Astrology and Abortion

January 24, 2001

> Mu:

>

> If men we're the ones getting pregnant (and had the lion's share of power

> in society), we wouldn't be debating abortion at all. And we'd have 100%

> birth control that was free!

>

> Chris

>

A chara Chris...

How do men NOT currently maintain the "lion's share of power in society"?

It's true if men sustained the capability of getting pregnant...well...our

species would have died off long ago...

Slante chugat,

Kat and

Kegan

January 24, 2001

Monday, January 22, 2001

Re: Astro-Commentary: Astrology and Abortion

Today marks the 28th anniversary, the ironic

"birthday" of the landmark Roe V. Wade Decision

granting women the right to Abortion-on-Demand; on

that day, Jan 22, 1973, "a woman's right to choose"

was affirmed, 7 to 2, on the Supreme Court.

As it is the anniversary of Roe V. Wade, and as the

issue of Abortion is in the news these days, and as I

have some thoughts and views to share about this, I

thought I would write a bit about it.

At the time Roe V. Wade came down, Uranus and Pluto

were in Libra - Equality was in the air, Civil Rights,

ERA, the Women's Movement, young men refusing the

Vietnam War Draft, and so on; and then, there was the

No-Fault Divorce, Free Love, and Drugs, drugs, drugs.

Nixon resigned in great shame around this time,

confirming many about the frailties of "The

Establishment"; it was a Liberating Time for All.

But was it?-has our insatiable need for Freedom at any

cost helped us, or hurt us? I guess it all comes down

to one's own individual perspective - me, I think,

that if you agree with the idea of a Free Society,

that guarantees certain Civil Liberties, than you have

to agree with such things as Abortion.

I think what gets me about the whole thing, as I see

all of these Women's Groups come out the woodwork to

protest John Ashcroft's nomination, is the spin that

they, and the rest of the media, puts on this whole

issue - in my view, there is a lot of nebulous

euphemisms that "brighten up" the Abortion issue - we

are inundated with terms like, "a woman's right to

choose", "reproductive rights", "reproductive health",

and the rest of it. We Americans have a way with the

Spoken Word, and we can twist - as was shown so well

by our last President - words to mean whatever we

want (which is shown Astrologically in the USA

horoscope - Mercury Retrograde is opposed Pluto,

Gemini Asc). It is this linguistical game of

hop-scotch that gets to me the most. Because, it

smacks of intellectually dishonesty; for Women's

Groups, like NOW to cry that women should have the

right to an abortion lest they are forced to have a

child as a result of rape or incest, is disingenuous;

it reminds me of so many scare tactics, political,

religious, social and so on, that don't bolster their

cause - it only diminishes their message. Before any

of the Feminists out there come after me, let me say

that I'm fully for a woman choosing an Abortion if she

is raped or is an incest victim - but let's be honest

here - most women - let me say that again - MOST WOMEN

- do NOT get an Abortion because they were raped or

because they were an incest survivor. They get them

because, they either cannot afford to raise a child -

or, which is becoming more and more the case these

days - they simply don't wish to be inconvenienced.

When I hear all of the "doomsday" rhetoric of NOW,

etc., the afore-mentioned comes to mind.

Let me also say, that I am for a woman choosing an

Abortion if it will save her life, i.e., she has a

medical situation that cannot bear the rigors of

pregnancy; but then again, this is rarely the issue -

the majority of women these days, and I would argue

even back when Roe V. Wade first came down, got

Abortions not because their lives were medically on

the line, but because they simply didn't want to put

up with a child born as a result of consentual sex. I

think the dirty little secret that we all don't really

want to admit, is that Abortion, as in-step with the

Constitution it may be, is nothing more, than a method

of Birth Control.

I guess me, with my more Saturnian ways, has always

had a problem with people that want rights, rights,

rights, but with none of the responsibilities those

rights entail; here in the America, with Uranus in her

1st house and tightly conjunct the Gemini Asc, we want

the right to do whatever we want, no matter what. An

entire Generation, back in the 60's and 70's (the

"Baby Boomers", born with Pluto in Leo, 1940 to 1957)

did just that - and, now just look at their

children, the drugs, the violence, the general malaise

and apathy among so many of the youth and young adults

- this is the direct result of the preceeding

generation. That's the Price we pay for Freedom.

