The Scales of Karma - In and Out of the Womb

Once a pregnant woman and her husband visited a doctor with her 3 year old daughter.

“We are not ready for a second child yet”, she told to the doctor.

“Okay”, said the doctor. “Which child do you want to kill?”, he asked.

The mother was shaken by the doctor’s question.

“What!?”, the mother of two was unable to speak further.

“It’s safer for you to kill the elder one”, the doctor said in his attempt to pass a strong message.

Human beings have always lived in two realms - the physical world governed by natural and universal laws, and the social world governed by man-made laws. While the laws of nature are impartial, consistent, and unbending, human laws are often shaped by convenience, cultural conditioning, and political debate. This divergence creates deep contradictions—none more controversial than the way societies treat life itself. Take, for instance, the issue of abortion. If a mother ends her pregnancy within the boundaries of what human law permits, she is not considered a criminal. Her choice may even be legally protected. But if the same mother takes the life of that child after birth, it becomes a crime of the highest order—murder. The child inside the womb is, in the eyes of human law, not equal to the child outside it. Yet, in the eyes of universal law, of karma, or of the natural order, can such a distinction really exist?

Man-made laws are a reflection of society’s current values, fears, and compromises. They are not absolute but relative—what is lawful in one country may be unlawful in another. The definitions of crime, justice, and morality are often rewritten according to time, place, and circumstance. This flexibility gives societies room to evolve, but it also exposes their inconsistencies. Murder is condemned because it violates the principle of sanctity of life. But the same principle is conveniently suspended when the subject is an unborn child. The reasoning is that life before birth can be defined differently—sometimes as "potential" rather than "actual." This definition is crafted to suit human convenience, not universal consistency.

Unlike human laws, the law of karma does not shift with opinion, culture, or political convenience. Karma is impartial and exact. Every action carries its own consequence, regardless of whether society approves of it or not.

From a karmic perspective, taking a life is taking a life—whether it occurs before birth or after. The repercussions flow not from human definitions but from the universal law of cause and effect. Karma is not selective, and it does not bend for debates or parliaments.

By framing laws that separate the killing of a child inside the womb from killing outside the womb, humanity demonstrates its desire to control reality. But in truth, these divisions are illusions. They may protect a person from human courts, but they do not shield anyone from the court of nature, or the silent balance of karma.

This is not merely about abortion versus murder. It is about the broader human tendency to redefine truth for convenience. We build laws that soothe our conscience rather than align with universal principles. We rename destruction as "progress," exploitation as "development," and indulgence as "freedom." But the universe remains unmoved. Its laws remain the same.

The question then is not whether something is legal, but whether it is aligned with the truth of existence. Human law may pardon, but karma never forgets.