"I believe that women can be personally pro-life and be feminists. I don't think, however, that women who fight to limit other women's reproductive choices are anywhere close to being feminist. "

Thanks for clarifying that for everyone and bringing it out into the open; I feel that way exactly!

I agree with you Jessica. I personally don't think I could ever get an abortion. I don't really know that that is true though because I've never been faced with that decision. But I think I would go through with my pregnancy. However, just because that's what I personally would do does not mean that's what I think all women should do. I would never be comfortable limiting other women's reproductive choices. Anyone that is comfortable with that...I just don't understand what is feminist about that at all. Maybe someone else can enlighten me on how that's possible?

I don't think anything is wrong with this. People have the right to fight for what they believe in. They always will and always have, to tell someone that they can't tell their side of the story whether it be pro or con isn't fair. What's wrong with it anyway? Scared that some people might not like abortion either? I don't care what she says or anyone else, people, it's her first amendment right. I swear some people are just so thinned skinned that they can't dare see someone criticize their worldview whether it be conservative or liberal that they actually say that you shouldn't try and persuade people. What type of SHIT is that?!? People should be able to say what they want when they want how they want it. Period END. Of. Story. If if your too scared that people may actually like the other side then let them have that choice!

Feminists for Life has become a more conservative organization since their move to Washington. They used to support a woman's right to use birth control, and explicitly acknowledge that not all women want to be mothers. I suspect that the current leadership actually agrees with these positions, but doesn't talk about them much for fear of alienating potential donors.

They still do a lot of good going around to college campuses to work on expanding the support systems available for pregnant and parenting students so that women don't feel they *have* to abort in order to continue their educations.

For me it's simple- a woman without the right to choose isn't legally or socially equal to a man who doesn't have to suffer professionally, personally, or by having to sacrifice his education. Feminism is about equality, as far as I'm concerned. Not vague being vaguely 'pro-woman' which can mean anything if you think what's best for women is for their rights to be limited in any way.

I have to agree that, while I understand the sentiment of this group, I don't think that denying any reproductive (or other) choice to a woman is a feminist philosophy.

That being said, I do wish there were much more emphasis on programs that helped prevent a pregnancy in the first place -- no by feminists, per se, but society in general.

I have a friend who is vehemently pro-life who agrees with the dominant feminist thinking in nearly every post presented on feministing-- racism, classism, sexism, equal pay, armed forces issues, access to birth conrol, etc--but she avoids it because of its clear designation as a pro-choice blog. I think, unfortunately, that a lot more women would join the feminist movement if it wasn't obviously pro-choice.

I've always sympathized with pro-lifers even though I've been staunchly pro-choice all of my adult life. I think however, if I viewed a fetus or a zygote as a baby and as a life, I'd likely feel differently. I don't believe that life begins at conception but I'm not sure I believe that it begins the moment after birth either. Every person is bound to feel differently about this no matter what the science defines life as.

Even if I had more doubts about when a pregnancy evolves into 2 separate lives, I think I'd still be pro-choice because I see all the damage that denying abortion does to society, and that reality is more important than the philosophy of when life begins. I don't really know what I'm trying to say besides that I sympathize with women who are pro-life yet have feminist leanings.

"I don't think, however, that women who fight to limit other women's reproductive choices are anywhere close to being feminist. What do you think?"

I think 'amen.'

Anyone who, from a policy perspective, seeks to take power out of the hands of women regarding reproductive choice cannot be considered a "feminist." Because once you've succeeded in removing denying reproductive power to women, you can get back to work on denying them other power as well. I mean, why should ya'll be allowed to vote and stuff if ya'll can't even stop making babies? Why would you want a career? You've got tons of babies at home! Why not wear a burka? We've already co-opted your uterus...why wouldn't we dictate that you wear repressive clothing?

I often wonder if folks who pray every day for the overturning of Roe are aware that Griswold is right behind it and next on the list, that, if most of these folks had their way, your only family planning option would be to abstain. It's craziness. And it certainly ain't feminism.

I think you can be a feminist and politically pro-life - but what that means is fighting to ensure that all women everywhere have access to excellent birth control and have the personal and financial support to keep wanted babies. Even then I'd agree with Jessica that debarring women from the option to have an abortion is antithetical to the feminist movement (there will always be some accidents for a variety of reasons). People who have a profound religious or ethical objection to abortion obviously want there to be no abortions (not just no abortions for them) and that's a legitimate position, as long as they pursue that through a positive strategy (prevent unwanted pregnancy) rather than a negative one (prevent women having abortions).

