Fwd: [Peace-discuss] peace and contraception

[Morton K.Brussel]

> As per the remarks quoted below, and some others:
>
>  Carl persists in obfuscating, willfully equating the rights of (easy 
> to recognize) human beings--viz,, Palestinians or slaves--with those 
> of  "potential human beings", namely eggs which may or may not have 
> been fertilized (but in Carls view still "persons").  One wonders 
> about the theology (forget about the chemistry) involved in the before 
> and after of the fertilization--i.e., separated ovum and sperm and 
> conjoined ovum and sperm, perhaps distinguished in space and time only 
> a by few millimeters or milliseconds. I suppose the production of 
> sperm and ova themselves might be considered sacred, as many would 
> have us believe, thus an argument against contraception. One could 
> even carry this on further, that the very IDEA of sexual intercourse 
> should be forbidden if the production of children is not to be the end 
> goal. Of course, what we have here are theological views which most of 
> us consider absurd and unworthy of rational discourse.
>
> Another two cents worth of opinion--reinforcing Al's comments about 
> left vs. right in critiques and actions against the war policies of 
> the current administration. I've wanted to say for some time that 
> Carl's continual emphasis on the acuity and nobility of (some of the) 
> the far right's antagonism to the war and imperialism has seemed 
> bizarre. Why does he always bring this up? Now, he says openly that 
> the right is in fact more coherent and effective in its criticism of 
> the current "war" and imperialism than the supposedly incoherent, 
> wimpy, and ineffective left, which he likes to castigate. This seems 
> to me to lack all sense: Does he recognize CommonDreams, ZNET, The 
> Progressive, The Nation, In These Times, the Monthly Review, (even 
> Cockburns Counterpunch), labor unions., peace organizations, etc,. and 
> can he cite the equivalent on the "right"?
>
> I can only conclude that there is a little resentment here that the 
> left, as diverse and disunited in some respects as it is (perhaps an 
> essential nature of the "left"), does not in general look for mystical 
> guidance for the conduct of human affairs on this earth.
>
> As for the purported "excellence" of the recent commentary from 
> Robert, that also struck me as strange, albeit consistent.
>
> Respectfully, mkb
>
>  On Oct 17, 2004, at 2:57 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>
>> [3] You write "...granting the fetus this more or less absolute right 
>> to
>> life means taking away rights from pregnant women ... [which] may 
>> include
>> life, health, autonomy to varying degrees, economic well-being or a 
>> number
>> of other things."  I'm not quite sure who's doing the granting -- the 
>> left
>> has historically argued for the recognition of rights that were being
>> ignored by a repressive society -- but you certainly would not come to
>> similar conclusions in the following cases:
>> 	[a] "...granting the Palestinians this more or less absolute right
>> to life means taking away rights from Israeli Jews ... [which] may 
>> include
>> life, health, autonomy to varying degrees, economic well-being or a 
>> number
>> of other things"; and
>> 	[b] "...granting slaves in the antebellum South this more or less
>> absolute right to life means taking away rights from plantation 
>> owners ...
>> include life, health, autonomy to varying degrees, economic 
>> well-being or
>> a number of other things."
>> 	But [a] and [b] seem true.  In each case there are rights that may
>> indeed possibly conflict, but they can't be simply ignored.
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 3544 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/private/peace-discuss/attachments/20041017/0fd0c0fc/attachment-0001.bin