Wednesday, May 21, 2008

Progress Prevails?

I've no wish to prejudice the mental wellbeing and equanimity of the blogging community, so be warned if you plan to actually read this to the end. What struck me was the headline itself. In what sense has 'progress prevailed'? The outcome on the abortion limit was to maintain the status quo, and the only thing that changed was the business about the need for a father. Progress, then, towards what? This is the question all forms of progressivism have to face. Here, progress would presumably be towards an ever later abortion time limit - 28 wks next, then 32, then 36... And towards the total redundancy of the male, in some happy Guardianista future where sisters are doing it for themselves. The Guardian-reading classes might well be happy with the outcome of yesterday's debates, but 'progress' really doesn't come into it. Does it really come into anything? Towards what are we progressing, and why is it a good thing?

13 comments:

  1. Well put Nige. There are few things that I find more annoying that the constant chatter about 'progressive' politics from the Toynbees and Williams' of this world. As if dumping the present (and the past) and replacing it with something untried and unknown is automatically a good thing.

    Things are getting progressively worse. It's the Gramscian permanent cultural revolution running to plan.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Tumby WoodsideMay 21, 2008 10:40 am

    I don't think progressives always care too much about what they're progressing towards, Nige. I suspect the important question for them is "What are we progressing away from?" The past is...well...so last week, isn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  3. That we are questioning 'progress' is progress. Or maybe not. Well, then, questioning why we are questioning progress is progress.

    No, no. That's definitely regressive.

    How about: progress can only be judged from an historical perspective, that is, by looking back at events from a future vantage point. So, we don't know what progress is exactly right now, but we might know what it is in the future if we are still around.

    Yes, I'm happy with that. Progress at last!

    ReplyDelete
  4. It is progress toward totally ignoring the interests of the would-be person when making reproductive "choices". There may be a time when lesbians are the only ones having children. Well, only for as long as that is the progressive thing to do.

    research published in the British Medical Journal which concludes that recent advances have brought "no improvement in survival rates" below 24 weeks

    But I've read other studies that show survivability is greatly enhanced by not killing the fetus.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The Mail had a good comment piece this morning on this Nige. If I knew how to link to it, I would. Glad to see that STANDPOINT is advertised on the site......

    ReplyDelete
  6. "A further perverse consequence, as pro-equality Tory John Bercow pointed out yesterday, would have been clinics telling gay women to "go to a pub and find yourself a man". That is absurd way to address the moral health of the nation. In the Commons last night, political incorrectness threatened to run wild. But on gay parenting the heartening outcome was that the progressives prevailed."
    The jaw dropping arrogance of this crayoner, normal people with healthy minds described as politically incorrect, because they don't agree with the PC mobs sad little theories. For how much longer will our country be infested with these carbuncles.
    Nige, talking about cuckoos, ours turned up yesterday, 2 weeks late.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Better late than never Malty. Never hear one in my parts, though all manner of bizarre birdsong seems to be going on this year.
    Yes Captain B we're all looking forward to Standpoint - and I'd post comments on your blog if I could work out how to do it...

    ReplyDelete
  8. Recusant knows (how to) Nige.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  10. In the interests of progressing along the path, that old primrose path, is this the link to that Daily Mail Comment? I make no claims but it seems to work here.

    Putting in links, etc, seems a bit of a hassle on Blogger. The first go didn't work Other systems, like Wordpress, may well use other methods - I don't know. You have to use the full html stuff, [a href="http://www.mylink.com"]link[/a] but using chevron thingies instead of square parens, and it's fiddly to do in a small text box.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Oh CaptainB couldn't you have left out the "(how to)"? I quite like the idea of omniscience.

    Nige, surprised to find myself cast as the techie here, but as far as I can work out you just register - novel, I know - and Robert Cecil is your uncle.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Thanks Recusant - I might just try that...

    ReplyDelete
  13. There's few things worse than change for change's sake.

    I'd have thought a 20 week limit was eminently sensible.

    And if contraception is so hard to come by in this country of ours what happened to adoption as an option?

    It's like adoptive parents are regarded a fate literally 'worse than death' for the child unwanted or unkeepable by its birth mother.

    ReplyDelete