On abortion, a Jewish compromise

Jerusalem Post ^ | 3.14.04 | IRWIN N. GRAULICH

[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.