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.
But your above paragraph is worded unskillfully to begin with, totally inappropriate on a Buddhist website...
On this website, I may recall the promoting & justifying of killing in imperialistic oil wars yet we condemn women who feel they do not have the suitable conditions to bring a child into the world, with all of the responsibilities, resources & life long dedication that requires.
Talisman (and Weird_Artist) offered, what to me, were empathic & thoughtful opinions.
As ordinary Buddhists, we are generally not in a position to prevent but to, instead, console.
The attitude we develop is crucial. :-/
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.
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.
Because a human being breathes not only through its lungs but also through its skin, human "breathing" is not ever merely a function of lung activity. To claim that a human fetus somehow is not "breathing" or "sentient" simply because of lack of lung activity is a fallacy. For a Buddhist to claim that a human fetus is somehow not a "breathing" or a "sentient" being irregardless of its demonstration of the possession of a nervous system that physically reacts to its environment and to physical discomfort long before its first independent breath of air is also completely ridiculous.
Also from a Buddhist perspective, the argument that
The 1st Noble Truth states, in summary, suffering is attachment. The foetus does not have the mental capacity to give rise to attachment.
ergo the fetus does not "suffer" is an even more ridiculous argument. Since when did the Buddha ever define the right to life, the desire for life, and the attachment to life of all living sentient beings as being somehow dependent on anyone's personal assessment of their "mental capacity"?! Since never!
As ordinary Buddhists, we are generally not in a position to prevent but to, instead, console.
Denial of the suffering of mother and child does not constitute consolation of anyone except perhaps of those who have exploited, abused, and/or otherwise failed to support the mother and child from the very beginning.
in the context in which it was used, it was not a ridiculous at all...
Since when did the Buddha ever define the right to life, the desire for life, and the attachment to life of all living sentient beings as being somehow dependent on anyone's personal assessment of their "mental capacity"?! Since never!
...I'm not saying that what the Buddha says is not of concern, ...
I am. We have to make our own decisions. Grow up, for crying out loud!
Unfortunately, many times our decisions are based from notions tied to afflictive emotions, so its usually wise to consider closely the words of someone who is clear seeing. "Growing up" doesn't mean growing wise or compassionate.
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.
I’m all for compassion. Not for authority. The wisdom we need to follow is our own wisdom; not anyone else’s.
I did not ever deny the suffering of woman... :-/ I have not read any poster here deny the suffering of woman... :-/
You have indeed denied the suffering of women, and a very great many women indeed, with your statements.
When you claim, as a Buddhist, that a fetus CANNOT be sentient because sentience somehow must depend solely on lung activity and suggest that those who do not agree with you must be somehow ignorant of the proper translation of the scriptures... when you claim, as a Buddhist, that a fetus CANNOT suffer, because suffering must be solely a matter of mental attachment as though physical attachment to life (aka the "will to live") is completely irrelevant... when you outrageously claim, as a Buddhist, that the First Noble Truth depends on your personal assessment of someone's MENTAL CAPACITY(?!)...
#1 You have blatantly denied the suffering of every Buddhist mother on the planet who gave birth to and supported (rather than aborted in pregnancy or subsequently killed) her child with a disability because she believed that The First Noble Truth did not depend on society's assessment of her child's mental/physical capacity.
#2 You have also blatantly insulted denied the suffering of every woman on the planet who was pressured or forced into having an unwanted abortion by her sexual abuser, husband, boyfriend, parents, or government insisting that she shouldn't scream or cry over it because a fetus can't possibly be sentient or suffer or have any right to life deserving of their respect and support. You have particularly insulted and denied the suffering of every Buddhist woman in The People's Republic of China who has undergone governmental mandated forced abortion, including a friend of mine. It's a wonder she survived without going into shock and dying on the table; they didn't even let her have any anesthesia. Do you suppose that she would find your statements somehow "consoling" coming from a fellow Buddhist?
Do you suppose that she would find your statements somehow "consoling" coming from a fellow Buddhist?
I have a dughter named Aura who died in my wife's womb during her second trimester of life. I find it consoling to consider DD's point about how her lack of self view prevents the conditions for suffering.
But your above paragraph is worded unskillfully to begin with, totally inappropriate on a Buddhist website...
What I was referring to that I felt was worded unskillfully and totally inappropriate for a Buddhist website was the statement: "In regards to "what would Buddha say?" Who the F cares?"
I think we should exercise a bit of...umm...caution (not really the right word, but I can't think of a better word at the moment) before dogmatically falling back on "what would Buddha say" or things of that nature. Buddha lived in a different world from ours, and some of our modern concerns would be alien to him. Listen to the Buddha's wisdom certainly, but take it in context, and keep in mind that many of our modern issues no doubt never entered his mind. Would Buddha have an easy cut-and-dry answer for an issue like abortion? I'm not too sure.
I think we should exercise a bit of...umm...caution (not really the right word, but I can't think of a better word at the moment) before dogmatically falling back on "what would Buddha say" or things of that nature. Buddha lived in a different world from ours, and some of our modern concerns would be alien to him. Listen to the Buddha's wisdom certainly, but take it in context, and keep in mind that many of our modern issues no doubt never entered his mind. Would Buddha have an easy cut-and-dry answer for an issue like abortion? I'm not too sure.
Thank you! That sounds about right to me. And man, for a bunch of Buddhists, y'all do love to bicker! haha What happened to acceptance and compassion?
There seems to me, whenever I have been asked to consider abortion, that there are applicable moral rationales for both sides of the argument consistent with Buddhist teachings. There is the position that abortion is immoral because it deprives an individual of life and so violates the first precept against the intentional taking of life. However, even on this side of the argument, human life, in the moral sense, starts when all the skandhas are in place, and Buddhist teachings leave room for different interpretations as to exactly when such a condition occurs in the process of development of an embryo. I have found DD's thoughts on the issue very sound.
Its up to women to make their own decisions about what's happening in their bodies and in their lives, independently of arguments across the range of organised religions.
As for the discussion here, DD's views are certainly reasoned and always come from a position of kindness.
"Intentionally bringing about the untimely death of a human being, even if it is still a foetus, is [an offence of Defeat.]"
A bhikkhu must not recommend killing, suicide or help arrange a murder.[39] Also, because in this rule a human being is defined as beginning with the human foetus, counting "from the time consciousness first arises in the womb," he must not advise or arrange an abortion.
There is no offence if death is caused accidentally or without intention.
It is a parajika offence for a bhikkhu which means automatic defeat or disrobing.
Also, it may be that in ancient India, it was assumed that 'breathing beings' were sentient; so the two terms may not necessarily be mutually exclusive. It'd be interesting to see a detailed analysis of this term in relation to Indian thought.
The Saha World is impure. Human mind falls easily toward Greed, Anger and Ignorance. When further normalise certain issues, especially now people seem to base their moral decisions based on "science" people's mind will abuse these "normalised social" customs.
Pro-Choice can be so easily uttered because people assume we are simply biological lumps that only live one life...
Also, it may be that in ancient India, it was assumed that 'breathing beings' were 'sentient'; so the two terms may not necessarily be mutually exclusive. It'd be interesting to see a detailed analysis of this term in relation to Indian thought.
Thanks for sharing the link ... I also seemsto me the questions are more about science than religion and I would also be interested in reading more analysis of this term.
My personal view is similar to Dazzle's - and it seems to me it is never any easy decision to have to make.
Comments
Talisman (and Weird_Artist) offered, what to me, were empathic & thoughtful opinions.
As ordinary Buddhists, we are generally not in a position to prevent but to, instead, console.
The attitude we develop is crucial. :-/
Also from a Buddhist perspective, the argument that ergo the fetus does not "suffer"
is an even more ridiculous argument.
Since when did the Buddha ever define the right to life, the desire for life, and the attachment to life of all living sentient beings as being somehow dependent on anyone's personal assessment of their "mental capacity"?! Since never!
I did not ever deny the suffering of woman... :-/
I have not read any poster here deny the suffering of woman... :-/
The wisdom we need to follow is our own wisdom; not anyone else’s.
When you claim, as a Buddhist, that a fetus CANNOT be sentient because sentience somehow must depend solely on lung activity and suggest that those who do not agree with you must be somehow ignorant of the proper translation of the scriptures...
when you claim, as a Buddhist, that a fetus CANNOT suffer, because suffering must be solely a matter of mental attachment as though physical attachment to life (aka the "will to live") is completely irrelevant...
when you outrageously claim, as a Buddhist, that the First Noble Truth depends on your personal assessment of someone's MENTAL CAPACITY(?!)...
#1 You have blatantly denied the suffering of every Buddhist mother on the planet who gave birth to and supported (rather than aborted in pregnancy or subsequently killed) her child with a disability because she believed that The First Noble Truth did not depend on society's assessment of her child's mental/physical capacity.
#2 You have also blatantly insulted denied the suffering of every woman on the planet who was pressured or forced into having an unwanted abortion by her sexual abuser, husband, boyfriend, parents, or government insisting that she shouldn't scream or cry over it because a fetus can't possibly be sentient or suffer or have any right to life deserving of their respect and support.
You have particularly insulted and denied the suffering of every Buddhist woman in The People's Republic of China who has undergone governmental mandated forced abortion, including a friend of mine. It's a wonder she survived without going into shock and dying on the table; they didn't even let her have any anesthesia.
Do you suppose that she would find your statements somehow "consoling" coming from a fellow Buddhist?
if your "dhamma" comes from "the internet" only... then, i see why you are so dogmatic.
There is the position that abortion is immoral because it deprives an individual of life and so violates the first precept against the intentional taking of life.
However, even on this side of the argument, human life, in the moral sense, starts when all the skandhas are in place, and Buddhist teachings leave room for different interpretations as to exactly when such a condition occurs in the process of development of an embryo. I have found DD's thoughts on the issue very sound.
As for the discussion here, DD's views are certainly reasoned and always come from a position of kindness.
.
"Intentionally bringing about the untimely death of a human being, even if it is still a foetus, is [an offence of Defeat.]"
A bhikkhu must not recommend killing, suicide or help arrange a murder.[39] Also, because in this rule a human being is defined as beginning with the human foetus, counting "from the time consciousness first arises in the womb," he must not advise or arrange an abortion.
There is no offence if death is caused accidentally or without intention.
It is a parajika offence for a bhikkhu which means automatic defeat or disrobing.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/ariyesako/layguide.html#killing
Also, it may be that in ancient India, it was assumed that 'breathing beings' were sentient; so the two terms may not necessarily be mutually exclusive. It'd be interesting to see a detailed analysis of this term in relation to Indian thought.
Pro-Choice can be so easily uttered because people assume we are simply biological lumps that only live one life...
My personal view is similar to Dazzle's - and it seems to me it is never any easy decision to have to make.