Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Arrogant Indians and Susan Forgach
From: <RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Monday, 7 Sep 1992 08:56:36 EDT
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center


    I thanks all the people who replied to my posting.  Rather than quote
    everyone in detail, I will respond to various issues that people have
    raised.

    1.  Susan  Forgach: As  I said,  I do  not share  her views,  but I can
    admire her without that.   I have no desire  to climb mount Everest,  I
    might get frost-bite.   But I admire  others who do.   Also I have  not
    seen evidence that  she is a  Bible-thumpng right wing  maniac.  I find
    those  of  her  postings  that  I  have  read,  to  be to the point and
    occasionally laced with humour.  My  own view is, legalise RU-486,  ban
    all abortions of healthy foetuses and restore full rights to 2-fathers.
    A 2-father  is a  person who  is both  the husband  AND the  biological
    father.  His  rights are  greater because  he has  a genuine biological
    stake and  he and  his wife  have voluntarily  entered a contract which
    binds both of them.  IF he is violent, she can override his wishes, but
    the burden of proof is on her.

    2.   Foetus  as  part  of  the  body  of  the  mother:  I  believe this
    overstretches  the  notion  `part  of  one's  body' just as calling the
    foetus a person over-stretches the notion of a person.  Note that if  a
    woman wanted to remove a healthy  kidney, few doctors would say "it  is
    part of your  body, you decide".   They would say,  "I can't do  such a
    silly procedure as  removing a healthy  kidney.  You would  be in great
    danger.   Please  find  someone  else".   The  foetus is easily removed
    BECAUSE it is in a  real sense not a part  of her body.  Her desire  to
    remove it and the doctor's  co-operation are not usually predicated  by
    health concerns.

    3.  Abortion in India and West:  I am aware that abortion HAS taken
    place in villages in India.  But I believe that American liberals are
    the first group to actually GLORIFY it.  Where else can you use it to
    WIN an election?

    4.  Morality  being personal:  This makes  no sense  at all.   How much
    credence would you give to a  rapist who says, "you don't to  have rape
    if you  don't want  to.  Just  leave MY  life alone"?   I am not one of
    those who block entrance to clinics  - but you have to see  that people
    who genuinely value the foetus as  a human being have NO option  but to
    do the best to stop it.  I do not agree with their tactics but they are
    NOT being  in-consistent.  I  am sure  that before  the civil war, many
    slave holders said,  "Northerners don't have  to own slaves  if they do
    not  want  to.   They  should  just  respect  our  rights".   And other
    Southerners, opposed  to slavery  who said  "I don't  like slavery, but
    Northerners have no right to dictate to Southerners".

    5.  Capital punishment: I don't remember saying ANYTHING about  Capital
    punishment.   But  believe  me,  if  the  US  had  1.4  million  annual
    executions  without  a  trial  and  a  hundred  abortions,  I  would be
    complaining about the capital  punishment and not abortion.   Of course
    no sane  person would even live in  a country  that would  carry out  a
    million or more executions  a year - even  the Saudis do not  do such a
    thing!

    6.  Fanatics: Some  years ago a  pregnant woman on  Long Island had  an
    accident and went into a  coma.  Her husband, worried about  his wife's
    health sought  to have  an abortion.   Two men  obtained a  court order
    (later  overturned)  stopping  him.   I  remember  thinking then, "with
    enemies  like  this,  abortion  needs  no  friends".  Pro-choice people
    control the  better newspapers  like the  Times and  the Post  and they
    consistently represent the country as consisting of two groups.   Right
    wing  maniacs  who  are  opposed  to  abortion and the rest the `decent
    pro-choicers' who support a woman's right over her own body.  This view
    is not gong to be challenged by  Pat Robertson who is (let us say)  one
    of the RWMs,     and it is not going to be challenged by Bush who needs
    Pat  Robertson's  vote.   But  surveys  show  that  the majority of the
    country, while OPPOSING a ban  on all abortions, also opposes  abortion
    on demand.  To call them pro-choicers is a travesty of the truth.

    7.  The amusing thing is that  Cuomo and Clinton are both pro-life  and
    Bush  is  pro-choice.   But  they  know  where  their  votes are.  When
    politics  makes  strange  bed-fellows,  it  is  bound  to  happen  that
    reproduction (or the need to prevent it) becomes a major issue!!

    Rohit Parikh

Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian