Talk:Anti-abortion feminism/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 as evidence that she is a representative of the Pro-life position. Anarchangel (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC) Struck and inserted 'as proof' for clarity and therefore accuracy Anarchangel (talk) 18:34, 10 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)
Wikipedia considers the CSM to be a reliable source and I don't see any exclusions saying "yeh but.. they are biased about X" in there. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia does, however, distinguish news reports and opinion pieces. The article under discussion is the later, and hence only reliable for statements of opinion, not for those of facts. If Angela Kays-Burden is a notable voice, you can use [10] as a source for her opinion on the issue. But it is not a good source for the fact per se. See the first bullet in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#News_organizations. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Damn - missed it was an op-ed. Stephen is completely correct about that - I misunderstood and thought this was about the CSM in general. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

In one of her archived Talk Pages it´s mencioned that she was a supporter of Consistent Life Ethic. Probably it´s wrong. It was based in that reference that she was added to the list.213.13.243.223 (talk) 21:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

"Assert...Further"

"Pro-life feminism is the opposition to abortion, based on feminism. Those who take this viewpoint assert that abortion is not a necessary right, but has instead served to hurt women more than it has benefited them. Further, proponents state that abortion does not empower women, but creates a disempowered body of women who are seen by society to only profit off a violent act against their bodies and their offspring." I contend that 1. This lede has elements of a political manifesto. It is not a simple description or a definition.
2. The 'list of famous pro-life feminists' blithely asserts that they are such without regard to any parameters.
3. The list seemingly does not consider the definition of the lede in choosing that list. Although I can see the possibility that many of the women in the list of famous pro-life feminists may believe the creed in the lede, there can be evidence of less than a handful who have actually 'asserted' as such. I note especially the ones who weren't alive to see the manifesto of pro-life feminism, and in some cases, the emergence of either constituent part as a movement, such as Mary Wollstonecraft (1759-1797). Anarchangel (talk) 18:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


Proof by assertion as to what something is? If you disagree with the lede, try to get a consensus for your "new definition" first. Thanks! Collect (talk) 19:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Famous Pro-life Feminists section

This section has and had atrocious sourcing. I've removed two completely unacceptable sources (one circularly based on Wikipedia, one to an advocacy group). What remains is a link to Feministsforlife.org, which I would also consider to be rather unreliable. This seems to be similar to the later-day-saints retroactively claiming Gallileo and Newton, because they would have been Mormons if Mormonism had existed in their time. I'm tempted to remove the whole section if no better sources can be found. Mother Theresa was a feminist? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

By her acts, I suspect she was. Assuming, of course, that "feminist" includes any woman who becomes known for her works, and not for who she is married to or the daughter of. Collect (talk) 01:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
That, to me, is an extremely unusual and surprising definition. Marie Curie? Eleanor of Aquitaine? Elizabeth I? Agatha Christy? Dita Von Teese? Marilyn Monroe? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Marie Curie fits any definition you can think of -- read her biography. Eleanor of Aquitaine does not count -- she was raised into power in her own right, by virtue of having a dad with no surviving sons. Ditto Elizabeth I. Agatha Christie was also a genuine feminist - read her books and biography. Not enough about von Teese to say much -- she appears to be self-made to be sure. And is apparently an independent businessperson, which would make her a feminist. Marilyn Monro, on the other hand, was apparently insecure and did not really like her profession all that much -- not too positive on calling her a feminist. OK? Collect (talk) 14:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I think we work off very different definitions here. For me, a feminist is someone who believes in equal rights for men and women, and who actively and, at least to a certain degree, publicly works towards that goal. Being a feminist is a political position, and not even strictly limited to women. For you, a feminist seems to be any women of independent achievement. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that if you require a specific "political position" of any sort, then it is tautological that anyone not holding that position is not a feminist -- which makes discussion quite impossible. The examples I gave specifically did/do believe in "equal rights" if you read their biographies. Your cavil seems to be that they were not sufficiently politically active -- and that I would dispute as a definition of feminism. "the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men." is typical for dictionaries -- and I hold that those who live by that philosophy are "feminists." The dictionary does not require a "political position" of any sort. Collect (talk) 14:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. Someone who does not follow feminism is not a feminist. Someone who does not follow communism is not a communist. Feminism requires at least some expression of a belief that men and women should have equal rights in general. To quote your own definition: "advocating rights equal to those of man". Just claiming them for oneself, explicitly or implicitly, does not make one a feminist any more than being a runaway slave automatically makes one into an abolitionist. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Um -- read the biographies mentioned. And it is by deeds that one best sets examples. If one lives by a doctrine, that is as much advocacy as anyone could wish. Advocating a doctrine and NOT living by it is, to me, meaningless. Did you read up on Curie and Christie yet? I think you may be surprised. Collect (talk) 15:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think we are making progress. I can follow Christian values without being a Christian myself. Many Christians don't remotely follow Christian values as I and most others understand them. I can treat women as equals without accepting that that is a worthy goal for society in general. More importantly, a women can try to obtain equal rights for herself without advocating them as a general principle for all. Yes, I know the bibliographies of Christie and Curie reasonably well. Our article calls Curie "a feminist precursor" - and what makes her a precursor as opposed to a feminist proper is exactly the lack of a general political perspective. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Clearly you require politics, and I do not. Seems self-defeating to argue much, but you will have to convince dictionaries that political position is essential to the definition. I do not have to convince them of anything. Collect (talk) 15:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, feminism is a political position. But as I read the dictionaries, that is exactly what they write... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Amazing -- not a requirement in the ones I found. I still feel any person who through their words and deeds promotes equality is a "feminist." Collect (talk) 16:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
As I understand you - and I may be wrong - you include women who through their example (only) promote equality. That's where we differ, I guess. But even with that definition: Mother Theresa? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

