Again don't add to what I mean, I have not suggested anything of the kind, and by narrow I am not referring to the teachings but of what the scope of view is, on this matter.Peter wrote:I am confused by this response. A narrow view of what? I am discussing what the Buddha taught on these matters. Are you saying we should take a wider view than the Buddha? Or are you still suggesting the Buddha taught the unwholesome as wholesome?Manapa wrote:Peter if you wan't to take a narrow view great
The article in the OP states the Abortion was done because the doctors who carried it out for fear that the slim girl would not survive carrying the foetuses to term, which gives a dimention to this case which is not talked about in the suttas, but as I have said it is the circumstances of the situation which needs to be looked at and considered, not with a blanket moral rule, but with what is best in the situation, again look at the ants in the blind monk story, the monks and the buddha could of saved lives, but didn't stop the monk stepping on them! Killing for killings sake is not a wholesome action, but saving life when another would have to be lost is what?
look again at my question about the the man who has to decide who survives complications in a pregnancy his un-born child, the pregnant mother or through inaction both, very relevant to the OP.