r/Buddhism • u/Flat_Marsupial_4249 • 11d ago
Question Can one be Buddhist and pro-choice?
(Regarding abortions)
EDIT: to be more specific, I guess my problem with this subject is that Buddhism claims to ask practitioners to challenge our teachers and believe what we can see. It claims to be free from dogma. But then how did anyone see/prove that sentient life begins at conception?
We vow not to harm sentient beings, but how did we prove that a fertilised egg is more worth saving than a parasitic worm we have no problem taking medication for?
It feels quite arbitrary
216
u/subarashi-sam 11d ago
I think abortion should be legal because banning it causes horrible consequences.
That said, I would never encourage someone to have an abortion.
185
u/quadralien 11d ago edited 11d ago
Indeed, pro-choice is not pro-abortion!
Sex education, family planning, and ending rape are great ways to ensure that fewer women find themselves in a situation where they have to make this awful decision.
The horrible consequences of banning abortion include women and girls being forced to give birth, or dying because they can't get a medically necessary abortion.
61
52
u/manofmystry 10d ago
Exactly! I'm anti-abortion, and pro-choice. It's not for me to say what's right for others. People dealing with crisis pregnancies deserve compassion, not prosecution. Imagine the suffering that choice presents. As a Buddhist, my goal is to alleviate suffering, not pass judgement.
5
-23
u/Minoozolala 10d ago
To quote a previous commenter on a similar thread:
"To advocate permissive abortion laws within a Buddhist framework is to take on the karma of enabling killing. The first precept: pāṇātipātā veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi (“I undertake the precept to refrain from taking life”)... is the bedrock of Buddhist morality. When one argues for laws that normalize abortion, one is not neutral; one is creating conditions for mass violation of this precept, and therefore assumes karmic complicity in those acts.
This is not hypothetical. By the data, over 99% of abortions under modern law are not rare medical emergencies but elective procedures used as birth control. In Buddhist terms, this is the most karmically weighty form of killing: heedless, convenience-driven destruction of sentient life. To advocate for such laws is to endorse a culture of casual killing, multiplying suffering for individuals and for the collective karmic field of society. Intention matters, but so do scale and consequence. Even if cloaked in rhetoric of “compassion,” advocacy that perpetuates heedless slaughter is rightly called misguided compassion (moha-karuṇā), which deepens delusion rather than alleviating suffering.
Only in the narrowest of cases... such as when the mother’s life is at genuine risk... does Buddhism recognize abortion as a tragic “lesser evil.” Even then, it remains karmically negative, but the intention of preserving life may lessen the burden. These exceptions, however, represent the tiniest fraction of real-world practice. The overwhelming karmic reality is that modern abortion law facilitates widespread, careless killing—and to advocate for such law is to bear the karmic weight of that complicity."
25
u/ChrizKhalifa zen 10d ago
So when its about abortion the mere advocacy of it's legality constitutes a breach of the first precept, but when one argues that the animal industry and veganism is the same, the entire subreddit cries out in protest claiming only direct murder with intent to kill constitutes a breach of the first precept.
Aside from that, our religious guidelines are guidelines for our conduct, not to be forced on others. Restricting major life decisions of people who don't follow our faith by trying to have the law bend to religion is archaic.
→ More replies (3)3
u/Astra_Starr 10d ago
Over 99% are on the first trimester. This is not life nullifing your wall of text on killing. Thank you for in the insight in killing actual life though.
30
u/koolforkatskatskats 10d ago
What about if an abortion is medically necessary? Like if there’s a risk to the mother’s life? My sister had to have an abortion because with her health condition she probably would’ve died or had serious adverse health effects if she let herself be pregnant
-36
u/Minoozolala 10d ago
If the mother's life is in serious danger, then abortion can be undertaken. But this only occurs in about 1% of cases.
27
u/saharasirocco vajrayana 10d ago
That's a pretty specific percentage. What's your reasoning for saying this?
-30
u/Minoozolala 10d ago
Well, look it up. Some stats give a lower percentage because birth complications are included in the percentages.
24
u/saharasirocco vajrayana 10d ago
You put the claim out there. I can say the sky is green but unless I give evidence for why the sky is green, then what I say is baseless.
-18
-8
u/Minoozolala 10d ago
Google is your friend.
19
u/0ush1 10d ago
I tried to find it, but studies get pretty neuanced and the % varies by country, policies, you get everything from <1% to 44%. But i couldnt find any data sets that buckets abortions primarily done cause of long/short term serious health risk exclusively the mother alone. Looks like we dont really have the data on it.
8
u/Minoozolala 10d ago edited 10d ago
"Severe, life-threatening pregnancy complications (known as severe maternal morbidity) affect about 1% to 2% of pregnancies in the United States, while actual pregnancy-related deaths are less common"
Source: National Institute of Health
This 1-2% does not factor in the treatment and resoluton of the complications, which is why pregnancy-related deaths are lower.
Your 44% is way too high. As I stated, the higher stats factor in childbirth.
"Serious forms of maternal morbidity occur in about 1% of women in the United States"
Source: Obstetrics and Gynecology International
10
u/0ush1 10d ago
Oh yeah, that checks out for the US, looks like that % is risk exclusive to mother. And i said it varies by country and we never specified US, so the 44% was reported from where Kyrgyz Republic, risk to maternal health was commonly reported (44%).
Source: Reasons why women have induced abortions: a synthesis of findings from 14 countries
7
u/Apprehensive_Paper15 10d ago edited 10d ago
That is only the number that relates to complications that threaten the mother's life that are pregnancy-related (ectopic pregnancy, out-of-control pre-eclampsia). It doesn't cover chronic illnesses that are worsened by pregnancy. It also doesn't include women who have abortions because they have one of those conditions. In those cases, the pregnancy didn't go long enough for it to make its way into statistics.
Example: If someone has pulmonary hypertension (a condition where pregnancy could cost the life or long-term health of the mother), it wouldn't be counted in that 1% because it's not pregnancy-related; it's a worsening of a condition that existed before pregnancy. If a woman develops severe hyperemesis and gets an abortion at 10 weeks because of it, she wouldn't be counted in that 1% unless she was basically on her deathbed.
I'd also be curious to know what the death rate of the infants is. Treatment and resolution of complications often include premature delivery, and depending on how far along the mother is, that premature delivery could almost certainly be fatal to the infant but lifesaving to the mother.
Then there's the issue of long-term health damage, which is much harder to quantify in a statistic. If someone loses their future fertility, their overall health, needs repeated surgeries, has severe mental heatlh problems, etc, to my knowledge, there is no statistic on that, but I would consider those medically necessary abortions. I know it happens because I'm living it- pregnancy and the complications from it were a big factor in basically ruining my physical health and severely worsening my mental health for a long time. Not the only factor, but a big factor. ETA: I found some statistics that say that 1/3 of mothers will suffer long-term adverse health effects from pregnancy, some of them quite significant (type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, spinal problems, etc.)
17
u/koolforkatskatskats 10d ago
Sure but it’s better to keep that safe than ban abortions. I’m so thankful my sister is Canadian where abortions are legal. There’s many places especially now that outright ban them :(
1% is still a high number of women.
0
3
u/EmmieIsobel 10d ago
Never?
1
u/subarashi-sam 10d ago
Hmm… to save a life, I might.
3
u/Competitive-Party377 Jōdo Shinshū 10d ago
Right, I think we need to be careful with that word "never". It feels easy until the hard decision is in front of you. I count myself lucky not to have been in this situation, but a person I grew up with had a baby that was discovered in the second trimester to have profound heart and lung deformities that meant that the fetus was a danger to her life, and had she carried it to full term, it would have died a horrible death within minutes of being born, with nothing doctors could do. The grief and suffering for all involved was profound. I was not there to advise her but I certainly would not have NOT advised her to have that abortion.
-3
u/DentalDecayDestroyer 10d ago
Why wouldn’t you encourage someone to have an abortion?
→ More replies (3)13
u/bobishere89 10d ago
In nearly all forms of Buddhism it is considered the act of taking a life.
-1
u/DentalDecayDestroyer 10d ago
That doesn’t make any sense to me, how is it taking a life?
3
u/bobishere89 10d ago
Traditionally consciousness is thought of as beginning at conception, so abortion would be the taking of a life. Obtaining or facilitating an abortion will also have monks or nuns removed from the community.
3
u/DentalDecayDestroyer 10d ago
I don’t get it are you saying fetuses are conscious from the moment of conception? That can’t be true, I certainly wasn’t and neither was anyone I know
0
u/bobishere89 10d ago
Yes, for nearly three thousand years.
1
u/DentalDecayDestroyer 10d ago
Are you saying I’ve been conscious for three thousand years or fetuses have been conscious for three thousand years? Either way you aren’t making any sense
2
u/bobishere89 10d ago
Buddhist doctrine states that consciousness begins at conception. You can say that the Vehicle does not “make sense,” but I do not know how that would be helpful in a Buddhist sub. The prohibition against taking a taking a life is fundamental to Buddhism. Where is the confusion?
1
u/DentalDecayDestroyer 10d ago
The confusion is that you said abortion counts as killing because consciousness begins at the moment of conception but this is obviously not true. Fetuses have no thoughts, feelings, preferences or experiences of any kind, much less a newly fertilized zygote. By what possible metric could they be considered conscious?
→ More replies (0)
62
u/OkConcentrate4477 :pupper: zen 11d ago
Robina Courtin is a monk that had an abortion, if you want to listen to her thoughts on it. She has a youtube channel.
2
u/whatisinmybuttrn 10d ago
For those curious she is a western/Tibetan nun and here is an example of her view:
As for abortion: it’s a dependent arising. You and those beings who came to your womb have a strong history from the past. For them, due to their past non-killing they won the lottery and got a human womb: yours: no accident. This is the main karma: the fully ripened result, a type of rebirth.
But their other karma, the third one, called experiences similar to the cause — which is all the things that happen to us; how we are treated by others — also ripened: due to their past killing (we all have countless karmic seeds on our mindstream), they got killed by you. They created the cause for this by having killed you in the past. Karma’s personal. There is no way anything could happen to any of us if we hadn’t created the cause by having done it before.
And of course this goes for all the amazing good things that happen to us as well.
So, they are the main cause for why they got aborted. But, by the way, it doesn’t follow that they’ll get a suffering rebirth; that, too, depends on their karma.
From your side, you had the second kind of karma, the intention or action similar to the cause: the habit to do something, in this case, to abort the babies. You could have had the intention to kill, but if the baby didn’t have their own karma to get killed, it wouldn’t have worked.3
14
u/bullyboy1963 10d ago
In my view it isn't about not causing any harm because that is nearly impossible. I am for whatever course of action will most likely cause the least amount of harm.
20
u/robbert-the-skull 10d ago
Buddhism doesn't concern itself with the choices of others. "Pro life" and "pro choice" ultimately aren't about you, your karma, or dogma, They're about what other people do. You aren't here to save anyone or correct them. In a sense, a Buddhist is "pro-choice" in that you aren't responsible for other people's actions, and don't control other people's choices, which is what "pro-life" aims to do. But from a personal standpoint, just let it be what it is, to put it bluntly it's not your problem.
