Replies

Exodus 21:22 means that if the fetus dies, there should be only monetary liability; but if the woman dies, it is capital murder.

Both you and the author of the JPost piece are being disingenuous. He makes up his own Biblical quote and you make up your own interpretation.

The Talmudic interpretation, which clearly flies in the face of the text or the Torah, is that everything referred to in Ex 21:22, including the death of the mother is to be salved with financial compensation.

Of course, all of this is besides the point. The issue is whether abortion is permissible or not; not what the punishment should be after the fact.

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.

What is not unclear is that Rebecca had the most difficult pregnancy in the Bible. She had twins (habanim=boys) struggling in her womb. The twins continued this struggle throughout their lives, not even interrupting it for their birth. Clearly Jacob and Esau's lives began before their birth. During one of those early womb struggles Rebecca went to inquire of G-d. G-d did not give Rebecca a choice.

ML/NJ

"The bottom line is that abortion is permissible only to save the life of the mother"

Thanks for the clarification.

I'm not being disingenuous... you repeated the same thing I said about it.

The bottom line is that abortion is permissible only to save the life of the mother.

Yep, everything else is sin.

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