Buddhism And Abortion

[sokal]

My TGF practices Buddhism and I was surprised to hear her say that she would have an abortion if she got preganant. She just said that she could not take care of the baby and she assumed that I would not either because we where not married. I told her that I am against abortion and would raise the baby myself even if she didnt want to stay with me. She had no response to that. She is not pregnant, it was just a convo that came up.

Are Buddhists against abortion or not ?

[fabianfred]

Theravada Buddhism sees the spirit entering the new child at anytime between conception and a few days after birth..... so killing it is breaking the first precept. There is no excuse for abortion..... if one realises the truth about the law of karma.

Rape victim; young mother; unwanted; all these situations come under karma.... so those having sex should be aware that, even using contraceptives, pregnancy is possible, and should be prepared to take responsibility for their actions.

It is said that the most extreme suffering that we could imagine here in the human realm does not compare with the least suffering in the hel_l realms.... we should therefore be willing to pay off any karma which comes to us in the form of suffering in this lifetime..... rather than put it off and wait to maybe receive it there.

[Svenn]

Theravada Buddhism sees the spirit entering the new child at anytime between conception and a few days after birth..... so killing it is breaking the first precept. There is no excuse for abortion.....

You contradict yourself here. If the Theravada sees the spirit entering a few days after birth in some cases, then abortion, defined as terminating the baby before it's born, WOULD be ok in those instances.

If you're talking about Thai Theravada Buddhism, (ahem, or animist spiritualism) then your basically getting the arbitrary opinion of some old elitist 'monk' in some particular hierarchy however many centuries ago... whether he be from Thailand or Sri Lanka. Not exactly the best place to get a competent moral code (perhaps you'd prefer the much more advanced "Bible"?) If however you're talking about core principles of Buddhism in general, then rationality is the guiding light... and it seems very logical to most impartial observers, and to prehistoric evolutionary biology for that matter, that an unconscious mass of pre-human matter probably should be terminated if it's life is likely going to be severly handicapped in one way or another before it's even started. My guess sokal is that your gf is breaking the code of whatever Wat she belongs too, but is NOT breaking the code of unaffiliated Buddhism in general.

I know it's sad to have to terminated something that could someday become a human, but it's entirely beyond me as to how some fanatical people would want to FORCE such a baby to start a woeful life just for the sake of alleviating THEIR personal reluctance to terminate it. Then again those people can cloak their pity in religion (e.g. "karma says there is no excuse for abortion") to justify it.

[fabianfred]

I was just saying....since the spirit CAN inhabit the foetus at any time....... not necessarily three months after conception....we do not know its state of being.

I was talking from a Buddhist perspective..... believing in the law of karma....... perhaps you are not.....if you do not believe in karma then your own view would naturally be different to that of a Buddhist.

[rockyysdt]

I was just saying....since the spirit CAN inhabit the foetus at any time....... not necessarily three months after conception....we do not know its state of being.

Hadn't we all agreed that Buddhism teaches that there is no spirit?

Abortion is one of those subjects in which there are no winners.

Terminate by killing or allow birth with suffering to follow.

On a strictly Buddhist level, isn't abortion at any stage breaking the precept not to kill?

[somluck]

What about monks/arjarns using aborted foetus to make lukkot or kumangthongs? Is this practise only exclusive to thai buddhism?

[camerata]

If however you're talking about core principles of Buddhism in general, then rationality is the guiding light... and it seems very logical to most impartial observers, and to prehistoric evolutionary biology for that matter, that an unconscious mass of pre-human matter probably should be terminated if it's life is likely going to be severly handicapped in one way or another before it's even started.

It depends what you consider to be the origin of the core principles of Buddhism. If you get them from the suttas and vinaya of the Pali Canon, it's clear there will be negative karmic consequences for those involved in abortion.

I know it's sad to have to terminated something that could someday become a human, but it's entirely beyond me as to how some fanatical people would want to FORCE such a baby to start a woeful life just for the sake of alleviating THEIR personal reluctance to terminate it.

No one knows if a baby's life is going to be woeful. It may be born in dire circumstances and then be adopted by Madonna or Angelina a couple of years later. From the Buddhist perspective, many abortions are done to serve one's self-interest and therefore not skillful in addition to having karmic consequences. Better to be married and wanting children, be very careful with contraception or not have sex at all... if one is a serious Buddhist.

