Romanian Journal of Bioethics, Vol. 8, No. 1, January – March 2010 ABORTION FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF EASTERN RELIGIONS: HINDUISM AND BUDDHISM Constantin-Iulian Damian∗ Abstract Considering that contemporary society becomes increasingly pluralistic from the religious viewpoint, non-Christian religions’ view on bioethical issues as abortion should concern not only historians of religions or theologians, but especially physicians. In this study, we present abortion as seen by Hinduism and Buddhism, two oriental religions comprising almost one and a half billion followers. The sacred Hindu texts that are very clear about abortion correlating it with the most grievous sins a Hindu could commit, and the doctrine regarding the karmic law and rebirth constitute the foundation of the intransigent attitude of Hinduism towards abortion. As for Buddhism, the traditional embryology and the principle of non-violence, seen by Buddhists as a way of life, determine a similar attitude concerning abortion. More than that, if a Buddhist monk even incites to abortion he is “defeated” and scourged with total exclusion from the monastic order, the severest punishment a monk can experience. Despite all these, in India, Thailand or Japan the rate of abortions is very high, a situation caused mainly by the progressive secularization of these societies, since more and more Hindus and Buddhists are excluding the religious and moral precepts from their lives. Keywords: Abortion, Hindu bioethics, Buddhist bioethics, Hinduism, Buddhism. Considering the fact that abortion is paradigm, we are or we should be not just a medical or demographical familiarized with the Christian attitude issue, but especially a moral one, all towards abortion. Nevertheless, major religions, regardless their origin nowadays society becomes increasingly and theology, disagree – each one of pluralistic from a religious viewpoint. them with specific arguments – with For this reason, non-Christian religions’ abortion, considering it if not a homicide, view on abortion should concern not only at least a grievous transgression. Living historians of religions or theologians, but in an area dominated by the Christian especially doctors, regarding the ∗ Teaching Assistant, PhD Candidate, “Al. I. Cuza” University, Iaşi, Romania, e-mail: [email protected] 124 importance of the physician-patient clear in condemning it. interrelation. Considering this, we concisely present the perspective of 1.1. Abortion in the Hinduism and Buddhism – two of the Hindu Sacred Texts most representative eastern religions, The Sanskrit terminology regarding with a number of adherents summing up abortion is illustrative for the classical a quarter of the planet population – on Hindu view on this matter. While abortion. abortion is denominated by garbhahatya (pregnancy destruction) and bhrūṇahatya 1. Hindu View on Abortion (foetus murder), the terms for involuntary Before presenting the Hindu view miscarriage are sraṃsana and concerning abortion, we have to point out garbhasrāva, referring to the falling or that Hinduism is quite different from the emission of the embryo (Lipner, 1989; western concept of religion. It is rather “a Chandrasekhar, 1994). This complex set of interrelationships among differentiated terminology is important many sorts of people, belief systems, and because it suggests the moral distinction practices rather than a single uniformly between abortion and miscarriage: while structured, bureaucratically organized, abortion implies intention and and centrally codified religion”, as John consequently responsibility for killing an Grimes et al. state (2006). For this embryo or foetus, the miscarriage is reason, some scholars suggest that it is unintended and morally neuter. not quite correct to speak about the Another suggestive Sanskrit word Hindu view on a subject, but rather about related to abortion is bhrūṇahan, one Hindu view, which can be divergent meaning “the killer of an embryo” or from another Hindu point of view. “the killer of a learned Brahmin”. The Therefore, they consider that Hinduism belief that if someone kills an embryo does not have a unique, static, dogmatic, before the sex is known, the unborn child and perennial view on abortion and other would have been a male who could grow issues concerning bioethics up, learn Vedas, perform sacrifices, and (Chandrasekhar, 1994). Nevertheless, bring great benefits to the humans and to there is no evidence that Hinduism ever the gods explains the semantic linkage accepted or encouraged abortion and between killing an embryo and killing a although sometimes it is considered that Brahmin (Patton, 2002). This association the high abortion rate of India can be can also be seen at a more abstract level: explained by a permissive Hindu attitude, the sacrificial fire is considered a womb the statistics prove the opposite: more (garbha), as Satapatha Brāhmana states: than 80 percents of the Indian women “Āhavanīya [the sacrificial fire] is the disapprove abortion and 56 percents womb (seat) of the gods” (12. 