Fetal Rights?

[livingentity 0]

headache from banging my head on my desk!! I need to walk away from this for a while.

 

I must be horribly naive - I had no idea that any devotee would consider having an abortion.

 

I was only 18 when I became pregnant with my son - the father immediately tucked tail and ran when I told him so I was on my own. I did what i had to do which was work until the day before he was born and abortion was never an option for me.

 

Abortion should never have been made legal - people actually believe that once something is legal then it is ok to do - morally or otherwise.

 

I realize abortions were being carried out before they were legalized but at least then it was more difficult and dangerous. People had to think twice before murdering their unborn child and I am sure a lot of lifes were saved because of that fact.

[stonehearted 0]

Guess: Theist has been asking you for a yes or no response, but still you skirt the issue.

 

Babhru (one more time): Abortion is wrong. I've said it before just this plainly. What more complicated is how to communicate that to those completely under the influence of propaganda that has them convinced their purpose is to exploit the resources of the material world. That's my interest.

 

[stonehearted 0]

theist: Babhru I will take you position as still pro-choice.

 

That's because you're willfully misreading my posts. I have been actively and publicly anti-abortion, as I have explained several times, since 1974.

 

What have you guys done in public? I've asked this a couple of times, and you've dodged the question.

[theist 1]

need to have the truth given to them in a straight forward manner from all sources. Family teachers and the society as a whole through clear cut laws.

 

 

But these rascal, this atheist class, they say, kim anyat käma-haitukam: Only lusty desires, that is the only reason. That is the only cause. The atheist class think like that, that This birth is taking place due to our lusty desires, but we do not want to take responsibility. Then kill him. What is that? Therefore they are making this abortion, killing of the child, as legal. The käma... We had some lusty desires, and we got it, but we don't want it. Kill it. That's all. This is going on. This is atheism.-lecture

 

 

[Guest guest]

"I didn't say it's right to choose or that any choice is right; I said the choice will ultimately be made by the woman in any case, law or no law."

 

... But this philosophical position says the choice is hers. Well, yes and no. Theoretically, as far as her free will goes, she has the independence and responsibility to make choices... even if it is choosing to do the wrong thing.

Practically, she can't choose because if people can be their own authority, they can decide anything.

 

I suggested taht each should seek the best counsel they could find (wh would ideally give the proper advice), and if they make the wrong choice they would have to accept the consequences.

 

... Therefore we should stop entertaining them as they are killing and make a stronger point if they aren't getting it.

 

We all make our own choices in all instances, and we all live with the consequences. In fact, I have written as plainly as possible that abortion is wrong and the exceptions that even pro-life conservative politicians accept--rape and incest--give me the creeps. How much plainer can I make it?

 

... Yes. But still you sound like abortion advocates when you speak of choice.

 

I think stick and carrot are both needed; I tend to carry carrots more than sticks. Last semsester I helped one of my studesnts realize she should not abort her child.

 

... I think sticks cause deeper introspection.

[stonehearted 0]

Guess: But still you sound like abortion advocates when you speak of choice.

 

Perhaps only to those who choose to ignore that I've said there's only one right choice.

 

Guess: I think sticks cause deeper introspection.

 

Actually, that's your opinion, but I don't think you'll find much evidence to support it. It may cause fear (which is helpful for some), or it may cause resentment (which makes more trouble for all). But introspection is something very different.

 

Other than anonymously sniping on some obscure internet board, you and theist still haven't answered my question about your public activism against abortion.

[Guest guest]

Babhru (one more time): Abortion is wrong. I've said it before just this plainly. What more complicated is how to communicate that to those completely under the influence of propaganda that has them convinced their purpose is to exploit the resources of the material world. That's my interest.

 

... More doublespeak. I_l_k also says it's wrong, except when she thinks it's right. This is the position of many people on both sides of the fence.

 

Still, you have not answered the question concerning "choice" by Theist. The question does not concern the right or wrong of abortion per se or even the act of informing them of choices.

 

The very simple question is does a woman have the right to choose? Yes or no?

 

Your answer has many philosophical implications.

 

If you did not answer it above, answer it now and stop wearing that skirt.

 

Guess Guest

[Guest guest]

I sometimes discuss on an abortion board. But that's a waste of time.

 

I am doing the work of several people in promoting Prabhupada and spiritual issues on a variety of fronts through the web medium.

 

Cant claim results. Probably never will.

 

 

Guess Guest

[Guest guest]

"Actually, that's your opinion, but I don't think you'll find much evidence to support it. "

 

Actually, it is the preferred method of choice these days by government. Works well with rascally kids too. The evidence is overwhelming if you have the eyes to see.

