dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (07/13/84)
From an article posted some time ago... | Also, could someone explain what in heck Larry | meant by "the myth of neutrality"? I can't speak for Larry, but suspect he was referring to the thesis developed in the book referenced below. A Time for Anger (subtitled: The Myth of Neutrality) Franky Schaeffer Crossway Books Westchester, Illinois 1982 Schaeffer is the son of Francis Shaeffer (recently deceased). His previous book is entitled "Addicted to Mediocrity", and directs itself at the decline of the quality of artistic endeavor in the Christian Church. The book following "A Time for Anger" is called "Bad News for Modern Man"; those familiar with a certain translation of the Bible will recognize this as a play on the name of that translation. The myth of neutrality: Today's society allegedly espouses open-mindedness and tolerance of divergent viewpoints. (that's the the neutrality part) This openmindedness is only extended to those who fall in line with the doctrines of secular humanism. (that's the myth part) For example: A person elected to office who holds private views favoring abortion because he/she is a feminist attempts to have those views codified in the current legal code, by (for instance) legislative or judicial means. No media outcry. A person elected to office who holds private views opposing abortion because he/she is a Christian attempts to have those views codified in the current legal code, by (for instance) legislative or judicial means. Whoa!! Wait a minute, now! Don't impose your beliefs on us!! -- Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois And he is before all things, and by him all things consist... Colossians 1:17
jho@ihuxn.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen) (07/16/84)
From Paul DuBois: >For example: > >A person elected to office who holds private views >favoring abortion because he/she is a feminist attempts to >have those views codified in the current legal code, by (for >instance) legislative or judicial means. No media outcry. > > >A person elected to office who holds private views >opposing abortion because he/she is a Christian attempts to >have those views codified in the current legal code, by (for >instance) legislative or judicial means. Whoa!! Wait a minute, >now! Don't impose your beliefs on us!! 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. 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. If the pro-choicers would demand that every woman is required to have an abortion then Paul's examples would have a valid point. -- Yosi Hoshen Bell Laboratories Naperville, Illinois (312)-979-7321 Mail: ihnp4!ihuxn!jho
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/16/84)
| Also, could someone explain what in heck Larry | meant by "the myth of neutrality"? > A Time for Anger (subtitled: The Myth of Neutrality) > Franky Schaeffer > > Today's society allegedly espouses open-mindedness and tolerance > of divergent viewpoints. (that's the the neutrality part) > This openmindedness is only extended to those who fall in line > with the doctrines of secular humanism. (that's the myth part) > > For example: > A person elected to office who holds private views > favoring abortion because he/she is a feminist attempts to > have those views codified in the current legal code, by (for > instance) legislative or judicial means. No media outcry. > > A person elected to office who holds private views > opposing abortion because he/she is a Christian attempts to > have those views codified in the current legal code, by (for > instance) legislative or judicial means. Whoa!! Wait a minute, > now! Don't impose your beliefs on us!! Thank you, Paul Dubois, for finally providing the meaning of "myth of neutrality". I'm glad someone stepped forward and did so. Very difficult to discuss/debate its merits if you don't know what it is. Allow me now to give a counterposition on this myth of neutrality. It is a myth in the sense that it does not espouse ALL points of view equally as shown here. But there is a major difference between two simple opposing points of view and the ones described above. Here we have one point of view that seeks to encourage the independence of individuals in their own personal actions, and another that seeks to diminish it. The first case is an example of supporting neutrality, in that it allows people individual freedom to choose. (As the old speech goes, no one is forcing anyone to have an abortion.) The second case is restricting personal freedom (people ARE being forced NOT to have abortions, or at least are being told that they can't). So, you're right, it IS a myth, it's not completely "neutral". It is in direct opposition to points of view that confront and oppose and seek to undermine "neutrality", or the belief that people's individual freedoms should not be interfered with where their own personal lives are concerned. -- "Now, Benson, I'm going to have to turn you into a dog for a while." "Ohhhh, thank you, Master!!" Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (07/16/84)
} }>From Paul DuBois: }>For example: }> }>A person elected to office who holds private views }>favoring abortion because he/she is a feminist attempts to }>have those views codified in the current legal code, by (for }>instance) legislative or judicial means. No media outcry. }> }>A person elected to office who holds private views }>opposing abortion because he/she is a Christian attempts to }>have those views codified in the current legal code, by (for }>instance) legislative or judicial means. Whoa!! Wait a minute, }>now! Don't impose your beliefs on us!! } 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. }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. This could be interpreted as saying that we would all be a lot better off if there were less of these people around. Such advocation of abortion does nothing to raise the standard of living (or future hope) in these people. It only increases their mortality rate as a people, which is often the main impetus for having so many children in the first place. }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. -- Paul Dubuc {cbosgd, ihnp4} !cbscc!pmd The true light that enlightens every one was coming into the world... (John 1:9)
jho@ihuxn.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen) (07/17/84)
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. }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. -- Yosi Hoshen Bell Laboratories Naperville, Illinois (312)-979-7321 Mail: ihnp4!ihuxn!jho
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/17/84)
