Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Abortion
ClayTheScribe
Veteran
What does everyone think of abortion from a Buddhist standpoint and this article?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/buddhism/buddhistethics/abortion.shtml
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/buddhism/buddhistethics/abortion.shtml
0
Comments
Personally, I would have to say the fetus is living from the point of fertilization. That fertilized egg will become a sentient being. A sperm is not living because it will not. An egg will not. Yet with union it will. The best thing we can define life (at the current time) as is the potential of sentience.
I'm not stubborn in view because I don't think it's any of my business. I'll make the decision with my lover and no one else.
http://static.dezeen.com/uploads/2007/03/applicator-2g.jpg
http://img.xcitefun.net/users/2009/02/29591,xcitefun-female-condom.jpg
both the mother and father should have a saying (probably with a "family" doctor as third voter).
Probably not when its 8 cells....
i don't have sex with men, so i really can't speak to the intricacies of heterosexual relationships and why a woman might have an abortion due to plain old irresponsible behavior. so honestly, i don't know if i would ever have one. i do however, believe in providing the choice. and you can be damn sure that i would if i was raped.
i also wonder... at what point does a fetus become sentient? i imagine it would take some time, but i have no idea how long exactly. the sperm apparently doesn't even break through the egg for at least 72 hours since plan b/ru486 is effective up until then. but that isn't exactly the same as abortion.
sometimes, it is barely sentient 21 years after birth...
As for the question of "when does human life begin" Buddhism would point to the question being nonsense. Life, including human life, is a process with no real beginning and ending. You can't point to one particular place in time and say, "Wait for it...all right, NOW the fetus is a human being!" But it allows people to argue endlessly over irrelevant details instead of just helping the woman.
more than that, it is an imponderable...
At least the author had the good sense to include a wise quote from the Dalai Lama.
As for the framework used which defines "killing", this comes from the monk's Vinaya and is applicable to monks.
Many of the reincarnation rationales are illogical because if one believes in reincarnation then one believes the aborted "soul" will immediately find a new body.
Now, according to ultimate reality, the Buddha taught suffering is not physical pain. The Buddha taught suffering is attachment, which is to regard things as "I", "me" & "mine". The Buddha also taught (in MN 64) that a new born infant does not have any notions of "I", "me" & "mine". In MN 64, the Buddha taught a new born infant does not have any "self-identity view". Thus, a new born infant does not actually suffer, even though it may appear to because its nervous system experiences pain.
So, in the end, the karma of abortion falls upon the doer of the abortion. The karmic consequences will be influenced by the intention.
Generally, the intentions of a woman are not frivilous, such as like when a hunter hunts animals for sport, or malicous, such as when a robber murders a victim for money.
So, imo, the enlightened way is to examine causes & conditions. Thus one can look upon these matters with a heart of compassion & be ready to offer forgiveness.
Kind regards
The first precepts of the Buddha is not to kill 'breathing' beings.
Now a foetus in a mother's womb does not breathe, according to the internet.
Whilst I am certainly not attempting to encourage abortion, I am just pointing out the contrived rationales of many "Buddhists".
They just make it up as they go along :-/ more
http://www.livestrong.com/article/27084-babies-breathe-womb/
http://health.howstuffworks.com/pregnancy-and-parenting/pregnancy/fetal-development/adam-200109.htm
:coffee:
Also, as you know, it's a mistaken to speak of what specific terms the Buddha used as we just don't know - for numrous reasons.
He might have said sentient, breathing, walking and eating beings.....
Suffering is the key to a right view on abortion, but I think you agree with this.
Namaste
You think 'sentient' makes sense because of your misunderstanding.
Now, you are not here to put words in DD's mouth. Contrary to your presumption, the Dhamma has been transmitted from the Buddha's words since his death by sincere practitioners. It is chanted everyday:
Pāṇātipātā veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi
Pāṇā = breathe
The Budddha did not say what you think he "might" have said. The Buddha said:
Pāṇātipātā veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi
The key to abortion is the woman has the potential to suffer.
The key to dhamma is suffering is best avoided but suffering can also be overcome after it arises.
The key to dhamma is to not mistake the essential for the unessential.
Now, you are being "flexible" about what the Buddha spoke but being inflexible about abortion, which is based on intention.
Both the Dalai Lama in the article and Bhikkhu Buddhadasa disagree with what appears to be your rigid viewpoint.
Because your mind appears to resist the 1st Noble Truth, it gives the impression your mind is yet to realise the 1st Noble Truth
Kind regards
When does the unenlightened puthujjana comprehend this reality? :scratch: Indeed. Sentient means "to feel"; "to be conscious".
In AN 3.61, the Buddha taught: "For those who feel, I teach the 4NTs".
