Updated title to be clearer.
I've written (and read) a diary or two on abortion recently. As far as I know, the opinion I have does not differ in matters of policy from those with the most liberal viewpoint:
1) The government should not make abortions illegal.
2) It is none of the government's business whether you or I have abortions.
3) Birth control access and education should be widely available.
4) We need to support our nation's poor better than we are doing: healthcare, food, and shelter are all basic human rights.
Where we differ is that some of us more moderate folks (with respect to abortions) believe that abortions should be safe, legal, and rare. That "rare" really sticks in the craw of the ultra pro choicers. I do not know of any moderate that believes that a woman should be forced to carry a dead baby (or one with hydrocephaly or anencephaly) to term, though I've just seen that as an argument against wanting them to be rare. We are told that abortions are medical procedures—and are therefore neutral.
Calling abortions neutral just because they are medical procedures doesn't make sense to me. Amputations are also medical procedures. They are not neutral. A doctor will perform an amputation when necessary, but we as a society would like to minimize them as much as possible. The decision on whether or not to amputate should be left to the patient (if the patient is competent to make the decision) or to the person to whom they have given power of attorney (if they are not competent)—and their doctor. The government has no right to make any decisions about whether amputations can be performed on a patient—and the government shouldn't have that right. But it makes sense for the government to implement public health measures to minimize the necessity of amputations: warming shelters for the homeless during extremely cold weather, diabetes education and treatment programs for those that need them, etc.
I believe the government should implement public health measures to minimize the necessity of abortions: education about and access to birth control; and food, shelter, and medical care for those in need. I do not think the government should say whether or not abortions should be performed on any particular patient (or class of patients). I just believe that we should support people by giving them access to basic needs so they can make the decision based on something other than fear. If a woman chooses abortion, that is her choice. But if she chose it simply because she didn't know how she would feed another mouth, that decision is terribly sad to me.
The people on this site are very passionate about progressive causes, and that is fantastic. Sometimes, though, as a former pro-choice, pro-gay Republican (now a pro-choice, pro-gay Democrat) I wonder if the ultra progressives understand this point:
By sticking to the most far left viewpoint (in this case, "abortions are neither good nor bad and shouldn't be made rare") sometimes we are losing the moderates. Not what the MSM calls "moderate" (which is actually pretty rightwing) but the true, "I don't like abortions but I don't want Uncle Sam or Uncle Governor or any other paternalistic politician telling other people whether they can have one" moderates. You know, the "If you don’t like abortions, don't have one!" people. People like me, an ex-Catholic who believes abortions are wrong but also believes that dangerous, back-alley abortions are horrible—and that my government shouldn't legislate my religious views. Moderates still believe in a separation between church and state.
Progressives are truly the pro-life group here: they want to help people (adults and children) by giving them access to food, shelter, and medical care. They want to educate people. Last time I checked, they are in favor of birth control, too. My understanding is that giving people education about sex and access to birth control reduces abortions. I believe moderates are with the progressives on all of these issues. I also think moderates join progressives in believing that the "conscience clause" where a doctor or pharmacist can refuse to give a woman birth control pills or the morning after drug because of their personal beliefs is absolute baloney.
So why are we getting so hung up on this site about being the thought police? If I choose to believe that abortions are not neutral, but are instead undesirable, but I do not believe that government should limit them, but that we should put social programs into place (if they are not there already) to help reduce them when possible (but not by force), where is the harm? All I see happening is a giant fight about semantics—and people that insist more and more stridently that if they want to have abortions (even multiple times), then by-golly that is the most awesomest thing they could do and why am I not supporting them in the decision to do that to their body?
The progressives are already pro-choice without needing to go that far, and some of us moderates are turned off by it. Democrats don't need to win the progressives here. Progressives are already rabidly pro-choice. We need to win the moderates. As I have said, in matters of policy we don't disagree! As far as I can tell, our differences are a matter of rhetoric—rhetoric that turns off the moderates.
Maybe I'm naive about how politics work; I studied engineering in college, not political science. But it seems like the abortion debate is going as follows:
Right wing sellout politicians say increasingly ridiculous things. Religious right wingnuts agree stridently. Right wing moderates don't argue.
Far left wingers say things like "abortions are neutral, medical procedures that shouldn't be made rare!"
Left wing moderates go, "Huh?"
Right wing sellouts win.
Am I mistaken to believe that by staking a position of moderate rhetoric while still calling for government non-involvement in abortion we'll actually be stronger against the right wing sellouts than when we take the extreme view while calling for the same government non-involvement?