>
> I think Marta is, like all of us, prone to group think at times. I think
> Singer a good man and an impressive philosopher, but there's certainly a
> group response to the man afoot in the US, who represent his views very
> poorly indeed, to my mind (why not actually read him - I mean, the bloke is
> a very readable writer), I agree that Marta's position on abortion and
> euthanasia just don't add up, and I think the Netherlands has a better
> health system, more manifest respect for human life, and a healthier
> attitude to the inevitable than America does. So calling it the 'New
> Killing Fields' is absolutely scandalous
>
while i see the point in your defense of singer, your criticism of marta comes across as patronizing, ad hominem and claiming guilt by association. i do not agree with her conclusions (or more correctly, i do not understand their rational basis yet), but i think she writes with the depth of personal experience, clarity and reasoning. if the rhetoric strays at times, while pointing it out, could we not stay closer to the issues?
--ravi