What is Gaudiya Vaishnavism's position on Abortion?

[Guest guest]

Hi,

 

I am a former (disillusioned) Catholic, and I'm making steps to convert to Gaudiya Vaishnavism.

 

I'm conservative and I'd like to know is Gaudiya Vaishnavism a liberal religion or conservative. I've always pictured Hinduism in gerneral to be liberal. I'm pro-life and I wanted to know the scriptural position of abortion. Is it absolutely wrong and not allowed or is it ok. I personally can not accept abortion as a choice. Please give me scriptual evidence on the position of abortion in Gaudiya Vaishnavism.

[gHari 0]

 

Commoncents Upanishad 1.08: If thy birth was not aborted, then aborteth not another's birth.

 

 

So Caitanya Mahaprabhu says that I am servant of the servant of the servant of the servant of the servant of Krishna [Cc. Madhya 13.80]. So if anyone loves Krishna, he must love Lord Jesus Christ also. And if one perfectly loves Jesus Christ he must love Krishna. If he says, "Why shall I love Krishna? I shall love Jesus Christ," then he has no knowledge. And if one says, "Why shall I love Jesus Christ? I shall love...", then he has also no knowledge. If one understands Krishna, then he will understand Jesus Christ. If one understands Jesus Christ, you'll understand Krishna. -- Srila Prabhupada conversations May 12,1969

 

Welcome.

 

gHari

 

 

[gHari 0]

 

Krsna das assembled some relevant quotations here.

Abortion is condemned here in the sanskrit Srimad-Bhagavatam: http://vedabase.net/sb/9/9/31/en

 

 

[Vanguard 0]

In short, abortion is forbidden.

[Guest guest]

religion cannot determine your preferences. There is no easy answer as to whether abortion is right or wrong. It depends on circumstances, and no religion has the right to infringe on these personal matters.

 

Yours in Dharma,

Bhimasena

[Guest guest]

<h1>Be a hero, save a whale

 

Save a baby, go to jail</h1>

[gHari 0]

 

We see here that overpowering attachment/lust/anger has left Bhimasena bereft of intelligence declaring that there is no such thing as dharma while at the same time using the very word 'dharma' as though he has something to do with dharma. This is the very height of foolishness: claiming to be dharmic in declaring there is no such thing as dharma.

 

The blind man says, "From what I can see, no man has vision".

 

http://vedabase.net/bg/2/63/en

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I don't recall saying there's no such thing as dharma, rather dharmas pertaining to this world are relative and shouldn't be taken seriously. Focus on loving Krishna rather than breaking your head over wordly matters such as whether abortion is right or wrong, whether Elvis is still alive etc.

 

Bhimasena

[gHari 0]

 

Then what could you possibly mean by "Yours in dharma" if you don't believe in God's orders, if it's all your choice in personal matters? Even if we are surrendered as in Bhagavad-gita 18.66, it is still God's choice not ours. Is it not?

 

Of course, one may argue that God gave us independence and we can do as we want. We can kill cows, eat children, kill widows, shoot heroin, anything, and no book can tell us different. But, we will still have to pay the price for breaking God's law. Yet that too is our choice, and not worrying about the consequences due to overpowering attachment, people are indeed doing these abominable things.

 

The great surrendered devotees, the mahajanas are beyond Vedic injunctions. However, for the common man, abandoning the words of the saints in favor of our own 'love of God' surrender seems very dangerous to me. We are urged to verify our own path with the words of the saints, the guru and scriptures.

 

The rule of thumb, "Love God and do what you want" seems impractical. But maybe it's a start.

 

 

[Guest guest]

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/

http://annualreview.law.harvard.edu/population/abortion/abortionlaws.htm

[Guest guest]

ABORTION

 

By

Jagad Guru Siddhaswarupananda Paramahamsa

--

 

Different people identify themselves in different ways and according to how they identify themselves, they see a different purpose in life. For instance, the vast majority of people identify themselves as the body. They believe, "I am this body. I am matter. That's my identity." And what do they feel is the purpose of their existence? To enjoy not only sensual pleasures but also feelings, sentiments, intellectual stimulation or even pseudo-spiritual pleasures which are all centered around themselves. This is what most people in the world today perceive as their purpose in life.

 

Now this isn't just philosophy in the sense that it has very practical effects in many, many different fields. For instance, people's materialistic viewpoint -- the way people identify themselves as the body and the way that they perceive the purpose of life as sense enjoyment -- serves as the springboard of various social problems. Let us just take one social question: abortion. It is one very obvious, external activity with far-reaching social consequences and which has so much to do with real life. Abortion is actually an offshoot or result of people's perceiving the purpose of life in a particular way. Abortion is based upon the notion that the purpose of life is individual enjoyment.

 

There are all kinds of arguments in defense of abortion, but let me touch on just a couple. Let's take the case of physical deformities in the child. Increasingly, doctors are able to detect deformities in the child while it is still in the womb. Now people who perceive the purpose of life as being individual enjoyment should logically kill the kid. Why? Because having such a child will get in the way of their individual enjoyment. They'll feel, "We're going to have to take extra care of the child, give him more time. In addition, consider the possibility that others might laugh at us. Imagine what would happen if our friends came over and saw such a child with a deformed face or body. Why, they'd feel funny and might not want to come over to our house anymore. In this way, we might lose our friends."

 

The point is that the child will get in the way of their enjoyment and so they feel it is better to kill him. Even in cases where the child in the womb has no physical deformities and is quite healthy, people opt to kill him. They get an abortion simply because that child will get in the way of their enjoyment. They feel, "Well, if I have this child, then I won't be able to go out and enjoy as often as I want to. The kid will make me take care of him all the time. So, it's much better to kill him." Such persons feel even more justified in wrongly thinking this way when the child is found to have deformities. They feel it is but just to get rid of anything or anyone that gets in the way of their enjoyment; the more of an obstacle someone is to their enjoyment, they feel the greater is their right to get him out of the way.

 

They try to rationalize, "Well, if we have this baby, he'll simply be unwanted and won't be happy in life. We're not going to love him as much and this will hurt him. He won't be able to enjoy life so much because he'd get depressed having all these feelings that his mother and father don't love him. Therefore, for the sake of the child, it is best to kill him. We don't care for ourselves--we're simply thinking of the CHILD! How would you like to be unwanted?"

 

But the fact is, most of us are unwanted. Not everybody wants everybody. For example, people out in a crowded beach resort during the summer think, "I wish these other people weren't all here." Similarly, during rush hour in downtown, people are jostling one another trying to get a ride and not wanting the others to be there at all. In the city streets, there are so many people walking, crossing or driving their cars. Are all people wanted? No. We're always experiencing that people don't want us in one way or another.

 

If we accept the reasoning that unwantedness is a valid excuse for abortion, then we should also all be killed. We must be suffering so much because we're also unwanted. Therefore we should be killed. This should be the conclusion of those who propose, "Oh, that person will be unwanted and therefore he can't be happy. He'll be unloved, so it's better to kill him."

 

 

 

--

"If we accept the reasoning

--

that unwantedness is a valid excuse for

--

abortion, then we should also all

--

be killed."

--

 

So basically, this is the stage that materialistic societies are coming to. Their whole platform in life is that the purpose of existence is enjoyment and unwanted people will not be able to enjoy themselves and will have no real reason to exist. Somehow or other, the conclusion arrived at is that letting such unwanted people continue to exist is really mean, it's really cruel. So they start out with children in the womb who should be killed when they're not wanted.

 

If this is their reasoning, then why don't they take that logic a little further and apply it to kids who are one year old or two years old? If the kid is not wanted, then shouldn't he also be killed? It's the same stupid logic. What's the difference? Their idea is that if a person is not wanted, then that person should somehow be liquidated for his own good. In the world today, this idea is becoming very widespread not only in connection with abortion but also with euthanasia--killing people whose bodies are old. Old people are also unwanted. They aren't wanted in the sense that they get in the way at home. For instance, they become a burden to the people they live with. The others are trying to watch T.V. and they start making a racket with their coughing, "Ugh, cough, cough, cough!" Or when there are house guests, they hobble around and ruin the whole lively spirit of enjoyment. There may be a party going on and grandpa rolls in on a wheelchair dressed in his pajamas and undershirt with saliva dripping from his mouth. The people would feel, "How embarrassing! It's terrible." Especially when the old people become unable to take care of their bodily needs, they have to be waited on constantly. They may start shitting in their pants or urinating in bed. In this way, they become more and more of a problem to other people. They become very much unwanted.

 

And so, in the United States and some other affluent nations, people are gradually edging out the aged into old age homes. As soon as the people get them into old age homes, they feel relief, "Whew, oh boy!" The burden seems to be off. In the beginning, they're happy that they just got grandpa in the old age home. But in a month or so, they aren't so happy. The bills start arriving. So after a couple of months, they may go visit grandpa and drop some hints about how heavy their responsibility is getting. Of course, the kids don't have to drop hints because the old people already know. They're not stupid. They realize how much it costs for them to stay in the old age home. And they know very well that it's their children who are paying for it.

 

But if a kid's not too smart, he might think old people are really stupid and that he has to drop hints like, "Uhhhhmmm. Two thousand every month is getting pretty heavy on us, Dad." The son tries to make other remarks: "You know, education is getting to be expensive and we really hope to send our son to college."

 

Grandpa simply nods, "Well, yeah," feeling more and more guilty that the money spent on him could have been used to pay for his grandchildren's college education or to buy a swimming pool for them to play in.

 

But right now, although old people realize they are a burden, they feel that they just can't do anything about it. So the idea is to legalize euthanasia. Then the old people can do something about it. They can say, "Yeah, I want to die now. Give me the pills or the injection." In this way, the old people will be faced with the choice, "Do I continue to take the money and be a burden for my family, or do I serve my family by killing myself?" Right now, there's no question of having to make such a decision. They're presently feeling, "It's up to God or it's up to nature to take its course and we just have to live with it. I'm really sorry, but it's out of my control. I can't really do anything about it because I don't have any choice." Therefore, although they feel guilty, they don't feel that bad about it.

 

But as soon as euthanasia is legalized and it becomes legal for a person to say, "Yes, kill me now. I'd like to die already," then the old people will have to face up to so much pressure and guilt. There will be that continual understanding or knowledge within a person that "I'm the one making this choice to take the candy out of the kid's mouth. I'm the one taking the pool away from the kids. I'm the one taking away the college education. I'm the one responsible. I'm the one making the choice. I am the one choosing to remain a burden." And of course, there would also be all sorts of external pressure. The children would somehow try to get the message across: "Are you ready yet?" For instance, junior may come for a visit and comment, "Well, you know Mr. Allen down the street? He's about your age, yeah? Well, he's dead now. He took the pills and is gone now. Well, you know, all your friends are gone, Dad." It becomes a group pressure thing. "Well, everyone your age is doing it. You know, you're the oldest one in the home now. Mr. Smith was five years younger than you and he went into bliss." Of course, they wouldn't call it killing, death trips or kill'em treatments. Instead, they would term it "going into bliss" or "sleep." lust like when they kill their animals, they don't say, "Kill the dogs" or "kill the horses." Rather, they say, "We'll put them to sleep." Their idea of death is sleep. That's why they make the coffins look like beds with pillows and all. But they usually put the body in a stiff suit. If the guy is going to sleep, why do they have him in a suit? You sense there's a contradiction there. Anyway. they still imagine, "Oh, he's going to sleep now. Sleep nicely now. Don't let the bed bugs bite."

 

So they'll tell the old people. "Would you like to sleep now? Go to sleep now." Right now, in America and some other countries, it is legal to kill children in the womb if they're unwanted. Now old people are also unwanted by their children and by society. Does this mean, however, that they should be killed? Obviously yes, if you follow the logic that unwantedness leads to unhappiness and the solution is killing the unwanted person. But there are other people to be considered. Are crippled persons wanted? No. Crippled people are not wanted unless they've got something special to offer. Are blind people wanted? Cruising around the streets with their sticks and knocking everybody in the leg. So some people think, "What is the value of a blind person? What value to society does this blind person have? None at all. So let's get rid of him!" There are people who think in this way. Their only concern is streamlining society. Consider valuable only those who can contribute materially to society. Disregard the useless and leave only the useful ones. In animal breeding, they call this culling. Eliminating the animals with poor traits and breeding those with desired traits. And today, they're working to apply the same technique to humans.

 

At the University of Hawaii, for instance, scientists are doing genetic tests on Japanese-Americans to obtain the genetic record of the individuals. The value of such information? For future reference whenever the need arises. Such information will be useful when there's not enough food or when they start getting rid of certain species who may be too short, or whose eyes aren't round enough or whose skin is not white enough--whatever quality is not considered to be perfect for the purpose of sense enjoyment. It's amazing, but it's going on.

 

Everybody also knows that there's prejudice against the blacks. The blacks aren't happy in that sense. Black people are unwanted. Some people think, "I wouldn't want them living next to me." In another case, it wasn't long ago when I lived on a Hawaiian island and Chinese people moved in next door. All the other neighbors were up in arms. They didn't want Chinese people in their neighborhood. Should they have killed the Chinese people? Yes, if they accept the theory that unwanted persons should be killed. Isn't this the way the whole world runs? The Americans don't want the Russians; the Russians don't want the Americans; the Chinese don't want the Vietnamese. They're all killing each other to get rid of who they don't want. Right? That's the way everybody is seeing.

 

 

--

"Now old people are also unwanted

--

by their children and by society.

--

Does this mean, however, that

--

they should be killed?"

--

 

They don't see a child in the womb or an old person or a crippled person as living entities. They don't see them as people--as children of God who should be respected and loved. Rather, they see and judge them on the basis of their use--whether or not they or society can utilize this person for the purpose of sense enjoyment.

 

Their theory is simple: If people aren't wanted, they can't be happy; therefore they should be killed. That's their basic idea and all they do is go a little further and further and further. Who's going to decide who's not wanted? That's a problem, you see, because blacks don't necessarily like the whites either. Some blacks think the whites are a bunch of weirdos who can't go out in the sun without putting all that garbage on their skin. This means they're an inferior race like the moles who have to live away from the sun. And the brown people--the Filipinos, Malaysians, etc.--are thinking, "Oh, brown is between black and white. White is too extreme and black is too extreme. The best is brown. We're the race which should be propagated and we should genetically clean out all the rest." Basically, this was Hitler's trip with the Aryan race.

 

So the idea behind that whole trip and the idea behind that of killing babies in the womb and the killing of old people is that because they're unwanted, they can't be happy; and because they can't be happy, it's better for them to be killed. And the basis of this idea is that the purpose of life is enjoyment. If they can't enjoy life, there's no reason for them to exist.

 

 

 

A Different View

 

Well, personally, I couldn't care less if nobody wanted me. I couldn't care less if everybody hated my guts. As long as I can please God, as long as God is pleased with me, I don't care whether I'm unwanted or not. In fact, I'd think something was wrong if everybody wanted me. I must be doing something wrong if everyone wanted me. I must be a diplomat or politician.

 

In any case, it is a perverted idea that the purpose in life is enjoyment and that to be able to enjoy, I need to be wanted. Such a perverted idea is the cause of so much misery in the world.

 

The fact is, the real purpose of life is not individual sense enjoyment. First of all, we are not the body--not matter. We are the living force within this body and we are all children of the Supreme Being. Now if we understand this, then we can appreciate that the real purpose of life is not seeking temporary superficial bodily enjoyment, which is so fleeting and unsatisfying; rather, the real purpose of life is developing our love for the Supreme Enjoyer and tasting joy in serving Him.

