What is the karmic consequence of killing your own baby? Where the majority of women in the west are heading?

[patta.1999]

If I know well, the first precept
"There is the case where a disciple of the noble ones, abandoning the taking of life, abstains from taking life."
includes the unborn babies as well.

In the world today the unborn babies are killed on a mass scale. E.g. in the USA about a million babies are killed every year. Based on the official statistics this number varies from ~800 000 to 1 400 000 per year. This means that at least ~1 000 000 women kill his own baby every year, only in the USA. Or more precisely, they usually pay for a "doctor" to kill their baby.

What is the consequence of these actions? What is the difference in the consequences of the different players in this mass scale killing? So what does the woman earn? What does the doctor earn? What does the nurse who assists doing the killing earn?

There is another interesting aspect of this question. Today a special kind of contraceptive is used widely. This one kills the baby in a very early stage. So the user of these contraceptives does not have to go to the doctor to get her baby killed but it is killed by the contraceptive itself. These are called "chemical abortions" and there is only an estimated number as frequently not even the mother recognize that she just killed her own baby. In the US this kind of abortion is estimated as ~ 14 million a year.

This is a more difficult question, what happens to these women and to these "doctors". Sure the "doctor" is aware of what he/she is doing. But I doubt whether these women are aware about what is going on. If they do not know that with their action they kill the baby, then does it mean that they are free from the karmic consequences?

[rekoW]

This is a more difficult question, what happens to these women...

Some woman rebirth as animal brute:

Some woman have regrets & remorce, go to hell for small time, then rebirth as human

[User13866]

The texts don't proclaim a certain reconnecting in a particular place for people who haven't done these heinous transgressions blocking path attainments and guaranteeing a coming again in hell realms;

i. matricide
ii. patricide
iii. the murder of arahants (the Consummate Ones)
iv. the shedding of the Buddha's blood with malicious intent
v. causing schism in the Sangha
vi. pernicious false beliefs (niyata micca ditthi)

The texts say that not only women, few people in general go to blissful realms;

174. Blind is the world; here only a few possess insight. Only a few, like birds escaping from the net, go to realms of bliss.
https://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/buddhism/dp13.htm

Many women do go to hell;

“Then the Venerable Anuruddha approached the Blessed One, paid homage to him, sat down to one side, and said: “Now, Bhante, with the divine eye, which is purified and surpasses the human, I see that women, with the breakup of the body, after death, are mostly reborn in the plane of misery, in a bad destination, in the lower world, in hell. What qualities does a woman possess on account of which, with the breakup of the body, after death, she is reborn in the plane of misery, in a bad destination, in the lower world, in hell?”
“When she possesses three qualities, Anuruddha, with the breakup of the body, after death, a woman is reborn in the plane of misery, in a bad destination, in the lower world, in hell. What three?
(1) “Here, Anuruddha, in the morning a woman dwells at home with a mind obsessed by the stain of miserliness. (2) At midday she dwells at home with a mind obsessed by envy. (3) And in the evening she dwells at home with a mind obsessed by sensual lust. When she possesses these three qualities, with the breakup of the body, after death, a woman is reborn in the plane of misery, in a bad destination, in the lower world, in hell.”

as you can see it is not because of any one particular act but because of the way mind has been developed in general

4. When they were seated, they said to the Blessed One: "Master Gotama, what is the reason, what is the condition, why some beings here, on the dissolution of the body, after death, reappear in states of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, even in hell; and what is the reason, what is the condition, why some beings here, on the dissolution of the body, after death, reappear in a happy destination, even in the heavenly world?"

5. "Householders, it is by reason of conduct not in accordance with the Dhamma, by reason of unrighteous conduct, that beings here on the dissolution of the body, after death, reappear in states of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, even in hell. It is by reason of conduct in accordance with the Dhamma, by reason of righteous conduct, that some beings here on the dissolution of the body, after death, reappear in a happy destination, even in the heavenly world."

