Abortion

[suriyopama]

I don't know if this has already been mentioned, but I was in a retreat with Ajahn Brahm where he said that a consciousness cannot enter into a womb until the fetus has developed a centralized nervous system that can host a sentient being. Meaning that during the first weeks you are not killing any sentient being, only a group of cells.

"Consciousness requires a sophisticated network of highly interconnected components, nerve cells. Its physical substrate, the thalamo-cortical complex that provides consciousness with its highly elaborate content, begins to be in place between the 24th and 28th week of gestation"
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... ess-arise/

I guess that (this was not said by Ajahn Brahm) one or more to-be-born consciousness could be dwelling around the womb before that complex nervous system is developed, but that would be like a consciousness that is dwelling at one of these Thai supernatural dolls (Luk Thep), or at a Thai spirit house (San Phra Phum), or at any other object. If you destroy that object you may chase away or anger these spirits, but you are not breaking the first precept by taking the life of a sentient being.

Anyway, as the Metta Sutta says, let's spread goodwill to the seen and the unseen, to those living near and far away, to those born and to-be-born.

[asahi]

I don't know if this has already been mentioned, but I was in a retreat with Ajahn Brahm where he said that a consciousness cannot enter into a womb until the fetus has developed a centralized nervous system that can host a sentient being. Meaning that during the first weeks you are not killing any sentient being, only a group of cells.

First above theory could be wrong , it may not be vinnana that enter the womb .
Following above logics , if a living being as fetus already started taken place and you destroy it , this life would prematurely ended by cutting it off from it courses !

[Maarten]

I'm having trouble thinking of a reason to do this not grounded in either hate, greed, or delusion.

If one wants to avoid babies just get a vasectomy...

[bodom]

*MOD NOTE*

Please keep politics out of the discussion.

Thanks.

[Nicholas Weeks]

*MOD NOTE*

Please keep politics out of the discussion.

Thanks.

Since abortion is legal in many places, and its legality results from laws arising from political action, it seems ridiculous to forbid mention of politics' role.

[SDC]

*MOD NOTE*

Please keep politics out of the discussion.

Thanks.

Since abortion is legal in many places, and its legality results from laws arising from political action, it seems ridiculous to forbid mention of politics' role.

What does that point of view have to do with the development of virtue? The ills of society have no bearing on how a practitioner contains their behavior within the five or eight precepts. Either they find a way to uphold them or they don’t. Do political undertones contribute to answering the question of whether or not abortion is acceptable within the confines of the precepts? Absolutely not. So why would you care whether or not an external view of abortion was allowable in the sila section of a Buddhist forum?

[salayatananirodha]

majjhima nikaya 38 entirely resolves this debate as it were. buddha teaches conception as the meeting of three conditions

these three conditions meeting, there is conception (rebirth). which also implies the death of a being in their previous conception or birth.

the timeless akāliko quality of the dhamma shows that things cannot not exist if their conditions exist.

if you are serious about buddhism, you should be willing to give up the materialist-scientific worldview, which is not properly scientific.

[Nicholas Weeks]

Since abortion is legal in many places, and its legality results from laws arising from political action, it seems ridiculous to forbid mention of politics' role.

What does that point of view have to do with the development of virtue? The ills of society have no bearing on how a practitioner contains their behavior within the five or eight precepts. Either they find a way to uphold them or they don’t. Do political undertones contribute to answering the question of whether or not abortion is acceptable within the confines of the precepts? Absolutely not. So why would you care whether or not an external view of abortion was allowable in the sila section of a Buddhist forum?

I only care enough to mention forbidding it is silly. If Buddhists are indifferent to "ills of society" as being "external views" not worthy of thought, discussion or attention, the we should all remain in our caves.

[SDC]

Since abortion is legal in many places, and its legality results from laws arising from political action, it seems ridiculous to forbid mention of politics' role.

What does that point of view have to do with the development of virtue? The ills of society have no bearing on how a practitioner contains their behavior within the five or eight precepts. Either they find a way to uphold them or they don’t. Do political undertones contribute to answering the question of whether or not abortion is acceptable within the confines of the precepts? Absolutely not. So why would you care whether or not an external view of abortion was allowable in the sila section of a Buddhist forum?

I only care enough to mention forbidding it is silly. If Buddhists are indifferent to "ills of society" as being "external views" not worthy of thought, discussion or attention, the we should all remain in our caves.

Everyone has a choice of what they do with information. If you utilize sila to have a better measure of what changes can create a better world, perhaps you’ll make a bit of a difference, but that has nothing to do with gaining the path as described in the canon. This is the same line of discussion that went on the “defending one’s nation” thread last week: if the preservation of the world is the true value in all of this, the attitude will always be prioritizing the world and not the required personal knowledge of liberation. Sila, in the canon, is a basis for restraint, mindfulness and samadhi. Using it as a tool to highlight external disturbances only perpetuates the cycle of utilizing the attitude of craving to identify and mitigate what we prefer not to see. From that point of view, an external view of abortion is off topic in this section.

