[Peace-discuss] Obama gets another one right

Sun Jan 25 14:39:40 CST 2009

A fine discussion, Ricky, but I for one am less forgiving of the  
religious fundamentalism-ideology that largely supports the anti- 
abortion/anti-contraception/anti-sex education/anti-women's rights  
movement in the USA, and those who now speak up for it on this  
listserve.

They are beyond convincing because of their "faith".  I can understand  
that you may not want to get into a discussion of the myths ,  
religiously inspired, that form a basis of this movement, a movement  
largely of willful ignorance and lack off empathy for many woman's  
problems when confronted with a pregnancy. They have unreasoning  
empathy only for the myth of the humanity of a sperm which happens,  
divinely, to meet an egg.

--Mort

I admired your remark: " the values of libertarianism require also the  
values of socialism to be logically and humanly consistent", although  
I think that the libertarianism of Wayne et al. are contradictory to  
broader social(ist) values and responsibilities.

And I agree with others that this kind of fundamentalism has no useful  
place on this list.

On Jan 25, 2009, at 2:11 PM, Ricky Baldwin wrote:

> Wayne,
>
> I appreciate your concern, as always, for the downtrodden, but I'm  
> afraid it's misapplied here.  Many people I agree with on most  
> issues would dismiss yours and others' anti-abortion views as  
> another example of your religious blinders; I don't.  My guess is  
> that you are both as sincere and as misguided and the many good  
> humanitarians who supported, e.g. the US attacks in Kosovo (to save  
> the ethnic Albanians from Serbian aggression) or the US conquest of  
> the Philippines (to save the locals from Spanish tyranny, etc.) or  
> the British conquest of India (to rid the Indians of superstition  
> and slavery, etc.).
>
> But for starters, I think you will have to admit that the ethical  
> question of abortion rights has little to do with Margaret Sanger's  
> infamous Social Darwinism (which is anyway not quite the way her  
> later critics portray it, it seems to me), any more than your own  
> Christian views are questionable in light of the Crusades, the  
> Inquisition, the European 'civilizing' campaigns that masscred  
> millions of indigenous people on one continent after another, or the  
> many other Christian atrocities against the poor and downtrodden of  
> the world.
>
> The question of whether abortion is a form of racism, or class  
> oppression, is more complex in some ways, though actually very  
> simple if looked at rightly, I'd argue.  True, abortion has been  
> visited on the poor and people of color in this country and others  
> as an oppressive campaign at times.  We can go further: forced  
> abortions and forced sterilizations have been practised as genocide  
> for at least generations.  Less overtly public welfare policies have  
> targetted oppressed groups in many ways from the days of workhouses,  
> -- up to and including reproductive policies my fellow NOW  
> organizers and I encountered (as an example) in Mississippi in the  
> 1990s whereby the locally administered Medicaid program would pay  
> for poor  women to have subdermal contraceptive Norplant insertions  
> BUT NOT pay to have them removed, regardless of the woman's wishes  
> or even of the side-effects or allergic reactions, which were not  
> uncommon.
>
> It may surprise some honest abortion-foes to learn that NOW fought  
> such policies vehemently, by the way.  The reasoning is relevant  
> here.  NOW and other wrongly described "pro-abortion" groups  
> currently working in the US support a basic principle that  
> simplifies the whole issue: the individual liberty, autonomy,  
> freedom, however you want to describe it, of a woman as well as a  
> man to decide what happens to her physically, sexually, and in  
> particular in terms of being pregnant or not.  As such it is the  
> most fundamental libertarian political right.
>
> Critics of the "pro-choice" movement rightly point out that such  
> decisions, often difficult enough in themselves, do not happen in an  
> economic vacuum - and so are not truly "free" choices.  Women and  
> their families or support networks (spouses, partners, siblings,  
> parents, close friends) must at times make tough decisions based on  
> economic realities not of their own choosing.  Nowadays there are  
> convincing statistical arguments that women overall have very nearly  
> caught up with men in terms of earning power, and the biggest  
> difference that lingers is that when women hit their child-bearing  
> years they fall behind and usually never catch up again.  Of course  
> some men encounter the same problem, but overall it is women.  For  
> these and many other reasons (oppressive parents, drug-use, birth  
> defects) abortion is not always a "free" choice any more than a  
> large family has been a real choice for billions of women for  
> thousands of years - they do it in part because their choices are  
> severely constrained.  This is not the only reason to support  
> abortion rights of course.  The basic argument for the right is an  
> argument for human dignity and autonomy, as I've said.  But this is  
> the economic context that can't be ignored.
>
> So publicly-funded childcare, maternity and paternity leave and  
> other employment considerations, free access to birth control and  
> family planning services, rational sex education, and free abortion  
> on demand are and must be all part of a comprehensive program of  
> human rights that includes women as valued equal members of society  
> and not second-class citizens.  It is part of why I believe the  
> values of libertarianism require also the values of socialism to be  
> logically and humanly consistent.  It is why conservatives who want  
> to say they support women's rights and oppose racism and oppression  
> must pick and choose which freedoms they support, which pieces of  
> the overall reality they bring into their arguement.  And it's why  
> liberals who want to support abortion rights are not always allies  
> in the struggle for women's rights, but their programs do sometimes  
> coincide.
>
> Obama's move against the vicious "Mexico City" policy is progress,  
> toward allowing poor women and families in communities whose  
> livelihoods we have wrecked to at least find some maneuvering room  
> in that disaster.  Reagan's and both Bushes' policy of limiting the  
> options of the global poor, often our own victims, is oppression on  
> top of oppression; lifting that ban is at least mild relief.  It  
> isn't enough, but it is a step in the right direction.
>
> Ricky
>
> "Speak your mind even if your voice shakes." - Maggie Kuhn
>
>
> From: E. Wayne Johnson <ewj at pigs.ag>
> To: Ricky Baldwin <baldwinricky at yahoo.com>
> Cc: peace discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>; socialist  
> forum core <sf-core at yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 5:13:10 PM
> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Obama gets another one right
>
> Ricky,
>
> I find Obama to be quite consistent in his policy.  He supports the  
> killing of innocents both at home and abroad,
> both with his warfare and with his "welfare".  One can't say that  
> Obama is incoherent as an international minister of death.
>
> Abortion is the most explicit expression of racism and class warfare  
> in our contemporary world.
> It is the most dastardly and cowardly of all human rights  
> violations, since it violates the most fundamental Natural Right,
> the Right to Life, and it attacks the Unborn, who are completely  
> helpless.
>
> The operative social purpose of abortion is to rid the society of  
> "human weeds".  The founders
> of Planned Parenthood identified as the poor and the Negro as  
> undesirables who should not be allowed to reproduce.
> Have you read Margaret Sanger's writings? Have you read about her  
> "Negro Project"?
>
> I have some commentary at my website:  http://www.liberty4urbana.com/drupal-6.8/node/43
> I hope that you will watch the three videos there and then report  
> back with your take on those issues.
>
> Also, Lux Libertas will be broadcast again on UPTV-6 at 10 pm Sunday  
> night.
>
> Trent Cloin and I discuss the paradox and error of Abortion in  
> America in the first 30 mins.
> In the 2nd 30 minutes we discuss MLK's April 9, 1967 speech "The  
> Three Dimensions of a Complete Life" which was
> given in Chicago just 5 days after the "Beyond Vietnam" speech we  
> all heard last Sunday afternoon.
> "Three Dimensions" does significantly address aspects of the  
> "Revolution of Values" which King called for in "Beyond Vietnam".
>
> Wayne
>
> Ricky Baldwin wrote:
>>
>> Put this one in the column of real differences, differences that  
>> matter to poor people's lives, among US presidents:
>>
>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090123/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_abortion_ban
>>
>> This is not as groundbreaking as closing Guantanamo Bay prison.  As  
>> the article says, Clinton did the same.  Still, it speaks to the  
>> tone Obama is setting in his first week in office.  And if Obama  
>> didn't do this, we'd be right to call him out for failing to act.
>>
>> Ricky
>>
>> "Speak your mind even if your voice shakes." - Maggie Kuhn
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20090125/0ef128c8/attachment.html