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
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_abortion
Our intentional actions, be they skillful or harmful, will result in consequences. We will be the reciepients of those consequences.
Each case is different. Religious edicts and legislation are notoriously unsuited to deal with individualised instances (in the case of abortion but other things as well).
We're in the 21st century, we've made great advancements in education, technology and medicine. We need to foster an environment where people are able to take charge of their lives, to own their decisions. Today people have the means to do that. imho the greatest gift the buddha gave us are the tools which help us become responsible for ourselves. That is why I am a buddhist. So I will always encourage someone to make their own decision with wisdom and discernment because it's vital to know what you're doing. It matters to be centred enough to be honest with yourself and understand WHY you're really doing something.
I'm dismayed by the current political discourse about abortion, homosexuality, prostitution and the like. What I see is a battle between those who wish to dictate and take decision powers away from individuals and those who don't. As a buddhist my view is that outlawing what cannot be outlawed (let's be clear - as another stated above, making abortion illegal will not make it go away, it will just make it unsafe) is not just bad policy. It's also denying people the ability to be responsible. Now I am not advocating for the absence of any laws. I think limits need to be set for the benefit of the whole society; we have shared interests after all. I just think such limits shouldn't stop decision making.
my £0.2
Is it an inanimate object or a being? If an embryo was found on Mars what would scientists say they found?
I happen to be an Orthodox Christian, and former Buddhist and I don't think there is any dichotomy between the two on this matter.
Buddhism: Destruction of your neighbor is destruction of yourself.
Orthodox Christian: My relationship with my neighbor defines my relationship with God.
Compassion and self emptying is what is needed.
However, an embryo cannot exist without a womb and a living mother - therefore I find it challenging conceptually separating an embryo from its mother - otherwise one would not need to abort an embryo - one could simply give it away and have it grow up and live elsewhere.
Cognition is also important - a fertilised cell reacts to its environment - it is alive in the sense that it is organic and changing - in this sense, I find it confusing that people who are pro-life advocate sentient status or such status as to attract legal protection of life to embryos however have little interest in protecting bacteria, viruses, plants and the myriad of other life forms akin to and more complex than an embryo.
It is further challenging, when considering world population and the general state of humanity as a single organism, that groups advocate bringing fully gestated humans into the world who are not wanted by their parents and who immediately do not fit into the stable human family structure - does this seek to alleviate suffering? Visit an orphanage now and again and see for yourself... not even considering street dwellers.
My feelings about this subject are also forceful but being a man, snipped and unlikely to find myself pregnant, hubris would well describe the expression of my views.
When directly asked I usually say that I'd leave the choice of abortion to the actual participants.
For there to be genuine choice, the option of abortion must be on the table on the same terms as the option of no-abortion.
As for my personal views, I've had 3 children. Under normal circumstances, I could not and would not have an abortion. But, there are circumstances in which I would, and I want to retain the right to do that. If I am viciously raped, yes, I want the right to terminate. If I am ill I want the right to terminate to try to save my life so that I can be there for my already existing 3 children, 2 of whom already lost their father way too early.
Do I "believe" in abortion? Yes, it has it's place. And I don't think it's up to any political or religious group to tell any woman what to do with her body. It's unfair to say "but it's a life!" when not everyone believes that. I don't believe life begins at conception. If I was going to believe that, then I'd have to stretch it to say that sperm is life as well, in which case every man who's masturbated is harming living beings. To my beliefs, it's not a life until it is no longer a parasite (by definition, I'm not comparing children to parasites) that is 100% dependent on remaining in mom's uterus. That's just what I believe. Others feel different. But that doesn't give them the right to push their beliefs on me.
So maybe a foetus has some rights too?
I doubt abortion would have bothered you much, had you been aborted.
People can have a less-than-lowest-wages income from the state if they:
Have no savings, have no spouse or spouse has no savings, no job, can document vigorous job searching, show up for countless interviews with gov. officials, do not travel and much more.
When students travel, it's because they WORK for money and SAVE UP money and get money from family. I traveled to France and Belgium with my girlfriend this summer - the money? I have a pretty big inheritance in the bank and traveled the cheapest way possible. All my belongings I've bought with money I saved up before studying - I worked 9 - 14 hours a day. My girlfriend was a store manager for two years before studying. Our loans will still be around 80'000 USD when we finish uni - maybe we get a lot from the state compared to other countries, but everything is also very expensive here. A recent OECD-survey showed that Denmark has the most expensive groceries of any country - when controlled for taxes, wages, special offers and other variables prices are 10 % higher. Also, we cannot have room & board on uni - there is no such option. We have to rent private, which is of course insanely expensive.
What we get from the state - my girlfriend and I combined - pays our apartment. And nothing else. The rest we loan and work to get. That means everything, including tools, books, transport etc. needed to study.
We can't complain, but we sure don't "get everything from the state" as the rumor is around the world.
Also, it was not public expenses which made Greece fall apart - it was lack of an effective tax-system. Greece has and had no social security system to speak of, they just never got to the part where people pay tax.
17 % payed taxes before the crisis. Of course no country can survive like that.
This woman will be left homeless this winter. She has no job and her two-years period is running out. She does not fulfill the criteria for having an income replacement from the state.
Even most Danes think homeless people get some kind of money from the state, but just drink it all up. They don't. They get nothing, and live by begging and stealing
The rest of the reasons for abortions could be described -- at varying degrees -- as having to do with a violation of the Buddhist principles of "right thought" and "right action". Deciding that one is unready for the responsibility of having a child, for example, is something that ought to be thought of before the action of sex, not after it is too late. After all, birth control is commonly available, and celibacy is an option (and far more people are celibate than we realize).
And if the reasons for having an abortion are not equal, neither should the choice of having an abortion be equal. It's not unlike the different choices people make if a type of surgery is optional or a matter of utmost health.
I was taught that a fetus gets a soul at 12 weeks so abortion before then is nothing more than tissue removal, but not everyone shares that belief.
It was not an incorrect statement however.
@RebeccaS: It surprised me, too. I would have thought those numbers would be much higher.
@Theswingisyellow: I agree. Making insensitive statements is often (though not always) a violation of the Buddhist principles of "right thought" and "right action".
The truly legitimate reason for an abortion is choice - it is the woman's choice.
Can you please explain your final paragraph some more - I can't see how equality in 'reasons' extrapolates to whether choice should be free or not.
No where did I say that abortion is "desirable". Period.
Further, no where did I say or imply that the choice of an abortion should not be a free choice by a woman.
"You can press the button but I will break your arm and legs if you do or you can not press the button and I'll give you a million pounds if you don't. Choose."
I am not for guilt trips and underhand tactics - it is the woman's choice - no pressure - no judgment - nothing but support to ensure that the woman is both physically and psychologically well if that is the choice she makes - equal whether she chooses to keep the foetus or to abort it.
You mistake freedom of choice (just as some mistake freedom of speech) as something being free of criticism. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have the freedom of speech to state what they wish during this campaign. That does not mean people will not protest what they say. That does not mean people will not vote, based on what they say. It is very much like Buddhist principles (such as the Precepts) which are not commandments, but may cause karmic consequences.
I have said before, and I will say again, that I believe abortion should be legal. That does not mean it is desirable.
As for the reasons for abortions not being equal, there's a heck of a lot of difference between the woman who says, "I want to have an abortion because the ultrasound and testing show that my baby is going to be born without arms and legs and will be retarded", as compared to the woman who says, "Well, I just screwed around while drunk at a party and I have better things to do than be tied down to being a mother."
I haven't mistaken the concept as you suggest but I may well be mistaken as to the point you're making - as I say, I can't see the link between equality of reason and equality of choice.
In your final scenario, my position is that both women are the same and should be treated exactly the same - both scenarios are the same as it boils down to 'choice' of the mother - this is because I do not see a foetus as having a right to life above and beyond the mother's absolute choice - I have assumed for these purposes that the foetuses are proposed to be terminated at the same stage of development within current legal boundaries.
Can you elaborate on how you consider the 2 mothers should be treated and how you propose criticism fits into freedom of choice for either? Or how to legislate for criticism in this scenario such that freedom of choice is unfettered?
vinlyn said in part:
" Deciding that one is unready for the responsibility of having a child, for example, is something that ought to be thought of before the action of sex, not after it is too late. After all, birth control is commonly available, and celibacy is an option (and far more people are celibate than we realize)."
Personal story: I have had four pregnancies. NONE of which were planned, ALL of which happened on one form of Birth Control or another. And all happened within the framework of a happy, healthy marriage, as well.
The 3rd pregnancy came about 13 months after my second child was born. I became pregnant with an IUD (one of the most effective birth controls available) inside my uterus. Long story somewhat shorter, I didn't discover I was pregnant until I was about 9 weeks along in the pregnancy.
The IUD put the fetus at high risk for severe birth defects, (if it survived at all), as well as put me in jeopardy for punctured uterus, infection, and an assortment of other moderate to serious issues.
Abortion was absolutely legal (it was 1981-82) yet I struggled frantically to find a hospital, private doctor, or clinic to do the abortion before I was beyond 12 weeks or so. Contrary to popular belief, Planned Parenthood does not DO abortions - at all- in the state I live in. They do not do abortions in the vast majority of states in the US. They can only refer you to someone; and in my case, they didn't really know who to send me to.
Anyway- Two local hospitals turned me away, and two local doctors did as well. They didn't want to be known as "abortion doctors"....
Although one of them had the nerve to tell me to pay him $700 up front, take a bus for 3.5 hours into New York City where he would meet me at some clinic somewhere, do the procedure and then send me back home 3.5 hours on the bus a couple hours later! Uh, yeah, No thanks.
Anyway, it took me 3 weeks to locate a Women's Clinic over 100 miles away to do the procedure. I was 13 weeks pregnant but very very relieved when it was finally over. I do not regret it now, I didn't regret it then. It is a medical procedure, a legal medical procedure that I decided to undergo, The reasons, no matter how "legitimate" or not, are not anyone's business but my own (and my husband's).
I can't tell you how I cringe inside whenever I hear or see someone talk about abortion being the result of carelessness, laziness, or irresponsibility. That is not always the case. Even if the majority of the time it IS chosen as a matter of 'convenience' for the woman- it's still her right to control her own body. It is her Karma and moral judgement; not mine, not yours, not anyone's.
99% of the time people against abortions for any reason are usually basing their judgement on religious sanctions against a woman having that kind of (reproductive) control, thereby taking it out of the hands of "god". And that whole Life Begins At Conception bugaboo too.
Well, I say everyone should base their OWN actions on their OWN religious views and stop projecting them onto others.... whether Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, or any religion.
How about....
Your penis, your decision.
My uterus, my decision.
Your decision about your penis is none of my business,
and vise-versa.
I gave birth to boys, I sure dont have to explain why I do
what I do with my uterus/vagina to them.
And all societies could operate based on Buddhist principles.
However, between child 2 and 3 I got pregnant a 3rd time (this time on the pill) and my life was not in a place where I could have kept and raised another child to the point it would be the best for the child, and my existing children. I had just left my kids father who was an active alcoholic and prescription drug abuser. I could barely afford to pay my bills, my kids were on state medical program, and there was no way I could have afforded to take on a baby, I couldn't afford the time off work (we didn't have paid maternity, you could use whatever sick time if the doctor signed off saying you needed it, and vacation time, which we earned little of, less than a week a year). It just would have been a horrible situation for me, for my kids, and for a baby to be brought into. I decided to terminate, but the morning of my appointment, I had a miscarriage.
In all 4 situations in which I was pregnant, I was not irresponsible, and I was in committed, long term relationships. In the 16 years since my oldest was born, I've been with his father, and my current husband, and that was it. So it's not like I was just willy nilly sleeping around, or not using birth control. They've never been able to tell me why birth control has failed for me, especially the depo. But, after our 3rd (and planned for) child was born, we opted to have both a tubal ligation AND vasectomy, just in case, lol.
Wow... so similar it's kinda scary!
I also went on to have a third child after the termination and then got a tubal ligation.
I was 28 years old when I asked my doctor to do the tubal... and she was pretty much against it because I was "still so young".
But I insisted, and got my way.
Did the Buddha declare "life begins at conception" ?
Thousands, even just a hundred years ago, the common perception and belief was "life began at Birth",
not at conception.
You know -- Coming into the world, first breath drawn, the cry of life, etc.....
Regarding the issue of conception and the moment when consciousness arises in an embryo, I think that Ajahn Brahmavamso makes some good points in support of his view that fertilized ova and very early embryos outside the mother's womb aren't reckoned as human life because they lack sensitivity to painful or pleasant stimuli. In his words, "[O]nly when the embryo-fetus first shows sensitivity to pleasure and pain (vedana) and first shows will (such as by a purposeful shrinking away from a painful stimulus) has consciousness and nama-rupa first manifested and the new human life started."
There's still a fair amount of controversy over this subject, though, because the Buddha himself never explicitly states when consciousness arises in an embryo; although he does state in MN 38 that "the descent of the embryo" requires the union of three things: (1) the union of the mother and the father, (2) the mother is in season (i.e., fertile egg), and (3) the gandhabba is present. It should be noted, however, that this last term has engendered a fair amount of controversy itself.
