The Great Abortion Debate

A forum for discussion of Buddhist ethics.
reiun
Posts: 978
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2020 4:08 pm
Location: Florida USA

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by reiun »

Malcolm wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 3:40 pm . . . Buddhists should not get all worked up about abortion the way Christians do, because we accept rebirth and karma, and they do not. They use language like "a new life," "innocence," etc., because they have a one and done view of birth. One is only born once, with a soul given to one by God, and when one dies one ultimately goes either to heaven or hell forever.
Catechism G1 - 8, and Religion G9 - 12 were required in my private Catholic school education. I stopped 'believing' at age 14. Debate in class of 40 boys taught by Xaverian brother: "Should priests be allowed to marry?" with I and four others in favor, was first inkling that most others thought differently. Was dating the daughter of the pastor of All Soul's Unitarian Church at the time . . . In truth, belief in the Resurrection had been become a problem before that. (If he was seen walking around, was physically touched/examined, more believable that he didn't die . . . got married, relocated to Italy, etc.)

I am of the so-called one-and-done view. (Extra motivation to be 'fully alive'.) Except: I believe a type of rebirth occurs moment-to-moment, if one realizes it. As Goethe wrote: "So long as you do not know how to die and be reborn, you are but a sorry traveler on this dark earth", which I interpret as being in line with my belief.

In school (early 60's), we never heard 'one-and-done'. Abortion was a mortal sin. Murder.

In college my girlfriend went off the pill during the summer while we were apart, but did not go back on after returning to school, and did not tell me. Pregnancy ensued as did an abortion, and I have private personal feelings about both still. I am late to this thread, but I believe that 1. ability of the fetus to experience physical pain, and/or 2. ability to experience consciousness, are the criteria where a line may be drawn.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by Malcolm »

reiun wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 4:46 pm [ I believe that 1. ability of the fetus to experience physical pain, and/or 2. ability to experience consciousness, are the criteria where a line may be drawn.
19 weeks then.
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 »

Malcolm wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 1:26 pm There is no such thing as new “life.,” again, that is a Christian pro-life talking point.
What about the concept of impermanence and rebirth: born again, and again, and again... can’t someone refresh their life in such a way? What is the purpose of rebirth then if it isn’t a certain type of “new life”?
User avatar
tkp67
Posts: 2905
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 5:42 am

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by tkp67 »

Malcolm wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 3:40 pm
tkp67 wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 3:29 pm
is the assumption that each opportunity for rebirth and the conditions of those specific existences is identical presumptuous and deterministic? Or is there a teaching that details such things?

Thank you in advance.
It is not deterministic, but if the being has the karma to be born into a cakravartin family, they will never be born in a family of farmers, and vice versa. This is based on their own actions in past lives.

Further, if a being has the throwing karma to be reborn in the human realm, they will not be reborn elsewhere, even if aborted, because a fetus cannot create new karma which would interfere with a human rebirth, and the throwing karma will still be active.
Yet in the degenerate age these designations don't carry the same benefits in regards to liberation do they?

And if all these realms are experienced through the human existence and suffering part and parcel of samsara isn't aborting prolonging suffering either way while potentially accumulating negative karma for others?
For this reason, Buddhists should not get all worked up about abortion the way Christians do, because we accept rebirth and karma, and they do not. They use language like "a new life," "innocence," etc., because they have a one and done view of birth. One is only born once, with a soul given to one by God, and when one dies one ultimately goes either to heaven or hell forever.
This is a straw man argument that draws contrast through belief that isn't represented here. I understand for the purpose of illustration but it underlines the point of ivory tower discussions casting their own imprint paving the way for future conditioning around the same phenomenon. One problem is there is not a notable historic belief system intact where the adherents actually possess a homogeneous understanding let alone the intended understanding. They tend to be personalized labels that describe a cultural and familial interpretation that often isn't true to the source.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by Malcolm »

tkp67 wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 8:48 pm
Malcolm wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 3:40 pm
tkp67 wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 3:29 pm
is the assumption that each opportunity for rebirth and the conditions of those specific existences is identical presumptuous and deterministic? Or is there a teaching that details such things?

Thank you in advance.
It is not deterministic, but if the being has the karma to be born into a cakravartin family, they will never be born in a family of farmers, and vice versa. This is based on their own actions in past lives.

