[Peace-discuss] economics of abortion and parenthood,
was: Immigration Reform Rally!
E. Wayne Johnson
ewj at pigs.ag
Thu Dec 10 13:55:01 CST 2009
On 12/10/2009 12:44 PM, Ricky Baldwin wrote:
> Well, Wayne, it appears you've chosen to avoid responding to my actual
> arguments.
>
Really?
The rule of law has nothing to do with "rulers" (although it is a
"yardstick in one sense). The rule of law exists because we have shared
property held in common (not just "land") and the exercise of the
liberty of individuals can impinge upon the Natural Rights of others.
We could go back to fundamental principles (love God, love one another
as you do yourself) and derive and prove each theorem of the law by
logic. The Rule of Law is a aggregation of shortcuts, derivations
stored up for quick reference so that we dont have to painstakingly
derive from scratch for every situation.
It is even by definition impossible to separate ethics from morality.
They are one and the same.
> But I'll play along for now. My little joke (which was just that)
> about the "Founding Fathers" was based on my understanding (perhaps
> incorrect) of the original proposal which included land instead of
> happiness, and nothing to do with so-called "Natural Law" theory -
> which hasn't improved in my estimation as a result of your curious
> comments.
> I honestly have no clue as to why you think I reject ethics, although
> you have made a similar remark before. I happen to value ethics very
> highly, which is why I feel duty-bound to disagree with your
> pronouncements in the name of ethics.
> I would also be wary of confusing the law with either ethics or
> logic. I could produce some easy counterexamples in the law, but I
> think you can find your own without much trouble. The rule of law is
> based on repeated recognition over centuries by people that their
> rulers cannot be trusted, basically. It is a lesson that
> apparently must be re-learned with frustrating frequency, of course,
> but that is largely our project. This is not to say, of course, that
> we shouldn't make logical or ethical arguments when evaluating laws -
> but the reverse doesn't really work.
> And Laurie is correct of course that you confuse response to simple
> stimuli with ethical deliberations and choices to no good end.
> Although in a way I hope you are right: if electrical circuits were
> capable of ethics, we might have a lot less trouble today.
> I am aware, of course, of ethical considerations - often less well
> developed - dating back many centuries. We can make our own
> evaluations today, however, and are free to reject the "ancients'"
> views on ethics in favor of our own.
>
> Ricky
>
> "Speak your mind even if your voice shakes." - Maggie Kuhn
>
> --- On *Thu, 12/10/09, E. Wayne Johnson /<ewj at pigs.ag>/* wrote:
>
>
> From: E. Wayne Johnson <ewj at pigs.ag>
> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] economics of abortion and
> parenthood,was: Immigration Reform Rally!
> To: "Laurie Solomon" <ls1000 at live.com>
> Cc: "Ricky Baldwin" <baldwinricky at yahoo.com>, "peace-discuss"
> <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
> Date: Thursday, December 10, 2009, 12:05 PM
>
> Animals move toward food and comfort and away from painful stimuli.
>
> Amoebae, Paramecia, and macrophages, all single cells, display
> attraction and avoidance behaviours.
>
> They certainly "decide". An electric circuit can "decide".
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 12/10/2009 11:51 AM, Laurie Solomon wrote:
> >> Even brute creatures, plants, and single-celled life forms
> demonstrate choices between "good" and "evil".
> >
> > Certainly, you are not claiming that plants and single-celled
> life have a conscience and a consciousness which enables them to
> deliberate and analyze as to choices between "good" and "evil"; or
> are you?
> >
> > Aside from that, I think that it is unproductive to confound and
> confuse the distinction between morality which deals with "good"
> and "evil" and ethics which deal with prescribed ("right and
> proper") versus prohibited or proscribed ("wrong and incorrect")
> patterns of behavior. The latter does not necessarily have
> anything to do with the former. Under some ethical systems, it is
> unethical to lie but it may not be immoral to do so. A little
> "white lie" may be unethical but not necessarily immoral.
