[Peace-discuss] Re: [Peace] AWARE Minutes-10-10-04

[Morton K. Brussel]

I hesitate to tread here.

There will always be "some" who believe ("understand"?) anything; that 
seems to be in the nature of "faith". "Human life" is turning out to be 
a very slippery concept.  However, since this issue is for "some" 
controversial (For how many on the left I don't know.), perhaps Carl is 
right that, tactically, AWARE should not endorse this effort. All those 
who would wish to support the effort, and most of us may be in that 
camp, can do so on an individual basis.

mkb


On Oct 11, 2004, at 9:38 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:

>  "Emergency contraception" may be necessary
> for victims of rape, but it's understood by some as an abortifacient.

I left the meeting early Sunday (I'm doing a walk-on in the current
Station Theatre play, Aristocrats -- which I can recommend in good
conscience, as my contribution is slight), so I wasn't there when this
matter was discussed. I should have spoken against it for two reasons, 
one
substantive and one tactical. "Emergency contraception" may be necessary
for victims of rape, but it's understood by some as an abortifacient; 
its
general promotion does seem to suggest a casualness towards human life
that we decry in other US government policies. Tactically, it's the sort
of issue that Tom Frank describes in What's the Matter with Kansas? as
derailing progressive politics.  An anti-war group that wants to talk to
people other than self-described liberals should stay away from it.  
--CGE