The Great Abortion Debate

[Minobu]

Conception is not restricted to human beings. For example, do you oppose aborting the fetuses of cats or dogs? Do you oppose all intervention in all gestational processes of living beings, or only humans? In any case, If one accepts rebirth, abortion is just not that big a deal.

why do you ignore the fact that i keep explaining that i'm not opposed to abortion. One would think your deflecting from your lack of belief in actual Buddhism and want to change it to a religion and something along your own narrative , that changes with your political whims .

or it's just trolling.

Sorry, minobu, but what you said is just dumb. You are not the arbiter of “actual Buddhism.” You subscribe to certain beliefs which are found in some kinds of Buddhism and ignore others.

Malcom there is a thing called polite conversation.

As far as your assessment of me as a Buddhist...i don't make it up as i go to suit some agenda.

You have been very duplicitous, in this thread.

Like a politician you weave a narrative about the person and avoid the actual content.

I'm tired of your deflection , you don't take kindly to criticism for some reason. And never admit when you are trolling.

[Grigoris]

Some argue that to abort a life interferes with the ripening of the karma of one about to take rebirth.
But one would also have to concede that such interruption is also the result of the karma of the one taking rebirth.

^^^An important fact that has been overlooked in this discussion.^^^

[tkp67]

One of the hardest things to be mindful of in regards to Shakyamuni's enlightenment is he did not take the ignorance of others personally but was compassionate to the fact that they where ignorant. It was the cause for compassionate engagement. I believe it was this feature that allowed him to appeal to such a wide variety of minds. How could compassion be used skillfully in this example?

[PadmaVonSamba]

Birth is suffering, old age is suffering, illness is suffering, death is suffering.
If you could prevent a death, stop illness, stop old age from happening, would you?
Then why not birth?
As soon as one begins with,
“I’m against this...I support that...
my religion says this...” self-clinging starts.
It’s fine to hold beliefs, but it’s better to look at the mind that creates attachment to beliefs, that wants to be right and avoid being wrong,
because that’s ego-clinging right there!

[Malcolm]

why do you ignore the fact that i keep explaining that i'm not opposed to abortion. One would think your deflecting from your lack of belief in actual Buddhism and want to change it to a religion and something along your own narrative , that changes with your political whims .

or it's just trolling.

Sorry, minobu, but what you said is just dumb. You are not the arbiter of “actual Buddhism.” You subscribe to certain beliefs which are found in some kinds of Buddhism and ignore others.

Malcom there is a thing called polite conversation.

As far as your assessment of me as a Buddhist...i don't make it up as i go to suit some agenda.

You have been very duplicitous, in this thread.

Like a politician you weave a narrative about the person and avoid the actual content.

I'm tired of your deflection , you don't take kindly to criticism for some reason. And never admit when you are trolling.

Polite? You’ve been everything but polite in this exchange.

[Minobu]

Birth is suffering, old age is suffering, illness is suffering, death is suffering.
If you could prevent a death, stop illness, stop old age from happening, would you?
Then why not birth?
As soon as one begins with,
“I’m against this...I support that...
my religion says this...” self-clinging starts.
It’s fine to hold beliefs, but it’s better to look at the mind that creates attachment to beliefs, that wants to be right and avoid being wrong,
because that’s ego-clinging right there!

true.

but when dealing with people who decide to make things all cosy ......meh..

i've said and done my bit here...

i'll never get over what this implies though...i will reverberate this for a long time...attachment anyone lol..

In any case, If one accepts rebirth, abortion is just not that big a deal.

this sounds monstrous from someone who teaches Buddhism.

[Grigoris]

i've said and done my bit here...

A flatulence metaphor comes to mind here...

[tkp67]

isn't championing women's rights in opposition to the right to respect life even on a cellular level the same as the converse?

Seems everything is a bit ivory tower without a specific instance, a specific existence, a specific cause, a specific condition, a specific capacity, a specific time, a specific place ...

What is the middle way here? is it choosing a side before the potential information is imputed? or is it remaining empty of a side and open to all possibility until that information is known? Then doesn't it come down to those variables?

[Grigoris]

isn't championing women's rights in opposition to the right to respect life even on a cellular level the same as the converse?

No.

[Malcolm]

In any case, If one accepts rebirth, abortion is just not that big a deal.

this sounds monstrous from someone who teaches Buddhism.

