Fetal Rights?

[Krsnanatha 0]

I was inclined earlier in this exchange to offer the point of, "How many Einsteins, or Mother Theresas or Fredrick Douglases or Krsna forbid, A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabupadas or B.R.Sridhar Dev-Goswamis or Visnu Jana Maharajas or Jayanadas or ect....ect....ect.... type souls have been amputated from human society as a result of abortion?" But I must confess I feared some cynic would conjecture "Yeah, but how many demons were dispatched at the same time?" A point not unworthy of mention.

The 43,000,000 sighted by Theist is only calculating since 1972 or 1973 until present time, in America, what about the rest of the world, per legalized and illegal abortion, dating back forever, the implications of this slaughter are beyond comprehension.

My only point is not one of weakness, it is only one of acknowledging the sorry social schematic we find ourselves in. If something is outlawed and the general populace is ignorant as to the relevance or importance for it to be outlawed the general populace will ignore it. From a real, practical point of view, all of us owe it to our ideals to go out into the public in some capacity and force, inject a notion of change based on the absolute knowledge we have causelessly recieved from the kind Acaryas. Time to give it out folks.

This will invoke real change.

And when that most heralded day comes to pass, when as a result of our Sankirtana, our canvassing on behalf of Sri Guru Gauranga our legislative houses here in America are majoritied by Vaisnavas and Vaisnavis who are respected and are seen as the standard bearers of human society can we take a break.

We can then go to Vrindavana and swim in the Yamuna and take eight o'clock darshan of Banki-Bihari and eat Mahaprasadam and wake up for mangala artik knowing that we having fullfilled our mission and pleased the Sampradaya. Until that that day we have a job to do.

Talking no, doing yes.

Thank you for reminding me why I still continue to breath.

[Guest guest]

I agree with your adovating preaching, etc.

 

But this is simply not true...

 

"If something is outlawed and the general populace is ignorant as to the relevance or importance for it to be outlawed the general populace will ignore it."

[stonehearted 0]

410 U.S. 113

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

ROE, ET AL.

v.

WADE,

DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF DALLAS COUNTY

 

January 22, 1973

 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

 

No. 70-18.

 

-----

 

Argued December 13, 1971

Reargued October 11, 1972

Decided January 22, 1973

 

 

 

Here's one of manyplaces you can find the entire decision:

http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Roe/

 

Another:

 

http://members.aol.com/abtrbng/410us113.htm

 

And another:

http://www2.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/foliocgi.exe/historic/query=%5Bgroup+410+u!2Es!2E+113!3A%5D%5E%5Bgroup+citemenu!3A%5D%5E%5Blevel+case+citation!3A%5D%5E%5Bgroup+notes!3A%5D/doc/%7B@1%7D/hit_headings/words=4/hits_only?

[stonehearted 0]

Guess: The law should reflect the moral quality of the act and/or crime.

 

Here's how bad Srila Prabhupada thinks cow killing is: it's a crime so horrible that the only thing that can release us form its consequences is divine grace. Folks like to cite him as talking about the number of hairs on the back of the cows slaugtered, but in '72 and '73 two GBC members independently recounted this.

 

The fact is that our legal system is so screwed up it cannot offer justice. And it is certainly incapable of any real mercy. That can only be attained by preaching.

 

In the meantime, sure, the laws should be more stringent, but they won't stop these crimes, only drive them underground. The choice always lies where the responsibility does: with the person who commits the act.

[theist 1]

 

In the meantime, sure, the laws should be more stringent,

 

 

So that is what we have been saying! You really insult us by arguing we don't understand the real problem is deeper than societies laws professor.

 

So now let's focus on just how stringent.Please try to stay focused. You have stated the woman should have the choice. Now you say the laws should be more stringent. So explain in more detail just what more stringent means to you.

[Guest guest]

Ditto your commentws Theists.

 

These people are arguing as if the law has no merit.

 

Of coarse, there will always be those who subvert the law. But for the most part, it works on the innocent public. Most people don't want to make waves and they just go along.

 

Besides, what does a materialistic public take as evidence but the law? You don't have to have people's full cooperation and understanding to follow the law.

 

Guess Guest

[stonehearted 0]

theist: You really insult us by arguing we don't understand the real problem is deeper than societies laws professor.

 

Please get off the professor trip. Who's insulting whom here?

 

I maintain that the problem is deeper than society's laws. I hope I didn't say you don't understand the problem's profundity. I did say that you seemed to be missing that point in your argument.

