The Great Abortion Debate

A forum for discussion of Buddhist ethics.
User avatar
Aemilius
Posts: 4604
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:44 am

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by Aemilius »

Giovanni wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 10:51 am Everytime we walk, eat and breath we harm other beings. This can’t be avoided in Samsara. All we can do is decide to cause least harm. Which may not be the obvious.
The purpose of Dharma is not to improve Samsara, but to not experience it by being born in the realms again.
That is not completely true (the not improving of samsara. There are a few teachings in the sutras about societies, about law and morality, about rulers and kings. It is said in the sutras that a Buddha cannot appear in a world if the society is corrupt, if wrong views are the norm, (i.e. that there is no karma, no result of karma, no higher and lower planes of existence, no spiritual path, and no result of the path, i.e. no arhats).

In Buddhism there is a responsibility towards the society, although such teachings may be scattered in the sutras, and difficult to find.

"An Anguttara Nikaya passage states this principle in simple and direct terms. If the king is righteous, his ministers will be righteous, the country will be righteous and the natural world will be a friend rather than an enemy. The opposite, of course, is also true and is placed first in the sutta:
'At such time, monks, as rulers are unrighteous (adhammika), their ministers are unrighteous, brahmans and householders are also unrighteous...' [AN II 74]"

Violence and Disruption in Society
A Study of the Early Buddhist Texts
by Elizabeth J. Harris
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/aut ... el392.html

Buddhism and Social Action
An Exploration
by Ken Jones
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/aut ... el285.html
svaha
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Sarvē mānavāḥ svatantrāḥ samutpannāḥ vartantē api ca, gauravadr̥śā adhikāradr̥śā ca samānāḥ ēva vartantē. Ētē sarvē cētanā-tarka-śaktibhyāṁ susampannāḥ santi. Api ca, sarvē’pi bandhutva-bhāvanayā parasparaṁ vyavaharantu."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1. (in english and sanskrit)
muni
Posts: 5559
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by muni »

Our approval or disapproval is irrelevant,
I completely agree. Whether we women act deluded or not, no approval from men or disapproval necessary. But we can decide.

Serious now, I appreciate your care for those who have no right to speak.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by Malcolm »

Aemilius wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 1:48 pmis said in the sutras that a Buddha cannot appear in a world if the society is corrupt, if wrong views are the norm, (i.e. that there is no karma, no result of karma, no higher and lower planes of existence, no spiritual path, and no result of the path, i.e. no arhats)
This is a shravakayana perspective, and really applies only to supreme nirmanakayas.
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: Thu May 13, 2021 1:07 pm In every case you describe, it’s up to the women to decide whether to end a pregnancy or not. Our approval or disapproval is irrelevant, the happiness of the husband is irrelevant, the right of an adult women over her own body is the only important issue her. No one but she should have any say in the matter.
What about the rights of the infant to live within the mother? Does the mother have full ownership of that other being inside of her enough to agree to have it killed? Shouldn’t we consider that men or anyone else shouldn’t have ownership over a woman? Except in this case the case it’s a baby and the decision of abortion leads to a termination of a life based on nothing wrong the infant has done, let alone the precept of not killing since here we are talking on a Buddhist forum?

These are important questions.
narhwal90
Global Moderator
Posts: 3509
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:10 am
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by narhwal90 »

Are not the precepts instructions for your own conduct?
User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
Posts: 17089
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA
Contact:

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by Johnny Dangerous »

Könchok Chödrak wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 8:37 pm
Malcolm wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 1:07 pm In every case you describe, it’s up to the women to decide whether to end a pregnancy or not. Our approval or disapproval is irrelevant, the happiness of the husband is irrelevant, the right of an adult women over her own body is the only important issue her. No one but she should have any say in the matter.
What about the rights of the infant to live within the mother? Does the mother have full ownership of that other being inside of her enough to agree to have it killed? Shouldn’t we consider that men or anyone else shouldn’t have ownership over a woman? Except in this case the case it’s a baby and the decision of abortion leads to a termination of a life based on nothing wrong the infant has done, let alone the precept of not killing since here we are talking on a Buddhist forum?

These are important questions.
No, those are uninformed questions.

