The Great Abortion Debate

A forum for discussion of Buddhist ethics.
Locked
User avatar
tkp67
Posts: 2905
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 5:42 am

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by tkp67 »

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 is the point of liberating sentient suffering if the value of what remains is as nominal as samsara?
PeterC
Posts: 5192
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 12:38 pm

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by PeterC »

Könchok Chödrak wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 8:39 pm 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.
OK - but what's the implication of that?

The propositions above are:
1. Nobody should be telling women, buddhist or otherwise, what to do with their bodies
2. There is no woman who undergoes an abortion lightly or without personal consequences
3. There is a lot more to the decision to terminate or give birth than simply any intrinsic morality of the act itself, there is the whole question of what happens to the baby after (or the mother for the next half year while she's carrying it).

Which of these propositions does your point address?
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 »

The implication is that we should not lose faith in ourselves and our ability to address this issue, as well as be Buddhists that can and will attain Nirvana and Buddhahood despite whatever has happened in our lives. In China there are forced abortions, in China women go to concentration camps sometimes because they refuse abortions, and are treated very badly. If a woman decides to get an abortion and then suffers a deep guilt or depression afterwards, which so many women in China do, just imagine the sadness, we should not judge them so harshly, because they are victims of a brutal totalitarian regime, instead of looking to a kind source the government imposes their will on people without giving them a clear choice, and sometimes the babies suffer even more when the mothers resist—such horrors must not be kept silenced! These women and their babies must be helped! So I think that for example with this example of China, we should always have compassion for those who decide to undergo abortion, forced or not, because of the psychological trauma it entails. We cannot ignore how painful emotionally and physically the procedure is, and if we do, the disservice is not giving the Metta to those who are the mothers who have gone through the trauma of the situations. At the same time we should be supportive of the mothers who fight for their children’s lives and are the mother heroes of this world.

To the question of whether abortion should be legal or not, just think about how although in most instances abortion is not a choice one should make, and in some it is a factor that happens due to circumstances (such as poor medical technology, a fascist government, or a danger to the mothers life), abortion should not be seen as desirable. The problem in today’s world is that people act like it’s a choice people make to make things better, instead, losing a child is a tragic loss, and that is what happens in abortion. If we respect the great pain and suffering involved in the reality of abortion then we can better address the issue, so we can become better Buddhists, fathers, mothers, activists, and pillars in our communities, instead of just being swept by the wind letting the Dharma go into a life of sadness and misery because of decisions either we or other people have made that are upsetting us too much. The Dharma is the answer, and the truth is your kindness. What else is?

Om Mani Padme Hum.
Om Mani Padme Hum.
Last edited by Budai on Mon Apr 19, 2021 7:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
Giovanni
Posts: 765
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2020 11:07 am

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by Giovanni »

Könchok Chödrak wrote: Sun Apr 18, 2021 11:43 pm
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?
The Buddha taught ahimsa. Not to “preserve” life. His mission was to create means to bypass human, animal , asura
and deva realms, not to preserve them. To create the means for the mind stream to avoid birth into realms.
This starts with compassion to all beings on the Wheel. Not to keep them on the Wheel. Without ahimsa we will not even start raising Bodhicitta. The purpose of Bodhisattva is not preservation. It is liberation from the realms..including human.
Giovanni
Posts: 765
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2020 11:07 am

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by Giovanni »

tkp67 wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 12:10 am
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 is the point of liberating sentient suffering if the value of what remains is as nominal as samsara?
I don’t understand this.
User avatar
Ayu
Global Moderator
Posts: 13257
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:25 am
Location: Europe

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by Ayu »

Könchok Chödrak wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 7:23 am The implication is that we should not lose faith in ourselves and our ability to address this issue, as well as be Buddhists that can and will attain Nirvana and Buddhahood despite whatever has happened in our lives.
...
To me it seems you didn't really answer the question by Peter C. I mean, you're not obliged to do so. I often leave questions unanswered, if it leads to nothing.
But I have to state, your stance is foggy for me.

I get your point, that every unborn baby is a precious life. That's my opinion as well.
But what if the woman can't have a baby, physically, mentally or socially?
What about the fact that the woman will be able to say Yes to the baby better, if it's her own genuine decision?
I agree, abortion by law like in China is a severe crime. But what about forcing any woman or girl to dedicate her body to an unwanted child? How is that?
To me it seems, as if pro-life-activists think that women were not able to judge by themselves.
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 »

My stance is we should preserve life because all life has Buddha-Nature. It’s a question of kindness and compassion. Sometimes people go out with bows and arrows to fight war with the desire to preserve the lives of their nations. Gautama found intricate ways to save lives and prevent wars during His life, and got opposing parties to lay their weapons down. In the same way abortion can be avoided with family planning, care, counseling, support, financial services, Spiritual and Community help, social programs, rehabilitation services, and a compassionate heart that would benefit from all of these things. We have to have compassion for people so they care about themselves and don’t think that their life will become unmanageable if they have a baby. Adoption is a wonderful factor that can help as well. If we treat people who are at risk of having an abortion lavishly like Kings and Queens they may feel so cared for that their worries will vanish. Many would do much to save a babies life, and so I think that is what is an important aspect of it. We have to treat people with pure Metta.

I understand that there is a percentage of people that do hurt themselves when they don’t know who to turn to to have an abortion, when it is openly illegal, and I am talking about helping people understand just how manageable their life can be if they go through the pregnancy, though it may be hard, and in some very rare instances a crime that that person was impregnated, there is ways we can help such people get through the difficult times of such situations by treating them with kindness and respect.

So I am saying the answer exists. This is one of those things where it’a like there really is an answer. For Samsara, the answer is Enlightenment. For the world of abortion, the answer is kindness and Love. And it may take a long time to get there once the world starts healing, but it will happen. And again, for those rare instances when it’s a life and death situation because of a medical issue and the doctor orders an abortion or an operation to save the mother’s or baby’s life based on the concerns of the mother, that is seen as a tragic loss. But it can be avoided too, with Enlightenment. How with Enlightenment? If we work diligently to Enlighten the whole Saha world, there will naturally be no more dying, as all will be Buddhas, hence no more rebirth, we will all abide in the peace of Mahaparinirvana then, but before that, we have to value all life if we are to consider ourselves Bodhisattvas, and that is a core foundation of Buddhism and clearly all compassion. It may seem like I just jumped to the end too fast, but Buddhism Teaches we are all already there, doesn’t it? The problems of today can all be solved in an instant if we work together. I once read in a certain Tantric text that there is a prayer for all beings to attain Buddhahood this very instant. Such prayers are prayed by the Realized ones, and there are no discrepancies in the words of the Buddhas according to the Lotus Sutra.

Om Mani Padme Hum.
PeterC
Posts: 5192
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 12:38 pm

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by PeterC »

Könchok Chödrak wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 7:23 am The implication is that we should not lose faith in ourselves and our ability to address this issue, as well as be Buddhists that can and will attain Nirvana and Buddhahood despite whatever has happened in our lives.
Yup, abandoning bodhicitta, fifth root vow downfall and also a bodhisattva vow downfall. We all know that. But apart from a long and curious anti-China screed, any implications here for the discussion on abortion?
User avatar
tkp67
Posts: 2905
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 5:42 am

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by tkp67 »

Giovanni wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 7:47 am
tkp67 wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 12:10 am
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 is the point of liberating sentient suffering if the value of what remains is as nominal as samsara?
I don’t understand this.
Why release sentient beings from suffering if life is not worth preserving? Life is not meaningless. suffering is not meaningless. The value/virtue of life and suffering were not lost on the buddha.

The buddha recognized the true value of life was in realizing the unconditioned state of awareness. Without life there is no realization. No relief of suffering. Without these there is no boundless joy based on one's own life force and the possession of life alone.

