Analyzing Ideologies: Is it possible to be a pro-life feminist?

Analyzing Ideologies: Is it possible to be a pro-life feminist?

Or does feminism inherently align itself with a pro-choice stance?

Note: Know that for the purpose of avoiding confusion in this article, I will use the labels pro-life to mean “anti-abortion” and pro-choice to mean “in support of a woman’s choice to abort.” This article was developed from a research paper I composed for my final project in an introductory Women and Gender Studies course at Marquette University in the fall of 2015. Some information was also drawn from writing I completed for a Christian Feminist Theology course at Marquette during the previous year.

As the anniversary of Roe vs. Wade is quickly approaching and a handful Marquette University students are preparing to travel to Washington, D.C. for the annual March for Life, my mind is on a very serious topic this week. I wasn't sure about writing this article. Would my readers be interested in such a weighty issue? Would people judge me for this? As you can see, I ultimately decided that it would be worth the gamble to write this piece, one that is so drastically different from all of my previous work for The Odyssey.

I myself identify as a pro-life feminist, and lately, I have had this pressing concern that I could not honestly call myself a feminist if I also refused to support a woman's right to an abortion. This resulted in my contemplating the question, Is it possible to call oneself a feminist and at the same time be opposed to abortion? Should all women and men who claim to be feminist also support a woman’s right to control her own reproductive system through abortion if she wants to or deems it necessary? Some of my feminist contemporaries might say that the two are mutually exclusive; that is, it is impossible to reconcile feminism with pro-life principles because abortion is a woman’s right and denying her of that right is, essentially, anti-feminist. And in a sense, this claim is hard to dispute unless one can make a convincing argument that a woman’s rights do not involve the right to an abortion. A remarkably difficult task, right? However, it is important to recognize that feminist pro-lifers do exist, and they have very real arguments opposing abortion; many argue that the right to an abortion can, in fact, be a detriment to women. Because this is such a highly contested matter, and it seems that misunderstandings exist on both sides—that is, the real opinion of the opposite is often confused—I will explore the two perspectives to determine if, in fact, one argument is more logical from the feminist perspective than the other. Pro-choice ruth wallsgrove and pro-life Sidney Callahan—two female scholars, advocates and activists—present two interesting accounts of the debate and highlight the ways in which feminism might support their particular opinion on abortion rights.

The Pro-Choice Feminist Argument in Support of Abortion Rights for Women, wallsgrove:

In a response to a letter written to the British feminist publication Bad Attitude claiming that it was not right of the publication to censor an article written by feminist pro-lifer Lesley Dove, ruth wallsgrove writes: “When we talk about reproductive choice, we are not just talking about children, but about the fundamentals of women's lives - our sexuality, our health, our economic choices, any means of controlling how we live our lives. The right to choose not to have a child at a particular point, or not at all, and yet still be able to express our sexuality, is not negotiable for feminists” (wallsgrove 5). This argument in her article "Non—negotiable Feminism” suggests that a woman’s right to an abortion is merely one facet of a woman’s rights to her own body, her reproductive system, and her sexuality. According to wallsgrove, a feminist identity means that one supports reproductive rights for women, and because abortion falls under the category of reproductive rights, he or she in turn supports a woman’s right to abort her child. Notably, nowhere does she claim that pro-choice means pro-abortion; it simply means pro-woman and pro-woman’s rights to her own sexuality and reproduction. Consistently, the pro-life movement has been linked, not surprisingly, to conservative Catholic views on sexuality (i.e. sex is for marriage, birth control is unethical, etc.), so it becomes easy and rather justifiable to associate reproductive or sexual oppression with the anti-abortion pro-life ideology. For this reason, her argument that pro-choice is really pro-woman’s reproductive rights may be quite appealing to feminists, who might oppose the sexual and reproductive oppression that they may see as permanent elements of the pro-life ideology.

Notably, wallsgrove points out another critical component of pro-choice feminism specifically when she says “we are not just talking about children, but about the fundamentals of women's lives” (5). The pro-life movement has long been cited as being largely focused on the life of the unborn child rather than on the living, breathing, acting, thinking, passionate, reflective, intelligent, aware being that is carrying that child—the mother. Pro-choicers have both, historically and in the present day, been dedicated advocates for women, a reality that perhaps could validate the claim that the pro-choice movement is a feminist movement. Indeed, wallsgrove’s attention to the woman and her needs is, arguably, inherently feminist because she concerns herself almost entirely with what women alone may want or need according to their own individual sexualities.

