"Regarding. . . . . . . . . . . Abortion"

B Y   D A N I E L   J A C O B

_____________________

As I was driving through one of our larger East Side Communities on July 5th, 2008..... I noticed that several people had chosen to re-state their passionate objection to the idea of allowing a woman free choice concerning what happens to her body once she has been proclaimed "pregnant."  Their marching took up almost an entire city block. Some of the signs read "It's not a choice, it's a child."  Others railed heavily against the evil of "Government-Sanctioned Murder." 

If I had more time, I would have loved to stop and ask those campaigners how far they were planning to let their concern for "human life"  extend.  Since I didn't have time then, due to an appointment, I'd like to take that time now.  

As a society, are we just interested in legislating morality, based on religious teachings?  Or does our "concern" for unborn children extend itself beyond whether or not they are allowed to come into the world?  Anyone who takes a close look at our allocations for social service funding can readily see that offering a helping hand to unwed mothers or poverty-stricken families is not our highest priority.  Education funding is in the toilet, and the ratio of "absentee" fathers continues to climb.  But I'll get back to that in a moment. 

If a woman gets pregnant, her interface with the embryo forming in her belly is the most dynamic connection imaginable.  No one........even the father........has a clue how much of an "exchange" is taking place there on both sides of the Veil.  Any decision she makes concerning the future of that child must be considered sovereign, because she is the one who stands nose-to-nose, belly-to-belly with the life form in question.   

Those who believe that "candidate souls" are helpless victims, in need of a champion, have very little comprehension of just how powerful that initial connection is between a mother and (would-be) child.  I mean.......who would, who COULD love that soul more than his/her natural mother...having been personally exposed to more of that soul essence than anyone alive?  Remember that phrase:  "He has a face only a Mother could love?"  The implication there, across time and history, would be:  If your own mother can't be convinced to bring you into this world, who are we to go against her judgment?  

If a Mother-to-Be decides that birthing is not a good idea, who has the right to say that the decision is not shared by that Candidate Soul? Could it be possible that every "pregnancy" starts out as an "interview" between a Candidate Soul and a family line?  What if the child says: "Nope, I don't think this is going to work out."  How would we know it?           

And while we're at it, may I add that NOT EVERY CANDIDATE SOUL who sets out on the road to becoming human plans to remain here?  Some of them do it just for the experience of "riding along" for awhile---a week, a month, six months.  In Spiritual Communities, it has long been understood that "SIDS" deaths (sudden infant death syndrome) are souls who make an abbreviated journey, just for the "experience," and then they go home. Some of them are closely tied to growth processes in parents who get left behind, all by Mutual Soul Contract, but their own "plans" for growing up and living a full life remain nil.

To many folks, this seems like a strange way to view life.  Tragic, in some cases.  But it's not.  We are eternal beings---Citizens of the Multiverse.  Our itineraries and contacts within specified dimensions are often sporadic and brief.  That doesn't mean we never see those people again.  Each Universe is its own movie---complete with its own story plot.  Beyond that, our connections are varied and vast. 

When my second son was conceived, the Doctors who attended us actually ADVISED US to abort.  Lynn had been hospitalized numerous times for what looked like Multiple Sclerosis, and they doubted whether or not her body and mind was strong enough to go through a full-on pregnancy.  Our unequivocal response to that idea was "Hell, no. That boy is our son!"  As I recall, we didn't make that decision based on morality.  We just KNEW it was something we wanted and needed to do.  And I guess that's the point, isn't it?  WE knew........even when the doctors thought they knew better. 

 

Many Bible Thumpers have a clear feeling about when it is that an embryo gets classified as a Human Being.  Some say it happens at conception, some say it happens at some point during gestation.  And that's fine, as long as they're making decisions about THEIR bodies and THEIR fetuses. Isn't that the purpose of religion?  To help ME live MY LIFE in a more peaceful and fulfilling way?  The minute religion starts getting POLITICAL, that's the place where TERROR begins!  That's how it was back in the Middle Ages, with the Inquisition.........it's how it is NOW, with Extremist Religious Leadership---where mothers or fathers are stoned to death for "moral impurity" or Family Clinics are blown up in order to "protect the innocent."   

Personally, I happen to believe that a soul does not become individuated until he or she takes that first breath. And if you want some Bible Commentary to go along with that, try this one:

"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. (Gen 2:7).  If it worked well for the first "fetus," I suspect this criteria could apply to them all.  But again, we're talking religion here, so everyone gets to decide that for him or herself.    

Still........it just makes sense to me.  The prime factor which declares a soul to be "living" is BREATH.  Until the umbilical cord is cut, and a fetus takes its FIRST INDEPENDENT BREATH, he or she is not yet "alive".......except as a newly-developing part of the mother's body.  And as such, she should have complete command over it.  It's that first INDEPENDENT BREATH which brings everything to a new level.........a breath which says:  "Yes, I want to be here. I want to BE.  I am ME."  The same is true when it comes to that last breath and the cessation of life. 

In saying all this, I am not negating the active role that many Candidate Souls play in their gestation and formation.  They come, they go..........they dance and play inside the womb.  They have cognitions, they communicate............oh my, how they communicate!  For the past year, I've been doing Bio-Energy Bodywork on a young woman carrying her second child, a little boy. Throughout our times together, I spoke to him enthusiastically.......just as if he were sitting right there in my arms.  When she brought him into my office last week, newly birthed, he opened his eyes wide and clearly recognized the voice he'd heard over those last months.  And it was beautiful. 

My point here is twofold.  First, I want to establish that there is, indeed, more than one way to look at an issue.  And the people who get to make the "call" on how these issues are interpreted are those who will be most affected by the outcome.  Candidate souls DO get to have their "say".........whether or not we believe it. 

God help us if Roe vs. Wade ever gets repealed.  When people who are NOT INVOLVED with a situation start legislating what people WHO ARE INVOLVED must do (especially in the Name of God)---a new form of "karma" is set up.  A National Karma, which goes on for generations. Those who longer to erase Roe vs. Wade call themselves "Pro-Life."  But as we've seen, that categorization is really a matter of interpretation.........most specifically, a matter of RELIGIOUS interpretation.  I think that it's far more accurate to classify these controlling sorts of individuals as "Pro-Interference," since that's what they're doing.     

Statistically, we've already seen how rapidly crime rates dropped in those years following the enactment of Roe vs. Wade.  Even though politicians love to suck up all the glory for those statistics---it seems clear to me that the biggest factor to produce that change was a lack of "tortured souls" who were born into homes that neither wanted them nor were prepared to deal with their care and upbringing. 

Legislated Morality always blows up in the faces of those who encourage it.  Even those who are convinced they are doing "God's Work!"   Wouldn't it be great if we all lived in a world where people let GOD do "God's Work" and we spent our time focusing on our own?   

Secondly:  If we DO get to the place where we once again let Government violate the sanctity of choice in the care of a woman's body, don't we owe it to that woman to stand behind her ALL THROUGH THE CHILD'S LIFE?  Money for the birth, money for the upbringing, child-care, the whole kittenkaboodle?  After all..........we're CONCERNED for that child's welfare, aren't we?  She had a plan, but WE had a better one.  Or could it be that we are really only concerned about our sense of religious "oughtness?"

These are all just things that went through my mind as I drove past those marchers.  I'd be interested to hear what you think. 

 


www.reconnections.net

HOME

Copyright, 2008, by Daniel Jacob.  All Rights Reserved.  May be copied and shared, for purposes of personal growth and/or research, so long as the above URL and this copyright are included.  All reproduction for profit, by any means, requires the written permission of Reconnections, Inc.