Why Democrats Struggle To Mobilize A 'Religious Left'

[marylandblue]

85. This is the first thing I said about it

"I don't know what she means by "more restrictions."
And because I might refuse to rule out such a thing until I get more details, maybe I'm not a progressive either. "

I am not sure what you think the practical difference between that and "MIGHT consider," but I promise you the only intended difference is emphasis, and I hoped, clarity. Perhaps if you told me what you thought was the difference, I might be able to explain it better.

I recognized you wouldn't agree and I am out of step with the progressive movement on this.

I am not sure what hole you think I'm digging here, but whatever. Maybe you think I need the lurkers here to agree with me? I don't. It wouldn't be the first time I was the only person in the room to hold a position, and it won't be the last.

Do you think my position, cruel, arrogant, misogynistic or extreme? You are free to think that. Labels don't bother me. They are useful, but they are just labels.

For me, it really just comes down to agreeing with Roe v. Wade, which theoretically allowed some restrictions, but disagreeing with every right wing restriction used to chip away at Roe.

Roe v. Wade based itself in the right to privacy. I agree with that and I am sure you do to. But progressives have gone beyond that into the "unlimited right to bodily autonomy." I'm not going there because I don't believe in ANY unlimited rights (i. e. all rights are subject to "reasonable" restrictions, TBD case by case).

l also don't believe bodily autonomy trumps all other considerations, which is why I believe in forced vaccinations.

I also don't believe you need to have a uterus to have an opinion on this, just I don't need to have a cervix to have an opinion on PAP smears. I can't think of a single other case where anatomy dictates the right to have an opinion.
I actually label that sexist, since it implies that women SHOULD think their anatomy controls their decisions and there is something wrong with them if they don't. It's also very unrealistic, as the existence of anti-choice women will attest. The left finds such women confusing, but I don't. That's because it's obvious that anatomy doesn't dictate opinion.

If you have some substantive objection to all this, I'd like to hear it. If you think I'm digging some kind of hole, maybe you can explain that? If it's just that I'm standing out here by myself, with an unusual opinion formerly shared by a presidential candidate and a dead woman, that's no big deal to me. I've got plenty of unusual opinions. It's a consequence of thinking for yourself and not with the herd.

And if you think I've changed my opinion or am retreating from it, I promise you I am not. I'll even take responsibility for failing to communicate my position accurately and answer any questions you may have to clarify further. If for some reason, I change my mind during this discussion, I'll say so in plain language, not by implication and not when you say I've "retreated."