Lets say you were on your death bed, and the only way to keep you alive was to connect your veins directly to mine, so that my kidneys could filter your blood. Some people may say yes, I want my body to keep you alive. Others may say no, I do not want my body to keep you alive. You cannot be forced to use your body to keep another human alive.
In this regard, being pro life means you are willing to assign special rights to fetuses that don't exist for other beings. You are also saying, that you are denying a human being the right to decide if they want their body used to keep another being alive. Both of these fly in the face of progressivism, which places an emphasis on equality and women's rights. By being pro life, you are providing more rights to a fetus (inequality) and denying rights to women (inequality).
The reason I ask this is because I'm a prolife progressive. For me, being a progressive is about supporting equality for all human beings, be they born or otherwise. I of course support contraceptive rights, as I am a contraceptive user. Contraception for anyone age 15 sand up. For free. This would eliminate the alleged "need" for elective abortion, which is murder. I also favor adoption rights for rape and domestic abuse victims.
"For me, being a progressive is about supporting equality for all human beings"
If you support equality, you assert that all humans should be treated equally, no one gets "special rights". But by being pro-life you assign special rights to a fetus, and you remove rights from the mother, by requiring the mother to use her body to keep the fetus alive against her wishes. Therefor, you support inequality when it comes to this issue, which prevents you from identifying as a progressive (who hold women's equality near and dear).
Progressives support women's rights, and pro-life is anti women's rights. So believe what you want, identify as you like, just know that your ideology is in direct conflict with the idea.
For example: One could not claim to be a Christian and not believe in Jesus. One could not claim to be a pacifist and also promote war. Similarly, one cannot claim to be a progressive while not supporting equal rights for women.
Maybe, but I support Planned Parenthood, and access to contraception and consenting women having their tubes removed like I did. I agree with choice, I just think choice should be before conception, and I make an exception for medical situations and rape victims. I don't have to support elective abortion,
I maintain that if you are probably life, you are anti women's rights. And if you are anti women's rights, you are not a progressive. You have not provided a substantial rebuttal, I rest my case.
What if the contraception fails? What if the mothers life is in danger if she keeps the pregnancy? What if the baby is prenatally diagnosed with a terrible genetic disorder which would make life out of the womb excruciating? What if, what if, what if. Fact is, if you are pro life, you are against women's rights. And if you are against women's rights, you are not a progressive.
You need to clarify: progressives can be pro-life, without the pro-life position being progressive. And, the notion of "progression" itself is a tenuous one, situated in different spheres of social reality (different nations, and the factions therein) each holding a different set of value-judgements and assumptions over what is progressive. Currently what you are saying is: an abstract category of "progressives", which can include a vast number of different and conflicting positions, can also support pro-life arguments. The two being completely unrelated.
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.
