In researching this issue I found some interesting things. Theravadan buddhists believe Shakyamuni said life begins at conception. I can't find the specific sutra but I'll take their word for it. It's not in the Lotus Sutra. So they say that an abortion is an "unwholesome act" that generates heavy karma. Theravadans also believe taking any animal life is wrong, so to be entirely consistent in this viewpoint, one would have to be a vegetarian.
Mahayana Buddhists take a more liberal view. In Japan, buddhists have a memorial ceremony specifically for stillbirths, miscarriages, and abortions. It helps women work through the complex emotions brought on by this event.
Deardenver seems to base her view on science, which is fine, and I'm inclined to agree, up to a point, although it seems rather cold. Many times a fertilized egg will fail to implant in the uterus, and thus not become a baby. Christians say this is God's will and we shouldn't interfere; I guess a buddhist would say it's karma. Whether you believe life begins at conception, after implantation, at viability (which is getting earlier all the time) or later, at some point an abortion becomes the taking of a life. What to do? As a libertarian I'm reluctant to give gov't the power, as Deardenver puts it, to control a woman's reproductive health. But doesn't the baby/foetus have rights? It can't speak for itself, so who will speak for him or her? Difficult questions.
I guess for now I'm in the "keep it legal but work to make it rare" camp. I have no problem with various forms of birth control, even those that destroy an embryo. Is this consistent? No, but there it is.
9 comments
Glad you're in the "keep it legal" camp. Those who want to outlaw abortion need to answer some tough questions. Terminate a pregnancy, go to jail: Should a woman be sentenced to one year of prison for using birth control, two years for using a "morning after" pill like RU-486, three years if implantation has occurred, four years if the pregnancy is terminated in the first trimester, five years if there were medical complications with the pregnancy after the first trimester -- but ten years if there were no medically compelling reasons to terminate the pregnancy...?When anyone says that abortion is "the taking of a life," and is therefor a crime no different than premeditated murder, they need to get specific about how this crime should be punished.And what about "accomplices" such as the person who supplied the sperm, the phramacist who fills a prescription for birth control or RU-486, the doctor who prescribes these pills or performs an abortion -- how much jail time should they do?I know many women who have had abortions, and not one of them took it lightly. All choices are freighted with karma. I've heard Buddhist theories regarding which actions are helpful and which are harmful to the attainment of enlightenment, but I've never read anything that says people should be prevented from making their own difficult choices on deeply personal matters of life and death.
With issues such as this, I feel it's important to avoid dogmatism. I cannot agree with those who state that according to Buddhism, all abortion is wrong. This view does not take into consideration the myriad circumstances that might be involved -- pregnancy due to rape or incest, medical complications, economic destitution, severe emotional distress, etc. I believe that the woman in question should be allowed to make her own choice based on her circumstances.At the same time, I do not believe that all abortions are totally OK and should be encouraged. (Actually, I don't know anyone who thinks this.) Abortion is emotionally painful, for one thing, and adoption can be a viable alternative in some situations. Counseling should be available to women pre- and post- abortion. I do think there should be some rules and regulations -- and there are.Debate about this issue in this country has polarized into right vs. wrong, based mostly on religious views regarding the absolute sanctity of life. Abortion has become a question of morality (dogmatic right vs. wrong) instead of ethics (proper conduct of the individual in various circumstances.)The dogmatic argument does not take into account the free will of women, or that a woman can have a real, important purpose in life beyond bearing children -- or that investing in sex education for girls and boys, modeling sexually responsible behavior, and providing birth control and health care are key to reducing abortion.
I am male, but I would certainly like to find ways to make sure that males are given equal responsibility for the outcome of all pregnancies. Since any pregnancy not originating from medical intervention requires two participants, one male and one female, both should share equally in the responsibility for whatever outcome is chosen.How this can be accomplished, I don't know. I have hopes it would lead to a less callous attitude on the part of many males who deem an unwanted pregnancy to be the problem of the female alone.Anyone have any interesting ideas?
Access to Insight, widely considered the web's best and most comprehensive resource on Theravada, says Shakyamuni believed abortion was wrong because it violated the first of the Five Precepts, "I undertake the precept to refrain from destroying living creatures." Any monastic who was found to have facilitated an abortion was expelled from the sangha for having broken a cardinal rule of monastic conduct. The same source allows that Theravadans may choose to eat meat or not, as a matter of personal preference. However, many stop eating meat as they develop compassion for all living beings in the course of their practice.http://www.accesstoinsight.org...I oppose abortion entirely, but am forced to recognize that the U.S. is not capable of ending the practice in a way that is compassionate to mothers while saving the lives of fetuses. There are so many factors at work, most of them involving inequitable treatment of people in varying strata of society. It is one of our most ugly and blaring flaws as a nation.Another is the meat industry, which cruelly abuses and tortures millions of animals to death each year just so consumers can experience the taste of a food that is neither necessary or healthful. I have been a gloriously healthy vegetarian for nearly 40 years, and frankly don't understand how people can think of themselves as "compassionate" while continuing to support such a vile industry.
I'm not aware of any pro-life group that wants to put women in jail for having an abortion. They would punish the doctors or others who perform them. This issue has been brought to the fore again by McCain's choice for VP. I'm wondering what the women here think of that.
They say a woman who has an abortion is murdering her baby, but they don't demand jail time? I guess even they don't really believe their own overheated rhetoric.I think Sarah Palin is a fantastic choice for McCain. She gives him a chance to with the election. No one who is serious about Obama is going to be interested in voting for McCain now. That goes for Clinton supporters, too. Palin does nothing to attract Clinton voters. Nada. But McCain has succeeded in generating enthusiasm among Pentecostals, right-leaning soccer moms and the guns-n-jesus demographic.It helps McCain that the Democrats have been so critical of Palin -- calling her "an insult," questioning her parenting, mocking her beauty queen looks. They seem to forget that being a business owner, a mayor and a governor means you make decisions, set policies and budgets, create jobs and actually run something. Whereas sitting in the senate means making laws -- not executive experience at all. Besides, if the last two elections have shown us anything, it's that voters don't care about experience. George W. Bush was very light on experience compared to Al Gore. John Edwards was OK to be a "heartbeat away" from the presidency four years ago, yet his experience in public office was just one term as a senator. (Now we know Edwards was light on experience AND had lousy judgment.)Obama's relative lack of experience hasn't stopped voters from falling in love with him in 2008. It has worked to his advantage -- he has fresh ideas because he hasn't spent much time in Washington.Oh, but suddenly "experience" is a big deal for Democrats. I'm a Dem, but I think all the smug strategists in my party should be scared that a gun-toting, marathon-running, moose-eating governor will make the race a lot tougher for Obama-Biden. While the Dems continue to take the allegiance of women voters for granted, the Repubs have reached out to women sympathetic to their party. Brilliant move.As for the abortion question and Palin, pro-choice women are not going to vote for her. Palin has the cred of walking her talk, which is admirable -- and which is more than most men can claim. To me she is an example of why choice is a beautiful thing. How different the story would be if she had been legally forced to bear her child.
Sorry I didn't respond to this thread sooner.There's an Obama radio ad in heavy rotation on the station I listen to. The ad features a nurse practitioner talking about how McCain/Palin will overturn Roe v. Wade and outlaw abortion. I think it's a crappy, fear-mongering ad. Women need to be very afraid of John McCain, the ad seems to say -- vote for Barack because he'll protect us lil gals from the right-wing boogeyman. I find it irritating and condescending. As if abortion is the only issue that women voters care about. (Being pro-choice isn't the same as being pro-equality, ya know.) Republicans have been itching to overturn Roe v. Wade for decades -- but somehow the presence of VP Palin is suddenly gonna do the trick? All said, I prefer to have a pro-choice president appointing pro-choice justices to the Supreme Court. Still, it bugs me that Obama is trying to fire up women by playing to one of their worst fears. When the right plays the "terror card," it's fear-mongering. But when the left plays the "anti-choice card," it's campaigning. Whatev.
Hi, DD -In my experience, trusting any politician to be or act otherwise than politicians be or act, is an exercise in futility. Party affiliation is certainly no guarantee of behavior, but political aspiration almost always is.For that matter, you can trust anyone, on one very stringent condition: you must trust them to be exactly as they truly are and not as you want them to be, or think they should be, or as they may say they would like to be. This has not yet failed me - the trick is learning/seeing/understanding them as they truly are, through all the fog of emotion, desire, and words.
Engyo, you are right. Coming to see a person as he or she truly is, and to see one's self as one truly is, and to accept and not try to change it, is an act of great compassion for all concerned.We are all flawed, some would say. Still, the promise of the practice of chanting Namu Myoho Renge Kyo is not that our flaws will be magically mended or wiped away; rather it is with these flaws and sometimes through these flaws that we can discover our inner voice of wisdom.