 

The problem is that people are trying to be the Supreme Enjoyer, but they're never joyful. They consider the purpose of life to be enjoying themselves, but in spite of experiencing so much sensual pleasure in the world, they end up miserable and empty. On the other hand, those who don't see their purpose in life as individual enjoyment but as working for the enjoyment of their Best Friend, the Supreme Person, they alone experience actual joy.

 

So, a person who is trying to work for his own happiness does not become happy. But a person who is not concerned about his own bliss and is instead concerned with pleasing God, he experiences bliss. That's the thing. If you want it, you can't have it; but if you want the Supreme Person to have it, then you have it automatically. It sounds odd and it's a paradox but it's true. It's a fact. You can see evidence of it. In America, for instance, practically nobody is happy. Oh, there's a few people who are happy because they have some sort of spiritual happiness. In other words, the people who are happy are happy because they're not concerned with their own happiness; they're concerned with pleasing and serving God. But the vast majority of people, those who are struggling to enjoy themselves, to be the enjoyers, are not happy. And the symptoms are there--high suicide rate, the widespread and serious drug problem, and so on. The symptoms are there. You can tell a tree by its fruit.

 

So, there's this whole mad rush for material sense enjoyment with everyone trying to be the enjoyer, but no enjoyment is achieved. In addition, there's so much misery involved. Not only is no real enjoyment obtained, but also so much exploitation, misery and suffering are inflicted upon others. The killing of babies and the killing of old people are but two examples.

 

Now there are those who are quite sincere and do not simply care for their own enjoyment. They may want a child, but when they discover that the child will carry some physical deformity, they worry, "Maybe this child will not enjoy life." They are not necessarily demoniac like the mother who just kills when she wants to kill even if the child is healthy just because the kid will get in the way of her enjoyment. Some parents may initially want the child, but because they have also been polluted by the materialistic view of life, they end up thinking, "This child will be deformed. He will not be able to enjoy life as much, therefore, he will not be able to achieve the purpose of life which is enjoyment. He will have no reason to live. If he can't enjoy, then it would be best for him to be killed."

 

Thus, we now find millions of children killed in the womb every year simply because of this predominant philosophy or world view. So when we're talking about world view--how people see things or regard the purpose of life--we're not just dealing with some philosophical ideas. We're actually tackling the very foundation of people's actions, including the act of killing. The fact is, if a person can in any way engage in activities which will purify him, such as seeing God's Form or hearing God's Words and Names, then even if this person is physically diseased and will only live one, two or five years, or has a deformed face or body, then the parents must appreciate that their responsibility and real duty is to help this living entity achieve the real purpose of life. They must consider, "This person will be in our care for maybe one month, one year or ten years. But as parents, our real service to that living entity and our real service to God will be helping that person become closer to God. In this way, that person's purpose in life will be achieved and our purpose in life will also be achieved."

 

In other words, people who understand their real identity-- "I'm spirit soul, not the body; I'm part and parcel of God, His eternal servant"--don't see their child as someone to enjoy.

 

We've heard people say, "Oh, I really enjoy children." On one hand you have people who don't want children because they feel, "I don't want to enjoy a child right now. Instead I want to enjoy something else." On the other hand you have people who want to have a child because they want to enjoy the child. They want to see the child walking around and stumbling--"Oh, isn't he cute? I enjoy this child so much." But if the child has some deformity and can't walk around very nicely, then they feel they can't enjoy the child as much.

 

But a person who is God-conscious understands, "I am the servant of God and so is this other person. The child is in our care. If we can help this person come to develop attachment to God, then we are working according to the real purpose of life. We may or may not be able to succeed, but we must try. This person may be with us for only five years. He may even be a vegetable. Practically speaking, we may have to take care of him hand and foot. He may only be able to hear or only able to see. He may not even be able to speak. But still we would have that opportunity to let that person hear God's Names, see the Forms of God, or eat food that is first offered to God, and in this way he becomes purified." This is the real purpose of life. If we recognize this, then a person's entering into the world takes on an entirely different color. We realize that we shouldn't be having children to en joy them or making it so that they can enjoy the world.