Being pro-abortion may be modern and rational, but it isn't a position taken by doctrinal Buddhism, or for that matter by Thai women in general. In a survey done some years ago, 95.6% of women of child-bearing age said they were against abortion done for the reason of limiting family size.

But regardless of what people say in surveys, plenty of Thai women have abortions for practical reasons (and then make merit to "atone" for their actions). In 1994, there were around 100,000 abortions in Thailand. See Harvey's Introduction to Buddhist Ethics.

[camerata]

What about monks/arjarns using aborted foetus to make lukkot or kumangthongs? Is this practise only exclusive to thai buddhism?

That's black magic, not Buddhism.

[camerata]

I was just saying....since the spirit CAN inhabit the foetus at any time....... not necessarily three months after conception....we do not know its state of being.

Hadn't we all agreed that Buddhism teaches that there is no spirit?

For practical purposes, people use the word "spirit" when talking about consciousness linking from one life to another and taking root in a foetus. In Pali the term is santana.

On a strictly Buddhist level, isn't abortion at any stage breaking the precept not to kill?

According to the Canon it is considered as killing a human being. It's easier to rationalize killing a fertilized egg with no nervous system than a "human being." To a Buddhist, of course, the human realm is so rare to attain and so precious, that you don't want to kill a human at any stage at all.

[Svenn]

If however you're talking about core principles of Buddhism in general, then rationality is the guiding light... and it seems very logical to most impartial observers, and to prehistoric evolutionary biology for that matter, that an unconscious mass of pre-human matter probably should be terminated if it's life is likely going to be severly handicapped in one way or another before it's even started.

It depends what you consider to be the origin of the core principles of Buddhism. If you get them from the suttas and vinaya of the Pali Canon, it's clear there will be negative karmic consequences for those involved in abortion.

Kalama Sutta:

Do not believe in anything (simply) because you have heard it.

Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations.

Do not believe in anything because it is spoken and rumoured by many.

Do not believe in anything (simply) because it is found written in your religious books.

Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.

But after observation and analysis when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conductive to the good and benefit of one and all then accept it and live up to it.

This is what I consider a more core principle of Theravada and all Buddhism. Antithetical to this, and what I would consider a secondary principle, is holding a 2000 year old document (the Pali Canon) to be the absolute arbiter of something as specific and complex as modern abortion ...an opinion that seems not only fanatical but highly irresponsible, in my opinion, to the welfare of the future child. Perhaps I am not a proper "Buddhist" according to several definitions, but heavily karmic-centered doctrines seem arcane as well, karma being an outdated brahmanist principle that was the only tool avialable for understand the world in the day. This is all of course moral quibbling on my part, it seems as if soka's gf IS breaking her form of Buddhism according to what you guys are saying.

Edited August 20, 2009 by Svenn

[chutai]

Do not believe in anything (simply) because you have heard it.

Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations.

Do not believe in anything because it is spoken and rumoured by many.

Do not believe in anything (simply) because it is found written in your religious books.

Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.

But after observation and analysis when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conductive to the good and benefit of one and all then accept it and live up to it.

My most oft quoted pre Lotus Sutra text.

On the abortion issue. It's one that I have generally reached the simple conclusion as to why I wouldn't encourage it. Basically, everyone has the right to life irrespective. Therefore, to take away the potentiality of life is not a course that I'd recommend.

Albeit that there may some situations in which this decision may be other than the will to kill, rather rather the need to (an important distinction when thought about). For instance, if it were to endanger the mother's life then that of course would be an exception to my general principle, I think. However, if a someone where contemplating taking this most serious decision to abort a child based upon less grevious criteria, and was a practicing Buddhist -- then I'd suggest a great deal of prolonged reflection as whether to go ahead or not.

[camerata]

Kalama Sutta:

Do not believe in anything (simply) because you have heard it.

Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations.

Do not believe in anything because it is spoken and rumoured by many.

Do not believe in anything (simply) because it is found written in your religious books.

Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.

But after observation and analysis when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conductive to the good and benefit of one and all then accept it and live up to it.

This was advice the Buddha gave not to his own followers, but to a group (i.e. "non-Buddhists") who were confused at the various teachings they heard from different gurus. Your summary misses a key point:

So in this case, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.'

In other words, rationality alone is not the way to evaluate a teaching. As Thanissaro Bhikkhu comments:

Although this discourse is often cited as the Buddha's carte blanche for following one's own sense of right and wrong, it actually says something much more rigorous than that. Traditions are not to be followed simply because they are traditions. Reports (such as historical accounts or news) are not to be followed simply because the source seems reliable. One's own preferences are not to be followed simply because they seem logical or resonate with one's feelings. Instead, any view or belief must be tested by the results it yields when put into practice; and — to guard against the possibility of any bias or limitations in one's understanding of those results — they must further be checked against the experience of people who are wise.