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------
> > From: "E. Wayne Johnson" <ewj at pigs.ag
> <http://us.mc1138.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=ewj@pigs.ag>>
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 11:59 AM
> > To: "Ricky Baldwin" <baldwinricky at yahoo.com
> <http://us.mc1138.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=baldwinricky@yahoo.com>>
> > Cc: "AWARE peace discussion" <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> <http://us.mc1138.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net>>
> > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] economics of abortion and
> parenthood,was: Immigration Reform Rally!
> >
> >> Ricky,
> >>
> >> The concept of "property" in Natural Law is not "land ownership".
> >> I think you know that and are just trying to "throw sand in the
> bull's eyes"
> >>
> >> If you reject ethics then you are on very thin ice indeed.
> >>
> >> Ethics and the rule of law spring from a fundamental concept of
> goodness and absolute reality.
> >> Even brute creatures, plants, and single-celled life forms
> demonstrate choices between "good" and "evil".
> >>
> >> Methods of abortion were available to the ancients, and even
> the ancients were familiar with unethical individuals and
> >> chose to separate the ethical from the unethical physicians via
> an oath.
> >>
> >>
> >> On 12/9/2009 10:34 AM, Ricky Baldwin wrote:
> >>> Pure gibberish, of course, no matter who said it. You can
> make an ethical argument against abortion if you like, but the
> framers of the laws you cite clearly did not contemplate the
> interpretation being imagined here, nor is there any other legal
> reason to do so - when we set age limits, for example, we count
> age from BIRTH, not CONCEPTION; we do not attempt to bar pregnant
> women from seeing R-rated films (although some rightwinger may
> soon try it); the census does not count pregnant women as
> multiple people; police reports do not list embryos or fetuses
> separately when describing a scene; etc.
> >>> The rest of the argument is also complete bunk, like most of
> "Natural Law" theory at least as we studied in Biomedical Ethics.
> It sounds convincing only if you already believe it, or are really
> gullible. That's because the argument assumes what it purports to
> prove: in this case, a particular (and flawed) definition of humanity.
> >>> It isn't usually stated clearly anyway, as it isn't here. The
> definition of "a human being" can't be this simplistic DNA trait.
> If it were, a cancerous tumor or any severe mutation would count
> as "a human being," i.e. genetically different from the host but
> still genetically homo sapiens. What about the case of
> anencephaly, an apparent human baby born without a brain? Is this
> a "person" with equal rights? Clearly not. But WHY not? That is
> the relevant question here, in my opinion. And I think the answer
> is not so hard to figure out if we think about it clearly without
> too many preconceived notions.
> >>> An anencephalic "child" has no equal right to life, liberty,
> and the pursuit of land (wait, they changed that, right?
> happiness?) because he/she/it has no CAPACITY for such things.
> In the same way, I have no "right" to sprout wings and fly,
> because I cannot. Likewise, certain persons born with severe
> brain damage or underdevelopment CANNOT exercise certain rights -
> certain levels of independent living, decision-making, etc. - and
> therefore it is absurd to argue that they have a "right" to do
> so. Clearly, this situation can be abused, as can many others, so
> a high level of caution is important. In fact, it's hard to
> generalize this way, but just about any time we see unequal power
> - social, politic, economic, etc. - abuse usually follows close
> behind. It is certainly within a parent's rights - in fact, our
> duty - to curtail small children's freedom too move about by
> stopping them from running out into traffic, for example, but that
> does not justify beating them bloody to disuade them or keeping
> them locked in a basement. And so on. So, regardless of the
> stickiness of the sometimes conflicting issues, there are clearly
> limits to the "rights" that genetically human individuals may
> reasonably claim.
