Who, what is this?
Site Features:
ask Blavatsky Net
free course
research tools
Original Text
Secret Doctrine
HP Blavatsky
WQ Judge
Masters of Theosophy
other authors
collections of articles
Real World
start a study class
near death experiences
Theosophy on the Bible
Theosophy in religions
proofs of Theosophy
pebbles of truths
prophecies fulfilled
Theosophical movement
statement of purpose
Theosophy online
related sites
Contact Us
To make a donation

Blavatsky Net - Theosophy

This site focuses on Madame Blavatsky and her teaching - Theosophy. It features an introduction to Theosophy, study aids, research tools, original text, supporting evidence, membership, and visitor interaction.

Home | Seekerbooks.com| H.P.B. Articles | BN Publications | Contact BN | Who Are We?|

Abortion and Theosophy

Dear Member of Blavatsky Net,

Events in the news of a month ago have made many people ponder on the sanctity of life. It has made me also ponder on the subject.

Theosophy of course has much to say about "life". But there is one aspect of the sanctity of life that is an issue of high concern in the body politic. It affects many in most serious ways. Yet it is rarely addressed by Theosophists. I have in mind the issue of abortion. In this newsletter I will be answering the question "What is the Theosophical view on abortion". In addition I will be presenting some statistical data that appears to support the occult assertions of Blavatsky on this issue - statistical data that every pregnant mother may want to know about.

Abortion is so extremely rarely touched upon in Theosophical circles that you would think it was a forbidden topic. Or you might think Theosophy had nothing to say on the subject. Neither are the case. Rather, Theosophy does have a special view on the matter with unique occult insights. I think we do a compassionate service to share that information with others. So here goes.

The first source is an article "Is Foeticide a Crime?" by Blavatsky. In it an inquirer asks for the view of Theosophy on abortion. Blavatsky begins:

Editor's Note.--Theosophy in general answers: "At no age as under no circumstance whatever is a murder justifiable!"

Her statement is clear and unequivocal. Abortion is "murder". And it is not justifiable.

She continues:

and occult Theosophy adds:--"yet it is neither from the stand-point 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.

She appears to be saying that what follows is not an argument from first principles and morality but rather she is going to appeal to us by sharing with us an occult law concerning consequeces.

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 fúticide as an attempt to double suicide. For, indeed, when even successful and the mother does not die just then, [at that time many women died from abortions] it still shortens her life on earth to prolong it with dreary percentage in Kama-loka, 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 in the evolution of the degree of life.

This is particularly important. Abortion shortens the life of the mother. So Blavatsky compares abortion to a double suicide.

She continues:

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 fútus or even in a child before it arrives at self-consciousness, than 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 fúticide 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. (Theosophist, August, 1883)

We should note her perspective here. This "crime" - as she calls it - is not of a religious character. For her, the laws of occultism are higher than any one religion. Rather, the problem is that abortion thwarts the laws of nature. She expands on these laws as they relate to abortion in another place.

In Isis Unveiled she is explaining that normally at death the "gross matter" of the body is "dispersed", but abortion is an exception. Abortion represents a "violation of the laws of harmony of nature" and in that case in order to restore its "disturbed equilibrium", nature "violently throws back into earth-life" the individual and it must try "a second time" to "carry out the purpose of the creative intelligence".

In her words:

It is preceded by a violation of the laws of harmony of nature, and happens only when the latter, seeking to restore its disturbed equilibrium, violently throws back into earth-life the astral monad which had been tossed out of the circle of necessity by crime or accident. Thus, in cases of abortion, of infants dying before a certain age, and of congenital and incurable idiocy, natureís original design to produce a perfect human being, has been interrupted. Therefore, while the gross matter of each of these several entities is suffered to disperse itself at death, through the vast realm of being, the immortal spirit and astral monad of the individual ó the latter having been set apart to animate a frame and the former to shed its divine light on the corporeal organization ó must try a second time to carry out the purpose of the creative intelligence. (IU 351)

To put it simply, abortion is a "violation of the laws of ... nature".

Finally, there is one more quote of hers on abortion that is quite helpful. I found it by entering "abortion" into the search engine on the Theosophical CD. She says:

I might point out that once conception has taken place and the embryo begins its growth, any attempt whatsoever to stop its development or to destroy it is plain murder.

Whoa. We had better stop there. Blavatsky calls abortion "plain murder". Those are emphatic words. They are totally clear and unambiguous. Also she is saying that after conception has taken place "any attempt whatsoever to stop" its growth fall into this category of "plain murder". Morning after pills will count as plain murder in the understanding of the occult laws of nature as presented by Blavatsky.

She continues:

In the teaching of the esoteric philosophy, it is considered as being only a little less bad than murder of an adult human ≠≠ little less only because such destruction or abortion takes place before the self-consciousness of the victim has had a chance to come into flower.

So we should summarize the insights of Blavatsky on this subject:

1. Abortion is "murder", "plain murder", and "a crime".

2. Abortion is "a violation of the laws of nature." It prevents the fulfillment of karma and the process of evolution.

3. The mother shortens her life by aborting the child.

4. The "plain murder" occurs due to an abortion anytime after conception.

5. Any form of stopping the life of the foetus has these occult consequences. _________

It happens that on one of the points above there appears to be statistical evidence supporting Blavatsky's assertions of occult law. In the last few decades, research has been accumulating indicating that a woman who has an abortion, increases the chances of dying from breast cancer.

If one enters "abortion" and "breast cancer" into google one finds a great deal of material on this subject. As you might guess it is controversial. Those interested in saving lives, researchers, and some institutions say this information is being ignored. Abortion clinics, and even cancer clinics, say there is fear-mongering going on. So each individual who is concerned about this issue should do "due diligence" on the question to determine their opinion. My own conclusion from studying the matter is that there is a clear, scientifically proven connection between having an abortion and increasing the risk of breast cancer. More than that, the increase in risk is very substantial.