 

Sometimes a person says, "You know, I don't want to have that child because he'll never make it in life. I want a child who will be able to succeed in life and obtain a Ph.D. and so on." Even some people who are against abortion have used this same kind of stupid argument. They don't know it, but they are foolishly following the same line of reasoning as the abortionists. They say things like, "Well, if you abort this child, then you'll never really know if this child would have become a great politician, great lawyer or scientist who'll discover great things and become a famous person." This is one of their arguments against abortion. But this is a nonsense idea.

 

The reason for existence is not to obtain a Ph.D., to become a great politician or scientist, or to reap fame and glory. This is not the purpose of life. If it were, then only those people who can become great or who are enjoying material life to the fullest should exist. So, should people in the Third World be killed? Obviously, this outlook in life is perverted. It is based on a distorted view of what the purpose of life is.

 

If a person believes that the purpose of life is enjoying the senses, then there could be all kinds of reasons why there should be abortion and other senseless acts. If the purpose of life is enjoyment, then why not kill Catholic priests? After all, they're not supposed to be enjoying all these different sensual pleasures. How can they possibly be happy if they're not enjoying their senses to the fullest?

 

As we've previously mentioned, the purpose of life is to develop one's understanding of his real identity and develop one's love for God, that's all. If we understand this, then we will conclude that abortion or the killing of the child is not useful or of any value. It's not good for the child and it's not good for oneself. Abortion has nothing to do with achieving the real purpose of life.

 

 

 

--

"Thus, we now find millions

--

of children killed in the womb

--

every year simply because of

--

this predominant philosophy

--

or world view."

--

 

 

 

A Change of Heart

 

The solution to such practical problems as killing babies and old people is not simply legislation, although that must be there too. The business of the leaders must be to protect the innocent. But more important, there must be an actual change in the way we view ourselves and our relationship with others and with God. We have to experience a change of heart. We have to actually experience a change in our view of the purpose of life. First of all, we must understand, "I am spirit soul, part and parcel of the Supreme Soul, my eternal function and duty is to render loving service to Him." Then we can change our relationship with others. Experiencing this truth, then we can change society's exploitive nature.

 

A society which consists of people who are totally self-centered and materialistic must be full of exploitation of some kind. So, work must be done on the level of changing people's actual perception of who they are and what the real purpose of life is. You can't just try changing the fruit without changing the tree. So when we teach the Science of Identity, we are actually attempting to help people come to experience a completely different and correct view of themselves and reality. We're not matter, not the body--we're the living force within the body, we're spirit soul. We're not the Supreme Dominator, but we're dominated parts and parcels of God. We're not meant to be the center of enjoyment, but our natural function is to render loving service to the Supreme Enjoyer. And this understanding of our real identity will actually serve as the solid foundation for an ideal society which is peaceful, loving, and non-exploitive.

 

QUESTION: Jagad Guru, what about those women who have had an abortion in the past and now, regretting what they have done, want in some way to help the living entity whom they caused to suffer? Is it possible for them to help that person know of God and if so, how?

 

JAGAD GURU: Some of my students had abortions before they became my students, and when they came to understand what an abortion really is, what they had really done, they experienced repentance and great grievance. They felt that they had committed a great wrong and a great sin, a great offense against God and another person. And by this repentance, this desire to actually please God and this concern for the other person, feeling that "I've got in the way of their life by taking away their body," a person becomes purified of karmic reaction. No matter how grievous a sin a person commits in this life or has committed in past lives, if they surrender their life to God, then all past karmic reaction is washed away. The cleansing of the heart by tears of love for God is really the method of spiritual cleansing, spiritual perfection. If a person experiences love and concern for the entity whom they caused to suffer and wants the best for that entity then really what they are doing is praying to God not only for forgiveness, but also for the well-being of that person. They're not asking for anything specifically, but are simply feeling for that entity. So the closer a person is to God, the more intimate their relationship with the Supreme Person, the more effect their prayers will have. The desire of the devotee who is close to God is automatically satisfied. God makes that happen. He brings it to pass.