Life is not a curse but an incredible gift.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by Malcolm »

Könchok Chödrak wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 8:55 amIn the same way abortion can be avoided with family planning, care, counseling, support, financial services, Spiritual and Community help, social programs, rehabilitation services, and a compassionate heart that would benefit from all of these things.
Another man telling women what to do with their bodies.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by Malcolm »

Könchok Chödrak wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 7:23 amThe problem in today’s world is that people act like it’s a choice people make to make things better, instead, losing a child is a tragic loss, and that is what happens in abortion.
Ever hear of rebirth?
Giovanni
Posts: 765
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2020 11:07 am

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by Giovanni »

tkp67 wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 1:28 pm
Giovanni wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 7:47 am
tkp67 wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 12:10 am

What is the point of liberating sentient suffering if the value of what remains is as nominal as samsara?
I don’t understand this.
Why release sentient beings from suffering if life is not worth preserving? Life is not meaningless. suffering is not meaningless. The value/virtue of life and suffering were not lost on the buddha.

The buddha recognized the true value of life was in realizing the unconditioned state of awareness. Without life there is no realization. No relief of suffering. Without these there is no boundless joy based on one's own life force and the possession of life alone.

Life is not a curse but an incredible gift.
You have turned “the purpose of Dharma is not simply to preserve samsaric life” into “ life is not worth preserving”, which is a man of straw.
You say ‘without life there is no relief from suffering’ which makes no sense. Without life there would be no suffering to relieve.
But conventionally life exists. And is characterised by dukkha anatta and anicca.
I have no idea what you mean by ‘life force’ so I do not know if I agree or not. That is not a term I have come across in Buddhadharma..that could be my ignorance.
You say ‘without these there is no boundless joy’ but you do not say what “these” are. Without what?
And how do we ‘possess life alone’?
Life is neither curse or gift. Life arises dependently from great emptiness. It is itself.
Last edited by Giovanni on Mon Apr 19, 2021 2:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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 »

Könchok Chödrak wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 8:55 am My stance is we should preserve life because all life has Buddha-Nature. It’s a question of kindness and compassion. Sometimes people go out with bows and arrows to fight war with the desire to preserve the lives of their nations. Gautama found intricate ways to save lives and prevent wars during His life, and got opposing parties to lay their weapons down. In the same way abortion can be avoided with family planning, care, counseling, support, financial services, Spiritual and Community help, social programs, rehabilitation services, and a compassionate heart that would benefit from all of these things. We have to have compassion for people so they care about themselves and don’t think that their life will become unmanageable if they have a baby. Adoption is a wonderful factor that can help as well. If we treat people who are at risk of having an abortion lavishly like Kings and Queens they may feel so cared for that their worries will vanish. Many would do much to save a babies life, and so I think that is what is an important aspect of it. We have to treat people with pure Metta.

I understand that there is a percentage of people that do hurt themselves when they don’t know who to turn to to have an abortion, when it is openly illegal, and I am talking about helping people understand just how manageable their life can be if they go through the pregnancy, though it may be hard, and in some very rare instances a crime that that person was impregnated, there is ways we can help such people get through the difficult times of such situations by treating them with kindness and respect.
I can tell by how you talk about it that you likely have no direct knowledge of this stuff. Along a similar line, the issue is that (especially in America) the people who most strongly oppose abortion are the exact people who most oppose birth control, family planning, funding for social programs etc. - all the stuff that would lessen the incidence of abortion. This kind of "counseling" already exists, and it usually involves telling very poor women about all the horrible things that might happen to them if they have an abortion, while offering very few real alternatives.

You are just moralizing from a place of ignorance, no matter how nicely it's dressed up. It's insulting to people who actually have to go through this kind of thing.
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
tkp67
Posts: 2905
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 5:42 am

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by tkp67 »

Giovanni wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 2:35 pm
tkp67 wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 1:28 pm
Giovanni wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 7:47 am

I don’t understand this.
Why release sentient beings from suffering if life is not worth preserving? Life is not meaningless. suffering is not meaningless. The value/virtue of life and suffering were not lost on the buddha.

The buddha recognized the true value of life was in realizing the unconditioned state of awareness. Without life there is no realization. No relief of suffering. Without these there is no boundless joy based on one's own life force and the possession of life alone.

Life is not a curse but an incredible gift.
You have turned “the purpose of Dharma is not simply to preserve samsaric life” into “ life is not worth preserving”, which is a man of straw.
You say ‘without life there is no relief from suffering’ which makes no sense. Without life there would be no suffering to relieve.
But conventionally life exists. And is characterised by dukkha anatta and anicca.
I have no idea what you mean by ‘life force’ so I do not know if I agree or not. That is not a term I have come across in Buddhadharma..that could be my ignorance.
You say ‘without these there is no boundless joy’ but you do not say what “these” are. Without what?
And how do we ‘possess life alone’?
Life is neither curse or gift. Life arises dependently from great emptiness. It is itself.
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.

The faulty premise is the one that puts the value of life outside the purpose of dharma even for a moment's time. It is essentially engaging in needless idealization about the future conditions which in life deserves to be disregarded.

The great emptiness is experienced by humans and marked by joy, loving kindness and other worthwhile attributes. If these were not worth endeavoring for and death a more merciful outcome the buddha was pitiful and compassionate enough to teach as much.

Life is the common denominator of all sentience that is possessed without a requirement for it to be expressed with words. It is as true as the great emptiness itself.
Giovanni
Posts: 765
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2020 11:07 am

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by Giovanni »

I’m sorry. I am not being tricky or sarcastic when I say that I cannot make a good reply because I do not know what you are saying. I simply do not understand. Perhaps someone else can help.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by Malcolm »

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.
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: Mon Apr 19, 2021 6:44 pm In Buddhadharma, there are no innocents.
Shouldn’t one choose Compassion, instead of an act of negative karma?
User avatar
Sādhaka
Posts: 1278
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2016 4:39 pm

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by Sādhaka »

Malcolm wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 6:44 pmBut 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.

Samsara is an vicious cycle. One being pays karma by getting inflicted upon by another the sentient being, then the being doing the said infliction creates more karma for themselves.

I’m open minded to there being rare cases where abortion wouldn’t create negative karma regarding the sentient beings involved in it; but in most cases I’m going with it being an cause for more negative karma than not.

People have the option of things like Yoga, pranayama, fasting etc. to gain some control of their sexual impulses, instead of getting addicted to things like masturbation, porn, casual sex etc. Easier said than done though for many, admittedly; as many people have circumstances where they work all the time and live in a residence with others where they have little privacy & leisure time to set aside for such practices....
Last edited by Sādhaka on Mon Apr 19, 2021 7:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by Malcolm »

Sādhaka wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 7:19 pm
Malcolm wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 6:44 pmBut 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.

Samsara is an vicious cycle. One being pays karma by getting inflicted upon by another the sentient being, then the being doing the said infliction creates more karma for themselves.
Considering that fetuses have no sense perceptions until the 19th week, the amount suffering inflicted on a fetus is nil, until it finds itself in the bardo again.
I’m open minded to there being rare cases where abortion wouldn’t create negative karma regarding the sentient beings involved in it; but in most cases I’m going with it being an cause for more negative karma than not.
Most people are not Buddhists and don't believe in karma.

People have the option of things like Yoga, pranayama, fasting etc. to gain some control of their sexual impulses, instead of getting addicted to things like masturbation, porn, casual sex etc. Easier said than done though for many, admittedly; as many people have circumstances where they work all the time and live in a residence with others where they have little privacy & leisure time to set aside for such practices....
People like to f**k. Sometimes, women get pregnant when it is not convenient for whatever reason. In order for a karma to be perfect there has to be satisfaction with the outcome, "I did good." Never met a women yet who has happy to have had an abortion. I prefer secular ethics to religious ethics, because the latter are too narrow and require someone to follow beliefs they may not actually hold.
Giovanni
Posts: 765
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2020 11:07 am

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by Giovanni »

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.
Last edited by Giovanni on Mon Apr 19, 2021 10:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Locked

Return to “Ethical Conduct”