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?
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 I could just as easily take a page from your book and claim that this sutta, or at the very least that particular passage, is a later addition seeing as how the Chinese version of MN 117 makes no mention of "right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in the acquisitions":
And what is right view? ‘There is what is given and what is offered and what is sacrificed; there is benefit and result of good and bad actions; there is this world and the other world; there is mother and father; there are in the world good and virtuous individuals who have realised for themselves by direct knowledge and declare this world and the other world.’ This is right view.
Of course, it may very well be that the redactors of the Chinese Canon intentionally removed this part, or that it was lost in translation, but it could just as easily be argued that the redactors of the Pali Canon (especially the Abhidhammikas) added this distinction (perhaps in order to support the Abhidhammic theory of two truths, i.e., conventional truth and ultimate truth). It's not really all that unlikely considering the fact that this is the only sutta in the entire Canon I'm aware of that contains this definition of right view with and without effluents.
On a practical level, did the Buddha know what a zygote is? Does a zygote intend to become a full human being.
Does someone getting an abortion have intention to terminate life?
On a practical level, if we are practising Buddhists, we should not be getting ourselves in situations that lead to considering whether we ourselves require abortions.
Therefore, my opinion is we should be developing a view responding to abortion rather than reacting to it, screaming out emotionally: "Abortion is killing!!! Abortion is killing!!!".
Buddhism is not like the Catholic Chuch imposing its values upon the world.
Buddhism is responding empathetically to the human condition, imbued with ignorance ('not-knowing'), defilement & suffering.
It is important we separate our practise from the rest of humanity.
Generally, the intention of people is not to terminate life but prevent life coming into what they consider an unsuitable environment.
My view is it is best to develop an attitude tending towards empathy & forgiveness.
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.
Abortion is not OK. There are karmic consequences no matter how one justifies it. The karmic imprints of taking a life cannot be washed off that easily. One makes one's choice and learn to live with it.
The effect depends on the effort and length of time (time one spends thinking about it) one takes to accomplish the act. The older the fetus the greater planning and effort required whereas taking a morning after pill is easy. The karmic consequences would be different.
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.
A baby is absolutely sentient. It is, frankly, nonsense to suggest otherwise.
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.
So the new question is, will taking a "morning after pill" be OK as here the woman is preventing some "being" from coming into this world who has the potential to be a very important person
I don't think so but even if it is, it is still inside another human beings body, developing and not yet born. There is no "being" or "self" there that has landed from some place. It is fine to consider it as part of her body until it is born.
Personally I couldn't drown an unwanted kitten never mind a child.
Not a good simile. This is about destroying an embryo which is still part of someone else's body and that embryo is causing distress to the person who is carrying it. Would you rather put that person through the entire 9/10 months unwillingly and be forced to produce a baby. Is that compassion?
So the new question is, will taking a "morning after pill" be OK as here the woman is preventing some "being" from coming into this world who has the potential to be a very important person
Probably yes if you don't plant suggestions and guilt on her. What if the being turns out to be a future Hitler or Pol Pot?
Sometimes ignorance is bliss.
Probably yes if you don't plant suggestions and guilt on her. What if the being turns out to be a future Hitler or Pol Pot?
Sometimes ignorance is bliss.
Which is why I say such rationalizations are baseless. If someone says you should not get an abortion because the embryo might grow up to be some important person then that applies to pills as well
1)
I don't think so but even if it is, it is still inside another human beings body, developing and not yet born. There is no "being" or "self" there that has landed from some place. It is fine to consider it as part of her body until it is born.
1)
The core of Buddhism is that all things are not-self, impermanent and suffering.
So are the four noble truths, eightfold path, DO and compassion. Without compassion practice is based on self interest, and is to many the lowest form.
1)
Not a good simile. This is about destroying an embryo which is still part of someone else's body and that embryo is causing distress to the person who is carrying it. Would you rather put that person through the entire 9/10 months unwillingly and be forced to produce a baby. Is that compassion?
How do you decide what is the greater compassion. how do you know what the future will hold for the mother and child? What potential the child will have. How damaged the mother will be.
BTW I am pro abortion as I would not for force my pro life views on anyone. However when these debates are held I think I must say how I see the world. I would alway defend living being fetus, cow or fish. I wish I had the compassion to defend adults as much, perhaps one day I hope.
So are the four noble truths, eightfold path, DO and compassion. Without compassion practice is based on self interest, and is to many the lowest form.
I agree. But should compassion be just directed to an unborn egg of a few cells over the young mother who got pregnant by accident and really isn't ready for kids?
How do you decide what is the greater compassion.
We don't, that is a choice the woman must make, not others.
>>>How damaged the mother will be.
Or how undamaged safe in the knowlege that when she looked at the word and thought how best to live this choice she made the right choice.
By the way, I am not saying "Abortion is right" I am saying it isnt outright forbidden in terms of dharma.
ie, abortion doesn't necessarily come under the "no killing " precept.
I would alway defend living being fetus, cow or fish.
No really I try to apply as much as possible. And as I've said I'm socially pro abortion but personally anti. I live in a country (UK) that is pro abortion if I lived in a one that was anti, I would use similar arguments people who appear to be pro here.
As for compassion for the mother or child I don't know, honestly I don't. I think my personal golden rule of "is the action selfish or compassionate" is pretty simple, but there are many be half a dozen things it has a close call on. However I'm not forcing or even asking other people to do as I say. I think it is a rule that will make my life better.
The just an egg argument over the mother. I was applying the idea of potential not just of what you currently are. That's why I used the example of a young baby earlier. The fetus or 6 month old baby does not have the same level of life as we do, but they have the potential.
I think my personal golden rule of "is the action selfish or compassionate" is pretty simple, but there are many be half a dozen things it has a close call on.
I cant think of any examples where your rule breaks down, but I guess if there were they would be to do with ambiguity in the subject, like abortion or "save the doctor" thought experiments or maybe whether or not white lies are right.
I cant think of any examples where your rule breaks down, but I guess if there were they would be to do with ambiguity in the subject, like abortion or "save the doctor" thought experiments or maybe whether or not white lies are right.
Much metta
Mat
I once though the violence in defense of the innocent was right. When I was a kid I was totally anti (15 -25), I then thought (on Iraq) it might be right, because of the suffering of many (EG mash arabs ) was so great Sadam, should be overthrown. I was wrong, violence is a virus. Like it's little brother anger., which reminds me sorry DD irrational anger got the better of me.
(Sorry should say anti violence above and by innocent I mean people without rights in general, I'm not an anti-abortiuon nutter like above sound )
Just to throw in my 2 cents, I was taught by my teacher that life begins at the instant of conception. To say that a fetus is not a human or that it is not sentient goes against the teachings as I have received them, and I believe them to be in accord with what the Buddha taught. Whether you choose to believe that or not is up to you. And I have also been taught that to kill a human is a very grave wrong in that it robs that being of the opportunity to hear and practice the Dharma.
.To say that a fetus is not a human or that it is not sentient goes against the teachings as I have received them, and I believe them to be in accord with what the Buddha taught. Whether you choose to believe that or not is up to you. And I have also been taught that to kill a human is a very grave wrong in that it robs that being of the opportunity to hear and practice the Dharma.
So what you are basically saying is that a fetus is human and killing a human is a grave misdeed. Which implies that a woman who got conceived by rape or an accident is killing a living human being by getting an abortion or taking a "morning after pill" thus she should carry the fetus, let it develop inside her for 9 months and give birth to a baby whether she likes it or not. Nice Dhamma teaching
How do you decide what is the greater compassion. how do you know what the future will hold for the mother and child? What potential the child will have. How damaged the mother will be.
