On Fri, 29 May 1998, Carrol Cox wrote
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
Really? You would call the Catholic Worker folks and the berrigan's and Jim Wallis reactionary? Gustavo Gutierrez? You comment later in your post that abortion is morally neutral. But, if you are using it as the sole means for judging whether politics are reactionary or progressive, it is deeply moral. I mentioned a couple of names, what about the Seamless Garment folks? People whose pro-life stance leads them to important anti-war activism, or to working to achieve economic justice, or to call attention to human rights abuse? Presumbly you, too, are "pro-life" in some sense, or you wouldn't be a political radical.
I have a hard time regarding a "Right-to-Lifer as
> a dependable comrade.)
Well, the self-professed "right-to-lifers" have a whole host of socially and economic conservative values in addition to their stance on abortion. I certainly wouldn't trust either. Nor do the people I mentioned above. One of the big questions the Religious Left asks is how to make clear their opposition to the Religious Right.
>
>
> 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.
Jack Kemp, and possibly Pataki, are both pro-choice. What does your litmus test say?
Now, the important difference between the two groups mentioned above is their attitude towards abortion legislation. The leftists, while "pro-life," recognize the importance of race, class, and gender. Their feminist analyses would not allow them to support such legislation. The religious right does not take such factors into account.
yours, Frances