abortion

[C. G. Estabrook]

You're wrong about the Christian history, Doug -- which 19th century pope
did you have in mind? -- and surely no one on the left can take the fact
that a position is held by a group that's "pretty tiny" as evidence of its
incorrectness...

I would say that in my experience the "seamless garment crowd" is not
"generally reactionary anti-feminist individuals" but people (mostly
women) of left and left-liberal persuasion.  (I'll include their statement
below.)  And I'm willing to submit the question of the extension of the
notion of humanity to the judgment of history: "We have been naught, we
shall be all."  Regards, CGE

http://www.seamless-garment.org/index.html

"We are committed to the protection of life, which is threatened in
today's world by war, the arms race, abortion, poverty, racism, capital
punishment, and euthanasia. We believe that these issues are linked under
a 'consistent ethic of life'. We challenge those working on all or some of
these issues to maintain a cooperative spirit of peace, reconciliation,
and respect in protecting the unprotected."

On Fri, 11 Oct 2002, Doug Henwood wrote:


> C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> 
> >If the Left continues to draw out the implication of its principles, it
> >will discover the marginalization of the unborn and unwanted as for
> >example it discovered the marginalization of women in the first and second
> >waves of feminism in the 19th and 20th centuries.
> 
> For most of human history, including most of Catholic Church history,
> no one thought there was anything problematic about abortion. It
> wasn't until a 19th century pope and a U.S. medical lobby keen to
> professionalize its previously sleazy reputation that it became an
> issue. The "seamless garment" crowd is pretty tiny, and it's generally
> reactionary anti-feminist individuals and socieites that oppose
> abortion. So you can try to turn opposition to abortion into a
> progressive stance, but it ain't gonna take.
> 
> Doug
>