cellio | abortion and halacha

Entry tags:

abortion and halacha

This afternoon I was reading the dead-tree edition of Moment magazine and came across an excellent article on how anti-abortion laws conflict with halacha. They only seem to have the first few paragraphs on their web site, alas. (They sometimes have full articles. Maybe there's a time lag.)

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.

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

So, talk to me about the law, and Levirate marriage. :-)

The woman gets a veto.

Sometimes relatedly, the rabbis instituted a ban on polygamy.

My understanding is that levirate marriage is currently forbidden, i.e. a levir is required to perform the refusal ceremony. Like the ban on polygamy, this is an adaptation of halacha to conform to modern legal codes. (Which isn't an option in the abortion case; neither levirate marriage nor polygamy is halachically mandatory, whereas preserving the life and/or health of the mother is halachically mandatory in the case where a developing fetus poses a significant threat to either.)

(Of course, as seems to be the case a lot, my understanding could be wrong....)

Ooooh. Letty Cottin Pogrebin! Wow, she's still around! I haven't read something by her since, um.... um.... I think I was 10.

I seem to remember learning that the ban on yibum and polygamy were both instituted because it was felt that there were no longer being done with the proper motivation (i.e., only for reasons of physical desire).

I'm not sure I agree, for several reasons. (Note: Of course you and I are coming from an different POVs WRT halachah, but here's my two cents.)

First, so far as I know (and I will readily admit to being no expert on halachah), the status of a fetus is not an either-or proposition. It isn't alive and it isn't not-alive; it's potential life. Destruction of a fetus may carry the same penalties as property crimes, but that doesn't mean it *is* a property crime.

Second, IIRC, halachah's position on abortion by non-Jews appears to be stricter than for Jews. I believe that the Rambam says something in the Mishneh Torah to the effect that abortion is categorically forbidden for Bnei Noach. 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.

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. Halachah as I understand it is the same way. 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? Nevertheless, circumscribed abortion laws are not likely to go over well with everyone in the pro-choice camp. Some will say fine, but some will take the position that any attempt to limit abortion is a stepping-stone to outlawing it completely. I just don't think this is a black-and-white issue.

Personally, I don't think abortion is doomed if the composition of the Supreme Court changes. There is a good argument to be made for the proposition that Roe v. Wade is bad constitutional law and that scrapping it would just kick the issue back to state legislatures. Again, I can't see it as a black-and-white thing.

One reference (the first I could find quickly): Judaism 101

According to the Torah and the Talmud, a man was permitted to marry more than one wife, but a woman could not marry more than one man. Although polygyny was permitted, it was never common. The Talmud never mentions any rabbi with more than one wife. Around 1000 C.E., Ashkenazic Jewry banned polygyny because of pressure from the predominant Christian culture. It continued to be permitted for Sephardic Jews in Islamic lands for many years. To the present day, Yemenite and Ethiopian Jews continue to practice polygyny; however, the modern state of Israel allows only one wife. Those who move to Israel with more than one wife are permitted to remain married to all of the existing wives, but cannot marry additional ones.

(emphasis mine)

I believe the Talmud discourages polygamy for the reason you specified, but it did not outright ban it.

I do not wish to debate this emotional issue but I do feel that it is necessary for me to clarify some of the misconceptions of Christianity, particularly Catholic Christianity, implied in your post. I make the Catholic Christianity distinction because I am unable to speak to the beliefs of other denominations. So, what follows is a response from a Catholic Christian perspective.

To start with, you are correct that if a governmental law conflicts with the natural moral law (of which the ten commandments is an expression) that it is an invalid law and cannot be morally followed.

The implied misconception that I saw in the original post is that Christian teaching requires women who are pregnant and have a fatal condition aggravated by that pregnancy to die rather than have their illness treated if that treatment could harm the child. The short answer is that the illness should be treated. The longer answer gets into an application of the principle of double effect.

I found a page the describes the application of natural law theory and double effect better than I can here. You probably won't like the body of it but might find the introduction useful and you should definitely check out the first paragraph of the conclusion. Also, to warn you, the author needed a better editor to catch the typos.

