Abortion

Buddhist ethical conduct including the Five Precepts (Pañcasikkhāpada), and Eightfold Ethical Conduct (Aṭṭhasīla).
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Abortion and the first precept

Post by chownah »

dylanj wrote: Sat Jul 07, 2018 3:24 am save the babies
It seems that before descent into the womb there are no babies according to the pali canon.
chownah
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Abortion and the first precept

Post by chownah »

Here is the thread I mentioned:
Female Buddhists, rape, and the 1st precept
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=29714&p=429258&hilit=thumb#p429258
chownah
User avatar
dylanj
Posts: 936
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 1:48 am
Location: San Francisco
Contact:

Re: Abortion and the first precept

Post by dylanj »

chownah wrote: Sat Jul 07, 2018 3:30 am
dylanj wrote: Sat Jul 07, 2018 3:24 am save the babies
It seems that before descent into the womb there are no babies according to the pali canon.
chownah
yes. & descent into the womb occurs at conception
Born, become, arisen – made, prepared, short-lived
Bonded by decay and death – a nest for sickness, perishable
Produced by seeking nutriment – not fit to take delight in


Departure from this is peaceful – beyond reasoning and enduring
Unborn, unarisen – free from sorrow and stain
Ceasing of all factors of suffering – stilling of all preparations is bliss
TRobinson465
Posts: 1783
Joined: Thu May 12, 2016 5:29 pm
Location: United States

Re: Abortion and the first precept

Post by TRobinson465 »

salayatananirodha wrote: Sat Jul 07, 2018 2:21 am There is this; it's not a sutta, but it's an āgama. https://suttacentral.net/ea21.3/en/huye ... b-pasadika
I don't think abortion is ever referred to in the suttas.
It is in the vinaya. (if you count that as a sutta)
"Do not have blind faith, but also no blind criticism" - the 14th Dalai Lama

"The Blessed One has set in motion the unexcelled Wheel of Dhamma that cannot be stopped by brahmins, devas, Maras, Brahmas or anyone in the cosmos." -Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Abortion and the first precept

Post by chownah »

dylanj wrote: Sat Jul 07, 2018 4:04 am
chownah wrote: Sat Jul 07, 2018 3:30 am
dylanj wrote: Sat Jul 07, 2018 3:24 am save the babies
It seems that before descent into the womb there are no babies according to the pali canon.
chownah
yes. & descent into the womb occurs at conception
The usual definition for conception is the uniting of the egg and sperm which happens before the descent into the womb.
chownah
TRobinson465
Posts: 1783
Joined: Thu May 12, 2016 5:29 pm
Location: United States

Re: Abortion and the first precept

Post by TRobinson465 »

I believe there are several jataka tales which describe a descent into the womb fairly early in pregnancy (before the woman shows any noticeable signs of pregnancy). And the Story of the Buddhas final rebirth of course describes his descent from Tusita into the womb of Queen Mahamaya fairly early in pregnancy as well. its safe to say abortion clearly breaks the first precept. something like morning-after is slightly debatable. But based on the ekottarikāgama 21.3 linked to above its most likely at or shortly after conception.
"Do not have blind faith, but also no blind criticism" - the 14th Dalai Lama

"The Blessed One has set in motion the unexcelled Wheel of Dhamma that cannot be stopped by brahmins, devas, Maras, Brahmas or anyone in the cosmos." -Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta
sentinel
Posts: 3236
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:26 pm

Re: Abortion and the first precept

Post by sentinel »

chownah wrote: Sat Jul 07, 2018 3:30 am
dylanj wrote: Sat Jul 07, 2018 3:24 am save the babies
It seems that before descent into the womb there are no babies according to the pali canon.
chownah
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=29714&p=429258&hilit=thumb#p429258


<
The buddha talks about "conception in a womb ". I want to clearly point out that the zygote is formed by the fusion of an egg and a sperm IN THE OVIDUCT (ALSO KNOWN AS FALLOPIAN TUBE) and NOT IN THE UTERUS (ALSO KNOWN AS THE WOMB). The buddha is talking about "conception in a womb". If someone wants to take that pali texts as being their guide then it seems that the zygote stage comes BEFORE there is "conception in a womb".
chownah
>

{ zygote stage comes BEFORE
there is "conception in a womb }

So, let's say that the Buddha was inaccurate in term of describing the process of conception .
However , in this era the abortion is not about
" aborting the zygote " does it ?

