budge wrote:
>
> On Sun, 26 May 2002 at 6:41pm Dennis Perrin wrote:
>
> > What I love about many "pro-choicers" is that
> > they're all for "choice," so long as you agree with
> > them. In other words, you have to be pro-abortion, not
> > just pro-choice.
This is incoherent, because it is not clear how or why one _has_ to be this or that. The political coalition for "choice" consists of a number of tendencies. I don't insist that being of my tendency is a precondition for working together politically. My tendency is named (but prejudged) by dp here. My position is that not only should abortion be legal (and free) but that we should work to eliminate moral pressure on the woman. Abortion should be considered like any other medical choice, with no moral criteria involved. But that of course cannot be legislated, while legality and costs can be. Hence I'm not saying that anyone _has_ to be this or that. I simply don't know what dp is talking about.
The late Lisa Rogers (who posted on the old SPOONS marxism lists) had what seemed to me a slogan which captured the correct tone on this: In a Jar, Daddio, in a Jar.
Carrol