Theos-Talk Archives (January 1995 Message tl00069)

Dear Nicholas:

Thanks for responding with quotations from HPB.  She is pretty
hard to argue with if you claim to be a theosophist.

However, I am a little disturbed by her statement that "there is
no more spirit or soul in a foetus than there is in any small
animal."


Is there a monad behind the foetus guiding it's development or
not? This is the excuse that pro-abortionists use to excuse
themselves, that is we are just flushing away troublesome cells,
kind of like removing a wart or a mole (who could be against
that).  But that doesn't seem to ring true.  If we are monads,
souls, embuded with buddhi throuhout this mavantara then a body
no matter how small doesn't seem to matter.  Again a body is only
a vehicle among vehicles for our true eternal spiritual selves.

Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny (I'm sorry I don't have a spell
checker on WINCIM my gateway to internet).  The point is that the
foetus recapitualates evolution.  The embryo could be mistaken
for cancer cells or bacteria.  But shortly we begin the foetus
begin to look like an egg, then an anemone, a fish, a seahorse
with a long tail, a rodent and then soon we can see the human
like eyes, the opposible thumb and face it we got a real human,
like it or not.  But wasn't a human all along.  HPB talks about
the early root races being more ethereal than physical.  Early
humanity was described as giant floating pudding bags.  Then the
lemurians becam more mammalian, and the Atlantians were giant
physical specimans (one thinks of Arnold S.  or Sylvester S.
only 40 foot tall).

Any way if you believe we are spiritual being even when we don't
have a physical body, that is after death when one travels
throught the astral, buddhic and devachanic planes and then
decides to retrun to incarnation, then it is hard to believe that
say and infant is any more devoid of a spirit or soul than
someone in devachan.

I used to follow the liberal party line when I was younger.  They
say that if you aren't liberal when you are young, something's
wrong and if you aren't conservative in maturity, then again
their some psychological passage that has not been passed or
perhaps there are Karmic debts from the past.

Anyway I was all for abortion.  We all know the planet is
overpopulated and polluted, it seemed a noble gesture to reduce
population and protect the planet.  Then I found out a startling
secret.  My would have been older sibling was aborted at the
insistence of my abusive biological father.  My mother was never
the same after the abortion.  When pregnant again she vowed to
have the baby and put it up for adoption, that's me.

When you get that close to being aborted you begin to think about
the whole thing a little differently.  Yes, we come back for many
incarnations, but would I really have like to miss this one even
though it's been a difficult one form emotionally.

What do you women theosophist think? Do you really think we male
dogs are trying to control your bodies or do you just want to
abandon a great gift I as a male will never experience because we
are told that we must be tough, selfish, rich and overbearing
(masculinity at it's worst).  It seems that women want to be a
caricature of the very worst in man rather than the very best of
humanity (whether male or female).

The best I can do is be creative, but women bear the gift of
being the gateway to entering souls!

Namaste