To paraphrase Hitchens, it is of course argued that "considering Palestinians as candidate members -- potential members -- of the next state oppresses Jews," but I don't think it's a successful argument. It's a similar error to deny the humanity of the unborn because women have been oppressed under capitalism.
I do think opposition to abortion and socialism belong together: it's inconsistent to hold one position without the other. (BTW, who considers contemporary China socialist?) --C. G. Estabrook
On Tue, 17 Apr 2001, Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
> >Hitchens: ... It's become very evident indeed
> >that this is not just a growth upon the mother ...
> >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
>