As a feminist I don't want women to have abortions, because I don't want any woman to have to undergo medical procedures unnecessarily - so I want abortions to be unnecessary. I have little sympathy with the actual beliefs of pro-lifers (as to me an abortion is just another medical procedure) but I'm with them on wanting fewer abortions - when pro-choice is doing its job, the number of abortions should go down. (And it does - countries where there is good access to birth control have fewer unwanted pregnancies and fewer terminations.)

Of course, it's anti-feminist to want to take away women's rights. No question. Yes, you can be "pro-life" for yourself, but you cannot limit other people's rights without crossing into not feminist land.

To be against birth control is beyond anti-feminist, it's downright abusive (in a global way).

I think it's important to differentiate between "pro-life" and "anti-choice". From what I understand, pro-lifers don't PERSONALLY agree with abortion and would probably never have one. Anti-choicers support legislation and policy changes (etc) that will restrict women's rights to abortion access and safety.

The terms are often easily interchanged but I think if we separate them it'll be easier to differentiate between "pro-choice", "anti-choice", and "pro-life" feminists.

This video highlights for me my intense frustration with both the pro-life and pro-choice camps. I am certainly staunchly pro-choice, but I think that this organization brings up some incredibly important points, specifically regarding poverty and abortion rates. No woman should have to feel that she must abort a fetus that she would like to keep because of economic or social reasons, the same way no woman should be prohibited from accessing abortion services when she wants to. And while I know that the pro-choice movement rhetorically accepts a woman's right to give birth rather than getting abortion as a choice. I see the whole movement as overly focused on abortion access issues as they relate to middle and upper income women.

This isn't to say that the pro-life camp is blameless (not by a long shot). I find this woman's specific argument to be nearly irrelevant to the discussion as a whole and symptomatic of one of the largest failings of the pro-life movement, enforcing your beliefs on others regardless of their desires or the consequences.

Ultimately, what really infuriates me about this, is the manner in which coinciding agendas are ignored for political reasons. While I don't agree with the more recent shifts in Feminists for Life, there is certainly part of their movement that cares about women and their well-being, and it goes without saying the same is true for the feminist movement. In the F.f.L. focus on the lack of support systems that exist for poor women, I see a definite overlap in agreement between pro-lifers and pro-choicers, and yet, we stand staunchly in opposition to each other, as if our approaches are inherently mutually exclusive. I feel frustrated that political posturing and ideology negates obvious room for policy advancement.

Thank you so much for posting this Jessica. I've read about this group before (just a one or two page blurb they put out) and from what I've read, they don't come across as being that bad. Still, I haven't been able to verbalize what doesn't sit well with me regarding their stance. You did so and did so well.

While I appreciate the sentiment of needing to change society to better fit the needs of women, I don't see that sort of significant change as coming soon enough. So, in my mind, we still need to have access to reproductive choice and NOT be shamed for making such choices.

I see feminism has a means for enhancing access to various freedoms and abolishing all the 'isms. So to see a group that claims to be feminist but seeks to limit the ability of women who do not want to have children to make that choice, it is disturbing.

As an aside, I wonder where are all these pro-life groups AFTER the child has been born? Do the people who stand outside Planned Parenthood with signs and religious regalia put in the same amount of time providing foster care for children who are put into the adoption system? Because it's easy to tell a woman not to have an abortion, but not so easy to provide the support she needs after the child is born.

I completely agree. I have a friend who I argue with about this. She is upset that I don't consider her a feminist because she is pro-life. But most importantly she supports the pro-life MOVEMENT as a whole, and that is not just about abortion, its about birth control and controlling a womans reproductive system ENTIRELY. I don't think she understands this.

And on a side note. I was in Borders a couple months ago (2 I think) and I met this woman, who was there to see Glenn Beck. We starting arguing about capitalism. (She had this stupid Reagonomics button on). And we started aruing about equal pay. And she stated that she didnt believe that women should sue companies because they don't get equal pay. She said that women should leave those jobs and find ones that will pay them equally and that's the way women will change the equal pay for equal work problem. She asked me what the point in suing was. I was just so amazed. She was a total fucking idiot. She really believed woman should just pick up and move to different jobs if their not paid equally based on their gender. Really, I won't even go into all the things that she was saying that were actually....pretty anti-woman. And then she gives me her card (yea, cause I want to be friends) and it said "feminists for life." So I thought...oh no way am I not bringing abortion up.

