Do the ethics of the Yamas and Niyamas preclude abortion as being justifiable?
Do these ethics support or oppose legal restrictions on abortion?
Yamas and Niyamas are not moral laws, but simply guidelines on how to live properly. Morality in the Yogic tradition is not based on the action itself, it is based on the circumstances and how you can respond to those circumstances in a proper way.
So whether abortion is justified or not justified depends on the circumstances.
The main quesition is whether an embryo or a fetus should be considered to be a person and whether an abortion is an injustice to that person.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;39868]Yamas and Niyamas are not moral laws, but simply guidelines on how to live properly. Morality in the Yogic tradition is not based on the action itself, it is based on the circumstances and how you can respond to those circumstances in a proper way.
So whether abortion is justified or not justified depends on the circumstances.[/QUOTE]
Can you give me an example as to when abortion is justified?
Can you give me an example as to when it is not justified?
If we could vote to make abortion illegal would it be just or unjust to do so?
The main quesition is whether an embryo or a fetus should be considered to be a person and whether an abortion is an injustice to that person.
Yes, according to Hindu understanding it is a person. It is considered living at the moment of conception.
Can you give me an example as to when abortion is justified?
It is justified if the birth of the child will cause death to the mother. In this case it is better to abort the child. It is justified if the child is born out of illegimate means, such as the woman being raped, in which case the woman does not want a living reminder of her rape. It is justified if you are bringing the child into suffering, such as conceiving during war times where you know your chances of survival are low or if the child is known to have a fatal disease before it is born.
Can you give me an example as to when it is not justified?
It is not justified if a couple does not want the child. They should have thought about that before having unprotected sex. It is not justified in a teenage pregnancy. It is better to allow the child to be born and then give it up for adoption than abort it.
If we could vote to make abortion illegal would it be just or unjust to do so?
Abortion should not be illegal, because like I said in some circumstances it is right. However, there should be more strict criteria in having an abortion and it should not be simply based on choice.
It is justified if the child is born out of illegimate means, such as the woman being raped, in which case the woman does not want a living reminder of her rape. It is justified if you are bringing the child into suffering, such as conceiving during war times where you know your chances of survival are low or if the child is known to have a fatal disease before it is born.
Is this official Hindu teaching?
What of those who are living who were conceived by rape? Should they have been aborted? Is it justice to kill a child because of the sin of his father? Is is possible that ripping the baby out of her womb could be a further violation not only to the child but to the woman?
We all have the fatal diseas of life. We’re all going to die. Why is it just to kill someone you know will die, since we all will die, and since we don’t kill those who we know have only a short time because of a disease?
[QUOTE=thomas;39940]Is this official Hindu teaching?[/QUOTE]
There is no official body in Hinduism to dictate a moral code. Like I said, we only have guidelines, when its comes to making particular decisions this is left to us to work out.
The examples I gave were my own under what circumstances it would be ok to abort a child. I would not argue with a woman who has been raped, who does not want to give birth to a child from the rapist. It is her right to do this, because she did not consent to having the rapists baby.
Furthermore, I would not argue with a couple who choose to have an abortion if their unborn child has a fatal disease. It does not make sense to bring a child into suffering, in my opinion.
Would you argue with a couple who wants to kill their one year old child because she is in a home and environment full of suffering and because she has cancer and will die in a year anyway?
Violence is a good thing sometimes if it can prevent suffering?
Violence can be done to a fetus to prevent it from being born and experiencing violence?
You are asking me personally. I am representing myself, and not all Hindus. Others may give different opinions.
We put down animals if they are suffering from fatal diseases and suffering, so why not children? There should be an option available to all humans beings for assisted suicide in my opinion. There is no point enduring a life of suffering. If there is little hope of respite, then it is better to just end that life.
Violence is a good thing under some circumstances, yes. Armed forces for example have to protect the citizens of their nation, which often entails violence.
I am afraid you need to recognise that real morality is not black and white.
We put down animals if they are suffering from fatal diseases and suffering, so why not children? There should be an option available to all humans beings for assisted suicide in my opinion
Are you making a connection between suicide and putting down a child? It wouldn’t be suicide if the parent made that decision. Plus you seem to be advocating the destuction of a child in the womb to prevent it from suffering.
Is there no value to suffering in Hinduism?
Are you so cavalier about suicide and putting down a child because you believe in reincarnation, and that killing someone just sends them into a new body?
[QUOTE=thomas;39967]Are you making a connection between suicide and putting down a child? It wouldn’t be suicide if the parent made that decision. Plus you seem to be advocating the destuction of a child in the womb to prevent it from suffering.
Is there no value to suffering in Hinduism?
Are you so cavalier about suicide and putting down a child because you believe in reincarnation, and that killing someone just sends them into a new body?[/QUOTE]
Just watch this and it will become clear why Hindus do not actually really give a… anyway watch this video for some answers… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEsX9rj4w-0
Are you making a connection between suicide and putting down a child? It wouldn’t be suicide if the parent made that decision. Plus you seem to be advocating the destuction of a child in the womb to prevent it from suffering
No, I am making a connection between a child and a pet. How a pet and a very young child are not responsible for themselves and cannot make decisions for themselves, so their parents have to. In the case of an unborn child, an unborn child cannot make any decision. We put down our pets if they are suffering from horrible diseases, to prevent them from suffering. There is not point allowing somebody to suffer constantly, when there is no hope of respite. This defeats the purpose of life. The same goes for an adult human, but in this case they can make their own decision.
