--- In [email protected], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>  
> In a message dated 8/19/05 1:15:50 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> 
> I  thought it was the Indian belief that the soul enters the body 
on the  
> first breathe (pran).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is what I heard MMY say. Seems he changes his mind on the  
idea. I 
> believe Tibetans say at conception. I'm sure everybody has their 
own  opinion. So 
> who is right? Does one err on the side of caution or on the side 
of  
> convenience? If a society agrees that it begins at birth and the 
reality is that  it 
> begins at conception or somewhere in between, what is the karma 
for that  society 
> to sanction a law that kills the most innocent lives by the  
millions? 
> Letting a few people make this decision for society can be 
dangerous.  That's why I 
> believe our founding fathers said that we derive our unalienable  
rights, 
> among them Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness from our  
Creator, not from 
> men. The right to life was considered an absolute by  our  
founding fathers.


Of course, the Hare Krishnas go beyond all of that: they believe 
that the karma of killing so many cows for consumption in America is 
very, very bad.  Indeed, I remember about 25 years ago when some 
nutcase went into a MacDonald's and shot everyone in sight that the 
Krishna's released a press statement saying that that was direct 
karma for killing millions of cows.

I heard that Sattynand (one of MMY's disciples) said that the reason 
America doesn't have any great leaders is that they eat them all.

But there is something to be said about "erring on the side of 
caution" if one is to take karma into consideration when we discuss 
the issue of abortion: over 40 million fetuses have been aborted 
since Roe v. Wade.  And that's 40 million potential incarnations of 
God (man is made in the image of God).

And just to inject a political observation here: one of the reasons 
that liberals have given in the past two presidential elections for 
NOT voting for George Bush is that when it comes to picking Supreme 
Court judges that Bush will pick anti-Roe v. Wade judges and 
the "right" to abortion will be removed.

Well, there's two things to say about that:

1) Roe v. Wade is from 1973.  Since those 32 years have passed, 
we've had 20 years of Republican presidents, all of whom are anti-
abortion. Let not one of those 40 million fetuses have been denied 
the pleasure of being sucked out of their mothers' wombs.

2) Even if Roe v. Wade is overturned, nothing prevents any state 
from passing their own abortion laws allowing abortion to be legal 
in their state.




------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 


Reply via email to