Hi all,

I'll admit, before anything else, that I'm starting this thread in part because I know it may be contraversial, and I'm trying to bring a little life back to the sleeping Integral By Topic forum. But this is not my sole motivation, as I think there is insight, as well as potential disagreement, to be found in pursuing this conversation.

And prelimaries aside, onto the topic itself:

Wilber has mentioned, in reference to moral development, that the second-tier perspective on abortion is that it should, in some cases, be legal. And I wonder about that. I understand how precon morality would, for the most part, be inclined toward allowing abortion, and how conventional morality would, for the most part, be inclined toward disallowing it, but I'm wary of any occassion when someone says that anyone thinking on a certain level will decide thusly.

Conventional morality is devoid of content, as a stage. It's a way of making moral decisions, not the outcome of those decisions. As a young man growing up with my two rather feminist mothers, I went through my conventional moral phase with that set of moral values around to be absorbed. I was firmly pro-choice because it's the right and true way to be. Anyone who was pro-life was stupid and wrong, to my mind. I mention this simply to point out that breaking down views on abortion by moral stage isn't always effective.

So can we be absolutely sure that the only way to be second-tier, morally, is to be pro-choice? I'm not all that certain in my convictions on the subject anyway. I think I'm a fan of "safe, legal, and rare" as a basic stance on the subject, but it isn't a decision I feel comfortable with. It seems possible there may be someone out there who considers the subject form a second-tier perspective and is even less sure than I, or is in fact pro-life. I'd like to air this out a bit, and see whether we can reach a better understanding of the Integral take on the subject, if there is one.

I think you said it yourself, abortion is an acceptable option in life for some levels, and since the goal of integral is to honor all levels' values, then we need to accept abortion as a legal option for the world.

Clearly, the idea way of approaching the issue isn't just All Levels, but All Qaudrants as well, so we not only want to keep abortion (UR mostly) legal, we also want to promote family planning in UL, LL, and LR, too, so that the UR solution is not at all the only choice for people who want to "prevent more people".

Oh, and there's even a less deadly UR way of not making babies, a vasectomy. It's quick (about 15 minutes worth of surgery) and not as painful as one might imagine (a few days of bedrest and then another week of going easy), and it's pretty cheap, even without insurance. Actually, condoms and birth control drugs are also UR, too. So many good options that we can offer people... What are we waiting for?! Let's go prevent some people right now :-)

Peace, Love, and Bicycles
Turtle

Yes, OOoohhh Controversy,

Isn't that what I-I lives for.

Yeah in many ways, at least for medical necessity, (as in Treya's case, Grace & Grit) abortion should be legal.

In many ways, I think it should not be legal. I mean how many spiritual practioners (and new agers) love to brag about their veganism/strict whole food diets, that promote the health of animals, but are wholly in support of abortion.  Isn't that just a little bit jaded and a bit of a performative contradiction.

Ok, so lets look at the basics that you brought up and use Pre Conv, Con, and Trans Conventional.

Obviously Pre Con is SOOoooo For a "Woman's RIGHT to choose" Is it not odd the they define the topic of the issue with their own belief stuck in it.  A woman't RIGHT, as if that part has already been wholly decided upon. Now again speaking purely of the egocentric prochoice movements, they don't want anybody telling them what to do, so it doesn't really matter so much to them that its abortion as it does that its SOMEBODY TELLING  THEM WHAT TO DO. Especially if it is a Christian, because Christianity attempts to speak from authority AGAINST abortion, and this is especially troubling for Precon.

Ok the worst case for abortion is abortion as birth control.  People who don't want their extra special and super important lives "ruined" by having a child (I have two ). This is in many ways man's or should I say women's attempt at controling nature and the environment for their own preservation, based out of fear; a sort of mini atman project in my opinion.

Conventionally, abortion is necessary in some rare cases when a women's life is at stake, when having the baby would actually kill both the baby and the woman, then rationally we need to end the babys life .  However there are loads of conventional and even rational reasons why abortion is not such a good idea. The need of children for adoption, the medical risks, psychological damage, cultural stigma, the whole AQAL dimension of abortion. You can't just walk into a (LR) abortion clinic, get doped up on (UR) pain killers, have your abortion and leave and expect the (UL) and (LL) to remain the same and it is naive at best to NOT address those legitimate factors.  However the (LR) SocioEconomic Status of the woman does put extreme pressure on the individual to either have or not have abortions, and that pressure is Real and Significant as poverty is a real issue in the US.

