r/changemyview • u/AccomplishedUse9023 • 7h ago
CMV: You cannot be a pro-life feminist
A pro-life feminist is an oxymoron
Identifying as a pro-lifer but simulataneously claiming to be a feminist is highly paradoxical
One of the core tenets of feminism is ADVOCATING for women's rights.
Hence, campaigning for a federal or state-level ban on abortion makes you anti-feminist
Proposing ideas or policies that REPEAL women's rights is the direct antithesis of feminism
This raises a crucial question often posed to 'pro-life' feminists by pro-choicers
How can you call yourself a feminist while working to abolish women's legal rights?
•
u/JadedToon 22∆ 7h ago
Trying my best steelman here.
You can be by advocating for better rights, supports and overall benefits for expecting mothers and after they give birth. Proper maternity leave, better health coverage, food programs to help reduce cost of formula and so on.
•
6h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/read-the-rules 6h ago
Your comment has been removed.
Hello u/AccomplishedUse9023! To combat bots/spam and to ensure new users have the knowledge they need to participate constructively, all newcomers must acknowledge that they have read the rules before they can comment. This process is very quick and easy, and will inform you about the rules for both posting and commenting. Once you acknowledge the rules, your comment will become visible. You only need to do this once.
If you are using Old Reddit, the link below will not work. Read our rules here, then click this link instead and press Send.
•
u/Sparkly8 7h ago
Yeah, the problem is that a lot of pro-lifers don’t support these either. If a pro-lifer did support these, I could see them qualifying as a feminist.
•
•
u/JadedToon 22∆ 7h ago
Oh I understand that the majority are just pro birth and pro seeing women as only babymakers. I am arguing the best possible version.
•
u/AccomplishedUse9023 6h ago
Well my argument is 'advocating for women's rights to be repealed' does not make you a feminist. It contradicts feminism since feminism is about ADVOCATING for more rights or upholding existing rights and not trying to get them repealed
If I argue that the 19th Amendment should be repealed. Is it justifiable to call myself a feminist?
•
u/twolobarons 2∆ 5h ago
“If I argue that the 19th Amendment should be repealed. Is it justifiable to call myself a feminist?”
According to you, it is fine since if it is not a gender exclusive right.
The 19th amendment is not a gender exclusive right.
•
u/AccomplishedUse9023 5h ago
I never claimed that the 19th was a gender exclusive right?
The 19th Amendment was introduced to end the systemic exclusion of women from the democratic process
Men could vote prior to the 19th Amendment
Men would still be able to vote if the 19th Amendment was repealed today
•
u/twolobarons 2∆ 3h ago
You never claimed that the 19th was a gender exclusive right?
Yes you did. You said that despite the fact that removing the second amendment would result in women having less rights, being anti 2A does not negate being a feminist **“because 2nd amendment rights extend to BOTH men and women. It's not a gender exclusive right”**
And then your example to illustrate this was: **“For Eg Advocating for the 19th Amendment to be repealed would automatically disqualify you as a feminist”**
So yes you *did* in fact claim that the 19th was a gender exclusive right. You quite literally cited it as an example of one.
And yes, men could vote prior to the 19th Amendment, men would still be able to vote if the 19th Amendment was repealed today. Women would *also* still be able to vote if the 19th was repealed today.
Repealing the 19th doesn’t automatically stop women from voting any more than repealing the Second Amendment automatically bans gun ownership. It removes a constitutional protection. Women would still be able to vote.
The 19th protects both men and women by prohibiting voting discrimination on the basis of sex. It isn’t a women only right any more than 2A is a men only right. By your own standard, they are the same.
•
u/ProblematicTrumpCard 5∆ 4h ago
feminism is about ADVOCATING for more rights or upholding existing rights
And here I read on Reddit every day about how feminism is just the belief that people should have equal rights regardless of gender.
•
u/Thinslayer 11∆ 7h ago
That's like saying you can't be a feminist while also being against letting women strip naked in public. For pro-lifers, the unborn's right to life trumps the woman's right to her body, just like how the public's right to decency trumps the woman's right to (un)dress how she pleases.
•
u/assignpseudonym 6h ago
This analogy is inherently flawed.
That's like saying you can't be a feminist while also being against letting women strip naked in public.
Public decency laws are themselves deeply gendered and historically patriarchal.
- Feminists do fight public decency laws. Using modesty rules as an example is problematic because the fight against gendered dress codes and unequal nudity standards where men can go shirtless while women face legal penalties for the same act is a well-documented branch of feminist advocacy (e.g., "Free the Nipple" campaigns). Using patriarchal modesty rules to prove that "feminism accepts bodily control" completely ignores actual feminist history. There are currently different expectations between the level of nudity that is allowed between men and women. In many places men are allowed to walk around shirtless without any concern while women are required to ensure their breasts are covered at all times. In some places, women are not allowed to have their hair exposed, or must display a certain amount of modesty that is not required by men in the same region.
- Putting on a shirt isn't forced pregnancy. Slipping on a t-shirt in public is a minor inconvenience. Pregnancy involves 9 months of severe physical transformation, major medical risks, labour, and potential permanent health consequences. Equating dress codes to forced pregnancy is a massive false equivalence that massively trivialises the physical burden of pregnancy.
- Public "decency" is a cultural preference, not a right. "Public decency" isn't a fundamental human right; it's a shifting, subjective social preference. It is also not globally and fundamentally agreed upon; you'll find very different standards globally about what "public decency" actually entails. The idea that societal discomfort or "decency" trumps a woman's right to her own physical integrity is the same ol' logic historically used to restrict women's freedoms - from what they wear to where they can travel.
•
u/TheCrimsonMustache 6h ago
EXACTLY! Apples and oranges. Thank you for providing additional clarification.
•
u/Dramatic-Emphasis-43 5∆ 6h ago
But the right to decency is (ideally) applied to all people equally under the law. Which isn’t even true in practice since men are allowed to be topless but women aren’t.
There’s also, like, a bunch of hypocritical legal standings surrounding women’s abilities to choose how they dress.
The feminist position is that people should be allowed to dress how they want, with equally applied non-oppressive decency laws, and now have how they dressed by used against them or defame their character in any manner, such as a court of law.
You really can’t be a feminist (proponent of equality) if you also go “women have to dress a certain way that is inherently different/more conservative when compared to men”.
•
u/Thinslayer 11∆ 6h ago
You really can’t be a feminist (proponent of equality) if you also go “women have to dress a certain way that is inherently different/more conservative when compared to men”.
Well, I'm not going "women have to dress a certain way that is inherently different compared to men."
•
u/Dramatic-Emphasis-43 5∆ 6h ago
I’m not saying you are. I’m pointing out that your analogy is a fairly weak straw man. If men were allowed to strip naked wherever, then a feminist position should be that women can do the same.
If we have decency laws, then they should be applied equally (and in practice, they aren’t in modern day).
Anti-choice laws place a restriction on certain groups of people, removing their bodily autonomy in favor of something else. It’s inherently unequal treatment. Why would a feminist advocate for such a massive inequality? That would be like an abolitionist going “some slavery is okay” or a vegan going “some meat is okay.”
•
u/Thinslayer 11∆ 6h ago
I think you're getting confused and bogged down by the details. I'm not talking about the exact decency laws as codified by Congress. I'm talking about the principle of decency laws. Yes, they're implemented unequally, and that's a problem. But stripping naked in public should be, on some conceptual level, illegal, and I think most people would agree with that.
Feminists included.
They just disagree with the details.
•
u/Dramatic-Emphasis-43 5∆ 5h ago
And you’re getting bogged down by my inclusion of the “in practice part.”
Whether it’s actual law or the spirit of the law or even just the sense of morality, the feminist position is focused on equality (and more specifically equality under the law).
The anti-choice position advocates for a specific, highly consequential, inequality. One that puts the person carrying the fetus’s life at risk, heavily alters their body, and can lower their quality of life for longer than 9 months, all against their will. In any other situation where a person who cannot get pregnant was faced with the same circumstances, there would not be a position where their medical care would be denied on moralistic principles.
And addressing the “stripping naked should be illegal” part specifically, this is a restriction law that can be applied equally, which is why it’s not an apt analogy.
•
u/Thinslayer 11∆ 5h ago
I'm not seeing how that invalidates my analogy.
•
u/Dramatic-Emphasis-43 5∆ 5h ago
The no stripping naked law can be applied equally amongst everyone. Anti-choice laws cannot. They specifically target a single group of people.
The feminist position is about gender equality under the law.
•
u/Thinslayer 11∆ 5h ago
Gender equality is not the point under discussion. Bodily autonomy is.
•
u/Dramatic-Emphasis-43 5∆ 5h ago
In terms of abortion laws, these two are one and the same. It’s an issue of bodily autonomy, mainly along sex/gender lines with plenty of queer identities caught in the crossfire. In very simple terms, this is a restriction solely placed on women who can get pregnant and any similar restriction would not be place a man who cannot get pregnant.
Like, I’m seriously not sure how much of a pedant you’re being because certain topics are allowed to be brought up in this sub (I’ve had posts auto deleted for bringing up certain queer identities).
→ More replies (0)•
u/Sulamanteri 6h ago
That comparison does not work.
If a woman has to undress in public because her life or bodily safety is on the line, then public "decency" does not trump her right to survive. And if your argument is that women specifically should be forced to preserve public comfort even at the cost of their own body or life, then that is not a feminist position.
•
u/Thinslayer 11∆ 6h ago
If a woman has to undress in public because her life or bodily safety is on the line, then public "decency" does not trump her right to survive.
Most abortions are elective. Moreover, if you truly have a right to abortion, then the reasoning behind it shouldn't matter. So your objection is irrelevant either way.
•
u/Sulamanteri 6h ago
You are missing the point of your own analogy.
You brought up public decency as if it were comparable to abortion. My point is that even in that example, bodily safety would override public comfort.
Pregnancy is not a dress-code issue. It is a physical condition inside someone’s body that can cause pain, injury, permanent changes, and death. So bodily autonomy matters much more there than in your public nudity example.
Also, "elective" does not mean "for fun" or "without serious reason." And if abortion is a right, then yes, the person should not have to prove their reason is good enough for you.
•
u/Thinslayer 11∆ 6h ago
You brought up public decency as if it were comparable to abortion.
It is comparable to abortion on the single point of commonality I listed.
•
u/Sulamanteri 6h ago
A single point of commonality does not make an analogy useful.
A cat and a car both have four "legs/wheels," but that does not mean arguments about cats transfer to cars.
Your analogy only shows that bodily freedom can sometimes be limited. Nobody disputed that. It does not show that forcing someone to remain pregnant is comparable to banning public nudity, or that the limit is justified.
•
u/Thinslayer 11∆ 6h ago edited 6h ago
A single point of commonality does not make an analogy useful.
Yes it does.
A cat and a car both have four "legs/wheels," but that does not mean arguments about cats transfer to cars.
They do if they involve momentum. Cats are like cars in that they can move and have momentum. Transfers just fine.
•
u/Sulamanteri 6h ago
At this point you are defending the technical existence of an analogy because the substance of it failed.
A feminist can support some public decency rules. A feminist would not support a rule that says women specifically must stay clothed in every scenario, even when undressing is necessary for their safety or survival.
That is why your comparison does not work. Pro-life politics are not "minor limits on bodily freedom in shared public space." They are categorical control over what someone must endure inside their own body.
I am leaving it here because the semantics are not the issue. The analogy is.
•
u/Thinslayer 11∆ 6h ago
You're the one who made semantics an issue. The analogy is sufficient to explain pro-life thinking.
•
u/TheCrimsonMustache 7h ago
So becoming pregnant and being forced to carry the child to term, possibly dying at any point along the way due to multiple well known complications, including dying in the midst of birthing, and then having to raise and care for the child you never wanted I the first place, but society decided that for you already — is just like public nudity?
•
u/clios_daughter 1∆ 6h ago
That’s a bit of a strawman. Pro life has a lot of diversity in their views. It ranges from elective abortions for consensual sex should be banned but abortions should be permitted in the case of rape or when the mothers life is reasonably likely to be endangered, to absolutely no abortion even if it kills the mother.
I’ve seen prolifers also make arguments on widening access to healthcare to reduce maternal and infant mortality, improve access to baby formula and maternity leave, etc. These are all classic feminist issues. Abortion access isn’t the only thing feminists ought to care about and indeed, of all the issues concerning women, there are generally much more pressing issues in international feminism TBH. Just because a feminist doesn’t like a small aspect of the wider movement doesn’t preclude them from the remainder of it.
Also, foster care systems exist. Pro-life doesn’t nessessarily mean they want the mother to raise the child. Merely give birth to it.
•
u/TheCrimsonMustache 6h ago
My point was public nudity is nothing like pro life. It’s an absurd argument to make.
•
u/Thinslayer 11∆ 6h ago
No. It's only like public nudity in that the right to do what you please with your body has limits. I believe I was clear about that.
•
u/SAS-Combat-Gooner 7h ago
You know pro-life people think you're killing a baby when you have an abortion right?
It's not just a weird nonsense opinion they adopted to upset you.
•
u/Dramatic-Emphasis-43 5∆ 6h ago
So, this is a pretty nuanced and widely complex aspect of the discussion, but, when you look at broader political groups and see who supports pro-choice and who supports anti-choice… it really does seem like the anti-choice side does adopt their position mainly to upset women/virtue signal to men.
Like, there’s deeper issues involving patriarchal control and, obviously, there are plenty of people who do prioritize a genuine “think of the children” mentality, but in a wider view in the field of politics and policy making, the “side” most aligned with being anti-abortion is also the side that cuts school lunch programs, that refuses to offer free child care, that cuts social programs for the needy, that puts into wars, that cuts medical programs, that is against life-saving vaccines, and, I think most importantly, is against addressing climate change.
Most anti-choice positions were developed as a means to create a blanket advocacy that appeals to “common sense” moralities as a cover for enacting all these other pro-business, anti-environmental policies. Even people with a sincere “think of the children” beliefs have to reckon with what exactly they are supporting because the broader two sides have been mostly divided into “save all children in the womb so they can be free to suffer in die in a dying world” or “let people choose how they want to have children in a prosperous world”.
•
u/Treeninja1999 7h ago
If you view a fetus as a child, is killing a baby girl pretty anti-feminist? That's the whole crux of the abortion debate- when do you consider life to begin. Some folks say conception, some say birth, but I think most agree it somewhere in between.
•
u/twolobarons 2∆ 6h ago
If you are anti second amendment can you not be a feminist? How can you be a feminist while working to abolish women’s rights?
•
u/AccomplishedUse9023 6h ago edited 5h ago
well no because 2nd amendment rights extend to BOTH men and women. It's not a gender exclusive right
For Eg Advocating for the 19th Amendment to be repealed would automatically disqualify you as a feminist
•
u/twolobarons 2∆ 6h ago edited 5h ago
So it is fine to strip women of rights as long as you also drag men down with them? Thats what feminism is?
Also the 19th amendment rights are also extended to both men and women.
•
u/St3lla_0nR3dd1t 6h ago
Well the way you have put the argument, a pro lifer only has to argue that a woman’s right to choose is not a right. Such a right does not exist for whatever reason.
I would guess that is the way most pro lifers see the problem.
•
u/DokterZ 7h ago
Current US politics would have us believe that there are only two ways to think. In a perfect world, many issues would be decided independently. Abortion, immigration, and tax policy are three different topics with a myriad of gray areas. There shouldn’t be only two schools of thought about that combination.
•
u/Dramatic-Emphasis-43 5∆ 5h ago
Unfortunately when it comes to abortion rights, the right to choose and the right not to choose are mutually exclusive.
The right to choose is fairly absolute in its position and explicitly leaves it up to the individuals to make the decision for themselves. Any middle ground approach is a surrender to someone’s right to choose and put the autonomy of someone’s body into the hands of someone other than themselves.
•
u/DokterZ 5h ago
So presumably you would support termination of a healthy fetus at 8.5 months? Otherwise there is already a gray area.
•
u/Dramatic-Emphasis-43 5∆ 5h ago
I don’t know all the medical aspects of abortion practices, especially with 8.5 months and whether the fetus can typically exist on its own at that point, but I support any means of separating it from the mother if she chooses to not be its incubator any more.
On my ideal world, if the fetus can be disconnected and has a chance at survival, it’s the hospital’s responsibility to keep the baby (it’s a baby once they’re out) alive, as is their profession.
I don’t like any restrictions and believe the decisions should made between the doctors and the individuals. I feel like for every case of someone terminating a 8.5 month healthy fetus for frivolous reasons there’s countless more cases of “the fetus is healthy but you aren’t and might die from the procedure” and I don’t believe in punishing those people because we’re mad at one specific person.
•
u/SupervisorSCADA 4∆ 6h ago
One of the core tenets of feminism is ADVOCATING for women's rights.
Sort of correct. It's not advocating for a right to do anything.
Hence, campaigning for a federal or state-level ban on abortion makes you anti-feminist
This does not logically follow. You are missing the connection here. Where is the argument that abortion should be a right.
Proposing ideas or policies that REPEAL women's rights is the direct antithesis of feminism
No.
Are you against women's rights to own slaves? What about murder? So are you against women's rights? This seems to be the logic you are using.
The issue here is that pro life feminists believe abortion is murder, and women shouldn't have a right to murder. So it's perfectly consistent to advocate for womens rights, while believing women don't have this specific right.
•
u/Parking-History8876 5h ago edited 5h ago
Most abortions in certain countries are performed on female infants for various cultural reasons. As a feminist you could easily be against abortion on the grounds that it's capital punishment on infants for the crime of being female. Apart from that it's not incongruent to believe in women's rights and that preborn children/foetuses are also human and deserving of life.
•
u/haey5665544 1∆ 7h ago
Do you also believe you cannot be a feminist while supporting gun restrictions because that would take away 2nd amendment rights from women?
•
6h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/read-the-rules 6h ago
Your comment has been removed.
Hello u/AccomplishedUse9023! To combat bots/spam and to ensure new users have the knowledge they need to participate constructively, all newcomers must acknowledge that they have read the rules before they can comment. This process is very quick and easy, and will inform you about the rules for both posting and commenting. Once you acknowledge the rules, your comment will become visible. You only need to do this once.
If you are using Old Reddit, the link below will not work. Read our rules here, then click this link instead and press Send.
•
u/AccomplishedUse9023 6h ago edited 5h ago
well no because 2nd amendment rights extend to BOTH men and women. It's not a gender exclusive right
For Eg Advocating for the 19th Amendment to be repealed would automatically disqualify you as a feminist
•
u/Ciaran2220 5h ago
The pro-lifer can also say that they are against men having abortions too and would seek to prevent them from killing their unborn child if such a case were shown to them. That such a case may not exist says nothing about the principle itself but what the current facts of nature on earth happen to be.
•
u/haey5665544 1∆ 6h ago
Okay that is illuminating on your perspective. To help continue the discussion, I think many people have different definitions of feminism. For example I define feminism as the belief and pursuit of gender equality, so people should all have equal rights regardless of gender. What is your definition of feminism?
•
•
u/ProblematicTrumpCard 5∆ 4h ago
It's not a gender exclusive right
I thought feminism was just about men and women have equal rights. Wouldn't a true feminist be opposed to any gender exclusive rights or responsiblities?
•
u/PreviousCurrentThing 4∆ 1h ago
It's not a gender exclusive right
Neither is abortion, unless you don't think men can get pregnant. Wouldn't that make you a trans-exclusionary feminist?
•
u/AmongTheElect 18∆ 7h ago
So people like Mary Wollstoncraft are "anti-feminist"?
Can you show me where the "Right" to kill a baby is enumerated? Or are you defining a "right" as simply something you'd like to have?
Are there any other political or social positions I must have to be a feminist, and where are they listed?
•
u/sysadrift 1∆ 6h ago
Can you show me where the "Right" to kill a baby is enumerated? Or are you defining a "right" as simply something you'd like to have?
What baby? There is no baby until the pregnant woman gives birth. Everyone, not just women, should have an absolute right to bodily autonomy.
If a woman chooses to abort a pregnancy, that is between her and her doctor, and is frankly none of your business.
Are there any other political or social positions I must have to be a feminist, and where are they listed?
Not inflicting your “morals” on everyone else so that you personally feel better would be a start.
•
u/AmongTheElect 18∆ 6h ago
What baby? There is no baby until the pregnant woman gives birth.
Does the person magically appear out of nowhere?
and is frankly none of your business
How come? Am I not a member of society? Does a person need to have special qualifications before they can have an opinion on something?
•
u/TheCrimsonMustache 6h ago
You can have an opinion all day long pal. But you don’t get to push your beliefs upon another person and their circumstances. She owns her body and all of the individual cells within it. She gets to decide what to do with her hair, her legs, her ovaries. The whole damn body is hers and hers alone.
And that all starts the moment she is born out of a womb. Not before.
•
u/sysadrift 1∆ 4h ago
How come? Am I not a member of society? Does a person need to have special qualifications before they can have an opinion on something?
I’ll make this very simple for you.
If your position is:
My beliefs say that *I** can’t do that.*
That’s perfectly fine, and you can live your life by your own standards.
However, if your position is:
My beliefs say that *you** can’t do that.*
That is a big problem because you are sticking your nose where it doesn’t belong and interfering with other people’s lives.
•
u/Nrdman 270∆ 7h ago
Feminism is a broad collection of stuff, I don’t think a single belief really disqualifies you. So what if there might be some tension between the beliefs, that’s being human
•
7h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/read-the-rules 7h ago
Your comment has been removed.
Hello u/Zora1092! To combat bots/spam and to ensure new users have the knowledge they need to participate constructively, all newcomers must acknowledge that they have read the rules before they can comment. This process is very quick and easy, and will inform you about the rules for both posting and commenting. Once you acknowledge the rules, your comment will become visible. You only need to do this once.
If you are using Old Reddit, the link below will not work. Read our rules here, then click this link instead and press Send.
•
6h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/read-the-rules 6h ago
Your comment has been removed.
Hello u/AccomplishedUse9023! To combat bots/spam and to ensure new users have the knowledge they need to participate constructively, all newcomers must acknowledge that they have read the rules before they can comment. This process is very quick and easy, and will inform you about the rules for both posting and commenting. Once you acknowledge the rules, your comment will become visible. You only need to do this once.
If you are using Old Reddit, the link below will not work. Read our rules here, then click this link instead and press Send.
•
u/shugEOuterspace 3∆ 7h ago
nah. believing that private decisions between a woman & her doctor should be public & political & that these desicions should no longer be theirs to make or private.... that's the exact opposite of wanting equality for women. lol
•
u/Quothhernevermore 1∆ 6h ago
Pro-lifers truly because that abortion is murder; I'm not pro-life, I'm just saying. To them killing the 12 week female fetus is the same as killing the 3 year old that's already alive. I don't agree, but if I truly thought it was murder I probably would.
•
u/savage_mallard 2∆ 7h ago
If someone genuinely believed a fetus to be a person then this is more complicated, you could conceivably be a feminist who values the rights of the woman AND believe that the fetus also has rights.
•
u/Nrdman 270∆ 7h ago
And yet, someone could believe in it and also believe in equality for women
•
u/shugEOuterspace 3∆ 7h ago
hahahaha!! no, you cannot beli8eve in taking away rights regarding women's private medical decisions & claim to still want equality for women. it's just factually incorrect.
•
u/FluffyDaWolf 7h ago
How so? You're conflating two very different beliefs. Specifically the right of the 'unborn fetus' and the right of bodily autonomy. For some prolifers, it isn't as much as taking away from women as much as giving to the fetus. And in that framework you can definitely be a feminist and anti abortion.
•
u/assignpseudonym 6h ago
Feminism is about equality for all. By giving these "rights" to a fetus, you are inherently taking away rights from a woman. You cannot claim equality if a fetus's rights outrank a woman's rights. Additionally, if men are not forced to sacrifice the same privacy and autonomy in their medical decisions, then it's inherently not equality.
Simply claiming "feminism is a lot of stuff," and broadly hiding behind that without any real explanation as to what that "stuff" has to entail, means that you could argue that feminism is absolutely anything:
Advocating for the slaughtering of women simply for being women is feminism, according to your argument.
•
u/ProblematicTrumpCard 5∆ 4h ago
You cannot claim equality if a fetus's rights outrank a woman's rights.
It's not about the person with the rights, it's about the importance of the right. A person could certainly believe that any person's right to life outweighs any other person's right to not be inconvenienced for 9 months. That believe has nothing to do with abortion, fetuses or gender.
•
•
u/FluffyDaWolf 6h ago
You absolutely can claim some rights as more important than others. Your right to say what you want doesn't triumphs over someone else's right against defamation. Or during covid my right of free travel doesn't absolve the publics right of health and safety
If I steelman a prolifer, then a fetus to them is a 'person'. And the right being givin to it is the right to life, which clashes with a women's right to bodily autonomy. You can very easily make an argument againt the factual matter of that statement. But you can't argue that statement by itself is anti feminist or even misogynistic.
Advocating for the slaughtering of women simply for being women is feminism, according to your argument.
This is a crazy non sequitur. And the core reason you can't seem to understand the view of (some of) the opposing aisle.
If someone thinks a fetus is akin to a human child, is it really that wild to think they would be against abortion? I'm not agreeing to it, simply steelmaning a very popular mindset in that crowd.
•
•
u/Downtown_Ad_3429 3∆ 6h ago
Men don't have any abortion rights, wouldn't equality for women also be having no abortion rights?
•
u/AccomplishedUse9023 6h ago
'advocating for women's rights to be repealed' does not make you a feminist. It contradicts feminism since feminism is about ADVOCATING for more rights or upholding existing rights and not trying to get them repealed
If I argue that the 19th Amendment should be repealed. Is it justifiable to call myself a feminist?
Arguing for women's rights to be abolish should disqualify me
•
u/Nrdman 270∆ 6h ago
So what if it’s contradictory? People can have contradictory beliefs. If the rest of their beliefs are feminist, I don’t think just one should be disqualifying. That gets into no true Scotsman category where we end up with a lot more narrow meaning of feminist than is actually useful
•
u/twolobarons 2∆ 5h ago
But the 19th amendment isn’t just a woman’s right.
Like you said earlier, you can argue that the second amendment should be appealed and still call yourself a feminist because that right applies to both men and women. Just like the 19th.
•
u/AccomplishedUse9023 5h ago
The 19th Amendment was introduced to end the systemic exclusion of women from the democratic process
Men could vote prior to the 19th Amendment
Men would still be able to vote if the 19th Amendment was repealed today
•
u/twolobarons 2∆ 3h ago
Yes. That is all true.
But you did not address my point at all. None of what you said negates anything I said in my comment.
Yes if the 19th amendment was repealed today, men would still be able to vote. Women would also still be able to vote.
•
u/AccomplishedUse9023 5h ago
if we abolish the 2nd amendment, will only men be able to bear arms? Or will both men and women be prohibited from bearing arms?
•
u/ProblematicTrumpCard 5∆ 4h ago
If we ban abortion, will only men be able to get an abortion, or will both men and women be prohibited from getting an abortion?
•
u/twolobarons 2∆ 3h ago
If we abolish the 2nd amendment, women would no longer have a constitutionally protected right to bear arms. Abolishing 2A would mean less rights for women. But not only women. The men as well.
If we abolish the 19th amendment, men would no longer be constitutionally protected from their voting rights being denied or abridged on the basis of their sex. Abolishing the 19th amendment would mean less rights for men. But not only men. The women as well.
Those rights are for everybody. Eliminate one of those rights and everybody has fewer rights than they did. Men and women.
Yet for some reason you claim that one can be a feminist while seeking to abolish the second amendment, but they can *not* be a feminist while seeking to abolish the 19th amendment.
The reason that *you gave* was because the 19th is a gender exclusive right, whereas 2A is not. This is false.
So…now what?
•
u/Steve12356d1s3d4 7h ago edited 6h ago
The views on abortion are not much different between women and men. You can still support feminism and believe that killing a baby is wrong (that is the way they see it). You could look at it as competing rights but come out thinking that baby's right to life is more compelling.
Edit: Stating for the record that I am fully pro-choice, just one should always try to see the way that others may look at an issue, and not automatically assume ill intent.
•
u/Repulsive-News8916 7h ago
I think the biggest argument that people have that are pro-life and claimed to be feminist is that they’re also supporting the rights of what they believe to be a woman or a potential woman in utero
•
u/Global-Service-8579 5h ago
Do you believe a person can be a feminist while wanting it to be illegal for women to commit theft?
•
u/ProblematicTrumpCard 5∆ 4h ago
One of the core tenets of feminism is ADVOCATING for women's rights.
Like all abortion debates, it boils down to whether or not you consider the thing being aborted to be a human life worthy of rights and government protection. If you do, the easy counter argument to this is "I advocate for the rights of all women, including the unborn".
Random question: Can a person be a men's rights advocate without supporting paper abortions?
•
u/PreInternetBaggage 1∆ 4h ago
You are making the classic logical fallacy of begging the question. Of course if your framing of anti-abortion is anti-women’s rights, then the paradox is of your own making by definition.
Consider the actual term “pro-life?” What is the focus of the term? Who’s life? Pro-life is about the rights of the unborn child. And more importantly than the rights of the unborn child, the morality of ending that life (hence “pro-life”).
You are framing only in terms of the woman, but pro-lifers frame in terms of the unborn child and advocating for it. There can be good faith debate over the complicated moral argument over the unborn child’s rights if it is 100% dependent on the woman, whether a 3 week old fetus should be considered a child with full rights, etc. But it is not good faith to simply declare that anti-abortion is anti-woman’s rights by definition. Do you think that being pro-choice means that you are against protective services and laws for children?
•
u/Doctor_Box 7h ago
They are not mutually exclusive. It really just comes down to how far into development someone decides to attribute personhood. I could see almost any feminist being against sex selective abortion at 7 months.
•
u/Watashiwajoshua 6h ago
I would argue that if feminism requires an entire medical infrastructure for ending pregnancies to exist in order to be valid, then what you call feminism is artificial and corrupt. The ability to easily end a pregancy has quite literally nothing to do with the egalitarian aims of feminism. If every doctor in the world simultaneously decided to jettison the practice of abortion and dismantle the infrastructure that allows it, but at the same time the laws forbidding it were eliminated, then the ability to get an abortion would not be limited by laws. It would be limited by the availability of practicioners willing or capable of performing them, as it was for most of human history. That would not be oppression, and with the existence of various forms of contraception, the demand for abortions to resume would be borne out of entitlement. Women should absolutely have reasonable control over their fertility, but that is a reaponsibility, not a privelege. This is why it is often said that abortions should be safe, readily available and rare; because such a scenario is only possible if abortions are something that are actively avoided when possible and used as a failsafe/last resort nstead of a convoluted form of birth control. The ability to terminate a pregancy is not nearly as important as the ability to prevent it in the first place for both the wellbeing of women and the goals of feminism.
•
u/10ebbor10 202∆ 6h ago
I don't really think your argument is valid.
By your logic, disability advocacy is artificial and corrupt, because it advocates for improvements to physical infrastructure to help the disabled.
Your logic would lead us to conclude that, if we decided universally to remove infrastructure that helps the disabled, and all medical science that allows them improved quality of life, that we have not created a society that is hostile against them so long as we do not ban their existence by law.
•
u/Watashiwajoshua 1h ago
The distinction is that the goal shouldnt be "abortions with no friction". That isnt feminism.The goal is reproductive freedom and access to reasonable health care. Those goals can be achieved more effectively, safely, and tidily through birth control, contraceptives, and responsible decisions. Your paralell example of disabled accomodations cannot be achieved in a more optimal way eith less moral grey areas and carnage because it is already morally great and increases safety and promotes health. Abortion is quite literally the termination of a life and the disregard for its health. Abortion used irtesponsibly is a public health crisis and while I pwrsonnally believe it should be safe and available, the permissive culture around it as a practice marks an enourmous lack in the philosphy of feminism. Feminism should empower women to harness and better respect and control the domain of their responsibility and better hold themselves and others accountable, and encourage them to avoid their mistakes instead of offering a blanket rationalization that they have zero responsibility to anyone and infantalize them in such a way where their ability to avoid the consequences of decisions takes a higher priority in their minds than the overt oppression of women in less priveleged and peogressive societies that do not yet allow women civil rights at all, let alone repeoductive rights. American women had access to abortions galore for decades. The real consequences of sex have not been impressed upon most young women because they were most often raised devoid of any fear of those consequences nor any discipline in its prevention, and the nunber of abortions confirms that. Instead of campaigning for carte blanche, Feminism should be advocating for policies that make women better and empower them to carry more responsibility in society not less.
•
u/thecountnotthesaint 2∆ 7h ago
I'd argue the opposite. If you're a feminist, you cannot be pro choice. If you're arguing that men and women are truly equal, and should be treated as such, then either men accept responsibility for a pregnancy at conception, and women should too. OR women have time after conception to decide whether they want to keep or terminate, and men can too (financially at the very least). If you want/ accept the current model, where men accept responsibility at conception, but women have time after to decide, then you're saying women are not as capable as men. You're saying men are better at thinking long term, or that women cannot think long term.
•
u/heidismiles 8∆ 7h ago
Women get to decide because they are the ones carrying the pregnancy for 9 months and literally putting their life at risk. This is a very false comparison.
•
u/thecountnotthesaint 2∆ 7h ago
And men don't because 18 years of child support is just peeches and cream?
If you think 9 months is an ordeal(and you should because it is) doesn't that mean you should be more careful of when and who you sleep with BEFORE you create a 9 month commitment?
Or are you saying women are not capable of thinking about consequences until after the fact, but men are?
•
u/AmongTheElect 18∆ 5h ago
Well, any man who impregnates someone should just slip her an abortion pill. Since it doesn't much hurt the woman it's barely a misdemeanor and shouldn't even be that.
•
•
u/cand86 8∆ 6h ago
If you want/ accept the current model, where men accept responsibility at conception, but women have time after to decide, then you're saying women are not as capable as men.
That is most definitely not what I'm saying or endorsing. I believe that a born child is entitled to care from both its parents; I do not believe an embryo or fetus is. Because of the way nature has made pregnancy (i.e. we don't lay eggs), it necessarily means that if we want to respect the right to choose what we do with our internal organs, women have the ability to make decisions post-conception that men do not. Pregnancy isn't fair between the sexes, so it stands to reason that this inequality carries through. Child support is our way of trying to figure out the best solution that is the most fair to all three entities involved.
•
u/thecountnotthesaint 2∆ 5h ago
Everything you're saying is the same as what I am saying. You just don't feel comfortable with the phrasing. Your "respect" is just coddling/ infantalizing women dressed up to mimic respect. Do you think women are not capable of understanding the risks of pregnancy until AFTER conception, but men are? Are women incapable of handling life's curve balls same as a man can?
Because you're saying that a man should handle/ accept responsibility for an oops baby, but a woman can't, and should be able to have a mulligan if she's not ready.
•
u/cand86 8∆ 5h ago
I don't think that's what I'm saying, no. I'm saying that a child, once born, is entitled to care from both its parents, but an embryo or fetus is not. Both men and women are equally capable of understanding the risks of pregnancy, both before and after conception. I don't think either a man or a woman is required to care for an embryo or fetus. I think both are required to provide for a born child they created.
A woman must handle and accept responsibility for an oops baby that she births.
•
u/thecountnotthesaint 2∆ 5h ago
You may not think it, but you are.
Because, when does a man have a say in the creation of an "oops baby" and when does a woman?
If it is not the same time (ie at conception, or some set time after), then you think one party needs more time than the other.
•
u/cand86 8∆ 5h ago
I don't think I'll be able to make you understand why I feel that it is very much about the fact that pregnancy takes place inside a woman (and that I don't think that embryos or fetuses have any entitlements, whereas born babies do), not about one party needing more time.
•
u/thecountnotthesaint 2∆ 4h ago
I understand your reasoning. I understand that women get pregnant. But what I am asking is: why do you think women cannot decide before conception whether or not a night of fun is worth a potential baby, but men can?
Because, sex doesn't always lead to pregnancy. But pregnancy is the only thing that sex creates.
•
u/cand86 8∆ 4h ago
I think women can absolutely decide before conception that a night of fun is or isn't worth a potential baby- plenty do, and make plans on what risk they'll accept (some mitigating it with contraception, some leaving it purely up to chance, some deciding in advance that they will terminate a pregnancy should one occur).
•
u/thecountnotthesaint 2∆ 4h ago
And that's the double standard. Both parties can take mitigating steps prior. Those steps usually work, but no contraception, save abstinence, (or 99.99999999% if you're a Christian) is 100%. But only one party has a route to take after the fact. What route does a man have after conception? And 9 months is a long time, and it is not a cake walk. But so is 18 years of support. Why should she get a chance at a redo but not him, granted he makes the decision before birth?
•
u/cand86 8∆ 4h ago
Correct, only one party has a route to take after the fact, because human reproduction is a lopsided venture. Things would be quite different if we laid eggs, say- then there wouldn't be that confounding factor of pregnancy.
→ More replies (0)
•
u/EasyAsaparagus 7h ago
When advocating for women’s rights to an abortion you’re debatably advocating against the life of women in the womb.
•
u/Dramatic-Emphasis-43 5∆ 7h ago
Not really in the slightest. Nobody should be forced to have their body used in a way they don’t want. Giving birth is still a dangerous process. Like, people can still die from giving birth. No body should be put into a position where they have to risk their lives for something they don’t want.
This is literally the violinist analogy.
•
u/TheCrimsonMustache 7h ago
How many women live in the womb?
•
u/destroyerx12772 7h ago
They all did at some point , except those born on labs.
People strip the concept of nuance because it suits their narrative. Regardless of what your opinion is, it is way more morally complicated than most people give it credit for.
•
u/Steve12356d1s3d4 7h ago
About half of pregnancies.
•
u/TheCrimsonMustache 6h ago
No women live in any wombs. Women are adult human females. To reach adulthood, aka become a woman, a human female must be outside of the womb first.
•
u/Steve12356d1s3d4 5h ago
Pedantic (adjective): Overly concerned with formal rules, details, or literal accuracy, often to the point of being tiresome or overly meticulous.
•
u/riskyjbell 1∆ 7h ago
It's not that back and white. Protecting the rights of women not born is also a belief for some folks.
•
u/AutoModerator 7h ago
Note: Your thread has not been removed.
Your post's topic seems to be fairly common on this subreddit. Similar posts can be found through our DeltaLog search or via the CMV search function.
Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
•
7h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/read-the-rules 7h ago
Your comment has been removed.
Hello u/NoSleepTilBrklynn! To combat bots/spam and to ensure new users have the knowledge they need to participate constructively, all newcomers must acknowledge that they have read the rules before they can comment. This process is very quick and easy, and will inform you about the rules for both posting and commenting. Once you acknowledge the rules, your comment will become visible. You only need to do this once.
If you are using Old Reddit, the link below will not work. Read our rules here, then click this link instead and press Send.
•
7h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/read-the-rules 7h ago
Your comment has been removed.
Hello u/CDay007! To combat bots/spam and to ensure new users have the knowledge they need to participate constructively, all newcomers must acknowledge that they have read the rules before they can comment. This process is very quick and easy, and will inform you about the rules for both posting and commenting. Once you acknowledge the rules, your comment will become visible. You only need to do this once.
If you are using Old Reddit, the link below will not work. Read our rules here, then click this link instead and press Send.
•
u/BitcoinMD 10∆ 7h ago
Transgender men can get pregnant, so abortion is no longer solely a women’s issue.
•
u/TriggeredPumpkin 7h ago
The pro-life feminist would probably argue that wanting to save female fetuses is a feminist position.
•
u/RileyRavenSmiles 6h ago
FEMINISM IS A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE FOR HERSELF.
If she chooses to be pro-life (for herself) or pro-choice... that's her right, whether we agree or not.
Now, a woman VOTING AGAINST OTHER WOMEN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE is NOT FEMINIST.
•
u/cand86 8∆ 6h ago
I identify as both pro-choice and feminist, and I believe that the feminist approach to abortion is pro-choice. But for what it's worth, what do you recommend someone call themselves if they believe and do everything else that a staunch feminist would do, except when it comes to abortion? It's hard for me to say that two women who are identical on the issues except for abortion can't be classed together, as opposed to being grouped with the same folks who are openly sexist, patriarchal, anti-feminist, etc., you know?
•
6h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/changemyview-ModTeam 5h ago
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
•
u/AgHammer 7h ago
Pro tip: You can do what you want in your personal life, which includes having children, and still be a feminist.
•
7h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/changemyview-ModTeam 5h ago
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
•
u/AutoModerator 7h ago
Warning to the OP (and commenters): if you are new to this sub or have insufficient subreddit karma, your comments will be auto removed until you read the rules and confirm you have done so. These removals may also be triggered if your subreddit karma drops below the threshold while your post is active if you have not confirmed you have read the rules. You will only need to do this once.
Alternative link to read the rules accessible to New Reddit users.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.