On abortion, a Jewish compromise

Jerusalem Post ^ | 3.14.04 | IRWIN N. GRAULICH

[ambrose]

On abortion, a Jewish compromise

---

IRWIN N. GRAULICH

Mar. 14, 2004

---

If you are looking for a good compromise on the difficult question of abortion, don't look to Roe v. Wade but to Israel. There is only one intelligent, just, ethical position on abortion and it happens to be the Torah viewpoint.
Unfortunately, over 95 percent of Jews and non-Jews are totally ignorant of it.

Scholars on the Left will attest that the Bible, Israeli law and the US Constitution are definitely pro-choice and protect a mother's health. Those equally learned on the Right will swear that these same great documents uphold the pro-life position and protect children.

How can so many knowledgeable people totally contradict each other? In reality, the same Bible both sides cite contains a sensible, compassionate solution that contradicts the standard pro-choice and pro-life positions.

Most people seem to think there are only two sides. The pro-choice position says that a woman can do whatever she wants with her body. This includes ear piercings, haircuts, face lifts, rhinoplasty, wart/hair removal, and fetus removal. In this view, the status of the unborn fetus is like that of skin, hair or excess cartilage.
This is the logic of the pro-choice position, but even those who hold it, except perhaps die-hard activists, would not truly place a fetus and a wart in the same category.

The pro-choice side must ask itself, is destroying an unborn fetus the moral equivalent of cosmetic surgery or a haircut?

The pro-life position holds that a fetus is a full life, so destroying it is murder. Staunch pro-lifers consider abortion the equivalent to the horrific crimes of Charles Manson, Palestinian suicide bombers, and even the Nazis. Some right-wing religious zealots have even coined the phrase "Silent Holocaust" to describe their horror.

This position places pro-lifers into an even more difficult and frightening category. If they are sincere, they are knowingly permitting mass murder to occur on a daily basis, and are possible accomplices to murder.

IMAGINE IF someone were to go into nursery schools daily to murder 20 children, simply because the parents are having financial difficulties due to the burden of child-raising. There is not a decent person anywhere who would not attempt to physically intervene, even at the risk of their own lives.

The fact that there are so few attempts on the lives of abortion doctors proves that the pro-life crowd is intellectually dishonest and does not truly believe its own rhetoric.

But if abortion is neither cosmetic nor murder, then what is it?

Exodus (21: 22-23) states, "If men shall fight, and they collide with a pregnant woman, and she miscarries, but the woman lives, the punishment on the men is financial, as determined by judges. But if the woman dies, there should be capital punishment."

These verses clearly illustrate that the fetus is not a full life. If it were, capital punishment would be called for, as mentioned in the second sentence. We are also shown that the fetus is not a worthless piece of tissue, since financial remuneration is required by the offenders. In addition, there are later references to the health of the mother taking precedence to the life of the fetus.

This biblical approach is the Jewish position, and it is equidistant between the pro-choice and pro-life stances. It states that abortion is not murder ? and not nothing! The only way to enforce this compromise is to allow an immoral act, while at the same time to discourage it strongly, which is exactly what is done in Israel in the majority of cases.

The Jewish biblical position is to create a meaningful societal stigma, so that anyone involved in an abortion knows there are grave moral consequences; that if you have an abortion, you are eliminating potential life and there may be guilt for a very long time.

The Torah's position is that a society which has few or no abortions is a more moral nation. It is good to finally see that Israel is following Torah for guidance on an issue, unlike capital punishment, where Jewish law seems to be ignored.

Our own rhetoric should teach us something. When a pregnant mother feels movement or kicking, she announces, "The baby is kicking." Has any woman in the history of humanity said, "The fetus is kicking"? Yet when a woman wishes to get rid of it, we always use the terminology of "removing the fetus."

A majority of religious and secular people seem to want abortion to be legal, yet do not want to simply "dispose" of developing life. Abortion presents all of us, religious and secular, with a tragic moral choice. Though it is tempting to legislate morality, this is not always the answer, as the case of adultery would seem to prove.

There are very few people, if any, who are pro-adultery; yet no one would seriously consider putting a law on the books prohibiting it. What we prefer is to create a moral society where great religious values produce a powerful stigma against violating the marital bond.

The law should not, by itself, prevent abortion from becoming a form of birth control. Non-legal means should also be considered, such as creating a fund to pay women not to have an abortion but put the baby up for adoption. There are millions of infertile couples who would cherish the gift of a baby.

Can such a system be abused by baby trafficking? Of course ? like anything else in life, and such a system must therefore be carefully monitored.

Abortion is not exclusively a women's rights issue. The Torah understood this and regarded it as an important religious matter. Let us all listen to the Torah's wise compromise rather than fight over morally untenable extremes.

The writer is president of Bloch Graulich Whelan, a communications company in New York City (irwin.graulich@verizon.net).

---

---

This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1079168639924&p=1006953079865

[ Back to the Article ]

---

Copyright 1995-2004 The Jerusalem Post - http://www.jpost.com/

[nmh]

I don't measure evil by degree nor do I point to one evil act and say it is superior to another evil act.

unborn baby v.s. infant v.s. toddler

False choices and false dilemma's also don't justify premeditated murder of an infant, unborn or a toddler.

Death is final and undeserving of the unborn, infant and toddler.

