Buddhism and Abortion.

[icarus]

This is likely to generate a few hot responses, so I begin by saying I won't have time to reply.

I've been studying law and philosophy, and contemplating the Buddhist view on abortion.

Buddhism adheres to non-violence in all but the most exceptional cases. This means that a Buddhist would not have an abortion. As the Dalai Lama put it, "I support only non-violent means of birth control." There is no 'every sperm is sacred' idea, it's simply that one doesn't end a life.

But Buddhism also has a non-interventionist point of view. Rather than trying to fix the rest of the world, which is an overwhelming and impossible task, one addresses the problems of the world by dealing with ones own mind. So, the Buddhists haven't done as much for the rest of the world as the Christians... you see few Buddhist-founded hospitals and schools... but there are also fewer Buddhist conflicts with the rest of the world. Sometimes I think the Buddhists are a bit too passive. We should do more, practically, for others. But it does keep us out of trouble.

The current abortion laws are rather a quandary for Buddhists.

On the one hand, there are lots of little beings dying. The Abhidarma is quite clear with medical precision when consciousness begins: the awareness of self starts at the moment of conception, while the ability to perceive other does not develop until about the 7th week. More complex mental facility develops gradually over the nine months.

On the other hand, the principle of not prying and imposing your own views is in accord with Buddhism. My personal view is that the current laws have veered to the extreme of being too loose, too casual about life. I also think that the fight over this is the main reason it's so polarized to that extreme: people need to calm down and come to a middle ground. But I'm not going to fight a war to make my point. :)

Now the Buddhist attitude towards someone who has had an abortion is not at all negative or angry. It's sad, but Buddhism teaches that while you focus on doing positive things and avoid doing the negative as much as possible, even when you drive, you are killing bugs on your windshield. It's part of the nature of the world. That's the reason for working towards enlightment: samsara sucks. Someone's who's had an abortion, well that's samsara for you. You've been around for eons and have probably done far worse. You've also likely done other things that are really good. They both will have results, but these aren't weighed on some sort of cosmic scale, so that you are now in the 'bad' column. So mostly you just want to do something to make up for the negative karma to purify it, say, donations to cancer society or doing something to save life.

Also, when you don't know if something's negative, the weight of the bad karma is less than if you're doing something you know is wrong. So that's a factor.

Then there's also the motivation, because the mind is source of the real weight of the karma. So if you do something out of anger, that's pretty negative. If you do the same action out of good intentions and compassion, that's not as bad. So if you were afraid that you couldn't provide for the child, or that the fetus was unhealthy, that's not as bad as having a selfish motive like, "damn it, this baby's in my way and I can't believe that bastard got me pregnant."

Then, Buddhism also considers in the stage of development of the fetus. The earlier it is, the less fully developed the human being is, and so the weight of the karma is somewhat less. It's bad karma, but not as bad.

I guess this sums up the idea that Buddhism is against abortion, but says don't freak out about abortion either.

Comments

[alchemia.livejournal.com]

Would you if/when you have time, reply to questions rather than debate if not here then in private email? Or perhaps a link to someplace else where these questions are discussed in more detail- an online article or something like that? I'd like to understand a few things better in what you were saying.

So mostly you just want to do something to make up for the negative karma to purify it, say, donations to cancer society or doing something to save life.

Is human life seen differently or equal to other kinds of life (iow, other animals)? I ask because, cancer societies would be looking to fund research, which would very likely involve the loss of thousands of little lab-animal lives. How are those lives looked at in compairson to human lives- how does this balance out? Do the lab animals simply don't count as lives? Do they count as a percentage of human life (do 10,000 mice = 1 human life or soemthing like that?).

Then there's also the motivation… So if you do something out of anger, that's pretty negative… So if you were afraid that you couldn't provide for the child, or that the fetus was unhealthy, that's not as bad as having a selfish motive like, "damn it, this baby's in my way and I can't believe that bastard got me pregnant."

How does karma work on a person whose is uhm, not thinking clearly- they have a mental disorder or soemthing. Maybe they kill someone or choose an abortion based on a delisioun or hallucination. Say, a mother who honestly believes the feotus they are carrying is a three headed goat demon or soemthing, when in reality, it’s a normal, healthy feotus. Is that more or less negative. How does something like that balance out (this really could be about anything, even mundane day to day things not just abortion or killing; I guess I'm trying to understand here how much motivation nees to be based in 'reality'?)

This answer is really, really long.

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

Or perhaps a link to someplace else where these questions are discussed in more detail- an online article or something like that?

Most of what I know is from 17 years of teachings from Lamas, some sitting on the floor for teachings, some from around the kitchen table. But there is a good website at www.nalandabodhi.org with some links here: http://www.nalandabodhi.org/talks.html

It has been so long since I first started, I am out of touch with where one would begin, and, well, I was ordained only a year or so after I began. So I don't think my intense immersion approach would appeal to most people. :) I can't say, "Oh, do what I did." I have to think of something else. *scratches head*

Is human life seen differently or equal to other kinds of life (iow, other animals)? I ask because, cancer societies would be looking to fund research, which would very likely involve the loss of thousands of little lab-animal lives.

That was a careless answer of mine. If the money you gave to cancer research resulted in animals dying, that defeats the purpose. It's like saving a fish from a hook and then releasing it on dry land. There are many means to save lives. I used to buy worms from the bait store and release them in my (nice moist, well-prepared) garden, dedicating the virtue of that act to all those who've killed, or been killed. Spiritual practice tends to be better for this sort of thing, simply because it's more profound, dealing with the mind and heart directly, and because there are fewer unintended circumstances. I've no idea how many of my released worms were eaten by birds.

As for weighing the value of life... you and I have, according to the Buddha, been animals in our past lives. (Cats, perhaps?) We've also probably been bugs and other kinds of beings. So do you think your life was worth less when you were, say, a cat? Because it's your life, and very precious to you. If a cockroach recognises it's going to be stepped on - it runs. Every being values its life in its own way.

Really, when you look at it like that, from the perspective of equality, it's never okay to kill. Never. How could anyone have the heart to kill when they see from another's eyes?

It would be egocentric of me to say "human life is more important" because... why? Well, I'm human.

There are actually two standards. The stricter one is what you use to determine how much good you want to do in this life, and how much harm you want to avoid. There you look from another creature's eyes and find compassion and equality. You develop the mind and heart of compassion that make it impossible to deliberately kill. Buddhism is from the inside out. It's not about the rules, it's about the heart.

The gentler standard is what you use after you've messed up. After you realise what you've done and regret it. It's intended to help you deal with the regret and the recrimations, to help you recover when you're consumed with guilt. If it weren't possible to purify every trace of negative karma, there would be no Buddha.

That's the point of the hair-splitting. To help you pick yourself up and move on, do better afterwards.

Really, really long answer part II - great questions, by the way.

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

That's the point of the hair-splitting. To help you pick yourself up and move on, do better afterwards.

From that perspective, okay, technically, there are gradations. Killing your mother is worse than killing a stranger. Killing Mother Theresa is worse than killing someone robbing your house. Homicide is worse than accidentally running someone over in your car. The law recognises gradations, juries recognises them, so does karma.

From that perspective, killing an animal is not as bad as killing a human, because when one is born as a human being one has the capacity to achieve enlightment, while animals don't have that. So a human being, you've cut off their opportunity to really be of benefit to themselves and others, sort of like if you killed a Mother Theresa, that's extra-bad because you've cut off all the good she could have done. For the most part, animals are helpless to do that kind of good.

But that's in no way an argument for killing animals. For example, you can't say, "oh, then torturing and killing animals is okay if it saves human lives." Because how many animals have to die for one person to live? how much suffering and torment do they experience? And all those people who are killing and torturing those animals... what is that doing to their karma? It's not just the animals that are being harmed. How much benefit is being realised from this drug? 10,000 animals dead, to extend someone's life two years?

There's no mathematical formula, because when it comes to deciding what to do, one takes the highest standard, no excuses. A Buddhist would not engage in that kind of research.

How does karma work on a person whose is uhm, not thinking clearly- they have a mental disorder or soemthing.

This is an issue near and dear to my heart, because I have someone very close to me who's mentally ill.

There is an ignorance clause where it comes to karma: if you don't know it's wrong, it's not as bad. With the mentally ill, they don't have the capacity to understand what they're doing. So the karma is much, much lighter. There's also a rule that if a monk loses his marbles, he is automatically no longer ordained, because the vows are held in the mind and the mind is no longer capable. Also, if a dog pisses on a precious religious relic, well, Fifi doesn't know any better.

I hope that answers your questions.

Icarus

[lizardlaugh.livejournal.com]

I am atheist, but I found this take interesting, thanks. In many ways, I wish Christianity would take after Buddhism on the intervention front.

I separate the moral/ethical/religious arguments from the legal/rights arguement in this debate as we are a country with separation of church and state. I think one can see abortion as immoral or wrong, but still recognize a woman's right to her own body.

[wenelda.livejournal.com]

In many ways, I wish Christianity would take after Buddhism on the intervention front.

You're not the only one.

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

I want to be careful here. I don't believe in forcing my will on other people, or in starting fights to do so. You create more problems than you solve.

But if someone asked me to pick A or B, abortion or not, my vote would go with no.

I think the abortion law has greater, troubling ramifications, because it's based on the concept of "if we don't know for sure if something is alive, what do we do?" That was the real argument of Roe v. Wade.

By arguing the privacy implications of the 14th amendment, the Supreme Court side-stepped the issue for the sake of political expedience. So now the implications for say, encountering life on other planets, means that if we can't prove it's alive, there's no law to say let's err on the side of caution. I'm bothered also by the implications for euthanasia and assisted suicide, those in a persistent vegetative state, and the mentally ill.

It's my opinion that the case for loosening up restrictions on abortion for exreme circumstances should have been handled at the legislative level; this allows for greater flexibility and accounting for grey areas. Justice Souter has made statements along those same lines, not concerning abortion but concerning assisted suicide, and I concur.

From a woman's political standpoint, I'm annoyed with the abortion issue because it has divided the women's rights movement and effectively killed support for ERA. I'm vehemently feminist, I chose women spiritual teachers. I'm all for women's rights, equal pay for equal work, a variety of issues - but I'm not considered a feminist because I don't support that one plank of the women's rights movement? There's something really wrong with that.

I believe that the separation of church and state is a good thing, and I argue that it's especially good for the church. Not only because it allows different spiritual traditions to co-exist, but also, political power historically has corrupted spiritual leaders, and/or has proved a temptation for the corrupt to take on the mantle of religion to get that power.

Another careful phrasing here - I don't see abortion as being about a woman's right to her own body, because there are two bodies involved: the mother, and the baby. The idea of "a woman's right to her own body" assumes that the baby is not an individual human until after they're born. It's a political catch-phrase that people don't examine closely to see what it really says. It puts artificial distance between a mother and child, denies that close relationship. "It" is way over there, while "my body" is way over here.

Now, I am the least maternal person on the planet. Plants die in my care. My cat's lucky he has wildernessguru to feed him regularly. I have never wanted a baby, and that so-called biological clock? Ha. I'm a couple months from 37, and it twinged once or twice in my early 30's and that's it. But when I had a pregnancy scare once? Holy cow. That intense connectedness was there.

I don't believe it's true that fetuses aren't 'persons' until after they're born. Not just from a Buddhist sense, but from common sense: most people treat babies in the womb as alive, and say things like, "oh, (he/she)'s really kicking today." They don't say "it." They say "he" or "she." A lot of people play music to babies in the womb - why would they do that if they really think it's just a piece of tissue floating in utero? Mothers note personality traits very early: "Whoa. She's gonna be fiesty; what have I got myself into?"

When soldiers go to war, de-humanizing the enemy is the first they do. I see the same thing happening with that phrase.

But live and let live. There's only so much one can do, and the important work is on an inner spiritual level. Spirituality isn't about what other people do or should be doing -- it's about what I should be doing. *shrugs*

Icarus

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

I see the same sort of dehumanizing occur outside these abortion clinics with the Pro-Life movement: de-humanizing women and abortion doctors.

I used to work three doors down from an abortion clinic, and so had to contend with some of these protestors. They were court-ordered to stay a certain distance from the clinic, and -- you know, I'd like to say they lobbed molotov cocktails or something, but they mostly just stood there looking rather bored, signs on their shoulders.

I got trapped in a conversation with two of them, and - Christ - they were the most irritating, pig-headed people. Just so full of themselves and their biblical quotes. They had no idea that they were using their religious beliefs to arrogantly look down on the rest of the world. To my mind it was a perversion of spirituality, if a common one, summed up as: "I got mine; now let's fix you."

I've noticed over the last 17 years it's pretty common for spiritual people to get cocky early on.

When people go on a spiritual high-road, they usually go through a phase like that until they screw up in their own lives. Which they will, because there's nothing more blind than religious arrogance. Prime "slamming into walls" territory. (Heh. I'm speaking from personal experience here.) Hopefully once they screw up they, uh, notice it, and set to work on themselves. But until then, these people are just... ugh. Unpleasant.

Icarus

[mary-re.livejournal.com]

Is there any way you could recommend any basic texts on Buddhism to me? I have grown more interested in the idea of it over the past year or so, and would really like to read some information so I could figure out if what I think of it is anything like the reality. The few posts of yours that are about it appeal to me very much, including this one.

If you can think of any books that lay out the basic principles, or even if you have a good website link...?

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

I started in Buddhism in a very extreme way: I was taking vows within my first year. It's sort of typical for me - my second fanfic was novel-length Primer to the Dark Arts (http://www.schoogle.com/authorLinks/Icarus). So that makes it hard for me to recommend a "just do what I did" approach. But I get asked a lot.

There's a great book by the Dalai Lama called Kindness, Clarity and Insight. It covers the basics of Buddhism, and touches on deeper issues as well, so it's not a simple-minded A, B, C guide. Gives a good flavour for beginning to advanced topics.

Websites... off the top of my head there's Ponlop Rinpoche and Khenpo Tsultrim Gyatso's stie (http://www.nalandabodhi.org/talks.html). That has some beginning stuff as well.

I'll try to come up with better beginning sites, but that should be a good start.

Icarus

[exbentley]

I believe in abortion only in cases of rape and incest, but I know that's too idyllic to believe.

Am I correct in thinking that rape and incest would be seen as unfortunate events in a persons life... dhukka, but also possibly a kind of result of negative karma? In this case, does negative karma then beget negative karma? I guess what I'm trying to say is would abortion in necessary circumstances have less negative karmic weight, despite the fact that it was brought about by negative karma?

The Buhddist approach to the world may be passive, but it's also accomadating to the different strains of religeon, and it's spreading, so maybe that's not really so much of a bad thing.

I'm so in awe of your spiritual knowledge (especially after your 'Buddhist resume' which really made me think about my own life.) Thanks so much for these little bits of information - even if I'm not really studying the belief system anymore, it's nice to get some points clarified, and Buddhism is something I think I could enjoy learning about.

[jaig.livejournal.com]

I suddenly do notice that. Buddhists don't impose their beliefs on others, if that's right. And I also notice that yeah, no major conflicts involving them. I think they're getting something right, more than I can say for other religions. :/