bhikkhu pesala wrote: "The benefit of the unborn child is surely to live, and to be adopted by a caring family if unwanted, or perhaps to be raised by the father if the mother dies during child-birth. No one knows for sure, but most would choose to live over being killed for the short-term benefit of others." he also wrote: "It is not a random statement to say that human birth is exceedingly rare, and of great potential benefit to the being yet to be born. A painful and difficult life, such as that experienced by Kisagotami, Pātācara, and others, may be the spur needed to strive for enlightenment."
he seems to be speaking of the potential for a being to live while also asserting that the fetus or embryo is human. that latter point was not lost on me.
of course, he also says "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." so he is asserting that it is living at all stages, whereas some others are asserting that it might not be living. my trouble here has been with a lack of knowledge of relevant texts. the three conditions of conception must occur at the same time? ajahn brahm's paper said embryo was a misleading translation (of gabbha). if i'm not making sense then i will accept blame but i was eager to respond
well sarathw, the sperm cell has human dna is what i was getting at
if a fetus were somehow ejected from the womb early without scrambling it up would that be killing assuming it died of exposure outside the womb
"Just as the ocean has a single taste — that of salt — in the same way, this Dhamma-Vinaya has a single taste: that of release."
— Ud 5.5