 

The legal issue is beyond complicated even for legal scholars. Since my disgust with the legal system helped prompt me to abandon my puriust of a law career in the '70s, I'm not going to try to argue that here. What would you do--execute every woman who finds her life so screwed up that she doesn't know what to do? Srila Prabhupada argued strongly that the women are the also victims of these "liberating" ideas. My point remains that the only way to actually improve the situation is spreading sankirtan.

 

My argument that the choice should be the woman's is actually a rhetorical move for connecting with those on the other side. How can we change their minds and hearts if they won't listen to us. (P.S. It does help with them.)

[theist 1]

A simple question. But you danced around it.

 

You said the laws should be more stringent. What does more stringent mean. Please answer the question.

 

Here is my view. Abortion should be against the law except if the women's life is in danger. Any exception as in the case of EXTREME problems with the fetus would take a court exemption.

[I_love_krishna_ 0]

but I kind of understand the reasonable explanations they give for people who are having abortions.

 

however, abortion is murder, but to fight abortion we would have to first fight the human attraction to the act of "sex". Doing that is possible, but quite hard.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Sounds like you're saying murder is reasonable.

 

I agree with your closing comments. Obviously, the men and women want to enjoy and avoid the consequences.

 

So therefore, just legalize or otherwise tolerate the crime?

 

If people commit crimes and therefore suffer, what can be done?

 

The law must be enforced. That is "just" law.

 

Guess Guest

[theist 1]

Babhru,

 

Here is an example of what you are trying to say, I believe.

 

 

I have just noted that the Maharashtran Government is lifting the prohibition of liquor in this state, because they cannot prevent people from taking illegal liquor and sometimes killing themselves because it is bad quality, and also they lose so much tax money. So it is very clear that simply by prohibiting something will not mean the people will stop. If you tell a thief not to steal, despite all sorts of warnings, he will continue to steal. Therefore, the best way is not to prohibit by laws but to cleanse the heart. That is the real prevention of sinful activity. letter Jayapataka dec 22 1971

 

 

 

However drinking beer and murder are not in the same catagory and need to be dealt with differently. Yes the heart needs to be cleansed. But should murder continue unrestricted or unopposed until all society undergoes a heart cleansing. If so then why have any laws at all? No laws or enforcment of laws means anarchy. Of course in Vaikuntha laws are not necessary but this isn't Vaikuntha. here anarchy translates into open and escalating barbarism.

 

People will always break the law in dark rooms. but many others will not fearing the consequence. And what we have noe is a tacit approval of abortion by the state. "Its a woman's right..." Murder is no one's right.

 

I still look forward to what you mean by more stringent laws.

[stonehearted 0]

I didn't mean to dance around it; I think I complicated it more than necessary. I tend to do that sometimes. Your idea of more stringent laws sounds reasonable to me. However, the situation we have is very different. The question is, How do we get from here to there? Another question is how it would be enforced. Crime means punishment.

 

I still think that any "solution" that minimizes real, profound education of society will disappoint us if we're actually intersted in creating a more humane society. We're a little way into Kali-yuga, whose influence Srila Prabhupada asserts can only be eroded by constant chanting of the holy names.

[stonehearted 0]

Their arguments are not reasonable to those with any sensitivity. As Guess Guest says, they're trying to justify avoiding the consiequences of sense gratificataion. So you're right in saying that the best means would be to help them learn to tolerate the urge for sex, at least to restrain it more than they do. Best means? Harenama, harernama, harerama iva kevalam. . . . (Kevalam means "singular" or "exclusive.")

[stonehearted 0]

Guess Guest, I think what I love Krishna may mean is that there's a logic to their arguments. I don't think she (?) means to assert that the act is reasonable.

 

We can argue with them more effectively if we understand the logic of their side of the issue. That makes it easier to engage with them, tomeet them where they are and see what we cando to move them. Otherwise, we're left with argumentum ad vaculum,or with a smug self-righteousness which hardens and closes their hearts, and ours as well. We can avoid that by seeing them as persons, not labels, and showing them a little respect. Most people, Srila Prabhupada says, are innocent (not free of culpability, but foolish). They're misled by Kali's propaganda machine.

[theist 1]

 

Your idea of more stringent laws sounds reasonable to me.

 

 

 

Stringent laws means its not the woman's choice. That we have to agree on and present it boldly and unequivically when this issue comes up.

 

 

However, the situation we have is very different. The question is, How do we get from here to there? Another question is how it would be enforced. Crime means punishment.

 

 

Well we have only been "here" for 3 decades. There is still enough opposition to legal abortion to give them a good fight and by electing sympathetic lawmakers we can overturn it.

 

By making it a felony like murder or manslaughter a Dr. would think long and hard about performing one as it would mean that Dr. losing their license as well as going to prison.