The question is , does aborting a fetus / a baby is violating the first precept which is unwholesome kamma ?!
If a person wants to abort a fetus or a baby or make a choice to do so or insisting that abortion is Not Killing is by definition incorrect .

If anyone decided to do so , then they have to understand the whole thing and prepare to accept the consequences .
You always gain by giving
User avatar
JamesTheGiant
Posts: 2147
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2015 8:41 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Abortion and the first precept

Post by JamesTheGiant »

Now that's settled, can this thread or topic please be merged with the other horrible abortion thread, and we can all move on?
gingercatni
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:10 pm
Location: Belfast, Northern Ireland

Re: Abortion

Post by gingercatni »

Will wrote: Sat May 11, 2013 3:55 pm I did not find a thread on this important topic. So here is a little from Harvey's Introduction to Buddhist Ethics (313) to start us off. The definition of a human being is clear.
Given the Buddhist view of embryonic life, it is not surprising that causing an abortion is seen as a serious act:

When a monk is ordained he should not intentionally deprive a living being of
life, even if it is only an ant. Whatever monk deprives a human being of life,
even (antamaso) down to destroying an embryo (gabbha-patanam·upadaya), he
becomes not a (true) renouncer, not a son of the Sakiyans.

The penalty for a monk intentionally causing an abortion is permanent expulsion from the Sangha:

Whatever monk should intentionally deprive a human being of life . . . he is also
one who is defeated [in the monastic life], he is not in communion . . . Human
being means: from the mind’s first arising, from (the time of) consciousness
becoming first manifest in a mother’s womb until the time of death, here meanwhile
he is called a human being.
in the Majjhima Sutta verse 26 refers to abortion, basically the Buddha would not condone it.
User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 6492
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Mae Wang Huai Rin, Li District, Lamphun

Re: Abortion

Post by Dhammanando »

gingercatni wrote: Thu Aug 30, 2018 7:26 am in the Majjhima Sutta verse 26 refers to abortion, basically the Buddha would not condone it.
I think you mean the Mahāsīla section of the Brahmajāla Sutta. Thomas Rhys Davids and Maurice Walshe understand viruddhagabbhakaraṇa as referring to the carrying out of abortions, but Bhikkhu Bodhi and the Thai translators follow the commentary which takes the (admittedly rather obscure) term as referring to an operation for preventing abortions. Anyhow, whichever it is, it's not something that a samaṇa should be doing to make a living, which is what the sutta's three sīla sections are concerned with.


Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation:
‘Whereas some recluses and brahmins, while living on the food offered by the faithful, earn their living by a wrong means of livelihood, by such debased arts as:

- arranging auspicious dates for marriages, both those in which the bride is brought in (from another family) and those in which she is sent out (to another family);
- arranging auspicious dates for betrothals and divorces;
- arranging auspicious dates for the accumulation or expenditure of money;
- reciting charms to make people lucky or unlucky;
- rejuvenating the fetuses of abortive women;
- reciting spells to bind a man’s tongue, to paralyze his jaws, to make him lose control over his hands, to make him lose control over his jaw, or to bring on deafness;
- obtaining oracular answers to questions by means of a mirror, a girl, or a god;
- worshipping the sun;
- worshipping Mahābrahmā;
- bringing forth flames from the mouth;
- invoking the goddess of luck;

— the recluse Gotama abstains from such wrong means of livelihood, from such debased arts.’


https://legacy.suttacentral.net/en/dn1
Yena yena hi maññanti,
tato taṃ hoti aññathā.


In whatever way they conceive it,
It turns out otherwise.
(Sn. 588)
User1249x
Posts: 2749
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Abortion

Post by User1249x »

I think it is wrong to make this question into a matter of 'how many cells constitute a human being' because;

As i see it, the Dhamma teaches that for conception to take place there need to be three conditions (this is in the pali sutta);

1. a father
2. a mother who is in season
3. a gandhabba (term is a point of controversy as some hold that there is lit some sort of a being present and looking to be born, whereas others hold that it generally denotes that conditions are such that some being is due to inherit that kammavipaka of being conceived under those circumstances)

As i understand it, there needs to be adequate sperm, ovulation and either way a being must have such kamma-vipaka [loosely; destiny] that he is fit to be born into that particular family or conceived under those circumstances in general, otherwise conception would not occur.

Therefore if conception can be established to have occurred then there is a being destined to be a child of the two and abortion at that point would constitute a taking of life. Post conception the cell/s are neither the mother nor the father, these are a 3rd body developing.
User avatar
StrivingforMonkhood
Posts: 301
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2020 4:27 pm

Re: Abortion

Post by StrivingforMonkhood »

You can debate the ethics all you want, but it should never ever be a political issue where government has control over a woman's body. A woman ultimately is to have full autonomy of her own body - end of story.

Is abortion immoral? Well, abortion is killing for sure, but it is much more nuanced and vague than that. We also have to consider the intention of the woman having an abortion. The morality of an action can never be assessed without knowing the intention.

Let's consider important realities and questions:

1). A fetus is still an extension of a woman's body.

2). Woman can have find themselves in terrible positions where she has no control over her own reproduction and life (rape, incest, abusive husband, extreme poverty, etc.)

3). Are unborn children full human beings while in development?

4). What kind of life will unborn child have once born? What kind of terrible suffering might it be born into? We don't minimize suffering as Buddhists, like other religions often do (all those children who luckily avoided be aborted grew up rich and famous and super happy).

It's quite a complicated issue, and can only be judged on a case-by-case basis; and, even then, it may be quite gray.

Sadly, abortion, like gun rights, has been wrongly hijacked by politics. Right Wing politics is not about saving unborn children, but rather to wage battle against an opposing side using unborn children as weapons. There is also an element of men wanting to control women's bodies. So, the pro-life movement is not based on anything pure and clean, for the most part. And we all know the other bad intentions of politicians.

Emphasize the use of birth control to help avoid the moral dilemma in the first place. That's all I can say. I am in no place to judge any woman for having an abortion.

:namaste:
Last edited by StrivingforMonkhood on Mon Sep 21, 2020 6:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
May we all fulfill our deepest wish for happiness

We are already Buddha
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22391
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Abortion

Post by Ceisiwr »

DhammaMonk
You can debate the ethics all you want, but it should never ever be a political issue where government has control over a woman's body. A woman ultimately is to have full autonomy of her own body - end of story.
I have to disagree. Abortion violates the embryo/foetus’ right to life. Therefore, it should be illegal.
1). A fetus is still an extension of a woman's body.
According to the Buddha and the Abhidhamma the foetus isn’t just tissue. It’s a living being, from the moment of conception.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
StrivingforMonkhood
Posts: 301
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2020 4:27 pm

Re: Abortion

Post by StrivingforMonkhood »

Ceisiwr wrote: Mon Sep 21, 2020 6:36 pm DhammaMonk
You can debate the ethics all you want, but it should never ever be a political issue where government has control over a woman's body. A woman ultimately is to have full autonomy of her own body - end of story.
I have to disagree. Abortion violates the embryo/foetus’ right to life. Therefore, it should be illegal.
1). A fetus is still an extension of a woman's body.
According to the Buddha and the Abhidhamma the foetus isn’t just tissue. It’s a living being, from the moment of conception.
So you literally force a woman into giving birth? Or punish her with prison time? That's highly unethical and sickening.

Governments are to stay out of abortion - end of story.

Abortion is killing, but you've made no consideration of external circumstances. Killing doesn't happen in a vacuum.

Again, I will not continue on a mouse-on-a-wheel abortion debate; I simply wanted to give my two cents on the matter after having listened to Buddhist teachers on the issue.
Last edited by StrivingforMonkhood on Mon Sep 21, 2020 6:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
May we all fulfill our deepest wish for happiness

We are already Buddha
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22391
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Abortion

Post by Ceisiwr »

DhammaMonk
So you literally force a woman into giving birth? Or punish her with prison time? That's highly unethical and sickening.
What the punishment should be is up for debate, but it’s more immoral to allow innocent beings to be murdered because they are an inconvenience.
Governments are to stay out of abortion - end of story.
No, it isn’t the end of the story. You do not get to dictate the debate. The state should exist to enforce human rights and to protect people from having them violated. Abortion violates the right to life.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Post Reply