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
And no, there's nothing wrong with seeing things from a critical perspective, as long as the field is open to looking at all things with a critical perspective...and that includes various aspects of Buddhism. Having a critical perspective is either a good thing or it's not.
As Buddhist we are so concerned about an ant or a worm or a wasp but what about this one, who by our choice is here. Does it deserve no compassion.
Abortion is an act of violence, one is destroying a life. Parse it up all one wants but one's intention and motivation in having an abortion is to end the life of this being. Period.
My opinion only.
:thumbsup:
:thumbup:
In medical terminology, Fetus = in the uterus; Baby = Born (out of the uterus).
A fetus has only a 60% chance of survival if it is born at 24 weeks gestation - with medical intervention.
A fetus being born before 20 weeks is unlikely to survive regardless of medical technology and intervention. Around 20 weeks, the survival rate is significantly lower than 30% with extraordinary medical intervention.
If my 'baby' was born more than 2 months premature, (before the 32 week milestone) I'm not sure I would approve of any extraordinary medical intervention. But that's another discussion....
8 out of 10 abortions done in the USA are done at 12 weeks or earlier. So what are we comparing? I personally believe all abortions should be done prior to the 14 or maybe16 week mark - unless there are dire medical circumstances for the fetus or woman discovered after that point.
Now a days we usually can't find out if a fetus has significant disabilities or defects until it is beyond 14 weeks....
26. "And what is birth, what is the origin of birth, what is the cessation of birth, what is the way leading to the cessation of birth? The birth of beings into the various orders of beings, their coming to birth, precipitation [in a womb], generation, manifestation of the aggregates, obtaining the bases for contact — this is called birth. With the arising of being there is the arising of birth. With the cessation of being there is the cessation of birth. The way leading to the cessation of birth is just this Noble Eightfold Path; that is, right view... right concentration."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.1.08.than.html
Buddhism, in its time, was aligned with the technology of its time.
Times move on as does our understanding and technology.
In the current framework, compassion for the unborn child is present - it in part defines the threshold of permissible abortion.
To seek to stretch compassion behind the threshold implies that you do not agree with science's interpretation - that is your right of course - so... if the current system and evidence does not satisfy you, then what alternative do you propose? Relying on an ancient text? A religious belief? Your own desires and emotions?
I agree with you that it is not ideal by a long shot.
That said, arbitrarily imputing a personality to a collection of multiplying cells probably won't help women facing the issue - one doesn't need scientific reasoning to see that they are alive and sentient and need a great deal of compassion from society as a whole.
I take your point on your perception.
What formed the (your) perception that life begins at conception?
I am not asking this to codified into law, banning abortions.
This is one area where I think members should try to be considerate of other members.
You say that the 5 Precepts are "just" training rules (the quotations are mine).
I assume you believe that there is no negative karma unless the harm is intentional.
So, to me, based on the standards I think you hold, if I were Theswingisyellow, I would say to you that it's "just" a training rule and my harm was unintentional...therefore, no problem.
Similarly, I don't think murder is "just" a training rule.
While the Precepts may "be thought of" as training rules, I feel they are much, much more, including the basic social compact that makes up civilization.
I am not trying to hurt anyone's feelings nor have I attempted to do so. Who implied anything about murder? While I can't help others decisions nor their feelings regarding their choices my intent and motivation was not to hurt, or judge or make anyone feel unwelcome.
If I come across as forceful or aggressive you have my apologies. I could address any number of issues in this way, if I embark on a decision I ask myself:
Is this decision harmful or harmless?
What is my intention?
What is my motivation?
These same things I would ask about the very question we are speaking of.
All the best,
Todd
The baby pic was way overboard! Because you have no experience
with a uterus, how come you did'nt show pics of all stages?
Sperm meeting the egg with a drink and a cheap pick up line?
That pic was a red flag of intention for me.
As a woman. Like it or not. If it's about ethics or morals, then look
at the science and the Buddha opinion, not YOUR emotional
response. My womanly response comes from the intention of a
uterus. If you have no experience, then 'your' opinion is judgemental, from
a man, not having the uterus. What are the moral implications of your penis?
As far as a decent example. Legal or moral. Plainly speaking, of course.
Regarding the Precepts being 'guidelines' or 'commandments' -
I may not be an expert, I may not have committed to any specific tradition of Buddhism, nor studied any particular tradition in as much depth as many others here have; I may not have traveled the world, but I have read a lot about Buddhism over the course of many years, written by both informed laypeople as well as spiritual Buddhist leaders and I have come across the precepts being presented as "guidelines" over and over again, many times.
Many times described as "not like the 10 commandments" with an attachment of "sin" to each broken rule; and "not hard and fast rules to be punished harshly for being broken...".
They are not commandments. They are guidelines used to point the follower toward Right living. There are absolute differences between commandments and the precepts of Buddhism.
I think we all agree Karma (both good or bad) is attached to every deed, every thought, every misstep as well as Buddha-like action we take....
But the broken or bent precepts are not "sins" like the broken or bent commandments of Christianity.
Here is an example:
" The practice of Buddhist moral precepts deeply affects one's personal and social life. The fact that they represent a course of training which one willingly undertakes rather than a set of commandments willfully imposed by a God or supreme being is likely to have a positive bearing upon one's conscience and awareness. "
and another:
"Buddhism, of course, does not have any "commandments." The Buddha did not reveal the Teaching and Training by commanding, coercing, or ordering anyone to follow the path to enlightenment (which also leads to other happy results in the round of rebirths*). "
and more:
"Some Westerners compare Buddhist precepts to the ten commandments of Christianity. However, unlike the ten commandments, they are not mandates, or edicts, or rules. Furthermore, one does not have to be a Buddhist to realize the precepts are common sense notions of behavior.
Rather than an individual being finger-wagged and given a bunch of “do not do this,” one is encouraged to use one’s intelligence to apply the precepts in the best way possible in life."
Look, from a ethical perspective, I don't find this act defensible. I don't find bombing people defensible, I don't find executions defensible. Violence and disregard for life I find abhorrent. I am not telling you to agree with me, I am not telling you how to run your life. This is a conversation we are having, if one's views cannot be expressed, what is the point? Sorry for any distressed I engendered to you and anyone else. I won't post again regarding this subject.
All the best,
Todd
MaryAnne, you may choose to believe they are only training rules. That's fine for you. But apparently I don't have the right to believe they are more than that. Apparently I don't have the right to believe they are a focus of morality in Buddhist societies. Apparently I don't have the right to believe they are a part of the social compact in virtually all societies across the world.
Apparently, Buddhism has no morality. Apparently, I could shoot you in the head, and on your deathbed you'd say, "Oh, that's okay Vincent, it was merely a training rule. No problem."
In my view -- if I'm allowed to have one -- saying they are merely training rules is tantamount to saying I just want to get away with murder, lying, stealing, getting intoxicated and acting like an ass, and inappropriate sex. Funny, but I've been pretty darned good at those training rules since I was in kindergarten. Funny, but thread after thread in this forum is about how wrong it is to eat meat...but then you want to turn around and say it's merely a training rule not to kill.
But fine, you pick a standard of behavior that you feel is appropriate, and I'll pick a standard of behavior that I think is appropriate...assuming I'm allowed to do that.
I think I have an equal right to believe that some aspect of Buddhism is a big deal to me.
It got me thinking about the 4 instances of people I have known personally who have told me they have had abortions:
1 was the above scenario,
1 was rape,
2 could be said that they were of "convenience" but 1 was a drug addict and 1 was young and in high school (she was the class president/cheer squad captain with the boy's grandmother pushing her very heavily to have an abortion)... so there are other matters to consider.
It bothers me when people insinuate that women are out there having these willy-nilly. I think it's a great disservice to try and boil it down to either rape/life-threatening/incest or convenience. Life is complicated. All of the women mentioned above had a very hard time with the decision and did not make it lightly.
As a side note, just jumping into this discussion, I was also disappointed in the posting of the fetus picture. It is nothing more than a shame/scare tactic. If you've ever been to a pro-choice rally, you will see fundamentalist christians with images like that protesting in opposition. It's hardly a wonder why they do it. Unless you are just trying to hurt/shame others, the intent was misplaced, in my opinion.
Regarding my prior post about precepts being guidelines...
My intent was to give examples to help "back up" Jason & his take on the precepts being 'training guides' (or whatever the actual term was) and not hard and fast commandment-like rules.
There was no reason to take it to mean that you, Vinlyn, could not see them/things differently. But you clearly were trying to tell Jason that he was in error to think of the precepts as he did.
When I was reading the exchange between you two, I questioned my own perception of the precepts (which was the same as Jason's) and wondered;
" Wow, Did I misinterpret them as well?"
So I looked up the precepts in a few different books and Buddhist websites and found the examples I showed you/everyone.
Jason was right, his concept of the precepts is not only "not unreasonable" but his concept (and mine) is much more in line with any and all teachings about the precepts that I had ever come across.
Am I saying Vinlyn you can't think what you think? No.
You are free to think about the precepts any way you choose to.
But it wasn't fair to (in so many words) pretty much pooh-pooh Jason's point of view and tell him he was 'wrong' when in fact, he wasn't.
Hope that clears up my part in the discussion.....
.
It is absolutely all about judgement, shame and guilt. It is absolutely not 'right speech' in that it's hurtful, and negative, and being said/shown for judgement, shame and guilt.
And if anyone thinks that's what an embryo really looks like , they need to spend some time in an operating room or looking upon a 2-12 week spontaneous miscarriage for a dose of reality.
Does anyone really think there's a pretty sky-blue background in the womb, and an angelic cotton candy pink color to the placenta and skin of the fetus? No real visible arteries, or veins, nothing dark or bloody, right? Just a perfect little miniature person all wrapped up in 'baby colors' ... Really?
Please. It's insulting.
I can totally believe no one meant it that way, honest, I believe that...
but now that its been pointed out how others were made to feel about it, will there be an apology?
The OP was last active on this forum in June. since then, they have not participated.
This thread was posted in March, and there are definitely some members who have, I know, left the forum. Possible further inclusion by quoting their names would not be responded to.
This topic never ceases to be controversial, cause disputes and create some stressful reactions from members of both genders, but - if I may be so bold - involvement of men and women on threads concerning abortion, is a bit like a bacon and egg breakfast.
The chicken contributes.
The pig is committed.
Thus emotions run high.
We've had countless Abortion threads in the past, doubtless new ones will be posted in the future.
I hope we can all take away something instructive.
Until the next time, (or if the OP comes back in and gives good reason to resurrect) thank you all for the input.