After reading a number of diaries correctly decrying the compromise of women’s rights concerning their reproductive health in the current HCR legislation, I was struck by the arguments of those who want to continue and expand their choices over those of others. I cannot call this group "pro-life" as they would wish because many people in favor of another human being having the legal and financial ability to make choices about her health for herself also believe in policies that promote life as they define it. From a policy, non-religious perspective the limiters are against women having the legal and financial choice to bring a pregnancy to term or not, thus "anti-choice".
No doubt others here will venture into their strongholds for their arguments, like good, if not honest debaters as I have seen time and time again. They will define terms in their favor (and accuse me of the same). They will quote dubious statistics as facts. They will claim to be in the majority based on surveys worded in their favor. They will discount anything they don’t like as being un-true or unimportant in comparison with the impact they see as paramount in the argument. They really will not care about the views of those who don’t share their opinions, made evident by browbeating, deeming arguable equivalencies as fact, and adopting condescending postures. I’ll wonder, as I always do, what is progressive about that?
Many substantive debates here in this most imperfect of social interaction media have brought me to the conclusion that not all of the people who seek power in this conversation are trolls, some probably honestly self-identify as progressives. Thankfully we don’t have a litmus test. No, I’m not talking about the struggling seekers, as I hope we all would be, dealing with the complexity of our existence through accepting and exploring many different points of view. I’m talking about the shouters, the bullies, the blinded, and the defensive who can’t accept another view as valid. What is progressive about that?
I know why some churches are in this game--many have been trying to control women and their bodies from the very beginning. It is part of having a monopoly on life, in this world and as they believe, the next. Many so-called "witches" persecuted by churches were practitioners in women’s reproductive health. There was a time when the church was the only source of state legitimized medicine in the Western world. They didn’t give that up without a fight and they won’t give this up without a fight either for obvious reasons. Insurance paid prayer therapy, anyone?
The Stupak’s and Nelson’s of the world can be at best cold politicians judging the political winds of their constituents and acting to stay in power. They could also believe in their moral right to force their views on others who by the very nature of the discussion are driven to silence. This is in part about privacy, remember? But they aren’t progressives. They don’t pretend to be.
My question is for those self-identified progressives who support the Stupak’s, Nelson’s, and unfortunately many others in practically, as a matter of policy, limiting choices for others in this most debatable of issues. What is in it for you?
To those who claim unwanted pregnancies are sentences for stupidity, immorality, and affronts to the common good and seek to impose their own views about women’s reproductive rights on others--what is progressive about that?