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

Religion

In reply to the discussion: Can a feminist be pro-life? [View all]
 

Silent3

(15,909 posts)
54. If that's how you're going to use the word "agency"
Mon Feb 20, 2012, 09:58 AM
Feb 2012

Last edited Mon Feb 20, 2012, 11:14 AM - Edit history (1)

...then the law routinely reduces "agency" to prevent or reduce the occurrence of unsanctioned activities. A person who considers abortion to be murder isn't and shouldn't (not if that's what they really believe, as a separate issue from whether they should believe that in the first place) care that laws against abortion disproportionately effect women any more than they're going to worry that laws against rape disproportionately affect men.

As for the current law and what we can and can't make laws about: While religion is the most common reason for believing that life begins at conception, it's not the only conceivable (pardon the pun) reason. Second, if you truly believe an act is murder, but the law doesn't call it murder, you're going to think that the problem is the way the law works, not your moral sense about murder.

If you lived in a society where it was deeply embedded in the legal framework that children were legally treated as property of their parents, with no rights, and parents could kill their children at will, would your quest to protect children from murder be at all stymied by someone telling you that current law doesn't accept your reasons for wanting to protect the children?

As for both of us being men, and that somehow disqualifying us (or somehow, just me) from engaging in a hypothetical discussion: There are all sorts of topics that none of us will ever have direct personal experience with, or have as much at stake with as other people, but that doesn't mean we can't have valid opinions on those subjects, just that we need to make our best effort to consider the experiences of those who are more involved that ourselves.

What's typically true anyway is that people with more at stake also have the same range of opinions as the people who don't, perhaps in different proportions. There are actual real-life non-hypothetical women who call themselves "pro-life feminists". If you're going to play the "you're a man, you can't understand" gambit with me, doesn't that apply to you just as much if you deny such women their understanding of abortion and feminism?

Recommendations

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

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
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»Can a feminist be pro-lif...»Reply #54