Post Conventionally, abortion must take into account the most number of perspectives on the issue as possible. Clearly not having an abortion is better than having an abortion and I think in the Boomeritis landscape of america you can easily lose sight of that point. Some feminists almost have an attitude that says "Oh yeah, I'd have an abortion just because I can" But that mostly gets back to the Preconventional morality side of Boomeritis.

I would definitely like to hear from some of the Buddhists in the crowd. I, being raised Catholic, was subjected to lots of Conventional to postconventional reasons on why abortion is "Bad". So I really wonder what other traditions say (or not say) about abortions.

Ok, enough from me, I hope that that was in some ways rational. Just to reiterate my position. I am pro-life leaning, but am not for the absolute denial of abortions for all reasons. And am not a radical anti-abortion crusader. 

Peace,

Benji

---

"Should it matter that my mind won't fit back in my head" -S. Davis

bhopkins:

I mean how many spiritual
practioners (and new agers) love to brag about their veganism/strict
whole food diets, that promote the health of animals, but are wholly in
support of abortion.  Isn't that just a little bit jaded and a bit
of a performative contradiction.

Well, I think it might be a difference in Upper quad policies versus Lower quad policies in this case. I, myself, do everything in my power to cause as little suffering as possible while I make my way through life. That includes being a vegan, trying to live lightly on the planet, and avoiding getting pregnant (since I don't want to add more humans to the already taxed planet) in the most humane way possible (my husband is fixed... Yay for me!). And, and this is a huge and, I have no desire to force my way of life or way of thinking on others. Thus, I believe that in many cases, killing and eating others (human or non-human), driving a gas guzzling Hummer, and either having lots of babies or lots of abortions, should be legal.

So, as I see it, there is nothing hypocritical about someone who professes loving and protecting the whole of the animal kingdom, while still promoting the "right to choose" - because it's all about respecting one's own morals while allowing others to have their own, different, morals.

And, for just a bit of a controversial twist, I'll also offer up the perspective that abortion of humans is good for the planet, since humans are the most destrictive species we know of. So I might see that stopping a foetus from becoming an independent human (who might be likely come down with a severe case of technologically equiped Red!) as being more moral than letting that human come to fruition, even if it did mean stopping a heart intentionally. (Luckilly, or really with a lot of effort on my part, I have never been in a situation where I had to make such a decision.)

Of course, ultimately, I want to encourage people to find the most sustainable and compassionate ways to meet their needs, so that death and distruction can be avoided, while keeping everyone relatively happy and satisfied. And that's why I teach!

Peace, Love, and Bicycles,
Turtle

Hnmmmm... I see your point. 

Now for the US as a whole, population growth is largely in check. As is population growth in most industrialized nations.  Population growth in Europe however is actually negative or close to Zero.

For the third world you are right, population is exploding and maybe in some ways, having less children there would be "good" for the planet?  But isn't this the project China has been working on for some time? Forced sterilizations, limits on the number of female children, etc.. 

Somehow I don't see China as a very Integral Country.

Now, You for one, are probably not operating at a red level, and probably don't have orange weaponry laying around your house (no SKS rifles in your closet right)

I know this may be a cliche point, but it is somehow sad that those of us who are most advanced developmentally, Orange or higher, seem to be the most and ONLY ones worried about population growth, so we all have no or few children, while the Ethnocentric or lower just can't wait to pop more out.

Am I trying to talk you and your husband into having a child?(I hear that male sterilization is reversable ).  No, but really, I as a father of two, feel that I can contribute by having a responsible number of children and teaching them and helping them grow up integrally informed and developed. I wish my parents had done the same for me.

Now, of coures, children aren't for everyone, but neither are abortions always some easy solution to the "problem" of children. I just think that it is somewhat ironic, that children or even the thought of them is so frightening to some people that they would go to extreme measures (abortion) to get rid of them, unless there was some larger reasons involved, (medical, rape, SEStatus, etc).  Especially when the main supporters of abortion, would almost "set themselves on fire" to save an animal from being turned into a fur coat.