There is a debate on euthanasia currently in bioethics, and some countries even allow it in some form: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia
If you are suffering unduly in life, there is no point enduring that life. The best way to work out if suicide if an option for you is to look at the pain and suffering in your life and the coping mechanisms - if the pain and suffering exceeds the coping mechanism, then suicide is an option you have a right to exercise.
Secondly, you asked me if my attitude to ending life is so lax because of my belief in reincarnaion. Yes and no. Yes, because I know for a fact that I am not the body, and my soul is merely in association with this body. It will take on a new body to serve its purposes. If a certain body is not suitable, there is no point sticking around. No, because even if this was the only life, it makes no sense living a life of constant suffering and pain. You see, morality is not black and white with me. It is all based on circumstances. Suicide is not always bad and nor is killing.
[QUOTE=YogiAdam;39968]Just watch this and it will become clear why Hindus do not actually really give a… anyway watch this video for some answers… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEsX9rj4w-0[/QUOTE]
This gentleman is completely ignorant of the context and the philosophy of the Gita. Most people reading the Gita do not empathize with the “noble, loving, charitable” prince Arjuna, but Krishna. Arjuna is a warrior he is sworn into duty to protect his people, and in this instance his duty is calling him, but because the other side contains Arjuna’s own cousins, uncles, teachers, grandsires, he is finding it difficult to do his duty and is finding excuses not to do it. Should we sympathize with Arjuna? Would you? Lets put it to you then - suppose somebody rapes and murders your girlfriend and you go and report it to the police, when the police officer arrives he recognises the rapist as his brother, and is now finding it difficult to do his duty and arrest the rapist and is finding excuses not to do it. Are you going to sympathize with him?
Arjuna was speaking out from his own selfish interest. He was thinking of his own individual losses and profits and not of his duty. We all face this dilemma everyday where we put our own profit ahead of of what is right. Most of us are motivated by what is pleasurable, and not what is good. Instead, Krishna beseeches Arjuna not to act from his ego, but his intellect. To weigh what is right and wrong with his reason. He then proceeds to explain through various arguments why the right action in this case would be to fight.
Main argument: He is a warrior, it is his duty to fight
Argument 2: The soul is immortal, it cannot be destroyed. It will simply pass from one body to the other.
Argument 3: Whatever is born will inexorably perish as well, so why base your decision on temporal things, base your decision on the eternal laws of reason
Argument 4: Nobody can be inactive, for even inaction is an action. They are compelled by the forces of nature to act always. It is better then to flow with the unfolding of nature, than to resist it.
Finally Arjuna asks him how can he act from the intellect, when his mind has been ravaged by emotions and he cannot think straight. This is when Krishan teaches him the science of Yoga to control his mind, to see everybody and everything in an impartial light, to not be disturbed by the ups and downs of life, but simply to become a detached observer. The wise are neither elated by the ups or depressed by the downs.
Anyway I cannot really expect an atheist to understand this. But for most sensible people this is profound philosophy and a philosophy one can practice in their life to become better people.
If you dont mind…carry on after this…
A True story…an elderly couple were fleeing from a war zone with their young granddaughter, aged 11.
The enemy in large numbers were coming towards them and there was no hiding.
The grandfather had to make a most heart-wrenching decision. (it brings tears to my eyes )
He strangled his granddaughter so she wouldn’t be raped by the enemy. He then covered her body with vegetation.
The story was told by the now elderly mother of the child, who later tried to find her remains, but didn’t.
Was the grandfather wrong?
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;39984]Anyway I cannot really expect an atheist to understand this. But for most sensible people this is profound philosophy and a philosophy one can practice in their life to become better people.[/QUOTE]
Your an atheist as well!! You’ve said that many times. By that ridiculous logic… YOU JUST POSTED SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN’T EXPECT YOURSELF TO UNDERSTAND… and you wonder why I don’t take what you say seriously. You should figure out what you believe first. Then come back once you have a view that has some sort of consistency.
Haha, you should be the last person to talk about consistency 
I am an athiest because I do not believe in a personal god. This is a form of atheism. I am an impersonalist in that I believe in absolute being that is pure consciousness, natural law, cosmic intelligence.
Never had a problem with consistency mate, but I see you struggle to remain consistent post to post
Surya Deva says
"Anyway I cannot really expect an atheist to understand this. But for most sensible people…"
“I am an athiest because I do not believe in a personal god.”
I don’t even need to add anything. It’s perfect stupidity!
If it needs to be clarified further, it is your kind of atheism. Your interpretation of atheism is a rejection of the concept of god altogether, and the supernatural and metaphysical. I do not reject the concept of god and the supernatural/metaphysical.
I have met plenty of Hindu atheists. In fact at least 4 of the 6 schools of Hindu philosophy are considered atheist(Samkhya, Yoga, Mimassa and Advaita) in that they all reject a personal god.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;40145]If it needs to be clarified further, it is your kind of atheism. Your interpretation of atheism is a rejection of the concept of god altogether, and the supernatural and metaphysical. I do not reject the concept of god and the supernatural/metaphysical.
I have met plenty of Hindu atheists. In fact at least 4 of the 6 schools of Hindu philosophy are considered atheist(Samkhya, Yoga, Mimassa and Advaita) in that they all reject a personal god.[/QUOTE]
Well, welcome on board fellow atheist 