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?

No, pro life (in terms of preventing women from accessing legal and safe abortions) is always anti feminist.

And i call bullshit on the idea that they would behave the same way if men were carrying pregnancies.

We have this idea of bodily automony. Which means i cant just help mysef to your body parts in order to save my own life. Or 1000 lives. You cant even be made to donate blood, even to save the life of your own child. If a father were hooked up to his own child by a machine that was using his body to keep the child alive he would be legally and morally allowed to disconnect from them at any time, even if it meant they would die immediately. No one has a right to another persons organs.
Even CORPSES have the right to bodily autonomy - we arent allowed to use their body parts unless they wished it, n matter hw many lives it would save.

The only expemption to this JUST HAPPENS to be the one way in which it only effects women and can not apply men. Yeh sure, we're all buying that that's just a coincidence.

Women have a right to their own bodies. Even if you believe a fetus is exactly equivalent to an adult human they DO NOT have a right to use a woman's body against her will to sustain their own lives. You cant think she's a bad person for doing it (like i might think you're an asshole for not donating blood) but you don't get to try and prevent her from doing it.

Pro-life gives women less rights than corspes and is always anti feminist.

What bloodmagic said.

And no the UK does not have it "about right" now given the NI exemption and the fact that even at 10 weeks a woman can't legally just say "I want an abortion" and it happens. If she has money and is lucky enough to live close to an appropriate clinic then it can be not far off that. However the legal position is still that the silly little woman can't be expected to know her own mind or what is best for her, so two doctors need to agree that it is the right thing to do. How disgustingly patronising. And for women who live further from clinics and can't afford to go private there are plenty of barriers to accessing the procedure swiftly enough to minimise the trauma.

OkPedro - This thread has confused me. The vast majority of people believe abortion fine to a certain stage. That's always been the pro-choice stance.

I've never understood the pro choice stance to be - Abortion, upto the point of Birth, for any reason - and if you dont agree you're a forced birther. That's surely an extreme view.

bloodmagic - Yea the father has the right to unhook himself from his child. Does he have the right to ask the Dr to kill the child, prior to the unhooking?

I believe a pregnancy can be ended at any point. However, if the foetus is viable, then it should be removed without the requirement to kill it.

whatnow that’s quite an extreme position though. You think women should be able to get a CS at 26 or whatever and then doctors would try to save a desperately sick prematurely born infant? I prefer the current laws I think.

26 weeks I mesn

Yes if men were the ones getting pregnant there would definitely be worldwide access to safe abortion nationwide and no one would be able to question it. I also think there would be a much lower birth rate because men couldn't deal with the physical and emotional pain but then that's probably why woman are the carriers, birthers and providers of food.- Ultimately we are the superior sex. I agree with abortion up to the time the nerves connect to the brain (not sure when) but all situations are different and obviously I care more about the established life of the mother that the foetus at whatever stage.

Absolutely @YimminiYoudar

As predicted, many in this thread are choosing to ignore this:

“If men could bear children, the pro-life stance would be exactly the same, as the reasoning behind the pro-life stance has nothing to do with sex.”

And yes, claiming that this is “bullshit” is ignoring the statement.

Smokenbubbles addressed this very point but 2 posts up - or have you not bothered to RTFT before coming back to pronounce (your nonsense).

I also addressed this early on:

I can also never understand how anyone can use the "if men could bear children" argument in any context. If men could bear children, they'd be the biologically oppressed class and the whole discussion is moot.

That’s not addressing it.

The context is clear: people are accusing pro-lifers of being sexist for being pro-life.

When pro-lifers explain that the reasoning behind their stance has nothing to do with the sex of the child bearer and everything to do with the life of the unborn child, nobody has explained how that is a sexist mindset to have.

I would be able to believe you, Devils, were it not for the fact that the laws against aborting any pregnancy apply whether the fetus is alive or dead and whether it will kill the woman or not.
There is a significant portion of the population of the world who view women's entire purpose for existing as reproduce (preferably males) or die trying. Pretending this is not the case is, in my opinion, dishonest.

It's not the "if men could be pregnant" scenario that makes this a sexism issue though.

In general, we agree that it is utterly immoral to compel one person to surrender their bodily autonomy or safety for the benefit of another. Even to save another person's life, and with no other possible way of that life being saved, we cannot be forced to donate so much as a drop of blood. An identical twin with two healthy kidneys could not be forced to give one to his brother who needed a transplant, if he did not wish to do so.

Only pregnant women are expected and required to give up this right which is granted without question to all males and to currently non-pregnant females. The fact that only women have this right withdrawn is what makes it sexism.

Your analysis will get nowhere with anti-abortionists. You are comparing apples with oranges. No man or woman will be compelled to donate blood/organs. It is a false analogy to compare that with pregnancy.

Becoming pregnant is a uniquely female experience- it makes no logical sense to compare that with the scenarios you suggest. You (general you) might not like it but biology makes the pregnant woman responsibe for the well- being of the feotus.

You (general you) can adopt the "bodily autonomy until birth" stance if you want but the reality is almost no one will agree and you will not get legislation permitting abortion to term. Canada in theory has no limit yet Canadian women travel to the U.S..

I remain where I was at the start of this thread and remain of the view that there are extremist arguments being put forward here which would be counter productive, if they had a wider audience, to improving abortion rights for women.

@thebewilderness

Most pro-lifers believe that life-threatening conditions are an exception for abortion.

@YimminiYoudar

This isn't a good argument: "since only women are applicable for bearing children, it would be sexist to make abortion illegal". Nature decided that only women could get pregnant. Pro-lifers didn't decide this.

To further illustrate the flawed logic of that argument, imagine if we lived in a world where only men had arms. Would it be considered "sexist" to suggest that punching people is bad?

Out of curiosity, I wonder how many are actually pro 'full term' freedom to abort?
It's not actually clear how many are. I know many are in favour of bodily autonomy which (in theory) leads to the logical conclusion that the autonomy exists right up until the baby leaves the mother's body, but I'm not how many would defend the autonomy that far.

The issue with two doctors needing to approve the abortion (in then UK) is also little mixed. On the one hand, yes, a woman shouldn't need the approval of anybody, but on the other hand, some women could be pressurised into having an abortion when they don't want one. It's not unreasonable to attempt to put measures in place to prevent this - whether or not that's the approval two doctors is another matter. They are supposed to be assessing if the woman knows what she's doing, and if there is a genuine need to abort in the physical or psychological interests of the mother.
I don't know what the right answer is, but I can some sense in attempting to make sure a woman isn't being pressurised, and of course has the capacity to make the decision.

In the most extreme case (where someone does agree with the right to abort right up the moment of birth) then you end up with a situation where one minute, the baby can be legitimately killed, and a second later, it can't. That feels a little odd, but I guess that's how it would have to be bodily autonomy means 'up until birth'.

Of course we know that 99.999% of women wouldn't leave it that late, but in principle, someone could.

Finally there's the more political issue. Does a feminist stand by her priciples (and fight) that bodily autonomy means 'to the moment of birth' but risk alienating those who see that as extreme, or does she stick with her belief but compromise practically in order to at least make the current abortion landscape better by at least making it more accessible for as many women as possible, and accepting the 24 week (or similar) limit as a reasonable compromise? It might not be the ideal, but it might be one that most people can get along with politically, and have the best outcome for the majority of women?

TheBrilliantMistake you are quite right - I have argued strongly for pro choice on this thread but haven't stated that therefore abortion should be allowed up to the moment of birth on demand (though it appears some posters think I have)

Pragmatically it is reasonable for accessing abortion to get harder as a pregnancy progresses IF that is combined with the service being very easy to access if needed, and there is good sexual health education everywhere and a cultural shift that puts a stop to shaming women for being sexually active so that teens learn to manage their fertility without embarrassment.

Without all this secrecy and shame about periods and sex - how much easier would it be to avoid the situation of only finding out you are pg at 26 weeks?

I wouldn't argue against a legal framework that builds in time limits that say that if you knew you were pg by week X you have to have started the abortion process by week Y or you are effectively consenting to staying the course to week 40. That does fall short of the fully "on demand up to term" position but I don't think it would be an issue as good sexual health services for women generally would mean that 99.9999% of women who didn't want to be pregnant but accidentally got pregnant would find out quickly and have the abortion in the first few weeks.

I would be ok with "no changing your mnd after this point" restrictions but there should be just enough compassionate flexibility in the law to enable that vanishingly-rare case of a woman not finding out till very late to have a (brief) window of choice.

The points about coercion are valid but the current barriers are too high. Two doctors agreeing that it would damage the woman's physical or mental health to continue the pregnancy is not respectful of the capacity of most women to know their own best interests. Abortion providers should certainly still have a duty of care to ensure that a woman isn't being coerced or railroaded into abortion.

I don't think much protection exists to identify and help women in the opposite scenario of being coerced against their will into pregnancy, and that must also be addressed.