abortion and halacha
Mar. 5th, 2005 11:11 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cellioTo 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)
Date: 2005-03-06 01:52 pm (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-03-06 09:51 pm (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-03-07 12:03 am (UTC)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.