Why Are 82% of American Buddhists Pro-Choice?

[DonnyHacker]

I’d actually go a step further than that and say that most Americans probably follow Vajrayana Buddhism (i.e. Tibetan) more than anything else. This would seem to be because most of the Americans I deal with have no idea that there are different traditions within Buddhism. They only know what they see in TV, films, and they associate Buddhism only with the Dalai Lama.

[Jhana4]

Locked topics on SuttaCentral.net.

Today we have become dhammawheel.com

No disrespect to the admins of suttacentral.net. I think all of them have been doing an excellent job.

This is about about us, the users of suttacentral discussions. We did this.

People who study Buddhism, who refuse to accept that the Internet is part of life and part of the path.

I’ve been using Buddhist forums since the “Internet” meant email lists and Usenet groups in pure command shell environments. They all eventually turn into cess pools that are not conducive to the wholesome mental states that Right Effort from the 8 Fold Path is meant to be used to produce.

This discussion forum was a nice oasis when I found it. I suspect because it was graphically hidden and not a lot of people knew about it.

I avoided telling people about it on other Buddhist forums.

I began getting concerned when I saw more dhammawheelers and redditors pop up here and when the discussion forum became easier to find after the rebuild.

The main mission of Sutta Central, in my opinion, is educational to promote people actually DOING the dhamma rather than giving them a place to bicker.

If locking threads becomes a regular need my suggestion would be to get rid of the extracurricular discussion sections ( plenty of other “Buddhist” places on the Internet to discuss tangential topics ) and only have discussions for the texts. You know, suttas, as in sutta CENTRAL :).

No disrespect to anyone.

[Luisito]

I am surprised it is that high. Judging from the American posters on these forums a lot of Americans Buddhist seem to be very right wing.

[Viveka]

Please be aware that the forum guidelines, and indeed Right Speech, warns against negative inferences about other peoples motivation, and reacting to that in ways that that are neither helpful to oneself or others.

@sujato

Right Speech

Right Speech is defined in the Early Buddhist texts as refraining from speech that is false, malicious, harsh or gossiping. The way to purify one’s speech is further explained by the suttas as follows:

Here someone, abandoning false speech, abstains from false speech; when summoned to a court, or to a meeting, or to his relatives’ presence, or to his guild, or to the royal family’s presence, and questioned as a witness thus: ‘So, good man, tell what you know,’ not knowing, he says, ‘I do not know,’ or knowing, he says, ‘I know’; not seeing, he says, ‘I do not see,’ or seeing, he says, ‘I see’; he does not in full awareness speak falsehood for his own ends, or for another’s ends, or for some trifling worldly end.

Abandoning malicious speech, he abstains from malicious speech; he does not repeat elsewhere what he has heard here in order to divide those people from these, nor does he repeat to these people what he has heard elsewhere in order to divide these people from those; thus he is one who reunites those who are divided, a promoter of friendships, who enjoys concord, rejoices in concord, delights in concord, a speaker of words that promote concord.

Abandoning harsh speech, he abstains from harsh speech; he speaks such words as are gentle, pleasing to the ear, and loveable, as go to the heart, are courteous, desired by many, and agreeable to many.

Abandoning gossip, he abstains from gossip; he speaks at the right time, speaks what is fact, speaks on what is good, speaks on the Dhamma and the Discipline; at the right time he speaks such words as are worth recording, reasonable, moderate, and beneficial.

(AN 10.176)

[Luisito]

Being right wing is negative? That seems like you might have a wrong view there.

[Viveka]

@Luisito

Being right wing is negative? That seems like you might have a wrong view there.

@Viveka

he speaks at the right time, speaks what is fact, speaks on what is good, speaks on the Dhamma and the Discipline; at the right time he speaks such words as are worth recording, reasonable, moderate, and beneficial.

Once again, Please read the sutta Central guidelines in detail.

Universal Rules of Dhamma Discourse

This is a friendly place for Dhamma discussion Participating in this forum should be taken as an opportunity to practice Right Speech. As such, please show the forum and your fellow practitioners the same respect shown in a temple. We, too, are a community spiritual center — a space to share Dhamma ideas, understandings and questions in a supportive atmosphere. We are delighted to have you participate in this forum, but if you choose to do so please note that we will understand your participat…

@sujato

Participating in this forum should be taken as an opportunity to practice Right Speech. As such, please show the forum and your fellow practitioners the same respect shown in a temple. We, too, are a community spiritual center — a space to share Dhamma ideas, understandings and questions in a supportive atmosphere.

We are delighted to have you participate in this forum, but if you choose to do so please note that we will understand your participation as a commitment to adhere to the simple principles given in these guidelines. They are intended as an aid to help you safeguard this community and keep the forum a kind, supportive, and enriching place for Dhamma discourse underpinned by Right Speech.

This is a specialised forum for discussion about Early Buddhist texts. For general discussions there are many other forums available

[Luisito]

There was nothing wrong with my comment. It is you that had issue with it. Just saying

[ERose]

It’s good to remember such advice when engaging with topics difficult for some or all participants. It’s good to remind ourselves to take care of our speech behavior, for the benefit of many including ourselves.

