Abortion and Buddhism

[micatala]

In looking for information relative to another thread, I ran across the following article discussing Buddhist attitudes to abortion. It is from the Journal of Buddhist Ethics



http://www.buddhistethics.org/5/barnh981.html

Here are a few excerpts.

It is quite clear from a variety of sources that abortion has been severely disapproved of in the Buddhist tradition. It is also equally clear that abortion has been tolerated in Buddhist Japan and accommodated under exceptional circumstances by some modern Buddhists in the UṢ. (1) Those sources most often cited that prohibit abortion are Therav�din and ancient. By contrast, Japanese Buddhism as well as the traditions out of which a more lenient approach emerges are more recent and Mah�y�na traditions. Superficially, the situation seems not unlike that of Roman Catholicism, where abortion, though disapproved of in the strongest terms by Church authorities drawing on the canonical tradition, is nonetheless practiced by a large number of devout Catholics and defended by at least a few, sometimes renegade, theologians and philosophers, as acceptable in some circumstances. Therefore, if it makes sense to speak of a possible Catholic defense of abortion, then it makes equally good sense to speak of a Buddhist defense of abortion, a defense made in full knowledge that one is swimming against the tide of conventional interpretation but still within the tradition. In other words, I am not so much concerned to show that Buddhism has, does, or will support the choice to abort or one's right to make such a choice as I am to show that such a choice can be made in a manner consistent with Buddhist principles.


. . . . .

One of the strongest antiabortion cases from a Buddhist perspective emerges in Damien Keown's wonderfully thorough and insightful analysis of Buddhism's bioethical ramifications in the book Buddhism and Bioethics. (2) Keown argues that the preponderance of the Buddhist traditon is overwhelmingly antiabortionist. In support, he develops two lines of argument. The first relies on the nearly uniform rejection of abortion, especially in ancient Therav�da texts, what Keown regards as the core of the tradition. Here I believe he is on fairly firm ground although I am uncertain regarding his preference for what he calls "Buddhist fundamentalism" and his concomitant emphasis on "scriptural authority." (3) The second line of argument concerns his interpretation of these sources and their connection to the basic tenets of Buddhism regarding the nature of personal identity and the skandhas, karma and rebirth, life and death.

Now, I will say up front I have rarely ventured into the Right and Wrong Forum, know very little about Buddhism, and have ambivalent attitudes towards abortion.

Questions for debate:

1) Does the tradition of anti-abortionism in Buddhism bolster the morally based arguments made by Christians against abortion?

2) Does this tradition put to lie the contention that anti-abortion attitudes stem predominantly from Christian Conservatism?

[Thought Criminal]

Questions for debate:

1) Does the tradition of anti-abortionism in Buddhism bolster the morally based arguments made by Christians against abortion?

2) Does this tradition put to lie the contention that anti-abortion attitudes stem predominantly from Christian Conservatism?

1) What morally based arguments? All Christians have is "the Bible says so".

2) That's not my contention, so I couldn't care less. My contention is that it stems from misogyny.

TC

[Sjoerd]

I have had the rare privilege of personally attending a discussion on ethics between the Dalai Lama and a number of young scientists. The Dalai Lama stated that he is in principle opposed to matters such as abortion and animal testing, seeing them as destruction of life.

However, while he didn't talk much about abortion, he took an extremely utilitarian position on animal testing , talking about percentages of chance that the knowledge resulting from the test may save X human lives. I think that his view on abortion is similar, being opposed but prepared to take into account the health of mother and child and the quality of life that could be offered to the child. I suppose that would make him more pro-life than pro-choice, but on different occasions he also stated that he is open to ethical interpretations different than his own, for example on homosexuality.

Now for a modern Dutchman as myself, his views are a tad conservative, but no more than a tad. I was extremely impressed about his open-mindedness and general tolerance, which is a huge contrast to other religious leaders such as the Pope. This had no small influence on my decision somewhat later that after all, I am a religious person.

I know that the Dalai Lama does not equate Buddhism, and I suspect that there are many Buddhists and Buddhist leaders with different views. I am not very familiar with the Theravada texts, but the importance attached to them varies wildly between Buddhist schools, as well.

[micatala]

I have had the rare privilege of personally attending a discussion on ethics between the Dalai Lama and a number of young scientists. The Dalai Lama stated that he is in principle opposed to matters such as abortion and animal testing, seeing them as destruction of life.

However, while he didn't talk much about abortion, he took an extremely utilitarian position on animal testing , talking about percentages of chance that the knowledge resulting from the test may save X human lives. I think that his view on abortion is similar, being opposed but prepared to take into account the health of mother and child and the quality of life that could be offered to the child. I suppose that would make him more pro-life than pro-choice, but on different occasions he also stated that he is open to ethical interpretations different than his own, for example on homosexuality.

Now for a modern Dutchman as myself, his views are a tad conservative, but no more than a tad. I was extremely impressed about his open-mindedness and general tolerance, which is a huge contrast to other religious leaders such as the Pope. This had no small influence on my decision somewhat later that after all, I am a religious person.

I know that the Dalai Lama does not equate Buddhism, and I suspect that there are many Buddhists and Buddhist leaders with different views. I am not very familiar with the Theravada texts, but the importance attached to them varies wildly between Buddhist schools, as well.

This is more along the lines of my views on abortion. I do not consider abortion murder, but I do consider it violence and do not accept the notion that abortion should be allowed for any and every reason. I do not accept the notion that it is "safe and effective birth control." On the other hand, I am also not comfortable with a blanket ban on abortion. I would support fairly strict regulation to reduce the number of abortions and to see that the abortions that do occur are done for "responsible reasons."

However, I will allow that I am not sure how to go about this regulation or how we would decide what is responsible or appropriate.

[Confused]

This is more along the lines of my views on abortion. I do not consider abortion murder, but I do consider it violence and do not accept the notion that abortion should be allowed for any and every reason. I do not accept the notion that it is "safe and effective birth control." On the other hand, I am also not comfortable with a blanket ban on abortion. I would support fairly strict regulation to reduce the number of abortions and to see that the abortions that do occur are done for "responsible reasons."

However, I will allow that I am not sure how to go about this regulation or how we would decide what is responsible or appropriate.

I don't see abortion as murder to a certain point. Now, once an infant can survive outside the womb WITH a positive outcome (usually around 32 weeks gestation), I see that as murder. Prior to that, I don't see a fetus as a human yet.

I am not sure I see it as violence or not. I know I could not do it, however, I am in no position to tell someone else they cannot. Despite the circumstances of the pregnancy, I believe abortion is a legal right of every woman as it is her body. Just as a hysterectomy is. However, it doesn't take 9 months for a woman to decide to have the baby or not. Nor should the life of a fetus take precedence over the life of the mother.

Determining what is responsible abortions and what isn't really isn't a government or state decision IMO. It is a personal decision. If some women abuse this method, statistics show they usually will become infertile at some point anyways, so perhaps it is natures own way of sterilization. But either way, unless someone can say that miscarriages are Gods acts of abortion, I see no strong religious support for opposition. Mind you, morally and ethically, there may be a case there, I honestly don't know. But when push comes to shove, do I want a crack addicted mother to give birth to a crack addicted baby which will likely suffer long term disabilities or an alcoholic mother to give birth to a FAS infant so it can suffer long term disabilities? Emphatically, no!

[micatala]

I am not sure I see it as violence or not. I know I could not do it, however, I am in no position to tell someone else they cannot. Despite the circumstances of the pregnancy, I believe abortion is a legal right of every woman as it is her body. Just as a hysterectomy is. However, it doesn't take 9 months for a woman to decide to have the baby or not. Nor should the life of a fetus take precedence over the life of the mother.

I can't equate abortion to a hysterectomy. I can agree with the last statement.

Determining what is responsible abortions and what isn't really isn't a government or state decision IMO. It is a personal decision. If some women abuse this method, statistics show they usually will become infertile at some point anyways, so perhaps it is natures own way of sterilization. But either way, unless someone can say that miscarriages are Gods acts of abortion, I see no strong religious support for opposition. Mind you, morally and ethically, there may be a case there, I honestly don't know. But when push comes to shove, do I want a crack addicted mother to give birth to a crack addicted baby which will likely suffer long term disabilities or an alcoholic mother to give birth to a FAS infant so it can suffer long term disabilities? Emphatically, no!

I can agree with the general idea that having an abortion might be OK, even advisable, in some situations. I don't necessarily agree that there are no situations that the state should not step into. I do share the concern about having the state step into such a personal decision.

It is probably easy for each of us to say "I would be OK with an abortion in this particular situation". Some of us, at least, are uncomfortable with abortions in other particular situations.