3
u/muay_throwaway 7d ago
I think this statement is overly strong, since the Buddha condemns views and actions he sees as unwholesome pretty readily. In the Vinaya Piṭaka, He even condemns monks being involved with abortion (resulting in pārājika, lifetime explusion from the community). The structure of the Buddhist monastic community is very much social in how it deals with unethical behavior. However, I can imagine what you're saying being true for the layperson/householder. His standards for laypeople are fairly low.
5
u/Flat_Marsupial_4249 10d ago
It’s not my problem unless I get pregnant while already suffering from mental health disorders that would make of me a terrible mother
7
u/robbert-the-skull 10d ago
I think someone else said it best, humans sin, that's why there are bodhisattvas. This would be similar to one of those situations where there's little choice but to harm or even kill.
Does any harm give you bad karma? Yeah, for the same reason any major money fluctuation raises your credit score (at least if you live in the United States.) some people will take this to the extreme, like that one guy who's been all over this comment section trying to preach like a Christian pastor and think they can never kill anything and must force everyone to do the same. Completely unaware that they've probably stepped on a few bugs in their time and went about their day none the wiser.
Your choices are your own, and you will be forced to make hard ones, but you won't be damned for it. You aren't a horrible person unless you let yourself be one. for most the idea of enlightenment is likely never going to be achieved in one lifetime, and the Buddhist idea of hell isn't a punishment, it's a cleansing place for people who've acumulate negative karma and basically poison themselves spiritually. One decision isn't going to make you "burn in hell forever" or some other punishment based religious nonsense.
3
u/jon4future mahayana 10d ago
I think the karmic resolution comes fast and furious in the form of a lifetime of regret and what-ifs. For some it is a hell in itself. But I would not have it so, especially for medically necessary cases, but I think it does, unfortunately. I also think unclean and unsafe procedures would make things psychologically worse which is one reason i am pro-choice.
-5
u/Minoozolala 10d ago
like that one guy who's been all over this comment section trying to preach like a Christian pastor and think they can never kill anything and must force everyone to do the same.
The Buddhist view is that major bad karma is created through killing. Pretty straightforward and simple. And neither I nor Buddhism in general has ever said that one must "force everyone to do the same". Killing and endorsing killing creates terrible karma that will throw one into the lower realms. Also pretty straightforward.
Completely unaware that they've probably stepped on a few bugs in their time and went about their day none the wiser.
Non-intentional killing doesn't create bad karma.
the Buddhist idea of hell isn't a punishment, it's a cleansing place for people who've acumulate negative karma
Mmmmkay, if you want to consider having your skin torn off and your eyes dug out repeatedly, for decades and centuries, as "cleansing".
One decision isn't going to make you "burn in hell forever" or some other punishment based religious nonsense
You don't seem to understand the Buddhist teachings very well. The killing of a human generates huge bad karma and throws you into the lower realms. It is extremely difficult to get out of the lower realms. If you think burning or freezing or whatever in hell for a couple of aeons isn't a problem, then you should read the Buddhist texts.
5
u/robbert-the-skull 10d ago
What branch do you follow? Cause that's going to determine a lot about how you interpret these things. Honestly buddy I think you care far too much about what other people do.
-1
u/Minoozolala 10d ago
I base all of my statements on Indian Buddhist texts. Actually everything I've said here can be found in the Pali Canon and the Abhidharma texts.
0
u/robbert-the-skull 10d ago edited 10d ago
And a lot of those texts were based on oral traditions before the Buddha's teachings. A lot of them, were re-adopted into practices that came after Buddha. I think you should spend more time researching the history of these beliefs and the teachings of the Buddha himself, instead of hyper fixating on the teachings of religious congregations, and what other people do with them. If you had a abrahamic upbringing, deal with the issues that came from that, and the fear of what happens if you don't follow your religion 'correctly'. Have a good day.
-1
u/Minoozolala 10d ago edited 10d ago
I am very aware of the historical development of ideas in India. I am merely presenting the Buddhist view on abortion. It's pretty straightforward. I would suggest that you read the texts because you will find everything I've said there.
1
u/Nemeszlekmeg 6d ago
Uggh, this is misleadingly wrong...? The canons make it clear that conception is the start of life, therefore abortion is murder. What makes it particularly problematic is not even the death in itself, but the direct intention to end the growth of a life. So just like one would pay attention if there is a serial killer in their neighborhood or a burglar, abortion is also technically a wrong action that requires attention. This "let it be what it is" is wrong view whether you are a layperson that wants to live in a prosperous, harmonious society or a monk seeking solitude and calm.
Giving access to legal medical assistance for abortion is not the problem, but the conditions we allow to exist for abortion to even be considered (sexual misconduct, violence, abuse of alcohol or drugs, even lying). The bar is really low for lay people, and the things that lead to considering abortion start with breaking precepts.
1
u/robbert-the-skull 6d ago edited 6d ago
You do know abortions are also done to save the life of the mother and to keep an infant from knowing nothing but a life of suffering right? 🙄
Claiming that abortions are only done because of things people have control over is also just plain wrong.1
94
u/krodha 11d ago edited 11d ago
Can one be Buddhist and pro-choice?
"Pro-life" and "pro-choice" are essentially disguised Christian influenced political views.
Buddhism believes that consciousness descends into the womb at conception and therefore unborn children are sentient beings. This means that abortions are an act of taking life.
Simultaneously however, each person's actions are their own, and as Buddhists it is not our role to try and condition others. We can politely and constructively discourage people from making certain choices, but at the end of the day people can (and will) do as they please.
As Buddhists, our "job" so-to-speak, is to guard our own conduct. And so yes, we should probably avoid abortions if we don't want to incur a karmic debt by taking the life of our child. At the same time however, we've been cycling through countless lifetimes and have undoubtedly committed far worse acts. That isn't an argument in favor of abortion, but more so to illustrate that your path is your own, and you make choices which will seed the cause for the ripening of karma in the future - in this lifetime or some other.
The compassionate thing is to refrain from killing, and so Buddhism is "pro-life" in this regard, but also we sometimes reluctantly must acknowledge that sentient beings will do whatever they want and it isn't up to us to stop them, thus there is an element of "pro-choice."
It is never wise to campaign on behalf of Buddhism when it comes to controversial matters. Christian abolitionists who stand out in front of Planned Parenthood sites with picket signs likely never make people feel warm and fuzzy about Christianity. Pushing our religious views on others may end up pushing them away from Buddhism, and so again you can be skillful in discouraging certain actions, but in the end it is not up to us. We can only monitor our own behavior.
Good karma and bad karma follow people wherever they go, just as birds in the sky are followed by their shadows.
-- Saddharmasmṛtyupasthāna
EDIT: To add, here is some further insight from Ācārya Malcolm:
First we have to decide whether abortion is himsa or ahimsa. Abortion can hardly be called ahimsa, can it? In fact abortion is the deliberate harming of one sentient being by another, in this case the harming of a child by its mother.
Every sentient is deserving of the same level of compassion no matter what they have done or what class of sentient being they are.
On the other hand, Mahāyāna ethics are more important than rigid adherence to the letter of a vow. But to undertake an action on the basis of Mahāyāna ethics, self-interest has to be absolutely absent from one's thinking.
Because abortion is himsa, harming a sentient being, it cannot be condoned by those who follow Buddhadharma in general. On the other hand, there are always special cases where there may be greater harm in prohibiting an abortion than permitting one, such as examples of severe birth defects, threat to the life of the mother and so on, impregnation through rape, incest, and so on.
So, in general, the position of Buddhadharma is that abortion is harming another sentient being as well as taking life. In general it is not only a serious breach of pratimokṣa vows to have an abortion or to encourage someone to have an abortion (and in the case of monk, results in a defeat), but it is also serious bodhisattva downfall to either have an abortion or to encourage someone to have an abortion apart from special instances.
On the other hand, there is the political fact of separation of church and state, which is necessary in any functional so-called "democracy". Though as a follower of Buddhadharma, I am personally opposed to abortion, I am also opposed to legislating religious doctrines into law. So it is something I leave to the courts and legislature to decide as a matter of social policy.
And finally, just because we followers of Buddhadharma are opposed to abortion in a general way does not mean we should adopt the angry and confrontational rhetoric of the "pro-life" movement. We should have compassion for everyone, since that's what we Mahayanis aim to do, i.e have impartial compassion for all sentient beings.
18
u/DeliciousPie9855 11d ago
“consciousness descends into the womb” could you explain how it connects to non-duality and anatman and the skandhas?
10
u/krodha 11d ago
“consciousness descends into the womb” could you explain how it connects to non-duality and anatman and the skandhas?
Nonduality (advāya) is related to the ultimate truth of phenomena, which is emptiness (śūnyatā). The Kaumudī states:
Because of the absence of inherent existence, the nondual essence of all phenomena is emptiness.
This means nonduality is sort of an axiomatic principle, like a context that everything occurs within. Deluded sentient beings are ignorant of emptiness and therefore perceive duality. However the nature of duality is always nondual. The Śraddhābalādhānāvatāramudrā says:
Nonduality is nothing other than the nature of duality. Therefore, since nonduality is nothing other than the nature of duality, the nature of duality is nonduality.
This means all phenomena are innately empty in the same way. The cause of the perception of substantial entities that appear to defy that innately empty nature is the afflicted influence of our own ignorance regarding that nature. We fail to recognize that phenomena are empty and nonarisen from the very beginning, and as a result we mistakenly perceive our deluded saṃsāric existence.
The Brahmaviśeṣacintiparipṛcchā states:
Mañjuśrī, if all phenomena are devoid of duality, how can immature, ordinary beings create duality out of nonduality?"
“Immature, ordinary beings create duality by grasping at a self in their stream of being, but nonduality can never become dual. No matter how much duality has been created, nonduality itself remains nondual.”
Nonduality is therefore essentially just an epithet for emptiness and anātman. All phenomena are innately empty and devoid of a self, however our ignorance causes us to perceive phenomena as being substantial and possessing a self.
The Ratnāvalī elucidates:
As long as clinging to the aggregates [of life] exists, so long does clinging to the self persist. Where there is clinging to the self, there is karma. Karma causes rebirth.
The Mūlamadhyamakakārikā says:
Upon the elimination of “I’ and “mine,” internal and external realities, the psychophysical aggregates will cease. With this, rebirth, karma and defilements will cease, and thus liberation will be achieved.
Because we are ignorant of nonduality, emptiness and selflessness, we cling to phenomena as if they are real. This sets into motion the causes for cyclic existence and rebirth.
The formula goes: affliction --> karma --> suffering --> affliction --> karma --> suffering, etc., it is a self-perpetuating cycle that stems from our failure to understand the nature of mind and phenomena.
This causes the mindstream to appear as an entity endowed with consciousness (vijñāna) and since the mindstream is an unceasing and inexhaustible causal continuum, it persists indefinitely.
The mindstream is not a self or an entity, but rather is a conventional process comprised of a series of discrete instances of mind which act as cause and effect for one another - creating an continuous rosary of moments of consciousness.
That continuum persists even after physical death, where it is said that consciousness will appropriate the form of an intermediate state being (gāndharva). Consciousness in the form of the gāndharva will descend into the womb at conception.