In all fairness, the rabid "Pro Life" squad isn't much

better - armed with a good bit of doomsday rhetoric

themselves, they too go over-the-top, hollering at the

top of their voices about the ills of Partial Birth

Abortion, a heinous process no doubt - but come on,

most women that get Abortions don't do so at such a

late date in their pregnancies. And then, there's the

ultra-Conservative flank, that want women to have

babies no matter what (even in the relatively rare

cases of rape and incest - ain't that sick), but are

not committed to helping those women with those babies

(in terms of financial support) once they are born.

Simply saying that poor women shouldn't have children

is analogous to Nancy Reagan's pithy slogan back in

the 80s to "combat" drug use -"Just Say No". I mean

really, that's just so absurd. And then, you have the

Pro-Lifers that really are off the deep end - they say

that they're about Life, yet they kill anyone trying

to get into an Abortion clinic - patients, doctors,

nurses, you name it. This isn't to say that everyone

that is Pro-Life is a wanton murderer or a wild-eyed

terrorist, but you have to admit, these days, it is

the fringe element among that faction that symbolizes

any legitimate concerns that the Pro-Lifers may have.

On both sides, there is so much emotive rhetoric,

political spinning, and partisan pandering that it's

enough to even make me, with the strongest of

stomachs, lose my breakfast. And lost in the shuffle,

is the average American citizen, that while they may

or may not agree with the concept of Abortion, doesn't

want a woman to deal with situations that most of us

would find intolerable.

American Law is based upon the principle of

Preceedents - once something goes down in the Courts,

other things are sure to follow. I mean, and this is

what I tell my friends at parties, group discussions

and other social gatherings, is that if we're going to

say that Abortion-on-Demand should be legal, then why

not legalized "mercy killing" of the elderly?

Afterall, people are getting older all the time, and

the cost of caring for them is high indeed - besides,

with our "youth-oriented" culture (Gemini emphasis,

Uranus, etc), we don't really want to be bothered with

Old Folks anyway - that's why we have Old Folks Homes,

so we don't have to look at them a lot. Why not just

get rid of them, when they get to be too much of a

financial or lifestyle hinderance? Why not?

Where does this convenient taking of Life stop, is

what I'm asking you and myself - where is it going to

end? And while there may be some of you out there

thinking that Abortion and Mercy Killing don't have

anything to do with one another, I would say that you

are wrong, wrong, wrong; Dr. Jack Kervorkian was right

on the money, doing what he did - many of the people

he helped end their lives were in awesome pain, with

no chance for recovery - yet he was imprisoned. I see

a double-standard here - don't you?

A female friend of mine recently argued with me about

this - when I brought up the above, she said, "well,

that's different - with Abortion, there's no face on

the issue - with the elderly, you know these people,

they're your granny, or gampy, etc.". I said to her

then, and I say it here and now, if that is indeed the

difference, we are bigger cowards than I thought.

I think the Concept of Rights in our Society was

originally designed to keep Monarchs and Dictators

from running rough-shod over our Human Dignity

(reflected by the USA Moon in Aquarius in the 10th

house, Uranus in the 1st house and more); today, they

are little more than an excuse, a pass, to do whatever

we want to do, in the name of Freedom, and the Rest of

the Story be Damned. Deep.

It will be very interesting to see what happens over

the next 4 years, with Bush in Office, and Ashcroft as

his right-hand man; Roe V. Wade could be overturned,

or at the very least, trimmed back a bit (Roe v Wade

undergoing Saturn Return, 2000 - 2003); if this does

happen, I would feel very bad - after all, I'm an

American (at least in spirit, if not in deed) - and I

believe in the Right of Individuals to determine their

own Destiny. Therefore, I would have to support

Abortion, the so-called "Woman's Right to Choose".

So why do I have such a bad taste in my mouth?

Salaam,

Mu

=====

Mu'Min M. Bey

Western and Vedic Astrologer

1-888-514-5342

mumin_bey

Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices.

http://auctions./

January 24, 2001

Mu:

If men we're the ones getting pregnant (and had the lion's share of power

in society), we wouldn't be debating abortion at all. And we'd have 100%

birth control that was free!

Chris

At 01:52 PM 1/24/01 -0800, you wrote:

>Monday, January 22, 2001

>Re: Astro-Commentary: Astrology and Abortion

>

>Today marks the 28th anniversary, the ironic

>"birthday" of the landmark Roe V. Wade Decision

>granting women the right to Abortion-on-Demand; on

>that day, Jan 22, 1973, "a woman's right to choose"

>was affirmed, 7 to 2, on the Supreme Court.

>

>As it is the anniversary of Roe V. Wade, and as the

>issue of Abortion is in the news these days, and as I

>have some thoughts and views to share about this, I

>thought I would write a bit about it.

