I deserve the boot for going over my limit, and I will stop, but
I wrote:
>> BUT while
>> a position like Casey's may be more palatable than that of your run-of-the
>> mill right-to lifer, it basically amounts to "we support mandatory
>> motherhood but we'll just try to make it as nice for you as possible."
Nathan wrote
> Mandatory motherhood in the sense of having to bring an unwanted pregnancy
> to term, but not mandatory in the sense of having to take care of a child or
> significantly change ones life or subordinate oneself economically.
Wow, that's quite impressive. I challenge you to show how Casey's policies or politics in any way absolve women from having to take care of children or change their lives. Except for the incredibly wealthy, when does anyone have a child and not "significantly change" her life? In what dreamy utopia would that ever be possible?
> That's
> a big, big difference.
It would be a big difference, but it's pure fantasy.
Liza