[Peace-discuss] Obama gets another one right

C. G. Estabrook galliher at uiuc.edu
Sun Jan 25 16:21:47 CST 2009 

Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If 
you're really in favor of free speech, then you're in favor of freedom of speech 
precisely for views you despise. Otherwise, you're not in favor of free speech.


Brussel Morton K. wrote:
> Indeed, I wish and recommend that discussions of God's immanence, how 
> "we" are a Christian country, and why women's ability to decide their 
> own lives should be forbidden are inappropriate for a peace-discuss 
> list. (I wouldn't recommend Nazi propaganda on the list either, but I 
> suppose to some that would be bigoted.)  --mkb
> 
> On Jan 25, 2009, at 3:15 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> 
>> This is an assertion of settled religious prejudice, joined to the 
>> anti-liberal view that people who disagree with such bigotry should 
>> just shut up.
>>
>>
>> Brussel Morton K. wrote:
>>> 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 <mailto:ewj at pigs.ag>>
>>>> *To:* Ricky Baldwin <baldwinricky at yahoo.com 
>>>> <mailto:baldwinricky at yahoo.com>>
>>>> *Cc:* peace discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net 
>>>> <mailto:peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>>; socialist forum core 
>>>> <sf-core at yahoogroups.com <mailto: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 
>>>> <mailto: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