[Peace-discuss] Obama gets another one right

Sun Jan 25 23:35:38 CST 2009

*This list serve is intended to be a peace forum*

Unfortunately the subject matter of pregnancy and abortion has not always
been treated in a peaceful fashion. Women who have faced unplanned
pregnancies still deal with a great deal of stigma regardless of the choices
they make. Of all the participants in this dialogue I'm the only person who
has been able to share from direct experience in dealing with an unplanned
pregnancy. As such I cannot judge a woman who makes the choice to have an
abortion. It's physically, mentally, and emotionally challenging to go
through an experience knowing that you will be both mother and father to the
resulting child. I've had to deal with people from caseworkers to
prospective employers question my morals and values system and that is a
form of violence. Speaking from experience I remember the pain that has come
from facing stigma and prejudice. As such I will argue that part of having
peace in this world involves treating women and their decisions with dignity
and respect.

Someone commented that the earning power of women is starting to catch up
with men. Well when you bring a child into that equation that throws the
balance off even further. Single mothers often have to watch more than half
their income go towards paying the basics like rent and child care. This
does not take into account food, utilities, groceries, etc.  Single mothers
(or fathers) are also unable to work the types of hours that could lead to
advancement in their careers and professions. The amount of money that is
deducted from paychecks for employer provided health premiums is more for a
single parent than a single employee without kids. One company I worked for
used to have a system of rewarding employees who maintained 'perfect'
attendance through not using sick leave. That is impossible for working
mothers and single parents.

When Bush first ran for office he made reference to the middle class family
making 50,000 a year. If you look at the reality behind that statement the
truth is you have two people working putting together a combined income of
50K.  How many people in this community have financed their homes based on
two incomes? Affordable housing, access to education, medical care, and
quality child care are things that many people end up struggling for and
that does not support peace. It's the children of single parents who often
make convenient targets for military recruiters who are looking for warm
bodies to send overseas. Like many parents I signed a form that prohibits
direct solicitation. However, that doesn't change the fact that historically
socioeconomic status plays a tremendous role in who gets sent to fight in a
war. My grandmother once complained to my mother that she wished she could
have afforded to put her kids through college, instead three of her sons
ended up in Vietnam. Eventually one of my uncles died from medical issues
which were made worse from his exposure to agent orange.

What I find frustrating in this discussion is not so much the issue of
appropriateness but the overall lack of a meaningful understanding of the
subject matter. How many people here can truly speak to or effectively
articulate the experiences of women who have had to face this? No one here
can speak for my own experiences, just as I cannot speak for someone who
lives in Gaza or Palestine. The best I can do is be an advocate for peace,
justice, and human rights. The best that most of the participants here can
do is be an advocate for the rights of women. Needless to say when I read
statements that argue for the nuclear family or fathers rights I really have
to wonder if people truly "get it" - and I find that discouraging.

Marti

On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 10:18 PM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at uiuc.edu> wrote:

> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20090125/1dbbaca7/attachment.html