Posted on 04/25/2007 10:05:57 AM PDT by NYer
Deep into an auspicious night some 2,000 years ago an Israelite woman was near exhaustion and death -- struggling without success to give birth to a baby that would not come. Her husband waited anxiously nearby. The children were with her mother elsewhere in the village. The midwife, herself weary beyond any fatigue she had ever known, tried everything that experts and experience had taught her about enabling a difficult delivery. Nothing succeeded.
The baby's head was too large to pass through the birth canal. It pounded again and again, with each uterine contraction, against the mother's cervix, causing more damage with each blow. Hours went by. More hours still.
As the mother grew more weary and less able to push, depleted of energy and nutrition and sleep, and near death -- the midwife found herself faced with a cruel decision. If she did nothing, or continued to press the fetus' journey forward, the mother would die. The baby might then be extracted alive. Maybe. Or, she could intervene to end the struggle between mother and fetus in a way that would save the mother but tragically kill the fetus.
She was a religious woman and the rabbi lived not too far away. In her moment of desperation she hurried over to his home for counsel. The rabbi listened carefully and considered the options. ''What would God want of us in such a situation?'' he contemplated. Of course he could never be certain of the answer, but he reasoned that if only one could be saved, it should be the life that was more certain of survival. It should be the life that others already depended upon for their own lives. It should be the mother.
(Excerpt) Read more at mcall.com ...
What a joke.
Yes, it is the Law that the mother’s life takes presidence.
But a C-Section (which solves this issue is not exactly new technology. (The derivation of the name is also often attributed to an ancient story, told in the first century A.D. by Pliny the Elder, which claims that Julius Caesar’s mother delivered him thus.)
Wow, wishing Jews death. Classy.
When Catholic priests in Latin America advocate Marxism en masse, do we conclude that Vatican and Catholics are Marxist? Certainly not.
When we hear that some Anglican ministers equate Israel with Nazi Germany, do we conclude that Anglicans are anti-Semitic. Certainly not.
But when a single rabbi says something, we immediately take that as the position of the JEWS. Have you every asked yourself whether that is logical or fair?
You go even further: nothing short of immediate acceptance of Jesus Christ can possibly redeem any member of my tribe. Apparently, without acceptance of Jesus Christ and Messiah, we all are bound to write such stupid, erroneous and disingenuous articles as that of this Rabbi.
I grew up in New York and not some but most of my friends were Jewish, and that is absolutely the truth. Reform congregations and Unitarians frequently shared spaces, if that tells you anything...
A C-section is new technology - nineteeth century, requiring anesthesia and antisepsis - at least if you want the mother to live. One early successful C-section, without benefit of either, was done in the early 19th century by Dr. James Barry, a woman who disguised herself as a man, and became a British army surgeon. Another was apparently done by a 14th c. butcher on his wife. Most C-sections were done after the mother’s death, as was Caesar’s, I believe.
Mrs VS
"Deep into an auspicious night some 2,000 years ago..."
End of discussion in 2007.
Amazingly, mama ceasar lived until JC was 44 or 45.
But, yes, in overwhelming number of cases, you were correct that it was either post-mortem or killed the mom.
The story tells you something about the value of an heir in JCeasar’s day.
You are too kind here, Professor. I too would have a lesser difficulty if that Rabbi made an inadvertent mistake. He is utterly disingenuous, however. Not only he overreaches with the story as if to suggest that Jews accept abortion, but plays the victim to advance his political views. I left a comment on the forum where the article appeared, asking whether the Rabbi is as appalled when he sees persecution of Christians in this country (it is rampant, in my opinion). I also find it beneath contempt that he imputes evil intentions to the conservative members of the Court. "I fear they may abuse their power," he writes. And this person claims to be a Rabbi? Not in my book.
I find it ironic also that it is precisely by the abuse of judicial power that we now live with Roe vs. Wade. Surely the rabbi has NOT protested that abuse, although it was actualized rather than potential.
In sum, I think this man is simply disingeguous. Unfortunately, as even Ann Frank noted in her diary, when a Jew speaks --- no matter how dumb or unethical --- it is often taken as the position of all JEWS (witness post #2 above). But that is how it is, I guess...
Amen!
Another point -- I can't think of any major pro-life group or politician who would seek to prohibit an abortion to save a life.
Sorry, in my previous post, I meant #3 rather than #2.
Abortion in Israel: Terms of Termination
1977 law ensures a low-cost, and in some cases free, legal abortion to any woman who fills one of four criteria:
She is under 18 or over 40 (cost to those in between: 1,500 shekels [$370]).
She is carrying a fetus with a serious mental or physical defect (free).
She claims that the fetus results from forbidden relations such as rape or incest (free) or, in the case of a married woman, that the baby is not her husband’s (not free). Single women also fall under this clause, and they too must pay.
She shows that by continuing the pregnancy, her physical or mental health would be damaged (free).
In 1980, a fifth criterion that allowed abortions for women living in economic hardship was abolished due to pressure from religious political parties.
A woman who seeks to terminate a pregnancy must appear before one of the 41 abortion committees operating in public and private hospitals around the country. These committees include three members — a physician whose field of expertise is obstetrics and gynecology; another physician who is either a family doctor, psychiatrist, internist or gynecologist, and a social worker. At least one woman must be present on each committee.
Six separate committees consider requests for termination when a fetus is beyond 24 weeks old. No hospitals in Jerusalem, however, will perform these abortions.
In 1999, 19,674 applications out of 20,581 were approved (96%) and 18,785 pregnancies were terminated. In addition, 16,000 abortions were illegally performed in private doctors’ clinics. In general, about 40,000 abortions are carried out in Israel every year. The Health Ministry approves about half of them, and private doctors perform the rest, without the supervision of the state and at the cost of thousands of shekels.
It's not just his position --- only a victim of Reform movement thinks and argues as this Rabbi. And only such a person would play victim of the nonexistent religious persecution by the government.
This is a false dilemma. As several posters have noted, both can be saved now. I am sure that given the modern state of medicine, the “Jewish view of abortion” would not be: We can save both lives, but, oh what the hell, let’s kill the baby.
We have now something called Caesarian Section that deals with such cases.
By your post 19, you, sir, have proven that you are an ignorant jerk who who should be zotted posthaste.
So how do you explain the fact that abortion is very accessible and easy in Israel.
Better to keep one’s mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.
No accidents here. See posts 3, 43 and reply 49.
St. Gianna Mola, ora pro nobis.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.