Gandhabba generally refers to a class of devas or 'heavenly being,' and the term in relation to rebirth isn't explained anywhere in the Suttas. In fact, it only occurs in one other place in a similar context. Some, such as Buddhadasa Bhikkhu, translate it as 'sperm' or 'seed' based on its association with fragrant substances like flowers (the stem gandha meaning 'scent'); but that's not how it's traditionally been defined in this context. Bhikkhu Bodhi, for example, believes that the traditional interpretation of gandhabba as the being-to-be's 'stream of consciousness' (vinnanasota) is a reasonable one, mostly stemming from the passage in DN 15 that mentions consciousness "descending into the mothers' womb" (The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha, n. 411).
But since the Pali Canon is rather vague when it comes to conception and the arising of consciousness, it can also be reasonably argued that sentient life begins at conception (e.g., Ajahn Sujato's essay, "When Life Begins"), and that things like abortion and the use of emergency contraception may transgress the first precept. In essence, there's no way to be absolutely sure of the moment when consciousness arises in an embryo simply going by what the Pali literature has to say on the matter.
Worst case scenario, I'd say that having an abortion can be considered a violation of the first precept assuming that there's some level of consciousness present in the embryo at such an early stage (which is a mighty big assumption); but I certainly wouldn't consider it unethical unless the intent behind it was truly malicious. However, in the end, I think the answer really comes down to how we choose to view embryos — whether as a collection of cells, potential living beings, or both — and this is where science should come into play more than some ancient religious texts, which I believe actually has a lot of bearing on how abortion is perceived in relation to the first precept and its ethical implications.
As Bhikkhu Bodhi notes in his tract, "Taking the Precepts," a full violation of the first precept involves five factors: (1) a living being; (2) the perception of the living being as such; (3) the thought or volition of killing; (4) the appropriate effort; and (5) the actual death of the being as a result of the action. Therefore, if there's no perception of a living being, only a small collection of dividing cells that have yet to develop into one, then there's no violation of the first precept, or at least not a full one.
And even assuming that it is, Buddhist ethics aren't entirely black or white, i.e., they aren't seen in terms of ethical and unethical as much as skillful and unskillful. In Buddhism, all intentional actions are understood to have potential consequences, and actions that cause harm to others and/or ourselves are considered to be unskillful and something to be avoided. But the Buddha never condemns people merely for making unskillful choices or breaking the precepts; he simply urges them (albeit with strong language sometimes) to learn from their mistakes and to make an effort to renounce their unskillful behaviour with the understanding that skillful behaviour leads to long-term welfare and happiness.
Yes, I see what you are referring to now.... Of course I can agree there may be 'negative karma' attached to having an abortion, much the same as there may be negative Karma attached to many many things we do, intentionally and unintentionally (without mindfulness). But I believe negative Karma is relative and cumulative - and can be counter-balanced with good Karma when all is said and done in each lifetime. After all, it is with Free Will we make our choices.
I also side with modern science when it comes to when a fetus becomes a "baby" or an independent self/ living creature. IMO, Until that fetus develops a normal brain, a developed respiratory and nervous system, it is not a viable independent living person. And let's not forget not every Buddhist believes in reincarnation, nor in only one form or version of reincarnation...
Personally, I believe the whole 'life begins at conception' thing is one interpretation of the Buddha's teachings, most likely formulated much later, and not the actual words of Buddha. Hey I could be wrong, and I'm not saying anyone else needs to agree with me, either.
Now, I'm not saying the original Buddhists would not/should not have seen the harm and negative karma related to killing the fetus of a (visibly) pregnant woman... But I don't believe they were sophisticated enough to pinpoint actual time of conception and or the earliest presence of zygotes and fetuses prior to the outward visible signs and movements of a 4-5 month pregnancy. To me, scraping out a clump of cells in my uterus before that clump of cells is viable outside my body, is no more a negative thing than eating meat /killing animals for food, exterminating rats from a home, or fleas from a dog. And according to Buddhist's beliefs, a flea is as "important" as a person, right?
I guess I refuse to believe I will be punished or doomed to the realms of hell because I chose to have an abortion in the earliest stages of pregnancy. Perhaps in my next life I will be a woman who suffers many miscarriages and never can have a baby.... who knows. It will be as it will be. I will accept my Karma... is there a choice?
Now, who exactly said that the Precepts are guidelines? Training rules? Buddha?