 

The stigma that was present before towards unwed women who got pregnant has largely gone. We can use this to our advantage. It was that stigma that caused many to seek back alley abortions. Many states have programs now for women who give birth but don't want the child to just leave it at a hospital with no questions asked. We could expand that to include proper birthing of the child in interest of the mother and baby. They could enter as Jane Does even.

 

 

 

 

I still think that any "solution" that minimizes real, profound education of society will disappoint us if we're actually intersted in creating a more humane society. We're a little way into Kali-yuga, whose influence Srila Prabhupada asserts can only be eroded by constant chanting of the holy names.

 

 

I agree. But nothing in the material world remains static. All things move in one direction or another. We need to oppose abortion for the direction as well as the act. It is tied in with eugenics when coupled with abortion will mean killing the handicapped at birth or even after birth. That ties in to euthanasia, killing off the elderly and "unproductive" to make room for the young and fit.

 

All these demonic programs tie into each other and support each other on the mental level.

[I_love_krishna_ 0]

In reply to :

__________

Stringent laws means its not the woman's choice.

__________

I don't mean to say you are wrong, but

If I were raped and then impregnated, then I wouldn't want to carry that baby in me.

 

Abortion is ok when absolutely necessary. Thank you.

 

case closed.

[stonehearted 0]

As I said, the idea that the choice should remain with the woman is mostly a rhetorical move. I have as littlel faith in legislating morality as I do in legislating guru-disciple relationships. However, as I said earlier, it may make things seem better, at least for a while. The real thing is to go for the root. Nothing else will really satisfy. Moreover, such strong preaching of spiritual values, spiritual knowledge, makes electing lesgilators and administrators of real character easier. Otherwise, the electorate is too easily controlled by Kali's propaganda machine, which includes the whole mess with elections and money. That's just another branch of the symptom, though. If you go for the root, the other problems will be solved automatically. That's real focus--not being too distracted by ancillary issues that we have little time for the main show.

[stonehearted 0]

I_love_krishna: If I were raped and then impregnated, then I wouldn't want to carry that baby in me.

 

I think we have some sense of how you feel. However, what do you think about the arc of the baby's karma? The question we have been discussing is whether it's good for society to be so driven by personal convenience (pardon me if that sounds strong, but there it is) that we lose all compassion for the suffering of others.

 

Conservatives today argue over an exception for rape and incest, but I'll tell you, the idea gives most of us the creeps. I've been married for over 30 years, and I have two adult daughters, so I'm not insensitive to the suffering of rape and incest victims. But it shows the extent to which our society has deteriorated that those victims' hearts would be so insensitive to the life they carry that they would extinguish it, often in ways quite painful to mother and baby, because it is a product of their suffering.

 

Progressive human civilaztion is built on a foundation of purity, simplicity, mercy, and honesty. We live in a time where the first three are practically gone, and honesty is on its way out. Don't you think that loving Krishna includes loving all His children, no matter how unfortunate?

[Guest guest]

Babhru, This scrolling left and right to read text is a pain.

 

I think what I love Krishna may mean is that there's a logic to their arguments. I don't think she (?) means to assert that the act is reasonable.

 

... Yes, even murderers and theives are logical in their actions on that level. But life is not subjectively what we make it. There are consequences to our actions and we should make intelligent choices.

 

We can argue with them more effectively if we understand the logic of their side of the issue. That makes it easier to engage with them, tomeet them where they are and see what we cando to move them.

 

... Oh, I think Theist and I understand very well the inconvienience and discomfort the women cry about. We just don't think infantcide for convenience is ever a sane discourse, much less justifiable.

 

Otherwise, we're left with argumentum ad vaculum,or with a smug self-righteousness which hardens and closes their hearts, and ours as well. We can avoid that by seeing them as persons, not labels, and showing them a little respect.

 

... That's just great. Let's respect the murderers and thieves, etc. After all, they are not the body.

 

... Your lesson was lost on most of the participants in the Mahabharata, including Krsna himself.

 

... Let's not forget what we're talking about here. As Theist so aptly pointed out, abortion is among the most atrocious of activities.

 

Most people, Srila Prabhupada says, are innocent (not free of culpability, but foolish). They're misled by Kali's propaganda machine.

 

... Yes. Ignorance is the cause of sin.

[Guest guest]

If I were raped and then impregnated, then I wouldn't want to carry that baby in me.

 

... So you are saying that your preference - your like or dislike - is more important than universal principles or life itself.

 

Guess Guest (and last post too)

[livingentity 0]

 

Abortion is ok when absolutely necessary. Thank you.

case closed.

 

 

Enlightened, you say one thing one time and contradict yourself the next.

