Religion

rug

(82,333 posts) Fri Feb 17, 2012, 11:50 PM Feb 2012

Can a feminist be pro-life? [View all]

Written by: geoconger on February 17, 2012.

Can a feminist be pro-life? Can a feminist be a Christian?

Here’s another. Can an atheist be pro-life. Or, is the pro-life movement merely a stalking horse for the Christian right?

While some of this field has been plowed by Christopher Hitchens — a professed atheist, Hitchens answered the question of whether an atheist can be pro-life in an article he wrote for Vanity Fair (The answer is yes. He was an atheist and opposed abortion.) — it is new to Australia. And the debate over who is a feminist is a live one.

These questions were at the heart of a media furore in Australia last month following the publication in the Sydney Morning Herald of a profile of pro-life activist, Melinda Tankard Reist. MTR — as she has come to be called on twitter and other social media sites — is the author of Big Porn Inc, a study warning of the pernicious cultural and social effects of pornography.

http://www.getreligion.org/2012/02/can-a-feminist-be-pro-life/

65 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Can a feminist be pro-life? [View all] rug Feb 2012 OP

Pro-life is antithetical to feminism. laconicsax Feb 2012 #1

I'll take that as you haven't read the article. rug Feb 2012 #3

So I should change my opinion because not everyone agrees? laconicsax Feb 2012 #12

No, but you should recognize the difference between opinion and dogma. rug Feb 2012 #13

Says the person who's confusing my opinion with dogma. n/t laconicsax Feb 2012 #15

You expected any less? darkstar3 Feb 2012 #17

Now, now. Be nice. laconicsax Feb 2012 #19

As it does with bigots who are heavily invested in their bigotry. rug Feb 2012 #30

If you really believe that, then you have a very strange view of what "dogma" means. darkstar3 Feb 2012 #34

And you have a very selective view of bigotry. rug Feb 2012 #43

That's because I don't throw the word around enough to make it meaningless. darkstar3 Feb 2012 #47

You throw it around quite selectively. rug Feb 2012 #48

Oh look, more baseless accusation. darkstar3 Feb 2012 #50

Sure it's baseless. rug Feb 2012 #51

I must have missed the equivocation. rug Feb 2012 #29

Did you think I was maybe expressing someone else's opinion? laconicsax Feb 2012 #33

Sadly, that declarative statement was yours only. rug Feb 2012 #44

I have strong opinions an a number of topics. laconicsax Feb 2012 #49

Strength of opinion does not equate to the rectitude of the opinion. rug Feb 2012 #52

I think it's called religious faith. n/t laconicsax Feb 2012 #53

yes she can sabbat hunter Feb 2012 #2

+ 1 no_hypocrisy Feb 2012 #23

nope, that is a definitional argument that alters the common meaning Warren Stupidity Feb 2012 #65

I don't like the term "pro-life". It should be pro-choice or anti-choice. We need to take that southernyankeebelle Feb 2012 #4

That's a more accurate frameing of the issue. rug Feb 2012 #5

I think so and we need to start using those terms. Don't you think? southernyankeebelle Feb 2012 #7

I do. rug Feb 2012 #8

*framing laconicsax Feb 2012 #20

Thank you- this is something I try to remind people about constantly. KaryninMiami Feb 2012 #14

It makes sense and we should keep using it and correcting people. Maybe it takes one person a time. southernyankeebelle Feb 2012 #27

It Should be pro-abortion and anti-abortion Riftaxe Feb 2012 #21

This is the only valid approach Why Syzygy Feb 2012 #22

Exactly right. If we all express the pro and anti choice maybe it will sink in. We all must do it southernyankeebelle Feb 2012 #28

Homosexuals can be conservative republicans tech_smythe Feb 2012 #6

People compartmentalize, and also suffer from cognitive dissonance, darkstar3 Feb 2012 #9

And some can harmonize seeming contradiction. rug Feb 2012 #10

And others can use euphemisms. 2ndAmForComputers Feb 2012 #16

And others use passive aggressiveness as a means of communication. rug Feb 2012 #31

Damn right they do. 2ndAmForComputers Feb 2012 #32

The third person plural doesn't really fit. rug Feb 2012 #45

Hm, you're right, it doesn't. 2ndAmForComputers Feb 2012 #55

This message was self-deleted by its author cleanhippie Feb 2012 #25

I have real problems with the whole question-- vixengrl Feb 2012 #11

I can see some gray in this one too ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2012 #18

yes 2pooped2pop Feb 2012 #24

Of course, and not just in the DU-safe formulation... Silent3 Feb 2012 #26

I don't agree with your premise, because darkstar3 Feb 2012 #35

I don't see how that's "axiomatic"... Silent3 Feb 2012 #37

Actually, no, the simplest definition of feminism darkstar3 Feb 2012 #38

Unless you have a different definition of "agency"... Silent3 Feb 2012 #39

Biology doesn't enter into it. darkstar3 Feb 2012 #40

The law doesn't regulate capacities, it regulates rights Silent3 Feb 2012 #41

I'm not accepting your hypothetical premise at all, because you can't play devil's advocate darkstar3 Feb 2012 #46

If that's how you're going to use the word "agency" Silent3 Feb 2012 #54

You just compared abortion and rape. darkstar3 Feb 2012 #56

What bullshit Silent3 Feb 2012 #57

Do yourself a favor and close down the pity party. darkstar3 Feb 2012 #58

I certainly think it's possible... Silent3 Feb 2012 #59

"hypersensitive"! darkstar3 Feb 2012 #60

So you think it's a subject... Silent3 Feb 2012 #61

No, I think everything that I posted in #46, darkstar3 Feb 2012 #62

I understand the idea of "my body, my choice" perfectly well Silent3 Feb 2012 #63

Interesting article about this. The major question cbayer Feb 2012 #36

Yes; otherwise we start getting into the 'No True Scots(wo)man' fallacy LeftishBrit Feb 2012 #42

"is the pro-life movement merely a stalking horse for the Christian right? " Warren Stupidity Feb 2012 #64