The Great Abortion Debate

A forum for discussion of Buddhist ethics.
Locked
YesheD.
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 7:14 am

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by YesheD. »

Brunelleschi wrote: Wed Oct 28, 2020 5:44 pm
tkp67 wrote: Sat Oct 24, 2020 8:37 pm
Jingtoo2 wrote: Sat Oct 24, 2020 3:06 pm Which begs the question.
Can a view which is typical of thinking at a specific time and place ever be the eternal Dharma of The Buddhas?
I don't believe specific dharma teachings are meant to me treated as the wonderful law itself. Rather specific teachings appear in accordance to the people, the time, their capacity, their causes and their conditions.

Much like how languages changes as humanity continues. Regardless of continuous changes the underlying purpose and those it serves is the same.

Just my thoughts on the matter.
That is a good point - and sometimes cruicial. However, I'm worried it creates all kinds of problems if individuals start rejecting Sutras left and right because they don't agree with some of its content. Suddenly it becomes "tkp67:ism" and "Brunelleschi:ism", not Buddhism. What's your view on this?

Talking more about the principle - not this specific teaching.
Our original mind precedes Sutras. Sutras can be a means of pointing to our original minds. They are not rule books.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9442
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

The core purpose of the Buddhist teachings is to bring the practitioner to the personal realization of the cessation of suffering and is causes.
Springing from that, there is the purpose of attaining realization not only for one’s own benefit, but for the benefit of others as well.
Springing from that is the practice of not bringing harm to others.
From that, the wish to benefit others
...and so on.

At any point along this “unfolding lotus” one can establish a standard on which to base one’s interpretations of the teachings. But the closer one gets to the core, the closer one gets to the so-called, “true purpose” of the Buddhist teachings, which is liberation from the cycle of samsaric rebirth. Buddhism doesn’t suggest people have abortions to accomplish this.

At the same time, Buddhism doesn’t say abortion should be outlawed. If one thinks abortion is killing, that’s their business. Buddhism doesn’t teach that killing should be outlawed either. Buddha never said that butchering animals for meat should be outlawed either.
But, if you are a monk or a nun or have taken vows against killing, then there is a lot of karmic baggage you take on if you break that vow, and that karmic baggage will impede your attainment of realization. Again, it all goes back to the core purpose.
If you are a monk and someone offers you meat, you eat it.
Likewise, there will be conditions that arise where having an abortion is, even regrettably, the wisest option, even if it carries some kind of karmic baggage or whatever (which only a Buddha can know). So, Buddhism can’t say “a person must never have an abortion” because you don’t know what circumstances will arise in the future.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
User avatar
Dharmasherab
Posts: 127
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2017 8:20 pm

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by Dharmasherab »

I want to begin by saying that I have no political affiliation or political loyalty. I am politically neutral. Politics is something which I dont want to know about and I am in the process of unlearning anything political that I know. I say this because people are very quick to assume that some statements come from political viewpoints - I assure there is nothing political in any of my posts including the content within this post.

This is about abortion and karma according to my understanding of the teachings of Buddhism. When I say Buddhism, I mean what is common to all traditional forms of Buddhism (Sravakayayana (including Theravada), Mahayana and Vajrayana).

This post is not about the rights of women. This post does not cover rights. Bringing rights into question will not be raised here.

In Buddhism, sentient life is a bundle of 5 aggregates. There is the physical form of a living being (Rupa), and the rest of the other aggregates which form the mind and sensory consciousness (Nama and Vinnana).

For human beings life starts in the womb. The 5 aggregates start to assemble soon after conception. The Sensory Counsciousness (Vinnana) from the previous life appears in the Rupa (the Form at this stage which is the embryo) and afterwards, the aggregates of Feeling (Vedana), Perception (Sanna) and Mental Volition (Sankhara) take place - and now this is a sentient being.

Buddhist monks who have gone into deep states of meditation, sometimes experience their past, including the time when they were in the womb of their mothers. When the mother moves they feel the discomfort. When the mother drinks something hot, they feel the hotness and the discomfort that comes along with those sensations. When the mother drinks something cold they feel the cold sensation as well as the discomfort that comes along with that. This is to show that the experiences felt by the embryo/foetus whiles in utero was something that was real.

When someone ordains as a monastic, then 9 months is added to their age and it is this age which is recognized for individuals withing the monastic sangha. This is not to say that one can know exact birth date in utero but its just gives a rough idea as to when this individual started as a 'bundle of 5 aggregates'. For example, I am 30 years old according to convention. But had I been a monk, I would be considered to be 31 years old within the monastic sangha. Because since the time of Buddha, it was recognized that the actual birth an individual, the actual assembly of the 5 aggregates takes place in utero for human beings.

In Buddhism, the first precept is to avoid killing/harming any sentient living being. Killing generates bad karma according to Buddhism. Killing means to identify a living sentient being and then to deliberately bring about an action to end the life of that living sentient being. It means that we are aware that the sentient being was living. It was recognized that the sentient being was alive, and then the necessary actions to bring about the end of life of that sentient being was thought of and then those thoughts were put into action to bring about the death of that living sentient being.

This is different from living beings dying from the unintended consequences of our actions (such as ants dying when we are walking or small insects being crushed when we are driving without our knowledge or awareness).

"Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect."
AN 6.63 Nibbedhika Sutta

'Intention' here does not mean intention about consequences (like the new baby being born will not have anyone to look after and therefore I will do an abortion). Intention here means whether the intention involved that act of killing or not.