She said that she thought no one should have to have an abortion. That was it. Just that no woman should have to have an abortion. And I said...well, yea. Of course NO woman SHOULD have to have an abortion. I wish every pregnancy was wanted and possible. But some women do NEED abortions and they should remain available. This isnt about what should or could be its about what is. What world are you living in? She was the strangest woman I have ever met. Feminists For Life. Smh.

I think it's totally possible to be "pro-life" and feminist. I even think it's possible to wish to regulate others' choices re: abortion and be feminist. [Note: not my personal belief] They do lose me at the regulating birth control bit, and this is why:

I think a person who honestly believes that life begins at conception, and that a 40 cell zygote=human being, would be philosophically correct in opposing (all) abortion and still being feminist. IF someone thought that, it would be TO THEM the equivalent of saying that they could be against murder and still feminist, there is no logical inconsistency in trying to regulate others choices against a moral crime (which they would see abortion as) while still believing in women's rights.

It is absolutely true that there is no male equivalent to pregnancy, and that continuing an unwanted pregnancy can be damaging to the mother, but neither of those truths are philosophically in opposition to a feminist pro-life stance either. It is not as if a person with this view deliberately set it up so that only women can get pregnant, so it isn't the fault of their belief system that the pro-life penalty (carrying to term) would fall on women alone. So that's a false argument. While not everyone who espouses this view now would keep it if it were possible for men to get pregnant, some would. And so for that portion, it's a logically consistent thought.

And recognizing the damage carrying to term does to women and yet still desiring to mandate it CAN be logically consistent- most people would believe death to be the greatest punishment of all. Therefore, if you believe zygote= human, thaen an unwanted pregnancy has 2 innocent victims, Mother and zygote. Mother will probably be damaged by carrying to term, but that would still be a greater good (if you agreed with that philosophy) than one party being killed, because harm is less punishment than death, though both parties are unfortunately innocent.

In fact, a person who believes zygote=human HAD BETTER be working to prevent abortion, all abortion, or else they are turning a blind eye to what they view as murder, which would be sick.

While I don't agree that zygote=human, I can't exactly disprove those who do- it can be a logically consistent argument, even if I don't personally find it true. Someone who holds that a soul is granted on conception regardless of physical growth, for example, has a moral crusade I can't disprove or find philosophically inconsistent (yet) although I can (and do) disagree.

To sum: people who violently disagree with me about issues that are dear to my heart can still have put a lot of (rational) thought into why they oppose me, and not be lesser feminists because of that. Respecting others right to disagree with me not only legally but morally is to me a basic tenet of human dignity, and feminism also.

PS Note that controlling birth-control access is not covered by this philosophical tangent- that's a whole 'nother kettle of inconsistency.

How about women who fight to make any laws at all limiting the personal choices of other women; say the right to participate in pornography or prostitution?

I've encountered endless anti-porn/ant-sex work feminists who are politically active, are they no longer feminists?

Frankly your qualifying statement drawing a line between personal beliefs and political activism is complete chickenshit copping out at it's worst.

Why not use blunt language: "If you believe this way keep it to yourself, but when other issues come up and I can benefit from an alliance then feel free to get out there and be active. Otherwise STFU and GBTW."

I'm an anarchist, I don't stop being an anarchist because I also believe in property rights and cooperative socialism. A person can be a feminist and believe in "right to life" as long as he or she believes in equality of voice and choice (no such thing as a male abortion, so removing access for women does not remove equality of choice).

I'm pro-choice but against the death penalty. Why is it that few people of my own leftist leaning groups of comrades question this but people on that same left/progressive side get riled up when someone holds faith in the "sanctity of life" across the board?

I completely disagree with the idea that you can't be pro-life and feminist. Now, I won't speak for this organization, and I certainly won't support the idea that being anti-birth control is in line with being a feminist. However, terminating pregnancy is different from preventing pregnancy.