So when the mind is not yet fully sentient, the 4NTs are not realised.
Instead, the mind just spinning around in discursive thoughts.
Kind regards
>>You think 'sentient' makes sense because of your misunderstanding.
Maybe I am. Still, I can see how suffering is caused and its relation to experience. I don't see any relevance to breathing. Breathing sees trivial to me, sentience, seems essential.
>>>Now, you are not here to put words in DD's mouth. Contrary to your presumption, the Dhamma has been transmitted from the Buddha's words since his death by sincere practitioners.
I disagree.
>>>The Budddha did not say what you think he "might" have said. The Buddha said...
We do not know what the Buddha said. We just know what it was recoded that he said many years, miles and dialects removed from his death.
Anyways, let's not get into another debate on semantics and authenticity. We have both made our points and like all points, they are different.
Just kidding but that does point to criticism of abortion as birth control. Seriously I think its bad karma to have an abortion but its also bad karma to treat a kid poorly that you bring into the world without being ready. As far as legality I think it should be safe and legal.
That is why you need to refain from using the word "we" in the situations when you should be instead using the word "I".
Your views are your opinion and not those of the collective.
If you have not taken confident faithful refuge in the Dhamma, which is 1/3 of the Tripe Gem, you are not really a Buddhist.
Your views thus become "your views" (which you are free to hold and express) rather than anything really connected to Buddhism.
:coffee:
Pāṇātipātā veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi
This means "I undertake the training to refrain from killing living (breathing) things"
It is a voluntary training rule for those who have made the personal decision to take refuge in the Buddha, Dhamma & Sangha
It applies to Buddhists
http://www.uky.edu/Classes/PHI/305.002/fd.htm
A woman that has an abortion is generally not the same as a serial killer, a soldier in war or a hunter at play.
Generally, a woman is not having abortions over & over & over again.
Generally, it is a "one-off" event, that has its learning impact.
When children & teenagers run amok in society, rioting, looting & vandelising, the same hysterical moralists complain: "Don't these children have any parents! What are their parents doing!" The facts are these children do not really have any 'real' parents.
So nothing satisfies these hysterical moralists, because they do not examine causes & conditions with wisdom.
Having a child is a lifelong responsibility, commitment & also burden. Sometimes, a woman feels she is not ready; that she does not have the suitable conditions.
This is not the same as going to Iraq and shooting up some innocent Iraqis.
Kind regards
Buddhism is concerned with suffering rather than 'life' per se.
Practicing Buddhists observe the five precepts as a foundation for the moral life that spiritual progress requires. The first of these precepts is to "refrain from destroying living creatures." Because Theravada Buddhism regards human life as beginning at the moment of conception,[1] killing a fetus implies killing a human being, making abortion patently incompatible with the first precept.
One indication of the seriousness with which the Buddha regarded abortion is found in the Vinaya, the collection of texts that define the conduct and duties of Buddhist monastics. According to the Vinaya, if a bhikkhu or bhikkhuni should facilitate an abortion, or if a woman should get an abortion based on their recommendation, then that bhikkhu or bhikkhuni is immediately expelled from the Sangha, having broken one of the four cardinal rules of monastic conduct.[2]"
[1]According to the Pali texts, conception occurs when three things are simultaneously present: the mother (i.e., a fertile egg), the father (a sperm cell), and the gandhabba (the kammic energy of the being that is seeking rebirth). If all three successfully coincide, human consciousness arises in the fertilized ovum and rebirth occurs. For a description of this process, see the Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta (MN 38). See Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation of this sutta (along with helpful footnotes) in "The Middle Length Discourse of the Buddha" (Boston: Wisdom Publications, 1995).
[2]This rule (Parajika #3), which applies equally to bhikkhunis as well as bhikkhus, states:
Should any bhikkhu [or bhikkhuni] intentionally deprive a human being of life, or search for an assassin for him, or praise the advantages of death, or incite him to die (thus): "My good man, what use is this wretched, miserable life to you? Death would be better for you than life," or with such an idea in mind, such a purpose in mind, should in various ways praise the advantages of death or incite him to die, he [she] also is defeated and no longer in communion.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bullitt/bfaq.html#abortion
i have already covered the issues mentioned in your quote, namely:
(1) practicing Buddhists observe the five precepts
(2) the Vinaya defines the conduct and duties of Buddhist monastics
You dictating who is Buddhist is also inappropriate.
like the Buddha did not really teach the Four Noble Truths as reported in the scriptures
like...the Buddha may not even have spoken the 4NTs at all...it is just a later invention
like...the man called "Buddha" may not even have walked the earth
but...wait..."i am a Buddhist!"
makes alot of sense...hah..? :scratch:
Thickpaper gave the impression of not comprehendeding the 4NTs when inferring a foetus suffers
Thickpaper appears caught in the web of personality views & soul (atman) doctines
If you had tempered your statement by saying something along the lines of, "To me..." or "In my view...", then I would not have commented...well, maybe I would have, but in a more mild way.
