Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

The Straight Story

(48,121 posts)

6. Perhaps: being pro-choice and believing in the value of a fetus are not mutually exclusive

Reply to boston bean (Reply #2)

Thu Nov 14, 2013, 07:48 AM

Nov 2013

Nor should it be. A woman who wants to have a child sees that unborn child as more than a virus/group of cells/etc - she sees it as a small version of herself, a human, that is dependent on her for survival.

She can have that idea, feel that, AND express her feelings on it without being anti-choice or trying to change laws/minds about it. One can believe in the value of the life they carry (and call it that) and shouldn't be ripped for being anti-choice/feeding the rw/etc because she let's others know that is her view on it.

Cannot edit, recommend, or reply in locked discussions

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

20 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

This message was self-deleted by its author [View all] redgreenandblue Nov 2013 OP

Interesting. Let me roll that around for a while. Smarmie Doofus Nov 2013 #1

I need you to be a bit more clear in what you are saying. I'm not understanding. nt boston bean Nov 2013 #2

I cannot think of a way to express it more clearly. redgreenandblue Nov 2013 #5

Perhaps: being pro-choice and believing in the value of a fetus are not mutually exclusive The Straight Story Nov 2013 #6

I'm going to take it that you think I "rip" women for stating their personal choice. boston bean Nov 2013 #7

Uh, no, I was speaking in general terms on the issue The Straight Story Nov 2013 #12

If you (generic) beleive intristic value of a foetus trumps my Right to Chose idwiyo Nov 2013 #3

The point that has been argued here recently is that redgreenandblue Nov 2013 #4

Really? Or was it 'Don't force your beleifs on me, by supporting restrictions on my Right to Chose'? idwiyo Nov 2013 #9

The vibe that I have been getting here is that regardless of whether the opinion is voiced, redgreenandblue Nov 2013 #11

not.true... boston bean Nov 2013 #13

Not true at all. People who believe they have a right to restrict my choice idwiyo Nov 2013 #18

You misunderstand the meaning of "intrinsic value" in these discussions, then. ancianita Nov 2013 #15

Please explain what is it you think I don't understand. idwiyo Nov 2013 #19

I say that you use this word to mediate the pro-/anti-choice conflict without defining it yourself ancianita Nov 2013 #20

So what are YOU saying -- there's a third stance? ancianita Nov 2013 #8

I am saying that redgreenandblue Nov 2013 #10

It's your fallacious assumption that we all agree on the definition of "intrinsic value," and ancianita Nov 2013 #14

Then, any question of "intrinsic value" should have no bearing on pro-/anti-choice abortion issues. ancianita Nov 2013 #16

A fetus doesn't have the same meaning for everybody. LuvNewcastle Nov 2013 #17