First off, an early-development fetus is not an "infant living inside a mother", and presenting it as if this is so is among the worst and ugliest arguments coming from the Pro Life camp. Last I checked something most abortions happen in the first trimester, and something like 65% in the first eight weeks.

https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-life ... t-20045302
blog_abortions_gestational_age-1.gif
blog_abortions_gestational_age-1.gif (32.18 KiB) Viewed 12267 times
640px-US_abortion_by_gestational_age_2016_histogram.svg.png
640px-US_abortion_by_gestational_age_2016_histogram.svg.png (42.79 KiB) Viewed 12267 times


There is some information on what first trimester development is like, and some CDC -derived graph/histograms of gestational age with abortion. I included the second graph which AFAIK is derived from the same information from the CDC for 2016, in case people object to the first picture having the Mother Jones logo on it. AFAIK this is consistent, late term abortions are rare.

Are there ethical issues with abortion here? Sure, there's a reasonable argument to be made that there are from the perspective of Buddhism. However, calling an early developing fetus an "infant inside a mother" is just ignorant, period.

Now, it is certainly reasonable to say that from a Buddhist perspective an abortion is what it sounds like, an abortion of a life, and as such a very weighty ethical issue for us, but claiming that any abortion is "killing an infant" is a juvenile, purposefully hysterical claim and can be thrown out on that basis.

it is a fundamentally dishonest way to approach the question, and unless you are doing it out of ignorance (rather than malice) you should be ashamed of making that argument in a space where adults are trying to seriously discuss the ethical implications of abortion in terms of Buddhist ethics.

If you wanna appeal to emotion like that, you should try to gain some education in the subject.
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when afflicted by disease

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared

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

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by Budai »

Well if you think it’s not a person yet, at least you can consider it’s a future person. So what kind of body is to be given worth and what isn’t? Considering even you used to be a developing fetus, and here you are dear friend. :heart:
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 »

narhwal90 wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 9:04 pm Are not the precepts instructions for your own conduct?
Why did Buddha give them to others?
User avatar
Nemo
Posts: 1792
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:23 am
Location: Canada

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by Nemo »

Buddhism does not have the tools to deal with this very modern issue in anything more than the broadest ethical guidelines. It's understanding of biology is too primitive and it's tainted by misogyny and patriarchy. We don't need kings to rule us, wives are not personal property and having sex with your slaves is not OK anymore.
User avatar
Pondera
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2020 7:43 am

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by Pondera »

All conceptions have the POTENTIAL to become infant human beings. Ending that process is like throwing seeds into a fire. A “waste”. If my father had his way, my mother would have aborted me. My mother was a devout Christian and didn’t care that my father would have nothing to do with the child.

I was born. I was a joy to my mother. I grew up. Ran into some road blocks - but came out clean on the other side.

I write this post - as a person EXCEPTIONALLY happy with my state and growth in the dharma.

All lives should be given a chance. Those lives - if they fail - are better off than having been rooted out at the stage of embryonic development.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by Malcolm »

Pondera wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 12:27 am
All lives should be given a chance.
You can certainly feel that, but you have no arguments at all to bring against a women’s choice to end an unwanted pregnancy that are not fundamentally religious. Religion Has no role in democratic governance in a secular society. In most modern nations, A women in these countries can choose to end a pregnancy or not, it’s up to her.

Dharma and governance are different. The Buddha understood this, and in matters of law deferred to the state.
narhwal90
Global Moderator
Posts: 3509
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:10 am
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by narhwal90 »

Könchok Chödrak wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 11:40 pm
narhwal90 wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 9:04 pm Are not the precepts instructions for your own conduct?
Why did Buddha give them to others?
Precepts are taken, as a follower of the Buddha, to regulate one's own behavior; they are not imposed on others in order to control them.
User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
Posts: 17089
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA
Contact:

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by Johnny Dangerous »

Könchok Chödrak wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 11:39 pm Well if you think it’s not a person yet, at least you can consider it’s a future person. So what kind of body is to be given worth and what isn’t? Considering even you used to be a developing fetus, and here you are dear friend. :heart:
Yes and if my Mom had been a victim of rape as a tool of warfare (one of many ways in which a woman might get involuntarily impregnated), and I grew up in a war torn ghetto, or if Mom died in childbirth and so did I due to the draconian restrictions on abortion in another country... or any of a thousand other situations I would have had a very different life than I do.

So again, please try to make grown up arguments, the ones you are making now are just insulting everyone's intelligence and are just tugging on people's emotions in a dishonest way instead of examining the reality.
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
Pondera
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2020 7:43 am

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by Pondera »

Malcolm wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 1:32 am
Pondera wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 12:27 am
All lives should be given a chance.
You can certainly feel that, but you have no arguments at all to bring against a women’s choice to end an unwanted pregnancy that are not fundamentally religious. Religion Has no role in democratic governance in a secular society. In most modern nations, A women in these countries can choose to end a pregnancy or not, it’s up to her.

Dharma and governance are different. The Buddha understood this, and in matters of law deferred to the state.
Certainly. She can do that. But there are other options. One could put the baby up for adoption.

I’m of the mind that this being growing inside of her is “meant to be” - and despite all the hardships it may endure - it deserves a right to live.

It is better to endure one’s karma in a crappy life than to be eliminated before one is even born.
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 »

narhwal90 wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 1:40 am
Könchok Chödrak wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 11:40 pm
narhwal90 wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 9:04 pm Are not the precepts instructions for your own conduct?
Why did Buddha give them to others?
Precepts are taken, as a follower of the Buddha, to regulate one's own behavior; they are not imposed on others in order to control them.
You are correct. But there are certain laws such as laws against murder and killing of people and killing of certain animals that we all have to follow in this nation, regardless of whether we take them as precepts or not. So in this case the question brought up talks about the killings of children in the womb. It is difficult to say that such a thing is ever okay to do according to Buddhist ethics, so if we’re here as Buddhists it’s best to give people an understanding of the Buddhist approach. Buddha Himself meditated in front of animals that were led to sacrifices, putting His own life on the line so that they wouldn’t be killed. In such an instance He wasn’t thinking of imposing some unfair will, but His Compassion. I think while we’re here on a Buddhist forum, it’s better to talk about ethics of a Buddhist nature and I think there is nothing in any Buddhist Sutra that supports abortion or the allowing of it except the deduction from the ethics of possibly letting it happen in very rare instances where there is some very serious issue involved. Explaining that, Buddhism tends to ask people to not perform abortions, and guide all mothers to preserve their infants lives, as well as guide everyone else to help do the Same. That is the flow of Buddhism and that is the Path to enter the flow of Nibbana. If one stands by and allows for the killing of innocent children when there are a multitude of alternatives to save their lives, then they will degrade themselves to not even being a Bodhisattva. You can consider that a very direct stance, but that is the truth and you know that it is the truth. In debate there are all kinds of points brought up, but the truth is important as well. Aum. Save the children from being killed. I see no determination other than doing that in this instance from anyone posting in this thread, but there is a debate and some difficulty. But I hope the meaning can be well understood, for the peace of everyone involved.

Nam Myoho Renge Kyo.
narhwal90
Global Moderator
Posts: 3509
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:10 am
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by narhwal90 »

Könchok Chödrak wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 4:17 am
narhwal90 wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 1:40 am
Könchok Chödrak wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 11:40 pm

Why did Buddha give them to others?
Precepts are taken, as a follower of the Buddha, to regulate one's own behavior; they are not imposed on others in order to control them.
You are correct. But there are certain laws such as laws against murder and killing of people and killing of certain animals that we all have to follow in this nation, regardless of whether we take them as precepts or not. So in this case the question brought up talks about the killings of children in the womb. It is difficult to say that such a thing is ever okay to do according to Buddhist ethics, so if we’re here as Buddhists it’s best to give people an understanding of the Buddhist approach. Buddha Himself meditated in front of animals that were led to sacrifices, putting His own life on the line so that they wouldn’t be killed. In such an instance He wasn’t thinking of imposing some unfair will, but His Compassion. I think while we’re here on a Buddhist forum, it’s better to talk about ethics of a Buddhist nature and I think there is nothing in any Buddhist Sutra that supports abortion or the allowing of it except the deduction from the ethics of possibly letting it happen in very rare instances where there is some very serious issue involved. Explaining that, Buddhism tends to ask people to not perform abortions, and guide all mothers to preserve their infants lives, as well as guide everyone else to help do the Same. That is the flow of Buddhism and that is the Path to enter the flow of Nibbana. If one stands by and allows for the killing of innocent children when there are a multitude of alternatives to save their lives, then they will degrade themselves to not even being a Bodhisattva. You can consider that a very direct stance, but that is the truth and you know that it is the truth. In debate there are all kinds of points brought up, but the truth is important as well. Aum. Save the children from being killed. I see no determination other than doing that in this instance from anyone posting in this thread, but there is a debate and some difficulty. But I hope the meaning can be well understood, for the peace of everyone involved.

Nam Myoho Renge Kyo.
Again, you are making an emotional and nonsensical argument- no-one is talking about killing children, as has been pointed out before.

I note you are fixated on regulating womens' reproductive choice, but not signing up for helping with the childcare, providing for pre and post natal health. Surely you are as interested in maximizing good birth outcomes as you are in controlling womens' reproduction?
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 »

narhwal90 wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 4:50 am Again, you are making an emotional and nonsensical argument- no-one is talking about killing children, as has been pointed out before.

I note you are fixated on regulating womens' reproductive choice, but not signing up for helping with the childcare, providing for pre and post natal health. Surely you are as interested in maximizing good birth outcomes as you are in controlling womens' reproduction?
There is nothing more important than family planning and helping children pre and post nataly in such cases, and in any case, and those are by far my concerns. Good lives for children and then eventual adults are our prerogatives as Buddhists. There are a lot of resources available these days, but there need to be much more. I think there are a lot of people who care about the lives of children once they are born, and the entire society must help children more than it helps anyone else, because children are the most innocent, and are the future of humanity, the reason we are put on this earth. You have the right outlook. It is a question of helping others, as long as we truly do that as people, and know what that is, we will be fulfilling our duty as Buddhists. I view someone who has had an abortion and a mother who chooses not to do such a thing with a view of equanimity, one just needs more Compassion and help than the other, and the one who needs more Compassion and help is the mother who has had an abortion. The same paradigm should be applied to mothers who may have abortions. I think if we have an outlook of Compassion, then we can truly understand what Right View is in such situations, and that may not be clear for even very high level Buddhists.

Namaste.

:anjali:

Nam Myoho Renge Kyo.
PeterC
Posts: 5191
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 12:38 pm

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by PeterC »

Könchok Chödrak wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 4:17 am I think while we’re here on a Buddhist forum, it’s better to talk about ethics of a Buddhist nature and I think there is nothing in any Buddhist Sutra that supports abortion or the allowing of it ...
A few things about which the Sutras have absolutely nothing to say

- Whether video games cause violence
- Renewable energy
- Climate change
- Genetic engineering
- Interstellar travel
- Autonomous drone warfare
- Ethics of AI
- Racial profiling

I could go on, but you see my point.

The disconnect here is that you're equating the potential for human life with human life. A fertilized embryo, or a bundle of cells, is not human life - yet. It might become that under the right conditions. But the idea of ethical responsibility to future/potential individuals is extremely difficult. What is our responsibility to unborn generations for the planet? For society? We intuit that we have some sort of responsibility, but it's very hard to demonstrate what that is beyond just personal preferences.

In the case of abortion, if you're going to make the argument that a bundle of cells has rights that oblige women to act in a certain way, you have a very high bar to meet. You cannot simply rely on appeal to intuition and, as you yourself said, you cannot rely on explicit guidance from Buddhavacana - and even if you could, that would only apply to those women who accepted those texts as Buddhavacana and had the same interpretation as you did.

So the burden of proof is on you to argue why you should be able to impose your own morality on others. It's a difficult standard to meet, and the arguments in this thread come nowhere close to meeting it.
PeterC
Posts: 5191
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 12:38 pm

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by PeterC »

Pondera wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 12:27 am All conceptions have the POTENTIAL to become infant human beings. Ending that process is like throwing seeds into a fire. A “waste”. If my father had his way, my mother would have aborted me. My mother was a devout Christian and didn’t care that my father would have nothing to do with the child.

I was born. I was a joy to my mother. I grew up. Ran into some road blocks - but came out clean on the other side.

I write this post - as a person EXCEPTIONALLY happy with my state and growth in the dharma.

All lives should be given a chance. Those lives - if they fail - are better off than having been rooted out at the stage of embryonic development.
So you're against male masturbation, too? Those are billions of potential lives, that just need the right conditions to become people.

And if what we're protecting is potential - surely we should ban vasectomies, hysterectomies and contraceptives, because they limit what would otherwise have the potential to become life?
muni
Posts: 5559
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by muni »

Könchok Chödrak wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 8:37 pm
What about the rights of the infant to live within the mother? Does the mother have full ownership of that other being inside of her enough to agree to have it killed? Shouldn’t we consider that men or anyone else shouldn’t have ownership over a woman? Except in this case the case it’s a baby and the decision of abortion leads to a termination of a life based on nothing wrong the infant has done, let alone the precept of not killing since here we are talking on a Buddhist forum?

These are important questions.
That I tried to say. The woman who loved pleasure with men and aborted then each time and was so proud of solving so her problem again and again is for me utterly selfishness, carelessness. She has been stopped, because she could had go on even longer so. Women need no domination or careless egotistic behaviour but we should take our responsabilities.

Shantideva could help.
Locked

Return to “Ethical Conduct”