[Peace-discuss] Obama gets another one right
Lori A. Serb
loriserb at loriserb.info
Sun Jan 25 19:00:10 CST 2009
Amen, Mort!
Lori
A very proud pro-choice lesbian who hopes one day to live in a world
without rape
On Jan 25, 2009, at 3:56 PM, 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