The Pro-Life Feminist Argument against Abortion Rights for Women, Callahan:

In her piece “Abortion and The Sexual Agenda: A Case for Pro-Life Feminism,” Sidney Callahan says, “women stand to gain from the same attitudes and institutions that also protect the fetus in the woman’s womb” (280). This passage emphasizes Callahan’s foundational belief that the pro-life movement, in many ways, benefits women and in turn, contradicts the common assumption that the pro-life movement is pro-unborn child, anti-woman. Whereas wallsgrove focused on the ways in which the right to an abortion is a necessary component of reproductive rights, Callahan argues that abortion is a detriment to a woman’s reproductive freedom because it “ paves the way for even more male detachment and lack of commitment” (280). She believes that traditional pro-choice arguments in support of abortion essentially exempt men from any responsibility by insisting that abortion is solely a woman’s choice—not the choice of the father. To her, this is dangerous because it gives men license to abandon a potentially difficult situation under the pretenses that it is really “the woman’s issue.”

She also argues against the way that the pro-choice camp, in her opinion, tends to demonize pregnancy, and in effect, supports a more masculine model of female sexuality. She says, “in our male-dominated world, what men don’t do, doesn’t count… Many pro-choice feminists adopt [this] male perspective when they cite the ‘basic injustice that women have to bear the babies,’ instead of seeing injustice in the fact that men cannot. Women’s biologically unique capacity and privilege has been denied, despised, and suppressed under male domination,” and in Callahan’s opinion, this is inherently anti-feminist (281). She believes that pro-choice ideologies essentially support a lack of appreciation and respect for a woman’s natural ability to reproduce. Abortion, in her opinion, validates the masculine idea that the ability to give birth is a profoundly inconvenient capability because “this female disease or impairment naturally handicaps women in the ‘real’ world of hunting, war, and the corporate fast track” (280). Essentially, she aims to point out the irony that exists when one claims to be pro-woman but also identifies as pro-choice; her belief is that to be pro-choice means that one is not entirely supportive of the various nuances of female reproduction because she seeks to regulate those natural elements of her sexuality, one of those being the ability to give life to another human being.


Based on the words of wallsgrove and Callahan, I can conclude that both women present sound arguments for each of their causes. Indeed, if I had no opinion on the matter whatsoever and read each of their accounts, it would be exceedingly difficult to choose a side. Another conclusion I have drawn from the readings is that both wallsgrove’s pro-choice feminism and Callahan’s pro-life feminism attempt to place the woman at the heart of the matter, honoring her health, well-being, and freedom. Because of this, one can conclude that these two perspectives share a common interest and audience—the woman. In respect to both sets of beliefs, it is absolutely necessary that she be the focus, that ideology and philosophy never interfere with the very real and tangible concerns of the woman. Without a focus on the woman, the pro-life movement stands little chance of garnering any kind of support from expecting mothers who are seeking an ideology that honors the woman's experience. I would argue that it would be an advantage for the pro-life movement to adopt a more openly feminist platform and use that to gain the support of women who believe that the pro-life movement largely does not concern itself with the women facing the difficult situation of an unwanted or unplanned pregnancy and instead focuses too exclusively on the rights of the unborn child.

The way in which it lends itself well to individualization is arguably the greatest and the most problematic element of feminism, and it results in an extremely diverse spectrum of beliefs and attitudes that fall under the feminist umbrella. In their article “Abortion: Understanding Differences,” Sidney Callahan and her pro-choice husband Daniel Callahan claim that “Too often, it is assumed that a commitment to feminism entails a prochoice position; but that is only one version of feminism, not necessarily its essence” (Callahan, “Understanding Differences,” 221). “See, pro-lifers can be feminist too!” the pro-life feminist might think. However, this passage neither advocates for pro-life nor pro-choice feminism; instead, it suggests that there exist numerous versions of feminism and in turn supports the idea that there is no one way to be a feminist. Furthermore, feminism is neither exclusively pro-choice nor exclusively pro-life, and to label it either of these would be to dishonor the complexity and multiplicity of the ideology. It is not fair to say that a pro-lifer cannot be a feminist for this very reason. Pro-life feminists are out there--hell, I am one--and we are working toward bridging the gap between the traditionally child-centered anti-abortionists of previous generations and the woman-oriented pro-choice movement.


Sidney, Callahan. "Abortion and the Sexual Agenda: A Case for Pro-life Feminism." Ethics: Contemporary Readings. New York City: Routledge, 2004. 275-82. Print.

Callahan, Sidney and Daniel Callahan. “Abortion: Understanding Differences.” Family Planning Perspectives. Vol. 16, No. 5 (Sep. - Oct., 1984), pp. 219-221. Guttmacher Institute. Web. 22 November 2015.

wallsgrove, ruth. "Non—negotiable Feminism." Off Our Backs 26.1 (1996): 5+. JSTOR. Web.15 Dec. 2015.

Cover Image Credit:

Popular Right Now

6 Things You Should Know About The Woman Who Can't Stand Modern Feminism

Yes, she wants to be heard too.


2018 is sort of a trap for this woman. She believes in women with all of the fire inside of her, but it is hard for her to offer support when people are making fools of themselves and disguising it as feminism.

The fact of the matter is that women possess qualities that men don't and men possess qualities that women don't. That is natural. Plus, no one sees men parading the streets in penis costumes complaining that they don't get to carry their own fetus for nine months.

