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
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