My shorthand explanation of double effect theory is that it is always very messy and is best to be avoided if at all possible. However, the world is not always nice enough for us to do that. So the extremely short definition with a lot of hand waving is that an act may be judged as moral even if it produces evil consequences provided that the act itself is good (or neutral), the evil and its effects are not intended, and the situation is grave. Most applications of double effect involve life or death situations and accidentally killing someone out of self-defense is the most common one.

The first part of applying double effect principles in this case would be to avoid it, meaning, the Christian would first try to save both lives. For the act to be moral, there can never be an intention to kill either the mother or the child. If there is no way to save both lives, a medical procedure to fix the problem is permissible. Please note that I am using the term 'medical procedure' in its generic meaning and not as a euphemism for an abortion because the direct act of an abortion remains morally wrong. If there is a side effect of the medical procedure that the baby dies, it can still have been a moral act depending on the conditions including whether that procedure was the only means available and that the death of the baby was not intended. Pope Pius XII says basically the same thing as quoted in this footnote of the document linked to above.

My point is that proper application of Christian teaching in the situation of medical care would not result in the situation where a Jewish person would be forced by law to violate her beliefs. If a law results in that type of situation, it is due to politics or ignorance and not Christian teachings. Please accept my apology if I misinterpreted the original post.

The other thing I should mention is that a Christian is morally culpable for their failures to act when they could have done so as well as for the acts that they commit.

Destruction of a fetus may carry the same penalties as property crimes, but that doesn't mean it *is* a property crime.

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.

Thank you for this reply.

I did not intend to speak about all Christians; I tried to use phrases like "the far right" to limit the scope of my comments. I obviously did not do this well enough and I apologize for that. I certainly don't believe that all Christians oppose all abortions.

The implied misconception that I saw in the original post is that Christian teaching requires women who are pregnant and have a fatal condition aggravated by that pregnancy to die rather than have their illness treated if that treatment could harm the child.

I didn't mean to imply that. I know that some Christians believe that (you see news stories about these cases from time to time), but not all. But am I correct in my perception that Christianity (limit that however you like) would never consider abortion to be mandatory? That's an important point because under Jewish law it can be mandatory.

Thanks to the pointer to the essay on natural law and double effect. Interesting article. Double effect strikes me as rules interpretation worthy of talmudists. :-) I wonder about its applicability in this case, though. I don't think anyone who has an abortion goes into it with the attitude of "kill that parasite!". Rather, people seek abortions because they do not want to continue the pregnancy. If a method of extracting the fetus alive existed (and posed no more medical risk than conventional abortions) then I would expect most patients to happily go along with it, and I would support law that mandated trying that first. (I'd have other stipulations for that law, but they're tangential to this point.)

So what I'm getting at is that I don't see abortion as the deliberate killing of the fetus. That killing is a side-effect of ending the pregnancy. But clearly this isn't the interpretation the developers of this doctrine intended, so I must be missing something. They could, of course, make the argument that some outcomes are so evil that intent doesn't matter (and they make that argument elsewhere), but I'm wondering about the appicability to double effect.

How does all of this change if the threat to the mother is not death but rather grave harm? Where does the line get drawn? For example, would chemotherapy be permitted only if failure to trate the cancer before the end of the pregnancy would assuredly result in death? What if it's 50-50? What if it's 1 in 100? As soon as there's a line there are legitimate questions about its placement, after all.

I'm not trying to give you grief; I'm just trying to understand the application of the doctrine.

The other thing I should mention is that a Christian is morally culpable for their failures to act when they could have done so as well as for the acts that they commit.

This, too, raises questions. At the one extreme, if you are standing right next to someone who is being attacked and you are not incapable, you are required to intervene. Christians, Jews, and most others would probably agree. At the other extreme, you are probably not required to sabotage the Smith & Wesson plant in the next state over because their product could lead to crimes being committed. So where is the dividing line? I had been under the impression that the moral requirement to intervene involved individual cases.

If a law results in that type of situation, it is due to politics or ignorance and not Christian teachings.

An excellent point. That some folks on the right wing use Christian doctrine in their arguments does not make it so.

Thank you again for your reply. I hope I've been able to clarify some things and not offend with my questions.

>> Rather, people seek abortions because they do not want to continue the pregnancy. If a method of extracting the fetus alive existed (and posed no more medical risk than conventional abortions) then I would expect most patients to happily go along with it, and I would support law that mandated trying that first.

Do people seek abortions because they don't want to continue the pregnancy or because they don't want to be a parent at that particular time? I don't think you can separate the two, and I bring it up because there is certainly a way to extract the fetus alive and not parent the resulting child -- and that would be giving the child up for adoption. Not that this is by any means an easy out, and I don't mean to portray it as such. It is, so far as I understand, emotionally agonizing and perhaps physically draining as well. But the option exists.

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...)

Substantial numbers of the death penalty cases overturned by DNA evidence involved witnesses paid or coerced to submit false testimony.

As a side note, a number of people arguing against same-sex marriage say "what's next? polygamy?" However, the majority of the people in North America trying to make polygamy, or de-facto equivalents, legal, are doing so precisely on the grounds of freedom to practice their religions.

(As a tangible example, the BC government refused to take action against the polygamist community of Bountiful for many years precisely because they didn't want to get involved in a possibly bad-precedent-setting freedom of religion case.)

(And, as a side note, while I have nothing against polygamy being practiced among informed and consenting adults, the controversial examples all involve community and religious coercion that forces underage women to become junior wives to older men.)

This is why I said "ending the pregnancy". Since adoption is so obviously available, and we now even have "safe harbor" spots where you can dump an unwanted newborn without consequences, I don't think it's about the parenting in most cases. I think it's really about the pregnancy. Sometimes there are both physical and psychological reasons -- and maybe even financial ones, if you lack health insurance -- that a pregnancy is counter to the best interests of the pregnant woman. In those cases, if presented with a way to remove the fetus alive and let someone else incubate it, I think most women would say "be my guest" rather than "no, I intend to kill this". I wouldn't be surprised if medicine could achieve that within the next few years, actually.

I've talked with several women who have had abortions, and none of them treated it casually. It was an upsetting event that they felt was necessary. That's not statistically valid or anything, of course.

So, what follows is a response from a Catholic Christian perspective. [...] The implied misconception that I saw in the original post is that Christian teaching requires women who are pregnant and have a fatal condition aggravated by that pregnancy to die rather than have their illness treated if that treatment could harm the child. The short answer is that the illness should be treated. The longer answer gets into an application of the principle of double effect.

I don't think the issue being discussed was treatments of a condition, where the treatment might/would indirecltly harm the fetus, but rather conditions that make it impossible for a woman to survive a pregnancy.

For example, the *only* treatment for pregnancy-related eclampsia is to terminate the pregnancy. In many cases it is possible to deliver a severely premature baby, who may live or may die - I think we can both agree that delivering a baby who might or might not live is not an act that deliberately takes a life. But what if the fetus is not yet well-enough developed to have any chance at surviving? Do you risk a woman with pre-eclampsia's life by keeping her pregnant for another week so that her fetus has a 10% chance of living?

I don't know that I totally agree with Monica, but I don't totally agree with your response, either.

First, so far as I know (and I will readily admit to being no expert on halachah), the status of a fetus is not an either-or proposition. It isn't alive and it isn't not-alive; it's potential life.

I am far from an expert on halacha myself. My understanding is a bit different, but critical: the fetus is not independant life. Rather, it is obviously alive, but, until it's more than half-way out, it's part of the mother, and treated like, say, a toe. According to my understanding of halacha, it would be impermissable for me to cut off my little toe because I felt like it. (Even though it would let me fit into the new stylish shoes!) However, if my little toe were bitten by a poisonous snake, and the only way to keep the bite from killing me was to lop it off, it would be an obligation to do that. Some modern Rabbis extend the halacha saying that instead of merely considering physical health of the mother (will carrying this fetus to term endanger her health), her economic and psychological health may be considered when pondering whether it's OK to abort a fetus.