6. "We do not understand the detailed meaning of this utterance of Master Gotama's spoken in brief without expounding the detailed meaning. It would be good if Master Gotama taught us the Dhamma so that we might understand the detailed meaning of Master Gotama's utterance spoken in brief without expounding the detailed meaning."

"Then, householders, listen and heed well what I shall say."

"Yes, venerable sir," they replied. The Blessed One said this:

7. "Householders, there are three kinds of bodily conduct not in accordance with the Dhamma, unrighteous conduct. There are four kinds of verbal conduct not in accordance with the Dhamma, unrighteous conduct. There are three kinds of mental conduct not in accordance with the Dhamma, unrighteous conduct.

8. "And how are there three kinds of bodily conduct not in accordance with the Dhamma, unrighteous conduct? Here someone is a killer of living beings: he is murderous, bloody-handed, given to blows and violence, and merciless to all living beings. He is a taker of what is not given: he takes as a thief another's chattels and property in the village or in the forest. He is given over to misconduct in sexual desires: he has intercourse with such (women) as are protected by the mother, father, (mother and father), brother, sister, relatives, as have a husband, as entail a penalty, and also with those that are garlanded in token of betrothal. That is how there are three kinds of bodily conduct not in accordance with the Dhamma, unrighteous conduct.

9. "And how are there four kinds of verbal conduct not in accordance with the Dhamma, unrighteous conduct? Here someone speaks falsehood: when summoned to a court or to a meeting, or to his relatives' presence, or to his guild, or to the royal family's presence, and questioned as a witness thus, 'So, good man, tell what you know,' then, not knowing, he says 'I know,' or knowing, he says 'I do not know,' not seeing, he says 'I see,' or seeing, he says 'I do not see'; in full awareness he speaks falsehood for his own ends or for another's ends or for some trifling worldly end. He speaks maliciously: he is a repeater elsewhere of what is heard here for the purpose of causing division from these, or he is a repeater to these of what is heard elsewhere for the purpose of causing division from those, and he is thus a divider of the united, a creator of divisions, who enjoys discord, rejoices in discord, delights in discord, he is a speaker of words that create discord. He speaks harshly: he utters such words as are rough, hard, hurtful to others, censorious of others, bordering on anger and unconducive to concentration. He is a gossip: as one who tells that which is unseasonable, that which is not fact, that which is not good, that which is not the Dhamma, that which is not the Discipline, and he speaks out of season speech not worth recording, which is unreasoned, indefinite, and unconnected with good. That is how there are four kinds of verbal conduct not in accordance with the Dhamma, unrighteous conduct.

10. "And how are there three kinds of mental conduct not in accordance with the Dhamma, unrighteous conduct? Here someone is covetous: he is a coveter of another's chattels and property thus: 'Oh, that what is another's were mine!' Or he has a mind of ill-will, with the intention of a mind affected by hate thus: 'May these beings be slain and slaughtered, may they be cut off, perish, or be annihilated!' Or he has wrong view, distorted vision, thus: 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed, no fruit and ripening of good and bad kammas, no this world, no other world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously (born) beings,[1] no good and virtuous monks and brahmans that have themselves realized by direct knowledge and declare this world and the other world.'[2] That is how there are three kinds of mental conduct not in accordance with the Dhamma, unrighteous conduct.

"So, householders, it is by reason of conduct not in accordance with the Dhamma, by reason of unrighteous conduct, that some beings here, on the dissolution of the body, after death, reappear in states of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, even in hell.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .nymo.html

In short;

“Anuruddha, when females have five qualities, when their body breaks up, after death, they are reborn in a good place, a heavenly realm. What five? They don’t kill living creatures, steal, commit sexual misconduct, lie, or consume alcoholic drinks that cause negligence. When females have these five qualities, when their body breaks up, after death, they are reborn in a good place, a heavenly realm.”
https://suttacentral.net/sn37.24/en/suj ... ript=latin

Cause
“Mendicants, there are these five powers of a female. What five? Attractiveness, wealth, relatives, children, and ethical behavior.

It is not because of the powers of attractiveness, wealth, relatives, or children that females, when their body breaks up, after death, are reborn in a good place, a heavenly realm. It is because of the power of ethical behavior that females, when their body breaks up, after death, are reborn in a good place, a heavenly realm.

These are the five powers of a female.”
https://suttacentral.net/sn37.31/en/suj ... ript=latin

“Mendicants, a female noble disciple who grows in five ways grows nobly, taking on what is essential and excellent in this life. What five? She grows in faith, ethics, learning, generosity, and wisdom. A female noble disciple who grows in these five ways grows nobly, taking on what is essential and excellent in this life.

When she grows in faith and ethics,
wisdom, and both generosity and learning—
a virtuous laywoman such as she
takes on what is essential for herself in this life.”
https://suttacentral.net/sn37.34/en/suj ... ript=latin

My personal opinion is that the overwhelming majority of beings are for the overwhelming majority of time in a bad bout.

I do think that both mother & abortionist there get much demerit and that this behavior is like uncharacteristic to healthy/average human population tendencies, let alone human, even for animals in normal environment this abortion thing isn't normal. It is only in behavioral sink experiments that one will see mothers abandon litters altogether as the populations collapse.

For this reason i think this abortion thing is very bad in that it cultivates these qualities uncharacteristic of the norm in healthy populations, humans don't normally kill their babies, having babies is normally a good thing. I do think that it will generally be so that a deteriorating being, i don't think everyone deteriorates but most do in a behavioral sink, will generally use up all his stored merit in that company being reborn among them as the population goes extinct, but after that it's very painful to reconnect.

[Meggo]

Pretty sure it is less severe than killing an animal.

[User13866]

Pretty sure it is less severe than killing an animal.

I think it's a lot worse.

Id argue that an animal generally kills, and most humans are killers, have been for the most part throughout history, as hunters, as farmers, as warriors. Therefore killing itself and especially the killing of animals is not uncharacteristic of humans. Having this trait is not uncommon to beings who appear in the human state.

However the killing of one's offspring is uncommon and contradictory to the acquiring & persitence of the human state.

As i see it, why should a being who tends to kill their offspring acquire the human state? This is not something humans normally do, this human trait is adaptationally detrimental, those who kill their babies are eliminated from the human pool, these people don't reproduce, these populations perish, these cultures perish, these behaviors perish, of course these go to lower realms.

This is simply not a behavior you can breed in any successful human or animal population.

[SDC]

I think the karmic consequences for men who obsesses over the conduct of women is to become a woman next time around, while the women they obsessed over become the men who obsess over them.

[TRobinson465]

Same as killing anything else.

"Monks, the taking of life — when indulged in, developed, & pursued — is something that leads to hell, leads to rebirth as a common animal, leads to the realm of the hungry shades. The slightest of all the results coming from the taking of life is that, when one becomes a human being, it leads to a short life span.

Although i wonder why you think the majority of women in the west would do that. Its not like if you make cocaine legal everybody will do it. And its also pretty foolish to think that if you make abortion illegal itll magically stop it from happening. Here in the US, we tried that with prohibition and although it did perhaps reduce the number of drinkers due to it being more difficult to get alcohol it caused massive problems with organized crime, liquor being made in bathtubs etc. Focus on your own practice and people in your life you think can be swayed to follow the ethical path, the proportion of people who go to hell is like the hairs on an ox, the people who go to heaven, the horns.

The vast majority of the world is misguided, breaks precepts, if you fret about everyone else you will never progress.

[TRobinson465]

Pretty sure it is less severe than killing an animal.

Theres no way thats right. Im fairly sure there is a sutta or commentary somewhere that indicates killing a human is worst than killing an animal. the only time it would possibly be less severe is if the intention is more malicious, ie. killing an animal for fun vs killing a human for self defense.

[TRobinson465]

This is a more difficult question, what happens to these women and to these "doctors". Sure the "doctor" is aware of what he/she is doing. But I doubt whether these women are aware about what is going on. If they do not know that with their action they kill the baby, then does it mean that they are free from the karmic consequences?

You do make a good point tho, according to commentaries to break the first precept you need.

pano — presence of a living being.
panasaññita — one knows that it is a living being.
vadhacittam — the intention to kill.
upakkamo — the effort to kill.
tena maranam — the resulting death of that being.

If they do not know it is a living being than it is perhaps not a full breach of the precept. although it would still be bad kamma anyways, just not on the same gravity as if they did know. they will not be free from karmic consequences but perhaps less severe if that was the case.

[Meggo]

Pretty sure it is less severe than killing an animal.

I think it's a lot worse.

Id argue that an animal generally kills, and most humans are killers, have been for the most part throughout history, as hunters, as farmers, as warriors. Therefore killing itself and especially the killing of animals is not uncharacteristic of humans. Having this trait is not uncommon to beings who appear in the human state.

However the killing of one's offspring is uncommon and contradictory to the acquiring & persitence of the human state.

As i see it, why should a being who tends to kill their offspring acquire the human state? This is not something humans normally do, this human trait is adaptationally detrimental, those who kill their babies are eliminated from the human pool, these people don't reproduce, these populations perish, these cultures perish, these behaviors perish, of course these go to lower realms.

This is simply not a behavior you can breed in any successful human or animal population.

All of this is completely irrelevant to buddhism. It is the mindstate that counts because the mindstate will produce karma that is more or less likely to lead you to enlightenment in the future, which is the only important thing. And the mindstate that underlies the killing of animals for fun/ food (which are most cases) are similar to drug-addiction like mind states, because there is satisfaction as a result, therefore more likely to occur in the future, thus more likely to strengthen the already bad habit patterns that are there. Killing embryos or whatever (most cases) is more a form of self defense, because it is made for avoidance of future harm then for satisfaction, still bad but less then the prior example.

[Meggo]

Pretty sure it is less severe than killing an animal.

Theres no way thats right. Im fairly sure there is a sutta or commentary somewhere that indicates killing a human is worst than killing an animal. the only time it would possibly be less severe is if the intention is more malicious, ie. killing an animal for fun vs killing a human for self defense.

It is the mindstate that counts because the mindstate will produce karma that is more or less likely to lead you to enlightenment in the future, which is the only important thing. And the mindstate that underlies the killing of animals for fun/ food (which are most cases) are similar to drug-addiction like mind states, because there is satisfaction as a result, therefore more likely to occur in the future, thus more likely to strengthen the already bad habit patterns that are there. Killing embryos or whatever (most cases) is more a form of self defense, because it is made for avoidance of future harm then for satisfaction, still bad but less then the prior example.

[TRobinson465]

Pretty sure it is less severe than killing an animal.

Theres no way thats right. Im fairly sure there is a sutta or commentary somewhere that indicates killing a human is worst than killing an animal. the only time it would possibly be less severe is if the intention is more malicious, ie. killing an animal for fun vs killing a human for self defense.

It is the mindstate that counts because the mindstate will produce karma that is more or less likely to lead you to enlightenment in the future, which is the only important thing. And the mindstate that underlies the killing of animals for fun/ food (which are most cases) are similar to drug-addiction like mind states, because there is satisfaction as a result, therefore more likely to occur in the future, thus more likely to strengthen the already bad habit patterns that are there. Killing embryos or whatever (most cases) is more a form of self defense, because it is made for avoidance of future harm then for satisfaction, still bad but less then the prior example.

Correct, since intention matters and is the biggest factor in the karmic results. although if you killed an animal for a similar reason as killing a human embryo the human embryo would be heavier karma, as killing a human is worse when all factors are the same. but yes, killing an embryo can be less severe than killing an animal based on the circumstance of the intent/mindset.

[Dhamma Chameleon]

One of the necessary ingredients to break the first precept is to have the intention to harm or take life. Most of the people who decide to have an abortion don't believe they are harming or taking a life, regardless of how others see it.

[Meggo]

Theres no way thats right. Im fairly sure there is a sutta or commentary somewhere that indicates killing a human is worst than killing an animal. the only time it would possibly be less severe is if the intention is more malicious, ie. killing an animal for fun vs killing a human for self defense.

It is the mindstate that counts because the mindstate will produce karma that is more or less likely to lead you to enlightenment in the future, which is the only important thing. And the mindstate that underlies the killing of animals for fun/ food (which are most cases) are similar to drug-addiction like mind states, because there is satisfaction as a result, therefore more likely to occur in the future, thus more likely to strengthen the already bad habit patterns that are there. Killing embryos or whatever (most cases) is more a form of self defense, because it is made for avoidance of future harm then for satisfaction, still bad but less then the prior example.

Correct, since intention matters and is the biggest factor in the karmic results. although if you killed an animal for a similar reason as killing a human embryo the human embryo would be heavier karma, as killing a human is worse when all factors are the same. but yes, killing an embryo can be less severe than killing an animal based on the circumstance of the intent/mindset.

I don't think what you kill matters in the least. If you unintentionally press a button which will lead to a nuclear strike killing million humans/ animals/ embryos it won't matter karmically at all. So if the accompanying mental factors are a e.g. 2/10 (10 = worst) when you kill anything it still is a 2/10 in karmic consequences. It is the programming of the machine between your ears (or mindstream or whatever) that counts, the result is irrelevant. You could exterminate all life on earth accidentally and the result could even be beneficial if you already know how to meditate because everything you could ever do now is practice without distractions.

[nothingworthgrasping]

There are two aspects:

1. Have self honesty and simply recognize that an evil act is an evil act and it'll bear consequences.

"Take some woman or man who kills living creatures. They’re violent, bloody-handed, a hardened killer, merciless to living beings. Because of undertaking such deeds, when their body breaks up, after death, they’re reborn in a place of loss, a bad place, the underworld, hell. If they’re not reborn in a place of loss, but return to the human realm, then wherever they’re reborn they’re short-lived. For killing living creatures is the path leading to a short lifespan.

But take some woman or man who gives up killing living creatures. They renounce the rod and the sword. They’re scrupulous and kind, living full of compassion for all living beings. Because of undertaking such deeds, when their body breaks up, after death, they’re reborn in a good place, a heavenly realm. If they’re not reborn in a heavenly realm, but return to the human realm, then wherever they’re reborn they’re long-lived. For not killing living creatures is the path leading to a long lifespan." - MN 135

2. It's more important to, after recognized your wrong doing, be committed to restraint in the future. If you somehow get caught in the view that you will certainly go to hell regarding your evil deed, then, because of this very view, you will.

"‘You’re led on by what you usually live by’: if this were true, then, according to what Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta says, no-one would go to a place of loss, to hell.

Take some teacher who has this doctrine and view: ‘Everyone who kills a living creature, steals, commits sexual misconduct, or lies goes to a place of loss, to hell.’ And there’s a disciple who is devoted to that teacher. They think: ‘My teacher has this doctrine and view: ‘Everyone who kills a living creature, steals, commits sexual misconduct, or lies goes to a place of loss, to hell.’ But I’ve killed living creatures … stolen … committed sexual misconduct … or lied. They get the view: ‘I too am going to a place of loss, to hell.’ Unless they give up that speech and thought, and let go of that view, they will be cast down to hell.

But consider when a Realized One arises in the world, perfected, a fully awakened Buddha, accomplished in knowledge and conduct, holy, knower of the world, supreme guide for those who wish to train, teacher of gods and humans, awakened, blessed. In many ways he criticizes and denounces killing living creatures, saying: ‘Stop killing living creatures!’ He criticizes and denounces stealing … sexual misconduct … lying, saying: ‘Stop lying!’ And there’s a disciple who is devoted to that teacher. Then they reflect: ‘In many ways the Buddha criticizes and denounces killing living creatures, saying: “Stop killing living creatures!” But I have killed living creatures to a certain extent. That’s not right, it’s not good, and I feel remorseful because of it. But I can’t undo what I have done.’ Reflecting like this, they give up killing living creatures, and in future they don’t kill living creatures. That’s how to give up this bad deed and get past it." - SN 42.8