> >>> The question is always what these limits are, or ethically
> ought to be, and we may disagree about that. Those of us who
> believe that abortion is ethically permissable may disagree about
> when and under what circumstances. Those who believe (wrongly)
> that abortion is somehow "murder" may also disagree about what to
> do about it. But I've alluded to a few good reasons that legal
> prohibitions are and would be wrong (responding to an
> anti-abortion argument that I notice has now shifted like the
> proverbial sands) - this leaves the ethics in the hands of those
> who have the capacity to make ethical decisions. And among these,
> the ethical, socioeconomic and other considerations of those
> affected most - i.e. the pregnant women actually facing the
> decision - ought to take precedence in general, by rights.
> >>> I claim, in fact, that the "personhood" arguments aren't even
> the final word. If I find myself inextricably connected to an
> unconscious adult, for example, circulation, etc, in some
> science-fictional way that disconnecting before a certain period
> of months necessarily leads to the unfortunate other person's
> death, but remaining connected means reduced mobility, increased
> health risks, and a constant drain from me (as a giant parasite
> would), then I may ELECT to continue, but I am under no ETHICAL
> OBLIGATION to stay connected. It is my RIGHT to disconnect, and
> the decision is really mine.
> >>> Anti-abortionists may argue that the situation isn't analogous
> unless I am connected by virtue of some action I took, perhaps
> recklessly or perhaps without full recognition of the consequences
> or preparedness, or perhaps playing the odds that the connection
> would not result or that my health would not be in danger and only
> later learning that my health has been compromised, etc. I accept
> such amendments and claim the argument still holds. What crime
> would I have to be guilty of to rightfully incur such a sentence?
> Can we think of even one? None that would be relevant to the
> question.
> >>>
> >>> Ricky
> >>>
> >>> "Speak your mind even if your voice shakes." - Maggie Kuhn
> >>>
> >>> --- On *Tue, 12/8/09, E.Wayne Johnson /<ewj at pigs.ag
> <http://us.mc1138.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=ewj@pigs.ag>>/* wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> From: E.Wayne Johnson <ewj at pigs.ag
> <http://us.mc1138.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=ewj@pigs.ag>>
> >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] economics of abortion and
> >>> parenthood,was: Immigration Reform Rally!
> >>> To: "E. Wayne Johnson" <ewj at pigs.ag
> <http://us.mc1138.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=ewj@pigs.ag>>,
> "Ricky Baldwin"
> >>> <baldwinricky at yahoo.com
> <http://us.mc1138.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=baldwinricky@yahoo.com>>
> >>> Cc: "AWARE peace discussion"
> <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> <http://us.mc1138.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net>>
> >>> Date: Tuesday, December 8, 2009, 8:20 AM
> >>>
> >>> Our friend RJ Harris, congressional candidate from
> Oklahoma had
> >>> this to say about abortion in a press release this morning:
> >>> According to the 5th and 14th Amendments, life, liberty or
> >>> property can only be infringed after due process and equal
> >>> protection under the law have been provided. Equal protection
> >>> requires that the unborn have the same protection as the
> born. The
> >>> born cannot have their lives infringed without having first
> >>> committed a capital crime. Thus, the unborn, since they are
> >>> incapable of committing a capital crime, may not have
> their lives
> >>> infringed either. Moreover, since it is impossible for the
> unborn
> >>> to have notice or an opportunity to be heard, there can be no
> >>> process equal to the constitutional requirement of due
> process.
> >>> Of course those that want to continue killing children in
> the name
> >>> of convenience will immediately argue that unborn children
> are not
> >>> persons.
> >>> According to the European slave traders, the Africans they
> sold
> >>> were not people either.
> >>> According to the plantation owners in the Caribbean and the
> >>> Americas, their slaves were not people either. According
> to the
> >>> Taney Supreme Court of 1857, Dred Scott, a slave suing for his
> >>> freedom, was not a person either. According to Hitler, the
> Jews
> >>> were not people either. According to the Hutus, the Tutsis
> were
> >>> not people either. According to the Janjaweed Militia the
> >>> Darfurian Civilians were not people either.
> >>> Challenging the personhood of a human life IS the losing
> argument.
