I had two abortions when I was young and foolish, and at some point I met both children-that-could-have-been, not in real life but oh definitely real, in the spirit. They sprang up in my mind the way they would have been, could have been. Then only I understood that THEY wanted to live, no matter how. It was ME who thought I couldn't give them a good life. Only then did I understand how unbelievably precious life is, whatever way it is lived, and how sacred, and what gruesome superficiality I had treated it with. So this experience burdened but also deepened my soul. (Thereafter by the grace of God I had two beautiful, healthy children and now I am a granny of seven. Amazing.) I still am pro-choice. But I do believe we should change our ways in the whole area of sexuality, physicality, and death, for that matter.
Fascinating! It was such a powerful experience for me. A process of grieving and really recognizing the love experience- the process of living- that had been wanting to take place between us and their embodiment here. Who they were, enriching the world and coming into full expression. And how much grief I held - unconsciously- in not having the chance to be in communion with their particular ways of being. I still have tears flow now thinking of them.
From talking to women, I've met several who reported having felt pressured into it, and afterwards feeling crushed by what they'd done.
I think a large part of what fuels this particular culture war issue is the sense many have that women are encouraged, often against their own hearts, to abort; followed by the refusal to acknowledge that many women regret the decision.
I'm not sure how common encouragement is. All I know is that I've talked to women who were put under such pressure, from e.g. boyfriends, nurses, university administrators, etc.
I definitely agree that active encouragement to have the child would be far preferable. Especially with the clear understanding that the necessary support will be forthcoming.
I agree that the issue of having financial and emotional support is critical. I had two abortions. I really wanted to bear the second child, but neither I nor the father were able to support ourselves financially sufficiently to be able to bear the burden of doing so. He was nearly homeless and I was and am financially dependent on my father to survive. (I have earned money in various ways, but not enough to be able to support myself fully, nor to raise a child.) I asked my siblings and father (my mother was already dead by then) if they would help me to support the child, and they said no, they would not. Given this reality, I felt that the most ethical decision would be for me to have an abortion, which is what I did. I have compassion both for myself and the spirit who would have incarnated in that body. I believe that my decision to have the abortion was the right one. My life was hell and has continued to be hell before and since that aborted pregnancy, and I don't think it would have been right for me to have brought a child into the world under these circumstances. I myself would not want to have been brought into the world under the circumstances in which I live.
I understand your dilemma. Being a single mom, or anyone dependent on someone else for the most basic needs in life is in a difficult position, and women seem to be dismissed for getting into trouble with an unwanted pregnancy, as if they did it all by themselves! They are punished socially, economically, and physically, and the men seem to mostly fade into obscurity. And therein lies the problem. As long as women accept that it is indeed "a man's world" and allow men to stomp their ability to thrive, we will have this unbalanced, unfair situation. Misogyny needs to be relegated to the bin. ALL human beings need shelter, care, and a decent life. We need balance, and compassion, and less judgment. A little responsibility on the part of men would help, too... Patriarchy is an unbalanced way of life. We need equality and balance. Here are men, bringing us war after war after war, raping women and children, and yet abortion is "wrong."
As a woman, I've know many women who have struggled with the idea of abortion vs. raising a child they cannot afford to raise-- by themselves, because the man refuses to take any responsibility. Our culture punishes women who have sex outside marriage, and rewards men who do the same. Women get the lousy end of all the child-rearing problems, with only a very few exceptions. Men make the rules, men make the money, men get away with all sorts of selfishness. It's always on women to deal with the consequences, virtually all the time. It is men who feel no responsibility and men who seem to feel they are entitled to tell women what they can/can't do, men who make most of the laws, and men who allow the kind of culture that encourages all the above. I think MEN should step up and grow up and learn to share not only the prevention, but the consequences of unplanned, unintended children coming from irresponsible behavior. And fathers should be teaching their sons to be respectful and responsible with their behavior. This is not just a WOMEN'S issue. This is primarily a MEN's issue.
In the spirit of dialogue across ideological boundaries, I hear what you're saying. I agree that child-rearing is much more of a burden for the mother; this is unavoidably so for biological reasons. It's also a MUCH greater burden for single mothers.
But there's another perspective on these issues, which must be acknowledged if synthesis is to to obtained and an end found to the fighting.
Far from punishing only women who have sex outside of marriage, we now have the MeToo era: men can have their lives destroyed over accusations of rape (Believe All Women), whether they're true or not ... and 'rape' can mean 'consensual intercourse but the woman changed her mind'. The result of this is that a large number of men have simply withdrawn entirely from the dating market.
A woman can initiate divorce for any reason; and in fact, most divorces are initiated by women. The man is then on the hook for alimony and child support. The woman will almost always get custody. Divorce is not necessary for child support; a paternity test will do just as well. The result of this is that men are much less willing to marry: there's essentially nothing in it for men. It's all risk, no benefit. This means fewer families, more single mothers, and more broken families (also meaning more single mothers). Again, most divorces are initiated by women, meaning they brought it on themselves; you can argue 'well she was unhappy', and I'm sure she was ... but then, why was she with him in the first place?
Contemporary culture features the kangaroo courts of Title IX; hiring preferences that privilege female applicants; a strong female advantage in higher education; scholarships that are only open to women; and groups that only women can join. Exclusively male scholarships don't exist, and exclusively male organizations are rare (see: the 'Boy' Scouts). From the perspective of almost any man in this culture, it absolutely does not look like men are making the rules. Quite the opposite. Masculinity is generally frowned upon, resulting in a plethora of men that women are less attracted to; and also resulting in a diminution of precisely those habits that traditionally disciplined male behaviour, resulting in more bad behaviour by men.
Now, in terms of dealing maturely and responsibly with the children that result from sex: I couldn't agree more. Men should take responsibility. So should women. So should their respective parents, and so should the rest of society. Fathers absolutely should teach their children to be respectful and responsible. Children should have fathers that they may learn to be so. If a child is to be brought into the world, the parents should marry, in order to provide the child with a stable home. In order to ensure that households are stable, society should do everything it can to encourage monogamy and discourage divorce. In order to ensure that stable households are also happy and loving households, promiscuous sexual behaviour should be discouraged (for both sexes), and social technologies of courtship and matchmaking employed to make it more likely that people end up with partners that will be good for them in the long run, and not merely for the evening.
None of this is primarily a men's or a women's issue. It's a human issue. Until we see it that way none of this will get fixed.
OMG. Really? Hey, I know life isn't always great for fellers, but really? This is not a black & white issue, but it's damn dark on the women's side of things, comparatively, and what you're saying here tells me you really don't get that. Either you're quite young and so rather inexperienced, or you're just not particularly adept at interpreting what is happening all around you. Maybe both. Your argument that women have it better, and poor men, is laughable, and I'm laughing as I write this. There is NO question in my mind that men suffer, too, but WAAAAAAAY less. So please, spare me. I'm not gonna go through your List of Wah. Just try talking to women, or better yet, LISTEN to them. And when women prance around telling men they, too, can "father" children, when women move in on men's sports AND WIN, when women own most of the businesses and property, when women make more money than men, are not treated like idiots and sex objects in the media and in the culture generally, when women run the governments, make the laws, and tell men when and if they're allowed to stay "fully equipped," then we'll talk. You just seem to have no idea. I'm not trying to be mean to you, but daaaamn, dude. This is why women roll their eyes!
You may have heard this famous quotation from Margaret Atwood: "Men are afraid women will laugh at them. Women are afraid men will kill them."
I've spent my entire life listening to women. Incessantly. I acknowledged your concerns, did not trivialize them, and indeed agreed with many of them.
It's clear that you have no interest in extending the same courtesy. The points I raised were not raised for the purposes of complaining, but of pointing out the many ways in which current social conditions, due to the incentives they create for men, lead inevitably to precisely the negative conditions for women that rightfully trouble you. The intent is to identify solutions that work for everyone, not to whine. However, it seems that to even identify male problems is, to you, an attempt to minimize female problems.
This gets at my feelings on the subject. I'm agnostic on the issue in general, but, I don't think it should be trivialized. To abort is to take a life; if it is necessary, then so be, but this should never be treated lightly and certainly never celebrated. Good for you for realizing the gravity of your decisions.
We take life all the time. Why aren't more people protesting WAR? Protesting these horrible corporate animal farming operations (CAFO's)? Protesting the Covid jabs,, which are killing babies? And why aren't we protesting our political machine in Africa, causing enormous suffering and death? Why aren't we protesting that one out of five American children go to bed hungry? Why aren't we protesting Big Pharma and their "vaccine schedule" that is causing one in 33 children to have autism? The PTB in this country are far more interested in turning us against each other while it sucks the marrow out of our bones, one way or another, and avoids any responsibility, while making off with ALL the wealth, and now putting us in danger of yet ANOTHER war... and a NUCLEAR war at that, while billions and billions go to the war monger weapons manufacturers, and our food supply is BURNED... We all could do well to wake the fuck UP. ( Not trying to pick on you, but your name catches my eye!)
First: I don't disagree with any of the issues you mention. All are terrible and we're on the same side on those.
