[Peace-discuss] economics of abortion and parenthood,
was: Immigration Reform Rally!
E. Wayne Johnson
ewj at pigs.ag
Thu Dec 10 12:05:44 CST 2009
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>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 11:59 AM
> To: "Ricky Baldwin" <baldwinricky at yahoo.com>
> Cc: "AWARE peace discussion" <peace-discuss at 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>/* wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> From: E.Wayne Johnson <ewj at pigs.ag>
>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] economics of abortion and
>>> parenthood,was: Immigration Reform Rally!
>>> To: "E. Wayne Johnson" <ewj at pigs.ag>, "Ricky Baldwin"
>>> <baldwinricky at yahoo.com>
>>> Cc: "AWARE peace discussion" <peace-discuss at 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>/* wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: E. Wayne Johnson <ewj at pigs.ag>
>>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Re: Immigration Reform Rally!
>>>> To: "Jenifer Cartwright" <jencart13 at yahoo.com>
>>>> Cc: "AWARE peace discussion"
>>>> <peace-discuss at 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>/*
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From: E. Wayne Johnson <ewj at pigs.ag>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Re: Immigration Reform
>>>>> Rally!
>>>>> To: "Ricky Baldwin" <baldwinricky at yahoo.com>
>>>>> Cc: "AWARE peace discussion"
>>>>> <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>, "Stuart Levy"
>>>>> <slevy at 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>/* wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: E. Wayne Johnson <ewj at pigs.ag>
>>>>>> Subject: [Peace-discuss] Re: Immigration Reform
>>>>>> Rally!
>>>>>> To: "Stuart Levy" <slevy at ncsa.uiuc.edu>
>>>>>> Cc: "AWARE peace discussion"
>>>>>> <peace-discuss at 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>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Subject: [PeoplesPotluck] Immigration
>>>>>>>>> Reform Rally!
>>>>>>>>> To:peoplespotluck at 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
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> </mc/compose?to=PeoplesPotluck at lists.chambana.net>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peoplespotluck
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> Prairiegreens mailing list
>>>>>>>>> Prairiegreens at 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://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>>>>>> Peace-discuss at 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.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://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
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>>> Peace-discuss at 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