"What a perfect example of misunderstanding where Steiner is coming from. That entire set of books (all of the ones with titles like from _______ to _________ are based on conversations he had with the workmen who were building the Goetheanum. They are filled with crazy stuff like that. Do anthroposophists treat every word of these casual conversations as exact prescriptions to be followed to the letter? None of the ones I know do. Which doesn't mean that there aren't some gems amidst the dross, but it does take judgement to sort them out."
Well -- as we have seen from what others have posted, there are a number of anthros. that do take Steiner's views on pregnancy seriously. The language I quoted makes clear how this viewpoint becomes integrated by some anthros. into their belief system.
This is another one of those points that drove me nuts about Waldorf. You try to understand what this philosophy is, run across the "crazy stuff" (as you so accurately call it) and are left trying to assemble coherent meaning which is virtually impossible. Then you have people telling you that the plain english meaning of the words, isn't the plain english meaning, or Steiner didn't mean what he said, etc., etc.
Also, I'm confused why the audience for this even matters. Are you saying Steiner lied to the workmen in these lectures?
I ended up googling this issue because I felt that those pooh-poohing it as being Steiner's viewpoint were likely wrong. The issue felt congruent (to me) with Steiner's emphasis on the interconnection between the physical and the spiritual.
And Deborah -- I'm finding it hard to believe you weren't aware of this, as the most incendiary version of this thought (that white women who read "negro books" will have "mulatto" babies) seems to be one of Steiner's points that waldorf skeptics most use to criticize Steiner.