Buddhism and Abortion.

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Buddhism and Abortion.

Post by Cittasanto »

Peter wrote:
Manapa wrote:Peter if you wan't to take a narrow view great
I am confused by this response. A narrow view of what? I am discussing what the Buddha taught on these matters. Are you saying we should take a wider view than the Buddha? Or are you still suggesting the Buddha taught the unwholesome as wholesome?
Again don't add to what I mean, I have not suggested anything of the kind, and by narrow I am not referring to the teachings but of what the scope of view is, on this matter.
The article in the OP states the Abortion was done because the doctors who carried it out for fear that the slim girl would not survive carrying the foetuses to term, which gives a dimention to this case which is not talked about in the suttas, but as I have said it is the circumstances of the situation which needs to be looked at and considered, not with a blanket moral rule, but with what is best in the situation, again look at the ants in the blind monk story, the monks and the buddha could of saved lives, but didn't stop the monk stepping on them! Killing for killings sake is not a wholesome action, but saving life when another would have to be lost is what?
look again at my question about the the man who has to decide who survives complications in a pregnancy his un-born child, the pregnant mother or through inaction both, very relevant to the OP.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
User avatar
kc2dpt
Posts: 957
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:48 pm

Re: Buddhism and Abortion.

Post by kc2dpt »

Manapa wrote:The article in the OP states the Abortion was done because the doctors who carried it out for fear that the slim girl would not survive carrying the foetuses to term, which gives a dimention to this case which is not talked about in the suttas
According to the scriptures, wanting to save the girl is a wholesome mental act and intentionally killing the fetus is an unwholesome physical act. What dimension do you think is not covered?
as I have said it is the circumstances of the situation which needs to be looked at and considered, not with a blanket moral rule, but with what is best in the situation
Yes, you keep saying this, but you have yet to provide any support for this position form the scriptures.
again look at the ants in the blind monk story, the monks and the buddha could of saved lives, but didn't stop the monk stepping on them!
That is an assumption on your part. Nothing in the story suggests this.
Killing for killings sake is not a wholesome action, but saving life when another would have to be lost is what?
As I said, from what I understand of the teachings:
Intentionally acting to save one person, knowing that as a result of that action another person might die, is a wholesome act.
Intentionally acting to kill one person, knowing that as a result of that action another person might live, is an unwholesome act.

As for what a person would do in such a situation... a person will do what they think is best based on their current understanding and insight. As long as a person is still unawakened they will sometimes make a decision which leads to peace and sometimes a decision that leads to suffering.
- Peter

Be heedful and you will accomplish your goal.
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Buddhism and Abortion.

Post by Cittasanto »

as I have said it is the circumstances of the situation which needs to be looked at and considered, not with a blanket moral rule, but with what is best in the situation
Yes, you keep saying this, but you have yet to provide any support for this position form the scriptures.
so are you saying the Buddha acted out of generalisations of what had happened before, or acted in a relevant manner to the circumstances which were present at the time? I am saying he acted appropriately to the situation as that situation was, not blindly looking at a rule book, and if you want a reference to a sutta where he responded apropriately to the situation try all of them, or http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
User avatar
kc2dpt
Posts: 957
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:48 pm

Re: Buddhism and Abortion.

Post by kc2dpt »

Manapa wrote:so are you saying the Buddha acted out of generalisations of what had happened before, or acted in a relevant manner to the circumstances which were present at the time?
I am saying that, according to the Buddha's teachings, circumstances would never call for a Buddha to kill or to urge another to kill.
I am saying he acted appropriately to the situation as that situation was
And I am saying that what you consider an appropriate act is not necessarily the same as what the Buddha would consider an appropriate act. According to what he taught us, killing is never a wholesome act and a Buddha would never act in an unwholesome way. You and I, on the other hand, will often act in unwholesome ways due to delusion. That is why the Buddha taught us the Path to ending delusion.
- Peter

Be heedful and you will accomplish your goal.
User avatar
Jechbi
Posts: 1268
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:38 am
Contact:

Re: Buddhism and Abortion.

