AddThis
Pro-life vs. Pro-choice: Who Cares?
With the understanding and recognition of reincarnation and the fact that we are not the body, or that Life is not confined to a body, the whole "pro-life vs. pro-choice" argument seems silly.
Nobody is ever born and nobody ever dies. Life/consciousness is neverendingly forever. By having an abortion, nobody is being harmed, nobody is losing anything and nobody is being denied of life. If consciousness doesn't enter that specific physical body, it'll simply reincarnate into a different one. No big deal. Life goes on, and it can't do anything but. The essence of Life itself is eternal. There was never a time that you weren't, and there will never be a time that you won't be.
However, nobody can really fully understand this unless they've had a "spiritual experience", out of body experience, past-life regression (hypnosis) session, or something else along these lines. And because relatively few people have had such experiences, the pro-life vs. pro-choice debate will go on and on and on... and on.
If you haven't had any such experience yourself, and you're curious about what is said here, a quick 30 second meditation session can verify this for a person. If you tell the mind to stop thinking, it starts right back up again all by itself. And if the mind is operating completely on it's own, which this simple experiment shows very clearly that it is, then you are the Silent Awareness that is watching the mind's thoughts. And if the mind isn't you, then all the physical actions that the body does, which are the direct result of the functioning mind, then none of the body's actions are "you" either. "You are not the doer of deeds" says the Hindu scriptures, the Tao Te Ching, and countless Zen Masters. Thus, you are not the body, and whether it lives or dies is ultimately irrelevant.
Here's a fun lyric from Stevie Wonder's Higher Ground...
I'm so darn glad he let me try it again
Cause my last time on earth I lived a whole world of sin
I'm so glad that I know more than I knew then
Gonna keep on tryin'
Till I reach the highest ground
Nobody is ever born and nobody ever dies. Life/consciousness is neverendingly forever. By having an abortion, nobody is being harmed, nobody is losing anything and nobody is being denied of life. If consciousness doesn't enter that specific physical body, it'll simply reincarnate into a different one. No big deal. Life goes on, and it can't do anything but. The essence of Life itself is eternal. There was never a time that you weren't, and there will never be a time that you won't be.
However, nobody can really fully understand this unless they've had a "spiritual experience", out of body experience, past-life regression (hypnosis) session, or something else along these lines. And because relatively few people have had such experiences, the pro-life vs. pro-choice debate will go on and on and on... and on.
If you haven't had any such experience yourself, and you're curious about what is said here, a quick 30 second meditation session can verify this for a person. If you tell the mind to stop thinking, it starts right back up again all by itself. And if the mind is operating completely on it's own, which this simple experiment shows very clearly that it is, then you are the Silent Awareness that is watching the mind's thoughts. And if the mind isn't you, then all the physical actions that the body does, which are the direct result of the functioning mind, then none of the body's actions are "you" either. "You are not the doer of deeds" says the Hindu scriptures, the Tao Te Ching, and countless Zen Masters. Thus, you are not the body, and whether it lives or dies is ultimately irrelevant.
Here's a fun lyric from Stevie Wonder's Higher Ground...
I'm so darn glad he let me try it again
Cause my last time on earth I lived a whole world of sin
I'm so glad that I know more than I knew then
Gonna keep on tryin'
Till I reach the highest ground
Labels: awareness, meditation, mind, reincarnation
posted by Jarett | Tuesday, April 20, 2010
7 Comments:
Yet abortion intentionally causes harm to a living thing. It is basically killing a Homo sapiens within the mother's womb.
Siddhartha Gotama Buddha himself compared abortion to matricide and patricide. For him it was nothing short of murder - and if a member of sangha performs an abortion, he or she is certain to be expelled.
We can take the Nihilist view on abortion only if we skip the principle "do not harm any living thing" completely.
One thing which is certain is that an abortion causes a awful lot of karma in any circumstances.
And if a woman is raped and impregnated, should she be forced to keep that child?
When I wrote this post I wasn't implying that people should be carelessly and irresponsibly going around having sex with people, and then having an abortion. I feel we need to recognize that issues aren't always black and white, and there are many circumstances where it would obviously be in the best interest of all to not carry a child all the way to inception.
I would certainly be willing to give my life for the sake of others in certain situations, so who's to say that a fetus, who isn't even able to make a choice from the intellect or heart, wouldn't do the same if it was able to make a choice?
Where exactly did Buddha speak of abortion? I like to check references for myself to confirm the validity of things because many people repeat things they've read from unreliable sources, and then false rumors spread. I'm not saying you did this, I'm just saying it happens and I wanna make sure for myself.
Thanks for the contribution to the conversation! :)
Jarett, is that the fault of the child himself?
Shall the child be killed because of the transgression of his father?
These are incredibly difficult questions, and this is now the grey area, where there are only evils - either lesser or greater - to choose.
There is IMO only one situation where an abortion can be morally always justified, and it is when the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother. It is choosing to do evil in order to save another life - the choice is between an unborn baby and an already born mother. In any case, situation like that will produce a barrel of tears anyway.
