The Great Abortion Debate

A forum for discussion of Buddhist ethics.
User avatar
Grigoris
Former staff member
Posts: 20747
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by Grigoris » Thu Mar 26, 2020 9:30 pm

madhusudan wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 9:20 pm
"Is the fetus in your uterus?" deliberately frames the debate in language taking a particular side while ignoring that this is the entire crux of the issue.
"Is the fetus in your uterus" is the reality, it is the crux of the issue, everything else is verbose posturing (posing as philosophy) and sentimentality.

I am not "for abortion", I support each individual woman to have the right to decide what she wants to do with her body.
Since it is FACT that this in contention. and the consequences are of the utmost importance, it makes sense to act in an overabundance of caution.
As a Buddhist there should be no contention about it, one (theoretically) should default to the teachings contained in the Tripitaka.
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde

User avatar
Ayu
Global Moderator
Posts: 7993
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:25 am
Location: Europe

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by Ayu » Thu Mar 26, 2020 9:38 pm

Pregnancy and birth are very dangerous and hard for a woman's body and mind. No government and law should force women to undergo this hardship against her will.
It needs more than an inhumane law to protect the unborn children: protection of mothers is needed, so they have time, money, shelter, health care and education for their children.

And birth has to take place out of love.
For the benefit and ease of all sentient beings. :heart:

Malcolm
Posts: 30831
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by Malcolm » Thu Mar 26, 2020 9:48 pm

madhusudan wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 9:20 pm
"Is the fetus in your uterus?" deliberately frames the debate in language taking a particular side while ignoring that this is the entire crux of the issue.

It's as sincere as asking, "Are you the mother blessed with this child?"

Is the entity merely a collection of cells or a human life? When exactly does life begin?

Since it is FACT that this in contention. and the consequences are of the utmost importance, it makes sense to act in an overabundance of caution.
This is my reasoning for opposing abortion.
You can oppose abortion, and since I assume you are male, your opposition to it on religious principles really does not matter one iota to anyone but you. You just don't have a say in the matter, even if the women you impregnated is your wife or partner.

And if you perchance are female, and oppose abortion, then you also can choose to carry a pregnancy full term; but you still do not have the right to tell any other women what choices they should make with their body.

User avatar
Minobu
Posts: 2393
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 6:57 pm

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by Minobu » Fri Mar 27, 2020 12:33 am

Well no where am i saying that a woman should not have the safe choice.
And everywhere i keep saying it's her body.

so anything directed at me that says the other is due to either you are a bad algorithm or are trolling.

It's far too serious an issue to troll.

All oi am saying is , like lets not twist reality to suit some agenda.

unless you live in some barbaric country where weird tactics are needed.

But if you live in the free world, stop trolling.

tkp67
Posts: 1342
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 5:42 am

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by tkp67 » Fri Mar 27, 2020 12:35 am

Johnny Dangerous wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 9:22 pm
Opposing abortion personally and politically are two different animals. Especially if one lives in the US. The question is not simply opposition to abortion, but whether one supports policies which ultimately lessen the need for it. This being the case, it's easy to see that it is quite a grey area once we depart from simply opposing the act on a personal level.
:good:

User avatar
Minobu
Posts: 2393
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 6:57 pm

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by Minobu » Fri Mar 27, 2020 12:36 am

Malcolm wrote:
Thu Apr 03, 2014 5:34 pm
PadmaVonSamba wrote: Let's define this concept of appropriation ...what that actually means in terms of awareness or consciousness arising with, or somehow interacting with organic (or, inorganic matter, from which organic matter is composed) matter.
It means that consciousness descends into the womb, in the case of human being, joining with the spermatozoon and oocyte at the moment of conception.
You see, I am asking this because I want to understand why, if awareness appropriates a collection of cells (my body) at some point, or even something formless, why not consider that it appropriates a single cell as well?
The material aggregate consists of sense organs and sense objects. A cell does not have sense organs. Plants do not have sense organs. Spermatozoa and oocytes do not have sense organs.

In any event, what you are fundamentally suggesting is that a spermatozoon has a consciousness, separate from the consciousness that descends into the womb at the moment of conception.

If you say "Sentient beings exist in seven locations' then are you not essentially saying that awareness/consciousness appropriates seven different sets of conditions?
. . .
I am saying that there are six realms and the bardo; that is where sentient beings live.
[/quote]

this is interesting. from,

viewtopic.php?f=77&t=15690&p=224761&hil ... va#p224745

tkp67
Posts: 1342
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 5:42 am

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by tkp67 » Fri Mar 27, 2020 12:40 am

One of the hardest things to do is to have compassion for people who are seeming less sensitive to matter of consciousness. Compassion however is the surest way to create a connection that allows to increase that sensitivity. It often takes time, patience and persistence. It requires a commitment. A very difficult one to make and harder to maintain.

User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 3609
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by PadmaVonSamba » Fri Mar 27, 2020 12:48 am

Minobu wrote:
Fri Mar 27, 2020 12:36 am
Malcolm wrote:
Thu Apr 03, 2014 5:34 pm
PadmaVonSamba wrote: Let's define this concept of appropriation ...what that actually means in terms of awareness or consciousness arising with, or somehow interacting with organic (or, inorganic matter, from which organic matter is composed) matter.
It means that consciousness descends into the womb, in the case of human being, joining with the spermatozoon and oocyte at the moment of conception.
You see, I am asking this because I want to understand why, if awareness appropriates a collection of cells (my body) at some point, or even something formless, why not consider that it appropriates a single cell as well?
The material aggregate consists of sense organs and sense objects. A cell does not have sense organs. Plants do not have sense organs. Spermatozoa and oocytes do not have sense organs.

In any event, what you are fundamentally suggesting is that a spermatozoon has a consciousness, separate from the consciousness that descends into the womb at the moment of conception.

If you say "Sentient beings exist in seven locations' then are you not essentially saying that awareness/consciousness appropriates seven different sets of conditions?
. . .
I am saying that there are six realms and the bardo; that is where sentient beings live.
this is interesting. from,

viewtopic.php?f=77&t=15690&p=224761&hil ... va#p224745
[/quote]

Spermatozoa do not require sense organs in order to purposefully detect and swim toward an ovum. Yet, even without sense organs, that is precisely what they do.
Profile Picture: "The Fo Ming (Buddha Bright) Monk"
People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth.

User avatar
Minobu
Posts: 2393
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 6:57 pm

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by Minobu » Fri Mar 27, 2020 12:52 am

Johnny Dangerous wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 9:22 pm
but whether one supports policies which ultimately lessen the need for it. This being the case, it's easy to see that
You always stick up for the righteous things in your country.

Your words above show your concern for those that oppose social issues...it's your paradigm in these areas.

just saying,

Our society is made in such a way it warrants people like you to see the avenues that lead to a lesser society, and those that use various means to thwart social concerns.

Ok im putting a lot of me into those words i cut and pasted...but i see something in you...

the rest...meh...lol....

User avatar
PeterC
Posts: 1758
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 12:38 pm

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by PeterC » Fri Mar 27, 2020 12:52 am

madhusudan wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 9:20 pm
"Is the fetus in your uterus?" deliberately frames the debate in language taking a particular side while ignoring that this is the entire crux of the issue.

It's as sincere as asking, "Are you the mother blessed with this child?"

Is the entity merely a collection of cells or a human life? When exactly does life begin?

Since it is FACT that this in contention. and the consequences are of the utmost importance, it makes sense to act in an overabundance of caution.
This is my reasoning for opposing abortion.
No, not at all. Nobody disagrees about the definition of a fetus. That is neutral language. Also nobody disagrees that a fetus is, in a sense, alive, and I hope nobody disagrees about the definition of uterus (leaving aside ectopic pregnancies). This is neutral language, not taking a side. When someone starts to call this a person, a life, etc and in other ways starts to equate it with someone who has already been born, there is an understandable difference of opinion.

User avatar
Minobu
Posts: 2393
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 6:57 pm

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by Minobu » Fri Mar 27, 2020 2:37 am

PeterC wrote:
Fri Mar 27, 2020 12:52 am
madhusudan wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 9:20 pm
"Is the fetus in your uterus?" deliberately frames the debate in language taking a particular side while ignoring that this is the entire crux of the issue.

It's as sincere as asking, "Are you the mother blessed with this child?"

Is the entity merely a collection of cells or a human life? When exactly does life begin?

Since it is FACT that this in contention. and the consequences are of the utmost importance, it makes sense to act in an overabundance of caution.
This is my reasoning for opposing abortion.
No, not at all. Nobody disagrees about the definition of a fetus. That is neutral language. Also nobody disagrees that a fetus is, in a sense, alive, and I hope nobody disagrees about the definition of uterus (leaving aside ectopic pregnancies). This is neutral language, not taking a side. When someone starts to call this a person, a life, etc and in other ways starts to equate it with someone who has already been born, there is an understandable difference of opinion.
So is the group of cells containing all human DNA also the vessel for some sentient that has been human before?
ot maybe this is their first rodeo. or is this some intellectual game where we say nothing really exists anyway...

unreal...who would argue the point that at the moment of conceptual like malcolm used to say, is a human being.

User avatar
PeterC
Posts: 1758
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 12:38 pm

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by PeterC » Fri Mar 27, 2020 2:48 am

Minobu wrote:
Fri Mar 27, 2020 2:37 am
PeterC wrote:
Fri Mar 27, 2020 12:52 am
madhusudan wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 9:20 pm
"Is the fetus in your uterus?" deliberately frames the debate in language taking a particular side while ignoring that this is the entire crux of the issue.

It's as sincere as asking, "Are you the mother blessed with this child?"

Is the entity merely a collection of cells or a human life? When exactly does life begin?

Since it is FACT that this in contention. and the consequences are of the utmost importance, it makes sense to act in an overabundance of caution.
This is my reasoning for opposing abortion.
No, not at all. Nobody disagrees about the definition of a fetus. That is neutral language. Also nobody disagrees that a fetus is, in a sense, alive, and I hope nobody disagrees about the definition of uterus (leaving aside ectopic pregnancies). This is neutral language, not taking a side. When someone starts to call this a person, a life, etc and in other ways starts to equate it with someone who has already been born, there is an understandable difference of opinion.
So is the group of cells containing all human DNA also the vessel for some sentient that has been human before?
ot maybe this is their first rodeo. or is this some intellectual game where we say nothing really exists anyway...

unreal...who would argue the point that at the moment of conceptual like malcolm used to say, is a human being.
Stick your finger inside your cheek and wipe. There, on your finger, is a sample of cells containing all human DNA which could, given the right conditions (lab equipment, etc.) become a human life. Should that get the same deference?

Potential does not equal reality. In theory I could still become a billionaire. But I'm not one now.

User avatar
Minobu
Posts: 2393
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 6:57 pm

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by Minobu » Fri Mar 27, 2020 3:02 am

PeterC wrote:
Fri Mar 27, 2020 2:48 am
Minobu wrote:
Fri Mar 27, 2020 2:37 am
PeterC wrote:
Fri Mar 27, 2020 12:52 am


No, not at all. Nobody disagrees about the definition of a fetus. That is neutral language. Also nobody disagrees that a fetus is, in a sense, alive, and I hope nobody disagrees about the definition of uterus (leaving aside ectopic pregnancies). This is neutral language, not taking a side. When someone starts to call this a person, a life, etc and in other ways starts to equate it with someone who has already been born, there is an understandable difference of opinion.
So is the group of cells containing all human DNA also the vessel for some sentient that has been human before?
ot maybe this is their first rodeo. or is this some intellectual game where we say nothing really exists anyway...

unreal...who would argue the point that at the moment of conceptual like malcolm used to say, is a human being.
Stick your finger inside your cheek and wipe. There, on your finger, is a sample of cells containing all human DNA which could, given the right conditions (lab equipment, etc.) become a human life. Should that get the same deference?

Potential does not equal reality. In theory I could still become a billionaire. But I'm not one now.
the cheek cells are just that...cheek cells..

i shouldn't respond to this post but like i can't help but point out even if you insert those cheek cells into a woman's vagina they won't growd into Jethro Bodine

Image

User avatar
PeterC
Posts: 1758
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 12:38 pm

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by PeterC » Fri Mar 27, 2020 3:22 am

Minobu wrote:
Fri Mar 27, 2020 3:02 am
PeterC wrote:
Fri Mar 27, 2020 2:48 am
Minobu wrote:
Fri Mar 27, 2020 2:37 am


So is the group of cells containing all human DNA also the vessel for some sentient that has been human before?
ot maybe this is their first rodeo. or is this some intellectual game where we say nothing really exists anyway...

unreal...who would argue the point that at the moment of conceptual like malcolm used to say, is a human being.
Stick your finger inside your cheek and wipe. There, on your finger, is a sample of cells containing all human DNA which could, given the right conditions (lab equipment, etc.) become a human life. Should that get the same deference?

Potential does not equal reality. In theory I could still become a billionaire. But I'm not one now.
the cheek cells are just that...cheek cells..

i shouldn't respond to this post but like i can't help but point out even if you insert those cheek cells into a woman's vagina they won't growd into Jethro Bodine

Image
No, but if you extract the genetic material and implant into an enucleated ovum, fuse the cell, grow in a medium, etc. then you can turn them into a human. There's a chain of potential from the cheek cells through to another human being - granted, a longer chain than there is from an implanted fetus in a uterus, but nonetheless the potential exists.

Malcolm
Posts: 30831
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by Malcolm » Fri Mar 27, 2020 4:40 am

Minobu wrote:
Fri Mar 27, 2020 2:37 am
PeterC wrote:
Fri Mar 27, 2020 12:52 am
madhusudan wrote:
Thu Mar 26, 2020 9:20 pm
"Is the fetus in your uterus?" deliberately frames the debate in language taking a particular side while ignoring that this is the entire crux of the issue.

It's as sincere as asking, "Are you the mother blessed with this child?"

Is the entity merely a collection of cells or a human life? When exactly does life begin?

Since it is FACT that this in contention. and the consequences are of the utmost importance, it makes sense to act in an overabundance of caution.
This is my reasoning for opposing abortion.
No, not at all. Nobody disagrees about the definition of a fetus. That is neutral language. Also nobody disagrees that a fetus is, in a sense, alive, and I hope nobody disagrees about the definition of uterus (leaving aside ectopic pregnancies). This is neutral language, not taking a side. When someone starts to call this a person, a life, etc and in other ways starts to equate it with someone who has already been born, there is an understandable difference of opinion.
So is the group of cells containing all human DNA also the vessel for some sentient that has been human before?
ot maybe this is their first rodeo. or is this some intellectual game where we say nothing really exists anyway...

unreal...who would argue the point that at the moment of conceptual like malcolm used to say, is a human being.
Conception is not restricted to human beings. For example, do you oppose aborting the fetuses of cats or dogs? Do you oppose all intervention in all gestational processes of living beings, or only humans? In any case, If one accepts rebirth, abortion is just not that big a deal.

