So I normally go out of my way to avoid certain subjects on Daily Kos - Israel/Palestine, obvioulsy, and usually any diary about abortion rights too. But I did click on this recent offering, called 'Progressively Pro-Life' and I wanted to throw something into the mix.
Essentially, I think they guy has a point, and the response "you have no right to control women's bodies" - whilst it is correct - isn't necessariy the best argument for Progressives to use.
The argument that 'Government should have no right to control xxxxxx' is a Libertarian argument. That's not a perjorative statement, btw - I think Libertarians are often correct: on drug policy, alcohol licensing, abortion rights and many other things. I don't think government should tell you what to do with your body if it doesn't harm others.
Nonetheless, it's worth asking why Kossacks (who are, let us say, often not Libertarian in all things) choose this pro-choice argument.
It's worth reminding ourselves of Isaiah Berlin's "Negative" and "Positive" notions of Liberty.
Libertarians like 'negative' freedoms: often articulated as "freedom from..." (government, interference, taxation). It's a model of freedom that says "leave me alone!".
Progressives, on the whole, tend to prefer 'positive' freedoms: often articulated as "freedom to...." (achieve potential, attend college, work any job) - education, healthcare, affirmative action are all examples of freedoms given to people (the illiterate, the unwell, the disadvantaged) who were deprived of them by unfortunate circumstance.
If someone unfortunate is left completely on their own - illiterate, unemployed (and unemployable), unwell, poor - they are not free to avail themselves of opportunities. They cannot travel, they cannot find work, they cannot live their life as they would wish. It takes no small degree of meddling to 'make them free-er' and often it is government that does this, driven by a progressive agenda.
My argument is that Progressives, whilst we sometimes can wear a Libertarian hat, tend to articulate our strongest arguments from the perspective of Positive Liberty: truly enabling people, and making them free of their own constraints, rather than leaving them unsupported and free in name only.
Being Pro-Choice, then, can be articulated as a Negative Freedom (free from the interference of moralistic Pro-Choice governments), but I'd argue it is better articulated as a Positive Freedom.
The question then becomes "what do we do to enable Women's Choices, whatever they choose?" - one side of this choice (the choice to abort) demands that we secure public funds to provide free access to abortion clinics. The other side supports the choice of women who choose to carry to term: public funds for neo-natal support in the home, grants for new mothers to afford baby-clothes and equipment, investment in midwifery training, even support for home births (if that's your thing).
The 'choice' in pro-Choice, as it was articulated by some people to the earlier diarist, was a Libertarian choice: "leave me alone, you have no right to opine on these decisions". For my part, I think a 'choice' is a freedom in name only, unless we provide the practical support to women whatever they choose.
To be pro-choice obviously means continuing the fight to see that women have (eventually) free universal access to abortion services. But it also means (and I think this was the point the previous diarist tried to make) demanding that no woman should ever feel like circumstances are forcing her to abort when she would rather not. Being forced by circumstance to have an abortion because you are too poor to support a child is perhaps as disgraceful a denial of choice as not having an abortion clinic in your county.
There's nothing wrong with the Libertarian argument for abortion, but Progressives have something more to give: a demand that the 'choice' should be a manifestation of Positive Freedoms, as well as negative.