Pro-life Feminism
Is it possible to be a pro-life feminist? I struggle with this often. I realize I am in the minority in the feminist community.
I do not support the horrific murder of the doctor in Kansas, so we are clear. Sick, sick, sick and never okay.
0
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Pro-life Feminism.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/14043
Is it possible to be a pro-life feminist?
No.
I believe there are almost as many feminisms as there are people.
I don't think it is so simple to say that pro-lifers cannot be feminists.
Abortion debate, much like feminism itself, is highly complex. Neither side, pro life or pro choice, is homogeneous. People pick sides for entirely different reasons...or, they might not fit so easily into one side or another.
As someone who has always been staunchly pro choice, I find it hard to deal with the fact that there are pro life feminists, but they do exist, and I've learned that people are much more complicated that you imagine, and that this debate is very complex.
While I do not necessarily understand the pro life position, and could never take away choice, people have the right to think what they want on the topic, and we as feminists need to hear their voices. I would rather that than pro lifers give up feminism.
I think some dialogue is possible. I don't think we'll agree, but we have to hear each other.
hmmm...I will add that while I do say I think dialogue is vital, I try to stay away from abortion debates. I don't particularly want to rehash the same old things over and over.
and I will say that in Canada, this debate gets a lot less attention. It's big in America for obvious reasons.
i agree with PG
This is an interesting question and my answer would be that as a pro-choice feminist, I am pro-life. We are all pro-life. And as a pro-choice feminist, one can also be anti-abortion. The term 'pro-life' to me is mis-represented and used to the anti-choice movement's advantage.
But in my opinion, one cannot be a feminist without embracing the ideals of a pro-choice movement; that being that a woman has the right to decide what to do with her body, people have a right to comprehensive sex education, affordable health care, and if an abortion is a decision that best benefits a woman, whether it be due to her health, the fetus' health, her lifestyle, the future of the fetus etc., that a safe and legal aboriton be an option.
You said this better than I was going to. So I'll just say:
This.
So in other words, youre for keeping it personal and maintaining personal choice? So if a friend just discovered she was pregnant and came to you for support you would tell her that you support any decision she makes, right? You wouldnt tell her that she's killing a baby or nothing?
I would never say she is killing a baby. For one, it is not a 'baby'. It is a fetus. But yes, I feel that abortion is a very personal choice that a woman makes and if that is a decision she comes to, then she should be supported and have the option of a safe and affordable procedure. One without having to be condemned by protestors, or escorted into a clinic for her safety.
But my main point was that the pro-choice movement is often classified as a pro-abortion movement, when in fact, it is about so much more than just abortion. (Although, abortion is very much an issue!)
"For one, it is not a 'baby'. It is a fetus."
And sometimes, it's still an embryo.
No because you have to support choice. If you do support choice and arent for telling women what choice to choose but choose yourself to not have an abortion out of your own beliefs (that I very much disagree with) then that seems to be the only way ou can actually be pro-life and pro-choice. However, you'd probably have to take away the term pro-life as thats a very judgemental term to use. It insinuates anyone who isnt for your choice is a killer or something. But for any of this to happen, you'd actually have to be pro-choice, but just for making the choice not to abort (and thats only provided you dont change your mind when reality hits).
However, I'm not for the pro-life philosophy even if they respect other peoples choices. Its a very judgemental view to believe that having an abortion is akin to murder. Its very distortive and I'd feel sorry for any woman who actually believed that.This could lead to a woman not having an abortion that she wants for fear that she'll go to hell or any other erroneous belief.
It should be free choice without judgement.
Depends on what you mean with "pro-life." If you support criminalizing health procedures that give women control of their own reproduction, no.
If your personal position is that you would never get an abortion but you won't force your personal decision on someone else, of course.
Either way, if this issue is important to you, please support advocacy groups that support preemptive family planning utilizing birth control. No one advocates abortion, but we must advocate for women's greater control of their own bodies and reproduction.
Of course you can.
If you firmly believe that abortion is murder, why would a woman have the right to choose that?
Because it's her body and she gets to decide whether or not another being (fetus, baby, or full-grown adult) is attached to it.
This.
It all hinges on whether or not you believe that a zygote and beyond = human life, a [potential] person that is entitled to protections of a child.
If you believe this (not saying that I do) then abortion really is unacceptable. We do not consider it a parent's right to kill their toddler or teenager because of a sudden drop in income, emotional unreadiness/instability, etc
If you believe that Life (capital L, bold, italics, underlined...) begins at conception (or anywhere along the spectrum) then induced abortion after that point is murder.
The implications of this idea are hard to reconcile with feminism, but I think you can be "pro-life" feminist. For example, you can support comprehensive sex ed, access to contraception, welfare/support services for mothers and children, reforming the adoption and foster care systems, etc. but simple say, "I believe life begins at conception, thus IN THE PARTICULAR CASE OF PREGNANCY ONLY, I believe the zygote/embryo/fetus/baby's rights to bodily integrity supercede the mother's right to do with her body as she chooses.
That's an interesting statement. If the debate hinges on the personhood of a fetus, does feminism really have an answer to that question? Is it still a gendered issue at that point?
See my comment above. No one, woman or man, is required to give their body to sustain the life of another human who is already born. Therefore, a woman should not be required to give of her body to a being that is questionably a person who has not yet been born. It's gendered because it's only women who are being asked to do this. There are no laws that require everyone, women and men, to donate organs, even to their own children, to keep them alive.
Is disagreeing with that sentiment--that bodily integrity should not be superceded by life-threatening circumstances, a neccesarily antifeminist notion?
When you're only asking women to sacrifice that bodily integrity, yes.
Alright, but someone who supported that primacy of life vs. bodily integrity, applied it to everyone on an equal basis, and opposed the legality of abortion as a reflection of that belief would not neccesarily be antifeminist. Would you agree?
I'd have to see how it plays out in reality since it's just a hypothetical situation. I tend think that if such a reality existed that males and females were indeed equally responsible for preserving life that the idea of bodily integrity would suddenly become much more sacrosanct. Just a theory based on a hypothetical.
I'd have to see how it plays out in reality since it's just a hypothetical situation. I tend think that if such a reality existed that males and females were indeed equally responsible for preserving life that the idea of bodily integrity would suddenly become much more sacrosanct. Just a theory based on a hypothetical.
In theory, its possible to say that every person should be required to give of their time and money and body to save the lives of others, and have that be a perfectly equalist sentiment. Let's call this Philosophy A for now.
In practice, however, none of these other things are mandated by law. There is no movement to force people to become living organ donors-- there isn't even a movement to force people to donate their organs after they die. (Which means that certain segments of society care more about the rights of dead bodies than of live women).
So, if you decide to vote/campaign/speechify etc in an anti-abortion way, you're promoting a sexist form of Philosophy A. Even if you *say* that you want everyone to be equally forced to give up their bodies for the lives of others, there's no realistic way that will happen anytime soon. So I'd say that in the real world nowadays it is sexist to be pro-life, because its saying that women should be forced to give up their bodies in a way not even close to being required of anyone else.
In theory, if we DID implement a system where everyone had to give organ donations, etc, then maybe it would be fair. I'm not sure though. You could still argue that since only women can get pregnant, its disproportionately requiring sacrifices of women over men. Maybe you could try to make it equal by only forcing men to donate organs, and not women, or only women who never got pregnant... It gets really problematic to mandate things like that to such a degree, and to try to assess the fairness of forced pregnancy vs forced kidney donation, etc...
I don't think the organ donation analogy really works here
Suppose your stated goal is to bring about societal change so that the primacy of life is always seen as more important than bodily integrity (i.e., everyone is forced by law to donate organs to people who need them, and everyone would probably have to have free universal healthcare to fund that, etc). Now, suppose your way of trying to reach that goal is to try to make abortion illegal.
I think that's like if my stated goal is to bring about an end to all wars, and my method to reach that goal is to keep gay people out of the army.
What I find so interesting about this approach is that it entails some things very much not in line with large parts of the pro-life movement as we know it. For instance, someone espousing this should probably also espouse full comprehensive sex-ed and access to contraception, since it would reduce the number of abortions (legal or illegal). Also, another thing that would follow from this would be... no rape exceptions, no exceptions in case of incest, any kind of damage to the fetus, or anything like that. The only way I could see an exception work in this scenario is if carrying the pregnancy to term would kill the mother, and even then if the child would live it's a question of which life is more important.
And, of course, the organ donor argument. I'm really not sure how you can argue that forcing women to continue with their pregnancies is necessary but forcing people to be organ donors isn't without somehow falling back onto "but the woman had sex so it's *her fault*!"
I'm not saying this is a common view, a helpful view, or MY view. I'm just positing it as a possible way one could be feminist AND politically pro-life.
Oh, I agree completely and didn't get the impression you believed this. I don't believe it either but have often wondered about what happens if you identify as a feminist but really honestly believe that life begins at conception. You can't really force someone to change their beliefs on that one, but the ramifications are really interesting. In particular, it really shows you how far the pro-life movement is from "just like us except that they think life starts at conception", not just in terms of how much slut-shaming and sex-negativity is built into it but also in terms of a lot of them promoting things (rape exceptions) that should be unconscionable if they really did believe those fetuses were living humans with all the rights of any other.
For the same reason that a man can choose not to donate his kidney to a dying relative.
I don't believe that an embryo is a Human Life, but even if you do believe that, it doesn't follow that women should be required to give up their bodies to sustain that life against their will.
In my modern ethical philosophy class, we had to read an essay by a pro-life feminist that said that abortion essentially falls under the purview of eco-feminism. The womb was an ecosystem, and any massive changes that are willfully done to it are...bad. I'll have to find the reading.
In the interests of being open to all ideas and unoffensive, as well as the idea that I'm not an expert in any of this, I'm not going to say what I thought of these arguments. Suffice it to say, you're not alone. There are other pro-life feminists.
What constitutes a massive change to the uterus? Hormonal birth control? IUDs? Surgery to remove cysts, malignant tumours, or to correct endometriosis? How does one determine, and who gets to determine, which procedures are acceptable and why?
http://ncronline.org/news/ecology/pro-life-eco-feminists-work-consist-ethic-life
You'll have to ask her.
http://ncronline.org/news/ecology/pro-life-eco-feminists-work-consist-ethic-life
You'll have to ask her.
I used to think so, but as I get older I really don't, if by pro-life you mean "thinking abortion should be illegal". If by pro-life you mean "Want to see abortion reduced as much as possible and wouldn't personally have one, but think it should remain legal" then yeah, absolutely you can be a feminist. I know that when I had a pregnancy with a fetus who had anomalies incompatible with life, nothing made me angrier than people who were not in my shoes thinking they knew better than me what the right decision was and I think it's hard to hold the simultaneous views that women are autonomous and independent beings who are able to think for themselves AND that you somehow know better than 1/3 of American women what the right answer for their circumstances are when you've never sat in their exact circumstance.
If by pro-life you mean "Want to see abortion reduced as much as possible and wouldn't personally have one, but think it should remain legal"
Pro-life is a political label that means you want to make abortion illegal (at least in the vast majority of cases).
It doesn't matter what other caveats you put on it; if you think abortion should remain legal you are not "pro life" as the label is defined.
Its like saying "I'm a democrat but personally I vote republican."
No, pro-life can be a moral or religious belief but not a legal one.
Are you in the US? Unfortunately, in the US the phrase "pro-life" has turned into a political label. You can insist that it isn't, but it will be just as confusing as insisting that "democrat" means "one who loves democracy" rather than "one who votes for the political party called democrats."
No, pro-life can be a moral or religious belief but not a political one.
I live in the US. See my comment here
Are you in the US? Unfortunately, in the US the phrase "pro-life" has become a political label. You can insist that it isn't, but it will be just as confusing as insisting that "democrat" really just means "one who values democracy".
If you want to go around saying that you are pro-life when you actually believe abortion should be legal, you should be prepared for:
(1) Explaining and qualifying your position every time you mention it, and
(2) Giving an out to other people who use "pro-life" to mean they are against abortion; this way some people will assume that they actually do think abortion should be legal.
I do prefer the term "anti-choice" or something like that, but they've used "pro-life" enough that that's what the word has come to mean. (I suppose I could also go around telling people I'm gay and then later explain that I like to use the original meaning of words and really I'm just a happy person)
(Sorry for the multiple posts, this forum software is awful.)
I understand that Pantheon, which is why my initial answer was no, but I also know that not everyone realizes that or uses it that way. I just wanted to clarify what this poster meant. I used to be one of those "personally pro-life, politically pro-choice" people until I realized how stupid it sounded. Now I just leave it at "I'm pro-choice because women have the right to make their own damn reproductive choices"
I think it depends. If you're personally pro-life, as in would never terminate a pregnancy yourself, but believe your ethical decisions should not impact the ability of others to choose to terminate, then you can.
If you think no one should be able to have that choice, then no. Feminist ideals are about a woman's autonomy, including what she does with her own body.
This. Since opinions vary on this topic from woman to woman, a feminist would want to respect each viewpoint and support freedom of choice on the matter. If you want to suppress that choice, you are limiting the ability for women to think and decide for themselves. I can't wrap my feminist mind around that idea at all.
I think that most feminists would agree that autonomy should be limited, for women as well as for men, by laws and suchlike.
I think you're confused as to what "autonomy" means. Laws punish people who make decisions that society has deemed "wrong." They don't take away the capacity to make decisions, even "wrong" ones.
I would think that punishment would be a deterrent, or limiting factor, to one's autonomy--especially if the punishment would be the removal of that autonomy. Threat of punishment is certainly coercion, and coercion is a limitation of autonomy.
Shutting down abortion clinics, killing and/or prosecuting doctors that perform abortions, and making it impossible for women to receive them IS limiting their ability to make a decision.
Of course, we can go back to the rusty hanger days when women still decided to act autonomously, but I think that's a bad idea.
Limiting people's ability to make decisions isn't the antithesis of the goals of feminism. There are lots of CHOICES we have in life. Some, we all agree are bad choices. Some of those bad choices are illegal, should never be chosen, should be fought tooth and nail from being allowed to happen. So the concept of choice, any choice, not being limited isn't a good philosophy to start out with.
I believe there is a difference in limiting people's ability to make choices and helping them to make BETTER choices.
So would you say that, to you, there's no choice that should be limited? There are degrees of better and worse, but nothing should be taken off the table?
I look at this kind of like you are asking the question, "Can I be Democrat and pro-life?" Yes, of course you can. In any given movement or political group, there are different levels of involvement and many different positions and ideals. Feminism is no different. However, you will find that a lot of feminists, including me, will disagree with your position. That's really ok, because there are many schools of feminism and no one way of thinking has a copyright on what is and isn't feminism.
I did a little reading about feminism to understand where I fit and found out that there are many brands of feminism. As it turns out there are feminist groups who fully support my beliefs. They were asking the same questions I was asking myself before I was even born. Finding others who believe what you do can help you back your argument the next time someone says that you can't be a feminist because you believe x, y or z. There is plenty of room for disagreement within the movement and that means there is room for you to disagree as well.
My suggestion is that you read up on it and find out if there are others like you, who identify with both the pro-life movement and feminism. You are probably not the only woman to ever wonder if you can find a meeting of the minds that allows you to be both feminist and prolife. Maybe you are pro-life for religious or other reasons, yet you still identify with feminism. There is absolutely nothing wrong with exploring your beliefs and doing your research to find out what works for you. I think that you should feel free to explore feminism to your hearts content. Don't let anyone tell you who you can and can't be.
