Theos-Talk Archives (November 1996 Message tl00007)

kymsmith@micron.net wrote:
>
> Someone help me please!

	Ah! A real discussion! Thank you!
> I am confused by many of her answers.  She says the "fetus" doesn't have a
> soul, like "small animals," and seems to call for governments to doubly
> punish abortion. It would seem to follow through that the killing of small
> animals should be severly punished (which sounds good to this tree-hugger).
> How can it be "double suicide" if one is not yet viable? If "foeticide" is a
> crime against nature, how does it differ from other crimes against nature,
> or does it - Blavatsky seems to, on an emotional level, imply abortion is
> different.  I understand the karma argument (I think), but I am puzzled a
> bit on the rest of her answer.  Am I missing her point?

	Yes. First of all, note the title of the article: IS FOETICIDE A CRIME?
At the time that the article (actually reply) was written, foeticide was
indeed against the law. It would be helpful to read the article IS
SUICIDE A CRIME?, as well.

	In any case, the short answer is that abortion brings on a lot of bad
karma. That has to be taken into consideration if one has an abortion.
What one has to consider is the question, "What will bring on the
heaviest karmic debt, having the child, or having the abortion?"
Remember abortion is never a good choice, but sometimes it's the best
choice.

	Also, one has to remember what abortion is. It is not the killing of
the fetus; the killing of the fetus is a RESULT of the abortion. It is
the ending of the pregnancy. At this point, we have the technology to
abort a pregnancy without necessarily killing the fetus. With the
development of artificial wombs and better fetal transplant techniques,
the abortion and the death of the fetus will eventually be separable.

	In the meantime, one also must realize that the mother's right to an
abortion and the right of the fetus to live are two completely different
rights which happen to be in opposition with each other. There are two
limits, however: A woman's right to an abortion is NO GREATER than her
right to any other operation, and the fetus' right to life is NO GREATER
than the right of someone who has already been born to live. As a matter
of fact, the condition of the fetus is very much like the condition of a
person on a life support system, with the life support system in this
case being a human being. Any case where one is justified in removing
the life support system is certainly a case where abortion would be
justified, as well.

	For example, if someone needs a heart transplant, and you're the only
match, it will probably bring on bad karma for you to refuse to donate
your heart, but it would be even worse karma for you to donate your
heart (assuming, of course, you're still alive before the transplant).
Donating a kidney or lung is a harder matter. Donating a pint of blood
is probably not a problem, but even woman with a normal pregnancy is
doing far more than donating a pint of blood.

	Once again, these are not just BS'ing types of issues. We are getting
closer and closer to the technologies where rejection problems can be
overcome. Living people donating organs for transplant is already an
issue of controversy; in the United States, there are laws against
people being paid for donating their organs. In other countries, that is
not always the case; there are reports of reasonable credibility about
forced organ transplants in China, for example. In terms of transplants
from animals, such as baboons and pigs, what's an ethical vegetarian to
do? The failure of ethical systems to keep up with technology has
created situations like the Baby M. debacle, the Clipper chip, and the
CDA.

	In terms of the Ancient Wisdom being a help, there IS a way. First of
all, realize that the only difference between our technology and ancient
magick is that we know how the technology works. Is there a real
difference between the Internet and psychic communication between
ceremonial magickians? Is there a real difference between a flying
carpet and an airplane? Unfortunately, the translations of ancient laws
on magick tend to leave much to be desired, because the translators
considered magick to be non-existant, and accurate translations to
therefore be a waste of time. But accurate translations CAN be made, and
much can be gained.

	Finally, there is a rule of thumb I try to use when faced with a moral
dilemma where I have time to think about the answer: Which action will,
in the long run, benefit humanity the most?

	Bart Lidofsky