Buddhism and Abortion

trendybuddha

I am very pro choice, is it possible to be pro-choice and buddhist? In the former group I was, they said that women would accumulate extremely bad karma through abortion. I think that is bullshit, in my opinion. I just think that either action can be both good and bad. They said that the morning after pill was also in a grey zone. I think it would be hard for women to be fully liberal if we are not able to use birth control or have abortions if it is necessary. I don't mind people not liking abortion, they don't need to have abortion, but to think that you can judge others based on your own morals is sickening. And call women who have had abortions without knowing why they did it, or feel like you need them to excuse it is just I don't. Also I think women often have abortions out of respect for life, for making sure that the baby has a good future and gets a good life.

I know that fundamentally aborton is viewed as killing in buddhism, but lots of buddhists eat meat, that is contributing to killing too. I think if westerners is to practise buddhism, buddhism also needs to be acsessible and doable. I don't think it is doable to expect from westerners not to use birth control, not to eat meat and not to have abortions or use alcohol.

Just some thoughts...

Jeffrey

A lot of western Buddhists are pro-choice, myself a case in point.

Cory

I am also pro-choice, all though it is killing a life form. I think that the only time a baby should be aborted is if the parent is not fit to support a child, and not responsible enough to do all the paper work for adoption.

trendybuddha

Well, it is not that easy to just give birth and hand that baby over. I think one should decide for oneself. Psychologically it can cause so much pain, and a pregnancy is a huge strain on the body.

I realize now that maybe by post in the strart of the thread seems a bit harsh, it was written out of eager and maybe some anger.

trendybuddha

Oh and lets not forget all the soldiers who go out and kill, and are recieving medals. I think honestly that is more sick, than a woman choosing to refrain from motherhood.

BhikkhuJayasara

We just recently, like last week, had a very large abortion topic.. Someone should post it for the op, i would but im at work on phone

karasti

There are a lot of cases for why abortion should be legal beyond irresponsible and incapable parenting.
I don't see why anyone should care what you believe, as a Buddhist I mean. If you are the one having to make the choice on having an abortion or not, regardless of the reason, then if there is karma attached to that (I could see it in some cases possibly, not as much in other cases, just depends) then that is on the person making the decision, and possibly the person performing the abortion. Simply being pro-choice does not make someone an improper Buddhist by any means.

As for my personal beliefs. If I ever had to make the choice, it would be a difficult choice (as it is for most women) but I would make the choice to abort in certain circumstances, and I believe I should reserve that right to make that choice. I would never tell anyone making the decision for any different reason that they should not have the right. That is their decision to make. As for Buddhism in particular I'm not sure what I personally believe on when life starts. Is am embryo a life? At what stage is it a life? That's much of the debate. I have 3 children. I miscarried a 4th. At some point in the pregnancies, yes I most certainly felt the life inside of me. Not just the movement but the bond and the connection. However, that occurred at a certain point for me. When I had my miscarriage I was 11 weeks. I honestly did not feel a big loss of life in that. It was something that happened. I didn't mourn any loss and I do not today. It was just something that happened. I realize other women feel very differently, I am only speaking for myself. It just did not feel like a life to me. That is much of what I base my opinion on. That I personally do not believe a baby is a life until it has half a chance to exist outside of the mom's body. Until then, the baby is an extension of the mother's body. Of course I realize babies have beating hearts and movement etc. I've read plenty about the development from the time 2 cells come together until birth. Just my personal feelings based on my experiences.

If I was forced with such a decision, my Buddhist practice would certainly be an aid to me and a consideration. But being a Buddhist would not necessarily be cause for me to automatically choose not to abort.

trendybuddha

Jayantha said:

We just recently, like last week, had a very large abortion topic.. Someone should post it for the op, i would but im at work on phone

I will remember to use the search thingie for future questions

Nirvana

@trendybuddha,
You may be interested in some issues raised on this subject earlier this month.
See:

newbuddhist.com/discussion/17773/coming-to-terms-with-abortion

Jason

trendybuddha said:

I am very pro choice, is it possible to be pro-choice and buddhist?

The answer will depend on the person and tradition, but I'd say yes. From a relatively recent thread on the issue (the same linked by @Nirvana):

My position on abortion has evolved over time, as well. I was more or less what you'd call 'pro-life' early on, politically and in relation to the first precept due to my rather strict, absolutist interpretation the precepts, but have since become pro-choice politically and have also taken a more nuanced position in terms of the first precept due to a fair amount of thought and discussion about the subject.

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.

Silouan

All things are a matter of our choice, and they have consequences whether neutral, positive, or negative, and they obviously not only affect ourselves but others too.

I have examined an analysis by an independent reporting arm of Planned Parenthood in the U.S. sometime ago where they projected from their surveys that about 1.05% of abortions performed each year are attributed to rape and incest as the determining justification. The rest fall under various reasons, but ultimately most in this category could have been prevented by some form of contraception rather than abortion as the contraceptive means.

I would definitely want to see a reduction in the number of abortions performed each year, so perhaps accepting, advocating, and promoting the proactive sexual responsibility of both men and women would be the less harmful choice to make.

Jason

Silouan said:

I would definitely want to see a reduction in the number of abortions performed each year, so perhaps accepting, advocating, and promoting the proactive sexual responsibility of both men and women would be the less harmful choice to make.

I completely agree. Abstinence-only sex ed isn't very effective or practical, in my opinion; which is why I not only advocate comprehensive sex ed in schools, I also advocate free and easy access to birth control (e.g., condoms, pill, etc.).

DaftChris

I'm Buddhist and pro-choice.

It has not affected my practice, nor would I ever tell anyone what to do with their bodies.

vinlyn

Silouan said:

All things are a matter of our choice, and they have consequences whether neutral, positive, or negative, and they obviously not only affect ourselves but others too.

...

A neutral consequence? I'm not sure that makes any sense.

vinlyn

Jason said:

Silouan said:

I would definitely want to see a reduction in the number of abortions performed each year, so perhaps accepting, advocating, and promoting the proactive sexual responsibility of both men and women would be the less harmful choice to make.

I completely agree. Abstinence-only sex ed isn't very effective or practical, in my opinion; which is why I not only advocate comprehensive sex ed in schools, I also advocate free and easy access to birth control (e.g., condoms, pill, etc.).

Guess you've never been in a PTA meeting regarding sex ed!

:hair:

vinlyn

DaftChris said:

I'm Buddhist and pro-choice.

It has not affected my practice, nor would I ever tell anyone what to do with their bodies.

You announce you're pro-choice but you would never tell anyone what to do. Hmmmmm.

zombiegirl

I'm pro-choice as well.

The fact that your sangha said the morning after pill is a grey area is ridiculous. The way it works is by inhibiting the sperm from entering the egg before it has a chance to do so. Who ever said that to you obviously didn't know anything about it. It's about as grey an area as a condom...

footiam

trendybuddha said:

I am very pro choice, is it possible to be pro-choice and buddhist? In the former group I was, they said that women would accumulate extremely bad karma through abortion. I think that is bullshit, in my opinion. I just think that either action can be both good and bad. They said that the morning after pill was also in a grey zone. I think it would be hard for women to be fully liberal if we are not able to use birth control or have abortions if it is necessary. I don't mind people not liking abortion, they don't need to have abortion, but to think that you can judge others based on your own morals is sickening. And call women who have had abortions without knowing why they did it, or feel like you need them to excuse it is just I don't. Also I think women often have abortions out of respect for life, for making sure that the baby has a good future and gets a good life.

I know that fundamentally aborton is viewed as killing in buddhism, but lots of buddhists eat meat, that is contributing to killing too. I think if westerners is to practise buddhism, buddhism also needs to be acsessible and doable. I don't think it is doable to expect from westerners not to use birth control, not to eat meat and not to have abortions or use alcohol.

Just some thoughts...

