abortion

[catie'sboy]

what is the buddhist view on abortion? or is there one?

[Elohim]

Well there are many views about it as there are people I suppose. Generally though not to kill is the most important precept and human life is considered the worst to take. Buddhist usually agree that life begins at conception. So abortion is not the best way to go. An abortion can be a negative act or kamma with negative results or fruit. But it isn't so simple as that all the time. The Buddha said that intentions and states of mind are as important as the act. If an abortion was preformed with the only intention of saving the mother's life, or another "good" reason and not just to end a life, then it could be "good kamma" or action. No precept of Buddhism is set in stone. The Buddha said that no act can ever be the same twice and the instances will always be different. Any act isn't really imortant but the intention and "mind" of the person is. If a person hits another person with a car and kills them purely on accident, with no wrong doing, then it is not killing. Ask most monks and they will tell you this. There has to be an intention to hurt or kill for it to count as killing. Read about the patimokha or the 227 precepts of monastics. Usually they explain the importance of intention and so forth. Like a person who is insane cannot steal something if they are not in a state of mind to know what they are even doing. Ha, I'm sorry that my explaintion isn't the best. I'm just trying to be helpful. I guess the bottom line is, generally, abortions are to be avoided unless the mother's life is in danger.

[Anita]

This may be a silly and obvious question Elohim, but was if a woman is raped?

[Elohim]

Well, that is something I haven't thought about myself. I am unsure. It still is a life and if you got an abortion on the sole reason that you wanted to just get rid of it....that would be some heavy negative kamma. If your state of mind was "not stable", then your choice would not be negative or as negative. If you got an abortion because of fear that you would be mean and treat the child wrongly, out of compassion more than anger, then it would also not be nagative or as negative. In truth I am not 100 percent sure. Just for the record I am not against abortion. I believe everyone has the choice to do what they want, especially with their own bodies. In any event I'm sure that it is one of the most difficult decissions. I don't envy anyone that has ever had to make it.

[Anita]

One side tells me that I'm against it...another tells me I am not. To be completely honest, I never thought about it with the woman in danger...thats a really good point.

I always pondered witht he rape thing.

Abortion is a very touchy subject.

[Simonthepilgrim]

One side tells me that I'm against it...another tells me I am not. To be completely honest, I never thought about it with the woman in danger...thats a really good point.

I always pondered witht he rape thing.

Abortion is a very touchy subject.

It is so touchy, so full of potential for dispute rather than debate, opposition rather than consensus, that I have come to the conclusion that I can reach any absolute conclusion at all.

[comicallyinsane]

I am the same way. It makes me sad that things like this happen. I wonder if there is some volunteer work in my area where I can do something to help. Anyone know where to start looking?

[DharmaKitten]

I think something as touchy as the abortion issue has to be taken on a case by case issue. I think the choice should between a woman and her doctor, but in every case all options should at least be considered. From a health perspective, pregnancy is very hard on a woman's body and complications are still not uncommon - especially if the woman does not have access to adequate healthcare. From an economic perspective, the cost of healthcare can add up quick, not to mention the financial impact when the woman has to take off from work. For some, it's a welcome vacation. For others, missing a day of work may mean loosing a job that she depends on to put food in her mouth and others. From an emotional perspective, pregnancy is a huge change in a woman's life. Add to that hormonal changes and it's enough to send some women over the edge - especially in the case of rape. Plus there could be other circumstances where the woman is in danger if she's found out to be pregnant - if she's got abusive parents, an abusive boyfriend/husband, etc. During the Holocaust, many Jewish women got abortions secretly in the concentration camps because they would have been subjected to absolutely inhumane forms of medical "tests" had they been found pregnant.

Some people's answer is to say that the woman can just give the baby up for adoption. I used to think that, too. However, if the woman does choose to stay pregnant and give the child up for adoption, there isn't much guarantee that the children will actually be placed in a good home. The state put my cousins in foster care only for them to end up abused and so messed up that I have to wonder if it would have been better to keep them with their druggie parents. And again, there are still all the problems associated with pregnancy.

Of course, I do believe women should avoid abortion if reasonably possible. If for anything, just to save them the mental anguish they might have if they aren't sure about their decision. However, I don't think I can tell someone else what options they can or cannot have - especially since I have a loving husband with a well paying job, a nice home, a supportive family. etc.

Interestingly enough, I read somewhere that there have actually been MORE abortions in the U.S. during the Bush presidency than the Clinton presidency. That's in part because of the economic downturn we've experienced here. If people really want to reduce abortions, the answer is not outlawing them. The answer is to:

(1) give women the tools to keep from getting unwanted pregnancies in the first place (easy access to cheap contraception including the morning after pill, rape prevention, thorough sexual education, etc.)
(2) reduce the risk of physical harm to the woman as a result of pregnancy (health insurance, help escaping from abusive relationships, etc.)
(3) make sure that they have the tools to where they can support a child if they do decide to keep the baby (such as education, job training, maternity leave, a reasonable minimum wage, etc.)

[Simonthepilgrim]

If we claim the name of Buddhist, we will find ourselves asked about abortion, just as we are asked about the death penalty and vegetarianism.

In truth, there is no hard-and-fast answer to any of these questions, nor should we be tempted to believe there are. They are individuals caught in hard places and each of them will show a unique face of suffering.

Some will need to engage at a wide social level, some at the individual. Whichever is our route to bring relief of suffering, we do no one any good if we simply recite the sutras or fold our hands and say, "Escape from suffering lies in the Noble Eighfold Path". Our own practice of the N8FP aclls us to compassionate action. It is the existential challenge of the Dharma.

And, whatever our own opinion, it is the person(s) in front of us who hurt and that's what matters.

[Elohim]

I think that is the best answer to the question DharmaKitten. All of those points are true and I think each is a case by case issue best decided by a woman and her doctor. That is a very logical and compassionate look which is very "buddhist".

[catie'sboy]

wow you guys thank you very much for all your responses, my girlfriend is pro-life and so she asked me what buddhists thought of abortion and i said that most are against it because of the beginning of life and anti-killing stance. i never expected such great responses though. thank you all very much.

[DharmaKitten]

I think that is the best answer to the question DharmaKitten. All of those points are true and I think each is a case by case issue best decided by a woman and her doctor. That is a very logical and compassionate look which is very "buddhist".

Thanks. As you can probably tell, it bothers me that so many women are portrayed as evil baby killers because they got an abortion. Compassion should definitely go to them as well.

[thebatman]

I believe and have seen first hand that there is a plethora of cheap, available birthcontrol. I also see that my taxes already pay for more than enough free healthcare. I see this firsthand as I work with and amongst the poorest of the poor.
I don't want the government passing laws to restrict reasonable abortion access (other than partial-birth which I have issue with). At the same time, the two people resposible for creating a pregnancy need to step up and deal with their responsibilities. Using abortion as a means of birth control because you were too irresponsible to use a condom is immoral. If you're not ready for the possibility that you might incur a pregnancy then don't take the chance that the condom might break.
It's not my responsibility to pay for the healthcare of the irresponsible. It's not my responsibility to put a condom on them or their partner.
The media and the special interest groups have caused us to just accept that the government (ie. our tax dollars) is responsible for holding our hands and giving us everything. It's not.
I'm more than willing to help people who are in need but I don't think the government should tell me WHO or HOW I'm gonna provide that help.
Personal responsibility should be goal number one.

[comicallyinsane]

Batman, you seem a little angry in that post. I agree with you on a lot of what you said. I think people need to be more responsible. Of course the issue of if they keep the child and cannot afford it is a problem, too. Then our taxes have to step in again.

[Simonthepilgrim]

I have heard the arguments about 'government's' lack of responsibility for health-care, education, etc. My questions have remained the same for decades:

1. What is this "government" of which you speak, other than the extension of the people?

2. Do people have responsibility for each other?

3. You may not want tax receipts spent on (for example) health care. Does that mean that you do want them spent on weapons?

A healthy nation is more likely to be happier and more productive than a sick one.

[comicallyinsane]

Good questions Simon. The weapons issue is for another topic that's for sure. I will meditate on these. Gassho.

[emmak]

I think it gets back to the issue of when does a foetus become a baby and hence a human, and at what point does abortion become killing a tiny life? I have no real stance on the pro life - pro choice argument. The whole subject is dicy and it also gets back to the fact that we are trying to play "God".

In that case what is the general consensus on contraception? And sex for fun rather than pro creation?

[Simonthepilgrim]

If, as Emmak, says, the question comes back to when 'life' arises in the gathered cells, we surely need a definition of life, otherwise we have no idea what we are seeking.

Such a definition would be useful at both ends of the incarnation as the sad case of PVS patients can demonstrate.

[emmak]

Could it be based on quality of life?

[Simonthepilgrim]

That can be dangerous, Emmak: who will decide on adequate quality? In some places, decisions on intervention are arrived at with reference to outcomes.

[thebatman]

Not angry at all...just passionate. I get frustrated at times with the call for more government intervention through money etc. The more money you receive from the government, the more control the government has over your daily life. We do NOT need government funded healthcare. Hold on...I'll start a new thread about this tonight.
Yes, the government is supposed to be an extension of the people. The larger it gets, the more outta-touch it becomes with what the people want or need. The People loan power to the government NOT the government loans power to The People...at least that's the way it should be.

[emmak]

That can be dangerous, Emmak: who will decide on adequate quality? In some places, decisions on intervention are arrived at with reference to outcomes.
For sure Simon. I have worked with PVS people and it is not nice at all. You constantly wonder Is this person aware? and then Is this person happy? It is such a hard, hard thing. I know though, that I would not want to live like that. I would be happy for life support, feed tube etc to be removed. But that is me and I guess I have seen first hand the life of PVS and it is terrible.
I realise though that another person cannot make that call on someone elses life.
I think what I was getting at was abortion in the case of medical problems with the foetus or the mother.

[emmak]

YAY Batman! Another frustrated person... Our government is similar. Helps those who wont help themselves. Helps people who dont want to work. All governments are out of touch because the people who call the shots will never be in a situation where they benefit from the so-called welfare system, public school system, public health system, public anything system. It is not a true democracy anymore, we are merely plebians and the politicians dont care.

[Jenna]

Here's my take on the whole abortion issue.

I believe there is a critical issue to consider here: when is this thing life? What is life? Because you have a collection of cells doesn't mean it is necessarily alive. The medical community, for what it's worth, defines life as having certain kinds of brain wave/brain activity. This is why things like viruses aren't life (plus the DNA issue, in the case of viruses). Up to a certain point it is considered that the fetus has the potential to be alive. But until that point (41/2 to 5 months) it is not yet truly life. It's close, but no cigar. An acorn is not the same as an oak tree. It has the potential within it to be an oaktree, but its potential isn't yet initiated or fulfilled.

That being said, there's certainly an argument for when does the soul arrive on the scene? Certainly, the energy flowing off of the mother changes, but this may not reflect changes related to the appearance of a separate soul but may in fact reflect changes in the woman.

I think most of us would agree that people need to make this decision on their own, within their own consciences and with their own ideas of what makes for God, and what makes for morality.

So here's an interesting tidbit that may very well just reflect my own inner struggles and conflicts (no doubt it does) but still, it's interesting. Once, about two years ago, I had this unusual dream. This was in my pre-Buddhist days, even before I really knew it existed. I had been dreaming this spinning things since I was a child which I later learned are in fact mandalas: they spin, and change constantly as they spin, like computer fractals do. I was dreaming a black, white and grey fractal when suddenly the center of it opened up like a camera lens, and I could see deeply into the back of it. Behind the fractal stood my very beloved and deceased grandmother (Grammy). I stepped through the lens opening and hugged her, and I asked her a whole bunch of questions. Relevant to our discussion, I asked her "So Gram, this whole abortion thing: death, not-death, or something totally different?" To which she replied "Totally different. But don't worry about it." Soon after, the lens closed up and I was back on the other side of the thing.

[emmak]

What did you make of that dream, Jenna?

[Jenna]

Good question. What I can tell you is that after the dream, I felt somehow more peaceful about the whole subject.

Dreams are all so individual. Freud called them "the royal road to the unconscious." There's a part of me which thinks that dreams just reflect the unconscious processing of the brain, such that the brain is able to stay asleep. There's a part of me which thinks that dreams tap into the universal unconscious, the collective unconscious, like Jung talks about.. And there's part of me which really likes to think my Gram came for a visit. Who knows?

What do you make of it?

What did you make of that dream, Jenna?

[DharmaKitten]

I believe and have seen first hand that there is a plethora of cheap, available birthcontrol. I also see that my taxes already pay for more than enough free healthcare.

Not cheap enough. Have you seen the price of Trojans lately? It really adds up. I have a friend who can only afford the really cheap condoms (same ones they usually give out in clinics). Well, those things don't work worth a darn. They break easily. In fact, most birth control effectiveness lists make a distinction between cheap and expensive condoms. Anyways, I've given her one of my Plan-B pills at least once because she can not afford another kid.

As for me, I'm on Yasmin. That costs me at least $25 a month with insurance picking up the rest. Plus we use Trojans since I'm not taking any chances. And we have to use Trojans because the cheap ones, um, don't fit. $25 plus condoms adds up. That's $300 a year! Fortunately, my husband makes enough money to keep us comfortably in debt (as oppose to uncomfortably like most my friends). Still, it's hard to watch that money go bye-bye. Cheaper than having kids, though.

As for the "free" health care in the U.S., I've known plenty of people who have been on it or tried to get on it. That and other govt. programs aren't enough to sustain a person alone, nor were they meant to. Unfortunately, the first time they get a steady minimum wage job they are suddenly making too much to qualify for all the govt. programs, but not making enough to cover basic expenses.

[Jenna]

"Free" healthcare is a wonderful fairytale, a delightful myth, kind of like the American myth that if you work hard enough you can be whatever you want to when you grow up, or the myth of the Loch Ness monster. It has been my experience that it is nearly impossible to access this free healthcare unless you are destitute, which means you make below poverty wages (currently defined as below about 12K per year for a family of one to two people). Most states provide some kind of health insurance or health care services to children whose families make "middle class" wages (so, above poverty up to about 35 to 40K for a family of four), but if you are an adult in this country making more than poverty level wages and working, have fun finding free healthcare. In fact, companies like Wal-Mart (shudder, hack) have a notorious history of failure to provide healthcare for employees who work under what they define as full time; so women who have worked 35 hours per week don't have access to health care services, but make too little to be able to purchase health coverage (insurance for me costs 333.62 a month, for Frankie who is older, it's almost 400.00). In fact, some years back Wal-Mart (snort) got in trouble for encouraging women who had some health care through medical assistance/department of public assistance to only work a very few hours so that our taxes, rather than their profits, would cover the cost of insurance benefits (this was women who were trying to emerge from the DPA system).

Imagine trying to support yourself and one child on minimum wage with no health benefits.

[Brian]

I don't have to imagine. Someone very close to me is a single mother supporting three children on less than minimum wage with no health benefits.

I agree with you 100% Jenna, about the state of health care in this country. "free" healthcare? Pah. I tried applying for this supposed "free" healthcare a few years ago when my family was in dire need, and they determined we made "too much money". We were struggling badly (routinely 2-3 months behind on the house payment, car payment, utilities, etc.) and yet we made "too much money". So someone who is barely living paycheck to paycheck must also take on the burden of healthcare expenses. It's pointless. The only ones who get free healthcare are those who understand how to take advantage of the system - and you almost have to be TAUGHT how to do that. It's a labyrinth.

[comicallyinsane]

Here in CA the healthcare seems to be ok. My wife and kids are on Medical and all their needs are covered. I go to a local clinic where I pay 20 dollars per visit. The ER is a different story. If I have to go there I never bother paying because I just don't have the money.

[emmak]

Pardon my ignorance, but do you folk in the US have to pay to got to emergency? Thats absurd...

[Jenna]

Pardon my ignorance, but do you folk in the US have to pay to got to emergency? Thats absurd...

Here in the US have to pay for EVERYTHING. The emergency room personel can't actually turn you away in an emergency situation if you can't pay, but they'll bill the socks off of you. In some states, if you can't pay for your healthcare bills the state can actually lien your home. If you are conscious when you enter a hospital emergency room, the first stop is to the nice lady who tells you to go sit in the waiting room and fill out some forms. The next stop, before you even get to see a doctor or even the lowly intern, is to the nice lady who takes all of your insurance information.

[comicallyinsane]

Yeah and if you are knocked out they just take your arm and make you sign anyway. LOL

[emmak]

That is brutal. I guess our system here does have it's merits. I have been to ER many times, NEVER had to pay. It is only if you elect to go in as a private patient that you are stung.
If you go to hospital to have a baby does it cost yoiu as a public patient?

[comicallyinsane]

What does it mean to be a private patient? I go to the ER when after hours when all th eother doctors are closed or on Sundays.

[emmak]

I think I see the difference in the systems now. We can elect to pay for private health insurance, which will give you shoice of Dr. choice of hospital, and there is no waiting list for treatment. But you have to pay a 'gap' which is expensive sometimes. But if you go through the 'public' system, it is free, but sometimes you have to wait several years for the treatment, with no choice of Dr or hospital. For example, I need to have all four of my wisdom teeth pulled out. We do have private health insurance, but the gap will be around $600. So while I can have this done asap, in a hospital of my choice and my choice or Dr, I need to save up the gap fee to have it done. Alternatively, I could go public, but I could have to wait a year to have the procedure done.
When I had my baby, I went public, as the gap for it would have been thousands. I ended up having several top up epidurals ($$$) an emergency cesarean, loads of drugs cos the epidural did not work. I was public and it did not cost me a cent. If I had used my private health insurance it would have sent us broke!!

[comicallyinsane]

We go to Dental Surgeons for our wisdom teeth. No hospitals.

[emmak]

I have to have a general anaesthetic and have them dug out of my head. There is no way in hell or on earth they will do that while I am awake!

[Brian]

I went to the ER because I got something in my eye. I was uninsured and had very little money.

The bill? $700

Having a baby can cost around $10,000 here in the US if everything goes smoothly.

[comicallyinsane]

Yes they do the same thing here but you are put out at the Denist office. My wife had it done. She was out in 45 minutes.

[comicallyinsane]

We had Medical pay for our baby. Thank God because it would have cost us a fortune. Our daughter was born 2 months early and she had to spend 6 weeks in the hospital. Scariest thing in the world when she was born.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/comicallyinsane/DSCF0716.jpg



I still want to cry seeing this picture.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/comicallyinsane/Picture0151.jpg


But this is what she looks like now. :bowdown:

[emmak]

I went to the ER because I got something in my eye. I was uninsured and had very little money.

The bill? $700

Having a baby can cost around $10,000 here in the US if everything goes smoothly.
That is really outrageous. :(

[emmak]

Sorry to post twice, just saw pic of little Lorna. Poor little poopie! That sort of thing breaks my heart. (I am so thankful that my own child is healthy.) Lorna certainly looks just fine now! What a cutie.

[comicallyinsane]

Thank you. She was born 3 Pounds 1 ounce. Now she is over 22 pounds. She'll be 9 months old next week. :)

[buddhafoot]

DarmaKitten,

I don't want you to think that I'm ripping on you - because I'm not.

But you have made statements about abortion being a woman's choice (which ultimately it is) or if a woman chooses to carry the child to term and then give it up for adoption. But then you spoke of the fear of giving a child up for adoption and fearing that the child might not go to a good home?

I'm confused. Is death better for the child than adopting parents that might not be perfect? Isn't death a harsher sentence for the infant than a hard life?

Also, with this next statement, please don't think I'm condoning abuse in any form or fashion. But, even people who have been abused in their lives - do they wish they'd never been born? Or have they been able to move on in life and gain happiness or even just be glad they've been able to experience life and the good things it can bring - rather than just never being?

Michael

[Simonthepilgrim]

I'm not taking a position on artificial termination of pregnancy. What puzzles me is why death is seen as being 'harsh' or, even, a bad thing.

[comicallyinsane]

So this goes back to the death penalty thing. Is it bad. Another thread I know but your post reminded me of it Simon.

[DharmaKitten]

DarmaKitten,

I don't want you to think that I'm ripping on you - because I'm not.

But you have made statements about abortion being a woman's choice (which ultimately it is) or if a woman chooses to carry the child to term and then give it up for adoption. But then you spoke of the fear of giving a child up for adoption and fearing that the child might not go to a good home?

I'm confused. Is death better for the child than adopting parents that might not be perfect? Isn't death a harsher sentence for the infant than a hard life?

Also, with this next statement, please don't think I'm condoning abuse in any form or fashion. But, even people who have been abused in their lives - do they wish they'd never been born? Or have they been able to move on in life and gain happiness or even just be glad they've been able to experience life and the good things it can bring - rather than just never being?

Michael

I'm not sure if death is harsher than a particularly hard life. It's hard to compare because we really don't know what death entails. Even if it's just non-existence, I don't think I could make a value judgement about that.

My main point was not to say that death is better than other options, but rather just to present the mother's side because it is a complex situation and sometimes I don't feel that some people that are 100% pro-life understand the kind of situations a mother might be in. Women who have abortions are often talked about as if they are sluts, lazy, heartless, even blood thirsty killers. For this reason, many women who've had abortions never tell anyone and I think that's sad for any woman to have to carry a secret like that when she needs the emotional support of friends and family. That's why I think we should all try to at least consider where they are coming from. It's not an easy decision.

BTW, no hard feelings. I like a good discussion and that means hearing opposing sides. Personally, I'm by no means 100% on either side of the debate. I do, however, have a habit of being the "Devil's Advocate" in these types of debates. So I'm definitely used to people's objections ;)

[DharmaKitten]

I'm not taking a position on artificial termination of pregnancy. What puzzles me is why death is seen as being 'harsh' or, even, a bad thing.

I've been thinking about death a lot lately which has kind of got me down. Obviously, I can't avoid death and I won't know what it even entails until I get there (if then). I probably will just cease to be, at least as I define myself. The thought of non-existence is very scary to me, but I've been thinking that if I must die, then perhaps I should try to find good in it. Things were so much easier when I thought I was going to go sing with the angels for eternity :(

[comicallyinsane]

How do you know something won't happen?

[DharmaKitten]

I don't know for sure. I wouldn't even call it a belief. I would say that it's an expectation based on what I know so far of biology, physics, etc. While there is no proof that death=nonexistence, I see it as my default position given that I have not seen evidence otherwise.

[buddhafoot]

A kindred spirit! I find myself being the Devil's Advocate if for no other reason - just to argue the other side of the debate :)

True, since we don't know what death entails - we all might be getting ripped off hanging around here. But, on the flip side - even a hard life has man beautiful things in it a person can enjoy. Which, if they're aborted - no way for them to find out.

You know what's pretty tough too? Being a male who is in a relationship and not having a say so regarding whether or not you get or don't get to have your child. I've had that happen where I've been in a relationship - I wanted the child. The mother didn't. Very difficult to have something like "life" happen in your existance and have someone else take it away from you.

Michael

[TakingItDownANotch]

What scares me when faced with these subjects, is that I wonder if it isn't almost as important how you treat, support, and judge the individuals who are facing these situations, as the decsision the person eventually makes? Something as simple as stating the "rightness" or "wrongness" of possibly the most difficult and confusing decision in a persons life, may cause that person an undue burden or add to their confusion about the situation. Especially when the solution is not a clear black or white, yes or no, or true or false one. That could lead to them making decisions based on others opinions, rather than their own intuition and heart-felt intention. This may possibly lead them to regrets and anger at a later point in time. It may also lead to feelings of guilt or responsibility on the part of the person who offered the opinion, but maybe did not intend it as advice. None of these being conducive to waking up. So usually I don't offer an opinion on a subject like this, but prefer to say something like, "this is clearly a difficult subject on which to have an opinion, which is correct in all circumstances. Clearly, the persons intention will determine the significance of the event in their life, and I can only offer up my most heart-felt empathy for the difficult situation they are facing and pray that the decision they make is the right one for them." I am finding that the older I get, and the more books on Buddhism I read, the less "safe" I feel about speaking because I am afraid of where inside me the intention is coming from (for instance I have rewritten this post about nine times). Does the post sound judgemental? Will it confuse anyone or make them feel negatively? Does it have hints of my own person bias that I have yet to identify? Where does my need to respond to it come from in the first place? Or maybe it is all one big cop-out on my part :confused:

[buddhafoot]

TakingItDownANotch,

I didn't think that anything you had written was too judgemental. I think you made some really good points.

I think that, sometimes, debating for debates sake can be kind of weak if there is no sharing of knowledge or ideas. If there is a sharing of knowledge and ideas - it can be very beneficial.

Michael

[comicallyinsane]

Welcome takingitdownanotch. I just had a thought about your post. Let's say you say something on any subject. Now here I am or anyone for that matter reading your post. Let's say you mean one thing in your post but the person reads your post differently but it helps that person all the same. Of course it could backfire and make them feel worse. The point is your intention. Don't be afraid to say what's going on in you because you might make all the difference in someone's line of thinking. From my personal experience reading szome of the member's posts here have helped me to see things differently. If I disagree I say so. Then someone else will tell me something else and I may or may not change my thought process. We all need more views. We do not always see the whole picture. One person is always looking at a different part of the picture than another. We need to sometimes get together to describe what we have seen. :)

[thebatman]

Takingitdownanotch...
Don't fall prey to the politically correct position that we shouldnt be judgmental. A culture is at least partially defined by its definition of right and wrong.
In practicing buddhism we strive for "right intention" etc. For there to be a "right" there must be a "wrong" to compare it to.

[Elohim]

Please be careful about comparing wordly opinions about a subject with what is in line with the Dhamma. Sometimes we may overlook the dangers lurking in our deepest held beliefs. In the teachings of the Buddha there is no thing such as "politically correct" or "politically incorrect". There is only Dhamma (Truth). As Ajahn Boowa once said,

"Those who bare their teeth and boast that they are arguing to
champion a just cause are, without exception, already badly defeated.
No one is right, for arguing is always wrong. Just like two
boxers slugging it out in the ring: both the winner and the loser
come away battered and bruised. Who can take pride in that? It’s
not something to boast about. Arguing fosters bitterness and resentment
in both parties. It becomes a battle of views and opinions,
an attempt to glorify oneself that degenerates into a shouting
match where no one listens to reason."

May I also add that being careful of where your intentions come from is a wise thing to do. Where indeed are our intentions born? Is it out of compassion? Is it more so out of conceit? Is it pride in a view? Is it none of these? Is it all at once? Is it out of an opinion? Is it out of lust? Is it born of becoming? Is it born from truth? For as much as it may arise out of wisdom, it can even more so arise out of avijja. In our current state we may not know for sure. The precepts are our restraint which protects us from these things we do not know or understand in terms of the Dhamma. It is our shield. Without this shield wisdom is not free to arise. We must restrain our speech, our thoughts, and our actions until we can be positive we know where they come from.

In Buddhism it is true we are to cultivate the good, but only to a point. There is a time when we must see with wisdom that to be truly a follower of the Buddha we must go beyond good and evil, right and wrong. The other shore cannot be reached with all of these burdens on our shoulders. We will surely drown in the deep waters of samsara.

The Dhammapada
Chapter 25. The Bhikkhu
(Not only does it mean monk but as Ajahn Chah says, "Bhikkhu -- one who sees the danger of Samsara."

Restraint of the eyes is good. So is restraint of the ears. Restraint of the nose is good, and so is restraint of the palate. 360

Restraint of the body is good. So is restraint of speech. Restraint of mind is good, and so is restraint in everything. The bhikkhu who is restrained in everything, is freed from all suffering. 361

Restrained of hand, restrained of foot, restrained of speech and restrained in his highest faculty, with his joy turned inwards, his mind still, alone and contented -- that is what they call a bhikkhu. 362

When a bhikkhu is restrained of tongue, quotes wise sayings, and is peaceful, expounding both letter and spirit -- his speech is good to hear. 363

With joy in the Teaching, delighting in the Teaching, and pondering over the Teaching, the bhikkhu who remembers the Teaching does not fall away from the Teaching. 364

One should not underestimate what one has got, and one should not live envying others. A bhikkhu who envies others does not achieve stillness of mind in meditation. 365

Even if he has only received a little, if a bhikkhu does not look down on what he has received, even the devas praise him, pure of life and determined as he is. 366

When a man is without self-identification with any object or idea, and does not grieve for what does not exist -- that is what is called a bhikkhu. 367

The bhikkhu who lives full of goodwill, with faith in the religion of the Buddha -- he will reach the place of peace, the satisfaction of stilling the functions of the mind. 368

Empty the boat, bhikkhu. Empty it will sail lightly for you. When you have cut away desire and aversion, you will come to nirvana as a result. 369

Cut away the five (lower fetters), abandon the five (remaining fetters), and then develop the five (faculties). The bhikkhu who has transcended the five fetters is said to be "crossed over the flood". 370

Meditate, bhikkhu, don't be careless, don't let your mind take pleasure in the senses. Don't have to swallow the iron ball for being careless. Don't have to cry out, "This is terrible" as you burn. 371

There is no meditation without wisdom, and there is no wisdom without meditation. When a man has both meditation and wisdom, he is indeed close to nirvana. 372

When he has gone off to a lonely building, the bhikkhu whose mind is at peace experiences a more than human joy, when he recognises the supreme Truth. 373

Whenever he meditates on the rise and fall of the constituent elements of existence, he experiences joy and rapture. It is immortality for men of discrimination. 374

Therefore in this religion, this is what comes first for a wise bhikkhu -- guarding of the senses, contentment, and discipline in accordance with the rules of the Order. He should cultivate friends of good character, of pure behaviour and resolute. He should be friendly in his manner, and well-behaved. As a result he will experience great joy, and put an end to suffering. 375, 376

In the same way that the jasmine drops its withered flowers, you too should discard desire and aversion, bhikkhus. 377

Peaceful of body, peaceful of speech and with his mind thoroughly stilled, the bhikkhu who has rid himself of attachment to the world -- is called "at peace". 378

You should encourage yourself, yourself. You should restrain yourself, yourself. When you are self-protected like that, you will live happily as a bhikkhu. 379

One is one's own guard. What other guard could one have? One is one's own destiny. Therefore one should train oneself, like a merchant does a thoroughbred horse. 380

The bhikkhu who experiences great joy, and has faith in the religion of the Buddha, will attain the place of peace, the satisfaction of stilling the functions of the mind. 381

[buddhafoot]

thebatman

I think I would have to disagree with you here. isn't one of the Buddhist learnings that there is no "right" or "wrong" or "good" or "bad" because we're implying dualism? I thought that instead creating dualism in this manner - one is just supposed to view things as "this is appropriate", "this works" or "this is in sync with Reality" - as in "something that is conducive to awakening" rather than something that can be compared to as being wrong.

Am I thinking in a manner that is not conducive to awakening?

Michael

[Simonthepilgrim]

The balance, here, is between nihilism and eternalism. The former says there is no right and wrong but that all is pragmatic. The latter says that there are rules which are the very definitions of right and wrong.

Whilst both have elements of truth, neither is the Dhamma. None of the skillful means revealed by the Buddha in the Noble Eightfold Path exists alone. They are a matrix, a network. As thich Nhat Hanh says Arya ashtangika marga ("a noble path of eight limbs") suggests the interbeing nature of these eight elements of the path. Each limb contains the other seven.

This is the touchstone by which we assess mind, body and action. It is also the map by which we strive to find a way through the labyrinth of samsara and by which we may be able to find, meet and, perhaps, learn, teach, help or be helped by others.

It is true that the Noble Eightfold Path does not lay down absolutes. It may even be advisable to see them as irrelevant. This, however, ignores the reality that the Path is supported by and points us towards compassion. Compassion appears, to the opened eye, as the non-contingent absolute.

Buddhist pragmatism is best described in the story of the Buddha's parinibbana:

Thus have I heard:

A young monk called Subhadda presented himself with a question for the Buddha. The Tathagata was now 80 years old and near to death. Subhadda asked, "World-Honoured One, are other religious teachers enlightened?"

The Buddha sighed. If only the young could ask useful questions! But a skillful answer to an unskillful question can change a life, so the Buddha replied, "Subhadda, it is really not important if they are enlightened or not. What matters is: do you want to be free? If you do, practice the Noble Eightfold Path. Wherever the Noble Eighfold Path is practised, joy, peace and insight are there." As in his first sermon, in the Deer Park, so in his last, the Wish-Fulfilling Jewel spoke of the Noble Eightfold Path as the way of the enlightened.

(adapted from Mahaparinibbana Sutta, Digha Nikaya 16.)

[thebatman]

buddhafoot...
I agree that buddhist teaching warns us about duality but I think the warning is that one should be aware of the judgements the mind makes rather than ignore them. While "right" and "wrong" exist only in our minds, they are illusions that define our decisions. Everyone's definitions differ somewhat and when someone's definitions are completely out of whack with what is the norm in a given society then they are "defined" as "outcasts", "weirdos", or "criminals".
Unfortunately, few people on this planet live by buddhist-thought. Therefore, we have "outcasts", "weirdos", and "criminals".
Someone who practices buddhist thought would not run through a shopping-mall with a machinegun blowing everyone away for fun. People who do this are JUDGED to be "outcasts", "weirdos", and "criminals". Anyone who is afraid to judge this person as "wrong" is utterly impotent.
If everyone on the planet practiced buddhist thought then (and only then) could we all completely let go of the duality of "right and wrong". As long as one single person on the planet does not act from emptiness then duality will exist in the mind of all. When everyone is on the same page in emptiness, perhaps dukkha will POOF! disappear.
Just a thought.

[grainne]

Ive read everybodies messages in response to this question and I am really down. Dont know why .... not everybodies comments were negative or upsetting.

Ive had an abortion ... suppose thats why I found this question both interesting and very personally close to the bone.

Let me just say, I agree with everyone it is a very personal issue so while I have my experiences I certainly dont want you to think I am pushing any agenda here. I can only give a deeply personal response to an issue that is extremely difficult for everybody.

I feel a need to be honest and hope that my own experience can help others.

I decided to have an abortion primarily due to a very real fear that I could not bring a child up with out emotionally or physically damaging it. I was also petrified of my mothers response to a pregnancy and really couldn't imagine in a million years telling her about it. I knew when I got pregnant I disappear and have the baby somewhere because I was in University and would have to answer too many questions about my dropping out. Also would have to go abroad and it would have been practically impossible to not come home for 9 months. Somebody in my family would have wanted to visit me if I had made up a story about going to see the world.

The other problem is when you are pregnant and terrified and physically sick as I was you have a very small time frame to make your decisions. Ontop of which abortion is illegal in Ireland and I had to travel to the UK to carry out the abortion. Also, this was in pre-internet days when finding information was not only difficult but nearly or judged to be illegal in this country.

So for so many reasons but mostly I felt I didn't have the ability emotionally to bring up a child in a nurtured enviornment with little or no money and no support I decided to have an abortion.

For many people it is not an issue that is taken lightly and in my case it is a shadow that is always on my mind. I have nieces and nephews, friends who have babies and it is always a compare and contrast issue .... ie:"If I hadn't had the abortion my baby would be aged 7,8,9,10 ... by now" and so on. For the rest of my life every friend and relatives birth will be an issue. Those baby scan's that proud future parents show are beyond painful, because I know, like most women, that my baby looked like that or would have if the pregnancy continued.

Every relationship with a man I have it becaomes an issue, becuase sooner or later the "baby" conversation happens and you have to deal with the guilt of having murdered a baby but also as to if you should lie about it also and what about all those people who you love who have very personal views on abortion, would they love you less if they knew the truth. Every opinion voiced on this issue becomes almost a personal criticim, who am I to say that the anti-abortionists aren't completly right and that I am a murderer?

Believe me for sombody who was and is every day there on the subject of abortion it is not something which a woman who takes that decicision can very easily deal with on any level because all those issues which have been raised on the bulletin board are really issues in my head most of the time and if they are not in the forefront of your mind everyday you also feel guilty beause its almost like you have diminished this terrrible thing you have done.

I was emotionally and physically abused by my mother and have had alot of problems as a result. My mother is a great woman who is very strong, extrodinarily intelligent and very loving to some people however she was very badly abused as a child and I believe that while she really did her best to bring me up some of the terrible things she suffered as a child where the ways she learnt to deal with a children and so I too got a bit of what she suffered. This was really not her intention and |I am really sure she does on some level love me, but how could I do that to a child. I really was worried that I would physically hurt or emotionally hurt a child. I still have that fear and have not and probably wont have any children. You may see this as an excuse or a justification but believe me there is no justification in MY OWN head for my abortion.

Back to the Religious end of this discussion, Having being brought up as a Catholic, there is no way no how, ever any justification for abortion in the Catholic church. Abortion and Buddhism was a question which was obviously always on my mind, but one I was afraid to ask. :et me just say this to all of you who haven't been there ... be glad that you do not have to really know the answers to these questions. I wish I could not know but at some stage I will, if it's hell as the Catholics may predict or bad Karma for eternities...... I will find out some day!

[thebatman]

There is no hell. Maybe you've already "served" your share of bad karma (I don't believe in karma). Remember: Worrying about something you cannot change makes one problem into two problems.
Am I a fan of abortion? No. But you seem to have a clear head in regards to why your choices were made so you owe it to yourself to let it go (easy for me to say, I know).

[Simonthepilgrim]

Grainne, acushla,

My heart goes out to you.

There is nothing that anyone can say that fills the hole left by the loss. I hope that you find love and support.

There are times when, in the darkest moments, all I can hang onto are the words that Mother Julian heard: "All will be well and all will be well and all manner of things will be well". And this, even when the world appears to be a place of infinite pain.

[grainne]

Thanks for the positive messages and thanks especially to those who may have not felt positive towards what I said but didn't slam me for my thoughts.

I had a rotten day yesterday when I read the thread and today I really didnt want to check the boards but having done so Ive found consolation in what ye have said.

Sorry my message wasn't very coherant but I was upset typing it. Thanks again all!

[Simonthepilgrim]

One of the great joys of Buddhism, for me, is that there is no notion of punishment and reward.

Nothing so puzzled me, when I became a Christian, as the notion of 'sin'. Looking back, I can laugh at my naivety. I actually took the words of Jesus about 'salvation', forgiveness and transformation seriously. And I still do!

[DharmaKitten]

On the other side, I had a friend (now moved away) who had an abortion and she swore it was one of the simplest decisions in her life and that she has had no guilt about it whatsoever. Of course, she could just have been saying that, but I do believe her. She had it more than a few years ago, so she's definitely has had time for regrets to form - and she's definitely a deep thinker type. Of course, this is just me presenting other views. I don't expect to change anyone's opinion on the matter with this post. What I think is really important is that women consider how they themselves will feel after the abortion emotionally - at least, as best as they can. Also, I don't think certain people in society should try so hard to make women feel even more guilty about abortions.

[Simonthepilgrim]

Whilst Buddhism has come a long way in 2500 years, its roots are still apparent. The Vedas speak about the world being a "field of action": we cannot be alive without taking action. And each action is, because dependent, is freighted with karma. An abortion is an outcome of multiple actions and decisions which stretch back through all the ages.

The clutching at "good" karma is as unproductive as "bad" because each action must also evoke its opposite. There is no "up" without "down", "left" without "right".

For some schools, there is much emphasis on "neutral" karmic action, whereas others focus on spontaneity in the Taoist sense of wu-wei.