...but I also do not see Ethan's views as representing a heart in the right place. I think he passionately supports the system as it exists (at least, in basic essence) and has no major concerns for proven demonstrable dangers plaguing kids as long as mainstream societal influence is willing to tolerate the same. His forceful defense of many institutions and practices that are known to cause large amounts of demonstrable harm to kids by the system he supports (e.g., the currently insular nature of the nuclear family unit, pre-emptive war, the continued over-reliance of the personal automobile for transportation) clearly places his loyalty to adult-controlled institutions of power first and foremost. I think his resistance to pro-choicers and youth liberation is part of a broader resistance to fundamental change in general, and I think he and his ilk make that quite clear if you look at all of our exchanges here and elsewhere with a close objective mind. He uses all the familiar rhetoric of centrists who seek to stifle change on a wider scale, including the besmirching of those who strive for actual change and believe humanity can do be better than we currently are. He even uses the identical choice of pejoratives and claimed assumptions. And a particular point of focus for him (at least in these parts) is an opposition to treating children as full human beings who can and should be empowered to be able to make the best decisions for themselves.

To be entirely fair to Ethan, I am not saying he outright approves of the harmful things I mentioned above. Just that he is willing to tolerate them so long as the mainstream viewpoint does, either by outright support or simple apathetic acquiescence ("we simply can't do any better than this, because we're human beings and therefore we suck! So, this is never gonna change!"). Appeasing the public and winning the approval of the majority is where his heart lies, not "doing the right thing" for kids. I am not saying the majority of people are awful or destructive, but I am saying they are victims of indoctrination based on the current structure of the very institutions that Ethan and his fellow libruls support maintaining the integrity of so strongly, and will brook no criticism of. In fact, did you not just see him in this very personal attack thread on me taking me to task for being against the nuclear family unit as it now exists, capitalist "masters" (his actual choice of words!), and other cherished institutions of the present system, as if not supporting them in their present form somehow automatically makes someone "bad" or discreditable in his eyes.

Finally, it's not a problem with me that his views are expressed in the MAP community. That was never in question. My problem is the constant marginalization of the pro-choice view and its near-total banishment from "polite" political and academic circles, a situation just beginning to change thanks a growing number of objective researchers (which Ethan more or less entirely ignores, unless they happen to be fence-sitters like Bailey who strongly supports VP; I will say I have good respect for Bailey, since he likewise supports B4U-ACT, which has no official position on the contact issue, and tends to be fair-minded when it comes to allowing for both camps of discourse).

This is a problem that increases my ire doubly when Ethan and other anti-choicers have the temerity to complain that we have evidently have too much of a voice in the MAP community, that we "dominate" any MAP board we are allowed on, and that there are so many who are "sick and tired" of having to listen to us. As if they do not have a huge advantage, and as if we do not have to listen to their rhetoric far more often than they have to hear ours whenever members of either camp step out of the relatively small MAP community fora? How many boards exist out there with an official policy to only allow pro-choicers membership or a voice? Do we ever say, "If you're sick of listening to the likes of Ethan and others in his camp, feel free to go [here]"? Have them argue for us to have the right to engage with them fair and square in the mainstream media forums as strongly as you argued for the importance of their view being expressed in our marginalized cyber-locales (which, again, I am not opposed to) and then I will consider both of us being loyal to lofty principles to an equal measure.

Ethan mentioned in another recent thread that he feels the pro-choicers make the anti-choicers look bad in front of the mainstream, and that is the gist of his problem with us. Well, the anti-choicers make us look like everyone else, including possessing the common fear of standing up for and challenging a system we strongly believe needs to be challenged, and that is a problem that me and many other pro-choicers have with them. Let's be honest and admit they have all the advantage, including the availability of MAP-related communities where they do not have to listen to our views at all. Do you see Ethan and other anti-choicers arguing that our camp provides them good food for thought despite their disagreements with it, like you just told him he provides for us? When he says something similar, then I will come much closer to agreement with you on this.