I am not trying to decide anything. My opinion is let the mother decide whether she needs a baby or not. If she feels like she doesn't need a baby, a woman should have the freedom to make that choice without feeling guilty about it. End of the story
...should compassion be just directed to an unborn egg of a few cells over the young mother who got pregnant by accident and really isn't ready for kids?
So what you are basically saying is that a fetus is human and killing a human is a grave misdeed. Which implies that a woman who got conceived by rape or an accident is killing a living human being by getting an abortion or taking a "morning after pill" thus she should carry the fetus, let it develop inside her for 9 months and give birth to a baby whether she likes it or not. Nice Dhamma teaching
I want to start off by saying that I am neither pro- nor anti-abortion. Any decision is the mother's to make, and I am fortunate that I never had to make that decision.
Furthermore, I want to clearly state that I don't suggest that people should deliberately seek, or be forced, to suffer from outer circumstances they don't want.
BUT ... the essence of Buddhism is that it is NOT the circumstances you are in which matter, but how you work internally with those circumstances. Whether one is pregnant by rape/accident, or whether one is imprisoned and tortured by invading Chinese, the good practitioner understands that their happiness is NOT contingent on their circumstances or even what is happening with their body.
I am a mother who had to chose between her financial security/career satisfaction, and the well-being of her young daughter diagnosed at an extremely early age as "profoundly psychotic". You make your choices for the good of others, and if they cost ... well, tough luck. That's what being a mother is all about, and that's what being a Buddhist is about, too. If you actually believe Buddhism, that seeking "happiness" is not what it's all about, then that conviction will be evident in your decisions.
I DO believe that the mother who chooses abortion is more attached to finding happiness through her circumstances than she is in finding freedom from attachment-aversion.
I DO believe that the mother who chooses abortion is more attached to finding happiness through her circumstances than she is in finding freedom from attachment-aversion.
This is a bizarre thing to say.
I truly don't understand your point....
If a woman is Buddhist, then it's highly unlikely (unless there is sound medical reason for her to do so) that she would consider abortion. In any case, her decision would always weigh heavy on her mind.
The only person who would choose abortion because she is "more attached to finding happiness through her circumstances" would in all likelihood not be a Buddhist. Therefore the second part of your post is entirely academic and frankly, probably totally irrelevant...
Sorry, but really, I don't get it.
BUT ... the essence of Buddhism is that it is NOT the circumstances you are in which matter, but how you work internally with those circumstances. Whether one is pregnant by rape/accident, or whether one is imprisoned and tortured by invading Chinese, the good practitioner understands that their happiness is NOT contingent on their circumstances or even what is happening with their body.
Your examples are invalid because not all people are Buddhists.
I DO believe that the mother who chooses abortion is more attached to finding happiness through her circumstances than she is in finding freedom from attachment-aversion.
The only person who would choose abortion because she is "more attached to finding happiness through her circumstances" would in all likelihood not be a Buddhist.
Then why would a Buddhist woman consider an abortion?
why? this conclusion isn't obvious to me?? can you elaborate please?
A Buddhist woman would not in all probability consider abortion as an option, because as a practising Buddhist, she would be all too aware of the Eightfold Path and The Five Precepts, not to mention the 4 Noble truths.
I know many, many female Buddhists, and please believe me when I tell you, that without exception, while they all recognise the suffering of a woman considering an abortion, and practise compassion and understanding, they would never consider such an option for themselves, unless, as I said, it meant that continuing with the pregnancy would endanger their own lives. And even then, the decision to abort would be a burdensome one.
Then why would a Buddhist woman consider an abortion?
I don't believe she would ever consider abortion.
Of course, I haven't spoken to every existent Buddhist female practitioner, but I would hazard a guess, I'm more accurate than inaccurate....
ps: I'm pro "educated" choice.
I'm simply pro-choice. I would never consider even sitting in criticism of someone whatever their motivation. As far as I am concerned, 'educated' choice or not, the woman is deserving of our compassion, for whatever reason she chooses to terminate her pregnancy. we may not agree with her actions, choice, and motivation.