It is possible for a person to be pro-choice and be buddhist. A buddhist can choose and he or she will have to be responsible for his or choice and that includes shouldering the effects it brings. In the case of abortion, if you think all that bad karma that comes along is bullshit, then it is bullshit. It is just what people say, anyway and if it does not affect you, it would be fine. If you think it is not killing, you may be able to live with it. If you think it is killing, you may not. In each case, it is only karma taking effect. In Buddhism, everything is doable but every doable thing brings about different effects, positive or negative or Buddhists would say, good and bad karma. I just like the idea that bad karma can be diluted by the very good things you do like the taste of salt can be diluted by water.

riverflow

I think it is vital to remember that 'pro-choice' doesn't mean 'pro-abortion.' Someone who is pro-choice is not advocating for abortion but rather for the option to be available to women. And I imagine for the great majority of women, that isn't an easy decision to make. And whether or not their decision is justified or not by someone else's standards, then we haven't put ourselves in her shoes to truly know what she is going through.

Abortion is a tragic decision, but that doesn't make it wrong--only tragic. In light of trying to understand causes and conditions, what factors led to the woman's decision? If we want less abortions to occur, then we should pinpoint what gave rise to it in the first place (and this is something I find many pro-life advocates don't want to address). Abortion is often the result of poverty, ignorance, and often negative conditioning and environments--not to mention instances of rape. Such decisions are not made arbitrarily at the flip of a coin.

The broader picture is what should be addressed, not just 'let's make abortion illegal.' Simply painting it in black and white terms saying that abortion is wrong and should be illegal is superficially addressing a deeper problem. Abortion doesn't just spring up out of a vacuum, but is the result of a deeper malaise in society. Anything less is to display a lack of compassion for either the mother or the fetus--it only results in generating a kind of moral self-satisfaction that arises in any kind of simplistic, manichean thinking on ethical issues. The problem with addressing it as a greater societal problem means that we are all implicated in the conditions that give rise to abortion. There is no such thing as 'moral purity' in these matters--we can't place dotted lines around the woman or the clinics and simply lay the blame at their feet.

karasti

I agree, @riverflow. I am prochoice. But that doesn't mean I'd choose it for myself. I just recognize that the choice needs to be available. I used to live in North Dakota, and they are on the verge of making abortion illegal, for the most part. It'll be challenged in court, of course, but it's sad they feel that is necessary. Especially in a state with half a million people and *1* abortion clinic. That clinic sits on the border of MN and ND, so people will just drive the 5 miles to go to MN instead. It'll do nothing at all to prevent abortion. The same people who would have gotten abortions in ND will just go elsewhere. I have a hard time with government (not just in abortion but in many areas) making health decisions for someone. I also despise the fact that ND is a very republican state who very typically wants all children who are conceived to be born, even if they have to force it by law, yet they want to do nothing to support the kids once they are born, nor support the parent(s) who have to raise them. They aren't very pro-child in any respect there though. The state has a budget surplus of billions of dollars thanks to the oil boom and not a cent of that money right now is going to schools or children's programs.

Awakening

"Karma, monks, is intention..."

Is the intention to do harm to the new lifeform or to spare it from harm? That makes all the difference, especially in cases where the mother feels like she is sparing the new lifeform from a potentially dukkha-ridden life-situation.

MaryAnne

Awakening said:

"Karma, monks, is intention..."

Is the intention to do harm to the new lifeform or to spare it from harm? That makes all the difference, especially in cases where the mother feels like she is sparing the new lifeform from a potentially dukkha-ridden life-situation.

Well that is certainly another aspect worth considering.... like I always say, there are many sides to each and every story.

robot

Awakening said:

"Karma, monks, is intention..."

Is the intention to do harm to the new lifeform or to spare it from harm? That makes all the difference, especially in cases where the mother feels like she is sparing the new lifeform from a potentially dukkha-ridden life-situation.

Difference in what?
I would be really interested to hear about a concrete example of where the intent of the woman affected the karmic results of her decision one way or the other.
I suppose a decision to abort could cause guilt and shame and regret, but that could occur in any case, regardless of intent.
I've known a number of women who have had abortions. Including my own mother. How would I know if I had seen the negative results of their actions based on their intent?
How should I judge them?
If a parent murders their family to prevent some imagined suffering, which seems to happen all the time, their intent is usually positive in their own mind.
Who isn't born into a potentially dukkha filled life?

vinlyn

Awakening said:

"Karma, monks, is intention..."

Is the intention to do harm to the new lifeform or to spare it from harm? That makes all the difference, especially in cases where the mother feels like she is sparing the new lifeform from a potentially dukkha-ridden life-situation.