Second, IIRC, halachah's position on abortion by non-Jews appears to be stricter than for Jews. I believe that the Rambam says something in the Mishneh Torah to the effect that abortion is categorically forbidden for Bnei Noach.

Rambam was a brilliant man (he would be the first to tell you so), but the halacha doesn't universally follow Rambam. (In fact, I think the Rabbis of the time banned his books on halacha, although they acknowledged the brilliance of his other writings. It's only in recent years that people have assumed that because his philosophy and Torah commentary were so brilliant that his opinions on halacha were authoratative.) I don't know about the details about this specific ruling of his, though. In any event, Rambam wasn't writing at a time when Jews had real power over non-jews -- either in Muslim lands (where he mostly was) or Christian ones. I don't think that saying "this ruling goes against the way the Jewish religion says abortions should happen for Jews" needs to address the question of what Rambam thought should happen with non-jews.

some will take the position that any attempt to limit abortion is a stepping-stone to outlawing it completely.

The problem is that at least some of the anti-abortion groups have made it clear that outlowing abortion completely is their goal. Do you think that the people who think it's OK to shoot doctors who perform abortions will be satisfied as long as any abortions are being done? (OK, that wasn't really a fair question -- not everyone who is "pro choice" is that extreme... but some are.)

Personally, I don't think abortion is doomed if the composition of the Supreme Court changes. There is a good argument to be made for the proposition that Roe v. Wade is bad constitutional law and that scrapping it would just kick the issue back to state legislatures.

It's not that abortion would be doomed. Rich women never were prevented from getting abortions. They could always travel out of the country, or to a state that permitted them. The problem is the women who aren't rich, and happen to live in states where the politicians are easily bought, er, swayed, by the anti-abortion lobby. Why should they be forced to resort to back-alley abortions, like before Roe v. Wade? I think that having a uniform national law permitting abortions for those who choose to have them for whatever reason is a very important personal freedom.

I don't know that I agree with your statement. I think that there are people who feel that if one gives birth to a child, one is responsible for taking care of that child.

I have a relative who desperately wanted to have children. She had several miscarriages. She was on the edge of her fertile years. Finally, one pregnancy was going well, to the point that she had amniocentisis done... and found out that the fetus had a severe genetic defect (Maybe Down's syndrome?). In the end, she and her husband decided to abort the fetus. I don't know what factors entered their decision, but it was not casual, it was heart breaking. Might part of it have been so they could try again more quickly? Might part of it have been because they couldn't emotionally deal with having a child with a serious deformity? I don't know. I also don't know what I would do were I in the same situation, but I do think that it was their right to choose.

If religion does have bearing on government, then all religions must be considered, not just the one most popular with lawmakers.

caryabend has been saying for quite some time that he would like the pro-chioce community to turn this into a 1st Amendment argument based on religion, for the very reasons you've stated above.

I admit that I had to look up the term eclampsia as I had heard it called toxemia but this is a case that I know well as my sister went through that just a few years ago. She was put on bed rest but that didn't work and she had to have an emergency c-section 27 weeks into the pregnancy. The chances of my nephew surviving were not good and he was tiny (2lb 2oz). Almost 3 years later he is doing fine but is a little small for his age, has lung damage, and visits the hospital due to, primarily respiratory, illness a few times a year. My sister had similar troubles, but not as severe with her second child but he was only about a month early. I can still remember how I felt during the phone call when my mother was telling me that my sister was rushed into the emergency room. The fear of losing her was very real.

So, my answer, which I believe to be in line with Catholic teaching, would be to do what you can. Do what you can to ensure that the mother can keep the baby, be it bed rest at home or in the hospital as necessary because that is still the child's best chance for survival. If that fails, deliver the baby and do what you can to help it to survive. In that situation if you've done what you can and the baby dies it is extremely unfortunate but you can't be faulted for it.

Substantial numbers of the death penalty cases overturned by DNA evidence involved witnesses paid or coerced to submit false testimony.

