Can you cite the sources where Crowley states this? Very simplistically, I'm of the opinion that it's up to the parents to decide whether to abort or not, up until the baby is actually born. But I don't really want to get dragged into a moral philosophy argument (had to do enough of that at uni!)

The Equinox Of The Gods, where Crowley is describing himself: "Consider abortion the most shameful form of murder, and loathe the social codes which encourage it."

And again, in The Confessions: "I consider criminal abortion in any circumstances soever as one of the foulest kinds of murder. Apart from anything else, it nearly always ruins the health of the woman, when it fails to kill her. The vigour of my views on this point strengthens my general attitude on the question of sexual freedom. I believe that very few women, left to themselves, would be so vile as to commit this sin against the Holy Ghost; to thwart the deepest instincts of nature at the risk of health and Life, to say nothing of imprisonment. Yet criminal abortion is one of the commonest of crimes and one most generally condoned by what I must paradoxically call secret public opinion. And the reason is that our social system makes it shameful and punishable by poverty for a woman to do what evolution has spent ages in constructing her to do, save under conditions with which the vast majority of women cannot possibly comply. The remedy lies entirely with public opinion. Let motherhood be recognized as honourable in itself, and even the pressure of poverty would not prevent any but a few degenerate women, with perverse appetites for pleasure, from fulfilling their function. In the case of such it would indeed be better that they and their children perish." (Note his use of the term 'criminal abortion'.)

If abortion is murder what does Old Crow call letting your baby die of neglect while you and her mother  languish in a heroin stupor?

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

curious.

Personally, I'm pro choice.

"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law."

93!

Crowley's words sound like he might think a bit different about it today, where there risks for the health of the would-be mother are not significantly higher than with other surgeries, and up to a certain date even chemicals are sufficient.

I agree, his choice of the prefix "criminal" sounds suspicious. I guess he wants to say that he tolerates an abortion when medically or otherwise necessary.

All in all, his comments don't seem too well-thought-out. For one, until society changes, his words don't do much than build up another kind of guilt complex for women. And secondly, I doubt it is the "function" of every woman to give birth. But we know he had quite some psycologocal issues with motherhood (and womanhood).

Love=Law
Lutz

Thanks for the citations, Paul. Pro choice here.

I note the quote from 'The Equinox Of The Gods' where Crowley writes: "Consider abortion the most shameful form of murder, and loathe the social codes which encourage it". In this quote he does not use the prefix 'criminal' abortion.
It does seem to confuse Christians somewhat who only view Crowley as an 'evil Satanist', when they become aware of the Great Beast's views on abortion.

I’ve always thought it interesting that Crowley chose the phrase “sin against the Holy Ghost” to characterize abortion. As someone steeped in Biblical tradition, he would have been very aware that the sin against the Holy Ghost is the one “unforgivable” sin in the Bible (See Luke 12:8-10 for one example).

Unfortunately, Crowley’s opinions on this topic appear painfully dated, since abortion is much safer now than in his day; far fewer abortions are now motivated by “our social system” creating “shame” (though admittedly, quite a few result from a desire to avoid what Crowley calls the “punishment” of poverty); and his language is colored by the sexist notion that a woman always should “fulfill her function.”

Obviously, from the perspective of Thelema, the mother’s Will is primary: if it’s her Will to abort the child, then she gets the final say.

Crowley also said (somewhere) that reluctance to engage in [causal fonication] sex from fear of contracting disease was cowardice.

These words are mine, based on my feeble memory of his words.

Gonorrhea & PID (Pelvic Inflammatory Disease - often caused by Chlamydia) were not even curable in his time with antibiotics - because there were no antibiotics. There were other "cures." Siphyllis was another matter - if caught early enough (today), it can be stopped, but sometimes there are/were few symptoms 'til twenty years had passed. Even today, the late stage is very bad news.

Again today ... HIV+ and AIDS have painted the picture even more gloomy.

This report has not much to do with abortion, but is in reference to Aleister and his opinions.

