[Peace-discuss] Obama gets another one right
C. G. Estabrook
galliher at uiuc.edu
Sun Jan 25 22:18:11 CST 2009
I take that to mean that you don't disagree with what I wrote.
Brussel Morton K. wrote:
> I believe you understand, but you'll never admit it. I obviously have no
> power to stop anyone from saying anything, but I do have opinions as to
> what is appropriate. This list serve is intended to be a peace forum ,
> not an evangelist soapbox. This is a not untypical distortion, of the
> bait and switch variety. --mkb
>
>
> On Jan 25, 2009, at 4:21 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>
>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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