Barbara Honegger and Cathleen McGuire continue the conversation on (eco)feminism_ on Kevin Barrett’s Truth Jihad Radio

Coming Up Wednesday, February 28th —
Monday, Wednesday, and Sunday at 8am Pacific * 11am Eastern * 16:00 GMT

Kevin Barrett's Truth Jihad Radio

 


EXCLUSIVE BROADCAST:Barbara Honegger and Cathleen McGuire continue the conversation on (eco)feminism

Barbara Honegger


Two weeks ago Cathleen McGuire came on my show to discuss #MeToo and advocate ecofeminism—a critique of patriarchy that sees the subjugation and exploitation of women and nature as closely linked, and proposes to treat the disease by balancing female and male, nature and culture, and right and left brain hemisphere consciousness. (On the latter point, check out Leonard Schlain’s The Alphabet vs. the Goddess.)

Today, Cat rejoins us alongside Barbara Honegger, who continues the conversation by recounting her efforts to re-frame the abortion issue for Ronald Reagan when Barbara was serving as Presidential Policy Advisor from 1981 to 1983.

Is Barbara correct in asserting that any legal ban on abortion amounts to a forced seizure of a bodily organ (the womb) as well as a form of slavery? Listen and make up your own mind.

For more details about Barbara’s Reagan White House efforts on women’s issues, check out Barbara’s interview with Bonnie Faulkner, transcribed here.

Barbara Honegger is a leading researcher, author and public speaker on the 9/11 Pentagon attack and the anthrax attacks.

She has served in high-level positions in the U.S. Federal Government, including White House Policy Analyst and Special Assistant to the Assistant to the President.

Her pioneering book October Surprise, on the deep story behind the Iran side of the Iran/Contra scandal, now confirmed by formerly classified documents, led to a full-subpoena-power U.S. Congressional investigation.

From 2000 to 2011, Ms. Honegger served as Senior Military Affairs Journalist at the Naval Postgraduate School, the premiere science, technology and national security affairs graduate research university of the U.S. Department of Defense. She was the only invited researcher to testify at both the historic Toronto 9/11 Hearings on the 10th Anniversary of 9/11 and the follow-on Vancouver Hearings six months later. She is one of 50 founding current and former high-level government, military and intelligence officials to call for a new 9/11 investigation at PatriotsQuestion911.com, and one of 20 charter members of Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth.

Ms. Honegger has a Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) degree from Stanford University; a Master of Science (M.S.) degree in Experimental Psychology from John F. Kennedy University; and Masters level certification in National Security Decision-making from the Naval War College, all in the U.S.

Her 9/11-related publications include:

This show was broadcast on February 28, 2018.

      Listen to the Archive Here



For only $4.00 a month you can subscribe to Truth Jihad Radio and listen to Kevin’s shows on-demand before they are broadcast – and also get free downloads and other perks from Kevin! Click here to subscribe.


Kevin Barrett’s Truth Jihad Show is independently produced and hosted by Kevin Barrett and these shows are externally produced content. All externally produced content broadcast on No Lies Radio is the sole responsibility of the program-content producer and is not the responsibility of NoLiesRadio.org. Any questions or concerns should be directed to the content producer.



The Demolition of Truth –Psychologists Examine 9/11. DON’T MISS IT!
CLICK HERE TO GET THE DVD OR DIGITAL DOWNLOAD



Operation Terror, the 9/11 Hollywood Thriller banned from Theaters.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE DOWNLOAD



Share

12 Responses to “Barbara Honegger and Cathleen McGuire continue the conversation on (eco)feminism_ on Kevin Barrett’s Truth Jihad Radio”

  1. Tom W

    Hatch –

    “What about a woman who consumes a drug that will kill a fetus if she continues its use? Is that murder?” This happens all the time, lots of women have to take medication that prevents pregnancy.

    The question is not about preventing pregnancy – it as about terminating it. You think I am making the subject complicated, but you speak as though the woman who carries a fetus/child is in a passive position relative to the fetus/child’s life. In other words, all the woman has to do is not murder the child, which seems to be your thesis. What if the woman takes a drug for her own health or her own recreational enjoyment that will kill the fetus/child unless she stops? Then there is her diet and other habits. What if she just qualified for her life-long dream to be in the Olympics? What if she has plans to climb Mount Everest and those plans will likely kill her fetus? What if she has deep sea diving event planned and that will kill her fetus? Our laws do not allow a mother to put her child at great risk of death – so if it is murder to terminate a pregnancy then those laws should kick in too. It really is either or … it’s not just about preventing an active/intentional termination of the pregnancy. There are lots of decisions and activities that are pursued, as I describe above, that are not directed at the fetus, but may nonetheless kill the fetus.