 

Guest Guess

 

Theist question... yes or no?

[stonehearted 0]

Every time I give an answer you change the question. thesit's most recent question was "Do you think the right to an abortion should be by law left solely in the hands of the woman who is pregnant?"

 

My answer was no, it should not nbe solely left to the pregnant woman. However, the reality is that the choice is ultimately hers (legal or not, whether you and I like it or not), and she has to deal with the consequnces. The safest way to ensure that all with make the right choice is to educate society (then back that up with legislation).

 

Now you ask a new question: The very simple question is does a woman have the right to choose? Yes or no?

 

Thge very simple answer is that, according to the US Supreme Court, all state laws that abridge the woman's choice are invalid. If you want to know whether I think she should be able to choose to have an abortion, the answer is, and has always been, an unqualified no. However, in arguing with abortion-rights advocates, I often concede that it may be better for women to make the right choice themselves than to have a bunch of control freaks in the state capital tell her what she can and cannot do with her uterus. It just pees some women off to have men who don't even know them exercise that kind of control. This is a rhetorical move to let them know that I know their position and that I'm listening to them. I'm trained in rhetoric, so my apporach to public discourse may be different (not necessarily better) than others'. My end is the same, and I'm often successful. What's your probelm with that?

 

Liberals (I mean real liberals, not jokers like me) and libertarians find it ironic that the "less-government" party wants to control so much about people's private lives.

 

This has been fun (well, not really), but I want to go hear Bhagavad-gita. Later.

[Guest guest]

"Theist's most recent question was "Do you think the right to an abortion should be by law left solely in the hands of the woman who is pregnant?"

 

"Now you ask a new question: The very simple question is does a woman have the right to choose? Yes or no?"

 

... They are the same question. The only difference I can see is you are claiming Theist interjected "should be made by law" which I don't think he did. It really is the same question.

 

"If you want to know whether I think she should be able to choose to have an abortion, the answer is, and has always been, an unqualified no."

 

... Great, you are sounding like the person I thought you were.

 

"However, in arguing with abortion-rights advocates, I often concede that it may be better for women to make the right choice themselves than to have a bunch of control freaks in the state capital tell her what she can and cannot do with her uterus."

 

... This is inconsistent with your real position.

 

"It just pees some women off to have men who don't even know them exercise that kind of control. This is a rhetorical move to let them know that I know their position and that I'm listening to them. I'm trained in rhetoric, so my apporach to public discourse may be different (not necessarily better) than others'. My end is the same, and I'm often successful. What's your probelm with that?"

 

... I understand the psychology. The problem with that is the philosophy is wrong - as you have already admitted. You are flattering her ego with choice and independence with respect to other conditioned souls who are relatively similar. That's alright. But this approach ignores the real position in relation to universal or spiritual affairs.

 

... In doing this, you could be thought of as condoning or encouraging infantcide when this be the result of her choice. Practically, that is the result.

[stonehearted 0]

Guess: The only difference I can see is you are claiming Theist interjected "should be made by law" which I don't think he did. It really is the same question.

 

He certainly did. I just copied and pasted his question without changing a dot.

 

My approach, as you hinted before, is a little more trouble. It involves getting to know people, listening to them, treating them as if they were souls. It's called communication, and, as shy as I am, I'm happy to try. People listen when they get to know you as a person. We won't change most professional activists' minds (Norma McCorvey is an exception), but we can reach others if we show we care about them. That's what preaching is.

 

You may label me however it pleases you. I have no particular interest in or need for your validation. I know what I'm about.

[Guest guest]

Anyway, the question is the same. It's now understandable why you didn't answer a straight question with a straight answer, but instead ducked and dodged.

 

The problem with getting to know people on their terms is that they end up influencing you too. Often in undesireable ways.

 

Prabhupda made that connection, but he didn't compromise.

 

You share their sentiments on choice and their disregard for logical dissenting opinions.

 

False affection can exists between family and friends, what to speak of murderers and the like.

 

But I'm sure you believe you're in full control. You know what you're about.

[I_love_krishna_ 0]

Abortion can be looked at in two perspectives just like war can be looked at from both perspectives.

 

Abortion is wrong because innocent babies who have no partaking in the parent's actions are hurt.

 

-Yes

However, when you look at abortion, it could be a way to abolish the suffering that will ruin the life of an innocent girl and also an innocent baby.

 

A pen could be used to either spread the lies or spread the truth. It is the same with abortion.

 

If abortion is not what krishna hoped for then how would it have come into existence?

 

___________________________

 

we cannot sit here and argue saying : "war is bad! war is bad, war is bad!"

 

the same way, we cannot argue " Abortion is murder! Abortion is murder! abortion is murder!"

 

Arjuna did the same thing and krishna stopped him. War can be used to both liberate and enslave people, and so can abortion liberate people from suffering or put them into more suffering.

 

_____

My whole point relies on the issue that Abortion should be used to liberate them and not put them into more suffering, however you did refuse to understand by saying that what I say has no relevance and it is only "Me, Me, Me!".

 

The only way any body is going to understand this issue clearly is if they try to comprehend both sides.

 

But when you just bash one side with out showing any sign of comprehension then this whole message board with its notions on abortion is nothing but a place of mental speculation and simple maya.

 

In my opinion, death is better than a life of enslavement, whether it is the enslavement of women or men. If you let the baby live and then send it some where for adoption , there are more chances that it will go into a life of crime and ruin others' lives.

 

In reply to :

________

"Now you ask a new question: The very simple question is does a woman have the right to choose? Yes or no?"

________

 

A woman's body is her's she does not belong to the baby or to the man who made her pregnant.

So neither you nor the guy responsible can stop her from doing something that she wants.

Religiously we can argue that illicit sex is bad, so to stop the mass abortions we have to stop people from having illicit sex.

 

But when the instance is not of illicit sex but of another, like the instances that we have seen in this message board, we can say that abortion is going to liberate her from living her life with the thing that has happened to her in the past.

 

If you can't understand this , I feel sorry for you. because, the arguement would be showing off nothing but immaturity and the repitition of the same type of ideals.

 

Thank you

 

 

 

 

[stonehearted 0]

Think what you like; the fact remains that you don't know me, and your self-righteous speculation affects me not at all. I never compromise when it comes to the conclusion. But I know how ineffective the shouting from the extremes is, so I look for a different way to get from where we are to where we want to be. It has a basis in my 34 years of experience in hearing from and serving Srila Prabhupada, my association with many of his long-time dedicated preachers, and my academic study of communication, written and spoken.

[stonehearted 0]

You wrote: But when the instance is not of illicit sex but of another, like the instances that we have seen in this message board, we can say that abortion is going to liberate her from living her life with the thing that has happened to her in the past.

 

If you can't understand this , I feel sorry for you. because, the arguement would be showing off nothing but immaturity and the repitition of the same type of ideals.

 

Babhru: The "liberation" you write of here is illusory and temporary. In fact, every act has consequences according to the laws of karma, and this woman will have to suffer in the future for ending the life that has taken shelter in her womb. Yes, the circumstances are unfortunate, but life often does not seem fair. Think of the reverse: what if she made the sacrifice of those months of discomfort while carrying the baby, and an adoption by a family who can raise the child with love. The laws of karma also dictate that she will reap some reward in the future for her selflessness. And perhaps when the child is older, she may find that he or she has grown to be a good person who makes wonderful contributions to society and who appreciates the sacrifice his mother made those many years ago.

 

Your experience and understanding of spiritual life (and life in this body) are still forming. Spend some time reading Krishna conscious literatures and associating with mature, experienced devotees whose lives are based on compassion for all, and sincerely chanting the Hare Krishna mahamantra. If you do so with an open heart, you'll see your perspective on the world change in amazing ways. Most of us here have that experience. Spiritual life is not some religious dogma or mundane sentiments that we profess belief in. It genuine experience of the soul and its relationship with the Supreme. Give it the time and effort it deserves, and you will reap those rewards.

[theist 1]

Of course the question has been on the reversal of the case of Roe v. Wade which made child murder legal in the USA.

 

It is good to be tactful(to a point) when speaking to individuals about any controversial topic, but one's postion should remain very clear.

 

But the questions has been concerning reversing this most horrendous mistake by the Supreme Court and for that tact will not do. Nor should direct action in protest at these abortion mills be ruled out.

 

Devotees have a wider even more urgent message so there is no need for them to become extremists on any particular cause but I openly admit to feeling uplifted when I hear of an abortion mill being blown up or torched by arson or even a murderer in a Dr. suit ("abortion provider") shot down. It serves as a good example to others who are thinking of profiting off the murder of the unborn.

 

Much like Prabhupada suggesting that Indira Gandhi should hang some of the rice hoarders in public and give their rice out free to the poor back when India was under famine in the early seventies. These demons were holding grain at the docks so the prices would rise while other Indians literally starved to death. He said their public hanging would stop others from doing the same.

 

To be clear I am for the immediate reversal of Roe v. Wade and for the making of abortion a crime of murder. Nobody is suggesting shouting in the face of some misguided woman on the street. So let's forget that strawman rhetoric right now.

 

I take it that if someone can't plainly say something similar to what I just did on the reversal of Roe v. Wade then they are pro-choice but trying to disquise their views for the present audience.

[livingentity 0]

This is not our call.

 

 

I_L_K: "it could be a way to abolish the suffering that will ruin the life of an innocent girl and also an innocent baby"

 

 

If, if , if...are you god?

 

 

I_L_K: "If you let the baby live and then send it some where for adoption , there are more chances that it will go into a life of crime and ruin others' lives.

 

 

 

No comment. Speaks for itself...

 

I_L_K: "we can say that abortion is going to liberate her from living her life with the thing that has happened to her in the past."

 

 

 

Again, if if if...

 

I_L_K "If abortion is not what krishna hoped for then how would it have come into existence?"

 

 

Sixteen or not - this is ridiculous and is no longer an excuse! I will not even comment on the rest of your nonsensical post. This is on the same lines as you saying that Krsna eats meat and thinks the rest of us are ignorant for avoiding it. Good grief - wake up.

 

And in your own words:

 

 

I_L_K "If you can't understand this , I feel sorry for you. because, the arguement would be showing off nothing but immaturity and the repitition of the same type of ideals. "

 

 

 

[I_love_krishna_ 0]

It is not mental speculation that says this but years of research...

 

The fact that illegitimate births are the main cause of crime in America is supported by "The Coming white underclassmen" from a book "ReReading America"

 

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[theist 1]

that abortion itself is a crime. A horrendous crime. You want to kill someone's body because they may become a shoplifter in the future? Does that make good sense to you?

[livingentity 0]

 

I_L_K "It is not mental speculation that says this but years of research...

 

The fact that illegitimate births are the main cause of crime in America is supported by "The Coming white underclassmen" from a book "ReReading America

 

 

Please think about what you are saying.

[stonehearted 0]

You wrote: It is not mental speculation that says this but years of research...

 

The fact that illegitimate births are the main cause of crime in America is supported by "The Coming white underclassmen" from a book "ReReading America"

 

 

My comment: As a college English professor, I have ofen used "Rereading America" in my English 100 classes. The essays in that text are not meant to be accepted at face value but are meant to provoke discussion and critical writing. So because an essay in that book says something is so doesn't necessarily mean it's right. BTW, I've stopped using the book because much of what I found really useful has been taken out over recent editions.

 

[Guest guest]

It is not just self-righteousness, my position also infered from Prabhupada's methods, as well as based on observations of book distributors who scam people instead of presenting them on merit, and logical discourse.

 

The whole issue pivots around this choice issue. But you give them that false ground from the start.

 

Anything can be subverted, anything can be justified - if we want to be morons. (I'm not calling you a moron). I'm just talking philosophy.

 

You do not feel you have to convince me. And you're right. But that doesn't mean you're right.

 

You're just excercising your choices as the abortion advocates do. Well all do that. We create our existence by our faith.

 

Guess Guest

[stonehearted 0]

I have publicly supported the reversal of Roe since at least 1974. I have no doubt that it will happen, at least by littles, once Bush is able to stack the court as he likes. O'Connor is very often the moderate swing vote, and when she retires you can count on a solid anti-Roe appointee. Stevens ain't no kid any more, either, since he's 82 or 83. So there will soon be much more predictability in the Court. You will like some of their rulings, and others will have implications that not even you will ultimately be comfortable with. But you can rest assured the Roe is in Bush's crosshairs.

 

theist: It is good to be tactful(to a point) when speaking to individuals about any controversial topic, but one's postion should remain very clear.

 

Babhru: It's not a matter of tact, but of effective argument. Anyone should learn in English 100 that making an effective argument must include anticipating any questions or objections that may arise; sometimes the interlocutor needs to make concessions, sometimes make rebuttals. But this is an essential move in making an effective argument. If this is ignored, we are writing tracts, which don't really impress anyone except true believers.

 

Classical rhetoric (beginning at least with Aristotle)teaches that a good rhetor takes into account four factors to make his speaking (or writing) more effective. Presented simply these are logos (the logic and evidence, etc.), which focuses on the subject at hand; pathos (appropriate use of emotional appeals), which focuses on the needs of the audience; ethos (the character or authority of the speaker); and kairos, which focuses on the context or rhetorical situation. An effective writer or speaker addresses all these factors.

[livingentity 0]

Abortion equals murder

Abortion does not equal compassion