But, I don't really know, maybe having an abortion "is" a "right" and the right of the adult holon should supercede the rights of the junior holon growing inside of the pregnant woman.

I really am interested in what you said, and I really struggle with what I think of this issue.

-Benji

---

"Should it matter that my mind won't fit back in my head" -S. Davis

Wow, this is really something. I have thought about this a lot but it was finally today that I said, okay, I think it's time to start that thread on an integral perspective(s) of abortion. If ever there was a subject where multiple perspectives and multiple levels of being and consciousness need to be taken into account -this is it.

I will start first with why I thought of this today.

I do know someone who adamantly believed his teenage daughter needed to get an abortion when she was pregnant. The daughter stuck to her guns not to do that and somewhere around  eight or nine months into the pregnancy it suddenly profoundly struck him the nature of what he had suggested. He will never be the same and I thought of this today becasue . . . I saw him with this child, traces of the horrifying guilt still being held delicately deeply inside and often just below the surface.

That is a real perspective. (and not the only I have to offer.) "How could I ever had suggested that you should not be alive?"

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

But now, . . . does he need to feel guilt about his former perspective for the rest of time? After all, he really was only in the end trying to save the life of his own precious daughter-and by that I mean, not literally save it, but just simply protect her and I needn't even go on about all that was and is involved in such a situation.

Hence the need to be able to take perspectives; try to inhabit a wider view, integrate perspectives and all possibilities or at least try not to come from so narrow, (even) instinctual (as in fraternal), impulsive and passionate a perspective right off the bat. (And eventually to find compassion for one's self.  . . . only doing the best I could . . . Redemption is Always possible . . . . that's the point about Love . . .)

And that really is the thing; shit happens. What are you going to do about it? There is no question that this one requires an enormous amount of consideration.

Which is where I will go to next.

One of the things we do need to advocate -as has been mentioned and certainly implied-is some kind of return to a stability (although reinterpreted and reintegrated) of conventional values. Ben is so right and I am pretty sure most here would agree: egos really aren't interested in making babies but everyone is interested in having sex. Egos are really good at making unplanned human lives.

It is immoral to have no consideration for that possibility and the types of responsibility it entails and still fuck mindlessly. It is fine for animals (and we try and control that too) but it is immoral for human being on so many levels and in so many ways it is not even in the least bit funny. One baby, one conception can cause such a holonic-systemic explosion of effect (and affect) it is just simply nothing short of reprehensible narcissism not to take that into consideration -or at the very least, be prepared to take responsibility in the best possible way in the event of a surprise. And all of that is aside from the inherent profoundity and presciousness of the human (or any!) life itself as realized in the perspective above which simply utterly trumps even all the rest of that.

Yet, still, this is Spirt and a Kosmos of infinite possibilities and shit does happen. It is also true-I think even amazingly true-that things do have a way of working themselves towards the good (Eros) and i have seen a lot of fucked up people grow immeasurably from surprises, mistakes, things that were originally a regret, etc. We just simply can't say that a+b+c = Bad and will not eventuate to something Good in time (or necessary, or the Great Perfection or evolution or . .). That is, at least from Kosmocentric vision-logic, impossible.

But that brings me to the last point I want to make for now.

I am very, very, very interested in the inherent Spiritual Realities behind this. There are just simply Spiritual questions that we still simply have no answer for, and may never (at least any time soon) in any sort of way that could be proven and so influence the laws or legalities, ultimate moralities of such a thing.

Where do babies come from? Where does consciousness come from?

The highest perspective with regard to that is the Causal or in the very highest, simply Spirit as Ground. For one, from this perspective all there is to really and truly say is, What abortion?

One lower levels, the ones we normally inhabit and where these kind of questions come up, it's a different story and we do need to figure it out.

There are Subtle level considerations and these are probably those closest to any spiritual reality associated with birth, death and so abortion in at least the western religious conception -but it is not vacant in eastern.

Is there such a thing as an accidental child?

Many traditions tell us that we choose our parents (not so far removed from "God wanted you to have this child" or "it was meant to be"), and this is mirrored in notions of Karma with Desire and Attraction. Is it possible to accidentally get the wrong ones? at the wrong time?