>

>At the time Roe V. Wade came down, Uranus and Pluto

>were in Libra - Equality was in the air, Civil Rights,

>ERA, the Women's Movement, young men refusing the

>Vietnam War Draft, and so on; and then, there was the

>No-Fault Divorce, Free Love, and Drugs, drugs, drugs.

>Nixon resigned in great shame around this time,

>confirming many about the frailties of "The

>Establishment"; it was a Liberating Time for All.

>

>But was it?-has our insatiable need for Freedom at any

>cost helped us, or hurt us? I guess it all comes down

>to one's own individual perspective - me, I think,

>that if you agree with the idea of a Free Society,

>that guarantees certain Civil Liberties, than you have

>to agree with such things as Abortion.

>

>I think what gets me about the whole thing, as I see

>all of these Women's Groups come out the woodwork to

>protest John Ashcroft's nomination, is the spin that

>they, and the rest of the media, puts on this whole

>issue - in my view, there is a lot of nebulous

>euphemisms that "brighten up" the Abortion issue - we

>are inundated with terms like, "a woman's right to

>choose", "reproductive rights", "reproductive health",

>and the rest of it. We Americans have a way with the

>Spoken Word, and we can twist - as was shown so well

>by our last President - words to mean whatever we

>want (which is shown Astrologically in the USA

>horoscope - Mercury Retrograde is opposed Pluto,

>Gemini Asc). It is this linguistical game of

>hop-scotch that gets to me the most. Because, it

>smacks of intellectually dishonesty; for Women's

>Groups, like NOW to cry that women should have the

>right to an abortion lest they are forced to have a

>child as a result of rape or incest, is disingenuous;

>it reminds me of so many scare tactics, political,

>religious, social and so on, that don't bolster their

>cause - it only diminishes their message. Before any

>of the Feminists out there come after me, let me say

>that I'm fully for a woman choosing an Abortion if she

>is raped or is an incest victim - but let's be honest

>here - most women - let me say that again - MOST WOMEN

>- do NOT get an Abortion because they were raped or

>because they were an incest survivor. They get them

>because, they either cannot afford to raise a child -

>or, which is becoming more and more the case these

>days - they simply don't wish to be inconvenienced.

>When I hear all of the "doomsday" rhetoric of NOW,

>etc., the afore-mentioned comes to mind.

>

>Let me also say, that I am for a woman choosing an

>Abortion if it will save her life, i.e., she has a

>medical situation that cannot bear the rigors of

>pregnancy; but then again, this is rarely the issue -

>the majority of women these days, and I would argue

>even back when Roe V. Wade first came down, got

>Abortions not because their lives were medically on

>the line, but because they simply didn't want to put

>up with a child born as a result of consentual sex. I

>think the dirty little secret that we all don't really

>want to admit, is that Abortion, as in-step with the

>Constitution it may be, is nothing more, than a method

>of Birth Control.

>

>I guess me, with my more Saturnian ways, has always

>had a problem with people that want rights, rights,

>rights, but with none of the responsibilities those

>rights entail; here in the America, with Uranus in her

>1st house and tightly conjunct the Gemini Asc, we want

>the right to do whatever we want, no matter what. An

>entire Generation, back in the 60's and 70's (the

>"Baby Boomers", born with Pluto in Leo, 1940 to 1957)

>did just that - and, now just look at their

>children, the drugs, the violence, the general malaise

>and apathy among so many of the youth and young adults

>- this is the direct result of the preceeding

>generation. That's the Price we pay for Freedom.

>

>In all fairness, the rabid "Pro Life" squad isn't much

>better - armed with a good bit of doomsday rhetoric

>themselves, they too go over-the-top, hollering at the

>top of their voices about the ills of Partial Birth

>Abortion, a heinous process no doubt - but come on,

>most women that get Abortions don't do so at such a

>late date in their pregnancies. And then, there's the

>ultra-Conservative flank, that want women to have

>babies no matter what (even in the relatively rare

>cases of rape and incest - ain't that sick), but are

>not committed to helping those women with those babies

>(in terms of financial support) once they are born.

>Simply saying that poor women shouldn't have children

>is analogous to Nancy Reagan's pithy slogan back in

>the 80s to "combat" drug use -"Just Say No". I mean

>really, that's just so absurd. And then, you have the

>Pro-Lifers that really are off the deep end - they say

>that they're about Life, yet they kill anyone trying

>to get into an Abortion clinic - patients, doctors,

>nurses, you name it. This isn't to say that everyone

>that is Pro-Life is a wanton murderer or a wild-eyed

>terrorist, but you have to admit, these days, it is

>the fringe element among that faction that symbolizes

>any legitimate concerns that the Pro-Lifers may have.

