(no subject)

[Guest guest]

>> Everything these deluded reformers are asking for runs against VAD. That

>> you must admit. Unless their is another version of VAD out there that I

>> haven't heard about yet. How can anyone in their right mind support such

>> madness.

>>

>> Ys. JMd

>

>To oppose wife beating, child abuse, and human rights runs against VAD?

>Yes, there is another version out there you apparentlly haven't heard

>about. It emphasises protection. If you feel that it is madness to oppose

>child abuse, I would would have to question your definition of madness.

 

Who condones these things anyway? You don't prevent wife beating and child

abuse by making women independent. In fact that is how you exacerbate it.

You should know that. NV is the land of women sannyasis (of whom Malati

was one of the first!) and wife swapping and every other social deviation

known to man. One way the inmates there were able to accomplish this was

by breaking the sanctity of the family unit. Were women abused? Of course.

Men? Certainly. Some were even killed trying to keep their families intact.

Children? Horribly.

 

Define a family according to sastra and let's work at strengthening that

unit. Actually, without strong families, there is no VAD.

 

Ys. JMd

[Guest guest]

>

>

> Who condones these things anyway? You don't prevent wife beating and child

> abuse by making women independent. In fact that is how you exacerbate it.

> You should know that. NV is the land of women sannyasis (of whom Malati

> was one of the first!) and wife swapping and every other social deviation

> known to man. One way the inmates there were able to accomplish this was

> by breaking the sanctity of the family unit. Were women abused? Of course.

> Men? Certainly. Some were even killed trying to keep their families intact.

> Children? Horribly.

 

I don't recall meeting you in NV I do now this, that all the wife beaters

and abusers used the same philosophical points that you do as justification for

their acts. And where was I when all that wife swapping was going on, how

come

I missed all the "fun" that you seem to know so much about.

 

>

>

> Define a family according to sastra and let's work at strengthening that

> unit. Actually, without strong families, there is no VAD.

>

> Ys. JMd

[Guest guest]

> > > On 26.04.2004 19:00 Uhr, "Mahat-tattva (das)" <Mahat-tattva (AT) pamho (DOT) net>

> > > wrote:

> > >

> > > > Why is the marriage without children considered abominable?

> > >

> > >

> > > As far as my understanding goes it is the duty of the man to give the

> > > wife a child. Otherwise he is not merciful and will go to hell. But I

> > > have no quote from sastra.

> >

> > Before I joined devotees I had a friend. She had a sister who was a

> > doctor. She told her that women in general need to have babies.

> > Otherwise they are very likely to mentally suffer so much that they

> > experience physical pain. For such women there is a high risk of

> > developing cancer.

>

> I would appreciate if you, your friend or her doctor sister could provide

> some medical or scientific report on what you are putting forward here. If

> things are not based on something than it will become difficult to discuss

> it because everyone can say anything but which is unfounded.

 

I lost contact with my friend and her doctor sister many years ago. The fact

that my ex-friend's sister was a doctor tells us that the statement she made

is very likely an accurate one.

 

I am pretty sure that such reports could be found on Internet. Those who

have time are invited to do a research.

 

 

Your servant,

Mahat-tattva dasa