That's her decision to make.
This is a bizarre thing to say.
I truly don't understand your point....
If a woman is Buddhist, then it's highly likely (unless there is sound medical reeason to do so) that she would consider abortion. In any case, her decision would always weigh heavy on her mind.
The only person who would choose abortion because she is "more attached to finding happiness through her circumstances" would in all likelihood not be a Buddhist. Therefore the second part of your post is entirely academic and frankly, probably totally irrelevant...
Sorry, but really, I don't get it.
Perhaps I did not put it clearly, or perhaps it is my thinking that is flawed.
I do notice, though, in your later post that your thinking is consistent with mine. So now I guess I'm the one who's confused now.
Ain't life grand?
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
Yes - thank goodness!
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
If, due to a poor education, you believe abortion is the only alternative, then it's not really a choice.
If you have only one option there is no choice to make.
This was my point.
the woman is deserving of our compassion, for whatever reason she chooses to terminate her pregnancy. we may not agree with her actions, choice, and motivation.
That's her decision to make.
of course.
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
If, due to a poor education, you believe abortion is the only alternative, then it's not really a choice.
I'm afraid I don't agree, though I do see your point....
But even a person with absolutely no education at all, knows that the decision is not an easy one.
Abortion is not simply a question of education.
It is primarily a question of personal morals.
it is a choice, because even the most ignorant woman knows the difference between 'keep' and 'abort'....
If you have only one option there is no choice to make.
This was my point.
I see. You mean with regard to the medical effect on the mother, yes?
Then why would a Buddhist woman consider an abortion?
Because she is a selfish brat filled with ego clinging and desire and her only priority is her own selfish pleasures. She doesn't have the moral sense that it is a human "being" inside her (who by the way might grow up to be the next Buddha). :cool:
Comments
"Sentient" means experiencing, as in, the five skhandas.
An eight month old foetus is probably sentient. An eight second old is probably not.
it would literally be a couple of cells. Time to stop exfoiliating and using birth control etc.
Perhaps, but I could just as easily take a page from your book and claim that this sutta, or at the very least that particular passage, is a later addition seeing as how the Chinese version of MN 117 makes no mention of "right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in the acquisitions":
Of course, it may very well be that the redactors of the Chinese Canon intentionally removed this part, or that it was lost in translation, but it could just as easily be argued that the redactors of the Pali Canon (especially the Abhidhammikas) added this distinction (perhaps in order to support the Abhidhammic theory of two truths, i.e., conventional truth and ultimate truth). It's not really all that unlikely considering the fact that this is the only sutta in the entire Canon I'm aware of that contains this definition of right view with and without effluents.
Therefore, my opinion is we should be developing a view responding to abortion rather than reacting to it, screaming out emotionally: "Abortion is killing!!! Abortion is killing!!!".
Buddhism is not like the Catholic Chuch imposing its values upon the world.
Buddhism is responding empathetically to the human condition, imbued with ignorance ('not-knowing'), defilement & suffering.
It is important we separate our practise from the rest of humanity.
Generally, the intention of people is not to terminate life but prevent life coming into what they consider an unsuitable environment.
My view is it is best to develop an attitude tending towards empathy & forgiveness.
I have not heard many say no harm is being done. Generally, there is some harm, some emotional trauma.
Abortion is not OK. There are karmic consequences no matter how one justifies it. The karmic imprints of taking a life cannot be washed off that easily. One makes one's choice and learn to live with it.
The effect depends on the effort and length of time (time one spends thinking about it) one takes to accomplish the act. The older the fetus the greater planning and effort required whereas taking a morning after pill is easy. The karmic consequences would be different.
A baby is absolutely sentient. It is, frankly, nonsense to suggest otherwise.
