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.
Coming to terms with Abortion
Hi All--
While no expert, at one time or another, I have held both positions, currently out there, regarding abortion, being (in my 20s and single) a "pro choice" advocate (mainly to keep Govt out of people's private lives and not recognizing a fetus as a human being), but later became a parent and, once I heard with my own stethoscope ears, a beating fetal heartbeat at the doctors' office, a fetus never again was not "human life" to me. You could call me "Pro Life" from that point on, and my particular religious allegiance at the time (Anglicanism) was not of much help as it tried hard to sidestep the issue entirely.
I certainly qualify as "new" Buddhist, having 'converted' not quite two years ago (I can move on to "Intermediate Buddhist", if there were such a site, later on!) and applied my new teachings and doctrines (I embrace all sides of the Dharma but my particular Center is Mahayana) to the issue, mediated on it and came up with the following:
a. first of all, Abortion exists, it simply "is"; we have it now, we have always had it and it will always be an issue.
b. applying strong emotions to the issue is merely another form of attachment, bound to make us miserable (if we come to let it define us), as neither side will ever prevail absolutely.
c. all schools of Buddhism teach us to avoid the trap of dualism, that everything must be black or white, good or bad, when the correct answer is usually "none of the above", or "either/or"; Dualism would have our minds fall back to the trap that if we are pro-abortion, all anti-abortion people are wrong (and vice versa) and to be avoided; neither side is "right" or "wrong".
d. In my twenties, I was firm that "life" began with the birth of the baby; later on (don't want to give my age away, but a long time!!), I was just as firm that "life" began at conception. Like most dualistic ideas, both absolutes are incorrect as, as Mahayanan, I have come to know that our lives do not begin at either birth or conception, but---
e. Our lives have ALWAYS existed. There was no point in time where our mindstreams did not exist, and we have been reborn (our mindstreams) eon after eon, hopefully in ever advancing life forms and we will continue to be reborn (and its not a "reward", its the samsara of reliving the same birth and death cycle again and again) until we reach Enlightenment when the cycle may end (or may not.....the saints of us out there continue to be reborn anyway so they can help others).
f. Abortion, however, remains an evil way to end this cycle of existence, but that does sort of work together with our notions of Karma. A person or creature that has built up substantial negative Karma over their life or lives can be "reborn" as a human fetus only to meet their end, not 80 years from now, but in a matter of days or weeks, killed by an abortion procedure or other pregnancy-termination means; thus the perpetrator of bad Karma is forced, in just a short time, to seek rebirth still again, perhaps this time unable to find Human rebirth--who knows?. The act of the abortion can thus be thought of as a furtherance of the Law Of Karma.
g. When I hear of an abortion, I still wish it had not happened, but have come to realize that it is the Dharma "at work", that the fetus may have accumulated such bad karmic chains from prior lives that 'they got what was coming to them". Old habits are hard to break and I still think the involved parents have created some negative Karma for themselves, but far be it for me to "demonize" them. They have done what they have done, the laws of dependent origination and Karma will run their course and it is not for me to either praise nor condemn them.
Just my take on the issue and no one person out there will probably agree, uniformly, with (a) through (g) in their entirety. What I hope you can take from this is that my study of the Dharma, the teachings of The Buddha, and Meditation have worked together to make what was once a harsh and bitter issue and have smoothed it out (at least in my mind) to a very simple summary: abortion is neither good nor bad, it just "is". My mind is calmer, my readiness to get upset over the issue is much tempered and I feel that I am a happier and calmer and more abiding person, now as ready to extend my hand of friendship to anybody on any side of the issue and for this I credit the Dharma and the Buddha and the eternal wisdom of following The Middle Way.
Craig
While no expert, at one time or another, I have held both positions, currently out there, regarding abortion, being (in my 20s and single) a "pro choice" advocate (mainly to keep Govt out of people's private lives and not recognizing a fetus as a human being), but later became a parent and, once I heard with my own stethoscope ears, a beating fetal heartbeat at the doctors' office, a fetus never again was not "human life" to me. You could call me "Pro Life" from that point on, and my particular religious allegiance at the time (Anglicanism) was not of much help as it tried hard to sidestep the issue entirely.