>On both sides, there is so much emotive rhetoric,

>political spinning, and partisan pandering that it's

>enough to even make me, with the strongest of

>stomachs, lose my breakfast. And lost in the shuffle,

>is the average American citizen, that while they may

>or may not agree with the concept of Abortion, doesn't

>want a woman to deal with situations that most of us

>would find intolerable.

>

>American Law is based upon the principle of

>Preceedents - once something goes down in the Courts,

>other things are sure to follow. I mean, and this is

>what I tell my friends at parties, group discussions

>and other social gatherings, is that if we're going to

>say that Abortion-on-Demand should be legal, then why

>not legalized "mercy killing" of the elderly?

>Afterall, people are getting older all the time, and

>the cost of caring for them is high indeed - besides,

>with our "youth-oriented" culture (Gemini emphasis,

>Uranus, etc), we don't really want to be bothered with

>Old Folks anyway - that's why we have Old Folks Homes,

>so we don't have to look at them a lot. Why not just

>get rid of them, when they get to be too much of a

>financial or lifestyle hinderance? Why not?

>

>Where does this convenient taking of Life stop, is

>what I'm asking you and myself - where is it going to

>end? And while there may be some of you out there

>thinking that Abortion and Mercy Killing don't have

>anything to do with one another, I would say that you

>are wrong, wrong, wrong; Dr. Jack Kervorkian was right

>on the money, doing what he did - many of the people

>he helped end their lives were in awesome pain, with

>no chance for recovery - yet he was imprisoned. I see

>a double-standard here - don't you?

>

>A female friend of mine recently argued with me about

>this - when I brought up the above, she said, "well,

>that's different - with Abortion, there's no face on

>the issue - with the elderly, you know these people,

>they're your granny, or gampy, etc.". I said to her

>then, and I say it here and now, if that is indeed the

>difference, we are bigger cowards than I thought.

>

>I think the Concept of Rights in our Society was

>originally designed to keep Monarchs and Dictators

>from running rough-shod over our Human Dignity

>(reflected by the USA Moon in Aquarius in the 10th

>house, Uranus in the 1st house and more); today, they

>are little more than an excuse, a pass, to do whatever

>we want to do, in the name of Freedom, and the Rest of

>the Story be Damned. Deep.

>

>It will be very interesting to see what happens over

>the next 4 years, with Bush in Office, and Ashcroft as

>his right-hand man; Roe V. Wade could be overturned,

>or at the very least, trimmed back a bit (Roe v Wade

>undergoing Saturn Return, 2000 - 2003); if this does

>happen, I would feel very bad - after all, I'm an

>American (at least in spirit, if not in deed) - and I

>believe in the Right of Individuals to determine their

>own Destiny. Therefore, I would have to support

>Abortion, the so-called "Woman's Right to Choose".

>

>So why do I have such a bad taste in my mouth?

>

>Salaam,

>Mu

>

>=====

>Mu'Min M. Bey

>Western and Vedic Astrologer

>1-888-514-5342

>mumin_bey

>

> Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices.

>http://auctions./

>

>gjlist-

>

January 24, 2001

At 08:15 PM 1/24/01 PDT, you wrote:

>> Mu:

>>

>> If men we're the ones getting pregnant (and had the lion's share of power

>> in society), we wouldn't be debating abortion at all. And we'd have 100%

>> birth control that was free!

>>

>> Chris

>>

>

>A chara Chris...

>

>How do men NOT currently maintain the "lion's share of power in society"?

No, they obviously do. My hypothetical was poorly written as the "if"

clause was only meant to apply to the first part (the pregnancy) and now

the second part (power).

>

>It's true if men sustained the capability of getting pregnant...well...our

>species would have died off long ago...

I don't really get this. Something to do with men's ineptitude and lack of

something or other. I guess it's best not to analyze humour. Better to

just laugh. OK: ha-ha!

>

>Slante chugat,

What does this mean?

Chris

>

>Kat and

>Kegan

>

>gjlist-

>

January 25, 2001

> >A chara Chris...

> >

> >How do men NOT currently maintain the "lion's share of power in society"?

>

> No, they obviously do. My hypothetical was poorly written as the "if"

> clause was only meant to apply to the first part (the pregnancy) and now

> the second part (power).