[bodom]

*MOD NOTE*

Please keep politics out of the discussion.

Thanks.

Since abortion is legal in many places, and its legality results from laws arising from political action, it seems ridiculous to forbid mention of politics' role.

The TOS are not my rules. I'm just here to make sure they are being followed.

So please

[Nicholas Weeks]

What does that point of view have to do with the development of virtue? The ills of society have no bearing on how a practitioner contains their behavior within the five or eight precepts. Either they find a way to uphold them or they don’t. Do political undertones contribute to answering the question of whether or not abortion is acceptable within the confines of the precepts? Absolutely not. So why would you care whether or not an external view of abortion was allowable in the sila section of a Buddhist forum?

I only care enough to mention forbidding it is silly. If Buddhists are indifferent to "ills of society" as being "external views" not worthy of thought, discussion or attention, the we should all remain in our caves.

[...if the preservation of the world is the true value in all of this, the attitude will always be prioritizing the world and not the required personal knowledge of liberation.[...

As long as "true values" are limited to only the "true" or best or supreme, then the better values will be cancelled. Thus the saying of making "the best the enemy of the better" will be fulfilled. Too bad, so sad.

[SDC]

As long as "true values" are limited to only the "true" or best or supreme, then the better values will be cancelled. Thus the saying of making "the best the enemy of the better" will be fulfilled. Too bad, so sad.

That isn’t what I said. I said that we each have a choice about how we apply information, and that we are each responsible for those choices. Do whatever you want with the information you’ve gathered from your life with Buddhism, but please do not act as though the highest goal of Buddhism is gaining steam while the worldly is being snuffled out. It’s the total opposite. You’re conflating your personal mission to preserve worldly values you prioritize over the ones you don’t with this notion that valuing arahantship would somehow devalue common social order. There are three things at play in this discussion and you’re only noticing two of them.

[Nicholas Weeks]

There are many reasons or justifications for any individual's actions of body, speech or mind. Most of these karmas lead to sorrow or happiness for one person or a group or humanity in general. All spiritual paths offer guidelines to reduce suffering and increase fulfillment.

Here is a group with an unusual appreciation for life:

https://abortionsurvivors.org/

Our Vision and Values

Envision with us a world where every human being is seen as more than a choice.
We believe that every human being is more than a choice. We believe that survivors deserve to know they aren’t alone, and that survivors and their families deserve healing and support.

We believe that as survivors and their families are healed, they will find their voice, and no matter how and where that voice is used, it is impactful.

We also believe that the world deserves to know the truth about failed abortions and the existence of survivors.

We firmly believe that as survivors and families are supported and the public educated about the incidence of failed abortions and the lives of survivors, that a culture of life will be restored and abortion will be unthinkable.

[zerotime]

I'm having trouble thinking of a reason to do this not grounded in either hate, greed, or delusion.
If one wants to avoid babies just get a vasectomy...

this is not so simple, unfortunately. Most times these moral discussions in the media are just a cover to hide a world design ruled by the extreme codice, causing all sorts of massive disgraces.

Nobody who is not an hypocrite cannot deny the first factor is the socioeconomic one. If all the women in this world would have the time and money to sustain their children and to themselves, and to an effective and safe contraception, the abortion could be reduced more than 90% without negative impact in the overpopulation.

However, the leftist sectors only talk about "their rights" while the right sectors only talk about "the crimes". Nobody want to talk about the economy of those women which is the bigger part. Because the two are just muppets of a clumsy global design financed by the same hands.

I don't know if this has already been mentioned, but I was in a retreat with Ajahn Brahm where he said that a consciousness cannot enter into a womb until the fetus has developed a centralized nervous system that can host a sentient being. Meaning that during the first weeks you are not killing any sentient being, only a group of cells.

"Consciousness requires a sophisticated network of highly interconnected components, nerve cells. Its physical substrate, the thalamo-cortical complex that provides consciousness with its highly elaborate content, begins to be in place between the 24th and 28th week of gestation"
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... ess-arise/

this seems to be a materialist definition not according with Buddha teaching. Relation between consciousness and "a being" is something wider and more complex than the materialist and scientific-centered views:

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dha ... /loka.html

a different issue would be a discussion about the moral weight of the action according intentions and the development of the being. However, even with the existence of a gradual weight in the action, this cannot avoid the bad kamma whatever weight and stage it can be.

[TRobinson465]

I'm having trouble thinking of a reason to do this not grounded in either hate, greed, or delusion.

If one wants to avoid babies just get a vasectomy...

Rape or danger to the mother?

Although the first reason is probably still a case of delusion since it is still arguably delusional to kill a baby because of someone elses crime, or is grounded in ignorance of the value of human life, but i would still say rape is a pretty weak delusional reason. Danger to the mother is perhaps greed for ones own life, but I would consider that somewhat rational and not a sign of "intense" greed that is similar-ish in circumstance to killing someone who is trying to kill you which a lot of Buddhists would consider okay, just not ideal.

Although I do agree a lot and probably most abortions can be avoided if people were just less ignorant and knew about proper birth control options.