![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
abortion and halacha
To summarize, Jewish law does not hold (as much of Christianity appears to) tha life begins at conception; rather, human life begins at birth. (Specifically at crowning, as I recall.) The torah covers causing the death of a fetus; it's a property crime. Killing a person, of course, is not. So abortion is permitted under Jewish law. Not desirable, but permitted.
Now here's where the halachic problem with the agenda of the far right comes in: under Jewish law, there are cases where abortion is mandatory. It is unambiguous that this is required to save the life of the mother; the rabbi generally agree that it is also required to preserve the health of the mother.
Most pro-choice folks (certainly myself included) argue on the grounds of individual liberty, but the author of this article points out that as Jews we should be considering the halachic issue, too. The rest of this entry is me talking, not the author.
If Bush gets his way (through legislation or by stacking the Supreme Court), we could end up in a situation where national law forbids the correct practice of our religion, specifically as regards to how we treat other people. I've been trying to think of an analogy for Christians (staying away from murder because it's emotional), and the closest I can come up with is: suppose the government required you to bear false witness against your neighbor, with the result that he would be criminally or economically ruined. (And if you think that can't happen...) That's a violation of one of the ten commandments. Would you be outraged? Would you heed that law? Requiring the Jewish community to stand by while an actual life is ruined in favor of a fetus is kind of like that. A Jew who does that violates laws (both between man and man, and betweeen man and God) that we take every bit as seriously as Christians take their laws that say life begins at conception. But Christians do not sin if they fail to prevent an abortion; we do in some cases if we fail to perform one.
If religion has no bearing on government, then the anti-abortion lobby has to rework its arguments. If religion does have bearing on government, then all religions must be considered, not just the one most popular with lawmakers. Some of the founders of the country may have been Christian (many were Deists), but this is not a Christian nation. Not then and certainly not now.
no subject
Well, how many kinds of crimes are there? The torah doesn't give us a tidy categorization either; it doesn't say "these are property crimes" and "these are crimes against people". Rather, it says "the penalty for X is this, the penalty for Y is that, etc". If it's meaningful to talk about groups of crimes that share a penalty, then this seems to qualify. If it's not, then it's not meaningful to talk about property crimes at all.
Second, IIRC, halachah's position on abortion by non-Jews appears to be stricter than for Jews.
Ok, I hadn't considered that wrinkle (nor was I aware of it). In other areas we're told "do this only with a Jew" or "do this only with a non-Jew", so this doesn't necessarily impede anything. If a Jew is required to find a Jewish doctor for the abortion, that's a hurdle but unlikely to be insurmountable. In that regard it's kind of like the discussions around adoption and whether it's permitted, required, or forbidden to adopt an anonymous Jewish child. (Argument for: we are required to redeem. Argument against: you might unknowingly end up with a forbidden marriage.)
Since it's obviously not feasible to set up a two-tiered system for abortion in the US -- permissible for Jews in certain circumstances, forbidden for everyone else -- I am a little wary of bringing halachah into the national political discussion.
It is not appropriate for civil law to distinguish between Jews and non-Jews. That we say different laws apply does not mean they have to agree, any more than we would agree with a Muslim dictate that said all non-Muslims must accept Muhammed or with a Catholic dictate saying that everyone must fast during lent. Religious law is for followers of that religion, only.
The point of raising halacha isn't to say "our law is binding on others" but rather to point out that outlawing abortion would have the effect of prohibiting people from following religious law.
We see religion inflencing secular law all the time, of course; consider blue laws, which are still in effect in many places, that forbid businesses (or certain businesses) to be open on "the sabbath" -- meaning Sunday. This makes life harder for Jews who have conventional jobs (since Saturday is out), but it doesn't force us to violate Shabbat. (Personally, I kind of wonder at the mindset that says "our people are so weak that they cannot resist temptation; therefore we will forbid temptation so they'll observe the sabbath". Isn't there supposed to be merit in facing temptation and triumphing? But I digress.)
Third, US abortion laws in their current form aren't an all-or-nothing proposition -- i.e., they don't either forbid it outright or allow it in all cases with no questions asked.
True for the time being, but I do worry that overturning Roe v. Wade will lead to a true ban. We may say that states have rights, but (1) that doesn't always actually play out and (2) we've already seen the power of the far right in striking down laws that harm no one (gay marriage). I'm not convinced that abortion would stay legal anywhere in the US absent Roe v. Wade. I'd love to be wrong, but I'd really love to not have to find out.
That is, in most cases Jewish law says abortion is *NOT* OK for a Jew unless it presents a clear danger to the mother's life, and even then it's not a decision that should be made without consulting a rav. If so, what's the problem with writing abortion laws that permit it if and only if certain conditions apply?
The rav takes individual circumstances into account (he's required to); a law trying to lay out precise conditions cannot. Compassionate options would for all practical purposes vanish.