I think it's very important, when we discuss the subject of abortion, to get off of our high-feminist-horses and acknowledge that, really, we don't have all the answers. We don't know when "life" begins. can't know that we, as pro-choice women, are right, and they, as pro-life women, are wrong about our definitions of personhood.

And so, who are all pro-choice feminists to tell pro-life women that they are incorrect? And how do pro-choice women have a monopoly on feminism, if there's no way of knowing which point of view is correct?

I believe that if a woman is staunchly anti-abortion, and works diligently to ensure that women don't ever have to be in the situation of needing one--by improving access to birth control and contraceptives, by working to make more financial resources available to mothers who need support, by fighting the stigmas associated with unwed motherhood, by making adoption an accessible and practical solution, by working to increase access to day care, etc.--then she may absolutely claim a feminist identity. And who are we to tell her otherwise?

I agree wholeheartedly with Kate (above), who wrote, "I think, unfortunately, that a lot more women would join the feminist movement if it wasn't obviously pro-choice." Well said. I believe a lot more women would be receptive to the feminist movement if it weren't so self-policed about who may qualify to be in the club, and who isn't welcome because they don't follow all the right tenets. I think we all embrace diversity of opinion as a good thing, and that should, in my belief, include opinions regarding abortion.

I don't get it. I am very much pro-choice, but I can somewhat accept that a person can be a feminist and NOT be pro-choice. I DON'T, however, understand how a feminist could not support allowing other women the right to make their own choices, especially in cases of rape, incest, or where the potential mother's life is in danger.

What I REALLY don't understand is how can any rational person, feminist or not, be against the use of birth control?

Maybe I'm getting side tracked from the whole intended message of the video ... but wouldn't removing the "family cap" be the more humane thing to do than becoming an advocate of criminalizing abortion? It seemed pretty clear to me that the family cap was a major factor driving women using welfare to seek multiple abortions.

The Shablin Formulation, circa 1965: "I believe that the state has the power to imprisonment people who have participated in interracial weddings, but I still consider myself a civil rights activist."

I believe that it's possible to be feminist and pro-life. I can, to an extent, accept FFL as a sincere feminist organization because they at least recognize that there are so many factors that need to be looked at for why women have abortions. They understand that if abortion were not available, there would have to be a lot of changes for women financially and more support given for them to balance career with children. That's a definite improvement over pro-life organizations that don't give a shit about women at all and completely take them out of the equation. If they were to succeed in making abortion illegal, they would never take steps to really improve the lives of women they've forced into carrying out pregnancies.

The woman in the video, however, claimed that it's a 'lie' that women would have abortions because pregnancy would threaten their job. Since when is this a lie? If a woman has a job that demands a certain amount of time and dedication, having a baby would definitely be an issue, especially if the woman doesn't have a good support system.

Anyway, even though I believe there are some people involved with FFL that are sincere and really do care about women, sometimes I think their focus on women might just be a whole new 'strategy' for winning people over to their side. They say that 'pro-choice' doesn't make sense because some women have abortions because they have to, not because of health, but because their financial situation just doesn't allow them to support another person. They see this as wrong, and I agree with that. I wish that every person who chooses to have an abortion really does it as a 'choice' as opposed to the only choice. However, how can you present yourself as pro-woman and restrict birth control, something that would allow women to really have control and have a choice?

Or are they going to claim that BC hurts women too?

I've met Serrin Foster, the president of FFL when she spoke at my school. I'm the VP of the pro-choice group, so I was wearing my shirt and passing out my literature and apparently she wanted to meet me. She was surprisingly nice, compared to the angry, yelling way she delivered her lecture. Anyway, I asked her about birth control and she made some joke about personally thinking they should "put it in the water" in college towns, but that not everyone in FFL agrees with her.
Her lecture, on the other hand, talked only about factors that cause women to seek abortions, and one of the main assumptions she made was that if every woman had enough money, she would want to have a baby, which of course is total nonsense. Also, during the Q and A, her answers made no sense, rambled, and did not answer anyone's questions.

Am I the only one who finds online abortion discussions frustrating due to people's refusal to recognize that "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are political labels?

Totally agree with Jessica -- you can be personally against abortion (not want to have one, try to convince others by persuasion and argument not to have one, support women who choose to carry unwanted pregnancy to term) and be a feminist. Wanting to outlaw abortion and be a feminist is a little more tricky.

