Number 93 : July 1998 |
Thank you for the three issues of Commensal which I have received to date. I have found time to read them but not time, so far, to contribute. I realise that I have missed the deadline for Commensal 93 but do feel that I need to comment on a couple of things that I have read in previous issues.
First the contribution from Sheila Blanchard (C91/35.4). She is claiming that Maori society was less civilised because killing human beings was not considered wrong but is she suggesting that there are some societies which are civilised by this criteria ? It seems to me that there isn't a society on this earth that can say that it considers killing human beings wrong and we are confronted almost daily with news of conflicts within and between a variety of different societies that reflect the sort of situation which she describes, not only between nations and ethnic groups, but, for instance, groups which simply have territorial differences, for example, youth gangs from different streets or estates. And there are examples of changing allegiances too. As to the British Army, that has been seen as a legitimate target by many different groups over the years.
It is my optimistic belief that we are slowly becoming more civilised and some countries enjoy greater internal stability than others, the conflicts that they get involved in, as a nation, tending to be well away from home. But in any society, including ours, where people have not totally renounced violence, it is clear from just listening to people that violent, even murderous, behaviour is not far below the surface. People are territorial and hostile to those who are different from themselves. These traits are probably instinctive rather than the result of conditioning. I suggest that we become more civilised when we put aside instinctive reactions and substitute more considered, and less violent, responses.
Moving on, I have to disagree most strongly with Anthony Owens (C92/13). It doesn't seem to me at all fair that a woman should ever accept the burden of a child alone, although she may be forced to do so. The father may have been equally promiscuous. In this country at least, promiscuity is not a crime and no longer even considered immoral. Of course, society has always had a more liberal attitude towards men's promiscuity !
What is immoral is for men not to ensure that they are traceable in the event of a pregnancy resulting from their activities. And today, a man cannot escape responsibility by saying that it is not possible to establish who the father is. There is no excuse, apart from some misfortune befalling him, for a father not to accept his share of responsibility for the children that he helped to produce.
On the question of abortion, I would say that we do not live in a perfect democracy and the government of the day can get away with things that may not be approved of by the majority of citizens. It does this by a variety of means, including the use of spin doctors. Nevertheless we do have considerable freedom of speech and freedom to protest and demonstrate. The thalidomide disaster aroused public demand for abortion to be made legal. It was hotly debated and was the subject of a free vote in parliament I believe. I do not think therefore that it is reasonable to claim that "the state" has ulterior motives in allowing abortion.
Martin Lake
Martin : welcome ! Fine ! Run out of space !
Theo