9. 3. 10), consider it a heinous crime (Menski, and as the one who lets the sacrificial fire 1996). Accordingly, the explanation for to extinguish is also associated to the one this high abortion rate might be found who kills an embryo. On the other hand, somewhere else, as we will see, but not the keeper of the sacrificial fire is the in a supposed “liberal” Hindu attitude Brahmin and the person who kills the concerning this issue. In fact, abortion Brahmin produces, indirectly, the does not even represent a debate subject extinguishing of the sacred fire (Patton, for the Hindus, as long as the sacred 2002). This association also homologates texts, tradition, and doctrine are very 125 the similarity between abortion and one off, O Pûshan, the misdeeds upon him of the most terrible sins – if not the most that practiseth abortion!” (VI, 113.3; VI, terrible one – the killing of a Brahmin. 112.3) [1]. Pushan who, among other All the Hindu scriptures, when referring attributes, is the protector of the travelers to abortion, reflect and reinforce, directly and of those who have lost their way in or indirectly, this conception. life, burden himself with the misdeeds of Although the śruti texts (the central the humans. But even Pushan has to find canon of Hinduism) do not explicitly a scapegoat to put these sins on and for forbid abortion, they clearly postulate this position is designated the most sinful protection for the embryo and assert that person, namely “him that practiseth abortion is a morally intolerable act. In abortion”. Nobody is beneath him, a the Vedas, the earliest Hindu scriptures, greater sinner does not exist, and the guilt there is an indirect reference to the status cannot be transferred further (Lipner, of the unborn human. Vishnu is depicted 1989; Chandrasekhar, 1994). This text is as the “guardian of the future infant” a clear indication that in the ancient (Ṛgveda VII, 36.9) and, as Julius Lipner Indians’ perception abortion was the assumes, this educes the idea that the most heinous crime and the abortionist embryo, because of its inviolability and was considered a person who deserved to vulnerability, needs a special protection be burdened with the misdeeds of all ensured by Vishnu, the god who was humans. considered the protector of life and order, In a similar sense, Satapatha since the Vedic period (Lipner, 1989). Brāhmaṇa, referring to those who Another indication of the special consume beef, says: “[…] Such a one status of the unborn is the multitude of indeed would be likely to be born (again) rites prescribed especially by Ṛgveda and as a strange being, (as one of whom there accomplished in different moments of the is) evil report, such as ‘he has expelled pregnancy starting with conception – an embryo from a woman’, ‘he has Garbhādhāna and Garbhalambhana committed a sin’; let him therefore not rites, to ensure the blessing and the eat (the flesh) of the cow and the ox tutelage of the gods –, continuing with […]” (III, 1.2.21). Puṃsavana, at the end of the first The Upanishads also condemn trimester, Garbharakṣana, in the fourth abortion. Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, one month, and Jātakarma, at the time of of the oldest Upanishads (IX-VIII BC), delivery (Laale, 1996). All these rites referring to the state of consciousness prove not only the special status, but also when everything that is important for a the special care that the embryo/foetus Hindu ceases to be so, says: “Here a requires. father is not a father, a mother is not a The first mention of abortion is in mother, worlds are not worlds, gods are Atharvaveda. When the text speaks about not gods, and Vedas are not Vedas. Here passing the guilt for a lesser crime to a thief is not a thief, an abortionist is not someone who already committed a more an abortionist, an outcaste is not an serious sin, in an ascending order of outcaste, a pariah is not a pariah, a wickedness, Atharvaveda states: “Enter recluse is not a recluse, and an ascetic is into the rays, into smoke, O sin; go into not an ascetic. Neither the good nor the the vapours, and into the fog! Lose bad follows him, for he has now passed thyself on the foam of the river! 'Wipet beyond all sorrows of the heart.” (4.3.22) 126 [2] The same idea is present in Kauṣitaki the one hand, a pariah is socially damned Upaniṣad, when Indra says: “When a for the rest of his life; on the other hand, man perceives me, nothing that he does – he loses any possibility of liberation in whether it is stealing, or performing an this life and very probably in many other abortion, or killing his own father or future ones. We can realize how severe is mother – will ever make him lose a the mistake a mother having an abortion single hair of his body.” (3.1) can make, from the Hindu perspective, As long as we can see, although there looking at the severity of the punishment, is no explicit interdiction of abortion in as it is stipulated in the traditional texts.