The Great Abortion Debate

A forum for discussion of Buddhist ethics.
Locked
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by Malcolm »

Giovanni wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 10:38 pm Important. As Malcolm says there are things necessary for actions to cause unmixed negative Vipaka. They have to be intentional, and the person needs to be satisfied with the result of their actions.
Unmixed negative karma is not created just because of actions we do not like or approve of. It’s a bit more complicated.
Most karma is mixed because of mixed intentions and remorse at result of action.
Indeed, in Mahayana, it is possible have an abortion out of compassion, but most people tend to cite the “old testament” when discussing ethics.
PeterC
Posts: 5192
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 12:38 pm

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by PeterC »

Malcolm wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 12:24 am
Giovanni wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 10:38 pm Important. As Malcolm says there are things necessary for actions to cause unmixed negative Vipaka. They have to be intentional, and the person needs to be satisfied with the result of their actions.
Unmixed negative karma is not created just because of actions we do not like or approve of. It’s a bit more complicated.
Most karma is mixed because of mixed intentions and remorse at result of action.
Indeed, in Mahayana, it is possible have an abortion out of compassion, but most people tend to cite the “old testament” when discussing ethics.
The Old Testament, interestingly, contains a method for procuring an abortion if you suspect your wife has been unfaithful (Numbers 5:11-28). It even specifies how much you have to pay the priest for his services. The prevailing Christian opposition to abortion has no real scriptural support.
User avatar
tkp67
Posts: 2905
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 5:42 am

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by tkp67 »

Malcolm wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 6:44 pm
tkp67 wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 5:44 pm
In a conversation based on aborting life arguing that dharma does not preserve life is tantamount to saying dharma does not have an interest in preserving life.
Yes, correct. Dharma is concerned only with the cessation of suffering.

The reason we practice ahimsa is not to preserve life, but rather, is not to consciously cause suffering.

Anyway, one cannot abort life, one can only abort a life. But since there is rebirth, the loss of life does not mean that sentient being whose fetal development was interrupted will not take another rebirth. And, further, being aborted is a ripening of karma. In Buddhadharma, there are no innocents.
Impermanence is not in question so preserve denotes original/existing state. That is, what remains after liberation is the original state.

pre·serve
/prəˈzərv/
"maintain (something) in its original or existing state."

If the state of enlightenment is boundless and immeasurable so is the value of life that experiences such a thing, regardless of how impermanent that particular existence.

What was the value of Shakyamuni's existence?
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by Malcolm »

tkp67 wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 1:47 am
Malcolm wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 6:44 pm
tkp67 wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 5:44 pm
In a conversation based on aborting life arguing that dharma does not preserve life is tantamount to saying dharma does not have an interest in preserving life.
Yes, correct. Dharma is concerned only with the cessation of suffering.

The reason we practice ahimsa is not to preserve life, but rather, is not to consciously cause suffering.

Anyway, one cannot abort life, one can only abort a life. But since there is rebirth, the loss of life does not mean that sentient being whose fetal development was interrupted will not take another rebirth. And, further, being aborted is a ripening of karma. In Buddhadharma, there are no innocents.
Impermanence is not in question so preserve denotes original/existing state. That is, what remains after liberation is the original state.

pre·serve
/prəˈzərv/
"maintain (something) in its original or existing state."

If the state of enlightenment is boundless and immeasurable so is the value of life that experiences such a thing, regardless of how impermanent that particular existence.

What was the value of Shakyamuni's existence?
“To preserve” means to worry about degeneration, and thus impermanence. Something which never degenerates does not require any preservation at all.

Living beings who are “enlightened” have no fear abortion since they have no further karma to ripen and they are free of birth abd death.

As for Shakyamuni, the value of his existence depends on who you ask.
User avatar
tkp67
Posts: 2905
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 5:42 am

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by tkp67 »

Malcolm wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 2:42 am
tkp67 wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 1:47 am
Malcolm wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 6:44 pm

Yes, correct. Dharma is concerned only with the cessation of suffering.

The reason we practice ahimsa is not to preserve life, but rather, is not to consciously cause suffering.

Anyway, one cannot abort life, one can only abort a life. But since there is rebirth, the loss of life does not mean that sentient being whose fetal development was interrupted will not take another rebirth. And, further, being aborted is a ripening of karma. In Buddhadharma, there are no innocents.
Impermanence is not in question so preserve denotes original/existing state. That is, what remains after liberation is the original state.

pre·serve
/prəˈzərv/
"maintain (something) in its original or existing state."

If the state of enlightenment is boundless and immeasurable so is the value of life that experiences such a thing, regardless of how impermanent that particular existence.

What was the value of Shakyamuni's existence?
“To preserve” means to worry about degeneration, and thus impermanence. Something which never degenerates does not require any preservation at all.
Your preference doesn't equate to the accepted defined meaning of the word for which I gave you ample reference.
Living beings who are “enlightened” have no fear abortion since they have no further karma to ripen and they are free of birth abd death.
Well if they honor Shakyamuni's enlightenment then they understand the value of sentient life and the connection and debt they have to the unenlightened. If they do not recognize this they are not a disciple of Shakyamnui's. There are citations for this.
As for Shakyamuni, the value of his existence depends on who you ask.
That is indirect and inconclusive.
Giovanni
Posts: 765
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2020 11:07 am

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by Giovanni »

Malcolm wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 12:24 am
Giovanni wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 10:38 pm Important. As Malcolm says there are things necessary for actions to cause unmixed negative Vipaka. They have to be intentional, and the person needs to be satisfied with the result of their actions.
Unmixed negative karma is not created just because of actions we do not like or approve of. It’s a bit more complicated.
Most karma is mixed because of mixed intentions and remorse at result of action.
Indeed, in Mahayana, it is possible have an abortion out of compassion, but most people tend to cite the “old testament” when discussing ethics.
It’s easier than working to understand subtleties, read your Big Book of Certainty then you dont need to read people I think.😉
PeterC
Posts: 5192
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 12:38 pm

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by PeterC »

tkp67 wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 1:48 pm Well if they honor Shakyamuni's enlightenment then they understand the value of sentient life and the connection and debt they have to the unenlightened. If they do not recognize this they are not a disciple of Shakyamnui's. There are citations for this.
Go on then - citations please. Focus on those citations that explain the link to abortion.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by Malcolm »

tkp67 wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 1:48 pm
Your preference doesn't equate to the accepted defined meaning of the word for which I gave you ample reference.
Sure it does, that’s why fruit processed with heat and pectin, and stored in sterile jar are called “preserves.”
Living beings who are “enlightened” have no fear abortion since they have no further karma to ripen and they are free of birth abd death.
Well if they honor Shakyamuni's enlightenment then they understand the value of sentient life and the connection and debt they have to the unenlightened.
Nonreferential compassion is not born out of a sense of debt. Buddhas have no concept of “value, “sentient life”, or “ unenlightened.” Buddhas are totally beyond such concepts.
taleen
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2020 12:35 am

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by taleen »

PeterC wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 3:03 pm
tkp67 wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 1:48 pm Well if they honor Shakyamuni's enlightenment then they understand the value of sentient life and the connection and debt they have to the unenlightened. If they do not recognize this they are not a disciple of Shakyamnui's. There are citations for this.
Go on then - citations please. Focus on those citations that explain the link to abortion.
Don’t bother with citations from scripture in this thread. They will get deleted
User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
Posts: 17092
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA
Contact:

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by Johnny Dangerous »

taleen wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 7:58 pm
PeterC wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 3:03 pm
tkp67 wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 1:48 pm Well if they honor Shakyamuni's enlightenment then they understand the value of sentient life and the connection and debt they have to the unenlightened. If they do not recognize this they are not a disciple of Shakyamnui's. There are citations for this.
Go on then - citations please. Focus on those citations that explain the link to abortion.
Don’t bother with citations from scripture in this thread. They will get deleted
No, that's not correct, go ahead.

The thing is, particularly as regards the Mahayana, depending on what tradition one practices in, one can find scriptural justification for all kinds of stuff. Well-argued justifications using scriptural citations are less common. It's easier to write quote brackets and vomit out some text than it is to actually examine it.
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when afflicted by disease

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared

-Khunu Lama
PeterC
Posts: 5192
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 12:38 pm

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by PeterC »

taleen wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 7:58 pm
PeterC wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 3:03 pm
tkp67 wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 1:48 pm Well if they honor Shakyamuni's enlightenment then they understand the value of sentient life and the connection and debt they have to the unenlightened. If they do not recognize this they are not a disciple of Shakyamnui's. There are citations for this.
Go on then - citations please. Focus on those citations that explain the link to abortion.
Don’t bother with citations from scripture in this thread. They will get deleted
We don't delete relevant citations here, do we?

People do need to provide citations to support arguments. If we don't rely on textual authority, then we're just making shit up, frankly.
User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
Posts: 17092
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA
Contact:

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by Johnny Dangerous »

PeterC wrote: Thu Apr 22, 2021 2:40 am
taleen wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 7:58 pm
PeterC wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 3:03 pm

Go on then - citations please. Focus on those citations that explain the link to abortion.
Don’t bother with citations from scripture in this thread. They will get deleted
We don't delete relevant citations here, do we?