Further, if a being has the throwing karma to be reborn in the human realm, they will not be reborn elsewhere, even if aborted, because a fetus cannot create new karma which would interfere with a human rebirth, and the throwing karma will still be active.
Yet in the degenerate age these designations don't carry the same benefits in regards to liberation do they?
I don't understand what you mean.
And if all these realms...
What realms?

isn't aborting prolonging suffering either way while potentially accumulating negative karma for others?
That is a religious concern, not a secular concern.

For this reason, Buddhists should not get all worked up about abortion the way Christians do, because we accept rebirth and karma, and they do not. They use language like "a new life," "innocence," etc., because they have a one and done view of birth. One is only born once, with a soul given to one by God, and when one dies one ultimately goes either to heaven or hell forever.
This is a straw man argument that draws contrast through belief that isn't represented here.
Many Buddhists who take a pro-life argument adopt Christian talking points and buy into the narrative proposed by a non-Buddhist religious group. All they can do is point to prohibitions against abortion in the Vinaya.

But all this is irrelevant to the womens reproductive rights issue at hand. The former is a religious issue. The latter is a secular issue. I personally favor keeping religion and the state completely and totally separate. I am complete opposed to legislating any religious view point into law. It annoys me no end that our national motto was changed from "E Pluribus Unum" to "In God We Trust" during the Red Scare of the 1950's.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by Malcolm »

Könchok Chödrak wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 8:40 pm
Malcolm wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 1:26 pm There is no such thing as new “life.,” again, that is a Christian pro-life talking point.
What about the concept of impermanence and rebirth: born again, and again, and again... can’t someone refresh their life in such a way? What is the purpose of rebirth then if it isn’t a certain type of “new life”?
It is not a new life. The reproductive tissues which are implanted on the wall of the womb are not new in any sense. The consciousness that seeks rebirth is not new either. There is no purpose to rebirth. It's a blind process which is suffering from beginning to end.
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 »

Malcolm wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 9:50 pm
Könchok Chödrak wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 8:40 pm
Malcolm wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 1:26 pm There is no such thing as new “life.,” again, that is a Christian pro-life talking point.
What about the concept of impermanence and rebirth: born again, and again, and again... can’t someone refresh their life in such a way? What is the purpose of rebirth then if it isn’t a certain type of “new life”?
It is not a new life. The reproductive tissues which are implanted on the wall of the womb are not new in any sense. The consciousness that seeks rebirth is not new either. There is no purpose to rebirth. It's a blind process which is suffering from beginning to end.
What constitutes for something to be new? Then how about old? Does the reality of “no coming and no going, no abiding and no entering extinction” really mean that we should ignore the pain of Samsara as tkp67 is so clearly pointing out as a reality for unborn infants? There is consciousness pre-entrance into the womb in bardo. Where does that consciousness go when implanted into the womb? What can that baby feel before fully formed, based on the life within the body?
User avatar
Pondera
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2020 7:43 am

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by Pondera »

Malcolm wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 1:24 pm
Pondera wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 3:45 am
If it’s not about preference, then what is it about?
It’s not about YOU and YOUR preferences.
Sorry. I DID notice that particular wording.

Okay. It’s about HER and HER preferences? Correct?

I agree. End of discussion. My only point ... a life form has a right to live.

A woman has a right to choose. But a life form has a right to live.

If it sounds like a contradiction - that’s because we’re taking about what works in practice and in principle.

In principle - a life form has the right to live.

In practice - abortions need to happen.

And vice versa.

In principle: a woman has the choice to abort if she so chooses.

In practice: the decision to bring an unwanted pregnancy to term is also a decision to give a life form a chance to exist, live, find happiness, suffer, accomplish things. Etc.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9441
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Könchok Chödrak wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 10:49 pm What constitutes for something to be new?
for something to be new, it must be a self-arising, inherently existing “thing” to begin with.
Otherwise, it is a compilation of previously existing parts.
Only the current compilation can be called “new”.
It’s like, if you make a new pot of stew, what’s new is simply anew arrangement of food parts that were already there. They aren’t new.
In the case of a cellular organism, Cells divide and multiply. In that sense, new cells happen. But even those cells are mere rearrangements of even smaller components that were already there.
So, where does a mind stream “attach” itself? At the cellular level, the molecular level, the subatomic level? At some level even smaller?
Does the reality of “no coming and no going, no abiding and no entering extinction” really mean that we should ignore the pain of Samsara
Two different sets of context. One isn’t a justification for taking a position either way, regarding the other.

The suffering of samsara will occur whether a fetus is aborted of not, and this is, ultimately, because “no coming and no going, no abiding and no entering extinction” wasn’t realized in the previous life (and the stream of consciousness again seeks rebirth) rather than because of it.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by Malcolm »

Könchok Chödrak wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 10:49 pmcan that baby feel before fully formed, based on the life within the body?
Nothing, until the 19th week.
User avatar
tkp67
Posts: 2905
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 5:42 am

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by tkp67 »

Malcolm wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 9:48 pm
tkp67 wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 8:48 pm
Malcolm wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 3:40 pm

It is not deterministic, but if the being has the karma to be born into a cakravartin family, they will never be born in a family of farmers, and vice versa. This is based on their own actions in past lives.

Further, if a being has the throwing karma to be reborn in the human realm, they will not be reborn elsewhere, even if aborted, because a fetus cannot create new karma which would interfere with a human rebirth, and the throwing karma will still be active.
Yet in the degenerate age these designations don't carry the same benefits in regards to liberation do they?
I don't understand what you mean.
The value of birth family is identical in all ages?
And if all these realms...
What realms?
The buddhist realms as referenced by your message above.
isn't aborting prolonging suffering either way while potentially accumulating negative karma for others?
That is a religious concern, not a secular concern.
Buddhists shouldn't be concerned with prolonging suffering and the consequence of creating negative karma? This is a religious concern only?

If the bodhisattva vow is treated as a play won't the results be nothing short of dramatic?
For this reason, Buddhists should not get all worked up about abortion the way Christians do, because we accept rebirth and karma, and they do not. They use language like "a new life," "innocence," etc., because they have a one and done view of birth. One is only born once, with a soul given to one by God, and when one dies one ultimately goes either to heaven or hell forever.
This is a straw man argument that draws contrast through belief that isn't represented here.
Many Buddhists who take a pro-life argument adopt Christian talking points and buy into the narrative proposed by a non-Buddhist religious group. All they can do is point to prohibitions against abortion in the Vinaya.

But all this is irrelevant to the womens reproductive rights issue at hand. The former is a religious issue. The latter is a secular issue. I personally favor keeping religion and the state completely and totally separate. I am complete opposed to legislating any religious view point into law. It annoys me no end that our national motto was changed from "E Pluribus Unum" to "In God We Trust" during the Red Scare of the 1950's.
I am a lowest common denominator type of guy myself. If it possess life it is worthy of saving (liberating from suffering).

I am a bit odd however because I don't identify people by belief nor do I assign a worth to the differential. I see theism/agnostic/atheism as means and the outcome subjective under any system. I also think that their original intentions can be understood from a Buddhist lens (enter the LS) through function. It is in this light they often are used to the same effect.

I have a keen mind for the esoteric, more so than might appear. I have purposely throughout my life sought the open lowest common teaching and this is in deference to higher teachings. Why? Gratitude.

Just call me holdor.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by Malcolm »

tkp67 wrote: Mon May 17, 2021 2:12 am
Malcolm wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 9:48 pm
tkp67 wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 8:48 pm

Yet in the degenerate age these designations don't carry the same benefits in regards to liberation do they?
I don't understand what you mean.
The value of birth family is identical in all ages?
There are always families of higher and lower social status.
The buddhist realms as referenced by your message above.
I was referring solely to birth as a human being, not a hell being, preta, animal, asura, or deva.
Buddhists shouldn't be concerned with prolonging suffering and the consequence of creating negative karma? This is a religious concern only?
“Karma” is a religious framework. Even the Buddhist definition of suffering is couched in a religious framework that is not obvious to nonBuddhists.
If the bodhisattva vow is treated as a play won't the results be nothing short of dramatic?
This is irrelevant to the question at hand: women’s reproductive rights.

My personal feelings about abortion do not affect my commitment to Democracy, secular government, and reproductive rights for women. This is why I reject religious interpretations of abortion as being a valid criteria for discussing this issue. Religion is just a bunch of shit we believe because we choose to.
User avatar
tkp67
Posts: 2905
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 5:42 am

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by tkp67 »

Malcolm wrote: Mon May 17, 2021 2:38 am
tkp67 wrote: Mon May 17, 2021 2:12 am
Malcolm wrote: Sun May 16, 2021 9:48 pm