> >>> If a human embryo was found on Mars in a stasis jar would NASA
> >>> report the finding of mere life…or would NASA report the
> finding
> >>> of HUMAN life?
> >>>
> >>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>> *From:* E. Wayne Johnson
> >>> <http://us.mc1138.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=ewj@pigs.ag>
> >>> *To:* Ricky Baldwin
> >>>
> >>>
> <http://us.mc1138.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=baldwinricky@yahoo.com>
> >>>
> >>> *Cc:* AWARE peace discussion
> >>>
> >>>
> <http://us.mc1138.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net>
>
> >>>
> >>> *Sent:* Monday, December 07, 2009 3:24 PM
> >>> *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] economics of abortion and
> >>> parenthood,was: Immigration Reform Rally!
> >>>
> >>> Immigration and abortion do both have a large racist
> >>> component. We have discussed that relative to
> abortion. Racism is the implicit operative of immigration law... we
> >>> exclude those who we don't like or are not like us.
> >>>
> >>> Abortion terminates a human life. How you dismiss
> that is an
> >>> important point. Murder always has a motive. One is
> saved,
> >>> rescued, and liberated perhaps, and the other gets the
> >>> physical equivalent of death in a Waring blender.
> >>>
> >>> I am constantly taken aback by how authoritarian
> "liberals"
> >>> are. I should learn to get used to it but it still
> has shock
> >>> value for me. I am glad to see that at least you
> would not
> >>> force income-synchronous limits on family size nor dictate
> >>> dietary policy, however there are those who would love to.
> >>>
> >>> Some libertarians make an argument against immigration
> based
> >>> upon property rights. They commit an serious error in
> that it
> >>> is assumed that all property is held personally and
> privately,
> >>> which is absurd.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 12/7/2009 2:11 PM, Ricky Baldwin wrote:
> >>>> Karen asks a good question - how we got from
> immigration to
> >>>> abortion. The answer is, Wayne sees them as related as
> >>>> issues of population control, a view I find
> simplistic but
> >>>> not totally non sequitur (in that some people do
> relate them
> >>>> this way - but nobody we're talking to currently, so
> I'm not
> >>>> sure of the significance here).
> >>>>
> >>>> For what it's worth, I agree that abortion affects
> different
> >>>> populations differently, as do so many other things -
> >>>> including childbirth. As usual the poor and otherwise
> >>>> underprivileged get the worst hit. By that I do not mean
> >>>> that abortion is always the horror that some
> anti-abortion
> >>>> ideologues suggest, or that childbirth is always a
> horror,
> >>>> although it can be. Abortion can be a kind of
> salvation,
> >>>> rescue, liberation. Parenthood can open up a new and
> amazing
> >>>> world. But that isn't the case for all. Economic
> and other
> >>>> social pressures can coerce people into excruciatingly
> >>>> painful decisions of the most personal nature
> imaginable. It
> >>>> is entirely correct to observe that this is not in any
> >>>> meaningful sense a free choice.
> >>>>
> >>>> Yet to remove the option is not to empower.
> >>>>
> >>>> When we observe that people are forced into bad food
> choices,
> >>>> for example, we do not outlaw cheap food - although some
> >>>> liberals would. Nowadays women actually keep up with men
> >>>> pretty well in earnings - until they hit the childbearing
> >>>> years, when they fall behind and never catch up again,
> >>>> statistically. Individually having children or
> having more
> >>>> children can be devastating to a family's financial
> >>>> well-being. But none of us would propose that,
> therefore,
> >>>> there should be income-synchronous limits on family
> size. It
> >>>> just isn't the right way to respond. Being raise in a
> >>>> single-parent household hits a poor kid hard; a rich
> kid, not
> >>>> so much.