So the new question is, will taking a "morning after pill" be OK as here the woman is preventing some "being" from coming into this world who has the potential to be a very important person
1) Woman who is raped (and could not take the "morning after pill" or the pill didn't work for whatever reason and she is pregnent after all)
2) Someone who is not ready to have a baby. She doesn't want to have a baby and the pregnency is an accident
3) The embryo is causing threats to her life medically
It's about intentions... Do you think it's ok for the army to kill the enemies who are invading your country?
I don't think so but even if it is, it is still inside another human beings body, developing and not yet born. There is no "being" or "self" there that has landed from some place. It is fine to consider it as part of her body until it is born.
The core of Buddhism is that all things are not-self, impermanent and suffering.
According to your argument we should not be in a position to decide whether the child likes to live with that "terrible form of suffering" or not
Not a good simile. This is about destroying an embryo which is still part of someone else's body and that embryo is causing distress to the person who is carrying it. Would you rather put that person through the entire 9/10 months unwillingly and be forced to produce a baby. Is that compassion?
Probably yes if you don't plant suggestions and guilt on her. What if the being turns out to be a future Hitler or Pol Pot?
Sometimes ignorance is bliss.
Which is why I say such rationalizations are baseless. If someone says you should not get an abortion because the embryo might grow up to be some important person then that applies to pills as well
100% agree
100% disagree
100% agree and have said so
No
I don't know to be honest.
So are the four noble truths, eightfold path, DO and compassion. Without compassion practice is based on self interest, and is to many the lowest form.
All beings live with terrible suffering
How do you decide what is the greater compassion. how do you know what the future will hold for the mother and child? What potential the child will have. How damaged the mother will be.
BTW I am pro abortion as I would not for force my pro life views on anyone. However when these debates are held I think I must say how I see the world. I would alway defend living being fetus, cow or fish. I wish I had the compassion to defend adults as much, perhaps one day I hope.
I agree. But should compassion be just directed to an unborn egg of a few cells over the young mother who got pregnant by accident and really isn't ready for kids?
We don't, that is a choice the woman must make, not others.
>>>How damaged the mother will be.
Or how undamaged safe in the knowlege that when she looked at the word and thought how best to live this choice she made the right choice.
By the way, I am not saying "Abortion is right" I am saying it isnt outright forbidden in terms of dharma.
ie, abortion doesn't necessarily come under the "no killing " precept.
How do you feel about yeast?
Mat
No really I try to apply as much as possible. And as I've said I'm socially pro abortion but personally anti. I live in a country (UK) that is pro abortion if I lived in a one that was anti, I would use similar arguments people who appear to be pro here.
As for compassion for the mother or child I don't know, honestly I don't. I think my personal golden rule of "is the action selfish or compassionate" is pretty simple, but there are many be half a dozen things it has a close call on. However I'm not forcing or even asking other people to do as I say. I think it is a rule that will make my life better.
I cant think of any examples where your rule breaks down, but I guess if there were they would be to do with ambiguity in the subject, like abortion or "save the doctor" thought experiments or maybe whether or not white lies are right.
Much metta
Mat
Sorry I just did, are you the thought police? telling us what to ask on moral questions?
Are you asking if a decision is not mine to make I should not have an opinion?
I once though the violence in defense of the innocent was right. When I was a kid I was totally anti (15 -25), I then thought (on Iraq) it might be right, because of the suffering of many (EG mash arabs ) was so great Sadam, should be overthrown. I was wrong, violence is a virus. Like it's little brother anger., which reminds me sorry DD irrational anger got the better of me.
(Sorry should say anti violence above and by innocent I mean people without rights in general, I'm not an anti-abortiuon nutter like above sound
Sometimes site members challenge eachother but all are friends, under the Buddha's compassion & love.
:cool:
Dearest DD!
.
Palzang
Is Buddhism the new Catholicism?
.
