Yes. Doesn't mean (a) I don't respect -- more -- stand in awe of their contributions to struggling to improve the human condition, or (b) I won't work with them, all of Katha's suggestions applying about not getting in "too deep" here.
But at a certain level, hell yes, their anti-abotion position is reactionary. Especially in so far as it legitimates the pope, church positions, etc.
The longer I live in Latin America, the more pissed off I get about this. I have a number of friends and/or acquaintances who are priests, some of whom have played heroic roles in ousting dictators, supporting popular movements, etc. Many of them are also patriarchal homphobic reactionary shitheads on these issues. Moreover, they own and operate (the Jesuits) newspapers that propogate these ideas and legitmate repressive practices, and otherwise play an actively reactionary role in many debates and political processes on isues of parenting, reproductive rights, AIDS, etc., etc. Meanwhile, dozens (more?) of women continue to die each year here due to botched, "back-alley" abortions; AIDS patients are turned away from hospitals; etc. Sacrifices offered up to abstract morality.
I don't accept Max's posing of the problem as either/or -- the choice isn't between "100 middle-class pro-choicers for 100 Catholic pro-lifers who supported aid to the poor in preference to what we have now or what we had three years ago." I understand the anguish implicit in the comment -- bringing class and human econ. welfare back into politics -- but why pose it as either/or? Hope I'm not sounding to touchy-feely-Goreish-synergistic when I say: Why not shoot for "both/and"?
Yoshie writes:
>I think that most people who 'insist on one's commitment to "freedom of
>choice" for women, and then to babble on about how abortion is a "serious"
>moral choice' are basically elitist, though probably they don't know that
>they are.
Maybe. So let's let the punditry go for a minute. It's clear to me that the choice to abort (or "interrupt", as the Cubans say) for some is not easy, nor taken lightly. In part this may be a "moral" problem; at the same time for many it is clearly a very complex personal psychological-emotional problem/choice. That seems pretty clear. We needn't peg anyone who acknowledges this as elitist. (Hope I'm not babbling here.)
So where are we then politically? It seems to me anything short of free (state supported) and legal abortion on demand for anyone who wants one is not aceptable; and a pro-choice stance is an appropriate political litmus test. To me, this is just basic common sense and necessary social and public health policy. AND at the same time the left should proceed with keen attentivness to and seek to provide concrete support for women making difficult economic/personal/life choices -- not, as Yoshie points out, abstract moral choices.
Tom
Tom Kruse / Casilla 5812 / Cochabamba, Bolivia Tel/Fax: (591-42) 48242 Email: tkruse at albatros.cnb.net