abortion and halacha

[cellio]

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.

Comments

[mrpeck.livejournal.com]

(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.

[cellio]

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.

[mrpeck.livejournal.com]

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.

[cellio]

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.