>from '97 interview with The Progressive
>http://www.enteract.com/~peterk/Progint.html
>
>Q: Moving on to perhaps the subject that got you into hottest water with the
>left: abortion. Could you talk a little about your view on this?
>
>Hitchens: Two points I wanted to make. One, that the term "unborn child" has
>been made a propaganda phrase by the people who called themselves
>"pro-life." But it's something that has moral and scientific realities. It's
>become very evident indeed that this is not just a growth upon the mother.
>
>If that's true, what are the problems? It need not qualify the woman's right
>to choose. It need not. But it would be a very bold person to say that what
>was being chosen didn't come up. What I argued in my column was this was a
>social phenomenon. This is the next generation we're talking about.
>Considering the unborn as candidate members-- potential members--of the next
>generation; wouldn't that strengthen the argument for socialized medicine,
>child care, prenatal care?
Under capitalism, considering "the unborn as candidate members -- potential members -- of the next generation" oppresses women: formally or informally restricting employment of pregnant women and/or women of the childbearing age; indicting women for harming children by their bad behaviors (e.g., "crack baby" scares); etc. Under socialism, too, as history & the current policy of China show, the state may, adopting the thinking that "the unborn" are "candidate members -- potential members -- of the next generation," restrict access to abortion & other forms of contraception or limit the number of children that women can have, depending upon the alleged needs of society, i.e., whether more or less workers are desired by the state. Both pro-natalism & anti-natalism are obnoxious in a sexist society.
Yoshie