Hindu Ethics on Abortion

[Guest guest]

- Edward Omar Moad University of Missouri - Columbia 601 S.

Providence #707I, Columbia, MO 65203, USA

 

Email: erm264@m...

 

Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics 14 (2004), 149-

50.

 

In the West, especially in the United States, the debate over the

issue of abortion is one of the most controversial subjects of the

day. The arguments employed by each side commonly originate from

theological sources on the one hand, and scientific sources on the

other. Part of the reason for the position of this controversy,

among others, in the western public consciousness is that it has

implications affecting the moral value of human life, the source of

that value, and the question over when a human being can be said to

acquire this value. Thus, the argument usually ends up turning

around whether life begins at conception, at birth, or at some point

in between. There are arguments over the difference between living

beings in general and persons, what constitutes personhood as an

entitlement to rights, and so on. Taking a look at the issue from a

global perspective, it becomes apparent that the ways in which these

debates develop are fundamentally shaped by the cultural context in

which they are held.

 

In the United States, for example, the argument is almost always

centered on the western concept of inalienable rights. It is

the "rights of the unborn" against the "rights of women". Fathers

and grandparents are often eager to assert their rights as well.

Dealing with social issues like abortion on a cross-cultural level

requires one to temporarily transcend, as much as possible, the

cultural context within which one is immersed. Failure to do so can

be the cause of a number of blunders, the most common of which, in

connection with our topic, is the quixotic and uneducated reactions

that are frequently expressed toward, for example, China's one-child

policy. The purpose of this paper will be to ascertain the

traditional view of abortion in India, and explore, as much as

possible, the context of religious and ethical values and rationale

behind it.

 

Perhaps the best place to begin would be at that most important

question in the western abortion debate: when does the life of a

human being become sacred? Or to put it in metaphysical terms, when

does the fetus receive a soul? This way, an important difference in

the Hindu cultural context surrounding the issue will become clear;

specifically, that such a question is almost irrelevant.

Nevertheless, it is not an unanswered one.

 

The Hindu view of a person is a central theme of the Hindu

scriptures. Basically, it is a dualistic model consisting of atman

(roughly, spirit), and prakrti (matter). According to the Caraka

Samhita, a Hindu medical text, the soul is already joined with

matter in the act of conception. The soul is described as

descending "...into the union of semen and (menstrual) blood in the

womb in keeping with the (karmically produced) psychic disposition

(of the embryonic matter)."<> [1] Though there are a few differing

traditions on this matter (the Garbha Upanishad claims that

ensoulment takes place in the seventh month), they are considered to

be based on weaker evidence, and the mainstream of Hindu thought

coincides with this position.[2] Thus, the traditional Hindu view

of the time of ensoulment is similar to that expressed by Thomas

Aquinas, for example. However, there are important differences in

other aspects. The Visnu Purana describes consciousness in the womb:

 

"An individual soul (jantu), possessing a subtle body

(sukumaratanu), resides in his mother's womb (garbha), which is

imbued with various sorts of impurity (mala). He stays there being

folded in the membrane surrounding the foetus (ulba). . . He

experiences severe pains. . . tormented immensely by the foods his

mother takes. . . incapable of extending (prasarana) or contracting

(akuncana) his own limbs and reposing amidst a mud of faeces and

urine, he is in every way incommoded. He is unable to breathe.

Yet, being endowed with consciousness (sacaitanya) and thus calling

to memory many hundreds (of previous) births, he resides in his

mother's womb with great pains, being bound by his previous

deeds."[3]

 

The obvious difference between this Hindu description of life in the

womb and that perceived in the west arises from the concept of

reincarnation. The soul in the womb is not a new soul. Rather it

contemplates its previous births. Thus, the hiatus in the womb is

not seen in nearly as positive a light as it is in western thought.

It is painful, torturous, and repulsive; the evil result of

attachment to physical existence displayed in one's past lives. In

the Hindu context, the purpose of life as a human being is to make

progress toward liberation from rebirth. The most important thing

for each soul is the unfolding of its karmic destiny toward this

goal. Abortion can obstruct this unfolding, and therefore it is

condemned, but for vastly different reasons than it is in the west.

[4]

 

The practice of abortion is negatively referred to in the earliest

Hindu scriptures, the Vedas. These texts comprise the sruti, those

scriptures considered to have primary authority in Hindu thought.

In the Rg Samhit, possibly originating from before 1200 BC, Visnu is

called "protector of the child-to-be", implying that the fetus was

deserving of even divine reverence.[5] Meanwhile, the Atharva Veda

expresses the following explicit pleas regarding those who perform

abortions:

 

"With what bonds the overslaughed one is bound apart, applied and

tied up on each limb - let them be released, for they are releasers;

wipe off difficulties, O Pushan, on the embryo slayer." VI-112.3

 

"Enter thou after the beams, the smokes, O evil; go unto the mists

or also the fogs; disappear along those foams of the rivers: wipe

off difficulties, O Pushan, on the embryo slayer." VI-113.2[6]

 

Evidently, the "embryo slayer" is seen as a suitable candidate to

bear the sufferings and sins of the rest of the Vedic community.

The Satapatha Brahmana compares the reputation of those who eat beef

with those who perform abortions, while in the Upanisads they are

placed in a category with thieves and outcastes.[7]

 

The later smrti texts also contain injunctions against abortion, as

well as protections for pregnant women. In the Visnudharmasutra,

killing either fetus or mother is equated to the worst crime

possible in Hindu society, killing a Brahman. Ferrymen and toll-

collectors are prescribed punishment for collection from pregnant

women. The Mahabharata, likewise, lists expectant mothers among a

group that one must "give way to" that includes Brahmin, cows, and

kings.[8]

 

The worst penalty that could be inflicted upon a member of

traditional Hindu society was to lose one's caste. This effectively

removed one from the social structure altogether, and even had

tragic implications on one's prospects for spiritual liberation.

The Gautamadharmasutra tells us that two crimes that call for a

woman to have her caste revoked are sexual relations with a man of

lower caste, and abortion. Though the abortion of the fetus of a

Brahmin is punishable by more extreme penalties than that of a

slave, even those who perform abortions on slaves were fined.[9]

This difference in treatment reflects the belief that Brahmins were

at a stage closer to spiritual liberation, and thus the uniquely

Hindu rationale against abortion.

 

Hindu ideology made an exception however, when abortion became

necessary to save the life of the mother. The Susruta Samhita,

another Hindu medical text, describes a procedure to induce birth

during complications in the pregnancy. The ultimate objective is,

of course, saving the mother and the baby. However, in the event

that this is not a possibility, the text affirms, saving the mother

takes precedence, and an abortion is justified.[10]

 

This serves as evidence against the possible assertion that the real

basis for an anti-abortion attitude in Hindu society stems solely

from social goals related to supplying sons for the family and the

caste. If that were true, and the moral sentiment played no role,

then surely the mother would be considered less important than the

child. Such a charge, furthermore, could be another example of the

mistake of superimposing categories that are relevant within the

context of one culture, onto an issue in another culture, where they

are meaningless. The concept of Hindu dharma, the basis of ethics

in Hindu society, makes no distinction between social and moral

motivations. In fact, the two are inextricably enmeshed in each

other.[11] Thus, as much as it would be false to say that to bear

sons is not highly valued among Hindus, it is equally false to

discard the expression of moral rationale against abortion as

artificial. Besides the fact that all the Sanskrit words for

abortion have highly negative connotations related to killing, such

as hatya, the way in which abortion is dealt with in relation to the

rigors of the caste system strongly suggest a primacy of moral over

social concerns.

 

As I have noted above, the two crimes for which a woman could lose

her caste were sex with a lower caste male, and abortion. In cases

where there had been a sexual relationship between a higher caste

female and a lower caste male that resulted in offspring, it posed a

complicated problem for the Hindu society. Such children could not

be accepted into any caste and therefore constituted various

categories of "outcastes", classless populations with no position in

society that ushered in all the myriad social problems associated

with such situations. Outcastes had everything going against them,

and were generally destined for a miserable life. Despite this

fact, abortion was never allowed as an acceptable solution. The

lives of these fetuses, with all the social consequences that were

involved in their births, were believed to have a moral status that

protected them from early termination.[12]

 

Hopefully, this paper has scratched the surface of Hindu thought

relating to abortion enough to make it clear that in India (despite

not being nearly as public as it is in the west) it is an issue

unique to Hindu ethical thought. It does not involve the ultimate

value of the embodiment of the soul, as expressed by traditional

western religious viewpoints. Nor can it be reduced to a

utilitarian equation aimed at the benefit of society as a whole or a

particular class, as the various western liberal and secular

interpretations would have it. It is a question, which, for Hindus,

may be dealt with only on uniquely Hindu terms.

 

 

http://www.biol.tsukuba.ac.jp/~macer/EJ144/ej144j.htm

 

References

 

Lipner, Julius J. "On Abortion and the Moral Status of the Unborn",

in Hindu Ethics, edited by Coward, Lipner, and Young. State

University of New York, Albany. 1989.

 

Whitney, William Dwight, trns. Atharva-Veda Samhita. Harvard

Oriental Series, vol. VII. Harvard University. Cambridge, MA. 1905.

--- End forwarded message ---