Author Topic: Seth on Abortion?  (Read 640 times)

Offline WindWalker

  • **
  • Posts: 52
Seths views if any? Dont intend to be macabre, im simply curious if Jane/Seth ever spoke of abortion given RoeVwade was a hot topic in the 60s/70s i believe.
« Last Edit: September 04, 2018, 06:26:45 PM by WindWalker »

Offline Deb

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2694
  • ~We are the black sheep of the Universe.~
    • Like us on Facebook!
Wow, you have the most provocative topics! Thank you! This is another really good one because it's a very controversial issue and touches on religious views, morality, question of when a new life begins, rights of a fetus, and Seth's saying that intent to kill is wrong. It seems to me that which type of abortion is not as important as the reality behind it (add to that also death during or soon after birth), which is pretty much the same and consistent with what he says about the purpose behind life and death of everyone in general.

I'll just start by saying Seth had some things to say about abortion, both artificially imposed (by choice or therapeutic) and natural (spontaneous) abortion, better known as a miscarriage. Jane had a miscarriage at 3 months, Seth had a little bit to say about the why behind that as well. Here are a few quotes to get the ball rolling:

"It seems to you that any naturally aborted fetus has no physical life at all, that such life has been denied to it for some reason. Instead, the fetus experiences another level: physical life at a different scale, that in your terms would apply to the distant past."

"The soul within the fetus cannot be destroyed by any kind of abortion,"

Rob: "I think it very likely that aborted fetuses and those infants who die early in “life” — say within a few months after birth, especially — never intended to stay long within camouflage (physical) reality to begin with; the consciousnesses within those small human structures came just to momentarily sample our world of matter, whether from inside the womb or out of it. Considering their viewpoints, it’s not tragic that they “die” unborn, or at such young ages, although in ordinary terms the parents involved will almost certainly mourn deeply. (Perhaps these notions will be of some limited comfort to those who have written us with related questions.)"

Rob: "On a more personal level, Jane herself naturally aborted a three-month-old fetus, less than a year after our marriage in 1954 (and nine years before she initiated these sessions). Seth has said very little about this event, nor have we asked him to. He did remark some time ago in a private session that the miscarriage spontaneously came about because the personality inhabiting the fetus “changed its mind,” and withdrew from the physical world. At some indefinite date we do plan to invite Seth to discuss the whole situation in detail."
—UR2 Section 6: Session 730 January 15, 1975

We think of abortions as being one-sided, i.e. the mother makes the choice to end the life of her fetus. But like everything else we experience, it is a cooperative venture. Some relief for someone trying to make the tough decision or is suffering guilt over it.

"And if the consciousness picks a mother who wants to abort, then the consciousness is only here for a short trip."
—TPS5 Deleted Session December 2, 1978

"In a natural state, many children would die stillborn for the same reasons, or would be naturally aborted. There is a give-and-take between all elements of nature, so that such individuals often choose mothers, for example, who perhaps wanted the experience of pregnancy but not of birth — where they choose the experience of the fetus but not necessarily [that] of the child. Often in such cases these are “fragment personalities,” wanting to taste physical reality, but not being ready to deal with it. Each case is individual, however, so these are general statements."
—NoME Chapter 1: Session 802, April 25, 1977

"([Gert:] “Do you condone abortion?”)

We do not use such words as condone. The problem is an individual one. If you believe that abortion is evil and have one—it will be an evil. It is not basically evil, but that makes little difference to you if you believe that it is."

—TECS2 ESP Class Session, May 5, 1970

I'd still like to approach the fact that while said we cannot "kill" per se, the intention to kill is a bad thing and should be addressed. I realize women who have abortions do not have the express intent of killing behind them, and are done for other personal and emotional reasons (pregnancy by rape, incest or accident in a situation where a child would not be able to be properly supported, severely defective fetus, endangerment to the life of the mother). Some women may not even consider the fetus as a living human being, but just a part of their own body or tissue.

Thoughts?
« Last Edit: September 05, 2018, 03:20:48 AM by Deb »

Offline WindWalker

  • **
  • Posts: 52
Wow. Very informatibe. Thanks for digging up all that info Deb.

Offline jbseth

  • ****
  • Posts: 507
Hi All,

It seems to me that Seth says that both: 1) an abortion is a violation and 2) bringing a child into an already overpopulated world is also a violation. He also says that we are conscious beings and the interpretation of what is a violation is ours.


In “The Nature of Personal Reality” Chapter 8, Session 634 and 635, Seth talks about what he calls “natural guilt”. I’m going to paraphrase and summarize much of what he talks about in these 2 session, otherwise, this reply would be huge.

Animals have a natural instinctive sense of justice that we don’t understand. When a cat playfully kills and eats a mouse, it is not evil and suffers no guilt. On a biological level both animals understand, the mouse itself has been both hunter and prey.
 
