Religion

Silent3

(15,909 posts)

39. Unless you have a different definition of "agency"...

Sun Feb 19, 2012, 01:12 AM

Feb 2012

...in mind than I do, I don't see how agency can be equal when biology isn't. Rights are within our ability to equalize, agency not so much.

For the moment, however, try to do what I'm trying to do and step outside of your own value system. Imagine that somehow, someway you value a fertilized human embryo as much as any living out-of-the-womb person.

Where would that lead you on abortion that would be consistent with how you feel about other circumstances where human life should be protected?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

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