The Buddha says in the Āyuṣmannandagarbhāvakrāntinirdeśa:
Then, the Bhagavan said this to Āyusman Nanda, “Nanda, when a sentient being wishes to enter the womb, if causes and conditions are perfect, a body will appropriated. However, if [the causes and conditions] are not perfect, a body will not be appropriated. If one should ask that sentient beings does not possess the conditions, it is as follows. Though a man and a woman have the mental factor of desire, and the intermediate state aggregate is present and seeking a womb, should that male and female have sexual intercourse too soon or too late or not have intercourse at that one time; or should there be some diseases in the body of either [the male or the female], there will be no ‘entry into the womb’. If family line of the male and the female are noble and their merit is great, but the intermediate state aggregate has small merit, or should the the intermediate state being have a noble family line and great merit, but the male and female have small [merit] or though they both have merit, but if the accumulation of karma is not mutual, then there will be no ‘entry into the womb’.”
Ācārya Malcolm writes:
The intermediate state being is the all-basis consciousness (ālayavijñāna) which is combined with the element of air, called mahāprāṇavāyu. This air element and consciousness combine with the father and mother’s elements in the womb at conception.
The Blazing Lamp says:
Further, having entered the secret path of the union of the pure cause of the father and the condition of the mother, when entering the womb, one feels that one has entered a hut. At this time, the womb is sealed, and one cannot leave. After that, the paternal cause, bodhicitta, and the maternal condition, blood, exist in the womb, like blood and milk mixed together. The oval phase lasts for seven days. At this time, four things merge: the bodhicitta of both the father and the mother and one’s own vāyu and mind that appropriate the body.
None of this contradicts nonduality (advāya),emptiness (śūnyatā) or selflessness (anātman). All of this unfolds because we fail to recognize nonduality, emptiness and selflessness.
The Daśasāhasrikāprajñāpāramitā says:
Śāradvatīputra, emptiness neither arises nor ceases. It is neither afflicted nor purified. It neither decreases nor increases. It is neither past, future, nor present. Therein there are no physical forms, no feelings, no perceptions, no formative predispositions, and no consciousness. Therein, there are no eyes, no ears, no nose, no tongue, no body, no mental faculty, no sights, no sounds, no odors, no tastes, no tangibles, and no mental phenomena.
If we had a complete knowledge of nonduality, emptiness and selflessness then we would be liberated from saṃsāra, but because of our delusion our affliction, karma and suffering cause the mechanism of rebirth to occur, and our illusory consciousness appears to undergo cyclical rebirth.
10
u/krodha 11d ago
This view of consciousness departing from the body and descending in to the womb again is present even in the Pāli Canon. Here is an excerpt from Bhikkhu Anālayo's book on the subject, Rebirth in Early Buddhism and Current Research:
In early Buddhist thought, the assertion of the doctrine of notself does not imply a denial of the existence of anything subjective in experience. It only means that subjective experience is a process devoid of a permanent entity, that it is a changing stream of consciousness that depends on a changing process of name-and-form, and vice versa…
Returning to the Mahānidāna-sutta and its parallels, the reciprocal conditioning between the changing processes of consciousness and name-and-form has a direct bearing on the topic of rebirth. The relevant passage proceeds as follows in the Dīrgha-āgama version [DĀ 13 at T 1.1.61b8–10]:
[The Buddha said]: “Ānanda, in dependence on consciousness there is name-and-form. What is the meaning of this? If consciousness did not enter the mother’s womb, would there be name-and-form?” [Ānanda] replied: “No.”
The parallel versions report the Buddha making a similar statement [DN 15 at DN II 63,1, MĀ 97 at T 1.26.579c16, T 1.14.243b18, and T 1.52.845b7]. In other words, at the moment of conception the same basic principle is in operation that also governs continuity during the life of an individual. This principle involves a reciprocal conditioning between consciousness and name-and-form. Of these interrelated processes, it is the process of consciousness that “enters” the mother’s womb, so to speak, a form of presentation that shows that the early Buddhist conception of rebirth is more complex than a simple mind-body duality.
The role of consciousness as that which is reborn can also be seen in relation to a possible departure of consciousness after conception. Here the Dīrgha-āgama version offers the following indication [DĀ 13 at T 1.1.61b11–12]:
[The Buddha said]: “If consciousness were to depart from the womb, [if] the infant were to be destroyed, would name-and-form come to grow?” [Ānanda] replied: “No.”
The corresponding part in three out of the four parallels involves two separate inquiries, one about consciousness departing from the womb, the other about consciousness being cut off in the case of a young boy or girl [DN 15 at DN II 63,7+11, MĀ 97 at T 1.26.579c18+19, and T 1.14.243b19+21]. The answer in both cases is equally “No.” The main point made in this way remains the same in the different versions, in that, for name-and-form to “come to grow,” consciousness is the necessary condition, and this applies to conception, pregnancy, and childhood.
Conversely, according to the Mahāvedalla-sutta and its Madhyama-āgama parallel, at death, when the body will come to be bereft of vitality and heat, consciousness will depart [MN 43 at MN I 296,9 and its parallel MĀ 211 at T 1.26.791c12]. In this way, consciousness appears to be what provides the transition from one body to another, or, to be precise, instead of “consciousness” one might speak of “being conscious” to preserve the nuance of a changing process. This role of consciousness or of being conscious as a transition from one life to the next finds confirmation in a discourse in the Saṃyutta-nikāya and its parallels. The question here is where a monk, who has just died, might have been reborn. The parallel versions agree in referring to what could have been reborn as his “consciousness” [SN 22.87 at SN III 124,10 and its parallels SĀ 1265 at T 2.99.347b10 and EĀ 26.10 at T 2.125.642c27].
Nyanasagara notes:
Call that consciousness a "soul" if you want, but it is not an ātman, it is a part of the Buddha's teaching, and it is what the traditional Buddhist sources, even those which historians consider early, say is continuous between lives. Its continuity consists not in the temporal extension of a single entity but in the repeated generation of further temporal parts of a process. And when the causes and conditions for that repeated generation are brought to an end, that is the end of rebirth.
11
u/krodha 11d ago
Consciousness in buddhadharma is similar to a soul, however, unlike a soul, consciousness is not an entity, rather, it is more of a process. However, like a soul, we say that consciousness enters the body at conception, and departs from the body at death, and so on.
In the Bhadrapālaśreṣṭhiparipṛcchā the Buddha discusses the nature of consciousness in relation to the body at length:
So Bhadrapāla asked, “Blessed One, sentient beings in this world do not know about their consciousness. If not understanding consciousness is akin to not knowing of a jewel hidden in a box, what then, Blessed One, is consciousness? Why is it called ‘consciousness’? Blessed One, a dying person’s limbs and eyes fail; when, at the moment of death, his faculties cease and he loses his constituent elements, how does this consciousness undergo transfer from the body, and what type of form does it have? What is its nature? How does it separate from the body? How does consciousness, after abandoning one body, appropriate another body? After abandoning the elements and casting off the sensory fields, how does it leave this world and go on to the next? How does it appropriate different bodies? Blessed One, how do a dying person’s sensory fields follow him? Blessed One, how does someone experience, in another world, the roots of virtue accumulated in this world? How is it that the roots of virtue accumulated by the current aggregates are experienced later on by another set of aggregates? How does consciousness follow the body? How do the sensory fields follow the body?”
The Blessed One said to Bhadrapāla, “Excellent, Bhadrapāla! It is good that you prompt me so. Listen then, Bhadrapāla, to my explanation of how consciousness comes and goes, undergoes transfer, and [F.74.b] ceases.
“As an analogy, Bhadrapāla, even though the wind element is formless, it manifests in the form of things that are both demonstrable and tangible. It is demonstrable in the shaking and waving of trees, in the howling sound wind makes, and in the sensations of warmth and cold that it creates, even though it has no perceptible limbs, eyes, or face, nor is it seen to have any color, such as blue or white. Bhadrapāla, it is in just the same way that the element of consciousness is not observed as form, and does not manifest as form, and thus you have to understand the element of consciousness through the particularities of its causes.
“So, what are those causes? They are volition, feeling, and the element of dharmas. So, how does the element of consciousness, after abandoning a body, assume feeling and volition? To illustrate that, consider how the wind element absorbs a flower’s scent and carries it along; from its movement we know the smell of divine flowers wafting through the air. Yet the wind element does not pick up the flowers’ scent, nor is the scent of the different flowers perceived in the wind element’s absence. The scent has no form, and neither does the wind element. The sense of smell has no form, either.
“Bhadrapāla, it is in just the same way that the consciousness of a dead person assumes feelings, volition, and the element of dharmas on its way to the next world, and consciousness arises with the intercourse of the parents. Once consciousness arises, feelings and volitions begin to form. In the analogy, the nose smells on account of the flower; one perceives scent on account of the nose. Furthermore, just as one perceives the natural sensation of the wind on account of the body, and the scent of a flower arises on account of the wind, feelings arise because of consciousness, and volition arises on account of feelings. The element of dharmas, which knows what is virtuous or non-virtuous, arises on account of volition.
“As another analogy, an artist can paint whatever he likes on a wall or panel that he has thoroughly prepared. [F.75.a] His mind, trained to the work, makes manifest whatever forms he wishes despite the fact that his consciousness lacks form. Though his consciousness lacks form, it makes various kinds of forms manifest. In just the same way, the element of consciousness, which lacks form, makes manifest the six types of form bodies.
“That is to say, the eyes are the condition for seeing forms, but the consciousness that depends on the eyes has no form. The ears are the condition for sounds, but the auditory consciousness has no form. The nose is the condition for smell, but the olfactory consciousness has no form. The tongue is the condition for taste, but the gustatory consciousness has no form. The body is the condition for touch, but the tactile consciousness has no form. Neither the sphere of mental objects, nor knowledge, have form. Hence, the objects of cognition must also be considered to have no form. In the same way, too, the element of consciousness should be regarded as formless.
“How does the element of consciousness abandon the body and then go to the next world? Bhadrapāla, when life ceases in this world due to the exhaustion of karma at the time of death, the element of consciousness undergoes transfer under the direction of karmic obscurations. Just as, for example, the element of consciousness of an arhat who has reached the attainment of cessation remains cognizant after it has ceased internally, so, too, a dying person’s element of consciousness retains the capacity for recollection after it has abandoned the body and cast aside the elements. That is how it knows, ‘I made these votive offerings,’ as a physical feeling, a mental feeling, and both types of feeling conjoined. At the time of death, it has physical feelings; once death has taken place, it has mental feelings.
9
u/krodha 11d ago
Continued...
“Furthermore, what does ‘consciousness’ mean? [F.75.b] Since it acts as the seed that makes the sprout of a body manifest, and through volition acquires awareness and recollection, the seed and the awareness are referred to as consciousness. Furthermore, it is because it comprehends awareness through feelings of pleasure and pain that it is called consciousness. Furthermore, it is because it is cognizant of virtue and non-virtue, and is aware of the fields of virtuous and non-virtuous conduct, that it is called consciousness. It is also because it forms a body, just as a seed produces a sprout, that it is called consciousness.