The birth of man’s conscious mind, as we think of it, meant that man had to break out of the self-regulating, precise, safe and yet limiting aspects of instinct.  After this occurred, we took up free will, and as a result, the self-regulating aspects of instinct, that animals rely upon, can now be superseded, becoming suggestions, instead of rules.

“Natural guilt”, is the term that Seth uses to describe the guilt that man incurs, whenever he violates this natural instinctive sense of justice that the animals have, but we no longer have.

Along with this, Seth also talks about the things that man does that violate this natural instinctive sense that animals have. For example in Session 634 he says:

“An outright lie may or may not be a violation. A sex act may or may not be a violation. Not going to church on Sunday is not a violation. Having normal aggressive thoughts is not a violation. Doing violence to your body, or another’s is a violation. Doing violence to the spirit of another is a violation – but again, because you are conscious beings the interpretations are yours. Swearing is not a violation. If you believe that it is then in your mind it becomes one.

(12:01) Killing another human being is a violation.[…]”
 

Then in Session 635 Seth also says:

“Thou shalt not violate against, nature, life or the earth.”

“[…] within creaturehood each of the species has its place, and if one multiplies out of its proper order then all life and the body of the earth itself comes into peril.

In those terms overpopulation is a violation. In the case of both war and of overgrowth, the species has ignored its natural guilt. When a man kills another, regardless of his other beliefs a certain portion of his conscious mind is always aware of the violation involved, justify it though he may.

When women give birth in a crowed world they also know, and with a portion of their conscious minds, that a violation is involved.”


A little further down, Seth says:

“Many of your problems result from the fact that you do not accept the responsibility of your own consciousness. It is meant to assess the reality that is unconsciously formed in direct replica of your thoughts and expectations.”

jbseth

Offline WindWalker

  • **
  • Posts: 52
I believe this is what i was leading to. Jbseth states: “(12:01) Killing another human being is a violation.[…]”
How can that be applied to abortion unless abortion is murder,  which is what i believe is what Seth means by “killing another human being”,  ie intent must be to murder vs. accidently killing someone in an auto accident. Either way, a woman who has an abortion, her intent isnt murder. I was also curious on Seths views of a fetus in general. It makes sense that a “consciousness” simply wants to experience the flesh for a brief moment.

Offline jbseth

  • ****
  • Posts: 507
Hi Windwalker,

For me, I'm not really sure what Seth would specifically say about a woman having an abortion. He didn't seem to specifically address this issue, as far as I can tell.

On the one side, he did say that killing was a violation, and that doing violence to your body or another's or the spirit of another is a violation. I can see how some people could interpret this to mean that an abortion is a violation.

On the other hand, he does say that we are conscious beings and the interpretation is ours. In addition to this he also says, "There are no accidents [...]"  (see "The Nature of Personal Reality, Ch 2, Session 615).

Thus if a woman decides to have an abortion, then since there are no accidents, this must have been something that the incoming soul was made aware of, and agreed to.


I'm not really sure however that we can really use this concept "there are no accidents" to justify, poor, hurtful or harmful choices on our part. There is one section in one of "The Early Session" books, I believe where Seth discusses the fact that there is no punishment for behaviors after death. However, that being the case, he also says that there is a wealth of growth potential from this type of situation and he seemed to imply that this growth potential, which didn't sound like much fun, would be what we opt to choose in many of these types of situations. I'll see if I can dig up the book and session number where he talks about this.


Finally, Seth also occasionally talks about how, many of the problems that we encounter, are do to spiritual ignorance; (see "Seth Speaks, Chapter 21, Session 586)

"I am including this information in this chapter on religion because it is important that you realize that spiritual ignorance is at the basis of so many of your problems, and that indeed your only limitations are spiritual ones."

I suspect that in some cases,  a women may find herself in a position of desiring to have an abortion due to some poor choices that she made. If she had made better choices for herself, then perhaps, this option wouldn't have been necessary. This perhaps being an example of spiritual ignorance.

jbseth


Offline Deb

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2694
  • ~We are the black sheep of the Universe.~
    • Like us on Facebook!
Quote from: WindWalker
I was also curious on Seths views of a fetus in general. It makes sense that a “consciousness” simply wants to experience the flesh for a brief moment.

That's my understanding as well. From the side of the consciousness experiencing being a fetus, it may only want that experience and once complete will naturally abort or die during birth or shortly afterwards. Babies that are saved by the "miracles of science" may change their minds and live life, or they will find another way to die an early death.

I seem to recall Seth saying that the consciousness does not necessary enter the fetus early on and can enter any time during the gestation. Maybe this was it:

"The reincarnating personality enters the new fetus according to its own inclinations, desires, and characteristics, with some built-in safeguards. However there is no rule, then, saying that the reincarnating personality must take over the new form prepared for it either at the point of conception, in the very earliest months of the fetus’s growth, or even at the point of birth."
—SS Chapter 13: Session 557, October 28, 1970

Quote from: WindWalker
Thanks for digging up all that info Deb.

