-
5 A Contemporary North American Buddhist Discussion of Abortion
- State University of New York Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
5 A Contemporary North American Buddhist Discussion of Abortion Rita M. Gross In current North American discourse, abortion certainly is a contentious topic. Elections are decided by candidates’ stands on abortion, and one of the most feared developments in United States’ law is overturning the Supreme Court decision that legitimatized abortion, which many fear could happen with new Supreme Court justices. Despite the importance of this issue, it is only rarely discussed in North American Buddhist contexts. It is widely assumed that Buddhists would be unequivocally anti-choice because of the strong position against killing encapsulated in a common version of its first precept, binding on both lay and monastic practitioners: “do not take life.” However, I will claim that such a knee-jerk reaction is based on superficial understandings of Buddhist ethics and lack of deep contemplations of the harm wrought to both women and the ecosystem when women are forced to complete unwanted pregnancies. To me, as a long-term (thirty years) practitioner of Tibetan Vajrayana Buddhism and a lifelong feminist, the argument that Buddhists must be antichoice does not seem so simple and obvious. Of course, Buddhists would never prefer abortion to other options such as reliable birth control. Through no failure of their own, those other choices are not always available to people, which complicates ethical choices considerably . While traditional Buddhists would agree with anti-choice advocates that abortion ends “a life” (but not “life,” which is beginningless and endless), a nuanced understanding of Buddhism’s first 83 84 Rita M. Gross precept argues that Buddhists have an ethical obligation to minimize as much as possible the amount of harm their lives cause to the interdependent matrix of relative existence. This understanding is quite different from absolutist claims that abortion is always wrong, though abortion is always to be avoided, if possible. The most effective way to avoid abortion is to avoid unwanted pregnancies, but once an unwanted pregnancy is in place, the ethical situation changes. In this essay, I will reflect as a Buddhist critical and constructive thinker, first on discourses on abortion prevalent in North American politics, and then offer Buddhist interpretations of these arguments. My arguments also depend on my lifelong commitment to feminism, which I define as commitment to women’s status as complete human beings, rather than adjuncts to humanity whose purpose is to take care of men and children, while ignoring their own visions and longings. I have brought these two stances, Buddhism and feminism, together in many other contexts and will not review those arguments here.1 Common North American Positions on Abortion North American rhetoric on abortion, like most North American politics , reflects entrenched dualistic positions, with little sympathy for and understanding of why others would take different positions. Willingness of many to impose their version of right behavior on others who would do things differently is also characteristic. The most unfortunate and inaccurate aspect of North American debates on abortion is, in my view, naming one of the two usual positions “pro-choice” or “pro-abortion,” while the alternate position is almost always named “pro-life.” This naming is completely inaccurate because no one is “pro-abortion.” I have never understood why prochoice advocates have let this linguistic convention go by relatively unchallenged. Buddhists appreciate greatly the power of language and have long insisted that precise and accurate language does make a real difference in how one deals with practical life-and-death issues. With so much at stake for women’s well-being in this case, the importance of accurate language cannot be overemphasized. If we are to use the usual terminology, I do not believe anyone is pro-abortion and that everyone is pro-life. No one would say that somehow life is incomplete without experiencing an abortion or that it is in any way, shape, or form a desirable experience. It is simply less odious than the alternatives. Therefore, those who favor the availability of abortion are pro-choice, while those who would deny that [18.209.66.87] Project MUSE (2024-03-28 20:39 GMT) 85 A Contemporary North American Buddhist Discussion availability are anti-choice. I think the emotional heat surrounding this issue could be lessened if all sides understood that people can be pro-choice or anti-choice, but no one is pro-abortion. Most prochoice people are also pro-life, in that they cherish and nurture life in general. Furthermore, the position of being both...