Post by Jechbi »

Peter wrote:As long as a person is still unawakened they will sometimes make a decision which leads to peace and sometimes a decision that leads to suffering.
This is exactly right. There are times when it can be hard to know what to do. And there will be times when we lack the wisdom to take the course of action that would be fully wholesome in a given situation.

Having read the article, I can say that if I were the mother of this poor girl, and if I were confronted with the reality that she might very well die during the course of this pregnancy, I also would feel a strong compulsion to authorize the abortion to save this girl's life. And indeed I can see how that decision might very well condition more suffering. Yet if the pregnancy proceeded, and I saw this girl suffer and then die, and then I saw the baby twins also die, I can see how that also would condition more suffering. We're stuck in samsara.

One thing that struck me about the article is this:
[The regional archbishop] said the accused stepfather would not be expelled from the church. Although the man allegedly committed "a heinous crime ... the abortion - the elimination of an innocent life - was more serious".
I find that statement nearly impossible to accept. The decision of the girl's mother to authorize the abortion probably included kusala kamma associated with compassion (as well as akusala kamma associated with moha). But it's hard to imagine that the step-father's decision to rape the girl included any kind of kusala kamma whatever.
Rain soddens what is kept wrapped up,
But never soddens what is open;
Uncover, then, what is concealed,
Lest it be soddened by the rain.
User avatar
Fede
Posts: 1182
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:33 pm
Location: The Heart of this "Green & Pleasant Land"...
Contact:

Re: Buddhism and Abortion.

Post by Fede »

Peter wrote:
Manapa wrote: As I said, from what I understand of the teachings:
Intentionally acting to save one person, knowing that as a result of that action another person might die, is a wholesome act.
Intentionally acting to kill one person, knowing that as a result of that action another person might live, is an unwholesome act.
This is too ambiguous...... :rolleye:
unless, if I understand it from what you're saying is, that the same single action can gather both wholesome, and unwholesome Kamma.

Now I get it.

But the question for me, is, which of the two leads on points.....? :thinking:

(Consider the question flippant.......)
"Samsara: The human condition's heartbreaking inability to sustain contentment." Elizabeth Gilbert, 'Eat, Pray, Love'.

Simplify: 17 into 1 WILL go: Mindfulness!

Quieta movere magna merces videbatur. (Sallust, c.86-c.35 BC)
Translation: Just to stir things up seemed a good reward in itself. ;)

I am sooooo happy - How on earth could I be otherwise?! :D


http://www.armchairadvice.co.uk/relationships/forum/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
User avatar
kc2dpt
Posts: 957
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:48 pm

Re: Buddhism and Abortion.

Post by kc2dpt »

Fede wrote:This is too ambiguous.
Let me try to clarify.

Let's say the mother needs an operation on her liver in order to save her life. But doing the operation will create an increased risk to the baby (operations of any sort put enormous stress on the body). Performing the operation with the hope to save the mother's life constitutes a wholesome act. Performing the operation with the hope to put the baby at risk constitutes an unwholesome act. Most likely a doctor performing the operation would hope to keep both mother and baby alive. Even though he is performing an operation which puts the baby at risk, he would do everything he could to save it as well as the mother.

Now let's say the "operation" is to kill the baby. In this case the hope is to kill the baby; that is the desired result of the act (as opposed to it being an undesired consequence in the example above). That makes the act unwholesome.
if I understand it from what you're saying is, that the same single action can gather both wholesome, and unwholesome Kamma.
I do not think that would be possible.
- Peter

Be heedful and you will accomplish your goal.
User avatar
Jechbi
Posts: 1268
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:38 am
Contact:

Re: Buddhism and Abortion.

Post by Jechbi »

Peter wrote:
if I understand it from what you're saying is, that the same single action can gather both wholesome, and unwholesome Kamma.
I do not think that would be possible.
I suppose that depends on what one means by a "single action."
Rain soddens what is kept wrapped up,
But never soddens what is open;
Uncover, then, what is concealed,
Lest it be soddened by the rain.
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Buddhism and Abortion.

Post by Cittasanto »

Peter wrote:
Fede wrote:if I understand it from what you're saying is, that the same single action can gather both wholesome, and unwholesome Kamma.
I do not think that would be possible.
peter there are four kinds of Kamma one being dark and bright kamma with dark and bright results.http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .nymo.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Last edited by Cittasanto on Tue Mar 17, 2009 7:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Buddhism and Abortion.

Post by Cittasanto »

Peter wrote:
Manapa wrote:so are you saying the Buddha acted out of generalisations of what had happened before, or acted in a relevant manner to the circumstances which were present at the time?
I am saying that, according to the Buddha's teachings, circumstances would never call for a Buddha to kill or to urge another to kill.
I am saying he acted appropriately to the situation as that situation was
And I am saying that what you consider an appropriate act is not necessarily the same as what the Buddha would consider an appropriate act. According to what he taught us, killing is never a wholesome act and a Buddha would never act in an unwholesome way. You and I, on the other hand, will often act in unwholesome ways due to delusion. That is why the Buddha taught us the Path to ending delusion.
again don't add to what I say!

I never said what I think is appropriate is what any other would think, never mind what the Buddha would of though.
what I have said repeatedly is that the Buddha would act appropriately to the individual situation he encounters, something you appear to disagree with due to the need for proof.
rules like everything else are a skill, Kamma being the action due to an intention, it only stands to reason that certain actions are going to have a undesirable outcome, it is the volition behind the action which makes it bright, dark, both bright and dark, or neither bright and dark.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
User avatar
Fede
Posts: 1182
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:33 pm
Location: The Heart of this "Green & Pleasant Land"...
Contact:

Re: Buddhism and Abortion.

Post by Fede »

Jechbi wrote:
Peter wrote:
if I understand it from what you're saying is, that the same single action can gather both wholesome, and unwholesome Kamma.
I do not think that would be possible.
I suppose that depends on what one means by a "single action."
No, Peter's right.

Remember, that the action must be intentional.

So one would have to be intentionally doing good in one way whilst intentionally doing "non-good" in the other.

Have you ever performed an action intending, willfully to do both harm and good at the same time?

Intentionally, mind.......

I cannot truly say I ever have.
"Samsara: The human condition's heartbreaking inability to sustain contentment." Elizabeth Gilbert, 'Eat, Pray, Love'.

Simplify: 17 into 1 WILL go: Mindfulness!

Quieta movere magna merces videbatur. (Sallust, c.86-c.35 BC)
Translation: Just to stir things up seemed a good reward in itself. ;)

I am sooooo happy - How on earth could I be otherwise?! :D


http://www.armchairadvice.co.uk/relationships/forum/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Buddhism and Abortion.

Post by Cittasanto »

Fede wrote:
Jechbi wrote:
Peter wrote:if I understand it from what you're saying is, that the same single action can gather both wholesome, and unwholesome Kamma.
I do not think that would be possible.
I suppose that depends on what one means by a "single action."
Fede wrote:No, Peter's right.

Remember, that the action must be intentional.

So one would have to be intentionally doing good in one way whilst intentionally doing "non-good" in the other.

Have you ever performed an action intending, willfully to do both harm and good at the same time?

Intentionally, mind.......

I cannot truly say I ever have.
considering there is Dark and Bright Kamma with Dark and Bright results, I would have to disagree, have you ever done an action with the intention of doing good, knowing that some of the consequences of this action would be harmful? obviously it is not always possible to know before hand the result, but in certain instances it is possible, such as intervening in a fight to protect the one being attacked, this action has the intent and for knowledge that you may have to restrain the attacker which could do them harm, one such professional which would have this dilemma is the police, or security officer, or in the case of the OP a doctor, but doctors can (in GB at least) prescribe some medications which have quite a few negative side effects, but they are prescribing them (we hope at least) not for the side effects, but rather the actual results these medications are designed to have, knowing full well that these side effects exist and can happen.

"What do you think, Rahula: What is a mirror for?"

"For reflection, sir."

"In the same way, Rahula, bodily actions, verbal actions, & mental actions are to be done with repeated reflection."
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
User avatar
Fede
Posts: 1182
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:33 pm
Location: The Heart of this "Green & Pleasant Land"...
Contact:

Re: Buddhism and Abortion.