I mean, think of it, first you criticize the poster for saying "we", then you turn around and sound as if you are speaking for Buddhism. In my view -- and note, it's just my opinion -- that's a bit of ego speaking.
Just like Thickpaper, its seems 'soul' (atman) theory is clouding the discussion
:wtf:
Now it lets all be honest, how many abortions out there are because of rape and not because frivilous and irresponsible sex?
Buddhism talks about how difficult to gain a human life, how would you like it if you get aborted?
It would be very easy to come up with evidence that refuted this fact, but currently that seems very unlikley.
We have this wondeful yard stick to test which things seem likley to have been taught directly by the buddha and which are not.
Often these are moot points and imponderables, but I think with the case of Abortion its a very serious moral issue for buddhists and non Buddhists, hence why picked up @Dhamma Dhatu when he spoke with claimed authority.
I think it is possible to come up with a clear, kind and wise answer to the abortion issues by simple appeal to the Anchient law, in order to do this I can see that the qualitative property of experience, negative and positive, needs to be brought in; Karmically I can see why sentience is important to a Dhammic answer to the abortion questions.
I do not see how this can be done with "respiration," hence I maintain that it is a poor and misleading interpretation of The Dharma that the Buddha discovered and taught.
If anyone can show me why breathing is more important to this issue than feeling, then I am mistaken.
be nice.
@Jeffrey
btw, it rather is like a parking ticket because abortions are very expensive.
i'm curious to hear what some of those on this board have to say about this story:
someone i know personally had an abortion not too long ago. she had just recently had her IUD(intrauterine device, it's a form of birth control that they put in your uterine) taken out. long story short, she became pregnant not too long after and decided to have an abortion. when she went to have the procedure done, the doctors were shocked to find that there was a mistake made when she had the IUD taken out. the doctor didn't take out everything and there was still a piece of it left over. the doctors said that had she not gotten an abortion, the IUD more than likely would have pierced the amniotic sac and more than likely would have killed the fetus, possibly even putting the mother's life at risk. if this didn't happen and the baby managed to be born, it was likely that because of the hormones in the IUD, it would have been born with severe problems.
i thought this was rather interesting. i know she had some grief over the decision, but after she found all that out, i think she was rather just shocked. to me, i think it was the right decision, although she didn't know all of the details initially.
Did the Buddha teach specifically about abortion? If not, then how could he have regarded it as a very serious moral issue for buddhists?
Do Buddhists regularly have abortions? Buddhists practise the 3rd precept. Why would abortion be a serious moral issue for one practising the 3rd precept?
As I said in my original post, this issue is a serious issue for hysterical moralists.
Dhamma Dhatu spoke with authority by citing the Lord Buddha directly.
Further, Dhamma Dhatu said clearly they were not promoting or encouraging abortion.
Dhamma Dhatu simply was removing the emotional hysteria by when we assume a foetus is suffering.
The teachings of the Lord Buddha clearly infer a foetus does not suffer.
The Buddha said clearly (in MN 64) a foetus does not have any thoughts of "I", "me" and "mine". Thus a foetus cannot suffer.
But a woman that has an abortion can suffer, when she thinks: "My baby, my baby, where have you gone?" :bawl: This thread contains links to answers to abortion by the Dalai Lama and Bhikkhu Buddhadasa. These are wise and clear answers.
What exactly is this "Ancient Law" you are referring to?
In Buddhism, the Four Noble Truths is not "Ancient Law".
Karmically, abortion is negative to the woman unless her intention dissolves the negativity.
The Buddha said: "Karma is intention".
Both the Dalai Lama and Bhikkhu Buddhadasa focused on intention
But Thickpaper seems to be focusing on moral hysteria & outrage. I posted it to challenge your ordinary thinking. But it seems like you do not want to give up your laziness; you do not want to give up coming up with an automatic unreflective answer. You are not mistaken. However, "breathing" takes you out of your safety zone. "Breathing" challenges your attachment to rigid views.
Again, I am not promoting abortion. But because the foetus does not breath, this means it remain part of the body of the woman and is inseparable from her.
This is why abortion does not fall simply & easily within moral rationale.
With niceless
DD
Therefore, according to the precepts at least, abortion is not recommended.
I cannot doubt, no matter how hard I try, that: The Four Noble Truths are True and that the Kind and Honest action is right action.
I can doubt, not trying that hard, that: This is one life of many and one should not sit on a high chair.
