Does support of abortion preclude conversion to Buddhism?

[Goofaholix]

ok, but one can counter by questioning what gives an adult human the right to terminate that embryo/foetus's existence?

Maybe because its growing bigger and bigger inside that adult human body, draining their nutrients, and potentially ruining their life.

Of course if the foetus is at a stage where it could reasonably be expected to survive after being removed from the womb then its no longer primarily a heath issue for the mother.

[Ceisiwr]

Maybe because its growing bigger and bigger inside that adult human body, draining their nutrients, and potentially ruining their life.

Whilst carrying half their genetic code into the future for them.

[asymmetric]

ok, but one can counter by questioning what gives an adult human the right to terminate that embryo/foetus's existence?

Why don't you ask staff at an abortion clinic? You know what the justifications are already. Reproductive rights of a woman and also preventing endangerment. Terminating the embryo or foetus is not a deprivation. A foetus has no intrinsic right to exist.

That's faulty logic for there's no scientific stats. that report an overwhelming odds of spontaneous abortions over successful pregnancies.

Yet it does happen. If nature destroys embryos why should humans be forbidden from doing the same? As for the chance of a human birth being more precious - this could justify the exploitation of other nonhuman animals whose existence is worth less than human beings.

[Scabrella]

I don't think there is any intrinsic value to life but only on the quality or lack thereof of life.

Hello. I struggle to make sense of your view; as though the terms/words "value" & "quality" are not related. You are saying there is no value in life but having sex is important or has value or quality or whatever you are trying to say; whatever that is. Sex is OK because it has intrinsic value/quality. Abortion is OK because life has no intrinsic value/quality. Sex is not related to life. Sex is only related to pleasure. None of these are related to karma & have consequences/repercussions. Is this your opinion?

[santa100]

Why don't you ask staff at an abortion clinic? You know what the justifications are already. Reproductive rights of a woman and also preventing endangerment. Terminating the embryo or foetus is not a deprivation.

There's a very clear difference between pro-abortion VS. pro-choice. And since you've clearly stated that you are pro-abortion, I simply don't think that's in line with the Buddha's Teaching. It's one thing to clearly stated one's position on the negative kamma of taking life but giving the mother her own choice to be an heir to their own kamma, while it's a totally different one to actively approve/encourage the implementation of abortion.

Yet it does happen. If nature destroys embryos why should humans be forbidden from doing the same?

Then you should've asked your own mother to abort you while she was pregnant, since nature couldve' destroyed the YOU embryo, hence your mother should've just aided nature for that??

[asymmetric]

I don't think there is any intrinsic value to life but only on the quality or lack thereof of life.

Hello. I struggle to make sense of your view; as though the terms/words "value" & "quality" are not related. You are saying there is no value in life but having sex is important or has value or quality or whatever you are trying to say; whatever that is. Sex is OK because it has intrinsic value/quality. Abortion is OK because life has no intrinsic value/quality. Sex is not related to life. Sex is only related to pleasure. None of these are related to karma & have consequences/repercussions. Is this your opinion?

I don't know what you're talking about. I've not mentioned sex at all and anyway sex does not necessarily lead to procreation and should not for that matter given how easily obtainable contraception is.

Life has no intrinsic value or sanctity by itself except in the quality it will enjoy and its potential utility. Therefore an embryo or foetus has no intrinsic reason for existence. It is a theoretical just as there are millions of theoretical persons who will never even be conceived.

[asymmetric]

Then you should've asked your own mother to abort you while she was pregnant, since nature couldve' destroyed the YOU embryo, hence your mother should've just aided nature for that??

If she hadn't it wouldn't have been a deprivation. I would never have existed. My position is identical to the pro-death view of the South African philosopher David Benatar.

https://academic.oup.com/book/32901/cha ... m=fulltext

[Scabrella]

anyway sex does not necessarily lead to procreation and should not for that matter.

Sex should not lead to procreation? Is this your opinion?

Life has no intrinsic value or sanctity by itself except in the quality it will enjoy and its potential utility. Therefore an embryo or foetus has no intrinsic reason for existence.

So most parents do not derive pleasure from children? Also, non-embryo beings can experience pleasure therefore their life has value? But these beings were never embryos? Is this what you are saying? The people today whose life you say have "value" due to their hedonism were never embryos? Is this your opinion?

[Sam Vara]

One might want to reflect on a couple of things here. The first is what is actually entailed by the claim that one "supports abortion". Where we are expected to take a position on things, to be in favour or against something, what does "support" actually mean in practical terms? People might be "Trump supporters", but they do nothing to further or maintain the things Trump wants to do. They support a particular sports team, and it might only mean that they are pleased when that team wins. They support measures to mitigate global warming, but they have only made a few superficial changes to their lifestyle. Often, "support" means little more than us carrying around a set of ideas which we rehearse to ourselves and which we are prepared to share when given the opportunity, and every few years we vote on a raft of policies which might go some way to changing things in line with those ideas.

In the case of abortion, that's often what is meant, but that is - at least in terms of kamma - very different from having an abortion, forcing someone to have one, performing them, or setting up a clinic to perform them. Of course, constant thinking and pondering about a topic will have an effect on the mind - an abortion obsessive, if such exist, would probably not be a very happy person. So what is meant by "support" here, and is it really all that significant?

We might also look at "conversion". There is as far as I know no formal "conversion" other than one assuming an identity as "a Buddhist". One can of course take formal refuge and recite the precepts, in a formal ceremony if you want to. But even if an abortion is held to be a clear breach of the first precept, I don't think anyone would argue that holding a view that someone else should not be legally sanctioned for breaking it invalidates the precept.

[santa100]

If she had of it wouldn't have been a deprivation. I wouldn't exist. My position is identical to the pro-death view of the South African philosopher David Benatar.

https://academic.oup.com/book/32901/cha ... m=fulltext

But since you have stated that: "Life has no intrinsic value or sanctity by itself except in the quality it will enjoy and its potential utility.". So, unless you were Einstein, Mother Teresa, or a few worthy individuals who have made significant contribution to fellow humans, there's really no reason for your existence either, and hence, anyone can simply kill you if s/he feels like it, just like you can kill a foetus if you feel like it.

[Sam Vara]

Then you should've asked your own mother to abort you while she was pregnant, since nature couldve' destroyed the YOU embryo, hence your mother should've just aided nature for that??

If she had of it wouldn't have been a deprivation. I wouldn't exist. My position is identical to the pro-death view of the South African philosopher David Benatar.

https://academic.oup.com/book/32901/cha ... m=fulltext

That might be at odds with a view of post-mortem rebirth, which many Buddhists (not all!) consider central, and indeed part of Right View.

[perkele]

Most Buddhists are probably pro-choice. The First Precept states no killing, but there are a variety of views among Buddhists regarding this and some other controversial subjects. An informal poll was done here and most appear to be pro-choice:

viewtopic.php?p=437206#p437206

Over at Mahayana forum it appears that there is an even greater percentage favoring pro-choice.
https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=111&t=33236

Do you really think that the user base of two Western, English-speaking Buddhist forums is represantitve of all Buddhists, allowing to draw a conclusion what "most Buddhists" worldwide support?

The label "pro-choice" is also an American coined term, and seems, in typical American fashion, already by its name designed for divisive party politics so typical of the Wild West. Who would want to be seen as "against choice"? He must be a bad person, restricting people's freedom. That's the built-in bias. So of course it's understandable that most would be in "support" of the "pro-choice" position in such polls, many even "quite passionate about" being seen as a brave freedom fighter.

But there is really a big difference between supporting, allowing, tolerating, even excusing depending on circumstance, or simply not being involved. Not everything is everyone's issue.

Thanks I'll acquaint myself with these polls. Is there any sutta which specifically mentions abortion? If not then I'll assume the Buddha had a nuanced view on abortion.

There are some Vinaya references that state it's a parajika (defeat, disrobing) for a monastic to perform an abortion, so in these verses, it appears to equate killing a fetus to killing a human being. See:
viewtopic.php?t=28380

It's even a defeating offence just to speak in favour of abortion. Why omit that? It seems more relevant here (and more realistic, more likely to happen) than outright performing an abortion (practicing "medicine", surgeries etc. already being a minor offence for a monk if I am informed correctly), which would seem to make "the official Buddhist position" quite clear.
How can there be wiggle room for anything more "supportive" than equanimity (beings are heirs of their own kamma, their choice is theirs alone) and compassion for such misfortune?

[perkele]

If she had of it wouldn't have been a deprivation.

Watch your language.

According to Buddhist view, you would have been born elsewhere after dying in the womb, which I think would be a deprivation.

[pops]

sry doublepost

[pops]

I'm a supporter of abortion, it is something I'm quite passionate about despite being male. I make no equivalence between a foetus at any stage of development and an adult human who is already invested in existence. An embryo or foetus has no claim to any right to exist. Spontaneous abortions happen frequently so inducing one using artificial means is only exploiting something that occurs naturally anyway. Also as a utilitarian I don't think there is any intrinsic value to life but only on the quality or lack thereof of life. So abortion can be imperative if the potential person will have no quality of life.

you may want to observe the passion that makes you (wanting to) engage in such thoughts - do they change what (maybe) you believe must change?

As there ist no such thing as 'Buddhism' to which one can convert or be excluded from a conversion the more important question is therefore maybe: want to understand and get rid of that passion to declare strong opinions? If so, some so called 'buddhist' methods and explanations may provide help.

Welcome to the board