Assuming she is thinking wisely.

karasti

I think it's different to understand that all of us suffer to some degree, and to knowingly bringing a child into a life that is not in any way conducive to it's positive development. There are a lot of situations this can happen in, people who are drug/alcohol addicted, people who are in abusive relationships, people who don't have the financial means to provide a child with what it needs, etc.

If intention counts in karma, and many here seem to believe that is the case (I happen to agree) then it makes sense in this case, too. However, only the person and the universe (or whatever you believe keeps track) are the only ones that know the true intention. As the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. However, in many cases, it is also easily foreseeable that those so-called good intentions may very well have poor results. Just proclaiming that your intention is pure is not enough. IMO, if I drink a 6 pack and get behind the wheel, and someone dies in an accident I caused, saying "I didn't intend for that to happen" doesn't hold much water. I may not have purposely intended to cause the accident that killed someone. But I sure can foresee that it's a possibility. There's a difference, I think, between pure intention and "intention" used as a term to make us feel better about a bad situation.

vinlyn

karasti said:

I think it's different to understand that all of us suffer to some degree, and to knowingly bringing a child into a life that is not in any way conducive to it's positive development. There are a lot of situations this can happen in, people who are drug/alcohol addicted, people who are in abusive relationships, people who don't have the financial means to provide a child with what it needs, etc.

If intention counts in karma, and many here seem to believe that is the case (I happen to agree) then it makes sense in this case, too. However, only the person and the universe (or whatever you believe keeps track) are the only ones that know the true intention. As the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. However, in many cases, it is also easily foreseeable that those so-called good intentions may very well have poor results. Just proclaiming that your intention is pure is not enough. IMO, if I drink a 6 pack and get behind the wheel, and someone dies in an accident I caused, saying "I didn't intend for that to happen" doesn't hold much water. I may not have purposely intended to cause the accident that killed someone. But I sure can foresee that it's a possibility. There's a difference, I think, between pure intention and "intention" used as a term to make us feel better about a bad situation.

Well written.

When you said "it is also easily foreseeable that those so-called good intentions may very well have poor results", this is what I mean when I talk about "wise intention", as opposed to "unwise good intention".

Awakening

robot said:

Awakening said:

"Karma, monks, is intention..."

Is the intention to do harm to the new lifeform or to spare it from harm? That makes all the difference, especially in cases where the mother feels like she is sparing the new lifeform from a potentially dukkha-ridden life-situation.

Difference in what?
I would be really interested to hear about a concrete example of where the intent of the woman affected the karmic results of her decision one way or the other.
I suppose a decision to abort could cause guilt and shame and regret, but that could occur in any case, regardless of intent.
I've known a number of women who have had abortions. Including my own mother. How would I know if I had seen the negative results of their actions based on their intent?
How should I judge them?
If a parent murders their family to prevent some imagined suffering, which seems to happen all the time, their intent is usually positive in their own mind.
Who isn't born into a potentially dukkha filled life?

It makes the difference in whether or not it generates wholesome or unwholesome karmic results.

To paraphrase the Dhammapada: Suffering follows one who acts with malice, happiness follows one who acts out of benevolence.

Nobody is in any position to judge anyone.

What I mean by preventing dukkha-ridden circumstances I think you just need to reflect on and the answer will become clear.

Awakening

karasti said:

I think it's different to understand that all of us suffer to some degree, and to knowingly bringing a child into a life that is not in any way conducive to it's positive development. There are a lot of situations this can happen in, people who are drug/alcohol addicted, people who are in abusive relationships, people who don't have the financial means to provide a child with what it needs, etc.

If intention counts in karma, and many here seem to believe that is the case (I happen to agree) then it makes sense in this case, too. However, only the person and the universe (or whatever you believe keeps track) are the only ones that know the true intention. As the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. However, in many cases, it is also easily foreseeable that those so-called good intentions may very well have poor results. Just proclaiming that your intention is pure is not enough. IMO, if I drink a 6 pack and get behind the wheel, and someone dies in an accident I caused, saying "I didn't intend for that to happen" doesn't hold much water. I may not have purposely intended to cause the accident that killed someone. But I sure can foresee that it's a possibility. There's a difference, I think, between pure intention and "intention" used as a term to make us feel better about a bad situation.