This kind of chimes with a passage in "The Law is for All", where he says that society should always provide for women and children as a priority as, by virtue of their being mothers and children, they are already doing their Will. Something like the modern 'welfare state' is therefore, presumably, implicit in this statement. It's clearly true that motherhood, for many (but of course by no means all) women is a large part of their Will. I can see where Mr C is coming from with all this. Society should provide for its mothers and children as a priority, in my opinion. Of course, societies should not have to provide for the mothers and children of other societies, as is now the case, sadly, in many western nations. Thus the system adopted after WW2 in Britain, to look after the health of its mothers and children, has been much discredited and brought into disrepute, by those who feel the entitlement is for 'all humanity'.

So which society should we provide for? I was unaware there was an "other society". I pretty much thought that we were all in this together, as one big (dys)functional human experiment.

Are you saying that we should make a distinction between the women and children of "western society" versus "eastern society", or "English-speaking society" versus "non-English-speaking society"? What is the distinction between "this society" and "some other society"?

I'm not sure I understand your point.

I'm also not sure I understand why women and children are "provided and cared for" in your model, but not men. It seems rather patriarchal, in my opinion. Note, I am not arguing provisions for men, but rather the assertion of provisions for women and children.

Do women and children also not have the will to survive and (eventually, in the case of children) reproduce? If so, what is stopping either of them (in adulthood, at least) from being responsible for their own survival and reproduction?

Azidonis, so you're one of these, "humanity is one great big happy family" new-ager types are you? Waiting for the time everyone is going to sit about holding hands, making daisy chains and savouring the smell of each other's guffs?

You see, historically, there are these things called "nations", the one I come from is called "England", and it was, many have thought, one of the world's finest examples. Before the English (god rest their souls) collectively lost the will to live.

Sadly, due largely to the pervasive influence of the "one world, let's all hold hands and make the world a 'better' place brigade", (a "world view" which has been fostered by certain cliques for their own ends, arguably, although we shall not delve into that here), who have fostered the pseudo-christian/ liberal idea (is liberalism not "christianity-lite"?) that "compassion" is preferable to "severity" (when both are necessary), England is now in advanced state of disintegration... Still, we are such "compassionate" folk in England, don't you know...

No, I'm one of the "get off your ass and help yourself" types. I see you are the discrimination type. 

They did? I suppose I will soon read a newscast in which all people from England who have collectively lost their will to live are going to simultaneously drop dead.

So you want to look out for the women and children of England, and no one else. Is that it? Because only the people in England have the right to the wonderful help you can give them, right? And because the men can help themselves, but the women and children, poor creatures, cannot?

Do you even realize what you are saying?

Azidonis, as I've been reading Los' posts over the last couple of months, I've been obliged to read quite a few of yours, and you consistently show yourself to be lacking in basic apprehension and reasoning ability. You're also tiresome and argumentative with it.

Crowley's comments on abortion were made in an era where to bear children out of wedlock led many women in to a life poverty and degradation. This despite the fact that Nature, quite obviously, intends for women to have children in or out of wedlock. If you had any clue at all (which you don't) you would understand that it is very difficult for a woman to raise children on her own, and provide materially for them. Difficult, if not impossible. Society, in this case England (being the first country in the world to have a welfare state) decided that as childbirth is kind of important to the continuance of the race, that perhaps we should try help the most disadvantaged, rather than condemn them to lives of misery and ill health. Noble, you'll agree? Other nations must have thought so, as they quickly followed suit.

Anyway, this emergent welfare state must presumably have been something like the scenario Crowley envisaged a propos 'changing society's attitudes' and 'providing for women and children as a priority'.  I applaud that. I lament the fact that we are losing it. I lament the fact that some people think I should be concerned with what other nations do, or indeed the welfare of their people.  I couldn't care a toss for them. It's their business entirely to look after themselves and live according to their rules and customs. I don't want to wage wars for 'democracy', or tell other nations what is 'morally acceptable' in their lands.

Naturally, I do care about the society I live in. That's natural.  You go on having pipe dreams about "one world" and "all humanity", knock yourself out. I bet you think you're way 'better' than me.

selfseeker, it would be helpful for discussion if you could please cut out the personal remarks and just stick to discussing the topic.

Wonderful. More ad hominems.

Before we continue this pissing match:

You see a problem, I see an equation.

There is a constant, that is the sum total of all possible resources related to human survivability. There is a variable, that is the exponential growth of the human population (multiplication). That there are not enough resources available for humanity to continue to grow exponentially (projected to be 14 billion in less than 50 years at the current growth rate) is the concept of scarcity, and is the foundational principle for all economics.

Some see that as a problem. As such, they try to "solve" it by addition (assimilation - globalization), subtraction (segregation/discrimination), and division (eradication). In either case, they are trying to divide the whole of humanity into portions.

With the case of assimilation, it becomes "people/cultures we like" (or that follow the rules), and this breeds demonization.

In subtraction, people try to distinguish themselves from others. This causes the whole, "My nation is better than your nation... my religion is better than your religion... my book is better than your book..." crap - the inferior/superior dichotomy. For examples, see race and cultural segregation throughout history, from the Civil Rights movement to the Hindu caste system.

Division is an extreme form of segregation. See the Inquisition, the Holocaust, the Crusades, etc.

All of these are born from the human "problem".

I do not see a problem. There are so many people (increasing exponentially) and only so many resources. It is how it is. People think they should be the ones to choose who gets to use those resources. It's survival of the fittest. I'm going to get mine, and you are supposed to get yours.

If there is a problem, there is no solution. If a solution for it exists, then it is an equation. I see that societies worldwide are each doing the best they can to fulfill their functions: survival and reproduction. To sit and say one society is better than the next, or anything of the sort implies a problem, not an equation. I see an equation.

Yes, and Hindu wives are put into widow houses after the death of their husbands, if they do not become Sati.

I agree with you there, in that I don't think nature gives a damn whether people have children or not. It is a part of the function, but if it does not function, so what?

I assume you are going to go into some spiel about the difference between a man raising a child on his own and a woman doing the same. Then, you are going to deny that your comments arise from a viewpoint of a patriarchal society. Go ahead... I'll wait. 

If you think it is noble, go ahead. You just keep introducing more "problems" and less equations.

You can say providing for women and children is a priority if you want to. I still say it reeks of a patriarchal viewpoint.

Yes, you only want to look out for the British women and children. What a countryman!

Care about what you want to, but don't get ruffled when your views get challenged.

As for these "pipe dreams", you aren't talking about me. Again, you have grouped me in with some "other type of person" than yourself, probably your most common type of "enemy" (someone who has global pipe dreams about one world, one nation, has a lack of appreciation for their own nation, culture, and heritage), but that is not me. I am not your enemy. Nice to know I can ruffle your fur with a couple sentences though.

Again, another division. Again, I do not see a problem, I see an equation. You are who you are, and I am who I am.

Erm, I hate to say this, but "he started it" by calling me a "discrimination type". So there.

You are wrong, sir.

Dig the timestamps.

You are free to think whatever you want to think on the matter. The intention was not to imply that your view is "wrong" or "not noble".

The intention was to point out that the viewpoint you said it from indicates a patriarchal standpoint, in that you wanted to take care of British women and children, and them only.

I don't care whether its right or wrong. If you think its right, then champion the cause, and I wish you all the success you can handle. But, it still sounds patriarchal. If you do not agree, then would you mind telling me how it is not patriarchal?

Turn it in, as we say here, Azidonis. I've made my points, they speak for themselves. Frankly, who gives a fuck about your 'matriarchal/ patriarchal' nonsense, it's a totally false dichotomy in this instance, introduced by you for fuck only knows why? We were talking about Crowley's views on abortion, and the context in which he held them.  And I clearly stated that the view expressed was my opinion.

