Re: abortion as a test case
IMHO abortion is a poor place to begin one's exploration of the issues of Buddhism and HR and Buddist responses to specific rights. The reasons are that abortion raises such a complexity of intertwined interests and is not a area in which concensus has been reached internationally as to the fairest balancing of the rights. It seems better to me to explore simpler ones such as Buddhist ideas of speech, religious freedom, access to medical care, responsibility for another's food and well being. And even here I think the answers are not self-evident in terms of actions and limits.
At 09:46 13/10/95 -0400, Steven D. Jamar wrote:
>IMHO abortion is a poor place to begin one's exploration of the issues of
>Buddhism and HR and Buddist responses to specific rights. The reasons are that
>abortion raises such a complexity of intertwined interests and is not a area in
>which concensus has been reached internationally as to the fairest balancing of
>the rights.
Even if the question is complex, it would seem to have an importance which is arguably greater than the predicament of the homeless in Ohio. It seems odd to make that a human rights issue in preference to abortion.
Moreover, I am not at all sure that the problem IS more complex than any other from the perspective of Buddhist moral teachings. I agree that it is very complex from a legal and constitutional perspective, but that is a rather different matter.
Can Buddhists really put this question off until a consensus is reached at international level?
At 09:46 13/10/95 -0400, Steven D. Jamar wrote:
>IMHO abortion is a poor place to begin one's exploration of the issues of
>Buddhism and HR and Buddist responses to specific rights. The reasons are that
>abortion raises such a complexity of intertwined interests and is not a area in
>which concensus has been reached internationally as to the fairest balancing of
>the rights.
Not that I particularly wish to push the question of abortion at this late stage in the conference, but a few quick points ...
*there is always a complexity of intertwined interests in any human rights issue. This is why there is a problem in the first place. The issues in abortion are scarcely more complex than those in other areas (see the long list by Peter Harvey)
*any problem can be made as simple or complex as one like depending on the standpoint one adopts. To some people, for example, both abortion and Tibet are clear-cut issues. The problem of the homeless in Ohio, on the other hand, may seem intractable and complex. (Think of all those regulations about civic amenities!).
*I can see no reason to wait for a consensus at international level before discussing the problem. For one thing, Buddhism may wish to repudiate the consensus (in the unlikely event one ever emerges).
*Abortion may be a highly complex issue legally speaking, but I'm not sure what makes it inherently more complex than other questions as a MORAL issue from a Buddhist perspective. Early canonical sources, for instance, see the matter as very simple: abortion, like all forms of killing, is something that should never be done. What feature of Buddhist ethics makes this issue uniquely complex?
*Even if abortion IS complex, it is arguably both more important and urgent as a human rights issue than the plight of the homeless in Ohio since it concerns the most basic human right of all -- the right to life (a homeless Ohian may, of course, disagree on these priorites!).