How can it be against feminism to err on the side of the baby rather than the mother? If it's a personal (feminist) right for the mother to choose to abort, surely it's a personal (feminist) right for someone not to approve?

Very articulately put TheBrilliantMistake.

I see an unborn child as a separate human, albeit one residing in another person. And for that reason the separate human should be afforded certain rights as a human, ie the right to life.
Your right to life cannot require abrogation of another persons rights. This is why you cannot force someone to donate organs.
If you actually saw a fetus as a separate person with the same rights as the pregnant woman, as you say you do, you would not refuse the woman the right to separate herself from that separate human being. But you do. Because the fetus survival is dependent on the survival of the woman.

Because the fetus survival is dependent on the survival of the woman.

Not beyond about 22 weeks.

The survival of the foetus is not dependent on the survival of the woman though is it? That's a scale of viability from zero to full viability and a foetus CAN survive the death of the mother.
Equally, the 'right to chose' abrogates the rights of the foetus (if you believe the foetus has rights).

Essentially you're arguing that a foetus has no rights. That's a perfectly legitimate view to hold, but say it how it is.
You're arguing that mother wins no matter what - and that's the only legitimate feminist view. It doesn't stack up.

Because the fetus survival is dependent on the survival of the woman

But after a certain point it isn't. 24 weeks is questionable but after 28 weeks isn't.

If a woman dies 28 weeks pregnant the fetus will also die. That is a fact. Because the survival of the fetus is dependent on the survival of the woman. You assume intervention is readily available for reasons I cannot understand.

The situation is not one of the women dying though. A premature baby born after 28 weeks has a very good chance of survival.

The stance that abortion to term should be allowed in all circumstances and for no reason is, as has been pointed out several times, one which the vast majority of people do not find acceptable and will not find acceptable.

I see little practical point in arguing that case if the intention is to campaign for abortion rights where these are denied.

Are those of you who have stated on this thread that the viability of a foetus of 22-30 weeks gestation is relevant to this debate, aware quite how much vast amounts of intensive care is required for a preemie of this kind of gestation to survive? And the enormous rate at which these little ones, often very much loved and wanted, sadly do not manage to survive? (Viability just means there's a chance of survival - it can be a tiny tiny chance) And the rates of disability and long term health problems in the fraction of babies that do survive?

Seeing assertions like "but a 22week foetus is viable outside the womb" on these debates seems woefully ignorant to me.

Keeping a woman pregnant against her will is directly morally equivalent to enslaving someone of either sex to be connected up to coma patient to act as a budget life-support machine against their will. It is obviously morally unacceptable. The fact that either the coma parient or the 22 week+ foetus might survive if connected up to an artificial (ie normal) life support machine and provided vast amounts of intensive care has no bearing on the obvious immorality of enslaving some individual's actual body against their will to avoid expending that care.

I wouldn't have an objection to giving a pregnant woman who doesn't want a baby the right to choose at before the current 24 week cutoff point (or after if the pregnancy is discovered after that point) that she is willing to carry the foetus for a further X weeks up to a point of her choice and then be allowed to choose early induction/a cesarean to give birth to a live baby for presumably immediate adoption after whatever additional care was needed. (For the sake of NHS resources it would be reasonable to set a minimum of say 36 weeks - at that sort of gestation the baby would need much more moderate levels of care in a high-dependency unit rather than neonatal intensive care).

Currently a woman has no such right and if the pregnancy continues after 24 weeks the woman's bodily autonomy is reduced in favour of the foetus's best interests - so obviously ending that foetus's life before 24 weeks is the only way to preserve one's reasonable and lawful right to self-determination. This alternative would to establish a pathway that legally allows a woman to preserve her right to bodily autonomy and self determination after 24 weeks such that if she chooses she can bring the foetus to a later stage of gestation and end the pregnancy without ending the life of the foetus.

However the physical and emotional trauma involved in giving birth and giving the child away for adoption is enormous and should not be underestimated. I don't seriously advocate the establishment of such a pathway as I believe that the vast majority of the women who considered it would, once fully informed of the consequences to their physical and emotional wellbeing of such a pathway, prefer to choose an earlier abortion within the current legal cutoff period.