Abhidhamma: Is an abortion killing a living being?

[tiltbillings]

So you say. In other words, you just added negativity to what you perceived as an already negative situation. How can that be a good thing?

No idea. Did I say it was a good thing? I did not say you did

However you want to cut it, you messed up, and your defense it is: "Ven Dhammanando acted badly, so I acted badly." Oh, well.

Lol. Okay if you say so, I messed up. Why are you getting so upset about this btw? Surely, this seems more personal than forum moderation.

Interesting, now you are acting like the pick-pocket who sees nothing in the world but pockets. I am just simply trying to deal with your unskillful behavior in a conversational way, simply hoping the point gets across, which beats the crap out of giving a board warning. Apparently I am not being terribly successful at it. So, I learn something.

[Dhammanando]

Errr, I think you said narrow minded but trying to cover it up now.

Well, you are mistaken. I did not use the word “narrow-minded” at all. I merely wrote of Ajahn Brahm’s “overly narrow understanding of the phrase “consciousness becomes manifest”.

It seems that as English is not your first language, the distinction between being narrow-minded and having an overly narrow understanding of something went over your head, and so you falsely charged me with calling Ajahn Brahmavamso narrow-minded. This initial error is excusable, but not your present persistence in the charge in spite of my informing you that you are in error and directing you back to the original post.

In polite circles when a man tells you that you have misconstrued his meaning and taken offence where none was intended, the proper course for a gentleman is to take his word for it. As you decline to do so and have throughout the thread evinced little else but puerility and churlishness, let this post suffice as my final reply to you in this or any other thread.

[BlueLotus]

In polite circles when a man tells you that you have misconstrued his meaning and taken offence where none was intended, the proper course for a gentleman is to take his word for it.

Awww yes you are right. You said you didn't mean what I thought you mean so I think it's cool. I'm sorry man my mistake.

[BlueLotus]

I am just simply trying to deal with your unskillful behavior

Are you a moderator? I'm just wondering why you are trying to deal with anything at all

[tiltbillings]

I am just simply trying to deal with your unskillful behavior

Are you a moderator? I'm just wondering why you are trying to deal with anything at all

A moderator, and it is a thankless job having to read most everything here. Why am I trying to deal anything at all? To ultimately help this forum run a bit smoother, if I am successful in what I am doing. At least I try.

[BlueLotus]

A moderator, and it is a thankless job having to read most everything here. Why am I trying to deal anything at all? To ultimately help this forum run a bit smoother, if I am successful in what I am doing. At least I try.

I think we were running smooth until you intervened. Buhahaha. I think I saw a moderator tag under your name a long time back and thought you were a moderator and I just looked there before and all I saw was a grumpy looking man doing the thankless job. No tag. Heheh I'm joking. Maybe you should add that tag?

[Mkoll]

A moderator, and it is a thankless job having to read most everything here. Why am I trying to deal anything at all? To ultimately help this forum run a bit smoother, if I am successful in what I am doing. At least I try.

I think we were running smooth until you intervened. Buhahaha. I think I saw a moderator tag under your name a long time back and thought you were a moderator and I just looked there before and all I saw was a grumpy looking man doing the thankless job. No tag. Heheh I'm joking. Maybe you should add that tag?

There is a reason why certain names are colored. Green = Moderator.

~~~

And I'd like to thank Vens. Pesala and Dhammanando for their clear and insightful posts in this rather volatile thread.

[Virgo]

There is a reason why certain names are colored. Green = Moderator.

Actually, green is global moderator. You can see the moderation team here:

http://dhammawheel.com/memberlist.php?mode=team

[Mkoll]

There is a reason why certain names are colored. Green = Moderator.

Actually, green is global moderator. You can see the moderation team here:

http://dhammawheel.com/memberlist.php?mode=team

Yes, that's what I meant, thank you for making that distinction.

[Virgo]

There is a reason why certain names are colored. Green = Moderator.

Actually, green is global moderator. You can see the moderation team here:

http://dhammawheel.com/memberlist.php?mode=team

Yes, that's what I meant, thank you for making that distinction.

No problem.

[BlueLotus]

Aha! Thank you.

[acinteyyo]

I am aware of the common Theravada viewpoint, if I may call it so. However I also want to take a look at the discussion from a viewpoint which includes some scientific knowledge.

It is very difficult imho to say at which point in time we can talk about a "being" in the process of pregnancy and birth.

I recommend reading the articles on "Embryogenesis" and specially "Fetus" on wikipedia to get a general overview on the terms, particularly since the term "fetus" has been repeatadly used on the thread.

I, for myself, consider what is called a "fetus" a "living being", but the fetal phase starts at about the end of the 8. and with the begining of the 9. week (3rd month). Before that the "being to be born" is called an "embryo". The embryo starts to develop at around the 16th day. Prior to that the "being to be born" is a small lump of about some hundred cells, going through phases from what is called a "zygote" (1 cell/1st day) to a "morula" (4 - 32 cells/4th day). From there in the "blastogenesis" to a "blastula" which develops into the embryo, going through some more stages of transformation.
Not until the 3rd month the organs beginn its functions one after another. This is the beginning of the fetal phase and this is when I start considering a lump of cells a "living being". Others, of course, may see it differently. I also think that might be the point when "the presence of a being to be born (gandhabba)" is given. When the organs don't start functioning there cannot be said to be a living being, can we?
Therefore prior to the fetal phase I wouldn't consider abortion killing.
What do others think about this?

best wishes, acinteyyo

[daverupa]

Therefore prior to the fetal phase I wouldn't consider abortion killing.
What do others think about this?

From the first page, I had mentioned

...fetal viability...

which suggests something similar to me, ~5 months or so.

[Mkoll]

I think Ven. Pesala has some very good points that happen to be opposed to your argument, acinteyyo. I'll quote a few of them below, cut from different posts.

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.

[...]

Killing a human being is a more weighty kamma than killing an animal, due to the rarity of human rebirth, and its value for gaining enlightenment. For that see the Chiggala Sutta

[...]

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.

[...]

A foetus has no soul, just like a human baby, or a fully grown human being. What it does have is life, and if it is not destroyed by an abortionist's scalpel, by drugs, or by other interference, it will develop into a human being. If they were just cancer cells, destroying it would not be killing a human being. If it were just excess flab, cutting it out would not be killing a human being.

[acinteyyo]

I think Ven. Pesala has some very good points that happen to be opposed to your argument, acinteyyo. I'll quote a few of them below, cut from different posts.

The points Ven. Pesala mentioned deal with the consequences of killing a living being, which does not adress what I tried to point out. What I am concerned with is to clarify the question at which point in time there really is a living being before I consider the question of killing one. Why should one believe for example that a living being "exists" from the time on when the egg and sperm meet? As far as I am concerned, I believe a living being does not "exist" until the fetal phase with the beginning of its bodily functions for the reasons I've explained. So what do you think?
best wishes, acinteyyo