This month: Roe v. Wade overturned, the FBI raid of Trump's Mar-a-Lago home, massive teacher shortages this fall, and the uncertain future of American-style democracy...
Hey all - I've gotten into some conversations on social media about my stance on Roe, and out of those conversations some additional thoughts have come to me that I thought would be good to share here.
When wrestling with the question of what should be the healthy societal response to abortion, how we should understand and work with it politically, I've found it helpful to imagine things on a smaller scale - to think of a group of maybe 100 people living together on a deserted island and imagine those people creating a small government where they all come together and make decisions democratically. In that scenario, it's really hard for me to imagine that it would be healthier for the community to decide by majority vote about people's personal decisions - whether a woman on the island will be allowed to terminate a pregnancy or whether someone who doesn't want to live anymore will be allowed to end their own life. Why not also have the community decide what foods they can eat and what books they can read?
The government has been set up in order to regulate the relationships between the people in the community. As Rudolf Steiner makes clear in his social writings, the "rights realm" should only deal with those decisions that affect everyone equally and that everyone has the same capacity to judge based on simply being a member of the community. This gets to the true meaning of equality in the rights realm - if we are going to base our governance system on that principle then we have to stick to it, we have to only work with those questions which we can all judge equally simply by the fact that we're all mature adults. If something requires specialized knowledge, if someone with expertise actually knows a lot more than you or me, then we're not all equals on that issue and we shouldn't all have an equal say.
So I don't think what people do in their own personal lives - in their own houses and to their own bodies - should be decided by the whole community. It shouldn't be voted on. People don't have an equal understanding of these things simply because they've reached the age of adulthood. Imagine a young man who has just become an adult having a say that was equal to the woman who wants to terminate her pregnancy. Should that really be one person, one vote?
Also, coming back to Steiner, the political realm should only deal with those things that are outer. It shouldn't be dealing with issues connected to the spirit - those depend on individual insight. With that in mind, if a woman on the island gets pregnant, stays home and aborts the fetus without anyone knowing - how does that affect the island community's outer social relationships? Do any of the relationships change? Has anyone in that community been harmed? On a spiritual level I could very well imagine that it would have an effect on the community, but should the community have any say over such things? Of course it would affect the outer relationships in that people would be sad if they heard about the abortion, or if a member of their community committed suicide, but should that be enough to allow them to step in and stop these personal actions?
Of course, I DO think the community should step in in terms of doing whatever they can to support people so they don't feel compelled to abort pregnancies or commit suicide. But this, then, describes the realms of culture (education) and economy (material support). I can't see how it makes sense for the larger community to decide and outlaw such personal decisions.
Anyways, those were some additional thoughts. I'll add more to this thread if they seem relevant. And thanks to everyone who has engaged with this very challenging question!
I'm one of the minority group with a different viewpoint on abortions. We don't apply the principle of bodily autonomy to it because the embryo is seen as a separate being, not a part of the body it's carried in. Although it's comforting to doctors and parents to say that it is just a piece of flesh and inanimate, we see it as a soul/spiritual being. Dr. Steiner said the soul enters the body far, far earlier than the time of birth, particularly if the incarnating being is an advanced soul. If you're interested, I can try to research the lectures these concepts appeared in.
Hey Kathleen - thanks for sharing your thoughts on abortion. I'm also living with Steiner's picture of people as soul-spiritual beings reincarnating over time. I think there's a huge amount of evidence for an afterlife (all in the form of personal testimony, but pretty compelling to my mind - I especially appreciated this article from Wired magazine from awhile back: https://www.wired.com/2013/04/consciousness-after-death)
And of course, if there's an afterlife than it would make sense that there would be a "beforelife" and that the process would be cyclical. This is what we find in many of the ancient wisdom traditions, as well as in the bible on numerous occasions (including Matthew 16:13 where Christ asks 'Who do they say that I am?' and his disciples reply, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” How could he be the reincarnation of any of those people if the Jews didn't believe in reincarnation?) From my understanding, reincarnation was the normal view up until a certain a Christian philistinism became the norm (now we've got our own Pharisees running the church).
So Steiner's view is simply the most realistic to my mind - it makes the most sense and best explains the few facts we have at our disposal. The other view - that there is no afterlife or beforelife - just seems to me to be throwing in the towel, giving up in the face of one of the biggest mysteries. Instead of working with the few facts we have (even if they are "subtle" and not materialistic... oh, how materialism has us by the throat), we give up and say, well there's no way we can know!
But coming back to abortion, my understanding of Steiner's view is that the individual soul takes generations to incarnate (that it even helps to bring its own parents together), but that, if for some reason it doesn't work (the couple breaks up or uses contraception or has an abortion) than the soul will incarnate elsewhere. I've never heard of Steiner saying that the soul simply will no longer come down. If that is indeed the case, if the incarnating soul has to look elsewhere for suitable parents, then I think it is indeed regrettable, but I wouldn't say it's a reason to not use contraception or to deny a woman an abortion. I would still leave the choice in the hands of the potential mother or the potential parents and not take their freedom away. Even if there was a highly developed spiritual clairvoyant who could say everything about the incarnating should and why it was important for that soul to incarnate to those parents, I would still think they shouldn't say those thing if it meant infringing upon the parent's freedom... We have to work for human freedom above all else. But when it comes to the state making this decision and taking away a person's freedom, I really can't see any justification. The state is the least spiritual aspect of society - it's just the majority of people who have come of age - and they should only deal with matters where everyone is able to have an equal say based on simply being an adult. All matters that are in any way specialized - that require any sort of expertise (and definitely any sort of spiritual insight) - should never be handled by the state.
That's my feeling for it, though I'm still trying to wrestle my way through. Thanks for your thoughts on this issue and please share more if you feel like it. Hope all's well with you, Kathleen - Seth
My goodness, I am entirely convinced of repeated lives and re-attempts at incarnation if a soul is rejected by its mother. But it's a different thing to abort when you realize that you are dealing with a living immortal being.
Yeah, I definitely agree. But the heart of what I'm looking at is simply in terms of how society should deal with it. I think the understanding that you're referencing should certainly be part of the cultural conversation around abortion - people should ideally be learning all about the profound mysteries of human life, of what takes place at birth and death, and of the deeper spiritual realities at work in the world - but I see that as the task of education. When we cry out for the state to force people to do whatever we think is right, we overstep a boundary concerning human freedom. Rudolf Steiner would often talk about aspects of society that were incredibly unhealthy for people - especially some of the effects of the new technologies that were emerging - but he would always say, We cannot try to get the government to banish these things, that would be an infringement on human freedom, we have to understand them ourselves and spread that understanding so that people choose not to do them themselves.
I'd say that that's the main point of my short article - we have to try to become clear about what's right to deal with in the cultural domain (what we should educate about) and what's right for the legal/rights domain (what we should legislate about). I'm not 100% sure I've got it right in how I'm looking at things, but this is what I've come to so far. Thanks for engaging with this issue, Kathleen.
I dont disagree with this, and I think a small minority of abortions are justified. It's mostly a question of medical schools addressing the issue-- but the ethicists see us as physical beings only, and the Oath that doctors once took "before the gods" as a quaint formality.
Thanks, Seth. I appreciate the perspective you bring. I spend a lot of time in Florida each year, and the issues you are addressing here are especially poignant in the Free State of Florida. So much so that I feel a physical relief when I return to New England. How to stem the tide or reverse the onslaught of these developments is a puzzle to me.
Thanks Nick, always nice to hear from you. I think actions will be necessary, but I also feel that we just haven't developed pictures that can counter the simplistic, dueling pictures that come from the political parties. And not even really counter so much, but just pictures that actually have a relationship, and can in some way encompass, reality. Everything is so wrapped up in the left/right dichotomy, all our thinking is guided by those two overarching narratives, and we need to learn to think outside of those two lanes. They're kind of like a huge highway - half the country is going in one direction and the other half in the other, and the traffic and pollution is terrible and everyone is screaming and honking. We need to get off the highway and build new roads and new narratives. Thanks for responding.
[Some more thoughts on "The end of Roe"]
Hey all - I've gotten into some conversations on social media about my stance on Roe, and out of those conversations some additional thoughts have come to me that I thought would be good to share here.
When wrestling with the question of what should be the healthy societal response to abortion, how we should understand and work with it politically, I've found it helpful to imagine things on a smaller scale - to think of a group of maybe 100 people living together on a deserted island and imagine those people creating a small government where they all come together and make decisions democratically. In that scenario, it's really hard for me to imagine that it would be healthier for the community to decide by majority vote about people's personal decisions - whether a woman on the island will be allowed to terminate a pregnancy or whether someone who doesn't want to live anymore will be allowed to end their own life. Why not also have the community decide what foods they can eat and what books they can read?
The government has been set up in order to regulate the relationships between the people in the community. As Rudolf Steiner makes clear in his social writings, the "rights realm" should only deal with those decisions that affect everyone equally and that everyone has the same capacity to judge based on simply being a member of the community. This gets to the true meaning of equality in the rights realm - if we are going to base our governance system on that principle then we have to stick to it, we have to only work with those questions which we can all judge equally simply by the fact that we're all mature adults. If something requires specialized knowledge, if someone with expertise actually knows a lot more than you or me, then we're not all equals on that issue and we shouldn't all have an equal say.
So I don't think what people do in their own personal lives - in their own houses and to their own bodies - should be decided by the whole community. It shouldn't be voted on. People don't have an equal understanding of these things simply because they've reached the age of adulthood. Imagine a young man who has just become an adult having a say that was equal to the woman who wants to terminate her pregnancy. Should that really be one person, one vote?
Also, coming back to Steiner, the political realm should only deal with those things that are outer. It shouldn't be dealing with issues connected to the spirit - those depend on individual insight. With that in mind, if a woman on the island gets pregnant, stays home and aborts the fetus without anyone knowing - how does that affect the island community's outer social relationships? Do any of the relationships change? Has anyone in that community been harmed? On a spiritual level I could very well imagine that it would have an effect on the community, but should the community have any say over such things? Of course it would affect the outer relationships in that people would be sad if they heard about the abortion, or if a member of their community committed suicide, but should that be enough to allow them to step in and stop these personal actions?
Of course, I DO think the community should step in in terms of doing whatever they can to support people so they don't feel compelled to abort pregnancies or commit suicide. But this, then, describes the realms of culture (education) and economy (material support). I can't see how it makes sense for the larger community to decide and outlaw such personal decisions.
Anyways, those were some additional thoughts. I'll add more to this thread if they seem relevant. And thanks to everyone who has engaged with this very challenging question!
Seth,
I'm one of the minority group with a different viewpoint on abortions. We don't apply the principle of bodily autonomy to it because the embryo is seen as a separate being, not a part of the body it's carried in. Although it's comforting to doctors and parents to say that it is just a piece of flesh and inanimate, we see it as a soul/spiritual being. Dr. Steiner said the soul enters the body far, far earlier than the time of birth, particularly if the incarnating being is an advanced soul. If you're interested, I can try to research the lectures these concepts appeared in.
Hey Kathleen - thanks for sharing your thoughts on abortion. I'm also living with Steiner's picture of people as soul-spiritual beings reincarnating over time. I think there's a huge amount of evidence for an afterlife (all in the form of personal testimony, but pretty compelling to my mind - I especially appreciated this article from Wired magazine from awhile back: https://www.wired.com/2013/04/consciousness-after-death)
And of course, if there's an afterlife than it would make sense that there would be a "beforelife" and that the process would be cyclical. This is what we find in many of the ancient wisdom traditions, as well as in the bible on numerous occasions (including Matthew 16:13 where Christ asks 'Who do they say that I am?' and his disciples reply, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” How could he be the reincarnation of any of those people if the Jews didn't believe in reincarnation?) From my understanding, reincarnation was the normal view up until a certain a Christian philistinism became the norm (now we've got our own Pharisees running the church).
So Steiner's view is simply the most realistic to my mind - it makes the most sense and best explains the few facts we have at our disposal. The other view - that there is no afterlife or beforelife - just seems to me to be throwing in the towel, giving up in the face of one of the biggest mysteries. Instead of working with the few facts we have (even if they are "subtle" and not materialistic... oh, how materialism has us by the throat), we give up and say, well there's no way we can know!
But coming back to abortion, my understanding of Steiner's view is that the individual soul takes generations to incarnate (that it even helps to bring its own parents together), but that, if for some reason it doesn't work (the couple breaks up or uses contraception or has an abortion) than the soul will incarnate elsewhere. I've never heard of Steiner saying that the soul simply will no longer come down. If that is indeed the case, if the incarnating soul has to look elsewhere for suitable parents, then I think it is indeed regrettable, but I wouldn't say it's a reason to not use contraception or to deny a woman an abortion. I would still leave the choice in the hands of the potential mother or the potential parents and not take their freedom away. Even if there was a highly developed spiritual clairvoyant who could say everything about the incarnating should and why it was important for that soul to incarnate to those parents, I would still think they shouldn't say those thing if it meant infringing upon the parent's freedom... We have to work for human freedom above all else. But when it comes to the state making this decision and taking away a person's freedom, I really can't see any justification. The state is the least spiritual aspect of society - it's just the majority of people who have come of age - and they should only deal with matters where everyone is able to have an equal say based on simply being an adult. All matters that are in any way specialized - that require any sort of expertise (and definitely any sort of spiritual insight) - should never be handled by the state.
That's my feeling for it, though I'm still trying to wrestle my way through. Thanks for your thoughts on this issue and please share more if you feel like it. Hope all's well with you, Kathleen - Seth
My goodness, I am entirely convinced of repeated lives and re-attempts at incarnation if a soul is rejected by its mother. But it's a different thing to abort when you realize that you are dealing with a living immortal being.
Yeah, I definitely agree. But the heart of what I'm looking at is simply in terms of how society should deal with it. I think the understanding that you're referencing should certainly be part of the cultural conversation around abortion - people should ideally be learning all about the profound mysteries of human life, of what takes place at birth and death, and of the deeper spiritual realities at work in the world - but I see that as the task of education. When we cry out for the state to force people to do whatever we think is right, we overstep a boundary concerning human freedom. Rudolf Steiner would often talk about aspects of society that were incredibly unhealthy for people - especially some of the effects of the new technologies that were emerging - but he would always say, We cannot try to get the government to banish these things, that would be an infringement on human freedom, we have to understand them ourselves and spread that understanding so that people choose not to do them themselves.
I'd say that that's the main point of my short article - we have to try to become clear about what's right to deal with in the cultural domain (what we should educate about) and what's right for the legal/rights domain (what we should legislate about). I'm not 100% sure I've got it right in how I'm looking at things, but this is what I've come to so far. Thanks for engaging with this issue, Kathleen.
I dont disagree with this, and I think a small minority of abortions are justified. It's mostly a question of medical schools addressing the issue-- but the ethicists see us as physical beings only, and the Oath that doctors once took "before the gods" as a quaint formality.
Thanks. We can shoot for the Sixth Epoch.
Thanks, Seth. I appreciate the perspective you bring. I spend a lot of time in Florida each year, and the issues you are addressing here are especially poignant in the Free State of Florida. So much so that I feel a physical relief when I return to New England. How to stem the tide or reverse the onslaught of these developments is a puzzle to me.
Keep up the good work.
Thanks Nick, always nice to hear from you. I think actions will be necessary, but I also feel that we just haven't developed pictures that can counter the simplistic, dueling pictures that come from the political parties. And not even really counter so much, but just pictures that actually have a relationship, and can in some way encompass, reality. Everything is so wrapped up in the left/right dichotomy, all our thinking is guided by those two overarching narratives, and we need to learn to think outside of those two lanes. They're kind of like a huge highway - half the country is going in one direction and the other half in the other, and the traffic and pollution is terrible and everyone is screaming and honking. We need to get off the highway and build new roads and new narratives. Thanks for responding.
this was very refreshing, thank you!
Glad to hear, Max. Thanks. Hope you're well.