SuttaCentral
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 
Oh of course not 
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.
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.
If you’re referring to the “morning after” pill, my personal belief is that a just-fertilised egg is not yet a viable basis for consciousness. See the Ajahn Brahm essay above.
But again, this is “Plan B.” Plan A should be generosity: adequate assistance for single mothers so they don’t feel forced to stay in bad relationships for financial reasons, free condoms, etc, etc.
And the Rahula Sutta is quite clear about reflecting on the effects of our actions being a basis for the development of ethics. Refusing to see the effects of our actions or the causes of suffering is not Buddhism as I understand it.
That’s right. My position is that the Abhidhamma and Commentaries are wrong on this point. They took the Buddha’s ambiguity here and made things crisper (more “black and white”) than is reasonable given how messy the reality is.
I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on that one Bhante.
It’s a minority view amongst Bhikkhus in Southeast Asia for sure, but as the OP points out I’m in the majority as far as American Buddhists go. So, sticking to the topic, I’m just pointing out how the group under discussion here thinks about it. Or at least how I do, as a member of said group.
Majority among lay American Buddhists, yes. I wonder if the original survey made a distinction between secular Buddhists and traditional ones? I have a suspicion that secularism could possibly be distorting the numbers.
Glad we’re on the same page here! But it’s not quite as obvious to others as it is to us, so it’s worth saying again and again and again when the subject of abortion comes up: empower women, use condoms, teach men to ask for and respect consent, distribute condoms, lobby for insurance to cover contraceptives, encourage your friends to use condoms, condoms, condoms, condoms.
Condoms yes, and sexual restraint (i’m aware that not all unwanted pregnancies are due to sexual hedonism).
That’s right. My position is that the Abhidhamma and Commentaries are wrong on this point. They took the Buddha’s ambiguity here and made things crisper (more “black and white”) than is reasonable given how messy the reality is.
It’s a minority view amongst Bhikkhus in Southeast Asia for sure, but as the OP points out I’m in the majority as far as American Buddhists go. So, sticking to the topic, I’m just pointing out how the group under discussion here thinks about it. Or at least how I do, as a member of said group.
Glad we’re on the same page here! But it’s not quite as obvious to others as it is to us, so it’s worth saying again and again and again when the subject of abortion comes up: empower women, use condoms, teach men to ask for and respect consent, distribute condoms, lobby for insurance to cover contraceptives, encourage your friends to use condoms, condoms, condoms, condoms.
Condoms. 
My sense of this issue is one of both ethics and law. I feel the Buddha was more concerned with ethical inquiry, and less concerned with how laws are drawn. At least in the US, the idea of being “pro-choice” or “pro-life” is really a legal distinction; whether the states or the federal government can restrict a woman from seeking an abortion. I am firmly pro-choice in the sense that all of us make decisions based on the quality of kamma that we intend to accept; it shouldn’t be the role of governments to dictate to women what are personal medical decisions. A woman is the owner and heir of her actions. I am pro life in the sense that, per the 1st Precept, I with my own actions seek to protect living beings.
Ajahn Brahm’s article provides a framework within which decisions can be made, and the brightness or darkness of the kamma evaluated.
I think I may have made a comment here when this thread was originally posted that it would be interesting to see how the poll was conducted and how respondents broke down in terms of gender, ethnicity, country of origin, and other demographic characteristics. Buddhists comprise a very small percentage of individuals who identify with a religion in the United States.
I suspect, but I don’t know if the data would bear me out on this, that there were statistically significant differences on opinions about abortion among individuals born in the United States who started practicing Buddhism as adults compared with individuals who were raised Buddhist and immigrated to the United States, particularly from Asia. Again, this is just a hunch, I don’t have the facts to support this.
On the other hand, since Buddhists comprise a very small fraction of religiously-affiliated people in the United States, the number of respondents in the sample could be so small that it is not possible to discern statistically significant results among the sample group.
My sense of this issue is one of both ethics and law. I feel the Buddha was more concerned with ethical inquiry, and less concerned with how laws are drawn.
I am inclined to agree with you in the sense that I see the Buddha advising householders how best to live within a society rather than advising them on the best political or economic system, much less social justice issues. The Buddha taught Dhamma to householders. It is then up to householders how best to apply that Dhamma to their worldly life, either by it informing their politics or in the form of them withdrawing from politics.
I am firmly pro-choice in the sense that all of us make decisions based on the quality of kamma that we intend to accept; it shouldn’t be the role of governments to dictate to women what are personal medical decisions. A woman is the owner and heir of her actions. I am pro life in the sense that, per the 1st Precept, I with my own actions seek to protect living beings.
I suppose it depends on when you see the embryo/foetus as becoming a living being. If you see that from conception then that being does have a right to life (if we are to frame it in terms of secular politics).
Ajahn Brahm’s article provides a framework within which decisions can be made, and the brightness or darkness of the kamma evaluated.
If you accept his premises, yes. A critique was given some time ago on Dhammawheel in relation to his argument: https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?t=22855
I think this comes from close to literal translation of the Buddha’s words in the pali canon.
It also means, in practical terms, that an ectopic pregnancy, which cannot result in a live birth (or a live woman, if untreated) should not generate concerns about the First Precept. Except that refusing to treat it appropriately could be wrong view leading to ending a woman’s life.
It might also mean that if implantation in a uterus does not take, or fails with miscarrage, there should not be worry that a life was destroyed by intention.
And it might mean that forms of chemical contraception which put the woman “out of season” should not cause concerns.
I think it’s helpful to take it as part of compasionate moral advice, generously, so that progress on the Path is not impeded. It’s not a definition based on materialism (which is a partial perspective.)
My understanding is that the “morning after” pill prevents the egg from becoming fertilised in the first place, hence no need for abortion.
Questions :
Thanks
I think identifying as “Buddhist” and “holding views and acting in accordance with the Dhamma-Vinaya” are distinct.
Western Buddhists may not understand Dhamma-Vinaya to the extent enough to be challenge their own “western social and political beliefs.”
The Dhamma is claimed to be timeless, but cultural values seem to be always be in flux.
Doesn’t a wheel-turning monarch rule with the Dhamma as a means of legalistic morality and authority?
Wouldn’t a wheel-turning ban both the killing of cockroaches and alcohol buying/selling/consumption?
What are the good reasons for allowing unethical things to be legal?
Doesn’t that basically mean the government legally protects the right and freedom to do unethical actions?
Is there data to support this claim?
According to this line of reasoning, making killing illegal wouldn’t reduce the number of killings - and definitely not decrease it to zero.
So using this line of reasoning, it would beg the question: why not make killing completely legal under all conditions, especially considering that it is already legal under multiple conditions (by police officers/soldiers, self-defense, hunting, killing of insects via poisons, killing of animals for mea)?
What is the opposite of “personal morality”? “Collective morality”?
What is the benefit of compartmentalizing “personal morality” and “collective morality”?
For example, I noticed this behavior among social conservatives who wish to discriminate against homosexuals or other such harmful actions on the basis on their “personal and sincerely held private religious beliefs.”
So this kind of compartmentalization seems to pose many problems that seems to go against the claim that “there are good reasons” for treating abortion as an issue of personal and not collective morality.
The pro-life position could (perhaps rightly/validly) argue that its a matter of collective morality the same way killing is - these actions affect a being who is residing in the womb.
Perhaps Buddhists should ask themselves, if some hostile being killed Siddhartha while he was still residing in his mother’s womb, would that be okay - should that be any more legal than killing Siddhartha just after he was born?
I guess it would come down to the question of whether a being is a being after conception or after birth or after some other point.
What “Buddhists believe” and “what the Buddha taught” seem to be distinct.
Can you cite any early Buddhist text to argue against or in favor of when a being is considered alive?
Whether at conception, birth, or at some other point along the spectrum?
How could this be the traditional Theravādin view? Ancient Buddhists had no idea how reproduction worked other than people have to have sex to cause it AFAIK. You can find passages to the effect that folks back then seem to think babies arise in miniature out of intermixtures of fluids inside the mother. I am unfamiliar with Theravādin literature in general though compared to people here.
What Buddhists believe and what the Buddha taught about when a life begins, are addressed by these respected Ajahns in these essays:
https://bodhimonastery.org/going-for-refuge-taking-the-precepts.html
May you be content, peaceful, and have all the requisites of Dhamma exposure, training, and practice for progress on the Noble Eight Fold Path, as our Teacher the Buddha instructed.