>>> Max Sawicky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 08/13/99 01:30PM >>> .. . . As long as someone assigns an absolute right to either the fetus or the woman, then dialogue, if not impossible, is reduced to I'm either right or wrong, or you either agree with me or you don't. Most single-issue advocates in this debate (pro-life and pro-choice) are in this bag. I've heard some people say the absolute right of women should not even be opened for discussion. That makes for very one-sided 'dialogue.' By contrast, my impression is that pro-life advocates are eager to prosylytize their views to potential converts. (((((((((((((( Charles: Dialogue with anti-abortionists who are not rightwingers is like dialogue with soft racists who are not rightwingers. You can dialogue but in the dialogues there can be no hint that the notion of white supremacy or anti-aboritionism is valid. The "dialogue" would have to be on some other issues besides abortion, other common interests. (((((((((((( By the evidence of polling, most of the public is somewhere in between, rejecting both views and often the candidates who espouse them. That's why the leadership of both major parties maneuver for the center. They may be craven, but they are not stupid. Charles: In analogy to the polls on abortion, I am sure polls or other evidence would demonstrate that a large minority of whites are not definite and clear that they are not superior racially to people of color. Of course , the Left has to dialogue with such a large group of the working class, but only with the definite goal of convincing them they are wrong on the issue, even as the dialogue is not confrontational. ((((((((((((( If the right of neither woman nor fetus is held to be absolute, then subsidiary issues create the possibility of dialogue, compromise on both sides, and greater unity. Things like limits to the term of a pregnancy that can be aborted, exceptions, parental notification, etc. It is telling that, as others have noted, notwithstanding the broad public consensus favoring quasi-absolute 'choice,' the real availability of the procedure is steadily eroding. Perhaps, in contrast to the current, thin majority favoring choice, a broader majority favoring imperfect choice would be more conducive to access. I can't say I'm certain about it. But how else to explain the concurrent erosion of access and the apparent sway of pro-choice philosophy? ((((((((((( Charles: Again in analogy, there is a relative increase of racism from thirty years ago. Affirmative action is under attack. But the solution cannot be to approach those newly influenced by racism with a compromise on the ideology of white supremacy, relaxing anti-racist laws or the like. You don't have to put it in terms such as the right of people of color to equality is absolute, but isn't it ? Similarly, with the woman's right to an abortion. Similarly, soft anti-abortionists who are not rightwing must be dialogued with regarding the fuller political economic agenda, but there can be no implication of ultimate compromise on the principle of women's abortion rights. Charles Brown
