Abortion

Buddhist ethical conduct including the Five Precepts (Pañcasikkhāpada), and Eightfold Ethical Conduct (Aṭṭhasīla).
Post Reply
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22401
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Abortion

Post by Ceisiwr »

DhammaMonk
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.
And who might they be?
“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 »

No, governments do not have the right to know if a woman is with child, nor can it force a woman to give birth, or punish her. This cannot happen in any civilized citizen.

Men don't have babies anyways - they only have fun making them.

The debate stops here. I knew this would happen, even on a Buddhist forum. It greatly saddens me to believe that men believe that they can punish an and force a woman to give birth. I've seen Catholics and Protestant Evangelicals say the same thing. Very, very disturbing.

The debate stops here. I knew this would happen, even on a Buddhist forum.
May we all fulfill our deepest wish for happiness

We are already Buddha
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22401
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Abortion

Post by Ceisiwr »

Abortion is killing, but you've made no consideration of external circumstances. Killing doesn't happen in a vacuum.
If a citizen intentionally kills another we recognise that this is a violation of the right to life of the victim and so it must be illegal. The same applies to the foetus as to the adult man.
Last edited by Ceisiwr on Mon Sep 21, 2020 6:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“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 6:44 pm DhammaMonk
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.
And who might they be?
The debate is over. Dhamma wisdom tells me so.

Peace :namaste:
May we all fulfill our deepest wish for happiness

We are already Buddha
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22401
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Abortion

Post by Ceisiwr »

DhammaMonk
No, governments do not have the right to know if a woman is with child, nor can it force a woman to give birth, or punish her. This cannot happen in any civilized citizen.
Governments do have the right to outlaw intentional killing of another being.
Men don't have babies anyways - they only have fun making them.
Irrelevant.

The debate stops here. I knew this would happen, even on a Buddhist forum. It greatly saddens me to believe that men believe that they can punish an and force a woman to give birth. I've seen Catholics and Protestant Evangelicals say the same thing. Very, very disturbing.
The Dhamma teaches that Being occurs from the moment of conception. It’s therefore always bad kamma to kill a foetus. Of course, unless we live in a Buddhist theocracy this does not dictate the laws. If you subscribe to human rights then abortion should be illegal unless you think the foetus is not a living being. You can think that, but that’s not what the Dhamma teaches. Therefore if you are A) Buddhist and B) Subscribe to the idea of human rights then, in order to remain logically consistent, you should be against legalised abortion (for the foetus is a living being and so rights apply). Otherwise you have cognitive dissonance, which is quite common on the left.
“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.”
User1249x
Posts: 2749
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Abortion

Post by User1249x »

The role of government in the matter of abortion is not a matter of ideal policy or utopian ethics but of what will be agreed upon by the people.

I personally wouldn't want to force someone into giving birth but if they don't want to give birth i would advice getting some mental health therapy because i think we should help the mentally ill.

Anyway i digress here from principle and into policy which is a matter of people with various views coming together to agree upon some way of doing things.

I think the right and wrong go beyond what's legal and legal punishment isn't that which should be preventing people from doing abortions.
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Abortion

Post by DooDoot »

DhammaMonk wrote: Mon Sep 21, 2020 6:33 pm 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.
Sorry but the above has nothing to do with Buddhism. It above sounds like a reincarnation of Ruth Bader Ginsberg.
DhammaMonk wrote: Mon Sep 21, 2020 6:33 pm2). 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.)
Historically, Buddhist countries have laws allowing abortion is certain situations, such as threat to the health of a women's physical life and rape. The above situations you have listed (apart fro m extreme poverty) are obviously a minority of situations.
DhammaMonk wrote: Mon Sep 21, 2020 6:33 pmA woman ultimately is to have full autonomy of her own body - end of story.
Since this forum is a Theravadva Buddhist forum and since a Theravada monk is immediately "defeated" or "disqualified" if encouraging an abortion, in my opinion, you should change your User Name . Obviously you are not a Theravada monk and I think your User Name is deceiving people.
DhammaMonk wrote: Mon Sep 21, 2020 6:50 pm The debate is over. Dhamma wisdom tells me so.
No. Your ideas are Cultural Marxist and not Dhamma and appear rooted in heedlessness. A child is not part of a woman's body. If it was, a child could not be birthed and become a separate living being. A child is produced from cells from both mother & father and dwells in the usually empty womb or "cavity" ("kucchi") until brought forth (vijāyati).
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
User avatar
Aloka
Posts: 7797
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: Abortion