What is recognised as life in Buddhism is different in Buddhism as compared to science. For example in science, bacteria is a type of living being. But in Buddhism, bacteria and other microorganisms are not sentient beings. If they were sentient beings then we commit bad karma every time we have antibiotics to get rid of an infection. Whenever we are in the shower we will be destroying so many of our body cells and our body cells are much more advanced than any type of bacteria, but does this mean we commit bad karma when we wash ourselves in the shower? This is why Buddhism uses the word 'sentient' to distinguish between beings which consist of 5 aggregates compared with non-sentient yet scientifically living organisms such as bacteria and fungi. Bacteria and fungi do not consist of 5 aggregates, therefore to get treatment to get rid of bacteria or fungi from the body does not generate bad karma or violate the first precept.

What is recognized as sentience and consciousness in science differs from Buddhism. This is not to say that they are completely mutually exclusive. What is accepted as sentience and consciousness in science is that which is observer-based. As for Buddhism, Vinnana is not identical to the scientific expression of consciousness. Therefore what is understood as 'sentience' or 'consciousness' from a scientific viewpoint does not form any part of the moral criteria as far as Buddhist ethics are concerned in relation to abortion.

Given that 5 aggregates assemble a few days after conception, to bring about the end of this by doing an abortion is to violate the first precept of Buddhism. It generates bad karma in all circumstances without exception. To deliberately bring about an action to put an end to the interaction of the 5 aggregates within the living sentient being is what includes the act of killing.

If a monastic (nun or monk living under Vinaya) was to perform the act of abortion on someone, then this is a reason to be expelled from the monastic order. One can either go back to their lay lives or join as a novice (Samanera) but within that life one is not allowed to become a Bhikkhu/Bhikkhuni again. This also includes explaining the advantages of death. To explain the advantages of abortion as a monastic includes a Parajika offense - to be expelled from the order permanently. This is because even from the time when the Buddhist Vinaya was implemented, it was agreed that abortion was a form of killing no different from killing any other sentient being.

As for lay Buddhists, they are not under the Vinaya, but not living under Vinaya rules does not give immunity from bad karma. Whether monastic or lay, the karma is the same, its only that monastics get expelled from their orders for doing that, suggesting that or encouraging that.

Like I mentioned earlier, this is not about women's rights. I want to reiterate that this is not about whether women should have a right to do abortions or not - they can decide that for themselves. Its just that regardless of whether there are rights for abortions or not, according to the Buddhist law of karma, there will always be bad karma which gets generated from the act of abortion. Buddhism does not have the 'thou shalt not' concept for Buddhists. Lay people can break precepts as much as they like. Monastics are also free to break their Vinaya rules as long as they accept the consequences of breaking such rules. In Buddhism, anyone is free to do what they like.

I am from Sri Lanka, and fishing is popular over there where there are plenty of Sri Lankan fishermen who are Buddhists, who kill fish to make a living. There are Buddhist butchers in Sri Lanka as well as in the rest of the world. There are Buddhist gynecologists who do that career for a living and part of that occupation also includes performing abortions. Likewise there are Buddhist women who get abortions on themselves and generate the karma from such actions. So in Buddhism anyone is free to do what they like. Nothing is forbidden in Buddhism. Whatever the precepts and practices we do as Buddhists come from our own initiative rather than the 'thou shalt not' concept. Catching fish for consumption, animal slaughter as well as asking for/performing abortions all generate bad karma. Individuals have the freedom to do that. But freedom to commit such actions is not the same as the freedom from the bad karma that is generated from such actions. The karma generated from such action will come into fruition either in the present life or in future lives.

It is not encouraged to shame or harass those who are in favor of abortion. It is best not to be judgmental about those who have different viewpoints. In Buddhism, we do not judge and condemn people based on their past actions, because we also have accumulated so much bad karma from our near-endless past lives. Those who do fishing or work as butchers should not be judged and condemned for the career choices they made. It is good to discourage such people from being involved in such livelihoods but at the same time it is not for us to judge and condemn.

We have to understand that women who have made the choice of abortions do so because they probably did not have any other choice. We have to generate feelings of compassion for such people given that they did that because of limited options as well as realising that they will be facing the ripening of their bad karma in this life or future lives whiles understanding that we may have done worse things than abortion in our past lives.

A common argument that I came across was that "if one is against abortion, then they have to be vegan". Actually they dont. Firstly if we look at the Buddha and his closest disciples not all of them were vegan or vegetarian, but the Buddhist teachings in the Suttas are clear that birth starts with conception (hence abortion being equivalent to killing a human). One of the disrobing offences (Parajika) is to intentionally kill another human being which also inculdes performing an abortion as well as getting an abortion done on oneself whiles one is a Bhikkhu or a Bhikkhuni. Killing an animal is not a disrobing offence and falls under the category of offences that does not require disrobing. This shows that killing of a human (including performing abortions) has higher weighting compared to the killing of an animal. The Buddhist vinaya even though not followed by lay people, some of the offences (especially those that are do with killing) also is an indicator of the karmic weighting of such actions regardless of one's ordination status. As for consuming animal meat, this is not even killing. The Buddha is known to have ate meat when it was offered by lay people. Eating meat becomes an offence only when one is aware that the animal was specifically slaughtered to produce the meat for that person who is about to consume it.