I don't understand what you mean.
The value of birth family is identical in all ages?
There are always families of higher and lower social status.
That is not an answer to the question but simply the statement of an obvious characteristic.
The buddhist realms as referenced by your message above.
I was referring solely to birth as a human being, not a hell being, preta, animal, asura, or deva.
So as suspected our context was identical. Thank you for the validation.
Buddhists shouldn't be concerned with prolonging suffering and the consequence of creating negative karma? This is a religious concern only?
“Karma” is a religious framework. Even the Buddhist definition of suffering is couched in a religious framework that is not obvious to nonBuddhists.
The buddha taught consequence in taking life. The buddha taught the framework of karma for the purpose of teaching non buddhist the workings of their own mind. The meaning of those teachings are not nullified due to subjectivity.
If the bodhisattva vow is treated as a play won't the results be nothing short of dramatic?
This is irrelevant to the question at hand: women’s reproductive rights.
That is a baseless opinion. Women's rights isn't being compromised by anything I am discussing because I am not proposing they be compromised. What I am proposing is the insistence of abortion rights need not be championed without a specific real life cause.
My personal feelings about abortion do not affect my commitment to Democracy, secular government, and reproductive rights for women. This is why I reject religious interpretations of abortion as being a valid criteria for discussing this issue. Religion is just a bunch of shit we believe because we choose to.
What religious interpretations are being used?

A moment of life in and of itself holds boundless value capable of expressing loving kindness, compassion and purity outside of religion or implications or the need for anything other than that. No promise past that moment. Nothing because non of that is anything but provision.

This is exactly what the buddha taught AND expressed in his lifetime.

Women's rights without metta is a bit unreasonably sterile. YMMV.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by Malcolm »

tkp67 wrote: Mon May 17, 2021 3:05 am
This is exactly what the buddha taught AND expressed in his lifetime.

Women's rights without metta is a bit unreasonably sterile. YMMV.
What you think the Buddha taught has no bearing on women’s reproductive rights.

Your opinions simply don’t matter. If you don’t want to have an abortion, don’t have one the next time you get pregnant. But don’t get in the way of other people’s choice to end unwanted pregnancies.
reiun
Posts: 978
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2020 4:08 pm
Location: Florida USA

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by reiun »

Malcolm wrote: Mon May 17, 2021 3:26 am Your opinions simply don’t matter. If you don’t want to have an abortion, don’t have one the next time you get pregnant. But don’t get in the way of other people’s choice to end unwanted pregnancies.
What he said.

This seems to be just men discussing this issue. Maybe give it a rest.
PeterC
Posts: 5192
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 12:38 pm

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by PeterC »

tkp67 wrote: Mon May 17, 2021 3:05 am
That is a baseless opinion. Women's rights isn't being compromised by anything I am discussing because I am not proposing they be compromised. What I am proposing is the insistence of abortion rights need not be championed without a specific real life cause.
What does that even mean, though?

Either:
1. You believe it’s a woman’s choice; or
2. You believe women should, under some circumstances, be coerced or have that choice taken away.

That’s about it. Everything else is just prevarication and obfuscation.
User avatar
tkp67
Posts: 2905
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 5:42 am

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by tkp67 »

Malcolm wrote: Mon May 17, 2021 3:26 am
tkp67 wrote: Mon May 17, 2021 3:05 am
This is exactly what the buddha taught AND expressed in his lifetime.

Women's rights without metta is a bit unreasonably sterile. YMMV.
What you think the Buddha taught has no bearing on women’s reproductive rights.

Your opinions simply don’t matter. If you don’t want to have an abortion, don’t have one the next time you get pregnant. But don’t get in the way of other people’s choice to end unwanted pregnancies.
What is my opinion Malcolm. I don't think you can demonstrate what my perspective is since you are convinced your opinion has more weight. You won't find where I contest women's rights in any way shape or form. I grew up in a feminist household something you aren't capable of understanding with subtle injection so I made it clear for you.

You project position on me which not only exit in me but reveal a disdain for demographics under cultural labels.

Furthermore the very basic behavior of the buddha as seen in scripture is pointed to as a model by my teacher. Not a provisional buddha but the world honored one whose teachings in India are the basis of many traditions today.

However Malcolm you do perfectly my point at the end of your statement. There is no unwanted pregnancy here to get in the way of. I never contested the right to abortion. I am question the benefit chaperoning it without specific criteria. I had also referenced the HHDL who mirrored a like perspective.

Now when you tried to move the goal posts remember I am not arguing women's rights but rather buddhist rationalization without due cause.

A question you have avoided without much benefit apparently. I would be glad to understand why I am wrong about the mind manifesting into reality even if it is subtle and slight.

Seems a bit dark for the sake of drawing the shades but I thought there is no window in the first place.

:anjali:

Good Morning BTW
narhwal90
Global Moderator
Posts: 3509
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:10 am
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by narhwal90 »

Topic locked, please contact a moderator if there is something substantive to add.
Locked

Return to “Ethical Conduct”