Post by Aloka »

DooDoot wrote:Since this forum is a Theravadva Buddhist forum and since a Theravada monk is immediately "defeated" or "disqualified" if encouraging an abortion, in my opinion, you should change your User Name . Obviously you are not a Theravada monk and I think your User Name is deceiving people.

:goodpost:
User avatar
Mahabrahma
Posts: 2232
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2020 6:02 am
Location: Krishnaloka :).
Contact:

Re: Abortion

Post by Mahabrahma »

Abortion is wrong because it is killing of the most innocent life. Buddha especially cared for those that were most innocent.

Modern hospitals hide a lot of advanced technology that can save lives in order to make money, and demons try to keep those with Transcendental powers that can save lives out of hospitals, so with that being said abortion is always wrong, because even if the mother's life is in danger she can be saved by Transcendental powers or advanced technology. If an abortion is carried out and they won't let them save the mother's life any other way, it is good that the mother lived but very, very sad that the baby died. There is no greater loss.

Just like it's right to say that it's wrong to have someone eat very filthy food that will make them sick just to keep them from starving, even when there is no good food directly available, because they should be eating good food in the first place and that is a wrong that they are not, even if good food is being kept from them. People shouldn't be having abortions and we should be saving all lives.

It's good to be a good mother and not have an abortion. Life isn't easy, and killing isn't the solution to one's problems.
That sage who has perfect insight,
at the summit of spiritual perfection:
that’s who I call a brahmin.

-Dhammapada.
User avatar
greenjuice
Posts: 285
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 11:56 pm

Re: Abortion

Post by greenjuice »

Harming and killing insentient beings is not something that can be sensically condemned on an ethical basis. If I kill a plant or a bacteria, or an embryo, or a human in persistent vegetative state, that's not in itself morally wrong. It can be indirectly wrong, like if some other sentient being is distressed or harmed by this action. But in itself it's not wrong.

"I am one who wishes to live, one who does not wish to die; I desire happiness and am averse to suffering. I am averse to suffering, if someone were to take my life, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to me. Now if I were to take the life of another – of one who wishes to live, who does not wish to die, who desires happiness and is averse to suffering – that would not be pleasing and agreeable to the other either. What is displeasing and disagreeable to me is displeasing and disagreeable to the other too. How can I inflict upon another what is displeasing and disagreeable to me? Having reflected thus, he himself abstains from the destruction of life, exhorts others to abstain from the destruction of life, and speaks in praise of abstinence from the destruction of life."
- This doesn't apply to insentient beings.
User avatar
Mahabrahma
Posts: 2232
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2020 6:02 am
Location: Krishnaloka :).
Contact:

Re: Abortion

Post by Mahabrahma »

I really don't like this subject because there are some people who don't believe in the soul and deem so much life lesser than themselves based on a false sense not superiority, and then there are people who know that an embryo produces an entire human being, full of nerves and tissue and life yet they think it's okay to kill it based on their own disregard for human life. You as a human are the one behaving inhuman in this case, not the embryo, who wants to grow up and be a human. In that case the embryo is more moral than you. So learn to protect such innocence and Love.
That sage who has perfect insight,
at the summit of spiritual perfection:
that’s who I call a brahmin.

-Dhammapada.
dharmacorps
Posts: 2298
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2015 7:33 pm

Re: Abortion

Post by dharmacorps »

Mahabrahma wrote: Tue Sep 22, 2020 7:21 pm some people who don't believe in the soul
Buddhists, do you mean?
User avatar
Mahabrahma
Posts: 2232
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2020 6:02 am
Location: Krishnaloka :).
Contact:

Re: Abortion

Post by Mahabrahma »

dharmacorps wrote: Tue Sep 22, 2020 10:11 pm
Mahabrahma wrote: Tue Sep 22, 2020 7:21 pm some people who don't believe in the soul
Buddhists, do you mean?
There's plenty of Buddhists who believe in the soul. Buddha Himself didn't say there wasn't a soul, He just wanted people to look deeper into who they actually were, and come to their own conclusions at times with the proper instruction.
That sage who has perfect insight,
at the summit of spiritual perfection:
that’s who I call a brahmin.

-Dhammapada.
User avatar
Bhikkhu Pesala
Posts: 4646
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:17 pm

Re: Abortion

Post by Bhikkhu Pesala »

Ānanda Suttaṃ (S.iv.400) A Discourse to Ānanda on the Self

419. On one occasion the wanderer Vacchagotta approached the Blessed One, and having approached he exchanged friendly greetings. Having engaged in polite conversation he sat down at one side. Sitting at one said, the wanderer Vacchagotta said to the Blessed One: “Friend Gotama, is there a self?”
When this was said, the Blessed One remained silent.

“Then, friend Gotama, is there no self?”
A second time the Blessed One was silent. Then the wanderer Vacchagotta got up from his seat and left.

Then the Venerable Ānanda, not long after the wanderer Vacchagotta had left, said to the Blessed One: “Why, venerable sir, did you no answer the questions asked by the wanderer Vacchagotta?”
“If, Ānanda, when asked by the wanderer Vacchagotta: ‘Is there a self?’ I had replied, ‘There is a self,’ then, Ānanda, I would have been agreeing with those recluses and priests who are eternalists. If, Ānanda, when asked by the wanderer Vacchagotta: ‘Is there no self?’ I had relied, ‘There is no self,’ then I would have been agreeing with those recluses and priests who are annihilationists.

“If, Ānanda, when asked by the wanderer Vacchagotta: ‘Is there a self?’ If I had replied, ‘There is a self,’ would this have been in accordance with the arising of knowledge: ‘All phenomena are not-self?’”
“Indeed not, venerable sir!”

“If, Ānanda, when asked by the wanderer Vacchagotta: ‘Is there no self?’ If I had replied, ‘There is no self,’ then, Ānanda, Vacchagotta who is already confused would have fallen into even greater confusion thinking: ‘Formerly I had a self, but now I do not’!”¹

Notes:
1. This discourse makes it clear that there is no room for any kind of soul in the Buddha’s teachings. The only self in Buddhism is the conventional way of speech that we use to understand one another. There is an entire verse in the Dhammapada, the Attavagga, but it only ever uses “self” in the conventional sense: “By oneself is evil done; by oneself is one defiled. By oneself is evil left undone; by oneself is one purified. Purity and impurity depend on oneself. No one purifies another.”(Dhammapada verse 165) for example.
BlogPāli FontsIn This Very LifeBuddhist ChroniclesSoftware (Upasampadā: 24th June, 1979)
User avatar
Mahabrahma
Posts: 2232
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2020 6:02 am
Location: Krishnaloka :).
Contact:

Re: Abortion

Post by Mahabrahma »

Well those "Notes" are clearly not written by Guatama Buddha Himself, and as you know the perception of self and soul are two different things, and just because the Buddha did not answer in a certain way doesn't mean He didn't have His own personal opinion on the matter. This is called discernment.
That sage who has perfect insight,
at the summit of spiritual perfection:
that’s who I call a brahmin.

-Dhammapada.
Post Reply