From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Arrogant Indians and Susan Forgach
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 92 08:28:29 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software


Terrifying post!  Someone who actually thinks Suzanne is "comforting".

<92250.091118RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET> RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET writes:
...
>         However, the business about abortion  has bothered me a lot.   How
>    can people with souls be so STRONGLY pro-choice?

Obviously, you think that everyone is religiously deluded.  Please open
that mind of yours to the possiblity that some people don't supscribe to
the notion of "souls".

>                                                      I can understand that
>    abortion might sometime be the lesser  of two evils.  But a `right  to
>    choose' seems to imply that we need not even consider the other evil.

What other "evil" is that?  And why should *we* even be involved in
someone else's personal decision?

>         Moreover,  abortion  is  now  legal  also  in India, and routinely
>    advertised on Indian trains.  It seems  to me that every time that  the
>    West has  a moral  disease, then  they call  it progress,  and Indians,
>    anxious to `enter the 20th century' are only too happy to catch it.

My, this *is* an ingraciating statement.

>         This is why  the postings of  Susan Forgach have  been an enormous
>    comfort to me.  Her position is more strict than mine, but only because
>    she is ALWAYS willing to put morality before pragmatism.

She's always willing to put *her* morality before any one else's.  She'd
be only too glad to put it in front of yours too.  Just describe it for
her, then she'll tell you where you are wrong and where you are giong to
hell.

>         Pro-choicers might  not be  aware that  they, while  attacking the
>    fundamentalists, are RELYING on  the Old Testament.  

I'm sure most of the them would be mighty surprised to hear that.  So now
you are a mind-reader too?

>                                                         In  Hindu-Buddhist
>    theology, all life is sacred (Krishna says explicitly that animals have
>    souls, and Buddha's record is well known) and so the argument, that the
     ^^^^^
     So does the OT.

>    foetus is not  a person and  so we can  treat it with  contempt, has no
>    standing at all.  An acceptance of this seems to be in the offing  with
>    respect for whales - so why not include unborn pre-humans?

Gee, why not extend it to fruit trees, or grasses, or vegetables too?
Could it be that it is not practical for you to do so?

>         Man (or woman)  is not the  measure of all  things.  If we  want a
>    decent soceity to live in, we could start by acting decently  ouselves.

True, stay out of other peoples personal business.

>    the recent decision by the Connecticut  high court that it is OK  for a
>    woman to take  cocaine an hour  before delivery -  severely harming the
>    `non-person', is just bonkers.  This is what happens when all decisions
>    are made on legalistic grounds.

You seem to have little understanding of what was at issue in the
Connecticut decision.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), and Diana (Sorceress),
and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it.
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.