User avatar
Grigoris
Former staff member
Posts: 20747
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by Grigoris » Fri Mar 27, 2020 8:08 am

Minobu wrote:
Fri Mar 27, 2020 3:02 am
the cheek cells are just that...cheek cells..
Quite clearly you have no idea what you are talking about. Actually, that seems to be the case for all of your posts in this thread.

You throw around your opinions as if they are facts, you do not back them up with any facts, you falsely accuse others of trolling, you claim to understand/know the motivation of everybody posting in this thread and all your retorts are just vapid smart-assed BS.

Sounds like classic troll behaviour to me.
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde

User avatar
Ayu
Global Moderator
Posts: 7993
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:25 am
Location: Europe

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by Ayu » Fri Mar 27, 2020 10:12 am

Folks, do you really want to start with throwing sand in this sandpit?
We've really got other problems in these heavy times than brushing this thread every now and then. :geek:
For the benefit and ease of all sentient beings. :heart:

User avatar
Minobu
Posts: 2393
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 6:57 pm

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by Minobu » Fri Mar 27, 2020 1:01 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Fri Mar 27, 2020 4:40 am
Minobu wrote:
Fri Mar 27, 2020 2:37 am
PeterC wrote:
Fri Mar 27, 2020 12:52 am


No, not at all. Nobody disagrees about the definition of a fetus. That is neutral language. Also nobody disagrees that a fetus is, in a sense, alive, and I hope nobody disagrees about the definition of uterus (leaving aside ectopic pregnancies). This is neutral language, not taking a side. When someone starts to call this a person, a life, etc and in other ways starts to equate it with someone who has already been born, there is an understandable difference of opinion.
So is the group of cells containing all human DNA also the vessel for some sentient that has been human before?
ot maybe this is their first rodeo. or is this some intellectual game where we say nothing really exists anyway...

unreal...who would argue the point that at the moment of conceptual like malcolm used to say, is a human being.
Conception is not restricted to human beings. For example, do you oppose aborting the fetuses of cats or dogs? Do you oppose all intervention in all gestational processes of living beings, or only humans? In any case, If one accepts rebirth, abortion is just not that big a deal.
why do you ignore the fact that i keep explaining that i'm not opposed to abortion. One would think your deflecting from your lack of belief in actual Buddhism and want to change it to a religion and something along your own narrative , that changes with your political whims .

or it's just trolling.

User avatar
Minobu
Posts: 2393
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 6:57 pm

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by Minobu » Fri Mar 27, 2020 1:14 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Fri Mar 27, 2020 4:40 am
n any case, If one accepts rebirth, abortion is just not that big a deal.
no comment malcolm , but for your heart.

I'll go along with the words of a folk rock singer Shawn Phillips :


"Life is sacrosanct is the only ism " .

Malcolm
Posts: 30831
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: The Great Abortion Debate

Post by Malcolm » Fri Mar 27, 2020 1:30 pm

Minobu wrote:
Fri Mar 27, 2020 1:01 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Fri Mar 27, 2020 4:40 am
Minobu wrote:
Fri Mar 27, 2020 2:37 am


So is the group of cells containing all human DNA also the vessel for some sentient that has been human before?
ot maybe this is their first rodeo. or is this some intellectual game where we say nothing really exists anyway...

unreal...who would argue the point that at the moment of conceptual like malcolm used to say, is a human being.
Conception is not restricted to human beings. For example, do you oppose aborting the fetuses of cats or dogs? Do you oppose all intervention in all gestational processes of living beings, or only humans? In any case, If one accepts rebirth, abortion is just not that big a deal.
why do you ignore the fact that i keep explaining that i'm not opposed to abortion. One would think your deflecting from your lack of belief in actual Buddhism and want to change it to a religion and something along your own narrative , that changes with your political whims .

or it's just trolling.
Sorry, minobu, but what you said is just dumb. You are not the arbiter of “actual Buddhism.” You subscribe to certain beliefs which are found in some kinds of Buddhism and ignore others.

Post Reply

Return to “Ethical Conduct”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests