[Peace-discuss] Obama gets another one right

[Marti Wilkinson]

*The best way for women with children to be supported is that the woman be
in a permanent loving relationship with a man*

I personally have never found it necessary to take the marriage or
cohabitation route as a condition of living life to the fullest. While I am
certainly open to finding a life partner, at this point it would be to
complement my life and not complete it.  It's been my blessing that I've
been able to utilize resources which makes it possible for me to be a single
parent. The above statement implies that somehow women are incapable of
raising children without a man and that is simply not true. This is not to
diminish the importance of men or the role of fathers, but to broaden what
constitutes a family.

My daughter went to school with a boy who had two moms. I actually used to
work for the same company with one of his mothers and she, along with her
partner, have provided this kid with a stable loving home. Last I heard they
are still together and the boy is now a teenager. Advances in technology
have made it possible for gay and lesbian couples to bring biological
children into a relationship. I think children are better off being raised
in a loving environment.

The nuclear family is, in my opinion, a modern myth. My parents went to
school with kids who lost their fathers in World War II and the Korean War.
I'm part of a generation where some were left fatherless due to Vietnam.
Historically it's only been a recent phenomena where mortality rates have
increased to where children could realistically reach adulthood with both
parents living.  The civil war wiped out a significant proportion of the
male population and many children were raised in extended family
environments as a result. Then you had men who married more than once due to
wives dying in childbirth. Obtaining a divorce was exceptionally difficult
and many women opted to stay in miserable situations than to risk losing
custody of their children or being treated by the community like a pariah.

When we look at the work of women such as Margaret Sanger we can't take her
words or actions outside of the context of the times she lived in. Even the
Roe v. Wade decision needs to be looked at based upon what was known in the
1970's. Back then we did not have the advances in prenatal care and
technology which has shortened the window of what may be considered viable.
The mortality rate for premature babies ran very high then and still poses
many risks now. The problem I have with many Pro-Life perspectives is the
tendency to look at the actions of Sanger through the lens of 2008. That is
about as logical as making the argument that Jefferson's Declaration of
Independence is meaningless because he kept slaves and failed to mention
women.

Just my not so humble opinion - Marti





On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 12:19 PM, Jenifer Cartwright <jencart13 at yahoo.com>wrote:

> Oh, of COURSE, duh -- "a woman with children to be supported should be in a
> permanent loving relationship with a man.  Period." Now WHY hasn't anybody
> else tho't of that?? The gov't and social agencies and NARAL and all the
> charities and all the other so-called helpers just need to get out of the
> way so that can happen, right?? Maybe we need to legalize polygamy while
> we're at it, so that the guys who are ready, willing and ABLE to take on
> that kind of responsibility can do so, because last time I looked, there
> was a whole lotta need.
>  -- Jenifer
>
> --- On *Sat, 1/24/09, E. Wayne Johnson <ewj at pigs.ag>* wrote:
>
> From: E. Wayne Johnson <ewj at pigs.ag>
> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Obama gets another one right
> To: "Marti Wilkinson" <martiwilki at gmail.com>
> Cc: "peace discuss" <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>, "C. G. Estabrook"
> <galliher at uiuc.edu>
> Date: Saturday, January 24, 2009, 2:21 AM
>
>
> I will read and comment on it Marti.  Thank you for sharing.
> (btw, I can't send posts to sf-core)
>
> Before I dared to publish the videos about Sanger on my
> website I did research out each quotation to see if it was accurate and in
> context, and
> I did read several pieces and a few whole books by Sanger and her
> cohorts/colleagues online.
> The quotes made in the videos are indeed verbatim and although selected and
> disembodied from
> their context, I did not find that they are misrepresentations of Sanger's
> meaning or intent.
>
> I also recently ordered and received a book by Linda Gordon "Woman's Body
> Woman's Right"
> which is a history of the birth control movement from a Pro-Choice
> perspective.  Gordon was
> also not particularly kind in her treatment of the historical Sanger.
>
> There is no doubt that the pro-life movement has some spin to the stuff
> they produce because
> they are trying to persuade not just report.  Recognizing that, I did go
> and read the originals,
> and stuff from both sides of the argument.
>
> I have spent most of my life working in biology and biomedical fields
> related to agriculture.
> The fastidious environmental and nutritive requirements of the developing
> pre-born
> individual that is disingenuously misinterpreted as an argument of fetal
> viability
> invoked in Roe v. Wade, etc., is completely devoid of merit.  Life doesn't
> begin at conception, it continues
> through conception in the form of a new individual with full potential
> formed by the union of
> a live sperm and a live egg.
>
> - - -
>
> The best way to understand Margaret Sanger is to go read Margaret Sanger.
>
> The thing that cannot be erased from Maggie Sanger's writings is that she
> was profoundly
> anti-poor and anti-negro and was quite worried that the world would turn
> into something
> like the scenario presented in "Idiocracy" unless the valiant agents of
> birth control intervened.
>
> ___
>
> I agree that the society is badly broken.  It is so badly broken that I
> voted with my feet once
> and vowed not to ever come back.  Things aren't any better.
>
> I don't think that the problem is capitalism or socialism exactly.  Seems
> to me that we need them both.
>
> I see the problem being that too many people dont know how to get along
> with one another,
> too many are unaware, and too many are afraid of the truth.
>
> People are not getting good instruction on how to live their lives and form
> lasting bonds with their families because somehow the natural ways and
> instincts are being replaced
> with something socio-pathologic.  I think one big problem is that we
> intervene too much and
> dont allow some people to go through the difficult sweaty transition of
> adaptation in the face of an
> irrevocable committment.  Jumping out of an airplane is an irrevocable
> committment.  Some eggs will
> need to be broken to make the omelet, and we have too many interferences
> that are halting
> the process because some people are afraid of it.  (This may be unclear to
> some.)
>
> It does no good to render feelings of guilt or to simply criticize,
> but there needs to be a lot more understanding and willingness to be truly
> helpful.
> I see one of the real problems is that the men are not being real men.  The
> best way for women
> with children to be supported is that the woman be in a permanent loving
> relationship with a man.  Period.
> Certainly some 3-legged cats can climb trees.  The manufacturer's
> recommendation is the full complement of 4.
>
> If the women and men dont want to submit to a conventional lifestyle,
> therein lies their problem.    The problem is that we
> rush in and say "poor baby...you dont have to put up with that ole mean
> bastard...we will take care of you"
> rather than offering needed support but allowing people to work out the
> rough edges on their own.
>
> I dont think that abortion should be offered as an alternative.  Ever.
> It's certainly not
> helpful to the economy or the society, it breaks down the moral fiber of
> the people, and...
> it's simply not necessary.  Unless a mild form of genocide is the goal, in
> which case the
> utility is obvious as well as the morality, ethics, and understanding.
>
> Marti Wilkinson wrote:
>
> I've attached an article written by Alexander Sanger who addressed what he
> believes and cites as misrepresentations of his grandmothers view on
> eugenics. I personally think the videos present a great deal of distortion
> and it's hard to find a more 'objective' source.
>
> What I see many of these responses touching on is that basic access to
> health care, jobs that pay a living wage, and support for women with
> children are the best way to actually prevent abortions. Until we address
> some of these basic inequalities this will continue to be an issue.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing listPeace-discuss at lists.chambana.nethttp://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing listPeace-discuss at lists.chambana.nethttp://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20090124/db9310c3/attachment-0001.html