>>>Sure, meditation experience. But it won't help you with the term 'sentient'
Ummm "Sentient" means capable of having qualitative experiences. This makes sense to the abortion issue in a way that "capable of breathing" doesn't.
>>>>Did the Buddha teach specifically about abortion?
We do not know. Nor is it relevant. The Buddha gave us the tool kit for answering any moral/mental/spiritual question.
>>>Dhamma Dhatu spoke with authority by citing the Lord Buddha directly.
I do not believe this is possible for anyone to do.
>>>What exactly is this "Ancient Law" you are referring to?
Karma, baby, Karma.
>>>In Buddhism, the Four Noble Truths is not "Ancient Law".
It is to me.
>>>The Buddha said: "Karma is intention".
Karma is action and intention. It is a many layered concept that stretches from the purely causal (interdependent causation) to the highly arisen (kindness, love, hate, dishonesty....)
>>>Both the Dalai Lama and Bhikkhu Buddhadasa focused on intention
I do not see them as authorities on Dharma. Excellent and enlightened guides, perhaps, but not authorities. IMO, There is no authority on Dharma, there is just The Dharma.
"Kind and Honest action" is not the Four Noble Truths.
The Four Noble Truths are about suffering & it cessation.
I have mentioned this many times already.
The 1st Noble Truth states, in summary, suffering is attachment.
The foetus does not have the mental capacity to give rise to attachment.
The Buddha advised in MN 64 that 'self-view' does not exist in a new born infant, let alone foetus.
Your misunderstanding comes from believing a "self" is reborn from one life to another and in the foetus there is a "self" or "person". Non-sequitur, again
Unrelated to the 4NTs. Just more speculative superstition.
Penetrating the 4NTs is awakening (rather than a 'high chair').
The Buddha taught if one does not have unshakeable conviction in the Tathagata and has not realised the 4NTs, it is life wasted.
:coffee:
There are many good reasons to go through that: rape, unsuitable life/lifestyle, unsuitable circumstances, mother's health, baby's health, etc.
I would never, ever judge somebody for going through that or considering it. I certainly agree that abortion should be legal and safe. I also think that blood pregnancy tests should be more available so that people who are pregnant can find out ASAP and have an abortion earlier rather than later.
I guess I am arguing from the 'common sense' approach, but I think its kinda Buddism based?
>>>The Four Noble Truths are about suffering & it cessation.
They are about the entire scope of experience, not just suffering and trying to stop suffering, but happiness, joy, positivity and how and why they should be cultivated.
Let us not forget the Sukkha when we battle the Dukka.
>>>Your misunderstanding comes from believing a "self" is reborn from one life to another and in the foetus there is a "self" or "person".
I think you are deeply mistaken on what my view is. All i can assure you is that it is unimportant.
>>>The Buddha taught if one does not have unshakeable conviction in the Tathagata and has not realised the 4NTs, it is life wasted.
I agree with that. My conviction in The Dharma is unshakable.
As is my conviction that no school we have today as Buddhism is identical to that which was taught by the Buddha.
In my opinion, "buddhism" should keep its face out of issues like this. It's a woman's decision what she does with her own body. If a woman wants to take into account her personal religious beliefs while making her personal decision on whether or not to carry and give birth to a child, then good. But, no religious institution has the right to dictate the "rightness or wrongness" of the decision being made.
It's hard enough for a woman having to suffer such a loss. If anything, it is the duty of "buddhism" and all other religions to serve as emotional support for those women who have had to make the difficult decision of aborting their unborn child for whatever reasons that may have influenced that decision.
Of course, I do feel that governmental authority should assert a time frame in which such a decision can be made based on the lung development of the growing faetus. Also, education for women regarding proper contraception use should be given great attention in schools and from the girl's parents. It's a shame that the potential for human life must be extinguished due to poor planning or irresponsible behavior, not that the woman or newborn child should suffer unduly due to these sorts of circumstances.
In regards to "what would Buddha say?" Who the F cares? He died a long time ago. Maybe we should use our own wisdom and commonsense when it comes to these kinds of contemporary social issues, that were obviously not as prevelant 3000 years ago. In my opinion, the Buddha would have said the same thing.
But your above paragraph is worded unskillfully to begin with, totally inappropriate on a Buddhist website, and -- if that's the way you feel -- I'd question why you even participate in a Buddhist website. Buddha's teachings can be applied to virtually all aspects of modern life, with the understanding that it is we who may do the incorrect interpretation.
We have to make our own decisions.
Grow up, for crying out loud!
The fact that you avoid the core issue of "self-view" shows missing the essence.
Good luck
I hope most of us would agree that our view of the women who feel abortion is the option to take would ideally be rooted in wisdom and compassion.