Abortion

[Subhankar Zac]

Buddhism is very much against it.
Taoism and Hinduism has a variety of opinions.

But for me, the embryo or the fetus isn't living in the way we define life to be.
So, in my opinion, I guess it's of no issue provided its safe and though I would recommend contraception and sex education to prevent it before hand.

 

[निताइ dasa]

we define life to be.

What is your definition of life (which grants one right to life)?

 

[Subhankar Zac]

What is your definition of life (which grants one right to life)?

In a way, I can define it as aware of the surroundings, conscious of pain and able to locate in a brief definition

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Obviously I was referring to--pun intended--the Moon's crust. Don't be silly(er)!

Don't shift the goalposts. You said that you could demonstrate that the Moon is not made of cheese. Go for it.

 

[निताइ dasa]

In a way, I can define it as aware of the surroundings, conscious of pain and able to locate in a brief definition

Hmmm interesting, so a adult person in a coma does not have a right to life? What about a patient under general anesthetic in surgery (who are not conscious of pain or aware of surroundings)?

 

[Subhankar Zac]

Hmmm interesting, so a adult person in a coma does not have a right to life? What about a patient under general anesthetic in surgery (who are not conscious of pain or aware of surroundings)?

Let me just give you my point of view as to why I am not against abortion.
There's a difference between a person who's born already and a "possible person".
A fertilized ovum or a zygote is a cluster of cells, encoded with specific DNA.
Now, if one considers each of these as a human being, then Everytime we have a surgery or even masturbate, it's equivalent to murder as well.
Anytime a cell is removed, a potential life dies.
Though some experts say that a fetus can actually feel pain, it is highly unlikely.
The perception of pain is a complex biological and psychological phenomena that involves certain states of "consciousness" that would be impossible to achieve at the time of conception.
The brain itself is composed of approximately 100 billion brain cells called neurons. These brain neurons do not even exist prior to four weeks in utero, and the peak period for this brain neuron development is between two to five months in utero. There are also about 100 trillion connections between these neurons, called synaptic connections, by which neurons pass information amongst themselves. A minimum number of neurons must be developed in the cerebral cortex, and the interconnectivity of these neurons is absolutely essential, before states such as sensation, perception, and thought are really meaningful. While these synapses start to form at about the third month, the minimum number do not usually develop until about 31 weeks, and most are not formed until after birth... So, which is why I do not consider a fetus to be a living human being the way we define it today.

 

[निताइ dasa]

Though some experts say that a fetus can actually feel pain, it is highly unlikely.

Of course a fetus can feel pain, after its CNS is fully developed.

Everytime we have a surgery or even masturbate

Incorrect. A cell does not have the potential to ever become a human being. I mean sperm and egg both have only half the necessary number of chromosomes. Whereas a blastocyst has that full possibility to grow and differentiate into a rational agent.

The perception of pain is a complex biological and psychological phenomena that involves certain states of "consciousness" that would be impossible to achieve at the time of conception.
The brain itself is composed of approximately 100 billion brain cells called neurons. These brain neurons do not even exist prior to four weeks in utero, and the peak period for this brain neuron development is between two to five months in utero. There are also about 100 trillion connections between these neurons, called synaptic connections, by which neurons pass information amongst themselves. A minimum number of neurons must be developed in the cerebral cortex, and the interconnectivity of these neurons is absolutely essential, before states such as sensation, perception, and thought are really meaningful. While these synapses start to form at about the third month, the minimum number do not usually develop until about 31 weeks, and most are not formed until after birth...

So you are saying, consciousness gives an entity a right to life? What about animals, they are conscious, yet are meat eaters murderers, equal to murder of humans? A similar argument is made for sentience (if sentience makes someone human, then what about the animals, are they also humans). Is there anything which distinguishes humans from animals. If not, then don't they both need equal rights?

Look I'm not attacking you (and I'm sorry if I seem to be), but my point is, is that people on both sides of this issue have rather inconsistent definitions of what it means to be a human being. IMO @sayak83 ji has actually a very good definition, and I mostly agree with him on that point. I personally define a human being as that which is rational (capable of understanding or acting on moral laws,or another way to put it: the ability to understand God), which is what separates us from animals.

 

[Subhankar Zac]

Incorrect. A cell does not have the potential to ever become a human being. I mean sperm and egg both have only half the necessary number of chromosomes. Whereas a blastocyst has that full possibility to grow and differentiate into a rational agent.



So you are saying, consciousness gives an entity a right to life? What about animals, they are conscious, yet are meat eaters murderers, equal to murder of humans? A similar argument is made for sentience (if sentience makes someone human, then what about the animals, are they also humans). Is there anything which distinguishes humans from animals. If not, then don't they both need equal rights?

Look I'm not attacking you (and I'm sorry if I seem to be), but my point is, is that people on both sides of this issue have rather inconsistent definitions of what it means to be a human being. IMO @sayak83 ji has actually a very good definition, and I mostly agree with him on that point. I personally define a human being as that which is rational (capable of understanding or acting on moral laws,or another way to put it: the ability to understand God), which is what separates us from animals.

When a sperm fuses with an egg, it begins dividing and creating more cells.
Surely this is a "potential" human being but cannot be given the same aspects as a human being.

The issue of meat eating is a different topic that has many msny sides to the story and I'd Love to discuss that in detail with you.
First I m grossly uncomfortable eating meat but since I live with my family that are traditional Bengalis, fish is a must in my home.
But if we bring the idea of meat eating, major research shows that plants feel greater and perpetual pain while they're being eaten,in fact one study showed that some plants can hear themselves being eaten...
There's no limit to this issue, which is why I'd love to have your take on this issue.
I'll create another thread for this topic.

A fetus still can comprehend his surrounding reality till weeks after its born or maybe even months and isn't rational. My 6 year old nephew still bites me whenever he comes to visit. So no rationality there.
A fetus is capable of becoming a human being, just not a human being yet.

 

[निताइ dasa]

When a sperm fuses with an egg, it begins dividing and creating more cells.
Surely this is a "potential" human being but cannot be given the same aspects as a human being.

I personally would argue it does. Where there is an eventuality of something occurring, our actions must not derive even the eventual being from existing if such cause is great.

A fetus still can comprehend his surrounding reality till weeks after its born or maybe even months and isn't rational.

Yeah, but remember I argue that even the potential of rationality is enough to grant a right to life

It surely is a complex issue, but I think my position is quite defensible.

 

[Subhankar Zac]

I personally would argue it does. Where there is an eventuality of something occurring, our actions must not derive even the eventual being from existing if such cause is great.



Yeah, but remember I argue that even the potential of rationality is enough to grant a right to life

It surely is a complex issue, but I think my position is quite defensible.

I still can't choose a fetus over a woman's health and life. In most cases of abortion, it's the life risk of the mother that causes it. I think it's the decision of the mother and my morality is my own. I generally do just give them my points if they wish to listen or just keep it to myself, except for animal sacrifice in temples that I m totally against.
Btw, ill start the thread on veg vs non veg.

 

[निताइ dasa]

I still can't choose a fetus over a woman's health and life.

Yes yes I agree, where the mother's life is at risk, it the only time I deem abortion as permissible. On the other hand, I don't think a few months of "suffering" (as some call it) is enough to justify the ending of a life and deriving it of all the joys of human life. especially a human life,which hindus hold so much value over.

I think it's the decision of the mother and my morality is my ow

I also feel as if someone should speak up for those that have no voice to speak up (the fetus). Just like animals don't have a voice in issues like animal sacrifice, I think someone should have a voice for the unborn child. Obviously i won't go around bombing clinics and forcing people to accept my view, but I will always concider abortion in a general sense immoral, simply out of a desire for a consistent moral principle.

 

[Subhankar Zac]

Yes yes I agree, where the mother's life is at risk, it the only time I deem abortion as permissible. On the other hand, I don't think a few months of "suffering" (as some call it) is enough to justify the ending of a life and deriving it of all the joys of human life. especially a human life,which hindus hold so much value over.



