IDST 275
Terry Fitzgibbons
Jose Misael Cortez
12-10-13
Buddhism’s View of Abortion
The issue of abortion has engaged much of western thought in a struggle of binary ideals.
With arguments based on pro-choice and pro-life, western communities have clashed politically
and religiously to the point that the struggle appears to be unresolvable. On the one hand,
religious or conservative groups view abortion as an act of sin against an all involved and caring
Being. On the other hand, liberals or secularists view abortion as an act that empowers women
and couples to better grasp control of their lives. The issue of abortion does not only pressure
western societies. Parallel social struggles arise in eastern societies as well, with the exception
that these societies generally view the issue from a Buddhist perspective. In the view of
Buddhism, the pro-choice and pro-life approaches are not the only means to approach the
question of abortion. Buddhism offers a middle way to this issue. Buddhists precepts require that
no action be taken against life; however, these principles are not understood as absolute
commandments ordained by an entity separate from the worldly reality. This leads to the
alternative Buddhist approach of tolerance to abortion based on the claim that existence is
relational and that practicing a sort of relative morality emanated from wisdom is part of that
relational existence.
In order to understand Buddhism’s approach to abortion, it is necessary to understand its
basic precepts.1 According to R.E. Florida in his article titled, “Buddhist Approaches to
1
It ought to be acknowledged, however, that Buddhism is currently variedly interpreted and these various
interpretations risk being erroneous. Since this survey uses secondary or tertiary investigators of the
Abortion,” the first Buddhist precept is that “Anything that exists, exists only in relation with
everything else that exists…You and I – anything that is – exists only as the result of temporary,
contingent causal relationships with other similarly changing, unsubstantial, suffering beings.”2
Aside from viewing everything that exists as one interrelated being that is affected by the actions
or physical properties of its constituent individual entities – where the actions/properties of the
one always lead to consequences that affect the self and others – this principle sets the conditions
for an understanding of human ethics in a superficially relativistic fashion, for it sustain that
everything is relational. It is a superficially relativistic fashion because the principle does not
negate the existence of an ultimate reality. In effect, the aim of the Buddha is to ascend to that
ultimate reality through self-discipline and meditation. This precept is, perhaps, the great gap
between the Buddhist tradition and the other eastern traditions that have made their way to the
west. Namely those traditions that see the ultimate reality as a Being that is on its own
intentionally caring for its servants. Under this Buddhist precept, worldly endeavors or human
endeavors, if conducted knowledgably, are seen as following the necessary path toward ultimate
reality. But if unknowledgably conducted, they are seen as necessitating forgiveness rather than
condemnation, and thus yielding a moral relativistic approach by accepting misbehavior as a
secondary form of truth. Florida expands farther our understanding of this concept by
distinguishing that:
The Buddha’s great insight into the interrelatedness of all phenomena (co-conditioned
causality)… has two major expressions. First is the ultimate truth that all things are
fundamentally empty, which lead inevitably to the second, relative truth, compassion.
The wise person, knowing the truth of the contingency and complete interdependence of
all beings, can only regard their frenzied grasping for selfish ends with compassion.
Practically, wisdom leads to selfless action for the sake of others. Thus… wisdom and…
original source, this survey acknowledges that the risk of error exists. Nevertheless, it shall proceed under
the assumption that Buddhism’s basic precepts are generally understood correctly by most of its
deviations.
2
R.E. Florida, “Buddhist Approaches to Abortion,” Asian Philosophy (1991): 39-50
compassion are the two major Buddhist ideals, the first relating to the realm of ultimacy
and the second to the world of the day-to-day existence. Without ultimate wisdom one
will be defective in…skillful means to helping others. Witless compassion, the bungling
attempt to do good without the wisdom to effect it, is extremely dangerous.3
In the Buddhist proposition of ultimate truth, emptiness takes a different meaning from that
given by conventional western thought. Emptiness in the Buddhist context does not mean the
absence of a reality or truth. It rather claims that one’s perception of reality is somehow illusory.
It contends that the ideal of moral principles is only achieved through a deep understanding of
reality, which allows one to distinguish what actions will yield “skillful” results and which will
not. In the words of Lewis Richmond in his blog titled “Emptiness: The Most Misunderstood
Word in Buddhism,” “Emptiness is not complete nothingness. It doesn’t mean that nothing exists
at all. What it does mean is that things do not exist the way our grasping self supposes they do.”4
Wisdom, then, is the tool or medium that allows individuals to see the emptiness of
things, which in turn allows the distinction of what are beneficial and harmful actions. Wisdom
distinguishes between ultimate reality and relative reality. Ultimate reality is to be understood as
the interconnectedness of everything, to which the wise is able to properly relate. Relative reality
is to be understood as a deficiency on the part of individuals to grasp their proper relationship
within inter-being, which is required to reach and live in harmony with the wholeness of ultimate
reality. The wise, in this context, is one that has escaped from the blurriness of the experiential
world and has ascended to a level where the effects of human behavior can be distinguished
based on their actions. The wise can see that any agent, in the causal relationship of being, is
destined to suffer the consequences of its actions, whether beneficial or harmful. Similarly, the
Florida, “Buddhist Approaches to Abortion,” 39-50
Lewis Richmond, March 6 2013 (4:14am), “Emptiness: The Most Misunderstood Word in
Buddhism,” The Huffington Post, December 6 2013, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lewisrichmond/emptiness-most-misunderstood-word-in-buddhism_b_2769189.html
3
4
wise can see that it is proper, due to the interrelated nature of being, that it is not a matter of
condemning those who err, but a matter of being compassionate towards them because they have
not escaped from the misconceived, but nonetheless true, form of human behavior, and hence are
acting “defectively”. Thus, the first Buddhist precept distinguishes between ultimate truth and
relative truth. Ultimate truth is conjugated through wisdom and relative truth is conjugated
through compassion.