No effort at all with the Seth search engine: https://findingseth.com . You might head over there and search on "fetus."

The hard part is not putting up TOO much information!

PS
I just searched again on "abort" and I thought this was interesting (more from a quote I put above)--the [...] means how many paragraphs were skipped so you'll want to look in the actual book for more information. The creator of the search engine did that in the hopes of avoiding copyright problems from quoting the books in their entirety.

"[... 53 paragraphs ...]

([Ingrid:] “Seth, isn’t it somewhat of a waste if people have abortions all the time? To me it just seems like a waste to become pregnant when all along, whenever you just thought of becoming pregnant, to have an abortion. It just seems like a waste.”

(Seth:) It may be dumb. I do not know if it is a waste. For the consciousness will come to life if it wants to. And if the consciousness picks a mother who wants to abort, then the consciousness is only here for a short trip. A look around. It is like the seed from an apple tree who travels into the next yard but does not mature. It looks around and tries again. Any consciousness that wants to be born is born. And it picks a mother that wants to carry a child all the way.

[... 14 paragraphs ...]"

—TPS5 Deleted Session December 2, 1978

« Last Edit: September 06, 2018, 01:35:19 AM by Deb »

Offline jbseth

  • ****
  • Posts: 507
Hi All,

Take a look at the Seth quote below. I’ll admit that it’s not exactly easy to understand, I have read it many times myself and I’m still not sure I completely get it. However, I think it holds a wealth of information, especially for this type of topic.


Seth has occasionally mentioned that spiritual ignorance causes many of our problems.
To me, the major point of the quote below, seems to be this. Sometimes in life, we make poor choices. This typically occurs due to a lack of knowledge or spiritual growth on our parts, especially when measured against that portion of ourselves which understands our true nature.

While there is no punishment after death for these poor choices, there is always an impetus toward spiritual growth that is related to value fulfillment.

Because of this, as a result of our poor choices, lies a world of understanding and knowledge that must be attained.  This knowledge and understanding then occurs as we take the consequence for the actions and the intents behind our poor choices.

I’m assuming that what Seth is talking about here is, for example, how in a given life, the personalities who played the role of a killer and his victim, will in some situations reverse these roles, in their next incarnation, so that both personalities will achieve a better understanding of each role and their implications.

“I” believe that the concept of “poor choices” probably ranges widely from a situation like unintentionally hurting someone else’s feelings, to planning, torturing and killing someone, as in the case of a serial killer.


Here’s the Seth quote. This quote is from: “The Early Sessions” Book 8, Session 397:   

Evil, so termed, is a lack of knowledge, a lack of fulfillment, a lack of growth, measured against that which has felt inward enough to understand more of its nature. Evil is therefore less desirable. The whole process however is toward understanding in which the evil is doubled and erased, but the growth must come from something that is not yet grown, and you cannot call a seed evil because it is not yet the flower.

We will in the future deal with the problem of evil, and hint of some of its implications in our life after death material.

Disease is not evil, for example. The murderer kills no one, yet if his intent is to do so then he must face the consequences of his intent. Crime after death is not punished.  There is no crime to be punished, but between those last two statements lies a world of understanding, and knowledge that must be attained. And punishment enters in between those two statements as the individual takes the consequence for the action and the intent.

By the time he realizes the truth of the second statement, neither crime nor punishment affect him.

There is no final judgment for nothing is final. (Long pause.) There is no judgment because all is in transition toward greater knowledge and understanding. Between those two statements again lies worlds that must be deciphered.

The child is not evil because he is not a man, and cannot be judged for his childishness. Value fulfillment is always working, yet there is between those two statements—you realize the ones to which I refer—the idea of judgment as an impetus and spur against the inner self’s knowledge of the growth that must come.

jbseth




Offline jbseth

  • ****
  • Posts: 507
Hi All,

In my last post, I meant to add that I believe the situation that occurs where a woman had an abortion, probably falls somewhere within the range of what I described as “poor choices”. This range again is from unintentionally hurting someone else’s feelings, to killing someone, as in the case of a serial killer.

I also want to clarify that it is the conscious ego personality part of us that makes “poor choices” and furthermore, we “all” do this. On the other hand, that portion of ourselves which understands our true nature would not make these same choices, and it is this difference that drives our growth.

Finally, I also very much want to make it very clear that I’m not passing any sort of judgment on anyone who may have had an abortion. That’s a very hard choice for any woman to make and I’m sure it’s an emotionally painful experience as well. 

jbseth

Offline WindWalker

  • **
  • Posts: 52
Wow. Thanks for the search engine Deb. Very useful and ive never seen it before. Did u create that or.......?