Proclaiming one's intention has nothing to do with it. It is all about one's intention in one's own heart. In the incident of killing somebody due to drunk driving, you are aware of the possibility of that happening, therefore even though it may not be your direct intention to kill someone, you would be acting heedlessly.

In terms of evil acts and whether or not you intended to do them when aware of the possibility, I'll refer to paraphrasing the Buddha here: What hurts more, grabbing a hot iron ball intentionally, or grabbing a hot iron ball on accident?

Awakening

Both awareness (wisdom) and benevolence (merit) are the road to Buddhahood. Although they can function separately, it is only when they are brought together that we have a potential for Awakening.

vinlyn

Awakening said:

Both awareness (wisdom) and benevolence (merit) are the road to Buddhahood. Although they can function separately, it is only when they are brought together that we have a potential for Awakening.

Very well put.

robot

Awakening said:

What I mean by preventing dukkha-ridden circumstances I think you just need to reflect on and the answer will become clear.

My copy of the Dhammapada is in its honoured place on my bookshelf. Thanks for the reminder.

I understood what you meant here. The way I see it, it just doesn't make sense from a Buddhist perspective.
As we know, unless we are omniscient, we cannot know all the causes or results of karma of another being.
The path to awakening is from suffering to the end of suffering. Its basic 4NT.
So if you are going to consider the welfare of the being whose life is hanging in the balance, as a Buddhist, this should be considered.
How can the decision to cut off a being's opportunity to suffer be considered compassionate and wise, or right intent, from a Buddhist point of view?
We can't know when suffering will lead to awakening.
Of course this also applies to the one making the decision. If suffering occurs as a result of the decision, it will be be up to them to make the changes, or seek the solution to that suffering and that may well include new realizations and progress on their path.
No, I think the results of this decision are that a baby will be born or not and the results from that outcome will be experienced as negative or positive, depending on the state of mind of the one who made the decision, and the other folks involved, as those results occur, more so than depending on their intent at the time the decision was made.

Dakini

Ajahn Brahm has a talk on abortion and euthanasia, in which he says it's important to take into consideration compassion toward the mother in abortion cases. I couldn't find the video, but here's a link to the podcast:
http://www.dhammaweb.net/dhammadb/view.php?id=1440

Of course, his view is controversial in Buddhism, but I think it's helpful to offer this view, among all the shaming and blaming and bad-karma accusations that go on.

Citta

I see no real option but a case by case basis.
Any absolute statements from any pov are always going to come up against the shades of grey that make up real life and the messy chaos of real lives as lived.
Openness and compassion and what its like to walk in someone else's moccasins should in my view be the guiding principles.

zombiegirl

I keep waiting for the bottom to drop out in this thread... Everyone's discussing view points without becoming offensive or attacking... This may be the most peaceful and compassionate thread we've had on abortion here. Congratulations, NB.

[Cue troll's entrance stage left.]

vinlyn

Thank goodness I'm on stage right!

Hotei

Who am i to tell another what to do?

vinlyn

Hotei said:

Who am i to tell another what to do?

I would hope that under the right circumstances, all of us would.

darkprincess128

I personally think that when it comes to politically social issues like abortion - or gay marriage, even - we really should try to avoid groupthink in the Sangha. I know that might be something of a controversial opinion, but issues like abortion are highly personal to each individual. If we start asking each other about their opinions on this or that political issue, not only are we probably not going to get any definitive answer, but we run the risk of changing our own opinions only because other people think differently.

For what it's worth, the Buddha stressed not believing what others say unless it resonates in your own mind - unless YOU believe it.

Metta

vinlyn

But, we can also take that ("unless it resonates in your own mind") too far. I can think in my life at times that very unskillful and unwise -- at some point -- resonated in my own mind.

karasti

I think it's good to learn from other people, it's good to hear their opinions and compare them to your own. Over the years, yes, some of my opinions have changed. Largely due to hearing opinions of others, because they had things to say that I hadn't considered. Also due to better understanding of the world outside of my own and other factors. I never say anything I do trying to convince anyone else. It helps me to investigate my own views when I talk about them with other people. I think that's a good thing.