True feminism embraces childbearing: An obstetrical perspective

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this guest post are solely those of the author.

A recent commentary written by a psychiatry resident-in-training and published on October 11, 2025, in MedPage Today, paints natalism (the belief that human reproduction is essential for the continuation and flourishing of society) as "incompatible" with public health.

This perspective overlooks a fundamental truth: without natalism, there would be no public at all. The very existence and continuation of society depend on birth rates that sustain or grow the population.

Key Takeaways:

• MedPage Today published a commentary from a self-described "feminist" who believes that being in favor of promoting human reproduction is a detriment to public health.

• This argument is deeply flawed and short-sighted, as it does not take into account the need for a sustained future population.

• Women are often told that abortion is the only way for them to achieve success, and motherhood is downplayed in favor of career.

• True women's empowerment must acknowledge and embrace pregnancy and childbirth as uniquely female experiences, and true feminism must champion the full spectrum of women's abilities.

The Details:

The Medpage Today author, a self-described feminist, isn't just anti-natalist; she itinerates a worldview where men are violent and anti-women. She also describes any opposition to the idea that abortion is the only solution to an unplanned pregnancy as a “forced birth” policy.

Like that author, abortion advocates often cite feminism as their foundation, claiming abortion as an empowerment. Ironically, the unilateral admonition of abortion inadvertently reduces women's potential by suggesting they are not strong or capable enough to succeed with an unplanned pregnancy.

By emphasizing a women’s individual autonomy at the expense of recognizing the profound significance of childbearing, these interpretations may inadvertently create a narrative where women feel pressured to choose between their professional aspirations and their biological capacity to have children. 

The Big Picture:

To frame the natural process of reproduction and the desire to have children as antithetical to public health is a deeply flawed argument. Such a viewpoint risks undermining the societal structures that rely on a healthy and growing population for their future.

As an obstetrical healthcare professional, I view natalism as one of the intrinsic core missions of obstetrics: to navigate a pregnancy safely for both mother and child, ultimately fostering the creation and healthy development of new life.

Natalism, the belief that human reproduction is essential for the continuation and flourishing of society, is not merely a philosophical underpinning but the foundational principle upon which the entire discipline of obstetrics is built. From prenatal care to delivery and postpartum support, every intervention and every piece of advice offered by an obstetrician is geared towards ensuring a positive outcome for both the pregnant individual and the unborn child. 

Even in challenging circumstances, such as high-risk pregnancies or complications, the obstetrician's primary directive remains natalist. Their expertise is employed to mitigate risks, preserve the pregnancy whenever possible, and ensure the best possible outcome for both mother and child. The dedication to fetal medicine, including in-utero interventions and specialized care for newborns, further exemplifies this commitment to nurturing and protecting nascent life.

The Other Side:

During the 2025 South by Southwest event, Chelsea Clinton was a featured guest on a “reproductive rights” panel where she made the statement that abortion was necessary for the "economic and fiscal health" of America.

As a women’s healthcare professional, and as a father to two young women, I find this a deeply troubling and ultimately limiting perspective on women's potential. This viewpoint, rather than empowering women, inadvertently suggests that their success and the nation's prosperity are contingent upon the termination of nascent life.

Such a narrative is profoundly damaging to women's confidence and mental health as it implies that women are not capable of achieving their professional, personal, and societal goals while also embracing motherhood. It subtly communicates that children are an economic burden rather than a societal blessing and a source of profound joy and purpose for many women.

By framing abortion as an economic necessity, it undermines the inherent value of both women and children, reducing complex human experiences to mere fiscal calculations and potentially fostering guilt and anxiety in women who choose to pursue both family and career.

This is the true attack on women: this subversive worldview that success of women is built on the lives of their aborted children.

This is not surprising however, as the most unique and complex biological activity a women can demonstrate is consistently downplayed and villainized oddly by women themselves, as Michelle Obama well exhibited in a May 2025 podcast where she stated that producing life is "the least" of what a woman's reproductive system does. No, Mrs. Obama… it is not the least, it is the greatest that it can do, or we would cease to exist as a society. 

The Bottom Line:

True feminism and true women’s advocacy, arguably, should champion the full spectrum of women's capabilities. True empowerment should encompass embracing pregnancy and childbirth as uniquely female experiences, rather than viewing them solely as biological burdens or societal impositions.

This perspective acknowledges the profound strength, agency, and transformative potential inherent in the ability to birth a child.