Another argument I came across sometime back on Facebook, was when a Buddhist (who claimed to be committed to Seon (Korean equivalent of Japanese Zen)) told me through a comment, that a sign of a living sentient being is breathing. She went on to say that when in the uterus the baby does not breathe, and therefore it is not living (implying that it is alright in Buddhism to to abortions at any trimester as long as the baby is not delivered). This argument is not true even from a scientific point of view (I mentioned in my earlier post more specifically as to when Buddhism recognises the start of life for a sentient human being). According tot he scientific viewpoint, the foetus/embryo does respire even though it does not engage in what we typically recognise as 'breathing' in the anatomical sense. The foetus is attached to the inner wall of the uterus through the umbilical cord which emerges from the placenta. The placenta - uterus interface serves as the exchange medium between the pregnant mother and foetus. This is also includes that transfer of oxygen from mother to foetus as well as carbon dioxide from foetus to the mother. Therefore respiration in the foetus does happen in the physiological sense of the word, even though not anatomically (I mean how can it? Its surrounded by amniotic fluid.) The foetal cells are all respiring where it is utilising the oxygen from the foetal blood and giving carbon dioxide back into the blood stream. Therefore not only as a physiological level that respiration is taking place but also at a cellular level. If this did not happen then the foetus would no longer be viable, and will result in a still birth. If its at the phase of the embryo then it will lead to a miscarriage. But as long as the embryo/foetus is viable it will continue to respire physiologically and cellularly because its survival depends on this factor among many things. Therefore the statement that birth starts after delivery (where the first breath is taken) is both scientifically incorrect as well as being incorrect from the viewpoint of Buddhist teachings.

A common argument by pro-choice activists is to justify abortion based on the idea that women can do anything that they like with their own bodies. Ofcourse women are free to do what they like with their own bodies and this should be respected. However next comes the question as to how much of the foetus is actually a part of the pregnant women's body? Lets take it one by one. Firstly a zygote (when an ovum and sperm meet and fuse) is not genetically identical to the mother. So on this basis, from the moment the zygote comes into being, it is no longer part of the mother, but it is its own organism. Then later the trophoblast is formed where the syncitiotrophoblast attached to the inner uterine wall. Neither the syncytiotrophoblast or the cytotrophoblast is identical to any maternal tissue. Therefore even that is not part of the mother. Then comes the actual formation of the embryo which is once again forms from the trophoblast which comes after the zygote. Therefore this is not part of the mother. Then comes the foetal stage where the foetus is attached to the placenta via the umbilical cord. The foetus, placenta and umbilical cord all descend from the zygote and are genetically identical to the zygote and not the mother. Therefore neither the placenta, the umbilical cord or the foetal tissue is identical to the mother. Its a simple underlying principle - that to be part of an organism the cells should share identical genetics. In pregnancy in all stages starting from conception where the zygote is formed, the genetics of the zygote, embryo and foetus is not identical to any type of tissue of the mother in its genetics. If the there is a breach between the feotal-maternal interface then this is where a possible rejection of the feotus can occur because the maternal immune system now has access to the feotus where the mother's immunity attacks it and and kills the feotus. This is all because the maternal immune system provided there is a breach recognises foetal tissue as being foreign from the mother's tissue. If the foetus was truely part of the woman's body, then the woman's immune system would not attack the foetus and reject it. Therefore saying that a foetus/embryo is part of the woman's body is scientifically incorrect. The Buddha recognised that from the moment of conception, that the new being is separate from the mother, long before science proved it.

This next part is an anecdote. Its from a clairvoyant monk (I have left out names and location because I think he has the right to remain anonymous). He tells that that a girl who was under the care of her grandmother, because her father died when she was young and her mother went to a foreign country for work. She fell in love with a boy (they were both in their teenages). The boy's family did not accept this because of family differences. So he committed suicide and wrote a letter to this girl to do so. She being overcome with sorrow did so and the clairvoyant Buddhist monk saw that she took rebirth in one of the hell realms. The monk looked even further and saw that her immediate past life she died in infancy. In the life before this, she aborted her foetus and this was the karma that later ripened so that she died young in infancy in her next life and then later even though she survived infancy she was deprived of the love of her parents (father died when she was young and mother going to a foreign land). Such is the bad karma of getting abortions done, the karma ripens in more than one life and can carry on till it wears away. Clairvoyant monks such as this are not lying. They share these anecdotes out of compassion to save people from bad karma.

The Buddha himself did say that with time people will become more tolerant towards bad karma and non-virtuous acts which are the cause of bad karma. We see so many things that were not acceptable that are now becoming normalised. Songs with foul language, films where killings are made more graphic. Abortion is also one of those examples. In the past doing an abortion would be equal to killing a human being. In 2018, abortions were top reason being deaths. That was the Buddha's prediction and we see it happening it all around us - that people will have a very cavalier and non-nonchalant attitude towards non-virtue.

Therefore it is clear on so many levels that abortion is a killing of a human being and hence generates bad karma without exceptions. And this applies to all forms of Buddhism for all schools of Buddhism recognise the beginning of life for human being with conception (and not delivery).