So what you are basically saying is that a fetus is human and killing a human is a grave misdeed. Which implies that a woman who got conceived by rape or an accident is killing a living human being by getting an abortion or taking a "morning after pill" thus she should carry the fetus, let it develop inside her for 9 months and give birth to a baby whether she likes it or not. Nice Dhamma teaching
I am not trying to decide anything. My opinion is let the mother decide whether she needs a baby or not. If she feels like she doesn't need a baby, a woman should have the freedom to make that choice without feeling guilty about it. End of the story
You are trying to protect a fetus which the person carrying it doesn't want.
Good one
I want to start off by saying that I am neither pro- nor anti-abortion. Any decision is the mother's to make, and I am fortunate that I never had to make that decision.
Furthermore, I want to clearly state that I don't suggest that people should deliberately seek, or be forced, to suffer from outer circumstances they don't want.
BUT ... the essence of Buddhism is that it is NOT the circumstances you are in which matter, but how you work internally with those circumstances. Whether one is pregnant by rape/accident, or whether one is imprisoned and tortured by invading Chinese, the good practitioner understands that their happiness is NOT contingent on their circumstances or even what is happening with their body.
I am a mother who had to chose between her financial security/career satisfaction, and the well-being of her young daughter diagnosed at an extremely early age as "profoundly psychotic". You make your choices for the good of others, and if they cost ... well, tough luck. That's what being a mother is all about, and that's what being a Buddhist is about, too. If you actually believe Buddhism, that seeking "happiness" is not what it's all about, then that conviction will be evident in your decisions.
I DO believe that the mother who chooses abortion is more attached to finding happiness through her circumstances than she is in finding freedom from attachment-aversion.
This is a bizarre thing to say.
I truly don't understand your point....
If a woman is Buddhist, then it's highly unlikely (unless there is sound medical reason for her to do so) that she would consider abortion. In any case, her decision would always weigh heavy on her mind.
The only person who would choose abortion because she is "more attached to finding happiness through her circumstances" would in all likelihood not be a Buddhist. Therefore the second part of your post is entirely academic and frankly, probably totally irrelevant...
Sorry, but really, I don't get it.
I agree with Fed and DD.
.
.
ps: I'm pro "educated" choice.
For me our views on abortion generally related to non-Buddhists.
please correct me if i'm wrong but I believe the opinion of FoibleFull were toward Buddhist woman, so it seemed perfectly relevant to me.
I know many, many female Buddhists, and please believe me when I tell you, that without exception, while they all recognise the suffering of a woman considering an abortion, and practise compassion and understanding, they would never consider such an option for themselves, unless, as I said, it meant that continuing with the pregnancy would endanger their own lives. And even then, the decision to abort would be a burdensome one.
I don't believe she would ever consider abortion.
Of course, I haven't spoken to every existent Buddhist female practitioner, but I would hazard a guess, I'm more accurate than inaccurate....
I'm simply pro-choice. I would never consider even sitting in criticism of someone whatever their motivation. As far as I am concerned, 'educated' choice or not, the woman is deserving of our compassion, for whatever reason she chooses to terminate her pregnancy. we may not agree with her actions, choice, and motivation.
That's her decision to make.
Perhaps I did not put it clearly, or perhaps it is my thinking that is flawed.
I do notice, though, in your later post that your thinking is consistent with mine. So now I guess I'm the one who's confused now.
Ain't life grand?
It was a typo.
I have gone back to change it, because I am relatively convinced of my views.
Thank you for pointing it out!
If you have only one option there is no choice to make.
This was my point. of course.
I'm afraid I don't agree, though I do see your point....
But even a person with absolutely no education at all, knows that the decision is not an easy one.
Abortion is not simply a question of education.
It is primarily a question of personal morals.
it is a choice, because even the most ignorant woman knows the difference between 'keep' and 'abort'....
I see. You mean with regard to the medical effect on the mother, yes?
Because she is a selfish brat filled with ego clinging and desire and her only priority is her own selfish pleasures. She doesn't have the moral sense that it is a human "being" inside her (who by the way might grow up to be the next Buddha). :cool: