![[MLJ Logo]](http://www.mljewish.org/mlj.gif)
www.mljewish.org
|
www.mljewish.org |
Mail.Liberal-Judaism |
| Volume 2 Number 17 | Tue Jul 28 11:18:20 1992 |
Date: 28 Jul 1992 14:00 EDT From: Allison Zoble <alz@nestor.cc.bellcore.com> Subject: Re: A Theology of Medical Ethics Mr. London asked for opinions regarding his wife's performing elective abortions - if she should or not. I imagine I may be the most liberal voice in this medium. I say anyone who wishes to have an abortion may go to anyone who can and is willing, without any authority's intervention. To me, anything less than that amount of freedom is too restrictive. I don't care if the abortion is because birth control failed. That's none of my business, or anyone else's. If I possessed the knowledge and certification to perform such a procedure, I would do it. Of course, some people would be more concerned than others about the doctor's credentials. I say this because I don't want my above statement "anyone who can and is willing" to be misconstrued as a back-alley procedure recommendation. If abortion is kept legal, such atrocities may be reduced. But the freedom to obtain such a service must be preserved. When it comes down to it, this is a quality of life issue as well - the quality of the potential life (obviously, I don't consider the fetus a viable "life"). So much for my soapbox - my opinion is that she should perform abortions. [If possible (and I know it's hard for this group :-)), let's focus on the underlying question: should a doctor's underlying religious/moral beliefs affect their practice of medicine? To put it another way, which beliefs come first: the patients, or the doctors? This has direct influence on more issues than just abortion -- consider euthenasia, sterilization, "jewish science" (a Jewish form of Christian Science -- and yes, it does exist), etc. It ties to the Holocaust: Did the Nazi's doctor's opinions of Jews affect the medical treatment they received? (similar questions could be asked about black medical care in antebellum days). Let's try and focus on these questions -- not the abortion debate. -- Yr. Mod.] Allison Zoble
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 12:45:35 CDT From: Adam London <alondon@us.oracle.com> Subject: Alan Dershowitz's _Chutzpah_ I've just finished reading Alan Dershowitz's book Chutzpah, which I found to be a fascinating book. In the book he briefly mentioned the recent murder of a Jewish law student in Iowa by the police and the subsequent refusal of the legal system to prosecute the police involved. Does anyone have any more information on this incident and what the Jewish community's response to it has been? Adam London (312) 704-4612
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 13:49 EDT From: Michael J. Snider <@mrgate.utc.com:MJS%A1@UTRC> Subject: Judaism and Homosexuality [Folks: For this one, try to keep in mind the groundrules of this list (and save me some trouble :-), I've got real work to do -- and my manager is on the list :-). Let's not argue over whether one group's position is right or wrong (extremely loaded terms). You can state that *you* agree/disagree with a particular position, but not the universal "right" or "wrong". Also, unless you are quoting published material, please make clear you clarify that what you are saying is *your understanding* of the movement's position. -- Yr. Mod.] I was just wondering how the various 'branches' view homosexuality and why they feel that way. Just one example of the Traditional camp (adapted from R' Schneerson): In the Holy Torah, out of all of the illicit sexual relationships described, only homosexuality is designated as an "abomination to G-d." Even bestiality isn't described in such terms. From a spiritual perspective, homosexuality is devastating; it destroys both the body and the soul of those who engage in it. No homosexual was ever born into the world through a homosexual relationship. Although people may have congenital tendencies toward homosexuality, it is like a child who demonstrates the trait of tearing out its hair or banging its head against the wall: if the trait is destructive, the goal is to seek correction. When a person is sick, the goal is to help the person get well. Ultimately, the homosexuals themselves will complain against those who misled them, including those politicians who pander to them as a constituency. In the end they will see that this deviation brings a person to excessive, abnormal weakness and to horrible diseases, *as we are beginning to discover*. In the cycles of history, we find that every society which encouraged or even condoned homosexuality was short-lived - terminated even at the peak of its glory. Most notable, of course, was ancient Greece. It ruled the world and was summarily voided in its prime. The irony is that it was the tiny Jewish nation led by the Maccabees that broke the back of the mighty Greek empire. It is no wonder, then, that Jews are outraged at Western society's permissive attitude towards homosexuality, which is at the core of Western society's corrupting Hellinistic legacy. My notes: Homosexual*ity* is being criticized - the behavior. I do not argue that one may not feel homosexual tendencies - only that they should be suppressed for a higher goal than self-satisfaction, that being serving G-d by following His Mitzvos. Secondly, lesbianism is illegal according to Jewish law, but there is no punishment for it - this article deals only with men (feminists - celebrate!). This is partly because women are not bound by the Mitzva to be fruitful and multiply... Michael J. Snider
