> 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 believe I allowed myself an out on this: (1) in coalitions I will work with (almost) anyone, including those opposed to abortion (2) I noted that the combinations possible in advanced capitalism (or early capitalism for that matter), and there are always those who whatever the conflicts and incoherencies of their position give the right answer to the very end to the question, "Which Side Are You On?" Berrigan is clearly, so far, one of those (as is, in another framework, Noam Chomsky). But I remain convinced that either controls on abortion or "qualified" or reluctant approval are in the long run (and usually in the short run) inconsistent with progressive politics.
I say abortion is neutral (i.e., the decision to abort does not involve moral criteria). I don't say moral criticism of abortion is neutral: it is immoral. I will work with immoral people in many battles (just as they must work with me).
And I reserve the right to be a bit careful of my flanks when they are occupied by critics of abortion.
Carrol
P.S. The Roman Catholics who were the core of the Central America solidarity movement here in Bloomington have since then, and in response specifically to their Church's stand on abortion, been reconsidering their catholicism.
Samuel Johnson (I forget the occasion): No Sir, I am not dogmatic! I am deliberate.