Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 exptools 1/6/84; site ihuxt.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!ihuxt!martillo From: martillo@ihuxt.UUCP (Yehoyaqim Martillo) Newsgroups: net.religion,net.religion.jewish Subject: Re: The Myth of Neutrality Message-ID: <649@ihuxt.UUCP> Date: Tue, 17-Jul-84 14:07:16 EDT Article-I.D.: ihuxt.649 Posted: Tue Jul 17 14:07:16 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 18-Jul-84 03:02:08 EDT References: <179@ssc-bee.UUCP> <776@pyuxn.UUCP>, <786@pyuxn.UUCP> <146@uwmacc.UUCP>, <766@ihuxn.UUCP> <3259@cbscc.UUCP> <767@ihuxn.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL Lines: 90 Yaqim Martillo = * Paul Dubuc = < } Response from Yosi Hoshen: }I don't think that these examples are symmetrical. The pro-choicers }do not require that pro-lifers should go an abortion. They are }only concerned with a woman's right over her body. On the }other hand, the pro-lifers are trying to coerce others to conform to }their religious and/or moral codes. >The example only seems unsymmetrical if you assume there is no third party >here. Pro-lifers are against abortion for the same reason most people >are against parents killing their born children. The above response exemplifies the attempts of some religionists to impose their definition for when-life-begins on others who do not subscribe to this definition. *No one argues whether a fetus is alive. The question is when it becomes *human life. The taking of any life is a serious act. A society which *casually or gratuitously takes animal life may become so accustomed to *brutality that it might eventually take even human life casually. *Therefore avoidance and prevention of taking fetal life which can become *human life is a reasonable act. }When a pro-choice woman favors an }abortion she favors her abortion. Whereas, when a pro-lifer opposes }an abortion, he/she opposes another person abortion. >Who's abortion does a pro-choice man favor? Pro-choice groups tend >to favor tax money being spent on abortion for the poor (certain minority >groups have large numbers in that category) and as an answer to the >overcrowding in third world countries. Paul is misinterpreting the pro-choice position. The pro-choice position does not call for an abortion as a method of birth control. It calls for the right of every women to make a personal choice on abortion. A choice that does not have to depend on the wealth or the origin of the woman. (I agree with Paul that we do not have right to force abortion on third world women. However, I am not familiar with any group promoting such an approach.) }If the pro-choicers }would demand that every woman is required to have an abortion then }Paul's [DuBois] examples would have a valid point. >But then they wouldn't be "pro-choicers", would they? It seems that, by >definition, you can't oppose anything a "pro-choicer" does. You hit it on the nail. The pro-lifers' position is indefensible, because it advocates the imposition of one group moral/religious code on others. If pro-lifers would use the moral appeal approach rather than attempting to coerce their will through legislation, I don't think anyone would complain. Trying to convince people rather than coercing them is more likely to reduce the number of abortions. *Societies always impose a moral/religious code on the members of the *society. Personally, I see nothing wrong with having several wives but if *I marry two women in the U.S.A. I will probably go to jail. *In a democracy a successful moral appeal naturally leads to legislation *against the targeted immoral behavior (like slavery). Hoshen's position *sounds like loser's sour grapes. *The issue of imposition of morality has no relationship with religion. *Shortly after my family's community came to Israel, the European-dominated *parliament passed a law forbidding marrying second wives although families *which were married before they came to Israel were legally allowed to *remain intact. Of course, the legislation made polygynous families seem *somehow wrong or disturbed. Further, the secular Western Ashkenazim *(European Jews) put whatever social pressure they could to break up *polygynous oriental families which were perfectly stable decent *environments for raising children until the Ashkenazim intervened. The *ill-effects of this crude imposition are still apparent in Israel and are *even more so when the Israeli broken oriental Jewish families are compared *with Italian oriental Jewish families which remained intact because the *Italians didn't give a damn how oriental Jews lived. *Secular, westernized Ashkenazim have never seen any wrong in imposing *their immorality on others. Attacking Dubuc when Dubuc tries to impose *his morality on others is hypocritical. -- Who wouldn't break for whales? Yehoyaqim Shemtob Martillo