Abortion poll

[Dhammarakkhito]

say i said, because it's my body i can go around cock-slapping anyone i like. who would a woman be to tell me i cant do that

[perkele]

How can I possibly vote? I am a man. It should be up to the woman/women. Men should stop making decisions on behalf of women when it comes to women's bodies.

Well, but it is not just about women's bodies, but about growing babies' bodies inside women's bodies.

And the thread is not directly about making decisions for pregnant women, but about condoning or condemning, approving or disapproving of the possible choice to abort a child who could live. In my opinion such moral checks and balances have to be part and parcel of a well-functioning human society.

As to the choice, yes, I think it should be the woman's choice. She is the one providing the physical means of survival for the growing embryo (at the very least, most directly). That does not mean that her choice should never be subject to moral judgment by others.

With that said, I can't make a categorical moral judgment in line with any one of the possible answers enumerated here.

Situations can and will be more complex than any number of definite categories. Pregnancies could be fatal for a mother, for example (but that is only one possibility, and quite rare nowadays in technically/medically advanced societies).

In general I would say, abortions should be discouraged, and one can get the impression that they have become far too "normalized" among the general population, partly, some might surmise, because it has become sort-of sacrilegous to infringe upon "women's rights" in some parts of modern western society. (I have no clue, though, how non-western [especially, Eastern, Asian, especially Buddhist influenced] societies look on the "problem" of aborting pregnancies. My guess would be there's less of forced guilty conscience, but [hopefully, as I like to imagine] also more acceptance of life, therefore less willingness to abort what is deemed "not worth living" [or excused away that way]).

With all that said, I don't see abortion (at least in the earliest stages of pregnancy) as on par with such grave a crime as murdering a human who has already been born. My reasoning is that the being yet-to-be-born has not yet taken such a strong hold of and identification with the life to come. So the suffering might be presumed to be less compared to killing a grown-out (or at least, already born) human being. But I'm not quite sure about this reasoning either. Human birth is rare and samsara is gruesome. In any case, it is intentionally depriving another (human) being of life. Even in the case when the woman would die, yet the child live, if she would carry her pregnancy to term. In that case, of course, I'd find it morally justifiable. The woman is the one who gives (or decides not to give) birth. It is, to no inconsiderable extent, also a matter of generosity on her part.

it reeks of chivalry

As to the accusation of "chivalry" (or rather the fashionable new aspersion of "white-knighting" [But what's wrong with actual chivalry? - not so much, IMO]) levelled against Stefan, I guess there may be a modicum of truth to it.

However, then there is the flipside of disdain and disregard for women, which seems to be more prevalent among certain types of homosexual males.

"White knight woman pleaser" vs. "grudgeful misogynist". These are the exaggerated stereotype categories my prejudiced perception is inclined to sort you two into, on this matter (only ever so slightly). Of course that's inaccurate and exaggerated for the sake of exaggeration. Just wanted to share the distorted (vipallāsa) view through my eyes.

[Cittasanto]

This is a hot topic here atm as the law is changing. I am against abortion but understand it is better to have proper medical supervision and support extra allowances for other reasons than an unwanted pregnancy due to the complex emotions and difficult decision being made.

I remember watching a film with Richard Attembrough who played a back street abortion killer. I certainly wouldn't want a return of that sort of thing.

[Dhammarakkhito]

it reeks of chivalry

As to the accusation of "chivalry" (or rather the fashionable new aspersion of "white-knighting" [But what's wrong with actual chivalry? - not so much, IMO]) levelled against Stefan, I guess there may be a modicum of truth to it.

However, then there is the flipside of disdain and disregard for women, which seems to be more prevalent among certain types of homosexual males.

if that weren't hilarious i'd report it. heck off

[Dhammarakkhito]

come to think of it, how about making it illegal to kill (intentionally) animals or insects? ...in light of claims of discrimination

[Ceisiwr]

I’ve been thinking about this topic recently. If bad kamma is due to intention then isn’t abortion morally wrong regardless of when the foetus becomes a person or not, as the intent is the same prior to personhood as it is after. It seems to me that if you say sentience matters then you are arguing that kamma isn’t just intention but intention and the “value” of the external object. This seems to go against what Buddha said when he defined kamma and it’s result in terms of the intention behind the act and not what the act was aimed at.

Thoughts?

[DooDoot]

My reasoning is that the being yet-to-be-born has not yet taken such a strong hold of and identification with the life to come.

I am not sure the above argument is relevant; given MN 64 appears to say a new born child does not have identification.

kamma is due to intention,,, sentience matters

The 'sentience' criterion appears to be from the Vinaya for purposes of Vinaya rather than from sutta. The only sutta support appears to be imaginative interpretations of 'gandhabba'. Thus it appears two conflicting ideas.

[Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta]

Buddhism on abortion
(from blog - THE OUTSIDER: Incendiary reflections of a politically incorrect Buddhist)
http://politicallyincorrectdharma.blogs ... rtion.html

And whatever monk should intentionally deprive a human being of life, or seek out (and utilize) an assassin, or praise the advantages of death, or (otherwise successfully) encourage death to another, saying, “Hey, man, what use to you is this evil, difficult life? Death would be better for you than life”—with such an idea in mind, with such an intent in mind, should he praise the advantages of death or encourage death to another in whatever ways, he also is excommunicated and no longer in communion. —Pārājika #3 (in other words, the third rule of monastic discipline entailing instantaneous excommunication)

Which leads to the question at hand, namely: What is the official position of Buddhism towards the issue of abortion? And without beating around the bush, I will simply blurt out that the plain, unvarnished answer to that question is that abortion is murder. Not just unethical or wrong, but literal, actual murder of a human being. Now I suppose I should substantiate that claim with some orthodox evidence.

Fully ordained Buddhist monks are subject to four rules which, if any of the four is broken, entail instantaneous excommunication from the Sangha for life. The third of these Pārājika rules is the one quoted in translation above, which absolutely forbids a monk to deliberately kill another human being. Because these four rules are so important, the exact implications of them are discussed in great detail in the books of monastic discipline—the Sangha needs to be absolutely clear on whether a monk is really a monk, or is excommunicated for life. So in the ancient texts various scenarios are discussed to determine whether or not they entail the breaking of the rule. One of these scenarios is abortion. If a monk performs an abortion on a woman, even by giving her a miscarriage-inducing drug (which was the primary method for abortion of a fetus in ancient times), or if he helps her in any way to get an abortion, as by persuading her to have the abortion, making arrangements with a doctor, or helping to pay for it, then he is declared to be a murderer or an accessory to murder, and that’s it—he is excommunicated for life and no longer a monk.

From the traditional Buddhist point of view a human life begins at conception. One requisite for conception is the “spirit,” or karmic psychic momentum, of a being to be reborn; so even a fertilized ovum is more than just a biological organism, it’s already a human being in the spiritual sense. This would be roughly akin to a Christian belief that an immortal “soul” enters the embryo immediately upon its conception.

Thus another rule of monastic discipline states that no man may be ordained as a monk or bhikkhu until he is at least twenty years of age—but the age is not counted from birth, but from conception, with ten months considered in ancient times to be an adequate approximation. So a person who is nineteen years and two months of age by modern western reckoning would be considered twenty by the reckoning of the Indians of the ancient Ganges Valley who formulated the established system of Buddhist philosophy.

[robertk]

good post.

[sentinel]

Morally wrong and violate precept : yes
The context of abortion in Buddhism according to dhamma and vinaya should first put aside other concerns such as whether the life begins at conception or later stage . Regardless of whether it is your human rights or yourself wanting or not or some other issues causing one a lot of problems and difficulties in life to have baby .

[Ceisiwr]

Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta


Can we speak of a human being within the first 2 weeks? There is a multi-cellular organism there, yes, but I find it hard to see how its a being or has any kind of consciousness. If you say that it is conscious then so are other microscopic organisms.

[DooDoot]

Buddhism on abortion
(from blog - THE OUTSIDER: Incendiary reflections of a politically incorrect Buddhist)
http://politicallyincorrectdharma.blogs ... rtion.html

SDA. I am sure there might be many good Buddhist teachings in your post however my impression of Buddhism is it is for Buddhists (rather than is something pushed upon non-Buddhists, like Christian evangelicals push their doctrines onto others). Is there are problem of abortion among Buddhists? If not, then why the anti-abortion promotion here? What are we going to do with this non-abortion Buddhist information? Use it to attack non-Buddhists?

This is the best of gifts: the gift of Dhamma. And this is the best of friendly speech: to teach again and again Dhamma to those who wish for it and who listen attentively.

AN 9.5

[2600htz]

Hello:

Science, because its hard to tell when consciousness starts,decided to establish "feeling pain" as the moral limit of abortion.
But, current science doesn´t even know if insects feel pain or not !!, so i dont take seriously any discussion in terms of science regarding this issue.
Dhamma goes by "not killing beings", and a being is something with desire, passion, delight, or craving for any of the 5 aggregates.
Suttas talk about a gandhabba, or a being taking part in the "descent of an embryo". But i don´t know what it means "descent".

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

So, if science its inconclusive, the right thing to do would be to abstain from abortion.
Suttas are also inconclusive, unless "descent of the embryo" means union of a human egg and sperm, or day 1.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

But, maybe out of ignorance, if the thing doesnt have human form, i don´t feel sooo bad about ending it, like at the Blastocyst stage. Probably i would still have some remorse.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, if something is wrong, should we force the population to not do it by laws?. Thats politics, maybe education, i dont know if i would advocate prohibitions.

Regards.

[dylanj]

I voted "up until the start of the 3rd trimester" as I believe that is when "consciousness has descended". That's based upon my limited understanding of fetal development (I'm not an expert)

not an expert, limited understanding, but going to say to just go for it & kill the potential-babies anyway because you feel like they're probably maybe not alive yet you hope?

sounds dangerous

[Ceisiwr]

I voted "up until the start of the 3rd trimester" as I believe that is when "consciousness has descended". That's based upon my limited understanding of fetal development (I'm not an expert)

not an expert, limited understanding, but going to say to just go for it & kill the potential-babies anyway because you feel like they're probably maybe not alive yet you hope?

sounds dangerous

That quote is years old. That’s no longer my solid position.