> >>>>
> >>>> It is very bad for a person's health to sit hours on
> end in
> >>>> front of a TV or computer and skip vital exercise -
> and it
> >>>> can affect us all by driving up health care costs,
> etc. Yet
> >>>> we do not think it reasonable to make such choices
> illegal. It's unclear to me how this last risk distributes over
> >>>> demographics :-) - but in the case of abortion and
> parenthood
> >>>> and so many other things that track unfortunately
> along with
> >>>> poverty and powerlessness, it is the poverty and
> >>>> powerlessness that are the problem. These are the
> evils we
> >>>> must address.
> >>>>
> >>>> My 2c.
> >>>> Ricky
> >>>>
> >>>> "Speak your mind even if your voice shakes." - Maggie
> Kuhn
> >>>>
> >>>> --- On *Mon, 12/7/09, E. Wayne Johnson /<ewj at pigs.ag
> <http://us.mc1138.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=ewj@pigs.ag>>/* wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> From: E. Wayne Johnson <ewj at pigs.ag
> <http://us.mc1138.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=ewj@pigs.ag>>
> >>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Re: Immigration
> Reform Rally!
> >>>> To: "Jenifer Cartwright" <jencart13 at yahoo.com
> <http://us.mc1138.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=jencart13@yahoo.com>>
> >>>> Cc: "AWARE peace discussion"
> >>>> <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> <http://us.mc1138.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net>>
> >>>> Date: Monday, December 7, 2009, 12:15 PM
> >>>>
> >>>> I dont suppose I have used the expression
> "welfare queen"
> >>>> but you undoubtably have touched on the pro-abortion
> >>>> argument that its is cheaper for the gov't to fund
> >>>> abortions than to support the children.
> >>>>
> >>>> The CDC reports data from 2006:
> >>>>
> >>>> Black women make up about 12.3% of the population but
> >>>> account for 35% of all abortions. Hispanics make
> up 22%
> >>>> of all abortions but only 12.5% of the female
> >>>> population. Non-hispanic white women make up
> 62.6% of
> >>>> the population but only 34% of the abortions.
> >>>>
> >>>> The abortion ratio in the USA was 236 abortions
> per 1,000
> >>>> live births but among blacks the abortion ratio
> was 459
> >>>> per 1000 live births.
> >>>>
> >>>> On 12/7/2009 10:47 AM, Jenifer Cartwright wrote:
> >>>>> Gee Wayne, all the folks I know who've ended
> pregnancies
> >>>>> are middle- or upper-middle class... and then
> there are
> >>>>> all those folks on welfare who have 8+ kids...
> Lessee,
> >>>>> what do you call them?? Oh yeah, Welfare Queens.
> >>>>> --Jenifer
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --- On *Sun, 12/6/09, E. Wayne Johnson
> /<ewj at pigs.ag
> <http://us.mc1138.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=ewj@pigs.ag>>/*
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> From: E. Wayne Johnson <ewj at pigs.ag
> <http://us.mc1138.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=ewj@pigs.ag>>
> >>>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Re: Immigration
> Reform
> >>>>> Rally!
> >>>>> To: "Ricky Baldwin" <baldwinricky at yahoo.com
> <http://us.mc1138.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=baldwinricky@yahoo.com>>
> >>>>> Cc: "AWARE peace discussion"
> >>>>> <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> <http://us.mc1138.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net>>,
> "Stuart Levy"
> >>>>> <slevy at ncsa.uiuc.edu
> <http://us.mc1138.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=slevy@ncsa.uiuc.edu>>
> >>>>> Date: Sunday, December 6, 2009, 3:59 PM
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I didnt mean you personally but noted late, too
> >>>>> late, it could be most easily taken that way.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I just wanted to point out the elitist
> overtones.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I would contend that were it not for the
> outright
> >>>>> murder of ~50 million American citizens via
> >>>>> abortion, there would be no dysfunction of
> >>>>> population equilibrium that is the real force
> >>>>> driving the wave of net immigration...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> _*Abortion would not be legal if not for its
> eugenic
> >>>>> effect. *_
> >>>>>
> >>>>> (Of course I am strongly opposed to
> abortion, be it
> >>>>> early, late, preemptive, or retroactive.)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> When people tell me what they think about
> abortion
> >>>>> they just tell me what they think about murder.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Why kill the child before birth? What not
> wait some
> >>>>> time after birth and decide whether you like the
> >>>>> baby or not?
