Can one really be pro-life AND child-free simultaneously?

I've been so preoccupied with a new child-free group I joined on Facefart that I didn't bother coming here for a while.

A pro-choice VS pro-life debate was brewing yesterday and is still going strong today.

3 ladies' comments in particular stuck out to me.

One said that she'd give birth to the unwanted baby if she got pregnant and, even though the mere thought of it living with her would feel repulsive, she'd do so anyway, and employ the help of her MIL.

The other woman claimed that she'd give the kid up for adoption.

I basically commented that the adoption system is already overcrowded anyway. I don't get the point of giving birth to a baby you don't want just to place it in a broken system that is bursting at the seams.

Then we have the fool who said that people "should take responsibility for their actions."

It does not compute in my brain that these people claim to be CF, yet would keep the yucky babies if they got knocked up.

A friend of mine said she never wanted kids and that her husband told her "that's alright, we'll just get a dog instead!". She is also a practising Catholic, which may explain why this supposedly CF woman is now six months gone... she now seems excited about becoming a mother and I'm sure she'll be fine, but I guess she and her hubby were really fence-sitters all along.

I guess Catholics and other pro-life types have their pro-lifeness tested by an unplanned pregnancy, and just as we have "the only moral abortion is my abortion" types who suddenly decide that abortion is alright when it suits them, we have "CF" people who decide that babies aren't that bad when faced with the choice of keeping or getting rid of theirs. In that case they aren't really CF, they're fence-sitters. I really don't think you can entertain the possibility of having a child one day and still call yourself CF...

No.

Holding cf and anti-abortion viewpoints must cause some pretty spectacular cognitive dissonance.

If you are open to the possibility of giving birth and/or raising a child someday, you are not childfree.

Also, the ones who say people should "take responsibility for their actions" have some pretty fucked-up views about human sexuality and tend to use terms like "consequence", "responsibility", and "punishment" in a pretty interchangeable way. Deep down inside they don't like the idea of someone having sex for pleasure. If your birth control fails, having an abortion instead of an unwanted child isn't seen as responsible--but subjecting a child to a parent that doesn't really want it is somehow seen as the responsible choice.

I consider myself pro-life, as in, pro-quality of life over quantity. And to me, a good quality of life includes deciding for one's self whether or not to bring a brat into the world, and not being punished for a normal, healthy behavior like consensual sex with something as significant as an unwanted inpigness.

But to answer the question, no, I don't think so, at least not in practice. Most, if not all, anti-abortion "CFers" are one birth control failure away from becoming breeders. I suppose, maybe, one could place the loaf in a closed adoption or, I dunno, leave it at the fire station...but, relatively speaking, this is a very uncommon pignancy outcome and the people who tout adoption as the best choice usually end up keeping their own loaves or aborting.

Not to mention, many CFers (myself included) are simply opposed to the idea of adding more people to an already-overburdened system on an overpopulated planet, and for many CF women (again, myself included) their revulsion to inpigness is one of the factors in their decision to be CF.

If you don't support the right to abortion you're either one accident away from being a hypocrite or not CF, or - if you're on the cozy side of absolutely impossible to impregnate/get pregnant - you're a jerk to insist that others don't get a say as to whether they are CF or not.

Because while I expect CF people to take responsibility for their fertility, there aren't many 100% options. Having your ovaries and uterus removed would do it, I suppose. But just sterilization can go wrong, and even if you don't engage in heterosexual intercourse consensually, there's no guarantee others will respect your bodily autonomy - and that goes for men too.

I don't think the forced birthers can be CF because forced birthing is such a pronatalist, anti-woman attitude.

Quote
rudeawakening
I consider myself pro-life, as in, pro-quality of life over quantity. And to me, a good quality of life includes deciding for one's self whether or not to bring a brat into the world, and not being punished for a normal, healthy behavior like consensual sex with something as significant as an unwanted inpigness.

^ This, right here.

Life IS precious. But the hardcore pro-lifers only "care" about it when you're an embryo or are in the process of leaving this planet (as we all will someday).

If they focused half of that rabid frenzy on the well-being of all those in between those two states, they wouldn't be such hypocrites.

A big part of valuing life is knowing when more of it is not better.
Don't tell me you're pro-life when you see nothing wrong with merrily adding to our 7-billion-plus population, most of whom are already having a less-than-healthy time of it on this planet.
Don't tell me you're pro-life when you think keeping a person trapped in their own deteriorating body, with machines pumping their heart and lungs for them via tubes and needles, is NOT "playing God"-- but letting them go is!

Do I need to add that other, non-human beings have life, and that they ought to factor in there, too? Yeah, I do... because pro-lifers only give two shits about humans-- and only very certain categories of humans, at that.

So, yeah... hypocrites. Loud, stupid hypocrites.

Quote
randomcfchick
If your birth control fails, having an abortion instead of an unwanted child isn't seen as responsible--but subjecting a child to a parent that doesn't really want it is somehow seen as the responsible choice.

This! Wanting a child to be raised by parents that resent its existence is not pro-life, it is pro-birth.

Lock him up or put him down.
Stolen from Shiny.

Quote
contemplativeintrovert

Quote
randomcfchick
If your birth control fails, having an abortion instead of an unwanted child isn't seen as responsible--but subjecting a child to a parent that doesn't really want it is somehow seen as the responsible choice.

This! Wanting a child to be raised by parents that resent its existence is not pro-life, it is pro-birth.

Pretty much. "Pro-life" politicians have proven this over and over by how they treat the vulnerable, non-fetal part of the population (elderly, disabled, etc).

I agreed with another member who replied to a different post by a woman who was waffling on whether or not she would keep the irrational beast if she got knocked up and that's exactly what I said -- these people are likely on-the-fencers if they'd even consider keeping unwanted spawn.

Maybe it's a case of doublethink, cognitive dissonance, etc. Who knows?

I hope I didn't commit a "no true Scotsman" fallacy, however...

For me, it's not the pregnancy that would bother me as much as the sheer revulsion of raising the unwanted kid.

Short answer, no. I don't think someone can be pro-life AND childfree. CFdom revolves around the primary concepts of not bringing children into the world, not wanting to endure pregnancy and the desire for freedom from the shackles of parenthood. The core beliefs of being pro-life are that every life is sacred and that you cannot abort an unwanted fetus unless it's the result of Uncle Jerry raping you (and some pro-liars don't even want incest clumps aborted), meaning it will most likely be born.

Doesn't matter if you'd give the loaf up for adoption. If you are willing to give birth and add another mouth to the population, regardless of whether or not you raise said loaf, you are not childfree. Period. Even if you aren't caring for that kid, it's still someone who will grow up and proceed to consume resources for the better part of the next century. You violate the whole idea of childfreedom by staying pregnant and giving birth and/or trying to prevent others from terminating unwanted pregnancies. You can't toot both horns, and as far as I'm concerned, if you're pro-life, you are not childfree.

Quote

A big part of valuing life is knowing when more of it is not better.

I agree 100 percent. I think the actual pro-lifers on this planet are the pro-choicers: the ones who try to ensure that superfluous lives are not allowed to be born into a world where there's already not enough resources to go around and fight for others to have the same freedom to prevent unnecessary lives. But we can't very well go around waving the enemy flag and saying we're pro-life. It's perfectly fine to dislike abortion because, well, even when you want one, they aren't any fun. I've never heard a woman go, "Boy howdy, that abortion sure was fun! I'm gonna do that again real soon!"

Quote
videogamesforeverkidsnever

I hope I didn't commit a "no true Scotsman" fallacy, however...

The "no true Scotsman" is only wrong if doing J and being K are seperate circles.
Like, saying "No true vegetarian eats steak" isn't wrong, because by definition vegetarians don't eat meat.

Lock him up or put him down.
Stolen from Shiny.

I was confused about that because they ARE free of children -- for the time being, at least, assuming their BC doesn't fail -- and also because the actual definition of the word "child-free" doesn't have a stipulation of being such forever.

These people have no business being in the group at all.

I honestly don't get the logic of that one lady who said she'd give birth to an unwanted baby, be appalled/repulsed at the thought of living with it, and then convince her MIL to be a babysitter.

Why bother?

I'm gonna answer this question in simple terms, rather like MO6B has done.

No.

I'm going to don my flame proof suit for this.
I think we need to take into consideration the one circumstance where someone would be forced to give birth.
We can't forget that some women are tricked by those crisis pregnancy center and by the time that they are able to even try to get an abortion it may be too late.
I would have to say in that particular situation if a woman did not have the choice to have an abortion or could not get one and was basically forced to give birth and then gave the child up for adoption with no plans to ever see it again then yes she would be childfree.

Quote
videogamesforeverkidsnever
I was confused about that because they ARE free of children -- for the time being, at least, assuming their BC doesn't fail -- and also because the actual definition of the word "child-free" doesn't have a stipulation of being such forever.

These people have no business being in the group at all.

I honestly don't get the logic of that one lady who said she'd give birth to an unwanted baby, be appalled/repulsed at the thought of living with it, and then convince her MIL to be a babysitter.

Why bother?

Yeah, it's not as if children have any psychological needs. Just feed and water them and dump them with a caretaker and they'll grow into balanced, happy adults.

Quote
the noodler
I'm going to don my flame proof suit for this.
I think we need to take into consideration the one circumstance where someone would be forced to give birth.
We can't forget that some women are tricked by those crisis pregnancy center and by the time that they are able to even try to get an abortion it may be too late.
I would have to say in that particular situation if a woman did not have the choice to have an abortion or could not get one and was basically forced to give birth and then gave the child up for adoption with no plans to ever see it again then yes she would be childfree.

Can someone give birth and still be CF? is a different question than Can someone identify as 'pro-life' and still be CF? My answer to the first question is 'maybe - but probably not' and my answer to the second is 'no.'

It's a fact that there are some parts of the world where it is very difficult for a woman to get an abortion because it is illegal, unaffordable, or unavailable. A woman in this position may also not have access to contraceptives or the opportunity to decline sexual contact. I do not expect a woman in this position to kill herself to avoid having children. Likewise a woman with a stealth pregnancy who does not know she is pregnant until it is too late to obtain an abortion may be excused for not getting one. I figure people in these situations suffer badly enough without me judging them.

But tricked by a crisis pregnancy center seems too low a bar for me. If women in that condition can be considered CF, why not consider any deadbeat duh CF? "I asked her to get an abortion but she refused" does not seem like a good excuse to me, yet that is effectively all a man can do once a woman is pregnant.