*This post is also available in Dhamma Wheel Engaged
“When one does not understand death, life can be very confusing.” - Ajahn Chah
Giovanni
Posts: 765
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2020 11:07 am

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by Giovanni »

Thank you for your detailed post. You have put a lot of effort into it. But....
There are several points that need clarity. You say that all Buddhist traditions see all abortion as carrying “bad” karma.
This is too simple. Many Vajrayana teachers see abortion as frequently the less of two evils. And as such can only be judged by case for individual.
We cannot just put foetus rights over women’s rights. There are no simple answers. We live in plural societies and must see problems in a wider light than inherited views.
So, thank you once more. But today as many of the poor women of the world find themselves pregnant with unwanted child they cannot afford lectures about karma and skandhas and so on will not help them.
taleen
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2020 12:35 am

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by taleen »

Giovanni wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:06 am Many Vajrayana teachers see abortion as frequently the less of two evils.
I’m interested to know who these teachers are
Giovanni
Posts: 765
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2020 11:07 am

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by Giovanni »

taleen wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 1:28 pm
Giovanni wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:06 am Many Vajrayana teachers see abortion as frequently the less of two evils.
I’m interested to know who these teachers are
I should be clear. There are no Vajrayana teachers known to me who recommend abortion, but many who say that the merits must be decided case by case. The most well known is H.H. The Dalai Lama who has made this case several times on the record.
User avatar
Sonam Wangchug
Posts: 427
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 8:26 pm

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by Sonam Wangchug »

Giovanni wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 3:48 pm
taleen wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 1:28 pm
Giovanni wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 9:06 am Many Vajrayana teachers see abortion as frequently the less of two evils.
I’m interested to know who these teachers are
I should be clear. There are no Vajrayana teachers known to me who recommend abortion, but many who say that the merits must be decided case by case. The most well known is H.H. The Dalai Lama who has made this case several times on the record.
Many? Where are these many teachers saying it is the lesser of two evils??

Any i've ever heard consider it to be killing.

HHDL is an extremely public figure and talks mostly to non buddhists, his public talks reflect this. It would likely be different if he were approached privately by a serious Buddhist.

For those who have already had an abortion different teachers recommend various purification practices. My own would advise 700,000 Vajrasattva.

As with any advice, there are teachers who are extremely direct, and those that employ a lot of skillful means, if the teachers knows those students are going to do what they are going to do regardless, or that they are not going to engage in the purification practices needed, It would seem to serve no purpose but to build guilt or aversion I think this is particularly reflected with those who teach a wide audience of varying degrees of commitment.

However, if the students are serious and those who would really listen to a Lama, answer will differ.

If you think a teacher does not condemn it, ask yourself, do you think the said teacher themselves would ever have or encourage an abortion if it was their own child? I do not think you will find the answer to be yes.
"To have confidence in the teacher is the ultimate refuge." -Rigzin Jigme Lingpa
Giovanni
Posts: 765
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2020 11:07 am

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by Giovanni »

This thought that HH Dalai tells one thing to the inner crowd and the opposite to other people is seen on a lot on the forum
I am not sure that it’s a compliment. 🙂
He was quoted in an interview he gave Tricycle magazine..perhaps that is not “serious”.
Last edited by Giovanni on Fri Apr 16, 2021 6:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9442
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Dharmasherab wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 8:24 am I want to begin by saying that I have no political affiliation or political loyalty. I am politically neutral. Politics is something which I dont want to know about and I am in the process of unlearning anything political that I know. I say this because people are very quick to assume that some statements come from political viewpoints - I assure there is nothing political in any of my posts including the content within this post.

This is about abortion and karma according to my understanding of the teachings of Buddhism. When I say Buddhism, I mean what is common to all traditional forms of Buddhism (Sravakayayana (including Theravada), Mahayana and Vajrayana).

This post is not about the rights of women. This post does not cover rights. Bringing rights into question will not be raised here.

In Buddhism, sentient life is a bundle of 5 aggregates. There is the physical form of a living being (Rupa), and the rest of the other aggregates which form the mind and sensory consciousness (Nama and Vinnana).

For human beings life starts in the womb. The 5 aggregates start to assemble soon after conception. The Sensory Counsciousness (Vinnana) from the previous life appears in the Rupa (the Form at this stage which is the embryo) and afterwards, the aggregates of Feeling (Vedana), Perception (Sanna) and Mental Volition (Sankhara) take place - and now this is a sentient being.

Buddhist monks who have gone into deep states of meditation, sometimes experience their past, including the time when they were in the womb of their mothers. When the mother moves they feel the discomfort. When the mother drinks something hot, they feel the hotness and the discomfort that comes along with those sensations. When the mother drinks something cold they feel the cold sensation as well as the discomfort that comes along with that. This is to show that the experiences felt by the embryo/foetus whiles in utero was something that was real.

When someone ordains as a monastic, then 9 months is added to their age and it is this age which is recognized for individuals withing the monastic sangha. This is not to say that one can know exact birth date in utero but its just gives a rough idea as to when this individual started as a 'bundle of 5 aggregates'. For example, I am 30 years old according to convention. But had I been a monk, I would be considered to be 31 years old within the monastic sangha. Because since the time of Buddha, it was recognized that the actual birth an individual, the actual assembly of the 5 aggregates takes place in utero for human beings.

In Buddhism, the first precept is to avoid killing/harming any sentient living being. Killing generates bad karma according to Buddhism. Killing means to identify a living sentient being and then to deliberately bring about an action to end the life of that living sentient being. It means that we are aware that the sentient being was living. It was recognized that the sentient being was alive, and then the necessary actions to bring about the end of life of that sentient being was thought of and then those thoughts were put into action to bring about the death of that living sentient being.

This is different from living beings dying from the unintended consequences of our actions (such as ants dying when we are walking or small insects being crushed when we are driving without our knowledge or awareness).

"Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect."
AN 6.63 Nibbedhika Sutta

'Intention' here does not mean intention about consequences (like the new baby being born will not have anyone to look after and therefore I will do an abortion). Intention here means whether the intention involved that act of killing or not.

