Supreme Court Will Strike Down Roe v Wade

[shiframeir]

Practically, the beis din point boils down to Yaakov vs Shimon and Levi, and it seems Yaakov was right. we dont own the land yet, and u cant be making us all odious here!

[shiframeir]

you may appreciate this https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/184865/20210726093205304_19-1932%20Amicus%20Brief%20of%20Jewish%20Coalition%20for%20Religious%20Liberty.pdf

i did, well written and logical (on a skim). I had never heard of this Mr. Slugh.

[PlatinumGuy]

on first point im sure u realize how hard a jump that is in the US where we dont have sovereignty, and rely on the goodwill of the general population to maintain our right to our religious perspective
on the latter, i dont know how clear that is in terms of potentially harming a jew in order to tell the goyim to stop killing, and even moreso when there are real sources saying we shouldnt help idol worshippers have more healthy babies.

Mitzvos of Beis Din are for sure only an appointed Beis Din of Smuchim. As the Chazon Ish says of the thought to reinstate that today ׳מה רבה החוצפה׳. My point only is that perhaps the Rebbe or other authorities extrapolated from those dinim that we have an Achrayus also on what Goyim do in general and have to promote morality / 7 mitzvahs

[imayid2]

Can you be specific which cases you're referring to?  The cases in the article are:
incomplete miscarriage, pre-eclampsia, ectopic pregnancy
(we can skip the rare case of twins, one born prematurely as stillbirth)
Which of these don't occur in frum women?  Which are irrelevant from our religious viewpoint?

The article made a big deal about women who’s water broke. I was referring to those, though of course in some cases there would be halachik reason to abort.

[imayid2]

on first point im sure u realize how hard a jump that is in the US where we dont have sovereignty, and rely on the goodwill of the general population to maintain our right to our religious perspective
on the latter

Earlier on in this thread sources were brought regarding the Rebbes opinion in America. They were quite clear.

[WAM]

Probably subject to halachik debate.
There are different opinions as to the level of danger necessary to abort.
I saw an interesting story where a woman’s water broke in her 20th week and Rav Ovadia Yosef did not allow her to abort.
Another story with a woman who’s water broke in her 15th week, and after clarifying with the doctor if she can wait a bit, he advised her to wait.

This is conjecture. A lot of "probably" happening with your point over the previous few posts.

[imayid2]

This is conjecture. A lot of "probably" happening with your point over the previous few posts.

So you assert there isn’t a halachik debate over the lever of danger necessary to abort? That is demonstrably false. 

[WAM]

So you assert there isn’t a halachik debate over the lever of danger necessary to abort? That is demonstrably false. 

My point is that your point was weak.

Probably subject to halachik debate.
...

Once you hit 20-22 weeks I’d think we may want to...

I think there's more, but it's my bedtime now.
Not disagreeing, just saying that if you want your point to be taken seriously, it should be stronger.

[imayid2]

My point is that your point was weak.I think there's more, but it's my bedtime now.
Not disagreeing, just saying that if you want your point to be taken seriously, it should be stronger.

I did attach proof from R. Ovadia Yosef. You may have missed it due to fatigue. Though it was pretty blatant.

[WAM]

I did attach proof from R. Ovadia Yosef. You may have missed it due to fatigue. Though it was pretty blatant.

I saw that. But you still seemed a bit uncertain, but I guess that shouldn't preclude you from making your point.

[Dan]

Earlier on in this thread sources were brought regarding the Rebbes opinion in America. They were quite clear.

Not really. The Rebbe clearly supported lobbying Israel over this issue, but no such campaign existed for other countries.

The Rebbe also never spoke about Roe v Wade.

[aygart]

How much of a threat is "life-threatening"?  Does there have to be a 90% chance she'll die?  What if it's a 50% chance?  Or only 20%? 

Can you be specific which cases you're referring to?  The cases in the article are:
incomplete miscarriage, pre-eclampsia, ectopic pregnancy
(we can skip the rare case of twins, one born prematurely as stillbirth)
Which of these don't occur in frum women?  Which are irrelevant from our religious viewpoint?

I haven't seen any credible argument of any law possibly preventing treatment of an ectopic pregnancy. As soon as that get brought into an article I know it is agenda driven.

[imayid2]

Not really. The Rebbe clearly supported lobbying Israel over this issue, but no such campaign existed for other countries.

That letter was written to an American physician. He was obviously referring to efforts in America. I agree directly lobbying is different, though you kind of get the impression he was quite passionate on this issue. And he also advised a senator to vote, in America, to limit abortion.

[Dan]

That letter was written to an American physician. He was obviously referring to efforts in America. I agree directly lobbying is different, though you kind of get the impression he was quite passionate on this issue. And he also advised a senator to vote, in America, to limit abortion.

His position on the matter is well known. But there was no call to lobby for the issue in the US or anywhere outside of Israel. Full stop.

[imayid2]

His position on the matter is well known. But there was no call to lobby for the issue in the US or anywhere outside of Israel. Full stop.

Agreed. I refer to those sources mainly as proof he would celebrate this decision.

[imayid2]

I saw that. But you still seemed a bit uncertain, but I guess that shouldn't preclude you from making your point.

Thank you.
How can I be certain if:
A) Detailed medical information aren’t given about the cases described.
B) I don’t have the necessary medical and halachik qualifications to be certain.
I can merely voice my strong, well founded, and corroborated  suspicions, that in many of those cases a competent Rabbi wouldn’t advise to do an immediate abortion, even in cases where State law would probably allow it.
You should take greater issue if I claim to be certain!

[imayid2]

what about tay sachs babies or other issues focused on major mental health effects that practically ruin lives where there is much halachic support (esp today) for turning to abortion (esp early on)?

This “much halachik support” may depend on which community you’re part of. Regardless, out of state options will always be available.

separately, i still dont understand why  religious jews should lobby/publicly announce preference for a position that may kill even 1 jew

Abortion on demand doesn’t cause Jewish deaths? Not to mention feed into lack of sanctity of life for end of life issues.

Finallly , there are real sources in halacha about not helping nonjews (idol worshippers, which in practice we consider possibly most of the nonjews today) have children/weaning them (e.g. yoreh deah 154-2), and increase that population, so its especially strange to choose to push this when in general it goes against a torah value.

https://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/opinions/should-we-care-if-non-jews-abort-their-babies/2018/08/10/

You could download the Jewish Observer here: https://agudah.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/JO1989-V22-N04.pdf

[skyguy918]

...I don’t have the necessary ... halachik qualifications to be certain.
...strong, well founded, and corroborated  suspicions, that in many of those cases a competent Rabbi wouldn’t advise ...

How do you not see these 2 sentences as contradictory/problematic. I'm not picking sides in this debate, I just don't see how you could possibly make such strongly worded claims on a subject relatively few rabbonim would feel comfortable paskening on their own (obviously I don't mean cut and dry obvious assur abortions, but nearly any time a shaila about abortion is brought to a rov it's not gonna be cut and dry).

[imayid2]

How do you not see these 2 sentences as contradictory/problematic. I'm not picking sides in this debate, I just don't see how you could possibly make such strongly worded claims on a subject relatively few rabbonim would feel comfortable paskening on their own (obviously I don't mean cut and dry obvious assur abortions, but nearly any time a shaila about abortion is brought to a rov it's not gonna be cut and dry).

I don't understand your question. I voiced my suspicions that many cases described in the NYT article would not qualify for an halachikly recommended immediate abortion, and I pointed to evidence to corroborate that. Am I not allowed to do so? Can you explain what you found problematic about that?

[WAM]

You should take greater issue if I claim to be certain!

If you spoke out the matter with a qualified posek who told you the psak, you would be certain, correct? I wouldn't take any issue with that. Obviously, being certain would make your case stronger.

However, even without you being certain, I now agree

that shouldn't preclude you from making your point.