[dogbyte12]

You do measure evil by degree though. It is our actions that reveal how we prioritize our values. If 40,000,000 toddlers were killed in the U.S. would you just be sitting at your computer bitching about it? I think not. Abortion is morally evil, yet except for a tiny tiny fraction of people, we sure don't treat it the same way as we do the taking of the life of a toddler.

Again, it isn't a false scenario. You see a toddler about to be killed, and you try to prevent it. You know there are a dozen abortions being performed down the street and you do what? I am indicting myself here as well. We are guilty.

If abortion truly is exactly the moral equivalent of taking a toddler's life, we are all as guilty, by our inaction.

[farmer18th]

There are very few people, if any, who are pro-adultery; yet no one would seriously consider putting a law on the books prohibiting it.

God would. Interesting that this fellow uses the Bible to support his twisted argument on abortion, but ignores Bible's capital punishment for adultery. (Lev 20:10).

[Siamese Princess]

Christianity has always held that abortion at any point is murder but at one time there was a common folk belief that a fetus wasn't really "alive" until the quickening -- approximately five months -- so abortion really wasn't murder. Scientists discovered in the 19th century that the fetus moves even before the mother feels it. Also in the mid-19th century, it was doctors, not clergymen, who began to campaign against abortion.

[massiveblob]

Ping.

[massiveblob]

Doesn't the original Hebrew use bloods, when talking about Abel's murder. If so this seems to show that you pay for not just the life you took but also the lives that could have been. An unborn baby is a potential life, and would fall under this category.

[cupcakes]

Bravo, I have stated the same thing numerous times. That we are relying on how things were back then and how options have changed considerably in the last 30+ years to the point that abortion should be obsolete save in extreme cases.

[Maven]

Nachum Ansel discusses abortion in The Jewish Encyclopedia of Moral and Ethical Issues. You should read this. The bottom line is that abortion is permissible only to save the life of the mother. Ansel references Mishna Ohalot 7:6, which I've read but remember thinking it unclear.

Jewish law regarding abortion falls under the Talmudic law of rodef which basically says that it is permissible to destroy that which pursues with intent to kill. I found this on the Jewish Law Articles website, which explains it fairly simply:

"The easiest way to conceptualize a fetus in halacha [Jewish law] is to imagine it as a full-fledged human being - but not quite. In most circumstances, the fetus is treated like any other "person." Generally, one may not deliberately harm a fetus, and sanctions are placed upon those who purposefully cause a woman to miscarry. However, when its life comes into direct conflict with an already born person, the autonomous person's life takes precedence.

"It follows from this simple approach that, as a general rule, abortion in Judaism is permitted only if there is a direct threat to the life of the mother by carrying the fetus to term or through the act of childbirth. In such a circumstance, the baby is considered tantamount to a rodef, a pursuer after the mother with the intent to kill her. Nevertheless, as explained in the Mishna (Oholos 7:6), if it would be possible to save the mother by maiming the fetus, such as by amputating a limb, abortion would be forbidden. Despite the classification of the fetus as a pursuer, once the baby's head has been delivered, the baby's life is considered equal to the mother's, and we may not choose one life over another, because it is considered as though they are each pursuing the other."

Maven

[onyx]

The Bible has a lot to say about the shedding of innocent blood and none of it good. What blood could be more innocent than that of an unborn totally helpless innocent baby.

I believe any Judge,Democrat Liberal or whatever who
is in favor of abortion should be forced to witness
the Partial Birth Abortion of their one and only grandchild.

28 posted on 03/14/2004 6:23:04 AM PST by WKB







Powerful. Nominate this for quote of the day.

[My2Cents]

...starting with Barbara Boxer.

[onyx]

Right. Starting with Babra Boxer.

[nmh]

"Where does the Talmud stand on abortion?"

One can only hope, that the body of Jewish civil and ceremonial law would affirm the Torah.

Are you suggesting the Talmud does NOT affirm the Torah?

[nmh]

All you're doing is using a false scenario - choosing between the life of the unborn and a toddler and trying to rationalize why you would chose the life of a toddler over an infant or the unborn. At the moment, you are NOT in that situation where you must make a choice and it is doubtful that you ever will be. So it is a FALSE scenario and a false dilemma.

Neither situation is acceptable. One is not of lessor value that another. By allowing abortion the law is stating that the unborn is NOT as important as a toddler. The abortionists have already made that decision for you.

[nmh]

"If abortion truly is exactly the moral equivalent of taking a toddler's life, we are all as guilty, by our inaction."

If one does nothing then the person is guilty of doing nothing. Others do what they can either financially or through prayer etc.. so to broad brush folks as you are doing is not accurate either.

[WKB]

Powerful. Nominate this for quote of the day.



Thanks Onyx you are a true Southern Belle

[onyx]

Thanks Onyx you are a true Southern Belle







Woo. Thank you kind sir. "Southern Belle" coming from a true Southern Gentleman, I am flattered.

[Tribune7]

I think the percentage of people in this country who would hold a woman guilty of capital murder for having an abortion is very, very small.

Personally, I wouldn't mind holding some who profits from performing abortions guilty of capital murder, but that too is likely a minority view.

Regardless of one's stance on abortion, Roe v. Wade is an insult to our Constitution and the principles of Democracy

This punishment described in Exodus, btw, for inadvertantly causing a miscarriage "he shall be surely fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him" is not dissimilar to the status quo in our civil courts, although I can't see a death penalty being levied for a woman dying inadvertantly in a fistfight between two men. OTOH, if weapons are involved, maybe.