Posted on 05/02/2002 8:52:50 AM PDT by RCW2001
Thank you for your information to all anti-baby-murderers. I did not confuse the two.
As I posted before,
Are you for '86'-ing babies?
The name of the fetus murdering drug is RU-486
Are you for '86'-ing innocent babies?
Frankly, his position seems quite reasonable to me.
On 10/11/00 David from Huntington Beach asked: "Dear Rabbi, My name is David Eghbali and I am currently a senior at Tarbut V’ Torah High School in California. I have a project to do and I would like a Rabbi’s opinion on the topic. I hope you can read the story below and give me your opinion(s) on the subject. Thank you very much and I hope you have a wonderful Sukkot. Sincerely, David
Lois N. is a forty-year-old Jewish woman. She is the mother of four boys ranging in age from 19 to 12. Her husband Michael, a successful lawyer, was recently killed by a drunk driver while walking to synagogue one Saturday morning. Shortly after the end of the shivah period, she discovered she was pregnant. At first elated by the thought that her late husband would somehow live on in the child, whom she intended to name for him even if it turned out to be a girl, she later became increasingly distressed by the thought of having a fifth child. Her next youngest child was twelve, she reasoned, and would be in college in six years…. but now she would be tied to her role as a single mother for three times as long. Furthermore, Lois is trained as a teacher’s aide and her annual income has been approximately one tenth her husband’s. If she has a fifth child, she anticipates not being able to work at all unless she puts the child in daycare for most of every day, which option she rejects as cruel and not in the child’s best interests. Her own parents are deceased; she has not brothers or sisters. Her husband’s life insurance was equal, roughly, to one year of his income. She will, therefore, run out of money before the baby is six-month-old and probably have to sell her home. As all these thoughts began to come together in Lois’ mind, she determined that she did not want to have the child she was carrying after all; and that she wished terminate the pregnancy. Unable to decide if she is being practical or self-centered, and also unsure if she can face the prospect of going through an abortion, she is becoming more and more distraught every day and is considering psychiatric counseling to cope with the extreme stress; she finds herself unable to handle on her own. Finally she turns to you, her rabbi, and asks you to help her decide what she should do. She wishes, specifically, to know the answers to these several questions.
1. Does Judaism allow abortion under any circumstances?
2. If so, what are those circumstances?
3. If they exist at all, do those circumstances apply to her?
4. Do her obligations to her living children come before her obligations to an unborn child?
* Lois is in her third month of pregnancy. She is in good physical health and has no reason to suspect that there is anything abnormal about her pregnancy. "
Rabbi Roller answered:
" Within Judaism, the answer is complex, and there is no one definitive position. Two categorical statements can be made:
1) The fetus does not have the status of a human being.
2) The life of the mother always has precedence.
The fact that the fetus is not considered the same as a living person is based on the text in Exodus 21:22-23. If a man pushes a pregnant woman in such a way that she miscarries, he pays a financial penalty. He is not executed, which would be the punishment for murder. Fred Rosner, writing the Orthodox perspective, notes that until 40 days the fetus is described as "mere fluid." However, he concludes his opinion by denouncing abortion unless there is a direct threat to the life of the mother. Rabbi Ben Zion Uziel says, "It is clear that abortion is not permitted without reason . . . but for a reason, even a weak reason, such as to prevent public shame, we have precedent and authority to permit it." I believe that this should be extended to the situation of rape that you asked about specifically. Rabbi Isaac Klein, giving the Conservative point of view, argues against abortion on demand, but refers not only to halakhic (legal) but to non-halakhic issues as well, looking for "guiding principles." He quotes a 19th century response that asks if a woman is permitted to take a drug to induce a miscarriage if she has begun to spit blood. The answer is yes.
Klein speculates that 3 things may be operative:
1. Until 3 mos., it is not even considered a fetus
2. No overt action is involved
3. The woman herself is acting out of self-preservation.
The main factor in permitting abortion is the claim that allowing it to take its natural course will constitute a threat to the mother. Klein concludes that in the early stages of pregnancy, therapeutic abortion should be allowed whenever there is any threat to the health of the mother, directly or indirectly, physically or psychologically. He does not sanction abortions that are motivated merely by the desire not to have another child. I agree with his position that abortion should be legally available but morally restricted.
Robert Gordis, another prominent Conservative Rabbi, writes that, "Abortion is required when the life or health of the mother is at stake. In such cases, she is prohibited from committing suicide by remaining pregnant, even if she wants to; and the fetus, which is not a full-fledged human being, is sacrificed for the sake of the mother, who obviously is."
Since the 18th century, mental health has been included as a factor in the determination of whether abortion should take place. "Mental health", however, has been interpreted in a very narrow sense. Most cases of rape would probably fall into this category, though rape in and of itself does not demand abortion as a response. One would have to consider the extent to which the woman transfers her rage against the rapist to the fetus, and the extent of her feelings of shame.
Mental health does not excuse abortion in cases where there are serious but insufficient reasons such as the economic situation of the family, the fact that the parents do not want another child, or, God forbid, to select a particular gender.
Rabbi Balfour Brickner, a Reform Rabbi, when testifying before a Senate committee, quoted the Talmudic text which says that, "A woman who is having difficulty giving birth, it is permitted to cut up the child insider her womb and take it out limb by limb, because her life takes precedence. However, if the greater part of the child has come out, it must not be touched, because one life may not be taken to save another." (Ohalot 7:6)
It is unfortunate that abortion has become, for some, a means of birth control. The holiness of each person, made in the Divine image, is Fundamental in Jewish tradition. Judaism allows for abortion in certain cases and requires it in others. It is, however, a decision that should Never be made lightly and one which is always an occasion for mourning. However, there are those rare occasions when it is the right thing to do, and for this reason it is important the abortion be legally available. All Jews agree that abortion is an undesirable option, but that it may be The best one available in certain conditions. Orthodox Jews permit Abortion only to save the life of a pregnant woman. When it is needed to Save life, it is mandatory, not optional. Some Orthodox respondents Consider that bearing a very badly deformed fetus, or one with a Congenital, fatal disease such as Tey-Sachs Disease, will be likely to Make the mother suicidal, and so are willing to allow abortion to protect Her life. Others will not. Most non-Orthodox rabbis are somewhat more permissive and would allow abortion even when the life of neither the mother nor the fetus is at obvious risk. There is a wide spread among them. Many rabbis who oppose most abortions also oppose attempts to establish restrictive secular laws that would limit them. They feel that the state laws would go counter to Jewish rulings on the subject, and that, therefore, state laws should be generally permissive. Those who wish to follow Jewish laws or attitudes would then be free to do so. As is clear from this brief discussion, Judaism does not consider the Fetus a full person, and therefore does not consider abortion to be Murder. However, the fetus is a potential person, to be destroyed only If it is absolutely necessary. It is on the definition of necessity that The disagreements arise. "
Excuse me, but abortion is killing. OK? That's natural law, which is eternal and universal. I'm sure there are those who'd like to see the anti-abortion argument re-interpreted as a quirky sectarian practice -- something those Catholics do, like abstaining from meat on Fridays -- but I never expected this from you.
My concern was whether, with the Middle East a few steps away from nuclear war if nothing changes, and the specter of some pretty serious sectarian tensions in this country looming, whether it might not be better to focus on the discussions that urgently need to be had, and put those where a good example beats words off for another, calmer, day. In the grand scheme of a culture that respects life, debating this point vociferously is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. It's not like we don't have enough abortions in this country to worry about.
Some debates can't wait. In the grand scheme of things, is Israel about safety in a homeland where a God-fearing people can thrive, or is it about greed and triumphalism, where the end justifies the means and might makes right? Sooner or later Israel is going to have to make up its mind why it exists - and the sooner the better. Every year 20,000 or so Jews in Israel die from abortion. That's roughly 100 for every Israeli that dies from combat or terrorism. If body count means anything, abortion is the real war. (OTOH maybe there's such a thing as an acceptable body count - just the regrettable but unavoidable Cost of Doing Business? Shhh. Don't tell.)
It's not like we don't have enough abortions in this country to worry about.
You know, with my tax dollars serving to subsidize Israeli abortions, the question of which country is which seems hopelessly artificial.
This from the guy who posts an article on Geraldo's USE of his dual Victim Heritage to pump himself up in the public's eye and -- ignoring absolutely the implications of that ploy as perfected by cunning operators like Geraldo or Hillary! -- cries "FOR SHAME!" only because Geraldo doesn't give a good Jew's coverage of all things related to Israel or Palestinians?
C'mon. Be serious.
Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should not have compassion on the son of her womb?
yea, they may forget, yet will I not forget thee.
Your scepticism is healthy so good luck.
How can Jews -- to whom we are do indebted in the fields of science, medicine, math, physics -- rationalize a man-made law that has been thoroughly discredited by Science?
(I'm assuming that you have no Torah, as opposed to Talmudic, passage to buttress your argument?)
Does that not leave you open to the same gamut of error so amply evidenced by the Muslims, Protestants and any man of God who preferred his own interpretation over what God's own creation spelled out for him in no uncertain terms?
As you seem to found your right to abortion in the belief that the child is a part of the woman's body until birth, where will that leave you once artificial wombs are perfected?
What is the embryo prior to implantation? Human? Alive? Part of the mother or merely mulch that -- having perfected the manufactured, safekeeping and destruction of same -- we are free to do with what we will.
There is no record they waited nine months for a woman to deliver a child before executing her.
A far more clever approach, comrade.
Best of luck to you as well.
You'll need it ... thanks primarily to my having been through a couple years of Ridicule Boot Camp courtesy of the Libertarians (God bless 'em ... whether they like it or not) and, most recently, being shelled by our military for spoiling all the fun on the War-Weary Prostitutes thread in my latest "Morality Play" engagement.
Which law do you claim is thoroughly discredited by the cult of Science ?
Does that not leave you open to the same gamut of error so amply evidenced by the Muslims, Protestants and any man of God who preferred his own interpretation over what God's own creation spelled out for him in no uncertain terms?
I think you are guilty of that which you protest.
As you seem to found your right to abortion in the belief that the child is a part of the woman's body until birth, where will that leave you once artificial wombs are perfected?
The zygote is part of the woman's body until birth. That is a fact. I see no right to abortion except to save a woman's life, and even that I recognize as a choice rather than a mandate.
What is the embryo prior to implantation? Human? Alive? Part of the mother or merely mulch that -- having perfected the manufactured, safekeeping and destruction of same -- we are free to do with what we will.
It is a growing baby in her womb, being cared for, loved, and protected until birth. Have you borne children ? If so you must know of what I speak.
Abortion is not discussed in the Scriptures unless you go to the Apocrypha. Why do you suppose that is ?
Sorry, I thought we were discussing natural procreation. I'm not particularly interested in the artificial methods, nor do I sanction them. I only relate to a baby in the context of a natural mother. We shall have to wait for the Messiah to settle the secret things.
All I know is Geraldo is self hating and confused Jew. Israel is in peril and only the worst kind of Jew would carry on as he does in front of millions of viewers. Plain and simple he's a skunk.
"If I forsake thee, oh Jerusalem, may my right hand lose its cunning."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/677427/posts
Plain and simple he's a skunk.
"If I forsake thee, oh Jerusalem, may my right hand lose its cunning."
Now wait a minute, Dennisw. I think you're again expecting all Jews to support the STATE of Israel as if it were somehow the be-all and end-all of the Jewish faith. I don't buy that.
Unless they are perfectly compatible in all respects, you are not only putting the State before God but endowing the State with Divine rights. How can you do that?
I don't for a moment believe that Geraldo's the picture of genuine morality or humble faith. No man who uses his ethnic heritage or his "victim" past as a selling point to up the value of his Politically Correct curb appeal could possibly be a just man at heart.
But what of those Jews who, taking after Abraham, would sacrifice their own sons to a fiendish God that demanded human sacrifice (as some Muslims are tricked into doing) or take a purely pragmatic view -- particularly of non-Jew largely aberrant and lost peoples -- and exterminate the good along with the bad? How can that be God's will in human affairs?
My Jewish inheritance suggests it is anathema if Abraham's pleading for lives of the 50, the 30, the 10 just men of Sodom is any indication.
I'm also not so sure it's God's will that we supercede his authority as the Author of Life and decide for ourselves what lives are Wanted as we look to manmade Guesstimates made law -- either in religious tradition or the Supreme Court -- to stake out our grey area of "Choice" in the matter.
Whatever law it is by which you remain under the mistaken notion that the newly conceived life is "part of" the mother's body and not a wholly distinct human (Jewish) life.
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.