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.