Yes, thanks!Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:I found this in my browser's cache. Is that the one that got deleted?David N. Snyder wrote:OMG, I accidentally edited Bhante's post (accidentally hit the moderator-edit button instead of post-reply) which made it useless so just deleted it. I thought I was posting a reply to Bhante's post. My deepest apologies, Ven. Pesala. If you could repost what you wrote, if you can remember.
Abhidhamma: Is an abortion killing a living being?
- DNS
- Site Admin
- Posts: 17191
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
- Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
- Contact:
Re: Abhidhamma: Is an abortion killing a living being?
- equilibrium
- Posts: 522
- Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2012 11:07 am
Re: Abhidhamma: Is an abortion killing a living being?
Labels.....this is what this entire thread is all about. Trapped in them and using them to justify what is right or wrong yet failed to SEE the truth!
Take "water" as an example. It can become many states such as liquid water, frozen water (ice) and steam (vapour).
If you take an ice cube (frozen water) and eat it, it will eventually melt into water and into your body.
So did you eat ice or did you drink water?.....why stuck with labels?
cells, Fetus, embryo, baby, small child, young adult, teen, adult, old person are all labels for a human being. Just different states/stages.
Just because our minds discriminate into separate stages doesn't mean they are not part of the whole (living/human being).
By stopping its progress along the path is an intent to kill. Labels has nothing to do with it.
Take "water" as an example. It can become many states such as liquid water, frozen water (ice) and steam (vapour).
If you take an ice cube (frozen water) and eat it, it will eventually melt into water and into your body.
So did you eat ice or did you drink water?.....why stuck with labels?
cells, Fetus, embryo, baby, small child, young adult, teen, adult, old person are all labels for a human being. Just different states/stages.
Just because our minds discriminate into separate stages doesn't mean they are not part of the whole (living/human being).
By stopping its progress along the path is an intent to kill. Labels has nothing to do with it.
Re: Abhidhamma: Is an abortion killing a living being?
Equilibrium
Arguments such as beating heart are just the beating around the bush.
What matters is the mind state of the person who is doing the action.
Is it unwholesome or wholesome?
We should be aware of the near enemy and the far enemy of wholesome states though.
By saying yes or no, we are trying to generalise a very complicated issue.
Arguments such as beating heart are just the beating around the bush.
What matters is the mind state of the person who is doing the action.
Is it unwholesome or wholesome?
We should be aware of the near enemy and the far enemy of wholesome states though.
By saying yes or no, we are trying to generalise a very complicated issue.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
Re: Abhidhamma: Is an abortion killing a living being?
Well, you definitely ingested H₂O!equilibrium wrote:Take "water" as an example. It can become many states such as liquid water, frozen water (ice) and steam (vapour).
If you take an ice cube (frozen water) and eat it, it will eventually melt into water and into your body.
So did you eat ice or did you drink water?.....why stuck with labels?
But seriously now, your post was a
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Re: Abhidhamma: Is an abortion killing a living being?
So to summarize: your view is that abortion equates to killing a human being?equilibrium wrote: cells, Fetus, embryo, baby, small child, young adult, teen, adult, old person are all labels for a human being. Just different states/stages.
Just because our minds discriminate into separate stages doesn't mean they are not part of the whole (living/human being).
By stopping its progress along the path is an intent to kill. Labels has nothing to do with it.
Re: Abhidhamma: Is an abortion killing a living being?
Hmm I don't agree at all. What you fail to see in your argument is that you summerize labels (cells, fetus, embryo and so on...) under the label "human being" without any attempt to investigate why and how you come to do so. In my eyes that is an ignorant oversimplification.equilibrium wrote:Labels.....this is what this entire thread is all about. Trapped in them and using them to justify what is right or wrong yet failed to SEE the truth!
Take "water" as an example. It can become many states such as liquid water, frozen water (ice) and steam (vapour).
If you take an ice cube (frozen water) and eat it, it will eventually melt into water and into your body.
So did you eat ice or did you drink water?.....why stuck with labels?
cells, Fetus, embryo, baby, small child, young adult, teen, adult, old person are all labels for a human being. Just different states/stages.
Just because our minds discriminate into separate stages doesn't mean they are not part of the whole (living/human being).
By stopping its progress along the path is an intent to kill. Labels has nothing to do with it.
best wishes, acinteyyo
Thag 1.20. Ajita - I do not fear death; nor do I long for life. I’ll lay down this body, aware and mindful.
Re: Abhidhamma: Is an abortion killing a living being?
Additionally,
this mean that preventing a human birth at the level of contraception is wrong, as it prevents an allegedly valuable human birth. The line of argumentation here fails; both with respect to your labels argument, and your interruption argument, there is little scope for asserting a blanket claim of kill-intention for every case of abortion.equilibrium wrote:By stopping its progress along the path is an intent to kill. Labels has nothing to do with it.
- "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.
"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
- DNS
- Site Admin
- Posts: 17191
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
- Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
- Contact:
Re: Abhidhamma: Is an abortion killing a living being?
Abortion is a difficult issue because it involves decisions and issues of life and death, intention, and then also the rights of women and couples to make decisions on what to do with their own bodies.
If it is killing in the earliest of gestation stages, I am wondering how weighty that kamma might be? If we look at the size of an embryo or even a fetus, the size is close to the size of an insect. I know Buddhists don't like doing any killing, but let's face we are engaged in collateral killing everyday in regard to our diets and numerous other facets of daily life (construction, driving, household products, etc.).
According to this site an 8 week old fetus is only 18 mm (less than one inch). I know, some of you will say size doesn't matter; but let's face it again, we do put higher value in general on bigger more fully grown beings for example:
termite < fly < grasshopper < snake < chicken < pig < cat < dog < monkey < gorilla < human being
I am not advocating for either position, as it is a difficult one, just saying that if there is negative kamma, I am wondering what the weight of that kamma might be and if it might be something similar to killing a smaller animal. In the developing stages of an embryo and fetus, their appearance is virtually indistinguishable across all mammals.
If it is killing in the earliest of gestation stages, I am wondering how weighty that kamma might be? If we look at the size of an embryo or even a fetus, the size is close to the size of an insect. I know Buddhists don't like doing any killing, but let's face we are engaged in collateral killing everyday in regard to our diets and numerous other facets of daily life (construction, driving, household products, etc.).
According to this site an 8 week old fetus is only 18 mm (less than one inch). I know, some of you will say size doesn't matter; but let's face it again, we do put higher value in general on bigger more fully grown beings for example:
termite < fly < grasshopper < snake < chicken < pig < cat < dog < monkey < gorilla < human being
I am not advocating for either position, as it is a difficult one, just saying that if there is negative kamma, I am wondering what the weight of that kamma might be and if it might be something similar to killing a smaller animal. In the developing stages of an embryo and fetus, their appearance is virtually indistinguishable across all mammals.
Re: Abhidhamma: Is an abortion killing a living being?
That's true. It's also true that each mammal has differences in DNA which is what determines what they "are," not to mention the DNA differences among individuals within the same species.David N. Snyder wrote:In the developing stages of an embryo and fetus, their appearance is virtually indistinguishable across all mammals.
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
- equilibrium
- Posts: 522
- Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2012 11:07 am
Re: Abhidhamma: Is an abortion killing a living being?
Clearly Yes!.....abortion is termination.Mr Man wrote:So to summarize: your view is that abortion equates to killing a human being?
As there is a valid question according to this thread, we have to use labels, mere words so we can communicate/discuss/debate (whatever) so the message/views are passed.acinteyyo wrote: Hmm I don't agree at all. What you fail to see in your argument is that you summerize labels (cells, fetus, embryo and so on...) under the label "human being" without any attempt to investigate why and how you come to do so. In my eyes that is an ignorant oversimplification.
According to the question, there is no requirement to go beyond the label "human being" to answer it. Without words, we are lost.....The real trick is not to cling to labels/words!
To do so would be to fall under the definition of labels, as already mentioned, discrimination of minds."to attempt to investigate why and how"
A good example here would be watching a film, it is nothing but still images, frame by frame which appears to be "moving". An illusion.....What is my point here: You cannot see a single frame and say you watched a film.....can you? Am sure you will agree, it is there because it is part of it.....On another view, you cannot say you watched a film without watching frames after frames.....can you?
So can one watch one single frame and conclude the entire movie?.....if not, is this not the same as falling under a "label" within the human being label?
Ah! "progress along the path" means one is alreay on it/in it. Destined to be born, live and die.equilibrium wrote: By stopping its progress along the path is an intent to kill. Labels has nothing to do with it.daverupa wrote: this mean that preventing a human birth at the level of contraception is wrong, as it prevents an allegedly valuable human birth. The line of argumentation here fails; both with respect to your labels argument, and your interruption argument, there is little scope for asserting a blanket claim of kill-intention for every case of abortion.
By using technology such as contraception as "preventing" a human birth is not the same thing. Since there is no life/living being/human being there in the first place. Furthermore, there is no living being "to be" killed. Subtle distinction don't you think?
Re: Abhidhamma: Is an abortion killing a living being?
It's a distinction you have assumed, not one you have demonstrated.equilibrium wrote:Furthermore, there is no living being "to be" killed. Subtle distinction don't you think?
As far as I can tell, the claim that a fertilized egg is alive in the same way that a 40-year-old man is alive requires recourse to speculative metaphysics, e.g. your "destined" statement. This is an impossible place from which to make normative ethical statements; agnosticism here is the only viable route to an evenhanded, communal orientation to the issue, I think.
The fact remains, there is little scope for asserting a blanket claim of kill-intention for every case of abortion.
- "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.
"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
Re: Abhidhamma: Is an abortion killing a living being?
It's worth noticing that the 1st Precept is about abstaining from taking "life", not just taking "human"'s life. Based on that, it's not a question of whether by doing abortion one generates negative kamma or not but rather whether the weight of negative kamma is severe or light depending on the "stages" of the pregnancy:
AN 8.39 wrote:There is the case where a disciple of the noble ones, abandoning the taking of life, abstains from taking life. In doing so, he gives freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings. In giving freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings, he gains a share in limitless freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, and freedom from oppression. This is the first gift, the first great gift — original, long-standing, traditional, ancient, unadulterated, unadulterated from the beginning — that is not open to suspicion, will never be open to suspicion, and is unfaulted by knowledgeable contemplatives & brahmans. And this is the fourth reward of merit
Re: Abhidhamma: Is an abortion killing a living being?
I think right view is playing a critical roll in this investigation.
http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=18&t" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=18&t" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
Re: Abhidhamma: Is an abortion killing a living being?
So abortion should be made illegal?equilibrium wrote:Clearly Yes!.....abortion is termination.Mr Man wrote:So to summarize: your view is that abortion equates to killing a human being?
Re: Abhidhamma: Is an abortion killing a living being?
I partly agree with what you wrote in your post but I have to come to this particular part I've quoted here. The thing is, that I do not think that an embryo lives, and that is why I don't consider depriving its blood supply killing. I haven't seen a convincing argument here yet why a fertilized egg should be considered a living being. It seems to me that others just take that for granted as a matter of course. At least I tried to explain why I do not see it that way. In case of an abortion my intention would not be to kill a living being at all. My intention would be to not let it come to a living being in the first place.Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:If we forcibly deprive a human being of food and water, they may not die at once, but if the intention to kill is present, then it's still murder, though they died of natural causes, i.e. starvation. An embryo that is not deprived of its blood supply will not (normally) die. If it does, then that's not an ethical question, but if we remove it from its life support system, then it is the kamma of killing a human being.
As to the question of the beating heart of a fetus. What is the difference between my body, when my heart stops beating and the body of a fetus, whose heart has never started beating? Most of us wouldn't say that I'd still be alive, why would they say that the fetus is alive?
I'm sorry, but to take a living human being to be there from the start is just unconvincing.
In SN23.2 it is said, that any desire, passion, delight, or craving for the five aggregates, when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.'
I just don't think an embryo with two weeks has any desire, passion, delight or craving for the five aggregates. It is in my eyes a bunch of developing cells, the five aggregates aren't fully established and I believe that craving arises later more or less around the fetal phase where a "being" comes about. I can't prove that, of course, but it seems more convincing to me. This is what I am trying to bring across and I'm open for arguments.
best wishes, acinteyyo
Thag 1.20. Ajita - I do not fear death; nor do I long for life. I’ll lay down this body, aware and mindful.