}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. [HOSHEN] > But then they wouldn't be "pro-choicers", would they? It seems that, by > definition, you can't oppose anything a "pro-choicer" does. [DUBUC] At last! NOW you finally understand! As long as the "choices" are not involving taking action against individuals that would harm them or impinge on their individual freedom, you admit (at last!) that one has no "moral" ground for opposing such choices. [If the discussion branches into "but what about the freedom of the fetus as a human being", we will have ventured into territory better discussed in net.abortion (in fact, already driven into the ground in that newsgroup over 100 times). What about other personal freedoms that would be restricted by those who say "What about my viewpoint that all people should be XXX? You're not being really 'neutral' if you don't give my viewpoint an equal shot?" ?] -- Now I've lost my train of thought. I'll have to catch the bus of thought. Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
martillo@ihuxt.UUCP (Yehoyaqim Martillo) (07/17/84)
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
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (07/21/84)
Yoshi Hosen misses the point. It doesn't matter a damn whether some people think that aborting a fetus is murder and some people do not. It either is or isn't regardless of who has what opinion. It is simply a very difficult factual question to answer -- hence a there is a lot of room for conflicting opinions. But no amount of belief that a fetus is not alive is ever going to make it dead if it is alive; and no amount of belief that it is alive is going to make it alive if it is not. Changing definitions only passes the buck. If tomorrow I got people to define ``human being'' to be ``something which such and such DNA structure and 3 or more years old'' we would still be left with the problem of ``what about killing 2 year olds'' and ``is this rotting hulk that was my grandfather 55 years ago but I am not so sure of now still a human being''. You could invent new words, but the problem remains the same. And no amount of opinion is ever going to change the truth of the matter. Laura Creighton utzoo!laura
martillo@ihuxt.UUCP (Yehoyaqim Martillo) (07/22/84)
Original statement of Yaqim Martillo = * Reply from Yosi Hoshen = > Counter-Reply from Yaqim Martillo = # *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. !I guess that Mr. Martillo would not object if the majority of society !decides that his religion is immoral and that he should become a !Christian. Is it not preferable to leave the decision on personal moral !matters to the individual? #As Yosi Hoshen probably can guess, my family are Sefardim Tehorim. We #have this status because we were given the choice in Spain of converting #to Christianity or leaving. We left. My family (under a different name) #were notables in Tudela. Consequently we have some documentation of their #feelings. As they saw it, Spain had committed an evil act and they wanted #revenge. #However, Jews were a small and weak people so that rampaging through Spain #in a war of revenge was out of the question. My family were among the #founders of the first canon-works in the Ottoman Empire and for the next #two hundred years the Turks were rampaging through Europe in wars of #annihilation and destruction. Even though the Turks treated the Jewish #commununity rotten, apparently the Jewish community was able to take some #vicarious pleasure in the humbling of European nations. #From the traditional Jewish point of view, the action of Spain merited #revenge. They had no right to try to force us to become Christians nor #should they have expelled us. The traditional Jewish view of freedom has #no relationship to the modern view of individual freedom. Judaism sees #freedom only communally. #Peoples should be free. A people or society is free if it does not #suffer from external interference in its establishment, maintenance and #self-policing. Therefore Spain had no right to try to impose Christianity #upon us. #Neither did Spain have the right to expel us. All people are required to #treat one another decently and the expulsion of the Jews was an example of #particularly indecent behavior. Of course, fair play required that we not #rebel, be productive and pay tribute (taxes -- After all we were in #Galut). #The arrangement meant we as law-abiding resident aliens would take no part #in Spanish society and the Spanish would not interfere with our society. #However, if the Jews were to demand participatory rights in the national #culture, then the members of the national society would have the right to #make demands of the Jews. The members of the society have a right to #shape the society as they see fit, and if the Jews try to be full members, #the Jews might have to accommodate the national culture. For this reason #having Israel is good because then we can participate in a national #society without compromising ourselves and we can shape the society as we #see fit. #The Sefardim in South America understand these rather simple principles; #consequently, the Sefardi communities in South America have experienced #few of the problems with anti-Semitism in South America which have plagued #the Ashkenazim unless the behavior of Ashkenazim was so outlandish that #they provoked hatred against all Jews. #South American countries are a bizarre mixture of modernism and feudalism. #The dominant culture is overwhelmingly religious. The Ashkenazi #intellectuals are not. The societies are usually defined as Catholic in #their constitutions. The Ashkenazi intellectuals are not. The Jews are #strongly perceived as alien guests who have no right to participate in #national culture because Spanish makes almost no #distinction between Israeli (Israeli or Israelita) and Jew (Israelita). #The Jews have their own country. It is Israel and neither Argentina nor #Chile nor any of the other Latin nations. #While the Sefardim would like to be a low-profile productive group of #resident aliens, the behavior of Ashkenazi intellectuals in making #political demands seems almost #calculated to make the Latinos suspicious of Jews and to provoke hatred. #Needless to say, there are many areas of disagreement in South America #between Ashkenazim and Sefardim. *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. !Does the fact that Ashkenazi Jews imposed their morality on oriental !Jews justifies [justify] imposition [of] Mr. Dubuc's morality on others? !Should a mistake in one part of the world be repeated by another mistake !in another part of the world? #For a culture to be whole and healthy [one word in Hebrew as #Yosi Hoshen knows] the members have to share in one morality. Strong #nations are united nations and nothing can be more divisive that different #views of morality. #So believed Ben-Gurion and his followers, so do I believe. #I meant that when "enlightened," "liberal," #Westernized Ashkenazim [like Yosi Hoshen I assume] had the chance to #impose their morality they did not hesitate to do so. Therefor, Yosi #Hoshen should be attacking the type of morality Dubuc wishes to impose not #the wish to impose. -- Who wouldn't break for whales? Yehoyaqim Shemtob Martillo
brianp@shark.UUCP (Brian Peterson) (07/23/84)
2@ From: laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton)
2@
2@ Yoshi Hosen misses the point. It doesn't matter a damn whether some
2@ people think that aborting a fetus is murder and some people do not.
2@ It either is or isn't regardless of who has what opinion. It is
2@ simply a very difficult factual question to answer -- hence a there
2@ is a lot of room for conflicting opinions.
Aborting a fetus is simply taking the life from a bunch of cells which
are the very first stages of life. (We usually assume the cells have
human DNA in them). This is definition. Or fact, or whatever. Accepted.
(anyone say otherwise?) Murder is not something so simple and basic.
People do not agree on the definition of murder. Is it 'taking the life
of a bunch of cells with human DNA'? Or is it 'taking the life of
a "person" (someone with "personality")'? Is it ok, or is it to be
avoided? Most people have bad connotations of murder. We can't say
flat out that abortion is/n't murder, until we can say flat out what
abortion and murder are.
2@ But no amount of belief that
2@ a fetus is not alive is ever going to make it dead if it is alive;
2@ and no amount of belief that it is alive is going to make it alive
2@ if it is not.
I don't think that (most) people are trying to change basic facts.
The argument is over what >should< be done.
Brian Peterson {ucbvax, ihnp4, } !tektronix!shark!brianplaura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (07/23/84)
Brian, It is precisely because there are conflicting definitions of ``person'' and ``murder'' (actually, murder is fairly well defined -- it is person that is the stickler) which makes the question very difficult to answer. But people *are* trying to evade reality and replace it with their own personal opinions. Every person who concludes ``therefore it is imperative that abortions be considered murder'' and ``therefore it is imperative that abortion be granted on demand'' from the premises ``I believe that the fetus is a person'' and ``I believe that the fetus is not a person'' is ignoring the reality that *we don't know what a person is* and *it is conceivable that we may never know*. The whole arguments read like ancient philosophy. You know, everybody sits around the Acropolis and thinks nice thoughts and are judged mostly on the aethetic appeal of the ideas put forth. This sort of stuff is a lot of fun. The problem is that the theory of Ideals (Plato) and Eternal Flux (Heroclytus <this one is probably spelled wrong>) and the Indivisible Atom (Democritus) are all very nice and beautiful theories. They satisfy the aethetic sense much in the same way that a well written science fiction story does. They postulate ``laws of the universe'' and are consistent within those laws. There is only one problem with these theories. They do not measure up to reality. The way that you test your theory against reality is through experimentation. The Ancients were not so good with experimentation -- philosophy was a matter of ``thinking the pure thoughts'' and so it wasn't until after the Renaissance that some of the ideas of the ancients were finally disproven. (and, of course, some of them were shown to be true.) Right now the definitions of human life are all matters of ``pure thoughts''. They all sound more or less plausible. However, we are in no way equipped to run an experiment to test for humanness. There are just too many questions that have to be answered first. Does God exist? Do human beings have souls? non-physical souls? What is consciouness? Is there such a thing as free will? Is intelligence a measure of humanity? These just happen to be the great unanswered questions of all time. Too bad we don't have answers now. It was too bad for the ancients that they did not have electricity and thus could do JJ Thompson's experiment proving Democritus wrong as well. Sorry guys, but this is reality. We just don't know enough. The people who present their opinions as fact deny this. There is nothing wrong with opinions. for instance, I have opinions on all of the above mentioned great questions (No, Yes, No, the process by which a sufficiently intelligent being produces concepts which model perceived reality, Yes, Yes). But you must never confuse opinion with the truth, nor fail to recognise that you are believing in something for which you do not have enough evidence. (not only is this a way to avoid dishonestly passing off your beliefs as the truth to others, but it saves you from such emotional attatchement to one's beliefs that one cannot renounce them even when they are demonstrated to be false. All the world may not be Maya, but only too many of the deep beliefs of many people fit the description!) Laura Creighton utzoo!laura