Post by Fede »

Manapa wrote:considering there is Dark and Bright Kamma with Dark and Bright results, I would have to disagree, have you ever done an action with the intention of doing good, knowing that some of the consequences of this action would be harmful? obviously it is not always possible to know before hand the result, but in certain instances it is possible, such as intervening in a fight to protect the one being attacked, this action has the intent and for knowledge that you may have to restrain the attacker which could do them harm, one such professional which would have this dilemma is the police, or security officer, or in the case of the OP a doctor, but doctors can (in GB at least) prescribe some medications which have quite a few negative side effects, but they are prescribing them (we hope at least) not for the side effects, but rather the actual results these medications are designed to have, knowing full well that these side effects exist and can happen.
This is not a good analogy.
Everything has a side effect.
All drugs, be they natural or chemical, have a side-effect.
Remember, the original intention is to do good.

The intention of the mendicant or officer is to prevent greater harm, because the side-effects are secondary.
Even though he knows thew drugs have side-effects, the intention of the Doctor is to alleviate the immediate suffering and to offer assistance. He is weighing up the consequences of his actions, but at no time is he actually INTENDING to cause harm, as well as good......
"Samsara: The human condition's heartbreaking inability to sustain contentment." Elizabeth Gilbert, 'Eat, Pray, Love'.

Simplify: 17 into 1 WILL go: Mindfulness!

Quieta movere magna merces videbatur. (Sallust, c.86-c.35 BC)
Translation: Just to stir things up seemed a good reward in itself. ;)

I am sooooo happy - How on earth could I be otherwise?! :D


http://www.armchairadvice.co.uk/relationships/forum/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Buddhism and Abortion.

Post by Cittasanto »

Hi Fede,
Here's me thinking the initial intention is to do something! good and bad are not the first intention, the first intention is to act, thus reflection is always needed. but if you want to go to a doctor who ignores the side effects then don't let me stop you! there is a reason Lithium is no longer a common prescription for Bi-polar patients.
and the next part of MN61 is -
"Whenever you want to do a bodily action, you should reflect on it: 'This bodily action I want to do — would it lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Would it be an unskillful bodily action, with painful consequences, painful results?' If, on reflection, you know that it would lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both; it would be an unskillful bodily action with painful consequences, painful results, then any bodily action of that sort is absolutely unfit for you to do. But if on reflection you know that it would not cause affliction... it would be a skillful bodily action with pleasant consequences, pleasant results, then any bodily action of that sort is fit for you to do.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
User avatar
Jechbi
Posts: 1268
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:38 am
Contact:

Re: Buddhism and Abortion.

Post by Jechbi »

Hi Fede,
Fede wrote:No, Peter's right.

Remember, that the action must be intentional.

So one would have to be intentionally doing good in one way whilst intentionally doing "non-good" in the other.

Have you ever performed an action intending, willfully to do both harm and good at the same time?

Intentionally, mind.......

I cannot truly say I ever have.
I think it may be a little more complicated that just saying one person is right in this discussion. I think what we're really talking about is a "course of action" rather than a "single action."

If by "single action" you mean a single mind moment, that's one thing. But if you are talking about the way our decisions and actions play out in a practical sense, that's another thing. In the example provided, the woman who authorized the abortion for her 9-year-old daughter who had been raped is being held out as performing akusala kamma by authorizing the abortion. Yet it's hard to imagine that she committed this action while intending willfully to do only harm.

Her "action" of authorizing the abortion might be regarded from one perspective as a "single action," but when you look at it more closely, the entire length of time it took her to speak to the doctor, sign the forms, etc., involved countless mind moments during which she may have committed both kusala kamma as well as akusala kamma.

In answer to your question: "Have you ever performed an action intending, willfully to do both harm and good at the same time?" Any answer will depend on what you mean by a "single action." Broadly speaking, I'd say, yes, I have engaged in conduct with the intention, willfully, to do both harm and good.

I think it's more applicable to talk about a "course of action" rather than a "single action." The truth of the matter is that we don't always know whether our course of action is kusala or akusala, but certainly it can be a blend of the two.

I'm putting this forward mindful of the fact that my understanding may be flawed, and I welcome feedback and clarification.

Metta
:smile:
Rain soddens what is kept wrapped up,
But never soddens what is open;
Uncover, then, what is concealed,
Lest it be soddened by the rain.
Post Reply