Yup. That's one of the cases I was thinking of, though bribery is subtly different from direct coercion. I was also thinking of some of the McCarthy-era antics where the only way you kept your career was to deflect attention elsewhere, regardless of truth. Again, not government compulsion, but similar. The military, of course, provides cases where there is a direct order to do something the recipient finds immoral.

(And, as a side note, while I have nothing against polygamy being practiced among informed and consenting adults, the controversial examples all involve community and religious coercion that forces underage women to become junior wives to older men.)

I agree. I'm not polygamous, but I have no problem with those who are being able to do so legally iff everyone involved consents.

I should say once again as a blanket statement that anything that gets into double effect is messy and not as clear cut as one would like. It is certainly too messy for my preferred tastes but it is a way to try to understand how to make moral decisions in a world that can be messy. I will also retain my blanket statement that I can only speak to Catholic Christianity.

But am I correct in my perception that Christianity (limit that however you like) would never consider abortion to be mandatory?
That is true as stated because, even with double effect, direct abortion is not considered a moral act. Christians are called to treat the illness and failing to do that could be an immoral act.

If a method of extracting the fetus alive existed...
I'm sure that ethicists would be spending a long time working on the implications of that. My off the cuff response would be that it certainly seems to be an improvement over disposing of the fetus but I couldn't give a response more than that. Looking at my nephew and his dicey situation from being born at 27 weeks and the health consequences that he still carries 3 years later (and fortunately his health consequences are diminishing over time), my guess is that the technology to do this practically won't be available for a while yet. That is, of course, a guess. Until that time it would seem that the death of the fetus is attached to the act of abortion and conversation regarding abortion will most likely treat it as such. Even when one talks about double effect, there is a proportionality to the response and it requires a grave situation to get to the level where the death of the fetus can be a legitimate side effect.

I am unable to draw the specific lines in the questions that you raise but they are good questions. I do know that there are medical ethicists that study this sort of thing and provide guidance. If I come across a reference I'll send it to you. My short answer is that since double effect is involved, it must be messy. :)

(2 parts due to LJ size restrictions)

The other thing I should mention is that a Christian is morally culpable for their failures to act when they could have done so as well as for the acts that they commit.
I have a couple of thoughts here. The first is that a Christian cannot commit an immoral act to achieve a moral good and have that act be considered moral. I realize that the sabotage thing was just for the purposes of example but I guess that's part of a "line".

In general, one is supposed to do what is in one's power to choose good and avoid evil so applying that would seem to indicate that you are certainly responsible for yourself and you are responsible for other situations where you can reasonably be expected to act.

Finally, there is a concept called social sin that might help here. Social sin is a situation that is sinful by its nature but is supported or institutionalized in some way by the society as a whole. The typical example that is not particularly controversial in our time is slavery. The example you propose of the gun manufacturer probably doesn't seem to rise to quite that level but I can see how some might feel that it does. When faced with something at the level of a social sin, it is not something that an individual alone can change because, clearly, it is on a societal level. However, an individual is still called to do what they can to address the situation. In our form of government this would certainly be done in the voting booth and perhaps with letters to government representatives lobbying for better gun control laws or by possibly picketing the Smith & Wesson plant if you are able. Going back to abortion for a moment to use me as an example, imperfect as that example may be, to help specify a bit more. For me, it means that I consider a candidate's stance on abortion when casting my vote in an election where it is relevant and I go on the March for Life in DC each year. Should I do more? Perhaps I should, but I am not a debater or a picketer and have a relatively fierce dislike for both activities. All of that probably doesn't draw lines clearly enough to be fully satisfying but hopefully it helps clarify the thought process a bit more.

I hope I've been able to clarify some things and not offend with my questions.
I am certainly not offended by honest questions and yours have given me some more to ponder. Thank you. My knowledge certainly has its limits but I try to answer as best I can.

Yup. :)

The Official Position of the USCJ on abortion clearly indicates, though doesn't quite say directly, that this is a First Amendment Issue.

My best guess on why it doesn't come straight out and say it falls along the lines of "We don't want to be the first ones to say it, in case that position ends up being too damaging to the cause." It lacks a certain amount of institutional backbone, but at least I can understand it. Oh well.

