Dhamma Wheel Buddhist Forum

There was a discussion in another thread which suggest that a monk believes that aborting a fetus that is less than 3 or 4 months old is not a problem and he thinks the Texts support this.

This is a view that may be acceptable in the "Modern Theravada" groups but the ancients saw it differently.

Visuddhimgga VIII

30. Herein, firstly the span has no sign because there is no definition such as:
Just so much must be lived, no more than that. For beings [die in the various
stages of the embryo, namely], at the time of the kalala, of the abbuda, of the pesi, of
the ghana, at one month gone, two months gone, three months gone, four months
gone, five months gone … ten months gone, and on the occasion of coming out
of the womb. And after that they die this side or the other of the century.

The kalala is that time shortly after the meeting of the male seed with the female egg when the fetus is just beginning to develop. Once this occurs the matter is ripe for teh arising of a new consciousness.

XVII
1

52. But when that minimal amount arises in the two kinds of generation
termed egg-born and womb-born, it amounts to no more than a drop of cream of
ghee on a single fibre of new-born [kid’s] wool, and it is known as the “embryo
in the first stage” (S I 206).

At this stage the size of the fetus is post microscopic where someone with very keen eyesight under good light might just be able to perceive the rupa.

how long is the being in the womb?
XVI

37.When this being is born in the mother’s womb, he is not born inside a blue or
red or white lotus, etc., but on the contrary, like a worm in rotting fish, rotting dough,
cesspools, etc., he is born in the belly in a position that is below the receptacle for
undigested food (stomach), above the receptacle for digested food (rectum), between
the belly-lining and the backbone, which is very cramped, quite dark, pervaded by
very fetid draughts redolent of various smells of ordure, and exception-ally
loathsome.11 And on being reborn there, for ten months he undergoes excessive
suffering, being cooked like a pudding in a bag by the heat produced in the mother’s
womb, and steamed like a dumpling of dough, with no bending, stretching, and so
on. So this, firstly, is the suffering rooted in the descent into the womb.

XVI
The pain of abortion
39. When the mother has an abortion, the pain that arises in him through the
cutting and rending in the place where the pain arises that is not fit to be seen
even by friends and intimates and companions—this is the suffering rooted in
abortion.

And now let's see you quote the texts that monk you mentioned used to justify his position. Seems fair to present both sides of what could easily become a harmful or fiery debate, since that monk is not here to rebut the commentaries.

James the Giant wrote:And now let's see you quote the texts that monk you mentioned used to justify his position. Seems fair to present both sides of what could easily become a harmful or fiery debate, since that monk is not here to rebut the commentaries.

Although if this was said at a public talk, it's unlikely that monk would have given a sutta or vinaya reference.

By the way, I think it was Bill Maher who said that he doesn't believe embryos are alive because they can be stored in freezers.

Ajahn Brahmavamso - In this thread?

http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 3&start=80

With metta,
Chris

James the Giant wrote:And now let's see you quote the texts that monk you mentioned used to justify his position. Seems fair to present both sides of what could easily become a harmful or fiery debate, since that monk is not here to rebut the commentaries.

I am not aware of any suttas that justify that position, but if you have some please tell us.

robertk wrote:

James the Giant wrote:And now let's see you quote the texts that monk you mentioned used to justify his position. Seems fair to present both sides of what could easily become a harmful or fiery debate, since that monk is not here to rebut the commentaries.

I am not aware of any suttas that justify that position, but if you have some please tell us.

It's your thread - that's up to you to back up....

Robert, I'm sure you are aware of this thread, sutta quotes with references to abortion and fetuses and all that stuff. http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 9&p=245253
There are some other relevant references in this paper http://www.stefan.gr/buddhism/books/aja ... -begin.pdf
Do you prefer to rely on commentaries, or suttas?

TheNoBSBuddhist wrote:

robertk wrote:

James the Giant wrote:And now let's see you quote the texts that monk you mentioned used to justify his position. Seems fair to present both sides of what could easily become a harmful or fiery debate, since that monk is not here to rebut the commentaries.

I am not aware of any suttas that justify that position, but if you have some please tell us.

It's your thread - that's up to you to back up....

Ok so far I am not aware of any forum guidelines stating that a thread originator must find any texts that counter his original thesis.

In the case of this topic I do have some background in the Pali texts with several decades of study, and cannot recall any suggesting a 3 month old fetus is not alive.

Please remember the Classical Forum rules:

http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=373

With metta,
Chris

James the Giant wrote:Robert, I'm sure you are aware of this thread, sutta quotes with references to abortion and fetuses and all that stuff. http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 9&p=245253
There are some other relevant references in this paper http://www.stefan.gr/buddhism/books/aja ... -begin.pdf
Do you prefer to rely on commentaries, or suttas?

I wasn't aware of that thread , could you quote the sections proving that the Commentaries are in error on this matter. And also the link to the pdf file, how does it prove the Visuddhimagga is wrong?

As to your question, I cannot think of a single case where the Commentary goes against the suttas

a monk believes that aborting a fetus that is less than 3 or 4 months old is not a problem and he thinks the Texts support this.

This is a view that may be acceptable in the "Modern Theravada" groups but the ancients saw it differently

I would like to read what this monk actually says. Three or four months specifically? How did he back up his arguments?
Can you give us a link to where he stated this? Preferably not a link to an hour-long dhamma talk.

James the Giant wrote:

a monk believes that aborting a fetus that is less than 3 or 4 months old is not a problem and he thinks the Texts support this.

This is a view that may be acceptable in the "Modern Theravada" groups but the ancients saw it differently

I would like to read what this monk actually says. Three or four months specifically? How did he back up his arguments?
Can you give us a link to where he stated this? Preferably not a link to an hour-long dhamma talk.

As i said i was referring to another thread.

where this was stated:

I was at a talk by Ajahn Brahm in Brisbane a year or so ago. He told the same jokes I'd heard from him before, the same stories I'd read in his books - and then he said abortion was o.k. up to about 16 or more weeks. At that point quite a number of the audience walked out

.
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 3&start=40

robertk wrote:Ok so far I am not aware of any forum guidelines stating that a thread originator must find any texts that counter his original thesis.

In the case of this topic I do have some background in the Pali texts with several decades of study, and cannot recall any suggesting a 3 month old fetus is not alive.

Posts should also include support from a reference or a citation (Tipitaka, commentarial, or from a later work from an author representative of the Classical point-of-view)

From the forum rules, link in Cooran's post.

TheNoBSBuddhist wrote:

robertk wrote:Ok so far I am not aware of any forum guidelines stating that a thread originator must find any texts that counter his original thesis.

In the case of this topic I do have some background in the Pali texts with several decades of study, and cannot recall any suggesting a 3 month old fetus is not alive.

Posts should also include support from a reference or a citation (Tipitaka, commentarial, or from a later work from an author representative of the Classical point-of-view)

From the forum rules, link in Cooran's post.

I see.
So far my first two posts gave direct quotations from the Visuddhimagga. Since then i have been responding to posters who raise other issues.