Can you be both pro-life and a feminist?

[eveglass]

Yes, that's right! It's time for another round of "debate Julie"! In today's Gazette, there was a letter to the editor by Mary Ann Davis, who says that "you cannot be pro-life and call yourself a feminist." She's referencing this article, in which Janet Bagnall states, "Feminism is about equality, about a woman's right to make her own choices in life, including whether to continue a pregnancy. Without that right, women lose control over their lives."

I'm conflicted about this one. Personally, I'm pro-choice and totally against the idea of telling a woman that she must carry a pregnancy to term. However, if you truly believe that life begins at conception (as I think most pro-lifers do), and that abortions at any stage of a pregnancy are equivalent to murder, I imagine that you could still be pro-life and a feminist. I imagine that there are still ways of supporting women both before the pregnancies have started (comprehensive sex ed, free birth control pills and condoms, etc.) and after their pregnancies have ended (easy adoption services for women who would otherwise have aborted, affordable daycare and support networks for those who choose to keep the children, etc.).

So I'm not sure I agree that being pro-life necessarily excludes you from the feminist camp. Anyone want to take a side in the debate and tell me where I'm going wrong?

Comments

[blackpaladin.livejournal.com]

I think -- and I preface this by saying I'm a heterosexual male, so take my opinion with however much salt you believe it deserves -- that it boils down to the idea of telling someone what they can or cannot do with their body. (Add that to the concept that the majority of pro-lifers seem to be men, and you end up with "men telling women what they can/can't do with their own bodies," which seems pretty anti-feminist, at least on the surface.)

The distinction here seems to be between the ideas of "pro-choice" and "personally anti-abortion." If you don't believe abortion is right, and would never have an abortion yourself, yet you still maintain that you have no authority to tell someone else whether or not they should be able to have an abortion, are you "pro-life" or "pro-choice?" (The ultimate argument here being that both "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are inadequate terms, and an attempt by media and politicians to "simplify" what should be an incredibly intricate and complicated matter into an "us vs. them" debate.)

[eveglass.livejournal.com]

At least to your last point, I totally agree. "Pro-life" and "pro-choice" are oversimplified terms that don't allow for the wider range of opinions. On the other hand, it makes for great sound bites in the media. :(

[reyl.livejournal.com]

Because being pro-life means you are taking your personal religious beliefs and applying them against someone else's bodily autonomy. You can be anti-abortion but still pro-choice, and be a feminist. Being a feminist means respecting a woman's right to make up her own mind, even if you think her decision is wrong.

[eveglass.livejournal.com]

I'm confused as to how you can be anti-abortion and still pro-choice. Could you explain that further?

[reyl.livejournal.com]

I should have capitalized. Pro Choice means you think abortion should be legal. Pro Life means you think abortion should be illegal or severely limited legally. So you can be Pro Choice but still anti-abortion, and be a feminist. But you can't be Pro Life and be a feminist, because you are limiting the ability of women to decide what to do with their body.

[joane.livejournal.com]

Necessarily no, practically, it tends to.

In my experience (and I would love to hear it if I'm wrong), the concept that life begins at conception comes from theories based in religion, not science/biology (the concept of the soul and when it enters the body). I have not yet encountered a purely scientific/biology-based pro-life moment-of-conception argument.

PLEASE NOT that the above statement does not imply value judgement of such claims.

Religious beliefs, of course, do not exist in a vacuum - they tend to come in bundles, conflating with other similar belief sets. Those who have religious beliefs that indicate that life and human self-hood (which is really more the argument) begins at the moment of conception also tend to be against many birth control options. Any options that interfere with the implantation of a fertilized egg (IUD, BCP in some cases, contraceptive injections in some cases) are deemed to be abortifacients and therefore not allowed.

Of course, those are also the options which are most effective and cause the fewest side effects.

Some Judeo-Christian groups go further, based on interpretations of various passages in the Torah and Christian Testament, and forbid any birth control whatsoever, because humankind are commanded to be fruitful and multiply, and using any method of birth control is against God's will.

And then, of course, many such groups also condemn any extramarital sex as sinful, and seem (here's where my opinion's sneaking in...) to view pregnancy as a righteous punishment for any woman who transgresses and *gasp* has slutty unmarried sex.

There are medical groups in the USA right now that refuse to cover treatment for any medical conditions that are "the wages of sin" - extramarital pregnancy and STDs, for instance. Pharmacists in some states are allowed to refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control in situations where it would go against their beliefs - unmarried women, for instance. A lot of American company insurance programs will not cover any form of birth control (but they'll cover impotence medications!). It's becoming a major problem of access as well as of policy.

[eveglass.livejournal.com]

This is one of the most cogent arguments I've read on the topic so far. Thank you.

Pharmacists in some states are allowed to refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control in situations where it would go against their beliefs - unmarried women, for instance.

I have a friend who ran smack-dab into the middle of this. She needed birth control pills for a medical condition (in short, her uterus was cannibalizing itself and the doctors had to induce early menopause when she was in her 20s, so she needed the pills to keep her hormones regulated or something like that). She's from Canada, but was vacationing in the States and tried to get her prescription for birth control pills filled at a pharmacy. Not only did the pharmacist refuse to fill the prescription because it "went against his moral beliefs," but he refused to give the prescription sheet back to her, tore it up, and threw it in the garbage. Which, to me, completely crosses the line between what's acceptable and what isn't.

[daveamongus.livejournal.com]

Not just "practically," but I would add "politically."

Unfortunately in the US, especially, political, religious, and personal identity have becoming deeply enmeshed with one another in recent years, and abortion seems to be a touchstone/litmus test for both sides. (See, for example, how our Senate will obsess over question of how Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan would vote if an overturn to Roe v. Wade came up.)

So, to be feminist is to be liberal is to be pro-choice. To be conservative is to be pro-life. I had a girlfriend in college who would advocate for political candidates solely on the basis of their stance on abortion, their fitness for office otherwise be damned. And that's not considered particularly remarkable.

[sinvraal.livejournal.com]

I think you can be against getting an abortion yourself, for whatever reason (religious or otherwise) and still be feminist. Your body, your choice. But the minute you start using your religion (or otherwise) as a reason to infringe on the bodily autonomy of others, I have trouble calling that feminist.

Bodily autonomy and reproductive control is, IMO, an issue fundamental to gender equality.

[eveglass.livejournal.com]

As a thought experiment, what would you say to someone who completely supported birth control in all its myriad forms, but who argued that once a fetus was conceived, aborting it would be akin to murder? Could such a person be considered a feminist?

[sinvraal.livejournal.com]

Not in my books. Like I said, I consider bodily autonomy to be a fundamental right, and absolutely essential to gender equality.

I firmly believe that religion should play zero role in the laws of the land. Make laws based on science and logic, to the fullest extend we're capable. Adjust them as necessary, because no system is perfect. Keep religion as the purview of individual choice. So long as said religion does nothing to harm others, knock yourself out.

I have zero tolerance for someone trying to push their religious beliefs on others, no matter how well-intentioned they may be.

[terheyt.livejournal.com]

My reply to the "abortion is murder" argument is "self-defense".

A pregnancy has a severe and permanent effect on a woman's body, and can destroy her life. If we were talking about a man who kidnapped a woman and forced all these changes on her and her only way out would be to kill him, we'd have no problem calling it justified, and calling him an abuser. Now, for most pregnancies, the end result is worth the unpleasantness. But the only one that can assign the relative values and make the decision is the woman in the situation.

[eveglass.livejournal.com]

While it's true that, historically, pregnancy and childbirth were right up there among the leading causes of death for women (and I'm sure this is still true in certain areas of the world), I don't think that's really the case here in most of the developed world (Canada, U.S., Europe, Japan, etc.). At least in Canada, we're looking at less than 5 deaths per 100,000 births. (Referenced from here. (http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/rhs-ssg/matmort-eng.php))

I think most right-thinking people would agree that a woman has a total right to attack (and even kill) in self-defense anyone who wants to kill, rape, or mutilate her. But I'm not sure I agree that pregnancy is equivalent to that.

(That said, I am pro-choice. Just playing devil's advocate here.)

[joane.livejournal.com]

In reply, I'd say that even if our mortality rates are low, even a reasonably easy pregnancy and officially complication-free birth presents lasting physical changes to the mother.

My daughter's birth would be recorded as incident-free, but I ended up in physio and with severely limited mobility for months afterwards with a problem with my pelvic bones (pubic symphysis separation), I have what I assume is a permanent (at this stage) "numb patch" on one leg left over from the epidural (you never want to hear an anesthetist say "oops"...), and I've noticed dramatic changes in my monthly cycle and various drug tolerances that I can only attribute to effects of pregnancy. And that's not even going into the 21 hours of back labour that made me wish I were dead.

I was pro-choice before I got pregnant. After experiencing something that, by everyone's record-keeping would be considered an uneventful pregnancy and birth, I have become vehemently opposed to anybody who would ever dare suggest that any woman should go through this if she didn't, of her own accord, desperately want to.

[eveglass.livejournal.com]

Fair enough. As someone who's never had kids, there are clearly many aspects of this debate that I can't possibly know. (Likewise all the men who decide to chime in on the debate, but that's another matter.)

you never want to hear an anesthetist say "oops"...

Wow... definitely not.

[joane.livejournal.com]

Yup. Nicked something he shouldn't have nicked with the epidural needle, apparently. The first year it was absolutely numb/tingly like pins and needles on the surface, an area on my right thigh about the size of a domestic iron. It's no longer quite so bad, but I can feel a distinct difference between that and the surrounding skin in terms of sensitivity. (the ten months of severe PPD that followed pretty much sucked eggs too, but I can't rightly file that under 'physical problems of pregnancy')

There are reasons we still only have one child, and the largest among those is my abject terror at revisiting the process.

/anecdata

[dicea.livejournal.com]

Any discussion on this topic is inherently meaningless unless strict definitions of the terms "pro life", "pro choice", and "feminist" are provided. If such definitions are provided any discussion will only serve to consider the topic in the terms of those definitions and are then limited to only the terms of those definitions.

So this sounds less like a cop out consider two possible definitions of the word "abortion"

1) government regulated and professionally performed pregnancy termination performed within the first trimester of a human pregnancy regardless of health or viability of the fetus.

2) government regulated and professionally performed pregnancy termination performed any time before natural, non-induced labor.

3) illegal and socially taboo termination of a pregnancy performed with minimal safety measures and funded on a black-market pricing system.

If this word is defined in any of these three ways, any discussion about abortion that uses any one of these definitions will be complete nonsense in terms of any of the other definitions.

[eveglass.livejournal.com]

That makes total sense, and I completely agree.

That said, would you care to define your own terms and offer an opinion?

[terheyt.livejournal.com]

The best argument I've heard (but I forget the source) is that if you are Pro-Life, you don't trust women. You believe that you, sitting around your dinner table chatting with friends, know more and have better judgement than the woman faced with the decision to either have a life-altering, year-long, body modification, or to have a painful and dangerous surgery.

Making the decision for her, from the comfort of your home (or ballot booth come election time) says that you do not trust her to know what she is doing when she makes this decision.

You can be anti-abortion, and give her more information and support and try to convince her, but only if you don't trust her do you take the final decision out of her hands.

[eveglass.livejournal.com]

Fair enough. Interesting argument.

[hugh-mannity.livejournal.com]

You can be "pro-life" and a feminist really easily: Just don't force your beliefs on other people. What you can't be is "pro-forced-pregnancy" and a feminist.

Most of the soi disant "pro-life" camp are really not pro-life at all. They don't care about the quality of life of either the mother or the baby. They don't care if the child is brought up in poverty or suffering. They don't care if the woman dies as a result of complications of the pregnancy.

If one is truly pro-life, one has to be respectful of both lives: the mother and the fetus. A position that is radically different from the current movement.

I'm pro leave people alone. It's up to the individual woman to make her own decision. What society *should* be doing is making it possible for every woman to make good choices. To do that would require making sure that there is widespread accurate sex education, that all methods of contraception are easily available (including the morning after pill -- because shit happens), that good-quality pre-natal care is available so women remain healthy during pregnancy and have healthy babies, that there is a humane adoption process (which protects both child and parents privacy and rights), and that abortion is available as and where needed.

I'd like to see an end to the ban on late term and "partial birth" abortions too -- because by that point in the pregnancy, if an abortion is needed it's because something's gone horribly wrong. In those cases, the situation needs to be dealt with -- forcing a woman to wait till term, or go through labour to deliver a dead or non-viable fetus is simply cruel. A quick and compassionate surgical solution is needed.

In an ideal world, there would be no unwanted pregnancies and no complications of pregnancy. As we don't yet live in an ideal world, we still need the option of abortion.

[eveglass.livejournal.com]

I'm pro leave people alone.

I think I'm in love with this sentence. As well as the paragraph that follows it.

[joane.livejournal.com]

Yes, this. All of it. And far more eloquently than I could frame.

[hoppibadge.livejournal.com]

You can be a feminist and hold your faith relevant and central to your personal choice but you cannot be a feminist and use the tenets of your faith to impose your religious views on others of your gender.

The pro-life movement uses the "life begins at..." argument to advocate for the rights of the unborn over and above a woman's right to bodily integrity and autonomy, including in the context of her reproductive rights that are recognized in law.

But you can't say you're an advocate for feminist rights in one breath and make a case for imposing your personal religious beliefs over another woman's body in another.

So, no, you cannot be a pro-life feminist. It's like being half-pregnant.

[loreleiskye.livejournal.com]

The whole feminist movement is as confusing to me as the pro-life movement.

The right to choose is not just about the right to have an abortion, its about the right to carry a pregnancy to term sanely and with health of mother and proto-being in tact. Too many people in both camps forget that part.

Both movements have too many fingers in too many pies, too broad to have a clear-cut idea what any one person who identifies this way actually thinks / feels / believes, too many exceptions and exclusions. As well as too many stereotypes to live up or live down or explain away.

You're posing this question about feminism and pro-life; you could also put similar arguments about the environment, animal rights, alcohol consumption or gay rights and what to do about either - pro or con.

This is why I consider myself a hardened old-time suffragest, which doesn't exclude men as much from advocating for women's rights and continued fight for equality, and emancipation (of which the right to choose one's fertility and marraige status is definately apart of).
:)

[eveglass.livejournal.com]

Dicea makes the excellent point above that this debate is essentially meaningless until you define your terms. I think you both make an excellent case for that.

[blazingmoogle.livejournal.com]

When I look at the "Pro-Life" movement, I don't see people who actually care about the unborn children. I see people who care about limiting and controlling the freedom that women have over their own choices and bodies. It's how I explain the fact that many pro-life groups are also anti-comprehensive-sex-ed lobbies.

[eveglass.livejournal.com]

Right, absolutely. The question I had was whether it was possible in principle to be both pro-life and feminist. Just because many current pro-life groups also happen to be anti-comprehensive-sex-ed doesn't meant that it must necessarily be so.

Of course, there I go idealizing again...

[blazingmoogle.livejournal.com]

The issue with "pro-life" is that they don't want to mandate the choice, they want to close the option of abortion *entirely*.

"Pro-Choice" usually means that, even if you *personally* are against abortion in most (or all) cases, you do not want to see the procedure banned outright.

[blazingmoogle.livejournal.com]

Not to mention pro-choice lobbies in these parts are hypocrits. They care about the children only as long as it's still in the womb, at which point it's the mothers problem, and if she didn't want it well TO BAD THAT'S WHAT YOU GET FOR BEING THE INFERIOR SEX

[jasmine-koran.livejournal.com]

The problem that I have is that when I hear the words "pro-life", my immediate association is a person that believes no woman should have an abortion EVER PERIOD END OF STORY. And no, I do not believe you can truly be a feminist and have that attitude.

However, if the person is question means pro-life as in, "I will never have an abortion because I think it's wrong, but I respect your choice to have one," then they can absolutely be a feminist and, by their definition, pro-life.

[dark-age-gal.livejournal.com]

I agree with many of the comments above that "Pro-life" arguments tend to be problematic. The view that pregnancy is a woman's punishment for sin is certainly one that I have come across more often than I would like (not that it's ever explicitly phrased that way, but it's implied in all the rhetoric).