Then there are the questions of an ethical abortion: abortion as result of rape, incest or extortion; or the baby has a severe physical or mental deformity, and his or her life would be mere suffering.
Fortunately these issues are very rare. The pregnancy from rape or incest occurs only in some 0.1% of all abortion cases, and the cases where the life of the mother is endangered or the child would have a severe deformity, consist of only 2.5% of all cases.
Abortion is never a funny issue, and for a woman it is always painful. It is deliberately murdering her own baby - even if knowing that baby is result of an unlawful intruder or that the murder would in fact be an euthanasia and freeing the baby to seek a better body for next birth. And then there are always the karma issue. How do we act in the way that we cause the least karma?
True, there is always the grey area. While black and white do exist, the grey area puts us in incredibly difficult choices.
And again, there is always the choice of giving the baby to adoption. Those women who have had both abortion and giving the baby to adoption, say that adoption is mentally much more easy. In my opinion, giving the baby for adoption should always be the primary choice.
I would build an exception hierarchy here:
1: A life-threatening pregnancy: Always an option, as already born life is more important than unborn.
2: Pregnancy as the result of an unlawful deed: Mother's choice as nobody should be forced to bear the consequences of a crime, but adoption ought to be option as the baby is innocent (and perhaps healthy enough to live and has buddha-dhatu)
3: A severe mental deformity: Mother's choice (as baby is most likely unable to realize his buddha-dhatu in this life)
4: A severe physical deformity without mental: Mother's choice but discouraged - society should support the mother, as raising a handicapped child may prove hard (the baby has a bodily handicap, which in fact may encourage him to transcend the faulty body and seek enlightment).
In other cases, abortion ought to be discouraged. But far more important is to attempt to prevent situations, where abortion would be imminent.
The abortion issue is in Dharani Sutra: There are five kinds of Karma which are difficult to extinguish, even if one were to repent of them. What are the five kinds of offences? The first one is killing the father, the second one is killing the mother, the third one is abortion, the fourth one is to injure The Buddha, the fifth one is to create disharmony among the Sangha assemblies [i.e. create division and schism]. These five types of evil and sinful karma are difficult to extinguish. (The Dharani Sutra of the Buddha on Longevity, The Extinction of Offences, And the Protection of Young Children, p.2 online)
Of the #4, I know of one such case personally. The case is of a girl, who was born with severly deformed lower legs. Her mother decided to keep her. While her life has been one of pain, the deformity actually did encourage her to turn spiritual and to transcend her body.
She works as an illustrator. She finally solved her bodily problem by having her legs amputated and instead opting for prostheses. An incredibly radical decision, but after all the body is merely ephemeral and transitionary anyway. She was finally able to walk freely without support devices with the prostheses.
Right, the rape issue. like Ironmistress said that only happens for .1% of the cases. and if a woman is raped she can get the morning after pill which stops the sperm from being conceived, and therefore is a last minute form of birth control, and it costs over 300 dollars less than an abortion.
Ironmistress- i dont agree with your hierarchy. it suggests that you think of people with deformities as less than human and therefore have less rights, and that is obviously wrong.
The only thing i suppose i agree with on that hierarchy is the threatning of the mothers life, however i think a lot of the time doctors just make a mistake of thinking something is wrong when there really isn't. i think this because it happened to someone i know, doctors said that she was going to die and probably kill her mom too unless she was aborted, and if by some miracle they both survived the child would still be severely mentally challenged. but they both survived and were alive and healthy throughout the entire thing, and the baby was not retarded or defected in anyway. they were both completely fine. that's one of the reasons why i'm prolife, but i'm also prolife just because i know it is murder, and murder should never be legal.
Right, the rape issue. like Ironmistress said that only happens for .1% of the cases. and if a woman is raped she can get the morning after pill which stops the sperm from being conceived, and therefore is a last minute form of birth control, and it costs over 300 dollars less than an abortion.
Ironmistress- i dont agree with your hierarchy. it suggests that you think of people with deformities as less than human and therefore have less rights, and that is obviously wrong.
The only thing i suppose i agree with on that hierarchy is the threatning of the mothers life, however i think a lot of the time doctors just make a mistake of thinking something is wrong when there really isn't. i think this because it happened to someone i know, doctors said that she was going to die and probably kill her mom too unless she was aborted, and if by some miracle they both survived the child would still be severely mentally challenged. but they both survived and were alive and healthy throughout the entire thing, and the baby was not retarded or defected in anyway. they were both completely fine. that's one of the reasons why i'm prolife, but i'm also prolife just because i know it is murder, and murder should never be legal.
Is it moral to bring a child into the world to il equipped parent/s and have the child born only to be ill and starve. How about go to bed hungry with very little education because we all know with public education, might a well stay home. Is it moral to force a woman/child to relive their assault again and again by making her have her attackers child and then raising it in an environment of hate, to add to her self loathing? What it comes down to is sin is a religious slant and I don't buy it.
Post a Comment
<< Home