What is recognised as life in Buddhism is different in Buddhism as compared to science. For example in science, bacteria is a type of living being. But in Buddhism, bacteria and other microorganisms are not sentient beings. If they were sentient beings then we commit bad karma every time we have antibiotics to get rid of an infection. Whenever we are in the shower we will be destroying so many of our body cells and our body cells are much more advanced than any type of bacteria, but does this mean we commit bad karma when we wash ourselves in the shower? This is why Buddhism uses the word 'sentient' to distinguish between beings which consist of 5 aggregates compared with non-sentient yet scientifically living organisms such as bacteria and fungi. Bacteria and fungi do not consist of 5 aggregates, therefore to get treatment to get rid of bacteria or fungi from the body does not generate bad karma or violate the first precept.

What is recognized as sentience and consciousness in science differs from Buddhism. This is not to say that they are completely mutually exclusive. What is accepted as sentience and consciousness in science is that which is observer-based. As for Buddhism, Vinnana is not identical to the scientific expression of consciousness. Therefore what is understood as 'sentience' or 'consciousness' from a scientific viewpoint does not form any part of the moral criteria as far as Buddhist ethics are concerned in relation to abortion.

Given that 5 aggregates assemble a few days after conception, to bring about the end of this by doing an abortion is to violate the first precept of Buddhism. It generates bad karma in all circumstances without exception. To deliberately bring about an action to put an end to the interaction of the 5 aggregates within the living sentient being is what includes the act of killing.

If a monastic (nun or monk living under Vinaya) was to perform the act of abortion on someone, then this is a reason to be expelled from the monastic order. One can either go back to their lay lives or join as a novice (Samanera) but within that life one is not allowed to become a Bhikkhu/Bhikkhuni again. This also includes explaining the advantages of death. To explain the advantages of abortion as a monastic includes a Parajika offense - to be expelled from the order permanently. This is because even from the time when the Buddhist Vinaya was implemented, it was agreed that abortion was a form of killing no different from killing any other sentient being.

As for lay Buddhists, they are not under the Vinaya, but not living under Vinaya rules does not give immunity from bad karma. Whether monastic or lay, the karma is the same, its only that monastics get expelled from their orders for doing that, suggesting that or encouraging that.

Like I mentioned earlier, this is not about women's rights. I want to reiterate that this is not about whether women should have a right to do abortions or not - they can decide that for themselves. Its just that regardless of whether there are rights for abortions or not, according to the Buddhist law of karma, there will always be bad karma which gets generated from the act of abortion. Buddhism does not have the 'thou shalt not' concept for Buddhists. Lay people can break precepts as much as they like. Monastics are also free to break their Vinaya rules as long as they accept the consequences of breaking such rules. In Buddhism, anyone is free to do what they like.

I am from Sri Lanka, and fishing is popular over there where there are plenty of Sri Lankan fishermen who are Buddhists, who kill fish to make a living. There are Buddhist butchers in Sri Lanka as well as in the rest of the world. There are Buddhist gynecologists who do that career for a living and part of that occupation also includes performing abortions. Likewise there are Buddhist women who get abortions on themselves and generate the karma from such actions. So in Buddhism anyone is free to do what they like. Nothing is forbidden in Buddhism. Whatever the precepts and practices we do as Buddhists come from our own initiative rather than the 'thou shalt not' concept. Catching fish for consumption, animal slaughter as well as asking for/performing abortions all generate bad karma. Individuals have the freedom to do that. But freedom to commit such actions is not the same as the freedom from the bad karma that is generated from such actions. The karma generated from such action will come into fruition either in the present life or in future lives.

It is not encouraged to shame or harass those who are in favor of abortion. It is best not to be judgmental about those who have different viewpoints. In Buddhism, we do not judge and condemn people based on their past actions, because we also have accumulated so much bad karma from our near-endless past lives. Those who do fishing or work as butchers should not be judged and condemned for the career choices they made. It is good to discourage such people from being involved in such livelihoods but at the same time it is not for us to judge and condemn.

We have to understand that women who have made the choice of abortions do so because they probably did not have any other choice. We have to generate feelings of compassion for such people given that they did that because of limited options as well as realising that they will be facing the ripening of their bad karma in this life or future lives whiles understanding that we may have done worse things than abortion in our past lives.

A common argument that I came across was that "if one is against abortion, then they have to be vegan". Actually they dont. Firstly if we look at the Buddha and his closest disciples not all of them were vegan or vegetarian, but the Buddhist teachings in the Suttas are clear that birth starts with conception (hence abortion being equivalent to killing a human). One of the disrobing offences (Parajika) is to intentionally kill another human being which also inculdes performing an abortion as well as getting an abortion done on oneself whiles one is a Bhikkhu or a Bhikkhuni. Killing an animal is not a disrobing offence and falls under the category of offences that does not require disrobing. This shows that killing of a human (including performing abortions) has higher weighting compared to the killing of an animal. The Buddhist vinaya even though not followed by lay people, some of the offences (especially those that are do with killing) also is an indicator of the karmic weighting of such actions regardless of one's ordination status. As for consuming animal meat, this is not even killing. The Buddha is known to have ate meat when it was offered by lay people. Eating meat becomes an offence only when one is aware that the animal was specifically slaughtered to produce the meat for that person who is about to consume it.

Another argument I came across sometime back on Facebook, was when a Buddhist (who claimed to be committed to Seon (Korean equivalent of Japanese Zen)) told me through a comment, that a sign of a living sentient being is breathing. She went on to say that when in the uterus the baby does not breathe, and therefore it is not living (implying that it is alright in Buddhism to to abortions at any trimester as long as the baby is not delivered). This argument is not true even from a scientific point of view (I mentioned in my earlier post more specifically as to when Buddhism recognises the start of life for a sentient human being). According tot he scientific viewpoint, the foetus/embryo does respire even though it does not engage in what we typically recognise as 'breathing' in the anatomical sense. The foetus is attached to the inner wall of the uterus through the umbilical cord which emerges from the placenta. The placenta - uterus interface serves as the exchange medium between the pregnant mother and foetus. This is also includes that transfer of oxygen from mother to foetus as well as carbon dioxide from foetus to the mother. Therefore respiration in the foetus does happen in the physiological sense of the word, even though not anatomically (I mean how can it? Its surrounded by amniotic fluid.) The foetal cells are all respiring where it is utilising the oxygen from the foetal blood and giving carbon dioxide back into the blood stream. Therefore not only as a physiological level that respiration is taking place but also at a cellular level. If this did not happen then the foetus would no longer be viable, and will result in a still birth. If its at the phase of the embryo then it will lead to a miscarriage. But as long as the embryo/foetus is viable it will continue to respire physiologically and cellularly because its survival depends on this factor among many things. Therefore the statement that birth starts after delivery (where the first breath is taken) is both scientifically incorrect as well as being incorrect from the viewpoint of Buddhist teachings.

A common argument by pro-choice activists is to justify abortion based on the idea that women can do anything that they like with their own bodies. Ofcourse women are free to do what they like with their own bodies and this should be respected. However next comes the question as to how much of the foetus is actually a part of the pregnant women's body? Lets take it one by one. Firstly a zygote (when an ovum and sperm meet and fuse) is not genetically identical to the mother. So on this basis, from the moment the zygote comes into being, it is no longer part of the mother, but it is its own organism. Then later the trophoblast is formed where the syncitiotrophoblast attached to the inner uterine wall. Neither the syncytiotrophoblast or the cytotrophoblast is identical to any maternal tissue. Therefore even that is not part of the mother. Then comes the actual formation of the embryo which is once again forms from the trophoblast which comes after the zygote. Therefore this is not part of the mother. Then comes the foetal stage where the foetus is attached to the placenta via the umbilical cord. The foetus, placenta and umbilical cord all descend from the zygote and are genetically identical to the zygote and not the mother. Therefore neither the placenta, the umbilical cord or the foetal tissue is identical to the mother. Its a simple underlying principle - that to be part of an organism the cells should share identical genetics. In pregnancy in all stages starting from conception where the zygote is formed, the genetics of the zygote, embryo and foetus is not identical to any type of tissue of the mother in its genetics. If the there is a breach between the feotal-maternal interface then this is where a possible rejection of the feotus can occur because the maternal immune system now has access to the feotus where the mother's immunity attacks it and and kills the feotus. This is all because the maternal immune system provided there is a breach recognises foetal tissue as being foreign from the mother's tissue. If the foetus was truely part of the woman's body, then the woman's immune system would not attack the foetus and reject it. Therefore saying that a foetus/embryo is part of the woman's body is scientifically incorrect. The Buddha recognised that from the moment of conception, that the new being is separate from the mother, long before science proved it.

This next part is an anecdote. Its from a clairvoyant monk (I have left out names and location because I think he has the right to remain anonymous). He tells that that a girl who was under the care of her grandmother, because her father died when she was young and her mother went to a foreign country for work. She fell in love with a boy (they were both in their teenages). The boy's family did not accept this because of family differences. So he committed suicide and wrote a letter to this girl to do so. She being overcome with sorrow did so and the clairvoyant Buddhist monk saw that she took rebirth in one of the hell realms. The monk looked even further and saw that her immediate past life she died in infancy. In the life before this, she aborted her foetus and this was the karma that later ripened so that she died young in infancy in her next life and then later even though she survived infancy she was deprived of the love of her parents (father died when she was young and mother going to a foreign land). Such is the bad karma of getting abortions done, the karma ripens in more than one life and can carry on till it wears away. Clairvoyant monks such as this are not lying. They share these anecdotes out of compassion to save people from bad karma.

The Buddha himself did say that with time people will become more tolerant towards bad karma and non-virtuous acts which are the cause of bad karma. We see so many things that were not acceptable that are now becoming normalised. Songs with foul language, films where killings are made more graphic. Abortion is also one of those examples. In the past doing an abortion would be equal to killing a human being. In 2018, abortions were top reason being deaths. That was the Buddha's prediction and we see it happening it all around us - that people will have a very cavalier and non-nonchalant attitude towards non-virtue.

Therefore it is clear on so many levels that abortion is a killing of a human being and hence generates bad karma without exceptions. And this applies to all forms of Buddhism for all schools of Buddhism recognise the beginning of life for human being with conception (and not delivery).

*This post is also available in Dhamma Wheel Engaged
Without even needing to dispute what you say,
there may be valid reasons for someone to be willing to take on whatever karmic burden may be acquired by abortion. You never really know another person’s whole story. Knowing that someone might be born into a life of physical pain, for example, one might choose to spare them of that.
It can be argued that if the karmic causes for that being to experience pain still exist, they will ripen eventually anyhow. By the same reasoning, however, it can be argued that a being’s karma has led them to the condition of being aborted.
One could even speculate that the reason for someone being aborted now is because in a previous life they aborted someone else, thus their karma has ripened, their ‘debt is paid’ you might say.
It’s really hard to second guess the lives and deaths of other people.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
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 »

There is a big difference between believing/counseling that Buddhists as individuals should avoid having abortions when possible, and believing that it should be illegal on a social level.