Everyone will die. Knowing this, it’s good to use time in ways which avoid generating regrets.

i have gratitude for moderation and such advice, whether coming from Mods, or our community, or rising within mind.

[Ceisiwr]

As already mentioned, most western converts tend to be of the left/liberal persuasion. I find that many come to a compromise on this issue, where they disagree with abortion from a Dhamma perspective but do not want abortion to be illegal from a secular perspective. Personally I oppose abortion in all circumstances from a Dhamma point of view, which I think most Buddhists do. From a secular point of view I waver from wanting it banned outright to wanting it limited to within 8 weeks.

[Khemarato.bhikkhu]

Surprised nobody has yet shared this essay by Ajahn Brahm on the subject of when human life begins. Well worth a read in my opinion.

[karl_lew]

@Khemarato.bhikkhu

shared this essay by Ajahn Brahm

I very much appreciated the link and reading of Ajahn Brahm’s paper.

Upon the reading of section 5b, however, Ajahn Brahm’s insistence on “the mother’s womb” left with me with an uneasy feeling that it could be misinterpreted to say that a human being conceived and born in vitro might have no status as a living sentient human being. And that would be quite chilling.

I personally rely on the following verses from DN33 with a looser understanding that a mother’s womb is simply a cradle of life, and that an artificial womb would also be the “mother” to such a child. I would also treat that child as fully human.

DN33:1.11.166: Four kinds of conception.
DN33:1.11.167: Someone is unaware when conceived in their mother’s womb, unaware as they remain there, and unaware as they emerge. This is the first kind of conception.
DN33:1.11.168: Furthermore, someone is aware when conceived in their mother’s womb, but unaware as they remain there, and unaware as they emerge. This is the second kind of conception.
DN33:1.11.169: Furthermore, someone is aware when conceived in their mother’s womb, aware as they remain there, but unaware as they emerge. This is the third kind of conception.
DN33:1.11.170: Furthermore, someone is aware when conceived in their mother’s womb, aware as they remain there, and aware as they emerge. This is the fourth kind of conception.

As Ajahn Brahm notes, it is awareness that distinguishes these cases. I would also note that “someone” is present in all four cases (!).

Blanket prohibition of abortion is mindless and cruel. In counterpart, the lack of restraint in sexual relations is also mindless and cruel as it statistically leads to the suffering of the abortion decision. So I very much hope that those 82% of American Buddhists are also aware of that first choice to engage rather than simply focusing on the right to suffer the ending choice.

[Ceisiwr]

@karl_lew

Blanket prohibition of abortion is mindless and cruel.

It all depends on when you think Being comes into being in the womb. If you class the fertilised egg as a living being, which I believe is the classical Theravadin view, and you have a secular view of human rights then it is not seen as being “mindless and cruel” to ban abortion since we also outlaw other acts that result in the violation of the right to life. If you don’t share that view then it’s mindless and cruel in your eyes, yes, but that isn’t necessarily the intent of the Buddhist or secular person who is pro-life.

[karl_lew]

@Ceisiwr

“mindless and cruel”

I understand that it is mindless and cruel to simply ban the abortion of non-consensual and abusive contraception. Such cases require careful and compassionate consideration. Too often societies condemn such victims.

I am also horrified at treating the seriousness of abortion with the callousness of a tooth cleaning.

[Ceisiwr]

Of course no one should be blamed for such crimes committed against them, but once again if you see the fertilised egg, embryo or foetus as a living being with a right to life then no crime can be used as a justification for violating its life. However, perhaps we are straying off topic here.

[karl_lew]

@Ceisiwr

we are straying off topic here.

Actually, this is on topic. And it explains why I vote pro-choice and advocate non-abortion. For a society to support many religions, there must be a separation of church and state as with USA. In such societies, it makes sense to vote for choice while advocating against. That is why I am in the 82% of American pro-choice Buddhists. I vote for the society that hosts me.

[Ceisiwr]

I admit that the Dhamma alone is not enough reason to ban abortion if we wish to live in a secular society. However the secular idea of negative human rights which are then informed by Dhamma, or even on their own (if the fertilised egg/embryo/foetus is seen as a living being), are.

[karl_lew]

@Ceisiwr

However the secular idea of negative human rights which are then informed by Dhamma, or even on their own (if the fertilised egg/embryo/foetus is seen as a living being), are.

The idea of negative human rights is not limited to secular societies. I see Myanmar and am torn and saddened.

And now I have definitely gone off topic.

[Ceisiwr]

Oh of course not

[Khemarato.bhikkhu]

I think it’s worth pointing out that restricting legal access to abortions simply doesn’t affect the abortion-rate. It merely affects the safe abortion rate.

Economic empowerment of women, education, access to contraceptives, etc are the main policy levers that actually reduce the abortion rate. If you care deeply about preventing abortions: empower women, don’t TRAP them.

[Ceisiwr]

Greeting Bhante,

Yes, if one were to take a consequentialist view of such things. Rights however are deontological. The Dhamma is not consequentialist either. Also aren’t some contraceptives not allowed in the Dhamma, for they destroy a fertilised egg?

Naturally equality of opportunity and education is important.