the great vegetarian debate

No holds barred discussion on the Buddhadharma. Argue about rebirth, karma, commentarial interpretations etc. Be nice to each other.

Re: No Killing

Postby enjitsu » Tue Sep 28, 2010 6:28 am

Occasionally the topic of Abortion comes up and some people may wonder what is Buddhism's view on this topic.

In Buddhism, any form of killing is considered a violation/breaking of the Precept of No Killing and is not supported. The term Abortion may confuse some people. So to speak plainly and clearly, Abortion is when a women Kills her child which has not been birthed yet. Buddhism teaches that life begins from the moment of conception. Additionally the karmic consequences of killing your own child are very heavy. It creates a lot of bad karma.

This is the same Buddhaic Logic that is behind the rule against eating Eggs, because Egg's are baby animals and to eat them is a form of Killing.
User avatar
enjitsu
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2010 5:03 am
Location: Taylor, MI

Re: No Killing

Postby Pema Rigdzin » Tue Sep 28, 2010 1:27 pm

I really can't fathom why the point that abortion is always a negative karma is up for debate for some Buddhists.

Seriously, one can argue for or against the wisdom/lack of wisdom of abortion legislation and the enforcement of it, and that has some merit. It is definitely worth considering what actions/inactions may best lead to the effect of less abortions taking place. It may be that making it illegal would not have the desired effect and that it may in fact lead to other harms we've not considered. There is plenty of room for debate on that point and it's very worthwhile to consider what means would be most skillful. One might also debate whether abortion truly belongs to the category of "actions leading one immediately to the hell realms after death," though I've never seen it included in that category myself, or if it's just a "garden variety negative karma" that will eventually ripen as some sort of unfortunate rebirth.

But what should very obviously not be up for debate among Buddhists is whether or not abortion is a negative karma. Karma is impersonal insofar as it's not inflicted on one by some outside force that should be expected to take pity on one because of one's circumstances; it's simply that wholesome causes lead to wholesome results, harmful causes to unfortunate results, mixed causes to mixed results, and so on. Unfortunately it doesn't matter one iota what one's excuse for committing a negative karma is, how tragic one's own personal circumstances are, a negative karma is a negative karma. The canonical teachings do all say that the karmic results of any harmful act differ based on one's motivation and the strength of the afflictive emotion when one commits the negative act, plus some other conditions, but those teachings are quite clear in stating it's still going to be a negative result regardless. The inclination to use one's perceived inability to handle parenting, or one's own horrible misfortune (i.e. rape, incest, etc) as justification for visiting death on another being may be understandable - at least it is for me in the case of victims of the latter. We all feel for them immensely and I don't know if I'd have the strength to avoid abortion if I were in such a woman's shoes. But such a course of action, even while understandable, is clearly not well thought out and it's destined for unfortunate consequences. Besides, if one creates negative karmas in this life as a way to deal with ripening of negative karmas from a past life, or to avoid unwanted circumstances now, when is it ever going to stop? That only leads to more and more lower rebirth in the future and then unfortunate circumstances once reborn as a human after who knows how long.

Nevertheless, it's obviously very true that none of the above means one should villify and have contempt or disgust for women intent on getting abortions, whether for conventionally understandable reasons or to "remedy" their own irresponsibility. Mental negativities are negative karmas too. We've all created many unspeakable karmas in the past and surely have created some not so beautiful ones in this life, so we're in no position to judge. But it's not the time to make excuses or use hazy thinking in recognizing what actions to avoid and which one's to embrace.
Pema Rigdzin
 
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 3:19 am
Location: Southern Oregon

Re: No Killing

Postby ronnewmexico » Tue Sep 28, 2010 5:25 pm

What I find hard to fathom is this, if this is meant in reference to this discussion.....

"I really can't fathom why the point that abortion is always a negative karma is up for debate for some Buddhists"

I have not noticed that anyone here has taken that view. Where are these peoples, or are they but straw men ripe for knocking down, so we may then simplify a very complex issue.

No one says abortion is not a negative karmic event. REason for or less karmic negative cause then some other events such as a unbalanced unemployed south carolina woman, who recently killed several of her already born children...yes it is less negative then that action I can firmly state.

All killing is certainly wrong. If you live in the US at this very moment soldiers are killing peoples at your behest. If you have not taken action against such thing and think just because you do not personally do such you also do not bear karmic fault related to killing as result you are quite mistaken I can firmly state that as well. Yes all killing is negative, we as buddhists all know that. It goes without saying.

Yes....the lowest abortion rates globally seem to be certainly where it is allowed not disallowed, WHO affirms that. Certainly also protections for woman health are always greater where such is allowed not disallowed by law. It will happen whether it is illegal or not.

The choice is clear, and not difficult nor in need of some hypothetical study...educate the young to family planning sex education, provide condems and other birth control measures for free, and education on how to use them, provide abortion when all this fails....and the result is less abortions then in any other circumstance, and best protections for women health.

So the solution is clear..the rest the killing and such...nonsense no one states such things. Abortion is never a preferred thing.

What I find hard to fathom is how people can go on and on about this issue when the solution is before us in the country/countries with the lowest rates.

Show me one singular person(buddhist or not) who does not kill in some manner daily by eating moving about or other thing and I will accept killing solely as being substantiation for disallowance of this thing.
KIlling is always a choice...but we all do it every single day. Negative always...certainly more with human killing. Certainly more already born human than fetal human, as more pain and suffering is undoubtably present with born than unborn. The cognitive functions of a human are simply not as well developed.

So take exception to the death penalty, to war to murder to a thousand other circumstances which are by nature more suffeing producing than this thing. Take exception to this thing certainly but be advised the less presence of this thing and less suffering to women as result is where it is not disallowed by law.

Throwing it in with the automatic hell producing circumstances as some buddhist apparently do...well that is not all buddhists, not the majority by any extant.
"This order considers that progress can be achieved more rapidly during a single month of self-transformation through terrifying conditions in rough terrain and in "the abode of harmful forces" than through meditating for a period of three years in towns and monasteries"....Takpo Tashi Namgyal.
User avatar
ronnewmexico
 
Posts: 1601
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2009 10:17 pm

Re: No Killing

Postby Pema Rigdzin » Wed Sep 29, 2010 1:10 am

ronnewmexico wrote:What I find hard to fathom is this, if this is meant in reference to this discussion.....

"I really can't fathom why the point that abortion is always a negative karma is up for debate for some Buddhists"

I have not noticed that anyone here has taken that view. Where are these peoples, or are they but straw men ripe for knocking down, so we may then simplify a very complex issue.


Ron, maybe I misunderstood many of your posts, but at some points you seemed to me to be questioning the idea of unambiguously asserting that the Buddha's teachings say that abortion is unequivocally non-virtuous. If I've misunderstood you and you in fact feel that it is always negative karma, no matter the circumstance, then I guess it was just my misinterpretation.

And as an aside, yes, I do also take issue with the death penalty, war, factory farming, you name it. Wish I could stop those, but unfortunately not enough people in the country or world feel the same way as I do about these things, so they continue. I say prayers for all the beings I undoubtedly kill accidentally as I'm driving, riding my bike, walking, etc. Same for those killed in the process of farming the vegetables I eat, and all the killing that takes place at every step from there to the food arriving in my possession. I try to avoid killing as best I can, try to save life whenever I can, and never engage in intentional killing.

I have to say though, your assertion that many different kinds of killing are so much more negative than fetal killing because the fetus has less developed mental consciousness and sense organs, etc, does not hold water to me. It's undoubtedly true that at the time of having its life taken, during that moment, that experience is less vivid and painful for a fetus than a fully cognitively developed adult human. But we can never know what state of existence a being has just left when they've been conceived as a human, or where they're headed when their present life ends. The fetus might have spent an incalculable span of time in the avici hell and/or some other horribly miserable state of agony or suffering and then finally had the fortune to be reborn in the human realm but then it's life is snuffed out. Who knows where it's going from there and who knows how vivid it's experience is in the intermediate state between death and rebirth? Who knows what emotional states arise for it and where they catapult it to at that time? Hardly seems to make sense to try to categorize whose suffering is greater from that POV, or which killing or harm is more negative.
Pema Rigdzin
 
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 3:19 am
Location: Southern Oregon

Re: No Killing

Postby Ngawang Drolma » Wed Sep 29, 2010 2:12 am

Pema wrote:Mental negativities are negative karmas too. We've all created many unspeakable karmas in the past and surely have created some not so beautiful ones in this life, so we're in no position to judge. But it's not the time to make excuses or use hazy thinking in recognizing what actions to avoid and which one's to embrace.


Deep bows :bow:
Ngawang Drolma
Founding Member
 
Posts: 2324
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 8:44 pm

Re: No Killing

Postby ronnewmexico » Wed Sep 29, 2010 3:55 am

Yes.. show me where I state this.."Ron, maybe I misunderstood many of your posts, but at some points you seemed to me to be questioning the idea of unambiguously asserting that the Buddha's teachings say that abortion is unequivocally non-virtuous. If I've misunderstood you and you in fact feel that it is always negative karma, no matter the circumstance, then I guess it was just my misinterpretation."

It is easily done... copy cut and paste..
NO you cannot...you present a straw man, which is a argument stated a opponant in debate is holding a position though they do not, as that position is easily defeated, logically.
I present no argument as you describe....so take it away. That suffices only in grade school debate or in some very baser places on the internet or talk radio.

Now what exactly at what point will we then say the fetus life is equal to a born human? Is it when it is a sperm or egg?. Should we then perform powah if we have a nocturnal emmision?
Should we then consider birth control measures which create a inhospitable environment in a womb then to be weapons of murder....equal perhaps to guns and such things. Should they then be prohibited by law?
As the leader of one religion states.... if such is the case...should not condums be outlawed.?
If it is after the joining it is equal should then not a woman who miscarries which results in the death of fetus be equal to one guilty of simple manslaughter which is similiarily killing of a human by accident?Should not such woman then be guilty of a legal offense and subject then to penalty to include jail? If she falls and is deemed not careful enough is this not involuntary manslaughter through carelessness?Should then such fetus have rights equal to those born? Property rights rights, rights to self determination, and such things as provided by law in certain governments? Well then if equal why not?

And Karma...what karma is this that has no action by such fetus yet has bad result of action of another then causeing such fetus to have a more unfortunate rebirth?
What type of karma is that that does such a thing? No buddhist karma that I know of allows such things. Karma....is action results upon us who perform the action not others who perform actions and then we hold responsibility. Not unless we have them do such at our behest, which a fetus can certainly never do.
So what sort of karma is this that does such things? How could fetus reap karmic effect it has not seeded? Is this exceptional karmic event then particular only to fetus's? Can all then suffer karmic effect from others actions with no action of ours in such determinations as a fetus may take no action?(this we know). What shall we name this new form of karma? Fetus karma?

Bardo? How can a fetus have a bad bardo experience since such is self created? On what basis could such occur? No singular birth has occured so on what basis could a fetus have self created bardo based on such singular notion? Since singular notion has not yet come to frutition how could this happen?

Well I know the answer to such questions...it lies here.

Fetus's are not equal to born humans deaths in equality of suffering. Never have been and never will.
Bad effect from causeing such death certainly(once again I state that).
Equal effect to causeing a human born death...no. It cannot logically be.

The argument presented...faulted as exemplified.

Abortions are not murder. Never have been never will be. YOu feel that way fine. Expecting others to feel that way....they may or they may not, most do not. Including Buddhists.
Your statement... stateing we cannot rationally discriminate karmic effects of differing sorts of deaths such as fetus's and born human's equalizing both..... ....abortion then becomes murder. So say clearly what you state. You consider abortion murder.Then abortion can never be performed for any reason. Incest rape by father or brother, as act of hate by enemy by jailer or jailed, to protect from death by medical complication....if murder... never can abortion be performed for any reason. If fetus is as you state equal to born human. What then the consequence of such birth to woman so abused? What effect that....perhaps as south carolina woman recently has done..... eventually to murder three born children... is that expected effect of bearing and taking care of a rape caused birth? Perhaps the constant memory causeing one to become insane? Could we not expect that? What then the better karmic choice knowing such would cause one to go insane? Adoption...suppose the adoption stigmatizes one as having such a rape occur..then to live with that result. Suppose where you live there is not a chance for adoption but only child living in group home for all its young life in misery? How clear then the choice? Then if medical complication women so pregnant should die first then as fetus cannot be murdered both being equal. Who then should be killed the woman? If it is known such going to full term will due to condition such as toxic eclampsia cause womans death.....then woman must die? Fetus killing is murder. If fetus dies for any reason is then not such death a legal issue of investigation?

Always it is unwanted and negative. Sometimes for some women it is the only choice. To be unable to see that speaks to that and only that.... a lack of seeing that. Abortion is simply not murder for reasons stated. Thusly it is allowed in the majority of the world legally. If most considered it so...it could not be.

Mostly it is not considered to be murder as it is readily observable and known the cognitive ability and thusly the ability of a fetus to suffer equally to a born human is not considered fact.
If one wants to believe that....go right ahead. Nothing suggests it is fact...but go ahead. No law against that.
There is also no law anywhere compelling others to have abortions. AS a buddhist should we then make determinations for others that they have to live our way...of course not... that would be nonbuddhist.
Considered as a grave error like killing a father or mother...no most buddhists do not have it in that catagory. Not in the least.

If you don't want a abortion.....as they say..don't have one. Many buddhists have and are still buddhists and not automatically will they go to hell realm upon death. That I feel safe to say is how most buddhists feel.
"This order considers that progress can be achieved more rapidly during a single month of self-transformation through terrifying conditions in rough terrain and in "the abode of harmful forces" than through meditating for a period of three years in towns and monasteries"....Takpo Tashi Namgyal.
User avatar
ronnewmexico
 
Posts: 1601
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2009 10:17 pm

Re: No Killing

Postby Pema Rigdzin » Wed Sep 29, 2010 7:32 am

ronnewmexico wrote:Abortions are not murder. Never have been never will be.


OK I was thinking maybe I misunderstood you but here you state quite clearly what I disagreed with. Taking of life is taking of life. When the sperm and egg come together and the consciousness becomes mentally attached there so that it is for all intents and purposes "trapped" there, it has once again become a living being. To destroy those cells after that, or the developing fetal body after that, forces it to again separate from its physical aggregates and head to its next rebirth all over again. There is no doubt that the experience of a fetus is much duller than a normally cognitive adult human. But what does that have to do with whether it's taking life or not? You're either separating a being from its physical aggregates or you're not. Also, it's not just the suffering at the moment of death that is to be considered. Like I said before, one doesn't know what kind of suffering existence that being might have come from, how long it had been since it had the fortune of a human life, or where it will head to once it's been aborted. Just like an adult, we don't know what kind of karma will ripen and what kind of life it will be reborn into next. More essentially, no being has the right to decide whether another lives or dies. What gives anyone the right to decide that a being doesn't get to naturally progress through its newly found life? It's convenient for you to minimize what kind of suffering might be experienced by the consciousness of an aborted fetus because you never have to actually know what its experience will be once it's deprived of its life or where it will end up next.

You asked some questions like how is it that a fetus that hasn't done anything yet would go off to a bad rebirth after being aborted. Umm, well it's standard Buddhist teaching that beings aren't newly created at conception but rather they've been born and reborn countless times and have a vast array of positive and negative karmas that have yet to ripen. Kind of surprised you'd ask such a question. Also, as I stated above, according at least to Vajrayana Buddhism, once a being has been drawn to its perception of its mother and father copulating and become mentally attched to the united sperm and egg, it has entered the womb and become a living being again. If one has a nocturnal emission, that's just lone sperm cells. As to whether birth control is tantamount to a weapon, that's a very good question. I guess I'd have to know more about the specific mechanics of birth control and what the teachings say on an even more detailed level. I can only say that I know the teachings say that once the zygote has formed and there's a consciousness mentally and karmically anchored there, it's no longer just some non-sentient cells; it's a living being.

Also, I clearly stated before that the issue of whether there should be legislation criminalizing abortion is entirely separate and worthy of debate. I have not suggested whether such legislation should or should not be passed. I recognized that criminalizing it may lead to unintended and unwanted harm. I think your idea of increased sex ed from a young age, education about condom use, and various social programs to better instruct and empower Americans to act more safely and responsibly is a great idea. Too bad ultra-conservative Americans have long blocked such things from happening on the scale on which they need to. I pray that may that soon change.
Pema Rigdzin
 
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 3:19 am
Location: Southern Oregon

Re: No Killing

Postby ronnewmexico » Wed Sep 29, 2010 7:54 am

Well the question or point is obviously not that a killing occurs. Once again that is stated as fact, and why it bear repeating is beyond my understanding. Except to present straw men again.

The point is the killing does not equal the killing of a born human in cause of suffering.
YOu think so.....you are not in the majority, and nothing supports that view from physical observation nor logical conclusion.

WE kill nevertheless humans as well on occasion as we must. A crazed drug addled person brazenly attacking a young women with a axe. A police officer shoots that person dead certainly.
A karmic effect of the negative certainly. A necessary act, certainly. Lesser of two evils it is called.

Karma...no one can reap what is not seeded.,
Latent result perhaps from lives ago.....so what. We can venture any possible hypothetical good bad or indifferent.

The fact remains for some it is the only option, and for some they are buddhists.
YOu in your form of buddhism consider it murder OK fine. I would advise buddhists that do have such to not follow that school. The rest of us....I suspect all is not so clear and dry as all that.
Children die of starvation, disease abuse and all the rest. Some take if born..... others to such fate as well through no fault of mother nor child.

So murder....I reaffirm no,not a bit. No arbitrary thing is this but for cause great cause just about always.
Noone voluntarily and without great cause does such a thing.... not hardly a one.

And killing....... we kill tragic though it be every day and with every meal or movement. As tragic as the death of a fetus..... no certainly not. But neither is death of a born human equal to that of fetus.
So clearly define that line as well. Line it is clearly found not hidden nor cloaked.
Animal bug does not equal fetus. Fetus does not equal born human.
There it is found and clearly stated.

Suchly abortion though killing not murder be, nor for most a largly unredeemable act as death of father by sons or daughters hand is found to be.

So your argument....you are welcome to it. But sense...nothing of that sort is found in it.
"This order considers that progress can be achieved more rapidly during a single month of self-transformation through terrifying conditions in rough terrain and in "the abode of harmful forces" than through meditating for a period of three years in towns and monasteries"....Takpo Tashi Namgyal.
User avatar
ronnewmexico
 
Posts: 1601
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2009 10:17 pm

Re: No Killing

Postby Huifeng » Wed Sep 29, 2010 8:01 am

Pema Rigdzin wrote:
Also, I clearly stated before that the issue of whether there should be legislation criminalizing abortion is entirely separate and worthy of debate.


This is a very good point, Pema!

Often the two get conflated, as I think that in most societies they take their basic legislation ideals from religious sources, so to suggest that X is religiously inappropriate is to suggest that it should also be illegal. (Despite the idea of separation of church and state!)

I have not suggested whether such legislation should or should not be passed. I recognized that criminalizing it may lead to unintended and unwanted harm. I think your idea of increased sex ed from a young age, education about condom use, and various social programs to better instruct and empower Americans to act more safely and responsibly is a great idea. Too bad ultra-conservative Americans have long blocked such things from happening on the scale on which they need to. I pray that may that soon change.


Yes, several issues should all be worked on at the same time.
User avatar
Huifeng
 
Posts: 1456
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 4:51 am

Re: No Killing

Postby Huifeng » Wed Sep 29, 2010 8:04 am

ronnewmexico wrote:...

The point is the killing does not equal the killing of a born human in cause of suffering.

...


Without saying it is, or it isn't, recently, I've found much of interest in the studies of Stanislav Grof on the experiences in utero of the fetus. It is very interesting stuff. May be some good information there, from a medical / psychological background. Especially his "Holotropic Mind", the first phase.
User avatar
Huifeng
 
Posts: 1456
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 4:51 am

Re: No Killing

Postby ronnewmexico » Wed Sep 29, 2010 8:21 am

If abortion is considered murder which is what is being proposed, equal to the killing of a human born with intent to kill for no purpose of reasonable cause.....the legal must be introduced.

Murder by definition infers the legal. And in abortion discussion always is the practical application denied as legitamate for introduction, as no practical application is able to be made. So thusly opponants of abortion always deny the legal or practical applications of this thing. Set the stage and you set the result.
I deny the legitimacy of setting the stage thusly...the legality and such are relevent, directly relevent,
as is practical application of the theory of no abortions to the personal.The woman as well as the impact of the fetus is justifyable for equal consideration. So I recognize no such qualification on this discussion.

Killing.....no objection has been raised to that issue, stated multiple times....abortion is killing.

In a real physical sense one contends equal suffering is present with the death of a fetus and the death of a human born, and that such research is done consequent to that finding seperate from the issue of abortion and thusly legitimate....I suggest reviewing the tobacco is good for you science of the 1950's.

The cognitive ability of a fetus is just simply nowhere equal that of a born human. Even a born human does not develope a fully separate sense of identity for several months time after birth.
That is known fact. A fetus....the human is birthed early due to size of head in the species. A human fetus is less developed than most any other fetus of comparable gestation as result. Essentially a human must be birthed early as the brain size prohibits a full gestation size and a easy birth.
So a human fetus is even comparatively less developed.

So equal suffering to born human.....nothing suggests that as fact. Is all suffering not present...certainly
not. A fetus would suffer, it has nerve endings it has some sense ability. Equal to a born human.....absurd is that contention. So say it not or not.... fact it remains. We do not have to put our hands in a pot of boiling water to know it is hot nor to have once done so. Simple observation is enough to draw conclusion. Brains the size of chicken eggs do not equal brains the size of grapefruits in cognitive ability in the animal mammal species. Never. Pain.... such suffering is a consequence of brain and nerve interaction always. Other sufferings more involved but most usually in relation to cognitive ability. A fetus is simply not equal to normal born human never.

Belief only is that they are equal.
.
YOu see my dear dear friends....if you check the history of abortion, you will find quite clearly since humankind has a history that we know of..... abortion has existed. Various means to accomplish this have been utilized, the physical herbs potions poisions and more.
Certainly since the time of the Buddha.
Now one here has proposed in their statements and undoubtably in their school such is a automatic as consequence. But for all other schools with lineage..... this is apparently not the case. So why then I ask learned scholors of great understanding of all sort and description..... why is this if present and as such to a Buddhist not found so? A murder and heinous deed in all traditions not equal to the death by son or daughter a father or mother..but just this one?

Why not.... is it as I suspect....because it is not so?

Why so silent my friends. You certainly with such learning known, can provide sutra sutta or such means known, to qualify such as fact, if fact be known as true.
Why then so silent?
Is this but mentioned as field burning time may be or color sheets to hang on bed a thing to do or act a certain way but not a rule or so engaged?
Or is it rule but not yet mentioned as substantiation for claim held of murder made?

I suspect I know the silent reason why...but await your learned reply.
I expect such learned reply, expectant though I may be..... will yield but naught and so forever be...
unanswered.

Proving as I state....abortion does not fit this qualification as stated....murder.
Self invention suchly it be. Or reply educated ones to me. Set this straight as only straight may be.
I await your reply....
"This order considers that progress can be achieved more rapidly during a single month of self-transformation through terrifying conditions in rough terrain and in "the abode of harmful forces" than through meditating for a period of three years in towns and monasteries"....Takpo Tashi Namgyal.
User avatar
ronnewmexico
 
Posts: 1601
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2009 10:17 pm

Re: No Killing

Postby Pema Rigdzin » Wed Sep 29, 2010 11:18 am

Ron,

This distinction you're making between killing and murder is kind of beside the point; I don't believe I ever used the word murder. I'm guessing that the difference you're alluding to between killing and murder is that murder is killing with malice? I'm sure it's rare (if it even happens at all) that women having abortions actually feel hatred toward the fetus, but that is not the central point of this discussion. The central point is that abortion is taking a life, killing. Also irrelevant to the discussion of whether abortion is a nonvirtuous act is you being hung up on making some sort of differentiation between how much a fetus suffers vs a born human when the two are killed. The only point is that they are each deprived of their lives. Under normal conditions, a normal, healthy fetus will eventually be born and eventually develop into an adult. If you abort it before it can be born, then you take that opportunity away from it. If you kill a born human, you take that life it's developed away from it. It's simple, really.

Also, in both cases, as I've stated several times, a human life is a very rare, very fortunate birth to attain. There's no telling how many lifetimes either a fetus or a born human experienced in unfortunate non-human rebirths before having the fortune to be born a human, and there's no telling how many more unfortunate rebirths either will have to endure before being reborn a human. So in either case, a Buddhist should desire to preserve, protect, and foster the natural human lifespan so at the very least the human can have the longest break from states of life involving much more suffering than most human life...


P.S. Ron, this has nothing to do with our debate above, but sometimes I have a bit of trouble following your posts. I can't tell if English is just not your first language or if it is and you just like to write in a sort of poetic, almost Shakespearean style? I'm not sure how to word this in a way that it doesn't seem like I'm being snarky. I truly mean no offense and am honestly asking.
Pema Rigdzin
 
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 3:19 am
Location: Southern Oregon

Re: No Killing

Postby ronnewmexico » Wed Sep 29, 2010 4:58 pm

Once again you do not define the perameters of this discussion. You set the stage and you set the outcome. That will not happen. You hold no such authority. This..."The central point is that abortion is taking a life, killing. "....is not true. That is the title of the thread only.

If you read the posts ,all...murder was introduced as a elaboration of initial point by the initiator of the thread early on.
So it is certainly a valid issue for discussion as are the legal ramifications of such since it has been so introduced.

I find your earlier comment on the need for us to study and see if certain birth control measures that provide a inhospitable environment for a fertilized egg to prosper must indeed be studied to see if they qualify as weapons....(I can quote if necessary)quite telling.

This is the most extreem of the antiabortions crowds thinking...that from the moment of conception a human life equal to a born human life is present. So this clarifies yoiur position.

So most though not all will agree not with you but me. Even H will find it quite impossible that something(a recently fertilized egg) will have ability to approximate suffering equal to a human born.
It is quite impossible, and obvious to all.

People who depend upon ideology or religious foundation strictly in their consideration of things rarely want reality to intrude on their safe secure world of the cerebral.
In the world of the antiabortion ideologs never is there a choice between the life of one life, and the death of mother and other children due to starvation or other factor. Never is there a situation where a mother may die by birth of a child. Never is there a mother that must live continually with the memory of a rape by father or enemy continually due to continued life of such child. Did any of these ideologs ever see the result of such a circumstance on such a child in such a restricted community where that is the only option........I have. Take my word on it...it is not pretty.
Never is the practical side of how this antiabortion thing may be done with cops in every examining room. Nor is ever discussed the legal ramifications of such consideration of equality. Never is there a situation due to circumstance that the life of a child is basically not a life worth living despite what we may know of human life being most fortituous. Not all human lives are so equal in the fortunate quality. That is not what is intended by that statement. Other factors combined to this must make a human life valuable, that is the reference not just to this human life. YOu quite forget to add the other parts....a brain of functional ability, a place where the dharma may be found and many other things....you quite forgot those.

See the stage must be set so such things they never intrude. So it becomes a ideological only discussion of platonic ideals of unreal worlds in which one may not kill not budhist not hindu not jew nor jain.
In such a stage so set is only where such things may be real and other not.

So take your idea we may not discuss these things of consideration of murder the practical application of this thing, the legal and others as mentioned...and throw them far away.
I will abide none of it, and it is after all I that am discussion this issue with you .


REad what it is that makes a human life valuable, It is not just being human. I will not bother to link or cut and paste... most all buddhists know that thing by heart.

Geeze louise this stuff suffices for debate on this thread, but mostly it doesn't even pass the giggle test.....Debate on this thread is stateing ones point and not reading anyone elses, apparently...to elaborate...

A quote from the initiator of this thread introducing murder into the conversation....(6th post first page I think)..." but killing certainly screws up & retards any chance for balancing out our bad old karma if abortion or murder or euthanasia is practiced.

Abortion is equated by that poster to euthanasia and murder. That point is furthur elaborated and discussed.
Why would one suppose that one could introduce oneself into a discussion that has been going on for two months time, with one who has engaged that discussion for two months time and decide they are suddenly and arbitrarily redefineing the perameters of that discussion.is beyond my ability to fathom.
If debate tactic....cease already. As with straw man argument, it does not play here.

Read the entire thread to see with who you are debating. No debate novice am I. Such base tactics work only with novices to debate, and play only to the most meager of audiences. Most here have a ready capeable brain to ascertain the nonsensical for that which makes sense.
ONe could find and get Mahatma Ghandi to chime in with support, the tactics employment is just poor play likely in all cases to gain nothing. Debators will not allow others to set such stages in such ways as it assures only certain conclusions can be made. Certainly not to rearrange sets already set months ago.

Basic debate 101. Try again. YOu loose.
"This order considers that progress can be achieved more rapidly during a single month of self-transformation through terrifying conditions in rough terrain and in "the abode of harmful forces" than through meditating for a period of three years in towns and monasteries"....Takpo Tashi Namgyal.
User avatar
ronnewmexico
 
Posts: 1601
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2009 10:17 pm

Re: No Killing

Postby Will » Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:31 pm

Murder in the legal sense is not how I was or am using it. As one dictionary defines: "unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being". Malice is not required; just intent to murder. Killing may be accidental or done with reluctance.

I only started the thread to point out a basic karmic truth - killing or murder of an unborn human by a human will result in more suffering.

The legal or policy ramifications are of less interest to me.
Revealing one essence: this means the inherently pure, complete, luminous essence, which is pure of its own nature. -- Fa-tsang
User avatar
Will
 
Posts: 1739
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 4:21 am

Re: No Killing

Postby ronnewmexico » Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:44 pm

Murder always involves the legal sense. It is in its consideration a legal term.
Killing is the generic form from which murder the legal term is derived.

I never introduce malice...you are confusing others statements with mine.
It is clear murder was introduced as quote states. I can provide furthur quote to elaborate.
You want to define murder to fit your assertations...no. I reject your assertations.
So prove yourself true, your statements. Show murder able to be only as you define it not others.

Geeze louise your own quote affirms the legal....."unlawful" is clearly stated in the definition you provide. Unlawful means not in accordance with law...illegal. Not legal.

Are you even reading what you yourself are posting?
"This order considers that progress can be achieved more rapidly during a single month of self-transformation through terrifying conditions in rough terrain and in "the abode of harmful forces" than through meditating for a period of three years in towns and monasteries"....Takpo Tashi Namgyal.
User avatar
ronnewmexico
 
Posts: 1601
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2009 10:17 pm

Re: No Killing

Postby shel » Wed Sep 29, 2010 7:39 pm

To put it plainly, if a fetus were considered a person in the United States abortion would be murder. It is legal to kill a fetus, therefor it appears that United States federal law does not consider a fetus to be a person (sentient being, if you prefer).
shel
 
Posts: 1350
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 9:38 pm

Re: No Killing

Postby ronnewmexico » Wed Sep 29, 2010 8:31 pm

Agree on the specific shei

However most forms of buddhism consider anything with a ability to suffer to be a sentient being.
So a fetus would apply as being a sentient being as does all sorts of living creatures with any semblence of a nervous system and thought to be a fundamental concept of self to produce suffering. Anything that essentially averts or attaches to object.

A amoeba for instance may be a sentient being...it averts touching and will attach to what it consides food.,

We all kill on a daily basis. Killing is done to harvest any food even organic and even vegetarian. Mites live in hair foliciles on eylashes believe it or not for most people. So...rub a eye you kill.

And on and on.The question becomes is abortion murder or equilivent to the killing of a human already born.
With few exceptions... no. Within the context that a abortion is performed..... no it is not considered equal. That is indeed the legal opinion you reference correctly.
Those that disallow that generally you do not want to be in that group, Iran, Syria nations of that sort.

That aside human birth is considered precious. But my buddhist faith of practice identifies human birth as being important and precious within the context of a larger ability to have time and means to study and practice dharma. Not saying this is all that is in buddhism or that it is a better view than others, but large amounts of buddhists abscribe to this view.

Some abscribe to the view by edict or interpretation of sutra that abortion is murder and one of the actions thought to cause immediate rebirth upon death in a hell realm. But again that is not the majority of buddhists so that view has merit for inclusuion in such discussions but cannot be considered sole or prefered view. Other view exists.

I can elaborate in one of the fundamental texts in the tibetan tradition of buddhism Gampopa in his Jewel ornament of Liberation(like a catachism to catholics)....

pg 59 Snow Lion text translated by khenpo Konchog Gyaltsen Rinpoche.....
"All sentient beings have Buddha-nature. Thaqt being the case, do all beings in the five realms, such as hell beings, hungy ghosts, and so forth, have the capacity to work toward enlightenment? No. Only a "precious human life" which has the two qualities of leisure and endowment, and a mind which holds the three faiths, has a good basis to work toward enlightenment. The summary:
Leisure and endowment,
Trust, longing and clarity,
Two of the body, and three of the mind-
These five comprise the excellent working basis
.

A human life with not the five characteristics of situation a functioning mind a exposure to the dharmic teachings, a teacher, liesure time in which to study the dharma..... all these any other things, must be found present to make this human life precious. It is precious only in the sense of having a potential circumstance of bringing us to release from suffering. Human life itself withhout dharma...it is basically useless and not precious at all....it produces only suffering.

I can elaborate with sutric reference and such from which tibetan buddhism supports this if necessary. It can become quite elaborate. It is the excellent working basis which is precious, not the human life without the other composite of the basis. Some may disagree, but it is stated what is stated. Gampopa, this view it is foundational Tibetan buddhism of all the schools generally. Born with no brain a brain addled by mothers drunken drug or alcohol abuse, born into lifelong slavery and other circumstances...such is not a precious human life circumstance that is referenced in Tibetan buddhism.

Certainly some other faiths of buddhism state otherwise. But they are only entitled to their personal opinion. NOthing states their opinion is superior to ours nor ours superior to theirs.
So if this thread was poised in the area of their faith by board description I would have not a singular objection nor verse a single comment. It is their faith not mine or others.

To post it on mahayana buddhism site and claim by inferal thusly their view on this thing is superior in buddhist or any other manner....then calls that statement for debate.
And thusly I engage this thing.

That may perhaps clarify this from a solely religious standpoint as you clarify from a US legal standpoint, and are found 100% true on that aspect.

And to state again.... as I have stated, but must be repeated in generally every post as few have the discipline to read all the posts or even the prior to just last one...nothing here states that killing is not a karmic fault always. It always is, but sometimes it is the logical choice depending upon circumstance to produce less overall harm.
"This order considers that progress can be achieved more rapidly during a single month of self-transformation through terrifying conditions in rough terrain and in "the abode of harmful forces" than through meditating for a period of three years in towns and monasteries"....Takpo Tashi Namgyal.
User avatar
ronnewmexico
 
Posts: 1601
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2009 10:17 pm

Re: No Killing

Postby shel » Thu Sep 30, 2010 12:38 am

ronnewmexico wrote:nothing here states that killing is not a karmic fault always. It always is, but sometimes it is the logical choice depending upon circumstance to produce less overall harm.

Do you not find this the least bit contradictory?

If we must kill, we should at least have the decency to accept the consequences.
shel
 
Posts: 1350
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 9:38 pm

Re: No Killing

Postby ronnewmexico » Thu Sep 30, 2010 3:49 pm

Accept the consequences?

In your prior post you posted a misconception as to what comprises a sentient being., thinking only humans are sentient beings which is actually a theistically framed belief not buddhist.

Now you state consequence?

Who are you to judge consequence from a buddhist standpoint, you don't even know what constitute a sentient being?

Abortion is not murder, so hence it has not the consequences of murder. Killing, it is certainly. Now we all kill daily to simply live. The question then becomes a gradient as in determining what is less harmful.
So in some cases, people(women), determine a birth is best to not occur as such birth would cause more harm to the child to be born to the mother and/or to other members of the family. So it bears consequence of killing as all killings do but is not without cause reason and rational, and thusly bears less karmic consequence than that performed without such conditions. So it is a bad thing to do, but not murder and not of similiar consequence.

Nice try on the sentient being thing.....try again perhaps you will succeed. Perhaps not.
Debate 101 again.
"This order considers that progress can be achieved more rapidly during a single month of self-transformation through terrifying conditions in rough terrain and in "the abode of harmful forces" than through meditating for a period of three years in towns and monasteries"....Takpo Tashi Namgyal.
User avatar
ronnewmexico
 
Posts: 1601
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2009 10:17 pm

Re: No Killing

Postby Luke » Sat Oct 02, 2010 5:48 pm

I found the Dalai Lama's opinion about abortion:
"Q: Can you also understand the needs of a woman who might not be able to
raise a child?

A: When I was in Lithuania a few years ago, I visited a nursery and I was
told, "All these children are unwanted." So I think it is better that that
situation be stopped right from the beginning -- birth control. Of course,
abortion, from a Buddhist viewpoint, is an act of killing and is negative,
generally speaking. But it depends on the circumstances. If the unborn child
will be retarded or if the birth will create serious problems for the
parent, these are cases where there can be an exception. I think abortion
should be approved or disapproved according to each circumstance."

http://www.tibet.ca/en/newsroom/wtn/arc ... m=12&p=5_1
User avatar
Luke
 
Posts: 1563
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 9:04 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dharma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 13 guests

>