I for one am against the birth control pill...I think its terrible for your body, and I think its royally messed up that there is a BPC for women and not men. I've witnessed too many friends land themselves in the hospital or with less serious but extremely anoying problems because of the pill. In the end, my opposition comes from the fact that I refuse to think of my fertility as a problem that needs to be medically managed by messing with my hormones, while my partner's fertility -- clearly one half of the pregnancy equation -- gets to stay inviolate.

But, I also happen to be a bit of libertarian when it comes to adults making choices about their bodies. If you want to take the BPC, skydive, eat fast food, smoke cigarettes, drink to excess, etc. I think you should have every right to do that, whether I agree with your choice or not.

That's where the feminists for life differ...they seem to think that legally taking choices away from women "frees them" from making a choice THEY have decided is bad. They have some good arguments, but in the end it really comes down to whether you believe the government or individual women should be making choices about women's bodies.

"I don't think, however, that women who fight to limit other women's reproductive choices are anywhere close to being feminist."

*Disclaimer, I am pro-choice, pro-sex, pro-women. Jessica, I love that you can take a stand and say that if a woman isn't pro-choice she isn't a feminist. However I can not agree with you. It bothers me when people want to take away some of the women's rights we've worked so hard for (especially reproductive rights), but I don't blame them for saying they are feminist.
I blame the feminist ideology and framework. Its in complete shambles with no clear goal. Honestly, what does it mean to be a feminist,who determines that, and who's voices are marginalized in the decision? I identified as a feminist because I believe in equality and all the rest of its seasonings. However I was never given a badge, made to memorize a pledge of allegiance or even given a letter of recognition after I made this choice. There was no clear criteria, one of the only things that seamed important for me to identify was the fact that I had a vagina and believed in equality, thus could be part of the club.
I don't think we can get upset with groups like Feminist for Life, as long as they genuinely think they're feminists (and not using it as a marketing strategy). Today that would be the same as telling someone they are not a Democrat if they support the war(s).
Unless our ideas are clear and centered there will always be groups like Feminist for Life claiming to be feminists. I think we should look inward, examine why this group proclaims to be feminist and ways we could reclaim what being a feminist means.
I am just going to throw the idea out there that maybe we can't reclaim the word for our movement (feminist), maybe its not relevant to what our goals are today. Do we really want the feminine, which websters defines as "having qualities or appearance traditionally associated with women, esp. delicacy and prettiness" to define our movement? I personally don't.
Regardless of how we go about it, we need to define our movement, make clearer goals and steps to reach these goals. Until then, calling yourself a feminist is an open grab bag, everyone can use the term for their own benefit because we do not have a comprehensible doctrine.

I don't understand the term 'personally pro-life'... usually you hear "I'm personally pro-life but politically pro-choice." The pro-choice label is not a statement about what your choice as an individual would be, so 'personally pro-choice' means absolutely nothing. Pro-choice simply means you want women to have access to abortion. Your CHOICE may always be to keep the pregnancy, but you are still pro-choice if you believe the option for abortion should be available.

I'm having trouble imagining a way that a person who would deny women autonomy over their own bodies could be feminist. If it is possible, they would have to come at it from a completely different perspective than any pro-life argument I've ever heard. I do believe that part of being pro-choice means fighting to remove obstacles to those who DO choose to carry a pregnancy to term but unlike Feminists For Life, I believe women know what's ultimately best for themselves. And perhaps they do it because they don't want to alienate themselves from the larger pro-life movement and their ranks would shrink significantly, but the fact that they aren't fighting tooth and nail to make birth control available at a reduced cost makes it pretty damn clear that they aren't feminists or really all that concerned about reducing abortion in a practical way.

What if you want to outlaw abortion because you are a feminist and believe that we should be protecting the women who cannot speak for themselves- aka the unborn? We can protect those future children AND the mothers by helping women not get into unwanted pregnancies in the first place- better birth control, education, changing social norms about gender roles and sex, de-stigmatizing adoption, etc.

Being pro-life isn't just about forcing a person to be pregnant against their will, as if that isn't bad enough.

Being pregnant puts a lot of restrictions on what the woman can do. If we illegalize abortion, ethically we would then have to force women into a form of quazi-slavery at best. We'd have to force them to stop drinking and smoking, not to mention illegal drugs which are harder to quit (anyone who has quit smoking can tell you the torture that is), we'd have to force them to stop certain physical activities (like hockey? not anymore!), we'd have to force them to go off of certain medications, take lots of time off of work for certain jobs and less time off for almost all especially if something goes wrong (and many states do not have adequate compensation), and many more things to make sure the fetus is born healthy--because if you really care about the fetus you need to also care about it not being born with things like fetal alcohol syndrome.

On top of that, the woman is going to potentially have to deal with life-long health problems, risk death, risk societal derision (imagine having to tell everyone you know that you're giving a child up for adoption and risking how many of them thinking you're a heartless whore), lose their jobs or at least risk hurting their careers for time lost, pay incredible amounts for health care potentially putting them deep into debt (or have everyone's taxes raised to cover it [which I'm fine with, ftr]).

And none of these things will be inflicted on a man, no matter what he does.

If you're going to make abortion illegal, you might as well take away our right to vote, because there is no equality in the pro-life stance. There is no equality in privileging men over women, and there is no equality in privileging a fetus over every born person.

Feminists for Life came to my college (I graduated last year) and I brought up their website's link of abortion to breast cancer. The speaker said SHE wasn't responsible for the content of HER GROUP's website. Uh, not the answer I was looking for.

A few of us tried to have a constructive conversation at the end with her, but just got nowhere. It was so, so frustrating, to the point where I can't even make sense of it in a coherent post, so this will be it for now.

Good to see this issue faced head-on, Jessica.

I have been adamently anti-Choice for most of my life (including several adult years) and was suspicious of feminism in part because I believed it to be hostile to the pro-Life position.

I am now pro-Choice, pro-Quality of Life, anti-Death Penalty, and Feminist. Most of my being cries out, "No! Hell, No! Advocating that one-half of the human population be held hostage to biology when, in all other spheres of existence, humans have worked so hard to define ourselves independent of our biology is as anti-feminist/humanist as it gets."

But then I think about people like my grandmother.

My grandmother's education stopped at the American equivalent of 9th grade.

She was married as a young teenager and had a long succession of children.

She helped her husband scrimp and save to get her daughter (my mother) into a top private grammar/secondary school.

She sat up nights helping my teenage mother study for her undergraduate and then, later, graduate exams.

She prayed several hours each day on which I had an exam scheduled.

She advised me several times on how to get ahead in the workplace and school.

She advised me not to get married at all if the prospective spouse tries to limit my agency in any way.

She never asks me when I will get married or have grandkids; our conversations center on Religion, Culture, and Education.

She believes the idea that women are natural homemakers is backwards nonsense (and she's a devout Christian).

Even though she holds chastity in highest regard, she denounces and reviles the Female Genital Cutting (widespread in our country of origin) that other chastity-police rationalize by claiming it ensures female chasteness.

But I suspect she believes abortion is murder and should be prohibited as such.

Can I rightly call her a non-feminist?

I have trouble seeing her as non-feminist when for most of my life, she has been my feminist role model, even when the larger U.S. and country-of-origin cultures displayed the grossest of misogyny.

I'll think more on this and get back to 'ya.

"Can I rightly call her a non-feminist?"

IMO, yes. If she truly thinks through it (beyond the knee-jerk "It's only nine months" into what it truly means), and thinks that the life of a fetus supercedes the rights of the woman, then real feminism is still impossible, no matter how good she is otherwise. The Textbook Feminist who lobbies for abortion rights but believes that women who get drunk in public are then responsible for their rapist's actions or women who were too scared to say "No" to their rapists can't blame their rapists for not knowing are just as unfeminist.

Personally, I call myself a pro-life feminist and, although I wish they would talk a little more about birth control, (whether they endorse it or not), I'm a huge fan of Feminists For Life.

I consider myself a feminist, because I believe that women should have equal access to education, jobs, housing, etc. I believe women have a long way to go to achieve equality in the workplace and often within families and relationships. I believe there ARE still glass ceilings, that women deserve equal pay for equal work, and that women should be free from the threat of rape, domestic violence, human trafficking, and sexual harassment. I believe sexism still exists in obvious and subtle forms and that women are often stereotyped and objectified in the media and by advertisers.

I consider myself pro-life, because I believe that abortion is ending the life of a human being. I'm against abortion in all cases, except where the mother's life is in danger.

