Theos-Talk Archives (May 2005 Message tt00605)

You are right, woman has the right to have reasons for doing that.
If they are used in a way they have not asked, if not two persons 
agree to make a child and other reasons.I think that a studied woman 
knows what I mean with this message.








-- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Erica Letzerich <eletzerich@y...> 
wrote:
> 
> I wonder if the persons against abortion could offer a solution for 
the starvation of children, abandoning etc. It is easy to criticize a 
woman's decision to make an abortion when nobody offers her 
conditions to be a mother. I am against abortion after the 3rd month 
of pregnancy. In the first 3 months of pregnancy if a woman has not 
condition to be a mother why to carry on?
> 
> 
> 
> Women all over the world still are suffering many kind of abuse and 
their salary (even if having the same position of a man) is lower. 
Also it is common women to suffer psychological abuse at home in many 
countries.
> 
> 
> 
> Women in general have still a long path to thread to conquer a more 
decent place in the society. For those who are completely against 
abortion I wonder if they eat meat. You may ask what one thing has to 
do with another. ANd I would say has everything to do, if there is a 
deep respect for life it has to be expressed also in our way of life.
> 
> 
> 
> Blavatsky compares abortion to a double suicide because shorten the 
woman's life. But still I think that in matters like this we have no 
right to judge. It is an entirely personal decision. Anyway below is 
an article of Blavatsky Is Foeticide a Crime?: 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [A letter, and a reply by H. P. Blavatsky, from the THEOSOPHIST, 
August 1883] 
> 
> The articles in your paper headed "Is Suicide a Crime?" have 
suggested to my mind to ask another question, "Is Foeticide a crime?" 
Not that I personally have any serious doubts about the unlawfulness 
of such an act; but the custom prevails to such an extent in the 
United States that there are comparatively only few persons who can 
see any wrong in it. Medicines for this purpose are openly advertised 
and sold; in "respectable families" the ceremony is regularly 
performed every year, and the family physician who should presume to 
refuse to undertake such a job, would be peremptorily dismissed, to 
be replaced by a more accommodating one.
> 
> 
> 
> I have conversed with physicians, who have no more conscientious 
scruples to produce an abortion, than to administer a physic; on the 
other hand there are certain tracts from orthodox channels published 
against this practice; but they are mostly so overdrawn in describing 
the "fearful consequences," as to lose their power over the ordinary 
reader by virtue of their absurdity.
> 
> 
> 
> It must be confessed that there are certain circumstances under 
which it might appear that it would be the best thing as well for the 
child that is to be born as for the community at large, that its 
coming should be prevented. For instance, in a case where the mother 
earnestly desires the destruction of the child, her desire will 
probably influence the formation of the character of the child and 
render him in his days of maturity a murderer, a jailbird, or a being 
for whom it would have been better "if he never had been born."
> 
> 
> 
> But if foeticide is justifiable, would it then not be still better 
to kill the child after it is born, as then there would be no danger 
to the mother; and if it is justifiable to kill children before or 
after they are born then the next question arises: "At what age and 
under what circumstances is murder justifiable?"
> 
> As the above is a question of vast importance for thousands of 
people, I should be thankful to see it treated from the theosophical 
standpoint. --An "M.D." F.T.S. George Town, Colorado, USA
> 
> 
> 
> *Editor's Note.*--: "At no age as under no circumstance whatever is 
murder justifiable!" and occult Theosophy adds:--"yet it is neither 
from the standpoint of law, nor from any argument drawn from one or 
another orthodox *ism* that the warning voice is sent forth against 
the immoral and dangerous practice, but rather because in occult 
philosophy both physiology and psychology show its disastrous 
consequence." In the present case, the argument does not deal with 
the causes but with the effects produced. Our philosophy goes so far 
as to say that, if the Penal Code of most countries punishes attempts 
at suicide, it ought, if at all consistent with itself, to doubly 
punish foeticide as an attempt to *double suicide*. For, indeed, when 
even successful and the mother does not die just then, *it still 
shortens her life on earth to prolong it with dreary percentage in 
Kamaloka*, the intermediate sphere between the earth and the region 
of rest, a place which is no "St. Patrick's purgatory,"
> but a fact, and a necessary halting place of the evolution in the 
degree of life.
> 
> 
> 
> The crime committed lies precisely in the willful and sinful 
destruction of life, and interference with the operations of nature, 
hence - with KARMA - that of the mother and the would-be future human 
being. The sin is not regarded by the occultists as one of a 
*religious* character,--for, indeed, there is no more of spirit and 
soul, for the matter of that, in a foetus or even in a child before 
it arrives at self-consciousness, then there is in any other small 
animal,--for we deny the absence of soul in either mineral, plant or 
beast, and believe but in the difference of degree. But foeticide is 
a crime against nature. Of course the skeptic of whatever class will 
sneer at our notions and call them absurd superstitions 
and "unscientific twaddle." But we do not write for skeptics. We have 
been asked to give the views of Theosophy (or rather of occult 
philosophy) upon the subject, and we answer the query as far as we 
know.
> 
> [A letter, and a reply by H. P. Blavatsky, from the THEOSOPHIST, 
August 1883]
> 
> 
> 
> "Mark Hamilton Jr." <waking.adept@g...> wrote:
> Killing is inherently wrong, as you are destroying something that 
does
> not belong to you. However, the point you make is it may cause less
> karmic reprocussions if the act of killing is necessary under 
certain
> circumstances. But even in that case, it is still wrong.
> 
> -Mark H.
> 
> On 5/20/05, Bart Lidofsky wrote:
> > Mark Hamilton Jr. wrote:
> > > As an occultist, I believe that killing of any kind is wrong.
> > 
> > As an occultist, I believe that one has to look at the ultimate 
results
> > of everything, and cannot separate an action from its 
consequences.
> > 
> > Bart
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Mark Hamilton Jr.
> waking.adept@g...
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Mail
> Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]