(And what about Karma?)

But this immediately leads to questions about the relationship between body and soul and spirit.

A Course in Miracles give the affirmation:

I am not a body, I am free, for I am still as god created me.

But what is even more interesting and quite shocking to me when I first saw it is what Jesus is said to say in the Gospel of Thomas:

If the soul creates the body it is a wonder,

but if the body creates the soul it is a wonder of wonders.

I take this to mean, contrary to a widely held (at least) Christian perception-the root of so much abortion controversy, that the soul precedes the body, spirit precedes the body and not the other way around.

This is contrary to traditional Christian perception and teaching. "Pre-existence of the soul" was an idea deemed as heresy and removed from Christian teaching in 325 ce.

So, that is an issue when you talk about a spiritual perspective. An very, very large number of people-including many I know-believe that the body comes first, and the Christian teachings teach this. (Open to more info on that.)

But there is something even more interesting and profound and which needs to be taken into account when considering people's perspectives on abortion.

One, most people really are only identified with the gross level body. therefore, it makes perfect sense that body=spirit=abortion has got to be wrong and the worst possible thing/sin-against-God I could ever imagine. (don't get me wrong, I have seen the beating heart of a fetus at something like four weeks old. I do not know how anyone could see that and ever say that it's going to be100% "okay" to intentionally stop it.)

Two, the lower level of consciousness do tend to be centered around the body becasue mind has not even fully differentiated itself as such-and that has got to be a perspective always taken into account. Values and worldviews emerge from that.

All for now.

Peace

Tim

---

"With whom or with what are you in communion at this moment?"
. . ."I?" he replied, almost mechanically. "Why not with anyone or anything."
"You must be a marvel . . . if you are able to continue in that state for long."
-Constantin Stanislavsky

Hi Tim,

timelody:

I am very, very, very interested in the inherent Spiritual Realities behind this. There are just simply Spiritual questions that we still simply have no answer for, and may never (at least any time soon) in any sort of way that could be proven and so influence the laws or legalities, ultimate moralities of such a thing.

I take this to mean, contrary to a widely held (at least) Christian perception-the root of so much abortion controversy, that the soul precedes the body, spirit precedes the body and not the other way around.

I've been reading several books on reincarnation research, and that can certainly influence one's ideas about abortion (and about life in general, for that matter). It will not give you absolute proof of what happens, but the findings of different studies by different researchers are coherent, which for me makes it pretty convincing.

Research indicates that the soul joins the gross body at or after conception, usually after. An early abortion may not affect the soul too much, except that it will have to find another body. Once the soul has joined the fetus, abortion is not that much different from killing a person after he/she is born.

Here's a related quote:

In summary, 89 percent of my subjects expressed the feeling that their consciousness was something separate from that of the fetus, and they did not experience inside the fetus to any degree until at least the sixth month. A majority of the subjects did not experience the fetus until just before birth. Of those who reported joining the fetus from conception to four months, their description also indicated they might have also been experiencing in and out of the fetus. (from Life Before Life, by Helen Wambach).

I don't want to judge any woman's (or couple's) choice on abortion, but forcing her would seem wrong to me in any case. I just wanted to present it here from an 'in-between-lives' perspective, and if people would like to know more, just let me know.

Peter

---

"All nations should be like Amsterdam" -- Ken Wilber

timelody:

If ever there was a subject where multiple perspectives and multiple levels of being and consciousness need to be taken into account -this is it.

As much for my own benefit as anyone else's, I'm gonna try to compile a list of as many basic perspectives on the subject as I can. Usual caveats apply, of course: this isn't going to be all of them (please add more), not all will be expressed with the utmost subltety, subtle distinctions may be overlooked or overemphasized, I'm ignoring the relationships between these perspectives, I'm ignoring perspectives that only arise in special circumstances, etc. I'm just curious what this will look like.

1 - it's her body, let her do what she wants with it.

2 - It's a life. You can't end a life.

3- It isn't really a life yet / it isn't conscious yet, so who cares?

4 - If the child is born to a mother who doesn't want it, it won't be happy.