This is what I consider a more core principle of Theravada and all Buddhism. Antithetical to this, and what I would consider a secondary principle, is holding a 2000 year old document (the Pali Canon) to be the absolute arbiter of something as specific and complex as modern abortion ...an opinion that seems not only fanatical but highly irresponsible, in my opinion, to the welfare of the future child. Perhaps I am not a proper "Buddhist" according to several definitions, but heavily karmic-centered doctrines seem arcane as well, karma being an outdated brahmanist principle that was the only tool avialable for understand the world in the day.

But what exists in the suttas and vinaya is the essence of the Buddha's teaching. The Buddha changed the Brahmanical version of karma quite radically, as it happens. Whether we like it or not, that's the Buddha's teaching. We can't just say that at its core Buddhism is rational, and therefore whenever we apply rationality to a situation it must be in accord with Buddhism. Buddhism is rational, but it is based on certain premises that can't exactly be proved and one of those is that a foetus is a human being.

[camerata]

For instance, if it were to endanger the mother's life then that of course would be an exception to my general principle, I think. However, if a someone where contemplating taking this most serious decision to abort a child based upon less grevious criteria, and was a practicing Buddhist -- then I'd suggest a great deal of prolonged reflection as whether to go ahead or not.

That's pretty much how I feel. Before I got involved with Buddhism, I wouldn't have given much thought to an early-term abortion (or swatting a mosquito, for that matter), but now I would. I would certainly feel bad about encouraging it in most cases, and that "feeling bad" would be part of the karmic consequence of the action.

As I'm sure you know, in Japan there are a lot of abortions, and there are very specific rituals women can undertake to make merit for the aborted child and make themselves feel better. Statues of Jizo Bodhisattva (Ksitigarbha) - the protector of children - are everywhere, usually with a little bib tied round his neck.

[rockyysdt]

But regardless of what people say in surveys, plenty of Thai women have abortions for practical reasons (and then make merit to "atone" for their actions). In 1994, there were around 100,000 abortions in Thailand. See Harvey's Introduction to Buddhist Ethics.

I'd say this figure is only the tip of the iceberg.

I was unfortunately present when an Isaan Villager, two months pregnant was going through much pain after having taken a drug to induce a miscarriage.

The woman had fallen pregnant after unprotected sex with her husband. Being poor & raising three children the abortion was done for expediency.

These will never appear in Government statistics.

Several days later, driving through the area, I was told "Everyone goes to this lady (pointing to a house) for the drug to kill the baby".

Edited August 21, 2009 by rockyysdt

[camerata]

I'd say this figure is only the tip of the iceberg.

The book quoted an estimated figure of 300,000 for 1981 (Meechai's family planning campaign probably hadn't reached full momentum then).

These will never appear in Government statistics.

Several days later, driving through the area, I was told "Everyone goes to this lady (pointing to a house) for the drug to kill the baby".

Some of them do appear in statistics. The book mentions a hospital which estimated the proportion of legal to illegal abortions based presumably on the number of women coming for post-abortion treatment. I don't have the book with me now but the number of illegal abortions was high.

[Svenn]

Kalama Sutta:

But after observation and analysis when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conductive to the good and benefit of one and all then accept it and live up to it.

As Thanissaro Bhikkhu comments:

One's own preferences are not to be followed simply because they seem logical or resonate with one's feelings. Instead, any view or belief must be tested by the results it yields when put into practice; and — to guard against the possibility of any bias or limitations in one's understanding of those results — they must further be checked against the experience of people who are wise.

But what exists in the suttas and vinaya is the essence of the Buddha's teaching. The Buddha changed the Brahmanical version of karma quite radically, as it happens. Whether we like it or not, that's the Buddha's teaching.

Thanissaro's translation or paraphrasing seems to contradict the translation I posted and several other ones I've seen- namely than reason or logic ARE to be followed. It is however of little consequence, these passages are aimed at self-cultivation and perhaps mediation, not minor moral quibbling like we're engaged in here on this thread... I merely cited it to remind everyone that logic and self-evident experience are central tenents to Buddhism and central to the story of Buddha himself.