I also feel as if someone should speak up for those that have no voice to speak up (the fetus). Just like animals don't have a voice in issues like animal sacrifice, I think someone should have a voice for the unborn child. Obviously i won't go around bombing clinics and forcing people to accept my view, but I will always concider abortion in a general sense immoral, simply out of a desire for a consistent moral principle.

Well, as long as you do not try to legislate it, I think it's okay to have alternate opinions.
Btw, I m also a buddhist and a Taoist so I deliberate on an issue and then say.
Btw, the thread is ready.
http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/is-meat-eating-immoral-is-plant-eating-sinful.187256/
Do give your views and we can have a discussion on it... It's more complex than abortion

 

[निताइ dasa]

Well, as long as you do not try to legislate it, I think it's okay to have alternate opinions.
Btw, I m also a buddhist and a Taoist so I deliberate on an issue and then say.
Btw, the thread is ready.
http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/is-meat-eating-immoral-is-plant-eating-sinful.187256/
Do give your views and we can have a discussion on it... It's more complex than abortion

Hmm, well, if it the role of the law to protect the rights of its citizens, and abortion violates that right, I believe that the government should legislate against it, or at least restrict it to certain situations.

However that being said, I so also have a lot of sympathy for young or single mothers. I believe that government should provide more support to women so that don't feel like abortion is the only option for them. I mean no-one is happy aborting unborn children, but circumstances do create a strong inclination. Its a horrible situation all in all I think, Kali Yuga in its max



I saw your thread. Will reply it a bit later, as it is a complex issue and I need to gather my thoughts on it first.

 

[Demonslayer]

mm, well, if it the role of the law to protect the rights of its citizens, and abortion violates that right,

How so?

 

[निताइ dasa]

How so?

Please read my previous post (#2278 and #2280), for my argument.

Its a conditional statement. If abortion violates the fetus' right to life, then it is the role of government to protect from the violation of this right, as is its function. Again there are some who would disagree on that role of government.

 

[Demonslayer]

Please read my previous post (#2278 and #2280), for my argument.

Ah jeez you made me go back a whole page.

Its a conditional statement. If abortion violates the fetus' right to life, then it is the role of government to protect from the violation of this right, as is its function. Again there are some who would disagree on that role of government.

I understand the general idea here, it's a common enough view. I just wondered how you considered a fetus to be "a citizen." The usual argument is, is a fetus the same as "a baby"...I've never heard someone argue that a fetus is actually a citizen.

 

[निताइ dasa]

Ah jeez you made me go back a whole page.

Sorry I mean it is a long thread (heck I read only the last few pages, seems to be a totally irrelevant debate going on).

w. I just wondered how you considered a fetus to be "a citizen." The usual argument is, is a fetus the same as "a baby"...I've never heard someone argue that a fetus is actually a citizen.

Well, I agree it sounds like I might be conflating the two here, but I see no problem in that definition. A citizen is generally defined as a member of a political community who enjoys the rights of a state and also assumes the responsibilities of membership. This definition however can leave out alot of people (infants, coma patients, etc), so I would argue that you don't need to be a citizen to have the right of government protection, only a eventuality that you will be (i.e infants are protected, because in future they will be citizens. The philosopher whose paper I linked gives more examples I think, of health insurance etc). Same logic can be applied to fetuses.

 

[Demonslayer]

Well, I agree it sounds like I might be conflating the two here, but I see no problem in that definition. A citizen is generally defined as a member of a political community who enjoys the rights of a state and also assumes the responsibilities of membership. This definition however can leave out alot of people (infants, coma patients, etc), so I would argue that you don't need to be a citizen to have the right of government protection, only a eventuality that you will be (i.e infants are protected, because in future they will be citizens. The philosopher whose paper I linked gives more examples I think, of health insurance etc). Same logic can be applied to fetuses.

Fair enough. I don't agree with calling a fetus a citizen, but I see both sides of the abortion issue so I'm not a big arguer on this topic. Just thought the citizen thing was an interesting slant.

 

[निताइ dasa]

Fair enough. I don't agree with calling a fetus a citizen, but I see both sides of the abortion issue so I'm not a big arguer on this topic. Just thought the citizen thing was an interesting slant.

All cool. Thanks for considering my argument.

 

[sayak83]

Thanks for your view. You are right, the Hindu view is certainly complex. I would argue, from a Hindi viewpoint, that abortion after conception is harming the atma, not physically, but spiritually, because you are deriving it of a human life which is very rare to attain and which leads to moksha. The puranas mirror this statement. That is essentially how the schools of Vedanta will argue on this issue.

As for the right to life, I will briefly go over my opinion on this. While psychophysical complex which you are describing is sufficient for a right to life, it is not necessary .I believe that right to life can extend to those beings who have the potential (and by this I don't mean may become, but rather will become allowed to continue) for such a complex. There was a philosophical paper by Bertha Alvarez in defense of this argument. Another argument I like is the argument from deprivation (by ending the fetus' life, we are depriving it of its future as a rational agent). My personal argument goes as follows:

Imagine there are 3 human beings in deep coma. In such a coma only the autonomic functions of the body work. Rational and conscious thought have stopped, and the individual has no sentience. Now the first human being (being A) has no chance ever of coming out of this deep coma. The second one (being B) has a possibility of escaping the coma over a unknown period of time. The third one however (person C) will come out of the Coma and resume life after a known period of time.

Now, I would argue, that person A has does not have a right to life, while persons B and C do. As far as I see, if person A has no way resuming life, she is simply a burden on medical resources, so it would not be morally wrong to end her life. Person B's case is more interesting, but I am of the view that if the possibility exists, it must be preserved. Person C I think clearly has a claim to life, and it would be morally wrong to end her life. Now in person C case, would the time matter. If it was only a matter of seconds before she awoke from the coma, would it make a difference to her right to life, compared to if say, it was 10 years?. In any case, the situation of person C is analogous to the situation of an embryo. If left unhindered, will grow into a rational agent (human being) and therefore, like person C, has a right to life. There are objections to this view (and if anyone can come up with them I would be happy to respond). The right to life definition varies quite alot from philosopher to philosopher.

Great example. I will discuss the coma example first. I would argue that if a person can recover from a coma, then the person continues to exist as a person through the coma (similar to deep sleep). For me at least the argument is easier to understand through the example of a computer. Does the monetary value of my laptop decrease when its in a shutdown mode compared to when it is powered on? The answer is "no" because all that makes the laptop valuable (computing power etc.) continues to exist as semiconductor connections in its hardware when it is in a non-powered state, and will resume its operation potency when it is powered on. However the same laptop becomes valueless if its motherboard has been completely destroyed, as its precisely those connections that has been irretrievably lost. I would argue that a person in a recoverable coma is someone whose turn on switch is not working for some reason but all that makes him a person continues to exist in him; while a person in an unrecoverable coma is one with so much brain damage that all that made him a person has been destroyed in his brain. The first person remains a person, while the second one has ceased to remain a person and therefore loses his rights as such. [The question of how to differentiate the two states is a question for medicine, I am talking from perfect knowledge vantage point.]

The early term fetus example is interesting, because, since the neural connections has not been laid out yet, there exists no person there in the body yet. But if the growth process continues, they will be laid in and there will emerge a person there. If the body is the garment, and the psycho-physical complex is the one owning and wearing the garment in the current life, then I would argue that an early term fetus is a half-made cloth which is still in the process of being woven in the weaver's shop (the mother's womb). It is undoubtedly true that the half made pieces of silk will eventually become a beautiful saree that will enhance the beauty of a wonderful person, if it continues to be woven by the weaver's loom. But it seems to me that as long as the dress remains but partially made and unowned pieces of silk, the right to decide whether to continue the weaving or not remains with the weaver.

I think the question of deprivation comes in only when someone loses something one already has or owns. An early term fetus has not yet become the garment of any Atman, and it does seem that the weaver (the mother) who is making the dress has the right to decide whether to weave or not till the time the locus becomes developed enough to become such a garment. The life that one has should be created out of love, and not through unwilling enforcement...just as an idol for your God should be made by a devout potter through the mode of Bhakti and not through forced child labor. A life that begins without such love and acceptance is a cursed one, not blessed. Would you agree?