[Peace-discuss] economics of abortion and parenthood,
was: Immigration Reform Rally!
E. Wayne Johnson
ewj at pigs.ag
Thu Dec 10 13:31:27 CST 2009
> Although in a way I hope you are right: if electrical circuits were
> capable of ethics, we might have a lot less trouble today.
"...God has made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions."
-Ec. 7.29
Its the chicanery and rationalization of the rejection of first
principles that causes much of the trouble.
On 12/10/2009 12:44 PM, Ricky Baldwin wrote:
> Well, Wayne, it appears you've chosen to avoid responding to my actual
> arguments. 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