By means of offering some less common information I am quoting from a newsletter by Dr. Douglass's Real Health Breakthroughs from Monday Dec 27, 2004. His web site is at www.healthiernews.com and this newsletter is his "Daily Dose". I like this source of opinion because he is not concerned with either religious or political views. He is simply concerned about the health of his subscribers. He says:

In my newsletter a few months ago (May 2004 issue), I wrote to my readers about the likely link between abortion and breast cancer. To summarize, I cited the combined findings of more than 30 studies which point to a 270% increase in breast cancer risk among women who've had one or more abortions. I reported this not to touch off a moral or religious debate, but to keep women informed about the health ramifications of this procedure beyond termination of pregnancy.

I also wrote about it because the mainstream has been virtually silent on this frightening correlation, the one notable exception being a 1999 issue of The Lancet, a respected British medical journal. But let's face it ó this is hardly USA Today or Time magazine.

However, this connection DID make the mainstream news recently, when the Associated Press released a story reporting how the National Cancer Institute is dismissing the abortion/breast cancer connection as fallacious. Specifically cited was a Danish study that compared the computerized medical records of an undisclosed number of women (it could be 200 or 200,000) and fond no link between abortion and the later incidence of breast cancer.

This AP story has no doubt been picked up by hundreds of newspapers, TV networks, and radio "Health Minutes" nationwide. Odd, isn't it, how the 30 or more studies showing the link make barely a ripple in the mainstream press over the last decade, but one study challenging this correlation makes headlines all over the place?

The AP piece also cited a 2004 Lancet article which reviewed 53 studies and found no link between the procedure and the condition. Needless to say, this sharply contrasts with their 1999 article I cited in my May newsletter. To the detriment of their credibility (not to mention potential embarrassment), the more recent Lancet piece claimed that previous studies purporting a link between abortion and breast cancer all suffered from "flawed methodologies." I guess they're pretty certain that all 53 of the contrasting studies they cited have perfect methodologies this time, right? Needless to say, this debate rages on. I'll keep you posted...

I will offer two other URLs for potentially significant news on this debate. The first is http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42570 It may provide insight into the truth on this issue. It states:

For the first time, an abortion clinic accepted an order of judgment for performing the procedure without informing the patient of psychological risks and increased risk of breast cancer. The lawsuit against the All Women's Health Services clinic in Portland, Ore, was the second of its kind in the U.S. to be successfully prosecuted but the first to obtain a judgment.

Jonathan Clark, attorney for the 19-yar-old plaintiff, told WorldNetDaily he believes the judgment "makes a pretty powerful statement about the science," indicating the clinic was not willing to argue against the claim that there is a link between abortion and breast cancer.

"This case was set to be tried in Multnomah County, which is a very liberal county where folks are inclined to lean towards abortion," he said. "But in the trial seting, the science would have come under close scrutiny."

The second URL, http://hometown.aol.com/dfjoseph/cancerlawsuit.html, gives information on the first case. In it the president of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer says:

This settlement will teach the medical establishment that it can no longer profit by keeping women in the dark about the breast cancer risk.

It adds that the first case world-wide was in Austrialia. It asserts more such lawsuits are coming in both Autralia and the US.

The reason for this connection is frequently hypothesized to do with the production of estrogen during the early stages of pregnancy. That creates new cells in the breast. When the pregnancy is not completed naturally, then follow-up developments in the woman's body do not leave those new cells in the proper condition. Years later they turn cancerous.

Despite the reductionistic nature of this explanation, I wonder if nature designed it this way.

I also wonder: is this the only instance where statistics show evidence of the workings of karmic law? It may be.

As usual this letter has become longer than I intended. So just some brief comments in closing.

One often hears "Personally I am against abortion but I believe in the woman's right to choose." Briefly, this is not philosophically thought out. From a philosophical perspective is the "right to choose" a value of such ultimate and great value that it trumps the "right to live"? Using Blavatsky's characterization of abortion as "plain murder", do we also advocate that men should have the "right to choose" to murder - or only women? My hope is that the words of Blavatsky cited above will cause us to rethink the above position.

One must also think carefully about another Theosophical teaching. Blavatsky says we share national karma with the others of our nation. Are we really disconnected from all those other murders.

Not all the readers of this issue will know the size of the numbers involved. Since the "Roe vs Wade" decision of the Supreme Court of the US made abortion legal in the US in 1973, there have been an estimated 40,000,000 murders of this kind. At some point we are all affected and we may not, based on Theosophy, simply disassociate ourselves from the decisions of others.

This number can be considered as larger. If things continue as they are then in another 30 years we can expect the number to grow to 80,000,000. If the rate of abortions increases or we wait a little longer then in some of our lifetimes the number of abortions reaches 100,000,000 in the US alone. As individuals, what would be our karmic national share of responsibility for these 100,000,000 murders?

Nor is this a US only condition. The United Nations also advocates the acceptance of this practice - that Blavatsky calls a "violation" of the laws of nature. And we are all at least very indirectly involved in this way.

So my final question is this. Is 100,000,000 "plain murders" so small a number that we can safely dismiss it? Can we turn our backs on this number? Can we say "we are not touched." Or are we all connected spiritually, and all connected in our collective destiny?

Reed Carson

This newsletter is based on Blavatsky's article "Is Foeticide A Crime". It can be found at http://www.blavatsky.net/blavatsky/arts/IsFoeticideACrime.htm

"No Religion Higher Than Truth"
Support this site by visiting our donation page.
Site copyright © 1996-2014 by Estela Carson-Priede