Talk:Anti-abortion feminism

Criticism?

What are other feminists think about so-called pro-life feminism? This position is lacking in the article! -- till we ☼☽ | Talk 14:35, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Permanent Removal of Biased Commentary

I removed most of a long commentary on Roman Catholic "New Feminism." It gives the impression that prolife feminists are all Roman Catholics, and Catholics who accept official doctrine at that. Not so.--M.

I removed this biased, non-NPOV, non-sourced commentary:

Some have accused Feminists for Life and other such pro-life feminist groups of having little to do with feminism, pointing out their efforts seldom extend beyond opposition to abortion, and claiming they merely represent an effort by the pro-life movement to gain support with women.

This comment does not have one source listed on who said these things, when they were said, etc. It is the commentary of a Wikipedian, and as such, it is non-NPOV and must be removed. I will keep removing it too if a source, or citation, is not provided. --Keetoowah 18:53, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

There was a citation, and you removed it. There was a citation to an essay in The Nation presenting exactly that opinion. It is not non-NPOV to present the existence of dissenting opinions. I am restoring it, because your criticism is unfounded. --Soultaco 20:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Problem with Pro life Response to criticism

I cleaned up the criticism section and set it off from the main blob of text, but there is a problem: The pro life response to the criticism is full of logical errors:

• Obviously, "moral agency" allows killing: Just war, capital punishment etc. are fine according to many different moral philosophies
• Women's bodies are not a "tool for profit", abortion is unprofitable in many circumstances, especially in places where laws make it very difficult to perform. Moreover any service provided at a cost can be considered a "tool for profit", you are ignoring what benefit the customer may receive.
• There is no one "feminist model". There are many different feminist philosophies. Please cite what exactly you are referring to.

--Zaorish 19:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I didn't write that, but I think I might know what the user meant in regards to the "tool for profit" concept. I have read pro-life feminist material that points to the profits groups like Planned Parenthood receive as an example of their true goals. I think that one at least, is valid to place under the counter arguments.

But overall, I don't think three lines suffices as a response to criticism. That part needs to be expanded with some more detail, or deleted altogether, as I see it.--GenkiDama 21:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Contested existence of movement

Agreed that there is not enough proof for the existence of any such movement. I have merged this article with Feminists for Life, as it seems to be the only verifiable group espousing this viewpoint. Joie de Vivre 17:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

There are over 600,000 hits on google for pro-life feminism and many books available on the movement such as ProLife Feminism Yesterday and Today. The movement most definitly exists and should have an article. The article, however, should be expanded to include other aspects of pro-life feminism such as pushing for more affordable health and child care. Neitherday 17:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

No, there are not over 600,000 hits for "pro-life feminism". There are over 600,000 hits for the terms "pro-life" and "feminism" in context to one another, which isn't surprising.

There are only 12,000 hits for the phrase "pro-life feminism". Many of these are sites which merely copy Wikipedia articles in entirety. All of the pages I checked in a cursory overview directly reference Feminists For Life or president Serrin Foster as mouthpieces for the movement. There appear to be no other pro-life feminist organizations other than FFL.

I cannot find any proof that the concept of pro-life feminism exists beyond the Feminists for Life. Joie de Vivre 18:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Even the 12,000 is equivalant to what many of the other subtypes of feminism yield on google. What about the book on the topic I listed (by a reputable publisher)? Here's another book ProLife Feminism. The movement exists. Please get consensus before deleting (the content wasn't moved) all content in this article. Neitherday 18:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

One of the authors of that book, Rachel MacNair, served as president of Feminists for Life for ten years.[1] Linda Krane was thanked for her "substantial aid" with an amicus brief filed by Feminists for Life.[2] Mary Krane Derr is a contributor to The American Feminist, the newsletter published by Feminists for Life.[3][4]. Linda Naranjo-Huebl joined Feminists for Life in 1982.[5] and is now on the board of directors of the Consistent Life Network, alongside MacNair, who now serves as the vice-president.[6] Again, I see no proof that pro-life feminism exists as a movement outside of those involved with the Feminists for Life organization. Joie de Vivre 21:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course many pro-life feminist authors are likely to be involved with on some level, interact with, or be featured in the publications of the largest pro-life feminist organization. This does not infer the non-existence of the movement. Here are two other books about the movement: Pro-Life Feminism by Gail Grenier Sweet; and Swimming Against the Tide by Angelena Kennedy. Apart from books I've listed so far, lets not forget about the Feminism and Non-Violence Studies Association a seperate pro-life feminist literary origination. How much do you need to prove that this is a real movement? Neitherday 21:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

(undent) The "Feminism and Non-Violence Studies Association" is not an organization. It is the brainchild of Rachel MacNair, president of Feminists for Life for 10 years. The "organization" published a grand total of five newsletters and one "online book" that reads like an essay. The last time MacNair published anything through FNSA was seven years ago, in 2000. All of the people listed above as members of Feminists for Life are involved with this "association".