One can be anti-abortion and still be a feminist. You can work to minimize the number of abortions, and still be a feminist. You can do everything in your power to persuade women not to have abortions, and still be a feminist. But you cannot advocate for abortion to be illegal and still be a feminist. This is why:
Even if a fetus is considered to be a fully fledged human being, to make abortion illegal is to put the rights of the fetus above the rights of the woman carrying it. In other words, every woman becomes a second-class citizen the second she becomes pregnant. Because men cannot become pregnant, this is institutionalized gender discrimination by the state, and you cannot support that and still be a feminist.
Luckily for pro-life feminists, there are lots of things you can do to decrease abortions while still keeping it safe, legal, and available.
This is my view as well.
keeping it safe, legal, and available.
The goal of the pro-choice movement.
I like this post. Its a good way to look at things. We should be advocating for better sex-ed, birth control availability, etc. We should be reducing the number of people who get pregnant unintentionally in the first place.
But as long as you want to keep abortion safe, legal, and available, that makes you "pro-choice", not "pro-life." Its all about women who do need it having the access to that choice.
You can do everything in your power to persuade women not to have abortions, and still be a feminist.
Can you? Because this includes everything apart from voting to ban abortion and breaking the law. So if someone lies to a woman about abortion -- telling her that she'll suffer from "post-abortion syndrome", get breast cancer, become infertile -- that person can be a feminist? If someone yells at a woman for walking into a Planned Parenthood about "murdering her child," that person is a feminist? I don't think so.
I wouldn't consider bullying and/or deception to be persuasion. My personal take on persuasion is that it requires an element of good faith.
But I could, yes, imagine someone who thought abortion was a great moral evil and tried to stop women from choosing it by any means necessary. In fact, that probably how those assholes outside of clinics conceive of their activities. And as long as they support women's rights and aren't trying to make abortion illegal, I don't think they're anti-feminist. I've never met such a creature and find it hard to imagine that one exists, but they might.
I would still think they're an asshole, though.
Wait a second. You don't think protesters outside of abortion clinics (and some women's health care centers that don't even provide abortion) act to make abortion outlawed? I guess if they don't need to promote making abortion illegal as long as they protest outside of clinics and intimidate women out of making their own decisions and threaten doctors who provide this legal service, they can still be pro-feminist *eye roll*
This is what I wrote after describing an imaginary clinic protester who wanted to keep abortion legal:
"I've never met such a creature and find it hard to imagine that one exists, but they might."
I don't know how I can be more clear.
I am a pro-life feminist. I'm also against making abortion illegal.
But then I just think you're using the term "pro-life" incorrectly. In truth, if you are not wanting to take that choice away from any woman then you are "pro-choice" it is just that your CHOICE would be to not have an abortion.
I still consider myself pro-life, because I do consider abortion the taking of a human life. I am against it for moral reasons. I just think it's unrealistic to criminalize it. My thoughts on abortion go beyond what I would do, my personal choice to never have one, into believing that it is fundamentally morally wrong and a violation of human rights. Yet, I am still against making it illegal because it would be impossible to make it illegal without people dying. Both situations, legal or illegal are a tragedy in my mind, and making it illegal would not stop abortions from happening. I still consider my position pro-life.
See my comment up above about political labels. If you go around saying you are "pro life" its like saying "I want abortion to be illegal." If that's not what you mean, you have to choose a different phrase.
Otherwise its just as confusing as if I go around (in the US) saying "I'm a democrat" and then only sometimes remember to add the caveat "but I define that to mean that I value democracy, and actually I vote republican."
"If you go around saying you are "pro life" its like saying "I want abortion to be illegal." "
This isn't true. The pro-life movement is diverse. Also, people can label their belief systems any way they choose. The pro-life movement is really about where you believe life begins and whether you believe abortion and other issues that deal with morality and life (euthanasia, etc.) are moral or immoral.
I have and will continue to clarify my view. But I will not say that I am pro-choice because I do not necessarily support the choice to have an abortion, I just don't think it should be illegal. It's like saying that someone who is for the decriminalization of marijuana must call themselves "pro-marijuana". Maybe they are for decriminalization for economic reasons (not sending more people to jail, using tax dollars to fight it) but still believe marijuana is a negative entity.
I will clarify my beliefs, and I will also choose my own identities. And I identify as pro-life.
Someone who thinks marijuana should be legal would be pro having the legal CHOICE to obtain marijuana, not necessarily pro-marijuana.
If you think that abortion should be legal, you think that women should have a legal choice to have an abortion. Unless you think that it should be legal but the choice should be up to someone else? (Who, their husbands? I doubt you think that).
You don't have to approve of their final decision in order to be in favor of them having the legal right to make that decision, which is what pro-choice means.
Whenever I have heard people say pro-choice they mean they will support whatever choice a woman makes. I don't support all the choices.
Most people are intelligent enough to understand my position after all but two sentences explaining it.
I think by "support" they mean they won't try to stop her with laws and blockades and threats of violence. It doesn't mean they have to approve of every decision. That's sort of the cornerstone of our society-- I don't have to agree with anything about how you live your life in order to defend your right to make your own choices, state your own opinions, etc.
I understand your position perfectly well; I just think that your position is described better by the pro-choice label than the pro-life label (at the very least, I would tell people you are both, that way they will get the dilemma and ask you to explain). Obviously you can call yourself whatever you want, but it doesn't mean it will be clear to the people with whom you are trying to communicate.
"They mean that they aren't going to try to stop those people from making those choices, by putting laws and blockades and threats of violence in the way."
I am also completely opposed to such methods of coercion and violence. It is completely wrong an unacceptable to intimidate, threaten and hurt because you may not agree with someone.
I understand your position perfectly well, I just think its more accurately described by the pro-choice label than the pro-life label. If you want abortion to be legal and available, that's pro-choice.
People who say they support ALL choices that strangers make don't generally mean that they've thought about the details of each choice and they approve of it (how could they possibly know enough about it to think that?). They mean that they aren't going to try to stop those people from making those choices, by putting laws and blockades and threats of violence in the way.
I support the right of any woman to have an abortion if she so chooses. That doesn't mean I think everyone who has an abortion made the right choice, or even that everyone who chose to continue a pregnancy made the right choice. It means that I think it was their choice to make.
Its sort of the cornerstone of our society. I don't have to approve of your choices or opinions in order to defend your right to have them.
(Commenting on this website is totally broken. I don't know if this went through already, but after this try I'm out. Its too frustrating trying to post things.)
Sounds like you're pro-life and pro-choice. The distinction you're making is one of the reasons so many of us use the label "anti-choice", which I consider more a more precise way of labeling people who want to take away that right to choose.
I honestly don't see the confusion here. You either want women to have the right to choose or you don't. You think abortion should be legal or illegal. If you think it should be legal, then you're "pro-choice" (regardless of what you yourself would do if you found out you were pregnant). If you don't believe women should have the right to choose then you would be on the side that politically call themselves "pro-life" even though many refer to that side as "anti-choice." It's really rather simple. One involves a CHOICE. One doesn't.
I'm glad someone decided to write a post about this. After I read about Dr. Tiller, and found out that he was a late-term abortion provider, I started to think about that. I consider my self pro-choice but am extrememly uncomfortbale with the idea of late-term abortions. I was born 7 weeks premature, as happens often with multiple births(I'm a twin) and find it hard to be comfortable with the idea of an abortion possibly days before a child is born.
You might want to read up on some of the real life stories of women who've had late term abortions. They don't do it just for the hell of it-- in most cases they do it because they've found out that the mother and/or the baby will have a very high chance of death and suffering if they continue the pregnancy. Sometimes there are cases where the fetus is healthy but the abortion happened late for other reasons-- like when a 12 year old or a mentally disabled person is raped and doesn't realize she's pregnant until 5 months have gone by.
http://www.aheartbreakingchoice.com/kansasstories.html
Thanks for the link. I didn't mean to imply that women were getting late-term abortions "just for the hell of it."
I think, after reading ggg_girl's comments that my answer would be No, you cannot be pro-life and a feminist. She says that she is pro-life but that she does not think is is realistic to outlaw abortions. But she also said that she does not support the choice to have an abortion. She stated as well that she does not want women to die because of the option of abortion being illegal. So here is my conclusion...if it was a proven fact that outlawing abortions would not lead to any deaths, then it seems to me that ggg_girl would begin top fight for the outlaw of abortions only because no one would die if they were outlawed. So, it has nothing to do with the fact that a woman's body should be hers to decide what she wants to do, it has more to do with the fact that "as long as the woman and baby do not die, then it is fine." The abortion issue has gone wayyyy beyond "well more deaths would result in this case" and it is now a battle between whether we should have rights over our own bodies, or whether someone else should have that right. I'm sorry, but I will never let someone tell me what I can and cannot do with my body or discourage me from ever getting an abortion if i need one. So, to say you are pro-life but just discourage abortions to me = you do not care about the life of the woman or the fact that her body is her own. You only care about the embryo/fetus. Nuff said.
"you do not care about the life of the woman"
I do care about the life of the woman. That is why I am not against it being legal.
"you do not care about the life of the woman or the fact that her body is her own."
You need the entire sentence in context. And the fact that you only responded to that part of my entire statement only furthers my point.
"And the fact that you only responded to that part of my entire statement only furthers my point."
I was not trying to disregard your statement, only to point out that the lives and health of women are very important to me.
"ggg_girl would begin top fight for the outlaw of abortions only because no one would die if they were outlawed."
This is not true, I do believe abortion should be legal. Just because I don't agree with it and think it's wrong doesn't mean I support outlawing it. There are lots of things that individual people believe are immoral that are legal. Women would always die if abortion were outlawed, always.
I believe that abortion is the taking of a human life. If it were outlawed, women would die. Legal or illegal, abortion results in death in my view.
What I am saying is that if, by some way, outlawing abortion did not result in any deaths (which would never happen, but i am speaking completely hypothetically here) you are saying you would not try and support an ban on abortion? Even if there were only fetus' being terminated and if abortion was outlawed and absolutely no women would die as a result? I do not think you would hesitate to start supporting a ban because of the way you have presented your views. You said you only want it to remain legal because you know making it illegal is hopeless and futile. But you would never support a woman's right to choose an abortion because you believe it is murder, correct? So what I am saying is that your beliefs are not much better than the people who believe that abortion should be banned under any circumstances because you do not support a woman's right to own her own body and make her own decisions. You do not support her right and you would instead prefer if there was a way to stop her from having an abortion without her getting hurt. You still want her only option to have the baby if her life is in no danger and that to me is still offensive.
No, I would not want it to be illegal then either. There are still high risk pregnancies that can cause organ failure or death of the fetus or mother. Even though I wouldn't support most decisions to have an abortion, that doesn't mean I don't care about women, or want to see abortion illegal, or don't understand the reasons women make that choice, or don't care about the health or lives of women.
And yet, even with all that, you still say that you would not support a woman's decision if she wanted to have an abortion; even after saying that you understand why she would do it. It is one thing to say that you would never have one yourself, but it is another to say that you do not want others to have it. If you truly believe that you would never want abortion illegal in any circumstances because of the harm it might bestow on women then you are pro-choice because you do not want to take that choice away from women.
It seems like we agree on what the law should say about abortion and disagree on the moral implications of abortion.
I agree that we disagree on the moral implications of it. I cannot disprove to you that the fetus is a child because it will eventually grow to be a human being. But that does not affect my decision when it comes to abortion. I believe more than the rights of the woman come above the rights of her fetus. The fetus should not automatically have more rights just because it is a "helpless child" or appears to be more innocent. I also do not believe that bearing a child should be a punishment upon couples who have sex and they should be able to deal with the situation as they please.
But I still believe that you are pro-choice; but because you associate that statement with being "pro-abortion" then you reject it.
I do not believe that a fetus should somehow have more rights than the mother. I do believe that a fetus is a human life. I believe that abortion is the taking of a human life.
Here's an analogy:
Not talking about fetuses, in the real world, when is the only time you are justified in killing another person? Answer: self-defense. Imagine a mentally ill person is about to shoot you. You are perfectly justified in shooting them first. No, you don't wait around to see if they'll actually kill you, or if they'll miss and shoot your arm or leg; you kill them because they are directly threatening your life. It doesn't matter that they're mentally ill and have no idea what they're doing ("innocent"). You aren't going to wait around and see if you die.
The above scenario is how I view abortion because of medical necessity - high risk pregnancies. Terminating a pregnancy when it can result in your own organ failure, severe infection or death is nothing short of self-defense.
I understand that you think abortion in the case of the mother's life being in danger in necessary; I never tried to deny that. But I also understand that if the mother's life is not in danger, then you think it would be wrong of her to abort her fetus. I still have a problem with this because in this case, you are putting the fetus' rights over the rights of the mother. I have said before that I cannot disprove that the fetus will someday grow to be a human being to you. But that does not mean I believe that just because that fetus will someday become a human and some women decide to abort them that it is murder. Unlike murdering someone on a whim or murdering someone you have a grudge against, etc, aborting an entity that cannot exist outside the womb and lives off it's host mother is different. The woman is not required to house that child and birth it if she does not want to/does not feel ready/if it threatens her life/for whatever reason. If you require a woman to do so, then I believe that is when rights are being taken away. A woman should be able to make her own decision regardless of what it may be. Many pro-choicers believe this, and that is why you don't see them protesting outside pregnancy crisis centers or maternity wards telling them to get an abortion. Because they believe in choice. Pro-lifers on the other hand only believe in rights for the fetus.
What I am saying is that if, by some way, outlawing abortion did not result in any deaths (which would never happen, but i am speaking completely hypothetically here) you are saying you would not try and support an ban on abortion? Even if there were only fetus' being terminated and if abortion was outlawed and absolutely no women would die as a result? I do not think you would hesitate to start supporting a ban because of the way you have presented your views. You said you only want it to remain legal because you know making it illegal is hopeless and futile. But you would never support a woman's right to choose an abortion because you believe it is murder, correct? So what I am saying is that your beliefs are not much better than the people who believe that abortion should be banned under any circumstances because you do not support a woman's right to own her own body and make her own decisions. You do not support her right and you would instead prefer if there was a way to stop her from having an abortion without her getting hurt. You still want her only option to have the baby if her life is in no danger and that to me is still offensive.
sorry for the repeated comment :/
As long as we're talking counter-factuals, how many of us would support abortion if there was a way to remove the fetus and allow it to gestate outside a woman's body, or in the body of a willing recipient? I'm not saying that technology is remotely feasible, but it might change people's positions.
*raises hand*
Basically, what you're talking about is adoption. Instead of someone adopting a child after she or he is born, someone is adopting an embryo or fetus. People can adopt embryos already from fertility clinics. But it's the couple or the woman, depending on the case, who decides if their unused embryos are either placed in another woman or discarded. some women don't want someone else raising their children. I wouldn't want someone else raising my child. I should be allowed to have the choice to terminate a pregnancy and not have the embryo or fetus transplanted into another woman. Some women or couples want to hold a funeral ceremony for the aborted embryo or fetus, which is totally within their rights. Embryos, and fetuses belong to women when they're inside women. They also belong to women (or men too, depending on the circumstance) when they're outside the body. Ultimately, the owner(s) of the embryo or fetus make the decision what happens to it. I'd personally want my aborted embryo or fetus to be donated to research to hopefully find cures for debilitating diseases. These choices should always be available to me.
Since what I've described would require a level of technology so advanced that it might as well be magic, and the social implications are also pretty widespread (i.e. there would never be enough volunteer recipients if a living womb would be required, or adoptive parents if not, leaving the children to be raised by the state).
I could envision an interesting dystopic science fiction novel around the idea, but I don't think it's any more feasible than, say, lightsabers or warp drive.
So it's safe to say you and I won't have to actually have to deal with any of this in our lifetimes. That being said, I would disagree with you in our little imaginary world. When a fetus is in a woman's body and she's the one who has to deal with the implications of her decision, then she is the only one with sufficient standing to decide whether to carry it to term.
But if there were a procedure to take the fetus out of her body with no harm to either one, and the fetus could then be brought to term on its own, I think that changes things enough that the fetus might be considered to have some rights.
Of course, my experiences are bound to have an effect there. I have a 1 year old daughter I love more than life, and have friends who have been involved in every aspect of adoption from being adoptive parents to being adopted to giving up children for adoption.
Personally, I'm glad the magic/tech doesn't exist so that I don't have to decide what I believe.
But I can imagine a great sci-fi story out of it: The human race has become effectively immortal, thanks to a cheap and easy cloning technology that allows us to transfer our consciousness into a new body. Our heroine discovers that the source of these clones are aborted first-term fetuses, and that they could actually be brought to term. What does she do? Would people give up immortality if they knew it came at the price of wiping out a potential new life?
Sort of a cross between Soylent Green and The Sixth Day, preferably leaving out all the bits with Arnold Schwarzenegger.
The technology you described in that first comment of yours that I replied to isn't science fiction. It's called transoption, and the idea of it is being tossed around as a solution to abortion (which it isn't, for the reasons I stated above). While that might just be an interesting idea, it doesn't matter. Like I said, in the real world, we already have a system where embryos can be adopted out. Those embryos are property of the parent(s) of the embryo. A fertility clinic can't use one woman's embryos for other women's pregnancies without getting permission from the owner(s) of the embryos. What happens to the embryos is up to who owns them. There was a whole episode of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit about it. The fertility clinic who used one woman's embryos inside a dozen different women didn't come out too well in that episode.
WOW! i don't post often, as i'm a little forum shy, but i'm surprised to see the huge discussion. i know this is a highly emotional and hot-button issue for people so i'm glad to see that most of this was so thoughtful and respectful, too often it turns nasty.
thank you for the reading suggestions, i have read some about eco-feminism and other anti-abortion feminism (please don't take offense to the term 'pro-life', i meant none) before, i will have to look for some more.
thank you, ladies
Well, I think that the answer to that question isn't answerable with a simple yes or no statement.
Please note that I'm not going to argue a point--I'd just like to analyze a couple of thought experiments in context. These are taking a fetus's personhood at face value. Obviously that's not exactly agreed upon, but I think being able to think in those terms is absolutely necessary for dialogue--even if only to persuade a person out of belief in that personhood.
There are arguments for the continued legality of abortion even with the right-to-life accepted. Judith Jarvis Thompson's A Right To Life (1971) numbers among them, and it was discussed on the previous pro-life-feminism thread. One thing I think is interesting, though, is how this argument seems to provide for an explanation as for how one could be against abortion except in cases of rape or incest--by voluntarily having sex, one invites the possibility of becoming pregnant even if she uses contraception, and is therefore responsible for the life created. Though the jump to legislature obviously presents problems (what about marital rape, medical exceptions) this has always seemed somewhat coherent to me, even though I don't agree with it. Is this really gendered? When a man fathers a child, American society expects him to pay child support if his financial assets are separate from those of the mother (assuming the mother is the main parent). The right to property has historically been spoken of in the same terms as bodily autonomy--so isn't that bearing out that same 'responsibility' towards the well-being of a child?
Please note that I am not arguing this personally, and at the moment stand at a Clintonian "safe, legal, rare" viewpoint about abortion just as the majority of commenters seem to. I'd like to hear others' answers to these questions in order to fine-tune the thought, though...
Thank you for reading this; I kick ass, you kick ass, and we're all making the world a better place through taking the time to think through these issues.
I've heard men make this argument, but the simple fact is that money isn't legally inviolate the way a person's body is. Money is a social creation, and there are various social contracts which can impact upon it. If you don't want your money taken, there are ways to opt out of the system through barter, growing your own food, etc. It's hard, but it can be done.
Carrying a child to term, on the other hand, puts your actual life at risk, and permanently changes your body. That's not something the government should be allowed to force on people.
I do feel the need to clarify my own position on abortion, though: Because I am a man, it's only as much my business as the woman I get pregnant wants it to be. The birth of my daughter only drove home the radical nature of pregnancy and childbirth, and reminded me, ultimately, how little skin I have in the game of reproduction.
The fact that I am pro-choice is mostly an outgrowth of that awareness.
I like to think it is possible to be a prolifer and a feminist... I myself am neither a prolifer or a supporter of abortion because I can't chose a side both have good arguments... I'm smack dab in the middle of the fence... I'm the pesky cat who sits on your fence at midnight and yowls loudly.... you sometimes throw a shoe at me(i had to use a funny metaphor forgive me).... I like to think we should have control of our bodies and be able to have an abortion but I also believe that if you don't want the baby that once it is born you can give it up for adoption... does it cost money to give up babies for adoption? but yeah... I'm somehwere in between on this issue.. both side make sense yet I think some sort of compromise can be made.
One thing to remember is that many children that are put up for adoption either remain there for a long time until someone finally decides to adopt them out of the many other children, and also a lot of children go to foster homes where they might be abused or develop depression after finding out they are adopted. Also, when a woman gives birth to a baby it puts a lot of stress on her body. She might even have a medical complication from it. And what about women whose families would disown them if they were ever found to be pregnant and so they choose to have an abortion?
There are just so many factors that come into play here than a lot of people don't think about. It is not simple, on either side, to just be like "oh well, have the baby and give it up for adoption" or "oh, just have an abortion, no big deal." Having an abortion is usually a tough decision in and of itself to make, remember that.
if by "pro-life" you mean "i think abortion should be illegal," then NO you are not a feminist in my eyes at all, not even a little. because feminism is about CHOICES, and if you seek to make abortion illegal, you are seeking to take away choices and bodily integrity from women.
if by "pro-life" you mean "i personally would not have an abortion if i had an unplanned pregnancy, but i respect the fact that for some women, abortion is the right choice," then yes, that is a feminist viewpoint.
so i guess it depends on what exactly you mean by "pro-life."
I personally would identify both as pro-life and pro-choice, because I believe that life starts at conception and that abortion is wrong, however I also strongly believe that every woman should have the right to choose. So I think that a feminist can disagree with abortion so long as she does not support denying women their right to legal abortions. Basically I think that a feminist can be pro-life but not anti-choice.
For the purposes of this conversation and all other abortion discussions, the following definitions for "pro-choice" and "pro-life" should be used:
pro-choice: the belief that abortion should be legal
pro-life: the belief that abortion should be illegal
Personal beliefs about abortion are too varied to be considered in how we arrive to a conclusion about the legality of abortion. Therefore . . . .
If you believe abortion should be legal, you are pro-choice.
If you believe abortion should be illegal, you are pro-life.
If you believe abortion is wrong, but don't think it should be outlawed, you are pro-choice.
If you believe abortion should be legal but wouldn't have one yourself or like the idea of a family member or friend getting one, you are pro-choice.
If you believe abortion should be illegal but support all birth control options and social services to support women and children, you are pro-life.
If you believe abortion should be legal sometimes and illegal other times, you are undecided, and that's okay. I guess you can call yourself whatever you want, although that might be easier said than done. You might want to learn more about the issue and think about it more before you decide which label best fits with your views. Remember that "right/wrong" means nothing when it comes to "legal/illegal." They're not the same thing.
Both pro-choice and pro-life organizations have positions on other issues, such as sex education, death penalty, gay marriage, and euthanasia. You don't have to agree with anybody on these issues to be pro-choice or pro-life. You can support the death penalty and be pro-life, or you can be against gay marriage and be pro-choice. Some people might tell you you're contradicting yourself, but in the abortion debate, it ultimately doesn't matter what your views are on other choice or life issues. The primary difference between pro-choice and pro-life is the legality of abortion, so it's easiest and most accurate to frame the abortion in this way. All the other stuff just confuses people.
"You can support the death penalty and be pro-life, or you can be against gay marriage and be pro-choice. Some people might tell you you're contradicting yourself, but in the abortion debate, it ultimately doesn't matter what your views are on other choice or life issues."
I don't agree with this statement or the mentality behind it. I do agree though that the terms "pro-life and pro-choice" are used in the context of the abortion debate most of the time. I think though, just like with religion, it is not a good idea to pick and choose what you want to believe in and what you want to ignore because that just creates more flexibility for people to be exactly as you say, "Oh well I am pro-life but I support the death penalty because those are criminals so they deserve it" or "Oh I am pro-choice but I am against gay marriage because those people are disgusting and so they dont deserve marriage." It creates a lot more problems in my opinion.
Other than that, I agreed with everything you had said above that :)
I don't see the value in saying that someone can't actually be for abortion rights (be pro-choice) if they don't believe in the choice of gay people to get married. I also don't see the value in saying that someone can't really be for outlawing abortion (be pro-life) because they support the death penalty. I think quibbling over these other issues places abortion rights on the back-burner and derails an important discussion. I'm not saying there isn't a contradiction. I'm just saying that when it comes to women's rights to abortion, all the other stuff doesn't really matter.
Some stuff matters more to some than others. I don't think one issue is necessarily more important than the other. I think all of these issues are greatly important and that all of us should think critically about them and our stances on them, especially the people who take a stance against/for something based on blind faith.
This is tough. But it seems like the only way this could happen is in a matter of personal and public choice.
What I mean is this: I am pro-life when it comes to myself, but when it comes to women who AREN'T me, I believe they should have the choice because I shouldn't have a say in their body. So would I have an abortion? I really don't think that I could do it, but I wouldn't judge my best friend if she did it.
I realize that things can be a lot more complicated than that, but I think maybe you should look into other arguments and truly decide what side you are on once and for all. On the other hand, maybe if you can't decide it may be best to not engage in the issue, even if people on here and other "typical" feminists and pro-lifers try to make you choose. You're your own person and you shouldn't be forced to pick a side if you don't want to.