In response to the WP:3O request. Feminism refers to a particular political and cultural movement. The related principles have existed much longer than the movement itself. However, people should only be listed as feminist if references relate them to the movement itself, not the principles. If the references describe the individuals self-identifying as feminists, or interacting with other self-identified feminists, they should be restored to the list. If the references only describe individuals showing feminist-like behavior, to list them as a feminist would be in violation of WP:NOR. --Elplatt (talk) 04:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

In which case Marie Curie and Agatha Christie were, indeed, feminists becasuse of their words and deeds? (per their biographies and many cites in books) And likely Mother Theresa, even though she was Roman Catholic, because of words and deeds? Collect (talk) 11:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Whom are you referring to now, me or Elplatt? To simplify things: In order to list X as a feminist, we need a reliable source that states "X was a feminist" or "X struggled towards equal rights for women" or words to that effect, or possibly a statement by X saying "I'm a feminist", but not something like "X achieved Y despite the discrimination against women in her society". If you want to argue for Marie Curie, Agatha Christie, or Mother Theresa, please don't do so by referencing unspecified "words or deeds" or pointers to their biographies, but be specific. Also, I suggest you read WP:OR. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Curie signed petitions for women's suffrage [11] for example. Good enough for her? Collect (talk) 14:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
That source supports the statement "Curie was a suffragist" but not "Curie was a feminist." To make the leap from one to the other is original research. --Elplatt (talk) 17:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Are you claiming that, perforce, only approved feminist causes count as feminist causes? Here I thought getting the vote was a feminst cause. Silly me. I thought establishing the right of a woman to be a professor was a feminist cause. Silly me. Collect (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Supporting one single feminist cause is insufficient to conclude feminism, yes. What If I support the vote, but not the right to work? What if I support the right of a women to become professor ("because she has risen far above the usually at best mediocre mental capabilities of her sisters and even some of the lesser men!"), but not of women in general? I cycle to work - does that make me a fitness nut? Or an environut? This is really why we require reliable sources. Please take the time read WP:OR. While you could possibly convince me that Marie Curie was a feminist (that reference goes a good way), that is not good enough for Wikipedia.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Wow!! Did you miss the part about her becoming the first woman professor at the Sorbonne? Seems that would be evidence that she felt women could work, no? As for "OR" I would suggest it those who insist on "approved" political positions who are engaging in original research and synthesis. Seems to me that you would want her name down as a feminist -- as she was one. Collect (talk) 18:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry if I was unclear. You confuse the general argument with the specific case. Whatever Marie Curie was or thought or did: Unless she directly said "I'm a feminist" or "I'm in favor of legal equality between men and women", or another reliable source, e.g. a decent quality history book, or an article by a qualified academic, makes such a claim, we cannot include it. Your argument is "she did a, b, c, and a, b, c are things done by feminists, therefore she was a feminist". That is both a logical fallacy (because a, b, c is not a sufficient condition for being a feminist, as I tried to show with my examples above), and it is original research as explicitly forbidden by our core content policy. And both of these points are true regardless of the truth of the assertion that she was a feminist. What we require is not a source that claims that Marie Curie supported "approved political positions", what we require is a source that directly claims that she was a feminist. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Aha -- unless one states the word "feminist" one can not be a feminist? That is, Moses was NOT a "montheist" because he never used the word "monotheist"? Just as logical if that is your standard, to be sure. Collect (talk) 20:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Ummm...good example. There is serious doubt that Moses was a monotheist. See [12] or, more authoritative [13] and [14]. And that's why we require reliable sources. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
The bottom line is that feminism is not just a set of ideals, but a specific movement that has a particular historical context. To make a more apt analogy, Moses was not a Christian, even though his life and teachings are an integral part of Christianity. --Elplatt (talk) 21:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that "Feminism" is seen here in a very general sense. It makes sense to show a list of famous feminists who were anti-abortion in their time or in nowdays. Of course it´s a cliché to state that we don´t know if their position would change it they were alive today, but reading their beliefs in the issue I find hard to agree on that. The point is that they condemned abortion as anti-feminist act and a crime.213.13.243.223 (talk) 21:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The list should stay. Pro-life feminism as his roots in the 18th and 19th century anti-abortion feminists, who comdemned abortion as a crime, so it´s all related. I don´t see why some people have a problem with that. Many anti-death penalty activists also existed back then and they still can be used to legitimate many of nowadays anti-death penalty arguements.213.13.245.47 (talk) 13:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see your point. You can be against the death penalty if there is a death penalty. You can only be "pro-life" if there is a well-defined concept of being "pro-life". That is arguable. Note that up until the 19th century "anti-abortion" was often motivated by the risks to the mother, not the fetus. But what is not arguable is that "feminism" has a specific meaning, and that many of the women on that list are not feminists. Also, "Feminists for life" is an advocacy group, not a reliable source. If you ask the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Newton was a Mormon. If you can find reliable sources, put the women covered by them on a list. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Your conclusions only prove that you´re totally unaware that one of the main purposes of the anti-abortion 18th and 19th century movement, while abortion was illegal in virtually all the western world, was not only the safety of women´s health but also the deffense of the right to live of the unborn. I can point you ALL the anti-abortion 19th century feminists, the most famous like Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, like the less known like Sarah F. Norton or Juliet Stillman Severance who gave value to human life in the first stages of pregnancy. By the way, currently anti-abortion and pro-life means the same. The fact the only in the late 20th century pro-life became more common doesn´t invalidate that they are in the same lineage as the previous anti-abortion feminists. About the correct meaning of "feminist", I guess it should include women who openly consider themselfs that way. It wouldn´t be that difficult to find reliable sources. Other alternative it would be to trace the evolution of the anti-abortion feminist movement since the 18th century to nowadays. It´s simply laughable the idea of trying to make a paralel between mormon religious beliefs and anti-abortion feminism, because Newton lived long before Mormonism even existed.Mistico (talk) 00:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Mistico, you seem to have been caught up in the Feminists for Life circular arguments. There was no anti-abortion movement in the 18th and 19th centuries. None at all. There were some people who were brave enough to mention it, brave enough to occasionally print their opinion about it, but there was not a movement. Even the bravest people rarely spoke of it—you might imagine that someone as prominent and assured as Susan B. Anthony would have felt free to say what she wanted whenever she wanted, and you might be right. Anthony, however, rarely said anything out loud about abortion, and rarely printed any words about it. We do know that she refused advertisements for abortifacients in her short-lived journal, but her very minor public and private efforts against abortion were not echoed by others to become a movement. By far the greatest volume of her written and spoken output was against slavery and drinking, and for woman suffrage.
The "laughable" parallel was between Feminists for Life and anybody who died before they were organized, and Mormons and anybody who died before they were founded. Yes, I agree it is laughable for FFL to claim as their foremothers or lineage any woman who was not specifically part of their founding. Binksternet (talk) 02:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

This article is about pro-life feminism not the FFL. Anyway, I see you´re a self described expert without anything that needs to be learn about the anti-abortion movement History. "There was no anti-abortion movement in the 18th and 19th centuries. None at all." Sorry but that´s the same as stating that there wasn´t an anti-slavery movement or an anti-death penalty movement. This is for serious discussions.Mistico (talk) 16:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Your definition of "movement" is what, exactly? There were a number of societies organized against slavery, journals printed, speeches made and conventions held. Same for the promotion of women's rights, starting in the 1840s. No such activity was taken up against abortion until the 20th century. The only 19th century organized effort against abortion was carried out by organized white male doctors in the USA against "immigrant midwives" beginning in 1890—feminists were not in this fight. The most serious, widespread anti-abortion movement began in the 1970s in response to the great strides in female sexual freedom obtained via The Pill. Let's determine when the first anti-abortion periodical was printed, the first anti-abortion society was formed, the first anti-abortion conference convened. What are your references? Binksternet (talk) 17:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

If someone in the 19 th century, like John Quincy Adams opposed slavery this makes him also anti-slavery, even if he was never a member of the organized anti-slavery movement.82.154.85.214 (talk) 16:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. And it's fairly easy to find a reliable source claiming that Adams was anti-slavery, e.g. Miller's "Arguing about Slavery: John Quincy Adams and the Great Battle in the United States Congress". That's why we could include such a statement in Wikipedia. If you find a reliable source that a women is a "pro-life femininst", we can likewise include this fact (if this is notable and interesting, of course). We can start arguing if you find independent reliable sources that someone is a feminist and pro life, or even a feminist and anti-abortion (although there it becomes iffy). But we cannot start to deduce "feminism" from behavior or original statements - that violates Wikipedia's prohibition of original research and synthesis. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

There wasn't really an anti-abortion feminist movement in the 19th century. What existed, in the USA and in other countries, where several feminist movements or independent feminists who reinvidicate the right to vote, to equal education for both genders, and often also took stances against issues like abortion, the death penalty and slavery. It would be more precise to speak of anti-abortion feminism, like a stance took on this issue by many of the feminists of the 19th and first half of the 20th century. Pro-life feminism, as an organized movement only developed in the second half of the 20th century, specially after the 1960s, when the pro-choice movement become more influencial. It makes however all the sense that modern pro-life feminism claims to be in the heritage of the anti-abortion feminist tradition of the past, in the same way that pro-choice feminism reinvidicates the same about the 19th and 20th century feminists who supported legal abortion. The same goes for modern anti-death penalty supporters who use the heritage and the stances made against the death penalty in the past from people like Thomas Paine and Victor Hugo, or for the death penalty by people like Thomas Aquinas and Abraham Lincoln. The times change but these controversial issues remain.85.243.70.146 (talk) 04:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

removed

Explained

I have removed all names that were not in the cited source, per WP:V. Please feel free to restore any names IF you can supply a reliable source stating they are "pro-life" and that they are "feminists". You cannot user personal knowledge or definitions, or else that would be original research. This list was basically nonsense, and it was begging for major clean up. Hopefully this will inspire editors to go out and actually follow wikipedia policies and cite sources, if anyone wants these names to be restored. I also am a little concerned with the reliability of our one cited source (the partisan, advocacy group Feminists for Life), and I'm concerned with Anachronism in that the term "pro-life" was not used way back when... it's be better to at least list them as being against abortion then retroactively applying a term that didn't exist back then to them... anyway, good luck with improving the list!-Andrew c [talk] 18:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Main Picture

The current picture suggests that pro-life feminists either come from exitic countries or are predominantly motivated by religion. Yet the text says something different. Thus the pic should be changed.78.131.137.50 (talk) 22:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The image says no such thing. Indeed, the image is part of the feminism infobox, and illustrates feminism in general. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 03:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
So, let's imagine what a perfect photograph would be, then go out and snap a picture of it. Binksternet (talk) 04:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
In my humble opinion, this article doesn't need a picture at all. What's the purpose - to show how a feminist looks like?
This only leads to stereotyping and hate.78.131.137.50 (talk) 21:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Pro-life feminism isn't Feminists for Life Alone

Some people seem to think that this article should be centered about that organization. This site is one of some many that proved the historicity of the anti-abortion movement since the 18th century.[15]82.154.85.214 (talk) 16:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Not a reliable source. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

What the hell does the first sentence mean?

"Pro-life feminism is the opposition to abortion, based on feminism, which simultaneously upholds the rights of women and fetuses" Cloonmore (talk) 03:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it doesn't flow very well. What do you suggest? Binksternet (talk) 04:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anti-abortion_feminism/Archive_1&oldid=769100803"