Hah! Someone that over analyzes as much as I do ....you have the ability to

spell your words better tho ...you're very articulate and seemingly well

read....you have a degree? Yes? No? I'm a tremendously curious person...

> >

> >It's true if men sustained the capability of getting pregnant...well...our

> >species would have died off long ago...

>

> I don't really get this. Something to do with men's ineptitude and lack of

> something or other. I guess it's best not to analyze humour. Better to

> just laugh. OK: ha-ha!

Giving birth is one of the most painful things you can do without dying (and

this is rather fresh in my memory considering I went through this just two

months ago)...there are several meanings here...one of which is: it has been my

experience that men can be such big babies about getting the sniffles...labor

pains are quite more than that ...plus I have yet to meet a man that can do

more than one thing at a time...mother-hood requires everything done at

once...I still love em anyway--I just tend to give men little love "slaps" now

and again to re-mind them that they are NOT the only living and cognitive

beings on the planet...that Mars in Ares in the 7th and Venus ruled 8th house

won't allow me to be anything but lusty for the "opposite" (whatever that truly

means) sex...the down side is--men and I tend to "spar" ....

> >

> >Slante chugat,

>

> What does this mean?

>

Tis Irish for "good health to you"

Slante chugat!

Kat and Kegan

January 25, 2001

Christopher Kevill :

>:

> >>

> >> If men we're the ones getting pregnant (and had the lion's share of power

> >> in society), we wouldn't be debating abortion at all. And we'd have 100%

> >> birth control that was free!

My impression about American society is that although men control things like

business and government/polotics, all other things, esp. the home are determined

by women, by direct decision or gentle blackmail. Even in the case of the male

bosses, a woman pulls the strings....

although I love children, the idea of carrying an eight-pounder in the belly is

not very attractive. So I´m all for women dealing with this matter the way they

feel

regards

Mani

January 25, 2001

Hello,

I find it interesting to read Parasara's chapter on abortion and

miscarriage. In it he explains the cause of this as being affliction

by malefics to the 5th house and lord.

Inserted in this chapter is a sloka that says that affliction to the

5th house by malefics causes the person to indulge in evil deeds.

The fifth is the house of the mind, and malefic influences on this

clouds the proper thinking and perverts the judgement.

It may appear that I am saying that abortion is bad, but I have not

really put too much thought to the subject, and do not care greatly

about it either way. I just wanted to point out what the text says.

I am dispassionate because I am a firm believer in karma, and realize

that the disposer of the fetus will receive some negative karma. But

also it is not so bad for the baby, as it has been allowed to dispose

of some heavy karma, without having to be consciously aware of it.

My friends teacher was able to calculate charts of the previous

birth. He had one client that was unable to conceive. His previous

life chart indicated that he had aborted 12 babies. His present chart

indicated denial of progeny in this life and the next.

Alex

gjlist , Mu'Min Bey <mumin_bey> wrote:

> Monday, January 22, 2001

> Re: Astro-Commentary: Astrology and Abortion

>

> Today marks the 28th anniversary, the ironic

> "birthday" of the landmark Roe V. Wade Decision

> granting women the right to Abortion-on-Demand; on

> that day, Jan 22, 1973, "a woman's right to choose"

> was affirmed, 7 to 2, on the Supreme Court.

>

> As it is the anniversary of Roe V. Wade, and as the

> issue of Abortion is in the news these days, and as I

> have some thoughts and views to share about this, I

> thought I would write a bit about it.

>

> At the time Roe V. Wade came down, Uranus and Pluto

> were in Libra - Equality was in the air, Civil Rights,

> ERA, the Women's Movement, young men refusing the

> Vietnam War Draft, and so on; and then, there was the

> No-Fault Divorce, Free Love, and Drugs, drugs, drugs.

> Nixon resigned in great shame around this time,

> confirming many about the frailties of "The

> Establishment"; it was a Liberating Time for All.

>

> But was it?-has our insatiable need for Freedom at any

> cost helped us, or hurt us? I guess it all comes down

> to one's own individual perspective - me, I think,

> that if you agree with the idea of a Free Society,

> that guarantees certain Civil Liberties, than you have

> to agree with such things as Abortion.

>

> I think what gets me about the whole thing, as I see

> all of these Women's Groups come out the woodwork to

> protest John Ashcroft's nomination, is the spin that

> they, and the rest of the media, puts on this whole

> issue - in my view, there is a lot of nebulous

> euphemisms that "brighten up" the Abortion issue - we

> are inundated with terms like, "a woman's right to

> choose", "reproductive rights", "reproductive health",

> and the rest of it. We Americans have a way with the

> Spoken Word, and we can twist - as was shown so well

> by our last President - words to mean whatever we

> want (which is shown Astrologically in the USA

> horoscope - Mercury Retrograde is opposed Pluto,

> Gemini Asc). It is this linguistical game of

> hop-scotch that gets to me the most. Because, it

> smacks of intellectually dishonesty; for Women's

> Groups, like NOW to cry that women should have the

> right to an abortion lest they are forced to have a

> child as a result of rape or incest, is disingenuous;

> it reminds me of so many scare tactics, political,

> religious, social and so on, that don't bolster their

> cause - it only diminishes their message. Before any

> of the Feminists out there come after me, let me say

> that I'm fully for a woman choosing an Abortion if she

> is raped or is an incest victim - but let's be honest

> here - most women - let me say that again - MOST WOMEN

> - do NOT get an Abortion because they were raped or

> because they were an incest survivor. They get them

> because, they either cannot afford to raise a child -

> or, which is becoming more and more the case these

> days - they simply don't wish to be inconvenienced.

> When I hear all of the "doomsday" rhetoric of NOW,

> etc., the afore-mentioned comes to mind.

>

> Let me also say, that I am for a woman choosing an

> Abortion if it will save her life, i.e., she has a

> medical situation that cannot bear the rigors of

> pregnancy; but then again, this is rarely the issue -

> the majority of women these days, and I would argue

> even back when Roe V. Wade first came down, got

> Abortions not because their lives were medically on

> the line, but because they simply didn't want to put

> up with a child born as a result of consentual sex. I

> think the dirty little secret that we all don't really

> want to admit, is that Abortion, as in-step with the

> Constitution it may be, is nothing more, than a method

> of Birth Control.

>

> I guess me, with my more Saturnian ways, has always

> had a problem with people that want rights, rights,

> rights, but with none of the responsibilities those

> rights entail; here in the America, with Uranus in her

> 1st house and tightly conjunct the Gemini Asc, we want

> the right to do whatever we want, no matter what. An

> entire Generation, back in the 60's and 70's (the

> "Baby Boomers", born with Pluto in Leo, 1940 to 1957)

> did just that - and, now just look at their

> children, the drugs, the violence, the general malaise

> and apathy among so many of the youth and young adults

> - this is the direct result of the preceeding

> generation. That's the Price we pay for Freedom.

>

> In all fairness, the rabid "Pro Life" squad isn't much

> better - armed with a good bit of doomsday rhetoric

> themselves, they too go over-the-top, hollering at the

> top of their voices about the ills of Partial Birth

> Abortion, a heinous process no doubt - but come on,

> most women that get Abortions don't do so at such a

> late date in their pregnancies. And then, there's the

> ultra-Conservative flank, that want women to have

> babies no matter what (even in the relatively rare

> cases of rape and incest - ain't that sick), but are

> not committed to helping those women with those babies

> (in terms of financial support) once they are born.

> Simply saying that poor women shouldn't have children

> is analogous to Nancy Reagan's pithy slogan back in

> the 80s to "combat" drug use -"Just Say No". I mean

> really, that's just so absurd. And then, you have the

> Pro-Lifers that really are off the deep end - they say

> that they're about Life, yet they kill anyone trying

> to get into an Abortion clinic - patients, doctors,

> nurses, you name it. This isn't to say that everyone

> that is Pro-Life is a wanton murderer or a wild-eyed

> terrorist, but you have to admit, these days, it is

> the fringe element among that faction that symbolizes

> any legitimate concerns that the Pro-Lifers may have.

> On both sides, there is so much emotive rhetoric,

> political spinning, and partisan pandering that it's

> enough to even make me, with the strongest of

> stomachs, lose my breakfast. And lost in the shuffle,

> is the average American citizen, that while they may

> or may not agree with the concept of Abortion, doesn't

> want a woman to deal with situations that most of us

> would find intolerable.

>

> American Law is based upon the principle of

> Preceedents - once something goes down in the Courts,

> other things are sure to follow. I mean, and this is

> what I tell my friends at parties, group discussions

> and other social gatherings, is that if we're going to

> say that Abortion-on-Demand should be legal, then why

> not legalized "mercy killing" of the elderly?

> Afterall, people are getting older all the time, and

> the cost of caring for them is high indeed - besides,

> with our "youth-oriented" culture (Gemini emphasis,

> Uranus, etc), we don't really want to be bothered with

> Old Folks anyway - that's why we have Old Folks Homes,

> so we don't have to look at them a lot. Why not just

> get rid of them, when they get to be too much of a

> financial or lifestyle hinderance? Why not?

>

> Where does this convenient taking of Life stop, is

> what I'm asking you and myself - where is it going to

> end? And while there may be some of you out there

> thinking that Abortion and Mercy Killing don't have

> anything to do with one another, I would say that you

> are wrong, wrong, wrong; Dr. Jack Kervorkian was right

> on the money, doing what he did - many of the people

> he helped end their lives were in awesome pain, with

> no chance for recovery - yet he was imprisoned. I see

> a double-standard here - don't you?

>

> A female friend of mine recently argued with me about

> this - when I brought up the above, she said, "well,

> that's different - with Abortion, there's no face on

> the issue - with the elderly, you know these people,

> they're your granny, or gampy, etc.". I said to her

> then, and I say it here and now, if that is indeed the

> difference, we are bigger cowards than I thought.

>

> I think the Concept of Rights in our Society was

> originally designed to keep Monarchs and Dictators

> from running rough-shod over our Human Dignity

> (reflected by the USA Moon in Aquarius in the 10th

> house, Uranus in the 1st house and more); today, they

> are little more than an excuse, a pass, to do whatever

> we want to do, in the name of Freedom, and the Rest of

> the Story be Damned. Deep.

>

> It will be very interesting to see what happens over

> the next 4 years, with Bush in Office, and Ashcroft as

> his right-hand man; Roe V. Wade could be overturned,

> or at the very least, trimmed back a bit (Roe v Wade

> undergoing Saturn Return, 2000 - 2003); if this does

> happen, I would feel very bad - after all, I'm an

> American (at least in spirit, if not in deed) - and I

> believe in the Right of Individuals to determine their

> own Destiny. Therefore, I would have to support

> Abortion, the so-called "Woman's Right to Choose".

>

> So why do I have such a bad taste in my mouth?

>

> Salaam,

> Mu

>

> =====

> Mu'Min M. Bey

> Western and Vedic Astrologer

> 1-888-514-5342

> mumin_bey

>

> Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices.

> http://auctions./

January 25, 2001

Alex wrote:

> Hello,

>

> I find it interesting to read Parasara's chapter on abortion and

> miscarriage. In it he explains the cause of this as being affliction

> by malefics to the 5th house and lord.

>

Does he refer to natural or artificial abortions?

> Inserted in this chapter is a sloka that says that affliction to the

> 5th house by malefics causes the person to indulge in evil deeds.

What evil deeds? According to what standards of society? Incest is a "crime".

Yet we are all children born of incest!

> The fifth is the house of the mind, and malefic influences on this

> clouds the proper thinking and perverts the judgement.

Mercury debilitated in in pisces aspects Jupiter in my 5th, virgo. I can accept

many criticismsms, but lack of astuteness of thinking has never been mentioned.

>

> It may appear that I am saying that abortion is bad, but I have not

> really put too much thought to the subject, and do not care greatly

> about it either way. I just wanted to point out what the text says.

This is a subject that no human soul can solve.

> I am dispassionate because I am a firm believer in karma, and realize

> that the disposer of the fetus will receive some negative karma. But

> also it is not so bad for the baby, as it has been allowed to dispose

> of some heavy karma, without having to be consciously aware of it.

What is karma? A tit for tat or a sequence of connected experiences?

The baby denied of birth will find another way to gather the experience it

needs. It has to be aware of whatsoever it goes through! By denying it the

present entry into the world one is only saying, "I am unable to support you!".

It may be weakness, but is better than allowing entry but denying support later,

e3ven if only forced by circumstances!

>

> My friends teacher was able to calculate charts of the previous

> birth. He had one client that was unable to conceive. His previous

> life chart indicated that he had aborted 12 babies. His present chart

> indicated denial of progeny in this life and the next.

I will not be impolite and say the teacher was a humbug, but will question his

certainty! We can believe, but where is the proof? could one trace the previous

life actually? How can one decide the future? as a person who has "followed"

para-psychological phenomena for years, I can say, "There ARE things we cannot

explain with our scientific knowledge. But there are things that look like being

esoteric, but are actually only illusions which can be easily explained..." The

subjective mind can always find explanations for a foregone conclusion!

regards

Mani

January 25, 2001

Hello,

> > I find it interesting to read Parasara's chapter on abortion and

> > miscarriage. In it he explains the cause of this as being

affliction

> > by malefics to the 5th house and lord.

> >

>

> Does he refer to natural or artificial abortions?

This is not specified, just death of children.

> > Inserted in this chapter is a sloka that says that affliction to

the

> > 5th house by malefics causes the person to indulge in evil deeds.

>

> What evil deeds? According to what standards of society?

I do not know, this is not specified either. I assume evil deeds

according to the standards of the time the book was wrote, which are

probabaly far removed from ours.

> > The fifth is the house of the mind, and malefic influences on

this

> > clouds the proper thinking and perverts the judgement.

> Mercury debilitated in in pisces aspects Jupiter in my 5th, virgo.

I can accept

> many criticismsms, but lack of astuteness of thinking has never

been mentioned.

I believe by malefics, Mars, Saturn, Rahu and Ketu are meant. However

even with these the results are different if the planets are

yogakarakas.

The words used in the classics are harsh, and often the results of

malefics in the 5th mean different things. For example Saturn in the

5th according to Phala Deepika makes the person a criminal and evil

minded. A person I know during their Saturn cycle suffered neither of

these effects, but instead suffered from intense depression, so much

that medication was needed.

> This is a subject that no human soul can solve.

I agree, therefore I do not have a real opinion.

>By denying it the

> present entry into the world one is only saying, "I am unable to

support you!".

> It may be weakness, but is better than allowing entry but denying

support later,

> e3ven if only forced by circumstances!

This seems logical.

> I will not be impolite and say the teacher was a humbug, but will

question his

> certainty! We can believe, but where is the proof?

Thank you for you consideration. I don't know with certainty if the

astrological calculations passed down from the rishis all work, and I

do not know if there is any good proof of jyotish. My personal belief

is that many of the calculations and principles do give fruitful

results. But this is just based on personal experiences.

Alex

January 25, 2001

Alex:

As tempting a concept as karma is to those who would prefer to abdicate

thought on current issues of the day, I'm not buying this idea that women

who abort are somehow punished in later lives. Sounds exactly what the

religious nuts on the right argue: you're goin' straight to hell!

>I am dispassionate because I am a firm believer in karma, and realize

>that the disposer of the fetus will receive some negative karma. But

>also it is not so bad for the baby, as it has been allowed to dispose

>of some heavy karma, without having to be consciously aware of it.

>

>My friends teacher was able to calculate charts of the previous

>birth. He had one client that was unable to conceive. His previous

>life chart indicated that he had aborted 12 babies. His present chart

>indicated denial of progeny in this life and the next.

This is the sort of thing that really puts me off the more "spiritual" (for

lack of a better word) jyotish. It's totally unprovable either way, so you

have these people claiming to be able see past lives and all this heavy bad

karma or whatever. I know you're not advocating this position and just

wanted to relay a relevant story. I'm not trying to cut you down on this.

I just had to respond to it. It makes me barf.

Chris

January 25, 2001

I think abortion has as much to do with a man's right

to ignore his responsibility and to indulge in

pleasures without accepting the responsibility. I

realize that this also applies to the woman, but think

that it applies to the men involved too. And what

about the karma to the man who causes the desperate

woman to take this action - karma there too. I think

that the people who are so opposed to abortion need to

help women who cannot help themselves. Instead of

pointing a finger, perhaps giving support to these

women?

It is a complex issue and a sad one.

The women that I really get disgusted with are the

ones who know they are pregnant and take drugs that

are harmful to their unborn child and do not get the

abortion. They are condemning the poor soul to a

horrible life. I think mothers of crack addicted

babies should do time, and should have to undergo

forced sterilization.

Oh well so much for my opinion. I always have one.

donna

Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices.

http://auctions./

January 25, 2001

>As tempting a concept as karma is to those who would prefer to abdicate

thought on current issues of the day, I'm not buying this idea that women

who abort are somehow punished in later lives. Sounds exactly what the

religious nuts on the right argue: you're goin' straight to hell!

January 25, 2001

Poor conservative me...I am inclined to "old-fashioned" (IS IT?) religious

side..

At the same time, I feel SO sorry for those poor women who have to do and live

with that...

And I am very sensitive to , I would say "social pressure" on women- instead of

respecting and

helping them.. It's not only women's responsibility...

Anna

-

Christopher Kevill

gjlist

Thursday, January 25, 2001 8:07 PM

Re: [gjlist] Re: Astrology and Abortion