Similar to most religious traditions, Buddhism has the understanding that depriving
agents of their life translates into going against principles of reality. However, Buddhism
understands this not as a sin against a caring Being, but as a deficiency “unskilled action” that
hinders reaching the ultimate truth. Florida expands our understanding of this principle:
Buddhaghosa, a fifth century Theray,da commentator… has an extensive commentary on
this precept: ‘I undertake to observe the rule for taking life.’… ‘Taking life’ means to
murder anything that lives… ‘Taking life’ is then the will to kill anything that one
perceives as having life, to act so as to terminate the life–force in it, in so far as the will
finds the expression in bodily action or in speech… In the case of humans the killing is
the more blameworthy the more virtuous they are…[9]... Considered externally, then,
abortion is a serious unskilled act as it involves violence against a presumably virtuous
foetal human being.5
But the Buddhist position in regard to unborn human beings is more distinctly investigated by
Florida in the following:
Vijnana [consciousness] is the skandahas [the physical and mental components of a
being] at conception. The five skandahas, within the womb, at the moment of
reincarnation or of birth-of-existence. [7] Thus, vijanana in this context is sometimes
translated as ‘rebirth consciousness’. In short, what all this boils down to is that
Buddhists traditionally have understood that the human being begins at the instant of
conception when sperm, egg, and vijnana come together. As Taniguchi puts it “there is
no qualitative difference between an unborn foetus and a born individual” [8]. Therefore,
the precept against taking life applies in the case of abortion.6
5
6
Florida, “Buddhist Approaches to Abortion,” 39-50
Florida, “Buddhist Approaches to Abortion,” 39-50
Both Buddhist precepts of interrelatedness of being and the “rebirth of consciousness” lead to a
doubly enforced conclusion that is that abortion is an “unskilled action” either because of putting
an end to life or because of previous sensual misconduct, and therefore, Buddhism recommends
avoiding it. However, the precept of interrelated being calls for the relativistic approach of
tolerance toward unskilled actions, such as abortion, based on compassion. It is here where the
Buddhist middle way emerges. To narrate specifically what is meant by the Buddhist middle way
with respect to abortion, Florida speaks of the reaction of Dr. Sugunasari, President of Canada’s
Buddhist Council, when he was solicited to give a Buddhist insight to the binary question of
abortion: “although abortions involve lack of skill in two of the fundamental Buddhist principles,
the abstention from taking life and the abstention from going astray in sensual pleasures,
Buddhists do no think that the state should intervene in matters of conscience. Farther, he
advocated compassion for the individuals involved.”7
Thus, instead of standing absolutely on one of the extremes, as pro-life or pro-choice
advocates do, Buddhism offers the way of compassion. This does seem a relativistic approach
inasmuch as it does not stand firmly and absolutely on one of the extremes. But it does so
without negating the ultimate reality. For it adopts this approach as a way to tolerate and thus
allow those that have erred to find their proper relation within inter-being at their own pace and
through their conscience. It is for this reason that Buddhism is against any governmental
regulations of abortion, either for or against it, because no governmental law can ever understand
what occurs in the depths of individual human conscience.
Roy W. Perrett, an investigator of Japanese Buddhism, narrates how Japanese society
deals with issues of conscience in the context of Buddhist precepts and abortion. He notices how
7
Florida, “Buddhist Approaches to Abortion,” 39-50
some in this society use a ritual called “mizuko kuyo” [meaning water child], which is a
Buddhist memorial for children who have died before their parents either because of natural,
accidental, or inflicted causes, such as abortion. Perrett states, “This practice permits a ritualized
expression of guilt for the regrettable, though perhaps unavoidable act of abortion.”8
It would be a mistake to conclude that just because eastern societies are influenced by
Buddhist precepts they are prone to avoid the pro-choice and pro-life struggles that western
societies are faced with. In effect, much of the same binary struggles occur in both places.
Rather, what this survey intends to convey is that Buddhist principles offer an alternative
approach to the question of abortion when compared against the binary dialectic that exists
predominantly in western societies. This approach is the way of compassion based on the
assumption that individuals would be able to acknowledge their misbehaviors through their
conscience, and thus begin to find their proper relationship within the interrelatedness of being.
Roy W. Perrett, “Buddhism, Abortion, and the Middle Way,” Asian Philosophy (2000): 101114
8
Bibliography
Florida, R.E, “Buddhist Approaches to Abortion,” Asian Philosophy (1991): 39-50
Perrett, Roy W., “Buddhism, Abortion, and the Middle Way,” Asian Philosophy (2000):
101-114
Richmond, Lewis, March 6 2013 (4:14am), “Emptiness: The Most Misunderstood Word
in Buddhism,” The Huffington Post, December 6 2013, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lewisrichmond/emptiness-most-misunderstood-word-in-buddhism_b_2769189.html