Given that it being illegal doesn't seem to actually stop it from happening, and some argue does not much reduce it's prevalence , but only makes it more dangerous, then I think the basic sane approach is one of harm reduction. This is particularly true when we take into account that a certain number of women will die childbirth if they cannot have abortions.

I would assume that some Lamas who have actually thought about it beyond the individual choice angle might come to similar conclusion. I've only had one teacher who brought it up, and this appeared to be his approach.

Similarly, if one opposes abortion one should definitely be very pro-birth control, as this is something shown to actually reduce abortion, moreso than legal restrictions on it seem to.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanc ... 4/fulltext
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
Sonam Wangchug
Posts: 427
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 8:26 pm

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by Sonam Wangchug »

Giovanni wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 6:11 pm This thought that HH Dalai tells one thing to the inner crowd and the opposite to other people is seen on a lot on the forum
I am not sure that it’s a compliment. 🙂
He was quoted in an interview he gave Tricycle magazine..perhaps that is not “serious”.
It is absolutely a compliment. If you have a reach to millions of people around the world, and a majority of the time you are speaking to people who have no religious background, or belong to other religions, being a hardline Buddhist and possibly disturbing the mind of others and harming the small connection they have to the Dharma through you seems neither Compassionate nor skillful.

HHDL himself has said that when he gives Kalachakra to massive audiences he knows most of them will not understand the real meaning of the empowerment of receive it, but he hopes through doing this it will be a beneficial connection to them. So, even by his own admission, the majority of people will not understand the real meaning of his actions and teachings in this instance.

Giving different advice to different audiences is part and parcel of the Buddhist tradition, specifically in the Mahayana. That is also why there is the presentation of Definitive / provisional teachings. One of the things we aim to accomplish is having the merit where we are able to interpret the Lama's actions and discern between what is provisional and what is definitive.

Now if it is your own Root Lama, and they give you specific advise in private, I cannot comment on that.
"To have confidence in the teacher is the ultimate refuge." -Rigzin Jigme Lingpa
Giovanni
Posts: 765
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2020 11:07 am

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by Giovanni »

Malcolm wrote: Tue Mar 31, 2020 9:19 pm
smcj wrote: Tue Mar 31, 2020 8:48 pm
No, this is not the point. I am not arguing that abortion is "ok." I am arguing that Buddhists have to negotiate a secular culture, 1) where not everyone has the same faith as we do and 2) where we Buddhists should not support legislation which embeds religious doctrines into secular law.
For some reason you seem obsessed with law.

I believe in the separation of church and state. I do not want to see Christian law, Sharia law, Jewish law, Hindu law, Mahayana law, or Vajrayana law. (Can you imagine a court case where a lama claims a “crazy wisdom” defense?)

However this website is not about political, cultural, or legal issues. Although those discussions are allowed the focus is on Buddhism. And as such it is appropriate to address an issue from a buddhist perspective here, and even prioritize the buddhist perspective over how secular affairs are managed.
Do you want to be able to tell Buddhist women what to do with their bodies or not? Do you respect that they may make choices that you might find "wrong?" I never met a woman in my life who was happy and content with having had an abortion. I am sure there are some out there, but I have never met one.
I read back through the debate. Malcolm says better than I can. We cannot tell Buddhist women what to do with their bodies. That also includes not telling them that their Buddhism is not serious because they make a decision about their bodies we do not like. In is above an individual coming to a difficult decision about a very complicated issue. No single issue overrides all other complicated issues.
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 »

Regardless of one’s stance on the subject, one should not ignore the pain and suffering of the children in question, as well as the mothers and families being affected by such painful situations.
- Every two seconds a baby is aborted - every time your heartbeats a baby dies. [vi]
https://thelifeinstitute.net/learning-c ... e-numbers#

So there are sad statistics like this that try to wake people up so they understand the value of human life.

Fourteen years ago I decided to always chant a Mantra with my heart, and my heart keeps chanting it. I am glad I am still chanting a Mantra that helps the world with this kind of pain, and I pray we can all, despite our level of understanding or stance, have full compassion on those who are suffering in these situations.

Om.

Om Mani Padme Hum.

Nam Myoho Renge Kyo.
User avatar
Ayu
Global Moderator
Posts: 13256
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:25 am
Location: Europe

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by Ayu »

Könchok Chödrak wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 6:38 am Regardless of one’s stance on the subject, one should not ignore the pain and suffering of the children in question, as well as the mothers and families being affected by such painful situations.
- Every two seconds a baby is aborted - every time your heartbeats a baby dies. [vi]
https://thelifeinstitute.net/learning-c ... e-numbers#

So there are sad statistics like this that try to wake people up so they understand the value of human life.

Fourteen years ago I decided to always chant a Mantra with my heart, and my heart keeps chanting it. I am glad I am still chanting a Mantra that helps the world with this kind of pain, and I pray we can all, despite our level of understanding or stance, have full compassion on those who are suffering in these situations.

Om.

Om Mani Padme Hum.

Nam Myoho Renge Kyo.
You forget how dangerous pregnancy and birth can be. Everybody loves to forget that. A pregnancy is no holiday and giving birth often is a traumatic & life-endangering procedure.
Everybody discusses this matter, as if the women reject a delivery of a parcel post.
And moreover everybody loves to forget about the pain of an unwanted child. And how many women have to take care while the father left?
And how many women and fetuses are dieing due to the dangers of pregnancy and birth?

So, the whole picture is: it is very narrow to focus on the suffering by abortion only. I don't deny it, but the real picture is way wider.
Giovanni
Posts: 765
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2020 11:07 am

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by Giovanni »

:good:
The idea that the abortion argument is only about the baby is a product of patriarchy. I am a man yet I see that clearly.
Male lawyers and male religious who weirdly see babies as their property to defend although they do not carry them, birth them, and in most of world do not feed and raise them, tell woman that if they do not carry this through they are wicked or not serious Dharma student.
User avatar
Könchok Thrinley
Former staff member
Posts: 3275
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2015 11:18 am
Location: He/Him from EU

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by Könchok Thrinley »

Ayu wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 8:20 am So, the whole picture is: it is very narrow to focus on the suffering by abortion only. I don't deny it, but the real picture is way wider.
Yup! The focus is very narrow on just "kill or keep". But really when it comes to pregnancy it is too late isn't it? We should try to work with causes more than results. So good birthcontrol methods, quality sex education, women empowerment, etc etc etc.

Also not to mention that for most people who are against abortion the interest in the well-being of the baby ends with its birth. Then it can go to hell. So also good childcare facilities, financial support of women with children (especially single mothers), orphanages that can really take a good care of the kids and show them how life works, legalising gay adoptions etc etc etc. That by itself would also cut abortion numbers. In Czechia we have "babyboxes" which is basically a box where you can put your newborn child, the box will alert nurses and doctors that there is a baby. Mother stays forever anonymous, child survives (unwanted newborns often endup in dumpsters, etc let's not forget about that too) and gets taken care of and ideally gets adopted.

So while ofc having an abortion is a horrible horrible thing to do, but unless you are willing to work on creating such an enviroment where abortions are really unnecessary, then it is better to zip it. Especially if you are a man and if your reason is "Jesus/Buddha/Apollo thinks it is not okay".
“Observing samaya involves to remain inseparable from the union of wisdom and compassion at all times, to sustain mindfulness, and to put into practice the guru’s instructions”. Garchen Rinpoche

For those who do virtuous actions,
goodness is what comes to pass.
For those who do non-virtuous actions,
that becomes suffering indeed.

- Arya Sanghata Sutra
User avatar
Könchok Thrinley
Former staff member
Posts: 3275
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2015 11:18 am
Location: He/Him from EU

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by Könchok Thrinley »

Giovanni wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 1:37 am
Malcolm wrote: Tue Mar 31, 2020 9:19 pm
smcj wrote: Tue Mar 31, 2020 8:48 pm
For some reason you seem obsessed with law.

I believe in the separation of church and state. I do not want to see Christian law, Sharia law, Jewish law, Hindu law, Mahayana law, or Vajrayana law. (Can you imagine a court case where a lama claims a “crazy wisdom” defense?)

However this website is not about political, cultural, or legal issues. Although those discussions are allowed the focus is on Buddhism. And as such it is appropriate to address an issue from a buddhist perspective here, and even prioritize the buddhist perspective over how secular affairs are managed.
Do you want to be able to tell Buddhist women what to do with their bodies or not? Do you respect that they may make choices that you might find "wrong?" I never met a woman in my life who was happy and content with having had an abortion. I am sure there are some out there, but I have never met one.
I read back through the debate. Malcolm says better than I can. We cannot tell Buddhist women what to do with their bodies. That also includes not telling them that their Buddhism is not serious because they make a decision about their bodies we do not like. In is above an individual coming to a difficult decision about a very complicated issue. No single issue overrides all other complicated issues.
Yup, this reminds me of a documentary about one tibetan female master, she achieved paranirvana quite recently. And there she was taking care of children and when somebody came to her talking about abortion, the master told the woman to not do it and instead give the child to her. Unless you provide a solution (take care of the mother/child) then you really have no place to tell them what to do.

It is like telling a hungry homeless person that they should not steal and beg, because it is not moral but not giving them even a penny. It's so easy when it is not your well-being at stake.
“Observing samaya involves to remain inseparable from the union of wisdom and compassion at all times, to sustain mindfulness, and to put into practice the guru’s instructions”. Garchen Rinpoche

For those who do virtuous actions,
goodness is what comes to pass.
For those who do non-virtuous actions,
that becomes suffering indeed.

- Arya Sanghata Sutra
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 »

Regardless of your stance on it, I hope you do not ignore or forget the sadness and pain involved in the subject. Buddha will always Love and have compassion for you, and so will the Sangha, and they will always want you to study the Dharma. The Dharma has always been about preserving life. If we can agree on that, then we can better understand this subject. I am sorry it is so tragic and sorrowful subject for so many.
Giovanni
Posts: 765
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2020 11:07 am

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by Giovanni »

Sorry but we can’t agree on that. Buddhadharma is not preserving life. That would be preserving samsara. Dharma is actually about undermining conventional life. Not about making it more comfortable, but to show it’s lack of independent reality.
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 »

Giovanni wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 10:31 pm Sorry but we can’t agree on that. Buddhadharma is not preserving life. That would be preserving samsara. Dharma is actually about undermining conventional life. Not about making it more comfortable, but to show it’s lack of independent reality.
What do you find the purpose of the monastic vows against killing to be then? You don’t believe the Buddha’s philosophy is non-violent in essence?
Locked

Return to “Ethical Conduct”