the great vegetarian debate

[Pema Rigdzin]

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.

[ronnewmexico]

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.

[Huifeng]

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.

[Huifeng]

...

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.

[ronnewmexico]

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....

[Pema Rigdzin]

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.

[ronnewmexico]

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.

[Will]

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.

[ronnewmexico]

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?

[shel]

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).

[ronnewmexico]

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.

[shel]

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.

[ronnewmexico]

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.

[Luke]

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

[Luke]

Hello everyone,

What do you think would be the very cheapest vegetarian diet on which someone could still remain healthy?

My guess is a diet consisting of potatoes, beans, apples, milk, oatmeal, and whatever the cheapest vegetable is where one lives.

[Individual]

Just eat whatever vegetables, but make sure they're cooked. And remember to include vegetables high in protein:
http://www.dietaryfiberfood.com/protein-food.

Also, dairy products (cheese, milk, butter).

And lots and lots of brown rice, water, and warm drinks, like tea.

[Lazy_eye]

Lentil soup goes a long way.

[Indrajala]

Hello everyone,

What do you think would be the very cheapest vegetarian diet on which someone could still remain healthy?

My guess is a diet consisting of potatoes, beans, apples, milk, oatmeal, and whatever the cheapest vegetable is where one lives.

Brown rice (buy it in bulk), tofu (that depends on your source I guess), beans, fruits, cabbage, carrots, etc...

Chinese vegetarian is really cheap to cook. Just pan fry cheap vegetables (cabbage, carrots, etc...) and toss it on rice (brown rice mixed with whole grains is filling, nutritious and cheap).

[Jikan]

where I'm at, it's all about the beans and rice.

I get rice bulk at a Korean grocery down the way, I get beans and lentils and cowpeas and other legumes at the mexican grocery down the other way, and I get whatever sauces and spices and things I can find on the cheap. (El Pato & Valentina are among my favorites. Pickled ginger is a good cheap flavoring agent.) You can stock up on tofu and tempeh and other soy staples to save cash.

Cabbage is a fantastic vegetable because it's inexpensive and full of nutrients. Oh, and while at the Korean grocery, look for dried mushrooms: much cheaper than the fresh ones and helpful to keep the nutritional balance in order.

[Indrajala]

Cabbage is a fantastic vegetable because it's inexpensive and full of nutrients. Oh, and while at the Korean grocery, look for dried mushrooms: much cheaper than the fresh ones and helpful to keep the nutritional balance in order.

Do you make your own kimchi?