> >>>>> Doesnt that make more sense then getting rid
> of the
> >>>>> kid before ya know if its any good or not?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You could take the child back to the
> hospital for
> >>>>> "recycling". I understand that there is a high
> >>>>> demand for not-quite-fully-differentiated
> cells for
> >>>>> the "spare parts" and "good used parts" market.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Of course I write foolishness here, but
> really, what
> >>>>> is the difference?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 12/6/2009 3:28 PM, Ricky Baldwin wrote:
> >>>>>> No such thing, Wayne. This event is being
> >>>>>> organized by a student group, hence the
> focus. La
> >>>>>> Colectiva Latina actually works on immigration
> >>>>>> issues generally, and does some excellent work
> >>>>>> among the very population you mention here
> locally
> >>>>>> - at Shadowwood, etc
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> If you mean me, I've actually done
> solidarity work
> >>>>>> with farmworkers standing up for their
> rights, in
> >>>>>> ways that they chose, for quite a few
> years. If
> >>>>>> you want to make this about me, I'm
> surprised you
> >>>>>> hadn't noticed the postings on those issues. I
> >>>>>> happen to think that the right approach to
> >>>>>> immigration "problems" is to guarantee the same
> >>>>>> rights, at work and so on, to everybody - then
> >>>>>> there's no incentive for unscrupulous
> employers to
> >>>>>> hire coyotes to scam desperate victims of our
> >>>>>> imperialist policies into slavery and
> near-slavery
> >>>>>> here - and to stop supporting repressive
> regimes
> >>>>>> abroad that create waves of immigration, etc.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> To clarify, abortion ought to be freely
> available
> >>>>>> for anyone who wants it - regardless of
> anyone's
> >>>>>> paranoia about that. But I'm only in favor of
> >>>>>> euthanasia for so-called "Libertarians" who are
> >>>>>> opposed to other people's rights ;-)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> By the way, thanks, Stuart. That's what I
> hear,
> >>>>>> too. Wayne is engaging in groundless
> speculation
> >>>>>> again, I believe. I won't speculate about the
> >>>>>> basis of his speculation.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Ricky
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "Speak your mind even if your voice shakes." -
> >>>>>> Maggie Kuhn
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --- On *Sun, 12/6/09, E. Wayne Johnson
> >>>>>> /<ewj at pigs.ag
> <http://us.mc1138.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=ewj@pigs.ag>>/* wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> From: E. Wayne Johnson <ewj at pigs.ag
> <http://us.mc1138.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=ewj@pigs.ag>>
> >>>>>> Subject: [Peace-discuss] Re:
> Immigration Reform
> >>>>>> Rally!
> >>>>>> To: "Stuart Levy" <slevy at ncsa.uiuc.edu
> <http://us.mc1138.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=slevy@ncsa.uiuc.edu>>
> >>>>>> Cc: "AWARE peace discussion"
> >>>>>> <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> <http://us.mc1138.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net>>
> >>>>>> Date: Sunday, December 6, 2009, 2:53 PM
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Why special favours for those fortunate
> ones
> >>>>>> who attend universities and not for
> those who
> >>>>>> pick fruit, sort and pack vegetables,
> work in
> >>>>>> in meatpacking establishments, and
> clean our
> >>>>>> homes and buildings?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 12/6/2009 2:27 PM, Stuart Levy wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 06, 2009 at 12:40:26PM
> -0600, E. Wayne Johnson wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Ricky,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> You really are all about Eugenics,
> aren't you?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Abortion for the human weeds.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Import the best and brightest.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> What do you propose for the "Culls"?
> Detention? Euthanasia?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Wayne
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Wayne,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> What on earth? This event is to
> promote a humane US immigration policy.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Plyler v. Doe for example says that
> states have to offer public education
> >>>>>>> to everybody, without screening by
> immigrant status.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I do hear eugenics-like language being
> used in the debate at times,
> >>>>>>> but coming from people opposed to such
> a policy. They talk about
> >>>>>>> impure stock coming across the
> borders, and not wanting them to mix with
> >>>>>>> the good american stock. Things like
> that. Much as many people did in the
> >>>>>>> late 19th/early 20th century when the
> impure stock were coming from
> >>>>>>> southern and eastern europe, like my
> father's parents.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I don't hear that kind of thing coming
> from people supporting things
> >>>>>>> like the DREAM act, do you?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 12/5/2009 12:43 PM, Ricky Baldwin
> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> From: Celeste
> Larkin<celeste.larkin at gmail.com
> <http://us.mc1138.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=celeste.larkin@gmail.com>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Subject: [PeoplesPotluck]
> Immigration Reform Rally!
> >>>>>>>>>
> To:peoplespotluck at lists.chambana.net
> <http://us.mc1138.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=peoplespotluck@lists.chambana.net>
> >>>>>>>>> Date: Friday, December 4, 2009,
> 9:37 PM
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Wednesday, December 9th at 6:30
> PM, in the Foellinger Auditorium,
> >>>>>>>>> the IDream Coalition will be
> hosting the *D.R.E.A.M.
> >>>>>>>>> Act/Immigration Reform Rally*!
> At the rally, we will be calling
> >>>>>>>>> upon our legislators, community
> and university to support
> >>>>>>>>> Immigration Reform that helps
> undocumented students gain
> >>>>>>>>> citizenship through higher
> education.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> *_So what's the
> >>>>>>>>> rally all about?_ *
> >>>>>>>>> -Come to *learn* about past and
> present immigration legislation
> >>>>>>>>> such as:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> * Plyer v. Doe
> >>>>>>>>> * Gutierrez/Immigration Bill
> >>>>>>>>> * HB 60
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> * DREAM Act
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Inform yourself about our
> country's immigration laws!
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> -Come to see different U of I
> student organizations speaking about
> >>>>>>>>> how the immigration debate
> relates to them and *why we should
> >>>>>>>>> */*ALL*/* care!*
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> -Come to witness testimonials
> from undocumented students who have
> >>>>>>>>> *shared their struggle* and
> personal immigration stories.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> -Come to find out how you can
> *get involved* in future movements
> >>>>>>>>> for human rights and
> immigration reform.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> So come, learn, witness, and
> show your support for those thousands
> >>>>>>>>> of undocumented
> students--because a few minutes of your time could
> >>>>>>>>> change someone's life forever!
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>>> PeoplesPotluck mailing list
> >>>>>>>>> PeoplesPotluck at lists.chambana.net
> <http://us.mc1138.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=PeoplesPotluck@lists.chambana.net>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> </mc/compose?to=PeoplesPotluck at lists.chambana.net
> <http://us.mc1138.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=PeoplesPotluck@lists.chambana.net>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peoplespotluck
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>>> Prairiegreens mailing list
> >>>>>>>>> Prairiegreens at lists.chambana.net
> <http://us.mc1138.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=Prairiegreens@lists.chambana.net>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/prairiegreens
> >>>>>>>>> http://www.prairienet.org/greens/
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>> Peace mailing list
> >>>>>>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net
> <http://us.mc1138.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=Peace@lists.chambana.net>
> >>>>>>>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
> >>>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> <http://us.mc1138.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> >>>>>
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
> >>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> <http://us.mc1138.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> <http://us.mc449.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net>
>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
> >>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> <http://us.mc1138.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net>
> >>>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
> >>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> <http://us.mc1138.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net>
> >>>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Peace-discuss mailing list
> >>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> <http://us.mc1138.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net>
> >>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Peace-discuss mailing list
> >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> <http://us.mc1138.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net>
> >> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list