On the other hand, as a Christian and a rising clergy-woman, I would have to put myself in the Pro-life camp. I believe women have the right to do whatever they want with their own bodies, and I support accesses to birth control, family planning education...all of those things. Where I get uncomfortable in the abortion debates is whether terminating a pregnancy is really just a matter of a woman's relationship with her own body. I'm not making a definitive statement about where life begins, or even if I think that abortion is, strictly speaking murder. But I am troubled by a rhetoric that that hypothetically puts me and my concerns/comfort/preferences (as a woman) over another potential human being's. For me, that is not what being a feminist is about. I thought being a feminist was about saying that I have the same capacity and rights as a man to work and lead in my family/profession/the world (whatever). To turn abortion into some sort of litmus test for one's feminist credentials disturbs me (and has so for years) and I feel puts the rights of the individual woman over our attitude towards the human condition in general. So, I guess where I am going with this is that I am a "humanist" before I am a "feminist." I have trouble advocating for easy abortions on a social level because, for me, there are troubling implications for our attitudes towards human life in that.

That said, the more pragmatic side of me recognizes that abortions are going to happen whether they are legal or not and it's probably better to allow them in the first trimester than to let women seriously hurt themselves trying to have illegal abortions. Sorry to have rambled so long.

[prince-hring.livejournal.com]

I'm going to comment without reading the previous comments (then I'll go back and read them). I may end up repeating something that someone else said, but I don't want to be reacting to what others have written.

Labels are tricky things. I grew up in a household (40-50 years ago) where my Mother was a prominent politician. I never heard about "feminism". My family simply practiced it, but didn't give it a name. Women's liberation? I never knew of an environment when they were not free, already.

My father is a Doctor. He was one of the few MDs willing to perform abortions back when its legality was questionable and the roadblocks many. The medical reports would be euphemistically phrased: "D&C for menstrual irregularity" with a pathology report usually consisting simply of the letters "PC" (meaning Products of Conception). He was also one of those quiet rebels who, when faced with the blank on a form that asked for "Patient's race" would fill in "human".

Because of my upbringing, my viewpoint may be skewed.

When does life begin? Several billion years ago. A human ovum is alive. A human spermatozoa is alive. Their union doesn't magically "create life". It merely continues it.

As for our humanity and how that makes us special, my viewpoints begin from a close understanding of evolution and our place in the total ecosystem. From a simply biological viewpoint, we are not special. That which makes us "human" is the mind that slowly develops, rendering us (after a great deal of learning) full participants in the environment that is our society.

From a secular viewpoint, the whole matter of whether or not abortion is murder lies not in how special we are or whether or not a fetus is human, but in the social contract that we have created against murder: we, ourselves, do not wish to be murdered and we, as people with loved ones, do not want our loved ones murdered. The notion of abortion as murder is a straw-man argument, at best, and a terrible red herring tossed into the fray by people who wonder about that single unprovable element that they claim makes us unique: the soul.

My personal views on abortion are not black and white. I do not like abortion. I've never known a woman to have to choose to have an abortion without it leaving her with a permanent mark on her psyche.

I also believe, with all my heart, that safe and legal access to abortion must be preserved. Full stop. Just because I don't like it doesn't matter one whit: it must remain legal and it must remain available.

If one does not want a world with abortion in it, we should strive for a world with more effective conception control. If we really want control over our bodies, control over our reproductive lives, we need to come up with they type of conception control that has the same effectiveness as sterilization, but can be "turned off" if both partners wish to conceive.

Both.

So, am I a "feminist"? If that means that I believe that every human being should have the same basic rights and that those rights include the choice over whether or not their sexual activity leads to conception, then yes.

Am I "pro life"? Obviously. But I am also a strong advocate for the retention of legal and safe abortion.

Until the day that we can control our reproductive lives with the same effectiveness as we control the overhead lights, then there will be unintentional pregnancies, pregnancies by rape, pregnancies by incest, pregnancies that endanger, pregnancies that are "really bad ideas"(tm)... and any other host of pregnancies that will lead a woman to need to make the difficult decision of having an abortion.

I dream of a day when nobody should have to face that sort of decision.