Angela Kennedy's book is a collection of nine essays. The two of those which focus on pro-life feminism in terms of abortion are written by MacNair and Krane Derr. Grenier Sweet doesn't even mention feminism on her website. It's the same voices, over and over.

The views of a vocal minority should not be inflated to look as though it's a social movement, then given a platform through Wikipedia to espouse their views. Joie de Vivre 22:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Grenier Sweet doesn't have to mention anything on her website, as the fact she wrote a whole book about it speaks more to the issue. Again, just because some Feminists for Life were associated with two of the essays in a collection of essays on pro-life feminism doesn't make the entire book associated with Feminists for Life. Next, "Feminism and Non-Violence Studies Association" is still a separate organization within the larger movement, regardless of who started it. Lastly, there are far more fringe feminist movements that have their own articles (see psychoanalytic feminism and cyborg feminism). Neitherday 23:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Two Feminists for Life weren't associated with the essays, they wrote the two essays which took a stance on abortion. And the "organization" isnt really a separate organization from Feminsts for Life; it's the former president of FFL publishing a few newsletters in the 90s. I feel that this article gives undue weight to the views of a few, and I don't see evidence that this movement exists in a cohesive form outside of the minds of the members of Feminists for Life. Joie de Vivre 14:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This is like saying there was no suffrage movement within the United States in the 19th century because the majority of the people in the movement were or had at one point been associated with the National Woman Suffrage Association. As any movement grows, breakaway organizations will develop as has happen within pro-life feminism. These organizations often have members who were formally high ranking within the older organizations, but they are still separate organizations within the larger movement. Neitherday 14:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It isn't a breakaway organization. It's a pet project of one of the original founders of Feminists for Life. The only existing pro-life feminist organization that I can find is Feminists for Life, and in the absence of other organized groups, how can we refer to a philosophy held by a few as a "movement"? Joie de Vivre 17:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

By that logic, until 1890 there was no suffrage movement in the United States. Neitherday 17:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

To clarify the above, I still contend that Feminism and Non-Violence Studies Association is a separate organization, but am suggesting that even if it is not the movement's existence is still valid. Neitherday 17:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

(undent) WP:Crystal. It's not appropriate to speculate on the relevance of a philosophy that has not gained momentum or visibility in a movement. If the best evidence of any such movement is a single organization, a couple of books written by members of that organization, and a short-lived writing club founded by the president of the organization, we do not have a discrete movement here beyond the organization. Joie de Vivre 17:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I have made no predictions in my arguments, so WP:Crystal does not apply. The movement is diverse; it has drawn media attention; the "writing club", as you put it, is a separate organization; I've listed several books. There are many non affiliated websites discussing the issue. There are 9,600 google hits for the search: "pro-life feminism" -"feminists for life", meaning the majority of the articles online mentioning pro-life feminism do not even mention Feminists for Life. I have presented plenty of concrete evidence that the movement exists. I do not support the deletion of the content in this article. Neitherday 17:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, As the actual editor of “Swimming Against the Tide: Feminist Dissent on the issue of Abortion”, and with the book/contributors notes in front of me, I can tell you the following:

Two contributors are North American members of the FNSA, co-authors of ‘Pro-life Feminism: Yesterday and Today, and have had past affiliations with Feminists for Life. One other author is a British member of the FNSA.

One contributor was active in the British Groups Feminists Against Eugenics and Women for Life.

Two contributors were active in the British socialist pro-life Group the Labour Life Group, one as Women’s Officer.

One contributor is a founder member of the group Feminists for Life of Ireland.

Four contributors are unaffiliated to any group as such, but identified as pro-life feminists.

The foreword was written by Mary McAleese, some months before she became President of Ireland.

All contributors were critiquing abortion from a feminist perspective, hence the title of the book! Contrary to Joie de Vivre’s assertion, they were ALL focusing on pro-life feminism in terms of abortion (although other life issues are also present in the book).

I think this provides good evidence that there is a pro-life feminist movement, especially if added to the Grenier Sweet multi-author anthology. There are what I would call many other examples of pro-life feminist activity. There’s even a pro-life feminist Yahoo Group!

But I think the denial of there being a ‘movement’ here in the first place is odd. There are many grass-roots movements for justice all around the world: there does not need to have been a multitude of literature to ‘prove’ that a movement exists (especially if movements are not necessarily highly literary as such) . I can also tell you I get quite regular emails/letters from women (more often younger women) who have come across the book and find they share the concerns expressed within. Obviously this is just anecdote on my part- but the make-up of the book I edited is not- and I wanted to clear the matter up and rectify the incorrect statements about the book.

Best wishes Angela Kennedy—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.80.12 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Pro-life feminists don't see themselves as "bees against honey", but rather ""bees against honey laced with insecticide". They try to find solutions that benefit the mother and her fertilized egg/zygote/blastocyst/embryo/fetus/prenate/baby/child/whatever, while other "pro-lifers" may only be concerned with the latter. I see myself as a pro-life feminist (yes, men can be feminists).

If "Jane Roe" herself, and the very forefathers (foremothers, whatever) don't count, I'm not sure who/what does. Junulo (talk) 16:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Citation tag

This article doesn't contain a single reliable authoritative source regarding Pro-life feminism. The Pomeroy citation is a student's paper and states at the top of the page that it is not authoritative [[7]]. I am removing this citation and tagging the article for reliable sources and inline citations. Phyesalis (talk) 16:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

List of Famous Pro-Life Feminists

I added a list of famous feminists who were pro-life.82.154.82.216 (talk) 23:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I was surprised when I found Maya Angelou listed as a pro life feminist. I thought this was surprising. I found a link to a story where she attended her grandson's graduation at St Johns but was not invited to speak. The article said it would have been unusual for her, a supporter of abortion rights to have spoken at a Catholic University. So whose wrong? Someone should look into it. Here's a link to the story. Here it is http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/queens/2008/05/22/2008-05-22_st_johns_misses_out_on_maya_angelou_as_s.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.242.174 (talk) 22:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have done further follow up on Ms. Maya Angelou. There is no source citation for her position on this question and I have called several pro life organizations (FFL, DFL, ALL) and none of them recognize her as a spokesperson for the pro life view. In my previous post I added a link to a story that describes her as a supporter of abortion rights. I think I will delete her name. However I would be very happy to be proven wrong.

See also [8] "Pro-life feminists of our time include Maya Angelou, the late Benazir Bhutto, and women who have made a powerful social statement by changing their position, including Roe v. Wade's "Jane Roe," Norma McCorvey" Also [9] gives insight into how she felt raising her child. Collect (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The Christian Science Monitor, and a perfect bit of evidence for the fact that she chose to not have an abortion herself and was happy with it. As distinct from either an unbiased source on the issue or evidence of having the view that others should have the choice of pro-life made for them. Sorry, but you're the one that brought it up with your misrepresentation of those sources. Anarchangel (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The CSM and her own words are "biassed"? I would consider the CSM an RS in general. Seems a rather stringent requirement on your part, all things considered. As for claiming I "misrepresented" any of the sources, kindly review WP:EQ. It would appear Maya has a number of conflicting thoughts possibly? Thank you most kindly!

No, the CSM is biased, on this issue, and her words do no support the claim that she is Pro-life. CSM is an adequate source for many things, but it has a conflict of interest with areas of politics that intersect with religious belief. It is a religious tract with everything to gain for its positions by reporting, as far as they know, the God's own truth about a nice lady who believes in the same wonderful thing as they do, without all that unpleasant and vulgar checking to see if is a lie. Her words only show her belief relative to her own life. Pro-life is only notable when it means you believe everyone should do that; thinking that you would really rather keep your baby and it was nice that you did is just a decision. I am sure that many people have had the same experience, and may well call themselves Pro-life, but it hardly makes them spokespeople for the Cause. Saying otherwise is misrepresenting the facts about her words in that source. Anarchangel (talk) 07:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Shall I quote WP:PRESERVE here then? Can you show that the CSM is "biassed"? "It is a religious tract" seems to warrant discussion in WP:RS to be sure. Collect (talk) 13:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)