 

As a woman, I understand the fear etc of rape. It is a reality for all of us (men included) in this material world. Rape is a horrible horrible action. But..

 

Abortion equals murder

It is not the infants fault that it was conceived from rape so why should it be punished by being pulled prematurely from it's present body and forced to start over yet again elsewhere.

 

If the woman carrying the child until birth does not want to keep it afterwards - whether the conception was from rape or sense gratification, we need to teach the attitude of the process being a gift - life for the infant and a child for a childless person.

 

We have become a disposable society - so degraded that even the life of an innocent unborn human is tossed out like yesterday meal.

 

[stonehearted 0]

Guess: This scrolling left and right to read text is a pain.

 

Tell me about it. It's not doing that now. What was the deal?

 

I think you, theist and I may have some sympathy for the inconcenience women suffer, especially if we're married and have kids. But that's a little abstract. Still, if you read my reply to I love krishna, you'll see our real disagreement is how to get, as I said before, from here to there. I'm convinced that there are more than one solution to that problem.

 

Yes, I suggest we show respect to all. Actually, that's a borrowed idea. It's easier to get them to listen to you if you treat them as brothers, not as whatever label you attach. That was in fact Srila Prabhupada's practice (who was more sinful than we?). We see that, after Krishna offered arguments for the severest punishment of Ashvattama, Krishna approved of Draupadi's compromise, based on respect and compassion. There was also plenty of less-tolerant action in Mb. Both were there. Krishna consciousness is broad and profound enough to accommodate different approaches to a problem, don't you think? When Bhaktivinoda Thakura suggested some modern approaches to understanding and/or presenting Srimad-Bhagavatam, the orthodox (or traditional, as Madhavananda would no doubt prefer) Gaudiya vaishnavas objected. When his son and disciple Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati added further innovations, the traditionalists objected (still do, in many cases). And when Srila Prabhupada gave diksha to men and women from subhuman families, many traditionalists among his godbrothers couldn't appreciate it. But the world is better, and our lives are saved, because they cared enough.

 

Brahmana means broadminded. Devotees and devotional service cannot be sterotyped. Don't you think there's room for an approach to this problem that's two or three degrees different from yours? I've been dealing publicly with this issue for almost 30 years, and I've seen people move, even if just a little, in response to my meager, flawed efforts.

[I_love_krishna_ 0]

I do believe abortion is wrong because abortion does equal to murder, but lets look at this in more detail.

In my perspective, on unfair circumstances it is quite fair to have an abortion, but what is fair and unfair is defined by the perspective it seen in.

 

In other words, take the same instance of rape, I do think that a woman can have an abortion when the child is clearly not wanted in the first place and please note the act of conceivement did not occur while trying to gain any pleasure.

 

I think the act of another shall never shatter one's life as it does in this instance. The life of the baby will be definitely shattered due to the "improper" birth that it takes, because in this case the mother will be definitely responsible for taking care of a child. Also, the mother will have to work hard because she will be single. If the mother has no help what so ever, then the child will basically grow up to be another victim of this material world.

 

If we talk about Adoption, well, even adoption does not solve the pain and misery the mother will go through.

 

Once the baby is born, it is natural to be attached to the baby thus making it even harder to give it up.

 

Furthermore, the very act will be a great sin, isn't abandoning a helpless child a sin?

 

How do you know if the child gets proper care in a orphanage? - This clearly leads to another sin of letting the very child go into ruin.

___________

 

It is not the selfishness talking nor the ego, even though my past statements seem to be contradictory, hypocritical and egotistical.

In my opinion, the only way to stop such a mess of abortion vs non abortion is to transcend the notion of sense gratification as a whole. still, such renunciation does not solve our problem.

well those are my opinions.

 

 

 

[stonehearted 0]

I_love_krishna_: In my opinion, the only way to stop such a mess of abortion vs non abortion is to transcend the notion of sense gratification.

 

Now you're talking. However, in the meantime, someone who chooses abortion gets into a quagmire of sinful reaction that may make it hard to get to that position. If we understand something is wrong, and why, and what the consequences are, it becomes harder to make the wrong choice. A rape victim who takes the trouble to find a loving family for her child will ultimately find the rewards greater than the trouble. We undergo so much difficulty to make our lives better in different ways; when we do so for others' sake, we begin to move beyond the animal platform.

[I_love_krishna_ 0]

stonehearted: We undergo so much difficulty to make our lives better in different ways; when we do so for others' sake, we begin to move beyond the animal platform.

_______

 

 

Yep! /images/graemlins/smile.gif thats why krishna consciousness should be shown to the people all over our little planet. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

/images/graemlins/cool.gif