Felicity Wong
Jul 23, 2018

Pro-Life Feminism

8 comments

Being pro-life and being a feminist… are these mutually exclusive identities? Here’s a CNN think piece written by Erika Bachiochi, who herself identifies as a pro-life feminist: https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/17/opinions/prolife-and-feminist-under-trump-bachiochi-opinion/index.html. Besides believing that abortion is wrong on a principled level, she advocates for the pro-life movement from a more practical, feminist lens. In it, she argues that the legalization of abortion stemming from the sexual revolution in the 1970s has allowed the patriarchy to flourish. She continues to explain that the normalization of rape culture, inequity in the workplace, and an imbalance in family life is a direct result from it. Is this analysis a good enough reason to reconsider the pro-life movement? Are there more convincing reasons as to why a baby’s right to life triumphs all?

Tuhin Chakraborty
Jul 23, 2018

Hello Felicity, this is certainly one of the more interesting perspectives on abortion rights that I've seen. However, it is worth noting that family imbalance, rape, and workplace inequity were issues for women before Roe v Wade as well as after the Supreme Court decision. Also, I don't believe that Bachiochi is arguing her points based on a baby's right to life. She instead stresses against the casualization of sex and the man's right to detach from a relationship. Women should not be able to control the actions of men. Likewise, men should not be able to control the actions of women, so that is why I believe that abortion should be legal. What is your opinion of this article?

1
Felicity Wong
Jul 26, 2018

I don't think that Bachiochi is explaining Roe v Wade caused patriarchy or family imbalance/workplace inequity, but rather that the abortion ruling exacerbated it. I think what makes her article so fascinating is that she diverts from the typical baby's right to life (which takes a more principled, fundamental approach at the debate) and talks about it from a practical, feminist angle. I'm not sure if Bachiochi is right because she makes a lot of conjectures over a long-term historical period, but it is definitely something worth thinking about when considering the debate as a whole.

1
Maya Siegel
Jan 14

Hi Felicity, thanks for sharing! I've never heard nor considered this view; it's interesting to consider how abortion rights could alter the mindset of men. When I first heard of this issue, I leaned toward pro-life because I believe that life starts at conception. I've talked to many since then though and now take a pro-choice stance. I believe that, at its core, the most relevant question is "Will we give women the choice?" To me, it isn't about if abortion is morally right or wrong and it isn't about preventing sexual assault using the psychology of men. Women will have abortions, whether its safe and legal or not. We should provide the resources and information so that they do not harm themselves trying, regardless of personal opinion on the matter.

0
Felicity Wong
Jan 15

Hi Maya, thank you for your reply! That's interesting-- what exactly made you shift your viewpoint from pro-life to pro-choice? As someone who is pro-choice, do you still believe that life begins at conception? I believe that life begins at conception, and that is something that is an absolute truth for me, which is why I am hesitant to say abortion is morally correct. For me, I think the debate is about morals, just like we talk about murder and other injustices in the context of morality. Given your presupposition that life does begin at conception and that life should be valued, you probably wouldn't ask, "Should we give this person a choice to murder another person?" (obviously with exceptions, like military or self-defense). You wouldn't use the argument,"people will still murder others even if we criminalize it", as a legitimate reason to legalize murder. Although people will murder regardless of the law, we believe that murder is morally wrong. That is why we criminalize it.

 

Of course, I definitely see your point about how women will still continue to have abortions, whether its safe and legal or not. If we look at what would practically happen if we suddenly criminalized abortion, there would be plenty of unsafe abortions--something we need to avoid. However, I do hope a cultural shift happens where we start to truly value life as the ultimate human right over ideas like sexual liberation or female power-- this is something that I believe we have lost as a country in the past few decades. If that cultural shift happens, abortions would naturally happen a lot less. As for now, I really hope the country takes the initiative to reform its current adoption system. We should also do a better job of helping pregnant women in a crisis who may be considering an abortion because they do not feel like they will be able to provide for their child. Giving them resources, comfort, and support is necessary.

 

This was very long, but I hope I articulated my thoughts clearly. Let me know what you think! :)

0
Maya Siegel
Jan 15

@Felicity Wong Hi! Hmm, I see your point using murder as the synonymous situation. It's interesting that there are three opposing focuses: man, woman, and baby. In response to your questions, yes I do still believe life begins at conception and it was a combination of personal experiences, mainly with sexual assault and adoption, that shifted my stance. Honestly, I just don't consider preventing a woman from getting an abortion saving a life anymore. I think life is a lot more than just breathing and that it's almost a punishment to force a child to come into the world unwanted.

0
Felicity Wong
Jan 23

@Maya Siegel Thanks for your reply (and sorry about the lateness of mine!) I see-- that makes sense how your experiences would shift your stance. Going off your statement about life beginning at conception: do you believe that a baby's life matters less than a woman's life, or what a woman wants? Again, I just see this entire situation like murder. With the presupposition that the fetus is life, how would you explain abortion as anything else besides taking that life away, i.e. murder?

 

And, I think that's an interesting way to see life. As you said, I think it's a super serious and troubling issue that so many women have unexpected or unwanted pregnancies, and if their child were born, that child would forced to live in terrible conditions (i.e. being unwanted, not able to be socially or financially supported, etc.) However, I think taking away that life based on someone else's will is the last way we should address that issue. There are plenty of other options (like seriously reforming the adoption system in the US, empowering and giving women resources and comfort to raise their children, refocusing culture to emphasize family more, etc.) Would you also say, then, that a child with Down Syndrome should not be given the opportunity to live? What about children with other birth defects? They are less likely to be "wanted" and their life beyond the scope of "just breathing" will probably have more obstacles than the average human.

 

Personally, I think everyone has the right to live. We should not be able to decide whether a potential life form will suffer and get nothing out of life or not. There is something inherently beautiful and valuable about every human's life, regardless of how oppressed or unprivileged they might . Nobody has the right to take that away.

 

I'm really enjoying this discussion -- I've never met someone with a viewpoint and experience like yours and I would love to learn more. Please let me know what you think!

0
Maya Siegel
Jan 23

Yes, I do think a woman's life matters more than an unborn baby's and I don't see abortion as murder; I see it as saving two lives.

0
Felicity Wong
Mar 1

Why does one human have the right to choose how another human will live their life? Just because someone is born into an unfortunate socioeconomic position or with a disease or deformity does not mean that they will not have the ability to lead happy lives. We offer them no choice when we abort a potential human being.

0
New Posts
  • roman nordmun
    Nov 9

    No Woman Ever

    No woman ever got pregnant in order to have an abortion.
  • Vivian
    Jun 29

    Thoughts on the violinist thought experiment?

    I feel like more people have become aware of this thought experiment since a fairly large YouTuber on the left released a video about it a few days ago. (skip to 8:26 for the visual demonstration, tw medical horror) If you can’t watch the video and you’ve never heard of Judith Jarvis Thomson, here’s a summary. (Before that, here’s a link to the Wikipedia summary of the thought experiment. It’s much more comprehensive than mine, and responds to some of the counterarguments I’ll list below in both similar and different ways than I will, so if you’re interested, I recommend giving it a read.) Imagine that you woke up one day and found yourself in a hospital bed, hooked up to a dying legendary violin soloist. A nurse comes in and says that the violinist was in a near fatal accident and is dying of kidney failure. You are currently the only genetic match for them. If you stay hooked up to them for 9 months, their kidneys will be able to recover from the injury, and you can be disconnected from them without significant lasting harm to either of you. However, if you disconnect before then, the violinist’s chances of dying significantly increase based on when you disconnect. The argument is that your bodily autonomy would override the violinist’s right to the use of your body. The creator of the thought experiment, Judith Jarvis Thomson, wants to reframe the debate in terms of the fetus’s right to use of a woman’s body, rather than the fetus’s right to life. Thomson, concedes in this case, for the sake of argument, that the fetus has a right to life equivalent to that of an adult human. However, she still thinks that the fetus does not have a right to the use of the mother’s body, and she thinks that that is what the discussion should be about. Because of this, Thomson doesn't support an unconditional right to abortion (for example, she doesn’t support a woman getting an abortion a bit further down the pregnancy because she scheduled a trip abroad and doesn’t want to postpone it), and also states that in the case of a late-term abortion in which the doctors decide to instead induce pregnancy, the mother has no right to kill the fetus or otherwise prevent it from surviving outside of her womb. For the sake of deepening the discussion, I‘ll list some common counterarguments to the argument above so that we can get them out of the way. 1. The thought experiment doesn’t take into account the fact that the mother, in certain cases, could very well be responsible for the existence of the fetus in the first place. Of course you shouldn’t allow a stranger to use your body, but the fetus is not a stranger, the fetus is the mother’s own child, and therefore, her responsibility. I don’t like the argument Thomson uses to address this (it’s another thought experiment regarding a hypothetical thing called a people-seed , which I think makes it a little less accessible for most people), so I’ll present two thought experiments of my own that I find more relatable, as well as a few other miscellaneous arguments that I find at least somewhat persuasive. Suppose a woman (with all the proper qualifications, of course) decides to open an independent fertility clinic. Her first clients come in and decide to do IVF . Like any standard practitioner of IVF, the woman makes several embryos, but only ends up using the most viable/desirable to the clients. Is the fertility clinic owner obligated to carry the leftover embryos to term or to find some other way (another womb, or something else entirely) for the embryos to be “born”? Or suppose that a heterosexual couple wants children and the woman becomes pregnant. Midway through the pregnancy, the couple finds out that the woman’s body has a very small chance of being able to carry the fetus until birth. However, new advances in surgery have produced a procedure that would allow an artificial womb to be implanted into the man’s body, and thus the fetus could still be carried to term, but by the father. Is the father morally obligated to undergo the procedure? You could also modify the violinist thought experiment to address this by making the violinist in the thought experiment your child. Are you still obligated to stay hooked up to them? If they need your kidney, are you obligated to donate one? I’m not asking if it’s a good or bad thing to do, but whether or not it’s a moral obligation. Something can be a very good thing to do (such as donating to charity) without being a moral obligation, depending on your moral philosophy. 2. This thought experiment is very unrealistic. What bearing could it possibly have on reality? Why do all thought experiments have to be realistic? If the purpose of a thought experiment  is to uncover exactly where our moral boundaries lie, it makes sense to consider very extreme scenarios, since those are the ones that test our moral systems the most rigorously. If you hold a moral principle, you should be able to defend why it does or doesn’t apply to as many situations as possible. People don’t exist in a vacuum, and our conceptions of morality need to be able to guide us through life in a consistent way. Additionally, abortion (especially the modern kinds of abortion used in most cases today) is a relatively recent invention. In order to grasp such a leap in science, sometimes we need to expand our ways of thinking. It’s very hard to come up with an analogy to abortion that isn’t at least somewhat unrealistic due to the uniqueness of the experiences of pregnancy, birth, and abortion. I don’t think “this example is unrealistic” is a blanket reason to dismiss every single somewhat fantastical thought experiment. A lot of philosophers would be out of a job if this were the case, they seem to like coming up with this kind of stuff, whether or not it’s accessible to most readers.      2b. Wait, but you just said that you didn’t like Thomson’s “people seed” thought experiment because it’s unrealistic! You’re a hypocrite! I am truly sorry for the lack of my precision in wording above, but I couldn’t figure out how to make all the nuance fit and still have the writing flow. I’m don’t think the kind of esoteric, unrealistic nature of the “people-seed” thought experiment prevents you from drawing rational conclusions from it. I actually think the thought experiment is quite interesting. I just found it hard to wrap my head around it when I first came across it, and I knew that a lot of people wouldn’t be persuaded by something they couldn't relate to or found weird. There’s an emotional aspect of persuasiveness as well as a logical aspect, and I don’t find the people seed argument to have the same ethos as more “realistic” thought experiments. 3. This argument is all very well and good, but this doesn’t really prove that a doctor is in the moral right when performing an abortion on a woman who wants one. What about the Hippocratic Oath? Well, the modern version of the Hippocratic Oath most doctors use doesn’t actually contain a reference to abortion, so that particular issue seems to be resolved. JJ Thomson also responds to this argument herself : “If we say that no one may help the mother obtain an abortion, we fail to acknowledge the mother's right over her body (or property). Thomson says that we are not personally obligated to help the mother but this does not rule out the possibility that someone else may act. As Thomson reminds, the house belongs to the mother; similarly, the body which holds a fetus also belongs to the mother.” Essentially, while a doctor may not be obligated to help a mother who seeks an abortion, this doesn’t mean that the doctor can’t perform abortions. Thomson argues that the bodily autonomy of a patient (in this case, the mother) isn’t diminished by a doctor’s refusal to perform an abortion. If doctors are bound to respect the bodily autonomy of patients in other cases, why not this one? I hope this gives you some food for thought! I found this argument quite fascinating when I first came across it :)
  • dannbernaln
    Jan 15

    Abortion is the most conformist demand we can make to our government

    If we ask the governemt to take care of free and legal abortion, we are demanding a second hand problem, instead of treating the root of the problem. Instead, lets all ask our taxes to be invested in PREVENTING abortion in the first place. Better understanding of sexual education, more security in our countries, more education in general, focus towards young mothers who struggle getting a Job, etc.