Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Jai & Sero
Our family at home in Toronto 2008
Amit, Heather, Fuzz, Aj, Jiv, Shiva, Rampa, Sero, Jai
Amit, Heather, Fuzz, Aj, Jiv, Shiva, Rampa, Sero, Jai
Amit, Heather, Fuzz, Aj, Jiv, Shiva, Rampa, Sero, Jai
5 comments:
This is a dotish statement as in seeking electability people wish to know where leaders stand on issues.
How can this be seen as dotish, one's personal view must not influence such matters. The will of the ppl needs to be expressed in such matters, who would be employed by whom, Kamla employs us or we employ Kamla, look get real eh.
Abortion is an issue of human rights and thus not one that ought to be left to the will of the electorate. No-one, absolutely NO-ONE, has autonomy over the body of a woman besides the woman herself, and when the allegedly pro-life lobby (read: anti-woman) takes issue with that, they should reflect on their own hypocrisy before stripping women of their sovereign right over their bodies. Many conservative/religious oriented activists who claim to stand for the 'unborn' are quick to forget all about them once they are born. To be clear, abortion is not something to be taken lightly, but to assume that women who are in the position where they are considering abortion are NOT taking it seriously is a mysogynst imagination. The right to safe abortion is a fundamental human right, period.
The deliberate termination of pregnancy. From the earliest times, Hindu tradition and scriptures condemn the practice, except when the mother's life is in danger. It is considered an act against rita and ahimsa. Hindu mysticism teaches that the fetus is a living, conscious person, needing and deserving protection (a Rig Vedic hymn [7.36.9, RvP, 2469] calls for protection of fetuses). The Kaushitaki Upanishad (3.1 UpR, 774) describes abortion as equivalent to killing one's parents. The Atharva Veda (6.113.2 HE, 43) lists the fetus slayer, brunaghni, among the greatest of sinners (6.113.2). The Gautama Dharma Shastra (3.3.9 HD, 214) considers such participants to have lost caste. The Sushruta Samhita, a medical treatise (ca 100), stipulates what is to be done in case of serious problems during delivery (Chikitsasthana Chapter, Mudhagarbha), describing first the various steps to be taken to attempt to save both mother and child. "If the fetus is alive, one should attempt to remove it from the womb of the mother alive..." (sutra 5). If it is dead, it may be removed. In case the fetus is alive but cannot be safely delivered, surgical removal is forbidden for "one would harm both mother and offspring. In an irredeemable situation, it is best to cause the miscarriage of the fetus, for no means must be neglected which can prevent the loss of the mother" (sutras 10-11).
Ronald, I'm not doubting that religious communities world-over has sought to control women's bodies in the name of their religion. My point is that it is wrong, and I couldn't care less if the Gita, Quran, Bible, Dead Sea Scrolls, Siddhartha, Marduk or any other god, real or imaginary, suggests that it is right. Name any religion and you can find dozens upond dozens of ridiculous contraditions within it and priests/scholars/scribes can debate them until they are grey in the beard. None of it matters because women understand the issue of abortion better than any man ever will and are the best equipped to decide for themselves what needs to happen. And since almost every religion known to man is dominated by men - Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, etc - religion has absolutely no authority to influence the laws that govern the sovereignty of the body. At least no more influence than any other story you or I may choose to invent.
Post a Comment