Offline Deb

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2694
  • ~We are the black sheep of the Universe.~
    • Like us on Facebook!
Quote from: jbseth
Finally, I also very much want to make it very clear that I’m not passing any sort of judgment on anyone who may have had an abortion. That’s a very hard choice for any woman to make and I’m sure it’s an emotionally painful experience as well. 

Thanks for clarifying. Warning: this is going to get dark. Being a woman and having lots of female friends over this lifetime, I've seen situations where an unwanted pregnancy is not a poor "choice," such as in the case of rape: a co-worker's son raped his 12 year old sister; a friend's 15 year old daughter was beaten and date-raped; failure of birth control (even the pill has many factors that can interfere with its effectiveness); operator error.... Possible reasons for abortion: When I was a kid I had a neighbor who was told if she got pregnant again it would kill her (She already had 5 young kids to raise. Her priest, when told about the doctor's orders, told her birth control was a sin.); abandonment by the father and no other resources to properly raise and support a child; someone with a serious mental or physical handicap impregnated by a caregiver; medical reasons (cancer in the mother requiring chemotherapy and radiation; ectopic pregnancy, placental separation, serious physical defects in a baby that will not survive birth).

In all cases abortion would still be a choice, which is what we are all about. Choices. And experiences. Because we know there are no real victims and that all we go through here is prearranged in F2 by us and those who share the experiences. If someone is trying to kill us, we have the choice to fight back and potentially kill them. Or let them do it. Our natural survival instincts weigh heavily on those type's of choices. Seth does say that if we kill someone in our defense, it is still a violation.

"Killing while protecting your own body from death at the hands of another through immediate contact is a violation. Whether or not any justification seems apparent, the violation exists."
—NoPR Chapter 8: Session 634, January 22, 1973

I'd like to know better Seth's meaning or definition of violation, he's always so nonjudgmental. Having been raised with both religion and laws, my first impulse is to go to "sin" which is improperly defined itself (miss the mark). But the dictionary uses words less volatile such as infringement, lack of compliance.

Another thought has come to mind for me to explore: abortion has probably been around as long as pregnancy has. Why is it in some cases acceptable to abort a fetus in many cultures, but NOT ok to kill a child after childbirth (excluding China)? The humans' ability to rationalize?

Quote from: WindWalker
Wow. Thanks for the search engine Deb. Very useful and ive never seen it before. Did u create that or.......?

It was created by a young programmer named Chris Galpin in Montana. A very devoted Seth reader. I can't imagine the amount of time he has put into this labor of love.

PS As I am typing this port, I got an email notice from Facebook that I should "let a friend know I am thinking about her." We are Facebook friends but have had no contact for 5 years or more. Her mother was the neighbor I mentioned in my first paragraph above, who was told she should not get pregnant.


Offline jbseth

  • ****
  • Posts: 507
Hi Deb, Hi All,

I think that perhaps you may have misunderstood how I was trying to use the term “poor choices”.  When I used this term, “poor choices” I was trying to make it clear that I was referring to the “conscious” choices that we all knowingly make in this life.

In regards to abortion, an example of what I meant was the situation where 2 teenagers, a young man and a young woman, decide to have unprotected sex one night while the parents are out. Both teenagers, knowing full well that the young woman could become pregnant from this, make a choice to have unprotected sex and then do so. Then, later on, the young woman discovers that she’s pregnant and as a result of this she opts to have an abortion. 

Here, in this example, I was referring to their choice of having unprotected sex as the “poor choice” in this example. They consciously made a choice to do so and they each knew the risks that were involved. 

I was not however saying that the young woman’s decision to have an abortion was a “poor choice”, nor was I saying that in the situation where a woman was raped by a man and becomes pregnant, the woman was making a “poor choice” to have an abortion.


In my posts on this topic, I’ve been trying to present some of Seth’s concepts that seem to have a relationship to the subject of an abortion.  The “violation” concept is his, not mine.

Seth is the one who said that said killing was a violation, and that doing violence to your body or another's or the spirit of another is a violation. Seth is the one that said that a woman giving birth in an overcrowded world is a violation. Since this topic was about what Seth had to say, I thought that these comments were pertinent.

If you want to know more about what Seth’s means by the term “violation”, then take a look at Sessions 634 and 635.  I didn't copy everything that he had to say on this from these 2 sessions.

jbseth


 

With Quick-Reply you can write a post when viewing a topic without loading a new page. You can still use bulletin board code and smileys as you would in a normal post.

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.

Note: this post will not display until it's been approved by a moderator.
Name: Email:
Verification:
Type the letters shown in the picture
Listen to the letters / Request another image
Type the letters shown in the picture:
The opposite of black:
Twelve divided by two (word):