(If you haven't seen it before, take a look at Steven Levitt's work on how legalizing abortion influences the crime rate 20 years later, when all the aborted fetuses would otherwise be out comitting crimes)

5 - God thinks its a no no

6 - God wants you to have this baby

7 - This baby wants you to have this baby

8 - There's enough people already

9 - This could potentially ruin the mother's life, and the lives of any future kids she would have ten years later when she was ready

10 - Once you have the baby, you'll feel guilty for even thinking about not having it.

 

That's a decent list. I'm sure I'm missing some big ones, and I'd appreciate their being added.

So now how does one integrate all this? I've never tried a project like this before, as such, and I'm gonna stew on it for a bit before adding more thoughts.

So, I'm letting that post be, but I've already decided it might be entirely the wrong approach.

I'm gonna ask some very different questions instead.

Do people treat the questions of whether abortion is morally acceptable and whether abortion should be legal seperately?

Those who think abortion is sometimes, but not always, acceptable - how can we influence the LL so that abortions are more rare but less stigmatized?

Even if you disagree with someone who wants to have an abortion, and you think she should keep the baby, is it ever really a good idea to force her to do so? This is one where I get really stuck. I can't see it ever causing anything but trouble to legally require a woman to keep her baby, but I don't like the idea of allowing an "I can do whatever I want with my body" / "abortion is just belated birth control" attitude to prevail, either.

I was talking about integrating perspectives in that other post, but there is a categorically different sort of integration that I ignored. Instead of integrating theoretical attitudes about abortion, I suppose we may want to integrat the perspectives of the mother, father, doctor, local community, global community, child/fetus, grandparents, etc, and all of these people's perspectives now, next month, next year, and twenty years from now. And here a question comes in of how much weight to we give to each perspective.

Intuition pump / tangent: I recently quit smoking, and it's still difficult. If I could just add up the perspectives of yotam-at-each-moment, then it would be an easy choice to make. But should my perpective ten years from now count as much for current decisions as my perspective now? It depends on the question, of course. This is something like what economists call the "discount rate." Eventually with smoking I was able to feel enough communion with / compassion for yotam-of-tomorrow to quit, but it's harder with something like abortion.

We want to honor the greatest depth for the greatest span, right? But some people matter more for any given decision than others. We can't make decisions about abortion based solely on what the mother wants now, or solely on what would be best for the global community a hundred years from now, clearly. That's the idea of integrating perspectives. But how much does each perspective "count"? I guess this is a general Integral Morality question, and if y'all want to try answering it on an easier subject than abortion, I'd be down with that.

Well, this turned into a much longer rant than I meant it to. Alas.

randomturtle:

bhopkins:

I mean how many spiritual practioners (and new agers) love to brag about their veganism/strict whole food diets, that promote the health of animals, but are wholly in support of abortion.  Isn't that just a little bit jaded and a bit of a performative contradiction.

Well, I think it might be a difference in Upper quad policies versus Lower quad policies in this case. I, myself, do everything in my power to cause as little suffering as possible while I make my way through life. That includes being a vegan, trying to live lightly on the planet, and avoiding getting pregnant (since I don't want to add more humans to the already taxed planet) in the most humane way possible (my husband is fixed... Yay for me!). And, and this is a huge and, I have no desire to force my way of life or way of thinking on others. Thus, I believe that in many cases, killing and eating others (human or non-human), driving a gas guzzling Hummer, and either having lots of babies or lots of abortions, should be legal. So, as I see it, there is nothing hypocritical about someone who professes loving and protecting the whole of the animal kingdom, while still promoting the "right to choose" - because it's all about respecting one's own morals while allowing others to have their own, different, morals. And, for just a bit of a controversial twist, I'll also offer up the perspective that abortion of humans is good for the planet, since humans are the most destrictive species we know of. So I might see that stopping a foetus from becoming an independent human (who might be likely come down with a severe case of technologically equiped Red!) as being more moral than letting that human come to fruition, even if it did mean stopping a heart intentionally. (Luckilly, or really with a lot of effort on my part, I have never been in a situation where I had to make such a decision.) Of course, ultimately, I want to encourage people to find the most sustainable and compassionate ways to meet their needs, so that death and distruction can be avoided, while keeping everyone relatively happy and satisfied. And that's why I teach! Peace, Love, and Bicycles, Turtle

I just want to say, this post is a thing of beauty - three thumbs up!