Well, you have to take into account that the whole debate about abortion comes from Christians who believe they only have one life, this one, after which the soul goes to heaven or hell.

They also believe in original sin; so, from their religious point of view, abortion is extremely serious.

Now, from our point of view, we believe in rebirth. If a being in the intermediate existence is conceived and aborted, this does not ruin that beings's chance at a human rebirth.

Also, as long as the abortion is performed prior to 19 weeks, the fetus will suffer no pain because, in Buddhist texts, it is stated that a fetus will only have operational sense organs from 19th week onward.

Stating that something is or is not permissible by a strict rule is not the Mahāyāna way. In Mahāyāna, motivation is more important than the action.

[tkp67]

isn't championing women's rights in opposition to the right to respect life even on a cellular level the same as the converse?

No.

as if on cue

Stating that something is or is not permissible by a strict rule is not the Mahāyāna way. In Mahāyāna, motivation is more important than the action.

On a very sincere note nice to see you back Grigoris

[Malcolm]

isn't championing women's rights in opposition to the right to respect life even on a cellular level the same as the converse?

First of all, here in "the right to respect life even on a cellular level," I think you mean "obligation."

If this were true, Buddhists would need to stop using antibiotics, antivirals, and and antiamoebic drugs.

Thus, we don't have an obligation to respect life on a cellular level. Cells have no independent consciousness, and thus they do not suffer pain. As far as anyone knows, bacteria, viruses, and amoeba also are not sentient life.

Further, a monk developed the clairvoyance to see small creatures in the water, finer than the water filter monks are provided with to strain their drinking water. The monk had a problem because now he felt he could not drink water at all because he could perceive these lifeforms in his water, invisible to the naked eye. When he presented this problem to the Buddha, the Buddha advised him to stop looking so deeply.

So, this objection is quite irrelevant to the discussion of abortion.

As far as the right for a woman to choose, this is public health issue. A modern society needs to provide access to safe abortions. These are the stats:

Between 2010–2014, on average, 56 million induced (safe and unsafe) abortions occurred worldwide each year.

There were 35 induced abortions per 1000 women aged between 15–44 years.

25% of all pregnancies ended in an induced abortion.

The rate of abortions was higher in developing regions than in developed regions.

Around 25 million unsafe abortions were estimated to have taken place worldwide each year, almost all in developing countries (1).

Among these, 8 million were carried out in the least- safe or dangerous conditions.

Over half of all estimated unsafe abortions globally were in Asia.

3 out of 4 abortions that occurred in Africa and Latin America were unsafe.

The risk of dying from an unsafe abortion was the highest in Africa.

Each year between 4.7% – 13.2% of maternal deaths can be attributed to unsafe abortion (2).

Around 7 million women are admitted to hospitals every year in developing countries, as a result of unsafe abortion (3).

The annual cost of treating major complications from unsafe abortion is estimated at US$ 553 million (4).

Safe abortion must be provided or supported by a trained person using WHO recommended methods appropriate for the pregnancy duration.

Almost every abortion death and disability could be prevented through sexuality education, use of effective contraception, provision of safe, legal induced abortion, and timely care for complications

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-shee ... e-abortion

In short, restricting women's access to safe abortions is both short-sighted and lacking in compassion.

[tkp67]

isn't championing women's rights in opposition to the right to respect life even on a cellular level the same as the converse?

First of all, here in "the right to respect life even on a cellular level," I think you mean "obligation."

No and the statement was contextually unpacked.

Let me reiterate it in a different way.

People who champion rights for other people be it a man arguing for a woman's right versus a man arguing for the value of cellular life are not in and of themselves wrong from their perspective but it loses validity without context and offers no benefit juxtapose and in competition. Their individual validity is subjective to a scenario that does not exist before us so pitting them against each other isn't reasonable nor is debasing those with such perspectives.

When those perspectives are applied inaccurately there is an offense. This is just conceptual proliferation so why do so with personal contention? does offense occur in sharing how we view the world or does it occur in how we receive that view?

[Malcolm]

isn't championing women's rights in opposition to the right to respect life even on a cellular level the same as the converse?

First of all, here in "the right to respect life even on a cellular level," I think you mean "obligation."

No and the statement was contextually unpacked.

It was unclear, despite your attempt to unpack it because failed to included the antecedent "champion."

In any case, one cannot advocate for the rights of cellular life. Cells are property and have no rights of their own.

Had you written "isn't championing women's rights in opposition to championing the right to respect life even on a cellular level the same as the converse?"

My answer would have been the same in all respects. You can champion the right to respect cellular life, but it is meaningless cause. What are you going to do, go out and hold up posters in front of drug companies and demand that they respect cellular life?

In short, restricting women's access to safe abortions is both short-sighted and lacking in compassion.

And as usual, a bunch of men are arguing over women's health issues. I think women pretty much have made up their respective minds in this score.

[justsit]

isn't championing women's rights in opposition to the right to respect life even on a cellular level the same as the converse?

...
In short, restricting women's access to safe abortions is both short-sighted and lacking in compassion.

^This.

I get the impression that some men who oppose abortion on principle have absolutely no concept of why girls and women have abortions, of the myriad of circumstances that can lead to that decision. Rarely is it easy or blasé or made without emotional cost.

[tkp67]

In short, restricting women's access to safe abortions is both short-sighted and lacking in compassion.

No where did I discuss the rights themselves as being valid or invalid (because they are simply conceptual) but rather questioned treating conceptual proliferation as a set of policies and those making proliferation as policy makers.

And as usual, a bunch of men are arguing over women's health issues. I think women pretty much have made up their respective minds in this score.

Your last statement is made from the perspective of a man arguing over women's health issues. FTR I can still access a number of varied perspectives on this issue from women who exist today. Is any one of them fitting for all women? or is the right to express them on an individual level more appropriate?

Down throttling the potential of human birth as represented by a group of cells in the womb because science and policy add to the complexity of the issue doesn't seem to honor the potential for precious human birth. I don''t see why this needs to come at the expense of the other. Why can't they coexist since that is our experiential reality as some choose abortion as best choice and some choose life as best choice, and both decision can be regrettable and sometimes they are not.

I don't think it is unfair to say that apathy in regards to the potential of life is as unreasonable as attachment to the decisions other people's make regarding that potential of life. Surety without detail is a rule, and counter intuitive to your prior statement.

Personally I am not struggling to recognize the compassion in those who respect women's rights or the rights of a collection of cells in a womb to continue their development into a sentient being. I don't see that at odds in any pregnant women here so I am not pulled to one direction or the other.

I don't see any of this setting policy either but it is reasonably disingenuous to frame arguments like this with a definitive right or wrong. I think denying the immense personal subjectivity is the problem in the first place.

[Malcolm]

In short, restricting women's access to safe abortions is both short-sighted and lacking in compassion.

No where did I discuss the rights themselves as being valid or invalid (because they are simply conceptual) but rather questioned treating conceptual proliferation as a set of policies and those making proliferation as policy makers.

You might be making sense to you, but you are not making sense to me.

Your last statement is made from the perspective of a man arguing over women's health issues.

Correct, it was an observation grounded in the irony of the situation.

Down throttling the potential of human birth as represented by a group of cells in the womb because science and policy add to the complexity of the issue doesn't seem to honor the potential for precious human birth.

In Indo-Tibetan Buddhism, a human birth is not termed "precious" unless it has the eighteen freedoms and endowments that permit the practice of Dharma.

I don''t see why this needs to come at the expense of the other. Why can't they coexist since that is our experiential reality as some choose abortion as best choice and some choose life as best choice, and both decision can be regrettable and sometimes they are not.

The sentiment which opposes abortion is perfectly fine. But it has nothing to do with the reality that millions of women die every year around the world from botched, illegal abortions .

I don't see any of this setting policy either but it is reasonably disingenuous to frame arguments like this with a definitive right or wrong.

I think it is morally wrong to restrict women's access to safe abortions.

You and others may have different opinions on this issue.

I think that people who want to restrict women's access to safe abortions are morally wrong, and suffer from a lack of vision and compassion.

[tkp67]

In short, restricting women's access to safe abortions is both short-sighted and lacking in compassion.

No where did I discuss the rights themselves as being valid or invalid (because they are simply conceptual) but rather questioned treating conceptual proliferation as a set of policies and those making proliferation as policy makers.

You might be making sense to you, but you are not making sense to me.

I never took a side in regards to woman's rights because I have no dog in that fight. Furthermore I find it a manifestation of a problem that doesn't exist by pretending this forum will decide woman's rights in the first place. The fact that members draw lines around it speaks of deeper divides.

Your last statement is made from the perspective of a man arguing over women's health issues.

Correct, it was an observation grounded in the irony of the situation.

One you are not abstracted from.

Down throttling the potential of human birth as represented by a group of cells in the womb because science and policy add to the complexity of the issue doesn't seem to honor the potential for precious human birth.

In Indo-Tibetan Buddhism, a human birth is not termed "precious" unless it has the eighteen freedoms and endowments that permit the practice of Dharma.

I would be indebted to you to read a citation that says the precursor to precious human birth is absolutely meaningless. Putting the carrier of those cells ahead of the cells themselves is one thing. Treating that collection of cells as something other than the precursor to precious human birth is a denial of reality. I don't believe that is a feature of Indo-Tibetan Buddhism but perhaps you will enlightenment me here.

I don''t see why this needs to come at the expense of the other. Why can't they coexist since that is our experiential reality as some choose abortion as best choice and some choose life as best choice, and both decision can be regrettable and sometimes they are not.

The sentiment which opposes abortion is perfectly fine. But it has nothing to do with the reality that millions of women die every year around the world from botched, illegal abortions .

I don't see any of this setting policy either but it is reasonably disingenuous to frame arguments like this with a definitive right or wrong.

I think it is morally wrong to restrict women's access to safe abortions.

You and others may have different opinions on this issue.

I think that people who want to restrict women's access to safe abortions are morally wrong, and suffer from a lack of vision and compassion.
[/quote]

You claim you don't understand me and then claim you know my opinion. Do you know enough of my life to know my stand on this position? Am I really against a woman's right to choose? Or do you assume that based on your own preconceived notions? Do you have proof of my inclinations and actions as proof of what you project?

[Malcolm]

In Indo-Tibetan Buddhism, a human birth is not termed "precious" unless it has the eighteen freedoms and endowments that permit the practice of Dharma.

I would be indebted to you to read a citation that says the precursor to precious human birth is absolutely meaningless. Putting the carrier of those cells ahead of the cells themselves is one thing. Treating that collection of cells as something other than the precursor to precious human birth is a denial of reality. I don't believe that is a feature of Indo-Tibetan Buddhism but perhaps you will enlightenment me here.

That collection of cells is only a precursor to a precious human birth if it was conceived in a situation where all eighteen conditions for a precious human birth have been met.

Otherwise, it is just a precursor of an ordinary human birth, such as birth as a Christian, Muslim, Jew,Hindu, Atheist, etc., since those eighteen conditions are missing.

[tkp67]

You claim you don't understand me and then claim you know my opinion.

No, that did not happen. But your writing is as tortured as ever, for the most part. I was led to believe by something you said some time ago, that you have some kind of dyslexia, so i try to work with what you write, but honestly it is a challenge more often than not.

Do you know enough of my life to know my stand on this position?

I did not proffer any opinion at all about what you may or may not believe with respect to this issue.

I may have learning disabilities but that doesn't dismiss my ability to address it. It also is not an excuse to pick and choose what you wish to answer. It also does not effect my memory or my other capacities. My dyslexia is a gift because it doesn't allow me to attach to specific verbiage. Sadly academically endowment isn't a sign that a person lacks attachment or bias rather it seems to reinforce certain cognitive biases. I.E. attachment to grammar has been postulated as a sign of OCD.

don''t see why this needs to come at the expense of the other. Why can't they coexist since that is our experiential reality as some choose abortion as best choice and some choose life as best choice, and both decision can be regrettable and sometimes they are not.

The sentiment which opposes abortion is perfectly fine. But it has nothing to do with the reality that millions of women die every year around the world from botched, illegal abortions .

See here you assume I oppose abortion when I have clearly stated that this opposition is a product of the mind and that it does not exist in mine.

YET even though you clearly understood the questions you did answer you continue to argue based on your the bias that they must be in opposition.

That is an attachment in and of itself. Not everyone puts them at odds. It is ok to respect women's rights and the right for life in context to women's rights. So simple it can be condensed to a sentence which is painfully easy to understand.