Now be a good chap and scuttle off, the grown-ups have things to talk about.

What you expressed was that British women and children only should be given some sort of free pass in society in an effort to "save the race".

You expressed that women have a difficult, if not impossible time raising children on their own. That may be true in the British society, but you have deliberately left out the hardships a man goes through raising a child alone. Not only is this a patriarchal view, "good chap", it shows you are willing to skew the facts (also indicated by your "forgetfulness" of the invention of timestamps) if it supports your cause.

"Lamenting", I think you called it...

Britain has changed immeasurably in the 60 years since WW2. Immeasurably. We are told we must share the institutions we have built over centuries with the hoards of new arrivals who at best have dubious loyalty to this country (for example the more than 3 million Muslims the government has let in in the last 40 years.) Naturally some people think that letting in this many of Mohammad's true believers, and their charming religious practices, may not have been altogether wise. Of course, we must be made to believe that all such people are 'intolerant' and, even worse, wait for it, 'racist'! No. Not at all. Just sane. Personally (again, just my opinion here, understand) I think I would whole-heartedly support so-called 'anti-racism' measures if that's what they truly were, for example to protect the spouses and children of indigenous Britains who had married someone of another race. I would support that enthusiastically, we should of course be free to marry who we choose, utterly regardless of race. But the real reason for the anti-racism laws is to repress the indigenous population, make them look like 'evil racists' opposing the creation of the 'multi-cultural utopia', and to justify what amounts to a kind of genocide of the British and their culture.

selfseeker, your political opinions are not to my taste. However, this website exists to discuss Crowley, Thelema, and related subjects. There are any number of other discussion forums where you can discuss this until the cows come home. Just don't waste cyberspace and cybertime here, there's a good boy.

Relevant in the context, Staley. I could not give a fuck what you think of my political opinions, and anyway, I haven't expressed any. I mentioned, with relevance on my side, that what Crowley envisioned regards the physical support of mothers and children had actually materialised in the country of his birth, shortly after his death. That's relevant. Alas, that system has fallen into abuse and disrepute. I support the welfare state, Azidonis doesn't, I find that objectionable. Now go and play with fairies or something.

Moderator's Note

Selfseeker, do us all a favour and re-read the Guidelines that you agreed to comply with when registering for membership of this site.

Your recent posts here suggest you have some issues that you're dealing with in public, making yourself look more than a little immature in the process.

"...making daisy chains and savouring the smell of each other's guffs? … There are these things called "nations", the one I come from is called "England", and it was, many have thought, one of the world's finest examples. Before the English (god rest their souls) collectively lost the will to live."

Ah, I think we can all see where this is heading!

"Sadly, England is now in advanced state of disintegration…"

Oh dear, he's going to mention 'indigenous Britons' soon!

"We are told we must share the institutions we have built over centuries with the hoards of new arrivals who at best have dubious loyalty to this country (for example the more than 3 million Muslims the government has let in in the last 40 years.) … indigenous population … justify what amounts to a kind of genocide of the British and their culture … To protect the spouses and children of indigenous Britains [sic.]."

Yep, thought so… If you're going to spout racist nonsense at least learn to spell the keywords correctly.

"He started it" by calling me a "discrimination type". So there … Who gives a fuck … for fuck only knows why? … I could not give a fuck what you think … Now be a good chap and scuttle off, the grown-ups have things to talk about … Now go and play with fairies or something."

Oh dear. You are required to submit future posts for pre-moderation. In effect, what this means is that I appear to be giving you the opportunity to demonstrate some maturity and to continue engaging with the membership through these forums, knowing that you will throw a hissy fit, complaining that this is no way for the moderator of a Thelemic website to behave (it's not a Thelemic website, by the way) while protesting that your posts were actually jewels of multicultural tolerance and it's the fault of my ignorance that I consider you to be racist.

Somehow this seems to fit here

From the collected posts of "Selfseeker."

Jesus Christ nailed to a stick, hes either a sock puppet or a stalker...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saalGKY7ifU&feature=player_detailpage#t=57s

Sorry if you think I'm racist, but that's not the way I see it at all. But apologies if offence caused.

Eh, I'm sure if you really care enough, you can ask Paul to confirm that we're two separate people (or that we post from different places on the globe, at least).

I'm not sure where selfseeker picked up all of the odd conservative rhetoric...certainly not from me....

I think we're drifting a little off-topic here. I never thought that selfseeker was a sock-puppet, just someone who developed a strong liking for Los's posts. I don't personally care for the cut of Los's jib (nor he for mine, I don't doubt), but it cannot be denied that he peddles a fine line in articulacy, which might cast its own glamour.

For what it's worth, I don't care that much for Crowley's sentiments re abortion, much as I don't care for his views on a whole variety of things. In my view he was simply mistaken. Most of us have held views at one time or another that we've subsequently come to view as mistaken. In Crowley's case, his views at any one time tend to be cast in aspic.

I agree.

I think that studying Crowley's opinions and what may have helped shape them is a worthy study.
I do not think that "What Would Crowley Do" is appropriate to Thelema, in the sense that it is used, to say "Well Crowley did or say this, so I should do this".

No LOS, honestly I think its far more likely he is just an [glow=red,2,300]AVID FAN[/glow][/font:19e76vg3].

I think in considering AC's views on abortion it is worth considering the historical context & what he assumes to be the case with regard to abortion: that it only occurs in the case of unmarried women who have expressed their natural instincts by engaging in "free love", and that "criminal abortion" is part of the abominable shaming mechanism designed to punish them for engaging in sex outside marriage, by denying them the natural outcome of their love: children.
Thus, I think he saw his opposition to abortion as integral to establishing true sexual freedom.
In the same way that modern sado-moralists see children as a punishment for promiscuous women, AC saw them as a deserved reward.

Not his body, not his experience, not his call to make if children are a reward.
He also stops short of calling women incubators.

AC swings his wand and talks out his ass.

I fully support the late comedian Bill Hicks and his solution to the abortion controversy:

If you want to stop a woman from having an abortion, then you have to adopt and raise her child yourself.  You wanted this child, OK, then you raise it.

As for Crowley, I could possibly care less.  He had brilliant ideas, but he also had very stupid ones as well.  As far as I have seen, most of his political views belong to the latter category.

To me, a woman has the right over anything in her body, including the fully formed baby at 9 months.

I'm possibly in an extreme minority to go further, and say that she has rights over its life even after it is born, to make sure that she wants what she sees. This latter scenario is hardly necessary in the age of genetic tests and ultrasound, where undesirable babies in the womb can be aborted before birth, but it is necessary in many parts of the world where she might not know what she's getting until it's born, or she may have wished not to have it at all but doesn't have the means to abort.

It should go without saying that if the woman's life is in danger from the baby, either during pregnancy or at birth, the mother's life is more important.

My position is that there is no "person", no "soul" or intrinsic, inalienable personhood. The "person" is a social construction, not an atomic, irreducible reality. So the unborn and newly born baby is not a "person" yet. That will happen later.

Fortunately for most of us, mothers don't live in a vacuum, but in a society, which helps establish the value of what she is labouring for and risking her life to bring into the world. Babies are usually welcomed and loved, and mothers get all the support they need from their partners and families. It is in this context that the person develops and in turn brings new life into the community. It is ultimately the community and the mother's relationship to it that will determine whether the baby has any value as a life or not, and whether it will really become a viable person or not.

"Life is sacred" is a superstition. If the mother can live with killing her baby, we can too. Conversely, if someone loves it but she does not, and persuades her to have it, then it is up to those who force her to have it to love the child and raise it.

Finally, of course, many women in hard circumstances, without support, will love their newborns but realize they can't look after them. This is the role of charitable organizations, orphanages, and in former times convents and monasteries, which are obliged to take in unwanted babies.

Err, I think you'll find the reason why I find Los' posts are so relevant are because he actually *understands* the key concepts in Thelema and Liber Al. You know, things like a working definition of what constitutes True Will, the Thelemic meaning of Love, little things that just may be useful for those wishing to use the Thelemic system of attainment.) And funnily enough his ability to pass on that understanding to me has been a great breakthrough for me. Still, you're a funny guy, einDoppelganger. Haha. Funny guy.

I was making the point that each perspective I mentioned regards women (and their fertility) as objects subject to decision making by their (male) betters- identical processes, leading to identical horror at the idea of abortion, but proceeding from different intellectual/spiritual premises. I wasn't attempting to defend AC's views here &, for the record, agree with you (einD) as to the substance of a right to abortion as essential to female autonomy & sexual freedom, but was trying to convey why AC thought abortion so vile.
AC never really thought through that bit about "every woman is a star"; to say he stops short of calling women incubators is only to acknowledge that he saw women as having the primary purpose of providing him with sexual gratification, and a venue for magickal acts (of which they might or might not be informed- perhaps given that so many sex magick partners were prostitutes, this was simply AC's characteristic thrift, as such persons typically impose extra charges for extra services?).
Birth-control pills would have probably horrified him equally because of similar "blasphemy against the Holy Ghost" issues, while attracting him as expanding his potential field of sex partners.

Some good thoughts shared on this page, ignant, ein, HG, Belmerru.

One thing that sprang to mind while reading is, I wonder what Crowley would think about science using the stem cells of aborted fetuses.

That's an interesting counterfactual exercise... I'm not sure the question is answerable with anything like biographical details or quotes from the man that would lead on a plausible speculative path, since this level of biological technology was unimaginable in his lifetime. The same question might be asked about cloning or organ donation (willing or forced, as from executed criminals), or even blood transfusion (he never expressed an opinion on that, AFAIK).

I'm not even sure what the religious objections are, which might be a place to begin to speculate about what Crowley might have thought. He didn't know about DNA (not discovered until 1953), but would he have considered that the reincarnated soul is present in every cell of the human body, and therefore that it was some kind of sacrilege, Sin against the Holy Ghost or True Will of the aborted person?

I have to admit I haven't a clue as to what he might make of it all; I think his position on abortion would change now, that it is legal and safe (it was completely illegal everywhere in his day, except for preserving the life of the mother I believe). Part of his objections to abortion seem to arise from the notions of reincarnation and True Will, and another part from the danger and illegality of it.

Indeed, the danger and illegality were a concern. I don't know about England, but prior to the passage of Roe V. Wade in the U.S. Supreme Court, the figures were that 40,000 of our wives, lovers, sex partners, sisters, daughters, granddaughters died every year as a result of back-alley abortion butchers by uncontrolled bleeding, septicimia, and other most ugly and painful ways. No way of knowing how many thousands more survived with injury, unintended sterilization, and emotional trauma.

These circumstances certainly would have changed *my* opinion of abortion in the time.

I am recalled of the original Constitution of the O.T.O., with Uncle Theodore's call for an O.T.O. Home for Unwed Mothers. I can't recall if Crowley included that in some of the later drafts I have read, but I know that he regarded the "Children of the Order" as particularly sacred. However, Crowley didn't live to see the impact that reliable oral contraceptives had upon the Sexual Revolution, or to see safe and legal Abortion available upon demand to any woman in her 1st Trimester. If he had, I think he might have swayed his view a bit.

On the fetus thing:

When fetuses are aborted, they are pretty much labelled "waste", and burned or otherwise discarded.

The theological argument is whether or not that fetus is "alive" (an embodied soul, etc). Some believe that the soul inhabits the body just before birth (during the birthing process), and some believe that the soul inhabits the embryo from the get-go. Still others believe that there is a certain period of gestation before the soul inhabits the body, some time between conception and birth.

Instead of discarding the fetuses, science has discovered that fetal (?) cells are largely made up of stem cells. Stem cells are unique compared to other cells in that they have no pre-designated job. Skin cells, for example, are a certain type of cell that makes skin. Stem cells can be "trained" to make any number of things, from skin to functioning organs. This is why scientists want to use stem cells in their ongoing research.

Currently, it is a huge ethical issue in concerned camps as to whether or not using the discarded fetuses for stem cell research is, well, ethical.

Scientists now are working on developing working bodily organs. They have created an ear, a heart, lungs, and possibly other things. Stem cells help greatly with this. Of course, their overall goal is to be able to grow one a new kidney if needed, instead of waiting for a transplant.

The cartoon series "South Park" actually did a parody of the mouse and ear, only using Mr. Garrison's penis. After his sex change, he wanted to return to being a man, so he got the doctors to use his DNA to make a penis from his cells, grown on a mouse until it was ready to be transplanted onto him. Here's a sneak peak.

For more information on growing a human ear on a mouse, one can view this video.

Peter from Family Guy ran into his own bout with stem cells, as can be seen here.

I agree that there is no way we can know what Crowley himself would have thought about such things.

Good points, Walter.

ignant666, I was worried you would take that as directed toward you once I posted it. I totally understand your intent and never  thought you were defending his thought process. I was really just commenting on the overarching fact that Crowley's opinion on abortion is problematic in that in no place and time should it actually have any cache compared to the will of a woman and her body. Its ironic too that, from what I can see the voices in this debate are mostly unable to carry a pregnancy to term or ever need to negotiate birth control to avoid pregnancy at all. What I mean is, these discussions are usually populated with male-bodied people discussing the ethics of how women deal with their own bodies and biological processes.

Crowley looks a lot like the fat old white guys who are debating this same issue in America today.

And Walter, while your post is kind and thoughtful it still remains that Crowley wasn't railing against the dangers to the life of the mother due to dangerous illegal procedures  - he was falling back on the old language and concept that  a woman's primary function is childbirth.  I don't think the dangers of abortion at the time had any influence on that flawed bit of thinking.  The home for unwed mothers bit is quite in line with this very common "National Incubator" ideology which was later taken up by the German state under the Nazis. Giving ladies  comfortable place to undergo a coerced pregnancy is still bullshit.

I think HG hit the nail on the head with

To my mind a lot of people on this site consistently underestimate Crowley, and misinterpret his writings based on their own narrow viewpoints and prejudices. (The constant clamour that 'we know Oh So Much Better Now is, in almost every case utterly laughable - including this one.)

When Crowley is talking about the 'function of a woman' in this sense, I think it is much more likely he is talking about pure biological function, rather than some sort of moral definition of her 'place' in society. (Considerations of biological instincts and processes are important in ascertaining the will of any being, after all.)

Similarly he would have also said that a man's principle function is to impregnate a female. Again, such a statement is not to say a man who does not father children is immoral or stupid. But, from the fundamental biological perspective of our species, that is his 'function'.

Crowley's comments on the immorality of abortion are views from the perspective of a Magus - I think it is a rather dull and silly assumption of many people that it is to do with his Victorian background. (His moral views had very little to do with the social mores of his time and country.) Crowley - as we all know- believed the true will of the individual star to be the paramount consideration when it comes to ethics, and it is clear also that he believed a star has willed itself into a fetus by the end of the first trimester. Ergo, abortion from that point is wrong, from a thelemic perspective, because it is denying a star its will to incarnate.

My god the fail in this is so strong.

I'd like to point out that generations of feminist identifying women, men, and others as well as just plain critical thinkers would heartily contradict your statement that gender and biology somehow determines destiny. A woman is not defined by her god damned biology, her ability to reproduce, or otherwise. These ideas are often encountered when ones reading deviates from the AA student list. 

Your interpretation falls apart under the lightest scrutiny of what Crowley actually said in the quote from Confessions. he isn't discussing some biological function, he is discussion his perception of what women should and shouldn't do with their own f**king bodies. he is discussing his beliefs regarding their biological and social function and what the collective *will* of some archetypal fantasy woman might be in his mind.

So be an apologist all you want but the man's views reflected his time, his upbringing, and his own prejudices.

Leaving aside for a moment the fact that there are no spirits, spooks, "souls," and the like to "will itself" into anything at all (let alone a fetus), the argument still doesn't hold up from a Thelemic point of view.

In the first place, it's quite a stretch to say that a fetus -- especially when it's just a clump of cells -- has a "will" in the same sense that you or I have a will. In the second place, even if we want to attribute a "will" to a fetus, there's no way to know that its will is necessarily to be born: maybe its will is to be aborted, for all we know (as many fertilized eggs spontaneously are, naturally).

And finally, even if we wanted to say that a fetus has a will and that its will is to be born, its will is still trumped by that of the mother, as The Book of the Law is explicit on the point that every individual has no duty besides doing his or her will and has no imperative to care about anyone else or any other "will" besides his or her own.

I don't see how a pro-life argument can be supported by Thelema. Certainly, there may be individual Thelemites who would not ever themselves have an abortion, but the idea that "one should not have an abortion" (or "abortion is wrong") is not one that can be supported by Thelema.

einDoppelganger: You are making the very error I referred to in my previous post. The consideration of biology in relation to will extends far beyond the realms of feminist enquiry. Crowley was a feminist (if you have read the New Comment to AL - and I'm sure you have - I cannot see how you could say otherwise) but feminism is not what he's talking about here; social and cultural philosophies bear no relation to what his comment is about at all. His comment is above and beyond consideration of personality, culture, social mores, or even philosophy. It is a comment on human beings as the beasts we are. If that offends your prep-school-level liberalism then too bad, maybe Crowley's not for you after all. (I mean, come on - if you really think Crowley thought his job was to tell women what to do with their own bodies, then you have completely misunderstood the man and his message. I really hope your miss is not that great.)

Los: I didn't use the words 'spirit', 'spook', or 'soul'. I used the word 'star', as per the Book of the Law. You cannot say that the use of such a term is incorrect, and then use the Book of the Law against my argument. You must either have your cake or eat it, you can't do both.

Because of crap like this and other nuggets of inherent, ingrained misogyny that dripped regularly from his pen. Theres an entire thread on this topic, Tim; which you are more than capable of finding and reading on your own so dont pretend the idea that Crowley had antiquated and overtly patriarchal ideas about women is new or unfounded.

His comment is above and beyond consideration of personality, culture, social mores, or even philosophy. It is a comment on human beings as the beasts we are.

Oh god... Do you really not understand the implications of reducing destiny to biology?? That is *exactly* what you are saying but again I stress your reading obviously never extends beyond the AA reading list or Gunthers newest tripe.

Some women have a uterus, some women produce ovum, some of these women can procreate, this does not mean that the function of the female is to procreate. If we want to reduce to that level then we will start tossing Boyd Rice level social Darwinist blurbs across the aisles and parroting Might is Right... If you want that level of biological reductionism you cannot fault me for thinking you would suggest that men have a right to dominate women because they are biologically destined to be physically stronger.

Of course AC did shit on carpets to make points so perhaps we can be more Thelemic by throwing feces like the "beasts we are."

I cannot believe you are not willing to accept the idea that the opinions of a classist, racist, often hateful dead Englishman might occasionally be trumped by a more modern worldview. This isn't even a Holy book we are talking about either, its  a passage from the  "Confessions."

If you had any grasp of the argument in a cultural context beyond your great messiah Aleister you would see that *his* opinion silences, nay - erases the opinion of women and their own will do determine a course for their bodies. Its inherently anti-feminist despite what fantasies you want to engage in about your messiah. Hell, the idea of reducing men and women to their "beastly" procreatiive function is anti-humanist.

If that offends your prep-school-level liberalism then too bad, maybe Crowley's not for you after all.

LOL...  "prep-school liberalism?" 

oh my.