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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
"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
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
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?
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