Compassion is not enough: eg abortion
Damien Keown rhetorically asks whether it would be acceptable to torture one Chinese guard if this allowed the rescuing of 1000 Tibetans from a labour camp. His point, clearly, is that 'compassion' alone is insufficient as a basis for an ethical system, or human rights: it must be complemented eg by wisdom.
Another area where this is true- and bringing up a concrete 'human rights' issue of current debate: abortion.
a) One kind of 'compassion' might say: abortion is acceptable if it avoids even non-physical suffering for the mother.
b) In many traditions of Buddhism (but not, it seems, Japanese Buddhism), it would be said, wisdom-related 'compassion' would counsel against such an action as:
i) it involves an act of direct killing of a human being (the //Vinaya// is clear that 'human' life starts at conception, cutting off all its potential in a human life,
ii) it will lead to suffering for those involved in the act.
Compassion of the kind b) does not mean there should be no compassion for those who, nevertheless, do have an abortion.
Peter Harvey
>Damien Keown rhetorically asks whether it would be acceptable to torture one Chinese guard if this allowed the rescuing of 1000 Tibetans from a labour camp. His point, clearly, is that 'compassion' alone is insufficient as a basis for an ethical system, or human rights: it must be complemented eg by wisdom.
>Another area where this is true- and bringing up a concrete 'human rights' issue of current debate: abortion.
Japanese Buddhism has responded to the issue of grieving by mothers who aborted, suffered miscarrieages, SIDS, etc with the mizuko movement. Having performed such rituals with attendant counseling, I can say they work. Work for what? Abortion is often a double bind choice, damned either way you go; for the women so involved, a spiritual solution may be the real answer - not the rights issue, but connectinn life to life.
>a) One kind of 'compassion' might say: abortion is acceptable if it avoids even non-physical suffering for the mother.
>b) In many traditions of Buddhism (but not, it seems, Japanese Buddhism), it would be said, wisdom-related 'compassion' would counsel against such an action as:
>i) it involves an act of direct killing of a human being (the //Vinaya// is clear that 'human' life starts at conception, cutting off all its potential in a human life,
>ii) it will lead to suffering for those involved in the act.
>Compassion of the kind b) does not mean there should be no compassion for those who, nevertheless, do have an abortion.
>Peter Harvey
Buddhists also perform rites at slaughter houses. Not sure if the priests so involved are vegetarians, or end up becoming such. Anybody know for sure????
Ken O'Neill
At 01:34 11/10/95 -0700, Ken O'Neill quoting Peter Harvey wrote:
>>Another area where this is true- and bringing up a concrete 'human rights' issue of current debate: abortion.
Abortion is a highly emotive issue, but it does seem to raise some interesting human rights problems for the West. It's easy for Westerners to take the high moral ground and condemn abuses in far-flung parts of the globe, while turning a blind eye to possible abuses in their own back yard.
Abortion can be depicted as a human rights issue in that one class in society (the unborn) are discriminated against by another class (the born) with respect to a basic human right (the right to life). The number of deaths from abortion in the USA (1.6 million per annum) easily outnumbers Tibetans killed by the Chinese.
>Japanese Buddhism has responded to the issue of grieving by mothers who aborted, suffered miscarrieages, SIDS, etc with the mizuko movement. Having performed such rituals with attendant counseling, I can say they work. Work for what? Abortion is often a double bind choice, damned either way you go; for the women so involved, a spiritual solution may be the real answer - not the rights issue, but connectinn life to life.
The mizuko movement certainly seems to make a positive contribution, but if abortion IS a human rights problem, the solution can't simply be to perform a ritual after the event. Abortion is, of course, often a desperately difficult choice for a woman to make. On the other hand, many choices in life are difficult and painful. Life is suffering. Perhaps many humane Chinese officials bitterly regret having to order executions and say to themselves "damned either way you go" (but note who loses their life).
Nonetheless, if human rights are to mean anything, it must be that however difficult and painful the situation, there are certain "solutions" which can never be adopted. If human rights don't guarantee this, then the principle would seem to be hollow.
Damien Keown
>At 01:34 11/10/95 -0700, Ken O'Neill quoting Peter Harvey wrote:
>>>Another area where this is true- and bringing up a concrete 'human rights' issue of current debate: abortion.
>Abortion is a highly emotive issue, but it does seem to raise some interesting human rights problems for the West. It's easy for Westerners to take the high moral ground and condemn abuses in far-flung parts of the globe, while turning a blind eye to possible abuses in their own back yard.
>Abortion can be depicted as a human rights issue in that one class in society (the unborn) are discriminated against by another class (the born) with respect to a basic human right (the right to life). The number of deaths from abortion in the USA (1.6 million per annum) easily outnumbers Tibetans killed by the Chinese.
>>Japanese Buddhism has responded to the issue of grieving by mothers who aborted, suffered miscarrieages, SIDS, etc with the mizuko movement. Having performed such rituals with attendant counseling, I can say they work. Work for what? Abortion is often a double bind choice, damned either way you go; for the women so involved, a spiritual solution may be the real answer - not the rights issue, but connectinn life to life.
>The mizuko movement certainly seems to make a positive contribution, but if abortion IS a human rights problem, the solution can't simply be to perform a ritual after the event. Abortion is, of course, often a desperately difficult choice for a woman to make. On the other hand, many choices in life are difficult and painful. Life is suffering. Perhaps many humane Chinese officials bitterly regret having to order executions and say to themselves "damned either way you go" (but note who loses their life).
>Nonetheless, if human rights are to mean anything, it must be that however difficult and painful the situation, there are certain "solutions" which can never be adopted. If human rights don't guarantee this, then the principle would seem to be hollow.
In effect, Damien's insistence on human rights is a new koan for buddhists everywhere. Good! Perhaps abortion is a good ground for considering the matter. It's nicely existential, concerning a woman or a couple. Outside judges, be they the right to life group or the prochoice group, both have loaded agendas. Beyond rules and laws, is there a basic awakening of a compassionate outlook beyond judgementalism?
Do the unborn have rights? Do the pregnant have rights? do those who impregnate have rights? Generally speaking, do not healthy cultures honor women carrying children and babies? What justifies abortion?
I don't know the answer, much less would I judge a woman who aborts. In the USA the Christian right condems abortion as much as it does family support and welfare systems, in effect punishing poverty and unwed mothers - and their offspring.
What do others think and feel about this matter, and how does it connect to a spiritual sense of human rights?
Ken O'Neill
At 08:12 PM 10/12/95 -0700, Ken O'Neill wrote:
>Do the unborn have rights? Do the pregnant have rights? do those who impregnate have rights? Generally speaking, do not healthy cultures honor women carrying children and babies? What justifies abortion?
I happen to be strongly pro-choice. My reason is that an unwanted child is very likely to have one hell of a load of suffering built into them which they will then pass onto future generations. The whole abortion issue is strongly overloaded with interacting causes of suffering no matter what is actually decided in any particular instance, but I find the potential for greater suffering in future generations by far the most important concern.
-----
Sphere.