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

[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.