It is clear, as often happens on this forum, that we're both talking about different "Buddhism"s... most of the people on this forum ascribe to a heavily religious Buddhism- ritualistic and conformist Theravada traditions with all the cultural baggage that comes along with it... including all the annotations of the Pali Canon much of which is, historically speaking, unlikely to be attributable to Gautama. Of course historical accuracy is of little relevance these types of Buddhists or the vinaya... conformity with sangha, independent of personal logical reason, is tantamount. On the opposite end of this spectrum are more independent thinkers such as various Zen Masters, whom Theravadans seem to have great respect for despite the Zen Master's high disregard for most of the Pali Canon: let's take the Japanese master Bankei for example- he had exposure to probably to just one or two Mahayana sutras before he went off into isolation by himself and almost died attempting to achieve satori. No vinaya, no robes, moral codes, precepts, etc. Yet are we to deny that he is just as valid a Buddhist as the paper shuffling monk in Sathon?

We can't just say that at its core Buddhism is rational, and therefore whenever we apply rationality to a situation it must be in accord with Buddhism. Buddhism is rational, but it is based on certain premises that can't exactly be proved and one of those is that a foetus is a human being.

You are saying that Buddhism is "based" on the premise that a foetus is a human being? I disagree, it is footnote moral suggestion adopted by a subsect, not a basis for the religion.

Everything that Buddhism teaches, besides the non-psychological, can be proved.

I never said rationality is always in accord with Buddhism- rationality can easily lead to two different moral conclusions in the same situation, rather I meant that irrationality is un-Buddhist.

This is turning into a proper debate!

[camerata]

Thanissaro's translation or paraphrasing seems to contradict the translation I posted and several other ones I've seen- namely than reason or logic ARE to be followed.

What's the source of your version? It appears to be just a summary of key points, but incomplete. The Kalama Sutta is actually a typically rambling, repetitive sutta. There are two translations on Access to Insight:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an...3.065.than.html

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an...3.065.soma.html

I agree that self-evident experience is central to Buddhism, but how does one apply that to an abortion? People I know who have had one felt bad about it afterwards. I'm sure I would too. That's why I would lean towards avoiding it. And of course we can never know how the foetus or baby feels about it.

It is clear, as often happens on this forum, that we're both talking about different "Buddhism"s... most of the people on this forum ascribe to a heavily religious Buddhism- ritualistic and conformist Theravada traditions with all the cultural baggage that comes along with it... including all the annotations of the Pali Canon much of which is, historically speaking, unlikely to be attributable to Gautama.

I disagree. From what I've seen over 5 years, most of us Westerners have our own version of customized Buddhism or personal beliefs influenced by Buddhism. Hardly any of us are Buddhist in the way Thais are. Using myself as an example, although I think "the Buddha's teaching" originates in some suttas and the vinaya, I'm not so interested in the commentaries and other texts likely not spoken by Sakyamuni - instructive though they may be. I would call that whole thing 'classical Buddhism." Similarly. I see the supernatural elements of Buddhism as something to be agnostic about. Nevertheless, I'm not claiming that my way is true Buddhism because it seems rational to me, I'm just saying that I focus on the core teachings from the Pali Canon and the results they bring. This appears to be the way many of the Western Theravada monks see it, too.

You are saying that Buddhism is "based" on the premise that a foetus is a human being? I disagree, it is footnote moral suggestion adopted by a subsect, not a basis for the religion.

Come on, Svenn, I didn't say that at all. I gave that as an example of how core Buddhist teachings from the suttas or vinaya (not commentaries) can be based on an unproven (or unprovable) premise. In other words, even important teachings may not be rational. But they are still authentic teachings.

rather I meant that irrationality is un-Buddhist.

But karma and rebirth are based on unprovable premises, so despite being core teachings of the Buddha, they are not rational by any modern standard. I would say that if we exclude the supernatural, what's left is the rational side of Buddhism, i.e. it is human psychology that can be verified by our own experience.

[camerata]

Ajahn Brahm's interpretation of when human life begins can be found here.

An extract:

3c. The Buddha consistently stated that human life in this body

begins when consciousness first manifests inside the mother’s

womb. The Pāli word here rendered as “manifest” is Pātubhūta,

which also means to be open, visible, apparent. To be precise,

human life in this body begins not when consciousness first

exists in the mother’s womb, but when it first shows its

existence in the mother’s womb (these two events, I believe,

are simultaneous).

4c. When there is no sure-fire method of discerning the beginning

of a new human life, many will err on the safe side, meaning

they will push the beginning of human life impractically early,

even to the stage of parental union. The above definition

avoids such sloppiness based on fear.

4d. The ethical quality of karma has much to do with the happiness

or suffering that one deliberately inflicts upon another. When

the other is incapable of feeling pleasure or pain, such

considerations become irrelevant.

Indeed, there is a widespread revulsion at viewing a film of an

abortion where the fetus manifest pain during the procedure,

but such a revulsion is absent at the destruction of an embryo,

in a Petri dish, that does not manifest any feeling at all. The

above definition is in harmony with the ethical foundation of

such revulsion. In other words, many non-Buddhists, especially

those rationalists with no religious affiliations, would easily

support such a Buddhist definition of the beginning of human

life.

[chutai]

For instance, if it were to endanger the mother's life then that of course would be an exception to my general principle, I think. However, if a someone where contemplating taking this most serious decision to abort a child based upon less grevious criteria, and was a practicing Buddhist -- then I'd suggest a great deal of prolonged reflection as whether to go ahead or not.

That's pretty much how I feel. Before I got involved with Buddhism, I wouldn't have given much thought to an early-term abortion (or swatting a mosquito, for that matter), but now I would. I would certainly feel bad about encouraging it in most cases, and that "feeling bad" would be part of the karmic consequence of the action.

I'm not sure how you differentiate between what I've said and the rest of your paragraph ? I agree, that feeling bad about an action is a very good analogy as to the way that karma/moral consequentialism operates. However, the conclusion that I've reached is that no only is all life sacrosanct , but to slander ones own life is likewise a very grevious slander of the Law. In the case where one has the option of preserving ones own life -- as in my example -- then the onus ought to be in protecting ones own, in most cases. Although never an easy decision. In the case of abortion , in any circumstance, necessitates very deep consideration -- and in my tradition -- a lot of daimoku (chanting) before making any such a decision. This is especially true in the light of that we actually choose to be born in our present circumstances.

As Josei Toda (1900 - 1958 )once said:

Someone who is too exemplary from the outset cannot go among the people. To spread Buddhism, we intentionally chose to be born as people who are poor or sick.

It's hard to imagine anyone choosing to be take on a rebirth only to be terminated before ones personal mission has even begun.

However , the most important thing is a quote I think attributed to Mahatma Gandhi : "Kill the will to kill." In Buddhist wisdom, it's differentiating between the need to kill , eg. malign bacteria and the will to take life because something is a mere inconvenience -- as in your example of yoong.

As I'm sure you know, in Japan there are a lot of abortions, and there are very specific rituals women can undertake to make merit for the aborted child and make themselves feel better. Statues of Jizo Bodhisattva (Ksitigarbha) - the protector of children - are everywhere, usually with a little bib tied round his neck.

Jizo Bodhisattva is a far ranging Bodhisattva in Japanese mythology, being the guardian of deceased children (children in limbo), expectant mothers, firemen, travellers, pilgrims, and souls in the underworld. Although I'm sure that you are correct that in Japan respect for life takes a secondary importance in what is a manifestly and increasingly materialistic, and societies/world of distorted values and priorities.

Edited August 21, 2009 by chutai

[camerata]

I'm not sure how you differentiate between what I've said and the rest of your paragraph ?

I wasn't differentiating - just tacking on a note about how I see the karmic consequences as a Buddhist compared to not seeing them as a non-Buddhist or secular rationalist. More for Svenn's edification than yours.

[bankei]

Are Buddhists against abortion or not ?

Many Buddhists are for abortion. There can be no question about that as it is so frequently done by so many Buddhists.

But the teachings of the Buddha against abortion since it is killing. see, for example, the first parajika rules of the monks. A monk who suggests or encourages an abortion is guilty of this offence and is no longer fit to be a monk.

There is also a book on the subject of abortion in Thailand, which I have, but haven't read yet.

Abortion, Sin and the State in Thailand

Andrea Whittaker 2004

[bankei]

Incidently, I know of a young girl who had a sexual affair with an abortion doctor. She became pregnant and he performed the abortion of his own child. both were 'buddhists'

[rockyysdt]

both were 'buddhists'

It appears most who profess a religion don't actually practice it.

[camerata]

It appears most who profess a religion don't actually practice it.

I think it would be more accurate to say that few who profess a religion practise it perfectly. Otherwise it's like saying that anyone who tells a lie is not a practising Buddhist. And while few practise their religion perfectly, almost all are willing to criticize others who don't either.