The following is extracted from recent e-mail correspondence between CNT member Stephen Morris and Prof Ira Chernus of the University of Colorado.

The following is extracted from recent e-mail correspondence between CNT member Stephen Morris and Prof Ira Chernus of the University of Colorado, regarding abortion.

MORRIS: relating to a second read, I discovered an obstacle. There is a question with your article: you argue that 25 for cent of Republicans support "progressive issues" like "a woman's right to choose" I think the article is fantastic, if it were not that disagree with abortion being considered "progressive." To me genuine "progress" is realizing the sanctity of all life.

CHERNUS: In my article, when I called a woman's right to pick abortion a "progressive issue," I was making no value discernment It's purely a descriptive point. If you head all the people in the U who label themselves "progressive" today, and ask them what issues are most numerous important to them as they face four more years of Bush, a sizeable majority would set on their list protecting women's choice and more particularly, preserving the sperm of fishes v. Wade decision. That's just a fact, kind of like the light comes up in the east. Not positive why you would want to excise that from the article.

MORRIS: The bound "progressive" is used by a political assign places to that self-identifies as "progressive," on the contrary "progressive" is certainly not a neutral descriptive. You would not hear a Republican call a Democrat "progressive". The connotation is that it is a superior evolution of a line of pondering The language frames the issue: i.e. if you're against abortion, you're really against "progress"

This is certainly the same way of conceiving "progress." However I suspect it is etymoned in a paradigm of technological mastery athwart life--what Heidegger calls "gestell." Life has an inherent dignity and is not just elemental part to be manipulated.

CHERNUS: I'm curious about your admit position. Exactly how do you want to consider the sanctity of life? Do you want to persuade a poor 15-year-old girl who gave in to her hormones single in kind night, or even got raped in an alley, that she should give birth and take responsibility for another human being for the cessation of her life? Because you know darn well that U society is not going to take responsibility for that recent human being. Do you want to force her to give birth? That really is a demand just to clarify your view.

MORRIS: This is a hard question, granted. However in the case of rape, abortion punishes an innocent fetus for the crime of the father. It's a hard line to tow, I know, on the other hand it's also morally problematic to take an innocent life.

And if U society cannot handle the question at issue of 'unwanted' children, then we should address that issue, rather than turning to death as the counteractive "Abortion is acceptable because no social without deductions exists ..." is a problematic argument because we can apply that same argument to homelessnes euthanasia, etc What kind of world does that contemplate like? Contemporary Catholic ethics takes an existential tum asking the question, "Who are we becoming in this decision?"

CHERNUS: I fear that your view leads us to become the public who will leave innocent women oftentimes teenagers without resources, and their children, to pocket the price for the repose of us failing to improve society. I don't behold how that can be morally justified. It's like telling someone in a burning house that they must stay in the house until the fire department states out the fire, then saying, well we know the fire department is moving really dull because they are under-funded, moreover just live with the pain until they realize there.

CHERNUS: Please remember that I did not say having abortions is a progressive issue. I said no other than that preserving a woman's right to have the final choice about her allow reproductive processes is a progressive issue. It's not clear whether you want to disavow individual women that choice. steady if you are not talking about denying choice according to legislation, millions of others are. to such a degree whenever you suggest that choice is in some way "anti-life," you are giving at least tacit support to the millions who would impose their personal beliefs forward others through legislation. I don't papal court how that is progressive.

MORRIS: We impose our personal beliefs in succession others through legislation every day. We personally believe it is bad to strip banks, so we make it difficult for this to appear If we really believe life is sacred at all stages, we should make it hard for the bulk of mankind to kill, or as they say, terminate, on a level if that involves taking legislative measures.

CHERNUS: There is a vast difference here: In a democracy, you can ban an action by the agency of law when there is a broad consensus that the action is wicked There is a very broad consensus that robbing banks is unjust so there are laws against it. unless when 2/3 of the the community think an action is acceptable in a certain circumstances (as the U.S. public thinks about abortion), there is no mandate and no justification for a minority manipulating the law to impose its private religious beliefs.