    And here is another point for which Kevin (and you?) are wrong … you make a distinction for rape. If terminating a pregnancy is murder, then you cannot make an exception for rape or incest. You cannot justify murder on that basis. The woman’s intent to become pregnant has nothing to do with her intent to terminate the pregnancy, if that termination is murder.

    BTW … I would never be involved in terminating a pregnancy, but that’s because of my spiritual beliefs. To quote Sir Thomas More from a Man for All Seasons … we are governed by Man’s Laws … not God’s Laws. Barbara’s thesis was addressed to Man’s Laws and being consistent within English Legal Tradition.

    #44302
  2. hatch

    Hi Tom. The reason i said it sounds stupid is because you’re over-complicating things, and it ends up sounding silly.

    -“If a woman becomes pregnant, then she may be required to devote her body to the fetus to save it, no matter what the cost to her.”
    No, I’m not saying that. The fetus doesn’t need saving, it just needs to not be killed. It’s really more simple than you think.

    -“What about fertilized eggs that are naturally discarded? Do we need to attempt to save them?” Don’t complicate things, that’s called a miscarriage and women have miscarriages all the time.

    “What about a woman who consumes a drug that will kill a fetus if she continues its use? Is that murder?” This happens all the time, lots of women have to take medication that prevents pregnancy.

    #44294
  3. Tom W

    Hatch – What I said was not stupid.

    Kevin’s analogy to Russian Roulette does not advance the argument – that was my point.

    I studied this ethical question in freshman philosophy at Rice U under one of the most brilliant minds I have ever encountered – Prof. Baruch Brody.

    There is no easy solution to this question, but Barbara’s point is correct in terms of consistency in English law tradition. That does not mean the law is correct, but Kevin’s counter-argument is no good. That’s my only point, and the auto accident example simply undermines his analogy.

    I did not take a position on which side is correct. I simply said that his argument merely assumes the correct answer — Ergo, as I said – “It only begs the question.”

    You said: “If life happens, we have to accept it.” What you really mean to say is that “If a woman becomes pregnant, then she may be required to devote her body to the fetus to save it, no matter what the cost to her.”

    That’s not an argument – it’s a conclusion – it begs the question without advancing it.

    Another conclusion you are assuming is when life begins. Is a zygote life or the potential for life? What about fertilized eggs that are naturally discarded? Do we need to attempt to save them? We ordinarily save children in need. What about a woman who consumes a drug that will kill a fetus if she continues its use? Is that murder? When you describe what it takes to commit murder – is that included?

    You should be a little more circumspect when you attack the intelligence others …

    #44290
  4. hatch

    Don’t get some of these comments trying to sound clever but end up sounding pretty stupid?
    When we drive with our families on the highway/motorway, we accept we might crash and die, and still choose to take the risk. If it happens, we have to accept it.
    When we have sex, with or without contraception (which is never fully guaranteed to prevent conception) we accept the possibility of creating a new life. If it happens we have to accept it.

    So is saving or not saving a life the same as murdering or not murdering someone?
    Usually saving someone’s life involves several people -‘so and so needs money for a life-saving operation,’ for example. But if several people murder someone they all go down for it! They are two different things!

    Also, Barbara mentioning that the pill is the best thing since sliced bread, isn’t she aware of the serious concern in the medical community of the pill causing infertility in women?

    #44283
  5. Tom W

    Kevin has repeatedly impressed me with the depth of his knowledge on a breadth of subjects and clarity of thought. But … this is a fallacious argument being tossed at Barbara about the chance of pregnancy in having sex – the argument being that since there is such a risk, then by having sex … you except the full consequences of that risk and lose your right to mitigate the risk.

    Kevin then defends his argument with the analogy to Russian Roulette – the whole point of Russian roulette is to play a game where the loser dies – Period. One can have sex without any intention of getting pregnant – men and women both do this all the time. And they express that intent by taking precautions to avoid pregnancy, including such methods as the day after pill, which would terminate an unintended (and unknown) pregnancy.