 

So if a woman who has had an abortion wants to know how she can help that person spiritually, the answer is that she must try to become a pure lover of God. She must try to develop a very close, intimate relationship with God. And if she has a very close, intimate relationship with God, then automatically her concern for her child will be transformed into the child's actual well-being.

 

 

[Guest guest]

I want to know how many people here would actually believe in forcing a rape victim to have an unwanted baby? Those who consider abortion wrong! Rape and incet survivors should not be make to carry an unwanted child. I don't care what their religious background is. Abortion should be legal, but should also be limited to certain cases.

[Guest guest]

Because free will is the key to freely loving the Supreme Lord. I hate fascists who force anyone to do anything. However, before you go into a tantrum, tell me. Is the person planted in the womb of a rape victim responsible for the rape? Does that person deserve to be drawn and quartered?

 

Each person must decide., I stand by their decision. When governments make such decisions, there is no more culpability by the population. However, abortion is the killing of an innocent party. But when we get into it, karma is at play here as well. What is the fate of the abortionist? Perhaps to never make it out of the womb? If a vaisnava who understands karma and reincarnation does not consider that the aborted fetus is suffering a reaction for something "earned", what can be said? Is there such thing as any innocent victim of any crime? One who understands karma knows that even the princesses and princes are "suffering" as enjoyers of temporary opulance, something that burns in front of their eyes at the time of death. There are no innocents.

 

Hare Krsna, ys, mahak

 

Dont take my "pro-choice" statement wrong. I hate the abortion industry, I hate the right wingers who want to save the fetus yet let the born suffer under their horrible policies. I hate the hypocrites who say "ban all abortions" yet kow tow to the pharmceutical companies that make cosmetics out of the carcasses of aborted feti (or feta, no, thats a greek cheese, cmon, those a little closer to college latin, what is the plural of fetus?).

 

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

 

Because free will is the key to freely loving the Supreme Lord.

 

 

Where does one draw the line? Should we have free choice to eat other humans as well, since "free will is the key to freely loving the Supreme Lord."

 

All living entities should be shown love and protection, from the ants to the baby in the womb. It's a tough choice, but they are helpless and innocent.

 

In the case of rape you have two innocent people, the child and the woman. Both will suffer, so which way to choose? Just because someone is innocent, does that give them the right to kill annother innocent person? Both are innocent, and both suffer, but to avoid one innocent persons suffering you can't kill another innocent person.

[Guest guest]

Where does abortion start, we have to see things in context. Abortion starts when a woman becomes pregnant against her will and against the circumstance of her present situation. Therefore the man who made her pregnant is equally responsible. Fact is that those unwanted pregnancies mainly end up for that woman and her family to take care of that child for the next 25 year mininmum and also pay for everything. In a highly spiritual society this could never happen that a woman becomes pregnant against her will and therefore we can conclude that the present demoniac society of Kali-yuga is also responsible for the degradation of morality. To point fingers to a woman who aborts and consider her to be responsible for that sinful activity is wrong. She's surely partially guilty but more guilt rests upon the leaders of nations who invite Kali-yuga to spread in their countries.

[Guest guest]

This is by jndas. I forgot to login.

 

 

To point fingers to a woman who aborts and consider her to be responsible for that sinful activity is wrong.

 

 

She is responsible for the sin of killing the child, and other people are responsible for their sins in the process. Everyone is accountable for what they have done. Simply because someone else committed another sin (raping someone) does not absolve us of the sins we choose to commit to relieve us of suffering.

 

If we were freed from sin simply because our actions relieved us of personal inconvenience and suffering, then every action in the world would be sinless. If one looks a little deeper one will see selfishness, not sinlessness, in choosing others to suffer to relieve ourselves of hardship.

[Guest guest]

I ask you this seriously. If you are a leader of a community and what you say goes. Would you make rape and incest survivors carry an unwanted child to term? How would you explain your self to them? Have ever thought about the consequences of forcing women to carry unwanted babies to term. Some of those women could be pushed to suicide or try obtain an back alley abortion. Making abortion illegal would just cause more problems then it would solve.

 

Imagine a society of 50 million unwanted children. All this children are in ophanages or homeless. Is this what pro-lifers want. Who are the people that are going to take care of all these unwanted childen? Do you think a society is going to benefit for these people. Wouldn't they cuse a population crisis.

[Avinash 0]

>>Have ever thought about the consequences of forcing women to carry unwanted babies to term. Some of those women could be pushed to suicide or try obtain an back alley abortion.<<

 

If a woman becomes pregnant due to rape, then why should she try to commit suicide or hide her preganancy from the society by opting for abortion? She does this because she feels that society would consider her responsible (at least partially) for her pregnancy. And her feelings are right. This is one of the things that I really hate about society. If a woman is forcibly made pregnant, then it is no fault of hers. Rather, it is the fault of the man committing the rape. If such things are understood, then I do not see any harm in raising the children.

 

Some people may argue that even if the woman is not blamed, she may not like to raise the child because she did not want that child. Fine, she did not want the child. But that does not mean that she should not take care of the child. Often it happens that we get responsibilities, which we did not want and, in some cases, did not even anticipate. But we have to shoulder those responsibilities.

[Guest guest]

you are for forcing rape victims to raise children they don't want. How exactly does that make sense to you? Do you really thing a society of rape victim, who are forced to take care of their rapist's child is such a tolerant and considerate idea? Why is all this being dumped on the head of rape victims. You can not force a women to have a child or to love it. Sometimes the best option is abortion, whether you can stomach it or not!

[Nrsinghadev 0]

Haribol,

 

You see it as unfair problems being dumped on innocent persons, but if you try to see the bigger picture you could understand it is simply karma at work. All of our miseries are the results of our own actions, whether we like it or not, whether we can see the direct cause and effect or not. Now from the perspective of the passionate person who is attached to body and worldly objects,it may seem like that woman has done nothing wrong and she doesn't deserve this misery, but can we see what happened in a previous life, causing the effect in her life today? Only Krishna can.

So if she chooses the abortion now, again some day she will have to obtain the fruits of that action, in this life or the next, and those fruits will never be sweet. So what should they do? Take to the Lord and start chanting and worshiping Him and try to raise the child in a Godconscious way, it will surely relieve her of all sins.

 

Don't forget we're in Kali Yuga, the age of quarrel and dispute.

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

 

Why is all this being dumped on the head of rape victims. You can not force a women to have a child or to love it.

 

 

You can't force any mother to love a child, but you can guarantee those children the right to life. The child can be adopted if the mother does not want it. There is a huge waiting list for adoption of new born babies.

 

One thing to note is that people who support abortion always try to justify it by citing rare occurences such as a woman being rapped and becoming pregnant. Out of the hundreds of millions of abortions in the world, how many do you really think were caused by rape? Statistically speaking, none - not even enough to be a fraction of one percent.

 

But based on that rare occurence they demand that all abortions should be welcome.

 

 

Why is all this being dumped on the head of rape victims.

 

 

As I said above, everyone involved suffers. But to lighten your own suffering, you can't kill another living entity (i.e. the rape victim is suffering, therefore she should kill the child and free herself from suffering). This is based solely on selfishness. It is such a view in the world that leads to genocides being perpetrated against other communities. Someone in Rwanda decides that life would be easier (more jobs, more money, happier life) if there were fewer Tutsis in the world. He thinks why should all the troubles of the world be dumped on himself, better dump those problems on another helpless living entity. There are countless examples in recent history that show people selfishly passing their own sufferings onto other innocent people. Abortion is another example. Selfishly pass your own suffering onto the child in the womb by killing it and freeing yourself of any duty.

 

As avinash said above, everyone is put into positions of responsibility that they don't want. Those who have spiritual knowledge will choose to act selflessly to help others, rather than to act selfishly to help themselves.

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

By the way, this thread is a setup. The person who started the thread (who claimed to be against abortion) is the same person who is now arguing in favor of abortion. The thread will be closed, and the answer to the original question is:

 

Gaudiya Vaishnavism is against all forms of abortion.

 

You can read the teachings of Srila Prabhupada for further information on the topic.