We do take life all the time, and usually in the most dishonest, foulest way possible. Take CAFOs. Those are basically concentration camps for animals. Why is this okay? Well because animals aren't 'conscious' or 'self-aware' - they're just meat machines. That's the excuse.
Now, our ancestors also ate animals. They hunted them, and they herded them and led them to the slaughter. However, they did not imagine that they were not taking lives. They looked the animals in the eye when the killed them. They saw the light go out. They knew full well that they had expelled a spirit from the flesh. Therefore, after killing, and before eating, they gave thanks to the animal. They apologised for taking its life, and expressed gratitude for the nourishment that life had provided.
The point is, they didn't try to turn away from it, they didn't try to hide it, they were honest about what they were doing. And, because they were honest, they treated the animals well while they lived; made sure they had good lives, happy lives, healthy lives. They didn't trick themselves that it is the act of killing which is bad, because death comes for us all, and it is usually horrible; what matters is the quality of the time between birth and death.
You are wise. Thank you for sharing your experience.
Your intended children in other bodies are perhaps in your life now. If not, they have moved into new growth opportunities within other families. Either way, as you express, all is forgiven and healed.
My experience is yours. Two precious souls that I chose to not give birth to. One due to foolish young love, one forced upon me but just as precious. I now have six birthed beloveds, and they are my life.
We women carry a heavier burden. I don’t think this is by accident. Men articulate and act and react and create how we must live.
Not only they want to live no matter what, they still love us no matter what, even after we aborted them. This what I understood when I met my aborted son.
Thank you for sharing. To me, it seems like what you are describing here is a classical (and beautiful) example of what dreams are - a projection of our unconscious and subconsciois in the form of a visions and images. I'm sure you know there has been volumes written on this in the psychological literature, starting all the way back from the revolutionary work of Freud and Jung. As such, dreams hold great personal meaning in that they have the power to reveal to us what occupies the unconscious realms of our psyche, which are inaccesible to most people during the normal waking hours.
In that sense what you shared is revealing (and potentiinally can be used for healing certain parts of your psyche) as it gives a glimpse into what actually occupies of your unconscious. And it seems very clear from what you shared that feelings of guilt and remorse play a major role in the current makeup of parts of your psyche. It seems like these feelings are arising (almost certainly, from my perspective and understading) out of very strong value judgments that a part of your psyche (we can call him/her "the judge") has developed regarding actions that you took in an earlier part of your life.
But then you seem like you are going one step further and making another claim in this comment. A radical claim (which has not been critically examined, in my view) which is altogether different in nature to the sharing of your dream, a claim which to me doesn't seem to have validity and is NOT naturally derived from the dream you shared (even though your tone and structure of the comment implies that you believe that your claim is naturally derived from the dream, but that isn't the case, from where I stand).
You seem to claim that your dream is not merely an expression of what occupies your unconscious realm, but rather that it is an expression of a UNIVERSAL TRUTH, that is an expression of OBJECTIVE REALITY, and that it provides PROOF that a certain ideology, narrative and worldview (that you are possibly immersed in) are true, simply becasue you have dreamt so!!
To me, this second claim that you are making in your comment (as if the fact that you have dreamt something provides the ultimate "proof" that a certain worldview is the truth and as if it is a reflection of what is real, of objective reality, that is universally true for everyone) is extremely radical and has no support whatsoever in reality. This claim simply holds no water, if it is critically examined, IMO.
In my view, what you are describing is the classical (and very common) false assumptions of a mind that is deeply steeped in either a certain worldview (such as a mind that deeply believes and is emotionally invested in certain mythologies or religious ideologies, for example) or deeply steeped in very strong emotions that it finds hard to handle and accept (especially about itself. Guilt and remorse are the perfect example of such emotions. The magnificent author Fyodor Dostoyevski wrote an entire book, 'crime and punishment', which is a beautiful and detailed case study of this phenomena of our psyche), a mind that is steeped in either one of these two (or in both of them, which is very common) and then believes that its own visions and dreams - that arise out of its unconscious and subconscious, out of the unconscious beliefs, convictions, worldviews, conditionings that fill up her psyche - that these visions and dreams are "proof" to the validity if this mind's a-priori unconscious beliefs and conclusions!!!
Do you see how circular and invalid this claim is? The unconscious content of one's psyche gives rise to certain visions and dreams, and then the mind uses its own self-produced visions and dreams to claim that the fact that those dreams and visions happened is "proof" that its unconscious content (the beliefs, conditioning and perspectives it is immersed in, and/or the deep emotions that trouble her) is a true reflection of reality!!
Do you see the circular (and absurd) nature of this claim? And yet unfortunately, this is a very common claim put forward by devoted adherents to certain ideologies who are steeped in certain mythologies, narratives, religions or worldviews.
As I mentioned earlier and as has been known in psychological literature already for a very long time, our minds are a PROFOUNDLY CREATIVE phenomena. Our minds use the content of our strong unconscious imprints, such as powerful unprocessed emotions, traumas, or narratives/mythologies/images that leave a strong imprint in us) to produce dreams and visions that in turn help to bring into our conscious attention much of the content of our psyche that lurks in the deep and that we don't have access to during normal waking life. This is one of the most beautiful and useful functions of our mind, and can be very healing and illuminating if approached correctly and seen for what it actually is - a reflection of the deep unconscious imprints in OUR OWN psyche - but when it is approached incorrectly (as I think is the case here), it can give rise to dangerous and zealous assertions as if the content of one's own unconscious conditioning (in the form of dreams and visions) is an expression of objective reality and as if it is "proof" that one's own conditioned beliefs/imprints (that gave rise to the dreams and visions) are true ("well, I saw it in a dream/vision, so it must be true"), not realizing that our dreams and visions could be simply an expression of that which has already occupied our unconsciois and subconscious!!
Take, for example, somethig I read recently about two people who went through a near death experience in two different parts of the world. One was deeply conditioned into the Hindu mythologies and narratives (which means, her unconscious mind has been deeply imprinted by these stories and perspectives) and the other was deeply conditioned into the Christian mythologies and narratives. The first one reported that she met krishna during her near death experience, the second one reported that she met jesus. Both of them felt deeply validated in their belief systems and consider their near death visions to be "proof" that the particular religion/mythology they've been conditioned into is the one true religion, "proof" that they have been right in tjeir beliefs all along...
That is the power of our unconscious imprints. Even in such a profound experience like a near death experience they exert their projective power to interprent the vision for us based on our conditioning, based what is already occupying and filling up our subconscious..
Space here is limited here so lastly I'll just ask a couple of questions that I think are worthwhile asking oneself - If your implied claim is true that your dream was a true reflection of objective reality out there (and not simply an visual representation of the emotions and beliefs that occupy your subconscious), if it is true that what you dreamt of are real distinct individual children that exist in objective reality outside your own mind, then i wonder why did "they" (going along for a minute with the assumption that "they" are objectively real and exist outside your mind) why did "they" appear to your conscious awareness only now and not earlier? Only now as this subject becomes prominent in your awareness and as feelings of guilt and remorse are perhaps rising to the surface and as you are judging harshly your younger self? Why didn't they appear to your younger self? In fact, why didn't they appear to your younger self to give you this message BEFORE the abortion, to make this plea when it actually could have make a difference? After all, if they do exist in reality outside your mind and are not constrained by a body or by time and space (as you have dreamt) then why didn't they appear and make the same argument at the time when it could actually make a difference (from "their perspective")? If "all they really wanted is just to be born" (as your mind is now telling you based on the ideas that have been imprinted in you) then why are they hunting you down now after the fact (to apparently make you feel guilty and angry at your younger self), why didn't "they" use their apparently non-physical powers to appear BEFORE the abortion and make "their" claim then, when "their wish" could actually be fulfilled?
Does this make any sense?
Is it a coincidence that "they" happened to "appear" in your mind ONLY at the time when you just happened to be strongly contemplating the possibility (that is, when your subconscious is deeply imprinted by the belief and strong emotions) that what you did was wrong and judge yourself harshly for it?
In other words, is it possible that the visions you dreamt are ACTUALLY a visual projection of what occupies your subconscious?
Of course dreams and visions can seem very real (they wouldn't fulfill their function if they wouldn't seem and feel real), I've had quite a few such dreams and visions, but I don't claim that my visions are anything other than a refelction of the deep imprints and conditionings in my own unconscious..
Lots more I wanted to ask but space is finished here.
Thank you for this, however if I may say so, I think you're missing the point of my comment and what I tried to convey in it. If I may say so, the point is NOT whether we call it a 'vision' or an 'inner knowing' or a 'dream' or a 'meeting in spirit' or any other term you might want to use. I think that everything I pointed out in the comment - regarding the circular (and absurd) nature of the claim you are making, and regarding the possibly severe lack of awareness of how our mind actually functions, what it is capable of, where our visions or 'inner knowings' actually come from and what they are made of, and regarding our mind's profoundly creative nature and ability to weave stories and meanings to soothe ourselves - all of that (and much more which is in tne original comment and which i didn't mention here) is STILL very valid regardless of what term we use to describe your experience. Please replace the words 'vision' or 'dream' in the comment, with the words 'inner knowing' or 'meeting in spirit' and then kindly read my comment again. Everything i brought to attention in tne comment is still very much valid, as far as I can see, even if we call your experience an 'inner knowing' or a 'meeting in spirit' instead of a 'vision' or 'dream'. Please don't let these terms make you miss the points that i brought to attention in the comment. I think it is VERY important.
Important not just for specifically for you but important also becasue the circular nature of the claim you are making is very very common today among many believers - 'the fact that i had a vision/inner knowing is proof that the beliefs and ideas I hold are true', not realizing that the vision/inner knowing did NOT arise in a vaccum, but arose in the context of WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN OCCUPYING ONE'S UNCONSCIOUS AND SUBCONSCIOUS mind, arose in the context of one's conditioning.. the imprints of unconscious conditioning create the vision/inner knowing, and then the mind claims that the vision is proof that the unconscious conditioning is true.. circular and absurd... not realizing how profoundly powerful our mind is in its capacity for self-convincing, in its capacity to conjure up knowings/visions/stories/images/narratives for us, that reflect the content of our subconscious, as well as in order to create a feeling of certainty, security and 'knowing' in us (becasue if there is one thing that our mind absolutely cannot stand it is lack of security that arises out of the feeling of lack of certainty, lack of meaning, and it will do ANYTHING to create a clear coherent meaning, certainty and 'knowing' in order to create security and comfort for itself)
I hear this same circular claim in my practice all the time, it is very very common in today's society, and especially among those steeped in religious or spiritual belief-based ideologies, who simply take at face-value their mind's visions and inner knowings, never inquiring deeper and never putting our OWN EXPERIENCE under the light of real scrutiny and investigation (and real scrutiny and investigation cannot happen when we simultaneously hold on to pre-established conclusions/beliefs/ideas, to pre-formed notions of "I already know what this means". Real scrutiny and investigation requires a complete wiping away of all of that, and starting completely naked, not knowing a thing).
In that regard I think my comment is very important, if I may say so, amd i think it makes no difference if we call it 'vision' or 'inner knowing' or 'dream' or 'meeting in spirit'. All that i pointed out in tbe comment is still very valid. Kindly read it :-)
PS. The right/left hemisphere theory has been refuted long ago but still dominates newage pop psychology to this day (though that is not really the point here :-)
PPS. And please don't misunderstand my words as if i claim to know that this is what your mind has been doing in this instance. I am not saying that this is what your mind has done (i am not arrogant enough to claim to know this with certainty) but i am saying that this is a very plausible possibility, a possibility which it seems like you perhaps haven't really investigated seriously and in-depth (at least your confidently-worded and forcefully-asserted comment strongly indicates that you haven't. It shows no sign that this possibility even occured to your conscious awareness).
You may be right, but... you may be wrong. Who is anyone to tell someone else that their beliefs are wrong? Just sayin. Just because something seems really far-fetched or ridiculous, it doesn't mean it's WRONG. You commit the error of correcting someone for believing something when you believe something, too. Hubris! No offense.
Thank you. Are you referring to my actual comment? If so, i am not sure what is the relation between this reply and my comment. May I ask, have you read my comment with some seriousness? It was much much more more nuanced than simply saying "i am right and you are wrong", but rather I brought to attention that her comment is actually made up of two distinct parts, one is the vision and the other is her mind's interpretation of the vision and claiming that her vision provides "proof" regarding what objective reality is made of, simply becasue she envisioned so!! I tried to clarify that (that there are actually these two distinct parts to her comment) becasue it seems to me like she didn't make that distinction herself but rather pretended that her interpration of the vision (that claim as if it provides "proof" of what objectove reality is made of) is an obvious and done conclusion. And I tried to show that it is nkt obvious and done but that there is another possibility (in my view a much much more plausible possibility by all reasonable accounts, and i explained in detail why i think it is much more plausible) as to what her vision actually signifies, and where it was actually derived from and what it is made of.
I did not claim that the possibility i brought up is certainly and undoubtedly true and that she is undoubtedly wrong (i am not that arrogant to make such claims) but rather i asked certain questions and I brought to light certain things (see my comment again for details on these) that i think shed light on why this is a much more plausible possibility. A possibility that she seemed to be unaware of..
And i think she is unaware of this possibility becasue of her mind's attachment to the conclusion she shared in the comment.
Attachment which I think is formed becasue of the great satisfaction and pleasure that the mind derives from claiming that it is "right" and from sticking to one familiar position that it IDENTIFiES with, one perspective, one conclusion, that validates one's already-established pre-formed identity and value judgements.. There is almost nothing the mind derives more pleasure from than from feeling that its perspective/interpretation is the correct one and that its pre-established belief (the mental position it derives its identity from) is the objective truth..
So no, I didn't say she is "i am rigt and you are wrong", as you claim, my comment was much more nuanced than that and dare i say more mature than these superficial and childish balck&white games ('i am right and you are wrong').
I humbly and respectfully suggest reading my comment again to have a clearer picture of what i actually said. My impression, based on your reply, is that it was very misunderstood.
Lastly, i'd like to say one word, if I may, about the subject of IDENTIFICATION, which i just breifly mentioned above (when mentioning the mind's attachment and identification with a certain position, which i think are at the root of why she was not aware of the other possibility of what her dream signifies, the possibility i brought up in my comment).
I am mentioning it becasue I find it amazing and fascinating how identification with a belief/idea/position can often turn us into enemies and destroy humanity and love..
I find it interesting and enlightening that the word IDENTIFICATION comes for the Latin root 'idem' (which means 'SAME') and 'facre' (which means 'to make'), so 'to identify' literally means 'to make the same'.
Same as what? Same as me, of course (becasue it is me who is identifying).
So quite literally, to identify means that I have made myself (my very existence) the SAME as the belief/idea/position that I identify with. The very word means that.
I, my very existence, is the SAME as the belief/position/idea I identify with.
And once I have identified with a certain belief/idea, once I have made myself the SAME as that belief/position, then obviously any disagreement with or diminishment from the belief/position is immediately perceived as a diminishment of myself, of my very existence.
And once that happens then a hostile and violent response is usually triggered at any mention that might diminish from the belief/position (which EQUALS my identity).
Identification to the point of feeling that if someone disagrees with my mental position, with my assertion, with my belief system, then that can be felt as a direct threat to my very existance!! and therefore, if one's very existance is perceived as being under threat, then obviously this generates huge amounts of hostility and an aggressive response.
I think that this is one the major reasons (if not THE MOST major reason) why our mind, if it not aware and mature enough, often attaches itself to certain postions/beliefs with all the havoc that this attachment and identification this casues in the world (which i detailed above).. and ultimately, as i mentioned earlier, i think that this same movement of identification and attachment to a certain position/belief/conclusion is what blinded her to a much more plausible possibility of what her vision actually signifies and what is it that actually generates our visions...
(And again, i am NOT saying here 'she is wrong and i am right', but rather i am bringing attention to a possibility that was ignored and not mentioned in her comment, possibly becasue she is completely blind to this option, which again goes back to the blindness caused by our identifocation with certain positions/beliefs)
For me, this sentence says it all: "When our society fully reorganizes itself around service to life on every level, the abortion issue will slip into insignificance."
Beautiful, touching and so deeply resonate. If I may say so, I also noticed that the REAL issues are actually those that are unspoken and unconscious, those that are "behind" the overt arguments conclusions and convictions of each "side". In my experience and understanding, the REAL issues that drive the devotees of each side are almost always the ones that are unspoken of and unacknowledged, psychologically hidden and unconscious.
As one small example of that, that really opened my eyes to what is ACTUALLY going on beneath the surface slogans - when i dived beneath the surface together with a friend (who defines herself as being in the anti-abortion/pro-life camp), as we peeled back the layers and dived deeper than the surface arguments, we more and more came to see the real (unspoken) inner psychological forces that were driving the outward conclusions she reached and the political position she took. We discovered that behind the slogans of caring for life and having compassion for the unborn, there was ACTUALLY huge amounts of very deep anger - rage actually - and literally a desire to PUNISH those who lead a life/lifestyle which she was taught to think of as "wrong" (or immoral). We discovered that behind the surface pious words of caring for life and compassion there was ACTUALLY incredible hostility and desire to "teach a lesson" to those who don't follow "the righteous ways" and who don't subscribe to her belief system, and to IMPOSE on the "immoral ones" the kind of lifestyle that she was taught is moral and right.
It was fadcinating to realize how, even though just a few months earlier she was rallying against what she called tyranny (and I was fully with her on that), and yet now, as we peeled the surface layers and got to the very root of where the motivations are springing from, we discovered (behind her cries against tyranny) her own ACTUAL desire to be powerful tyrant who gets to impose the "right way" on others and punish those who behave "wrong".. it was quite a shock to her as well..
And it actually goes deeper than that, becasue we discovered that the rage and hostility and desire to punish were actually not the final stop and there was an even deeper layer "behind" them, of very deep pain and sorrow, of deep feeling of woundedness, of abandoned, unloved and unheard orphans/parts, shut away at the deepest dungeons of the psyche (which then rose to the surface in the form of profound rage and wanting to punish those who have hurt them).
The same is true for the other "side" as well, it seems to me. Unconscious/unspoken firces are driving both "sides", IMHO.
There is a lot more to this but I think I'll stop here :-)
Just saying all of this in order to express my deep resonance with what you bring to light Charles, that the REAL issues driving our conclusions and convictions are ACTUALLY the ones not spoken about, that many of us are perhaps even unware of..
PS. I highly recommend the work of Scott Kiloby (The Kiloby Inquiries) for anyone interested in discovering what's really underneath our surface convictions, opinions and beliefs. I am not affiliated with it, just think it a very skillful and effective means of revealing our deeper truths, that I know of..
Wow I literally just finished all 37 Kiloby Inquiry videos on his playlist right before i read your comment.
I have never even heard anyone talk about them before.
That's wonderful that you were able to have such a deep conversation with your friend. I agree that people are mostly operating from a place of pain these days. That doesn't necessarily invalidate their opinions, and even if they could let go of all that emotional baggage they may still have the same opinions on the issues. But ultimately our opinions are not really as valuable as we like to imagine. I doubt anyone cares what I think about abortion or anything else.
Thank you for sharing those insights, Dan. I was judged and treated like a worthless, stupid and sinful child when I had an abortion at 21. My reality was that I was terrified of negative judgement, heartbroken and traumatised by the recent death of my father. The conception itself happened in a climate of woeful self-neglect without a sense of me existing in any grounded reality, hardly a conscious space filled with the love and joy I would choose - if I were functioning heathily. If the judger can step back and see the pain of the judgee, it might be helpful to both - finding our common ground, which so often would help us in these difficult moments. We often forget to cherish the life of the mother who conceives, suddenly NOTHING is more important than the baby attached and buried within her body. Does she not deserve compassion too? Some women who have unplanned pregnancies may never have felt cherished, deserving, loved fully and properly. It's such a complex issue once you go in, isn't it! Anyway, thank you.
“ discovered (behind her cries against tyranny) her own ACTUAL desire to be powerful tyrant who gets to impose the "right way" on others and punish those who behave "wrong".”
The reality that many people won’t or don’t have the capacity to face. Very well stated, friend.
Wow, Dan . . . kudos to you and your friend for having such a deep, thoughtful, honest conversation about this charged topic -- for being able to hold space for that to unfold in an atmosphere of respect and trust even when the going got rough. And thank you for sharing that with us.
In this day and age it is refreshing to find someone who will allow us to simply ask questions. We should all be asking questions. When did the world become so polarized? I just want to love others. ALL others, on every ¨side¨ and I don´t want to feel like I have to choose a side to have friends so I have been gravitating towards those who are willing to make love the priority, as hippy dippy as that sounds as I read it in my head. And I am trying to just love ppl where they are at and let it be. I want peace, you know?
Completely agree Katie. I feel exactly the same way. I don't want to live in a world full of "others" and enemies. I genuinely want to get along and love everyone. I am willing to see what a world living in peace and love looks like.
This essay is a work of art Charles. Every paragraph is eminently quotable and filled with meaning. I salute you as the skilled wordsmith that you are.
You've put my feelings into words. I'm awed that Charles and his talent exist and infinitely encouraged that his writing is freely available to the whole world. There is so much hope in that for me.
This is a great essay. This is exactly how I approach things too. Even when people are wrong, they are usually wrong for comprehensible and even noble reasons, and they sure will not be swayed if you do not recognize this. Mostly, we do in fact share values where we imagine that we do not.
On the specific issue of Roe vs Wade (thank you for the footnote), you elide the most important distinction though, and this is a bit unfortunate. I don't think the state should be forcing this either, but this is mostly a discussion about the legitimate role of the state in enforcing public morality, and this comes down to whether you consider it murder or not, because if you do, not many people don't think the state does not have a legitimate role there, and if you do not, then not many people think it does.
In any case, I share that footnoted view largely, but I do not support Roe vs Wade, and I am not an exception, because there are lots of people (at least amongst legal commentators) who support abortion rights but oppose Roe vs Wade. Roe vs Wade asserts that the federal government has powers which it does not have, and as such it undermines the balance of powers foreseen in the US constitution, which I think is a very wholesome and healthy one, because it avoids overconcentration of power in the hands of any single authority. For me, this point about the constitution is much more important than the point about abortion. Abolishing Roe vs Wade does not make abortion illegal anywhere, it just leaves the decision to the States. There are also other arguments which could be made under the Constitution than the argument which underpins Roe v Wade, and the Constitution could be amended if you really think the federal layer should take a position on that. But as long as Roe v Wade stands, the federal govt can intervene in a whole host of issues which are none of its business. That's not OK.
You make an important point that the question isn't about abortion but about who decides? If the Federal gov't has the right to prioritize the sovereignty of the mother, they also can prioritize the sovereignty of the fetus. Either way takes away the sovereignty of the state.
Great points. I am very pro life but I am also opposed to making abortions especially in the first two trimesters against the law. Why? Because they will happen anyway and a very bad situation will be made worse. Those who can afford to will travel to where they can obtain a safe abortion. Those who can not afford to will obtain unsafe abortions.
I think that both sides of this issue are locked into paradigms that don't make sense. The abortion industry (yes it is an industry) tries to portray abortion as no big deal and denies the very real experiences of many women who later regret the decision to have an abortion. Some are so pro abortion that they were opposed to the 'Born Alive Act' that would have required medical care to a baby born alive due to a failed late term abortion. (Yes that does happen. There is an Abortion Survivors Network made of of people who survived an attempt to abort them).
As for the traditional pro life people there has been more of a focus on making laws which keeps the debate at the level of controling or not controling people's bodies. It keeps the discussion political rather than ethical. There are exceptions. There are pro life groups that help pregnant women.
So I'm very pro life but also opposed to criminalizing abortion. I'd rather see abortions steadily decrease through education and information much like OUI's have decreased due to public awareness.
I think the biggest thing for me is that everyone that I have ever known, everyone that I've ever held, everyone that I've ever loved, and every stranger that I meet was once a fetus. When people talk with me about abortion the whole piece about controling other people's bodies is swept off the table. That opens it up to a different kind of discussion.
“abortion and gun control, both issues with two very distinct sides.”
Duality will be the death of humanity. It’s not about two sides, it’s about a spectrum of beliefs. And there are other hard hitting questions that need to be postulated such as, who stands to benefit from the business of abortions and gun regulations? What are the long term effects of regulation on these issues? What has history taught us about these issues? Those questions will help some groups of people find themselves along the spectrum more than questions about the value for life.
Thank you for the reminders that we can choose to opt out of the artificial choices we are so often given in the common narrative. I've been reading "The Essential Herman Kahn - in defense of thinking" and the first chapter describes his challenge as he wrote in the 1960s and 70s about nuclear war and how often he was chastised for discussing the topic in public. Thought is often strangely uncomfortable and therefore punished.
I am excited to be exploring frameworks with as much vigor and interest as solutions. I am also excited to be able to support heartfelt spaces wherein curiosity and generosity can be evoked and honored.
I was in a group recently where we were talking about how exciting the new 3d wet printing tech was and how we could build wonderful communities that could solve all kinds of problems. the general chatter was how quickly and effectively we could get as many houses as needed built to solve housing issues.
Ironically while having this conversation i was actually sitting in an earth house that got built by a 1000 hands, 2 months of very physical labour, which however was labour that also included the elderly and children. (gleefully) The very act of raising my earth house out of the ground with my community was the very thing that built community.
far too often we work from within our wonderful and clever minds, and so little is done in these conversations to promote heart to heart consul, preferably under a linden tree as was done in ages past.
As much I am a fan of tech and am using it (gleefully) right now i am a bigger fan of understanding and getting curious about the framework wherein the solutions or problems arise.
i love the "prison garden" concept ... the metaphor as a whole is great, but that phrase really triggers the imagination ... what if that was the standard practice in prisons? what if the cultivation of growth was standard practice, on a very literal level?
beyond that little tangent, this post was fantastic :) and a great simple reminder to practice when observing "the current thing" : what is being omitted from the present conversation?
Speaking of changing the terms of the debate: Does anyone know Terry Pratchett's little story about whether the glass is half empty or half full? His character takes a look at the glass and says "That's not my glass! My glass was full! And it was a bigger glass!"
Yes the culture wars, right now over abortion and guns, reveal pretty clearly our level of evolution as a species. Not accepting the frame/terms of the debate, stepping outside the box, is a prerequisite for any new possibilities to arise.
For me, a lot of the issue revolves around when the woman makes the decision that she doesn't want to carry this child to term. She must know within the first two or maximum three months, right? Otherwise, in my books, it's too late to abort. ... I think. It's a tough call, for sure, but ultimately it must be the woman's choice.
I had two abortions when I was young and foolish, and at some point I met both children-that-could-have-been, not in real life but oh definitely real, in the spirit. They sprang up in my mind the way they would have been, could have been. Then only I understood that THEY wanted to live, no matter how. It was ME who thought I couldn't give them a good life. Only then did I understand how unbelievably precious life is, whatever way it is lived, and how sacred, and what gruesome superficiality I had treated it with. So this experience burdened but also deepened my soul. (Thereafter by the grace of God I had two beautiful, healthy children and now I am a granny of seven. Amazing.) I still am pro-choice. But I do believe we should change our ways in the whole area of sexuality, physicality, and death, for that matter.
Lisette, wow, I had this experience too. I wonder how many women have?
I’ve had many clients who met their unborn babies whether they had died or had been aborted. The spirit knows and sometimes they just want to connect.
Fascinating! It was such a powerful experience for me. A process of grieving and really recognizing the love experience- the process of living- that had been wanting to take place between us and their embodiment here. Who they were, enriching the world and coming into full expression. And how much grief I held - unconsciously- in not having the chance to be in communion with their particular ways of being. I still have tears flow now thinking of them.
To clarify for those who have misunderstood: I used the word grief. Grief is not guilt. I felt and still feel no guilt. Try that on.
That distinction between grief and guilt is a beautiful one. Thanks for bringing it to my awareness.
From talking to women, I've met several who reported having felt pressured into it, and afterwards feeling crushed by what they'd done.
I think a large part of what fuels this particular culture war issue is the sense many have that women are encouraged, often against their own hearts, to abort; followed by the refusal to acknowledge that many women regret the decision.
I don't know about being encouraged to have an abortion, I would rather say 'not actively encouraged to bear a baby - with full support'.
I'm not sure how common encouragement is. All I know is that I've talked to women who were put under such pressure, from e.g. boyfriends, nurses, university administrators, etc.
I definitely agree that active encouragement to have the child would be far preferable. Especially with the clear understanding that the necessary support will be forthcoming.
I agree that the issue of having financial and emotional support is critical. I had two abortions. I really wanted to bear the second child, but neither I nor the father were able to support ourselves financially sufficiently to be able to bear the burden of doing so. He was nearly homeless and I was and am financially dependent on my father to survive. (I have earned money in various ways, but not enough to be able to support myself fully, nor to raise a child.) I asked my siblings and father (my mother was already dead by then) if they would help me to support the child, and they said no, they would not. Given this reality, I felt that the most ethical decision would be for me to have an abortion, which is what I did. I have compassion both for myself and the spirit who would have incarnated in that body. I believe that my decision to have the abortion was the right one. My life was hell and has continued to be hell before and since that aborted pregnancy, and I don't think it would have been right for me to have brought a child into the world under these circumstances. I myself would not want to have been brought into the world under the circumstances in which I live.
I understand your dilemma. Being a single mom, or anyone dependent on someone else for the most basic needs in life is in a difficult position, and women seem to be dismissed for getting into trouble with an unwanted pregnancy, as if they did it all by themselves! They are punished socially, economically, and physically, and the men seem to mostly fade into obscurity. And therein lies the problem. As long as women accept that it is indeed "a man's world" and allow men to stomp their ability to thrive, we will have this unbalanced, unfair situation. Misogyny needs to be relegated to the bin. ALL human beings need shelter, care, and a decent life. We need balance, and compassion, and less judgment. A little responsibility on the part of men would help, too... Patriarchy is an unbalanced way of life. We need equality and balance. Here are men, bringing us war after war after war, raping women and children, and yet abortion is "wrong."
As a woman, I've know many women who have struggled with the idea of abortion vs. raising a child they cannot afford to raise-- by themselves, because the man refuses to take any responsibility. Our culture punishes women who have sex outside marriage, and rewards men who do the same. Women get the lousy end of all the child-rearing problems, with only a very few exceptions. Men make the rules, men make the money, men get away with all sorts of selfishness. It's always on women to deal with the consequences, virtually all the time. It is men who feel no responsibility and men who seem to feel they are entitled to tell women what they can/can't do, men who make most of the laws, and men who allow the kind of culture that encourages all the above. I think MEN should step up and grow up and learn to share not only the prevention, but the consequences of unplanned, unintended children coming from irresponsible behavior. And fathers should be teaching their sons to be respectful and responsible with their behavior. This is not just a WOMEN'S issue. This is primarily a MEN's issue.
In the spirit of dialogue across ideological boundaries, I hear what you're saying. I agree that child-rearing is much more of a burden for the mother; this is unavoidably so for biological reasons. It's also a MUCH greater burden for single mothers.
But there's another perspective on these issues, which must be acknowledged if synthesis is to to obtained and an end found to the fighting.
Far from punishing only women who have sex outside of marriage, we now have the MeToo era: men can have their lives destroyed over accusations of rape (Believe All Women), whether they're true or not ... and 'rape' can mean 'consensual intercourse but the woman changed her mind'. The result of this is that a large number of men have simply withdrawn entirely from the dating market.
A woman can initiate divorce for any reason; and in fact, most divorces are initiated by women. The man is then on the hook for alimony and child support. The woman will almost always get custody. Divorce is not necessary for child support; a paternity test will do just as well. The result of this is that men are much less willing to marry: there's essentially nothing in it for men. It's all risk, no benefit. This means fewer families, more single mothers, and more broken families (also meaning more single mothers). Again, most divorces are initiated by women, meaning they brought it on themselves; you can argue 'well she was unhappy', and I'm sure she was ... but then, why was she with him in the first place?
Contemporary culture features the kangaroo courts of Title IX; hiring preferences that privilege female applicants; a strong female advantage in higher education; scholarships that are only open to women; and groups that only women can join. Exclusively male scholarships don't exist, and exclusively male organizations are rare (see: the 'Boy' Scouts). From the perspective of almost any man in this culture, it absolutely does not look like men are making the rules. Quite the opposite. Masculinity is generally frowned upon, resulting in a plethora of men that women are less attracted to; and also resulting in a diminution of precisely those habits that traditionally disciplined male behaviour, resulting in more bad behaviour by men.
Now, in terms of dealing maturely and responsibly with the children that result from sex: I couldn't agree more. Men should take responsibility. So should women. So should their respective parents, and so should the rest of society. Fathers absolutely should teach their children to be respectful and responsible. Children should have fathers that they may learn to be so. If a child is to be brought into the world, the parents should marry, in order to provide the child with a stable home. In order to ensure that households are stable, society should do everything it can to encourage monogamy and discourage divorce. In order to ensure that stable households are also happy and loving households, promiscuous sexual behaviour should be discouraged (for both sexes), and social technologies of courtship and matchmaking employed to make it more likely that people end up with partners that will be good for them in the long run, and not merely for the evening.
None of this is primarily a men's or a women's issue. It's a human issue. Until we see it that way none of this will get fixed.
OMG. Really? Hey, I know life isn't always great for fellers, but really? This is not a black & white issue, but it's damn dark on the women's side of things, comparatively, and what you're saying here tells me you really don't get that. Either you're quite young and so rather inexperienced, or you're just not particularly adept at interpreting what is happening all around you. Maybe both. Your argument that women have it better, and poor men, is laughable, and I'm laughing as I write this. There is NO question in my mind that men suffer, too, but WAAAAAAAY less. So please, spare me. I'm not gonna go through your List of Wah. Just try talking to women, or better yet, LISTEN to them. And when women prance around telling men they, too, can "father" children, when women move in on men's sports AND WIN, when women own most of the businesses and property, when women make more money than men, are not treated like idiots and sex objects in the media and in the culture generally, when women run the governments, make the laws, and tell men when and if they're allowed to stay "fully equipped," then we'll talk. You just seem to have no idea. I'm not trying to be mean to you, but daaaamn, dude. This is why women roll their eyes!
You may have heard this famous quotation from Margaret Atwood: "Men are afraid women will laugh at them. Women are afraid men will kill them."
I've spent my entire life listening to women. Incessantly. I acknowledged your concerns, did not trivialize them, and indeed agreed with many of them.
It's clear that you have no interest in extending the same courtesy. The points I raised were not raised for the purposes of complaining, but of pointing out the many ways in which current social conditions, due to the incentives they create for men, lead inevitably to precisely the negative conditions for women that rightfully trouble you. The intent is to identify solutions that work for everyone, not to whine. However, it seems that to even identify male problems is, to you, an attempt to minimize female problems.
This gets at my feelings on the subject. I'm agnostic on the issue in general, but, I don't think it should be trivialized. To abort is to take a life; if it is necessary, then so be, but this should never be treated lightly and certainly never celebrated. Good for you for realizing the gravity of your decisions.
We take life all the time. Why aren't more people protesting WAR? Protesting these horrible corporate animal farming operations (CAFO's)? Protesting the Covid jabs,, which are killing babies? And why aren't we protesting our political machine in Africa, causing enormous suffering and death? Why aren't we protesting that one out of five American children go to bed hungry? Why aren't we protesting Big Pharma and their "vaccine schedule" that is causing one in 33 children to have autism? The PTB in this country are far more interested in turning us against each other while it sucks the marrow out of our bones, one way or another, and avoids any responsibility, while making off with ALL the wealth, and now putting us in danger of yet ANOTHER war... and a NUCLEAR war at that, while billions and billions go to the war monger weapons manufacturers, and our food supply is BURNED... We all could do well to wake the fuck UP. ( Not trying to pick on you, but your name catches my eye!)
First: I don't disagree with any of the issues you mention. All are terrible and we're on the same side on those.
We do take life all the time, and usually in the most dishonest, foulest way possible. Take CAFOs. Those are basically concentration camps for animals. Why is this okay? Well because animals aren't 'conscious' or 'self-aware' - they're just meat machines. That's the excuse.
Now, our ancestors also ate animals. They hunted them, and they herded them and led them to the slaughter. However, they did not imagine that they were not taking lives. They looked the animals in the eye when the killed them. They saw the light go out. They knew full well that they had expelled a spirit from the flesh. Therefore, after killing, and before eating, they gave thanks to the animal. They apologised for taking its life, and expressed gratitude for the nourishment that life had provided.
The point is, they didn't try to turn away from it, they didn't try to hide it, they were honest about what they were doing. And, because they were honest, they treated the animals well while they lived; made sure they had good lives, happy lives, healthy lives. They didn't trick themselves that it is the act of killing which is bad, because death comes for us all, and it is usually horrible; what matters is the quality of the time between birth and death.
'But I do believe we should change our ways in the whole area of sexuality, physicality, and death, for that matter.' Totally agree.
You are wise. Thank you for sharing your experience.
Your intended children in other bodies are perhaps in your life now. If not, they have moved into new growth opportunities within other families. Either way, as you express, all is forgiven and healed.
My experience is yours. Two precious souls that I chose to not give birth to. One due to foolish young love, one forced upon me but just as precious. I now have six birthed beloveds, and they are my life.
We women carry a heavier burden. I don’t think this is by accident. Men articulate and act and react and create how we must live.
For now.
This is our time.
Not only they want to live no matter what, they still love us no matter what, even after we aborted them. This what I understood when I met my aborted son.
Thank you for sharing. To me, it seems like what you are describing here is a classical (and beautiful) example of what dreams are - a projection of our unconscious and subconsciois in the form of a visions and images. I'm sure you know there has been volumes written on this in the psychological literature, starting all the way back from the revolutionary work of Freud and Jung. As such, dreams hold great personal meaning in that they have the power to reveal to us what occupies the unconscious realms of our psyche, which are inaccesible to most people during the normal waking hours.
In that sense what you shared is revealing (and potentiinally can be used for healing certain parts of your psyche) as it gives a glimpse into what actually occupies of your unconscious. And it seems very clear from what you shared that feelings of guilt and remorse play a major role in the current makeup of parts of your psyche. It seems like these feelings are arising (almost certainly, from my perspective and understading) out of very strong value judgments that a part of your psyche (we can call him/her "the judge") has developed regarding actions that you took in an earlier part of your life.
But then you seem like you are going one step further and making another claim in this comment. A radical claim (which has not been critically examined, in my view) which is altogether different in nature to the sharing of your dream, a claim which to me doesn't seem to have validity and is NOT naturally derived from the dream you shared (even though your tone and structure of the comment implies that you believe that your claim is naturally derived from the dream, but that isn't the case, from where I stand).
You seem to claim that your dream is not merely an expression of what occupies your unconscious realm, but rather that it is an expression of a UNIVERSAL TRUTH, that is an expression of OBJECTIVE REALITY, and that it provides PROOF that a certain ideology, narrative and worldview (that you are possibly immersed in) are true, simply becasue you have dreamt so!!
To me, this second claim that you are making in your comment (as if the fact that you have dreamt something provides the ultimate "proof" that a certain worldview is the truth and as if it is a reflection of what is real, of objective reality, that is universally true for everyone) is extremely radical and has no support whatsoever in reality. This claim simply holds no water, if it is critically examined, IMO.
In my view, what you are describing is the classical (and very common) false assumptions of a mind that is deeply steeped in either a certain worldview (such as a mind that deeply believes and is emotionally invested in certain mythologies or religious ideologies, for example) or deeply steeped in very strong emotions that it finds hard to handle and accept (especially about itself. Guilt and remorse are the perfect example of such emotions. The magnificent author Fyodor Dostoyevski wrote an entire book, 'crime and punishment', which is a beautiful and detailed case study of this phenomena of our psyche), a mind that is steeped in either one of these two (or in both of them, which is very common) and then believes that its own visions and dreams - that arise out of its unconscious and subconscious, out of the unconscious beliefs, convictions, worldviews, conditionings that fill up her psyche - that these visions and dreams are "proof" to the validity if this mind's a-priori unconscious beliefs and conclusions!!!
Do you see how circular and invalid this claim is? The unconscious content of one's psyche gives rise to certain visions and dreams, and then the mind uses its own self-produced visions and dreams to claim that the fact that those dreams and visions happened is "proof" that its unconscious content (the beliefs, conditioning and perspectives it is immersed in, and/or the deep emotions that trouble her) is a true reflection of reality!!
Do you see the circular (and absurd) nature of this claim? And yet unfortunately, this is a very common claim put forward by devoted adherents to certain ideologies who are steeped in certain mythologies, narratives, religions or worldviews.
As I mentioned earlier and as has been known in psychological literature already for a very long time, our minds are a PROFOUNDLY CREATIVE phenomena. Our minds use the content of our strong unconscious imprints, such as powerful unprocessed emotions, traumas, or narratives/mythologies/images that leave a strong imprint in us) to produce dreams and visions that in turn help to bring into our conscious attention much of the content of our psyche that lurks in the deep and that we don't have access to during normal waking life. This is one of the most beautiful and useful functions of our mind, and can be very healing and illuminating if approached correctly and seen for what it actually is - a reflection of the deep unconscious imprints in OUR OWN psyche - but when it is approached incorrectly (as I think is the case here), it can give rise to dangerous and zealous assertions as if the content of one's own unconscious conditioning (in the form of dreams and visions) is an expression of objective reality and as if it is "proof" that one's own conditioned beliefs/imprints (that gave rise to the dreams and visions) are true ("well, I saw it in a dream/vision, so it must be true"), not realizing that our dreams and visions could be simply an expression of that which has already occupied our unconsciois and subconscious!!
Take, for example, somethig I read recently about two people who went through a near death experience in two different parts of the world. One was deeply conditioned into the Hindu mythologies and narratives (which means, her unconscious mind has been deeply imprinted by these stories and perspectives) and the other was deeply conditioned into the Christian mythologies and narratives. The first one reported that she met krishna during her near death experience, the second one reported that she met jesus. Both of them felt deeply validated in their belief systems and consider their near death visions to be "proof" that the particular religion/mythology they've been conditioned into is the one true religion, "proof" that they have been right in tjeir beliefs all along...
That is the power of our unconscious imprints. Even in such a profound experience like a near death experience they exert their projective power to interprent the vision for us based on our conditioning, based what is already occupying and filling up our subconscious..
Space here is limited here so lastly I'll just ask a couple of questions that I think are worthwhile asking oneself - If your implied claim is true that your dream was a true reflection of objective reality out there (and not simply an visual representation of the emotions and beliefs that occupy your subconscious), if it is true that what you dreamt of are real distinct individual children that exist in objective reality outside your own mind, then i wonder why did "they" (going along for a minute with the assumption that "they" are objectively real and exist outside your mind) why did "they" appear to your conscious awareness only now and not earlier? Only now as this subject becomes prominent in your awareness and as feelings of guilt and remorse are perhaps rising to the surface and as you are judging harshly your younger self? Why didn't they appear to your younger self? In fact, why didn't they appear to your younger self to give you this message BEFORE the abortion, to make this plea when it actually could have make a difference? After all, if they do exist in reality outside your mind and are not constrained by a body or by time and space (as you have dreamt) then why didn't they appear and make the same argument at the time when it could actually make a difference (from "their perspective")? If "all they really wanted is just to be born" (as your mind is now telling you based on the ideas that have been imprinted in you) then why are they hunting you down now after the fact (to apparently make you feel guilty and angry at your younger self), why didn't "they" use their apparently non-physical powers to appear BEFORE the abortion and make "their" claim then, when "their wish" could actually be fulfilled?
Does this make any sense?
Is it a coincidence that "they" happened to "appear" in your mind ONLY at the time when you just happened to be strongly contemplating the possibility (that is, when your subconscious is deeply imprinted by the belief and strong emotions) that what you did was wrong and judge yourself harshly for it?
In other words, is it possible that the visions you dreamt are ACTUALLY a visual projection of what occupies your subconscious?
Of course dreams and visions can seem very real (they wouldn't fulfill their function if they wouldn't seem and feel real), I've had quite a few such dreams and visions, but I don't claim that my visions are anything other than a refelction of the deep imprints and conditionings in my own unconscious..
Lots more I wanted to ask but space is finished here.
There was no dream. There was no protest. There was no guilt. There was inner knowing. Right hemisphere I presume.
Thank you for this, however if I may say so, I think you're missing the point of my comment and what I tried to convey in it. If I may say so, the point is NOT whether we call it a 'vision' or an 'inner knowing' or a 'dream' or a 'meeting in spirit' or any other term you might want to use. I think that everything I pointed out in the comment - regarding the circular (and absurd) nature of the claim you are making, and regarding the possibly severe lack of awareness of how our mind actually functions, what it is capable of, where our visions or 'inner knowings' actually come from and what they are made of, and regarding our mind's profoundly creative nature and ability to weave stories and meanings to soothe ourselves - all of that (and much more which is in tne original comment and which i didn't mention here) is STILL very valid regardless of what term we use to describe your experience. Please replace the words 'vision' or 'dream' in the comment, with the words 'inner knowing' or 'meeting in spirit' and then kindly read my comment again. Everything i brought to attention in tne comment is still very much valid, as far as I can see, even if we call your experience an 'inner knowing' or a 'meeting in spirit' instead of a 'vision' or 'dream'. Please don't let these terms make you miss the points that i brought to attention in the comment. I think it is VERY important.
Important not just for specifically for you but important also becasue the circular nature of the claim you are making is very very common today among many believers - 'the fact that i had a vision/inner knowing is proof that the beliefs and ideas I hold are true', not realizing that the vision/inner knowing did NOT arise in a vaccum, but arose in the context of WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN OCCUPYING ONE'S UNCONSCIOUS AND SUBCONSCIOUS mind, arose in the context of one's conditioning.. the imprints of unconscious conditioning create the vision/inner knowing, and then the mind claims that the vision is proof that the unconscious conditioning is true.. circular and absurd... not realizing how profoundly powerful our mind is in its capacity for self-convincing, in its capacity to conjure up knowings/visions/stories/images/narratives for us, that reflect the content of our subconscious, as well as in order to create a feeling of certainty, security and 'knowing' in us (becasue if there is one thing that our mind absolutely cannot stand it is lack of security that arises out of the feeling of lack of certainty, lack of meaning, and it will do ANYTHING to create a clear coherent meaning, certainty and 'knowing' in order to create security and comfort for itself)
I hear this same circular claim in my practice all the time, it is very very common in today's society, and especially among those steeped in religious or spiritual belief-based ideologies, who simply take at face-value their mind's visions and inner knowings, never inquiring deeper and never putting our OWN EXPERIENCE under the light of real scrutiny and investigation (and real scrutiny and investigation cannot happen when we simultaneously hold on to pre-established conclusions/beliefs/ideas, to pre-formed notions of "I already know what this means". Real scrutiny and investigation requires a complete wiping away of all of that, and starting completely naked, not knowing a thing).
In that regard I think my comment is very important, if I may say so, amd i think it makes no difference if we call it 'vision' or 'inner knowing' or 'dream' or 'meeting in spirit'. All that i pointed out in tbe comment is still very valid. Kindly read it :-)
PS. The right/left hemisphere theory has been refuted long ago but still dominates newage pop psychology to this day (though that is not really the point here :-)
PPS. And please don't misunderstand my words as if i claim to know that this is what your mind has been doing in this instance. I am not saying that this is what your mind has done (i am not arrogant enough to claim to know this with certainty) but i am saying that this is a very plausible possibility, a possibility which it seems like you perhaps haven't really investigated seriously and in-depth (at least your confidently-worded and forcefully-asserted comment strongly indicates that you haven't. It shows no sign that this possibility even occured to your conscious awareness).
You may be right, but... you may be wrong. Who is anyone to tell someone else that their beliefs are wrong? Just sayin. Just because something seems really far-fetched or ridiculous, it doesn't mean it's WRONG. You commit the error of correcting someone for believing something when you believe something, too. Hubris! No offense.
Thank you. Are you referring to my actual comment? If so, i am not sure what is the relation between this reply and my comment. May I ask, have you read my comment with some seriousness? It was much much more more nuanced than simply saying "i am right and you are wrong", but rather I brought to attention that her comment is actually made up of two distinct parts, one is the vision and the other is her mind's interpretation of the vision and claiming that her vision provides "proof" regarding what objective reality is made of, simply becasue she envisioned so!! I tried to clarify that (that there are actually these two distinct parts to her comment) becasue it seems to me like she didn't make that distinction herself but rather pretended that her interpration of the vision (that claim as if it provides "proof" of what objectove reality is made of) is an obvious and done conclusion. And I tried to show that it is nkt obvious and done but that there is another possibility (in my view a much much more plausible possibility by all reasonable accounts, and i explained in detail why i think it is much more plausible) as to what her vision actually signifies, and where it was actually derived from and what it is made of.
I did not claim that the possibility i brought up is certainly and undoubtedly true and that she is undoubtedly wrong (i am not that arrogant to make such claims) but rather i asked certain questions and I brought to light certain things (see my comment again for details on these) that i think shed light on why this is a much more plausible possibility. A possibility that she seemed to be unaware of..
And i think she is unaware of this possibility becasue of her mind's attachment to the conclusion she shared in the comment.
Attachment which I think is formed becasue of the great satisfaction and pleasure that the mind derives from claiming that it is "right" and from sticking to one familiar position that it IDENTIFiES with, one perspective, one conclusion, that validates one's already-established pre-formed identity and value judgements.. There is almost nothing the mind derives more pleasure from than from feeling that its perspective/interpretation is the correct one and that its pre-established belief (the mental position it derives its identity from) is the objective truth..
So no, I didn't say she is "i am rigt and you are wrong", as you claim, my comment was much more nuanced than that and dare i say more mature than these superficial and childish balck&white games ('i am right and you are wrong').
I humbly and respectfully suggest reading my comment again to have a clearer picture of what i actually said. My impression, based on your reply, is that it was very misunderstood.
Lastly, i'd like to say one word, if I may, about the subject of IDENTIFICATION, which i just breifly mentioned above (when mentioning the mind's attachment and identification with a certain position, which i think are at the root of why she was not aware of the other possibility of what her dream signifies, the possibility i brought up in my comment).
I am mentioning it becasue I find it amazing and fascinating how identification with a belief/idea/position can often turn us into enemies and destroy humanity and love..
I find it interesting and enlightening that the word IDENTIFICATION comes for the Latin root 'idem' (which means 'SAME') and 'facre' (which means 'to make'), so 'to identify' literally means 'to make the same'.
Same as what? Same as me, of course (becasue it is me who is identifying).
So quite literally, to identify means that I have made myself (my very existence) the SAME as the belief/idea/position that I identify with. The very word means that.
I, my very existence, is the SAME as the belief/position/idea I identify with.
And once I have identified with a certain belief/idea, once I have made myself the SAME as that belief/position, then obviously any disagreement with or diminishment from the belief/position is immediately perceived as a diminishment of myself, of my very existence.
And once that happens then a hostile and violent response is usually triggered at any mention that might diminish from the belief/position (which EQUALS my identity).
Identification to the point of feeling that if someone disagrees with my mental position, with my assertion, with my belief system, then that can be felt as a direct threat to my very existance!! and therefore, if one's very existance is perceived as being under threat, then obviously this generates huge amounts of hostility and an aggressive response.
I think that this is one the major reasons (if not THE MOST major reason) why our mind, if it not aware and mature enough, often attaches itself to certain postions/beliefs with all the havoc that this attachment and identification this casues in the world (which i detailed above).. and ultimately, as i mentioned earlier, i think that this same movement of identification and attachment to a certain position/belief/conclusion is what blinded her to a much more plausible possibility of what her vision actually signifies and what is it that actually generates our visions...
(And again, i am NOT saying here 'she is wrong and i am right', but rather i am bringing attention to a possibility that was ignored and not mentioned in her comment, possibly becasue she is completely blind to this option, which again goes back to the blindness caused by our identifocation with certain positions/beliefs)
For me, this sentence says it all: "When our society fully reorganizes itself around service to life on every level, the abortion issue will slip into insignificance."
Beautiful, touching and so deeply resonate. If I may say so, I also noticed that the REAL issues are actually those that are unspoken and unconscious, those that are "behind" the overt arguments conclusions and convictions of each "side". In my experience and understanding, the REAL issues that drive the devotees of each side are almost always the ones that are unspoken of and unacknowledged, psychologically hidden and unconscious.
As one small example of that, that really opened my eyes to what is ACTUALLY going on beneath the surface slogans - when i dived beneath the surface together with a friend (who defines herself as being in the anti-abortion/pro-life camp), as we peeled back the layers and dived deeper than the surface arguments, we more and more came to see the real (unspoken) inner psychological forces that were driving the outward conclusions she reached and the political position she took. We discovered that behind the slogans of caring for life and having compassion for the unborn, there was ACTUALLY huge amounts of very deep anger - rage actually - and literally a desire to PUNISH those who lead a life/lifestyle which she was taught to think of as "wrong" (or immoral). We discovered that behind the surface pious words of caring for life and compassion there was ACTUALLY incredible hostility and desire to "teach a lesson" to those who don't follow "the righteous ways" and who don't subscribe to her belief system, and to IMPOSE on the "immoral ones" the kind of lifestyle that she was taught is moral and right.
It was fadcinating to realize how, even though just a few months earlier she was rallying against what she called tyranny (and I was fully with her on that), and yet now, as we peeled the surface layers and got to the very root of where the motivations are springing from, we discovered (behind her cries against tyranny) her own ACTUAL desire to be powerful tyrant who gets to impose the "right way" on others and punish those who behave "wrong".. it was quite a shock to her as well..
And it actually goes deeper than that, becasue we discovered that the rage and hostility and desire to punish were actually not the final stop and there was an even deeper layer "behind" them, of very deep pain and sorrow, of deep feeling of woundedness, of abandoned, unloved and unheard orphans/parts, shut away at the deepest dungeons of the psyche (which then rose to the surface in the form of profound rage and wanting to punish those who have hurt them).
The same is true for the other "side" as well, it seems to me. Unconscious/unspoken firces are driving both "sides", IMHO.
There is a lot more to this but I think I'll stop here :-)
Just saying all of this in order to express my deep resonance with what you bring to light Charles, that the REAL issues driving our conclusions and convictions are ACTUALLY the ones not spoken about, that many of us are perhaps even unware of..
PS. I highly recommend the work of Scott Kiloby (The Kiloby Inquiries) for anyone interested in discovering what's really underneath our surface convictions, opinions and beliefs. I am not affiliated with it, just think it a very skillful and effective means of revealing our deeper truths, that I know of..
Wow I literally just finished all 37 Kiloby Inquiry videos on his playlist right before i read your comment.
I have never even heard anyone talk about them before.
That's wonderful that you were able to have such a deep conversation with your friend. I agree that people are mostly operating from a place of pain these days. That doesn't necessarily invalidate their opinions, and even if they could let go of all that emotional baggage they may still have the same opinions on the issues. But ultimately our opinions are not really as valuable as we like to imagine. I doubt anyone cares what I think about abortion or anything else.
Thank you for sharing those insights, Dan. I was judged and treated like a worthless, stupid and sinful child when I had an abortion at 21. My reality was that I was terrified of negative judgement, heartbroken and traumatised by the recent death of my father. The conception itself happened in a climate of woeful self-neglect without a sense of me existing in any grounded reality, hardly a conscious space filled with the love and joy I would choose - if I were functioning heathily. If the judger can step back and see the pain of the judgee, it might be helpful to both - finding our common ground, which so often would help us in these difficult moments. We often forget to cherish the life of the mother who conceives, suddenly NOTHING is more important than the baby attached and buried within her body. Does she not deserve compassion too? Some women who have unplanned pregnancies may never have felt cherished, deserving, loved fully and properly. It's such a complex issue once you go in, isn't it! Anyway, thank you.
“ discovered (behind her cries against tyranny) her own ACTUAL desire to be powerful tyrant who gets to impose the "right way" on others and punish those who behave "wrong".”
The reality that many people won’t or don’t have the capacity to face. Very well stated, friend.
Wow, Dan . . . kudos to you and your friend for having such a deep, thoughtful, honest conversation about this charged topic -- for being able to hold space for that to unfold in an atmosphere of respect and trust even when the going got rough. And thank you for sharing that with us.
What an amazing revelation. The Kiloby Inquiries sound fascinating.
Dan, thank you for sharing this. I'm looking into Kiloby.
In this day and age it is refreshing to find someone who will allow us to simply ask questions. We should all be asking questions. When did the world become so polarized? I just want to love others. ALL others, on every ¨side¨ and I don´t want to feel like I have to choose a side to have friends so I have been gravitating towards those who are willing to make love the priority, as hippy dippy as that sounds as I read it in my head. And I am trying to just love ppl where they are at and let it be. I want peace, you know?
Completely agree Katie. I feel exactly the same way. I don't want to live in a world full of "others" and enemies. I genuinely want to get along and love everyone. I am willing to see what a world living in peace and love looks like.
This essay is a work of art Charles. Every paragraph is eminently quotable and filled with meaning. I salute you as the skilled wordsmith that you are.
You've put my feelings into words. I'm awed that Charles and his talent exist and infinitely encouraged that his writing is freely available to the whole world. There is so much hope in that for me.
This is a great essay. This is exactly how I approach things too. Even when people are wrong, they are usually wrong for comprehensible and even noble reasons, and they sure will not be swayed if you do not recognize this. Mostly, we do in fact share values where we imagine that we do not.
On the specific issue of Roe vs Wade (thank you for the footnote), you elide the most important distinction though, and this is a bit unfortunate. I don't think the state should be forcing this either, but this is mostly a discussion about the legitimate role of the state in enforcing public morality, and this comes down to whether you consider it murder or not, because if you do, not many people don't think the state does not have a legitimate role there, and if you do not, then not many people think it does.
In any case, I share that footnoted view largely, but I do not support Roe vs Wade, and I am not an exception, because there are lots of people (at least amongst legal commentators) who support abortion rights but oppose Roe vs Wade. Roe vs Wade asserts that the federal government has powers which it does not have, and as such it undermines the balance of powers foreseen in the US constitution, which I think is a very wholesome and healthy one, because it avoids overconcentration of power in the hands of any single authority. For me, this point about the constitution is much more important than the point about abortion. Abolishing Roe vs Wade does not make abortion illegal anywhere, it just leaves the decision to the States. There are also other arguments which could be made under the Constitution than the argument which underpins Roe v Wade, and the Constitution could be amended if you really think the federal layer should take a position on that. But as long as Roe v Wade stands, the federal govt can intervene in a whole host of issues which are none of its business. That's not OK.
You make an important point that the question isn't about abortion but about who decides? If the Federal gov't has the right to prioritize the sovereignty of the mother, they also can prioritize the sovereignty of the fetus. Either way takes away the sovereignty of the state.
I did an episode making that same point and looking at the principles of federalism here: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/roe-v-redux-leak-or-squirrel
Great points. I am very pro life but I am also opposed to making abortions especially in the first two trimesters against the law. Why? Because they will happen anyway and a very bad situation will be made worse. Those who can afford to will travel to where they can obtain a safe abortion. Those who can not afford to will obtain unsafe abortions.
I think that both sides of this issue are locked into paradigms that don't make sense. The abortion industry (yes it is an industry) tries to portray abortion as no big deal and denies the very real experiences of many women who later regret the decision to have an abortion. Some are so pro abortion that they were opposed to the 'Born Alive Act' that would have required medical care to a baby born alive due to a failed late term abortion. (Yes that does happen. There is an Abortion Survivors Network made of of people who survived an attempt to abort them).
As for the traditional pro life people there has been more of a focus on making laws which keeps the debate at the level of controling or not controling people's bodies. It keeps the discussion political rather than ethical. There are exceptions. There are pro life groups that help pregnant women.
So I'm very pro life but also opposed to criminalizing abortion. I'd rather see abortions steadily decrease through education and information much like OUI's have decreased due to public awareness.
I think the biggest thing for me is that everyone that I have ever known, everyone that I've ever held, everyone that I've ever loved, and every stranger that I meet was once a fetus. When people talk with me about abortion the whole piece about controling other people's bodies is swept off the table. That opens it up to a different kind of discussion.
“abortion and gun control, both issues with two very distinct sides.”
Duality will be the death of humanity. It’s not about two sides, it’s about a spectrum of beliefs. And there are other hard hitting questions that need to be postulated such as, who stands to benefit from the business of abortions and gun regulations? What are the long term effects of regulation on these issues? What has history taught us about these issues? Those questions will help some groups of people find themselves along the spectrum more than questions about the value for life.
Thank you for the reminders that we can choose to opt out of the artificial choices we are so often given in the common narrative. I've been reading "The Essential Herman Kahn - in defense of thinking" and the first chapter describes his challenge as he wrote in the 1960s and 70s about nuclear war and how often he was chastised for discussing the topic in public. Thought is often strangely uncomfortable and therefore punished.
I am excited to be exploring frameworks with as much vigor and interest as solutions. I am also excited to be able to support heartfelt spaces wherein curiosity and generosity can be evoked and honored.
I was in a group recently where we were talking about how exciting the new 3d wet printing tech was and how we could build wonderful communities that could solve all kinds of problems. the general chatter was how quickly and effectively we could get as many houses as needed built to solve housing issues.
Ironically while having this conversation i was actually sitting in an earth house that got built by a 1000 hands, 2 months of very physical labour, which however was labour that also included the elderly and children. (gleefully) The very act of raising my earth house out of the ground with my community was the very thing that built community.
far too often we work from within our wonderful and clever minds, and so little is done in these conversations to promote heart to heart consul, preferably under a linden tree as was done in ages past.
As much I am a fan of tech and am using it (gleefully) right now i am a bigger fan of understanding and getting curious about the framework wherein the solutions or problems arise.
Brilliant essay Charles - thankyou
i love the "prison garden" concept ... the metaphor as a whole is great, but that phrase really triggers the imagination ... what if that was the standard practice in prisons? what if the cultivation of growth was standard practice, on a very literal level?
beyond that little tangent, this post was fantastic :) and a great simple reminder to practice when observing "the current thing" : what is being omitted from the present conversation?
Speaking of changing the terms of the debate: Does anyone know Terry Pratchett's little story about whether the glass is half empty or half full? His character takes a look at the glass and says "That's not my glass! My glass was full! And it was a bigger glass!"
For a few minutes there I thought it was about which side we were on - Depp or Heard's.
haha
three cheers for neutrality in information dissemination!
Yes the culture wars, right now over abortion and guns, reveal pretty clearly our level of evolution as a species. Not accepting the frame/terms of the debate, stepping outside the box, is a prerequisite for any new possibilities to arise.
For me, a lot of the issue revolves around when the woman makes the decision that she doesn't want to carry this child to term. She must know within the first two or maximum three months, right? Otherwise, in my books, it's too late to abort. ... I think. It's a tough call, for sure, but ultimately it must be the woman's choice.