1. She really loves and values women.

She is incredibly proud to be a woman.

She knows the amount of power than a woman's presence alone can hold. She sees when a woman walks into a room and makes the whole place light up. She begs that you won't make her feel like a "lady hater" because she doesn't want to follow a trend that she doesn't agree with.

2. She wants equality, too

She has seen the fundamental issues in the corporate world, where women and men are not receiving equal pay.

She doesn't cheer on the businesses that don't see women and men as equivalents. But she does recognize that if she works her butt off, she can be as successful as she wants to.

3. She wears a bra.

While she knows the "I don't have to wear a bra for society" trend isn't a new one, but she doesn't quite get it. Like maybe she wants to wear a bra because it makes her feel better. Maybe she wears a bra because it is the normal things to do... And that's OK.

Maybe she wants to put wear a lacy bra and pretty makeup to feel girly on .a date night. She is confused by the women who claim to be "fighting for women," because sometimes they make her feel bad for expressing her ladyhood in a different way than them.

4. She hates creeps just as much as you do. .

Just because she isn't a feminist does not mean that she is cool with the gruesome reality that 1 in 5 women are sexually abused.

In fact, this makes her stomach turn inside out to think about. She knows and loves people who have been through such a tragedy and wants to put the terrible, creepy, sexually charged criminals behind bars just as bad as the next woman.

Remember that just because she isn't a feminist doesn't mean she thinks awful men can do whatever they want.

5. There is a reason she is ashamed of 2018's version of feminism.

She looks at women in history who have made a difference and is miserably blown away by modern feminism's performance.

Not only have women in the past won themselves the right to vote, but also the right to buy birth control and have credit cards in their names and EVEN saw marital rape become a criminal offense.

None of them dressed in vagina costumes to win anyone over though... Crazy, right?

6. She isn't going to dress in a lady parts costume to prove a point.

This leaves her speechless. It is like the women around her have absolutely lost their minds and their agendas, only lessening their own credibility.

"Mom, what are those ladies on TV dressed up as?"

"Ummm... it looks to me like they are pink taco's honey."

She loves who she is and she cherished what makes her different from the men around her. She doesn't want to compromise who she is as a woman just so she can be "equal with men."

Related Content

Connect with a generation
of new voices.

We are students, thinkers, influencers, and communities sharing our ideas with the world. Join our platform to create and discover content that actually matters to you.

Learn more Start Creating

The NRA Has No Right To Tell Doctors To Stay In Their Lane, Stay In Yours

It's time to unload the BS.


These past few weeks have been a tumultuous time in our nation's history in regards to the prevalence of gun violence across the United States. On November 7th, 12 people were killed in a mass shooting at Borderline Bar and Grill in Thousand Oaks, California, with the suspect identified as 28-year-old USMC veteran Ian Long. This tragedy joined the more than 308 mass shootings that have occurred in the United States within the year 2018 alone.

A fair majority of these atrocities have occurred in populated areas, perpetrated by a male shooter with an appetite for destruction and a lack of regulation regarding how he was able to obtain a weapon without proper registration and licensing. In light of such a serious amalgamation of horrific instances, pressure has come down from survivors and witnesses of these crimes to control the flow of the firearms industry so that those who are not responsible enough to handle them with care don't retain possession of these killing machines.

Typically, the NRA (which claims to be a noble entity protecting the sacred doctrine of the 2nd Amendment as guaranteed by our Constitution) has routinely fired back at those who dare to argue against the obvious proliferation of guns into our culture and the subsequent massacres that result from a lack of acknowledgement of the threat of gun violence.

They claim that the only thing that can stop a "bad guy with a gun" is a "good guy with a gun" — except that in the only recent instance that occurred, the good guy was killed by police. It's almost as if the NRA is categorically terrified of any attempts to reduce expenditure and utilization of firearms, as potentially evidenced by their almost ludicrous donations to Republicans who lobby against any premise of gun control.

I am no expert on the usage and proper treatment of firearms. I am not well-versed in gun safety, the history of gun culture in the United States or in any other nation, or the economic benefits and downsides of a thriving firearms industry within our national economy.

However, I cannot help but feel that we as a nation cannot ignore our glaring gun problem, especially since our country has homicide rates approximately six times higher than that of Canada, one of our closest neighbors in terms of development. I also cannot help but feel outraged that the NRA would dare to treat the doctors and healthcare providers that work to save the lives of shooting victims with such utter contempt by telling them to "stay in their lane" — as if their opinions on the issue do not matter, despite the fact that they are the ones picking up the pieces of their patients after the smoke has cleared and telling the families of those who have died how exactly their kin was murdered.

This is as much a public health and medical issue as much as it is a political issue, and as such, the opinions of health providers deserve to be weighed in on this matter in order to reach a comprehensive conclusion regarding the nature of these horrific realities.

Related Content

Facebook Comments