Theos-Talk Archives (January 1995 Message tl00132)

I'm still catching up with reading last week's postings! There's
been quite a lot of activity, some of it heated.

I agree that Jerry Schueler's essay on abortion last week was
the best essay, with a balanced treatment of the subject.
I'd like to comment on three points.

(1) Ethics is not necessarily illogical. When we go from no
    discrimination (all is "white" or ok) to black-and-white
    we haven't gained much. Going to a fine spectrum of shades
    of gray allows for us to perceive things much more
    consciously. The more the shades of gray, the more likely
    we'll have boarderline situations where we don't see a
    clear solution. The boardline never goes away, it just
    gets more intricate and complex, like a fractal surface.

(2) It's Rick Nurrie's "Theosophical Network", but since he
    got married, he changed his name to Rick NurrieStearns,
    sharing his wife's last name, just like Jerry Ekins and
    April Hejka did.

    The Theosophical Network originated as a project in
    San Diego after a Secret Doctrine conference hosted by
    Richard Robb. The initial five people involved with it
    where Jerry Ekins, Ken Small, Rick Nurrie, Virginia Ross,
    and myself.

    It would take many pages to tell its history, but I
    suppose that since it involves people still living,
    it is a topic off limits to our historians?

(3) I recall from reading CWL years ago that the Adyar
    anti-sex rationale was based upon wanting to develope
    "clairvoyance", which required "sublimination of the
    sexual energies" to "arouse kundalini and open the various
    chakras."

I'd say that Paul Johnson's point regarding miscarrages and
spontaneous abortions is the best original idea on the subject.
He provides a good argument that there is already a spontaneous
abortion process.  Perhaps the initial conception is due to the
attraction of a incoming Monad seeking birth, and the spontaneous
abortion due to a "change of mind" between the parents and
would-be child.  If this is true, then we don't need to help
nature along with a medically-induced abortion, we just need to
get clear about our intentions in life and inner, natural forces
will take care of things.

This sounds like Christian Science, where they say doctors aren't
needed to heal people if they can tap their own life energies and
heal themselves.  I don't want to make a case that doctors aren't
needed to help with unwanted pregnacies, which is entirely
another issue...

The issue is similiar to euthansia.  We can refuse heroic
measures to revive someone whom is dying, and shut off life
support.  For the terminally ill that are going to die soon
anyway, should we help them on? They can, if conscious, choose to
stop eating, like a member of the Los Angeles T.S., in the final
stages of cancer, did.  This is self-chosen by the person
affected.  In a sense, we can say that when a person is really
ready to die, the life forces will withdraw and nothing can be
done to keep him alive.  The question for euthanisa, and the
analogous question for abortion, is: Should we help a dying
person along with a pillow over their faces while they sleep
(e.g.  take an active participation in bringing about their
death)?

These comments on abortion are an attempt to carry forward the
implications of Paul Johnson's posting.  Perhaps as I catch up in
my 'theos-l' reading I'll see more interesting postings.  I need
to organize my thoughts on the subject before I can take a
position myself.

-- Eldon Tucker (eldon@netcom.com)