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 and Birth Control: Ethical or Unethical to Buddhists?
Is abortion considered to be ethical or unethical to Buddhists? What about birth control that prevents the implantation of the fertilized egg?
0
Comments
Doing any harm to the developing human after conception though is not good. Life begins at conception in the Buddhist worldview.
Okay, so would a form of birth control, such as the pill, which prevents implantation of the fertilized egg be unethical then?
I wouldnt go with the masculine buddhist orthodoxy on this one:)
It would be clear in karmic and biological terms that a human Zygote is not an individual moral, mental, spiritual person.
I don't think any dharmic moral reasoning could come up with a view against the morning after pill, for example.
So if you are spiritually and philosophically satisfied with that as a moral starting point then you can look to the karmic effects of termination at other stages in human development, and then you can come up with your own right moral decision on this:)
Well wishes:)
mat
Christianity worries about moral/immoral, and gives us strict rules to follow.
Buddhism gives us guidelines, and explains why those guidelines are good things to follow. Certain actions result in varying degrees of positive karma, while other actions result in varying degrees of negative karma ... but living inevitably causes some degree of bad karma (until we become Buddhas ourselves).
I once asked my teacher a similar question: I asked if it was "wrong" to take antibiotics, since antibiotics kill bacteria. He said that if our intention was to kill bacteria so that we could continue to live, so that we could continue to do our Buddhist practice, so that we could benefit all sentient beings, then the negative karma of killing bacteria was far out-weighed by the positive karma created by our intentions.
So is it "immoral" to prevent implantation of a zygote? It's not black or white, yes or no. You'll earn some degree of bad karma from that action. More importantly, however, is the attitude you are operating out of ... your intentions, your motivation, your attempts to gain the qualities of wisdom and compassion. And whether or not your actions support those.
Oh okay thanks.
I also just thought of another thing to speculate on when considering whether or not to use "abortifacient" forms of birth control such as the Morning-After Pill. Let's say that you are a Buddhist woman and you have just been raped by a man. You are fearful of pregnancy. So, you have to decide whether or not to use the Morning-After Pill. Using the Morning-After Pill would decrease the chance of you suffering due to an unwanted pregnancy. However, using the Morning-After Pill would also cause the death of the newly formed life, the fertilized egg. You would be causing harm to the newly formed life by using the Morning-After Pill provided that the Morning-After Pill happens to work by preventing the implantation of the newly formed life. Of course, the Morning-After Pill also works by preventing conception in the first place. So you'd kind of be at a moral dilemma wouldn't you? I mean, you could choose to use the Morning-After Pill which may or may not cause harm to a newly formed life but which would also prevent suffering that you or others may experience based upon an unwanted pregnancy. So, what would you do in such a case? Would you have to weigh the amount of suffering that an unwanted pregnancy may cause with the possible harm caused by the Morning-After Pill? Or would it just be acceptable to go ahead and use the Morning-After Pill because there is a chance in which we can't know exactly how it is going to work? It could work either way. It could either prevent the implantation of the newly formed life or it could prevent the conception of a new life. So, what should a person in such a situation do? I'm sorry but such a situation is very confusing to me.
if a woman habitually takes the morning-after pill, because she cannot be bothered to take proper precautions, that would be a different matter.
I agree with you that you cannot know that taking it would definitely be causing the death of a new life. However, even Planned Parenthood acknowledges that in theory the Morning-After Pill could prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg. See the quote below:
Source: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/emergency-contraception-morning-after-pill-4363.htm
Emphasis in underline mine.
Therefore, should we not avoid such a method of contraception knowing that it is possible for it to prevent implantation of the fertilized egg?
As I have said elsewhere, "Intention is all".
We have no right to criticise, judge or condemn others for the decisions they make. A conscientious woman would be giving herself a hard enough time anyway. Who are we to add to her burden, when we ourselves in soooo many ways are less than perfect?
A woman with no scruples and who cares not a jot what she does or what others think, is in a realm of Samsara, anyway, and needs compassion (whether she asks for it or not, expects it or not, accepts it or not).
Ah yes, I agree with you Federica. We do not have any right to criticize, judge, or condemn others for decisions they make. Also, I agree that a woman with no scruples and who cares nothing about what she does or what others think needs compassion.
So even if you might find it mentioned that abortion or homosexuality is wrong a big deal is not made out of it and you are not rejected because of one of those things. In buddhism getting angry is wrong! But even the da lai lama says he gets angry sometimes.
In buddhism a vow has a purpose. The tibetan word for vow means stop a leak. What the vow do is stop negative harmful things for destroying the conditions you have for studying and gainging wisdom and merit. Merit is karma. It is like the conditions you need to clear away the clouds on your heart. You already have a good heart you just need to clear away clouds klesha and veils.
There is some controversy over this subject, however, because the Buddha never explicitly states when consciousness arises in an embryo, although he does state in MN 38 that conception requires three things: (1) the mother (i.e., a fertile egg), (2) the father (i.e., a sperm cell), and (3) the gandhabba (stream of consciousness) (source). Additionally, the Theravadin commentaries merely state that with the union of the sperm and egg, consciousness (citta) can arise, but they don't give an explicit time as to when this occurs. In essence, there's no way to be absolutely sure of the moment when consciousness arises in an embryo.
So taking into account what it states in the Pali Canon regarding conception and consciousness, one can also reasonably argue that life begins at conception, but I don't know the answer myself, and in my opinion, there is no way to be absolutely sure of the moment when consciousness arises in an embryo. That being the case, my own position would be to err on the side of caution and treat any embryo, from the moment of fertilization onward, as being a potential living being. But in the end, I think it really comes down to how we each choose to view embryos—whether as a collection of cells, a potential living beings or both.
Personally, I believe in a woman's right to choose for the simply fact that the fertilized egg 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. Whether or not having an abortion or using emergency contraception is unethical is another question entirely, but then, Buddhism is a type of 'religious individualism' in that the teachings on kamma focus on individual actions and their consequences, so ethics are more or less a personal matter that each individual must explore and develop on their own, although guidance is certainly advised. The way I see it, 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.
Actions are understood to have consequences, and actions which cause harm to others and/or ourselves are considered to be unskillful and to be avoided, but the Buddha never condemned people merely for making unskillful choices or breaking the precepts (e.g., Angulimala). He simply urged them 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. At worst, having an abortion or using emergency contraception can be considered an unskillful action which one should refrain from doing in the future, but I wouldn't consider it "immoral" unless the intent behind it was truly malicious.
Bacteria are not of the kingdom 'Animalia' and can in no way (that I can conceive of) be considered sentient beings. Killing a bacterium with an antibiotic is no worse karmically speaking than eating a salad.
Mtns
The word gandabba means 'sperm', based in the meaning of 'scent' and 'seed'. The suttas state:
Sexual mating ritual described in the Gandhabbasamyutta, SN 31.13: Gandhabba are called 'gods', particularly 'devas', because the scented seeds found in flowers, plants, etc, are the forces of creation.
To end, the gandhabba in MN 38 is simply the male sperm (despite what various monks who are obsessed with evangelising rebirth have to say).
The Buddha-Dhamma does not teach pleasant & painful feeling (vedana) is suffering.
The Buddha-Dhamma teaches the thought conception that grasps at experience with 'self-view' is suffering.
It follows an embryo does not have thought conception & therefore does not suffer.
You getting a little modern here thus opening up the topic for interpretation. This matters often depend on personal circumstances.
Of karma or action, which bears results or consequences, the Buddha taught 'karma is intention'. So considering the intention here is most important.
It follows, for the most part, Buddhism would not recommend abortion because abortion especially can cause suffering to the woman having the abortion. The woman may have regrets, feel guilt, saddness, etc, which naturally arises from aborting that which was biologically & psychology part of her.
Thus many women (not all) need counselling & support after an abortion.
However, often women have abortions because they are desperate; because they do not think their circumstances are suitable for having a child.
I have a good friend who used to counsel women before they had an abortion. She described most of them as 'desparate' - no family, no money, no partner, etc.
So whether suffering occurs in a strong way depends on intention.
Wise Buddhists generally do not hold inflexible views on such matters.
These are my opinions.
Kind regards
DD
From what I understand, this is how Ajahn Buddhadasa translated this term, but that's certainly not how it's traditionally been defined. The term in relation to rebirth isn't explained in the suttas, and it only occurs in one other place in a similar context (MN 93).
I believe, as does Bhikkhu Bodhi, that the interpretation of gandhabba as "stream of consciousness" 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).
The suttas describe it in the Gandhabbasamyutta.
The Buddha warned against 'tradition'.
I know, where the Brahmins were questioned what caste the gandhabba is?
Its use in only two suttas, divorced from the subject matter of those suttas, shows it is not a specific teaching of the Buddha.
It is completely unreasonable given the Pali for consciousness is 'vinnana'.
It is obvious the Buddha did not speak DN 15 given the many contradictions in DN 15 with the scores of other suttas about D.O.
DN 15 does not mention the sense spheres, which Buddha called one of his core teachings in MN 115 and AN 3.61. DN 15 uses a Hindu definition of nama-rupa plus a Hindu use of consciousness. All suttas teach consciousness in D.O. are the six kinds of consciousness.
The Buddha did not speak DN 15.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here, DD. Did you read the whole thing? I think you're missing the point of what he's saying.
As for AB's superstitions, they are always as clear as day.
If an embryo has consciousness, i.e., as gained from the genetic material in the ovum & sperm, this still does not imply there is suffering.
AB is attempting to assert there is a "being" or "atman" there.
"Being" arises from thought conception, as the Buddha taught in the Dependent Origination, under the subject of 'becoming'.
An embryo is probably void of thought conception, as child psychologists have studied.
Even a jellyfish has some primitive form of consciousness (from its genetic material).
As as student of the Pali suttas, when are you going to accept the Buddha never taught consciousness is reborn and never taught re-linking consciousness?
:smilec:
The Buddha did not say what AB attributes to him. The very first sentence comes from the Vibhaṅga, which the Buddha did not speak.
Not necessarily, especially given the context.
A convenient way to explain away suttas that you don't like.
Actually, it is not. As I stated, there are scores of suttas about Dependent Origination and each describe it in basically the same way, especially what consciousness is.
Thus the one divergent sutta is caste aside.
The Buddha gave many discourses that imply rebirth. I do not caste them aside. Those suttas are about karma.
Brahm is caught out again, trying to concoct a soup of Brahministic views.
AB sounds very confused, mistaking the cognitive for the meta-physical. He is teaching spiritual materialism.
Sorry, DD, but I don't quote follow you here. From what I can see, he's saying that consciousness can't manifest without a developed nervous system, and if there's no consciousness, there can't be said to be a "sentient being." I see nothing inherently wrong with that.
What makes you think I accept that the Buddha taught re-linking consciousness? You should now by now that I don't since we've had this conversation before.
For example, a human being in a coma or under anethsetic is generally not conscious.
Apart from that, if consciousness can't manifest without a developed nervous system, then how can it be floating in space, as a "gandhabba", looking for an embryo to enter?
OK.
Yes, we've established that we disagree about the definition of the term gandhabba. I accept Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation, mostly because of his excellent Pali scholarship and the fact that it's consistent with the passage in DN 15, which you don't accept. I'd be more persuaded by your argument if it can be shown that gandhabba is used to refer to semen in any other part of the Canon, especially the Vinaya.
Bodhi makes many many errors. Plus his commentaries are bizzare & contradict the suttas themselves.
How can it be consistant when the word gandhabba does not even exist in DN 15 and where does it exist in the Vinaya?
Cannot translate terms like 'sabbakaya', 'kayasankhara', 'vacisankhara', 'cittasankhara'.
Brother.
I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I never said that the term gandhabba was used DN 15 or the Vinaya. In regard to DN 15, I said that I think "the interpretation of gandhabba as 'stream of consciousness' is a reasonable one, mostly stemming from the passage in DN 15 that mentions consciousness 'descending into the mothers' womb'." But since you don't accept DN 15, there seems to be little reason to pursue this further.
As for the reference to the Vinaya, I said, "I'd be more persuaded by your argument if it can be shown that gandhabba is used to refer to semen in any other part of the Canon, especially the Vinaya." I mentioned the Vinaya because I know that it explicitly mentions semen, and if the term used to refer semen happens to be "gandhabba," I'll find your interpretation much more persuasive.
Here, the Buddha's reputation as an enlightened being is at stake.
Jason is asserting the Buddha advised an embryo comes from three things: sexual union, ovum and floating consciousness but no sperm.
Really? Where did I assert that? I'm pretty sure that I mentioned "sperm," and I don't recall mentioning a "floating consciousness":
Annnnnnd, that's about all I've got to say about that. I don't have a dog in this fight and it doesn't concern me in the least. Sorry for stepping in, so I'll just step out now. I'm fixing someone's computer right now anyway, so ciao for now.
Well, at least one of us is having fun.
But you are defining the whole of the Buddhist teaching using a vague sentence found in one sutta that contradicts the entirety of the suttas.
OK. So the six types of consciousness listed in 100's of sutta are wrong?
Indeed.
Whilst the scored of suttas describe ignorant contact, that is, consciousness affected or conditoned (paccaya) by ignorance, this is not important.
Semen is fluid. It is not one seed or cell that stimulates life.
The word gandhabba is used in myriad ways in the suttas. Who knows what it actually means?
But in MN 38, natural reality tells us sperm is reasonable, meaning 'scent', consistent with the suttas in the SN.
Seriously, DD, I think you need to take the time to read what I write a little more carefully. I never said that it was.
No, I'm defining one term based on a related but not entirely identical passage because the term itself isn't explicitly defined anywhere in the Canon, at least not in relation to it's role in conception.
Of course not, what gives you that idea?
or
"Are you a [stream of consciousness]?"
Yeah, neither definition really makes much sense in that context.
Rereading the thread, I've realized that I've overlooked this part, and the source of our disagreement. The translation of gandhabba as "stream of consciousness" really only makes sense in the context of rebirth as an actual process that occurs over multiple lifetimes, whereas "sperm" makes sense either way.
While I don't necessarily believe in this kind of rebirth myself, I'm still not convinced that the Buddha didn't. There are simply far too many passages that suggest rebirth was an integral part of his philosophy, hence my acceptance of Bodhi's interpretation. But I see your point.
There probably is something called rebirth but
1) It is not a part of the core Buddhist teachings as the DO thus it is not an "integral part" of the core Buddhist teachings.
2) It is certainly not relevant to the cessation of suffering here and now
3) The Buddha himself advised not to entertain this idea as it is associated with asava aka defilement and clinging