Feminist, atheist... and pro-life?

[Alpha]

The abortion debate bores me. I understand why people get worked up about it, but it's obviously at a deadlock. So, in an effort to make it interesting again, I decided to see whether it was possible to come from the perspective of one side of the debate, and reach the other side's conclusion (through hopefully new lines of reasoning).

Well, I think I can. Note, a disclaimer. This may or may not be my perspective. I say this because that's not actually important or relevant. Who holds a particular opinion does not matter. What does matter is whether their argumentation is logical and valid. So that's what I ask you to consider when reading the rest of this post. Is this a possible, plausible, valid argument? Is it possible to be feminist, atheist, and pro-life?

Because I'm lazy, I'm going to quote occasionally from various places on the Internet. These will be italicised. Although it does make the flow occasionally awkward, especially because one I will draw on heavily is written in first person. Deal. With. It.

-----------------------

Opposition to abortion is generally seen as a religious stance, but it needn't be, and for some it is not. It could be said to be rather simple logic that a human life begins at conception, and that the inclusion of a child into society after birth (but not before) as nothing but a human convention. This has nothing to do with the sanctity of life as defined in some book; but just the extension of the protection afforded to all people outside of the womb to people inside the womb.

This convention of defining the unborn as less than fully human could be seen as part of a larger phenomenon. This practice is found in all cultures and though the choice of outcast is variable, it seems inevitable that someone who is biologically human will be excluded from the social definition of humanity. It is commonly known that those who are excluded are treated in ways that would be considered unthinkable otherwise.

Possibly, the root of my reaction against abortion is one of self-interest and of self-identification. Aren't there many in this world who see me as less than human because I am a woman? Aren't there people who would deem me to be politically, socially, or ideologically "degenerate" and "undesirable" because of my atheism, bisexuality, desire not to be a mother, pacifism, or other personal characteristics? How can I demand my inclusion in humanity and yet deny humanity to another? What kind of gamble would I be taking if I allowed a dehumanising custom to persist in my society without questioning it? If I tolerate the redefinition of what is human according to someone's desire for power and control, don't I make myself vulnerable to someone's determination that I am not worthy of the designation "human"?

It could be argued that being atheist and pro-life is a bit awkward: 'why should you feel that life is precious if you feel that life is meaningless and without divine purpose?' But there are perfectly rational arguments against this criticism.

The simplest is that being anti-abortion is perhaps anti-violence. Is abortion violent? To be honest, I'd have to say it is. Why? Because I can't see how it is non-violent or peaceful. A physical intervention is made to prevent an outcome that would otherwise occur. Is that not the definition of violence? When is violence useful? Why would people, particularly feminists, support violence?

The second comes from a more feminist perspective. It may be summarised as 'why should pregnancy be seen as a problem to be fixed; for a woman to have full participation in society on equal terms with men?'

I once worked in a large office with a single woman who became pregnant and who decided to place her child for adoption. Because she was pregnant unintentionally and out of wedlock, she became an object of scornful humor and office gossip. This kind of public upset is death to one's career in corporate America. By choosing life for her child, this woman offended management and her co-workers and thereby limited her potential for economic growth. This was no small consequence because she already had a child to support. I commend her for her courage and her commitment to her ideals, but I will admit that she paid a high price for her integrity.

The central idea then, is that abortion has never empowered women. In reality abortion has acted like a bandaid to hide the fallout of our society's failed value system -- a system whereby a pregnant woman is seen as a problem to be fixed. We were told that women need abortion as a way to compete in today's world. If we have to kill our children to make a living, what kind of living is that?

The notion that a woman cannot have a baby and go to college, or cannot have a baby and be a CEO, or cannot have a baby and be the person she is supposed to be -- is untrue and should not be entertained.

There was a story once of an actress who became pregnant. She did not wish to get an abortion. As such, it was decided that she could no longer keep her job. At the time, a producer of the show was quoted as saying, "Why doesn't she just go out and get an abortion? Then she can work." One could retort, 'why can't she do what only women can (and, ultimately, must) do, and maintain her position in the workplace, in society?'

The case provides a clear example of how abortion on demand has actually served men rather than women. Employers do no want to pay for maternity leave just as Hollywood does not want to bother working around a female actor's bulging belly, regardless of legal obligation.

----------------------

So, how about it? Valid? Note again, I stress that it is not important whether or not this is my opinion. I just think that the abortion debate as it currently stands is rather static. It's at an impasse, and has been ridiculously politicised. I also think that it is important to be able to cogently make arguments that are not your own (for one, it gives you a greater ability to critique them; and understand the perspective of the person you're debating).

[Sasquatch]

Quite a few interesting points in there. I especially like pointing out the common liberal argument -- that women or minorities are just as good as anybody else, but somehow can't be successful without somebody else controlling them or helping them (which, in turn, weighs down the rest of us).

I also like the pointing out of a fact well-known by most pro-lifers: It's not women keeping abortion legal, it's men that it benefits most. While many abortion advocates claim that only men are pro-life, trying to take that "right" away from women so that men can control them more easily, the opposite is true: if only women were to vote on the legality of abortion, it would become no longer legal. The thing that confuses me is how few rights men have over their own unborn child (yet many still support it), and how an unborn child is considered a child in some cases and nothing more than a parasite in others, depending on what the mother feels about it at the time. I mean, really -- if you are pregnant and we end up fighting, and it results in the death of your unborn child, I could be charged with murder or manslaughter. But if you decide that a child is too much to take care of until you give birth and put it up for adoption and have its brain sucked out by a "doctor", that's perfectly legal -- and the government will even help pay for it.

I'm glad to see more arguments against abortion that aren't based solely on religion -- it makes some people realize that those types of arguments exist, instead of retaining their ability to sit in a corner and stereotype those against abortion as a bunch of inbred Bible-thumpers.

[Judge Magistrate]

Quite a few interesting points in there. I especially like pointing out the common liberal argument -- that women or minorities are just as good as anybody else, but somehow can't be successful without somebody else controlling them or helping them (which, in turn, weighs down the rest of us).

I also like the pointing out of a fact well-known by most pro-lifers: It's not women keeping abortion legal, it's men that it benefits most. While many abortion advocates claim that only men are pro-life, trying to take that "right" away from women so that men can control them more easily, the opposite is true: if only women were to vote on the legality of abortion, it would become no longer legal. The thing that confuses me is how few rights men have over their own unborn child (yet many still support it), and how an unborn child is considered a child in some cases and nothing more than a parasite in others, depending on what the mother feels about it at the time. I mean, really -- if you are pregnant and we end up fighting, and it results in the death of your unborn child, I could be charged with murder or manslaughter. But if you decide that a child is too much to take care of until you give birth and put it up for adoption and have its brain sucked out by a "doctor", that's perfectly legal -- and the government will even help pay for it.

I'm glad to see more arguments against abortion that aren't based solely on religion -- it makes some people realize that those types of arguments exist, instead of retaining their ability to sit in a corner and stereotype those against abortion as a bunch of inbred Bible-thumpers.

I could take offense to that, I'm an inbred Bible-thumper. But yes, these are all really good points, and I'm glad that someone would break it down this way. Not based on religion or anything like that, more like the facts, so that way people with no religion can understand the points.

[Furore]

As a view, yes, it's valid. I wonder what would make a personal view invalid after reading this. My own view is that abortion should be legal as a choice as even if I don't believe in it, people shouldn't be told what they can do in such a situation - you can never fully empathise with another and they may have valid reasons for making such a decision. It would be amazing if people did drop some of those 'women in the workplace' prejudices though, I know a few young mothers, including single mothers who can quite easily make a job work around being pregnant/having a child and it is quite irritating to see them go through many fruitless job searches because of it.

Then again, I would describe myself as an extremist of sorts, it really irks me when the government is so conttolling, even over things that I'd never have to deal with personally. Just my views.

[Heartless Angel]

So essentially the argument you pose here is...

If you are feminist, you should support things that bennefit and empower women.
You are feminist.
Abortion does not bennefit or empower females.
Therefore you should not support abortion.

Looks formally valid, following the rule of modus tollens.

I'm not sure if you can quite make the jump to say abortion is wrong based on this, but you've definitely got a good religion-free argument for why feminists should oppose it (if they agree with your premises). If you can actually convince a feminist that abortion is only really benneficial to men, they should readily accept this conclusion. Not sure if all feminists would agree with that particular premise, but the argument is perfectly valid regardless.

[Alpha]

I suppose the next question, which is harder to answer, is why, when coming from this atheist/feminist perspective, this isn't the natural conclusion. I've never come across this perspective in public debate. Why? Both are valid, but why does this fail to be as valid?

[Furore]

Because Atheism and Feminism are very broad categories comprised of many individuals. Not all of them will feel identically about any given issue.

A valid view isn't necessarily a widespread one and if few people have brought this view to the table then it hasn't had much exposure to the masses and a lot of people within most given demographics often seem to decide such things based on what they gleam from those that think it through and put their views in public view. I'd wager more people would accept the viewpoint if it became more widely spread.

[Heartless Angel]

Well, I can't claim to know a whole lot about people who have abortions, but I assume most of them believe it's benneficial to them in some way (whether it actually IS is another issue entirely), or they probably wouldn't go through with it. And most have probably not had that belief challenged by a view they'd agree with (as pointed out, most anti abortion arguments are rooted in religion, which people seriously considering abortion probably don't care too much about). If you actually posed your argument to some of them, I'd be willing to bet at least a few would change their minds.

[Alpha]

Interesting, so the consensus is that the reason this line of argumentation remains a curiosity rather than a dominant position is that it few people are aware of it?

It's not that reproductive autonomy better represents the ideals of women's empowerment?

That's what I thought people would argue. I'm just not sure if I can actually explain why that is.

[daelythm]

I also think that being pro-life is completely independent of religion and gender. It goes all the way down to a person's core values. In this case we form these values on abortion, without any science to define for us, the psychology at work in the relationship between the mother and her unborn child.

Women are of course empowered by the freedom to choose. But no outside influences such as work or even social circles should be allowed to direct a woman toward abortion. What we should want ideally is that it be a choice that especially a questioning mother can have time to learn enough about to be able to make an informed decision. Anyone is empowered by any freedom of choice, but then there's the consequences that they personally face; and not knowing a thing could give a psychological consequence that won't be so easy to brush off as the initial decision was. So I think that the real argument comes from society trying to find the right balance of protecting people from themselves under outside infuences versus letting them make the decision when they are sure of what they want. Atheist or not. Pro-life is erring on the side of caution, though.

I guess what I was trying to say, is that it's still about what we don't know when it comes to the creation of a living soul. Feminists, atheists, and the whole rest of the world are in the same boat in that regard, unless a religion claims otherwise based on the tenants of their faith. Or then again, anyone can choose what to believe for that matter, on such a topic as this.

It's really interesting to talking about abortion right now. I heard that it might become even more controversial now that people can tell the sex of their baby a whole lot earlier than before. This is an example of how we're going to have to ask if we're letting peole make the decision for the wrong reason. Some people will take advantage of the available technology. A feminist or an atheist could definitely say, come on, that's an abuse.

[OnOneRyder]

Atheist and pro-lifer here, yes we do exist and yes I do think it's a valid position even though feminism for the most part is an absolute joke. I've found it only really to be a position held based on religious belief in the west and not so much in other parts of the world, so it should come as no surprise that individuals on both sides of the theistic fence can share opinions.

I for one take my stance primarily because I believe that once that spark of life exists that it is BOTH parents responsibility to provide and care for that child, how many other species would voluntarily give up their unborn offspring for non life threatening reasons? Secondly as Sasquatch mentioned, the absolute lack of rights and control men have in the matter. I'd be hard pressed to not put a woman who did that to my child in the hospital with broken limbs, but society holds the position of it being a decision to be made by women. Touchy subject yes, never ending debate.