From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Observations
Date: Sat, 05 Sep 1992 05:04:15 GMT
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <Bu37J0.Avr@cs.psu.edu>  beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
> In article <1992Sep04.142221.30426@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes
> >In  <Bu1FJD.F5L@cs.psu.edu>  beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
> >> In article <1992Sep03.215609.14780@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com wri
> >> >In  <Bu09ut.Es5@cs.psu.edu>  beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
> >>
> >> Referring to "enforce" defined as "strengthen":
> >> >> In which case, it is natural to conclude that a law permitting abortion
> >> >> "enforces" the belief that fetuses are not persons/children/human-lives.
> >> >
> >> >Not really, because it's a religious belief.  For example,
> >> >
> >> >> And yes, our laws do "enforce" (to a much lesser extent) the belief
> >> >> that killing cattle is not wrong.
> >> >
> >> >Do you really believe that someone who believes cattle to be holy changes
> >> >their mind because it's legal here?  I don't; I think they're more likely
> >> >to see those who eat steak as sinners.
> >>
> >> I don't have any basis for making such a judgement.
> >
> >Well, let's see...  Abortion has been legal in this country for 20 years.
> >Have all the people that think it's wrong changed their minds?
>
> A clarification: I was referring to your example regarding cattle.

(Where you said you had no basis for judging, so I changed over to
something else on which you might have a basis to judge.)

> Now, why should all the people that think abortion is wrong have
> changed their minds?  It suffices merely that +some+ people may
> have changed their minds

+Some+ people *may* have changed their minds?  Shall we agree that this
is too nebulous to quantify?

> >> One example that
> >> does come to mind is that eating pork is legal; if it were illegal,
> >> perhaps fewer Jewish people would eat pork.  Hence, the legality
> >> of eating pork does tend to strengthen the belief that eating pork
> >> is not immoral/unholy/sinful.  (This strays a bit, since it's not
> >> that pigs are holy but that eating them is religiously banned.)
> >
> >Actually, it strays a lot, because many Jews believe that it was
> >banned for health reasons, and that now that those health reasons
> >no longer apply, eating it is OK.  This has nothing to do with the
> >legality of it.
>
> I'm not an expert on Judaism or Jewish law, but I was under the impression
> that, regardless of what motivation lies behind principles such as kashrut,
> they are and were religious, as well as part of "law."  Modern
> rationalizations ("it's just an outmoded health concern") do not
> deny the religious side.

They certainly deny it as a requirement, if they don't keep kosher but
sitll consider themselves religious.

> >Also, note that Jews don't feel it necessary for non-Jews to conform to
> >Jewish law, so they wouldn't be calling those eating non-kosher foods
> >"sinners" anyway.
>
> Try suggesting this to an Orthodox Jew (I suggest you go to Mea Shearim
> in Jerusalem) and see what response you get.  For a Jew to eat non-kosher
> foods is reprehensible.  If your "those" refers only to non-Jews,
> then you have conveniently omitted those Jews who eat non-kosher.

I thought "not necessary for non-Jews" implied that; I should have been
more specific.  I was going back to "it strays a lot", my point is that
there are a number of Christians who want to make their moral beliefs
into laws which would apply to non-believers as well.  (And I'm not just
talking about abortion.)

> >> And, beliefs regarding abortion are not necessarily religious.
> >> My beliefs regarding abortion are certainly not; they arise from
> >> consideration of morals, philosophical principles of justice and equity,
> >> pragmatism, and a bit of scientific experience (research on reproduction).
> >
> >You mean they weren't forced on you by the legality of abortion?
>
> No.  Have I ever said they were?
>
> We go in circles: there is a difference between "force on" and "enforce,"
> as both our dictionaries have already revealed.

You mean that the fact that you live in a society in which abortion is
legal didn't enforce the belief that abortion is a moral choice?

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion