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?
I have not seen anywhere the Buddha talking about abortion or birth control but he has talked about kamma as "intentions condition kamma".
If there is right intention to get an abortion like the mother's health is in danger, the mother doesn't need a baby at the moment then what is wrong with getting an abortion? Sometimes it is for everyone's best interests to not bring any unwanted child into this world.
An embryo is still a part of another human being's body and if it causes threat to the human being bearing it then it should be destroyed. That's my personal opinion on abortion.
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.
But even that's debatable depending on how you interpret various terms and passages throughout the Canon. For example, in SN 12.11, there's this line in connection with dependent co-arising:
There are, O monks, four nutriments for the sustenance of beings born, and for the support of beings seeking birth.
Bhikkhu Bodhi offers this alternate translation:
Bhikkhus, there are these four kinds of nutriment for the maintenance of beings who have already come to be and for the assistance of those about to come to be.
The main part in question, "Bhutanam va sattanam thitiya sambhavesinam va anuggahaya," can just as easily support both views depending on how one chooses to interpret it. Thanissaro Bhikkhu, for example, takes this position:
This discourse incorporates the teaching on the four nutriments (see SN 12.63-64) into the pattern for dependent co-arising, placing them in the position usually occupied by clinging: after craving and before becoming. Putting nutriment in this position highlights one of the connotations of the Pali word for clinging, upadana, which can also mean "sustenance." It also highlights one of the connotations of the Pali word for craving, tanha, which can also mean "thirst."
The Commentary to this discourse tries to fit this teaching into the three-lifetime interpretation of dependent co-arising, emphasizing the role of the four nutriments in the mechanics of death and rebirth, but there is no need to limit the teaching to this interpretation. The teachings both in this discourse and in the following one show the complex interactions and feedback loops among the different factors of dependent co-arising, both between lifetimes and within a single lifetime — even a single moment. Craving is what takes material form, contact, intention, and consciousness — all of which precede it in the chain of dependent co-arising — and turns them into food for further becoming: continued becoming in this lifetime, and future becoming in the next.
Of course, it can be argued that any interpretation of becoming (bhava) should be limited to the here and now — and that the other, more explicit teachings on rebirth should be understood as simply promoting morality and not as referring to an actual process that occurs over multiple lifetimes — but again, even this is open for debate.
There are, O monks, four nutriments for the sustenance of beings born, and for the support of beings seeking birth.
Beings seeking birth is:
...As for those who are still in the “state of seeking birth,” there is a consciousness that is without a physical shell moving around seeking birth. This is an interpretation entirely in everyday language, and not according to the Buddha Dhamma.
Buddhism does not advocate a consciousness or entity that moves around seeking birth [or rebirth, as is usually believed]; it is a belief held by people who embrace the concept of a continuing existence. In Buddhism, consciousness emerges and expires in an instant according to the law of dependent arising. This is my opinion, Buddhism's "state of seeking birth" is interpreted in the Dhamma language; it is different from that of everyday language. Buddhism’s "state of seeking birth" refers to a state that, in the case of ordinary people, is still without vexation; a state where there is still the absence of Craving, Clinging, or holding on to self.
Bhikkhus, there are these four kinds of nutriment for the maintenance of beings who have already come to be and for the assistance of those about to come to be.
Bhikkhu Bodhi interprets DO as spanning through many lifetimes (similar to what is in Buddhagosa) and I once believed in that interpretation until I read the pali sutta translations more closely and found out that consciousness is only ever explained in them as arising based on the six sense bases. Thus, it is unreasonable to believe that the Buddha was talking about lifetimes in DO. The birth here is not physical birth and it only makes sense.
Bhikkhu Bodhi interprets DO as spanning through many lifetimes (similar to what is in Buddhagosa) and I once believed in that interpretation until I read the pali sutta translations more closely and found out that consciousness is only ever explained in them as arising based on the six sense bases. Thus, it is unreasonable to believe that the Buddha was talking about lifetimes in DO. The birth here is not physical birth and it only makes sense.