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 11:21 EDT From: Michael J. Snider <mjs@utrc.utc.com> Subject: Re: Judaism and its Perseverance In v2 n16, Mr. Herrera correctly points out that G-d 'intervenes' at all times in the world - a basic tenet of Judaism. However, Mr. Herrera feels that this just is not so - and as evidence cites the Holocaust. "Where was G-d?" "How could He do this to us if we are the Chosen People?" "How could a loving, caring, merciful G-d kill so many people?" First of all, there is no answer for a catastrophe such as the Holocaust, and to pass it off as a mere social response to depression, or one of many other social theories is to lower this event to a level disrespectful of those who died in it. It is obvious from my original article that the Jews have survived a tremendous period of time, and many of us have died horrible deaths - not to decrease the importance of the Holocaust, but to point out that it is one in a *series* of similar events; persecution of the Jews (not to mention the infamous Blood Libels, etc.) is an all too common hobby of the nations of the world. Nonetheless, we have survived. Why? I posited that it is because G-d wants us to. But the issue begins much deeper than this. You see, we believe that humans have free will. Free will to choose, between good and evil; "I place before you this day life and death - choose life!" We are punished for choosing evil and rewarded for doing good. However, if the reinforcement is too close to the behavior it relates to, there is a behavior modification which occurs (modern psy. theory). This is counteractive to Free Will. In other words, G-d has to wait to reward us (or punish us) until Olam Ha-Ba (the World to Come). This also explains why (some) wicked prosper and (some) righteous suffer; if it was the reverse, then who would be wicked? Anyways, the basic premise is that G-d protects us at all times - that is the *rule*. However, sometimes, we do enough bad that we do not *deserve* protection, and at times like that, G-d *removes His protection* and allows the "natural" forces of history, etc. to affect us, also. In other words, if it were not for the constant protection of G-d, we would not have lasted any where as long as we have. Mr. Herrera objects to this thesis, however, and offers an alternative (although not contradictory) option: The Torah has kept us alive. Fine - I agree that it is because of the Torah we have survived! But why? Is it a humanistic explanation, that the unique health laws, etc. kept us going? Or is it, as I hold, that when we follow the laws of the Torah, we are *kept* alive (by a Force, not by ourselves), and when we don't, we don't. I think that it is not logical for us to think that a mere 'book' has kept an entire civilization, a people, alive for 3500 years under conditions that have wiped out every other nation that has lived (see Toynbee). Rather, there must be something special about this 'book' - maybe, just maybe, it is Divine. Here's a good analogy: Does your mother have a washing machine? Most probably. If so, does it come with instructions? Of course! Why? What do you mean "Why" - instructions are necessary in order to operate it correctly - do lights and darks separately or you get grey, do diapers on hot or they come out the same way they went in, etc. The same thing with this world... it, too has an 'instruction book' - the Torah, given by the manufacturer: For best use, use as follows... Michael J. Snider mjs@utrc.utc.com
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 12:24 EDT From: Michael J. Snider <mjs@utrc.utc.com> Subject: Re: Needed: A Theology of Citizenship There have been quite a few replies to the original article, and many of them have referred to the 7 Laws of the Children of Noah (B'nei Noach). I found a particularly good book on the subject called "The Path of the Righteous Gentile" by C. Clorfene and Y. Rogalsky, published by Targum Press, distributed by Feldheim. I agree with others who say that it is the job of a Jew in elected/appointed office to mold the law of the land to follow the 7 Laws, which in fact are actually 7 *Categories*, each containing many laws, and, interestingly enough, have stricter penalties for their violation then the 613 which all Jews are bound to follow... In the area of murder, the book outlines the aveira and the punishment. Much of the information comes from the Mishneh Torah, Laws of Kings, and Masechta Sanhedrin (Babylonian Talmud). Some examples: o Suicide is forbidden (see Gen 9:5, commentary of Rashi) o Killing someone who is terminally ill or is falling from the top of a cliff or is certain to die momentarily is forbidden and is punishable by the death penalty. o If one struck a pregnant woman, and killed the fetus, he/she would be liable for the death penalty (if it was killed at least 40 days after conception - otherwise it is like spilling a man's seed, punishable by heavenly decree, not an earthly one). There seems to be a disagreement among the authorities as to whether killing a fetus to save the life of a mother is permissible or not. However, it is agreed upon that taking the mother's life to save a fetus is murder. I hope this helps shed some light on the subject. M Snider
