Theos-Talk Archives (September 1995 Message tl00912)

On Sat, 23 Sep 1995 Richtay@aol.com wrote:
>
> Whose welfare is furthered through abortion? Do we do it for the baby? But
> we know that any baby comes to incarnate with us because it has karmic ties
> with us. I does not come to us randomly. So we are rejecting the
> fulfillment of that karma when we kill the vehicle of that incoming soul.
>
> Perhaps we rationalize it and say the baby will do better elsewhere. Will
> it? Or will it's karma just bring it back to us later, this time with a much
> darker edge? And if the baby comes to us in part because of it's karma with
> our race, social and economic status, etc., in short, the kind of life it
> would lead with us, then when we abort the fetus, he baby will still have the
> same karma it alsways had, and will seek a similar birth elsewhere, no? How
> has it gained through the process?

Yes but unfortunately the problem with using the "karmic"
argument to justify any moral position is that it is impossible to
ascertain whether the specific situation is karmically generative or is
in fact a karmic "return" - if you hold abortion to be "bad" karma, well,
there have been millions of them performed over history ... and perhaps
a woman who aborts a foetus today was *herself* aborted by that very
incoming soul a milennia ago - hence making the current abortion a
"balancing of the ledger" as it were. In fact most of those who believe
in a determinative law of karma will hold that the incoming soul does not
blindly pick parents, but does so delibrately ... hence an incoming soul
cannot be blind to whether or not a particular set of parents hold within
them the predilection that would make it likely that an abortion
would result from a pregnancy. That is, just as (again, if one operates
within the "karma" paradigm) many births into bad families or brutal
cultures are explained by saying that the child "knew" the conditions and
"chose" them, so (it seems) it might equally be said that some incoming
souls "chose" the experience of abortion - either to "pay off" past
karma, or for other reasons. Very difficult to ascribe to the incoming
soul a remarkable enough prophetic insight to be able to "choose" the
parents, economic status, culture & etc. and somehow also be alledged to
be blind to the probabilty of the parent/parents having an abortion.

> Rather, abortion seems destructive all around.

And you will never have to experience trying to raise a child
alone with no education and nothing but poverty conditions even without a
child.

Additionally, our species' population problem is also immensely
destructive, and to many lifeforms *other* than those within our own kingdom.

> Does this mean we should go around making women who have had or will
> have abortions feel miserable? No, this would be cruel.

Right ... and it is only your opinion that abortion is wrong; and
as Liesel so well stated, women are not chattel - who are men, who will
never have to have an abortion, nor will ever be able to fully grasp the
subjective state behind that decision, to chose to make women feel bad or
not feel bad? The curious thing is that the vast number of people
currently in power, who are deciding whether abortion is "right" or
"wrong", are men - who generally speak as though their standing to make
such decisions isn't even open to question.

> What's done is done, but education is what is necessary
> to reduce this unfortunate crime. It is a crime against Nature, and Nature's
> processes, so let Nature punish if she will, not us.

Education of what nature? If you mean education about a
particular spiritual perspective, I cannot agree - as this implies a sort
of moral/intellectual superiority, in which those who have abortions are
implied to simply be those who have not yet "seen the light", and that
naturally when they do, they will stop and repent of their "crime". If
you mean mainstream education, this is not true either, as abortions are
currently chosen by women from every level of educational background.

Perhaps what is really necessary is alterations of a whole number
of the attitudes and economic structures surrounding the valuation of
children and childraising in this current world.

>And let the mother-to-be make her own decision, but with all the FACTS in
>hand.

And which "FACTS" are those? This is a *significant* question.
Last year the Montana legislature (for instance) (which is two thirds
male - and was dominated by Republicans with a very specific religious
ideology) passed an "informed consent" law requiring women to wait 24 hours
before having the procedure (quite a trick if you are poor, rural, and
had to travel several hundred miles to get to the clinic), and have to be
"informed" about a number of things surrounding abortion. The content of
this "information" was, of course, decided not by doctors, but by the
State - the same State that is, of course, hard at work cutting funds for
low-income programs.

 -JRC