    The better analogy would be the risk of serious accident and death from getting behind the wheel of a car. Just because you are aware of the statistics and the risks does not mean that you must accept them in the event you are in an accident. You intend to drive the car and you intend not to die. If you are in a serious accident – you don’t forfeit your intention not to die.

    You intend to have sex and don’t intend to get pregnant. Similarly, just because you intended to have sex, it does not follow that you forfeit your intention not to get pregnant. Kevin’s argument does not advance the debate … it only begs the question. And Barbara’s analogy to forced organ donation is dead on. What’s the difference? Why cannot a cousin be forced to donate an organ and save his cousin? … if indeed a woman can be forced to have a child.

    #44281
  6. “29) Barbara Honegger argues for legal abortion right up to one nanosecond before birth :
    http://noliesradio.org/archives/143532

    Quran [002:074] : “And yet, after all this, your hearts hardened and became like rocks, or even harder: for, behold, there are rocks from which streams gush forth; and, behold, there are some from which, when they are cleft, water issues; and, behold, there are some that fall down for awe of God And God is not unmindful of what you do!”

    #44280
  7. :::”29) Barbara Honegger argues for legal abortion right up to one nanosecond before birth :
    http://noliesradio.org/archives/143532

    Quran [002:074] : “And yet, after all this, your hearts hardened and became like rocks, or even harder: for, behold, there are rocks from which streams gush forth; and, behold, there are some from which, when they are cleft, water issues; and, behold, there are some that fall down for awe of God And God is not unmindful of what you do!”

    #44279
  8. hatch

    Kevin is an Abd-al Wadood

    #44277
  9. hatch

    Didn’t really get Barbara’s point about the organ donation. Pregnancy = organ donation?
    Couldn’t we extend that analogy to homeless people? Homeless people need food and shelter otherwise may not survive a cold winter. They need out mercy to survive, like the person in need of organ donation. But we’re not allowed to actively kill them. We’re not allowed to inject them with poison and kill them.

    There’s a guy in the UK called Lord Monkton, who is a strongly Islamaphobic Christian. However, he says that Muslim civilisation has the moral high-ground (compared to the West), because they don’t commit massive widespread genocide of their young.

    Poor Kevin, I see you have the terminology police on your back again haha

    #44276
  10. yonnik

    Ok,I mostly (and greatly) appreciate your righteous moral indignation to injustice (911, et al) and the emotional component therein, but when you get really caught up in the moment and express ideas like (paraphrasing) “thank God mankind will soon be extinguished from the surface of the earth”, and you do so periodically, I believe you reveal a lack of compassion for mankind (and thus yourself) and frankly it scares me a bit: wouldn’t want you to have “absolute power” to impose your views on the “rest of us”. Still love ya, of course – and your great show.

    #44275
  11. yonnik

    Kevin, haven’t yet heard the entire interview, but seems to me the logical fallacy in your criticism of Barbara’s position is equating “becoming pregnant” with “remaining pregnant”. How does “taking a chance of becoming pregnant” negate the right to not remain/continue a pregnancy? I think you haven’t clearly refuted Barbara’s point (and legal argument) of sovereignty over one’s body?

    #44274
  12. maisoon

    Pity Cathleen has such an ignorant understanding of Islam re female genital mutilation. Pity Kevin you made NO reference to what you AND I TALKED ABOUT LAST WEEK but you mention others.
    I don’t agree with half of what these 2 ladies are talking about.
    Don’t agree with you Kevin about men being ‘enslaved’ if they don’t want their female partner’s child.
    I don’t like your USE of the word ENSLAVED. Creating a child should be out of Love, not sexual Lust.
    What happened to Love and the sanctity of Life. The unity of a man and a woman should involve LOVE, not lust, should involve RESPECT for each other and Women’s importance In life should be acknowledged with Equality for both.
    Marriage should be sacrosanct. Giving LIFE must be valued and not reduced to ‘enslavement’ rubbish involving the man or the woman.
    A man is not superior to a woman- there are differences between them physically but our minds and souls should be treated Equally.
    Not interested in the feminist movement and the’ Me to’ groups- they take it to extremes
    But still also we have MALE CHAUVINISM which is probably what Cathleen refers to Patriarchy.
    RESPECT for both sexes is a MUST

    #44273
CLICK HERE to Listen with iTunes, VLC, Winamp, or other players
No Lies Radio Visitors


Join Our Email List

* required

*



*



Email & Social Media Marketing by VerticalResponse

Archives

May 2018
S M T W T F S
« Apr    
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

User Login