I just love men (of any level of development) telling women what to do with their bodies. 

arthur

---

I am seeking meaningful work.

bio: http://aqalicious.gaia.com/

I spend most of my "forum time" these days on The Integral Pod: http://pods.gaia.com/ii/

"You've never seen everything." - Bruce Cockburn

bhopkins:

In many ways, I think it should not be legal. I mean how many spiritual practioners (and new agers) love to brag about their veganism/strict whole food diets, that promote the health of animals, but are wholly in support of abortion.  Isn't that just a little bit jaded and a bit of a performative contradiction.

I don't think this a good point to use when trying to determine whether or not a pro-choicers decision is valid or not since it can easily be countered with the point that many pro-lifers are for the death penalty.

This is an extremely difficult subject and also extremely personal, which is why I feel it should be a legal choice.

Peace,
Sue

---

And right there was everything I knew and I could not say what that was. - Natalie Goldberg

Arthur,

Are you making an ironic joke out of my post, or are you really just impressed that I can successfully integrate the male patriarchy with my highly developed 2nd tier capabilities.

Wait, I made the statement on the irony of vegan abortion supporters, I never told Turtle what to do with her body personally. 

God I love abortion debates

Who's side are you on?
Pro-Death or Anti-Choice

Benji

---

"Should it matter that my mind won't fit back in my head" -S. Davis

Slbrown

Sure, sure, ...

As I said later in that post you quoted, I do wrestle with this issue, and I don't think that a simple Legal vs. Illegal debate on abortion adequately covers the necessary territory.

The same thing I said about Pro-Choicers can be said about Pro-lifers who are for the death penelty. (sort of).

But if we few abortion as a symptom of larger problems in the 4Q's we could get to the root of the problem via the reasons people want abortions in the first place. 

I feel like so many people have a gut level (reptilian brain stem) reaction to abortion, either, That's a woman's right, or Baby killer. And I don't believe that that at all does justice to the complexity of the issue.

Just outlawing abortion does not do anything to help those women who face difficult choices in their lives because of Economic stress, abuse, etc.. But simply making abortion free and convenient for all women of all ages and calling people sexist when they bring up moral issues/questions about that abortion does absolutley nothing to help women in those same situations.

I sometimes see abortion as the cheap and easy quick fix for a variety of 4Q's problems that are just too controversial to speak about. (Race, class, moral development, relgion, myth, rights and responsibilies)

"Let's criminalize the symptom and spread the disease"

With respect,

Ben

---

"Should it matter that my mind won't fit back in my head" -S. Davis

I really don't think there is an integral view of abortion.  Sure, we can take an integral approach to making our own personal decisions about abortion, but to say that there is a view that is integral... well, that seems a bit limited to me.  We can change the argument from any first tier meme by simply switching perspective between the mother and the unborn child (or "fetus", again, depending on your perspective!).  Certainly, the green meme is more likely to be pro-choice than the blue meme, but not exclusively.  Someone with green values could say that the unborn child has the same right to exist as everyone else.  Afterall, we're all equal." simply by taking the stance that the unborn child is a person with rights. 

So, I don't think we should be looking at what the "integral view" should be.  Rather, let's make our own decisions in an integrally informed fashion.  That is, take everything into account.  The mother, the unborn child, the community the child will be born into, the effect the birth is likely to have on both mother's and child's life, etc..

Jason

waywrdsun:

I really don't think there is an integral view of abortion.  Sure, we can take an integral approach to making our own personal decisions about abortion

Isn't that the only kind of Integral view one can ever have? I mean, aren't our own personal views the only ones we can act upon? And isn't the point of AQAL to broaden our personal views so that we see the big picture and are able to create more realistic and wholistic solutions to life's problems?

You say yourself:

waywrdsun:

Rather, let's make our own decisions in an integrally informed fashion.

And I think that's exactly it! We're here to help eachother form more AQAL/Integral views of common social issues, so that when we act, it is in a balanced and wholistically respectful way.

So I completely agree that we should "take everything into account". And what better way to do that than to ask for other's views on the subject?

Peace, Love, and Bicycles,
Turtle