I certainly qualify as "new" Buddhist, having 'converted' not quite two years ago (I can move on to "Intermediate Buddhist", if there were such a site, later on!) and applied my new teachings and doctrines (I embrace all sides of the Dharma but my particular Center is Mahayana) to the issue, mediated on it and came up with the following:
a. first of all, Abortion exists, it simply "is"; we have it now, we have always had it and it will always be an issue.
b. applying strong emotions to the issue is merely another form of attachment, bound to make us miserable (if we come to let it define us), as neither side will ever prevail absolutely.
c. all schools of Buddhism teach us to avoid the trap of dualism, that everything must be black or white, good or bad, when the correct answer is usually "none of the above", or "either/or"; Dualism would have our minds fall back to the trap that if we are pro-abortion, all anti-abortion people are wrong (and vice versa) and to be avoided; neither side is "right" or "wrong".
d. In my twenties, I was firm that "life" began with the birth of the baby; later on (don't want to give my age away, but a long time!!), I was just as firm that "life" began at conception. Like most dualistic ideas, both absolutes are incorrect as, as Mahayanan, I have come to know that our lives do not begin at either birth or conception, but---
e. Our lives have ALWAYS existed. There was no point in time where our mindstreams did not exist, and we have been reborn (our mindstreams) eon after eon, hopefully in ever advancing life forms and we will continue to be reborn (and its not a "reward", its the samsara of reliving the same birth and death cycle again and again) until we reach Enlightenment when the cycle may end (or may not.....the saints of us out there continue to be reborn anyway so they can help others).
f. Abortion, however, remains an evil way to end this cycle of existence, but that does sort of work together with our notions of Karma. A person or creature that has built up substantial negative Karma over their life or lives can be "reborn" as a human fetus only to meet their end, not 80 years from now, but in a matter of days or weeks, killed by an abortion procedure or other pregnancy-termination means; thus the perpetrator of bad Karma is forced, in just a short time, to seek rebirth still again, perhaps this time unable to find Human rebirth--who knows?. The act of the abortion can thus be thought of as a furtherance of the Law Of Karma.
g. When I hear of an abortion, I still wish it had not happened, but have come to realize that it is the Dharma "at work", that the fetus may have accumulated such bad karmic chains from prior lives that 'they got what was coming to them". Old habits are hard to break and I still think the involved parents have created some negative Karma for themselves, but far be it for me to "demonize" them. They have done what they have done, the laws of dependent origination and Karma will run their course and it is not for me to either praise nor condemn them.
Just my take on the issue and no one person out there will probably agree, uniformly, with (a) through (g) in their entirety. What I hope you can take from this is that my study of the Dharma, the teachings of The Buddha, and Meditation have worked together to make what was once a harsh and bitter issue and have smoothed it out (at least in my mind) to a very simple summary: abortion is neither good nor bad, it just "is". My mind is calmer, my readiness to get upset over the issue is much tempered and I feel that I am a happier and calmer and more abiding person, now as ready to extend my hand of friendship to anybody on any side of the issue and for this I credit the Dharma and the Buddha and the eternal wisdom of following The Middle Way.
Craig
3
Comments
It's akin to the rebirth/vegetarianism/karma/is self-defence legitimate subjects that also appear from time to time.
keep it civil, please members, and let's not veer off topic.
Thanks.
That being said I take a very agnostic view on this issue. It is part of the dukkha of life. Is it harming life? Pretty much. Would I ever want my child aborted? Nope, but each person has to make their own choices(kamma) and deal with those decisions(vipaka). It is not my place to judge anyone else's actions.
To me, mindfulness of the great beauty and majesty of life would be better served by focussing on widespread promulgation of the old music of the greats. Without one having really heard the piano sonatas of Beethoven or the ancient organ music of Couperin and Bach, life may very well be a mistake, afterall. The music I hear booming in deep, dark, shaking tones through closed car windows makes me shudder at the demonic forces lurking in the hearts in our midst.
My position on the former has change in that I now believe in a woman's right to choose for the simple fact that the fertilized egg/embryo is, for all intents and purposes, a part of her body, and no one should have the right to tell another person what to do with their own body. Also, having abortion legally available and easily accessible makes it safer for women. Without it being so, women who aren't ready to have children, are impregnated against their will, etc. will either be forced to have unwanted children or to rely on alternative and often unsafe methods of terminating pregnancies, e.g., herbal abortifacients that may be toxic; illegal and unsafe 'back-alley' abortions (which result in an estimated 70,000 deaths per year worldwide); etc. I also support easy access to things that actually help prevent unwanted pregnancies like birth control.
As for the latter, my position has changed for three main reasons: First, the idea that life begins at conception (i.e., that consciousness immediate arises) is debatable. Second, I interpret the precepts more like guidelines or training rules than commandments. Third, a full breach of the precept depends on the intention and perception of the individual terminating an unwanted pregnancy.
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 since there's basically just rupa, matter, and no perceptible sense organs, and most likely no thoughts, perceptions, volitions, or even consciousness); but I certainly wouldn't consider it unethical or evil unless the intent behind it was truly malicious ("Intention, I tell you, is kamma" (AN 6.63)). 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 or good and evil as much as skillful and unskillful, and intention plays an important role in determining whether an action is one or the other.
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.
So anyways, in a nutshell: I'm pro-choice
I have known 4 women who have had abortions and only one was actually "used as birth control" as they say. 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 I've known had a very hard time with the decision and did not make it lightly.
The first situation involves a woman who had supposedly just had an IUD removed. She became pregnant and at some point they realized that something was wrong and that part of the IUD had actually been left in. It now left her in danger as well as putting the fetus in danger and a heightened risk of birth defects. She decided to have an abortion. I also know another woman who had a serious problem with an IUD and had she become pregnant, she would have been in the same situation. I do think that these things happen more than people think...
And the other 3?
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.
Just a statistic to make you think... 1 out of 6 US women have been raped. People don't talk about it, they pretend it isn't as prevalent as it is, but the fact is... this statistic is only the ones people REPORT. Most people don't even report it... I didn't report my sexual assault.
So, we're not just talking about some unlikely event. This is a horrible statistic and you better believe that if I became pregnant from rape, I would like to have the option. Having experienced sexual assault, I just cannot imaging having to carry a child to term from that. This is why, no matter how you feel about the act itself, I don't understand why anyone would try to take away the right. You clearly have no idea how that situation feels.
And in the event of it becoming outlawed? Women will find another, more dangerous, way anyways... I've known girls in high school who did that: drank/drugged themselves into miscarriage. It's not safe for anyone, but if abortion was outlawed, we could expect to see a huge rise in that behavior. I also know one girl who attempted this and had the baby anyway (she was surprisingly born birth defect free, btw, so she was very lucky).
What I am trying to say is that the issue of abortion is largely a political one, bound up with emotions on both sides. It's all so unfortunate when we argue over this, I think, because the mother who has had to resort to an abortion is the only one who really has to carry the emotional baggage around (no matter how light it may be in some cases) for the rest of her life.
I think people who get out on the bandwagon in condemnation of abortion as murder are really not interested in the truth; I maintain that they're just talking code and communicating with themselves. It's just a cause that energizes them; it feels good to get angry at all those people who don't think or act like us!!!!! Human societies do tend to see murder as a sin and/or crime, although often not when these murders are perpetrated on a member of another tribe; however, due process usually enters into the equation, before a sentence is passed. The Roe V Wade decision, in invoking a penumbra of privacy property in the Bill of Rights, ruled, in effect, that there are some matters that are just too private to bring before the courts to ask permission for beforehand.
It's so easy to talk about how people should conduct their lives. But I suspect one might take a wider view and think about walking in their shoes.
There are no absolutes in life. Abortions are going to happen whether they are made legal or not. It makes more sense to me to make it legal so it can be monitored/regulated properly.
And always thankful that I made it past my reproductive age without ever having to face, myself, the decision of whether or not to abort. I truly could not say (pre-Buddhism) what my choice would have been.
But I make no attempts to tell others who to lie their own life. Which is why I am pro-choice.
this is what should happen to anyone who has done something/anything wrong before
whatever wrong we have done before brings bad results now or future without doubt
understand Buddha's Teaching and practice Middle Way, Noble Eightfold Path is the only exit point
If it were my choice I would choose not to abort but, in nearly every case, it is not my choice to make. I respect the woman's right to choose.
And remember, just because someone gets pregnant doesn't mean they are best suited to be a parent. There are a lot of kids who have suffered horrible lives, horrible abuse at the hands of their "parents" who gave birth to them without really wanting them. Is that truly a better option, a better life?
Also remember that not everyone agrees with when life starts. Embryos and fetuses are 100% dependent on the mother's body until 24 weeks or so. At what point a fetus becomes an actual person is up for quite a bit of debate, thus the problem. We all have our own beliefs about when life starts, but we certainly don't all agree.
The person that I mentioned that had an abortion in the case of rape... It was actually her boyfriend at the time who raped her without protection with the intent of getting her pregnant because he wanted a kid. I cannot fault her at all for her decision. You can't just do that to someone...
There are women here who have been through this. Your comment may be valid. Your forthright manner is not appreciated. Please be more mindful.
Plain and simple, don't enquire about what might be going on when it's frankly easier and quicker just to dismiss with judgment! Why bother? Ya already know that you're right.
- - - - - - - -
But such judgment is just political swagger! The issues involved are simply not crystalline. Indeed, I'd argue that it's all code-speak: People growing up in a tradition handing down traditions and morae through their language. It makes sense to them since that's the way they've always communicated, but it cannot stand entirely on its own in any sheerly objective way. Politics is what happens "in the city (polis)," where people come together to make civic decisions. Unfortunately, though, what results is "squabbling," which is my English translation of the Greek-based word, politics.
But I'd argue that it is just simply unfair and undiscerning to refer to abortion in the unthinking kind of way that we might refer to, say, an orange, a murder, a hammer, or an idea --unless we be strictly speaking of a single medical procedure itself. IMO, it should always be in the singular, "AN Abortion;" that is because each case is so very different and has its own psychological and emotional baggage attending the situation. What I'm trying to say is that saying abortion is wrong is like saying taking a hammer to an idea is wrong. Who can say, the idea may be even harder than the hammer!
Oh, what I am trying, rather unsuccessfully, to say is that IT DOES HAPPEN that sometimes the end does justify the means. And, yes, some bad karma is involved, but you cannot live without taking on some of that; indeed most human beings need to accrue some bad karma to accomplish good in this world. Lumping all abortions together categorically as murders, to me, is akin to lumping all nonChristians or nonMuslims together as Heathens. Abortions, like amputations, I'd argue, are more likely to be harder on those operated on than on those viewing the results.
Therefore the kindhearted would choose not to pile more coal on the fire.
By Karma I mean work or energy (in the Sanskrit sense of the word), and that work relates to me more in my present incarnation than in any other. Thus, when I speak of people having to choose actions to which some bad karma may accrue, I am not worrying too much about any possible afterlife. It's usually politicians in this life that get heaps of blame for side effects of their deliberations; that seems enough negative karma for them. The denizens of the country are saddled with the collective karma that flows from their decisions.
A woman who is saddled with the decision as to whether or not to have an abortion is put under great stress. I'd argue that battling that decision out, no matter what choice is arrived at, creates some positive karma (energy) which could be harnessed to surmount other obstacles down the road in addition to the stressor that any problematic pregnancy most surely is.
It is karma (work) to be conscientious and thorough, but it is also karma (good work) not to be so hard on oneself as to be dispirited and made low so as not to be able to be at ones best for others. We are all entangled in karma of all kinds, and being compassionate and considerate towards ourselves and others is a good anchor.
I'm not sure I could call what is essentially a medical procedure an act of unkindness, but I cannot conceive of the killing of a live animal as kind. It would follow, that I cannot be emotionally swayed by the abortion as killing argument. Those samskaras (entangled thoughts), as it were, are lacking in me.
I say let computers be computers and let people be people --with their own genuine dharmas.