So, taking all this into account, I, along with many of my friends, call ourselves pro-life feminists. Because that's what we are. We wear shirts that say "This is What a Feminist Looks Like" and shirts that say "Women Deserve Better Than Abortion: Refuse to Choose". We've urged our elected leaders to vote for the Lilly Ledbetter Equal Employment Act and against the Freedom of Choice Act. I've handed out information pamphlets on sexual assault and rape at a Take Back the Night Rally and I've handed out "Susan B. Anthony Was Pro-Life" buttons at the March for Life.

Anyone who wants to is free to tell me I'm not a "real" feminist, but that doesn't matter. I'm still going to call myself one and there's nothing you can do to stop me. When it all comes down to it, it's how I label myself that matters. You can disagree with me, but you can't make me stop calling myself a pro-life feminist and you can't make me stop BEING a pro-life feminist.

Some people will say you're not a "real" feminist if you're not a vegetarian, an animal rights activist, if you're not as passionate about the environment as they are, or if they disagree with you on work/life issues or on whether hormonal birth control is a good idea or not for your body. There are different types of feminism and different types of feminists. I think you make the pool a lot smaller when you don't allow for disagreements on even the most central issues.

I am a pro-life feminist.

And to me this means that while I am personally opposed to abortion, I understand and respect that many women are not.

It also means that I am passionate about making other forms of birth control as available as possible, spreading the word that Plan B is available over the counter, and vehemently challenging abstinence only education.

As a catholic woman, and a feminist woman, this is a socio-political conflict I have grappled with for years. However, I honestly feel that I have harnassed the strengths of both my religious and political identities to find an intersecting identity that works for me.

Okra-

That's exactly what I mean!

I don't participate in activism on either side of the abortion debate, but I would never vote against pro-choice legislation.

ugh :/ I took notes while watching this video so that my actually thoughts while watching were represented.. I am pro choice.. I am a feminist.. I believe babies are great.. but if i ever became pregnant and for any reason that i decided to have an abortion.. that would be my decision.. I wouldnt make the decision by myself because everyone who knows me know i care about everyones opinions.. but it would come down to my choice.

that being said my notes..

FFL intro.. in just the first 47 seconds of the video it makes me feel like they are saying women have abortions because they otherwise wouldnt be able to aford having a baby. Because when women become pregnant they never DONT WANT TO HAVE IT. From that stand point that its to do with money.. yes women do deserve better than HAVING to get an abortion because they couldnt afford to keep it.. i understand that little slogan "women deserve better than abortions"

I'm a little sad to think though that the idea of better than an abortion is to be a parent. I think women deserve better than having to keep a baby that might get in the way of their goals.. because even though she thinks she could have made it "where she is now" with a baby I know that babies can hold you back from an actual successful life.. maybe not forever but something somewhere always has to give either good parenting or your career..

i think that if NARAL is an organization that lets women know that an abortion is as safe as having an apendectomy... i wouldnt want to be part of that group... because abortions arent 100 percent safe and neither is an apendectomy..

"medicaid is the program for people who are disadvantaged" is that like saying poor people?

she says that when she found out how many abortions women were having she was heartbroken.. well under that medicare cap their coverage wouldnt cover a new baby.. so whats the upside of being on medicaid if it wont cover your new baby?
And if people were taking their birth control they wouldnt be getting pregnant 4 times a year.. in theory..
(I certainly havent gotten pregnant and i've been on birth control for 6 years)

upon her research she found that she had commited a grave wrong? where was she doing her research and why does she assume no one who hasnt done research has no idea that life starts at conception?
that people who have abortions dont realize that they are not allowing that life to live..

i think that anyone who has an abortion.. or a great majority knows what theyre doing.. and realize that they arent just going in for a fucking teeth cleaning.

GRR. I also have no idea what this has to do with being a feminist.. what rights for women is she fighting for.. the right to have babies?
I dont get it.

What really makes me frustrated and deeply, deeply sad is the following:

"My decision, in retrospect, was based on maintaining my lifestyle, separating myself from a VERY unhealthy relationship, and avoiding conflict with my peers and with my career."

Does any of this sound crazy? Yet she says it's selfish that a woman would want some autonomy in determining her economic and domestic safety.

Proof that feminism is still justified. Ugh.