From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Observations
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 04:08:59 GMT

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 writes
>> >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.

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 or that more people believe abortion is okay,
if you want to address whether legalized abortion has strengthened
pro-abortion beliefs.

>> 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.

>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.

>> 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.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: talk.abortion