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 09:50 EDT From: davel@homxc.att.com Subject: Re: Reform Judaism and Common Sense On 27 Jul 92, Andy Cohen said: > From [David Lowenstern's] argument, it sounds as though you'd take the > advice of that book over your own "common sense", WHEN YOUR COMMON SENSE HAD > REACHED ITS LIMIT. (emphasis added) And here I thought we were discussing the case when "common sense" disagreed with Jewish law, not when common sense was simply lost. Be that as it may, no, of course I would *consider* the advice of said "book". Would I take it? Depends on whether it fits with observed data, doesn't it? Science, at least in theory, asserts that given a choice between the wisdom of the ages and the results of a well-designed experiment, the well-designed experiment wins. Science doesn't argue that there's no point in reading non-scientific "books". It has its own criteria for "truth," but it is willing to admit that the received wisdom of the scientific community could be wrong, and that, by luck, intuition, or superior experience, the received wisdom of some other community could be right, even by the standards of the scientific community. Go ahead! Consult Zen tracts or the writings of Tibetan monks. Maybe you'll gain an insight. Does that mean that scientific "truth" changes? Of course it does. No modern scientist thinks Aristotle was right about much science. How many traditional Jewish philosophers would say the same about Moses, or even Ramba"m? How many would say "Don't forget to read the writings of the Hindus -- they may be right about some points where Judaism is fuzzy or simply wrong"? My advice still stands -- read the literature on both sides, weigh the arguments according to how well each viewpoint has been a useful guide on other issues, and choose the viewpoint which accords with your observations of the universe -- your experience, your experiments, and your "common sense". That applies to science, scholarship, and ethics. David Loewenstern <loewenst@paul.rutgers.edu || davel@homxc.att.com>
Date: 28 Jul 1992 14:00 EDT From: Allison Zoble <alz@nestor.cc.bellcore.com> Subject: Re: Reform Judaism and Common Sense Common sense tells me that, in the context of a certain discussion, a broad statement is made to pertain to that discussion, not necessarily to all possible topics. In v2n16, my statement concerning the rights of government and religious groups to "play G-d" was misconstrued to pertain to other possible individual choices besides abortion, such as a suicide attempt. My comment was not meant to cover any other choice besides abortion. I hope my stance is now clear and will not be further misinterpreted based on Mr. Herrera's assumption of meaning. Mr. Herrera went on to address my comments regarding the quality of life as an issue in a case of a person's right to die. "There are some things that are more important than the quality of life, although it should certainly be a consideration." I'm interested to know what can be more important than a person's quality of life. My common sense says that, if a person's quality of life is nil, why go on? Allison Zoble
Submissions should be mailed to either submit@mljewish.org or mlj@shamash.org. Please clearly mark your submission as a submission, and include either a relevant subject line or a reference to the issue to which you are replying.
If you would like to subscribe to MLJ, please complete the Subscription Request Form, or send a message to the moderator (listmgt@mljewish.org) requesting to be added to the list. Please include your first and last names in your request.
Backissues may be obtained by Email by completing a Backissue by Email Request Form. A specific backissue may be retrieved interactively by completing a Request Form.
Publishing any of the mail.liberal-judaism digests or portions thereof on any other medium including soc.culture.jewish without consulting the moderator and/or the originator of the article represents a breach of trust. Please remember why this list was created and that contributers may not want to discuss the "correctness" of their beliefs from your point of view. Also note that many of the people who write in wish their privacy preserved. Thank you for your cooperation with these restrictions.
"It is not our task as liberal Jews to complain about the Orthodox attitude or to be bullied by it, but rather to choose our legitimate path according to the inner logic and development of liberal Judaism" (Rabbi Walter Jacob)
| Previous Issue: v2n16 | Next Issue: v2n18 | |
MLJ Home Page
|
Return to Retrieval Form |