Contrary to misinformed opinion about pagan religions, Hindu ethics do not support abortion, and condemn it on similar, but slightly more nuanced, grounds than traditional Christian ethics. Thus Vasu Murty and Mary Derr write in “Abortion is Bad Karma”:

“Hindu scriptures refer to abortion as garha-batta (womb killing) and bhroona hathya (killing the undeveloped soul). A hymn in the Rig Veda (7.36.9, RvP, 2469) begs for protection of fetuses. The Kaushitaki Upanishad (3.1 UpR, 774) draws a parallel between abortion and the killing of one’s parents. The Atharva Veda (6.113.2 HE, 43) remarks that the fetus slayer, or brunaghni, is among the greatest of sinners (6.113.2). (4)

In modern times, India’s greatest apostle of nonviolence, Mohandas Gandhi, has written: “It seems to me clear as daylight that abortion would be a crime.” (5) The international periodical Hinduism Today acknowledges: “Across the board, Hindu religious leaders perceive abortion at any stage of fetal development as killing (some say murder)…and as an act that has serious karmic repercussions.” For example, Swami Kamalatmananda of the Ramakrishna Monastery in Madras, India, has said: “No human being has the right to destroy the fetus. If having a baby is economically and socially problematic, one can very well take precautions to avoid such unwanted birth rather than killing the baby. Precaution is better than destruction.” (6)

Life, per se, is not the reason. That is the materialist point of view, which apparently has been adopted by many Christians.

Rather, it is the presence of the human (developed) soul within life that makes killing especially abominable. Otherwise, the killing of plants and animals (which are also sentient lives) would be equally reprehensible.  Traditional Hindus, in fact, do consider killing animal life, especially certain forms connected with religious worship or the nourishment of human beings, to be heinous.

I consider this not to be indicative of the inferiority of pagan ethics, but in this instance, of their superiority.

The entry of the human soul, according to Hindus, occurs early in the development of the foetus, but not necessarily at the same moment of actual conception. It varies with the individual, according to astrological texts I have studied. The special consequences attaching to killing a human soul arise because of the greater scope it affords for the soul to realize its karma, free itself from its samskaras and attain moksha and not simply because of the presence of life in the physical body.

This again is in accord with the teachings of Jesus, who said to the Jews that God could make as many sons of Abraham as there were grains of sand, if he wanted. That is, creation of physical vehicles (genetic material) was easy enough. The attainment and development of the soul was something else.

A sample of the range of Hindu views is given at Hinduism Today

Brahma Kumaris

“The Brahma Kumaris view the body as a physical vehicle for the immortal soul, and therefore the issue is not “pro-life” or “anti-life” but a choice between the amount of suffering caused to the souls of the parents and child in either course, abortion or motherhood. They view existing legislation in America as fair and reasonable, with the proviso that abortion after the 4th month should be avoided except in medical emergencies, since in their view the soul enters the fetus in the 4th to 5th month.

Krishna Consciousness

ISKCON calls the 1.3 million abortions done in America last year “a kind of doublethink,” whereby people deny the status of humanity to the fetus. “According to Vedic literature an eternal individual soul inhabits the body of every living creature…The soul enters the womb at the time of conception, and this makes the fetus a living, individual person.” All forms of contraceptives, says ISKCON, and the act of abortion, “interfere with nature’s arrangement to provide a soul with a new body and are therefore bound to result in unfavorable karmic reaction…If you don’t want to suffer the reactions…then don’t have sex unless you want to have a child.

Vedanta Society

Swami Bhashyananda, President of the Vivekananda Vedanta Society of Chicago, says that “under no circumstances the jiva should be destroyed. That is uniformly stated, from the point of conception onward. When such questions are asked, we advise them not to perform abortions…One has to try one’s level best to save mother and child both. And beyond these efforts, whatever happens is God’s will. But we do not have any opinion on this matter in this country, nor do we get involved in it in India. If people seek our advice, we give our advice.”

A good general account of the flexible but generally anti-abortion stance of Hinduism is given in this BBC article:

“Hindu medical ethics stem from the principle of ahimsa – of non-violence.

When considering abortion, the Hindu way is to choose the action that will do least harm to all involved: the mother and father, the foetus and society.

Hinduism is therefore generally opposed to abortion except where it is necessary to save the mother’s life.

Classical Hindu texts are strongly opposed to abortion:

One text compares abortion to the killing of a priest
Another text considers abortion a worse sin than killing one’s parents
Another text says that a woman who aborts her child will lose her caste

Traditional Hinduism and many modern Hindus also see abortion as a breach of the duty to produce children in order to continue the family and produce new members of society.

Many Hindus regard the production of offspring as a ‘public duty’, not simply an ‘individual expression of personal choice’ (see Lipner, “The classical Hindu view on abortion and the moral status of the unborn” 1989).

In practice, however, abortion is practiced in Hindu culture in India, because the religious ban on abortion is sometimes overruled by the cultural preference for sons. This can lead to abortion to prevent the birth of girl babies, which is called ‘female foeticide’.
The status of the foetus in Hinduism

The soul and the matter which form the foetus are considered by many Hindus to be joined together from conception.

According to the doctrine of reincarnation a foetus is not developing into a person, but is a person from a very early stage. It contains a reborn soul and should be treated appropriately.

By the ninth month the foetus has achieved very substantial awareness.

According to the Garbha Upanishad, the soul remembers its past lives during the last month the foetus spends in the womb (these memories are destroyed during the trauma of birth).

The Mahabharata refers to a child learning from its father while in the womb.”

As a libertarian, my own pro-choice position doesn’t stem from believing that killing a late-stage foetus is not murder in a moral sense. It comes from my belief that as long as it is within the mother’s body (and in my opinion, even for a year later), it is not a matter for the state to judge.

It is a matter, first, for the conscience of the mother and father, and then for the entire family, including the grandparents, since genetic material from them is involved, and since very often the grandparents’ resources and time have gone into nurturing the mother or father specifically for the continuation of the family.

Terminating the pregnancy, thus, is a moral decision, with the mother and father, at the forefront, but the grandparents, especially, fully involved. But politicizing the matter, as the west does, is also counterproductive.

Moreover, the Hindu notion of marriage is I believe closer to the original position taught by Jesus:

YOGIRAJ SWAMI BU of the Indo-American Yoga-Vedanta Society writes:

“According to Hindus, if a man is married once in his lifetime, he is considered married the rest of his life. The death of his wife, or divorce, or living separately from his wife would not alter his marital status. Such a man is no longer considered a brahmachari or a celibate or unmarried. For Hindus, there is no such thing as “a man was married but is not married now.”

This seems to be very close to the attitude of Jesus. Recall the time when he encountered the Samaritan at the well and asked her to bring her husband.

She said she didn’t have one. Jesus responded by telling her that she’d had five husbands, not one, but that she was correct to say she didn’t have one, because the man living with her when they spoke was not her husband.

In other words, Jesus, like Moses, didn’t recognize the woman’s divorces/separations, but counted as her husbands all the men she’d lived with.