Perhaps, but it seems to me that the way the Buddha defines birth (jati) is open to both interpretations, which I don't see as being mutually exclusive:
And what is birth? Whatever birth, taking birth, descent, coming-to-be, coming-forth, appearance of aggregates, & acquisition of [sense] media of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called birth. (SN 12.1)
Perhaps, but it seems to me that the way the Buddha defines birth (jati) is open to both interpretations
Not in the DO. When you inject notions of physical birth into the DO, it loses all its value as a doctrine which helps people to end suffering here and now
Not in the DO. When you inject notions of physical birth into the DO, it loses all its value as a doctrine which helps people to end suffering here and now
I fail to see how since it's open to both interpretations, neither or which are mutually exclusive. As Thanissaro notes, "The teachings both in this discourse and in the following one show the complex interactions and feedback loops among the different factors of dependent co-arising, both between lifetimes and within a single lifetime — even a single moment."
Either way, the goal and the practice are still the same, so I don't really see what all the fuss is about.
...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).
Jason
You are misquoting to sutta again.
The sutta states: (1) sexual union; (2) mother is in season; and (3) gandhabba.
What about birth control that prevents the implantation of the fertilized egg?
Buddhism is realism.
Amongst married people, birth control promotes alot more intimacy. My impression is those in good relationships are much more developed in terms of love; better than the typical 'frosty' relations of my parents generation.
But in terms of unmarried people, birth control creates alot of unskilful views, confusion & suffering.
Regarding preventing conception, whats the issue?
Each month a woman menstruates an egg. Each wet dream, a man ejaculates millions of gandhabbas.
There are simply far too many passages that suggest rebirth was an integral part of his philosophy....
Actually, there are not. For example, in the MN, from 152 suttas, the minority mention rebirth.
The Buddha taught in MN 117 that rebirth is mundane right view, promoting morality but siding with asava (mental pollution or sewerage) and attachment.
In MN 117, the Buddha advised rebirth view is not a path factor.
Perhaps, but it seems to me that the way the Buddha defines birth (jati) is open to both interpretations, which I don't see as being mutually exclusive:
And what is birth? Whatever birth, taking birth, descent, coming-to-be, coming-forth, appearance of aggregates, & acquisition of [sense] media of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called birth. (SN 12.1)
Jason,
Dependent origination is about how suffering arises. MN 28 advises this clearly.
Birth is self-identity. Birth identifies itself with impermanent things. When those objects of identification experience inevitable aging & death (impermanence) the self-identity also experiences aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief & despair and the whole mass of suffering.
It is like when a man loses his wife and he feels a part of him dies.
This is the Buddha's Dhamma.
As for what you quoted above, you misunderstand it and it is probably mistranslated a little.
I would suggest you study this link and MN 98 to understand the meaning of jati in terms of the various orders of beings.
The Pali definition uses the term ayatana, which means both senses organs and sense object. It is believing "you" are what is seen, heard, felt, touched, thought, etc.
Acquistion means taking possession of it. Appearance means manifesting more aggregates in the mind, such as all of the aggregates you write on a CV when you apply for a job.
When a person's mind is spinning in mental concocting, its is manifesting more & more aggregates. Try understand MN 18.
Try to study MN 149, where 'building up the aggregates' is explained.
"When asked, 'Are you a deva?' you answer, 'No, brahman, I am not a deva.' When asked, 'Are you a gandhabba?' you answer, 'No, brahman, I am not a gandhabba.' When asked, 'Are you a yakkha?' you answer, 'No, brahman, I am not a yakkha.' When asked, 'Are you a human being?' you answer, 'No, brahman, I am not a human being.' Then what sort of being are you?"
"Brahman, the fermentations by which — if they were not abandoned — I would be a deva: Those are abandoned by me, their root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. The fermentations by which — if they were not abandoned — I would be a gandhabba... a yakkha... a human being: Those are abandoned by me, their root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising.
It might be my Catholic upbringing but I can see no moral argument for use of abortion for population or social reasons, medical i think may be different. I once heard a rabbi talking about it and he said you don't know the potential of who you are aborting, they could be the person who changes the world. I would find it hard to understand for any Buddhist to say to say it's Ok to have an abortion but not OK to eat a fish.
I would find it hard to understand for any Buddhist to say to say it's Ok to have an abortion ...
It's ok to have an abortion if it causes any kind of distress to the person carrying the embryo. What is so inhuman about it? An embryo is still inside a living human being and we should take that person's best interests into consideration more than someone that is not born yet.
Anyone who says that contraception is Dharmically wrong doesn't understand Dharma .
Anyone who says that infantiside is Dharmically right doesn't understand dharma.
Abortion is in the murky penumbra between the two clear dharmic truths.
There is no clear answer, but abortion is clearly not clearly against Dharma.
It's ok to have an abortion if it causes any kind of distress to the person carrying the embryo. What is so inhuman about it? An embryo is still inside a living human being and we should take that person's best interests into consideration more than someone that is not born yet.
What do you count as any kind of distress?
You consider a living being being poisoned and cut up as not inhuman?
An embryo is also a living human being.
Surely the very core of Buddhism is we apply laws of compassion to living beings. If the birth may cause death to mother and or child, or the child maybe born with some terrible form of suffering then there maybe cause to think of abortion. Personally I couldn't drown an unwanted kitten never mind a child.
In the same breath I would never call anyone who goes down that path.
I always judge my action on if the action is born of compassion or selfishness.
Abortion is the taking of a human life. Chagdud Rinpoche always advised women to carry the pregnancy to term to benefit both lives--the mother's and the fetuses.
I don't see how the dharma supports abortion due to the precept of not killing.
The Dhamma doesn't support abortion at all. A fertilized egg will become a human, barring any harm that is done to it to prevent its development. It doesn't matter at what stage an unborn human is at, whether just conceived or at several months. It also doesn't matter whether we believe it is yet conscious or not; the fact is that it will be.
There are many ways people might justify this, and some are even reasonable because of circumstance, but it is still killing. It is the same as if you're defending your own life; it may be justified, but life is being taken regardless. We just can't lose sight of that fact.
Everyone I have ever talked with that has had an abortion has suffered immensly from their decision (even if they feel it was the best choice). The wisest choice is to be aware of the consequences of your actions and prepare for them before you participate in a coital relationship. Since everyone I have ever talked with that has had an abortion has suffered immensely from this choice, I would recommend to be very wary of this choice. Personally, I would always recommend adoption over abortion but if we all practice rightful (coital) action, abortion would never come up. Do you best to not cause harm to anyone, including oneself.
Sure, it doesn't support lots of things, not their opposites. What it does is provide a framework for working out why any of the moral precepts is the case.
I am not sure you can be so sure:)
A fertilized egg will become a human
Well, we could change the arrangement of polymers and make it something less, in theory. Where does that leave the view?
There is no human there, there is only dna and life.
It doesn't matter at what stage an unborn human is at, whether just conceived or at several months.
You might be right there in some moral sense, but where does that idea come from, that it doesn't matter what stage. That seems pretty absolute to me and not very compatible with emptiness and interconnectivity.
It also doesn't matter whether we believe it is yet conscious or not; the fact is that it will be.
Yes, when it is completely different in the sense of possessing an aggregate mind.
but it is still killing.
Yes, but so is cutting the grass. The point is, is it killing a karmic sentient being or a biological machien?
It simplifies down to the question of what is considered to be life. To kill something, it first has to be alive. As I see it, there are varying definitions of what is considered to be life for a fetus. So as I said it is not as simple as to kill or not to kill.
It depends on whether life begins at conception, and if a zygote is a sentient being. I'm basing my answer on the advice that I know my Lama has given to pregnant women.
I am politically pro-choice, but I could not personally choose to have an abortion.
We can only speculate whether or not a fetus is a sentient being or not but one thing we can determine for sure is if an abortion causes pain and suffering for the human lives that are undoubtedly alive (aka the mother and father of the child). As I mentioned earlier, abortion has caused much suffering for the would be parents I know of that have gone through with abortion, so I agree with you, one should avoid having an abortion. However, it is not as simple as saying it is killing a human life, as I do not belive it is, I belive it is stopping the biological processes that make a potential human life.
If an 11 or 12 year old girl is raped by a gang of youths on her way home from school and becomes pregnant - should she be forced to go through with the pregnancy ?
If an 11 or 12 year old girl is raped by a gang of youths on her way home from school and becomes pregnant - should she be forced to go through with the pregnancy ?
No.
.
None of us have prescience of mind to know what would be best karmic outcome for a 12 year old year who becomes pregnant through being raped.
Her own present wishes and her future whist still a child herself should be considered rather than speculative 'best karmic outcome ' decided by others.
If an 11 or 12 year old girl is raped by a gang of youths on her way home from school and becomes pregnant - should she be forced to go through with the pregnancy ?
No, of course not. Its preposterous to force someone to compromise their life with kids at age 12 after such a helish ordeal.
I haven't really thought about abortion and buddhism before this thread, but as I think you agree, its just not simple in dharmic terms. To proclaim otehrwise is a big dogmatic, if you ask me.
These is no right or wrong in buddhism, at least not in the sense required to make bold pro-life claims.
Her own present wishes and her future whist still a child herself should be considered rather than speculative 'best karmic outcome ' decided by others.
.
It's up to the young woman, to decide with input from her parents, her doctor and her spiritual advisor and not up to what you or I think could or should happen.
I haven't really thought about abortion and buddhism before this thread, but as I think you agree, its just not simple in dharmic terms. To proclaim otehrwise is a big dogmatic, if you ask me.
These is no right or wrong in buddhism, at least not in the sense required to make bold pro-life claims.
There are ethics in Buddhism. That's what the precepts are about. "Do no non-virtue whatsoever, practice virtue throroughly, completely tame your own mind. This is the Buddha's teaching."
It's up to the young woman, to decide with input from her parents, her doctor and her spiritual advisor and not up to what you or I think could or should happen.
Except that the majority of 11 to 12 year olds in the modern world don't usually have a "spiritual advisor" !
.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited April 2010
There is also the physical effect a pregnancy would have on a child of that age.
A 12-year-old body simply is not ready or capable of being subjected to a full-term pregnancy, regardless of whether the child is fecund or not.
Therefore there is more at stake in this case than simply the existence of the baby. Many Buddhists feel that if the mother's health or life are at stake, there might be a greater cause for justification of the abortion.....
While traditional sources do not seem to be aware of the possibility of abortion as relevant to the health of the mother, modern Buddhist teachers from many traditions- and abortion laws in many Buddhist countries- recognize a threat to the life or physical health of the mother as an acceptable justification for abortion as a practical matter, though it may still be seen as a deed with negative moral or karmic consequences
Except that the majority of 11 to 12 year olds in the modern world don't usually have a "spiritual advisor" !
Well, wouldn't it be great if they did? Who can help this young woman who has been traumatized make this important decision. Let's pray she has access to a wise spiritual advisor.
I think the morning after pill is potentially advisable in this case.
But the Buddha was wise enough to keep the specific decisions for one to make up to that individual with guidelines and truths to help us choose wisely.
When does the human life being? I don't know. Is it ok to end another human being's life? That depends on the situation.
I would say in a case where the life of the mother is endangered by the pregnancy somehow I would be in favor of abortion, even if life started with conception. I would say the same for embryos that cannot be expected to live more than a couple of hours after being born or that have anencephaly.
There was a pharmaceutical company, Schering Plough, that sold birth control pills made of flour here in Brazil a while ago. Needless to say many women got pregnant. In that case I would be in favor of abortion. What do you guys think?
I am not saying my opinions have anything to do with Buddhism. I mostly wanted to share the flour pill story. :P
It's ok to have an abortion if it causes any kind of distress to the person carrying the embryo.
I find this a strange sentence, and it has nothing to do with the first part, "It's ok to have an abortion ..."
but rather with the second part, "... if it causes any kind of distress to the person carrying the embryo." (italics mine)
As Buddhists, aren't we supposed to be trying to cut our ties to attachment and aversion (including distress)? And trying to change ourselves rather than change the situation? Oh, I'm not saying we shouldn't ever try to change situations ... but to justify it on the basis of "distress"? It's not right or wrong, but we need to be very clear that reason for a choice is a move away from the goal of enlightenment.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited April 2010
It may not be a Buddhist suffering the distress. And 'distress' here, might also be used as a medical analysis, or description of a condition....
Many think it's OK to join the army, many to go to war, many want to trip their way to Nirvana. Nothing is absolute, but I don't see how abortion for social or contraceptive reasons can in anyway for the greater good.
And it's true a fetus might not be sentient but it has the potential to be, if I got a year old baby and killed it would it be murder? Obviously not as a baby is not sentient and can't fend for itself yet, so according to what many people claim here I'm not doing harm.
Comments
If there is right intention to get an abortion like the mother's health is in danger, the mother doesn't need a baby at the moment then what is wrong with getting an abortion? Sometimes it is for everyone's best interests to not bring any unwanted child into this world.
But even that's debatable depending on how you interpret various terms and passages throughout the Canon. For example, in SN 12.11, there's this line in connection with dependent co-arising:
Bhikkhu Bodhi offers this alternate translation:
The main part in question, "Bhutanam va sattanam thitiya sambhavesinam va anuggahaya," can just as easily support both views depending on how one chooses to interpret it. Thanissaro Bhikkhu, for example, takes this position:
The Commentary to this discourse tries to fit this teaching into the three-lifetime interpretation of dependent co-arising, emphasizing the role of the four nutriments in the mechanics of death and rebirth, but there is no need to limit the teaching to this interpretation. The teachings both in this discourse and in the following one show the complex interactions and feedback loops among the different factors of dependent co-arising, both between lifetimes and within a single lifetime — even a single moment. Craving is what takes material form, contact, intention, and consciousness — all of which precede it in the chain of dependent co-arising — and turns them into food for further becoming: continued becoming in this lifetime, and future becoming in the next.
Of course, it can be argued that any interpretation of becoming (bhava) should be limited to the here and now — and that the other, more explicit teachings on rebirth should be understood as simply promoting morality and not as referring to an actual process that occurs over multiple lifetimes — but again, even this is open for debate.
Beings seeking birth is:
By Buddhadasa Bhikku
We all pass through "being born" and "state of seeking birth" many times during our day to day life.
Bhikkhu Bodhi interprets DO as spanning through many lifetimes (similar to what is in Buddhagosa) and I once believed in that interpretation until I read the pali sutta translations more closely and found out that consciousness is only ever explained in them as arising based on the six sense bases. Thus, it is unreasonable to believe that the Buddha was talking about lifetimes in DO. The birth here is not physical birth and it only makes sense.
Perhaps, but it seems to me that the way the Buddha defines birth (jati) is open to both interpretations, which I don't see as being mutually exclusive:
Not in the DO. When you inject notions of physical birth into the DO, it loses all its value as a doctrine which helps people to end suffering here and now
For me DO shows the beginning and ending of suffering in one lifetime.
.
I fail to see how since it's open to both interpretations, neither or which are mutually exclusive. As Thanissaro notes, "The teachings both in this discourse and in the following one show the complex interactions and feedback loops among the different factors of dependent co-arising, both between lifetimes and within a single lifetime — even a single moment."
Either way, the goal and the practice are still the same, so I don't really see what all the fuss is about.
You are misquoting to sutta again.
The sutta states: (1) sexual union; (2) mother is in season; and (3) gandhabba.
:skeptical
Amongst married people, birth control promotes alot more intimacy. My impression is those in good relationships are much more developed in terms of love; better than the typical 'frosty' relations of my parents generation.
But in terms of unmarried people, birth control creates alot of unskilful views, confusion & suffering.
Regarding preventing conception, whats the issue?
Each month a woman menstruates an egg. Each wet dream, a man ejaculates millions of gandhabbas.
The Buddha taught in MN 117 that rebirth is mundane right view, promoting morality but siding with asava (mental pollution or sewerage) and attachment.
In MN 117, the Buddha advised rebirth view is not a path factor.
:smilec:
Dependent origination is about how suffering arises. MN 28 advises this clearly.
Birth is self-identity. Birth identifies itself with impermanent things. When those objects of identification experience inevitable aging & death (impermanence) the self-identity also experiences aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief & despair and the whole mass of suffering.
It is like when a man loses his wife and he feels a part of him dies.
This is the Buddha's Dhamma.
As for what you quoted above, you misunderstand it and it is probably mistranslated a little.
I would suggest you study this link and MN 98 to understand the meaning of jati in terms of the various orders of beings.
The Pali definition uses the term ayatana, which means both senses organs and sense object. It is believing "you" are what is seen, heard, felt, touched, thought, etc.
Acquistion means taking possession of it. Appearance means manifesting more aggregates in the mind, such as all of the aggregates you write on a CV when you apply for a job.
When a person's mind is spinning in mental concocting, its is manifesting more & more aggregates. Try understand MN 18.
Try to study MN 149, where 'building up the aggregates' is explained.
Kind regards
"When asked, 'Are you a deva?' you answer, 'No, brahman, I am not a deva.' When asked, 'Are you a gandhabba?' you answer, 'No, brahman, I am not a gandhabba.' When asked, 'Are you a yakkha?' you answer, 'No, brahman, I am not a yakkha.' When asked, 'Are you a human being?' you answer, 'No, brahman, I am not a human being.' Then what sort of being are you?"
"Brahman, the fermentations by which — if they were not abandoned — I would be a deva: Those are abandoned by me, their root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. The fermentations by which — if they were not abandoned — I would be a gandhabba... a yakkha... a human being: Those are abandoned by me, their root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.036.than.html
It's ok to have an abortion if it causes any kind of distress to the person carrying the embryo. What is so inhuman about it? An embryo is still inside a living human being and we should take that person's best interests into consideration more than someone that is not born yet.
Anyone who says that infantiside is Dharmically right doesn't understand dharma.
Abortion is in the murky penumbra between the two clear dharmic truths.
There is no clear answer, but abortion is clearly not clearly against Dharma.
What do you count as any kind of distress?
You consider a living being being poisoned and cut up as not inhuman?
An embryo is also a living human being.
Surely the very core of Buddhism is we apply laws of compassion to living beings. If the birth may cause death to mother and or child, or the child maybe born with some terrible form of suffering then there maybe cause to think of abortion. Personally I couldn't drown an unwanted kitten never mind a child.
In the same breath I would never call anyone who goes down that path.
I always judge my action on if the action is born of compassion or selfishness.
It isn't clear an embryo is a being.
It is alive yes, but not independently.
An embryo isn't sentient, it is closer to yeast than a baby.
I don't see how the dharma supports abortion due to the precept of not killing.
There are many ways people might justify this, and some are even reasonable because of circumstance, but it is still killing. It is the same as if you're defending your own life; it may be justified, but life is being taken regardless. We just can't lose sight of that fact.
Sure, it doesn't support lots of things, not their opposites. What it does is provide a framework for working out why any of the moral precepts is the case.
I am not sure you can be so sure:)
Well, we could change the arrangement of polymers and make it something less, in theory. Where does that leave the view?
There is no human there, there is only dna and life.
You might be right there in some moral sense, but where does that idea come from, that it doesn't matter what stage. That seems pretty absolute to me and not very compatible with emptiness and interconnectivity.
Yes, when it is completely different in the sense of possessing an aggregate mind.
Yes, but so is cutting the grass. The point is, is it killing a karmic sentient being or a biological machien?
Yes, this much is immutible.
Mat
Nothing is pure and simple.
I am politically pro-choice, but I could not personally choose to have an abortion.
Same could be said about you.
I think most people do not intend to get pregnant then have an abortion for the reasons you have mention.
:smilec:
No.
.
Does someone getting an abortion have intention to terminate life?
It depends on so many interdependent factors.
.
No, of course not. Its preposterous to force someone to compromise their life with kids at age 12 after such a helish ordeal.
I haven't really thought about abortion and buddhism before this thread, but as I think you agree, its just not simple in dharmic terms. To proclaim otehrwise is a big dogmatic, if you ask me.
These is no right or wrong in buddhism, at least not in the sense required to make bold pro-life claims.
100% agree you with here.
Except that the majority of 11 to 12 year olds in the modern world don't usually have a "spiritual advisor" !
.
A 12-year-old body simply is not ready or capable of being subjected to a full-term pregnancy, regardless of whether the child is fecund or not.
Therefore there is more at stake in this case than simply the existence of the baby. Many Buddhists feel that if the mother's health or life are at stake, there might be a greater cause for justification of the abortion.....
from wikipedia. Also, here.
Well, wouldn't it be great if they did? Who can help this young woman who has been traumatized make this important decision. Let's pray she has access to a wise spiritual advisor.
I think the morning after pill is potentially advisable in this case.
I would say in a case where the life of the mother is endangered by the pregnancy somehow I would be in favor of abortion, even if life started with conception. I would say the same for embryos that cannot be expected to live more than a couple of hours after being born or that have anencephaly.
There was a pharmaceutical company, Schering Plough, that sold birth control pills made of flour here in Brazil a while ago. Needless to say many women got pregnant. In that case I would be in favor of abortion. What do you guys think?
I am not saying my opinions have anything to do with Buddhism. I mostly wanted to share the flour pill story. :P
I find this a strange sentence, and it has nothing to do with the first part, "It's ok to have an abortion ..."
but rather with the second part, "... if it causes any kind of distress to the person carrying the embryo." (italics mine)
As Buddhists, aren't we supposed to be trying to cut our ties to attachment and aversion (including distress)? And trying to change ourselves rather than change the situation? Oh, I'm not saying we shouldn't ever try to change situations ... but to justify it on the basis of "distress"? It's not right or wrong, but we need to be very clear that reason for a choice is a move away from the goal of enlightenment.
And it's true a fetus might not be sentient but it has the potential to be, if I got a year old baby and killed it would it be murder? Obviously not as a baby is not sentient and can't fend for itself yet, so according to what many people claim here I'm not doing harm.