As a private citizen, I fully believe that it is a First Amendment issue, and the moment that I'm restricted from having one in any way, shape or form will provoke me to: a) raise a huge political stink; b) invite the medical community to greatly support and/or compensate me, my family and progeny in perpetuity; and c) ask your Deity Of Choice to provide direct, verifiable, incontrovertible, permanent and eternal evidence to the whole universe that having one is WRONG.

Under the above circumstances I'm certain that any opponents of legalization will quietly tuck tail and go.

My short answer is that since double effect is involved, it must be messy. :)

Fair enough. :-)

I have a couple of thoughts here. The first is that a Christian cannot commit an immoral act to achieve a moral good and have that act be considered moral. I realize that the sabotage thing was just for the purposes of example but I guess that's part of a "line".

Right. And similarly, I think most people would agree that the guys who bomb clinics and shoot doctors are not acting in accord with Christian teachings no matter what the perpetrators say.

In general, one is supposed to do what is in one's power to choose good and avoid evil so applying that would seem to indicate that you are certainly responsible for yourself and you are responsible for other situations where you can reasonably be expected to act.

Judaism sometimes has a notion of widening circles, and I wonder if Christianity does too. For example, you must first combat poverty in your city, and then in your region, and then in your country, and then in the world at large. (There is a tangent about where poverty in the land of Israel fits in, and I am choosing to ignore it.) In preventing sin, the principle is similar -- mind yourself first, then your family, then your immediate community, and so on. This is not to say that you shouldn't intervene if you come across a problem that would not otherwise be "in scope" -- "do not stand idly by the blood of your brother" -- but in terms of proactive actions, you start closest to home.

When faced with something at the level of a social sin, it is not something that an individual alone can change because, clearly, it is on a societal level. However, an individual is still called to do what they can to address the situation.

That makes sense. While I knew the concept I had not heard the term "social sin" before.

Should I do more? Perhaps I should, but I am not a debater or a picketer and have a relatively fierce dislike for both activities.

You have to balance what you "ought" to do with what you can do -- and also with all the other demands on your time. You're doing more than many.

Thank you for taking the time to explain all of this.

I don't know that I agree with your statement. I think that there are people who feel that if one gives birth to a child, one is responsible for taking care of that child.

Personally? Or by seeing that it doesn't starve in the street?

I'm sure there are such people; the world is a big and diverse place. I have a suspicion that this segment of the population is quite small, but I have no evidence to offer so I could be wrong.

Might part of it have been because they couldn't emotionally deal with having a child with a serious deformity?

This is a sad case, yes. I think here, though, there is more going on than just the question of raising such a child. Some people believe that it is wrong to knowingly bring a child with such severe defects into the world to begin with, and that the harm in aborting the pregnancy early is much less than the harm that will result from birth. Obviously this is a very tricky position to take because one person's severe defect is another's minor inconvenience or even advantage. And I'm not trying to put feelings into your relatives' heads. I just offer it as a possibility.

Thanks for the link. I agree that they seem to be hedging a first-amendment argument.

You are correct that people who shoot doctors and bomb clinics are not behaving in a Christian manner.

Judaism sometimes has a notion of widening circles
I haven't heard that concept expressed as such but it makes sense to me. I assume that you don't have to complete dealing with poverty, for example, in your city before you address it on a regional level and that it's a way to express focus rather than limit behavior, correct?

You are correct in pointing out that there are many productive demands on time and that they have to be balanced. Of course we all do that kind of balancing act in life. I'll have to keep my ears open to see if I hear anything similar to the circles notion. Perhaps it'll come up if I end up taking another morality class at some point.

I assume that you don't have to complete dealing with poverty, for example, in your city before you address it on a regional level and that it's a way to express focus rather than limit behavior, correct?

Right. You're not forbidden to look more broadly, but that can be overwhelming sometimes and at the very least, you should try not to neglect the more immediate folks. Of course, sometimes the best way to help locally is to work regionally or nationally, so you have to take that into account too.

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

abortion and halacha

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject