To be clear, no-one in Buddhism has any problem with contraception that prevents fertility. Once fertilization has occurred, or is occurring, is where ethical issues start to appear.
1 Like
You are right bhante. But the thing is that thereās always some uncertainty around how exactly these things work.
The issue is what is the case when a method like the pill may work as abortifacient and not contraceptive (there is always a chance). Would vasectomy be therefore a safer bet in that sense?
P.S.: I must acknowledge that the safest bet would definitely be to adhere to abstinence born of bliss and joy of a purer life, but not everyone is there yet! 
Thereās really not. The question is whether sometimes eggs get fertilized and expelled anyway. The point is this is happening all the time. Many pregnancies result in miscarriage. However, there is no intention to kill a being.
Women can still fall pregnant with any type of contraception. This proves that contraception is just that - contraception. It is not an abortifacient. Furthermore, there is no intention on the half of women using contraception to kill, so that really should be that.
If you are sexually active, you have to accept that no matter what you do, pregnancy could happen. That is why there is suffering in that, beings may die unintentionally, and harm may be caused. Even with vasectomy!
4 Likes
This seems to be a good enough summary on the issue:
However the normal oral contraceptive pill dose can be used safely as a morning-after pill- it has to be doubled for it to be 75% effective as an abortifacient. Therefore it seems unlikely that at half that dose it is going to cause an abortion (though Iām not sure what the figures are for that dose).
1 in 2000 women will get pregnant after sex with a man with vasectomy.
I think in all these situations the intention is to stop pregnancy before it establishes itself.
It seems a better option (harm minimisation) than having a child and being unable to look after it, emotionally.
I think the responsible attitude must be that having sexual intercourse means being prepared for the possibility of the woman becoming pregnant, and its consequences on both parties lives, though every precaution is taken to minimise it from happening.
with metta
2 Likes
Thanks Mat,
I think that highlights some of the ambiguity around it. However, I would still resist the calling of the pill or morning after pill an abortifacient.
Of course the question comes down to āwhen does human life begin?ā Which is one every woman has to find a suitable answer for herself. If you believe that fertilization is the beginning of human life, then you may consider that some of the time when hormonal contraception is used, miscarriage will happen, although you wonāt know how or when. However, there is much clearer scientific evidence these days that the components of the mothers and fathers cells donāt truly combine to create a unique set of new cells until implantation. And even then they are cells. The sperm and ovum cells are living just as the new embryo cells are living so where do we establish that ānewā life has begun?
Look we could go on and on! 
I defend that contraception whether regular or emergency is not abortifacient but I think thisā¦ [quote=āMat, post:24, topic:3607ā]
I think the responsible attitude must be that having sexual intercourse means being prepared for the possibility of the woman becoming pregnant, and its consequences on both parties lives, though every precaution is taken to minimise it from happening
[/quote]
ā¦is spot on!!!
2 Likes