محسن هنرجو

SUBJECT & OBJECTIVES: This study examines the widespread claim that Theravāda and Tibetan Buddhist traditions contain sufficient textual ambiguity to allow a “middle-way, pro-choice” position, particularly during early pregnancy. Its primary objective is to determine whether such ambiguity genuinely exists within the orthodox sources of either school and whether a coherent doctrinal basis can be found for reconciling elective abortion with the first precept. METHOD & FINDING: This study adopts a qualitative, document-based, historical-analytical method. It analyzes primary Buddhist sources—including the Pāli Canon, Vinaya, Buddhaghosa's commentaries, the Abhidhamma, Tibetan bardo literature, and Lamrim texts—together with relevant statements by the Fourteenth Dalai Lama and Ganden Tri Rinpoche. The findings suggest that both traditions generally locate the beginning of consciousness (vijñāna / rnam-shes) and moral personhood at conception, and therefore tend to regard induced abortion as intentional killing, except in cases involving serious and immediate danger to the mother's life. Some contemporary moderate pro-choice readings, however, are based on biological and conceptual assumptions that diverge from canonical formulations. CONCLUSION: The evidence indicates that neither Theravāda nor Tibetan Buddhism provides a doctrinally defensible basis for elective abortion. The orthodox consensus of these traditions—contrary to the assumption of rigidity—offers what is understood as the most compassionate and karmically beneficial response through adoption, social support, and education, thereby constituting the authentic Buddhist middle way.