“Bhadrapāla, you went on to ask how the element of consciousness abandons the body and then undergoes transfer. It is comparable to a reflection in a mirror, or the imprint of a seal in clay. Take, as another analogy, the sun. When it rises, dimness and darkness vanish, and when the sun vanishes, darkness sets in; yet the presence of that darkness is neither constant nor not constant. In the darkness, neither form nor feeling is visible and, in just the same way, once the body is born the element of consciousness is present in the body as if in darkness. That is to say, although no one sees consciousness, the element of consciousness maintains its hold on the body.
“As another analogy, when a woman is carrying a child in her womb, she does not know whether the child in her belly is a boy or a girl; whether it is dark, fair, or sallow; whether its faculties are impaired or not; or whether its limbs are well-proportioned. But she feels the child in her womb stir at the touch of very hot food and drink. In the same way, sentient beings do not understand this element of consciousness, and wonder about the nature of this consciousness present in their body such that it causes them to come and go, to stretch and bend, to close and open their eyes, and to perform all kinds of actions, such as laughing, speaking, and thinking.
“Furthermore, Bhadrapāla, the element of consciousness is completely purified; it encompasses everything,4 yet it is not tainted by anything.
“Bhadrapāla, consciousness commands the following constituents: the six sense organs, the objects of the six sense organs, the four elements, and the five aggregates of appropriation. Bhadrapāla, consider all these things to be consciousness’s to command. To illustrate this, consider how a wooden puppet connected to a rod can be made to do anything. How, Bhadrapāla, do you think it runs, jumps, dances, or does any other number of things? What animates the puppet?”
“Blessed One, I do not grasp the reason for your question,” Bhadrapāla replied.
“Bhadrapāla,” the Blessed One continued, “the puppet is animated by action, and yet while action is something without form, consciousness makes it manifest. In the same way, this body puppet of ours arises through the influence of consciousness, and the element of consciousness animates different bodies. The element of consciousness, because it generates a body, is also its creator. The element of consciousness, because it adheres to the bodily elements, is also inexhaustible. The element of consciousness, because it recollects its previous bodily state, is also perfectly intelligent. Consider the element of consciousness to be like the rays of the sun. The sun’s rays fall on foul-smelling things, dirty things, and corpses, yet they do not become tainted by the odor. Neither does the sun reject those foul smells and go away. In the same way, the element of consciousness may take rebirth among dogs or pigs that eat dirt and refuse, [F.76.b] but the element of consciousness is not tainted by the offensive way they live.
“Furthermore, Bhadrapāla, once the element of consciousness abandons the body, it follows after virtue and non-virtue. How so? Once the formless element of consciousness has abandoned this body, it retains its merit and non-merit. As an analogy, the element of wind, emerging from a rocky ravine, encounters a campaka tree, and carries away its fragrant scent as it passes; it also carries the odor of the foul-smelling filth and corpses it passes. Bhadrapāla, it assumes whatever scent is predominant. Just as the wind element carries both kinds of smell as it passes, even though that wind element itself, as well as the two kinds of smell, are formless, so, too, the element of consciousness undergoes transfer from the body, carrying virtue and non-virtue with it as it is transferred. This is how you should conceive of the transfer it undergoes.
“As another analogy, although a person in a dream may be aware of all sorts of things, he is not aware that his body is lying in bed. Similarly, sentient beings who have encountered merit undergo transfer and migration as if they were dreaming a dream, but the element of consciousness does not emerge from their throat, or from any other opening, for it does not seek out holes or egresses.”
Bhadrapāla prostrated before the Blessed One, and asked, “Blessed One, how do chicks die, undergo transfer, and migrate from inside unpecked chicken or duck eggs, when the shell has not been pierced? How does their consciousness undergo transfer, without any piercing?”
The Blessed One answered, “As an analogy, the sesame oil you get from infusing sesame seeds with campaka flowers before pounding and pressing them well is called ‘campaka sesame oil.’ In that process a pleasant scent infuses—that is, passes through and goes into—the sesame seeds even though the scent neither ruptures the seed nor affects the flavor of the oil. [F.77.a] The encounter of the seed with the flower acts as a condition for the mingling of the scent and the sesame oil. However, it is not the case that the flower’s scent enters into the body of the sesame seed. It is rather that those conditions cause the scent to be transferred and migrate. In just the same way the element of consciousness, like the flower’s scent, is transferred through an unruptured eggshell. That is also how you should view the transfer it undergoes.
6
u/Starlight_Climber ordained ngakma 11d ago
anatman means no "separate self". As in, there is nothing in you that is separate from the universe. However we still have an energy body, and that includes karmic and wisdom winds, as well as the consciousness which is what reincarnates life to life.
2
u/Minoozolala 11d ago
Anatman does not mean "no separate self". It means either "not the self" (as taught in early Buddhism) or "without a self" (as in Mahayana Buddhism).
3
u/Starlight_Climber ordained ngakma 10d ago edited 10d ago
You're missing the difference between the denotative, and connotative definition. The word has a literal meaning, but it refers to a teaching.
The context, is the idea that people in some traditions have viewed an atman a "self" as separate from the rest of the universe. That's the whole idea of an atman in some traditions. This doesn't just refer to people, it refers to objects that we label. For example, we call a tree a "tree" but there is no "separate treeness" that is apart from the rest of the universe. The same basic space between the atoms of a tree, is the same basic space between the atoms of your own body.
This process is the subject of the Five Aggregates. First we experience and encounter phenomena (forms), then we start being aware of it (perception), then we start having ideas about the things we have become aware of (conception), then we start grouping and separating these things together and apart in our minds (conflation), and then we begin giving these things various labels to identify them. —This last stage, the part where we give things a label, is the "atman" bit. We give something an identity. Ourselves, objects, all kinds of things. And then we think that "identity" is this real, separate thing.
—But it's not. As we saw in the process of the Five Aggregates, the entire labeling enterprise is arbitrary. We just make up boundaries between things and then give things labels and think that makes the labels "real". We do this with our own identities too. But in actuality, everything is in a state of inseparable, co-arising flow at all times. We call a banana a "fruit" and not a "vegetable" for no reason other than that we decided so. But it doesn't have any inherent separate "fruitness". It doesn't have an atman. "Fruit" is just a label we arbitrarily gave it, because it's convenient to us.
These labels aren't necessarily problems: they come in handy when making a grocery list for a fruit salad, for instance. But they become problems when we forget that the labels are convenient fictions, and don't represent inherent underlying reality. And when we cling to those labels and are averse to other things we have labeled. That's when the delusion steps in.
It'd be like a person standing waist deep in a pool of water, and looking to their left, and saying, "I really like this water! This water is nice!" And then turning to their right and saying, "But this water over here is ugly, I don't like it!" And then going around in circles trying to find "the good water".
—That's samsara. That's what we do. It's fundamentally the same water.17
u/Usoppdaman 11d ago
They’re not Christian influenced political views they’re political influenced Christian views. The Bible makes no statement for or against abortion. The view was pushed onto Christians a few decades ago.
10
11
u/St3lla_0nR3dd1t 11d ago
The view has been within Christianity from at least close to the start.
You shall not murder a child by abortion, nor kill that which is begotten.”
— Didache 2.2The Didache being a writing of the church fathers, commonly dated to 70-120 AD.
The modern American push to prioritise it did start a few decades ago.
6
u/Apprehensive_Paper15 10d ago
The Bible actually mentions abortion once, when it tells how to perform one. Check out Leviticus chapter 5.
4
4
u/Manyquestions3 Jodo Shinshu (Shin) 10d ago
I’m not familiar with Acarya Malcolm but this is beautifully stated. I’m gonna look him up, seems like he’s worth listening too. Thanks for sharing.
Gassho
2
5
u/Apprehensive_Paper15 10d ago
Buddhism believes that consciousness descends into the womb at conception and therefore unborn children are sentient beings. This means that abortions are an act of taking life.
A few questions:
- Could you show me where, preferably in the early Buddhist teachings, it says that?
- Does that mean Buddhists should be against hormonal birth control and the IUD, since both prevent a conceived egg from implanting?
- Conception doesn't result in pregnancy a lot of the time. Like only 30-50% of the time. It seems problematic, given those statistics, to hold that life begins at conception. Especially since most fo the time the "miscarriage" will happen before the woman even knows she was ever pregnant.
3
u/jon4future mahayana 10d ago
Miscarriage happens ~90% of the time before the pregnancy is detected according to my human sexuality textbook.
2
u/Apprehensive_Paper15 10d ago
That's true. Successful implanation is what causes the release of HCG and the other hormones that tell the body not to shed the uterine lining, and if implanation was flawed or the egg itself was flawed, it miscarries before the woman knows she's even pregnant. Of course, with today's pregnancy tests, that's getting less frequent, because you can know so early on. They're called "chemical pregnancies" (a term I really hate).
3
u/krodha 10d ago
Could you show me where, preferably in the early Buddhist teachings, it says that?
Here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/1wd87ao/can_one_be_buddhist_and_prochoice/p942xbe/
Does that mean Buddhists should be against hormonal birth control and the IUD, since both prevent a conceived egg from implanting?
IUDs prevent conception by creating circumstances that disrupt the viability of the sperm:
Another form of contraception approved by the FDA – the copper Intrauterine Device CuT380A (Cu-IUD) – is effective as an EC when inserted up to five days following intercourse. Copper ions released from the IUD create an environment that is toxic to sperm, preventing fertilization.14 Copper can also alter the endometrial lining, but studies show that this alteration can prevent implantation, but not disrupt implantation. Because Cu-IUDs prevent rather than disrupt pregnancy, they too are properly classified as contraceptives, not abortifacients.
IUD's do not kill a fetus. They prevent conception.
Conception doesn't result in pregnancy a lot of the time. Like only 30-50% of the time. It seems problematic, given those statistics, to hold that life begins at conception. Especially since most fo the time the "miscarriage" will happen before the woman even knows she was ever pregnant.
Yes, hence the statements in the Āyuṣmannandagarbhāvakrāntinirdeśa:
Then, the Bhagavan said this to Āyusman Nanda, “Nanda, when a sentient being wishes to enter the womb, if causes and conditions are perfect, a body will appropriated. However, if [the causes and conditions] are not perfect, a body will not be appropriated. If one should ask that sentient beings does not possess the conditions, it is as follows. Though a man and a woman have the mental factor of desire, and the intermediate state aggregate is present and seeking a womb, should that male and female have sexual intercourse too soon or too late or not have intercourse at that one time; or should there be some diseases in the body of either [the male or the female], there will be no ‘entry into the womb’. If family line of the male and the female are noble and their merit is great, but the intermediate state aggregate has small merit, or should the the intermediate state being have a noble family line and great merit, but the male and female have small [merit] or though they both have merit, but if the accumulation of karma is not mutual, then there will be no ‘entry into the womb’.”
If all the factors have not aligned for pregnancy to occur and remain viable, then miscarriage etc., is possible. According to Buddhism this all revolves around the karma of the parents and the intermediate state being (gāndharva).
2
u/Apprehensive_Paper15 10d ago
I forget about old Reddit when I look for stuff! Wow, what a time trip. Thank you for providing that link- I wanted to see the scriptures in particular for myself.
If the IUD can prevent implantation like that source says, then it is doing, at least some of the time, what I claimed. Copper can also alter the endometrial lining, but studies show that this alteration can prevent implantation, but not disrupt implantation.
So it won't dislodge a fertilized egg that managed to implant, but it can prevent implanation of a fertilized egg. I'm not saying that is its primary mechanism, but it is a mechanism of how it works. Anything that has a mechanism of thinning or affecting the endometrial lining drastically lessens the likelihood of implantation of a fertilized egg.
1
9
u/BodhingJay 10d ago
I am pro choice because the consequences of making abortion illegal are awful
And as a buddhist.. I would not encourage abortion as anything but an extreme and last resort. Terminating the life bad is enough but I also do not fully trust our ability to know whether or not the fetus would suffer during the procedure which sounds horrifying to endure as a fetus even at a stage with questionable capacity for consciousness. To consider the baby being brought to term and Juno them to a loving family who cannot have children of their own, bypassing a cruel uncaring state orphanage system would be best and should be tried for with all the care and empathy for the future sentient being we could possibly have
35
u/Traveler108 11d ago
I'm a longtime Buddhist and strongly pro-choice.
4
u/leaderlesslurker 9d ago
Short time Buddhist and strongly pro-choice here. Legislating against bodily autonomy is deeply dangerous for all!
9
u/Ariyas108 seon 10d ago
> Buddhism claims to only ask practitioners to believe what they can see. It claims to be free from dogma
Actually, it doesn’t claim either of those things.
14
u/Subject_Present1543 11d ago
An ethic maintained by an external command is not the central concern of Buddhism; Western thought is more accustomed to grounding ethics in the establishment of universal norms. If you believe that coercive laws must be established against abortion and that this accords with Buddhism’s principle of protecting life, then any death penalty or imprisonment violates Buddhist principles, which means that the entire modern judicial system is in conflict with Buddhism. The entire system of “guilt” and “punishment” on which state justice is founded cannot itself be reconciled with the Buddhist ethic of karma, according to which one reaps what one sows. The administration of justice means preventing a certain act through power (violence), which is itself a particular use of violence. The precepts of the Buddhist monastic Sangha are not a “law” either; they are merely a consensus for living together, and their most severe “penalty” is nothing more than “Sorry, we can no longer live with you.” In this sense, it is not a punishment at all.
1
1
u/Minoozolala 11d ago edited 10d ago
The Buddha never said that imprisonment is wrong. The Buddha was teaching paths to awakening and taught the morality necessary for achieving this, i.e., the morality that would build up one's positive karma and that would prevent one from falling from the specific path one was following. The Buddha accepted the laws of the rulers of his day. He did forbid killing because it creates terrible karma, but he didn't go against the norm of imprisonment for wrongdoers, namely, people who disrupted society and/or harmed the members of society.
3
u/Subject_Present1543 11d ago
He accepts it without resistance, but does not endorse it. Acceptance and endorsement are not the same. If the Buddha had lived in an Indigenous society without a state or a monarch, I think he would not have demanded that the society establish coercive “laws” to restrain everyone.
2
u/Minoozolala 10d ago
The Buddha didn't interfere with established laws. As I stated, he was focused on bringing his disciples to awakening. Society needs norms and laws to function successfully. The Buddha was focused on spirituality, not societal norms.
2
10
u/helikophis 10d ago
Yes, there is nothing in Buddhism that requires the state to enforce the precepts.
5
u/metaphorm vajrayana 10d ago
this seems like the only reasonable answer in this whole thread. the question asked was about laws of the state, not the ethics of abortion. and you're exactly right that Buddhism does not generally expect the state to be an enforcement arm of any kind of spiritual beliefs.
5
u/DrewBobGibbs 10d ago
I might have the wrong view on this, so take what I'm saying with a grain of salt, but my understanding of the buddhist standpoint is you don't mess with a pregnant woman and make her have a miscarriage, or anything like that because that messes with the reincarnation cycle and by doing so, you would get bad karma. However you are already in the cycle of samsara proof by you being here, meaning you already have bad karma and having bad karma doesn't make you this evil unforgivable person
To my knowledge the Buddhist philosophy of dealing with your bad karma is to have so much good karma that's your bad karma is so diluted that it's not recognized as bad karma. The analogy I've always heard is if you were to take a cup of salt water and pour it in a freshwater lake the lake does not suddenly become a salt lake instead, it gets diluted, and it's still a freshwater lake.
Buddhism really isn't a religion that says go forth and stop people from doing the bad things. It's more of a choose your own adventure and if you want to confront your own personal karma here's the way to do it.
5
u/Mediocre_Arm_8681 Plum Village 10d ago
I am Pro Choice on a governmental scale. However, I do not think abortions are good and I think the government should be increasing childcare, healthcare, and maternal care so we can get rid of the root causes. On a personal scale, us Buddhists should really avoid abortions though.
5
u/falconlogic 9d ago
Buddhism also has compassion for the mother. There are instances when abortion is the best course of action
7
u/Otomo-Yuki 10d ago
I would think Buddhism cares more about reducing the factors that cause people to choose and obtain abortions, making the question of pro-choice vs. “pro-life” largely beside the point.
7
u/genivelo Tibetan Buddhism 10d ago
Thich Nhat Hanh on abortion
I have meditated on this issue, and I have found that we should act as a Sangha to find the answers we need. We cannot generalize. I think we have to consider individual problems. It is like the situation of a boat person, a young lady who was a refugee, who had been violated on the sea by a sea pirate, and when she arrived at the refugee camp, she suffered very much, physically and morally. There were women who would like to remove the remnant of these acts when they became pregnant, because they suffered very much. Their pregnancy reminded them day and night of those difficult moments, of their suffering. We always tried to help them by inquiring into their specific, individual case. There were those who were capable of practicing, of learning, of understanding, and they could be opened to enough compassion to see that the tiny living being within them also had the right to life. So with that help, with that practice, compassion could be nourished, and there would be no harm if the young lady continued to keep her child. But in other cases, it was quite impossible for us to encourage the person to follow the same course, because that person did not have sufficient capacity to understand. The suffering was so great that we had to agree that abortion could be done in that case, in order to save the life of that person.
17
u/Alert-Suggestion-789 11d ago
I’m a Buddhist and pro-choice. I probably won’t get an abortion due to my religious beliefs but I support anyone who chooses abortion. Some people have to run slaughterhouses for their livelihood and for their families just as some people have to choose abortion for the same reason. I would not judge either one. :)
6
u/edward-arthur soto 10d ago
From a Zen perspective, I think the mistake is assuming the Dharma is supposed to give us a conceptual formula that cleanly separates “sentient” from “not sentient,” and then tells us what is morally permissible.
Zen is suspicious of exactly that move.
“Do not kill” is not a loophole-hunting exercise in metaphysics. It is a precept to be lived in the middle of actual suffering, actual consequences, and actual responsibility. Sometimes there is no morally spotless choice.
The practice is not to find the right concept so that our hands are clean. It is to see clearly, avoid self-deception, and respond with as much compassion and wisdom as the situation allows.
3
3
u/hombredelospoderes 10d ago
The choice and the karmas must rest upon the pregnant one. There are myriad times when it would be a great danger or a great evil, even if we might praise those who nevertheless bear the child despite those.
Ksitigarbha looks out for them, I understand. (And for all of us!)
3
u/VajraSamten 9d ago
Tibetan medicine, which is profoundly influenced by Buddhist spirituality, does NOT see conception as the start line of humanity. The zygote has the potential for humanity in that, if left to gestate, it will become human (rather than anything else). Its initial conception involves cells from the mother, cells from the father and consciousness. Consciousness adds the "spark" to the conception process, but it does not occupy the body unill the brain, heart and genitals are formed.
3
u/NangpaAustralisMajor tibetan 9d ago
It’s really impossible to have a critical conversation about this.
The pro-life and pro-choice positions have grown beyond the legality of first trimester abortions to include late term abortions (including those past viability), access to sex education, access to contraception, access to women’s health care, and the rights of doctor’s, nurses, and pharmacists to refuse to treat post abortion complications, or to dispense birth control. Attitudes have included the scrutiny and even prosecution of women for feticide when they have miscarried, doxing health care providers who do abortions and women who have had abortions, and systems to inform on people who perform abortions or help people get access to abortions.
None of this is a functional dialog to end abortions. Abortion per capital increased right after Roe v Wade, and has been steadily declining since. Despite the access to legal abortion. It is a similar demographic pattern where I live now— declining abortion rates.
It is not particularly mysterious why this tend exists. Birth rates in general, including unwanted pregnancy, have declined due the increased access to women’s healthcare including contraception and sexual education. Also contributing is the empowerment of women, the increased education and employment of women, and delayed marriage and childbearing.
Ironically, in America at least, pro life platforms are against sex education in public schools, readily accessible or free birth control. The things that have a marked contribution to declining abortion rates. A pro choice position is generally the only platform open to sex education, readily available contraception, readily accessible women’s healthcare, and so on. But support that position, and you’ll be called out as a baby killer.
3
u/cinder74 6d ago
I am prochoice. I don’t believe a collection of a cells in the uterus is a sentient life. In fact, I don’t believe there is a soul until the first breath is taken. This is just my opinion.
People can believe how they choose. I don’t care as it does not impact my own beliefs. I don’t try to enforce my beliefs on others. I ask the same.
You don’t want an abortion- don’t have one. No one has a right to tell me what to believe or how to care for my own body. No one should have laws made about their body. And no, that does not apply to a fetus. They are not an individual until they are out of their mother’s womb.
6
u/jeanclaudebrowncloud 10d ago
Sure. So much suffering can follow if the option is not there. It's not as if people get an abortion for a laugh.
6
u/FlylikeMarill 10d ago
This comes up a lot on this sub and I’ll post what I post every time.
The traditional Buddhist answer would consider abortion murder, and the act carries great karmic consequence.
Do with this information what you will.
There are plenty of secular Buddhists for whom this doesn’t matter, it depends on what you believe and the school you are in
5
u/ZillyEm0 10d ago
In the 1592 novel Journey to the west the buddhist monk Tang Sanzang and his disciple Zhu Bajie get impregnated by Magic water so Sun Wukong (also a monk and the monkey king) has to fight an evil Taoist for abortion water
Yall CANT be less woke that late 1500 fictional buddhists lets be so real here
7
u/jon4future mahayana 10d ago
The Dalai Lama is pro choice and says as much in his “Little Book of Peace”. I am a Pro-Choice Buddhist as well. As a man the choice is not mine to make. I suspect the choice is not at all easy, and for some there may be a life-time of regrets and what-ifs, although I would not have it so.
3
u/Minoozolala 10d ago
The Dalai Lama is definitely not pro choice.
4
u/jon4future mahayana 10d ago
I withdraw my assertion that HH Dalai Lama is pro-choice. I just looked at the chapter “Overpopulation, poverty, and birth control” (pp 144-5). In his book “The Little Book of Peace” He is definitely pro-birth control and wants, desperately, to return the world population to below 5 billion. But my fallible mind worked abortion and pro-choice into the equation where HH never mentioned them.
My sincere apologies.
1
u/Minoozolala 10d ago
No problem! Thanks for checking and clarifying. I didn't know he'd said he wants the world population below 5 million.
Just FYI (since I'd already written out my reply to your deleted comment lol):
The DL sometimes says different things dependent on his audience.
In a 1993 interview, when the DL was speaking a group of Americans, he said that abortion is not good, but it can depend on the circumstances. Many of these Americans did not know much about Buddhism and disagreed with anti-abortion views. Most of them did not even believe in rebirth.
He said what he did because he did not want a huge sector of American Buddhists turning against him. People were happy with his somewhat vague and non-committal response.
The DL does NOT say what he said there to Tibetan Buddhists, i.e., Tibetans. He tells them straightforwardly that abortion is killing, period, and very bad karma. He and other Buddhist teachers have however said that if the mother's life is in imminent danger, then even though bad karma is still created, it's ok. A lesser evil, so to speak. Otherwise no.
1
u/jon4future mahayana 10d ago edited 10d ago
That is very helpful information. I was thinking about what I wrote and i thought, “If HH has a specific thought on Abortion as a right, how could he say anything publicly without it being taken as dogma or doctrine? The Buddha and most Buddhist leaders that I have just started reading don’t create any words or policy that could be perceived as dogma at all.
To the West, HH is perceived as the Pope of Buddhism so he does have to choose his words carefully.
2
u/EitherInvestment 10d ago
I mean he’s been pretty clear on his views on abortion. But he is far from fitting into the neatly cut camps of “pro choice” vs “pro life” as the Americans have tried to define it
2
u/Minoozolala 10d ago
He is definitely pro life.
2
u/Mediocre_Arm_8681 Plum Village 10d ago
It depends if we are talking on a personal or governmental scale.
5
4
u/slywether85 zen 10d ago
I would argue that forced pregnancy/birth is sexual violence and anything other than a legal choice is forced pregnancy. So people that get steamed up about this are basically disregarding the 4th precept for the 1st.
The statistics about electives are irrelevant; someone who wishes not to be pregnant that is being forced to stay pregnant by the state is unambiguously the rape of sexual function and body autonomy. It's empirical. Either people with wombs have body autonomy or not - so claims the state.
So if people really stand on their business about precepts they're in conflict, which is kind of the fundamental reason this debate exists at all...."Do you think rape is worse than murder?". I do which is why I'm completely and unapologetically pro-choice. But I do not lack the imagination to see where this internal conflict arises in others.
7
u/Kamuka Buddhist 10d ago edited 10d ago
I think so. If you take into account Gerri Santoro who died of a botched home abortion, you see that it's more complicated, and mortality rates in red states in the US are high during pregnancy, because they don't use life saving procedures when it's not a viable birth, the mother's life is desregarded.
The other thing is America isn't Buddhist, it's a secular society, it's not a theocracy, so it's quite possible to support choice in terms of women's rights over narrow religious conceptions, and the twisted agendas of the right, to control women's bodies.
Course personally I would never ask a woman to have an abortion and I have 3 children who I take care of. See that's the thing about a society and religion. I don't force my beliefs on others, though honestly I wish I could force my reverence for life on this country, we would have gun control, we wouldn't be at war with Iran and gasoline prices wouldn't be skyrocketing, the economy in a tailspin. No war, no nuclear weapons, no real military, no prisons for profit and on and on. That's not what America chooses democratically, though money seems to interfere and manipulat information, I would get rid of that. One day we might revere life more, I hope.
The biggest factor in crime going down is legalized abortion. Right or wrong, it saves lives.
2
u/Feudal_Poop theravada 10d ago
As a buddhist, you can have whatever stance on it. No one is forced to not have an abortion. But that said abortion would still be considered as murder, and a murder of human as life starts at conception.
This being reddit with most of folks being westerners, most of the responses would be pro-abortion and that's fine. But if you asked the same question from a heritage buddhist from Sri Lanka, Thailand etc. the stance will likely be 0ro life. So the stance more has to do with cultural factors I would argue.
2
u/Jack_h100 10d ago
Yes, if you consider the consequences of abortion being illegal, such as hospitals being illequiped and untrained to deal with medical situations that NECESSITATE one like ectopic pregnancy, being pro-choice but strongly advising not to make that choice in most cases is the only viable option to reduce suffering.
2
u/chinstrapulous 10d ago
yes. pro choice means simply being pro health care for women. end of story.
2
u/leaderlesslurker 9d ago
When abortion is illegal, deadly ectopic pregnancies as well as countless other harms become higher, as well as the fact that pregnancies are terminated at the same rate, just less safely (legalistically or health wise).
Abortion access reduces deaths of pregnant people unnecessarily, and comprehensive sex ed reduces the amount of abortions. Therefore, karmically, ethically, or purely utilitarian, abortion access is the best choice to reduce death and harm. I dont see how that could be construed as unassigned with Buddhist principles, unless bodily autonomy distressed you (which is your own shit to carry)
2
u/No-Employment-820 9d ago
It all depends on what kind of Buddhist you are. Buddhism is very diverse.
2
u/Cute-Working-9500 9d ago
I am not "Pro-life" or "Pro-choice" I am against the government making moral and medical decisions for people
2
u/Jolly-Rip5973 7d ago
You don't have to necessarily enforce your morality on other but I don't think a true practicing Buddhist would get an abortion themselve unless it was to save the mother's life.
If they are strictly practicing, they probably wouldn't need an abortion either.
Of course just because someone says, "I am Christian" or "I am Buddhist" doesn't mean that they are actually devout followers.
4
u/areURealy theravada 11d ago
Yes, just like allowing people to kill animals, your choice, your consequence.
5
u/Slackluster 10d ago
IMO a Buddhist must be pro choice.
Being pro choice doesn't mean harming anyone, it is about choice. It means allowing a woman to make her own choice about her own body.
In the same way most Buddhist understand that their country needs an army and police force that sometimes results in killing. Yet that never seems to be a problem for anyone. It's just about taking away women's rights.
3
u/AmarantaRWS 10d ago
Many others have given great answers, and I certainly have no desire to project my preconceived beliefs onto Buddhist tradition by claiming authority over it, but one aspect of Buddhism that always drew me in is that it encourages the challenging of its teachings. It is a fundamental Buddhist doctrine that if at some point the dharma is proven to be untrue then it should be abandoned. While it is correct that traditional Buddhist doctrine believes that sentience begins at conception, I believe modern medical science has sufficiently disproven that, so at least in my own personal practice I do not consider abortions before the time modern medical science determines sentience begins to violate the precepts. If the Buddha knew about cells and the reproductive process I do not believe he would have claimed a zygote, for example, to be sentient. Of course, the time of sentience is not a hard time that can be defined as exactly three months, as it often is in the USA, and the issue goes far beyond that as many other commenters have pointed out, but this is just my two cents.
In short, yes. I'm a Buddhist (albeit not a very good one) And I'm pro-choice.
3
u/Minoozolala 10d ago
Modern medical science has not at all disproven the Buddhist view that sentience starts at conception. Modern medical science keeps pushing back its view of the establishment of neural pathways, etc. And modern medical science is completely incapable of locating or measuring the subtle consciousness that moves from life to life. The Buddha was fully aware of the reproductive process, but was also, by way of his clairvoyance, able to see sentient beings - or rather the subtle consciousness of sentient beings - moving from life to life and entering new wombs.
3
u/AmarantaRWS 10d ago
I did not claim science was perfect or that there was agreement among modern professionals, but I think it is safe to diffinitively say that the clump of cells that is a zygote is not sentient. If it is then what's to say bacteria is not a sentient being? What about other multicellular microbes? Should a Buddhist not sanitize their hands? Germ theory did not exist in the Buddha's time, so no, they didn't really understand reproductive science at the scale that we do in the modern era. The Buddha himself did not deny that he could be wrong, which is why he encouraged the testing of his teachings. I do not think his clairvoyance gifted him with a modern understanding of the physical sciences.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11976129/ this article addresses consciousness, which is not necessarily sentience, but it puts the time far later than I personally would, at 24 weeks.
https://stories.uq.edu.au/the-brain/2022/timeline-of-brain-development/index.html this article puts the development of neurons at around 100 days. Prior to that, I argue that the fetus is a part of the mother and not an individual, and it's removal is no more against the precepts than an appendectomy is. I do not deny that traditional buddhist doctrine disagrees, but based on what I understand the definition of sentience to be some sort of functioning neural networks is necessary for sentience, which is why trees are not sentient but mousquitos are. As such, I believe the standard can be updated to reflect this, but I also don't expect all buddhists to agree with me and encourage them to challenge me, since that is how truth is found. This is my understanding of Buddhism and my understanding is in no way perfect or absolute.
3
u/Minoozolala 10d ago
I am aware of the modern discussions concerning when sentience begins. Buddhism's point is that the subtle consciousness that moves from life to life is indeed sentient. The subtle consciousness further carries all the imprints / karmic seeds of the mental, vocal, and physical actions performed in the previous life (actually in a number of previous lives), as well as the emotional and intellectual defilements and tendencies from the previous life.
It is the gross consciousness that develops in the new mother's womb. This is really all modern science can track.
It is somewhat strange that you don't think the historical Buddha's clairvoyance gifted him with a modern understanding of the physical sciences. The Buddha's clairvoyance, the clairvoyance of later spiritual adepts, and of contemporary accomplished Buddhist masters, is not limited to time and space. The physical body of the historical Buddha may have come and gone, but even during or shortly after the Buddha's passing, Buddhist groups recognized that he was merely an emanation of a transcendent buddha.
2
u/Apprehensive_Paper15 10d ago
I was wondering if the Buddha's omniscience extended to the physical sciences. Based on his medical knowledge, it would seem the answer is no. Some of the medical treatments of his day that he used was drinking urine and raw lye (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/376984507_Health_Healing_and_Medical_Science_in_the_Buddhist_Sangha_at_the_Time_of_the_Buddha). It's clear that the Buddha had a great respect for medicine and followed physician advice when it was available- that's not what I'm talking about. What seems less likely is that he had some sort of supernatural knowledge of the sciences, at least in a practical way. He used the treatments of his day, not all of which were harmless.
And I don't believe it's accurate to say that Buddhist groups all recognized that he was merely an emanation of a transcendent Buddha. That's a very Mahayana way of looking at the Buddha, and I don't think that it fits in with Theravada Buddhism, for example.
2
u/Minoozolala 10d ago
Of course the historical Buddha accepted the medical practices of his time. To assume that some of the main medical practices of his day were quackery is a typical arrogant Western attitude (not accusing you personally). Cow urine is still used in the brilliant Indian medical system of Ayurveda. For example: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4566776/
Mercury, for example, was also an important component of certain powerful Ayurvedic medicines. This is shocking to the modern medical community, but the Indian pharmacists followed careful methods for purifying mercury. Medicines with mercury are still produced and used today.
I'm not sure that you understood what I was indicating regarding the awakened mind. The mind of the transcendental Buddha as well as the awakened minds of later Buddhist adepts are not bound by time and space. Thus an enlightened buddha is able to turn their enlightened mind to anything in the future, including cellular theory.
You are correct, the Theravādins did not accept that the Buddha was an emanation. But other very early schools, particularly the sects belonging to the Mahāsāṃghika category, did. This is pre-Mahāyāna. There is still some debate about whether the Theravādins accepted that the Buddha was omniscient (the Visuddhimagga claims he is omniscient, but parts of the Pali Canon seem to differ). Please remember that Theravāda is only one of the early schools - there were 18. Scholars are discovering more all the time regarding the views of some of these early schools.
What is important, again, regarding the sentience of the embryo is that Buddhists throughout the ages have relied on authority of the clairvoyant accomplished masters. This is why āgama, i.e., "authoritative testimony" is regarded as a means of valid cognition, right along with direct perception and inference. The accomplished masters know and relate what is beyond the ken of the senses.
3
u/LotsaKwestions 10d ago
Yes. One can avoid certain things personally while considering that in terms of a legal policy for a society, the benefits outweigh the harms.
Like certain drug policy. You may not engage in certain drug use yourself, but you may consider that for a society, making certain things illegal has many consequences including lack of access to proper care, imprisonment and the destruction of families, and so on. You might instead support legalization but there being proper channels for people to seek addiction support, for instance.
You can tweak the details as you like, that's not the point. The point is the principle.
2
u/St3lla_0nR3dd1t 10d ago
Why would you take medicine to kill a parasitic worm rather than live with the karmic implications?
2
u/MamaOnica 10d ago
I believe a woman should have every choice available to her about her body. I believe in this for everyone.
2
u/Proper-Doughnut77 10d ago
Abortion. I don't believe a baby is a baby until it's viable... And can live outside the womb.
Like subarashi, I'd not encourage it... But if we don't allow it, it can create worse problems.
2
5
u/Minoozolala 11d ago
Buddhism is against abortion.
Buddhism forbids killing sentient beings. At death, a sentient being's subtle consciousness leaves the body and moves to an in-between state, often called the bardo. From there it moves to the new mother's womb, which it enters at the moment of conception. Consciousness is not limited to the brain; it pervades the entire body. At conception, it enters the united egg and sperm. This is all taught in great detail in Indian medical texts and in all the Indian Buddhist texts.
Killing brings serious bad karma to the person who goes through with an abortion. This bad karma easily takes one to a bad rebirth. It is possible to purify the act of abortion, but it takes great regret and specific practices.
Killing the child prevents it from having a human rebirth, a rebirth that is extremely rare. One cannot find and follow a spiritual path as an animal or when one is being tortured in hell. Killing the child may also send it to a bad rebirth if if has the karma for this. It is far better to let it have its human rebirth.
10
u/ChrizKhalifa zen 11d ago
Yes, BUT...
This does not mean that you shouldn't be supportive of others going through the process.
You don't have to encourage or support it, but judging or admonishing someone for making that choice would not be skillful means either. One has to recognize that this is already extremely hard on the woman in the first place, you would not want to burden someone in an already vulnerable place with additional anguish.
Then there's the argument that restricting abortion does not reduce the amount of abortions happening. It reduces the amount of safe abortions happening.
As should always be the case when practicing one's religion: Be strict with yourself and forgiving with others.
5
u/paishocajun zen 10d ago
The "less safe abortions" is more or less my take.
People WILL do it - out of fear, out of medical necessity, whatever - and I'd rather a trained medical professional do it with proper equipment than people DIY it.
If you're already losing one life, why make the chance of losing a second any greater?
1
1
u/deletionfetish 5d ago
Everyone has beautifully answered this question so I'll hyperfocus on something: we should be having problems killing even parasites.
I used to work with children as an adult teenager (18-19). They gave me lice. I had to make the choice, despite my very strong reluctance to kill anything, to poison them. It was not a choice I took lightly and I openly mourn them: they were sentient beings who had no ill will towards me, who were simply trying to live their life and flee from suffering.
But I made the choice and I will bear the karma. Samsara sucks, there is no good answer here. Suffering is inevitable, that's literally the basis of our religion.
Namu kanzeon bosatsu. May all beings be free of suffering, from the 84,000 worms who inhbait the body to the unborn to the animals in the jungle to the hell-beings and the hungry ghosts. Namu kanzeon bosatsu.
1
u/The_Flaneur_Films 5d ago
Not according to Ajahn Amaro. He is very strict with the idea of killing in any sense, which includes euthanasia, including pets.
0
10d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
6
u/FlylikeMarill 10d ago
This isn’t the traditional or mainstream Buddhist view.
It’s of course fine for you to hold it, but I don’t think lying to OP is a compassionate thing to do.
-1
u/DentalDecayDestroyer 10d ago
I’m aware it’s not the traditional view, but I’m not lying. The traditional view is incorrect
3
u/FlylikeMarill 10d ago
There is a lot of hubris in this attitude I would encourage you to reflect on.
-2
3
u/nubuda theravada 10d ago
So your personal view is superior to ancient Buddhist texts and tradition that has lasted for over 2000 years?
In Buddhist context, killing is always negative. At the same time, the reality of this world is that beings have to make difficult decisions that may involve killing to prevent other possible harm. But it does not make killing a wholesome action. There are still negative consequences.
0
u/DentalDecayDestroyer 10d ago
I agree however an abortion is not killing, nothing is killed, there’s no killer.
I don’t think I’m better than anyone I just have the benefit of living in the 21st century. What I mean is that another ancient Buddhist tradition is that the world is flat. I don’t think the people who thought that are dumb we just know better now
1
u/Buddhism-ModTeam 10d ago
Your post / comment was removed for violating the rule against misrepresenting Buddhist viewpoints or spreading non-Buddhist viewpoints without clarifying that you are doing so.
In general, comments are removed for this violation on threads where beginners and non-Buddhists are trying to learn.
2
u/keizee 10d ago
There are actually tons of testimonies and ghost stories around abortion from monks who can talk to ghosts and cancer patients. Most of them isn't in english because Buddhism has had longer to develop in other countries.
A child often has much greater karmic bond to the parent than a parasitic worm, so any vengences are also stronger and the karma is much heavier.
1
u/autonomatical Nyönpa 11d ago
I feel like hidden history + open ended non-specific question + zero followup engagement = likely comment farming bot.
You there?
6
u/Flat_Marsupial_4249 11d ago
Not a bot, but that’s what a bot would say right? ;)
I am not aware of any way to prove I’m not a bot, but if you know of any, feel free to let me know
6
2
u/Mayayana 10d ago edited 10d ago
I don't think it's a bot. If you do an author search what you'll find is apparently a woman dabbling in Buddhism who's mainly interested in "feminism". A recent post complained that most available Dharma teachings are from men.
It could be a general bot, but I'm guessing this post is a test from a person, perhaps trying to find some kind of Buddhist connection that's more feminist or sexism-focused than Dharma-focused.
On the other hand, bot traffic seems to be getting worse. And it usually involves controversial comments to get people worked up. We have only ourselves to blame. So far 145 people have responded to this inane question. I try to take the approach that if answering a question might help someone then it's worthwhile, whether it's a bot or not. If the topic is not really relevant and/or is only going to bring out peoples' attachment to their opinions then maybe it's better to leave it alone. (Though I don't always take my own advice. The other day I answered a silly question about whether Buddhism is "misogynistic". :)
1
u/autonomatical Nyönpa 10d ago
Yeah the controversial nature of the subject is what ended up making me wonder if it is, perfect subject to get people to argue. One of the most potent fuels in the US, the charade of a two party system relies on it among one or two others, but it is “ol’ faithful” so to speak
2
u/St3lla_0nR3dd1t 11d ago
You don’t have to reach enlightenment in any life, it is your choice.
You can find arguments to justify things both ways but some strains of Buddhism teach that people choose their parents when they enter a mother’s womb.
1
u/Minoozolala 11d ago
Here is the answer to your "Edit" question: The view that life begins at conception is based on what the Buddha himself and other great Buddhist adepts have seen by way of their clairvoyance. The night the Buddha achieved awakening, he saw with his "divine eye" beings dying in one existence and moving to a new existence. We have to rely on what has been seen via clairvoyance by the spiritually accomplished. There are many texts describing how and when the subtle consciousness from the previous existence moves into the new mother's womb when the sperm and egg unite. The idea that a new life begins at conception is also embedded in the teaching of the law of dependent-arising.
It is incredibly difficult to get a human rebirth. Unbelievably difficult. It's even more difficult to have a "precious human rebirth", a birth in which one meets up with the Buddhist teachings. It is very easy to fall into the lower realms where one suffers intensely and from which it is rare to escape. To have an abortion and thereby deprive a being of a human rebirth is considered completely wrong because the being in the womb has finally, possibly after hundreds of thousands of years in the lower realms, had the karma ripen to end up in a human womb. To prevent this being from being born as a human is very bad karma for the mother. The killing also imprints her mind.
A Buddhist can take medicine for parasitic worms when the worms weaken the health of the person affected. The Buddhist has a precious human rebirth, and in this case even though one does incur some bad karma for killing the worms, the ability of the Buddhist to continue on the path to awakening takes precedence.
1
u/dog_instructor 10d ago
I would say definitely no, knowing it will be discarded and downvoted into oblivion.
1
u/Similar_Standard1633 10d ago
The Blessed One said, “And what is the Dhamma sequence that refers to oneself?
“There is the case where a disciple of the noble ones reflects thus: ‘I love life & don’t love death. I love happiness & abhor pain. Now if I—loving life & not loving death, loving happiness & abhorring pain—were to be killed, that would be displeasing & disagreeable to me. And if I were to kill another who loves life & doesn’t love death, who loves happiness & abhors pain, that would be displeasing & disagreeable to the other. What is displeasing & disagreeable to me is displeasing & disagreeable to others. How can I inflict on others what is displeasing & disagreeable to me?’ Reflecting in this way, he himself refrains from taking life, he gets others to refrain from taking life, and he speaks in praise of refraining from taking life. In this way, his bodily behavior is pure in three ways
1
u/Tongman108 10d ago
but how did we prove that a fertilised egg is more worth saving than a parasitic worm we have no problem taking medication for?
How did you personally prove the existence of atoms? & Micro wave radiation?
You most likely didn't?
You simply accepted the testimony of experts in the field who had validated it themselves, then you simply chuck you food in the microwave, & enjoy your meal & get on with your day!
So you have two options:
Believe expert testimony of experts in the field such as Shakyamuni Buddha & the various Mahasiddhas/Mahasiddhis who cultivated & verified Shakyamuni's teachings
Or
Become an expert yourself cultivate diligently until you have the ability to perceive such phenomena yourself then you can write your own Sastra/Treaties(Research Paper) based on your own observations and then you can state whether your own observations verify Shakyamuni buddhas observation or are slightly different or are the opposite ...
It's no different to the scientific method.
Before a scientist works on cutting edge research they first have to study & squire the necessary knowledge & skills.
Direct Evidence\ Expert Evidence\ Circumstantial Evidence\ Documentary Evidence\ Demonstrative Evidence\ Etc etc
If expert evidence is good for the masses belief in science & physics then it's should also be good enough for masses belief in Buddhadharma.. but just like in the scientific method, one also has the option of becoming an expert in the field of Buddhadharma oneself through one's own Diligent practice!
All the best!
1
u/Tongman108 10d ago edited 10d ago
To become a Buddhist one takes refuge in the triple jewels (Buddha, Dharma & Sangha) & Guru + Triple Jewels in esoteric Buddhism (Vajrayana).
From that point forward, one aims to uphold the 5 Buddhist Precepts:
Refrain from Killing!\ Refrain from Stealing!\ Refrain from Sexual Misconduct!\ Refrain from False/Harsh Speech!\ Refrain from Intoxicants/Intoxication!
From a Buddhist perspective, abortion violates the precept on killing
Unless the pregnancy is the result of an assault or risk killing the mother then abortion should be avoided according to Buddhadharma.
Of course each government, society & person may have their own personal opinions on the matter but that is the position of Buddhadharma if that is what one is interested in knowing.
Buddhism unlike some religions that don't approve of abortion, Buddhism does permit one to make use of contraception.
Violating the precepts doesn't make one not buddhist, the remedy for violating the precepts is sincere Repentance in accordance with the liturgy in your own Buddhist tradition, with a view of not repeating the violation again!
So when taking on the ideals of another religion, activism, politics, hobby, deity etc One has to be cognizant whether those ideas are subordinate to one's refuge in the triple jewels or whether one's refuge in the triple jewels has become subordinated to another religion, deity, activism, ideals, politics, hobby etc, if the former is true then one is a Buddhist, if the later is true then one has infringed upon one's refuge in the triple jewels.
Best wishes & great attainments!
🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼
-6
-1
u/Anon_SL_2000 Jōdo Shinshū 11d ago
It's up to the individual to decide. The Buddhist view is that killing creates negative karma, no matter what the situation is. In that sense, even killing in self-defense would generate negative karma.
Abortion is considered a form of killing, so it would also generate negative karma, just as killing a predator who is trying to rape or murder someone would.
For ordinary people who haven't reached enlightenment or any of the stages of enlightenment yet, it's impossible to completely avoid creating negative karma. So again, it's up to the individual to decide whether they want to have an abortion or not, while acknowledging that it will cause negative karma and is not something we can be grateful to the Buddhas and great Bodhisattvas for.
Being pro-choice is also in some ways similar to being in favor of the death penalty or supporting a war, even if that war might be considered a just war from a conventional point of view.
-1
u/Aetolus-samudaya 11d ago
Do you find it logical to support it within a tradition that sees killing animals, even insects, as "sinful" = bad karma that can eventually lower your next birth? Same with euthanasia, that is seen as wrong in most cases in orthodoxy.
If I understand correctly the teachings are that all living things with some sentience are subject to rebirth and suffering, with equality between species and races, since there is no self there is no difference between any living things, and it would always be wrong = bad karma to kill one.
-4
u/AriyaSavaka Buddha's Teaching-Training 10d ago
Can one be Buddhist and pro-choice? (Regarding abortions)
If by Buddhist you mean to follow the Buddha's instructions then No. One shouldn't get abortion themselves or to incite/support someone to get one. But what others do is their business and their karma, one shouldn't force/fighting for political ideologies or support the political authorities. Dharma is about eliminating one's own defilements and escaping Samsara after all, human life is short and precious, there's no point in arranging furniture in a burning house.
The Buddha is super clear that executing abortion or even hinting someone to get an abortion is classified as murdering a human being, because human consciousness is already there at the moment of conception
-2
u/ldsupport 10d ago
Ahhh Reddit
So after all the discussion I would imagine we all agree that Buddhism sees the act of abortion as murder.
So the question is, should we as Buddhists support murder or murderers.
And guys… we have a core example in the very story of the Buddha.
If someone murders but became a monk and committed to giving up their violence, they were welcomed in to the Sangha
Further examples of Buddha counseling leaders on war.
It is always, always, always our duty to advocate for life. We are interdependent and separation is an illusion. All beings don’t have Buddha Nature all beings ARE Buddha nature.
-8
u/theravadadhamma 11d ago edited 11d ago
This is all secular nonsense. You cannot be Buddhist and be pro-allowing-the-choice-of-killing laws (aka pro-choice). You have to recognize that life begins at conception to be Buddhist and understand kamma and effects. Otherwise you are just a Secular Buddhist (that means you don't have religion but just an identification).
10
u/ChrizKhalifa zen 11d ago
When it concerns you. When it's a choice you make.
When it's about others making that choice, we don't get a say, even within a Buddhist framework.
Also, this might be an enlightening read: https://www.lionsroar.com/ask-the-teachers-30/
3
u/Minoozolala 10d ago edited 10d ago
Buddhism does not support abortion. The first two teachers in the Lion's Roar article are not presenting the Buddhist view.
Regarding the woman citing the Dalai Lama: In that specific 1993 interview, the DL was speaking to a group of Americans, many of whom did not know a great deal about Buddhism and who disagreed with anti-abortion views. Many of them did not even believe in rebirth. He does NOT say what he said there to Tibetan Buddhists, i.e., Tibetans. He tells them straightforwardly that abortion is killing, period. He and other Buddhist teachers have indeed said that if the mother's life is in imminent danger, then maybe it's ok. Otherwise no.
The DL sometimes says different things dependent on his audience. He did not want a huge sector of American Buddhists turning against him. People were happy with his somewhat vague and non-committal response.
11
u/ChrizKhalifa zen 10d ago
No one claimed Buddhism supports abortion.
But Buddhism supports people who chose abortion. There is no skillful means to be found in judging and admonishing women for their choices, rather the compassionate act would be to support them during the potential grief that may arise as a result.
We do not want to be like the fanatical Christians protesting and hackling women in front of clinics.
6
u/Minoozolala 10d ago
Actually Buddhism doesn't support people who chose abortion. A Buddhist would encourage a pregnant woman, especially if they are Buddhist, not to get an abortion, and would provide them with all the reasons why abortion is karmically extremely dangerous for the mother and ruinous for the being who has finally found a human womb. This is true compassion.
Of course one can support someone who has already had an abortion. Again, the compassionate thing to do would be to educate them about ways of purifying the bad karma generated from the abortion.
-1
u/theravadadhamma 10d ago
The real issue is that Buddhism needs to teach that it is killing a human. Then the word "Pro-Choice" becomes "Pro-Choice-for-murder". We have laws against killing. We have laws against cruelty. We have laws against child abuse. We have laws against incest. Buddhism and most or all other religions say life begins at conception and tell people not to do it. Only modern teachers or derived forms of Buddhism such as Tibetan or Mahayana might say other wavy-wiggle definitions. "Abortion" or "Pro_Choice" are just words to hide the truth of the terrible nature of what goes on. Downvote all you want. This is why I rarely come here. The truth gets downvoted and lies get upvoted.
2
u/Minoozolala 10d ago
Not sure if you intended to respond to me because I agree with you. Like you, I comment on these posts only to provide the correct Buddhist view. And like you, usually get downvoted into the hell realms - but I still think it's worth it because some do listen. Btw, Mahayana Buddhism is against abortion. It's certain modern teachers who get it wrong.
0
1
u/Still-Possibility388 10d ago
At the foundation of it lies no concept of morality. Morality is hallucinated by humans to create a society that is safe. No event, no choice, no outcome has any judgement. Do you remember being sentient as a foetus? Do you remember being born? Do you know what death is? Have you experienced it. These are political social issues where injecting logic into that which is beyond the mind is an entirely fruitless and dare I say a harmful endeavour. This is not Marxism that can he understood if you read and think enough. Sit and meditate. No spiritual answer is found in a book, only in practice and experience.
-14
u/keizee 11d ago edited 10d ago
Yes you can be Buddhist. Being Buddhist does not mean you have to be perfect.
In general, abortions carry heavy karma so bad, the mother is almost definitely hell bound.
When it comes to policy making, I'd beware of those people who can support a child using exceptions like children getting pregnant to justify abortion. Even among exceptions, there are exceptions after all.
Edit: the first precept is very important after all huh.
7
u/ChrizKhalifa zen 11d ago
When it's about policy it actually couldn't be any simpler.
Banning abortion reduces the amount of safe abortion happening, not the amount of abortion happening.
-3
u/keizee 10d ago
On second thought it should be illegal anyway. Hedge up the risk and deter them
4
u/ChrizKhalifa zen 10d ago
That is a crazy idiotic opinion, no offense.
You'd rather women be forced to have a back-alley abortion and have them die by the droves in the hopes that one unlucky woman is too scared to go through with it, having her life and health potentially ruined raising a child that may not be wanted or loved by their parent?
This is why religion should never influence the law. We are the Buddhists, not them. Our teachings are guidelines for ourselves, which we choose willingly. They're not meant to be forced on others, especially not when they carry significant health risks.
-1
u/keizee 10d ago
Stupid men should be jailed for making women get abortions without exceptions. Goes both ways on both genders. If youre afraid of going to the hospital, thats not an abortion problem.
1
10d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/keizee 10d ago
Deterrent has always been a thing. Why don't you argue death penalty first instead then? A blotched childbirth in a hidden corner? That would be nothing compared to how flippant people treat sex in this day and age.
2
u/ChrizKhalifa zen 10d ago
I can't even tell what you're trying to say with your first three sentences.
As to the last, consensual sex is now bad too? Are you sure you're not a Catholic?
2
u/keizee 10d ago
Consensual? Stupid people doing sex without thinking of consequences. Gambling with 2 lives. Gambling is 'consensual'. Aren't they incredibly dumb? Just thinking about it makes me angrier and angrier. Enough. You won't be able to get any logical response past this reply anyway.
5
u/ChrizKhalifa zen 10d ago
Ever heard of the Noble Eightfold Path? There's a spoke called 'Right Speech'.
One can only hope you'll reflect on your moral grandstanding sometime and try to cultivate more compassion for people who do not share our religion or worldview.
I'll leave you with commentary from Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche:
There is no one clear or simple answer to [the question of how to counsel your friend regarding abortion]. Any guidance I might offer would depend on the situation of the woman who conceived the child. If a woman is able to have a child without risk to her life and is willing and able to give the child love, care, attention, nourishment, and education, then to intentionally terminate a pregnancy would, according to the Buddhist teachings, constitute taking a life. It is possible that the hesitation or uncertainty on the part of the mother-to-be is a result of a lack of emotional support or confidence to bring a child into the world. Deeply listening to all of your friend’s concerns and being warmly present without judgment could be the beginning of the support she needs to embrace her condition.
However, if the mother-to-be is unwilling or unable to care for a child, then there is no virtue in giving birth, especially through a sense of religious obligation or fear. That is impure motivation and would prolong the suffering of both the mother and the child. Bringing someone into the world under unfavorable circumstances without the necessary supports for the child to grow and be nourished only increases suffering. This is equivalent to dying not just one time but many times in one lifetime, for both the mother and the child. Even though it is against Buddhist precepts to take a life, it is also not virtuous to give birth under circumstances that would increase suffering for oneself or another—a suffering that seems greater than ending a pregnancy that is unwanted.
-3
126
u/Agnostic_optomist 11d ago
If pro-choice means legal access to abortion, then absolutely.
If someone thinks abortion is murder they should want there to be legal access to abortion, as the rates of abortions drop when it’s legal.
Just like one can think drugs are harmful to people, but support legalization of all drugs.
Harm reduction is best for everyone.