People do need to provide citations to support arguments. If we don't rely on textual authority, then we're just making shit up, frankly.

No, of course we don't do that intentionally. Does that need to be said? I imagine what happened is that posts with citations in them got removed for other reasons, but as with most public moderation complaints, its too vague for us to do much with without direct contact from the person complaining, and specifics about the complaint - i.e. who moderated the thread, whether they contacted us at the time, etc.

Gonna suggest we move off the subject and return to the OP, or something close.
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when afflicted by disease

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared

-Khunu Lama
User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
Posts: 17092
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA
Contact:

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by Johnny Dangerous »

Further, if someone feels a sutra citation was unfairly removed but cannot name specifics, the best thing to do would be to simply repost the link to the sutra in quesiton
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when afflicted by disease

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared

-Khunu Lama
User avatar
Budai
Posts: 878
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2020 1:12 pm
Location: ༀ ∞ Nam Myoho Renge Kyo ∞ ༀ

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by Budai »

PeterC wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 1:29 am
Malcolm wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 12:24 am
Giovanni wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 10:38 pm Important. As Malcolm says there are things necessary for actions to cause unmixed negative Vipaka. They have to be intentional, and the person needs to be satisfied with the result of their actions.
Unmixed negative karma is not created just because of actions we do not like or approve of. It’s a bit more complicated.
Most karma is mixed because of mixed intentions and remorse at result of action.
Indeed, in Mahayana, it is possible have an abortion out of compassion, but most people tend to cite the “old testament” when discussing ethics.
The Old Testament, interestingly, contains a method for procuring an abortion if you suspect your wife has been unfaithful (Numbers 5:11-28). It even specifies how much you have to pay the priest for his services. The prevailing Christian opposition to abortion has no real scriptural support.
There is direct Scriptural support for the Christians to preserve an infants life. Such as take this passage:
Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far; The Lord hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name. Shall I be glorious in the eyes of the Lord, and my God shall be my strength. - Isaiah 49:1,5
I know everyone in this thread thinks babies lives are important. So I am glad we can all agree on that. The subject of abortion is just a very difficult issue because once a child’s life is taken away from the mother, it’s not so easy to give it back to the mother in question. That is why I say losing a child is quite a difficult thing, despite Malcolm mentioning reincarnation. So it’s something to think about.
PeterC
Posts: 5192
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 12:38 pm

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by PeterC »

Könchok Chödrak wrote: Fri Apr 23, 2021 6:07 am
There is direct Scriptural support for the Christians to preserve an infants life. Such as take this passage:
Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far; The Lord hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name. Shall I be glorious in the eyes of the Lord, and my God shall be my strength. - Isaiah 49:1,5
Dude, try reading the context rather than just pulling the first quote you find off google. That passage has absolutely nothing to do with abortion. Not even close. It's their god (via his prophet) giving the Israelites a hard time, as he often does when he's having a bad day. Nothing about the sanctity of the lives of the unborn at all.
I know everyone in this thread thinks babies lives are important. So I am glad we can all agree on that. The subject of abortion is just a very difficult issue because once a child’s life is taken away from the mother, it’s not so easy to give it back to the mother in question. That is why I say losing a child is quite a difficult thing, despite Malcolm mentioning reincarnation. So it’s something to think about.
Well, in the abstract, sense, all life is important of course. But don't just assume that we all support your position because Babies' Lives Matter. An aborted child just goes back onto the to-do list of migration without really accruing or exhausting much karma. The Buddhadharma is about liberating migrating beings, and that's really all it's about. It's only about preserving life to the extent that it helps with the liberation.
User avatar
tkp67
Posts: 2905
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 5:42 am

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by tkp67 »

PeterC wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 3:03 pm
tkp67 wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 1:48 pm Well if they honor Shakyamuni's enlightenment then they understand the value of sentient life and the connection and debt they have to the unenlightened. If they do not recognize this they are not a disciple of Shakyamnui's. There are citations for this.
Go on then - citations please. Focus on those citations that explain the link to abortion.
Why does one need specifics on abortion when the bodhisattva vow is the basis for Mayahana?

Evaluation of all sutras that teach and convert the bodhisattvas would be applicable.

One does not need a direct specification on future distinctions of wrong doing when the basis for liberation is the development of loving kindness, altruism and other attributes such as these.

The point of the great vehicle is life is not meant to be understood through provision but through existing causes, conditions and capacities experienced in one's own life.

If these conditions, causes and capacities don't exist then such consideration is the anti-thesis of bodhisattva practices meant to cultivate the four divine immeasurables.

I suspect this is why HHDL suggests it be dealt with on a case by case basis.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9443
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

tkp67 wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 1:48 pm Well if they honor Shakyamuni's enlightenment then they understand the value of sentient life and the connection and debt they have to the unenlightened. If they do not recognize this they are not a disciple of Shakyamnui's. There are citations for this.
I’ve never read anywhere Buddha Shakyamuni talking about any ‘debt to the unenlightened”.

...not so sure about any mention of the ‘value of sentient life’ either, since the whole purpose of his dharma was to avoid taking rebirth as a sentient being.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
Genjo Conan
Posts: 717
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2020 6:27 pm

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by Genjo Conan »

Könchok Chödrak wrote: Fri Apr 23, 2021 6:07 am The subject of abortion is just a very difficult issue because once a child’s life is taken away from the mother, it’s not so easy to give it back to the mother in question. That is why I say losing a child is quite a difficult thing, despite Malcolm mentioning reincarnation. So it’s something to think about.
Abortion is not the same thing as "losing a child," in the way that term is usually used for, e.g., miscarriage or stillbirth. Most women do not regret having had abortions.

Before we were married, my now-wife and I had an unplanned pregnancy. (Thought we were protected, weren't, oops.) We decided to end the pregnancy. It frankly wasn't much of a decision; it was absolutely the right thing for us to do at the time, and we certainly don't regret it or view it as a difficulty. We now have a daughter whom we love very much.

Unless you're a woman, I'd respectfully suggest not arguing from what you believe women feel about abortion.
Giovanni
Posts: 765
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2020 11:07 am

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by Giovanni »

tkp67 wrote: Fri Apr 23, 2021 5:28 pm
PeterC wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 3:03 pm
tkp67 wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 1:48 pm Well if they honor Shakyamuni's enlightenment then they understand the value of sentient life and the connection and debt they have to the unenlightened. If they do not recognize this they are not a disciple of Shakyamnui's. There are citations for this.
Go on then - citations please. Focus on those citations that explain the link to abortion.
Why does one need specifics on abortion when the bodhisattva vow is the basis for Mayahana?

Evaluation of all sutras that teach and convert the bodhisattvas would be applicable.

One does not need a direct specification on future distinctions of wrong doing when the basis for liberation is the development of loving kindness, altruism and other attributes such as these.

The point of the great vehicle is life is not meant to be understood through provision but through existing causes, conditions and capacities experienced in one's own life.

If these conditions, causes and capacities don't exist then such consideration is the anti-thesis of bodhisattva practices meant to cultivate the four divine immeasurables.

I suspect this is why HHDL suggests it be dealt with on a case by case basis.
When HH said this he meant that we can make no judgement that fits all cases. It is obvious from context that he meant that one persons case the best option is termination. In another case the best option would be support for mother, in another adoption and so on. There is no Buddhist view of abortion. And no one should judge those who hold a different view.
He was quite clear in answers.
User avatar
Budai
Posts: 878
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2020 1:12 pm
Location: ༀ ∞ Nam Myoho Renge Kyo ∞ ༀ

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by Budai »

PeterC wrote: Fri Apr 23, 2021 7:56 am
Könchok Chödrak wrote: Fri Apr 23, 2021 6:07 am
There is direct Scriptural support for the Christians to preserve an infants life. Such as take this passage:
Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far; The Lord hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name. Shall I be glorious in the eyes of the Lord, and my God shall be my strength. - Isaiah 49:1,5
Dude, try reading the context rather than just pulling the first quote you find off google. That passage has absolutely nothing to do with abortion. Not even close. It's their god (via his prophet) giving the Israelites a hard time, as he often does when he's having a bad day. Nothing about the sanctity of the lives of the unborn at all.
I know everyone in this thread thinks babies lives are important. So I am glad we can all agree on that. The subject of abortion is just a very difficult issue because once a child’s life is taken away from the mother, it’s not so easy to give it back to the mother in question. That is why I say losing a child is quite a difficult thing, despite Malcolm mentioning reincarnation. So it’s something to think about.
Well, in the abstract, sense, all life is important of course. But don't just assume that we all support your position because Babies' Lives Matter. An aborted child just goes back onto the to-do list of migration without really accruing or exhausting much karma. The Buddhadharma is about liberating migrating beings, and that's really all it's about. It's only about preserving life to the extent that it helps with the liberation.
The quote is about how the prophet was called from the womb. I don’t think it takes much interpretation to realize that in the prophetic sense the prophet was saying life has a purpose.

And liberation requires you to live your life. Don’t you know how painful the process of abortion is for a baby? Is torture Buddhist? It’s a baby, and the kind of thing they do to babies during abortion is something one would go to life in prison for if they do to an adult.
Locked

Return to “Ethical Conduct”