abortion litmus test

[Carrol Cox]

The topic of abortion has been debated at length several times on the
various marxism lists, going back to marxism-1 several years ago. Perhaps
it needs to be returned to constantly. It seems perfectly reasonable to
make the absolute right to unhassled abortion a litmus test for
"progressive." While in an individualist social order such as late
captialism all combinations are possible, even probable (there probably
somewhere exists an African-American who is white supremacist, believes in
UFOs, and regards *What Is To Be Done* as his/her bible), I prefer to take
the position that the combination of anti-abortion and progressive
politics is not possible. To be anti-abortion, regardless of other
positions, is reactionary. (This is one of the reasons I am only partly
sold on Louis Proyect's conception of the Party as insisting only on unity
of practice, not theory. I have a hard time regarding a "Right-to-Lifer as
a dependable comrade.)

The most usual progressive wobble on this issue is first to insist on
one's commitment to "freedom of choice" for women, and then to babble on
about how abortion is a "serious" moral choice: i.e. to put incredible
social/moral pressure on women -- a pressure that works all too often on
young women. The line of division is, "Is the fetus a human being?"  If
one answers "no," then the only relevant considerations are the woman's
own conceptions of purely personal self-interest; no moral question
exists. If one answers "Yes," then the position becomes hopelessly
incoherent (even for pro-lifers, since their position does not allow them
to differentiate between adult humans and unspent sperm.

Abortion is no more a moral decision than is deciding on whether to have a
mole removed. I find this a perfectly acceptable litmus test for any
capitalist politican -- or any progressive activist.

(This does not mean, of course, that I would not -- I have many times --
work with even pro-lifers in coalitions to (for example) stop the Gulf
War. Also, as many of us who campaigned for Jackson recognized even at
the time, Jackson's wobble on abortion was an indication of his essential 
opportunism.)

Carrol

Katha Pollitt writes:
> 
> Why is it wrong to insist that a Democratic politician be pro-choice? It
> seems to me that that's the minimum bottom line one could have.  I would
> NEVER vote for a politician that wanted to criminalize abortion. That
> would be like saying I do not value my own daughter's life. I don't
> think a politician can propose to deprive 52% of the population of the
> basic ability to decide how many children to have, and when to have
> them, and also claim to stand for the people.
> 
>   However, there is still a considerable streak of anti-choice
> "populism" in the Democratic Party. David Bonior is anti-choice, Gephart
> is lukewarm.  then there's ex-Boston mayor and envoy to the Vatican
> Raymond flynn.  I believe it was jesse jackson who said, memorably, that
> a girl who was old enough to open her legs to get pregnant was old
> enough to open them again to have a baby. But he saw where his allies
> were and changed his tune.
>