Wow, that certainly doesn't sound like the Serrin Foster I've met...but then again, how could someone who writes for THE NATION be biased enough to distort the person they are interviewing...?

Of course there can be a anti-choice feminists. There's nothing contradictory about supporting womens' rights and finding abortion (at one stage or another) so morally wrong as to merit criminalization. Under Roe v Wade elective third-trimester abortions can be prohibited; is one disqualified from being a feminist if one does not support the repeal of all state laws that do so?

Interestingly, this post seems to suggest that "anti-choice" applies primarily to those would outlaw abortion in the extreme cases (rape etc.), rather than those who are opposed to the majority of elective abortions. Why not ask your readers (1) Can a person who is morally opposed to elective abortion be a feminist; (2) can a person who is morally opposed to elective abortion to the point that they desire it recriminalized be a feminist, (3) can a person oppose elective abortion at [nine, eight, seven etc.) months and still be a feminist?

I think that the anti-choice stance is all about not trusting women to make moral choices, which is blatantly sexist, as Pollit points out. And I think that the "it's for their own good" kind of propaganda that groups like Feminists for Life promote, suggesting that abortion is too dangerous for women either emotionally or physically, is an especially obviously paternalistic example of the sexism that underlies anti-choice ideology. It typifies the attitude that women can't be trusted to make the right choice for themselves, never mind their families. I knew plenty of "feminists for life" in college, and not one identified as a feminist in any situation *except* in reference to that group. I think it's bullshit that they use the word at all.

I don't think that it's theoretically impossible, in all situations, to be an anti-choice feminist. I do believe that one could theoretically believe in women's rights and also believe that abortion is murder. The problem is, I have yet to meet *anyone* like this. The anti-choice movement has no credibility within feminism in part because it has taken such an extreme stance, which rejects *all* means that women could use to control reproduction. *Actual* anti-abortion feminists would be working their asses off to promote birth control--the development of better birth control alternatives, education about birth control, access to birth control for everyone. If your twin goals are to promote women's equality while also ending abortion, that is far and away the best way to get there. Yet strangely, Feminists for Life mentions birth control nowhere on its website and has chosen to focus on restricting women's access to abortion instead. They have no credibility within feminism, nor should they.

(1) I agree that the anti-contraception position of much of the anti-abortion movement significantly hinders its ability to promote its primary cause. But even if it embraced contraception, it would have no credibility within feminism (as Thistle apparently defines it) because feminism also regards opposition to first trimester abortions as extreme.

(2) To frame the issue as "trusting women to make moral choices" simply avoids the moral question. Or, perhaps more precisely, it assumes that there isn't any real moral question and that any decision a woman makes regarding abortion is necessarily moral. If, however, abortion is closer to infanticide or murder than anything else, it's not a choice that should be "entrusted" to anyone except in the extreme cases.

(3) The deficiency of the argument isn't limited to the abortion debate; arguments in the form of "we should trust 'X' to make 'Y' decisions are nearly always some sort of dodge. Gun control: "We should trust (men/hunters/gun owners) to make moral choices." Social Security: "We should trust (the American people/investors) with their own money."

FFL does mention contraception on their website: it's the second question listed on their FAQ page.

"Feminists for Life's mission is to address the unmet needs of women who are pregnant or parenting. Preconception issues including abstinence and contraception are outside of our mission."

http://www.feministsforlife.org/FAQ/index.htm

Leyan, I don't really count FFL saying conctraception is "outside their mission" as the group addressing contraception. If you want to prevent abortion, you need to support contraception. Period.

I didn't really claim that they "address" the issue. thistle had said that FFL's website didn't "mention" contraception; I was just pointing out that they did mention it.

FFL would argue that if you want to prevent abortion, you need to provide support and resources for women who want to continue the pregnancy but need help. NARAL focuses its efforts on preventing unplanned pregnancies but doesn't have much to offer women who find themselves pregnant and in need but don't want an abortion. I'd argue that we should approach the problem from both sides.

Oooh, so they mention it to say that they won't be talking about it? Really, I think my point stands. For a group that claims to be both feminist and against abortion, it's an omission that takes away any shred of credibility that they might have had. Not addressing contraception just screams "we can't be actually feminist, or we would alienate our wingnut base."

I don't know. The whole "FFL" thing just seems like someones brilliant idea to throw the feminists a curve ball.

"Oh! I bet it will confuse them if we say we are feminists, yet pro-life"

And odly, every feminist I have met who was "For life" has been pretty much against all other feminist issues as well.
(keep in mind its like two, so it isnt a very big sample size)

I asked them their stance on women in the military, against.

Asked them their feelings on controceptive coverage being required by law, they felt it was unfair to require a non-lifesaving medication to be covered by law.

Asked them a few other questions that confused them.

Basically, its really easy to call onself a feminist. In fact I don't think any girl I know would be OK with NOT calling herself a feminist. It would seem sadistic.

But to actually BE a feminist... that takes work and dedication.

That takes the knowledge that women are more then sacks of emotions that only act on impulse and never think things through.

That would take the understanding that women are supposed to ENJOY sex. Not be the sexual pawns of our men and constantly squeeze children from our loins.

Pretty much it would just take basic understanding.